Fine Gael government policies

Negative_G

dense wrote: »

I would differ in that we can't just discard people to the gutter.

I don't see what's wrong with accommodation in something like a mobile home.

It used to be the done thing in rural Ireland while saving for a deposit.

We also need a serious discussion/public debate about having families before having shelter or the means to provide for them.

No, you are right, we can't tolerate a society where people are just discarded to the gutter entirely. The reality is that people who are down on their luck for whatever reason have numerous mechanisms to get themselves back on the road to being a productive member of society.

Of course what often happens is the blame game and more often than not, the finger is pointed at someone else, namely the government. Add this to a growing sense of entitlement and expectations of free handouts grow bigger and bigger.

I see nothing wrong with housing people in mobile homes/low cost accommodation on a temporary basis. I have no issue with people being in hotels either. They have a roof over there head, access to food and water and a platform to plan for the future. Its a far better place to be than sleeping rough on the streets, not ideal no, but in that situation the basic needs are addressed and met.

There was a woman on the radio mid week commenting that emergency accomodation was causing mental health problems for people because they couldn't cook a meal or have a table to sit down around.

Again, I'm sure they'd all love a lovely apartment or house with all the bells and whistles to "call their own" without having to furnish or maintain it. Wouldn't we all.

The irony is that the government is paying so much for emergency accommodation that it could be put in to constructing low cost housing and while that will help address the problem. The emphasis will shift from getting these people from emergency accommodation to low cost accommodation to their "home for life". Its seems like its a never ending circle.

For Reals wrote: »

Agreed. We should move away from the Hand out culture perpetuated by current and recent government. Putting the burden on the tax payer for bad management of a flawed system.

True. Be nice if the issue was addressed rather than subsidised.

I'd cap children's allowance at two and of course under the scrutiny of the parent not earning enough through no fault of trying.

Id wager that the vast amount of those who would qualify for inclusion in the hand out culture are SF/AAA/PBP etc voters. A majority government could easily implement welfare reform to address this "give nothing, expect everything" minority and give the squeezed middle a well earned break without affecting their voting base.

dense

Negative_G wrote: »

A majority government could easily implement welfare reform to address this "give nothing, expect everything" minority and give the squeezed middle a well earned break without affecting their voting base.

Correct and I find it hard to understand why this isn't being addressed given where their franchise comes from.

Why are they afraid of alienating people who generally didn't even vote historically in the first place whilst forgetting about those who always did?

Negative_G

dense wrote: »

Correct and I find it hard to understand why this isn't being addressed given where their franchise comes from.

Why are they afraid of alienating people who generally didn't even vote historically in the first place whilst forgetting about those who always did?

It stands to reason that a party should represent the interests of its voters, at least on a broad general level.

I guess at the minute they are afraid by upsetting the the welfare electorate it may result in a rise in support for FF who will promise the earth, moon and stars in an effort to hoover up the additional votes for a challenge.

dense

Negative_G wrote: »

It stands to reason that a party should represent the interests of its voters, at least on a broad general level.

I guess at the minute they are afraid by upsetting the the welfare electorate it may result in a rise in support for FF who will promise the earth, moon and stars in an effort to hoover up the additional votes for a challenge.

Maybe but what percentage would the welfare electorate be now, or ever?
It can't be much.

Leo did seem to be nodding his head towards workers with his six thirty rising time sloganeering, but that's where it starts and finishes as he washed his hands of it lately particularly on the VB show.

Negative_G

dense wrote: »

Maybe but what percentage would the welfare electorate be now, or ever?
It can't be much.

Leo did seem to be nodding his head towards workers with his six thirty rising time sloganeering, but that's where it starts and finishes as he washed his hands of it lately particularly on the VB show.

I fear that the rhetoric that he will reward those that "get up early in the morning" may have frightened some of his ministers/TDs and he is now back peddling to be more centered approach.

The rich pay their fair share, the low income pay very very little. The middle income workers, and by that I would class as anyone from 30k to 60/70k get absolutely shafted. It can't continue.
This isn't an Us Vs them scenario, everyone has to contribute. The rich shouldn't be shafted by virtue of the fact that they earn the most. Likewise, the low laid must not get a free pass by virtue that they are low paid. The tax regime has to be fair and equitable.

An earner on €20k pays roughly €1k in personal tax. A person of €100k pays 38 times that of someone on €20k despite only earning 5 times more.

The current, and any future government need to stop punishing the middle income workers.

dense

Negative_G wrote: »

I fear that the rhetoric that he will reward those that "get up early in the morning" may have frightened some of his ministers/TDs and he is now back peddling to be more centered approach.

The rich pay their fair share, the low income pay very very little. The middle income workers, and by that I would class as anyone from 30k to 60/70k get absolutely shafted. It can't continue.
This isn't an Us Vs them scenario, everyone has to contribute. The rich shouldn't be shafted by virtue of the fact that they earn the most. Likewise, the low laid must not get a free pass by virtue that they are low paid. The tax regime has to be fair and equitable.

An earner on €20k pays roughly €1k in personal tax. A person of €100k pays 38 times that of someone on €20k despite only earning 5 times more.

The current, and any future government need to stop punishing the middle income workers.

Ah yes but I at least would imagine that those up at six thirty are the mainly comprised of the lowest earners.

The whole point of working will be questioned by the lowest income band if their take home is closing in on welfare rates.

Let's face it, welfare isn't going to be cut.
That's not to say it should receive the annual automatic increases. It shouldn't.

Could income comparable to tax increases on low earners be achieved by freezing welfare payments?

Plus I'm not completely convinced the rich pay their fair share due to their ability to avail of "tax management" which we are adept at ignoring, for various reasons.

Negative_G

dense wrote: »

Ah yes but I at least would imagine that those up at six thirty are the mainly comprised of the lowest earners.

The whole point of working will be questioned by the lowest income band if their take home is closing in on welfare rates.

Let's face it, welfare isn't going to be cut.
That's not to say it should receive the annual automatic increases. It shouldn't.

Could income comparable to tax increases on low earners be achieved by freezing welfare payments?

Plus I'm not completely convinced the rich pay their fair share due to their ability to avail of "tax management" which we are adept at ignoring, for various reasons.

There is a huge amount of misinformation regarding how much tax is paid on large salaries.

If there are loopholes, then thats an issue for revenue to close on the behest of the government but the figures dont lie. "The rich" pay for the vast amount of income tax.

For Reals

Negative_G wrote: »

...



Id wager that the vast amount of those who would qualify for inclusion in the hand out culture are SF/AAA/PBP etc voters. A majority government could easily implement welfare reform to address this "give nothing, expect everything" minority and give the squeezed middle a well earned break without affecting their voting base.

With all due respect, that's terribly naive. Those profiting from the hand out culture are businesses with zero hour contracts, (on the way out?), individuals getting tax subsidies and exemptions, rent subsidies, first time buyers. All these mechanisms enable our economy to function.
We have a skewed reality supported by the tax payer. For example folks crib about raising the minimum wage as it may be detrimental to business. If employees can't make ends meet, the tax payer digs them out. Then we look to the victims of that circumstance. If you can't afford to buy a house, tough. If you can't afford to maintain staff and the profit margins you expect, tough? No, tax payer.
It doesn't work but maintains the pretense.

Case in point; high employment, growing numbers seeking assistance with debt, housing, health, poverty.
Looking to single digit parties who never sat in political office is the height of distractionary whataboutery.

Bishopsback

For Reals wrote: »

With all due respect, that's terribly naive. Those profiting from the hand out culture are businesses with zero hour contracts, (on the way out?), individuals getting tax subsidies and exemptions, rent subsidies, first time buyers. All these mechanisms enable our economy to function.
We have a skewed reality supported by the tax payer. For example folks crib about raising the minimum wage as it may be detrimental to business. If employees can't make ends meet, the tax payer digs them out. Then we look to the victims of that circumstance. If you can't afford to buy a house, tough. If you can't afford to maintain staff and the profit margins you expect, tough? No, tax payer.
It doesn't work but maintains the pretense.

Case in point; high employment, growing numbers seeking assistance with debt, housing, health, poverty.
Looking to single digit parties who never sat in political office is the height of distractionary whataboutery.

I can't make sense of that post. Perhaps explain it with less question marks and make points more clearly that you are arguing.
Going on here, we have not the tax take available to us during the boom, we are still well short of the employment levels experienced during it and have a lot more people seeking help from the exchequer in one form or another than at any time in the state possibly.
Perhaps expectations of what is possible are too high and maybe if people realised that the recession took more out of us than most would like to admit it might be helpful.
While the economy is growing healthily and employment numbers are growing steadily, I feel that prudence is needed and believe that govt overspending on any issue would just fuel price rises in the affected areas in the private sector, a balance has to be achieved for all, not just the worst affected people or it could actually drive more citizens in to the help required situation.
That's maybe the reality any govt have to face.

For Reals

Bishopsback wrote: »

I can't make sense of that post. Perhaps explain it with less question marks and make points more clearly that you are arguing.
Going on here, we have not the tax take available to us during the boom, we are still well short of the employment levels experienced during it and have a lot more people seeking help from the exchequer in one form or another than at any time in the state possibly.
Perhaps expectations of what is possible are too high and maybe if people realised that the recession took more out of us than most would like to admit it might be helpful.
While the economy is growing healthily and employment numbers are growing steadily, I feel that prudence is needed and believe that govt overspending on any issue would just fuel price rises in the affected areas in the private sector, a balance has to be achieved for all, not just the worst affected people or it could actually drive more citizens in to the help required situation.
That's maybe the reality any govt have to face.

I'll break it down.
Tax payer funded hand outs are seemingly acceptable if supporting private profits.
If we cut out all tax funded handouts the 'healthy' economy would collapse.
We need to cut down on the reliance on the tax payer to help private individuals function.
The economy is a farce. 'Growth' and employment are going in the opposite direction of the reality. There is a colossal disconnect.
Prudence? What is the point of government when they cannot or are most likely unwilling to manage our affairs? You are confusing prudence with self interest.
I agree a balance must be reached for all. We've had it too much one way for too long. That's why we have crashes and scanadlous record breaking numbers in the myriad societal crises, but an economy 'growing healthily' as you put it, at the same time.
We'll likely see the next crash before any TD has the decency to put everyone on par. This isn't about freebies or handouts, it's about real intent to do a good job for everyone negating the need to subsidise private business or individuals to keep up the facade that the same system FG previously thought was broke, is all of a sudden fit for (their) purpose.
The supposed cautious optimism is in reality showing FG/FF are happy with things as is IMO. I refuse to believe they are that incompetent. The lack of will to make a start on any systemic change is intentional.

blanch152

For Reals wrote: »

I'll break it down.
Tax payer funded hand outs are seemingly acceptable if supporting private profits.
If we cut out all tax funded handouts the 'healthy' economy would collapse.
We need to cut down on the reliance on the tax payer to help private individuals function.
.

Do we start with €2 billion on child benefit going to every child in the country?

Maybe you are talking about mortgage tax relief so ordinary people can buy a house?

Or perhaps pension relief so people can afford pensions?

Is it the over-65s tax allowace you are getting at?

The problem with your post is that it is a complete generalisation with no reliance on actual hard figures taken from the Exchequer figures, so we have no way of knowing exactly what you mean.

I could agree with abolishing some of the above, but which ones are you focussed on?

The biggest tax reliefs to private individuals are to farmers. It can be argued that this is vitally important for food security reasons. I don't buy it, but that is the policy. Do you agree or disagree with that one?

For Reals wrote: »

The economy is a farce. 'Growth' and employment are going in the opposite direction of the reality. There is a colossal disconnect.
.

Have a look around Dublin 8 or the Docklands and tell me there is no growth or employment. Yes, small towns are suffering, but that is not the fault of the current government, it is the fault of decades of really stupid planning and development.

For Reals wrote: »

Prudence? What is the point of government when they cannot or are most likely unwilling to manage our affairs? You are confusing prudence with self interest.
I agree a balance must be reached for all. We've had it too much one way for too long. That's why we have crashes and scanadlous record breaking numbers in the myriad societal crises, but an economy 'growing healthily' as you put it, at the same time.
We'll likely see the next crash before any TD has the decency to put everyone on par. This isn't about freebies or handouts, it's about real intent to do a good job for everyone negating the need to subsidise private business or individuals to keep up the facade that the same system FG previously thought was broke, is all of a sudden fit for (their) purpose.
The supposed cautious optimism is in reality showing FG/FF are happy with things as is IMO. I refuse to believe they are that incompetent. The lack of will to make a start on any systemic change is intentional.

A rant like that is all very well. It really consists of nothing more than "everything is wrong, and I blame FF and FG" without explaining firstly what is wrong, secondly how it can be laid at their door, and thirdly, and most importantly, how it can be fixed without destroying the successes that there have been.

For Reals

blanch152 wrote: »

Do we start with €2 billion on child benefit going to every child in the country?

Maybe you are talking about mortgage tax relief so ordinary people can buy a house?

Or perhaps pension relief so people can afford pensions?

Is it the over-65s tax allowace you are getting at?

The problem with your post is that it is a complete generalisation with no reliance on actual hard figures taken from the Exchequer figures, so we have no way of knowing exactly what you mean.

I could agree with abolishing some of the above, but which ones are you focussed on?

The biggest tax reliefs to private individuals are to farmers. It can be argued that this is vitally important for food security reasons. I don't buy it, but that is the policy. Do you agree or disagree with that one?





Have a look around Dublin 8 or the Docklands and tell me there is no growth or employment. Yes, small towns are suffering, but that is not the fault of the current government, it is the fault of decades of really stupid planning and development.





A rant like that is all very well. It really consists of nothing more than "everything is wrong, and I blame FF and FG" without explaining firstly what is wrong, secondly how it can be laid at their door, and thirdly, and most importantly, how it can be fixed without destroying the successes that there have been.

You see me as having a rant. If you don't agree that's grand. I see you as rushing in to defend the good ol' boys and their flawed system as per.
I'll stick to points.

You seem to have missed my entire point.
We have a system run like someone living on credit, seeming to be doing well but going in ever decreasing circles.
We use tax monies to keep under paid workers afloat, which in turn enables business keep staff they either can't afford or are unwilling to pay better.
We have a housing industry dependent on tax payer handouts for the creation of customers, because they are either charging too much or can't afford to sell at any lower price and still make a profit.
We have numerous examples of this in practise with the disgrace of the ongoing rise in rates of homelessness, poverty and hospital trolley numbers and people needing tax payer assistance to manage debt.
You can whittle this down to a doom and gloom rant if it helps ease your mind, but it's symptomatic of a broken system. That's what I'm pointing out here. Sorry FG happen to be in charge, but it's the system, the way we do business. We need a party/government like Fine Gael pretended to be.

Bishopsback

For Reals wrote: »

You see me as having a rant. If you don't agree that's grand. I see you as rushing in to defend the good ol' boys and their flawed system as per.
I'll stick to points.

You seem to have missed my entire point.
We have a system run like someone living on credit, seeming to be doing well but going in ever decreasing circles.
We use tax monies to keep under paid workers afloat, which in turn enables business keep staff they either can't afford or are unwilling to pay better.
We have a housing industry dependent on tax payer handouts for the creation of customers, because they are either charging too much or can't afford to sell at any lower price and still make a profit.
We have numerous examples of this in practise with the disgrace of the ongoing rise in rates of homelessness, poverty and hospital trolley numbers and people needing tax payer assistance to manage debt.
You can whittle this down to a doom and gloom rant if it helps ease your mind, but it's symptomatic of a broken system. That's what I'm pointing out here. Sorry FG happen to be in charge, but it's the system, the way we do business. We need a party/government like Fine Gael pretended to be.

How do we fix?

blanch152

For Reals wrote: »

You see me as having a rant. If you don't agree that's grand. I see you as rushing in to defend the good ol' boys and their flawed system as per.
I'll stick to points.

You seem to have missed my entire point.
We have a system run like someone living on credit, seeming to be doing well but going in ever decreasing circles.
We use tax monies to keep under paid workers afloat, which in turn enables business keep staff they either can't afford or are unwilling to pay better.
We have a housing industry dependent on tax payer handouts for the creation of customers, because they are either charging too much or can't afford to sell at any lower price and still make a profit.
We have numerous examples of this in practise with the disgrace of the ongoing rise in rates of homelessness, poverty and hospital trolley numbers and people needing tax payer assistance to manage debt.
You can whittle this down to a doom and gloom rant if it helps ease your mind, but it's symptomatic of a broken system. That's what I'm pointing out here. Sorry FG happen to be in charge, but it's the system, the way we do business. We need a party/government like Fine Gael pretended to be.

Again, I don't see any solutions there, just generalised unhappiness and grumbles.

We have more people at work now than at any time since 2008. If you cannot see how this is a great thing, I don't know what is. Similarly, unemployment is at very low levels again.

You cannot fix all the other problems of the country until you have money. You can't get money unless people are working and paying tax.

Focussing, as they did for the last five years, on solving the jobs crisis was a necessary precondition to solve all the other problems. The next step is to widen the tax base. Then the State will have the revenues to address the other issues.

The only alternative is to wave your hands in the air, complain about everything, and pray for the magic money tree to deliver salvation.

Poverty isn't increasing by the way.

For Reals

Bishopsback wrote: »

How do we fix?

Good one. The premise being we don't need to discuss the problems if we can spend the next three pages critiquing my ideas for possible solutions. It's old hat on here I'm afraid.

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, I don't see any solutions there, just generalised unhappiness and grumbles.

At least folks seem to acknowledge we have problems. You complain about it when these issues are raised but acknowledge we have issues. Is your whole agenda that we shouldn't mention these things at all or only if we can point to a SF led council or some other team? If you think we have problems need solving, do you seriously believe we've been going about it the right way? The very people and agencies responsible for the most recent crash are back in business like nothing happened while societal issues continue to worsen. This is all part of some master plan is it? Is it really? Pray do tell?

blanch152 wrote: »

We have more people at work now than at any time since 2008. If you cannot see how this is a great thing, I don't know what is. Similarly, unemployment is at very low levels again.

You cannot fix all the other problems of the country until you have money. You can't get money unless people are working and paying tax.

Focussing, as they did for the last five years, on solving the jobs crisis was a necessary precondition to solve all the other problems. The next step is to widen the tax base. Then the State will have the revenues to address the other issues.

No it wasn't. Everything has been geared towards selective improvement for selective business. The employment numbers are a fraud. Having a job does not mean you are earning enough to pay your own way or survive on your own financially. It does not mean you can afford rent, it does not mean you can buy a home. Employment is relative. Having a job if preferable, but it has levels depending on the hours you work, the salary you make and the bills you have. Simply saying employment is up, may mean little.

There will never be a time were FG or FF turn around and say, 'Right lads, yis have been working non-stop, paying out tax for long enough, we've hit the magic number, so now we'll start concentrating on homelessness, hospital trolleys, housing'.
That will only happen if they can find away of making profits for the right people, (see IW).

What we need is an end to cronyism. Accountability. Severe punishments for any governmental 'inappropriate' behaviour.
Work towards a proper free market were business stands or falls on it's own merits.
The tax payer is carrying this broken nod wink system.

We've rent allowance for people who can't afford rent. Maybe if Landlords couldn't get the rents they sought they'd free up some properties or lower their rents? But we'll continue to lean on the tax payer to protect that business.

The one in five TD's who are Landlords likely make a profit from tax payer hand outs to workers who can't earn enough to afford rent.

blanch152 wrote: »

The only alternative is to wave your hands in the air, complain about everything, and pray for the magic money tree to deliver salvation.

Poverty isn't increasing by the way.

What magic wand, who apart from FG ever talk about magic wands and money trees? If you insist on strawman may your God go with you.

Yes it is, as is people seeking assistance with debt, numbers on hospital trolleys and homelessness. You don't accept links you disagree with and when you cite agencies you do agree with, you dismiss their finding anyway, so I'll not bother with a link.

blanch152

For Reals wrote: »

The employment numbers are a fraud.

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/lr/liveregisterjuly2017/


They don't look like a fraud to me. Which part of the data is fraudulent?


http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elca/earningsandlabourcostsannualdata2016/


Earnings data also showed significant increases over the last few years.

The only exception would be the public sector where for example, the 2016 report says "The largest decrease was in the Public administration and defence sector (-1.7%) where average annual earnings fell from €48,173 to €47,330 between 2015 and 2016" but I think you are on record about overpaid civil servants so you should be happy with that also.

The facts don't lie, they are not fraudulent. What is more, these reports are actual hard data and not based on people stating whether they can afford a roast dinner on a Sunday as an indicator of poverty.

For Reals

blanch152 wrote: »

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/lr/liveregisterjuly2017/


They don't look like a fraud to me. Which part of the data is fraudulent?


http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elca/earningsandlabourcostsannualdata2016/


Earnings data also showed significant increases over the last few years.

The only exception would be the public sector where for example, the 2016 report says "The largest decrease was in the Public administration and defence sector (-1.7%) where average annual earnings fell from €48,173 to €47,330 between 2015 and 2016" but I think you are on record about overpaid civil servants so you should be happy with that also.

The facts don't lie, they are not fraudulent. What is more, these reports are actual hard data and not based on people stating whether they can afford a roast dinner on a Sunday as an indicator of poverty.

You misunderstood. I'm quite sure the figures are generally legit depending on your measuring system of choice. However the value of being employed diminishes when you need a tax payer handout to make ends meet or meet your profit margin if in business. So like looking at economic growth figures, it's not that clear cut to merely point and say 'look at that' in the face of our constantly in hock system.

This little line of off road 4x4 stems from a few comments suggesting there was no free lunch and we should cut back on freebies and hand outs. I agree and pointed out our system is designed to run on handouts. We need negate the need for handouts. To do so we need address the way we do business.
Like getting a massive loan didn't save the country from ruin (as nothing was fixed) neither does taking tax money from Billy to pay Jack.

Bishopsback

For Reals wrote: »

You misunderstood. I'm quite sure the figures are generally legit depending on your measuring system of choice. However the value of being employed diminishes when you need a tax payer handout to make ends meet or meet your profit margin if in business. So like looking at economic growth figures, it's not that clear cut to merely point and say 'look at that' in the face of our constantly in hock system.

This little line of off road 4x4 stems from a few comments suggesting there was no free lunch and we should cut back on freebies and hand outs. I agree and pointed out our system is designed to run on handouts. We need negate the need for handouts. To do so we need address the way we do business.
Like getting a massive loan didn't save the country from ruin (as nothing was fixed) neither does taking tax money from Billy to pay Jack.

You're rambling. This is your thread and you are gone back to a position caused by FF in mentioning our massive loan or bailout to use the right term. I asked you how do we fix and you said you weren't getting in to that. I m through here with you if that's what you call debate.
As Blanch said, just ranting, no solution suggestions or even pointing out a political or govt alternative to set up a discussion on how, why, who or what should or could be done.

flutered

with so many working and reaching towards zero unemployment figures, how come the tax take is low, tax money is given out to house hunters and workers, employers etc, we recently had a plea from the employers not to increase the min wage, surely having employees with purchacing power should be their no1 aim, after all if they are not earning they cannot spend

flutered

Bishopsback wrote: »

You're rambling. This is your thread and you are gone back to a position caused by FF in mentioning our massive loan or bailout to use the right term. I asked you how do we fix and you said you weren't getting in to that. I m through here with you if that's what you call debate.
As Blanch said, just ranting, no solution suggestions or even pointing out a political or govt alternative to set up a discussion on how, why, who or what should or could be done.

how can it be fixed, how can we lessen the burden on the tax take to keep employers, employees house buyers hands off it

For Reals

Bishopsback wrote: »

You're rambling. This is your thread and you are gone back to a position caused by FF in mentioning our massive loan or bailout to use the right term. I asked you how do we fix and you said you weren't getting in to that. I m through here with you if that's what you call debate.
As Blanch said, just ranting, no solution suggestions or even pointing out a political or govt alternative to set up a discussion on how, why, who or what should or could be done.

It's difficult to debate the rise in societal crises when anytime they are raised as an issue you get employment figures and WWJD?

You accept we have issues that need addressing and as you point out the thread relates to FG policy, but you'd rather mine?

I'll bite, on the understanding we relate it to FG policy.

Cut childrens allowance by capping it to two kids. Any more after that make do. Exceptions for the recently unemployed.

Cut back on state aid to every business making a profit. Why should the tax payer subsidise private profit?
If companies cannot afford to pay a wage in line with the cost of living they can't afford staff.
Cut out all cronyism. No politician should be directly or indirectly involved with any business people on any kind of professional level, IMO.
Cut all home buyer grants and subsidies. If you can't afford to buy tough. If you can't make ends meet as a Landlord or developer, tough.
Anyone with more than one home should be a registered land lord and taxed as a business, or taxed very heavily. This goes for property speculators. We have a housing crisis we should curtail wealthy people buying up properties to profit from the need of a roof.
We should vet all medical professionals to ensure they are not playing the public system to funnel patients to their private clinic.
We should not be cutting sweet deals with any business person especially ones who are independent TD's whose support we want to buy with tax payer money.
It all boils down to no cronyism, more accountability and a new way of doing business, sound familiar?
Now you'll be tempted to bypass any Fine Gael policy discussion and go off on the above. Fine, but what would you do different?
We are not a functioning economy. We are bolstering it with credit and moving money around. Then we've Leo ****ting on about welfare fraud like it's the biggest problem we have.

We need hand outs from the tax payer so companies can maintain profits and individuals can make ends meet. Not a great economic model.

The number of people seeking debt solutions continued to rise between April and June, according to new figures from the Insolvency Service of Ireland (ISI).
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0802/894708-number-of-people-seeking-debt-solutions-continues-to-ri/

More than 400 people waiting on trolleys for hospital beds
It compares with an average daily count of 299 patients for the same time this month last year.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0809/896208-health-trolleys-waiting/

Danny Healy-Rae’s haulage firm has earned €8.7m in State contracts
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/danny-healy-rae-s-haulage-firm-has-earned-8-7m-in-state-contracts-1.3179273

Now tell me why we should stay the course and how one day we'll reach the magic number and start looking into tackling these things?

George Sunsnow

Regarding the Healy Rae's
The totals over 20 years and no corruption is alleged in getting the contracts

You're gilding the Lilly again For Reals
When I was in school,it was called padding an essay and you'd lose marks for it...

For Reals

George Sunsnow wrote: »

Regarding the Healy Rae's
The totals over 20 years and no corruption is alleged in getting the contracts

You're gilding the Lilly again For Reals
When I was in school,it was called padding an essay and you'd lose marks for it...

You're making that up.
Who alleged corruption in that case? I'm sure everything was above board.

George Sunsnow

For Reals wrote: »

You're making that up.
Who alleged corruption in that case? I'm sure everything was above board.

Why did you add the link if it wasn't to gilt the lilly

For Reals

George Sunsnow wrote: »

Why did you add the link if it wasn't to gild the lilly

The man is a politician making millions on tax payer contracts.

Is that it? Nice chat.

George Sunsnow

For Reals wrote: »

The man is a politician making millions on tax payer contracts.

Is that it? Nice chat.

Why not take 30 years for more gilting?
There's nothing wrong with politicians companies sans corruption continuing in business when their owners get elected and in the case of Kerry,the electorate know what his businesses are
So no corruption but plenty padding for a post/rant
I see

For Reals

George Sunsnow wrote: »

Why not take 30 years for more gilting?
There's nothing wrong with politicians companies sans corruption continuing in business when their owners get elected and in the case of Kerry,the electorate know what his businesses are
So no corruption but plenty padding for a post/rant
I see

Again with the incorrect assumptions.
I don't believe politicians should have any connection to being allocated government contracts. You're seemingly okay with that. Cula bula.
As regards my rant, what upsets you so? Where do you disagree with what I've said, what alternatives do you suggest. Swanning in to poke perceived holes may be great public service, but makes for dull input.

Quin_Dub

Guys,

Raise the standard please.

Bishopsback

For Reals wrote: »

It's difficult to debate the rise in societal crises when anytime they are raised as an issue you get employment figures and WWJD?

You accept we have issues that need addressing and as you point out the thread relates to FG policy, but you'd rather mine?

I'll bite, on the understanding we relate it to FG policy.

Cut childrens allowance by capping it to two kids. Any more after that make do. Exceptions for the recently unemployed.

Cut back on state aid to every business making a profit. Why should the tax payer subsidise private profit?
If companies cannot afford to pay a wage in line with the cost of living they can't afford staff.
Cut out all cronyism. No politician should be directly or indirectly involved with any business people on any kind of professional level, IMO.
Cut all home buyer grants and subsidies. If you can't afford to buy tough. If you can't make ends meet as a Landlord or developer, tough.
Anyone with more than one home should be a registered land lord and taxed as a business, or taxed very heavily. This goes for property speculators. We have a housing crisis we should curtail wealthy people buying up properties to profit from the need of a roof.
We should vet all medical professionals to ensure they are not playing the public system to funnel patients to their private clinic.
We should not be cutting sweet deals with any business person especially ones who are independent TD's whose support we want to buy with tax payer money.
It all boils down to no cronyism, more accountability and a new way of doing business, sound familiar?
Now you'll be tempted to bypass any Fine Gael policy discussion and go off on the above. Fine, but what would you do different?
We are not a functioning economy. We are bolstering it with credit and moving money around. Then we've Leo ****ting on about welfare fraud like it's the biggest problem we have.

We need hand outs from the tax payer so companies can maintain profits and individuals can make ends meet. Not a great economic model.







Now tell me why we should stay the course and how one day we'll reach the magic number and start looking into tackling these things?

Fair play, at least its a clear response.
I don't agree re the children's allowance, I think it should be means tested and if you need it you don't get it, or if you are above a certain income you only get it for any child who might put your means above a certain level, not a limit on numbers.
I'm not sure which companies making a profit are being subsidised by the taxpayer, perhaps you could link an example?
On the housing issue, you're going to increase homelessness with your ideas there I feel.
It will be hard to separate politics and business in a bid to combat cronyism, we live in a small country, loads of business people have political allegiances, well known to their local community and in some instances nationally, every time any of these people get local or national contracts there will always be shouts of cronyism, but if its proven then the politicians and persons responsible should be punished.
Im not a politician or interested in being one, studying what is available for voting for here in relation to forming a govt and based on past form, I don't believe there is a better option available to us than a govt involving FG at present, as they are likely to be involved in a coalition of some sort if they are to be in govt for the foreseeable future, I don't think all of their policies will ever be implemented, but as the best of what is available I accept that there will be warts and all policies and no one will ever accept everything they do as for the best, but I feel it is the closest to what we need to improve things going on.
Its a bit rich also complaining about certain things taxpayer funding goes to while coming off a protest that sought to remedy somewhat one service that badly needs investment, water?

blanch152

For Reals wrote: »

You misunderstood. I'm quite sure the figures are generally legit depending on your measuring system of choice. However the value of being employed diminishes when you need a tax payer handout to make ends meet or meet your profit margin if in business. So like looking at economic growth figures, it's not that clear cut to merely point and say 'look at that' in the face of our constantly in hock system.

So are you suggesting that keeping a family on social welfare with no job and no hope is a better outcome than a family with a job and FIS?

Surely, from a human dignity point of view, let alone an exchequer point of view, the low-paid job with FIS is far far better than a life on pure handouts?

Furthermore, this gives people a chance. The person in a low-paying job becomes a person on a higher-paying job if they work well and achieve, letting someone else on a pure handout get the lower-paying job.

For Reals wrote: »

This little line of off road 4x4 stems from a few comments suggesting there was no free lunch and we should cut back on freebies and hand outs. I agree and pointed out our system is designed to run on handouts. We need negate the need for handouts. To do so we need address the way we do business.
Like getting a massive loan didn't save the country from ruin (as nothing was fixed) neither does taking tax money from Billy to pay Jack.

Nobody disagrees with the generality of what you are saying about handouts - there should be less government handouts, but until you are more specific about the changes you wish to make, and the likely consequential effects, and how fast the changes should be made, it is impossible to debate the issues.

George Sunsnow

For Reals wrote: »

Again with the incorrect assumptions.
I don't believe politicians should have any connection to being allocated government contracts. You're seemingly okay with that. Cula bula.
As regards my rant, what upsets you so? Where do you disagree with what I've said, what alternatives do you suggest. Swanning in to poke perceived holes may be great public service, but makes for dull input.

I'm not swanning in at all,I'm just interested in discussion
Ranting is not discussion and neither is padding
If you're not ok with T.D's businesses continuing after they're elected,you have to give a reason why and so far you have failed to do so
Suggesting corruption is out as there's no proof and besides might leave you open to legal action or at the very least require a mod to delete your post

So what's left? Jealousy?

Good loser

For Reals wrote: »

I'll break it down.
Tax payer funded hand outs are seemingly acceptable if supporting private profits.
If we cut out all tax funded handouts the 'healthy' economy would collapse.
We need to cut down on the reliance on the tax payer to help private individuals function.
The economy is a farce. 'Growth' and employment are going in the opposite direction of the reality. There is a colossal disconnect.
Prudence? What is the point of government when they cannot or are most likely unwilling to manage our affairs? You are confusing prudence with self interest.
I agree a balance must be reached for all. We've had it too much one way for too long. That's why we have crashes and scanadlous record breaking numbers in the myriad societal crises, but an economy 'growing healthily' as you put it, at the same time.
We'll likely see the next crash before any TD has the decency to put everyone on par. This isn't about freebies or handouts, it's about real intent to do a good job for everyone negating the need to subsidise private business or individuals to keep up the facade that the same system FG previously thought was broke, is all of a sudden fit for (their) purpose.
The supposed cautious optimism is in reality showing FG/FF are happy with things as is IMO. I refuse to believe they are that incompetent. The lack of will to make a start on any systemic change is intentional.

Contradictory and inchoate.

Just to take lines 2 and 3: the 'logic' of these is:- if we cut tax payer funded handouts the economy would collapse - therefore we should cut taxpayer funded handouts. Get real.

littelady

Hi all,

I don't understand why people are complaining when Leo suggested naming and shaming dole cheats. It's breaking the law, taking away employment and fraud. Please enlighten me.....also would or have you made the call and informed on somone.

LionelNashe

I think people were of the opinion that there wasn't enough fraud to justify the expense of the campaign, and that it was a distraction by Varadkar from more important issues, and a divisive attempt to appeal to the 'people who get up early in the morning'.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

New Thread merged with previous thread about FG policies. Please keep the standards reasonably high!

Bishopsback

Coming amid all the crisis, housing, health and garda controversies, this is a surprise!
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0916/905276-poll/

George Sunsnow

Personally I usually find behaviour and attitudes polls to be way less accurate than red c polls

That said people generally vote as per how their pocket feels don't they so why should it be a surprise
Plus Leo must be the most coherent Taoiseach we've ever had who actually doesn't say anything unless it's plausible
No unlikeable smirk and no humming and emming or pausing when talking ,just message

Bishopsback

I find him to be a smirking arrogant know it all personally, no substance to his good chat, will look forward to the shape of the budget to make my final judgement.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-under-fire-after-jokes-about-simon-coveney-fall-flat-36139372.html

George Sunsnow

But he does know most things,what's wrong with that?
Fed up of publicans and,teachers who hardly ever taught or chancers like Bertie in the office

Bishopsback

Bishopsback wrote: »

Coming amid all the crisis, housing, health and garda controversies, this is a surprise!
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0916/905276-poll/

Its a bit strong a lead alright but its a real sign of a fragmented and poor opposition. Not FG genius...

Roanmore

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Its a bit strong a lead alright but its a real sign of a fragmented and poor opposition. Not FG genius...

Got to agree especially when you see Jim O'Callaghan saying no action should be taken on the fake breath tests

Sleeper12

I thought the last government was an absolute disaster. I was delighted to see the back of the Enda and I promised myself I'd give leo a fair shot before I cast judgement.
I can't fault Leo yet. He got a bit of stick for the pride parade in Canada but I don't see the harm in it.
For me the real test is the rent crisis, the property crisis and the homeless crisis. All ignored by the previous government. The answer to all of the above is supply. The Garda commissioner resignation should be helpful to them. One less difficult decision to make. I'm delighted they got a boost in the polls.

Roanmore

Roanmore wrote: »

Got to agree especially when you see Jim O'Callaghan saying no action should be taken on the fake breath tests

Id say that no action should be taken.

Id say the cops had the political nod to make sure that the breath test figures were kept high for years, the cops probably had plenty of other things to worry about and nobody asked too many questions.

A show trial of a few low ranking ordinary cops will do nothing for the morale of the force. The blame is much higher up.

Rumpy Pumpy

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I thought the last government was an absolute disaster. I was delighted to see the back of the Enda and I promised myself I'd give leo a fair shot before I cast judgement.
I can't fault Leo yet. He got a bit of stick for the pride parade in Canada but I don't see the harm in it.
For me the real test is the rent crisis, the property crisis and the homeless crisis. All ignored by the previous government. The answer to all of the above is supply. The Garda commissioner resignation should be helpful to them. One less difficult decision to make. I'm delighted they got a boost in the polls.

He wrote an excellent piece in the Sindo today. Advocated the building of strategic high rise in Irishtown/Poolbeg in Dublin, and the harbour area in Galway to stop the sprawl and to help alleviate the housing shortage in both cities. Running a Luas from the CC to Poolbeg would be a no-brainer in terms of investment in infrastructure. He also spoke about building a ring-road around Galway.

Zubeneschamali

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

The blame is much higher up.

FF are saying no action should be taken, so I'd say the blame is pretty high up all right.

McMurphy

I was suprrised to read about Regina Doherty being ordered to repay+€16000 that she pocketed unlawfully, which I found hysterical.

What with her party making such a big deal about cracking down on fraud and overpayments to recipients of social welfare, and all along they were unlawfully overpaying one of their own.

You couldn't make it up.

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I was suprrised to read about Regina Doherty being ordered to repay+€16000 that she pocketed unlawfully, which I found hysterical.

What with her party making such a big deal about cracking down on fraud and overpayments to recipients of social welfare, and all along they were unlawfully overpaying one of their own.

You couldn't make it up.

If something is paid unlawfully, then it should be refunded. It seems to me that they are being consistent.