Aunt on Facebook

david starling

Well-known member
To me, it's a mixed bag. I have links in my family tree to several of the founding fathers and other known figures of colonial and post revolutionary American history. I suppose you could say that's a legacy of pride. I'm also aware of some particularly good things some of my closer ancestors have done. Definitely a legacy of pride.

I also have to acknowledge the fact that one whole side of my family participated in slavery and profited from it. And that some of the financial advantage gained from that passed down to my generation, while the descendants of those who actually did the work did not inherit the profits. Those people may even be my (distant) cousins, considering the well known propensity among slave owners for knocking up their female slaves. I have no actual knowledge of the men in my family having done that, but it wouldn't surprise me if at least a few of them did. And then there were a few Indian killers in other parts of the family tree, which is a whole other issue....

But it's not disloyal to my family to say those things. It's not lack of pride in who I am. It's ancestor work.

The only ethnic group that's in America now that has a legacy of having been enslaved in America, and having been considered as "3/5ths" of a person by many of the Founding Fathers, is the one now labeled as "African American", or by the color-code "Black".

I can see where that would bother some members of this ethnic group, to the point of hypersensitivity and even anger.
 

Osamenor

Staff member
The only ethnic group that's in America now that has a legacy of having been enslaved in America, and having been considered as "3/5ths" of a person by many of the Founding Fathers, is the one now labeled as "African American", or by the color-code "Black".

I can see where that would bother some members of this ethnic group, to the point of hypersensitivity and even anger.

And indigenous people, although they've been targeted in multiple more creative ways. In New England during colonial times, the indigenous were not only enslaved, many of them were sold to the Caribbean to keep them from running off and fighting back on their home turf. And then they got hit with multiple methods of genocide for couple of centuries, and the "kill the Indian to save the man" boarding schools to top it off.

Colonialism leaves a very ugly legacy. It must be faced.
 

Osamenor

Staff member
Wonder if Osa's aunt is openly pro-Trump? Just curious.

I now know the answer is yes. She just made a very pro Trump post.

But she hasn't responded at all to anything I posted. I don't think she's following mine, to be honest. I see hers because I have all my facebook friends' posts in my feed.

A week or so ago, my cousin, same one who called out the "Facebook has banned the Lord's Prayer" hoax, made a very impassioned anti-Trump post on his own page, addressed, mainly, to those of his family and friends who support Trump. His wording was something like, "I love you, but for chrissakes see what he's doing, I can't love you supporting him," words to that effect. But he didn't call anyone out by name.

My cousin is a Republican, and an evangelical Christian, too. That makes it especially meaningful.
 

david starling

Well-known member
I now know the answer is yes. She just made a very pro Trump post.

But she hasn't responded at all to anything I posted. I don't think she's following mine, to be honest. I see hers because I have all my facebook friends' posts in my feed.

A week or so ago, my cousin, same one who called out the "Facebook has banned the Lord's Prayer" hoax, made a very impassioned anti-Trump post on his own page, addressed, mainly, to those of his family and friends who support Trump. His wording was something like, "I love you, but for chrissakes see what he's doing, I can't love you supporting him," words to that effect. But he didn't call anyone out by name.

My cousin is a Republican, and an evangelical Christian, too. That makes it especially meaningful.

Trump, the Great Divider, isn't only dividing this nation against itself, he's dividing families as well.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Dirius, did you even read the article?

It says the opposite of what you're claiming. How is this getting your friends and family canceled?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/speak-out-family-racist-posts_l_5f0f3ee4c5b65426947a26e6

Accountability doesn't mean lack of love and certainly doesn't mean lack of loyalty. The way I see it, it's absolutely a sign of family loyalty to want to still engage with your family members even if they're saying ugly things. And to be honest with them.

Of course it does. You don't go against family, and you don't cause yourself trouble with family members. Much less in public. Behind closed doors, maybe. But the article is clearly wanting people to argue on the issue in public settings such as facebook or twitter.

Doing that not only leads to infighting, but also leads to public targeting of your own family.

Family is family Osa. It is a sacred thing. Disagreements are resolved one on one behind closed doors. Never in public. Never through social media.

And here is the thing, when I called out the BLM movement, I did mention in their website they are against the "nuclear family". This is just part of it. Breaking up the family in the name of ideology is part of their political agenda. Turn children against parents, brother against brother, etc.

Old poem from my country:

Los hermanos sean unidos esa es la ley primera,
Que tengan union verdadera en cualquier tiempo que sea,
por que si entre ellos pelean, los devoran los de afuera.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Trump, the Great Divider, isn't only dividing this nation against itself, he's dividing families as well.

The moment Trump declared his intention to run for the presidency, half your country began targeting him and attacking him. The entire media conglomerate went after him.

He is not the one dividing people.
 

david starling

Well-known member
The moment Trump declared his intention to run for the presidency, half your country began targeting him and attacking him. The entire media conglomerate went after him.

He is not the one dividing people.

Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. He's obviously a divisive personality.

May have something to do with his Sun/Moon opposition.
 
Last edited:

Osamenor

Staff member
The moment Trump declared his intention to run for the presidency, half your country began targeting him and attacking him.

That's the half that knew from the start he was bad news. And now our country seems to be looking all too much like yours did in its darkest hours. We even have activists getting disappeared now.

A fascist dictator is a fascist dictator.
 

Osamenor

Staff member
Of course it does. You don't go against family, and you don't cause yourself trouble with family members. Much less in public. Behind closed doors, maybe. But the article is clearly wanting people to argue on the issue in public settings such as facebook or twitter.

Doing that not only leads to infighting, but also leads to public targeting of your own family.

Family is family Osa. It is a sacred thing. Disagreements are resolved one on one behind closed doors. Never in public. Never through social media.
My extended family doesn't have the option of going one on one behind closed doors. We're too spread out, geographically, for that. Social media is one of the key ways we keep in touch.

I have the sense that's not such a common thing in Latin America, but it sure is up here. Many families are spread out like that.

In fact, the branch of my family that this aunt and cousin belong to has a pact not to discuss politics or religion at our rare in person gatherings--so we don't spend our limited time together fighting and forgetting to be family. But there's no agreement on what to say or not say on social media. Cutting each other down wouldn't be cool, but disagreeing isn't the same thing as cutting each other down.

We're coming at it from different cultural perspectives, and different sets of options, here.

And here is the thing, when I called out the BLM movement, I did mention in their website they are against the "nuclear family". This is just part of it. Breaking up the family in the name of ideology is part of their political agenda. Turn children against parents, brother against brother, etc.
And if you read that part in depth, you might notice what they're advocating instead. They're in favor of making the family bigger than the nuclear family. Not limited to it. They're promoting a village sense of family. It's not just mom, dad, and the kids, it's also friends and relatives and neighbors. They're advocating treating all those people as family.

They're also recognizing that not every family is a nuclear one even as it is. Single parent families exist, queer couples with children exist, chosen families who care for each other as much as any relatives do but don't necessarily share blood or legal ties exist. They're advocating a definition of family that's inclusive of all that. And, yes, inclusive of the existing nuclear families, too. What goes away is the idea that only a nuclear family can be a family.

That would destroy the nuclear family in the sense that it would no longer be an institution or an ideal. But it wouldn't destroy family ties. It wouldn't destroy the personal relationships between family members. The baby doesn't have to go out with the bathwater.

AOld poem from my country:

Los hermanos sean unidos esa es la ley primera,
Que tengan union verdadera en cualquier tiempo que sea,
por que si entre ellos pelean, los devoran los de afuera.
The picture I get from that poem is "entre ellos pelean" meaning deep, vicious, personal feuding, not simply disagreements. I am not having deep, vicious, personal feuds with any of my family members, on facebook or anywhere else. Just disagreeing. And this calling out the article advocates can be done without turning into a deep, vicious, personal feud. Except perhaps if it's between family members who were already simmering with resentment at each other to begin with.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
That's the half that knew from the start he was bad news. And now our country seems to be looking all too much like yours did in its darkest hours. We even have activists getting disappeared now.

A fascist dictator is a fascist dictator.

Yeah, but he's also a bullying, lying braggart, who uses acerbic, derisive insults against anyone who opposes anything he does--I mean, what's not to love about him? :whistling:
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
I have the sense that's not such a common thing in Latin America, but it sure is up here. Many families are spread out like that.

In fact, the branch of my family that this aunt and cousin belong to has a pact not to discuss politics or religion at our rare in person gatherings--so we don't spend our limited time together fighting and forgetting to be family. But there's no agreement on what to say or not say on social media. Cutting each other down wouldn't be cool, but disagreeing isn't the same thing as cutting each other down.

We're coming at it from different cultural perspectives, and different sets of options, here.

The only diference seems to be between your perspective and my own. In contrast your family members have values similar to the ones I've mentioned, when it comes to family. Despite the fact that we live in different hemispheres.

The diference between us isn't because we live in different countries. Thats just waybread's lazy argument. The U.S. and Argentina are not that culturally different.

Its because you have a progressive mindset and I don't.
And if you read that part in depth, you might notice what they're advocating instead. They're in favor of making the family bigger than the nuclear family. Not limited to it. They're promoting a village sense of family. It's not just mom, dad, and the kids, it's also friends and relatives and neighbors. They're advocating treating all those people as family.

They're also recognizing that not every family is a nuclear one even as it is. Single parent families exist, queer couples with children exist, chosen families who care for each other as much as any relatives do but don't necessarily share blood or legal ties exist. They're advocating a definition of family that's inclusive of all that. And, yes, inclusive of the existing nuclear families, too. What goes away is the idea that only a nuclear family can be a family.

That would destroy the nuclear family in the sense that it would no longer be an institution or an ideal. But it wouldn't destroy family ties. It wouldn't destroy the personal relationships between family members. The baby doesn't have to go out with the bathwater.

So in short the destruction of the nuclear family.

Look this is very simple: people are invested in their lineage. Friends are important, but they will never invest the same resources on someone who is not related by blood. It is very simple.

The BLM movement is what many political activists have been trying to do for decades now: fracture the family.

Single parenthood is a disease. Not a lifestyle that should be promoted. It signifies one of the parents is not living up to his/her responsabilities and is absent from the child's life, and the other parent is stuck with all the responsability.

Same-sex couple are an interesting subject. Because clearly one of the child's parent is missing from the equation, which like single parenthood, the person is not living up to his/her responsabilities as a parent.

The picture I get from that poem is "entre ellos pelean" meaning deep, vicious, personal feuding, not simply disagreements. I am not having deep, vicious, personal feuds with any of my family members, on facebook or anywhere else. Just disagreeing. And this calling out the article advocates can be done without turning into a deep, vicious, personal feud. Except perhaps if it's between family members who were already simmering with resentment at each other to begin with.

Fractured families are easier to control. People that come from broken houses usually have less opportunities and face more hardships, and are more prone to become dependant on the state.

Strong united families provide and help each other.
 
Last edited:

Osamenor

Staff member
The only diference seems to be between your perspective and my own. In contrast your family members have values similar to the ones I've mentioned, when it comes to family. Despite the fact that we live in different hemispheres.

The diference between us isn't because we live in different countries. Thats just waybread's lazy argument. The U.S. and Argentina are not that culturally different.

Its because you have a progressive mindset and I don't.
Fair enough. Because we are from different countries, I wanted to take that into account. But if this is just an individual difference, me having a progressive mindset and you not, then it is.

Single parenthood is a disease. Not a lifestyle that should be promoted. It signifies one of the parents is not living up to his/her responsabilities.
Or is dead. Or, with the rise of single by choice parenthood, wasn't there in the first place. Plus, many single parent families actually consist of two--or more, if stepparents are in the picture--parents who live in different houses.

Same-sex couple are an interesting subject. Because clearly one of the child's parent is missing from the equation, which like single parenthood, the person is not living up to his/her responsabilities as a parent.
Not necessarily. It could be a case of, the other biological parent is in the child's life but not necessarily the same household, more like extended family. In some cases, the child is adopted, and might not have had the option of a "whole" family, as you seem to be defining it, to begin with. I even know one lovely family where it's two moms, two dads, and the kids. Biological parents and their partners, and all four of them have the parent/child relationship with all of the kids. The family was planned that way.

Queer can also mean people who don't identify with their birth gender. So, a queer couple could have the right combination of reproductive organs between them to produce a child but not fall into the neat gender roles of mother and father. Still, the child is parented, and that's the important thing.

Fractured families are easier to control. People that come from broken houses usually have less opportunities and face more hardships, and are more prone to become dependant on the state.

Strong united families provide and help each other.

And a village would be even stronger, and support even those whose nuclear families had, for whatever reasons, not held together.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Or is dead. Or, with the rise of single by choice parenthood, wasn't there in the first place. Plus, many single parent families actually consist of two--or more, if stepparents are in the picture--parents who live in different houses.

Not necessarily. It could be a case of, the other biological parent is in the child's life but not necessarily the same household, more like extended family. In some cases, the child is adopted, and might not have had the option of a "whole" family, as you seem to be defining it, to begin with. I even know one lovely family where it's two moms, two dads, and the kids. Biological parents and their partners, and all four of them have the parent/child relationship with all of the kids. The family was planned that way.

Death is different - it is not a choice the individual makes. And most of times the parent was involved (until the parent passed away) or contributed financially to the child's welfare (through an inheritance).

In your example each kid has its biological parent involved in their life.

Queer can also mean people who don't identify with their birth gender. So, a queer couple could have the right combination of reproductive organs between them to produce a child but not fall into the neat gender roles of mother and father. Still, the child is parented, and that's the important thing.
But this example is in essence it is a nuclear family:

confused mom + confused dad + child.

And a village would be even stronger, and support even those whose nuclear families had, for whatever reasons, not held together.

Actually the highest danger to a child, and the biggest instances of child abuse comes from adult males not related by blood: mom's boyfriend, mom's new husband, etc.

So I disagree this makes families stronger.
https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/fo...n-the-home-associated-with-child-abuse-deaths

In this study of young children who died from inflicted injuries, 21 percent lived in homes with an unrelated adult, compared to only one percent of controls. More than 80 percent of those households consisted of the child's mother and her boyfriend. In 74 percent of those cases, the boyfriend was the perpetrator.

"It is not single parenthood per se that puts a child at risk," said Bernard Ewigman, MD, MPH, professor and chairman of family medicine at the University of Chicago. "It is the presence in the household of unrelated adults, usually a male boyfriend, that dramatically increases the risk.

From very liberal NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/08/health/unrelated-adults-at-home-increase-risk-for-children.html

Children in single-parent households or with foster or stepparents were at no greater risk of dying at their hands than children who lived with two biological parents. But the presence of male adults unrelated to the victims sharply increased the risk of fatal maltreatment.

In homes with unrelated adults, 84 percent of the killers were unrelated to their child victims, and 94 percent of those unrelated adults were men. The researchers said their findings ran to counter to the widespread belief that single-parent households increased the risk of injury.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
When you seek to produce goods and make a profit, you fulfill the needs of the market.

Any person who has ever worked in the private sector understands this.

Most who live off a government job on tax-payer money, do not.

Possibly, but some goods are unsuccessful products. They do not fulfill market needs. The manufacture of some products is injurious to workers' health and safety. Some products are injurious to consumers who purchase them.

You still haven't made a case for your outdated trickle-down economics

Anyone with half a brain, let alone a taxpayer-supported public education understands this. (As the saying goes, if you can read this, thank a teacher.)



I love the absurdity of this post.

It answers itself by showing that high taxation, wage laws and regulations, are directly responsible for lowering investments and job opportunities in any given country. Big LOL.

It later assumes those teenage girls were much better off and earning more money, when they were working from dusk till dawn in the farms, had no single luxury, or even running water.

Darius, yet again, you miss the point. There's absurdity in here, but it's not pleasant.

You've got a slippery slope reductio ad absurdum. To follow your argument to its [il]logical conclusion, you would promote slave labor, child labor, and chain gang labor, and oppose any government spending.

I don't think you have any idea what child labour in Third World cities entails, but a lot of it is truly awful. Further, we would hope those girls would be able to attend school, instead.

We'd be back to the kind of economy that pertained-- not in the West at the height of industrialization, but more reminiscent of ancient Rome.

No paved highways, no fire departments, no municipal sanitation or water treatment plants for you. These are all funded by taxpayer dollars. Your hypothetical wealthy capitalists are not consistently driving on their own private roads.

After a couple of generations, the health of your tycoons would be worse off than they are today because medical schools are largely taxpayer-funded. After a couple of generations the capitalist economy would stall out, because engineering other applied sciences schools are largely supported by taxpayer funds via government grants of various sorts. (Tuition would go sky-high and still not pay for state-of-the-art teaching laboratories. Then who could afford it?)

The wealthy countries with strong industrial bases (think of Germany) invest in public education, notably in STEM fields.

Educated people are more likely to create wealth than people struggling to make ends meet, never mind obtaining in-demand job skills.

One measure of the income gap, or disparity between the rich and poor, is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Maybe you can explain why Argentina has one of the world's highest rates of income disparity, where roughly 10% of the people control more wealth than the poorest 60% (Buenos Aires Times, 28/01/2018.) Roughly one third of Argentinians live in poverty.

Nothing obligates the wealthy to put their money into job creation.

Ironically, the fewer opportunities the underclass experiences, and the fewer chances they have for upward mobility, the more they are likely to demonstrate, if not riot-- because they lack access to the corridors of power.

Uh, oh. Because then you'd want a taxpayer funded police force to quell the disturbance. Too bad those tax dollars moved off-shore.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
Possibly, but some goods are unsuccessful products. They do not fulfill market needs. The manufacture of some products is injurious to workers' health and safety. Some products are injurious to consumers who purchase them.

You still haven't made a case for your outdated trickle-down economics

Anyone with half a brain, let alone a tax[payer-supported public education understands this. (As the saying goes, if you can read this, thank a teacher.)
If you are not fullfilling the needs of the market, then you are not making a profit waybread - so I'm not sure what is the intention of the answer.

The second half of your post is a strawman - but I will answer nonetheless: No one forces people to purchase unhealthy products. No one even forces you to purchase anything, or work in an unsafe environment.

You are free to buy what you like, or don't depend on the market and live in the woods, grow your own food or craft your own products, like many people do.

Darius, yet again, you miss the point. There's absurdity in here, but it's not pleasant.

You've got a slippery slope reductio ad absurdum. To follow your argument to its [il]logical conclusion, you would promote slave labor, child labor, and chain gang labor, and oppose any government spending.

We'd be back to the kind of economy that pertained-- not in the West at the height of industrialization, but more reminiscent of ancient Rome.

No paved highways, no fire departments, no municipal sanitation or water treatment plants for you. These are all funded by taxpayer dollars. Your hypothetical wealthy capitalists are not consistently driving on their own private roads.

After a couple of generations, the health of your tycoons would be worse off than they are today because medical schools are largely taxpayer-funded. After a couple of generations the capitalist economy would stall out, because engineering other applied sciences schools are largely supported by taxpayer funds via government grants of various sorts. (Tuition would go sky-high and still not pay for state-of-the-art teaching laboratories. Then who could afford it?)

The wealthy countries with strong industrial bases (think of Germany) invest in public education, notably in STEM fields.

Educated people are more likely to create wealth than people struggling to make ends meet, never mind obtaining in-demand job skills.

One measure of the income gap, or disparity between the rich and poor, is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Maybe you can explain why Argentina has one of the world's highest rates of income disparity, where roughly 10% of the people control more wealth than the poorest 60% (Buenos Aires Times, 28/01/2018.) Roughly one third of Argentinians live in poverty. In contrast, European nations with more democratic socialist forms of government have less poverty.

Nothing obligates the wealthy to put their money into job creation.

Ironically, the fewer opportunities the underclass experiences, and the fewer chances they have for upward mobility, the more they are likely to remonstrate, if not riot-- because they lack access to the corridors of power.

Uh, oh. Because then you'd want a taxpayer funded police force to quell the disturbance. Too bad those tax dollars moved off-shore.


1) Child labour has existed since the dawn of time. I don't support it. I'm just stating this was the way of life in countries like India or China before the arrival of "evil corporations".


Truth is most people in those countries are better off than they were 50 years ago. They do earn more money. A lot of people in these countries have come out of poverty by applying capitalist measures.

What you are doing is ignoring history to make your argument. Which is absurd.

You think people were better off before capitalism arrived. They were not.

2) We have one of the highest rates of income disparity because we have endured 70 years of socialism (called "Peronism").

Because we:
- Have an effective tax rate of 65%.
- About 35% of the population works for the state or gets money from government

- We have about 30% inflation rate annually (thanks to central banking).
- Price control set by the government.
- National industry

The 1% is mostly populated by families with ties to politics.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Yet another example of activists attempt to destroy the nuclear family.

"Get your friends and family canceled in the name of the movement".

Sell your brothers and sisters, your parents and grandparents, your chilren and grandchildren to the mob so their lives can get ruined.

Reminds me of what a man from Galilee said, 2000 years ago:

"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

Or in a slightly milder version:
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."
(Matthew 10:37)
 

waybread

Well-known member
...


There is one essential virtue that an individual must practice in order to be considered good.

That virtue is rationality.

Rationality is accepting and using reason as one's only means of knowledge and guide to action. All other virtues essentially stem from this one virtue. There are six other main virtues worth noting.

Independence - using one's own reason, not relying on the minds of others to act in the world.

Honesty - staying committed to the facts regardless how uncomfortable or unbearable they are

Integrity - Comitting to the proper actions after one has determined what is correct with their reason

Productivity - Acting in a way that generates what is required to sustain and flourish in life

Pride - recognizing that you are the highest value, that you deserve happiness what is best for you, and you are a constantly striving to be your best self. Being morally ambitious, relentlessly pursuing virtue.

The only way for people to be rational is if they are left alone. If they are free to think and act for themselves under their own judgement. Reason is volitional and something that an individual must decide act upon himself. No one can do it for him. In other words, we need a political system of individual rights, and free market capitalism. Without this structure in place, people cannot hold reason as an absolute. Or on the flip side, irrational people choose a political system that goes against their freedom to choose reason.

So who wrote this originally, AppLeo?

Was this person a mother of actual children? Be thankful your mom didn't operate according to these principles when she changed your diapers and kept you safe.
 

waybread

Well-known member
The only ethnic group that's in America now that has a legacy of having been enslaved in America, and having been considered as "3/5ths" of a person by many of the Founding Fathers, is the one now labeled as "African American", or by the color-code "Black".

I can see where that would bother some members of this ethnic group, to the point of hypersensitivity and even anger.

This is not entirely correct, David. Have you heard about the English indentured servants? The main difference was that they were released at the end of their period of indenture. Also whites on the frontier sometimes enslaved Native Americans, notably in the California missions.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Ok here is the proof that capitalism and low taxation works.

Lets begin with Ireland:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econo...blic_of_Ireland#The_'Celtic_Tiger'_(1995–2007)
In the 1990s, the Republic's economy began the 'Celtic Tiger' phase. High FDI rate, a low corporate tax rate, better economic management and a new 'social partnership' approach to industrial relations together transformed the Irish economy. The European Union had contributed over €10 billion into infrastructure. By 2000 the Republic had become one of the world's wealthiest nations, unemployment was at 4% and income tax was almost half 1980s levels. During this time, the Irish economy grew by five to six percent annually, dramatically raising Irish monetary incomes to equal and eventually surpass those of many states in the rest of Western Europe.

1) GDP per capita of Ireland:https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/gdp-per-capita. As you can see from 1995 onwards GDP per capita grows substantially as a result from the tax reduction. As GDP per capita grows, it indicates wages grow and people are earning more money relative to the gross domestic product.



ireland-gdp-per-capita.png

2) Ireland unemployment: https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/unemployment-rate As you can see from 1995 onwards unemplyment goes down substantially. In case you don't know, lower unemployment is good.
Now the curve rises after the 2008-2009 crisis (the EU experienced a crisis during those years) but quickly goes back again.

ireland-unemployment-rate.png
3) Ireland debt to GDP ration: https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/government-debt-to-gdp

In this graph you can notice debt to GDP ratio going down. It means that the government borrows less money in relation to how much they produce. Like the previous chart it goes up for the 2008-2009 crisis, but later goes down again.
ireland-government-debt-to-gdp.png

4) Now here is the most important one: government revenue.
https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/government-revenues

As you can see despite lower taxes, revenue actually grows substantially from 1995 onwards. Less taxes means more production, which brings in more money, which suggests government revenue increases:


ireland-government-revenues.png

5) Oh and finally, corporate tax rate: https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/corporate-tax-rate

As you can see it went down since 1995.
ireland-corporate-tax-rate.png
 
Top