The Feckin Government

Wrestlemania

I have noticed over the last few years, what type of government could replace our current one and if it is replaced are there any viable and somewhat honest parties that could do a better job.

In the years of the Current Fianna Fail government we have been led to believe that the Celtic Tiger has been making us all that little more well off and have better jobs and more pleasing way of life...

To me it was an illusion brought on not in total by McCreevys over spending and government mismangement of funds....

Who could do a better job, make the likes of the LUAS,METRO and everything else more cost efficient...Sort our Illegal Immigration problem, Health Care issue and reduce the price of general living as to be honest it has gone out of control and 10 quid these days does not go as far as it did before..


The Below parties or the opposition, which would you think would make a good coaliton, I have noted my own and like to find out what would be workable:


1. The Greens, to me they are the typical left wing party but to be honest are one of the few parties that stick to there principles but mind you never voted for them.

2. Labour, these guys are no longer the Hardcore Socialists that they were and are merely champange Socialists and have the Democratic left in there ranks now but to be honest makes no real difference.

3. Sinn Fein, me I am anti-IRA and this party but I believe they are that small bit better than berties boys at least they admit they are gangsters.

4. The PD's....Muppets and basically Fianna Fail with a different name..

5. Fine Gael, Weak party we leadership again Muppets

6. Fianna Fail, Berties boys have a good old ride for a while maybe the need to be knocked off there perch and knocked into Purgatory for the next few years...

Opinions Please

Villain

1. The Greens, A party that will never change, some of there principles are very good, but a lot are just too far out there.

2. Labour, Great leadership, I think Rabbite is a good performer in the Dail, a little quiter of late but he asks the hard questions and doesn't let Bertie away with loose answers

3. Sinn Fein, My first preference, a party that will grow and grow, very good people at the grass roots, expect a big gain in local elections, Gerry is an excellent leader.

4. The PD's, shower of fools, McDowell is the biggest muppet in the Dail.

5. Fine Gael, Poor Leadership for years now, Noonan done damage that will take years to mend, not a viable opposition option, corrupt

6. Fianna Fail, A party that has failed the Irish people on so many occasions, there last election manafesto is one big lie, corrupt

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sleepy

Can I suggest a new party? One headed up by Michael O' Leary. Someone who understands economics and how to do things for what they cost and not a cent more. Yes, he'd need some leftwards balancing so maybe throw him into a coalition with Labour and the Greens (being the only two parties whose motives I trust in Ireland).

irish1: are you prepared to ruin the countries economy and ruin everything else in it for the sake of sub-Fianna Fail colloquialism and a one policy party?

star gazer

The government: had seven years and look like they have run out of ideas. Fianna Fail are FiannaFail and the PDs are propping them up which isn't going to help their electoral progress, if the lose votes again like the last general election, the medium term looks perilous, in the short run McDowell will relish being minister for justice and mary harney will probably rest on her laurels unless a move springs new life into her political ambition.

The alternative fine gael labour and greens: Fine Gael the weak link right now, but showing tentative signs of being a credible political force again, Labour are motoring very well in the Dail but the political reality on the ground battling with sinn fein and fianna fail for votes will squeeze what otherwise could have been another spring tide, the greens are a potent political force for their size and look ready for government, but will have to drop a militant edge to be acceptable in mainstream politics.

Sinn Fein... at a peak right now and should sweep up a big increase in council seats... can they maintain that momentum to the next general election in the face of a much more beligerent fianna fail political machine.

Villain

Originally posted by Sleepy
irish1: are you prepared to ruin the countries economy and ruin everything else in it for the sake of sub-Fianna Fail colloquialism and a one policy party?

I offered my opinion, not a solution:)

Sleepy

That's right, vote for terrorists and then wash your hands of them. Very smart.:rolleyes:

Villain

Originally posted by Sleepy
That's right, vote for terrorists and then wash your hands of them. Very smart.:rolleyes:

Are you referring to me, if so back up your comment with quotes coz I'm not sure what your referring to.

I would give my first pref to Sinn Fein, but I'm realistic and realise they would not get enough seats to hold governement nor is their many party's which would go into coallition with them.

Now don't bother posting one liner slags, offer an opinion to the deiscussion.

Victor

Originally posted by Sleepy
One headed up by Michael O' Leary.

No, I don't think I could agree to that. If he implemented the same economic model on government services as he has with Ryanair we would end up charging fees for processing your Child Benefit application.

Wrestlemania

It would be nice to see say a Labour/Green and Sinn Fein alliance again I am not pro Sinn Fein but it would be an unusual experiment to see what could happen..

I dont agree with Sinn Fein on the illegal Immirgration aspect as to be honest it is a problem out of control and in all fairness totally reversed as the real Refugees are being branded with the same brush as the likes of the Nigerians,Russians and Romanians to name a few...

We need a change unless this country will slip into the canyon of oblivion..

When is the Next general election ??? Sooner the better!

Sleepy

Originally posted by Victor
No, I don't think I could agree to that. If he implemented the same economic model on government services as he has with Ryanair we would end up charging fees for processing your Child Benefit application.

My point is the man understands how to spend money wisely, something none of the recent governments have managed in my memory. Ryanair operate by making sure there's not a euro spent where it shouldn't be. This keeps costs (i.e. tax) low and service levels are pretty respectable. If the same mentality were put into the running of the country, we wouldn't see our taxes wasted on ridiculous PR exercises, unnecessary jets or Mary Harney's make-up.

I believe we shouldn't have politicians that are completely clueless as to how to run a business as, in certain respects, a country is a similar thing. Income comes in and it should be spent as wisely and effectively as possible to get the maximum benefits for the company's shareholders (us).

When most of our politicians don't seem to know how to run a country pub, never mind a country it's very difficult to have any faith in them.

Sleepy

Originally posted by irish1
Are you referring to me, if so back up your comment with quotes coz I'm not sure what your referring to.

I would give my first pref to Sinn Fein, but I'm realistic and realise they would not get enough seats to hold governement nor is their many party's which would go into coallition with them.

Now don't bother posting one liner slags, offer an opinion to the deiscussion.

I apologise, I'm new to the politics board and still getting aquainted with the etiquette. I just can't understand how someone could consider Sinn Fein as worthy of a first preference. Honestly, I expect the next government to be a FG, Labour, Sinn Fein coallition but that's just a judgement based on what I see around me... It's not a government I'd want because I honestly don't feel I can trust a party that are so intrinsically linked with terrorism that use propaganda so well. So, I ask, not as an insult, but as a genuine question: why can you consider them for your first preference?

Villain

Originally posted by Sleepy
I apologise, I'm new to the politics board and still getting aquainted with the etiquette. I just can't understand how someone could consider Sinn Fein as worthy of a first preference. Honestly, I expect the next government to be a FG, Labour, Sinn Fein coallition but that's just a judgement based on what I see around me... It's not a government I'd want because I honestly don't feel I can trust a party that are so intrinsically linked with terrorism that use propaganda so well. So, I ask, not as an insult, but as a genuine question: why can you consider them for your first preference?

I've explained my voting reasons in many threads here before do a search in this forum and you'l find them easy enough.

I can understand how some people see SF's link with terrorism as an obstacle, but I like a lot of what they stand for, (not all I'l admit that).

SF may have links of the kind mentioned, but what about all the corruption within FF and FG. Gilmartin's evidence has convinced more than ever not to vote for FF.

capistrano

Originally posted by irish1
SF may have links of the kind mentioned, but what about all the corruption within FF and FG. Gilmartin's evidence has convinced more than ever not to vote for FF.

So, Gilmartin gave fifty grand to Pee Flynn... and Gadafy gave 1000 tonnes of Semtex to Gerry Adams and co. Not to mention the money going to Sinn Fein from hijacking and sale of bootleg cigarettes, and the racketeering, and the punishment beatings, and the outright murders!

irish1, you should get things in perspective.

I personally could never in good conscience give any vote to SF. By their actions they have cast themselves outside the ordinary standards of civilised politics.

I am not an FF supporter, have never voted for FF, but I would happily give them my number 1 if the only alternative ewas SF, or as a tactical vote to keep SF out.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Villain

Originally posted by capistrano
So, Gilmartin gave fifty grand to Pee Flynn... and Gadafy gave 1000 tonnes of Semtex to Gerry Adams and co. Not to mention the money going to Sinn Fein from hijacking and sale of bootleg cigarettes, and the racketeering, and the punishment beatings, and the outright murders!

irish1, you should get things in perspective.

I personally could never in good conscience give any vote to SF. By their actions they have cast themselves outside the ordinary standards of civilised politics.

I am not an FF supporter, have never voted for FF, but I would happily give them my number 1 if the only alternative ewas SF, or as a tactical vote to keep SF out.

I never said Sinn Fein were perfect, I was asked my opinion and I gave it.

Theres a lot more to Gilmartins evidence than the payment to P Flynn and we'r only in part 1 now.

I see things very well in perspective, now I'm not about to go start defending why I vote for SF. I've done it on many many occasions here in the past and it gets a little tiring.

To say you would vote FF just to keep SF out is a bit silly.

Villain

Originally posted by daveirl
. You don't like McDowell because he's anti-Sinn Féin, I don't see how that makes him a muppet. McDowell is one of the best politicians in the country IMHO, and will make a good Tainiste next time out

He is Minister for Justice, he has ranted and raved about SF's connections to illegal activity, has 1 person been convicted??

Isn't it a tad bit odd that the Minister for JUSTICE can make these claims and not be able to convict these people???

Great Minister my ass;)

capistrano

Originally posted by irish1
To say you would vote FF just to keep SF out is a bit silly.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Anyway, as for other parties. It annoys me when people call the PD's ultra-right wing or even fascist. Give me some evidence.

To me, the PD's are a typical liberal party; the believe that people should take responsibility for their own actions. This is a principle that is sadly missing from the policies of Labour/Greens/SF who tend to blame everything on "The Government".

Liberal parties believe that the state should do all in it's power to give everyone a fair chance to provide for themselves. This would of course mean providing decent state education and healthcare so that people can achieve their maximum potential.

The other side of the coin in law and order. People are responsible for their own actions and when they break the law, the state should not let them get away it this.

I think many in FG have liberal instincts but, the party inevitable leans left because it's only potential coalition partners are further left than itself.

FF is a party that has a shameful past, but I really think that the PD's have had a great influence in this government and in the previous one.

I would still be afraid that if FF had an overal majority they would slip back into their bad old ways.

I would be prepared to give a FG/PD/Lab coalition a chance.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sleepy
My point is the man understands how to spend money wisely, something none of the recent governments have managed in my memory. Ryanair operate by making sure there's not a euro spent where it shouldn't be.

Such as safety...

And besides, MO'L is also famous for running Ryanair as tightly as possible while at the same time taking huge amounts of cash out of the company for his own pocket. So effectively you're looking for a second CJH...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

capistrano

Originally posted by Sparks
Such as safety...

And besides, MO'L is also famous for running Ryanair as tightly as possible while at the same time taking huge amounts of cash out of the company for his own pocket. So effectively you're looking for a second CJH...

Frankly, you talking arse!

Ryanair have an exemplary safety record and their fleet is much newer than most airlines.

MOL has sold shares he owns in the company. His salary/bonuses are pretty low compared to other top CEO's. They're his shares, surely he's entitles to sell his own property.

Sparks

Originally posted by capistrano
Frankly, you talking arse!

I'm afraid not.

Ryanair have an exemplary safety record and their fleet is much newer than most airlines.

And they turn their aircraft around too fast to properly check them, they have taken off in crosswinds above the recommended limit stated by the manufacturers of the aircraft they fly, and if you cut spending and time and put pressure on the airline as MOL has done, then eventually it's going to come back and kill a few hundred people. And there's a very dodgy relationship between them and the Irish Aviation Authority.

MOL has sold shares he owns in the company. His salary/bonuses are pretty low compared to other top CEO's. They're his shares, surely he's entitles to sell his own property.

Indeed he is, it's just that it says a lot about the man proposed as the solution to Irish governmental problems that he sells off his shares on a regular basis.

Sleepy

Thanks for beating me to that point Capistrano.

My views on the various parties?

Fianna Fail - Corrupt, incompetent, only kept in government because they're owed so many favours from local favours and jobs for the boys.

Fine Gael - Pretty ineffectual and a dying breed

Labour - Basically an honest party that, while they have some good ideas about social politics (in terms of Education and Healthcare). However, I think they're weak on law and order.

PD's - again, I agree with Capistrano on the PD's in terms of their stance that people should be responsible for their own actions. They largely seem to have a bettr understanding of economics than many of the other parties but they seem to be lacking on social conciense and frankly, I don't trust Harney after hearing her "personal grooming" bills.

Sinn Fein - too closely linked to terrorism and I distrust any party that uses propaganda so well.

Green Party - Well meaning and hard to argue against a lot of their principles but some of their policies are a little far-reaching

So, basically my choice for the next government would be a 3 way coalition between Labour, The Greens and the PD's to reign them in with a bit of reality. It's far from an ideal government but the best I can see given our current choices.

Sleepy

Originally posted by Sparks
I'm afraid not.
And they turn their aircraft around too fast to properly check them, they have taken off in crosswinds above the recommended limit stated by the manufacturers of the aircraft they fly, and if you cut spending and time and put pressure on the airline as MOL has done, then eventually it's going to come back and kill a few hundred people. And there's a very dodgy relationship between them and the Irish Aviation Authority.


Indeed he is, it's just that it says a lot about the man proposed as the solution to Irish governmental problems that he sells off his shares on a regular basis.

Can you back up your claims of Ryanair's safety infractions?

The fact that he sells his own shares when the share-price is high shows that he knows good financial management in his personal life. And surely the fact that he's worth a fortune makes him less susceptible(spelling?) to the bribery demonstrated by so many of Fianna Fail's "finest"?

Victor

Originally posted by Sleepy
And surely the fact that he's worth a fortune makes him less susceptible(spelling?) to the bribery demonstrated by so many of Fianna Fail's "finest"?

Haughey was also worth a fortune, didn't stop him.

capistrano

Originally posted by Victor
Haughey was also worth a fortune, didn't stop him.

Haughey wasn't worth a fortune, that was his problem. He was constantly in debt and so he maybe had to do a few favours so his rich mates would bail him out.

capistrano

Originally posted by Sparks
if you cut spending and time and put pressure on the airline as MOL has done, then eventually it's going to come back and kill a few hundred people.

Indeed he is, it's just that it says a lot about the man proposed as the solution to Irish governmental problems that he sells off his shares on a regular basis.

Tell me of one serious Ryanair safery incident.

It makes perfect financial sense for MOL to diversify his financial portfolio by selling some Ryanair shares and buying something else.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sleepy
Can you back up your claims of Ryanair's safety infractions?

Sure, if you can get a hold of accurate traffic and weather logs for Dublin Airport.

The fact that he sells his own shares when the share-price is high shows that he knows good financial management in his personal life.

Actuallly what I was looking at was that he judged his own personal finances as more important than the possible damage to Ryanair's image caused by the CEO selling millions of euros worth of shares.

And surely the fact that he's worth a fortune makes him less susceptible(spelling?) to the bribery demonstrated by so many of Fianna Fail's "finest"?

Nope.

Sparks

Originally posted by capistrano
Tell me of one serious Ryanair safery incident.

The most recent one was a Ryanair flight that ran off the end of a runway in Holland after landing, IIRC.

capistrano

Originally posted by Sparks
The most recent one was a Ryanair flight that ran off the end of a runway in Holland after landing, IIRC.

That's doens't sound too serious. A couple of years ago I was on an Aer Lingus plane whose tyre burst into flames on landing in Bristol; dodgy brakes or something.

All airlines have incidents, but I think Ryanair take safety very seriously. The last thing they want is an impression that just becasue they are "no frills" that somehow this implies less safety. To counter this they need to make sure that safety is a priority. It's just good business sense.

AngelofFire

Fianna fail-crooks act like a party of the people when they are in oppostion. but break promises and neglect housing, healthcare and education when they get into power.

Fine Gael-well meaning but two conservative to provide any alternative government. spend more time attacking current government policy than coming up with policies of their own.

Labour-possibly the best of them all. left wing but not too radical. put the needs of the people above big business. played a major part in abolishing college fees. if it were a bigger party it would provide good alternative government.

Progressive democrats-anti working class and pro big business. would prefer to hand out tax concessions to those earning excess of €200,000 per week than to provide affordable housing. voters are mainly those who play rugby and send their children to fee paying schools.

Green party-well meaning i would like to see them as part of a possible FG/LAB/GP Coaltion. good policys towards the environment.

SF- i sympathise with many of their policies but they get two bogged down in fundamentalist republican policies.

Socialist party-well meaning but unrealistic.

capistrano

Originally posted by AngelofFire
Progressive democrats-anti working class and pro big business. would prefer to hand out tax concessions to those earning excess of €200,000 per week than to provide affordable housing. voters are mainly those who play rugby and send their children to fee paying schools.

Claptrap! Why do you think think our standard rate of income tax is just 20% now and 35% a decade ago? And our unemployment rate is 4.5% now and 12% a decade ago?

This is influence of the "anti-working class and pro big business" Progressive Democrats.

What you need to realise is that it is only when we have a strong economy that we are able to provide all those state services you like.

Since the PD's were in government there are more working class people in jobs, earning more money and paying less tax. Sure, that anti-working class alright

Villain

Originally posted by daveirl
Actually a good share of them have, Ferris for example. But like I said about two posts ago, enough on the Sinn Féin stuff.

LOL

daveirl, I think you'l find Mr McDowell wasn't even Minister when Ferris was convincted.

I'm talking abut what the Minister for Justice has been saying in the last few months.

He has harped on about SF's illegal activity and links to crime etc, but no-one has been convicted that is anyway linked to SF.

Your above post totally shyed away from my point, the Minister is a muppet!

Sleepy

Originally posted by Victor
Haughey was also worth a fortune, didn't stop him.

It was never established how Haughey made his money. He never countered claims that it was ill-gotten. The man should be in prison.

capistrano

Originally posted by irish1
LOL
He has harped on about SF's illegal activity and links to crime etc, but no-one has been convicted that is anyway linked to SF.

Your above post totally shyed away from my point, the Minister is a muppet!

You're living in cloud-cuckoo land, my friend. The minister has his intelligence sources. The crimes are being carried out by SF's fellow travellers in the IRA and SF refuses to comdemn or disassociate itself from the IRA. Also, most of SF's leadership are former (current?) IRA leaders. Wake up am smell the cordite!!!

Villain

Originally posted by capistrano
You're living in cloud-cuckoo land, my friend. The minister has his intelligence sources. The crimes are being carried out by SF's fellow travellers in the IRA and SF refuses to comdemn or disassociate itself from the IRA. Also, most of SF's leadership are former (current?) IRA leaders. Wake up am smell the cordite!!!

Proof???

Now either say you don't have any or show it, we have gone around in circles on this debate enough in the past.

If the ministers intelligence sources are so sure why haven't they been convicted???:rolleyes:

ReefBreak

Originally posted by irish1
I see things very well in perspective, now I'm not about to go start defending why I vote for SF. I've done it on many many occasions here in the past and it gets a little tiring.

To say you would vote FF just to keep SF out is a bit silly.

Actually, I can just about remember the reasons you gave, and I'd like to see them again, because I think they were as vague, trivial and lacking in reality as any reasons I've ever seen. But anyway.

Fianna Fáil. Some of them are a shower of arrogant, power-hungry bástards, but they're also the only party that could cut spending in the face of huge public and media pressure when they had to, with the result that the economy is back on track and looking up. There are lots of people that don't like them, but will still vote for them, because they know FF hold the best chance of them staying in a good job to keep up the mortgage repayments, car loan or those one (or two) holidays a year. It's this that will keep them in power after the next G.E.

Progressive Democrats. I gave them my first preference last time, and I'll certainly do it again this time. No record of corruption, and their low tax, pro-enterprise was a major factor in creating a massively successful economy. Most of their economic policies have been adopted by other parties, with the result that we still have one of the best economies in Europe at the moment. Plus the there's the fact that despite reducing taxes, it actually resulted in record tax-intakes in the history of the state.

Fine Gael. Just too vague to know where they stand at the moment. Are they Centre-Right, or Soft-Left? Do Fine Gael even know?

Labour. Well meaning but ultimately redundant. Currently are really only attracting the under-25 and smoked-salmon vote, with the result that their share of the vote in recent polls has not really increased. Furthermore, I don't think they have the balls to stand up to some of the more powerful unions in the country. Nevertheless, I'd rather see them in Government than the Socialist Party or the Greens. I would accept a FF/Lab government, but not a Lab/anything else government.

Greens. I can't deny their pro-environment policies (apart from their anti-incincerator policy) have resulted in me giving them my 4th or 5th preference in the past. However, their hard-left economic policies would be terrible for the country. They'll be glad to be rid of that buffoon Patricia McKenna.

Sinn Féin. Crikey, where to start. Oh I know, how about their connection to a terrorist organisation that murdered over 1800 people (and counting) over the last 35 years. How about not once condemning Jean McConville, La Mon, Enniskillen, Claudy, the Paddie Gillespie murder, Bloody Friday? How about answering the question about who was in charge of the Belfast Brigade of the Rah when Jean McConville was abducted from her home in Belfast? And we haven't even reached their so-called "policies" yet. Business policies? Well, if their manifesto from before the last G.E was anything to go by, they're nothing less than a joke. A few vague notions of increasing indigenous industry, yet at the same time massively increasing taxes to "share the wealth", with the result, of course, that enterprise and indiginous industry would be decimated. Their social "policies" would be spend, spend, spend, but no mention about where they would get this fantastical amount of cash. Oh, I know, by increasing taxes and creating a nightmarish socialist backwater? Which will of course destroy the economy and the enterprising spirit that been created in this coutry, and which will reduce the amount of public money available in the country... It's annoying that I've dedicated most words to these terrorist-supporting scumbags, but I genuinely feel ashamed for Ireland that people can actually vote for them.

Socialist Party. Joe Higgins et al. Moan, complain, whinge. Why not come up with some realistic policies that aren't grounded in Marxism?

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
We need a change unless this country will slip into the canyon of oblivion..

Sorry, what? We have an improving economy, the Central Bank yesterday stated that we may soon approach full employment again. So I don't know where you came up with that. If you want the country do disappear into a Canyon of Oblivion, vote for Sinn Féin.

Villain

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Actually, I can just about remember the reasons you gave, and I'd like to see them again, because I think they were as vague, trivial and lacking in reality as any reasons I've ever seen. But anyway.

Well do a search then Reefbreak I think we talked this to death in the past.

star gazer

originally posted by capistrano
Haughey wasn't worth a fortune, that was his problem. He was constantly in debt and so he maybe had to do a few favours so his rich mates would bail him out.

But he did have substantial property assets which probably well outweighed his financial debts, how much did he sell his home and it's surrounding area for...€35million?

originally posted bycapistrano
Since the PD's were in government there are more working class people in jobs, earning more money and paying less tax

maybe paying less direct tax and erning more money, but then again people are paying more indirect taxers and related stealth taxes, as for reducing the tax bands, the government now have two thirds paying at the top rate of income tax, not a progressive step.

originally posted by reefbreak
Fianna Fáil. Some of them are a shower of arrogant, power-hungry bástards, but they're also the only party that could cut spending in the face of huge public and media pressure when they had to, with the result that the economy is back on track and looking up.

a good start, but downhill from there.
Fianna Fail are notorious for their short term populist decisions (and promises), i think more of the credit goes to the PDs for the spending cuts except if you look at the overall picture it was the government as a whole that increased spending in the high teens before the last general election. Amazing how the spending needed to plummet just after the elections.

capistrano

Originally posted by star gazer
maybe paying less direct tax and erning more money, but then again people are paying more indirect taxers and related stealth taxes, as for reducing the tax bands, the government now have two thirds paying at the top rate of income tax, not a progressive step.

Paying a few quid more in indirect taxes is nothing compared to paying a few percent less of your entire income in direct taxation. We're still better off.

And with the public finances beginning to look healthy again we can expect fewer people to be paying the higher rate of tax in the coming years.

Remember that when the rainbow government was in power almost 80% of taxpayers were hitting the higher rate. If I remmeber correctly the higher rate started at about £8000. Yes, that was very fair!

Victor

Originally posted by capistrano
Claptrap! Why do you think think our standard rate of income tax is just 20% now and 35% a decade ago? And our unemployment rate is 4.5% now and 12% a decade ago?

But CGT is at 20% (no PRSI or health levy), why should hte wheeler-dealers of the world pay less tax the the ordinary decent hard worjing person? I thought the PDs were pro-work.

sceptre

Originally posted by capistrano
Claptrap! Why do you think think our standard rate of income tax is just 20% now and 35% a decade ago?

<sigh> (I don't normally go in for sighing but I'll make an exception here)

It might make your case less weak if you didn't just make stuff up.

Ten years ago (1993/94 tax year, effectively eleven tax years ago) the standard rate of tax was 27%. It was 27% the year before and it was 27% the year after. The standard rate of tax was 35% from the 1984/85 tax year until the 1988/89 tax year inclusive. It hasn't been 35% since and wasn't 35% a decade ago. It was 25% before that by the way. Please try to get your decades in order - it'll give your case that extra little oomph.

capistrano

Originally posted by Victor
But CGT is at 20% (no PRSI or health levy), why should hte wheeler-dealers of the world pay less tax the the ordinary decent hard worjing person? I thought the PDs were pro-work.

Yes, and when the rate was cut from 40% to 20% the CGT take was bigger the following year. I would have thought that the important thing was tax revenue to the state and not just screwing taxpayers becasue you imagine that they are not ordinary decent hard working people!

To make a capital gain you must risk something. Share prices can go down as well as up. I think it is fair that given you take this risk the tax rate should be lower.

Also, most countries have a much larger CG allowance before tax applies than Ireland. In the UK I think it's about £10k, the the USA it's more like $200k but in Ireland it's a measly €1270.

capistrano

Originally posted by sceptre
<sigh> (I don't normally go in for sighing but I'll make an exception here)

It might make your case less weak if you didn't just make stuff up.

Ten years ago (1993/94 tax year, effectively eleven tax years ago) the standard rate of tax was 27%. It was 27% the year before and it was 27% the year after. The standard rate of tax was 35% from the 1984/85 tax year until the 1988/89 tax year inclusive. It hasn't been 35% since and wasn't 35% a decade ago. It was 25% before that by the way. Please try to get your decades in order - it'll give your case that extra little oomph.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

I should have said a decade AND A HALF ago then.

My point about the bands still apply. I started working in 1993, earning £14k and pay the higher rate of tax (48%?) on a lot of it.

My point is... you don't know you're born, lad!

bonkey

Originally posted by capistrano
Claptrap! Why do you think think our standard rate of income tax is just 20% now and 35% a decade ago? And our unemployment rate is 4.5% now and 12% a decade ago?

This is influence of the "anti-working class and pro big business" Progressive Democrats.

Umm, if you actually do the math on the taxation side of it...

Lower income tax and higher fixed-cost so-called "indirect" taxation benefits the rich far more than it does the not-so-rich, or indeed the just-above-poor, compared to a higher taxation rate and less indirect-taxation.

For someone marginally better off than would qualify for waivers, often an indirect taxation cost of a couple of hundred quid will more than make up for a couple of percent in direct PAYE taxation. However, for someone earning serious cash, the benefit can be enormous.

It is not as simple a case as simply throwing out individual figures and declaring them to be indicative of good policy in any way.

BTW, Al Franken does a very good and humorous take on the above in "Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell" concerning the US system, if anyone is interested.

What you need to realise is that it is only when we have a strong economy that we are able to provide all those state services you like.

Like the Health Care system that costs the Irish public more per capita than any other in Europe, but which is far from the same rank in terms of the quality - nor even in terms of the improvements seen in terms of expenditure increase.

Lets not forget that supplying crap, expensive services is also a trademark of the government you are defending.

Not that any previous governments of any flavour have been more successful, mind....

Since the PD's were in government there are more working class people in jobs, earning more money and paying less tax. Sure, that anti-working class alright

Paying less income tax, you mean?

jc

capistrano

Originally posted by bonkey
Like the Health Care system that costs the Irish public more per capita than any other in Europe, but which is far from the same rank in terms of the quality - nor even in terms of the improvements seen in terms of expenditure increase.

Lets not forget that supplying crap, expensive services is also a trademark of the government you are defending.

Don't get me started on the health service. The trouble with our health service is that most of the investment has gone into wages and salaries, which does little to improve the service. I saw somewhere that Irish doctors come second in the world (after USA of course) in terms of income. I think doctors should be paid well, but should they really be paid hundreds of thousands of euros of state money?

Paying less income tax, you mean?

Certainly less income tax, but also less tax in total. This is reflected by the fact that the tax take in Ireland is now 26% of GDP, whereas it was over 40% in the past.

I just don't go in for this tax-the-rich more argument. That just damages the economy in the long run. Look at the state we were in when we had very high tax rates.

I think the priority should be getting better value for our tax money (Health Service is a case in point) rather than throwing more money at the problems.

star gazer

originally posted by capistrano
Paying a few quid more in indirect taxes is nothing compared to paying a few percent less of your entire income in direct taxation. We're still better off.

It depends on how much more people get stuck paying indirectly and coupled with the high price rises of the last few years, suddenly people who don't have capital doing the 'work' for them look very modestly better off. Having in mind the kind of boom the economy has gone through it points to a failure of government to get the balance right.

And with the public finances beginning to look healthy again we can expect fewer people to be paying the higher rate of tax in the coming years.

now that there are elections on the way, you mean that more money will have to be spent by the government. The first two budgets of this government were payback for the splurge before the last general election and getting people's expectations down for the forthcoming election splurges.

Don't get me started on the health service. The trouble with our health service is that most of the investment has gone into wages and salaries, which does little to improve the service. I saw somewhere that Irish doctors come second in the world (after USA of course) in terms of income. I think doctors should be paid well, but should they really be paid hundreds of thousands of euros of state money?

bad management plian and simple, cowan ran away from it and Martin is going from one press opportuinity to another without really taking any hard decisions. He's gotten huge budget increases but hasn't spoent it well.

bonkey

Originally posted by capistrano
Certainly less income tax, but also less tax in total. This is reflected by the fact that the tax take in Ireland is now 26% of GDP, whereas it was over 40% in the past.

But you're again taking a figure which is averaged over the entire population, and arguing that this means that a section of the population is better off based on those figures. The latter does not necessarily follow.

I am pointing out that the working-class person ,ay not have more money in their pocket under today's taxation system than they may have had they been paying more direct tax and less indirect tax.

I just don't go in for this tax-the-rich more argument.

The point is that direct taxation benefits the rich more than the poor, not whether or not you agree that its a good idea.

The less well off may see a decrease in their available cash (i.e. after paying all tax - indirect and direct), or - at best - a small increase, while the better off will see progressively more cash coming available when the taxation system.

Now, given that you've been arguing how much better off the working class are as a result of this, I think you should be addressing the argument that they are not necessarily better off, and may - in fact - be worse off, not whether or not you approve of the alternatives.

That just damages the economy in the long run. Look at the state we were in when we had very high tax rates.

Taking tax rates in isolation as an indication of well-being is meaningless. Tax came down because our economy was improving. This does not imply in any way, shape, or form that lower tax rates improved the economy.

And given that we're talking about the working class and how taxation has affected them, its again somewhat midsleading to discuss how the nation as a whole is better off. The issue is whether or not the lower tax rates, with accompanying indirect taxation has made the working class any better off. National averages cannot address that question.

jc

capistrano

Originally posted by bonkey
I am pointing out that the working-class person ,ay not have more money in their pocket under today's taxation system than they may have had they been paying more direct tax and less indirect tax.

What the hell do you mean by a working class person? The average industrial wage is €28k, and somebody on that level of income is far better off because their income tax rate is just 20% now.

Originally posted by bonkey
The point is that direct taxation benefits the rich more than the poor, not whether or not you agree that its a good idea.

But direct taxation is based on your own consumption, so you can avoid some of it if you like. Our taxation system is a mix of direct/indirect taxation so people pay a portion based on their own consumption and a portion based on their income. I take it you would rather the balance was more weighted in favour of income tax.

Originally posted by bonkey
Now, given that you've been arguing how much better off the working class are as a result of this, I think you should be addressing the argument that they are not necessarily better off, and may - in fact - be worse off, not whether or not you approve of the alternatives.

Who's worse off? Not the person on the average industrial wage as I poited out earlier.

The minimum wage is now €7/hour, which is significantly higher than when it was first introduced and before the minimum wage many people were earning very low wages. The income of a person on the minimum wage is tax free. So minimum wage people are better off.

That leaves people on Social Welfare. Social Welfare rates have increased by more that inflation every year. Indeed, old age pensions have gone up by a lot more than inflation. While people living on social welfare were never well off, I think it's hard to justify that they are worse off now.

So I just don't accept your premise that "working class" people are worse off. You haven't justified your argument.

I think that, in principle, people should be able to keep as much of their income as possible, with due regard to the provison of reasonable state services. The idea that better off people should pay a very large portion of their income in tax to support less well off people leads to a country where not enough people have money to spend and invest and drive the economy forward.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by ReefBreak

, and their low tax, pro-enterprise was a major factor in creating a massively successful economy.

it was also a major factor in the cutbacks made to health, education and people with special needs. its seems that the pds would rather put hardship on societies weakest than take money off people who need it least. and if the economy was so successful what was the need for the cutbacks in the first place.

capistrano

Originally posted by AngelofFire
it was also a major factor in the cutbacks made to health, education and people with special needs. its seems that the pds would rather put hardship on societies weakest than take money off people who need it least. and if the economy was so successful what was the need for the cutbacks in the first place.

There were no cutbacks. Spending on Health, Education and Social Welfare has gone up every year since the last election.

As regards taking money of people who need it least, you should remember that it is their own money. The state needs to be fair to all citizens, even those earning more than average.

There is so much pinko-leftie sentiment on these boards. I'm just glad it's not reflected by the people at election time.