Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Options
1…3940424445…333

Comments

  • Options
    #1232
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    Deleted User wrote: »
    From the article I posted earlier. Are we to believe SF supporters want to add 25% more income tax on to lower earners?

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/so-you-want-a-swedish-style-welfare-state-that-ll-be-more-tax-please-1.4188165

    Typical. No one said that, but that doesn't stop you implying that someone did.


  • Options
    #1233
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    Typical. No one said that, but that doesn't stop you implying that someone did.

    Well, I'll ask you and Yurt directly, would you support that level of increase on low earners?


  • Options
    #1234
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    You have no solutions, just barbed smartass comments. The health service needs reform are you disputing that?
    No, I'm not disputing it.
    TheCitizen wrote: »
    They came up with a solution, a plan called Slainte Care which has cross party approval. The questions was asked in a debate on health on RTE pre the election, they all agreed to implementing Slainte Care. The question was then asked how would the introduction of Slainte Care be funded, SF rep said a higher rate of tax on earnings over and above 150k. Simon Harris FG said "oh no sure the Consultants would all leave".

    So in other words FG won't implement Slainte Care because they won't bring in the mechanisms necessary to fund it's introduction and implement it. They won't take on the vested interests who are their cronies. Sure sure, They'll pay lip service to introducing Slainte Care but like their Universal Health Insurance plan from more than a decade ago, they haven't the political will to actually implement it.

    SF in tax higher earners shocker. As I've said, we've one of the most progressive tax systems in the World. Why should higher pays pay more yet again.

    They could tax lower earners to the levels seen in Sweden to fund it. Why do you think they haven't done that? What do you think would happen if they proposed to do that?


  • Options
    #1235
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,942 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    The tax increase SF are proposing would still be less than Sweden.

    I would support paying more across the board but obviously tiered more heavily towards those who can pay more if - and this is the big if - we had politicians who had the political will to improve services. It's not just a money issue, it also involves the political courage to implement changes that certain vested cohorts will resist.

    FFG have thrown money at the health system for years but reform hasn't happened. Often times they throw their hands in the air in defeat like some FFG posters here on this thread and claim it's not possible to fix the health system. Angola as Brian Cowen described it.

    The people who earn more in Ireland pay more than average tax in the EU.
    The people who earn less in Ireland pay less than average tax in the EU.

    The room for tax increases without disincentivising working is mostly at the lower reaches, the problem is our above average life-long social welfare rates act as a disincentive to work.

    If you want to fix the Irish tax and spend system, the only way to generate serious money for health, education and childcare is to firstly cut social welfare for anyone on social welfare longer than two years, secondly, increase USC and apply to all earnings, and then, but only then, increase the tax rate on household earnings over 150k.


  • Options
    #1236
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The people who earn more in Ireland pay more than average tax in the EU.
    The people who earn less in Ireland pay less than average tax in the EU.

    The room for tax increases without disincentivising working is mostly at the lower reaches, the problem is our above average life-long social welfare rates act as a disincentive to work.

    If you want to fix the Irish tax and spend system, the only way to generate serious money for health, education and childcare is to firstly cut social welfare for anyone on social welfare longer than two years, secondly, increase USC and apply to all earnings, and then, but only then, increase the tax rate on household earnings over 150k.

    Why then and only then? Why hit lower earners first, why not top earners first?

    A tax increase on earnings over and above 150k? How is that going to disincentivise working? What a load of bollocks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1237
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    Why then and only then? Why hit lower earners first, why not top earners first?

    A tax increase on earnings over and above 150k? How is that going to disincentivise working? What a load of bollocks.

    Read the first 2 lines of his post.


  • Options
    #1238
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    No, I'm not disputing it.


    SF in tax higher earners shocker. As I've said, we've one of the most progressive tax systems in the World. Why should higher pays pay more yet again.

    They could tax lower earners to the levels seen in Sweden to fund it. Why do you think they haven't done that? What do you think would happen if they proposed to do that?

    Why should higher paid people pay more? Because they can afford it best Einstein.

    Are you lot being serious here :pac:


  • Options
    #1239
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    280 million is paid out to people for a "Christmas Bonus", personally I would spend that money on HSE.

    This is just part of the 21.2 billion on Social Welfare.

    Thing like unlimited children allowance, actually increasing for people to fire out more needs to be reviewed. The people that can afford to have children dont, the people that cant fire them out and then expect someone else to pay and look after them......


  • Options
    #1240
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    Read the first 2 lines of his post.

    I already did what's your point. That doesn't change my view that a tax increase on earnings over and above 150k will disincentivise working as the other poster erroneously claimed.


  • Options
    #1241
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    Why should higher paid people pay more? Because they can afford it best Einstein.

    Are you lot being serious here :pac:

    You willing to raise lower earners income tax from 12% to 37%?

    I'm not btw.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1242
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    280 million is paid out to people for a "Christmas Bonus", personally I would spend that money on HSE.

    This is just part of the 21.2 billion on Social Welfare.

    Thing like unlimited children allowance, actually increasing for people to fire out more needs to be reviewed. The people that can afford to have children dont, the people that cant fire them out and then expect someone else to pay and look after them......

    :pac: Holy fúck the cat's out of the bag now.


  • Options
    #1243
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    I already did what's your point. That doesn't change my view that a tax increase on earnings over and above 150k will disincentivise working as the other poster erroneously claimed.


    Why would people go out, work hard and then have the majority taken off them to hand out to a group that have no intention of ever working or ever assisting the population


    At some stage everyone needs to start to chip in, it is the same people that are hit all the time.....every single time.


  • Options
    #1244
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You willing to raise lower earners income tax from 12% to 37%?

    I'm not btw.

    Where did I say that? I said no such thing but again that doesn't stop you claiming I did. Typical stuff.


  • Options
    #1245
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    Why should higher paid people pay more? Because they can afford it best Einstein.

    Are you lot being serious here :pac:

    Ah right so we'll tax them what? 80% on their incomes? Want to return to the 80's do you? And if not, why not. Sure they can afford it can't they.

    You were harping on about Sweden, and now are running away from answering if lower earners should pay more for the running of things like they do in Sweden.

    Aswell, any answers to these questions (in regards to paying for Slainte care):

    They could tax lower earners to the levels seen in Sweden to fund it. Why do you think they haven't done that? What do you think would happen if they proposed to do that?


  • Options
    #1246
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    Where did I say that? I said no such thing but again that doesn't stop you claiming I did. Typical stuff.

    He isn't. Did you miss the question mark at the end of the sentence?


  • Options
    #1247
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    Where did I say that? I said no such thing but again that doesn't stop you claiming I did. Typical stuff.

    i'm asking you a question.


  • Options
    #1248
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    Why would people go out, work hard and then have the majority taken off them to hand out to a group that have no intention of ever working or ever assisting the population


    At some stage everyone needs to start to chip in, it is the same people that are hit all the time.....every single time.

    :pac: Are you claiming if a modest increase was applied to earnings over and above 150k that folk in that bracket wouldn't go out and work anymore?

    You could get everyone to chip in for something like Slainte Care because properly implemented it would improve things for everyone across the board was what I suggested earlier but you've all been jumping down my neck so it may have been overlooked.

    My suggestion was that those who have more would chip in more perhaps, a mad thought around here obviously :pac:


  • Options
    #1249
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    :pac: Are you claiming if a modest increase was applied to earnings over and above 150k that folk in that bracket wouldn't go out and work anymore?

    You could get everyone to chip in for something like Slainte Care because properly implemented it would improve things for everyone across the board was what I suggested earlier but you've all been jumping down my neck so it may have been overlooked.

    My suggestion was that those who have more would chip in more perhaps, a mad thought around here obviously :pac:


    What about a modest increase to people below 30k?



    Let them chip in for something like Slainte care?



    You suggestion is like every other one, its always someone elses problem. Why wouldnt every "chip" in?


  • Options
    #1250
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    Deleted User wrote: »
    i'm asking you a question.

    No is the answer. But as I said in the other post if something like Slainte Care was to be implemented properly it would benefit everyone and something like that everyone could be asked to buy into and chip in. Again those who have more would be asked to chip in more.


  • Options
    #1251
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    What about a modest increase to people below 30k?



    Let them chip in for something like Slainte care?



    You suggestion is like every other one, its always someone elses problem. Why wouldnt every "chip" in?

    Well actually that is just what I suggested, have a read of that post you quoted again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1252
    Runaways
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭Runaways


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    Based on your lack of ability to deal with a TV license inspector, what exactly would you do to the Garda if the powers are not temporary?

    How would you ‘deal with a tv license inspector’
    It was an inspector. It was a threat of search warrant.

    And I don’t see how this is relevant to what we’re discussing here now?


  • Options
    #1253
    Runaways
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭Runaways


    blanch152 wrote: »
    You put that statement in bold in inverted commas which means you are quoting it as a direct quotation from the relevant Garda, so I assume you can provide a link to that exact statement.

    If not, it you are paraphrasing, then it is another disingenuous post about the Gardai.

    I didn’t bold it at all. And it was the deputy chief GC if I remember correctly. Only this week.


  • Options
    #1254
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    :pac: Are you claiming if a modest increase was applied to earnings over and above 150k that folk in that bracket wouldn't go out and work anymore?

    You could get everyone to chip in for something like Slainte Care because properly implemented it would improve things for everyone across the board was what I suggested earlier but you've all been jumping down my neck so it may have been overlooked.

    My suggestion was that those who have more would chip in more perhaps, a mad thought around here obviously :pac:

    Those that have more already chip in more... That's what a progressive tax system is.


  • Options
    #1255
    Runaways
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭Runaways


    blanch152 wrote: »
    You put that statement in bold in inverted commas which means you are quoting it as a direct quotation from the relevant Garda, so I assume you can provide a link to that exact statement.

    If not, it you are paraphrasing, then it is another disingenuous post about the Gardai.



    I didn’t bold it. I got the guy wrong. You can apologise now

    Former GRA spokesperson, current Garda review editor John O'Keeffe, "we're hearing a little bit now on social media about human rights, we need to just park human rights for the moment+we need to talk about human lives"

    Here’s the fvkin clip

    https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/21742165


  • Options
    #1256
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    No is the answer. But as I said in the other post if something like Slainte Care was to be implemented properly it would benefit everyone and something like that everyone could be asked to buy into and chip in. Again those who have more would be asked to chip in more.

    What would you see as a fair tax increase so?

    I'm proud to be at the very beginning of your middle-aged drift to the right.


  • Options
    #1257
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    Those that have more already chip in more... That's what a progressive tax system is.

    Yeah. So impose a Slainte Care levy and then implement the health service reforms, get everyone to buy into it and do it. Easier said than done but could be done if the political will was there. With FG remaining in government though it doesn't fill me with confidence. FG after all made an absolute mess of trying to bring in water charges for example.

    Personally I wasn't against the idea of water charges but they tried to impose it in a hamfisted way and ended up with water meters installed outside thousands of houses that never were operative. A complete and utter waste of money. Can FG be trusted to implement an ambitious scheme like Slainte Care and get everyone to buy into it? I doubt it and Micheál Martin said the similar things re FG pre election but he changed tack when the results were finalised.


  • Options
    #1258
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    Well actually that is just what I suggested, have a read of that post you quoted again.


    I apologize, missed that


  • Options
    #1259
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What would you see as a fair tax increase so?

    I'm proud to be at the very beginning of your middle-aged drift to the right.

    I haven't a clue mate, I'm not a Revenue commissioner :pac:

    A modest increase but tiered incrementally the higher up the ladder it goes I'd suggest. They've imposed levys on people's earnings before, isn't there a levy because of Sean Quinn's insurance company going bust? A levy for Slainte Care, but get everyone to buy into it including the health service staff before you attempt to bring it in could work. Still need the political will though.


  • Options
    #1260
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    Yeah. So impose a Slainte Care levy and then implement the health service reforms, get everyone to buy into it and do it. Easier said than done but could be done if the political will was there. With FG remaining in government though it doesn't fill me with confidence. FG after all made an absolute mess of trying to bring in water charges for example.

    Personally I wasn't against the idea of water charges but they tried to impose it in a hamfisted way and ended up with water meters installed outside thousands of houses that never were operative. A complete and utter waste of money. Can FG be trusted to implement an ambitious scheme like Slainte Care and get everyone to buy into it? I doubt it and Micheál Martin said the similar things re FG pre election but he changed tack when the results were finalised.

    If they try and increase taxes on the lower earners it will be the likes of Sinn Feon that will have the knives out, and will bang on about having the rich pay for it. I'd trust FG more than any of the other parties, though trusting any of them with such a big project is difficult.

    Other than that, I mostly agree with the rest of your post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1261
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    I haven't a clue mate, I'm not a Revenue commissioner :pac:

    A modest increase but tiered incrementally the higher up the ladder it goes I'd suggest. They've imposed levys on people's earnings before, isn't there a levy because of Sean Quinn's insurance company going bust? A levy for Slainte Care, but get everyone to buy into it including the health service staff before you attempt to bring it in could work. Still need the political will though.

    Interesting proposal, the only problem is no left wing party will support it so no right wing party can propose it.

    We have a left wing party who oppose property taxes ffs.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement