The Anti-Austerity Crowd

Bubbaclaus

The people that protest against austerity. How would they expect Ireland to finance a country crippling government deficit?


I don't get it. Could somebody explain? I've never heard of an alternative solution (that actually makes sense and would work better).

beardy_murphy

the " rich " will - should pay

thats where their arguement starts and ends , their isnt anything more to it

Lingua Franca

Strongly clamping down on tax evasion, and end to using taxpayers money to bail out the kind of banks that aren't open to the public, raising corporate taxes, "Robin Hood" taxes on large bank transactions. That kind of thing.

oceanman

that would be fine except the rich just seem to get richer!

Bubbaclaus

oceanman wrote: »

that would be fine except the rich just seem to get richer!

And good for them.

We are all trying to get richer.

donegal__road

..

hatrickpatrick

Cutting out waste would be a huge part of it. You know, like the €86m consultancy and €200k salaries in Irish water for instance. :rolleyes:

KyussBishop

It's not what the anti-austerity crowd advocates (it's barely known at all - and is hard to explain, which doesn't help), but you can use this to fund government deficits - it's like/analogous-to (but not quite the same as) public debt, except no interest payments, and because you can roll it over indefinitely, effectively you can pay it back when you like - it has limits though.

Speaking about it in analogies always confuses the hell out of people - it's the only way to make it easier to understand though.

Gael23

They are devoid of reality if you ask me.
I should start by saying I'm a member of FG. But taxing the rich will not in any solve our problems.
I would support an element of higher taxes for the wealthiest members of society but not as the likes of the Anti Austerity Alliance call for

KyussBishop

What the anti-austerity crowd - and everyone really - should be fighting against now, is Property Bubble 2.0, as this is going to land us with another wave of mountainous public/private debt eventually, while enriching well connected folk in government/banking/finance/construction:
http://brianmlucey.wordpress.com/2014/05/17/are-the-irish-government-nuts-their-housing-policy-is/

It will be another upward-transfer of wealth, and a dumping of debt onto the rest of us.

Grayson

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The people that protest against austerity. How would they expect Ireland to finance a country crippling government deficit?


I don't get it. Could somebody explain? I've never heard of an alternative solution (that actually makes sense and would work better).

I'm about as socialist as they come and i agree with Austerity. Well, to an extent.
You're right, we had a huge drop in revenue and we had an increase in expenditure. We had to make cutbacks and we need to increase taxes. I think that no one group should be overly hit. And I think we do need to be careful with where we make cutbacks so as to minimise the pain.

there are people who are pro austerity who want to gut the public service and social security. they're idiots. A balanced reasoned approach is what is needed.

pajor

ryanf1 wrote: »

They are devoid of reality if you ask me.
I should start by saying I'm a member of FG. But taxing the rich will not in any solve our problems.
I would support an element of higher taxes for the wealthiest members of society but not as the likes of the Anti Austerity Alliance call for

The concept is very appealing; but I'm sure those at "the top" would just get the accountant to arrange some nice and legal tax avoidance to get around it. Maybe even reducing taxation revenues then.

Joshua J

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

And good for them.

We are all trying to get richer.

It's extremely myopic to think that because you are money hungry and greedy that everybody is. I would in fact take less if it meant a fairer society.

The fact that you position austerity as a positive says it all really.

hfallada

I had a socialist LE candidate at my door this week and I asked him about what was his taxation beliefs. He said a more equaitable tax system and I asked him what he meant by that. He tried to tell me the bottom 20% of society pay more tax than the top 10% of society. He lost it when I told him our tax system is the second most progressive in the world and 50% of workers pay no tax. He also told me class doesnt have to exist(every socialists believe class will always exist and its beneficial to society) and a doctor shouldnt earn more than anyone else in society

Most of these anti-austerity crowd are full on nut jobs, who have no idea how a society function. They believe rich should pay more, but dont realise they pretty much pay all the taxes in society and get very little in return

hatrickpatrick

ryanf1 wrote: »

They are devoid of reality if you ask me.
I should start by saying I'm a member of FG. But taxing the rich will not in any solve our problems.

Of course it won't, but it'll make the pill far less bitter for ordinary people to swallow. It won't seem so monstrously unfair as it does now.

Bubbaclaus

Joshua J wrote: »

It's extremely myopic to think that because you are money hungry and greedy that everybody is. I would in fact take less if it meant a fairer society.

The fact that you position austerity as a positive says it all really.

Ok then. Instead of insults, why don't you offer your solution to the situation.

Austerity was needed.

Shrinking the government down to a size you might understand... If a household is taking in €40k a year and spending €60k a year what does it need to start doing? Either loan money to fund the deficit year on year (crippling future generations with mass amounts of debt) or cut back on spending and find a way to increase income (aka austerity).

KyussBishop

Taxing the rich more creates a downward-transfer of wealth, which is certainly a good thing, but it misses the big picture that we first have to stop the much more important upward-transfers of wealth, going to the rich.

Bubbaclaus

hfallada wrote: »

He lost it when I told him our tax system is the second most progressive in the world and 50% of workers pay no tax.

I love bringing this up to the "TAX THE RICH MORE!!!" brigade.


Stops them right in their tracks.

darkpagandeath

Yeah Anti-austerity.... IMF has already said and admitted it was the wrong thing to do several times now. That is why Europe is still lagging behind America/world at large. Germany got it's way Germany has been the only one to benefit. Take a look around you German companies here have done Massively well since full recession hit.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I love bringing this up to the "TAX THE RICH MORE!!!" brigade.


Stops them right in their tracks.

Yeah I mean why Tax the top 1% that have done massively well out of the bust. Not as if they have increased there wealth buy 20%.

beardy_murphy

ireland by most gauges is not a particulary " unequal " country , the left often call for a more scandanavian approach which would be fine but those earning less than 30 k per year in sweden pay twice as much tax as irish people earning the same amount , it appears that the left here dont want low( er ) earners to pay for anything

Joshua J

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Ok then. Instead of insults, why don't you offer your solution to the situation.

Austerity was needed.

Shrinking the government down to a size you might understand... If a household is taking in €40k a year and spending €60k a year what does it need to start doing? Either loan money to fund the deficit year on year (crippling future generations with mass amounts of debt) or cut back on spending and find a way to increase income (aka austerity).

You've done it again. You've pronounced that you understand completely how government works and you have to simplify it for me. The fact you can't see through gov propanganda and believe austerity was needed means you would not consider other options. Would be a waste of my time. To learn something you have to first accept you don't know it all.

The Backwards Man

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I love bringing this up to the "TAX THE RICH MORE!!!" brigade.


Stops them right in their tracks.

Unfortunately, people lost the ability to think for themselves in the last 15-20 years, and a more likely to believe a catchy soundbite from a populist loonytune than they are the truth.

Bubbaclaus

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yeah Anti-austerity.... IMF has already said and admitted it was the wrong thing to do several times now.

No they didn't. They said they had underestimated the effects of it on the economy and that other actions should have been taken as well as austerity, not instead of it.

darkpagandeath

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

No they didn't. They said they had underestimated the effects of it on the economy and that other actions should have been taken as well as austerity, not instead of it.

http://www.thejournal.ie/austerity-only-policy-for-ireland-was-a-mistake-admits-former-imf-chief-866012-Apr2013/

Austerity-only policy for Ireland was a mistake, admits former IMF chief

Ashoka Mody said there were three options available to the EU and IMF when arriving in Ireland – burn bondholders, offer easy terms and conditions for loans, or pursue austerity measures – and the Troika had opted for the latter option.

Bubbaclaus

Joshua J wrote: »

You've done it again. You've pronounced that you understand completely how government works and you have to simplify it for me. The fact you can't see through gov propanganda and believe austerity was needed means you would not consider other options. Would be a waste of my time. To learn something you have to first accept you don't know it all.

I'll ask again. Please post your workable alternatives to austerity.

Bubbaclaus

darkpagandeath wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/austerity-only-policy-for-ireland-was-a-mistake-admits-former-imf-chief-866012-Apr2013/

Austerity-only policy for Ireland was a mistake, admits former IMF chief

"THE FORMER HEAD of the IMF mission to Ireland has admitted that the austerity-only policy chosen for the handling of Ireland’s EU-IMF bailout was a mistake."

The article you posted agrees with me.

An interesting topic. I too have wondered where they were coming from. I've made it my business to speak to some and while most are part of what I would term "Pay for nothing, want everything free" brigade, one I spoke to was really earnest about the people who have nothing and their children are hungry, can't afford esb, etc. He says that there families like that in his part of Dublin. He's a lovely lad who would give you the shirt off his back. He says a lot of their problems comes from their background. Most would lack the necessary social skills needed to fend for themselves. There are lots of broken families. Mothers rely on convenience foods because they are unable to cook. Simple things like that can have a huge affect on finances. Other problems are the lack of knowledge as to how to maintain a house. I laughed out loud when he said that, but he says they wouldn't have seen housework done on a regular basis, so don't see the need for it. Things like hoovering and washing floors. Cleaning windows. Doing the laundry. Often their only means of coping is to remove themselves mentally from the situation, by using drink and/or drugs.

ThisRegard

beardy_murphy wrote: »

the " rich " will - should pay

thats where their arguement starts and ends , their isnt anything more to it

Money trees, don't forget the money trees.

KyussBishop

People should put off focusing on downward-distribution of wealth (i.e. 'tax the rich'), and focus instead on stopping the bigger problem of upward redistribution of wealth.

Are people even aware of what issues cause upward redistribution of wealth? (there are many I could mention, but no point just listing them out, as it'll just get skipped over - worth making people actually think about it)

Grayson

hfallada wrote: »

Most of these anti-austerity crowd are full on nut jobs, who have no idea how a society function. They believe rich should pay more, but dont realise they pretty much pay all the taxes in society and get very little in return

two questions

1) define rich.
2) where does it say that they pay more than everyone else combined?

If you define rich as the top 90% I'd agree with you. If you define them as the top 10%, well... I want to see those stats.

I have no problem with taxing the rich more. If they brought in a third tax bracket of say 50% on everything over 200k I'd be ok with it. It's not going to turn anyone into a pauper or change their lifestyle. I would however want to know how much revenue would be generated by it.

Bongalongherb

Grayson wrote: »

I'm about as socialist as they come and i agree with Austerity. Well, to an extent.
You're right, we had a huge drop in revenue and we had an increase in expenditure. We had to make cutbacks and we need to increase taxes. I think that no one group should be overly hit. And I think we do need to be careful with where we make cutbacks so as to minimise the pain.

there are people who are pro austerity who want to gut the public service and social security. they're idiots. A balanced reasoned approach is what is needed.

And i agree with Austerity to an extent

?. Well, every tax-paying citizen in Ireland arsed it up badly for themselves, as they are the ones that bailed out un-guarrenteed bondholders by force from government and allowed it without a protest.

The Irish taxpayer injected itself into this austerity wilfully by not stopping the government in forwarding your monies to gamblers that lost. Cutbacks and all this sh!t will multiply when a persons head is stuck up it's anus yearly. If you lost a bet in paddy power, do you think you would get your money back ? of course not. But all Irish taxpayers just laid back and said nothing and allowed this corrupt government to extract your money to pay criminals off. It was never our debt.

Keep paying if you like, it's your money, so you can burn it if you like.

D1stant

Grayson wrote: »

I'm about as socialist as they come and i agree with Austerity. Well, to an extent.
You're right, we had a huge drop in revenue and we had an increase in expenditure. We had to make cutbacks and we need to increase taxes. I think that no one group should be overly hit. And I think we do need to be careful with where we make cutbacks so as to minimise the pain.

there are people who are pro austerity who want to gut the public service and social security. they're idiots. A balanced reasoned approach is what is needed.

Agree. Its ironic that the AA people are spending a significant amount of money on trying to get councilors elected. If you want to save on unnecessary expense - start with the councils.

County Councils are ineffective, bloated, powerless drains on public finances

hatrickpatrick

Fundamental redesign of the currency and monetary system is the only way to really fix the economy.
It's a simple fact that the current system acts as a suppressant to potential rather than a facilitator of it. There are plenty of things it's physically possible for us to so, but we "can't" because our monetary system isn't fit for purpose.

The idea of scarcity makes no sense when we are capable of producing more than enough. The whole concept of people starving in Europe at the same time as massive "surpluses" are thrown away is just fudamentally ridiculous - it genuinely surprises me that more people don't talk about these fundamentals.

KyussBishop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fundamental redesign of the currency and monetary system is the only way to really fix the economy.
It's a simple fact that the current system acts as a suppressant to potential rather than a facilitator of it. There are plenty of things it's physically possible for us to so, but we "can't" because our monetary system isn't fit for purpose.

The idea of scarcity makes no sense when we are capable of producing more than enough. The whole concept of people starving in Europe at the same time as massive "surpluses" are thrown away is just fudamentally ridiculous - it genuinely surprises me that more people don't talk about these fundamentals.

"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled" ~ John Kenneth Galbraith.

You can even show the Bank of England talking about this, yet the topic generates so much cognitive dissonance, that people will say the Bank of England is wrong rather than change their beliefs.

mickydoomsux

Bongalongherb wrote: »

?. Well, every tax-paying citizen in Ireland arsed it up badly for themselves, as they are the ones that bailed out un-guarrenteed bondholders by force from government and allowed it without a protest.

The Irish taxpayer injected itself into this austerity wilfully by not stopping the government in forwarding your monies to gamblers that lost. Cutbacks and all this sh!t will multiply when a persons head is stuck up it's anus yearly. If you lost a bet in paddy power, do you think you would get your money back ? of course not. But all Irish taxpayers just laid back and said nothing and allowed this corrupt government to extract your money to pay criminals off. It was never our debt.

Keep paying if you like, it's your money, so you can burn it if you like.

This kind of frothing-at-the-mouth nonsense is why anti-austerity heads are laughable.

Your point is almost entirely fact-free.

Well done. You managed to contribute nothing and parrot what the rest of your ilk are constantly harping on about.

You forgot to use the phrase "bend over and take it" and you didn't call everyone "sheep" though.

darkpagandeath

mickydoomsux wrote: »

This kind of frothing-at-the-mouth nonsense is why anti-austerity heads are laughable.

Your point is almost entirely fact-free.

Well done. You managed to contribute nothing and parrot what the rest of your ilk are constantly harping on about.

You forgot to use the phrase "bend over and take it" and you didn't call everyone "sheep" though.

One of the options to the IMF when they came here was to Burn the unsecured bondholders. They chose Austerity.

mickydoomsux

darkpagandeath wrote: »

One of the options to the IMF when they came here was to Burn the unsecured bondholders. They chose Austerity.

Yes, because further tanking investor confidence in Ireland was exactly what was needed at the time.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

What the anti-austerity crowd - and everyone really - should be fighting against now, is Property Bubble 2.0, as this is going to land us with another wave of mountainous public/private debt eventually, while enriching well connected folk in government/banking/finance/construction:
http://brianmlucey.wordpress.com/2014/05/17/are-the-irish-government-nuts-their-housing-policy-is/

It will be another upward-transfer of wealth, and a dumping of debt onto the rest of us.

So what you're saying is invest in property.

darkpagandeath

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Yes, because further tanking investor confidence in Ireland was exactly what was needed at the time.

Do you know what Unsecured means ?

mickydoomsux

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Do you know what Unsecured means ?

Yes.

The fact that the bonds themselves are unsecured doesn't mean that burning the holders will have any less of a negative impact on investor confidence.

Padraig Mor

Bongalongherb wrote: »

?. Well, every tax-paying citizen in Ireland arsed it up badly for themselves, as they are the ones that bailed out un-guarrenteed bondholders by force from government and allowed it without a protest.

The Irish taxpayer injected itself into this austerity wilfully by not stopping the government in forwarding your monies to gamblers that lost. Cutbacks and all this sh!t will multiply when a persons head is stuck up it's anus yearly. If you lost a bet in paddy power, do you think you would get your money back ? of course not. But all Irish taxpayers just laid back and said nothing and allowed this corrupt government to extract your money to pay criminals off. It was never our debt.

Keep paying if you like, it's your money, so you can burn it if you like.

Usual loony left ignorance. Paying for the banks, bondholders etc only accounts for a small proportion of our current deficit, national debt and supposed austerity. The vast majority of money goes to cover 'normal' government spending.

Bongalongherb

mickydoomsux wrote: »

This kind of frothing-at-the-mouth nonsense is why anti-austerity heads are laughable.

Your point is almost entirely fact-free.

Well done. You managed to contribute nothing and parrot what the rest of your ilk are constantly harping on about.

You forgot to use the phrase "bend over and take it" and you didn't call everyone "sheep" though.

I didn't realise my comment hurt you so deeply. My comment is the truth as you know, but you are afraid to acknowledge this fact because you are a taxpayer like me and we basically gave our monopoly away to gamblers and we were screwed badly. Do not attack me for my comment, attack yourself as you and I and everyone else here paid gamblers debts off that had absolutely nothing to do with us.

darkpagandeath

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Usual loony left ignorance. Paying for the banks, bondholders etc only accounts for a small proportion of our current deficit, national debt and supposed austerity. The vast majority of money goes to cover 'normal' government spending.

Have you a link ? How much of the 12 bn overspend is interest payments for the bail out

darkpagandeath

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Yes.

The fact that the bonds themselves are unsecured doesn't mean that burning the holders will have any less of a negative impact on investor confidence.

He said while many people presumed sovereign defaults were “extremely costly”, this had historically not been the case.

From the IMF

mickydoomsux

darkpagandeath wrote: »

From the IMF

That's nice dear but my statement and your quote don't seem to have anything to do with each other.

By all means, continue to flail wildly and you may very well hit on a relevant point.

keith16

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The people that protest against austerity. How would they expect Ireland to finance a country crippling government deficit?


I don't get it. Could somebody explain? I've never heard of an alternative solution (that actually makes sense and would work better).

There are numerous alternatives to austerity. The cuts this country has gone through have been savage and in all the wrong areas.

No country has ever taxed its way out of a recession. The government can choose to legislate to introduce real reform and cut out all the bloated inefficiencies in public service bodies. They choose not to do that.


They are not going to do this by cutting the pay of front line staff.

It's very frustrating that people just accept austerity in this country without question. There will be no tax breaks in this years budget either. They will save that for next year with a general election on the horizon.

These are not the policies of good governance. They are the policies of a self-serving body who would rather take medical cards off sick children than even consider looking at the middle management of the HSE.

But yeah, anyone who is anti-austerity is part of a "crowd" or "shower". Here's a question for those pro-austerity. Why does Ireland continue to foster such a crippling budget deficit? In a county of around 4 million people?

darkpagandeath

mickydoomsux wrote: »

That's nice dear but my statement and your quote don't seem to have anything to do with each other.

By all means, continue to flail wildly and you may very well hit on a relevant point.

I see so you have more experience than the ex head of the IMF ?

mickydoomsux

keith16 wrote: »

Why does Ireland continue to foster such a crippling budget deficit?

Because the country costs more to run than we are taking in.

That's why we need austerity.

mickydoomsux

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I see so you have more experience than the ex head of the IMF ?

I never claimed that but your quotes and the article linked have nothing to do with the point we are arguing.

You're trying to have a "GOTCHA!" moment with the wrong information.

Bruthal

hfallada wrote: »

I had a socialist LE candidate at my door this week and I asked him about what was his taxation beliefs. He said a more equaitable tax system and I asked him what he meant by that. He tried to tell me the bottom 20% of society pay more tax than the top 10% of society. He lost it when I told him our tax system is the second most progressive in the world and 50% of workers pay no tax. He also told me class doesnt have to exist(every socialists believe class will always exist and its beneficial to society) and a doctor shouldnt earn more than anyone else in society

Most of these anti-austerity crowd are full on nut jobs, who have no idea how a society function. They believe rich should pay more, but dont realise they pretty much pay all the taxes in society and get very little in return

They pay no tax? I bet they do.

keith16

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Because the country costs more to run than we are taking in.

That's why we need austerity.

So austerity is the only solution in your view?

Forgetting austerity for a moment, are you happy that it costs so much to run?