New Party: The Social Democrats.

An Ciarraioch · 17-07-2015 09:00PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd be surprised if there's not room for Power in the social dems. The big concern must be getting good rural candidates in so they don't appear to be East coast/Dublin centric.

And preferably fresh faces - they won't want to be labelled as merely a re-election vehicle. Like Renua, they'll struggle to have constituency structures in place before the election, but for appearances' sake, it'll be important for the SDs to have one candidate running in all 40, even if they're the only local member.

Annasopra · 19-07-2015 10:47AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Quinn?

Shortall jumped from government on a point of principle but you seem to be ignoring this.

I'm getting the impression from your posts you have issues with Shortall.

I don't trust Shortall no. She actively tried at every stage to block any liberalisation of abortion laws when she was in the labour party. This isnt rumour. I am more than surprised that she is supporting repeal the 8th now.

An Ciarraioch · 19-07-2015 03:03PM

Their biggest handicap could well prove to be unofficial endorsement by the Sindo - rather difficult to present yourselves as Borgenesque reshapers of the political system, if, as with Renua, the most establishment of media outlets has no objections.

Bannasidhe · 19-07-2015 09:39PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I don't trust Shortall no. She actively tried at every stage to block any liberalisation of abortion laws when she was in the labour party. This isnt rumour. I am more than surprised that she is supporting repeal the 8th now.

I think until you can provide some proof of that it is just a rumour. In my time as a member of the LP I certainly never heard of Shortall being considered anti-abortion. Not even YD claim shortall as a pro-lifer, they say she expressed concerns about lack of gestational limits - I am staunchly pro-choice, campaigned in '83 against the 8th and I would express concern about a bill that had no gestational limits.

I am not saying she is either/or- I am asking that you provide some evidence.

Loafing Oaf · 19-07-2015 09:51PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think until you can provide some proof of that it is just a rumour. In my time as a member of the LP I certainly never heard of Shortall being considered anti-abortion. Not even YD claim shortall as a pro-lifer,

And in fact they once picketed her home, according to the YD wikipedia page. Shortall's late brother Brendan was a prominent member of PLAC back in the day, maybe Joey is making assumptions about her on that basis...

An Ciarraioch · 20-07-2015 12:02PM

Shortall on Radio Kerry today, claiming position on water charges is because operational costs exceed revenue, and would prefer reversion to plan whereby users would pay for excess after a household limit. Whether Murphy and Donnelly agree remains to be seen ...

Quin_Dub · 20-07-2015 12:58PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Shortall on Radio Kerry today, claiming position on water charges is because operational costs exceed revenue, and would prefer reversion to plan whereby users would pay for excess after a household limit. Whether Murphy and Donnelly agree remains to be seen ...

How is that any different to the current policy???

Households get a "limit" that if they don't exceed they pay nothing. Meters are required to measure said usage.

That's what we have today...exactly..

So basically her entire "anti-Water" position boils down to her thinking that the allowance is too small....

How revolutionary......

jank · 20-07-2015 02:42PM

To add, this 'Nordic Model' means that it is not really the higher earners who will have to pay more tax, as in Ireland those earning an average decent salary would not be far off in total what they pay in the Nordic countries....

If one wants to implement this system here, then those on the lower end of the scale will have to pay far far more income tax then they do now. Sure, those on the Min wage currently only pay USC and rumours are that this is being done away with or the band expanded in the next budget. Will the Social Democrats be campaigning to have those on the lower end of the income scale pay their fair share of 'Nordic' Taxes, thus submit a budget proposal to not only cement the USC but increase it?

I would not have thought so. It seems banding about slogans like 'Nordic Model' is just a quick and easy catch phrase as the reality is that to implement it like for like, those on lower incomes would see their real incomes drop quite substantially. They should at least be honest about it rather then talk through the side of their mouths.

Chips Lovell · 20-07-2015 02:56PM

Speaking of the Nordic model, there was an interesting report in the Times last week on the National Economic Dialogue conference.

Two different contributors made all-to-rare attempts to puncture the widespread belief that we can have both low taxes and a high level of state services.

“If people want a Nordic model, then we all have to pay for them,” [Robert Watt, secretary general of the Department of Public Expenditure] said. “It’s a falsehood to suggest that we can have the best services in the world without paying for them.”

Dr Dónal de Buitléir, chairman of the Low Pay Commission and director of publicpolicy.ie, also said a hollowing out of the tax base meant there was limited scope for policymakers, He said a single person on average or below earnings in Denmark paid up to 13 times more in tax than an Irish person on equivalent wages.

Quin_Dub · 20-07-2015 03:13PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Speaking of the Nordic model, there was an interesting report in the Times last week on the National Economic Dialogue conference.

Two different contributors made all-to-rare attempts to puncture the widespread belief that we can have both low taxes and a high level of state services.

Dr Dónal de Buitléir, chairman of the Low Pay Commission and director of publicpolicy.ie, also said a hollowing out of the tax base meant there was limited scope for policymakers, He said a single person on average or below earnings in Denmark paid up to 13 times more in tax than an Irish person on equivalent wages.

And therein lies the single biggest problem for the left in this country (or any country to be fair) - the fact that the reality of their demands is impossible to deliver in the real world...

The "Nordic" model works (and there's actually quite a bit of evidence now that it doesn't really work) because of a heavy degree of social solidarity leading to the people being ok with higher taxes in return for better services..

Ireland does not have Social Solidarity - Not even a little.

We are either in the camp that says "I don't want any(more) of my taxes spent on those wasters" or we're in the "I should get everything for free, I'm entitled to it" camp.

BoJack Horseman · 20-07-2015 03:27PM

I bloody hate the expression: "Nordic Model".

The Danish government extracts 48% of the value of its economy as taxes.... Ireland is around 36%.

Think if all the taxes, VAT & levies you pay.... Now increase that by a third

Do this for a minimum of a decade to make up for the multiple decades if public service under investment.

Then enjoy your 'services'.

No thanks.

Any politician promising 'the Nordic model' goes to the bottom of my ballot.

Chips Lovell · 20-07-2015 03:30PM

I don't think its impossible really. Just impossible when accompanied by relatively low taxes. A lot of Danes are fine with that. A lot of Irish aren't, but continue to believe they can have the equivalent of Danish public services

Quin_Dub · 20-07-2015 03:32PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I bloody hate the expression: "Nordic Model".

The Danish government extracts 48% of the value of its economy as taxes.... Ireland is around 36%.

Think if all the taxes, VAT & levies you pay.... Now increase that by a third

Do this for a minimum of a decade to make up for the multiple decades if public service under investment.

Then enjoy your 'services'.

No thanks.

Any politician promising 'the Nordic model' goes to the bottom of my ballot.

Absolutely...

Up there with the "We'll repeal Tax X or Charge Y if we get into government" - you will yeah...

Bit like the Trots coming out the other day saying that they would give anyone that has paid the water charges their money back if they get into Government...

They can promise everybody a pony as well because they will never ever ever get a chance to implement a single policy...

Quin_Dub · 20-07-2015 03:36PM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I don't think its impossible really. Just impossible when accompanied by relatively low taxes. A lot of Danes are fine with that. A lot of Irish aren't, but continue to believe they can have the equivalent of Danish public services

That's the key piece - The Danes et al are willing to pay for the services. The people in Ireland shouting the loudest about poor Public services are also the one shouting the loudest at any attempt by the government to broaden the tax base..

Utterly delusional.

I have no issue with people having different options/politics than me , but I have absolutely no time for those that are unable to provide a cogent supporting argument for their viewpoint.

Muahahaha · 20-07-2015 04:57PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd be surprised if there's not room for Power in the social dems. The big concern must be getting good rural candidates in so they don't appear to be East coast/Dublin centric.

She'd be a very good fit for the SDs IMO, mainly because Averil is very active on national issues, as are the three founding TDs. That said Power has a tough battle ahead just to win a seat in Dublin Bay North, irrespective of her allegiance. I'd like to see her sign up though, I doubt she is ever going back to FF and she won't make as much impact playing as a lone wolf.

Sam Russell · 20-07-2015 05:15PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

How is that any different to the current policy???

Households get a "limit" that if they don't exceed they pay nothing. Meters are required to measure said usage.

That's what we have today...exactly..

So basically her entire "anti-Water" position boils down to her thinking that the allowance is too small....

How revolutionary......

That is the opposite way it works currently.

If you have a meter, you are given a 'free' allowance depending on your family size. There is a maximum amount per year per household (other than single occupancy) of €260 irrespective of the amount of water used. A meter may bring you under this figure but it is tight because the unit charge is €3.70 which is double the commercial rate of €2 (varies a bit), and the cost average in Europe.

What should be done is make the unit charge much less than the commercial rate, charge a standing charge with a 'free' usage allowance, and for high users charge extra.

K-9 · 20-07-2015 06:37PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is the opposite way it works currently.

If you have a meter, you are given a 'free' allowance depending on your family size. There is a maximum amount per year per household (other than single occupancy) of €260 irrespective of the amount of water used. A meter may bring you under this figure but it is tight because the unit charge is €3.70 which is double the commercial rate of €2 (varies a bit), and the cost average in Europe.

What should be done is make the unit charge much less than the commercial rate, charge a standing charge with a 'free' usage allowance, and for high users charge extra.

That makes sense, but that would mean higher rates?

An Ciarraioch · 20-07-2015 07:05PM

K-9 wrote: »

That makes sense, but that would mean higher rates?

Quite possibly, but it would at least encourage conservation, with people taking showers instead of baths and similar economising measures.

Sam Russell · 20-07-2015 07:13PM

K-9 wrote: »

That makes sense, but that would mean higher rates?

Well you can set rates anyway you like. The problem with the current system is that the whole thing was cooked up in secrecy.

There would be less controversy if the rates had been decided before the local elections and had been spelled out clearly. If it was stated that a meter would ALWAYS mean a lower bill for the first few years, and meters were an option, then meter protests would have been pointless. Also a fixed charge per quarter, and that to include a reasonable usage amount, would sound a fair way of doing the charges.

Why 'free' amounts for children were introduced beats me. You will have demands for free electricity for warming the baby's bottle next. Treat it like electricity or gas and it will be understood - standing charge plus metered usage.

I would drop the waste water element for the time being.

hatrickpatrick · 20-07-2015 08:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't like Shortall due to her minimum alcohol pricing stance, but respect the other two. Donnelly should retain my vote

This is exactly why I'm interested in what kind of whip/guillotine this alliance will employ. If it isn't a three line whip on every vote, then Shortall's alcohol policies don't have to matter if we can right to TDs in that potential government and tell them to stuff it.

An Ciarraioch · 20-07-2015 08:18PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is exactly why I'm interested in what kind of whip/guillotine this alliance will employ. If it isn't a three line whip on every vote, then Shortall's alcohol policies don't have to matter if we can right to TDs in that potential government and tell them to stuff it.

From what I gather, they're taking the Renua line that whips will only be applied for votes of confidence and Budget votes, otherwise they're free to differ.

hatrickpatrick · 20-07-2015 08:24PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

From what I gather, they're taking the Renua line that whips will only be applied for votes of confidence and Budget votes, otherwise they're free to differ.

That's a start. A big one. Personally I disagree hugely on the confidence issue - if government TDs believe that a minister has disgraced him or herself and the opposition tables a no confidence motion in that minister, as far as I'm concerned they should be free to bring him or her down. That would ensure real accountability. But it's a great start nonetheless.

K-9 · 20-07-2015 10:39PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Shortall on Radio Kerry today, claiming position on water charges is because operational costs exceed revenue, and would prefer reversion to plan whereby users would pay for excess after a household limit. Whether Murphy and Donnelly agree remains to be seen ...

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Quite possibly, but it would at least encourage conservation, with people taking showers instead of baths and similar economising measures.

No problem with that myself.

Going on An Ciarraiochs post, they would want to increase the revenues so that adds up, but that doesn't seem like they want to scrap water charges as some seem to think.

On the tax discussion, bloody disgusted to see FG promising to remove 500,000 people from the USC net. We've learned nothing over the last 10 years, these will pay Zero tax, USC or PRSI. A bloody joke.

The Kenny says he's looking at increasing minimum wage but reducing Employers PRSI as a sweetener.

I'm not sure what people mean by the Nordic model any more, they've reduced tax rates and there's a fair bit of privatisation.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel

jank · 21-07-2015 02:43AM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That's the key piece - The Danes et al are willing to pay for the services. The people in Ireland shouting the loudest about poor Public services are also the one shouting the loudest at any attempt by the government to broaden the tax base..

Utterly delusional.

I have no issue with people having different options/politics than me , but I have absolutely no time for those that are unable to provide a cogent supporting argument for their viewpoint.

This is the problem really with Irish politics and especially the Irish left. It is no surprise for Centre or Centre right parties want a low tax economy. That is their bread and butter and to an extent, it appears this is the best solution all things being equal around the world, that is another topic though.

However, the Irish left want to have world-class public services and have some magical made up entity pay for it. The paradox of Irish socialists being against property tax which as far as I know are the only socialist party in europe if not the world who are against such a measure. Yet, on the same hand they will want a 'wealth tax'. Well, property tax IS a wealth tax by its very nature. The more properties you own and the more they are worth the more 'wealth' tax you pay....

When it comes to income tax we have the same Frankenstein-esque policy. They want world class public services, yet want to take half the working population out of the tax net and tax everyone else to preposterous levels.

I made a key post here tax on the minimum wage some months back. If you are on the minimum wage in Ireland and work full time, the total level of tax you pay will be in the guts of about 2.9% of all income.

In Australia, which is by no means a Nordic country in terms of income taxes, one on the minimum wage will pay around 9.2% of their income in tax.
So 2.9% vs 9.2%, and budget 2016 will see that 2.9% shrink even more. The latter figure would be the same if not much much more in many of these European or Nordic countries. Of course the difference between the two countries is that those who earn a good wage are not taxed as much in Australia as in Ireland. Anything over 33,800 euro will be taxed at 51% (from memory), in OZ you have to earn $180,000 to be taxed at the very highest rate of 48.5% (this was 46.5% up to 3 weeks ago, there is a two year temp tax for the current budget deficit).

There is an inherent dishonesty about this debate from the left and unfortunately the Social Democrats as it stands now are no different. They could be honest with the public and state out their cause that a Nordic model would need EVERYONE most of all those on lower incomes pay more tax. I would respect them for doing that but they are just engaging in populism, much like all other.

And, that is not even touching on value for money when it comes to tax spend in Ireland. Are we getting value for money from the HSE or Irish water for example? The Nordic countries are full of Nordic people who tend to do government and budgets differently then we do never-mind that they are generally much more fiscally conservative then we are.

These comparisons between Ireland and the likes of Norway or Denmark are usually false and cherry picked to suit the prevailing agenda of the day, rather then engage in truthful debate of the totality of each system.

oscarBravo · 21-07-2015 02:30PM

I giggled:

jimmycrackcorm · 21-07-2015 09:49PM

Dear social democrats

In the Nordic model a pint of Guinness will cost some â‚¬8. Good luck with your ongoing minimum pricing battle Roisin....

Yours etc

BoJack Horseman · 21-07-2015 11:19PM

They seemed to be pretty responsive on twitter, so I asked them when can we expect the Nordic style tax announcements, to go along with Nordic style services.

Sadly, no response yet.

I mean... This is about integrity, they won't stonewall me.

Bannasidhe · 22-07-2015 09:15AM

Personally I have no issue with higher taxes if I get free healthcare (few grand a year saved on Health insurance there for a start), or genuinely free education (parents/students would save an absolute fortune!)

I see a lot of people moaning about higher taxes but failing to mention what those 'higher' taxes fund...

Actually... according to this Ireland's Income Tax rate is not much lower than Sweden's once one hits the average wage (both are a lot lower than the posterboy economy of Germany) http://www.taxinstitute.ie/Portals/0/Effective%20Income%20Tax%20Rates%20Ireland%20v%207%20competitor%20countries.pdf and this chart doesn't include the USC .

What we have in Ireland is comparable taxes coupled with gross institutional inefficiency and obscene wastage of public monies compounded by zero accountability.

FreudianSlippers · 22-07-2015 09:28AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Personally I have no issue with higher taxes if I get free healthcare (few grand a year saved on Health insurance there for a start), or genuinely free education (parents/students would save an absolute fortune!)

I see a lot of people moaning about higher taxes but failing to mention what those 'higher' taxes fund...

Actually... according to this Ireland's Income Tax rate is not much lower than Sweden's once one hits the average wage (both are a lot lower than the posterboy economy of Germany) http://www.taxinstitute.ie/Portals/0/Effective%20Income%20Tax%20Rates%20Ireland%20v%207%20competitor%20countries.pdf and this chart doesn't include the USC .

What we have in Ireland is comparable taxes coupled with gross institutional inefficiency and obscene wastage of public monies compounded by zero accountability.

Doesn't work in Ireland. Look how much money we shovel into the health service at present, and what do we get for it? Throwing more money at our current system isn't going to fix anything.

BoJack Horseman · 22-07-2015 09:29AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What we have in Ireland is comparable taxes

No... No we don't.

To match Denmark, the government here would need to raise an additional €18 billion in taxes... every single year.

That's more than all of VAT receipts collected nationally.

It will be quite a big deal when we see the SocDems Nordic tax plan....
I've a feeling the €12,000 per household average tax hike won't be popular

New Party: The Social Democrats.

Comments