Squeezed middle

tobsey wrote: »

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.

You realize the amount we injected into the banks was regarded as capital spending right? For a while they regarded it as financial investment. But then the EU said it has to be regarded as capital spending.

So before that it didn't technically have to show up on the deficit. After 2009/2010 it did.

Its increasing because of interest and the sizeable principle. It's 3 million a week in interest.

Not the tiny deficit. 2010 was the worst deficit. And its not been huge since.

If you really think our public spending was the cause of us getting an IMF bailout you have a screw loose.

The recession would have meant balancing the books. But the poor regulation of our banks was the cause of that.

You don't need an IMF bailout for a deficit the size we have had. Please.

Our debt went from 64 616 (2006) to 117 107 (2008) and then shot up again 2009.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You realize the amount we injected into the banks was regarded as capital spending right? For a while they regarded it as financial investment. But then the EU said it has to be regarded as capital spending.

So before that it didn't technically have to show up on the deficit. After 2009/2010 it did.

Its increasing because of interest and the sizeable principle. It's 3 million a week in interest.

Not the tiny deficit. 2010 was the worst deficit. And its not been huge since.

If you really think our public spending was the cause of us getting an IMF bailout you have a screw loose.

The recession would have meant balancing the books. But the poor regulation of our banks was the cause of that.

You don't need an IMF bailout for a deficit the size we have had. Please.

Our debt went from 64 616 (2006) to 117 107 (2008) and then shot up again 2009.

€3 million a week couldn’t be right. It might have been quoted as €3 million a day. That’d be a billion a year. Even that seems low when our total debt is €200 billion. Let’s say €2 billion a year, compounded over 10 years at rough guess €30 billion in interest total. Probably a lot less. We have the banks €64 billion. There’s still well over €100 billion that came from spending more than we received.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix_7p1qczXs

tdf7187 wrote: »

[YOUTUBE=ix_7p1qczXs[/YOUTUBE]

Its not working.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

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.

Based on what metric?

If you are only paying 1 k a month..... then you arent really in the ' middle'.... this is very little tax to.be paying....

Slanty wrote: »

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?

I dunno if you’re trolling or just have such a fixed view that nothing will change your mind. The state is spending €80bn this year and I’ve given you representative examples big and small tied to the % of your €1k per month. If I tried to list everything the state does and relate it to you personally, we’d be here all week. Sufficed to say, there isn’t much that isn’t touched by the state all the way down to the few cents you personally pay for the food safety authority to protect your food supply or anything else we can pick randomly off the list. And then you also pay a few euro for things you personally don’t benefit from but which you will or might someday - eg if you retire and receive the state pension or need to show up to an A&E when the private ones are closed, if your health insurance covers you for them.

ILoveYourVibes: As to the perhaps a little off topic discussion about the actual composition of the national debt, in fairness the figures breaking down what it is made up of have been provided. You seem to be arguing over the validity of the figures, which I’m not sure we can carry forward a productive discussion about. On the one side you have the figures produced and accepted by the government and international bodies including our lenders, and on the other side a firm opinion that in fact the jump in the national debt was mostly due to the bank bailout. The government makes available figures on spending and taxes every year (quarterly, in fact) and if you really wanted to you could go line by line and see that we brought in less taxes than we were spending on day to day services and as a result had to borrow heavily.

Debt as a % if GDP is a relative metric. GDP crashed along with the tax revenues, so the debt burden shot up and it has actually come down as a % of GDP (a) because the real economy is growing and (b) because a few years back significant assets of companies operating here were re-classed leading to a significant nominal jump in GDP. There was no impact on government spending, revenues or debt in real terms as a result.

And incidentally, the NTMA today is refinancing Irish debt at 0.45% thanks to our status as a good payer. In doing so the interest bill has actually been falling considerably. If we had the reputation of an Argentina for burning the people who we borrow money from - because nobody has an obligation to lend it - we would be paying considerably more interest in the long run every time the Irish state needs to run a deficit for any reason. https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0108/1105015-ntma-syndicated-bond-sale/

Idbatterim wrote: »

Depends. You get a very good deal as a waster or “ vulnerable “ in this country. Not as a worker.

Good job unemployment is at 4.8% so, vast majority are paying their way.

Idbatterim wrote: »

Right and now many are on schemes to remove them from it ? How many on disability ( the highest in Europe )

You tell me and we can discuss it.

Idbatterim wrote: »

Depends. You get a very good deal as a waster or “ vulnerable “ in this country. Not as a worker.

Yeah but I expect more from life than existence on the dole. And I enjoy the things the state provides from police and a criminal justice system instead of mobs and gangs running the street, to Street lights and schools. And I enjoy having money to enjoy myself and plan for the future. So being a waster isn't an option for me.

It's an old argument but it still works: if being on the dole is such a great life, why do you work? You work for all the additional benefits you get from working and being paid over the bare minimum they get on the dole.

Besides, pensioners are the biggest part of social spending. But people prefer to focus on people on the dole. That's just the way some people's minds work. Overlook all the good, search for the bad and complain that they can only see bad. Classic.

anewme wrote: »

Pensioners (especially those on Contributory pensions) have paid their taxes and worked for most of their life sometimes up to 50 years.

The serial dole blaggers and free housers just take from the start to the end. How much will Maggie Cash cost the system in her lifetime, despite never doing one days work and taking out 49k net a year. A single person earning 80k would be lucky to clear the same amount.

It really is a case the middle tier pay too much.

yes, I know the low income earners pay in virtually nothing here in income taxes. However, we have a high cost of living and how can you justify taxing them much, when they would simply take from the working poor and give to wasters?

Idbatterim wrote: »

the thing is, residents have just moved into those luxury apartments in dundrum, thats them sorted for life, pocket the weekly welfare and you are comfortable. Pocket the weekly welfare and earn some cash in hand! you are living a very easy life, v someone breaking their balls not working on black market and being robbed for their housing, being a whore to the banks and employer...

also its fare easier to exploit the system as a woman, with kids. I am not a woman. I know a woman, with young kid. Two weeks in a hotel before being given an apartment on the quays in dublin. now that is some fcuking deal! I would certainly advocate for everyone to avail of this, if the opportunity is open to them. I didnt create the bull**** system and either did you. Its not even abusing it, that is the system, that the state has opted for...

And again an example of punching down. Instead of wanting more reward and better pay for labour, you're bemoaning other people having a house and a bit of cash on the hip. Why always worrying more about poor people having too much money? Why not worry about either rich and wealthy people having too much wealth or the middle and lower earners with no wealth, being better paid?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah OK. I think it's a great system and I just accept that some people will take the p1ss. I'd much prefer to have a system that pays the pensioners and I accept that some pensioners never worked.

Funny that people are so inclined to punch down. I'd say you can only tax those with property and wealth. The motion of inheritance is completely anathema to meritocracy. Tax the rich and wealthy more and do away with the notion of inheritance, would be part of my plan.

Whinging about Maggie Cash is useless. Who would employ her anyway? Some people would turn to crime long before getting a minimum ware job. No point worrying about them

The problem is there are a fair few free forever house types. They need to be stopped. As should having children for welfare gain.

It is wrong that families who work/ pay mortgage / childcare should not be considerably better off than those who don't work. I'm not seeing that gap though.

Having worked for 50 years to pay my tax and pay my healthcare and pay my pension all paid for after tax income, you want my Estate to be taxed again when I die because I've no children?. You want to take my few Bob I've saved for retirement? This is a typical example of all taxes falling on the middle group of people. People should not be penalised for bettering themselves and paying their own way.

Is welfare too high for people who never worked ? Is our welfare system too high?

I'd cut them before I'd cut pensions to people who have paid in.

Idbatterim wrote: »

how are they poor, they are given use of an asset worth several hundred thousand for nothing. Earning a mid to high wage? great, how much is landed out on rent or a mortgage though...

morally why should the likes of margaret cash etc get more money. We have plenty of areas here that require way more funding, mental health etc, yet the government blow it on ****e like welfare increases. Is it morally right to take more, even from the rich, to just squander it and waste it on wasters, if put to proper use, I am all for it, but it certainly wont be here. What would the left do with the money, increase poverty traps, given an extra incentive not to work...

The difference between owning your own home and not owning a home is a bit bigger than you're giving credit for ( in a system with inheritance, which we have).

OK since you insist on worrying about the Maggie Cashs, what would you do with the likes of her?

And yes it's morally ok to tax wealthy and high earners, more. Obviously. I'd love to know who told you tax is a moral issue and I'd really like to know who convinced you it's immoral to tax wealthy people more.

Like, seriously, why do you think tax is a moral issue? (Also, I didn't suggest Maggie Cash should get more money but I'm looking forward to your solution the the Margaret Cash problem).