Leo is the new king of Ireland.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

If you have a link to support that I would be interested in reading it.

I don't have a link to the costing for every grant, tax break, crony appointment, sweet deal, quango.
Why do you think we spend so much on welfare?

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't have a link to the costing for every grant, tax break, crony appointment, sweet deal, quango.
Why do you think we spend so much on welfare?

Just a guess as I expected with no facts to back it up.

My opinion on why we spend so much? It's the easier political choice among all parties. As an example (I forget the exact figures) but at the moment we have something like 5 workers for every pensioner. That will decrease to 2 to 1 in approx 30 years. That is a time bomb that needs to be addressed but instead we are just giving accross the board increases to current rates rather than plan for what might be realistic in the future. But no votes for being realistic

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Just a guess as I expected with no facts to back it up.

My opinion on why we spend so much? It's the easier political choice among all parties. As an example (I forget the exact figures) but at the moment we have something like 5 workers for every pensioner. That will decrease to 2 to 1 in approx 30 years. That is a time bomb that needs to be addressed but instead we are just giving accross the board increases to current rates rather than plan for what might be realistic in the future. But no votes for being realistic

To be fair, I said 'I'd wager'. You can find those numbers if you've the time. Let's settle on, neither of us know.

christy c wrote: »

....Anyway what right wing parties support spending a huge chunk of their budget on social welfare?

So what about that spend leads you to believe it shows FG are not right wing? Do only left wing parties use tax money for the good of the people? Every government must in the least attempt to maintain a functioning society.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So what about that spend leads you to believe it shows FG are not right wing?

Actions speak louder than words. While there are probably FG members who are ideologically right wing, spending a massive chunk on social welfare amongst other things, for me would not mean they are right wing.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Actions speak louder than words. While there are probably FG members who are ideologically right wing, spending a massive chunk on social welfare amongst other things, for me would not mean they are right wing.

Supporting retired tax payers, the sick and assisting tenants avail of the rental market, coupled with the growing cost of 'emergency' accommodation, in part, driven by a housing crisis, is just something the government have to do to maintain this kick ass economy. I doubt it's a case of paying more than required because they are just so liberal and giving.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

is just something the government have to do to maintain this kick ass economy.

I don't agree. Just think it's an easier political choice as I said.

Red_Wake

Matt Barrett wrote: »

christy c wrote: »

Just a guess as I expected with no facts to back it up.

My opinion on why we spend so much? It's the easier political choice among all parties. As an example (I forget the exact figures) but at the moment we have something like 5 workers for every pensioner. That will decrease to 2 to 1 in approx 30 years. That is a time bomb that needs to be addressed but instead we are just giving accross the board increases to current rates rather than plan for what might be realistic in the future. But no votes for being realistic

To be fair, I said 'I'd wager'. You can find those numbers if you've the time. Let's settle on, neither of us know.

christy c wrote: »

....Anyway what right wing parties support spending a huge chunk of their budget on social welfare?

So what about that spend leads you to believe it shows FG are not right wing? Do only left wing parties use tax money for the good of the people? Every government must in the least attempt to maintain a functioning society.

What defines right vs left for you Matt?

You seem to be of the opinion that right wingers are supportive of social supports and their expansion, which is generally accepted to be a left wing policy.

Having said that, we live in a country where the self described left wing opposes all forms of tax, so I can see why you'd be confused.

James Brown

Red_Wake wrote: »

What defines right vs left for you Matt?

You seem to be of the opinion that right wingers are supportive of social supports and their expansion, which is generally accepted to be a left wing policy.

Having said that, we live in a country where the self described left wing opposes all forms of tax, so I can see why you'd be confused.

No, you misunderstand.
Just because FG have to spend what they do on welfare, doesn't make them left wing IMO. That's the only point I'm making. Sure they throw out some sweetners for votes too.

Favoring policies that support larger business while making things worse, more costly for the tax payer, while crises worsen year upon year, would be my idea of an unapologetic right wing party.

Do you feel FG are more left than right?

Red_Wake

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

What defines right vs left for you Matt?

You seem to be of the opinion that right wingers are supportive of social supports and their expansion, which is generally accepted to be a left wing policy.

Having said that, we live in a country where the self described left wing opposes all forms of tax, so I can see why you'd be confused.

No, you misunderstand.
Just because FG have to spend what they do on welfare, doesn't make them left wing IMO. That's the only point I'm making. Sure they throw out some sweetners for votes too.

Favoring policies that support larger business while making things worse, more costly for the tax payer, while crises worsen year upon year, would be my idea of an unapologetic right wing party.

Do you feel FG are more left than right?

I feel they're broadly centrist. Some things they do are on the left of the spectrum[raising social supports in the last budget] while others are more right["people who get up in the morning" type malarkey], but they tend to stick to the centre in the main and even when they drift in a certain direction left or right, they don't go too far.

Out of curiosity, you realise that favouring big business is pretty much what our economy[and by extension, our tax revenues] is built upon? 

Look at how many of the people on the higher rate of tax are employed by MNCs[IT, finance and pharmaceuticals in particular], and how much corporation tax is paid by them. If those jobs and corporations upped sticks and left, we'd be left a much poorer country.

Idbatterim

christy c wrote: »

Actions speak louder than words. While there are probably FG members who are ideologically right wing, spending a massive chunk on social welfare amongst other things, for me would not mean they are right wing.

not only this, this same "right wing" party, have insane marginal rates of tax, INSANE! from a low income!

Where I think some people label them "right wing" is their "leave it to the market" mantra...

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Just because FG have to spend what they do on welfare, doesn't make them left wing IMO

I'd hate to see what our social welfare budget would explode to if what we're spending now is only what we have to

christy c

Idbatterim wrote: »

not only this, this same "right wing" party, have insane marginal rates of tax, INSANE! from a low income!

Where I think some people label them "right wing" is their "leave it to the market" mantra...

Yes agreed, the social welfare budget was just one example I picked.

And they don't even do the "leave it to the market" thing very well. Look at housing, some of the regulations which add ridiculous level of cost for very little benefit are also insane. Plus buying houses to let socially meaning taxpayers are competing against the government using the same tax payers money

James Brown

Red_Wake wrote: »

I feel they're broadly centrist. Some things they do are on the left of the spectrum[raising social supports in the last budget] while others are more right["people who get up in the morning" type malarkey], but they tend to stick to the centre in the main and even when they drift in a certain direction left or right, they don't go too far.

Out of curiosity, you realise that favouring big business is pretty much what our economy[and by extension, our tax revenues] is built upon? 

Look at how many of the people on the higher rate of tax are employed by MNCs[IT, finance and pharmaceuticals in particular], and how much corporation tax is paid by them. If those jobs and corporations upped sticks and left, we'd be left a much poorer country.

I do and it's partially why we've a housing crisis IMO.
Personally I'd like proof that charging low rates of tax on vulture funds who profiteer from mortgages in arrears is beneficial to the Irish people. I would like proof allowing AIB avail of 30 years of no tax on profits, is helpful to the very tax payers who propped them up during the most recent crash.
I would like to be shown how NAMA, (created because of bad debt developers and banks) bankrolling private developers, who will not, in kind, be lowering prices to an affordable level, is of benefit to the Irish tax payer, will cool the housing crisis by essentially providing more houses people need a dig out from the tax payer to afford? I would also be interested in how many jobs/tax take us supporting Apple in it's mission to not give us 13 billion in tax the EU claims we are owed, earns us? I know this relates to our taxation laws, but I'm interested to see if Apple are worth 13 billion in jobs to the Irish or are we desperate to be seen as big corporate friendly. You see I think the 'economy' is all about making it easier and more profitable for big business, foreign or home based, to make money, with a glance shown to welfare and other mechanisms a state requires to function, just enough to keep the two tier recovery going.
With Irish people having the highest level of personal debt in the EU and worsening crises, it's tough to jump on board the FG ideology train is all. I certainly wouldn't call them lefty.

Idbatterim

I am totally against the lower rate of Vat still being charged on hospitality now. The hotels, guesthouses etc are booming again, it is costing the exchequer half a billion a year! That rate should be increased to what it was and it should be used to pay off debt / infrastructure / lowering marginal rate...

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'd wager we spend more on schemes and quangos. That would balance any FG concerns about them being socialist.
I would go on to suggest the lack of interest in fixing the myriad social crises would out weigh any fears regarding a drift to communism.
I thought the economy was flying and employment at a great level? Varadkar had his welfare cheat campaign years ago.
What's the problem? Why the big spend on the sick, poor, elderly?
Mind you, some landlords might have trouble getting their customers if there was no rent allowance supplement. You see a lot of this welfare spend is to prop up working tax payers who cannot make ends meet.
I would expect the department has checks and measures by which need is assessed? If not, FG need get on that. Our economy requires the tax payer to pick up the slack when the worker can't afford to function.
It'll run out of road, you can't keep sucking from the bottom to feed the top.

You would be throwing away money if you wagered that.

Social Welfare is the largest chunk of the spend and is a huge spend. When you add Health and Education to that, there isn't a huge amount left to argue about.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Gene Kerrigan had a very interesting article in the Sindo at the weekend which discussed the other party's trying to get dictate to the rest of us about their suitability (or not) of being in govt.

It is worth the 5 mins taken to read it.

Here's the gist.
A cartel that puts the mock in democracy

I have read it. The problem is that while there is argument over the continued existence of the IRA (whether you believe it or not)

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/provisional-ira-no-longer-engaged-in-terror-says-psni-chief-1.2325832

there is no argument about the continued existent of O'Duffy's organisation.

Consequently, there is a distinction between the two, which Kerrigan fails to acknowledge. I like Kerrigan's writing, as he has an ability to dissect and analyse. Unfortunately, too often he discards relevant parts of the whole in his dissection.

Wheeliebin30

blanch152 wrote: »

You would be throwing away money if you wagered that.

Social Welfare is the largest chunk of the spend and is a huge spend. When you add Health and Education to that, there isn't a huge amount left to argue about.

And the billions these anti everything want us to spend on building social houses for everyone and we will be back again without a pot to piss in and looking for another bailout.

Red_Wake

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

I feel they're broadly centrist. Some things they do are on the left of the spectrum[raising social supports in the last budget] while others are more right["people who get up in the morning" type malarkey], but they tend to stick to the centre in the main and even when they drift in a certain direction left or right, they don't go too far.

Out of curiosity, you realise that favouring big business is pretty much what our economy[and by extension, our tax revenues] is built upon? 

Look at how many of the people on the higher rate of tax are employed by MNCs[IT, finance and pharmaceuticals in particular], and how much corporation tax is paid by them. If those jobs and corporations upped sticks and left, we'd be left a much poorer country.

I do and it's partially why we've a housing crisis IMO.
Personally I'd like proof that charging low rates of tax on vulture funds who profiteer from mortgages in arrears is beneficial to the Irish people. I would like proof allowing AIB avail of 30 years of no tax on profits, is helpful to the very tax payers who propped them up during the most recent crash.
I would like to be shown how NAMA, (created because of bad debt developers and banks) bankrolling private developers, who will not, in kind, be lowering prices to an affordable level, is of benefit to the Irish tax payer, will cool the housing crisis by essentially providing more houses people need a dig out from the tax payer to afford? I would also be interested in how many jobs/tax take us supporting Apple in it's mission to not give us 13 billion in tax the EU claims we are owed, earns us? I know this relates to our taxation laws, but I'm interested to see if Apple are worth 13 billion in jobs to the Irish or are we desperate to be seen as big corporate friendly. You see I think the 'economy' is all about making it easier and more profitable for big business, foreign or home based, to make money, with a glance shown to welfare and other mechanisms a state requires to function, just enough to keep the two tier recovery going.
With Irish people having the highest level of personal debt in the EU and worsening crises, it's tough to jump on board the FG ideology train is all. I certainly wouldn't call them lefty.

You realise that none of the bailed banks were MNCs?

Secondly, the tax Apple was ruled to owe us was generated worldwide, it's booked in Ireland and a change in the tax laws could see it booked somewhere else with no operational change on Apple's part.

You're windmilling now Matt.

brabantje

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

And the billions these anti everything want us to spend on building social houses for everyone and we will be back again without a pot to piss in and looking for another bailout.

Except for working people being in social housing and providing a revenue stream for government, you are correct. People just assume - wrongly - that social housing means dole.

James Brown

Red_Wake wrote: »

You realise that none of the bailed banks were MNCs?

Secondly, the tax Apple was ruled to owe us was generated worldwide, it's booked in Ireland and a change in the tax laws could see it booked somewhere else with no operational change on Apple's part.

You're windmilling now Matt.

You're side stepping and throwing flak Red.
It was suggested FG were not really right wing because of the states welfare spend. I disagreed and showed why, using FG support of big business, from home and abroad. Also, the welfare spend is required, not a good natured fun spend, just 'cause. If you read my post re: apple, I noted it was in relation to us defending tax law, but I asked a question. Is our defending it worth 13b in jobs? I often hear we need keep such companies happy for jobs. What about the NAMA bank, AIB with no tax on profits, low tax for vulture funds? I don't expect you to have all the answers or devote too much time, I'm merely pointing them out as the traits of a, certainly not left wing government.

brabantje wrote: »

Except for working people being in social housing and providing a revenue stream for government, you are correct. People just assume - wrongly - that social housing means dole.

It's convenient to forget the working tax payer who needs assistance and concentrate on anonymous ne'er do wells.
The move currently in the realm of media commentary is to lambaste renters. We can add them to the poor and sick as trouble makers rocking the economy.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You see I think the 'economy' is all about making it easier and more profitable for big business, foreign or home based, to make money, with a glance shown to welfare and other mechanisms a state requires to function, just enough to keep the two tier recovery going.
With Irish people having the highest level of personal debt in the EU and worsening crises, it's tough to jump on board the FG ideology train is all. I certainly wouldn't call them lefty.

Let's assume FG are all about making it easier for big business. What is their motive in that case?

Also Irish people do not have the highest personal debt in the EU. Making things up to suit your argument makes it difficult to take you seriously

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Let's assume FG are all about making it easier for big business. What is their motive in that case?

Why do they persist despite worsening crises? More concerned about a few making a profit than anything else? It certainly hasn't helped any of the crises, if you care to pick one. There's a few to choose from. That's pinkos for ya

christy c wrote: »

Also Irish people do not have the highest personal debt in the EU. Making things up to suit your argument makes it difficult to take you seriously

Why do the Irish still owe more than the Greeks?
And yet if this is so, then why does Ireland continue to carry a shocking level of debt per person, the highest in Europe and the third highest out of 49 countries worldwide?https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/why-do-the-irish-still-owe-more-than-the-greeks-1.3001026

I wouldn't get very far telling porkies now would I, what with some parts of the country having access to the internet.
Just to note, the Social Protection budget or welfare as you put it, is a spend on job seekers, employers, the sick, the poor, the retired, the bereaved, carers and most importantly, renters.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Why do they persist despite worsening crises? More concerned about a few making a profit than anything else? It certainly hasn't helped any of the crises, if you care to pick one. There's a few to choose from. That's pinkos for ya





I wouldn't get very far telling porkies now would I, what with some parts of the country having access to the internet.
Just to note, the Social Protection budget or welfare as you put it, is a spend on job seekers, employers, the sick, the poor, the retired, the bereaved, carers and most importantly, renters.

Don't know what your first paragraph is about. Youre on about crises, I asked what is their motive is for supporting big business or whatever way you put it.

Your link is over a year old, seen as some parts of the country have access to the internet you might be able to find more up to date information

christy c

christy c wrote: »

Don't know what your first paragraph is about. Youre on about crises, I asked what is their motive is for supporting big business or whatever way you put it.

Your link is over a year old, seen as some parts of the country have access to the internet you might be able to find more up to date information

Just to add, seen as I only glanced at your link. The article you linked is about sovereign debt

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Don't know what your first paragraph is about. Youre on about crises, I asked what is their motive is for supporting big business or whatever way you put it.

Your link is over a year old, seen as some parts of the country have access to the internet you might be able to find more up to date information

Firstly, I answered your question, with a question. Why? Well based on their actions I would say, because they want to increase the profits of the very wealthy and almost very wealthy, with little regard to the various crises. Just going on the way things are panning out.

Secondly, my link may be over a year old, however the 2018 figures won't be out yet. Unless you've a link? I see you're in one of the parts has access.
You're just kicking up dust at this juncture.

blackwhite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Why do they persist despite worsening crises? More concerned about a few making a profit than anything else? It certainly hasn't helped any of the crises, if you care to pick one. There's a few to choose from. That's pinkos for ya





I wouldn't get very far telling porkies now would I, what with some parts of the country having access to the internet.
Just to note, the Social Protection budget or welfare as you put it, is a spend on job seekers, employers, the sick, the poor, the retired, the bereaved, carers and most importantly, renters.

The link you provided refers to Government debt - porkies indeed.

Either you don't understand the difference between - or you are falsely trying to equate - per capita public debt to private personal debt.

Latest report on household debt (i.e. private debt held by individuals - not Govt debt and not business debts) I can see has of 4th - behind those basket cases Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands - and is falling fairly quickly.

Total Private sector debt is falling rapidly also.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/irish-household-debt-falls-but-still-among-highest-in-europe-1.3216828

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1106/917804-household-debt-at-its-lowest-level-in-over-a-decade/

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/household-debt-now-at-its-lowest-level-since-2005-36296916.html

James Brown

blackwhite wrote: »

The link you provided refers to Government debt - porkies indeed.

Either you don't understand the difference between - or you are falsely trying to equate - per capita public debt to private personal debt.

Latest report on household debt (i.e. private debt held by individuals - not Govt debt and not business debts) I can see has of 4th - behind those basket cases Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands - and is falling fairly quickly.

Total Private sector debt is falling rapidly also.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/irish-household-debt-falls-but-still-among-highest-in-europe-1.3216828

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1106/917804-household-debt-at-its-lowest-level-in-over-a-decade/

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/household-debt-now-at-its-lowest-level-since-2005-36296916.html

Thanks for the update.
How does this play in to FG not being right wing because of the social protection spend?

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Firstly, I answered your question, with a question. Why? Well based on their actions I would say, because they want to increase the profits of the very wealthy and almost very wealthy, with little regard to the various crises. Just going on the way things are panning out.

Secondly, my link may be over a year old, however the 2018 figures won't be out yet. Unless you've a link? I see you're in one of the parts has access.
You're just kicking up dust at this juncture.

But what's their motive for increasing profits for the very wealthy? That's what I'm asking

Also as I said in my second post, the article you linked refers to sovereign debt. Kicking up dust? Good one

blackwhite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Thanks for the update.
How does this play in to FG not being right wing because of the social protection spend?

I didn't pass any comment on left/right-wing.

Just pointed out the mis-truths in your original claim - oh look, I see goalposts shifting again when called on on it :rolleyes:

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

But what's their motive for increasing profits for the very wealthy? That's what I'm asking

Also as I said in my second post, the article you linked refers to sovereign debt. Kicking up dust? Good one

I am not Leo Varadkar. It's about time you put some answers out there. Why do you think they are not right wing despite their actions over the years?
The Social protection spend is a necessity not some sign of FG being the conservative workers party.

blackwhite wrote: »

I didn't pass any comment on left/right-wing.

Just pointed out the mis-truths in your original claim - oh look, I see goalposts shifting again when called on on it :rolleyes:

Folks side stepping the inconvenient 90% of your post to try score points can be frustrating, aye.