nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Pro Austerity Crowd

SafeSurfer

The people that cheer lead for austerity. Can they not think of any other way?

The current government were elected with a mandate for change. Remember the "democratic revolution". Well there has been only a change of faces, not policies. There was not even an attempt to try something different despite securing a massive majority, with 68% of available seats.

In the last general election campaign the electorate were lied to, plain and simple, as minister Pat Rabbitte freely admitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQrhBIuSCmM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHN18Rzhk_c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpr2zaXvb4M

Find more posts tagged with

austerity junkies

grammar nazis

Quick Links

Comments

Shadowless

A child in Ireland is 6 times more likely to live in consistent poverty than an OAP.
OAP's are probably the wealthiest cohort in society and those who can afford to contribute more should contribute more.
You can be a fat cat banker at 64 but on turning 65 you're automatically one of "the most vulnerable in society"
It's nonsense imo.

longhalloween

Satriale wrote: »

Not to offend you or anything, i'm just finished quibbling with you.
When you argument consists of telling me im talking vague anecdotal ****e while you spout much the same, the argument had come full circle and its time for one of us to call a halt, life is just too short

Now im off to the chinese to spend my inheritance, they do a great salt pepper squid, ill bring you back one.;)

Ask a simple question, get a stupid answer :rolleyes:

Geuze

My pensioner parents earn 900 approx pw, or 45-50k pa.

They pay under 10% tax + USC + PRSI.

No other country in the world could be that generous.

On top of very low direct taxes, they get:

two med cards
two travel passes
free TV licence
subsidised elec
subsidised telecom until 2014

No matter what ideology you are, this is madness.

We simply can't continue to borrow billions, and at the same time have some very low direct taxes on some groups.

Meanwhile, the top 52% marginal tax rate kicks in at 32,800 which is also crazy.

Satriale

longhalloween wrote: »

I think we were more worried about leaving something to our loved ones instead of handing it all over to the state.

Seeing as you're not gone to bed, care to provide any examples of all these businesses you say can lose half their assets and be grand?

Not to offend you or anything, i'm just finished quibbling with you.
When you argument consists of telling me im talking vague anecdotal ****e while you spout much the same, the argument had come full circle and its time for one of us to call a halt, life is just too short

Now im off to the chinese to spend my inheritance, they do a great salt pepper squid, ill bring you back one.;)

bumper234

tayto lover wrote: »

I would expect the people who earn a net income of 60 K and over to give some more.
I wouldn't lump any more on people under 30 K as they have very little left to give. The OAP's have paid all their working lives through many recession and they should be allowed to live out their remaining time without worry.

What about someone who is in their late 50's early 60's who has also "worked their whole life" and payed their taxes? Should they all.of a sudden be hit with massive tax hikes because they have worked hard all their life to get a decent wage?

longhalloween

tayto lover wrote: »

How the Hell would I know. I'm not an economist.
All i'm saying is that people earning/having plenty of money should pay more rather than taking from the struggling people. Regardless of how much they already pay.

Well I respectfully disagree.
I believe that high earners already contribute more that their fair share to the taxman as evidenced by the higher rate of tax.
They should be allowed to enjoy what remains of their wages.

Any more that this is punitive and it's not the fault of high earners that some people are struggling.

mickydoomsux

tayto lover wrote: »

If they have plenty then take plenty.

But:

tayto lover wrote:

The OAP's have paid all their working lives.

tayto lover

mickydoomsux wrote: »

The ones that have actually worked.

Also, what about rich OAPs? Should reaching a certain age put a cap on how much tax you have to pay?

If they have plenty then take plenty.

tayto lover

tritium wrote: »

Well, how about this one from earlier so?

How the Hell would I know. I'm not an economist.
All i'm saying is that people earning/having plenty of money should pay more rather than taking from the struggling people. Regardless of how much they already pay.

Send you query to David Mc Williams though rather than any of the other economists who didn't see the collapse coming or who thought we'd have a soft landing.

longhalloween

Satriale wrote: »

lol, they above all else know that you cant take it with you...

I think we were more worried about leaving something to our loved ones instead of handing it all over to the state.

Seeing as you're not gone to bed, care to provide any examples of all these businesses you say can lose half their assets and be grand?

Satriale

steddyeddy wrote: »

Precious? Have the pro austerity squad nearly had a heart attack when it was mentioned precious inheritance was attacked.

lol, they above all else know that you cant take it with you...

mickydoomsux

tayto lover wrote: »

The OAP's have paid all their working lives

The ones that have actually worked.

Also, what about rich OAPs? Should reaching a certain age put a cap on how much tax you have to pay?

steddyeddy

mickydoomsux wrote: »

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."

Precious? Half the pro austerity squad nearly had a heart attack when it was mentioned precious inheritance was attacked.

tritium

tayto lover wrote: »

Like?

Well, how about this one from earlier so?

tritium wrote: »

In the interests of having a clear understanding of the position, can someone from the' tax the rich' side give me an answer to the following:

1. What percentage of the gross pay do they feel someone should pay in tax (income tax+USC and levies)? Let's take below the following bands; 25k, 50k, 75k, 100k, 100k?

2. What percentage of the total tax take do they feel that the top 25% of earners should contribute?

3.how much in total (in millions of euro) extra would they look to take in taxes from the >100k group?

Bubbaclaus

tayto lover said

Every worker is working hard now.
Those who earn most should be prepared to give a little more as they can afford it. It hurts them less.

They already do. And its not just a little bit more, they pay a large bit more.

Edit: And before anyone chimes in, my gross salary is currently 24k a year.

Toby Take a Bow

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What really annoys me is the populism of the socialist party, sinn fein etc. They take everyone for idiots. Sure we will pay no taxes and have no cuts and everything will be hunky dory.

I am pretty sure that all of the 'populist' parties favour an increase in taxes. Just not for lower-waged earners. Now if, as many people have suggested, the vast majority of taxes are paid by the top percentage of wealth in the country (which I have always assumed to be the case, although I can't find any definitive figures for Ireland on the net) this would surely lead to a drastic increase in revenue collected. Whatever about the rights or wrongs of this situation as you see it, it's hardly 'money tree' territory. The idea of a money tree would actually fit better with the FF and FG/Labour understanding of politics. Banks in the 'boom' period were essentially money trees: the policies they operated could only have been successful if there was a complete reversal of the boom/bust cycle in economics. So, essentially they were creating money from nothing (as many of their customers would not be able to pay them back).

tayto lover

I would expect the people who earn a net income of 60 K and over to give some more.
I wouldn't lump any more on people under 30 K as they have very little left to give. The OAP's have paid all their working lives through many recession and they should be allowed to live out their remaining time without worry.

bumper234

KyussBishop wrote: »

Translation: "I'm going to pretend to have asked you a question - a question that does not exist - and then repeatedly just keep demanding that you answer my (non-existent) question."

Sigh

: tayto lover
Every worker is working hard now.
Those who earn most should be prepared to give a little more as they can afford it. It hurts them less.
We are in a recession as most of you keep pointing out.

bumper234 wrote: »

How much is a "little more"?

Another 2%? 5%? 15%?

Seeing as you want the people who are paying tax to pay a little more can i also assume (to help the country out of recession quicker) that you would advocate social welfare recipients and OAP's to take the same % in cuts?

KyussBishop

bumper234 wrote: »

Nope i'm just pointing out the stupidity of the usual "TAX THE RICH" crowd who call for these mega taxes on the people who already pay the most tax and who create businesses and employ people but as soon as it's mentioned about taxing or means testing other groups you all cry foul.

Yet I never said 'tax the rich', I've explicitly avoided saying that, because I'm instead talking about stopping 'upward redistribution of wealth' - and you know it, because I've said it more than a dozen times today across the two threads - yet you're trying to straw-man me into the 'tax the rich' argument, that I didn't make.

That shows you have dishonest intent in your arguments, and are either 1: trying to shut down debate, or 2: are stirring shít (or both).

tayto lover

bumper234 wrote: »

Feel free to search back a couple of pages. I'm sure you know exactly which posts i am talking about unless you just decided to skip several pages of posts.

Then you better ask it again.
I haven't read the whole thread as i was watching the football.

bumper234

KyussBishop wrote: »

No again, it seems to be more you picking the most thick-headed interpretation possible, to get me to repeatedly correct things as an opportunity for you to condescend - deliberately I'd say too, as it's becoming a pattern in your posts.

Nope i'm just pointing out the stupidity of the usual "TAX THE RICH" crowd who call for these mega taxes on the people who already pay the most tax and who create businesses and employ people but as soon as it's mentioned about taxing or means testing other groups you all cry foul.

KyussBishop

bumper234 wrote: »

Feel free to search back a couple of pages. I'm sure you know exactly which posts i am talking about unless you just decided to skip several pages of posts.

Translation: "I'm going to pretend to have asked you a question - a question that does not exist - and then repeatedly just keep demanding that you answer my (non-existent) question."

longhalloween

Satriale wrote: »

What do you mean, vague anecdotal sh1te like...

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?

night, Sunshine, your argument beats all lol

That's a fairly common example that business owners and farmers share. Thanks for just regurgitating my point instead of proving your own.

bumper234

tayto lover wrote: »

Like?

Feel free to search back a couple of pages. I'm sure you know exactly which posts i am talking about unless you just decided to skip several pages of posts.

Satriale

longhalloween wrote: »

Examples?? There's some amount of vague or anecdotal sh*te being spouted by some people here.

What do you mean, vague anecdotal sh1te like...

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?

night, Sunshine, your argument beats all lol

Bubbaclaus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What really annoys me is the populism of the socialist party, sinn fein etc. They take everyone for idiots. Sure we will pay no taxes and have no cuts and everything will be hunky dory.

Free money for all!!

Kermit.de.frog

What really annoys me is the populism of the socialist party, sinn fein etc. They take everyone for idiots. Sure we will pay no taxes and have no cuts and everything will be hunky dory.

KyussBishop

bumper234 wrote: »

So to.clarify

Unearned income should be taxed, but only for some people :rolleyes:

No again, it seems to be more you picking the most thick-headed interpretation possible, to get me to repeatedly correct things as an opportunity for you to condescend - deliberately I'd say too, as it's becoming a pattern in your posts.

longhalloween

Satriale wrote: »

Trust me, there is and has.

Examples?? There's some amount of vague or anecdotal sh*te being spouted by some people here.

tayto lover

bumper234 wrote: »

Try answering the question you have been asked several times already instead of avoiding them and just spouting the same waffle every couple of pages.

Like?