Why I won't be voting Sinn Fein

Dan_Solo

Tipp Man wrote: »

Did you actually mean to write this garbage or is tiredness getting to you. You tell me 1 industry in the world this is continuously expected to produce under the costs of production??

Now how you can say that the costs if production are unrelated to A) the selling prices of items and b) the CAP is beyond me. They are obviously a major factor which you seem to want to conveniently ignore

Me thinks that you are not a businessman

WTH? Who said I expected them to continue? If they're losing money hand over fist then why do they deserve to continue? We have €7 billion in exports, and that's great, but that's with what, €2 billion from the EU and €3 billion from the Department Of Agriculture. Care to subtract those numbers and see exactly how well Irish farmers would do on a level playing field?
When the newer EU countries get a bigger share of the CAP we'll see how long our "valuable" farming sector lasts.
A businessman? Doesn't sound all that tough when €5 out of every €7 you get is handed to you for doing nothing...

Tipp Man

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Only intervention policy on a few things...

Snip
You know, just one or two things...

2 things

Firstly I meant the volume of produce that Ireland sent to intervention or the volume of produce in intervention for products ireland produces. not the list of items that could be covered

Secondly I'm just wondering where you copy pasted that list from

Thirdly are you aware that there is no longer grain and butter mountains? There are actually world shortages

Tipp Man

Dan_Solo wrote: »

WTH? Who said I expected them to continue? If they're losing money hand over fist then why do they deserve to continue? We have €7 billion in exports, and that's great, but that's with what, €2 billion from the EU and €3 billion from the Department Of Agriculture. Care to subtract those numbers and see exactly how well Irish farmers would do on a level playing field?
When the newer EU countries get a bigger share of the CAP we'll see how long our "valuable" farming sector lasts.
A businessman? Doesn't sound all that tough when €5 out of every €7 you get is handed to you for doing nothing...

Do we really have to go through this??

The 2 billion is included in the 3 billion so it's 3 billion total some of which is spent on the civil service, department of ag has to be ran, on research and development such as teagasc and a whole host if other things

Next

ihatetractors

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If you don't think the CAP is to keep food prices (= farmer income) artificially high, then would you mind telling us what it is actually for? This I can't wait to hear...

Lol, the Cap is directly a 'farmer income' support. One that doubles as a rural support, and job support. It injects money to the Agri food sector and other sectors eg, Pharmecutical, Pzifer based in Cork, produce many livestock Vaccinations and other chemicals for animal health.(An example is, if an animal was sick in New Zealand they wouldn't think twice of killing it on the spot. They do that with Jersey bull calves at birth :eek: ) Where as an Irish farmer would call the Vet, snother service being supported indirectly.
Then lets say machinery, Keenan machinery in Carlow are a world leading producer or feeder wagons, bringing their profits back to Ireland. They wouldnt have got going/ been able for RnD if they didnt have regular income from sales. So, move away from the small minded chip on the shoulder way of thinking, open your eyes and use your head for once.

ihatetractors

I hope mods/ admins etc clean up this thread, i'm sure OP didn't desire a 'Cap policy debate down the back'.

Tipp Man

Dan Solo

In the interest of this thread and as a bit of respect for the OP we should get back on topic, if you wish to discuss irelands agri sector anymore start a new thread, let me know where it is and I will gladly participate

Getting back to SF policy, I think the idea of a wealth tax is nuts. Let's say I own a building worth 2million which had previously been rented out but is now vacant due to recession.

At 1% wealth tax I would be expected to pay 20,000 a year. Now if the property is currently earning zero please tell me how I am supposed to actually pay this tax??

Please also tell me why I should have to pay any more tax on it,after all the money used to buy the building had previously been taxed as income tax, the rental income pre recession was taxed for income tax and when I sell it I will pay capital gains tax on it.

Just how much bloody tax do ye expect this person to pay??

Mike 1972

Nozebleed wrote: »

they are the only all ireland party.

No theyre not

There are several other parties organised on both sides of the border. The Greens for example.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

they have no candidate around here

So much for being an "all Ireland party".

Dan_Solo

Lot's of back seat modding attempts from the vested interest crew I see.
Anyway, you may have noticed that sympathy for property speculators who have €2 million properties has dried up somewhat lately. Also, multiple taxes is hardly anything unique to developers: everybody pays income tax and then VAT for example.
BTW, it's funny how a "wealth tax" is being billed as some sort of Trotskyist policy when Thatcher had virtually the same thing with her Poll Tax.

Tipp Man

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Lot's of back seat modding attempts from the vested interest crew I see.
Anyway, you may have noticed that sympathy for property speculators who have €2 million properties has dried up somewhat lately. Also, multiple taxes is hardly anything unique to developers: everybody pays income tax and then VAT for example.
BTW, it's funny how a "wealth tax" is being billed as some sort of Trotskyist policy when Thatcher had virtually the same thing with her Poll Tax.

Like I have already said if you want to discuss agri start a new thread

And who says self regulation doesn't work:D

Back on topic you have completly ignored my point

Firstly in my example owning the property worth 2m has absolutely nothing to do with being a developer. If you or SF are under some stupid illusion that this would only effect developers then you are very foolish.

Secondly you have made absolutely no reference to my question as to how my example is supposed to pay the tax with zero income, please tell me how you see this tax being paid when it generates no income??

Dan_Solo

Tipp Man wrote: »

Firstly in my example owning the property worth 2m has absolutely nothing to do with being a developer. If you or SF are under some stupid illusion that this would only effect developers then you are very foolish.

Haha, and if you or Fianna Fail are under the impression that the skint of Ireland cry themselves to sleep over those with €2 million in assets having no income then you are seriously deluded. I haven't checked, but most US states operate a property tax policy whereby principal residences are exempt. If you build a €2 million mansion fine, go live in it.

Tipp Man wrote: »

Secondly you have made absolutely no reference to my question as to how my example is supposed to pay the tax with zero income, please tell me how you see this tax being paid when it generates no income??

Like most taxes, it isn't really the government's business to work out a way for you to pay it. They're not your financial advisors. I think the general idea is though that if you have a lot of wealth and it's idle then you should get rid of it. The rich minority this would affect naturally hate this idea.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Haha, and if you or Fianna Fail are under the impression that the skint of Ireland cry themselves to sleep over those with €2 million in assets having no income then you are seriously deluded. I haven't checked, but most US states operate a property tax policy whereby principal residences are exempt. If you build a €2 million mansion fine, go live in it.

Like most taxes, it isn't really the government's business to work out a way for you to pay it. They're not your financial advisors. I think the general idea is though that if you have a lot of wealth and it's idle then you should get rid of it. The rich minority this would affect naturally hate this idea.

I think this part of the argument is moot(If we are still on agriculture policy) as even Sinn Féins wealth tax proposals do not extend to family farms.


(I'm tempted to say thats because they've relied on them for years to stash the weapons )

Tipp Man

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Haha, and if you or Fianna Fail are under the impression that the skint of Ireland cry themselves to sleep over those with €2 million in assets having no income then you are seriously deluded. I haven't checked, but most US states operate a property tax policy whereby principal residences are exempt. If you build a €2 million mansion fine, go live in it.

Like most taxes, it isn't really the government's business to work out a way for you to pay it. They're not your financial advisors. I think the general idea is though that if you have a lot of wealth and it's idle then you should get rid of it. The rich minority this would affect naturally hate this idea.

Sorry but this is pure nonsense especially in bold and clearly hasn't been thought through for more than a millisecond. Your idea of idle wealth is ridiculous. Owning something doesn't necessarily make you rich or give you any income. Of course your idea to get rid of this idle wealth is actually to tax it to death

So in my 2 million property example you want to tax the person 20k a year for life for owning it. The person has no income so is forced to sell his property to meet the tax on it. Lets say he gets the 2 million for it (hugely optimistic in the current climate but still its just an example)

The person receives 2m and pays his tax so is left with 1.98m which he keeps under his mattress.

do you plan to tax this 1.98m @ 1% every year then as well?? Do you plan to keep on taxing it till you take all of the 1.98m from him and he is left with nothing?? At what point do you decide you have enough taken from this person? When you have the whole 2 million i assume

Tipp Man

Deleted User wrote: »

I think this part of the argument is moot(If we are still on agriculture policy) as even Sinn Féins wealth tax proposals do not extend to family farms.


(I'm tempted to say thats because they've relied on them for years to stash the weapons )

Black Briar

It would be foolish on your part to think that SF would not bring this wealth tax onto farmland despite what they say currently

How could SF say a farmer doesn't pay wealth tax on his land but the local shopkeeper has to pay wealth tax on the shop premisis he owns or anybody with an asset?

The SF line would change very very rapidly if they are in power and it would be very foolish to underestimate how dangerous they are

johnmcdnl

so your not going to vote SF because there not going to win - well if everyone though the same as you we'd need a new electoral system wouldn't we...

vote SF no1 and give Lab no2 - if SF get a large enough vote they could have the balance of power - Lab/SF - can't see it happening but who knows what way the election could go...

Dan_Solo

Tipp Man wrote: »

Sorry but this is pure nonsense especially in bold and clearly hasn't been thought through for more than a millisecond. Your idea of idle wealth is ridiculous. Owning something doesn't necessarily make you rich or give you any income. Of course your idea to get rid of this idle wealth is actually to tax it to death

Having €2 million in assets doesn't make you rich... not a farmer by any chance?:D
If I had €10 million in the bank and took a begging bowl to the Department of Social Welfare I'd be laughed at. Change that to €10 million worth of land and the Department of Agriculture and suddenly the chequebook comes out.

http://www.teagasc.ie/agrifood/
"On average, 75% of farm income is made up of direct payments. Direct payments are more commonly known as ‘cheques in the post’. They are payments farmers receive from the EU as compensation for poor prices."

That sounds more like social welfare than a viable industry.

dolphin city

xoxyx wrote: »

I grew up in an era where Sinn Fein was synonymous with the IRA. Now, I'm changing my views.

Ok - I don't like some of its policies. I have particular disregard for its united Ireland policy. I think that its leaders need to move away for the good of its party. At the same time, I have respect for a lot of the views of the newer members.

But, the reason I am not going to cast a single vote for Sinn Fein is because I do not believe any other viable party would be willing to form a government with Sinn Fein.

My view is that a vote for Sinn Fein is a moot vote in the Labour / FG battle. So, beliefs excepted and personal preferences taken into account, a smart vote would be for Labour.

Realistic views - the election battle is Labour and FG. Do you think a vote otherwise is a lost vote?

and thats just how the media and the govt (or lack of) of the day WANTS you to think. Congratulations on falling into their trap.

Tipp Man

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Having €2 million in assets doesn't make you rich... not a farmer by any chance?:D
If I had €10 million in the bank and took a begging bowl to the Department of Social Welfare I'd be laughed at. Change that to €10 million worth of land and the Department of Agriculture and suddenly the chequebook comes out.

http://www.teagasc.ie/agrifood/
"On average, 75% of farm income is made up of direct payments. Direct payments are more commonly known as ‘cheques in the post’. They are payments farmers receive from the EU as compensation for poor prices."

That sounds more like social welfare than a viable industry.

As I have said several times already if you want an agri debate start a bloody thread about it

Now please address my post on wealth tax which seems to be a foundation of SF policy. Just in case you missed it here it is again

Tipp Man wrote: »

Sorry but this is pure nonsense especially in bold and clearly hasn't been thought through for more than a millisecond. Your idea of idle wealth is ridiculous. Owning something doesn't necessarily make you rich or give you any income. Of course your idea to get rid of this idle wealth is actually to tax it to death

So in my 2 million property example you want to tax the person 20k a year for life for owning it. The person has no income so is forced to sell his property to meet the tax on it. Lets say he gets the 2 million for it (hugely optimistic in the current climate but still its just an example)

The person receives 2m and pays his tax so is left with 1.98m which he keeps under his mattress.

do you plan to tax this 1.98m @ 1% every year then as well?? Do you plan to keep on taxing it till you take all of the 1.98m from him and he is left with nothing?? At what point do you decide you have enough taken from this person? When you have the whole 2 million i assume

Dan_Solo

@TippMan
Since you missed it, here it is again.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Haha, and if you or Fianna Fail are under the impression that the skint of Ireland cry themselves to sleep over those with €2 million in assets having no income then you are seriously deluded. I haven't checked, but most US states operate a property tax policy whereby principal residences are exempt. If you build a €2 million mansion fine, go live in it.

Like most taxes, it isn't really the government's business to work out a way for you to pay it. They're not your financial advisors. I think the general idea is though that if you have a lot of wealth and it's idle then you should get rid of it. The rich minority this would affect naturally hate this idea.

That covers all your repeating of the same questions. Sorry if you just don't want to accept it.

Tipp Man wrote: »

So in my 2 million property example you want to tax the person 20k a year for life for owning it. The person has no income so is forced to sell his property to meet the tax on it. Lets say he gets the 2 million for it (hugely optimistic in the current climate but still its just an example)

More nonsense. If the property isn't worth €2 million then he won't be taxed based on it being €2 million. Stop pretending property taxes are calculated on historical valuations.

Dan_Solo

Tipp Man wrote: »

Sorry but this is pure nonsense especially in bold and clearly hasn't been thought through for more than a millisecond. Your idea of idle wealth is ridiculous. Owning something doesn't necessarily make you rich or give you any income. Of course your idea to get rid of this idle wealth is actually to tax it to death

So in my 2 million property example you want to tax the person 20k a year for life for owning it. The person has no income so is forced to sell his property to meet the tax on it. Lets say he gets the 2 million for it (hugely optimistic in the current climate but still its just an example)

The person receives 2m and pays his tax so is left with 1.98m which he keeps under his mattress.

do you plan to tax this 1.98m @ 1% every year then as well?? Do you plan to keep on taxing it till you take all of the 1.98m from him and he is left with nothing?? At what point do you decide you have enough taken from this person? When you have the whole 2 million i assume

I like the way you assume all the way through this post that the idea of a wealth tax is to take the entirety of a person's assets.
Hyperbole much?

johnmcdnl

johnmcdnl wrote: »

vote SF no1 and give Lab no2 - if SF get a large enough vote they could have the balance of power - Lab/SF - can't see it happening but who knows what way the election could go...

I'm sorry but Sinn Féins economic policies still scare me for their lack of reality so I can't for now.
5 or 10 mins listening to Doherty thinking you can tax tax tax and cod the people we need to borrow money from and not pay them back whilst going back to them for more...

Lol it sounds like the two of them would have made great senior execs of aib and anglo during the height of the tiger.

Tipp Man

Dan_Solo wrote: »

@TippMan
Since you missed it, here it is again.

That covers all your repeating of the same questions. Sorry if you just don't want to accept it.
.

No no it doesn't even cover any of my points, you haven't even tried to answer them.

I asked a few very simple question based on the simple example i used throughout this thread - here they are again

Tipp Man wrote: »

Do you plan to tax this 1.98m (i.e cash) @ 1% every year then as well??
Do you plan to keep on taxing it till you take all of the 1.98m from him and he is left with nothing??
At what point do you decide you have enough taken from this person?

Now can you answer these questions directly or not. I don't want to see another post saying you have if you haven't - no more waffle please

Dan_Solo wrote: »

More nonsense. If the property isn't worth €2 million then he won't be taxed based on it being €2 million. Stop pretending property taxes are calculated on historical valuations.

Ha this is funny and interesting. Do you honestly think every asset owned by every person in this country is going to be taxed on its current market value??

Tipp Man

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I like the way you assume all the way through this post that the idea of a wealth tax is to take the entirety of a person's assets.
Hyperbole much?

Guess what that what it leads to

MazG

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry but Sinn Féins economic policies still scare me for their lack of reality so I can't for now.
5 or 10 mins listening to Doherty thinking you can tax tax tax and cod the people we need to borrow money from and not pay them back whilst going back to them for more...

Lol it sounds like the two of them would have made great senior execs of aib and anglo during the height of the tiger.

+1

Sinn Fein's super-tax the wealthy while maintaining social welfare provisions for the 400k + out of work (or the Robin Hood model, as I like to call it) is totally unrealistic.

On a philosophical level, I think it is wrong to turn around after decades of incentivising people to go out and create businesses and employment, generating economic growth and then say to them 'You know all that wealth you amassed while working over the past 25 years - well guess what - we're going to tax it... again!' This is despite the fact that any wealth amassed would either have been taxed at income tax rates (and possibly a big chunk of PRSI), or in the case of inherited wealth, Capital Aquisitions Tax (subject to relationships involved and the relevant CAT exceptions and limits).

But there is a more pressing and practical reason to dismiss SF's Robin Hood model. If you go after the wealthy, there will come a point where they will just say 'sod this, I'm outta here'. They will simply leave the country. And if THAT happens we will be left with an even bigger hole in the public finances and no wealthy people left to pay the 60% of all income tax collected that is currently funded by the top 8% of earners in the country.

So I have come to the conclusion that SF economic policies are either hopelessly naive or a cynical attempt to convince those with a less than firm grasp on economics that they are the good guys. And I'm inclined to believe the latter. I think that with Labour FF and FG all saying (or at least heavily hinting) that they won't consider a coalition with SF, they are making massive promises that they won't ever have to deliver on and are counting on being in opposition saying 'we would never have done this, or that.

My vote will not be for SF

Min

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Having €2 million in assets doesn't make you rich... not a farmer by any chance?:D
If I had €10 million in the bank and took a begging bowl to the Department of Social Welfare I'd be laughed at. Change that to €10 million worth of land and the Department of Agriculture and suddenly the chequebook comes out.

http://www.teagasc.ie/agrifood/
"On average, 75% of farm income is made up of direct payments. Direct payments are more commonly known as ‘cheques in the post’. They are payments farmers receive from the EU as compensation for poor prices."

That sounds more like social welfare than a viable industry.

I wonder if you realise the direct payments were put in to support the highest standards of agriculture and food production on this planet.
If you want the best standards then the costs are going to be higher, the CAP was set up with making sure Europe never again faced a food shortage like it did after WW2.
So high standards of productions and a stability of food supply, do you go to the shops wondering if the shelves will have food on them?
If there was no CAP then Europeans would have to pay higher for their food as the standards imposed by the EU would make agriculture unviable.
We could do that and instead encourage the South Americans to destroy their rainforests so they can produce our food at a cheaper rate with far lower standards.
Though I don't think that is what the European consumer wants.

Dan_Solo

Tipp Man wrote: »

No no it doesn't even cover any of my points, you haven't even tried to answer them.

I'll repeat: you just don't like those answers.

Tipp Man wrote: »

Do you plan to tax this 1.98m (i.e cash) @ 1% every year then as well??

Well, yes. That's the idea of a wealth tax. As usual it's the rich who object most. No idea if 1% is right though. That'd depend on how much the country needs.

Tipp Man wrote: »

Do you plan to keep on taxing it till you take all of the 1.98m from him and he is left with nothing??

I don't know if you did maths at school, but taxing something at 1% (or any % for that matter) per year can never leave him with nothing. It's not even close to a valid question so I can't really make much of an answer.

Tipp Man wrote: »

At what point do you decide you have enough taken from this person?

When he's dead. That's how taxes work. If you live in a country then you pay your taxes. Primary residences exempt, but I don't see why any bank accounts should be.

Tipp Man wrote: »

Now can you answer these questions directly or not. I don't want to see another post saying you have if you haven't - no more waffle please

What's the betting you repeat this again? Don't like those 100% specific answers? "no more waffle please":rolleyes:

Tipp Man wrote: »

Ha this is funny and interesting. Do you honestly think every asset owned by every person in this country is going to be taxed on its current market value??

Bank accounts are kinda by definition at their "current market value" I would've thought. Why wouldn't any other asset be "taxed on its current market value" as a matter of interest? Are you assuming assessment will be inaccurately done so you can make some case against the tax? Cobblers. Loads of US states do this without difficulty.
At least if you said "I've loads of assets and I don't want to pay tax on them" it'd make an ounce of sense. Your maths and automatic assumption of inaccurate assessment don't.

Sorry lad,you can propose that kind of stuff all you like but theres going to be no mandate for it and you know it.

Anyway ,Theres free movement of people and capital within the EU and for people who've saved the kind of figures in this country that you are on about,it makes more sense to encourage them to keep it here and spend it here.the funds would just walk.
If it were that easy,it would have been done years ago.

We do extensively tax investment profits and theres deposit interest taxes.Those work,aren't disincentivising or regressive and maintain peoples perception that if they've worked hard to earn a lot of money,it's not been a futile exercise for them.

BLIZZARD7

If you tax money like that it wont stay in the country for very long, do you really think that people with that much cash in an account are going to let it be taxed forever, no. They will just move it offshore. As BB says it offers no incentive to keep money in the country and thus spending will drop considerably.





Dan

Scofflaw

So in my 2 million property example you want to tax the person 20k a year for life for owning it. The person has no income so is forced to sell his property to meet the tax on it. Lets say he gets the 2 million for it (hugely optimistic in the current climate but still its just an example)

More nonsense. If the property isn't worth €2 million then he won't be taxed based on it being €2 million. Stop pretending property taxes are calculated on historical valuations.

I think you're entirely missing the point here. If someone owns a chunk of farmland in Kildare, they quite likely only have a farmer's income, even though the land is, or can be, valued at huge amounts.

It's incredibly simplistic to put a tax together as if everyone who was asset-rich was also income-rich. The two are more or less independent of each other.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MazG

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry lad,you can propose that kind of stuff all you like but theres going to be no mandate for it and you know it.

Even if there was a mandate for this kind of stuff... it still wouldn't work. All the wealthy people would be off in the south of France/Cayman Islands sunning themselves and the rest of us would be struggling to maintain an economy and society on.... what?

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry lad,you can propose that kind of stuff all you like but theres going to be no mandate for it and you know it.

Well kid, that's what elections are for, to decide who has a mandate. If SF get the votes, even as a coalition partner you WILL see this tax. It will be convenient for the senior party to blame SF for it so they'll sign up.
As to moving assets offshore, well that's illegal, isn't it? Sure it happens, but you can't base government policy to cater for illegal practices. Well FF can, but you know what I mean...

MazG

Dan_Solo wrote: »

As to moving assets offshore, well that's illegal, isn't it?

It might be if the asset mover in question remained tax resident in this country and attempted to deny the existence of the assets. But what if they don't? What if they move away altogether? What then?

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well kid, that's what elections are for, to decide who has a mandate. If SF get the votes, even as a coalition partner you WILL see this tax. It will be convenient for the senior party to blame SF for it so they'll sign up.

I doubt it.They won't be a coalition partner this time and probably not the next time either given what they've been coming out with on prime time,newstalk and elsewhere with the looney economics,discussed in the other threads,you've no doubt read but aren't participating in.
It's very easy these days for someone at high levels of wealth to become resident in Newry or the isle of man,transport infrastructure is great and you can get irish radio and tv.

O'regan from the times on the same show as Doherty this morning called his plans daft and predicted that in a few elections time,SF would slowly ditch the crazy policies for more electorally acceptable ones and would be the ones in government happily implementing sounder economic policy like thye do in the north already.
Thats Real politik for you.

Tipp Man

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'll repeat: you just don't like those answers.


Well, yes. That's the idea of a wealth tax. As usual it's the rich who object most. No idea if 1% is right though. That'd depend on how much the country needs.

I don't know if you did maths at school, but taxing something at 1% (or any % for that matter) per year can never leave him with nothing. It's not even close to a valid question so I can't really make much of an answer.

When he's dead. That's how taxes work. If you live in a country then you pay your taxes. Primary residences exempt, but I don't see why any bank accounts should be.

What's the betting you repeat this again? Don't like those 100% specific answers? "no more waffle please":rolleyes:

Bank accounts are kinda by definition at their "current market value" I would've thought. Why wouldn't any other asset be "taxed on its current market value" as a matter of interest? Are you assuming assessment will be inaccurately done so you can make some case against the tax? Cobblers. Loads of US states do this without difficulty.
At least if you said "I've loads of assets and I don't want to pay tax on them" it'd make an ounce of sense. Your maths and automatic assumption of inaccurate assessment don't.

Well the good thing is that now that you have answered the question everybody can see how ill thought out a wealth tax is

Just for the record I am nearly certain that currently NO US state implements a WEALTH tax - i think most have a PROPERTY tax and yes the tax is payable on the principle private residence. As such it is not implemented by each state but by city and county council within each state so 2 residents in Florida could be paying different property tax if they lived in different towns.

Dan_Solo

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's incredibly simplistic to put a tax together as if everyone who was asset-rich was also income-rich. The two are more or less independent of each other.

Where does anybody say they are the same thing? Assets are still a valid measure of "wealth" and I don't see any problem with taxing "wealth" and income.

MazG

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Where does anybody say they are the same thing? Assets are still a valid measure of "wealth" and I don't see any problem with taxing "wealth" and income.

Including, evidently, the glaringly obvious 'The wealthy will LEAVE' problem...

Scofflaw

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Where does anybody say they are the same thing? Assets are still a valid measure of "wealth" and I don't see any problem with taxing "wealth" and income.

Because someone with a farmer's income in Kildare who wants to go on farming has no way of meeting a tax on land except by selling the land, thereby slowly but surely being driven out of farming.

The amount the farmer makes out of the land doesn't change with the value of the land - unless he sells it. Why not let farmers farm, and those who want to sell out of farming sell, and tax the latter with CGT? Why tax those who want to farm out of farming?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dan_Solo

MazG wrote: »

Including, evidently, the glaringly obvious 'The wealthy will LEAVE' problem...

Like the banker, consultant etc "talent" we've been told for years will leave unless they get megabucks? We seem to have more of them than ever.

MazG

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Like the banker, consultant etc "talent" we've been told for years will leave unless they get megabucks? We seem to have more of them than ever.

Eh not exactly. Besides, weren't you railing a few pages back that people like that are on megabucks?

Dan_Solo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because someone with a farmer's income in Kildare who wants to go on farming has no way of meeting a tax on land except by selling the land, thereby slowly but surely being driven out of farming.

Depends on the exact nature of the assets to be assessed as valid for the wealth tax. Farming land that's in use can certainly be categorised as a place of work and therefore exempt. Ditto with primary residences. What we're looking at here is underutilised or superfluous assets. If a farmer is sitting on 1000 acres of assets worth million he doesn't feel like using for anything I don't see why he can't be taxed on that.

Dan_Solo

MazG wrote: »

Eh not exactly. Besides, weren't you railing a few pages back that people like that are on megabucks?

Less than they used to yes, but they're still here on too much.
No contradiction at all, sorry.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Where does anybody say they are the same thing? Assets are still a valid measure of "wealth" and I don't see any problem with taxing "wealth" and income.

I know you don't,thats a problem you have.

You're starting to remind me of comical ally now saying ,what tanks,there are no americans here,we have fought them back,Elvis is alive.

If a farmer is sitting on 1000 acres of assets worth million he doesn't feel like using for anything I don't see why he can't be taxed on that.

In most cases you'd be forcing them to sell to raise the money to pay,which might be a tad unconstitutional.

Never mind that comparison with comical Ally...Robert Mugabe would be a better comparison to your tautology...or Cromwell.
Get those pesky land owners out of that place and lets sell it on or put our friends into it.

MazG

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Less than they used to yes, but they're still here on too much.
No contradiction at all, sorry.

Ok - but lets be clear here. You believe that no matter how much is taken off the wealthy, they will stay. Correct?

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

I know you don't,thats a problem you have.

You're starting to remind me of comical ally now saying ,what tanks,there are no americans here,we have fought them back,Elvis is alive.In most cases you'd be forcing them to sell to raise the money to pay,which might be a tad unconstitutional.

Never mind that comparison with comical Ally...Robert Mugabe would be a better comparison to your tautology...or Cromwell.
Get those pesky land owners out of that place and lets sell it on or put our friends into it.

Jesus, what a lame attempt at a put-down. Is that comical Ally McBeal or what?:rolleyes:
Mugabe, Cromwell... is that the way you like to describe those who make taxation policy in a host of US states? You're saying they're fascist dictatorships? Surreal.

Dan_Solo

MazG wrote: »

Ok - but lets be clear here. You believe that no matter how much is taken off the wealthy, they will stay. Correct?

Well since I never said anything like that I've no idea why you're asking me, but incidentally I don't believe that.
You see, I'm an equal opportunities question answerer, even blatant strawmen are welcome at my door.

BLIZZARD7

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Jesus, what a lame attempt at a put-down. Is that comical Ally McBeal or what?:rolleyes:
Mugabe, Cromwell... is that the way you like to describe those who make taxation policy in a host of US states? You're saying they're fascist dictatorships? Surreal.

You've missed his point, he's saying that any tax that forces you off your land is communist like.





Dan

MazG

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well since I never said anything like that I've no idea why you're asking me, but incidentally I don't believe that.
You see, I'm an equal opportunities question answerer, even blatant strawmen are welcome at my door.

Well it's true you didn't exactly say that, but I think it's fair to say that you implied it when you answered this:

Including, evidently, the glaringly obvious 'The wealthy will LEAVE' problem...

with this:

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Like the banker, consultant etc "talent" we've been told for years will leave unless they get megabucks? We seem to have more of them than ever.

So again, for the sake of clarity please. Do you or do you not believe that the wealthy will leave the country if they percieve themselves to be overtaxed. And if you do believe that they will eventually leave - what is your proposal to fill the enormous gap in the public finances that they would leave behind

ihatetractors

But what's you're defenition of 'a farmer with 1000 acre' doing nothing. He could be leaving it fallow to recover from years of production, it could be in forestry for 30 years. Maybe his health could be poor and he can't farm it, on social welfare. Why wouldn't you tax all the unemployed construction workers etc on their 'assets' or tools. Why not tax the unemployed if they are fortunate to own their own home? fair is fair isn't it they maybe income poor but asset rich?. Your logic makes no sence...

Dan_Solo

MazG wrote: »

Well it's true you didn't exactly say that, but I think it's fair to say that you implied it when you answered this:

Well, no it isn't. It's an absolute fantasy to say I even implied that. Because I said some people were overpaid I think all rich people should have all their assets taken? Come off it.

MazG

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well, no it isn't. It's an absolute fantasy to say I even implied that. Because I said some people were overpaid I think all rich people should have all their assets taken? Come off it.

So it was a flippant remark then, you didn't mean it the way it sounded. You accept that as taxation reaches higher and higher levels, the wealthy will leave.

Excellent

So now that we've established that, do you still not see the problem with over-taxing the wealthy?

Dan_Solo

ihatetractors wrote: »

But what's you're defenition of 'a farmer with 1000 acre' doing nothing. He could be leaving it fallow to recover from years of production, it could be in forestry for 30 years. Maybe his health could be poor and he can't farm it, on social welfare. Why wouldn't you tax all the unemployed construction workers etc on their 'assets' or tools. Why not tax the unemployed if they are fortunate to own their own home? fair is fair isn't it they maybe income poor but asset rich?. Your logic makes no sence...

You are making a great stab at pretending all land in Ireland is in use of some kind. Sorry, it isn't. If it's "fallow" it's still part of the production process.
A tax on tools? Well they are business assets just like in-use farm land so are exempt.
His health is poor? Where do you get this stuff?
Tax the unemployed's home? Already covered as a primary residence.
This is all too easy by the way. The other guys make far more sense than your flailing.