Can’t understand how the Shinners don’t want the SCC.
Provides a watertight system where juries can’t be ‘got at’ .
surely nobody wants juries interfered with?
Is this young FG lad suggesting FG were responsible for partition, which would make the party a party full of partitionists?
Seriously lads, can't yiz keep that clown away from tweeting stiff 🤣🤣🤣
I'd support one stopped the political appointment of crony judges.
If it were to be replaced by a wealth tax, yes I think it should be abolished. Should the family home come within the scope of a wealth tax? I don't think so, but the devil is in the detail - would a debt/equity ratio be considered? Etc.
The fundamental questions we would need to ask ourselves are, what does the LPT in its current form actually achieve, and is it used as an instrument to distribute wealth from the better off to the less well off? Do we need it to make up for a shortfall in funding for the provision of services and if so, why is there a shortfall when the annual tax receipts have never been so robust?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes, the next question would be whether or not there are better ways to achieve same.
As a (trainee) tax lawyer (soon to be dual qualified as a lawyer and a tax advisor), I would agree with a lot of what SF has to say about tax policy. You can disagree, but it's quite likely that you have less of an understanding of the actual ramifications of such measures. That's just my 2c.
You might be a trainee tax lawyer, it certainly seems that you are, but that doesn't mean you know anything about public policy. I have nearly 40 years experience working at a senior level in public policy with several Masters qualifications so I think I have seen and understood a lot more of those ramifications than you have.
The LPT is one of the fairest taxes in Ireland, with only income tax being fairer. Those that are homeless pay nothing, those that are in social housing pay nothing, those that are renting are not personally liable etc. It only falls on those wealthy enough to actually be in the position to buy and own a property. It also has the benefit of creating a separate revenue stream for local government. The next step in the reform of the LPT is to make it even more local, allowing individual county councils to set the rates in line with their budget requirements.
Sinn Fein's tax policies are daft. There is no other way of putting it. On income tax, Ireland already has the most progressive income tax system in Ireland to such an extent that there are serious questions arising as to the disincentive effect at the top. We have already had to offer some concessions to those on high salaries working for multinationals. Piling on more progression at the top as Sinn Fein propose could even decrease revenue as it will encourage more tax avoidance and increase the demand for tax lawyers to help with that avoidance.
Abolishing the carbon tax as Sinn Fein have proposed would be labelled by some as a crime against humanity. If anything, the current Government's objectives in relation to carbon tax are not enough. Abolishing it is crazy stuff.
Water charges and other demand charges are also a much needed reform in Ireland. Sinn Fein are against them, more madness.
Finally, a wealth tax. There is no wealth tax in the world that delivers the per capita return that Sinn Fein imagine (and it is their imagination) a wealth tax could deliver. The flight of capital from Ireland is a real risk - look at the likes of Denis O'Brien who moved to Portugal to avoid CGT.
Ireland needs LPT, water charges and carbon taxes. It needs reform of income tax that reduces the top rate financed by the removal of allowances and expenses. It needs a more robust approach by Revenue to the self-employed and small businesses that hide revenue. It needs reform of CGT in the area of carry-over of losses, and many of the CAT allowances also need to be cut so that rate can be reduced. In other words, greater simplification of the tax system so that there is less business for tax lawyers and a more equitable approach. That isn't what Sinn Fein are proposing, so I can see why you like it.
What has SF to say about tax policy, my friend.
Brush up on your history, Fine Gael didn't exist back then.
Might want to work on the old basic reading and comprehension there.
Mary Lou is trying to claim that the Treaty brought about partition. The tweet is pointing out that partition had been introduced by the British Government in 1920 via an act of Westminster parliament.
The quote (currently on the SF website) from Mary Lou is "The treaty bought about the British government's disastrous partition of Ireland".
So either Mary Lou is fundamentally unaware of the basic facts regarding her party's raison d'etre, or else she is - like plenty of her fanclub on here love to do - cynically trying to misrepresent things to try and score a few points with those who never both fact checking
I'm not sure if you quoted the right thing, as your message makes no sense at all. He's just pointing out that ML McDonald misidentified the Act of Parliament that partitioned Ireland.
Not sure how you think this has anything to do with your comment.
Just to be clear: you are going to be working in the field of making sure people and organisations avoid as much tax as possible, hoping to make a handsome living yourself. And you are campaigning here for a party that thinks (rightly, in many regards) that wealthy people and organisations are not paying enough tax?
We could post photos of the IRA murdering people except that it was socially unacceptable while they were doing it.
most? no not really.
All over the place as well as SF - it is not as simple as all the FF FG votes went to SF
True. Some welcomed fascism.
The blood was still on everybody's hands in the 1920's. Most of the IRA became FF and FG ministers.
SF just voted against a housing development in the Oscar Traynor Road (Dublin) was only passed because of FF FG Labour Greens
SF’s tactic seems to be housing is ‘our thing’ how dare anyone else build houses. Those are our votes? That is the impression I get.
Not sure about that! The Rattigan case springs to mind.
They found his associates had a list of the flipping jury!
What are you on about?
SF dont want to amend LPT so why are you saying they do?
Not really. Did you read your own article?
Sinn Féin, People Before Profit, the Social Democrats and a number of Independents all voted against the plan, which was supported by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Green Party and most Labour councillors.
They were saying there wasn't enough affordable or social.
and as disgraceful as that was it was a failure in the system and could have been prevented.
scc still not needed either way.
Of course it is, for the likes of that. Otherwise the whole justice system could collapse. Even SF hierarchy belatedly recognise this since their mates are not on the receiving end anymore. Gangland crime would have a field day if there was no SCC. I think it has served the country well and it was one of the better decisions made in this country IMO.
Its all affordable and social.
A revised scheme put forward by Glenveagh will now see all 853 properties used for State-supported homes – a tenure mix of 40pc social housing, 40pc cost rental and 20pc affordable purchase.
The affordable housing element will see one-beds priced between €204,000 and €238,000; two-beds from €227,000 to €284,000; and three-beds from €250,000 to €306,000.
Clearer here:
'This proposal was accepted by Fianna Fáil, the Greens, Fine Gael and most Labour councillors who have said it represents the best possible deal for much needed housing.Sinn Féin, the Social Democrats, People Before Profit and some individual councillors voted against, saying that the council should build the units directly.'
And here :
'Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the Green Party and several Labour councillors voted to approve the deal, while Sinn Féin, the Social Democrats, People Before Profit and most Independent councillors voted against'
--
It had been going on for years by the way.
Blanch is correct...
The vast majority of trials are not Jury trials and the vast majority of countries don't do them at all, for various reasons...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial
However, assistant chief executive David Dinnigan said the project would be delayed by at least four years if the council had to take it over and go through the procurement and approval processes.He said that the increase in construction cost would 'eat up' any saving to be had by hiring contractors
Already delayed a year and there would be little to no savings but another 4-year delay to the process.....
Someone should tell these jokers that there is a housing crisis.... but we all know they only care for bums on seats.
gangland criminality can be dealt with properly in a jury court with the proper resources.
no the scc is a stain on the country and has done nothing for it and it needs to go.
sf are just playing around with words to simply shut ffg up, really they want it gone or at least heavily reformed and ultimately it's not an issue either way for the vast majority of the electorate.
The poster suggested it was SF just trying to block housing for the hell of it.
Some councillors argued those prices were not affordable and there was concern at the amount of state subsidies being paid.
Independent councillor John Lyons said when the developer's profit and state subsidies such as the affordable purchase scheme and serviced site fund are taken into account, the total cost of outsourcing the construction to a developer will be €121 million.
Councillor Lyons also said the premium being charged by the developer works out at €68,000 per unit.
More to it.
SF invariably are the ones who oppose any housing. Normally the claim is 'it does not go far enough, or it is out of reach of the working class'. Basically playing to their voter base and trying to attract new desperate voters. A utopian promise.
So you know it wasn't just SF and just because 'housing was their thing'.
Yes, SF and the usual utopian cranks on the left.... great company SF have on this.
Again you are missing the point - it was mainly SF. NO SF councillor said this housing is a good idea in the case I mentioned above.
It is a clear strategy - I have yet to see diverange on SF on this housing issue - ie one SF councillor says it is a good idea - another says it is a bad idea. It never seems to happen.
It is always done as one united block ie - SF. So it tells me there is clear direction from the party hierarchy on such issues.
