lugha wrote: » What has that got to do with who might lend us 13 billion if we abandon austerity
Hijpo wrote: » Find out where spending has increased since 2005 when our expenditure was 42b and try get back to those levels.
Hijpo wrote: » Surely its not only an increase in public necessities and a decrease in tax that has caused the gap?
lugha wrote: » We know where a good lump of it went. Increases in public sector pay and social welfare payments and cuts in taxation. But reversing these measures amounts to austerity. And those fine fellows taking to the streets in Saturday are having no truck with that. Increases in outgoings (public spending) and / or reductions in income (taxes raises) pretty much is the way any budget deficit comes to be.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » I am actually. Tax receipts are up. Unemployment is still high, but at least has stabilised. GDP growth is sluggish, but at least we're no longer contracting. So yeah, it's improving. We've still a long way to go, but its a damn sight better than where we were, when there was a genuine concern the country would go bust.
gerryo777 wrote: » I am a building contractor, a small building contractor. I never got too big, I wasn't a developer, I'm not getting bailed out by NAMA. I didn't pay myself mad money and I didn't get carried away. I have been trading for almost 25 years and I'm pricing work now as keenly as I can in order to keep the 3 staff I kept on in work and not put them on the dole. I do my best to keep my lads going, even though they get paid as much as I do and in some cases more. I suppose to some pro-taxers on here, the problems of the country are all down to people like me, employment creators.
lugha wrote: » Contracts is a red herring. There is no difference in principle between what he did and what some here are doing. He felt justified ignoring the law because he thought it was unfair.
lugha wrote: » First, the march on Sat is against austerity, not for a better kind of austerity!
lugha wrote: » Second, I don’t think there would be any substantial difference in how any government would handle things. Things would be every bit as tough no matter who is in government. The current gang will eventually be replaced and you’ll see very little difference in effect when the new crowd around. People don’t like tough medicine and naturally blame who ever appears to be dishing it out. Now if someone actually had an alternative to austerity there might be some sense in agitating for a different approach. Alas …
gerryo777 wrote: » Tell you what though, if we had a properly functioning banking sector, I'd be employing more people.
Slick50 wrote: » I see FF have come up with a great slogan "A fairer way to recovery". I'm not sure if they mean the economy, or the party.
Slick50 wrote: » Flaying the big "red herring" stamp of dismissal. If you can't see the difference, it's because you don't want to. What if this bunch decided to introduce legislation making it illegal to march in protest, or raise any voice of dissent, would you feel obliged to obey this law too, because "it's the law"?. How about you Donal? People are marching under this banner, but there are many people marching for various reasons of their own, but united in their dissatisfaction with this bunch. My main bones of contention is they are levying this tax against my home. Also this "we don't want to increase tax on income" BS, when what they mean is we don't want to increase taxes on high earners. I see FF have come up with a great slogan "A fairer way to recovery". I'm not sure if they mean the economy, or the party. It will take more than that to change my mind about them, but at least they can identify public sentiment.
Slick50 wrote: » Flaying the big "red herring" stamp of dismissal.
Slick50 wrote: » People are marching under this banner, but there are many people marching for various reasons of their own, but united in their dissatisfaction with this bunch.
Slick50 wrote: » My main bones of contention is they are levying this tax against my home.
Slick50 wrote: » Also this "we don't want to increase tax on income" BS, when what they mean is we don't want to increase taxes on high earners.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » I am actually. Tax receipts are up. Unemployment is still high, but at least has stabilised.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » It's inaccurate to say it's a tax on homes. It's a tax on property. You can have taxable property that isn't your home. Or a home that isn't taxable.
lugha wrote: » Goodness, how many metaphors (?) have you butchered in that one short sentence? And the “contracts” argument is clearly daft. You didn’t specifically give your consent to, or sign a contract on, our laws against murder, theft, tax evasion, etc. Does that mean you are not bound by those laws either, if you think them unfair? If you take the view that individuals are justified in breaking a law that they think unfair (and we are not dealing with fundamental human rights matters, just ho-hum tax / money matters) then the only logical view you can take in relation to Sean Quinn is that you may disagree with him but that his actions are personally justified. But of course, none of you lads do. All of which reveal that their position is not “you can disregard a law you consider unfair”, rather it is “I can disregard a law I consider unfair”. Everybody else should abide by the rules. Well they are going to the wrong march then! It is quite clear that this is being flogged as a march against austerity. Ah this again. Presumably you are entirely unconcerned that a much greater tax demand is being levied against your income? Out of curiosity, why, if you think the government had a choice between upsetting a relatively small number of high earners and upsetting a much larger number of low to medium earners they would opt for the latter, given that their currency is votes?
bgrizzley wrote: » its the tax on homes that is the problem, remember that the tax on properties such as rental can be passed on by landlords to their renters, so they dont have to bear it, their tenants pay their tax for them. no wonder they were so fast to pay...
bgrizzley wrote: » just to put it in perspective E100 is not E4,000,000,000. if every single homeowner and landlord decided to pay this it makes E160,000,000, thats 4% of Seanins 4 billion euros if everyone paid. you could build 6(six) new paediatric hospitals with 4,000,000,000 you can cut a hedge with E100(not all of it though)
lugha wrote: » Ah now, you can’t be riding two bicycles (going in opposite directions) with one arse! One of the stated objections to property tax is that it is unfair because some do not pay. And private renters are part of that some. But not you are complaining that landlords will pass the cost on and renters will in fact have to pay? Ye’d drive a lad to drink so ye would. :pac: When I was seven, at my grandmothers knee, I learned that stealing was stealing. I can’t recall her saying anything about how as long as someone was stealing an awful lot more you were sound out? Anyway, I have not said the effect of SQ’s actions were on the same scale as someone not paying the HHC, only that the principle is the same. But SQ neatly illustrates the flaw in the argument that individuals are justified in breaking a law if they personally think they are being treated unfairly. Even if some of you still can’t see it.
bgrizzley wrote: » show me where i said renters should pay. go back over my posts, that has never been my argument, landlords not paying this wealth tax (and the assetless renters paying it for them) is one of the unfairest thing about it IMO.
bgrizzley wrote: » isnt every renter in the country now paying double according to "Lughanomics"?
lugha wrote: » Well you are well out of sync with the rest of the gang. One of their biggest gripes all along is that the HHC is for local services that everybody (owners, renters, those in LA housing) uses, so therefore everyone should pay.
lugha wrote: » You can hardly complain that the government are not listening to the people when the people are making polar opposite demands?
lugha wrote: » Not double but certainly (many) renters will pay more indirectly, and owner / occupiers will pay more directly. I don’t quite see the problem here?
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » If it were a tax on homes, then people in rented accommodation and local authority housing would be liable as well.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » I think its quite legitimate that people can oppose a tax for different reasons. In my opinion, the issue of landlords "passing it on" is a bit of a red herring. You could equally argue that if income tax were increased, landlords would also pass this on to their tenants. What the system does do is allow the market to dictate things. The landlords who attempt to pass on too much will be penalised in favour of those who don't.
gurramok wrote: » Hypocrisy exposed. You've no problem with the property tax as long as you can pass it on to some poor joe soap renting from you.
bgrizzley wrote: » i hope your right about the last bit but i doubt someone will up sticks and move cause a landlord is shafting them over E2, even E5 pw
John.Icy wrote: » This thread seriously makes me sad for the country.
Reloc8 wrote: » No not at all. But why should you not have to pay tax ? Including the HHC ?
Reloc8 wrote: » That wouldn't be any chance be on the basis of borrowing money from the 'properly functioning banking sector' would it ? Because that worked out brilliantly the last time 'round in your sector.
