If the Social Democrats were in Sinn Fein's place

You said people who work hard avoid SF. The majority of the electorate voted for them. I thought it was a pretty ignorant comment. People who vote SF at one time voted FG or FF going on the numbers. I think its out of order to insult people because of how they vote. The idea that people who vote outside of FF/FG are not hard workers or looking for free stuff is civil war party propaganda. Its losing its luster thankfully, as numbers of those stuck in the housing crisis grow. Especially with Varadkar quipling about the bank of mum and dad and one persons rent being another person's inome. Tone deaf.

I think any government that moves away from leasing or buying, will improve housing immensely.

Its a pyramid scheme. The solution is feeding the problem..

Much like your refusal to engage in detail in the other thread about low paid workers "not paying their fair share", you don't have any grasp of detail on this matter either. If you took a read of SF tax proposals in their 2020 manifesto, your hypothetical worker on 100k would in fact not have his/her headline tax rate change (tapered tax credits yes*).

And much like your contributions in the other thread, you use nebulous words like "taxed heavily". Leaving aside the 100k worker not having their headline tax touched under SF policy, what does "heavily" even mean to you?

* Please note tapering of tax credits was previously FG policy but at a much lower level of 70k, but was mysteriously abandoned in favour of retaining USC.

I suppose what I'd say to that is, if there are tax rises to be had, morally and economically, north of 140k (or further north of that if it suits you) really are the only places to put it. Anyone earning circa 80k or below really can't take much more squeezing, and cost of living is the main limitation on this.

The predictable riposte that picking on craythurs on 140k and above will spook investors and seeing the wealthy (a moveable feast as a concept) fleeing to Malta or wherever. The jury has long returned on that front, research shows definitively wealthy people overwhelmingly leave jurisdictions not because of tax rises, but because of quality of life issues - and Ireland has quality of life issues to bate the band and underinvestment in key areas of our economy and social infrastructure. For instance, a much-reported barrier to attracting executives to Ireland is not tax or the fear of tax rises - that's a priority well down the list, it's in fact the reality we don't have enough high-quality international schools and securing housing close to the ones that do exist.

We need to spend and we need spending in the right places, which was rather the point of SF's manifesto.

The much talked about fiscal space and Paschal's patented prudence is really a quaint concept in 2021 when we see Leo promising to bung no strings attached money to all and sundry (with no tax increases mind you), so SF's 2020 manifesto looks positively Tory in comparison. It's amazing how a party that made such a sanctimonious virtue of being fiscally conservative in the most favourable borrowing environment in the last century completely abandons it without comment when it suits them.

To repeat, and many an economist (including the likes of the IMF and ESRI) come down firmly on this point, Ireland needs to borrow while the going is good interest rate wise to plug infrastructure gaps and improve the structural failures in our economy. FG are only catching up now, SF were there in their 2020 manifesto.

You'll have to be pulled up here on your characterization of 'reducing taxes on the vast bulk of the population'. Tax decreases were almost exclusively confined to those under 30k with the removal of USC, a cohort of taxpayers that barely move the needle in terms of tax take in any case. That's not the 'vast bulk' by any reasonable measure. Non-progressive taxes such as the USC on the less well off are egregiously unfair in any case and this is a section of society that could do with the boot of USC being removed from their neck. Calling that populism is a value judgement on your part and I'd submit it's tainted by political predilections.

The increased tax take from the 140k and upwards cohort was significant, and the rule was ran over that by D.O.F officials as with all other party budgets. So I'm afraid you're in the realms of mischaracterisation there. Whether you think that's a stinging insult to those on 140k and upwards is a political value judgement again I'll leave you to make yourself.

And to boot, the IMF mission to Ireland which recommended going to the well and borrowing criticised the prudence before all else attitude that took hold over the previous 5 years or so, noting that we were out of line with peer countries where we could have comfortably borrowed and serviced the debt, but chose not to even when it was economically desirable to do so. These comments are worth paying attention to from a serious (and reflexively conservative in case you need reminding) financial institution. Ireland was one of the countries most in the grip of the Swabian housewife austerity mindset - pennywise and pound foolish was the ultimate charge laid at our door.

What's happening now is not counter-cyclical spending FYI if we take a look at headline GDP figures.

Political discussion mentions government party in power for ten years shocker.

FF/FG followers can't hide behind sinn fein anytime it gets awkward.

Sure roll out the troubles, the public love that when paying over the odds for rent and dreaming of buying, while listening to liars explaining why they made up crony jobs for friends.

I can't see where, "according to" the poster you quoted, that "a woman was only to be used as an agenda"

Are you deliberately misrepresenting posts again? Is it easier to counter some of your own, made up nonsense than what other posters actually post?