Is this New Labour

Bren1609

In light of the Labour party conference and labours 5 commitments as well as their intention the cut the standard rate of tax from 20% to 18% is this a "New Labour" that all strata’s of society feel they can vote for or are they still considered to be “champagne socialists” that are out of touch with the working class?

purple'n'gold

Old labour / new labour, whatever. No political party has any core values anymore. They probably never had any before either. They will just try and find what people want and tell them they will give it to them.

ballooba

Some people will never reach the income band where FF/PD gave the tax breaks. These are the people Labour should be looking after.

gandalf

Stroke of genius by Labour. Cuts the arse out of the FF/PD's Labour always raises taxes and refocuses on the Government parties always giving tax breaks to the better off in society.

McDowell looked like a Bulldog that had been fed a hive of wasps on the six one news when they asked him to comment on it.

bk

ballooba wrote:

Some people will never reach the income band where FF/PD gave the tax breaks.

That isn't the whole story, while they did (PD's mostly) decrease the upper rate of tax from 42 to 41%, they also did increase the tax bands and credits. While this doesn't sound as sexy as a 2% decrease in tax, it actually does have the effect of reducing the amount of tax that all people earn, both high and low earners.

This also makes me very suspicious, I thought that Labour was supposed to be the high tax, high services party?

They promise to create lots of new hospital beds, lots more Gardai and free pre-school education. This will all cost a lot of money, but they are going to reduce the lower rate of tax,so how are they going to fund it?

1) Increase the upper rate of tax (ouch).
2) Increase corporation tax?
- I'd rather pay 20% of tax on x, rather then 18% of nothing, because I've lost my job.
3) Increase hidden taxes like stamp duty, etc?
4) Borrow and increase national debt?

Also another funny thing, in their document about creating 2,300 hospital beds, they say it will cost €600 Million a year, but it is already being paid for under the National Development Plan!!!! So in other words, FF/PD are already promising and planning for this and Labour aren't promising anything additional!!!

Second in the final promise to help people buy new homes, it sounds almost exactly like the current social housing scheme to me. The only difference I can tell is that it is open to buy any home, rather then just limited to 20% of new homes. It sounds like a recipe for mad price inflation in houses to me. It sounds like the only people who would benefit from this are the developers.

Villain

I think Labour have been looking at the polls and doing some deep thinking, the polls have shown their support stay static for some years now so Pat Rabbite obviously decided it was time to get some attention for his party and it has worked, not only the initial response to his announcement but also seeing Bertie and McDowell comment on it today gives it another day in the news and McDowell looked worried, I suppose I'd be worried if I was the leader of a party that only got 1% in the last poll and just heard the competition promising tax cuts.

I like Pat Rabbite, I'd like to see what he could do in government.

purple'n'gold

We get income tax cuts, fine, and the more the better. But then they (government in power) introduce all sorts of stealth taxes to make up the deficit. And it’s the income tax payer who usually pays most of the stealth taxes anyway.

Time Magazine

gandalf wrote:

McDowell looked like a Bulldog that had been fed a hive of wasps on the six one news when they asked him to comment on it.

I wonder how long this hive's "dying sting" will last...

Dirk Gently

bk wrote:

1) Increase the upper rate of tax (ouch).
2) Increase corporation tax?
- I'd rather pay 20% of tax on x, rather then 18% of nothing, because I've lost my job.
3) Increase hidden taxes like stamp duty, etc?
4) Borrow and increase national debt?

I think FG already ruled out option 1 and 2 there. Hard to see how they're going to do it without using stealth taxes. I'd like to see Labour try to explain away any potential stealth taxes to their supposedly working class support base. Perhaps I'm mis judging Labour and theyhave a plan to finance these commitments other than the options out lined by BK above but I haven't heard Rabbit say how he will fund his spending yet.

Anyone got any detailed info on the housing commitment. Not a whole lot on their website accept for a basic announcement of the policy.

As for the OP, I don't think labour have been old labour for quiet some time now, there are still referances to equality and socialism but FG will beat whatever socialism is left out of them before long. Labour will loose out because a lot of their voters wont be able to stomach voting for FG and they will end up being a very junior partner in a conservative government should a rainbow be formed after the election. A lot of traditional labour voters may well vote for smaller lefty parties or independants.

Still bitterly disappointed that Labour made the pact with FG, I would have prefered each party to stand alone for what they believe in and then make the deal after the election. Instead were left with an unimpressive smoked salmon socialist / christian conservative type hybrid which hasn't really got a whole lot to say except that FF are bad and we should get them out.

mike65

Sounds like an example of back-of-a-beermat policy making done simply to cut the ground from under the FF/PDs while not having even remotely thought the consequences through.

Widening tax bands would be the intelligent choice but apparently its hard to sell on the doorstep. We get the policies we deserve.

Mike.

InFront

clown bag wrote:

were left with an unimpressive smoked salmon socialist / christian conservative type hybrid which hasn't really got a whole lot to say except that FF are bad and we should get them out.

Do you really think so? I think most people would have had to have tried pretty hard not to have heard about the policies of the alternative coalition by now. Cutting the standard rate of tax, the five commitments for change, the 'boot camps', the immigration position, scrapping private hospitals on public land...

If someone doesn't know about this stuff surely you'd be questioning where they've been for the past few weeks.

Villain

mike65 wrote:

We get the policies we deserve.

Mike.

See my Sig

Dirk Gently

InFront wrote:

If someone doesn't know about this stuff surely you'd be questioning where they've been for the past few weeks.

Labour have released "5 commitments" (which I thought where fair enough, but I would like a bit more detail on how their going to do it) just last week and FG have been making sound bites about Drunk tanks and boot camps. Most of the previous year as been about focusing on government failure and not about what would be done differently. It’s as if the message is "more of the same, hopefully less corruption" In fairness I suppose global markets more or less nullify all but radical political parties in this day and age anyway so perhaps I was expecting too much to begin with. Still I am bitterly disappointed with a poor show from the opposition over the past year or so.

What I would have been interested to see would be an election fought by labour for labour and an election fought by FG for FG. Because of the pre arranged pact, anyone inclined to vote left doesn't really have much of a choice but to vote for a smaller lefty party as it is obvious that a more traditional labour agenda won't be met while married to FG. This has put off a lot of potential labour voters and it could have been avoided if Labour stood alone and appealed to its traditional voters more. As a FG man I'm sure you’re more than happy with the arrangement that may well see FG lead a new government but for some one like me who is left of centre it's all very dis heartening not to have any real choice.

I think if both parties fought their election alone and put out their own agendas without having to worry about appeasing the others voters then democracy would be much better served and a coalition could be formed based on the results. If such an approach had of been taken then I strongly feel labour would be the bigger party and much more able to dictate to FG or any other potential partner when forming a coalition.

At the moment we have no real alternative direction and a lot of what I can only describe as hot air and negative tactics. I have been less than impressed with the "drunk tank" or "boot camp" solutions which I believe are attention grabbers and nothing else.

If any Labour heads are out there reading this I’m sending out an SOS. Convince me LAB / FG are worthy of government.


P.S. infront: I still have that other paper on my desk, haven’t had a chance to read it yet. I hope to get back to you at some stage about it.

Macy

bk wrote:

That isn't the whole story, while they did (PD's mostly) decrease the upper rate of tax from 42 to 41%, they also did increase the tax bands and credits.

Yes, but the widening of the bands hasn't kept up with wage inflation, and in McCreevy's last couple he didn't increase them at all, and Cowen has never got them back to the levels in real terms they were before the last election. The spin may suggest tax cuts, but they've effectively raised income tax over this term in Government.

Cutting the upper rate benefits the rich disproportionately, even allowing for the Governments failure to come close to it's committment of 2/5 of PAYE (note PAYE, not "effective tax rate across all tax payers") workers not paying at the top rate. A reduction in the standard rate is at least more equitable than cutting the top rate. As for stealth taxes, can't be much scope for many more of them after the last ten years, and sadly I really don't think the general electorate has the cop on to realise lower direct taxes lead to higher indirect taxes (and vica versa).

The Corinthian

Bren1609 wrote:

In light of the Labour party conference and labours 5 commitments as well as their intention the cut the standard rate of tax from 20% to 18% is this a "New Labour" that all strata’s of society feel they can vote for or are they still considered to be “champagne socialists” that are out of touch with the working class?

Were they ever in touch with the working class? Simply because they share a name with the UK Labour party does not mean that they had similar histories or ideological backgrounds. The Irish Labour party was always a far more middle class affair, especially in the 1990's when it's core voting demographic was typically middle class, liberal and educated. Still is.

All four of the present major political parties in Ireland are essentially following what is realistically a position of ideological status quo. This is based upon the economic success of Ireland (if it ain't broke don't fix it) and the best any of them are willing to offer by way of difference is their own flavours of the same thing.

I'm not saying this is entirely a bad thing, but it is breeding a certain level of apathy which can often be seduced by the more romantic parties on the peripheries.

Bren1609

"If any Labour heads are out there reading this I’m sending out an SOS. Convince me LAB / FG are worthy of government."

FF own ineptitude, bared faced lies and corruption should have convinced people to vote FG/LAB, however this doesn't seem to be the case. Any other country and they'd be in prison and to think that in Ireland we put them in government gives testament to the Irish electorate/mentality.

Someone earlier put it "we get the policies we deserve" I think that should be re-phrased "we get the Politicians we deserve"

Villain

Yes George Bernard Shaw summed that up quite well when he said "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."

If people give FF and the PD's another 4 years in government they deserve what they get.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Yes George Bernard Shaw summed that up quite well when he said "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."

If people give FF and the PD's another 4 years in government they deserve what they get.

I'm sure there are 'I hate FF' threads elsewhere. How is this relevant to 'New Labour' and tax reductions?

Villain

Oh Conor I'm sure there are but I also think discussing Labours pre-election strategy can only be seen in context when compared to the opposition e.g. McDowell giving an extra 100 to the pension.

Anyone see Q&A last night O'Dea got himself in a spin when talking about Rabbites tax promise, saying that the less well off people wouldn't benefit from it as well as those on bigger salaries, but when asked about the current governments promise to cut the top rate to 40% and what that would do for the less well off he kept saying I'll come back to it and when he did he said in principle he agreed that was worse for the less well paid.

FYI I don't hate FF conor74, I actually voted for MJ Nolan in the last election I just hate their inability to tackle the major issues we are facing, have a read of the MRSA thread and see how good FF have been. Labour have promised a tax cut for the less well off which I support, I think Pat Rabbite deserves his change in power, he can't mess it up anymore than McDowell, Harney or Bertie have surely?

gandalf

Hmmm I'd actually be far more worried about the 50% increase in the pension being promised by McDowell given the age profile of the country than labour shaving away 2% off the base rate of tax. The base rate can be increased when things are hard but god help the politician that slashes the pension. I sense the PD's are panicing.

bk

irish1 wrote:

Labour have promised a tax cut for the less well off which I support, I think Pat Rabbite deserves his change in power, he can't mess it up anymore than McDowell, Harney or Bertie have surely?

I believe a lot of the general public would like to see Labour in government with FF.

Certainly FF is closer to Labours policies then FG is and for FF supporters Labour is certainly closer to their beliefs then PD's.

I believe Labour made a mistake by not leaving the door open to going into government with FF, I believe they would have won lots of FF transfers had they been more open to a possible partnership with FF.

The policy to cut the upper rate of tax was a PD policy, not a FF policy, FF policy was to keep minimum wage people from paying tax at all and widening the lower rate tax bands, all things which are very compatible with Labours policies. A FF/Labour government would probably scrap the PD plan for a 40% upper tax rate and focus on the lower tax rates instead.

BTW I don't like the way some people say that reducing the upper rate of tax only benefits the "rich". "Rich" is the wrong word, many ordinary people with ordinary jobs, specially in Dublin, pay tax at 41%, but still find it very hard to get by due to everything being so expensive in Dublin and they certainly aren't "rich". Personally I'd like to see more people been taken out of the higher rate of tax band, then the lowering of the standard rate of tax.

I actually don't get why many Labour supporters are so against a FF/Labour government, you are far more likely to see social reforms with FF, then you would with FG.

Villain

bk wrote:

I believe a lot of the general public would like to see Labour in government with FF.

I don't believe the recent poll's support that belief bk.

Gandalf thats an excellent point, if the economy was to get in trouble tax raises would be acceptable or however decreasing the pension would be a tougher one to implement.

gandalf

bk wrote:

I actually don't get why many Labour supporters are so against a FF/Labour government, you are far more likely to see social reforms with FF, then you would with FG.

Its called "1992 Syndrome" we all have memories of what going into government with FF did for the party at the next election.

TBH I see coalition with FG as the lesser of two evils. If politics were split down proper boundries that you see in most other countries then FF, FG and the PDs (ok maybe not the PD's!!) should have merged into a centre right party with Labour on the left, but as we are all stuck in a civil war timewarp with our politics we have to endure all this bloody coalition rubbish.

bk

irish1 wrote:

I don't believe the recent poll's support that belief bk.

Have the polls actually asked that question? I was watching that Frank Nutz (?) programme a few weeks ago and when asked would they like to see a FF/Labour government, most of the audience said yes. In fact is was by far the most popular coalition.

gandalf wrote:

Its called "1992 Syndrome" we all have memories of what going into government with FF did for the party at the next election.

And that is the problem, the memories don't match up with what actually happened. In 1992 Labour won 19% of the vote, now polls show that during all it's time in coalition with FF, it's rating remained around a very respectable 17%, their polling only dropped to around 12% after they broke up the coalition with FF and went into coalition with FG/DL.

In other words people were actually happy with them in power with FF, they only punished Labour when they broke up the FF government and went into government with FG.

Villain

bk wrote:

Have the polls actually asked that question? I was watching that Frank Nutz (?) programme a few weeks ago and when asked would they like to see a FF/Labour government, most of the audience said yes. In fact is was by far the most popular coalition.

From the Indo on Saturday the 3rd February:

According to the Irish Times TNS/mrbi poll, 32pc want FF and the PDs to be re-elected. A Rainbow Government of Fine Gael, Labour and the Greens is the preferred option for 29pc of voters.

But only 13pc want to see a Fianna Fail/Labour coalition in power.

gandalf

bk wrote:

And that is the problem, the memories don't match up with what actually happened. In 1992 Labour won 19% of the vote, now polls show that during all it's time in coalition with FF, it's rating remained around a very respectable 17%, their polling only dropped to around 12% after they broke up the coalition with FF and went into coalition with FG/DL.

In other words people were actually happy with them in power with FF, they only punished Labour when they broke up the FF government and went into government with FG.

Well as someone who was canvassing for a Labour candidate on the doorsteps back in 1992 I can tell you that the reason they got the vote was to "get that crowd out of government", when they turned their backs on these people they were punished next time out. I see what you are trying to say but I believe you and those polls are incorrect. People trusted Labour as an alternative in 1992 and not as a prop to a corrupt and jaded FF.

going forward its going to be an interesting few months with potential nursing strikes, Aer Lingus action, a steep rise in staple food prices, promises and counter promises coming out government and opposition parties.

bk

gandalf wrote:

Well as someone who was canvassing for a Labour candidate on the doorsteps back in 1992 I can tell you that the reason they got the vote was to "get that crowd out of government", when they turned their backs on these people they were punished next time out. I see what you are trying to say but I believe you and those polls are incorrect. People trusted Labour as an alternative in 1992 and not as a prop to a corrupt and jaded FF.

But then why did people punish Labour so badly after they broke up with FF and entered government with FG/DL?

I'm sorry but your argument doesn't make any sense. If people really wanted an alternative to FF, surely they would have rewarded Labour for breaking their coalition with FF and joining with FG/DL?

And you can't just ignore the polls, which clearly show people were happy with Labour when in power with FF, but they were unhappy after the breakup.

What I believe happened was that most people really don't care about politics or the ideology of hard core party supporters. All most people care about is a relatively stable government that doesn't get in their way too much. I think most people were actually fairly pissed with Labour that they broke up the FF coalition over what most people consider an irrelevant matter, it made Labour look unstable and flaky and they got punished for that and haven't really recovered since.

I fear that this might be repeated again. If we arrive at a situation where the only possible combination is FF/Labour, but Labour refuse to go into power with them and force a re-election, I believe that the electorate would punish Labour for that and that they would lose significant amount of votes to FF. The reason being that the general public would be pissed at having to vote again, would blame Labour for it and would vote FF as the most likely way to ensure that they don't have to vote again.

gandalf

You believe what you want all I can recount is what was said to me on the doorsteps in 1992, the second we heard Labour were going into power with FF we knew the party would be punished by the electorate at the earliest possible opportunity. Personally I left the party after this.

If the only option is a FF/Labour government after the election I would prefer if they stood their ground and a re-election was called. I for one do not want to see FF in power again, they and the PD's have made a complete and utter mess of this country in their tenure as government.

Personally I can see FF getting into bed with Sinn Fein if the numbers match up, despite all Berties crocidile tears to the contrary, that is a more likely outcome than a FF/Labour Government. Worth considering that a vote for FF might allow the Chuckies into Government.

ballooba

bk wrote:

BTW I don't like the way some people say that reducing the upper rate of tax only benefits the "rich". "Rich" is the wrong word, many ordinary people with ordinary jobs, specially in Dublin, pay tax at 41%, but still find it very hard to get by due to everything being so expensive in Dublin and they certainly aren't "rich". Personally I'd like to see more people been taken out of the higher rate of tax band, then the lowering of the standard rate of tax.

Average Industrial Wage : €29,000
Upper band : €34,000+

I wouldn't say people on upper band are "rich". But I wouldn't call them "poor" either. As such a break in the upper band does not help the "poor". I can guarantee you a family living on minimum wage will have a different definition of "getting by" than one in the upper band.

bk

gandalf wrote:

If the only option is a FF/Labour government after the election I would prefer if they stood their ground and a re-election was called. I for one do not want to see FF in power again, they and the PD's have made a complete and utter mess of this country in their tenure as government.

Personally I can see FF getting into bed with Sinn Fein if the numbers match up, despite all Berties crocidile tears to the contrary, that is a more likely outcome than a FF/Labour Government. Worth considering that a vote for FF might allow the Chuckies into Government.

I'm sorry Gandlaf, but that is pure FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). FF will not go into government with the Shinners, as they know they would be punished for it at the next election. The far better strategy for FF, if Labour doesn't play ball, is to allow their to be a re-election, blame Labour for it and watch as the Labour vote is decimated and FF vote goes up and they end up back in government, either on their own or with the PD's or the Greens.

I'm sorry but your (and many other Labour die-hards) hatred of FF is what is holding Labour back from becoming a truly successful party in Ireland. It is this blind hatred that has no basis in reality that is holding Labour back from becoming the solid large third party in Irish politics and the king makers. If Labour continues down this road, I can see the Green Party supplementing Labour as the third largest party and becoming the king makers.

FF will always be around and will always likely be in power or close to it. Did you read Vincent Brownes article in the SB Post this weekend? Of the 13 elections over the last 50 years, FF has only lost 3 elections. FF will always be around. What people want is a party with strong alternative beliefs and policys that will act as a counter weight to FF. Labour is failing badly to give us that.

bk

ballooba wrote:

Average Industrial Wage : €29,000
Upper band : €34,000+

I wouldn't say people on upper band are "rich". But I wouldn't call them "poor" either. As such a break in the upper band does not help the "poor". I can guarantee you a family living on minimum wage will have a different definition of "getting by" than one in the upper band.

€29,000 is the 2005 figure, the average industrial wage is over €32,000 this year and that is a national average, the average wage in Dublin is much higher, yet everything in Dublin (housing, etc.) is also much more expensive.

That means that an awful lot of ordinary people, in ordinary jobs are supposedly paying the "rich" rate of tax.

Now I'm not saying that the upper rate of tax should be reduced further, I'm actually against that, all I'm saying is that it is wrong to say that people who pay tax at the upper rate are "rich" and I also believe that the tax bands should be radically widened so that less ordinary, working and middle class people are paying tax at the high rate.

Villain

bk wrote:

€29,000 is the 2005 figure, the average industrial wage is over €32,000 this year and that is a national average, the average wage in Dublin is much higher, yet everything in Dublin (housing, etc.) is also much more expensive.

That means that an awful lot of ordinary people, in ordinary jobs are supposedly paying the "rich" rate of tax.

Now I'm not saying that the upper rate of tax should be reduced further, I'm actually against that, all I'm saying is that it is wrong to say that people who pay tax at the upper rate are "rich" and I also believe that the tax bands should be radically widened so that less ordinary, working and middle class people are paying tax at the high rate.

Bk I think you missed my post which showed only 13% of people polled wanted a FF and Labour Government, so I wouldn't think Labour would be too worried about any backlash if they refused to join FF.

BTW Who said peole who pay tax at the higher rate are rich?

gandalf

bk wrote:

I'm sorry Gandlaf, but that is pure FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). FF will not go into government with the Shinners, as they know they would be punished for it at the next election. The far better strategy for FF, if Labour doesn't play ball, is to allow their to be a re-election, blame Labour for it and watch as the Labour vote is decimated and FF vote goes up and they end up back in government, either on their own or with the PD's or the Greens.

Thats you're belief, mine is that FF will do anything to stay in power including jumping into bed with Gerry if the Shinners hold the balance of power.

I'm sorry but your (and many other Labour die-hards) hatred of FF is what is holding Labour back from becoming a truly successful party in Ireland. It is this blind hatred that has no basis in reality that is holding Labour back from becoming the solid large third party in Irish politics and the king makers. If Labour continues down this road, I can see the Green Party supplementing Labour as the third largest party and becoming the king makers.

Actually I disagree, what did do damage to Labour becoming a more successful party was joining with FF in 1992. My hatred if you want to call it that stems from the facts that FF are a corrupt organisation with corruption shown over the years to permiate throughout the whole organisation whose cosy little relationship with builders and developers is resposible for the traffic and infrastructure nightmare that faces Dublin and its suburbs today.

As for your comments on the Greens they know as well that a four year stand with FF will be the kiss of death for them at the next election.

FF will always be around and will always likely be in power or close to it. Did you read Vincent Brownes article in the SB Post this weekend? Of the 13 elections over the last 50 years, FF has only lost 3 elections. FF will always be around. What people want is a party with strong alternative beliefs and policys that will act as a counter weight to FF. Labour is failing badly to give us that.

No I have the SBP at home still to be read I will watch out for that. Thats quite a record 3 out of 13 lost well I guess we know who is to blame for the bloated civil service, a crumbling health system thats killing people, infrastructure thats well behind what is needed, schools without playgrounds, gardai without proper equipment after all they have been in power the most.

mike65

SF won't go into government with FF. It would damage thier niche.

Mike.

Bren1609

3 our 13!? Thats a dictatorship.

bk

irish1 wrote:

Bk I think you missed my post which showed only 13% of people polled wanted a FF and Labour Government, so I wouldn't think Labour would be too worried about any backlash if they refused to join FF.

I'm not surprised by that, a FF/Labour coalition hasn't really been offered as an option to people. When asked by a pollster what option they before, most people are going to say either of the two options (FF/PD or FG/Lab) that are currently been offered. 13% is actually surprisingly high.
For instance if those people were told that a FG/Lab coalition wasn't possible, how many do you think would then be in favour of a FF/Labour coalition?

I believe the same poll found that a large number of people (can't find the actual figure) actually believed that FF/Labour would form a coalition.

What I found interesting during that the Frank Lutz show was that after he showed all the party leaders Ard Fheis performances, that almost no one in the audience wanted a FG/Lab (or FF/PD) coalition, but almost everyone wanted a FF/Labour coalition.

irish1 wrote:

BTW Who said peole who pay tax at the higher rate are rich?

Macy said the following:

Macy wrote:

Cutting the upper rate benefits the rich disproportionately

and I've heard it been said in other threads also. It bothers me because it ignores that a lot of ordinary people who are far from being rich, still pay the higher rate of tax.

For instance a person might be earning €36,000 per year, would be paying tax at 41%, yet such a person could only get a mortgage of €167,000, in Dublin you couldn't buy a box with that much money. So such a person is far from being "rich".

Certainly they aren't "poor" either, but I'm just making the point that "rich" and "poor" are misleading and often abused words.

I believe something like 30 to 40% of people pay tax at the upper rate, most of these people aren't rich and IMO most of them shouldn't be paying tax at the upper rate.

gandalf wrote:

Actually I disagree, what did do damage to Labour becoming a more successful party was joining with FF in 1992.

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. However an interesting old SB Post article here that you might consider:
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/05/22/story4962.asp

mike65

Just to get back on topic 2% cut in the standard rate does exactly zip for the full time carers/unemployed/long term illness benefit etc expect SF to make some play on that in Dublin especially.

Mike.

ballooba

If a person was on a below average wage would you call them poor? If a person was on an above average wage would you call them better off?

Tax breaks in the lower band will do more for the poor than a tax break at the higher band would. If as you say 30 to 40% of the population pay SOME* of their taxes at 41% then they are on the "better off" minority.

Not being able to be a house doesn't make you poor btw. Renting is the norm in plenty of other countries. We just have a dislike for landlords in this country for obvious reasons.

*Example Single person on €36,000


**************************************************
Calculate end of year tax returns (Single)
Tax year for calculations is 2007
(Form P21C)
Selected currency is Euro €
**************************************************

INCOME FROM EMPLOYMENTS €:
Income for Self 36000.0
Other Incomes/Benefits 0.0

---

Gross Statutory Income 36000.0


CREDITS (@20%)€;:
Personal Allowance 8800.0
PAYE Allowance 8800.0
Medical Insurance Allowance 0.0
Service Charge Allowance 0.0

---

Total Credits (@20%) 17600.0


ALLOWANCES (@41%) €:
Med Expenses, Perm Health 0.0
Expenses 0.0

---

Total Allowances 0.0

COMPUTATION OF NET TAX PAYABLE BY YOU €:
Gross Statutory Income 36000.0
Less Allowances before tax 0.0

---

Taxable Income 36000.0
Which is chargeable as follows:
34000.0 @ 20% = 6800.0
2000.0 @ 41% = 820.0

---

Income Tax due 7620.0
LESS €:
Tax Credits (17600.0 @20%) 3520.0
Total Income Tax due 4100.0
Net Tax deducted under PAYE 0.0

---

Tax Underpaid € 4100.0

ballooba

mike65 wrote:

Just to get back on topic 2% cut in the standard rate does exactly zip for the full time carers/unemployed/long term illness benefit etc expect SF to make some play on that in Dublin especially.

Mike.

Labour have pledged to end means testing for full-time carers.

As for the 4.4% of the population not gainfully employed at the moment. Not too sure.

InFront

bk wrote:

For instance a person might be earning €36,000 per year, would be paying tax at 41%,

No they wouldn't. They'd be paying tax at 18% on the first €34000 of taxable income until they get to €34000 and THEN they start paying the higher rate.

Somebody earning €36000 per year would be gaining an extra €680 per year under FG/ Lab.

Under the FF/PD plan you have to be earning €40000 per year before you get an extra €60 and the rises start from that end of the scale.

bk

ballooba wrote:

If a person was on a below average wage would you call them poor? If a person was on an above average wage would you call them better off?

As I said, I don't like branding people at all and I wouldn't call them either.

Also both you and InFront both keep missing the part where I said I'm actually AGAINST cutting the upper tax band. I just don't like people walking around smugly using the word "rich".

InFront

I don't think we're missing that, just saying that your claim that "ordinary people who are far from being rich, still pay the higher rate of tax" is wrong. They will mostly pay the lower-lower rate under FG-Lab. That person on 36k is nearly €700 better off under FG/ Lab than under FF/ PD

That's a free weekend in Rome, or a shopping spree, courtesy of Kenny and Rabbitte every year.

ballooba

bk wrote:

Also both you and InFront both keep missing the part where I said I'm actually AGAINST cutting the upper tax band. I just don't like people walking around smugly using the word "rich".

I wouldn't use the term rich either. "Better Off" or "Well off" might be a better term.

bk

ballooba wrote:

I wouldn't use the term rich either. "Better Off" or "Well off" might be a better term.

And I think you are now just using those terms as a replacement for rich.

I'm mean if a person can't even buy a one bed apartment, then they are hardly better off?

Sure they have a few more euro to spend down in the pub, but that means nothing in terms of wealth generation.

Anyway, we have gone completely off topic, we should be discussing Labours 5 commitments, if they are good ideas and what the likely impact is.

ballooba

bk wrote:

And I think you are now just using those terms as a replacement for rich.

Actually, I would think those terms are pretty accurate. You pointed out that these people are better off than 60 to 70% of the population.

bk wrote:

I'm mean if a person can't even buy a one bed apartment, then they are hardly better off?

As I pointed out, unlike Ireland, a fetish for property ownership isn't so prevalent in other countries.

Macy

bk wrote:

Macy said the following:

and I've heard it been said in other threads also. It bothers me because it ignores that a lot of ordinary people who are far from being rich, still pay the higher rate of tax.

....

Certainly they aren't "poor" either, but I'm just making the point that "rich" and "poor" are misleading and often abused words.

It does benefit the rich disproportionately, which is what I said. When they cut it from 44% to 42% for example, the top 6% were 60% better off while the bottom 60% were only 6% better off.

bk wrote:

I believe something like 30 to 40% of people pay tax at the upper rate, most of these people aren't rich and IMO most of them shouldn't be paying tax at the upper rate

I agree and it's yet another Government committment that has been broken, and by a FF Minister for Finance not the PD's. The committment was that only 20% of PAYE workers would pay at the higher rate. Now we're getting bull about the effective tax rate of all tax payers which is a totally different measure and is heavily skewed by those taking advantage of the various tax breaks this Government has continued to allow for the most well off in our society

lostexpectation

shouldn't labour commit to enforcing part 5 of the housing plan to build social and affordable housing in each estate (rather then paying the council of) before suggesting the gov give loans for private houses

ballooba

Unless someone shows me otherwise I would agree that commitment 5 is a non-flyer. The only people it serves to help is developers. Housing prices should be allowed to fall naturally, not sustained by goverment loans.

lostexpectation wrote:

shouldn't labour commit to enforcing part 5 of the housing plan to build social and affordable housing in each estate (rather then paying the council of) before suggesting the gov give loans for private houses

I was out for a few drinks on friday night with two up and coming developers. One was advising the other on how to get land rezoned. It involved "giving something back" i.e. I'll build a school, community hall, etc. here if you let me build a housing development on the rest. They thought there was nothing wrong with this system. BTW the community hall one typically costs them €300,000.

This is why urban sprawl is out of control.

Dirk Gently

ballooba wrote:

Unless someone shows me otherwise I would agree that commitment 5 is a non-flyer. The only people it serves to help is developers. .

Hard to argue with that. It does look like a state subsidy to maintain artificially high house prices dressed up as a counter measure to the very same problem.

I see the cost is 400m. Don't know how accurate that figure will turn out to be but it's basically a cheque from the tax payer to the developer. Are labour target voting those already owning property and property developers or those unable to afford a house?

It's a tough one really, do you want the price of property to drop, making it more affordable but gutting the economy, or do you want to keep the property boom going as long as possible by subsidising it to save the economy. Eventually the money will run out, but when it does, how much debt will we be in and how long will it take us to recover?

lostexpectation

ballooba wrote:

Unless someone shows me otherwise I would agree that commitment 5 is a non-flyer. The only people it serves to help is developers. Housing prices should be allowed to fall naturally, not sustained by goverment loans.

I was out for a few drinks on friday night with two up and coming developers. One was advising the other on how to get land rezoned. It involved "giving something back" i.e. I'll build a school, community hall, etc. here if you let me build a housing development on the rest. They thought there was nothing wrong with this system. BTW the community hall one typically costs them €300,000.

This is why urban sprawl is out of control.

well that wouldn't be such a bad thing if there both built before people move in, they need to built in any case

I see the HSE had to entertain the developer who said he build the childrens hospital for cost, cahrity is that men is interested in, will LAB/FG be able to stop private hospitals being built beside public ones if they get into gov.

ballooba

lostexpectation wrote:

well that wouldn't be such a bad thing if there both built before people move in, they need to built in any case

I see the HSE had to entertain the developer who said he build the childrens hospital for cost, cahrity is that men is interested in, will LAB/FG be able to stop private hospitals being built beside public ones if they get into gov.

Zoning is there for a reason. The practice I mentioned above undermines planning law in general.

A €300,000 community hall in a development worth millions is obviously nothing to the developers, otherwise they wouldn't offer it.