The 1%

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.

Hayte

The first thing to acknowledge is that the OWS movement can and has been co-opted by many special interests groups and used as a worldwide platform to promote their own local agenda. A good example is the Womyn of Colour for Decolonization which piggy backs on the Occupy Riverside local movement which is a subset of the national occupy movement.

This is a real problem when lots of small disparate groups unite under a common banner and a common goal and then fracture the collective aim by talking about tangential issues or ones that are polarizing to others in the collective. You should never single out one of these voices and take it as the voice of what is now a global movement. If you do that you'll get all sorts of strange ideas into your head.

As far as "large numbers" go, these are weasel words. You cannot prove a majority says this but you use it to substantiate your point anyway. Thus the logic of your statement collapses and serves no purpose except to misdirect.

As for the government being in a position to determine who gets access to credit - this is by design as the theory goes that citizens democratically elect representatives that you know, represent their interests. With the amount of money in politics however, this no longer really works as the recent BAC/Merril Lynch/FDIC incident shows. Theres a thread on it in US Politics which alarmingly is going ignored despite it being one of the most egregious moves I have ever seen by a large financial institution to protect the interests of its creditors. The fact that it is sanctioned by the Fed is one of the more incredible parts. This move would have been flat out illegal had Glass Steagall not been repealed.

In other news, I note that Obama is willing to gut Sarbanes Oxley in exchange for support for a temporary election year jobs bill. The exemption sought removes the requisite of external audit for new public firms during their first 10 years. The good soundbyte goes that it saves new plcs millions for new hires. The downside that nobody really wants to talk about is that it makes investment fraud really easy.

SupaNova

Hayte wrote: »

As far as "large numbers" go, these are weasel words. You cannot prove a majority says this but you use it to substantiate your point anyway. Thus the logic of your statement collapses and serves no purpose except to misdirect.

Well I have no interest in going out and doing a survey. If there are many groups with many different interests at these protests i would expect to see a large variety of posters and flags displaying what each group wants, as well as interviews with people of many different views. From the pictures i have seen, there is plenty of anti capitalist flags, posters, and banners. In interviews i see people talk about class warfare and calling for redistribution. I really don't think its unreasonable to infer that a large number of the protestors are anti capitalism based on this.

Hayte

^ That would assumes we have a free and fair media and you trust that what is being reported is true. Unfortunately, with the ongoing News International scandal, my faith in the press to "tell it like it is" has never been lower.

What interviews are you referring to? Are there any specifics you can refer to at all or are you just going to stick with vague platitudes?

SupaNova

Hayte wrote: »

^ That would assumes we have a free and fair media and you trust that what is being reported is true. Unfortunately, with the ongoing News International scandal, my faith in the press to "tell it like it is" has never been lower.

What interviews are you referring to? Are there any specifics you can refer to at all or are you just going to stick with vague platitudes?

The Chomsky vid in this thread, the interview with a protestor that was posted 3 or 4 times in the OWS thread in the US politics forum and held up by posters supporting the movement as one of the better interviews that did not make it onto mainstream tv. Can you honestly 100% tell yourself that this movement does not contain a large number of people who are anti capitalism?

Hayte

It does contain anti capitalist elements of course. It also contains radical feminist elements too as I showed above. These are co-opting special interests and should not be taken to represent the entire movement. The problem is when people get sidetracked in dialogue which is peripheral to the issues that caused many disparate people with conflicting ideology together - namely, the perception that large financial institutions have rights in law that supersede those of individuals. See the BAC debacle for one such example that is not even a week old.

I'm going to watch the Chomsky video today and will address this specifically in a later post.

FreudianSlippers

davoxx wrote: »

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 ...

How much does a year of college here compare to a year in the USA?

College education in the USA straps most people with ~$60,000+ worth of debt.

davoxx

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

How much does a year of college here compare to a year in the USA?

College education in the USA straps most people with ~$60,000+ worth of debt.

i'm not saying that, i'm just stating that it is not free ...

like healthcare, having free education (all levels) would be nice.

i did hear a rumour that north korea is the only country to offer free 3rd level education ... though i have not confirmed it one way or the other.

FreudianSlippers

davoxx wrote: »

i'm not saying that, i'm just stating that it is not free ...

like healthcare, having free education (all levels) would be nice.

i did hear a rumour that north korea is the only country to offer free 3rd level education ... though i have not confirmed it one way or the other.

I see what you're saying but it doesn't change my point.

I'd rather be €5,000 in debt after college than $60,000+

Idbatterim

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

good question indeed, but if this is to happen, welfare rates need to be lowered by similar if not more. 36% of workers paying no direct PAYE, it would be funny if it werent so serious! People will say, but what about the debt (well talk major debt i.e a mortgage)? so we should keep on paying out to 100% of claimants, when maybe 20% if even have mortgages? Look if you have been let go, I dont think it matters whether you are on E188 or E150 a week, you are not going to get anywhere near covering your mortgage regardless. If they have expensive car loans etc, well quite frankly, sell the car! Cheers Bertie, atleast you managed to buy yourself a few elections.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.