Smart_Saver
Registered User
- Messages
- 143
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 !!
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 !!
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.
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
Well go and explain it then. I'm listening.
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?
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.
What point are they trying to make with their very selective and inaccurate use of the statistics?
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?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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
Poverty and basic expectations would have a different interpretation in the developed World.
I agree completely.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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?