Just to make the blood boil..

hooradiation · 18-12-2012 4:35pm

Irishstabber wrote: »

Some people on this forum need to cop on.

At least this guy is holding our "supreme leader" to account. More than what half of you lot ever done!

Some of the questions are a bit silly but its the effort that counts. The nonchalant attitude to the way this country is being governed by the people of this country is disgraceful.

Grow up and either show support of stfu.

Effort does not equal worth.

awec · 18-12-2012 4:37pm

mkdon05 wrote: »

I wouldn't be overly confident with a teacher implementing financial policies that effect a country. I know he has advisors for help, so what is his salary for? Basically being the face of the government. Elected on the basis of a popularity contest.

It's bull****! All elected salaries should be capped circa 60k. That way we might get someone who wants to genuinely sort the country out and not jump on the gravy train that is elected life.

I wonder what salaries, expenses, perks the leaders in 1916 demanded!

The salary of elected officials is not the issue. For such a job the salary is fine.

The problem is we have too many elected officials.

If you are running a country you are entitled to much more than 60 grand a year. It's easy to say that all you do is make decisions based on your advisors but that's a load of crap. There are pressures involved with that job that you nor I will ever experience.

I may not agree with their policies, but I respect anyone willing to do it and have no issue with them being well paid for it.

Wanderer2010 · 18-12-2012 4:42pm

awec wrote: »

The salary of elected officials is not the issue. For such a job the salary is fine.

Interesting. Do you think any of our elected representatives should take a pay cut in line with how the likes of the social welfare or carers or PRSI workers have been cut. After all, they are champions of "we all have to make sacrifices". So in your opinion do you think they should take a small pay cut in order to shoulder some of the responsibility?

awec · 18-12-2012 4:45pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Interesting. Do you think any of our elected representatives should take a pay cut in line with how the likes of the social welfare or carers or PRSI workers have been cut. After all, they are champions of "we all have to make sacrifices". So in your opinion do you think they should take a small pay cut in order to shoulder some of the responsibility?

Are carers or social welfare workers having their salary cut?

Either way, I'm not against a cut in salary, but it needs to be reasonable and intelligent.

This "cap them at 60k" or some other arbitrary figure is nothing more than begrudgery. "Ah he earns 5 times more than I do, that's totally unfair!"

18-12-2012 4:45pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Interesting. Do you think any of our elected representatives should take a pay cut in line with how the likes of the social welfare or carers or PRSI workers have been cut. After all, they are champions of "we all have to make sacrifices". So in your opinion do you think they should take a small pay cut in order to shoulder some of the responsibility?

They pay Income Tax, PRSI and USC like the rest of us.

Wanderer2010 · 18-12-2012 4:53pm

awec wrote: »

Are carers or social welfare workers having their salary cut?

Either way, I'm not against a cut in salary, but it needs to be reasonable and intelligent.

This "cap them at 60k" or some other arbitrary figure is nothing more than begrudgery. "Ah he earns 5 times more than I do, that's totally unfair!"

Eh? Im talking about the fact that child welfare payments have been reduced and also the respite grant reduced. These 2 vulnerable groups have been made to shoulder some of the recovery, which we all should obviously. But Im talking about tackling the wealthy and making them share more because they can afford to pay more. They shirked at increasing the USC by 3% for anyone over 100k so the politicians and the wealthy got off scot free here.

Its not begrudery to demand that those who CAN pay more should pay more, this isnt a case of "you are on 150k a year, you shouldnt be", its more saying that anyone on that salary, INCLUDING the politcians, should pay more taxes to protect the more vulnerable parts of society. Simple common sense.

Duggys Housemate · 18-12-2012 4:54pm

Most of the supposed concern people have with the poor, is really with themselves.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Interesting. Do you think any of our elected representatives should take a pay cut in line with how the likes of the social welfare or carers or PRSI workers have been cut. After all, they are champions of "we all have to make sacrifices". So in your opinion do you think they should take a small pay cut in order to shoulder some of the responsibility?

Did they not take a pay cut? Carers have been cut, PRSI has been extended, but I dont see much going on with standard social welfare. If they did that, there would be uproar, although the squeezed middle would be more or less concerned with it's own nest, rightly enough, as it is that middle which is carrying the country.

awec · 18-12-2012 4:58pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Eh? Im talking about the fact that child welfare payments have been reduced and also the respite grant reduced. These 2 vulnerable groups have been made to shoulder some of the recovery, which we all should obviously. But Im talking about tackling the wealthy and making them share more because they can afford to pay more. They shirked at increasing the USC by 3% for anyone over 100k so the politicians and the wealthy got off scot free here.

Its not begrudery to demand that those who CAN pay more should pay more, this isnt a case of "you are on 150k a year, you shouldnt be", its more saying that anyone on that salary, INCLUDING the politcians, should pay more taxes to protect the more vulnerable parts of society. Simple common sense.

They already pay more than everyone else. The nature of our income tax system ensures that anyone who is relatively well off is going to be paying high tax and subsidising everyone else.

Wanderer2010 · 18-12-2012 5:07pm

awec wrote: »

They already pay more than everyone else. The nature of our income tax system ensures that anyone who is relatively well off is going to be paying high tax and subsidising everyone else.

And rightly so, but the point is that they should pay MORE in these challenging times because carers and single mothers would be more affected by a cut than someone on, say, 120k who has to pay an extra 3% USC, it was cowardice plain and simple that they didnt go after the wealthy and elite. And why? Because they are part of the wealthy and elite..

Duggys Housemate · 18-12-2012 5:09pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Eh? Im talking about the fact that child welfare payments have been reduced and also the respite grant reduced. These 2 vulnerable groups have been made to shoulder some of the recovery, which we all should obviously. But Im talking about tackling the wealthy and making them share more because they can afford to pay more. They shirked at increasing the USC by 3% for anyone over 100k so the politicians and the wealthy got off scot free here.

Its not begrudery to demand that those who CAN pay more should pay more, this isnt a case of "you are on 150k a year, you shouldnt be", its more saying that anyone on that salary, INCLUDING the politcians, should pay more taxes to protect the more vulnerable parts of society. Simple common sense.

But labour taxes are higher here than anywhere else in Europe. This conversation is pointless, as the income tax is missed named. It is a wage tax. You are not going to get most of the income over 100k - specially well over 200k - unless you actually tax what rich people earn, which isnt wages. It's dividends. Or capital gains. etc.

I mean everybody knows that when George Soros pays less tax than his cleaner - it is because he is taxed on capital gains, and dividends - but demand that USC, and Income tax be increased on the rich. Wont work. The rich by and large don't pay PAYE, or USC, and if they are now, they won't if you increase the taxes.

Even if you were earning a high wage - like 200K - in the PAYE sector you can often be able to transfer it to a company and pay yourself dividends, taxed at 33 percent, minus expenses, of course. Expenses not available to the PAYE sector. A Vice President can become a senior external consultant.

Take for example, the typical high paid TV presenter. Not just here, but worldwide. Not paid by RTE as employees, paid as contractors into companies.

One of the ways to tax the rich is on their wealth, particularly immovable wealth, like houses.

awec · 18-12-2012 5:23pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

And rightly so, but the point is that they should pay MORE in these challenging times because carers and single mothers would be more affected by a cut than someone on, say, 120k who has to pay an extra 3% USC, it was cowardice plain and simple that they didnt go after the wealthy and elite. And why? Because they are part of the wealthy and elite..

That person earning 120 grand a year should be taxed more for having the audacity to earn 120 grand a year?

That person already pays more than the majority of others. They are not a source of income that can constantly be tapped in to just because someone on a low wage doesn't think they should have to cough up as well.

mkdon05 · 18-12-2012 5:30pm

awec wrote: »

Are carers or social welfare workers having their salary cut?

Either way, I'm not against a cut in salary, but it needs to be reasonable and intelligent.

This "cap them at 60k" or some other arbitrary figure is nothing more than begrudgery. "Ah he earns 5 times more than I do, that's totally unfair!"

It's far from begrudgery, its about getting people in to lead the country who have the desire to do the right thing in the most equitable way and not be sidetracked by the lining of their own pockets.

You need to realise that not everybody values wealth as the compass to live there life.

If you do, you will never be a rich man.

Wanderer2010 · 18-12-2012 5:36pm

awec wrote: »

That person earning 120 grand a year should be taxed more for having the audacity to earn 120 grand a year?

That person already pays more than the majority of others. They are not a source of income that can constantly be tapped in to just because someone on a low wage doesn't think they should have to cough up as well.

So carers should be forced to be down over 300quid a year, turning to loan sharks, already depleted family members and banks etc desperate for help to keep a house heated whilst their ill son/daughter/mother etc is suffering, just so that the person who earns high money can get 100% of his or her wages? Your pro-rich attitude really sickens me in light of the recent cuts. Again, its about who should shoulder more and our government have decided that instead of making wealthy people pay a bit more (just a small tax increase would have matched cutting the carers) they have turned the axe on carers who already work 24/7 and save the country millions by caring for relatives at home..

CruelCoin · 18-12-2012 5:40pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Its not begrudery to demand that those who CAN pay more should pay more, this isnt a case of "you are on 150k a year, you shouldnt be", its more saying that anyone on that salary, INCLUDING the politcians, should pay more taxes to protect the more vulnerable parts of society. Simple common sense.

Why should making a success of yourself be penalised?

Socialism has nothing to do with common sense.

Common sense would be more along the line of "i earns its i keeps its"

AnonoBoy · 18-12-2012 5:43pm

I just realised that the OP has just copied and pasted this from somewhere else online.

Apologies OP. I thought you had written it. I take back my comments about you and apply them to whoever did write the letter.

dttq · 18-12-2012 5:56pm

BUBBLE WRAP wrote: »

Someone please sum up OP's post in two lines max.

Enda yeh bleedin gobsh!te, what are yeh doin bout dis n da. An why haven't yeh answered me bleedin emails?

Yours, Belenus, keyboard revolutionary front, 9th infantry battalion division

Duggys Housemate · 18-12-2012 6:01pm

mkdon05 wrote: »

It's far from begrudgery, its about getting people in to lead the country who have the desire to do the right thing in the most equitable way and not be sidetracked by the lining of their own pockets.

You need to realise that not everybody values wealth as the compass to live there life.

If you do, you will never be a rich man.

In many ways, compared to say CEOS, they are paid a pittance.

Mr. Nice · 18-12-2012 6:01pm

Lemonperv wrote: »

We're not the laughing stock of Europe. If you read international magazines, they find much that is commendable in Ireland's actions in the last few years.

Would you like low taxes and fantastic public services? I would but unfortunately that's impossible so we'll all have to grow up and deal with this.

They find "much that is commendable" because Ireland is kow-towing to the Germans and others, and doing what it's been told to do.
Ireland already has (super) low taxes - for corporations, but not for workers...

pennypocket · 18-12-2012 6:08pm

awec wrote: »

That person earning 120 grand a year should be taxed more for having the audacity to earn 120 grand a year?

That person already pays more than the majority of others. They are not a source of income that can constantly be tapped in to just because someone on a low wage doesn't think they should have to cough up as well.

We are apparently, as a democratic, first world nation, committed to a progressive income tax system. So yes, those on higher incomes should pay more. In the 1980s such individuals paid a combined income tax of up to 66 per cent on taxable income. Today it is considerably less and the tax burden falls heavily in proportional terms on the less well paid. Although, arguably our biggest tax losses (as in the UK) is via the multinationals which sluice their global incomes through Ireland (the 'double Irish'), through which we deservedly have earned our tax haven status. The corporate tax rate may officially be 12.5 per cent (one of the lowest in Europe) but these companies pay much less in real terms.

pennypocket · 18-12-2012 6:11pm

CruelCoin wrote: »

Why should making a success of yourself be penalised?

Socialism has nothing to do with common sense.

Common sense would be more along the line of "i earns its i keeps its"

I commend to you the estimable Elizabeth Warren. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110042-503544.html

Valetta · 18-12-2012 6:15pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

So carers should be forced to be down over 300quid a year, turning to loan sharks, already depleted family members and banks etc desperate for help to keep a house heated whilst their ill son/daughter/mother etc is suffering, just so that the person who earns high money can get 100% of his or her wages? Your pro-rich attitude really sickens me in light of the recent cuts. Again, its about who should shoulder more and our government have decided that instead of making wealthy people pay a bit more (just a small tax increase would have matched cutting the carers) they have turned the axe on carers who already work 24/7 and save the country millions by caring for relatives at home..

Who gets 100% of his or her wages?

Are there no politicians that are also carers?

Do politicians not have children?

Why do you make out that politicians have not been affected by the budget?

pennypocket · 18-12-2012 6:22pm

Valetta wrote: »

Who gets 100% of his or her wages?

Are there no politicians that are also carers?

Do politicians not have children?

Why do you make out that politicians have not been affected by the budget?

Why, oh why won't somebody think of the politicians!!!

pennypocket · 18-12-2012 7:14pm

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

In many ways, compared to say CEOS, they are paid a pittance.

And, conversely, why should the Taoiseach and his cabinet be paid more than CEOs? Did you see the Panorama programme on the Barclays' brothers last night? Even the CEOs do not deserve the multi-millions they are paid. But that is in the ha'penny place when it compares to tax foregone and mis-patriated in this country. I would also wager that the majority of the defenders of the highly paid on this thread earn barely above minimum wage or CPA agreement rates themselves. Sad. We really have swallowed the Kool Aid.

Duggys Housemate · 18-12-2012 7:29pm

pennypocket wrote: »

We are apparently, as a democratic, first world nation, committed to a progressive income tax system. So yes, those on higher incomes should pay more. In the 1980s such individuals paid a combined income tax of up to 66 per cent on taxable income. Today it is considerably less and the tax burden falls heavily in proportional terms on the less well paid. Although, arguably our biggest tax losses (as in the UK) is via the multinationals which sluice their global incomes through Ireland (the 'double Irish'), through which we deservedly have earned our tax haven status. The corporate tax rate may officially be 12.5 per cent (one of the lowest in Europe) but these companies pay much less in real terms.

That 66% hit only the PAYE sector and people on median, or slightly above income. Anybody who could avoided or evaded. The PAYE sector couldn't.

Even the unions - to their credit - thought that was lunacy. They bargained for tax reductions in line with moderate wage demands.

Edit : and tax doesn't fall disproportionately on the poor. It falls disproportionately on middle to high income PAYE workers i.e middle income groups.

Duggys Housemate · 18-12-2012 7:34pm

pennypocket wrote: »

And, conversely, why should the Taoiseach and his cabinet be paid more than CEOs? Did you see the Panorama programme on the Barclays' brothers last night? Even the CEOs do not deserve the multi-millions they are paid. But that is in the ha'penny place when it compares to tax foregone and mis-patriated in this country. I would also wager that the majority of the defenders of the highly paid on this thread earn barely above minimum wage or CPA agreement rates themselves. Sad. We really have swallowed the Kool Aid.

If I was born in a world where the highest earner was the prime minister I would think it somewhat sane.
Partly I think the relative low pay is what makes us despise politicians. If we had a guy up there with a salary of 1 million and options tied to GDP and he was *really good* and managed to get a deal with the Germans in our favour thus kickstarting growth we wouldn't mind at all, no more than investors hate Warren Buffet.

We pay relative peanuts, get relative monkeys, and complain about the monkeys.

Mr. Nice · 18-12-2012 7:41pm

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

We pay relative peanuts, get relative monkeys, and complain about the monkeys.

Irish politicians are grossly overpaid, look at Inda Kinny's salary relative to other world leaders.
And that's without expenses, benefits, pensions etc.
I bet half the chancers in the Dail can't believe their luck - mostly gob****e schoolteachers and members of "political dynasties" (doubly true for Inda) who are now set for life.

Duggys Housemate · 18-12-2012 7:49pm

Mr. Nice wrote: »

Irish politicians are grossly overpaid, look at Inda Kinny's salary relative to other world leaders.
And that's without expenses, benefits, pensions etc.
I bet half the chancers in the Dail can't believe their luck - mostly gob****e schoolteachers and members of "political dynasties" (doubly true for Inda) who are now set for life.

Firstly you are missing the huge amount of money that an American or UK president can make after their tenure. You are also missing larger benefits in kind - Bertie as minister for finance in most countries wouldn't have needed the house payment as he would have a state bought house to live in. Top ministers in the UK get country estates. Once in you are a certain millionaire.

This attracts a certain calibre of talent. You are right about teachers - although teachers can be as smart as any professional there are too many of them in the Dail. I notice people are more accepting about lawyers though. They ate often millionaires.

What we are not getting is the kind of guy who has the ambition and talent to become a millionaire as a politician. They are running companies not talking to merkel.

pennypocket · 18-12-2012 7:53pm

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

That 66% hit only the PAYE sector and people on median, or slightly above income. Anybody who could avoided or evaded. The PAYE sector couldn't.

Even the unions - to their credit - thought that was lunacy. They bargained for tax reductions in line with moderate wage demands.

Edit : and tax doesn't fall disproportionately on the poor. It falls disproportionately on middle to high income PAYE workers i.e middle income groups.

Then why this? http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018349.shtml
It really does fall disproportionally on lower earners, tax is waged not just on income, but on every item a household purchases. If you think the contrary, please supply the evidence for your claims.

pennypocket · 18-12-2012 7:57pm

Also, from the Finfacts article:
The union congress says; "We know that the top 1% of the population made about €75 billion during the boom era. Specifically, it can be computed from revenue data that a minimum of €66 billion was made by individuals between 2002 and 2008 - - almost €10 billion a year. The top 1% in 2007 held 20% of the wealth, the top 2% held 30% and the top 5% held 40%. How can this money have disappeared because for every developer who paid over the odds for land there had to be an owner who received the money?"
So, again, who should shoulder the burdens?

Wanderer2010 · 18-12-2012 8:02pm

Valetta wrote: »

Who gets 100% of his or her wages?

Are there no politicians that are also carers?

Do politicians not have children?

Why do you make out that politicians have not been affected by the budget?

Put it this way, politicians are on a lot of money so any cut is negligible to them, whereas a lot of carers are barely making ends meet so it makes sense to go after the wealthier sections but this will never be done because the country is a cess pool of corruption and cronyism.

Just to make the blood boil..

Comments