If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

Where is all the money going?



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,344 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78

    ...this is the whole idea of a financialised economy, the fire sectors(finance, insurance and real estate), become highly extractive, they no longer become a part of the productive element of the economy, and ultimately just extract, extract and extract....

    ...and yes, this requires state bodies, in particular public policy, in order to occur....

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,739 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack

    That's why you don't rely on anecdotal evidence but rather some sort of statistic such as household disposable income as I have tried to provide.

    That’s why I was confused as to why you would suggest asking random members of the public what they believed about a comparison between Ireland and the UK in terms of which country is better off, and suggested that most people in Ireland would say Ireland, when on paper at least (using average disposable income as a measure), the UK are better off.

    The reason the UK appears better off on paper is because they have more people who are super-wealthy than Ireland, who are pushing up the average disposable income considerably. If you ask Leo about it though, he’ll respond by reminding you that they’re only billionaires on paper 😒

    The richest 1 per cent Ireland hold 27 per cent of the country’s wealth, the report said.

    Similarly, in the UK -

    It also found that the wealthiest 10% of the population are estimated to hold around half of all wealth, primarily in the form of private pensions and property.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,816 ✭✭✭Wolf359f

    Disposable income per actual household maybe more accurate. The per Capita doesn't take into account a larger family size and more of the population in higher level education though?

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,739 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack

    The less people working especially in low wage jobs drives up prices because there is less stuff being produced.

    That’s not what drives prices up? More people having less disposable income is what drives prices up and poverty up, as has happened in the UK with their unforgiving welfare system, which if it were implemented here would mean a proportionate increase in the number of families living in poverty, unable to access basic services such housing, healthcare and education. It’s not that it’s more attractive to stay on welfare, it’s that they don’t have the basic skills and knowledge required to be able to support themselves.

    It’s really not that complex or difficult to understand at all, it’s simply that most people just don’t care. I’m sure you’re aware of people who don’t even have the OP’s level of literacy to be able to question where all the money is going, but could understand it if it’s explained to them in a way they do understand - the money is going on providing services for people who can’t provide for themselves.

  • Registered Users Posts: 29,344 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78

    ...completely disagree there, people are far from stupid, most people are just too stressed outta their heads to have the space in their lives to even think this through....

    ...once again, we re firmly in the grips of the credit era, most money no longer comes from public means, i.e. from states and central banks etc, but in fact comes from the global financial system itself, in the form of credit, and is primarily being used to (re)inflate the price of assets such as property and land, hence our significant increase in private debt, and in fact the rapid increase in the price of property during this era, i.e. money is in fact debt, i.e. debt is our money supply, money created by both public and private means....and since we now try to maintain a low or negative public money supply, i.e. by running balanced or even surplus budgets, this in turn forces us towards the only other method of money creation, i.e. credit, via banks.....

    ...when governments redistribute taxes, they are redistributing money which in fact originated from bank created money, i.e. credit, particularly when those governments are themselves not adding to the money supply, by running deficits, as is normally the norm, particularly in advanced economies such as ireland....

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,739 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack

    completely disagree there, people are far from stupid…

    Could you point out the part in my post that gave you the impression I was suggesting anyone is stupid?

    Like the OP I’m not referring to where the money is coming from, I know where it comes from. It’s where it’s going, is the point of the thread.

  • Registered Users Posts: 893 ✭✭✭Emblematic

    @One eyed Jack 2:08pm "That’s why I was confused as to why you would suggest asking random members of the public what they believed about a comparison between Ireland and the UK in terms of which country is better off, and suggested that most people in Ireland would say Ireland, when on paper at least (using average disposable income as a measure), the UK are better off."

    The suggestion of public perception of Ireland as a comparitively rich country in Europe is just that, a suggestion. I don't know whether studies have been done but I would not be surprised if the average punter in Ireland, whether in Ballsbridge or Mullingar generally believes that Ireland is fairly high up on the disposable income scale relative to other EU countries as well as Brexit Britain.

    It is how the media generally portrays us to ourselves. It is also certainly the impression you get from many of the posters on this thread when they cite examples of concerts selling out and so forth.

    But the reality is a bit different. We are at best mid-table in EU terms sadly.

  • Registered Users Posts: 893 ✭✭✭Emblematic

    I would say it does take into account varying family size. If it were per houshold rather than per capita it would be more problematic. You would be averaging very large households with very small ones.

    Instead, better to add up all household disposable income and then divide it by the population.

    It's basically the amount the idividual on average has to spend after unavoidable expenses like tax and rent etc.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,816 ✭✭✭Wolf359f

    It doesn't take into family sizes as it's per capita. With the comparison being made with the UK, the typical Irish household is 10% larger 2.7 vs 2.4. So it stands to reason that Irish household would have 10% more disposable income. Or Italy at 2.28, meaning the Irish household would have 18% more disposable income.

    A younger population with a higher take up of education would also skew the figures on a per capita basis.

  • Registered Users Posts: 893 ✭✭✭Emblematic

    Yes, the average household size might be 10% larger in Ireland than the UK and so, as you say, you might expect 10% more disposable income per household in Ireland other things being equal. However since there's also 10% more people in the Irish household the amount per individual works out the same (again other things being equal), and its the disposable income of the individual we're measuring here.

    I suppose it depend on what you want to measure. I think its a reasonable attempt at assessing how well off we are as individuals in Ireland. To a certain extent, it controls for family size.

    The factors you point out such as larger household size should work in Ireland's favour, i.e. should put us a little higher on the scale than other countries since a larger household is probably more efficient in terms of rental cost per individual. However even given that, we're quite far down the ladder.

    I think on the other point about education, yes if we've very large numbers in full-time education and not earning that will lower disposable income per capita, but I think that's as it should be. If your in full time education you are not going to be earning what a full time worker would and this, quite rightly, should be reflected in the numbers.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,816 ✭✭✭Wolf359f

    Maybe giving an extreme example you will understand:

    Lets say country A household disposable income per capita is 20k, country B is 18k.

    Household in A with 2 people: 40k disposable income combined

    Household in B with 5 people: 90k disposable income

    Which household is better off?

    The factors I mention would and do put us higher up the ladder, it's just you're looking at a different table:

  • Registered Users Posts: 893 ✭✭✭Emblematic

    Except that measuring the average household income is a rather arbitrary figure highly dependent on the average household size. It is not really meaningful for the purpose of working out how much the average punter has.

    In answer to your question, household A is better off in my opinion since although the total income per household is less, the household only has to support two people. The higher household income per capita captures this.

    This is why household income on its own is of little value. Household income per capita has some value and, I would argue, disposable household per capita adjusted also for purchasing power is probably the most relevant to this thread.

    Post edited by Emblematic on

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,571 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers

    Or you could just lay less dole and force people into the labour market.

  • Registered Users Posts: 29,344 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78

    ...sounds like a great plan, shouldnt cause any significant social disruptions at all!

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2

    Force who into the labour market? We're at functional 100 percent employment. We have circa 100k on the live register, of which, two thirds is down to natural churn, people between jobs.

    You're talking about 30k or so long term unemployed, who for all intents and purposes are probably unemployable due to undiagnosed mental health issues or untreated addiction. We have a labour force of 2.6 million, so what you're suggesting is utterly pointless.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,816 ✭✭✭Wolf359f

    Well seeing as how the amount Irish people have being saving per capita is one of the highest in Europe, maybe that's where it's going?

    20% of the disposable income per capita ends up in savings in Ireland. I think it's about 6k per capita the last year.

    Maybe per capita basis screws statics. Hense why medium gets used alot.

    So we have a lower than average disposable income per capita, yet save more of if per capita and then complain on where the money is going?

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,049 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui

    This country just had the largest surplus of any country in the EU. The reason you might be feeling less well off is that you are paying excessive taxes in order to create that surplus. There shouldn't be such a massive surplus, the government should only take enough to cover expenses.

  • Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭sameoldname

    Seriously? Our budget surpluses are coming almost entirely from corporation tax on multinationals. The government has been telling us that every chance they get. It can't be relied upon.