Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Time to tax wealth - Covid cost Solution

Options
1…1314161819…30

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 5,996 ✭✭✭Cordell


    Free market is not perfect, that is true, also true is that it's the best kind there is. There are various interests pushing it in different directions, but the best thing about it is that most of the times those will push it into a position of equilibrium. The corporations will try to get it into a monopoly, and the state will try to break that monopoly, and for the most time this had worked. What you are suggesting is that instead of this equilibrium the free market needs to punish the ones that succeed and reward the ones that fail. This will not work, and more than not working, it will turn into a disaster.
    And inb4, you can support and help the ones that fail, that does not go against free market, but actually it's in line with it - give everyone a chance.


  • Options
    #453
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 5,996 ✭✭✭Cordell


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    as others have said, only a 'select' few will ever become ceo of large corporations, its effectively a closed shop, the free market depicts that effectively all citizens can become a ceo if they for example, 'work hard', this is bull****, so to is the dreams of many, what is regularly called 'the american dream', this ideology is a bust

    A lot of CEOs are long time employees that raised through the ranks in decades. Others are founders that actually started the corporation. It doesn't get any more free than that.
    What do you want, fresh graduates having a fair chance of landing a CEO position as their first job?


  • Options
    #454
    McGiver
    Registered Users Posts: 4,446 ✭✭✭McGiver


    Geuze wrote: »
    There is nothing wrong with running fiscal deficits, as long as fiscal surpluses and/or strong growth in nominal GDP happen afterwards to reduce the deficits and debt.

    However, the evidence is that politics suffers from a deficit bias.

    Politicians love running deficits, but don't like the difficult job of reducing deficits afterwards.

    Thus the need for fiscal rules.

    I don't want to pass on a mountain of public debt to my children.

    Right, can you explain Irish public debt at 100%+ of GNI? This will probably slip to 110% due to Covid.

    If you look at debt:GNI ratio then Ireland is in France and Spain league.

    Irish GDP is essentially useless indicator if you want to use it to calculate any other indicators due to massive distortion by BEPS and other tax haven scam. IMF, OECD and the EU don't use GDP for Ireland for that reason.

    https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/parliamentaryBudgetOffice/2018/2018-11-23_general-government-debt-key-issues-to-consider_en.pdf


  • Options
    #455
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,559 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Cordell wrote: »
    Free market is not perfect, that is true, also true is that it's the best kind there is. There are various interests pushing it in different directions, but the best thing about it is that most of the times those will push it into a position of equilibrium. The corporations will try to get it into a monopoly, and the state will try to break that monopoly, and for the most time this had worked. What you are suggesting is that instead of this equilibrium the free market needs to punish the ones that succeed and reward the ones that fail. This will not work, and more than not working, it will turn into a disaster.
    And inb4, you can support and help the ones that fail, that does not go against free market, but actually it's in line with it - give everyone a chance.

    success and failure, what the hell do these terms even mean??? what im suggesting is acknowledging that the free market is not perfect, but our most predominant ideologies, particularly political ideologies say the opposite, its depicted as all knowing and perfect, continually aiming towards equilibrium as you say, which is more bull****


  • Options
    #456
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,559 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Cordell wrote: »
    A lot of CEOs are long time employees that raised through the ranks in decades. Others are founders that actually started the corporation. It doesn't get any more free than that.
    What do you want, fresh graduates having a fair chance of landing a CEO position as their first job?

    of course not, that would be silly for many if not most, what i want is a fair share in the wealth created by these workers, including new graduates, again, ceo's arent gods!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,479 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    Yes, when the dust settles we should take the knife to the wage packet of the monkey on 20k first and cocoon the salary of the CEO with the 2m salary. :pac: Some clowns on here are going to get a rude awakening.

    The wealthy often forget that people on monkey salaries are the ones keeping the world safe and running, and there are a lot more of them.
    The French aristocracy learnt the hard way the consequences of provoking 'the poors' with the outrageous flaunting of wealth. We've moved on from that, but there's a major rebalancing on the horizon if the wealth gap continues to widen. Trying to divert the attention of 'the monkeys' towards those gaming the social welfare system will only work for so long.


  • Options
    #458
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 5,996 ✭✭✭Cordell


    You do have a fair share, today more than ever you have more opportunities to get a high paying job. All because of that bulls*** equilibrium that you say it's non existent.


  • Options
    #459
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,559 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Cordell wrote: »
    You do have a fair share, today more that ever you have more opportunities to get a high paying job. All because of that bulls*** equilibrium that you say it's non existent.

    we dont live in a world of equal opportunities, another myth of the so called free market, and id completely agree with economic commentators such as stiglitz, an increase in inequality, also increases inequality of opportunities. we need to move beyond the economics of neoclassical theory and its so called equilibriums


  • Options
    #460
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,536 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    Cordell wrote: »
    You do have a fair share, today more than ever you have more opportunities to get a high paying job. All because of that bulls*** equilibrium that you say it's non existent.

    If there are forces pushing towards as much equality across society as possible then that's a good thing and we're only scratching the surface on it. The way some go on about it on here you'd swear it was a bad thing, with their "if we need to raise taxes at the end of this hit the lower earners first etc." bullshít.


  • Options
    #461
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Cordell wrote: »
    Free market is not perfect, that is true, also true is that it's the best kind there is.
    That's convenient that you can declare is the "best there is", to avoid having to consider alternatives.

    The free market is far from the best there is, because it fails to acknowledge many inherent biases and corruptions within its nodes.

    In terms of modelling, a "free market" model often works well in simple experiments because it always finds a state of equilibrium.

    But humans are not a simple model. External forces are continuously acting on the model, preventing it from finding any equilibrium, and pushing it towards specific outcomes. The fact that free market economies experience regular, nearly predictable bust & boom cycles is evidence of this.

    A better model is one that allow free market capitalsm, but within boundaries. With buffers/limits at the low and high end to prevent exploitation at one end and oligarchy at the other. Anyone who wants an easy life can have one, anyone who wants to be wealthy can give it a go, but one doesn't occur at the expense of the other.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,515 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    KyussB wrote: »
    All countries have a long history of persistent fiscal deficits. Practically no countries run surpluses for long periods. Deficits are and have always been the norm.

    The size of Public Debt has nothing to do with interest rates.

    You are taxed more when you fail to maximize GDP, through Public Debt - you've got it backwards.

    Yes, it's true that fiscal deficits were, and are common, across countries.

    Now, I would not quite agree with "All countries have a long history of persistent fiscal deficits."

    I don't think German fiscal history is the same as Greek fiscal history.

    And, yes, within EMU, bond yields converged, so countries with high public debt were able to borrow at rates very close to German yields.


  • Options
    #463
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,515 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    KyussB wrote: »
    You are taxed more when you fail to maximize GDP, through Public Debt - you've got it backwards.

    Long-run economic growth and long-run living standards are determined by productivity.

    GDP is maximised by boosting levels of physical capital, human capital, labour force, infrastructure.

    Yes, public debt is used to finance infrastructure, yes.

    But I don't think this implies we should drive public debt every upwards.

    There is a limit to the size of a sensible public debt.

    Reinhart and Rogogg suggested 90% of GDP.

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w15639

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-reinhart-and-rogoff-controversy-a-summing-up

    https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2013/04/20/the-90-question


    Japan has a massive public debt, has that helped its recent economic growth rate?

    Japan has been able to finance that huge public debt by vast pools of domestic savings, but not every country is able to do that.


  • Options
    #464
    KyussB
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    Geuze wrote: »
    Yes, it's true that fiscal deficits were, and are common, across countries.

    Now, I would not quite agree with "All countries have a long history of persistent fiscal deficits."

    I don't think German fiscal history is the same as Greek fiscal history.

    And, yes, within EMU, bond yields converged, so countries with high public debt were able to borrow at rates very close to German yields.
    In fairness, you must know Germany is a cherry picked example, given that the structure of the Euro massively benefits them at the cost of the rest of the Eurozone (a monetary union without a fiscal union i.e. without fiscal transfers, means that the strongest economic regions receive an artificial 'depreciation' relative to their original currency, and all other economic regions receive an artificial 'appreciation' relative to their original currency - giving the strongest region, Germany, a massive trade advantage, and all other regions a trade disadvantage) - Germany is the one place in Europe that can run a surplus, and rely on the foreign sector (trade), instead of the private sector (private debt) to make up the shortfal needed to maximize GDP.

    So, imbalances in the Eurozone aside, pretty much all countries do have a history of persistent/permanent fiscal deficits - it's perfectly normal, and a desired/good thing.


  • Options
    #465
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    ELM327 wrote: »
    So.. a survey of a minute number (2000) showed that in the UK , 63% were not in employment, and one person commented that it was 80% and you want that as proof it's 80%.
    Gimme a break.

    2000 is actually a very good survey sample . And your counter evidence is?


  • Options
    #466
    KyussB
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    Geuze wrote: »
    Long-run economic growth and long-run living standards are determined by productivity.

    GDP is maximised by boosting levels of physical capital, human capital, labour force, infrastructure.

    Yes, public debt is used to finance infrastructure, yes.

    But I don't think this implies we should drive public debt every upwards.

    There is a limit to the size of a sensible public debt.

    Reinhart and Rogogg suggested 90% of GDP.

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w15639

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-reinhart-and-rogoff-controversy-a-summing-up

    https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2013/04/20/the-90-question


    Japan has a massive public debt, has that helped its recent economic growth rate?

    Japan has been able to finance that huge public debt by vast pools of domestic savings, but not every country is able to do that.
    Do you not remember Reinhart and Rogoff's study being discredited, by screwing up the spreadsheet math? (among other major errors)
    https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/10/ken-rogoff-loses-it-calls-criticism-of-errors-in-debt-paper-a-witch-hunt.html

    It should, on its face, be apparent that the Public Debt vs GDP percentage, means nothing - and this is why: No consideration of the interest rate.
    If we are dipping into negative interest rates, then we can go into 1000% Public Debt vs GDP - and get paid to do it.

    Japan has been dealing with crippling debt deflation, caused by massive Private Debt - the perfect example of why you don't let Private Debt get so high - and can get out of that with a Debt Jubilee, by using a massive expansion of Public Debt, to mass-pay-down Private Debt's.


  • Options
    #467
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 5,996 ✭✭✭Cordell


    seamus wrote: »
    That's convenient that you can declare is the "best there is", to avoid having to consider alternatives.
    Alternatives have been tried and they failed. Miserably. Over and over again.
    Free market is the best there is simply because it's natural.
    seamus wrote: »
    The free market is far from the best there is, because it fails to acknowledge many inherent biases and corruptions within its nodes.
    That's not true, it doesn't fail to acknowledge corruption, which actually goes against the idea of free market. You can't blame free market for issues that are not compatible with it, it makes no sense. Corruption is not a problem of free markets, it's a problem that affects and distorts free markets.
    seamus wrote: »
    In terms of modelling, a "free market" model often works well in simple experiments because it always finds a state of equilibrium.

    But humans are not a simple model. External forces are continuously acting on the model, preventing it from finding any equilibrium, and pushing it towards specific outcomes. The fact that free market economies experience regular, nearly predictable bust & boom cycles is evidence of this.
    Free market works, we are living in one of the best places in the world and that is because of free market. Is there any other place in the world which is better and lacks a free market?
    seamus wrote: »
    A better model is one that allow free market capitalsm, but within boundaries. With buffers/limits at the low and high end to prevent exploitation at one end and oligarchy at the other. Anyone who wants an easy life can have one, anyone who wants to be wealthy can give it a go, but one doesn't occur at the expense of the other.
    You had me until anyone gets to live an easy life. Who's going to pay for that easy no questions asked life?


  • Options
    #468
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    seamus wrote: »

    A better model is one that allow free market capitalsm, but within boundaries. .

    This is an oxymoran


  • Options
    #469
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    This is an oxomoran
    "..moron"
    "Oxymoron" :p


  • Options
    #470
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Cordell wrote: »
    Alternatives have been tried and they failed. Miserably. Over and over again.
    Free market is the best there is simply because it's natural.
    That's more than a little short-sighted. Free market capitalism hasn't been around for that long in an historical context.
    It also assumes that every alternative possible has been "tried". It hasn't. Fiscal policy evolves constantly, there is no final perfect end state.
    Corruption is not a problem of free markets, it's a problem that affects and distorts free markets.
    You're hitting the nail on the head there. This is why "free market" is as much a fantasy as communisn is. Because corruption is an unavoidable feature of humanity and thus makes free markets short-lived.
    Free market is a lovely model in a computer simulation. It's not a real world model.
    Free market works, we are living in one of the best places in the world and that is because of free market. Is there any other place in the world which is better and lacks a free market?
    Polarised rhetoric. You're the one who claimed it was perfect. I didn't say it was bad, I just said it wasn't perfect.
    You had me until anyone gets to live an easy life. Who's going to pay for that easy no questions asked life?
    It's right there in what I said. One should not occur at the expense of the other. This is where you find balance. Facilitating lower earnings should not require exploitation of higher earners. And vice-versa.
    As in, someone earning €100k should not have to live hand-to-mouth while someone on UBI only has no money worries at all. And vice-versa.


  • Options
    #471
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,536 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    kowloon wrote: »
    The wealthy often forget that people on monkey salaries are the ones keeping the world safe and running, and there are a lot more of them.
    The French aristocracy learnt the hard way the consequences of provoking 'the poors' with the outrageous flaunting of wealth. We've moved on from that, but there's a major rebalancing on the horizon if the wealth gap continues to widen. Trying to divert the attention of 'the monkeys' towards those gaming the social welfare system will only work for so long.

    Yep. 100%. I think the rupture in the US and UK political systems where the electorates in those two countries have rejected the status quo alternatives and reached out for a dangerous populist mix of division and jingoism is a reflection of that discontent.

    However the charlatans they voted for as a so called "alternative" have no fix and have zero solutions, they just play blame game politics while the lot of those they duped gets no better or in a crisis like Covid 19 with clowns like Trump and Johnson in charge gets decidedly worse.

    Minimising inequality in society has to be a core value and goal for any nation state, that's if they have two brain cells to rub together between the lot of them. The trolling clowns on here preaching hit the lower paid first in the event of a tax hike when the dust settles on this are away with the fairies. It won't happen and it won't work either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 5,996 ✭✭✭Cordell


    seamus wrote: »
    That's more than a little short-sighted. Free market capitalism hasn't been around for that long in an historical context.
    It's been around since we got out of the caves, or since biblical times, since humans started trading.
    The books on it are recent, not the thing itself.
    seamus wrote: »
    It also assumes that every alternative possible has been "tried". It hasn't. Fiscal policy evolves constantly, there is no final perfect end state.
    I'm not against evolving, that happens naturally, but I'm very much against radical changes, because there is no peaceful way to try them, and no peaceful way to fall back when they fail.
    seamus wrote: »
    You're hitting the nail on the head there. This is why "free market" is as much a fantasy as communisn is. Because corruption is an unavoidable feature of humanity and thus makes free markets short-lived.
    So far it has proven to be anything but short lived.
    seamus wrote: »
    Free market is a lovely model in a computer simulation. It's not a real world model.
    Polarised rhetoric. You're the one who claimed it was perfect. I didn't say it was bad, I just said it wasn't perfect.
    I don't claim it's perfect because it's not. What it is is the only system proven to be working, and it can be improved and it constantly is improved.

    In any case, any inherent problem with the free market will not be solved by tax.


  • Options
    #473
    KyussB
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    The stuff that poster is coming out with is crazy voodoo economics gibberish.
    You don't even know what you're arguing aginst - one moment you're slating free marketeers as voodoo economists - then you're doing the same against with those who advocate strong government supports.

    Empty nonsense, without any actual arguments presented.


  • Options
    #474
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    biko wrote: »
    "..moron"
    "Oxymoron" :p

    Gah!


  • Options
    #475
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,536 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    KyussB wrote: »
    You don't even know what you're arguing aginst - one moment you're slating free marketeers as voodoo economists - then you're doing the same against with those who advocate strong government supports.

    Empty nonsense, without any actual arguments presented.

    :pac: says the one who is attempting to argue that there are ways that there will be no austerity at the end of this. There will be some kind of austerity and those who can shoulder that best should shoulder it most. You're spinning yarns and throwing figures about deflecting from that reality. We know what happens when the likes of you get free reign.


  • Options
    #476
    KyussB
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    There is no genuinely left-leaning poster out there who thinks austerity is inevitable. Your posts are nothing more than empty garbage stating that you view austerity as the desired outcome - and that you're going to take a football-team-supporter style tribalistic approach, to defending that, and taunting those who disagree.

    No actual arguments presented - just tribalism and a lot of empty noise.


  • Options
    #477
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,536 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    KyussB wrote: »
    There is no genuinely left-leaning poster out there who thinks austerity is inevitable. Your posts are nothing more than empty garbage stating that you view austerity as the desired outcome - and that you're going to take a football-team-supporter style tribalistic approach, to defending that, and taunting those who disagree.

    No actual arguments presented - just tribalism and a lot of empty noise.

    Are you claiming to be a genuine left leaning poster?:confused:

    Nobody desires austerity? What are you blathering about? I'm attempting to be realistic, that there will be a bill to pay when this settles.

    Hopefully it won't be like the banking crisis when billions of banking debt was nationalised. This time the money spent on real people and real business will hopefully mean the economy can bounce back quicker, but there will be a bill of some kind and my argument would be to ask those on higher earnings who can afford it best to help pay more of that. Others on here are arguing hit the lower paid first.


  • Options
    #478
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users Posts: 18,670 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    KyussB wrote: »
    1000% Public Debt vs GDP at negative interest rates, means you can leave the money unspent, and spend the interest payments on it - so the principal is always around to be repaid - meaning you can permanently issue debt as long as interest rates are negative, and use only the interest payments for spending.

    Completely destroys the austerity narrative on Public Debt.

    No it dose not. The fact to remember is your borrowing capabilities are limited to the market's confidence in your ability to repay that debt. While at present markets are confident in our ability to service debt this can change. A lot of bonds are 10ish years at present because of the low interest cycle.

    Alot of Irish debt must be rolled over in the next few years as well as what we newly require to borrow. The markets will not allow you to indefinitely borrow at low or negative interest rates.

    Part of the reason we can borrow so cheaply is because the last government kept shackles on spending when many wanted to let rip on health spending and housing. This would have inflated the economy and left us vunerable to markets now.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Options
    #479
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Well for starters anyone off shore with companies or business interests looking to get a hand out from the tax payer should be personally liable for repayment. Look at the likes of Branson not personally paid tax in the UK in some time but looking for Virgin Atlantic to be given a dig out. I say do it to protect jobs but Branson should not profit off it IMO.


  • Options
    #480
    KyussB
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    No it dose not. The fact to remember is your borrowing capabilities are limited to the market's confidence in your ability to repay that debt. While at present markets are confident in our ability to service debt this can change. A lot of bonds are 10ish years at present because of the low interest cycle.

    Alot of Irish debt must be rolled over in the next few years as well as what we newly require to borrow. The markets will not allow you to indefinitely borrow at low or negative interest rates.

    Part of the reason we can borrow so cheaply is because the last government kept shackles on spending when many wanted to let rip on health spending and housing. This would have inflated the economy and left us vunerable to markets now.
    A debt taken out at a negative interest rate, where only the interest is used for spending and the principal kept unspent for repaying the debt - can not fail to be repaid.

    You're reciting the debunked 'confidence fairies' concept of government finances - making handwavy assertions, without any backing, about 'markets' losing confidence in government finances, by arguing that government finances will become unsustainable because...wait for it....the markets will supposedly 'lose confidence'.

    It's a completely circular and discredited argument.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    FVP3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭FVP3


    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    No it dose not. The fact to remember is your borrowing capabilities are limited to the market's confidence in your ability to repay that debt. While at present markets are confident in our ability to service debt this can change. A lot of bonds are 10ish years at present because of the low interest cycle.

    Alot of Irish debt must be rolled over in the next few years as well as what we newly require to borrow. The markets will not allow you to indefinitely borrow at low or negative interest rates.

    Part of the reason we can borrow so cheaply is because the last government kept shackles on spending when many wanted to let rip on health spending and housing. This would have inflated the economy and left us vunerable to markets now.

    Markets will react over time of course, but as was said previously markets tend to react to a perceived inability to pay the money back because of a deep recession rather than any increase in borrowing in other times.

    I cant see why the Germans are not issuing as many bonds as possible to build out infrastructure. Negative yields surely indicate a huge demand for your product, borrowing more might just get them into positive or 0% territory. The horror.


Advertisement