Cost of living

Tony EH

tayto lover wrote: »

When people pay all their bills there simply isn't enough money left for wee treats for themselves. 8 euro for a feckin tea and sandwich in a cafe is outrageous. 4.60 for a pint in some places is taking the mickey.

Where you getting pints for 4.60 Tayto? The Average Guinness is 5 quid around town.

Was in there a while back and we dropped into one of these fancy joints, one of these new style bars full of posers. I usually prefer normal pub type pubs.

The pint was nearly 7.00.

I handed it back and said no way.

Seriously, fuck that.

MayoSalmon

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

US national debt is about $19tn and yet they have fairly low cost of living, so your conclusion is invalid.

Also countries like Italy have a far lower cost of living than here and way more debt to GDP

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/italy

kilopret

So I'm gathering from this discussion that the cost of living is a problem for everyone and the country as a whole would be far better off if we could reduce it.

I suppose the question is how.
The most obvious ways are price controls,tax incentives for selling below a certain price.
From these posts it seems like a very obvious problem,does anyone know why the government dosent pursue it?

blanch152

kilopret wrote: »

So I'm gathering from this discussion that the cost of living is a problem for everyone and the country as a whole would be far better off if we could reduce it.

I suppose the question is how.
The most obvious ways are price controls,tax incentives for selling below a certain price.
From these posts it seems like a very obvious problem,does anyone know why the government dosent pursue it?

Price controls rarely work, generally the result is they restrict supply.

Seth Brundle

kilopret wrote: »

I suppose the question is how.
The most obvious ways are price controls,tax incentives for selling below a certain price.
From these posts it seems like a very obvious problem,does anyone know why the government dosent pursue it?

Because they know that as much as they tinker around the edges, they won't be able to do very much.
Show me somewhere where reducing the cost of living worked out successfully?

MayoSalmon

kilopret wrote:

I suppose the question is how. The most obvious ways are price controls,tax incentives for selling below a certain price. From these posts it seems like a very obvious problem,does anyone know why the government dosent pursue it?

To reduce the cost of living you simply reduce taxation. Reducing taxation will also reduce poverty etc

Not exactly rocket science

oscarBravo

MayoSalmon wrote: »

To reduce the cost of living you simply reduce taxation. Reducing taxation will also reduce poverty etc

Not exactly rocket science

How'd that work out for Kansas?

Jim2007

MayoSalmon wrote: »

To reduce the cost of living you simply reduce taxation. Reducing taxation will also reduce poverty etc

Not exactly rocket science

Right and who will you pay for state services etc.... oh perhaps you could privatise them and allow companies to make large profits on them....

A bit of rocket science would not go a miss, rather than this nonsense.

MayoSalmon

Jim2007 wrote:

Right and who will you pay for state services etc.... oh perhaps you could privatise them and allow companies to make large profits on them....

First of all state services are inefficient and poor. Just look at the black hole of health.

Secondly I am talking about income tax. All these state services that you think you need can be funded without thieving people's wealth.

MayoSalmon

oscarBravo wrote:

How'd that work out for Kansas?

Well they never cut there spending so terribly

Geuze

MayoSalmon wrote: »

To reduce the cost of living you simply reduce taxation. Reducing taxation will also reduce poverty etc

Not exactly rocket science

Overall taxes in Ireland are low.

Yet the price level is 126% of the EU average.

People in poverty pay zero direct taxes, so how cutting taxes will help them, I don't know.

Geuze

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Secondly I am talking about income tax. All these state services that you think you need can be funded without thieving people's wealth.

Hundreds of thousands of earners in Ireland pay zero income tax.

My parents pay 8% approx on 49k, this is very low compared to other countries.

blanch152

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Secondly I am talking about income tax. All these state services that you think you need can be funded without thieving people's wealth.

Explain to me how a tax on income is thieving peoples' wealth?

Surely it would have to be a property tax or some such tax to be a tax on wealth?

MayoSalmon

blanch152 wrote:

Explain to me how a tax on income is thieving peoples' wealth?

Definition of wealth "an abundance of valuable possessions or money"

Income taxation is obvious theft. It is taken without consent and includes taking by means of a threat of force issued against people. Immoral practice.

MayoSalmon

Geuze wrote:

People in poverty pay zero direct taxes, so how cutting taxes will help them, I don't know.

Cutting taxes like VAT and excise in the morning will help them...that should be blindly obvious.

Jim2007

MayoSalmon wrote: »

First of all state services are inefficient and poor. Just look at the black hole of health.

Secondly I am talking about income tax. All these state services that you think you need can be funded without thieving people's wealth.

Basically you have no idea how services etc, should be funded, you just don't want to have to pay your share. Looking back on your posts, you obviously have a great sense of entitlement and expect everyone else to carry you. Enough said.

MayoSalmon

Jim2007 wrote: »

Basically you have no idea how services etc, should be funded, you just don't want to have to pay your share. Looking back on your posts, you obviously have a great sense of entitlement and expect everyone else to carry you. Enough said.

The irony of your post, in that I advocate for the exact opposite. I don't want anybody to carry me nor do I beleive I should carry anybody else. Personal responsibility and all that.

The only people with a sense of entitlement around here are the ones who believe the government someone owns all your wealth and will takes whatever they can get away it.

Wanderer78

MayoSalmon wrote:

The irony of your post, in that I advocate for the exact opposite. I don't want anybody to carry me nor do I beleive I should carry anybody else. Personal responsibility and all that.

MayoSalmon wrote:

The only people with a sense of entitlement around here are the ones who believe the government someone owns all your wealth and will takes whatever they can get away it.

Or we could continue with the neoliberal utopia, whereby 'the market' provides us with all our needs, but in reality, is a bit of a train wreck for most, if not all of us

MayoSalmon

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Or we could continue with the neoliberal utopia, whereby 'the market' provides us with all our needs, but in reality, is a bit of a train wreck for most, if not all of us

The neoliberal utopia has lifted more people out of poverty in just the last 30 years than any other economic system in the history of human development..is it perfect? no but that is the reality

Wanderer78

MayoSalmon wrote:

The neoliberal utopia has lifted more people out of poverty in just the last 30 years than any other economic system in the history of human development..is it perfect? no but that is the reality

Ah yes, the neoliberal delusion, 'the market' or neoclassical theory is a construct, we are effectively increasing things such as food security but replacing it with other insecurities such as 'worker insecurity'. One of the main forms of increasing worker insecurity is by debt peonage or debt bondage, we are effectively just moving the poverty goal posts so to speak. We are also decreasing the ability of our planet to sustain life, including human life, at a faster rate than ever, by pursuing this disturbing ideology

MayoSalmon

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Ah yes, the neoliberal delusion, 'the market' or neoclassical theory is a construct, we are effectively increasing things such as food security but replacing it with other insecurities such as 'worker insecurity'. One of the main forms of increasing worker insecurity is by debt peonage or debt bondage, we are effectively just moving the poverty goal posts so to speak. We are also decreasing the ability of our planet to sustain life, including human life, at a faster rate than ever, by pursuing this disturbing ideology

Delusion:rolleyes:

Go ask the leaders of China and India if free market liberalism works. China and India are the “success stories” of globalisation and have transformed their countries.

Poverty rate have been slashed 80 percent since 1970
https://www.mackinac.org/the-world-is-getting-better

Wanderer78

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Delusion:rolleyes:

Go ask the leaders of China and India if free market liberalism works. China and India are the “success stories” of globalisation and have transformed their countries.

Poverty rate have been slashed 80 percent since 1970
https://www.mackinac.org/the-world-is-getting-better

again, lets not talk about debt, in particular, private debt, a common failure of neoliberalism and neoclassical theory! speaking of china, it is now one of the most indebted nations on the planet, in relation to private debt, lets see how that plays out, maybe they ll have a 'soft landing' to! ah yes the 'free' market, which strangely looks like not-so-free after all, in fact id say, not free at all. the 'free' market is doing well with dealing with our environmental and inequality issues to! we re potentially looking at a zero sum game here with all this now found 'freedom'!:rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

Wanderer78 wrote: »

speaking of china, it is now one of the most indebted nations on the planet,

FACT CHECK

China's external debt at end-2016 was $1.42tn which is about 13% of GDP (1) which is not in any sense a bad position for a country like China. Furthermore, China's net international investment position is very stable thanks mainly to US lending at +$1.8tn or +15.8% GDP.

(3) wrote:

China’s runs a $200 to $300 billion current account surplus, so its one year external financing need is now around $500 billion. China has a relatively modest $250-$300 billion in foreign currency sight deposits, and just under $600 billion in domestic foreign currency deposits (to put that in context, it is about 5 percent of GDP). It would take just over a trillion in reserves to cover China’s external (short-term debt) and internal (domestic fx sight deposits) fx liquidity need.

Chinese FDI is up, government revenue forecast is up, nominal GDP per capita is up (4)

(1) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-foreign-debt/china-outstanding-foreign-debt-falls-to-1-42-trillion-at-end-2016-idUSKBN17212G

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position

(3) https://www.cfr.org/blog/dangerous-myth-china-needs-27-trillion-reserves

(4) https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/china/external-debt--of-nominal-gdp

Wanderer78

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

FACT CHECK

China's external debt at end-2016 was $1.42tn which is about 13% of GDP (1) which is not in any sense a bad position for a country like China. Furthermore, China's net international investment position is very stable thanks mainly to US lending at +$1.8tn or +15.8% GDP.



Chinese FDI is up, government revenue forecast is up, nominal GDP per capita is up (4)

(1) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-foreign-debt/china-outstanding-foreign-debt-falls-to-1-42-trillion-at-end-2016-idUSKBN17212G

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position

(3) https://www.cfr.org/blog/dangerous-myth-china-needs-27-trillion-reserves

(4) https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/china/external-debt--of-nominal-gdp

sounds a lot like national or sovereign debt to me! hows their credit fueled private debt going? my moneys on a 'soft landing'!

FreudianSlippers

Wanderer78 wrote: »

sounds a lot like national or sovereign debt to me! hows their credit fueled private debt going? my moneys on a 'soft landing'!

There's a nice shift of goalposts!

China has a national debt which is 13% of GDP which is not by any definition a massive debt for a country of that size.

Credit fuelled private debt is manageable and the IMF reserve metric recalculations are flawed - it results in countries with high levels of short term debt and low levels of M2 to GDP (key here for China is that the IMF have for some reason omitted foreign currency deposits) looking better on paper and actually reducing the reserve requirement.

Charles Babbage

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There's a nice shift of goalposts!

China has a national debt which is 13% of GDP which is not by any definition a massive debt for a country of that size.

Does this include all debt by public agencies?

Wanderer78

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There's a nice shift of goalposts!

China has a national debt which is 13% of GDP which is not by any definition a massive debt for a country of that size.

Credit fuelled private debt is manageable and the IMF reserve metric recalculations are flawed - it results in countries with high levels of short term debt and low levels of M2 to GDP (key here for China is that the IMF have for some reason omitted foreign currency deposits) looking better on paper and actually reducing the reserve requirement.

shift in goal posts, how many times have i mentioned private debt in my last couple of posts????

so i guess you can also confirm my belief of 'soft landing' just like ours, for countries such as china etc? i wonder have these rising levels of private debt got anything to do with our 'rising costs of living'?;)

FreudianSlippers

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Does this include all debt by public agencies?

Yes - http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/reports/ReportWidgetCustom.aspx?Report_Name=Table-1-SDDS-new&Id=4f2f0c86

FreudianSlippers

Wanderer78 wrote: »

shift in goal posts, how many times have i mentioned private debt in my last couple of posts????

so i guess you can also confirm my belief of 'soft landing' just like ours, for countries such as china etc? i wonder have these rising levels of private debt got anything to do with our 'rising costs of living'?;)

My concern is that you're not exactly sure what you're talking about. Continuing to say "soft landing" over and over again is not clarifying exactly what it is you're attempting to convey.

You mentioned China being "now one of the most indebted nations on the planet" which is factually incorrect.

You're now discussing their private debt problem (which is a problem) but it's not a major issue as I outlined above because the IMF's new metric is flawed. In addition, the debt-for-equity swaps are easing the issues.

server down

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Definition of wealth "an abundance of valuable possessions or money"

Income taxation is obvious theft. It is taken without consent and includes taking by means of a threat of force issued against people. Immoral practice.

Wealth is not income. If you want no taxes be prepared to collect a bill for your schooling.

Wanderer78

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

My concern is that you're not exactly sure what you're talking about. Continuing to say "soft landing" over and over again is not clarifying exactly what it is you're attempting to convey.

You mentioned China being "now one of the most indebted nations on the planet" which is factually incorrect.

You're now discussing their private debt problem (which is a problem) but it's not a major issue as I outlined above because the IMF's new metric is flawed. In addition, the debt-for-equity swaps are easing the issues.

not according to the 'experts' i follow. its disturbing to see at the heart of our most predominant macro economic theories, such a neoclassical theory, money, its creation, debt and banking are more or less excluded from this thinking, and its clearly obvious, theres something serious wrong with the levels of debt, in particular private debt globally. they are clearly unsustainable. private debt isnt a major problem! look around! what was one of the major problems that caused our own crash, and the main difficulties of many house holds across our own country as we speak, its clearly obvious, debt!

server down

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The neoliberal utopia has lifted more people out of poverty in just the last 30 years than any other economic system in the history of human development..is it perfect? no but that is the reality

China and India are not neoliberal. The former is a communist state now micromanaging a controlled economy where the banks are all state owned as are significant parts of the economy. Rail, banks, plenty of manufacturers, asset managers, tobacco factories and so on. This is what old labour wanted in the U.K.

India is still a protectionist state. It’s just thrown a huge number of taxes on imported smart phones and their components.

Needless to say this has nothing to do with the free market, globalisation or neoliberalism as taught and enacted in the West.

server down

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Cutting taxes like VAT and excise in the morning will help them...that should be blindly obvious.

Reducing VAT often just means more profit for the capitalist as they can continue to sell at a retail price they know they can sell their wares.

Good example - Irish hotels.

ancapailldorcha

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Or we could continue with the neoliberal utopia, whereby 'the market' provides us with all our needs, but in reality, is a bit of a train wreck for most, if not all of us

Do not post in this thread again. The soapboxing is not welcome here.

MayoSalmon

server down wrote: »

Reducing VAT often just means more profit for the capitalist as they can continue to sell at a retail price they know they can sell their wares.

Good example - Irish hotels.

How is that a good example?

There is chronic lack of supply in the Dublin hotel market hence the pricing, nothing to do with those greedy capitalists all conspiring to rip off the tourist.

Hollister11

bk wrote: »

What companies? I work in IT, it is absolutely on fire, companies are trying to employ people left, right and center and simply can't fill positions. The biggest issue the IT industry has at the moment is that they simply can't find enough people to fill their positions. That is what limits the industry from growing even bigger in Ireland.

Just a quick question BK.

I'm finishing up a CS degree with an emphasis on software development in May (All things going to plan).

What is the market currently like for grads coming from a smaller university?

server down

MayoSalmon wrote: »

How is that a good example?

There is chronic lack of supply in the Dublin hotel market hence the pricing, nothing to do with those greedy capitalists all conspiring to rip off the tourist.

The vat was reduced on hotels a few years ago. Result higher prices.

VAT reductions were not passed on.

Anyway you want rid of income tax and VAT? Where do you expect to generate revenue?

FreudianSlippers

server down wrote: »

The vat was reduced on hotels a few years ago. Result higher prices.

VAT reductions were not passed on.

Anyway you want rid of income tax and VAT? Where do you expect to generate revenue?

As MayoSalmon pointed out, that's a perfect example of supply and demand; not of supply-side economic theory at work.

server down

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

As MayoSalmon pointed out, that's a perfect example of supply and demand; not of supply-side economic theory at work.

He really didn’t say that, you are putting words into his mouth.

What he said was that reducing VAT would reduce the cost of living (the thread title) and I gave an example where it didn’t. And it didn’t from day one when demand was still low.

In fact it wasn’t even designed to do that, the hotel industry just wanted more profit - more of the room sticker price going into their pockets.

MayoSalmon

server down wrote: »

He really didn’t say that, you are putting words into his mouth.

What he said was that reducing VAT would reduce the cost of living (the thread title) and I gave an example where it didn’t. And it didn’t from day one when demand was still low.

In fact it wasn’t even designed to do that, the hotel industry just wanted more profit - more of the room sticker price going into their pockets.

Wouldn't agree with that at all. There has been a good correlation between the demand and price in that industry.

But more to your point, are you somehow implying that hotel industry in Ireland is working as some kind of Cartel land and pocketing all the savings in VAT? Nonsense

server down

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Wouldn't agree with that at all. There has been a good correlation between the demand and price in that industry.

But more to your point, are you somehow implying that hotel industry in Ireland is working as some kind of Cartel land and pocketing all the savings in VAT? Nonsense

What I am saying is that reducing the vat on hotel rooms didn’t reduce the prices thus empirically refuting your claim that VAT reductions always are passed onto consumers. Demand at the time didn’t increase. This was in the deep recession

MayoSalmon

server down wrote:

What I am saying is that reducing the vat on hotel rooms didn’t reduce the prices thus empirically refuting your claim that VAT reductions always are passed onto consumers. Demand at the time didn’t increase. This was in the deep recession

The VAT reduction savings can be used in a number of ways. Reinvest in the business, take on extra staff, decrease your room pricing, increase your marketing etc etc.

In the vast vast majority of cases the reduction will be in the customers favour.

server down

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The VAT reduction savings can be used in a number of ways. Reinvest in the business, take on extra staff, decrease your room pricing, increase your marketing etc etc.

In the vast vast majority of cases the reduction will be in the customers favour.

In the case I gave it didn’t.

Anyway do tell us how you are going to finance everything without income tax and VAT.

oscarBravo

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Well they never cut there spending so terribly

Bzzt. Untrue. They had no choice but to cut spending, because they had drastically less tax income to spend:

Prison guards are sharing stab vests at the El Dorado maximum security prison in southern Kansas. At the end of a shift, the sweat-soaked vests, worn all day in a facility without air conditioning, are passed to the next person by guards, many of whom are coming off 12- or 16-hour shifts.

Jail cells designed to hold one inmate are housing three or four at Ellsworth correctional facility. Riots have broken out at other prisons. The family of one guard who recently killed himself told union reps stress and over-work were to blame.

Next year, the state faces a school shutdown after the supreme court found its educational spending was unconstitutionally low. Some of those schools have already had to shorten the school year in order to save cash.

To make ends meet, money that was earmarked for roads has been diverted to the general fund. A state that used to maintain 1,200 miles of road a year is now repairing 200 miles a year. Even in the capital, Topeka, potholes are everywhere.

(source)

Cutting taxes as a way to increase living standards is an idea that only works in libertarian fever dreams. Unless, of course, you're already rich in a corrupt, plutocratic society like the US, in which case, sure: tax cuts will increase your living standards. I'd like to think we haven't yet become a society of "I've got mine, Jack" assholes, but it's clear there is no shortage of people who want to take us there.

Help!!!!

kilopret wrote: »

I'm just wondering if Irish governments ever tries to address the cost of living. Rent is one thing, but doctors have raised there prices again for example(70 quid for bloods+15minute gp vistit in Galway). I think a low cost economy would be a good idea,as it makes us more competitive for wages and the likes.It seems to be a large part of how Ireland positions itself when attracting jobs here.
But if the cost of living goes up then wages go up and that would seem to have a negative impact on the country.
Does this government plan to do anything about this?

If the cost of living is high then people are forced to just get by, so they will be scared to leave a job, so less likely to take time off work to protest
Taxes could easily be cut & the government would still get that money back one way or another

MayoSalmon

server down wrote:

In the case I gave it didn’t.

Not going round in circles here but already said other factors were at play namely shortage of supply etc anyway I never advocated for getting rid of VAT completely.

Merely pointing out the fact that high levels of VAT increase the cost of living and ate a regressive tax. There's multiple study pointing to the fact that poorer people pay much higher shares of their income in VAT than richer people.

The main problem is all tax needed to fund all these government services. Tax reform would need to take multiple years to implement.

Seen a stat recently that 70% or so of the population claim some type of social welfare payment. Crazy stuff and you won't be able to reduce the cost of living when you have those levels of welfare dependency.