Has the Socialist Party disbanded?

Has the Socialist Party become Anti Austerity Alliance? Or is the AAA an offshoot or temporary renaming of the SP? The former Socialist Party candidates seem to be canvassing under the AAA banner.

Sierra Oscar

It seems to be a front for the Socialist Party, likely a temporary renaming to make Socialist Party candidates more 'attractive' during the local elections.

Is the Socialist Party cloaking itself as ‘Anti-Austerity Alliance’?

The Socialist Party is not part of the United Left Alliance anymore either, it split from them last year after Clare Daly herself split from the Socialist Party in 2012.

Jolly Red Giant

The Socialist Party exists and will continue to exist. The party continues to grow and extend its influence around the country.

The Anti-Austerity Alliance was formed by activists (including members of the Socialist Party) involved in the campaigns agains the Household Charge and the Property Tax and is running 40 odd candidates in the local elections around the country. The majority of the activists and candidates are not members of the Socialist Party and most have only become involved in political activity over the past couple of years. Members of the Socialist Party are running as AAA candidates in the election (and openly declaring their affiliation to the Socialist Party).

The Anti-Austerity Alliance has been getting a very positive response on the canvass and it has exceeded all expectations. AAA candidates will receive significant votes in the elections and I expect many to be elected.

(P.S. the ULA exists today in name only - the SWP continues to promote the People Before Profit Alliance and Joan Collins and Clare Daly and the people around them are part of the United Left, despite the fact that apparently the two aren't talking to one another).

comongethappy

Anyone else thinking of the Monty Python/Judean Peoples Front skit?

Seriously though, Is the socialist party growing?

sillyoulfool

comongethappy wrote: »

Anyone else thinking of the Monty Python/Judean Peoples Front skit?

Seriously though, Is the socialist party growing?

Opinion poll puts Paul Murphy, Joe Higgins replacement in the EP running at a whole 1%, yeah they really are growing and extending their influence !

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The Socialist Party exists and will continue to exist. The party continues to grow and extend its influence around the country.

The Anti-Austerity Alliance was formed by activists (including members of the Socialist Party) involved in the campaigns agains the Household Charge and the Property Tax and is running 40 odd candidates in the local elections around the country. The majority of the activists and candidates are not members of the Socialist Party and most have only become involved in political activity over the past couple of years. Members of the Socialist Party are running as AAA candidates in the election (and openly declaring their affiliation to the Socialist Party).

The Anti-Austerity Alliance has been getting a very positive response on the canvass and it has exceeded all expectations. AAA candidates will receive significant votes in the elections and I expect many to be elected.

(P.S. the ULA exists today in name only - the SWP continues to promote the People Before Profit Alliance and Joan Collins and Clare Daly and the people around them are part of the United Left, despite the fact that apparently the two aren't talking to one another).

So, what you're saying is they are seeking support by lying as to who they really are? Are they ashamed of being Socialists?
I can't get my head around members of one party running as members of another!
I read where AAA want to raise the minimum wage to €13. That would get a favourable response on the doorstep, but is a ridiculous idea. Do they want all small business' to go under completely? Joe Higgins retiring will also affect the Socialist Partys attraction. He's not that old, is he? Is he leaving the sinking ship?

walrusgumble

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Opinion poll puts Paul Murphy, Joe Higgins replacement in the EP running at a whole 1%, yeah they really are growing and extending their influence !

I take it that Murphy is running for Europe. Just his posters are more interested in talking about domestic issues, like the labour party and water tax. No European directive or regulation has told Ireland to establish water tax. They might have recommended it to help Ireland pay its debts to it, but has little or nothing to do with European Parliament really.Is he being dishonest? as there is little he can do about it. No other MEP candidate has ran issues like that, bar jabs.

I never really see him talk about EU Parliament related issues. Seems more interested in Palestine and abortion laws in Ireland. Of course, I am open to correction. Point is, shouldn't he be running for the Dail instead.

He talks about bringing real jobs to Ireland, while raising, lol ,minimum wage. What experience and connections does this young socialist have with the capitalist world?

As for Socilists growing in Ireland .ha, good one!

For Forks Sake

walrusgumble wrote: »

I take it that Murphy is running for Europe. Just his posters are more interested in talking about domestic issues, like the labour party and water tax. No European directive or regulation has told Ireland to establish water tax. They might have recommended it to help Ireland pay its debts to it, but has little or nothing to do with European Parliament really.Is he being dishonest? as there is little he can do about it. No other MEP candidate has ran issues like that, bar jabs.

I never really see him talk about EU Parliament related issues. Seems more interested in Palestine and abortion laws in Ireland. Of course, I am open to correction. Point is, shouldn't he be running for the Dail instead.

He talks about bringing real jobs to Ireland, while raising, lol ,minimum wage. What experience and connections does this young socialist have with the capitalist world?

That's been irritating me driving round Dublin this week, his campaigning has nothing but nothing to do with the EU position that he's going for.

What have any of these posters got to do with the EU? FG were derided for the Yes for Jobs tactic of the Lisbon referendum campaign, but Comrade Murphy appears to have stolen their clothes.... Also regarding the second picture...how many different hats is it possible for one man to wear?

RandomName2

For Forks Sake wrote: »

That's been irritating me driving round Dublin this week, his campaigning has nothing but nothing to do with the EU position that he's going for.

What have any of these posters got to do with the EU? FG were derided for the Yes for Jobs tactic of the Lisbon referendum campaign, but Comrade Murphy appears to have stolen their clothes.... Also regarding the second picture...how many different hats is it possible for one man to wear?

Since when has anyone running for office in the EU had any policies whatsoever? At least he has one, even if it has nothing to do with the office to which he's seeking election.

For Forks Sake

RandomName2 wrote: »

Since when has anyone running for office in the EU had any policies whatsoever? At least he has one, even if it has nothing to do with the office to which he's seeking election.

He's been an MEP since 2011, how many real jobs and decent wages has he created/provided since...especially seeing as he sits on the International Trade committee?

comongethappy

I am impressed though in one way by the socialist party in Ireland.

They must be almost unique in that they are against any increase in taxation. (As per those pictures).

Socialists everywhere else are all about taxation.
Our guys know that no tax plus ever increasing spending is the true path to prosperity!

guinnessdrinker

comongethappy wrote: »

I am impressed though in one way by the socialist party in Ireland.

They must be almost unique in that they are against any increase in taxation. (As per those pictures).

Socialists everywhere else are all about taxation.
Our guys know that no tax plus ever increasing spending is the true path to prosperity!

I don't think it's as black and white as that. I would have thought that most Socialists advocated a taxation system that allows those with greater means to pay a fairer share of tax rather than tax increases for every member of society?

Jolly Red Giant

Deleted User wrote: »

is a ridiculous idea. Do they want all small business' to go under completely? Joe Higgins retiring will also affect the Socialist Partys attraction. He's not that old, is he? Is he leaving the sinking ship?

Just for clarification - because it seems to have gone over the heads of the hacks on here - Joe Higgins is not retiring and has no intention of retiring from politics - he is just not standing in the next general election. He will fight tooth and nail against austerity for the next two years (or however long this Dail lasts) just as he has for the past six years. If anything he will then actually have more time to assist communities and workers to organise to defend the rights and livelihoods as he won't have to focus on all the machinations of the Dail.

Jolly Red Giant

For Forks Sake wrote: »

He's been an MEP since 2011, how many real jobs and decent wages has he created/provided since...especially seeing as he sits on the International Trade committee?

You are aware that the current government has destroyed tens of thousands of jobs through austerity policies since 2011.

comongethappy

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I don't think it's as black and white as that. I would have thought that most Socialists advocated a taxation system that allows those with greater means to pay a fairer share of tax rather than tax increases for every member of society?

Tax increases (should they be required) MUST be spread across all citizens progressively.

You can tax the income of those the left perceive to be wealthy (100k) at a rate of 100% and it will hardly make a dent in our governments deficit.

Socialism is exactly about both rich & poor paying their share.
Something our lot should remember.

jank

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You are aware that the current government has destroyed tens of thousands of jobs through austerity policies since 2011.

You are of course aware of the Bailout Ireland recieved from the IMF/EU/ECB and its current deficit?
You are of course aware that employment is now trending upwards once again?

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Just for clarification - because it seems to have gone over the heads of the hacks on here - Joe Higgins is not retiring and has no intention of retiring from politics - he is just not standing in the next general election. He will fight tooth and nail against austerity for the next two years (or however long this Dail lasts) just as he has for the past six years. If anything he will then actually have more time to assist communities and workers to organise to defend the rights and livelihoods as he won't have to focus on all the machinations of the Dail.

If he is not holding any elected position, then what voice will he have? NONE. Of course he won't need a proper job, he'll have his TD's pension!

nesf

RandomName2 wrote: »

Since when has anyone running for office in the EU had any policies whatsoever? At least he has one, even if it has nothing to do with the office to which he's seeking election.

It's not even that they're policies, it's that they're specifically Irish Government policies. If someone wants their vote to affect things like that in a real way they need to wait for the next General Election.

However, it's not like any of the MEP posters I've seen up had anything substantial to them other than name, party, vote no. 1.

sillyoulfool

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You are aware that the current government has destroyed tens of thousands of jobs through austerity policies since 2011.

Factually untrue.

antoobrien

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You are aware that the current government has destroyed tens of thousands of jobs through austerity policies since 2011.

Did I miss a few rounds of compulsory redundancies in the public service?

KarmaBaby

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Opinion poll puts Paul Murphy, Joe Higgins replacement in the EP running at a whole 1%, yeah they really are growing and extending their influence !

Actually the poll put him at 4% which is precisely where Joe Higgins was at the same time in the last EU elections, when he was then being asked by radio commentators where his transfers would go, but went on to win a seat.

KarmaBaby

jank wrote: »

You are of course aware of the Bailout Ireland recieved from the IMF/EU/ECB and its current deficit?
You are of course aware that employment is now trending upwards once again?

How upwards employment is trending is fairly debatable considering jobbridge and other internship schemes are now considered "employed" when clearly they are not.

What is not debatable is that wages and income for everyone but the top 10% are still trending downwards and in that context small gains in employment are not particularly relevant.

Everlong1

antoobrien wrote: »

Did I miss a few rounds of compulsory redundancies in the public service?

There have been no compulsory redundancies in the public service. That was the carrot for the stick of wage cuts under Croke Park 1 and the Haddington Road agreement. There have, however, been a few early retirement packages.

KarmaBaby

Deleted User wrote: »

So, what you're saying is they are seeking support by lying as to who they really are? Are they ashamed of being Socialists?
I can't get my head around members of one party running as members of another!

What's difficult for you to get your head round? Political Alliances are nothing new in Ireland. The AAA is an alliance of like minded anti-austerity activists that want to stand ordinary working people in elections and anti-austerity platform. The Socialist Party are part of the alliance but the majority of members are not affiliated with any party. In the mid west there are 8 AAA candidates. 2 are in the Socialist Party. This changes nothing about the SP as an independent political entity. Socialist Party members are open about their affiliation and identify themselves as members of the SP in interviews and at public meetings.

Deleted User wrote: »

I read where AAA want to raise the minimum wage to €13. That would get a favourable response on the doorstep, but is a ridiculous idea. Do they want all small business' to go under completely?

Why is it ridiculous to expect people to be able to earn a living wage? There is an argument touted by the right that raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment but evidence has shown that is it has no impact on employment either way, while increasing living standards for the lowest earners. Large business can easily afford to increase wages, but you are right to point out the difficulties that SMEs might face. This is as much to do with wages as it is to with government policy to abandon SMEs and put all its eggs in Foreign Direct Investment.

A proposal by the SPs sister Party in Seattle which has called for a similar wage increase suggests that small business could phase in the higher wages over a longer time period. This could easily be done if the government abolished upward only rent reviews for small businesses and reinstate grants for new start ups that it has been slashing constantly.

Deleted User wrote: »

Joe Higgins retiring will also affect the Socialist Partys attraction. He's not that old, is he? Is he leaving the sinking ship?

Joe Higgins is not retiring from politics. He is simply not standing as a TD in the next GE in 2016 when he will be 67. He will continue to be an activist for the Socialist Party and it will most likely stand a second candidate Dublin West along with Ruth Coppinger in that election.

The Party is still growing and is standing a record number of candidates in the upcoming local elections.

KarmaBaby

Everlong1 wrote: »

There have been no compulsory redundancies in the public service. That was the carrot for the stick of wage cuts under Croke Park 1 and the Haddington Road agreement. There have, however, been a few early retirement packages.

3000 jobs have gone on local authorities around the country. Not compulsory redundancies, but either voluntary or otherwise. None of those positions have been refilled. Instead the government brought in the so called Gateway scheme to exploit people for their cheap labour.

KarmaBaby

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Factually untrue.

The Moratorium on recruitment in the public sector has wiped out thousands of jobs. Granted the policy came in under FF, but FG/Lab continued with it.

Since it came to power this government has invested nothing in job creation, instead choosing to create tax loopholes for employers and bring in low-wage and unpaid, exploitative intern schemes. Research has shown that in the absence of these schemes employment would be higher because employers obviously still need the labour.

KarmaBaby

Deleted User wrote: »

If he is not holding any elected position, then what voice will he have? NONE. Of course he won't need a proper job, he'll have his TD's pension!

Joe Higgins has only ever take an average industrial wage as his personal income. He has always donated the rest to campaigns that fight for Workers Rights. He will continue to do with when he receives his pension.

Tabnabs

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Large business can easily afford to increase wages, but you are right to point out the difficulties that SMEs might face. This is as much to do with wages as it is to with government policy to abandon SMEs and put all its eggs in Foreign Direct Investment.

A proposal by the SPs sister Party in Seattle which has called for a similar wage increase suggests that small business could phase in the higher wages over a longer time period. This could easily be done if the government abolished upward only rent reviews for small businesses and reinstate grants for new start ups that it has been slashing constantly.

Wage increases over longer time periods, is called inflation, it happens naturally anyway. Upward only rent reviews, whilst being morally repugnant and bad business sense are constitutionally sound. Not going to happen in Ireland. It's established SMEs that would suffer from such a large increase in minimum wage. What would the socialist party do for these folks?

KarmaBaby

Tabnabs wrote: »

Wage increases over longer time periods, is called inflation, it happens naturally anyway.

No, wage increases certainly do not happen naturally, as is reflected in the current climate where inflation continues to rise while wages fall. I am currently employed in precisely the same public sector job that I was in back in the year 2000 (only this time on a private contract) and 14 years later I am earning 30% less while my expenses are much much higher.

Tabnabs wrote: »

Upward only rent reviews, whilst being morally repugnant and bad business sense are constitutionally sound. Not going to happen in Ireland.

If the government want it to happen, they can attempt to amend the law. The have no problem bringing in the Universal Social Charge overnight, but claim their hands are tied when it comes to going after the income of the highest earners.

Tabnabs wrote: »

It's established SMEs that would suffer from such a large increase in minimum wage. What would the socialist party do for these folks?

It would introduce a wealth tax on the highest earners and increase corporation tax. That money would then be invested in new indigenous industries and a public works program as a means to create jobs. This in turn is hugely beneficial for SMEs since their survival is tied to the overall employment rate and to the disposable income of low and middle income workers.

jank

KarmaBaby wrote: »

It would introduce a wealth tax on the highest earners and increase corporation tax. That money would then be invested in new indigenous industries and a public works program as a means to create jobs. This in turn is hugely beneficial for SMEs since their survival is tied to the overall employment rate and to the disposable income of low and middle income workers.

Increase corporation tax as a way to help enterprise.... That is the socialist party for you.

Tabnabs

KarmaBaby wrote: »

If the government want it to happen, they can attempt to amend the law. The have no problem bringing in the Universal Social Charge overnight, but claim their hands are tied when it comes to going after the income of the highest earners.

It's the "high earners" who are calling for this to be implemented, the Feargal Quinn's of this world. IBEC and ISME, those two champions of the ordinary man, similarly push for its abolishment. So can we please stop the them vs us diversionary tactics.

KarmaBaby wrote: »

It would introduce a wealth tax on the highest earners and increase corporation tax. That money would then be invested in new indigenous industries and a public works program as a means to create jobs. This in turn is hugely beneficial for SMEs since their survival is tied to the overall employment rate and to the disposable income of low and middle income workers.

Increased corporation tax, I'm open minded about, but a wealth tax is smoke and mirrors nonsense. It's the last bastion of the economically inept. At a time when you are trying to prime the domestic economy, you are looking to lop off its head and just have the remainder soldier on regardless? Besides, we all know that interest groups would get their sticky fingers all over this and turn it into another suburbanite millstone.

How about a radical idea of reduced taxation and reduced spending?! More disposable income in my pocket means I can be confident enough to spend it on goods and services that are currently out of reach. I work to earn my income, but the gentry State gets to tell me what to do with it? That's a very poor vision indeed.

KarmaBaby

jank wrote: »

Increase corporation tax as a way to help enterprise.... That is the socialist party for you.

Why is wrong to ask the companies that are highly profitable to pay a reasonable rate of tax?

KarmaBaby

Tabnabs wrote: »

Increased corporation tax, I'm open minded about, but a wealth tax is smoke and mirrors nonsense. It's the last bastion of the economically inept. At a time when you are trying to prime the domestic economy, you are looking to lop off its head and just have the remainder soldier on regardless?

Every economy is driven by Labour not by rich elites. It is the rich that leach off the rest of us. What you're saying is that the richest in the country that have literally billions sitting in their bank accounts, not investing it into the economy should have the right to continue to hold on to that money at the expense of the rest of us; at the expense of job creation; at the expense of society and the economy. What you're saying is we need to protect the status quo.

[/QUOTE]How about a radical idea of reduced taxation and reduced spending?! More disposable income in my pocket means I can be confident enough to spend it on goods and services that are currently out of reach. I work to earn my income, but the gentry State gets to tell me what to do with it? That's a very poor vision indeed.[/QUOTE]

We have an annual budget deficit. How would reducing the overall income tax take help? And Reduce spending on what?

While I'm all for a upper wage cap on the highest earners in the public sector and cutting down on wastefulness within it, we need to increase spending on infrastructure and public services. We need to build about 90,000 new homes. We need a proper broadband network, a better rail network, better energy supply and waste management and we need to invest in making use of our natural offshore resources.

Reducing spending at a time when we need to grow the economy to survive makes no sense. This is evident from FG/Lab slash and burn policies which have ground the country to a halt with no growth whatsoever. The economy shrunk by 0.3% in 2013.

jank

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Why is wrong wrong to ask the companies that are highly profitable to pay a reasonable rate of tax?

See with every Apple or Google there are 100's of Small business that relay on that tax rate to make ends meet and pay their employee's. Of course raising the corporation tax will actually hurt the smaller guys and not the large multinationals as they will just move off shore or employ accounting practices to move profits elsewhere. Instead of knee jerks sound bites the socialist party should actually sit down and learn about taxation and micro economics.

jank

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Every economy is driven by Labour not by rich elites. It is the rich that leach off the rest of us. What you're saying is that the richest in the country that have literally billions sitting in their bank accounts, not investing it into the economy should have the right to continue to hold on to that money at the expense of the rest of us; at the expense of job creation; at the expense of society and the economy. What you're saying is we need to protect the status quo.

Whatever about the rest of the post I have to take issue with this. Labour is not the only part that drives and economy. You must have capital, innovation and of course a free market.

Yes the richest people in the world have a right to do with their money what they please. its their money, not yours or the states. Your the one being greedy if you think you or the state have a right to others people private property. Even if its sitting in banks in a deposit account it helps the economy as the banks can then use these large deposits and capital against loaning it out to business and people. What you want is forced repatriation of wealth ala some cuban revolution. That sure made the people wealthy now didn't it?

Riskymove

For Forks Sake wrote: »

tbh I think the poster on the left is one of the most illadvised I have seen

All I see is "after six years enough is enough" and a picture of him and his name

it might as well say "Murphy Out"

KarmaBaby

jank wrote: »

Yes the richest people in the world have a right to do with their money what they please. its their money, not yours or the states. Your the one being greedy if you think you or the state have a right to others people private property.

Just as we need to prevent poverty and inequality in our society, we need to prevent the needless mass accumulation of wealth by greedy super rich individuals. The two go hand in hand. The super rich cannot exist without the impoverished.

Its incredible that you would defend the property rights of the rich at a time when the government brings in a property tax on the family home and forces payment by taking it directly at source, as well as other stealth taxes and water charges; charges which impact greatly on the lives of the poorest but have no impact at all on the lives of the most wealthy. Some like Denis O'Brien and others involved in private contracts profit from their introduction.

jank wrote: »

Even if its sitting in banks in a deposit account it helps the economy as the banks can then use these large deposits and capital against loaning it out to business and people. What you want is forced repatriation of wealth ala some cuban revolution. That sure made the people wealthy now didn't it?

Yes, I want to see a forced repatriation of wealth; a redistribution of wealth from the richest to poorest. I want to see a more egalitarian society. I believe that this should be a government's job. We have a situation in Ireland where there is an increase year on year in the number of high-net-worth individuals (millionaires and billionaires) and a corresponding increase in poverty and homelessness. That is just ludicrous.

I am not a supporter of a Cuban Stalinist dictatorial regime and there are other factors such as the trade embargo by the U.S. that have stifled their economy.

But, if you want to highlight where the most dysfunctional economies and societies are in Latin America, you would not be looking at Cuba. You'd be looking at pro-capitalist right wing states like Chile, Brazil, Colombia and Guatamala.

Tabnabs

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Every economy is driven by Labour not by rich elites. It is the rich that leach off the rest of us. What you're saying is that the richest in the country that have literally billions sitting in their bank accounts, not investing it into the economy should have the right to continue to hold on to that money at the expense of the rest of us; at the expense of job creation; at the expense of society and the economy. What you're saying is we need to protect the status quo.

Is that it though, your idea of a wealth tax is to take from those who have very large cash reserves? A, that's called theft in any other language and B, they'd just move their cash to another jurisdiction. OK, now what? BTW, who are you to tell me or any other Irish citizen that they are not entitled to keep their money and do with it as they see fit? Do you not see that as a massive injustice?

I'm saying we encourage business, entrepreneurship and wealth generation. Because for every cash millionaire, there are thousands of ordinary punters on decent salaries (or aspiring to be) who, along with all these mysterious million/billionaires, will also spend that money and create jobs through demand for goods and services.

KarmaBaby wrote: »

We have an annual budget deficit. How would reducing the overall income tax take help? And Reduce spending on what?

Subsidies and quangos (sweet Jebus, they're an embarrassment and another FG election promise broken) for a start. Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, that has a budget in line with projected wealth tax revenue. That just seems wrong and somewhat immoral. When averaged out, every day of the week, they blow half a million euro in tax payers money, every single day, year round! Can you justify a spend like that?!

KarmaBaby wrote: »

While I'm all for a upper wage cap on the highest earners in the public sector and cutting down on wastefulness within it, we need to increase spending on infrastructure and public services. We need to build about 90,000 new homes. We need a proper broadband network, a better rail network, better energy supply and waste management and we need to invest in making use of our natural offshore resources.

Here's a tip, let someone else pick up the tab. Why are government paying for BB infrastructure? The last time I checked, my contract was with a private company. Our offshore resources? Private industry, the bad boys, aren't interested in the current low tax on exploration licenses because of the risk/reward factor, the oil and gas extraction just isn't viable. Why would the Irish State waste billions instead? Stop selling off council houses to tenants, this is the privatisation of public property! Why does one person have the right to this public property over another? Where is the equality in that?

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Reducing spending at a time when we need to grow the economy to survive makes no sense. This is evident from FG/Lab slash and burn policies which have ground the country to a halt with no growth whatsoever. The economy shrunk by 0.3% in 2013.

If, as you pointed out, we have a budget deficit, then it is irresponsible not to cut spending. My point is to also reduce taxation through removal of waste and unnecessary spending will do far more to increase domestic growth and will leave the State in a leaner and healthier position to benefit once significant growth resumes.

KarmaBaby

jank wrote: »

See with every Apple or Google there are 100's of Small business that relay on that tax rate to make ends meet and pay their employee's. Of course raising the corporation tax will actually hurt the smaller guys and not the large multinationals as they will just move off shore or employ accounting practices to move profits elsewhere. Instead of knee jerks sound bites the socialist party should actually sit down and learn about taxation and micro economics.

Increasing corporation tax will not hurt businesses that are currently struggling/not profitable or running at a loss, since they do not pay any corporation tax. The tax is paid on actual profits. Why shouldn't corporations in Ireland that are profitable pay the same rate of tax as the rest of Europe?

The accounting practices of the multinationals are enabled by government policy who repeatedly go cap in hand to them for FDI and time when we should be investing in indigenous Irish owned business that are more sustainable in the long term.

The financial loopholes that are used to dodge tax are facilitated by Irish banks, which we are supposed to own! The government could prevent the fraudulent accounting practices of Google, Facebook and Starbucks, but it has no appetite to do that, since that is the political class that Fine Gael and Labour now represent.

Multinationals move abroad irrespective of corporation tax. DELL was a perfect example of that when the ditched over 2500 jobs and destroyed Limerick City to save 3% on wages by moving to Poland which has 19% corporation tax compared to Ireland 12.5%.

KarmaBaby

Tabnabs wrote: »

Is that it though, your idea of a wealth tax is to take from those who have very large cash reserves? A, that's called theft in any other language and B, they'd just move their cash to another jurisdiction. OK, now what? BTW, who are you to tell me or any other Irish citizen that they are not entitled to keep their money and do with it as they see fit? Do you not see that as a massive injustice?

They could "try" moving their cash to another jurisdiction but that would be called tax evasion, something that is already enabled and acted upon by many tax exiles that I don't need to name here.

Tabnabs wrote: »

I'm saying we encourage business, entrepreneurship and wealth generation. Because for every cash millionaire, there are thousands of ordinary punters on decent salaries (or aspiring to be) who, along with all these mysterious million/billionaires, will also spend that money and create jobs through demand for goods and services.

You're saying is that we should encourage "wealth generation" only for the few and you believe in "trickle down" economics whereby everyone can then have their cake and eat it.

Which is complete and utter bullsh1t because the 1% that control 34% of the wealth in this country do not allow that money to trickle down to those that really need it. They hold on to it with two tightly closed fists.

Tabnabs wrote: »

Subsidies and quangos (sweet Jebus, they're an embarrassment and another FG election promise broken) for a start. Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, that has a budget in line with projected wealth tax revenue. That just seems wrong and somewhat immoral. When averaged out, every day of the week, they blow half a million euro in tax payers money, every single day, year round! Can you justify a spend like that?!

You want to abolish funding for the Arts? Seriously?

No doubt there is ridiculous waste and overspending spending in pointless quangos and junkets and so on, but there is also underspending on front line services, emergency services, healthcare and care services. The governmetn spend literally nothing on mental health.

Why don't you talk about this too?

Tabnabs wrote: »

Here's a tip, let someone else pick up the tab. Why are government paying for BB infrastructure? The last time I checked, my contract was with a private company.

Why should the key sectors of the economy be in the hands of private individuals like Denis O'Brien, out of the control of the state, run in the pure interest of profit for the few as opposed to what our actual broadband needs are?

Our internet speeds and infrastructure are a complete joke compared to most other developed countries.

Eircom was a perfectly profitable, reasonably well run, publicly owned communications company before Mary O'Rourke and her cronies in FF sold it off and destroyed it along with 10,000 jobs. As a private company it ran up €4 Billion debt and is now being bailed out by the tax payer.

Tabnabs wrote: »

Our offshore resources? Private industry, the bad boys, aren't interested in the current low tax on exploration licenses because of the risk/reward factor, the oil and gas extraction just isn't viable.

It seems perfectly viable for shell to extract gas in the Irish sea of the west coast so I don't know what you're on about. The idea that Ireland cannot take control of and profit from its natural offshore resources in the same way Venezuela and Norway has is the stuff of pure fantasy. I don't believe for a second that it isn't possible.

Tabnabs wrote: »

Stop selling off council houses to tenants, this is the privatisation of public property! Why does one person have the right to this public property over another? Where is the equality in that?

Why shouldn't families that have rented property from the state for years be able to buy their home?

Why are you not more concerned about council homes that are sold off to private landlords and then leased back to the same tenants at higher prices?

Tabnabs wrote: »

If, as you pointed out, we have a budget deficit, then it is irresponsible not to cut spending. My point is to also reduce taxation through removal of waste and unnecessary spending will do far more to increase domestic growth and will leave the State in a leaner and healthier position to benefit once significant growth resumes.

We already have cut spending. We've cut it do the bone and as a result, the economy shrunk and the National debt continued to spiral out of control. Why? Because the government thinks the private sector will invest enough in Ireland to drive the economy forward, which it wont.

And you call me economically inept?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KarmaBaby

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Joe Higgins has only ever take an average industrial wage as his personal income. He has always donated the rest to campaigns that fight for Workers Rights. He will continue to do with when he receives his pension.

WTF?? His PENSION will be more than the average industrial wage? It doesn't matter a jot what he does with the money, he is still drawing the full amount from the public purse.

GaelMise

jank wrote: »

Increase corporation tax as a way to help enterprise.... That is the socialist party for you.

Our economy is overly reliant on FDI, an increase in Coropoation tax, and using those funds to develop the indeginious SME sector would be good for our economy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

GaelMise wrote: »

...an increase in Coropoation tax, and using those funds to develop the indeginious SME sector...

The indigenous SME sector pays corporation tax. Taxing SMEs to fund the development of SMEs... doesn't really add up for me.

King of Pork

comongethappy wrote: »

Anyone else thinking of the Monty Python/Judean Peoples Front skit?

Seriously though, Is the socialist party growing?

Nope. They are dead communist ducks....

GaelMise

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Irelands tax base has been severly erroded in recent years, and you want to cut it away further, to boost the profits of multinationals that will repatriate that profit out of Ireland.
To what end? To attract more FDI and more multinationals to our tax haven? Sure a few more jobs provided by multinationals, but our economy is already too reliant on that sector.
And what of the opportunity cost? The money that is lost in those tax cuts to multinationals could be used instead to develop our own SME sector that is far more important in terms of job creation and developing a stable tax base.

RobbingBandit

If he didn't look so smug he might get some votes.

GaelMise

oscarBravo wrote: »

The indigenous SME sector pays corporation tax. Taxing SMEs to fund the development of SMEs... doesn't really add up for me.

Yes they do, but they are not the only ones that pay it. Correct my if im wrong, but our national economic policy has for quite some time been predominantly one of attracting FDI. I am arguing that instead of directing state resources and tailoring conditions to attracting further FDI, it should instead be directed to developing the SME sector.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GaelMise

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What are they, in whose interest are they, and how do you propose to achieve them in the absence of a stable tax base?

Can you please define "too reliant"? Ireland is a small, open economy with high unemployment. Irish people evidently need jobs and better employment opportunities. In short, the more foreign investment, the better.

Yes, as a sector of our economy, FDI is too large. Ireland needs jobs, no argument here on that point. However the SME sector is far more important in terms of job creation than FDI could ever hope to be, and our government would be better off focusing on that area, and in tailoring condidions to support the development of that sector than in trying to attract FDI and tailoring our national economic policy to suit the interests of large multinational corporations that have no interest in the longterm development of this country and are only here to extract value.