Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » I specified "for all citizens" for that reason. The problem with all your points is that the weak will be exploited. The common trick by the advocates of small government is to poitn at such people and say that they're there for a reason and it's their own fault. The world is just, the system works. Except it's not true. It's just somethign they say to help them sleep at night, hence me bringing up the just world fallacy back at the start.
thick_skin wrote: » irish people see the state as something to suck off , if its not doling out goodies , we have no love for it at all , scandanavians see it as a two way relationshipwhat you pour in , you take back out
K-9 wrote: » Well I'd expect the lowest 20% to have a better standard of living these days than the same section 20 years ago and I'd take people moving up and indeed down sections as a given, otherwise capitalism really has totally failed and collapsed! The problem is the top 1% are getting wealthier which given so many capitalists say wealth trickles down....................doesn't seem to be happening. That study I linked to is over a 100 year period and indeed recognised that the richest section of society did indeed suffer badly initially, it seems a pretty well rounded piece overall. It really shouldn't come as a shock even to the most fervent free marketeer that the bottom sections of society have suffered more from the crisis, it's common sense really. There are big doubts if trickle down economics actually works.
More than 46 million Americans are now living below the poverty threshold, according to numbers released by the Census Bureau on Tuesday. That's the highest number since the Bureau started keeping track of the statistic in 1959. Are poor people better off now than they were 52 years ago? Much better, in absolute material terms. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation recently published an analysis of the lifestyle of people below the poverty line in 21st-century America. He found that many poor people have amenities that were available only to the wealthy (if they existed at all) in 1959. The typical household at the poverty line includes air conditioning, two color televisions with a cable or satellite feed, a DVD player, and a microwave. Poor children usually have a video game system. More than 38 percent of poor people have a personal computer. In the late 1950s, annual per capita caloric consumption reached a low point (PDF) for the 20th century. While food choices and the availability of fresh food in certain areas are major concerns, u ndernourishment is rare in the United States today. More than 92 percent of poor households always have enough food to eat, and poor children get about the same quantity of nutrients as middle-class children. Rector points out that poor children now "grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II."
jank wrote: » See, you are falling into the same trap. Poor people are better off then they were 20 years ago. Absolutely, I dont think anyone would claim otherwise. The standard of living enjoyed today by poor people in the west be it Ireland or the US is a million miles away from those who were poor say in the 1930's or 60 years ago.
As time shifts the idea of 'poor' gets shifted along with it. We see it all the time in these 'poverty' surveys. Sure wasn't there one published in Ireland a year ago saying that if one cant have a Sunday Roast they are classified as poor? Nonsense stuff
OldNotWIse wrote: » In a perfect world. Here, the less you pour in, the more you take out.
jank wrote: » Has the free market failed? News to me.
It’s time to start getting honest about a very simple fact: Nobody, but nobody, really believes in free markets. That’s right. Not the Republican Party, not the libertarians, not the Wall Street Journal, nobody. Here’s why: a truly free market is a perfectly competitive market. Which means that whatever you have to sell in that market, so does your competition. Which means price war. Which means your price gets driven down. Which means little or no profit for you. Naturally, businesses flee perfectly competitive markets like the plague. In fact, the fine art of doing so is a big part of what they teach in business schools.http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/why-free-market-economics-is-a-fraud/
jank wrote: » Nobody says the world is just nor that the current system works, libertarians most of all, so I have no idea where you got that idea from. You subscribe to the notion of big government, high taxes that will be redistributed fairly among the people. However that system unjustly targets those who put their head down and work hard, save their own money for whatever means they want. IS that fair?
Tax is basically legalised robbery. I am not naive to think we cant ever be taxed, we do need certain government services like law and order, a court system, army to defend the borders, dare I say it a very small safety net for those genuinely unlucky but what we have today in the western world is a behemoth of systems, bureaucrats, officials and politicians slowly but surely making us slaves to the state for the 'benefit' of ourselves as "we" ordinary people cannot be trusted. That is what western governments are becoming.
To add, Ireland is not Sweden. It has been mentioned already but Swedish people are very different to Irish people in their outlook on what government is meant to do. People in different countries have different interests and cultures. Just look at the world around you to see proof of that. We cannot be them nor they can be us. We can try of course but it would not work.
My name is URL wrote: » That's the same in every socially orientated state. Obviously those who are better off have much less need for the safety nets provided by the system (welfare, grants, public healthcare etc) Ireland is far from perfect but it's a bit of a woolly headed notion to believe that the poorest in society should be taking out of the system only in proportion to what they are putting in. It's also a bit disingenuous to say that the most well off should put less in because they avail of less services.. they avail of plenty.. they operate and earn within a system which allows them to (in relative terms) freely and easily do that. As for people seeing the state as something to be leeched off.. well that's certainly not exclusive to those on very low incomes. Even the political classes are all to happy to bleed the system. http://www.thejournal.ie/minister-and-wife-claim-tax-breaks-on-13-bed-moneygall-mansion-127346-Apr2011/ The culture of entitlement in this country isn't something that can or will be changed by singling out any single group.
OldNotWIse wrote: » I dont believe that was the point? But we do have a middle band that put in far more than those above or below - be it entire families living a life of handouts or those on the other end of the spectrum who have speciaists advising them how to avoid tax.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » I wouldn't mind paying it if I had it.
thick_skin wrote: » in your opinion
Playboy wrote: » People with more already pay more due to the simple fact that taxing a % of a larger amount leads to a bigger tax bill for the wealthy. However people who have more also pay more porpotionally due to staggered tax systems. Now the same person who pays more also uses less but people with less always seem to want more. Where does this situation end up? There has to be a balance between what tax the wealthy are forced to pay (or they will avoid/evade it) and the wider approach to welfare expenditure in general. If there is a lack of balance then there will be resentment on both sides. In Ireland there seems to be a pervasive entitlement culture where people take very little personal responsibility for their situation. The purpose of the state seems to have been interpreted in a way that creates some sort of expectation that people can somehow expect other people to pick up the tab for any issue that befalls them over the course of their life. I dont agree, I'm happy to support people who really need it and find themselves in a situation out of their ability to control or mitigate. I'm not happy to support people who live their lives in an irresponsible way that involves me paying part of my income to subsidise other peoples constant poor choices.
Playboy wrote: » As every person who doesnt have it asserts. It's such a shame that all the altruists are poor whilst the selfish are rich. It's very easy to lay claim to what somebody else has for your own benefit and its not easy to be forced to give away something you have for somebody else's benefit.
People with more already pay more due to the simple fact that taxing a % of a larger amount leads to a bigger tax bill for the wealthy. However people who have more also pay more porpotionally due to staggered tax systems. Now the same person who pays more also uses less but people with less always seem to want more. Where does this situation end up?
There has to be a balance between what tax the wealthy are forced to pay (or they will avoid/evade it) and the wider approach to welfare expenditure in general. If there is a lack of balance then there will be resentment on both sides.
In Ireland there seems to be a pervasive entitlement culture where people take very little personal responsibility for their situation. The purpose of the state seems to have been interpreted in a way that creates some sort of expectation that people can somehow expect other people to pick up the tab for any issue that befalls them over the course of their life. I dont agree, I'm happy to support people who really need it and find themselves in a situation out of their ability to control or mitigate. I'm not happy to support people who live their lives in an irresponsible way that involves me paying part of my income to subsidise other peoples constant poor choices.
Lyaiera wrote: » Then this goes back to the same figure from the boom time years... We had 4% unemployment. Given seasonal work, people between jobs and people changing status within the welfare system that's considered pretty much full employment of everyone who can work. This idea of there being hordes of people milking the system is rubbish when people were willing to work when the jobs were there.
Playboy wrote: » People with more already pay more due to the simple fact that taxing a % of a larger amount leads to a bigger tax bill for the wealthy.
However people who have more also pay more porpotionally due to staggered tax systems.
Now the same person who pays more also uses less
The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. Adam Smith: Wealth Of Nations
Playboy wrote: » There has to be a balance between what tax the wealthy are forced to pay (or they will avoid/evade it) and the wider approach to welfare expenditure in general.
In Ireland there seems to be a pervasive entitlement culture where people take very little personal responsibility for their situation.
I'm not happy to support people who live their lives in an irresponsible way that involves me paying part of my income to subsidise other peoples constant poor choices.
Ray Palmer wrote: » Wrong! There were tons of people on CE schemes to help them get into work. There are also tons of dubious illness/disability benefits. There are a few categories you can be in that don't show up as live register but involve people milking the system. It is a false premise to say the figure of 4% indicated this in anyway.
Lyaiera wrote: » The same type of scheme people are now demanding everyone on the dole goes on. I'd also like to see how you quantified the "tons of dubious illness/disability" benefit claimants. A 4% unemployment figure is roundabout full employment in an economy.
OldRio wrote: » Just read the last few pages of this thread. Fair play to the Government. Divide and rule still works. Let the great unwashed squabble amongst themselves whilst those with the real money and power go about their business unnoticed and untouched.
dark crystal wrote: » But the only thing less well off pensioners will lose is the telephone line rental scheme. They won't lose their medical cards, only wealthier over 70's will, so they're not being treated the same.
Ace2007 wrote: » At time of writing I did not know the criteria for the medical card and had asked and saw no reponse.
ibarelycare wrote: » So there was a protest for those opposed to the lowering of the dole for under 26's today on Kildare Street. Approximately 100 protestors showed. That's just very sad. Are young people really that apathetic to what's happening?
Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: » I'd say yes for the most part, the others probably feel that there's just no point and protesting will get them no where It was fairly bucketing down all day as well :pac:
ibarelycare wrote: » It stopped lashing before lunch in town, there were a couple of showers but it was basically grand. It shows a lot that the OAPs turned out on their thousands to protest a few years ago, but the young and fit adults only yielded a few dozen!
Swan Curry wrote: » Average young person's daily schedule: Half of the day:Work Other half of the day:Study/work some more Any spare time left over:Drink because there's not much else to do. Average pensioner's daily schedule: Morning:Mass(Not necessarily attended) Rest of the day:? I wonder why the elderly are able to turn up in numbers at the same time to protest in the middle of the day while young people aren't? Young people can't win with protesting.If they do protest,they're told their problems are insignificant and don't need to be addressed.If they don't protest,it's because they're lazy drunks.Is it that surprising that so many are leaving Ireland when the government is constantly making life harder for them?
