Inequality and Ireland… February 16, 2013
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy.trackback
Interested, well look no further than…this piece by Dan O’Brien, which in an odd way, deserves a much closer analysis, if only because of the litany of unsupported assumptions that underpin it. But that’s for another day. These lines here though sum up perfectly the problem with those assumptions.
. Although Ireland’s classlessness may be exaggerated, it is a broadly meritocratic society and this must partly explain its good comparative international ranking.
And…
People at the top in business, the public sector and politics come from all walks of life, access to education at all levels is free and large numbers of foreign workers have climbed the career ladder here with less opposition than in any other country one cares to think about.
Dan O’Brien gives us his learned opinion/cherrypicks facts to suit his ideological background. Curiously, an interesting pamphlet from the 1980s I picked up recently claimed that the children of professionals and employers made up nearly half of all third-level students in 1980. Thirty years of meritocracy later, and they … still make up nearly half of all third-level students! “The survey also confirms the continuing dominance of the higher socio-economic groups in third-level education. It shows that 31pc of all college students in 2009/10 had parents who were professionals, while a further 18pc were the children of people such as lawyers and senior managers. By contrast, 8pc of students that year came from a craft/trades background and 4pc were in occupations such as domestic helpers. The survey also looked at a range of student-related issues including work, finance, alcohol consumption, and general health and well-being. It found that 42pc of students — and more so among females — reported high levels of depression, anxiety and psychological distress, in line with the findings from 2007. Many students showed symptoms of chronic stress, with 28pc reporting difficulty concentrating and 26pc saying they had problems sleeping. Students indicated that the stress was associated with financial worries and workload.” Is our ‘free’ education system not working, then? http://www.learningireland.ie/Children_from_poorer_families_face_double_hit_at_third_level/index.html
And here, of course, is the bould Dan in 2008 (I know, it’s predictable to quote stuff like this, but I personally think that it should be mentioned whenever Dan O’Brien says anything, about anything…): “But the global gloom is overdone. Investor sentiment internationally has over-reacted to America’s woes. Moreover, the US policy response to the slowdown has been unprecedented, both in its speed and its magnitude. Outside the US, the rest of the global economy is enjoying one of its strongest periods of economic expansion ever. As most of this is driven by strong fundamentals, we at the Economist Intelligence Unit are forecasting only a modest slowdown globally in 2008 and continued strong expansion over the medium term. This underlying strength of the world economy augurs well for Ireland as one of the most globalised economies on the planet.” Hurray! Oh, wait… (https://www.daft.ie/report/dan-obrien)
What’s amazing is he doesn’t appear to even know about the sharp class disparities in third level. Odd that.
Dan
Business’ Man
Serious me, ex cathedra hubris
Pompous propaganda even after daft.ie
And levelling the playing field starts at pre school and attitudes to education. School attendance and extra help when needed. get pre school and primary righ and a lot will be solved
Amazing how good a ‘cherry picker’ Dan is,he thinks that the SILC 2011 report gives him enough amunition to push the neo-liberal agenda, so he is hot of the press with the propaganda. Ironically when the news from last years SILC report was not so ‘user friendly’ for Dan and his ilk they chose to ignore it !! as my post from last year shows ” AN IRISH RECESSION…THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE MEDIA DON’T REPORT IT ” http://gfmurphy101.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/an-irish-recession-the-rich-get-richer-and-the-media-dont-report-it/ any comment Dan ??
Thanks for that gfmurphy.
The CSO report published on Wednesday revises the results from the 2010 SILC survey.
I tried hunting down the resources on which he bases his analysis but, predictably, there is no link in the original article. But I checked out other links on the Gini coefficient and they seemed broadly to fit in with the facts as he presented them. HIs analysis is, though, very questionable.
His main point is that Ireland’s coefficient is at the EU average, and that the EU is the most equal place in the world, and therefore we are doing fine.
Another way of looking at it is that are are comparable in inequality to most of the eastern EU states, Portugal, Spain, Italy and the UK. That’s a fine group to set as a benchmark. We are however considerably more unequal than the rest of the EU – the countries that have weathered the economic storm relatively well
It is true that we are much more equal than all the world’s undeveloped and poverty stricken regions. I suppose that’s good.
In general, if you look at wealthy developed nations, the English speaking nations stand out as a group that are more unequal than most. And in all of these countries – I am pretty sure – inequality has grown since the 70s. Ireland is part of this picture but it is not the most extreme example. Which is something for which I give our trade unions credit.
Overall his piece serves a reasonable propaganda piece for those seeking to justify Irish public policy over the last number of years. As long as you don’t read up on the subject in any greater depth.
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/
+1
Particularly in relation to the English speaking world.
“I tried hunting down the resources on which he bases his analysis but, predictably, there is no link in the original article.”
It is here: http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/silc/2011/silc_2011.pdf
Theres an article titled “List of countries by income equality” based on the Gini Coefficient on Wikipedia for what its worth. The most recent category is the “late 2000′s”. Ireland is not shown to be especially unequal, on a par exactly with France for example after taxes and transfers and seems in accordance with Dan O’Briens article.
I thought that the results put forward in the article were surprising. Considering the rhetoric of an elite versus the vast majority of downtrodden that we have become used to you would expect a Gini figure comparable to South American countries or China. But it states pretty clearly that we are middling in European terms and Europe is the most equal region in the world. The whole idea of progressive taxation and the benevolent state needs to be justified and worked on to society not just assumed as a common goal. In my opinion the rhetoric has been used to serve vested interests and not the most deserving in this country and this is counter productive to the left when making the arguments. I believe that much of the so called progressive measures far from contributing to resolving inequality are at best freezing the status quo. I would cite certain universal payments such as child benefit and free university given on a “one for everyone in the audience” basis. These are hugely expensive ways of bribing voters who should’nt need to be bribed and undermines the moral arguments for people paying higher taxes to hopefully address issues of inequality.
Of course the problem is the arguments were put forward with no links to actual data. Furthermore, as was noted in comments under the article Europe might contain some of the most equal states/societies but there’s also very wide disparities across it so that is not quite as comforting as he appears to be believe.
And frankly I’d disagree entirely re universal payments. Universal payments underwritten by taxation are to my mind a sine qua non of the left. If it moves beyond that it’s essentially shifting away from social democracy and democratic socialism to liberalism.
By the way lest you think my affection for universal payments is based on sentiment I can direct you to research that demonstrates targeted payments aren’t taken up as widely by those who qualify for them with obvious negative outcomes for those income groups. And of course that’s precisely the point of them, to ‘save’ monies and keep taxes low both by raising barriers to use of them and to curtailing the pool of people eligible.
A point I may have made before about universal benefits is that they’re not necessarily that expensive, because they’re cheap to administer. Very little money is spent on checking interviewing, fraud and so on.
And they can be taxed.
‘THE taxing of child benefit is on the cards for the first time after an expert report recommended it as one of the “most feasible options for change”.’
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/400000-families-face-tax-on-childrens-allowance-29075622.html
A perfect environment for social democratic policies would have been Sweden from 1935-75. They had total power over that period and could implement everything on their wish list in terms of equal distribution of wealth altough were careful to avoid nationalisations and releyed on regualtion instead. In those circumstances the choices were very agreeable.
Today by contrast its about the least worst outcome and targeting scarce rescources at the most objectively deserving cases is something I think most taxpayers would see as the most reasonable use for their funds. Its only anoracks interested in labels like neo liberal and so on. The worst people and abuses of all sorts are right across the political spectrum. Its very sad to me that left socialists in this country seem to be most exercised about defending the interests of people on a range of issues certainly well up the social ladder.
That’s not entirely fair, this isn’t about ‘defending the interests of people… well up the social ladder’.
It’s about what is most effective and what are the most effective mechanisms for social change. Universality of social provision is one such. I’ve already noted that there are studies on this issue of universal benefits as against targetted benefits. And the evidence is strong that the latter do not (for instance in the area of child benefit) operate in the way you supposed in terms of ameliorating the issue as effectively as universal provision.
http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/budget-day-so-lets-see-if-they-slim-state-provision-because-after-all-the-market-has-been-such-a-success/
In relation to this issue there was a comment in the IT I referenced some while back which went as follows:
” If you believe in a decent democratic society, universal benefit provision is a good thing, among other reasons because it amount to a basic moral statement about citizen equality. It says: if you are a child, it does not matter who your parents are, society believes that you ought to be looked after in a way that meets your needs. It recognises that the well-being and development of all children is not just the responsibility of the parents but of society as a whole, and cements social solidarity. Its abolition, on the other hand, entails treating disadvantaged children -and this is especially the case with children with special needs- as the object of the charity and sympathy of the rich.
There is a two-word solution to the perceived problem of inequality in benefit allocation: income tax. And if people believe they can manage without the benefits they receive corresponding to their right as citizens, they can always make a cheque out to Revenue. ”
Again, if your position is indistinguishable both functionally and conceptually from the centre and centre right then it might be worth considering is it – despite your clear genuine concern about the issue – a left wing position at all.
Getting into a debate on what constitutes a legitimate left wing position is a mugs game as you indicated in contributions on other issues.
But I think it is possible to determine on socioeconomic issues what constitutes a centre or centre right position and act accordingly.
Again in all this you seem somewhat indifferent to what actually works and seem overly concerned about essentially rhetorical complaints about social provision etc. if the left project reduces simply to fire fighting and channeling social provision in the context of a framework generated by right or centre complaints I genuinely believe is not worth the effort.
And I’d add you know from my thoughts which you paraphrase in your last comment that I’m unimpressed by trying to push leftist a outside of a definition of leftism but that said there are even/especially for social democracy fairly clear lines.
On your point on what may be considered valid social democratic principles two points spring to mind.
In the Uk Gordon Brown was recognized by some such as Polly Toynbee for redistributing by stealth when there was a climate hostile to redistribution by using the tax credit system to target benefits towards poorer people only. He also let the basic pension wither on the vine by emphasising the minimum income guarantee to target the poorer pensioners. I’m just making the point that social democrats are forced to perform as best they can in the circumstances and if a universal benefit is no longer achievable politically or economically then targeting is the best policy.
Secondly the fairness and equity of the benefits system must be so well understood in my opinion that non social democratic parties would not be empowered by public opinion to dismantle it when they get into power. If the benefits system becomes expensive and discredited among many due to pork barrell benefits for the middle class its only natural for the right to be then seen as having the better arguments.
One of the good things about social democracy is that it is not dogmatic or restricted in how best redistribution can be achieved. There is nothing to say that scarce rescources in welfare payments cannot be targeted at those most in need. The selling point of social democratic parties is that they are committed to making the existing mixed economy work(as opposed to revolutionary socialists), and delivering on social justice also. Its demoralising for taxpayers to be giving up hard earned cash to subsidise those richer than them. In this country in particular social spending has been much used as pork barrel politics aimed at the middle class. This discredits left wingers who believe in genuine redistribution and if its used as a stick to beat them with by right wing scources then deservedly so.
Yeah, but its just that the Labour Party’s austerity approach to ‘making the economy work’ is a failure.
I wonder about that re social democracy Richotto. Until relatively recently in historical terms social democrats sought the eventual replacement of capitalism and a transformation of society, albeit through exclusively democratic/parliamentary means. Indeed if I self-identify to some degree with left social democracy it’s precisely that strand that doesn’t stop at ‘making the economy work’ but seeks its eventual replacement. It’s only in the past twenty/twenty five years that that ultimate aim appears to be jettisoned. Now of course that doesn’t preclude the idea that the present system can’t be reformed or improved as part of the way to socialism, but it is fairly distinct from the idea that they ‘make the economy work’. And in truth if that is their aim than it is one that – for example – centrist liberals, or even some on the right such as Christian Democrats could cheerfully sign up to with little or no issue, which raises the inevitable question what precisely then is the difference between that brand of social democracy and centrist or centre right thinking.
In any event, targeting doesn’t seem to me to be compatible with redistribution. And it still doesn’t overcome the problematic aspects I’ve referenced above.
Moreover, the basic point about all, rich or poor, getting social provisions is that those in the former category are taxed considerably more for the privilege. There’s also one basic practical issue too. The tax system is vastly more comprehensive, as ejh implicitly notes, and efficient as a means of ensuring that those with more pay rather than having to go through the noxious and anti-leftist process of targeting.
I am more ‘demoralized’ by seeing taxation go to unsecured bondholders in private banks and the billions every year in corporate welfare, higher tax relief for the rich etc. than seeing it provide a minimal level of child benefit in a country with probably the worst access to affordable childcare in Europe tbh. If you want to measure equality by the stndards of South Africa or Brazil which only recently emerged from apartheid and military dictatorship go ahead but at least have the decency not to combine it with a paean to ‘social democracy’.
I’m putting forward the argument that that a progressive tax and social spending regieme is not immune from being held accountable in its effectivness. Subsidising well off people with direct payments and free third level education to access the best jobs does not sit too easily in terms of fairness with a lot of taxpayers. Point taken about the Banks but two wrongs do not make a right and this is a much broader debate than in just this country.
Never mind comparrisons with South Africa and Brazil, how about Eastern European contries where there are flat tax regiemes? There seems to be popular support and not much understanding of the need for redistribution among those populations, a point I learned anecdotally in conversations over here with immigrants from Latvia for example.
If so many social benefits outside the basic health education system remain indiscriminate about what level of income the beneficiaries have there is a danger that our basic tax and redistribute values will be further undermined. A good example of where trust in govt per se happening in this way is Italy where govt taxes and favoured vested interests are seen even among the left as parasitical on ordinary people.
Fair enough, but then it’s a question about ensuring that the supply side of the equation – so to speak, in the shape of properly progressive taxation (in every sense of the term), is there in order to sustain universal benefits.
Otherwise there’s little point in attempting to distinguish oneself from the centre and right.
And I’m deliberately avoiding making the case for universal benefits in terms of social solidarity etc, in favour of more substantive issues of efficiency and so on.
Great so now you want to compare us with countries that suffered decades of Stalinist rather than right wing dictatorship followed by brutal structural adjustment. Glad to see the labour party are aiming so high. comparative social model?
In fairness richotto is engaging with the topic (and I don’t know if s/he is LP inclined), though I think your point dmfod is spot on that the Eastern European situation is sui generis and simply wrong to use as a comparative in this context (I would wonder what the outcome of prolonged austerity in Europe as a whole and in this state will be in terms of easing the path towards nonsense such as flat taxes).
But more broadly I’d be concerned if left politics is defined by its opposite then it is reactive rather than proactive. I don’t have to be a booster for revolutionary socialism to see the utility of that in rhetorical terms in certain contexts in relation to pushing matters leftwards.
I fundamentally agree with richotto that left politics has to be rooted in the achievable but I think as the old saw used by the WP and many other parties went – I paraphrase – always be a step ahead of the people but never more than that, or something along those lines, in other words offer an alternative, not the same old same.
On the point of comparing us with Eastern Europe emerging with brutal readjustment the ideas of flat taxes are as repellent to me as anyone here. But as I said anecdotally in conversations I was struck by how ordinary people seem not to accept as fair that richer members of society should not pay at a higher rate of tax to be redistributed among the less well off. I was making the point that in the context of tax and spend redistribution systems being quite isolated in west Europe it should be above reproach in terms of fairness. Poor people paying taxes to subsidise the rich ie significantly expanded child benefit and free third level is something that does not sit easily in terms of fairness. Its arguably an abuse of peoples good intentions which threatens to rebound on trust in the state itself as a positive agent.
I am at a loss to understand what your point is, richotto. If taxation is progressive, then it follows that those on higher incomes will pay more. This is fair because the marginal utility on income decreases as income itself rises.
Thus, taxing child benefit will not result in the poor subsidizing the rich since it is the rich who will be paying more and who will lose comparatively more of their child benefit. I cannot fathom where you are getting this idea that universal benefits are the poor subsidizing the rich.
richotto, I notice that throughout this so far you’ve avoided the issue of entry and uptake of social provisions where there is targeting and what impacts that has on working class people – with relevant material in the link I supplied above. Is there any reason you aren’t factoring that information in in favour of anecdotal experience on your own part?
richotto, aside from wbs’ points about the actual effectiveness of universal benefits vs targeted ones, you’re missing the point that they don’t really subsidise the rich: they just divert the same income from private to public sources. i.e., a wealthy person pays for their own benefits through taxes plus those of others; a less-well-off person will likely receive more in benefits than taxes, or at least closer to equal. if you abolish universal benefits then the wealthy pay them out of private income, and then have a case for reducing their tax burden because their disposable income has shrunk: the argument for more taxes for more redistribution remains separate.
earned income + benefits – taxes = total disposable income; shrinking benefits has the same impact as increasing taxes on people’s ultimate income, so why not make the political argument for the latter? as against shrinking the state and privatising more forms of social provision for more people?
+1
I would strongly agree that taxation of child benefit would be seen as socially just as Rosencrantz says above. If that is the majority view among socialists I would be pleasantly surprised.
The system would command more respect if benefits to the well off are at least treated as income. I would suggest third level be treated as benefit in kind also. If there are pitfalls in a means testing system that exclude people eligible then thats a fair point. My main point is that peoples committment to social responsibility should be recognized as finite and the system needs to be constructed for neccessary expenditure only.
I think you miss my point. If taxation is progressive, then those in receipt of more income pay more. Thus, the idea that the poor subsidize the rich would be simply untrue. Universal benefits, aside from the fact that they are efficient, would be available to all who take them up and would be paid for by all taxpayers contributing their share on a progressive basis.
This is hardly a novel point for a socialist to put across. Further, such benefits, where they come in the form of cash payments, can be taxed. They can be treated as part of income which would be taxed as we go further up the scale. Again, higher taxation on higher incomes is not a novel idea for a socialist or indeed for anyone who might commit themselves to a mildly centre or centre-left position.
If anything is going to stretch the notion of social responsibility, it is means-tested benefits. Such testing reduces these social entitlements to that of charity and with such reduction comes a certain mindset. Hence, the frequent denunciation of people on unemployment benefit or other benefits based on means. For those on middle and higher income, ‘famine fatigue’ sets in as they begin to feel that they are subsidizing a section of society who are feckless or unwilling to help themselves. I use the term ‘famine fatigue’ deliberately because this is exactly what occurred to the British public during the Irish famine. It is total folly to think that introduction of a system like this will increase social solidarity.
+1
“I would suggest third level be treated as benefit in kind also.” But why would you want to make taxable income something that comes from tax itself? And since third level education is something paid for each year, such benefit-in-kind tax would have to come from the rest of disposable income, so again why not put up income tax? (This is a similar objection as that made to the property tax, which I agree with in principle but it does become another tax on income)
I would have agreed with taxing child benefit as an ‘acceptable’ compromise (behind increasing income tax), but on reflection and comparison with third-level education, to do so is basically saying that the benefit is not going to be used for what it is intended. of course wealthy people can afford to divert more of their income to paying for children’s clothes or college fees if so required, but the whole point of universal benefits is to make those things relatively independent of income level. by taxing those benefits because they make well-off people too rich, or undeserving (are they not citizens too?) you’re basically a) undermining the principle of social/state provision and b) admitting that the income tax system is broken, specifically in the ideological aspect of raising taxes on high income earners (despite the fact that cutting benefits entails the same material reduction in income).
+1 Hardcore for Nerds
And a good point about the property tax and income tax.
O’Brien also omits the sharp increase in inequality during 2009. The drop experienced this year has not even brought us back to 2008 levels of inequality. O’Brien makes little to explain this and instead decides to hand-wave it off as being counter-intuitive and ‘in need for further study’.
In fact, the figures here (www.publicpolicy.ie/wp-content/uploads/Gini-Coefficient.pdf) demonstrate a very interesting trend. Ireland’s inequality might be overall in line with the ‘average’, but the inequality between median income earners and low income earners is quite high by international standards. I would estimate that this metric will increase thanks to falling wages and some tactical litigation by employers against various minimum wage and employment conditions legislation.
I would’nt see targeted payments as charity but as entitlement based on need. It does seem an indulgence to be giving a payment to those who don’t need something in order to reach those who do. In any case I would be satisfied if the things you outlined are allowed to fall into the tax net instead of being means tested but given the underlying opportunism in our political discourse that seems doubtful.
Here is the data from the CSO report, with the corrected figure for 2010. It presents two measures of inequality — the Gini coefficient that Dan O’Brien refers to and the quintile ratio. The quintile ratio is the ratio of average of the richest 20% divided by the average of the poorest 20%.
Year….. Gini…. Quintile ratio
2004…. 31.8…. 5.0
2005…. 32.4…. 5.1
2006…. 32.4…. 5.0
2007…. 31.7…. 4.9
2008…. 30.7…. 4.6
2009…. 29.3…. 4.3
2010…. 31.6…. 4.9
2011…. 31.1…. 4.9
(I turned Table B from a horizontal to vertical layout to make fit in a comment and added the dots because WordPress doesn’t handle (or I can’t make it handle) tabs to make columns align correctly.)
The aim of social democracy was to change capitalism. What has happened is that capitalism has changed social democracy. The Labour Party in power with F.G. is implementing a right-wing economic policy which has resulted in mass unemployment and emigration. The name, ‘social democracy’ remains, but as a progressive political force social democracy is dead.
+1
In a nutshell CL.
I’m not sure that this contradicts the fundemental point Dan O Brien made in his article that we were at worst in the middle in European terms for income inequality. Unless the basic Gini figures are discredited I can’t see how he can be faulted factually regardless of whether he provided a link. The only figures I have seen in checking are on Wikipedia under “List of countries by income equality” using the Gini scale, almost universally accepted as the most valid measure of inequality. Ireland under the most recent figures with the heading of “late 2000′s” has a figure after taxes and transfers of 0.293. This compares favourably to Germany 0.295, Italy 0.337, France 0.293, Uk 0.345, Canada 0.324, Australia 0.336. You can drill down but its not going to get around the argument that the basic comparisson is the most revealing.
But the key thing here is ‘late 2000s’. Late 2000s could mean 2008, or before the Great Recession and five years of austerity. For example (if these are the Gini figures he uses) Greece is rated at 0.307, practically the same as Ireland. The fact that we’ve had a major financial crisis between when these figures were compiled and now makes them at least questionable as a source of information for today?
Maybe, I’d like see someone come up with the later headline figures to show a change for the worse in Irelands ranking. I would have thought though that a Gini inequality measure coming from the end of a boom era would give a pretty fair picture of how we are doing in comparisson to others.
The english speaking countries stand out among developed nations as a grouping where inequality is high. Your figures – and O’Brien’s – reflect that.
More equal than ireland are the following: norway, sweden, denmark, finland, japan, belgium, holland, switzerland and france.
Less equal are the US, UK, portugal, new zealand, greece and italy.
The fact that we are about average for the EU cloaks the fact that we are less equal than almost all of the well functioning western european states. It is true that we are more equal than former soviet satellites. we are also more equal to than most dictatorships, undeveloped nations and the desperately poor.
But surely we want to emulate the success of the first list: they do better in almost all measures of well being than we do. To do so we should constantly assess all policies with a view to how they impact in equality. That is not something we currently do.
O’Brien has constantly pushed policies that are more in keeping with those followed primarily in the US and the UK. I believe he published this article in an attempt to justify these policies and that that is why he seems to have cherry picked his figures and has not listed his sources.
+1 re seeking to emulate the first six. As leftists that surely would be what we were aiming for.
The top (that is to say, highest earning) decile saw a significant increase in disposable income in 2010, according to Michael Taft.
Which makes me think about the whole 99%/1% slogan.
Without the top-paid 10% which included meeja mouthpieces, tame economists, lawyers, IFSC operative etc. the oligarchs would have more of a problem. And the 10% get rewarded appropriately, even (or perhaps especially) in times of crisis.
The link to Micheal’s article:
here.
However, the release last week from the CSO significantly corrected the 2010 figure that Michael Taft used in his article.
is there any idiot out there who really believes Ireland is a meritocracy?
Where did the boys from Treasury Holdings first meet? At private school. I would say 80% of the top people in Ireland come from the same social strata.
Doesn’t Dan O Brien’s success prove conclusively that an idiot can rise to the top
I think that Dan O’Brien says that Ireland is a meritocracy for a number of reasons, but aside from the fact that he probably really wants to believe it despite all the evidence to the contrary, there is a very practical reason: aside from being self-congratulatory, if you flatter the wealthy and powerful by telling them that they’ve risen to the top by being superior to everyone else rather than through a combination of social background, political connections, ruthlessness, greed, and often just outright luck, they are more likely to hire you or give you lucrative consultancy work…
Anyone catch DOB on Vincent Browne? Did I miss much?
Chris Dillow has a line today that for me sums up the problem with contemporary actually existing social democracy:
(Mind you, he was applying it to George Osborne.)
Excellent quote Tomboktu.
He’s an excellent blogger. Bite sized, expert posts almost daily, by a Marxist who worked in the financial industry and now writes about finances. (I noticed he was used by BBC Radio 4 a few times over the last year in some of their excellent FIle on Four or The Report. He really has a wonderful combination of expertise, ability to communicate with a perspective that is sympathetic to my politics.)
Here’s the deprivation I posted a while back
http://airomaps.nuim.ie/flexviewer/?config=AIDepIndex.xml
Independent reported yesterday that it’s finally being put to use
as an aid to collecting the property tax