Would you consider voting a Majority Fianna fail for the next government?

bgrizzley

hooradiation wrote: »

You probably shouldn't mix blood and sweat in with the mortar.
Water will do just fine and it has the added side effect of not causing you to pass out due to blood loss and an over active martyr gland.

lol, he may croney in the both of you , what's your feeling on travellers?

tayto lover

Anynama141 wrote: »

Tayto, I'm guessing you haven't travelled to any LDEC countries? Can you give me examples of places where you have seen what you consider poverty, just so we can establish a point of reference?

I've already explained why I don't really think that ICLU survey is much use.

I was in India once. I have seen poverty and i know what it's like. I do not want to see the same here BUT there is no reason to have it here.
I do a lot of charity work and have worked in soup kitchens and with drug addicts from time to time in Dublin.
The Credit Union report carries a lot of weight with me too and it says that many people only have 50 euro left monthly after their bills are paid. We have too many austerity measures and crammed too close together. We have a Govt who are too willing to have them imposed on our people to satisfy the lust of the Troika. They are saying as much themselves.

bgrizzley

Anynama141 wrote: »

The ULA would love yours

Seriously, Phil Hogan is a pillock. I've said it many times. That does not mean we don't need a property tax.

thats fair enough, but we dont need a property tax, we need more tax. im not going through all the reasons again for the 50th time so we will just have to agree to differ

hooradiation

tayto lover wrote: »

I'd say you got it loud and clear.
That poster seemed genuine and there was no need for your comment.

Nope, still no idea.
Shill for what? Or whom?
Come on, you have the vocabulary, try and use it.


As for that maudlin shite, it deserves to be mocked.

bgrizzley wrote: »

lol, he may croney in the both of you , what's your feeling on travellers?

Oh dear, you've bled so much you're starting to get schizophasia.
Stop self harming over the mixer and have some orange juice and then in a bit, some protein.

tayto lover

hooradiation wrote: »

Nope, still no idea.
Shill for what? Or whom?
Come on, you have the vocabulary, try and use it.


As for that maudlin shite, it deserves to be mocked.




Oh dear, you've bled so much you're starting to get schizophasia.
Stop self harming over the mixer and have some orange juice and then in a bit, some protein.

No it does not deserve to be mocked at all.
But continue to vote as Daddy did and put "The Party" before all.

Anynama141

tayto lover wrote: »

I was in India once. I have seen poverty and i know what it's like. I do not want to see the same here BUT there is no reason to have it here.
I do a lot of charity work and have worked in soup kitchens and with drug addicts from time to time in Dublin.
The Credit Union report carries a lot of weight with me too and it says that many people only have 50 euro left monthly after their bills are paid. We have too many austerity measures and crammed too close together. We have a Govt who are too willing to have them imposed on our people to satisfy the lust of the Troika. They are saying as much themselves.

Firstly, I think you would agree that the poorest doler here has a better standard of living that the average Indian person.

Secondly, government spending is at more or less the same as it was during the peak of the bubble - would you agree?

Thirdly, I agree that tax rises, new taxes (barring things needed for the restructuring of the tax base) and pay cuts are not pleasant. But if we told the Troika to take a hike, where would we get the money not only to reinstate things to the way they were in the bubble, but to finance the €13 billion euro deficit (or whatever it is this week) that we are currently running?

I've asked this many times on Boards, and the answer is: we have no answer. The only solutions - essentially printing euros - is out of our hands. There is no practical alternative for any Irish government - all they can do is try to avoid the complete destruction of the economy until something outside (be it economic recovery in the EZ, or an EU-wide financial stimulus) comes to our rescue.

tayto lover

Anynama141 wrote: »

Firstly, I think you would agree that the poorest doler here has a better standard of living that the average Indian person.

Secondly, government spending is at more or less the same as it was during the peak of the bubble - would you agree?

Thirdly, I agree that tax rises, new taxes (barring things needed for the restructuring of the tax base) and pay cuts are not pleasant. But if we told the Troika to take a hike, where would we get the money not only to reinstate things to the way they were in the bubble, but to finance the €13 billion euro deficit (or whatever it is this week) that we are currently running?

I've asked this many times on Boards, and the answer is: we have no answer. The only solutions - essentially printing euros - is out of our hands. There is no practical alternative for any Irish government - all they can do is try to avoid the complete destruction of the economy until something outside (be it economic recovery in the EZ, or an EU-wide financial stimulus) comes to our rescue.

We have 7 years longer to pay the debts.
We could spread the austerity out and invest the savings in job creation.
Austerity and cutting do not work together according to many financial experts.
It only leads to more small businesses closing hence more on the dole.

Anynama141

tayto lover wrote: »

We have 7 years longer to pay the debts.
We could spread the austerity out and invest the savings in job creation.
Austerity and cutting do not work together according to many financial experts.
It only leads to more small businesses closing hence more on the dole.

Right, but where do we get the money? No government ever, ever wants to cut stuff if they can help it - but I don't see the choice. The only thing you can criticise them on - and here I think you certainly can - is what they cut.

But the cuts - having to take €10,000,000,000 or whatever out of the budget - there's no choice about that, and any party saying otherwise is looking for cheap votes with easy answers.

Phoebas

tayto lover wrote: »

We have 7 years longer to pay the debts.
We could spread the austerity out and invest the savings in job creation.

As I understand it, the proposed 7 year debt extension will improve our debt profile so we don't face having to rollover huge amounts of debt in the near term, and so should lower the price of our debt overall - but it doesn't give us an addition 7 years where we can continue with the deficit as it is.
It should allow for some easing of the austerity measures in the upcoming budgets, but isn't a silver bullet.

tayto lover

Anynama141 wrote: »

Right, but where do we get the money? No government ever, ever wants to cut stuff if they can help it - but I don't see the choice. The only thing you can criticise them on - and here I think you certainly can - is what they cut.

But the cuts - having to take €10,000,000,000 or whatever out of the budget - there's no choice about that, and any party saying otherwise is looking for cheap votes with easy answers.

I heard a very learned man state that a simple increase of even half a percent in VAT would raise nearly a billion in a short period of time.
Cutting the dole of serial abusers (people who won't work) would save a lot of money too.
Free legal only to people found innocent in court and making the guilty pay from their dole or whatever earnings they have would save a lot of money and maybe prevent crime too.
We could raise the Corporate Tax by 1% too. I don't believe businesses will leave.

There are loads of things we could do that are not too painful.

Phoebas

tayto lover wrote: »

I heard a very learned man state that a simple increase of even half a percent in VAT would raise nearly a billion in a short period of time.

When the VAT rate was increased by 2 points a few years ago, the revenue estimate was €670m in a year, so my back of an envelope calculation is that it would take 6 years to raise a €bn from a 1/2 point rise.

tayto lover

Phoebas wrote: »

When the VAT rate was increased by 2 points a few years ago, the revenue estimate was €670m in a year, so my back of an envelope calculation is that it would take 6 years to raise a €bn from a 1/2 point rise.

Nothing wrong with that then. 1 billion is 1 billion.

BUT why didn't they do that instead of cutting the Carers Allowance? It's relatively painless and Carers are so important. Would have more than covered the savings too.

Phoebas

tayto lover wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that then. 1 billion is 1 billion.

BUT why didn't they do that instead of cutting the Carers Allowance? It's relatively painless and Carers are so important. Would have more than covered the savings too.

You can frame almost any proposed cut against a an argument to raise taxes yet again and you just end up with unsustainable taxes.

When deciding the cut to the carers allowance the correct thing to do would be to evaluate it against a different cut to the social welfare budget, e.g. take €1 off everyones dole to protect the carer's allowance. But that's a tougher decision.

Anynama141

tayto lover wrote: »

I heard a very learned man state that a simple increase of even half a percent in VAT would raise nearly a billion in a short period of time.

If true, I'd have no objection to that - but it sounds very suspicious: think about it, VAT already at (to keep the maths simple) about 20% - .5% on top is an extra 40th. This suggests that we are taking in €40 billion per year in VAT: the total tax take is in fact less than that:

THE FIRST DOCUMENTS released for Budget 2013 reveal that Ireland’s tax take for 2012 is likely to miss its targets – despite Exchequer income being head of monthly targets for most of this year.
The Department of Finance’s estimates for government spending and income for 2013 also outlines areas where the government expects to take in extra cash in 2013 – and points to the probability of cutbacks in income tax credits in Wednesday’s Budget.
The documents, published this morning, show that the government now expects to take in a total of €36,165 million this year – about €210 million (or 0.59 per cent) less than it had forecast at the beginning of the year.

tayto lover wrote: »

Cutting the dole of serial abusers (people who won't work) would save a lot of money too.

I hear you, but others not too far away will go mental at the idea of 'attacking the vulnerable'. It's also hard enough to say who is a genuine job seeker, and who is a dosser - and difficult means 'expensive' to find out.

tayto lover wrote: »

Free legal only to people found innocent in court and making the guilty pay from their dole or whatever earnings they have would save a lot of money and maybe prevent crime too.

Again, some folks would say you are attacking the vulnerable and punishing innocent families and all that.

tayto lover wrote: »

We could raise the Corporate Tax by 1% too. I don't believe businesses will leave.

There are loads of things we could do that are not too painful.

I agree re corpo tax - the only thing is that there is a danger that if businesses think we will continue to raise corpo tax, they will start looking to leave.

Cody Pomeray

Anynama141 wrote: »

I sweated over a delicious dinner last week, poured my heart and soul into it: does that mean it's not food?

That would be a valid point if he were claiming his house were not shelter.

I'm in favour of property tax as a general principle. But that's a ridiculous comparison you've just made.

Anynama141 wrote: »

Stamp duty is a tax on the seller of a property, not on the buyer. Think about it for a minute. It's the buyer who posts the check, but whose pocket is that tax really coming out of?

The pruchaser's. It is coming out of the purchaser's pocket. The purchaser has to make the calculation when a property price is advertised, and determine whether stamp duty renders the property affordable.

If you're a fan of the "ultimately borne" argument, then you'll admit that all taxes are ultimately borne by householders, but somehow i'd guess that you only resort to the "ultimately borne" argument when you think it suits your argument.

Are there a lot of highly-paid people in rural Kerry then? They kept that quiet.

There are a few.

People living on comfortable state salaries in West Kerry can live in the same size, or bigger, house than a poor dublin family, and the Dublin family will pay more property tax. People with holiday homes in West Kerry will often pay less property tax than a poor dublin family. I don't think that's progressive. Do you?

tayto lover

Anynama141 wrote: »

If true, I'd have no objection to that - but it sounds very suspicious: think about it, VAT already at (to keep the maths simple) about 20% - .5% on top is an extra 40th. This suggests that we are taking in €40 billion per year in VAT: the total tax take is in fact less than that:


I hear you, but others not too far away will go mental at the idea of 'attacking the vulnerable'. It's also hard enough to say who is a genuine job seeker, and who is a dosser - and difficult means 'expensive' to find out.

Again, some folks would say you are attacking the vulnerable and punishing innocent families and all that.

I agree re corpo tax - the only thing is that there is a danger that if businesses think we will continue to raise corpo tax, they will start looking to leave.

Those were just off the top of my head but relatively painless for many people.

On the Free Legal Aid thing I believe those measures would actually save a good bit of money and not cause such a stir. Guilty should pay.

On cutting the Dole I believe that we are too generous with people who refuse to work. I would actually increase the Dole for people who have lost their job and are trying to find work. Give them 220 euro and cut the "refuse to work" brigade to 100e. Net save of 56 euro per week on one of each type. It would encourage those people to get off their bums and maybe find something to do. At the minute I would make them do something to earn their dole i.e cleaning drains, erasing graffiti, removing chewing gum from footpaths etc. Loads to do.

michael999999

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That would be a valid point if he were claiming his house were not shelter.

I'm in favour of property tax as a general principle. But that's a ridiculous comparison you've just made.


The pruchaser's. It is coming out of the purchaser's pocket. The purchaser has to make the calculation when a property price is advertised, and determine whether stamp duty renders the property affordable.

If you're a fan of the "ultimately borne" argument, then you'll admit that all taxes are ultimately borne by householders, but somehow i'd guess that you only resort to the "ultimately borne" argument when you think it suits your argument.

There are a few.

People living on comfortable state salaries in West Kerry can live in the same size, or bigger, house than a poor dublin family, and the Dublin family will pay more property tax. People with holiday homes in West Kerry will often pay less property tax than a poor dublin family. I don't think that's progressive. Do you?

In west Kerry they don't have the luas, airport, large multinationals providing jobs, hospitals on there door step. So not really fair for comparison.

Anynama141

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The pruchaser's. It is coming out of the purchaser's pocket. The purchaser has to make the calculation when a property price is advertised, and determine whether stamp duty renders the property affordable.

If you're a fan of the "ultimately borne" argument, then you'll admit that all taxes are ultimately borne by householders, but somehow i'd guess that you only resort to the "ultimately borne" argument when you think it suits your argument.

Are you sure about that?

Are you arguing that a house that a purchaser would stump up 550k for when we had 10% stamp duty would only have had to pay 500k for the property if stamp duty were not being charged?

(I'm keeping figures round for easy maths)

Phoebas

tayto lover wrote: »

On the Free Legal Aid thing I believe those measures would actually save a good bit of money and not cause such a stir. Guilty should pay.

The criminal legal aid budget is about €40m. You could probably save a small amount by trying to recoup some of it from guilty people - they tend to be people on the dole or low incomes and legal bills tend to be high so I think you're looking at a pretty small saving.
This is just gesture politics really. To make savings in this area, just cut the rates payable and the eligibility criteria. Or increase fines, so guilty people pay more towards their court costs.

In any case there have been cuts in this budget.

michael999999

Phoebas wrote: »

The criminal legal aid budget is about €40m. You could probably save a small amount by trying to recoup some of it from guilty people - they tend to be people on the dole or low incomes and legal bills tend to be high so I think you're looking at a pretty small saving.
This is just gesture politics really. To make savings in this area, just cut the rates payable and the eligibility criteria. Or increase fines, so guilty people pay more towards their court costs.

In any case there have been cuts in this budget.

How much of that budget will seanie fitz and fingleton use?

I presume the taxpayer will be covering there legal fees?

tayto lover

Phoebas wrote: »

The criminal legal aid budget is about €40m. You could probably save a small amount by trying to recoup some of it from guilty people - they tend to be people on the dole or low incomes and legal bills tend to be high so I think you're looking at a pretty small saving.
This is just gesture politics really. To make savings in this area, just cut the rates payable and the eligibility criteria.

In any case there have been cuts in this budget.

I know there has been cuts but it is not reducing the numbers appearing in the local District Court on Public Order offences usually committed when drunk i.e. assaults, damage, noise. This is also causing expense especially for the victims.
Making them pay for their crime would have a twofold savings surely and discourage them from repeating the offences. Less prison places possibly needed too and safer streets.

Phoebas

michael999999 wrote: »

How much of that budget will seanie fitz and fingleton use?

I presume the taxpayer will be covering there legal fees?

I've no fcuking clue. Why are you asking me?

Phoebas

tayto lover wrote: »

I know there has been cuts but it is not reducing the numbers appearing in the local District Court on Public Order offences usually committed when drunk i.e. assaults, damage, noise. This is also causing expense especially for the victims.
Making them pay for their crime would have a twofold savings surely and discourage them from repeating the offences. Less prison places possibly needed too and safer streets.

I agree in principle.

I think the better way of going about it is to add their legal costs to their punishment. Same overall outcome.

darkhorse

Phoebas wrote: »

What a cop out.
You're 'educated' enough to determine that we should suspend bailout repayments pending a legal review, but not educated enough to determine if we should suspend spending bailout money pending the same legal review.

No, I am not. I just read this from the DDI website, when I was reading their policies.

darkhorse

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Why is this a good thing?

Accountability, which we dont have in place as far as politics is concerned.

darkhorse

Anynama141 wrote: »

That's a rather low accusation to throw around DH. It's a disgusting thing to be and I wouldn't throw it at my worst enemy without being quite sure about it.

What dya want, a family photo? I am quite sure. I want to ask you one question, and you're answer will determine whether or not this will be our last contact. My question is, Are you a Racist?

darkhorse

Anynama141 wrote: »

So you think that poorer people tend to live in bigger houses? Interesting.

Why does property tax makes sense for the rest of the OECD but not for us?

Can I just give you an analogy on the above. If your next door neighbour/closest friend put his hand in the fire, should you do the same?

Because other countries have it (which is an arguement that most politicians I talk to come up with), does that make it right?

Now, just think about this, if you go into a clothes shop and buy a suit which cost €300, you pay for it there and then, do you think it would be right or fair if the shop owner was to send you a bill every time you wear your suit?

Amprodude

The people of this country never fail to amaze me, latest opinion poll of all things having FF at 27%. What are people thinking? The current government are bad but surely we can't vote for FF after the mess they made of this country. Crazy stuff.

Anynama141

darkhorse wrote: »

What dya want, a family photo? I am quite sure. I want to ask you one question, and you're answer will determine whether or not this will be our last contact. My question is, Are you a Racist?

:eek:

Holy Christ. Seriously.

Anynama141

darkhorse wrote: »

Can I just give you an analogy on the above. If your next door neighbour/closest friend put his hand in the fire, should you do the same?

Because other countries have it (which is an arguement that most politicians I talk to come up with), does that make it right?

Now, just think about this, if you go into a clothes shop and buy a suit which cost €300, you pay for it there and then, do you think it would be right or fair if the shop owner was to send you a bill every time you wear your suit?

You pay motor tax after you pay your car*. And the bigger your engine, the more you pay. What's the difference?

*Unless you are a Freeman.