The Pro Austerity Crowd

KyussBishop

Nino Brown wrote: »

I don't think that would work, the massive amounts of sovereign the world has, IMO means there is only one way out, that's more debt (private debt) and more inflation, if that doesn't happen the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
I realize by definition bubbles are a bad idea, but bubbles may be the only thing that allows us to kick the can down the road a little bit further, in my opinion at this stage, it's bubbles or bust for the global economy.

In one way, you're right, in that a debt-fueled bubble, coupled with high inflation, can potentially boost the economy and erode old debts.

However, we have a bubble, and we are at risk of dropping into deflation - that means more debt, probably more bailouts (this time with bail-ins too), and more austerity, once the bubble bursts; people wealthy enough to take advantage of the bubble, get richer, the rest of us get loaded with debt (an upward redistribution of wealth).

Karl Stein

RecordStraight wrote: »

I hate to sully a great thread with facts, but here are some more from RL:

Useless facts that totally ignore VAT and other levies like the TV licence, property tax, water charges which all disproportionately affect lower and middle incomes. It also ignores that people on lower incomes spend almost every penny in the local economy. It also ignores who gets what for their taxes. As the Father Of Capitalism said:

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Adam Smith
Wealth Of Nations

RecordStraight

Isn't it awful when someone who has posted absolutely ZERO facts disparages the only verifiable facts posted on the thread.

Speaks volumes.

Shadowless

Can people answer the income tax question please.
How much PAYE + PRSI + USC do you think you should pay on <25K, <50K, <75K, <100K, 100K+

Personally I'd like to see

20% < 25K
30% < 50K
40% < 100K
50% > 100K

Think everyone should contribute, even at the lower end.

KyussBishop

The income tax question, kind of ignores the bigger part of the problem though - it's worth putting aside.

valderrama1

Not an immediate viable alternative, but tax or fine the banks once they're profitable again to make up for what's happened
Fine the shít out of them I say

It's already been done in the States.
We've done our bit. They should do their bit when the time comes.

longhalloween

Shadowless wrote: »

Can people answer the income tax question please.
How much PAYE + PRSI + USC do you think you should pay on <25K, <50K, <75K, <100K, 100K+

Personally I'd like to see

20% < 25K
30% < 50K
40% < 100K
50% > 100K

Think everyone should contribute, even at the lower end.

And where do you fall in this bracket shadowless?

Karl Stein

RecordStraight wrote: »

Isn't it awful when someone who has posted absolutely ZERO facts disparages the only verifiable facts posted on the thread.

Ducks float on water. Rain falls from the Sky.

There's another few useless facts. Looking at income tax alone is a deliberately reductive view of who pays what in proportion to their means and who benefits most from taxes.

I could choose to tell my story this way: 'I arrived with $250 in my pocket, and got where I am based entirely on my hard work.' This is true, but it's not the whole truth .... Every day I benefit from schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, parks, and civic amenities that were built and paid for by previous generations who were much less well off than we are today."

-Arul Menezes, Microsoft Millionaire

Cazzoenorme

[quote="KyussBishop;9043everyone's wealth is continually sn't. The distribution of wealth, is how the profits of economic activity are allocated.

Think of it in percentages - if upward redistribution of wealth happens, then the wealthy get a greater percentage share of profits from the economy, than they did in the past, and everyone else gets a smaller percentage share.[/quote]

If total wealth is increasing it may not be a problem if everyone's wealth is continually increasing.

Shadowless

KyussBishop wrote: »

The income tax question, kind of ignores the bigger part of the problem though - it's worth putting aside.

What bigger part of the problem?
Surely it's the crux of the issue?
If you want to avoid austerity (cuts and charges) then we need to increase direct taxes.
I'm against increased income taxes as I feel they're high enough and progressive enough as is.
I think we need to cut our cloth to meet our measure.
Other people obviously feel differently and I'd like to know what levels of income tax they feel are fair.

darkpagandeath

Shadowless wrote: »

What bigger part of the problem?
Surely it's the crux of the issue?
If you want to avoid austerity (cuts and charges) then we need to increase direct taxes.
I'm against increased income taxes as I feel they're high enough and progressive enough as is.
I think we need to cut our cloth to meet our measure.
Other people obviously feel differently and I'd like to know what levels of income tax they feel are fair.

Massive wastage in the public sector would be one place to start, I'm not talking health budgets and alike. Department level I mean Jesus one TD spent 50k on printer cartridges.

flutered

mickydoomsux wrote: »

And they did change things and continue to try and change them.

The problem is that a lot of people thought that change meant that the economy would be fixed overnight and we could go back to living beyond our means.

very few lived beyond their means, very few partied, of the crowd that partied the majority are still partying, the idea of bringing every one in to it is rubbish, the sad fact is the people who were unable to party have paid a heavy price, as have the sick, the disabled and the caarers.

KyussBishop

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

If total wealth is increasing it may not be a problem if everyone's wealth is continually increasing.

I'm speaking of percentages, so what I say factors in wealth increases.

KyussBishop

Shadowless wrote: »

What bigger part of the problem?
Surely it's the crux of the issue?
If you want to avoid austerity (cuts and charges) then we need to increase direct taxes.
I'm against increased income taxes as I feel they're high enough and progressive enough as is.
I think we need to cut our cloth to meet our measure.
Other people obviously feel differently and I'd like to know what levels of income tax they feel are fair.

The upward redistribution of wealth, is the bigger problem that taxing the rich tries to ameliorate/correct, by creating a downward redistribution of wealth.

The other way to tackle that problem, is to ignore income taxes, and tackle the upward redistribution of wealth - and we are heading into a new property bubble, which threatens to cause a new wave of upward redistribution of wealth (and a dumping of debt onto the wider population).

Nino Brown

flutered wrote: »

very few lived beyond their means, very few partied, of the crowd that partied the majority are still partying, the idea of bringing every one in to it is rubbish, the sad fact is the people who were unable to party have paid a heavy price, as have the sick, the disabled and the caarers.

The fact that all those people are missing those services shows they were living beyond their means, otherwise they wouldn't be missing anything. Those services were paid for by the boom, even if those people didn't take part directly. It's a shame they can;t be afforded anymore, but such is life.

longhalloween

Karl Stein wrote: »

TV licence, property tax, water charges which all disproportionately affect lower and middle incomes:

Property tax is based on the value of the property, so people with big houses pay more.
It costs as much to meter the home of a wealthy person as it does a poorer person. So why should the wealthy pay more. Same with tv licences.

Should a wealthy person pay more for an ambulance or college fees just because?

mickydoomsux

flutered wrote: »

very few lived beyond their means

Roughly 100,000 distressed mortgages and large amounts of personal debt say otherwise but let's not let facts get in the way of the usual ill-informed rant.

Cazzoenorme

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm speaking of percentages, so what I say factors in wealth increases.

But if the lowest earners can live a wealthy confortable life then it isn't really a problem if the top earners earn so much more.

darkpagandeath

Nino Brown wrote: »

The fact that all those people are missing those services shows they were living beyond their means, otherwise they wouldn't be missing anything. Those services were paid for by the boom, even if those people didn't take part directly. It's a shame they can;t be afforded anymore, but such is life.

Yeah wanting functioning services like Health, Police, Ambulance is living beyond our means.....

Nino Brown

I know Ireland can't do this alone, but there needs to be huge taxes put on hedge funds and the like. The trickle down BS is the story the elite like to feed us, but the super rich use their money to make more money on the markets, that's dead money to the economy, it serves no purpose, creates no jobs, all it doesn't is make more money for the elite.
I can't blame those people, if I had a few million I'd do the same thing, policy needs to change to drive that money back into the economy where it really can trickle down.

darkpagandeath

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Roughly 100,000 distressed mortgages and large amounts of personal debt say otherwise but let's not let facts get in the way of the usual ill-informed rant.

Care you get the figures for buy to rent out of that ?

Nino Brown

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yeah wanting functioning services like Health, Police, Ambulance is living beyond our means.....

Exactly, if you can't pay for something it's beyond your means.

darkpagandeath

Nino Brown wrote: »

Exactly, if you can't pay for something it's beyond your means.

That's some great logic right there Do you pay for everything in cash ?

el pasco

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The people that cheer lead for austerity. Can they not think of any other way?

The current government were elected with a mandate for change. Remember the "democratic revolution". Well there has been only a change of faces, not policies. There was not even an attempt to try something different despite securing a massive majority, with 68% of available seats.

In the last general election campaign the electorate were lied to, plain and simple, as minister Pat Rabbitte freely admitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQrhBIuSCmM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHN18Rzhk_c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpr2zaXvb4M

Look we all knew that it didn't matter who was voted in and we didn't have much choice as they're all the same so we just changed the faces and did Tokia/IMF/ECB deal
Simple

Nino Brown

darkpagandeath wrote: »

That's some great logic right there Do you pay for everything in cash ?

live beyond one's means:
to spend more money than one can afford

So what's your definition of living beyond your means then?
I sometimes use debit, but yeah usually. How is that relevant?

el pasco

Nino Brown wrote: »

Exactly, if you can't pay for something it's beyond your means.

You mean like bankers wages top up salaries pension dole civil service etc??

longhalloween

darkpagandeath wrote: »

That's some great logic right there Do you pay for everything in cash ?

Obviously he means if you cant afford it. No need to nitpick every post by taking everything at a bare literal level.

KyussBishop

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

But if the lowest earners can live a wealthy confortable life then it isn't really a problem if the top earners earn so much more.

You're trying to bait me into arguing tax rates/earning figures now. I'm talking about distribution of wealth, which is totally different to wages/earnings.

Nino Brown

el pasco wrote: »

You mean like bankers wages top up salaries pension dole civil service etc??

Is that supposed to be sentence or are you just typing words?

KyussBishop

Nino Brown wrote: »

I know Ireland can't do this alone, but there needs to be huge taxes put on hedge funds and the like. The trickle down BS is the story the elite like to feed us, but the super rich use their money to make more money on the markets, that's dead money to the economy, it serves no purpose, creates no jobs, all it doesn't is make more money for the elite.
I can't blame those people, if I had a few million I'd do the same thing, policy needs to change to drive that money back into the economy where it really can trickle down.

Exactly, this is a form of 'unearned income' and rent-seeking activity, and unearned income is a big part of upwards-redistribution of wealth - which should be clamped down on, so that people are forced to do useful/productive things, in order to earn money.