The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

You are talking though your hoop on this part in bold blanch, I suspect hoping no one will call you out tbh.

By this logic, no govt party can take credit for, nor be blamed for anything ever, unless one of the party's had it in their manifestos. "In government, we were responsible for the success of X,Y or Z" - was it in your manifesto? No, up the yard so.

Oh dear, oh dear.

You believe that because a Government commissions a Report, they are bound to every recommendation of that Report.

That is simply nonsense, absolute nonsense. Wow, don't know where to start.

As I said already, to be fair to you, you are taking your lead from Pearse on that, but that doesn't make it a better look.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

Lol, the relevance of that point spectacularly lost on the likes of yourself.

Leo is a self obsessed monomaniac, he literally spent millions of tax payers money on a spin unit that was used to stoke and promote his ego and online image/persona.

The fact that he made a complete and utter tit of himself on his preferred self promotion platform - Twitter, and was completely torn asunder on it by lots of tweets from the general public will have put a severe dent in his ego, and I would bet good money he was absolutely fcuking fuming that Doherty was gifted the material to make a right plonker of Varadkar on it, of a Sunday afternoon.

If Leo had next to no presence on twitter your post might have a bit of substance or relevance, that's the point.

The general public?

More like the Sinn Fein Twitterati.

christy c

jm08 wrote: »

No, they are not proposing a change. There are a couple of people here who seem to think that they are. I just want to know what the reasoning is that if the CT was increased to say 15%, why they think that FDI would all leave bearing in mind CT would still be way below Ireland's competitors for FDI.

I'm sure there is somewhere you could get a more substantial opinion on the corporate tax rate rather than asking people on boards

One of the problems IMO is that if it goes to 15%, why not 16 the year after, then 17, and so on. And when you look at the rubbish proposed by spoofers like Pearse Doherty, it's difficult to see how he could pay for what he wants through his "tax the rich" fantasy alone.

A post here from the Rooster, an infrequent poster and far more knowledgeable than many on tax affairs sums it up well, although a slightly different context:

"You're probably a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but 12.5% is our trademark. It's been there a long time, it's got through a lot of international pressure to be changed, but it's still set in stone.

Moving it down wouldn't give a whole heap of benefit, but it would create some uncertainty. "If it can move down, it can move up", etc. Companies who make the investment to create jobs here crave stability and predictability. Knowing that our 12.5% rate is here to stay, no matter what, is a great trademark, and moving it even slightly, up or down, would negatively impact on that"

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The general public?

More like the Sinn Fein Twitterati.

You really need to do some due diligence on that one. Shows up either a naivety or an ignorance.
Take the go Leo had at SF to which Pearse replied and actually track some of the people replying...they are not all SF twitterati by any stretch.

Understanding Twitter would help you blanch.

jm08

christy c wrote: »

I'm sure there is somewhere you could get a more substantial opinion on the corporate tax rate rather than asking people on boards.

We have that opinion already - Fine Gael are choosing to ignore it seemingly! I'm not asking people for their opinion on the 12.5%, I just want to know what their reasoning is.

One of the problems IMO is that if it goes to 15%, why not 16 the year after, then 17, and so on. And when you look at the rubbish proposed by spoofers like Pearse Doherty, it's difficult to see how he could pay for what he wants through his "tax the rich" fantasy alone.

It is still considerably lower than any of Ireland's competitors for FDI.

A post here from the Rooster, an infrequent poster and far more knowledgeable than many on tax affairs sums it up well, although a slightly different context:

"You're probably a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but 12.5% is our trademark. It's been there a long time, it's got through a lot of international pressure to be changed, but it's still set in stone.

Actually, Ireland's trademark now is that it is a tax haven. The view now seems to be that the only reason any of these companies come to Ireland is because of its low corporate tax - we hear very little about the educated workforce and ease of doing business here.

Moving it down wouldn't give a whole heap of benefit, but it would create some uncertainty. "If it can move down, it can move up", etc. Companies who make the investment to create jobs here crave stability and predictability. Knowing that our 12.5% rate is here to stay, no matter what, is a great trademark, and moving it even slightly, up or down, would negatively impact on that"

When they talk about stability, they mean that say unlike the UK or US, if a Government changes, economic policy doesn't change that much.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You really need to do some due diligence on that one. Shows up either a naivety or an ignorance.
Take the go Leo had at SF to which Pearse replied and actually track some of the people replying...they are not all SF twitterati by any stretch.

Understanding Twitter would help you blanch.

I would concede that they are not all SF Twitterati, maybe 90%.

Jinglejangle69

McMurphy wrote: »

You are talking though your hoop on this part in bold blanch, I suspect hoping no one will call you out tbh.

By this logic, no govt party can take credit for, nor be blamed for anything ever, unless one of the party's had it in their manifestos. "In government, we were responsible for the success of X,Y or Z" - was it in your manifesto? No, up the yard so.






Who or what are you referring to here jingle?

Matt last night on the tonight show.

Asked what sinn fein would do about covid if in power.

Said they would follow what NHPET recommend.

Was then put to him Mary Lou said NHPET were wrong in their recommendations last week and shouldn't be followed.

Poor Matt stuttered and stumbled and gave no answer.

christy c

jm08 wrote: »

We have that opinion already - Fine Gael are choosing to ignore it seemingly! I'm not asking people for their opinion on the 12.5%, I just want to know what their reasoning is.


It is still considerably lower than any of Ireland's competitors for FDI.



Actually, Ireland's trademark now is that it is a tax haven. The view now seems to be that the only reason any of these companies come to Ireland is because of its low corporate tax - we hear very little about the educated workforce and ease of doing business here.


When they talk about stability, they mean that say unlike the UK or US, if a Government changes, economic policy doesn't change that much.

No, there are plenty of people who support and want to maintain the 12.5%, you could get plenty of more detail and reasoning if you wanted to.

But as I said if you want 15% now, why not 20% next year, etc. Have to pay for the "fairness" somehow.

Ireland's trademark has been the 12.5% IMO, is it your view that you want to increase CT to 15% and keep what you describe as the "tax haven" status?

Stability can mean many things, and the fact that 12.5% was maintained, even throughout the aftermath of 2008 would be a great source of comfort to investors IMO.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I would concede that they are not all SF Twitterati, maybe 90%.

Which would be complete nonsense.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear.

You believe that because a Government commissions a Report, they are bound to every recommendation of that Report.

That is simply nonsense, absolute nonsense. Wow, don't know where to start.

As I said already, to be fair to you, you are taking your lead from Pearse on that, but that doesn't make it a better look.

No I don't believe that, it's classic FG all over, establish an expert committee or report, and then blame someone else for the recommendation.

Like Leo slipped up, wanting to blame the shinners for something that was a recommendation by a government appointed commission.

Remember Irish water? Do you remember the independent "Expert committee" FG and it's partners established?

Remind me what they recommended on how the government proceed with charges - and how was best to collect them?

I recall fg trying to blame "isis, water protester's, Paul Murphy and Sinn Fein" for the abandonment of them - totally ignoring, or ignorant of the fact it was their own committee they established that made them disappear.

But the "no-one can be blamed for anything unless it's in their manifestos" is a new one on me, I'll keep it in my back pocket for the next time we hear of a party trying to claim credit for some policy or legislation introduced during their tenure. "Show me that in your manifesto horse"

dundalkfc10

blanch152 wrote: »

I would concede that they are not all SF Twitterati, maybe 90%.

Sinn Fein on the membrane

Why do you think tha 90% of them are SF.

Bare in mind it wasnt SF who brought up #LeoTheLeak

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

No I don't believe that, it's classic FG all over, establish an expert committee or report, and then blame someone else for the recommendation.

Like Leo slipped up, wanting to blame the shinners for something that was a recommendation by a government appointed commission.

Remember Irish water? Do you remember the independent "Expert committee" FG and it's partners established?

Remind me what they recommended on how the government proceed with charges - and how was best to collect them?

I recall fg trying to blame "isis, water protester's, Paul Murphy and Sinn Fein" for the abandonment of them - totally ignoring, or ignorant of the fact it was their own committee they established that made them disappear.

But the "no-one can be blamed for anything unless it's in their manifestos" is a new one on me, I'll keep it in my back pocket for the next time we hear of a party trying to claim credit for some policy or legislation introduced during their tenure. "Show me that in your manifesto horse"

More incoherence.

The simple fact is that no Government is bound by the recommendations of a committee/commission or anything else just because they asked them to report.

Of course, governments follow many recommendations of reports, but equally many such recommendations are rejected. Otherwise unelected commissions would be running the country, not governments. This is basic stuff I shouldn't need to be explaining to you.

Neither am I saying that something has to be in a manifesto for a government to claim credit for it.

What I am saying is that for you or Pearse to claim that a particular recommendation in a particular independent report is Fine Gael policy, you would either have to show it from a Fine Gael policy document (mainly election manifesto), a Fine Gael statement (oral or written) accepting the particular recommendation or promising to implement the report in full, a Fine Gael minister implementing it in government etc. All of them are evidence of if being Fine Gael policy, none of them exist in respect of the particular recommendation.

Stating as you and Pearse do that because it was in a report it is Fine Gael policy and Varadkar made a mistake is just sheer nonsense.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

More incoherence.

The simple fact is that no Government is bound by the recommendations of a committee/commission or anything else just because they asked them to report.

Of course, governments follow many recommendations of reports, but equally many such recommendations are rejected. Otherwise unelected commissions would be running the country, not governments. This is basic stuff I shouldn't need to be explaining to you.

Neither am I saying that something has to be in a manifesto for a government to claim credit for it.

What I am saying is that for you or Pearse to claim that a particular recommendation in a particular independent report is Fine Gael policy, you would either have to show it from a Fine Gael policy document (mainly election manifesto), a Fine Gael statement (oral or written) accepting the particular recommendation or promising to implement the report in full, a Fine Gael minister implementing it in government etc. All of them are evidence of if being Fine Gael policy, none of them exist in respect of the particular recommendation.

Stating as you and Pearse do that because it was in a report it is Fine Gael policy and Varadkar made a mistake is just sheer nonsense.

You'll need to read his tweet again blanch, he didn't claim that.

He just put Leo back in his box boss.

That, and the subsequent embarrassment Leo obviously endured is what made it fcuking hilarious.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

You'll need to read his tweet again blanch, he didn't claim that.

He just put Leo back in his box boss.

That, and the subsequent embarrassment Leo obviously endured is what made it fcuking hilarious.

Somebody claimed that Fine Gael recommended it..........maybe I was too harsh on Pearse.

McMurphy wrote: »

I couldn't give a furry flute who tore him to shreds John, the man is a fool, trying to mock something his own party recommended, Doherty made a right bollox out of him Sunday.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Somebody claimed that Fine Gael recommended it..........maybe I was too harsh on Pearse.

Poorly worded on my part, the post immediately prior to that one spells it out, stop being pedantic.

christy c wrote: »

What are you on about when you say "now the issue"? I did not mention rates. There are issues with the stupid approach to Apple's money, and also rates if they are crazy enough to go near them. Plus demographics looking after themselves, tax the rich, etc.

But anyway I have made my point, any party "very economically literate" would be putting forward slightly better ideas that that.

Didn't the twitter row between Doherty and Varadkar erupt because Varadkar was criticising Doherty for wanting to bring in something which was "a Key Recommendation of the Expert Review of Corporation Tax commissioned by Minister Noonan & carried out by the former chair of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council Seamus Coffey"? As per below?

https://twitter.com/PearseDoherty/status/1315320889081319425?s=19

Leo got absolutely torn to shreds on twitter on Sunday over that one Christy

christy c

McMurphy wrote: »

Poorly worded on my part, the post immediately prior to that one spells it out, stop being pedantic.



Didn't the twitter row between Doherty and Varadkar erupt because Varadkar was criticising Doherty for wanting to bring in something which was "a Key Recommendation of the Expert Review of Corporation Tax commissioned by Minister Noonan & carried out by the former chair of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council Seamus Coffey"? As per below?

https://twitter.com/PearseDoherty/status/1315320889081319425?s=19

Leo got absolutely torn to shreds on twitter on Sunday over that one Christy

Maybe i missed your post, but I didnt see you responding to my questions. Here they are again:

But anyway what has that got to do with the mind numbingly stupid things I have mentioned above? Just because Leo left an open door for Pearse to walk through, does that make the demographics looking after themselves, giving two fingers to our corporate tax payers any less stupid?

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

Poorly worded on my part, the post immediately prior to that one spells it out, stop being pedantic.

It was the whole premise of your argument. Once the wording is corrected, your argument falls apart. Stop chancing your arm with the poorly worded excuse.

jm08

christy c wrote: »

No, there are plenty of people who support and want to maintain the 12.5%, you could get plenty of more detail and reasoning if you wanted to.

The only reasoning seems to me to be that its Ireland's trademark!

But as I said if you want 15% now, why not 20% next year, etc. Have to pay for the "fairness" somehow.

Because if you go over 15% you won't be competitive on CT!

Ireland's trademark has been the 12.5% IMO, is it your view that you want to increase CT to 15% and keep what you describe as the "tax haven" status?

I don't think the 12.5% CT rate is Ireland's trademark. The perception of the world is that Ireland is a tax haven (even though that is not true).

Stability can mean many things, and the fact that 12.5% was maintained, even throughout the aftermath of 2008 would be a great source of comfort to investors IMO.

Apple, Dell, Facebook, Regeneron etc. are not struggling companies. They are going to end up paying up to 21% tax in either Ireland or in the US when they repatriate their profits.

christy c

jm08 wrote: »

The only reasoning seems to me to be that its Ireland's trademark!




Because if you go over 15% you won't be competitive on CT!





I don't think the 12.5% CT rate is Ireland's trademark. The perception of the world is that Ireland is a tax haven (even though that is not true).





Apple, Dell, Facebook, Regeneron etc. are not struggling companies. They are going to end up paying up to 21% tax in either Ireland or in the US when they repatriate their profits.

Well as someone else said, if parties want to raise the rate it up to them to justify it.

Although this doesn't seem to be the place for this discussion. Stupid and all as SF are, they at least don't want to raise the rate for now.

jm08

christy c wrote: »

Well as someone else said, if parties want to raise the rate it up to them to justify it.

It wouldn't be that hard to justify it.

Although this doesn't seem to be the place for this discussion. Stupid and all as SF are, they at least don't want to raise the rate for now.

So why bring it up here in the first place. Blanch and co. use the increase in CT from 12.5% continually as proof that SF are economically illiterate.

jh79

jm08 wrote: »

It wouldn't be that hard to justify it.





So why bring it up here in the first place. Blanch and co. use the increase in CT from 12.5% continually as proof that SF are economically illiterate.

As said previously there is more th FDI than the CT rate. Where i work the company gets a tax rebate for R&D work for example.

The total cost is what's important. From what i can gather, SF position on the CT rate has softened over time and they don't want to change the 12.5% rate. But they are focusing on other area that could affect FDI . Closing tax loopholes if not offset through CT for example will be an added cost to a company considering investment. Taxing wealth and increasing taxation on high earners could have an affect on FDI. Higher taxation on multinationals has the potential to reduce the money available to the state for the very things SF want to increase spending on.

christy c

jm08 wrote: »

It wouldn't be that hard to justify it.





So why bring it up here in the first place. Blanch and co. use the increase in CT from 12.5% continually as proof that SF are economically illiterate.

Usually any talk of rate increases are accompanied by the deranged ramblings of someone like Paul Murphy. Not likely to be taken seriously.

I didn't bring up rates, but have asked questions of those who said they were "very economically literate".

jm08

christy c wrote: »

Usually any talk of rate increases are accompanied by the deranged ramblings of someone like Paul Murphy. Not likely to be taken seriously.

I didn't bring up rates, but have asked questions of those who said they were "very economically literate".

Are you unaware that Paul Murphy is a People Before Profit TD? In Leo's tweet, he claims that SF want to increase tax for multinationals, not PBP.

jm08

jh79 wrote: »

As said previously there is more th FDI than the CT rate. Where i work the company gets a tax rebate for R&D work for example.

The total cost is what's important. From what i can gather, SF position on the CT rate has softened over time and they don't want to change the 12.5% rate. But they are focusing on other area that could affect FDI . Closing tax loopholes if not offset through CT for example will be an added cost to a company considering investment. Taxing wealth and increasing taxation on high earners could have an affect on FDI. Higher taxation on multinationals has the potential to reduce the money available to the state for the very things SF want to increase spending on.

Pearse Doherty (unlike Leo) appears to have read the Fiscal Advisory Report which covers all of that.


Personal taxation is quite high in Ireland in comparision to other countries. I wonder why that isn't putting off FDI and likely talent to locate to Ireland.

jh79

jm08 wrote: »

Pearse Doherty (unlike Leo) appears to have read the Fiscal Advisory Report which covers all of that.


Personal taxation is quite high in Ireland in comparision to other countries. I wonder why that isn't putting off FDI and likely talent to locate to Ireland.

SF want to increase personal taxation even further at levels that have the potential to influence the decision makers behind FDI and close off tax loopholes that reduce the cost of investing in Ireland

Currently we punch well above our weight when it comes to FDI. If SF believe these companies should pay more then they should show evidence that this will not negatively affect FDI and ultimately reduce our tax take.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Pearse Doherty (unlike Leo) appears to have read the Fiscal Advisory Report which covers all of that.


Personal taxation is quite high in Ireland in comparision to other countries. I wonder why that isn't putting off FDI and likely talent to locate to Ireland.

Is that the personal taxation rates that Sinn Fein want to increase substantially?

The reality which no political party wants to admit is that we have the most progressive income taxation system in the whole of the EU. Increasing taxes on higher earners is a non-runner, yet it is the centrepiece of Sinn Fein's personal taxation policy.

dundalkfc10

blanch152 wrote: »

Is that the personal taxation rates that Sinn Fein want to increase substantially?

The reality which no political party wants to admit is that we have the most progressive income taxation system in the whole of the EU. Increasing taxes on higher earners is a non-runner, yet it is the centrepiece of Sinn Fein's personal taxation policy.

Cutting the PUP is a runner though

christy c

jm08 wrote: »

Are you unaware that Paul Murphy is a People Before Profit TD? In Leo's tweet, he claims that SF want to increase tax for multinationals, not PBP.

Yes I'm aware. SF do want to increase the amount of tax, not the rate. I think they said that particular measure would bring in 700m

FrancieBrady

christy c wrote: »

Yes I'm aware. SF do want to increase the amount of tax, not the rate. I think they said that particular measure would bring in 700m

A government is allowed and does increase tax rates for everybody else as it sees fit christy. Why would they not do it on a corporation if they see fit?

jm08

jh79 wrote: »

SF want to increase personal taxation even further at levels that have the potential to influence the decision makers behind FDI and close off tax loopholes that reduce the cost of investing in Ireland.

What they suggest is introducing a 3rd band for people over 100K. Most countries have a couple of tax bands. Its people between about 35K+ are really hard hit, not the ones on 100K+ at the moment (you know, the ones that Leo knows gets up in the morning).

Currently we punch well above our weight when it comes to FDI. If SF believe these companies should pay more then they should show evidence that this will not negatively affect FDI and ultimately reduce our tax take.

I think everyone thinks they should pay more. We've been through this before - at 15% CT, Ireland would still have a lower tax rate than all its competitors.