Why would you give Labor your vote ?

Liam Byrne

Drumpot wrote: »

I have friends and family who say "will never vote FF" which I find irrational and just knee jerk counter productive anger . . FF are not the problem, its certain members of the party

...which all members of the party then vote confidence in.

There's nothing "knee jerk" about my opinion of FF, which is complete agreement with your friends and family, because FF have done this time and time again, ever since I can remember with Haughey and maybe beforehand.

Asking "why would you give Labour your vote", while casually dismissing genuine concerns of those who object to FF because of their actions as "irrational and knee-jerk", does seem a little suspect, to say the least.

Eliot Rosewater

I don't know if any of ye saw Aprés Match last night featuring "Vincent Brown", "Joan Burton" and "Brian Lenihen". From about 1 minute on they take a good dig at the Labour party's ambiguity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lvkvyA8ZEI

invinciblePRSTV

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

You are making ridiculous assumptions based on the fact that he has a mate in the FF press office.

Seeing as the poster subsequently admitted he was a FF voter my initial suspicion was proved correct.

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

FFS have you never had a mate who was involved with a political party other than the one you support?? Actually probably not since i doubt you have too many mates if you spout such sh1t.

Run along lad the growns ups are talking politics, no place for keyboard warriors here.

Coillte_Bhoy

scr123 wrote: »

I would vote Labour if they gave me a hint as to how they are going to cure a few problems like:

Unemployment

Budget deficit

National debt

Banks crisis

Crime

Health service funding

Education funding

Social welfare funding

Poverty problem

Future pension problem

Stop recessions

Continuous economic growth

Reserves of 100b to meet unexpected problems in the future

Have a few more things on my mind but if they as I said HINT at how they are going achieve the above they will have a 1/2/3 for their candidates in the coming GE

Looking forward to the experts enlightening me on the genius of Labour

I presume you are happy how FF and FG propose to deal with these same issues?

meditraitor

scr123 wrote: »

I would vote Labour if they gave me a hint as to how they are going to cure a few problems like:
Unemployment

Budget deficit

National debt

Banks crisis

Crime

Health service funding

Education funding

Social welfare funding

Poverty problem

Future pension problem

Stop recessions

Continuous economic growth

Reserves of 100b to meet unexpected problems in the future

Have a few more things on my mind but if they as I said HINT at how they are going achieve the above they will have a 1/2/3 for their candidates in the coming GE

Looking forward to the experts enlightening me on the genius of Labour

It doesn't look like you will be voting for anyone any time soon my friend.

This question can be asked of all the parties, and as with labour the answers will fall way short when scrutinised.

dicknorris

Labour - The No Policy Party or if they have they don't want to tell us

Deep Easterly

I vote for Labour, although the traditional family swing has always been divided between FF & FG, or should I say, twiddle dee, twiddle doo.

thebigcheese22

dicknorris wrote: »

Labour - The No Policy Party or if they have they don't want to tell us

Yes, because it's not like they have a website where they cogently outline their policy. FFS - very secret alright :rolleyes: http://www.labour.ie/policy/

The level of debate on this forum really makes me despair sometimes tbh.

invinciblePRSTV

Drumpot wrote: »

Right back at you buddy . . The concept of "open debate" obviously escapes you . . Not only that, if somebody questions the policies of a party that needs to be objectively analysed, you question their motives as if it makes their questions any less important?. Is that not an ignorant assumption ?

You simultaneously maintain that Labour policies will 'collapse' our economy whilst wanting to know what they are. Either you are aware of them and can make such an assumption or you're not and you are talking nonsense, which one is it?
.

Drumpot wrote: »

You have offered nothing that promotes Labour in this discussion (its taken you 10 or so posts just to refer us to their website!) . .

As said i do not represent the LP, however as mentioned i know how to work a browser and can skillfully navigate the Labour & Oirerachtas website, the answers you claim you want to know are all on there but you seem reluctant to want to go looking for them?

Drumpot wrote: »

If anything, you have done a disservice to them by looking like you are just avoiding proper debate in favour of mud slinging and making broad assumptions based on poorly put together opinions. .

The only mud i have slung was when it was thrown at me, i try and maintain politeness to my postings, something other folk like coillte bhoy have difficulty understanding.

Drumpot wrote: »

This is not the Dail so we dont have to be PC, we can ask tough questions . Given the support for labour, I would of thought there would be some of them on boards.ie who could rebuff the claims made against them . .

I don't know, is there Labour people on boards who can simultaneously rebuff your claims that LP policies will 'collapse' the economy and send the country into 'anarchy' as well as provide info on LP policies you say you know nothing about but want to find out about?

Drumpot wrote: »

What I dont understand is why would a "non troll" want to get involved in a topic they dont actually want to discuss, which is exactly what you have consistently done . . Riddle me that . .

What i don't understand is why someone, who has a record of disrespecting Labour without seeminlgy have any info on them to hand, and who has made dire claims of 'anarchy' if the LP were in charge, can then turn around and say with a straight face that i'm a troll. It doesn't add up.

Pride Fighter

There are many reasons to vote for Labour. I'll say what I think they are.

1) Labour are not Fianna Fail or Fine Gael or the PD's, as a result people realise that if centre-left, strong regulation economic policy was introduced earlier we'd not be in the mess we are in now.

2) Fianna Fail are incompetent and Labour are not.

3) Labour's leader is the only viable Taoiseach.

4) Labour's policies would have dealt with the banking crisis at less expense to the tax payer. If the banks were nationalised in late 08 early 09 it could have been done for less than 2 billion. Also opposing the guarantee would have meant that moribund bank Anglo-Irish would have hit the wall, which we all want to see.

5) Labour have good policies, 9 policy documents have been written in the last 6 months http://www.labour.ie/policy/

6) Labour are a strong united party. As a result only Labour can offer stable government needed to solve our current mess. If any other party is the largest in the state after the next election, there will be knives stuck in the backs of the various other parties. Not with Labour. Only a Labour led government can last 5 years. Unstable government will see credit downgradings, making borrowings more expensive.

7) Brian Cowen and the architects of the mess are not in our party.

8) Fianna Fail created this mess.

and many more.....

meditraitor

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

You simultaneously maintain that Labour policies will 'collapse' our economy whilst wanting to know what they are. Either you are aware of them and can make such an assumption or you're not and you are talking nonsense, which one is it?
.

I cant wait till he answers this one............

cleremy jarkson

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Are you seriously calling for torture of a politician? Reported, just due to sheer nastiness.

Okay, I take back what I said about the torture rack. My main points is that I'd love to make him say out loud what he knows but isn't telling the electorate ie. that he has no plans on how to fix the economy. If he did, and he was confident that they were economically viable, then he would be explaining them to us as he stands in the dail, instead of just giving out the whole time to Brian Cowen and the other fianna fcuk-ups for their previous mismanagement of the economy. He'd also know something magic that we don't know, seeing as there are no resources available to stimulate job creation.

To be honest, I'm afraid of Labour getting into power.

I also don't have much regard for fine gael as I don't think they explain their policies either. And when they bang on about a jobs fund I'm left wondering "isn't that just creating unsustainable employment for 100,000 people that also diverts funds for use on other things".

Don't like fianna fail either but I'd probably vote for them if there was an election tomorrow seeing as they know that cutting and taxing is the only option for Ireland (this being as a result of their stupid pro-cyclical policies during the boom, of course)

meditraitor

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

To be honest, I'm afraid of Labour getting into power.

Fear of what may I ask?

cleremy jarkson

meditraitor wrote: »

Fear of what may I ask?

Fear of them causing and presiding over a long period of stagnant economic growth and a double digit unemployment rate as a result of their reluctance to trim state spending.

thebigcheese22

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

Okay, I take back what I said about the torture rack. My main points is that I'd love to make him say out loud what he knows but isn't telling the electorate ie. that he has no plans on how to fix the economy. If he did, and he was confident that they were economically viable, then he would be explaining them to us as he stands in the dail, instead of just giving out the whole time to Brian Cowen and the other fianna fcuk-ups for their previous mismanagement of the economy. He'd also know something magic that we don't know, seeing as there are no resources available to stimulate job creation.

To be honest, I'm afraid of Labour getting into power.

Then your fear is misplaced. What happened with the only Labour Minister for Finance? Disaster? IMF came in? No...the economy was in the best shape it ever was, and he was definitely one of the most competent MoF's in Irish history. As well as that, we brought in many progressive legislation in tandem with economic growth - divorce, FoI legislation, decriminilising homosexuality, as well as creating the CAB etc. As well as being competent, what distinuishes us from FF and FG is that we're not corrupt.

Labour are not the ones that destroyed this economy and has forced the next couple of generations to pay off the debts of a reckless government. Labour have many policies which can be found at their website that I linked. This myth that Labour have no policy is being spread in the media by FF and FG types, mainly because they now see Labour as a credible threat.

cleremy jarkson

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Then your fear is misplaced. What happened with the only Labour Minister for Finance? Disaster? IMF came in? No...the economy was in the best shape it ever was, and he was definitely one of the most competent MoF's in Irish history. As well as that, we brought in many progressive legislation in tandem with economic growth - divorce, FoI legislation, decriminilising homosexuality, as well as creating the CAB etc. As well as being competent, what distinuishes us from FF and FG is that we're not corrupt.

Labour are not the ones that destroyed this economy and has forced the next couple of generations to pay off the debts of a reckless government. Labour have many policies which can be found at their website that I linked. This myth that Labour have no policy is being spread in the media by FF and FG types, mainly because they now see Labour as a credible threat.

Of course, all these are true andwell worth praising. And you're right, Fianna Fail did ruin this country for, well, the forseeable future anyway. BUT, I don't remember Labour or Fine Gael trying to convince Fianna Fail to cut back on spending so much back in the heady days of the boom?

Also, when Ruairi Quinn was minister for finance from the end of 1994 (thanks wikipedia!), the country was starting to get its act together as a result of Fianna fails shoestring budgets of the late 80's and early 90's, which were necessary to rectify the non-action of the previous Labour/ Fine Gael government. Ruairi Quinn, in fairness to him though, didn't go and splurge like McCreevy; he kept the right mentality of fiscal rectitude and the country prospered. Still though, I just dont believe Joan Burton would be willing to make cuts and advocate fiscal austerity.

thebigcheese22

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

Of course, all these are true andwell worth praising. And you're right, Fianna Fail did ruin this country for, well, the forseeable future anyway. BUT, I don't remember Labour or Fine Gael trying to convince Fianna Fail to cut back on spending so much back in the heady days of the boom?

Also, when Ruairi Quinn was minister for finance from the end of 1994 (thanks wikipedia!), the country was starting to get its act together as a result of Fianna fails shoestring budgets of the late 80's and early 90's, which were necessary to rectify the non-action of the previous Labour/ Fine Gael government. Ruairi Quinn, in fairness to him though, didn't go and splurge like McCreevy; he kept the right mentality of fiscal rectitude and the country prospered. Still though, I just dont believe Joan Burton would be willing to make cuts and advocate fiscal austerity.

In fairness, the only reason that FF implemented shoestrings budgets is because they spent too much and there was almost universal acceptance of the need for cuts, with the Tallaght strategy. As Ruairi Quinn said yesterday, its the second time in his political career in which FF have bunkrupted the country - twice. While Labour have never done that.

Ok, let's say FF's cutbacks work miraculously, and their banking strategy pays for itself over time. Given their track record, what are the odds that they will bankrupt the country once again when we're in the Green? I'd say very high. It's a self fulfilling prophecy and if FF are in power any time soon, then the Irish people deserve all they get tbh.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

killbillvol2

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't know if any of ye saw Aprés Match last night featuring "Vincent Brown", "Joan Burton" and "Brian Lenihen". From about 1 minute on they take a good dig at the Labour party's ambiguity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lvkvyA8ZEI

Interesting piece to highlight - given that later in the clip "Brian Lenihan" says his strategy for our debt is to hope that the man forgets how much he lent us!

Eliot Rosewater

What this or that Labour MoF did in this or that year is irrelevant. What FF have done is irrelevant. When I'm judging Labour I'm going to base it on what Labour is going to do now.

Of the Labour policies you linked to, only one deals with the economy in a broad way. And that's what people here are looking for: their broad approach to fixing the economy. It's no surprise that people are worried. We're dealing with a €27 billion deficit and yet Gilmore has promised not to cut social welfare and the party has passed a motion advocating restoring public sector pay. Whether or not this restoration occurs in 2014 is a non-issue because

1. It's promising not to cut public sector pay anymore than it has been cut, which, in our current economic context, is foolish.
2. It's based on the assumption that the pay rises during the boom were justified. Were pay rises greater than the cost of living increases justified? Was the 57% increase in 7 years justified?

Overall, the Labour party is gaining an undesirable reputation for being ambiguous. We had the frontbench Labour member telling us that a tax increase was a spending cut. Gilmore is pursuing a staunch "on the fence" tactic: by not taking a side and insulting the other, he hopes to clean up both sides' votes. He truely is all talk and no substance. He couldn't even muster an opinion on the Croke Park deal: yeah, a strong leader he'll make.

So we have this one economic pdf. Notice one of their key aims: "Capital Budget savings through lower tender prices". 17% is the target. Clearly this an acknowledgment that the cost of living and the cost of doing business in this country is declining. Yet we won't be getting any corresponding decrease in social welfare rates etc.

Labour's policy contains, unsurprisingly, an increase in income tax. Income tax directly erodes the profits of those doing business here. In our modern world, people aren't afraid to up sticks and leave. And if you raise tax, this is exactly what employers and high skilled workers will begin to do.

The Labour policy contains a restoration of the totally unnecessary and nonsecular "Christmas bonus". Social welfare is not for buying presents, in my opinion.

There's also a bit of fluff. General talk of "efficiently measures" and "supply chain management". When people go to the polls they want to know exactly what's going on. When they vote for a party they invest a lot faith in them. The ambiguity that has been defining Labour for the past while is, frankly, an insult to this faith.

Pride Fighter

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Quite simply cause Fine Gael are a joke political party. I dont like to say it, and even though I always wanted Gilmore as Taoiseach I realistically knew it would be Fine Gael's leader. However the current joke that is afflicting Fine Gael makes me think they are not fit for government cause if they were to get in their would be leadership heave after leadership heave. The government would not last long. Unstable government = no confidence in markets = credit downgradings making borrowings more expensive.

limklad

FF - NO - Worst performing Government in Irish history, Read the news papers and watch the TV for plenty of reasons.

FG - No Worst Perfomance Opposition in Irish History to oust FF the Worst performing Government in Irish history with hitting two suicidal buttons. 1/. Sideling of George Lee rather than use him in the background and Individualise plans rather than working on a common plan and using all available resources to to come up with a good plan to get us out of our economic mess 2/. Always Blowing the huge lead they got in the last elections/polls with their infighting hypocrisy talk about unity with egos that I would normally associate with FF. FF is far more unified than FG despite been the worst performance Government in Irish History for blowing the Boom money.

So next Election I will be voting Labour since they are the only ones with creditability at this stage despite what plan they come up with. They are also the most stable party in Irish politics. There plan can't be any worst than than the other two main parties.

cleremy jarkson

I'd just like to add that I would certainly vote Labour IF they outlined (before the next election) EXACTLY AND CONCRETELY AND WITHOUT BULLSHÍT WAFFLEY-SPEAK on paper, what they plan to do and IF what they propose doing will genuinely reduce the governments deficit and give the country a chance at achieving good economic growth. But as a poster above said, they're gaining a reputation for ambiguity and until they bloody quit that, I will have no time for them.

rightwingdub

I wouldn't touch Labour with a bargepole and the fact that Gilmore has been able to get away with his pain free bull**it solutions is infuriating, also the media will need to dig up the dirt about his workers party Past, for crying out loud the man is an ex communist converted to the milder ideology of socialism.

I actually can imagine when Labour are in government and they are faced with the choice of cutting social welfare having promised to restore the Xmas bonus, all the gullible eejits who voted for Labour will be fuming:D

invinciblePRSTV

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

What this or that Labour MoF did in this or that year is irrelevant. What FF have done is irrelevant. When I'm judging Labour I'm going to base it on what Labour is going to do now....

But why are you holding The Labour Party to such an exacting standard? no party is going to publish their full manifestos and policy documents for what they intend to do when in power until a GE is called. All FG have is their uncosted stimulus plan, FF are in damage prevention mode.

In a manifestos absence you'll have to read the runes to find out what a party is thinking, as i pointed out to the OP, you'll get this via party budget submissions, Oireachtas Ctte. submissions, party conference motions and published policy documents.

We're coming into the final part of this electoral cycle. Now it's become clear that the coalition Government will survive the course through to 2012, all parties have, or at least should have, begun their candidate selection programmes and over the course of the next year or so formulation of election manifesto's will begin.

All in all it smacks of rank hypocrisy for people like the OP to be demanding exactly what Labour have planned for when they get into power 2 years down the line when no party can legitimately predict the lie of the land this time in 2 years.

(plus the all important caveat that coalition Governments mean that party promises and manifesto pledges get thrown out the window in favour of whats agreed on in a Programme For Government)

jimmycrackcorm

Pride Fighter wrote: »

4) Labour's policies would have dealt with the banking crisis at less expense to the tax payer. If the banks were nationalised in late 08 early 09 it could have been done for less than 2 billion. Also opposing the guarantee would have meant that moribund bank Anglo-Irish would have hit the wall, which we all want to see.

Seriously - are you trying to tell us that the bank losses would not exist if they were nationalised - that the losses on developer lending would not exist otherwise?

Wouldn't Anglo also have been nationalized?

5) Labour have good policies, 9 policy documents have been written in the last 6 months http://www.labour.ie/policy/

Great - which one deals with the budget deficit between income and public sector + S/W spending?

limklad

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Labour's policy contains, unsurprisingly, an increase in income tax. Income tax directly erodes the profits of those doing business here. In our modern world, people aren't afraid to up sticks and leave. And if you raise tax, this is exactly what employers and high skilled workers will begin to do.

Income Tax is what the Government get from Employees from their Individual take home pay. Not the normal Business Taxes such as VAT and Corporation Tax, EU VAT, Employer's PRSI.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/business/running/how-is-company-taxed.html

Since you could not tell what Income Tax was, It shows up your post credibility as poor as FF's Judgement of state of our economy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

goldrun

It's quite simple really - there are 3 main parties and 2 of them have made it impossible to vote for them.
FF - may be making hard decisions now but we don't know if they are the right ones and they were, afterall, the ones who got us into this mess in the first place (I'd like to point out the the Irish public as a whole must take some blame cause we elected them).

FG - can't even sort their own party so how can they run a country. Seems to be made up of a lot of individuals more concerned with their own position than that of the country.

That leaves Labour - slightly left of centre; socialist policies fit with the mood of the country who are sick of the steal from the poor to give to the rich theme of the moment. Whether they can be effective in power is another thing.

If Labour want to maintain these gains they will need to become more definitive about their policies, otherwise people will do what they always do and vote for what they know. Knowledge is comfort.

sceptre

limklad wrote: »

Income Tax is what the Government get from Employees from their Individual take home pay. Not the normal Business Taxes such as VAT and Corporation Tax, EU VAT, Employer's PRSI.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/business/running/how-is-company-taxed.html

Since you could not tell what Income Tax was, It shows up your post credibility as poor as FF's Judgement of state of our economy.

Rather than personalising the discussion as you've done in your last sentence (with my moderator hat on, kindly refrain from doing that as it's not permitted and isn't particularly polite), it's apparent to me (and hence presumably to the blind monkeys) that what Eliot is referring to is that to provide an expected level of take-home pay (aka "net"), when deciding offered salaries (aka "gross") the particular employer effectively adds on an amount to compensate for the loss in income tax for the employee. Where income tax rises, many employees expect an increase in their gross pay to mitigate the loss in their net. Whether or not they have such an expectation, the cost still lies effectively with the employer (effective as opposed to a value-based calculation of the contribution of the individual employee to the overall worth of the company).

Obviously the direct cost to the employer is corporation tax, VAT where applicable and employer-PRSI. The indirect tax-related cost can be considered to be the amount paid by the employer to provide an attractive level of net pay, specifically being the difference between net and gross. It's still an associated cost in that it affects the level of cost to the employer, albeit an indirect one given that the tax is directly paid by the employee rather than the employer.

Call it "cost of employees to employers" 102. I rather hope that most members realised the original point before I made this post, mind you, whether or not they agree with its importance as a factor in job creation. This last part of course is one of the more significant divergences of opinion between those who want a low-tax economy and those who want a higher level of exchequer-funded services, implicitly requiring an, er, less low-tax economy.

Fuhrer

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah but despite the government falling to a nadir of unpopularity, Fine Gael are still pretty much on the same level as they were back then

Eliot Rosewater

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

But why are you holding The Labour Party to such an exacting standard?

Why wouldn't I? There's an excuse running across this whole thread that goes something like "Labour aren't bad because look at what this other party doing". It's a red herring. I could give extreme examples of this logic but I'll restrain myself.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

In a manifestos absence you'll have to read the runes to find out what a party is thinking, as i pointed out to the OP, you'll get this via party budget submissions, Oireachtas Ctte. submissions, party conference motions and published policy documents.

The reason the media exists, and the reason political shows exist, it to give people platforms. I shouldn't have to go trawling through the business of Dail Eireann to find out what the Labour party are going to do (nor do I have the time). The Labour party gets ample airtime: it should be using this to tell the people what it's going to do. Instead it offers nothing but vague and ambiguous rhetoric.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

All in all it smacks of rank hypocrisy for people like the OP to be demanding exactly what Labour have planned for when they get into power 2 years down the line when no party can legitimately predict the lie of the land this time in 2 years.

You must be using a different definition of "hypocrisy" to me. Hypocrisy is when you say two conflicting things. The OP hasn't, from what I've seen, condoned ambiguity in other parties. He is fully entitled to question Labour in this way.

killbillvol2 wrote: »

Interesting piece to highlight - given that later in the clip "Brian Lenihan" says his strategy for our debt is to hope that the man forgets how much he lent us!

It's good satire. The reason the clip of Joan Burton offering nothing but vague rhetoric is funny is because it's partly true. Ditto for Lenehin, in a more indirect way.

Pride Fighter

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Seriously - are you trying to tell us that the bank losses would not exist if they were nationalised - that the losses on developer lending would not exist otherwise?

Wouldn't Anglo also have been nationalized?

The entire banking sector would have been nationalised. The bad banks would have been wound down and the good ones would have remained open. There would only be about 3 good banks left. The toxic debts would have been isolated and dealt with separately allowing the good banks to lend again. This would have been cheaper than the current situation. The state has given BOI/AIB 7 billion in recapitalisation, 4 to Anglo-Irish and are due to lose 22 billion on Anglo Irish bank. Nationalisation between late 08-mid 09 was the cheaper option. Its a no go now as it would cost too much though.

Great - which one deals with the budget deficit between income and public sector + S/W spending?

There is no policy document on this. But there is a pre-budget submission outlining Labour's cuts in spending in the last budget. Labour would have cut 5.8 billion euro, more than FF. The would have set aside 1.15 billion on a job creation, job retraining stimulus that would have taken 60,000 people off the dole.

limklad

sceptre wrote: »

Rather than personalising the discussion as you've done in your last sentence (with my moderator hat on, kindly refrain from doing that as it's not permitted and isn't particularly polite),

I attack the credibility of the post not the poster. The poster got the very basics of Income Tax incorrect.

Eliot Rosewater

sceptre wrote: »

Call it "cost of employees to employers" 102. I rather hope that most members realised the original point before I made this post, whether or not they agree with its importance as a factor, mind you.

Indeed, it's not as big a factor as a rise in corporation tax, for instance. But I do think it matters. Additional to your explanation is that high skilled workers (and thus usually well paid workers) will be less included to stay, or go to, a country that taxes them a lot. And small business owners will have their profits (income) taxed with income tax too.

rightwingdub

If Labour implement their tax the rich polcies then a lot of wealthy people will leave Ireland meaning that Ireland's tax base will be depleted even further, that will mean that there is a greater likelihood that Ireland will go bust.

I've a couple of questions for floating Labour voters.

1) Do you think that taxing people over €100k will result in more tax revenue?
2) Will taxing the rich even more create more jobs or less jobs?
3) Who creates jobs rich people or poor people?

Labour are a typical party of socialist begrudgery.

Eliot Rosewater

limklad wrote: »

I attack the credibility of the post not the poster. The poster got the very basics of Income Tax incorrect.

No, I don't think I did. People who own businesses have to pay tax on their income, ie their profit.

Pride Fighter

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The last poll by a different polling company showed Labour in first place.

What is afflicting Fine Gael at the moment is a leadership challenge—something that affects all political parties from time to time. There's nothing to suggest that this will lead to "leadership heave after leadership heave."

Whoever wins will not win decisively. This will lead to a split party that will want to see either a Kennyite or Brutonite as leader. Look at British Labour, the current situation sees Blairite/Brownite. However British Labour are grown up enough to row in behind whoever wins. I dont see this in Fine Gael. As a result, I conclude that FG led government will be unstable.

If Richard Bruton wins, we will have a potential Taoiseach who is a former ERSI economist, with an MPhil from Oxford. He even wrote his thesis on Irish public debt, which seems appropriate. Why is he not a "viable" Taoiseach?

Richard Bruton is capable no doubt. But he is in charge of a right wing party. Right wing, neo-liberal economics caused this mess. They cannot get us out.

Government with no clear direction on unsustainable public service pay and welfare bills = credit downgradings, making borrowings more expensive.

You know me as a Labour supporter from my previous posts. I'll tell you that you are speaking nonsense. Labour will implement the cuts. We have the unions on our side and they are willing to cut so long as they are done fairly. We will cut them fairly. If you examine the last pre-budget submission you'll see we advocated more cuts than Fianna Fail. Labour in government is the best bet for a recovery. And a recovery that will have job creation at the heart of it. Unlike the other parties.

sceptre

limklad wrote: »

I attack the credibility of the post not the poster. The poster got the very basics of Income Tax incorrect.

I suggest re-reading my post above as carefully as you need to. I referred to it as "cost of employees to employers" 102 rather than "cost of employees to employers" 101 for good reason, it being beyond the very basics of income tax - learning income tax in a vacuum as many undergrad business are taught (as indeed they were when I was doing income/corpo/etc tax modules in my first undergrad a number of years ago) can lead all too often to the belief that they operate in a vacuum, which they don't. Associated costs are associated costs, regardless of whether they're direct or indirect. Incidentally, that's the tl;dr version of my post above but I still reckon it's worth a second look to follow the thought journey in as fun a way as possible. Up to yourself obviously, it stands as reality regardless.

Rather than be as guilty as anyone else of zapping off-topic, which I try to avoid (and in fairness, I rather should avoid), I'll leave this side-discussion, partly because I've said all I particularly need to say to make the point I'm making.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

limklad

sceptre wrote: »

it's apparent to me (and hence presumably to the blind monkeys) that what Eliot is referring to is that to provide an expected level of take-home pay (aka "net"), when deciding offered salaries (aka "gross") the particular employer effectively adds on an amount to compensate for the loss in income tax for the employee. Where income tax rises, many employees expect an increase in their gross pay to mitigate the loss in their net. Whether or not they have such an expectation, the cost still lies effectively with the employer (effective as opposed to a value-based calculation of the contribution of the individual employee to the overall worth of the company).

Obviously the direct cost to the employer is corporation tax, VAT where applicable and employer-PRSI. The indirect tax-related cost can be considered to be the amount paid by the employer to provide an attractive level of net pay, specifically being the difference between net and gross. It's still an associated cost in that it affects the level of cost to the employer, albeit an indirect one given that the tax is directly paid by the employee rather than the employer.

Call it "cost of employees to employers" 102. I rather hope that most members realised the original point before I made this post, mind you, whether or not they agree with its importance as a factor in job creation. This last part of course is one of the more significant divergences of opinion between those who want a low-tax economy and those who want a higher level of exchequer-funded services, implicitly requiring an, er, less low-tax economy.

Take home pay by employees is different from Business Tax. That is very basic.

This this economy climate everybody know it an employers market. If you don't like the pay you leave for another job and the employer hires someone else. Just as employees have to pay higher wages during the boom times to hire workers where there is a demand for workers or specialised workers.

So rise of Income Tax does not effect business unless specialist workers leave for other if any higher paying jobs. Higher paying Jobs are very difficult in this economic environment. It an employers Market in a difficult environment.

It is a cruel business either way.

rightwingdub

Pride Fighter wrote: »

You know me as a Labour supporter from my previous posts. I'll tell you that you are speaking nonsense. Labour will implement the cuts. We have the unions on our side and they are willing to cut so long as they are done fairly. We will cut them fairly. If you examine the last pre-budget submission you'll see we advocated more cuts than Fianna Fail. Labour in government is the best bet for a recovery. And a recovery that will have job creation at the heart of it. Unlike the other parties.

Thats the problem with Labour your links with the trade unions will turn off a lot of voters especially private sector workers, Labour are seen as the stooges of the public sector trade unions, the cuts haven't been deep enough for my liking, the government should have taken at least €8-10 billion in public spending in the last budget.

Pride Fighter

rightwingdub wrote: »

I've a couple of questions for floating Labour voters.

1) Do you think that taxing people over €100k will result in more tax revenue?

Of course it will.

2) Will taxing the rich even more create more jobs or less jobs?

It will do neither. Businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs.

3) Who creates jobs rich people or poor people?

As I said above, businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs. Increasing taxes on the civil servants earning over 100k is firm and proper. A hospital consultant on 300k creates no jobs, so he should pay more tax. But Labour will cut taxes for businesses and entrepreneurs. It's our tradition to do it. It was a Labour MoF that introduced the 12.5% corporation tax. None of the other parties advocated that. That one policy laid the foundation for massive economic growth and massive job creation. The last non-Fianna Fail finance minister was in Labour, the last non-Fianna Fail finance minister created 1,000 jobs a week. That is our tradition. I'm not saying we will create that many jobs again, but damn it we'll try.

rightwingdub

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Of course it will.


It will do neither. Businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs.


As I said above, businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs. Increasing taxes on the civil servants earning over 100k is firm and proper. A hospital consultant on 300k creates no jobs, so he should pay more tax. But Labour will cut taxes for businesses and entrepreneurs. It's our tradition to do it. It was a Labour MoF that introduced the 12.5% corporation tax. None of the other parties advocated that. That one policy laid the foundation for massive economic growth and massive job creation. The last non-Fianna Fail finance minister was in Labour, the last non-Fianna Fail finance minister created 1,000 jobs a week. That is our tradition. I'm not saying we will create that many jobs again, but damn it we'll try.

It will create less tax revenue, wealthy people are extremely flexible when it comes to relocation and can just up sticks at any moment, say for example 20,000 out of the top 80,000 tax payers in this country left how much tax revenue would you lose out on. At least a few billion, name me one country that sucessfully taxed its way out of a recession?

Businesses and entrepreneurs do create jobs but taxing the hell out of the wealthy will create less jobs as I have said already they will leave Ireland meaning that thousands of potentially new jobs will not be created.

Okay,you brought in the 12.5% corporation tax rate phased in over a number of years but I did hear Gilmore saying a couple of years ago that he wanted multinationals to recognise trade unions, you've seen that they've done a fine job in our wonderfully efficient public sector:rolleyes:

invinciblePRSTV

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Why wouldn't I? There's an excuse running across this whole thread that goes something like "Labour aren't bad because look at what this other party doing". It's a red herring. I could give extreme examples of this logic but I'll restrain myself.

No there is no such excuse, you've made that up to suit your own viewpoint i imagine. If people want to crucify the Labour Party for having no policies whilst professing to support other parties who have equally vague policies then go ahead but expect to be called on it.

FWIW i don't think any opposition party will be able to spell out exactly what they can do until they get access to the DoFs books, so even if FG & LAB came out tomorrow with policy documents the size of telephone books, in the grand scheme of things its irrelevant beyond setting up a website & throwing a press conference. Equally i don't think the Coalition parties will be able to spell out what they would do as they know the real grim numbers.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The reason the media exists, and the reason political shows exist, it to give people platforms. I shouldn't have to go trawling through the business of Dail Eireann to find out what the Labour party are going to do (nor do I have the time). The Labour party gets ample airtime: it should be using this to tell the people what it's going to do. Instead it offers nothing but vague and ambiguous rhetoric.

Perhaps you should stop looking towards the media for your information aboutl party policy? you'll only ever get vague & ambiguous rhetoric from politicians of all and no parties via the media. Besides if you have the time to post here then i'm certain you have the time to go searching for Oireachtas submissions.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You must be using a different definition of "hypocrisy" to me. Hypocrisy is when you say two conflicting things. The OP hasn't, from what I've seen, condoned ambiguity in other parties. He is fully entitled to question Labour in this way.

OP has alreay proved her/himself a hypocrite by maintaining two conflicting viewpoints at the same time, i suggest reading through the whole thread before commenting further.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

invinciblePRSTV

rightwingdub wrote: »

If Labour implement their tax the rich polcies then a lot of wealthy people will leave Ireland meaning that Ireland's tax base will be depleted even further, that will mean that there is a greater likelihood that Ireland will go bust.

I've a couple of questions for floating Labour voters.

1) Do you think that taxing people over €100k will result in more tax revenue?
2) Will taxing the rich even more create more jobs or less jobs?
3) Who creates jobs rich people or poor people?

Labour are a typical party of socialist begrudgery.

Leaving the reds under the bed fear mongering aside, would you be materially affected by any of the 3 scenario's you've outlined above?

Liam Byrne

rightwingdub wrote: »

Labour are a typical party of socialist begrudgery.

As distinct from "capitalist begrudgery", where those who gambled billions and lost came running to us crying and demanded money from us ?

P.S. Can someone please correct the thread title ? It's hurting my eyes.

Eliot Rosewater

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

No there is no such excuse, you've made that up to suit your own viewpoint i imagine.

I haven't, actually. From Pride Fighter's list of reasons (on this thread)as to why we should vote Labour:

Pride Fighter wrote: »

1) Labour are not Fianna Fail or Fine Gael or the PD's, as a result people realise that if centre-left, strong regulation economic policy was introduced earlier we'd not be in the mess we are in now.
2) Fianna Fail are incompetent and Labour are not.
[...]
7) Brian Cowen and the architects of the mess are not in our party.
8) Fianna Fail created this mess.

1 and 2 are half "vote Labour because this is what this other party is about", and 7 and 8 are fully so. Here it is said we should vote Labour not because of any merit they have, but rather because of the demerits in one other party. As per what I said originally.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

FWIW i don't think any opposition party will be able to spell out exactly what they can do until they get access to the DoFs books

People aren't looking for exact figures; I'm sure they'd be happy to be within quarter a billion or so. The deficit this year is reportedly €27 billion, so that is a starting point. People want to know the overall strategy for economic recovery, and in what direction this country will be taken. Labour have been hesitant is outlining this.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

so even if FG & LAB came out tomorrow with policy documents the size of telephone books, in the grand scheme of things its irrelevant beyond setting up a website & throwing a press conference.

That's a cop out, in my opinion. You don't think there's a burden on the opposition to offer an economically feasible alternative? They should just sit and moan about the government all day?

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

OP has alreay proved her/himself a hypocrite by maintaining two conflicting viewpoints at the same time, i suggest reading through the whole thread before commenting further.

I'm not sure what you're alluding too; Drumpot was explicit in stating that he is party-independent, and I haven't seen him condone any ambiguity on the part of other politicians. You may be referring to the fact they he talked to someone in the FF press room, but I fail to see the relevance of this. Instead of dealing with Drumpot's points you're trying to undermine him; that tactic might have had some success but for the unfortunate fact that he is far from the only one who is confused by Labour's ambiguity.

So perhaps you may want to change tact and actually address people's economic concerns.

Drumpot

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

But why are you holding The Labour Party to such an exacting standard? no party is going to publish their full manifestos and policy documents for what they intend to do when in power until a GE is called. All FG have is their uncosted stimulus plan, FF are in damage prevention mode.

In a manifestos absence you'll have to read the runes to find out what a party is thinking, as i pointed out to the OP, you'll get this via party budget submissions, Oireachtas Ctte. submissions, party conference motions and published policy documents.

We're coming into the final part of this electoral cycle. Now it's become clear that the coalition Government will survive the course through to 2012, all parties have, or at least should have, begun their candidate selection programmes and over the course of the next year or so formulation of election manifesto's will begin.

All in all it smacks of rank hypocrisy for people like the OP to be demanding exactly what Labour have planned for when they get into power 2 years down the line when no party can legitimately predict the lie of the land this time in 2 years.

(plus the all important caveat that coalition Governments mean that party promises and manifesto pledges get thrown out the window in favour of whats agreed on in a Programme For Government)

Ok, you have offered next to nothing in this debate . .

What Im getting from the pro labour camp is that they arent FF . . So if you have mickey joe mucker the farmer who knows fk all about anything other then farming or Mickey Joe the economist who is educated in the field of management, they will choose the mucker simply because they are not FF ? Extreme example to make a simple point thats missed on many people here . Or if we have an einstein with FF or a complete moron on the other parties, people just wont vote for the FF guy . .

There is nothing wrong with voting anybody with FF if you actually have a credible strategy to try to improve things . . I dont mind friends saying I wont be voting FF again, but when I ask them who will you vote for any why, I get concerned when they say once they arent FF I dont mind (which is the attitude of many). . I am simply asking what people feel labour will give to the economy/country with a few simple questions on how they will deal with the most important pending problems of government . .

I am not saying I will vote for FF or FG and not labour. I am saying I will not vote for a party that has no opinion on important topics and will not commit definitively to policys that are vital to our future . .

You keep talking about people crucifying the labour party but all we are doing is asking serious questions, which you have just constantly avoided . . You dont even know the answers to these questions. .

You actually failed to grasp my who points, in favour of just spoiling this thread, offering nothing but personal attacks on me and my motives . . You have picked out specific points I made (when fed up with your BS) and are using them to make a point that does NOTHING to answer my original questions . .

Now to other posters (who actually contribute to the labour party debate), I saw somebody say that Labour will make the cuts that are required in the public service . . How quickly will they do it (as cuts need to be made immediatly) and how much of these cuts do they plan to get through natural wastage (which will take time). .

What is their stance on the croke park agreement ?

Pride fighter, your 8 points here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66438207&postcount=61

highlight exactly what I am saying . .

Points 2, 7 and 8 are basically people should vote labour because FF are sh&t . . Ok so we understand they have been awful . . How does that mean labour are a credible alternative (if you are using that as 3 seperate reasons to vote labour?).

Point 1 . . So if we all voted Labour, we wouldnt of had this mess? . . So why were labour demanding more spending during the boom years with money being generated by capitalism ? Surely they should of been screaming about the terrible money being made and spent by a thriving capitalistic market, but instead they chose to demand more spending . . Where did they think we would make this money from ?

Point 4 . . Im not too sure your figures add up and my understanding is that most economists feel that nationalising the banks should always be a last resort and would not of saved us the money you suggest. Not only that, you dont say how we would of been dealt with internationally by letting Anglo go under and how it would effect depositers. Ah, such a brilliantly sounding concept, but so many variables that are ignored in the sweeping sentance in favour of populist comments ("screw the banks").

Point 5. . Just looked at the first of your 9 Principles . JOBS AND RECOVERY. . It says all the usual bumf (we want to focus on jobs and people, fairness etc etc etc) . . Ok, great, I like that . . Now how will you do it ?

Point 6 - A stable economy, but yet you guys are constantly pushing for an election ? Not only that, it looks like they would definitly have to go into a partnership with either FF or FG. Your point was that these parties are not stable, so how will voting in labour to go into coalition with unstable parties solve the instability problems and could that not mean an even more in-stable government ?Does this point not contradict itself ?


Labours 9 Principle document .

- Page 2 -
1. A coherent job strategy . . Ok, Im sure most partys will say this, how do you intend to do it ?
2. A home guarantee - Ok, great, where will the money for this come from? Bearing in mind that it will either be evil capitalist investors or international banks who will be loaning the money - But didnt you want to give the two fingers to investors ? So on one hand you can give them the fingers when it suits, but on the other you will look for funding off them for a socialist measure that will net the economy little?
3 A fair budget . . Does that mean you wont make hard choices ?
4. Public Pay . . Fair savings in Public service . . A bit open ended
5. Industrial peace . . Ah at what cost to the taxpayer ?

Page 3
Fairness mentioned alot and 4 billion in savings required.

Page 4 - 6 - Very general broad sweeping figures that dont really tell us exactly how the budget will be worked out, more that these figures should be ok .

Page 7 - Revenue enhancing measures. . Dont we already have a carbon levy ? And alot of money saved by hammering the higher paid people who , its assumed, will remain in Ireland after these measures take place ?

Page 8/9 . . Sounds great 1.3bil saved in public service. Where and how ? Will they go back on Croke park agreement ? Of course it wouldnt be in this document, but they still have not committed either way . . If they expect to make 1.3bil savings, does the croke park agreement hinder them ?

10 - 13. Alot of general figures which suggest savings of some sort . . Wont pretend to understand them completely . Im sure all parties have similar vague figures.

Page 14 - 15 1.15billion extra expenditure for jobs, christmas payment and fuel poverty measures . . Where will this money come from ?

Ok. This was a document called "Jobs and recover" and has nothing about how they will create jobs and help the recovery . . There are alot of socialist measures (that I dont necessarily disagree with), but I dont see where we can get 1.3billion to fund them, nor do I believe that the international markets or EU countries will loan us the funds to become a socialist state when there are still alot of financial problems to iron out and Labours stance is still unclear about ,. .

They say they will make the appropriate cuts in public service, but constantly throw the word fairness in there . . What is fair ? Fairness to a public servant voting no to the croke park agreement is that I should pay more to subsidize their lifestyle . . The definition of fairness is so vague its simply just there to appeal to people who will just assume fairness includes them . .

I will read through the other 8 principles when I get the chance but its actually not made things any clearer for me . .

Some people think I just want labour to fail . . These are the people who lack vision and are simply stuck in the old mindset of "this is how things are done in politics" therefore any sort of "outside the box" thinking is seen as heresy and you are automatically classed as "anti labour" because they are unable to comprehend people actually wanting to be able to believe in something, but they want to be convinced by practical measures as opposed to populist drivel that appears to please the masses . .

I want to believe in Labour because at heart I am a bit of a socialist . . I hate capitalism (anybody who knows me will tell you and just look through my threads and arguments on capitalism to see how right or centre right I am), but I understand we have to work with it to achieve prosperity.

In truth Gilemore is lucky that Cowans spirit has been beaten (when he thought he was getting a cushdy position until the sh*t hit the fan) and Enda Kenny is just not good on TV (as everybody else around swears blind hes a good bloke). . He is not a credible leader, he is arguably the best of a bad bunch, but why are people just accepting thats the way it is, so lets just run with it ?

There is no fight left in our country . . People are too conformist . . If something sounds out of the ordinary (like awknowledging good things FF do or asking serious questions of Labours "policies") , people are verbally burned at the stake like witches of old . .

We cannot afford a government that will not make clear, tough decisions in our current economic climate . . Labours document (that you told me to read) is very vague and sounds nice, but I dont know how they intend on funding their socialist measures (which me and my family will benefit from). . Its easy to speak of fairness, so why keep mentioning it when it can be interpreted in differant ways by differant people ?

The core issues facing are country are -

How will our government deal with the banking sector
How will our government deal with the public service
How will our government make the required savings
How will our government fund their policies

Labours principles are about tourism, education, universal health insurance, strategic investment bank, Childrens bill, raising the stakes, powers to enquirys. .

I like the idea of universal health insurance but this is not one of the most important things for this country. . Sorting out the HSE is more important.

I like the idea of their Strategic investment bank, but who will fund this ? Again, if you bring in socialist measures, the likes they are suggesting in their previous reports and your country is already on the cusp of collapse financially, why would any country/investor loan you the money? Again, I agree with alot of what they want to do, but just believe there is a complete lack of understanding/grasp shown in how badly our countries finances actually are.

I agree with alot of what they want, but just dont see any realism in how they expect to achieve it (go socialist but ask capitalism to fund it!) . .