Matt Barrett wrote: » Question. The '?' is the clue. Trying to understand why people from well to do families seemingly have no business spouting leftist politics. I'm glad you brought that up. A lot of politicians went to third level, not all, but a hell of a lot. IMO, the majority of these would be from middle class families. Few from working class. So it stands to reason most politicians on either the left or the right would have attended third level. The middle class would have a higher representation in third level I'd imagine. Now hopefully we'll see more left or working people representation in government and then we might see less of a class divide. By your logic, the well to do folk on the left must really mean what they say as they are doing damage, or trying to, to the very system gave them that privilege. Not like the right orientated who are really only looking out for their own interests, based on your analysis.
SafeSurfer wrote: » But let’s be clear. There is a big difference in privilege in simply having attended college compared to being educated in private schools. While currently a majority of young people attend college only a privileged few attend private schools.
Matt Barrett wrote: » I was looking for clarity and didn't get it. Not to worry. I agree. And they are working to change that. Do you think that's a good thing? Is this one of those things FF/FG would have addressed if not for pesky partners like Labour?
SafeSurfer wrote: » Who are working to address this? The privately educated political leaders like Mary Lou who send their children to private schools?
Matt Barrett wrote: » Is this like your man Houlihan? Do you think only poor people should be representing poor people because only they understand? Seriously?
SafeSurfer wrote: » Oh I see the question marks. No. No and no.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Okay. I've no idea what your point is. Can you clarify? People on the left having gone to private or well to do schools, so what?
SafeSurfer wrote: » My point wasn’t that “people on the left” have gone to private schools. It was that people who have gone to private schools, the most privileged in our society, dominate the leadership roles of most left wing parties. In fact a majority of the main parties, FG, Sinn Fein, Solidarity, People Before Profit, Greens are led by people who have gone to private school, despite people who have gone to private school representing a small minority of people in Irish society.
Matt Barrett wrote: » So you've no point, you're just pointing out. Okay.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Here's another arbitrary one for you, Is a millionaire - If Yes - Delete. I haven't the time to count how many FF and FG politicians would disappear, I'm making a Sheperd's Pie here.
Finty Lemon wrote: » No place for millionaires in the SF's Ireland it seems.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Is there a difference between making a point and pointing something out?
Matt Barrett wrote: » Have I cited their 2020 manifesto once? 'every detail' Feel free to run away. Did 'unicorns and rainbows' come straight from FG HQ or are you lads just borrowing off each other? This schick again. Building social housing is a far better deal than the waste of 25 year leases and hotels. If you were being honest and not just peddling gripes you might vote SF yourself
Matt Barrett wrote: » No. Look yourself. I'm not arsed.Not defending, saying building social housing is great. If they fall short, it'll be disappointing but that's okay. Not like saying no more quangos and then creating IW, putting pals on the board and having a deal with Denis O'Brien (again) currently under investigation. You seem to be obsessed. I think you secretly want to vote SF.
Finty Lemon wrote: » No place for millionaires in the SF's Ireland it seems. That said, the party itself has more de facto millionaires in its leading ranks than any other. Fact. Uncle Gerry's 4 houses spring to mind. I wonder though, if private-enterprise high earners are to be 'deleted' under SF, who is going to pay for all the stuff promised by taxing the same high earners?
Finty Lemon wrote: » I am self-employed person engaged in private enterprise, employing 3 people in a small registered company. Last year I paid approx. 70k in personal tax, plus close to 30k in corporate tax. All the business risk is mine and the capital employed was mine too, earned from previous ventures. I paid about 27k in tax for the 3 lads working with me, paid out of their gross earnings, We can argue all day whether they paid it or I paid it but I signed for it nonetheless. How much more do I need to pay to make things fair?
Matt Barrett wrote: » You paid their tax on their behalf from money they earned while creating profit for you.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Yes. One is making people aware of something. The other requires reasoning, a point. It seemed like you had a point but decided not to pursue it. You said it was interesting, why?
blanch152 wrote: » Blessed are the profit-makers, for they shall pay all of the tax to support the entitlement class.
smurgen wrote: » Who are the entitlement classes? And what tax? Like the USC we have to pay from here until infinity because developers and banks speculated?
SafeSurfer wrote: » You are entirely wrong. I made a point. That you choose to miss the point and make pointed remarks about it points to the pointlessness of trying to point it out to you.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » The social media SF fanbots remind me of brexiteers. Unhappy with the status quo and wanting a change in the false hope of sunny uplands. They even mirror tactics like the 350m on the bus like the post I saw where varadkar and Harris cost us 6k per week.
facehugger99 wrote: » €65k a house. Shinnernomics is still a thing folks.
Matt Barrett wrote: » You said they were privately educated and you find it interesting. Steve 'interesting' Davis eat your heart out.
markodaly wrote: » Its like they want to brush it under the carpet. So, we all come to the conclusion that SF are wrong about their cheap 65k houses then?
FrancieBrady wrote: » If you were watching the debate we were all wrong about the calculations.
