The Pro Austerity Crowd

Bubbaclaus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What really annoys me is the populism of the socialist party, sinn fein etc. They take everyone for idiots. Sure we will pay no taxes and have no cuts and everything will be hunky dory.

Free money for all!!

Satriale

longhalloween wrote: »

Examples?? There's some amount of vague or anecdotal sh*te being spouted by some people here.

What do you mean, vague anecdotal sh1te like...

So, for example, say your father worked his whole life and struggled and sacrificed to build a business with the hopes of passing it on to you.

You'd be ok with the government seizing most of those assets when he passed?


night, Sunshine, your argument beats all lol

bumper234

tayto lover wrote: »

Like?

Feel free to search back a couple of pages. I'm sure you know exactly which posts i am talking about unless you just decided to skip several pages of posts.

longhalloween

Satriale wrote: »

What do you mean, vague anecdotal sh1te like...

So, for example, say your father worked his whole life and struggled and sacrificed to build a business with the hopes of passing it on to you.

You'd be ok with the government seizing most of those assets when he passed?


night, Sunshine, your argument beats all lol

That's a fairly common example that business owners and farmers share. Thanks for just regurgitating my point instead of proving your own.

KyussBishop

bumper234 wrote: »

Feel free to search back a couple of pages. I'm sure you know exactly which posts i am talking about unless you just decided to skip several pages of posts.

Translation: "I'm going to pretend to have asked you a question - a question that does not exist - and then repeatedly just keep demanding that you answer my (non-existent) question."

bumper234

KyussBishop wrote: »

No again, it seems to be more you picking the most thick-headed interpretation possible, to get me to repeatedly correct things as an opportunity for you to condescend - deliberately I'd say too, as it's becoming a pattern in your posts.

Nope i'm just pointing out the stupidity of the usual "TAX THE RICH" crowd who call for these mega taxes on the people who already pay the most tax and who create businesses and employ people but as soon as it's mentioned about taxing or means testing other groups you all cry foul.

tayto lover

bumper234 wrote: »

Feel free to search back a couple of pages. I'm sure you know exactly which posts i am talking about unless you just decided to skip several pages of posts.

Then you better ask it again.
I haven't read the whole thread as i was watching the football.

KyussBishop

bumper234 wrote: »

Nope i'm just pointing out the stupidity of the usual "TAX THE RICH" crowd who call for these mega taxes on the people who already pay the most tax and who create businesses and employ people but as soon as it's mentioned about taxing or means testing other groups you all cry foul.

Yet I never said 'tax the rich', I've explicitly avoided saying that, because I'm instead talking about stopping 'upward redistribution of wealth' - and you know it, because I've said it more than a dozen times today across the two threads - yet you're trying to straw-man me into the 'tax the rich' argument, that I didn't make.

That shows you have dishonest intent in your arguments, and are either 1: trying to shut down debate, or 2: are stirring shít (or both).

bumper234

KyussBishop wrote: »

Translation: "I'm going to pretend to have asked you a question - a question that does not exist - and then repeatedly just keep demanding that you answer my (non-existent) question."

Sigh

: tayto lover
Every worker is working hard now.
Those who earn most should be prepared to give a little more as they can afford it. It hurts them less.
We are in a recession as most of you keep pointing out.

bumper234 wrote: »

How much is a "little more"?

Another 2%? 5%? 15%?

Seeing as you want the people who are paying tax to pay a little more can i also assume (to help the country out of recession quicker) that you would advocate social welfare recipients and OAP's to take the same % in cuts?

tayto lover

I would expect the people who earn a net income of 60 K and over to give some more.
I wouldn't lump any more on people under 30 K as they have very little left to give. The OAP's have paid all their working lives through many recession and they should be allowed to live out their remaining time without worry.

Toby Take a Bow

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What really annoys me is the populism of the socialist party, sinn fein etc. They take everyone for idiots. Sure we will pay no taxes and have no cuts and everything will be hunky dory.

I am pretty sure that all of the 'populist' parties favour an increase in taxes. Just not for lower-waged earners. Now if, as many people have suggested, the vast majority of taxes are paid by the top percentage of wealth in the country (which I have always assumed to be the case, although I can't find any definitive figures for Ireland on the net) this would surely lead to a drastic increase in revenue collected. Whatever about the rights or wrongs of this situation as you see it, it's hardly 'money tree' territory. The idea of a money tree would actually fit better with the FF and FG/Labour understanding of politics. Banks in the 'boom' period were essentially money trees: the policies they operated could only have been successful if there was a complete reversal of the boom/bust cycle in economics. So, essentially they were creating money from nothing (as many of their customers would not be able to pay them back).

Bubbaclaus

tayto lover said

Every worker is working hard now.
Those who earn most should be prepared to give a little more as they can afford it. It hurts them less.

They already do. And its not just a little bit more, they pay a large bit more.


Edit: And before anyone chimes in, my gross salary is currently 24k a year.

tritium

tayto lover wrote: »

Like?

Well, how about this one from earlier so?

tritium wrote: »

In the interests of having a clear understanding of the position, can someone from the' tax the rich' side give me an answer to the following:

1. What percentage of the gross pay do they feel someone should pay in tax (income tax+USC and levies)? Let's take below the following bands; 25k, 50k, 75k, 100k, 100k?

2. What percentage of the total tax take do they feel that the top 25% of earners should contribute?

3.how much in total (in millions of euro) extra would they look to take in taxes from the >100k group?

steddyeddy

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Well, to be fair, the topic for discussion was the taxing of unearned income and welfare comes under that heading.

You're being precious about it. Seems to be a feature of our society.

"Times have to be tough for absolutely everyone.......... except for the following groups of people."

Precious? Half the pro austerity squad nearly had a heart attack when it was mentioned precious inheritance was attacked.

mickydoomsux

tayto lover wrote: »

The OAP's have paid all their working lives

The ones that have actually worked.

Also, what about rich OAPs? Should reaching a certain age put a cap on how much tax you have to pay?

Satriale

steddyeddy wrote: »

Precious? Have the pro austerity squad nearly had a heart attack when it was mentioned precious inheritance was attacked.

lol, they above all else know that you cant take it with you...

longhalloween

Satriale wrote: »

lol, they above all else know that you cant take it with you...

I think we were more worried about leaving something to our loved ones instead of handing it all over to the state.

Seeing as you're not gone to bed, care to provide any examples of all these businesses you say can lose half their assets and be grand?

tayto lover

tritium wrote: »

Well, how about this one from earlier so?

How the Hell would I know. I'm not an economist.
All i'm saying is that people earning/having plenty of money should pay more rather than taking from the struggling people. Regardless of how much they already pay.

Send you query to David Mc Williams though rather than any of the other economists who didn't see the collapse coming or who thought we'd have a soft landing.

tayto lover

mickydoomsux wrote: »

The ones that have actually worked.

Also, what about rich OAPs? Should reaching a certain age put a cap on how much tax you have to pay?

If they have plenty then take plenty.

mickydoomsux

tayto lover wrote: »

If they have plenty then take plenty.

But:

tayto lover wrote:

The OAP's have paid all their working lives.

longhalloween

tayto lover wrote: »

How the Hell would I know. I'm not an economist.
All i'm saying is that people earning/having plenty of money should pay more rather than taking from the struggling people. Regardless of how much they already pay.

Well I respectfully disagree.
I believe that high earners already contribute more that their fair share to the taxman as evidenced by the higher rate of tax.
They should be allowed to enjoy what remains of their wages.

Any more that this is punitive and it's not the fault of high earners that some people are struggling.

bumper234

tayto lover wrote: »

I would expect the people who earn a net income of 60 K and over to give some more.
I wouldn't lump any more on people under 30 K as they have very little left to give. The OAP's have paid all their working lives through many recession and they should be allowed to live out their remaining time without worry.

What about someone who is in their late 50's early 60's who has also "worked their whole life" and payed their taxes? Should they all.of a sudden be hit with massive tax hikes because they have worked hard all their life to get a decent wage?

Satriale

longhalloween wrote: »

I think we were more worried about leaving something to our loved ones instead of handing it all over to the state.

Seeing as you're not gone to bed, care to provide any examples of all these businesses you say can lose half their assets and be grand?

Not to offend you or anything, i'm just finished quibbling with you.
When you argument consists of telling me im talking vague anecdotal ****e while you spout much the same, the argument had come full circle and its time for one of us to call a halt, life is just too short

Now im off to the chinese to spend my inheritance, they do a great salt pepper squid, ill bring you back one.;)

Geuze

My pensioner parents earn 900 approx pw, or 45-50k pa.

They pay under 10% tax + USC + PRSI.

No other country in the world could be that generous.

On top of very low direct taxes, they get:

two med cards
two travel passes
free TV licence
subsidised elec
subsidised telecom until 2014

No matter what ideology you are, this is madness.

We simply can't continue to borrow billions, and at the same time have some very low direct taxes on some groups.

Meanwhile, the top 52% marginal tax rate kicks in at 32,800 which is also crazy.

longhalloween

Satriale wrote: »

Not to offend you or anything, i'm just finished quibbling with you.
When you argument consists of telling me im talking vague anecdotal ****e while you spout much the same, the argument had come full circle and its time for one of us to call a halt, life is just too short

Now im off to the chinese to spend my inheritance, they do a great salt pepper squid, ill bring you back one.;)

Ask a simple question, get a stupid answer :rolleyes:

Shadowless

A child in Ireland is 6 times more likely to live in consistent poverty than an OAP.
OAP's are probably the wealthiest cohort in society and those who can afford to contribute more should contribute more.
You can be a fat cat banker at 64 but on turning 65 you're automatically one of "the most vulnerable in society"
It's nonsense imo.

tayto lover

bumper234 wrote: »

What about someone who is in their late 50's early 60's who has also "worked their whole life" and payed their taxes? Should they all.of a sudden be hit with massive tax hikes because they have worked hard all their life to get a decent wage?

This article from The Journal if true gives a picture of who can pay more and who cannot -
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/high-earner-ireland-755580-Jan2013/

mickydoomsux

Geuze wrote: »

Meanwhile, the top 52% marginal tax rate kicks in at 32,800 which is also crazy.

And the average wage is 36180ish based on CSO figures from last year.

tayto lover

Geuze wrote: »

My pensioner parents earn 900 approx pw, or 45-50k pa.

They pay under 10% tax + USC + PRSI.

No other country in the world could be that generous.

On top of very low direct taxes, they get:

two med cards
two travel passes
free TV licence
subsidised elec
subsidised telecom until 2014

No matter what ideology you are, this is madness.

We simply can't continue to borrow billions, and at the same time have some very low direct taxes on some groups.

Meanwhile, the top 52% marginal tax rate kicks in at 32,800 which is also crazy.

I don't believe that at all.
Medical cards have been taken away from many OAP's receiving a lot less.
Plus many special needs children have had their medical cards recinded and their parents have a lot less per week. I know some of them.

Cazzoenorme

steddyeddy wrote: »

PFFFFF!! It's amazing how people turn anti austerity when it comes to a certain socio economic group

Austerity that's fair and sane should be implemented.

mickydoomsux

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't believe that at all.
Medical cards have been taken away from many OAP's receiving a lot less.
Plus many special needs children have had their medical cards recinded and their parents have a lot less per week. I know some of them.

Care to address the rest of the post?

tayto lover

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Care to address the rest of the post?

I agree with the rest of the post as I already said 30k and under pay enough.

KyussBishop

See this is why you debate wealth distribution, and stopping upward redistribution of wealth - not taxes.

Debating the tax line of argument, opens up a ton of hysterical moral arguments that can beat you down with pure rhetoric/mewling - debating the wealth distribution argument is far more sustainable.

Cazzoenorme

KyussBishop wrote: »

See this is why you debate wealth distribution, and stopping upward redistribution of wealth - not taxes.

Debating the tax line of argument, opens up a ton of hysterical moral arguments that can beat you down with pure rhetoric/mewling - debating the wealth distribution argument is far more sustainable.

What hysterical moral arguments?

steddyeddy

longhalloween wrote: »

Those people living on €20 a week (and yourself presumably) soon be part of the high earners these posters wish to tax heavily.

Possibly so. But since it's so hard to start a successful business now, do you really want to make it harder?

No I'm very lucky to be doing a PhD. Ie I would rather I be taxed slightly more (I'm not taxed much) than a student on 20 euro a week suffer grant cuts or increases in fees. I would much rather I got taxed more when I was richer than get taxed when I was poorer. A reduction in income or outgoings when I was a student might have prevented me becoming a PhD at all.

Geuze

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't believe that at all.
Medical cards have been taken away from many OAP's receiving a lot less.
Plus many special needs children have had their medical cards recinded and their parents have a lot less per week. I know some of them.

Yes, my parents med card was reviewed this year, and we were all surprised that it was renewed.

They have 250k+ on deposit.

SafeSurfer

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, my parents med card was reviewed this year, and we were all surprised that it was renewed.

They have 250k+ on deposit.

Hello dear friend,
My father the king of Swalihala has recently been deposed. I have been entrusted with $300 million If you send me your bank details I will give you 10% of the money.

Thank you and God bless you.

Idbatterim

Follow-up question: do people who work harder/are smarter deserve to earn more?

Probably not! I am also sure he isnt paying the marginal rate of tax, if everyone is so concerned by the vulnerable etc, sell you stuff and give half the proceeds to charity etc, seems a bit drastic doesnt it?! Well so is having 52% of YOUR income confiscated over a pathetic E32,800 a year!!!

tritium

tayto lover wrote: »

How the Hell would I know. I'm not an economist.
All i'm saying is that people earning/having plenty of money should pay more rather than taking from the struggling people. Regardless of how much they already pay.

Send you query to David Mc Williams though rather than any of the other economists who didn't see the collapse coming or who thought we'd have a soft landing.

So basically you have no idea how much the 'rich' should pay, no idea how much more than the poor they should pay, no idea of how much of the burden they should ( or indeed can or will) share, and no idea of how much pain you can alleviate for everyone else through this approach.

Well, that seems a well thought out approach!

What's plan B when it doesn't solve the problem? Tax them some more?


Tell you what, define struggling? Define plenty of money? ( I'll give you a hint where I'm going with this: is struggling to afford a 1million mortgage the same as struggling to afford a 100k mortgage?)

A 'fair' distribution of wealth is completely subjective. Some people think its 'fair' to continually raise taxes on high earners 'because they can afford' it and it will help the poorest in society. Others don't think its 'fair' for one person to pay 10 times the amount of tax as another and receive the same services for it.

It can be debated for 200 pages but neither side are going to agree with each other.

KyussBishop

tritium wrote: »

So basically you have no idea how much the 'rich' should pay, no idea how much more than the poor they should pay, no idea of how much of the burden they should ( or indeed can or will) share, and no idea of how much pain you can alleviate for everyone else through this approach.

Well, that seems a well thought out approach!

What's plan B when it doesn't solve the problem? Tax them some more?


Tell you what, define struggling? Define plenty of money? ( I'll give you a hint where I'm going with this: is struggling to afford a 1million mortgage the same as struggling to afford a 100k mortgage?)

He doesn't have to quantify anything to your demands, to make a valid point on the subject - you're trying to bait him into that discussion.


Personally (repeating again), I think the whole 'tax the rich' argument is a waste of time because of how it leads to dumb rhetorical requests saying "well, what exact figures would you set? how are you going to decide that?", sending you on a wild goose chase for stats that are near-impossible to gather, and then being ever-more-demanding about wanting excessive detail - and then just downright asserting "oh the rich will leave and take all their money!", hypocritically, without even a whiff of an effort to provide their own stats to quantify that.

That's why it's better to focus on stopping upward-redistribution of wealth, and closing tax loopholes so that current levels of tax, are actually respected, rather than avoided.

You can use that line of argument to highlight all sorts of forms of wealth-extraction and unearned income, and then you have a winning argument on both moral and rhetorical grounds.

tritium

KyussBishop wrote: »

He doesn't have to quantify anything to your demands, to make a valid point on the subject - you're trying to bait him into that discussion.


Personally (repeating again), I think the whole 'tax the rich' argument is a waste of time because of how it leads to dumb rhetorical requests saying "well, what exact figures would you set? how are you going to decide that?", sending you on a wild goose chase for stats that are near-impossible to gather, and then being ever-more-demanding about wanting excessive detail - and then just downright asserting "oh the rich will leave and take all their money!", hypocritically, without even a whiff of an effort to provide their own stats to quantify that.

That's why it's better to focus on stopping upward-redistribution of wealth, and closing tax loopholes so that current levels of tax, are actually respected, rather than avoided.

You can use that line of argument to highlight all sorts of forms of wealth-extraction and unearned income, and then you have a winning argument on both moral and rhetorical grounds.

If youre going to tell us the rich can pay for the austerity you damn well better know how much you want and what can credibly be demanded of them. Otherwise your argument is just rabble rousing without credibility.

By the way Kyuss, the detail and statistics is a standard you've frequently demanded in other threads from posters who you disagreed with. Either be consistent or concede you're being hypocritical but don't go getting all indignant when others take the same evidence based approach to debate that you advocate in at least those cases that suit you.

suicide_circus

Theft is also a form of wealth distribution, but we disapprove of that.

tayto lover

tritium wrote: »

If youre going to tell us the rich can pay for the austerity you damn well better know how much you want and what can credibly be demanded of them. Otherwise your argument is just rabble rousing without credibility.

By the way Kyuss, the detail and statistics is a standard you've frequently demanded in other threads from posters who you disagreed with. Either be consistent or concede you're being hypocritical but don't go getting all indignant when others take the same evidence based approach to debate that you advocate in at least those cases that suit you.

Bullsh1t.
You sound just like one of those stupid economists who spouted rubbish all through the so called boom and who got it entirely wrong with their "soft landing" forecasts.
You think you're clever with your questions but you're just coming across like another little arrogant bullsh1tter, just like them.
The thing about these threads is that my opinion is just as valid as yours as is my vote at the elections which counts just as much as yours and the votes of those like you.

Bubbaclaus

tayto lover clearly just wants someone else to pay for his taytos.

tayto lover

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

tayto lover clearly just wants someone else to pay for his taytos.

Wrong.

I never extended myself despite being offered top-ups on my mortgage, never went on a foreign holiday either.
I saved and paid cash when I bought anything.
Never missed a days work and never claimed one days dole. I live a modest life and depend on nobody.
BUT I see decent people struggling all the time and I attended many funerals of suicide victims who took their lives because of the squeeze and pressure being applied after they lost their jobs and some their small businesses.

tritium

tayto lover wrote: »

Bullsh1t.
You sound just like one of those stupid economists who spouted rubbish all through the so called boom and who got it entirely wrong with their "soft landing" forecasts.
You think you're clever with your questions but you're just coming across like another little arrogant bullsh1tter, just like them.

Strange how when you're asked to put some detail on your position you retreat into your shell again. Oh wait, its not sytrange at all since your argument is just discredited rethoric.

The thing about these threads is that my opinion is just as valid as yours as is my vote at the elections which counts just as much as yours and the votes of those like you.

Just as much indeed. And the lack of credibility of your argument is shown by how little support your opinion gets and indeed how few votes

tayto lover

tritium wrote: »

Strange how when you're asked to put some detail on your position you retreat into your shell again. Oh wait, its not sytrange at all since your argument is just discredited rethoric.


Just as much indeed. And the lack of credibility of your argument is shown by how little support your opinion gets and indeed how few votes

You have just summed up the kind of person I think you are.
Arrogant, opinionated and shallow. A typical FG person.

KyussBishop

tritium wrote: »

If youre going to tell us the rich can pay for the austerity you damn well better know how much you want and what can credibly be demanded of them. Otherwise your argument is just rabble rousing without credibility.

By the way Kyuss, the detail and statistics is a standard you've frequently demanded in other threads from posters who you disagreed with. Either be consistent or concede you're being hypocritical but don't go getting all indignant when others take the same evidence based approach to debate that you advocate in at least those cases that suit you.

You've just deliberately ignored my post here, and are trying to pin me as holding a 'tax the rich' type argument - even though my post explicitly says pushing that argument is a waste of time.
That shows you're more interested in trying to pin people into holding a straw-man, that you want to rail against for rhetorical effect - which displays dishonest intent, as you know I didn't argue that.

You're not asking for facts, you're asking for tayto lover to provide a pedantically-detailed plan for how he thinks the entire tax setup should be done - that's using pedantry for rhetorical effect.
He does not have to do that, to validate his argument, because it stands on its own merits without stats.

Cazzoenorme

tayto lover wrote: »

Bullsh1t.
You sound just like one of those stupid economists who spouted rubbish all through the so called boom and who got it entirely wrong with their "soft landing" forecasts.
You think you're clever with your questions but you're just coming across like another little arrogant bullsh1tter, just like them.
The thing about these threads is that my opinion is just as valid as yours as is my vote at the elections which counts just as much as yours and the votes of those like you.

cringe