Why would you give Labor your vote ?

limklad

sceptre wrote: »

it's apparent to me (and hence presumably to the blind monkeys) that what Eliot is referring to is that to provide an expected level of take-home pay (aka "net"), when deciding offered salaries (aka "gross") the particular employer effectively adds on an amount to compensate for the loss in income tax for the employee. Where income tax rises, many employees expect an increase in their gross pay to mitigate the loss in their net. Whether or not they have such an expectation, the cost still lies effectively with the employer (effective as opposed to a value-based calculation of the contribution of the individual employee to the overall worth of the company).

Obviously the direct cost to the employer is corporation tax, VAT where applicable and employer-PRSI. The indirect tax-related cost can be considered to be the amount paid by the employer to provide an attractive level of net pay, specifically being the difference between net and gross. It's still an associated cost in that it affects the level of cost to the employer, albeit an indirect one given that the tax is directly paid by the employee rather than the employer.

Call it "cost of employees to employers" 102. I rather hope that most members realised the original point before I made this post, mind you, whether or not they agree with its importance as a factor in job creation. This last part of course is one of the more significant divergences of opinion between those who want a low-tax economy and those who want a higher level of exchequer-funded services, implicitly requiring an, er, less low-tax economy.

Take home pay by employees is different from Business Tax. That is very basic.

This this economy climate everybody know it an employers market. If you don't like the pay you leave for another job and the employer hires someone else. Just as employees have to pay higher wages during the boom times to hire workers where there is a demand for workers or specialised workers.

So rise of Income Tax does not effect business unless specialist workers leave for other if any higher paying jobs. Higher paying Jobs are very difficult in this economic environment. It an employers Market in a difficult environment.

It is a cruel business either way.

rightwingdub

Pride Fighter wrote: »

You know me as a Labour supporter from my previous posts. I'll tell you that you are speaking nonsense. Labour will implement the cuts. We have the unions on our side and they are willing to cut so long as they are done fairly. We will cut them fairly. If you examine the last pre-budget submission you'll see we advocated more cuts than Fianna Fail. Labour in government is the best bet for a recovery. And a recovery that will have job creation at the heart of it. Unlike the other parties.

Thats the problem with Labour your links with the trade unions will turn off a lot of voters especially private sector workers, Labour are seen as the stooges of the public sector trade unions, the cuts haven't been deep enough for my liking, the government should have taken at least €8-10 billion in public spending in the last budget.

Pride Fighter

rightwingdub wrote: »

I've a couple of questions for floating Labour voters.

1) Do you think that taxing people over €100k will result in more tax revenue?

Of course it will.

2) Will taxing the rich even more create more jobs or less jobs?

It will do neither. Businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs.

3) Who creates jobs rich people or poor people?

As I said above, businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs. Increasing taxes on the civil servants earning over 100k is firm and proper. A hospital consultant on 300k creates no jobs, so he should pay more tax. But Labour will cut taxes for businesses and entrepreneurs. It's our tradition to do it. It was a Labour MoF that introduced the 12.5% corporation tax. None of the other parties advocated that. That one policy laid the foundation for massive economic growth and massive job creation. The last non-Fianna Fail finance minister was in Labour, the last non-Fianna Fail finance minister created 1,000 jobs a week. That is our tradition. I'm not saying we will create that many jobs again, but damn it we'll try.

rightwingdub

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Of course it will.


It will do neither. Businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs.


As I said above, businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs. Increasing taxes on the civil servants earning over 100k is firm and proper. A hospital consultant on 300k creates no jobs, so he should pay more tax. But Labour will cut taxes for businesses and entrepreneurs. It's our tradition to do it. It was a Labour MoF that introduced the 12.5% corporation tax. None of the other parties advocated that. That one policy laid the foundation for massive economic growth and massive job creation. The last non-Fianna Fail finance minister was in Labour, the last non-Fianna Fail finance minister created 1,000 jobs a week. That is our tradition. I'm not saying we will create that many jobs again, but damn it we'll try.

It will create less tax revenue, wealthy people are extremely flexible when it comes to relocation and can just up sticks at any moment, say for example 20,000 out of the top 80,000 tax payers in this country left how much tax revenue would you lose out on. At least a few billion, name me one country that sucessfully taxed its way out of a recession?

Businesses and entrepreneurs do create jobs but taxing the hell out of the wealthy will create less jobs as I have said already they will leave Ireland meaning that thousands of potentially new jobs will not be created.

Okay,you brought in the 12.5% corporation tax rate phased in over a number of years but I did hear Gilmore saying a couple of years ago that he wanted multinationals to recognise trade unions, you've seen that they've done a fine job in our wonderfully efficient public sector:rolleyes:

invinciblePRSTV

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Why wouldn't I? There's an excuse running across this whole thread that goes something like "Labour aren't bad because look at what this other party doing". It's a red herring. I could give extreme examples of this logic but I'll restrain myself.

No there is no such excuse, you've made that up to suit your own viewpoint i imagine. If people want to crucify the Labour Party for having no policies whilst professing to support other parties who have equally vague policies then go ahead but expect to be called on it.

FWIW i don't think any opposition party will be able to spell out exactly what they can do until they get access to the DoFs books, so even if FG & LAB came out tomorrow with policy documents the size of telephone books, in the grand scheme of things its irrelevant beyond setting up a website & throwing a press conference. Equally i don't think the Coalition parties will be able to spell out what they would do as they know the real grim numbers.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The reason the media exists, and the reason political shows exist, it to give people platforms. I shouldn't have to go trawling through the business of Dail Eireann to find out what the Labour party are going to do (nor do I have the time). The Labour party gets ample airtime: it should be using this to tell the people what it's going to do. Instead it offers nothing but vague and ambiguous rhetoric.

Perhaps you should stop looking towards the media for your information aboutl party policy? you'll only ever get vague & ambiguous rhetoric from politicians of all and no parties via the media. Besides if you have the time to post here then i'm certain you have the time to go searching for Oireachtas submissions.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You must be using a different definition of "hypocrisy" to me. Hypocrisy is when you say two conflicting things. The OP hasn't, from what I've seen, condoned ambiguity in other parties. He is fully entitled to question Labour in this way.

OP has alreay proved her/himself a hypocrite by maintaining two conflicting viewpoints at the same time, i suggest reading through the whole thread before commenting further.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

invinciblePRSTV

rightwingdub wrote: »

If Labour implement their tax the rich polcies then a lot of wealthy people will leave Ireland meaning that Ireland's tax base will be depleted even further, that will mean that there is a greater likelihood that Ireland will go bust.

I've a couple of questions for floating Labour voters.

1) Do you think that taxing people over €100k will result in more tax revenue?
2) Will taxing the rich even more create more jobs or less jobs?
3) Who creates jobs rich people or poor people?

Labour are a typical party of socialist begrudgery.

Leaving the reds under the bed fear mongering aside, would you be materially affected by any of the 3 scenario's you've outlined above?

Liam Byrne

rightwingdub wrote: »

Labour are a typical party of socialist begrudgery.

As distinct from "capitalist begrudgery", where those who gambled billions and lost came running to us crying and demanded money from us ?

P.S. Can someone please correct the thread title ? It's hurting my eyes.

Eliot Rosewater

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

No there is no such excuse, you've made that up to suit your own viewpoint i imagine.

I haven't, actually. From Pride Fighter's list of reasons (on this thread)as to why we should vote Labour:

Pride Fighter wrote: »

1) Labour are not Fianna Fail or Fine Gael or the PD's, as a result people realise that if centre-left, strong regulation economic policy was introduced earlier we'd not be in the mess we are in now.
2) Fianna Fail are incompetent and Labour are not.
[...]
7) Brian Cowen and the architects of the mess are not in our party.
8) Fianna Fail created this mess.

1 and 2 are half "vote Labour because this is what this other party is about", and 7 and 8 are fully so. Here it is said we should vote Labour not because of any merit they have, but rather because of the demerits in one other party. As per what I said originally.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

FWIW i don't think any opposition party will be able to spell out exactly what they can do until they get access to the DoFs books

People aren't looking for exact figures; I'm sure they'd be happy to be within quarter a billion or so. The deficit this year is reportedly €27 billion, so that is a starting point. People want to know the overall strategy for economic recovery, and in what direction this country will be taken. Labour have been hesitant is outlining this.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

so even if FG & LAB came out tomorrow with policy documents the size of telephone books, in the grand scheme of things its irrelevant beyond setting up a website & throwing a press conference.

That's a cop out, in my opinion. You don't think there's a burden on the opposition to offer an economically feasible alternative? They should just sit and moan about the government all day?

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

OP has alreay proved her/himself a hypocrite by maintaining two conflicting viewpoints at the same time, i suggest reading through the whole thread before commenting further.

I'm not sure what you're alluding too; Drumpot was explicit in stating that he is party-independent, and I haven't seen him condone any ambiguity on the part of other politicians. You may be referring to the fact they he talked to someone in the FF press room, but I fail to see the relevance of this. Instead of dealing with Drumpot's points you're trying to undermine him; that tactic might have had some success but for the unfortunate fact that he is far from the only one who is confused by Labour's ambiguity.

So perhaps you may want to change tact and actually address people's economic concerns.

Drumpot

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

But why are you holding The Labour Party to such an exacting standard? no party is going to publish their full manifestos and policy documents for what they intend to do when in power until a GE is called. All FG have is their uncosted stimulus plan, FF are in damage prevention mode.

In a manifestos absence you'll have to read the runes to find out what a party is thinking, as i pointed out to the OP, you'll get this via party budget submissions, Oireachtas Ctte. submissions, party conference motions and published policy documents.

We're coming into the final part of this electoral cycle. Now it's become clear that the coalition Government will survive the course through to 2012, all parties have, or at least should have, begun their candidate selection programmes and over the course of the next year or so formulation of election manifesto's will begin.

All in all it smacks of rank hypocrisy for people like the OP to be demanding exactly what Labour have planned for when they get into power 2 years down the line when no party can legitimately predict the lie of the land this time in 2 years.

(plus the all important caveat that coalition Governments mean that party promises and manifesto pledges get thrown out the window in favour of whats agreed on in a Programme For Government)

Ok, you have offered next to nothing in this debate . .

What Im getting from the pro labour camp is that they arent FF . . So if you have mickey joe mucker the farmer who knows fk all about anything other then farming or Mickey Joe the economist who is educated in the field of management, they will choose the mucker simply because they are not FF ? Extreme example to make a simple point thats missed on many people here . Or if we have an einstein with FF or a complete moron on the other parties, people just wont vote for the FF guy . .

There is nothing wrong with voting anybody with FF if you actually have a credible strategy to try to improve things . . I dont mind friends saying I wont be voting FF again, but when I ask them who will you vote for any why, I get concerned when they say once they arent FF I dont mind (which is the attitude of many). . I am simply asking what people feel labour will give to the economy/country with a few simple questions on how they will deal with the most important pending problems of government . .

I am not saying I will vote for FF or FG and not labour. I am saying I will not vote for a party that has no opinion on important topics and will not commit definitively to policys that are vital to our future . .

You keep talking about people crucifying the labour party but all we are doing is asking serious questions, which you have just constantly avoided . . You dont even know the answers to these questions. .

You actually failed to grasp my who points, in favour of just spoiling this thread, offering nothing but personal attacks on me and my motives . . You have picked out specific points I made (when fed up with your BS) and are using them to make a point that does NOTHING to answer my original questions . .

Now to other posters (who actually contribute to the labour party debate), I saw somebody say that Labour will make the cuts that are required in the public service . . How quickly will they do it (as cuts need to be made immediatly) and how much of these cuts do they plan to get through natural wastage (which will take time). .

What is their stance on the croke park agreement ?

Pride fighter, your 8 points here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66438207&postcount=61

highlight exactly what I am saying . .

Points 2, 7 and 8 are basically people should vote labour because FF are sh&t . . Ok so we understand they have been awful . . How does that mean labour are a credible alternative (if you are using that as 3 seperate reasons to vote labour?).

Point 1 . . So if we all voted Labour, we wouldnt of had this mess? . . So why were labour demanding more spending during the boom years with money being generated by capitalism ? Surely they should of been screaming about the terrible money being made and spent by a thriving capitalistic market, but instead they chose to demand more spending . . Where did they think we would make this money from ?

Point 4 . . Im not too sure your figures add up and my understanding is that most economists feel that nationalising the banks should always be a last resort and would not of saved us the money you suggest. Not only that, you dont say how we would of been dealt with internationally by letting Anglo go under and how it would effect depositers. Ah, such a brilliantly sounding concept, but so many variables that are ignored in the sweeping sentance in favour of populist comments ("screw the banks").

Point 5. . Just looked at the first of your 9 Principles . JOBS AND RECOVERY. . It says all the usual bumf (we want to focus on jobs and people, fairness etc etc etc) . . Ok, great, I like that . . Now how will you do it ?

Point 6 - A stable economy, but yet you guys are constantly pushing for an election ? Not only that, it looks like they would definitly have to go into a partnership with either FF or FG. Your point was that these parties are not stable, so how will voting in labour to go into coalition with unstable parties solve the instability problems and could that not mean an even more in-stable government ?Does this point not contradict itself ?


Labours 9 Principle document .

- Page 2 -
1. A coherent job strategy . . Ok, Im sure most partys will say this, how do you intend to do it ?
2. A home guarantee - Ok, great, where will the money for this come from? Bearing in mind that it will either be evil capitalist investors or international banks who will be loaning the money - But didnt you want to give the two fingers to investors ? So on one hand you can give them the fingers when it suits, but on the other you will look for funding off them for a socialist measure that will net the economy little?
3 A fair budget . . Does that mean you wont make hard choices ?
4. Public Pay . . Fair savings in Public service . . A bit open ended
5. Industrial peace . . Ah at what cost to the taxpayer ?

Page 3
Fairness mentioned alot and 4 billion in savings required.

Page 4 - 6 - Very general broad sweeping figures that dont really tell us exactly how the budget will be worked out, more that these figures should be ok .

Page 7 - Revenue enhancing measures. . Dont we already have a carbon levy ? And alot of money saved by hammering the higher paid people who , its assumed, will remain in Ireland after these measures take place ?

Page 8/9 . . Sounds great 1.3bil saved in public service. Where and how ? Will they go back on Croke park agreement ? Of course it wouldnt be in this document, but they still have not committed either way . . If they expect to make 1.3bil savings, does the croke park agreement hinder them ?

10 - 13. Alot of general figures which suggest savings of some sort . . Wont pretend to understand them completely . Im sure all parties have similar vague figures.

Page 14 - 15 1.15billion extra expenditure for jobs, christmas payment and fuel poverty measures . . Where will this money come from ?

Ok. This was a document called "Jobs and recover" and has nothing about how they will create jobs and help the recovery . . There are alot of socialist measures (that I dont necessarily disagree with), but I dont see where we can get 1.3billion to fund them, nor do I believe that the international markets or EU countries will loan us the funds to become a socialist state when there are still alot of financial problems to iron out and Labours stance is still unclear about ,. .

They say they will make the appropriate cuts in public service, but constantly throw the word fairness in there . . What is fair ? Fairness to a public servant voting no to the croke park agreement is that I should pay more to subsidize their lifestyle . . The definition of fairness is so vague its simply just there to appeal to people who will just assume fairness includes them . .

I will read through the other 8 principles when I get the chance but its actually not made things any clearer for me . .

Some people think I just want labour to fail . . These are the people who lack vision and are simply stuck in the old mindset of "this is how things are done in politics" therefore any sort of "outside the box" thinking is seen as heresy and you are automatically classed as "anti labour" because they are unable to comprehend people actually wanting to be able to believe in something, but they want to be convinced by practical measures as opposed to populist drivel that appears to please the masses . .

I want to believe in Labour because at heart I am a bit of a socialist . . I hate capitalism (anybody who knows me will tell you and just look through my threads and arguments on capitalism to see how right or centre right I am), but I understand we have to work with it to achieve prosperity.

In truth Gilemore is lucky that Cowans spirit has been beaten (when he thought he was getting a cushdy position until the sh*t hit the fan) and Enda Kenny is just not good on TV (as everybody else around swears blind hes a good bloke). . He is not a credible leader, he is arguably the best of a bad bunch, but why are people just accepting thats the way it is, so lets just run with it ?

There is no fight left in our country . . People are too conformist . . If something sounds out of the ordinary (like awknowledging good things FF do or asking serious questions of Labours "policies") , people are verbally burned at the stake like witches of old . .

We cannot afford a government that will not make clear, tough decisions in our current economic climate . . Labours document (that you told me to read) is very vague and sounds nice, but I dont know how they intend on funding their socialist measures (which me and my family will benefit from). . Its easy to speak of fairness, so why keep mentioning it when it can be interpreted in differant ways by differant people ?

The core issues facing are country are -

How will our government deal with the banking sector
How will our government deal with the public service
How will our government make the required savings
How will our government fund their policies

Labours principles are about tourism, education, universal health insurance, strategic investment bank, Childrens bill, raising the stakes, powers to enquirys. .

I like the idea of universal health insurance but this is not one of the most important things for this country. . Sorting out the HSE is more important.

I like the idea of their Strategic investment bank, but who will fund this ? Again, if you bring in socialist measures, the likes they are suggesting in their previous reports and your country is already on the cusp of collapse financially, why would any country/investor loan you the money? Again, I agree with alot of what they want to do, but just believe there is a complete lack of understanding/grasp shown in how badly our countries finances actually are.

I agree with alot of what they want, but just dont see any realism in how they expect to achieve it (go socialist but ask capitalism to fund it!) . .

killbillvol2

The question asked was "Why would you give Labor your vote?"

Pride Fighter listed a number of reasons. Amongst them were a number of reasons why he/she wouldn't vote for other parties. That's a perfectly valid reason for voting Labour. If you want to be convinced why you should vote Labour, that's a different question.

It doesn't really matter a damn what he/she, me or others say as I don't think Eliot Rosewater, donegalfella or the rather non-socialist sounding rightwingdub are ever going to vote Labour. The latest media bandwagon is to question Labour's lack of policies so all aboard.
Frankly, I'd be astonished if any opposition party had draconian economic policies 2 years before an election, especially if they can maintain popularity without them for the moment.
It doesn't matter what Labour is going to do now - they're not in government.

To answer the question from my point of view, there are a number of reasons why I would give Labour my vote:

I think they have a very able front bench which compares more than favourably with other parties. (Particularly versus Fine Gael's).
I think Eamonn Gilmore would make an excellent Taoiseach.
Fianna Fail have bankrupted the country...again.
I don't trust Fianna Fail.
I'm unimpressed by Fine Gael. Enda Kenny never impressed me but the idea that Richard Bruton will somehow transform the party is mistaken. I don't think he has the necessary charisma to attract floating voters to Fine Gael and he's a very poor media performer under pressure. I'm also sick of listening to Leo Varadkar's pompous, self-serving drivel every time I turn on the radio. And I would seriously question the political nous of Bruton and his allies in the bid to oust Enda.

I'm quite prepared to wait until near the election to hear Labour's (and other parties') detailed economic policies. And, FWIW, I think opinion polls this far out from an election are largely irrelevant.

Eliot Rosewater

killbillvol2 wrote: »

That's a perfectly valid reason for voting Labour.

Not really. They're perfectly valid reasons for not voting for those those other parties. If you're applying them to Labour you're creating a least worst scenario. "You may as well vote for us, we're the least worst". Doesn't exactly reflect well on a party if they have to pursue this tactic.

killbillvol2 wrote: »

It doesn't really matter a damn what he/she, me or others say as I don't think Eliot Rosewater, donegalfella or the rather non-socialist sounding rightwingdub are ever going to vote Labour.

I don't see the point in this. Our criticisms of Labour are still valid. As it stands I'm deciding between whether to give my number 3 and 4 to Labour or to FF. In a 3 seat constituency where the last seat is between those two, it's actually quite important.

Drumpot

killbillvol2 wrote: »

The question asked was "Why would you give Labor your vote?"

Pride Fighter listed a number of reasons. Amongst them were a number of reasons why he/she wouldn't vote for other parties. That's a perfectly valid reason for voting Labour. If you want to be convinced why you should vote Labour, that's a different question.

It doesn't really matter a damn what he/she, me or others say as I don't think Eliot Rosewater, donegalfella or the rather non-socialist sounding rightwingdub are ever going to vote Labour. The latest media bandwagon is to question Labour's lack of policies so all aboard.
Frankly, I'd be astonished if any opposition party had draconian economic policies 2 years before an election, especially if they can maintain popularity without them for the moment.
It doesn't matter what Labour is going to do now - they're not in government.

To answer the question from my point of view, there are a number of reasons why I would give Labour my vote:

I think they have a very able front bench which compares more than favourably with other parties. (Particularly versus Fine Gael's).
I think Eamonn Gilmore would make an excellent Taoiseach.
Fianna Fail have bankrupted the country...again.
I don't trust Fianna Fail.
I'm unimpressed by Fine Gael. Enda Kenny never impressed me but the idea that Richard Bruton will somehow transform the party is mistaken. I don't think he has the necessary charisma to attract floating voters to Fine Gael and he's a very poor media performer under pressure. I'm also sick of listening to Leo Varadkar's pompous, self-serving drivel every time I turn on the radio. And I would seriously question the political nous of Bruton and his allies in the bid to oust Enda.

I'm quite prepared to wait until near the election to hear Labour's (and other parties') detailed economic policies. And, FWIW, I think opinion polls this far out from an election are largely irrelevant.

I understand this, but I am saying to people why are they just accepting "this is as good as it gets" ?

Everything seems to be about "well the other shower are crap so I suppose I will vote labour" . . And nobody thinks there is something wrong with this ?

It will take a long time to change the attitude of politics in Ireland, but it starts at the electorate . . If we got the exact same government, opposition etc, but it was on the back of most people demanding accountability, prudency, more responsible socialist measures (FF bought the public service for years) and long term planning for the good of the country, we would get it. .

That is an extreme example used to articulate a point . . If we start saying to whichever party we are going to vote for "you will get my vote but only if you have the countrys collective interest at heart, national principles, no self interested groups will be catered for at my expense, accountability is at the core of your policy" , then thats a start . . Not "are you FF or not". . Not voting FF can be one reason to vote for another party but should not be the core of your main decision making process. .

Liam Byrne

Drumpot wrote: »

If we start saying to whichever party we are going to vote for "you will get my vote but only if you have the countrys collective interest at heart, national principles, no self interested groups will be catered for at my expense, accountability is at the core of your policy" , then thats a start . .

I'm glad you agree that that's a start.

Because FF have proven that those are not at the core of their policy.

And so we have to look at whether the others have it there, or are closer to it than FF.

So your paragraph above spells out precisely why I won't be voting FF.

Not because "they're FF", but precisely for the reasons that you outlined above.

Therefore, you should be well able to accept it.

killbillvol2

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Not really. They're perfectly valid reasons for not voting for those those other parties. If you're applying them to Labour you're creating a least worst scenario. "You may as well vote for us, we're the least worst". Doesn't exactly reflect well on a party if they have to pursue this tactic.

Take out those other parties and that leaves Labour. I don't count the Greens as an option. My own reasons are stronger than that but a lot of people will go for the least worst option - it would explain some FF votes in the last election.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't see the point in this. Our criticisms of Labour are still valid. As it stands I'm deciding between whether to give my number 3 and 4 to Labour or to FF. In a 3 seat constituency where the last seat is between those two, it's actually quite important.

I've read a lot of your posts. I'm not going to waste my time trying to sway you.

No6

in a word NO.

killbillvol2

Drumpot wrote: »

I understand this, but I am saying to people why are they just accepting "this is as good as it gets" ?

Everything seems to be about "well the other shower are crap so I suppose I will vote labour" . . And nobody thinks there is something wrong with this ?

It will take a long time to change the attitude of politics in Ireland, but it starts at the electorate . . If we got the exact same government, opposition etc, but it was on the back of most people demanding accountability, prudency, more responsible socialist measures (FF bought the public service for years) and long term planning for the good of the country, we would get it. .

That is an extreme example used to articulate a point . . If we start saying to whichever party we are going to vote for "you will get my vote but only if you have the countrys collective interest at heart, national principles, no self interested groups will be catered for at my expense, accountability is at the core of your policy" , then thats a start . . Not "are you FF or not". . Not voting FF can be one reason to vote for another party but should not be the core of your main decision making process. .

Did you read my post? I never said that. I outlined why I think Labour are a better fit for me than FF or FG.

The fact that I think FF can't be trusted is another issue. They've proven this. They have been elbow deep in corruption for decades and should have been punished repeatedly by the electorate. Unfortunately, we get the government we deserve.

Eliot Rosewater

killbillvol2 wrote: »

Take out those other parties and that leaves Labour.

Well I think that's a really poor reason to advocate for a party; that they're the least worst. Even assuming they are.

killbillvol2 wrote: »

I've read a lot of your posts. I'm not going to waste my time trying to sway you.

If you don't want to I respect that. A half a year ago I would have given Labour my number 3; now I'm swinging away from that. In the absence of a party that fits my views, convincing me which party to vote for is significantly easier than convincing me of a particular political point of view.

Drumpot

killbillvol2 wrote: »

Did you read my post? I never said that. I outlined why I think Labour are a better fit for me than FF or FG.

The fact that I think FF can't be trusted is another issue. They've proven this. They have been elbow deep in corruption for decades and should have been punished repeatedly by the electorate. Unfortunately, we get the government we deserve.

Thats my point . . We get the government we deserve . . If we vote in a government mainly because its not one we hate, we will get that . .

It doesnt mean we will get a better government, a more efficient government or a government that wont screw our whole economy up . .

Labour have not shown a willingness to discuss and commit to the some of the most important issues facing our country . . In all fairness to FG, despite leadership issues, their policies on important issues are far clearer . .

Always demand more from our politicians, accepting one because the other is useless is just accepting mediocrity without being willing to demand better . . There are good people in FF who could contribute greatly to the country's crisis but its more then likely the useful ones that will get turfed out and the complete idiots who will be re-elected. In truth an FG led Labour partnership government will be the best of a bad bunch. But we have to ask questions of them and demand better . I just think its obvious that FF have failed us miserably between 00-08, I dont believe it should be a drum constantly beaten by those in FG/Lab, they need to start convincing us of their other traits that will be more important to fix up our country. Not being FF is no guarantee of anything . .

RonMexico

Labour, and in particular Joan Brutal, give me the heebie jeebies. So over my dead body would I vote for them.

Dob74

Labour are the only real opposition party. FG are just FF by a different name.


My reasons for supporting Labour
1. Opposing the unlimited bank garuantee, unlike FF,FG,SF & the Greens. BL said he would listen to any proposals before putting the final touches on the legalisation. The highest paid banker can only get same pay as the taoiseach was one of the more reasonable made by Labour, requests all rejected by the gov.(there's a long list)
2. Pay and conditions for workers, where there is normally a healthy balance between employers and employees. This gov has decided that private sector workers are worthy of protection. Allowing private sector workers pay to be undermined by allowing EU workers unrestricted access to the labour market. FF and FG let the market sort it out is the reason there are 400k+ unemployed. Without the a 50/50 approach in treatment of workers incompetment managers where able to uncut well run and managed businesses. Instead of moving to a higher standard of working( making the maximum use of technology), just hire more cheap labour and keep the the backwards way of doing things.
3. If Labour get in I am sure they will govern and not just let business interests run riot. There where three large brewery's in the country til last year. The competition Authourity did not try to block Heiniken taking over beamish. Already they are removing most of Beamish's products, if you have something called the competiton authourity aren't they supposed to promote competition not help crush it. Amazingly there was not a peep out FF or FG. Clearly they are afraid of a large corporation. Personally I think it sums up way the so called free market parties, are actually the F**k over consumer and help there friends parties.
4. Boardie's like the indo love to bash Labour for there close connections with PS unions. Personally the pay cuts taken by them shows how little power they have. The most powerful unions like the Farmers and Lawyers are will taken care of by FF/FG. There has been 2 Billion set aside in NAMA for the Lawyers. The Farmers get nearly everthing they want. Anyway the way FF throw money at the PS there is no way Labour will be as bad.

Drumpot

Thanks for that Dob74 . . It gave me a good laugh . .

Disclaimer: For the people who struggle with analogies, I used below one for simplistic reference as to why I believe most people will follow populist rhetoric that they relate to. I am not looking to compare anything to the actual holocost, more trying to show an example of how people can be irrational in giving power to those who may not be the best choice, but whom are offering things that sound better. . Try to stick with me . . If you refer to the holocost in disgust/dismay, chances are the point went way way over your head and I suggest you save yourself the embarrasment by just staying grumpily silent while you google it. .


I Was thinking about the theory 10-80-10 . . (pareto principle in economics)

Its used in finance but was also used (in some form) to explain why the German people followed Hitler into the holocost. . I heard a historian of German culture discuss it (missed bits but got the idea).

10% of people will think one way (always look for change/progression)
10% of People will think another way (alwasy opposed to change)
80% of people will follow one way or another

This 80% of people need to be convinced to follow one of the 10% "leaders" . .

In this case the percentage figures are differant as there are several parties, but the principles are similar . .

You have a small percentage of people who feel passionatly about the principles of their parties and they will try to convince others to follow them.

You also have a small percentage of people who dont follow parties, but feel passionatly about politics and how our country is governed. These will try to get people to think about why they vote and consider it carefully. They will question conventional wisdom and look for society to progress through constructive change.

Then we have the masses who love to see a leader that they can relate to or hear things from the media that appeal to them . . They like to follow common consensus. . Somebody questioned why I would trust an FF PR for education on how the electorate make up their minds . . Well the fact that we had Bertie for years and corrupt TDs still got re-elected for them tells me they know a fair bit about getting the electorate to follow them (or what pushes the electorates buttons).

Even in boards.ie to many, if you dont say something bad about FF, you must be Brian Cowans lovechild or work for them . . Its inconcievable that people should try to objectively discuss politics in Ireland without speaking about everything that represents FF being corrupt . . Its also not cool to blame the electorate and anyways nobody ever voted FF and everybody who takes the moral highground did whatever they could to get FF out of power (strikes, marches, but none of us actually saw or heard of them so we will just have to take their word for it!). . .

Right now we have a similar situation with Labour. They relate to the majority of people who are simply so disillusioned with FF and FG, they are following the party that appears to be offering the least painful alternative without considering how taking less pain now can lead the country into a prolonged depression . .

One of the most important point is looking at why Gilemores popularity has risen and asking serious questions of his ability to lead Ireland 2010 forward with the crippling debt he would inherit . . His popularity has risen, not because he has been super popular and creates confidence in everybody. Not because his economic strategy is clearly in the best interests of our COUNTRY for the longer term.

No, its mainly because the Opposition is weak and lacking in publics confidence and more importantly because our economy is in the sh*ts and its always popular to hate the government in these times . . By constantly pointing it out (that people are fed up with FF), while it may be the truth, its simply saying that Gilemores popularity is mainly down to the letdown of FF & FG and deflects attention from proper discussion on his own competency.

Gilemore getting angry to mirror us all . . Gilemore telling a majority of us what we like to hear (hell I love alot of the stuff he says) . . But nobody asking him exactly how he intends to do it. Not only that he wont actually commit to important issues that have to be sorted immediatly and his followers appear to feel that FF bashing resolves all important questions . . This is a simple case of the Irish Electorate failing very basic due diligence in favour of throwing a hail mary vote for Labour . .

Its funny how we, as a nation, didnt care much for banking overcharging, TDs expenses and how our nations money was being spent until it all crashed down . . Its a very similar thing to not care much for what labour will do to fix our country, but make "not being FF" one of your biggest reasons for voting for them, in truth its learning nothing from our mistakes. Ah yes, we didnt care much for labours policies during the boom because we all wanted more , otherwise how are they so popular now ? But wait ! This is what happens in these economic times - but why is that acceptable ? Thats an inhibiting way of encouraging progression . . "Its the norm, so lets just run with it"!

Ah but sure what else can we do eh ? Not Voting in an FF candidate (even if they would be a brilliant TD) is the correct course of action because we are angry and voting for Anybody but FF means we show FF we are angry and they learn a lesson (but opposition party that was lame duck enough during the boom to actually demand more spending learns that no matter how sh*t you are , even in opposition, will learn that if the other guy makes a huge cock up, chances are you will be voted in anger/dismay at the other guy) . .

Yes, being angry at our government for their part in the ruining of our countrys economy will be solved by voting for anybody but them . . Or at least it will give us some satisfaction that our very mistake has been rectified by getting rid of them for any alternative offering anything but a FF flyer . .

All balance is restored as the right party is voted in for the right reasons . .

killbillvol2

Drumpot wrote: »

Thanks for that Dob74 . . It gave me a good laugh . .

Disclaimer: For the people who struggle with analogies, I used below one for simplistic reference as to why I believe most people will follow populist rhetoric that they relate to. I am not looking to compare anything to the actual holocost, more trying to show an example of how people can be irrational in giving power to those who may not be the best choice, but whom are offering things that sound better. . Try to stick with me . . If you refer to the holocost in disgust/dismay, chances are the point went way way over your head and I suggest you save yourself the embarrasment by just staying grumpily silent while you google it. .


I Was thinking about the theory 10-80-10 . . (pareto principle in economics)

Its used in finance but was also used (in some form) to explain why the German people followed Hitler into the holocost. . I heard a historian of German culture discuss it (missed bits but got the idea).

10% of people will think one way (always look for change/progression)
10% of People will think another way (alwasy opposed to change)
80% of people will follow one way or another

This 80% of people need to be convinced to follow one of the 10% "leaders" . .

In this case the percentage figures are differant as there are several parties, but the principles are similar . .

You have a small percentage of people who feel passionatly about the principles of their parties and they will try to convince others to follow them.

You also have a small percentage of people who dont follow parties, but feel passionatly about politics and how our country is governed. These will try to get people to think about why they vote and consider it carefully. They will question conventional wisdom and look for society to progress through constructive change.

Then we have the masses who love to see a leader that they can relate to or hear things from the media that appeal to them . . They like to follow common consensus. . Somebody questioned why I would trust an FF PR for education on how the electorate make up their minds . . Well the fact that we had Bertie for years and corrupt TDs still got re-elected for them tells me they know a fair bit about getting the electorate to follow them (or what pushes the electorates buttons).

Even in boards.ie to many, if you dont say something bad about FF, you must be Brian Cowans lovechild or work for them . . Its inconcievable that people should try to objectively discuss politics in Ireland without speaking about everything that represents FF being corrupt . . Its also not cool to blame the electorate and anyways nobody ever voted FF and everybody who takes the moral highground did whatever they could to get FF out of power (strikes, marches, but none of us actually saw or heard of them so we will just have to take their word for it!). . .

Right now we have a similar situation with Labour. They relate to the majority of people who are simply so disillusioned with FF and FG, they are following the party that appears to be offering the least painful alternative without considering how taking less pain now can lead the country into a prolonged depression . .

One of the most important point is looking at why Gilemores popularity has risen and asking serious questions of his ability to lead Ireland 2010 forward with the crippling debt he would inherit . . His popularity has risen, not because he has been super popular and creates confidence in everybody. Not because his economic strategy is clearly in the best interests of our COUNTRY for the longer term.

No, its mainly because the Opposition is weak and lacking in publics confidence and more importantly because our economy is in the sh*ts and its always popular to hate the government in these times . . By constantly pointing it out (that people are fed up with FF), while it may be the truth, its simply saying that Gilemores popularity is mainly down to the letdown of FF & FG and deflects attention from proper discussion on his own competency.

Gilemore getting angry to mirror us all . . Gilemore telling a majority of us what we like to hear (hell I love alot of the stuff he says) . . But nobody asking him exactly how he intends to do it. Not only that he wont actually commit to important issues that have to be sorted immediatly and his followers appear to feel that FF bashing resolves all important questions . . This is a simple case of the Irish Electorate failing very basic due diligence in favour of throwing a hail mary vote for Labour . .

Its funny how we, as a nation, didnt care much for banking overcharging, TDs expenses and how our nations money was being spent until it all crashed down . . Its a very similar thing to not care much for what labour will do to fix our country, but make "not being FF" one of your biggest reasons for voting for them, in truth its learning nothing from our mistakes. Ah yes, we didnt care much for labours policies during the boom because we all wanted more , otherwise how are they so popular now ? But wait ! This is what happens in these economic times - but why is that acceptable ? Thats an inhibiting way of encouraging progression . . "Its the norm, so lets just run with it"!

Ah but sure what else can we do eh ? Not Voting in an FF candidate (even if they would be a brilliant TD) is the correct course of action because we are angry and voting for Anybody but FF means we show FF we are angry and they learn a lesson (but opposition party that was lame duck enough during the boom to actually demand more spending learns that no matter how sh*t you are , even in opposition, will learn that if the other guy makes a huge cock up, chances are you will be voted in anger/dismay at the other guy) . .

Yes, being angry at our government for their part in the ruining of our countrys economy will be solved by voting for anybody but them . . Or at least it will give us some satisfaction that our very mistake has been rectified by getting rid of them for any alternative offering anything but a FF flyer . .

All balance is restored as the right party is voted in for the right reasons . .

Interesting. Start with some condescending drivel and then proceed to misspell your way through possibly the most uninteresting schoolboy ramblings I've had the misfortune to read in a long time. Was there a point to all that?

I have no idea what you're trying to say (and not because I need to google the "holocost") but I was having trouble sleeping and now I'm sure I'll sleep.

limklad

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

No, I don't think I did. People who own businesses have to pay tax on their income, ie their profit.

You still can't tell the difference between the Taxes. Can you please read up on them

Brief summary:
"Income Tax" is the term used for Tax on the individuals income.
Taxed @20% up to €X and 41% is applied to the rest if earning more than €X.
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/index.html
€X is dependent on your status. See Tax Rates and Tax Bands
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it1.html#section3

"Corporation Tax" is Tax on Business Trading Income. @12.5%. Non-Trading Business income is taxed at 25%.
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/ct/basis-charge.html

There is A huge differences between Taxes between both and are Taxed under different rules.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66438875&postcount=71
Labour's policy contains, unsurprisingly, an increase in income tax. Income tax directly erodes the profits of those doing business here.

You stated "Income Tax" in your post and wrongly intermingling it with the Tax that Business pay from their income. Business do not Pay "Income Tax" but you as an individual do (If working). Employers only facilitate the Transfer of "Income Tax" from your salary to the government revenue coffers each time you receive you pay slip.

Drumpot

killbillvol2 wrote: »

Interesting. Start with some condescending drivel and then proceed to misspell your way through possibly the most uninteresting schoolboy ramblings I've had the misfortune to read in a long time. Was there a point to all that?

I have no idea what you're trying to say (and not because I need to google the "holocost") but I was having trouble sleeping and now I'm sure I'll sleep.

I said it to prevent the Joe Duffy brigade (those of a sensitive nature) having a go at me for using the term "holocost", not to be condescending. Its only condescending to those who didnt get it - "google the holocost"? :P

You say you dont understand what I said, but yet confidently call it "schoolboy ramblings" ? Ah we mock what we do not understand . .

And my spelling is poor . . I find people bring this up when they actually have nothing to contribute to the debate and try to get some sort of dig to deflect attention away from their own inability to confidently get any points across . .

woolyhat

i like lamp wrote: »

why vote for any of the parties!! i cant see any of them that are genuine! Enda Kenny has shown his true colours!!

I think Ireland needs a government based on a mixture of people from different parties voted in specifically by the public and who THE PEOPLE think should be in the position! and if the public arent happy with what the person is doing, show them the door!

Let the people of Ireland take control! is that possible though!

I agree with you totaly. Wish everyone thought this way.

invinciblePRSTV

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I haven't, actually. From Pride Fighter's list of reasons (on this thread)as to why we should vote Labour:

Well thats's the impression your post gave me, i s'pose As long as you demand equally high standards from all other PPs with regards to their policies for the next election then it's fair enough i suppose.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

1 and 2 are half "vote Labour because this is what this other party is about", and 7 and 8 are fully so. Here it is said we should vote Labour not because of any merit they have, but rather because of the demerits in one other party. As per what I said originally.

I'm not agreeing with Pride Fighters list of reasons.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

People aren't looking for exact figures; I'm sure they'd be happy to be within quarter a billion or so. The deficit this year is reportedly €27 billion, so that is a starting point. People want to know the overall strategy for economic recovery, and in what direction this country will be taken. Labour have been hesitant is outlining this.

As said already without the figures to hand no party outside of the coalition can accurately say what they will to do. In their absence parties can only produce slogans & snazzy policy documents for chumps to lap in the media like produce policy documents, pre budget submissions etc, much like FGs stimulus plans or Labours UHI plans.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's a cop out, in my opinion. You don't think there's a burden on the opposition to offer an economically feasible alternative? They should just sit and moan about the government all day?

See above. If you can suggest a better way for opposition parties to offer an 'economically feasible' alternative without knowing the ins and outs of the Government finances then i urge you to contact the oppositon parties and let them know.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're alluding too; Drumpot was explicit in stating that he is party-independent, and I haven't seen him condone any ambiguity on the part of other politicians. You may be referring to the fact they he talked to someone in the FF press room, but I fail to see the relevance of this. Instead of dealing with Drumpot's points you're trying to undermine him; that tactic might have had some success but for the unfortunate fact that he is far from the only one who is confused by Labour's ambiguity.

If you had read through all the thread like i suggested in my last reply to you then you would have seen for yourself that the poster has been exposed as someone vehemently anti-Labour.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So perhaps you may want to change tact and actually address people's economic concerns.

Not a LP member or supporter, again if you had read through the thread you would know this.

Drumpot

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Well thats's the impression your post gave me, i s'pose As long as you demand equally high standards from all other PPs with regards to their policies for the next election then it's fair enough i suppose.

I do demand equally high standards from everybody . .

I started this thread on labour (who I spelt incorrectly by trusting my pc, just realised its on USA spellcheck!), because I feel that FG and FF get correctly scrutinised as the countries two biggest parties. With recent surge in labour, we have to start treating them as potential leaders and therefore ask them the tough questions they have been able to avoid . .

I honestly dont know who I will vote for in the next election.

I like my local FF TD, but would be a hypocrite for voting for "the guy I like" after ranting off so much on boards about how people need to vote for the politician who is good for the country. Not only that, I do think FF need to be out of office to rejuvinate the party. They have looked lethargic and cocky at times. While I feel they have been doing a decent job since the sh*t hit the fan , they have lost the trust of the people, which means, no matter what you do, people will not follow which will make reform difficult.

I like many of labours principles, but I am concerned that they lack substance (like many parties that turn to populist remarks to please the masses). I hate many things capitalist (anything that favours the few at the expense of the many!), but I understand that we have to work with it because we are too small a country to run ourselves self sufficiently economically.

I like alot of the new guns in FG, but I have concerns over their leader or potential leader. . I wanted Bruton to challenge, but so far have reservations about his ability to inspire confidence in the public (which is desperately needed). They are the alternative to FF really .

Whatever happens, realistically I would love a bit of FG/Lab with a FG leader because I just dont have confidence in Gilemore (admittedly from his public persona) making tough calls or "playing the capitalist" game that I feel is required for us to get us in a position, longer term, to remove our reliance on external entities . .

invinciblePRSTV

Drumpot wrote: »

I do demand equally high standards from everybody . .

I started this thread on labour (who I spelt incorrectly by trusting my pc, just realised its on USA spellcheck!), because I feel that FG and FF get correctly scrutinised as the countries two biggest parties. With recent surge in labour, we have to start treating them as potential leaders and therefore ask them the tough questions they have been able to avoid . .

I honestly dont know who I will vote for in the next election.

I like my local FF TD, but would be a hypocrite for voting for "the guy I like" after ranting off so much on boards about how people need to vote for the politician who is good for the country. Not only that, I do think FF need to be out of office to rejuvinate the party. They have looked lethargic and cocky at times. While I feel they have been doing a decent job since the sh*t hit the fan , they have lost the trust of the people, which means, no matter what you do, people will not follow which will make reform difficult.

I like many of labours principles, but I am concerned that they lack substance (like many parties that turn to populist remarks to please the masses). I hate many things capitalist (anything that favours the few at the expense of the many!), but I understand that we have to work with it because we are too small a country to run ourselves self sufficiently economically.

I like alot of the new guns in FG, but I have concerns over their leader or potential leader. . I wanted Bruton to challenge, but so far have reservations about his ability to inspire confidence in the public (which is desperately needed). They are the alternative to FF really .

Whatever happens, realistically I would love a bit of FG/Lab with a FG leader because I just dont have confidence in Gilemore (admittedly from his public persona) making tough calls or "playing the capitalist" game that I feel is required for us to get us in a position, longer term, to remove our reliance on external entities . .

Hopefully an election will arrive sooner then 2012 then you can scrutinize all the party manifesto's to your hearts content. but as mentioned manifesto's and policy promises go out the window when coalition arrangements are put together, so really it's a shot in the dark. 'tis a murky dirty game this politics lark.

Eliot Rosewater

limklad wrote: »

You still can't tell the difference between the Taxes. Can you please read up on them...

Are you intentionally ignoring what sceptre said? The level of income tax does affect businesses profit. I'll illustrate with an example.

Suppose a business wants to hire some high skilled worker. Said worker demands $100,000 take home pay (his gross doesn't really matter, it's what he actually gets that counts). In Country A there is a 20% rate, in Country B there is a 40% rate.

Business A in Country A would have to pay the worker $125,000 gross so that he'd get $100,000 net.

Business B in Country B would have to pay the worker $166,000 gross so that he'd get $100,000 net.

So there's a difference in the cost by $41,000 that the employer will have to pay.
Hence, income tax is a cost for employers.