The 1%

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2011 3:56pm #1

This recent "1%" rhetoric coming from the Occupy Marxism 2.0 movement
when being applied to Ireland and its economy is getting rather silly considering that our [income] taxation system is very progressive, excludes a large chunk of population, and also comes with a large range of entitlements and benefits that people in US would not even dream of or comprehend how they could be afforded (hint, they still cant be afforded)

A cursory glance at the latest available report from Revenue for 2009 (2010 report should be out soon as returns are received this month) paints quite a picture, keep in mind that since 2009 the tax bands went down somewhat, USC was introduced which in itself is progressive and so on. But anyways since all we have are the 2009 figures lets look at them.

* Top 1% (200K+ a year) have 10% of total income and pay 22% of total tax
* Bottom 36% (under 20K year excluding all sorts of benefits they would be entitled to) have 9.2% total income and pay 0.28% of total tax

I myself do not come anywhere near the top half of that table (running own business means getting shafted for bothering) but its obvious that this whole 1% rhetoric is very silly in the Irish context.

How about a third if income earners actually start paying something? anything??

hatrickpatrick · 23-10-2011 4:11pm

You are once again assuming that the phrase "the 1%" refers solely to wealth. It doesn't. As I said in the other thread, I for one have no problem with anyone being rich (provided they got there honestly).

The 1% in Ireland is not the same as the 1% in the US. In Ireland it refers to the clique which dominates political policy and gets protected at everyone else's expense.

TheMutations · 23-10-2011 4:17pm

The top 1% would not rely on earned income for their wealth. Most of their income would be from assets.

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2011 4:21pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You are once again assuming that the phrase "the 1%" refers solely to wealth. It doesn't. As I said in the other thread, I for one have no problem with anyone being rich (provided they got there honestly).

The 1% in Ireland is not the same as the 1% in the US. In Ireland it refers to the clique which dominates political policy and gets protected at everyone else's expense.

Thats 45000 people in this country according to your reasoning, what should we do with them? put them under guillotine?? send em to siberia???

Who decides if you belong to this 1% if its not based on income?

TheMutations wrote: »

The top 1% would not rely on earned income for their wealth. Most of their income would be from assets.

What assets would those be? the property assets that lost 50% of their value and still falling

Do you propose a wealth tax is introduced?? What about farmers who have are "asset rich" but revenue "poor" since its hard to live of the land, do we evict them of the land and create "communal coops" as was done elsewhere

FreudianSlippers · 23-10-2011 4:28pm

The scary thing is how much tax the people who make 60k-150k are paying.

BOHSBOHS · 23-10-2011 4:34pm

actually...;)

the bottom 28% equates to only 0.1% not 1% !!

the bottom 36% pay 0.28% of total IT

the bottom 46% pay 1.22% of total IT

fly_agaric · 23-10-2011 4:35pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I circled the bits of interest

* the top 1% of earners (above 200K) with ~3% of total income earned are paying ~22% of all income taxes :eek:

Does table of figures you posted not show top 1 % have 10.1 % of income (2.8 + 7.3)??

TheMutations · 23-10-2011 4:37pm

Rental income would be a big one. Gains made from the stock market, share dividends etc., forestry bonds, tax breaks. I suspect the 1% would be well advised, and not be relying solely on the property market for wealth gain, i.e. they diversify their assets.

A breakdown of income tax percentages is a poor indicator of where the real wealth is accumulated.

professore · 23-10-2011 4:38pm

Maths fail.

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2011 4:43pm

BOHSBOHS wrote: »

actually...;)

the bottom 28% equates to only 0.1% not 1% !!

the bottom 36% pay 0.28% of total IT

the bottom 46% pay 1.22% of total IT

Doh! you are correct

will edit it now

professore wrote: »

Maths fail.

Yes

which makes for an even scarier picture!

fly_agaric · 23-10-2011 4:45pm

professore wrote: »

Maths fail.

by me??:(

20Cent · 23-10-2011 4:47pm

Nice graph but the whole 1% 99% thing is not to do with income.

SupaNova · 23-10-2011 4:49pm

20Cent wrote: »

Nice graph but the whole 1% 99% thing is not to do with income.

Can you tell me where its from? Or is it just a slogan?

fly_agaric · 23-10-2011 4:52pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

How about a third if income earners actually start paying something? anything??

At the end of the day it costs a certain amount to live/exist in this country & you can't get blood out of a stone!

That said (imo) we will all need to pay more tax if we want to keep our social welfare system/supports from state at same levels let alone improve things like health/education/transport infrastructure in coming years.

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2011 4:55pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

At the end of the day it costs a certain amount to live/exist in this country & you can't get blood out of a stone!

That said (imo) we will all need to pay more tax if we want to keep our social welfare system/supports from state at same levels let alone improve things like health/education/transport infrastructure in coming years.

That is correct (but keep in mind anyone on those low incomes would get all sorts of other benefits from welfare thru medical)

but those socialist countries in Scandinavia that get pointed at by the saner members of the occupy crowd (lets ignore the ones that dream of Cuba on the Irish Sea scenario), those countries somehow do manage to squeeze blood out of rocks?

Debtocracy · 23-10-2011 6:03pm

The last OCED report puts Ireland's inequality level slightly above average (Gini coefficient - .33) in terms of OCED countries so I wouldn’t see it as a non-issue. It’s clearly not as bad as in the U.S., but the U.S. is an extreme example in terms of Western societies (U.S. is now resembling Mexico with a Gini coefficient of .45). High levels of inequality are a very dangerous sociological influence and it’s important that a country like Ireland keeps it in check. When inequality is high, people are more stressed, crime and violence increases, and the social structure becomes one of competition and mistrust rather than of collaboration (health outcomes are also worse due to higher levels of cortisol floating around in people’s bodies). All these happen independent of the underlying wealth of the nation. The biggest danger for inequality in Ireland is that the 10% or so of the workforce that was made redundant since the financial crash will form a new permanent underclass.

The tax rate is just one way to tackle inequality. The most powerful way is to increase social mobility – the ability for an individual to move from one social class to the next. Unfortunately social mobility has been reducing due to the declining influence of basic third level educational attainment in gaining employment. Not all social classes have the same opportunity to gain masters or PhDs, have the ability to work for free to gain experience, or have the same professional connections. The work experience programme in the U.K. was so detrimental to social mobility that it was scrapped. Employment selection needs to become more about an individual’s potential and grit, rather than the amount of money you can spend on education, who your father is, and how long you can work for free.

The third big issue relating to inequality is the monetary system. Basically, we’re entering a stage in the monetary system where almost everyone has to rely on bank credit to make any substantial purchases (education, car, house etc. ). When society becomes dependent on bank credit, it leads to an automatic flow of wealth from the poorer classes (who are dependent on credit) to the wealthier classes who gain from the profits of the banks (investors and bank creditors). Therefore a debt based monetary system is a rigged game towards the wealthier classes. Once you gain a certain level of wealth you just have to sit back and let your money work for you. One of the benefits of a public banking system would be to shut down this rigged game, and recycle the debt payments of the lower classes back into their economy.

If think one part of the sentiments of the OWS movement is the idea of equal opportunity and fair competition. There’s a lot a young people in the U.S. faced with the following options:

1) Stay on welfare and food stamps for the rest of their life
2) Become a criminal (I don’t mean banking)
3) Stay in a min wage job for the rest of their life
4) Get the job they want, but be crippled with debt for the rest of their life.

FreudianSlippers · 23-10-2011 6:07pm

#4 doesn't really apply in Ireland since we have free third level education.

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2011 6:12pm

@Debtocracy Which OECD report exactly? source??

The latest CSO SILC survey has this

At 14% Ireland is below the EU average, also below the likes of Germany (which many here think are some sort of saints) and below UKs 20%

Dont forget that those @ "At risk of poverty threshold (60% of median income) of €12,064" would also be availing of welfare and benefits that are unheard of in places such as UK or US
edit: these "at risk" also pay only 0.05% (5.5million!) of total tax despite 3% of total income

Statistician · 23-10-2011 6:19pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

This recent "1%" rhetoric coming from the Occupy Marxism 2.0 movement

Why do you refer to them as that?
I spoke to a few of these people and they seemed not to be anti-capitalist but anti-corruption.
The bail out of the banks etc, had nothing to do with capitalism. If we had proper capitalism, the banks would have failed, and we would have had better banks come along and replace them.

The movement is about the 1% and their corrupt influence. I commend those people who are demonstrating against the rot.

However, if you want to believe the 1% (and pay your USC etc.)- they are anti-capitalist crusties.

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2011 6:21pm

Statistician wrote: »

Why do you refer to them as that?
I spoke to a few of these people and they seemed not to be anti-capitalist but anti-corruption.
The bail out of the banks etc, had nothing to do with capitalism. If we had proper capitalism, the banks would have failed, and we would have had better banks come along and replace them.

The movement is about the 1% and their corrupt influence. I commend those people who are demonstrating against the rot.

However, if you want to believe the 1% (and pay your USC etc.)- they are anti-capitalist crusties.

Have you read (many!) threads here on the subject?

Having less corruption is a noble goal BUT they are going about it all arseways,
firstly the (recently democratically elected) decision makers are in the Dail not CB,
secondly less corruption requires more transparency and accountability, none of the protesters are even asking for transparency something I have been banging on for a long time

Statistician · 23-10-2011 6:36pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Have you read (many!) threads here on the subject?

Having less corruption is a noble goal BUT they are going about it all arseways,
firstly the (recently democratically elected) decision makers are in the Dail not CB,
secondly less corruption requires more transparency and accountability, none of the protesters are even asking for transparency something I have been banging on for a long time

This is the first thread I've read on this subject. I largely agree with what you are saying as well (apart from referring to them as Marxists).
In a way they are asking for more transparency and accountability.
http://www.occupydamestreet.org/

Our demand is for real, participatory democracy - where peoples' interest comes first, where people decide what happens

(My own, off topic view is that Ireland is pretty much a single party state, Fail Gael, and that irish electoral system is fundamentally flawed, which has now manifested itself in the current crises)

davoxx · 23-10-2011 6:39pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

#4 doesn't really apply in Ireland since we have free third level education.

actually, "Education in Ireland is free at all levels, including college (university), but only for students applying from the European Union."

the eu "pays" for it so it is not technically free i would say, also if you repeat a year, you have to pay for it ...

SupaNova · 23-10-2011 6:40pm

Debtocracy wrote: »

High levels of inequality are a very dangerous sociological influence and it’s important that a country like Ireland keeps it in check. When inequality is high, people are more stressed, crime and violence increases, and the social structure becomes one of competition and mistrust rather than of collaboration (health outcomes are also worse due to higher levels of cortisol floating around in people’s bodies).

Is there any proof of inequality being the cause of increases in crime and violence, as opposed to more obvious factors like poverty??? I don't think people care less about some billionaire as long as their income allows them a comfortable lifestyle.

spagboll · 23-10-2011 6:45pm

the 1% aren't PAYE workers

"never work for a living" - advice given to be by a land developer (he got out about 10 years ago)

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2011 6:46pm

We here in Ireland had an election not to long ago and the majority "have spoken" voting in the current (somewhat queer) government coalition, if anything the pressure should be put on FG/Lab for backtracking on many of their promises already, not sure what protesting outside Dame street would accomplish

As for the US Occupy "movement" how many of these people voted for Obama? Why are they not outside the White House asking whatever happened to his promises of "change"?? I was down P. Avenue before its big and green, and gets plenty of traffic compared to Wall Street, meeting the criteria for choosing location as outlined by 20cent in parallel thread

But anyways this thread is about the whole "1%" nonsense and yes 1% of income, its interesting that now that I have put up the stats the rhethoric is changing to "1% of wealth (what about debt?)" and "1% most corrupt", which is alot of waffle since these can not be measured

Is having an angry lynchmob (who compose a tiny % of population) with no footing in facts and figures, shouting, lobbying and directing policies the way a democracy should work? I hope the irony of it all doesnt miss their attention

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2011 6:52pm

spagboll wrote: »

the 1% aren't PAYE workers

"never work for a living" - advice given to be by a land developer (he got out about 10 years ago)

Well let me see if someone doesnt pay income tax, then what does that leave:

* living of inheritance? they still have to pay money on any inheritance (inheritance tax)

* rental income? rental income is counted as income when it comes to doing yearly returns, if only it was that easy to escape revenue! never mind the tax paid when buying the property and upgrading/maintenance of it

* living of deposit accounts? well there is DIRT

*living of capital gains on stock etc? well thats where capital gain comes in

Is there some magical method of paying less than 20-25% of your income that I am not aware of?

Statistician · 23-10-2011 6:58pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

But anyways this thread is about the whole "1%" nonsense and yes 1% of income, its interesting that now that I have put up the stats the rhethoric is changing to "1% of wealth (what about debt?)" and "1% most corrupt", which is alot of waffle since these can not be measured

I do not believe it means the top 1% richest people, as pointed out in this thread. I know some people that would easily be in the top 1% richest in Ireland, but they do not have any 'power'. They just earn a lot from their employment and pay loads of tax.

Nor do I believe it means the top 1% corrupt, because there are plenty of corrupt people that have little power.

Nor do I believe it literally means 1%. It's just easier for the masses to comprehend, rather than just saying 0.0056% (or whatever it really is)

I believe the 1% means those in power. The bankers, politicians, big business owners etc, that make the (often corrupt) decisions that affect the 99% who end up paying for it. Examples would be the 'Anglo golden circle' or the high EU/IMF officials and those that command them.

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2011 7:12pm

Statistician wrote: »

I do not believe it means the top 1% richest people, as pointed out in this thread. I know some people that would easily be in the top 1% richest in Ireland, but they do not have any 'power'. They just earn a lot from their employment and pay loads of tax.

Nor do I believe it means the top 1% corrupt, because there are plenty of corrupt people that have little power.

Nor do I believe it literally means 1%. It's just easier for the masses to comprehend, rather than just saying 0.0056% (or whatever it really is)

I believe the 1% means those in power. The bankers, politicians, big business owners etc, that make the (often corrupt) decisions that affect the 99% who end up paying for it. Examples would be the 'Anglo golden circle' or the high EU/IMF officials and those that command them.

You asked earlier why I called them "marxists 2.0"

you just answered the question

BTW

* politicians can be removed (Hell look at FF being deposed as an example) and this is done democratically, the power of politicians comes from us in a representative democracy
* bankers fail with their banks, and should fail! but the politicians here in Ireland decided that's not an option...
* businesses fail when their customers walk away, their power comes from their customers using their wallets (so are the bankers above btw)

instead of pursuing democratically their aims the Occupy movement is using mob rule tactics that are misguided and misderected, if there really is so many people earning for CHANGE (ha where have we heard that one before! :P) then why not create own party? you can even call it Latte party :P to differentiate yourself from the other nutcases in the Tea party? Or maybe call it the Green party where Green stands for the color of weed

spagboll · 23-10-2011 7:16pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Well let me see if someone doesnt pay income tax, then what does that leave:

* living of inheritance? they still have to pay money on any inheritance (inheritance tax)

* rental income? rental income is counted as income when it comes to doing yearly returns, if only it was that easy to escape revenue! never mind the tax paid when buying the property and upgrading/maintenance of it

* living of deposit accounts? well there is DIRT

*living of capital gains on stock etc? well thats where capital gain comes in

Is there some magical method of paying less than 20-25% of your income that I am not aware of?

Yeah that kind of thing, avoiding the daily grind and all that

ei.sdraob · 23-10-2011 7:29pm

spagboll wrote: »

Yeah that kind of thing, avoiding the daily grind and all that

One can avoid the grind, lets say by inhering land, or winning lotto, or investing wisely etc etc

but one can not avoid the taxman!

@Statistician, Marxist is very apt name, since alot of the sentiment is about taxing the rich and giving to the poor and of course the hate for capitalism (which despite its recent hickups is a darn better alternative in the long run than the rest!), Just like democracy has its downsides but its still damn better than the alternatives (especially the alternatives the far lefties want!)

Statistician · 23-10-2011 7:40pm

Okay, you could classify the 1% as being 'Bourgeois'. This doesn't mean that all the Bourgeoisie are the 1%. Maybe I should draw a Venn diagram.

The occupyDameStreet people are not anti-capitalist. (well the ones I spoke to were not)

* bankers fail with their banks, and should fail! but the politicians here in Ireland decided that's not an option...

and this wasn't capitalism.

It's not about capitalism or communism, etc, it's about corruption and the power that the '1%' have over the '99%'

Forget about forming yet another political party. Notice the change since the last election in IReland? Fine Gael have carried on from where Fianna Fail left off. Why is this? Well Fine Gael and Fianna Fail are one and the same. The same party with the same policies. We live in what's effectively a one party state.

We don't need yet another election, we need a paradigm shift.

Why are you so against this movement? Are you part of the 1% or something?

The 1%

Comments