Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Sinn Fein and how do they form a government dilemma

1218219221223224392

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Nigel Farage is a fanatical British nationalist, plenty of fanatical Irish nationalists in Sinn Fein, the comparison is a lot closer to home than you think.

    Carbon taxes make sense everywhere, and it is only right-wing parties that oppose them. Did you see one of SF's other budget proposal - abolish property tax!!! That is another right-wing policy. Renters, the homeless and those living in social housing don't pay property tax, and Sinn Fein is again aligning with right-wing parties on this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,057 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    SF do not propose to abolish the carbon tax.

    The propose to not increase it any further.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,057 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    I had a look at SF's alternative Budget 2025.

    It is massively expansionary.

    On top of the planned increases in spending by the current Govt, they propose:

    + 7.9bn extra spending

    0.6bn extra tax

    image.png

    That would wipe out the Budget Surplus.

    This is pro-cyclical fiscal policy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,051 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Nigel Farage is a fanatical British nationalist, plenty of fanatical Irish nationalists in Sinn Fein, the comparison is a lot closer to home than you think.

    Fanatical, racist, idiotic, sounds nothing like SF in my books but you probably don't understand politics much so

    Carbon taxes make sense everywhere, and it is only right-wing parties that oppose them. Did you see one of SF's other budget proposal - abolish property tax!!! That is another right-wing policy. Renters, the homeless and those living in social housing don't pay property tax, and Sinn Fein is again aligning with right-wing parties on this.

    You are looking at this in a very strange way. SF have always opposed the property tax because of its regressive nature. Notably ie was introduced by FG and kept on by every partner they have had. Maybe in your books that makes FG liberal lefties?

    The SF plan is to abolish property taxes and introduce taxation on those who are fortunate to earn higher wages so doesn't quite align with right wing policies which would look to protect the higher earners.

    On the note of renters not paying property tax, do you truly believe landlords haven't budgeted for it in the calculation of rent?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Higher wage earners are not necessarily wealthy.

    Property taxes are the only tax on wealth.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Was hoping for a reply given he/she was active in the party.

    Something is responsible for the high anti immigrant sentiment among SF supporters all the same.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79,520 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Thought they had withdrawn their support for SF.



  • Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The ones that were former comrades have morphed into something much more that "anti immigrant sentiment" to be fair. They really do hate SF for inviting them into the fold and then abandoning them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79,520 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    or they thought they’d get support and didn’t.
    SF aren’t chasing them. Someone else is and they’re welcome.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    SF caught them first. That's why they hate SF so much now. Bitter ex so to speak.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79,520 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    They didn't ‘catch’ them extolling or promising far-right policy jh79, evidently that was something they deluded themselves about.



  • Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Some SF members at the lower levels formed friendships with these people through the various protest, internet forums and people like Paddy Holahan made the party more attractive to them.

    SF even made councillors out of people active in the CT communities, supported Gemma more than any other party and had vocal anti vaxers. Why wouldn't they vote for SF when they could easily identify with so many in the party.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79,520 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    You can't have it every which way jh79
    SF are anti-immigration.
    also; SF have lost support because they aren't anti-immigration

    Which is it?



  • Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I don't think they intentionally targeted the right. The party has members that are active in conspiracy theorists communities where these people were also very active and at the time immigration wasn't really an issue so they were attracted to SF for that reason and a blind eye was shown to some of their more unsavoury views.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79,520 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    This is like claiming that other parties are full of all the 'right' type of people. They most certainly aren't.

    Again and again we see people like yourself trawling the lower ranks for a conspiracy theory or anti-immigration gotcha.

    It is not party policy, if anti immigration dogwhistling emerges or the party policy turns to the right or they start promoting conspiracy anti vax theories then I would worry.

    The media and general populace and invested organisations are not accusing SF of dogwhistling.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79,520 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    There is zero evidence that 'SF' had a social media strategy such as that. If you are suggesting it was run by the party.
    The actual evidence suggests that that activity was carried on by those who have withdrawn support and who were likely not members or under the control of SF.
    MLMD and others in the party reprimanded those people several times.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,051 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    People who own houses are not necessarily wealthy either

    In any case, a regressive tax is one that is charged the same regardless of earnings. Property tax, VAT, carbon tax are all examples of taxes that are levied on somebody regardless of their ability to pay. Just for clarity I'm not saying all regressive taxation is bad, tobacco duties for example is one we could debate as being regressive and good, although perhaps on another thread



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    People who own houses are by definition wealthy, as they are not renting and they are not living in social housing.

    They may not have a high income, but once again, that there is a difference between high wealth and high income shows that it is necessary to tax both.

    The person who will be the biggest beneficiary from the abolition of LPT by Sinn Fein is J.P. McManus. His income in Ireland is tax-free, there is no tax on his horse-racing business, and he is resident abroad for his other interests, so the only tax he pays is LPT.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79,520 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Of course you leave out what SF are actually proposing. They propose to replace the LPT with a wealth tax on income and property. So there'd be no benefit to Mr McManus.

    Nice try but it's fallen flat on it's face.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,923 ✭✭✭✭astrofool




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79,520 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    *bolding mine

    What Assets are included?

     All income and savings

     Stocks and shares and all other financial products in public companies

     Shares in private non-trading companies

     Land

     Buildings

     Second and subsequent homes including holiday homes

     Personal possessions including art, cars, boats, planes, jewellery, gold

    WealthTaxProposalsWeb.pdf (sinnfein.ie)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,923 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    How is income an asset? Is it being double taxed in this proposal? The SF document seems utterly mad, the mad ramblings of a high Guevara shirt wearing college student.

    Why does every SF proposal involve redefining what words mean in some way.

    Bonkers.

    That's the document they should be sending to every household, it would bring their vote % back to 1997 levels.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79,520 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    That's the document they should be sending to every household, it would bring their vote % back to 1997 levels.

    Unlikely given 8 out of 10 people surveyed think LPT is an unfair tax.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    It is completely bonkers, income is not wealth. It shows you how stupid SF policy makers are.

    Why should J.P. McManus's shares in his private trading companies be excluded, but somebody could be taxed on a few shares they bought for their retirement.

    Why should a full business be excluded but only 20% of a family home?

    Oh, just read it, it isn't Pearse's Leaving Cert project, it was written in 2012, it was just a sixth class primary school project.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    If 8 out of 10 think LPT is unfair, you're probably hitting 9.5 out of 10 with this proposal. It actually goes after ordinary people and the exclusions apply to big farmers and big family-owned businesses. Now that I think about it, the good republicans on the border would be exempted.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,923 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    How many would prefer a further tax on income over LPT?

    SF also seem to be in a race with themselves to narrow the tax base as much as possible.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79,520 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Funny boy.
    Not hard to know what you are doing.
    First it was the big sensational multi millionaire would be the only one to benefit now it’s the scary good republicans.
    Tiresome.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,908 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox


    I see the Ukrainians are no longer in vogue for the shinners

    Is it left or right for Gibraltar sinn fein?

    SmartSelect_20240928-004455_Chrome.jpg

    https://x.com/PearseDoherty/status/1838944691309470034



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79,520 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Led by Leo Varadkar we had a year or more of people being excoriated in the Dáil, in the media, here on boards.ie for raising concerns about the levels of immigration. They were 'racist', 'Putinists' 'Far Right vote grabbers etc etc etc. as the aforementioned Varadkar and his government basked in the glow of their virtue signalling.

    Now we have the self same Varadkar admitting he was wrong, Simon Harris distorting the figures to dogwhistle and a conversation opening up about the mess that has been made of the whole issue.

    That conversation has to be frank but responsible.

    SF objected to the fairness of this scheme and the effects it was having a year ago when it was extended so there is nothing new here. Like with what Harris said you have to decide if he is right or wrong.

    Doherty is blaming the government for this not Ukrainians. And he is not looking for people to be thrown off the scheme but just to stop new applications to it.

    If Doherty is wrong about the effect this is having

    Doherty has claimed that now one in seven private rental properties in his home county of Donegal were not being put on the housing market as, according to the TD, landlords reckon they receive better revenue by leasing the home to those from Ukraine.

    He told the Dáil: “The scheme, as you know Minister, provides €800 a month to pay for rent for Ukrainians regardless of whether they’re working and regardless of their income. The payment is tax free, and that means – to a landlord – that it is worth €1,600.

    then he is indeed dogwhistling like Harris.



Advertisement
Advertisement