No point in trying to better yourself is there ?

touts

Would people please stop questioning the OP's reason for living in Dublin and encouraging them to emigrate. They are not the problem in Irish society. We need more people like them in this country. In a fair and just society he/she, and other members of the hard pressed working and middle classes would be placed on top of the housing list and rewarded for their service ahead of the non contributing welfare class. Access to services should be a reward not a right. That is what needs to change in this country and hopefully the tide is starting to turn in that direction.

beejee

Dick phelan wrote: »

OP would you consider living in another country or this that not an option? You could make really good money in Asia or the Middle East and not be worrying about making rent or finding somewhere to live.

Yep. Op should move to Asia while 5 of them come here in his place. Don't expect any differences if you ever have the crazy thought of coming home again though

This idea, expanded, is another growing problem. Can't run from these things. You can delay dealing with it, but that's all.

Ush1

Ray Palmer wrote: »

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3870406,-6.1846392,3a,75y,327.6h,82.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8zj4q6DS4aLnBpSNtlZpfg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

To be honest that doesn't look that bad. Looks like a corpo estate alright but nice wide road, not much litter that I can see. No washing machines in front gardens or boarded up/burnt out houses.

There's a lot worse out there.

johnmck

Dick phelan wrote: »

OP would you consider living in another country or this that not an option? You could make really good money in Asia or the Middle East and not be worrying about making rent or finding somewhere to live.

I can't, I've a sick elderly father that I need to be here for.
I've been offered work in Abu Dhabi in the past but turned it down!

Qrt

Qrt wrote: »

It’s **** but the reality of the 21st Century. But as long as we keep electing centrist/neoliberal governments, nothing will change.

I'm afraid you're very wrong there; going on the pattern since the 1970s, which has escalated greatly since the 2009 bust, it will get worse and the superrich will continue to become much richer, paying 1% or thereabouts tax - often avoiding tax entirely - while a huge mass of people in the middle pay marginal tax rates of between 50% and 60% on their income.

For some peculiar reason, these ultra wealthy people don't rile up an After Hours' audience as much as some small fry and his "free" council house in some godforsaken impoverished hole that nobody with a modicum of ambition would want to live in in the first place.

Edgware

johnmck wrote: »

I can't, I've a sick elderly father that I need to be here for.
I've been offered work in Abu Dhabi in the past but turned it down!

I think this situation is called life.

Wheeliebin30

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm afraid you're very wrong there; going on the pattern since the 1970s, which has escalated greatly since the 2009 bust, it will get worse and the superrich will continue to become much richer, paying 1% or thereabouts tax - often avoiding tax entirely - while a huge mass of people in the middle pay marginal tax rates of between 50% and 60% on their income.

For some peculiar reason, these ultra wealthy people don't rile up an After Hours' audience as much as some small fry and his little layabout cons in some godforsaken impoverished hole that nobody with a modicum of ambition would want to live in in the first place.

You do realise the top 6% earners in Ireland generate 50% of income?

But the rich rabble taxes rabble.

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/the-top-6-pay-49-of-all-income-tax-and-usc.204974/

800,000 workers pay no income tax in Ireland.

You socialists are something else.

DareGod

The answer to everyone's problems on here lately seems to be go to the Middle East / Leitrim :pac:

Wheeliebin30

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

You do realise the top 6% earners in Ireland generate 50% of income?

But the rich rabble taxes rabble.

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/the-top-6-pay-49-of-all-income-tax-and-usc.204974/

800,000 workers pay no income tax in Ireland.

You probably shouldn't be selectively citing statistics when the obvious question you're avoiding is how much of that income do they receive in the first place. If that 6% receives 90% of all income, the meaningfulness of your carefully chosen little statistic would look very different. A nice, simple summary here of the issue I was alluding to before your standard cut-and-paste rant against "socialists":

But . . . we start paying tax at the higher rate much earlier
But before we start to wonder how come we all have so little money at the end of the month, it’s worth considering the experience of the “squeezed middle”.

It’s one of the biggest bug-bears of middle-income earners, and an area that is likely to be a focus in the upcoming budget: Ireland still has one of the highest marginal rates of tax in the world.

Figures from the OECD for 2016 show that Ireland, with a top rate of 52 per cent, including USC and PRSI (55 per cent for the self-employed on earnings over €100,000) is one of only 15 out of 34 OECD countries with a marginal rate in the 50s. Even here, it has slipped out of the top 10, with its rate now the 14th highest on the back of changes in previous budgets.

Typically, the level of earnings at which it kicks in is €70,044. That’s broadly in line with countries such as Sweden (€66,997); Denmark (€64,453) and the Netherlands (€67,703).

However, people start paying just a slightly lower rate, or 49 per cent, at a much lower level of earnings. That means a greater proportion of people’s incomes may be taxed at this higher rate in Ireland, compared with other countries in the world.

Individuals earning above €33,801, for example, will start paying tax at the higher rate of 40 per cent (or, when USC and PRSI is factored, 49 per cent) on everything over this, while married couples with one income will start paying the higher rate on income over €42,800. For those with two incomes, the threshold is €67,600.

Contrast this with Germany, where you only start paying 44 per cent on earnings over €54,058, or the UK, where the 42 per cent rate kicks in at €49,606.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

You socialists are something else.

So, somebody pointing out the tiny percentage of their income which the superrich pay in tax compared to the marginal tax which people in the middle pay is a "socialist"? Very strange understanding of language, to put it mildly. By the way, the "superrich" are not by any definition people who earn a mere €100k pa; it's revealing that you seem to think they are. I find that it's almost invariably the people nearest the bottom themselves who are most zealously against "socialists", the "Left" and the like. Desperate to be accepted by their social superiors.

Thelonious Monk

Funny how socialist leaning countries like Sweden tend to have the best standards of living in the world

johnmck

Edgware wrote: »

I think this situation is called life.

I wish you all the best with yours, whoever the f#$k you are

FixdePitchmark

This is why Leo has made a balls of his opertunity

He is swanning around talking about love actually and Kylie.

Giving outrageous tax breaks for FDI and apple in particular.

But we are still paying usc and if you have a pint and drive to work you are a criminal.

He went on about people getting up early in the morning

We didn't know that he would take you off the road too

johnmck

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Funny how socialist leaning countries like Sweden tend to have the best standards of living in the world

Wow, I've started a row about socialism and capitalism. I'm definitely not a socialist. I've seen what that crap does to countries.

I respect the wealthy who have dreams and visions, persue them through hard work, determination and grit. It's a true democratic governments duty to insure they are taxed adequately. If a rich person / corporaration can find ways and means around taxes, it shows their smarts and again fair play to them. You cant blame them.

Nordic countries are a benign pastiche of socialism. Real socialism is a sickening destructive force that crushes the individual.

johnmck

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Funny how socialist leaning countries like Sweden tend to have the best standards of living in the world

Big difference between between leaning and falling!

TuringBot47

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Funny how socialist leaning countries like Sweden tend to have the best standards of living in the world

Funny how countries rich in natural resources can afford to be liberal.

Socialism doesn't promote productivity, usually the opposite.

Thelonious Monk

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Funny how countries rich in natural resources can afford to be liberal.

Socialism doesn't promote productivity, usually the opposite.

Well what actually works? Does anything? And high GDP doesn’t equal a happy society

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

And high GDP doesn’t equal a happy society

Very true, but try and run education and health with a low GDP and see how ya get on.

Thelonious Monk

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Very true, but try and run education and health with a low GDP and see how ya get on.

Ok I just need a few hours kip first, I’ll give it a shot, and we’ll get back to ya

EL_Loco

full time male teacher? Get up the yard, you'll be grand.

Yes, you improved yourself, Kudos, and you've a vastly improved situation because of it.

Incremental pay increase, pension, rock solid employment, and the holidays, and sure why not, the milfs too.

A lot of upside you're not seeing, or ignoring, or like totally not being #mindful or #FeelingBlessed right now, mmmm'kay?!

FixdePitchmark

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

This is why Leo has made a balls of his opertunity

He is swanning around talking about love actually and Kylie.

Giving outrageous tax breaks for FDI and apple in particular.

But we are still paying usc and if you have a pint and drive to work you are a criminal.

He went on about people getting up early in the morning

We didn't know that he would take you off the road too

Yes it's a terrible tragedy you can't drink and drive anymore. Awful stuff.

sbsquarepants

DareGod wrote: »

The answer to everyone's problems on here lately seems to be go to the Middle East / Leitrim :pac:

Jaysus - the situation would really have to be dire before you could consider moving to Leitrim as a step up. What's wrong with Syria for example? Or I hear property is very cheap at the moment in Yemen.

Leitrim??? Don't go doing anything drastic OP!

suicide_circus

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Funny how socialist leaning countries like Sweden tend to have the best standards of living in the world

where do you think their wealth came from? socialism?

sbsquarepants

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Which is perfectly fine and my first house was bought on similar grounds and an ex corporate house. When we moved we realised how we got accustomed to the bad area. .

I've recently (2 years ago) moved out of Dublin to the commuter belt equivalent of a leafy suburb. About 2 weeks ago I had occasion to walk through the council estate where I grew up, parents still live there I visit all the time but I'm always driving so I suppose I miss a lot.

I have to say I was a bit shocked at how much of a kip it was, aul ones sitting in their front gardens in dressing gowns smoking spliffs and drinking cans, litter, broken glass and dog shít everywhere, gangs of young fellas just hanging around everywhere doing nothing in particular, dilapidated houses, broken windows, clapped out cars etc and just a general air of menace which you do grow accustomed to when you live there but after a couple of years in a nicer place is just really depressing.

Maybe I've turned into a snob (I doubt it, but you never know I suppose!) but I am so glad my kids don't have to grow up there. Now that being said, it didn't do me any harm, but it didn't do me any good either. I had a happy enough carefree childhood and adolescence (I lived there till about 21 or 22 and close by for another 15 years), never had any real trouble to speak of.

Council estates are not the answer, they just devolve into shít holes. We need to build and build in quantity, but not slums, it has to be mixed social / private and fúck the ideology.

Edgware

johnmck wrote: »

I wish you all the best with yours, whoever the f#$k you are

Ah get on with it. The world doesnt owe you a living

klaaaz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Council estates are not the answer, they just devolve into shít holes. We need to build and build in quantity, but not slums, it has to be mixed social / private and fúck the ideology.

Thing is, alot of folk in private housing do not want the social folk living among them. How do you intend to fix that?

suicide_circus

klaaaz wrote: »

Thing is, alot of folk in private housing do not want the social folk living among them. How do you intend to fix that?

by having actual consequences for anti social behaviour

Edgware

klaaaz wrote: »

Thing is, alot of folk in private housing do not want the social folk living among them. How do you intend to fix that?

I just read about some Shinner candidate in Jobstown giving out about the "posh" people in Springfield. Is he in the real world? His mentality would have the Springfield crew screwed to the wall with tax just because they have a job.

klaaaz

suicide_circus wrote: »

by having actual consequences for anti social behaviour

But there will be still poor people housed next door to wealthy people, the wealthy will object, how do you intend to override their objections?

Edgware wrote: »

I just read about some Shinner candidate in Jobstown giving out about the "posh" people in Springfield. Is he in the real world? His mentality would have the Springfield crew screwed to the wall with tax just because they have a job.

That doesn't answer the question.

Ush1

klaaaz wrote: »

But there will be still poor people housed next door to wealthy people, the wealthy will object, how do you intend to override their objections?

Define wealthy people. Just because you bought a house privately doesn't make you wealthy.

suicide_circus

klaaaz wrote: »

But there will be still poor people housed next door to wealthy people, the wealthy will object, how do you intend to override their objections?



That doesn't answer the question.

they dont object because they are poor, they object because some of them destroy the place

klaaaz

Ush1 wrote: »

Define wealthy people. Just because you bought a house privately doesn't make you wealthy.

Anyone with a six figure sum salary in my book.

suicide_circus wrote: »

they dont object because they are poor, they object because some of them destroy the place

That's some crazy optimism there, there is still widespread objections from private dwellers to social dwellers living among them and its not all down to anti-social behaviour.

Hence we still have class apartheid in our cities and towns.

sbsquarepants

klaaaz wrote: »

Thing is, alot of folk in private housing do not want the social folk living among them. How do you intend to fix that?

I haven't the first clue to be honest.

And I also completely understand that attitude, I busted my balls for over a decade right through the recession while paying another mortgage, to get the house I'm in now, I wouldn't be too happy with some layabout being handed one beside me for next to nothing.

All I know is that building ghettos can't be good for society as a whole.

sbsquarepants

Edgware wrote: »

I just read about some Shinner candidate in Jobstown giving out about the "posh" people in Springfield. Is he in the real world? His mentality would have the Springfield crew screwed to the wall with tax just because they have a job.

The UFC guy was it? Paddy Holohan?

suicide_circus

ghettoisation is due to a lack of planning

Ush1

Edgware wrote: »

I just read about some Shinner candidate in Jobstown giving out about the "posh" people in Springfield. Is he in the real world? His mentality would have the Springfield crew screwed to the wall with tax just because they have a job.

Do you have a link for this please?

Ush1

klaaaz wrote: »

Anyone with a six figure sum salary in my book.

I'm guessing you don't have a six figure salary? Not wealthy by a long stretch in my book.

Leroy42

johnmck wrote: »

Wow, I've started a row about socialism and capitalism. I'm definitely not a socialist. I've seen what that crap does to countries.

I respect the wealthy who have dreams and visions, persue them through hard work, determination and grit. It's a true democratic governments duty to insure they are taxed adequately. If a rich person / corporaration can find ways and means around taxes, it shows their smarts and again fair play to them. You cant blame them.

Nordic countries are a benign pastiche of socialism. Real socialism is a sickening destructive force that crushes the individual.

But is is exactly because of capitalism that you are in the situation you are in.

If poorer people can find ways to get free houses and dole through smarts and working the system surely that is simply fair play to them? Or is it only when you are making millions that its smart?

Ray Palmer

suicide_circus wrote: »

ghettoisation is due to a lack of planning

No it is a lack of response to social problems. Putting a lot of people together with social issues is the plan of social housing. Some people are poor through there own fault and actions.

tjhook

Leroy42 wrote: »

If poorer people can find ways to get free houses and dole through smarts and working the system surely that is simply fair play to them? Or is it only when you are making millions that its smart?

If you're consistent, then you must also think "fair play" to the truly wealthy who can work the system to pay little or no tax?


Or maybe both situations are wrong and two wrongs don't make a right.

Edgware

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The UFC guy was it? Paddy Holohan?

Paddy The Hooligan Holohan himself

Edgware

Ush1 wrote: »

Do you have a link for this please?

Irish Indo. Google Paddy Holohan and Sinn Fein. Its all there

Leroy42

tjhook wrote: »

If you're consistent, then you must also think "fair play" to the truly wealthy who can work the system to pay little or no tax?


Or maybe both situations are wrong and two wrongs don't make a right.

Quite, I was responding to the OP who is claiming that rich people making the most of tax breaks and loopholes are smart, whilst they are fed up with scroungers taking advantage of the system to get free houses.

sbsquarepants

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm guessing you don't have a six figure salary? Not wealthy by a long stretch in my book.

Ok so it's hardly Lionel Messi money, but it's still 2 grand a week, almost 3 times the average wage in this country, arguing that you're poor on that kind of money is disingenuous to say the least.

Ray Palmer

Leroy42 wrote: »

johnmck wrote: »

Wow, I've started a row about socialism and capitalism. I'm definitely not a socialist. I've seen what that crap does to countries.

I respect the wealthy who have dreams and visions, persue them through hard work, determination and grit. It's a true democratic governments duty to insure they are taxed adequately. If a rich person / corporaration can find ways and means around taxes, it shows their smarts and again fair play to them. You cant blame them.

Nordic countries are a benign pastiche of socialism. Real socialism is a sickening destructive force that crushes the individual.

But is is exactly because of capitalism that you are in the situation you are in.

If poorer people can find ways to get free houses and dole through smarts and working the system surely that is simply fair play to them? Or is it only when you are making millions that its smart?

They don't use "smarts" it is mostly given to them. The idea they work the system is a big misconception too. They try to cheat the system and get away with it but they aren't playing it.
It is pretty easy to simply lie and work in the black economy or claim your partner left you. That isn't some genius thought process just cheating.

Ray Palmer

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm guessing you don't have a six figure salary? Not wealthy by a long stretch in my book.

Ok so it's hardly Lionel Messi money, but it's still 2 grand a week, almost 3 times the average wage in this country, arguing that you're poor on that kind of money is disingenuous to say the least.

Before tax and they pay more tax than others. It is actually 1163 a week after tax. You need to workout after tax salary because it is not equivalent to 3 times the average worker. We have a very progressive tax system the more you earn the higher percentage of tax you pay.

Ray Palmer

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm guessing you don't have a six figure salary? Not wealthy by a long stretch in my book.

Ok so it's hardly Lionel Messi money, but it's still 2 grand a week, almost 3 times the average wage in this country, arguing that you're poor on that kind of money is disingenuous to say the least.

Before tax and they pay more tax than others. It is actually 1163 a week after tax. You need to workout after tax salary because it is not equivalent to 3 times the average worker. We have a very progressive tax system the more you earn the higher percentage of tax you pay.

TuringBot47

Ray Palmer wrote: »

We have a very progressive tax system the more you earn the higher percentage of tax you pay.

It's a pity they don't reduce social welfare the longer you're on it.

Leroy42

Ray Palmer wrote: »

They don't use "smarts" it is mostly given to them. The idea they work the system is a big misconception too. They try to cheat the system and get away with it but they aren't playing it.
It is pretty easy to simply lie and work in the black economy or claim your partner left you. That isn't some genius thought process just cheating.

You say tomato I say Tomato. Both sides of the same coin. The rich use offshore bank accounts, film investment vehicles, companies to employ their siblings and to cost there expenses through.

You remember Ansbacher don't you? Want about those at the head of the financial institutions here that cost the country billions.

Others use the rules that single mothers get ahead of the housing list. What is the difference? The smart decision is to not get married before getting the house surely?

It is also pretty easy for those born into money and able to pay for accountants and lawyers to ensure that you pay as little tax as possible whilst getting fast tracked into top positions due to their connections.

Neither is right.

sbsquarepants

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Before tax and they pay more tax than others. It is actually 1163 a week after tax. You need to workout after tax salary because it is not equivalent to 3 times the average worker. We have a very progressive tax system the more you earn the higher percentage of tax you pay.

Salary comparison
In Ireland, a monthly salary of 5,043 EUR after tax would be 126.5% higher than the average monthly salary and 245.2%
higher than the minimum income per
month.

True, it's 2 and a quarter times the average - still hard to argue that it's poor.
Plus, remember although you are paying tax a higher rate than someone earning less, you can also accrue benefits at a higher rate, such as a pension.

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Ok so it's hardly Lionel Messi money, but it's still 2 grand a week, almost 3 times the average wage in this country, arguing that you're poor on that kind of money is disingenuous to say the least.

Somebody said an income of €100k gross would qualify somebody as "wealthy". Somebody responded by saying it's not but nobody, as far as I can see, said people on €100k are "poor". You'd be a very lucky person indeed in Dublin if €100k gross made you "wealthy" (because of high marginal tax rates and higher basic living costs). At most - for instance, if you had no mortgage or childcare costs - you could be 'comfortable' on €100k gross.

€2k a week before tax is around €1100 after tax (depending on, for instance, whether you're a public servant, and thus paying the extra 10% ASC tax on top of PAYE, USC, PRSI). Ireland, for example, has the highest childcare costs in the EU. My childcare fees alone are €2400 pm. That's of my net income. So about €5k has to be earned to pay that. Here, the government brought in a lovely ECCE grant to "help" parents, in the full knowledge that the childcare centre owners would put their prices up to take it all. Which they did, of course. Ordinary people screwed once again and the state gives another handout to businesses, albeit dressed up as "helping parents". People constantly trot out this canard about the 'progressiveness' of the Irish tax system - but that is only for the lowest earning sections. The wealth transfer doesn't go to the mass of people in the middle. It's to the poorest, and to the richest of course.

In more socially advanced EU countries childcare would be @ €400 pm because they get a far greater level of services back from their states for their taxes than we get for our marginal tax rate of @ 55%/60%. Copy and paste these poor services across society. Higher fees for gp visits, private health insurance, and almost everything else - I note my local gp put visit fees from €50 to €60. For a single gp visit. No state subventions for the ordinary working person in the middle.

In sharp contrast, you'll find that we have the highest mortgage rates in Europe, because we're still bailing out private financial corporations (something the ranters against social welfare invariably overlook). Corporate welfare is acceptable, it seems. Similarly, we have among the highest car insurance in the EU because we're still subventing those tax-dodging capitalist heroes of the car insurance market like Quinn, Setanta and the rest because our state's economically rightwing political and media class bought into the capitalist "we need to reduce regulation on corporations" mantra. And we were consequently screwed, again. Never mind social welfare; it's all this corporate welfare that is given a free pass in Ireland in 2019.