No offense to you personally, but that copypasta is so monumentally retarded, it's hard even to know where to start.
At the begining is always the best place to start imo BW...
So do please tell me How it is, to use your phrase "monumentally retarded"
Though in all honesty yourself, hooradiation and KyussBishop are so far in each others sheughs and the wonderful world of 'socialism' I dont expect much better tbh..
This is the most retarded post i've ever seen.
Might as well have been narrated by Eddie Hobbs:
"Bertie and Enda walk into a bar ... Enda has a tenner on him ... "
Yes but did you actually understand it kc?
As I have suggested to the other socialists brothers on here could you at least give a review of the economy as you see it using a similar analogy perhaps. This would be more constructive than rehearsed unilateral criticism....and may I suggest that the use of the word 'retarded' by you and those sharing the same ideological platform be discontinued...It is not very nice tbh...
It didn't make any concrete points, just suggested rich people shouldn't be taxed heavily lest they leave the country. What specific, clear points can you pick out from it, that you agree with?
You seem to believe that rich people should not be taxed heavily, and that if they are some would leave the country. Can you explain why that would be bad?
Personally, I think any effect of some rich people leaving the country, would be more than economically compensated by the increased tax from those that remain.
It's funny isn't it, you can claim total truth with that one piece of internet flotsam , yet the standard of proof suddenly jumps up to "comparable figures and some detailed example" when your silly nonsense is challenged?
If only you'd shown such dedication to the rigours of reasoning before you thought that posting that was such a good idea, we could have saved ourselves such an amount of effort.
But, to humour you.
The most obvious, but by no means only, logical missteps here are that the original writer assumed that the rich and the poor make an equal use of public resources and that paying low tax favours the poor men exclusively.
These are, despite your belief to the contrary, not true.
The rich people use more public resources than those who are poor. Their activities require more land, power and cause more pollution, they require transport infrastructure to sell and buy goods and services and a base level of education from those they employ. Income tax is the user fee for society - if you use more, they pay more.
Unless you imagine these come into existence in a vacuum, of course. Then all bets are off.
Likewise the concept that the poor are being gifted some kind of unfair advantage with them not paying income tax is equally misguided. Those that earn so little as to be exempt are using that money to stay alive.
Were they to be required to pay income tax the burden they'd place on the state would increase.
There is also the delightful nonsense in this that pretends that the wealth of the rich person has no impact on the poverty of the poor person, or vice versa - As if the rich persons fortune came to be independent of the labour and purchasing power of the poor and middle classes, and likewise that the poor man is simply poor because he is - as opposed to there being a system in place that actively keeps people locked in their strata. We can't all be rich after all, no matter how much people extol the virtues of "bootstraps"
Nope, just a fervent hope and prayer.
Though nice to see the persecution complex is kicking in nice and early, this won't make any future exchanges trying in the least.
All I really need to say - if the "failings" of socialism are so easily demonstrated, why not give real world examples?
This is blatantly, grossly, simplified scenario, bearing no relation to reality, clearly designed to fool the simple-minded and to provide reinforcement to preconceived positions, rather than to educate or illuminate.
But you don't seem to.
That the story has been republished multiple times, but its been used to describe the Taxation system in the United States.
Can you explain why you think its applicable to the Irish Taxation system ? Not confusing Corporation Tax with Personal Tax of Course.
This ^^ is condescending
Capitalism is defined as "Free market capitalism consists of a free-price system where supply and demand are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by the government. Productive enterprises are privately owned, and the role of the state is limited to protecting the rights to life, liberty, and property."
Now, with that in mind we can view others views of capitalism as ignorance because a) they see no problems with a public service and b) when government interfere in the market they regulate and legislate creating monopolies fundamentally hostile to capitalism. When a government gets involved in the markets this is called corporatism/state controlled capitalism/fascism. This doesn't benefit the common man and woman, only the corporations so the people advocating this are not benevolent.
Secondly, when you involve a public service, they can only live on what they steal from private individuals i.e - private capital as they produce no capital themselves...again, interfering in the price system and by extension, the very foundations of capitalism. So, in Ireland when we view our massive public sector that has grown during the Ahern "I'm a Socialist" years, we can see that there is no longer consideration or policies being created to benefit the price system and in essence move closer to collectivism i.e - Communism.
So no, Ireland is not a capitalist country.
Ignoring the obvious low flung flying insults...
No there was no such presumption in the example imo. If anything the example showed how in the the first instance that there were benefits to all. However taking the proverbial out of the sytem as given in the example suggested elsewhere in this thread renders such sytems inoperable
You really have to be living in la la land to think that this one up.I would really love to see your statistics that show that "The rich people use more public resources than those who are poor" ...
what do you define as a "public resource" btw? Two Thirds of all tax revenue collected by the state is being spent on Social Welfare and as for the presumption concerning 'rich' peoples activities, such generalisations are not really worthy of comment. Remember it is these 'rich' people who pay the most tax on everything including their activities, transport, services and just about anything else you can think of - where do honestly you think most of the taxes come from? So I take it that with this logic those that earn should be penalised for doing so...In fact at the moment it is not that you use more, so pay more...it is simply - you earn more so you pay more. More importantly your example here does not include the ordinary employed individual ie the bloke that manages a shop (though he may earn more) but does not own any or use more resources than his neighbour next door who is a postman ...he is not an industrialist or other captain of industry....so how does this individual fit with the example of using 'more public resouces'?
The example did not give that the 'poor' were gifted with an unfair adavantage. Rather they benefited from an equitable system of distribution. However I will add that those who are 'poor' and on welfare in addition to geting everything paid for by the state could include the buying cigarettes and booze as part of staying alive? (and no I dont mean everyone does this but it does bear consideration) No one has suggested that the 'poor' as defined by yourself be required to pay more tax btw and in no instance does this make up any part of the example given in the analogy.
I dont see this given in the example either. If anything the example shows that all are co-dependent in such a system as ours. I do take it however from what you have said that you suscribe to the general socialist theory of the oppressed...
Look its quite easy, how about you put together a worked analogy in response to the one I have given that shows HOW taxation and allowance works in a perfect social world and I will take a look at it with an open mind. What you have presented here tbh is little more than supposition on the evils inherent in the system - which i do not suscribe too btw
From what you have written, I dont think you do kc...
Just because you dont like something, does not mean that it does not reflect what is in effect happening in this country
It will interesting to document the ensuing dog eat dog society we are moving towards as we watch those that take most from the pot of revenue scramble to savage what little is left when those that contribute most get the last boat out...
Just to add...
I'm not against social welfare and nationalised health care, education etc., although I'll still hold it that private schools provide a much better quality of education than public schools, similar with health care.
My whole point is simply increasing taxes to save the economy is not a solution. What this does is wipe out the middle class which forms the part of the population that contributes the most towards running the economy. Again the top 1% rich are not affected by increased taxes. The only ones who are affected are the bottom working class who find it even harder to get by the day with the increased cost of living and the middle class who have to deal with pay cuts and giving away more of their pay as taxes.
This will only encourage the skilled middle class professionals to leave the country and move off to other countries where they can live a more comfortable life. Even if they might be getting paid less in the other country, due to the lower cost of living, they end up with more savings. And this is the reason why so many professionals are leaving the country to go and work in Australia, Canada, USA, UK etc.
This means that there will be even less middle class people to run the economy, which is very prevalent right now with lack of doctors, nurses, teachers etc. in this country putting enormous strain on the understaffed health and education sector.
Less people working = less people paying taxes and the government has less money to spend on welfare, health, education etc. To counteract this the government simply decides to increases taxes to a point the middle class is paying off 60% of their pay in taxes (income tax may only be 40% but there are tons of other hidden taxes and levys which all eventually add up to the government taking away 60% of your income) and the middle class has even less money, they decide they can make a better living elsewhere, the cycle starts over again.
Bottom line raising taxes does not solve anything!
Also a point of education, I believe there should be more private schools and people should be willing to pay for their kids education. When the parents are paying for the education of their children, both the parents and the children take the education more seriously, the children will get a much better quality education and in turn they will do better in life.
Reduced taxes and parents saving up money will easily pay for their children's education in good private institutions which don't need to cost a fortune.
For the most deprived who live hand to mouth and can't afford to save up for their children's education, they could apply for state education grants.
Similar for university education. In many countries (like USA and Canada) the students (and even the parents) take loans to pay for their university education. The students can then work over the summer break or if not pay off their student loans once they've graduated and gotten a job.
Paying for one's education is not that big a deal, its the norm in many countries. If schools and universities are privatised, the government has less strain on its resources which means reduced taxes, which means people have more money which in turn means they can have more savings to pay for their or their children's education.
We like to give out about the "nanny state" and how we shouldn't be told what we ought to do and there needs to be more emphasis on person responsibility. Yet at the same time we want the government to pay and support all of our basic needs with a nice safety net underneath us in case we are incompetent idiots and we screw up.
There is a whole culture of spending unnecessarily in this country. People feel the need to take two holidays a year to some foreign exotic location whether they have a job or not. I've come across many people who live on the dole and still go on their yearly summer and winter retreat. People like to own big plasma TVs and buy new clothes and all sorts of useless **** every Christmas. They don't mind spending upwards 50eur a night going on bender yet when it comes to paying for necessities like health care and education they give out about how they're broke and they can't afford anything.
Free market capitalism requires people to take risks and take personal responsibility. This means people need to learn to save their incomes and spend it wisely on things that are necessary and if they screw up with their finances there isn't a comfortable safety net for them to fall back on. In this system if the individual makes wise use of his finances, he can then reward himself and his family by paying for a high quality of education and health care for himself and his family. If the person is stupid and wastes all his money on useless things then he will have to reap what he sows.
For the corporations, if they are fraudulent and exploitative, they will be put under trial and there will be no bailing out for them. The fraudulent and exploitative bankers/CEOs will simply be fined/imprisoned. The people who invested in these corporations, well they'll have to suffer like those who invested in buying houses during the boom era and are now stuck with mortgages way more than what their house is actually worth. Again its about taking personal responsibility. You've got to be careful where you place your steps cause if you fall there won't be a safety net to catch you. And if you place your steps carefully you will be rewarded by the kind of life you wish to live.
And this is what free market capitalism is about.
Also the whole rich people's kids get a head start thing is fallacious to a large extent. There are many people who started out with literally nothing and became a millionaire through their hard work in a capitalist system. There are also many people who were bought up in a very privileged home but then never learned to take responsibility of themselves and ended quite miserably. Again you end up reaping what you sow.
Socialism will never work because if you shift responsibility from the individual to the government then the government does a lousy job and the individual gets lazy and seeks a free ride, especially when there is nothing for an individual to aspire for because the divide between the classes has been all but abolished. Why would anyone want to work hard when they'll eventually end up living at the same means as someone who does no work and lives off state benefits!
There is one floating around the internet somewhere, which is equally persuasive, equally plausible ... and monumentally retarded, equally. To be honest, I can't be bothered to track it down, because getting in to this is about as useful as getting into a debate about Luke Skywalker and the Rebel Alliance as paradigms for a revolutionary socialist movement.
Meanwhile back in the real world....
I don't blame poverty, but I do blame social exclusion, which is a different thing. Handouts aren't going to foster social inclusion, it's a broader rubric, as much cultural as fiscal - although investment in underprivileged areas as well as program for underprivileged children would be necessary.
Is it not a thing that capitalist countries generally had empires over the course of the past 500 years, and milked these countries dry, giving a false boost to their economies? I'm counting American westward expansion in that.
I do agree that the market is probably preferable to a planned economy in most instances, though - that's not the point I'm making.
Very, very true. Traditionally FF would have been left wing under DeV, problem was the country was very isolationist economically and struggled to pay for it. FG up to the 70's was very socially conservative. Lemass opened things up a bit with more free trade and eventually joining the EEC
FF had a generation of young bucks like Haughey, O'Malley and Blaney coming up in the 60's, all interested in business, contacts and money, the new generation that we've basically had since then, in some shape or form. No real ideology as such, just getting elected. FG changed in the 70's but their problem was coalitions with a socialist Labour party (if you think Labour now is Socialist, well! ). If you think taxes are high now well you had no experience of the 80's, high taxes, high interest rates and high inflation.
That's all in the past and really the main reason we are where we are now is the PD's and their success. Low taxes became the accepted economic wisdom to the extent that all parties in 2007 offered lower taxes, even SF. Personally I think McCreevey was the turning point, he did some good things but taxes should have stayed at levels in or around 2000.
After this is when all parties bought into, "we'll lower taxes and have high welfare and the best public services". A basic understanding of Maths, never mind politics, never mind economics tells you that is wrong.
Its what people are paying for now.
Whatever way you look at it I wouldn't care because I do not pay taxes in Ireland
But your statements are pretty ridiculous, perhaps visit somewhere that there is true gap between rich and poor and come back to us then. Perhaps Indonesia, Curacao or Tunisia ?
Maybe then your copy and pastes will have some meaning.