The Pro Austerity Crowd

RecordStraight

KyussBishop wrote: »

They are not offered for buying, so that is not an impediment - that's discussed in the economics thread (better place to debate it than here).

If they are not bought by anyone, where does the money come from?

RecordStraight

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Ok then massively reduce social welfare for the "their sitting around crowd" lets see what happens to the economy with massive amounts of money removed. You cut dole you cut spending that leads to shops closing more unemployed but don't let that worry you.

Um...did I advocate cutting the dole?

Mind you, I think you are falling prey to the broken window fallacy.

mickydoomsux

tayto lover wrote: »

Well at present it's tax the elderly, the student, the worker, the home-owner, the carers, the special needs children etc etc. Anything but taxing those who can afford to pay it most.

Explain how the "wealthy" are exempt from any taxes they should be paying in this country.

darkpagandeath

RecordStraight wrote: »

Um...did I advocate cutting the dole?

Mind you, I think you are falling prey to the broken window fallacy.

RecordStraight wrote: »

Widespread cuts to services, but of course most social welfare is untouched. And still borrowing billions to pay for it all. We don't really do austerity very well here, do we?

.

KyussBishop

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

We have one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. Making it even more progressive will make the country completely uncompetitive and cause all the tax payers who already hand over 52% of their taxable income to move elsewhere.

If that were to happen we might as well move back into thatched houses growing our own potatoes.

We would do better to focus less on taxing the rich, i.e. downward redistribution of wealth, and instead focus on stopping increasing upward redistribution of wealth. Same problem, harms us in different ways.

The property bubble being stoked now, is likely to cause a new upward redistribution of wealth, so (I think everyone can agree?) should be stopped.

tayto lover

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Explain how the "wealthy" are exempt from any taxes they should be paying in this country.

I didn't say they were exempt.
I said they should be paying more as they can afford to.

darkpagandeath

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Explain how the "wealthy" are exempt from any taxes they should be paying in this country.

Aggressive tax reduction through various schemes Joe soap could not afford to invest in or use.

RecordStraight

darkpagandeath wrote: »

.

In what sense is that advocating cuts? If I state that the moon is orbiting the earth, does that constitute a demand for it to plunge into the Pacific?

KyussBishop

RecordStraight wrote: »

If they are not bought by anyone, where does the money come from?

It's right on the first page of the economics thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057100005

If you want to discuss it, post it there.

RecordStraight

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's right on the first page of the economics thread:

If you want to discuss it, post it there.

I won't, thanks. Basically it seems to amount to spending tomorrow's tax revenue today. What do we spend tomorrow?

In fact, it looks like exactly the same type of securitization/financial engineering that caused the sub-prime disaster.

Bubbaclaus

KyussBishop wrote: »

You missed it so - I link it in my above post.

I did miss it - apologies.

It's an interesting idea that could work. However, as you said, it would likely breach conditions from the EU stability and growth pact.

What I don't get is why the anti-austerity crowd can't be pushing things like this instead of just holding up "NO TO AUSTERITY" posters and shouting profanities at politicians, without ever mentioning a viable alternative.

Why not hold up a banner with "Tax Anticipation Notes - The Way Forward" instead?

KyussBishop

RecordStraight wrote: »

I won't, thanks. Basically it seems to amount to spending tomorrow's tax revenue today. What do we spend tomorrow?

In fact, it looks like exactly the same type of securitization/financial engineering that caused the sub-prime disaster.

It will take pages of this thread to discuss it, so I'm not going to discuss it here - if you post on the other thread, I'll discuss it with you (same for anyone who wants to know more about it).

Bubbaclaus

tayto lover wrote: »

I didn't say they were exempt.
I said they should be paying more as they can afford to.

They already do pay more. Potentially 52% of their income is taken off them in fact.

RecordStraight

KyussBishop wrote: »

It will take pages of this thread to discuss it, so I'm not going to discuss it here - if you post on the other thread, I'll discuss it with you (same for anyone who wants to know more about it).

But this is a thread about austerity, right? I'm not sure why it makes more sense to post in that thread if you have to make the same arguments anyway.

I am struck by your confidence that increasing spending is absolutely the right solution. I've studied Keynesian and Hayekian approaches to public spending, and large parts of both arguments are very persuasive, while others are clearly weak.

Yet you appear to have absolutely no doubt that increased spending, increased government debt, is the definite solution to the current crisis. How have you arrived at this view, do you mind me asking?

mickydoomsux

tayto lover wrote: »

I didn't say they were exempt.
I said they should be paying more as they can afford to.

They pay most of the tax take in this country and are more likely to use less of the facilities that are paid for by the tax they pay.

Plus they are more likely than Joe Soap to be employers.

darkpagandeath

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I did miss it - apologies.

It's an interesting idea that could work. However, as you said, it would likely breach conditions from the EU stability and growth pact.

What I don't get is why the anti-austerity crowd can't be pushing things like this instead of just holding up "NO TO AUSTERITY" posters and shouting profanities at politicians, without ever mentioning a viable alternative.

Why not hold up a banner with "Tax Anticipation Notes - The Way Forward" instead?

Would the Politicians understand that ? Did they not just do what the last government agreed to point by point.

steddyeddy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Everybody notice how a viable alternative to austerity will not be posted in either this thread or the other thread.

Define austerity? Does it have to be a specific group of cuts or can anything be done to bring down the deficit?

KyussBishop

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I did miss it - apologies.

It's an interesting idea that could work. However, as you said, it would likely breach conditions from the EU stability and growth pact.

What I don't get is why the anti-austerity crowd can't be pushing things like this instead of just holding up "NO TO AUSTERITY" posters and shouting profanities at politicians, without ever mentioning a viable alternative.

Why not hold up a banner with "Tax Anticipation Notes - The Way Forward" instead?

Yes, I don't think we could avoid breaching EU treaty conditions, but I think Germany has already breached them, so we may get away with it.

There are actually a very wide number of alternative policies available, that I've learned over time, but yes - there is very very little interest in learning about them, even among economists, and basically none among the public - so it's hard to be politically active on them.

RecordStraight

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Would the Politicians understand that ? Did they not just do what the last government agreed to point by point.

Did they do what the last government agreed to do with the Troika as conditions of the bailout that saw us lent tens of billions of Euros to continue paying for pensions, social welfare and public services?

Yes, they did. I guess they couldn't think of anyone else who would lend a bankrupt country tens of billions at short notice.

tayto lover

mickydoomsux wrote: »

They pay most of the tax take in this country and are more likely to use less of the facilities that are paid for by the tax they pay.

Plus they are more likely than Joe Soap to be employers.

So?

RecordStraight

tayto lover wrote: »

So?

So does it make sense to tax them to the point where they will actually go somewhere where they are allowed to hold onto some of their own money, leaving us even worse off than before? Laffer curve?

mickydoomsux

tayto lover wrote: »

So?

Genius argument.

darkpagandeath

RecordStraight wrote: »

So does it make sense to tax them to the point where they will actually go somewhere where they are allowed to hold onto some of their own money, leaving us even worse off than before? Laffer curve?

And when all the tax loopholes/havens are closed and we move to more of a global tax system ? were will they go then

tayto lover

RecordStraight wrote: »

So does it make sense to tax them to the point where they will actually go somewhere where they are allowed to hold onto some of their own money, leaving us even worse off than before? Laffer curve?

Seeing as we are told that they don't pay anything like the levels they should maybe we should just make them pay the levels they should.

RecordStraight

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And when all the tax loopholes/havens are closed and we move to more of a global tax system ? were will they go then

Nowhere, hopefully. I'm not opposed to people paying tax - I'm opposed to stupid policies that would fail and leave us worse off than before.

Why do people assume the most stupid things? That's two idiotic assumptions you've made in this thread alone.

KyussBishop

RecordStraight wrote: »

But this is a thread about austerity, right? I'm not sure why it makes more sense to post in that thread if you have to make the same arguments anyway.

I am struck by your confidence that increasing spending is absolutely the right solution. I've studied Keynesian and Hayekian approaches to public spending, and large parts of both arguments are very persuasive, while others are clearly weak.

Yet you appear to have absolutely no doubt that increased spending, increased government debt, is the definite solution to the current crisis. How have you arrived at this view, do you mind me asking?

I just know from past experience, that the TAN idea, leads to huge discussions about how it works - I don't mind discussing it a little here, but better to have the technical/how-it-works side of it, in the other thread.

I came to this view, by studying economics as a dilettante for the past 3 years, and by learning about all that is wrong with different branches/schools of economics, and by finding the one that is least-wrong; I believe the Post-Keynesian school is the least ideological, and has the most potential for turning economics into a science someday, with economists like Steve Keen, who advocate views very similar to mine.

RecordStraight

tayto lover wrote: »

Seeing as we are told that they don't pay anything like the levels they should maybe we should just make them pay the levels they should.

'We are told'? By who?

Should we believe these people, whoever they are? Who are they referring to?

As I said, I'm all for people paying tax if they can afford to.

tayto lover

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Genius argument.

So I wanted him to explain his point.
No need for the arrogant comment.
That's the kind of thing that has your party hated.

RecordStraight

KyussBishop wrote: »

I just know from past experience, that the TAN idea, leads to huge discussions about how it works - I don't mind discussing it a little here, but better to have the technical/how-it-works side of it, in the other thread.

I came to this view, by studying economics as a dilettante for the past 3 years, and by learning about with different branches/schools of economics, and by finding the one that is least-wrong; I believe the Post-Keynesian school is the least ideological, and has the most potential for turning economics into a science someday, with economists like Steve Keen, who advocate views very similar to mine.

But then how has Steve Keen arrived at this 'true' understanding of economics, devoid of ideological bias?

Criticisms[edit]
Some reviewers contend that Keen has not shown what he claims, that he misrepresents economic theory, and that he gets basic mathematics wrong.[12]

Matthijs Krul[13][14] maintains that Keen, while broadly accurate in his criticism of the neoclassical synthesis, generally misrepresents Marx's views in Debunking Economics and in earlier work when asserting that, in the production of commodities, machinery produces more value than it costs.[15]

Austrian economists Robert P. Murphy and Gene Callahan, criticize Keen's 2001 book, by stating that the "work suffers from many of the very faults of which he accuses the mainstream". They also claim that much of his work is "ideologically motivated even while criticizing neoclassical economics for being ideological". They praise his critique of perfect competition, and his chapter on dynamic vs static models, whilst they criticize his attempts at objective value theory and what they claim is his misinterpretation of the Austrian interpretation of Say's law.[16]

(from Wikipedia)

tayto lover

RecordStraight wrote: »

'We are told'? By who?

Should we believe these people, whoever they are? Who are they referring to?

As I said, I'm all for people paying tax if they can afford to.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/features/companies-must-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes-265142.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0521/451564-apple-tax-arrangements/