"We are the only OECD state where some get back more than they pay in income tax"

[TheBigShort]

It was only after they embraced capitalism that they became wealthy and freer.

??? There are no poor countries that function under capitalism?
No abject poverty in China? India?

The issues which cause poverty are corruption, Trade and Conflict.

I agree.

We can fix the Trade issue by removing the barriers we place on the poorest in the world and let them sell their goods to us fairly.

I don't disagree. But it is ridiculous to suggest that capitalism is the main reason for bringing people out of abject poverty (I agree it helps) but has no role in putting people into abject poverty.

and allow them to earn a decent wwage (fair days pay for a fair days work, remember that one?),

What does that mean? Whatever happened to the market value of a person's labour? What happened to upskilling to earn more income, or to no wage increases without productivity increases?
You are talking like a...a...socialist!

We can also do something about the conflict and corruption by not invading them, not undermining their governments,

True. Including the corruption in charities, and the political systems that facilitate tax breaks for wealthy donors.

Great strides have been made here (thanks to Tony Blair and Bill Clinton) but Chinese companies have filled the void.

Great strides in facilitating wealthy corporations to act as they please in the name of spreading democracy. The policies adopted and implemented by Blair, Clinton, Bush are the policies that are causing the ever increasing wealth gap. To the point, that working citizens in their own countries are finding it hard to keep their heads above water. Their policies are the policies of perpetual debt.

We as a State (i.e. the State employees paid to do so) utterly failed in their duty.

How? If the policy is to allow unfettered profits, allow borrowers and lenders to agree loan amounts without interference from regulatory authority, then the State employees did their job.
On the other hand, if the policy is to limit mortgage amount at 3.5 times income, and banks lend higher than that, then the State employees have failed if there is no reprimand.
But as long as the policy is not to interfere, then the employees are required to facilitate that policy.

Do you think there is a correlation between wealth and greed? I find that greed knows no colour, creed, race or income bracket. Are we back to the arrogant and elitist assertion that socialists are somehow better and more ethical and moral than the rest of us?

Don't be silly. I'm talking about societies that implement policies that facilitate unfettered wealth. No limit to income earned, no limit to profit making.
I have no problem with wanting all that wealth, but I recognize that too much wealth in the hands of too few is not a good thing.

How do decent working conditions and pay increase the productivity of an organisation which is structurally inefficient?

Which organization are you talking about? There are question marks over your assertion that Irish Water is overstaffed by 3,000. You might want to clear that up before you continue with your claims of structural inefficiency.

Unlike the Suffragettes they didn't change with the times still think it's 1920.

And that's why the largest bulk of employment legislation can be found from the 1990's onward. Including I think, proposed legislation to ban zero-hour contracts for 2017.

They now only serve their own selfish interests and are willing to walk over anyone they need to in order to serve those interests.

I would profoundly disagree.

Trade Unions fighting to save jobs in the Public Sector which add no value to that sector are costing jobs elsewhere and damaging the economy and society.

Can you identify the jobs which are not adding value?

 

[T McGibney]

Whatever happened to the market value of a person's labour?

...

Don't be silly. I'm talking about societies that implement policies that facilitate unfettered wealth. No limit to income earned, no limit to profit making.

I normally avoid these threads like the plague but this contradiction is too big to resist.

 

[TheBigShort]

I normally avoid these threads like the plague but this contradiction is too big to resist.

In what way?

 

[T McGibney]

On one line you seem to be supporting the concept of the market value of a person's labour, while on another you're complaining about societies that allow people command that value.

 

[TheBigShort]

On one line you seem to be supporting the concept of the market value of a person's labour, while on another you're complaining about societies that allow people command that value.

But you have edited the comment! The concept of market value of a person's labour is reference to Purple's previous views. Now he is arguing for a fair days pay for a fair days work, which doesn't necessarily equate with market value of labour.

The market sets the rate. Not me or you. At least that’s how it happens in the real world.

Anyway here’s how the market set’s the rate; you need 10 people to do job X and offer a pay rate of Y. You only get 6 people willing to do the job. You keep increasing Y until you get 10 suitably qualified and skilled people to do job X.

If you offer pay rate Y for your 10 job X’s and you get 500 applicants then you are offering above the market rate.

 

[T McGibney]

I didn't edit anything. I highlighted two mutually contradictory statements of yours within a few lines of each other. You asked me to explain, which I did. That's all.

 

[TheBigShort]

I didn't edit anything. I highlighted two mutually contradictory statements of yours within a few lines of each other. You asked me to explain, which I did. That's all.

The first line in my comment was a question, not a statement.

Here is the full, unedited comment

What does that mean? Whatever happened to the market value of a person's labour? What happened to upskilling to earn more income, or to no wage increases without productivity increases?
You are talking like a...a...socialist!

You clearly didn't pick up the jist of the comment. Probably best you follow your own advice and avoid input into the thread.

 

[T McGibney]

The first line in my comment was a question, not a statement.

Of course it was. And I quoted it as such. And its still 100% clear that you were supporting the concept, only to attack it within the same post.

 

[T McGibney]

Probably best you follow your own advice and avoid input into the thread.

I'll make my own decisions on that, thanks.

 

[TheBigShort]

Of course it was. And I quoted it as such. And its still 100% clear that you were supporting the concept, only to attack it within the same post.

How would a question I pose to another poster determine my support, either for or against, that concept?

 

[TheBigShort]

I'll make my own decisions on that, thanks.

And so you should! Well done!

 

[Leo]

Probably best you follow your own advice and avoid input into the thread.

Report a post if you have an issue, but probably best you leave moderation to the Mods...

 

[TheBigShort]

Report a post if you have an issue, but probably best you leave moderation to the Mods...

No issue at all, I enjoy engaging in these threads. Others, however, avoid them like the plague. Perhaps the issue lies with them.

 

[jjm]

It is time for some of the posters to re read the first post .GREAT ARTICLE BY Fiona Redden in the Irish times on Tuesday week We pay high child benefit in this country 135 Euro per month lower income families lose nothing to Income tax thanks to child benefit.Anyone who lives in the real world knows Working lower income families are hardest hit because of our high Childcare cost .Possibly the highest in the OECD .135 euro a month in child benefit will not go far on child care cost in Ireland.I suspect other States in the OECD have lowered the cost of Childcare on low income working Families and this has not being taken into account By Fiona because it is not an Issue for her like low income Families she is completely out of touch with reality.The report is clearly substandard.The Irish Times is turning into a rag with reports like that.

 

[TheBigShort]

It is time for some of the posters to re read the first post

Fair point, I had actually begun to forget about that.

 

[Purple]

Fair point, I had actually begun to forget about that.

You are not alone!
Thank god we aren't having this discussion in the pub with a few drinks in us. It's circular enough as it is!

 

[Purple]

It is time for some of the posters to re read the first post .GREAT ARTICLE BY Fiona Redden in the Irish times on Tuesday week We pay high child benefit in this country 135 Euro per month lower income families lose nothing to Income tax thanks to child benefit.Anyone who lives in the real world knows Working lower income families are hardest hit because of our high Childcare cost .Possibly the highest in the OECD .135 euro a month in child benefit will not go far on child care cost in Ireland.I suspect other States in the OECD have lowered the cost of Childcare on low income working Families and this has not being taken into account By Fiona because it is not an Issue for her like low income Families she is completely out of touch with reality.The report is clearly substandard.The Irish Times is turning into a rag with reports like that.

How do other States in the OECD keep childcare costs low? The harsh reality is that the higher the minimum wage the worse off middle income earners feel. I'm not saying we should have an underclass like in some parts of America and Europe, I am just pointing out the consequences of having a more equal society.
The other thing to remember is that it is all about fixed costs; if you earn €45,000 a year but have no mortgage you have a reasonably high disposable income. A neighbour paying €1200 a month on a mortgage has to earn €75,000 a year to end up with the same disposable income. If either person wants to get €500 together for a new TV they have to earn over €1060 so increasing net income is very hard when you are in the higher tax band.

 

[Purple]

??? There are no poor countries that function under capitalism?

No abject poverty in China? India?

Very little in China, lots in India. India is rife with corruption, China has far less corruption.

I don't disagree. But it is ridiculous to suggest that capitalism is the main reason for bringing people out of abject poverty (I agree it helps) but has no role in putting people into abject poverty.

Nothing is solved when Socialists are lying about the root cause of poverty and capitalists are lying about the solution. The root cause is corruption and exploitation; they are inherently political. The solution is free trade and capitalism but only within a framework of a system of laws. Those laws have to be based on equality and individual rights and the political system has to operate within those laws. Free Trade and capitalism create wealth. Fairness ensures that those who create the wealth retain the free market value of their labour and that the country is run for the benefit of all its citizens; those who contribute get something back and the State facilitates those who strive to better their lot.

What does that mean? Whatever happened to the market value of a person's labour? What happened to upskilling to earn more income, or to no wage increases without productivity increases?

You are talking like a...a...socialist!

Those things stand but they stand within a global market. I believe in equality but equality for all, not just people from rich countries. We could not continue to keep billions of people down so that we could feel rich. Free trade (which is fair trade, not putting tariffs on poor countries trying to see us their goods while forcing them to accept our heavily subsidised good) is a good think.

True. Including the corruption in charities, and the political systems that facilitate tax breaks for wealthy donors.

Do you think people who donate to charity should pay tax on that donation?

Great strides in facilitating wealthy corporations to act as they please in the name of spreading democracy.

That’s just not true.

The policies adopted and implemented by Blair, Clinton, Bush are the policies that are causing the ever increasing wealth gap. To the point, that working citizens in their own countries are finding it hard to keep their heads above water. Their policies are the policies of perpetual debt.

That’s also factually incorrect. Read up on what Bush did for the fight against AIDS in Africa and his drive to cancel debt. I disagree with so much of what he did but nobody has done more in that area.

How? If the policy is to allow unfettered profits, allow borrowers and lenders to agree loan amounts without interference from regulatory authority, then the State employees did their job.

On the other hand, if the policy is to limit mortgage amount at 3.5 times income, and banks lend higher than that, then the State employees have failed if there is no reprimand.

But as long as the policy is not to interfere, then the employees are required to facilitate that policy.

The laws and regulations were there and they failed to ensure they were being followed.

Don't be silly. I'm talking about societies that implement policies that facilitate unfettered wealth. No limit to income earned, no limit to profit making.

Do you think we should limit income and limit profits? If so how and at what level?

I have no problem with wanting all that wealth, but I recognize that too much wealth in the hands of too few is not a good thing.

I agree. I have no idea how to fix it though.

Which organization are you talking about? There are question marks over your assertion that Irish Water is overstaffed by 3,000. You might want to clear that up before you continue with your claims of structural inefficiency.

Yes, it could be slightly less or slightly more.

And that's why the largest bulk of employment legislation can be found from the 1990's onward. Including I think, proposed legislation to ban zero-hour contracts for 2017.

That legislation came from the EU, not Trade Unions.

Can you identify the jobs which are not adding value?

We all know that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of different nursing grades across the country where a staff nurse in Galway has a different contract to a Staff nurse in Sligo etc. That results in a grossly complex payroll and HR system. If it was streamlines (standard contracts for each grade nationally) that payroll and HR cost would be reduced dramatically. If the existing system needs 500 people to run it and a streamlined system would need 100 then there are 400 people there who are not adding value. That doesn’t mean they are not working hard, it means that the system they work within is inherently inefficient.

Now don’t get hung up on the numbers; it’s a hypothetical example. I’m sure you are smart enough to understand it.

 

[Firefly]

??? There are no poor countries that function under capitalism?
No abject poverty in China? India?

India has a caste system so they don't have much hope. Unless you have been living on a different planet you would be aware of the explosion of the chinese middle class since it opened up to globalisation and trade.

 

[TheBigShort]

Very little in China, lots in India. India is rife with corruption, China has far less corruption.

So the issue is neither capitalism or socialism but rather corruption and inefficiencies.

The solution is free trade and capitalism but only within a framework of a system of laws. Those laws have to be based on equality and individual rights and the political system has to operate within those laws. Free Trade and capitalism create wealth. Fairness ensures that those who create the wealth retain the free market value of their labour and that the country is run for the benefit of all its citizens; those who contribute get something back and the State facilitates those who strive to better their lot.

I agree. The differences arise out of how best to implement those concepts.

Those things stand but they stand within a global market. I believe in equality but equality for all, not just people from rich countries. We could not continue to keep billions of people down so that we could feel rich. Free trade (which is fair trade, not putting tariffs on poor countries trying to see us their goods while forcing them to accept our heavily subsidised good) is a good think.

I agree. The QE program instigated by the developed world is, to my mind, artificially raising asset prices. The developed world has not accepted that our houses, businesses and other assets are worth dramatically less as a result of globalization.
This injustice, the distortion of capital markets I believe is in some part responsible for the destabilizing of south America markets and Mid East. (Coupled with US military interference)

Do you think people who donate to charity should pay tax on that donation?

No, I think tax breaks afforded to amounts donated to charity should be scrapped. It is turning the charity sector into a commercial sector.

That’s also factually incorrect. Read up on what Bush did for the fight against AIDS in Africa and his drive to cancel debt. I disagree with so much of what he did but nobody has done more in that area.

We can argue around the house about these two, but for the record I don't subscribe to the notion that either are inherently evil. Nor do I subscribe to the notion that their interventions in the Mid East were to end tyranny and bestow democracy on the people of Iraq.
Blair has a great record in Ireland, he invested hugely in education in the UK. But he, and Bush went to war on a pack of lies. They should be held accountable for that.

The laws and regulations were there and they failed to ensure they were being followed.

If so, you are correct. But failure and inefficiency is not limited to the public sector. The Jonathon sugarman revelations are testament to that.

Do you think we should limit income and limit profits? If so how and at what level?

I think personal income should be limited, yes. In the same way that I think that no one should fall below a level of poverty, equally I think there should be a limit on personal income.
Obviously, such a sentiment will be controversial and the level up for debate. But a ball park figure would be in the region of €2m a year.

I agree. I have no idea how to fix it though.

Impose a 100% tax rate on personal incomes of €2m or more. Might not solve it, but would go someway to doing so

That legislation came from the EU, not Trade Unions.

Ah, c'mon. The legislation came from EU via petition from MEPs affiliated with left-wing parties linked to trade unions. Not exclusively, but you cannot say that trade unions don't playing a significant part here.

That results in a grossly complex payroll and HR system. If it was streamlines (standard contracts for each grade nationally) that payroll and HR cost would be reduced dramatically. If the existing system needs 500 people to run it and a streamlined system would need 100 then there are 400 people there who are not adding value.

Not sure I can go with this. Is a nurse qualified for physiotherapy care, midwifery and mental illness care all equally qualified? Or can they command different pay rates?