Did you know that Income tax is a 'temporary measure?'

Padre_Pio

RulesOfNature wrote: »

The point is, the low earners are fine. The top percentile earners are also fine. The middle class are the ones who are who are unfairly treated. Its not progressive.

If you pay 80k in income tax you're on about 220k a year.
Not to mention your investments (EFT and CGT)
I don't think you're middle class, even if you're including a spouse's income too.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

primarily due to rising debt

Is it fair to say debt is rising mainly due to cost of housing?
Are other private costs (ones that could be government-controlled) also rising, in excess of income?

Padre_Pio

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Some people would say that's the progressive tax system in action!
Taxing the wealthy.

Everything in your post is very relative, and I'm not sure how your relative corresponds with the relative of most of the population.

Low earner relative to what?
Middle class relative to what?

What is a "true middle class"?

Top 5-10% or so. The rich are only a handful of people really.

That’s the traditional measure. Middle income has historically been poor.

RulesOfNature

Wanderer78 wrote: »

not surprised at all, you wouldnt be the first ive come across that hasnt a clue how money is created, via credit creation

You misunderstand. As I stated earlier, the west is the minority. For the vast majority, what I said is true.

Wanderer78

RulesOfNature wrote: »

You misunderstand. As I stated earlier, the west is the minority. For the vast majority, what I said is true.

please explain, because ive no clue what point you re trying to make?

landofthetree

Every election we vote to hand over more and more control.

Tax and spend is what we vote for.

Since 1980, government spending has held steady, and even risen slightly as a share of gross domestic product in the US, the UK and other developed economies. Deficits have gone from rare to routine, in good years and bad. Public debt in developed countries has soared — in the US to more than 120 per cent of GDP last year. Government is just as big and more interventionist than ever.


The expanding economic role of government goes well beyond deficits and debt. US welfare spending, including Medicaid, Medicare and social security, rose gradually from under 10 per cent to more than 17 per cent of GDP between 1980 and late 2020. The welfare state has grown steadily.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/e4b2b28d-5697-4579-88cf-31f6228278e8

The figures in Ireland must be even more. The state is involved in too much. It should be the referee and not the player.

RulesOfNature

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Private institutions request money. The government prints it.

This is how it works.
You are simply misinterpreting that money comes from private institutions because from your perspective they're the ones asking the government for it, and they're the ones that distribute it. But it does not come from them. It comes from the government, who incidentally have centralized control of the currency.

That’s not true at all. The links provided said the opposite. Very little money is actually created by the government, what is is called base money - coins n currency and other financial instruments.

Wanderer78

landofthetree wrote: »

Every election we vote to hand over more and more control.

Tax and spend is what we vote for.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/e4b2b28d-5697-4579-88cf-31f6228278e8

The figures in Ireland must be even more since 1980.

in order to have a growing and expanding economy, we must have a growing and expanding money supply, our primary way of doing so, has been to overly rely on the private sector money supply, credit. governments also create money via borrowing, i.e. deficits

Padre_Pio

fvp4 wrote: »

Top 5-10% or so. The rich are only a handful of people really.

That’s the traditional measure. Middle income has historically been poor.

How can a "true middle class" be the top 10%?
Surely the middle class must be near the middle.

I would have put anyone north of 150k a year out of the middle class.

landofthetree

landofthetree wrote: »

Every election we vote to hand over more and more control.

Tax and spend is what we vote for.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/e4b2b28d-5697-4579-88cf-31f6228278e8

The figures in Ireland must be even more since 1980.

Ireland’s tax take as a percentage of GDP is low. If anything soaring deficits indicates not enough taxes, now or in the future.

Padre_Pio

Padre_Pio wrote: »

How can a "true middle class" be the top 10%?
Surely the middle class must be near the middle.

I would have put anyone north of 150k a year out of the middle class.

The middle class has never meant the middle in Europe, it’s the class between the rich and the poor. Only in the US did it mean the middle 80% or so.

Here it traditionally meant the professional classes. In the 19C a middle class family would employ servants, some of whom would be close to middle income.

Padre_Pio

fvp4 wrote: »

The middle class has never meant the middle in Europe, it’s the class between the rich and the poor. Only in the US did it mean the middle 80% or so.

Here it traditionally meant the professional classes. In the 19C a middle class family would employ servants, some of whom would be close to middle income.

OK, but even in the context of middle class being the professional classes, the average household income of two professional would rarely break the 150k mark, which again, excludes the top 10-15% of households in Ireland.

I can't find anything from Ireland, UK or US which puts the top 10% as middle class.

Again, this question arose from a poster who claims to be in the "true middle class" while paying near twice the median gross income in income tax.

landofthetree

fvp4 wrote: »

Ireland’s tax take as a percentage of GDP is low. If anything soaring deficits indicates not enough taxes, now or in the future.

Cut spending.

We didnt need to increase public spending pre covid(2016-2019) by 13 billion year on year.

landofthetree

fvp4 wrote: »

Ireland’s tax take as a percentage of GDP is low. If anything soaring deficits indicates not enough taxes, now or in the future.

Ireland had the lowest tax burden in the EU in 2018 at 23% in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) terms, compared to the EU-28 average of 40%. However, using modified Gross National Income (GNI*) as an alternative benchmark, the Irish tax burden is closer to the EU-28 average at 37.5%. Moreover, the modified GNI* tax-to-income ratio puts the Irish taxation of ‘income and wealth’ at 17% in 2018, exceeding the EU-28 GDP average of 13%.

Use GNP and we are close to the EU average.

Wanderer78

Padre_Pio wrote: »

If you pay 80k in income tax you're on about 220k a year.
Not to mention your investments (EFT and CGT)
I don't think you're middle class, even if you're including a spouse's income too.



Is it fair to say debt is rising mainly due to cost of housing?
Are other private costs (ones that could be government-controlled) also rising, in excess of income?

private debt is the one thats killing us, as its been primarily being used to inflate property prices, this is what caused 08, if we dont push our monetary system back over to deficit spending, we re screwed

landofthetree wrote: »

Cut spending.

We didnt need to increase public spending pre covid(2016-2019) by 13 billion year on year.

...as above

Former Former Former

Padre_Pio wrote: »

How can a "true middle class" be the top 10%?
Surely the middle class must be near the middle.

I would have put anyone north of 150k a year out of the middle class.

The term "middle class" is a hangover from UK rule. The upper class were the nobility, the middle class were the professional people and the working class were down t'mines.

Obviously post 1921 we didn't have an upper class but we still use middle class to talk about very well paid professionals.

tommybrees

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ireland’s tax take as a percentage of GDP is low. If anything soaring deficits indicates not enough taxes, now or in the future.

Jog on. My paycheck says I pay more than enough.

Padre_Pio

Former Former Former wrote: »

The term "middle class" is a hangover from UK rule. The upper class were the nobility, the middle class were the professional people and the working class were down t'mines.

Obviously post 1921 we didn't have an upper class but we still use middle class to talk about very well paid professionals.

I getcha, but that makes the middle class a wide band ranging from entry level civil servants, right up to established high income doctors and bankers.

Maybe it's time to retire the archaic use of the word in favour of the modern, economics use of the word.

KyussB

fvp4 wrote: »

That’s not true, although things are changing. By and large the demand during recessions from standard economists has been to impose austerity. Spending beyond our means, public sector cut backs, pension raids etc

There have been economists demanding austerity, but mostly the drive for that has come from politicians and lobbyists. Even in the IMF, there is a huge disconnect between their policy and research divisions - the latter certainly are far less hawkish.

No credible economists ever demand a cut mid-recession just for the sake of it either, they all have to pay lip service to achieving economic recovery.

The economists who have argued for austerity, have had to do so under false-pretenses/excuses - and have painted themselves into a corner now, as all of the past excuses they used have been invalidated now, by the zero/negative interest rate environment, and particularly through the response to the coronavirus (showing that previously unthinkable spending, is trivially easy).

There's no credible return to an austerity narrative for economists, now.

landofthetree

KyussB wrote: »

There have been economists demanding austerity, but mostly the drive for that has come from politicians and lobbyists. Even in the IMF, there is a huge disconnect between their policy and research divisions - the latter certainly are far less hawkish.

No credible economists ever demand a cut mid-recession just for the sake of it either, they all have to pay lip service to achieving economic recovery.

The economists who have argued for austerity, have had to do so under false-pretenses/excuses - and have painted themselves into a corner now, as all of the past excuses they used have been invalidated now, by the zero/negative interest rate environment, and particularly through the response to the coronavirus (showing that previously unthinkable spending, is trivially easy).

There's no credible return to an austerity narrative for economists, now.

That will be decided by who finances the loans to pay for the deficit. It's not decided by our government or economists.

Geuze

fvp4 wrote: »

That’s not true, although things are changing. By and large the demand during recessions from standard economists has been to impose austerity. Spending beyond our means, public sector cut backs, pension raids etc

If you can find any economist who is against the borrowing during 2020 and 2021 to offset the 2020 COVID recession, then I suggest there are very few of those people.

You might find debate over the type of intervention, and you might find debate over the winding down of the huge interventions, yes.

I don't think there were many people against the huge fiscal deficit run in 2020 and 2021.

If there are, I would like to know.

mcsean2163

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Any alternatives to running our country and servicing our debts?

The alternative is tax wealth

mcsean2163

Geuze wrote: »

If you can find any economist who is against the borrowing during 2020 and 2021 to offset the 2020 COVID recession, then I suggest there are very few of those people.

You might find debate over the type of intervention, and you might find debate over the winding down of the huge interventions, yes.

I don't think there were many people against the huge fiscal deficit run in 2020 and 2021.

If there are, I would like to know.

I've raised it several times that our spend was excessive. We've had the biggest deficit in the EU despite having the lowest percentage of our population over 65 in the EU. According to Oxford we've had the third strictest lockdown in Europe and the strictest over the last year.

Remember at the start, we'll keep on allowing international travel until it cripples our health system and then lockdown. That was our actual plan, flatten the curve.

Stupid does as stupid does.

Geuze

Most people are for a sensible reduction in the budget deficit as the economy recovers.

The April 2021 SPU has the following forecast for the GG balance:

2020 = -5.0%
2021 = -4.7%
2022 = -2.8%
2023 = -1.2%
2024 = -0.7%
2025 = -0.2%

This seems to be a slow fall in the deficit, no sharp falls here.

Geuze

mcsean2163 wrote: »

The alternative is tax wealth

Wealth taxes have many practical difficulties, which is perhaps why many countries have scrapped them.

Of course we have LPT, CGT and CAT, which are quasi-wealth taxes.

Geuze

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I've raised it several times that our spend was excessive. We've had the biggest deficit in the EU despite having the lowest percentage of our population over 65 in the EU.
.

Are you sure?

See Figure 5B here:

https://assets.gov.ie/132118/fa255a03-3cb1-4106-a0d1-9fa46de826da.pdf

mcsean2163

Geuze wrote: »

Are you sure?

See Figure 5B here:

https://assets.gov.ie/132118/fa255a03-3cb1-4106-a0d1-9fa46de826da.pdf

Yes. That's as a percentage of GDP which as we saw previously can fluctuate enormously for a tax cheat country like Ireland. Per capita is the real measure, it's the actual amount owed

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-to-have-highest-debt-per-head-in-europe-this-year-1.4503652?mode=amp

KyussB

landofthetree wrote: »

That will be decided by who finances the loans to pay for the deficit. It's not decided by our government or economists.

It's too late for that, people already know the ECB can trivially 'finance' the deficit, all the way to recovery - and that there is no level of debt servicing that is worse than leaving the economy below Full Output/Employment - that high unemployment and urgent/necessary work not being done, is always more costly to the economy and people in it.

KyussB

Geuze wrote: »

Most people are for a sensible reduction in the budget deficit as the economy recovers.
...

Do you not think that is like an athlete/runner slowing down as they near the finish line?

When we're below Full-Output/Employment and not experiencing notable inflation (trending close to deflation actually...), there is no good reason not to deficit spend hard until we reach Full-Output/Employment ASAP.

ASAP as in, tomorrow...Even if we have to use a Job Guarantee to do it (because there's no way to employ everyone that soon without it).

That by itself is an immediate economic recovery in output/employment (wasted work/labour/growth is the primary real cost to the economy, not arbitrary accounting figures) - and maximizes the speed of private sector economic recovery, too (achieved when everyone is employed out of the Job Guarantee into the private sector).

JimmyVik

Former Former Former wrote: »

Yes. you do. You literally admitted to it in your previous post. It was probably closer to boasting in fact.



If everyone was allowed to decide when they had paid "enough" tax, the country would go bankrupt overnight.

I pay more than 3k per month in tax. Since I'm apparently paying too much, how do I go about getting a refund on the excess?

Maybe you should pay more since you like it so much

JimmyVik

Tony EH wrote: »

Irish water was rejected because it was a ticket to privatisation, with handy positions for cronies and upward trajectory of bills. People saw how bin privatisation went and weren't going to be suckered again.

In short, fuck Irish Water and people were ENTIRELY CORRECT to reject it.

Essential social services should never be put into the hands of private, for profit, hands and SHOULD be paid for out of a county's taxes. That is the prime outcome of any taxation.

I remember when the bin charges came in.
Where we were you only paid when the bin was lifted.
They made a big song and dance saying "you only pay for what you throw away".
Now we always recycled nearly everything anyway, so we only put the bins out probably once every 3 months.
The next year they slapped a €200 per year charge on. Basically saying "You arent throwing away enough, so now you pay whether you throw away or not, plus when you throw away"