Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Unpopular Opinions.

1…2627293132…333

Comments

  • #842
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    quickbeam wrote: »
    Agree with this totally. I'm not on massive wages - I think average for the country, but I'd rather pay more income tax than a property tax or bin charges. Income tax (and VAT) goes up and down depending on the climate, but things like property tax will always be here to stay once it's introduced. FG thought they were earning brownie points when they promised not to put up the income tax but it had the opposite effect on me as I knew they'd need to get their money from us somehow if not by income tax.
    coonecb1 wrote: »
    In Ireland, I think you might be right in relation to the "underclasses", but I would disagree that the middle and upper classes get screwed.

    I'm on 35K and think I'm getting taxed at a generously low rate, relative to the rest of Europe.

    I would gladly pay an extra 10% if it meant universal healthcare and some form of help for the families struggling with negative equity at the moment.

    Actually, I realise I've just made an unpopular point of mine just now!
    coonecb1 wrote: »
    Exactly. I'd prefer for them to come out honestly, and say "we are going to increase your income tax, for the following reasons..."

    Instead, they say "we won't increase taxes", but 6 months later "we were talking about income taxes". "We are going to introduce property tax and water tax, but technically we didn't break our promises as regards income tax".

    Talk about insulting people's intelligence :rolleyes:


    Interesting arguments. Insane however: in the sense that you go against your class positions. Firstly 35K is a working class income, more of less. And you paying 10% more won't guarantee anything about the health service - not without reform. It will guarantee that lots of people earning 2-3 times more than you get paid even more.

    Secondly, workers should be in favour of property tax. Rich people ( and tautologically landlords) own both more property and more valuable property, but can hide, or offset their income. So, yes, a property tax may effect you (if you own), but less than the equivalent tax were it applied only to income tax.


  • #843
    Miss Olenska
    Closed Accounts Posts: 559 ✭✭✭Miss Olenska


    Yahew wrote: »
    Firstly 35K is a working class income, more of less.

    Then I must be underclass!


  • #844
    Paulor94
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 111 ✭✭Paulor94


    Rap music isn't all about cars, women and drugs.


  • #845
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    Miss Olenska wrote: »
    Then I must be underclass!

    No, thats a non-working position. To be honest you could argue that anybody who has to work, is working class. I would define the middle classes are largely the old style professional classes who are largely protected from outsourcing, and global capitalism. Lawyers etc. The rich don't have to work - they can live on capital - but some do work.


  • #846
    Miss Olenska
    Closed Accounts Posts: 559 ✭✭✭Miss Olenska


    Yahew wrote: »
    No, thats a non-working position. To be honest you could argue that anybody who has to work, is working class. I would define the middle classes are largely the old style professional classes who are largely protected from outsourcing, and global capitalism. Lawyers etc. The rich don't have to work - they can live on capital - but some do work.

    35K is a nice salary though.


  • Advertisement
  • #847
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    I don't like chocolate brownies.


  • #848
    desertcircus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Yahew wrote: »
    Firstly 35K is a working class income, more of less.

    Median income in Ireland in 2009 was marginally over 20k. There's a persistent idea in Ireland that there's a "squeezed middle" loads of us belong to, when in reality anyone earning over 30k is well beyond the middle. Someone on thirty-five thousand quid a year is not on a "working class income", and the sooner some people realise this and realise that huge numbers of their fellow countrymen and women are doing a lot worse than them, the better.


  • #849
    Celly Smunt
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭Celly Smunt


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Median income in Ireland in 2009 was marginally over 20k. There's a persistent idea in Ireland that there's a "squeezed middle" loads of us belong to, when in reality anyone earning over 30k is well beyond the middle. Someone on thirty-five thousand quid a year is not on a "working class income", and the sooner some people realise this and realise that huge numbers of their fellow countrymen and women are doing a lot worse than them, the better.

    I agree,i have friends in Ireland Driving new cars and big houses on 30K a year,however they are up to their tits in Debt and just can't live without the flash they don't own.


  • #850
    Snowie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,048 ✭✭✭✭Snowie


    Dudess wrote: »
    I don't like chocolate brownies.

    have you ever had the frijj chocolate brownies milk shake thingy awwwww is sooooooooo good super thick :cool:


  • #851
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Median income in Ireland in 2009 was marginally over 20k. There's a persistent idea in Ireland that there's a "squeezed middle" loads of us belong to, when in reality anyone earning over 30k is well beyond the middle. Someone on thirty-five thousand quid a year is not on a "working class income", and the sooner some people realise this and realise that huge numbers of their fellow countrymen and women are doing a lot worse than them, the better.

    The latest I see, for 2009, is that the median household income was 42K. Admittedly that might be two workers, but costs don't scale for two people.

    It doesn't matter. 35K is a working class income, just as £500 in 1930 - if that was where the median was - was a working class income.

    Middle income is not = middle class.


  • Advertisement
  • #852
    Squall19
    Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Squall19


    It's not fair that you have to stay faithful.


  • #853
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Yahew wrote: »
    No, thats a non-working position. To be honest you could argue that anybody who has to work, is working class. I would define the middle classes are largely the old style professional classes who are largely protected from outsourcing, and global capitalism. Lawyers etc. The rich don't have to work - they can live on capital - but some do work.

    You can argue and define whatever you like but when you can show me two people who can agree on a definition of the terms "working class" and "middle class" mean in 2011 I will tell you which I am.


  • #854
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    This middle, or working class needs a thread. Will stop on it here now, and start that.


  • #855
    desertcircus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Yahew wrote: »
    The latest I see, for 2009, is that the median household income was 42K. Admittedly that might be two workers, but costs don't scale for two people.

    It doesn't matter. 35K is a working class income, just as £500 in 1930 - if that was where the median was - was a working class income.

    Middle income is not = middle class.

    I don't get what scalability of costs has to do with media income, to be honest. And a sum of money that's almost double the media income simply isn't a "working class income" by any generally understood meaning of the phrase. If we understand working class as being somewhere beside or below middle class (and I don't think that's a controversial position), then a working class wage should be somewhere below median salary, not nearly twice that same salary. The most recent comprehensive figures on income percentiles I can find are from a 2000 study by the ESRI, which indicates that the salary at the 90th percentile - in other words, the salary that means you earn more than 90% of the people in the country - is 189% of median income.

    I accept that figures may well have changed, but what that means is that in the absence of changes to income deciles, earning 35,000 a year means you're two to four thousand quid a year off joining the top 10% of earners in the country. If we're calling that working-class, then we might as well abandon the phrase, as it's lost all meaning.


  • #856
    irishgirl19
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭irishgirl19


    I can't stand people who protest against abortion.It personally wouldn't be an option for myself,but surely it is a woman's own right weather she wants to give birth or not,getting pregnant and giving birth can have detrimental affects on someone who is not emotionally ready,surely.


  • #857
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    desertcircus wrote: »
    I don't get what scalability of costs has to do with media income, to be honest. And a sum of money that's almost double the media income simply isn't a "working class income" by any generally understood meaning of the phrase. If we understand working class as being somewhere beside or below middle class (and I don't think that's a controversial position), then a working class wage should be somewhere below median salary, not nearly twice that same salary. The most recent comprehensive figures on income percentiles I can find are from a 2000 study by the ESRI, which indicates that the salary at the 90th percentile - in other words, the salary that means you earn more than 90% of the people in the country - is 189% of median income.

    I accept that figures may well have changed, but what that means is that in the absence of changes to income deciles, earning 35,000 a year means you're two to four thousand quid a year off joining the top 10% of earners in the country. If we're calling that working-class, then we might as well abandon the phrase, as it's lost all meaning.

    Except, historically - thats what working classes always meant. There are step changes between classes.

    ( I don't accept that the median is close to €20K, if the household median is €42 and not all households are double income earners, and women don't earn the same as men but lets go with it).

    The problem is that most people see income as being distributed normally. It is distributed in a power relationship. The bottom 90% were always working class and peasants, are now, and have 10% of the income and wealth. The top 10% were middle class and rich. ( they have and had 80-90% of the income and wealth).

    In the middle ages for instance the median was about £4. A top job earns ya £6. A bad one £2. Merchants and gentry earned £100s. The rich ( aristocrats) earned £1000s.

    Someone on 190% of the median then would be earning £6, be in the top 10 percentile ( of population, not income) and whoopee doopee doo. Still a peasant.

    In the modern equivalent the working classes are on the tens of thousands, middle classes are hundreds of thousands ( doctors and lawyers) the rich are on millions. Thats the actual way the economy is structured and - in fact - the top 1% are pushing even further away.

    Its not 1950 anymore, things equalised a bit during the 20th century. In 2011 we look like the middle ages. Most of the inequality is at the top.

    35K is working class.


  • #858
    desertcircus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    There's clearly no point in continuing this discussion, as we appear to be at cross purposes as to what "working class" means.


  • #859
    coonecb1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 523 ✭✭✭coonecb1


    Yahew wrote: »
    Interesting arguments. Insane however: in the sense that you go against your class positions. Firstly 35K is a working class income, more of less. And you paying 10% more won't guarantee anything about the health service - not without reform. It will guarantee that lots of people earning 2-3 times more than you get paid even more.

    Secondly, workers should be in favour of property tax. Rich people ( and tautologically landlords) own both more property and more valuable property, but can hide, or offset their income. So, yes, a property tax may effect you (if you own), but less than the equivalent tax were it applied only to income tax.

    Regarding your first point, I'm not claiming that paying more tax would solve the problem, I'm saying that I would be willing to trade an extra 10% of my income, if it meant a health system such as the NHS. I don't quite follow your point that me paying higher tax will "guarantee that people earning 2-3 times more than me will get paid even more". Can you explain?

    Regarding the second point, you are correct that I should in theory be in favour of a property tax. The thing I'm arguing about is the way the politicians deny that they'll increase taxes, only to then do it in a stealthy way once they get elected. I find it insulting that they think we don't see through it.


  • #860
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    desertcircus wrote: »
    There's clearly no point in continuing this discussion, as we appear to be at cross purposes as to what "working class" means.

    or because you don't understand power relationships in statistics. You did come in armed with some statistical terms, but have withdrawn now .

    Power relationships are tricky huh. We could call someone who earns twice the median in the top 25 percentile ( of population) but like everyone else in the bottom 80% he is playing with 10% of all income.


  • #861
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    coonecb1 wrote: »
    Regarding your first point, I'm not claiming that paying more tax would solve the problem, I'm saying that I would be willing to trade an extra 10% of my income, if it meant a health system such as the NHS. I don't quite follow your point that me paying higher tax will "guarantee that people earning 2-3 times more than me will get paid even more". Can you explain?

    During the boom the actual amount spent on the HSE increased proportionately to the economic boom, so it doubled or tripled. Did you notice much difference? Hint: a lot went to consultants.

    ( also the NHS is really not very good).
    Regarding the second point, you are correct that I should in theory be in favour of a property tax. The thing I'm arguing about is the way the politicians deny that they'll increase taxes, only to then do it in a stealthy way once they get elected. I find it insulting that they think we don't see through it.

    fair enough.


  • Advertisement
  • #862
    ItsAWindUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,325 ✭✭✭ItsAWindUp


    Nothing that Monty Python ever made was ever remotely funny or good.


  • #863
    krudler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    ItsAWindUp wrote: »
    Nothing that Monty Python ever made was ever remotely funny or good.

    you realise he's not an actual person right?


  • #864
    coonecb1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 523 ✭✭✭coonecb1


    Yahew wrote: »
    During the boom the actual amount spent on the HSE increased proportionately to the economic boom, so it doubled or tripled. Did you notice much difference? Hint: a lot went to consultants.

    ( also the NHS is really not very good).

    The NHS may not be perfect, but no system is. I do think it's a far better alternative to what we have here, or the States for that matter.

    Like I said, I would be willing to pay an extra 10% in income tax if we could bring in the NHS as it currently is.


  • #865
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    krudler wrote: »
    you realise he's not an actual person right?

    Well duh. He's a snake.


  • #866
    desertcircus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Yahew wrote: »
    or because you don't understand power relationships in statistics. You did come in armed with some statistical terms, but have withdrawn now .

    Power relationships are tricky huh. We could call someone who earns twice the median in the top 25 percentile ( of population) but like everyone else in the bottom 80% he is playing with 10% of all income.

    Nothing to do with power relationships, but thank you for the needless triumphalism. The reason I disagree with you in terms of the meaning of "working class" is because whether the top 0.1% of the population take home 1%, 10% or 50% of all income, the vast majority of public life and social relationships - the things we describe in terms of class interactions - is conducted in the remaining 99.9% of society. The definitions of classes aren't dependent on the exact scale of wealth held by the people at the absolute pinnacle of the earning scale; they're dependent on the social effects and broadly predictable behaviours, preferences, social identifications and political groupings based loosely around those classes. The working class is understood to have a heavy bias towards manual and unskilled labour for below-average wages, and children of working-class parents are generally less likely to enter third level education than the children of middle class parents. Thirty people at the top counting their wealth in billions instead of hundreds of millions does nothing to change that concept.


  • #867
    Deki
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44,501 ✭✭✭✭Deki


    I think this may not be the most popular of opinions but I believe that abortion should not be considered as a method of birth control. There are lots of ways to prevent pregnancy if you don't want to have a baby then practice one or several of them. If you aren't willing to be grown up enough to take responsibility for your actions don't participate. Unless you are pregnant from no choice of your own abortion should not be considered as the go to solution. Abortion is most detrimental to the life of the living and growing baby who will never have a chance to make any decisions.


  • #868
    d.anthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 424 ✭✭d.anthony


    Deus Ex Machina wrote: »
    I believe that there are many logically sound arguments in favour of suicide.

    I believe that human optimism and industriousness are derived by a gestalt of advantageous delusions and evolutionary epiphenomena, and that they are not inherently superior to their opposites.

    I believe that drug use is a perfectly valid way of achieving pleasure.

    I believe that sexual intercourse is absolutely revolting if analysed at any level beyond the trite way it is presented by soceity and those who ape it.

    Anyone else read that to the tune of Savage Garden's 'Affirmation'?


  • #869
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    d.anthony wrote: »
    Anyone else read that to the tune of Savage Garden's 'Affirmation'?

    You're presuming people know the tune of Savage Garden songs now?

    :confused:


  • #870
    d.anthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 424 ✭✭d.anthony


    AnonoBoy wrote: »
    You're presuming people know the tune of Savage Garden songs now?

    :confused:

    I'd have assumed it's relatively well known?



  • Advertisement
  • #871
    flutterflye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,538 ✭✭✭flutterflye


    d.anthony wrote: »
    I'd have assumed it's relatively well known

    Never heard that before.
    My god what an annoying song!
    It's like something off Glee!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement