J
jjm
Guest
Well you will have to go along with TheBigShort so if you want change
Well you will have to go along with TheBigShort so if you want changeHow 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.
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)
Agreed, among other things.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)
At the moment in the USA you don't pay tax on income given to charity. In Ireland the charity gets the tax back so it amounts to the same thing. What other tax breaks are you referring to?No, I think tax breaks afforded to amounts donated to charity should be scrapped. It is turning the charity sector into a commercial sector.
I'm in broad agreement but that notwithstanding the work done by Bush on AIDS was a game changer though. Millions of people are alive today because of that work.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.
I never said it was.If so, you are correct. But failure and inefficiency is not limited to the public sector. The Jonathon sugarman revelations are testament to that.
So someone starts a company and never grows it past the level at which they earn €2 million a year. That's a lot of jobs not created and a lot of taxes not paid.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.
Impose a 100% tax rate on personal incomes of €2m or more. Might not solve it, but would go someway to doing so
There are plenty of left-wing parties who are not in the pockets of vested interest groups such as Trade Unions (most people with a trade are not in trade unions and most people in trade unions do not have a trade). They were necessary in their day but their day had passed. It passed when they stopped representing the poor and instead served middle-income earners to the determent of the poor.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.
Nurses with exactly the same qualifications, doing exactly the same job are on different contracts in different counties. It's not that the old health boards had different contracts and they haven't been harmonised, in some cases they are specific to individual hospitals.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?
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.
I don't understand your post.Well you will have to go along with TheBigShort so if you want change
Greed is inherent in people, not a system. I want to live in a world where everybody has a fair chance at the pursuit of happiness. That means that there cannot be subsidies or tariffs on trade and access to markets can only be based on standards (health and safety, product quality, environmental standards etc.). The Common Agricultural Policy kills more people every year than ISIS and yet getting rid of it is referred to as a "race to the bottom". In reality getting rid of it is a ladder from the bottom for those currently outside of it.You are missing the point. The capitalist system as it stands does not and will not bring everybody out of abject poverty. Of course it creates wealth, that is a given. But considering the levels of wealth, the advancements in technology and medicine, there is no reason why anyone should be living in abject poverty.
Arguably it is not capitalism per se, that is the problem, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in the system. But if you accept that point, then you should accept that socialist systems didn't fail because of socialism per se, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in those systems - in the end, human failure and inefficiency.
You are missing the point. The capitalist system as it stands does not and will not bring everybody out of abject poverty. Of course it creates wealth, that is a given. But considering the levels of wealth, the advancements in technology and medicine, there is no reason why anyone should be living in abject poverty.
Arguably it is not capitalism per se, that is the problem, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in the system. But if you accept that point, then you should accept that socialist systems didn't fail because of socialism per se, but rather the systemic greed and corruption inherent in those systems - in the end, human failure and inefficiency.
Greed is inherent in people, not a system.
At the moment in the USA you don't pay tax on income given to charity. In Ireland the charity gets the tax back so it amounts to the same thing. What other tax breaks are you referring to?
So someone starts a company and never grows it past the level at which they earn €2 million a year. That's a lot of jobs not created and a lot of taxes not paid.
There are plenty of left-wing parties who are not in the pockets of vested interest groups such as Trade Unions (most people with a trade are not in trade unions and most people in trade unions do not have a trade). They were necessary in their day but their day had passed. It passed when they stopped representing the poor and instead served middle-income earners to the determent of the poor.
No not at all. And to be fair, the nuts and bolts of such a proposal would need in-depth scrutiny. But in essence it refers to the personal income of an individual as distinct personal wealth. There would be nothing stopping anyone from acquiring personal wealth greater than €2m, stocks, property, investments etc. What it would boil down to is effectively a €2m a year lifestyle. The private jet, island, castle markets would take a hit, but probably that's all.
So if you set up a business tomorrow and it suddenly takes off worth billions, you will only be able to pay yourself €2m.
It's hard to get figures on this but in 2012 there were some 300+ people in Ireland that declared an income in excess of €2m.
So in real terms a tiny, tiny portion of people would be affected by such a proposal.
Greed is inherent in people, not a system
Capitalism for all it's failings provides this much more so than any of its counterparts on the far left which just end up with everyone being poor! I again refer you to the millions of people in china who have joined the middle class since China "opened up".
And given the resources they would have to find crafty tax accountants would you think it would be worthwhile at all? What next, target those earning 1m a year then those on 500k a year...before long the hospital consultants would leave the country along with top executives and the whole thing would crumble...
What do you think is equitable?This may mean a re-allocation of resources from those that have toward those without it. It is my view, that those that have property can all contribute to those who don't, in a manner that is equitable.
What do you think is equitable?
We have that now. Where it falls down is in the incompetence and inefficiencies within the delivery structures. What do you think is equitable?A society that ensures, insofar as practical, that no one goes without adequate food and shelter, access to healthcare and education.
What do you think is equitable?
Really?Somewhat of a rant I suspect, I really don't know what you are talking about here.
It looks to me like socialists are only interested in redistributing income from people who have more than them and not to people who have less than them.
We have that now. Where it falls down is in the incompetence and inefficiencies within the delivery structures
Really?
You see no link between income tax rates and wealth creation?
Now now, play nice.Yes, so what is your point? I suspect that there is one, somewhere buried in the last number of posts?
It's only mute if you don't think we need to balance wealth creation with wealth redistribution.I do. So the rest of your comment is mute. Perhaps explain the point you are trying to make?
I have been asking you the same question; what do you think is equitable?
A society that ensures, insofar as practical, that no one goes without adequate food and shelter, access to healthcare and education.
It's only mute if you don't think we need to balance wealth creation with wealth redistribution.
The fundamental question is are you in favour of equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?
I would say everyone is in violent agreement with this statement given the qualifier which I have put in bold. The reason we need the qualifier is a combination of scarce resources and human nature.A society that ensures, insofar as practical, that no one goes without adequate food and shelter, access to healthcare and education.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?