European Parliament Elections 2019

Hurrache

Blueshoe wrote: »

Not you

My sentiment wouldn't be far off.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Some result for Cuffe in Dublin 11% in opinion polls to 23% in the election... Fitzgerald who was expected to top the pol at 17% in opinion polls drops to 14%

The Greens potentially winning three seats, and SF potentially losing two of their three are the two biggest stories of the election. Very happy with that.

friendlyfun

I can see other political parties enhancing their climate policies now...

charlie14

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I'll be happy to pay a bit extra.
FG have buried this issue for the last 10 years.

If it forces me and others to change our heating systems on our house then it has to be done

If it means getting electric cars, then great once I know I'll be able to charge it

The European elections are a totally different ball game to national elections. With the European ou can stand on a principle alone, but unlike the nationals you are not really quizzed on the cost to any great degree.
Come the GE, the Greens are, same as the problem SF have in GE`s, going to be asked to quantify in detail the cost of their manifesto and how it will be funded.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

The European elections are a totally different ball game to national elections. With the European ou can stand on a principle alone, but unlike the nationals you are not really quizzed on the cost to any great degree.
Come the GE, the Greens are, same as the problem SF have in GE`s, going to be asked to quantify in detail the cost of their manifesto and how it will be funded.

Carbon taxes are the future.

There is a substantial number of voters who will vote for those revenue-raising measures.

Tell me how

The Specialist wrote: »

No - as I said I could not care less. I have finite time in this world, what happened before or happens after me is irrelevant.

I'm glad people with this view are few and far between. The human race would never have lasted this long if such a position had been widely held.

Loafing Oaf

friendlyfun wrote: »

I can see other political parties enhancing their climate policies now...

Not a no-brainer for FF and FG though. They could still see themselves as losing more votes than they would gain through 'short-term pain' measures like carbon taxes. They will certainly be watching each other like hawks to see what the other guy does on this front and how it goes down with the electorate.

davidjtaylor

seamus wrote: »

Punished? No. We should all be encouraged to think about living our lives in ways that are sustainable.

Such as being encouraged to not buy a massive car when all you do is drive it to work and the shops.

Thing is, at a population level, people are incapable of acting selflessly off their own bat. Left to the individual's own choice, people will choose what is most convenient for themselves at the expense of the planet, because "I can't make a difference anyway".

Differences are made in the large scale, but that's entirely dependent on everyone making an effort at the small scale; whether out of pure altruism or because it's the cheaper option.

If you choose to drive a larger vehicle and use your vehicle for all your journies without regard to whether you actually need to, then logically that should be far more inconvenient for you than buying a smaller car and leaving it at home when you could walk or cycle instead.

This has my vote (!) for being one of the most sensible posts I've seen in a long time. Thanks seamus, please stand for election next time.

stefanovich

davidjtaylor wrote: »

This has my vote (!) for being one of the most sensible posts I've seen in a long time. Thanks seamus, please stand for election next time.

A large car driven twice a year causes a lot less pollution that a small car driven every day.

Tax the fuel. Only logical approach.

Diarmuid

blanch152 wrote: »

Carbon taxes are the future.

There is a substantial number of voters who will vote for those revenue-raising measures.

Revenue raising? More like covering the cost of the externalities of burning oil.

Blueshoe

blanch152 wrote: »

Carbon taxes are the future.

There is a substantial number of voters who will vote for those revenue-raising measures.

*Only for taxpayers.

For parasites living off the state life will go on as normal.

Tell me how

Blueshoe wrote: »

*Only for taxpayers.

For parasites living off the state life will go on as normal

Everyone who spends money, pays tax in some form.

Also, to counter your obviously prejudiced viewpoint. Unemployment is currently at 5.4% meaning 94.6% of the country who can be considered as being in a position to do so, are paying income tax. That seems to me like a pretty strong basis on which to proceed with taxation strategies.

robman60

blanch152 wrote: »

The Greens potentially winning three seats, and SF potentially losing two of their three are the two biggest stories of the election. Very happy with that.

I still think they will get two. Hard to see Ní Riada getting caught if the polls are right. Carthy is in for sure too. She has enough of a lead I think. I really think Boylan is out though. The small hard left candidates and even Gannon of the SDs are more likely to transfer to Daly than Boylan I think.

Her only chance is Andrews doesn't have enough of a lead on first preferences and she reels him in. Can't see where he is going to get votes from except maybe a few of Durkan's. FF were third on FPV five years ago with around 12.5% and they ended up fifth when Greens and Childers passed Fitzpatrick on transfers.

So Cuffe, Fitzgerald, Daly and then a complete coin toss for the last seat if the polls are accurate.

stefanovich

Tell me how wrote: »

Everyone who spends money, pays tax in some form.

Also, to counter your obviously prejudiced viewpoint. Unemployment is currently at 5.4% meaning 94.6% of the country who can be considered as being in a position to do so, are paying income tax. That seems to me like a pretty strong basis on which to proceed with taxation strategies.

A lot of people who are working on low wage pay no tax or receive more from the government than they pay.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

More than 1/3 of our work force (~1+ mil people) do not pay any income tax.

While the top 7% income earners pay ~55% of all income tax. Is that fair?

Blueshoe

Tell me how wrote: »

Everyone who spends money, pays tax in some form.

Also, to counter your obviously prejudiced viewpoint. Unemployment is currently at 5.4% meaning 94.6% of the country who can be considered as being in a position to do so, are paying income tax. That seems to me like a pretty strong basis on which to proceed with taxation strategies.

Prejudiced! If they don't work they don't work. No prejudice in it. It's fact! What is happening to people.
Crazy

I received a warning earlier so I will have to bow out and leave you to it before I'm banned for making my real feeling known . Peace

Tell me how

Ahmed Square Tribune wrote: »

More than 1/3 of our work force (~1+ mil people) do not pay any income tax.

And do you consider them parasites living off the state?

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Carbon taxes are the future.

There is a substantial number of voters who will vote for those revenue-raising measures.

I would be very sceptical as to just how substantial that number will be after a national election campaign where the Greens will have to spell out in detail just what those carbon taxes will be and how, where and to who they will apply.


I have followed a lot of election campaigns in my time and I cannot remember any party gaining in support by promising to raise taxes.

davidjtaylor

stefanovich wrote: »

A large car driven twice a year causes a lot less pollution that a small car driven every day.

Tax the fuel. Only logical approach.

Taxing the fuel is one of a range of logical approaches. For me, it's too far 'down the chain'. CO2 and its equivalents should be heavily taxed before they enter the chain.

Plus, there's the huge contribution to pollution and resource use that both cars are responsible for before being even driven.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Of course not, unsure why you jumped to that conclusion?. However I strongly believe that each and every worker should pay some level of income tax.

Tell me how wrote: »

And do you consider them parasites living off the state?

stefanovich

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Taxing the fuel is one of a range of logical approaches. For me, it's too far 'down the chain'. CO2 and its equivalents should be heavily taxed before they enter the chain.

Plus, there's the huge contribution to pollution and resource use that both cars are responsible for before being even driven.

The car is not fuel. Fuel is already heavily taxed. Who do you want to tax? The Saudis?

Tell me how

Ahmed Square Tribune wrote: »

Of course not, unsure why you jumped to that conclusion?. However I strongly believe that each and every worker should pay some level of income tax.

Someone previously implied that those not paying taxes were such.

I don't disagree with the principle that everyone should pay some level of tax, but, the argument could then be made that if so, then social welfare payments would have to increase as some low income earners could just not afford to live if they had to pay tax.

Tell me how

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Taxing the fuel is one of a range of logical approaches. For me, it's too far 'down the chain'. CO2 and its equivalents should be heavily taxed before they enter the chain.

Plus, there's the huge contribution to pollution and resource use that both cars are responsible for before being even driven.

Government already get 60% of the price of every litre of fuel sold in the country.

stefanovich

Tell me how wrote: »

Government already get 60% of the price of every litre of fuel sold in the country.

I would say tax fuel in place of road tax.

badtoro

Was it Mick Walllace that was on about carbon taxing the companies that produce the fuels in one of the debates? Seems a more sensible approach that will speed the R&D and spread for clean fuels.

But because it's sensible, and because loads of people likely without many options wouldn't be hurt by it, it won't happen.

Blueshoe

stefanovich wrote: »

I would say tax fuel in place of road tax.

How about a flat 2% on everyone in the workforce. Including the million or so who currently pay no income tax and those on social welfare.
It's fair across the field

charlie14

Ahmed Square Tribune wrote: »

Of course not, unsure why you jumped to that conclusion?. However I strongly believe that each and every worker should pay some level of income tax.

Grant you it is a theory, but would it be even cost neutral to the state if by taxing many of the low paid it then had to step in with supplementary benefit payments ?

stefanovich

Blueshoe wrote: »

How about a flat 2% on everyone in the workforce. Including the million or so who currently pay no income tax.
It's fair across the field

Flat tax = good tax

charlie14

stefanovich wrote: »

Flat tax = good tax

Flat square or round it would still be a tax and in a country where practically everyone nowadays complains we are already taxed up the wazoo, it would not be an easy sell when looking for votes.

Blueshoe

charlie14 wrote: »

Flat square or round it would still be a tax and in a country where practically everyone nowadays complains we are already taxed up the wazoo, it would not be an easy sell when looking for votes.

If people can afford 2k rent a month and pints every weekend surely they can give a few euro to save mother earth