Thinking of Voting Sinn Fein - Should I?

skimpydoo

anewme wrote: »

They want additional taxes on those on 100k

Mary Lou said those on 100k would be better off than they are now.

anewme

skimpydoo wrote: »

Mary Lou said those on 100k would be better off than they are now.

Look at their website then.

I'm asking also why its changed from 70k, which it was, to 100k.

The Rape of Lucretia

So tax reduction for those under 100k, tax increases for those over it. Certainly drawing the line there where it makes a difference to the average earner.....

maccored

anewme wrote: »

Look st their website then.

I'm asking also why its changed from 70k, which it was, to 100k.

its been 100k for ages. In fact its 140k now - or thats the figure thats been thrown around


"A new 5 per cent tax on people earning over €140,000, as well as other tax rises for those earning above €100,000"

what that means in actual real terms we wont know until we could see for real how their tax system would work and if it would benefit the average worker. Then a 5% increase might really be a 2% increase. or it could go the other way - like the way things are now. even the 'full employment' really means 'terribly ****ty paid jobs'.

anewme

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

So tax reduction for those under 100k, tax increases for those over it. Certainly drawing the line there where it makes a difference to the average earner.....

Theres a lot of people in the bracket of 70 - 100k, I reckon that's why they've changed it upwards as they were cutting off too many.

I will remind you they are mostly PAYE earners too.

anewme

maccored wrote: »

its been 100k for ages. In fact its 140k now - or thats the figure thats been thrown around

Define ages? When did they up it from 70k?

Repeat again...it states extra taxes over 100k on their website.

The Rape of Lucretia

anewme wrote: »

Theres a lot of people in the bracket of 70 - 100k, I reckon that's why they've changed it upwards as they were cutting off too many.

I will remind you they are mostly PAYE earners too.

For sure. Left parties all move towards the centre when they realise there simply isnt enough left support to get anywhere. But hang on to the veneer of leftism nonetheless,however fake.

maccored

anewme wrote: »

Define ages? When did they up it from 70k?

Repeat again...it states extra taxes over 100k on their website.

really? I have to get up for work in the morning.

This is from 2014 - it clearly states 100,000

https://www.thejournal.ie/sinn-fein-73-per-cent-tax-1717283-Oct2014/

this is from last week - it clearly states 140,000

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/election-2020-sinn-f%C3%A9in-wants-new-5-tax-on-people-earning-over-140-000-1.4153166

maccored

anewme wrote: »

Theres a lot of people in the bracket of 70 - 100k, I reckon that's why they've changed it upwards as they were cutting off too many.

I will remind you they are mostly PAYE earners too.

how long ago did they change it from 70? from before the last election you say? That would mean you are incorrect in your analysis I would assume?

anewme

maccored wrote: »

how long ago did they change it from 70? from before the last election you say? That would mean you are incorrect in your analysis I would assume?

This is from their website NOW ..today

Introduce a third rate of income tax on individual earnings over €100,000

So someones telling porkies or they are moving goalposts....again

In 2016 they wanted to abolish USC for those earning under 70k.

40k widening band in 4 years? That's some inflation.

maccored

anewme wrote: »

This is from their website NOW ..today

Introduce a third rate of income tax on individual earnings over €100,000

So someones telling porkies or they are moving goalposts....again

Can you outline the point you are trying to make to me?

tax increases over 100,000 and 5% over 140,000.

You are saying they changed it from 70,000 to 100,000. Its been 100,000 for a while. go back to a - Can you outline the point you are trying to make to me?

Originally Posted by anewme
Theres a lot of people in the bracket of 70 - 100k, I reckon that's why they've changed it upwards as they were cutting off too many.

I will remind you they are mostly PAYE earners too.

Idbatterim

Joseph Goebbels himself couldn't save FG now!

anewme

maccored wrote: »

Can you outline the point you are trying to make to me?

tax increases over 100,000 and 5% over 140,000.

You are saying they changed it from 70,000 to 100,000. Its been 100,000 for a while. go back to a - Can you outline the point you are trying to make to me?

The point is that are trying to constantly change the Net to capture more voters.

It was 70k, then 100k, then 140k - constant changes in the definition of "wealthy".

Shes saying 140k when it says 100k on website.

Other posters spotted their angle perfectly.

Not sure why you are saying you've to get up for work- I do too.

maccored

anewme wrote: »

In 2016 they wanted to abolish USC for those earning under 70k.

And in 2020 they've reduced that to under 30,000 (I think - not sure but its something like that)

40k widening band in 4 years? That's some inflation.

I wouldnt know - Im not financially acquainted with how governments do those things.

Have you ever heard FF or FG explain how they calculate whatever they calculate to make income tax work? No. I didn't think so. Why expect SF to do so then?

maccored

anewme wrote: »

The point is that are trying to constantly change the Net to capture more voters.

It was 70k, then 100k, then 140k - constant changes in the definition of "wealthy".

Shes saying 140k when it says 100k on website.

Other posters spotted their angle perfectly.

Not sure why you are saying you've to get up for work- I do too.

when was it 70k? At least a decade ago as we know it was 100,000 six years ago. Theres been an election already since.

There are tax increases for those over 100,000. Theres a 5% increase on those earning 140,000. which bits are you missing here?

maccored

skimpydoo wrote: »

Mary Lou said those on 100k would be better off than they are now.

she said those earning up to 100k - though those earning over 100k are still getting the tax rates of those earning under so they've paid less tax already by the time they get to 100k

anewme

maccored wrote: »

And in 2020 they've reduced that to under 30,000 (I think - not sure but its something like that)



I wouldnt know - Im not financially acquainted with how governments do those things.

Have you ever heard FF or FG explain how they calculate whatever they calculate to make income tax work? No. I didn't think so. Why expect SF to do so then?

That's my point with SF, they think that those they despised and targeted as 'rich' will be now stupid enough to trust them.

joe swanson

maccored wrote: »

you may get to the guards and tell them all about how those looking to get elected for SF are guilty of those crimes.

Otherwise, why are you mentioning it? Its from a different time - and almost even a different party involved considering how they used to be northern based and have since grown very much as a southern party. If these people are responsible for what you say - tell the guards now!! You couldn't elect someone like that.

Unless of course they have never done such things and you're playing the emotional card. Pretty desperate if you ask me to be going on like that

Shinnerbot with standard issue shimmer response: the issues I posted about are far from a different time. That’s like saying I’ll give ff a vote cause when they made a mess of things it was a different time. Read my post before writing such a ridiculous reply

anewme

maccored wrote: »

when was it 70k? At least a decade ago as we know it was 100,000 six years ago. Theres been an election already since.

There are tax increases for those over 100,000. Theres a 5% increase on those earning 140,000. which bits are you missing here?

I'm not missing any.

You were missing the tax increases for 100k.

maccored

anewme wrote: »

That's my point with SF, they think that those they despised and targeted as 'rich' will be now stupid enough to trust them.

Aye. I'm with ye.

can this please stop now?

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

Joseph Goebbels himself couldn't save FG now!

Idbatterim, I agree with you on 99% of threads I see you comment on.

However, I have to say I'm strongly considering voting SF for the first time ever this time.

FG played a blinder with Brexit and the negotiations, but I still think they have lost touch. Eoin O'Broin called for a rent freeze which would benefit me, but it got poo-pooed by ffg. Nothing else in the land is inflating by 4% yearly, so why is rent allowed increase by that much year on year?

Past Taoisigh have been doctors and school teachers, not like any were economics experts or anything.

I don't know, but maybe, i think I'd give SF a go. FG brought us out of recession, but I like many people don't really feel it.

I'm undecided.

maccored

anewme wrote: »

I'm not missing any.

You were missing the tax increases for 100k.

when was i missing those? They were in the article you didnt read that I had posted for you to read. But you didnt it seems, as its all in there.

anewme

maccored wrote: »

when was i missing those? They were in the article you didnt read that I had posted for you to read. But you didnt it seems, as its all in there.

I know what their manifesto was before you posted any articles...so not sure of the value of posting links that people already know about.

They want to increase tax for those between 100-140k.

joe swanson

If people want to vote for the shinners then so be it . I shall be deeply saddened if the current polls are right. I honestly thought the people in this country had more integrity and conscience than to vote for these lowlifes . We shall see

derfderf

maccored wrote: »

you may get to the guards and tell them all about how those looking to get elected for SF are guilty of those crimes.

Otherwise, why are you mentioning it? Its from a different time - and almost even a different party involved considering how they used to be northern based and have since grown very much as a southern party. If these people are responsible for what you say - tell the guards now!! You couldn't elect someone like that.

Unless of course they have never done such things and you're playing the emotional card. Pretty desperate if you ask me to be going on like that

Are you a new member of SF? Or were you also a member back in that different time?

Arghus

The thing that always stops me is that they probably know somebody who killed somebody, or know somebody that knows somebody that killed somebody. There's a whiff of sulpher off them, or at least cordite.

I can't take any of their election pledges seriously. What they are proposing: spending being blasted like a money cannon remorselessly at everything, while cutting all of their own forms of revenue? It literally doesn't add up. It all sounds great, but a lot of it is fantastical. And that whole border poll thing - that to me doesn't sound too good.

It's a pity though, because I think people truly are fed up with the Punch and Judy show of FG and FF, and their feelings of entitlement when it comes to power. They're beating each other up over minute policy differences, because, at bottom, the difference between either of them is negliable. There's no real new ideas from either of them, it's quite depressing.

There is a real appetite for change, which is good, but I'm a bit saddened that SF are probably going to capitialise on this moment ahead of other less cynical parts of the left, who are think are being far less populist and disingenuous about what they proposing to do. People want to break out of the FF/FG merry go around, but, as someone on the left myself, I wish SF weren't essentially lying their way into people's hearts, in their rush to get at the levers of power. It feels unnecessary: people's desire for change is there anyway.

Though I think - or should I say I suspect - they probably don't want power right now. The election after this might be the real goal: they're much better of thinking of the long game than all of the others. Just get as many TDs as possible elected this time, watch the government - whoever they are - get the ball rolling on fixing housing, turn the opposition all the way up to the setting marked maximum - and then watch the bonanza roll in the next GE.

maccored

anewme wrote: »

I know what their manifesto was before you posted any articles...so not sure of the value of posting links that people already know about.

They want to increase tax for those between 100-140k.

you didnt know they were increasing taxes above 100,000 and 5% above 140,000 - which as you know, is in their manifesto.

So look at that! You answered your own question! It has been 100,000 for 'ages' and 140,000 is also a number they've mentioned. thats why they say both 100,000 and 140,000. and just forget the 70,000. Thats not important.

maccored

derfderf wrote: »

Are you a new member of SF? Or were you also a member back in that different time?

I am certainly a member of SF in the south - I still am and have been for ages.

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

The thing that always stops me is that they probably know somebody who killed somebody, or know somebody that knows somebody that killed somebody. There's a whiff of sulpher off them, or at least cordite.

I can't take any of their election pledges seriously. What they are proposing: spending being blasted like a money cannon remorselessly at everything, while cutting all of their own forms of revenue? It literally doesn't add up. It all sounds great, but a lot of it is fantastical. And that whole border poll thing - that to me doesn't sound too good.

It's a pity though, because I think people truly are fed up with the Punch and Judy show of FG and FF, and their feelings of entitlement when it comes to power. They're beating each other up over minute policy differences, because, at bottom, the difference between either of them is negliable. There's no real new ideas from either of them, it's quite depressing.

There is a real appetite for change, which is good, but I'm a bit saddened that SF are probably going to capitialise on this moment ahead of other less cynical parts of the left, who are think are being far less populist and disingenuous about what they proposing to do. People want to break out of the FF/FG merry go around, but, as someone on the left myself, I wish SF weren't essentially lying their way into people's hearts, in their rush to get at the levers of power. It feels unnecessary: people's desire for change is there anyway.

Though I think - or should I say I suspect - they probably don't want power right now. The election after this might be the real goal: they're much better of thinking of the long game than all of the others. Just get as many TDs as possible elected this time, watch the government - whoever they are - get the ball rolling on fixing housing, turn the opposition all the way up to the setting marked maximum - and then watch the bonanza roll in the next GE.

"
I can't take any of their election pledges seriously"

The reason SF are getting the bump is no-one believes the pledges any other party is pledging either.

Arghus

Deleted User wrote: »

"
I can't take any of their election pledges seriously"

The reason SF are getting the bump is no-one believes the pledges any other party is pledging either.

Yes, I agree. But I still can't take SF's own pledges seriously, considering they are even more ambitious.