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

The Pro Austerity Crowd

1…6791112…26

Comments

  • #242
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    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?
    I didn't say what types of unearned income would be targeted, neither did I say they all would, and neither did I put conditions on how they would be.
    I'm talking about reducing upward-redistribution of wealth - that one leads to downward-redistribution of wealth; that one is also a benefit to society.

    As steddyeddy said, this seems more of an effort on your part, to be obtuse in your interpretation, and to muddy the waters/avoid the point.


  • #243
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    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.

    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.


  • #244
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,287 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    I didn't say what types of unearned income would be targeted, neither did I say they all would, and neither did I put conditions on how they would be.
    I'm talking about reducing upward-redistribution of wealth - that one leads to downward-redistribution of wealth; that one is also a benefit to society.

    As steddyeddy said, this seems more of an effort on your part, to be obtuse in your interpretation, and to muddy the waters/avoid the point.

    What about a situation where a wealthy business-owning father dies and leaves his fortune to his 5 poor, long-term unemployed children?

    Should the inheritance tax rate be cut here because it is a downward-redistribution of wealth?

    In other words, should we be means testing the amount of money people can receive from an inheritance?


  • #245
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    I didn't say what types of unearned income would be targeted, neither did I say they all would, and neither did I put conditions on how they would be.
    I'm talking about reducing upward-redistribution of wealth - that one leads to downward-redistribution of wealth; that one is also a benefit to society.

    As steddyeddy said, this seems more of an effort on your part, to be obtuse in your interpretation, and to muddy the waters/avoid the point.

    So to.clarify

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


  • #246
    Satriale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,998 ✭✭✭Satriale


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

    Trust me, there is and has.

    You could always opt for the tax free semi d in Athlone. (No offence Athlonians, i live deeper in the sticks than that;))


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    mickydoomsux wrote: »
    What about a situation where a wealthy business-owning father dies and leaves his fortune to his 5 poor, long-term unemployed children?

    Should the inheritance tax rate be cut here because it is a downward-redistribution of wealth?

    In other words, should we be means testing the amount of money people can receive from an inheritance?
    I didn't say anything should be done with inheritance tax - and tbh, that's an idiotic example, which makes it look like you're taking the piss.


  • #248
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,713 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #249
    longhalloween
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭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.


  • #250
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭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.


  • #251
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,733 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,460 ✭✭✭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!!


  • #253
    Satriale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,998 ✭✭✭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 ;)


  • #254
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #255
    longhalloween
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭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.


  • #256
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭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."


  • #257
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #258
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,713 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #259
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭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).


  • #260
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #261
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,713 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭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).


  • #263
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,460 ✭✭✭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.


  • #264
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭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?


  • #265
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #266
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,287 ✭✭✭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?


  • #267
    Satriale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,998 ✭✭✭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...


  • #268
    longhalloween
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭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?


  • #269
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,713 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #270
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,713 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,287 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    tayto lover wrote: »
    If they have plenty then take plenty.

    But:
    tayto lover wrote:
    The OAP's have paid all their working lives.

    :confused:


Advertisement