The Anti-Austerity Crowd

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I read the entire thread before posting and if you claim there are arguments I didn't include number them and add them.

It is typical of these thread that one person keeps repeating themselves and ignoring questions put to them. If you feel you have something to add to what I said feel free otherwise I see no point in posts like this without pointing out the "other" points missed are.

Well you missed the whole discussion about TAN's then, an economic alternative to austerity? (and the wider discussion about other alternatives)

The multiple repeated points about it being better to ignore taxes for now, and first focus on fixing widening problems of 'upward redistribution of wealth'?

There has been a lot of discussion, contrary to the caricature of 'anti-austerity' advocates, in your post.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Oh look: *fingers in ears* "la-la-la there are no alternatives"...

Didn't predict that at all.

Again not what I said.
There are alternatives. Anti-austerity campaigners effectively have one plan which involves taxing more. No stimulus and a disregard to economics.

darkpagandeath

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Again not what I said.
There are alternatives. Anti-austerity campaigners effectively have one plan which involves taxing more. No stimulus and a disregard to economics.

Nope I have consistently said Tax them Correctly I.E close all the loop holes that let them claim back a good 75% of tax back. No point taxing them more as they will just avoid it like they are already. I don't get how people cant see this simple fact they aggressively avoid paying the correct amount. There starting to pull up these rich folk in the UK doing this saying it’s morally wrong and making them pay it back even though what they did was not technically Illegal. The exchequer here should do the same.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Again not what I said.
There are alternatives. Anti-austerity campaigners effectively have one plan which involves taxing more. No stimulus and a disregard to economics.

And there's the caricature of anti-austerity folk again; what I said still applies even, except it's now "Well what are the alternatives?

(other than this single silly one)"

You say you've fully read the thread, yet here you are asserting no other alternatives than taxes have been discussed - when there have been.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well you missed the whole discussion about TAN's then, an economic alternative to austerity? (and the wider discussion about other alternatives)

The multiple repeated points about it being better to ignore taxes for now, and first focus on fixing widening problems of 'upward redistribution of wealth'?

There has been a lot of discussion, contrary to the caricature of 'anti-austerity' advocates, in your post.

Oh yeah so ridiculous and not going to happen theory. It isn't ever going to happen so why discuss it.

And the fix for upward redistribution of wealth is not tax?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Oh yeah so ridiculous and not going to happen theory. It isn't ever going to happen so why discuss it.

And the fix for upward redistribution of wealth is not tax?

Oh yea, special pleading, that wasn't predictable :rolleyes:

Have a go at describing any of the alternatives listed, since you seem to know them so well - you'll just prove the point that you're dismissing them on reflex, without giving a toss about what they are.

You display even, that you don't know what 'upward redistribution of wealth' is as well - you just automatically assume that it's taxes. Upward redistribution of wealth, is wealth (in terms of percentages - and this is an important part of it) being funneled from the lower (less wealthy) half of the population, up to the wealthier half of the population; this can include using fraud, and promoting asset/property bubbles, for exploiting society.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Nope I have consistently said Tax them Correctly I.E close all the loop holes that let them claim back a good 75% of tax back. No point taxing them more as they will just avoid it like they are already. I don't get how people cant see this simple fact they aggressively avoid paying the correct amount. There starting to pull up these rich folk in the UK doing this saying it’s morally wrong and making them pay it back even though what they did was not technically Illegal. The exchequer here should do the same.

I am all for closing loopholes but that isn't anti-austerity.

Davarus Walrus

Have the Government considered a punitive rate of tax on walls of text that nobody reads?

KyussBishop wrote: »

Oh yea, special pleading, that wasn't predictable :rolleyes:

Have a go at describing any of the alternatives listed, since you seem to know them so well - you'll just prove the point that you're dismissing them on reflex, without giving a toss about what they are.

You display even, that you don't know what 'upward redistribution of wealth' is as well - you just automatically assume that it's taxes. Upward redistribution of wealth, is wealth (in terms of percentages - and this is an important part of it) being funneled from the lower (less wealthy) half of the population, up to the wealther half of the population.

If you can predict everything why bother posting. I watched you avoid questions and you can't even put a list together like I suggested.

You think you are showing wit or something? You aren't

You can't even be civil so why would anybody listen to you

Ray Palmer wrote: »

If you can predict everything why bother posting. I watched you avoid questions and you can't even put a list together like I suggested.

You think you are showing wit or something? You aren't

You can't even be civil so why would anybody listen to you

What questions addressed to me, did I avoid exactly? I gave you examples of alternatives.

Uncivil? When you're dismissive of others posts, straw-man them, and engage in special pleading to pretend 'there are no alternatives' (making someone do the work of highlighting them for you first, when you already knew them, before you bother dismissing them), then you can't exactly complain when that is highlighted in response to you - that is not being uncivil, that is criticizing your posts for fallacious argument.

KyussBishop wrote: »

What questions addressed to me, did I avoid exactly? I gave you examples of alternatives.

Uncivil? When you're dismissive of others posts, straw-man them, and engage in special pleading to pretend 'there are no alternatives' (making someone do the work of highlighting them for you first, when you already knew them, before you bother dismissing them), then you can't exactly complain when that is highlighted in response to you - that is not being uncivil, that is criticizing your posts for fallacious argument.

Good luck in your world because you have no ability to change the world around you for sure.

You can spend your days shouting and being rude.

I won't listen not because of what you have to say but because how you say it. You can't even see the obvious flaws in your arguments. Like TAN would benefit the rich first and foremost. You wouldn't even understand the costs of changing systems to do this and how much time it would take. Effectively it is like saying a tram system is better than busses and ignoring the costs of laying tracks.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Nonsense response. I didn't say that. You want to say investors that were high earners are the same. They aren't. It isn't so much a subclass as it is a completely different group doing a completely different thing. Huge difference to taking a huge gamble with investment and it failing versus getting into debit buying a big TV or a sofa on credit you can't afford. You are going to extremes to make a point. How about looking at the big picture?

If high earners and investors are completely separate groups please explain your original point 4. You seem to feel they are put upon too.

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.

You miss the premise of loans to poorly paid damaged international markets which effected here, kick starting the financial crash worldwide. Part of the idea spread here to give out the loans. People were shouting at the banks to lend more to everybody. If you missed that here you weren't paying attention. The banks actually were doing what the public were asking. It was a bad idea. To an extent that is what ant-austerity is saying again.

Firstly Banks were giving out 100% mortgages sometimes to people who lied about there incomes, please post some evidence that it was their policy to give mortgages to people on low incomes. It just an personal opinion but I don't believe banks were doing this to placate the masses demanding it (on Joe Duffy?) they were doing it because they knew they needed more people to prop-up the pyramid property bubble and buy houses they already loaned money to developers to build.

If you think working in a hospital laundry is the hard job you might being using a different definition. Physically tiring, difficult to physical do etc... Yeah though back breaking work. Requiring education? Hard to replace a person capable of doing it? It is labouring job that many many people could do has little reward because of this. Don't see any reason why it should be highly paid. I worked in a bar for a number of years lugging beer kegs around a lot tough work but I was easily replaceable

I never claimed it should be well paid I just said it was harder, yeah in a way its easier and less stressful than other jobs I've had (programming for example). But give me programming over cleaning-up after operations any day.

I have already said when you can prove the biggest defaults are from high earners I'll refute with the lowest earners.

Since you decided to redefine high earners as people with high incomes who have no investments this is hardly likely, there's only so much you can spend on lifestyle. Anyway here's an example. (Unless you think someone with a low income could borrow 630,000 in 2009)

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-have-paid-nothing-off-735k-mortgage-in-three-years-despite-renting-out-house-court-told-30131916.html

Of course since running off to the US this couple have now entered the 'investor class' and don't count. You haven't post one example of some one on a low income in Ireland defaulting on a significant debt. All you have done is invoked the sub-prime debt crisis in the US without even being upfront enough to say exactly what you were talking about. You haven't posted a single link to any source which supports your attempts to shift the blame to low earners.

Go ahead and increase the taxes I'll move taking my money out of the country. I'll also make sure any inheritance coming my way comes out of the country too. I am making the plans now either way as I am not happy with it stands. That is lost revenue to the state due to tax.

Where have I said anything about tax?

I haven't said anywhere that I'm against 'austerity' or who should pay for it. I don't see running the economy as some kind of morality play where the tax man should go after an punish the groups of society deemed to be 'to blame', I do however object to your attempts to talk up the virtues of high earns and investors (like there's no intersection) at the expense of low earners.

I'll move taking my money out of the country. I'll also make sure any inheritance coming my way comes out of the country too. I am making the plans now either way as I am not happy with it stands. That is lost revenue to the state due to tax.

Why move? There's a load of anti-austerity rhetoric coming from minority parties in advance of a local and euro-elections. No one elected will have a direct say in taxation policy. If anything an income tax cut is on the cards before the next election, since you are a high earner rather than an investor surely you'll benefit from this. Where you planning to go? The US whose poor caused all this? Europe? I think you'll find quite a few wealth taxes there. UK, labour could win the next election on a anti-austerity ticket.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Good luck in your world because you have no ability to change the world around you for sure.

You can spend your days shouting and being rude.

I won't listen not because of what you have to say but because how you say it. You can't even see the obvious flaws in your arguments. Like TAN would benefit the rich first and foremost. You wouldn't even understand the costs of changing systems to do this and how much time it would take. Effectively it is like saying a tram system is better than busses and ignoring the costs of laying tracks.

Ya don't bother making any actual arguments to back up your points or anything, just assert them and dismiss/sneer-at alternatives out of hand.

That you think TAN's mean 'changing' any existing system, shows you didn't bother trying to learn anything about them at all (it's supplementary to the current monetary/fiscal/economic system) - you've picked your predefined conclusion (that you dislike them out-of-hand), and any pretense that you can be convinced or are open to a change of mind, is just that - a pretense, as you've already made up your mind without even knowing anything about what TAN's are, you just want to take a dump on it because it offends your personal economic/political views.

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Have the Government considered a punitive rate of tax on walls of text that nobody reads?

I hope not, I'll refuse to pay. I only post them because a high earner made me. He should pay, a lot of what I posted were quotes from him, sometimes I even quoted the same sections twice. That would be double taxation or even triple if he's paying his tax. My post count is very low, I'm a low poster. Everyone else should pay this tax but not me. We should introduce tax incentives for posts in dormant treads. I could go on (but I can't afford to because of this unfair tax).

KyussBishop wrote: »

That you think TAN's mean 'changing' any existing system,

I worked in revenue and the system I was talking about was the IT system. I can tell you I know much more about the workings of the system than you do. I know what it costs and what changes cost along with how long it takes and how the workers would react.

You know the niceties you have no clue about

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It's kind of simple. The people who invested in property weren't by definition high earners. The people you pointed to where people who were no longer high earners but high stakes investors. I am no where near the level of the head of bank yet am classed as a high earner. The suggestion is tax me more because I got the country in this state which I didn't.

The whole cause of the financial crisis was giving loans to low income people and then reselling them as investments. If the low earners had paid their loans there would be no problem. The reason they got the loans was because there was incentives to do so. This was because people pointed to them no being able to own homes. Pretty much part of what the ant-austerity support call for in a round about way.

Giving out loans to people who were temporarily earning high unsustainable salaries is the most likely source of default mortgages. A plumber earning as much as a highly paid professional bought above their sustainable means. Thy also took out large loans/credit on lots of things. You can say the banks shouldn't have given them the money but equally they shouldn't have taken out the loans/mortgages. Many tradesmen and similar work are people on the dole and low income wages. Many of whom pay little or no income tax.

So where is my responsibility in this where I should pay more income tax because I studied and learnt an in demand skill. I never forced a loan on anybody but I am being blamed.

You are also ignoring all the small time property investors who bought recklessly borrowing on their home based on appreciation of their home. Values dropped and they lost their jobs and rent doesn't cover the mortgages. I know of three tradesmen that did this and were telling me I was stupid not to do it their way. a few years later and they resent me for having a small debit and still earning. They have called for higher taxes to be paid by the high earners. Maybe if they didn't buy three houses they wouldn't be so stuffed. They also do cash in hand jobs all the time. Not even willing to pay their own level of taxes.

I agree with most of this. The mortgage and debt problem was not caused solely by modest earners or high earners. It was caused by people of all kinds who borrowed beyond their means and beyond their future assured ability to repay.

The banks didn't line people up and force them to borrow. But what they did was allow them to borrow sums that made no sense and took no account of a potential recession or failure of the housing market. That is a political decision and an electorate problem. There is plenty of blame to go around.

The fact is that the electorate demanded policies that ultimately resulted in 110% loans for homes, and new buyers subsidies that pushed house prices even higher. The banks followed a policy of 'no tomorrow' and the Government (FF) chose to also follow the 'no tomorrow' policy and not to regulate the level of lending. The demand for houses continued to rise and the banks loans insane amounts to developers on the criminal assumption that the boom would go on forever.

So as I said, there is plenty of blame to go around.

We should implement a statutory limit of something like 60% mortgage. No one should be able to buy a house unless they come up with 40% themselves. And we also need a slew of regulations governing the rental sector because this obsession we have with owning houses is insane.

Vandango

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I don't get it. Could somebody explain? I've never heard of an alternative solution.

Don't get it? So you missed the hurried bank guarantee and the bullying/threats that forced us into it then I assume. I also assume you missed the wasted billions in bailing our the German banks. Little balless Ireland was the fall guy. Inefficiencies and waste needs to be stopped alright. But the wasted billions we have spent on saving the Euro and German banks was the most shameful waste of all.

Piliger wrote: »

The fact is that the electorate demanded policies that ultimately resulted in 110% loans for homes, and new buyers subsidies that pushed house prices even higher. The banks followed a policy of 'no tomorrow' and the Government (FF) chose to also follow the 'no tomorrow' policy and not to regulate the level of lending.

Just as well the electorate and political parties learned a valuable lesson. We'll never make these mistakes again. Oh wait...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0513/617127-property-mortgage-deposits/

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/05/14/how-can-we-go-wrong-with-95-mortgages-asks-man-controlling-nations-finances/

Ray Palmer wrote: »

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

Unfortunately this is the essential heart of the anti austerity movement. It is a naive and deluded socialist view that no one, no matter how clever or able or skilled or brilliant they are, should earn more than they do.

And as long as this is the emotion that drives the the anti austerity view, then irish people are far too smart to fall for it.

3) High earners are responsible for the economic crisis regardless of their job

A bizarre view that there are the same number of wealthy people as modest income people. The truth is that the population is like a pyramid ... with far fewer wealthy people than modest earners ! It is elementary sums. What the wealthy do has far far far less impact on the economy than what modest income people do - good or bad.

4) Any investments made by people should be taxed or taken off people

I think what you mean is any GAIN from investment should be taken.

This is just more of the above. Socialist resentment at people who earn more and have more.

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

Anti Austerity people don't grasp any of this. They equate what better paid people do to what they themselves do. They don't understand, or refuse to believe, that jobs are created by people who take huge risks with what they have earned. And if people who are capable of saving and earning the money to start new businesses see it as a whole waste of time then we just end up with more unemployed poor people.

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.

This is actually not the case. The developers who defaulted for billions were very high earners. Those who bought three or four holiday homes in Yugoslavia, Poland and Spain were fairly 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?

It's not just about stupidity. It is about common sense and a government that did not make sure that people realised that books don't go on forever. Sure there were a LOT of stupid people who borrowed way too much. But I think most of the borrowers were just blind to the concept that booms come to an end.

steamengine

The ridiculous low EU interest rates were part of the problem too, enabling excessive borrowings. The government should be going balls out to get the county's debt written down instead of saddling citizens with cuts and tax after tax. Anytime you see our leaders meeting other EU leaders on TV - it's all smiles, back slapping, kisses on the cheek - really business like - grrrr

steamengine wrote: »

The ridiculous low EU interest rates were part of the problem too, enabling excessive borrowings. The government should be going balls out to get the county's debt written down instead of saddling citizens with cuts and tax after tax. Anytime you see our leaders meeting other EU leaders on TV - it's all smiles, back slapping, kisses on the cheek - really business like - grrrr

Only really really stupid people try to win arguments and persuade people by being angry, aggressive and offensive.

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

Just as well the electorate and political parties learned a valuable lesson. We'll never make these mistakes again. Oh wait...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0513/617127-property-mortgage-deposits/

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/05/14/how-can-we-go-wrong-with-95-mortgages-asks-man-controlling-nations-finances/

We ultimately always get what we deserve.

Piliger wrote: »

I agree with most of this. The mortgage and debt problem was not caused solely by modest earners or high earners. It was caused by people of all kinds who borrowed beyond their means and beyond their future assured ability to repay.

The banks didn't line people up and force them to borrow. But what they did was allow them to borrow sums that made no sense and took no account of a potential recession or failure of the housing market. That is a political decision and an electorate problem. There is plenty of blame to go around.

The fact is that the electorate demanded policies that ultimately resulted in 110% loans for homes, and new buyers subsidies that pushed house prices even higher. The banks followed a policy of 'no tomorrow' and the Government (FF) chose to also follow the 'no tomorrow' policy and not to regulate the level of lending. The demand for houses continued to rise and the banks loans insane amounts to developers on the criminal assumption that the boom would go on forever.

So as I said, there is plenty of blame to go around.

We should implement a statutory limit of something like 60% mortgage. No one should be able to buy a house unless they come up with 40% themselves. And we also need a slew of regulations governing the rental sector because this obsession we have with owning houses is insane.

I don't understand why people don't get this though: It's a well known trend in economics, that the easier it is to borrow large amounts of money, the more house prices are going to get bid up - they are very closely tied.

This isn't something any individual person can help - this is something only the banks/central-bank and government are capable of controlling (by properly regulating/limiting lending), so the responsibility largely lies with them; the borrowers aren't completely blameless, but (when there isn't already a high debt load) it's kind of an inevitability that house prices will get bid up.

It doesn't make sense to blame that largely on borrowers.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I worked in revenue and the system I was talking about was the IT system. I can tell you I know much more about the workings of the system than you do. I know what it costs and what changes cost along with how long it takes and how the workers would react.

You know the niceties you have no clue about

So changing an IT system, is the only criticism you have of it? Well, the cost of that is pretty easy to meet - it practically pays for itself.

darkpagandeath

KyussBishop wrote: »

So changing an IT system, is the only criticism you have of it? Well, the cost of that is pretty easy to meet - it practically pays for itself.

They have to change it soon anyway NT/Xp and so on are no longer supported by Microsoft. I used to deal with the Revenue IT lads. Some of them did a very good interview to get their job..... :pac::pac::pac:

Piliger wrote: »

We ultimately always get what we deserve.

I had hoped to wait more than seven years to get my just deserts on this occasion. Ultimately is coming around too quickly.

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't understand why people don't get this though: It's a well known trend in economics, that the easier it is to borrow large amounts of money, the more house prices are going to get bid up - they are very closely tied.

This isn't something any individual person can help - this is something only the banks/central-bank and government are capable of controlling (by properly regulating/limiting lending), so the responsibility largely lies with them; the borrowers aren't completely blameless, but (when there isn't already a high debt load) it's kind of an inevitability that house prices will get bid up.

It doesn't make sense to blame that largely on borrowers.

I disagree totally and completely. The blame lies equally on the borrower and the lender. It is a nonsense to excuse one while blaming the other. No one is forcing the buyer to buy. No one is forcing the buyer to seek to buy a house and not rent. Both parties are at fault.

Worth noting: You can sidestep the entire tax debate here, as with TAN's, you can reduce taxes - including for the rich/wealthy - and increase government spending, and reverse this when you hit the inflation target.

For a country in control of its own currency (which TAN's kind of allow for Ireland), this is actually a workable economic policy for recovery, since reducing taxes is another way of leaving people with more money to spend.

So there you go, don't tax the rich, given them tax breaks :pac: (along with everyone else - seriously)

Piliger wrote: »

I disagree totally and completely. The blame lies equally on the borrower and the lender. It is a nonsense to excuse one while blaming the other. No one is forcing the buyer to buy. No one is forcing the buyer to seek to buy a house and not rent. Both parties are at fault.

This is not a moral argument Piliger, it is a factual one: When private debt is low, and access to excessive credit/loans is freed up, then - unless there are other restrictions in place - this will lead to house prices getting bid up.

This is well known among economists - this isn't something any individual borrower can control.

This places responsibility for preventing excessive credit issuance, firmly with the banks/central-bank and government.