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

The Pro Austerity Crowd

12357…26

Comments

  • #122
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    RecordStraight wrote: »
    Nonsense. Anyone with a pulse could get a mortgage. They were lending to people on the dole, ffs.

    And you seem to think that's not a problem it's the people asking for loans ? I can go ask the bank to give me 1 million Euro with no way of paying it back. Does that sound like good business lending me the money ? And then asking the government to pay them back all the money they lost due to extremely poor judgement.


  • #123
    padd b1975
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,848 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Bankers, Speculators and Developers, accountants, planners and politicians.
    How someone could borrow to buy a hotel and then borrow again on the value of that hotel, which was actually owned by the bank, was pure mad.

    Hardly caused by the children and low paid workers in fairness.
    ^^^^^^^
    Joe Higgins in the house....


  • #124
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    longhalloween wrote: »
    How is the recession the fault of bank managers?
    Banks are responsible for not putting out excessive loans, they put out excessive loans.

    Only banks/central-bank and the government, can stop house prices being bid up, through cheap credit.


  • #125
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Banks are responsible for not putting out excessive loans, they put out excessive loans.

    Only banks/central-bank and the government, can stop house prices being bid up, through cheap credit.

    Or they could have just not given money to people that could not afford to pay it back. You know like the old days Now it seems they know any problems they cause will be sorted out by government as they are integral to the economy.


  • #126
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Or they could have just not given money to people that could not afford to pay it back. You know like the old days Now it seems they know any problems they cause will be sorted out by government as they are integral to the economy.
    Exactly. Hence why, through moral hazard, upper management in banks are now incentivized to put out reckless/cheap loans, to inflate short-term profits (and thus their salaries/bonuses/dividends), and then to walk away, let it blow, and then let government deal with all the debt again.

    That's probably where Property Bubble 2.0, which is starting up now, is going to go.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Celly Smunt
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭Celly Smunt


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Very few low paid workers even got to talk to the bank manager.

    Who's classed as a low earner in your book?


  • #128
    RecordStraight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭RecordStraight


    tayto lover wrote: »
    As I said bloody Bankers. (But the low paid didn't get the loans despite what you try to imply).
    Uh...so you agree with me, and disagree at the same time, for the sake of not conceding the point?

    The web is awash with stories of low-paid people getting mortgages. This bloody website is awash with those stories. You can't ignore them now just because it doesn't suit you.


  • #129
    RecordStraight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭RecordStraight


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    And you seem to think that's not a problem it's the people asking for loans ? I can go ask the bank to give me 1 million Euro with no way of paying it back. Does that sound like good business lending me the money ? And then asking the government to pay them back all the money they lost due to extremely poor judgement.
    Yes, I agree. I'm not sure what your point is though.


  • #130
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53,930 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Celly Smunt wrote: »
    Who's classed as a low earner in your book?

    Anyone under 30K.


  • #131
    RecordStraight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭RecordStraight


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Anyone under 30K.
    Anyone? So a single person on 30k, or an 18 year old on 30k, or a family of 10 on 30k?

    (by the way, I' d be astonished if those earning 30k and under pay more than 10% of total income tax)


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    longhalloween
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭longhalloween


    I love how this thread has jumped back in time to 2010


  • #133
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    RecordStraight wrote: »
    Yes, I agree. I'm not sure what your point is though.

    Simple The banks caused the problem giving people loans that should never have received them, Asking is not the issue Greedy bankers making poor decisions was the problem. And a fast second place goes to a regulator that was asleep at the wheel.


  • #134
    RecordStraight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭RecordStraight


    Courtesy of Ronan Lyons:
    It’s in the middle, though, where things seem to go all screwy. The median earner, earning about €25,000, paid just 4% in income tax! As I argued before, we seem to have got ourselves into a situation where the typical Irish worker pays hardly any income tax and yet seems to think they are heavily taxed.

    So anyone earning 30k is already part of the 'better-off', the 'rich'. And you are right, it looks like they SHOULD be paying more tax.


  • #135
    RecordStraight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭RecordStraight


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Simple The banks caused the problem giving people loans that should never have received them, Asking is not the issue Greedy bankers making poor decisions was the problem. And a fast second place goes to a regulator that was asleep at the wheel.
    Ok, but you posed this as a counter-argument as to why ALL higher-earners should pay extra taxes due to the foolishness of a few. So I don't know what your point is.


  • #136
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,287 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    RecordStraight wrote: »
    So I don't know what your point is.

    Rich people and "bankers" are evil.

    No one else is responsible for anything bad in the economy.


  • #137
    RecordStraight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭RecordStraight


    I hate to sully a great thread with facts, but here are some more from RL:
    And now, to reveal the answers, with some interesting facts about Ireland’s income tax system along the way:
    Ireland’s top 0.5% of earners, the 11,714 people who earned more than €275,000 in a year, paid almost 18% of all income tax, over €2bn in total. Their average tax rate was 27.5%.
    Almost 770,000 people earned less than €17,000. Understandably, given tax credits, these workers paid a tiny amount of tax, €20m in total. Their average tax rate was about 0.5%.
    It’s in the middle, though, where things seem to go all screwy. The median earner, earning about €25,000, paid just 4% in income tax! As I argued before, we seem to have got ourselves into a situation where the typical Irish worker pays hardly any income tax and yet seems to think they are heavily taxed.
    So, to go back to the quiz above, the answers are:
    Option 4 – the average millionaire pays six times the income tax rate of the average worker. There’s one thing the system ain’t and that’s regressive!
    Option 5 – amazingly, two thirds of the 2.2m people paying income tax in Ireland paid an average rate of less than 10%.
    Option 1 – as per above, the median earner pays about 4% in income tax in Ireland, compared to 20% in the OECD.


  • #138
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    RecordStraight wrote: »
    Ok, but you posed this as a counter-argument as to why ALL higher-earners should pay extra taxes due to the foolishness of a few. So I don't know what your point is.

    Your confusing me with another poster I think.


  • #139
    longhalloween
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭longhalloween


    RecordStraight wrote: »
    I hate to sully a great thread with facts, but here are some more from RL:

    Pretty much proves that every argument about taxing the rich and unfair burdens is complete balls.


  • #140
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Again, as I've said a number of times through the two threads: Fúck income-tax/taxing-the-rich, there are far better narratives to focus on, that are less divisive.

    The problem is upward (re)distribution of wealth - you can fix this without focusing on income tax, by stopping the upward redistribution of wealth, where it occurs - such as in a property bubble - which is the far more important problem, since we are heading into a new property bubble now.


  • #141
    longhalloween
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭longhalloween


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Fúck income-tax/taxing-the-rich, there are far better narratives to focus on

    ...you can fix this by: 1: Redistributing wealth downwards (higher income tax on wealthy

    wut? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,287 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Again, as I've said a number of times through the two threads: Fúck income-tax/taxing-the-rich, there are far better narratives to focus on, that are less divisive.

    The problem is upward (re)distribution of wealth - you can fix this by:
    1: Redistributing wealth downwards (higher income tax on wealthy - but this is divisive so less effective a narrative, it also doesn't prevent the original problem), or
    2: Stop the upward redistribution of wealth, where it occurs (such as in a property bubble), which is the far more important problem, since we are heading into a new one now.

    So basically you want to kill the entire concept of business and the economy?

    That'll help.


  • #143
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    longhalloween wrote: »
    wut? :confused:
    Yea, that was a little unclear. I actually de-emphasize it; I'll cut it out to make it more clear.


  • #144
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    mickydoomsux wrote: »
    Rich people and "bankers" are evil.

    No one else is responsible for anything bad in the economy.

    I was not aware a person taking out a loan could ruin the economy, I thought it was the lender who could not recoup the money from huge amounts of loans. Lending large amounts of money to people who they new full well could not pay it back. But simply ignoring that fact. Yes people who took the money are not blameless But as a business its the responsibility of the Bank to assess if it is a good business decision to lend.


  • #145
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    mickydoomsux wrote: »
    So basically you want to kill the entire concept of business and the economy?

    That'll help.
    Eh? Your post is entirely missing an argument/explanation for your rhetorical question.


  • #146
    RecordStraight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭RecordStraight


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    I was not aware a person taking out a loan could ruin the economy, I thought it was the lender who could not recoup the money from huge amounts of loans.
    Surely it's a two-way operation? A couple of thousand people not repaying their loans is fine. A hundred thousand plus people in a country this size is a big problem, enough to bring down all our banks.

    There are a lot more mortgage defaulters than there are bank execs who made stupid decisions.


  • #147
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,287 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Eh? Your post is entirely missing an argument/explanation for your rhetorical question.

    Fair enough, i was referring to point 2 in your post.

    This upward distribution of wealth is basically what an economy is.


  • #148
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    RecordStraight wrote: »
    Surely it's a two-way operation? A couple of thousand people not repaying their loans is fine. A hundred thousand plus people in a country this size is a big problem, enough to bring down all our banks.

    There are a lot more mortgage defaulters than there are bank execs who made stupid decisions.
    It is only the banks/central-bank and government, who can stop house prices being bid up, through excessive loans. As someone who has studied both Austrian and Keynesian views, you should know that.


  • #149
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Anyone under 30K.

    Thought i would repost this in case you "accidently" missed it
    tayto lover wrote: »
    Every worker is working hard now.
    Those who earn most should be prepared to give a little more as they can afford it. It hurts them less.
    We are in a recession as most of you keep pointing out.

    bumper234 wrote: »
    How much is a "little more"?

    Another 2%? 5%? 15%?

    Seeing as you want the people who are paying tax to pay a little more can i also assume (to help the country out of recession quicker) that you would advocate social welfare recipients and OAP's to take the same % in cuts?


  • #150
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Again, as I've said a number of times through the two threads: Fúck income-tax/taxing-the-rich, there are far better narratives to focus on, that are less divisive.

    The problem is upward (re)distribution of wealth - you can fix this without focusing on income tax, by stopping the upward redistribution of wealth, where it occurs - such as in a property bubble - which is the far more important problem, since we are heading into a new property bubble now.

    I don't think that would work, the massive amounts of sovereign the world has, IMO means there is only one way out, that's more debt (private debt) and more inflation, if that doesn't happen the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
    I realize by definition bubbles are a bad idea, but bubbles may be the only thing that allows us to kick the can down the road a little bit further, in my opinion at this stage, it's bubbles or bust for the global economy.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    mickydoomsux wrote: »
    Fair enough, i was referring to point 2 in your post.

    This upward distribution of wealth is basically what an economy is.
    It isn't. The distribution of wealth, is how the profits of economic activity are allocated.

    Think of it in percentages - if upward redistribution of wealth happens, then the wealthy get a greater percentage share of profits from the economy, than they did in the past, and everyone else gets a smaller percentage share.


Advertisement