Fr McVerry supporting lessons in how to occupy properties

jjmcclure

TheCitizen wrote: »

You should be apologising to Tom Petty for that

He stole it from Bonnie Tyler

Hitman3000

jjmcclure wrote:

FG are a center left party. An agenda of increasing social welfare, taxing "high earners", exceptionally soft on crime and criminals, granny grants, totally useless on social welfare fraud!

Ah granny grants came from Ross and Co he ain't FG. Campaign for Leo was ran on tackling welfare fraud. Have you recently emigrated to Ireland?
Exceptionally soft on white collar crime is a given.
We have one of the most progressive tax systems in the OECD.

jjmcclure

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

FG are centre LEFT?

What's your basis for the centre? The National Socialist Party of early 20th century Germany?

Loolaa.

Historically center right


Now based on current policy center left

TheCitizen

jjmcclure wrote: »

FG are a center left party. An agenda of increasing social welfare, taxing "high earners", exceptionally soft on crime and criminals, granny grants, totally useless on social welfare fraud!


We need a center right party who will support hard work and success, reduce the social welfare bill substantially, eradicate social welfare fraud, brutalise criminals and above all incentivise those who contribute to society

Now I know you're at it:pac:

jjmcclure

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Ah granny grants came from Ross and Co he ain't FG. Campaign for Leo was ran on tackling welfare fraud. Have you recently emigrated to Ireland?
Exceptionally soft on white collar crime is a given.
We have one of the most progressive tax systems in the OECD.

Hmm, whats your understanding of progressive hitman?

Oh and perhaps you can describe it to me

TheCitizen

jjmcclure wrote: »

Historically center right


Now based on current policy center left

I wonder does Leo and Brian Hayes and The Blueshirts realise they're a centre-Left Party now:pac:

James Brown

jjmcclure wrote: »

FG are a center left party. An agenda of increasing social welfare, taxing "high earners", exceptionally soft on crime and criminals, granny grants, totally useless on social welfare fraud!

If they're center left the right must be the KKK ffs.

We need a center right party who will support hard work and success, reduce the social welfare bill substantially, eradicate social welfare fraud, brutalise criminals and above all incentivise those who contribute to society

Social housing, with rents based on income, which will recoup build costs over time is the most fiscally conservative way forward.
The other, current, is buying houses to use as social housing and paying rents to private landlords, not to mention hotels and B&B's. But alas that loses private concerns profit and center left FG don't play that.

TheCitizen

McClure, wasn't he the character in The Simpsons that used to give it the "My Two Cents" opinion piece?

We have Ivan Yates for "My Tuppence worth" these days.

James Brown

TheCitizen wrote: »

McClure, wasn't he the character in The Simpsons that used to give it the "My Two Cents" opinion piece?

We have Ivan Yates for "My Tuppence worth" these days.

Your thinking of Kent Brockman.

Troy McClure was more, 'Hey I'm Fine Gael, you might remember me from such public information films as 'Hitler, he seems alright' and 'The poor, natures enemy'.

McMurphy

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Your thinking of Kent Brockman.

Troy McClure was more, 'Hey I'm Fine Gael, you might remember me from such public information films as 'Hitler, he seems alright' and 'The poor, natures enemy'.

Sniggered into my tay at the above ^^^:D

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

In fairness you have spouted some crap yourself in the last few pages of comments.

ill survive this damning critique :-*

Hitman3000

jjmcclure wrote:

Hmm, whats your understanding of progressive hitman?

Same as to why it's described as progressive, earn more pay more. It's simple really. I know most hate the USC tax but it is without doubt one of the most progressive taxes ever concieved.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

ill survive this damning critique :-*

True though. Character assassination in the dead of night, nasty modus operandi tbh .

lawred2

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Same as to why it's described as progressive, earn more pay more. It's simple really. I know most hate the USC tax but it is without doubt one of the most progressive taxes ever concieved.

More progressive than progressive income tax?

Wheeliebin30

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Social housing, with rents based on income, which will recoup build costs over time is the most fiscally conservative way forward.
The other, current, is buying houses to use as social housing and paying rents to private landlords, not to mention hotels and B&B's. But alas that loses private concerns profit and center left FG don't play that.

Have you a costing for these houses and the recoup figures etc?

Hitman3000

lawred2 wrote:

More progressive than progressive income tax?

I'll take the OCED's opinion on our tax system over that of a few randomers on the internet if it's ok with you. Plus my own situation.

Subcomandante Marcos

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Have you a costing for these houses and the recoup figures etc?

The European Investment Bank does, they say public housing under a cost rental model is one of the most economically efficient investments any government could make.

lawred2

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I'll take the OCED's opinion on our tax system over that of a few randomers on the internet if it's ok with you. Plus my own situation.

Not sure what your point is.

Progressive tax is progressive. It's tautological. You seem rather impressed by what is just another progressive tax.

How is it the most progressive tax ever concieved?

Hitman3000

lawred2 wrote:

How is it the most progressive tax ever concieved?

Simple there is no way to evade it. No loopholes nada. Earn more pay more.

jjmcclure

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Same as to why it's described as progressive, earn more pay more. It's simple really. I know most hate the USC tax but it is without doubt one of the most progressive taxes ever concieved.

But do you understand how progressive?


"according to the Irish Tax Institute, in 2017 workers on €35,000 will pay 12.5 times the tax of someone on €18,000, .........Workers on €75,000 will pay over 51 times the tax of someone on €18,000 - up from a multiple of 44 times the tax before to the budget"


When you get to 120k the multiple of tax against an 18k earner is 88


Its "progressive" alright


Maybe I should have asked you if you thought "most progressive" was a positive or negative statement from the OECD

jjmcclure

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Simple there is no way to evade it. No loopholes nada. Earn more pay more.

Ahhhhh god help ye. I see what you did there Hitman. you think the OECD saying "most progressive" is a positive. ahhh the innocence. Thats not what the OECD mean.

Wheeliebin30

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

The European Investment Bank does, they say public housing under a cost rental model is one of the most economically efficient investments any government could make.

Ha not in Ireland as their is rent arrears of 50 million and the maintenance costs far out do any balancing.

Say a house costs 250,000 and someone is paying 400 month.

It would tak nearly 55 years to just recoup the money.

Anyway have you a costing on the actual building of these houses and where the money will come from?

lawred2

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Simple there is no way to evade it. No loopholes nada. Earn more pay more.

Well it's been and continues to be progressively hollowed out with each and every budget to serve at the altar of politician populism..

Hitman3000

jjmcclure wrote:

Maybe I should have asked you if you thought "most progressive" was a positive or negative statement from the OECD

Of course it's a positive.

jjmcclure wrote:

"according to the Irish Tax Institute, in 2017 workers on €35,000 will pay 12.5 times the tax of someone on €18,000, .........Workers on €75,000 will pay over 51 times the tax of someone on €18,000 - up from a multiple of 44 times the tax before to the budget"

You need to give the tax take form the worker on 18k to give 12.5 times your 51 times some context. The status of the worker married etc.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

True though. Character assassination in the dead of night, nasty modus operandi tbh .

yeah i snuck into the thread at night so that public figure fr peter mcverry wouldnt see me assassinate his character

jesus christ

Hitman3000

lawred2 wrote:

Well it's been and continues to be progressively hollowed out with each and every budget to serve at the altar of politician populism..

That's political interference, the tax itself very efficient in its simplicity.

Hitman3000

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

Say a house costs 250,000 and someone is paying 400 month.

The state still owns the house, it has an asset and is getting some return albiet very small.

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

It would tak nearly 55 years to just recoup the money.

Cheaper than a hotel room over the same period.

Wheeliebin30

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The state still owns the house, it has an asset and is getting some return albiet very small.



Cheaper than a hotel room over the same period.

The house will be fit to be knocked in 50 years!!!

Wheeliebin30

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The state still owns the house, it has an asset and is getting some return albiet very small.



Cheaper than a hotel room over the same period.

Not if you supply an infinite amount of houses at discount rates.

The country will be bust in no time.

jjmcclure

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Of course it's a positive.



You need to give the tax take form the worker on 18k to give 12.5 times your 51 times some context. The status of the worker married etc.

Enlighten us then? There is no justification for someone on less than 2x18k paying 12.5 the tax.

Straight from the OECD Hitman. Simpy the "Average" worker does not pay enough tax hence the "non average" worker pays too much

"Taking into account child related benefits and tax provisions, the employee net average tax
rate for an average married worker with two children in Ireland was reduced to 1.2% in 2017,
which is the 33rd lowest in the OECD, and compares with 14.0% for the OECD average. This means that an average married worker with two children in Ireland had a take-home pay, after tax and family benefits,
of 98.8% of their gross wage compared to 86.0% for the OECD average"