Hard left

Steodonn

RobertKK wrote: »

Ruth Coppinger likes her Dail salary.

On Newstalk she said a working person is a person who works for a living and earns under €100,000.
Though I think she protests for a living.

When asked if a person on €95,000 could be classed as working class, she said yes.

Class by the marxist definition is determined by your relationship to the means of production. If we were being dogmatic about it anyone who earns a wage and dosnt have any useable assets ( excluding family home/farm ) is working class

Donkey Oaty

Steodonn wrote: »

Class by the marxist definition is determined by your relationship to the means of production. If we were being dogmatic about it anyone who earns a wage and dosnt have any useable assets ( excluding family home/farm ) is working class

Take the example of a self-employed taxi-driver, who owns his own vehicle.

Is he working-class by this definition, or is he one of the owners of the means of production?

Idbatterim

If you like your government raping you, continue to vote for right wing or close to it.

we have a right wing option here do we, who would that be? Would it be FG with outrageous amounts of income tax on low earners, so that the no earners or very low earners can avoid paying virtually any income taxes? The same ones who have done nothing about said low earners, paying outrageous childcare costs, gp costs, putting a roof over their head costs?

Grayson

neil_hosey wrote: »

i never understood the "tax the rich, cas that makes it fair" argument..

The "rich" already pay a shed load of tax, and should be entitled to the same public services as everyone else, for the same price. Just because someone done well for themselves, doesnt mean we should penalize them. It a begrudgery thing, and its pretty narrowminded.. hence why I won't be voting sinn féin again, or any hard left whatevers ever.

We should be encouraging enterprise by trying to make a tax system fair, so the rich (ie people who have broke their bollox and/or lucked out) can create more jobs.


(im not rich btw..)

It's not about penalising them. It's about fairly distributing the burden of the government.

When taxes are placed on people the government aren't targeting them. They aren't deciding they want to hurt a particular group of people.

The basic philosophy of our government, both economically and legally is a branch of ethics called utilitarianism. The idea is that in all cases the government should seek to maximise the pleasure/good (in utiltarianism it's refered to as Utility, but rather than use that term I'll use terms like pleasure, pain, good, bad , burden etc.. It's just easier to understand) that is available to its citizens and they should limit the pain/bad that is inflicted on them. Now firstly there are some areas that don't actually matter where utilitarianism (Or any other ethical/economic theory is concerned). Take road rules for example. Deciding what side of the road everyone should drive on might be limiting your freedom on where you can drive on a road, but it's not actually limiting your freedom on where you can travel to.

Likewise a law which prevents something like theft is there because although it limits your ability to steal, it safeguards everyone else’s property. It increases everyone’s over all safety. That good is considered to outweigh the negative of restricting your ability to steal.

When it comes to governance and economics the government tries to implement policies which limit the pain/bad. That is why there is a safety net of social welfare and medical care etc... It would technically be possible to raise social welfare to say €800 a week, but the burden on the tax payer to keep unemployed on that money is considered too great. That's simply the good created by the €800 is not worth the pain of the taxpayer. Likewise we could limit all welfare and pensions to €20 a week. But €20 isn't survivable. So despite the fact that it lessens the burden on the tax payer, it's not decreasing the pain on the unemployed/elderly.
We have it at €180 (ish) now because that's considered to be a survivable level. You'd probably find some disagreement here on a level of 180 with a number of people advocating a level that's slightly higher or lower, but most people wouldn't be happy with the extremes of €20 or €800.


Likewise when it comes to distribute the tax burden amongst the populace the government attempts to distribute the pain. Let’s face it, no matter how much you earn, paying tax is a burden and something you'd rather not have to do.

The reason there's higher and lower tax rates is to distribute the burden. To make sure no single group experiences more, or less, burden than any other group. A simple (and extreme) example would be this. If I increased tax by €100 a week for everyone, regardless of income, a person earning €300 a week would be more affected than someone earning €100,000 a week (Like I said, extreme example, but it's just to illustrate a point).
Likewise a percentage or two can make a huge difference to lower earners, but would hardly be noticed by larger earners.

Therefore if it's possible to increase the tax on higher earners without hurting them and at the same time lower taxes on the middle and lower earners it's a good thing. That's so long as the burden/pain placed on the rich is no more than the burden/pain placed on everyone else.

There are many people who can't grasp an abstract idea like this. They simply see a number. They says surely if one person pays €5 and another pays €10 the person paying €10 suffers more. Well, we know that depends on the situations of both the individuals. The same goes for a simple 5 or 10%. It's all relative.

Now this isn't a left wing idea. This idea of fairly distributing pain/good is a very centrist idea. It doesn't see wealth or the wealthy as evil. It doesn't see poverty or work as a virtue. It's all about being as fair as possible.

A very leftist idea would be to cap wages at a certain amount. They would limit the amount anyone could earn since they see all profit as being at the expense of the people.

The right wing are focussed on everyone carrying the same burden, but they have an overly simplistic view of burden. They believe that the fairest way to tax individuals is a fixed percentage. Even though that makes sense mathematically, it makes no sense socially. They think that if anyone is taxed at a different percentage then you are effectively targeting certain people for pain and others for pleasure. It's strange because although they will admit the concept of pleasure/pain, they don't actually use it as a quantity to be assessed. Rather they use percentage of wages as a direct method of quantifying how happy/pained someone is.

Now those are two very stark examples. The reality is that you have right wing libertarians who espouse the Chicago school of economics (Pretty much no rules and regulations along with minimal taxation. Check out Chile under Pinochet for an example of what that's like) and you also have left wing market anarchists who are also technically libertarians (both believe the government should stay out of people affairs as much as possible). You have socialists who believe that the government shouldn't tax and believe that property is theft and you have right wing politicians who believe that the government shouldn't tax and that property is a right. Trying to view something like taxation as left/right is very confusing and a bit misleading, although it is admittidly how most of us think of it.

Most western democracies however follow the basic idea of utilitarianism with some slight variations. To safeguard freedoms as much as possible and only restrict when it's for the greater good. The same goes for economics. They tax as much as they have to, to maintain the the society we have. And when they tax, they attempt to minimise the pain any one group feels.

(Sorry if this was overly long or a bit patronising. I have no idea if you've heard this before and lets face it, there's no short answer. )

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Idbatterim wrote: »

we have a right wing option here do we, who would that be? Would it be FG with outrageous amounts of income tax on low earners, so that the no earners or very low earners can avoid paying virtually any income taxes? The same ones who have done nothing about said low earners, paying outrageous childcare costs, gp costs, putting a roof over their head costs?

Certainly right wing by European standards. Probably not by American.

The option would probably by the guys that decided to allow business to break the law in the name of economy and deregulate the finiancial industry.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Kinda ends the thread then

I can see it being practical to an extent, but it's probably mroe likley to end in dissatisfied people revolting back towards free market.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh, not disagreeing with you. It has it's positives (I have friend who grew up in the old GDR who did like being able to join any sports club they wanted without having to buy any expensive equipement or pay any fees) but I totally agree that it will ultimately end in a reduced quality of life.

Donkey Oaty

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And there's absolutely nothing to stop these guys leading by example and setting up successful co-ops, rather than proposing a theoretical model that is doomed to failure.

This class war nonsense is hopelessly out of date.

I've met truly inspiring socialists over the years who would wipe the floor with these clowns and their Ladybird politics.

Davarus Walrus

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

And there's absolutely nothing to stop these guys leading by example and setting up successful co-ops, rather than proposing a theoretical model that is doomed to failure.

This class war nonsense is hopelessly out of date.

I've met truly inspiring socialists over the years who would wipe the floor with these clowns and their Ladybird politics.

I think real social democrats like Joan Burton and Alan Kelly are far more socialist in the practical implementations of their ideals than goons like Murphy and Higgins with their spit and venom loony leftism. You think Burton actually likes having to make tough decisions?

The other shower have pie-in-the-sky ideologies that can never work, and a real pinning for the good old days of collective farms and Uncle Joe.

Reekwind

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Take the example of a self-employed taxi-driver, who owns his own vehicle.

Is he working-class by this definition, or is he one of the owners of the means of production?

Petite-bourgeois. Owns his (personal) means of production but is not reliant on invested capital or employed labour.

Donkey Oaty

Reekwind wrote: »

Petite-bourgeois. Owns his (personal) means of production but is not reliant on invested capital or employed labour.

What if he is a teacher during the day? Is he then mostly working-class?

MRnotlob606

The left has almost a monopoly of discontent against the government.

mariaalice

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

The left has almost a monopoly of discontent against the government.

We must be very interesting form a European point of view all the discontent with the governments is via the Left and far Left where as in most of the rest of Europe it is via the Right and far Right.

Anti immigration parties never got any traction in Ireland which I think is great.

Davarus Walrus

mariaalice wrote: »

We must be very interesting form a European point of view all the discontent with the governments is via the Left and far Left where as in most of the rest of Europe it is via the Right and far Right.

Anti immigration parties never got any traction in Ireland which I think is great.

We've always ploughed the centre field. It served a young democracy such as Ireland relatively well. Apart from a brief flirtation with dangerous nationalism with O'Duffy, and the spectre of hate and profit driven nationalistic violence during the provo campaign. Neither had any great widespread support though.

We don't do extremes. It's a great thing to see.

BoatMad

mariaalice wrote: »

We must be very interesting form a European point of view all the discontent with the governments is via the Left and far Left where as in most of the rest of Europe it is via the Right and far Right.

Anti immigration parties never got any traction in Ireland which I think is great.

That's because we never had any significant level of immigration over any sort of sustained period. Proclaiming a void as a good thing isnt really clever

nokia69

BoatMad wrote: »

That's because we never had any significant level of immigration over any sort of sustained period. Proclaiming a void as a good thing isnt really clever

over the last 10 or 15 years we have had plenty of immigration

in any case we have no need for any extreme party of the left or the right

but there is a bid gap for a centre right party, if one was started now they would get 10 or 20 seats in the next general election

Annasopra

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

There are loads..... Way more than on the far right.

Eirigi
The Communist Party
Fís Nua (kind of)
AAA/SP
PBP
Workers Party
Shinners (depending on populist mood at the given moment)
United Left

Sinn Fein are not far left at all!

Annasopra

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Interesting - I've never heard of Fís Nua before, and their policies are extremely interesting; they present a number of very sensible policies (a ton that I advocate myself), for resolving the economic crisis, and preventing future ones - and even taking into consideration, issues with future climate change.

Do people take issue with many of that parties policies?

I dont think fis nua exist anymore.

BoatMad

nokia69 wrote: »

over the last 10 or 15 years we have had plenty of immigration

in any case we have no need for any extreme party of the left or the right

but there is a bid gap for a centre right party, if one was started now they would get 10 or 20 seats in the next general election

Irelands non EU immigration is a fraction of a percent of the population,the biggest bulk has been eastern europeans, who are white and often catholic. Hence they tend to integrate easily or just disappear.

Ireland has never really had to deal with the influxes like some European countries, hence why we haven't had any anti-immigrant parties.

I don't out it down to any innate "goodness "

BoatMad

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

We've always ploughed the centre field. It served a young democracy such as Ireland relatively well. Apart from a brief flirtation with dangerous nationalism with O'Duffy, and the spectre of hate and profit driven nationalistic violence during the provo campaign. Neither had any great widespread support though.

We don't do extremes. It's a great thing to see.

Neither do most "western countries" anti establishment parties, never get that much traction .


what is unusual in Ireland has been the reluctance of the electorate to give any ability to the politicians to form left wing Government.

If one takes FF/FG as a centre right vote , Ireland is predominately a conservative country fiscally. ( the future may not be so clear of course)

mariaalice

BoatMad wrote: »

That's because we never had any significant level of immigration over any sort of sustained period. Proclaiming a void as a good thing isnt really clever

We went from having little to no immigration then in a very short time we went to having immigration and while its not a huge amount its enough to be noticeable, yet all you get is the odd rumbling about eastern Europeans and Nigerians noting serious and that is a good thing.

Tony EH

Rightwing wrote: »

Left want everything kept in public ownership. Most think this is good, but:

Just look at the airline industry and ask youself was it good when Aer Lingus owned everything and charged £500 to go to London. Or the big bad private companies like Ryanair charging you €30.

Which is mickey mouse compared to what a, right wing influenced, unregulated banking sector did to the economies of a lot of Western countries.

BoatMad

Tony EH wrote: »

Which is mickey mouse compared to what a, right wing influenced, unregulated banking sector did to the economies of a lot of Western countries.

And one of the few countries to tighten up such regulation has been the US.

but unfortunately our problems were not specifically caused by a "unregulated banking sector", that just exacerbated the fall when it happened. They were fundamentally the issue of access to virtually free and limitless credit, just when we were experiencing a boom.

We were all offered free drink and we couldn't stop till we puked.

There are many examples of "unregulated banking systems" that didn't fail like ours.

The Diabolical Monocle

I moderately suggest a centrist approach.

HamsterFace

If I join a far left party, and we end up getting into power, does this mean I can stop working my ass off but enjoy the same standard of living as those who do work there ass off as we rightfully demand they share their income so we can have true income equality?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

For Forks Sake

HamsterFace wrote: »

If I join a far left party, and we end up getting into power, does this mean I can stop working my ass off but enjoy the same standard of living as those who do work there ass off as we rightfully demand they share their income so we can have true income equality?

According to Ruth Coppingers diabolical interview on Moncrieff a few weeks back, yes, yes you can.

BoatMad

If I join a far left party, and we end up getting into power, does this mean I can stop working my ass off but enjoy the same standard of living as those who do work there ass off as we rightfully demand they share their income so we can have true income equality?

if fact you the non working your ass of, will be in the land of milk and honey, while the many thousands, ney millions of ( unidentified) "rich people" will pay for all your worldy needs and provide 20 virgins as well.


seriously is anyone buying this nonsense from the left

Lets imagine the next left wing GOV,

day 1. OMG, look at the books,
day 2. "they" lied to us, things are really bad, taxes don't cover revenue
day 3. sorry, have to scrap that election promise, no money you see.
day 4. Fraid we have to raise taxes/charges/service fees, or course public service union members will not pay anything extra
day5: Tax the rich ( that means the little shop keep round the corner, or two income families)


Day ( next GE) Whinge,whinge, the electorate have booted us out, why


rinse and repeat

Tony EH

BoatMad wrote: »

And one of the few countries to tighten up such regulation has been the US.

but unfortunately our problems were not specifically caused by a "unregulated banking sector", that just exacerbated the fall when it happened. They were fundamentally the issue of access to virtually free and limitless credit, just when we were experiencing a boom.

We were all offered free drink and we couldn't stop till we puked.

There are many examples of "unregulated banking systems" that didn't fail like ours.

Tony EH

retalivity wrote: »

Have you ever accidentally the whole thing?

An File wrote: »

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

That kip 4chan really has a lot to answer for.

smcgiff

Nothing to see here. Was a reply to something I thought was more current.

BoatMad

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

I'd always recommend a book called The Lost Revolution: The Story of the Official IRA and the Workers Party, for an account of the development of the far left in Ireland. It shows how some on those on the left ended up becoming Tanaiste, while others are still gibbering on about 'the trots' and class revolution.

Most of them are just frustrated malcontents. Should be treated with the same contempt as those on the far right.

whose is on the far right in Ireland, I don't think we have ever had a far right party

MRnotlob606

I have a hard on.

BoJack Horseman

The communists have Dell in their sights:

http://www.thejournal.ie/socialist-party-nationalise-dell-1796089-Nov2014/

BoJack Horseman

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

I have a hard on.

Don't we all buddy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BoatMad

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The communists have Dell in their sights:

http://www.thejournal.ie/socialist-party-nationalise-dell-1796089-Nov2014/

Its just laughable what these people pass for "policy"

Its pre-Budget submission proposed the introduction of a 5 per cent emergency tax on millionaires that would raise as much as €3.3 billion

.
we have residents in this state that between them 66 billion of taxable earning - really .

There’s also a plan to increase the effective income tax on the top 10 per cent of earners which could raise up to €2.6 billion.

only 5% of tax payers earn over 100,000K in ireland, 10% would tax ordinary middle class people. Great idea , they are already the biggest contributors

The Socialists also want to repudiate the interest and capital payments on the debt Ireland accumulated during the economic collapse that forced it into the Troika bailout which it says would raise around €6.6 billion.

Sure a sovereign western european state should post-facto tear up legal documents, that will get the lending flowing to the state !!!

The party would use the money raised to fund a major social housing programme and fund additional public services and lending to small businesses.

Of course, the free money pays for more services,

Over the weekend, the Dublin West TD Ruth Coppinger indicated on RTÉ Radio that the party would also nationalise some major multinational companies in a bid to secure jobs.

WTF, seriously this women need bed rest and possibly a comital hearing. people are voting for this loon???

BoJack Horseman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No..... Pharmaceuticals first.

Because obviously the world thrives on the life saving drugs researched & created in socialist countries.

What wonders they create without the evil decadence of profit hanging over them.

BoatMad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah Google Teoranta, maybe relocate it to Gweedore, will thrive no doubt.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kermit.de.frog

God she's at it again.

Now it's Dunnes she wants to nationalise.

http://www.thejournal.ie/socialist-nationalise-dunnes-stores-2044530-Apr2015/

Berserker

BoatMad wrote: »

whose is on the far right in Ireland, I don't think we have ever had a far right party

We haven't. People in Ireland like to throw the term around but we have centrist and left wing parties here. The National Front in France run by the Le Pen family is a genuine right wing party. The hard left here want everything paid for by middle and upper class people. They seem to have this desire to nationalise everything too.

wretcheddomain

The core problem with the hard left in Ireland is that the second you begin analysing their policies, you've got nothing left.

BoatMad

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The core problem with the hard left in Ireland is that the second you begin analysing their policies, you've got nothing left.

The problem with the left in Ireland is that they have no real policy space, as the Governments are typically centrist and liberal in Ireland, even to the point of being populist .

Even in the UK election, the Conservatives are moving into the central ground to deny labour policy space ( see recent unfunded policy announcements on NHS etc )

This then tends to drive the left further into wacko politics and in fact ultimately destroys their electoral base. It further destroys it if any actually get into power as they find they cannot implement such wacko policies. This is the faith of labour ( and the greens ) in power for example

Ireland never had an industrial revolution, hence it never developed real left wing, worker led politics. It is a country of asset owning farmers and the middle classes. That is not the natural home of left wing politics