Sinn Fein: what is their policy on creating jobs/unemployment and immigration?

Weston14

Do Sinn Fein have a policy on job creation and unemployment?
I know "tax the rich" but most of the rich are foreigners with retail operations here. e.g. Aldi, Tesco, Boots. Is Sinn Fein advocating going abroad and taxing them?
Raising Corporation tax on Pharmaceutical companies might drive them out, killing jobs.

What is their policy on immigration?
Isn't pro-immigration?

johnnyskeleton

They are pro jobs and employment. What they will do to actually encourage jobs and employment is not clear. In this regard they are the same as every other party. It's all just hoping that the jobs just come

Re: tax, I'm not sure that increasing the headline corporation tax would make much difference. Large it companies pay very little tax here due to lax regulation, not due to low rates. I'm not a mad socialist, but I'm not sure I like the idea of Ireland being a tax haven.

guinnessdrinker

Maybe they will insist some of the multinationals here actually pay their fair share of tax rather than increase the acutal tax rate itself? (Oh and another SF thread on boards? Anyone keeping count?)

washman3

Welcome to Boards.ie Weston.!
Your real name not Eamon from Galway by any chance.??

Dubwat

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They are pro jobs and employment.

<snip>

Are there any political parties that are NOT pro jobs and employment?

Anyways, here's a link to their website on 'Getting Ireland Back To Work'...
http://www.sinnfein.ie/getting-ireland-back-to-work

and here's their general policies...
http://www.sinnfein.ie/policies

comongethappy

Dubwat wrote: »

Are there any political parties that are NOT pro jobs and employment?

Anyways, here's a link to their website on 'Getting Ireland Back To Work'...
http://www.sinnfein.ie/getting-ireland-back-to-work

and here's their general policies...
http://www.sinnfein.ie/policies

Great website.

The plan to create jobs is to borrow €13 billion,
to create an arbitrary figure of 150,000 jobs.

Each job costing the taxpayer €86,000 before interest..... At the same time widening the primary budget deficit.

Phoebas

Dubwat wrote: »

Anyways, here's a link to their website on 'Getting Ireland Back To Work'...
http://www.sinnfein.ie/getting-ireland-back-to-work

They're going to spend €13bn creating 150000 jobs. That's nearly €87,000 per job.

No flaws in that plan at all.:eek:

Billy86

washman3 wrote: »

Welcome to Boards.ie Weston.!
Your real name not Eamon from Galway by any chance.??

Not sure why you are so defensive to a basic question?

For Forks Sake

comongethappy wrote: »

Great website.

The plan to create jobs is to borrow €13 billion,
to create an arbitrary figure of 150,000 jobs.

Each job costing the taxpayer €86,000 before interest..... At the same time widening the primary budget deficit.

Phoebas wrote: »

They're going to spend €13bn creating 150000 jobs. That's nearly €87,000 per job.

No flaws in that plan at all.:eek:

Ah here, don't be doubting the Magic Money Tree School of Economics

maccored

It is a great site to be honest. Even better if one actually sits downs and reads the policies rather than attempting to explain the whole thing in less than 20 words.

comongethappy wrote: »

Great website.

The plan to create jobs is to borrow €13 billion,
to create an arbitrary figure of 150,000 jobs.

Each job costing the taxpayer €86,000 before interest..... At the same time widening the primary budget deficit.

ArmaniJeanss

Phoebas wrote: »

They're going to spend €13bn creating 150000 jobs. That's nearly €87,000 per job.

No flaws in that plan at all.:eek:

If it were possible it wouldn't actually be the worst use of €13B.
On a cost per job basis its probably not too far away from what it already costs the IDA when they give Googintelpharma a factory and offices on 20 acres of land connected to the road network.

Like if they were private sector jobs likely guaranteed for a reasonable amount of time (say 20/25 years) then at cost of €87K a job you (as the government) would be breaking even on income tax take alone after 3 or 4 years, and making a profit on the deal for the next 20 years. Thats a jolly good investment.

The €87K isn't the problem in the proposal so much as if it was that easy to create jobs then other countries would be doing it.

Phoebas

Now if only we had the 13bn handy.

comongethappy

maccored wrote: »

It is a great site to be honest. Even better if one actually sits downs and reads the policies rather than attempting to explain the whole thing in less than 20 words.

Well they "policies" such as they are stretch to a couple of hundred words & contains no figures. So my surmise is on the nose.

Comparing to the current government who have created a similar number of jobs without the whimsy of borrowing €13 billion to do it, while at the same time reducing the primary deficit by €12 billion.

By any rational evaluation, the SF policy isn't in the same league.

michael999999

Phoebas wrote: »

Now if only we had the 13bn handy.

Not having the money never stopped fianna failures!

Phoebas

michael999999 wrote: »

Not having the money never stopped fianna failures!

That comparison doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

washman3

Phoebas wrote: »

Now if only we had the 13bn handy.

We had it once, and many more €13 billions with it, but Bertie gave it to his buddies.!!

joe swanson

Their policies appear to consist of telling the more unfortunate in society what they want to hear. And these people appear to have fallen for it.

Gatling

I wonder how there planning to increase social welfare spending.
On top of there jobs creation .

comongethappy

Gatling wrote: »

I wonder how there planning to increase social welfare spending.
On top of there jobs creation .

You would wonder alright.

Considering Pearse Doherty's assertations in the media a couple of years ago, that it was SF's intention to increase spending beyond peak levels, as well as removing all government tax increases since the crisis began.
(Peak spending being €63bn vs 2013's €54bn).

On top of the €13 borrowed for the soviet style 'grand jobs plan'.

A 5-year term of SF at the helm would just repeat the tragedy that was the bank bailout in terms of their devastating impact on government debt..... (& you can bet those bonds would cost a lot more in interest than they do now.)

Beware false prophets.

Chips Lovell

Cormac Lucey made a stab at analysing their economic policy in the Sunday Times this week. Long story short, there were a few holes and a reliance on a lot of vague "savings".

He also said that the kind of borrowing-fueled populism advocated by the likes of SF would be more difficult to get away with now we've signed the Fiscal Compact Treaty.

Banjo String

joe swanson wrote: »

Their policies appear to consist of telling the more unfortunate in society what they want to hear. And these people appear to have fallen for it.

2011 all over again so.

Tabnabs

Banjo String wrote: »

2011 all over again so.

And in SF's case
"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."

Banjo String

Tabnabs wrote: »

And in SF's case
"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."

Well, we seem to keep voting the same two party's in over and over again, yet expect different outcomes.

Where's the end to cronyism and new way of doing politics we were promised?

Maybe Alan Shatter could tell us.

comongethappy

Banjo String wrote: »

Where's the end to cronyism and new way of doing politics we were promised?

Still waiting for that.

At least the government finances are in better shape, something SF had no intention of fixing.
(Unless you can show otherwise?)

Potatoeman

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Maybe they will insist some of the multinationals here actually pay their fair share of tax rather than increase the acutal tax rate itself? (Oh and another SF thread on boards? Anyone keeping count?)

Because they would not be paying them here. We get a small percent of something rather than a large percent of nothing.
If you want companies to pay their share make sure they pay tax in the country the revenue is generated in.

comongethappy

Potatoeman wrote: »

Because they would not be paying them here. We get a small percent of something rather than a large percent of nothing.
If you want companies to pay their share make sure they pay tax in the country the revenue is generated in.

Indeed & doing so requires a global effort to force taxation where sales are made, something unlikely to happen.
So Ireland should reap MNC hay while the sun shines.

And while Google paying 0.2% tax on the revenue shuffled through Ireland is galling
It sure beats the 0.0% of nothing where they to move to Luxembourg or the Netherlands.

michael999999

Tabnabs wrote: »

And in SF's case
"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."

Is that not more apt for fianna fail and there voters after this weekends tesults!?

Banjo String

comongethappy wrote: »

Still waiting for that.

More than midway through their term, justice Minister gone, (backed to the hilt by both parties) , not good enough.

Must try harder.

Potatoeman

comongethappy wrote: »

Indeed & doing so requires a global effort to force taxation where sales are made, something unlikely to happen.
So Ireland should reap MNC hay while the sun shines.

And while Google paying 0.2% tax on the revenue shuffled through Ireland is galling
It sure beats the 0.0% of nothing where they to move to Luxembourg or the Netherlands.

It could be enforced in the country they make the money.

comongethappy

Potatoeman wrote: »

It could be enforced in the country they make the money.

Your right, but that has yet that has yet to be done..... I've no idea why not though.
It would be in a given countries best interest.

Billy86

Potatoeman wrote: »

It could be enforced in the country they make the money.

and then those companies move away, taking huge numbers of jobs with them. And then what?

I am not promoting the lax regulations here as a good thing necessarily, mind.

Potatoeman

Billy86 wrote: »

and then those companies move away, taking huge numbers of jobs with them. And then what?

I am not promoting the lax regulations here as a good thing necessarily, mind.

Its good for us now.
If the company is selling its product within the country then it could be tracked. They could also fine them for tax evasion.

Billy86

Potatoeman wrote: »

Its good for us now.
If the company is selling its product within the country then it could be tracked. They could also fine them for tax evasion.

That is always the problem with 'now' though, it does nothing for the future and can be an extremely finite period of time. With the size and funds of these companies, the demand for work around the world and emerging skilled workforces in countries where there previously wasn't any, they can pretty much muscle their way up and out in an extremely short amount of time if they wish to do so, and then where does that leave us? It's a classic situation of making a penny today at the cost of a Euro (or several) tomorrow.

The fact is that in modern low tax capitalist economies the private multinationals hold the vast majority of the cards, especially during this economic global downturn. As much as I would obviously like that to be different and don't agree with the current setup at all, at this point it is what it is and that's that really. And Ireland doesn't have the size nor clout (especially in recent years) to do anything about it - it would take the involvement of many different nations far more influential than us to make any headway there. Again, that's just not going to happen at this point in time as countries are competing with each other so much to create employment and get out of the post GFC mess.

If we strictly enforce and/or increase the taxes, another country will spot an opportunity, open their doors, welcome these companies in, and gain massive national support for the job creation that comes with it. And we will find ourselves on other side of that coin.

Good loser

Billy86 wrote: »

That is always the problem with 'now' though, it does nothing for the future and can be an extremely finite period of time. With the size and funds of these companies, the demand for work around the world and emerging skilled workforces in countries where there previously wasn't any, they can pretty much muscle their way up and out in an extremely short amount of time if they wish to do so, and then where does that leave us? It's a classic situation of making a penny today at the cost of a Euro (or several) tomorrow.

The fact is that in modern low tax capitalist economies the private multinationals hold the vast majority of the cards, especially during this economic global downturn. As much as I would obviously like that to be different and don't agree with the current setup at all, at this point it is what it is and that's that really. And Ireland doesn't have the size nor clout (especially in recent years) to do anything about it - it would take the involvement of many different nations far more influential than us to make any headway there. Again, that's just not going to happen at this point in time as countries are competing with each other so much to create employment and get out of the post GFC mess.

If we strictly enforce and/or increase the taxes, another country will spot an opportunity, open their doors, welcome these companies in, and gain massive national support for the job creation that comes with it. And we will find ourselves on other side of that coin.

Spot on there Billy86.

Basically only the large countries especially the US can be strict about tax enforcement on companies.

Although I did hear once that in Ireland and USA the same percentage of tax revenue comes from Corporation Tax.

Wonder are the workers in Bausch & Lamb concerned now about the amount of Corporation Tax that company pays.

If SF were in power what would they do in the B & L situation? Make up the 20% cut? Set up a contact lens factory to employ the 200 made redundant? Should be possible at €87,000 per job.

nesf

The simple answer is: Sinn Fein don't need a credible plan, they won't be majority partner in Government in 2016.

NipNip

nesf wrote: »

The simple answer is: Sinn Fein don't need a credible plan, they won't be majority partner in Government in 2016.

Have you been reading The Secret? If you say it often enough, the universe will provide?

nesf

NipNip wrote: »

Have you been reading The Secret? If you say it often enough, the universe will provide?

You don't say it you fool! You picture yourself having it and it will happen. No wonder you're so sceptical given that you were screwing it up so badly!