excluding insurance), the monthly repayment is roughly RM 740 a month, factoring in a 2.27% interest rate
Toyota Motor has just released the official prices for the 2021 Toyota Vios facelift and the prices are
range-topping X-Terrain variant is priced at RM 142k.Question is, what’s the minimum salary you
Customers are entitled to a low-interest rate from 1.88 percent and a 1-year warranty during this promotional
Car enthusiasts are curious creatures, really.
meaning that the monthly repayment is roughly RM 920 a month, factoring in a 2.27 percent interest rate
monthly installments starting from RM 2,388 with the Mini Balloon Financing, at a lowered interest rate
Let us shortlist a few for you.Porsche 718 Cayman 2.0L flat-four, from RM 530,000Launched here a couple
Here are some reminders to make sure your car battery stays in good in good condition even when parked
Also read: What’s new in the mother truckin’ 2021 Nissan Navara (D23) Pro-4X?
Which begs the obvious question, what are we paying for then?
Question is, what’s the minimum salary you need before you can apply for a loan?
What you have in your car has been pre-determined by the manufacturer.The question is, which is the best
First, in-car sensors monitor passengers anxiety levels based on body indicators (heart rate, blood pressure
Note that the prices we are using to calculate this monthly instalment feature are the price stated on
Different people have a different way of defining what perfect means to them.
Flat engine in a FWD car. PhotoSo, the boxer engine is not special to Porsche and Subaru.
without insurance), the monthly repayment is roughly RM 800 a month, given a 2.27 percent interest rate
But what looks good on paper doesn’t always make it a brilliant car, here’s what the Bangkok
Just maybe skip on these 10, which are the worst-selling cars in Malaysia.Where will the Proton Juara
meaning that the monthly repayment is roughly RM 710 a month, factoring in a 2.27 percent interest rate
For most of us, cars are a necessity.
justifiable as UMWT has improved the safety and features of its people mover.Now, you might be thinking what
due to the coronavirus, a number of them still managed to give the new Defender a shake down and here are
Expressway Phase 2 (LPT2) alone, which was announced last week, would cost the government RM 160.1 mil.Below are
LX 570 is more than just a Land Cruiser with exquisite bells and whistles.The LX perfectly embodies what
insurance) as an example, the monthly repayment is roughly RM 1,100 per month, assuming 2.25% interest rate
fender and a shark fin antenna.The rear looks a bit like the GR Supra, thanks to its bootlid design and what
without insurance), the monthly repayment is roughly RM 700 a month, given a 2.27 percent interest rate
what are flat rate expenses ireland-what are flat rate expenses ireland-FE and VET overview webinar | Turing Scheme
what are flat rate expenses ireland-Finland | Wikipedia audio article
what are flat rate expenses ireland-what are flat rate expenses ireland-The future of transportation: La'Zooz
what are flat rate expenses ireland-Catholic Church sexual abuse cases | Wikipedia audio article
what are flat rate expenses ireland-what are flat rate expenses ireland-CETA: Where Are We After More Than Three Years?
what are flat rate expenses ireland-June 11th, Bull-Bear Trading Hour on TFNN - 2019
what are flat rate expenses ireland-Forestry and Farming: Productivity and profitability of the sheep & beef sector
what are flat rate expenses ireland-Dublin | Wikipedia audio article
what are flat rate expenses ireland-How To Price Freelance Writing - Options And Strategies
what are flat rate expenses ireland-Earn A Living Day Trading Webinar
World Cup T20 ,2014, ,Final qualifier match,,Netherlands Vs Ireland “Looked like a mini version of 434 South-African SAGA.” SIX!!!!, “,Avada kedavra for Zimbabwe and Ireland,.” Importance of this match Ireland need to beat Netherlands to progress and wave the Associate flag in the main draw. A Netherlands win will make it a two-way contest between them and Zimbabwe, but Netherlands will have to considerably lift their ,NRR Net Run Rate,.But chances were considered feeble rather than an opportunity for Netherlands. The Dutch must bat second. They will then need to chase down Ireland's score in approximately ,13.3 overs,. This could be done if Ireland does not score more than 130. So,let me narrow this down for everyone. If Ireland lose, they are out. If Netherlands win narrowly, they are out and Zimbabwe go through. If Ireland win, they are through. If Netherlands win big, they are through. First Innings,The Onslaught. A decent but a quiet start to a match ,Ireland, needed to ,win, ,desperately,.With just 16 runs on the board Ireland lost their first explosive batsman Paul Stirling . But ,William Porterfield, looked in a mood to go through to the main stages of the World cup with ease and continued striking at a good rate. On a score of ,47 off just 32, Porterfield departed but managed to give a decent enough start to his team. Soon ,Ed Joyce ,also followed him failing to capitalize on a lost chance from T.Cooper with 88 on the board in the 13th Over. In comes another hope for Ireland in ,Kevin O Brein, who had to turn his ,T20 mode ON, for Ireland to post a respectable total on a flat ,Sylhet, track. Poynter, and ,Brein, took the attack against the Netherlands after that and started to accelerate at a supersonic pace. Brein, took ,Swart, ON which till then was a decent day for him but after a ,HAT-TRICK, of ,6’s.I, am afraid Swart might not claim it to be a good outing after this hat-trick by Brein. ,21 came off the over. Another 17 run over, from ,Van der Gugten, took the pace of the innings to a new level with ,Kevin O Brein ,converting an acceptable over of 11 runs into an expensive one with 17 runs.(157/3) But a great over from ,Ehsan Malik ,pulled them back . But O Brein had different ideas in his mind taking the onslaught to ,Van Beek ,in the next over by scoring 18 runs in it. Ireland managed to score a decent ,189, keeping in mind the pitch but if we keep all the scenarios in tact they have score fabulously well. “What a cameo by O Brein and What a Stirling innings by Poynter” So,Now our Not so in picture ,NETHERLANDS, have to score this target of ,190 in 14.2 overs ,to go through,. Second Innings,The Massacre Borren, and ,Myburgh, were the two mountaineers who were given the responsibility to climb the Mount everest with No Oxygen. With ,four 6’s, in the 2nd over and a ,hat-trick, from ,Myburgh, ,Netherlands showed that they were not here to bat out 20 overs just because they fielded the entire 20.,(34 in 2 overs) Borren, too joined the party scoring 11 runs in the next although this was less than the required run rate for Netherlands. Looks like ,Myburgh, was competing with ,O Brein ,with the number of hat-tricks as he repeated the feat again in the 4th Over hitting ,Cusack, all over the park and ,scoring 22 of it.(68/0 in 4 overs) Zimbabwe’s, supporters might be cheering for Netherlands now. On the last ball of the power play, O Brein,(,revenge for breaking the hattrick but probably the wrong guy,) provided a direly required CPR to the Ireland team by dismissing ,Borren, but not before a ,15-ball 31, from him.(,91/1 in 6 overs,) The stage was set now and Netherlands actually looked pretty comfortable as if they have arranged for their Oxygen to climb Mount everest. Next over ,Dockrell, was taken apart again by ,Myburg, who was sitting comfortably on, 63 off just 23 balls. This man was playing the innings of his life today but soon the Fairy-tale ended A BIG WICKET, !!! Myburg held on to the mid-wicket boundary . Moment of confusion !!! Who should cheer now? Ireland?Got the danger man out Zimbabwe?Same as above but they were still supporting Netherlands Netherlands? They just needed 92 off 33 which started as 190 off 86 balls Next over from ,Brein, and Another ,WICKET ,of ,Van Beek ,departing at just 1. Wow this man is taking his all-rounder duties way too seriously today.,(107/3 off 8 overs) Falling wickets are becoming a problem for Netherlands and Zimbabwe now. T.Cooper takes the resposibility to climb the everest taking the torch from Myburg in the dressing room. 58 needed off 26 balls now for Netherlands. Dockrell, comes in to ball the 11th over and ,T.Cooper ,joins Myburg and O Brein in the race of ,6’s Hat-tricks,.Strikes Dockrell all over the park taking, 22 off the 11th Over. 33 needed off 20 ,(Zimbabwe’s supporters holding their breath planning to switch the supporting sides) This is doable,easily doable.,I don’t think Ireland can win the match from here ,only Netherlands can lose from here. TWIST IN THE TALE With just ,29 required off 19,,Cooper gave the catch to the mid-wicket boundary and his ,15 ball 45 came to an end, but not before he made it real easy for his fellow Dutchmen. One Cooper goes another one comes in . ,BN Cooper, walks out to bat. Just ,3 runs of the last 4 balls,. It was a rare sight in a match where as many sixes were scored in 4 balls. 26 required off 14. With just ,8 coming off 5 balls, from this over,pressure was mounting on the Dutch and should be released before the torch is extinguished with low pressure of the altitude. A SIX!!!BN Cooper You beauty. ,Its not like we have not seen sixes in this matches ,there has been ,27 6’s ,for crying out loud but this one was the most crucial one of them all. Just 13 required off 8 now Not easy in this situation. Barresi, with a ,17 ball 24 ,a little slow for this type of match on strike. An interesting scenario where the hearts of Netherlands and Zimbabwe(,Why were we dragged into all of this,) were all synchronizing in their mouths. Ireland is already Out of it. Murtagh, to ,Barresi,,a rare ,DOT BALL.Ohhhh!!! 13 off 7 required now. I falling short of nails here,this is dramatic,No I think Dramatic is an understatement for this match. Not just two teams playing but the ones in their hotel rooms are also pretty much dependent on the favorable outcome of this match. This match is far from over for Netherlands and Zimbabwe. But Zimbabwe can only be saved by Netherlands if they can ball ,7 good deliveries, for them. THE CLIMAX 13 off 7 required Barresi, smacks it straight but is it long enough. Thudd!! a sound came from the sight screen.. Its a SIX!!!!! Barresi, read the prescription right.Its just ,Run-a-ball ,now. Ireland are not surprised by anything now,I think they have seen enough already. Murtgah to Barressi,Another ,DOT.. Wow!! Come on Barresi!! ,Dont be so dramatic,FINISH it off. FOUR!! Yes Yes this was the only thing missing from the script today a match filled with hattricks of sixes is coming to a conclusion with a boundary. 2 required off 4 now Netherlands are home now and so are Zimbabwe and Ireland(,In a different way) Next ball and guess what?? IT’S A SIX,,this match definitely deserved this as the final blow to make it a blockbuster. Looked like a mini version of 434 South-African SAGA,. They did it !!! and with 3 balls to spare. Avada kedavra for Zimbabwe and Ireland Netherlands go through the main stages of the WC and with this performance backing them up they are sure to produce some UPSETS. Presentation ceremony,A celebration of the impossible Today can be the day to break the tradition of giving man of the match to a single person. Every Dutch batsman kind of deserved it. But sadly Only one is chosen. Stephan Myburg. Records,which only matter afterwards Source:,Records tumble as Netherlands make 193 in 13.5 overs Netherlands' 193 for 4 is the highest total a team has made in 13.5 overs in any T20 cricket. The previous best was 175 by South Africa ,against England, in Centurion in 2009-2010. Netherlands made their ,highest total,, beating 172 for 5 ,against Kenya, last year. Ireland's 189 was their ,second highest,. Stephan Myburgh's 17-ball fifty equalled the second fastest half-century in T20Is. Ireland's Paul Stirling had hit a 17-ball fifty against Afghanistan in the final of the ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier in 2012. Yuvraj Singh holds the record for the fastest fifty - 12 balls ,against England, in the 2007 World T20. Netherlands hit 91 runs in the first-six overs - a record for the Powerplay overs, beating the 90 New Zealand scored ,against Scotland, in the 2009 World T20. Netherlands' previous highest in the Powerplay was 67, ,against UAE, in an earlier league match of this tournament. The Netherlands batsmen hit 19 sixes in this match - ,the most, in a T20 international innings. The previous best was Australia's 18 ,against England, at the Rose Bowl last year. Ireland hit 11 sixes in their innings, ,their most, in a T20 international, taking the tally of sixes in this match to 30, which is a record. India and New Zealand had hit ,24 sixes, ,in Christchurch, in 2008-09. The 101-run partnership between Kevin O'Brien and Andrew Poynter was only the ,second hundred partnership, for Ireland in T20 internationals and their second highest for any wicket. William Porterfield and Paul Stirling had added an unbeaten 109 for the first wicket ,against Canada, in the World Twenty20 Qualifier preliminary final in 2011-12. Netherlands' chase was the ,fastest, - in terms of run rate - of a target of 190 or more in T20 internationals. Netherland scored 193 at a run rate of 13.95. The previous record was held by South Africa, ,against West Indies, in Johannesburg, when they chased down a target of 206 with 14 balls remaining. Other sources :,Getty Images,Wikipedia,Google, ,and ESPNcricinfo. Another contender for such match is ,Prateek Mehta's answer to What are some of the best comebacks in sports history?
None- you can do it yourself. These so called “cash/debt management” organisations charge you an absurd amount of money for something you can easily do yourself just a little bit of time, if you have a spreadsheet on your computing suite, it will make life even easier. Make the heading: STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF ( your name) Date it. Next Column put a narration box Left hand in accountancy is always Debit Entries the next column is for Credit Entries, the next column is a balance column. First list all the people your owe money, line by line in the narration box The in the next column, the amount of that debt. Then in the next Column you list all your credits (credit balances -savings) (again narrated the name of the account/bank where the money is held) Add both columns up and one will be a large amount than another. Hopefully more money in the various bank and securities than debts, but debts could exceed credit at bank. The write down the “balancing entry so the total of both columns are equal. That creates what is in effect a Balance Sheet. NEXT Open another Spread sheet (it can be in the same book) Next list your Creditors as you did above, but enter the balance, and in the next column the instalment you are SUPPOSED to pay. That includes food and living expenses, of course rent. When you have finished that, move to the next column and enter the name of people who pay your regularly such as you pay (employer) any income from investments. Total both columns, again their will be a difference because clearly your outgoings exceed your income. Of course in an ideal world they would be the same, but since you are in arrears I think it is safe to assume that they will not be. What you want to do now is reduce the outgoings. Rent and food should always be deemed as “priority creditors” to be paid in full, so list them first, make a sub total and deduct the amount of income from that. Again, hopefully that will provide you with a surplus income. You can then either make a flat offer of the amount of surplus income divided by the number of Creditors (people you owe money to). Alternatively you can pro rata the surplus in proportion to the debt. Of course the flat rate is the easiest and no one feels that they are preferential. Your income and outgoings should now have equal totals. In short, you have balanced your books. Now write to each creditor, with a copy of the spreadsheet, addressed to the Manager of the Credit Control Department. In the covering letter tell them that you are in financial difficulties (you don’t have to say why), but would like to make an offer to repay that debt by reduced instalments. Draw their attention to the attached spread-sheets showing your income and outgoings particularly and the proposal of offer against each debt (including theirs of course). Most importantly ask them to stop any interest that is being charged on the debts. This way they can see you are being honest with them and that your offer is genuine. Tell them that you will review the situation in six months with the intention that you will be able to increase the instalments. In 75% of cases the Creditors will accept your offer as they can see you are in difficulties and more so if your income does exceed your out goings, by a considerable amount (they are going to get something, which is better than nothing, in their view). Also your balance sheet shows that although they can take you to Court if there are no liquid assets, providing there are not massive savings in accounts, the likelihood is that they will all accept the offer. They are not actually going to do any better in Court, and by throwing Court Fees in to the pot it is not going to help the situation. The only thing to watch out for is a large Creditor who gets panicky and will go to Court for “security” and if indeed you do have a property with “equity” in it they may proceed to what in England and Wales (Scotland and Ireland have their own legal systems) as a Charging Order. In theory having that Charging Order means that if you default on the payment then they can enforce it and sell the property “over your head” (Eviction/Repossession) . However if the house is mortgaged and there is only a small amount of equity or none at all (the amount of money left after the house is sold and the Mortgage taken out, or even if there is enough money to clear the secured Charging Order the chances are the Orders will not be enforced. The main reason is that when a property is under “forced sale” (repossession) it will not realise (sell for) the same price as if it were sold on the open market. To that end it is not really in anyone’s interest, apart from the First Mortgagor to enforce as they will get the money first upon the sale. Usually those who are “secured” by Mortgage or Charging Order, will write of the debt and just wait for the property to be sold in due course. More so if children are involved due to the negative publicity. However, don’t bargain on that with the party that has the First Charge (Mortgagor). If you can make payments of a nominal amount and the secured Creditors have agreed to amortise the interest that will help, but make sure you pay something, probably more than you would the other Creditors. At the very least it will reduce the balance. Of course if the other Creditors agree to your basic $10 per month and also freeze the interest that will bring the balance down too. So be honest with your Creditors and the sooner you are and get this approved by them, the cheaper it will be in the long run as the interest will be frozen so the debt is not going up and the companies are less likely to get aggressive and start throwing legal papers around- again the only exception may be the larger monies on Credit Cards. Hopefully they will accept and generally speaking providing you comply, they will not take further action, other than write to your from time to time to see if your situation has improved. If it does improve and it is going to be a long term upward adjustment to your disposable income ; say due to an increase in salary, then write to the Creditors with an increased offer. Again you don’t have to say why you can make the additional payments; they will just be glad that you can. If you need any help with layout of the balance sheet and Receipts and Payment Account I will see if I can create a table as an example. Quora is not good at importing this sort of data. All the best Chris R- London
You cannot find skilled factory workers for $15 an hour. Pay a decent wage and they will move there in droves, ,in the expectation, of being trained to do exactly what they need to be doing. In Germany they start internships for manufacturing jobs at 14. A twenty four year old factory worker in a Daimler Benz factory has been on the job for ten years. In 2001 I bought a million dollar pick & place machine with a 200k stencil printer. It took me six months to learn how to use the equipment. My reasoning was that I did not want to be entirely dependent on outside specialists to program it, and service it. What I did not realize is that if your rotary gantry screw was off by 1/128 of an inch, every 64 inches of travel the gantry would be off by half an inch. Big problem when shooting quad flat packs and 0402 resistors (1 x 0.5 x 0.35 mm). Cad and gerber files are useless, you need to walk the gantry manually and align your fiducials empirically. That of course requires some level of manufacturing experience, and experience costs when its in short supply because you exported your manufacturing expertise. In any event those are problems you can throw money at. The real reason for offshoring is offshoring your ,revenue capture,. Lets take the example of an iPhone with a PRC supply chain. Components get shipped to HK from Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Japan, the USA and from the EU. There the bill of materials (BOM) gets assembled with a cost of $180–200 depending on how good your camera is and how much memory you want to throw at it. The BOM then gets picked up by your trusted HK freight forwarder with an “invoice for insurance purposes” of $593.00. That is the fully loaded cost with every possible management fee, IP fee, transfer pricing fee and whatever else you can legally throw at it. There are import duties, customs duties and value added taxes (tot 42%) to be paid but of course the freight forwarder has already negotiated that with the customs agents and ,the parts go in tax not paid. Then the iPhone gets assembled. Case and assembly is no more than $7.00. As a matter of fact if they are paying more than $6 somebody is being paid a ,motivational fee,. At that point the phone gets shipped to the US with a loaded cost of $600. The balance of the 200 goes for US operations, logistics, and retailers. The $400 in profit per unit stays off shore and is not taxed. You can do the same in Europe with a pass through Ireland, A Dutch Skip (a “Temporary Inbound” T1 Status import) and from there you can move it through channels without even having to pay 18% VAT on entry. Denmark has good options too. Once the loop is closed your tax free proceeds are either taxed at Ireland’s 2% rate for “Foreign Domestic Corporations” or at whatever rate you can negotiate with the parasites in Luxembourg, and then park the profits in the City of London. The short of it is that offshoring manufacturing is not a cost saver, but rather a tax dodge on steroids. Revenue above BOM on a iPhone is $600. Does it really matter if it costs $7 or $14 to assemble? The value add is in the engineering, and if you have six hundred dollars of value, the assembly cost ,is immaterial,. In the year 2000 China, with a population of 1.3 billion had the same GDP (2T) as France with a 70 million population. What is responsible for today’s GDP of 14T? China’s GDP reflects that $600 shipping invoice charge. China’s GDP does not reflect the fact that its value add is $7. The US’s GDP is double booking the $800 ,minus the eliminations,. Well, if its consumed in the US, its $800 worth of consumption. But the US engineering value add is 600 not 7. California, if it was an independent Nation State, would be the fourth largest economy in the world. Except for the fact that California corporations do not pay taxes in the US, and certainly not in California. If the engineering value add output is not accounted for in California, and taxed in California, its not California GDP. US tech corporations invoice out of Singapore and the Netherlands. Steve Balmer famously noted in 2011 that they invoice three times more out of Holland than they do in the whole of China. I am sure the CFO put him in the naughty box… California, by virtue of our Constitution, can of course run whatever ,paternalistic welfare state, it chooses to device. Problem is that they do not capture their corporate value add in State or in the US. They simply do not have the tax base to support their policy objectives. Which of course means that like Puerto Rico, they cannot pay for their programs without going bankrupt and then appealing to the Federal Government to bail them out. NY State doubled its GDP in the last twenty years, but the tax base actually shrunk as manufacturing was replaced with capital gains friendly plays, and NY corporations offshored their manufacturing. China’s GDP is of course 50% made up of assembly charges, and export invoices that do not reflect China’s actual value add. A $600 export with a $7 assembly charge of course reflects negatively on the US’s Trade Balance. If economists were not academics, they would have already pointed out the fact that the China US trade imbalance is entirely bogus, ,as is of course China’s GDP. From 1996 to 2016 a manufacturing concern was on the hook all in, say in California or New York, for a whopping 62% in taxes. That is mighty close to the magical 70% where all economic activity ceases. Please don’t tell me that ain’t so because that is what I paid until such time as I got ,creative, with my supply chain. Throw in a desperately rich regulatory capture, and that magical 70 was for all purpose achieved. A capital gain paid 15% (or less). Its obvious that if the tax rate was reversed, 60% for capital gains and 15% for manufacturing, everybody and their Uncle Bob would be manufacturing in order to take advantage of tax policy. Manufacturing tax loop holes disappeared with the Clinton administration. It was a true raw up your rectum 62% effective tax rate. Trump wants to encourage manufacturing without introducing ,capital disincentives,. That is never going to work. Every country in Europe is suffering from the same supply chain tax dodge, minus of course Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Ireland because they are tax havens. Of course, they produce nothing so they are not in any better position than others. Ireland’s 2% tax on Apple, is pretty skinny considering the Irish Banks went belly up in 2009 and the Irish State had to nationalize the debt. That 2% barely covers for the interest payments. A failed State is one that cannot capture tax revenue. That is all that there is to it. Point here is that if you were to put together a harmonized common taxation policy between G7 or G10 States, which represent 70% of world GDP (or would that be consumption?), you could easily shut down this massive tax dodge. Which would then allow you to lower the ,new, capital gains tax from 60% to say 30% (with manufacturing still at 15%). Short of a radical change in tax policy, which the current administration does not have the votes in Congress for, all the Executive branch can do is hustle, plead and design structural impediments to the supply chain. A MacPro of course does not have the same margin multiple built in. Its mostly a really expensive exercise in managerial ego. Its the kind of product that gives rich techies hard ons (or is that just me?). Since the product reflects a much lower margin structure, the tax dodge is not as critical. Plus they can increase the invoiced cost to Apple USA for the iPhones, and make up the loss in ,tax efficiency,. If you see software companies building hardware, its because they want to run their own supply chain tax dodge. I also read that pentalobe p2 screws are hard to source domestically. Which would be true except for the fact that the screw making machine is probably made in Japan or Europe and they don’t particularly care where they ship their equipment. It would also not be unreasonable for the current screw supplier to ship their equipment to the US for automated manufacturing here. Plenty of skilled labour in ,fucking Ohio,. Yeah, if you don’t win Ohio you don't stand a chance at carrying the Electoral College. Do the math. Thanks for the ask, always a pleasure. Edit: Michael Hudson: De-Dollarizing the American Financial Empire | naked capitalism Michael Hudson’s website has been taken down. It was up a couple of weeks ago, but I just checked and its not. And there I was thinking that Marxist economists did not suffer that problem… Extensive bibliography available if the reader should chose to pursue this line of inquiry further.
Complicating factors— Obtaining a visa to stay in Ireland, has become increasingly restrictive since about 2007. USA residents who wish to remain in Ireland beyond the 90-day visit limit need to read the regulations carefully, and need to plan their visa application process before they leave the US and obtain bank statements, birth records, etc. ahead of time. Contact the Garda National Immigration Bureau immediately upon arrival to start the application process. Bear in mind that you can be turned down and may be asked to leave, regardless of owning a home or car, holding an apartment lease, or having moved all of your belongings. Economic / cost of living differences between USA and Ireland:, Property taxes are much lower. Half of Irish citizens purchase private health insurance, which often cost 25% or less of what plans in the US cost (though prices in Ireland are going up). Internet access and cell phones cost less. Food costs tend to be lower, however consumer goods usually cost more. Clothing is much more expensive than in the USA. Taxes are included in the posted purchase price, which is convenient, but makes the comparison seem worse. Banks charge fewer fees, however there are annual taxes on credit cards. Petrol costs four times as much as it does in the USA. Autos are subject to a annual tax, which is higher on older vehicles, so older cars sell pretty inexpensively, but cost more to operate. Car insurance is expensive. Housing, in Ireland was in a slump for a few years, but in the last year or so, prices have shot up. There was a situation for a few years where mortgages were difficult to obtain, but has banks increase the number of mortgages they write, housing can be hard to find. Prices in Dublin jumped up this year, but along the ROI-NI border, where there is a lot of concern about Brexit, prices are down. From the perspective being a retiree, there may be no economic advantage to trying to obtain a mortgage—this would be difficult to obtain for an expat, and the tax advantages that mortgages offer to homebuyers in the USA won’t benefit you in this situation. If you’re interested in purchasing a house, most of the for-sale real estate in Ireland can be viewed online on daft.ie. As you read the real estate listings, pay attention to the BER rating—this describes how energy efficient a home is. Modern Irish homes are way more energy efficient than anything you’d find in the US. Older ones leak the cold winter air like sieves. Keep in mind that most of these houses are masonry construction, and repairs/modifications are time-consuming jobs. Rehabbing an old farm quickly turns into an expensive, multi-year project and may result in a structure that’s expensive to own due to energy inefficiencies. Home insurance costs about the same as the USA. There’s penalty pricing if you own a flat-roofed, thatch-roof structure, or if you’re within 100 meters of the sea, or river known to flood. Ireland is a small country in terms of population, and there isn’t much mass transit. Outside of the Dublin, Cork and Galway metro areas, you’re likely going to need a car to get around. (However, inside of Dublin and Cork’s metropolitan areas, it’s entirely possible to live an interesting life without a car). The two major airports are Dublin and Shannon— both require bus rides to get to. Unique benefits of expat retirement in Ireland— The largest benefits include: everyone speaking English; the tremendous integrity that one finds among those working in the legal and banking fields; and a well-educated, multi-cultural, and accepting population that tends to give the benefit of the doubt to those from the USA. Not to mention, the country’s natural beauty and cultural assets. The weather is not as bad in Ireland as everyone jokes, but the water off the beaches is universally very cold. Going back and forth between Ireland and the US is a relatively short and inexpensive trip as international travel goes.
A close analog would be “,I want to visit all of Europe including Iceland, Ireland, and the UK, but not including Russia, what are all the places I should travel to?,” I mean, not quite that stretched as the US is much less densely populated and not as culturally or linguistically diverse all all of Europe is, but you get the point. I’ve heard horror stories of the German tourist who lands in DC and tells the car rental place he’s here for two weeks and is going to spend a few days in DC, and then a week in New York, and then intends to drive to Las Vegas to see that. Seeing everything superficially ‘worth seeing’ would take a whole summer by car, and you would absolutely have to know how to drive, or else participate in multiple tour groups out of different cities to different National Parks, and go by bus (that would be more expensive). Most Americans have been to only 12 states out of 50, down from 20 in 1988. How many states has the average American visited? Most Americans have not visited any place in the entire country. 48% of Americans have been to Florida, and that is the closest to 50% of any state. That means, not even half of Americans have been to New York City or DC. I’d imagine the average American has probably only visited 2 National Parks. Why is this relevant? The country is big. I am much more traveled than the average American and yet I have never been to New York City. I have been to 40 states. Lots of answers are listing all of the country’s biggest cities as the places you should travel to. Personally, my idea of fun is not this type of stuff: That is what most of every city in the country is like. A place where lots of people work, but most people don’t live, with plain 20th century buildings, lots of traffic, and admittedly lots of good, but expensive, restaurants. There’s some landmarks that look interesting, a lot of great museums, and many are definitely worth seeing, but devoting a short two-week or one-month trip to the US to visit a dozen big cities would be closer to my idea of hell, than my idea of fun. That’s closer to my idea of fun (took that photo in Capitol Reef National Park in the campgrounds my girlfriend and I were staying in). To really visit the lower 48 of the US and not just a handful of cities, you need to rent or buy a car, or else participate in a tour group. Ok… so here’s some West-Coast examples of feasible trips that include cities and nature: This is the first one I did with my girlfriend in summer 2015 (of course, we actually then drove north all the way up to Seattle where my parents lived): I am using the satellite view so you can see how diverse of a climate you will be seeing. Here’s another, this is the first one I did with my girlfriend summer of 2016; we were staying at my younger brother’s place in Pullman starting out: Here’s one I haven’t done in full (I’ve done all portions of this, on separate occasions), but which includes more… famous cities: Northern West-Coast trip : the dot in the middle is Crater Lake. Between Redding and Crater Lake is the Redwood Forest. Mini Trips… Maybe if you want to just fly to a hub, like Salt Lake City, or Los Angeles, and take a shorter road trip seeing some nature: Here’s a weekend mini-trip, where you see 2 National Parks conveniently next to each other in scenic Moab (we did this in one weekend): Arches is one of the smallest National Parks, but has a condensed amount of stuff you can see in a little area: Los Angeles-Death Valley-Las Vegas: This one is particularly popular with tour groups: You must be extra careful on this in summer though. Don’t drink alcohol, bring lots of water, and if you are renting a car (not traveling by bus in a tour group) rent a four wheel drive SUV, hatchback, or truck. Not a flat low-riding Dodge Charger or something. Don’t go hiking after 10 am. I mean.. this is what it can be like in summer: That is 51.66 C. Visiting the East Coast? That is not an area where I have much experience. I will though probably this summer.
I was holding out on answering this for a while, but in the wake of Brexit, I think the time has come to levy my thoughts on this thorny topic. Unfortunately, Brexit was and is a shitshow. Let’s break this answer down into three sections: The motivational factors The deal we got The overall impact Once they’re examined, we’ll see the lunacy that’s unfolding! Motivational Factors “Taking back control” A biggie on the negotiating table, and one of the major issues that sparked many Brits into patriotic action. Legal culture became a massive sticking point. “Time to take back our sovereignty!”, the Conservatives peddling Brexit would repeat as if it were a religious mantra, as if we were brave fighters during World War Two landing on enemy soil to do battle with the evil European Communities Act 1972. Forgetting, of course, that we have our sovereignty baked into our membership, considering that we can exercise it at any time to leave. Which Brexit proved in 2016. It was a sovereign choice to join te European Union, it was a sovereign choice to leave, it was a sovereign choice to march up to the other countries and demand all the special treatment we could gorge on (no Euro currency, indexed child benefits, et al). We’ve been exercising that sovereignty from Day Bloody One. Pretty crappy a footing to go on, heralding the return of our sovereignty when we’re literally exercising our sovereignty to reclaim our sovereignty, no? Economics Look, I get it. When somebody unveils this: Your first instinct is one of joy. We love our National Health Service! However, in that joy, Brexiteers forgot that the politicians pushing for Brexit had very little power to make that promise into a reality. As such, when it came time to discuss the economic issue, we had to deal with U-turns and backtracking from those who had made promises that they could never keep. Meanwhile, on other industries, Brexiteers love to push the case that we have to let European Union companies compete for our contracts (forgetting that we have the right to compete for their contracts too), the fishing argument (0.1% of our GDP, less than even the iconic Games Workshop!), and that the European Union caused industrial competences to leave Britain (as if we hadn’t had enough time to develop and act accordingly before 2016 rolled around). While I have sympathy for the fishermen, I don’t much care for symbolic victories. Fishing rights were a symbolic tool to be used as a stick to beat sovereignty issues over, and that can barely count as a sound economic case (at 0.1% GDP) where the motivation was simple-minded British nationalism and sovereignty. “We were told it was just a Common Market…” And we were told that the Tories had an oven-ready deal. We were waiting more or less up to the last second for that deal. Gee, Brexiteers sure picked their bloody moment to start caring about when a politician lies, especially considering the economic and social fallout of this particular lie! Plus, it’s a bit rich for the Brexiteer camp to have demanded that we be told the truth about the European Union from decades past, waxing weary about the betrayal of our trust and our sovereignty and our whatnot, and then lie about their finances that they spent and diverted to get us out of the Union, racking up a hefty fine from the Electoral Commission for flagrantly breaching campaign spending laws… Every politician stretches the truth from time to time, and it sucks that they do that. I genuinely detest career politicians who’d try to sell their own mother for a grape and some leverage. But pride against having been sold one of the thousands upon thousands of stretched truths across all of political history, fuelled by useless nationalism and dreams of former glory (the good old days of being a superpower, Rule Britannia!), has created a political abomination. And all of this being spearheaded by a Prime Minister (and prominent Brexiteer) who was sacked from his job at The Times for fabricating a quote, who has been deemed by Conservative Member of Parliament Rory Stewart as “the most accomplished liar in public life”; Perhaps the best liar ever to serve as prime minister. He has mastered the use of error, omission, exaggeration, diminution, equivocation and flat denial. He has perfected casuistry, circumlocution, false equivalence and false analogy. He is equally adept at the ironic jest, the fib and the grand lie; the weasel word and half-truth; the hyperbolic lie, the obvious lie and the bullshit lie. Let’s undo a lie that’s given us pan-European rights and trade by appealing to the better nature of a known and infamous liar who has a well-documented history of lying to get through his life but trust us, he’s telling the truth now… Wait, what? “We’ve survived worse, we were fine without it!” The European Union’s website says this: The European Union is set up with ,the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in the Second World War. ,As of 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community begins to unite European countries economically and politically in order to secure lasting peace. Frankly, no we were not alright without it, if the death toll from World Wars One and Two at 40,000,000 and 75,000,000 respectively is anything to go by. Further integration and unions hold us together in a way that we weren’t before, which is desirable both in terms of political gain and in common humanitarian understandings. Even in an era without world wars (if not an end to wars at all), keeping the peace through agreement and common trade is an essential part to that maintenance. To state that we were “better before” the European project is a ridiculous notion, considering how much we have gained from it and how much we have lost in leaving. The European Union was not established immediately (indeed, its official date was on the 1st November 1993, under the Treaty of Maastrict), but the communities and treaties leading up to it date back to the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952. At the same time, we saw the United Nations and the International Court of Justice being founded in 1945, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the Council of Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance in 1949, and the European Convention on Human Rights in 1953. That these dates all more or less immediately follow the Second World War is no accident. The context leading up to the European Union is vitally important, for those little steps led up to the keeping of the peace that we know and enjoy today. Plus, let’s consider the “better before” and “survived worse” rhetoric. It harkens to a mythical era of a land of milk and honey. Take the example of the fishing industry, since the fishermen were all complaining that the Union has shafted them for years (not all sunshine and rainbows for them now, is it?); would they like to go back to the days where nets and hooks and fishing lines weren’t invented, because “we have the olden ways”? Not in the slightest! Technology advanced, rendering the old obsolete! Just like in our technological advances, politics shifts to render old models as incompatible with the current era; the globalised world makes the nation state look quaint. The nation state is fit for a few purposes, owing to cultural heritage and specific modes of legislative implementation in the countries. But alone, European powers ravaged the world through colonialism and wars, and so the nation state without an inter-state accountability mechanism proved to be reckless and harmful. We proved that our nations were not to be trusted acting in isolation from one another, and we continue to mess up even with the European Union. The difference is that, until Brexit, we had twenty-seven other nation states within one web to point out where we had gone wrong. When the time comes for the European Union to be rendered obsolete, the same will happen to it. But we’re not there yet. The world has all changed. It’s globalising. Some say that’s for the best, others for the worst. But the old ways of doing things are gone. Dead in the water, as it were. Fit to be gawked at from a museum, behind a red ribbon, but nothing more. If we want to go back because we’ve “suffered worse”, that just smacks of single-minded British nationalism above all else, and it’s both misguided and foolish to base an argument off of that alone. But hey, if you want to go back to the days of “Keep Calm and Carry On!” as the air raid sirens whine into the night, be my guest! Just don’t drag me down with you. Welfare tourism This one’s easy to debunk, but it takes a while. I’ll do so the help of researcher Marcus Österman: We found ,hardly any differences in how EU migration affects the public budget across the different types of welfare states,. In four of the five welfare regimes we studied, where the great majority of EU migrants live, ,the net contribution to the public purse from the average EU migrant household was clearly positive ,and didn’t differ significantly across the different types of welfare states. […] In further analysis, we found there wasn’t even a statistically significant difference between the contribution to the public budgets of EU migrants in the less generous Anglo-Saxon “basic security” regime in Ireland, the UK and Malta, and the Nordic “universal” regime. He summarises his findings here (Britain counts as ‘Basic Security’, far less generous than the likes of the Nordic universal welfare model): Moreover, Directive 2004/58/EC has this to say: All Union citizens shall have the, right of residence on the territory of another Member State for a period of longer than three months if, ,they,: (a) are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State; or (b) ,have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence ,and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State; or (c) are enrolled at a private or public establishment, accredited or financed by the host Member State on the basis of its legislation or administrative practice, for the principal purpose of following a course of study, including vocational training; and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State ,and assure the relevant national authority, by means of a declaration or by such equivalent means as they may choose, that they have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system ,of the host Member State during their period of residence; or (d) are family members accompanying or joining a Union citizen who satisfies the conditions referred to in points (a), (b) or (c). In each situation, the person wishing to come to the country has to either be earning, or they have to be sufficiently funded so to not become a drain on the Member State that hosts them. So this is not a European issue, it’s a British one, one that’s clearly been within British competence to fix. It’s not like the European Union sets the benefits scheme of every country; if they did, there wouldn’t be five distinct models in Österman’s study to analyse, and Britain would perhaps have a humane system of welfare benefits outwith the total disaster that Universal Credit has turned out to be. We might have had to cater our system to European migrants as they arrived, but the system we created was ours to control. Even the Commons Library acknowledges this: EU law ,doesn’t require Member States ,to allow EU migrants unrestricted access to benefits. Indeed, as the site InFacts notes: Why would people uproot themselves to cross Europe to come to a country where benefits aren’t that generous in the first place? ,If they really wanted to become welfare tourists, they would be better off going to Germany or Scandinavia. And as researcher Rachel Marangozov stated in 2013: Even ,the Government has conceded that it has no quantitative evidence for its recent claims of ‘welfare tourism’,, when asked by the European Commission to provide more evidence on the issue, and ,their claim that 43 per cent of EU migrants were claiming benefits has already been widely discredited,, not least by UK Statistics Authority. Most European migrants come to Britain to work and to contribute to society. The scare tactics are one part misinformation, one part racism. And leading nicely into the last point… Overt racism Cuntface-Extraordinaire Nigel Farage, leader of the Brexit Party, unveiled this poster aptly-labelled as ‘Breaking Point’. His plan was to vilify migrants and asylum seekers who come to Britain in need of a safe haven, portraying them as a wave of scroungers who will GOBBLE UP YOUR BENEFITS IF THEY’RE ALLOWED IN: Let’s counter him with this: Green World tells us about the refugees who supposedly flock to us for our stingy, ‘basic’ benefits (thank you, Österman!): France received 143,000 asylum applications in 2019, while that same year the UK received under 35,000,. These figures have been more or less constant for the past five years, so we can immediately see that the problem is not France shirking its responsibilities and palming asylum seekers off en masse to the UK. Rather,, it is the UK that takes on a disproportionately small responsibility for the protection of asylum seekers as compared to our European counterparts. Shut up, Farage. Even if we do accept a higher rate of refugees than France (which we should, it’s called basic decency), it’s still clear that we’re not the prime hotspot here. The rates of acceptance are, once again, within British control. Now, Brexit was not a racially-driven movement, and there are plenty of people who were swayed by the (flimsy) arguments on economic policy rather than the racial ones. Indeed, many of those people are incredibly clever friends of mine, and I would defend them against accusations of racism in the Brexit context with everything I have (unless, of course, they did end up making a racist statement somewhere along the line, which is highly unlikely given my experiences with them!). However, Brexit was to racists as a moth is drawn to a flame. A chance to dunk on the brown doctors who come over here and fix us with medicine! Time to bring back ye olde white supremacy! Eryl Jones of Show Racism the Red Card has noted Brexit as a major influencer of increased tensions and hate crimes, with even the Home Office noting a correlation. Brexit was appropriated as an initially non-racial movement to include racists, to the frustration of Remainers and economic-Brexiteers alike. But the damage has been done, and the damage belongs to the Brexiteers in their victory. On the basis of all of these, we can conclude that the Leave campaign utilised faulty arguments, and that by default there were far more arguments in favour of remaining than there were for leaving the European Union. Minus a few legitimate concerns among some affected industries, the mainstream factors involved in pulling Britain out of the European Union were problematic at best, and their rampant nationalism at the expense of common sense precludes much in the way of any rational discussion. The Deal We Got I’m just gonna leave this here, because fuck me. We lost the Erasmus+ scheme. We lost free movement rights. We lost the Court of Justice safeguards (remember the Snooper’s Charter?) We couldn’t even make the fishermen happy for all of this loss: Mr Deas [chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations] said: ,This is very far away from the fishing industry expected or indeed was promised, we have surrendered access for the EU fleets to fish in our waters,, for a further five years, without securing the quote advantages that we have a right to expect as an independent coastal state under international law. And this is what drivers at Dover have to deal with now: This is as recent as December 2020. I mean, thank fuck we have a deal, but we don’t get to celebrate. Our options were the shit of no-deal or the slightly fragranced shit of the deal we got. We should take it, not because it’s a great deal, but because there’s no other deal on offer. Any delay to this one will sink any hope of a deal at all. Brexiteers are cheering that the deal wasn’t as bad as it could have been, that there are opportunities, but the carnage that these miserable opportunities has been bought with was never worth it in the first place. So we don’t get to celebrate; we get to tuck our tail between our legs, and we get to thank our lucky stars that our shit was at least fragranced. Damage limitation does not make for a good deal. The damage should never have been done. But we get blue passports, at least! Living the dream here! Overall Impact There’s more overall factors to consider here: Continued racism,: you thought racism was going to end after the Brexit process? Think again. It’s just gonna get worse. This is the Windrush country, the Hostile Environment perpetrators, the “let’s wheel out Priti Patel as our female Asian shield so that we can say what we like about BLM” people. Not to say that the other parties don’t have racists (God knows Labour has anti-Semitism issues), but the Tories are in charge now, and it’s their policies. Scotland,: Britain to Scotland be like “oh, please don’t leave, we’re so much better as a union!” and then be like to Europe “please let us leave, we’re so much worse as a union!”, saying both with a straight face. We Scots rejected independence partly for Europe, and we got swindled on the Smith Commission and now on the Union membership that we wanted. You’ll understand, I hope, that Scotland is not exactly filled with happy bunnies right now. Ireland and America,: the Irish border was a sticking point, and the situation we’ve got pleases nobody. That’s what you get when England asserts itself over everyone to drag us out of the European Union: can we rename the United Kingdom to “England and Friends” yet? Plus, treating Ireland with kid gloves is a must for a good relationship with the new President-Elect Biden, and as we know, England has such a wonderful history of doing just that. Boris Johnson’s administration,: we could have had a great deal, and it would still have only mitigated the impact. Brexit now has to be dealt with by the donkeys currently in charge. These are the folks who can’t even get ventilators because the invitation email went to an unchecked spam folder, who got their asses handed to them by Dr June Raine when they tried to claim that they got their vaccine approved due to Brexit. Utter titheads. Reduction of trust in experts,: with twelve devastating words, “I think the people of this country have had enough of experts”, questionable human Michael Gove tarnished the reputations of every expert in their field. Doesn’t matter that researchers debunked the welfare myth, or that there’s a new COVID vaccine, or that the world’s not flat: they’re the global elite! How can we survive when the academics sit around reading Michel Foucault! Economic priorities,: between excessive defence spending mid-pandemic (the largest increase since Thatcher’s leadership at £16,500,000, after refusing to fund school meals and cutting foreign aid) to a great big Brexit festival planned at £120,000,000, we’re sinking money into trash. At least fund the NHS like your bus promised, instead of clapping like seals every Thursday! Our priorities are inane; no wonder we had to scapegoat Europe. Disaffected youth voters,: the 18–24 year olds voted 73–27 to Remain. 25–34 year olds went 62–38 to Remain. 35–44 went 52–48 to Remain. The ages 45 and above voted to take us out of Europe, and my generation have to deal with the fallout. The 65+ year olds went 60–40 to Leave; we're already faced with Millennials vs Boomers socially, and these optics hurt reconciliation. It's funny how our elders get to order for the entire restaurant before leaving themselves! Yes, I know, not all 65+ year olds, but statistics don’t lie. Mistrust in politicians overall,: from David Cameron’s miscalculations, to his successors’ ineptitude, to Leave.EU failing to report their spending resulting in a fine of £66,000, to Remain groups being fined (at lower rates owing to the severity of the breaches), to lies about Turkey joining the Union (Britain has a veto, people!), politicians suck. But Leave.EU outshone all other breaches of electoral law; very bad optics for the alleged defenders of British sovereignty. The COVID-19 response,: England had the "longest continuous period of excess mortality” across the European Union between January and June, so said the Office for National Statistics. Economic upheaval in conjunction with one of the worst crises in our twenty-first century lives? Yes please, why not? Thank you! It’s not like we wanted an easy time of it, we might as well throw in some plot twists to keep 2021 as spicy as humanly possible! Human rights,: this doesn’t end with the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty aimed to keep members in the European Convention of Human Rights (the one that Theresa May wanted to scrap), and now we’re fully unchecked. Sovereignty is a hop and a skip away from ignoring the Convention outright. The United Nations already lacks the teeth to enforce human rights issues, so now it’s onto the days of the Snooper’s Charter once again. Spike in British nationalism,: we had this in spades before, in no small part drummed up by Nigel Farage and his shitty little lackeys, but prepare for the overdrive. Case on point: instead of accepting an offer to remain in the Erasmus+ scheme for students to go to foreign European universities as part of their development, Britain snubbed the offer and decided to make their own program. A lot of grandstanding from the spam email administration. Regardless of the economic benefits that might come about (sparsely and slowly), we’re left facing a social backlash that will never recover. We’ve burnt so many bridges, we’re viewed with mistrust and contempt almost everywhere we go. England even faces hatred from Scotland, so we’re barely stable internally! Whatever deals we make, whatever economic ups or downs we have, Brexiteers still have to account for the social harm that Brexit has wrought. There is no remedy that can be paid off for this kind of thing. Britain was already fairly arrogant as a country (I’m British/Scottish, I know what I’m talking about!), but now it’s on full display. Make a million new economic deals, but the social fallout has crippled British goodwill and our standing throughout the world, leaving us very vulnerable at an already very vulnerable time. We need to rebuild that goodwill quickly. And we have a Prime Minister who quoted Kipling in Myanmar. We’re so very fucked. If it isn’t clear enough by now, I’m foul angry at those who dragged Britain out of the European Union. My generation, and those who come after, will have to deal with the fallout for years to come, while the older populaces who voted overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit will get to clap themselves on the backs for the next ten years before they become too infirm to vote any more. The United Kingdom is in tatters, our economics are a joke, we’re cravenly bowing to any country that offers us a trade deal, our NHS and human rights are edging close to the chopping block, and we’re reliant on limited international goodwill after our historic and present shenanigans. These were issues that existed well before Brexit. The NHS blood plasma supplier was privatised and sold to Bain Capital in 2013 (who sold it off to a Chinese buyer for £820,000,000 three years later), Alex Salmond wanted to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom in 2014, and Theresa May wanted to take Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights in 2016. God knows that racists were abound in the United Kingdom before the Brexit vote was on the horizon. These are all pre-existing issues within our ‘great’ British society. But they’ve been well and truly exacerbated. I care little for the European Union as a body. I won’t be rushing to embrace Guy Verhofstadt if I ever meet him. I won’t be praising Ursula von der Leyen if we ever cross paths. I don’t hold leaders or organisations in any form of reverence; to do so is culty, and if there’s one thing I detest, it’s a cult. However, I’m still very sad to see the advantages that we had disappearing, all for negligible economic returns, brazen and unmerited nationalism, and social devastation in return for our troubles. And do you want to know the real kicker in all of this? Well done, British exceptionalism. Born, bred, and created to be as stupid as possible. I hope it was worth it.
I recommend ,Rathmines , or ,Ranelagh , both South-side (of the river Liffey, which bisects Dublin East to West) locations within 5 mins walk of eachother . Full disclosure: I am 'from' Rathmines (insofar as I am 'from' Dublin at all - long story) and I went to secondary school in Ranelagh. This is the view from the end of my parents' road, just before Rathmines main street. The main street runs left to right in the picture and makes a 'T' with the road shown. The beautiful building on the left is a ,Carnegie, (yes, ,that ,Carnegie) ,Library ,, truly worth a visit. FYI, the clock shown works, i.e. it 'bongs' (mentioned because there are apartments just out of shot and if you are not used to it, it can wake you up). I believe both locations would meet your criteria of having points of interest for you and your child and being within walking distance of T.C.D. It is about a 20-25 minute walk but both locations are extremely well served by public transport (buses for Rathmines, buses and trams for Ranelagh) also. Both locations have a large number of hotels, nice parks, restaurants, cafes (inc. internet cafes), shops, libraries, banks, doctors; pretty much everything you could want. Sounds great, right? So what are the downsides? Well, being so well stuffed with amenities and close to the city centre, both areas are ,expensive ,to rent in. I think current rent on a ,decent ,1 bed apartment would run 900 - 1200 euro per month or so. A whole house rental would probably come to 2000 euro or so pm if not more. Of course you can get a flat (difference is an apartment is purpose built, a flat is a room or rooms in an older house converted for single occupancy) for cheaper but I would not, especially if you have your child with you - you want the security that would come with an apartment. You can check out exact and current market rates on http://www.daft.ie . Hotels, if that is the way you are going, used to be ridiculous but are now approaching Earth-prices and there are loads in that neck of the woods. Also both areas have large student populations and large numbers of pubs. Do ,not ,expect your Friday nights to be peaceful - they will not be (even with double glazing on the windows). On the plus side your Saturday and Sunday mornings will be exceedingly quiet =) With reference to walking with your 1yo, please bear in mind that both areas, being so close to the city centre, have a lot of road traffic. Ireland is current as regards air pollutant legislation but 10x buses and 100x cars per 30 mins is what it is. Having said that, it really only applies to the main streets of both areas. The 'tributary' streets are almost exclusively residential. Both areas are moderately 'safe' insofar as anywhere is these days. Common sense applies as in any capital city. Rathmines has a Garda (Irish police) station, Ranelagh does not. [EDIT: oh and Rathmines has an excellent (safe, clean, cheap) municipal swimming pool. Jeez, my bias is coming to the fore! Ranelagh is lovely also =) ]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathmines  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranelagh  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library  http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=rathmines&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x48670c02c3512a09:0x2600c7a819b93081,Rathmines,+Co.+Dublin&gl=ie&ei=lmFTT8P2KJKHhQfypqX6Cw&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CEgQ8gEwAQ
We were never supposed to look like this. Until 1965, immigration to the United States was determined by a blatantly discriminatory national quota system. The brainchild of Congressman Albert Johnson, this system used the findings of a 1907 Congressional Report, the "Dictionary of Races or Peoples", to determine what ethnicities to prioritize for entry into the United States. People coming from Northern and Western European countries were heavily favored over those from countries like those Trump now derides. More than 50,000 immigrant visas were reserved for Germany each year. The United Kingdom had the next biggest share, with about 34,000. Ireland, with 28,000 slots, and Norway, with 6,400, had the highest quotas as a share of their population. Each country in Asia, meanwhile, had a quota of just 100, while Africans wishing to move to America had to compete for one of just 1,200 visas set aside for the entire continent. Despite fierce opposition from President Truman in 1952, this system continued mostly unchanged until 1965, when, in the wake of the Civil Rights movement, advocates sought to bring immigration policy in line with other anti-discriminatory measures. Congress found itself in a pickle. There was sizable pressure to undo the codification of discrimination in immigration law, yet few wanted to change the ethnic makeup of the country. “The people of Ethiopia have the same right to come to the United States under this bill as the people from England, the people of France, the people of Germany, [and] the people of Holland,” complained Senator Sam Ervin, a Democrat from North Carolina. “With all due respect to Ethiopia,” Ervin said, “I don’t know of any contributions that Ethiopia has made to the making of America.” Representative Micheal Feighan, a Democrat from Ohio, came up with a compromise. Instead of using national quotas, America would prioritize the family of United States citizens. It was simple, the vast majority of Americans were white, and prioritizing their relatives meant that the vast majority of future migrants would be white. This would prevent an officially discriminatory policy, while retaining the then current ethnic makeup of the United States. As described in an issue of The American Legion Magazine: It preserved the bulk of the national-origins base of immigration to the United States, but keyed it to a system of preferences rather than quotas. But Feighan had made a huge miscalculation. In the following decades, immigration from Europe would fall flat, while immigration from Asia and Latin America would rise drastically. The phenomenon that followed, in which these immigrants would migrate to the United States and go on to sponsor other members of their family, would result in the exact diversification that many supporters of this bill sought to prevent. This law is still the basis for our immigration system today, and while refugees and employment-based migrants do represent sizable portions of our legal non-citizen population, the majority still come via family-based migration. Of the more than 1 million new green-card holders in 2016, 48 percent were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, 20 percent entered through a family-based preference, and 12 percent via an employment-based preference. Another 13 percent adjusted from refugee or asylee status, and 4 percent were diversity lottery winners. It is this prioritization scheme that President Trump, with his proposed expansion of the public charge rule, hopes to undercut. This executive order would give the Trump Administration great leeway in determining the makeup of immigrants to the United States, ,without ,legislation from Congress. The impact of this change would go far beyond incoming migrants, with potentially severe ramifications for public health, intergenerational mobility, and the American Economy. This would be the most significant change in federal immigration policy in decades and among the most consequential decisions of Trump’s presidency. What is a Public Charge? The best description would be an, ,immigrant deemed an excessive cost to the United States government. Under the current federal policy, if an immigrant is deemed excessively dependent upon government benefits, they can be considered a “public charge” and thereby made inadmissible to the United States. For purposes of determining inadmissibility, “public charge” means an individual who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense. The current policy was set following the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, under which the public benefits available to recent immigrants were drastically reduced. Right now, only cash benefits (TANF) and government-funded institutional care are considered, with only 3% of current immigrants using benefits that could be used in a public charge determination. The Trump Administration intends to modify this rule, with the proposed revision including cash, healthcare, food,, ,and tax benefits. Below is an overview of the proposed changes. In light of these changes, there would be a new determination scheme with the following negative and positive factors. Negative Authorization to work without employment prospects Current use or receipt of one of these benefits/tax credits. Use or receipt of public assistance within the last 36 months Presence of a medical condition and presumed necessity of government means in paying or treatment A previous public charge determination Other factors as warranted, according to DHS discretion Positive Financial assets. resources, and support of at least 250 percent of the federal poverty level Work authorization and current employment with an annual income of at least 250% of federal poverty guidelines. Other factors as warranted, according to DHS discretion Benefit use by individuals ,and, their dependents would be considered. This would drastically increase the number of immigrants that could be deemed a public charge, going from 3 to ,47%, of the non-citizen population. States with larger immigrant communities and more immigrant-friendly welfare systems, like California and New York, would be especially affected. The latest draft indicated that the Administration has not decided if a public charge determination should be grounds for deportation. If this were to occur, the number of unauthorized immigrants within the United States could drastically increase, and many previously legally present immigrants could face deportation for their or their families use of public benefits. Children's Health The ramifications of this rule change go far beyond these migrants. Millions of them have citizen children, a significant portion of whom have Medicaid/CHIP coverage. Most of these parents work, yet 67% have incomes below 250% the FPL encouraged by these new guidelines. This could make permanent entry into the United States very difficult for these parents, and risks destabilizing the lives of their American children. This policy could drastically reduce use rates of benefit programs among immigrants, even among those who couldn’t be deemed a public charge. After the 1996 bill several non-determinable immigrants and their relatives (refugees, beneficiary children) stopped using welfare benefits, a decline not accounted for by increased naturalization or rising income. The fear of losing future citizenship, coupled with the possible threat of deportation, and the hostility surrounding immigration today, could result in a massive exodus of children from public benefit programs. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that around 75% of disenrollees would become uninsured. If the dis-enrollment rate is high enough, millions of American children could lose access to health services. The positive effect of healthcare on children’s health is well documented, and such a mass exodus could spark a miniature public health crisis. Current immigration rhetoric and fear towards this proposal has already sparked a downturn in benefit applications in Central Texas. Under the proposed change, if family members receive government services — even if those family members are citizens — it would ding the applicants' chances of approval for permanent residency. “We are seeing families having to make this impossible choice,” says Maria Hernandez, the founder of Vela, a non-profit in Austin that helps parents who have children with disabilities. Moreover, widespread withdrawal's from SNAP could result in these children losing an essential means of combating food insecurity. As noted by the Children's Health Watch: These data suggest that young children from families that have been cut off from SNAP or had their SNAP benefits reduced when their income exceeds eligibility limits are significantly more likely to be in poor health, be at risk for developmental delays and experience child food insecurity than those whose families currently receive benefits. These changes could harm the prospects of some of our greatest economic contributors, second-generation immigrants. Generational View of Immigrants While immigrants may, on average, earn less than American citizens, it’s important to consider their fiscal impact from a generational perspective. The tax contributions of first generation immigrants are significantly lower than the native born. However, their descendants’ tax contributions are noticeably higher than their own, and are even greater than third-plus generation immigrants. Wages across immigrant generations reflect this trend, with second-generation immigrants again outperforming their predecessors and successors. We see the same in education, though our incoming immigrant population is more educated than it was in the past, resulting in less of an educational disparity than previous generations. However, first-generation immigrants compare remarkably well when considering federal benefit use per capita, with these immigrants likely to use less federal benefits over the course of their lives. This is particularly noticeable among the elderly, with elderly immigrants averaging thousands less per year in received benefits than succeeding generations. While the first generation is more costly to the government due to smaller tax contributions, their lower benefit usage does not support the notion of excessive dependency. Moreover, low TANF usage rates and high employment rates in immigrant families suggests that immigrants are likely to use welfare policies as work supports, with non-citizens and naturalized citizens in benefits receiving families being employed at higher rates than U.S born citizens. Altogether, we see clear evidence here of upward progression across generations. Many immigrants come here poor, yet they work at higher rates when receiving benefits, average less benefit use per capita when factoring in age, and their children tend to earn more and make higher tax contributions than other natives. Role in the American Economy However, it would be a mistake to delineate the contributions of first-generation immigrants to some tax dollar to benefit use ratio. Immigrants, poor and wealthy, make up sizable portions of many American industries. They work in numerous sectors that are unpopular to American citizens, and increasing specialization has seen their representation in several fields go up over time. Over time, low-skilled immigrants have become more specialized in particular lines of work. The share employed in immigrant-intensive sectors in 2015 reaches 14.8 percent in construction (from 7.8 percent in 1990), 11.3 percent in eating and drinking establishments (from 8.7 percent in 1990), 7.2% in personal services (from 6.9% in 1990), and 6.9 percent in agriculture (from 5.7% in 1990). That isn’t to say all aspects of immigration are positive. Immigrants may slightly decrease the wages of similarly skilled natives, and costs associated with immigration are disproportionately assigned to state governments. Yet the benefits provided by these immigrants are manifold. They are responsible for the continued growth of our labor force, increase aggregate demand, increase productivity, are critical to the “care economy”, and their communities often serve as fertile grounds for new businesses. These communities are especially important. They provide a social and economic bedrock for these immigrants and serve as incubators for many hopeful entrepreneurs among them. Immigrants account for 90% of self-employment growth since 2000, with growth among “low skilled” immigrants being especially high. Altogether immigrants are on average far more entrepreneurial than American citizens, and as noted by Representative Zoe Lofgren, I often say I am glad that Google is in Mountain View rather than Moscow. Like eBay, Intel and Yahoo!, Google was founded by an immigrant. But it’s worth noting that none of the founders of these companies came to the U.S. because of their skills. There’s also evidence to suggest that low-income migrants exude an upward pressure on natives in an increasingly automatized economy, causing them to pursue higher wage productive occupations and protecting them from many of automation’s pitfalls. The increasing number of low-wage positions, such as manual-intensive personal services, was mostly filled by immigrants, thus moderating the resulting upward wage pressure. This contributed to push natives to upgrade their skills and join better paying production occupations, even as employment of computer capital continued to rise. This reduced the ‘de-routinisation’ of native employment and boosted natives’ routine and analytical wages through an increase in aggregate demand. The benefits provided by low income immigrants might not be obvious when only considering taxes. But they are an important cog in the American machine, and their loss would be felt. Looking Ahead In threatening the legal status of these immigrants, we risk increased unemployment, an increased unauthorized population, a labor shortage in several key American industries, a loss of entrepreneurship, a spike in the uninsured population, increased hunger, increased child poverty, and endangering some of our most productive future taxpayers. These immigrants are not on the periphery waiting to enter, they are contributing inhabitants of our country. They work in our fields and hospitals, our homes and restaurants, our roads and our factories. Their children attend our schools and share our playgrounds. The Trump administration has often questioned the place of immigrants in the United States, and in light of this proposal, Americans have an important choice to make. These immigrants have worked to become ours. Will we allow them to? Glossary and Miscellaneous Information Non-Citizen: Any person in the United States, legally or illegally, who is not a citizen. Non-Determinable Immigrant: immigrants who cannot be determined a public charge Beneficiary children: benefit receiving children with non-citizen parents Care Economy: “Part of human activity, both material and social, that is concerned with the process of caring for the present and future labour force, and the human population as a whole, including the domestic provisioning of food, clothing and shelter. “ Graphs showing wages, tax contributions, education and benefit usage display ,averages ,per age. Sources Everything you need to know about family-based migration How the Immigration Act of 1965 Inadvertently Changed America https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43145.pdf Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States Public Charge Chilling Effects: The Expected Public Charge Rule and Its Impact on Legal Immigrant Families’ Public Benefits Use Potential Effects of Public Charge Changes on Health Coverage for Citizen Children MPI: Public Charge Estimates Fearing Deportation, Some Immigrants Opt Out Of Health Benefits For Their Kids MPI: Webinar President Trump's Idea Of Good And Bad Immigrant Countries Has A Historical Precedent Why Are Immigrants More Entrepreneurial? THE EFFECT OF CHILD HEALTH INSURANCE ACCESS ON SCHOOLING: EVIDENCE FROM PUBLIC INSURANCE EXPANSIONS Fifty Years On, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Continues to Reshape the United States American Legion Excerpt The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration Recent US Trends (2017 APPAM Fall Research Conference) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/06/05/how-medicaid-lowers-high-school-dropout-rates-and-leads-to-more-college-grads/?utm_term=.c6cdd9a2f9a3 http://www.nber.org/papers/w20178.pdf http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy Immigration in the era of automation Punishing Hard Work: The Unintended Consequences of Cutting SNAP Benefits - Children's HealthWatch https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2_hansonetal.pdf Jennifer Hu's answer to How do immigrants who come to the U.S. with nothing start a business? Care economy The Advantages of Family-Based Immigration The Economics of Immigration: A Story of Substitutes and Complements 10 demographic trends that are shaping the U.S. and the world Special thanks to ,Mac Tan, for the help, ,Habib, for his graphs, and ,Jennifer Hu, for her excellent answer.
Accountants are useful people. And when it comes to tax they can be very handy. And even when you simplify the tax code they will still have some work. What are your tax deductible expenses? Unless this tax code did not allow for expenses to be deducted which is common practice for a company - bosses have to know if they are profitable or not. There would have to be some definition of what expenses were. And that can get complicated. If you don’t allow deductions you encourage people to reduce their taxation by buying out their suppliers and distributors - thus getting vertical integration. What is the case law? Even a simple tax law will generate case law. Most people would not be keeping up with this - Accountants will. Crime is a taxable activity. NZ once decided a gun was a legitimate business expense for a criminal. Dealing with the tax department One page tax codes will not be enough. What is your policy for late payments?. What is your policy for negotiating with tax department creditors - that is going to take more than one page. What about foreign currency - that is income two so what exchange rate is going to be used? Where do people make payments?. How about audits, what auditing powers do people have. What reporting obligations do people have - do banks have to file interest earned forms with the tax department? Double taxation? If the company pays tax, do you have to pay tax on your dividends? If you earn taxed money overseas do you have to pay tax on that income again? What about double taxation treaties?. Do you pay tax on your property tax - you are after all buying services from the local government (This occurs in New Zealand - GST is charged on rates). Is state income tax deductible on federal taxes? Accounts would still be needed. Management need to know the financial situation of a company. What are their expenses, what are their income? What is the profit. And for this you need accountants. The Irish and New Zealand situation I live in New Zealand, but also lived in Ireland. Taxes were simpler. Both nations used multiple tax rates rather than a flat tax. Ireland had multiple taxes on the worker. In both nations people who earned money on a pay as you go basis (i.e. deducted from your income at source). You did not need an accountant to deal with the tax department. It was only people that earned money outside of employment which needed to file returns. For the rest of the population most of their taxes were done by their employer, The USA has an industry with a vested interest in having people file tax returns. This industry also has a vested interest in complex system so that people will need their help. New Zealand has an industry where they go out and ask people to file tax returns so that the person can get a refund! - if they find you owe money they will tell you to do nothing unless the IRD asks for a tax return.