Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

dloob

brianthebard wrote: »

Can you show me a link where they want to increase welfare above what it has been before? They just want to reverse the last cut. As for borrowing more money to plug the gap, all parties are saying they'll do that, except the difference is SF isn't doing it to fund the banks so it would be much less money. Don't be naive and think this is a SF only thing, this is the reality of any economy in the world, they all have loans on their books to exactly that.


Stealing? Many countries have a wealth tax, its a simple idea that will have little to no impact on the people it affects and will raise 1bn as you say, hardly chump change. I very much doubt it is going to affect you anyways tbh, no offence. I don't think they are eliminating all tax reliefs, can you give me a link? People need to get over the idea that tax increases are a bad idea, especially on the wealthy, people in the top tax bracket are not paying anywhere near the marginal rate of tax, that needs to be fixed.

The increase is mentioned in the manifesto, page 21, admittedly it does say when economic conditions permit.

Immediately return social welfare payments to 2010 levels, and as soon as economic conditions permit raise them further to ensure adequate incomes (no one below the poverty line).

I just don't like the idea of wealth taxes, taxing income and trade ok, but just because there is more than X in a bank account taking some of it seems wrong to me.
Yes the sinn fein limit is currently 1 million in assets so I certainly have nothing to worry about, but what if I won the lotto, they would cream off 1% a year.

I will concede that overall their economic plans are much improved on some of their previous efforts.

brianthebard

dloob wrote: »

The increase is mentioned in the manifesto, page 21, admittedly it does say when economic conditions permit.

Grand, doubt that will happen in the next government's lifestyle though, they're effectively saying go back to 2010 figures then freeze it.

I just don't like the idea of wealth taxes, taxing income and trade ok, but just because there is more than X in a bank account taking some of it seems wrong to me.
Yes the sinn fein limit is currently 1 million in assets so I certainly have nothing to worry about, but what if I won the lotto, they would cream off 1% a year.

I will concede that overall their economic plans are much improved on some of their previous efforts.

Why is it wrong? Like I said many other countries have this tax, property taxes too, they are both good ways of easily and effectively putting a small tax on those who clearly have a decent level of wealth which will make a difference for the economy and barely be noticed by those it affects. Obviously I don't have a problem with either of them (although my Dad will probably get hit by a property tax unless they exempt farmers) but I would be interested in hearing your reasons. We already have dirt tax so you are used to having people's wealth taxed, its just that in this case it would only apply to those who have a good level of wealth.

Head The Wall

1% of a million is only 10,000 and yes it would add up over time but a person earning €40,000 a year pays the same 10,000 yearly in Taxes and levies.

The issue I have with implementing and enforcing a wealth tax is someone that has land valued at 2,000,000 but has no cash to pay the wealth tax. It's a similar situation where people inherit something/land and have to sell it off to pay the inheritance tax.

Adrian009

ayeayecaptain wrote: »

He will get my vote, although at best my no.2, just couldn't bring myself to vote Sinn Fein No.1 and I've my heart set on Derek Nolan for Labour for No.1. Met Trevor twice now, he called to the door the other evening and gave me a full 20 minutes answering any queries I had. Seems like a genuinely nice guy.

O Clochartaigh has an incredibly impressive CV, and I've yet to hear a bad word about him. I wish him well, and wish I could give him a vote. Maybe someday.

brianthebard

Head The Wall wrote: »

1% of a million is only 10,000 and yes it would add up over time but a person earning €40,000 a year pays the same 10,000 yearly in Taxes and levies.

The issue I have with implementing and enforcing a wealth tax is someone that has land valued at 2,000,000 but has no cash to pay the wealth tax. It's a similar situation where people inherit something/land and have to sell it off to pay the inheritance tax.

Who has land worth 2m but doesn't have 20k? Anyone in that situation needs to radically rethink their business plan to be frank. Regardless SF propose to exclude working farmland from the wealth tax; http://www.corkindependent.com/election-2011/election-2011/candidate-accused-of-misleading-voters-on-wealth-tax/

So that is not something that needs to be worried about. FF have been spreading lies basically about this policy but we know now that farmers don't need to worry about it.

Head The Wall

It's just an example I picked, the same could apply to someone that owns a company that on paper has a value but in reality they have no cash due to the recession. Also what about having a house that you can't sell

Adrian009

brianthebard wrote: »

Who has land worth 2m but doesn't have 20k? Anyone in that situation needs to radically rethink their business plan to be frank. Regardless SF propose to exclude working farmland from the wealth tax; http://www.corkindependent.com/election-2011/election-2011/candidate-accused-of-misleading-voters-on-wealth-tax/

So that is not something that needs to be worried about. FF have been spreading lies basically about this policy but we know now that farmers don't need to worry about it.

Land valued at two millions a few years ago, maybe. Prices have crashed through the floor since then. Also, people can be credit rich but cash poor. Striping them of even those assests will put them on the dole queue, creating more libabities for the state.

The fact is there are not many very rich people left in Ireland anymore, not enough to fund the type of cashflow SF expects. Even the middle classes, on which every western country relies upon, have been incredibly badly hit. There's a point below zero where there's no where left to go, and it would be criminal for SF to push them to it.

brianthebard

Adrian009 wrote: »

Land valued at two millions a few years ago, maybe. Prices have crashed through the floor since then. Also, people can be credit rich but cash poor. Striping them of even those assets will put them on the dole queue, creating more libabities for the state.

Again any farmer with land worth 2m but not enough income to pay 20k would have bigger problems than a wealth tax, the only way this could possibly happen is if they had a load of land rezoned as residential but never managed to sell a plot, which would defeat the purpose of valuing it at that much. Plus as I already showed, SF do not intend farmers to pay this tax on their land so its a moot point.

The fact is there are not many very rich people left in Ireland anymore, not enough to fund the type of cashflow SF expects. Even the middle classes, on which every western country relies upon, have been incredibly badly hit. There's a point below zero where there's no where left to go, and it would be criminal for SF to push them to it.

Frankly that's just not true, people in the upper tax band are paying effective tax rates of 30ish% and less, the higher you go the less they pay. FF gave tax breaks to millionaires while increasing taxes on the lower downs. We are nowhere near zero in terms of taxing the upper middle earners, and we can be much smarter about our taxation. SF are offering that alternative, and there's nothing criminal about it.

Head The Wall

brianthebard wrote: »

Again any farmer with land worth 2m but not enough income to pay 20k would have bigger problems than a wealth tax, the only way this could possibly happen is if they had a load of land rezoned as residential but never managed to sell a plot, which would defeat the purpose of valuing it at that much. Plus as I already showed, SF do not intend farmers to pay this tax on their land so its a moot point.

Wealth exists in many other forms than farmers land and as Adrian009 pointed out you can be wealthy on paper but in reality not able to pay a wealth tax

brianthebard

Head The Wall wrote: »

Wealth exists in many other forms than farmers land and as Adrian009 pointed out you can be wealthy on paper but in reality not able to pay a wealth tax

No no I think you are confused about this. A farmer who is not wealthy enoguh to pay a wealth tax will not end up paying the wealth tax proposed by SF, that's just a fact. What situation do you think is realistic where a person is wealthy on paper and eligible for the wealth tax but will not be able to pay it?

Dan_Solo

Head The Wall wrote: »

Wealth exists in many other forms than farmers land and as Adrian009 pointed out you can be wealthy on paper but in reality not able to pay a wealth tax

Sounds like the rich have their tax-avoidance excuses made already. If you've two million worth of stuff and you don't have a bean then what are you holding on to the assets for? Tough, you'll have to sell some of it.

dloob

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sounds like the rich have their tax-avoidance excuses made already. If you've two million worth of stuff and you don't have a bean then what are you holding on to the assets for? Tough, you'll have to sell some of it.

It's the "rich" today and you tomorrow as inflation goes up and the cut off goes down, that's what I'd be worried about.

Dan_Solo

dloob wrote: »

It's the "rich" today and you tomorrow as inflation goes up and the cut off goes down, that's what I'd be worried about.

Haha, do you think if I care if they take 1% of my assets? WHAT ASSETS! I bust my ass working in a decent job and I've nothing to show for it anyway.

hoorsmelt

Storm 10 wrote: »

Tell you one thing if Sinn Fein got in I would have the few euros I have out of the bank before they collapse with the lunatic ideas that they have put forward, the Country would fall apart in weeks.

God only knows, the IMF would be in within weeks :rolleyes:

brianthebard

hoorsmelt wrote: »

God only knows, the IMF would be in within weeks :rolleyes:

Eh have you not watched the news in the last 3 months, its already happened?

Dan_Solo

brianthebard wrote: »

Eh have you not watched the news in the last 3 months, its already happened?

I think your sarcasm-o-meter needs a recalibration there Brian.:)

brianthebard

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I think your sarcasm-o-meter needs a recalibration there Brian.:)

There's so much I can't keep up with it all!!!! :eek:

Adrian009

brianthebard wrote: »

No no I think you are confused about this. A farmer who is not wealthy enoguh to pay a wealth tax will not end up paying the wealth tax proposed by SF, that's just a fact. What situation do you think is realistic where a person is wealthy on paper and eligible for the wealth tax but will not be able to pay it?

Good reply. If more SF canvessers did as you are doing instead of using the auld "What about ...?" argument you'd get more votes from people, myself included.

brianthebard

Adrian009 wrote: »

Good reply. If more SF canvessers did as you are doing instead of using the auld "What about ...?" argument you'd get more votes from people, myself included.

Thanks. Lol I'm not even a SF canvasser, I was humming and hawing about whether I should take the plunge and support the party before the election but I expected it to come later than it did. Feel sorry now.

Adrian009

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sounds like the rich have their tax-avoidance excuses made already. If you've two million worth of stuff and you don't have a bean then what are you holding on to the assets for? Tough, you'll have to sell some of it.

Have SF, or any of the partys, any plans to get tax exiles/avoiders to pay their share? Its a bill that would get loads of support.

Adrian009

brianthebard wrote: »

Thanks. Lol I'm not even a SF canvasser, I was humming and hawing about whether I should take the plunge and support the party before the election but I expected it to come later than it did. Feel sorry now.

No problem. You're the type of straightforward poster I like argueing with. I have a lot of time for the younger generations of SF down here, but can never vote for them until the party makes a clean break with its support for the IRA.

brianthebard

Adrian009 wrote: »

No problem. You're the type of straightforward poster I like argueing with. I have a lot of time for the younger generations of SF down here, but can never vote for them until the party makes a clean break with its support for the IRA.

Haven't they done that, or is this something different to the IRA decomissioning? I don't know if they can ever make a 'clean break' in the sense that the people who want a 32 county republic will always see SF as their natural political representatives, and some of those people will also support or be or have been in the IRA.

Adrian009

brianthebard wrote: »

Haven't they done that, or is this something different to the IRA decomissioning? I don't know if they can ever make a 'clean break' in the sense that the people who want a 32 county republic will always see SF as their natural political representatives, and some of those people will also support or be or have been in the IRA.

Decomissioning is not the same as condemming.
The only people who actively want a united Ireland are SF, who form only a small portion of the total island population.
I don't see the point of a united Ireland in the 21st century.
Its an idea that's outlived its time. It should be let die.
Last real chance we had for a UI was the 1640's.

brianthebard

I don't disagree about a united Ireland, its counter productive in many ways to have it as a policy now and it would be a huge cost to take on Northern Ireland anyways. But its a tradition and part of the SF identity so its not surprising that they won't drop it.

Adrian009

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't disagree about a united Ireland, its counter productive in many ways to have it as a policy now and it would be a huge cost to take on Northern Ireland anyways. But its a tradition and part of the SF identity so its not surprising that they won't drop it.

You're right. Its too emotive an issue to discuss dispassionately with its supporters, to whom it is an article of faith rather than a logical plan.

But this election has caused a lot of cherised ideas to be abandoned. Maybe a UI should be added to the pile.

dolphin city

interesting viewing last night where Pierce Doherty put the question of droppoing the TD's wages by 40 percent and having a cap at 190,000 for any one person. The other four, FF, FG, Green, Labour nearly had a coronary - no were were they going to drop their wages. Anyone see that.

some people on here are agains SF because of their past, but have no problem voting for a party who is getting into bed with Germany and not giving a second thought to that countries past. Its very funny to read. :D

Of all the "parties" if I had to choose between them, I am certain I would be voting for FF - however I am leaning more towards independent. But I must say SF have been most impressive and upfront with this election. Fair play

dolphin city

Adrian, again I would say that you are quite wrong in your statement that SF are the only party actively wanting a UI. Its very easy to put that idea into a little SF box and say oh its only them. Again you need to look at other parties - you seem to be coming across as being torn about wanting to vote SF but not being able to because of their past. Its either very immature thinking from someone very young, or you secretly come from the other side of the fence and are trying to hide it. No offence but that's what I am getting from your posts.

YOu need to really read the history instead of relying on the media to give you your views.

Adrian009

dolphin city wrote: »

Adrian, again I would say that you are quite wrong in your statement that SF are the only party actively wanting a UI. Its very easy to put that idea into a little SF box and say oh its only them. Again you need to look at other parties - you seem to be coming across as being torn about wanting to vote SF but not being able to because of their past. Its either very immature thinking from someone very young, or you secretly come from the other side of the fence and are trying to hide it. No offence but that's what I am getting from your posts.

YOu need to really read the history instead of relying on the media to give you your views.

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

hoorsmelt

brianthebard wrote: »

Eh have you not watched the news in the last 3 months, its already happened?

:pac: I was only being sarcastic, O'Clochartaigh will be gettin my no. 2. I was just highlighting the idiocy of economic orthodoxy condemning SF after their parties have done such a fantastic job of managing the States economy.

PopeBuckfastXVI

hoorsmelt wrote: »

:pac: I was only being sarcastic, O'Clochartaigh will be gettin my no. 2. I was just highlighting the idiocy of economic orthodoxy condemning SF after their parties have done such a fantastic job of managing the States economy.

Their parties? Plural?

Fianna Fail have ruined the country, let's not hang their sins on every other party.