Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What current FG policies are right wing?
Options
Comments
-
The Rooster wrote: »
The first was introduced when the property market was dead. People have short memories. The incentive was for anyone that bought a property in a specific 3 year period and held it for at least 7 years would be exempt from CGT.
I'm not saying this was a good plan in hindsight. But it had nothing to do with helping the wealthy. This was introduced when "negative equity" was the big buzzword and a political hot potato. So many ordinary people had inadvertently over-stretched themselves in the boom and now had loans that were bigger than the value of their houses. The intention was to stop the decrease in property values and get values going in the other direction. This had cross party support as an encouragement to kick-start the property market. (Personally I disagreed with this at the time from a selfish perspective as I thought that lower property prices was a good thing, but that's easy for me to say when I was never in "negative equity").
The second is an incentive for individual entrepreneurs who set up their own business. Risk takers. People who provide jobs. The only criticism this got was that it did not go far enough. It's only a fraction as beneficial as the UK version. Personally I think FG got this one right. Providing an extra incentive for people who put so much at risk to start a business is a good thing. Far more start-ups fail than succeed. And I think FG were right not to bow down to pressure to bring it up to UK levels, which are over-generous in my opinion.
Are you a troll?
What you've posted in response to me has just been non sensical.
I've demonstrated cases where FG cut taxes on the wealthy after you refuted this and you still won't accept this.
You're saying that a tax cut that only benefits people that own excess property isn't a tax cut for the wealthy. People in negative equity owed the same amount with our without this tax break and property prices had already started to recover before this tax break.
Are you sure the second one was just exclusively for entrepreneurs? If so have you got a source? When it was announced, I was pretty sure it was for any business shares which is clearly just a tax cut for the wealthy.
Even if it was exclusively for entrepreneurs, it's incentivising selling businesses and therefore putting jobs at risk. I'd much prefer measures to encourage entrepreneurship by supporting indigenous businesses then giving tax cuts to the wealthy. I'd reverse this tax cut and ring fence the tax take to fund start ups via enterprise Ireland rather than giving tax cuts to in the main people who are already wealthy. You even mention it yourself that more start ups fail then succeed, I'd like to reverse that whereas FG's right wing interests is more focused on giving tax breaks to the wealthy.0 -
The Rooster wrote: »
The first was introduced when the property market was dead. People have short memories. The incentive was for anyone that bought a property in a specific 3 year period and held it for at least 7 years would be exempt from CGT.
I'm not saying this was a good plan in hindsight. But it had nothing to do with helping the wealthy. This was introduced when "negative equity" was the big buzzword and a political hot potato. So many ordinary people had inadvertently over-stretched themselves in the boom and now had loans that were bigger than the value of their houses. The intention was to stop the decrease in property values and get values going in the other direction. This had cross party support as an encouragement to kick-start the property market. (Personally I disagreed with this at the time from a selfish perspective as I thought that lower property prices was a good thing, but that's easy for me to say when I was never in "negative equity").
The second is an incentive for individual entrepreneurs who set up their own business. Risk takers. People who provide jobs. The only criticism this got was that it did not go far enough. It's only a fraction as beneficial as the UK version. Personally I think FG got this one right. Providing an extra incentive for people who put so much at risk to start a business is a good thing. Far more start-ups fail than succeed. And I think FG were right not to bow down to pressure to bring it up to UK levels, which are over-generous in my opinion.
Are you a troll?
What you've posted in response to me has just been non sensical.
I've demonstrated cases where FG cut taxes on the wealthy after you refuted this and you still won't accept this.
You're saying that a tax cut that only benefits people that own excess property isn't a tax cut for the wealthy. People in negative equity owed the same amount with our without this tax break and property prices had already started to recover before this tax break.
Are you sure the second one was just exclusively for entrepreneurs? If so have you got a source? When it was announced, I was pretty sure it was for any business shares which is clearly just a tax cut for the wealthy.
Even if it was exclusively for entrepreneurs, it's incentivising selling businesses and therefore putting jobs at risk. I'd much prefer measures to encourage entrepreneurship by supporting indigenous businesses then giving tax cuts to the wealthy. I'd reverse this tax cut and ring fence the tax take to fund start ups via enterprise Ireland rather than giving tax cuts to in the main people who are already wealthy. You even mention it yourself that more start ups fail then succeed, I'd like to reverse that whereas FG's right wing interests is more focused on giving tax breaks to the wealthy.0 -
Are you a troll?
What you've posted in response to me has just been non sensical.
I've demonstrated cases where FG cut taxes on the wealthy after you refuted this and you still won't accept this.
You're saying that a tax cut that only benefits people that own excess property isn't a tax cut for the wealthy. People in negative equity owed the same amount with our without this tax break and property prices had already started to recover before this tax break.
Are you sure the second one was just exclusively for entrepreneurs? If so have you got a source? When it was announced, I was pretty sure it was for any business shares which is clearly just a tax cut for the wealthy.
Even if it was exclusively for entrepreneurs, it's incentivising selling businesses and therefore putting jobs at risk. I'd much prefer measures to encourage entrepreneurship by supporting indigenous businesses then giving tax cuts to the wealthy. I'd reverse this tax cut and ring fence the tax take to fund start ups via enterprise Ireland rather than giving tax cuts to in the main people who are already wealthy. You even mention it yourself that more start ups fail then succeed, I'd like to reverse that whereas FG's right wing interests is more focused on giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
No need for the name calling just because you don't understand what you're talking about.
The CGT exemption was not for currently held properties. It was an incentive for people to take a risk and go out and buy property. At the time nobody was buying property because there was fear that they would lose money.
The entreprenuer relief is purely for the sale of your own business. Funnily enough, that's how they came up with the name. It's to encourage people to set up businesses so they can have a bigger upside if their risk pays off.
Enterprise Ireland provides funding and other help to start-ups.
As I said I don't necessarily agree with the incentives, but calling them "tax breaks for the wealthy" is infantile. These were incentives designed to help improve the economy and had cross-party support. The CGT exemption is already gone as it was only intended to be for a short timeframe to kick start the market. Sinn Fein have no plans in their manifesto to change the entrepreneur relief.0 -
The Rooster wrote: »No need for the name calling just because you don't understand what you're talking about.
The CGT exemption was not for currently held properties. It was an incentive for people to take a risk and go out and buy property. At the time nobody was buying property because there was fear that they would lose money.
The entreprenuer relief is purely for the sale of your own business. Funnily enough, that's how they came up with the name. It's to encourage people to set up businesses so they can have a bigger upside if their risk pays off.
Enterprise Ireland provides funding and other help to start-ups.
As I said I don't necessarily agree with the incentives, but calling them "tax breaks for the wealthy" is infantile. These were incentives designed to help improve the economy and had cross-party support. The CGT exemption is already gone as it was only intended to be for a short timeframe to kick start the market. Sinn Fein have no plans in their manifesto to change the entrepreneur relief.
How is calling them "tax breaks for the wealthy" infantile? What would you prefer these tax breaks to be referred to:
- tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy
- tax breaks whose benefactors are very strongly correlated with wealth
Why are you bringing SF into this? This thread is about FG's right wing policies.
Have you got a link to support your claim that the tax break on disposal of business ownership was limited to people who set up the business. I'm not certain either way but the citizens information website doesn't mention this restriction.
How is higher house prices good for the economy. Higher house prices mean there's less spend disposal income reducing overall demand in the local economy. It's flawed right wing thinking that equates high house prices to being beneficial to the economy.0 -
The Rooster wrote: »No need for the name calling just because you don't understand what you're talking about.
The CGT exemption was not for currently held properties. It was an incentive for people to take a risk and go out and buy property. At the time nobody was buying property because there was fear that they would lose money.
The entreprenuer relief is purely for the sale of your own business. Funnily enough, that's how they came up with the name. It's to encourage people to set up businesses so they can have a bigger upside if their risk pays off.
Enterprise Ireland provides funding and other help to start-ups.
As I said I don't necessarily agree with the incentives, but calling them "tax breaks for the wealthy" is infantile. These were incentives designed to help improve the economy and had cross-party support. The CGT exemption is already gone as it was only intended to be for a short timeframe to kick start the market. Sinn Fein have no plans in their manifesto to change the entrepreneur relief.
How is calling them "tax breaks for the wealthy" infantile? What would you prefer these tax breaks to be referred to:
- tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy
- tax breaks whose benefactors are very strongly correlated with wealth
Why are you bringing SF into this? This thread is about FG's right wing policies.
Have you got a link to support your claim that the tax break on disposal of business ownership was limited to people who set up the business. I'm not certain either way but the citizens information website doesn't mention this restriction.
How is higher house prices good for the economy. Higher house prices mean there's less spend disposal income reducing overall demand in the local economy. It's flawed right wing thinking that equates high house prices to being beneficial to the economy.0 -
Advertisement
-
Haha, if there's so much that's incorrect then why did you pick something that's so easy for me to show evidence of. Since Ireland exited the troica program they eased capital gains tax in the each of the following budgets:
- 2014 - https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/budgets/budget_2014.html#l01933
- 2015 - https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/budgets/budget_2015.html#l01933
- 2017 - https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/budgets/budget_2017.html#l01933
This is during a period where the gap between the rich and poor was widening and most credible economists were advocating wealth taxes instead of tax cuts.
Again, it's more the direction under FG that's worrying. FG haven't been in power for that long, so their effect has been limited and previous FG governments weren't as far right. However the current FG party is unmistakably right wing.
Is that what Facebook told you? The third highest in Europe would indicate it's not a "right wing" thing to do.
Also what is "long" in power?0 -
ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »Is that what Facebook told you? The third highest in Europe would indicate it's not a "right wing" thing to do.
Also what is "long" in power?
Facebook? You need to look a little closer at the post you're quoting, they're links to the citizens information website ;-)
FG have only been in a majority government for 5 years this century. The supply and confidence arrangement severely limited their power. Even when they were in a majority government they were compromised by having labour as a partner.0 -
The Rooster wrote: »The Irish resident companies that do create so many jobs pay 12.5% tax in Ireland.
I think it's important to understand that corporations do not 'create jobs'. Rich people do not 'create jobs'. Jobs/people create corporations and rich people. Societies create educated healthy human beings who work and consume goods and services.
Corporations are man-made legal entities that do not exist in the real world except on paper and in the minds of people. Wealth is created from a healthy socioeconomic system.
Does anyone really think that Jeff Bezos is worth 10,000 surgeons? You'd want to be pretty dumb to try to push that idea.0 -
Junkyard Tom wrote: »I think it's important to understand that corporations do not 'create jobs'. Rich people do not 'create jobs'. Jobs/people create corporations and rich people. Societies create educated healthy human beings who work and consume goods and services.
Corporations are man-made legal entities that do not exist in the real world except on paper and in the minds of people. Wealth is created from a healthy socioeconomic system.
Does anyone really think that Jeff Bezos is worth 10,000 surgeons? You'd want to be pretty dumb to try to push that idea.
And none of that refutes what Rooster has said. The entrepreneur relief is very specific and I think you getting a bit caught up with the hyperbole that's goes with celebrity entrepreneurs. Most people who set up their own businesses would be not be rich by any stretch of the imagination. The reason people like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are so high profile is because they are the extreme exception to the rule. Most sole traders start small stay relatively small and in a lot of cases fail very early on.
Corporations are man made entities and this can be seen most explicitly with small/new businesses where the founders ie people are very much the driving force. How is giving limited tax relief with a whole list of conditions to certain sectors a bad thing. Next you will have people saying we should stop the dole because it's perceived to only help certain people and not society as a whole. And you will get to the stage where unless everyone has access to a government support or tax relief it should be stopped because only the X benefit and you are being biased towards X. If you start going down route who are going to eliminate whole swades of the public sector because not everyone needs/wants every service and tax relief the government provides.0 -
Facebook? You need to look a little closer at the post you're quoting, they're links to the citizens information website ;-)
FG have only been in a majority government for 5 years this century. The supply and confidence arrangement severely limited their power. Even when they were in a majority government they were compromised by having labour as a partner.
What do you think a ourely FG government would do to tax, welfare and social progress ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Eric Cartman wrote: »What do you think a ourely FG government would do to tax, welfare and social progress ?
We'd be very similar to modern day US, lots of privatisation of state services (e.g. water etc.). Lower inheritance taxes and wealth taxes. More stealth taxes for the remaining services that haven't been privatised. Student loans would becomes commonplace and we'd have the same student debt crisis as America.
Social progress would be regressive just like in the US which ultimately led to a disillusioned populace who thought voting for trump couldn't be any worse then the direction they were going in.
On the positive side billionaires like Denis O'Brien would be more satisfied :-(0 -
We'd be very similar to modern day US, lots of privatisation of state services (e.g. water etc.). Lower inheritance taxes and wealth taxes. More stealth taxes for the remaining services that haven't been privatised. Student loans would becomes commonplace and we'd have the same student debt crisis as America.
Social progress would be regressive just like in the US which ultimately led to a disillusioned populace who thought voting for trump couldn't be any worse then the direction they were going in.
On the positive side billionaires like Denis O'Brien would be more satisfied :-(
Id actually be impressed if FG could manage to achieve any of this, not thatthey want to at all. They have never advocated for anything as above0 -
with this virus now and all the talk of paying out extra social welfare. Cant wait to see the next budget! I predict with the sheer amount needed for other areas now, they wont be able to incrase it any more each budget ...0
-
Eric Cartman wrote: »Id actually be impressed if FG could manage to achieve any of this, not thatthey want to at all. They have never advocated for anything as above
Why would they advocate stuff that they know will be unpopular, that doesn't mean they won't carry these things out. Did FG advocate any of the following:
- selling €40bln worth of NAMA assets to vulture funds/REIT's etc and allowing them to register as a charity to avoid paying tax
- selling the national lotto
- privatizing profitable Dublin bus routes
- privatizing energy companies
- doling out many state contracts to tax exiles
However occasionally their mask does slip, Enda Kenny previously stated he wanted Ireland to move to a US taxation system and both him and Noonan provided cringe worthy defences of vulture funds when it was clear as day that their activity was starting a housing crisis.
Regarding water privatisation, it's very clear that this was their intention. Phil Hogan's original water act allowed for Irish water to be sold with approval of just the minister for finance and environment. It didn't even need cabinet or parliament approval. However they were hardly going to go on TV and say that it was their plans.0 -
0
-
-
-
Government spending under FG since 2016.
2016: 75.4bn
2017 77.4bn
2018: 82.0bn
2019: 86.7bn(estimated)
2020 88.65bn(estimated)
Only in Ireland could a party that increased spending 13billion in 4 years be called right wing.
Spending is actually out of control. With the Coronavirus downturn we could be back looking at a deficit of a few billion.0 -
Where does a marginal tax rate of 50% fit in to that view?
Makes a pretty rubbish right-wing party.
Mate the workers of this state dont matter to FG...its surely the logical endpoint of capitalism/liberialism that money concentrates at the top (IE corporations??)
Like using state money to argue in court that corporations dont have to pay tax is surely the obvious endpoint of capitalism???,
The only reason there hasnt been wholesale persual of privitisation of public services is that ireland isnt a big enough economy to support several public service providers,
Look at the mess they've made of eircom,theres a pole broken on my road with 6 weeks and every other one looks rotten,
selling/privatising public services is great in theory (more efficent/cheaper prices etc),but in reality it leads to maintannce being run down and money drawn away from it by shareholders etc(surely this endpoint is obvious??)0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Mate the workers of this state dont matter to FG...its surely the logical endpoint of capitalism/liberialism that money concentrates at the top (IE corporations??)
Like using state money to argue in court that corporations dont have to pay tax is surely the obvious endpoint of capitalism???,
The only reason there hasnt been wholesale persual of privitisation of public services is that ireland isnt a big enough economy to support several public service providers,
Look at the mess they've made of eircom,theres a pole broken on my road with 6 weeks and every other one looks rotten,
selling/privatising public services is great in theory (more efficent/cheaper prices etc),but in reality it leads to maintannce being run down and money drawn away from it by shareholders etc(surely this endpoint is obvious??)
FG werent in government when Eircom was sold off.
FG-Lab wanted the state to keep 50.1% of it in publIc ownership.
"Mary O’Rourke was the minister who drove the privatisation of Eircom.
The previous Fine Gael, Labour/DL government had sold an initial 20%
holding as part of an agreed strategy to bring in new management and
technological skills, to KPN/Telia.
This was in agreement with the trade unions which had argued for the need for new
management skills and new technology. Under this strategy, the state was to retain
50.1% of the company."0 -
Advertisement
-
landofthetree wrote: »FG werent in government when Eircom was sold off.
FG-Lab wanted the state to keep 50.1% of it in publIc ownership.
"Mary O’Rourke was the minister who drove the privatisation of Eircom.
The previous Fine Gael, Labour/DL government had sold an initial 20%
holding as part of an agreed strategy to bring in new management and
technological skills, to KPN/Telia.
This was in agreement with the trade unions which had argued for the need for new
management skills and new technology. Under this strategy, the state was to retain
50.1% of the company."
and thank christ we didnt listen to them and sold it off anyway.0 -
landofthetree wrote: »FG werent in government when Eircom was sold off.
FG-Lab wanted the state to keep 50.1% of it in publIc ownership.
"Mary O’Rourke was the minister who drove the privatisation of Eircom.
The previous Fine Gael, Labour/DL government had sold an initial 20%
holding as part of an agreed strategy to bring in new management and
technological skills, to KPN/Telia.
This was in agreement with the trade unions which had argued for the need for new
management skills and new technology. Under this strategy, the state was to retain
50.1% of the company."
Tbh you wouldnt fill a postage stamp with difference in FF and FG policies in my view
But nowhere have i said they sold eircom.either but can see how the post could be interpeted that way
,but eircom is the most obvious reason as to why privatising public services is regarded with skeptism....imo ireland econmy is simply not big enough to support several service providers
Like the theory behind selling/privatising services is bang on and reasonable to believe in
,but in reality in ireland at least it deosnt work and leads to services getting run into the groud or state being fleeced like the childrens hospitdeal0 -
landofthetree wrote: »Government spending under FG since 2016.
2016: 75.4bn
2017 77.4bn
2018: 82.0bn
2019: 86.7bn(estimated)
2020 88.65bn(estimated)
Only in Ireland could a party that increased spending 13billion in 4 years be called right wing.
Spending is actually out of control. With the Coronavirus downturn we could be back looking at a deficit of a few billion.
Yeah. Their economic mismanagement is appalling. Just wait like you say for all the knock on effects of this virus to hit. The extra health spending , extra social welfare.health is already a black hole. Then the big hit to bat , excise duty and possibly employment. Fg warned about sf economic incompetence, we already have it from ffg by The bucketload. Could be back to deficit this year. If it weren’t for the huge corporation tax returns .,,, well lol !
Last time round national debt was very low. This time round ? Two hundred billion odd. That said another catastrophic crash is probably what the place needs , maybe they might sort the place out once and for all a second time round I’m close succession0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Tbh you wouldnt fill a postage stamp with difference in FF and FG policies in my view
But nowhere have i said they sold eircom.either but can see how the post could be interpeted that way
,but eircom is the most obvious reason as to why privatising public services is regarded with skeptism....imo ireland econmy is simply not big enough to support several service providers
Like the theory behind selling/privatising services is bang on and reasonable to believe in
,but in reality in ireland at least it deosnt work and leads to services getting run into the groud or state being fleeced like the childrens hospitdeal
Semi state companies fleece the taxpayer with bloated workforces.
Privatisation and breaking up state monopolies has given us all better and cheaper services in many areas.
It isnt always a bad idea.0 -
Idbatterim wrote: »Yeah. Their economic mismanagement is appalling. Just wait like you say for all the knock on effects of this virus to hit. The extra health spending , extra social welfare.health is already a black hole. Then the big hit to bat , excise duty and possibly employment. Fg warned about sf economic incompetence, we already have it from ffg by The bucketload. Could be back to deficit this year. If it weren’t for the huge corporation tax returns .,,, well lol !
SF FF Lab Greens etc have been complaining about low spending. They wanted to spend more.
They have spend the last 9 years moaning about it.
No party in Ireland wanted to stop the 13billion increase since 2016.0 -
landofthetree wrote: »SF FF Lab Greens etc have been complaining about low spending. They wanted to spend more.
like petulant children in toy shops.0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »like petulant children in toy shops.
Useless opposition the lot of them.
None of them want to tackle the issue of why we have spend 13billion more yet people havent seen any great improvement in public services.0 -
landofthetree wrote: »Semi state companies fleece the taxpayer with bloated workforces.
Privatisation and breaking up state monopolies has given us all better and cheaper services in many areas.
It isnt always a bad idea.
I agree it isnt always a bad idea
But where in ireland has it worked on large scale ??
It simply deosnt work here....i know several civils engineering companies and they regard state contracts as a cashcow and price accordingly
Its good in theory...it deosnt work in reality here....you can repeat the mantra of privitasation=better services,deosnt make it a reality
Like if it was such a good prospect long term,eircom would have the finaces and capacity to build and operate this new broadband scheme...
.eircom to best of my knowledge is more or less insolvent,hardly an advertisement for liberlism,when state has to intervene to fund infrastructure for private services???
3 weekends ago,i got dublin coach (green bus)back to waterford from kk,much cheaper than bus eireann/CIE (good),but bus was clapped out,damaged windows,notorious this route for breakdowns i found out after.....privitsation is good here for me,but long term it wont last as all its doing is running down its buses and deosnt leave room for reinvestment,this applied to essential state services is a diaster waiting to happen0 -
dublin coach have a bed rep for buses and reliability, the other operators seems to be much betterDeleted User wrote: »I agree it isnt always a bad idea
But where in ireland has it worked on large scale ??
It simply deosnt work here....i know several civils engineering companies and they regard state contracts as a cashcow and price accordingly
Its good in theory...it deosnt work in reality here....you can repeat the mantra of privitasation=better services,deosnt make it a reality
Like if it was such a good prospect long term,eircom would have the finaces and capacity to build and operate this new broadband scheme...
.eircom to best of my knowledge is more or less insolvent,hardly an advertisement for liberlism,when state has to intervene to fund infrastructure for private services???
3 weekends ago,i got dublin coach (green bus)back to waterford from kk,much cheaper than bus eireann/CIE (good),but bus was clapped out,damaged windows,notorious this route for breakdowns i found out after.....privitsation is good here for me,but long term it wont last as all its doing is running down its buses and deosnt leave room for reinvestment,this applied to essential state services is a diaster waiting to happen0 -
Advertisement
-
Idbatterim wrote: »dublin coach have a bed rep for buses and reliability, the other operators seems to be much better
The most profitable Dublin routes have been privatized, resulting in higher Dublin bus fares being necessary. This is scandalous.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement