Leo is the new king of Ireland.

christy c · 16-07-2018 4:09pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No it's not. 'welfare' in the context of state aid. When people spout welfare it means state aid, that's what I meant anyway, (as apparent in all the posts). The housing industry, private landlords would suffer immensely if state aid was taken from either themselves or their customer base.
Employers with staff who depend on rental aid or welfare to subsidies low salary would either need a raise or be let go. Take away all the grants and incentives from business you'd see layoffs and closures. The economy would collapse with out it, IMO. The economy is a two tier ponzi scheme. The bottom will fall out, however I'm quite sure the average working tax payer will bear the brunt and carry the weight, enabling FF/FG to carry on business as usual, after scolding us all of course.

It's a simple premise. The economy is propped up by welfare/state aid. It could not function with out it.

You're gone around full circle to saying that money originally taken from the economy and then put back in is somehow keeping it afloat.

James Brown · 16-07-2018 4:20pm

christy c wrote: »

You're gone around full circle to saying that money originally taken from the economy and then put back in is somehow keeping it afloat.

No. That's what you keep inferring.

Business is heavily reliant on the tax handouts people get. Many people cannot afford to self sufficiently operate or exist in the current economic model without state aid, through no fault of their own, IMO.
This is exaggerated more so, in the realm of housing. Private profit levels are directly related to tax handouts. 30 or 40 years ago one person with a good job could buy a reasonable modest house. Now a couple, both working with decent jobs would be hard pressed to find one.
In what business can you charge a price and if your customer base can't afford your price, tax payer money is used to meet it so you can keep charging at your rates and make private profit? Yes tax is paid on that profit.
Again, for the third time, simply pointing out it's not all corporations sending money down the line. The economy in it's current form could not function with out the various state aids.
I spend far too much time repeating myself answering your weighted queries. Be nice if you put an opinion out there or better still joined in a discussion, say give your ideas on things.

christy c · 16-07-2018 10:26pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. That's what you keep inferring.

Business is heavily reliant on the tax handouts people get. Many people cannot afford to self sufficiently operate or exist in the current economic model without state aid, through no fault of their own, IMO.
This is exaggerated more so, in the realm of housing. Private profit levels are directly related to tax handouts. 30 or 40 years ago one person with a good job could buy a reasonable modest house. Now a couple, both working with decent jobs would be hard pressed to find one.
In what business can you charge a price and if your customer base can't afford your price, tax payer money is used to meet it so you can keep charging at your rates and make private profit? Yes tax is paid on that profit.
Again, for the third time, simply pointing out it's not all corporations sending money down the line. The economy in it's current form could not function with out the various state aids.
I spend far too much time repeating myself answering your weighted queries. Be nice if you put an opinion out there or better still joined in a discussion, say give your ideas on things.

Firstly I have joined the discussion by calling out the claim that welfare props up the economy.

Secondly you are picking certain sectors of the economy and highlighting the handouts they get, I'm not disputing that at all. However, if the government decided to stop spending that money immediately, it would not disappear as it has been taken from the economy originally. It could be put back in to the economy through tax cuts, spending on infrastructure, etc.

Would certain sectors suffer? Yes, but that could be offset by increases elsewhere.

Your claim probably had some merit a few years ago where we were borrowing heavily to keep the country afloat, but at the moment where we're nearly breaking even, not even close.

blanch152 · 16-07-2018 10:26pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No it's not. 'welfare' in the context of state aid. When people spout welfare it means state aid, that's what I meant anyway, (as apparent in all the posts). The housing industry, private landlords would suffer immensely if state aid was taken from either themselves or their customer base.
Employers with staff who depend on rental aid or welfare to subsidise low salary would either need a raise or be let go. Take away all the grants and incentives from business you'd see layoffs and closures. The economy would collapse with out it, IMO. The economy is a two tier ponzi scheme. The bottom will fall out, however I'm quite sure the average working tax payer will bear the brunt and carry the weight, enabling FF/FG to carry on business as usual, after scolding us all of course.

It's a simple premise. The economy is propped up by welfare/state aid. It could not function with out it. I'm responding to the idea it's all one way. It is not.

You keep spouting this nonsense. I have asked you a simple question. Please answer it:

blanch152 wrote: »

Can you produce a link to any respected economist who seriously believes that economies are propped up by welfare and welfare recipients. It is a novel one for me.

Can you produce a link to any respected economist who seriously believes that economies are propped up by welfare and welfare recipients?

James Brown · 17-07-2018 3:27pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You keep spouting this nonsense. I have asked you a simple question. Please answer it:

blanch152 wrote: »

Can you produce a link to any respected economist who seriously believes that economies are propped up by welfare and welfare recipients. It is a novel one for me.

Can you produce a link to any respected economist who seriously believes that economies are propped up by welfare and welfare recipients?

I'm not hiding behind the couch. I ignored your request.
I have not attempted to do so, nor have any wish to do so. I could trawl the matrix looking for someone of the same opinion as myself, but why? It's my opinion based on my observations. Also we've been down this road, you'll disagree with any I might find anyway. Then you might suggest a source acceptable to you and if I find a quote from them on the same theme you'll say 'so what?' and/or disappear for a few days.
I stand by my opinion and have explained why I believe it to be so.

James Brown · 17-07-2018 3:36pm

christy c wrote: »

Firstly I have joined the discussion by calling out the claim that welfare props up the economy.

Secondly you are picking certain sectors of the economy and highlighting the handouts they get, I'm not disputing that at all. However, if the government decided to stop spending that money immediately, it would not disappear as it has been taken from the economy originally. It could be put back in to the economy through tax cuts, spending on infrastructure, etc.

Would certain sectors suffer? Yes, but that could be offset by increases elsewhere.

Your claim probably had some merit a few years ago where we were borrowing heavily to keep the country afloat, but at the moment where we're nearly breaking even, not even close.

It's all connected. Housing isn't existing in a vacuum. Workers only functioning because of available state aid are not separate from the economy.
So the economy wouldn't be damaged drastically? The economy as we know it would take a hit but continue as is? I disagree. We are misusing tax payer monies to subsidise a two tier economy IMO. Taxes are being used to prop up private profits and somethings got to give. The crises are symptoms of this.
There should be no 'healthy' growing economy going in tandem with worsening societal crises. It's built on sticks. It won't be Mad Max times, but the 'healthy' economy we hear so much about would be in severe trouble if not for state aid.
For the fourth and final time, I'm responding to a post that claimed it was all one way. Corporations were paying tax and they feed those down the line. I'm pointing out that is not the case. You are constantly trying to trip me up or accuse me of changing my story. How about you post an opinion and open it for discussion? Currently it's like you're coming to a party empty handed and complaining about the quality of the snacks provided. I'm partially getting tied up trying to explain myself time and again in a varying manner.
Read my lips; it is not all one way. The economy is propped up by welfare state aid, IMO. The housing industry would collapse if the tax payer funded customer base was removed. There wouldn't be a dry eye at the national landlord convention as they had to drop rents or find another way to gouge their neighbour.

blanch152 · 17-07-2018 4:01pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm not hiding behind the couch. I ignored your request.
I have not attempted to do so, nor have any wish to do so. I could trawl the matrix looking for someone of the same opinion as myself, but why? It's my opinion based on my observations. Also we've been down this road, you'll disagree with any I might find anyway. Then you might suggest a source acceptable to you and if I find a quote from them on the same theme you'll say 'so what?' and/or disappear for a few days.
I stand by my opinion and have explained why I believe it to be so.

I have trawled the matrix and I cannot find anyone of the same opinion as yourself, that it why I am asking.

Either you are a genius economist with a new understanding of how economies work, or you are wrong. I am just trying to establish which it is.

James Brown · 17-07-2018 4:06pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I have trawled the matrix and I cannot find anyone of the same opinion as yourself, that it why I am asking.

Either you are a genius economist with a new understanding of how economies work, or you are wrong. I am just trying to establish which it is.

I have an opinion, you may disagree with. It's okay. Not everything needs be an 'Ulster says No!' heels in swinging match.
An 'I disagree and here's why' would be nice.

blanch152 · 17-07-2018 4:24pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I have an opinion, you may disagree with. It's okay. Not everything needs be an 'Ulster says No!' heels in swinging match.
An 'I disagree and here's why' would be nice.

You have an opinion that welfare props up economies. I have challenged you to produce a single piece of evidence from a serious economist to back that up. You have failed to do so, yet you continue to repeat the nonsense.

I could have an opinion that the world is flat, yet people would be free to have a good laugh at my expense.

You ask me to explain why I disagree with the notion that welfare props up economies? Well, it is nonsense, with no support in economics. That is why I disagree.

Chips Lovell · 17-07-2018 4:26pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You have an opinion that welfare props up economies. I have challenged you to produce a single piece of evidence from a serious economist to back that up. You have failed to do so, yet you continue to repeat the nonsense.

Enough. He clearly said it was his opinion and didn't represent it as fact. As the charter says:

When offering an opinion, please state so. Every poster is entitled to their opinion - whether it is ill-informed or not. Please do not present an opinion as "fact" - it only leads to flaming and a poster/moderator may demand further evidence. When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.

christy c · 17-07-2018 5:19pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's all connected. Housing isn't existing in a vacuum. Workers only functioning because of available state aid are not separate from the economy.
So the economy wouldn't be damaged drastically? The economy as we know it would take a hit but continue as is? I disagree. We are misusing tax payer monies to subsidise a two tier economy IMO. Taxes are being used to prop up private profits and somethings got to give. The crises are symptoms of this.
There should be no 'healthy' growing economy going in tandem with worsening societal crises. It's built on sticks. It won't be Mad Max times, but the 'healthy' economy we hear so much about would be in severe trouble if not for state aid.
For the fourth and final time, I'm responding to a post that claimed it was all one way. Corporations were paying tax and they feed those down the line. I'm pointing out that is not the case. You are constantly trying to trip me up or accuse me of changing my story. How about you post an opinion and open it for discussion? Currently it's like you're coming to a party empty handed and complaining about the quality of the snacks provided. I'm partially getting tied up trying to explain myself time and again in a varying manner.
Read my lips; it is not all one way. The economy is propped up by welfare state aid, IMO. The housing industry would collapse if the tax payer funded customer base was removed. There wouldn't be a dry eye at the national landlord convention as they had to drop rents or find another way to gouge their neighbour.

Please don't try to make it out like I am the one having difficulty understanding or being unreasonable. Doesn't matter what you were responding to, you made a claim and apart from a few buzzwords, could not back it up.

I have given my opinion, that it is not possible for the state to prop up an economy when the state's income is coming from the very same economy. If you want to discuss that fire away, but I'll be filing your claim in the nonsense category.

James Brown · 17-07-2018 5:30pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You have an opinion that welfare props up economies. I have challenged you to produce a single piece of evidence from a serious economist to back that up. You have failed to do so, yet you continue to repeat the nonsense.

I could have an opinion that the world is flat, yet people would be free to have a good laugh at my expense.

You ask me to explain why I disagree with the notion that welfare props up economies? Well, it is nonsense, with no support in economics. That is why I disagree.

I failed nothing. I never attempted it and more importantly never cited any economist. So I gave an opinion, explained why I hold it and for some reason it's only valid if I find some economist you approve of agreeing with me. I continue to hold an opinion.
So you feel corporations pay taxes and everyone down the line benefit from that and nothing goes back to the corporation in return? Do you believe cutting state aid to corporations, renters, first time buyers, employers with subsidised staff, would have little effect on the economy? After all your effort and time, spouting 'nonsense' is doing yourself a disservice. Is it just about point scoring? If so count me out thanks.

James Brown · 17-07-2018 5:34pm

christy c wrote: »

Please don't try to make it out like I am the one having difficulty understanding or being unreasonable. Doesn't matter what you were responding to, you made a claim and apart from a few buzzwords, could not back it up.

I have given my opinion, that it is not possible for the state to prop up an economy when the state's income is coming from the very same economy. If you want to discuss that fire away, but I'll be filing your claim in the nonsense category.

I believe you understand. I very much do.
What buzzwords and how do they relate to anything other than you trying to be dismissive?
I disagree with your analysis. For example, the housing industry would collapse if state aid was taken out of the mix, IMO. It's one part, easier to explain and a big part of the economy.
Without state aid many renters would not have rent, employers would need let subsidised staff go and on and on.

christy c · 17-07-2018 5:52pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I believe you understand. I very much do.
What buzzwords and how do they relate to anything other than you trying to be dismissive?
I disagree with your analysis. For example, the housing industry would collapse if state aid was taken out of the mix, IMO. It's one part, easier to explain and a big part of the economy.
Without state aid many renters would not have rent, employers would need let subsidised staff go and on and on.

I understand the point you made about not all going the one way, cause as I've said I don't disagree when you said certain businesses are beneficiaries of a portion of our welfare spend. It's just that it's not relevant to the original statement you made, IMO.

As regards buzzwords "worsening societal crises" is one that you used which once again I don't think is relevant to the statement I took issue with. Not saying there aren't huge problems, but again, not relevant to your statement.

I don't think think the housing industry would collapse, a reduction/elimination of HAP could be coupled with a reduction in the marginal rate for example, or a reduction in VAT which would allow business to increase wages. But anyway, wouldn't social housing also allow be subsidising staff? Just that the method would be different.

Anyway, toodles- think we've gone as far as we can go.

blanch152 · 17-07-2018 6:33pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I failed nothing. I never attempted it and more importantly never cited any economist. So I gave an opinion, explained why I hold it and for some reason it's only valid if I find some economist you approve of agreeing with me. I continue to hold an opinion.
So you feel corporations pay taxes and everyone down the line benefit from that and nothing goes back to the corporation in return? Do you believe cutting state aid to corporations, renters, first time buyers, employers with subsidised staff, would have little effect on the economy? After all your effort and time, spouting 'nonsense' is doing yourself a disservice. Is it just about point scoring? If so count me out thanks.

Where did I say the bit in bold?

James Brown · 17-07-2018 6:42pm

christy c wrote: »

I understand the point you made about not all going the one way, cause as I've said I don't disagree when you said certain businesses are beneficiaries of a portion of our welfare spend. It's just that it's not relevant to the original statement you made, IMO.

As regards buzzwords "worsening societal crises" is one that you used which once again I don't think is relevant to the statement I took issue with. Not saying there aren't huge problems, but again, not relevant to your statement.

I don't think think the housing industry would collapse, a reduction/elimination of HAP could be coupled with a reduction in the marginal rate for example, or a reduction in VAT which would allow business to increase wages. But anyway, wouldn't social housing also allow be subsidising staff? Just that the method would be different.

Anyway, toodles- think we've gone as far as we can go.

By saying it doesn't all go one way I added that private business relies heavily on tax funded state aid in various forms. I'm not saying corporations don't make money. I'm not saying they don't contribute. Pretty relevant IMO.

Yes, social housing would help those tax payers on low incomes function, another good example. If salaries were higher or housing cheaper, we wouldn't need it as much. It would also have the added effect of saving the state money as building social housing is cheaper than renting hotels, off private landlords or buying houses from market.
We currently give low interest loans to builders, who build and then sell for profit and the state buys them at market rate for use a social housing. Seems a waste to me. Essentially, I'll loan you money at a better rate than you'll get elsewhere, then you sell me a house at whatever the going rate is that day. Makes no sense financially.
That builders profits are made directly due to tax payer money. And if he rents it out, he can charge whatever the going rate is and if people can't afford it, in steps the tax payer to subsidise rent.

So if state aid were removed, say HAP, the economic model we have would survive by changing. Likely, by changing to meet any cutting back or erosion of state aid. Agreed.

James Brown · 17-07-2018 6:45pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Where did I say the bit in bold?

If you said it I wouldn't be asking if that's your opinion. Have you seen these'?'?
Trying to ascertain if you are disagreeing or not. My comment is lost in the pedantry.

I see this was let slide:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Tax comes from relatively well off people who would otherwise save and invest.

Welfare goes to people who immediately buy Dutch Gold with it, stimulating the economy.

christy c · 17-07-2018 7:10pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes, social housing would help those tax payers on low incomes function, another good example. If salaries were higher or housing cheaper, we wouldn't need it as much. It would also have the added effect of saving the state money as building social housing is cheaper than renting hotels, off private landlords or buying houses from market.
We currently give low interest loans to builders, who build and then sell for profit and the state buys them at market rate for use a social housing. Seems a waste to me. Essentially, I'll loan you money at a better rate than you'll get elsewhere, then you sell me a house at whatever the going rate is that day. Makes no sense financially.
That builders profits are made directly due to tax payer money. And if he rents it out, he can charge whatever the going rate is and if people can't afford it, in steps the tax payer to subsidise rent.

The point I was making was that social housing would also be providing subsidies to businesses, just in a different form. So if anyone has an issue with HAP covering for employers not paying enough, social housing would not change that

christy c · 17-07-2018 7:12pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I see this was let slide:

I replied to it as did another poster if I recall correctly

James Brown · 17-07-2018 8:24pm

christy c wrote: »

The point I was making was that social housing would also be providing subsidies to businesses, just in a different form. So if anyone has an issue with HAP covering for employers not paying enough, social housing would not change that

Social Housing, when done, is designed to help people on lower income obtain a roof over their head. Rented out based on income. The salary sets the rent. Everything else we currently use instead of social housing, (hotels/private landlords/buyers grants/rent allowance) creates profit for private business and is more costly to the tax payer. However it does stimulate the economic figures. I know which I'd rather spend tax money on.

christy c wrote: »

I replied to it as did another poster if I recall correctly

Basically the idea that corporations tax take carries the rest of us is an erroneous one.

The idea that people on welfare are somehow all idle Dutch Gold aficionados if a falsehood.
Many people and entities at all levels use and to some extent are dependent on state aid/welfare to either function or make more profit.

blanch152 · 17-07-2018 10:23pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Many people and entities at all levels use and to some extent are dependent on state aid/welfare to either function or make more profit.

In my opinion, and that of many economists, social welfare is a drain on a productive economy, but a necessary requirement for a fair society. The economy props up social welfare, not the other way round.

Zubeneschamali · 18-07-2018 1:20pm

christy c wrote: »

I replied to it as did another poster if I recall correctly

Yes, you replied by saying : I wouldn't call someone on 35k hitting the marginal rate as relatively well off. They could cut that rate and also stimulate the economy if they wanted.

That "also" is an admission that this is one way to do it.

Zubeneschamali · 18-07-2018 1:24pm

blanch152 wrote: »

In my opinion, and that of many economists, social welfare is a drain on a productive economy, but a necessary requirement for a fair society. The economy props up social welfare, not the other way round.

That depends on where you get the tax to fund welfare. If you take it from inherited wealth and ridiculously overpaid CEOs, you are taking it from people who will generally not be spending it, they will be tying it up in trusts for their descendants.

People on welfare living day-to-day will blow it all the same week, keeping funds in circulation in the economy instead of sitting in gold as a hedge against stock market blah blah blah.

James Brown · 18-07-2018 2:05pm

blanch152 wrote: »

In my opinion, and that of many economists, social welfare is a drain on a productive economy, but a necessary requirement for a fair society. The economy props up social welfare, not the other way round.

It's not a drain, our economy in it's current flawed form depends on it. What about employers able to hire more staff because the state subsidise salary? What about workers who rely on state aid to function? What about landlords who have rents paid by the state because tenants can't afford it? Isn't Enterprise Ireland giving out state monies too?

You contradict yourself there. Why is it fair?
You never clarified the main starting point of this odyssey. Do you believe it's all one way with corporations taking nothing and feeding those down the line?

christy c · 18-07-2018 3:41pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, you replied by saying : I wouldn't call someone on 35k hitting the marginal rate as relatively well off. They could cut that rate and also stimulate the economy if they wanted.

That "also" is an admission that this is one way to do it.

Fair enough, I've tied myself up in knots responding to you.

Do you think the original quote re welfare propping up the economy is reasonable?

Zubeneschamali · 18-07-2018 3:57pm

christy c wrote: »

Fair enough, I've tied myself up in knots responding to you.

Do you think the original quote re welfare propping up the economy is reasonable?

It can stimulate the economy. Depends on how it is done. Taking money from the middle and giving it to the bottom is not a stimulus, but taking it from the very top may be.

blanch152 · 19-07-2018 12:21am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's not a drain, our economy in it's current flawed form depends on it. What about employers able to hire more staff because the state subsidise salary? What about workers who rely on state aid to function? What about landlords who have rents paid by the state because tenants can't afford it? Isn't Enterprise Ireland giving out state monies too?

You contradict yourself there. Why is it fair?
You never clarified the main starting point of this odyssey. Do you believe it's all one way with corporations taking nothing and feeding those down the line?

There is a difference between economy and society.

Social welfare is a drain on an economy. There are plenty of alternatives - e.g. capital investment in infrastructure or reduction in income taxes that incentivise work or Enterprise Ireland grants to create jobs - that generate a much better return to the economy.

Society needs a social welfare system to ensure that nobody is left behind. The issue for western democracies nowadays is ensuring the correct balance. If you have a situation where those on welfare get free everything and those who are working are taxed to the hilt, then you have a problem because work isn't rewarded. The consequences of that, particularly in a place like Ireland which has multiple types of endless social welfare ranging from unemployment payments to pension through disability and lone parent is that you have lower labour market participation rates which act as a further drain on the economy and a greater burden on those working which will eventually cause a vicious spiral especially if those income taxes have to be raised.

zell12 · 19-07-2018 12:58pm

I have to throw this is here too. We are led by this man! The spin unit on holiday?

Leo threatens to blockade the nuclear-armed UK airspace!

'The situation at the moment is that the United Kingdom is part of the single European sky, and if they leave the EU they are not and that does mean that if there was a no deal hard Brexit next March the planes would not fly and Britain would be an island in many ways, and that is something that they need to think about.
'You can not have your cake and eat it. You can't take back your waters and then expect to use other people's sky.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...flying-UK.html

charlie14 · 19-07-2018 2:00pm

zell12 wrote: »

I have to throw this is here too. We are led by this man! The spin unit on holiday?

Leo threatens to blockade the nuclear-armed UK airspace!
'The situation at the moment is that the United Kingdom is part of the single European sky, and if they leave the EU they are not and that does mean that if there was a no deal hard Brexit next March the planes would not fly and Britain would be an island in many ways, and that is something that they need to think about.
'You can not have your cake and eat it. You can't take back your waters and then expect to use other people's sky.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...flying-UK.html

A silly inflammatory statement to make imo.
Looks more like him taking the hump than anything else now that his bullet proof and cast iron guarantee on the border is falling apart.
Said it at the time, talks should never have been allowed to move too Phase 2 before the border issue was resolved.
December was the time to concentrate British minds rather than the mad scamble that is now going on with time growing short.

Podge_irl · 19-07-2018 2:08pm

What on Earth is wrong with that? It's a factually correct statement and one that has been made by several people beforehand. It is a good way of highlighting just how much minutiae needs to be sorted out in a small period of time.

Also what in the name of god does the UK's nuclear arsenal have to do with civil aviation agreements.

Leo is the new king of Ireland.

Comments