Is this New Labour

Villain

bk wrote:

€29,000 is the 2005 figure, the average industrial wage is over €32,000 this year and that is a national average, the average wage in Dublin is much higher, yet everything in Dublin (housing, etc.) is also much more expensive.

That means that an awful lot of ordinary people, in ordinary jobs are supposedly paying the "rich" rate of tax.

Now I'm not saying that the upper rate of tax should be reduced further, I'm actually against that, all I'm saying is that it is wrong to say that people who pay tax at the upper rate are "rich" and I also believe that the tax bands should be radically widened so that less ordinary, working and middle class people are paying tax at the high rate.

Bk I think you missed my post which showed only 13% of people polled wanted a FF and Labour Government, so I wouldn't think Labour would be too worried about any backlash if they refused to join FF.

BTW Who said peole who pay tax at the higher rate are rich?

gandalf

bk wrote:

I'm sorry Gandlaf, but that is pure FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). FF will not go into government with the Shinners, as they know they would be punished for it at the next election. The far better strategy for FF, if Labour doesn't play ball, is to allow their to be a re-election, blame Labour for it and watch as the Labour vote is decimated and FF vote goes up and they end up back in government, either on their own or with the PD's or the Greens.

Thats you're belief, mine is that FF will do anything to stay in power including jumping into bed with Gerry if the Shinners hold the balance of power.

I'm sorry but your (and many other Labour die-hards) hatred of FF is what is holding Labour back from becoming a truly successful party in Ireland. It is this blind hatred that has no basis in reality that is holding Labour back from becoming the solid large third party in Irish politics and the king makers. If Labour continues down this road, I can see the Green Party supplementing Labour as the third largest party and becoming the king makers.

Actually I disagree, what did do damage to Labour becoming a more successful party was joining with FF in 1992. My hatred if you want to call it that stems from the facts that FF are a corrupt organisation with corruption shown over the years to permiate throughout the whole organisation whose cosy little relationship with builders and developers is resposible for the traffic and infrastructure nightmare that faces Dublin and its suburbs today.

As for your comments on the Greens they know as well that a four year stand with FF will be the kiss of death for them at the next election.

FF will always be around and will always likely be in power or close to it. Did you read Vincent Brownes article in the SB Post this weekend? Of the 13 elections over the last 50 years, FF has only lost 3 elections. FF will always be around. What people want is a party with strong alternative beliefs and policys that will act as a counter weight to FF. Labour is failing badly to give us that.

No I have the SBP at home still to be read I will watch out for that. Thats quite a record 3 out of 13 lost well I guess we know who is to blame for the bloated civil service, a crumbling health system thats killing people, infrastructure thats well behind what is needed, schools without playgrounds, gardai without proper equipment after all they have been in power the most.

mike65

SF won't go into government with FF. It would damage thier niche.

Mike.

Bren1609

3 our 13!? Thats a dictatorship.

bk

irish1 wrote:

Bk I think you missed my post which showed only 13% of people polled wanted a FF and Labour Government, so I wouldn't think Labour would be too worried about any backlash if they refused to join FF.

I'm not surprised by that, a FF/Labour coalition hasn't really been offered as an option to people. When asked by a pollster what option they before, most people are going to say either of the two options (FF/PD or FG/Lab) that are currently been offered. 13% is actually surprisingly high.
For instance if those people were told that a FG/Lab coalition wasn't possible, how many do you think would then be in favour of a FF/Labour coalition?

I believe the same poll found that a large number of people (can't find the actual figure) actually believed that FF/Labour would form a coalition.

What I found interesting during that the Frank Lutz show was that after he showed all the party leaders Ard Fheis performances, that almost no one in the audience wanted a FG/Lab (or FF/PD) coalition, but almost everyone wanted a FF/Labour coalition.

irish1 wrote:

BTW Who said peole who pay tax at the higher rate are rich?

Macy said the following:

Macy wrote:

Cutting the upper rate benefits the rich disproportionately

and I've heard it been said in other threads also. It bothers me because it ignores that a lot of ordinary people who are far from being rich, still pay the higher rate of tax.

For instance a person might be earning €36,000 per year, would be paying tax at 41%, yet such a person could only get a mortgage of €167,000, in Dublin you couldn't buy a box with that much money. So such a person is far from being "rich".

Certainly they aren't "poor" either, but I'm just making the point that "rich" and "poor" are misleading and often abused words.

I believe something like 30 to 40% of people pay tax at the upper rate, most of these people aren't rich and IMO most of them shouldn't be paying tax at the upper rate.

gandalf wrote:

Actually I disagree, what did do damage to Labour becoming a more successful party was joining with FF in 1992.

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. However an interesting old SB Post article here that you might consider:
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/05/22/story4962.asp

mike65

Just to get back on topic 2% cut in the standard rate does exactly zip for the full time carers/unemployed/long term illness benefit etc expect SF to make some play on that in Dublin especially.

Mike.

ballooba

If a person was on a below average wage would you call them poor? If a person was on an above average wage would you call them better off?

Tax breaks in the lower band will do more for the poor than a tax break at the higher band would. If as you say 30 to 40% of the population pay SOME* of their taxes at 41% then they are on the "better off" minority.

Not being able to be a house doesn't make you poor btw. Renting is the norm in plenty of other countries. We just have a dislike for landlords in this country for obvious reasons.

*Example Single person on €36,000


**************************************************
Calculate end of year tax returns (Single)
Tax year for calculations is 2007
(Form P21C)
Selected currency is Euro €
**************************************************

INCOME FROM EMPLOYMENTS €:
Income for Self 36000.0
Other Incomes/Benefits 0.0

---

Gross Statutory Income 36000.0


CREDITS (@20%)€;:
Personal Allowance 8800.0
PAYE Allowance 8800.0
Medical Insurance Allowance 0.0
Service Charge Allowance 0.0

---

Total Credits (@20%) 17600.0


ALLOWANCES (@41%) €:
Med Expenses, Perm Health 0.0
Expenses 0.0

---

Total Allowances 0.0

COMPUTATION OF NET TAX PAYABLE BY YOU €:
Gross Statutory Income 36000.0
Less Allowances before tax 0.0

---

Taxable Income 36000.0
Which is chargeable as follows:
34000.0 @ 20% = 6800.0
2000.0 @ 41% = 820.0

---

Income Tax due 7620.0
LESS €:
Tax Credits (17600.0 @20%) 3520.0
Total Income Tax due 4100.0
Net Tax deducted under PAYE 0.0

---

Tax Underpaid € 4100.0

ballooba

mike65 wrote:

Just to get back on topic 2% cut in the standard rate does exactly zip for the full time carers/unemployed/long term illness benefit etc expect SF to make some play on that in Dublin especially.

Mike.

Labour have pledged to end means testing for full-time carers.

As for the 4.4% of the population not gainfully employed at the moment. Not too sure.

InFront

bk wrote:

For instance a person might be earning €36,000 per year, would be paying tax at 41%,

No they wouldn't. They'd be paying tax at 18% on the first €34000 of taxable income until they get to €34000 and THEN they start paying the higher rate.

Somebody earning €36000 per year would be gaining an extra €680 per year under FG/ Lab.

Under the FF/PD plan you have to be earning €40000 per year before you get an extra €60 and the rises start from that end of the scale.

bk

ballooba wrote:

If a person was on a below average wage would you call them poor? If a person was on an above average wage would you call them better off?

As I said, I don't like branding people at all and I wouldn't call them either.

Also both you and InFront both keep missing the part where I said I'm actually AGAINST cutting the upper tax band. I just don't like people walking around smugly using the word "rich".

InFront

I don't think we're missing that, just saying that your claim that "ordinary people who are far from being rich, still pay the higher rate of tax" is wrong. They will mostly pay the lower-lower rate under FG-Lab. That person on 36k is nearly €700 better off under FG/ Lab than under FF/ PD

That's a free weekend in Rome, or a shopping spree, courtesy of Kenny and Rabbitte every year.

ballooba

bk wrote:

Also both you and InFront both keep missing the part where I said I'm actually AGAINST cutting the upper tax band. I just don't like people walking around smugly using the word "rich".

I wouldn't use the term rich either. "Better Off" or "Well off" might be a better term.

bk

ballooba wrote:

I wouldn't use the term rich either. "Better Off" or "Well off" might be a better term.

And I think you are now just using those terms as a replacement for rich.

I'm mean if a person can't even buy a one bed apartment, then they are hardly better off?

Sure they have a few more euro to spend down in the pub, but that means nothing in terms of wealth generation.

Anyway, we have gone completely off topic, we should be discussing Labours 5 commitments, if they are good ideas and what the likely impact is.

ballooba

bk wrote:

And I think you are now just using those terms as a replacement for rich.

Actually, I would think those terms are pretty accurate. You pointed out that these people are better off than 60 to 70% of the population.

bk wrote:

I'm mean if a person can't even buy a one bed apartment, then they are hardly better off?

As I pointed out, unlike Ireland, a fetish for property ownership isn't so prevalent in other countries.

Macy

bk wrote:

Macy said the following:

and I've heard it been said in other threads also. It bothers me because it ignores that a lot of ordinary people who are far from being rich, still pay the higher rate of tax.

....

Certainly they aren't "poor" either, but I'm just making the point that "rich" and "poor" are misleading and often abused words.

It does benefit the rich disproportionately, which is what I said. When they cut it from 44% to 42% for example, the top 6% were 60% better off while the bottom 60% were only 6% better off.

bk wrote:

I believe something like 30 to 40% of people pay tax at the upper rate, most of these people aren't rich and IMO most of them shouldn't be paying tax at the upper rate

I agree and it's yet another Government committment that has been broken, and by a FF Minister for Finance not the PD's. The committment was that only 20% of PAYE workers would pay at the higher rate. Now we're getting bull about the effective tax rate of all tax payers which is a totally different measure and is heavily skewed by those taking advantage of the various tax breaks this Government has continued to allow for the most well off in our society

lostexpectation

shouldn't labour commit to enforcing part 5 of the housing plan to build social and affordable housing in each estate (rather then paying the council of) before suggesting the gov give loans for private houses

ballooba

Unless someone shows me otherwise I would agree that commitment 5 is a non-flyer. The only people it serves to help is developers. Housing prices should be allowed to fall naturally, not sustained by goverment loans.

lostexpectation wrote:

shouldn't labour commit to enforcing part 5 of the housing plan to build social and affordable housing in each estate (rather then paying the council of) before suggesting the gov give loans for private houses

I was out for a few drinks on friday night with two up and coming developers. One was advising the other on how to get land rezoned. It involved "giving something back" i.e. I'll build a school, community hall, etc. here if you let me build a housing development on the rest. They thought there was nothing wrong with this system. BTW the community hall one typically costs them €300,000.

This is why urban sprawl is out of control.

Dirk Gently

ballooba wrote:

Unless someone shows me otherwise I would agree that commitment 5 is a non-flyer. The only people it serves to help is developers. .

Hard to argue with that. It does look like a state subsidy to maintain artificially high house prices dressed up as a counter measure to the very same problem.

I see the cost is 400m. Don't know how accurate that figure will turn out to be but it's basically a cheque from the tax payer to the developer. Are labour target voting those already owning property and property developers or those unable to afford a house?

It's a tough one really, do you want the price of property to drop, making it more affordable but gutting the economy, or do you want to keep the property boom going as long as possible by subsidising it to save the economy. Eventually the money will run out, but when it does, how much debt will we be in and how long will it take us to recover?

lostexpectation

ballooba wrote:

Unless someone shows me otherwise I would agree that commitment 5 is a non-flyer. The only people it serves to help is developers. Housing prices should be allowed to fall naturally, not sustained by goverment loans.

I was out for a few drinks on friday night with two up and coming developers. One was advising the other on how to get land rezoned. It involved "giving something back" i.e. I'll build a school, community hall, etc. here if you let me build a housing development on the rest. They thought there was nothing wrong with this system. BTW the community hall one typically costs them €300,000.

This is why urban sprawl is out of control.

well that wouldn't be such a bad thing if there both built before people move in, they need to built in any case

I see the HSE had to entertain the developer who said he build the childrens hospital for cost, cahrity is that men is interested in, will LAB/FG be able to stop private hospitals being built beside public ones if they get into gov.

ballooba

lostexpectation wrote:

well that wouldn't be such a bad thing if there both built before people move in, they need to built in any case

I see the HSE had to entertain the developer who said he build the childrens hospital for cost, cahrity is that men is interested in, will LAB/FG be able to stop private hospitals being built beside public ones if they get into gov.

Zoning is there for a reason. The practice I mentioned above undermines planning law in general.

A €300,000 community hall in a development worth millions is obviously nothing to the developers, otherwise they wouldn't offer it.