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…89111314…26

Comments

  • #302
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,718 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Cazzoenorme wrote: »
    cringe

    Cringe all you like :D


  • #303
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    tritium wrote: »
    Strange how when you're asked to put some detail on your position you retreat into your shell again. Oh wait, its not sytrange at all since your argument is just discredited rethoric.


    Just as much indeed. And the lack of credibility of your argument is shown by how little support your opinion gets and indeed how few votes
    He's not here to convince you, you're being a pedantic twat for rhetorical effect. His argument stands on its own merit.

    People can make a point about how taxes should be setup, without having to describe the whole fúcking tax system setup...


  • #304
    Cazzoenorme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 137 ✭✭Cazzoenorme


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    You've just deliberately ignored my post here, and are trying to pin me as holding a 'tax the rich' type argument - even though my post explicitly says pushing that argument is a waste of time.
    That shows you're more interested in trying to pin people into holding a straw-man, that you want to rail against for rhetorical effect - which displays dishonest intent, as you know I didn't argue that.

    You're not asking for facts, you're asking for tayto lover to provide a pedantically-detailed plan for how he thinks the entire tax setup should be done - that's using pedantry for rhetorical effect.
    He does not have to do that, to validate his argument, because it stands on its own merits without stats.

    It actually doesn't "stand on it's own merits without stats", if the sums don't add up the argument is null and void.

    If you argue that that taxing the rich will solve our fiscal problems then stats and figures are required to prove that point.


  • #305
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    We need an increase on inheritance tax. Increased VAT on cars, 2nd homes and we need major increases in efficiency in all public bodies.


  • #306
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,718 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Cazzoenorme wrote: »
    It actually doesn't "stand on it's own merits without stats", if the sums don't add up the argument is null and void.

    Ha ha ha. We saw a lot of sums adding up over the last 7 years ... not. Jaysus we have had some brilliant economists in this country ... and bankers. That's why we are doing so well.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Cazzoenorme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 137 ✭✭Cazzoenorme


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    He's not here to convince you, you're being a pedantic twat for rhetorical effect. His argument stands on its own merit.

    People can make a point about how taxes should be setup, without having to describe the whole fúcking tax system setup...

    Did you actually just call someone else a pedantic twat!! :D


  • #308
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Cazzoenorme wrote: »
    It actually doesn't "stand on it's own merits without stats", if the sums don't add up the argument is null and void.
    He didn't make a point involving any 'sums' as far as I can see - and he doesn't need to either, to make a valid point.

    You argue about taxes, based on morals (exclusively if you like), on what is right/wrong, and whether or not that is practical to implement in reality - and the tactic of a person trying to shut someone up in such a debate, is to demand that they (the person advocating a change) provide a thesis-sized level of data, to back up their position, with only the pretense that the person challenging them can be convinced of anything.

    It's really clear from the manner of both your and tritium's posts, that it is a disingenuous request, used purely for rhetorical effect.

    Even dishonest enough to try and apply the same bullshít to me, when I haven't argued anything about what tax rates should be!


  • #309
    ryan101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭ryan101


    Austerity for who ?


  • #310
    Cazzoenorme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 137 ✭✭Cazzoenorme


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Ha ha ha. We saw a lot of sums adding up over the last 7 years ... not. Jaysus we have had some brilliant economists in this country ... and bankers. That's why we are doing so well.

    What point are you trying to make, that there are people who are bad at their jobs?


  • #311
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,447 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    Mod: Folks, if you can't keep it civil, then don't bother posting in the thread at all. Attack the post, not the poster.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,460 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Ha ha ha. We saw a lot of sums adding up over the last 7 years ... not. Jaysus we have had some brilliant economists in this country ... and bankers. That's why we are doing so well.

    I get the feeling you hate economists. And 'bankers' too.

    I hate window cleaners myself. Which is fine, right? It's clearly ok to hate an entire profession.


  • #313
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    You've just deliberately ignored my post here, and are trying to pin me as holding a 'tax the rich' type argument - even though my post explicitly says pushing that argument is a waste of time.
    That shows you're more interested in trying to pin people into holding a straw-man, that you want to rail against for rhetorical effect - which displays dishonest intent, as you know I didn't argue that.

    You're not asking for facts, you're asking for tayto lover to provide a pedantically-detailed plan for how he thinks the entire tax setup should be done - that's using pedantry for rhetorical effect.
    He does not have to do that, to validate his argument, because it stands on its own merits without stats.

    I guess I should have replaced the you in the first line with 'someone' since I was commenting on the general tax the rich argument and not your position which I concede is different. Remarkable though how you can be detailed and pedantic when you want to in a thread where you're uncharacteristically happy (in the case of at least one poster) with a lack of detail

    And yes, I am asking for detail. If someone expects me or anyone else to accept that'tax the rich' is a solution to the economic issues this country faces, as opposed to populist tripe, then they better be able to articulate that position a bit.


  • #314
    Cazzoenorme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 137 ✭✭Cazzoenorme


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    He didn't make a point involving any 'sums' as far as I can see - and he doesn't need to either, to make a valid point.

    You argue about taxes, based on morals (exclusively if you like), on what is right/wrong, and whether or not that is practical to implement in reality - and the tactic of a person trying to shut someone up in such a debate, is to demand that they (the person advocating a change) provide a thesis-sized level of data, to back up their position, with only the pretense that the person challenging them can be convinced of anything.

    It's really clear from the manner of both your and tritium's posts, that it is a disingenuous request, used purely for rhetorical effect.

    Even dishonest enough to try and apply the same bullshít to me, when I haven't argued anything about what tax rates should be!

    You see the bills don't care about what's moral in an individual's eyes. They need to be paid. I f someone asserts that our fiscal deficit can be closed by ncreasing taxes on "the rich" they shouldn't be surprised if they are asked for even basic sums and figures that back up their point.

    Should we all just accept someone is right without any questioning when they tell us a way to solve our fiscal troubles.


  • #315
    Days 298
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭Days 298


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    We need an increase on inheritance tax. Increased VAT on cars, 2nd homes and we need major increases in efficiency in all public bodies.

    Let me guess. None of these hikes will hit you much.

    We need a system that encourages spending. Tax rates that dont discourage people moving money abroad and keeping it here and investing it to bring future wealth.


  • #316
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,732 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Why is it that only income tax is progressive?

    Why not have progressive corporation tax also.

    Why was the "universal" social charge imposed on only one tax
    Class? Multinationals in this country should be subject to the USC on their profits.

    Irish workers should not be forced to subsidise the multi million euro profits of foreign owned companies.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #317
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,718 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Cazzoenorme wrote: »
    You see the bills don't care about what's moral in an individual's eyes. They need to be paid. I f someone asserts that our fiscal deficit can be closed by ncreasing taxes on "the rich" they shouldn't be surprised if they are asked for even basic sums and figures that back up their point.

    Should we all just accept someone is right without any questioning when they tell us a way to solve our fiscal troubles.

    Cringe


  • #318
    Cazzoenorme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 137 ✭✭Cazzoenorme


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Why is it that only income tax is progressive?

    Why not have progressive corporation tax also.

    Why was the "universal" social charge imposed on only one tax
    Class? Multinationals in this country should be subject to the USC on their profits.

    Irish workers should not be forced to subsidise the multi million euro profits of foreign owned companies.

    And then multinationals leave and take their jobs with them.


  • #319
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,460 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Why is it that only income tax is progressive?

    Why not have progressive corporation tax also.

    Why was the "universal" social charge imposed on only one tax
    Class? Multinationals in this country should be subject to the USC on their profits.

    Irish workers should not be forced to subsidise the multi million euro profits of foreign owned companies.

    You want a 20% unemployment rate?


  • #320
    Days 298
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭Days 298


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Why is it that only income tax is progressive?

    Why not have progressive corporation tax also.

    Why was the "universal" social charge imposed on only one tax
    Class? Multinationals in this country should be subject to the USC on their profits.

    Irish workers should not be forced to subsidise the multi million euro profits of foreign owned companies.

    Haha we would be rightly f*cked without them. We need them more than they need us.


  • #321
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    We need an increase on inheritance tax. Increased VAT on cars, 2nd homes and we need major increases in efficiency in all public bodies.

    We also need to cut the dole that is costing BILLIONS a year, means test the childrens allowance and make sure that the people who are receiving benefits from the state are the people who need them.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    tritium wrote: »
    I guess I should have replaced the you in the first line with 'someone' since I was commenting on the general tax the rich argument and not your position which I concede is different. Remarkable though how you can be detailed and pedantic when you want to in a thread where you're uncharacteristically happy (in the case of at least one poster) with a lack of detail

    And yes, I am asking for detail. If someone expects me or anyone else to accept that'tax the rich' is a solution to the economic issues this country faces, as opposed to populist tripe, then they better be able to articulate that position a bit.
    The difference is when stats are needed to actually prove a point (as they were, what I presume you're talking about, in the feminist threads to justify generalizations). Here they aren't, as tax arguments can be backed purely on morals.


  • #323
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Cazzoenorme wrote: »
    You see the bills don't care about what's moral in an individual's eyes. They need to be paid. I f someone asserts that our fiscal deficit can be closed by ncreasing taxes on "the rich" they shouldn't be surprised if they are asked for even basic sums and figures that back up their point.

    Should we all just accept someone is right without any questioning when they tell us a way to solve our fiscal troubles.

    Or here is a mad idea, Close all the loop holes that are used to aggressively avoid paying their fair share. On paper yes they look like their paying alot from their wage. In reality it's hugely mitigated though various tax schemes exemptions, Gifting, Charity. I would wager some of these top earners are getting easily 75% of what they pay in back. Look at the people getting caught out in the UK, Odd it’s not happening here because their all at it and don't want a light shining back at themselves. If you think the top earners are paying the correct on paper amount your deluded. It’s not about taxing them more, It’s about getting the actual amount they should be paying. They always give out the revenue figures for what they paid in but not what they claimed back or mitigated. And if you try to push for answers you get “They will leave”


  • #324
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Cazzoenorme wrote: »
    You see the bills don't care about what's moral in an individual's eyes. They need to be paid. I f someone asserts that our fiscal deficit can be closed by ncreasing taxes on "the rich" they shouldn't be surprised if they are asked for even basic sums and figures that back up their point.

    Should we all just accept someone is right without any questioning when they tell us a way to solve our fiscal troubles.
    Did he assert that the fiscal deficit can be closed? As far as I can see, no. That's your straw-man, for trying to pin him into your frame of argument, where you demand stats/figures.

    The argument can be justified purely on morals.


  • #325
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Days 298 wrote: »
    Let me guess. None of these hikes will hit you much.

    We need a system that encourages spending. Tax rates that dont discourage people moving money abroad and keeping it here and investing it to bring future wealth.

    I'm being hit plenty already. We need both. You have to admit neither side are supporting cuts that will affect them.


  • #326
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    bumper234 wrote: »
    We also need to cut the dole that is costing BILLIONS a year, means test the childrens allowance and make sure that the people who are receiving benefits from the state are the people who need them.

    Agree with child benifit but the best way of cutting the dole is cut unemployment. We may also need fees for college.


  • #327
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Both sides are pro austerity but all have different views of how the burden should be shared.


  • #328
    ryan101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭ryan101


    I don't see the well off facing any austerity. Austerity should be for everyone, not just the working / coping classes.


  • #329
    Days 298
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭Days 298


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Both sides are pro austerity but all have different views of how the burden should be shared.

    To avoid the headaches lets just cause a property bubble and start Tiger 2.0 . Problem solved..... for a while :p


  • #330
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,732 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Cazzoenorme wrote: »
    And then multinationals leave and take their jobs with them.
    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    You want a 20% unemployment rate?
    Days 298 wrote: »
    Haha we would be rightly f*cked without them. We need them more than they need us.

    The usual response from the tax everything except corporate profit brigade.

    The US corporate tax rate is 35% and their unemployment rate is what BUbbaclaus?

    The rate seems to make little difference because of the availability of so many ways to legally reduce profits and shift profit to tax free countries. At least imposing a USC would ensure these billion dollar corporations would make a meaningful contribution from their profits to Irish society.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • #331
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Yea, one side demanding stats and intricate descriptions on how taxes will be setup, then in the same breath making completely unsubstantiated/hysterical claims about massive employment and a corporate-emigration-apocalypse, with zero backing...

    It shows that the demanding requests are just for rhetorical effect.


Advertisement