# What left wing politicians should tell their electorate



## Betsy Og (3 Mar 2016)

A recipe for success & happiness:


No longer think of yourself as a victim, take control of your own life, take responsibility for your own choices. Don't listen to people who try to convince you you are powerless in the face of a right wing conspiracy, they are not helping. Adopt the mantra "You can't keep a good man down", and be relentless in your efforts to prove it. 
Take an interest in your child's education. Sit down with them and go through their homework, emphasise that a good education can allow them to do what they want to do.
Get healthy, give up cigs, go easy on drink, lose weight, start exercising.
Invest in your kids with the money saved on 3 above, better food, sports, encourage any interests, hobbies or talents they have. [Why do we have "breakfast clubs" at school when we pay out children's allowance??]
Invest in yourself, there are many free courses available, how does anyone get a job except by making themselves employable, i.e. having the skills employers want and presenting well. These are attainable, but it takes effort, the effort is well rewarded. 
Be a positive influence on your community whether just by keeping your own property tidy, or by helping in the wider community.
Limit your family number so you can provide better for the fewer. Delay having kids so you can establish a career or get your skills before you have to mind kids.
I've never heard any left winger make these reasonable self-evident points because a) it sounds too much like hard work, b) there's an inference of disapproval of the status quo & c) if people realised that they themselves, and not some "shining knight" with their magical snake oil, are going to improve things then why vote for their "champion".

Of all the above it is the re-inforcement of the powerless victim notion that is the most damaging of the left wing, how can you get continually fed that and not feel unmotivated?, 'comforted' by the notion that you cant do anything so it is pointless trying.


----------



## so-crates (3 Mar 2016)

The history of the left is founded on a college educated elite patronising the masses - why would they change a magic formula? Have a look at most of our own left wing politicos.


----------



## thedaddyman (3 Mar 2016)

in fairness, there are points on here that "right wingers" should also consider, how many bankers forget about their responsibilities to the wider community rather then their own wallet.? Plenty of spoilt rich brats with a sense of entitlement out there whose parents took no interest in them. And whilst I am not a leftie, I know plenty of people who voted left who are in good paying jobs and who are involved in the community and "do their bit"


----------



## Betsy Og (3 Mar 2016)

Definitely, there is nothing there that doesn't apply to everyone on this island, but it just seems the message has gotten through/has dawned on more people in the centre or the right. So my point is that the people most in need of the message are being let down by activists/politicians claiming to act in the interest of the common man.


----------



## odyssey06 (3 Mar 2016)

It sounds too much like hard work... and don't forget the message, if you have worked hard, don't feel guilty if you appreciate the rewards that it brings.
It's a lot easier to pretend that there's a bottomless pit of money that you are entitled to your fair share of, and get people to vote for you to give money from Peter to Paul, than it actually is to earn that money, or increase the limited pile of money available to all.
And the politician that gets a vote like that has zero incentive for raising Paul out of dependency.

Right wing and left wing are such loaded terms, I think it's better (to borrow the terms from Thomas Sowell), to speak of constrained and unconstrained visions.
It doesn't quite track to right v left... Reckless bankers are unconstrained. Bottom up environmentalists and conservationists are constrained - but top down ones are not.

The constrained view knows that we face unhappy choices, that actions have consequences and that we are limited in what we can do. If we do X we cannot do Y, because we now no longer have the time or money. The constrained view starts from the position of what we *can *do. They are more likely to judge things based on the process\rules that decided it. 
The unconstrained view is more likely to present arguments from the abstract as to what we *should *do. They are more likely to judge based on outcomes. 

_"Those who see the potentialities of human nature as extending far beyond what is currently manifested have a social vision quite different from those who see human 
beings as tragically limited creatures whose selfish and dangerous impulses can be contained only by social contrivances which themselves produce unhappy side effects. Running through the tradition of the unconstrained vision is the conviction that foolish or immoral choices explain the evils of the world - and that wiser or more moral and humane social policies are the solution. 
By contrast, the constrained vision sees the evils of the world as deriving from the limited and unhappy choices available, given the inherent moral and intellectual limitations of human beings. For the amelioration of these evils and the promotion of progress, they rely on... certain social processes such as moral traditions, the marketplace, or families. They conceive of these processes as evolved rather than designed - and rely on these general patterns of social interaction rather than on specific policy designed to produce particular results for particular individuals and groups."_


----------



## Deiseblue (3 Mar 2016)

8. Vote for Renua coz they are the only right of centre party left !


----------



## Firefly (3 Mar 2016)

Betsy Og said:


> A recipe for success & happiness:
> 
> 
> No longer think of yourself as a victim, take control of your own life, take responsibility for your own choices. Don't listen to people who try to convince you you are powerless in the face of a right wing conspiracy, they are not helping. Adopt the mantra "You can't keep a good man down", and be relentless in your efforts to prove it.
> ...




Betsy, just as well you didn't run in the election. 7 non-PC opinions like that wouldn't get you far. Having said that, you'd get my vote!


----------



## Cervelo (3 Mar 2016)

Deiseblue said:


> 8. Vote for Renua coz they are the only right of centre party left !



I would have said
8. Don't take a career path that will result in earning more the €100,000 or you will be penalised for been successful in said career.


----------



## Betsy Og (3 Mar 2016)

Firefly said:


> Betsy, just as well you didn't run in the election. 7 non-PC opinions like that wouldn't get you far. Having said that, you'd get my vote!



I know, I know, the first job of a politician is to get re-elected and conventional wisdom says that you keep the base as wide as possible. However does AAA worry about alienating taxpayers, water charge payers?, I suggest not. Given their polarising influence and the loss of the left wing vote to the radicals (the Labour party couldnt get any of it, why should FF & FG bother trying to compete for it), I think the likes of FG should start playing to their audience. 

Overall though, I think the 7 points above are worth saying & discussing, even if not politically expedient or palatable.


----------



## Daffodils (3 Mar 2016)

Re. no 7. There is nothing wrong with having a big family if you can provide for them (yourself not via the state). Providing doesn't have to include iPads & designer clothes. Also there is nothing wrong with being a stay at home mother. I get judged for being a working mother, but as far as I am concerned each to their own once you can afford it.


----------



## odyssey06 (3 Mar 2016)

I would also add... watch out for poverty traps. They are very easy to fall into but they are very hard to escape.


----------



## Purple (3 Mar 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> I would also add... watch out for poverty traps. They are very easy to fall into but they are very hard to escape.


I agree. Our current system, and more importantly our current mind set, creates so many of them.


----------



## Daffodils (3 Mar 2016)

"Breakfast clubs" that are funded by the state ensure that children aren't hungry for the day while in school getting an education. I think when you came up with your 7 golden nuggets of wisdom you forgot that not everyone is the same, there will always be poverty no matter what the government do. The idea of providing additional supports to those people is to help them out of the poverty trap!! While I agree people should help themselves & it pains me to leave my kids at home while others get to stay with the kids all day at the expense of the taxpayers, the condescending tone of the op makes my blood boil. If life was as easy as following 1-7 above we could do away with social welfare, obviously it's not...


----------



## Purple (3 Mar 2016)

Deiseblue said:


> 8. Vote for Renua coz they are the only right of centre party left !


That comment shows that you don't get the context of this thread and are trapped in the rhetoric of a bankrupt ideology.
Left Wing politics has betrayed the people who they claim to support. From reading the diary's of my Uncle who was a founding member of SIPTU he would be disgusted by what the Trade Union movement has become.
He fought for the right of working people to have equality of opportunity, not to create a parasitic underclass which tarnished the reputation of everyone who is unemployed.


----------



## Purple (3 Mar 2016)

Daffodils said:


> "Breakfast clubs" that are funded by the state ensure that children aren't hungry for the day while in school getting an education. I think when you came up with your 7 golden nuggets of wisdom you forgot that not everyone is the same, there will always be poverty no matter what the government do. The idea of providing additional supports to those people is to help them out of the poverty trap!! While I agree people should help themselves & it pains me to leave my kids at home while others get to stay with the kids all day at the expense of the taxpayers, the condescending tone of the op makes my blood boil. If life was as easy as following 1-7 above we could do away with social welfare, obviously it's not...


It's that simple, for many people, but it's not easy. 
My kids sometimes go to school without breakfast. That's because they don't get out of bed on time. 
Lidl cornflakes, porridge, toast etc. are a few cents per portion. There is no economic reason why kids shouldn't have breakfast.
Poverty is a symptom of a social problem. It is not a root cause in it's own right.


----------



## Delboy (3 Mar 2016)

Daffodils said:


> "Breakfast clubs" that are funded by the state ensure that children aren't hungry for the day while in school getting an education. I think when you came up with your 7 golden nuggets of wisdom you forgot that not everyone is the same, there will always be poverty no matter what the government do. The idea of providing additional supports to those people is to help them out of the poverty trap!! While I agree people should help themselves & it pains me to leave my kids at home while others get to stay with the kids all day at the expense of the taxpayers, the condescending tone of the op makes my blood boil. If life was as easy as following 1-7 above we could do away with social welfare, obviously it's not...


A 1kg or so Bag of porridge costs €1.50 from Aldi. You can make it with water (free forever by the looks of it now!) or milk...5 minutes work on the hob or nuke it in the MW if thats your thing....add a small bit of fruit (49c specials at Aldi/Lidl every week...29c this week)...and hey presto, the kids won't be hungry. And it'll cost less than €1 per week.

But some people don't want to know. And it makes the do-gooders feel fuzzy inside to provide the service via the State rather than make parents responsible for even the most basic of things


----------



## Betsy Og (3 Mar 2016)

Daffodils said:


> "Breakfast clubs" that are funded by the state ensure that children aren't hungry for the day while in school getting an education. I think when you came up with your 7 golden nuggets of wisdom you forgot that not everyone is the same, there will always be poverty no matter what the government do. The idea of providing additional supports to those people is to help them out of the poverty trap!! While I agree people should help themselves & it pains me to leave my kids at home while others get to stay with the kids all day at the expense of the taxpayers, the condescending tone of the op makes my blood boil. If life was as easy as following 1-7 above we could do away with social welfare, obviously it's not...



I know what breakfast clubs are, the point or question was: Is there any good reason why children cannot be fed at home?, how much is a bag of Flahavans oatlets?, where is the children's allowance going? Feeding your kids should be your first priority - the fact that that is nearly alien to some people shows how far things have gone.

The stay at home mother thing is not relevant to the discussion, some work some don't, I dont think its the women going out to work who are leaving their kids hungry if thats what you mangled out of it. As the great bastion of the left, ahem, Joan Burton rightly said "Social welfare is to help people as they get back to work, not a lifestyle choice". Did I once mention abolishing SW?, no.


----------



## Daffodils (3 Mar 2016)

I agree there is no economic reason. It's due to bad parents who probably spend the money on drink & drugs. Should the children be left to suffer because of their parents? I wouldn't want to be part of a society where a child is left go hungry.


----------



## Betsy Og (3 Mar 2016)

Daffodils said:


> I agree there is no economic reason. It's due to bad parents who probably spend the money on drink & drugs. Should the children be left to suffer because of their parents? I wouldn't want to be part of a society where a child is left go hungry.



Isn't that why we have social services?, to ensure the kids dont suffer. I dont want to see hungry kids I want to see parents getting sorted out, whether by carrot or stick.


----------



## Daffodils (3 Mar 2016)

Free water yippee

Do you think food stamps would make the parents buy food? Most likely not. I'm certainly not a do gooder sometimes I wish I was. I'm just being realistic. The parents need fixing. It's not about the price of food everyone knows that it's about bad parenting and parents that are lazy drug addicts or have mental health issues and who don't look after their children.


----------



## odyssey06 (3 Mar 2016)

Daffodils said:


> Do you think food stamps would make the parents buy food? Most likely not. I'm certainly not a do gooder sometimes I wish I was. I'm just being realistic. The parents need fixing. It's not about the price of food everyone knows that it's about bad parenting and parents that are lazy drug addicts or have mental health issues and who don't look after their children.



In principle I've nothing against the idea of food stamps, I'm just not sure how effective they are in practice... For responsible parents it would seem like a nanny state thing, and for irresponsible ones I can see a black market emerging where €20 in food stamps = €10 in cash.


----------



## 44brendan (3 Mar 2016)

Betsy Og said:


> Isn't that why we have social services?, to ensure the kids don't suffer. I don't want to see hungry kids I want to see parents getting sorted out, whether by carrot or stick.


To be fair Betsy while acknowledging the rationale of your initial post the point being made here is that SW & CA goes to parents rather than children. If they spend the money on drink/drugs etc this is not the fault of the hungry kids. From my own limited experience & small charity involvement we do appear to be developing a large class divide which makes it more difficult as time progresses to emerge from a dependency culture.
This whole area is extremely complex and cannot be resolved by changes in SW or making it less attractive to depend on SW. Job opportunities for those with a minimal level of education are extremely rare and almost always paid poorly (Luas drivers excepted!). Courses available rarely lead to job success purely because low skill jobs are becoming a thing of the past.
Left leaning politicians should be focusing on how to create more opportunities and then incentivise  people to take them up.


----------



## Purple (3 Mar 2016)

Daffodils said:


> I agree there is no economic reason. It's due to bad parents who probably spend the money on drink & drugs. Should the children be left to suffer because of their parents? I wouldn't want to be part of a society where a child is left go hungry.


Hold on now, it's not down to bad parents who probably spend the money on drink & drugs. There may be a small minority
for whom that is the case but that sort of broad generalisation serves no purpose in a discussion like this. It's down to bad education but not so much by the education system but by the parents of the current parents. If your children can't cook and look after their personal hygiene then you have failed them just as badly as the child who can't read and doesn't go to school. Some kids are little gits and despite the best efforts of good parents they turn out bad, just as the inverse is also true, but we are speaking in generalities here.


----------



## Betsy Og (3 Mar 2016)

I'm not for abolishing breakfast clubs, just saying isnt it just a sad illustration of how badly things can go.

In California they have a welfare card that cannot be spent in liquor stores or fortune tellers - that's where I think we should be going with this - to try to help the kids.


----------



## odyssey06 (3 Mar 2016)

44brendan said:


> This whole area is extremely complex and cannot be resolved by changes in SW or making it less attractive to depend on SW. Job opportunities for those with a minimal level of education are extremely rare and almost always paid poorly (Luas drivers excepted!). Courses available rarely lead to job success purely because low skill jobs are becoming a thing of the past..



SW creates a poverty trap. We have people coming here from all over the world working in low paid jobs, for whom english is a second language. We have a services economy staffed with people who don't need college degrees to do their job. Now maybe some companies are filtering applicants at the moment by college degree but that's a different thing.

We need to tie benefits to work rather than have all or nothing means tests which create poverty traps and a dependency culture. People shouldn't have to worry that if they take a low paid job they will lose all their benefits. And people should be better off if they work. Our current system does not deliver that. We need to look at 'push' factor, making a life of SW-only less attractive and 'pull', making a working life more attractive.


----------



## Daffodils (3 Mar 2016)

The point I was making was that there will always be children whose patents prioritise other spending over food. No amount of education will change that. Society should ensure that such children are looked after. Of the children that get fed in the breakfast clubs only a small few will really need but if it helps those children I'm happy to see my taxes spent on it. It could go on worse.


Purple said:


> Hold on now, it's not down to bad parents who probably spend the money on drink & drugs. There may be a small minority
> for whom that is the case but that sort of broad generalisation serves no purpose in a discussion like this. It's down to bad education but not so much by the education system but by the parents of the current parents. If your children can't cook and look after their personal hygiene then you have failed them just as badly as the child who can't read and doesn't go to school. Some kids are little gits and despite the best efforts of good parents they turn out bad, just as the inverse is also true, but we are speaking in generalities here.


----------



## Deiseblue (3 Mar 2016)

There are currently only political parties that are either left of centre or radically left of centre ( I'm with Michael O'Leary on that one ! ), it would appear that Betsy Og's rules apply generally


The choice of the electorate is either moderate or radical left when it comes to parties .


----------



## Firefly (3 Mar 2016)

Deiseblue said:


> The choice of the electorate is either moderate or radical left when it comes to parties .



You're correct and I think it's time those middle income, working people who are paying lots of tax start raising their voices.


----------



## Delboy (3 Mar 2016)

Firefly said:


> You're correct and I think it's time those middle income, working people who are paying lots of tax start raising their voices.


They did....and it nearly wiped out Labour, knocked 30% off of FG and stopped Renua in its tracks


----------



## Purple (4 Mar 2016)

Deiseblue said:


> There are currently only political parties that are either left of centre or radically left of centre ( I'm with Michael O'Leary on that one ! ), it would appear that Betsy Og's rules apply generally
> 
> 
> The choice of the electorate is either moderate or radical left when it comes to parties .


I agree. We have gone from a situation where the unemployed and low income earners were under represented in the Dail to a situation where those on high rates of income tax have, particularly those who pay more than half their income in tax, are under represented. 
There is no center right party in Ireland.


----------



## Gerry Canning (7 Mar 2016)

If Sense and sorting were comfortable bedfellows, we would not have an issue.

Faults/Poverty/feeling of entitlements/ poor parenting/ fluffy do gooders , all transend generations and it is obviously very difficult to come up with Quick fix answers.

Logic would like to say  Left Winger supporters have lost the plot on personal responsibility but for all their leftie  (whinging),is it not obvious that poorer areas have less of the cake ?  
If you check the leftie (whinger)politicians  and what they do , you will find they are very active in trying to get their people into a positive mode.

It ain,t simple !


----------



## Setanta12 (7 Mar 2016)

In answer to any Lefties touting burning bondholders (like Argentina did) ...

Argentina has been shut out of the money-markets for 15 years and while creditors have agreed a 25% haircut, it was reported in the Argentine parliament that burning the bondholders cost the country USD100bn over the past 15 years or so.  It defaulted on USD82bn.  Creditors are happy as they picked up the bonds for a few cents on the dollar.


----------



## Leo (7 Mar 2016)

Setanta12 said:


> In answer to any Lefties touting burning bondholders (like Argentina did) ...
> 
> Argentina has been shut out of the money-markets for 15 years and while creditors have agreed a 25% haircut, it was reported in the Argentine parliament that burning the bondholders cost the country USD100bn over the past 15 years or so.  It defaulted on USD82bn.  Creditors are happy as they picked up the bonds for a few cents on the dollar.



Has anyone who touted the burning at any point provided a single example of where burning bondholders worked out better than the alternative?


----------



## odyssey06 (7 Mar 2016)

Leo said:


> Has anyone who touted the burning at any point provided a single example of where burning bondholders worked out better than the alternative?



Iceland.


----------



## newirishman (7 Mar 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Iceland.



Great comparison, given Iceland has about 3/5 of the population and 1/2 of the GDP of County Cork.


----------



## odyssey06 (7 Mar 2016)

newirishman said:


> Great comparison, given Iceland has about 3/5 of the population and 1/2 of the GDP of County Cork.



Thanks. I thought a European country whose debt crisis was due to having an inflated banking sector was a relevant example.

But I await your post pointing out that Argentina has a population of 40+ million so should not be considered as an example of why not to burn bondholders.


----------



## Leo (7 Mar 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Iceland.



I don't think it really worked out well for the population though. I can't imagine people here accepting a 60% devaluation of the currency with no changes to welfare or wages. The amount of industrial unrest there over the past few years in particular tells you they're not happy.


----------



## Gerry Canning (7 Mar 2016)

Before FG /Labour won the last election .

1. the (MARKETS ) had accepted that Mr Noonan was going to burn Bondholders and had factored that into their sums.
2. Once elected it seems Mr Noonan was strongarmed into a U -turn.
3. Said U -turn has since been sold as a good idea ?
4. I can only hope that NOT burning Bondholders was the correct action (I have my doubts).

On the general (burn bondholders).
Why not ? were else would lenders expect a 100% guarantee , that's madness.
Ps. I think Argentinian Default was SOVEREIGN not just normal lender debt , ie apples v oranges. 

The truth is in the fog !


----------



## Setanta12 (7 Mar 2016)

@Gerry Canning; not saying you're wrong.  Just exposing my own ignorance here - isn't sovereign debt just debt received from normal lenders?


----------



## Gerry Canning (8 Mar 2016)

Setanta  . I ain,t atall sure ! The jargon around various debt confuses my simple mind !
Bottom line, I suppose Debt is Debt however you cut it.

The point I was hoping to make is Point 1, ie Bondholders were to be  burned and Markets had accepted that ?


----------



## Betsy Og (9 Mar 2016)

Isnt it that Soverign Debt is where the State borrows - so a big deal if the state defaults. Whereas if business (e.g. Anglo) issues bonds to borrow but ends up short of the proverbial pot, then that is 'normal' debt and the lender (bondholder) may get burned.

I'm no expert but as I see it the EU put a gun to Lenihan's head for the state to guarantee the Anglo (& other bank) bonds. Maybe not on "the famous night" but remember that the guarantee was only a short term thing....initially. I think it was once the scale of the problem emerged that German banks didnt fancy such a scalding and decided the Irish taxpayer would be the better mark (pardon the pun) the carry the burden.

I've surprised myself with that left leaning populist view , but the pragmatist in me says its done now, suck it up, move on, riots and burned cars wouldnt have changed anything.


----------



## Sophrosyne (9 Mar 2016)

In your own way Betsy, I think you are fishing out of the right pond.


----------



## Mr Holmes (9 Mar 2016)

Leo said:


> Has anyone who touted the burning at any point provided a single example of where burning bondholders worked out better than the alternative?



Just reading through the post, Iceland would be a good example where the burning of senior and junior bond holders appears to have worked out OK for the Country. In relation to Ireland's situation, Graig Beaumont of the IMF stated that the Irish Government could have saved billions of euro if they burned just the junior unsecured bond holders, but alas they didn't and every gambler got paid in the casino ( as it turns out, by the Irish taxpayer ). Banks like State Street bank bought Irish Government debt ( when this very proposition was been mulled over by Government ) at huge discounts from Deutsches bank and others. The Irish Government then paid State Street Bank back in full, cent for cent, allowing State Street to make 100's of millions in profits from that deal alone. Fair play to them, took the gamble, ( like all the others ) they must have known the Government would bottle it.


----------



## Leo (9 Mar 2016)

Mr Holmes said:


> Just reading through the post, Iceland would be a good example where the burning of senior and junior bond holders appears to have worked out OK for the Country.



Iceland was also suggested by odyssey06 earlier. The 60% currency devaluation they had to inflict doesn't strike me as working out OK for the country. That €20 Penny's/Primark top costs €80 in the Kringlan Mall.

There's massive industrial unrest and the government have warned that some of the pay awards they had to concede to last year to resolve strikes that were crippling the country will lead to massive inflation that will negate the effects of the rises in the short term. They even passed more legislation to bar further sections of the workforce from striking, including academics. They had no fresh mean available for over a month last year, even KFC and Dominos branches had to shut down. That's hardly doing well.

They were only able to re-enter the bond market last year and paid 3.24%.


----------



## Mr Holmes (9 Mar 2016)

Leo said:


> Iceland was also suggested by odyssey06 earlier. The 60% currency devaluation they had to inflict doesn't strike me as working out OK for the country. That €20 Penny's/Primark top costs €80 in the Kringlan Mall.
> 
> There's massive industrial unrest and the government have warned that some of the pay awards they had to concede to last year to resolve strikes that were crippling the country will lead to massive inflation that will negate the effects of the rises in the short term. They even passed more legislation to bar further sections of the workforce from striking, including academics. They had no fresh mean available for over a month last year, even KFC and Dominos branches had to shut down. That's hardly doing well.
> 
> They were only able to re-enter the bond market last year and paid 3.24%.



So what, they wrote of 10's if not 100's of billions of euro in debt that they did not lumber the citizens of their Country with for generations, as oppose to what the Irish Government did in this Country.

So what if their currency devalued 60%, this means their imports are dearer but their exports are cheaper. Iceland is a highly export driven economy, which means that it exports vastly more than it imports, all those revenues are received in Dollar and Euro.

Industrial unrest was to be expected, but look at this Country where we were good little boys and guaranteed to pay back every single cent we borrowed as a State ( to gamblers ), is there not industrial unrest- luas drivers, train drivers, junior doctors, nurses etc. Iceland's prosecutors have jailed 28 bankers to date with trials continuing and they are going after politicians as well.

Well done Iceland, Timothy Geithner ( the economist and ex Fed Chief who talked up your Country as a place to invest in ) would be proud.

Leo, if you have children, their children's children will be paying extra taxes to help pay back these bondholders. Great little Country.


----------



## Leo (9 Mar 2016)

But the citizens clearly are paying for it, and paying dearly at that.


----------



## thedaddyman (9 Mar 2016)

I do love the way that some people seem to think what happened in Iceland is a panacea for all problems and all Ireland had to do was burn the bondholders and we'd all be fine

Unfortunately the facts don't back it up

Do people realize for example that in Iceland

the combined Income and municipal tax starts at 37%
that the average tax rate in Iceland has increased from 36% to 46% over the last 8 years.
that children can actually have an income tax liability,
that corporation tax is 20%,
that a worker must pay at least 4% of their salary into a private pension
Do you want to buy a bottle of beer in Iceland, €7 please- for a bottle!!
Go to McD's for a Big Mac meal- €11

And if you want a mortgage, all assuming you can get one because of the credit restrictions, try a 7% interest rate. Suddenly PTSB don't look so bad

Most Icelander lose more then 50% of their salary in tax, their equivalent of PRSI, levies and pensions, including low earners

I've no argument that Iceland has got back on it's feet and has nearly full employement but how much of that was done to the Icelandic govt forcing other countries to bail out their banks for them when they refused to do so themselves (look at what the UK Govt had to do for the Icelandic banks in the UK). Ireland were not in a position to do that. Secondly, regardless of who did what, the argument that the actions Iceland took had no negative effect on their citizens is ludicrous.


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Mar 2016)

thedaddyman said:


> The argument that the actions Iceland took had no negative effect on their citizens is ludicrous.



Can you please point out where someone in this thread is making an argument that the actions Iceland took had no negative effect on their citizens? 
Or that if we burned the bondholders we'd be all fine?

The post seems to have setup a strawman argument and then the statistics quoted do not even do a very good job of knocking said strawman down. For example, corporation tax in Iceland in 2007 was 18%. Now it's 20%. Pre-bailout, Iceland was renowned for its punitive alcohol taxes. A can of beer in 2005 cost $4.

In May 2004 Iceland's interest rate was approx. 5%, by late 2005 it was 10%.
Iceland's economic crisis started in 2008.

The tax burden increased in Iceland on citizens. In Ireland we have had USC to contend with, property tax, water charges, VAT increases, excise increases targeting wine+spirits, PRSI allowances abolished, PRSI benefits cut (e.g. dental), capping of medical insurance tax relief, increases in medical insurance levies, pension levy, tax credit decreases.

The choice is between two alternatives. One assumes there are consequences to both alternatives or people would either be burning bondholders every day or calling in the IMF\Troika at the drop of a hat.

Germany had the money to lend to us to bail out the banks, couldn't they have bailed out their own banks? We got a very bad deal in the bailout from the Troika. First FF rolled over when they came to town, and then FG rolled over when they came to power and didn't burn the junior bondholders.


----------



## thedaddyman (9 Mar 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Can you please point out where someone in this thread is making an argument that the actions Iceland took had no negative effect on their citizens?
> Or that if we burned the bondholders we'd be all fine?.



There is a quote in one of the posts above  which states 


Mr Holmes said:


> they wrote of 10's if not 100's of billions of euro in debt that they did not lumber the citizens of their Country with for generations,



To me, that implies that the actions they Icelandic Govt took had no negative impact on their citizens,. Perhaps you read something different into the comment, but I don't


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Mar 2016)

thedaddyman said:


> There is a quote in one of the posts above  which states
> "they wrote of 10's if not 100's of billions of euro in debt that they did not lumber the citizens of their Country with for generations"
> To me, that implies that the actions they Icelandic Govt took had no negative impact on their citizens,. Perhaps you read something different into the comment, but I don't



I don't see how you can reasonably go from that statement to "no negative impact." I've read it five times now and no, just don't see it. Your understanding would only be correct if 'debt', and long term debt at that, is the only negative consequence possible.


----------



## newirishman (21 Mar 2016)

Here's from the Irish Daily Mail - not my usual newspaper but came across it on our companies "news" service, and thought it might be interesting for this thread:

*WHY THE LEFT IS NEVER RIGHT*
*19-Mar-16- Irish Daily Mail*




> SHORTLY after the fall of communism in 1989, I was lecturing a group of university students on the topic of 'Marxism'. I intended to show why this so-called 'philosophy' was not only discredited but also deeply dangerous. The Berlin Wall had fallen and the grim reality of what lay behind the Iron Curtain was obvious for all to see. After the lecture, my students asked why on earth we were studying something that had led to so much genocide and untold misery. The fact that Karl Marx exerted such influence on recent history was irrelevant. A system, after all, can only be judged by its consequences, and communism had been revealed as something monstrous.
> According to The Black Book Of Communism, published in 1997 by a future German president among others, communism was responsible for the deaths of 94million souls. Under Chairman Mao, 65million Chinese perished. Lenin, Stalin and their fellow dictators in Eastern Europe succeeded in killing 30million. Pol Pot has the special distinction of having massacred one third of the Cambodian population in just four years. Add to that the living hell endured by those who escaped the forced famines, the gulags and, of course, the 'great leap forward' in China. The terrible poverty, the hopelessness and the intense fear that you might be reported for crimes against the Communist Party. My friend, the late philosopher Jacques Derrida, was arrested and imprisoned by the Czech Communist authorities in 1981. Of that experience he later wrote: 'Until one is touched by something like this, one cannot imagine what a paradise of liberty we live in.'
> Yet now, in this our paradise of liberty, we have political parties that still style themselves as 'socialist'. Even after a century of communist cruelty and despair, the Irish left continues to peddle the same old Marxist dogma that devastated half the globe. Without a hint of shame, Sinn Féin, People Before Profit, the Anti-Austerity Alliance and independent TDs like Mick Wallace and Clare Daly, proudly wave the red flag.
> This also extends to Britain, where Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn is a selfwould confessed Marxist. Before his election as leader last year, Corbyn said that Marx 'was a fascinating figure who observed a great deal and from whom we can learn a great deal'. Given that we have already learned more than enough about the ruinous effects of Marxism, a comment like that ought to be dismissed as delusional. The fact remains, however, that Mr Corbyn is not only tightening his grip on the Labour Party, but riding the crest of a popular wave. And then there is the ubiquitous figure of former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, another self-declared Marxist who is currently advising everyone from the Irish left to Corbyn to the Scottish Nationalists. Not content with having brought his country to the brink of ruin last summer, Dr Varoufakis is now intent on doing likewise here and elsewhere.
> ...


----------



## Firefly (21 Mar 2016)

newirishman said:


> Here's from the Irish Daily Mail - not my usual newspaper but came across it on our companies "news" service, and thought it might be interesting for this thread:



Hi newirishman,

What a fantastic piece. Should be prescribed reading in our LC History curriculum. 

Interesting about the Berlin Wall too - when it came down, people only traveled one way! 

Firefly.


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2016)

newirishman said:


> Here's from the Irish Daily Mail - not my usual newspaper but came across it on our companies "news" service, and thought it might be interesting for this thread:
> 
> *WHY THE LEFT IS NEVER RIGHT*
> *19-Mar-16- Irish Daily Mail*


Excellent article. Can you post a link to the source please?


----------



## Cervelo (21 Mar 2016)

An interesting read that reminded me of my own socialist views as a teenager that turned capitalism after my first paycheck


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2016)

It reminds me of that great story about the Commissar visiting the collective farm in the 1930’s.

He questions one of the peasants about his understanding of Communism;


“Comrade”, he said, “As a Communist what would you do if you had two houses?”


“I would give one to my neighbour comrade” replied the peasant.


“And if you had two horses, would you also give one to your neighbour?” asked the Commissar.


“Yes, of course comrade” replied the peasant.


“And if you had two coats, would you also give one to your neighbour?” asked the Commissar.


“No.” Replied the peasant.


“What! Why not?!” asked the Commissar.


“...well I have two coats” he replied.


----------



## losttheplot (21 Mar 2016)

"If you're not a socialist before you're twenty-five, you have no heart; if you are a socialist after twenty-five, you have no head", not sure who said it. I think socialism as an idea appeals to the young. As you age and realise how difficult it would be to implement, the enthusiasm fades. 

Socialist: someone who has nothing and wants to share it with everyone.


----------



## Firefly (21 Mar 2016)

I like this one - probably urban myth, but a good story all the same....

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. 

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little ... 

The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.


----------



## Firefly (21 Mar 2016)

losttheplot said:


> "If you're not a socialist before you're twenty-five, you have no heart; if you are a socialist after twenty-five, you have no head", not sure who said it. I think socialism as an idea appeals to the young.



I think it's up there with smoking. For young people, it's not that smoking itself is cool, it's just that cool people smoke. It loses its allure eventually.


----------



## PMU (21 Mar 2016)

losttheplot said:


> "If you're not a socialist before you're twenty-five, you have no heart; if you are a socialist after twenty-five, you have no head", not sure who said it.



“Any man under thirty who does not vote Labour has no heart, and any man over 30 who does not vote Conservative has no head”. It's often incorrectly attributed to Winston Churchill, but he never said it. I've a friend who was a Labour Party councillor in the UK. He said that if he had a pound for every time somebody quoted it to him when he was campaigning for Labour he would be a rich man.


----------



## losttheplot (21 Mar 2016)

PMU said:


> “Any man under thirty who does not vote Labour has no heart, and any man over 30 who does not vote Conservative has no head”. It's often incorrectly attributed to Winston Churchill, but he never said it. I've a friend who was a Labour Party councillor in the UK. He said that if he had a pound for every time somebody quoted it to him when he was campaigning for Labour *he would be a rich man.*


*
*
Would he still be a socialist though?


----------



## newirishman (21 Mar 2016)

Purple said:


> Excellent article. Can you post a link to the source please?



Would love to, but for the life of me cannot find it on the Interweb. Doesn't look like the Irish Daily Mail has an online presence.


----------



## Gerry Canning (22 Mar 2016)

What they should tell = the truth.
1. We have unfairness in our society.
2. For all its flaws Ireland  by any measure ,ain,t a bad place..
3. Let us pick the 3 big issues that are wrong and set out to sort them.
4. Let us stop thinking we can change everything in one swoop.
5. Say some positive things.
6. Take an incremental view of change. 


.


----------



## Purple (22 Mar 2016)

We also have to accept that many people, through circumstances, lack of education, exposure to crime and drugs, income and housing uncertainty and a myriad of other factors, are not in a position to engage as productive members of society as they are just about surviving. 

I agree with Gerry that we have to take a longer term incremental view but the idea that taxing "the rich" or just welfare alone will fix the problem is utterly flawed. Welfare treats the symptom of the problem but doesn't touch the root causes.


----------

