Election called for Saturday 8 February

James Brown

Millionaire only not wrote: »

Who’s the poor people in society certainly not the dole / pyjamas family !

Try the clowns working that can’t get a deposit , start a family everything is on hold for them , yet some of our society can fire out kids at 17 onwards !

I'd cap allowances at 2 kids and evict anyone not paying rent. I'd also make social housing available to any worker not earning enough to rent. I'd also make sure nobody stayed in them once the market cooled enough.
But folk keep voting FG and expecting changes

Idbatterim

Millionaire only not wrote: »

Who’s the poor people in society certainly not the dole / pyjamas family !

Try the clowns working that can’t get a deposit , start a family everything is on hold for them , yet some of our society can fire out kids at 17 onwards !

so we have the "poor" who get everything for nothing and we have the working poor, who pay E60 for a gp visit etc, the ones paying into the system, often avoid the gp, because they cant justify it or afford it! Is it just me, or does this sound like one hell of a fcuked up system? One poor person gets it all for nothing and the other "poor" person, pays a fortune!

The more you pay in, the less you get out!

elperello

saabsaab wrote: »

In order.

Maybe you're right but it could be tweaked/
Again maybe you're right but ditto
I am old enough myself and speak to pensioners all the time I think they would like to upgrade their homes and not have to be saddled with high fuel bills at ongoing cost every winter.
Those taxes don't affect older people directly and a limit could be placed on the % value loss if in the few cases all 3 are levied!

The only way I could see it working is if it was completely voluntary.

Not linked to LPT.

If the person decided that they would like to take an interest free loan repaid when they pass it would be up to them and their family to decide.

fly_agaric

Bambi wrote: »

The housing we built in the 30s actually worked. By the 60s we had housing projects of the future designed by very clever social engineers who gave us Ballymun and Tallaght and its been downhill ever since

As far as I can see the terrible Ballymun and Tallaght are better than just not building anything + leaving it all to the market or depending on incentive policies like tax breaks for builders/buyers & welfare for private landlords via HAP.

As said already, the country hadn't got a pot to piss in decades past relative to now but still the councils of the day were able to both fund and organise construction of housing.

It was a point of pride (I think - wasn't around) back then & there was a large amount of political & public will. Since around 90s-00s I'd say it became a much lower priority, setting things on the road to where they are now. IMO over the years FF became more interested in the needs and profit margins of the people buying and selling the land/properties and constructing the houses/apartments. In fairness, don't know if FG ever pretended to prioritise the social democracy aspect (ensuring good, low cost housing is provided to all citizens).

Anyway I'm sure the good folk of AH/Current affairs will be bending the ear of their local FF/FG politician over next few weeks...no spending my squeezed middle "tax monies" on "forever homes" for the "fake homeless/idle poor" + will get a deferential little nod & a quiet promise in return!

saabsaab

elperello wrote: »

The only way I could see it working is if it was completely voluntary.

Not linked to LPT.

If the person decided that they would like to take an interest free loan repaid when they pass it would be up to them and their family to decide.

Can't see any tax being voluntary, if it was introduced.
LPT mechanism for collection is already there and BER would be just used to adjust same. No new system to develop.

Of course it would be up to the owner to decide to upgrade but if they don't they will pay by higher fuel costs.

elperello

saabsaab wrote: »

Can't see any tax being voluntary, if it was introduced.
LPT mechanism for collection is already there and BER would be just used to adjust same. No new system to develop.

Of course it would be up to the owner to decide to upgrade but if they don't they will pay by higher fuel costs.

We are a bit a cross purposes.

I didn't mean that repayment would be voluntary. I meant participation in the scheme would be voluntary.

LeinsterDub

boggerman1 wrote: »

I’m a farmer so another reason for the green cult to hate me.i need my car to do my business and from time to time I could need my car in an emergency be it a cow calving and I away from farm to getting medicine from vets etc.where the hell would car pooling work for me.car pooling might work in Dublin but you also have the dart,luas,train and buses.heard another green candidate on the radio this evening saying that money shouldn’t be spent in mayo on road improvements.the rest of Ireland does deserve to have safe roads as much as inside the m50.until the greens come into the real world they will be for the birds

How would Ryan's proposal effect you? He didn't say we are taking your car and you'll have to pool. It's an option. An alternative. A choice

LeinsterDub

Idbatterim wrote: »

the corporate tax rate will not be touched! You think they will undermine the confidence in it, to take in some extra pittance? Not a chance, believe me, not a chance! wouldnt even be entertained!

A pan European approach is needed to tax these giants

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Boss, who do you think is living in the hotels and getting plush apartments leased out for them? The black and tans?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Blanch brought up jobbrige as a ruse.
Did a Fas scheme myself one time. Two of us working part time, different shifts. Beat having to pay some fella wages.

I think the election has sent you into overdrive. The personal attacks are on speed and the nonsensical ideas are getting more far-fetched. I must have counted seven or eight posts where you had a go at another poster.

There are weeks to go in the election before you can get back to normal and spend your time complaining about FG/FF in government and the way that Greens/Labour/Sinn Fein/Soc Dems have betrayed their voters by supporting them/entering coalition/agreeing confidence and supply. (Delete as appropriate from the previous sentence)

elperello

LeinsterDub wrote: »

How would Ryan's proposal effect you? He didn't say we are taking your car and you'll have to pool. It's an option. An alternative. A choice

I think an option like that could be attractive to people on low incomes or retired who don't need a car all the time.

They wouldn't have the expense of owning a car but the occasional use subject to booking.

Spanish Eyes

LPT, now why does it only apply to home owners? Surely everyone benefits from the services provided by CCs.

So unfair in many ways. Anyway I’ll get over it. But still cannot understand how every other country charges everyone, renters and owners a council type tax.

And I do remember that bin charges are privatised. I’d prefer to pay for that through LPT.

Just a bit of a rant, hope I will be forgiven! More to come I expect though.

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Hundreds of people, myself included, are in full time employment thanks to JobBridge. It got me the experience I lacked. Gave me the opportunity to prove myself.

That’s good news but before they tightened things up the scheme was being abused with the likes of Tesco getting workers in and having to pay them feck all.

It took awhile to clean it up and stop it being abused.
Good that it eventually worked.

James Brown

tayto lover wrote: »

That’s good news but before they tightened things up the scheme was being abused with the likes of Tesco getting workers in and having to pay them feck all.

It took awhile to clean it up and stop it being abused.
Good that it eventually worked.

The concept was good, as with Fas schemes but employers were getting free labour rather than hiring. Like most things people will game where they can.

Idbatterim

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The concept was good, as with Fas schemes but employers were getting free labour rather than hiring. Like most things people will game where they can.

It was better than just leaving people claim the dole in my opinion

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

It was better than just leaving people claim the dole in my opinion

Like Fas. I signed up myself rather than be idle.
Anyway, no politician is advocating for people who don't want to work. And if folk are pissed about the way things are, we need police it better but voting for FG because its 'the left's fault' is simply not true.

Calhoun

There were companies who were abusing it and they are worse than people on the dole as they are intentionally taking advantage of vulnerable people.

thequarefellow

Calhoun wrote: »

There were companies who were abusing it and they are worse than people on the dole as they are intentionally taking advantage of vulnerable people.

I was working in a small business that took on two people in that scheme. They were taken on because they were cheap labour yes, the company simply was in no position to take on extra employees at that stage. The two who were taken on moved on to better jobs (which they were delighted with and are still in) after 6 months and twelve months respectively. As everyone knows, it's easier to land a position when you already have a job.
Jobseekers allowance should be reduced by 20% every year to a very modest baseline.
Same with children's allowances, reduce by 20% with each subsequent child.

is_that_so

NovemberWren wrote: »

yes. not ff or fg.

I have looked at youtube - The National Party.
This Justin Barrett is a cuddly muppet and James Reynolds, a rare 'ul farmer countryman.
The pair of them, are; anoraks. A most rare find in these days.
More of a patriot mould maybe, than politician.

Of course, they dopily approach the immigration issue way too brusquely; but, after all, it is kinda' amazing when Simon Coveney in the Dail in November '18 said that "an extra 500,000 migrants will be arriving from 2020 to 2040".
Maybe that should be debated mainly from a numbers point of view.

Although, (and I am not certain about this), that the EU will give E50billion for this.

Though I doubt that the migrants will barely see a penny; and it will mostly go into the pockets of ........ ffg investors.

The problem with an AB vote as it can lead to buyer's remorse as you're not actually voting for anything. Not being one of the above should not be the reason to choose them.

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'd cap allowances at 2 kids and evict anyone not paying rent. I'd also make social housing available to any worker not earning enough to rent. I'd also make sure nobody stayed in them once the market cooled enough.
But folk keep voting FG and expecting changes

Workers can apply for social housing. It’s not and never was only for the unemployed.

If people are expecting ANY political party to make the changes People want, then they’ll be disappointed. People’s attitudes need change. If housing isn’t available in their preferred area and they’re unemployed, then they have to be open to moving. After all, many employed people move either for work or an affordable home.
Failure to pay rent and they’re out.
Stop pussyfooting around criminals. Three strikes and it’s a year in prison sewing mail bags or some other useful activity.
A & E is solely for people who cannot walk in. If they can walk, then use their GP or Caredoc.
I would abolish child benefit and put it instead into free books and supplies for school.

Plumbthedepths

Not a good start for Leo.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/varadkar-i-didnt-politicise-homeless-mans-injuries-975771.html

iamwhoiam

Deleted User wrote: »

Workers can apply for social housing. It’s not and never was only for the unemployed.

If people are expecting ANY political party to make the changes People want, then they’ll be disappointed. People’s attitudes need change. If housing isn’t available in their preferred area and they’re unemployed, then they have to be open to moving. After all, many employed people move either for work or an affordable home.
Failure to pay rent and they’re out.
Stop pussyfooting around criminals. Three strikes and it’s a year in prison sewing mail bags or some other useful activity.
A & E is solely for people who cannot walk in. If they can walk, then use their GP or Caredoc.
I would abolish child benefit and put it instead into free books and supplies for school.

That is absolutely not right ,there are many reasons to attend A and E and be still walking .Dislocation, lacerations , hand or head injuries. I walked in with a severe medical emergency and was fully entitled to be there while they saved my life

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The concept was good, as with Fas schemes but employers were getting free labour rather than hiring. Like most things people will game where they can.

FAS schemes are for community benefits. Not big business.

Bishop of hope

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Not a good start for Leo.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/varadkar-i-didnt-politicise-homeless-mans-injuries-975771.html

This is, really the media trying to politicise the tragedy.
If a homeless person gets a toe nail removed its a media event.

Plumbthedepths

Bishop of hope wrote: »

This is, really the media trying to politicise the tragedy.
If a homeless person gets a toe nail removed its a media event.

Leo asked for the Lord Mayor of Dublin to make a statement who happens to be a FF candidate do you if the Lord Mayor was a FG candidate he would have made the same suggestion?. Btw it was Leo who tried to politicise what happened.

iamwhoiam

iamwhoiam wrote: »

That is absolutely not right ,there are many reasons to attend A and E and be still walking .Dislocation, lacerations , hand or head injuries. I walked in with a severe medical emergency and was fully entitled to be there while they saved my life

Their GP or Caredoc would then refer them to A & E

Bishop of hope

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Leo asked for the Lord Mayor of Dublin to make a statement who happens to be a FF candidate do you if the Lord Mayor was a FG candidate he would have made the same suggestion?. Btw it was Leo who tried to politicise what happened.

He was being pressed by the media at the time, he made a sly dig at a rival politician sure, to be expected during a campaign.
But all this is media driven.

Snow Garden

Bishop of hope wrote: »

He was being pressed by the media at the time, he made a sly dig at a rival politician sure, to be expected during a campaign.
But all this is media driven.

Regina Doherty came on to the Tonight Show at 11pm and was asked about the mayor story. She said to Ivan/Matt that she was campaigning all day and it was the first she heard of it. The whole panel just smiled.

iamwhoiam

Deleted User wrote: »

Their GP or Caredoc would then refer them to A & E

No, I was not in a position to go first to a GP I would have died in any delay ., I knew it was an emergency and was in need of help quickly .

Plumbthedepths

Bishop of hope wrote: »

He was being pressed by the media at the time, he made a sly dig at a rival politician sure, to be expected during a campaign.
But all this is media driven.

Yes and when you are running for election you are going to be asked sometimes awkward, sometimes stupid questions particularly as leader. Leo is very media savvy. Yesterday he fcuked up. It would have been enough to offer his sympathy and leave it at that, instead he couldn't resist trying to get a dig in at FF at the expense of the tragedy. It has bit him on the ass.

mariaalice

One of the big issue with politics:

Before the election, Steven Donnelly blames Simon Harris personally for the problems of the HSE.

The election is looming and Simon Donnelly is afraid he might actually become minister for health he gives an interview where he says one person can't sort out the health services it will involve big changes involving several stakeholders.

In other words in opposition its the minister's individual responsibility, potentially in power it's not the minister's individual responsibility.