"The rich get richer while the poor get taxed "

[Design for Life]

I dont think the entrpreneur deserves diproportionate reward,

a sustainable capitalist economy is based on the princiapl of 'normal profits' any firm earning more than that obver a long period is operating in a =n industry with insufficient competition and more competition is the way to get them back to nromal profits

Tax breaks are supposed to be used to encourage an industry or investment or whatever. They surely shouldn't be used merely as a tool to enrich even further. Once the tax break serves its purpose it should be removed a la the games industry in the UK. They got their tax break, grew an industry, generated £1,000 million each grand, now you don't need a tax break anymore. Instead thuogh there's been cribbin and whinging frmo them threatening to move country and/or sack workers all because they don't wanna pay tax. Tax breaks are a form of corporate welfare.

[Heyoka]

When the economy is doing well and loads of jobs are available should people be able to "opt out" of employment and draw the dole for the rest of their lives?

Should a working person who gets up everyday to pay off the mortgage end up living next door to somebody who is given a house by the state and lives on the dole?

No , if work is available and the person is capable of working then they should not have the 'opt out' to just sign on. But if the system is designed so that this is in fact possible then certain people in our society will exploit this.

Is full employment , or near full employment even possible under the current system?. I can't help but think that there is a certain portion of society who are just considered surplus to requirement and they are there to spend their dole on fags\booze and groceries for revenue. Let's face it people on the dole aren't going to be stashing away vast amounts of money. Obviously it grates for a person that's putting in the effort to see somebody coasting along just sponging.

[Design for Life]

Is full employment , or near full employment even possible under the current system?

No.

[sandar]

No.

if the jobs craeted are sustainable and within a sustainable economic model then yes.

that is not jobs funded through government debt, or though bubbles in property for example

[Design for Life]

if the jobs craeted are sustainable and within a sustainable economic model then yes.

that is not jobs funded through government debt, or though bubbles in property for example

What country has full employment?

Hell, here I'll give you the answer:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...elds/2129.html

Andora and Monaco are at 0% unemployment. Of the EU state Netherlands does pretty well. Cuba has an amazingly low rate of 1.6% though that's probably something to with concentration camps, slave factories or gulags or whatever Denmark does amazingly well considering their strong welfare state then again all the nordic states do better than us...

Lessons From the North - Project Syndicate

The Nordic experience also belies conservatives’ claim that a large social welfare state weakens incentives to work and save.

Govt.'s know there aren't enough sustainable/stable jobs to go around - for it there were we wouldn't see companies threatening to supposedly up and leave over the course of a weekend if there were to be a rise in taxes. What govt.'s know very well is there is a dijointed pattern of unemployment, low paid jobs and various "Training" schemes.

[sandar]

fulle mploynment is not 0% its about 4% unemployment irelND HAD IT FOR a while but not sustainably

[Cael]

if the jobs craeted are sustainable and within a sustainable economic model then yes.

that is not jobs funded through government debt, or though bubbles in property for example

No, its not, a chara. Any economist will tell you that full employment is a limit to the capitalist system, its a limit to growth. As soon as you get to full employment, you start to go into recession.

[sandar]

No, its not, a chara. Any economist will tell you that full employment is a limit to the capitalist system, its a limit to growth. As soon as you get to full employment, you start to go into recession.

any economist will tell me that will they?

I think what you mean is that full employment is inflationary, which is a threat to growth, thats correct.
thats why I mentioned sustable jobs.

there are many countries, moslty small ones with full employment, historically, wthere that contributed to the later decline is debatale and should be viewed on a case by cas ebasis

[toughbutfair]

No, its not, a chara. Any economist will tell you that full employment is a limit to the capitalist system, its a limit to growth. As soon as you get to full employment, you start to go into recession.

work visas should deal with that. An immigrant with skills in demand comes here for a set period of time so the amount of workers increases, he pays tax etc, when recession kicks in he returns home so we don't get stuck with the dole bill.

[Thac0man]

I think it is absurd that there's such great concentration in wealth. This idea that there's no more money and you can't raise taxes is merely propaganda by the likes of IBEC who want the lowest paid workers taxed to the hilt as well as min. wage abolished. I'm pretty fed up of this deference to the markets. "ooh how will the markets react to this or that... oh no I saw a black cat today, call the markets, ask them how they feel". The example of the mining corporations in Australia is a perfect example of how wealth equals great power and influence.


[SIZE=1]
I challenge the usual crowd to avoid using the same character assassinations and slurs such as "trot", "commie" or Maoist that are usually leveled at anyone who brings up the question of how much wealth there is in the world and its distribution. Nowhere in the article does Browne espouse any communism or any other action related to the Soviet Union including genocide. I dare ye.[/SIZE]

Vested interests are not only found in the private sector, Unions to a huge degree qualify. I would add to that that the wealthy in this country are also not confined to the private sector as represented by IBEC. When it comes to employees actually the private sector worker is faring far worse in this recession than his or her unionised Public Sector counterparts. I am sorry, but having a go at IBEC is pointless and opportunistic - its their money we need to convince them to invest to create jobs, every other penny is accounted for. We are not broke but what there is available subject to copperfastened claims from the Social partners. IBEC are not as big a player in the status quo that is smothering this country as Public Sector Unions, SIPTU and political parties are. The 'Social Partners' are the blockage on progress and the only part of the equation that offers possible growth and a root to alieviate the pressire on the exchequer is represented by.... IBEC, unless the Public sector is expected to turn a proifit any time soon. Its reactionary horsesh*t in the extreme to lay the blame at IBECs door when sole responsiblity for the recovery and growth of our economy is laid at the door of Private sector workers and investors. In that we will defer to the market as we cannot have an entirely state funded and run economy. The recession is a global one and we are in competition for jobs.

Now its pointless howling about the minimum wage in the private sector when our cost base is so incredably high. Given the Public sector unions won't budge its the Private sector workers who have to carry the can. That has been the pattern of this recession thus far and it is not going to change. What could change is some leftists could show some balls and vision rather than pan handling for crumbs from the social partners table. Our country is by and large run by a cabal or vested interests - but the 'evil' developers are now bust..... so how come the status quo remains?