SF rise threatens US investment:Sunday Independent

ishmael whale

The bottom line is if Sinn Fein get into government with a policy of raising Corporation Tax to French/German levels and cutting VAT in some nutty belief that stimulating consumer demand will help anyone apart from our trading partners they will banjax the economy. It really is as simple as that.

AmenToThat

Originally posted by Meh
Of course not. I'm simply refuting your argument that the boom has hurt the disadvantaged rather than helping them.

Im stating that there is a significant minority in this country that the "boom" has not helped!
SF seems to be the party that is attracting support from this section of the Irish people.

arcadegame2004

SF wants to bring CPT in line with other western europeen countries such as germany and france to pay for this.

France and Germany have 11% unemployment. And we will too if we do what SF proposes.

monument

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
No. The point of socialism is for the State to control the means of production. That is the definition of Socialism.

Cambridge...

socialism
noun
the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in the wealth of the country, or the political systems based on these beliefs

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I haven't heard FF, the PD's, FG or any Independents claiming to not want to stamp out poverty.

I haven't seen them try.

arcadegame2004

I haven't seen them try.

Seriously?

Social welfare spending has risen from €5.74 billion in 1997 to a projected €11.26 billion in 2004 - almost double and well in excess of the rate of inflation. I would call that at least an effort. I would also call the fall in unemployment from 11% to 4.3% progress. And what about the minimum-wage? Mary Harney, the nemesis of the Irish left, introduced Ireland's first ever minimum-wage! Ruarir Quinn and pat Rabbitte were both Ministers in the Department of Enterprise and Employment, but they never got round to this important step in the fight against virtual slave-labour in this country.

The Government's fall in popularity has very little to do with policy. It is in the main a result of FF promising the earth in 2002 and then breaking those promises - as the collapse of their vote in opinion-polls very soon after their re-election attests.

David-[RLD]-

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
No. The point of socialism is for the State to control the means of production.

Woops. I meant one of the points. Silly me.

monument

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Seriously?

Social welfare spending has risen from €5.74 billion in 1997 to a projected €11.26 billion in 2004 - almost double and well in excess of the rate of inflation. I would call that at least an effort.

Next thing you’re going to tell me our health system is fine and dandy because were pumping money into it. :rolleyes:

Raskolnikov

First of all, the primary reasons for the Celtic Tiger have nothing to do with government or any of the political parties. An upturn in the global economy was the primary reason for our extraordinary growth during the late 90's to mid 00's. Putting it simply, if it was not for the birth of the Information Technology era and the dot-com bubble, multinationals wouldn't have been looking to expand their operations overseas to here in the first place. Fianna Fail, the Rainbow Coalition or even Bill Clinton can't take the credit for this, it was the development of industry and that alone which increased the economic wealth to the world economy.

The reasons why many multinationals choose Ireland as a base of operations in Europe was thanks to English being a first language, the number of university graduates we were producing (thanks to the free fees initiative, incidently, nothing to do with FF), generous tax breaks on establishing a business here and to a degree, corporation tax. There also seems to be some mis-information about our levels of corporation tax through the Celtic Tiger, just to clarify things . . .

1998 32%
1999 28%
2000 24%
2001 20%
2002 16%
2003 and onwards 12.5%.

Surely it's clear to anyone, that during the critical periods of the Celtic Tiger when firms were establishing themselves here that corporation tax was still in the high twenties which is comparable to the rest of Europe. Since then, even with huge reductions in the tax not only have we failed to attract new investment, but we've actually lost some! Of course, Sinn Féiners could cite that as a reason to increase corporation tax and recoup the losses. The point I'm trying to make though, is that ultimately, government maybe able to influence the global economy to an extent but not usually create massive change.

Meh

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
There also seems to be some mis-information about our levels of corporation tax through the Celtic Tiger, just to clarify things . . .

1998 32%
1999 28%
2000 24%
2001 20%
2002 16%
2003 and onwards 12.5%.

Surely it's clear to anyone, that during the critical periods of the Celtic Tiger when firms were establishing themselves here that corporation tax was still in the high twenties which is comparable to the rest of Europe.

This is inaccurate. The rates you quoted only applied to domestic companies -- foreign companies had a special rate of 10%. (The EC was unhappy about this, so the government gradually introduced a common rate of 12.5% for both foreign and Irish companies.)

ishmael whale

Originally posted by simu
Yup. They seem to be overly negative about the Irish language as well - Eamonn O Cuiv's policy of having signposts in Irish in Irish-speaking areas was compared unfavourably to the Nazis' policy of leaving signposts in French in occupied France in one of their articles last Sunday. wtf???:rolleyes:

A word from that well known bastion of neo unionism, North West Tourism.

home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/3505759?view=Eircomnet

quote:

Placenames plan is 'ridiculous' - tourism chief
From:ireland.com
Thursday, 1st July, 2004

The Chairman of the North West Tourism Board has described as "absolutely ridiculous" the new Placenames Order (Gaeltacht Districts) 2004.

The draft order published today by the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Mr O'Cuiv, means the English version of placenames in Gaeltacht areas will no longer have legal standing.

The order will no longer permit the use of the English version of placenames in the Acts of the Oireachtas, in statutory instruments, on road and street signage or on Ordnance Survey maps.

Speaking on RTÉ Radio this morning, Councillor Sean McEniff (FF), Chairman of North West Tourism, said that in many cases "the Irish names bear no resemblance to the English versions".

He claimed the new order will result in confusion for tourists from across the border as well as England and America. .................

sceptre

Originally posted by Meh
This is inaccurate. The rates you quoted only applied to domestic companies -- foreign companies had a special rate of 10%. (The EC was unhappy about this, so the government gradually introduced a common rate of 12.5% for both foreign and Irish companies.)

Raskolnikov's rates are stunningly accurate.

What you may be thinking of (hell, you are thinking of it) is the reduced rate of 10% that applies to manufacturing companies[1] in respect of manufacturing income that was introduced in the 1980 budget as a result of the EC not liking us giving a 15 year tax holiday to new companies and the same rate applied to traded financial services negotiated in the mid-1980s and approved in 1987. That (the old system) only applied to foreign companies, everything else is essentially up for grabs[2]. This special exemption for manufacturing companies was the one the EU eventually got miffed at, hence the phasing out of this (Shannon and the IFSC finally lose this next year) and the phasing in of a 12.5% standard corporation tax on trading income in the late 90s.

The CT 12.5% rate (introduced from January 1 2003, taxation fans) only applies to trading income. The passive/non-trading rate is still 25%. So we're nice to companies that export but it's nothing to do with whether they're foreign or not. That's something we got rid of in 1980 and people seem to forget that for some reason (maybe because most of the argumentative folk are too young to remember but I don't use that excuse myself). Some companies will be availing of the lower manufacturing rate till 2010. Then they won't.

Of course we've still essentially got discrimination against the non-traded sector[3]. Or a "special exemption" for traded goods if you want to look at it that way. We're not alone in the EU in doing this but the mandarins in Brussels may take steps against this some day. They can't force tax harmonisation on EU states but they can still run with tax consistency. They may do, they may not. They're more likely to if European universities wake up and realise that from their point of view they're getting screwed and I await that one in about a decade or two with a sense of fun. That's if the truckers don't wake up first and realise that cabotage within the EU transforms haulage from a non-traded sector to a traded one. Truckers will be bought off[4] so it's probably still down to the education sector to whinge


[1]"Manufacturing" is nice and vague. It applies to all profits from goods manufactured and sold by the company (other goods sold are called "merchandise" and pay full whack). It also includes things like fish, mushrooms, ship repair, data processing services and software engineering, making a movie under certain circumstances, milk production, certain operations in the customs house docks area (since 1986), certain operations in Shannon and some even more boring ones

[2]The Shannon exemption (and the IFSC) does apply under the terms of an "initial investment" under the then articles 92-94 of the European treaties.However it's never been as simple as "foreign companies get 10%", it's a specific exemption for particular sectors for a limited time approved by the EU in 1980 in the case of Shannon and 1987 in the case of the IFSC

[3]For the uninitiated, "non-traded" goods are goods (and services, actually mainly services) that aren't traded across national boundaries

[4]I'm not saying truckers (or rather the haulage industry) "can" be bought off (though I'm sure they can), I suspect they will be bought off before the non-traded v traded income company tax rates are considered as a whole. All they'd have to do (if they've not done it already (I am not an accountant, thank Jebus, Vishnu and anyone else you can think of)) is recognise the haulage industry under certain circumstances as a trading activity. Colleges don't move.

Meh

Originally posted by sceptre
Raskolnikov's rates are stunningly accurate.

They may be accurate, but they're misleading. Dell, Pfizer and the rest of them did not pay 32% corporation tax in 1998.

DublinWriter

..yeah, just like the Shannon protestors were putting US investment at risk. I remember that particular line of FF/PD bullsh*t well.

So bascially, the crux of what O'Dea is saying is that we should make political decisions based on whom our foreign corporate paymasters are?

For shame.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by DublinWriter
..yeah, just like the Shannon protestors were putting US investment at risk. I remember that particular line of FF/PD bullsh*t well.

So bascially, the crux of what O'Dea is saying is that we should make political decisions based on whom our foreign corporate paymasters are?

For shame.

No, even though you might like to think that. What he's saying is, we should make political decisions based on what is best for our country/region.

sceptre

Originally posted by Meh
They may be accurate, but they're misleading. Dell, Pfizer and the rest of them did not pay 32% corporation tax in 1998.

Of course not. Mind you they wouldn't have paid anything like that in 1988 or 1978 either (in 1978 they'd have paid precisely nothing had they been here). Rask had something of worth in his post, I'm afraid, in the nicest possible way, your initial post was close to 100% inaccurate (foreign v domestic & why the EU objected, I tend to do my best to correct people with something correct). I don't mean to be insulting here so hopefully I haven't been.

What Rask appears to be getting at is in some way dispelling this mistaken notion that people have that the corporation tax rate was suddenly reduced in the late 80s leading to a dramatic increase in our world-worth and an equivalent increase in the worth of our economy. It doesn't take much research to discover that our special manufacturing rate was precisely the same in 1991 as it was in 1981 and that our actual corporation tax rate for non-manufacturing companies was higher in 1991 than it was in 2001. He's reaching a reasonable and reasonably defensible conclusion that people will probably choose to ignore as long as they seek to toss credit around like confetti while ignoring the notion of blame for the domestic economic downturn. Can't have it both ways, if you've eaten your cake it's no longer in your hand.

ishmael whale

Notwithstanding that few things in life are mechanical, and even machines are complicated enough to be unpredictable, Rashkolnikov’s post still needs a tweak in the other direction (and I don’t mean the puzzling statement that we produced a large amount of graduates as a result of the abolition of tuition fees).

Indeed the Irish economy is dependent on the global economy. At a time of recession we could throw virgins at foreign investors without success. It’s not a reflection on the quality of our virgins, the global conditions would simply dictate that the investors are not in the market.

What does all this mean, apart from debasing the flesh of the chaste and using it as a commodity to entice foreign investors.

It means that tax would seem to be a necessary, but not sufficient, incentive to attract and retain foreign investment. It might not be the only reason that firms locate here, but its hard to think of another reason that would be as compelling in recent years. If some companies have left it’s hardly because they want to pay more tax elsewhere.

Judging from what you’ve said earlier, all that’s really happened to Corporation Tax in recent years is, partly because of the EU, we’ve replaced a number of targeted tax breaks with a single low rate that applies to everyone. That just seems to make our position as a low tax location more transparent.

Despite our powerful command of the English language I can’t say I would feel terribly confident if we whooshed corporation tax it up to European levels.

ALLGOOD

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Sinn Fein rise threatens US investment

ADVERTISEMENT




APPROACHED: Willie O'Dea



JODY CORCORAN

AMERICAN investment in Ireland is in jeopardy and key financial input is in danger of being withdrawn, as the spectre of a Sinn Fein political advance over the next 10 years becomes a reality.

Thats a load of rubbish, people trying to get people to not vote for the sinners. Firstly, the US does not recognise the Prov IRA as a terrorist organisation, and second, as long as Sinn Fein and the others keep the Good Friday Agreement going everythng is going to be hunky dory and were gonna live happily ever after in our current paradise

Meh

Originally posted by sceptre
I'm afraid, in the nicest possible way, your initial post was close to 100% inaccurate (foreign v domestic & why the EU objected, I tend to do my best to correct people with something correct). I don't mean to be insulting here so hopefully I haven't been.

Not at all, I appreciate the correction.

What Rask appears to be getting at is in some way dispelling this mistaken notion that people have that the corporation tax rate was suddenly reduced in the late 80s leading to a dramatic increase in our world-worth and an equivalent increase in the worth of our economy. It doesn't take much research to discover that our special manufacturing rate was precisely the same in 1991 as it was in 1981 and that our actual corporation tax rate for non-manufacturing companies was higher in 1991 than it was in 2001.

I don't think anyone's been arguing that low (effective rates of) corporation tax alone were the sole reason for the boom. The words "necessary but not sufficient" come to mind...

mike65

Gerry Adams is being asked about this right now on Today FMs The Last Word....he says rich ppl should be taxed higher. He's been asked about the flight of capital/people, but he wont be pinned down. The usual socialist nirvana is being recounted with no suggestion how it'll be funded.

Mike.

jmcc

Originally posted by mike65
The usual socialist nirvana is being recounted with no suggestion how it'll be funded.

Probably outsourced to some dodgy Indian outfit like a lot of jobs recently.

Regards...jmcc

Typedef

To be bluntly honest I've voted SF in the past for the following reasons.

It espouses social policies I agree with environmentalism, equality, single issue things like being anti-software patents, anti-Nice and generally anti European Federal Superstate, which is my one big issue with the Labour party.

Sure, Sinn Fein have a connection to the IRA, then again, Charles Haughey sold arms to the IRA, so I find the notion of FF castigating SF, for paramilitary activity absurd.

I found McDowell's essentially racist referendum (if we can not split hairs about the racist element that supported the citizenship referendum here, and call it what it was), extremely distasteful and I find Fianna Fial's willingness to shoe horn the Nice Treaty into Ireland[1] a complete abrogation of the process of democracy in this country.

While random posters may quote me out of context or challenge the validty of my reasoning to vote with the Greens/Sinn Fein, then Labour, in that order, I doubt I'm alone in gravitating towards subversionary pinko lefties, because of the pretty repressive right wing social policies of the government.

I accept that the government's policies and right wingedness is probably largely to do with the PDs. Which brings me to my final point. While the PDs may have very profitable economic policies, I find their social policies and the actions of the government since the PDs have been a constituant, such a personal affront, espeically given the fact that the PDs *have no real mandate to govern*, that I simply *never* vote with the government.

After the Good Friday agreement (which I voted for), I would have voted for Fianna Fail, these days there's not a chance of that happening. More to the point. The economic growth of Ireland is down to it's hard working citizens, not the PDs.

Let me reiterate that, the Irish people, who get up in the morning and do the graft are the people who have made this country a prosperous place, not Michael McDowell and his kick the blacks out of Ireland referendum.


[1] The qualfied majority voting which was granted under the Nice treaty, has been used recently, to send a severe form of software patents back to the European parliment... a more severe version then was originally sent to the parliment... in effect... giving the European parliment ( a democratic body) two fingers, to the reforms the parliment ammended to the text of the orignal Software Patents bill.

This effects me, since I earn my crust in this industry... so, for all the people who mindlessly babbled at me and other during the Nice debate about how voting 'No' would harm me economically... I'd like to know how, letting Microsoft patent the double click (as has recently been allowed in the United States), is going to be in 'my' interests and how the qualified majority voting mechanisms I voted against twice... will actually turn out to be of benefit *to me*?

Kindly direct pro software patent responses to :

someone@whocares.net

DublinWriter

Again, the current situation with SF is very like the one Dev was in back in the late 20's.

At that period FF were in bed with the Official/Old IRA and Dev was very much the Gerry Adams of his day.

When FF won the general election in 1932, the Chief of Staff of the Army said 'do we salute him or shoot him' to his aide when Dev first inspected the troops.

Even when Dev went to Kerry in his first year in office, the IRA were lined up on one side of the road with the Garda lined up on the other. Dev only inspected the IRA troops!

FF were formed from a split in SF in 1926.

The point I'm trying to make is that this could be history repeating itself again.

Whether you like Adams or not, like Dev, he's is a consummate politician and presents himself well.

The nightmare scenario is the RIRA coming up with a political wing and the whole cycle starting again.

mike65

Originally posted by Typedef
Sure, Sinn Fein have a connection to the IRA, then again, Charles Haughey sold arms to the IRA, so I find the notion of FF castigating SF, for paramilitary activity absurd.

Er can you say that and not get sued?

Mike.

DublinWriter

Just as in space no one can hear you scream, on boards.ie no one can hear you slander/libel.

Well, I hope so anyway, I think the original accusation against Haughey in the 60's was that he was 'passing' arms to the PIRA, not selling.

People really should be careful about what they post on here. I wouldn't like to see boards.ie go down because of a few careless posters.

An Irish site devoted to all things aviation had to close down last year because of a poster questioning an individual pilot's skill at a recent Irish airshow.

Typedef

So let me get this straight.

It's not slander/libel to claim Gerry Adams is in the IRA, but, it is slander/libel to claim that Charlie Haughey was a gun runner?

For your information gentlemen, since I've joined the Fianna Fail party, it is now slander/libel to disclaim anything I say.

/removes tounge from cheek.

mike65

Originally posted by Typedef
So let me get this straight.

It's not slander/libel to claim Gerry Adams is in the IRA, but, it is slander/libel to claim that Charlie Haughey was a gun runner?

The diff is that Haughey was tried and aquitted no so legal "stain". Adams could sue but has'nt.

Mike.

Mighty_Mouse

The diff is that Haughey was tried and aquitted no so legal "stain". Adams could sue but has'nt

Thats a difference!!!
hhmmmmmmm let me think.... "Berti wears womens underwear". Now if Berti doesn't sue me........it's true? Thats a fantasic twist you've invented to our legal system Mike!

Although I bet the current government won't be too happy given their efforts to tackle Irelands "sue culture".

swiss

Can we get off the topic of Berties underwear and back to the one in hand?

I don't have too much of a problem with Typedef inferring Haughey supplied arms to the IRA. However he is presenting it as fact. This could be construed as slander, as opposed to expressing the strong belief that Gerry Adams was a member of the IRA, especially when evidence would appear to back up that assertion.

A little "IMHO" from time to time doesn't hurt , IMHO.

arcadegame2004

The qualfied majority voting which was granted under the Nice treaty, has been used recently, to send a severe form of software patents back to the European parliment... a more severe version then was originally sent to the parliment... in effect... giving the European parliment ( a democratic body) two fingers, to the reforms the parliment ammended to the text of the orignal Software Patents bill.

Typedef, the European Parliament can then block the new form of the legislation. The EP has a veto over EU legislation in 80% of policy areas. All the more reason then to vote "Yes" to the EU Constitution which would give the EP a veto and amending power over EU legislation in 95% of policy areas. Well done for helping make that point for me Typedef.:p

Typedef

arcadegame.

Lets not get into the business of voting Yes or No, to something that hasn't been analysed or debated properly yet.

It's that sort of knee jerk Federalism or indeed rejectionism which diminishes democracy to a shouting match.

Now, I'm sure you carefully read each paragraph of the ammendement to the constitution on citizenship, before deciding to support it right?

/tounge, cheek imo.