Has the Socialist Party disbanded?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GaelMise

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are resting on an assumption that no state intervention = prosperity. There is a significant lack of actual evidence to back this assumption up however.

I don't understand your argument that we have too much foreign investment. Isn't more always better?

Yes, our economy is too dependant on FDI, and the tailoring of our national economic policy to attract and maintain this is not healthy. As for 'Isn't more always better'? No, no its not. If we have not managed to learn that lesson since our economic crisis, then there really is no hope for us.

We'd be far better off if our inept government wasn't enacting any kind of "national economy policy" at all.

Why? Where is the evidence that 'free markets', that in reality are dominated by small groups of large corporate and financial interests, if left to their own devices, will have a positive impact on society?

But if we had a prosperous country and a free economy, indigenous enterprise would naturally emerge. All the state has to do is remove the barriers that the state has erected.

Here is that asumption again, tell me, was it an excess of, or a lack of, effective regulation that caused our recent economic crisis? Far from prosperity, the lack of effective regulation and a progressive economic and social policy would result in the entrenchment of social inequality, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small elite and the stagnation of our domestic economy.

carpejugulum

Nope. FF is still damaging this society.

raymon

Seems like the Socialist Party are really unpopular in Dublin

Paul Murphy is very unlikely to get a seat . He is even more unpopular than Fianna Fail's Mary Fitzpatrick.

Paddy Power offering 7:1 odds on him getting a seat.

Seems strange that the two candidates with posters everywhere are doing terrible .

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

raymon

raymon wrote: »

Seems like the Socialist Party are really unpopular in Dublin
Paul Murphy is very unlikely to get a seat . He is even more unpopular than Fianna Fail's Mary Fitzpatrick.
Paddy Power offering 7:1 odds on him getting a seat.
Seems strange that the two candidates with posters everywhere are doing terrible .

Paul Murphy is more concerned with Gaza than Ireland. It doesn't help his cause that he was last reserve on Joe Higgins list for MEP. (None of the others wanted the job)

jank

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Just as we need to prevent poverty and inequality in our society, we need to prevent the needless mass accumulation of wealth by greedy super rich individuals. The two go hand in hand. The super rich cannot exist without the impoverished.

Can you elaborate on this? Why are people greedy in wanting to keep their own property?

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Its incredible that you would defend the property rights of the rich at a time when the government brings in a property tax on the family home and forces payment by taking it directly at source, as well as other stealth taxes and water charges; charges which impact greatly on the lives of the poorest but have no impact at all on the lives of the most wealthy. Some like Denis O'Brien and others involved in private contracts profit from their introduction.

I will of course defend the property rights of the individual both rich and poor.
You are actually defending the property rights of only the poor.
You complain (maybe rightly) about the government forcing people to pay for services at source but direct your anger at those favoured scape goat of the socialists 'da rich' rather then the state taking peoples property. 'Rich' people in Ireland pay in proportion more tax than any other group, that is a fact. What you want is a free lunch and let someone else pay for it.

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Yes, I want to see a forced repatriation of wealth; a redistribution of wealth from the richest to poorest. I want to see a more egalitarian society. I believe that this should be a government's job. We have a situation in Ireland where there is an increase year on year in the number of high-net-worth individuals (millionaires and billionaires) and a corresponding increase in poverty and homelessness. That is just ludicrous.

Yet, Ireland has one of the most progressive tax regimes in EU yet you want more money for the rich cause it suits your world view. And then you call 'da rich' greedy?

KarmaBaby wrote: »

I am not a supporter of a Cuban Stalinist dictatorial regime and there are other factors such as the trade embargo by the U.S. that have stifled their economy.

But, if you want to highlight where the most dysfunctional economies and societies are in Latin America, you would not be looking at Cuba. You'd be looking at pro-capitalist right wing states like Chile, Brazil, Colombia and Guatamala.

Ah those damm pro-capitalist right wingers, ruining everything!
Meanwhile in the real world the countries you mention are doing better than their peers for example Chile.

Today, Chile is one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations.[10] It leads Latin American nations in human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, state of peace, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.[11] It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, and democratic development.[12] In May 2010, Chile became the first South American nation to join the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.[13] Chile is a founding member of the United Nations, the Union of South American Nations and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile



Compare Chile with Cuba or Venezuela and you can see where the average person would want to live.

Robbo

KarmaBaby wrote: »

A proposal by the SPs sister Party in Seattle which has called for a similar wage increase suggests that small business could phase in the higher wages over a longer time period. This could easily be done if the government abolished upward only rent reviews for small businesses and reinstate grants for new start ups that it has been slashing constantly.

Upward only rent reviews have been illegal in new leases entered into since 2010. You're going to need a referendum to get rid of them in leases which predate this and if you want to tip the balance in favour of "small businesses", you're probably going to need to tinker with what we define as equality in the Constitution. Stroke of a pen really...

Good loser

Robbo wrote: »

Upward only rent reviews have been illegal in new leases entered into since 2010. You're going to need a referendum to get rid of them in leases which predate this and if you want to tip the balance in favour of "small businesses", you're probably going to need to tinker with what we define as equality in the Constitution. Stroke of a pen really...

It could only be done by interfering with the right to private property. This would never pass in a referendum. Anyway the problem is well on the way to being solved by negotiation and agreements and common sense.

guinnessdrinker

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think now is the time the government need to consider all its options re: corporation tax. The zero percent argument has been raised many times before and if the government decides to go down this road then they will need to act quickly to gain a competitive advantage over other states.

For example, I believe Estonia currently has a zero percent corporate rate and it instead levies a tax on a company's distributed profits. Additionally I have heard that if a company reinvests a portion of it's profits within Estonia then this is not liable for tax either.

jank

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I think now is the time the government need to consider all its options re: corporation tax. The zero percent argument has been raised many times before and if the government decides to go down this road then they will need to act quickly to gain a competitive advantage over other states.

For example, I believe Estonia currently has a zero percent corporate rate and it instead levies a tax on a company's distributed profits. Additionally I have heard that if a company reinvests a portion of it's profits within Estonia then this is not liable for tax either.

That would be a great idea however, optically however it would never fly as every vested interest group will start a whinge campaign about their entitlements and 'rights' and so forth even though the above change would raise more tax and increase employment in the short, medium and long term.

oscarBravo

GaelMise wrote: »

Yes they do, but they are not the only ones that pay it. Correct my if im wrong, but our national economic policy has for quite some time been predominantly one of attracting FDI. I am arguing that instead of directing state resources and tailoring conditions to attracting further FDI, it should instead be directed to developing the SME sector.

I'm still not sure how you're going to develop the SME sector by taxing it more.

Or are you talking about low corporation taxes for indigenous SMEs, and high corporation taxes for multinational corporations? How many SMEs do you think it will take to replace Intel, if they decide to pull out of Ireland?

walrusgumble

RandomName2 wrote: »

Since when has anyone running for office in the EU had any policies whatsoever? At least he has one, even if it has nothing to do with the office to which he's seeking election.

His posters give an impression that European Law can dictate to Ireland about these issues. I have little doubt Murphy will attempt to raise them up in Parliament, after all, his annual 10 minutes speech , he'll have little else to say - only for someone to point out that those issues are domestic, and not within the competence of EU law. Of course, MP's from nothing countries like Belgium might think, hmmmmm . After all the CJEU interprets anything to try and get it to be part of EU law.

Murphy is essentially highlighting the usual genuine fears that Eurospectics have. EU Personnel butting into domestic matters, outside of their competence.

KarmaBaby

Deleted User wrote: »

WTF?? His PENSION will be more than the average industrial wage? It doesn't matter a jot what he does with the money, he is still drawing the full amount from the public purse.

Why is it difficult for you to understand the difference between a politician that spends his bloated income entirely on himself and a politician that only takes what he needs for himself and uses the rest to fund campaigns that help the people that voted for him?

GaelMise

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm still not sure how you're going to develop the SME sector by taxing it more.

Taxing the SME sector more, but not only the SME sector, my suggestion does not end there however, along with this the state should restructure its economic policy away from trying to create the conditions for atracting FDI and towards developing the SME sector. These objectives are not mutually exclusive of course and some of the work in developing SME's will also be applicable to FDI, the aim is not to get rid of FDI, but rather to take the emphasis off it and not to develop an over reliance on that sector.
The refocusing of attention on developing the SME sector would be intended to offset the higher tax rate they would be paying. A banded coporation tax rate could be used instead.

As an example of the kind of thing I am talking about, the current emphasis on FDI results in IDA industrial estates with good services and amenities, these being centered in in large urban areas that are more attractive to large multinationals.
Instead of focusing development on this, I would favor a focus on developing the SME sector through improving infastructure, services and access to amenities evenly accross the country that would aid SME's both in and outside of major urban centers an allow for a more even economic development accross the country.

Or are you talking about low corporation taxes for indigenous SMEs, and high corporation taxes for multinational corporations? How many SMEs do you think it will take to replace Intel, if they decide to pull out of Ireland?

A banded corporation tax would be one way to go. The problem is not if, its when. Large multinationals are here for the value they can extract, and their investment tends to be short to medium term in nature. The over emphasis on attracting and maintaining FDI is not good for our overall economic development, nor is an over reliance on what is in reality a sector that has no interest in this country other than convineience.
I am not arguing for no FDI, it has a role to play in our economy, but we should not be over reliant on that sector. The SME sector is far more important in terms of job creation, and is the basis of a more stable economy overall.

KarmaBaby

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you want to turn Ireland into another Singapore; a wet dream for the super rich. Good for you.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26268500

What you propose would increase inequality and poverty and broaden the number of people considered to be "working poor".

KarmaBaby

oscarBravo wrote: »

The indigenous SME sector pays corporation tax. Taxing SMEs to fund the development of SMEs... doesn't really add up for me.

Because not all businesses are the same.

Businesses that not profitable are not taxed. Businesses that are moderately profitable should be moderately taxed. Businesses that are extremely profitable should be taxed quite a lot and those taxes should be used to invest in the creation of new industries. Instead we have hugely profitable companies paying little or no tax at all.

KarmaBaby

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Our economy schrunk last year by 0.3% because the government hoped to attract enough invest from the private sector to drive the economy. Instead the private sector is either not investing or investing in emerging economies in Asia.

As a result there two solutions open to the government:

1) Invest in indigenous Nationally owned industries to create jobs.

2) Slash and burn spending on public services, sell the key sectors of the economy (even healthcare) off to the highest bidders, drive down wages and living standards, offer higher and higher tax breaks to big business in order order to make it more profitable for them to invest; and then hope and pray that it is enough for them to invest and generate an economic recovery, which it wont.

Which do you think the this government are doing?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Creating employment is utterly pointless if it comes at the cost of drastically reduced income and living conditions for working people. The only people this serves are wealthy business owners and landlords who will pay little tax while the rest of us that are actually providing the labour to drive the economy are taxed to the bone.

KarmaBaby

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"Free" markets are in the interest of a minority of rich elites, shareholders, bankers, bondholders hedgefund managers etc.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How could it possibly be better for the key sectors of the economy to he controlled, not by the state, but by private individuals whose primary goal is to profit personally as opposed to provide a service based on the public's needs and wants? If you don't understand this after the catastrophic failure of our private banking sector, then you never will.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The government is not inept. They are simply implementing policies that serve the vested interests of the political class they represent. FG (and now Labour too) rub shoulders with bankers and big business. That is who their policies benefit, not ordinary working people.

[/QUOTE]But if we had a prosperous country and a free economy, indigenous enterprise would naturally emerge. All the state has to do is remove the barriers that the state has erected.[/QUOTE]

We have a "free" economy and indigenous enterprise is not emerging. It is being suffocated by large scale corporate monopolies and international franchises.

KarmaBaby

raymon wrote: »

Seems like the Socialist Party are really unpopular in Dublin

The Socialist Party won two Dublin seats in the Dail at the last general election. It also holds 4 seats on Dublin Councils. Ruth Coppinger won 21% of the vote in the last Dublin West by-election.

raymon wrote: »

Paul Murphy is very unlikely to get a seat . He is even more unpopular than Fianna Fail's Mary Fitzpatrick.

Paddy Power offering 7:1 odds on him getting a seat.

Seems strange that the two candidates with posters everywhere are doing terrible .

You think PPs odds on Fitzpatrick are accurate? Eamon Ryan is at evens and that is just bloody ridiculous.

Paul's odds opened at 16-1 and have more than halved since, while the odds of all other rivals for the 3rd seat have slipped. The odds of Paul winning a seat at this point are precisely where they were when Joe Higgins got over 50,000 votes to take the same seat in 2009.

I'm not saying he will win a seat, but I believe that the battle for that last seat absolutely wide open.

comongethappy

KarmaBaby wrote: »

It is being suffocated by large scale corporate monopolies

Example?

The only monopolies I encounter in the market is the Irish state.

I can't think of any good/service I purchase that is not subject to some form of competition?

oscarBravo

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Because not all businesses are the same.

Businesses that not profitable are not taxed. Businesses that are moderately profitable should be moderately taxed. Businesses that are extremely profitable should be taxed quite a lot and those taxes should be used to invest in the creation of new industries. Instead we have hugely profitable companies paying little or no tax at all.

Every company pays 12.5% corporation tax on its profits. Corporation tax scales linearly with profitability. Seems fair to me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KarmaBaby

jank wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this? Why are people greedy in wanting to keep their own property?

The wealthiest are greedy in wanting to have more money and property than everyone else, at the expense of everyone else.

jank wrote: »

I will of course defend the property rights of the individual both rich and poor.
You are actually defending the property rights of only the poor.

No I'm not. I'm defending the rights of the poor to have living standards that are adequate. This can only happen at the expense of the rich minority, redistributing their massive wealth to the poorer majority.

jank wrote: »

You complain (maybe rightly) about the government forcing people to pay for services at source but direct your anger at those favoured scape goat of the socialists 'da rich' rather then the state taking peoples property. 'Rich' people in Ireland pay in proportion more tax than any other group, that is a fact. What you want is a free lunch and let someone else pay for it.

People who earn under €60,000 in Ireland contribute 84% of the total tax take. Is that what you call a "free lunch"?

This is grossly unfair in the context of that same economic group owning nowhere near 84% of the nation's wealth.

Your argument is ridiculous when you consider than low income earning have no disposable income at all and struggle to pay for their basic needs, while high net worth individuals could comfortably afford to pay much higher taxes that would have little or know impact on their lives, or their ability to continue living extremely comfortable lifestyles.

And this is before you consider the litany of flat and stealth taxation and every day expenses which hit lower income earners proportionately harder than high earners: VAT, road tax, carbon taxes, water charges. The price is the same regardless of income.

jank wrote: »

Yet, Ireland has one of the most progressive tax regimes in EU yet you want more money for the rich cause it suits your world view. And then you call 'da rich' greedy?

No it does not. You literally just made this up.

France, Spain, Norway, Iceland, Holland and Switzerland all have a higher tier wealth tax. Other countries like Germany recently abolished their Wealth taxes, but the Christian Democrats have come under immense political pressure to reintroduce it.

jank wrote: »

Ah those damm pro-capitalist right wingers, ruining everything!
Meanwhile in the real world the countries you mention are doing better than their peers for example Chile.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile

Compare Chile with Cuba or Venezuela and you can see where the average person would want to live.

Why are you linking me to wikipedia. (!)

"GDP per capita" is completely and utterly bloody irrelevant, in determining poverty and inequality or the quality of life in general.

With that logic you're telling me that the greatest country in the World is Qatar.

KarmaBaby

comongethappy wrote: »

Example?

The only monopolies I encounter in the market is the Irish state.

I can't think of any good/service I purchase that is not subject to some form of competition?

How often do you buy your groceries from a store that is not an international supermarket chain?

KarmaBaby

oscarBravo wrote: »

Every company pays 12.5% corporation tax on its profits. Corporation tax scales linearly with profitability. Seems fair to me.

Fair in that its one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world?

Fair in that the vast majority pay nowhere near this rate of tax and on average pay an effective rate of tax of around 4%?

Fair in that Apple in Ireland paid 0.05% tax on €17 Billion profits; (a total of €8 Million)?

Fair in that Google Ireland paid 0.25% tax on €9 Billion (just €22 Million)

Fair in that Facebook Ireland paid about 0.3% tax on €1 Billion profits.

Fair in that when we get our pay packets we all pay 20% or 41% tax on our income and thats before the USC and other stealth taxes?

Please. :mad:

comongethappy

KarmaBaby wrote: »

How often do you buy your groceries from a store that is not an international supermarket chain?

Every week.

However you didn't answer the query.

What company in Ireland operates in a monopoly market (as you claim)?

As I said, the only monopoly I encounter is from the state when I use public transport.

Thanks

KarmaBaby

Deleted User wrote: »

Paul Murphy is more concerned with Gaza than Ireland. It doesn't help his cause that he was last reserve on Joe Higgins list for MEP. (None of the others wanted the job)

Paul Murphy has been an active campaigner for workers rights both in Ireland and Internationally. The rights of Palestinians is just one of those issues. Do you have a problem with an Irish politician taking a stance on this or would you prefer to vote for apologists of Israeli state oppression like Eamon Gilmore?

oscarBravo

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Fair in that its one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world?

If you're objecting to us unfairly competing with other countries to attract employers here, we'll agree to differ. I don't feel the need to level the playing field with Germany.

Fair in that the vast majority pay nowhere near this rate of tax and on average pay an effective rate of tax of around 4%?

My company pays 12.5% corporation tax on its profits. If you know of a way for me to pay 4% tax on those profits, I'd be delighted to hear it.

KarmaBaby

comongethappy wrote: »

Every week.

I doubt that and if its true you're in the tiny minority.

comongethappy wrote: »

However you didn't answer the query.

What company in Ireland operates in a monopoly market (as you claim)?

As I said, the only monopoly I encounter is from the state when I use public transport.

Thanks

I was talking more in the sense of a private sector monopoly over key sectors of the Irish economy; Groceries, Communications, Banking, Construction, Pharmaceuticals, IT etc.

The profits from these sectors largely do not go back into the economy at all. This is evident from the fact that 90% of our exports are from foreign owned companies.

There is no reason why indigenous irish owned companies could not take larger control of these sectors so that the profits from those exports could actually fuel the Irish economy instead of someone else's.

KarmaBaby

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're objecting to us unfairly competing with other countries to attract employers here, we'll agree to differ.

There is no real connection between a country's corporation tax and its rate of employment. That is a myth that is pedalled by corporations that want to maximise profits.

Why does Ireland have the 3rd/4th highest unemployment rate in the EU despite having the lowest rate of corporation tax? Because employment is dependent on investment from multiple sources, not just FDI.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't feel the need to level the playing field with Germany.

??

oscarBravo wrote: »

My company pays 12.5% corporation tax on its profits. If you know of a way for me to pay 4% tax on those profits, I'd be delighted to hear it.

Are you Are you saying that corporate tax evasion doesn't exist?

comongethappy

KarmaBaby wrote: »

I doubt that and if its true you're in the tiny minority.



I was talking more in the sense of a private sector monopoly over key sectors of the Irish economy; Groceries, Communications, Banking, Construction, Pharmaceuticals, IT etc.

The profits from these sectors largely do not go back into the economy at all. This is evident from the fact that 90% of our exports are from foreign owned companies.

There is no reason why indigenous irish owned companies could not take larger control of these sectors so that the profits from those exports could actually fuel the Irish economy instead of someone else's.

Hun, you aren't in a position to tell this girl where she shops!

As you said regarding our economy:
"It is being suffocated by large scale corporate monopolies".

The class is waiting for you to give us an example of a company operating in a market here without a competitor.

oscarBravo

KarmaBaby wrote: »

There is no real connection between a country's corporation tax and its rate of employment. That is a myth that is pedalled by corporations that want to maximise profits.

So we could hike the corporation tax rate up to 60% without any impact on employment?

Why does Ireland have the 3rd/4th highest unemployment rate in the EU despite having the lowest rate of corporation tax? Because employment is dependent on investment from multiple sources, not just FDI.

Employment is dependent on the existence of business, and when you're a small open economy on the outer fringes of a continent, you have enough structural problems without discouraging investment by promising to confiscate most of the profits.

Are you Are you saying that corporate tax evasion doesn't exist?

Are you saying that your 4% figure is based on the majority of companies defrauding the state? Have you any evidence for this?

Even if it were true, it's pretty funny to suggest that the answer to tax evasion is to increase taxes. It's like dealing with black market cigarettes by hiking up the price of legit smokes: you're demanding that the government punish the law-abiding citizens in order to pay for the miscreants.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GaelMise

comongethappy wrote: »

Example?

The only monopolies I encounter in the market is the Irish state.

I can't think of any good/service I purchase that is not subject to some form of competition?

The state does run monopolies in some areas, some of course are necessary, policing, prison service etc, others could do with loosening of control and greater competition (though I would prefer the retention of a state option), but state intervention is also needed to prevent the formation of private monopolies.
We could very easily have a monopoly in air travel had the state and the EU not prevented it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KarmaBaby

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Paul Murphy has been an active campaigner for workers rights both in Ireland and Internationally. The rights of Palestinians is just one of those issues. Do you have a problem with an Irish politician taking a stance on this or would you prefer to vote for apologists of Israeli state oppression like Eamon Gilmore?

He is well paid to represent Ireland in Europe, not go risking his life and freedom for another nation. If he was not free to do the job, then why accept it?
On the subject of pay, they keep saying that they only take the average industrial wage, as if they are saving the taxpayer money, but they are are still drawing down their full wage. What they do with it is their own business!

sillyoulfool

KarmaBaby wrote: »

How often do you buy your groceries from a store that is not an international supermarket chain?

You mean when I don't use Dunnes or Supervalue?

sillyoulfool

GaelMise wrote: »

The state does run monopolies in some areas, some of course are necessary, policing, prison service etc, others could do with loosening of control and greater competition (though I would prefer the retention of a state option), but state intervention is also needed to prevent the formation of private monopolies.
We could very easily have a monopoly in air travel had the state and the EU not prevented it.

Actually the state went to great lengths in the 1980's to try and enforce an air travel monopoly inIreland , name Aer Lingus.

GaelMise

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Actually the state went to great lengths in the 1980's to try and enforce an air travel monopoly inIreland , name Aer Lingus.

I believe I addressed this point in the text you quoted.

'others could do with loosening of control and greater competition (though I would prefer the retention of a state option)'

jank

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Because not all businesses are the same.

Businesses that not profitable are not taxed. Businesses that are moderately profitable should be moderately taxed. Businesses that are extremely profitable should be taxed quite a lot and those taxes should be used to invest in the creation of new industries. Instead we have hugely profitable companies paying little or no tax at all.

They tried do do this in Australia under a left wing Labour Government (to appease the bleeding hearts) called the 'Super Tax' or the Mining Tax. It was a total failure and disaster. Easy soundbites rarely turn into good policy.

Sorry about the link to wiki but it gives a good summary and there are references.

In May 2012, budget, it was claimed it would bring in $3 billion for the financial year, in October 2012, the figure was reduced to $2 billion, on 14 May 2013, the receipts are announced that they were expected to be $200 million, much less than the $3 billion predicted in May 2012.[31]

On 12 February 2013, Labor minister Kevin Rudd, one of the authors of the tax, stated that "Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard must bear the responsibility for Labor's mining tax and deal with the consequences its near non-existent revenue"[32] as the expected revenue has not materialised. It raised $126 million in the first six months since its introduction.[33]

In 16 August 2013, in its Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook by the Treasury and Finance departments there was an increase in forecasts for tax receipts over the next four years to almost $6 billion still way below its original projection of $22.5 billion.[34] Currently the government is paying back several of pre-payments already made for this tax.[26]

The tax is also proving to be a complex and costly to administer for the government. Current cost is more than $50m setting up administering the tax with an ongoing annual cost of administration estimated of $20m a year. On top of that there was an advertising cost of nearly $40m.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Resource_Rent_Tax

It almost costs as much to collect and administar as it collects funnily enough.

jank

KarmaBaby wrote: »

As a result there two solutions open to the government:

There are usually more than two binary options open to government than the ones you portray.

jank

KarmaBaby wrote: »

So you want to turn Ireland into another Singapore; a wet dream for the super rich. Good for you.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26268500

What you propose would increase inequality and poverty and broaden the number of people considered to be "working poor".

That is a bit of a puff piece in fairness. I have been to Singapore on many occasions and I have seen real poverty in places like Africa and South East Asia where even poor Singaporeans are much better off. Economically Singapore should be a model others should be embracing

KarmaBaby wrote: »

We have a "free" economy and indigenous enterprise is not emerging. It is being suffocated by large scale corporate monopolies and international franchises.

Others have asked but can you name these private monopolies? I can name many State owned monopolies e.g. Irish rail

KarmaBaby wrote: »

The wealthiest are greedy in wanting to have more money and property than everyone else, at the expense of everyone else.

Is your next door neighbour greedy for working those extra shifts or overtime cause he wants more money to send his kids to a better school? Is Bill Gates and Warren Buffett greedy for accumulating a fortune over their lives yet are giving it all away to causes they support without with the added bonus of putting their money to work more effectively and not having government interfere?

Why do you hate so much?

KarmaBaby wrote: »

No I'm not. I'm defending the rights of the poor to have living standards that are adequate. This can only happen at the expense of the rich minority, redistributing their massive wealth to the poorer majority.

Mate, you were born in the wrong century. Those ideas sounded great a hundred years ago. We have 100 years of history and experimentation (never mind death, starvation, authoritarianism, poverty) with the above forced model of 'redistribution'.

KarmaBaby wrote: »

People who earn under €60,000 in Ireland contribute 84% of the total tax take. Is that what you call a "free lunch"?

This is grossly unfair in the context of that same economic group owning nowhere near 84% of the nation's wealth.

Where did you get that 84% figure from, as I feel its either misrepresented or just made up. The department of Finance say that 20.5% of all income tax is paid by those earning more that 200,000 euro a year.
They also say,

According to Revenue
data for 2009, there were 100,000 taxpayers who had an income of over €100,000.
These comprised 4.7 % of taxpayers and they accounted for 22.6 % of income but
paid 45.3% of the income tax.

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/wp-content/uploads/Budget-2013-Progressivity-of-Irish-Income-Tax-System1.pdf


4.7% of tax payers pay 45.3% of income tax but sure they are they greedy folks here

KarmaBaby wrote: »

No it does not. You literally just made this up.

France, Spain, Norway, Iceland, Holland and Switzerland all have a higher tier wealth tax. Other countries like Germany recently abolished their Wealth taxes, but the Christian Democrats have come under immense political pressure to reintroduce it.

Working wonders in France I hear.

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Why are you linking me to wikipedia. (!)

"GDP per capita" is completely and utterly bloody irrelevant, in determining poverty and inequality or the quality of life in general.

With that logic you're telling me that the greatest country in the World is Qatar.

Do you dispute the figures or just whine about the source when it doesn't suit (yet you have not once provided any sources yourself). I never said "GDP per capita" is the be all and end all but thanks for the straw man. It is one of the barometers used to measure a nation against its peers along with others that was also included in that webpage that you 'conveniently' forgot to mention.

KarmaBaby wrote: »

How often do you buy your groceries from a store that is not an international supermarket chain?

Musgrave group (Supervalu, Centra, Londis, Superquinn) has grown its market share massively over the past number of years at the expense of one of the biggest international retailers in the world, Tesco. You do know that Musgrave group is privately owned by Irish people and has its HQ in Cork?

A brief look at the numbers an average Irish person is more likely to buy form an domestic Irish retailer than those big bad corporate 'monopoly' supermarket chain.
http://www.farmersjournal.ie/tesco-share-declines-in-irish-market-148888/
I would suggest checking basic facts before making ideological based claims.

KarmaBaby wrote: »

There is no reason why indigenous irish owned companies could not take larger control of these sectors so that the profits from those exports could actually fuel the Irish economy instead of someone else's.

They do, you just need to open your eyes and ears a bit more e.g. Musgrave Group, Ryanair, Kerry Group, CRH and so forth.

KarmaBaby

jank wrote: »

There are usually more than two binary options open to government than the ones you portray.

??!!

Industry is either privately or publicly owned. There is no third option. What is your mysterious alternative?

comongethappy

KarmaBaby wrote: »

??!!

Industry is either privately or publicly owned. There is no third option. What is your mysterious alternative?

Semi-state.

(Thought that was obvious)

jank

KarmaBaby wrote: »

??!!

Industry is either privately or publicly owned. There is no third option. What is your mysterious alternative?

Care to clarify where you got that 84% figure from and what corporate monopolies exist in Ireland?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PopePalpatine

I was about to ask whether it was fair for a tax-dodging company to not expect the police to protect their right to property, and then I realised that in Anarcho-Capitalist Utopia™ that police forces would be privately owned, potentially by said tax-dodgers. :rolleyes:

jank

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I was about to ask whether it was fair for a tax-dodging company to not expect the police to protect their right to property, and then I realised that in Anarcho-Capitalist Utopia™ that police forces would be privately owned, potentially by said tax-dodgers. :rolleyes:

Somewhere in there, there may be a point regarding the topic at hand "Socialist Party of Ireland", along with a magic money tree to pay for all the nice stuff.

quadrifoglio verde

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Id be for this as well, with obvious conditions attached. Such as the Multinational has to employ a certain amount of people before they can qualify. The last thing we want is a company registering here and only using a po box number to get the low tax rate. Make it part of the deal, that if they want zero percent corporation tax, they can employ a couple of hundred as well.

With regards to the wealth tax, this is a silly proposal from numpty land.
Wealth and the ability to create further wealth is what drives investment, which is what creates jobs.
In a few years time I hope to set up my own company.
To those who advocate a wealth tax, what incentive do I have to set it up in Ireland, if I know prior to setting it up that any money I make from it will be taken by state.
All that Ive risked and worked hard for over the years, putting my financial security on the firing line and what would I get back but a bill from revenue saying we want it all, because its for the better of society.

Why would I bother going to all that hard effort for nothing. This applies to every person in business and considering entering into business. If there is no financial reward there for them at the end of the day, then they're not going to invest, they're not going to create jobs and our unemployment rate will go out of control.

Risk takers seeking profit make the Jobs. Not the government. The only thing the government can do to create jobs is to make it as attractive for the risk taker (the entrepreneur) to take those risks in Ireland and not somewhere else.

Has the socialist party disbanded? Nope certainly not but they do seem embarrassed to be labelled socialists for some reason. Maybe its because champagne anti austerity alliance doesn't work as well together