Leftists and the road to ruin.

mollymosfet

marienbad wrote: »

Why not bring even a modicum of means testing ? Is it right that someone on 20k should subsidise the childrens allowance or old age pension for those that has an income greater than they have .

We had blue murder when they tried to reform medical cards .

My mother is a cancer patient who could no longer work due to nerve damage and the effects of chemo. Your "reforms" took away her medical card and she still hasn't gotten it back. They decided cancer wasn't a serious enough illness.

marienbad

mollymosfet wrote: »

My mother is a cancer patient who could no longer work due to nerve damage and the effects of chemo. Your "reforms" took away her medical card and she still hasn't gotten it back. They decided cancer wasn't a serious enough illness.

Not my reforms Molly and I am sorry about your mother , but now that you have raised a specific example I count point you to people that do have a card and got it through connections ,and other without such 'pull' are left out.

It needs to become somewhat like the points system for 3rd level , anonymous, ruthless , but fair.

Iwasfrozen

mollymosfet wrote: »

Even if you're coming from a bad background, I am still pretty close to the bottom and work with those at the bottom. I have more perspective on this. Your ideology, regardless, comes from self serving oligarchs, not people who are in touch with the world.

I disagree.

The problem here is with corporate welfare, socialism only for the wealthy. Both far left & right agree this a nonsense, except in the odd case where an industry needs to be propped up to keep jobs. That doesn't mean that actual far right economics theory would serve people at the bottom. Some at the top would be affected, which is why right wing libertarianism isn't as popular as the status quo. But it's still popular - so obviously a lot have something to gain from it.

Libertarianism doesn't promote corporate welfare or socialism for the wealthy, in a libertarian economy if a company can't keep up with the competition it gets destroyed. The wealthy are not protected from this.

It was a left of centre FF who socialised private bank debt, a libertarian party would have let the banks fall and let the wealthy gamblers loose their money.

mollymosfet

I disagree.

Um, on what grounds?

I'm mentally ill, queer transgender and poor. I work with asylum seekers, the roma community, and other disadvantage people & groups. what gives you such perspective?

Iwasfrozen

mollymosfet wrote: »

Um, on what grounds?

I'm mentally ill, queer transgender and poor. I work with asylum seekers, the roma community, and other disadvantage people & groups. what gives you such perspective?

I disagree that my "ideology, regardless, comes from self serving oligarchs, not people who are in touch with the world."

mollymosfet

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I disagree.


Libertarianism doesn't promote corporate welfare or socialism for the wealthy, in a libertarian economy if a company can't keep up with the competition it gets destroyed. The wealthy are not protected from this.

It was a left of centre FF who socialised private bank debt, a libertarian party would have let the banks fall and let the wealthy gamblers loose their money.

again, I agreed that right libertarians don't tend to promote corporate welfare at least directly. it doesn't mean that it's a good ideology. it still does nothing for someone like me so i'm on no level obligated to respect it as a viable alternative.

mollymosfet

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I disagree that my "ideology, regardless, comes from self serving oligarchs, not people who are in touch with the world."

Okay, give me good reason why. Because I'm seeing zero evidence that it helps anyone like me.

PatL23

As much as I'd love to see a party introduce real austerity instead of taxation for the good of the country, It's never going to happen. People on welfare, pensioners and public sector workers represent such a huge part of the electorate. Any party trying to impose such ideas would be analialated . The whole political system is a shambles.

Left wing parties should be outlawed. They thrive on left populist economic/budget topics which isn't good for the country's future as a whole. They contribute nothing. People say that everyone has a right to their own opinion. I say they don't. Stupid selfish people deserve no such right.


I'd give my left ball to gain control of the country to set things right.

Iwasfrozen

mollymosfet wrote: »

Okay, give me good reason why. Because I'm seeing zero evidence that it helps anyone like me.

Well, it's not up to me to prove a negative, it's up to the person who makes the claim to back it up not the person disputing the claim.

mollymosfet wrote: »

again, I agreed that right libertarians don't tend to promote corporate welfare at least directly. it doesn't mean that it's a good ideology. it still does nothing for someone like me so i'm on no level obligated to respect it as a viable alternative.

Libertarianism deals with everyone equally, you are entitled to no more or less than any other person. The government does not try to influence society or make it conform to any pre-consisting aspirations.

johnnyskeleton

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I was recently involved in a discussion regard self employed workers. Nobody relised that strictly speaking any self employed person that earns over 35K needs to register for VAT. If we allow him about 8-10K of work expenses as he is half way through the 20% tax bracket he is hit with anotherv 13% tax on top of USC, PRSI etc. However the killer is that he must pay it on the money below 35K as well. This means that those that are lone self employed workers use all means possible to keep total earning below 35K. The reason is that every euro the earn above that about 75% of it goes in tax.

Well, the obligation to register for vat arises once your turnover exceeds 35k, but once you register you only pay vat on sales after registration (billed or monies received depending on how you accoubt for vat, udually based on billed). Unless of course you fail to register as vat payable, in which case revenue can assess you in retrospect for the whole year in which you were obliged to, but did not, register for VAT.

But yeah, there are a lot of compliance matters and increased prs/usc that can make being self employed something of a burden. The PAYE system has created generations of people who are largely unaware of how tax returns work and hence rarely declare things they should eg interest on savings (for DIRT), dividends, rents, tips etc.

mollymosfet

Libertarianism deals with everyone equally,

No, it doesn't. By ignoring mechanisms of privilege you are preserving that status quo. The end result benefits those of privilege. Even if the government doesn't influence society, those inequalities will exist. There is zero in your model that helps someone like me, because the majority of persecution I experience does not come from the government, but from wider society, or the lack of society to help people like me with illness.

marienbad

PatL23 wrote: »

As much as I'd love to see a party introduce real austerity instead of taxation for the good of the country, It's never going to happen. People on welfare, pensioners and public sector workers represent such a huge part of the electorate. Any party trying to impose such ideas would be analialated . The whole political system is a shambles.

Left wing parties should be outlawed. They thrive on left populist economic/budget topics which isn't good for the country's future as a whole. They contribute nothing. People say that everyone has a right to their own opinion. I say they don't. Stupid selfish people deserve no such right.


I'd give my left ball to gain control of the country to set things right.

And we might have to take the other one after you fcuked it up. Our very own home grown Furhrer

Give us a break .

Iwasfrozen

mollymosfet wrote: »

No, it doesn't. By ignoring mechanisms of privilege you are preserving that status quo. The end result benefits those of privilege. Even if the government doesn't influence society, those inequalities will exist. There is zero in your model that helps someone like me, because the majority of persecution I experience does not come from the government, but from wider society, or the lack of society to help people like me with illness.

Privilege is rarely maintained without a powerful state to maintain it. Removing barriers of entry in industry levels the economic playing field immensely.

In a libertarian society (and I assume that's what we're debating here) genderphobia and homophobia of any kind would not be tolerated.

mollymosfet

Privilege is rarely maintained without a powerful state to maintain it. Removing barriers of entry in industry levels the economic playing field immensely.

Such as? Give examples of how this would help me.

because in a hyper competitive environment, people like me are going to be expected to conform and hide our identity to even have a chance. With no safety net, and no protective legislation, we're ****ed.

In a libertarian society (and I assume that's what we're debating here) genderphobia and homophobia of any kind would not be tolerated.

And how would this come about? Please explain. Again, the majority of sexism and homo/transphobia(they're different things) do not come from the state.

PatL23

marienbad wrote: »

And we might have to take the other one after you fcuked it up. Our very own home grown Furhrer

Give us a break .

I knew I'd be critcised alright.

What polical system would you propose to fix this country which has been torn apart by greed/parish pump politics and polical figures who lie and do anything to try and stay in power.

A lot of people on this thread seem to be against left wing parties from the stand point that they speak impossible economics.

Please enlighten me.

marienbad

PatL23 wrote: »

I knew I'd be critcised alright.

What polical system would you propose to fix this country which has been torn apart by greed and polical figures who lie and do anything to try and stay in power.

A lot of people on this thread seem to be against left wing parties from the stand point that they speak impossible economics.
Please enlighten me.

Who is criticising you ? if you want to live a Walter Mitty life then good luck to you .

johnnyskeleton

mollymosfet wrote: »

They beg, because they have to. "Totally not racist" legislation makes it difficult for them to claim welfare or work permits. Even if they did look for work - who is going to hire a Roma person? But yet people will get angry if I point out that as a culture - we are racist.

If they are EU citizens from Romania, Bulgaria etc then they are enitled to work without a work permit. If they came here without a work permit, what exactly did they expect? I mean, if I went to the US on a tourist visa, I could hardly complain that Im not allowed work without a new visa could I?

Re:welfare, everyone has to pay stamp or meet the habitual residence condition. If they dont they can get emergency accommodation and sometimes will get a ticket home paid for by the dept of social welfare. I dont know any country that pays welfare without condition or question.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous that we judge on appearances so much and the fact that you have a hair colour not deemed appropriate makes it harder for you to get a job.

Maybe I am sheltered because Ive never even heard of someone finding it harder to get a job because of their hair colour.

The answer is always something along the lines of "Work your way up to the top, then you can do whatever you like for yourself." But hold on, what about those who are already at the top? What about those who never reach it? What about those people who don't care how they get to present? Why is there such disparity here, why do we demand some work so much harder than others with little promise of success, statistically?

I totally agree. There are self employed people working very hard and earning less than minimum wage but paying the minimum PRSI contribution of €500, which goes towards people on the dole. So yeah, there are people who work harder than others for less money, but they are not all those you are thinking of.

kalych

mollymosfet wrote: »

Unfortunately you cannot separate the economic and social as some believe.

I am transgender and mentally ill. It is very difficult for me to get a job, due to both discrimination and years of trauma making me emotionally unstable. I am also autistic. I'm not mentally wired to be able to do regular repetitive 9 to 5 work without breaking down(yes, I've tried.) There is a strong lack of services available for people like me, largely due to cutbacks that came about via austerity(and a poisonous cultural mentality). My options are inherently more limited than those on the upper echelons of privilege - generally the heteronormative, white, able bodied/minded men who tend to run most of our government and industry(and the few women we do have are expected to follow their example). I have friends who are Roma. They beg, because they have to. "Totally not racist" legislation makes it difficult for them to claim welfare or work permits. Even if they did look for work - who is going to hire a Roma person? But yet people will get angry if I point out that as a culture - we are racist. Two of the nicest people I Know are Roma women and I have to sit through pages of abuse from ignorant, hateful gob****es. They are bad people, and get to have their lot in life. Meanwhile there are many young mothers out in the cold, on the streets, begging, largely because of the same institutionalised racism and economic inequality.

Though right libertarians and objectivists claim to be "Individualists", in reality the system they want to bring about is hyper-conformist. Because of the immense degree of competitiveness inherent to that system, there's more and more of a race to become an ideal Randian superman, or just generally conform to the image of what's seen as a "Good worker". This is already a problem in our current society. It is, again, individuality for those of privilege. In the case of the Roma, many of them emigrate to the US but are forced to hide their heritage, often pretending to be white, italian, spanish etc. in order to have any change at success. Capitalism, white supremacy and forced conformity go hand in hand.

it reminds me of my younger days when I used to be more focused on the concept of image based discrimination. Personally, I think it's ridiculous that we judge on appearances so much and the fact that you have a hair colour not deemed appropriate makes it harder for you to get a job. The answer is always something along the lines of "Work your way up to the top, then you can do whatever you like for yourself." But hold on, what about those who are already at the top? What about those who never reach it? What about those people who don't care how they get to present? Why is there such disparity here, why do we demand some work so much harder than others with little promise of success, statistically? I'm not sure what they are in Ireland, but in the UK & US Social Mobility rates lie at a paltry 10%. That means only 10% of people will ever end up in a different class to what they're born into. That single statistic destroys so much right wing economic theory, yet they never listen, or just assure us the mythical "Invisible hand" will sort it out.

Thus the popular joke of responding to arguments pointing out the flaws in neoliberalism with "Free Market will Fix it." Because we know it won't. It focuses entirely on those at the top and just assures us that maybe probably things will trickle down and work for us too. But there's no evidence of that.

People of colour, queer people and the disabled tend to lie at the bottom of society economically. Women are also generally disadvantaged in terms of social mobility. Part of the reason I keep bringing up SWMs is because that is the dominating force here - it's a boy's club. And when society's most vulnerable are kept out of the conversation it's very easy to hold views that are basically patting other sheltered men on the back.

It is simple a reality that economic models that do not address the reality of privilege are racist, classist, sexist, hetero/cisnormative, whatever. I doubt any of the smug "Centre right" or libertarian types will ever truly address this - which is why they dehumanise people like me and mock me. They are perfectly happy to see people like me die on the street because human life is worth less to them than their "hard knock life" ideology. You can see it in those who clamour for the deportation of asylum seekers surely knowing full well that death awaits a great many of them. You can see it in those who consider a lack of services of support for the mentally ill to be an acceptable consequence of austerity, and people should ask for more of it.

People like this are not good people, nor are they clever. They're simply far removed from the reality many of us face and care more about economic theory that makes them feel more mature to spout, yet most of them experience little to none of the consequences.

The thing that frustrates me most about right wingers - both social conservatives and those towards the economic rights - is that they have an obsession with painting themselves as more mature and world weary than those dumb college liberal types. When in reality the precise opposite is true in many cases - they are sheltered children with the run of the world, compared to people like me(and I have it relatively well off compared to the average trans person of colour in the likes of the US).

The gay marriage argument doesn't mean all that much to me. It's a common criticism that people focus on gay marriage as if being granted it mean equality has been won, when nothing is furthest from the truth. Those who focus on gay marriage as the primary issue are well off(you guessed it) white gay men, not for example vulnerable transwomen or colour or impoverished, homeless queer youth. Economic and social equality for LGBTQ people is vastly more important than the right to marry.

Also the idea that Abortion rights maybe might be revisited sometime isn't good enough. Our laws have killed a woman and demand women be used as incubators. The recession has also provenly disproportionately affected women but if I even point that out I'll be using the "sexist" card.

You can't win against people who's entire tactic is to shut down and drown out of the voices of those affected by their ideology. Not on a forum like this, anyway.

Thank you very much for your wonderful reply! You are of course absolutely correct in almost every point you bring up.

I may only rebuff with one single argument that society is not perfect by design for historical reasons. We are getting better as society, but you are correct in that the process is very slow and we are nowhere near where we would like to be.

The examples I bring up in relation to gay marriage and abortion are just small steps in this process. However, there is no magic bullet. We cannot just break the system and rebuilt without an expectation of a possible resulting violence erupting due to a large proportion of the population not agreeing with the fast rate of change and deeming it an attack on their 'freedoms'.

I also stress that sadly people are not yet evolved enough to protect the most vulnerable, manly due to inherent fear that we ourselves might fall behind, as a country, town or an estate, it is rampant at every level.

In my head I was not able to dream up a quick-fix solution to this issue sadly, hence my comments. I view it (economic v social conservatism) in a more narrow definition though, but then again as you describe, I might not have faced the extent of issues others might. I can attest to meeting more and more people, especially younger ones, who would see a very clear difference between social v economic conservatism, which I believe is an improvement.

Thanks again for you story and a wonderful post.

Regards,

Farmer Pudsey

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well, the obligation to register for vat arises once your turnover exceeds 35k, but once you register you only pay vat on sales after registration (billed or monies received depending on how you accoubt for vat, udually based on billed). Unless of course you fail to register as vat payable, in which case revenue can assess you in retrospect for the whole year in which you were obliged to, but did not, register for VAT.

But yeah, there are a lot of compliance matters and increased prs/usc that can make being self employed something of a burden. The PAYE system has created generations of people who are largely unaware of how tax returns work and hence rarely declare things they should eg interest on savings (for DIRT), dividends, rents, tips etc.

In theory you are correct but what happens is Pat the Painter earns 38K in year 2014. So he pays his vat on 3K which amounts to about 350 euro. However Now in 2015 he is vat registered and has to pay VAT on all his turnover which is 4371 euro. Now Pat the Painter will make sure he will never exceed 35K in turnover unless he gets to a stage that he can turn over multiples of that amount.

johnnyskeleton

kalych wrote: »

I also stress that sadly people are not yet evolved enough to protect the most vulnerable, manly due to inherent fear that we ourselves might fall behind, as a country, town or an estate, it is rampant at every level.

Heres a whacky idea - maybe the primary responsibility to protect the vulnerable lies with their families, with the state playing a secondary role? The idea that the state has an absolute duty to look after everyone is a noble one, but Im not sure how workable it is.

If I can donate 5% of my money to protect the vulnerable, its a no brainer. 10, 20% etc and its still worth while, especially when I have the peace of mind that if anything bad happens to me there will be someone to step in. But the higher the percentage goes the harder it is for me to live my life. This is especially true if, after a point, the "vulnerable" are not all that vulnerable or are only vulnerable because the burden on not vulnerable people is too high.

So whatever about theoretical arguments, its more a balance that swings one way or the other. If Ireland had no social welfare public health or education I would advocate we get some. But at the tipping point where therebis too much I advocate we have less.

johnnyskeleton

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

In theory you are correct but what happens is Pat the Painter earns 38K in year 2014. So he pays his vat on 3K which amounts to about 350 euro. However Now in 2015 he is vat registered and has to pay VAT on all his turnover which is 4371 euro. Now Pat the Painter will make sure he will never exceed 35K in turnover unless he gets to a stage that he can turn over multiples of that amount.

Yep thats true. For what its worth he can theoretically charge vat on his services and so it doesnt affect his income eg a €100 is now a €123 job. Arguably without the vat he could get the whole €123 himself, but since vat is paid on most non essential goods and services (and a lot of essentials too), they are relatively no worse off charging VAT (although they are absolutely less well off).

mollymosfet

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If they are EU citizens from Romania, Bulgaria etc then they are enitled to work without a work permit. If they came here without a work permit, what exactly did they expect? I mean, if I went to the US on a tourist visa, I could hardly complain that Im not allowed work without a new visa could I?

Re:welfare, everyone has to pay stamp or meet the habitual residence condition. If they dont they can get emergency accommodation and sometimes will get a ticket home paid for by the dept of social welfare. I dont know any country that pays welfare without condition or question.



Maybe I am sheltered because Ive never even heard of someone finding it harder to get a job because of their hair colour.



I totally agree. There are self employed people working very hard and earning less than minimum wage but paying the minimum PRSI contribution of €500, which goes towards people on the dole. So yeah, there are people who work harder than others for less money, but they are not all those you are thinking of.

The Roma are a highly persecuted minority that are barely recognised as human in their own countries. That is why many of them don't have documents. There is also legislation that makes it difficult for them to claim welfare or work, expecting it will pressure them into going home. They also face immense discrimination in finding a job even if they can work, as everyone assumes them to be thieves. You're so sheltered and far from reality on this it's unbelievable.

I know Roma people, I know the suffering many of them go through. Seeing someone dictate what their lives should be like this from a position of extreme ignorance makes me ill.

mollymosfet

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Heres a whacky idea - maybe the primary responsibility to protect the vulnerable lies with their families, with the state playing a secondary role? The idea that the state has an absolute duty to look after everyone is a noble one, but Im not sure how workable it is.

If I can donate 5% of my money to protect the vulnerable, its a no brainer. 10, 20% etc and its still worth while, especially when I have the peace of mind that if anything bad happens to me there will be someone to step in. But the higher the percentage goes the harder it is for me to live my life. This is especially true if, after a point, the "vulnerable" are not all that vulnerable or are only vulnerable because the burden on not vulnerable people is too high.

So whatever about theoretical arguments, its more a balance that swings one way or the other. If Ireland had no social welfare public health or education I would advocate we get some. But at the tipping point where therebis too much I advocate we have less.

the problem with people like you is that you couldn't give a toss about the vulnerable. if you're "donating" any of your money it's about you feeling good about it.

you have institutional advantages others don't. you need to learn this and accept it. you are out of touch with the vulnerable in society, so please don't comment on us.

kalych

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Heres a whacky idea - maybe the primary responsibility to protect the vulnerable lies with their families, with the state playing a secondary role? The idea that the state has an absolute duty to look after everyone is a noble one, but Im not sure how workable it is.

If I can donate 5% of my money to protect the vulnerable, its a no brainer. 10, 20% etc and its still worth while, especially when I have the peace of mind that if anything bad happens to me there will be someone to step in. But the higher the percentage goes the harder it is for me to live my life. This is especially true if, after a point, the "vulnerable" are not all that vulnerable or are only vulnerable because the burden on not vulnerable people is too high.

So whatever about theoretical arguments, its more a balance that swings one way or the other. If Ireland had no social welfare public health or education I would advocate we get some. But at the tipping point where therebis too much I advocate we have less.

Valid arguements all. However my post above was more referring to an intrinsic inequaly as rewards in society are indeed (correctly) distributed on (largely) merit, which is only represented in monetary terms, not real economic value.

What I'm getting at is that an tax advisor who learned the double-irish tax avoidance trick ( now abolished) does not generate any tangible benefit for society gets much better rewards, than social worker working with most vulnerable, generating real tangible benefit in often returning people previously out of the workforce back into it (just a random example).

And even this argument is made with a caviat that society sucks at equality, but is still moving very slowly towards it. I largely support smaller overall social welfare payments (namely reduction in payments after a certain period, say 6-8 months) to tackle abuse of the society, but at the same time an increase in spending for the really worse off (disabled and groups susceptible to discrimination), maybe even affirmative action in some cases.

I do not claim to know how to make the above work correctly to not be open to other forms of abuse though.

Regards,

Farmer Pudsey

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yep thats true. For what its worth he can theoretically charge vat on his services and so it doesnt affect his income eg a €100 is now a €123 job. Arguably without the vat he could get the whole €123 himself, but since vat is paid on most non essential goods and services (and a lot of essentials too), they are relatively no worse off charging VAT (although they are absolutely less well off).

Vat on services is 13% on goods it is 23%. The catch is for the small sole trader, your average painter, the back lane mechanic, small time gardener, handy man etc. In general he is pricing work where vat is not reclaimable and against compeditors, who are not VAT registered. If he VAT registers it is out of his pocket he must pay because Gavin the Guard, Nancy the Nurse and Tom the Teacher will go with the lowest price to paint the house, cut the hedge, service the car or lay the patio and still complain if they see these charging over 100/day.

Godge

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Vat on services is 13% on goods it is 23%. The catch is for the small sole trader, your average painter, the back lane mechanic, small time gardener, handy man etc. In general he is pricing work where vat is not reclaimable and against compeditors, who are not VAT registered. If he VAT registers it is out of his pocket he must pay because Gavin the Guard, Nancy the Nurse and Tom the Teacher will go with the lowest price to paint the house, cut the hedge, service the car or lay the patio and still complain if they see these charging over 100/day.

Gavin the Gaurd, Nancy the Nurse and Tom the Teacher are obviously not paid enough, possibly because tax receipts are too low possible because there are too many small traders not charging VAT. A vicious circle.

johnnyskeleton

mollymosfet wrote: »

The Roma are a highly persecuted minority that are barely recognised as human in their own countries. That is why many of them don't have documents. There is also legislation that makes it difficult for them to claim welfare or work, expecting it will pressure them into going home. They also face immense discrimination in finding a job even if they can work, as everyone assumes them to be thieves.

Hold on now, I never siad that theres wasnt discrmination against them in several countries, but youre not correct. Romania had a history of occasionally refusig passports but that situation has improved dramatically since they joined the EU. Molodova may be a different kettle of fish I dont know. But if they faced serious discrimination in a non EU country and are now in Ireland, they can claim asylum and get dirext provision. If successful they will be fully entitled to work, claim asylum and travel to most UN Countries bar their home country.

They probably do face a fairly large degree of discrimination in terms of jobs in Ireland and thats a terrible situation, but again my post was that they are entitled to work if EU citizens. If they are not EU citizens they dont have an automatic right to work here if they arrive here, in the same way that a US citizen cant do it either. Thats not racist thats state soverignty. I was just pointing out a legal inaccuracy in your post. Plus, if they are refused a job due to their race they can apply to the LRC/Equality Tribunal.

I know Roma people, I know the suffering many of them go through. Seeing someone dictate what their lives should be like this from a position of extreme ignorance makes me ill.

From a position of knowing what the immigration and social welfare law of the state are, you mean?

Farmer Pudsey

Godge wrote: »

Gavin the Gaurd, Nancy the Nurse and Tom the Teacher are obviously not paid enough, possibly because tax receipts are too low possible because there are too many small traders not charging VAT. A vicious circle.

Most are earning well over 100/day. They also get paid for 9 bank holidays and in general for about 5 weeks holidays. If they are sick a day they get payed as well. Pat the painter's 100/day has to cover his Tax PRSI,( employer and employee) USC, holiday/bank holiday pay and pension. I wonder who has the most comfortable lifestyle.

johnnyskeleton

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Vat on services is 13% on goods it is 23%. The catch is for the small sole trader, your average painter, the back lane mechanic, small time gardener, handy man etc. In general he is pricing work where vat is not reclaimable and against compeditors, who are not VAT registered. If he VAT registers it is out of his pocket he must pay because Gavin the Guard, Nancy the Nurse and Tom the Teacher will go with the lowest price to paint the house, cut the hedge, service the car or lay the patio and still complain if they see these charging over 100/day.

The standard rate is 23% and 13.5% is the reduced rate on certain industries, the most common being building. There are other reduced rates etc:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/duties_and_vat/value_added_tax.html

Yes I know they find it harder to compete, but I suppose that an advantage to the small trader rather than a disadvantage to the larger one. Also, the figure is for turnover not income, so 35k is fairly low turnover given stsff costs, materials etc. A painter, for example, might charge a grand a day to paint a house but 700 will be for subbies, materials etc. The figure for turnover purposes is 1000 even if the net income before overheads is 300.

Farmer Pudsey

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The standard rate is 23% and 13.5% is the reduced rate on certain industries, the most common being building. There are other reduced rates etc:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/duties_and_vat/value_added_tax.html

Yes I know they find it harder to compete, but I suppose that an advantage to the small trader rather than a disadvantage to the larger one. Also, the figure is for turnover not income, so 35k is fairly low turnover given stsff costs, materials etc. A painter, for example, might charge a grand a day to paint a house but 700 will be for subbies, materials etc. The figure for turnover purposes is 1000 even if the net income before overheads is 300.

13.5% is on services in general, usually the defineition is where there is labour involved, Resturants, car maintenance, landscapers etc. There is an emergency rate of 9% mostly related to resturants and the provisioin of food. 23% is generall described as the provision of goos if you buy a car or a washing machine with thge exception of the provision of professional services such as a solicitor, engineer etc.

LordNorbury

There is plenty of money in terms of tax revenue being collected, to run this country along proper lines and to provide proper public services, proper welfare supports for those that need it. The problem as we know is that a lot of this revenue is being wasted on bureaucracy when it comes to public services, a lot is being wasted on social welfare, a lot is being wasted on excessively high state pensions and salaries for public servants, and a lot is being wasted paying back a loan for bank debt that we should never have had foisted upon us because the people we elected to sort this particular matter out for us, bottled it.

The worst thing we can do in the next election is elect a bunch of communist clowns like Clare Daly, Mick Wallace & Richard Boyd Barret. Mick Wallace had no interest in drawing a public salary until he realised that the income potential from his building firm had collapsed. I was at political meetings back around 2004 and I can clearly remember Clare Daly at the meeting, it was held in Middle Abbey Street in a union building (I think it was the Unite building), and for the whole day, they sat around a boardroom table and shared in words, what I could only describe as a total & profound hatred of employers in general, whether they were big or small, they were the enemy and had to submit themselves to a socialist state. They were so disordered, this meeting ran on for a whole day, after 2 hours they were all addressing each other as "comrade", when they started to speak, it was actually disturbing to be at the table listening to such dangerous nonsense.

Bad and all as things have been, and remain at the moment, we have hopefully the worst of it behind us, things are genuinely improving and things now feel more 'normal'. I don't know who I will be voting for but it will not be for the downright dangerous la la left of this country, and people should have a serious think about what kind of country they want to live in subsequent to the next election. I'm all for kicking the cat and I can't stand this current government but I would have to vote for them on the next occasion if the alternative was that the country was going to be led by Clare Daly, Mick Wallace and Richard Boyd Barrett, because it is genuinely game over for us all if that ever comes to pass.

LordNorbury

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

13.5% is on services in general, usually the defineition is where there is labour involved, Resturants, car maintenance, landscapers etc. There is an emergency rate of 9% mostly related to resturants and the provisioin of food. 23% is generall described as the provision of goos if you buy a car or a washing machine with thge exception of the provision of professional services such as a solicitor, engineer etc.

The problem with VAT rates in this country, just take your example of car maintenance. The VAT rate there is 13.5%. That isn't a big burden on business, in the ordinary course of things. The problem is that legitimate businesses have a huge problem with black market activity in this country. A huge help here would be to criminalise the use of black market services at the user end and enforce the law in this regard. In the US, if you are trading in the black market there are serious consequences and they are real consequences. There is no real fear here in this country of being caught, for those who trade in the black economy. If you need any evidence of this, tell me the last time you drove through 2 sets of traffic lights in Dublin city or county, and you didn't see a "Cash for Cars" sign cable tied to one of the traffic poles. There is no enforcement, there is probably no law against this activity, apart from the general avoidance of tax for income purposes, and there is zero will in the world on the part of Revenue or Customs, to take this criminality in hand and lead an investigation into it.

This is the kind of diseased thinking that this country suffers under, where you have public servants with their pay protected, on salaries, term, and pensions that the rest of us could only dream about, but when it comes to doing their core job, they are the weakest chain in the link and are nothing less then negligent, nobody is accountable, and on and on it continues...

Mongfinder General

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The IMF were invited in here to stop economic collapse. They didn't come here of their own accord. The government had no choice - the alternative was no money to pay for anything, all personal savings confiscated and a failed state.

Invited by whom?

Mongfinder General

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Most are earning well over 100/day. They also get paid for 9 bank holidays and in general for about 5 weeks holidays. If they are sick a day they get payed as well. Pat the painter's 100/day has to cover his Tax PRSI,( employer and employee) USC, holiday/bank holiday pay and pension. I wonder who has the most comfortable lifestyle.

The black economy is definitely a factor, a big one. It always has been. When the PAYE worker is raped with penal tax rates then people go and work for themselves or take a second job that will pay into the hand. It's what the average punter has feels that they have to do to make ends meet.

antoobrien

mollymosfet wrote: »

There are many people struggling on social welfare as-is. Saying "well they'd have had it worse in the 80s" isn't an excuse plus there may be a lot of additional costs now that didn't exist then.

Where to begin with the factual inaccuracies.

Let's start with the additional costs - if there are actually any - they are more than offset by a welfare system that has been running well ahead of inflation.

There was a telephone service
There was car insurance, motor tax & excise duty to be paid on cars
There was excise duty on petrol & diesel
There were train & bus fares
There were gas & electricity companies
There was a property tax
There were water rates in large parts of the country
There were childcare charges
There were health insurance & healthcare costs
There were "voluntary donations" to primary and secondary education
There were full college fees

Sorry but sky, mobile phones and broadband internet are luxuries.

mollymosfet wrote: »

Our social welfare also isn't as high relative to the rest of EU as people think when you figure in cost of living, and our actual spending on social protection is quite low.

Really? Because in 2011 (the last year the figures were published for) the workforce earned a combined €76.8bn, paying €10.8bn in income taxes on that income. Meanwhile we paid out 20.7bn in welfare payments, some 28% of the national wage. I wonder how many european countries are that generous with their worker's money.

mollymosfet wrote: »

Welfare helps drives the economy. When people can't afford to go down to the local or shop local etc. places start closing down. While there hasn't been a cut to the base rate in some time, allowances have been greatly cut.

If you really dig through the estimates there are about 10bn in cash payments made to people by DSP for social protection (not including things like the farm assist scheme, community employment, school meals etc). With 130bn+ GNP, 160bn+ GDP it's a delusion to think that's "driving" anything (bar people to lil doyles ).

mollymosfet wrote: »

It should also be pointed out that only a small percentage of people actually work on minimum wage in the country

In 2011 there were 615,115 people earning 17,000 or less - a 40 hour week on the minimum wage is just under 18,000. That's 30% of the workforce.

mollymosfet wrote: »

so the argument that those on welfare have it cushier than those on minimum wage doesn't hold much water

That arguemnt wasn't made, the argument that was made was that we haven't seen austerity. In 93-94 those people would have been paying 27% tax, not none at all. The argument was that if we were to bring back the 93-94 rates of tax, adjusted for inflation we'd know what austerity was.

There was never an attack on welfare as you seem to have deemed my post to be, merely on observation that it hasn't been cut in any meaningful way.

mollymosfet wrote: »

when in all likelihood those working will have an opportunity to be on a higher wage(and mostly likely will find themselves there within a couple of years), whereas those on welfare are often trapped there, especially if they're disabled like myself. It's not as easy living on welfare as you think.

Really, unless you're currently living on social welfare I don't think you have much of a right to comment. People who have little perspective on that matter and little social empathy are not the people we should be listening to.

So basically I can't comment or share my opinion because I'm not on welfare. That is a very good example of just how f**ked up "perspective" in this country has become and an almost perfect illusration of why we have not had real austerity in this country.


As for "social empathy" this is precisely what has prevented us from reforming a social welfare system that actively discourages people from work (I know this first hand from members of my own family and friends) and a public service that is quite simply not fit for purpose and full of (non) functional fifedoms.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mariaalice

I would not worrier too much. I was listing to an interview with Paul Murphy and if you listen carefully he was implying that they did not want to form a government they wanted to be elected but stay outside government agitating for change, mobilising people power as thats how the water charges were changed.

realitykeeper

mollymosfet wrote: »

The fact is that opinions like this are easy to hold for reasonable well off Irish people, usually male, usually not disabled, usually heterosexual, and various other little privileges they take for granted. They're far away from the reality of people who are forced to beg on the streets ...

I`ve never seen anyone hold a gun to a beggars head and tell them to beg. They have choices and they choose to beg. Giving to beggars should be a crime because that is the worst thing you can do to a beggar. It is far better to get the beggar to consider alternatives and the way to do that is by not giving them anything.

mollymosfet wrote: »

Once, Ireland suffered at the hands of colonialism and in some ways still does. But somehow we've adopted a fully colonialist mentality where rich, conservative white men are at the top of everything.

Most people in this country are white, it would be difficult to put at lot of coloured people at the helm without a good deal of discrimination in that regard. Men do rule the roost in most countries around the world due to biological factors.

mollymosfet wrote: »

People aren't demanding more austerity because they can't take it. The fact that you can even say this is just so utterly privileged and out of touch with the thousands of struggling families and individuals in this country. And no doubt when you press an Austerity Advocate on this it just falls back on "Well suck it." Tough **** for that person who isn't them.

It's an obnoxious Randian selfishness that's ruined most of the world economically. Fiscal charlatans acting educated when they have such a narrow window onto the world.

Au contraire, there is nothing of the fiscal charlatan in one who simple wishes to live within ones means. The "poor" may not realize how good they have it and continue to demand more but therein lies the problem. The country is living beyond its means and it cannot continue to do so.

What I am saying is that without radical austerity, the kind that would involve a colossal reduction on social spending, the economy will implode in an uncontrolled way. The trigger for this will almost certainly be an event outside of Ireland. When the economy does crash next time, the "poor" will learn what it really means to be poor. My concern is the rioting and general lawlessness that this will bring.

This is why the poor, more than any other sector in society, should be demanding austerity. Indeed, they should chain themselves to the gates of Leinster House until the government agrees to slash spending in a top down fashion.

Dannyboy83

realitykeeper wrote: »

mollymosfet wrote:

Once, Ireland suffered at the hands of colonialism and in some ways still does. But somehow we've adopted a fully colonialist mentality where rich, conservative white men are at the top of everything.

Men do rule the roost in most countries around the world due to biological factors.

As per realitykeeper, Biology & Sociology have a role to play in phenomena such as the Motherhood Penalty. Ideology can be used to overcome it, but gender ideology is not independent of biology or socio-economic status.
Or religious influence (in the Irish context).

As you're probably aware, there are Gender Quotas in place to encourage more women into engaging in politics. So far, the primary issue has not been one of discrimination (allegedly - based on voter research), but a lack of female candidates. Women self report that they do not wish to engage in politics, but especially after having children. This is notably consistent across borders.

The new arrangement could work out to be the worst of all options.
Many of the issues in the Irish parliamentary system are due to the insider culture, i.e. discrimination regardless of gender.
Our goal is meritocracy, and elimination of discrimation (by introducing discriminatory legislation).
The obstacle is the insider culture, but gender quotas don't necessarily do anything to tackle the obstacle, and may in fact strengthen it.
.
.


But anyway, more importantly - Postcolonialism is largely defunct, like Marxism and various radicalisms which preceded it.

Niall Keane

Hmmm, a lot of populist "anti-dole" sentiments, and deceitful statistics thrown about.

According to CSO:

"The number of long-term claimants, those out of job for more than a year, on the register was 187,598, down 9,210 or 4.7 per cent on an annual basis."

yet according to DSW:

"No reductions in weekly social welfare payments for all 1.45 million
current beneficiaries"

Now, my maths makes that 1,262,402 people receiving weekly benefits who are NOT long-term unemployed.

So the "lazy dolers" only make 13% of those who receive social welfare!

So who are these people, those wishing to cut "Welfare", are talking about?

Parents? Pensioners? Corporations (indirectly - whose employees receive top-up payments to raise them above poverty)?

I think as long as the right parades such "cherry-picked" statistics to promote its policies it hasn't a hope. and I celebrate such, keep it up, dig your own grave! This isn't 2007, most Irish people have had a severe crash course in Economics, What they see is the abject failure of the party-whip and corporate sponsored parties to represent them in any meaningful way. This is of course logical.

realitykeeper

Niall Keane wrote: »

Irish people ... see the abject failure of the party-whip and corporate sponsored parties to represent them in any meaningful way.

Labour do seem to be succeeding in implementing the kind of extreme left wing policies espoused by Chomsky. For example, employers now have to recognize trade unions and they are talking about increasing the minimum wage. Corporate sponsorship of political parties has been shackled by the 5000 euro limit on donations.

These policies will contribute to making Ireland either better or worse and I believe it will be the latter. This idea of rich vs poor should be replaced with Ireland vs other countries. To do that, the Irish have to focus fully on their work and trust their employers to pay them fairly. Even the unemployed have no excuse for not working. There is work everywhere if you look for it. Picking up litter in your neighbourhood is one example, forget about being paid because hard work as a habit will bring wealth and health in its own time.

As things stand, Irish attitudes such as mefeinism, guarantee the general disintegration of society into a violent and lawless place with poverty levels akin to those of Ethiopia in the eighties.

Sheldons Brain

realitykeeper wrote: »

Labour do seem to be succeeding in implementing the kind of extreme left wing policies espoused by Chomsky. For example, employers now have to recognize trade unions and they are talking about increasing the minimum wage. Corporate sponsorship of political parties has been shackled by the 5000 euro limit on donations.

describing these provisions as "extreme left" is a misuse of the English language.

As things stand, Irish attitudes such as mefeinism, guarantee the general disintegration of society into a violent and lawless place with poverty levels akin to those of Ethiopia in the eighties.

While you exaggerate, dysfunctional atttitudes in Ireland will ensure that we are less successful than we can be.

Galwayguy35

mariaalice wrote: »

I would not worrier too much. I was listing to an interview with Paul Murphy and if you listen carefully he was implying that they did not want to form a government they wanted to be elected but stay outside government agitating for change, mobilising people power as thats how the water charges were changed.

Yeah that sounds about right, spend the lifetime of the next Government doing what he did for this one, telling everyone what they want to hear, not what needs to be done.

Icepick

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yeah that sounds about right, spend the lifetime of the next Government doing what he did for this one, telling everyone what they want to hear, not what needs to be done.

..with 0 responsibility.

ChicagoIrish

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

That's the nature of a feedback loop.

I see the path we are on as a natural process.

Look at an event in isolation, it looks catastrophic.
Look at a series of events (hindsight helps) and we recognise it as a process.

Have you read the essay The Fate of Empires? It proposes a pattern of empires rising and falling over the course of 250 years. Fascinating essay, you can find it as a PDF online.

Geuze

Niall Keane wrote: »

Hmmm, a lot of populist "anti-dole" sentiments, and deceitful statistics thrown about.

According to CSO:

"The number of long-term claimants, those out of job for more than a year, on the register was 187,598, down 9,210 or 4.7 per cent on an annual basis."

yet according to DSW:

"No reductions in weekly social welfare payments for all 1.45 million
current beneficiaries"

Now, my maths makes that 1,262,402 people receiving weekly benefits who are NOT long-term unemployed.

So the "lazy dolers" only make 13% of those who receive social welfare!

So who are these people, those wishing to cut "Welfare", are talking about?

Parents? Pensioners? Corporations (indirectly - whose employees receive top-up payments to raise them above poverty)?

Yes, pensioners, lone parents, people on disability, etc.

Godge

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, pensioners, lone parents, people on disability, etc.

We have the highest disability rates in the OECD.

Either we are genetically inbred or we have a poor system for monitoring it.

Banjoxed

ChicagoIrish wrote: »

Have you read the essay The Fate of Empires? It proposes a pattern of empires rising and falling over the course of 250 years. Fascinating essay, you can find it as a PDF online.

I'm reading Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies, introduced by Vaclav Havel, where he dismantles the arguments of Hegel and Marx that anything in society is inevitable. Mind you, it'll take me a couple of months to finish

Paulzx

realitykeeper wrote: »

For example, employers now have to recognize trade unions

.

I'm sorry but that is incorrect. The change in the law fell short of mandatory union recognition and mandatory collective bargaining. An employer does not have to engage with a trade union but is now obliged by law to abide by Labour Court decisions in cases taken by their employees where they have had a dispute over working conditions.

Please be truthfull when stating supposed facts.

Paulzx

realitykeeper wrote: »

There is work everywhere if you look for it. Picking up litter in your neighbourhood is one example, forget about being paid because hard work as a habit will bring wealth .

I've never claimed a days dole in my life and have major issues with able bodied and capable people claiming social welfare as an alternative to available work. I'd work 5 jobs due to my own self respect if needs be to put food on the table.

However, you're attitude and "ideas" towards work are contemptible. The man who works for nothing will never be short of work.

Hard work as a habit will bring reward.............but not if you do it for free. The last high profile person I seen screaming at our young to get out and work for nothing was Bill Cullen..........thing really worked out for him.

If you are working for nothing someone is benefiting financially from that labour. It is dumb, stupid and immoral to expect the provider of that labour to receive no reward