The Feckin Government

capistrano

Originally posted by AngelofFire
Progressive democrats-anti working class and pro big business. would prefer to hand out tax concessions to those earning excess of €200,000 per week than to provide affordable housing. voters are mainly those who play rugby and send their children to fee paying schools.

Claptrap! Why do you think think our standard rate of income tax is just 20% now and 35% a decade ago? And our unemployment rate is 4.5% now and 12% a decade ago?

This is influence of the "anti-working class and pro big business" Progressive Democrats.

What you need to realise is that it is only when we have a strong economy that we are able to provide all those state services you like.

Since the PD's were in government there are more working class people in jobs, earning more money and paying less tax. Sure, that anti-working class alright

Villain

Originally posted by daveirl
Actually a good share of them have, Ferris for example. But like I said about two posts ago, enough on the Sinn Féin stuff.

LOL

daveirl, I think you'l find Mr McDowell wasn't even Minister when Ferris was convincted.

I'm talking abut what the Minister for Justice has been saying in the last few months.

He has harped on about SF's illegal activity and links to crime etc, but no-one has been convicted that is anyway linked to SF.

Your above post totally shyed away from my point, the Minister is a muppet!

Sleepy

Originally posted by Victor
Haughey was also worth a fortune, didn't stop him.

It was never established how Haughey made his money. He never countered claims that it was ill-gotten. The man should be in prison.

capistrano

Originally posted by irish1
LOL
He has harped on about SF's illegal activity and links to crime etc, but no-one has been convicted that is anyway linked to SF.

Your above post totally shyed away from my point, the Minister is a muppet!

You're living in cloud-cuckoo land, my friend. The minister has his intelligence sources. The crimes are being carried out by SF's fellow travellers in the IRA and SF refuses to comdemn or disassociate itself from the IRA. Also, most of SF's leadership are former (current?) IRA leaders. Wake up am smell the cordite!!!

Villain

Originally posted by capistrano
You're living in cloud-cuckoo land, my friend. The minister has his intelligence sources. The crimes are being carried out by SF's fellow travellers in the IRA and SF refuses to comdemn or disassociate itself from the IRA. Also, most of SF's leadership are former (current?) IRA leaders. Wake up am smell the cordite!!!

Proof???

Now either say you don't have any or show it, we have gone around in circles on this debate enough in the past.

If the ministers intelligence sources are so sure why haven't they been convicted???:rolleyes:

ReefBreak

Originally posted by irish1
I see things very well in perspective, now I'm not about to go start defending why I vote for SF. I've done it on many many occasions here in the past and it gets a little tiring.

To say you would vote FF just to keep SF out is a bit silly.

Actually, I can just about remember the reasons you gave, and I'd like to see them again, because I think they were as vague, trivial and lacking in reality as any reasons I've ever seen. But anyway.

Fianna Fáil. Some of them are a shower of arrogant, power-hungry bástards, but they're also the only party that could cut spending in the face of huge public and media pressure when they had to, with the result that the economy is back on track and looking up. There are lots of people that don't like them, but will still vote for them, because they know FF hold the best chance of them staying in a good job to keep up the mortgage repayments, car loan or those one (or two) holidays a year. It's this that will keep them in power after the next G.E.

Progressive Democrats. I gave them my first preference last time, and I'll certainly do it again this time. No record of corruption, and their low tax, pro-enterprise was a major factor in creating a massively successful economy. Most of their economic policies have been adopted by other parties, with the result that we still have one of the best economies in Europe at the moment. Plus the there's the fact that despite reducing taxes, it actually resulted in record tax-intakes in the history of the state.

Fine Gael. Just too vague to know where they stand at the moment. Are they Centre-Right, or Soft-Left? Do Fine Gael even know?

Labour. Well meaning but ultimately redundant. Currently are really only attracting the under-25 and smoked-salmon vote, with the result that their share of the vote in recent polls has not really increased. Furthermore, I don't think they have the balls to stand up to some of the more powerful unions in the country. Nevertheless, I'd rather see them in Government than the Socialist Party or the Greens. I would accept a FF/Lab government, but not a Lab/anything else government.

Greens. I can't deny their pro-environment policies (apart from their anti-incincerator policy) have resulted in me giving them my 4th or 5th preference in the past. However, their hard-left economic policies would be terrible for the country. They'll be glad to be rid of that buffoon Patricia McKenna.

Sinn Féin. Crikey, where to start. Oh I know, how about their connection to a terrorist organisation that murdered over 1800 people (and counting) over the last 35 years. How about not once condemning Jean McConville, La Mon, Enniskillen, Claudy, the Paddie Gillespie murder, Bloody Friday? How about answering the question about who was in charge of the Belfast Brigade of the Rah when Jean McConville was abducted from her home in Belfast? And we haven't even reached their so-called "policies" yet. Business policies? Well, if their manifesto from before the last G.E was anything to go by, they're nothing less than a joke. A few vague notions of increasing indigenous industry, yet at the same time massively increasing taxes to "share the wealth", with the result, of course, that enterprise and indiginous industry would be decimated. Their social "policies" would be spend, spend, spend, but no mention about where they would get this fantastical amount of cash. Oh, I know, by increasing taxes and creating a nightmarish socialist backwater? Which will of course destroy the economy and the enterprising spirit that been created in this coutry, and which will reduce the amount of public money available in the country... It's annoying that I've dedicated most words to these terrorist-supporting scumbags, but I genuinely feel ashamed for Ireland that people can actually vote for them.

Socialist Party. Joe Higgins et al. Moan, complain, whinge. Why not come up with some realistic policies that aren't grounded in Marxism?

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
We need a change unless this country will slip into the canyon of oblivion..

Sorry, what? We have an improving economy, the Central Bank yesterday stated that we may soon approach full employment again. So I don't know where you came up with that. If you want the country do disappear into a Canyon of Oblivion, vote for Sinn Féin.

Villain

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Actually, I can just about remember the reasons you gave, and I'd like to see them again, because I think they were as vague, trivial and lacking in reality as any reasons I've ever seen. But anyway.

Well do a search then Reefbreak I think we talked this to death in the past.

star gazer

originally posted by capistrano
Haughey wasn't worth a fortune, that was his problem. He was constantly in debt and so he maybe had to do a few favours so his rich mates would bail him out.

But he did have substantial property assets which probably well outweighed his financial debts, how much did he sell his home and it's surrounding area for...€35million?

originally posted bycapistrano
Since the PD's were in government there are more working class people in jobs, earning more money and paying less tax

maybe paying less direct tax and erning more money, but then again people are paying more indirect taxers and related stealth taxes, as for reducing the tax bands, the government now have two thirds paying at the top rate of income tax, not a progressive step.

originally posted by reefbreak
Fianna Fáil. Some of them are a shower of arrogant, power-hungry bástards, but they're also the only party that could cut spending in the face of huge public and media pressure when they had to, with the result that the economy is back on track and looking up.

a good start, but downhill from there.
Fianna Fail are notorious for their short term populist decisions (and promises), i think more of the credit goes to the PDs for the spending cuts except if you look at the overall picture it was the government as a whole that increased spending in the high teens before the last general election. Amazing how the spending needed to plummet just after the elections.

capistrano

Originally posted by star gazer
maybe paying less direct tax and erning more money, but then again people are paying more indirect taxers and related stealth taxes, as for reducing the tax bands, the government now have two thirds paying at the top rate of income tax, not a progressive step.

Paying a few quid more in indirect taxes is nothing compared to paying a few percent less of your entire income in direct taxation. We're still better off.

And with the public finances beginning to look healthy again we can expect fewer people to be paying the higher rate of tax in the coming years.

Remember that when the rainbow government was in power almost 80% of taxpayers were hitting the higher rate. If I remmeber correctly the higher rate started at about £8000. Yes, that was very fair!

Victor

Originally posted by capistrano
Claptrap! Why do you think think our standard rate of income tax is just 20% now and 35% a decade ago? And our unemployment rate is 4.5% now and 12% a decade ago?

But CGT is at 20% (no PRSI or health levy), why should hte wheeler-dealers of the world pay less tax the the ordinary decent hard worjing person? I thought the PDs were pro-work.

sceptre

Originally posted by capistrano
Claptrap! Why do you think think our standard rate of income tax is just 20% now and 35% a decade ago?

<sigh> (I don't normally go in for sighing but I'll make an exception here)

It might make your case less weak if you didn't just make stuff up.

Ten years ago (1993/94 tax year, effectively eleven tax years ago) the standard rate of tax was 27%. It was 27% the year before and it was 27% the year after. The standard rate of tax was 35% from the 1984/85 tax year until the 1988/89 tax year inclusive. It hasn't been 35% since and wasn't 35% a decade ago. It was 25% before that by the way. Please try to get your decades in order - it'll give your case that extra little oomph.

capistrano

Originally posted by Victor
But CGT is at 20% (no PRSI or health levy), why should hte wheeler-dealers of the world pay less tax the the ordinary decent hard worjing person? I thought the PDs were pro-work.

Yes, and when the rate was cut from 40% to 20% the CGT take was bigger the following year. I would have thought that the important thing was tax revenue to the state and not just screwing taxpayers becasue you imagine that they are not ordinary decent hard working people!

To make a capital gain you must risk something. Share prices can go down as well as up. I think it is fair that given you take this risk the tax rate should be lower.

Also, most countries have a much larger CG allowance before tax applies than Ireland. In the UK I think it's about £10k, the the USA it's more like $200k but in Ireland it's a measly €1270.

capistrano

Originally posted by sceptre
<sigh> (I don't normally go in for sighing but I'll make an exception here)

It might make your case less weak if you didn't just make stuff up.

Ten years ago (1993/94 tax year, effectively eleven tax years ago) the standard rate of tax was 27%. It was 27% the year before and it was 27% the year after. The standard rate of tax was 35% from the 1984/85 tax year until the 1988/89 tax year inclusive. It hasn't been 35% since and wasn't 35% a decade ago. It was 25% before that by the way. Please try to get your decades in order - it'll give your case that extra little oomph.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

I should have said a decade AND A HALF ago then.

My point about the bands still apply. I started working in 1993, earning £14k and pay the higher rate of tax (48%?) on a lot of it.

My point is... you don't know you're born, lad!

bonkey

Originally posted by capistrano
Claptrap! Why do you think think our standard rate of income tax is just 20% now and 35% a decade ago? And our unemployment rate is 4.5% now and 12% a decade ago?

This is influence of the "anti-working class and pro big business" Progressive Democrats.

Umm, if you actually do the math on the taxation side of it...

Lower income tax and higher fixed-cost so-called "indirect" taxation benefits the rich far more than it does the not-so-rich, or indeed the just-above-poor, compared to a higher taxation rate and less indirect-taxation.

For someone marginally better off than would qualify for waivers, often an indirect taxation cost of a couple of hundred quid will more than make up for a couple of percent in direct PAYE taxation. However, for someone earning serious cash, the benefit can be enormous.

It is not as simple a case as simply throwing out individual figures and declaring them to be indicative of good policy in any way.

BTW, Al Franken does a very good and humorous take on the above in "Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell" concerning the US system, if anyone is interested.

What you need to realise is that it is only when we have a strong economy that we are able to provide all those state services you like.

Like the Health Care system that costs the Irish public more per capita than any other in Europe, but which is far from the same rank in terms of the quality - nor even in terms of the improvements seen in terms of expenditure increase.

Lets not forget that supplying crap, expensive services is also a trademark of the government you are defending.

Not that any previous governments of any flavour have been more successful, mind....

Since the PD's were in government there are more working class people in jobs, earning more money and paying less tax. Sure, that anti-working class alright

Paying less income tax, you mean?

jc

capistrano

Originally posted by bonkey
Like the Health Care system that costs the Irish public more per capita than any other in Europe, but which is far from the same rank in terms of the quality - nor even in terms of the improvements seen in terms of expenditure increase.

Lets not forget that supplying crap, expensive services is also a trademark of the government you are defending.

Don't get me started on the health service. The trouble with our health service is that most of the investment has gone into wages and salaries, which does little to improve the service. I saw somewhere that Irish doctors come second in the world (after USA of course) in terms of income. I think doctors should be paid well, but should they really be paid hundreds of thousands of euros of state money?

Paying less income tax, you mean?

Certainly less income tax, but also less tax in total. This is reflected by the fact that the tax take in Ireland is now 26% of GDP, whereas it was over 40% in the past.

I just don't go in for this tax-the-rich more argument. That just damages the economy in the long run. Look at the state we were in when we had very high tax rates.

I think the priority should be getting better value for our tax money (Health Service is a case in point) rather than throwing more money at the problems.

star gazer

originally posted by capistrano
Paying a few quid more in indirect taxes is nothing compared to paying a few percent less of your entire income in direct taxation. We're still better off.

It depends on how much more people get stuck paying indirectly and coupled with the high price rises of the last few years, suddenly people who don't have capital doing the 'work' for them look very modestly better off. Having in mind the kind of boom the economy has gone through it points to a failure of government to get the balance right.

And with the public finances beginning to look healthy again we can expect fewer people to be paying the higher rate of tax in the coming years.

now that there are elections on the way, you mean that more money will have to be spent by the government. The first two budgets of this government were payback for the splurge before the last general election and getting people's expectations down for the forthcoming election splurges.

Don't get me started on the health service. The trouble with our health service is that most of the investment has gone into wages and salaries, which does little to improve the service. I saw somewhere that Irish doctors come second in the world (after USA of course) in terms of income. I think doctors should be paid well, but should they really be paid hundreds of thousands of euros of state money?

bad management plian and simple, cowan ran away from it and Martin is going from one press opportuinity to another without really taking any hard decisions. He's gotten huge budget increases but hasn't spoent it well.

bonkey

Originally posted by capistrano
Certainly less income tax, but also less tax in total. This is reflected by the fact that the tax take in Ireland is now 26% of GDP, whereas it was over 40% in the past.

But you're again taking a figure which is averaged over the entire population, and arguing that this means that a section of the population is better off based on those figures. The latter does not necessarily follow.

I am pointing out that the working-class person ,ay not have more money in their pocket under today's taxation system than they may have had they been paying more direct tax and less indirect tax.

I just don't go in for this tax-the-rich more argument.

The point is that direct taxation benefits the rich more than the poor, not whether or not you agree that its a good idea.

The less well off may see a decrease in their available cash (i.e. after paying all tax - indirect and direct), or - at best - a small increase, while the better off will see progressively more cash coming available when the taxation system.

Now, given that you've been arguing how much better off the working class are as a result of this, I think you should be addressing the argument that they are not necessarily better off, and may - in fact - be worse off, not whether or not you approve of the alternatives.

That just damages the economy in the long run. Look at the state we were in when we had very high tax rates.

Taking tax rates in isolation as an indication of well-being is meaningless. Tax came down because our economy was improving. This does not imply in any way, shape, or form that lower tax rates improved the economy.

And given that we're talking about the working class and how taxation has affected them, its again somewhat midsleading to discuss how the nation as a whole is better off. The issue is whether or not the lower tax rates, with accompanying indirect taxation has made the working class any better off. National averages cannot address that question.

jc

capistrano

Originally posted by bonkey
I am pointing out that the working-class person ,ay not have more money in their pocket under today's taxation system than they may have had they been paying more direct tax and less indirect tax.

What the hell do you mean by a working class person? The average industrial wage is €28k, and somebody on that level of income is far better off because their income tax rate is just 20% now.

Originally posted by bonkey
The point is that direct taxation benefits the rich more than the poor, not whether or not you agree that its a good idea.

But direct taxation is based on your own consumption, so you can avoid some of it if you like. Our taxation system is a mix of direct/indirect taxation so people pay a portion based on their own consumption and a portion based on their income. I take it you would rather the balance was more weighted in favour of income tax.

Originally posted by bonkey
Now, given that you've been arguing how much better off the working class are as a result of this, I think you should be addressing the argument that they are not necessarily better off, and may - in fact - be worse off, not whether or not you approve of the alternatives.

Who's worse off? Not the person on the average industrial wage as I poited out earlier.

The minimum wage is now €7/hour, which is significantly higher than when it was first introduced and before the minimum wage many people were earning very low wages. The income of a person on the minimum wage is tax free. So minimum wage people are better off.

That leaves people on Social Welfare. Social Welfare rates have increased by more that inflation every year. Indeed, old age pensions have gone up by a lot more than inflation. While people living on social welfare were never well off, I think it's hard to justify that they are worse off now.

So I just don't accept your premise that "working class" people are worse off. You haven't justified your argument.

I think that, in principle, people should be able to keep as much of their income as possible, with due regard to the provison of reasonable state services. The idea that better off people should pay a very large portion of their income in tax to support less well off people leads to a country where not enough people have money to spend and invest and drive the economy forward.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by ReefBreak

, and their low tax, pro-enterprise was a major factor in creating a massively successful economy.

it was also a major factor in the cutbacks made to health, education and people with special needs. its seems that the pds would rather put hardship on societies weakest than take money off people who need it least. and if the economy was so successful what was the need for the cutbacks in the first place.

capistrano

Originally posted by AngelofFire
it was also a major factor in the cutbacks made to health, education and people with special needs. its seems that the pds would rather put hardship on societies weakest than take money off people who need it least. and if the economy was so successful what was the need for the cutbacks in the first place.

There were no cutbacks. Spending on Health, Education and Social Welfare has gone up every year since the last election.

As regards taking money of people who need it least, you should remember that it is their own money. The state needs to be fair to all citizens, even those earning more than average.

There is so much pinko-leftie sentiment on these boards. I'm just glad it's not reflected by the people at election time.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by capistrano
There were no cutbacks. Spending on Health, Education and Social Welfare has gone up every year since the last election.

As regards taking money of people who need it least, you should remember that it is their own money. The state needs to be fair to all citizens, even those earning more than average.

There is so much pinko-leftie sentiment on these boards. I'm just glad it's not reflected by the people at election time.

i agree. what i was trying to say that in the event of their being so called "restricted public funding" tax should increase by 2 or 3 percentage points for those on the highest income rather than cutbacks being made to public services

Victor

Originally posted by capistrano
Who's worse off? Not the person on the average industrial wage as I poited out earlier.

Actually "average industrial wage" includes managerial levels in industry, so it is not necessarily representative of the ordinary Joe. Many staff in services (several times larger than industry in employment terms) earn much lower than that. Someone on minimum wage working full time would earn €14,196 before tax and PRSI.

Originally posted by capistrano
The minimum wage is now €7/hour

But still isn't enough to live on.

Originally posted by capistrano
The income of a person on the minimum wage is tax free. So minimum wage people are better off.

Actually no. people on minimum wage working full time still pay a small amount of income tax. I hear Denis O'Brien doesn't pay any.

capistrano

Originally posted by Victor
Actually "average industrial wage" includes managerial levels in industry, so it is not necessarily representative of the ordinary Joe. Many staff in services (several times larger than industry in employment terms) earn much lower than that.

€28k is the average income (I use the term Average Industrial Wage loosely), so it pretty reflective of the income of the ordinary Joe, as you put it.

Someone on minimum wage working full time would earn €14,196 before tax and PRSI. But still isn't enough to live on.

So they're dying in their droves are they?

Actually no. people on minimum wage working full time still pay a small amount of income tax. I hear Denis O'Brien doesn't pay any.

A very small amount - probably no more than €10/week. It's good that people pay some tax, it gives them a stake in society.

As regards Denis O'Brien, he lives in Portugal so he pays his tax there. I have heard talk that he was actually in the country more nights to be legally non-resident, if that's true then he's breaking the law. But unless that's proven, he's done nothing illegal. You might think it's immoral, but it's not illegal. If you moved to Portugal, I take it you wouldn't want to be still liable for Irish taxation?

monument

Originally posted by capistrano
€28k is the average income (I use the term Average Industrial Wage loosely), so it pretty reflective of the income of the ordinary Joe, as you put it.

The average does not automatically reflective on what the “ordinary Joe” is getting, and if you think this is the case in Ireland (or even most western countries) you’re living in fairyland, or PR world.

BuffyBot

So they're dying in their droves are they?

That isn't really the point. You don't have to be dying to have a sub-standard living.

monument

Originally posted by capistrano
It annoys me when people call the PD's ultra-right wing or even fascist. Give me some evidence.

They are far right-wing...

In modern thinking of politic scales there are two dimensions - the economic (right-wing or left-wing) and the social (authoritarian or libertarian). [ see http://www.politicalcompass.org/ ]

All thought the PDs may not be at the top of the fascism (authoritarian) scale, they’re well on their way.

It’s either a PR job or extremely native for someone to think the PDs are not far right-wing and highly authoritarian.

monument

Originally posted by BuffyBot
That isn't really the point. You don't have to be dying to have a sub-standard living.

But dying helps people care about you.

When you just have a "sub-standard living", most people think something like "everyone has problems".

capistrano

Originally posted by BuffyBot
That isn't really the point. You don't have to be dying to have a sub-standard living.

Victor said the mimimum wage wasn't enough to live on. I was just pointint out that, while it's not enough to live well on, it apparently enough to live on.

capistrano

Originally posted by monument
They are far right-wing...

In modern thinking of politic scales there are two dimensions - the economic (right-wing or left-wing) and the social (authoritarian or libertarian). [ see http://www.politicalcompass.org/ ]

All thought the PDs may not be at the top of the fascism (authoritarian) scale, they’re well on their way.

It’s either a PR job or extremely native for someone to think the PDs are not far right-wing and highly authoritarian.

Rubblish! I aggree that he PD's are right-wing economically but they are libertarian socially. They want to give people the freedom to make their own decisons. Doesn't sound very authoritarian to me.

capistrano

Originally posted by monument
see http://www.politicalcompass.org/ ].

Very interesting. I surprised my self with these scores:

Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74

So I'm a centrist really, with a strong leaning towards the libertarian.