The Pro Austerity Crowd

Cazzoenorme · 17-05-2014 07:20PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Unearned inheritance, access to better schools, inheritance of businesses. Many of the factors that result in the development of people who couldn't give a sh1t about cuts affecting the disadvantaged in society.

Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to spend their hard earned wealth on their loved obes as they choose? I don't think I'd bother creating value in the economy if that were thw case.

longhalloween · 17-05-2014 07:20PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

No but it should be heavily taxed. Guess why? Because a cut to them will be less severe than a cut to those on the margins of society.

It's already taxed at 33%.

steddyeddy · 17-05-2014 07:21PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

So when a person dies none of their possessions shouldn't be handed down?

Why shouldn't they hand their possessions down?

mickydoomsux · 17-05-2014 07:21PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

No but it should be heavily taxed. Guess why? Because a cut to them will be less severe than a cut to those on the margins of society.

This and your other posts on this past page are sort of showing you as someone who wants things to be "fair" but your definition of fair is to create a cosseted sector of society at the expense (minor and major) of everyone else.

Not sure i can agree with you there.

Cazzoenorme · 17-05-2014 07:21PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

No but it should be heavily taxed. Guess why? Because a cut to them will be less severe than a cut to those on the margins of society.

But thise earnings were already taxed. So essentially you are stealing people's wealth.

steddyeddy · 17-05-2014 07:21PM

longhalloween wrote: »

It's already taxed at 33%.

Great we can certainly increase that. They can certainly take it more than someone on the verge of homelessness.

longhalloween · 17-05-2014 07:22PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

This and your other posts on this past page are sort of showing you as someone who wants things to be "fair" but your definition of fair is to create a cosseted sector of society at the expense (minor and major) of everyone else.

Not sure i can agree with you there.

I think he's promoting a great communist utopia :rolleyes:

mickydoomsux · 17-05-2014 07:22PM

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

But thise earnings were already taxed. So essentially you are stealing people's wealth.

It's ok though. They won't feel it as much as other people :rolleyes:

steddyeddy · 17-05-2014 07:23PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

It's ok though. They won't feel it as much as other people :rolleyes:

No it's not OK micky but it's a lot better than inflicting it on someone who will feel it a lot more or have you suddenly turned anti austerity?

steddyeddy · 17-05-2014 07:24PM

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

But thise earnings were already taxed. So essentially you are stealing people's wealth.

PFFFFF!! It's amazing how people turn anti austerity when it comes to a certain socio economic group

RobbingBandit · 17-05-2014 07:25PM

This money tree would be the one where the Irish people lynch crooked politicians and bankers, stopping the massive funding being given to them for their criminal acts. Honestly how much would be saved if all pensions to Bertie, Biffo, Mary Harney, Michael McDowell etc were stopped for one year, let alone the bull****e golden hand shakes, bet we could fix the economy if this hole was plugged.

bumper234 · 17-05-2014 07:25PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

No but it should be heavily taxed. Guess why? Because a cut to them will be less severe than a cut to those on the margins of society.

It's taxed at 33% after the threshold. Why should people who work all their lives to build up their business if they are not going to be able to leave their children/wives family an inheritence? Where is the incentive to build a business if you cannot leave a legacy for yoir kids?

steddyeddy · 17-05-2014 07:25PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

This and your other posts on this past page are sort of showing you as someone who wants things to be "fair" but your definition of fair is to create a cosseted sector of society at the expense (minor and major) of everyone else.

Not sure i can agree with you there.

No everyone has to take some cut but those who can take it should take a lot more than they have.

longhalloween · 17-05-2014 07:26PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

No it's not OK micky but it's a lot better than inflicting it on someone who will feel it a lot more or have you suddenly turned anti austerity?

So, for example, say your father worked his whole life and struggled and sacrificed to build a business with the hopes of passing it on to you.

You'd be ok with the government seizing most of those assets when he passed?

Bubbaclaus · 17-05-2014 07:27PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why shouldn't they hand their possessions down?

Well you are saying they should be heavily taxed, which is essentially taking most of their possessions off them.

steddyeddy · 17-05-2014 07:28PM

bumper234 wrote: »

It's taxed at 33% after the threshold. Why should people who work all their lives to build up their business if they are not going to be able to leave their children/wives family an inheritence? Where is the incentive to build a business if you cannot leave a legacy for yoir kids?

Again there are students in UCD sleeping in cars and many have left university. By your logic cutting the student grant should disincentive people to get and education? I came from a disadvantaged background and got a PhD. I haven't really much time for people not wanting to do something because it's hard or might not pay off. Passion for business (or science on my side of things) gets people to where they are not the love of money.

KyussBishop · 17-05-2014 07:30PM

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

Can you clarify what you mean by unearned wealth, no t sure what you're referring to?

steddyeddy gives some good examples, and in addition to unearned income, there is rent-seeking activity; it's a broad topic, covering a lot of things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unearned_income
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent

steddyeddy · 17-05-2014 07:30PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Well you are saying they should be heavily taxed, which is essentially taking most of their possessions off them.

Well people are becoming homeless which is a lot worse to be honest. People with wealth often had the opportunity many others had not better schools ect so taxing them is a lot fairer than creating more homeless who didn't have the same advantages.

KyussBishop · 17-05-2014 07:31PM

bumper234 wrote: »

So people who work all of their life and build up a business, save a few quid to leave to their kids/grandkids? When they die their business should be handed to the people? Their money should go into the social protection kitty and given to the poor?

We're talking about 'unearned income' - what did they do to 'earn' their inheritance?

They are given it. They don't earn it.

Someone having money/wealth, does not mean they automatically 'earned' it.

Satriale · 17-05-2014 07:32PM

longhalloween wrote: »

So, for example, say your father worked his whole life and struggled and sacrificed to build a business with the hopes of passing it on to you.

You'd be ok with the government seizing most of those assets when he passed?

i've news for you, if your dad worked hard his whole life and left you with just a tax bill , he wasnt a very good business man.

KyussBishop · 17-05-2014 07:33PM

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

But thise earnings were already taxed. So essentially you are stealing people's wealth.

Taxes are taxes, they are not stealing.

steddyeddy · 17-05-2014 07:34PM

I have to laugh at the people saying no one will start a business if they have an extra 10% tax to pay (if and only if they earn above a certain threshold). There are people in college living on 20 a week to earn a lot less in the long run. There are plenty of people born into less than ideal circumstances who would start a business even if it meant more tax. I would suggest people stop being so pampered.

longhalloween · 17-05-2014 07:37PM

Satriale wrote: »

i've news for you, if your dad worked hard his whole life and left you with just a tax bill , he wasnt a very good business man.

We're talking about a compulsory inheritance tax, which steadyeddy wants to increase.

Nothing to do with the health of a business.

bumper234 · 17-05-2014 07:38PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

steddyeddy gives some good examples, and in addition to unearned income, there is rent-seeking activity; it's a broad topic, covering a lot of things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unearned_income
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent

From the wiki link

Unearned income refers to income received by virtue of owning property (known as property income), inheritance, pensions and payments received from public welfare. The three major forms of unearned income based on property ownership are rent, received from the ownership of natural resources; interest, received by virtue of owning financial assets; and profit, received from the ownership of capital equipment.[1] As such, unearned income is often categorized as "passive income".

Unearned income can be discussed from either an economic or accounting perspective, but is more commonly used in economics.

So social welfare payments are also classed as "unearned income" so this should also be taxed at the same rate right?

longhalloween · 17-05-2014 07:41PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I have to laugh at the people saying no one will start a business if they have an extra 10% tax to pay (if and only if they earn above a certain threshold). There are people in college living on 20 a week to earn a lot less in the long run. There are plenty of people born into less than ideal circumstances who would start a business even if it meant more tax. I would suggest people stop being so pampered.

Those people living on €20 a week (and yourself presumably) soon be part of the high earners these posters wish to tax heavily.

Possibly so. But since it's so hard to start a successful business now, do you really want to make it harder?

Satriale · 17-05-2014 07:50PM

longhalloween wrote: »

We're talking about a compulsory inheritance tax, which steadyeddy wants to increase.

Nothing to do with the health of a business.

Its everything to do with its health. If your new business survives the inheritance tax then your father was indeed a fine business man. you should be proud.

Trust me, if you were given a choice of paying a million tax on a business worth two million you would take it over being left a semi detached house out in the sticks with zero tax liability.
if you didnt your dad left the business to the wrong person...

tayto lover · 17-05-2014 07:53PM

bumper234 wrote: »

From the wiki link

So social welfare payments are also classed as "unearned income" so this should also be taxed at the same rate right?

No way.
The people on SW are a lot poorer than the others. That's why they are on SW.
You are only trying to muddy the waters now.

longhalloween · 17-05-2014 07:55PM

Satriale wrote: »

Its everything to do with its health. If your new business survives the inheritance tax then your father was indeed a fine business man. you should be proud.

Trust me, if you were given a choice of paying a million tax on a business worth two million you would take it over being left a semi detached house out in the sticks with zero tax liability.
if you didnt your dad left the business to the wrong person...

I don't think there's any business going that could stand to lose half its assets overnight.

Bubbaclaus · 17-05-2014 07:56PM

Laffer Curve

mickydoomsux · 17-05-2014 07:56PM

tayto lover wrote: »

No way.
The people on SW are a lot poorer than the others. That's why they are on SW.
You are only trying to muddy the waters now.

Well, to be fair, the topic for discussion was the taxing of unearned income and welfare comes under that heading.

You're being precious about it. Seems to be a feature of our society.

"Times have to be tough for absolutely everyone.......... except for the following groups of people."

The Pro Austerity Crowd

Comments