Ordinary People

Plates

If this has been covered before (Mods) please feel free to delete.

In their Dail speeches today both Pearse Doherty and Paul Murphy referred to "Ordinary People". Does anyone have any insight into the parameters they use to define "Ordinary People"?

Does that term imply that those who do not fit the definition are, by default, "Extraordinary People"?

crannglas

Plates wrote: »

If this has been covered before (Mods) please feel free to delete.

In their Dail speeches today both Pearse Doherty and Paul Murphy referred to "Ordinary People". Does anyone have any insight into the parameters they use to define "Ordinary People"?

Does that term imply that those who do not fit the definition are, by default, "Extraordinary People"?

I feel a song coming on.

Birneybau

Joe and Josephine Murphy. Pair of cnuts.

bitemeluis

I'm an Ordinary man, nothin special nothin grand...

snubbleste

bitemeluis wrote: »

I'm an Ordinary man, nothin special nothin grand...

I put it to you that you are otherwise

stoneill

Ordinary people are people who eat their dinner in the middle of the day.

El Weirdo

The man on the Clapham omnibus.

FloatingVoter

People who Robert Redford has made a movie about.

Ordinary people are those persons who are ritually screwed by government and industry every day.

bitemeluis

snubbleste wrote: »

I put it to you that you are otherwise

But I've had to work for everything I own..

DamagedTrax

the non-lizard folk?

who the fug

FloatingVoter wrote: »

People who Robert Redford has made a movie about.

Great I be special, or to the right of my uncle G Khan

Plates

On another note, does anyone else think that Paul Murphy has one of the most slappable faces in politics?

who the fug

bitemeluis wrote: »

But I've had to work for everything I own..

Roide on,

Stheno

Deleted User wrote: »

Ordinary people are those persons who are ritually screwed by government and industry every day.

No that would be the 7% of our workers who earn more than 100k per year yet contribute 24% of the overall tax take.

Ordinary people would probably be the 76% on under 50k who contribute less than what those seven percent do.

DamagedTrax

Stheno wrote: »

No that would be the 7% of our workers who earn more than 100k per year yet contribute 24% of the overall tax take.

Ordinary people would probably be the 76% on under 50k who contribute less than what those seven percent do.

before you consider those statistics, you should probably take a look at the incentives offered to the 7% in replacement for taxes paid.

Plates

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ordinary people are those persons who are ritually screwed by government and industry every day.

What's your definition of "industry"?

Plates

DamagedTrax wrote: »

before you consider those statistics, you should probably take a look at the incentives offered to the 7% in replacement for taxes paid.

Such as?

DamagedTrax

Plates wrote: »

Such as?

well in one particular case someone was adjudged (by our own high courts) to "100%" have bribed the previous Fine Gael government into handing him an important state asset (which he then made a shambles of). the same man is now working a contract on another important state asset.

there's many more cases like this, money buys a ton of forgiveness with certain people.

Plates

DamagedTrax wrote: »

well in one particular case someone was adjudged (by our own high courts) to "100%" have bribed the previous Fine Gael government into handing him an important state asset (which he then made a shambles of). the same man is now working a contract on another important state asset.

there's many more cases like this, money buys a ton of forgiveness with certain people.

So by your logic the 7% all earn the same vast sums as the person you're referring to?

Stheno

DamagedTrax wrote: »

well in one particular case someone was adjudged (by our own high courts) to "100%" have bribed the previous Fine Gael government into handing him an important state asset (which he then made a shambles of). the same man is now working a contract on another important state asset.

there's many more cases like this, money buys a ton of forgiveness with certain people.

The people I referenced are PAYE workers, and classed as paying PAYE and USC

Yes they can take advantage of tax breaks, but for 7% of the tax paying public to contribute 24% is a massive disparity, when another 76% pay less than that in total

DamagedTrax

Plates wrote: »

So by your logic the 7% all earn the same vast sums as the person you're referring to?

thats quite a jump :eek:

i was giving you one example. do you really need me to start realing off examples of wealthy folk that have gotten away with murder because they contribute a lot more to the coffers than others?

and while i dont literally mean murder, there have been cases...

Stheno

DamagedTrax wrote: »

thats quite a jump :eek:

i was giving you one example. do you really need me to start realing off examples of wealthy folk that have gotten away with murder because they contribute a lot more to the coffers than others?

and while i dont literally mean murder, there have been cases...

Do you honestly think someone on 100k and paying up to 55% marginal tax rate is wealthy?

There is the 1% on over 200k

DamagedTrax

Stheno wrote: »

The people I referenced are PAYE workers, and classed as paying PAYE and USC

Yes they can take advantage of tax breaks, but for 7% of the tax paying public to contribute 24% is a massive disparity, when another 76% pay less than that in total

that depends on whether you look at it from a socialist or capitalist POV.

personally i think lessening the social divide is more important than analysing tax brackets to make sure everything is 'fair'. no matter what way you look at it, someone on 80,000 a year doesnt have the worry of someone recently made unemployed.

if you believe in that kind of taxation system then obviously your opinion will differ to mine.

DamagedTrax

Stheno wrote: »

Do you honestly think someone on 100k and paying up to 55% marginal tax rate is wealthy?

i dont. the brackets need serious widening. but its not someone coming home with 45000 that im talking about.

pharmaton

I don't think I even qualify as 'people'.

Stheno

DamagedTrax wrote: »

that depends on whether you look at it from a socialist or capitalist POV.

personally i think lessening the social divide is more important than analysing tax brackets to make sure everything is 'fair'. no matter what way you look at it, someone on 80,000 a year doesnt have the worry of someone recently made unemployed.

if you believe in that kind of taxation system then obviously your opinion will differ to mine.

Well put it this way, if I'm on 30k a year at the moment, and get a 1k pay rise, then I get about 750e back into my hand.

If I'm on 80k I get 480 back into my hand.

And god forbid, if I'm self employed and on more than 100k, I get 450 back into my hand.

If that's not a fair system which rewards lower earners, I don't know what is.

It's called a progressive tax system.

Plates

Stheno wrote: »

Well put it this way, if I'm on 30k a year at the moment, and get a 1k pay rise, then I get about 750e back into my hand.

If I'm on 80k I get 480 back into my hand.

And god forbid, if I'm self employed and on more than 100k, I get 450 back into my hand.

If that's not a fair system which rewards lower earners, I don't know what is.

It's called a progressive tax system.

You can't be quoting sensible figures like that willy nilly. Sure if that was true then what would Sinn Fein and The AAA be up on their high horses about?

Stheno

Plates wrote: »

You can't be quoting sensible figures like that willy nilly. Sure if that was true then what would Sinn Fein and The AAA be up on their high horses about?

They know the higher earners have too much sense to support them :pac:

And the 76% are their core vote?

Davarus Walrus

John Q. Taxpayer. Who wouldn't dream of voting for the loony left or the shinners. The type of lad who earns a decent wedge, put the head down, and now wants a small bit back. Will probably give FG the vote in the next General Election.

porsche959

Plates wrote: »

In their Dail speeches today both Pearse Doherty and Paul Murphy referred to "Ordinary People". Does anyone have any insight into the parameters they use to define "Ordinary People"?

Because "de salt of the earth wurking class" is probably too cliched and patronising these days.

Turtyturd

Are they the same as 'normal people'?

Tail Docker

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

John Q. Taxpayer. Who wouldn't dream of voting for the loony left or the shinners. The type of lad who earns a decent wedge, put the head down, and now wants a small bit back. Will probably give FG the vote in the next General Election.

Dream on, Enda.

tritium

porsche959 wrote: »

Because "de salt of the earth wurking class" is probably too cliched and patronising these days.

Ah yes, "De Plain Peeple of Eyre-land" the shower of self interested chancers who had nothing to do with the country falling down the toilet.

(Did get a laugh when the FF spokesman talked about how he hoped it wasn't a return to auction politics. I thought they had that copyrighted so no one else could use it!)

Stheno

Tail Docker wrote: »

Dream on, Enda.

I think the next GE will be a shock to a lot of people.

Tail Docker

Stheno wrote: »

I think the next GE will be a shock to a lot of people.

Yes, mainly to Enda. His own constituency isn't too enamoured.

Davarus Walrus

tritium wrote: »

Ah yes, "De Plain Peeple of Eyre-land" the shower of self interested chancers who had nothing to do with the country falling down the toilet.

(Did get a laugh when the FF spokesman talked about how he hoped it wasn't a return to auction politics. I thought they had that copyrighted so no one else could use it!)

The poor auld plain people of Ireland are a fine and noble sort of human. Very into the humility and the frugality and the sense of perspective.

ToddyDoody

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

John Q. Taxpayer. Who wouldn't dream of voting for the loony left or the shinners. The type of lad who earns a decent wedge, put the head down, and now wants a small bit back. Will probably give FG the vote in the next General Election.

The Mediocre

Plates

To be honest, the cynic in me wonders whether both Paul and Pearse are really trying to champion and represent these "ordinary people" or if they're hell bent on maintaining a significant number of "ordinary people" in order to secure the "ordinary" vote.

Ghost Buster

Plates wrote: »

If this has been covered before (Mods) please feel free to delete.

In their Dail speeches today both Pearse Doherty and Paul Murphy referred to "Ordinary People". Does anyone have any insight into the parameters they use to define "Ordinary People"?

Does that term imply that those who do not fit the definition are, by default, "Extraordinary People"?

I keep hearing of the "squeezed low/middle income bracket" and what their average wage is. Its quite a bit higher than mine and my wife's combined income and we're getting by. Not rich but getting by. This bracket must be set by our 100,000 a year politicians to whom a wage of 40,000 seems low.

Turtyturd

Turtyturd wrote: »

Are they the same as 'normal people'?

Or even the "plain people of Ireland".

Beano

Stheno wrote: »

No that would be the 7% of our workers who earn more than 100k per year yet contribute 24% of the overall tax take.

Ordinary people would probably be the 76% on under 50k who contribute less than what those seven percent do.

so what does that make those of us in the middle?

BoJack Horseman

Beano wrote: »

so what does that make those of us in the middle?

Ordieery daecent wuuuurkers .

Beano

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Ordieery daecent wuuuurkers .

or in other words the poor saps who pay the highest percentage of tax

BoJack Horseman

Beano wrote: »

or in other words the poor saps who pay the highest percentage of tax

No, the highest earners do that.

caolfx

Ordinary people - they think the Stig is brilliant and may even have a 'Stig' ornament on their desk at work.

VinLieger

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, the highest earners do that.

The middle income earners which make up 23% pay 59% of Income and USC.

Proportionately the highest 1% may pay more per person but the 23% of the middle is paying more as a whole

Beano

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, the highest earners do that.

well if those on over 100K pay 24% of the tax take and those on under 50K pay less than that then that means that those in the middle must pay the rest. which would be more than 50%.

BoJack Horseman

Beano wrote: »

well if those on over 100K pay 24% of the tax take and those on under 50K pay less than that then that means that those in the middle must pay the rest. which would be more than 50%.

Here's how it breaks down for income tax.
(As per the ministers budget speech.

1% of workers pay 21%
23% of workers pay 59%
76% of workers pay 20%.

You can't get much more progressive than that, where the vast majority of workers pay just 1/5 of income tax.

Or, 100 friends get a bill for €100 in a café.....
1 guy pays €21
23 guys pay €2.56 each
76 folk pay €0.26 each.

Beano

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Here's how it breaks down for income tax.
(As per the ministers budget speech.

1% of workers pay 21%
23% of workers pay 59%
76% of workers pay 20%.

You can't get much more progressive than that, where the vast majority of workers pay just 1/5 of income tax.

Or, 100 friends get a bill for €100 in a café.....
1 guy pays €21
23 guys pay €2.56 each
76 folk pay €0.26 each.

the post i originally replied to said that the top 7% paid 24% of the tax take. Presumably that was wrong. But even going on the figures you have provided it is the people in the middle that are getting screwed. The top 1% can afford tax advisors so probably pay nowhere near the percentage of tax that i do.

syklops

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I keep hearing of the "squeezed low/middle income bracket" and what their average wage is. Its quite a bit higher than mine and my wife's combined income and we're getting by. Not rich but getting by. This bracket must be set by our 100,000 a year politicians to whom a wage of 40,000 seems low.

Can you qualify that statement a bit? 2 kids, 2 cars, etc?