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

Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Pkiernan

I haven't seen or heard anything from Mary Lou, Slab Murphy and other good Republicans in ages.

What's going on?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Shefwedfan

TheCitizen wrote: »

I had to look that up.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sinn-fein-proposes-100000-cap-for-public-sector-workers-26792427.html

It's no longer part of their fiscal policy so not sure what relevance there is in bringing it up now. As I said medics on high earnings won't vote SF, they never did, but that doesn't mean they will upsticks and emigrate with their families en masse if a modest tax was brought in on earnings over and above 150k

Modest tax??? They want a 5% on top of what people pay already.

thomasdylan

TheCitizen wrote: »

I had to look that up.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sinn-fein-proposes-100000-cap-for-public-sector-workers-26792427.html

It's no longer part of their fiscal policy so not sure what relevance there is in bringing it up now. As I said medics on high earnings won't vote SF, they never did, but that doesn't mean they will upsticks and emigrate with their families en masse if a modest tax was brought in on earnings over and above 150k.

Parties like Labour, Social Democrats and the Greens are very popular with doctors, they certainly were in the last election. I don't think it's Sinn Fein's tax policies that make them unlikely to get doctors' votes so much as things like:

That they abruptly switched from saying that consultants pay should be dropped to that they would hire 500 more consultants
That they don't know how they are going to hire any of those 500 consultants or understand the difficulties in getting consultants
That their health spokesperson is incredibly weak
Michelle O'Neill was an extremely unpopular minister for health in the North
Dessie Ellis is linked to 50 odd murders

[Deleted User]

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

So the answer to "how" is deflect, deflect deflect......bit like their taxation policy, their housing policy, their transport policy, even their social policy - it never stands up to even the most modest scrutiny. Which is pretty typical of most populist parties - throw from gurus around, make it sound plausible, then when they get called out deflect, blame the "elites" or the "vested interests" - a pretty classic failure dynamic

At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, it's like when lads on a football thread start going on about what they would do in a manager's place by proffering some completely obvious solution (I'd have the team score more goals, maybe tighten up at the back). Yeah, the professional manager is so ignorant of the basics of football that he has overlooked all the obvious and easy solutions just to keep his team losing.

The really deeply entrenched problems in our society do not have easy solutions, and anyone offering them can usually be ignored.

TheCitizen

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

So the answer to "how" is deflect, deflect deflect......bit like their taxation policy, their housing policy, their transport policy, even their social policy - it never stands up to even the most modest scrutiny. Which is pretty typical of most populist parties - throw from gurus around, make it sound plausible, then when they get called out deflect, blame the "elites" or the "vested interests" - a pretty classic failure dynamic

You're just rambling now

TheCitizen

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Modest tax??? They want a 5% on top of what people pay already.

Yes pal, I've seen it said elsewhere that it would translate to 5k tax on a salary of 250k. If you're on 250 k a year and you were asked to contribute 5k to a fund that would modernise the health service for all including rich people I would regard that as a modest increase. Let's say a family with someone earning 250k decides to emigrate because of that tax increase how much would it cost them to relocate?

In Ireland the rate of tax incl USC and PRSI on higher earnings is 52% in Sweden it's 56.9%. Sweden has a better health service and probably better other public services across the board, because they pay for it and those that can pay pay a bit more.

In Ireland though the "I'm alright Jack" crowd don't want to pay extra tax for better services and then of course there's FG fanboys and others who probably aren't earning those salaries themselves stupidly arguing on their behalf because it's the "Shinners" that are proposing it. Feckin eejits :pac:

[Deleted User]

TheCitizen wrote: »

Yes pal, I've seen it said elsewhere that it would translate to 5k tax on a salary of 250k. If you're on 250 k a year and you were asked to contribute 5k to a fund that would modernise the health service for all including rich people I would regard that as a modest increase. Let's say a family with someone earning 250k decides to emigrate because of that tax increase how much would it cost them to relocate?

In Ireland the rate of tax incl USC and PRSI on higher earnings is 52% in Sweden it's 56.9%. Sweden has a better health service and probably better other public services across the board, because they pay for it and those that can pay pay a bit more.

In Ireland though the "I'm alright Jack" crowd don't want to pay extra tax for better services and then of course there's FG fanboys and others who probably aren't earning those salaries themselves stupidly arguing on their behalf because it's the "Shinners" that are proposing it. Feckin eejits :pac:

Sweden also tax lower earners more (a lot more than Ireland), would you support that? FG have been very clear they don't want to tax the income of lower earners. (edited to say apart from the USC)

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/so-you-want-a-swedish-style-welfare-state-that-ll-be-more-tax-please-1.4188165

CtevenSrowder

TheCitizen wrote: »

Yes pal, I've seen it said elsewhere that it would translate to 5k tax on a salary of 250k. If you're on 250 k a year and you were asked to contribute 5k to a fund that would modernise the health service for all including rich people I would regard that as a modest increase. Let's say a family with someone earning 250k decides to emigrate because of that tax increase how much would it cost them to relocate?

In Ireland the rate of tax incl USC and PRSI on higher earnings is 52% in Sweden it's 56.9%. Sweden has a better health service and probably better other public services across the board, because they pay for it and those that can pay pay a bit more.

In Ireland though the "I'm alright Jack" crowd don't want to pay extra tax for better services and then of course there's FG fanboys and others who probably aren't earning those salaries themselves stupidly arguing on their behalf because it's the "Shinners" that are proposing it. Feckin eejits :pac:

The difference between the likes of Sweden and Ireland is not what the higher earners pay but the lower earners.

If you want a Scandinavian-esque style society then it is the lower earners who are going to have to start coughing up. No doubt if FG or FF did such a thing you'd be front and centre leading the charge against it.

Sultan_of_Ping

TheCitizen wrote: »

You're just rambling now

No, not at all.

I asked how will SF deliver 500 GPs and 3000+ nurses......you didn't answer.

Feel free to answer now or link to the document that explains how this will be achieved.

CtevenSrowder

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

No, not at all.

I asked how will SF deliver 500 GPs and 3000+ nurses......you didn't answer.

Feel free to answer now or link to the document that explains how this will be achieved.

He wants to tax the Consultants to pay for it.

[Deleted User]

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The difference between the likes of Sweden and Ireland is not what the higher earners pay but the lower earners.

If you want a Scandinavian-esque style society then it is the lower earners who are going to start coughing up. No doubt if FG or FF did such a thing you'd be front and centre leading the charge against it.

Pretty much, and it's worth pointing out just how centrist FG are. The myth they are hard right doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, imo.

TheCitizen

Deleted User wrote: »

Sweden also tax lower earners more (a lot more than Ireland), would you support that? FG have been very clear they don't want to tax the income of lower earners. (edited to say apart from the USC)

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/so-you-want-a-swedish-style-welfare-state-that-ll-be-more-tax-please-1.4188165

The tax increase SF are proposing would still be less than Sweden.

I would support paying more across the board but obviously tiered more heavily towards those who can pay more if - and this is the big if - we had politicians who had the political will to improve services. It's not just a money issue, it also involves the political courage to implement changes that certain vested cohorts will resist.

FFG have thrown money at the health system for years but reform hasn't happened. Often times they throw their hands in the air in defeat like some FFG posters here on this thread and claim it's not possible to fix the health system. Angola as Brian Cowen described it.

CtevenSrowder

TheCitizen wrote: »

The tax increase SF are proposing would still be less than Sweden.

I would support paying more across the board but obviously tiered more heavily towards those who can pay more if - and this is the big if - we had politicians who had the political will to improve services. It's not just a money issue, it also involves the political courage to implement changes that certain vested cohorts will resist.

We already have one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. If FF or FG even mention the idea of taxing lower earners more the knives would come out, particularly from the likes of you. The "vested cohorts" include the unions. Good luck to anyone trying to take them on, particularly after we get past this crisis.

TheCitizen wrote: »

FFG have thrown money at the health system for years but reform hasn't happened. Often times they throw their hands in the air in defeat like some FFG posters here on this thread and claim it's not possible to fix the health system. Angola as Brian Cowen described it.

And what will Sinn Fein do? Other than throw more money at it?

[Deleted User]

TheCitizen wrote: »

The tax increase SF are proposing would still be less than Sweden.

I would support paying more across the board but obviously tiered more heavily towards those who can pay more if - and this is the big if - we had politicians who had the political will to improve services. It's not just a money issue, it also involves the political courage to implement changes that certain vested cohorts will resist.

FFG have thrown money at the health system for years but reform hasn't happened. Often times they throw their hands in the air in defeat like some FFG posters here on this thread and claim it's not possible to fix the health system. Angola as Brian Cowen described it.

You are fairly at odds with SF's views on this tbf, and society in general. We have a reasonably fair tax system here.

Yurt2

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The difference between the likes of Sweden and Ireland is not what the higher earners pay but the lower earners.

If you want a Scandinavian-esque style society then it is the lower earners who are going to have to start coughing up. No doubt if FG or FF did such a thing you'd be front and centre leading the charge against it.

https://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/taxing-wages-sweden.pdf

A 2-D observation paying no attention as to how taxation works in both Sweden and Ireland.

The taxation burden on the average worker in both Ireland and Sweden is almost exactly the same @ approx 25% of income.

The tax wedge in Sweden is made up of far higher employer contributions.

[Deleted User]

Yurt! wrote: »

https://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/taxing-wages-sweden.pdf

A 2-D observation paying no attention as to how taxation works in both Sweden and Ireland.

The taxation burden on the average worker in both Ireland and Sweden is almost exactly the same @ approx 25% of income.

The tax wedge in Sweden is made up of far higher employer contributions.

Of course it is, but lower earners pay way more tax there all the same.

Would you support raising income taxes for lower earners?

CtevenSrowder

Yurt! wrote: »

https://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/taxing-wages-sweden.pdf

A 2-D observation paying no attention as to how taxation works in both Sweden and Ireland.

The taxation burden on the average worker in both Ireland and Sweden is almost exactly the same @ approx 25% of income.

The tax wedge in Sweden is made up of far higher employer contributions.

That doesn't refute what I said.

Shefwedfan

TheCitizen wrote: »

Yes pal, I've seen it said elsewhere that it would translate to 5k tax on a salary of 250k. If you're on 250 k a year and you were asked to contribute 5k to a fund that would modernise the health service for all including rich people I would regard that as a modest increase. Let's say a family with someone earning 250k decides to emigrate because of that tax increase how much would it cost them to relocate?

In Ireland the rate of tax incl USC and PRSI on higher earnings is 52% in Sweden it's 56.9%. Sweden has a better health service and probably better other public services across the board, because they pay for it and those that can pay pay a bit more.

In Ireland though the "I'm alright Jack" crowd don't want to pay extra tax for better services and then of course there's FG fanboys and others who probably aren't earning those salaries themselves stupidly arguing on their behalf because it's the "Shinners" that are proposing it. Feckin eejits :pac:

Not you pal

MIght be interesting if you reviewed the below: https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/personal-income-tax-rate?continent=europe

I think we can all agree lots of Ireland dont pay anything, maybe it is time they put hands into pockets for once.....

TheCitizen

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

We already have one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. If FF or FG even mention the idea of taxing lower earners more the knives would come out, particularly from the likes of you. The "vested cohorts" include the unions. Good luck to anyone trying to take them on, particularly after we get past this crisis.

And what will Sinn Fein do? Other than throw more money at it?

You have no solutions, just barbed smartass comments. The health service needs reform are you disputing that?

They came up with a solution, a plan called Slainte Care which has cross party approval. The questions was asked in a debate on health on RTE pre the election, they all agreed to implementing Slainte Care. The question was then asked how would the introduction of Slainte Care be funded, SF rep said a higher rate of tax on earnings over and above 150k. Simon Harris FG said "oh no sure the Consultants would all leave".

So in other words FG won't implement Slainte Care because they won't bring in the mechanisms necessary to fund it's introduction and implement it. They won't take on the vested interests who are their cronies. Sure sure, They'll pay lip service to introducing Slainte Care but like their Universal Health Insurance plan from more than a decade ago, they haven't the political will to actually implement it.

[Deleted User]

From the article I posted earlier. Are we to believe SF supporters want to add 25% more income tax on to lower earners?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/so-you-want-a-swedish-style-welfare-state-that-ll-be-more-tax-please-1.4188165

The numbers: the top 20 per cent of income earners here are taxed at 33 per cent of their income; the bottom 20 per cent at 12 per cent. In Sweden (to take a random example), the top quintile are taxed at 36 per cent of their income, the bottom at . . . 37 per cent. This covers both direct and indirect taxes – with the latter hitting lower earners much more steeply because they spend a greater share of their income on rent, food, etc.

TheCitizen

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Not you pal

MIght be interesting if you reviewed the below: https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/personal-income-tax-rate?continent=europe

I think we can all agree lots of Ireland dont pay anything, maybe it is time they put hands into pockets for once.....

Oh I agree. Lots of rich people with tax avoidance schemes and big corporations that pay next to fúck all in tax. Not even talking about taxing them the going rate seeing as everyone's afraid they'll upsticks and move elsewhere, they pay a pittance.

TheCitizen

Deleted User wrote: »

From the article I posted earlier. Are we to believe SF supporters want to add 25% more income tax on to lower earners?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/so-you-want-a-swedish-style-welfare-state-that-ll-be-more-tax-please-1.4188165

Typical. No one said that, but that doesn't stop you implying that someone did.

[Deleted User]

TheCitizen wrote: »

Typical. No one said that, but that doesn't stop you implying that someone did.

Well, I'll ask you and Yurt directly, would you support that level of increase on low earners?

CtevenSrowder

TheCitizen wrote: »

You have no solutions, just barbed smartass comments. The health service needs reform are you disputing that?

No, I'm not disputing it.

TheCitizen wrote: »

They came up with a solution, a plan called Slainte Care which has cross party approval. The questions was asked in a debate on health on RTE pre the election, they all agreed to implementing Slainte Care. The question was then asked how would the introduction of Slainte Care be funded, SF rep said a higher rate of tax on earnings over and above 150k. Simon Harris FG said "oh no sure the Consultants would all leave".

So in other words FG won't implement Slainte Care because they won't bring in the mechanisms necessary to fund it's introduction and implement it. They won't take on the vested interests who are their cronies. Sure sure, They'll pay lip service to introducing Slainte Care but like their Universal Health Insurance plan from more than a decade ago, they haven't the political will to actually implement it.

SF in tax higher earners shocker. As I've said, we've one of the most progressive tax systems in the World. Why should higher pays pay more yet again.

They could tax lower earners to the levels seen in Sweden to fund it. Why do you think they haven't done that? What do you think would happen if they proposed to do that?

blanch152

TheCitizen wrote: »

The tax increase SF are proposing would still be less than Sweden.

I would support paying more across the board but obviously tiered more heavily towards those who can pay more if - and this is the big if - we had politicians who had the political will to improve services. It's not just a money issue, it also involves the political courage to implement changes that certain vested cohorts will resist.

FFG have thrown money at the health system for years but reform hasn't happened. Often times they throw their hands in the air in defeat like some FFG posters here on this thread and claim it's not possible to fix the health system. Angola as Brian Cowen described it.

The people who earn more in Ireland pay more than average tax in the EU.
The people who earn less in Ireland pay less than average tax in the EU.

The room for tax increases without disincentivising working is mostly at the lower reaches, the problem is our above average life-long social welfare rates act as a disincentive to work.

If you want to fix the Irish tax and spend system, the only way to generate serious money for health, education and childcare is to firstly cut social welfare for anyone on social welfare longer than two years, secondly, increase USC and apply to all earnings, and then, but only then, increase the tax rate on household earnings over 150k.

TheCitizen

blanch152 wrote: »

The people who earn more in Ireland pay more than average tax in the EU.
The people who earn less in Ireland pay less than average tax in the EU.

The room for tax increases without disincentivising working is mostly at the lower reaches, the problem is our above average life-long social welfare rates act as a disincentive to work.

If you want to fix the Irish tax and spend system, the only way to generate serious money for health, education and childcare is to firstly cut social welfare for anyone on social welfare longer than two years, secondly, increase USC and apply to all earnings, and then, but only then, increase the tax rate on household earnings over 150k.

Why then and only then? Why hit lower earners first, why not top earners first?

A tax increase on earnings over and above 150k? How is that going to disincentivise working? What a load of bollocks.

CtevenSrowder

TheCitizen wrote: »

Why then and only then? Why hit lower earners first, why not top earners first?

A tax increase on earnings over and above 150k? How is that going to disincentivise working? What a load of bollocks.

Read the first 2 lines of his post.

TheCitizen

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No, I'm not disputing it.

SF in tax higher earners shocker. As I've said, we've one of the most progressive tax systems in the World. Why should higher pays pay more yet again.

They could tax lower earners to the levels seen in Sweden to fund it. Why do you think they haven't done that? What do you think would happen if they proposed to do that?

Why should higher paid people pay more? Because they can afford it best Einstein.

Are you lot being serious here :pac:

Shefwedfan

280 million is paid out to people for a "Christmas Bonus", personally I would spend that money on HSE.

This is just part of the 21.2 billion on Social Welfare.

Thing like unlimited children allowance, actually increasing for people to fire out more needs to be reviewed. The people that can afford to have children dont, the people that cant fire them out and then expect someone else to pay and look after them......

TheCitizen

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Read the first 2 lines of his post.

I already did what's your point. That doesn't change my view that a tax increase on earnings over and above 150k will disincentivise working as the other poster erroneously claimed.

[Deleted User]

TheCitizen wrote: »

Why should higher paid people pay more? Because they can afford it best Einstein.

Are you lot being serious here :pac:

You willing to raise lower earners income tax from 12% to 37%?

I'm not btw.