Cost of living

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