Could Sinn Fein actually run a country ?

tipptom

pwurple wrote: »

The same Michael Collins who was shot dead by the 'RA for being pro-treaty? I don't think you can compare the Sinn Fein he was a member of, and the knee-capping, Jean McConnville-disappearing organisation it became afterwards.

The man would turn in his grave if he could read that.

You really need to educate yourself if you think there was no disappeared around Collins time.

Jinglejangle69

Was talking to someone who was in Sweden last week.

No litter on the streets, no j walking, people were leaving their bikes down and just walking off safe they won't be robbed.

The whole country has respect for each other and crime is miniscule.

That's why they don't mind paying high taxes, because its not just going to paying for free houses for wasters.

The whole country works together.

Its time we started looking at the attitude of some of our citizens as well as government.

But noone will dare speak the truth.

efanton

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

That's a fair point about the status quo. If there is a better option then I and everyone else in the electorate should vote for that no matter who they voted for in three past.

But SF are only making populist promises. Their economic policies are not going to provide growth. Sinn Fein is our brexit party with their promises of sunny Uplands.

But are they. Who is telling you they are populist, oh that's right the same crowd that has made a complete balls of government, in every single term of government, for the last 20 years or so.
You can only cry wolf so many times before people begin to realise that they need to stop listening and make their own judgement.

Also, if you think about it, being called populist should be recognised as a compliment, although not intended that way.
What is wrong with a party actually listening to people at the doorsteps and proposing policies that would benefit the majority of citizens. Surely that is what we elect governments for?

FF and FG are all about the economy, but if a small proportion of the massive profits of the big companies and corporations make doesn't filter down to the general populous in some way are they serving the people or a small elite?


I know immediately some clown is going to jump straight in and say what about the jobs they create?

I will make three points.
First, they are here predominantly because we have a young highly educated work force, are an English speaking country, and are members of the EU. Name another country that is now in the EU that matches that?

Secondly SF have been quite unequivocal about never wanting to touch the corporation tax rate. Yes they have proposed a new high band of INCOME tax for those earning over €140k but this is NOT a tax on business, it is simply a tax on PERSONAL wealth. 99.99% of those earning that sum have no ability whatsoever to dictate that the company they work for leaves the country.
The few that do, would not do it either, they would simply award themselves a higher wage to offset their loss, if it bothered them that much.

Thirdly, and this is the biggest point. We have a corporation tax of 13% which is competitive, but yet many companies do not even pay that rate. This is why the EU was jumping up and down getting irate about Apple.
Lets imagine that Ireland turns round and demand the 13 billion that Apple have not paid and Apple in a extremely unlikely tiff pulls the plug on their Irish jobs. Apple employs a TOTAL of 6000 Irish employees. Now lets for devils sake assume that along with those 6000 jobs for every Apple employ there are 2 employee in other companies dependent on those job remaining in Ireland.
Now lets be even more generous and round that up to 20,000 jobs

13 billion owed divided by 20,000 jobs means that these jobs are costing the state €650,000 a piece. Obviously this is once of event, their would not be another 650,000 next year.

Now tell me this,
If government was to split that money in half and turn round and said to each of those employees we are going to give you a 325,000 lump sum and we are going to keep the other 325,000 for ourselves, but you will be unemployed tomorrow.
Would a single one of those employees say no dont do that, I want to keep my Apple job? I think it highly likely that very very few indeed would say that.
Do you think its going to take them 4, 5 or 6 years to find alternative work, I highly doubt that too.

The 6.5 billion that the Irish government kept would pay for the SF or any other parties housing plan.

The simple fact is the multinationals benefit far far more that the Irish people or the Irish government.

Am I suggesting that we tell the Multinationals to feck off, absolutely not.
But I am also stating that it would not be unreasonable to insist that these multinational pay the full 13%. Every other indigenous Irish company has to.

indigenous Irish companies create 90% of all jobs (almost 2 million), are they less vital to the economy being that only 229,957 jobs in Ireland are created by multinationals?
Not demanding Apple and the other multinationals pay their fair share, is not only an insult to every Irish taxpayer who are being stretched to the limits by taxes, but it is also unfair to Irish companies that have to compete with multinationals that already have an unfair tax advantage.

Jinglejangle69

efanton wrote: »

But are they. Who is telling you they are populist, oh that's right the same crowd that has made a complete balls of government, in every single term of government, for the last 20 years or so.
You can only cry wolf so many times before people begin to realise that they need to stop listening and make their own judgement.

Also, if you think about it, being called populist should be recognised as a compliment, although not intended that way.
What is wrong with a party actually listening to people at the doorsteps and proposing policies that would benefit the majority of citizens. Surely that is what we elect governments for?

FF and FG are all about the economy, but if a small proportion of the massive profits of the big companies and corporations make doesn't filter down to the general populous in some way are they serving the people or a small elite?


I know immediately some clown is going to jump straight in and say what about the jobs they create?

I will make three points.
First, they are here predominantly because we have a young highly educated work force, are an English speaking country, and are members of the EU. Name another country that is now in the EU that matches that?

Secondly SF have been quite unequivocal about never wanting to touch the corporation tax rate. Yes they have proposed a new high band of INCOME tax for those earning over €140k but this is NOT a tax on business, it is simply a tax on personal wealth. 99.99% of those earning that sum have no ability whatsoever to dictate that the company they work for leaves the country.
THe few that do, would not do it either, they would simply award themselves a higher wage to offset their loss, if it bothered them that much.

Thirdly, and this is the biggest point. We have a corporation tax of 13% which is competitive, but yet many companies do not even pay that rate. This is why the EU was jumping up and down getting irate about Apple.
Lets imagine that Ireland turns round and demand the 13 billion that Apple have not paid and Apple in a extremely unlikely tiff pulls the plug on their Irish jobs. Apple employs a TOTAL of 6000 Irish employees. Now lets for devils sake assume that along with those 6000 jobs for every Apple employ there are 2 employee in other companies depended on those job remaining in Ireland.
Now lets be even more generous and round that up to 20,000 jobs

13 billion owed divided by 20,000 jobs means that these jobs are costing the state €650,000 a piece. Obviously this is once of event, their would nto be another 650,000 next year.

Now tell me this,
If government was to split that money in half and turn round and said to each of those employees we are going to give you a 325,000 lump sum and we are going to keep the other 325,000 for ourselves, but you will be unemployed tomorrow.
Would a single one of those employees say no dont do that, I want to keep my Apple job? I think it highly likely that very very few indeed would say that.
Do you think its going to take them 4, 5 or 6 years to find alternative work, I highly doubt that too.

The simple fact is the multinationals benefit far far more that the Irish people or the Irish government.

Am I suggesting that we tell the Multinationals to feck off, absolutely not.
But I am also stating that it would not be unreasonable to insist that these multinational pay the full 13%. Every other indigenous Irish company has to.

indigenous Irish companies create 90% of all jobs (almost 2 million), are they less vital to the economy being that only 229,957 jobs in Ireland are created by multinationals.
Not demanding Apple and the other multinationals pay their fair share, is not only an insult to every Irish taxpayer who are being stretched to the limits by taxes, but it is also unfair to Irish companies that have to compete with multinational that already have an unfair tax advantage.

13 multinationals paid 30% of our total tax income last year through corporation tax alone.

9.6 billion.

Come on, but of perspective at least.

All multinationals pay the 12.5% corporation tax on profits as per law.

Revenue who are one of the most respected departments in the country have stated this is fact.

BTW Sinn Féin only changed their mind on keeping the 12.5% tax a few weeks ago.

Before that they wanted to raise it.

Like abortion, water charges, the bailout, they flip flop when they see an opportunity to be populist.

Sir Oxman

ednwireland wrote: »

in there manifesto


actually it says over 100000 so less than 65k per unit

It says additional, btw.

efanton

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

13 multinationals paid 30% of our total tax income last year through corporation tax alone.

9.6 billion.

Come on, but of perspective at least.

All multinationals pay the 12.5% corporation tax on profits as per law.

Revenue who are one of the most respected departments in the country have stated this is fact.

BTW Sinn Féin only changed their mind on keeping the 12.5% tax a few weeks ago.

Before that they wanted to raise it.

Like abortion, water charges, the bailout, they flip flop when they see an opportunity to be populist.

Complete and utter bull, and you know it.
THe Apple case has gone through every court in the land, to the European courts and in every instance it has been proven that Apple did not pay the full amount. Our government now has the audacity to use even more tax payers money to challenge those rulings.

Show me the policy document that states SF intended to adjust our corporation tax. It doesn't exist, I know because over the last week or so I have gone back found every single SF policy document and election manifesto over the last 10 years and read them.
I assume you have gone to the same effort and will easily be able to produce said document.

Time to prove your point and post the link or bow out gracefully.

fullstop

friendlyfun wrote: »

If only we had 13 billion euro laying around hmm.....

This reply is a sure sign of someone who hasn’t got the slightest clue.

The 2019/2020 equivalent of ‘garlic man’.

Jinglejangle69

efanton wrote: »

Complete and utter bull, and you know it.
THe Apple case has gone through every court in the land, to the European courts and in every instance it has been proven that Apple did not pay the full amount. Our government now has the audacity to use even more tax payers money to challenge those rulings.

Show me the policy document that states SF intended to adjust our corporation tax. It doesn't exist, I know because over the last week or so I have gone back found every single SF policy document and election manifesto over the last 10 years and read them.
I assume you have gone to the same effort and will easily be able to produce said document.

Time to prove your point and post the link or bow out gracefully.

Sorry but the Apple money isn't in relation to Apple profits made in Ireland.

Its in relation to Apple profits made in Europe, which is why EU countries are claiming its their money and not ours.

That's why the government are disputing it.

I'm sorry but you're wrong.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/corporation-tax-should-rise-to-17-sinn-fein-1.1000969?mode=amp

On the second point.

Geuze

efanton wrote: »

Show me the policy document that states SF intended to adjust our corporation tax. It doesn't exist, I know because over the last week or so I have gone back found every single SF policy document and election manifesto over the last 10 years and read them.
I assume you have gone to the same effort and will easily be able to produce said document.

Time to prove your point and post the link or bow out gracefully.

SF propose to change the timing of capital allowances claimed by firms.

This means a change in the timing of CT payments.

SF's proposal means more CT paid earlier, less paid in the future.

Introducing an 80% cap on profits offset by capital allowances for intangible
assets that were onshored between 2015 and 2018 by multinationals. This
follows a recommendation made by the Chair of the Irish Fiscal Advisory
Council in a report commissioned by the Department for Finance but ignored
by the Government

See page 107 of their manifesto.

I'm worried that they have booked this as 722m extra revenue, when in fact it's just a change of timing.

Rufeo

Yes they could....like gangsters.

CucaFace

I'm not a FF supporter, but can i ask the honest opinion on what do you think FG SF Labour, any other party would have done differently in the 2000's that wouldn't have brought us our financial crisis?

I see the crash as a constant stick to beat FF with, but im absolutely sure things would have ended up in the same mess regardless of which party was in charge.

Do you honestly think SF for example would have been saying 'hey guys we are building too many houses'? Or that they would have been saying 'oh the public sector workers are getting paid too much, lets reduce it'?

Geuze

efanton wrote: »

Complete and utter bull, and you know it.
THe Apple case has gone through every court in the land, to the European courts and in every instance it has been proven that Apple did not pay the full amount. Our government now has the audacity to use even more tax payers money to challenge those rulings.

The Apple branch in Ireland pays the normal 12.5% CT on its profits.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2018/01/what-apple-did-next.html

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2019/08/some-insight-into-apples-use-of-capital.html



The profits of ASI are not taxable by Ireland.

ASI is in some sense a "stateless" company.

Eventually, its profits will be taxed in the USA.

efanton

Geuze wrote: »

SF propose to change the timing of capital allowances claimed by firms.

This means a change in the timing of CT payments.

SF's proposal means more CT paid earlier, less paid in the future.

Introducing an 80% cap on profits offset by capital allowances for intangible
assets that were onshored between 2015 and 2018 by multinationals. This
follows a recommendation made by the Chair of the Irish Fiscal Advisory
Council in a report commissioned by the Department for Finance but ignored
by the Government

See page 107 of their manifesto.

I'm worried that they have booked this as 722m extra revenue, when in fact it's just a change of timing.

So let me get this right. The people that know the system, manage the system and understand tax laws and implementation say

This follows a recommendation made by the Chair of the Irish Fiscal Advisory
Council in a report commissioned by the Department for Finance but ignored
by the Government

But the government for no other reason that it think it knows better chooses to ignore the best advice possible by those who are most qualified to give it?

Its really funny really because if the tables were turned you would be all over this story like a rash claiming that SF were ignoring the best possible advice and were being totally irresponsible.

Jinglejangle69

Geuze wrote: »

The Apple branch in Ireland pays the normal 12.5% CT on its profits.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2018/01/what-apple-did-next.html

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2019/08/some-insight-into-apples-use-of-capital.html



The profits of ASI are not taxable by Ireland.

ASI is in some sense a "stateless" company.

Eventually, its profits will be taxed in the USA.

SF supporters dont like facts just soundbites.

monty_python

Sorry if this sounds stupid, I'm not into politics

If sinn Fein get elected and ff/FG refuse to go into government with them will we have to have another election? So basically ff/FG could block SF from forming a majority government??
See quite undemocratic

Geuze

efanton wrote: »

Its really funny really because if the tables were turned you would be all over this story like a rash claiming that SF were ignoring the best possible advice and were being totally irresponsible.

Yes, you are correct, this SF proposal is simply reversing a change made AFAIK in 2014 by Noonan.

What worries me is not the change back to 80%, but calling this extra CT revenue, treating it as actual extra CT revenue.

It is, in year 1.

But it means less CT revenue in future years.

Geuze

monty_python wrote: »

Sorry if this sounds stupid, I'm not into politics

If sinn Fein get elected and ff/FG refuse to go into government with them will we have to have another election? So basically ff/FG could block SF from forming a majority government??
See quite undemocratic

It's voting for a Taoiseach that is important.

If a party or coalition gets a Taoiseach voted in, then they can form a Cabinet.

Loafing Oaf

monty_python wrote: »

Sorry if this sounds stupid, I'm not into politics

If sinn Fein get elected and ff/FG refuse to go into government with them will we have to have another election? So basically ff/FG could block SF from forming a majority government??
See quite undemocratic

Not sure what you mean by SF 'getting elected'. A party needs 80 seats for an overall majority and SF are only running 42 candidates so they can't 'form a majority government'.

Maewyn Succat

monty_python wrote: »

Sorry if this sounds stupid, I'm not into politics

If sinn Fein get elected and ff/FG refuse to go into government with them will we have to have another election? So basically ff/FG could block SF from forming a majority government??
See quite undemocratic

To be blunt...yes it is stupid.

What exactly do you mean "if Sinn Fein get elected"? Candidates get elected...not parties. The party with the most candidates elected get first dibs on trying to form a government. Sinn Fein have only 42 candidates whereas both ff and FG have roughly double that number of candidates. There is no chance that Sinn Fein can form a majority government.

efanton

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by SF 'getting elected'. A party needs 80 seats for an overall majority and SF are only running 42 candidates so they can't 'form a majority government'.

True, if you are talking about a single party government.



But did FG have 80 seats?
is is likely or probable that FF have 80 seats after this election

Bottom line is no party is going to be able to form a government after this election without a coalition or partners.

The big issue is if FF say dont want a coalition with FG, and FG say they dont want a coalition with FF who exactly does want a coalition what are they actually saying to the electorate?
They tell us it wont be a FF/FG coalition, but as usual they are yet again misleading the electorate, unless they intend to setep aside and let a SF minority government to be formed. Highly unlikely.

It would be great if the parties other than FG FG could form a government but this is unlikely unless both were telling the truth and prepared to let a minority government to be formed.

imme

monty_python wrote: »

Sorry if this sounds stupid, I'm not into politics

If sinn Fein get elected and ff/FG refuse to go into government with them will we have to have another election? So basically ff/FG could block SF from forming a majority government??
See quite undemocratic

'get elected'?

all TD's will have been elected.

It's what they do with it, it will come down to numbers as it always does.

johnmcdnl

monty_python wrote: »

Sorry if this sounds stupid, I'm not into politics

If sinn Fein get elected and ff/FG refuse to go into government with them will we have to have another election? So basically ff/FG could block SF from forming a majority government??
See quite undemocratic

I assume you mean if SF get the most seats.
Imagine it's 41,40,39 between SF, FF,FG and the other 40 seats go to independents etc.

A scenario like this shows a dividend electorate with no clear majority for any party or political stance.

A government needs 81/160 to hold a majority. FF and FG aren't blocking anyone from formin a government, they just would just be stating that as their own policies are too far removed from SF they wouldn't support SF in government. Which is exactly what voters who voted for FF and FG would want.

It's like how people give out to Labour for 'selling out' for giving in government with FG. FF and FG would simply be stating that they will not 'sell out' their own principals to support SF in government. This would also be true for rejecting them as a colalition partner.

jim salter

2011 wrote: »

They don’t understand economics. Any time Mary is questioned on the affordability of SF proposals she fails to answer it sufficiently. I would love to get a state pension at 65 but the money simply isn’t there. I agree with her proposal to increase vacant property tax and I like their approach to the insurance crises. I also understand people’s frustration at the current housing / rent situation but SF would run the country into the ground.

Name 1 politician that answers any question sufficiently

almostover

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There were more people disappeared in Kerry/Cork alone during independence than there was in the entirety of NI during the most recent conflict/war.

Actual history is your friend.

You're gravely mistaken here. The treaty was ratified by Dail Eireann (albeit narrowly). Ergo the free state had the backing of the elected Irish government of the time to ratify the treaty. The IRA in Northern Ireland during the trouble had no such mandate. Yes, the nationalist population were gravely discriminated against by the Unionist population leading to the civil rights movement but the actions of the provisional IRA were not sanctioned or condoned by the people either Northern Ireland or Ireland. Big difference.

almostover

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Michael Collins and Eamon De Valera.

The Sinn Fein from the war of independence is different to the modern day one. Anti Treaty Sinn Fein became Fianna Fail and Pro Treaty Sinn Fein became Fine Gael (eventually). You're surely trolling here.....

hynesie08

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Was talking to someone who was in Sweden last week.

No litter on the streets, no j walking, people were leaving their bikes down and just walking off safe they won't be robbed.

The whole country has respect for each other and crime is miniscule.

That's why they don't mind paying high taxes, because its not just going to paying for free houses for wasters.

The whole country works together.

Its time we started looking at the attitude of some of our citizens as well as government.

But noone will dare speak the truth.

I've lived in Sweden, that's bollocks.

efanton

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Was talking to someone who was in Sweden last week.

No litter on the streets, no j walking, people were leaving their bikes down and just walking off safe they won't be robbed.

The whole country has respect for each other and crime is miniscule.

That's why they don't mind paying high taxes, because its not just going to paying for free houses for wasters.

The whole country works together.

Its time we started looking at the attitude of some of our citizens as well as government.

But noone will dare speak the truth.

You really should either know what you are talking about or actually do a tiny bit or research before making a fool of yourself

Even the right of centre parties fully support social welfare schemes and social housing in Sweden.

Have a read
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/sweden-welfare-state-benefits-popular/



With regards social housing another read. Suffice to say at least 30% of the Swedish population live in state owned social housing

https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/20-12-2019/good-housing-is-considered-a-privilege-in-new-zealand-in-sweden-its-a-human-right/

ALL governments in Sweden recognise that providing safe, cheap and very decent housing is not only in the interest of their citizens but also the long term interest of the state and its economy.

smurgen

efanton wrote: »

You really should either know what you are talking about or actually do a tiny bit or research before making a fool of yourself

Even the right of centre parties fully support social welfare schemes and social housing in Sweden.

Have a read
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/sweden-welfare-state-benefits-popular/



With regards social housing another read. Suffice to say at least 30% of the Swedish population live in state owned social housing

https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/20-12-2019/good-housing-is-considered-a-privilege-in-new-zealand-in-sweden-its-a-human-right/

ALL governments in Sweden recognise that providing safe, cheap and very decent housing is not only in the interest of their citizens but also the long term interest of the state and its economy.

Sure they're all dole scroungers in Sweden don't ya know!

Jinglejangle69

efanton wrote: »

You really should either know what you are talking about or actually do a tiny bit or research before making a fool of yourself

Even the right of centre parties fully support social welfare schemes and social housing in Sweden.

Have a read
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/sweden-welfare-state-benefits-popular/



With regards social housing another read. Suffice to say at least 30% of the Swedish population live in state owned social housing

https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/20-12-2019/good-housing-is-considered-a-privilege-in-new-zealand-in-sweden-its-a-human-right/

ALL governments in Sweden recognise that providing safe, cheap and very decent housing is not only in the interest of their citizens but also the long term interest of the state and its economy.

Em that is my point??

The people and government all respect the country and each other.

Hence the very little crime and people don't mind paying taxes for social housing.

Here people have a problem paying high taxes to house Anto and Jacinta in a free gaff next door who will rob and make your life a misery while you're out working.

You backed up my point better than I could thanks.

smelly sock

hynesie08 wrote: »

I've lived in Sweden, that's bollocks.

An over priced kip