Socialist Party's policies

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Of income tax or all tax?

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Nobody has yet implemented the level of socialist redistribution suggested. I think you'd find a vast number of people moving or "moving" if a heavy socialist system was introduced.

Nope. Those figures don't say the rich are leaving at all. Unless you think part-time workers and graduates are all loaded.
Hint: they're not.

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nope. Those figures don't say the rich are leaving at all. Unless you think part-time workers and graduates are all loaded.
Hint: they're not.

How can you have figures reflecting something that hasn't happened?

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

How can you have figures reflecting something that hasn't happened?

Hey, it was you that guessed rich people would leave Ireland if a leftist government got into power in the first place. Didn't see any data for that other than "I think so".

Chips Lovell

Currently, it's neither the "poorest" nor, with the exception of a few tax exiles is it "the rich" who form the bulk of emigrants. It's largely people in the middle, young and well educated.

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Hey, it was you that guessed rich people would leave Ireland if a leftist government got into power in the first place. Didn't see any data for that other than "I think so".

I don't see how else you'd like me to evidence my opinion that the introduction of a true socialist government would result in a large portion of the tax base moving.

Your contention that such a move hasn't happened yet is moot because neither have we had a true socialist government.

My question remains regarding how you propose to fund this socialist utopia if you lose your biggest tax base?

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nobody said that. Inventing stuff again.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I said they could leave if they want, sure. I think that's a given?
Will they leave? Nope. They've been threatening this through thick and thin for decades. It's still the poorest who leave in far greater numbers.

Eh, you did.

By definition, the poorest are on social welfare.

So what paradise are they all leaving for?

Unless you are wrong, and it is not the poorest who are leaving but don't want to admit you are wrong so accuse someone else of inventing stuff.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

Eh, you did.

By definition, the poorest are on social welfare.

So what paradise are they all leaving for?

Unless you are wrong, and it is not the poorest who are leaving but don't want to admit you are wrong so accuse someone else of inventing stuff.

You said they were leaving to get more social welfare, which nobody else has said.
Like I say, pure fantasy posting.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You said they were leaving to get more social welfare, which nobody else has said.
Like I say, pure fantasy posting.

I hardly think they are stupid enough to leave to get less social welfare.

You have made a claim that the poorest (who by definition are on long-term social welfare) are the ones emigrating. You have presented no evidence to back this up despite the lack of logic in the argument and then you accuse someone else of pure fantasy posting.

I suppose your posts are good for a laugh, if nothing else.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

I hardly think they are stupid enough to leave to get less social welfare.

You have made a claim that the poorest (who by definition are on long-term social welfare) are the ones emigrating. You have presented no evidence to back this up despite the lack of logic in the argument and then you accuse someone else of pure fantasy posting.

I suppose your posts are good for a laugh, if nothing else.

You made he claim that those on social welfare who were leaving Ireland were leaving to get more social welfare elsewhere.
I can't help it if you spew out random garbage and get your knickers in a twist when called out on it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You made he claim that those on social welfare who were leaving Ireland were leaving to get more social welfare elsewhere.
I can't help it if you spew out random garbage and get your knickers in a twist when called out on it.

I think you missed the question marks at the end of the sentences. The nuances of that were lost on you.

Godge wrote: »

So those on social welfare leave for greater rates of social welfare? Where is this paradise of social welfare?

I assumed you knew that the poorest in the country are those on long-term social welfare. I may have mistakenly overestimated your knowledge of the subject. You stated that the poorest were the ones emigrating. I was querying your logic as I could not see the reason behind them leaving.

To clear it up, maybe you could explain the logic behind your claim that the poorest are the ones emigrating. Backing it up with statistics from the CSO Household Budget Survey, the unemployment data or the Labour Force statistics would be informative.

Otherwise maybe you should withdraw the claim, you are beginning to look a little silly, accusing others of spewing out "random garbage" and getting their knickers in a twist when all the time you are like the emperor with no clothes and not able to back up a thing you post.

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

An estate agent told the Telegraph the had a 30% increase in French people looking for expensive homes... so that could be from 10 to 13, yeah? What if they didn't buy them?
Torygraph vague prediction -> "exodus followed"
You couldn't make it up. Oh, wait, they and you did!

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

I think you missed the question marks at the end of the sentences. The nuances of that were lost on you.

Unfortunately for you your quote says exactly the same thing that you are denying now as it did when I called you out on it: that people would move from Irish social welfare to somewhere else for better social welfare. Sorry to have exposed your dole-classes prejudices there Godge.
Is this relevant to some conversation you're having elsewhere, because it's not even close to useful here.

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No problem. In all its glory.

Godge wrote: »

So those on social welfare leave for greater rates of social welfare? Where is this paradise of social welfare?

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

You have made a claim that the poorest (who by definition are on long-term social welfare)

Where did you get this definition?
"by definition" graduates would be poorer as most of them have nonsensically reduced dole rates.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

To clear it up, maybe you could explain the logic behind your claim that the poorest are the ones emigrating. Backing it up with statistics from the CSO Household Budget Survey, the unemployment data or the Labour Force statistics would be informative.

Tell you what, I'll go do that while you toddle off and find anything better than some laughably vague Torygraph waffle to show self-declared VIPs will be leaving Ireland in droves if a lefty government gets in.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No problem. In all its glory.

Sorry, this is going to sound really, really rude, but do you not see the question marks in that post?

There are two

Godge wrote: »

So those on social welfare leave for greater rates of social welfare? Where is this paradise of social welfare?

BoJack Horseman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Tell you what, I'll go do that while you toddle off and find anything better than some laughably vague Torygraph waffle to show self-declared VIPs will be leaving Ireland in droves if a lefty government gets in.

Hard to prove.

However I think its fair to say that should the communists ever come to power there would be some capital & wealth flight

Consider their intention to forcibly seize businesses & industry.

However its frankly a waste of time to put figures on an imagined hypothetical.

FreudianSlippers

Would you prefer Forbes or FT?

Both?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/12/18/can-the-last-taxpayer-leaving-france-please-turn-out-the-lights/

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/13a9bcb0-8a53-11e2-bf79-00144feabdc0.html

Dan_Solo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Hard to prove.

However I think its fair to say that should the communists ever come to power there would be some capital & wealth flight

Consider their intention to forcibly seize businesses & industry.

However its frankly a waste of time to put figures on an imagined hypothetical.

Of course, that's what a communist party would do. The Socialist Party or the biggest left (and most popular overall) party in Ireland, SF? Not so much.

Chips Lovell

Wasn't the OP about a Socialist Party threat to nationalise Dell in Limerick?

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Of course, that's what a communist party would do. The Socialist Party or the biggest left (and most popular overall) party in Ireland, SF? Not so much.

They seem perfectly happy to redefine millionaire as someone earning over €100k, so you can not be too sure they wouldn't start redefining other things.

Their wealth tax would drive away taxpayers imo including me. .

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Unfortunately for you your quote says exactly the same thing that you are denying now as it did when I called you out on it: that people would move from Irish social welfare to somewhere else for better social welfare. Sorry to have exposed your dole-classes prejudices there Godge.
Is this relevant to some conversation you're having elsewhere, because it's not even close to useful here.

I must be still overestimating your capacity to understand my posts.

You said "It's still the poorest who leave in far greater numbers."

http://www.socialjustice.ie/content/policy-issues/16-cent-adults-living-poverty-ireland-have-job-%E2%80%93-these-are-working-poor

16% of the poor have a job, 84% of the poor do not have a job and must be on social welfare. Therefore if the poorest are leaving in far greater numbers, it must be mostly those on social welfare.

That is what you have said. I find this extremely puzzling and counter-intuitive. So I quite legitimately ask a question (notice the question-mark at the end of the question) based on a logical interpretation of your post.

"So those on social welfare leave for greater rates of social welfare? Where is this paradise of social welfare?"

There are three possible answers to this question:

(1) Yes, they leave for higher rates of social welfare in Germany or some other country that you have identified.
(2) No, they leave for other reasons that you have identified (why they would leave for less social welfare I don't understand)
(3) No, you got it wrong and you admit you got it wrong.

I did not state in my post which of these three answers I expected from you. What I got was blather and blather and accusation and diversion and insult e.g. "spew out random garbage".

So maybe now that I have explained it all to you in plain simple language, you might answer the question.

FreudianSlippers

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Wasn't the OP about a Socialist Party threat to nationalise Dell in Limerick?

The goalposts have been significantly shifted by Dan as per usual

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Of course, that's what a communist party would do. The Socialist Party or the biggest left (and most popular overall) party in Ireland, SF? Not so much.

Oh dear, epic fail. Read the OP.

RobertKK wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/socialist-party-nationalise-dell-1796089-Nov2014/



Did you ever see such bad policy from any party?

The Socialist party would take a foreign private company into public ownership is what she is saying. The Dell jobs went to Poland, a people who only know too well what these stupid policies lead to.

What next, the farm land belongs to all the people and not just the people who own the land and we have collectivisation?

BoJack Horseman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Of course, that's what a communist party would do. The Socialist Party or the biggest left (and most popular overall) party in Ireland, SF? Not so much.

Whatever party Coppinger is part of today.

The party name is irrelevant.
If you have communist goals & policies, your a communist.

As for SF?
Their policy is a moveable feast, whatever way the wind blows is their mantra.
Left today, centre tomorrow.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Would you prefer Forbes or FT?

Both?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/12/18/can-the-last-taxpayer-leaving-france-please-turn-out-the-lights/

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/13a9bcb0-8a53-11e2-bf79-00144feabdc0.html

"confiscatory" LOL!
Have you got anything with a real actual number in it or just this sort of feeling in me water tripe?

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

Oh dear, epic fail. Read the OP.

That's one company Godge. Not the entire Irish private sector.
PS: epic fail? Srsly?

Skylinehead

Dan_Solo wrote: »

"confiscatory" LOL!

What's "LOL" about that?

Not withstanding that "LOL" isn't exactly arguing to a high standard.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The goalposts have been significantly shifted by Dan as per usual

But not by those who claim the Socialist Party want to nationalise every private company in Ireland. Oh no, no goalpost moving there meladdy.

Dan_Solo

Skylinehead wrote: »

What's "LOL" about that?

Not withstanding that "LOL" isn't exactly arguing to a high standard.

It's one of those codewords for "this is laughably subjective **** journalism". You'll get to spot them after a while yourself.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

"So those on social welfare leave for greater rates of social welfare? Where is this paradise of social welfare?"

There are three possible answers to this question:

(1) Yes, they leave for higher rates of social welfare in Germany or some other country that you have identified.
(2) No, they leave for other reasons that you have identified (why they would leave for less social welfare I don't understand)
(3) No, you got it wrong and you admit you got it wrong.

Ah yes, give three **** answers and insist I pick one. Godge, that debating tactic went out with the dinosaurs. Pathetic stuff.
(4) They leave to work because they can't get a job here. Nothing to do with social welfare rates.
You can have that tail surgically removed from between your legs I hear.

MOD: Dan_Solo has been banned for 3-months for several trollish posts like this across our Politics forums.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah yes, give three **** answers and insist I pick one. Godge, that debating tactic went out with the dinosaurs. Pathetic stuff.
(4) They leave to work because they can't get a job here. Nothing to do with social welfare rates.
You can have that tail surgically removed from between your legs I hear.

But only 1 in every 6 who left in the last 12 months were unemployed?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/brain-drain-threatens-to-stall-recovery-283724.html

None of what you're saying appears to tally with reality on this?

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

But only 1 in every 6 who left in the last 12 months were unemployed?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/brain-drain-threatens-to-stall-recovery-283724.html

None of what you're saying appears to tally with reality on this?

What about the graduates, or those on McJobs where, like many, they'd be honestly better off not working? This data says nothing about how "high value" the average emigrant is. Not a thing.
It also doesn't address whatever conversation Godge was having with himself about those on social welfare leaving to get social welfare somewhere else. Then again, probably nothing does.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What about the graduates, or those on McJobs where, like many, they'd be honestly better off not working? This data says nothing about how "high value" the average emigrant is. Not a thing.
It also doesn't address whatever conversation Godge was having with himself about those on social welfare leaving to get social welfare somewhere else. Then again, probably nothing does.

They are included in the 16% of the poorest who were referenced in the link I provided. That still doesn't answer the question as to why the 84% of the poorest who are on social welfare would be leaving?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah yes, give three **** answers and insist I pick one. Godge, that debating tactic went out with the dinosaurs. Pathetic stuff.
(4) They leave to work because they can't get a job here. Nothing to do with social welfare rates.
You can have that tail surgically removed from between your legs I hear.

So they can't get a job here, and are on the best social welfare rates in Europe for long-term unemployed and they leave on the off-chance they might get a job somewhere else but if they don't, won't qualify for social welfare in that other mythical country they are leaving for?

Are you going to provide a credible answer to the question?

Deleted User wrote: »

But only 1 in every 6 who left in the last 12 months were unemployed?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/brain-drain-threatens-to-stall-recovery-283724.html

None of what you're saying appears to tally with reality on this?

Actually those figures show why Dan is unable to provide an answer to the question as to why so many of the poorest are leaving. The answer is they aren't and he was just spouting off.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

So they can't get a job here, and are on the best social welfare rates in Europe for long-term unemployed and they leave on the off-chance they might get a job somewhere else but if they don't, won't qualify for social welfare in that other mythical country they are leaving for?

Are you going to provide a credible answer to the question?

What question? You're the only one saying poor people move to another country specifically to get the dole there. It is an argument you are 100% having with yourself. Why don't you get back to us when you're done?

Godge wrote: »

Actually those figures show why Dan is unable to provide an answer to the question as to why so many of the poorest are leaving. The answer is they aren't and he was just spouting off.

Those "figures" say nothing at else except what you invent for yourself about the income levels of those leaving. If you have income levels, go on, show them. (you can't, you won't, we all know this).

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But not by those who claim the Socialist Party want to nationalise every private company in Ireland. Oh no, no goalpost moving there meladdy.

The mere idea of a situation where a private foreign company could be nationalised under the policy of a left government (the essence of this thread) would result in some companies leaving the country, and others not considering setting up here.

One doesn't have to nationalise every company to cause chaos.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It's one of those codewords for "this is laughably subjective **** journalism". You'll get to spot them after a while yourself.

So that's the Telegraph, the Financial Times and Forbes on your list of bad journalists? :rolleyes:

What source would you like other than the horse's mouth?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What about the graduates, or those on McJobs where, like many, they'd be honestly better off not working?

Minimum wage is €8.65, a part-time job of 25 hours a week results in €216.25/week - that's more than the dole plus experience.

With some exceptions, no graduate is better off not working.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What question? You're the only one saying poor people move to another country specifically to get the dole there. It is an argument you are 100% having with yourself. Why don't you get back to us when you're done?
Those "figures" say nothing at else except what you invent for yourself about the income levels of those leaving. If you have income levels, go on, show them. (you can't, you won't, we all know this).

Let me rephrase the question again a different way for you to understand.

Do you have any evidence at all (links to reports, statistics etc.) to back up your assertion that it is the poorest who form the greater part of emigrants when it is acknowledged everywhere that the poorest in Irish society consist mostly of social welfare recipients (see the links I provided in an earlier post) and can you explain why they are likely to leave when leaving is going to put them in a financially worse off situation as social welfare rates in other countries are much lower and Ireland is the fastest growing economy in the EU and the jobless rate is now below the long-term average?

You have made a statement but when questioned on it and asked to back it up, all you have to offer is insults, diversion and blather. For once, can you just answer the question with some evidence or just admit you are wrong.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The mere idea of a situation where a private foreign company could be nationalised under the policy of a left government (the essence of this thread) would result in some companies leaving the country, and others not considering setting up here.

This is totally true. I would never support nationalising any private venture.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So that's the Telegraph, the Financial Times and Forbes on your list of bad journalists? :rolleyes:

I didn't say they every journalist employed by them was bad. The Telegraph have a good sports page... but this waffling again just proves the fact that there are zero numbers to back your "tax exodus" theory. It's imaginary. Sorry.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Minimum wage is €8.65, a part-time job of 25 hours a week results in €216.25/week - that's more than the dole plus experience.

With some exceptions, no graduate is better off not working.

That's fine if you have free rent. And live within walking distance of where you work. Oh, so not really then.
So yes, quite easy to be working the McJob and be desperate to leave Ireland. After tax you may as well not have bothered.

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And yet you don't seem to be able to tell us "what he meant" when he said

Godge wrote:

"So those on social welfare leave for greater rates of social welfare? Where is this paradise of social welfare?"

Go on then. Knock yourself out.
Let's face it, if any of ye knew what he meant (if anything) you'd have said it by now instead of watching Godge flip flop around trying to fabricate something, anything, tangential that makes an ounce of sense.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

You have made a statement but when questioned on it and asked to back it up, all you have to offer is insults

Who have I insulted. Are you alleging I have insulted someone?
Report it now please or withdraw your lie.

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What question? You're the only one saying poor people move to another country specifically to get the dole there. It is an argument you are 100% having with yourself. Why don't you get back to us when you're done?

It’s not very likely they would qualify for the dole in another country (if that country has a “dole” –many emigrants are going to the US for example and there are very few states that don’t require payment into the system first). Furthermore, if it is another EU country, they would very likely not be able to move there as the free movement principle would not apply to them.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Those "figures" say nothing at else except what you invent for yourself about the income levels of those leaving. If you have income levels, go on, show them. (you can't, you won't, we all know this).

IBEC disagrees with you.

[…] recent official statistics which have shown that half of all emigrants since 2009 were employed in the period before they left with another quarter being recent graduates.

The clearest illustration of this issue is a comparison with the UK. […] Given a choice between working in Ireland or in the UK over the years in their career in which earnings growth is highest skilled graduates would be better by tens of thousands (in the region of an annual average of €4,000 to €5,000 per annum […]) working in the UK over the course of the decade. Recent emigration statistics […] suggest that this effect on earnings and career progression may be more important than employment growth in decisions to emigrate among third level graduates (50% of all emigrants since 2009)

Recent CSO figures challenged the dominant narrative that emigration was predominantly related to unemployment. Indeed less than one in five (20%) of people who have emigrated since 2009 were unemployed before they left. Almost half were employed and another quarter were students. In order to retain or regain these skilled individuals it is imperative we deliver a system of tax which is attractive to these individuals.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And yet you don't seem to be able to tell us "what he meant" when he said
Go on then. Knock yourself out.
Let's face it, if any of ye knew what he meant (if anything) you'd have said it by now instead of watching Godge flip flop around trying to fabricate something, anything, tangential that makes an ounce of sense.

There you go, put into simple language for you.

Godge wrote: »

Let me rephrase the question again a different way for you to understand.

Do you have any evidence at all (links to reports, statistics etc.) to back up your assertion that it is the poorest who form the greater part of emigrants when it is acknowledged everywhere that the poorest in Irish society consist mostly of social welfare recipients (see the links I provided in an earlier post) and can you explain why they are likely to leave when leaving is going to put them in a financially worse off situation as social welfare rates in other countries are much lower and Ireland is the fastest growing economy in the EU and the jobless rate is now below the long-term average?

You have made a statement but when questioned on it and asked to back it up, all you have to offer is insults, diversion and blather. For once, can you just answer the question with some evidence or just admit you are wrong.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Who have I insulted. Are you alleging I have insulted someone?
Report it now please or withdraw your lie.

Maybe you can explain why it isn't an insult to compare a person to an animal?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You can have that tail surgically removed from between your legs I hear.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It’s not very likely they would qualify for the dole in another country (if that country has a “dole” –many emigrants are going to the US for example and there are very few states that don’t require payment into the system first). Furthermore, if it is another EU country, they would very likely not be able to move there as the free movement principle would not apply to them.

Which makes Godge's original non-point he was arguing with himself about people moving elsewhere for the dole, which nobody had suggested except himself, make even less sense.
Thanks for that.

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Which makes Godge's original non-point he was arguing with himself about people moving elsewhere for the dole, which nobody had suggested except himself, make even less sense.
Thanks for that.

I'll get back to the substance of why you are wrong when I'm not on the touch site, but are you planning on ignoring the substance of my post which rubbishes what you've been saying the past few posts?