Squeezed middle

Slanty · 01-02-2020 02:53AM

Nijmegen wrote: »

€264 on social protection, the largest item of which is the old age pension (€104) and the next largest disability supports (€58).

€227 on health.

€139 on education.

€60 on servicing the national debt, and €43 for membership of the EU - though we get a lot of that back in money they spend here.

€37 on justice.

€33 on transport.

€31 on housing.

€16 on water.

€13 on defence.

I could go on.... but basically you get a society.

That’s all well and good. It doesn’t add up to my 1000 tax.

tobsey · 01-02-2020 02:54AM

If you saw this on your payslip then you’re and employee and in reality your employer paid this tax and not you. They pay you a gross salary such that your net salary gives you a relative take home pay compared to others who provide more and less value to their employers. You’re gross was roughly 4K for that month I guess. Just above the average full time wage. If you’d earned 3k gross you’d have only paid €500 in tax, therefore you’re subsidising people earning less. Similarly if you earned 5k you’d have paid €1500 in tax and people at that level are subsidising you. They earned 25% more in gross but only took home 18% more. If higher incomes were taxed less and lower incomes were taxed more then gross salaries would simply adjust to keep the balance.

That’s also one of the reasons why our corporation tax is low. The large companies earning large profits are also the ones with highly paid employees and therefore we get more in income tax from them instead. If you want to pay less income tax move to the US and then see how little public services you’ll benefit from.

ILoveYourVibes · 01-02-2020 02:54AM

Nijmegen wrote: »

On the national debt, the net cost of the bank bailouts when we sell down our positions, make a profit on NAMA etc, is gonna be about €30bn we poured in.

Nowhere near 30 bn. It will make a lifetime profit of 4 bn. That's not going to eat into our debt.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/nama-expects-to-hand-over-its-4bn-lifetime-surplus-to-the-state-by-2021-1.3909348?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Ffinancial-services%2Fnama-expects-to-hand-over-its-4bn-lifetime-surplus-to-the-state-by-2021-1.3909348

ILoveYourVibes · 01-02-2020 02:56AM

Slanty wrote: »

That’s all well and good. It it doesn’t add up to my 1000 tax.

Id rather see all them expenses reversed

Here is a list of countries to consider living in.

United Arab Emirates.

Oman.

Bahrain.

Qatar.

Saudi Arabia.

Kuwait.

Bermuda.

Cayman Islands

Dave_The_Sheep · 01-02-2020 02:58AM

Slanty wrote: »

That’s all well and good. It it doesn’t add up to my 1000 tax.

Id rather see all them expenses reversed

Of course you would.

You really don't seem to be asking this question in good faith or with any intention of having your mind changed - I am *shocked* to discover this.

Nice edit though.

Nijmegen · 01-02-2020 02:58AM

Slanty wrote: »

That’s all well and good. It it doesn’t add up to my 1000 tax.

Id rather see all them expenses reversed

As I pointed out you can see the whole lot here broken down, I just wanted to highlight some of them: https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/

If you’d like to pay lower taxes might I suggest you move somewhere else. Good luck, mind you, with all the ancillary costs you’ll take on. For example health insurance in Ireland is a fraction what it costs in America, primarily because most of the treatment you’ll get here is subsidised by your taxes. And if ever you fall on hard times, those services are still largely gonna be there for you. Going bankrupt in Ireland to pay for healthcare is rather unusual. Leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. But hey, you could live in a state with half or less our taxes.

What else would you like to go without? Pensions are the biggest thing you pay for. Shall we send granny to the workhouse?

tobsey · 01-02-2020 02:59AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You are missing a very important fact.

16 % AT LEAST if not more goes on EU banking dept from the bailout. That means bankers are taking your taxes.

Its something the tax payer needs to be made aware of.

Its more than housing its more than education.

Its nothing to do with EU membership. And we get nothing from the fact that our dept is totally out of whack with our GDP.

It’s debt, not dept. You’ve said it four times so it wasn’t a typo. The bank bailout cost 64bn but we should get 30-40bn of that back. So only 10% of our debt is related to the banks. The rest is because of the complete collapse of tax from over €50bn to €30bn due to the policies of FF during the boom. They relied too much on the construction sector, built way too many houses and crashed the market far worse than anywhere else in the world. They have the same stupid ideas in their current manifesto where they want to build 40k homes per year. They claim they’ll double the output from the construction sector while also reducing the cost of building. When every tradesperson in the country has twice as much work, they’ll work the same hours as today but charge twice the price. It’s an absolute fallacy what they are saying.

ILoveYourVibes · 01-02-2020 02:59AM

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Of course you would.

You really don't seem to be asking this question in good faith or with any intention of having your mind changed - I am *shocked* to discover this.

I dont blame people for thinking we are over taxed. WE ARE OVER TAXED.

I do blame them for not inquiring TRULY why we are over taxed.

Nijmegen · 01-02-2020 03:02AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Nowhere near 30 bn. It will make a lifetime profit of 4 bn. That's not going to eat into our debt.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/nama-expects-to-hand-over-its-4bn-lifetime-surplus-to-the-state-by-2021-1.3909348?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Ffinancial-services%2Fnama-expects-to-hand-over-its-4bn-lifetime-surplus-to-the-state-by-2021-1.3909348

Quoting the article there, the net cost when we unwind our position in the various banks etc will be €30bn. Even at the €60bn gross figure, it’s 29.85% of our national debt. The rest is money we borrowed to spend on ourselves via deficits. Given that the Irish state has €201bn of debt it is actively refinancing every year, and may run deficits again in future, I suspect that repudiating this particular €30-60bn would not be a sensible move when it comes time to go ask the same people to please pay for our nurses and pensioners in a recession if the Irish state runs into deficit again.

ILoveYourVibes · 01-02-2020 03:06AM

tobsey wrote: »

It’s debt, not dept. You’ve said it four times so it wasn’t a typo. The bank bailout cost 64bn but we should get 30-40bn of that back. So only 10% of our debt is related to the banks. The rest is because of the complete collapse of tax from over €50bn to €30bn due to the policies of FF during the boom. They relied too much on the construction sector, built way too many houses and crashed the market far worse than anywhere else in the world. They have the same stupid ideas in their current manifesto where they want to build 40k homes per year. They claim they’ll double the output from the construction sector while also reducing the cost of building. When every tradesperson in the country has twice as much work, they’ll work the same hours as today but charge twice the price. It’s an absolute fallacy what they are saying.

I have dyslexia. No need to be a dick about it.

Of course dyslexic people are stupid. I probably wasted all of your precious tax with special classes trying to get me through school to get a degree and still spell badly. So sorry. You are obviously a highly evolved worthwhile individual.

You won't get any of it back. Name is going to make a life time profit of 4 bn. That's it. If that.

We had no collapse of tax.

I have heard this theory before only 3 % of our DEBT is bank debt.

Well that is a strange one ..BECAUSE OUR NATIONAL DEBT IN 2006 WAS ONLY 23% of GDP! And now its 63%

Yeah right. It just flew magically up from 23% to 63% in 2009 not to do with the banking crisis at all. HA!

Please stop lying badly. I mean you know you are lying badly when a dummy like me with dyslexia can see through you.

Unfortunately we can't publicly flog bankers ...its time to curse them however.

Slanty · 01-02-2020 03:07AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Here is a list of countries to consider living in.

Er no.

All I’m asking is what my 1k is doing for me? I pay my tax so I should see a benefit in my life.

ILoveYourVibes · 01-02-2020 03:09AM

Slanty wrote: »

Er no.

All I’m asking is what my 1k is doing for me? I pay my tax so I should see a benefit in my life.

It's keeping the street lighting on.

Dave_The_Sheep · 01-02-2020 03:10AM

Slanty wrote: »

Er no.

All I’m asking is what my 1k is doing for me? I pay my tax so I should see a benefit in my life.

You've been told, by several people, but you're refusing to see it.

[edit] to add the inner part of the sentence.

Nijmegen · 01-02-2020 03:10AM

Slanty wrote: »

Er no.

All I’m asking is what my 1k is doing for me? I pay my tax so I should see a benefit in my life.

Did you have any occasion in the past month to flush a toilet? There’s a small win for your money that you’d notice going without.

If you’re smart enough to read your payslip you’re smart enough to read the little website breaking down government spending and have a little think about your typical day and where this stuff might directly positively benefit you. For anything that doesn’t directly benefit you but might benefit society, like carers and disability spending, thank you for your contribution to civilisation.

ILoveYourVibes · 01-02-2020 03:12AM

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

You've been told, by several people, but you're refusing to see it.

[edit] to add the inner part of the sentence.

People aren't blind. He sees.

misterme123 · 01-02-2020 03:12AM

Nijmegen wrote: »

https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/

There you go...

11.2 billion on education and there are still people who don't understand what income tax is for.

tobsey · 01-02-2020 03:13AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I have dyslexia. No need to be a dick about it.

Of course dyslexic people are stupid. I probably wasted all of your precious tax with special classes trying to get me through school to get a degree and still spell badly. So sorry. You are obviously a highly evolved worthwhile individual.

You won't get any of it back. Name is going to make a life time profit of 4 bn. That's it. If that.

We had no collapse of tax.

I have heard this theory before only 3 % of our DEBT is bank debt.

Well that is a strange one ..BECAUSE OUR NATIONAL DEBT IN 2006 WAS ONLY 23% of GDP! And now its 63%

Yeah right. It just flew magically up from 23% to 63% in 2009 not to do with the banking crisis at all. HA!

Please stop lying badly. I mean you know you are lying badly when a dummy like me with dyslexia can see through you.

Unfortunately we can't publicly flog bankers ...its time to curse them however.

It was only 23% in 2006 because we had a complete false economy. Our government had such little debt because we had huge personal and business debts, which were generating profits and paying tax to the government. 2006 was fairytale land and shouldn’t be used as a reference point for anything.

I don’t think you’re stupid because you misspelled a word. I think most of the nonsense you’re posting is stupid.

Slanty · 01-02-2020 03:18AM

Nijmegen wrote: »

Did you have any occasion in the past month to flush a toilet? There’s a small win for your money that you’d notice going without.

If you’re smart enough to read your payslip you’re smart enough to read the little website breaking down government spending and have a little think about your typical day and where this stuff might directly positively benefit you. For anything that doesn’t directly benefit you but might benefit society, like carers and disability spending, thank you for your contribution to civilisation.

1k to flush a toilet.

Hope your not a plumber.

All I’m asking is what exactly do people get for there 1k a months tax?

Not what there taxes are doing for everybody else but rather what do they get for there contributions?

Fccwontletmebe · 01-02-2020 03:18AM

Yea the middle class are milked dry, especially single people.

But the amount of tax Top earners pay is astronomical, you’ll be happy you were only taxed a grand.

If you don’t like it OP you can leave the country. No other choice really.

ILoveYourVibes · 01-02-2020 03:21AM

Nijmegen wrote: »

Quoting the article there, the net cost when we unwind our position in the various banks etc will be €30bn. Even at the €60bn gross figure, it’s 29.85% of our national debt. The rest is money we borrowed to spend on ourselves via deficits. Given that the Irish state has €201bn of debt it is actively refinancing every year, and may run deficits again in future, I suspect that repudiating this particular €30-60bn would not be a sensible move when it comes time to go ask the same people to please pay for our nurses and pensioners in a recession if the Irish state runs into deficit again.

We borrowed it for economic liquidity and to bailout banks. Not to spend on ourselves.

We had to reduce our deficit for the IMF bailout conditions. Not because it caused our national dept. So be sensible.
We had no huge national debt until 2008 /2009. What you suggest is a hilarious illogical spin.

The bill for bailing the banks continues to rise to the tune of about 3 million in interest every week.

I dunno what you agenda is in trying to spin it out as a positive thing but its hilarious and no one believes you.

ILoveYourVibes · 01-02-2020 03:23AM

tobsey wrote: »

It was only 23% in 2006 because we had a complete false economy. Our government had such little debt because we had huge personal and business debts, which were generating profits and paying tax to the government. 2006 was fairytale land and shouldn’t be used as a reference point for anything.

I don’t think you’re stupid because you misspelled a word. I think most of the nonsense you’re posting is stupid.

Now that is the OPPOSITE of what you just said a moment ago.

You said the govt WASNT collecting tax prior to 2008 and it was a failure to collect tax.

Now you are saying the opposite.

You have no grasp of basic economics.

The banking crisis caused our huge dept. And in order to facilitate this dept (banking bailout) from the banks we bailed them out ...and in order to bail them out we needed to be bailed out. And our loan came with terms and conditions ...on our public services.

The above is the logical truth.

Dave_The_Sheep · 01-02-2020 03:23AM

Their.

tobsey · 01-02-2020 03:25AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

We borrowed it for economic liquidity and to bailout banks. Not to spend on ourselves.

We had to reduce our deficit for the IMF bailout conditions. Not because it caused our national dept. So be sensible.
We had no huge national debt until 2008 /2009. What you suggest is a hilarious illogical spin.

The bill for bailing the banks continues to rise to the tune of about 3 million in interest every week.

I dunno what you agenda is in trying to spin it out as a positive thing but its hilarious and no one believes you.

The country ran a deficit every year from 2009 to 2018 and you think the only reason we have government debt is the bank bailout???

ILoveYourVibes · 01-02-2020 03:30AM

Fccwontletmebe wrote: »

Yea the middle class are milked dry, especially single people.

But the amount of tax Top earners pay is astronomical, you’ll be happy you were only taxed a grand.

If you don’t like it OP you can leave the country. No other choice really.

That's a person's choice.

tobsey wrote: »

The country ran a deficit every year from 2009 to 2018 and you think the only reason we have government debt is the bank bailout???

https://countryeconomy.com/deficit/ireland

tobsey · 01-02-2020 03:30AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Now that is the OPPOSITE of what you just said a moment ago.

You said the govt WASNT collecting tax prior to 2008 and it was a failure to collect tax.

Now you are saying the opposite.

You have no grasp of basic economics.

The banking crisis caused our huge dept. And in order to facilitate this dept (banking bailout) from the banks we bailed them out ...and in order to bail them out we needed to be bailed out. And our loan came with terms and conditions ...on our public services.

The above is the logical truth.

I never said that at all. The government were collecting unsustainable levels of tax during the boom. This resulted in them having very little debt and also massively increasing public spending. They were spending around 50bn in 2008. Tax take fell to 30bn in the crash. They weren’t collecting taxes in the crash because the economy wasn’t providing them. We couldn’t cut public spending at the same rate. Therefore we had to increase the public debt every year until the budget was finally balanced last year.

ILoveYourVibes · 01-02-2020 03:34AM

tobsey wrote: »

I never said that at all. The government were collecting unsustainable levels of tax during the boom. This resulted in them having very little debt and also massively increasing public spending. They were spending around 50bn in 2008. Tax take fell to 30bn in the crash. They weren’t collecting taxes in the crash because the economy wasn’t providing them. We couldn’t cut public spending at the same rate. Therefore we had to increase the public debt every year until the budget was finally balanced last year.

We didn't increase the public debt every year. We increased it from 23% to 63% in 2 particular years 2008 and 2009. And its remained the same since.

Please just stop.

tobsey · 01-02-2020 03:34AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

That's a person's choice.

https://countryeconomy.com/deficit/ireland

According to that site I was out by a year, but I have my doubts about those figures. They do paint the overall picture though of the last 12 years. According to that site, we had a deficit of $20bn in 2008. We didn’t give a cent to the banks until 2009 so that was the start of the increase in the public debt, and it had nothing to do with the bank bailout.

tobsey · 01-02-2020 03:39AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

We didn't increase the public debt every year. We increased it from 23% to 63% in 2 particular years 2008 and 2009. And its remained the same since.

Please just stop.

Do you know what a deficit is? How did we spend more than we took in without adding to the debt? It might have stayed a similar percentage of GDP, but that would only happen if GDP was increasing in line with the increase in the debt.

GPD is no longer regarded as a measurement of our economy, whether for how well it’s doing or for comparing it to our debt, because it is completely skewed by multinationals transferring funds through the country which don’t have a material impact on our economy.

ILoveYourVibes · 01-02-2020 03:41AM

tobsey wrote: »

According to that site I was out by a year, but I have my doubts about those figures. They do paint the overall picture though of the last 12 years. According to that site, we had a deficit of $20bn in 2008. We didn’t give a cent to the banks until 2009 so that was the start of the increase in the public debt, and it had nothing to do with the bank bailout.

The figures of 2008 /2009 are notoriously difficult to deal with. Some say our debt was 42 % but it was probably much much more. It rose to 63% in 2009.

But economies don't fluctuate so rapidly usually and figures are changing in real time faster than they can be measured. It's likely that is the case for the yrs of 2008 /2009.

misterme123 · 01-02-2020 03:49AM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

We borrowed it for economic liquidity and to bailout banks. Not to spend on ourselves.

We had to reduce our deficit for the IMF bailout conditions. Not because it caused our national dept. So be sensible.
We had no huge national debt until 2008 /2009. What you suggest is a hilarious illogical spin.

The bill for bailing the banks continues to rise to the tune of about 3 million in interest every week.

I dunno what you agenda is in trying to spin it out as a positive thing but its hilarious and no one believes you.

After the crash the tax take collapsed due unemployment, reduced stamp duty receipts (or whatever) and general reduction of economic activity. It was impossible to cut spending as quickly as income was collapsing. The social welfare bill obviously went up too. So the government spent more annually than they were taking in in tax. Over the years, this money added up to significantly more than the cost of rescuing the banks, and that accounts for most of our current national debt. Nobody is trying to spin anything. They are just stating what ought to be common knowledge.

Squeezed middle

Comments