dvpower wrote: » SF aren't a foreign party and church taxes go to the churches, not to the state.
Ghandee wrote: » Our govt could change that though. They've changed a fair amount of other laws to suit themselves.
miftha wrote: » What planet are you on. Last time I heard NI was not part of the Republic. Therefore any party with the same name are not the same and policies do not have to be the same (different countries). I have no affiliation to SF. We can be different here, we can tax them for the wealth they make (spiritual) and put it into central coffers for the bondholders. Same concept, different destination.
dvpower wrote: » You're not seriously suggesting that the state levy a tax on religious people? That's got to be the daftest idea I've heard on this thread so far.
Le_Dieux wrote: » No offence DH, but personally, I would prefer if SF were kept out of this discussion. There are too many unanswered questions when it comes to them for my liking. Hate to say this, but give me a 'ahearnless' FF any day above SF.
dvpower wrote: » What the he'll are you on about? The SF proposal for a wealth tax was for this jurisdiction and was included in their pre budget submission.
bgrizzley wrote: » whats so special about religious people? are they any better than dog owners? hard workers? car drivers? smokers?
bgrizzley wrote: » Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's
dvpower wrote: » What's so special about the non religious that you want to exempt them?this is a daft argument - you must be taking the piss
dvpower wrote: » You've managed to completely misunderstand the meaning of that quote.
miftha wrote: » Where did a wealth tax come into what I said?
dvpower wrote: » A big hole in your alternative proposal so.
miftha wrote: » And I could and will equally say it is daft to tax the principle home!
Ghandee wrote: » You knew that though, and were being pedantic.
Ghandee wrote: » My post was in reply to yours, and an observation that the current govt seem fit to change any law to suit their own agenda.
lugha wrote: » They are legislators. Why are you so surprised that they would introduce, modify or sometimes repeal legislation? And yes, ruling parties do tend to introduce laws that suit their agenda, or political outlook. What do you think they should be doing?
dvpower wrote: » post 989. you quoted my response to darkhorse re the SF wealth tax. read the discussion if your going to attempt to contribute.
dvpower wrote: » You could equally say anything you like. You still wouldn't be making sense.
Am Chile wrote: » Reminder for all non payers-national anti susterity march to take place three weeks from now on November 24th-I hope all non payers will be able to make the march in three weeks time.
Le_Dieux wrote: » Also got the following under comments on the Independent link AC:November 24th Dublin 1pm Anti-Austerity march contact your local Campaign Against Household Charges for bus details.
lugha wrote: » You could and plenty here have. Alas, when you ask them why is it daft or immoral etc to tax a person’s home but not for example, their income, the responses aren’t terribly convincing.
MadYaker wrote: » I don't see why a property tax would be any more unpopular than any other tax that raises the same revenue in the same period of time. And don't try and tell me its the principle of having to pay a tax on your home that you and all the others disagree with, the reason there is such opposition is because people don't want to, or can't pay any more tax regardless of what form it comes in. And I haven't seen any opposition parties or anyone in this thread come up with practical alternatives to a property tax that would somehow be more palatable to the electorate.
Le_Dieux wrote: » Guess we'll all be on the streets come the New Year: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tougher-budget-on-way-as-growth-stalls-3281210.html And linked into the comments above is THIS, which is VERY disturbing: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/10/09/1199151/its-austerity-multiplier-failure/ Greece? Here we come!:(
darkhorse wrote: » Yeah, dv, its right up there with, oh, lets say, the likes of imposing a tax on homes that people are already paying through the nose for by way of mortgage(in most cases for life), home insurance, maintainence, damage(accidental or otherwise). Not daft, mad.:mad:
K-9 wrote: » I do think this is more emotional.
darkhorse wrote: » You say emotional, K-9. No, emotional is losing a loved one to Cancer. Apart from that statement, Do you really not look at the economics where ordinary people are concerned, and, Do you really think that we should be paying more than we are already.
K-9 wrote: » I get you, I'm well aware of personal emotions, thanks for that! Seriously, politically taxing a house is suicidal here. I can remember the last property tax we had here and the clamour to get rid of it, which was a stupid thing to do. Instead of using a tax that might have controlled the bubble (probably wouldn't but it was a tool we had) we gave tax reliefs to developers and, people quickly forget, significant tax breaks for First Time Buyers and people moving house. As for taxes, I looked for a party in the 07 election that at least wanted taxes to remain the same, I couldn't find one that didn't want to reduce taxes, that includes SF, a supposedly high tax party. I saw no need to reduce taxes and increase tax credits, and reduce PRSI 10 years ago. if we hadn't we wouldn't be in as bad a situation as we are today. We are increasing taxes for no benefit whatsoever, other than pay debts. As for the property tax, I've no moral objection to it, I understand the objections against, but seeing as FG have promised not to increase income tax rates (they'll cut tax credits instead) and Labour are protecting SW rates and PS pay (and cut services for the vulnerable instead, cancer patients included I'm sure to be emotional, respite and alzheimer services in my personal experience), I don't really see much alternative. I suppose we could raise VAT yet again making things worse or cut tax credits again, 6 of one, half a dozen of another to me.
