Who is everyone going to be voting for in the next general election?

various artistes

blanch152 wrote: »

What state developer?

A non existent one, unfortunately.

A housing co op in Ballymun that had a developer agreeing to only a 5 percent profit delivered 3 bed terraces for 140k.

A better use of Part V would be rather than buying "discounted" homes having the developer build homes of similar worth elsewhere.

Rubberchikken

Rubberchikken wrote: »

i wont be voting. ever again. its a complete and utter waste of time and energy.

all politicians are a waste of space. none of them have an original thought. none if them truly want to stand up and be counted. they are all in it to line their own pockets, look after their own interests and reap whatever benefits they can, honestly or otherwise.

bitter...much? you bet:(

Man, I voted for Stephen Donnelly last time, so I know the pain. Still voting though

SafeSurfer

I will be voting for parties in order of preference based on which party currently has the lowest number of TDs with double barrel names.
Therefore Solidarity-People Before Profit gets the lowest preference as it has the highest number of TDs with double barrel names.
Also stupid sounding names of TDs are weighted against the party so Hildegarde is a major no no.

hatrickpatrick

Left wing independents, right wing independents, small groupings, PBP, Soc Dems, Greens, Labour, Sinn Fein, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael in that order. My priorities would be maintaining a powerful Dáil that can actually get its job done of vetting cabinet policies without a guillotine (hence prioritising independents regardless of political views or affiliations), turning the tide away from the neoliberalism of the 1990s-2010s and back to the left wing politics of the early to mid 20th century (hence prioritising left wing parties and groups), and finally, ensuring that Fine Gael are absolutely crucified for their horrifically heartless response to the housing crisis. They will never command anything but my lowest preference ever again, as long as the party remains in the grip of neoliberalism.

LillySV

Geuze wrote: »

Nobody in Ireland pays a 50% effective income tax rate.

With all the extra charges and indirect taxes/charges then yes at least 50 %

NIMAN

LillySV wrote: »

With all the extra charges and indirect taxes/charges then yes at least 50 %

Probably no different to most developed nations?

Idbatterim

Fg are vile scum. Out of the traps quick enough to say rent can’t be frozen. But one hundred percent increases in rent v the height of the recession, no legal issues there ... varadkar selling out his own generation and the one beneath! What a rat !

cryptocurrency

Idbatterim wrote: »

Fg are vile scum. Out of the traps quick enough to say rent can’t be frozen. But one hundred percent increases in rent v the height of the recession, no legal issues there ... varadkar selling out his own generation and the one beneath! What a rat !

You can't be crtical of Varadkar as you'll be seen as unwoke

McMurphy

cryptocurrency wrote: »

You can't be crtical of Varadkar as you'll be seen as unwoke

It's spouting nosensical bolloxology about brexit that usually portrays a poster as unwoke on these forums I find.

cryptocurrency

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It's spouting nosensical bolloxology about brexit that usually portrays a poster as unwoke on these forums I find.

On these forums...you said it. It's an echo chamber of the horrendously wrong.

Nobody can rationally look as a neutral and say what is said here. This is Ireland and of course peoples opinions are biased with clouded emotions and delusions that we've picked the right horse...........we haven't.

Geuze

various artistes wrote: »

What would be the point of this when it's mixed with the policies of all left wing parties to immigration, specifically that of asylum seekers/ refugees?

All left wing parties as a matter of policy believe in:

a- Little to no restriction on the numbers of asylum seekers/ refugees our state should take in a given year

b- That these people should receive priority allocation of available social/ subsidised housing over Irish taxpayers renting privately or even welfare recipients already on housing lists.

If this sounds like hyperbole, demands by PBP and SF to end Direct Provision would lead to exactly this- we would, tomorrow, have 6000 people for whom DP is not good enough, and who would need to be housed before the next 6000 mostly native households currently on the list had their housing need met. That's not hyperbole, it is a simple fact that people like Ruth Coppinger have a white guilt complex and believe that there is no situation where an Irish person is in greater need of services than a member of a minority.

So I ask, what is the point in the SP building 75,000 new units in five years, as their policy piece says they would, when they would admit more than that number of asylum seekers and bump them straight up the list?

Agreed.

A genuine workers party would put workers first.

You've paid a lot of PRSI? OK, cheaper, easier access to healthcare/pensions/housing for you.

You haven't paid PRSI? Not as much access.

Field east

Mad_maxx wrote: »

FF are further to the left than at any other time since the 1950,s, Michael Martin could be the leader of the Labour Party right now, that's how opposite of Conservative he is, FF were never a friend of the tax payer but are especially spendthrift right now

When a party is in power - and especially in a single party situation- it has to have a tendency to behave conservatively/ right singly - simply because it has to watch the finances. Eg don’t kill the goose that lays the golden leg. The Gov has to keep the business sector/ tax paying sector happy so that the money comes in to pay for all the social costs it would like to be able to meet. So the whole thing is a balancing thing and the income /expenditure position is definitely not limitless. So the Party in power has to be careful.

IF A PARTY IS IN OPPOSITION it does not have the same responsibility/constraints as a party in power would have , so it can afford to be more liberal, more left and more socially inclined.
FF has held power for most of the period from the 50s right up to 2011 and have been in ‘opposition’ since
Maybe this substantially explains the change you are suggesting.
The same would go for any other party -including SF if it ever got into power

Geuze

LillySV wrote: »

With all the extra charges and indirect taxes/charges then yes at least 50 %

No.

All taxes, all of them, add up to about 30% of GDP.

Let us check that, let us establish the facts.

All taxes in 2018 = 74,024m


https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/gfsa/governmentfinancestatisticsoctober2019/

2018 GDP = 324bn

So all taxes are 22.85% of GDP. All taxes are 23% of our income.


Now, I hear you say, GDP is not a good measure of income.

Correct, so let's use GNI* instead.

GNI* = 197.5, bn so all taxes are 37.5% of all income.


Let me repeat that to make it clear - all taxes are 37.5% of GNI* income.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

Nobody in Ireland pays a 50% effective income tax rate.

When I consider my parents, we are a very generous country, in some ways;

They pay 8% direct taxes on income about 48k-49k.

In return, they get:

2x full med cards
2x FTP free travel pass
free TV licence
35 pm / 420 pa off electricity


Other countries provide benefits like this, yes, but charge way more than 8% direct income tax.

cryptocurrency

Geuze wrote: »

No.

All taxes, all of them, add up to about 30% of GDP.

Let us check that, let us establish the facts.

All taxes in 2018 = 74,024m


https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/gfsa/governmentfinancestatisticsoctober2019/

2018 GDP = 324bn

So all taxes are 22.85% of GDP. All taxes are 23% of our income.


Now, I hear you say, GDP is not a good measure of income.

Correct, so let's use GNI* instead.

GNI* = 197.5, bn so all taxes are 37.5% of all income.


Let me repeat that to make it clear - all taxes are 37.5% of GNI* income.

All taxes..All, all...you sure?

Field east

Deleted User wrote: »

By any developed world standard, Fine Gael are a right wing party. The only thing up for discussion is how far right they are.

A very good example of the shallowness of a lot of arguments here and on other topics. FG is a right wing party - how dare they!. SF is very left wing- the cheek of them!
To bring some reality as to how extreme or otherwise each party is on a scale of 10 to 0 to 10 - 0 being neither being L or R-then where would you put each party - taking a 20 year perspective on the matter. Lump in the DUP, the Republican and democratic parties (US), the Tories, Liberal and Labour parties (UK).
For what it’s worth this would be my take:-
10 DUP
9 Republican(US
9. Tories(UK)
4 Democrats(US) the
4. FG
4 Lib Dems
3. FF
0. Greens(Irl)
2 Labour(Irl)
5 SF
7 Labour(UK
10 PBP (irl)
So as per the above , should we thank ‘our lucky stars’ that the bulk of the Irish political parties are not more right or left wing than they are. It’s all a bit relative though

cryptocurrency

Field east wrote: »

A very good example of the shallowness of a lot of arguments here and on other topics. FG is a right wing party - how dare they!. SF is very left wing- the cheek of them!
To bring some reality as to how extreme or otherwise each party is on a scale of 10 to 0 to 10 - 0 being neither being L or R-then where would you put each party - taking a 20 year perspective on the matter. Lump in the DUP, the Republican and democratic parties (US), the Tories, Liberal and Labour parties (UK).
For what it’s worth this would be my take:-
10 DUP
9 Republican(US
9. Tories(UK)
4 Democrats(US) the
4. FG
4 Lib Dems
3. FF
0. Greens(Irl)
2 Labour(Irl)
5 SF
7 Labour(UK
10 PBP (irl)
So as per the above , should we thank ‘our lucky stars’ that the bulk of the Irish political parties are not more right or left wing than they are. It’s all a bit relative though

There should be a more economically right of centre party, a more libertarian one

rossie1977

cryptocurrency wrote: »

There should be a more economically right of centre party, a more libertarian one

Who will vote for a party whose main aim is to do nothing essentially

cryptocurrency

rossie1977 wrote: »

Who will vote for a party whose main aim is to do nothing essentially

People who don't want to be taxed for rubbish service

rossie1977

cryptocurrency wrote: »

People who don't want to be taxed for rubbish service

Tax pays for police, fire brigade, public lighting, roads/bridges, water flowing into every building in the country, sewage, dumps and recycling centres, building of schools, hospitals, army, coast guard, libraries, vaccinations for kids, museums, prison service, public parks, cleaning of beaches, the court system, zoos, irish rail/bus eireann/dublin bus, public pensions among other things.

Imagine the reaction if someone tried to privatise all those things.

tototoe

No idea yet, but I will no longer be giving FG or FF a vote, not a single preference. I'll check the rest of the candidates and make a call on it then.

cryptocurrency

rossie1977 wrote: »

Tax pays for police, fire brigade, public lighting, roads/bridges, water flowing into every building in the country, sewage, dumps and recycling centres, building of schools, hospitals, army, coast guard, libraries, vaccinations for kids, museums, prison service, public parks, cleaning of beaches, the court system, zoos, irish rail/bus eireann/dublin bus, public pensions among other things.

Imagine the reaction if someone tried to privatise all those things.

we pay for them twice then. Also Roads, Bridges, Prisons, Hospitals, Museums, etc can all be paid for serivces at the point of use

blanch152

various artistes wrote: »

A non existent one, unfortunately.

A housing co op in Ballymun that had a developer agreeing to only a 5 percent profit delivered 3 bed terraces for 140k.

A better use of Part V would be rather than buying "discounted" homes having the developer build homes of similar worth elsewhere.

Isn't that the issue, and the real problem with the nonsense spouted about the State building houses?

There is no State developer, there is no capacity to build houses, they get procurement wrong all the time. All of the posters on here and parties out there who talk about the State building houses haven't a clue how to address those issues other than waving a magic wand.

Annasopra

cryptocurrency wrote: »

we pay for them twice then. Also Roads, Bridges, Prisons, Hospitals, Museums, etc can all be paid for serivces at the point of use

Meaning basically fu ck working class and poor people under every bus

Better Than Christ

cryptocurrency wrote: »

There should be a more economically right of centre party, a more libertarian one

We had one (the PDs) and the public said "no thanks".

rossie1977

cryptocurrency wrote: »

we pay for them twice then. Also Roads, Bridges, Prisons, Hospitals, Museums, etc can all be paid for serivces at the point of use

The cost to the public of zoos, public transportation is subsidised by tax. We have a very small population and running a private bus service to every town or maintaining our rail service privately would be impossible with massive hike in fares.

OK imagine every road, bridge, hospital and prison in the country was privately owned. The thought of every road and bridge throughout the country tolled in itself is assuming in itself. Only certain people would be allowed use or could afford use the service for one. Secondly private companies exist for one purpose and that's to make profit and reward shareholders. Anything running at a loss or even below expectations would be shut. Vast sections of the road network would be shut down outside major urban centres.

tayto lover

cryptocurrency wrote: »

There should be a more economically right of centre party, a more libertarian one

Greens, PD’s?
No thanks. They’re bigger wasters and turn coat for a little power as we already know.

Feisar

blanch152 wrote: »

Isn't that the issue, and the real problem with the nonsense spouted about the State building houses?

There is no State developer, there is no capacity to build houses, they get procurement wrong all the time. All of the posters on here and parties out there who talk about the State building houses haven't a clue how to address those issues other than waving a magic wand.

I work in the building trade, the government couldn't procure a pissup in a brewery.

James Brown

various artistes wrote: »

What would be the point of this when it's mixed with the policies of all left wing parties to immigration, specifically that of asylum seekers/ refugees?

All left wing parties as a matter of policy believe in:

a- Little to no restriction on the numbers of asylum seekers/ refugees our state should take in a given year

b- That these people should receive priority allocation of available social/ subsidised housing over Irish taxpayers renting privately or even welfare recipients already on housing lists.

If this sounds like hyperbole, demands by PBP and SF to end Direct Provision would lead to exactly this- we would, tomorrow, have 6000 people for whom DP is not good enough, and who would need to be housed before the next 6000 mostly native households currently on the list had their housing need met. That's not hyperbole, it is a simple fact that people like Ruth Coppinger have a white guilt complex and believe that there is no situation where an Irish person is in greater need of services than a member of a minority.

So I ask, what is the point in the SP building 75,000 new units in five years, as their policy piece says they would, when they would admit more than that number of asylum seekers and bump them straight up the list?

You got links to back these up?

James Brown

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Sooooooo.

Still no cost analysis or figures of how many social house you want built.

I’ll keep asking, hopefully I’ll get an answer.

By the way I love how you put up figures about how it’s more expensive to buy rather than build.

Even though my question was to back up your claim it’s more beneficial to the tax payer if we provide a social house rather than pay for HAP.

Talk about dodging the question and throwing some ****e in hoping it sticks.

Whenever your ready to answer the question that was asked of you yesterday.

Did you skip the article? I see you got planning permission to move the goal posts. Flaw in your diversion, I never gave a figure on how many is needed so therefore never promised or claimed to have a costing for any specific number.

No you are outright making stuff up. It's about the benefit of HAP over social now? You're a cod merchant.

Don't waste my time and yours by asking questions on things I never spoke about.

Building is cheaper than buying or leasing, be it HAP, FG brand social etc. thems the facts.
That's my point all along.

Read the article for response to this:

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Another misleading nonsense figure.

It will cost the government more in what statistic?

Over 30 years? 20? 5?

What do we do with the family on HAP in the meantime as we put the money from HAP into building social housing?

Can’t do both with the same money, but I know you socialists have no grasp of where money comes from.

Do you not see how stupid your defense is? We don't have the money for social housing builds, but we do have more money for social housing buys and leases? Seriously man, give it up.

Now you tell me, third time asking, how do developers and builders make a living if building is more expensive than buying? This was your argument.
Still waiting on what you base low paid workers being ungrateful for state aid.

How many do we need? As many as it takes.

Building social housing is cheaper than buying it or leasing it from market. FG and the LA's are wasting tax payer money to prop up vulture funds and other private concerns at a loss to the tax payer. Fiscally conservative my hole. The key reason I'll not vote FG this time around.