Social Justice Ireland: 700,000 people are living in poverty

And what about todays Irish Times article.
[broken link removed]

Quote:
"It revealed the poorest 10 per cent of households have an average disposable income of €210 a week, compared to an average of €2,276 a week for the richest 10 per cent."

Well if you are in that top 10% bracket earning on average €2,276 per week then it strikes me that you could afford to pay a little more !!

GoMayoGo said:

And what about todays Irish Times article.
[broken link removed]

Quote:
"It revealed the poorest 10 per cent of households have an average disposable income of €210 a week, compared to an average of €2,276 a week for the richest 10 per cent."

Well if you are in that top 10% bracket earning on average €2,276 per week then it strikes me that you could afford to pay a little more !!

Click to expand...

In the statement above what is included in the €210 p.w.? I would have thought an out of work couple with a few children might represent the poorest in society as measured by SJI's surveys. But that can't be the case given they would get more than double the above amount between job seekers allowance, children's allowance, etc.

In the so called top 10%, what if you're paying almost €1000 a week in income tax already? Is it only fair to contribute more? What if you were paying €800 a week on a mortgage (A 20 year €500k mortgage on a 3 bedroom dublin Semi-d at PTSB's standard rate would cost this)?

The family with the high earnings would actually be worse off than the family on no earnings purely due to current rates of income tax and for having the audacity to hve bought an average 3 bedroom house in dublin in the boom.

As for what SJI actually called for - Broaden the tax base rather than cut spending - is not exactly specific. Is it:
Increasing Vat to 30%?
Increasing dirt tax to 40%?
More indirect taxes like the household charge?
Increasing the top rate of tax (paid on all income above €33k) to 60%?
Bringing people on incomes as low as €10k into the income tax net?

GoMayoGo said:

And what about todays Irish Times article.
[broken link removed]

Quote:
"It revealed the poorest 10 per cent of households have an average disposable income of €210 a week, compared to an average of €2,276 a week for the richest 10 per cent."

Well if you are in that top 10% bracket earning on average €2,276 per week then it strikes me that you could afford to pay a little more !!

Click to expand...

For a married couple with children to have an after tax inccome of €2276 the pretax income would have to be €215,000 using Deloitte's income tax calculator. That is an effective rate of 44% or €96,000 in deductions. That person is already paying for 10 people to be on JSA for a year.

It is a totally mythical idea that a higher tax rate on such a person would actually result in more revenue. Why would that person bother working more or harder when the state takes more than 50% of every extra euro earned. History has proven time and again that increasing taxation does not result in increased revenue but exactly the opposite.

It is more than overdue that people thanked these high income earners (of which I am not one) for all the plunder they put up with, rather than hounding them for even more of their personal property.

It's enfurating at times to listen to some politicians claiming that all the countries finance problems can be resolved by imposing a higher level of tax on those who are on "high salaries".
Those of us who have worked 20+ years to reach the effective 52% tax rate could explain why we are not all on 2 foregn holidays a year & swilling champagne, but I doubt if anyone would listen.

44brendan said:

it's enfurating at times to listen to some politicians claiming that all the countries finance problems can be resolved by imposing a higher level of tax on those who are on "high salaries".
Those of us who have worked 20+ years to reach the effective 52% tax rate could explain why we are not all on 2 foregn holidays a year & swilling champagne, but i doubt if anyone would listen.

Click to expand...

+1

newirishman said:

Originally Posted by 44brendan http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=1255847#post1255847
it's enfurating at times to listen to some politicians claiming that all the countries finance problems can be resolved by imposing a higher level of tax on those who are on "high salaries".
Those of us who have worked 20+ years to reach the effective 52% tax rate could explain why we are not all on 2 foregn holidays a year & swilling champagne, but i doubt if anyone would listen.
+1

Click to expand...

Well go and explain it then. I'm listening.

Those numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt. Is anyone really so cut off from reality to think that in 1 of 10 houses in Ireland there’s an income of 115k after tax?

The CSO is normally highly reliable however I’m not really sure it’s fully justified in these income numbers – especially considering how some people are apt to misinterpret even the clearest statistics.

[broken link removed] (page 15 I think is what CORI/SJI/Father Healy is looking at)

Essentially what it’s saying is that in 10% of households the pre-tax income is 2227 euro – that I can believe - it sounds about right. What it goes on to do then is to somehow add on employer PRSI contributions, pension contributions, benefits from children’s allowances, some allowance for unemployment protection, build up of pension rights, take off taxes, yada, yada, yada, and comes to a net disposable income from that 2,227 euro of 2,276. Yup more money after tax than actually earned.

Now I’m not sure how many receive 115k combined salary pretax and “feel” via some bizarre CSO calculation that they have in fact earned 118k per annum after deductions. Personally I add on an imaginary value for being able to breathe good Irish air of 250k per annum.

All very well taking a holistic view to income and calculating imaginary numbers, but taxing imaginary income is a little harder.

In reality these figures have “improved” in terms of “fairness” as this data would be pre USC, when PRSI thresholds existed, better pension tax relief, two years of jobseekers rather than one, being allowed to retire and get OAP at 65 rather than 68. All of these imaginary numbers that the CSO were adding on need to be significantly reduced downwards.

But to my eye the whole series of numbers looks questionable. I’m a little disappointed in the CSO to be honest.

GoMayoGo said:

Well go and explain it then. I'm listening.

Click to expand...

DerKaiser explained it in his post.
Social Justice Ireland are a lobby group with a very biased agenda and Father Sean what's-his-name bends the truth and is selective with the facts in order to further his ideological agenda (I know; surprising from a cleric).
Only RTE and the rest of a leftwing media would give him so much air time.
The fact is that the effective take-home income of those in the top 10% is around two to two and a half times that of those in the bottom 10%.
Think of it this way; those in the top 10% have half of their income taken from them and those in the bottom 10% have all of their income given to them. How is that just?

Purple said:

Think of it this way; those in the top 10% have half of their income taken from them and those in the bottom 10% have all of their income given to them. How is that just?

Click to expand...

Forget about percentages, when comparing rich n poor.

What one has to live on is all the matters + what kind of a society we really want, one that cares or one that doesn't.

A lot of people that are now dependant like myself were for years contributions, all things are relevant.

pudds said:

What one has to live on is all the matters + what kind of a society we really want, one that cares or one that doesn't.

Click to expand...

Yes but cares about what?
What point are they trying to make with their very selective and inaccurate use of the statistics? Are they saying that the "burden" is falling on that constantly moving group "The most vulnerable in society"? I have no problem paying my taxes. I have no problem with welfare and supports for those who can't look after themselves and can't find work. I do have a problem with people who won't work and I do have a problem with the levels of payments. The whole "tax the rich and we'll be fine" argument is spurious but is trotted out again and again by Sinn Fein/IRA, People against Logic, Social(ist) Justice Ireland, the Treade Unions (how’s that for irony) and others on the Looney Left. There’s no panacea, no silver bullet, we have to balance our national income and expenditure. The main burden for this will fall on the higher paid as it always has (and rightly so) but a little logic and reason would go a long way.

Purple said:

What point are they trying to make with their very selective and inaccurate use of the statistics?

Click to expand...

I actually looked at that SJI paper and to be honest the bit that annoyed me most was not the agenda, but the lack of focus in arguing the agenda!!!

The sheer volume of statistics bandied about, some of them quite obviously contradictory when compared to the comment, was mind boggling e.g. the fact that the height of the inequality between rich and poor passed about 5 years ago and has gone into reverse is brushed aside in favour of lauding our more equal society in the mid eighties (true in that everyone was equally screwed!).

SJI, etc get so bogged down in weighty reports (I don't know who is funding them) that they lose sight of how to assess poverty. A recent report by a similar group actually surveyed hundreds of people to assess a minimum cost of living when all you have to do is go into Lidl or Aldi any see how much is costs to feed a family.

These series of reports (don't get me started on why several groups with the same agenda all feel the need to do their own report) only serve those producing the report, as they are generally too complex, contradictory and fundamentally flawed as to be any assisstance in assessing where the true needs are in our society.

pudds said:

What one has to live on is all the matters + what kind of a society we really want, one that cares or one that doesn't.

Click to expand...

So how is it fair or just or caring to force a minority group of people to part with more of their property when the richest 10% are already accountable for 40% of income related taxation?

Fact is that taxation damages an economy. By looking for higher taxes on any part of the economy people are effectively looking to do more damage. It's like complaining about bad food and a small portion size at the same time.

DerKaiser said:

I actually looked at that SJI paper and to be honest the bit that annoyed me most was not the agenda, but the lack of focus in arguing the agenda!!!

Click to expand...

I agree very much with your post, and it doesn't surprise me as every social/income equality report and article I have ever read has been logically and factually flawed. It all starts with the definition of poverty being a percentage of the average wage. By that definition there can never be equality of income unless everyone is paid exactly the same irrespective of job and effort. Now that has been tried numerous times under communist and Marxist socialism. While in every case there was more income equality, everyone was equally poor and most importantly poorer than the poor in countries with high(er) income inequality.

The second flaw is the idea that there is a certain amount of wealth in an economy and some people grab more of it than others. An analogy would be an all-you-can-eat party where some bullies arrive and take more than they need while others get less than they need. The problem is that that is not how an economy works; a correct analogy would be a bring-your-own party where some people bring more to the table than others. Wealthy people get their wealth by producing something that people are voluntarily willing to buy. Some are better at figuring this out than others, and that is a good thing, not a bad thing.

DerKaiser said:

These series of reports (don't get me started on why several groups with the same agenda all feel the need to do their own report) only serve those producing the report, as they are generally too complex, contradictory and fundamentally flawed as to be any assisstance in assessing where the true needs are in our society.

Click to expand...

Self preservation....have to be seen to be doing something. I could only imagine the direct benefit to the poorest people if this money (along with the salaries and budgets for IT etc) was given to charities like Simon. There is a vibrant market in poverty.

Chris said

It all starts with the definition of poverty being a percentage of the average wage. By that definition there can never be equality of income unless everyone is paid exactly the same irrespective of job and effort.

Click to expand...

I have often wondered about this. If poverty is having less than,say, 70% of the average wage, and poverty is always relative, we can never solve the poverty problem.

If the "poor" continue to earn/receive the same amount but those in jobs earn more, then relative poverty will increase. The richer a society gets, the more poverty there will be. Unless the social welfare rate is set at 90% of the average wage. In which case no one will bother working.

Is there no absolute measure of poverty?

Brendan

But surely "poverty" is relative? I lived in 3rd World countries for a number of years where "middle income" earners were on, by our standard and based on cost of living locally, an extremely low wage. Poverty was of the extreme level where basic food and shelter were an everyday struggle.
Poverty and basic expectations would have a different interpretation in the developed World.
I would suspect that as a society develops those on the margins will improve their standards of basic living, but the gap between them will always be there. So I doubt if there is an absolute measure of poverty.

44brendan said:

But surely "poverty" is relative? I lived in 3rd World countries for a number of years where "middle income" earners were on, by our standard and based on cost of living locally, an extremely low wage. Poverty was of the extreme level where basic food and shelter were an everyday struggle.
Poverty and basic expectations would have a different interpretation in the developed World.
I would suspect that as a society develops those on the margins will improve their standards of basic living, but the gap between them will always be there. So I doubt if there is an absolute measure of poverty.

Click to expand...

I always understood absolute poverty to mean that basic food and shelter were not enjoyed. We have lots of people in relative poverty in this country with running water, electricity and ample supply to good, fresh food. To say that such people are poor in IMO is a stretch.

44brendan said:

Poverty and basic expectations would have a different interpretation in the developed World.

Click to expand...

Why is that though?

If you are going to dedicate your life to fighting poverty would you not just try do something for somone starving to death as opposed to someone who already has food, shelter, clothes, a car, cable and an LCD TV?

There's actually some groups out there that openly say they are competing for resources with international food aid programs, etc.

I just don't see the merit in being the person who argues for money to be redirected to those in 'First World Poverty' at the expense of those who are starving to death.

DerKaiser said:

Why is that though?

If you are going to dedicate your life to fighting poverty would you not just try do something for somone starving to death as opposed to someone who already has food, shelter, clothes, a car, cable and an LCD TV?

There's actually some groups out there that openly say they are competing for resources with international food aid programs, etc.

I just don't see the merit in being the person who argues for money to be redirected to those in 'First World Poverty' at the expense of those who are starving to death.

Click to expand...

I agree completely.
For this reason I never give money to animal charities. It's not that they don't do good work but people come first.

Firefly said:

I always understood absolute poverty to mean that basic food and shelter were not enjoyed. We have lots of people in relative poverty in this country with running water, electricity and ample supply to good, fresh food. To say that such people are poor in IMO is a stretch.

Click to expand...

Social Justice Ireland seems to want government policy directed towards an equality of outcome agenda rather than an equality of opportunity agenda. This is fundamentally unjust and morally wrong.

Purple said:

I agree completely.
For this reason I never give money to animal charities. It's not that they don't do good work but people come first.

Click to expand...

Kind of agree on that one.

I don't actually mind charities who are trying to give people their lives back through alcohol/drug rehabilitation programs, guide dogs, homeless shelters, etc.

Just don't like the ones who harp on about "relative" poverty in first world countries with already generous safety nets. Producing smart ass economic assessments that aren't actually that smart, glossy literature or using d-list celebs who are nothing more than glamour models are a fast track way to turn people off to your cause.