nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Election called for Saturday 8 February

Thelonious Monk

Can't see a thread on this. That's pretty soon huh? I hope people vote anything but FF/FG. Why not do something different for a change?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

smurgen

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Ah yes the great event centre

Nice photo Op though

People should remember this when the election promises are being made. What an absolute farce. Even the mighty Coveney getting personally involved and it still hasn't moved on.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote: »

No, really not what I said at all. FG have been on about both for a good few years. I don't disagree with a reduction in the USC nor a rise in where the higher kicks in, but not what they are proposing. As for "stunts" well they'll all have their own version of "stunts". It's how some voters are wooed.

That's fine so, but USC generates 4 billion a year. Any party claiming they will abolish it are simply making a claim they will never fulfill. FG decided not to increase the bands in October 2019, so claiming they will do so up to 50k in the lifetime of the next government is not credible.

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

That's fine so, but USC generates 4 billion a year. Any party claiming they will abolish it are simply making a claim they will never fulfill. FG decided not to increase the bands in October 2019, so claiming they will do so up to 50k in the lifetime of the next government is not credible.

I'd see it as an aspiration from any party, a bit on the silly side IMO but not absolutely terrible either. I'd expect the new government to continue on that path in small increments leaving some MOF in about 10-15 years years admitting we'll never get to 50K.

LeinsterDub

Idbatterim wrote: »

honestly I feel I am better off just giving FG a stronger mandate. Best case is FFG strong coalition. To hell with the independents being king makers etc. Then FFG can forget their pathetic excuses, which confidence and supply afforded. Unless and until a new party forms here, offering something different, which is an open goal in my opinion. We are best off with the farce of FFG in my opinion and thats saying something, as to what I think of the rest of the clowns!!!!

So you expect changed by voting the incumbent , don't consider any but the incumbents and then are surprised nothing has changed? I don't know all your politics but from what you've said here the SocDems seem the best fit for you but you've dismissed them out of hand

smurgen

Another two shot in Dublin.FG will be happy when this election is over no matter what the outcome. Country is falling apart in their last few days.literally limping to the finish line.

KrustyUCC

Not a good look for the party of law & order

Geuze

I suggest four income tax rates:

20%
30%
40%
50%

Reach the 50% at triple median earnings, say 120k?

Water John

Gross tax take, should not exceed 50%.

Idbatterim

IMAGINE, a LPT of 1% like in other countries, that would generate 5,000,000,000!

But no! you cant be taxing a home at 1%, but hitting even low income workers with FIFTY percent marginal rate is no bother! Even vat is so regressive, why not abolish that and income income tax too?

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/ronan-lyons-state-is-foregoing-billions-in-revenue-with-low-property-tax-38785997.html

blanch152

Geuze wrote: »

I suggest four income tax rates:

20%
30%
40%
50%

Reach the 50% at triple median earnings, say 120k?

If you get rid of a lot of tax shelters, your top rate could be lower and kick in at higher earnings.

LeinsterDub

Geuze wrote: »

I suggest four income tax rates:

20%
30%
40%
50%

Reach the 50% at triple median earnings, say 120k?

I'd suggest one tax rate. Actually tax companies at 12.5%

James Brown

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Irish Water was the IMF's idea nothing to do with the environment. The plastic bag levy has been a massive success and good for the environment, costs most people basically nothing. And wasn't it a FF policy? As for white products they are free to recycle. So yet again I'm left wondering what your issue is?

I'm speaking on how they were introduced, set up.
The IMF didn't put a driver on the board of IW or do the Siteserv deal, still under investigation.
Also I said governments.
I suggest you read over it again, it's all there.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

And this has what to do with the Greens?

Seriously, I can't see how you're missing it.
The discussion was why people always think high taxes and the Greens. I spoke on why I think that is. That's it.

lawred2

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Of course it's a lopsided income tax because people's incomes are lopsided

Which is reflected in increasing rates of income tax and PRSI..

If it's not universal just abolish it and up the marginal rate over 55%.. it's where we're heading anyway with the annual hollowing out of the USC.

LeinsterDub

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I
The discussion was why people always think high taxes and the Greens. I spoke on why I think that is. That's it.

So you think the high taxes and the Greens because what everyone bar the Greens did?

LeinsterDub

lawred2 wrote: »

Which is reflected in increasing rates of income tax and PRSI..

If it's not universal just abolish it and up the marginal rate over 55%.. it's where we're heading anyway with the annual hollowing out of the USC.

Universal taxes are one of the most unjust things you can suggest. It's how we've ended up with billionaires and 1 in 5 kids living in poverty

Plumbthedepths

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Universal taxes are one of the most unjust things you can suggest.

I think the USC is prehaps one of the most just taxes there is. I don't agree with taking anyone outside its scope. The high rate of tax kicks in too soon. Vat on goods is too high essentials such as heating should be at a lower rate. Taxes are needed, but what is raised is spent very inefficiently with poor value for the taxpayer.

James Brown

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So you think the high taxes and the Greens because what everyone bar the Greens did?

Sorry you missed it.
The conversation was why people equate the Greens with high taxes. Simply put because governments, IMO, use green initiatives as a way of creating taxes/charges. Ergo, the Greens, being environmental are seen as a high tax party.

BarryD2

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's poor planning. Same with Ballymun. The local shop was a volkswagon van up on blocks or a 30min bus trip to the city.

Yep and that was the face of public housing in Dublin that many people seem to aspire to now. The housing put up then was cheap and (not very) cheerful - very basic construction. For 'poor planning' read 'little planning' which meant that the LAs/ state had few hoops to jump through and just went and built.

Can't be done now like that - apart from the costs associated with new standards, there's a raised level of expectation and then developments take much longer to plan & execute as the local populations can object & frustrate.

People need to stop parroting this mantra about throwing up public housing as some magic solution.

LeinsterDub

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sorry you missed it.
The conversation was why people equate the Greens with high taxes. Simply put because governments, IMO, use green initiatives as a way of creating taxes/charges. Ergo, the Greens, being environmental are seen as a high tax party.

So you're saying the greens are incorrectly or mistakenly equated with high taxes. Also you mentioned white goods recycling , plastic bags and water. All of which worked out at less than a few quid a week. Far less than FG/FF and the USC

James Brown

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So you're saying the greens are incorrectly or mistakenly equated with high taxes. Also you mentioned white goods recycling , plastic bags and water. All of which worked out at less than a few quid a week. Far less than FG/FF and the USC

I'm saying they are equated with high taxes, rightly or wrongly, because environmental initiatives are equated with high taxes.

I just gave examples of alleged green/environmental initiatives that cost the public money.

saabsaab

How about abolishing car tax and replace it with a flat registration yearly fee say 50 p.a. then transfer the shortfall onto fossil fuels at the pump or plug. Much fairer the more you burn the more you pay.

Overall there would be no loss to the exchequer. Would also apply to electricity. Much greener policy than the curent systemwhich need changing soon.

_Kaiser_

saabsaab wrote: »

How about abolishing car tax and replace it with a flat registration yearly fee say 50 p.a. then transfer the shortfall onto fossil fuels at the pump or plug. Much fairer the more you burn the more you pay.

Overall there would be no loss to the exchequer. Would also apply to electricity. Much greener policy than the curent systemwhich need changing soon.

Nope.. your €50 would rise steadily in future budgets until it was close to what most pay now

Your tax fuel idea only penalises those with no option but to drive (rural people or people comuting a county or two to Dublin) because of no/inadequate public transport alternatives and the current housing/rental issues.

AlmightyCushion

Is there any where to see a list of candidates running in your constituency? I've tried Googling but can't see anything.

_Kaiser_

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Is there any where to see a list of candidates running in your constituency? I've tried Googling but can't see anything.

That's a good question. I think I remember there being something like that before, but can't remember now!

(or it could be all in my head!)

Idbatterim

saabsaab wrote: »

How about abolishing car tax and replace it with a flat registration yearly fee say 50 p.a. then transfer the shortfall onto fossil fuels at the pump or plug. Much fairer the more you burn the more you pay.

Overall there would be no loss to the exchequer. Would also apply to electricity. Much greener policy than the curent systemwhich need changing soon.

this has been discussed recently on the motors forum, it wont happen. You would have the northern ireland issue for a start and honestly, I suspect, if you did that, placed the amount of cent on the litre of fuel to compensate for the motor tax loss. People would seriously review their driving behaviour and I can see a significant revenue fall off, meaning less pollution etc, but I suspect, it would actually be far too at achieving its aim, but politically would be a non runner, due to the taxation loss...

here is my proposal, that may actually happen here, you have to bear in mind, that we have the weakest of weak and appalling government here, no leadership, no vision. Like water , they will choose the path of least resistance every time. From the next budget, I would increase the motor tax rate to at least E500 on a diesel and maybe E400 on a petrol, still way cheaper than most were paying on the old cc system, use the increased revenue to incentives electric more and go towards better public transport, infrastructure etc. There are several sacred cows here, the motorist isnt one of them...

Idbatterim

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Nope.. your €50 would rise steadily in future budgets until it was close to what most pay now

Your tax fuel idea only penalises those with no option but to drive (rural people or people comuting a county or two to Dublin) because of no/inadequate public transport alternatives and the current housing/rental issues.

kaiser this is true, but for people used to buying mid to expensive cars, they now have the electric option, which is as good as free motor tax and fuel...

James Brown

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yep and that was the face of public housing in Dublin that many people seem to aspire to now. The housing put up then was cheap and (not very) cheerful - very basic construction. For 'poor planning' read 'little planning' which meant that the LAs/ state had few hoops to jump through and just went and built.

Can't be done now like that - apart from the costs associated with new standards, there's a raised level of expectation and then developments take much longer to plan & execute as the local populations can object & frustrate.

People need to stop parroting this mantra about throwing up public housing as some magic solution.

Social housing is the solution. Houses built in the 30's are still standing. Before any pedant chimes in, yes they've been improved and maintained over the years.
Poor planning is just that. Many of the issues with Ballymun were high density pretty much in the middle of nowhere with little to no amenities.

Yes we've moved on design, health and safety wise, doesn't mean the concept hasn't changed.

Why? It will work. It has worked and can again. We are essentially doing it right now except leasing and buying instead of building. It's madness.
What we are doing now is not working and will bite us in the arse.

Dytalus

Geuze wrote: »

I suggest four income tax rates:

20%
30%
40%
50%

Reach the 50% at triple median earnings, say 120k?

Why this isn't the case already baffles me. Our highest income bracket kicks in barely above the average wage. Not without reason though - as blanch alluded to, we have a lot of 'outs' in our tax code (which USC handily does not allow for) and many of those outs aren't used by your average worker. But they are used by people who can afford to pay accountants and tax experts to do it for them. Remove them, add in additional brackets, and you could make a much fairer tax system. Your slightly-above-average worker shouldn't be in the same bracket as someone making a million a year.

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Is there any where to see a list of candidates running in your constituency? I've tried Googling but can't see anything.

https://adriankavanaghelections.org/2017/04/19/candidates-for-the-next-2017-2021-general-election-by-constituency/

Best I can find is this guy keeping track.

flutered

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm cool with high taxes if we get value for money. That's the trick.

The greens are too one dimensional.
People equate environmental policies with high tax because grubby governments use the environment as a reason to stick it to the public for more money. Irish Water, plastic bags fee, white products like the recycling isn't added on top. Nice ideas abused by greedy people with no interest in the environment IMO.

not to forget the tax on all fuels at the end of each april/may they invented supposedly for green issues

Idbatterim

A list of candidates? Sure! Ill save you the effort though!

All for more of the same! increased services, let someone else pay! these people knocking around now and those they represent, they are the ones attempting to block development in their area, transport improvements etc! They cant be PC enough! with the exception of peter casey, pity I cant vote for him!