who will you vote for in the next elections ?,

dlofnep

Richard Bruton.

ei.sdraob

dlofnep wrote: »

Any thoughts of your own, or are you just going to plagiarise other people's work?

i was about to post a lengthy reply
but its xmas and i had a bit of mould wine and thankfully all me servers are running smoothly
so ill just summarize

SF are right there on my NO Vote List, along side with FF and Greens,
i just cant vote for this party

they might be great in some local locations BUT the next election is a national one not local election, and unfortunately SFs national policies are just downright whacky, thats without mentioning their EU policies, which me and many voters do care about

enough said have a good one

dlofnep

Once again, you are entitled to your own opinion. Enjoy your wine

nesf

FG, though my choices in my Constituency are FF, FG, Lab, SF and a Socialist Party member.

Slim pickings for someone on the economic right like myself.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

FG, though my choices in my Constituency are FF, FG, Lab, SF and a Socialist Party member.

Slim pickings for someone on the economic right like myself.

It's more than enough for you!

banquo

Culture (gay marriage), modern (removal of religion from constitution), social (infinitely more intelligent social welfare system) and economic reasons all point to the labour party for me.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's more than enough for you!

My kingdom for a new version of the PDs!

digme

im voting for any party other than ff fg greens etc they're all the same.

zootroid

Will definitely be voting FG. In spite of what people say, they do actually come out with some decent economic policies, eg they outlined their proposals to cut public sector pay which I felt was fairer.

Would love to see FF decimated for what they have done to the country.

Would never vote Sinn Fein.

SkepticOne

I would probably vote for George Lee (FG) in my constituency.

Liam Byrne

dlofnep wrote: »

Sinn Féin.....routinely stick up for the most vulnerable in society.

:rolleyes:

On the main topic, it's a very hard one to call, which is a shocking indictment of the standards of politics in this country......a morally bankrupt and self-serving party runs the country into the ground, and there is no single party standing up to be an obvious alternative.

Greens : more taxes disguised as carbon tax and sellouts on key issues for those who voted for them last time

Labour : a stance on O'Donoghue, but a protectionist nature when it comes to unions

FG : sadly lacking on the O'Donoghue issue

So it'll probably be an independent of some sorts, but it's hard to say what level of influence they can have in a meaningful way, without dragging the country into even more parish-pump bull****.

PeakOutput

dlofnep wrote: »

No, they will not increase corporate tax in the south. This issue has already been closed. It will remain at 12.5% in the south. This has been clarified by Gerry Adams. However, 12.5% corporate tax is extremely low when compared to other nations.

look at the countries its cmparing us to we have very little to no competitive advantage with those countries other than our tax rate

banquo wrote: »

Culture (gay marriage), modern (removal of religion from constitution), social (infinitely more intelligent social welfare system) and economic reasons all point to the labour party for me.

im dieing to hear the possible economic advantages of a labour goverment

edit; for me it would be fg if they promised no labour coalition which wont happen, it might have to be an independant unfortunately

dlofnep

Liam Byrne wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I'd expect no less from you Liam. A million pictures, that highlight work done for civil rights, political equality, homelessness, drug-awareness campaigns, suicide prevention campaigns - and that's all you could find.

Yeah, very balanced of you.

Your original statement still stands. They stick up for the most vulnerable in society, and have routinely done so for decades. Your cheap, condescending and predictable comments won't change that, and your response doesn't in anyway address what I said.

dlofnep

PeakOutput wrote: »

look at the countries its cmparing us to we have very little to no competitive advantage with those countries other than our tax rate

You're selling our work-force short. We have a highly educated work-force. We have alot more to offer than Poland. Dell went to Poland, not because their corporate tax rates were lower (they were 6.5% higher) - but because it was cheaper to employ staff. The cost of living here is the problem which requires higher pay for staff, not the corporate tax rates persay.

Ireland is enticing with it's corporate tax rates, but even at 17.5% - we would still be one of the lowest in the world. However, it's not currently viable to have such a rate because the cost of employing a work-force is high.

AckwelFoley

woodseb wrote: »

I think i'll vote like most people in the country does....

forget about national issues and elect the guy who will fix the potholes outside my house

That is the most honest and actually realistic answer in this thread.

Ive supported this government, i dont blame them for the global economic crisis.. have they made mistakes? Certainly.

Are FG, and Labour perfect? Of course.. :rolleyes:

I would vote for FG is they get rid of enda kenny, and on top of that came up with actual viable solutions, rather than acting like a snotty nosed child on a wall downing everything everyone else suggests because they have no ideas of their own.

Will i vote for FF next time around? Probably. Fine Gael are genuinely just not trying to convince me - Labour have convinced me - convinced me they will wreck free enterprise in this state and if you think taxes are tough now, give Eamon Gilmore a overal majority for a term of government, and come back and read this post in 7 years time.

The oppisition are fantastic at soundbytes, not so impressive at deaing with reality

RiverWilde

I'll be voting FG and Labour ... I wouldn't give FF or the Greens or any other idiots a vote.

I'll never vote for Sinn Fein

Riv

amacachi

Haven't the slightest idea what way I'll be voting. I've voted in everything since I turned 18 and want to continue but I really am stumped. Can't vote FG because that will involve a coalition with Labour and/or possibly even the Greens. Not voting FF and not voting SF. Don't want to vote for an Independent because it's pretty rare lately that one goes into the Dáil and doesn't sellout to the main party. Bleh, bloody politicians.

Hank_Jones

I'll vote FG.

They aren't going to be perfect but at least they have some proper economists within their party.

If Richard Burton was leader of the party I'd probably even go out and campaign for them.

He is deputy leader, so here's holding out hope...

Flamed Diving

AARRRGH wrote: »

I can't vote for FG for two reasons:

1. Any party that would maintain Enda Kenny as leader are obviously a bunch of morons.

2. I had a job interview with them a few years ago and I found them to be a very rude and close minded bunch of people.

I normally vote for the Greens but they'll never be getting my vote again.

If I vote for labour they will probably go into coalition with FG.

So it'll have to be an independent or one of the fringe parties.

Fianna Fail are licking their lips...

Flamed Diving

dlofnep wrote: »

Moreover - our low corporate tax rates here have created a very unstable infrastructure. Yes - it entices companies to come to Ireland, but it also makes Ireland dependant on these foreign investments - instead of focusing on local investments. This was very evident when Dell decided to pull out of Ireland, resulting in 2000 job losses and a 5% NGDP deficit.

Our low corporate tax rates are great for short-term to medium term-investment - but the result of it is, our infrastructure is completely screwed and dependant on foreign investment. Consequently, anytime there is economic hardship - it's going to really impact Ireland because these businesses will either downsize, or completely move.

Sinnernomics, people. At it's very best. The last time that nationalists decided that we needn't rely on outside investment and that we should aim to be a self-sufficient economy based on local investment, we entered into a forty-year economic black hole. People who try to talk economics without ever opening economics textbooks must be the scariest people in politics. A term commonly taught to intermediate economics students is Small Open Economy. The consequences of this inescapable truth are twofold. We can choose to close up, and shelter ourselves from the seas of international markets, and try to maintain ourselves using national savings and resources (see Ireland 1922-1960), or we can open ourselves to the international markets and enjoy the benefits, and be aware of the risks involved. The further globalisation (dissolution of time/space) evolves, the more difficult it becomes for any country to implement option one, lest they go down the road of North Korea, Myanmar.

So people need to face reality. Yes, it is important to focus on Irish-owned business and to help it compete globally. But it is also important not to be bird-brained enough to believe that these SMEs will be sufficient to generate enough employment for our population. We need foreign direct investment, and the best thing we can do to direct it our way is to set competitive tax rates. Yes, this exposes us to global markets, but only an ostrich could fail to admit that whether we set rates high or low, these forces are going to affect us, all the same. So why not take advantage of them while they are rising? You seem to be very forgetful of all the money these companies brought to this country [minus repatriated funds], and the workers who enjoyed this employment that simply would not have existed without FDI. (If you want to get into a debate of what to do when things are falling, start a thread in the Economics forum).

So, now that reality has been laid bare on the table, what are the consequences of tax rate changes? Well, according to the academic literature (available, on request), a change of one-percent in the corporate tax rates leads to a 2-5% (depends on paper) change in US FDI. So, picking the median value (3%) we can calculate the average expected value of a rise in our corporate tax rate if Sinn Fein went ahead with the alleged plan of 12.5-->17.5%.

A five percentage point increase means a fifteen percentage point decrease in US FDI.

In 2005, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. FDI in Ireland was $11,979m.

A five percent increase on the then rate of 12.5% (17.5%) would have meant an FDI decrease of $1797m.

US FDI is estimated to now stand at $10182m. How many jobs lost?

So, as long as the tax intake is greater than or equal to $1797m, there is no tax loss, and possibly more.

$10182m @ 17.5% = $1782m tax intake.

So, the government has raised the corporate tax rate, yet made $15m less tax intake, and lost the nation $1797m in FDI and how ever many jobs.


Here is an example of one such paper.

ftp://snde.rutgers.edu/Rutgers/wp/1998-06.pdf

There are countless others which all converge onto an interval of between [2,5].



Note: US FDI = Manufacturing Sector, the services sector is up to three times more sensitive to tax rate changes.

dlofnep

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Sinnernomics, people. At it's very best. The last time that nationalists decided that we needn't rely on outside investment and that we should aim to be a self-sufficient economy based on local investment, we entered into a forty-year economic black hole. People who try to talk economics without ever opening economics textbooks must be the scariest people in politics. A term commonly taught to intermediate economics students is Small Open Economy. The consequences of this inescapable truth are twofold. We can choose to close up, and shelter ourselves from the seas of international markets, and try to maintain ourselves using national savings and resources (see Ireland 1922-1960), or we can open ourselves to the international markets and enjoy the benefits, and be aware of the risks involved. The further globalisation (dissolution of time/space) evolves, the more difficult it becomes for any country to implement option one, lest they go down the road of North Korea, Myanmar.

Firstly, I never suggested to discard external investment. I suggested that there needs to be a fine balance between external investment and local business. I acknowledge the benefits that come with external investment, but I also acknowledge the reality of what happens when a country's entire infrastructure is reliant on external investment.

You can keep your high-horsery to someone who's willing to let you talk down to them. I'm not one of those people. Moreover, I'd appreciate it if you didn't take my posts out of context and read what I actually stated. Thank you.

Secondly, the current stance is to keep the current tax rate as it is at 12.5%, and to reduce tax rates by 4.5% in the north for small business owners. I accept the reality of it being currently infeasible to have a 17.5% corporate tax rate, due to the high cost of wages.

Flamed Diving

dlofnep wrote: »

Firstly, I never suggested to discard external investment. I suggested that there needs to be a fine balance between external investment and local business. I acknowledge the benefits that come with external investment, but I also acknowledge the reality of what happens when a country's entire infrastructure is reliant on external investment.

You can keep your high-horsery to someone who's willing to let you talk down to them. I'm not one of those people. Moreover, I'd appreciate it if you didn't take my posts out of context and read what I actually stated. Thank you.

And with that, my entire post is ignored.

*sigh*

dlofnep

Flamed Diving wrote: »

And with that, my entire post is ignored.

*sigh*

Your post wasn't ignored. What exactly would you like me to address?

Perhaps you can explain this, and how it is relevant to what I posted.

The last time that nationalists decided that we needn't rely on outside investment and that we should aim to be a self-sufficient economy based on local investment, we entered into a forty-year economic black hole.

Flamed Diving

dlofnep wrote: »

Your post wasn't ignored. What exactly would you like me to address?

Perhaps you can explain this, and how it is relevant to what I posted.

People on this forum have given me grief for not being patient enough or assuming too much knowledge of economics, so the preamble was my effort to explain to people the difference between both policies and the historical effect, if they wished to go investigate. The relevance to you post was your insistence that we needn't rely on FDI - which magically changed to entirely rely on FDI, in you last post. I can't keep up with the shifting goalposts.

dlofnep

Flamed Diving wrote: »

People on this forum have given me grief for not being patient enough or assuming too much knowledge of economics, so the preamble was my effort to explain to people the difference between both policies and the historical effect, if they wished to go investigate. The relevance to you post was your insistence that we needn't rely on FDI - which magically changed to entirely rely on FDI, in you last post. I can't keep up with the shifting goalposts.

Sorry, you've obviously not read my posts. I categorically stated:

Low corporate tax creates an infrastructure that is dependant on external courses. At any point, these said sources can go - like what happened with Dell which resulted in a 5% NGDP deficit. It's not to say that these companies are not important to our economy - it's to state the obvious, that our entire state is dependant on foreign investment that can pull out of here at any moment and leave us clean and dry.

I quite categorically stated that foreign investment was important to the economy, but that I felt that over-reliance on it created an unstable infrastructure. You've made it appear as if I've stated that I felt that foreign investment wasn't important, which is false - and thus, your point was not relevant to what I had stated.

Flamed Diving

dlofnep wrote: »

I quite categorically stated that foreign investment was important to the economy, but that I felt that over-reliance on it created an unstable infrastructure. You've made it appear as if I've stated that I felt that foreign investment wasn't important, which is false - and thus, your point was not relevant to what I had stated.

Once again, I must remind you the difference between 'overly-rely on' and 'entirely-rely on'. Both of these terms have appeared under your name, it appears you have finally settled on the former. Given that you have done this, you now either should read my post again, or stop hounding me with this silliness. What I posted should be sufficiently informative on why Ireland must rely on FDI, no matter how much magic Sinn Fein money we sprinkle on SMEs.

dlofnep

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Once again, I must remind you the difference between 'overly-rely on' and 'entirely-rely on'. Both of these terms have appeared under your name, it appears you have finally settled on the former. Given that you have done this, you now either should read my post again, or stop hounding me with this silliness. What I posted should be sufficiently informative on why Ireland must rely on FDI, no matter how much magic Sinn Fein money we sprinkle on SMEs.

I'm not hounding you, I'm responding to your accusations. In summary, before there is any further confusion - I have already stated that foreign investment is important, but that it has it's consequences in terms of stability of our infrastructure. A balanced mix between foreign and local investment is needed, and is currently not the case. You have already accepted the importance of building our own business framework. I have not undermined the important of foreign investment. I have stated the consequences of being fully dependant on it.

I don't fancy spending Christmas day going around in circles on this issue. Unless there is something specific you would like me to express my views on, then I'm not going to repeat my thoughts on the issue.

PeakOutput

dlofnep wrote: »

You're selling our work-force short. We have a highly educated work-force. We have alot more to offer than Poland. Dell went to Poland, not because their corporate tax rates were lower (they were 6.5% higher) - but because it was cheaper to employ staff. The cost of living here is the problem which requires higher pay for staff, not the corporate tax rates persay.

Ireland is enticing with it's corporate tax rates, but even at 17.5% - we would still be one of the lowest in the world. However, it's not currently viable to have such a rate because the cost of employing a work-force is high.

poland isnt on the list im refering to and also dell has just sold that very same factory in poland so it wasnt just ireland that was uncompetitive in that regard

the cost of employing a work force is high because our standard of living is high are you proposing its preferable to have a higher tax rate rather than a higher standard of living? well actually thats not that suprising from so far a left ideal

you would also have to concede that reducing the cost of the work force for companies over here would recquire the lowering of the minimum wage and also the general screwing of the 50% of workers who are not currently taxed. our highly skilled work force is not expensive its the low skilled workforce(ie the dell factory line workers) that are expensive. so to make us more competitive in those areas would mean reducing those peoples pay. they are, unfortunately for sinn fein the very same people that make up their eloctoral base

so increase taxes and lose companies or increase taxes and decrease the cost of workers to those companies to keep them, which is it?

zootroid

Hank_Jones wrote: »

I'll vote FG.

They aren't going to be perfect but at least they have some proper economists within their party.

If Richard Burton was leader of the party I'd probably even go out and campaign for them.

He is deputy leader, so here's holding out hope...

Exactly. Richard Bruton Taoiseach and George Lee minister for finance.

Flamed Diving

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not hounding you, I'm responding to your accusations. In summary, before there is any further confusion - I have already stated that foreign investment is important, but that it has it's consequences in terms of stability of our infrastructure. A balanced mix between foreign and local investment is needed, and is currently not the case. You have already accepted the importance of building our own business framework. I have not undermined the important of foreign investment. I have stated the consequences of being fully dependant on it.

I don't fancy spending Christmas day going around in circles on this issue. Unless there is something specific you would like me to express my views on, then I'm not going to repeat my thoughts on the issue.

I don't think there is anything more I can add. I hope you learned something from the later analysis you ignored.