Entitlement culture and the squeezed middle in Ireland

d'Oracle

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Oh I got called Bourgeois one time!!!

I was at a cricket match. Apparently that's all it takes!!

I deleted "petit bourgeoise" out of the post because I thought it made me look a bit of a wanker.

PlaneSpeeking

d'Oracle wrote: »

I deleted "petit bourgeoise" out of the post because I thought it made me look a bit of a wanker.

Nah! I did that in Sociology A Level a billion years ago.

Before dropping out to go to work - I'm no great loss to the academic community lol!

d'Oracle

d'Oracle wrote: »

We need new language and probably political theory.
We insist on using language from the French and Industrial revolutions to describe a system that doesn't exist anymore in Ireland.

The working class , lower middle class and a lot of what you might consider to be the upper middle class is just a scale of earnings expectations and debt access. And in Ireland at least, there isn't really an Aristocracy. That's not the same thing as what Marx was talking about in the 19th century.

Absolutely. 100%. It is completely outdated. I don't know if it was ever even appropriate for Ireland - not only because we didn't really go through the industrial revolution or because we were overwhelmingly rural rather than urban where class politics flourishes but also because the vast majority of even wealthy people in Ireland today do not have to go back far at all to find very humble family background (very interestingly Todd & Ruane in Dynamics of the Conflict in Northern Ireland see this latter point as one of the greatest strengths of the nationalists in NI; even with some new wealth they are much more socio-economically similar than the more class-divided old wealth unionists).

Never mind the Hyacinth Bucket types in modern Ireland shopping in M&S and putting on an affected English accent (although revealingly Hyacinth put on a French accent when she wanted to be posh). Bar a few merchants in Cork and other cities (and even a few in Galway during the Penal Laws who became wealthy in the wine trade), we were pretty much all in the gutter due to restrictions on land ownership. Very few Irish Catholics were able to buy Irish land before the final decades of the 19th century (all 4 of my own grandparents , one of whom lived with us growing up, were born in the 1890s so I don't see that as long ago at all).

Additionally, the vast majority of our families benefited enormously from the introduction of free education and healthcare in the 1960s. Free secondary school education (from 1967) in particular was the great game changer in terms of making Irish society more equal and giving chances to whole swathes of society that never had those chances. All economic growth starts with investing in a good education system. Given our history of much greater deprivation, reducing supports for the remaining deprived sections of Irish society, most especially in education, would be an act of suicide by the Irish economy. Brewing up a storm, right there.

animaal

I dunno what I am. Using the link earlier in the thread, my income places me easily in the middle-class. However, my car's old, I don't go on foreign holidays, home improvements are minimal, I don't socialise much..

I put money into my pension, health insurance, savings for kids' education, rainy day fund.

My lifestyle is far from spectacular but many people think the state should take more from me because of what I choose to do with my income. ("You have kids in private education? Remove state supports!", "You have medical insurance? No access to the public system!", "You put money into a pension fund? Reduce tax relief!")

PlaneSpeeking

animaal wrote: »

I dunno what I am. Using the link earlier in the thread, my income places me easily in the middle-class. However, my car's old, I don't go on foreign holidays, home improvements are minimal, I don't socialise much..

I put money into my pension, health insurance, savings for kids' education, rainy day fund.

My lifestyle is far from spectacular but many people think the state should take more from me because of what I choose to do with my income. ("You have kids in private education? Remove state supports!", "You have medical insurance? No access to the public system!", "You put money into a pension fund? Reduce tax relief!")

I waited five years to see a consultant, finally the VHI kicked in and i was seen for a private MRI.

You'd think I had unhooked the drip from a terminally ill child.

"Don't you feel guilty jumping the queue, just cos you're well off ?"

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Moreover, we also need a new understanding of capital, and how despite the stories we hear in After Hours of people taking advantage of the social welfare system, the big picture among that bickering is the rapid decline in equality in the western world since the 1970s, and the increasingly rapid consolidation of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. This is now very well documented, and I'm not sure if there's any economist left denying it (like climate change, there probably is). But After Hours in particular seems to have a load of people missing that bigger picture.


1. Thomas Piketty's Inequality Story in Six Charts

2. Quotes from Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century

3. And a great insight from Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, on why growing inequality is undermining western economies:

Joseph Stiglitz Says Standard Economics Is Wrong. Inequality and Unearned Income Kills the Economy

4. Paul Krugman, another Nobel laureate in economics, 'What the 1% don't want you to know':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzQYA9Qjsi0

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

Moreover, we also need a new understanding of capital, and how despite the stories we hear in After Hours of people taking advantage of the social welfare system, the big picture among that bickering is the rapid decline in equality in the western world since the 1970s, and the increasingly rapid consolidation of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. This is now very well documented, and I'm not sure if there's any economist left denying it (like climate change, there probably is). But After Hours in particular seems to have a load of people missing that bigger picture.

great post, thank you, these are the kinds of issues ive been trying to explain, but probably largely failed. there are many others explaining very well how these issues have lead us to this point, many of which ive mentioned. all worth checking out. sadly, its understandable why people dont see the bigger picture, and why bogeymen such as the unemployed, the foreigners, the this, the that are blamed for such issues. i to would recommend piketty and stilglizs work in trying to understand these issues.

Franz Von Peppercorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What, according to the denizens of After Hours, is the gross minimum salary an individual or couple must earn before they can be considered part of the "middle class"?

Income isn’t that relevant. If you inherit a house in ballsbridge, have some money in the bank, you can earn bog all and still be wealthy.

I don’t accept that there’s no established wealth in Ireland either. Very few wage earners can buy in large swathes of Dublin.

MayoSalmon

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Ignoring reality is a good approach to life, please do continue....

The "Karl Marx" reality of life no doubt..

PlaneSpeeking

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Income isn’t that relevant. If you inherit a house in ballsbridge, have some money in the bank, you can earn bog all and still be wealthy.

I dint buy that there’s no established wealth in Ireland either. Very few wage earners can buy in large swathes of Dublin.

True - I've two cousins who paint themselves as salt of the earth, goood old Dub stock.

Both inherited houses free and clear - one by Croker and one in Collins Avenue!

Landed bleeding gentry lol!!!

Wanderer78

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The "Karl Marx" reality of life no doubt..

ive limited knowledge of marx, so id have to say no.

PlaneSpeeking

Wanderer78 wrote: »

ive limited knowledge of marx, so id have to say no.

Rent "Duck Soup", it's a classic.

Wanderer78

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Rent "Duck Soup", it's a classic.

i ll stick to Marxist experts, but thank you

PlaneSpeeking

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i ll stick to Marxist experts, but thank you

Fell on it's a**e that joke didn't it ?

Sorry!!!

Wanderer78

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Fell on it's a**e that joke didn't it ?

Sorry!!!

no need to be sorry, i struggle to get jokes, particularly via text

thebull85

I like Billy Connolly's take on the middle class.

whisky_galore

The ones that are going to be really 'squeezed' are the younger generation on jobs with mundane wages not lucky enough to inherit a house, not being able to afford to save to buy one, and paying through the nose to rent one.

4. Paul Krugman, another Nobel laureate in economics, 'What the 1% don't want you to know':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzQYA9Qjsi0

Actually, having listened to the whole Krugman interview again he is really sharp and informative. It's worth taking 15 minutes of your life for a synopsis of the whole issue in 2018 and in historical perspective [for instance, the US was the first country to introduce taxes on wealth in opposition to the Belle Epoch in Europe and he also notes that one of the massive consequences of WWI & WWII was that it broke up the old oligarchies and cleared the way for far greater equality via education and health reforms after WWII.

At 7:02:, however, Krugman's interview gets very disturbing:

Interviewer: 'Do you agree with him that we are drifting towards oligarchy?'
Krugman: 'Oh yeah!' [very definitively] I don't see there's even any question of that... [follow his explanation in the video]

AndrewJRenko

animaal wrote: »

My lifestyle is far from spectacular but many people think the state should take more from me because of what I choose to do with my income. ("You have kids in private education? Remove state supports!", "You have medical insurance? No access to the public system!", "You put money into a pension fund? Reduce tax relief!")

Eliminating government subsidies of middle/higher earners isn't exactly 'taking more from you' - more like 'giving you less, and redirecting resources to where they are most needed'.



Certainly the tax relief subsidy to pensions of middle/higher earners is really indefensible now, as is the subsidy to private schools.

Idbatterim

Creative83 wrote: »

It would seem that that the less well off have it very handy in terms of "entitlements" The Wealthy have it all, well, just because they are wealthy. Where do the middle class sit?


Is there a fundamental unfairness in Irish society today regarding the middle class?

yes far too much is robbed off those on low incomes, but in particular those on mid to high incomes are robbed blind; to ensures those that live off the state, have nearly the same if not a better standard of living than those on low incomes... throw in the "nearly" free housing, few cash in hand jobs...

its a country where people cant pay a few cent a day for water, but those on low incomes can lose over half their earnings, over a pathetic threshold!

animaal

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eliminating government subsidies of middle/higher earners isn't exactly 'taking more from you' - more like 'giving you less, and redirecting resources to where they are most needed'.

No, I'm a nett contributor to the system. Tax increases mean more being taken from me, tax decreases mean less being taken from me. I'm not being subsidised.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Certainly the tax relief subsidy to pensions of middle/higher earners is really indefensible now, as is the subsidy to private schools.

I'm not sure how it makes sense to be penalising individuals' spending on education, pensions, healthcare while encouraging individuals' spending on entertainment (e.g. reduction of VAT for hospitality-related spending at the direct expense of people's pensions through a pension levy).

That's appears to be reflected in your comment, where it's ok to piss away money in the pub or in the bookies, but if it's spent on anything genuinely useful, it means somebody has too much money and needs a good dose of "redistribution".

Just to preclude the obvious comment - I'm not saying there should be no taxes. I'm saying if more tax is needed, tax frivolous spending rather than spending that genuinely improves people's health/education and defuses the pensions timebomb.

PlaneSpeeking

animaal wrote: »

No, I'm a nett contributor to the system. Tax increases mean more being taken from me, tax decreases mean less being taken from me. I'm not being subsidised.



I'm not sure how it makes sense to be penalising individuals' spending on education, pensions, healthcare while encouraging individuals' spending on entertainment (e.g. reduction of VAT for hospitality-related spending at the direct expense of people's pensions through a pension levy).

That's appears to be reflected in your comment, where it's ok to piss away money in the pub or in the bookies, but if it's spent on anything genuinely useful, it means somebody has too much money and needs a good dose of "redistribution".

Just to preclude the obvious comment - I'm not saying there should be no taxes. I'm saying if more tax is needed, tax frivolous spending rather than spending that genuinely improves people's health/education and defuses the pensions timebomb.

Why in the name of God would anyone think that is not a good idea ????

I've a private health insurance policy. It's paid before tax so I assume that means I get a tax break ? Believe me it's a lot less than the tax, USC, PRSI etc that goes out.

But it means I don't take a place in a hospital queue for someone who doesn't.

Plus I resent the hell out of someone coming here and saying that 10 grand plus a year of NET contributions somehow makes me a scrounger!!!

Franz Von Peppercorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eliminating government subsidies of middle/higher earners isn't exactly 'taking more from you' - more like 'giving you less, and redirecting resources to where they are most needed'.



Certainly the tax relief subsidy to pensions of middle/higher earners is really indefensible now, as is the subsidy to private schools.

Given that most private sector workers end up with a tiny pension and the “high earners” start at 34k - no it isn't.

PlaneSpeeking

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Given that most private sector workers end up with a tiny pension and the “high earners” start at 34k - no it isn't.

"High earners", that's such a fallacy.

Franz Von Peppercorn

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

"High earners", that's such a fallacy.

Its a good example of how Irish "leftism" is basically hostile to the private sector working classes.

AndrewJRenko

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Given that most private sector workers end up with a tiny pension and the “high earners” start at 34k - no it isn't.

Yes, I'd imagine that many of those private sector workers who end up with a tiny pension would be wondering the Government give such generous tax relief to pension contributions for 'high earners' (and I'm not taking about 34k incomes there).

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Why in the name of God would anyone think that is not a good idea ????

I've a private health insurance policy. It's paid before tax so I assume that means I get a tax break ? Believe me it's a lot less than the tax, USC, PRSI etc that goes out.

But it means I don't take a place in a hospital queue for someone who doesn't.

Plus I resent the hell out of someone coming here and saying that 10 grand plus a year of NET contributions somehow makes me a scrounger!!!

Unfortunately, without our two tier medical system, it's not that simple. It may well be that the consultant you see in your private queue should really be in a public hospital that day treating public patients, but he's not. It may well be that the bed that your insurance company is paying for in the private ward of a public hospital is heavily subsidised by the public health services in that hospital.

animaal wrote: »

No, I'm a nett contributor to the system. Tax increases mean more being taken from me, tax decreases mean less being taken from me. I'm not being subsidised.

I'm not sure how it makes sense to be penalising individuals' spending on education, pensions, healthcare while encouraging individuals' spending on entertainment (e.g. reduction of VAT for hospitality-related spending at the direct expense of people's pensions through a pension levy).

That's appears to be reflected in your comment, where it's ok to piss away money in the pub or in the bookies, but if it's spent on anything genuinely useful, it means somebody has too much money and needs a good dose of "redistribution".

Just to preclude the obvious comment - I'm not saying there should be no taxes. I'm saying if more tax is needed, tax frivolous spending rather than spending that genuinely improves people's health/education and defuses the pensions timebomb.

Just curious - when you worked out that you were a nett contributor, what cost did you put on the public roads that you use, or the public health services that you used or the public education services that you or your family used?

Certainly, if people think it's a good idea to save for a pension or pay for private health services, good for them - but I'm not sure why the State should be subsidising either of these private services with public money.

I didn't mention anything about hospitality spending, so I'm not sure why you're grinding that axe at all.

Idbatterim wrote: »

yes far too much is robbed off those on low incomes, but in particular those on mid to high incomes are robbed blind; to ensures those that live off the state, have nearly the same if not a better standard of living than those on low incomes... throw in the "nearly" free housing, few cash in hand jobs...

its a country where people cant pay a few cent a day for water, but those on low incomes can lose over half their earnings, over a pathetic threshold!

Does the 'robbing' work both ways? When you or your family availed of a public education, were you 'robbing' the service? Every time you drive on a public road, are you 'robbing' that service?

The great irony is of course that the 'cash in hand' jobs that you have a dig are largely paid for the middle classes, who manage to turn a blind eye to their usual complaints about welfare fraud while they pay for the cash job.

Try_harder

Try_harder wrote: »

Poor squeezed middle! Fiachra mightened get his ski holiday this year!

At least his education and ability to spell correctly will stand him well.

animaal

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Just curious - when you worked out that you were a nett contributor, what cost did you put on the public roads that you use, or the public health services that you used or the public education services that you or your family used?

I didn't put individual costs on anything. I considered the fact that I pay more taxes than most people in the country, with the fact that the country is within "touching distance" of a budget surplus. Roads etc are used by everybody and I'm paying more than most to use them.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Certainly, if people think it's a good idea to save for a pension or pay for private health services, good for them - but I'm not sure why the State should be subsidising either of these private services with public money.

It's not public money, it's my money. The state has not given it to me, my employer has. What the state has decided to do is to take smaller than usual cut of it, because the state acknowledges that what I'm doing with it has a value to society.

You seem as view that as a subsidy to me, whereas I see that I'm subsidising the state to a lesser extent than I would otherwise.

Imagine the state gives €100,000 to poorer countries every year. If next year that figure is reduced to €75,000, is that a subsidy from the poorer countries to Ireland of €25,000?

PlaneSpeeking

animaal wrote: »

I didn't put individual costs on anything. I considered the fact that I pay more taxes than most people in the country, with the fact that the country is within "touching distance" of a budget surplus. Roads etc are used by everybody and I'm paying more than most to use them.



It's not public money, it's my money. The state has not given it to me, my employer has. What the state has decided to do is to take smaller than usual cut of it, because the state acknowledges that what I'm doing with it has a value to society.

You seem as view that as a subsidy to me, whereas I see that I'm subsidising the state to a lesser extent than I would otherwise.

Imagine the state gives €100,000 to poorer countries every year. If next year that figure is reduced to €75,000, is that a subsidy from the poorer countries to Ireland of €25,000?

I couldn't agree with you more.

I sometimes feel that there is a definite hatred of people who go out to work and earn a decent living.

i live 2 hours away from work, I've a parent in a nursing home. I basically have no life but a trip to footy every fortnight.

Yet the fact that after 30 years of graft my salary just nudges 40,000 a year (GROSS) I'm somehow a cross between Philip Green and the banker from It's A Wonderful Life!

Geuze

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Yet the fact that after 30 years of graft my salary just nudges 40,000 a year (GROSS) I'm somehow a cross between Philip Green and the banker from It's A Wonderful Life!

If anybody thinks 40k is a high salary, they are either deluded, naive or very ignorant.

Mean earnings including overtime are 45-46k.

Median earnings are 40k approx.

I know 25 year olds on 40-45k.

TheQuietFella

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I couldn't agree with you more.

I sometimes feel that there is a definite hatred of people who go out to work and earn a decent living.

Absolutely correct! Some people want it every way without wanting to graft for it!
We've worked hard to put our children through third level education and it's not cheap and I wasn't always working during those times either but sacrifices were made to enable that to happen. Way too many hand outs in my opinion!

PlaneSpeeking

Geuze wrote: »

If anybody thinks 40k is a high salary, they are either deluded, naive or very ignorant.

Mean earnings including overtime are 45-46k.

Median earnings are 40k approx.

I know 25 year olds on 40-45k.

God that's depressing - good kick in the a**e and I'm 50!

DebDynamite

People believe those on the dole, etc. are working class. It's an incorrect term - they don't work. They should be called something else. I have no problem calling myself working class - I have a decent enough job, own my own place, drive a car, don't have a common accent etc. Some people might call me middle class, but I'm not!

PlaneSpeeking

DebDynamite wrote: »

People believe those on the dole, etc. are working class. It's an incorrect term - they don't work. They should be called something else. I have no problem calling myself working class - I have a decent enough job, own my own place, drive a car, don't have a common accent etc. Some people might call me middle class, but I'm not!

Agreed so much! I don't relish the thought of being middle class at all, but you're spot on - how can you call yourself working class when you are the third successive generation who has never worked ??

Big Jim Larkin was born not far from me, and if he could see the mass protests NOT to work he would be ashamed.

animaal

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I sometimes feel that there is a definite hatred of people who go out to work and earn a decent living.

I think that's close to the truth, although I'd describe it more as begrudgery. "That person has something I don't have - let's stop them having it".

A prime example is health insurance. If it's made more difficult/expensive for people to buy it, then a proportion of those people will stop paying for it and join the public system. The increase in tax revenue will be more than outweighed by the burden on the public system (i.e. the premiums previously paid for health insurance won't magically become available to the HSE).

Hence the efforts by the state to "encourage" people to buy into it in greater numbers (Lifetime Community Rating)

But for some people, it's more important to pull others down.

PlaneSpeeking

animaal wrote: »

I think that's close to the truth, although I'd describe it more as begrudgery. "That person has something I don't have - let's stop them having it".

A prime example is health insurance. If it's made more difficult/expensive for people to buy it, then a proportion of those people will stop paying for it and join the public system. The increase in tax revenue will be more than outweighed by the burden on the public system (i.e. the premiums previously paid for health insurance won't magically become available to the HSE).

Hence the efforts by the state to "encourage" people to buy into it in greater numbers (Lifetime Community Rating)

But for some people, it's more important to pull others down.

Hey anyone can have what I've got - rented gaff, piles from 20 hours of commuting each week, dog that eats me out of house and home, grown up responsibilities like making sure my dad's fees are paid and there's power in the house.

Just need a job... ah I see the problem!

Idbatterim

Does the 'robbing' work both ways? When you or your family availed of a public education, were you 'robbing' the service? Every time you drive on a public road, are you 'robbing' that service?

The great irony is of course that the 'cash in hand' jobs that you have a dig are largely paid for the middle classes, who manage to turn a blind eye to their usual complaints about welfare fraud while they pay for the cash job.

you know what, I am glad you asked! no my parents paid for a private education, instead of pissing it up a wall in the pub, they spent it on my education, around the after hours forum, that probably qualifies me as a "posho" "handed to him on a plate" etc?

the same option was there for those "parents" that live in the bookies, local takeaway and pub, just FYI... they are the true "rich" here, no other class that I know, has the time and money to be able to send up so much in smoke on discretionary expenditure... (oh sorry, the actual rich could)...

Now onto motor tax, I reckon the E1809 as year motor tax, that I pay by the quarter, so E2044 all in, then the rate I pay to fuel the 5.6L car I drive. Safe to say, I probably pay my way?

Never been unemployed a day in my life. Havent been to a gp in over twenty years, pretty much down to good health. But its great, to know, that despite contributing a sizeable amount in tax per year, that its a mere E60 to visit one, while others get it for free... :rolleyes: So you have low income workers, some paying E60 a visit, while other low income workers, get it for free... Its a great system!

51% income taxes over E34,800 because you are the wolf of f*cking wall street on that figure!

Franz Von Peppercorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, I'd imagine that many of those private sector workers who end up with a tiny pension would be wondering the Government give such generous tax relief to pension contributions for 'high earners' (and I'm not taking about 34k incomes there).

You are talking about people on 34k here, because the higher tax relief for pensions applies to the people on that income and higher. The majority of workers will be earn more than 34K at some stage, and most will be in band from 40-60k. So anything you do to make the "rich" ( whom you haven't defined) worse off with their pensions by reducing their tax relief on contributions will make the guys on 34k+ worse of with their pensions, and therefore poorer when retired than they otherwise would be.

(The real rich don't really have pensions, do they. Why would a multi millionaire need to put a few bob away).

Certainly, if people think it's a good idea to save for a pension or pay for private health services, good for them - but I'm not sure why the State should be subsidising either of these private services with public money.

With regards to health, unless you think that the state is financed by aliens, the private patient has also paid for the public part of his treatment.

The real inequality in pensions is that people who pay in for 40 years in the private sector get a pittance but people who don't pay (net) in in the public sector end up comfortable.

Thats if the private sector worker manages to work 40 years, and hasn't gone abroad. If s/he has they get less than the non-contributory pension. Most of the income poor at pension age are ex private sector workers.

The one slight advantage that a private sector worker who has the audacity to earn more than 34k is a tax deferment when he finances the private pension that might keep him out of penury. If he has any money to do that.

This is Vincent Browne type nonsense, the kind of pseudo leftism from the millionaire suburbs thats attacks that part of the working classes who might not be as poor as the millionaires would like.


Want significant changes in Ireland? Tax wealth, in particular unearned wealth.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The real inequality in pensions is that people who pay in for 40 years in the private sector get a pittance but people who don't pay (net) in in the public sector end up comfortable.

ive worked trawlers that hauled in by the dozen tonne at a time

i never seen a net work as hard as i just did reading this sentence

Geuze

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The real inequality in pensions is that people who pay in for 40 years in the private sector get a pittance but people who don't pay (net) in in the public sector end up comfortable.

Note that PS have always paid 6.5% pension contributions, and since 2009 pay an additional 10% pension cont.

AndrewJRenko

animaal wrote: »

I didn't put individual costs on anything. I considered the fact that I pay more taxes than most people in the country, with the fact that the country is within "touching distance" of a budget surplus. Roads etc are used by everybody and I'm paying more than most to use them.

Interesting, so when you said ‘net contributor’, you didn’t really mean ‘net contributor’, you meant ‘pays more tax than most’. And presumably, you were just talking about income tax, and didn’t include any of other main taxes, like VAT or excise duties in your calculation. Did you take child benefit into consideration, and any mortgage relief you might have got on your main property in the old days too?
As for the roads, do you come anywhere near paying for the damage done to the environment by your car?
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cars-air-pollution-cost-nhs-vans-vehicles-health-bills-lung-disease-a8384806.html

animaal wrote: »

It's not public money, it's my money. The state has not given it to me, my employer has. What the state has decided to do is to take smaller than usual cut of it, because the state acknowledges that what I'm doing with it has a value to society.

You seem as view that as a subsidy to me, whereas I see that I'm subsidising the state to a lesser extent than I would otherwise.

It is absolutely a subsidy to you, given that your workmate who earns the same salary but doesn’t pay into a pension pays more tax than you. It is tax foregone by the State, maybe because the State acknowledges the value as you say, or maybe because the politicians want to keep middle class voters sweet.

animaal wrote: »

I think that's close to the truth, although I'd describe it more as begrudgery. "That person has something I don't have - let's stop them having it".

A prime example is health insurance. If it's made more difficult/expensive for people to buy it, then a proportion of those people will stop paying for it and join the public system. The increase in tax revenue will be more than outweighed by the burden on the public system (i.e. the premiums previously paid for health insurance won't magically become available to the HSE).

Hence the efforts by the state to "encourage" people to buy into it in greater numbers (Lifetime Community Rating)

But for some people, it's more important to pull others down.

It’s not just about how the state ‘encourages’ people to buy into it. It is about how the State subsidises private healthcare through tax relief, subsidised bed costs in public hospitals and paying consultants on the double for seeing the same patient.
It’s madness. If people want to pay for private healthcare, that’s great for them – but the State shouldn’t be subsidising it.

Idbatterim wrote: »

you know what, I am glad you asked! no my parents paid for a private education, instead of pissing it up a wall in the pub, they spent it on my education, around the after hours forum, that probably qualifies me as a "posho" "handed to him on a plate" etc?

Interesting, and that ‘posho’ private education, did the State pay for teachers’ salaries like it does in most private schools ?

Idbatterim wrote: »

Now onto motor tax, I reckon the E1809 as year motor tax, that I pay by the quarter, so E2044 all in, then the rate I pay to fuel the 5.6L car I drive. Safe to say, I probably pay my way?

Safe to say you probably don’t, given that the environmental damage caused by such a large engine would be even higher than the average figures quoted here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cars-air-pollution-cost-nhs-vans-vehicles-health-bills-lung-disease-a8384806.html

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You are talking about people on 34k here, because the higher tax relief for pensions applies to the people on that income and higher. The majority of workers will be earn more than 34K at some stage, and most will be in band from 40-60k. So anything you do to make the "rich" ( whom you haven't defined) worse off with their pensions by reducing their tax relief on contributions will make the guys on 34k+ worse of with their pensions, and therefore poorer when retired than they otherwise would be.

Eh no, I’m not talking about people on €34k here. Please don’t tell me what I’m talking about or not talking about. I’m well capable of doing that myself.
People on €34k or anything near the lower end of the higher scale don’t generally have spare money to put into their pensions, so they are far less likely to avail of this relief. It is used by higher earners (and I’m not using tax scales as my definition here) – those who have the spare resources to put extra money away. Reducing tax relief and redirecting that income to better public services would be a huge benefit to the guys on €34k.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

(The real rich don't really have pensions, do they. Why would a multi millionaire need to put a few bob away).

You’re joking, right? Wealth management 101 is to maximise pension contributions purely for the sake of maximising tax relief. Look at any wealth advisor website. Look at all the ads for pension schemes around the October deadline. These guys all max out their tax relief and then start looking at what to do with the rest of their investments.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

With regards to health, unless you think that the state is financed by aliens, the private patient has also paid for the public part of his treatment.

The health service isn’t Aer Lingus. You don’t get to upgrade to a fancier service or a shorter queue by paying more. There shouldn’t be any ‘public part of the treatment’. If you want to go private, off you go – and pay your own way there and back.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The real inequality in pensions is that people who pay in for 40 years in the private sector get a pittance but people who don't pay (net) in in the public sector end up comfortable.

God forbid that someone would be comfortable in their retirement after spending 40 years nursing or teaching or chasing down criminals on your behalf, right? Public servants have always paid for their pensions, and now pay even more (including those people who get zero occupational pension on top of the State pension).

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Want significant changes in Ireland? Tax wealth, in particular unearned wealth.

Now you're suckin' diesel.....

animaal

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

...when you said ‘net contributor’, you didn’t really mean ‘net contributor’, you meant ‘pays more tax than most’. And presumably, you were just talking about income tax, and didn’t include any of other main taxes, like VAT or excise duties in your calculation. Did you take child benefit into consideration, and any mortgage relief you might have got on your main property in the old days too?

I think one would have to come up with something unusual to find a way in which I am subsidised by the state. Given that my income is higher than average, my income taxes (income taxes are a major portion of the state's income) are higher than most. Again, unless something strange is happening, my post-tax income is also higher than average. What happens to that income? I'm not special. Again unless something strange is happening, I pay more non-income taxes with what's left.

I think its' fairly simple. If the state funds its spending (which it very nearly does), and I contribute more than most to the state, then I am not subsidised. I am doing the subsidising. There could be some strange aspect of my life to skew the figures relating to me (e.g. the state providing me with expensive health treatment), but there isn't. I'm pretty middle of the road in most respects. If people with above average incomes aren't funding the state's spending, what group do you think is?

As for the "old days", I don't see how mortgage interest relief etc is relevant to support of pensions/health/education today. Just like I'm not expecting exemption from property tax now because I paid a big lump of stamp duty back when I bought my home.

4ensic15

Geuze wrote: »

Note that PS have always paid 6.5% pension contributions, and since 2009 pay an additional 10% pension cont.

The PS don't pay contributions. There is no pension fund. All that happens is their their salary is notionally reduced by calling the reduction a pension contribution.

Twenty Grand

4ensic15 wrote: »

The PS don't pay contributions. There is no pension fund. All that happens is their their salary is notionally reduced by calling the reduction a pension contribution.

And HOPEFULLY when it comes to retirement, the govt have the cash to pay them

4ensic15

Twenty Grand wrote: »

And HOPEFULLY when it comes to retirement, the govt have the cash to pay them

Hopefully the taxpayers are willing to pay for their pensions and not have it wasted on housing, education, health service, roads, environment etc.

Twenty Grand

4ensic15 wrote: »

Hopefully the taxpayers are willing to pay for their pensions and not have it wasted on housing, education, health service, roads, environment etc.

Do you wish civil servants have no pension?

AndrewJRenko

animaal wrote: »

I think one would have to come up with something unusual to find a way in which I am subsidised by the state. Given that my income is higher than average, my income taxes (income taxes are a major portion of the state's income) are higher than most. Again, unless something strange is happening, my post-tax income is also higher than average. What happens to that income? I'm not special. Again unless something strange is happening, I pay more non-income taxes with what's left.

I think its' fairly simple. If the state funds its spending (which it very nearly does), and I contribute more than most to the state, then I am not subsidised. I am doing the subsidising. There could be some strange aspect of my life to skew the figures relating to me (e.g. the state providing me with expensive health treatment), but there isn't. I'm pretty middle of the road in most respects. If people with above average incomes aren't funding the state's spending, what group do you think is?

As for the "old days", I don't see how mortgage interest relief etc is relevant to support of pensions/health/education today. Just like I'm not expecting exemption from property tax now because I paid a big lump of stamp duty back when I bought my home.

You seem to be ignoring the 'consumption' side of the equation completely. Which state services did you consume at no or very low cost? Your own education? Your kids education? Medical services? Public health services? Roads, parks, beaches and more.

4ensic15 wrote: »

Hopefully the taxpayers are willing to pay for their pensions and not have it wasted on housing, education, health service, roads, environment etc.

Civil servants are not responsible for the Government decision to fund pensions out of current spending rather than a pension fund. Indeed, the national pension reserve fund that was building up nicely had to be blown to cover the bust caused by the financial sector.



So don't take swipes at civil servants or expect them to give up their contractual entitlements because of the Government's decision about funding.

MadDog76

There is no middle class in Ireland..... there's the unemployed, the struggling working class and the comfortable/wealthy.

Franz Von Peppercorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem to be ignoring the 'consumption' side of the equation completely. Which state services did you consume at no or very low cost? Your own education? Your kids education? Medical services? Public health services? Roads, parks, beaches and more.



Civil servants are not responsible for the Government decision to fund pensions out of current spending rather than a pension fund. Indeed, the national pension reserve fund that was building up nicely had to be blown to cover the bust caused by the financial sector.



So don't take swipes at civil servants or expect them to give up their contractual entitlements because of the Government's decision about funding.

Let’s instead remove all pension entitlements for the public sector in future beyond the state pension and let them contribute to their own private pension. Let’s also give everybody the same marginal relief.

Then push up the state pension by whatever that saves.

Franz Von Peppercorn

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Agreed so much! I don't relish the thought of being middle class at all, but you're spot on - how can you call yourself working class when you are the third successive generation who has never worked ??

Big Jim Larkin was born not far from me, and if he could see the mass protests NOT to work he would be ashamed

The old left were in fact hostile to the lumpen proletariat.