The Politics of Petulance

optocynic

Irish left wing politics, or what I like to call, the politics of pretulance!!

Rife with hypocracy, and ugly in its envy of the successful.

The media is constantly afraid to ask anything representative of the true working class. The true working class is, of course, the class of people that work!

All we hear is how the poor are suffering. What a load of rubbish. I am suffering also, and I earn a good salary. My taxes have exploded, and when the interest rates increase next year, I will have almost no expendable income, and expendable income is what we need to save our economy! But the unions still think that the public sector should be paid increases in their wages, even though they are top heavy with middle management and cronies, paid an average of over 50k a year, and the rest of us enjoy and average of 37k.

How we treat the least among us is of huge importance, if the least among us have no means of success themselves. Slash the Job-Seekers (read Job-dodgers) allowance for those who have been on it for 2 years or more, and give it a half life for every year after that! Cut our taxes, even for the 'rich' so that they may purchase goods and services, creating employment, and awarding effort and success. In the modern world, we should also consider how we treat the best among us too. The majority of the successful have made great efforts, and worked long hours to achieve what they have, and the begrudging petulance of the Irish mob demands that we take what they have rightly earned, and squander it on people who never made an effort.

Apologies for the rant!..

P. Breathnach

optocynic wrote: »

... Apologies for the rant!..

It was quite a petulant rant.

optocynic

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It was quite a petulant rant.

ooooooooo Zing!
Quick with a line (admittedly a good one!)..
But thin on the substance... Very Labouresque!

FlutterinBantam

optocynic wrote: »

Irish left wing politics, or what I like to call, the politics of pretulance!!

Rife with hypocracy, and ugly in its envy of the successful.

The media is constantly afraid to ask anything representative of the true working class. The true working class is, of course, the class of people that work!

All we hear is how the poor are suffering. What a load of rubbish. I am suffering also, and I earn a good salary. My taxes have exploded, and when the interest rates increase next year, I will have almost no expendable income, and expendable income is what we need to save our economy! But the unions still think that the public sector should be paid increases in their wages, even though they are top heavy with middle management and cronies, paid an average of over 50k a year, and the rest of us enjoy and average of 37k.

How we treat the least among us is of huge importance, if the least among us have no means of success themselves. Slash the Job-Seekers (read Job-dodgers) allowance for those who have been on it for 2 years or more, and give it a half life for every year after that! Cut our taxes, even for the 'rich' so that they may purchase goods and services, creating employment, and awarding effort and success. In the modern world, we should also consider how we treat the best among us too. The majority of the successful have made great efforts, and worked long hours to achieve what they have, and the begrudging petulance of the Irish mob demands that we take what they have rightly earned, and squander it on people who never made an effort.

Apologies for the rant!..

A lot of good and valid points in that post.

To Joe Higgins and his ilk people in suits are not "workers" people who risk their money setting up companies and employing people are not "workers.

To them the "worker" is the poor unfortunate fellow working in "Construction" who creamed it when the going was good, muffed into the breakfast rolls and became an expert on holidays to Phucket and Aruba and was the life and soul of the pub at €6.00 a pint all Thursday afternoon.

I have no problem with genuine people getting the dole and assistance, but a certain coterie of people have made living,and living well of various state benefits a career choice.

Time to root those out,those who went for the quick buck, conveniently forgetting that it takes time and effort and grind to achieve professional qualifications in this day and age.

We need to wake up.

optocynic

... and I thought I was the only sane person I knew!

Salvelinus

optocynic wrote: »

... and I thought I was the only sane person I knew!

Narcistic not?

optocynic

Salvelinus wrote: »

Narcistic not?

I think you mean 'Narciscistic'...?
And if so... yes.. unashamedly..
Or it could be severe bi-polar disorder.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc!

Kalashnikov_Kid

Jaysis the belleagured upper-middle classes are out in force here today. Not enough hard work being shifted around obviously!

You make some valid points, and every now and again I like a good sneer at the left wing in Ireland...though it has reduced somewhat since Pat Rabbitte stepped out of the political limelight.

But it does irk me every now and again when you see left wingers traipse into some dispute like the Thomas Cook protest and just use it to big up their own position within a trade union or socialist group and feign all concern while laughing all the way to the bank/High Court.

On the other hand, to see passionate left wing activists (and by this I mean socialist workers and their like and of course I am excluding Labour) and what they do, it can be impressive. Know fellows who have toiled away for years for parties like the Workers Party and their dedication is admirable, and some of them would be what I would consider very genuine and committed people who give their lives, their careers, their money, everything to better their communities, and can be very selfless.

Long Onion

Perhaps the issue isn't really so much about the left/right divide anymore at all. Perhaps it's more to do with the fact that the belief in the 'social contract' as the basis for economic policy is long since dead and buried amongst the electorate.

It seems to me that the only way the left can return to credibility is to convince the people that this notion is once more worthy of support. I think they have a long hard road ahead of them on this issue and they should begin by eschewing the radicals.

optocynic

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

Jaysis the belleagured upper-middle classes are out in force here today. Not enough hard work being shifted around obviously!

Upper-middle class??
I guess I am that... does that mean I have to apologise?
My parents were lower middle class (at best), but they push me to achieve more..
I find it a great insult to them, that I have to pay for the same dossers I shared the classroom with that didn't pay attention.
We seem to penalise success (opressive taxes, misused).. and reward failure (huge welfare payments)..

Surely this is ar5e-about-face!!!??

Kalashnikov_Kid

optocynic wrote: »

Upper-middle class??
I guess I am that... does that mean I have to apologise?
My parents were lower middle class (at best), but they push me to achieve more..
I find it a great insult to them, that I have to pay for the same dossers I shared the classroom with that didn't pay attention.
We seem to penalise success (opressive taxes, misused).. and reward failure (huge welfare payments)..

Surely this is ar5e-about-face!!!??

You dont have to apologise for any of that, not to me anyway. If you want lower taxes (expecially in these times), find a PD. Get back to me if you can find one

Huge improvement in economy - huge rises in standards of living - huge rewards for all - huge payrises - huge inflation - huge dole payments.

There's your cause right there, in general terms. And of course throw in gross amounts of incompetence, lack of forsesight and an over-reliance on the construction industry.

This cycle is now, of course, rapidly reversing itself.

Make the dole attractive enough, or any state benefit for that matter, and many different people will willinglyjump on board when times are bad, 'middle class' people included.

Lockstep

Ranting and raving is that way---->

I agree, yet I disagree....

The fact is, in every system, there are only two choices.

Do we give to those who don't need it?

Or do we refuse to give to those who realy do need it?

It's kinda like how legal systems will always ahve the innocent who are convicted, and the guity who are let scot-free.

It is quite the dilemma.

Long Onion

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree, yet I disagree....

The fact is, in every system, there are only two choices.

Do we give to those who don't need it?

Or do we refuse to give to those who realy do need it?

This is but one choice I do believe, possibly two options, but only one choice.

MrMicra

optocynic wrote: »

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc!

Boethius wrote:

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisse

We don't pay oppressive taxes in this country.

optocynic

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree, yet I disagree....

The fact is, in every system, there are only two choices.

Do we give to those who don't need it?

Or do we refuse to give to those who realy do need it?

It's kinda like how legal systems will always ahve the innocent who are convicted, and the guity who are let scot-free.

It is quite the dilemma.

I can see the answer right there... it is just your PC wording.

"those who don't need it?" = Those that have earned what they have. We don't give them anything, we just leave them with what they have righty earned.

optocynic

MrMicra wrote: »

We don't pay oppressive taxes in this country.

You didn't see the stamp duty I paid... or the chunk of my bonus they took... or the BIK... or the health levy... etc...

It all adds up...

I don't mind paying taxes, I would happily pay what I am currently paying... if it was used in the best way!!!!

Kalashnikov_Kid

optocynic wrote: »

You didn't see the stamp duty I paid... or the chunk of my bonus they took... or the BIK... or the health levy... etc...

It all adds up...

I don't mind paying taxes, I would happily pay what I am currently paying... if it was used in the best way!!!!

You mentioned reducing taxes in your OP though, which, with all due respect, is a crazy idea in these times.

irish_bob

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

You mentioned reducing taxes in your OP though, which, with all due respect, is a crazy idea in these times.

reducing taxes results in increased personal spending , that is a good thing for the economy , we need to try and increased personal spending and decreased public spending to solve our problems , why we are doing the complete opposite is down to bad politics which is what got us into this mess in the 1st place , its the fianna fail way

Kalashnikov_Kid

Lets have some tax reduction suggestions then...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FlutterinBantam

As the man said, I don't mind paying my way and my just taxes and levies.

What I do mind though is funding wasters who from cradle to grave depend on the state for everything but who seem to have limitless resources to spend in ladbrokes/Local boozer/ Lanzarote/ pigeons/Rotweiler dogs and souped up cars.

I have no problem with the guy or gal who loses their job getting help, but there is a culture out there of state dependance ,no contribution, and hand out at every opportunity.

yet the same people always have the 42" plasma nailed to the wall, no licence probably,no insurance, no health insurance.


I don't like that to be honest.

optocynic

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

You mentioned reducing taxes in your OP though, which, with all due respect, is a crazy idea in these times.

Tax reductions are exactly what we need today. Large ones. We need money flowing, people purchasing goods and services. Without that, there is NO economy.

We also need to drastically reduce the VAT on large items (especially cars.. 21%.. are you kidding me?).. A reduction in taxes, would in fact result in an increase in tax returns (eventually...).. and would create jobs...

Not that hard to understand is it?

MrMicra

optocynic wrote: »

Tax reductions are exactly what we need today. Large ones. We need money flowing, people purchasing goods and services. Without that, there is NO economy.

We also need to drastically reduce the VAT on large items (especially cars.. 21%.. are you kidding me?).. A reduction in taxes, would in fact result in an increase in tax returns (eventually...).. and would create jobs...

Not that hard to understand is it?

Absurd and inaccurate. The republic of ireland is dependent on exports of goods and services for its survival as an economic entity. Our economy cannot be reflated on the basis of domestic consumption as this consumption will flow into imported items and the job creation will be negligible.
What we need to do is provide products and services to foreigners that represent value for money.

We may need falls in wages to achieve this but we do not need tax cuts.

Our consumption will always disproportionately flow out of the country. This country is not an autarky. So we need to get money in to pay for it. Over the past 7 or so years we have been borrowing that money, this is no longer an option.

The idea that taxes on cars which are not produced in ireland should be cut so that we can transfer our money more easily to the Germans and Japanese is so stupid that it beggars belief. Taxes on cars should be raised and everyone should drive a Nissan Micra. Nissan Micras are extraordinarily reliable, they are easy to park , they handle like a dream and the very slow top speed and acceleration would reduce road deaths.

Our tax take in general has been artificially high because of stamp duty. Again this is no longer viable.

There is an absolutely valid claim to be made (with which I don't agree but I accept that it is a credible argument) that reduced taxes foster entrepreneurship and that entrepreneurs can create the exports that we need. I don't accept the the link is this simple. A successful businessman in Ireland can contribute so much to his pension as to reduce his real tax rate very substantially, you can hold your money in your business, you can establish a trust for a charitable purpose and for your children.

An unsuccessful businessman should be putting his money back into the business and paying himself modestly.

The claim that lower taxes result in a higher tax take (Laffer curve) may have been valid in the 1970s when taxes were very high but is no longer valid. The Laffer curve works when taxes are so high that significant energy goes into tax evasion. This is not the case in Ireland.

Ad ovo lanum quaestitis governmentum hibernensis.

optocynic

MrMicra wrote: »

Absurd and inaccurate. The republic of ireland is dependent on exports of goods and services for its survival as an economic entity. Our economy cannot be reflated on the basis of domestic consumption as this consumption will flow into imported items and the job creation will be negligible.
What we need to do is provide products and services to foreigners that represent value for money.

We may need falls in wages to achieve this but we do not need tax cuts.

Our consumption will always disproportionately flow out of the country. This country is not an autarky. So we need to get money in to pay for it. Over the past 7 or so years we have been borrowing that money, this is no longer an option.

The idea that taxes on cars which are not produced in ireland should be cut so that we can transfer our money more easily to the Germans and Japanese is so stupid that it beggars belief. Taxes on cars should be raised and everyone should drive a Nissan Micra. Nissan Micras are extraordinarily reliable, they are easy to park , they handle like a dream and the very slow top speed and acceleration would reduce road deaths.

Our tax take in general has been artificially high because of stamp duty. Again this is no longer viable.

There is an absolutely valid claim to be made (with which I don't agree but I accept that it is a credible argument) that reduced taxes foster entrepreneurship and that entrepreneurs can create the exports that we need. I don't accept the the link is this simple. A successful businessman in Ireland can contribute so much to his pension as to reduce his real tax rate very substantially, you can hold your money in your business, you can establish a trust for a charitable purpose and for your children.

An unsuccessful businessman should be putting his money back into the business and paying himself modestly.

The claim that lower taxes result in a higher tax take (Laffer curve) may have been valid in the 1970s when taxes were very high but is no longer valid. The Laffer curve works when taxes are so high that significant energy goes into tax evasion. This is not the case in Ireland.

Ad ovo lanum quaestitis governmentum hibernensis.

So, basically your arguement is to penalise success, and not allow the wealthy to purchase reliable and desirable good/services... Like I said... socialist Petulance!
Show me a reliable/desirable irish made car and I will buy it. But I'm not gonna drive a Micra!

FlutterinBantam

"Cough" I think we need "cost" reductions more than any other reductions.

AlekSmart

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/this-bmwdriving-gangster-is-just-22-he-has-over-80-convictions--and-the-taxpayer-is-funding-his-lifestyle-1878106.html

Would I be correct in using the above article to illustrate FlutterinBantam`s essential point...?

nuac

Good posts here guys by Flutter in Bantam with whom I wholly agree, and by Mr Micra with whom I substantially agree. It's a while since I considered the Laffer curve ( and then through Irish ) but I do agree that the difficulties of being a small open economy are not realised, especially by many in the public service.

Glad to see the bit of Latin still survives.

FlutterinBantam

nuac wrote: »

Good posts here guys by Flutter in Bantam with whom I wholly agree, and by Mr Micra with whom I substantially agree. It's a while since I considered the Laffer curve ( and then through Irish ) but I do agree that the difficulties of being a small open economy are not realised, especially by many in the public service.

Glad to see the bit of Latin still survives.

Ehh tks for that.. if I could respectfully point out it's FlutterinBantam

as in "Flutter" to puff up the feathers and strut on top of the dunghill and all that, maybe throw out the odd cock-a -doodle-doo even;)


Flutter in Bantam sounds a bit ghey, but no objections if you want to go with that.

MrMicra

optocynic wrote: »

So, basically your arguement is to penalise success, and not allow the wealthy to purchase reliable and desirable good/services... Like I said... socialist Petulance!
Show me a reliable/desirable irish made car and I will buy it. But I'm not gonna drive a Micra!

optocynic your complaints about tax indicate that you are not wealthy. If you are in fact wealthy you should avail of the services of a tax and estate planning professional. I would suggest that http://www.step.ie should be your first port of call.
If you cannot afford the services of an estate planning professional then your are not wealthy.

You claimed earlier that a reduction in taxes would help reflate the Irish economy. This is false. You have made no attempt to refute the point but merely accused me of being a socialist. I am not a socialist, I am a moderate social democrat. I do not regard socialist as an insult but it is quite inaccurate.

If you choose to spend your bonus on depreciating assets like cars that is your choice. To complain that these goods are taxed is dare I say it petulant. To refuse to take advantage of the services of a tax planner when you can afford to do so is moronic and rivalled in stupidity by a poor man believing himself rich.

This is the stupidity that has ruined Ireland.

is est bardus tigris celtica

nuac

F in B, noted. Should you not say "Fluttering"?

FlutterinBantam

Yes I should, but it would not be in keeping with my persona.

It should be "FluttherinBantam" to be honest.

There shold be a little digemo like ' after the n to denote a missing letter.

Sorry for going away from the subject.

optocynic

I am not wealthy. Or at least I do not consider myself wealthy.
Honestly, last calendar year was the first time I earned 6 figures. But it took a LOT of hours and effort.
I purchased a nice house in a nice area almost 3 years ago.

But, some say this makes me wealthy. Idiots!!!
I have virtually no disposable income, due to taxes, childcare, mortgage etc. I went to college. did a masters, studies HARD, work HARDER...

Why should I be penalised more than others? Have I not earned the right to some comfort?

FlutterinBantam

Of course you should be penalised in this state.

Didn't you go out, work hard, look after yourself, scrimp and save to get where you are, never were a burden on the state.

You should have left school at 16 and sat back while working the black economy while the state giroed the money into your account.

You would have a lot more disposable income.:cool:

optocynic

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Of course you should be penalised in this state.

Didn't you go out, work hard, look after yourself, scrimp and save to get where you are, never were a burden on the state.

You should have left school at 16 and sat back while working the black economy while the state giroed the money into your account.

You would have a lot more disposable income.:cool:

I have nothing to add... they are the facts,the truth... the disgrace that is a society of panderers and clowns!

amacca

optocynic wrote: »

I am not wealthy. Or at least I do not consider myself wealthy.
Honestly, last calendar year was the first time I earned 6 figures. But it took a LOT of hours and effort.
I purchased a nice house in a nice area almost 3 years ago.

But, some say this makes me wealthy. Idiots!!!
I have virtually no disposable income, due to taxes, childcare, mortgage etc. I went to college. did a masters, studies HARD, work HARDER...

Why should I be penalised more than others? Have I not earned the right to some comfort?

My point on this would be that you shouldn't pay more than others as a percentage of your income. There is no way you should be penalized more than others.

I agree with a person such as yourself who studied hard and worked harder getting a better reward. I'm all for meritocracies, I think they are great.


What I'm not in favour of is the current situation where very high earners can pay less (and sometimes much less) as a percentage of their gross take home pay than someone on a middle or low income.

If the average tax taken from someone one 40k is say for example 30%, then the average tax taken from someone with 250k or 500k should also be at least 30% but at the moment its not even that.

At the moment and as Ive posted before:

New measures introduced since 2007 mean that those on 500k+ still are only liable for about the minimum tax rate of 20%

earners between 250k and 500k have only seen their tax liability rise to about 14% since 2007

also before the above, someone earning between 250k and 500k could shelter their income in such way that they only paid an effective rate of 5% in 2007 and previous years

that's why some higher earners need to be targeted, so they actually pay their fair share, just like some lower earners claiming and doing nixers and thinking they have a god given right to state handouts also need to be targeted.

optocynic

amacca wrote: »

If the average tax taken from someone one 40k is say for example 30%, then the average tax taken from someone with 250k or 500k should also be at least 30% but at the moment its not even that.

At the moment and as Ive posted before:

New measures introduced since 2007 mean that those on 500k+ still are only liable for about the minimum tax rate of 20%

earners between 250k and 500k have only seen their tax liability rise to about 14% since 2007

So, let's do some simple arithmetic here.
30% of 40k = 12k per annum
20% of 500k = 100k per annum

Do you claim that the person earning 500k (obviously educated and hard working) is consuming 9 times more public services than the person on 40K? Of course they are not, but they are the entrepeneurs, creating jobs, creating profit, spending on goods and services etc. I do conceed that high earners should, ultimately, pay more in tax, but to say that 100k is not enough is just... well... rude!

amacca wrote: »

also before the above, someone earning between 250k and 500k could shelter their income in such way that they only paid an effective rate of 5% in 2007 and previous years

that's why some higher earners need to be targeted, so they actually pay their fair share, just like some lower earners claiming and doing nixers and thinking they have a god given right to state handouts also need to be targeted.

OK.. so 5% of 250k = 12.5k per annum... possibly a little low, but 5% of 500k is 25k... and this is only for non-PAYE earners.