"Black Economy" -Right or wrong?

Guy:Incognito · 20-06-2011 11:45AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I would imagine it would go out to tender for a locale to be policed for a few years. A security company with a good reputation would get the contract.

Who puts it to tender? Theres no government. Who pays the security company? Theres not taxes so where does the money get generated from to pay them?

krissovo · 20-06-2011 11:45AM

Most of us have less money in our pockets than we did a few years ago, mine is approx €500 down per month. I need to maintain a semi decent lifestyle so a few €€€€ saved on cigarettes, booze, cash jobs etc means I will be able to take some form of holiday this year. I did buy some of this on the black economy even when times were good but no where near the level I do now.

Bens · 20-06-2011 11:52AM

To be fair id like to see the health service just dropped. Gone.

And then any portion of our tax given to it at the moment, to be back in our pay packets at the end of each month. So we could use that money to pay for our own medical expenses or insurance as we need them.

Then id like to ask the people who are demanding that I pay more tax, how things are going for them. Is their tax covering their medical expenses now?

Let them see how the mantra "Anyone who earns more than me should pay more tax" actually works in real life.

Chuck Stone · 20-06-2011 11:57AM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So what you want is to not pay taxes so that other people can just pay for your medical expenses for you?

What are you on about? What's wrong with health insurance?

The state builds roads all over the country that wouldnt get built by private business.

Some people would call that a waste of money. Why should the tax payer be responsible for running a road up the side of a mountain for some gobshite who likes to live up there?

Whats wrong with tolling roads you say? Nothign much, but tolling every road wouldnt work.

The technology is there to track cars and charge accordingly.

You see how you're very concerned about the roads yeah? Well most people would be concerned about the roads.

Let's say the state ceased to exist tomorrow - do you think people would just lie down and cry and scream 'Oh no we can't use the roads anymore - let's just give up and use horses'

Of course they wouldn't they'd make it work imo.

Its called "services". How much would a passport cost if the passport office had to ake a profit?

I'd say a private company would do it faster and cheaper tbh.

Seriously, this is a ridiculous arguement.

We're having an argument? Lol relax, just a bit of a chat.

Guy:Incognito · 20-06-2011 12:12PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What are you on about? What's wrong with health insurance?:)

I clearly highlighted the charity bit.

How much does health insurance ost in the US?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Some people would call that a waste of money. Why should the tax payer be responsible for running a road up the side of a mountain for some gobshite who likes to live up there?:)

Are you 8 or what? How many roads are there up mountains to cater for 1 person? Not enough to matter. Roads all over the country cost huge amounts of money to build and maintain.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The technology is there to track cars and charge accordingly.

My issue is not how to charge people properly, i think I was quite clear. It's about how much it would cost people just on their daily trip. If you use 10 roads to get to work and 10 to get back, at 50c a road its costing €10 to get to and from work every day. Plus work is not the only place people go.Thats picking 50c out of the air, god know how much it would cost to actually keep the roads goign and make a profit for the company running it.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You see how you're very concerned about the roads yeah? Well most people would be concerned about the roads.

Let's say the state ceased to exist tomorrow - do you think people would just lie down and cry and scream 'Oh no we can't use the roads anymore - let's just give up and use horses':)

Ah right so its all nice and convenient is it? The government puts everythign in place then we disband it and we have nice, useable roads for ever? How woudl the roads ahve been built in the first place? How are they maintained?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Of course they wouldn't they'd make it work imo.

Really? What sort of fantasy world do you live in?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'd say a private company would do it faster and cheaper tbh.

.

I picked passports off the top of my head. Theres a huge amount of things that couldnt be run for profit, which is part of why governments exist. How much would it cost to have a large, self sufficient office running 9-5 monday to friday churning out passports? Then divide that by the amount of passports issued each year then add 10-15% profit on to each passport.

Chuck Stone · 20-06-2011 12:33PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How much does health insurance ost in the US?

I have no idea but I'd imagine it's way too much. That wouldn't be just because health insurance is over charging people. The cost of medicines, paying health workers wages (low supply high deman inflates costs) would all contibute to inneficiency.

Are you 8 or what?

I've been civil with you so perhaps you could be civil with me in return?

Roads all over the country cost huge amounts of money to build and maintain.

Yes and it's paid for by us anyway. Why wouldn't a private company do it just as good if not better than who's doing it at the moment.

There were council workers down at the bottom of our estate filling in pot-holes after the freeze. By Christ it was an appalling job and they were pot-holes again within a few days. Personally, I would have been embarrased if it was me who did it.

Anyway, a sub-contracter came in a tore the road up and replaced the whole thing within a coupla days (abt 200m of road).

Ah right so its all nice and convenient is it? The government puts everythign in place then we disband it and we have nice, useable roads for ever? How woudl the roads ahve been built in the first place? How are they maintained?

You know that the govt gets it's money off us don't you? The govt doesn't actually have it's own money. It's not like 'the govt' says 'You know what - let's build some roads because we like pleasing people'.

Really? What sort of fantasy world do you live in?

Yes - it's just conjecture. However - if we look at the utter mess our govt has gotten us in don't you think it's healthy to imagine alternatives?

I picked passports off the top of my head. Theres a huge amount of things that couldnt be run for profit,

Not everything has to be run for profit. People could set up Co-ops and have community run services.

which is part of why governments exist.

Not really.

How much would it cost to have a large, self sufficient office running 9-5 monday to friday churning out passports? Then divide that by the amount of passports issued each year then add 10-15% profit on to each passport.

I still think it'd be way cheaper and faster if people actually had to compete. How about two or three passport offices competing for our business? Best value and best service gets the job.

Alter-Ego · 20-06-2011 12:34PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

I have no idea what this thread is about

It's about buying your johnny blues off yer one that stands outside the Moore Street entrance to the Ilac Centre

Hope that cleared it up for you...

Guy:Incognito · 20-06-2011 12:49PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I have no idea but I'd imagine it's way too much. That wouldn't be just because health insurance is over charging people. The cost of medicines, paying health workers wages (low supply high deman inflates costs) would all contibute to inneficiency.

I've been civil with you so perhaps you could be civil with me in return?

Yes and it's paid for by us anyway. Why wouldn't a private company do it just as good if not better than who's doing it at the moment.

There were council workers down at the bottom of our estate filling in pot-holes after the freeze. By Christ it was an appalling job and they were pot-holes again within a few days. Personally, I would have been embarrased if it was me who did it.

Anyway, a sub-contracter came in a tore the road up and replaced the whole thing within a coupla days (abt 200m of road).

You know that the govt gets it's money off us don't you? The govt doesn't actually have it's own money. It's not like 'the govt' says 'You know what - let's build some roads because we like pleasing people'.

Yes - it's just conjecture. However - if we look at the utter mess our govt has gotten us in don't you think it's healthy to imagine alternatives?

Not everything has to be run for profit. People could set up Co-ops and have community run services.

Not really.

I still think it'd be way cheaper and faster if people actually had to compete. How about two or three passport offices competing for our business? Best value and best service gets the job.

I asked if you were 8 because you have such a simplistic way of lookng at the world. That opinion hasnt changed. Pretty much every bit of what you say is nonsense.

what about the bit about policing from further back up? Where does the money come from?

Chuck Stone · 20-06-2011 01:02PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I asked if you were 8 because you have such a simplistic way of lookng at the world:mad:. That opinion hasnt changed:mad:. Pretty much every bit of what you say is nonsense:mad:.

Okay let's go with your standard. Are you a gumpy, conservative, negative, old git who lacks imagination?

what about the bit about policing from further back up? Where does the money come from?

I suppose that a district, housing estate, geographic area would come together and put security contract out to tender. A good security company would win the contract a bad one wouldn't.

I don't have all the answers. It's extremely unimaginative and immature of you to expect me to 'quarterback' an entire future of a stateless society.

As I said before this is just conjecture.

Open your mind a little and try to be more receptive to alternative ideas.

Guy:Incognito · 20-06-2011 01:11PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Okay let's go with your standard. Are you a gumpy, conservative, negative, old git who lacks imagination? .

seriously? I'm those things because I am realistic, with an idea of how things work in the real world, am able to give reasons why, whereas your counter arguement to everythign seems to not go beyond "stuff will just work out and everyone will band together". Hav you been out in the world at all?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I suppose that a district, housing estate, geographic area would come together and put security contract out to tender. A good security company would win the contract a bad one wouldn't..

So a group of peopel in a geographic location get together and form a group of some sort, collect money from all the people in the area and decide how to spend the money on stuff the people need, yeah? Think I've heard of that system before.......
Maybe they could all choose a small group from within to take these decisions so as to streamline the process and speed it up so that every tedious little decision doesnt have to wait for every individuals approval?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't have all the answers. It's extremely unimaginative and immature of you to expect me to 'quarterback' an entire future of a stateless society.

As I said before this is just conjecture.

Open your mind a little and try to be more receptive to alternative ideas.

You were the one that suggested it all, the least you can do is come up with reason why it would work. If we're just throwing out things without the need to back them up then I sujest we go back to the Punt, print enough for everyone to have £10m then all our problems will be solved cos we'll be rich.

mick087 · 20-06-2011 01:15PM

Yes for some the use of the black market is right.

Chuck Stone · 20-06-2011 01:38PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

seriously? I'm those things because I am realistic, with an idea of how things work in the real world, am able to give reasons why,

No you're not. You're putting up reasons why not. It seems to me that merely entertaining an idea which doesn't conform to your worldview brings you out in a rash.

whereas your counter arguement to everythign seems to not go beyond "stuff will just work out and everyone will band together".

You have yet to give a satisfactory reason why it wouldn't and I don't think you have the ability to tbh.

Hav you been out in the world at all?

Yes.

So a group of peopel in a geographic location get together and form a group of some sort, collect money from all the people in the area and decide how to spend the money on stuff the people need, yeah? Think I've heard of that system before.......

Yes, it's not such an alien concept - much like a residents associations.

Maybe they could all choose a small group from within to take these decisions so as to streamline the process and speed it up so that every tedious little decision doesnt have to wait for every individuals approval?

Yes, maybe they could. It would be done by consent anyway.

You were the one that suggested it all, the least you can do is come up with reason why it would work.

These are not my concepts. There's plenty of information out there postualting how a stateless society might function if you care to look.

If we're just throwing out things without the need to back them up

You can't back up something that is an idea with proof. Now you can look to a place like the Soviet Union and say that it was the opposite of a stateless society and see the dystopia that emerged and surmise that a free market stateless society would be exponentially better. Who knows until you try?

then I sujest we go back to the Punt, print enough for everyone to have £10m then all our problems will be solved cos we'll be rich.

No.

I'm pretty sure that printing money just leads to inflation and hurts people with low wages and others without the capacity to absorb it's effect.

Guy:Incognito · 20-06-2011 02:16PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No you're not. You're putting up reasons why not. It seems to me that merely entertaining an idea which doesn't conform to your worldview brings you out in a rash..

Of course I'm giving reasons why not. I'm showing you why your ideas dont work.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You have yet to give a satisfactory reason why it wouldn't and I don't think you have the ability to tbh...

Companies wont do things unless they are making money from it. Quite a chunk of the stuff funded from taxes are loss making. They are that way because they are either not things your can make money from or things that people wouldnt pay the amounts they would need to charge to make them profitable.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes, it's not such an alien concept - much like a residents associations.

Yes, maybe they could. It would be done by consent anyway...

Or. like a government?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

These are not my concepts. There's plenty of information out there postualting how a stateless society might function if you care to look.

How it MIGHT work. It's very easy to give out about whats goign on and say you could do better. The reality of it when your in the position is much different. Give Enda Kenny a ring and ask him.

BTW, why are you telling me to go find information to prove your point?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You can't back up something that is an idea with proof..

You can make an effort to show why your think it would work and hw it would work though.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that printing money just leads to inflation and hurts people with low wages and others without the capacity to absorb it's effect.

Sarcasm isnt your friend, is it?

Chuck Stone · 20-06-2011 02:38PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Of course I'm giving reasons why not. I'm showing you why your ideas dont work.

You have shown nothing of the sort. They are merely ideas. For them to be tesed there would have to be a stateless society as a social experiment. Now surely you can't claim to have set one up and watched it fail?

Companies wont do things unless they are making money from it. Quite a chunk of the stuff funded from taxes are loss making.

Loss making until they are privatised or forced to compete with private industry. Take Aer Lingus for example. It was wallet raping people for decades until Ryanair came a long a booted it up the hole. Now we all have better air services with choice, efficency, and value.

There's a real world example for you.

They are that way because they are either not things your can make money from or things that people wouldnt pay the amounts they would need to charge to make them profitable.

This is your opinion. Evidence to give it weight?

The reality of it when your in the position is much different. Give Enda Kenny a ring and ask him.

No thanks. I don't trust any of those shower of bastards who sold us out for their corrupt friends.

Now there's govt. workin' for us; huh?

BTW, why are you telling me to go find information to prove your point?

You said they were 'my ideas' they're not.

You can make an effort to show why your think it would work and hw it would work though.

See example above (Ryaniar v State Monopoly)

I've already said to you that if you take the Soviet Union, the state controlled and ran everything and seen how much of a failure it was and (work with me now, I know you have difficulty with ideas) carry out a little thought experiment and reverse the polarity.

You completely remove the state from daily life and let voluntarism and entrepreneurship take precedence over gunpoint taxation.

Would we end up with a much better system? Perhaps. I think it quite likely myself.

Sarcasm isnt your friend, is it?

What's sarcasm?

Guy:Incognito · 20-06-2011 03:22PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You have shown nothing of the sort. They are merely ideas. For them to be tesed there would have to be a stateless society as a social experiment. Now surely you can't claim to have set one up and watched it fail?

Loss making until they are privatised or forced to compete with private industry. Take Aer Lingus for example. It was wallet raping people for decades until Ryanair came a long a booted it up the hole. Now we all have better air services with choice, efficency, and value.

There's a real world example for you.

Aer Lingus had faiely big cash reserves (€700m or so) that has been eaten away in the last few years.

Do you watch the news? They are on a fairly big cost cutting venture over the last 2 years or so.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is your opinion. Evidence to give it weight?

policing and fire service. How do you turn them in to private , profitable businesses?

Everything becomes a pay to use system. Every school is now private, meaning it costs a couple of grand a year per child just so they can go to school. You stil have all the other costs associated.Do we start selling ads on the kids schoolbags or what to make money off all this?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No thanks. I don't trust any of those shower of bastards who sold us out for their corrupt friends.

Now there's govt. workin' for us; huh?

Why are you deflectign away from the point instead of answering?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You said they were 'my ideas' they're not.

You brought them to the thread and are promotign them, so for that purpose they are your ideas. They certainly arent mine. If they are so good, why the reluctance to attach yourslef to them?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I've already said to you that if you take the Soviet Union, the state controlled and ran everything and seen how much of a failure it was and (work with me now, I know you have difficulty with ideas) carry out a little thought experiment and reverse the polarity.

Were not in the Soviet Union, wer're coming from a position of having state run and private business alongside each other. The failure of Communisn has little to do with Ireland.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You completely remove the state from daily life and let voluntarism and entrepreneurship take precedence over gunpoint taxation.

Would we end up with a much better system? Perhaps. I think it quite likely myself.

No we would not. We would end up with ultra capitalism where only profit matters and no one does anything for the good of others. If theres money to be made from something , peopel will make as much as they can.
Any social services and things that are propped up by the state fll by the wayside.
Who supports all these time rich people that are voluntering? It may come as a surprise to you (again the harsh reality of life) but much activism is run off the back of the social welfare system. Its very easy to sit for months protesting when you've got the dole every week. How long can peopel survive with zero income?

Chuck Stone · 20-06-2011 03:40PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Aer Lingus had faiely big cash reserves (€700m or so) that has been eaten away in the last few years.

How much of that was effectively extorted from us when they had a monopoly? I remember it being the equivalent of 3 weeks wages to fly to England from this country.

Do you watch the news? They are on a fairly big cost cutting venture over the last 2 years or so.

Yes, and probably none of this would have happened if it weren't for competition.

policing and fire service. How do you turn them in to private , profitable businesses?

They're already funded by the tax-payer so why not have fire fighting companies compete with each other to provide services? Likewise with security.

Well run, cost effective fire fighting companies would win contracts. Why is it so hard for you to get this?

You're trying to make me quarterback this again. You should be able to think of possible alternatives and how they might work in a stateless society yourself.

And for that reason: I'm out.

Guy:Incognito · 20-06-2011 03:49PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

How much of that was effectively extorted from us when they had a monopoly? I remember it being the equivalent of 3 weeks wages to fly to England from this country...

How is that relevant? If it cost them ore money to be profitable then thats business. Thats exactly what your looking for across the board in every area by eliminating the government and havign private business run everything.

Whats the point in Aer lingus charging next to nothing to travel if they end up folding?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They're already funded by the tax-payer so why not have fire fighting companies compete with each other to provide services? Likewise with security..

Compete to provide money to who? whos paying them? Do you pay them when you call them out? Do they save you from rape or stop your house burnign down before or after you pay them? How do they know you rcan definately pay?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Well run, cost effective fire fighting companies would win contracts. Why is it so hard for you to get this?.

As above.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You're trying to make me quarterback this again. You should be able to think of possible alternatives and how they might work in a stateless society yourself.

And for that reason: I'm out.

Very easy to jump out without actually answering anything.

Your proposing basically replacing one government with loads of small ones. Sateless? Or small States?

Lets take Cavan as an example. The government is now gone and the people of Cavan are setting about lookign after all the things they need. They need money to run the local school, hospital, police (or private scurity firm) private fire fighters etc. So they need money for this. The appointed leaders of Cavan have to go to the people for money. What if the people dont give them money? Where do they get it to pay the security people?
What if some peopel pay and some dont? Is there a list of houses that fires can be put out in?

Sounds to me like your system needs a government........

Chuck Stone · 20-06-2011 04:01PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Compete to provide money to who? whos paying them? Do you pay them when you call them out? Do they save you from rape or stop your house burnign down before or after you pay them? How do they know you rcan definately pay?

You see what you're doing there? You're expecting me to describe in detail how something might work in the absence of the state. Stop being lazy minded.

I would guess you pay for it like you would for car insurance. Or perhaps the fire companies would have their own accounts dept. so you could pay a monthly/ ½yr/ yearly fee to retain their service.

Are you deliberately obsfuscating or are you genuinely having difficulty playing with ideas?

Don't answer.

This conversation is over.

Dimithy · 20-06-2011 04:44PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You see what you're doing there? You're expecting me to describe in detail how something might work in the absence of the state. Stop being lazy minded.

I would guess you pay for it like you would for car insurance. Or perhaps the fire companies would have their own accounts dept. so you could pay a monthly/ ½yr/ yearly fee to retain their service.

Are you deliberately obsfuscating or are you genuinely having difficulty playing with ideas?

Don't answer.

This conversation is over.

So basically your idea boils down to:
1 get rid of big Government
2 Set up small local Government, but its not really a government.....or something like that, maybe.
3 Collect money from people, but not taxes, and not everyone has to pay.....or something like that, maybe.
4 ?
5 ?
6 Well functioning society.

And the only reason why anyone would have a problem with this is lack of imagination?
Really?

Chuck Stone · 20-06-2011 05:00PM

Dimithy wrote: »

So basically your idea

It's not my idea FFS.

It's merely speculating on how a non-coercive, non-violent, society that works on voluntarism and the free market (not a corporatocracy) might work.

If you're really interested watch this video.

Guy:Incognito · 20-06-2011 05:03PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You see what you're doing there? You're expecting me to describe in detail how something might work in the absence of the state. Stop being lazy minded.

I would guess you pay for it like you would for car insurance. Or perhaps the fire companies would have their own accounts dept. so you could pay a monthly/ ½yr/ yearly fee to retain their service.

Are you deliberately obsfuscating or are you genuinely having difficulty playing with ideas?

Don't answer.

This conversation is over.

Of course I want you to describe in detail about a system YOU are advocating replacing our current one with. Why should I go get information about that?

So if people dont keep their payments up to date you let their house burn or you let them be burgled/raped/killed?

What if you live in an apartment and the people downstairs dont fancy paying an unnessecary charge to the fire brigade for somethign that probably wont happen to them?

Guy:Incognito · 20-06-2011 05:07PM

Dimithy wrote: »

So basically your idea boils down to:
1 get rid of big Government
2 Set up small local Government, but its not really a government.....or something like that, maybe.
3 Collect money from people, but not taxes, and not everyone has to pay.....or something like that, maybe.
4 ?
5 ?
6 Well functioning society.

And the only reason why anyone would have a problem with this is lack of imagination?
Really?

That seems to about sum it up. I was goign to say he'll be back to throw in an answer that shows he looked at your post but has no relevace to the stuff you actually say bui he got there himself first.

Lots of avoidance and distraction but no substance.

Guy:Incognito · 20-06-2011 05:08PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's not my idea FFS.

It's merely speculating on how a non-coercive, non-violent, society that works on voluntarism and the free market (not a corporatocracy) might work.

If you're really interested watch this video.

Non-violent society? So what happens to all the violent peopel around? Do they all just up and leave to allow you your utopia?

How come countries aroudn the world are not abandoning government in favour of these perfect societies?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 20-06-2011 05:08PM

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Its hard to blame anyone for looking out for themselves these days in fairness. It would be a different story if we were getting world class services and weren't bailing out private banks at the behest of a weak and incompetent government, but we aren't.

Are you taking the píss? You give many people crap on here for "looking out for themselves" when they decide to migrate to look for work. You forgot that fairly quickly.

Chuck Stone · 20-06-2011 05:11PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Non-violent society? So what happens to all the violent peopel around? Do they all just up and leave to allow you your utopia?

How come countries aroudn the world are not abandoning government in favour of these perfect societies?

Non-violent way of organising society.

You quote the talk but you don't watch it.

Give it a shot - it might open your mind a little.

Guy:Incognito · 20-06-2011 05:17PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Non-violent way of organising society.
.

I havnt been beaten in to compliance by the government, have you?

In your system the Gardai would be replaced by bands of private hired mercenaries to uphold the law, is that the best form of non violent organisation you can come up with?Who keeps them in check? Who decides on the laws?

As Dimithy says, your replacign one government with lots of governments. The same only worse.

You need to think about this a bit more.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

.

Give it a shot - it might open your mind a little.

My mind doesnt need to be "opened". I'm perfectly happy, your the one lookign to change stuff.

Chuck Stone · 20-06-2011 05:20PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

My mind doesnt need to be "opened". I'm perfectly happy, your the one lookign to change stuff.

Yeah you're right.

Have a nice day.

Guy:Incognito · 20-06-2011 05:22PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yeah you're right.

Have a nice day.

You still havnt given an answer with any substance. Just silly little replies that dont have anything to do with the subject.

Sonnenblumen · 20-06-2011 06:02PM

dermo88 wrote: »

Sonnenblumen

What a load of hypocritical rubbish. The Black economy pre-dates most of what you suggest are some of the causes. The black economy is caused by bottom of the barrel dishonesty and cheating. Its just that these days, the cheats are blaming others for their own bad deeds. Hypocrites.

Of course the black economy is caused by bottom of the barrel dishonesty and cheating. There is no denying that. There is also the old chestnut stated by a Government official who has never worked in the private sector in their lives;

"Taxes would be lower if everybody paid them"

Which frankly, is complete bollocks. Governments on the Left wing of the equation view the taxpayer as a bottomless pit to be milked and bled dry. Governments on the Right wing view the taxpayer as a privatised entity to be sold to their cronies at will for milking and bleeding.

Its about perception. Its about responsibilities over rights. Its about avoiding moral hazard. Not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done.

The Black economy was always there, no doubt about that, and if your back is against the wall financially, your first duty is not to the state. Its to your family and friends.

I do not specifically refer to Ireland, I refer in general, from failed states like Somalia at one end of the spectrum through to success stories such as Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland. I have grown increasingly convinced that the connections of an elite in Ireland are unsustainable for the size of the country. Its simply a case of too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

Bottom of the barrel cheating and dishonesty happen when those at the top are seen to have escaped justice. In terms of business, integrity with customers and colleagues and other parties is crucial. If I don't have that credibility, I do not do business. The same goes for the state. The 1980's were an era of rampant tax evasion and fraud because at the top.....abuses of power were observed. The result is a feedthrough loop.

When it comes to the state.....I have never taken a penny, apart from my education. Beyond that, nothing. Paid medical care myself.....worked since I was 16....and meanwhile.......these Bankers get bailed out. It is repulsive, and the people are expected to pay for someone elses incompetence and mistakes. This is a Weimar Republic style nightmare. Did you elect Holohan, Fitzpatrick, or Timothy Geithner? No.....you did'nt, I did'nt, yet they are making momentous, morally questionable decisions that will affect Billions of people in terms of the chain reaction and contagion they cause.

On the other hand, do I expect German taxpayers to continue forking out money to fund irresponsible and immature regimes hundreds of kilometers away from their borders. I don't.

I used the black economy when I was badly paid and when I was a student because there simply was no choice in the matter. It was a matter of survival, where an extra twenty quid a week was the difference between savings and debt. It does'nt sound like much, but twenty quid saved is as good as twenty earned.

If you seriously believe for one minute that what I said is hypocrisy, then I have Twenty Five Million Dollars frozen in a Bank account in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, West Africa. If you transfer $2,500 to my account, I can give you 10% commission once those funds are released.

Self interest will win out against a faceless and unaccountable state.

Neither you nor I can unravel the crisis hitting Ireland, Europe and the World. But.....honesty and transparency on the part of those in charge would solve many many problems. Until then, do not expect all society to be honest. I can pay a subscription to the Ku Klux Klan using a credit card, why not Wikileaks?

What I said is not hypocrisy, its the truth, and you cannot handle the truth.

Pity you cannot channel your misguided rational into something more positive and constructive and be a responsible citizen instead of using other errors/crimes to simply justify your illegal behavioural stance.:(

Where's Wally?

Sonnenblumen · 20-06-2011 06:07PM

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Its hard to blame anyone for looking out for themselves these days in fairness. It would be a different story if we were getting world class services and weren't bailing out private banks at the behest of a weak and incompetent government, but we aren't.

You're obviously uncomfortable with such terms as democracy, responsibility, citizenship, duty etc. Yes most of these are learned at at a young age, at school at home etc etc. It's how we develope as responsible adults, citizens etc. Sorry your version reminds of the bottom of the barrel, the first squeeze and out the window with what separates us from animals and in come well, you can guess the rest.

Perhaps you think anarchy is some kind of holy grail existence where responsible people must pay for criminal me feiners. PFO.:(

"Black Economy" -Right or wrong?

Comments