Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
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 Anti-Austerity Crowd

1…34689…14

Comments

  • #152
    alb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭alb


    Cazzoenorme wrote: »
    Banks don't create new money, central banks do when they print it.

    Recently the US was creating $85 billion (yes, billion) new dollars per month (yes every month). Where does it go after they 'print' it?


  • #153
    Cazzoenorme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 137 ✭✭Cazzoenorme


    alb wrote: »
    Recently the US was creating $85 billion (yes, billion) new dollars per month (yes every month). Where does it go after they 'print' it?

    They spend it. Buy bonds for example.


  • #154
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    bumper234 wrote: »
    But there hasn't been "good alternatives presented" other than the usual tax the rich mantra that is always hollered from the rooftops. The fact that the country is running at a loss and we need to stop spending more money than we are taking in seems to be lost on some posters. This is what austerity is, stop spending more than you're earning. Want to guess what the biggest cost to the government is?

    Want to guess how much the "anti austerity people" think that should be cut? I have already said i agree with raising tax by 2% 5% 10% but to make it fair lets cut dole and pensions by the exact same % .
    There was an alternative presented just a handful of posts above your post here :rolleyes: (and there are loads of alternatives, outside of 'tax the rich')

    You're proving my point really well, that you're one among a selection of posters, that don't actually give a toss about alternatives, other than to dismiss and sneer at them, and then pretend none exist.


  • #155
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    There was an alternative presented just a handful of posts above your post here :rolleyes: (and there are loads of alternatives, outside of 'tax the rich')

    You're proving my point really well, that you're one among a selection of posters, that don't actually give a toss about alternatives, other than to dismiss and sneer at them, and then pretend none exist.

    Yes yes yes you keep pointing us all back to your tax anticipation notes and yes they "could" be a viable alternative (given the right circumstances) in the future but at the moment we are (like it or not) stuck with austerity. Now should we just bump up the tax take as most anti austerity posters want or should we cut the dole/pensions as pro austerity feel we should do?


  • #156
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Yes yes yes you keep pointing us all back to your tax anticipation notes and yes they "could" be a viable alternative (given the right circumstances) in the future but at the moment we are (like it or not) stuck with austerity. Now should we just bump up the tax take as most anti austerity posters want or should we cut the dole/pensions as pro austerity feel we should do?
    What exactly, is stopping TAN's being implemented right now, other than politics? They can end austerity, effectively.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    What exactly, is stopping TAN's being implemented right now, other than politics? They can end austerity, effectively.
    Well I don't know about you but I wouldn't like them, we shouldn't have to sell our wages for cash.


  • #158
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Well I don't know about you but I wouldn't like them, we shouldn't have to sell our wages for cash.
    You wouldn't, you'd buy goods with them - the demand for money (or TAN's) is backed by government taxes, which would mean businesses would have a good reason to accept them.

    That's why, for example, Bitcoin will never become a dominant currency: You can't pay taxes with them, so the currencies that can satisfy tax demands will dominate.


  • #159
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    You wouldn't, you'd buy goods with them - the demand for money (or TAN's) is backed by government taxes, which would mean businesses would have a good reason to accept them.

    That's why, for example, Bitcoin will never become a dominant currency: You can't pay taxes with them, so the currencies that can satisfy tax demands will dominate.
    Would the businesses be compulsed to accept them? If not the credibility of TANs would be shaky and they're still inferior to cold hard cash.

    Bitcoin is a farce, that's one hell of a bubble destined to burst and I for one won't be anywhere near it when it does.


  • #160
    banquo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,487 ✭✭✭banquo


    Grayson wrote: »
    I have no problem with taxing the rich more. If they brought in a third tax bracket of say 50% on everything over 200k I'd be ok with it. It's not going to turn anyone into a pauper or change their lifestyle. I would however want to know how much revenue would be generated by it.

    Trouble is, it - for all intents and purposes - already exists. On all incomes over 32,500!


  • #161
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,287 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »

    Bitcoin is a farce, that's one hell of a bubble destined to burst and I for one won't be anywhere near it when it does.

    It has boomed and bust a few times already.

    A silly idea that was doomed to fail.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Would the businesses be compulsed to accept them? If not the credibility of TANs would be shaky and they're still inferior to cold hard cash.

    Bitcoin is a farce, that's one hell of a bubble destined to burst and I for one won't be anywhere near it when it does.
    They wouldn't have to, but by accepting TAN's at even the slightest discount, they effectively get a tax break the size of the discount - this will create a higher incentive to get them, which will automatically balance itself out (because the less popular TAN's get, the higher the discount, and thus the more popular they become for tax-break purposes :)).

    It's truly one of the smartest ideas I've come across anywhere, for ending austerity - and Ireland can do it without any outside help.


  • #163
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    They wouldn't have to, but by accepting TAN's at even the slightest discount, they effectively get a tax break the size of the discount - this will create a higher incentive to get them, which will automatically balance itself out (because the less popular TAN's get, the higher the discount, and thus the more popular they become for tax-break purposes :)).

    It's truly one of the smartest ideas I've come across anywhere, for ending austerity - and Ireland can do it without any outside help.
    Sure but tax is only a fraction of a person's expenditure. The idea is clever but it rides a lot on convincing businesses to accept TANs at a discount (which would effectively mean a wage cut for workers?)

    Why not just make TAN notes legal tender at face value? The average person would barely notice.


  • #164
    L'Enfer du Nord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 587 ✭✭✭L'Enfer du Nord


    granturismo wrote: »
    What does this mean?

    Basically that we refuse to pay the bondholders unless part of the debt is written off, basically we threaten to default. Because we are part of the Euro a move like this would potentially be very damaging for the currency, so in theory we should be able to frighten the Germans into helping us negotiate a better deal. The problem is we don't know what would happen if our bluff is called or if we do default.

    I by no means an expert on any of this, but the above appears to be what Sinn Fein and other are advocating. It's very risky because we if things went wrong we'd be a pariah state for attempting to distroy the Euro or something. We would however be Heros to the National Front in France, Ukip and various others. The Euro, eu in general isn't terribly popular right now amongst a lot of Europeans so maybe Ireland would be seen as standing up to an unelected superstate.

    In any event the whole thing would be very risky so I can't see any government going for it.


  • #165
    alb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭alb


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    That's why, for example, Bitcoin will never become a dominant currency: You can't pay taxes with them, so the currencies that can satisfy tax demands will dominate.

    You can easily pay US taxes it seems. What makes you think govs won't want to make it easy for people to give them money? Bitcoin can be widely used as money without being a dominant currency in any country (e.g.: gold).
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Bitcoin is a farce, that's one hell of a bubble destined to burst and I for one won't be anywhere near it when it does.

    What do you find farcical about it?


  • #166
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Sure but tax is only a fraction of a person's expenditure. The idea is clever but it rides a lot on convincing businesses to accept TANs at a discount (which would effectively mean a wage cut for workers?)

    Why not just make TAN notes legal tender at face value? The average person would barely notice.
    It's not a wage cut, if you're using TAN's to greatly increase worker wages - which is what would be the point of them.

    Tax intake is very a sizeable fraction of peoples expenditure - more than sizeable enough, to allow room for greatly increased spending.

    TAN's are pretty similar to legal tender, yes - it's just Ireland's not allowed to print Euro's, that's all :) TAN's provide almost all the same benefits, but are just more complicated, and have limits where printing Euro's doesn't - they are like printing Euro's, while still staying with the Euro/EU (almost the best of all worlds).


  • #167
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    alb wrote: »
    What do you find farcical about it?
    1. It's far too unstable for me to ever consider investing in it.
    2. Governments won't accept it as tax (whihc makes it effectively useless in my eyes)
    3. It's not legal tender.
    4. It has no sort of power base backing it up.


  • #168
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    alb wrote: »
    You can easily pay US taxes it seems. What makes you think govs won't want to make it easy for people to give them money? Bitcoin can be widely used as money without being a dominant currency in any country (e.g.: gold).



    What do you find farcical about it?
    That's not paying US taxes in Bitcoin, that's converting Bitcoin to US dollars (thus creating demand for US dollars), and then paying taxes. It can still be used widely as a currency though, yes - just not dominant.


  • #169
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    It's not a wage cut, if you're using TAN's to greatly increase worker wages - which is what would be the point of them.

    Tax intake is very a sizeable fraction of peoples expenditure - more than sizeable enough, to allow room for greatly increased spending.

    TAN's are pretty similar to legal tender, yes - it's just Ireland's not allowed to print Euro's, that's all :) TAN's provide almost all the same benefits, but are just more complicated, and have limits where printing Euro's doesn't - they are like printing Euro's, while still staying with the Euro/EU (almost the best of all worlds).
    But the point I'm making is why try and convince businesses to accept them at a discount.

    Why not just compel them to accept the TAN note at face value as if it were legal tender, or is this against some EU law?


  • #170
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    But the point I'm making is why try and convince businesses to accept them at a discount.

    Why not just compel them to accept the TAN note at face value as if it were legal tender, or is this against some EU law?
    I guess you could do that, but I don't think it's necessary - I think TAN's would create a market all by themselves, due to them being usable for tax discounts, whenever they trade at a discount (thus creating the necessary demand, to make them accepted on a widespread basis).


  • #171
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Man, I'm glad I tried sticking to a rule of succinct one/two-liner posts for the most part lately :p a handful of ideas I've been banging on about for ages, seem to take root better this way.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    alb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭alb


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    1. It's far too unstable for me to ever consider investing in it.
    2. Governments won't accept it as tax (whihc makes it effectively useless in my eyes)
    3. It's not legal tender.
    4. It has no sort of power base backing it up.
    1. The volatility is gradually decreasing as the size of the bitcoin economy increases, it's still going to be a lot more volatile than the dollar and the euro unless/until it gets a LOT bigger.
    2. This may change, still waiting on US regulation/legislation.
    3. Don't care as long as I can still buy/earn it and use it to purchase things.
    4. It has a computing network doing 70000000000000000 hashes (70000 terahashes) per second securing it, which is the most powerful computing network in the world in this regard.


  • #173
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Cazzoenorme wrote: »
    They spend it. Buy bonds for example.

    They lens it, with interest expected back. That's what buying bonds is, essentially.
    So where's that interest going to come from? Eventually, from another central bank doing the same thing.

    Modern currency is a Ponzi scheme, simple as.


  • #174
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    alb wrote: »
    1. The volatility is gradually decreasing as the size of the bitcoin economy increases, it's still going to be a lot more volatile than the dollar and the euro unless/until it gets a LOT bigger.
    2. This may change, still waiting on US regulation/legislation.
    3. Don't care as long as I can still buy/earn it and use it to purchase things.
    4. It has a computing network doing 70000000000000000 hashes (70000 terahashes) per second securing it, which is the most powerful computing network in the world in this regard.
    Well if you think that way invest your money in it, I won't though.


  • #175
    alb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭alb


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Well if you think that way invest your money in it, I won't though.

    My point wasn't investment advice, it was keep an open mind towards blockchain technology and crypto-currency. It's a good idea and a breakthrough invention. It's not going to go away or be un-invented, it's just a matter of what evolution of it will become common, and how quickly.


  • #176
    Cazzoenorme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 137 ✭✭Cazzoenorme


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    They lens it, with interest expected back. That's what buying bonds is, essentially.
    So where's that interest going to come from? Eventually, from another central bank doing the same thing.

    Modern currency is a Ponzi scheme, simple as.

    The issuer of the bonds pay it back, how is that a ponzi scheme?

    So if they buy government bonds the government pays them back the interest plus principal, if they buy corporate bonds the company pays them back interest plus principal.


  • #177
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Cazzoenorme wrote: »
    The issuer of the bonds pay it back, how is that a ponzi scheme?

    So if they buy government bonds the government pays them back the interest plus principal, if they buy corporate bonds the company pays them back interest plus principal.

    How do they "pay it back"? If there's more money owed back than there is in existence, where does it come from? Oh yeah - another bank loan, with more interest attached that eventually has to be paid back.

    What seems to be escaping you here is that this means there's always more debt owed back than there is money in circulation. Ergo, the only way to keep the system going is to perpetually create more debt, And since that always gets created with interest... See where this is going?

    It essentially means that our monetary system is a game of musical chairs with far fewer chairs than participants, in reality. It gives the illusion of a working system as long as the music keeps playing, but if the record ever skips, everyone tries to grab a chair and suddenly the fundamental issue is laid bare: A bit like how "money" floats around artificially on balance sheets and on computers, but whenever everyone tries to physically take their cash out of a bank at the same time it's a complete disaster because most of it doesn't really exist, and the bank goes bust.

    Point is, there's no reason we have to use a system which works this way. The only reason money has any value is because people commonly consent to regarding it as a measure of value - the reason bitcoin is a proof of concept is because it proves that that's literally all money really is, and that if enough people choose to assign value to a currency, then it basically has that value. Why is this important? Because if enough people realize that our current monetary system is as dysfunctional as myself and Kyuss have been trying to explain, by common consensus we can agree to simply abandon it and use a different one. Governments could do this, or failing that, people and companies could do it if a campaign to do so managed to get organized enough.

    tl;dr version - boom and bust, or cyclical recession, is hard coded into our monetary system. It's a mathematical inevitability because of how the system is constructed - it's like buying a car when the manufacturer says "The engine is designed in such a way that it will definitely break down every x number of miles you drive". Would you buy a car like that? I doubt it. So why do we tolerate a currency system which behaves this way?


  • #178
    Cazzoenorme
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 137 ✭✭Cazzoenorme


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    How do they "pay it back"? If there's more money owed back than there is in existence, where does it come from? Oh yeah - another bank loan, with more interest attached that eventually has to be paid back.

    What seems to be escaping you here is that this means there's always more debt owed back than there is money in circulation. Ergo, the only way to keep the system going is to perpetually create more debt, And since that always gets created with interest... See where this is going?

    It essentially means that our monetary system is a game of musical chairs with far fewer chairs than participants, in reality. It gives the illusion of a working system as long as the music keeps playing, but if the record ever skips, everyone tries to grab a chair and suddenly the fundamental issue is laid bare: A bit like how "money" floats around artificially on balance sheets and on computers, but whenever everyone tries to physically take their cash out of a bank at the same time it's a complete disaster because most of it doesn't really exist, and the bank goes bust.

    Point is, there's no reason we have to use a system which works this way. The only reason money has any value is because people commonly consent to regarding it as a measure of value - the reason bitcoin is a proof of concept is because it proves that that's literally all money really is, and that if enough people choose to assign value to a currency, then it basically has that value. Why is this important? Because if enough people realize that our current monetary system is as dysfunctional as myself and Kyuss have been trying to explain, by common consensus we can agree to simply abandon it and use a different one. Governments could do this, or failing that, people and companies could do it if a campaign to do so managed to get organized enough.

    tl;dr version - boom and bust, or cyclical recession, is hard coded into our monetary system. It's a mathematical inevitability because of how the system is constructed - it's like buying a car when the manufacturer says "The engine is designed in such a way that it will definitely break down every x number of miles you drive". Would you buy a car like that? I doubt it. So why do we tolerate a currency system which behaves this way?

    Well in the case of government bonds they pay it back like all governments do with tax revenues and other sources of income.

    In the case of companies they pay it back with sales revenues.

    A question for you, the numbers here are off the top of my head but the precise details aren't too important.

    Their exists country A and it's GDP is 100 Billion in local currency and their exist 5 billion of of the local currency. Are you aware that is a normal and healthy economic situation?


  • #179
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,351 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    The general ideas from the anti-austerity crowd seems to be as follows
    1) Those who earn more should pay more
    2) Those who earn more probably don't deserve it
    3) High earners are responsible for the economic crisis regardless of their job
    4) Any investments made by people should be taxed or taken off people
    5) Any assets people have when they die should be heavily taxed

    Why I have a problem with this
    1) They already do and it is a disincentive to work

    2) Maybe but jobs generally pay based on rarity of the skill. Somebody working in a shop or McDonald's can be easily replaced. A java programmer is harder to replace and a scarce skill. Why would anybody bother learning a skill if they would not earn more? Should a hand crafted chair cost the same as mass produced chair?

    3) Many if not most high earners had nothing to do with banking. Even those that do had little or no responsibility for the decisions. A huge problem actually arose from people taking out loans and being unable to pay them back. That is less likely to be high earners. Part of the argument seems to be credit shouldn't have been given out. That means people are saying lower earners were too stupid to be able to consider their own actions. This would lead back to point 2. If it such a rare understanding of finance then how are they capable of earning better money with their abilities?

    4) You earn money that you pay tax on why should you be taxed again on the fruits of your labour? This investment creates jobs and also creates services that are needed. Private landlords provide a service that is needed, if they didn't do this more people would be homeless. If anybody thinks rent is unearned they have never been a LL. It takes work,time and risk.
    You can lose your home if this goes wrong and many anti-austerity people want that to happen as a punishment. Fine but don't expect people to invest if you tax the hell out of any investment and profit and also want to punish people as much as possible if it goes wrong.

    5)Similar to point 4. It will just stop job creation and investment in this country by it's own residents. It will also prevent inward investment.

    Essentially it all comes down to I don't want to pay any more and I want somebody else to pay without any regard for economic reality.


  • #180
    Davarus Walrus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,280 ✭✭✭Davarus Walrus


    I see Paul Murphy's election posters promise more jobs and better jobs. Considering his ideologies one cannot help but think Paul's ideas of a good job is working in a State owned Tractor Engine factory on the outskirts of Mullingar.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,287 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    Davarus Walrus wrote: »
    I see Paul Murphy's election posters promise more jobs and better jobs. Considering his ideologies one cannot help but think Paul's ideas of a good job is working in a State owned Tractor Engine factory on the outskirts of Mullingar.

    That must be his only actual policy because i had a look at his website and it's all the usual bar-stool economist "**** the rich" stuff.

    Once again, childish simplistic stuff. More better jobs :rolleyes:


Advertisement
Advertisement