Leo Varadkar post Taoiseach

_Kaiser_

Idbatterim wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-ill-hike-pension-if-re-elected-38818990.html

From that article..

The Taoiseach said pension hikes would be linked to either the cost of living or increases in national earnings if Fine Gael is leading the next government.

At the same press conference, the Taoiseach also said Fine Gael would be campaigning in the election on a platform of cutting taxes for middle-income earners.

Mr Varadkar also pledged to return to the negotiating table with unions and discuss pay increases for public sector workers.

The Taoiseach said it was part of his "mission in politics" to make sure "hard-working people, middle-income people" have "more money in their pockets".

So not quite the "people who get up early", but the same general nonsense from Leo. Seems to have dropped the "abolish USC" line though!

2 points...

- Tell me again how FG are the "responsible" party. Seems giveaways for everyone are on the cards if we vote them in*
- Fool me once....


*not a guarantee. In fact you can pretty much guarantee that any cuts will be swallowed by whatever new charges or taxes they bring in to compensate

Mr Varadkar said he was not "ashamed" of his own record on housing and homelessness and instead pointed to Mr Martin claiming he would introduce a lower rate of VAT on housing construction while separately saying he would force the Central Bank to change its lending rules.

The Taoiseach said EU laws would not allow separate VAT rates and said Mr Martin "either doesn't know or care that the Central Bank is independent under Irish law and European law".

"That's the kind of rubbish you're hearing from Fianna Fail on housing - they should be embarrassed to talk about it, quite frankly," he added.

After nearly a decade in Government (the last few as leader), Leo is not in a position to be lecturing ANYONE about housing given the situation we find ourselves in as a direct result of their (in)action.


Leo must be getting desperate. But there are no doubt those who will believe that THIS time he means it, honest! :rolleyes:

is_that_so

Millicently wrote: »

How has NAMA been a good thing? As far as I can see it's selling off property dirt cheap to foreign Vulture Funds who then sell it on at a massive profit or charge exorbitant rents if there are sitting tenants, a lot of those tenants then become homeless because they can't afford the rent increase and end up in hotel rooms because they are homeless and the state via the taxpayer has to fund that. For most people Affordable Housing is massively out of their reach.

You're not looking at what it was supposed to do, which was to take bad debt out of the banking system. It did this very successfully and it did us a huge favour in terms of weeding out developers. Most of what was sold was not residential. As for the rest of this well it's not a charity and I'd guess you've always disliked the concept of NAMA on principle.

tayto lover

After the election I think FG will realise how much Varadkar cost them.
They made a big mistake making him leader instead of Coveney imo.
It will come back to bite them.
He’s the Prince Philip of Irish politics.

is_that_so

tayto lover wrote: »

After the election I think FG will realise how much Varadkar cost them.
They made a big mistake making him leader instead of Coveney imo.
It will come back to bite them.

If the current trends of party support hold up this may prove to be inaccurate, although I think FF may have a slight advantage in seats and better placed to form a government.

Snow Garden

is_that_so wrote: »

You're not looking at what it was supposed to do, which was to take bad debt out of the banking system. It did this very successfully and it did us a huge favour in terms of weeding out developers. Most of what was sold was not residential. As for the rest of this well it's not a charity and I'd guess you've always disliked the concept of NAMA on principle.

NAMA protected a lot of unscrupulous developers. They essentially paid developers to manage their own porrfolio of debt until things improved. The same developers are back printing money again. No repercussions.

Eric Cartman

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

From that article..






So not quite the "people who get up early", but the same general nonsense from Leo. Seems to have dropped the "abolish USC" line though!

2 points...

- Tell me again how FG are the "responsible" party. Seems giveaways for everyone are on the cards if we vote them in*
- Fool me once....


*not a guarantee. In fact you can pretty much guarantee that any cuts will be swallowed by whatever new charges or taxes they bring in to compensate




After nearly a decade in Government (the last few as leader), Leo is not in a position to be lecturing ANYONE about housing given the situation we find ourselves in as a direct result of their (in)action.


Leo must be getting desperate. But there are no doubt those who will believe that THIS time he means it, honest! :rolleyes:

Anyone who trusts him on helping the middle class should just stay at home that day, hes had a decade and only hurt the middle class more, hasnt lowered tax, hasnt abolished USC, he’s been a nightmare for the tax payer. How many times can ge run on the same promise and not deliver

Eric Cartman

Snow Garden wrote: »

NAMA protected a lot of unscrupulous developers. They essentially paid developers to manage their own porrfolio of debt until things improved. The same developers are back printing money again. No repercussions.

Did it ever occur that society did need those developpers, like bankrupting them and sending them away is all well and good but what happens when you need property again

Snow Garden

is_that_so wrote: »

If the current trends of party support hold up this may prove to be inaccurate, although I think FF may have a slight advantage in seats and better placed to form a government.

Fine Gael wont be able to buy a transfer vote. That's where they will lose many seats.

Snow Garden

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Did it ever occur that society did need those developpers, like bankrupting them and sending them away is all well and good but what happens when you need property again

Not developers who built shoddy houses and did not pay subcontractors and hid their money.
Unscrupulous developers are not needed.

McMurphy

Snow Garden wrote: »

Fine Gael wont be able to buy a transfer vote. That's where they will lose many seats.

This, and with the still very recent scandals of Madigan (people keep overlooking her role in this) and Bailey trying to do one over on a Dublin business via a personal injury claim, Dara Murphy doing two jobs with Leo's (and the top brass within FGs) blessing, and the recent expenses scandals by various TDs and senators from FG, I wouldn't be counting on transfers if I were Leo.

Core vote will turn out, but I don't envisage many transfers going their way.

Eric Cartman

McMurphy wrote: »

This, and with the still very recent scandals of Madigan (people keep overlooking her role in this) and Bailey trying to do one over on a Dublin business via a personal injury claim, Dara Murphy doing two jobs with Leo's (and the top brass within FGs) blessing, and the recent expenses scandals by various TDs and senators from FG, I wouldn't be counting on transfers if I were Leo.

Core vote will turn out, but I don't envisage many transfers going their way.

Problem is I can already see INM, RTE and the LVA wringing their hands together waiting for MM to win and FF doing deals for a broadcasting charge on us all and minimum unit pricing for ‘health’

seamus

McMurphy wrote: »

Core vote will turn out, but I don't envisage many transfers going their way.

It's a hard call. After the crash, lots of lifelong FFers started cursing out FF. I've heard lifelong FGers now curse out FG for being wishy-washy and ineffectual, but lament the fact that FF are no better, and they will never vote SF as long as they live.

The over 50s contingent will always decide an election, and they're in a really weird place. There is and always will be the hardcore FF & FGers, but everyone else is left in limbo. FF & FG are two cheeks of the same arse. They will never vote for SF, but they don't see any alternative that properly speaks to them. SocDems are too new, Labour too much of a mess, Lefties too lefty. The Greens, maybe, but could equally be seen as too new/lefty.

I really can't see the next election turning out a government very different from the current one. FF and FG will both land somewhere between 40 and 60 seats each.

The question is whether the current arrangement of a minority government will continue (perhaps with the chairs switched), whether they'll finally go into a formal coalition, or whether someone will grasp the SF nettle.

Eric Cartman

seamus wrote: »

It's a hard call. After the crash, lots of lifelong FFers started cursing out FF. I've heard lifelong FGers now curse out FG for being wishy-washy and ineffectual, but lament the fact that FF are no better, and they will never vote SF as long as they live.

The over 50s contingent will always decide an election, and they're in a really weird place. There is and always will be the hardcore FF & FGers, but everyone else is left in limbo. FF & FG are two cheeks of the same arse. They will never vote for SF, but they don't see any alternative that properly speaks to them. SocDems are too new, Labour too much of a mess, Lefties too lefty. The Greens, maybe, but could equally be seen as too new/lefty.

I really can't see the next election turning out a government very different from the current one. FF and FG will both land somewhere between 40 and 60 seats each.

The question is whether the current arrangement of a minority government will continue (perhaps with the chairs switched), whether they'll finally go into a formal coalition, or whether someone will grasp the SF nettle.

This is my problem, I just want somebody to look after the middle class, promise to cut taxes and actually do it, put more money back in my pocket , just do that and ill be happy.

gifted

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is my problem, I just want somebody to look after the middle class, promise to cut taxes and actually do it, put more money back in my pocket , just do that and ill be happy.

But if they do that for us then there is the possibility that a lot of other people might...might....have to try and get a job and you know.......




Pay for things....

Eric Cartman

gifted wrote: »

But if they do that for us then there is the possibility that a lot of other people might...might....have to try and get a job and you know.......

Well i didnt realise it would negatively impact them that much , if 18 year old able bodied chantelle has to get a job then she wont have time to get shítfaced on a tuesday and get herself pregnant , youre right i have to keep paying an extortionate rate of tax so chantelle can make us a new generation of criminals

gifted

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well i didnt realise it would negatively impact them that much , if 18 year old able bodied chantelle has to get a job then she wont have time to get shítfaced on a tuesday and get herself pregnant , youre right i have to keep paying an extortionate rate of tax so chantelle can make us a new generation of criminals

It's not just the Chantelles of this world.....unfortunately it's the system that is way too generous.......makes it harder to give up the system.......which means it's us the middle/working class that has to keep funding it.

seamus

The reality is that reducing the burden on the middle classes means raising the taxes on the higher earners. More lower earners in the economy is a good thing, but the impact on income tax receipts is negligible.

We need a third tax band on higher incomes as well as higher taxes on unearned income. This is where the money is to look after the middle classes and put money back in peoples' pockets.

gifted

seamus wrote: »

The reality is that reducing the burden on the middle classes means raising the taxes on the higher earners. More lower earners in the economy is a good thing, but the impact on income tax receipts is negligible.

We need a third tax band on higher incomes as well as higher taxes on unearned income. This is where the money is to look after the middle classes and put money back in peoples' pockets.

What about putting a time limit on the SW system?

You work for 10 years you get the SW and all the help you need for 10 years but made aware that the tap is turned down after the 10 years is up so you need to get back out and work find work ( any tax paying work)

You never work then you get a bare amount...nothing extra....a great motivation to find any type of tax paying work......

Basically the longer you work the longer the SW is there for you when it's needed.


People will probably find a lot of faults with those suggestions but something is going to have to be done......I'm sick of paying for the long term unemployed beer drinking smoking neighbours boiler to be serviced for free down the road from me

Eric Cartman

seamus wrote: »

The reality is that reducing the burden on the middle classes means raising the taxes on the higher earners. More lower earners in the economy is a good thing, but the impact on income tax receipts is negligible.

We need a third tax band on higher incomes as well as higher taxes on unearned income. This is where the money is to look after the middle classes and put money back in peoples' pockets.

Or just cut welfare spending and introduce the almost million people in this country who pay no tax on low incomes to tax.

This is where a 20% flat tax would be an ideal scenario, everyone pays a fair share

Fann Linn

gifted wrote: »

What about putting a time limit on the SW system?

You work for 10 years you get the SW and all the help you need for 10 years but made aware that the tap is turned down after the 10 years is up so you need to get back out and work find work ( any tax paying work)

You never work then you get a bare amount...nothing extra....a great motivation to find any type of tax paying work......

Basically the longer you work the longer the SW is there for you when it's needed.


People will probably find a lot of faults with those suggestions but something is going to have to be done......I'm sick of paying for the long term unemployed beer drinking smoking neighbours boiler to be serviced for free down the road from me

The Dutch have a system similar to what you describe.In a nutshell, as you enter unemployment etc you get a payout on your previous earnings, and then that SW payout gets gradually reduced in increments the longer you stay outta work.

gifted

Fann Linn wrote: »

The Dutch have a system similar to what you describe.In a nutshell, as you enter unemployment etc you get a payout on your previous earnings, and then that SW payout gets gradually reduced in increments the longer you stay outta work.

Bloody Dutch....I thought I came up with that in genius idea ...lol lol

charlie14

Snow Garden wrote: »

Fine Gael wont be able to buy a transfer vote. That's where they will lose many seats.

Traditionally FG mopped up those last seats because of Lab transfers.
In 2016 FG and Lab ran a transfer friendly campaign as government partners where FG got 53% of Lab transfers nationally which again helped them take those last few seats that made the difference.



Lab took a hammering in 2016 with not just a huge drop in their first preference vote, but also in transfers where they only picked up 7%.
They were sore over the battering they took and ruled out any hopes of entering another coalition with FG.


I do not get any sense among Lab of a wish to form another coalition anytime soon with FG, blaming them for a lot of the 2011 -2016 government decisions that caused the damage.
In a tight contest, which seems more than likely next GE, if Lab are looking elsewhere for a partner then a lack of there transfers will cost FG seats and I cannot see where else they will get transfers from to off set that.


There has been no indication of any gains for FG or FF that will give either a working majority in the near, or even distant future, without a coalition partner.
The only options for that are a FG/FF coalition or a coalition of either of the two with SF.

charlie14

Fann Linn wrote: »

The Dutch have a system similar to what you describe.In a nutshell, as you enter unemployment etc you get a payout on your previous earnings, and then that SW payout gets gradually reduced in increments the longer you stay outta work.

Didn`t we have something similar under the old Pay Related Social Insurance (PRSI) before it became just another tax scam ?

is_that_so

Snow Garden wrote: »

NAMA protected a lot of unscrupulous developers. They essentially paid developers to manage their own porrfolio of debt until things improved. The same developers are back printing money again. No repercussions.

No, they took a good look at ALL developers they scooped up in their portfolio, wound up the dead wood, invited others into NAMA under their rules and some still went down. What was left is the best of the bunch. What they also did was retain the expertise of developer in cases where it made good business sense and where projects could be completed.
Much as some people would have liked to see them all strung up on a bridge, the real world is a far more pragmatic place.

charlie14

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Or just cut welfare spending and introduce the almost million people in this country who pay no tax on low incomes to tax.

This is where a 20% flat tax would be an ideal scenario, everyone pays a fair share

If you are imposing a 20% flat tax on low incomes then you would more than likely end up with the majority of these households having to claim benefits such as the family income supplement, or you would need to raise the minimum wage.


Those on low incomes pay the USC and are charged the same rate of VAT on goods and services as everyone else.

is_that_so

Snow Garden wrote: »

Fine Gael wont be able to buy a transfer vote. That's where they will lose many seats.

Based on what exactly?

charlie14

is_that_so wrote: »

Based on what exactly?

As I said earlier, if they cannot hold the 53% of transfers they got from Lab in 2016 then those last seats they picked up then will become very precarious.

Riskymove

charlie14 wrote: »

As I said earlier, if they cannot hold the 53% of transfers they got from Lab in 2016 then those last seats they picked up then will become very precarious.

in fairness, that's very different to not being able to "buy a transfer vote"

I agree that the issue for them will be holding some 2nd or 3rd seats picked up last time

but the recent bye elections show plenty of transfers, Emer Higgins doubled her 1st count for example

charlie14

Riskymove wrote: »

in fairness, that's very different to not being able to "buy a transfer vote"

I agree that the issue for them will be holding some 2nd or 3rd seats picked up last time

but the recent bye elections show plenty of transfers, Emer Higgins doubled her 1st count for example

Not really.

Those 2nd and 3rd seats last time were greatly helped by Lab transfers of 53% nationally.

If FG do not get them this time in that ratio it is difficult to see where else they will make up the shortfall.

seamus

gifted wrote: »

What about putting a time limit on the SW system?

You work for 10 years you get the SW and all the help you need for 10 years but made aware that the tap is turned down after the 10 years is up so you need to get back out and work find work ( any tax paying work)

You never work then you get a bare amount...nothing extra....a great motivation to find any type of tax paying work......

Basically the longer you work the longer the SW is there for you when it's needed.

We do already have this, in effect. The welfare available to you reduces over time after you lose your job until you're just on basic

The reality is that there is a baseline who will always be chronically unemployed. And there is functionally no level of welfare so low that they can't figure out a way to make ends meet.

Reducing welfare to try and force people into work, is like raising the level of flood water in the hope that people will save themselves from drowning. Some people can't swim and they'll eventually just drown.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Or just cut welfare spending and introduce the almost million people in this country who pay no tax on low incomes to tax.

This is where a 20% flat tax would be an ideal scenario, everyone pays a fair share

What's "fair share" though? Surely a "fair" share is proportionate to your income? Incomes are proportionate to the level of state spending on basic necessities like infrastructure, tourism and foreign affairs. Someone earning €100k is benefitting far more from state spending than someone earning €20k.
Therefore it seems only fair that the person who has a higher income returns more of that to the state.

But if we run with this flat tax idea, have you run the figures?

If there are a million people earning money and paying no tax, then the maximum they can earn without being taxed is €16,500. If we assume every one of those million is earning €16,500, then a flat 20% tax would bring an extra €3.3bn into the exchequer. The reality is that those people are not earning that much, and the amount your flat tax would bring would be less. Let's say €2.2bn. Which is a generous overestimate, but also conveniently a 10% bump in income tax take.

So let's have a look at the other end. The top 10% of earners pay half of the tax. So in order to reproduce our 10% bump in income tax, we need to bump their tax up by a fifth. That means that from ~50% to ~60% for all earnings over €100k.

Who do you think will be more affected by this tax change? The guy who earns €16,500 and now sees his income drop by €3,300 a year? Or the guy who earns €110k and sees his income drop by €1,000 a year?

And which one will put more pressure on state supports? Which one's kids will have to seek out breakfast clubs, state-sponsored clubs, book allowances, college grants, etc, etc, etc.

So we can mildly inconvenience 10% of earners, or devastate 45% of them, for the same income tax increase.

Seems like a no brainer to me.