The rich dont create jobs, the customer does

jasonc5432

A regular discussion in Ireland now regards whether the top earners, the richest people, should be taxed more.

A common reason given not to do this is that the richest create jobs and taxing them more would kill jobs.

Some of us believe that the economy is driven by people working hard, making things, providing services, and ultimately, this work or services or stuff must then be bought by customers.

So, of course, a company would not provide jobs unless what they 'did' was bought by people... unless of course it was a failed bank, but that's another matter.

The real economy creates jobs because people buy stuff and services that are created and delivered by people in said jobs.

So, for example, if people spend more in retail -- retail jobs are created.

If people buy a lot of house insurance, then the insurance company may need to hire more staff to deal with increased clients etc.

If people want to build or improve or redecorate their house -- this requires materials (jobs) and normally hiring builders, decorators etc -- more jobs.

Here is an article from the US context, which obviously has relevance for Ireland -- the principle how much we should tax the rich and what effect this may or may not have on jobs is a fairly universal one.

http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-do-not-create-jobs-2011-12

Finally, A Rich American Destroys The Fiction That Rich People Create Jobs

Henry Blodget | Dec. 10, 2011, 9:21 AM | 11,006

• [COLOR=#333333 ! important][COLOR=#04558B ! important][/COLOR]
  -

Image: 60 Minutes
America's real job-creators...who can't afford to create any jobs.
In the war of rhetoric that has developed in Washington as both sides try to blame each other for our economic mess, one theory has been repeated so often that many people now regard it as fact:Rich people create jobs.
Specifically, entrepreneurs, when incented by low taxes, build companies and create millions of jobs.
And these entrepreneurs, therefore, the theory goes, can solve our nation's huge unemployment problem--if only we cut taxes and regulations so they can be incented to build companies and create jobs.
In other words, by even considering raising taxes on "the 1%," this job-creation theory goes, we are considering destroying the very mechanism that makes our economy the strongest and biggest in the world: The incentive for entrepreneurs to start companies in the hope of getting rich and, in the process, creating millions of jobs.
Now, there have long been many absurd holes in this theory, starting with

• Taxes on rich people (capital gains and income) are, relative to history, low, so raising them would only begin to bring them back in line with prior prosperous periods, and
• Dozens of rich entrepreneurs have already gone on record confirming that a modest hike in capital gains and income taxes would not have the slightest impact on their desire to create companies and jobs, given that tax rates are historically low.

So this theory, which many people regard as fact, is already ridiculous.
But now a super-rich and super-successful American has explained the most important reason the theory is absurd, while calling for higher taxes on himself and people like him.

Image: National Taxpayers Union
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAX RATES: Click to see how low today's really are.




The most important reason the theory that "rich people create jobs" is absurd, argues Nick Hanauer, the founder of online advertising company aQuantive, which Microsoft bought for $6.4 billion, is that rich people do not create jobs, even if they found and build companies that eventually employ thousands of people.What creates the jobs, Hanauer astutely observes, is the company's customers.
The company's customers create demand for the company's products, which, in turn, creates the need for the employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If those customers go broke, the demand for the company's products will collapse. And the jobs will disappear.
Now, of course entrepreneurs are an important part of the company-creation process. And so are investors, who risk capital in the hope of earning returns. But, ultimately, whether a new company continues growing and creates permanent jobs is a function of the demand for the company's products, not the entrepreneur or the investor capital. Suggesting that "rich entrepreneurs" create jobs, therefore, Hanauer observes, is like suggesting that squirrels create evolution.
So, then, if what creates the jobs in our economy is "customers," who are these customers? And what can government policy do to make sure these customers have more money to spend to create demand and, thus, jobs?
The customers of most companies, Hanauer points out, are ultimately the gigantic middle class--the hundreds of millions of Americans who currently take home a much smaller share of the national income than they did 30 years ago, before tax policy aimed at helping rich people get richer created an extreme of income and wealth inequality not seen since the 1920s.

She'd like to create jobs. But she can't afford to anymore. Click to see how extreme inequality has gotten.




The middle class has been pummeled by tax policies that reward "the 1%" at the expense of everyone else. But, wait, aren't the huge pots of gold taken home by "the 1%" supposed to "trickle down" to the middle class and thus benefit everyone? Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?
Yes, that's the way it's supposed to work.
Unfortunately, that's not the way it actually works.
And Hanauer explains why.
Hanauer takes home more than $10 million a year of income. On this income, he says, he pays an 11% tax rate.
With the more than $9 million a year Hanauer keeps, he buys lots of stuff. But he doesn't buy as much stuff as would be bought if that $9 million were instead earned by 9,000 Americans each taking home an extra $1,000 a year.
Why not?
Because, despite Hanauer's impressive lifestyle--his family owns a plane--most of the $9+ million just goes straight into the bank (where it either sits and earns interest or gets invested in companies that ultimately need strong demand to sell products and create jobs).
If that $9+ million had gone to 9,000 families instead of Hanauer, it would almost certainly have been pumped right back into the economy via consumption (i.e., demand). And, in so doing, it would have created more jobs.
Hanauer estimates that, if most American families were taking home the same share of the national income that they were taking home 30 years ago, every family would have another $10,000 of disposable income to spend.
That, Hanauer points out, would have a huge impact on demand--and, thereby job creation.
It's time we stopped mouthing the fiction that "rich people create jobs."
Rich people don't create jobs.
Our economy creates jobs.
And until we return to more reasonable tax policies that help the 99% instead of just the 1%, our economy is going to go nowhere.
Read Nick Hanauer's editorial here >


[/COLOR]


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-do-not-create-jobs-2011-12#ixzz1gA4FiVOu

sarumite

I disagree with your analysis that it obviously has relevance in Ireland. The European taxing model is very different to the American taxing model. I honestly believe having read the OP that the problems outlined are actually very 'America' orientated and are not as relevant when looking at our tax model.

Pete_Cavan

jasonc5432 wrote: »

A regular discussion in Ireland now regards whether the top earners, the richest people, should be taxed more.

A common reason given not to do this is that the richest create jobs and taxing them more would kill jobs.

Some of us believe that the economy is driven by people working hard, making things, providing services, and ultimately, this work or services or stuff must then be bought by customers.

So, of course, a company would not provide jobs unless what they 'did' was bought by people... unless of course it was a failed bank, but that's another matter.

The real economy creates jobs because people buy stuff and services that are created and delivered by people in said jobs.

Bit of a chicken and egg situation really, there would be no demand for products had they not been invented, or at least made accessible to ordinary people, by entrepreneurs in the first place. Look at the ipod, fifty years ago people werent going into shops asking for them only to be told "Sorry the ipod hasnt been invented yet", then for Apple to come along and fulfil that demand by giving people what they wanted. Apple created a product which was extremely powerful yet very simple to use and demand for that product grew. They have continued to develop and improve that product, increasing demand. Of course customers create demand, but the entrepreneur must first create something for the customers to demand.

When cars were first invented, there would have been huge demand for them but they were too expensive and only a limited few extremely rich people could afford them. Henry Ford came along, started mass producing them on a production line, bringing down the cost significantly, making them more affordable to more people. The demand was there from the customers but it took an entrepreneur to make it possible for this demand to be met.

Also, these days, demand is manufactured, similar to the manufacture of the products themselves. This is done through marketing and advertising. Much of the products bought this Christmas are as a result of advertising creating demand, not demand due to necessity. Again entrepreneurs have advanced advertising to the stage where they can create demand for just about anything regardless of how much it is needed.

Also the example in the article of a guy earning €10m pa and only paying 11% tax has no relevance to this country, where incomes over €36,400 are taxed at a rate of 41%.

PeadarCo

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Bit of a chicken and egg situation really, there would be no demand for products had they not been invented, or at least made accessible to ordinary people, by entrepreneurs in the first place. Look at the ipod, fifty years ago people werent going into shops asking for them only to be told "Sorry the ipod hasnt been invented yet", then for Apple to come along and fulfil that demand by giving people what they wanted. Apple created a product which was extremely powerful yet very simple to use and demand for that product grew. They have continued to develop and improve that product, increasing demand. Of course customers create demand, but the entrepreneur must first create something for the customers to demand.

When cars were first invented, there would have been huge demand for them but they were too expensive and only a limited few extremely rich people could afford them. Henry Ford came along, started mass producing them on a production line, bringing down the cost significantly, making them more affordable to more people. The demand was there from the customers but it took an entrepreneur to make it possible for this demand to be met.

Also, these days, demand is manufactured, similar to the manufacture of the products themselves. This is done through marketing and advertising. Much of the products bought this Christmas are as a result of advertising creating demand, not demand due to necessity. Again entrepreneurs have advanced advertising to the stage where they can create demand for just about anything regardless of how much it is needed.

Also the example in the article of a guy earning €10m pa and only paying 11% tax has no relevance to this country, where incomes over €36,400 are taxed at a rate of 41%.

It should also be noted after including things like the universal social charge the marginal rate can be over 50% especially for very high income earners. US tax figures have no relevance. Situations like Warren Buffet paying a lower rate than his secretery don't happen here. Also according to Primetime during the week the top 50% of earners pay 97% of the tax. I know that doesn't give a truely complete picture as I don't think those figures include indirect taxes but its clear that data from the US has no relevance to Ireland.

For the overall question I think its a bit of both an entrepreneur to succeed needs to produce something that people want to buy. For self employed people the marginal rate is relevant as many of them can choose not to take on a job if they feel the after tax profit of that job or contract doesn't adequately compensates them for the work they would have to put in. Also setting up a business entails a certain level of risk and alot of work(Potenially working 365 days a year or close to this depending on the business and the pressures associated)This needs to be compensated something which I don't think having very high taxes on them would do.

sarumite

PeadarCo wrote: »

. US tax figures have no relevance. Situations like Warren Buffet paying a lower rate than his secretery don't happen here.

I think you are bang on with this point. The OP is looking at situations like Warrent Buffer and his Cleaner (or secretary, but I believe he mentioned cleaner) that have relevance in the US perspective, however not as much this side of the atlantic.

Debtocracy

OP raises some interesting concepts that are often overlooked. We hear these days of how increased credit to businesses will generate economic growth. However, without an increase in spending, more credit will only increase the number of zombie businesses. It’s amazing how much more concerned the business community are about increasing credit in comparison to increasing spending, even though the latter provides them with debt-free money.

Interesting that Henry Ford was mentioned. He realised that his company could make more profit by increasing the wages of his employees. Specifically, employees were given a high enough wage to allow them to purchase a car. In the U.S., the idea of the role of the consumer in generating corporate profits helped to keep a floor on inequality (as large middle class needed). However, something strange happened in the 1970s. During this time, the U.S. economy experienced low growth due to a lack of spending. To increase spending and thus growth, the wages of workers could have been increased. However, a new system was developed to allow corporations to increase their profits without a corresponding increase in wages. That is, personal credit was pushed upon the consumer. If you couldn’t afford a car, it didn’t matter as long as you had the creditworthiness to get a personal loan. Neglecting the moral problems with this system (e.g. debt slavery, high inequality), it is ultimately doomed to failure. Eventually the point comes where the average consumer is so indebted that their disposable income has been decimated and they no longer have the creditworthiness to access more credit. The problem with this personal credit-based system is that it has worked too well.

krd

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Look at the ipod, fifty years ago people werent going into shops asking for them only to be told "Sorry the ipod hasnt been invented yet", then for Apple to come along and fulfil that demand by giving people what they wanted. Apple created a product which was extremely powerful yet very simple to use and demand for that product grew.

Apple didn't invent the portable MP3 player. They were just the most successful at marketing their brand. To **** who like buying brands. Apple were actually really late to the game with their portable players.

They sold so well because people who couldn't afford the luxury Apple PCs could now afford a little Apple item to show off with.

They have continued to develop and improve that product, increasing demand. Of course customers create demand, but the entrepreneur must first create something for the customers to demand.

The entrepreneur doesn't create the customer - without the customer their can be no market. Apple just re-invented the Walkman. They didn't create a shockingly new product. They took other peoples ideas, and repackaged them for a market that already existed.

When cars were first invented, there would have been huge demand for them but they were too expensive and only a limited few extremely rich people could afford them. Henry Ford came along, started mass producing them on a production line, bringing down the cost significantly, making them more affordable to more people. The demand was there from the customers but it took an entrepreneur to make it possible for this demand to be met.

A lovely, but bullsh1t, story. Before cars people travelled by horse, or in horse drawn carriages. Buggy making was a big business. When the petrol engine arrived, the buggy makers who had been making buggies for horses, put an engine in their buggies and they had cars.

It's just hype and bull**** to credit Henry Ford with the creation of mass production and assembly lines. They had existed long before Ford had began making cars. Mass production is suited to mass market items. It's economies of scale. Luxury cars like Bugati are still made by small teams of craftsmen - because it wouldn't make economic sense to hire thousands of workers to work on individual parts, as it does for mass produced cars.

Also, these days, demand is manufactured, similar to the manufacture of the products themselves. This is done through marketing and advertising.

What's the point in marketing products to people who can't afford to buy them.

Much of the products bought this Christmas are as a result of advertising creating demand, not demand due to necessity.

I think you're genuinely stupid. Demand is dictated by purchasing power. All marketing can do is make the consumer chose one product over another. It can't make the net demand go up or down. Net demand is purely the money the consumer is has, or doesn't have.

Again entrepreneurs have advanced advertising to the stage where they can create demand for just about anything regardless of how much it is needed.

Stupid. The entrepreneur can put money in peoples pockets to buy their products?

look at all the wonderful "entrepreneurs" we have in Ireland. Building thousands of "luxury" apartments, and office blocks - and surprise surprise, no customers for these wonderful entrepreneurial products.

Do you think if we got Ireland's top marketing people on the job - the usual brigade of ditzy bullsh1tters, all that unwanted property would clear?

Parasites. Social and economic parasites.

Also the example in the article of a guy earning €10m pa and only paying 11% tax has no relevance to this country, where incomes over €36,400 are taxed at a rate of 41%.

Most of Nick Hanauer's income comes from investments. That it income is taxed at a much lower rate than wages. American wage earners pay about as much tax as we do. And in Ireland we have capitals gains tax rates where people pay way under 41%.

Suryavarman

In Mr. Hanauer's example he fails to explain how all this new demand is supposed to be satisfied. If all his disposable income (and all other high income people's disposable income) were to spread evenly among lower income families it would create excess demand. There would not be enough supply of the goods in demand to satisfy demand which would mean prices would have to rise. This would mean larger profits for business so that they could invest back into their business in order to increase supply. But as we have already decided that consumption is what is best for the economy those profits are taken and given to lower/middle income people in order to consume. We have now have a system where demand/consumption is king and no money to invest and therefore no new supply. We have a stagnant economy that cannot increase production (therefore no new jobs) and we also have rising prices. So contrary to what Mr. Hanauer has said, demand doesn't create new jobs nor does it cause the economy to grow. That isn't to say consumer demand isn't important (it obviously is) but it isn't the most important thing.

PeadarCo wrote: »

It should also be noted after including things like the universal social charge the marginal rate can be over 50% especially for very high income earners. US tax figures have no relevance. Situations like Warren Buffet paying a lower rate than his secretery don't happen here. Also according to Primetime during the week the top 50% of earners pay 97% of the tax. I know that doesn't give a truely complete picture as I don't think those figures include indirect taxes but its clear that data from the US has no relevance to Ireland.

For the overall question I think its a bit of both an entrepreneur to succeed needs to produce something that people want to buy. For self employed people the marginal rate is relevant as many of them can choose not to take on a job if they feel the after tax profit of that job or contract doesn't adequately compensates them for the work they would have to put in. Also setting up a business entails a certain level of risk and alot of work(Potenially working 365 days a year or close to this depending on the business and the pressures associated)This needs to be compensated something which I don't think having very high taxes on them would do.

I'd imagine cases like Warren Buffet paying a lower rate than his secretary doesn't happen in the US either. As far as I remember Buffet pays an effective rate of 17.4% meaning that his secretary is paying over that. If we use the tax rates from Wikipedia to calculate what his secretary must be earning to pay more than a 17.4% tax how what do we find? If we assume that his secretary is single, living with her parents and isn't claiming any deductions and is earning $52,000, we find that she pays $9124.60 in tax each year, resulting in an effective rate of 17.55%. So either Warren Buffet pays his secretary very well or he is lying about his secretary paying a higher rate.

In the US only 53% of workers pay federal income tax. So I'd imagine a scenario where the top 50% of earners are paying 97% of the taxes isn't too unlikely either. Despite it's many faults the US has a pretty progressive tax system, more so than most if not all western European countries.

The Clown Man

krd wrote: »

I think you're genuinely stupid.

...

Stupid.

Etc etc.

I was struggling to get your logic in the first place but now when I read this I realise I don't care because all I can see here is hot air.

Rich people don't make jobs, smart people do, and most smart people do well because they are smart. You stamp out the potential for wealth and you remove the incentive for smart people to do smart things. That's the fundamental of capitalism.

I also realise I have no idea what solution you are proposing or even what argument you are putting forward. Are you saying we should give communism a shot? You realise they tried that right?

Maybe you do have a point is there somewhere but your method of communication does it no justice, all I can see here is hot air and discontent. Not a whole lot of substance.

Anyway, good luck with that. Generally.

Yahew

What creates the jobs, Hanauer astutely observes, is the company's customers.
The company's customers create demand for the company's products, which, in turn, creates the need for the employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If those customers go broke, the demand for the company's products will collapse. And the jobs will disappear.

Thats a particularly dumb claim from an entrepreneur. If he is creating jobs he is creating customers for other companies, if that were the mechanism.

Actually some entrepreneurs do create wealth. Imagine a country with 1 million workers producing 10 widgets per person. In the course of 100 years, the country - because of entrepreneurs and scientific advancement - produces 1000 widget per person. That country is richer.

It doesn't matter what happens with the currency so much, as long as people can buy more with their wages. Wages could stay the same, and all prices drop. Or wages could increase at a rate higher than the cost of goods. These are artefacts of how currency is produced by central banks but has nothing to do with how much wealth is produced in an economy.

Of course not all rich people are wealth creators, and not all wealth creators are rich ( see the inventor of the internet, or a brilliant scientist). So wealth is not distributed meritocratically, and if pooled in a idle rich it makes sense to re-distribute it.

It should be simple to differentiate between the deserving and the un-deserving rich - between the people who are engaged in a non-zero sum game, and the people engaged in zero sum games - but nobody wants to tax the idle rich, even the middle income groups or poor. The defence of inheritance tax exemptions is universal, I've seen that here.

Yahew

krd wrote: »

To **** who ..



I think you're genuinely stupid. ...



Stupid. ...

Is this AH? Or is Politics worse than AH, these days. kid's understanding of economics is underwhelming, but he is not worth engaging with with this kind of rhetoric.

Pete_Cavan

krd wrote: »

Apple didn't invent the portable MP3 player. They were just the most successful at marketing their brand. To **** who like buying brands. Apple were actually really late to the game with their portable players.

They sold so well because people who couldn't afford the luxury Apple PCs could now afford a little Apple item to show off with.

The entrepreneur doesn't create the customer - without the customer their can be no market. Apple just re-invented the Walkman. They didn't create a shockingly new product. They took other peoples ideas, and repackaged them for a market that already existed.

I know there were portable MP3 players before the ipod, but there was not the same level of demand for portable MP3 players before the ipod. My point is that new products can create additional demand that was not there while other products were the only ones on the market. I was only using the ipod as an example but it can be widened to portable MP3 players in general if you wish - there was no demand for portable MP3 players fifty years ago because portable MP3 players did not exist.

When cars were first invented, there would have been huge demand for them but they were too expensive and only a limited few extremely rich people could afford them. Henry Ford came along, started mass producing them on a production line, bringing down the cost significantly, making them more affordable to more people. The demand was there from the customers but it took an entrepreneur to make it possible for this demand to be met.

A lovely, but bullsh1t, story. Before cars people travelled by horse, or in horse drawn carriages. Buggy making was a big business. When the petrol engine arrived, the buggy makers who had been making buggies for horses, put an engine in their buggies and they had cars.

It's just hype and bull**** to credit Henry Ford with the creation of mass production and assembly lines. They had existed long before Ford had began making cars. Mass production is suited to mass market items. It's economies of scale. Luxury cars like Bugati are still made by small teams of craftsmen - because it wouldn't make economic sense to hire thousands of workers to work on individual parts, as it does for mass produced cars.

My point about Henry Ford was that he reduced the cost of buying a car, making it more affordable to more people. There may have been the desire among many people to own a car but the cost was prohibitive. With the reduced cost this desire turned into actual demand and actual purchases.

What's the point in marketing products to people who can't afford to buy them.

Marketing has evolved and they now attempt to avoid marketing products to people who can't afford to buy them. With ads on Facebook for example, using the information people put on the iste, products are targeted only at those most likely to buy that particular product, rather than the scatter gun approach.

I think you're genuinely stupid. Demand is dictated by purchasing power. All marketing can do is make the consumer chose one product over another. It can't make the net demand go up or down. Net demand is purely the money the consumer is has, or doesn't have.

Reducing the cost of products allows more products to be purchased for the same amount of money.

Stupid. The entrepreneur can put money in peoples pockets to buy their products?

look at all the wonderful "entrepreneurs" we have in Ireland. Building thousands of "luxury" apartments, and office blocks - and surprise surprise, no customers for these wonderful entrepreneurial products.

Do you think if we got Ireland's top marketing people on the job - the usual brigade of ditzy bullsh1tters, all that unwanted property would clear?

Parasites. Social and economic parasites.

Ah here we go, you werent actually challenging anything I said, you just wanted to have a rant and have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. That "you're genuinely stupid" comment suddenly doesnt bother me anymore.

thebman

The reality is it is a relationship. One many business owners in Ireland exploited for years when there was little choice for consumers, now they aren't adapting and are wondering where their business has gone and why they are going out of business as people shop in stores that have come in from overseas that are cheaper.

There was a time the likes of Argo's wouldn't bother opening a store outside of Dublin, not anymore, during the boom people weren't caring so much about what they were paying for goods but now people have less money, businesses are hurting because they can't/won't compete.

krd

The Clown Man wrote: »

Rich people don't make jobs, smart people do, and most smart people do well because they are smart. You stamp out the potential for wealth and you remove the incentive for smart people to do smart things.

Aw this is the right-wingers trick. There's is no alternative ... unfettered wealth, power and greed, or the only other alternative is Stalinism.

It's a nonsense argument. "If you don't let the rich do whatever they want to do. They government will take your money and give it to all the lazy people people. ". There were pay differentials in the Soviet Union to incentivise people to work harder. Doctors were paid far more than street cleaners. A very successful piece of anti-soviet propaganda was to spread the myth, that in the Soviet Union, everyone was paid the same. That the hard workers were robbed to pay the lazy.

An equally successful piece of propaganda and myth we have here, is if you work harder, you'll will receive more rewards. Because our system is nothing as unfair as the Soviet system.

In many businesses in Ireland lazy people are paid as much as hard working people. Lazy people are promoted, not for their hard work, but for working the politics. If they were in the Soviet Union, they'd be faithful party members.

And let's talk about "smartness" and entrepreneurship. Seanie Quinn was once one of the richest men in Ireland. Did he become rich from being smart? He didn't. He had a rich daddy. Who was lucky enough to have inherited a farm with a quarry. Luck. Luck. Luck.

Did he lose all his money from being "smart".

Seanie Quinn, was no genius. He didn't event any innovative product or service. He just had access to capital that others didn't. His capital was successful. But he was the weakest link. And everyone else was always "free" to compete with him. But it would be a bit like trying to beat someone in a marathon, where they have a motorcycle, and all you have is your feet.

The myth that we have here, the rich are rich because they worked hard and they're clever. And the poor are poor because they're stupid and a lazy. There may be a germ of truth to that - but it is nowhere near the whole truth or even half of it.

That's the fundamental of capitalism.

The holy gospel of capitalism. Absolutist, like any true faith - but at the same time always a little vague. like God, capitalism moves in mysterious ways. Like an invisible hand.

The believers in capitalism, like the believers in any religion, credit it with the creation of the world. Everything from the discovery of the laws of nature, to the sun rising in the morning.

And like any god. People make up their own personal version of their god. For many people who say they believe in Capital, they actually believe in Greed. Greedyism.

I also realise I have no idea what solution you are proposing or even what argument you are putting forward. Are you saying we should give communism a shot? You realise they tried that right?

We kind of have communism as it is. Communism for the rich, brutal free enterprise for everyone else.

The Soviet system was a form of centrally planned capitalism. And that's just what we have here, right now. And with many of the same economic theories and arguments.

What's the difference between central planning originating from the offices of the IMF, and central planning from some Soviet style politburo. It's the same idea. Just for the benefit of different people. Instead of state employed economic planners, we have state subsidised bankers.

But the point you're really making is just the recurrent right-wing cheap trick of saying "rule by the rich, for the rich" might have it's failings, but the only other alternative is the gulags of Soviet Russia.

It's a lie. It's a trick to shut down the discourse.

Maybe you do have a point is there somewhere but your method of communication does it no justice, all I can see here is hot air and discontent. Not a whole lot of substance.

I'm sorry for being discontent. I was a fool during the boom. I wasn't flipping property or selling bog fields for millions.

I am pissed off. I am pissed off at what I see as ideology that caused our current problems, and ideology that is set to make those problems worse.

Anyway, good luck with that. Generally.

Thanks.

Yahew

An equally successful piece of propaganda and myth we have here, is if you work harder, you'll will receive more rewards. Because our system is nothing as unfair as the Soviet system.

That is a myth alright.

In many businesses in Ireland lazy people are paid as much as hard working people. Lazy people are promoted, not for their hard work, but for working the politics. If they were in the Soviet Union, they'd be faithful party members.

those businesses will collapse, however. Its not just lazy people - I work in start ups but plenty of people will get money for nonsense ideas, and plenty of hard working people do stupid things to remove value from the business ( generally the Apprentice type salesmen types). However, these companies eventually collapse.

And let's talk about "smartness" and entrepreneurship. Seanie Quinn was once one of the richest men in Ireland. Did he become rich from being smart? He didn't. He had a rich daddy. Who was lucky enough to have inherited a farm with a quarry. Luck. Luck. Luck.

Totally agree with that. Inherited wealth shows libertarian ideologies up. There can be no meritocracy with inherited wealth ( which is a lot of it).

Seanie Quinn, was no genius. He didn't event any innovative product or service. He just had access to capital that others didn't. His capital was successful. But he was the weakest link. And everyone else was always "free" to compete with him. But it would be a bit like trying to beat someone in a marathon, where they have a motorcycle, and all you have is your feet.

Well, not quite , if you could get capital. Your story here is a anecdote about one particular form of entrepreneurship - the boom time snake oil salesman. That happens in every boom. In every boom you also get people inventing new stuff. We need to make the zero-sum rich poorer, and award tax breaks to people whose inventions make the country, or world, richer. Not that Ireland produced a Google, but if we did would you hate the rich owners?

The myth that we have here, the rich are rich because they worked hard and they're clever. And the poor are poor because they're stupid and a lazy. There may be a germ of truth to that - but it is nowhere near the whole truth or even half of it.

True enough. You argue well without the ad hominems in your last post, so keep it up.

Geuze

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Also the example in the article of a guy earning €10m pa and only paying 11% tax has no relevance to this country, where incomes over €36,400 are taxed at a rate of 41%.

Many high earners in Irl have effective tax rates well below 41%,mainly due to tax reliefs.

There are high earners paying 10%-30% in Irl.

PeadarCo

Geuze wrote: »

Many high earners in Irl have effective tax rates well below 41%,mainly due to tax reliefs.

There are high earners paying 10%-30% in Irl.

High Net worth individuals must pay a minimum of 30% tax and there are laws to specifically ensure this.

thebman

PeadarCo wrote: »

High Net worth individuals must pay a minimum of 30% tax and there are laws to specifically ensure this.

There are plenty of loopholes that ensure this isn't the case TBH.

You think Dennis O'Brien is paying 30% tax here?

PeadarCo

thebman wrote: »

There are plenty of loopholes that ensure this isn't the case TBH.

You think Dennis O'Brien is paying 30% tax here?

Providing he is domiciled and satisfies the residency conditions he would have to pay a minimum of 30%.The law on high net woth individuals is there to prevent that and ensure they pay a minimum of 30%. As far as I know any excess reliefs are rolled over.

thebman

PeadarCo wrote: »

Providing he is domiciled and satisfies the residency conditions he would have to pay a minimum of 30%.The law on high net woth individuals is there to prevent that and ensure they pay a minimum of 30%. As far as I know any excess reliefs are rolled over.

Ah therein lies the problem, very easy to engineer it so you don't satisfy the residency conditions despite spending most of your time here.

PeadarCo

thebman wrote: »

Ah therein lies the problem, very easy to engineer it so you don't satisfy the residency conditions despite spending most of your time here.

He would have spend a large amount of time not year. Depending on the type residency is calulated over 3 years also to the best of my knowledge a day counts if a person has be in the state at any point during the day. Basiclly it is very very hard to get around the residency rules unless you don't actually live in the state.If it is a case that he spends most of his time in another country why should he pay the majority of his tax here. Another thing is people who are Irish domicled and earn large amounts of money and hold a large amount of Irish assests (I don't know the exact conditions off the top of my head) must also pay a domicle levy which I believe amounts to a 20% income tax. It is very hard to change ones domicile. If in doubt the Revenue can take him to court if needs be.

Also exceptions do not prove anything. On previous threads data has been produced that has shown the more a person earns the more on average of their earning they pay as tax. I'm sure people would object and so would I if an exceptional case was used to show that a person could leave very comfortably off social welfare and that it would be crazy for said person to get a job unless it it paid very very well.

Do you have any data from a revenue or similar source to back up your claim?

To the posters original point rich people do create jobs but it depends what type of things they invest their money in and the same goes for everyone else. It also depends on what time frame you look at. During the boom investing in houses did create jobs but only in the shortterm and longterm argueably caused damage to the economy as people were trained in jobs which had an oversupply of skilled workers in the longterm.

thebman

PeadarCo wrote: »

Do you have any data from a revenue or similar source to back up your claim?

No proof and not getting into how I know TBH. I wouldn't describe it as a single case either as I know of others in the same circle that I'm not going to go into online.

There are loads of loopholes if you know how to exploit them TBH. Foolish to think there isn't. People write the rules and people are employed to find holes in those rules.

To think they aren't finding them is naive at best.

johnnyskeleton

Right wing views are not confined to the rich. There are many people who like the system but don't have two cent to rub together. In fact it is often joked that socialism is the gift from the middle class to the working class, and it's a gift they neither asked for nor want. Many people like the idea that if they work really hard or do somethig clever they could make a lot of money from it, and detest the system that pays a percieved large sum to the person who doesn't work and claims welfare while at the same time discouraging them from making an honest living.

Liam Byrne

You stamp out the potential for wealth and you remove the incentive for smart people to do smart things.

So wealth is the only incentive to do smart things, then ?

A horrendous outlook, and one that I pray doesn't come true in my lifetime.

Peanut

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You stamp out the potential for wealth and you remove the incentive for smart people to do smart things.

So wealth is the only incentive to do smart things, then ?

A horrendous outlook, and one that I pray doesn't come true in my lifetime.

It's a question of balance - let's say you earn twice as much as the next person and the reason is that you work twice as hard.

Is a government entitled to excessively penalise you for this?

Perhaps the distinction should be between productive income and speculative income, although that's already covered to an extent by CGT, still, in a more general sense, "productive" wealth should not be hit as hard as speculative, which doesn't create anything of much use.

maninasia

The Clown Man wrote: »

Etc etc.

I was struggling to get your logic in the first place but now when I read this I realise I don't care because all I can see here is hot air.

Rich people don't make jobs, smart people do, and most smart people do well because they are smart. You stamp out the potential for wealth and you remove the incentive for smart people to do smart things. That's the fundamental of capitalism.

I also realise I have no idea what solution you are proposing or even what argument you are putting forward. Are you saying we should give communism a shot? You realise they tried that right?

Maybe you do have a point is there somewhere but your method of communication does it no justice, all I can see here is hot air and discontent. Not a whole lot of substance.

Anyway, good luck with that. Generally.

Being smart, being rich, being an entrepeneur or being a consumer does not neccessarily have ANYTHING to do with creating jobs.

For instance-

Smart- I'm a Professor of history, I'm a smart businessman who knows how to make a product with less manpower or how to offshore production, I'm smart but not ethical or concerned with other peoples welfare, I'm lazy and I like to watch Jerry Springer every afternoon

Rich- I like to hold on to my money, my money is concentrated not like poorer people who tend to spend most of their income every month, I keep my money overseas, I invest my money overseas, my money was generated from loans

Entrepeneur- Similar to smart above, I don't neccessarily create jobs in my home country or many jobs at all

Consumer- I purchase the product or service, however that may have been manufactured or provided overseas or not involve much manpower or my purchasing of given product or service will have destroyed competitors business, I may purchase overseas products and service thus reducing job creation at home


So people need to get away from these simple definitions. I believe the article above goes some way to identify the consumer as being a powerful creator of demand of goods and services (this is particularly relevant to the US which has a common mantra about 'wealth creators' being behind job creation), but then also we need to see that the consumers income is steady and not debt based , and that the goods and services provided have any net local input regarding job creation.

Count Dooku

Reselling Chinese goods and houses wont create sustainable employment, only export can do it
Don't see how poor can create jobs in export industry

krd

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Right wing views are not confined to the rich. There are many people who like the system but don't have two cent to rub together.

Yes, because a lot of people are very stupid. Did you know, 50% of people have below average intelligence - isn't that shocking?

There was a survey done a few years ago on American's who vote for the Republicans. The majority are actually in the bottom 25% for earnings and wealth. But when questioned - the majority of these people put themselves in the top 10% for earnings - after all they're all successful rugged individualists.

There's some hilarious videos on Youtube of Tea partiers. A lot of their most vocal proponents are actually on welfare (that's where they get the time to travel to these events). These idiots have some spurious notions of how they're not really on welfare - that they deserve it because they once served in the army. Or just that they good white all American rugged individuals in spirit.

In fact it is often joked that socialism is the gift from the middle class to the working class, and it's a gift they neither asked for nor want.

Haw haw. Yes, that idea comes from the spurious self-justification for the comforts and privileges of the middle-class. That the middle-class have more stuff than the working class because the working class are less intelligent. Working class people are stupid - that's why you always need middle-class people to manage them.

Many people like the idea that if they work really hard or do somethig clever they could make a lot of money from it, and detest the system that pays a percieved large sum to the person who doesn't work and claims welfare while at the same time discouraging them from making an honest living.

Yeah, but they'll never complain about the cute hoor, who makes piles of money doing a little property flipping with borrowed money.

They'll never say "look at that lazy arse landlord. Who bought all those properties with borrowed money - because the bank manager thought he was a deserving paddy, him being from a good family. Look at him.....He goes around collecting rent like it's his dole money. He doesn't do any work, but feels entitled to sponge off the people who do....he should get a job"

Poor people who are right-wing are so, out of a combination of delusion, stupidity, and their own avarice (with will go unfulfilled). If you actually take the time to talk to someone who is both poor and right-wing, they're heads are full of all kinds of incongruous ideas. The BNP (British national party, not Bank Nationale Paris) are actually a left-wing party, just their members mostly don't know, and the rest of the left-wing congregation wants nothing to do with them. But they are, national socialists.

There's also the lesson even the stupid learn early in life. If you suck up to the powerful, they may throw you a scrap from their table.

When people vocally defend the injustices of the powerful, they're often doing some ass kissing, to show they're someone who can be trusted and deserves a reward.

Godge

You have two people. One has inherited €10m and is making €1m a year renting property, earning interest on cash, buying and selling shares, generally sitting on his arse, not working.

The other started with nothing, but has built up a business from scratch now worth €8m and still growing and is earning €1m a year from the business, working 80 hours a week, employing 20 people.

Should these two people be taxed the same? I would say no. One is sitting on his inherited wealth and the other is building a business and jobs. In my opinion, the tax system should be incentivising the second guy and penalising the first.

The budget made important steps towards doing that. Firstly DIRT Tax went up to 30% so the first guy is now paying more tax on his cash holdings. Secondly, CGT and CAT also increased to 30% meaning the first guy would pay more tax if he inherited money tomorrow and is also paying more tax on any gains made by his shares and investments. Thirdly, from next year PRSI will be payable on such unearned income, another extra burden on the first guy. Fourthly, the household charge and the future property tax will affect the first guy more because he undoubedly has investment properties. Fifthly, keeping income tax the same will encourage those working in employment to keep spending keeping the second guy's business going and will also encourage him to keep growing his business to earn more for himself.

Taxation isn't a simple game. Taxes have complex effects. Left-of-centre equality of opportunity policies aren't about taxing the rich. They are about taxing the unproductive rich while allowing the productive (both rich and poor) to have the opportunity to get richer.

A Republican Congress in the US (possibly not even a Democrat one) or a Conservative Party government in the UK would not have brought in the above taxation changes in the budget - they are too left-wing for them.

Count Dooku

krd wrote: »

There's also the lesson even the stupid learn early in life. If you suck up to the powerful, they may throw you a scrap from their table.

crumbs from table is for lazy, sometimes it make sense to suck up to the powerful in order to learn how to become powerful yourself
Left wing ideology now become religion for losers, who want to have an excuse for own laziness

johnnyskeleton

krd wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Right wing views are not confined to the rich. There are many people who like the system but don't have two cent to rub together.

Yes, because a lot of people are very stupid. Did you know, 50% of people have below average intelligence - isn't that shocking?

There was a survey done a few years ago on American's who vote for the Republicans. The majority are actually in the bottom 25% for earnings and wealth. But when questioned - the majority of these people put themselves in the top 10% for earnings - after all they're all successful rugged individualists.

There's some hilarious videos on Youtube of Tea partiers. A lot of their most vocal proponents are actually on welfare (that's where they get the time to travel to these events). These idiots have some spurious notions of how they're not really on welfare - that they deserve it because they once served in the army. Or just that they good white all American rugged individuals in spirit.

In fact it is often joked that socialism is the gift from the middle class to the working class, and it's a gift they neither asked for nor want.

Haw haw. Yes, that idea comes from the spurious self-justification for the comforts and privileges of the middle-class. That the middle-class have more stuff than the working class because the working class are less intelligent. Working class people are stupid - that's why you always need middle-class people to manage them.

Many people like the idea that if they work really hard or do somethig clever they could make a lot of money from it, and detest the system that pays a percieved large sum to the person who doesn't work and claims welfare while at the same time discouraging them from making an honest living.

Yeah, but they'll never complain about the cute hoor, who makes piles of money doing a little property flipping with borrowed money.

They'll never say "look at that lazy arse landlord. Who bought all those properties with borrowed money - because the bank manager thought he was a deserving paddy, him being from a good family. Look at him.....He goes around collecting rent like it's his dole money. He doesn't do any work, but feels entitled to sponge off the people who do....he should get a job"

Poor people who are right-wing are so, out of a combination of delusion, stupidity, and their own avarice (with will go unfulfilled). If you actually take the time to talk to someone who is both poor and right-wing, they're heads are full of all kinds of incongruous ideas. The BNP (British national party, not Bank Nationale Paris) are actually a left-wing party, just their members mostly don't know, and the rest of the left-wing congregation wants nothing to do with them. But they are, national socialists.

There's also the lesson even the stupid learn early in life. If you suck up to the powerful, they may throw you a scrap from their table.

When people vocally defend the injustices of the powerful, they're often doing some ass kissing, to show they're someone who can be trusted and deserves a reward.

So your whole argument is that anyone who believes in capitalism but is not rich is stupid? Ok, at least we know where we stand.

Pete_Cavan

krd wrote: »

Yes, because a lot of people are very stupid. Did you know, 50% of people have below average intelligence - isn't that shocking?

That is not shocking at all. By average you probably mean the arithmetic mean, which would be skewed upwards by a small number of people with very high intelligence and/or a small number of people with very low intelligence, your statistic could actually reflect quite well on the level of intelligence within the sample.

krd

Count Dooku wrote: »

crumbs from table is for lazy, sometimes it make sense to suck up to the powerful in order to learn how to become powerful yourself

Oh yeah, licking the bottoms of the powerful isn't the lazy way to get ahead.

It's not hard work. But it is using your intelligence.

Left wing ideology now become religion for losers, who want to have an excuse for own laziness

Yeah, the losers who didn't lick bottoms to get a head like you.

Jesus, I wish I had some money and power, I could have you over here removing my dingle berries with your hungry tongue.

Count Dooku, you're a "winner".....I would so love to be your boss. To see you snivelling and kissing ass. You'd nearly make me feel dirty.

krd

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

That is not shocking at all. By average you probably mean the arithmetic mean, which would be skewed upwards by a small number of people with very high intelligence and/or a small number of people with very low intelligence, your statistic could actually reflect quite well on the level of intelligence within the sample.

You know something. I think you just might be in the bottom 50%.

50% of any sample will be below average. The other 50% will be above average.

It's kind of a fact you can state even before you measure you sample.

krd

removed

Count Dooku

krd wrote: »

Oh yeah, licking the bottoms of the powerful isn't the lazy way to get ahead.

It's not hard work. But it is using your intelligence.

Yeah, the losers who didn't lick bottoms to get a head like you.

Jesus, I wish I had some money and power, I could have you over here removing my dingle berries with your hungry tongue.

Count Dooku, you're a "winner".....I would so love to be your boss. To see you snivelling and kissing ass. You'd nearly make me feel dirty.

"if you so smart how come you ain't rich"(C)
I don't think that you ever will be my boss, because I have nothing to learn from you apart finding excuses why everybody must be blamed in your problems

SupaNova

Peter Schiff had a debate on this only a week ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai1XpMw6-qI

Suryavarman

Here is a reply from George Reismann to Henry Blodget.

Bannasidhe

Count Dooku wrote: »

crumbs from table is for lazy, sometimes it make sense to suck up to the powerful in order to learn how to become powerful yourself
Left wing ideology now become religion for losers, who want to have an excuse for own laziness

Seriously? Is this what passes for debate in this forum now?

To state that, as Count Dooku has here, that all those who hold left-wing views are lazy losers is as incorrect as to state that all those who hold right-wing views are Nazis.

The Clown Man

maninasia wrote: »

Being smart, being rich, being an entrepeneur or being a consumer does not neccessarily have ANYTHING to do with creating jobs.

For instance-

Smart- I'm a Professor of history, I'm a smart businessman who knows how to make a product with less manpower or how to offshore production, I'm smart but not ethical or concerned with other peoples welfare, I'm lazy and I like to watch Jerry Springer every afternoon

Rich- I like to hold on to my money, my money is concentrated not like poorer people who tend to spend most of their income every month, I keep my money overseas, I invest my money overseas, my money was generated from loans

Entrepeneur- Similar to smart above, I don't neccessarily create jobs in my home country or many jobs at all

Consumer- I purchase the product or service, however that may have been manufactured or provided overseas or not involve much manpower or my purchasing of given product or service will have destroyed competitors business, I may purchase overseas products and service thus reducing job creation at home


So people need to get away from these simple definitions. I believe the article above goes some way to identify the consumer as being a powerful creator of demand of goods and services (this is particularly relevant to the US which has a common mantra about 'wealth creators' being behind job creation), but then also we need to see that the consumers income is steady and not debt based , and that the goods and services provided have any net local input regarding job creation.

With respect, you are pointing out exceptions reather than the rule.

Of course there are smart people who will never make money, smart people who will never make jobs, etc. But, in general, jobs will be made by those smart enough to make them, all of whom will be doing it for a personal reward.

You remove the potential for reward and you remove the potential for smart ideas coming to life.

Sure you can have people do smart things without reward. You can brow beat them, force them, coerce them, whatever you like. That's not going to work a fraction as well as actually rewarding them though. Human nature. Any anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly dreaming.

This of course is not the original focus of the thread. The thread is about taxing the rich, and the problem with taxing the rich is that a lot of them will be smart enough to find a way to avoid your new tax. So if you tax too high, you give more incentive for the smart to "get creative" about paying tax. The rich and not so smart will pay no questions asked but they are the minority in that group. The real issue with taxing the top earners too high is that you may find that those who pay the lions portion of income taxes are suddenly not to be found and the tax takes actually fall.

I don't think this is right at all but I do see the facts. Upping tax for the high earners may in fact net you less tax.

Bannasidhe

The Clown Man wrote: »

With respect, you are pointing out exceptions reather than the rule.

Of course there are smart people who will never make money, smart people who will never make jobs, etc. But, in general, jobs will be made by those smart enough to make them, all of whom will be doing it for a personal reward.

You remove the potential for reward and you remove the potential for smart ideas coming to life.

Sure you can have people do smart things without reward. You can brow beat them, force them, coerce them, whatever you like. That's not going to work a fraction as well as actually rewarding them though. Human nature. Any anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly dreaming.

This of course is not the original focus of the thread. The thread is about taxing the rich, and the problem with taxing the rich is that a lot of them will be smart enough to find a way to avoid your new tax. So if you tax too high, you give more incentive for the smart to "get creative" about paying tax. The rich and not so smart will pay no questions asked but they are the minority in that group. The real issue with taxing the top earners too high is that you may find that those who pay the lions portion of income taxes are suddenly not to be found and the tax takes actually fall.

I don't think this is right at all but I do see the facts. Upping tax for the high earners may in fact net you less tax.

Does it not depend on how you define reward?
While I am not a professor of History I do have a Ph.D in History - I did not do this for money but because I love what I do. I genuinely love teaching my subject and encouraging people to really think about what they are reading. When they do this -even if we and up in a heated debate - that is my reward.

We consider the accumulation of stuff (money, cars, en-suite bathrooms) as a measure of how successful people are in this country - yet it was this charge ahead for material possessions that got us into this mess in the first place.

IMHO - the really smart people are the ones doing what they love to do because they love to do it - not for the financial rewards, rather then the ones who are trudging the treadmill of a job they hate, a job from which they derive no satisfaction, so they can buy yet more stuff they don't need.

Two examples:
My brother is very wealthy. Lives in a big chalet in Switzerland. Semi-retired at age 52. But his wife left him because he was never at home - there was always another deal to finalise - his daughters are strangers to him who treat him like an ATM. He lives alone, surrounded by expensive stuff getting ready for his first heart attack.
A friend is a geologist. Earns good money, generous to her friends, but she saved enough to buy some land where she is renovating an old cottage with an eye to making it a zero carbon footprint house - doing most of the work herself aided by all those friends she helped over the years. Now, personally I would prefer not to live up a mountain in Clare - but she (same age as my brother) is as happy as a pig in ****e.

I know which one I think is smart.

The Clown Man

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Does it not depend on how you define reward?
While I am not a professor of History I do have a Ph.D in History - I did not do this for money but because I love what I do. I genuinely love teaching my subject and encouraging people to really think about what they are reading. When they do this -even if we and up in a heated debate - that is my reward.

We consider the accumulation of stuff (money, cars, en-suite bathrooms) as a measure of how successful people are in this country - yet it was this charge ahead for material possessions that got us into this mess in the first place.

IMHO - the really smart people are the ones doing what they love to do because they love to do it - not for the financial rewards, rather then the ones who are trudging the treadmill of a job they hate, a job from which they derive no satisfaction, so they can buy yet more stuff they don't need.

Two examples:
My brother is very wealthy. Lives in a big chalet in Switzerland. Semi-retired at age 52. But his wife left him because he was never at home - there was always another deal to finalise - his daughters are strangers to him who treat him like an ATM. He lives alone, surrounded by expensive stuff getting ready for his first heart attack.
A friend is a geologist. Earns good money, generous to her friends, but she saved enough to buy some land where she is renovating an old cottage with an eye to making it a zero carbon footprint house - doing most of the work herself aided by all those friends she helped over the years. Now, personally I would prefer not to live up a mountain in Clare - but she (same age as my brother) is as happy as a pig in ****e.

I know which one I think is smart.

Ok, but staying on topic, which one did the most recruiting?

You are obviously all smart, each with their own priorities which is another thing entirely, but I don't see how this refutes my statement that smart people create jobs. If anything you've confirmed it ...

Bannasidhe

The Clown Man wrote: »

Ok, but staying on topic, which one did the most recruiting?

You are obviously all smart, each with their own priorities which is another thing entirely, but I don't see how this refutes my statement that smart people create jobs. If anything you've confirmed it ...

Nope - brother bought a factory (borrowed the money) which someone else had set up. He then rationalised production by reducing the staff numbers. When cheap Chinese imports began to flood the European market there were two European manufacturers left - bother in Milan and a factory in England. He bought the factory in England, asset stripped it and made the staff redundant. His only goal is profit - now that he can no longer compete with the Chinese - he is selling up. He created no jobs - he did take a lot of people's jobs away.

Geologist works in mining exploration for metals mainly - including silver and iron- covering the north west of Ireland on her own- her work creates jobs. On her land she is helping local inventors try out new designs for solar panels, geo-thermal heating, wind turbines and is also helping local beekeepers set up an organic honey/pollen production company.

Chucky the tree

So your example is two people who got paid good money but decided themselves how they would spend it?

nesf

Count Dooku wrote: »

Left wing ideology now become religion for losers, who want to have an excuse for own laziness

Less of the sweeping generalisations please.

Bannasidhe

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So your example is two people who got paid good money but decided themselves how they would spend it?

No - its quite simple.
One, seen as an entrepreneur and job creator as he is an industrialist, is considered one of those we need to protect from high taxes. Yet, he uses every loophole available to ensure he pays minimum tax (officially not resident in Ireland so he pays none - yet I meet him in my mother's house a few times a month). His only goal is making money. He has created zero jobs.

The other pays top rate of tax, invests in local inventors/producers in terms of both time and money, and is actually happy.

It really is quite simple - the equation was made smart = rich.
I challenge that by saying smart = happy with your life.
In Ireland we seem to believe rich (in material goods) = happy.

Chucky the tree

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No - its quite simple.
One, seen as an entrepreneur and job creator as he is an industrialist, is considered one of those we need to protect from high taxes. Yet, he uses every loophole available to ensure he pays minimum tax (officially not resident in Ireland so he pays none - yet I meet him in my mother's house a few times a month). His only goal is making money. He has created zero jobs.

The other pays top rate of tax, invests in local inventors/producers in terms of both time and money, and is actually happy.

It really is quite simple - the equation was made smart = rich.
I challenge that by saying smart = happy with your life.
In Ireland we seem to believe rich (in material goods) = happy.

But you just said he lives in Switzerland? I'm not really concerned about what Swizterlands tax system is. Also you can't just use one example(your brother) as a reason the system needs to be changed. He said you remove the potential for reward is a bad thing and you haven't really shown how is he wrong. People have different ideas how what constitutes a good reward but nearly everyone will agrre getting paid well is the best.

The Clown Man

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No - its quite simple.
One, seen as an entrepreneur and job creator as he is an industrialist, is considered one of those we need to protect from high taxes. Yet, he uses every loophole available to ensure he pays minimum tax (officially not resident in Ireland so he pays none - yet I meet him in my mother's house a few times a month). His only goal is making money. He has created zero jobs.

The other pays top rate of tax, invests in local inventors/producers in terms of both time and money, and is actually happy.

It really is quite simple - the equation was made smart = rich.
I challenge that by saying smart = happy with your life.
In Ireland we seem to believe rich (in material goods) = happy.

I'm not sure anyone said smart = rich. I said jobs come from smart people with good ideas.

You sister sounds very smart and great to hear she is creating jobs and paying taxes to boot!

The argument either way is not money = happiness or smart = jobs, it's that jobs come from smart people. A country needs to frame an economy so that people like your sister can be rewarded for boosting the economy, as the reality is that they can find somewhere else to be rewarded if they can't here.

It is a shame about your brother. That's the kind of thing that everyone would glady see gone, as long as it doesn't effect folks like your sister in any way. And by the sounds of things, raising taxes is obviously not the answer.

krd

krd wrote: »

Aw this is the right-wingers trick. There's is no alternative ... unfettered wealth, power and greed, or the only other alternative is Stalinism.

It's a nonsense argument. "If you don't let the rich do whatever they want to do. They government will take your money and give it to all the lazy people people. ". There were pay differentials in the Soviet Union to incentivise people to work harder. Doctors were paid far more than street cleaners. A very successful piece of anti-soviet propaganda was to spread the myth, that in the Soviet Union, everyone was paid the same. That the hard workers were robbed to pay the lazy.

An equally successful piece of propaganda and myth we have here, is if you work harder, you'll will receive more rewards. Because our system is nothing as unfair as the Soviet system.

In many businesses in Ireland lazy people are paid as much as hard working people. Lazy people are promoted, not for their hard work, but for working the politics. If they were in the Soviet Union, they'd be faithful party members.

And let's talk about "smartness" and entrepreneurship. Seanie Quinn was once one of the richest men in Ireland. Did he become rich from being smart? He didn't. He had a rich daddy. Who was lucky enough to have inherited a farm with a quarry. Luck. Luck. Luck.

Did he lose all his money from being "smart".

Seanie Quinn, was no genius. He didn't event any innovative product or service. He just had access to capital that others didn't. His capital was successful. But he was the weakest link. And everyone else was always "free" to compete with him. But it would be a bit like trying to beat someone in a marathon, where they have a motorcycle, and all you have is your feet.

The myth that we have here, the rich are rich because they worked hard and they're clever. And the poor are poor because they're stupid and a lazy. There may be a germ of truth to that - but it is nowhere near the whole truth or even half of it.



The holy gospel of capitalism. Absolutist, like any true faith - but at the same time always a little vague. like God, capitalism moves in mysterious ways. Like an invisible hand.

The believers in capitalism, like the believers in any religion, credit it with the creation of the world. Everything from the discovery of the laws of nature, to the sun rising in the morning.

And like any god. People make up their own personal version of their god. For many people who say they believe in Capital, they actually believe in Greed. Greedyism.




We kind of have communism as it is. Communism for the rich, brutal free enterprise for everyone else.

The Soviet system was a form of centrally planned capitalism. And that's just what we have here, right now. And with many of the same economic theories and arguments.

What's the difference between central planning originating from the offices of the IMF, and central planning from some Soviet style politburo. It's the same idea. Just for the benefit of different people. Instead of state employed economic planners, we have state subsidised bankers.

But the point you're really making is just the recurrent right-wing cheap trick of saying "rule by the rich, for the rich" might have it's failings, but the only other alternative is the gulags of Soviet Russia.

It's a lie. It's a trick to shut down the discourse.



I'm sorry for being discontent. I was a fool during the boom. I wasn't flipping property or selling bog fields for millions.

I am pissed off. I am pissed off at what I see as ideology that caused our current problems, and ideology that is set to make those problems worse.



Thanks.

Best post i've ever read on boards..

thebman

The Clown Man wrote: »

I'm not sure anyone said smart = rich. I said jobs come from smart people with good ideas.

You sister sounds very smart and great to hear she is creating jobs and paying taxes to boot!

The argument either way is not money = happiness or smart = jobs, it's that jobs come from smart people. A country needs to frame an economy so that people like your sister can be rewarded for boosting the economy, as the reality is that they can find somewhere else to be rewarded if they can't here.

It is a shame about your brother. That's the kind of thing that everyone would glady see gone, as long as it doesn't effect folks like your sister in any way. And by the sounds of things, raising taxes is obviously not the answer.

I think the simpsons put it best. With your book smarts and my ability to exploit people with books smarts...

Most smart people are in college doing research paid for by big companies and earning a reasonable amount for their work.

Few have the drive it takes to go on and create a successful business. Few pay enough attention to the challenge of the business side due to various reasons such as lack of interest or not having the time to pay to that side over building the idea.

When I was younger, they used to say the people that start businesses usually have dropped out of secondary school or never went to college.

SupaNova

krd wrote:

Poor people who are right-wing are so, out of a combination of delusion, stupidity, and their own avarice (with will go unfulfilled).

If there is to be less of the sweeping generalizations, let it apply to everybody in the thread, maybe it was missed in the midst of the long winded rants.

I can be considered in the bottom 20% of income(don't know if this can be considered poor) with regard to Ireland and would be considered right wing. If krd stops ranting, I'd love if he/she can tell me why he/she thinks i am delusional for wanting a system of private property and voluntary exchange, which despite the attempt to characterize it as a religion is just an economic system, Capitalism.