The 1%

ei.sdraob

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

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

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

ei.sdraob

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

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

BOHSBOHS

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

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

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

Maths fail.

ei.sdraob

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

professore wrote: »

Maths fail.

by me??:(

20Cent

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

SupaNova

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

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

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

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

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

ei.sdraob

@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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

ei.sdraob

Statistician wrote: »

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

The posters, slogans and users here on site participating in debate paint a different picture

Statistician wrote: »

and this wasn't capitalism.

No it was not it was a perverse form of socialism Tho what will protesting outside CB in Dublin or Wall Street in NY would accomplish when the people responsible are still in most cases sitting in the Dail or the the White House or have retired on whooper pensions

Statistician wrote: »

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

I asked people to define this power, facts figures please not waffle, apparently its not income but some cloudy concept of "fairness" (As decided by whom btw?)

Statistician wrote: »

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.

What you are proposing spits in the face of democracy, how could you go on about being more equal while wanting to ignore/sidestep/bringdown the very thing that makes us equal, the hypocrisy of your line of thinking is breathtaking!

Statistician wrote: »

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

Ah viva la revolution! :rolleyes: where have we heard the above before

a paradigm shift to what exactly?

Statistician wrote: »

Why are you so against this movement?

It is misdirected, misguided, foolish and downright hypocritical as you yourself have illustrated

Statistician wrote: »

Are you part of the 1% or something?

No tho the state does take about half of by hard earned income and wastes it, notice how I identify the actor at fault...

hatrickpatrick

ei.sdraob wrote: »

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

Not at all, but all human beings are equal and should be treated as such. There is still far too much croneyism in this country.

Secondly, how do you come to the figure of 45,000? I would have thought it was a lot smaller although I could be mistaken?

I'm not talking abut the general public sector here, I'm talking about those at the top of the "political class". In a real democracy there shouldn't BE a political class. I'm referring to the amount of quid pro quo, the amount of you scratch my back I'll scratch yours, the amount of "Ah sure I went to school with this guy so let's assume he hasn't done anything, no need to investigate" etc etc etc

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

Can you phone up members of the government and ask for personal favours? Can you phone bank managers and get casual loans, no questions asked? Will any fraud or crimes you commit get swept under the carpet? If you do something stupid, will you publicly be sacked for it, but given some kind of quiet reward through the back door? Are you almost certain of getting planning permission before the public consultation has even begun?

I could go on and on. But I've done enough of that in the other thread.

Let me ask you though: Why are you so adamant in refusing to admit that there is a social elite in this country? Am I misjudging it when I say it seems you really don't want to consider the fact that it exists? Are you a member of it who feels like he/she's being maligned?
Not trying to flame, I'm genuinely curious. It seems to me from your posts that you really look on the idea of croneyism with scorn, which unless you're benefiting from it, which I assume you're not, is rather puzzling. Again not trolling, I'm just wondering if you honestly believe it doesn't exist, or if the thought upsets you so much that you'd rather pretend it doesn't, or is there some other reason which isn't coming to my mind at the moment?

laoch na mona

that is my major problem with the dame street movement they ignored or didn't check the facts

20Cent

laoch na mona wrote: »

that is my major problem with the dame street movement they ignored or didn't check the facts

What facts?

ei.sdraob

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not at all, but all human beings are equal and should be treated as such.

Then let the law and justice system take care of them, innocent until proven guilty and all that

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Secondly, how do you come to the figure of 45,000? I would have thought it was a lot smaller although I could be mistaken?

1% of the population of this state is 45000 people :rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not talking abut the general public sector here, I'm talking about those at the top of the "political class". In a real democracy there shouldn't BE a political class. I'm referring to the amount of quid pro quo, the amount of you scratch my back I'll scratch yours, the amount of "Ah sure I went to school with this guy so let's assume he hasn't done anything, no need to investigate" etc etc etc

How many people that would be? what %? should we give them yellow stars to wear so they stand out??

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can you phone up members of the government and ask for personal favours? Can you phone bank managers and get casual loans, no questions asked? Will any fraud or crimes you commit get swept under the carpet? If you do something stupid, will you publicly be sacked for it, but given some kind of quiet reward through the back door? Are you almost certain of getting planning permission before the public consultation has even begun?

I could go on and on. But I've done enough of that in the other thread.

How would protesting on Dame street solve any of these issues You may as well camp outside Dublin zoo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Let me ask you though: Why are you so adamant in refusing to admit that there is a social elite in this country? Am I misjudging it when I say it seems you really don't want to consider the fact that it exists?

I am asking you to define who this "elite" is, what makes them "elite", numbers and hard facts
Who are this 1%?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you a member of it who feels like he/she's being maligned?

What would make me a member of this elite Stonecutters club? what parameters??

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not trying to flame, I'm genuinely curious. It seems to me from your posts that you really look on the idea of croneyism with scorn, which unless you're benefiting from it, which I assume you're not, is rather puzzling. Again not trolling, I'm just wondering if you honestly believe it doesn't exist, or if the thought upsets you so much that you'd rather pretend it doesn't, or is there some other reason which isn't coming to my mind at the moment?

It is for the justice system to decide whether "cronyism" exists and who is guilty, not me (or you for that matter), nor any mob crowd

It is down to the (elected!) lawmakers to decide on laws to ensure bad things dont happen, not a bunch of hippies with misdirected rage

Now for the nth time the elected representatives are located in a different part of Dublin, what exactly would camping outside the CB accomplish if your problem is with the law (not being applied) and laws not existing (not being enforced for political reasons)?

ei.sdraob

aside: thread here in the "movement" itself

Now lets get back to finding Waldo erm the 1%

So its not the 1% of highest earners
Its not the 1% of the population

1% of what exactly are these "elites" whoever they are

fly_agaric

ei.sdraob wrote: »

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?

I think I'll switch to a "hissing goose" analogy now as it may be more appropriate here, since geese can suffer...

The geese get alot more tlc from the state in those Scandanavian countries than they do in Ireland. Of course, that means most to those on the lowest incomes or with no income at all.

The Irish low paid geese getting a more brutal plucking from the taxman will see that money go to pay off debts.

Without more changes in public sector even if it was spent there it may not improve the quality of services provided.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

ei.sdraob wrote: »

aside: thread here in the "movement" itself

Now lets get back to finding Waldo erm the 1%

So its not the 1% of highest earners
Its not the 1% of the population

1% of what exactly are these "elites" whoever they are

Hatrickpatrick nailed it.
You continue to ignore points made and support the meme that its some kind of marxist conspiracy or something.

laoch na mona

if you want to change something vote

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dob74

ei.sdraob wrote: »

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??

The graph above only covers income tax and is completely misleading because it does not mention total Tax paid.


I make about 45k and pay about 15% income tax but I pay about 45% total tax.
Now we are going to listeing to all the accounting firms crying the poor mouth before the budget, about the high earners who pay high income tax. But they will fail to mention that they pay similiar total tax to the average earner.


PS income tax for PAYE; 0% to 16500; 20% 16500 to 33000; 41% > 33000
Total Tax(income tax, Vat, Road tax, Bin Charges, Road tolls, etc)

gurramok

According to the table, 61.39% earned below 35k in 2009 which is perhaps a higher percentage now in late 2011 as unemployment has gone up and employment numbers fell in the period. Certainly not a high income country for the majority!

Crazy Horse 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbxLA2uTWuw&feature=player_embedded#!

Noam Chomsky. Well worth a watch.

SupaNova

I decided to watch despite knowing Chomsky is an economic illiterate. I had to turn off 15mins in. His misrepresentation of Adam Smith being the final straw. I'm surprised i lasted that long when around the 5 min mark he suggests democratically taking control of factories by sit down protests and for the workers to run factories themselves. He also managed to get in the stagnated and declining income propaganda in that small segment. He also suggests that deficits don't matter ffs. Don't know why i bothered, pretty much what i expected from Chomsky.

Hayte

ei.sdraob wrote: »

T
No it was not it was a perverse form of socialism Tho what will protesting outside CB in Dublin or Wall Street in NY would accomplish when the people responsible are still in most cases sitting in the Dail or the the White House or have retired on whooper pensions

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?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75088056&postcount=15

A question for resident Marxists

In context of Ireland what what income threshold puts one in the top 1% (how many K a year)

links to official statistics would be appreciated, none of that wishy washy communist rhetoric please

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75067766&postcount=316

USSR had 70 years of "stagnation"

the world on the other hand had a few years of a setback, with notable exception of Ireland (which is now back to positive), even the US continues to grow

as for Putin aint his country now doing rather well with a capitalistic approach to the resource management for this vast country?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75056655

Being religious would have got you in big trouble in Socialist utopias, careful now

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75056706&postcount=699

Caviar + Champagne Socialism comes easy to you when you are on 120K+ a year
take the likes of tradeunionistas like D. Begg get,
or likes of our presidential wannabies like D. Michael

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75036936&postcount=81

Sure they wont be able to leave Ireland
our resident socialists would keep Google et al "contained" within the Irish equivalent of Berlin Wall

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74945346&postcount=44

Fear and repression is a tool quote familiar to socialists, how else to keep the population caged up in their socialist paradises, just ask the Cubans or North Koreans about it

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74872763&postcount=403

I was wondering why every second thread I clicked in Politics recently has turned into a cold war propaganda slapfight. After looking at your post history going back 2 weeks it now seems that YOU are the source. Where is this going exactly?

SupaNova

Hayte wrote: »

I was wondering why every second thread I clicked in Politics recently has turned into a cold war propaganda slapfight. After looking at your post history going back 2 weeks it now seems that YOU are the source. Where is this going exactly?

I don't see an issue. The protests contain large numbers of openly anti-capitalist economic illiterates spouting Marxist rhetoric. This should be highlighted and put down for the silliness that it is.

Hayte

Rhetoric huh? Did you even read any of the quotes above? Theres plenty of rhetoric there for you to put down "for the silliness that it is".

prech101

SupaNova wrote: »

I don't see an issue. The protests contain large numbers of openly anti-capitalist economic illiterates spouting Marxist rhetoric. This should be highlighted and put down for the silliness that it is.

SuperNova you are failing to see the big picture with this "movement" it’s not about one thing and you cannot easily tag it as one thing or another to fit your argument, it’s made up of many different people with numerous reasons and stories why they are marching/protesting. "Looking for Change"
I'm not an anti-capitalist, I’m against the unfair playing field that has been created by the few to serve the few and keep the many feeding on scraps from the table. And as a product of that the many resources/tools they use to achieve this. (Media for example)

Just because you don't agree, doesn't give you the right to use sweepings statements such as calling them illiterates etc. I'm down there a good few days of the week, can't stay as I have to go to work, but help out where I can. I didn't go to college for 6 years so you could label me as illiterate.

So I ask this question to you and to the owner of this thread.
A company that has done well for many years, shareholders happy etc,,, finds itself up **** creek due to poor decisions it has made,, what should happen to that business in the current market system.

SupaNova

prech101 wrote: »

SuperNova you are failing to see the big picture with this "movement" it’s not about one thing and you cannot easily tag it as one thing or another to fit your argument, it’s made up of many different people with numerous reasons and stories why they are marching/protesting. "Looking for Change"
I'm not an anti-capitalist, I’m against the unfair playing field that has been created by the few to serve the few and keep the many feeding on scraps from the table. And as a product of that the many resources/tools they use to achieve this. (Media for example)

Just because you don't agree, doesn't give you the right to use sweepings statements such as calling them illiterates etc. I'm down there a good few days of the week, can't stay as I have to go to work, but help out where I can. I didn't go to college for 6 years so you could label me as illiterate.

I said large numbers, not all the protestors are economically illiterate. Its perfectly ok to be illiterate regarding some subjects. I'm illiterate and ignorant when it comes to physics or art, but if i was going to protest about something i would make an effort to understand it. If some are protesting, calling for an end to capitalism, or greater redistribution, with no understanding of the affects of either, they should be made fun of and scolded. Some of these people's definition of a level playing field seems to be that everyone should be equally wealthy.

As long as people accept that its ok for government to have the power to direct resources, to favored industry, through favorable taxation and subsidies how can there be a level playing field? If government didn't have these powers, big business wouldn't waste large sums of money lobbying politicians.