Plumbthedepths wrote: » I think the USC is prehaps one of the most just taxes there is
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.
LeinsterDub wrote: » USC is a progressive tax, a universal tax is like VAT or saying the tax rate is 20% for everyone
222 homeless people died over the past four years, DHRE finds The latest figures show that 222 homeless people died over the past four years, according to statistics from the Dublin Regional Homeless Executive (DHRE). They show that deaths decreased from 65 in 2016 to 34 in 2019 although the total number of homeless adults in Dublin has increased by around 43% in that period. The DHRE said the figures are still being processed so are classed as "unverified".
lawred2 wrote: » nobody said that though nor is that ever possible in Ireland Income tax and PRSI are progressive taxes A flat 3/4% on everyone's income before being subjected to progressive taxation means that everyone pays something but the more you earn - the more you pay when all taxation is taken into consideration. Why shouldn't everyone pay something into society? Especially when lower income earners benefit disproportionately from social programs. But feel free to misrepresent me again with "saying the tax rate is 20% for everyone"
Water John wrote: » Gross tax take, should not exceed 50%.
Geuze wrote: » Nobody in Ireland pays 50% effective income tax.
Matt Barrett wrote: » With the man injured the other day and this: 222 homeless people died over the past four years, DHRE finds Can't see this issue going away anytime soon.
LeinsterDub wrote: » I wasn't replying to you or even thinking of your posts when I replied . Didn't intend to misrepresent you . Sorry about that. As too your point. Why shouldn't everyone pay? Simple not everyone can afford to pay
blanch152 wrote: » There is a point around the idea that the connection between paying taxation and receiving services has been lost, and that a minimal amount of tax, say 2% should be charged on all income including welfare to show the link. While all pay VAT, it is rarely visible to the payer. To help the lower-paid and those on the minimum wage, they could increase by 2% in the year that they are introduced.
Matt Barrett wrote: » With the man injured the other day and this: Can't see this issue going away anytime soon.
Deleted User wrote: » I don’t see the relevance of this post. People die every day, whether they’ve homes or not.
Matt Barrett wrote: » It's an election issue in an election thread. Maybe not of interest to you but that's okay Mary.
blanch152 wrote: » I would like to find the link to the original article. However, it does raise an interesting point about statistics. The death rate in Ireland is 6.3/1,000 people in any given year.https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-vsar/vitalstatisticsannualreport2017/deaths2017/ Over four years, you would expect to find 25.2 people dead for every 1,000 people.https://www.focusireland.ie/resource-hub/about-homelessness/ This article says that there are 10,448 people homeless in Ireland. Therefore, if homeless people were dying at the same rate as the population as a whole, you would expect 263 homeless people to have died over the last four years. However, in the headline you refer to, only 222 have died over the last four years. This may be for a number of reasons. It may be because there is a different age and health profile of homeless people, i.e. they are younger and healthier than the population at large. It may be that the monitoring by the homelessness services ensures that the number of premature deaths are reduced. It may be that the number of homeless people is over-stated by the likes of Focus Ireland. For whatever reason, it does appear counter-intuitive that deaths among homeless people occur at a rate less than deaths among the population at large. A curious finding and as I said, I would like a link to the original article. Other than its curiosity, I am not sure whether the statistic tells us anything very much about the homeless in Ireland.
Deleted User wrote: » Housing might be an issue. People dying in tragic circumstances, yes. But people dying is an every day occurrence, same as babies being born.
bubblypop wrote: » Unless hundreds of homeless people died as a direct result of them being homeless, it's a non issue. People die everyday
smurgen wrote: » The reason for that would be that on average homeless people would be younger than the general population.
Matt Barrett wrote: » So is people buying and selling houses, getting and losing jobs. Where are you going with this? You disagree, homelessness is not an election issue?
is_that_so wrote: » The new version i.e. everyone in temporary accommodation, might be, the plight of those on the street less so.
blanch152 wrote: » That is an argument, but can you tell us how much younger. Until that information is available, there is no hard evidence that deaths among the homeless are statistically different to deaths among the rest of the population.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I don’t see the relevance of this post. People die every day, whether they’ve homes or not.
Matt Barrett wrote: » You disagree, homelessness is not an election issue?
bubblypop wrote: » Homelessness may be, people dying is not!
Matt Barrett wrote: » They'll take a branch off of FGs, (see NCH, IW, Reillys clinics, sweet deal at a loss to the tax payer etc. as proof they can find it when they want). Maybe charge vulture funds a higher tax rate? Stop spending on 25 year leases? Stop paying for hotels? Stop buying social housing? Building en masse is cheaper and leaves us with housing stock over and above leasing for 25 years and paying private landlords and vulture funds. If all any party does is sit on their hands but build social and affordable, they'll solve the housing crisis to the benefit of hard pressed tax payers.
Idbatterim wrote: » yeah, look I dont think it massively mattered who was at the helm for the tiger boom, the tiger crash, the recovery etc. You would have gotten virtually the same outcome, whether it was FF or FG. HOWEVER I do believe FG are less likely to ruin us again, the place is already booking economy wise, even though many dont feel it, we absolutely do not need FF pouring petrol on the flames! they jack up welfare etc, **** hits fan and then it all has to be cut again, the endless debate, waffle , finger pointing! We have tried, FF , we have tried FG, we have had FFG. FG are the marginally less **** IMO and as for the others that make up the dail, they are the worst of them all!