# What is the squeezed middle?



## odyssey06

What level of earnings is considered as middle income, and how was that bracket derived at? What point is considered high earners, and wouldn't that mean that people above average income (but closer to average income than high income) should be classed as the middle?


----------



## cremeegg

The phrase "squeezed middle" is a political one rather than an economic. As such its definition can be elastic. However I don't think it is generally used to refer to those on average earnings and below. Those are counted among the "vulnerable". Most people think they are relatively worse off than they really are.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Odyssey

The terms are usually used without any definition.

I give three examples of low pay. I took €10,000 as very low paid - it would have to be a part-time worker. I consider the minimum wage and €25,000 also to be low paid, although it could be argued that €25,000 is a mid range earner.

The Average Earnings is from the CSO, so by definition that is the middle income.  I understand that the median income is around €29,000 but I want to get the balance between simplicity and comprehensiveness.

According to the Revenue figures €60k gets you into the top 20%.  But that treats single people and married couples as one tax unit. So a couple earning €30k each are in the top 20% which isn't very meaningful.

Brendan


----------



## Purple

High earners are people who earn more than you.
The squeezed middle is you.
The "most vulnerable in society" is about 75% of the population.


----------



## odyssey06

If > €60 put you into the top 20%, and €36,500 puts you at average, that seems like a very large bracket between €37,000 and €59,000 that aren't middle but aren't high either (or are they?), who seem to just disappear ... it's about 30% of the tax paying population. 
A couple where one is on minimum wage, and one is on average wage, would fall into that zone. I think if anyone told them they were high earners they'd look at that person as if they had just landed from Mars. So if they are not in the range of the squeezed middle, then I think the definition of squeezed middle is flat out wrong.

Maybe these are the people who feel nobody is speaking for them, because they're not low, they're not average, they're not high... they're hard for politicians to categorise and soundbite. They don't make the headlines.

I think if we're going to have a conversation about the squeezed middle, the first thing to do is to define who is the squeezed middle, and who is not.
Without that context, the statistics are meaningless.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

I would have thought that the "squeezed middle" are individuals on €40-60k and families on a combined €70-€100k.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

odyssey06 said:


> I think if we're going to have a conversation about the squeezed middle, the first thing to do is to define who is the squeezed middle, and who is not.
> Without that context, the statistics are meaningless.



Most people just assert its existence. I don't think it exists. There is a middle, but it's not squeezed. 

We need to do some form of exercise similar to the one above.

Single people on x pay pay y% tax.

Married people each earning x, pay the same rate of tax, more or less, as a single person on x.

Married people  where one is earning X, who have children pay a lot less than a single person on the same salary. 



Brendan


----------



## newtothis

Brendan Burgess said:


> Most people just assert its existence. I don't think it exists. There is a middle, but it's not squeezed.



Might I quote you the following?

"You put the head down at college and got a good degree. You did some years of poorly paid training afterwards. You made the financial sacrifices, you worked hard at your career and now you have a decent salary. You should be comfortably off, but you are not. You are paying relatively high income tax, PRSI and USC, not to mention Local Property Tax and water charges. If you have a non-tracker mortgage, you are paying interest rates which are twice what they are in the rest of the Eurozone. You have always paid for your own health insurance, but it has become increasingly expensive, while at the same time, the tax relief has been greatly reduced. You have never had a motor insurance claim, but this year your premium is 35pc higher than last year. You thought you had a good pension, but it turns out that there is a big hole in the pension fund.

And it's probably going to be worse for your children. They are in their late 20s and there is no sign of them flying the nest any time soon, as they simply can't afford it. You made financial sacrifices to get them a good education, and now they have reasonable jobs, but they can't afford to rent anywhere decent, and it's very difficult for them to save up the deposit to buy a house."

Sounds like a squeezed middle to me.......


----------



## phileasfogg

You couldnt find a job straight after college so you did a masters.  Eventually now with student loans you moved to dublin to work.  You bought a starter home, but the value plummeted so you couldn't sell.
You had 2 children, but then the recession hit, your income got cut, taxes rose, they cut children's allowance, the early childhood supplement disappeared.  Creche fees stayed the same.
You got a secure job in the public sector for security before you had children, they cut all your overtime overnight. You reduced the repayments on your college loans.
You couldn't afford the 2000 euro creche fees so decided to move to a more rural location where fees would be lower.  You had to buy a second car, car insurance costs rose and rose (during the worst of it the price of fuel was so high, you sometimes ran out of petrol money and stayed with a friend near work). 
they cut the tax relief on health insurance, they increased pension contributions. When you finally paid off your college loans, your car died of old age, still no savings to buy another, another loan.


----------



## Sarenco

Focusing on income alone surely misses the point.  I would have thought that stage in life and/or net worth are equally important factors.

I can think of plenty of couples with joint incomes of around €40k that are, frankly, living the life of Reilly.  They are typically retired (or semi-retired), have their families reared and own their homes outright.

More power to them but they do not form part of what I would consider the infamous "squeezed middle".


----------



## phileasfogg

I agree.  I would have thought those who are sqeezed by tax, rent/mortgage, childrearing costs would consitute the sqeezed middle.  I wouldnt count someone on the same income, who live mortgage free and whos children are reared as being part of the cohort. Nor would i count those on a small mortgage due to gifts/inheritance etc.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

newtothis said:


> Sounds like a squeezed middle to me.......



Not really. 

The top 20% of earners are being squeezed for taxes. Not really the middle. 

Brendan


----------



## odyssey06

Brendan Burgess said:


> Most people just assert its existence. I don't think it exists. There is a middle, but it's not squeezed. We need to do some form of exercise similar to the one above.



I think logically, the first thing is to define who is the middle, and who is not, and then the exercise could help to support that conclusion (or not).
It might help to identify a cohort, if not bang in the middle, then somewhere between the middle and high, who potentially are being squeezed more than the absolute middle. Or maybe it will show that the top 20% of earners (aside- who are they?) are the ones squeezed the most.

Are we really saying that a couple on combined 60k should be classed as a "high earner"? Or a single person on 45k? I suspect not.
So for the moment (adjust figures as needed) let's say that a high earner is:
Couple with combined income of at least *72k*  (2 times the average income)
Single with income of at least *55k *(1.5 times the average income)

Also, consider the cumulative impact of someone hit by most of these, some of which in and of themselves might be only an impact of €50 - €100 a year... but if you are hit with half a dozen of them? And these are only the ones directly attributable back to government...

USC, property tax, water charges, decrease in bands, reduction in credits, increase in VAT...
Also, health insurance increases (directly related to government policy i.e. levy increase and reduction in tax credit), and levies on insurance policies.
Medical expenses relief was reduced from marginal rate 41% to 20%.
Tax credits for service charges - withdrawn.
Removal of dental PRSI cover.
All taxpayers suffered but for non medical card holding, property owners on the highest tax rate it felt like death by a thousand cuts.
I think there have also been increases since the bailout in the government levies on petrol, carbon tax, renewable levy on home energy bills - all cloaked in green rhetoric but it still makes a dent in the wallet.

If we're looking at the non high earners, what cumulative dent did the bailout and austerity measures make in their income? 10%? 15%?
All this in a time of at best static wages and no significant increases in state benefits to workers.
Is that not a squeeze?


----------



## phileasfogg

I wouldn't have thought that the "squeezed middle" related to tax alone.  It is the combination of high taxes together with a high cost of living.  The squeeze comes when from take home pay of say 4000 a month, the mortgage is 1200, the creche is 1200, the car- to buy, service, tax, insure, nct, fuel is anywhere from 300 to 600, heath insurance 200, GP, dentist and other healthcare costs 100, tv licence 13 euro, broadband 50, ESB+ gas bill 150 euro, phone bills 50 euro, property tax 20, credit card tax (assume one credit card each) 5 euro, saving for back to school costs/school contributions/books, saving for christmas gifts, some saving for home improvement/utility replacements, food costs,  etc etc


----------



## phileasfogg

Solution 1: sqeezed middle mainly consists of families torn between high creche fees- low net earning potential after childcare costs.  Legislate for more access to high quality part time work.  Main carer could earn relatively good income but minimise creche fees.  Less feeling of being trapped between too poor options.  Earning potential would increase over time, less percieved squeeze if a feeling its only temporary.


----------



## Purple

phileasfogg said:


> Legislate for more access to high quality part time work.


What does that mean?
We don't live in a communist utopia.


----------



## phileasfogg

Indeed we don't live in a communist utopia but many countries do legislate to allow people to spend time with their family, parental leave, the right to ask for part time work after maternity leave (UK), the right to spend time with a sick relative or to bond with your child (family and medical leave act, USA), in france public sector workers are entitled to part time work.  I don't think we will all turn communist by making it feasible for more people to work.  (to earn money to spend in our capitalist utopia)


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> What does that mean?
> We don't live in a communist utopia.



Pity.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Pity.



Are you serious?


----------



## odyssey06

Of course there have been other hardships such as losing jobs and homes, but that is usually not referenced for the squeezed middle.
So, we're talking about the people who managed to stay middling through all the bailout and austerity and tried to keep up:
- A mortgage on their own homes
- Running a car or commuting to work
- Private Health Insurance
- Paying into a pension
- A job paying the highest rate of tax

The general inflation rate since 2008 is effectively zero.
But, any sector where there is a large state involvement has seen significant increases:
- Commuting costs affected by public transport price increases, rise in fuel duty and insurance of cars due to failure of PIAB
- Energy costs
- Cost of private medical insurance directly affected by state levies. It should be noted that the yield to the government from charges on patients with private medical insurance was €150m last year. As far as I'm conerned, that is so significant that it should be included in any tax and benefit calculations when comparing with other countries, and noted as being included.

If we look at a single person on 40k, or a couple on 60k, compared to 2008 to have the same standard of living they would need at least 15% extra in income to offset against their reduced net income from increased taxation, and the increased costs above as well as things like property tax.
They are still paying bin charges and medical expenses, for which they can no longer claim marginal relief on.
They are now hit with 23% VAT rather than 21% VAT on the purchase of many items. 
If they got a 10% pay rise, this is a net 5% pay rise as they are on the marginal rate  so half the payrise is lost immediately in direct tax.
That only leaves them 2000-3000 to cover everything indirect I have noted.
I don't see there being much change from that to restore the standard of living from 2008 and then they would need another 5% to offset USC.

(All of the above is in support of the concept that there is a squeeze being applied to middle income earners, for which successive governments are in large part responsible. It does not preclude someone from championing that there are other squeezes being applied elsewhere).


----------



## Purple

phileasfogg said:


> Indeed we don't live in a communist utopia but many countries do legislate to allow people to spend time with their family, parental leave, the right to ask for part time work after maternity leave (UK), the right to spend time with a sick relative or to bond with your child (family and medical leave act, USA), in france public sector workers are entitled to part time work.  I don't think we will all turn communist by making it feasible for more people to work.  (to earn money to spend in our capitalist utopia)


There's nothing stopping anyone asking for part time work after maternity leave.
The Public Sector proactively accommodates part time working. Part time employees are protected under legislation since 2001.
Parental leave is a legal entitlement in Ireland. 
Family and medical leave have nothing in particular to do with part time working as they effect full time employees as much or more.
Comparing family and medical leave in Ireland to what they have in the USA is a really easy way to lose an argument.
If you want access to quality employment then get yourself quality skills which employers want.


----------



## Firefly

odyssey06 said:


> *But, any sector where there is a large state involvement has seen significant increases:*



Bold emphasis mine.


----------



## phileasfogg

In my 15 years in public sector I can definitely state they do not proactively accommodate part time work. Of 12 people in my department who have asked for it , one was accommodated.


----------



## Purple

phileasfogg said:


> In my 15 years in public sector I can definitely state they do not proactively accommodate part time work. Of 12 people in my department who have asked for it , one was accommodated.


So they couldn't accommodate it. That doesn't mean they didn't try or that they are not pro-active.
Are you suggesting that people should have an automatic entitlement to work part time?


----------



## phileasfogg

I am implying that turning down 11 out of 12 requests does not fit the definition of proactive. 
I am suggesting that thousands of parents who are highly skilled would choose to stay home entirely than to working 9 to 5.30 5 days a week. If suggestions of 30% tax to lure home skilled emigrants are being thrown out there that maybe some ideas to use the skilled workers we already have might be appropriate.


----------



## Purple

phileasfogg said:


> I am implying that turning down 11 out of 12 requests does not fit the definition of proactive.
> I am suggesting that thousands of parents who are highly skilled would choose to stay home entirely than to working 9 to 5.30 5 days a week. If suggestions of 30% tax to lure home skilled emigrants are being thrown out there that maybe some ideas to use the skilled workers we already have might be appropriate.


I'd choose to stay at home entirely than to working 9 to 5.30 5 days a week if I could (if someone else was paying my way). What's your point?
I'm with you on lowering taxes on highly skilled, and therefore highly paid, people but that's being discussed on another thread and they aren't part of this elusive squeezes middle.


----------



## Firehead

phileasfogg said:


> In my 15 years in public sector I can definitely state they do not proactively accommodate part time work. Of 12 people in my department who have asked for it , one was accommodated.


This can't be right, I also work in the public sector and of the 7 people in my department 3 work full time and the other 4 work different patterns of part time e.g. 4 out of 5 days, 9 out of 10 days etc.  Never once has anyone who has requested a change to part time been denied it, and it has as Purple suggested always been accommodated and I would even say it has been encouraged as at the end of the day it reduces the overall wage bill for the department.  I would be contacting my union if I were you.


----------



## Purple

Maybe the job phileasfogg has does not lend itself to part time working. 
It is unreasonable to expect the organisation to damage itself in order to accommodate the domestic/private needs of an employee. If your job and your home life are incompatible then get a different job.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Are you serious?



Well I was more taken with the word 'uptopia'. Regardless if it was communist uptopia or a free market paradise, utopia in any market form sounds more desirable than what we have now.


----------



## phileasfogg

Do a quick job search for jobs compatible with family life and see how many jobs you find. It must depend on what area of public service you are in then but it is not universal. My job is perfectly suitable for part time work. I am in fact part time ( technically ) but my colleagues are not and are unable to find part time work elsewhere. I'm not sure what utopia allows one to change to a family friendly job overnight because it's not Ireland. 
My point is people ARE choosing to stay at home entirely ( and paying their own way) but they could be working and paying taxes and paying the way for the country. Encouraging people to go to work can hardly be bad for the country.


----------



## Purple

What do you mean compatible with family life?
8.00 to 4.30 is certainly compatible with family life for most people.
It's a job, not a hobby.


----------



## odyssey06

Remember, if a job can be done remotely at home, theres a v good chance it can be done from india for half the price. You have to be adding value by being present, at least some of the time.

The middle is also being squeezed because they are competing in a global labour pool.

Unless we are going to cut off trade with india etc we have to compete our way out of it, not try to wave the magic wand of legislation when you are a globalised trade dependent country like ireland.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> The middle is also being squeezed because they are competing in a global labour pool.
> 
> Unless we are going to cut off trade with india etc we have to compete our way out of it, not try to wave the magic wand of legislation when you are a globalised trade dependent country like ireland.


That's a key point in all of this. 
People in developing countries are now vastly better off than they were 20 years ago. That's a result of a move towards capitalism and away from protectionism and socialism. The price we pay for that is a small diminution in our living standards but the reward for them is massive. 
How dare we in the pampered West, with our trade barriers and agricultural subsidies, begrudge the real poor and vulnerable some of the riches we enjoy. What galls me is it's usually self proclaimed socialists who are most in favour of the protectionism which inflicts such suffering on so many. They dress it up in meaningless phrases like "Race to the bottom". Take a look at the people who are really at the bottom. Walk around a shanty town and get the smell of excrement and rot and hopelessness. See what the bottom of the pile of humanity really looks like. Then feel the empty phrases of a myopic self serving urbanity Irish socialism turn to ash in your mouth.


----------



## phileasfogg

Ok, I'm leaving it here. But let's assume there are people living in this utopia who have to travel an hour to work ( blame rental prices, lack of local jobs, high crèche fees in urban centres-whichever you choose), so assume this means taking a 3 year old from bed at 6.20, wash, dress, wiggle room in schedule for a tantrum, refusal to get in car seat etc, out the door at 6.50, drop to crèche work at 8am, back to crèche at 5.30pm, home dinner bed by 6.20 pm. It's not an ideal family life really, not every day. I've done it myself and of course it's doable. But the thing being, take home pay minus childcare costs has to be substantial to take the deal. Many who can , opt out.


----------



## Purple

phileasfogg said:


> Ok, I'm leaving it here. But let's assume there are people living in this utopia who have to travel an hour to work ( blame rental prices, lack of local jobs, high crèche fees in urban centres-whichever you choose), so assume this means taking a 3 year old from bed at 6.20, wash, dress, wiggle room in schedule for a tantrum, refusal to get in car seat etc, out the door at 6.50, drop to crèche work at 8am, back to crèche at 5.30pm, home dinner bed by 6.20 pm. It's not an ideal family life really, not every day. I've done it myself and of course it's doable. But the thing being, take home pay minus childcare costs has to be substantial to take the deal. Many who can , opt out.


I agree. I've done it for years. It's really hard and it makes you feel guilty as a parent. That's not your employers fault though It's not even their problem. The reason you have no money is because you are paying over half your marginal income in tax. That means working harder to earn more is just not worth it. The solution isn't for the state to take more of your money so they can give it back to you, or take someone else's money and give it to you. The solution is for the state to take less of your money so that you retain the fruits of your own hard work! The problem isn't lack of state funding for childcare it's a marginal tax rate of over 50%!


----------



## newtothis

Brendan Burgess said:


> Not really.
> 
> The top 20% of earners are being squeezed for taxes. Not really the middle.
> 
> Brendan



That changes the question: I was responding to your assertion that "There is a middle, but it's not squeezed".

Trying to change the question to "not being squeezed by taxes" is just trying to escape the facts (which you yourself provided) that support the argument that there is in fact a squeezed middle. Yes, those on average incomes may have tax rates that are nominally comparable to other countries, but there are two big differences. Firstly, other countries don't have a myriad of other taxes to consider: VRT on cars for example, or insurance levies, or raids on pension funds or whatever. Secondly, and this is the big difference, is what those taxes pay for: they have things like the NHS; their free education is actually free, unlike here. I could go on. Saying that the middle isn't squeezed by taxes is a moot point: if I have low income tax (which I don't by the way: it's comparable to other countries) it really doesn't matter if I have other taxes or have to pay for things that in other countries are provided by those taxes.

And as for seeking to ease the burden on the squeezed middle by going after low income people is just bizarre: I'm reminded of the apocryphal quote by the bank robber when asked why he robbed banks: "because that’s where the money is". You're looking in the wrong place.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Well I was more taken with the word 'uptopia'. Regardless if it was communist uptopia or a free market paradise, utopia in any market form sounds more desirable than what we have now.



Let's assume for argument's sake we had a communist uptopia - how would that be more desirable than what we have now?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Let's assume for argument's sake we had a communist uptopia - how would that be more desirable than what we have now?



Utopia - an ideal place or state. A visionary system of political or social perfection.

Be it achieved under communism or capitalism or other system, would be a mute point.


----------



## galway_blow_in

cremeegg said:


> The phrase "squeezed middle" is a political one rather than an economic. As such its definition can be elastic. However I don't think it is generally used to refer to those on average earnings and below. Those are counted among the "vulnerable". Most people think they are relatively worse off than they really are.



i doubt its a political phrase , something only earns a political term if it holds value , the squeezed middle are constantly ignored , the very well off always have the ear of goverment and the so called disadvantaged have armies of QUANGO,s , the media is also concerned with the so called disadvantaged as human interest and hard luck stories make better copy than a hum drum middle class couple who leave their house in the suburbs each morning to go to work , , both the quangocrats and media  see the squeezed middle as a cow to be milked in order to fund various projects

the hated middle class etc


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Utopia - an ideal place or state. A visionary system of political or social perfection.
> 
> Be it achieved under communism or capitalism or other system, would be a mute point.



Very clever, I see what you are doing! Rather than it being a pity we don't have a communist utopia (which I (and I suspect others) would think to be utopic for believers in communism), you are now saying it's a pity we don't have utopia achieved by either communism or capitalism.


----------



## Firefly

If we are quoting definitions, I find this line from Wikipedia quite close to what I thing you really believe, i.e. that it's a pity we don't live in a communist country:

The term "utopian socialism" was introduced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The Communist Manifesto in 1848

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism


----------



## Purple

galway_blow_in said:


> i doubt its a political phrase , something only earns a political term if it holds value , the squeezed middle are constantly ignored , the very well off always have the ear of goverment and the so called disadvantaged have armies of QUANGO,s , the media is also concerned with the so called disadvantaged as human interest and hard luck stories make better copy than a hum drum middle class couple who leave their house in the suburbs each morning to go to work , , both the quangocrats and media  see the squeezed middle as a cow to be milked in order to fund various projects
> 
> the hated middle class etc


So how come the tax base keeps getting narrowed and the burden keeps being placed more and more on high earners, more than any other country in the developed world?


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> So how come the tax base keeps getting narrowed and the burden keeps being placed more and more on high earners, more than any other country in the developed world?



You know, it's very easy to get bogged down in percentages and the like. I quite like the simplicity of Deloitte's income tax calculator.

A single person earning 100k (which is good going to be fair, but takes a lot of work to get there) will pay almost exactly 40k a year in tax. 40 grand in tax!!!


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> If we are quoting definitions, I find this line from Wikipedia quite close to what I thing you really believe, i.e. that it's a pity we don't live in a communist country:
> 
> The term "utopian socialism" was introduced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The Communist Manifesto in 1848
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism



Thats waaaayyyyy!!! over my head, I just want people to be happy!


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> A single person earning 100k (which is good going to be fair, but takes a lot of work to get there) will pay almost exactly 40k a year in tax. 40 grand in tax!!!



How much tax is paid at the 20% rate?


----------



## Delboy

TheBigShort said:


> How much tax is paid at the 20% rate?


33.8k @ 20% = 6,760 !!!


----------



## galway_blow_in

Firefly said:


> Very clever, I see what you are doing! Rather than it being a pity we don't have a communist utopia (which I (and I suspect others) would think to be utopic for believers in communism), you are now saying it's a pity we don't have utopia achieved by either communism or capitalism.



a hand wringer who likes to keep his options open


----------



## galway_blow_in

Purple said:


> So how come the tax base keeps getting narrowed and the burden keeps being placed more and more on high earners, more than any other country in the developed world?



well i was referring to the very very wealthy who always have the ear of power , in my mind ,a hospital consultant earning 200 k per year could very well be in the " squeezed middle " , he or she will be paying an enormous amount of tax yet is unlikely to be asset rich or even able to build much in the way of wealth due to the huge tax burden placed upon him or her , the squeezed middle make up the majority but the majority ( silent majority ) in ireland are largely ignored , the media love the hard luck stories as well as the water charge protests , the majority of the squeezed middle havent time to attend anti water charges protests , our media is outrageously left wing relative to where the bulk of the electorate reside , thus a hugely disproportionate level of attention is paid to various anarchist or way out there radical views 

the working stiffs ( beit factory worker on 35 k or senior engineer on 90 k ) are seen as boring and not worth listening to , there is also the situation where only one party ( FG ) is in anyway dedicated to pushing a narrative that work and effort is a worthy goal and not just in terms of monetary outcome , FF are as happy taking votes from someone who never made the slightest attempt to improve their lot as someone who worked through college and now puts in fifty hours per week plus , at least the left are sincere in their view , FF believe in absolutely nothing bar what will get them into power , thus its very difficult to have proper leadership , FF have shifted very very sharply to the left since michael martin took over so the likes of FG cant really do anything but engage in rank populism in order to keep the show on the road in some kind of semi functional way


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> 33.8k @ 20% = 6,760 !!!



So would I be right in saying that someone on €33,800pa pays the same amount of tax as someone on say, €150,000pa, pays on the first €33,800 of their income?


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> So would I be right in saying that someone on €33,800pa pays the same amount of tax as someone on say, €150,000pa, pays on the first €33,800 of their income?


No. Because of the way Revenue operates spreading across the year, when the person on 150K has earned 33.8K cumulatively in a year, they will have paid more tax than a person on 33.8K will pay in the full year.

To make the calculations easier, look at someone on 6 times 33,800 = 202,800.  By the end of February, they will have earned 33,600 and paid 15,490 in tax (46% of their salary).  The person on 33,800 will pay 5,905 tax in the whole year (18% of their salary).


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> So would I be right in saying that someone on €33,800pa pays the same amount of tax as someone on say, €150,000pa, pays on the first €33,800 of their income?



Both will pay €6,760 in tax at the 20% rate on the first 33,800 they earn. It's after 33,800 that the higher earner gets walloped... 26,480 at the higher rate, 4 grand in PRSI and wait for it.....just over 5 grand in USC!


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Thats waaaayyyyy!!! over my head, I just want people to be happy!




I'd say you've thought about a socialist utopia often enough to have a stab at it!


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> Thats waaaayyyyy!!! over my head, I just want people to be happy!



A lot of us think that if the Govt took less of our incomes away in tax we would be, if not actually happy, at least less miserable.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> No. Because of the way Revenue operates spreading across the year, when the person on 150K has earned 33.8K cumulatively in a year, they will have paid more tax than a person on 33.8K will pay in the full year.
> 
> To make the calculations easier, look at someone on 6 times 33,800 = 202,800.  By the end of February, they will have earned 33,600 and paid 15,490 in tax (46% of their salary).  The person on 33,800 will pay 5,905 tax in the whole year (18% of their salary).



Yeh, we have it figured that higher earners pay a higher proportion of tax than lower earners. The question is, is it fair?
What you have outlined is nothing more than a levelling of income throughout the year to avoid being hammered after the cut off points.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Both will pay €6,760 in tax at the 20% rate on the first 33,800 they earn. It's after 33,800 that the higher earner gets walloped... 26,480 at the higher rate, 4 grand in PRSI and wait for it.....just over 5 grand in USC!



But the lower doesn't get walloped, because he doesnt earn that income. 
So the question is, which would you prefer, an income of €33,800 and not get walloped or €33,800+any amount thereafter, but have to pay a higher tax?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But the lower doesn't get walloped, because he doesnt earn that income.
> So the question is, which would you prefer, an income of €33,800 and not get walloped or €33,800+any amount thereafter, but have to pay a higher tax?


What's your point?
Should people who are good at their job and work hard be grateful that the state takes half of what they earn because hey, if they hadn't bothered their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language working hard and acquiring those skills, often at great personal expense and personal sacrifice, they wouldn't earn as much?!

Sure be grateful you have have it to have it taken from you. Is that it?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> What's your point?
> Should people who are good at their job and work hard be grateful that the state takes half of what they earn because hey, if they hadn't bothered their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language working hard and acquiring those skills, often at great personal expense and personal sacrifice, they wouldn't earn as much?!
> 
> Sure be grateful you have have it to have it taken from you. Is that it?



I asked a question. The question was which would you prefer?
I dont disagree that taxes are too high on income, I pay them myself. I just disagree with the notion being peddled here on this site, in not one, but at least two threads now, that lower income earners need to start paying more tax in order to facilitate a tax reduction for higher earners.
So which would you prefer?
I think corporation tax is the elephant in the room, that needs to be tackled. We have been peddled the 12.5% rate for years, but the effective rate is somewhere between 0.05% and 4%.
Yet, in a site that is apparently about money, this gets very little attention.


----------



## odyssey06

We should gradually reduce taxes on high earners, or else, extend them more benefits. For the latter to be realistic, we (all taxpayers) would have to get better value for money back out of the public sector that we are getting today.
Irish high earners pay comparable taxes to those in other EU countries. There is no comparison in terms of what they get in return.
Irish high earners get a raw deal compared to those in other OECD countries. 
And they know it. They respond by emigrating, or working \ earning less - why push yourself if the state is going to take more than half of every extra euro earned?

We might get a virtuous rebound from the laffer curve, in that by reducing taxes on high earners, suddenly we will discover a lot more of them
- from people working more because they keep more of their earnings
- from highly skilled people staying here rather than emigtrating
- from highly skilled people coming here to work because our high tech sectors are now more competitive at a european or global level

I think corporation tax is a discussion for another day. The 0.05% is a mirage being propagated by the EU commission, if we tried to reach for the billions of overseas earnings that the 0.05% is based on, it would vanish into thin air.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I asked a question. The question was which would you prefer?
> I dont disagree that taxes are too high on income, I pay them myself. I just disagree with the notion being peddled here on this site, in not one, but at least two threads now, that lower income earners need to start paying more tax in order to facilitate a tax reduction for higher earners.
> So which would you prefer?
> I think corporation tax is the elephant in the room, that needs to be tackled. We have been peddled the 12.5% rate for years, but the effective rate is somewhere between 0.05% and 4%.
> Yet, in a site that is apparently about money, this gets very little attention.


Nonsense, we are one of the few countries in the world where the effective tax rate for top companies is close to the nominal tax rate. Should we do what France does and have a nominal rate of 33.3% but an effective rate of 7.4%? Or Belgium with a nominal rate of 34% but an effective rate of just 6.5%? Maybe with a nominal rate of 12.5% and an effective rate of around 12% we are the only honest one in the room.

Lower income earners should pay more tax because it's the right thing to do. 

Personally I would not reduce any taxes and I'd cut spending by a small amount in order to reduce debt, build up reserves and stop the economy over heating. I realise that there is a political imperative to appease the economically illiterate squeezed and most vulnerable masses and to keep the populists FF and the loony left out of power as they will be far worse than what we have now.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Nonsense, we are one of the few countries in the world where the effective tax rate for top companies is close to the nominal tax rate. Should we do what France does and have a nominal rate of 33.3% but an effective rate of 7.4%? Or Belgium with a nominal rate of 34% but an effective rate of just 6.5%? Maybe with a nominal rate of 12.5% and an effective rate of around 12% we are the only honest one in the room.
> 
> Lower income earners should pay more tax because it's the right thing to do.
> 
> Personally I would not reduce any taxes and I'd cut spending by a small amount in order to reduce debt, build up reserves and stop the economy over heating. I realise that there is a political imperative to appease the economically illiterate squeezed and most vulnerable masses and to keep the populists FF and the loony left out of power as they will be far worse than what we have now.



Im not doubting what you are saying. All this does is expose the blatant disregard of working people who generate the economic activity, get taxed for it, in order to fawn at feet of the corporate shareholders. Sure they pay what 30%? on profits, but those profits are enormously boosted by these extremely low corporate tax rates.
It has nothing to do with economic illiteracy, and everything to do with economic _policy. _
If you want a fair tax system, for all, then this can of worms needs to be opened.


----------



## Sarenco

Hi BS

Have you ever considered that big corporations are simply legal constructs with officers, employees and shareholders? 

The shareholders, in the main, are pension funds that will provide the retirement income for working people.  Ultimately, if you increase the tax on those big bad corporations then there will be less money available to pay the employees and the value of their retirement funds will fall. 

On the upside, there will be more money rolling into the State's coffers to, you know, pay for the, eh, State (and those that rely on her).  Well, until those big bad corporations bugger off to somewhere else, obviously.

What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Have you ever considered that big corporations are simply legal constructs with officers, employees and shareholders?
> 
> The shareholders, in the main, are pension funds that will provide the retirement income for working people. Ultimately, if you increase the tax on those big bad corporations then there will be less money available to pay the employees and the value of their retirement funds will fall.



_This is not a rant!_

Yeh, like the value of those pensions funds cannot be wiped out because low corporate tax rates, resulting in massive profits, dont attract greedy parasites.
Much better to leave the lifetime contributions of ordinary people in the hands of 'investment' fund managers - they know best!
I pity the poor suckers being lured into false promises of secure retirement income. They are basically leaving their money at the mercy of a bunch of gamblers - its great if it pays off, but what happens when it all comes crashing down? Oh yeh, dont worry, the big bad State will bail everyone out.



Sarenco said:


> On the upside, there will be more money rolling into the State's coffers to, you know, pay for the, eh, State (and those that rely on her). Well, until those big bad corporations bugger off to somewhere else, obviously.



_Ok, it is a rant!_

Of course, implied in your comment is that there is a cohort of people, who are so successful, so talented, that any form of State reliance is alien to them.
Fact is, the State is made up of the citizens of the country and I doubt there is anybody, regardless of their stature, who can as much wipe their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language in the morning without the indirect assistance of hundreds, if not thousands of their fellow citizens.
Unless you actually built your own home, unless you sourced all the materials yourself, installed your own toilet, manufactured your own toilet roll, then everytime you drop one, you, me, and the rest, are indebted to all the workers who devised, planned, financed and implemented this system of safe waste disposal.
And thats before you even clothe yourself and have your porridge.
Dont get me started on the public footpaths that you walk on, or the public roads that you use, the public education system, public health services, etc, etc.
But its not even public services that our society is built on. Private companies, producing private goods and services, wholly reliant on the direct and indirect intervention of millions of people in the country and around the world.
In straightforward terms, everything you do, everything you own, everything you know and that has value, has everything to do with the direct and indirect intervention of your fellow citizens.

We could of course decide that high earners deserve tax breaks, because each of them are so worth it.

As a shareholder of a well known airline, I read the Sunday papers last weekend and read how a CEO was eating a fancy breakfast, moaning about this and that (once more!). While thousands of his fellow employees were working, earning a living, providing a service, generating profit, this chap was eating a fancy breakfast! Turns out he is receives a huge income. For what?
As a shareholder, I know who I would want out of there.
But its not just him, the Clerys workers (probably classed now as a burden on the State by some) left high and dry. And only because some highly paid and highly 'talented' people knew how to type up contracts that _soooo _delivered in their favour!
Such talent! - these type of people need a tax break.


----------



## odyssey06

But those people are not indebted to the others. They paid for those goods services, skills and expertise, and are making their own way in the world.
A country is independent if it is sovereign, trading voluntarily with other nations is a manifestation of that independence, not a reduction in it.
It is in a state of dependency if it cannot sustain itself from its own internal resources and those it can obtain in external trade.

I am not indebted to the doctor who, in the course of the duties that i am paying him for, making use of the wealth of our medical knowledge, carries out a procedure that saves my life.
Anymore than he is indebted to me when he pays for a service online fulfilled on software I designed, using programming languages invented by others.

No man is an island. We are social amimals. Benevolence is an admirable human quality, but we do not rely on the benevolence of others, but their enlightened self interest. Some old wisdom there.


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> I am not indebted to the doctor who, in the course of the duties that i am paying him for, making use of the wealth of our medical knowledge, carries out a procedure that saves my life.
> Anymore than he is indebted to me when he pays for a service online fulfilled on software I designed, using programming languages invented by others.



And to get to the point of the medical procedure and the software transaction in the first place, there is an innumerable amount of interactions from an innumerable amount of people, without whom, neither the medical procedure or the software transaction could ever happen.


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> But those people are not indebted to the others. They paid for those goods services, skills and expertise, and are making their own way in the world.



How much did you pay for labourers to build the university so that that professor could teach the engineer who devised the structure of the tunnel built by the labourers so that the medical devices could be transported quicker in the lorries by the drivers to the hospitals, built by the labourers, so that the doctors could perform the medical procedure and, in turn, get paid with cash and lodged in the bank (built by labourers) and secured in the vault and dispensed through the ATM using a software program devised by you?

True, you are not indebted to them, anymore than they are to you. All that ever matters is the direct transaction between individuals and their own self-interest.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> How much did you pay for labourers to build the university so that that professor could teach the engineer who devised the structure of the tunnel built by the labourers so that the medical devices could be transported quicker in the lorries by the drivers to the hospitals, built by the labourers, so that the doctors could perform the medical procedure and, in turn, get paid with cash and lodged in the bank (built by labourers) and secured in the vault and dispensed through the ATM using a software program devised by you?
> True, you are not indebted to them, anymore than they are to you. All that ever matters is the direct transaction between individuals and their own self-interest.



All of the above were just doing their job. And one assumes, were paid for it. They were not acting out of any sense of general benevolence, but following their own self-interest. If those labourers had come together at the weekends, and out of their own time, built something for general public to enjoy\benefit from, then I would be indebted to them (not financially, but from a general sense of fellowship).


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> All this does is expose the blatant disregard of working people who generate the economic activity, get taxed for it, in order to fawn at feet of the corporate shareholders.


 What a load of biased, emotive clap-trap.  People who own businesses, big or small, are no more or less concerned about society and their fellow citizens than anyone else. If you are a share holder then you are a corporate shareholder. Do you expect the employees of the businesses you part own to fawn at your feet? In fact they often own part of the business they work in (it’s encouraged by US companies). In your experience do they fawn at each others feet?




TheBigShort said:


> Sure they pay what 30%? on profits, but those profits are enormously boosted by these extremely low corporate tax rates.
> 
> It has nothing to do with economic illiteracy, and everything to do with economic _policy._
> 
> If you want a fair tax system, for all, then this can of worms needs to be opened.



If profits are enormously boosted by lower tax rates then more taxes are raised. That’s a good thing for the state and shows we have the correct taxation policy. Are you suggesting that we raise tax rates, lowering tax take, because we want to somehow punish the success of the company? It would bring corporation tax policy philosophically in line with income tax policy I suppose.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Yeh, like the value of those pensions funds cannot be wiped out because low corporate tax rates, resulting in massive profits, dont attract greedy parasites.


 What, like the people who buy shares in those companies. Ryan Air shareholders for example?





TheBigShort said:


> Much better to leave the lifetime contributions of ordinary people in the hands of 'investment' fund managers - they know best!
> 
> I pity the poor suckers being lured into false promises of secure retirement income. They are basically leaving their money at the mercy of a bunch of gamblers - its great if it pays off, but what happens when it all comes crashing down? Oh yeh, dont worry, the big bad State will bail everyone out.


 Reading your first two lines I thought you were talking about the State. It is the State which caused the crash to be so bad through their ludicrous taxation and wage policies over a decade and a half.






TheBigShort said:


> Of course, implied in your comment is that there is a cohort of people, who are so successful, so talented, that any form of State reliance is alien to them.
> 
> Fact is, the State is made up of the citizens of the country and I doubt there is anybody, regardless of their stature, who can as much wipe their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language in the morning without the indirect assistance of hundreds, if not thousands of their fellow citizens.
> 
> Unless you actually built your own home, unless you sourced all the materials yourself, installed your own toilet, manufactured your own toilet roll, then everytime you drop one, you, me, and the rest, are indebted to all the workers who devised, planned, financed and implemented this system of safe waste disposal.
> 
> And thats before you even clothe yourself and have your porridge.
> 
> Dont get me started on the public footpaths that you walk on, or the public roads that you use, the public education system, public health services, etc, etc.
> 
> But its not even public services that our society is built on. Private companies, producing private goods and services, wholly reliant on the direct and indirect intervention of millions of people in the country and around the world.
> 
> In straightforward terms, everything you do, everything you own, everything you know and that has value, has everything to do with the direct and indirect intervention of your fellow citizens.



You are confusing Society and the State. It’s a common mistake made by socialists but a silly one none the less.




TheBigShort said:


> We could of course decide that high earners deserve tax breaks, because each of them are so worth it.


 Given that we are not selling hair care products to teenage girls that’s probably not a good basis for how to make discisions.




TheBigShort said:


> As a shareholder of a well known airline, I read the Sunday papers last weekend and read how a CEO was eating a fancy breakfast, moaning about this and that (once more!). While thousands of his fellow employees were working, earning a living, providing a service, generating profit, this chap was eating a fancy breakfast! Turns out he is receives a huge income. For what?
> 
> As a shareholder, I know who I would want out of there.



Wow, I presume you have sold your shares?

How dare the person primarily responsible for all that success, all those jobs, all that great share price value increase eat an expensive breakfast and share his opinions about how to run a large successful organisation. I mean what would he know about it... oh, wait.



TheBigShort said:


> But its not just him, the Clerys workers (probably classed now as a burden on the State by some) left high and dry. And only because some highly paid and highly 'talented' people knew how to type up contracts that _soooo _delivered in their favour!
> 
> Such talent! - these type of people need a tax break.


 If you are correct than I presume the Cleary’s employees are taking their highly paid Union leaders to court for being so derelict in their duty to their members?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> How much did you pay for labourers to build the university so that that professor could teach the engineer who devised the structure of the tunnel built by the labourers so that the medical devices could be transported quicker in the lorries by the drivers to the hospitals, built by the labourers, so that the doctors could perform the medical procedure and, in turn, get paid with cash and lodged in the bank (built by labourers) and secured in the vault and dispensed through the ATM using a software program devised by you?
> 
> True, you are not indebted to them, anymore than they are to you. All that ever matters is the direct transaction between individuals and their own self-interest.


Yep, that's society again, not the State.
Oh, and the software, the medical equipment, the design of tunnels, the ATM's the Lorries etc., they were almost all designed and built on other countries and imported by private businesses in the course of trade in order to make a profit. The Tunnel was built by skilled engineers and tradespeople, not Labourers. Same goes for the Lorries and the Medical devices. The engineer who designed the Tunnel was probably educated in another country. We got his or her skill through trade as well. That's capitalism for you; as long at the State is not corrupt it helps all the people in a society.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> And to get to the point of the medical procedure and the software transaction in the first place, there is an innumerable amount of interactions from an innumerable amount of people, without whom, neither the medical procedure or the software transaction could ever happen.


Yep, that's capitalism and trade right there yet again. Nothing to do with the State.


----------



## Delboy

*Burden of running the State more heavily focused on a smaller number of taxpayers*
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...n-a-smaller-number-of-taxpayers-35126821.html


> This year the Department of Finance estimates that all income sources - tax and non-tax revenues - will generate €72bn. That, as it happens, tops the previous record intake in 2007 at the height of the property frenzy.
> That this much cash is being raised despite 150,000 fewer people working compared with eight years ago, while the country's population is up by 300,000 over the same period, shows how the burden of running the State has become more heavily focused on a smaller number of citizens....
> ....The public pay bill will rise next year by €850m compared with this year, equivalent to 42pc of the total spending increase.
> That is by far the largest share of the pie. It will bring the total pay bill to over €20.5bn, only €700m below the 2008 peak.
> And as if that wasn't eye-catching enough, when one considers that there are now around 30,000 fewer people employed across the public sector compared with 2008, average gross pay this year has already surpassed the bubble-era peak of 2008.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Fact is, the State is made up of the citizens of the country and I doubt there is anybody, regardless of their stature, who can as much wipe their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language in the morning without the indirect assistance of hundreds, if not thousands of their fellow citizens.
> Unless you actually built your own home, unless you sourced all the materials yourself, installed your own toilet, manufactured your own toilet roll, then everytime you drop one, you, me, and the rest, are indebted to all the workers who devised, planned, financed and implemented this system of safe waste disposal.
> And thats before you even clothe yourself and have your porridge.
> Dont get me started on the public footpaths that you walk on, or the public roads that you use, the public education system, public health services, etc, etc.
> But its not even public services that our society is built on. Private companies, producing private goods and services, wholly reliant on the direct and indirect intervention of millions of people in the country and around the world.
> In straightforward terms, everything you do, everything you own, everything you know and that has value, has everything to do with the direct and indirect intervention of your fellow citizens.






TheBigShort said:


> How much did you pay for labourers to build the university so that that professor could teach the engineer who devised the structure of the tunnel built by the labourers so that the medical devices could be transported quicker in the lorries by the drivers to the hospitals, built by the labourers, so that the doctors could perform the medical procedure and, in turn, get paid with cash and lodged in the bank (built by labourers) and secured in the vault and dispensed through the ATM using a software program devised by you?
> 
> True, you are not indebted to them, anymore than they are to you. All that ever matters is the direct transaction between individuals and their own self-interest.




All of these points are valid. Luckily for mankind, a method for payment was introduced circa 3000 years ago in a primative format, which gave rise to what we call money. Probably even before that (when bartering was used) a concept called Supply and Demand was used to determine who got paid what. Both have been in existence in various degrees ever since and are used to determine how much the professor above gets paid vis-a-vis the person who laid the footpaths you mentioned above.

If you can come up with a better way than using money and Supply & Demand, please reveal all!


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> But the lower doesn't get walloped, because he doesnt earn that income.
> So the question is, which would you prefer, an income of €33,800 and not get walloped or €33,800+any amount thereafter, but have to pay a higher tax?



What a bogus question! Of course I would prefer the higher income even if I paid more tax. The question is what is the impact of such high taxes having and also is it fair. 

Someone earning 100k is far, far more likely to become unemployed that to change jobs to earn €33,800 (unless they want to retrain as a solicitor or something....at which point their income will rise).

Likewise, anyone earning €33,800 per year, unless at the beginning of a "good" career like a solicitor, will also be far, far more likely to become unemployed that to change jobs to earn 100k.

The question is, taking someone who is a professional working in a large organisation (public or private) with 5-10 years experience. They are probably earning somewhere between 50-70k. For that person to increase their income to 100k, they would need to take on a lot of extra work, further study, risks etc etc. If in doing all of this, they would end up earning 100k but paying 40k in tax, would they bother?

Would higher end workers who can earn 100k in the UK be bothered coming here where 40k of their wages would be swiped by the government?


----------



## thedaddyman

When defining the squeezed middle, income is only part of the equation, you also need to look at expenditure

In my case, I live in a rural country town in a bog standard 4 bed semi in a bog standard estate. We have ordinary cars and live an ordinary life. Our combined salary would touch the €100k pa. Are we in the squeezed middle, no, as long as we both have jobs and nothing untowards happen we are comfortable and can and are planning and saving for the future

If we were to move to Dublin however and have the same salary and the same  type of house in the same type of estate then the situation would be much different. Our mortgage would be 2.5 to 3 times higher. Our child minding costs would at least double. The costs of things like plumbers, electricians or anything else would be dearer. The cost of eating out, going to the cinema, joining a sports club would all be dearer. Would we survive, probably but would we feel under significant pressure?, definitely

The only real cost to us is that I spend 2-3 hrs a day in my car commuting to Dublin and home. There are costs associated with that but were I to live in Dublin, I'd also have costs on the Luas, M 50 toll or whatever. I would not get anything like the same salary in my area. If anything at best I'd probably half it. Were I to do that and get a job in my area then we'd be then under more pressure then now.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Of course I would prefer the higher income even if I paid more tax.



But...



Firefly said:


> For that person to increase their income to 100k, they would need to take on a lot of extra work, further study, risks etc etc. If in doing all of this, they would end up earning 100k but paying 40k in tax, would they bother?



But...



Firefly said:


> Of course I would prefer the higher income even if I paid more tax.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But...
> 
> 
> 
> But...


But... what's your point?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> All of these points are valid. Luckily for mankind, a method for payment was introduced circa 3000 years ago in a primative format, which gave rise to what we call money. Probably even before that (when bartering was used) a concept called Supply and Demand was used to determine who got paid what. Both have been in existence in various degrees ever since and are used to determine how much the professor above gets paid vis-a-vis the person who laid the footpaths you mentioned above.
> 
> If you can come up with a better way than using money and Supply & Demand, please reveal all!



Not sure where you are going with this. The point im making is that some people (quite a lot actually) over value their worth in society. Here is one in todays  RTE news,albeit from the US

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/1013/823651-wells-fargo-ceo/

Paid himself $19.1m last year. Which if it happened here, he would, according to some people on this thread be liable for too much tax. That the tax rate imposed on him would be unfair.
On the otherhand, the salaries of the front- line employees and branch managers (ranging from $20,000-$60,000) would need to be taxed more to supplement a cut in this guys tax rate.

This isnt isolated, too many people at the top of their organizations (notwithstanding the hard work and talent generally used to get there) over value their own contribution to the performance of the business they work for. They can do this because they are in _control _of the wealth created by the business as a whole. They have the final say on how profits, wages increases, bonuses etc are to be divvied up. Invariably, they will take disproportionately a greater share than what they are actually worth.
For this, they should have their taxes reduced!


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> But... what's your point?



But...but...if you want the extra income, you have to work for it.
Clearly some do, clearly some dont. Clearly some people will take the extra income, with the hardwork, regardless of the tax.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Yep, that's capitalism and trade right there yet again. Nothing to do with the State.


U
I accept the differential between the State and society but I was only responding to Sarceno who laid claim that there are those who rely on the State.
What your point about capitalism is all about I dont know?
My point is that there are those, through there own position of being in control of the wealth of a corporation will invariably seek to allocate a disproportionate amount of that wealth towards their own private gain.
It has nothing to do with hard working, intelligent people being justly rewarded for their efforts, it has to do with such people who also control the revenues of the corporation.
The notion that one individual is 'primarily responsible' for the success of an airline is simply laughable. For sure, after studying the business model of another American airline, some credit can be given to him for adopting that model and overseeing its implementation. And just rewards are deserved. But without the direct contribution of thousands of employees across all divisions, this plan would never have materialised.
For this, according to you,the workers who  earn least  should have their taxes increased to facilitate tax cuts who earn most!
You want wages to be kept low, and because they are low, to increase taxes on them!


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> People who own businesses, big or small, are no more or less concerned about society and their fellow citizens than anyone else. If you are a share holder then you are a corporate shareholder.



I know. I am a corporate shareholder. 
The point was about the policy makers. The people who make the laws to facilitate maximum benefit for the corporate shareholder to the detriment of working people.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> But...but...if you want the extra income, you have to work for it.
> Clearly some do, clearly some dont. Clearly some people will take the extra income, with the hardwork, regardless of the tax.



That's my point. The more you tax the higher paid, the less likely it is that someone will strive to earn higher incomes given the amount of effort involved! Take it to its exteme....if you were taxes at 100% on everything over 70k, nobody would bother to seek to earn 70,0001 as that (and every additional) euro would be taken from them.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> That's my point. The more you tax the higher paid, the less likely it is that someone will strive to earn higher incomes given the amount of effort involved! Take it to its exteme....if you were taxes at 100% on everything over 70k, nobody would bother to seek to earn 70,0001 as that (and every additional) euro would be taken from them.


Yes, and as has been pointed out, the top 20% of earners, earn between some 50% of all income earned in the State. 
By no stretch of the imagination could it be argued that people are not willing to go out and earn this money. Far from it, the evidence strongly suggests that regardless of our current tax rates, people will be bothered to take the higher earnings along with the tax rather than not take them.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> What a load of biased, emotive clap-trap.  People who own businesses, big or small, are no more or less concerned about society and their fellow citizens than anyone else. If you are a share holder then you are a corporate shareholder. Do you expect the employees of the businesses you part own to fawn at your feet? In fact they often own part of the business they work in (it’s encouraged by US companies). In your experience do they fawn at each others feet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If profits are enormously boosted by lower tax rates then more taxes are raised. That’s a good thing for the state and shows we have the correct taxation policy. Are you suggesting that we raise tax rates, lowering tax take, because we want to somehow punish the success of the company? It would bring corporation tax policy philosophically in line with income tax policy I suppose.



My bad, when talking about profits I meant after-tax profits.
Yes, I do think there is scope to increase taxes on corporations. Dont you? Even by 1-2%?
Or do you think corporation tax is too high?


----------



## phileasfogg

That is an important point, especially with talk of college fees being re-introduced. Add in a student loan of €20-30,000 and the pay off gets smaller and smaller. For my parents generation everyone was in the same boat, but for my generation I genuinely cannot see a big difference between many educated to masters level and those who left school early ( with 10 years more wages. 10 years more savings, 10 years of cheap holidays in May when everyone else was stressed out studying, 10 years into their mortgage, grants for their college age children, shorter commutes to more local jobs etc) I'm sure it will all even out when we hit our late 50s and 6 years in college plus night courses etc will pay off but I'm not sure I'd be pushing my children to get a loan to head down that path.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But...but...if you want the extra income, you have to work for it.
> Clearly some do, clearly some dont. Clearly some people will take the extra income, with the hardwork, regardless of the tax.


No, some can just go on strike, Have my pension increased, have my welfare increased... but only if someone else is willing to go out and work harder just to see over half of the fruits of their hard work taken from them and given to "some".


----------



## phileasfogg

I see your point bigshort and I think you are probably right. But going to college, working hard and putting in the extra hours was somewhat automatic for me and my group of friends. And was encouraged by our parents. But with hindsight, I wouldn't be pushing the next generation in that direction automatically


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> This isnt isolated, too many people at the top of their organizations (notwithstanding the hard work and talent generally used to get there) over value their own contribution to the performance of the business they work for. They can do this because they are in _control _of the wealth created by the business as a whole. They have the final say on how profits, wages increases, bonuses etc are to be divvied up. Invariably, they will take disproportionately a greater share than what they are actually worth.
> For this, they should have their taxes reduced!


Biased generalisations based on your opinion and plain old fashioned begrudgery. 
If someone starts a business it belongs to them. They get to reap the benefits of the business's activities. If it's publicly owned the person or people in charge are answerable to the shareholders. We have seen multiple examples of investment companies challenging the remuneration of the directors/managers.


----------



## Purple

phileasfogg said:


> I see your point bigshort and I think you are probably right. But going to college, working hard and putting in the extra hours was somewhat automatic for me and my group of friends. And was encouraged by our parents. But with hindsight, I wouldn't be pushing the next generation in that direction automatically


I will be suggesting that my kids emigrate if they are smart enough and work hard enough to put themselves in a position to earn good money. I have two friends whose children have all left well paying jobs in Ireland to move to Seattle (14% income tax with sales tax deductible from that income tax) and the UK. 
If I was younger I'd also leave. This is no country for people who want to work hard.


----------



## orka

I agree Purple.  My eldest finished college this year and is now working in the US for probably twice the gross he would get in Ireland - and with much lower tax and a society that encourages and values high earners.  I hope my younger two follow.  I would like to be like my parents with all my children nearby as a I grow older but it's more important that they are happy, successful and valued by the society they live in - so I'm delighted for my eldest.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> My bad, when talking about profits I meant after-tax profits.
> Yes, I do think there is scope to increase taxes on corporations. Dont you? Even by 1-2%?
> Or do you think corporation tax is too high?


I think we need to compete with other countries on taxation, just as we need to compete on wage costs and everything else. I know that we are a small open economy and these things matter more here than most other countries. If we can raise corporation tax and remain competitive then fine, do it. It shouldn't be an ideological decision though.

I am utterly amazed that the people who are at the forefront of calls for better services never highlight the billions of Euro of waste of tax payers money by the State. Instead their solution is to give them even more money to waste. Why do they ignore this? Is it because their concern is just to mask their jealousy of those who are more successful than them?


----------



## phileasfogg

I'm absolutely agree. We can't keep shovelling money into poorly managed disjointed services!


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Biased generalisations based on your opinion and plain old fashioned begrudgery.



Yeh, and claiming that the poor dont pay enough tax isnt?


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> My eldest finished college this year and is now working in the US for probably twice the gross he would get in Ireland - and with much lower tax and a society that encourages and values high earners.



Im no expert on American corporation tax, but isnt one of the reasons Apple et al locate here because our CT is far more attractive than CT in the US?
If it is, isnt it probably the case that personal income taxes are lower in the US?
In otherwords, perhaps the US has a more broad based equitable system than Irelands? 
If you want a fair tax system in Ireland, CT is an obvious focal point, not someone on minimum wage.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I think we need to compete with other countries on taxation, just as we need to compete on wage costs and everything else. I know that we are a small open economy and these things matter more here than most other countries. If we can raise corporation tax and remain competitive then fine, do it. It shouldn't be an ideological decision though.



Its not an ideological position. Its a practical position. If incomes are taxed to high here, then they need to be sourced elsewhere. CT is an obvious focal point to start with, not the income of other earners on the basis of how little they earn, and by default, how little income tax they pay.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, and as has been pointed out, the top 20% of earners, earn between some 50% of all income earned in the State.



You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing.



Not at all, its really a meaningless statistic. The only plausible thing to gauge from it is that there are people in this country prepared to work for high earnings, relative to other earnings.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> Im no expert on American corporation tax, but isnt one of the reasons Apple et al locate here because our CT is far more attractive than CT in the US?
> If it is, isnt it probably the case that personal income taxes are lower in the US?
> In otherwords, perhaps the US has a more broad based equitable system than Irelands?
> If you want a fair tax system in Ireland, CT is an obvious focal point, not someone on minimum wage.



Apple employ 60,000 people in the US; and 6,000 here. The corporation tax liabilities they declare reflect that.
There's no realistic way Ireland could support 60,000 Apple jobs, from a small island of 5 million people; versus Silicon Valley.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> isnt it probably the case that personal income taxes are lower in the US?
> In otherwords, perhaps the US has a more broad based equitable system than Irelands?
> If you want a fair tax system in Ireland, CT is an obvious focal point, not someone on minimum wage.


For me, the issue is fairness within the income tax system, not the absolute contribution income tax makes to the overall tax take.  Even if CT increased such that overall income tax could reduce and the marginal tax rate became 40%, I would still consider it unfair that low income earners paid relatively much lower tax than every country in the world.   Even in the 'low income tax' US, low earners pay way more tax than in Ireland.  On 18K, in the US taxes are 2,300 vs. 600 in Ireland (4,800 in Germany and 3,200 in Sweden).  At 36K income, Ireland is about the same as the US (Ireland 6,900, US 6,300 Germany 13K, Sweden 8K).  Above that, the US is indeed low income tax.
I still haven't seen any explanation of why the structure of Ireland's income tax is so skewed compared to other countries.  As I said, even if the absolute tax take from income tax could be lowered as a result of increased CT, why is it so skewed such that higher earners pay massively more in Ireland vs lower earners?  I don't think it's fair.  I think it's fair that higher earners pay higher rates, just not as skewed as in Ireland (all alone in the entire world with such skewness).

The big difference between Ireland and most other countries is that social contributions are much higher outside Ireland and there is a cap.  If I ruled the world (Ireland anyway), that's the one thing I would change about the Irish income tax system - higher PRSI (no/very low income exemptions) with a cap.  Income tax rates would fall to keep the marginal rate the same.


----------



## galway_blow_in

Purple said:


> I think we need to compete with other countries on taxation, just as we need to compete on wage costs and everything else. I know that we are a small open economy and these things matter more here than most other countries. If we can raise corporation tax and remain competitive then fine, do it. It shouldn't be an ideological decision though.
> 
> I am utterly amazed that the people who are at the forefront of calls for better services never highlight the billions of Euro of waste of tax payers money by the State. Instead their solution is to give them even more money to waste. Why do they ignore this? Is it because their concern is just to mask their jealousy of those who are more successful than them?



I think it's years of conditioning by our left wing media 

Received wisdom is 

High public spending = good

Low taxation = bad


----------



## stuffit

Here's Michael Tafts' s definition of the squeezed middle  http://notesonthefront.typepad.com/


----------



## odyssey06

stuffit said:


> Here's Michael Tafts' s definition of the squeezed middle  http://notesonthefront.typepad.com/



I read the article, but it's not clear to me, is he actually saying he thinks that an income of €50,000 a year (whether joint or single) means you are *not* in the squeezed middle?
So Unite think that a couple on €50,000 a year are high earners? If so, it would be good if they came out and called it that way next time they look for higher taxes. Make it clear they want to see higher taxes on a family on €50,000 a year more.

It seems a bit disengenous to include pensioners in the total distribution, surely when people are talking about the squeezed middle, they are talking about middle income *earners*?


----------



## riddles

The simple fact is the ratio of taxpayers will move from 5-1 to 2-1 in less than 30 years.  The media seems to think the golden goose will continue to thrive.  In reality the golden goose is a long time gone.  We are entering an era where money becomes real again or it becomes just coloured paper.  The notion that people can leave school at 16 live on welfare for ever more is long gone.  I also sometimes laugh at the notion of pensioners who are labeled with the catch all "they worked all their lives and deserve some reward!".  This is simply false, a significant number of pensioners never had a job ever, a significant number particularly farmers, self employed avoided tax in a major way to a point where the PAYE worker paid up to 65% tax in the 80's.  There are also the people who worked in England in construction sent money home - whats available for them, very little it seems.
There is no appetite for realism at the moment - the notion is trumpeted that alls great we are removing the budget deficit.  We are 200 billion in a hole with a rapidly decreasing tax payer pool.  Job loss through technology displacement will further increase the challenges.
The balls up was made not ring fencing the money held on deposit in the banks and linking that to outstanding loans in those institutions.  A decision that has never been properly discussed, how people with large borrowing but also money on deposit were able to remove funds from failed banks.
But the corruption within NAMA will never be truly uncovered.


----------



## Delboy

Not sure if this stat has been thrown into the debate yet
http://www.independent.ie/business/...ea-that-everyone-pays-something-35132547.html


> The Irish Tax Institute has pointed out that 29pc of workers pay no tax at all.
> This amounts to just over 700,000 people.
> And the narrowing of the tax base continued in the Budget.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

The Irish Tax Institute are to high earners what the CIF are to builders or the Iona Institute are to religious people.

Its members tend to be well paid and its members' clients tend to be well paid.

Their utterances shouldn't be viewed as unbiased.

It doesn't mean they're wrong, but it's worth pointing out that they're not exactly honest brokers in all of this.


----------



## Delboy

Whatever about the rights/wrongs of the ITI, that stat is fairly telling.
As are these



> At the height of the crazy Celtic Tiger boom, a whopping 42pc of workers paid no income tax.
> This fell to 12pc with the introduction of the USC - as one of the core principles of that levy was that everyone should contribute something.
> We are now back to a situation where 29pc paid no direct income taxes.


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> Not sure if this stat has been thrown into the debate yet
> http://www.independent.ie/business/...ea-that-everyone-pays-something-35132547.html



And yet at the same time there is a call to take more income earners out of the top rate of tax. 

_But there was no move to cut the income tax bands - the income levels you pay at different rates.

Workers will still move into the higher 40pc band on income over €33,800.

The failure to raise the bands will mean that any promotions or wage rises middle-income workers get will be eaten up by higher taxes"_

This would also add to the burden of resourcing taxes from higher earners. But that does not seem to bother the advocates.
The 0.5% cut in USC also comes under attack in percentage terms. Despite it meaning the exact monetary equivalent for everyone (if lucky enough to earn the qualifying incomes), the message is that it is imbalanced in favour of low income earners.
In percentage terms,yes, in monetary terms, no.
So which world do we live in? How do we pay for the groceries, the bills, the rent, mortgage etc? Is it monetary amounts from our incomes or as a percentage of our incomes?

What appears to be advocated somewhat on this site, is ironically, a system of fairness in terms of our the tax contributions from each individual - very socialist indeed.
But when it comes to value of contribution to each in terms of labour it is very much each to his own.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But when it comes to value of contribution to each in terms of labour it is very much each to his own.


I don't understand this point. Can you elaborate please?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> What appears to be advocated somewhat on this site, is ironically, a system of fairness in terms of our the tax contributions from each individual - very socialist indeed.




I'm in favour of a flat rate of tax. Everyone pays the same tax rate. Is that socialist? Am I a socialist? Dear God, does Mom know? 

What we have currently is a system where some 700,000 do not pay income tax at all. When you start to earn more your lashings get progressively more severe. The phrase ("Lashings will continue until morale improves" comes to mind). I think that's a lot closer to socialism if you ask me. In fact, we are probably close to becoming a poster boy of socialism in the developed world!


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I'm in favour of a flat rate of tax. Everyone pays the same tax rate. Is that socialist? Am I a socialist?



Sounds good to me. If we were to abolish the current PAYE, PRSI, USC system and simply apply a rate of 33.33% on all income would that sound fair?



Firefly said:


> What we have currently is a system where some 700,000 do not pay income tax at all.



Or alternatively we have a system that, due to the application of personal tax credits to income, gives the distorted impression that the low earners are not contributing their fair share.
The reality is we have 2m+ income earners who pay relatively little tax on the first €18,000 or so of their income.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I don't understand this point. Can you elaborate please?



It is to emphasis the imbalance of control on profits on earnings. Profits tend to be controlled by a small unit of workers (senior management) who will work to maximize those profits to the benefit of owners/shareholders in return for an excessive return on their own labour and to the detriment of the real value attributable to other workers (not in control of the wealth) labour.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> It is to emphasis the imbalance of control on profits on earnings. Profits tend to be controlled by a small unit of workers (senior management) who will work to maximize those profits to the benefit of owners/shareholders in return for an excessive return on their own labour and to the detriment of the real value attributable to other workers (not in control of the wealth) labour.


I think Carl Marx covered most of that. He got it wrong but don't let that stop you heading down the same path.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I think Carl Marx covered most of that. He got it wrong but don't let that stop you heading down the same path.



How do you figure he got it wrong? Such ideas have never been applied.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> Or alternatively we have a system that, due to the application of personal tax credits to income, gives the distorted impression that the low earners are not contributing their fair share.


The application of personal tax credits is the REASON low earners are not contributing their fair share.


TheBigShort said:


> The reality is we have 2m+ income earners who pay relatively little tax on the first €18,000 or so of their income.


Yes. And that's the problem right there.  To rebalance our taxation system so that we do not have the most skewedly progressive system in the world, we need to change this.  Lower tax credits and lower tax rates would broaden our tax base and move us more into line with international norms.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> How do you figure he got it wrong? Such ideas have never been applied.


The Soviet Union and the Eastern Block countries, China up to 20 years ago, Vietnam up to 20 years ago, Parts of Central America etc. They all tried it. It doesn't work.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Sounds good to me. If we were to abolish the current PAYE, PRSI, USC system and simply apply a rate of 33.33% on all income would that sound fair?



I couldn't comment on the 33.33% bit - an exercise would need to be undertaken by the Dept of Finance to ensure they get the same revenue after the change, but yes, I would be in favour of a flat rate and (a basic income) to replace the minefield we currently have.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> The Soviet Union and the Eastern Block countries, China up to 20 years ago, Vietnam up to 20 years ago, Parts of Central America etc. They all tried it. It doesn't work.



I'm reminded of when the Berlin wall came down and with tears in their eyes, people flocked in one direction...West. 

North Korea anyone?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> How do you figure he got it wrong? Such ideas have never been applied.



Wow.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> The application of personal tax credits is the REASON low earners are not contributing their fair share.





orka said:


> Lower tax credits and lower tax rates would broaden our tax base and move us more into line with international norms.



I have no problem with this, its only taken about three weeks for this proposal to be made, so well done! Id actually be in favour of abolishing the personal tax credits altogether, just not for the purposes of providing tax cuts to wealthier people.



Firefly said:


> but yes, I would be in favour of a flat rate and (a basic income) to replace the minefield we currently have.



I suggested a 33.3% tax rate for all. Going by revenue figures this would bring in some €13bn extra in revenue. It would of course send thousands of low income earners further into poverty as now out of €10,000 income they would have less than €7,000 to survive on, disincentivising thousands from bothering to enter the workforce.  So I suppose the extra €13bn could be used as additional welfare supports for these people? 
If you want to apply a fixed rate and take in the current equivalent you would be talking about a 21% tax rate on all income (€104bn). That way an income earner on €20,000 will pay €4,200 in taxes while someone on €100,000 will pay €21,000.
Which is all well and good until you factor in the cost of living - rent or mortgage, groceries, energy bills, childcare, petrol, motor tax, insurance, house insurance, life assurance, property tax, bin charges etc....not much change (if at all) out of €16,000
My childcare costs €11,000 alone. So it would appear to me that such a system will go from assisting low income earners to get by, to absolutely crushing them. And in turn the whole economy.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The Soviet Union and the Eastern Block countries, China up to 20 years ago, Vietnam up to 20 years ago, Parts of Central America etc. They all tried it. It doesn't work.



They all took measures to do it, but none actually succeeded in doing so. In the end all they had was State controlled command economies. Instead of private ownership, it was State ownership.
Marx envisaged ownership in the hands of society using the State as the vehicle to achieve it, not State ownership as the end result.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Wow.



You learn something new everyday.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I suggested a 33.3% tax rate for all. Going by revenue figures this would bring in some €13bn extra in revenue. It would of course send thousands of low income earners further into poverty as now out of €10,000 income they would have less than €7,000 to survive on, disincentivising thousands from bothering to enter the workforce.



If people get only a basic income but get to keep 2/3s of everything they earn with no limits, how is this disincentivising thousands from bothering to enter the workforce?



TheBigShort said:


> So I suppose the extra €13bn could be used as additional welfare supports for these people?


33% was your figure not mine. If 33% was the figure, then the 13bn could be spent on raising the basic income amount. The other option would be to reduce the 33% figure to something that breaks even. Again, it would be upto the powers that be. 



TheBigShort said:


> Which is all well and good until you factor in the cost of living - rent or mortgage, groceries, energy bills, childcare, petrol, motor tax, insurance, house insurance, life assurance, property tax, bin charges etc....not much change (if at all) out of €16,000
> My childcare costs €11,000 alone. So it would appear to me that such a system will go from assisting low income earners to get by, to absolutely crushing them. And in turn the whole economy.



You'll find that apart from services provided by the government that prices will fall if income drops.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> You learn something new everyday.



I certainly do. I didn't think there were too many of you left!


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> If people get only a basic income but get to keep 2/3s of everything they earn with no limits, how is this disincentivising thousands from bothering to enter the workforce?



You have to state what the basic income is. If someone is earning €10,000pa and that is reduced by a flat rate tax to €8,000 or €7,000 then that will act as a disincentive. Unless you would like to propose what the basic income would be and how it would be funded?



Firefly said:


> 33% was your figure not mine. If 33% was the figure, then the 13bn could be spent on raising the basic income amount. The other option would be to reduce the 33% figure to something that breaks even. Again, it would be upto the powers that be.



Yes the 33% figure is mine, and not for the first time those advocating an increase on taxes on lower earners to reduce the tax bill of higher earners are devoid of any concrete proposals with some facts and figures.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> You'll find that apart from services provided by the government that prices will fall if income drops.



But income is only dropping for low earners. It would increase for high earners. The overall income remains constant.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You have to state what the basic income is. If someone is earning €10,000pa and that is reduced by a flat rate tax to €8,000 or €7,000 then that will act as a disincentive. Unless you would like to propose what the basic income would be and how it would be funded?


 Nobody is living on an income of €10,000 a year at the moment, not if they have a family or children. Plucking meaningless figures out of the air and constructing your argument around them is, well, meaningless. 





TheBigShort said:


> Yes the 33% figure is mine, and not for the first time those advocating an increase on taxes on lower earners to reduce the tax bill of higher earners are devoid of any concrete proposals with some facts and figures.


 Introduce a flat tax at a rate which is revenue neutral. How's about that?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But income is only dropping for low earners. It would increase for high earners. The overall income remains constant.


The good news is that as taxes would only drop for 20% of people the amount available for childcare would drop and so prices would drop.


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> I have also found this published by Revenue for 2017



Figures from revenue supplied  Brendan showing income levels, including those earning less than €10,000.



Purple said:


> Nobody is living on an income of €10,000 a year at the moment, not if they have a family or children. Plucking meaningless figures out of the air and constructing your argument around them is, well, meaningless.



Presumably they are not living off €10,000 is because the State is providing welfare and benefits on top of their incomes?
Presumably they are doing this because it is not feasible to live off such low incomes, especially with children?
Presumably you can understand the futility of increasing taxes on such low earners now?



Purple said:


> Introduce a flat tax at a rate which is revenue neutral. How's about that?



Yes, ive estimated that would be about a 21% tax rate (according to Brendan s revenue list - 21% of €104bn).
So a massive tax break for higher earners, and a crushing tax imposition on low earners, who will no doubt, require additional welfare supports from the State on top of what they already get.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The good news is that as taxes would only drop for 20% of people the amount available for childcare would drop and so prices would drop.



????


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> How do you figure he got it wrong? Such ideas have never been applied.



Because nobody in their right mind would either suggest them or vote for them. In fact the only examples that we have that resemble this are those Purple highlighted. The biggest losers were the natives themselves, many of whom were killed by their own government. It's a bit like Scientology where the members are blind.

If you could put forward how it could work though I would be interested.

Just one question. Anywhere where socialism have been applied (ie those same examples Purple listed), can you name ONE single technological or other invention / break-through that has advanced mankind in any way?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Because nobody in their right mind would either suggest them or vote for them.



You haven't heard of the French Revolution or the Russian revolutions then?



Firefly said:


> Anywhere where socialism have been applied (ie those same examples Purple listed), can you name ONE single technological or other invention / break-through that has advanced mankind in any way?



The comment above suggests socialism has been restricted to countries listed by Purple. I suspect that you are mixing up a socialist society (Marx) with State control under a Socialist authority (USSR, China, etc).
But to answer your question, the USSR space program is generally regarded as a pioneering program that has advanced mankind.


----------



## Gerry Canning

What is the Squezzed Middle ?

All of us , depending on our humour day by day !

Firefly.
Was the French Revolution , not socialist(ic) ? surely its mantra of egality/fraternity etc was a huge impetus in giving humanity a moral compass?
Nothing since then has matched its shown ability to make positive change..


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> You haven't heard of the French Revolution or the Russian revolutions then?



Although both revolutions were due to the masses having enough of the establishment, it is not clear that Marxist views were behind the French Revolution.
From Wikipedia:

_Historians until the late 20th century emphasised class conflicts from a largely Marxist perspective as the fundamental driving cause of the Revolution.[231] The central theme of this argument was that the Revolution emerged from the rising bourgeoisie, with support from the sans-culottes, who fought to destroy the aristocracy.[232] However, Western scholars largely abandoned Marxist interpretations in the 1990s._

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

Actually if you search the page for "Marx" you will find as many hits under under the Systematic Executions section as anywhere else!

I stand corrected re: the Russian Revolution, but if you think this is a good outcome then I will leave you with that.



TheBigShort said:


> But to answer your question, the USSR space program is generally regarded as a pioneering program that has advanced mankind.


The Russian space program, whilst partially successfuly, was not a product of communism per se. It was just to keep up with the Joneses in the Cold War. Although the Russians were first in space, they were never going any further and nearly bankrumpted their country in the process. The US clearly won the Space War all the time growing their economy.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Although both revolutions were due to the masses having enough of the establishment, it is not clear that Marxist views were behind the French Revolution.



Clearly, as Marx had yet to be born. The French Revolution was an inspiration for Marx thinking.



Firefly said:


> stand corrected re: the Russian Revolution, but if you think this is a good outcome then I will leave you with that.



I never said it was or wasnt a good outcome. I was simply responding to your previous comment.



Firefly said:


> The Russian space program, whilst partially successfuly, was not a product of communism per se



So the Russian space program, financed by the Communist system, was not a product of communism?
Perhaps its just an inconvenient truth?


----------



## Gerry Canning

THE BIG SHORT
1. Full Marx ! or was it time travel ?

2. Russian Revolution good/bad? or was it serfdom v Stalin ?

3. Russian space programme , was communistic and forced USA to compete and if we believe the hype was the precursor of a lot of modernity. 

Still not clear on who Mr Squeezed middle is ?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Clearly, as Marx had yet to be born. The French Revolution was an inspiration for Marx thinking.


I meant "views from a Marxist perspective" as per the Wikipedia article. Do you agree with the Wikipedia article actually?



TheBigShort said:


> I never said it was or wasnt a good outcome. I was simply responding to your previous comment.



So we have established that Marx wasn't alive during the French Revolution and therefore that is not an application of Marxism. We have the Russian Revolution left which is not exactly a shining light either. Anywhere else where people have voted for this way of thinking?



TheBigShort said:


> So the Russian space program, financed by the Communist system, was not a product of communism?
> Perhaps its just an inconvenient truth?



OK, I will give you that. However, the country nearly starved in the process and it was bourne out of an arms race as such. Any other examples?


----------



## Gerry Canning

Be they leftie/rightie/commie/fascist, most revolutions end up inspiring/forcing, in time, changes for the better , even Hitler ,perversely, forced Europe to wise up !


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> OK, I will give you that. However, the country nearly starved in the process and it was bourne out of an arms race as such. Any other examples?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Semyonov

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Novikov_(mathematician)#/search


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Soviet_Union

Can we move on?




Firefly said:


> Anywhere else where people have voted for this way of thinking?



I vote for it all the time. At least in terms of political parties that reflect socialist ideology. 
France is currently governed by the Socialist Party. Greece has a Syriza, another socialist party.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Semyonov
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Novikov_(mathematician)#/search
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Soviet_Union
> 
> Can we move on?



Two intelligent men obviously, but I don't see any invention as such. And both seemed to operate in the fields where "_Soviet technology was most highly developed in the fields of nuclear physics, where the arms race with the West convinced policy makers to set aside sufficient resources for research._"

Not only that but "Although the sciences were less rigorously censored than other fields such as art, there were several examples of suppression of ideas." Not very free is it? Do you like suppression?

This together with the space program was just to try to win the Cold War.

I'm looking for inventions that normal people look to and say, yeah, that's pretty cool. A toaster, a phone, a car. Anything. Flip open the Argos catalog and point to a single thing that came from Russia!

My father had a business in the 80s and I remember Russian sailors coming in as a kid with their eyes wide open with the stuff we used to sell. They used to stock up on Levis when they were here to sell when they got home.



TheBigShort said:


> *I vote for it all the time.* At least in terms of political parties that reflect socialist ideology.
> France is currently governed by the Socialist Party. *Greece has a Syriza, another socialist party*.



And that's where I leave it!!!!


----------



## Purple

Gerry Canning said:


> Firefly.
> Was the French Revolution , not socialist(ic) ? surely its mantra of egality/fraternity etc was a huge impetus in giving humanity a moral compass?
> Nothing since then has matched its shown ability to make positive change..


The French revolution was inspired by many people but Rousseau more than any other. Catherine the Great financed him for much of his life. The great philosophical thinking which lead to the revolution died with it.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> So the Russian space program, financed by the Communist system, was not a product of communism?
> Perhaps its just an inconvenient truth?


The science behind the initial Russian Space Program was German/Nazi. Once the American scientists got to grips with the field they left the Russians for dust. The Only exception was in the rocket technology but that still dated back to the Germans as well.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Two intelligent men obviously, but I don't see any invention as such



First you asked for ONE technological or invention/breakthrough. When that was provided you wanted multiple technological breakthroughs, when that is provided you want specific items from Argos catalogue! Dont you know everything in Argos is manufactured in that other socialist republic, China!



Firefly said:


> Not only that but "Although the sciences were less rigorously censored than other fields such as art, there were several examples of suppression of ideas." Not very free is it? Do you like suppression?



No do you?
You asked me to show you examples of technological advances from USSR et al. I did. 
Because of that you assume I am a supporter of that regime?



Firefly said:


> My father had a business in the 80s and I remember Russian sailors coming in as a kid with their eyes wide open with the stuff we used to sell. They used to stock up on Levis when they were here to sell when they got home.



I remember that too, whats your point?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I remember that too, whats your point?


I didn't know you are Firefly know each other. Where was the shop?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The science behind the initial Russian Space Program was German/Nazi. Once the American scientists got to grips with the field they left the Russians for dust. The Only exception was in the rocket technology but that still dated back to the Germans as well.



True, and a lot of European Space Agency technology is built on American advancements, which as you have correctly pointed out advanced from Russian advancements in the field, which were built on German advancements, which also took from British advancements in science, which were built from the great minds of Einstein and Newton and many others all the way back to Italian physicist Galileo.
See, we are all in this together, if only we could organise a society where we could benefit equally from the fruits of each others labour and develop a truly civilised peaceful world.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> True, and a lot of European Space Agency technology is built on American advancements, which as you have correctly pointed out advanced from Russian advancements in the field, which were built on German advancements, which also took from British advancements in science, which were built from the great minds of Einstein and Newton and many others all the way back to Italian physicist Galileo.
> See, we are all in this together, if only we could organise a society where we could benefit equally from the fruits of each others labour and develop a truly civilised peaceful world.


No, people should benefit fairly from the fruits of their own labour. Otherwise nobody would work.
That's why I hate socialism; it's just protectionism and exploitation in disguise. The entire discussion about wages on another thread ignores the fact that capitalism facilitates the flow of money to poorer countries and has lifted billions out of real poverty. Irish socialists don't want that to happen as it makes us relatively poorer. They are happy for the real poor to stay poor so that we, the rich, can stay rich. It's okay because the real poor are far away and are a different colour. A few bob in a charity bucket it no substitute for economic justice. 
Irish socialists only look at those who have more and want to take it from them in order to take some of it for themselves and give some of it to those who have less who are also Irish. It is based on resentment and had no concern for the real poor. It's disgusting. 

By the way, the advancement of the Russian space program was slower than the Americans. They had a head start due to having more Nazi scientists than the Americans but due to their oppressive socialist system they failed to build n that advancement. By the mid 60's the Americans, with their free and democratic system (no socialist system can be free or democratic) they had passed out the Russians.


----------



## odyssey06

Seems like we're going deep on this one... so time to roll out this one:
"No society can be simultaneously fair, free and equal. *If it is fair, people who work harder will accumulate more.* If it is free, people will give their wealth to their children. But then it cannot be equal, for some people will inherit wealth they did not earn."
(Steven Pinker, paraphrasing Plato)

I've put the condition I think most relevant to the squeezed middle in bold...


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> people should benefit fairly from the fruits of their own labour.



Totally agree, and should be rewarded accordingly. And thats where we tend to not agree on what are the benefits and fruits of that labour.
If we take our billionaire friend from the other thread, of no particular expertise. By his own admission, is not particularly industrious or qualified or hard-working. Yet he is a billionaire! How could this be? How could this person accumulate so much wealth from doing not very much, whereas the thousands of workers of Amazon that, through their combined efforts, have generated the wealth to make it the profitable company that it is, struggle on average incomes? Surely, going by your own quote above, this could not be classed as benefiting fairly from the fruits of their own labour?
Or how about my other friend, CEO of Wells Fargo, John Stumpf, a €19.1m salary, a €200m share ownership on the backs of huge profits, generated by thousands of workers on salaries of $20,000-$60,000, instructed to implement corrupt practices to boost profits. And when the game was up, he sacked 5,000 branch employees and denied knowing anything about the fraud.
Or our other hero in the airline industry. With a huge salary and share options spends a Friday morning waffling about allsorts of crap other than anything to do with the airline industry, while thousands of his fellow employees are being productive flying planes, serving customers and generating real profits. Diarmuid Ferriter has an interesting take in this regard.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/d...ion-of-michael-o-leary-is-troubling-1.2829876

"_But where would O’Leary be without State support and public money? Ryan sought political backing to withstand Aer Lingus’s predatory pricing and Charles Haughey obliged, with Ryanair getting a free run at Stansted Airport through a demarcation of the routes between the two airlines. Ryan also secured State subsidies in return for serving provincial airports and in 1992, rent breaks for Ryanair’s headquarters at Dublin Airport."_

Hardly a week goes by without some over valued 'chief' of something, or some executive being found out for gross payments paid to themselves, probably because their 'worth it'.
And thats the problem with the capitalist system as it operates. A small cohort of people will find themselves in the position of _controlling _the wealth that is _created _by their employees and duly reward themselves disproportionately as a consequence.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> "But where would O’Leary be without State support and public money? Ryan sought political backing to withstand Aer Lingus’s predatory pricing and Charles Haughey obliged, with Ryanair getting a free run at Stansted Airport through a demarcation of the routes between the two airlines. Ryan also secured State subsidies in return for serving provincial airports and in 1992, rent breaks for Ryanair’s headquarters at Dublin Airport."



Aer Lingus's predatory pricing? Semi-state Aer Lingus?
Where would Ryanair be if the Irish Government hadn't let government-backed Aer Lingus steam roll them?
What prices would the public be paying today? The same prices we had in pre-Ryanair days when a trip to London was a month's wages?
We should be commending the foresight of the Irish government in not allowing a semi-state abuse its position to the detriment of the consumer!

Only in Ireland could a private company seeking a level playing field versus a semistate be considered "seeking public backing". Whoever wrote that article will go a long way in the Irish Times, they've certainly absorbed its ethos.


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> We should be commending the foresight of the Irish government in not allowing a semi-state abuse its position to the detriment of the consumer!



I agree, and my point is not to dilute what Ryanair achieved, nor to dismiss O'Leary in his role as chief decision maker. He deserves just rewards for doing his job.
My point is, that the value placed on those 'just rewards' are wholly disproportionate relative to the efforts of the thousands of other workers in Ryanair, without whom, the low-fares model would be just an idea.
In the end, it was the combination of a multitude of factors (Southwest Airlines low price model, Irish government facilitation, and ryanair employees) that created the Ryanair success.


----------



## galway_blow_in

odyssey06 said:


> Aer Lingus's predatory pricing? Semi-state Aer Lingus?
> Where would Ryanair be if the Irish Government hadn't let government-backed Aer Lingus steam roll them?
> What prices would the public be paying today? The same prices we had in pre-Ryanair days when a trip to London was a month's wages?
> We should be commending the foresight of the Irish government in not allowing a semi-state abuse its position to the detriment of the consumer!
> 
> Only in Ireland could a private company seeking a level playing field versus a semistate be considered "seeking public backing". Whoever wrote that article will go a long way in the Irish Times, they've certainly absorbed its ethos.



dermot ferriter is a fine historian but a pretty far to the left idealogue , for folk like him an era where the likes of a cossetted state carrier like  aer lingus were  fleecing passengers is still  preferable to an outfit which is market driven and union free

in these peoples eyes the market is dirty , the state always virteous


----------



## TheBigShort

galway_blow_in said:


> dermot ferriter is a fine historian but a pretty far to the left idealogue , for folk like him an era where the likes of a cossetted state carrier like  aer lingus were  fleecing passengers is still  preferable to an outfit which is market driven and union free
> 
> in these peoples eyes the market is dirty , the state always virteous



Except it is to miss the point. The point being, regardless of whether or not Ryanair was or was not up against state-owned Aer Lingus, it was still dependent on a multitude of other factors ranging from political intervention to employee subjugation in order for the 'low-fares' model to prevail. O'Leary succeeded in this, but this was his job, thats all. He did his job, nothing more. 
But because he is also in a position of seniority he also gets to influence the level of pay and bonus and share options etc that he receives. Whereas other employees, by virtue of non-union recognition are not afforded the same influence with their pay and conditions.
Invariably, those at the top will gorge a larger slice than what is actually due to them. Hardly a week goes by without the over exorbitant rewards of some chief or other being revealed. In truth, these are mostly hard-working intelligent people, but so are their employees.
Good luck to anyone who reaches the top, I have no issue there, they get there for a reason. But it doesnt mean they are worth the €'000,000's extra in pay over and above their colleagues.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> Good luck to anyone who reaches the top, I have no issue there, they get there for a reason. But it doesnt mean they are worth the €'000,000's extra in pay over and above their colleagues.



It does, if they made the calls that made the difference between the company thriving and going under...
Without the work of the employees, there is no company, but there are few employees whose decisions make or break a company.

History is full of companies whose CEOs and leadership team made the wrong calls, and the employees and shareholders paid for it. Or for that matter, teams who won nothing til the right manager came along, armies that won no battles until the right general came along.

I think the question is whether the company is getting value for money out of those rewards packages.
If they are not (and I think in many cases they are not), don't we have a corporate governance issue that the shareholders should be sorting out? Maybe we should be looking at it from that angle rather than trying to control CEOs through taxation and regulation.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Good luck to anyone who reaches the top, I have no issue there, they get there for a reason. But it doesnt mean they are worth the €'000,000's extra in pay over and above their colleagues.



I'm really upset with Rory McIllroy. I won one my club's monthly medal last year and got a poxy gift voucher for the pro shop. OK, Rory practices more then I, but is it fair that he makes over 10m a year?


----------



## Firefly

Back on topic...



TheBigShort said:


> If people get only a basic income but get to keep 2/3s of everything they earn with no limits, how is this disincentivising thousands from bothering to enter the workforce?



Again...If people get only a basic income but get to keep 2/3s of everything they earn with no limits, how is this disincentivising thousands from bothering to enter the workforce?





TheBigShort said:


> Y
> es, ive estimated that would be about a 21% tax rate (according to Brendan s revenue list - 21% of €104bn).
> So a massive tax break for higher earners, and a crushing tax imposition on low earners, who will no doubt, require additional welfare supports from the State on top of what they already get.



How is a 21% tax rate crushing? Remember, the basic income (let's say 10k a year) is taxfree. So someone on 10e an hour working 35 hours a week would have a gross of 26,100 and pay income tax of 3,381 which is an effective tax rate of 12.9%. If an effective tax rate of 12.9% is in fact crushing, would it not also be crushing for so many companies who pay corporation tax at 12.5% ?


----------



## Purple

I do agree that the rewards for those at the top of some companies seem to  be disproportionate to their contribution to the organisation.

I would specifically exclude Michael O’Leary from that group as he was the main driving force behind Ryan Air and without doubt it would not be a tenth of the success it is today without him. The people I have a problem with are those in Banking and Finance and other sectors where there are barriers to entry into the market and a general flow around of people at the top level from one bank to another. In short it is not a capitalist/ free market sector. The same can be said for those at the top of the legal and medical industries and in effect it's the same issue; massive levels of pay garnered off the backs of underlings. 


That said as long as the employees of those companies are happy to work there and happy with their pay levels then I don’t see a link between their pay and that of those at the top. Maybe the top guys and gals should be paid less and the company keep more to invest in R&D or expansion or whatever. I know that senior programmers and software people in Amazon get paid vast amounts of money if they are good enough. Someone in their 30’s getting $300,000 a year can’t really complain, especially if they live in Seattle where they only pay 14% income tax and can deduct the sales tax they paid during the year from that income tax bill.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> How is a 21% tax rate crushing?



Its crushing on income of €10,000. You didnt provide the detail of the basic income before now!!
You need to talk to Purple and the others who want to impose more tax on lower earners as there is a variance of applicable methods being proposed. 
I have no issue in principle with what you are proposing, but if everyone is going to get a basic income of €10k, who will pay for this? There are 2,500,000 income earners in the State (according to revenue figures posted by Brendan Burgess). That will cost €25bn if they all get the 10k basic income.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I do agree that rewards for those at the top of some companies seem to be disproportionate to their contribution to the organisation.




Hooray!! Some common gound!



Purple said:


> would specifically exclude Michael O’Leary from that group as he was the main driving force behind Ryan Air



For the record, I dont deny his achievements, nor his earned entitlement to riches. My issue is the system that allows small cohorts of people, by virtue of their position or status, to gorge on the lions share of profits relative to the rewards attributed to ordinary workers, particularly those who are trying to keep their heads above water themselves. Many of whom are hard-working, intelligent, and highly qualified and skilled themselves. 
It is these people that are in danger of being lost to immigration, revolt, or whatever. 
It is being reflected here on this site regarding tax on incomes. But the focus is how to get poor people to pay more, rather than what is obvious to me - focus on the economic policies that have resulted in a "trickle-up" wealth effect, rather than the other way round.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Hooray!! Some common gound!


Indeed.




TheBigShort said:


> It is being reflected here on this site regarding tax on incomes. But the focus is how to get poor people to pay more, rather than what is obvious to me - focus on the economic policies that have resulted in a "trickle-up" wealth effect, rather than the other way round.


Why one or the other, why not both?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Why one or the other, why now both?



Surely a trickle up wealth is self-defeating in the long run? Trickle-up implies greater and greater disparity between those at the top and those at the bottom.
Trickle down implies greater wealth for those at the top, but accordingly brings the rest of society along for the ride.

Trickle-up, which is what is occurring, is a recipe for social unrest.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Surely a trickle up wealth is self-defeating in the long run? Trickle-up implies greater and greater disparity between those at the top and those at the bottom.
> Trickle down implies greater wealth for those at the top, but accordingly brings the rest of society along for the ride.
> 
> Trickle-up, which is what is occurring, is a recipe for social unrest.


I agree but again, that's not an argument for taking half the workforce out of the tax net and having an utterly unbalanced tax base generally.
We need to stop treating symptoms as if they are the root cause;
We have a truckle-up wealth effect so instead of addressing it we wreck our tax base.
We have the worst value for money health service in the developed world so instead of addressing that we just keep giving it more money.
We have an impossible state pension liability so we increase pensions.
We have a mediocre education system so we give pay increases to the people producing those mediocre results. 
Etc.


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> When that was provided you wanted multiple technological breakthroughs, when that is provided you want specific items from Argos catalogue! Dont you know everything in Argos is manufactured in that other socialist republic, China!



Everything?

Almost all moderate to advanced technology coming out of China is down to their theft of IP from western nations. Their ability to produce inferior and unreliable replicas is hardly something to aspire to.


----------



## Purple

Leo said:


> Everything?
> 
> Almost all moderate to advanced technology coming out of China is down to their theft of IP from western nations. Their ability to produce inferior and unreliable replicas is hardly something to aspire to.


They can produce high quality items as well but the basic point that they are not innovators remains true.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> They can produce high quality items as well but the basic point that they are not innovators remains true.



Even when they do start to innovate, it will only be because the chinese can now keep their gains. In the past, good ole communism put paid to that.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> Everything



Dont take everything too literal.



Leo said:


> Their ability to produce inferior and unreliable replicas is hardly something to aspire to.



I was talking tongue in cheek. I was asked to identify ONE technological innovation, I did. And subsequently asked to provide more examples, which I did. Then I was asked to provide more, on the basis that nothing in the Argos catalogue was made in Russia!
I mean, c'mon, where would it have ended?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Its crushing on income of €10,000. You didnt provide the detail of the basic income before now!!



Post 115 on Page 6



TheBigShort said:


> I have no issue in principle with what you are proposing, but if everyone is going to get a basic income of €10k, who will pay for this? There are 2,500,000 income earners in the State (according to revenue figures posted by Brendan Burgess). That will cost €25bn if they all get the 10k basic income.




The 10k figure just popped into my head just like the 33% figure popped into yours. I would defer to the Dept Finance to work out the break-even point.


So, a 3rd time, If people get only a basic income but get to keep 2/3s of everything they earn with no limits, how is this disincentivising thousands from bothering to enter the workforce?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I was talking tongue in cheek. I was asked to identify ONE technological innovation, I did. And subsequently asked to provide more examples, which I did. Then I was asked to provide more, on the basis that nothing in the Argos catalogue was made in Russia!
> I mean, c'mon, where would it have ended?



The only innovations you provided related to the arms race and space race Russia had with the US. All the innovations were state sponsored military innovations. Was mankind advanced? I agree to cede yes on that partially - some good probably did come out of it, but it was a by-product of a military campaign. The Argos catalog was tongue in cheek, but the fact remains that I don't know of a single item that consumers consume around the world today that came out of Russia from post WWII to 1989. Not one. Why? Why didn't someone develop something commercial?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Post 115 on Page 6



You talk about a basic income but didnt provide detail of how much.



Firefly said:


> So, a 3rd time, If people get only a basic income but get to keep 2/3s of everything they earn with no limits, how is this disincentivising thousands from bothering to enter the workforce?



Its not. I never said it was. I said if you impose a 33% tax on a income of €10,000 that that would act as a disincentive.
Thereafter you applied an unidentified amount (until today) of basic income, to which I replied, that in principle I didnt disagree!!


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Its not. I never said it was. I said if you impose a 33% tax on a income of €10,000 that that would act as a disincentive.
> Thereafter you applied an unidentified amount (until today) of basic income, to which I replied, that in principle I didnt disagree!!



Thanks for clarifying. I also cannot see how a basic income and a flat rate of tax (amount and % unknown) would act as a disincentive for housands from bothering to enter the workforce.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> The only innovations you provided related to the arms race and space race Russia had with the US.



You only asked to provide one!!



Firefly said:


> I don't know of a single item that consumers consume around the world today that came out of Russia from post WWII to 1989. Not one. Why? Why didn't someone develop something commercial?



Perhaps they were crap at making stuff? What is the point here? Do you think I am supporter of the Soviet regime? On what basis would you think that? The Soviet Union collapsed in upon itself and was a failed economic model. But not because of socialism, but because of a State controlled command economy. That is not socialism! Just because it says on tin that it is socialist, does not mean it is socialist. No more than Ireland is free market economy. Just because our political elite tell you we live in a free market economy, doesnt mean it is a free market economy. Try buy a car in Germany and bring it here and see how 'free' the market economy is. 

If you want to know, I am a supporter of capitalising on the resources of the earth to maximum potential as long as it is done in an ethically (just rewards for fruit of labour), environmentally efficient and sustainable way. 
In other words, capitalism is an essential step to achieving a socialist society (note, not a State controlled command economy).


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I suspect that you are mixing up a socialist society (Marx) with State control under a Socialist authority (USSR, China, etc).






TheBigShort said:


> Dont you know everything in Argos is manufactured in that other socialist republic, China!



So we have socialist society, Socialist authority and socialist republic. See how confusing that can be?


In any case, the following from Wikipedia is quite interesting. It ties into the recent progress of the Chinese in the export market. Before China "opened up" didn't most stuff come from Taiwan?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

Chinese economy prior to reform[edit]
The economy was heavily disrupted by the war against Japan and the Chinese Civil War from 1937 to 1949, after which the victorious communists installed a planned economy.[4][not in citation given] Afterwards, the economy largely stagnated[citation needed] and was disrupted by the Great Leap Forward famine which killed between 30 and 40 million people, and the purges of the Cultural Revolution further disrupted the economy.[citation needed] Urban Chinese citizens experienced virtually no increase in living standards from 1957 onwards, and rural Chinese had no better living standards in the 1970s than the 1930s.[7][not in citation given] One study noted that average pay levels in the catering sector exceeded wages in higher education.[8][relevant? – discuss]

The economic performance of the People's Republic of China was poor in comparison with other East Asian countries, such as Japan, South Korea and rival Chiang Kai-shek's Republic of China. [according to whom?] The economy was riddled with huge inefficiencies and malinvestments, and with Mao's death, the Communist Party of China (CPC) leadership turned to market-oriented reforms to salvage the failing economy.[9]

Economic reforms introducing market principles began in 1978 and were carried out in two stages. The first stage, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, involved the decollectivization of agriculture, the opening up of the country to foreign investment, and permission for entrepreneurs to start businesses. However, most industry remained state-owned. The second stage of reform, in the late 1980s and 1990s, involved the privatization and contracting out of much state-owned industry and the lifting of price controls, protectionist policies, and regulations, although state monopolies in sectors such as banking and petroleum remained. The private sector grew remarkably, accounting for as much as 70 percent of China gross domestic product by 2005.[5] From 1978 until 2013, unprecedented growth occurred, with the economy increasing by 9.5% a year. The conservative Hu-Wen Administration more heavily regulated and controlled the economy after 2005, reversing some reforms.[6]


----------



## Protocol

Some interesting CSO info on average earnings:

2015 average earnings = 36,519, very stable during 2008-2015.

Average annual earnings were €45,075 for full-time employees in 2015 while part-time employees earned €16,332 on average in the year.


----------



## odyssey06

Protocol said:


> Some interesting CSO info on average earnings:
> 2015 average earnings = 36,519, very stable during 2008-2015.
> Average annual earnings were €45,075 for full-time employees in 2015 while part-time employees earned €16,332 on average in the year.



If the CSO tracking of figures show no change in earnings *during *this period, I am thinking there's a flaw in how they track the numbers. Or do you mean that by 2015 earnings had been restored to 2008 levels?


----------



## Protocol

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elca/earningsandlabourcostsannualdata2015/


*Average annual earnings €36,519 in 2015*

Average annual earnings for all employees, including regular, overtime and irregular earnings, were €36,519 in 2015, an increase of 1.2% from 2014. Average annual earnings were €45,075 for full-time employees in 2015 while part-time employees earned €16,332 on average in the year. _See figure 5 and table 5._

Average annual earnings over the period 2008 to 2015 have remained relatively stable, dropping slightly from €36,792 in 2008 to €36,519 in 2015. There was a small rise in average annual earnings in 2009 followed by decreases in 2010 and 2011, to leave average annual earnings at €35,915 in 2011, the lowest level over the time period 2008 to 2015. Very small changes in 2012, 2013 and 2014 were followed by a rise of 1.2% in 2015 to bring average annual earnings to €36,519.

Average annual earnings for full-time employees increased 0.4% in 2009 to €44,346. It decreased in 2010 and 2011 to €44,062, the lowest level in the series. Since 2011 it has increased each year and now stands at €45,075 in 2015, 2.1% higher than the 2008 level.

Average annual earnings for part-time employees increased from €15,523 to €16,078 in 2009, remained quite static from 2010 to 2014 before increasing 2.0% to €16,332 in 2015, 5.2% higher than average annual earnings for part-time employees in 2008. _See figure 5 and table 5._


----------



## Gerry Canning

Purple said:


> The French revolution was inspired by many people but Rousseau more than any other. Catherine the Great financed him for much of his life. The great philosophical thinking which lead to the revolution died with it.



....................
Come on now Purple !
You are far too well read !
I have nuff issues , so I will avoid philosophy ! my (modern) brain couldn,t cope !


----------



## TheBigShort

The squeezed middle just voted for Trump, in my opinion.


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> The squeezed middle just voted for Trump, in my opinion.



Not just you...

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/e...you-failed-to-account-for-the-squeezed-middle

I think if all you are focused on is paying less tax, then you might not really have any concept of what the squeezed middle is. 

For me the squeezed middle are people who would have considered themselves to have a good wage, middle class perhaps, but now see their standard of living falling dramatically and also their financial security. 



> In relation to the distribution of wealth, Ireland has also become much more unequal. Over the last three decades, the top 10 per cent have increased their proportion of net wealth from 42 per cent to 54 per cent, while the share of net wealth held by the bottom 50 per cent has halved (from 12 per cent to 5 per cent).



http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/d...nd-remains-a-hugely-unequal-society-1.2766053

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/how-unequal-is-ireland-1.2105668

But if you are not aware of this, perhaps you're far enough above it not to be effected by it. Then playing Tax is probably all you are concerned about.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> The squeezed middle just voted for Trump, in my opinion.



I agree with that but if they think those industrial jobs are coming back they are sorely mistaken. As for the leader in charge...he won't do much for them either!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The squeezed middle just voted for Trump, in my opinion.


I think it was all about male white supremacy and abortion. Nobody is stupid enough to think a billionaire who never got his hands dirty in his life is going to be a champion of the rust belt disaffected. 
All the religious conservatives, and there's lots of them and they turn out to vote, vote on the abortion issue.
Every misogynist voted for Trump.
Evert racist voted for Trump.


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> Not just you...
> 
> https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/e...you-failed-to-account-for-the-squeezed-middle
> 
> I think if all you are focused on is paying less tax, then you might not really have any concept of what the squeezed middle is.
> 
> For me the squeezed middle are people who would have considered themselves to have a good wage, middle class perhaps, but now see their standard of living falling dramatically and also their financial security.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/d...nd-remains-a-hugely-unequal-society-1.2766053
> 
> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/how-unequal-is-ireland-1.2105668
> 
> But if you are not aware of this, perhaps you're far enough above it not to be effected by it. Then playing Tax is probably all you are concerned about.


Net Wealth figures are a totally BS way of measuring poverty and living standards.
If I have an income of €75'000, savings of €50'000 but am in negative equity on my home to the tune of €200'000 then I have less net wealth that a subsistence farmer in Southern Sudan.
TASC know this but they are a Left Wing Trade Union propaganda outfit with a political agenda which is willing to misrepresent the truth on order to further that agenda. The Irish Times also know better but for the same reasons are willing to do the same thing. Shame on them all.


----------



## jjm

We have to wait and see,He has already issued an Invitation to Taoiseach Enda Kenny to visit the White House for the traditional ST Patricks day celebrations next year, We  have to wait and see ,So far he is the bigger Man in more ways than one,
There are People who don't Realise the are racist in there thinking ,They think they are superior to others,


----------



## jjm

If I have an income of 75k and I borrowed money to buy or build a house And I now find myself in negitive Equity Does it really matter once my wages can service my undertakings, I suspect the  Subsistence Farmer in southern Sudan will not be looking down his nose at you,


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> If I have an income of 75k and I borrowed money to buy or build a house And I now find myself in negitive Equity Does it really matter once my wages can service my undertakings, I suspect the  Subsistence Farmer in southern Sudan will not be looking down his nose at you,


Yes, that's my point; net wealth figures are meaningless. If you earn a million a year and spend a mission a year your net wealth is zero. If I earn €30,000 and save €1,000 of that then my net wealth will be higher than yours.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I think its largely missing the point of the squeezed middle to make comparisons between, Ireland and Sudan or someone with saving 50k. You can cherry pick all day where sweeping generalisations are invalid, or financial methodologies are flawed. 

But the point is(and relevance of the US election) is how certain groups will influence govt policy, elections and even business, if they stop doing certain economic activity. Because they are genuinely financially distressed.


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> I think its largely missing the point of the squeezed middle to make comparisons between, Ireland and Sudan or someone with saving 50k. You can cherry pick all day where sweeping generalisations are invalid, or financial methodologies are flawed.


The TASC report and the Irish Times fluff piece are both BS misinformation looking to further a left-wing lie. It is that sort of mis-information which has created the myth of the squeezed middle. The groups who have been most affected by the crash are the poor (bottom 10-20% income group) and the rich (top 20% income group). Those least affected are the retired and the middle income earners. We are moving from a credit bubble and public sector pay levels which were only sustainable due to the taxes from a credit fueled property bubble (which has now burst) to reality, or what passes for it here. That's all.



AlbacoreA said:


> But the point is(and relevance of the US election) is how certain groups will influence govt policy, elections and even business, if they stop doing certain economic activity. Because they are genuinely financially distressed.


 The point is that lies are dangerous. Real incomes for middle and lower income families in the USA increased over the last 4 year for the first time in over 30 years. Unemployment is down, crime in down. Things are better than at any time in a generation for middle America. When you tell people lies, just like TASC and the Irish Times do, you end up with a cohort who feel disenfranchised. Emotive soundbites drown out facts and logic. These things lead to Trump and UKIP and Brexit and Marine Le Pen of the National Front in France and indeed People Before Profit and the AAA and all the reality denying nutters on the Left here.
We laugh at the Americans but we elect the Loony Left. We have some neck!


----------



## jjm

I think Donald Trump will bring a lot of jobs to the USA from Mexico,He could be a Sean Lemass type guy,There are factories lying idle in the USA Vacated by companies going to mexico,I know some will be suprised here, I work in Manufacturing Engineering Costing Department which has taken me to to the USA and Mexico,I was also involved in transferring manufacturing from north america to the southern states ,There are a lot of skilled people out of jobs who would have voted for Trump,I would say Trump spent more time talking to the real people who pay his wages than Hillary,Just look at the email scandal,


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> I think Donald Trump will bring a lot of jobs to the USA from Mexico,He could be a Sean Lemass type guy,There are factories lying idle in the USA Vacated by companies going to mexico,I know some will be suprised here, I work in Manufacturing Engineering Costing Department which has taken me to to the USA and Mexico,I was also involved in transferring manufacturing from north america to the southern states ,There are a lot of skilled people out of jobs who would have voted for Trump,


I work in a manufacturing engineering SME here. The notion that Trump can put the Genie back in the bottle is laughable. The world has changed. Even if there was an increase in manufacturing jobs in the USA they won't be for unskilled and semiskilled people. The number of people with a 3rd level qualification working in manufacturing in the UK has more than doubled in the last 15 years. The era of manufacturing being the place to soak up unskilled people is over.
By the way, Lemass opened up Ireland to trade after decades of protectionism and reductions in real living standards.


----------



## PGF2016

jjm2016 said:


> I think Donald Trump will bring a lot of jobs to the USA from Mexico,He could be a Sean Lemass type guy,There are factories lying idle in the USA Vacated by companies going to mexico,I know some will be suprised here, I work in Manufacturing Engineering Costing Department which has taken me to to the USA and Mexico,I was also involved in transferring manufacturing from north america to the southern states ,There are a lot of skilled people out of jobs who would have voted for Trump,I would say Trump spent more time talking to the real people who pay his wages than Hillary,Just look at the email scandal,



How would he do what your suggesting?


----------



## Purple

PGF2016 said:


> How would he do what your suggesting?


Donald doesn't have the details yet but it will be something awesome!!


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> Donald doesn't have the _details_ yet but it will be something awesome!!



Details, details, who needs details!


----------



## Ceist Beag

Purple said:


> Nobody is stupid enough to think a billionaire who never got his hands dirty in his life is going to be a champion of the rust belt disaffected.


There are plenty of comments from such disaffected people suggesting this is exactly what they do think Purple. Clearly one thing this election has shown is that we here in Ireland are so far removed from life in these states that we don't really have a clue just how disaffected these people are. I'm not saying they were right to vote Trump but maybe it is a bit easier now to see why they could never vote Clinton.


----------



## jjm

People are on here about getting value for money,Donald showed you how it can be done,


----------



## jjm

Incentivised scheame for USA companies to return to USA 15% tax,Purple The new rust belt could be in a town near you ,None so deaf as those that will not hear,None so blind as those that will not see,The rust belt comment is very close to .r....t


----------



## AlbacoreA

Purple said:


> ...which has created the myth of the squeezed middle. The groups who have been most affected by the crash are the poor (bottom 10-20% income group) and the rich (top 20% income group). Those least affected are the retired and the middle income earners. We are moving from a credit bubble and public sector pay levels which were only sustainable due to the taxes from a credit fueled property bubble (which has now burst) to reality, or what passes for it here. That's all....!



The issue is not about the States but Ireland. With respect you are guilty at only looking at the income and tax as measure of being squeezed. Its the cost of living that is squeezing the "squeezed" middle. Its could be argued that the squeeze middle are actually falling out of the middle class and and moving into lower class. Where they don't run a car, or run an old one (If they can insurance), don't have private health insurance, don't have a pension, have no savings, don't go to college, don't do to dentist don't go on holidays etc. 

I'm not sure they'd call that a myth.


----------



## jjm

I know people who never got there hands dirty in there life, Who leave there offices everyday to talk to the people who pay there wages,Very hard to know what makes some people tick,


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> The issue is not about the States but Ireland. With respect you are guilty at only looking at the income and tax as measure of being squeezed. Its the cost of living that is squeezing the "squeezed" middle. Its could be argued that the squeeze middle are actually falling out of the middle class and and moving into lower class. Where they don't run a car, or run an old one (If they can insurance), don't have private health insurance, don't have a pension, have no savings, don't go to college, don't do to dentist don't go on holidays etc.
> 
> I'm not sure they'd call that a myth.


We just had a major recession. Everybody was hit. The middle was hit less than most. The middle was squeezed less than most.


----------



## jjm

Purple are you saying  we need to tax the top 20% more to protect them from themselves,


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Purple are you saying  we need to tax the top 20% more to protect them from themselves,


No


----------



## AlbacoreA

Ceist Beag said:


> There are plenty of comments from such disaffected people suggesting this is exactly what they do think Purple. Clearly one thing this election has shown is that we here in Ireland are so far removed from life in these states that we don't really have a clue just how disaffected these people are. I'm not saying they were right to vote Trump but maybe it is a bit easier now to see why they could never vote Clinton.



I think a lot in Ireland don't know how disaffected many in Ireland are. Because they are not aware of it. 

The media will play the populist card. So they must see that reporting about the middle increases sales. In the same way anti cycling articles will appeal to non cycling motorists.


----------



## AlbacoreA

The media are obviously playing up to a populist/socialist agenda. No doubt. Exactly as Trump has done. Certainly there was a certain amount of Turkeys voting for Xmas when voting for Trump. But that doesn't mean there isn't  an issue here.


----------



## jjm

AlbacoreA /purple  I spent almost a year in one of the southern states where there is very high unemployment due to companies moving to mexico,What I found was men and  woman who were heartbroken , most had worked for around 20 years in companies closing and moving abroad,The company I was with moved there and were getting paid to train people who were unemployed as part of the grant for moving to this location,
These people just wanted to work and be  good role model for there children ,Once the work went there was no money for the schools, Schools are paid from rates collected locally,
There are posters on here who are more right wing than Trump  if they had there way they would cut the dole and we would have our own trump, I having never being out of work in my life,I am on good wages,Possibly up in the top 20%,I could earn more if I wanted to,I have no problem paying a bit more in tax ,When I read some of the posters on here I am glad we have a so called Populist Media,Long may it live,


----------



## TheBigShort

The Irish economy is growing faster than any other European country. To my mind this should result in a higher standard of living for people in general terms, not selective terms. Otherwise what is the point of growing an economy in the first place?
In the US, it is supposedly in recovery for six or more years, yet clearly there is widespread disenchantment, not just Trump supporters but Democrat supporters too (Sanders). The US is in selective recovery, that is, only select segments of the population are benefiting disproportionately to the rest of the population. This cant continue without causing unrest.


----------



## jjm

Purple Re your post on 185,We will have to wait a few years to see who is correct on this one,You and I know Its takes a few years for something like this to happen,I was surprised to see the amount of highly qualified people who stayed behind when these companies went overseas,You come across as someone who underestimate a lot of people,


----------



## AlbacoreA

Purple said:


> We just had a major recession. Everybody was hit. The middle was hit less than most. The middle was squeezed less than most.



Only if you are very selective about what you define as the "middle" and what you mean by "hit". Which exactly what the media do when they give a unbalanced story weighted left or right, depending on what sells. 

Things like the a rise of insurance have a different effect on, 
Someone driving a 162 Merc, someone driving a 11yr old Focus, someone who has no car. You might consider the person "hit" the most was the person with the Merc.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Firehead said:


> This can't be right, I also work in the public sector and of the 7 people in my department 3 work full time and the other 4 work different patterns of part time e.g. 4 out of 5 days, 9 out of 10 days etc.  Never once has anyone who has requested a change to part time been denied it, and it has as Purple suggested always been accommodated and I would even say it has been encouraged as at the end of the day it reduces the overall wage bill for the department.  I would be contacting my union if I were you.



In my experience it varies from one manager to another, private or public. Some people are ok with it, some aren't. You can always find a reason to block or allow it, depending on how you feel about it.


----------



## jjm

I Know a person who built a large house along with a 4000 sq ft games room,borrowing 300000 euro he put around 100000 euro of his own money ,Valued at 600000 euro before recession he had no problem paying 1600 Euro each month, he did not take a wage cut, house now worth around 200000 euro ,He stopped paying thinking bank was going to write off part of loan,Found out the hard way that is not how it works, Bank now charging him high interest on the money he did not pay,
Admit he had no problem paying 1600 Euro, Thinks he should only have to pay bank 100000 Euro along with the 100000 he put in himself,He is one of the top 20% tax payers in the country,He feels he got badly hit ,


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> I Know a person who built a large house along with a 4000 sq ft games room,borrowing 300000 euro he put around 100000 euro of his own money ,Valued at 600000 euro before recession he had no problem paying 1600 Euro each month, he did not take a wage cut, house now worth around 200000 euro ,He stopped paying thinking bank was going to write off part of loan,Found out the hard way that is not how it works, Bank now charging him high interest on the money he did not pay,
> Admit he had no problem paying 1600 Euro, Thinks he should only have to pay bank 100000 Euro along with the 100000 he put in himself,He is one of the top 20% tax payers in the country,He feels he got badly hit ,


He's also one of the people with negative net wealth and so one of the poor according to TASC.


----------



## Purple

jjm2016 said:


> Purple Re your post on 185,We will have to wait a few years to see who is correct on this one,You and I know Its takes a few years for something like this to happen,I was surprised to see the amount of highly qualified people who stayed behind when these companies went overseas,You come across as someone who underestimate a lot of people,


I'm not underestimating people. I'm not underestimating the people in China and Mexico and Vietnam and other places like that. I'm not underestimating the size of the consumer markets in China and Brazil and Mexico. I'm not underestimating the changes in the world over the last 20 to 30 years and how wealth is more evenly distributed and so markets are also more evenly distributed.
Most of all I am not underestimating the great good that globalisation has achieved in lifting 4 billion people out of poverty and how, in my view, those people have just as much right to the opportunities and hopes and dreams we enjoy.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I think for some people the problem with the squeezed middle, or the idea of it. Is not simply that it gains traction that it could cause those above to pay more tax, or those below to pay less. But the pressure it puts on the wage bill if you have employees.

The high cost of living is putting huge pressure on wages, and any one who is squeezed. Of course if you ignore that, you can make the squeeze disappear. That's why you would focus only on tax and headline salary figures.


----------



## jjm

people who are paid the most are looking for more without creating more wealth in return pushing up the cost of living up, This has an knock on affect lower down the wealth creating Industry,Employees/employers may not be able to pass on the cost so they do not take  a wage increase ,some industries will pullout of Ireland if they can,Resulting in the people who pushed up the cost in the first place without creating more wealth having to pay more tax,They become the squeezed middle ,The only thing keeping  the show on the road are the foreign companys here for tax reasons  paying high wages,They are creating  wealth out of the tax system,When this comes to an end which it will  we will have fun ,


----------



## AlbacoreA

In fairness people who are are wealthy are often the best people to create more wealth. They have the experience and the resources. But it has to be better distributed so that less wealthy people are motivated to participate.


----------



## jjm

I agree ,Read my post again,


----------



## Leo

jjm2016 said:


> people who are paid the most are looking for more without creating more wealth in return pushing up the cost of living up,



They're not the ones making most noise though.



jjm2016 said:


> The only thing keeping  the show on the road are the foreign companys here for tax reasons  paying high wages,They are creating wealth out of the tax system



You do know there are large multi-nationals here with employees numbering in the thousands who do not route any sales through Ireland?

And can you have another look for the full stop key???


----------



## jjm

I do I work in one, The day will come when the will get fed up shouldering more than there fair share ,All too often We hear these words,THE COMPANY HAS TAKEN A COMMERCIAL DECISION TO MOVE OUT OF IRELAND , There cost are being pushed up by wage inflation outside there control,


----------



## Leo

jjm2016 said:


> I do I work in one, The day will come when the will get fed up shouldering more than there fair share ,All too often We hear these words,THE COMPANY HAS TAKEN A COMMERCIAL DECISION TO MOVE OUT OF IRELAND , There cost are being pushed up by wage inflation outside there control,



So they're not all here for tax purposes either, but only the ones who are here for tax purposes are 'keeping the show on the road'? 

Regarding their fair share, no company of any scale bases any decision on such a criteria. The multi-nationals that are here came for commercial, competitive, talent or a mixture of such reasons. There should be no surprise if and when they leave as soon as those calculations point them to another country.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Regardless if its tax or wages. Its just becomes unsustainable, if its cheaper elsewhere.

Trumps protectionism I can't see working.


----------



## Leo

AlbacoreA said:


> Trumps protectionism I can't see working.



Agreed, it's hard to envisage a set of circumstances that would ever see them be competitive again in areas like steel or mass manufacturing.


----------



## jjm

I don't think he is going down the Protectionism road ,There are people saying he is on the far right i don't think so,They have got it wrong again,What he is saying is he is going to use tax to bring jobs back to USA,Tax drove them out in the first place,
There should be no surprise if and when the leave as soon as those calculations point them to another country,We are helping them in there way,Up to now and I don't see any end in sight,The government policy is to squeeze as much as possible out of top 20% of tax payers,this tax ,In other words the are slowly killing the private sector golden goose ,


----------



## odyssey06

Here's another squeeze on the middle... another example of government taking the easy options and externalising their inflated costs onto the general public rather than doing anything to get their costs under control:
http://www.thejournal.ie/health-insurance-price-increase-3076604-Nov2016/


----------



## Itchy

In my view an attractive policy would be to pursue the elimination of all these levies and costs. I think the societal impact is completely ignored when imposing these sorts of cost on people i.e. imposing bin charges and then dealing with the massive increase in dumping.

As an example, elimination the TV license: 
Puts a flat amount of money back into peoples accounts. Greater impact on those with smaller disposable incomes.
Impacts those people who have been law abiding, no net benefit to those who avoid it.
And bonus impact for the state, who eliminate the costs of collection/inspection!

Surely there are creative solutions to lower the cost of living overall. Is there any political body who advocate for this policy approach?


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Every misogynist voted for Trump.Evert racist voted for Trump.



Pennsylvania voted for Trump - first time a Republican won that state since Reagan. Think about that for a minute.
Maybe it was the same misogynists who voted for Bill Clinton (twice) who voted for Trump, but I don't see how it could be the same racists who voted for Obama (twice).
That analysis doesn't begin to explain how Trump could won that state, in an environment where 90% of the media wanted, supported and predicted a Clinton victory.
I don't think that the Republicans should even have allowed someone to stand for Presidency who hadn't served at least one term in elected office as a Republican at state or national level. But it took much more than racism, misogyny and media backing for him to win their nomination , and the presidency.

The squeezed middle are the ones who flipped to vote for Nixon, who flipped to vote for Reagan & Thatcher, who flipped to vote for Trump, Brexit and the Conservatives... who flocked to the PDs in the 80s here, who speaks for them in Ireland today? Cos they are sure as hell ready to flip.


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> Maybe it was the same misogynists who voted for Bill Clinton (twice) who voted for Trump, but I don't see how it could be the same racists who voted for Obama (twice).



Agreed, the racist, xenophobic, misogynist labels are overdone ( I say that in knowledge that I could be labelled in the Katie Hopkins camp!). 
But to highlight the point, I was accused recently of making a comment that could apparently have been construed as 'xenophobic' on the basis that I opposed profits being generated here for the benefit of foreigners!
There is a huge difference between making a racist or misogynist remark and actually being a racist or misogynist.
Trump is politically incorrect to the point of a being a buffoon, but he is not the tyrant that some would have you believe.
Political correctness has its place, but between having a job, paying the bills, planning for the future, and making dumb remarks, I think I know where my priorities would lay.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> Agreed, the racist, xenophobic, misogynist labels are overdone ( I say that in knowledge that I could be labelled in the Katie Hopkins camp!).
> But to highlight the point, I was accused recently of making a comment that could apparently have been construed as 'xenophobic' on the basis that I opposed profits being generated here for the benefit of foreigners!



Sometimes it's not what you said, it's how you said it... I would have said - profits being generated that won't be reinvested or spent in this country (or sometimes even taxed here!). Subtle, but important distinction.
I think the problem is that the some politicians and their allies in the media (prefix with liberal as preferred) think that they can use the racist, xenophobic, misogynist labels as an alternative to debate. It worked for them at a certain level, demonising and belittling candidates and parties whose opinions they didn't like. But then a critical mass is reached and you get Trump, UKIP, Brexit, Le Pen, Germany's AfD ... and the genie is out of the bottle. And large swathes of the electorate respond by writing off the media. And the conventional politicians have forgotten how to make arguments that actually appeal to ordinary voters - and either cannot comprehend, or aren't allowed to by the media, understand that someone can be concerned about immigration without being a racist.


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> It worked for them at a certain level, demonising and belittling candidates and parties whose opinions they didn't like.



Yes, and they labelled Trump misogynist, but say nothing of Washington's close ties to Saudi Arabia. They label him anti-muslim, but say nothing of Obamas failure to close Guantanamo. They label him dangerous and de-stabilising, but say nothing of US foreign policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria etc


----------



## jjm

If you Watch the Ross Perot vs AL Gore NAFTA debate in full in 1993 . The 2012 Ross Perot  economy discussion,You can see where Trump picked up the votes from,


----------

