The Pro Austerity Crowd

road_high · 18-05-2014 07:34PM

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

I can barely pay my bills and I'm "pro austerity".

There's nothing wrong with wanting the country to live within it's means. That's all "austerity" has been, makes total sense. But tell that to the hysterics on Joe Duffy et al.

mickydoomsux · 18-05-2014 07:51PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

What sort of lifestyle are the pro austerity side coming from?

I've worked since i was 18 (31 now). I worked full time when i was in college. I'm on a wage that's slightly over the average national wage and i sure as hell didn't start out there

I'm "pro-austerity" because i believe the country was being run in an absolutely crazy fashion during the Celtic Tiger era and needs to be brought back into some kind of sustainable model.

This seems to be starting to happen now but is being fought tooth and nail by people who have grown to think that they are "entitled" to certain things because of previous mismanagement of the country and giveaway budgets which were brought in to win votes at the time.

I believe we were living beyond our means and the whole place needs a good kick up the arse.

Days 298 · 18-05-2014 07:57PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I've worked since i was 18 (31 now). I worked full time when i was in college. I'm on a wage that's slightly over the average national wage and i sure as hell didn't start out there

I'm "pro-austerity" because i believe the country was being run in an absolutely crazy fashion during the Celtic Tiger era and needs to be brought back into some kind of sustainable model.

This seems to be starting to happen now but is being fought tooth and nail by people who have grown to think that they are "entitled" to certain things because of previous mismanagement of the country and giveaway budgets which were brought in to win votes at the time.

I believe we were living beyond our means and the whole place needs a good kick up the arse.

Sure the government announced plans for property boom 2.0 last week. Let the gravy trains roll on

tritium · 18-05-2014 07:59PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Right, so it wasn't as simple as 'the rich can pay'. You missed the part, where you explain how he is generalizing. How was he generalizing?

Let's see

Third sentence of post two
Second sentence if post three
Second sentence of post four

Just for a flavour

Or is 'they can afford it' for example not a sweeping generalisation in your world

That's before we get to the fact that we have no idea how much they are expected to afford - oh sorry, details offend your sensibilities on this particular topic, we'll have to do detail somewhere else

mickydoomsux · 18-05-2014 08:02PM

Days 298 wrote: »

Sure the government announced plans for property boom 2.0 last week. Let the gravy trains roll on

That is very worrying but i honestly think that the government aren't the only ones to blame there.

The fools willing to shell out silly money for property all over again need to take a step back and examine what they are doing.

KyussBishop · 18-05-2014 08:51PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

That is very worrying but i honestly think that the government aren't the only ones to blame there.

The fools willing to shell out silly money for property all over again need to take a step back and examine what they are doing.

I don't understand why people have this myopic view, of only looking at the buyers - it is well acknowledged among economists, and empirically, that house prices will get bid up, if access to credit/loans becomes cheap/easy, and that this drives property bubbles.

There's nothing anyone can do at an individual level - the prices will get bid up, the easier it becomes to obtain credit.

This places the fault and responsibility for properly managing loans, on the banks/central-bank and government.

mickydoomsux · 18-05-2014 09:00PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't understand why people have this myopic view, of only looking at the buyers - it is well acknowledged among economists, and empirically, that house prices will get bid up, if access to credit/loans becomes cheap/easy, and that this drives property bubbles.

There's nothing anyone can do at an individual level - the prices will get bid up, the easier it becomes to obtain credit.

This places the fault and responsibility for properly managing loans, on the banks/central-bank and government.

Nothing gets bought without willing buyers.

Sounds simple and it is. If something isn't selling then the seller will drop the price.

KyussBishop · 18-05-2014 09:04PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Nothing gets bought without willing buyers.

Sounds simple and it is. If something isn't selling then the seller will drop the price.

There are never not going to be willing buyers for houses, especially in high-demand/limited-supply areas like Dublin. That means that when you give out credit/loans excessively/with-little-restriction, prices get bid up. Land is of uniquely limited supply (and thus, puts a similar supply constraint on houses), you don't just manufacture more land in an already well-used-up area, to suit demand, like you do a commodity.

That makes excessive credit/loan issuance, a big problem - one that the banks/central-bank and government are responsible for, since they are the only ones who can do anything about that.

tayto lover · 18-05-2014 09:06PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Nothing gets bought without willing buyers.

Sounds simple and it is. If something isn't selling then the seller will drop the price.

But there are many cases of the buyer being approached by the Banks and offered more than the Banks knew they could afford to repay. Many people stupidly fell for it but in my book the banks were at fault in these cases.

mickydoomsux · 18-05-2014 09:15PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

There are never not going to be willing buyers for houses

The thousands of empty/unwanted houses and apartments around the country must be an illusion so.

We overbuilt and convinced each other that it was normal to shell out 350k for a ****box that we'd be paying back for 40 years because everyone else was doing it.

Then we solely blame the banks for giving us the credit to do it.

I rented during the Celtic tiger even though i could easily have got a mortgage. I got an easily manageable mortgage a couple of years ago that i have already made two lump sum payments on and i'll have it paid off when i'm around 40. I bought a house at a price that i though was reasonable.

I wasn't willing to join in on the utter stupidity people were engaging in during the Celtic Tiger.

KyussBishop · 18-05-2014 09:57PM

:rolleyes: C'mon micky, you know that houses out in the middle of nowhere, doesn't disprove limited supply in high-demand areas (e.g. popular parts of Dublin), leading to house prices being bid up, due to excessive credit.

You have to be going out of your way to ignore what I'm saying, by picking examples like that.

mickydoomsux · 18-05-2014 10:12PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

:rolleyes: C'mon micky, you know that houses out in the middle of nowhere, doesn't disprove limited supply in high-demand areas (e.g. popular parts of Dublin), leading to house prices being bid up, due to excessive credit.

You have to be going out of your way to ignore what I'm saying, by picking examples like that.

Why is it excessive credit and not constrained supply that is causing these houses in Dublin to be bid up?

You are changing the root cause of rising house prices in Dublin to suit your argument.

SafeSurfer · 18-05-2014 11:07PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I'll make it clear. I will leave the country and take my assets out of country if the government do any of the suggestion to increase the inheritance tax or income tax.

I currently turn down work because of tax. it prevents me from creating other businesses. I am not going to work more and risk investment doe 48% of what I would earn. Knowing it also would get 33% of it removed on the event of my death too.

Paid 48K on income tax one year and the next year when there was no work I was entitled to no dole. I get there will be some haggle on fair but nobody can say that is fair.

I would expect someone with any grasp of business to have a passing knowledge of accountancy. The fact that business relief is available on the transfer of business assets. That millions of euro of business assets can be inherited tax free. All qualifying business assets can be written down in value by 90%, so your figure of 33% in reality becomes 3.3%. Not a big ask on the intergenerational transfer of the Elite's wealth in these times of "austerity".

KyussBishop · 19-05-2014 12:00AM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Why is it excessive credit and not constrained supply that is causing these houses in Dublin to be bid up?

You are changing the root cause of rising house prices in Dublin to suit your argument.

It can be both - why is it so hard to acknowledge that excessive credit, is something that primarily banks/central-bank and government are responsible for, thus making them responsible for the previous property bubble? (and now this new one)

el pasco · 19-05-2014 10:23PM

longhalloween wrote: »

Its only slander if its false.

Unless it is proven in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt then yes I can be sued for slander Ireland also has very strict slander laws so I not going to waste a pile of money going to court to prove my case anyway since the whole system is so corrupt it'll be impossible to win and so what's the point

oppenheimer1 · 19-05-2014 10:30PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Aggressive tax reduction through various schemes Joe soap could not afford to invest in or use.

Name one scheme

SafeSurfer · 19-05-2014 10:36PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Name one scheme

Section 23, section 50. To shelter rental income unearnedbin the state.

woahwoahwoah · 20-05-2014 08:31AM

Did anyone hear the figures applying for social housing yesterday? Did they hear the amount of people going homeless? I think some people are unaware of what the recession has actually been like for many people. For them it has been small cut backs and in some cases the recession hasn't affected them at all.
That's the reason why they vote for FG and the likes. The recession hasn't touched them so FG must be doing something right in their view. This means they're happy to see young people being forced from this country, happy to see people live on the breadline, happy to see people become homeless, as long as it means they are not affected.
They comfort themselves with thoughts that people on social welfare are all scroungers and not looking for work so they can call for heavy cuts in this area. The truth is that less than 10,000 people went unemployed during the boom and remain unemployed. The truth is that there's huge numbers struggling day to day on social welfare and in low paid jobs, while others are comfortable in their overpaid jobs and getting away nearly scot free from the downturn.

el pasco · 20-05-2014 10:08AM

woahwoahwoah wrote: »

Did anyone hear the figures applying for social housing yesterday? Did they hear the amount of people going homeless? I think some people are unaware of what the recession has actually been like for many people. For them it has been small cut backs and in some cases the recession hasn't affected them at all.
That's the reason why they vote for FG and the likes. The recession hasn't touched them so FG must be doing something right in their view. This means they're happy to see young people being forced from this country, happy to see people live on the breadline, happy to see people become homeless, as long as it means they are not affected.
They comfort themselves with thoughts that people on social welfare are all scroungers and not looking for work so they can call for heavy cuts in this area. The truth is that less than 10,000 people went unemployed during the boom and remain unemployed. The truth is that there's huge numbers struggling day to day on social welfare and in low paid jobs, while others are comfortable in their overpaid jobs and getting away nearly scot free from the downturn.

Where are you getting the figures that less than 10,000 went unemployed during the boom??
As that's a complete lie unemployment during the boom years never went below 4 - 4.5% if I'm not mistaken
Give me the offical figures to prove that no more than 10,000 were unemployed during the boom years

All the major political parties are the same IMHO even if FF remained in power will would still be in the same boat IMHO
The faces change at the top and that's it nothing else's changes

tritium · 20-05-2014 10:39AM

woahwoahwoah wrote: »

Did anyone hear the figures applying for social housing yesterday? Did they hear the amount of people going homeless? I think some people are unaware of what the recession has actually been like for many people. For them it has been small cut backs and in some cases the recession hasn't affected them at all.
That's the reason why they vote for FG and the likes. The recession hasn't touched them so FG must be doing something right in their view. This means they're happy to see young people being forced from this country, happy to see people live on the breadline, happy to see people become homeless, as long as it means they are not affected.
They comfort themselves with thoughts that people on social welfare are all scroungers and not looking for work so they can call for heavy cuts in this area. The truth is that less than 10,000 people went unemployed during the boom and remain unemployed. The truth is that there's huge numbers struggling day to day on social welfare and in low paid jobs, while others are comfortable in their overpaid jobs and getting away nearly scot free from the downturn.

Yeah yeah, we all enjoy the misery of others......

Unemployment in 2004 was about 4.4% (source:CSO.ie). That works out at about 86,000 unemployed in a full employment scenario- basically your statistic is nonsense (unless you're saying the other 76k have since been employed which would be a good thing)

The truth is most if not all people in this country have been affected by the recession. Unfortunately there's a bunch of whingers who only see their own pain and assume everyone else has it easy, or has plenty to give still.

The reason people vote for parties like FG is that they're actually doing a reasonable job of stabilising the mess we were in - in spite of knowing it won't be popular or painless.

And who the hell are you to say someone is overpaid - do you work the hours they do? Spend the time and money they did getting the skills needed for their career? Deal with the levels of stress or accountability or responsibility they have to? Do you add the same net value to the economy or to other peoples quality of life that they do?

Given the overall contriburion to the tax take of the country by the best paid 25%, given the number of gainful jobs that many of them create, can I suggest that maybe they deserve a little gratitude from anyone who is a net beneficiary of the system.

woahwoahwoah · 20-05-2014 10:46AM

el pasco wrote: »

Where are you getting the figures that less than 10,000 went unemployed during the boom??
As that's a complete lie unemployment during the boom years never went below 4 - 4.5% if I'm not mistaken
Give me the offical figures to prove that no more than 10,000 were unemployed during the boom years

All the major political parties are the same IMHO even if FF remained in power will would still be in the same boat IMHO
The faces change at the top and that's it nothing else's changes

I said under 10,000 remained unemployed during and after the boom. Here's a link saying that 1 in 7 people on the dole never worked a day in their lives, the article is from last year.
Edit: I can't put the link in as I don't have enough posts.

Now the next link shows the totals and it shows that about 20,000 of those people are over 25, meaning that everyone else in the list has an excuse for not gaining employment because of their age and when the downturn occured.
Edit: I can't put the link in as I don't have enough posts.

The list of 20,000 is made up of people who never paid PRSI, not that they never worked. They could have worked in the black economy or never paid tax. We don't know how many of this 20,000 worked abroad, there's some that are unemployable, drug addicts etc. When it's all taken into consideration you reach a number of below 10,000.

longhalloween · 20-05-2014 10:48AM

tritium wrote: »

The reason people vote for parties like FG is that they're actually doing a reasonable job of stabilising the mess we were in - in spite of knowing it won't be popular or painless.

And who else would you vote for? Fianna Fail? The ones who caused this mess. Sinn Fein? The party that just says no to everything, but doesn't offer any viable alternatives. Labour and the Greens who've have pretty much sold themselves out in recent governments?

Fine Gael IMO are the only party who have some sort of handle on this mess. Sure, the measures are unpopular, but they're necessary.

woahwoahwoah wrote: »

The list of 20,000 is made up of people who never paid PRSI, not that they never worked. They could have worked in the black economy or never paid tax. We don't know how many of this 20,000 worked abroad, there's some that are unemployable, drug addicts etc. When it's all taken into consideration you reach a number of below 10,000.

And what do you want to do with them? Cut their dole and put them on the streets?

In fairness I don't think there's anything the government can do about people who don't want to work, except tighten up the system so the next generation of scroungers can't get a free ride.

woahwoahwoah · 20-05-2014 10:50AM

tritium wrote: »

Yeah yeah, we all enjoy the misery of others......

Unemployment in 2004 was about 4.4% (source:CSO.ie). That works out at about 86,000 unemployed in a full employment scenario- basically your statistic is nonsense (unless you're saying the other 76k have since been employed which would be a good thing)

The truth is most if not all people in this country have been affected by the recession. Unfortunately there's a bunch of whingers who only see their own pain and assume everyone else has it easy, or has plenty to give still.

The reason people vote for parties like FG is that they're actually doing a reasonable job of stabilising the mess we were in - in spite of knowing it won't be popular or painless.

And who the hell are you to say someone is overpaid - do you work the hours they do? Spend the time and money they did getting the skills needed for their career? Deal with the levels of stress or accountability or responsibility they have to? Do you add the same net value to the economy or to other peoples quality of life that they do?

Given the overall contriburion to the tax take of the country by the best paid 25%, given the number of gainful jobs that many of them create, can I suggest that maybe they deserve a little gratitude from anyone who is a net beneficiary of the system.

I've gone through how I reached the number in the post before this.

You said: "Unfortunately there's a bunch of whingers who only see their own pain and assume everyone else has it easy, or has plenty to give still." That's exactly what you did then in your post.

tritium · 20-05-2014 10:55AM

woahwoahwoah wrote: »

I've gone through how I reached the number in the post before this.

You said: "Unfortunately there's a bunch of whingers who only see their own pain and assume everyone else has it easy, or has plenty to give still." That's exactly what you did then in your post.

I'm quite ready to acknowledge that others across all sections of society are feeling the pain. Where did I claim anyone had it easy?

Your conclusion by the way is flawed, even without having the link. Just because someone has worked at some point in the past doesn't mean they weren't unemployed from the boom through to now. Even allowing for net flows it's generally accepted 4% represents 'full employment ' for Ireland. And yes some may work in the black economy- surely that's just means we should have better tax oversight of the black economy? That group are certainly doing better than a base social welfare case.

Now would you care to address any of the substantive points in my post?

Ray Palmer · 20-05-2014 11:05AM

Woah seems to be talking about the increase in long term unemployed.

I am curious about the overpaid that have managed to go through the downturn unscathed. My tax bill has gone up quite a bit while my income went down. I can't see how anybody avoided this.

I suspect it is that some people still have good income relative to others but that doesn't mean they haven't suffered. I could easily have had a luxury car for the tax increases alone. The fact I didn't have one means I didn't have it to lose but for somebody else they may have had to give such a thing up. Just because it was a luxury doesn't mean you wouldn't feel the loss.
Everybody tightened their belts as far as I know hence the low consumer index. Increased taxes effected everyone and also the economy

SafeSurfer · 20-05-2014 11:08AM

tritium wrote: »

And who the hell are you to say someone is overpaid - do you work the hours they do? Spend the time and money they did getting the skills needed for their career? Deal with the levels of stress or accountability or responsibility they have to? Do you add the same net value to the economy or to other peoples quality of life that they do?

I think it is fair to say that some public sector workers such as Patrick Neary, the retired financial regulator were and are overpaid. Neary received a lump sum of €630,000 on retirement and a pension of €2,750 per week, paid for by citizens of these state who are reaping the whirlwind of his incompetence.

Neary is just one of many, many people who I believe to be overpaid but he is certainly not alone.

longhalloween · 20-05-2014 11:14AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Neary received a lump sum of €630,000 on retirement and a pension of €2,750 per week, paid for by citizens of these state who are reaping the whirlwind of his incompetence.

Yeah, but the high earners people are talking about in this thread are on nowhere near that kind of wages. We're talking about the ones on 100k a year.

Neary and those like him are in the 0.01%.

The problem as I see it is that people see the likes of Michael Fingleton, Sean Quinn, David Drumm in the paper and think "High Earners Ruined the Country". When in reality, most of Ireland's high earners are on much less wages than that and pay their (high) taxes like everyone else.

That's why calls to tax the rich are ridiculous, as the rich are already taxed disproportionately to the rest of the population and every argument involves some anecdotal or tabloid story of one guy getting away with millions.

hatrickpatrick · 20-05-2014 11:19AM

longhalloween wrote: »

Yeah, but the high earners people are talking about in this thread are on nowhere near that kind of wages. We're talking about the ones on 100k a year.

Neary and those like him are in the 0.01%.

And the economic argument that hounding these people won't fix the mess is true, but that's ignoring the moral dimension - when your incompetence f*cks over millions of people, there should be consequences.

longhalloween · 20-05-2014 11:21AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And the economic argument that hounding these people won't fix the mess is true, but that's ignoring the moral dimension - when your incompetence f*cks over millions of people, there should be consequences.

That's true. But that's a case for the Gardaí and the courts.

ryan101 · 20-05-2014 11:22AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think it is fair to say that some public sector workers such as Patrick Neary, the retired financial regulator were and are overpaid. Neary received a lump sum of €630,000 on retirement and a pension of €2,750 per week, paid for by citizens of these state who are reaping the whirlwind of his incompetence.

Neary is just one of many, many people who I believe to be overpaid but he is certainly not alone.

You do realise that Neary was a hand picked appointment by Bertie Ahern to ensure his cronies would be allowed to continue in their ways ?
Light touch regulation it is euphemistically called. None of the high paid in the public sector have faced any austerity, whereas ordinary public sector pay and conditions have been decimated. I'm all for austerity, but it should be austerity for everyone, and the wealthy should not be protected from it.

The Pro Austerity Crowd

Comments