Why I won't be voting Sinn Fein

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Where does anybody say they are the same thing? Assets are still a valid measure of "wealth" and I don't see any problem with taxing "wealth" and income.

I know you don't,thats a problem you have.

You're starting to remind me of comical ally now saying ,what tanks,there are no americans here,we have fought them back,Elvis is alive.

If a farmer is sitting on 1000 acres of assets worth million he doesn't feel like using for anything I don't see why he can't be taxed on that.

In most cases you'd be forcing them to sell to raise the money to pay,which might be a tad unconstitutional.

Never mind that comparison with comical Ally...Robert Mugabe would be a better comparison to your tautology...or Cromwell.
Get those pesky land owners out of that place and lets sell it on or put our friends into it.

MazG

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Less than they used to yes, but they're still here on too much.
No contradiction at all, sorry.

Ok - but lets be clear here. You believe that no matter how much is taken off the wealthy, they will stay. Correct?

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

I know you don't,thats a problem you have.

You're starting to remind me of comical ally now saying ,what tanks,there are no americans here,we have fought them back,Elvis is alive.In most cases you'd be forcing them to sell to raise the money to pay,which might be a tad unconstitutional.

Never mind that comparison with comical Ally...Robert Mugabe would be a better comparison to your tautology...or Cromwell.
Get those pesky land owners out of that place and lets sell it on or put our friends into it.

Jesus, what a lame attempt at a put-down. Is that comical Ally McBeal or what?:rolleyes:
Mugabe, Cromwell... is that the way you like to describe those who make taxation policy in a host of US states? You're saying they're fascist dictatorships? Surreal.

Dan_Solo

MazG wrote: »

Ok - but lets be clear here. You believe that no matter how much is taken off the wealthy, they will stay. Correct?

Well since I never said anything like that I've no idea why you're asking me, but incidentally I don't believe that.
You see, I'm an equal opportunities question answerer, even blatant strawmen are welcome at my door.

BLIZZARD7

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Jesus, what a lame attempt at a put-down. Is that comical Ally McBeal or what?:rolleyes:
Mugabe, Cromwell... is that the way you like to describe those who make taxation policy in a host of US states? You're saying they're fascist dictatorships? Surreal.

You've missed his point, he's saying that any tax that forces you off your land is communist like.





Dan

MazG

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well since I never said anything like that I've no idea why you're asking me, but incidentally I don't believe that.
You see, I'm an equal opportunities question answerer, even blatant strawmen are welcome at my door.

Well it's true you didn't exactly say that, but I think it's fair to say that you implied it when you answered this:

Including, evidently, the glaringly obvious 'The wealthy will LEAVE' problem...

with this:

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Like the banker, consultant etc "talent" we've been told for years will leave unless they get megabucks? We seem to have more of them than ever.

So again, for the sake of clarity please. Do you or do you not believe that the wealthy will leave the country if they percieve themselves to be overtaxed. And if you do believe that they will eventually leave - what is your proposal to fill the enormous gap in the public finances that they would leave behind

ihatetractors

But what's you're defenition of 'a farmer with 1000 acre' doing nothing. He could be leaving it fallow to recover from years of production, it could be in forestry for 30 years. Maybe his health could be poor and he can't farm it, on social welfare. Why wouldn't you tax all the unemployed construction workers etc on their 'assets' or tools. Why not tax the unemployed if they are fortunate to own their own home? fair is fair isn't it they maybe income poor but asset rich?. Your logic makes no sence...

Dan_Solo

MazG wrote: »

Well it's true you didn't exactly say that, but I think it's fair to say that you implied it when you answered this:

Well, no it isn't. It's an absolute fantasy to say I even implied that. Because I said some people were overpaid I think all rich people should have all their assets taken? Come off it.

MazG

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well, no it isn't. It's an absolute fantasy to say I even implied that. Because I said some people were overpaid I think all rich people should have all their assets taken? Come off it.

So it was a flippant remark then, you didn't mean it the way it sounded. You accept that as taxation reaches higher and higher levels, the wealthy will leave.

Excellent

So now that we've established that, do you still not see the problem with over-taxing the wealthy?

Dan_Solo

ihatetractors wrote: »

But what's you're defenition of 'a farmer with 1000 acre' doing nothing. He could be leaving it fallow to recover from years of production, it could be in forestry for 30 years. Maybe his health could be poor and he can't farm it, on social welfare. Why wouldn't you tax all the unemployed construction workers etc on their 'assets' or tools. Why not tax the unemployed if they are fortunate to own their own home? fair is fair isn't it they maybe income poor but asset rich?. Your logic makes no sence...

You are making a great stab at pretending all land in Ireland is in use of some kind. Sorry, it isn't. If it's "fallow" it's still part of the production process.
A tax on tools? Well they are business assets just like in-use farm land so are exempt.
His health is poor? Where do you get this stuff?
Tax the unemployed's home? Already covered as a primary residence.
This is all too easy by the way. The other guys make far more sense than your flailing.

Tipp Man

Dan solo

i think you have a real problem differentiating between somebody with a high income and somebody with assets.

The 2 are certainly not the same but you keep interchanging the 2 at will

Just on your USA wealth tax thing that you keep repeating
- it is taxable on your principle private residence
- is run by city and town councils so varies alot within states, it is not state administered as you seem to think
- it only applies to 1 form of asset i.e. property and is a completly different ball game from a wealth tax which would look at a whole range of assets

Dan_Solo

MazG wrote: »

So it was a flippant remark then, you didn't mean it the way it sounded. You accept that as taxation reaches higher and higher levels, the wealthy will leave.

Excellent

So now that we've established that, do you still not see the problem with over-taxing the wealthy?

Strawman after strawman. Maybe you fall for that stuff but it won't work here sonny.
I meant it the way it sounded, which has zero connection to your disingenuous interpretation. I never said the rich should have all their assets taken. That's a pure invention of yours.
Then you jump from "taxes increasing" to "over-taxing". That, my friend, is a 100% strawman. You assume automatically that all tax increases are "over-taxing" and your argument disappears.
Again, all basic stuff. Must try harder.

Dan_Solo

Tipp Man wrote: »

Dan solo

i think you have a real problem differentiating between somebody with a high income and somebody with assets.

The 2 are certainly not the same but you keep interchanging the 2 at will

Show me anywhere I did this.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Jesus, what a lame attempt at a put-down. Is that comical Ally McBeal or what?:rolleyes:
Mugabe, Cromwell... is that the way you like to describe those who make taxation policy in a host of US states? You're saying they're fascist dictatorships? Surreal.

I think comical ally is a good example as you ignore things you don't want to hear like what Tipp man said to you about your U.S example.
Cromwell is also good to go as a description when land owners have to sell to pay this land tax you are impositioning...

Dan_Solo

Tipp Man wrote: »

Just on your USA wealth tax thing that you keep repeating
- it is taxable on your principle private residence
- is run by city and town councils so varies alot within states, it is not state administered as you seem to think
- it only applies to 1 form of asset i.e. property and is a completly different ball game from a wealth tax which would look at a whole range of assets

- as if it matters whether it is state or council administered. Here it will be state. Has no bearing whatsoever on anything.
- Property and bank accounts are the obvious places to start. Other asset taxes would require much more intricate legislation, and probably wouldn't net that much anyway.

Tipp Man

Dan_Solo wrote: »

- as if it matters whether it is state or council administered. Here it will be state. Has no bearing whatsoever on anything.
- Property and bank accounts are the obvious places to start. Other asset taxes would require much more intricate legislation, and probably wouldn't net that much anyway.

So why use example of US states when it is different to what you want??

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

I think comical ally is a good example as you ignore things you don't want to hear like what Tipp man said to you about your U.S example.
Cromwell is also good to go as a description when land owners have to sell to pay this land tax you are impositioning...

Hello? Ally/Ali? Straight over both of ye're heads. I'm getting used to that.
Again, you are now insulting US local councils who impose property taxes. That's only millions of people's way of doing things that you seem to be comparing to a medieval murdering dictator, but hey, let's stick with the hyperbole theme you started, huh?

Dan_Solo

Tipp Man wrote: »

So why use example of US states when it is different to what you want??

No idea what you're getting at, I suspect you don't either.
Why does it matter whether a local council or the Irish state imposes the tax? Do you not mind paying one of them?

MazG

Strawman after strawman. Maybe you fall for that stuff but it won't work here sonny.
I meant it the way it sounded, which has zero connection to your disingenuous interpretation. I never said the rich should have all their assets taken. That's a pure invention of yours.
Then you jump from "taxes increasing" to "over-taxing". That, my friend, is a 100% strawman. You assume automatically that all tax increases are "over-taxing" and your argument disappears.
Again, all basic stuff. Must try harder.

I think I had already accepted your word that what I inferred from your comments wasn't what you meant.

The leap from 'taxes increasing' to 'over-taxing' will be one made by the wealthy. That is to say, as they percieve their income and wealth as being erroded beyond acceptable (to them) levels, they will considered themselves 'over-taxed'. Whether you or I would consider them to be 'over-taxed' will be irrelevant, because they and they alone will have control over the stay or go decision.

So once again, what is your solution to this problem? You've already claimed that they won't miss 1%, but others on this thread have pointed out to you that it may make a very big difference indeed to someone who is (relatively) asset rich, but with a low income. As for the high income, high wealth people, I still can't agree that they would just roll over and pay thousands to the government when they can just leave.

How would a SF government fill the hole in the finances left behind?

Please?

Tipp Man

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Hello? Ally/Ali? Straight over both of ye're heads. I'm getting used to that.
Again, you are now insulting US local councils who impose property taxes. That's only millions of people's way of doing things that you seem to be comparing to a medieval murdering dictator, but hey, let's stick with the hyperbole theme you started, huh?

your a waste of my time which is an asset as it earns me money

tax it why don't ya

I'm done with this lunatic

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Hello? Ally/Ali? Straight over both of ye're heads. I'm getting used to that.
Again, you are now insulting US local councils who impose property taxes. That's only millions of people's way of doing things that you seem to be comparing to a medieval murdering dictator, but hey, let's stick with the hyperbole theme you started, huh?

taxes on principal private residences are imposed in many countries including the UK,they are not wealth taxes.
heh I see people have stopped listening to your loopers repetitive ocd award winning posts.
I'll slip ya on ignore for a while so I don't come across any more of your nonsense.

Dan_Solo

That's OK guys, I'll get back to ye when yer brains get out of neutral. Or after the next election when you're trying to figure out how to get the Department Of Agriculture to pay your property tax along with everything else.

MazG

Still waiting for an answer...

I think I'll be left waiting.

Zzippy

Two words: Robert McCartney

Dan_Solo

MazG wrote: »

Still waiting for an answer...

I think I'll be left waiting.

No, whatever answer you get you'll claim isn't an answer.
Allow the guarantee to lapse, liquidate NAMA and the state owned banks, spend the pension reserve.
The problem isn't public expenditure, no matter how much of the hook line and sinker you've swallowed. It's public liability for private debt.

Scofflaw

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No, whatever answer you get you'll claim isn't an answer.
Allow the guarantee to lapse, liquidate NAMA and the state owned banks, spend the pension reserve.
The problem isn't public expenditure, no matter how much of the hook line and sinker you've swallowed. It's public liability for private debt.

And the government deficit. You can't just wave aside a €20bn annual hole in the public accounts - over the four year programme period and the bank bailout period the government deficit is much larger than the bank bailouts. The total cost of the bank bailouts is estimated as being somewhere around €50bn, assuming there's no recovery of any costs ever, while the last 4 years of deficit have already cost us €57.6bn, and we're expecting to run deficits for the next 4 years, and that's without any hope of recovery.

regards,
Scofflaw

BLIZZARD7

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No, whatever answer you get you'll claim isn't an answer.
Allow the guarantee to lapse, liquidate NAMA and the state owned banks, spend the pension reserve.
The problem isn't public expenditure, no matter how much of the hook line and sinker you've swallowed. It's public liability for private debt.

That's complete rubbish, the public expenditure is the problem, how can you not see that? As scofflaw has alluded to, the deficit is bigger than the bank bailout and so is a bigger problem. Your economic ideas are competing with how naive sinn fein's are.





Dan

MazG

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No, whatever answer you get you'll claim isn't an answer.
Allow the guarantee to lapse, liquidate NAMA and the state owned banks, spend the pension reserve.
The problem isn't public expenditure, no matter how much of the hook line and sinker you've swallowed. It's public liability for private debt.

Oh I quite agree that the public deficit isn't the major cause of all our problems. But it is the result of the bubble/collapse and could no longer be maintained by borrowing on the bond market because of the poor reputation the country had due to failing banks.

It is, however, the immediate and most pressingproblem. The facts are there is now, and predicted for the future, a large gap in the public finances. And you are proposing to fill it as follows:

1) Allow the guarantee to lapse. I'm not quite clear on how this might be a revenue raising or cost cutting excercise. Please expand
2) Liquidate NAMA. NAMA owns property loans. In order to 'liquidate NAMA' either the loans need to be sold, or the properties bought/developed/semi-developed with the loans need to be sold. Who do you think might buy?
3) Liquidate the State owned Banks. Again, the problem of finding a willing buyer exists.
4) Spend the pension reserve. That should last, what, a year and a half? What then?

Look, I'm not trying to have a go at you, but SF economic policies are simply not realistic. As I said before, they are either hopelessy niave or a cynical attempt to ingratiate themselves with voters whose knowledge of economics is poor. I'm inclined to believe the latter.

Thanks for coming back with an answer by the way

Dan_Solo

The proposed FF/FG/GP/LB alternative is simply "hand over everything until we default anyway". There is absolutely no feasible way proposed by any of them to cover the repayments.
I see the SF/ULA plan as based on reality, not 3% growth fantasy land.
As to €20 billion overspend every year, it seems somewhere close to this could be saved every year by cancelling NAMA immediately.

d'Oracle

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The proposed FF/FG/GP/LB alternative is simply "hand over everything until we default anyway".

No it isn't.
And lumping all those other parties policies into one is just plain wrong.