What will SF do for me?

Judt

El Stuntman wrote:

could throw up some strange junior ministries

Martin Ferris = Minister for the Marine?? he has the experience

At least if we become a target for (foreign) terrorists we'll have a government that knows what it's about. (We could make these jokes all day.)

Glenbhoy

oscarBravo wrote:

Edward Carson?

true, as were many of his ilk, however, we can't really speak of him in the present tense.

stepbar

MrNuked wrote:

Sinn Féin

postcount +1

stepbar

El Stuntman wrote:

could throw up some strange junior ministries

Martin Ferris = Minister for the Marine?? he has the experience

Naw, Minister for Transport or the RSA. Ideal.......

johnnyskeleton

stepbar wrote:

Naw, Minister for Transport or the RSA. Ideal.......

Can Aengus Ó Snodaigh be Minister for Intelligence?

El Stuntman

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Can Aengus Ó Snodaigh be Minister for Intelligence?

Caoimhin O'Caoilin (why can't they use the names they were born with btw? it's like Malcolm X) would make a good Minister for Finance, all sorts of experience with raising funds...

again, we could do this all day. it's fun

Glenbhoy

El Stuntman wrote:

Caoimhin O'Caoilin (why can't they use the names they were born with btw? it's like Malcolm X) would make a good Minister for Finance, all sorts of experience with raising funds...

again, we could do this all day. it's fun

Well he was a bank manager wasn't he? He's far and away one of the most competent members of the dail imo.

Ulster9

El Stuntman wrote:

Caoimhin O'Caoilin (why can't they use the names they were born with btw? it's like Malcolm X) would make a good Minister for Finance, all sorts of experience with raising funds...

again, we could do this all day. it's fun

How can you be so ignorant?Many people who are fluent Irish speakers use the Irish version of their name.
If this thread is now to be used to only to insult the name and integrity of Sinn Fein elected representatives i suggest it be shut down.

oscarBravo

Ulster9 wrote:

How can you be so ignorant?

I've warned you before. Banned for a week.

gandalf

stepbar, johnnyskeleton & El Stuntman last time I checked this was politics and not humour. Keep on topic and don't fire rubbish like your last few posts up again or you'll be interned for a week.

Again as has been stated on this thread if you see a post that you believe is going ott and in breach of the charter report it using the report bad post icon on the bottom left of the post. Please do not react to it yourself.

GabharBrean

oscarBravo wrote:

I've warned you before. Banned for a week.

Bravissimo, one reaction for Ulster and another for the sycophantic "humrous".

gandalf

GabharBrean wrote:

Bravissimo, one reaction for Ulster and another for the sycophantic "humrous".

Actually Ulster has already been banned and then had it revoked because he apologised and promised not to call names again. He didn't keep the promise hence he got banned.

The "humourous" have now been warned, they step out of line again and they will be dealt with too.

I also remember warnings to people on not doing the mods jobs for them, next time I see a comment like this in this thread or any others here I will have a mind to ban as well. If you have a problem with the modding here take it to the Feedback or Helpdesk forums.

FlutterinBantam

lets take the heat out of this arument shall we?

In my opinion if SF were elected it would be the worst possible thing for this country.

Investor confidence would plummet.

I feel it would be a "charter" for scumbaggery,where it is more profitable and easier to ride the system, than take the risk and and initiate a project.

I for one wouldn't want Martin Ferris or anyone of his ilk anywhere even remotely near the levers of power.
I feel a SF presence would bring this country back to bad days of the 80's where the hardworking 20% supported the indolent80% and where prudence and fiscal management would be thrown out the window to support the non productive elements of our society.

Personally i would leave the country within 6 months of any SF involvement in our Govt.

E92

FlutterinBantam wrote:

lets take the heat out of this arument shall we?

In my opinion if SF were elected it would be the worst possible thing for this country.

Investor confidence would plummet.

I feel it would be a "charter" for scumbaggery,where it is more profitable and easier to ride the system, than take the risk and and initiate a project.

I for one wouldn't want Martin Ferris or anyone of his ilk anywhere even remotely near the levers of power.
I feel a SF presence would bring this country back to bad days of the 80's where the hardworking 20% supported the indolent80% and where prudence and fiscal management would be thrown out the window to support the non productive elements of our society.

Personally i would leave the country within 6 months of any SF involvement in our Govt.

That pretty much sums up why I wouldnt vote for them(along with their past), and why they shouldn't be let withinin an inch of power. I think it woulds be the worst thing ever. We needn't worry, because if Fine Gael and Labour get in in the summer, you can bet your most valuable possession that Sinn Fein definately will not be involved in running the country, and Enda Kenny has already stated that he will not look for their support too, nor will he look for Michael Lowery's support.

GabharBrean

FlutterinBantam wrote:

lets take the heat out of this arument shall we?

Personally i would leave the country within 6 months of any SF involvement in our Govt.

Why wait so long?

johnnyskeleton

Sorry about the humour...Ulster9, when you come back I'd like to ask you the following(not to circumvent the mods but you can PM me if you like):

Ulster9 wrote:

Sinn Fein is in favour of increasing Capital Gains and PRSI.I see nothing wrong with this as i want increased taxation in order to improve public services and infrastructure.

While Capital Gains doesn't really affect me so I don't care, I really don't like PRSI. As someone who has a chequered past of jobs, studying and unemployment, I often claim PAYE back but can't claim PRSI back. In that regard, I do see it as a regressive tax.

On the other hand, I wonder would there be any benefit from introducing a third tax band e.g. 50% over €100,000. While this wouldn't affect that many people, and those it would affect probably wouldn't complain that much, it could provide a lot of extra income for the government.

My view on the public sector is that we need better managment rather than more money being thrown at it. As for health, changing private health so that private patients contribute more to public hospitals seems to me the better option than getting rid of the two tier system entirely. Regarding public transport, I have to say that the Luas is much better than Dublin Bus by a long shot, and while I would idealistically be left wing, I have to admit that public private partnerships in public transport do seem to work.

At the moment the government seems to be banking all its money on property market and this cant go on.

Will SF do anything about the property market, especially for FTBs/renters?

Whats the point in low personal taxes if everything else is going through the roof in prices and stealth taxes.

Do SF plan to increase personal income tax and remove all/most/some stealth taxes, do you know? Also, I'm not sure that any Irish government can control inflation much because of the ECB.

[/quote]It is correct that Sinn Fein policies are similar to Labours but I believe they are more in touch with their electorate.[/quote]

With respect, I think that all political parties are out of touch with their electorate to some degree, and I don't see SF being that different. The situation is that a party will say what it stands for and people can either accept it or reject it. SF don't strike me as having a dynamic relationship with their voters.

Sinn Fein also have a all-Ireland demension with a vision for a New Ireland which i find appealing.

What is this vision, is it a 32 county republic?

Also, where do SF stand re: EU exactly? Whenever there is a protest/criticism of the EU, SF are there, but I honestly don't think that being anti-EU is a tenable option. For example, the Greens are against a lot of the EU, but if they were in power, I don't see them acting any differently than the current administration did.

stepbar

gandalf wrote:

stepbar, johnnyskeleton & El Stuntman last time I checked this was politics and not humour. Keep on topic and don't fire rubbish like your last few posts up again or you'll be interned for a week.

Again as has been stated on this thread if you see a post that you believe is going ott and in breach of the charter report it using the report bad post icon on the bottom left of the post. Please do not react to it yourself.

Sorry gandalf the jokes were just a bit of light relief, but understand I can’t really take Sinn Fein seriously when their supporters continue to peddle in criminality. As well, I get the impression that SF would support any issue where the mainstream parties differ on opinion / or dont have one. All to get the few votes and the bit of power. And standing for no set of values at the end of it all. For those reasons I cant take SF seriously.

(To everyone else: Don’t ask for a link because you wont be getting one, however I do know of 3 ongoing investigations where supporters / members of Sinn Fein are being investigated by CAB for money laundering etc. For obvious reasons (i.e legal), this is not the forum for further discussion. So yes, there's a criminality issue to answer to).

Hagar

stepbar wrote:

I can’t really take Sinn Fein seriously when their supporters continue to peddle in criminality... So yes, there's a criminality issue to answer to

It is a well known fact that absolutely none of the supporters of the mainstream parties are in any way criminal at all.:rolleyes:

So exactly how many SF members were implicated in the various tribunals that the taxpayer has footed the bill for over the last few years?
Does anyone else associate the names Flood, Lawlor, Burke, Haughey with corruption?

GabharBrean

stepbar wrote:

Sorry gandalf the jokes were just a bit of light relief, but understand I can’t really take Sinn Fein seriously when their supporters continue to peddle in criminality. . . .

(To everyone else: Don’t ask for a link because you wont be getting one, however I do know of 3 ongoing investigations where supporters / members of Sinn Fein are being investigated by CAB for money laundering etc. For obvious reasons (i.e legal), this is not the forum for further discussion. So yes, there's a criminality issue to answer to).

SF supporters are inherently criminal. Can't comment now about ongoing investigations. If we can get a conviction, it will prove our proposition. Trust us. We will keep the barbarians from the gate. If your democratic rights are slowly being eroded, don't worry. As long you tow the line, you are safe.

Reminds me to the fellow (Corkman?) who they tried to prosecute for money laundering. Hadn't the goods on him, so they prosecuted him for a having a replica handgun. Said handgun being used as a cigarette lighter.

There's no smoke without fire. This cute hoor might have escaped us for now, but we will bring all the offices of law and order to bear upon these criminal elements. Anyway isn't that handgun sinister? Let this be a lesson for all of you.

Our job will be done when we stop calling Republicans criminals. Rather we'll be calling all criminals Republican supporters.

I suppose there are plenty of lawyer, FF and FG jokes. Lawyer's bank balances are sure no joke. It seems the modern progressive lawyer's highest goal is to increase his/her bank account. The law is merely a tool for profit.

As for FF & FG jokes

Judt

Tax 50% over 100,000? It's stuff like that that'll see entrepreneurs and businesses leave this country in droves... Kinda like the SF proposed policies. Just because you earn 1 million doesn't mean that you'd not take it as a kick in the balls to lose half of it.

Glenbhoy

Judt wrote:

Tax 50% over 100,000? It's stuff like that that'll see entrepreneurs and businesses leave this country in droves... Kinda like the SF proposed policies. Just because you earn 1 million doesn't mean that you'd not take it as a kick in the balls to lose half of it.

Well, it's already 41% plus another 1.5% extra prsi, so an increase of 7.5% isn't likely to be that big of a disincentive. I would be strongly in favour of a 3rd higher tax band.

Judt

Glenbhoy wrote:

Well, it's already 41% plus another 1.5% extra prsi, so an increase of 7.5% isn't likely to be that big of a disincentive. I would be strongly in favour of a 3rd higher tax band.

7.5% isn't that big of a jump, on top of 42.5%? How would you like it - honestly - i you saw 50% of your income go down the drain? Do you remember the 1980's?

Extend that type of tax thinking to business, as SF wants to do, and you will see Ireland a poorer nation as if all the businesses leave, we can levvy a 99% tax and get nothing from it, because there'll be nobody to tax.

El Stuntman

Glenbhoy wrote:

Well, it's already 41% plus another 1.5% extra prsi, so an increase of 7.5% isn't likely to be that big of a disincentive. I would be strongly in favour of a 3rd higher tax band.

didn't work in the 1980s - won't work now

we want incentives to work harder, not the opposite

Glenbhoy

Judt wrote:

7.5% isn't that big of a jump, on top of 42.5%? How would you like it - honestly - i you saw 50% of your income go down the drain? Do you remember the 1980's?

Extend that type of tax thinking to business, as SF wants to do, and you will see Ireland a poorer nation as if all the businesses leave, we can levvy a 99% tax and get nothing from it, because there'll be nobody to tax.

Currently everyone earning between 34K and 50K see's 48% of that portion of their income go in tax, you've got to understand, a marginal rate does not mean that x% of your income will go in tax, it just means that the portion of your income over the margin will be taxed at x%, in other words, every euro over 100K in this case will be taxed at 50% instead of the current 42.5%, not exactly a massive increase is it? For the majority, that would mean a very small increase in their effective tax rate. In addition, it would only effect PAYE workers, who by the nature of their positions would not be able to leave the country in this mass exodus, as their jobs must be here - for example, high ranking civil workers, hospital consultants, bank execs etc.... (obviously it would apply to everyone, but most private company directors and selfemployed workers would avoid by using good tax planning).

oscarBravo

Glenbhoy wrote:

In addition, it would only effect PAYE workers...

Why do you think that? You think non-PAYE workers don't pay tax?

Glenbhoy

oscarBravo wrote:

(Why do you think that? You think non-PAYE workers don't pay tax?).

see below

Glenbhoy wrote:

(obviously it would apply to everyone, but most private company directors and selfemployed workers would avoid by using good tax planning).

johnnyskeleton

GabharBrean wrote:

I suppose there are plenty of lawyer...jokes. Lawyer's bank balances are sure no joke. It seems the modern progressive lawyer's highest goal is to increase his/her bank account. The law is merely a tool for profit.

Historically lawyers have had much higher goals: Theobald Wolfe Tone (laid down his life for Ireland), Daniel O'Connell (dedicated much of his life to catholic emancipation), Edward Carson (like him or loathe him, he put his money where his mouth was), Mary Robinson (UN High Commissioner on Human Rights) etc...

So why do you think that lawyers (whose number include many of SF's political opponents) are only conerned with money? I'm not denying that they make a lot of money, too much some would say, but what makes them different to people in other industries, in your view?

judt wrote:

Tax 50% over 100,000? It's stuff like that that'll see entrepreneurs and businesses leave this country in droves... Kinda like the SF proposed policies. Just because you earn 1 million doesn't mean that you'd not take it as a kick in the balls to lose half of it.

I would suggest this third band because I believe that after a certain point you are earning so much and paying so much tax, that a little bit more won't radically alter your lot in life. E.g. if a company director earns €500k p.a. in his post, he will work no more nor less hard if he had to pay €36k extra in tax, although his company might increase his salary to reflect this.

Also, I think that if you have to tax somewhere, it should be where the tax will provide the most money with minimum impact on the economy. Increasing lower end taxes, even by a lower percentage, would adversly affect the economy more.

Judt

I would suggest this third band because I believe that after a certain point you are earning so much and paying so much tax, that a little bit more won't radically alter your lot in life. E.g. if a company director earns €500k p.a. in his post, he will work no more nor less hard if he had to pay €36k extra in tax, although his company might increase his salary to reflect this.

We're Irish. The more you earn, the more you loath tax. Frankly, no, I don't want the government taking another 1% of my hard earned money. I put in a huge amount of hours and effort to earn it, and in the process I generate plenty of wealth for the economy 1. Through the people I pay 2. Through the services and goods I buy in the business of business 3. Through the money I put into VAT and suchlike.

I've worked long and hard, and how you propose that I, and anyone rich (and I hope to earn way more in future), is to tax us more? And tax you more - you may not be earning it now, ut I thought the goal we've managed to instill in people is to strive for better, so nobody here would be fantastically incapable of earning hundreds of thousands in the future. You want to lose that incentive by saying "Well, I can earn so much and drive my business forward, but then the government will sucker both the money my company earns, earning me less (be I an employee or the owner); and then when I do manage to make an awful lot for myself, the government will be taking more and more."

If you're earning 1 million a year, but are modest and live off of 100k of that every year, would it be right for the government to tax you 90%? Where do we stop saying "Ahh sure, we'll add another percent or two on their income tax, then some more on their corporation tax, then maybe up the VAT, come on the this tax and the that tax." That's what parties like SF want to do. I remember the 1980's. I don't want to be lucky to have a job and still be that poor again.

Voipjunkie

FlutterinBantam wrote:

I feel a SF presence would bring this country back to bad days of the 80's where the hardworking 20% supported the indolent80% .

Pure nonsense you are claiming that 80% of the population were lazy what happened to all these lazy people.
You obviously were either not here or too young to remember the 80s as you have no idea what you are talking about.

FTA69

El Stuntman wrote:

Caoimhin O'Caoilin (why can't they use the names they were born with btw? it's like Malcolm X)

I know, its very "Irish" isn't it? :rolleyes: