FF/FG/Green Next Government

Wanderer78

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Give us a synopsis of the 21st century ideas you have in mind.

And a full explanation of the consequential occurrence path.

Per favor amigo

in relation to money creation, long term bonds and the creation of public banking systems

RandomViewer

The_Conductor wrote: »

Statistically- the people who have lost their jobs (thus far) are more likely to be ye aforementioned shop workers- than anyone else (reflecting the move away from historically normal shopping patterns).

Certainly there will be some job losses in other sectors (look at the 1,400 jobs that BOI are cutting in Ireland and the UK, the job losses in the airline industry, the 238k people involved in the tourism sector in Ireland etc etc)

I am not sure what you mean by 'abandoning their brethern or bail them out'- are you suggesting hiking taxes further on those who haven't lost their jobs to make disbursements to those who have had the misfortune to loose theirs? Keep in mind- the first money that was spent to pay for the covid payments to workers who lost their jobs because of the covid pandemic- was the social welfare fund for pensions- that is- the money that every worker has been paying in PRSI and USC- towards their retirement- has gone- gone completely- its been spent- its not going to be there for them when they retire.

Our dependency ratio in Ireland- was roughly 56% in 2019 - broadly similar to Italy's- however, even before Covid hit- it was on an upward trajectory.

Magic money trees do not exist (regardless of what some posters on this thread may imagine). Someone has to pay for largess when money is doled out to people- and those 'someones' are having to support an increasingly large number of dependents (younger and more elderly people). We can't borrow money ad nauseum- despite what some people imagine. This is not an option.

Domestic economy isn't in the worst place, lots of debt paid down but the sectors depending on international trade are in trouble, in 2009 the state abandoned the construction industry to save the bank's, this time it's the middle income earners most likely to lose out, FFG voter base will be decimated so I'm thinking some form of UBI/TWSS to be rolled out.

Wanderer78

RandomViewer wrote:

Domestic economy isn't in the worst place, lots of debt paid down but the sectors depending on international trade are in trouble, in 2009 the state abandoned the construction industry to save the bank's, this time it's the middle income earners most likely to lose out, FFG voter base will be decimated so I'm thinking some form of UBI/TWSS to be rolled out.

I think if they dont reverse covid payment cuts soon, the private sector will tank even quicker, it needs money, and fast

The_Conductor

Wanderer78 wrote: »

to be fair, they re starting to change from their conservative traditions, including money matters, current covid payments could be considered a method of 'helicopter money'

Not exactly- they emptied the social welfare funds for pensions- before they borrowed 'helicopter' money. Today's workers pensions have been spent- to provide Covid payments to people.

RandomViewer

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Give us a synopsis of the 21st century ideas you have in mind.

And a full explanation of the consequential occurrence path.

Per favor amigo

Cerveza per favor

Whole world is effected so money borrowing won't be an issue it's how it's used that matters .
Currents systems of governance are powerless against years of corruption, anything the state does cost multiples of what it should because of trough feeders who are usually paid up members of FG.
Every higher level civil servants is indoctrinated so needs to go,
We actually need to make 30-40 thousand publicservants and union representatives unemployed to create employment for hundreds of thousands
System is broken ,needs replaced completely

The_Conductor

RandomViewer wrote: »

Domestic economy isn't in the worst place, lots of debt paid down but the sectors depending on international trade are in trouble, in 2009 the state abandoned the construction industry to save the bank's, this time it's the middle income earners most likely to lose out, FFG voter base will be decimated so I'm thinking some form of UBI/TWSS to be rolled out.

FFG voters don't have any nature home to migrate to- if/when they're pissed off (other than to do the same thing as they did last time round- and simply not vote at all). FFG voters were still hurting from the last austerity round- and had been promised tax reforms if they voted FG this time round- which obviously isn't going to happen. Even ignoring the burden they're going to be asked to bear- its ontop of the burden they were scarcely managing before all this crap hit the fan.

Wanderer78

The_Conductor wrote:

Not exactly- they emptied the social welfare funds for pensions- before they borrowed 'helicopter' money. Today's workers pensions have been spent- to provide Covid payments to people.

There's nothing stopping them from creating long term bonds and public banking systems, to reduce the need to crawling down the back of the coach for such things, with record low rates, they'd be nuts not to. the private sector doesn't have the capacity right now to take on the debts needed to grow our way outta this one, if we don't enact these public sector mechanisms, we ll shrink further for longer

RandomViewer

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I think if they dont reverse covid payment cuts soon, the private sector will tank even quicker, it needs money, and fast

Except for a few office staff everyone where I work is on TWSS, some weeks we have work, some we don't, it's getting quieter and my guess is if TWSS is cut its redundancies for some or full closure, would think lots of others in similar position

Wanderer78

RandomViewer wrote:

Except for a few office staff everyone where I work is on TWSS, some weeks we have work, some we don't, it's getting quieter and my guess is if TWSS is cut its redundancies for some or full closure, would think lots of others in similar position

Yup, this is my ultimate fear, and disturbingly, our government and it's advisers don't seem to realise by cutting that money, they re speeding up this process, just create the fcuking money, and save jobs and businesses

efanton

The_Conductor wrote: »

efanton - I don't think anyone can seriously argue with the points you're making- however, the manner in which workers in Ireland are taxed in an undue manner- with a marginal deduction rate of 52% on all pay over 34.5k- is very much a concern. Even for those in gainful employment- there is limited appeal in working longer hours or taking on more responsibility- when you're going to loose an abnormal chunk of it- at relatively low pay rates.

In addition- combined social welfare disbursements (under one or more headings- but including accommodation and a free medical card) can make it difficult to financially incentivise someone to join the workforce- sure you'd be mad to, if it cost you more in entitlements than you brought in (to say nothing of childcare costs).

The social welfare system- does need to be reformed- as does the tax system, childcare, and the sheer cost of living in Ireland. These are all political hot potatoes that our politicians have perennially booted into the long grass. We're now at yet another impasse - where we're running out of long grass- and look likely to borrow between 24 and 30 billion this year- with Brexit ready to boot us in the gonads come next January.

Whether we like it or not- we have been living far beyond our means- and money doesn't grow on trees.

We have some exceptionally hard choices we're going to have to make in the not so distant future.

So you have a problem with the tax system. That's fair enough, to a very large degree I agree with you. Yo have a problem with the fact that the squeezed middle are carrying too much of the burden, again I would totally agree with you.

So dont blame those on social welfare for a tax system or government spending that plainly is no longer fair and proportional, blame the government that is in control of it.
The problem is many of the squeezed middle are totally reluctant to blame existent tax policies on the government, that would mean blaming the party they support and potentially agreeing with political parties they do not support. Its so much easier to blame a scapegoat instead isnt't it?



Personally I have long argued a a three band tax system, so that a government could target policies specifically for the different income bands. When I heard SF were proposing to implement such a system I had high hopes until I realised that they were going to set the threshold for the third band at such a high level of €140k. An opportunity wasted in my opinion, that threshold was way to high as it would be difficult to only help the middle income earners without benefiting the high income earners too. What needs to be done it to add a new tax band in the MIDDLE of the tax spectrum not at the top end.

The two tier system is plain stupid in the modern age.
In the current system if you want to help the lowest paid you raise the lowest tax band's threshold, but while doing so you also give that benefit to the middle and high income earners. This has the effect of diluting the measure or increasing the cost of this measure to get the desired effect.
This is much of the problem with the existing tax system. By trying to help the poorest by raising the lower tax bands threshold the government have inadvertently removed far to many from the taxation net, which has inadvertently put more pressure on the middle income earners.

In the current system if you wanted to help the squeezed middle you raise the threshold for the existing upper tax band, but while you do that you are also giving that benefit to the highest paid as well, again diluting the effectiveness of the measure and adding cost.

I you had a three band system you could adjust the lower and upper thresholds of the middle band so that you could indeed specifically target the lower income earners, the middle income earners or the higher income earners individually. I would suggest a threshold for the lowest band at 15k, the middle band at 30k and the higher band at 80k. Have the lowest band rate set at 20%, the middle band set to 35% and then adjust the rate of the top band so that there is no net loss to revenue takings. It would need a bit of tinkering to get it right, but the point is you would then have a tax system where you could target lower, middle or higher income workers specifically without adding additional cost and without giving benefit to those you did not intend to have it
.
With three bands you could adjust the thresholds for each band, or adjust the rate for each band and specifically target only the tax payers you intended to benefit.

The_Brood

Just a tasty little reminder from January:

“We will not be entering into a grand coalition, people want change, it’s very clear, the message we’re receiving [is] people want change in this country, they want Fine Gael out of office,” Micheál Martin said.

I have this crazy idea that political opponents who do not want to work together, and specifically state that they do not want and will not work together, should then not be forced by a foolish voting system to form a disjointed, nonsense coalition spitting out contradictory information with every last step and decision, screwing the people.

Wanderer78

efanton wrote:

So you have a problem with the tax system. That's fair enough, to a very large degree I agree with you. Yo have a problem with the fact that the squeezed middle are carrying too much of the burden, again I would totally agree with you.

Changing our tax system will only get us so far, but it does need to be looked at, we urgently need to rethink how wealth is created in the country and how we distribute it, or more importantly, how we don't distribute it

Wanderer78

The_Brood wrote:

“We will not be entering into a grand coalition, people want change, it’s very clear, the message we’re receiving [is] people want change in this country, they want Fine Gael out of office,†Micheál Martin said.

They're all full of sh1t, they'd all get into bed together, expect some of the weirdest combinations going forward from now on

James Brown

The_Brood wrote: »

Just a tasty little reminder from January:

“We will not be entering into a grand coalition, people want change, it’s very clear, the message we’re receiving [is] people want change in this country, they want Fine Gael out of office,” Micheál Martin said.

I have this crazy idea that political opponents who do not want to work together, and specifically state that they do not want and will not work together, should then not be forced by a foolish voting system to form a disjointed, nonsense coalition spitting out contradictory information with every last step and decision, screwing the people.

That was MM trying to appease the 'had enough of FG' vote.
The SD's were the only ones stood clear on principle and wouldn't touch either of the civil war two.

KyussB

The_Conductor wrote: »

Sigh- so you do believe that money grows on trees? I wish I believed in fairy tales too- however, this particular fairy tale does not have a pleasant ending.

All I can do is say- I wish you the very best of good luck- seeing as your and my opinions are so diametrically opposed- there really is no point in discussing/debating this with you.

Do you think we dig money out of the ground? Explain to us where, exactly, you think money comes from?

Since money is fundamental to discussion of all of macroeconomics, it's kind of a prerequisite to have some clue about where it comes from, to avoid talking absolute bollocks about macroeconomic policy.

KyussB

RandomViewer wrote: »

I get where you are coming from but I can't see anyone in the current political system going for it, the idea of state employment as a guarantee if you can't find alternative is a noble idea but the way this country works there has to be a backhander for someone, so costs would make your proposal too costly.

It's good that more people see it as a noble idea at least. I think that as more and more people see mass long-term unemployment as an unjustified and unacceptable thing (and gradually, as an unnecessary thing), that this will become a universally popular cause (among people with both right and left wing views).

If it was to be implemented properly, I think that people will gradually view the greater cost, as being leaving people unemployed for long periods, and leaving necessary work undone that such people could do (both accommodation and infrastructural etc. being more immediate ones).

The cost of not doing all of that is far greater - both in human terms and economically.

efanton

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Changing our tax system will only get us so far, but it does need to be looked at, we urgently need to rethink how wealth is created in the country and how we distribute it, or more importantly, how we don't distribute it

You simply cant change how wealth is created, at least not in a democracy or open economy.

The tax system is the only method a country has of redistributing wealth, controlling the spending of its citizens or to some degree managing how wealth is generated. It is also the tax system that control how much a government can spend. You can argue that the government spends too much in one area but not another, you might argue that more needs to be spent on health for instance, but that will be at the cost of reduced spending in another area. Without a change to the tax system its unlikely that you could dramatically increase spending in any of the major government departments.

The reality is the tax system is the be all and end all as far as spending and control of spending goes, be that for the ordinary citizen or the the government.

The real underlying problem that most countries have is that big business and the very wealthy have far too much influence on how much a government collects in tax revenues and how much or where it spends these tax receipts.

If you want to see a fairer society or relieve the pressure on the squeezed middle income earner the only way to even get a start on that is significant changes to the tax system.

You cant spend what you do not have, and you cant take from those that dont have it.

KyussB

No economist on the entire planet thinks Government Spending = Government Revenue - so no, you are wrong about all of that.

The biggest trap anyone who cares about inequality can fall into, is to view taxes as the means to resolve it. Taxes are a fundamental part of resolving it, yes - but the most important part is Government Spending, and using that to bolster conditions for the least well off - not taxes.

Shefwedfan

The_Brood wrote: »

Just a tasty little reminder from January:

“We will not be entering into a grand coalition, people want change, it’s very clear, the message we’re receiving [is] people want change in this country, they want Fine Gael out of office,” Micheál Martin said.

I have this crazy idea that political opponents who do not want to work together, and specifically state that they do not want and will not work together, should then not be forced by a foolish voting system to form a disjointed, nonsense coalition spitting out contradictory information with every last step and decision, screwing the people.

Ok I think we need to explain this again
No party prior to election will say they want to go into a coalition. Not the big boys. They expect to win enough votes to win a majority, if they go into an election saying they only want to get into bed with XYZ then they are seen as weak

Once an election happens and votes are in the everything changes. This is standard, has happened in loads of elections but for some reason at this elections we have a load of people who just can’t seem to get their head around it

So far what the government have done, what’s your alternative? I guess your talking about covid what would you do?

efanton

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Ok I think we need to explain this again
No party prior to election will say they want to go into a coalition. Not the big boys. They expect to win enough votes to win a majority, if they go into an election saying they only want to get into bed with XYZ then they are seen as weak

Once an election happens and votes are in the everything changes. This is standard, has happened in loads of elections but for some reason at this elections we have a load of people who just can’t seem to get their head around it

So far what the government have done, what’s your alternative? I guess your talking about covid what would you do?

I totally disagree with you.

All MM had to say was we will not be drawn on whether we will go into coalition with any party until the election has actually taken place. He did not have to say he was for or against coalition with any party.

The reason MM made that comment, knowing damn well that it was quite likely that it was a lie even when saying it, was to get extra votes. People voted FF that would not have given them a vote had they known a coalition with FG was possible.

Had he not said it you know and I know damn well FF would have even less seats in the Dail and it would be very likely that we would now have a left of centre government of some kind, or some form of Unity government.

I have little time for devious people, or blatant liars, but MM fits both descriptions.

Shefwedfan

efanton wrote: »

I totally disagree with you.

All MM had to say was we will not be drawn on whether we will go into coalition with any party until the election has actually taken place. He did not have to say he was for or against coalition with any party.

The reason MM made that comment, knowing damn well that it was quite likely that it was a a lie even when saying it, was to get extra votes.

Had he not said it you know and I know damn well FF would have even less seats in the Dail and it would be very likely that we would now have a left of centre government of some kind, or some form of Unity government.
both descriptions.
I have little time for devious people, or blatant liars, but MM fits both.

You can disagree all you like but that’s the way the world goes round

Any other statement from MM and he would be seen as weak and wouldn’t even had led FF into the election

efanton

Shefwedfan wrote: »

You can disagree all you like but that’s the way the world goes round

Any other statement from MM and he would be seen as weak and wouldn’t even had led FF into the election

He is weak, nothing he said or could of said would change that.
Look at the mess he made in the first week when appointing ministers. He had his own TD's openly defying him. Tell me that that is not a sign of weakness.
If he had any strength at all, they would have never dared to go as far as they did.

Did FG, as much as I dislike them, say they would not form a coalition with FF?
Did they U-turn on any promise they made during the election?

Name any other party that made a statement prior to the election regarding whether they would consider a coalition with another party and then actually did a complete U-turn?

Lying and conniving to get into power might be the way the world goes round for those in FF, but for others all it is a sign of the weakness you talk about.

Wanderer78

efanton wrote:

You cant spend what you do not have, and you cant take from those that dont have it.

Again, as other posters have eluded to, money creation is also key to this, governments, if allowed, and to a degree, they still can, within current eu rules, can in fact create money via bonds and public banking systems, this of course turns into debt, the same as all other money that is created, via the private sector.

We urgently need to get a handle on the large amount of wealth created by mnc's, of which we only truly receive a very small amount of it via taxation, I do think the best way of doing this is accepting partial payments of revenue as stocks and shares, and utilising sovereign wealth funds from there to redistributing this wealth. There would be no need to increase our 12.5% rate either.

Another method potentially could be by selling the tech companies our data, since this is a critical component of their wealth creation, and we currently freely give it to them, only for them to process it, turning it into astonishing levels of wealth, of which we receive little or nothing of.

Shefwedfan

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Again, as other posters have eluded to, money creation is also key to this, governments, if allowed, and to a degree, they still can, within current eu rules, can in fact create money via bonds and public banking systems, this of course turns into debt, the same as all other money that is created, via the private sector.

We urgently need to get a handle on the large amount of wealth created by mnc's, of which we only truly receive a very small amount of it via taxation, I do think the best way of doing this is accepting partial payments of revenue as stocks and shares, and utilising sovereign wealth funds from there to redistributing this wealth. There would be no need to increase our 12.5% rate either.

Another method potentially could be by selling the tech companies our data, since this is a critical component of their wealth creation, and we currently freely give it to them, only for them to process it, turning it into astonishing levels of wealth, of which we receive little or nothing of.

How much are the MNC paying in terms of wages and pension contributions etc?

Ireland would want to be completely stupid to try and wedge more money out of them to pay for people who just don’t want to work or who don’t want to pay tax

We are getting tax from these companies, they are paying wages which we tax, they are paying rent which we tax.

Seriously some people need to cop on. SF came
Up with this MNC bulls**t and everyone is running around after it without an idea what they are talking about, you will cripple this country. Putting thousand and thousand of people unemployed and all the tax they drive.

How exactly are you going to sell them your data? Please explain that one to me

Wanderer78

Shefwedfan wrote: »

How much are the MNC paying in terms of wages and pension contributions etc?

Ireland would want to be completely stupid to try and wedge more money out of them to pay for people who just don’t want to work or who don’t want to pay tax

We are getting tax from these companies, they are paying wages which we tax, they are paying rent which we tax.

Seriously some people need to cop on. SF came
Up with this MNC bulls**t and everyone is running around after it without an idea what they are talking about, you will cripple this country. Putting thousand and thousand of people unemployed and all the tax they drive.

How exactly are you going to sell them your data? Please explain that one to me

..and how much wealth are mnc's extracting in order to maximize share holder value? we urgently need a bigger share of this wealth, requesting a small amount of their current revenue in stocks and shares wouldnt upset their business model too much. it would be an indirect way of receiving more of the wealth created, it would give us more skin in the game, so to speak, sovereign wealth funds are commonly used globally for such purposes, norway comes to mind, in regards the use of its fossil fuels reserves.

in fairness, the political left are lost on this one, particular parties such as sf, ive always had issues with mnc's, after spending a few years working for one, and seeing how they treat some people, even some of my previous managers agree with me, the company i worked for, has never made a profit in its 40 years of operations here, according to its books!

in regards selling our data, tell them, if you want to collect our data, you have to pay for it, and maybe give them the option of paying via stocks and shares in their companies, and again utilize swf's from there to redistribute the wealth generated from the fund. that idea is political scientists mark Blyths, he explains it in his new book, angrynomics, probably worth a read if you want more info on how this could be done

markodaly

KyussB wrote: »

NeoLiberalism came to the fore in the 70's/80's - from the 1940's until then economics was dominated by Keynesianism, and that was the 'golden age' of capitalism.

Neoclassical economics has existed through all that time (it's inherent in NeoLiberalism, and what is known as 'Keynesianism' is the 'Neoclasical Synthesis' which mixed Keyne's views with Neoclassical economics, despite Keyne's being against neoclassical views) - it is the reason for the failure of 'Keynesianism' in the 70's stagflation (which did not invalidate Keyne's views, it invalidated the Neoclassical Synthesis), and the rise of NeoLiberalism.

Capitalism in the form of Keyne's views, brought the golden age - Neoclassical economics undermined that golden age, and also brought us NeoLiberalism - which has spent the last 40 years gradually reversing all the gains that Keyne's-style economics brought everyday people - and is accelerating inequality and the instability of capitalism.

Stable capitalism that works for everybody, is based on Keyne's.

Thanks for the history lesson but again, the 70's were kinda **** world-wide.
If one wants to look at the reduction of absolute poverty since the 80's..

https://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/wp-content/uploads/PR-in-China-India-and-Brazil1.png

Life expectancy



Women in education.


Now, are there some edge cases where things have not worked out as well as we hoped. Yes, I am man enough to admit that, but the underlying reasons for this is very complicated, but can be summarised by the rise of China.

The working class in the west have been put out by the rise in China, but then again up to 400 million people in China would be classed as middle class, so its not all bad.
Again, its complicated. But there are idiots online and social media just want to encapsulate complicated issues into a buzz word or soundbite.

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

'Here's my view of why everything is great wrong and theres no issues solutions. I'm sure people will come along with facts to dispute that' :rolleyes:

FYP

Wanderer78

markodaly wrote: »

Thanks for the history lesson but again, the 70's were kinda **** world-wide.
If one wants to look at the reduction of absolute poverty since the 80's..

Life expectancy

Now, are there some edge cases where things have not worked out as well as we hoped. Yes, I am man enough to admit that, but the underlying reasons for this is very complicated, but can be summarised by the rise of China.

The working class in the west have been put out by the rise in China, but then again up to 400 million people in China would be classed as middle class, so its not all bad.
Again, its complicated. But there are idiots online and social media just want to encapsulate complicated issues into a buzz word or soundbite.

again, life expectancy is starting to fall in parts of the states, this is believed to be as a direct consequences of policies implemented during this period, the so called neoliberial/neoclassical era, but be aware, this is largely believed from more left leaning commemorators, of which i believe, they are correct, but i will also say, this is truly extremely complicated, and we probably dont fully understand these complexities. id class 'debt peonage' as a new form of poverty, i.e. we ve simply change our understanding of poverty from more traditional forms, i.e. hunger, homelessness, and replaced it with debt. its also important to include data such as gini coefficients etc, in these arguments, in order to show the rapid rise in inequality during this period

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

FYP

Record breaking societal crises year on year for the last several years

You explaining why you feel that might be outside of government policy doesn't change the facts.

Record breaking numbers of homeless children during economic growth.

More working people need state aid to function. That's a problem.
Meanwhile Ireland is fifth in the world for number of billionaires per capita.

The electorate obviously didnt think FG were doing a good job as their vote declined. This would be based on their personal experience.

Truthvader

Bowie wrote: »

Record breaking societal crises year on year for the last several years

You explaining why you feel that might be outside of government policy doesn't change the facts.

Record breaking numbers of homeless children during economic growth.

More working people need state aid to function. That's a problem.
Meanwhile Ireland is fifth in the world for number of billionaires per capita.

The electorate obviously didnt think FG were doing a good job as their vote declined. This would be based on their personal experience.

Whatever anyone thinks the last sentence here is true. Either the FG supporters are wrong and blind to a substantial amount of the public being left behind or they are failing to transmit the "good news"