So right
Published:
December 19, 2012 at 10:19am
13 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Featured Posts
-
Paltry €50,000 fine for illegal Siggiewi zoo lifted in exchange for state school visits...more
-
Owner of illegal Siggiewi zoo parties with Environment Minister one day before Planning Authority sanctions it...more
-
World Economic Forum index/Malta: public trust in politicians plummets 17 places in one year...more
-
When freeloading Clyde Puli spent 16 days at the Olympic Games in China and made us pay for it...more
-
The leader of the Nationalist Party and Miss Rebecca Dimech...more
-
Well, the Kap tal-Kattolici u l-Latini certainly has a roving eye...more
Absolutely!
I had this same, albeit lengthier, discussion on the matter outside a football nursery yesterday with a friend who was complaining that though he and his wife earn €50,000 annually, they never manage to save any money. All this while the rich are getting richer.
The explanation is quite simple, really. Subsequent Nationalist administrations have given everyone the tools to improve their standing through free education, education, education at all levels. For God’s sake! The Government is even paying €600 for those on the dole to take courses organised by the ETC to improve their skills and employability! The income of those who lack the will or sense to exploit such opportunities will inevitably only increase marginally. Thankfully, it’s evident that the proportion of the latter is gradually shrinking. That is pretty clear in our unemployment rate.
Regarding the ETC allowance, Labour didn’t pass one comment to its merit. I mean, Joseph comes along, and waxes lyrical about moving forward together, and not a word to this. Which begs the question, if he removes the tax, will he keep the allowance?
No, that requires decisions and some homework, better to censor the methods and resort to cheating the electors out of decent discussion.
Just saw one of their ads, supposedly proving the PM’s dishonesty, one example relating to the tax in question as well as the election date constraints.
Even when the PM went on TV admitted his mistake, they will still insist.
Joseph’s limited in his ability to counter that sort of behaviour, should have learnt something, left howling mad at his take on minimum wage and suing for libel.
There’s an insecurity taking over in his method, having Franco as a distraction could also be a gauge to measure the adversary.
Brilliant!
Spot on by Thatcher.
No wonder she was the Iron Lady.
Maggie is my hero.
Isn’t that what the ‘lanzit’ is all about in our country? The Laburisti didn’t mind their miserable lot under Mintoff because they had their minds at rest that the old sod was doing all he could to squeeze every penny possible out of everyone else.
I may not agree with all Thatcher’s policies myself, but I have to admit that was brilliant.
To prove Thatcher’s point, Labour put a poster at the entrance of the Santa Venera tunnel of a well groomed and well dressed lady with an envelope in hand stating that minimum wage earners won’t pay tax under a Labour government.
So minimum wage earners in Malta aren’t having it as bad as PL spokesmen purport them to be.
Minimum wage earners will be paying 23 cents per working day in income tax.
Many people do not realise that Labour does not want to say that if government increases the minimum IT threshold for minimum wage earners it will have to deduct the same tax to the rest of the taxpayers if it wants to be fair.
So if there are 50,000 taxpayers it will cost the exchequer €3,000,000 to avoid the 4,000 minimum wage earners from paying €240,000 .That’s €3,240,000 less in income for the government.
It is common knowledge that many declared minimum wage earners are self employed who earn more than what they declare, so that they can milk the social security cash cow.
Would Labour be fair with the 50,000 above minimum wage taxpayers when in government? Even if it wants to, I doubt whether the EU will let it do the change.
No. So wrong. The gap between rich and poor (many names for many metrics, the Gini Index and others) does indicate economic wellbeing when it is narrow. Just look at Sweden or Switzerland. Why is it that whenever we economic liberals warn of a widening gap, the only response from the economic conservatives is the “Nyark nyark, you’d rather the gap were lower down.” No I jolly well rather not. I want the gap to be narrow and to be up there. Is it a coincidence that the US and Europe had the highest economic growth rate when that gap was smallest. Now that the gap has widened, after Reagan and Thatcher, misguidedly or not, unbridled the system, economic growth has slowed down to a trickle or reversed altogether.
I think the sun shines out of Maggie’s arse on foreign policy (Falklands? I’ve just come Union Jacks) but on the financialisation of the economy, I think she was wrong.
Dan il-filmat veru jolqot il-musmar fuq rasu u japplika ghall-mod kif jirragunaw il-partiti socjalisti kollha. F’Malta kellna ezempju kbir ta’ dak li qed tghid Thatcher taht it-tmexxija ta’ Duminku Mintoff. Mintoff prova jnaqqas id-differenza bejn is-sinjur u l-fqir, mhux billi jgholli l-livell tal-fqir imma billi jnaqqas il-livell tas-sinjur. Dik ghadha l-mentalita’ tal-Partit Laburista tal-lum. Kif qalet Thatcher, policies bhal dawn ma jkabbrux il-gid fil-pajjiz imma jbaxxu biss il-livell ta’ min qieghed ‘l fuq. Dan hu li jigri jekk il-PL jiehu l-gvern f’idejh.
The first was my local MP Simon Hughes.
This is what the risk-of-poverty data that come out of Eurostat, much beloved by the Labour-GWU media and touted by Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, are all about.
The EU defines anyone earning below 60% of the average as ‘at risk of poverty’. But this is really not a measure of poverty or its risk, but of inequality.
Imagine three people in an economy earning €100, €100 and €275. Average earnings are €158, so no one is at risk of poverty in this example as those on €100 are earning 63% of the average.
In the following period, this economy enjoys something of a boom, more than doubling its incomes to €200, €200 and €650. Average earnings are now €350, putting those earning €200 at risk of poverty on 57% of average earnings.
So, someone earning €100 in the first period was not deemed poor, but doubling that amount in the following period made them poor.
This cannot be, of course. What really happened in this economy is that, as it became richer making everyone better off, it also became relatively less equal.
As Mrs Thatcher was explaining above – and remember this was her brilliant performance in her last PMQs upon resigning after the fateful vote against her by her own Conservative MPs – Socialists would rather have the equal sharing of misery than the unequal sharing of blessings, as her predecessor Winston Churchill also brilliantly put it.