Gulags. Thats where every state with this bankrupt anti human morality ends up.
Will the government raid people's pension funds again for COVID-19 and can anything be done to stop them?
- Thread starter PaxmanK
- Start date
Gulags. Thats where every state with this bankrupt anti human morality ends up.
Baby boomer
Registered User
- Messages
- 735
I haven't seen the likes of this for about 40 years! Since then, the Berlin Wall has come down, the Soviet Union has imploded and extreme Communism has been discredited. As a matter of interest, is there any current politician or party that reflects your views?
Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,844
Kim Jong Un?
And remember the corona virus originated from a socialist country, the Peoples Republic of China, probably from a dodgy food market. Remember there were a lot of dodgy and black market food being sold in eastern Europe in the 1980s because people were hungry and food was scarce. Long live the German Democrat Republic, sure we are starting to develop a stasi and informing on neighbours now.
Allpartied
Registered User
- Messages
- 507
This policy was implemented by the Irish govt after the financial crises. So that's less than 40 years ago.
As far as I know Ireland has never had an extreme communist govt, though I live in hope. The party that carried out this Soviet, North Korean, East German policy of expropriation was Fine Gael, lead by that monster of Stalinist economics, Enda Kenny and implemented by his ruthless comrade in arms, Michael Noonan.
Last edited:
Allpartied
Registered User
- Messages
- 507
That's right, fair taxation and equitable redistribution of wealth leads to gulags.
You can't move for them in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, gulag as far as the eye can see.
Wow. Huge bait and switch there.
Have any of those governments declared that people have no moral right to their earnings?
And declare that pre-tax earnings deserve no protection or respect?
That is the philosophy I challenged.
And, in the context of this thread, has any Irish political party likely to be in government made such a declaration?
How do the governments noted above plan to fund their coronavirus costs? Have they raided pensions funds to fund their coronavirus expenditure?
Last edited:
Allpartied
Registered User
- Messages
- 507
I may have been blunt, but this is the law in every liberal, capitalist, socially advanced democracy. You have no right to your pre-tax earnings. If you did you could withold your tax and demand it is respected. I don't advise it though, because you will find yourself up before the beak in jig time.
Pension savings are pre-tax holdings and subject to tax laws. If the tax law changes then you pay up or go to jail.
As for bait and switch, you were the one who said this normal practice across social democracies would end up in the gulags.
Last edited:
Baby boomer
Registered User
- Messages
- 735
You're changing the goalposts now that you're losing the argument! Originally you said: "Pre-tax incomes, of which the pension savings are a part, deserve no protection, they deserve no respect"
That's a completely different (and far more extreme) proposition than saying: "You have no right to your pre-tax earnings."
Let's be clear. We can accept there's no absolute right to keep all of your pre-tax earnings. (The most extreme of libertarians might disagree, but that's very much a minority view.) But in a democratic constitutional country there is a right not to subjected to arbitrary, discriminatory or unfairly administered taxation. That means that you have certain rights and protections in relation to your pre-tax earnings. The exact contours of those rights depend on the Constitution, the law and the interpretation of the Courts.
You seem to hanker after a society where those rights and protections are at the whim of some type of revolutionary people's commissar who can make up the rules as he goes along. All in the interest of "the people" of course!
Allpartied
Registered User
- Messages
- 507
Maybe you can point me to the part of the Irish Constitution that protects your salary. Or indeed any law passed that gives you that protection.
Taxes are administered by law, whether they are fair is neither here nor there. Dail Eireann could pass a law tomorrow, increasing your tax liability by 10% or 20% or 30%. There is not a thing you could do about it, except pay up.
Unless it's a water tax of course; that would be unfair.
Allpartied
Registered User
- Messages
- 507
If you want to start a grassroots political campaign to overturn any proposal to levy a small tax against rich pensioners, go ahead.Unless it's a water tax of course; that would be unfair.
That's democracy, and it's open to all.
Who was talking about fair and equitable redistribution of wealth? I'm all for that but we can't afford to cut taxes on rich people.
Are you suggesting that Norway, Sweden and Denmark have fairer taxation systems? If so I agree completely; they have much higher rates of income tax on low and middle income earners and a much broader tax base which includes things like water charges and property tax.
I'm all in favour of taxing rich pensioners. I'd get rid of their medical cards, free travel and other such perks as well as getting them to pay the same rates of income tax and social insurance that those under 65 pay. I'd also have left the retirement age at 68, while increasing the retirement age for all State employees to 68. I'm a bit of a socialist though, so I don't like to see rich old people exploiting vulnerable young people.
I can't see it happen though; old people are too myopic and selfish and have a boundless sense of entitlement.
Allpartied
Registered User
- Messages
- 507
People don't mind taxation if it delivers a benefit to them, but it also has to be seen to deliver a benefit to them.
I'm all in favour of universality, as it gives everyone a stake in the social contract.
Here, quite a lot people don't get anything back, because of the means tested limits on most benefits. This builds, understandable, frustration and makes them easy meat for the right wingers, who blame the " others", less affluent people, migrants, those with mental health problesm, minority groups.
It's not a question of wealthy people getting freebies, it's a question of justice.
Equitable, socialist distribution of wealth works for all, including the middle classes who, currently, get very little in Ireland. Those Nordic countries extend the benefits of education, healthcare, childcare, public transport, public spaces to everyone. Yes the price is quite high in taxation, but it's more just and, generally, more successful in reducing inequality.
So, tax the pensioners, tax the pensions, tax the rich, tax the corporations, tax the multi-millionairs, but keep the free travel, keep the medical cards, introduce free child care, remove the college fees and create a national health service.
The middle classes (middle income households) in this country contribute very little in comparison to their Scandinavian and Nordic counterparts.
I started paying income tax the first day I started working summers at 14. I went onto the highest tax band as a 3rd year apprentice (due to working over 60 hours a week). Now people on low incomes don't pay any tax and middle income households pay very little tax. The problem is that people think they are part of a squeezed middle but any squeezing going on certainly isn't from the very low taxes they pay.
It is totally nuts that the State takes €180 a month from me and then gives it back to me, less their administration costs, in the form of Children's allowance.
Why should the cleaner where I work tax taxes to fund the €300,000 it costs to put the child of a Hospital Consultant through medical school so that the ungrateful little brat can then immigrate?
Universality is fundamentally unfair.
But you’ve already said they don’t?
Depends. Very few universal benefits but I agree with your sentiment about child benefit. However it’s the cost of the program in general that’s the problem. It’s a political choice to have universality but it’s not a given that in the absence of it, the cost decreases.
Universality is a tool to level society in many different areas. Paradoxically, the “unfairness” of universal child benefit, is not actually unfair in that the costs are paid according to your proportional tax contribution. If the size of the program is too large by design that’s a spending issue rather than a universality issue I.e. regardless of the cost of the program, it will still be paid in the same proportion by everyone.
NoRegretsCoyote
Registered User
- Messages
- 5,766
Yes they do. Average full-time wages in Ireland are €49k which puts these earners well inside the boundaries of the higher rate.
40% of all tax units (single people or married couples) declare an income of over €35k where most will have exposure to the higher rate.
A married couple with two children on a combined income of €80,000 will pay about €16500 in total payroll taxes and social insurance (€11,000 in income tax with the balance in USC and PRSI). They will receive €3,360 in children's allowance for a net contribution of a little over €13,000. That's to pay for their children's education, health services etc.
Do you really think that a net tax contribution of 16.5% on an income of €80,000 is high?.
Their counterparts in Sweden will pay 32% of their income in taxes and social insurance.
A single person on €200,000 a year in Ireland pays 47.5% of their total income in taxes or almost three times as much as a percentage as the marries couple with two children. I don't think that's fair.
Do you really think that a net tax contribution of 16.5% on an income of €80,000 is high?.
Their counterparts in Sweden will pay 32% of their income in taxes and social insurance.
A single person on €200,000 a year in Ireland pays 47.5% of their total income in taxes or almost three times as much as a percentage as the marries couple with two children. I don't think that's fair.