blanch152 wrote: » They are not included in the 54,000 essential travellers who came through Dublin Airport. Francie is trying to tarnish thousands of people as rulebreakers without any evidence at all.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Have you a link or not?
blanch152 wrote: » You are accusing 54,000 people of being rulebreakers without any evidence, and you are asking me to produce a link to prove they are not rulebreakers. As it is the Sinn Fein thread, maybe you could prove to me that Mary-Lou is not Chief of Staff of the IRA, because by your rules, I could just say that she is without any evidence.
blanch152 wrote: » There are folk that think there is no cost to unification, that believe in taxing unicorns and rainbows to pay for it, that harmonisation is not necessary, thereby preserving discrimination. Complete charlatans that ignore the costs of unification.
Bowie wrote: » So you're off the pretend link from education to border control and are now dodging the silly claim you made and questions you dodged concerning a transition period to lie about people claiming unification would cost nothing...sad. We will need address costs. We will not refuse to form a united Ireland over it.
a very cool kid wrote: » Just as a matter of interest, how much money is too much in your opinion for a United Ireland? Given the Government income is about 60bn EUR in a good year....would you be willing to pay for example 50 euro a week for it?
Bowie wrote: » Can't say. I don't think anyone can give solid numbers so it's hard to judge. If you can tell me we'd be eating out of bins, for a fact or people would be dropping dead from the hunger while sleeping in the cold I'd suggest we hold off. TBF, we went broke for personal greed and got into generational debt to enable the same people and institutions flourish once again. Considering this was all acceptable and likely to happen again in our lifetime I'd rather we made sacrifices for a united Ireland than white collar chancers. I would not want someone on welfare or working needing state aid to enrich pals of FF/FG/Greens with rent to have to pay 50, no.
jh79 wrote: » Tricky one here is that FDI will need to increase to match the population increase so taxing multinationals wouldn't be wise. The ordinary worker is going to foot most of the bill. Unlike the bank bailout they will have a choice.
Bowie wrote: » As regards the other lads query, do you think people would have voted for generational debt?
a very cool kid wrote: » I meant you personally, would you pay 50 euro a week for twenty years for a United Ireland? Edit i didn't mean it so aggressively but yourself in the context as an ordinary worker!
jh79 wrote: » Hard to know given the circumstances. Why does it matter anyways? We get to choose if we want unification.
Bowie wrote: » It's the same premise, what would you be willing to pay for the bailouts or do you think they shouldn't have happened? I'm comparing the two. My thinking is we have and will be rode bailing out white collar chancers so paying towards a UI is much more rewarding and satisfying, IMO.
a very cool kid wrote: » Philip Boucher Hayes had a good documentary on the radio last week where he reckoned the bank bailout cost us 40 odd billion but saved us over a hundred billion had the banks not been bailed out. Interesting to note too that anyone with shares in a bank last everything. Anyway, you haven't answered my question, bad money if that's how you see it is already spent. The Germany example shows that reunification is extremely expensive for a good number of years - where one side is going to bring the other up to the same level. What do you think is a fair amount extra for an average worker in ROI to pay towards Unification? Even in a transition (where everything stays the same in NI) you're still running a whopper deficit. For colour some numbers: In ordinary times we have 2.1 million income tax payers - if we hit them for 50 euro extra a week that's about 5 and a half billion extra. That's about roughly half the NI subvention.
Bowie wrote: » I have answered yours completely. See the post above the one you quoted. You have not answered mine. Why do you think we should not have a transition period? Do you think the public would have voted for generational debt?
UDAWINNER wrote: » Remember at the weekend, Pearse Doherty getting owned for saying we had the worst figures in Europe, turns out he was right. Bet the same posters saying he got owned by Mary Butler will be very quiet or deflect. Shambles of a strategy by FFG. Apologies on a postcard:)
a very cool kid wrote: » Didn't he say we had the worst vaccination numbers - which isn't true? No one is arguing the cases are off the chart (but dropping)
touts wrote: » Had to laugh when I heard Pearse Doherty called out red handed for spreading Fake News on Saturday with Katie Hannon. And by Mary Butler of all people. She's not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer and yet she gutted him and all he could do was stammer and stutter a half apology. And in the week that people are not exactly very friendly to populist rabble rousers.
Deleted User wrote: » Almost as if ffg have taken to simply lying and gaslighting the population Stephen donnolly was at same type sh1t last night....they cant be trusted
a very cool kid wrote: » Philip Boucher Hayes had a good documentary on the radio last week where he reckoned the bank bailout cost us 40 odd billion but saved us over a hundred billion had the banks not been bailed out. Interesting to note too that anyone with shares in a bank last everything.
a very cool kid wrote: » Anyway, you haven't answered my question, bad money if that's how you see it is already spent. The Germany example shows that reunification is extremely expensive for a good number of years - where one side is going to bring the other up to the same level. What do you think is a fair amount extra for an average worker in ROI to pay towards Unification? Even in a transition (where everything stays the same in NI) you're still running a whopper deficit. For colour some numbers: In ordinary times we have 2.1 million income tax payers - if we hit them for 50 euro extra a week that's about 5 and a half billion extra. That's about roughly half the NI subvention.
blanch152 wrote: » The thing is that many of those who call for a united Ireland are not taxpayers.
grayzer75 wrote: » Have you evidence to back this up?
blanch152 wrote: » You won't get an answer on this. There is a very simplistic and naive narrative peddled by some posters around here that we can afford a united Ireland because we bailed out the banks. It is disingenuous, silly and off the wall, but that doesn't stop them. The thing is that many of those who call for a united Ireland are not taxpayers.
Fann Linn wrote: » Pearse was right by the looks of things.
jm08 wrote: » With negative interest rates at the moment, now is the time to borrow money.
jh79 wrote: » We'll have to wait for the people of NI first and we'll be borrowing plenty to plug the 19bn deficit due to COVID in the meantime.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)
