Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie 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 hello@boards.ie

Ordinary People

Options
13»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Beano wrote: »
    call me crazy but the 23% is in the middle there.

    The middle / median us what the guy at 50% up the income ladder earns.

    When someone is 95+% up the income distribution ladder, I wouldn't consider them in the 'middle' any more.

    You evidently do though


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    Beano wrote: »
    no you're just changing the numbers you use. You've gone from the top 1% to the top 20%.

    No he's just taking another point on a somewhat arbitrary line to demonstrate where the middle of that line lies doesn't support your point.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    syklops wrote: »
    Its not as clear cut as that though. The person on 18k tops up the tax he pays on income in the vat and duty he pays on the things he consumes.

    Is Germany vat exempt somehow? Granted they have a lower rate, but not dramatically so and the rules around VAT make it quite difficult to not pay it within the EU


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    1% of workers pay 21%
    23% of workers pay 59%
    76% of workers pay 20%.

    That's great and all, but do you think the 1% have 21% of the wealth, or even just 21% of income? Or is it maybe a bit more than that? (I'm implying here that it is quite a lot more!).

    I'd like to see some more analysis. It looks like the income tax system is progressive, but everyone pays the same VAT on goods, and other flat rate partially hidden taxes like that. Maybe the system should tilt more towards income and wealth taxes, and less towards flat rate taxes which hit less wealthy people disproportionately.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    Beano wrote: »
    how are those 76% the middle? surely they are the bottom?



    call me crazy but the 23% is in the middle there.

    No 23% is an arbitrary cut off point. I could equally pick 10% or 90%, just because I use a three point scale that doesn't make it the middle. 50% is typically the middle based on median measure


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    The middle / median us what the guy at 50% up the income ladder earns.

    When someone is 95+% up the income distribution ladder, I wouldn't consider them in the 'middle' any more.

    You evidently do though


    I dont think you understand what median means. tell me, what is the median income you refer to?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,899 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    tritium wrote: »
    No 23% is an arbitrary cut off point. I could equally pick 10% or 90%, just because I use a three point scale that doesn't make it the middle. 50% is typically the middle based on median measure

    The middle is being classified from what I could gather from yesterday as anyone above 25k and under 70k which is a massive difference but the fact is this still only accounts for 23% that pays for 59%


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    VinLieger wrote: »
    The middle is being classified from what I could gather from yesterday as anyone above 25k and under 70k which is a massive difference but the fact is this still only accounts for 23% that pays for 59%

    You don't 'classify' the middle (unless you're a vote buying politician trying to sell snake oil to the masses) the middle is the middle - simple as


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    tritium wrote: »
    You don't 'classify' the middle (unless you're a vote buying politician trying to sell snake oil to the masses) the middle is the middle - simple as

    so is it the middle or the median you are referring to? you do realise that they are not the same thing right? and the middle or median what? Income or percentage of tax take?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,899 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    tritium wrote: »
    You don't 'classify' the middle (unless you're a vote buying politician trying to sell snake oil to the masses) the middle is the middle - simple as

    Look it's not about medians or middles no matter what you choose to believe.

    There is a classification as to what middle income is and 23/% earn that amount.

    76% then earn below what is considered middle income and that is classed as low income.

    You are the one trying to complicate things with medians.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    VinLieger wrote: »
    The middle is being classified from what I could gather from yesterday as anyone above 25k and under 70k which is a massive difference but the fact is this still only accounts for 23% that pays for 59%

    if that is how they classified the "middle" then that accounts for a lot more than 23%. that would include households in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and most of the 8th decile of household income.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,899 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Beano wrote: »
    if that is how they classified the "middle" then that accounts for a lot more than 23%. that would include households in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and most of the 8th decile of household income.

    That was a number I saw yesterday, however since Noonan didn't classify his figures as to what the 76% and 1% refer to it might be completely wrong


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    Beano wrote: »
    so is it the middle or the median you are referring to? you do realise that they are not the same thing right? and the middle or median what? Income or percentage of tax take?

    Right, seeing as you seem to be feeling a bit smug there, and seeing as I've worked as a stat for the last two decades or so, let's do stat101 for you......

    Middle is a general (laymans) description of the balance point of a distribution. There are many measures of this -mean, mode median. Median, representing the 50th percentile, is usually used with respect to income distributions due to their skewed nature (having fun yet beano my old mate-guess what? I've also done lots of economic and financial statistics in that two decades :). )

    In terms of what we're getting the median of, well that's not a statistical question. Rather the clue is in how the information has been phrased . we've been talking about tax take relative to all earners, and the ranking for this is income or slice of the working population depending in who posted., The key metric we want is what is the point on the income distribution such that taking everyone above (or below) that point we would get 50% of the tax take distribution. We can then ask what income or percentage of population corresponds to this, eg 50% of income tax was paid by x% of workers or by workers earning over €x'000


    To be fair to your previous posts, you're not technically incorrect - the 50-100k income range does indeed encompass the median. Its just an arbitrarily large range that pretty much proves nothing. 10th to 90th percentile would do the same thing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,416 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    Is there a definition of an "ordinary person"that politicians on the left are so fond of defending? Love to know if I'm ordinary.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,722 ✭✭✭Wanderer2010


    If you are listening to Leo, the ordinary person lives in D4, with a 4 bed semi they share with their spouse and 2 kids. Civil servant on 150k a year, 2 electric cars and only 3 holidays per year. Thats how sheltered and narrow minded his world view is!



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,717 ✭✭✭buried


    People who make it their business to be part of the studio audience for the late late show.

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,416 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    He's been doling out welfare bonuses and electricity rebates for six or eight months now.

    Must have some awareness of De Ordinary Folk.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,198 ✭✭✭Ubbquittious


    Wasn't there a documentary series made about them? They're quite young, go to college in Dublin and have raunchy sex lives



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,861 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    It's easy enough to work out what an ordinary person is. But I saw a picture of an average person, and it was horrible.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,923 ✭✭✭silliussoddius


    The kind of person that shouts "hupyeboyo" on election night.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 12,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭iamstop


    I think the definition of ordinary person changes depending on what you're trying to convey at the time. The same person could be ordinary when talking about amount spent on bread in a month but could be a complete outlier/wierdo when discussing fondness of trickling golden syrup over their beans on toast.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,526 ✭✭✭standardg60


    It's the ordinary working person OP, i've no idea who they are either but they are the beloved of the left, especially when they have a family in tow.

    I'd have put myself down as one but seeing as i don't see myself as a pawn and slave to the corporate cabal using me to amass their ill-gotten capitalist fortunes i mustn't be. I'd say you only qualify if you do as little as possible to help them amass said fortunes whilst ungraciously accepting their wage.

    Of course politicians qualify too, you're only a true ordinary working person when you're being paid by the state, heaven forbid a left politician could be accused of creating wealth and economy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭tesla_newbie


    Replace The Late Late Show with Winning Streak



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,947 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    You won't find them on Boards anyway. Too busy working, or running their businesses, looking after their families and their households to be posting about this shyte.

    And trust me, Varadkar knows exactly what the middle class looks like.

    Far from the nonsense described above, its a two earner PAYE household making 100k, in a 3 bed semi under mortgage, or a 4 bed rural Bungalow with a garage and a half acre of grass with a dog and a a few hurls propped by the back door, two kids, one in college and one in secondary, a couple of cars and a nice holiday in Portugal every year.

    Thats an ordinary person / family and they are the holy grail of political parties.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,294 ✭✭✭alias no.9


    The bould Jackie Healy Rae once (or possibly often) described dee orinree peepel ov Irlenn as peelel who eat der dinnir inda middul ov de day

    I think it loosely translates as people who consume their main meal at lunchtime rather than the ones with notions who partake in the evening meal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,537 ✭✭✭Badly Drunk Boy


    Winning Streak hasn't been on the telly since March 2020. I know that because I am the ordinary people.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Buck would never have allowed this to happen.


    Calvin "Cal" Jarrett: Connie! Your mother did come to the hospital, you know she did, she had the flu and couldn't come inside but she came to the hospital!

    - Conrad "Con" Jarrett: She never would have had any flu if Buck was in the hospital, she would have come if Buck was in the hospital!

    - Beth Jarrett: Buck never would have been in the hospital!

    Donald Sutherland - Calvin

    Timothy Hutton - Conrad

    Mary Tyler Moore - Bet



  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 12,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭JupiterKid


    Mod:-

    Do not resurrect a 9 year old thread.

    Closed.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement