General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

James Brown · 17-09-2019 2:34pm

beggars_bush wrote: »

What are we going to spend the 13 billion (+interest) on lads?

that bridge to the UK might be handy

If we are forced to take it it will go down some hole for sure.

L1011 · 17-09-2019 3:00pm

Other countries will be looking for transfer taxes from us if we take it. Don't expect it to ever end up in the exchequer.

Mongfinder General · 17-09-2019 4:22pm

Fine Gael's budget is rumored to contain nothing for Paye slaves and oaps. So unless that changes I'd expect a big swing to FF.

Zubeneschamali · 17-09-2019 4:35pm

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Fine Gael's budget is rumored to contain nothing for Paye slaves and oaps. So unless that changes I'd expect a big swing to FF.

They've already said its a No Deal Brexit budget, so no giveaways, keep the exchequer filled to deal with the fallout in case No Deal happens.

I dare FF to call for a giveaway, remind everyone who we are dealing with and how they haven't changed since the 70s.

James Brown · 17-09-2019 5:06pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They've already said its a No Deal Brexit budget, so no giveaways, keep the exchequer filled to deal with the fallout in case No Deal happens.

I dare FF to call for a giveaway, remind everyone who we are dealing with and how they haven't changed since the 70s.

Fiscal conservatism ahead of time will be a head sell.

Podge_irl · 17-09-2019 5:30pm

Pragmatism is always a hard sell. It's pretty much the single biggest issue with democratic politics.

Zubeneschamali · 17-09-2019 7:09pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Fiscal conservatism ahead of time will be a head sell.

Which is how FF keep winning.

But their last almighty blowout is too fresh in our minds for them to start helicoptering into the Galway Tent just yet.

is_that_so · 17-09-2019 7:13pm

L1011 wrote: »

Other countries will be looking for transfer taxes from us if we take it. Don't expect it to ever end up in the exchequer.

Yeah, nowt for us. Most of it is likely to end up in the US. This stage of the process may take at least 4-5 years and then probably the best part of a decade to address where it belongs.

James Brown · 17-09-2019 7:32pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Which is how FF keep winning.

But their last almighty blowout is too fresh in our minds for them to start helicoptering into the Galway Tent just yet.

It's a combination of things. FG can't get the formula right, otherwise they'd be at same. I do not believe FG are willing to lose an election for the greater good.

Podge_irl · 17-09-2019 7:42pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Yeah, nowt for us. Most of it is likely to end up in the US. This stage of the process may take at least 4-5 years and then probably the best part of a decade to address where it belongs.

Why would it end up in the US? It will end up in various EU countries.

Kermit.de.frog · 17-09-2019 9:14pm

If the Irish people put back in Fianna Fáil who destroyed this country and was forced to surrender it's sovereignty to the IMF then they deserve everything coming to them.

In any other civilised country Fianna Fáil would not exist after what happened here.

lola85 · 17-09-2019 9:19pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If the Irish people put back in Fianna Fáil who destroyed this country and was forced to surrender it's sovereignty to the IMF then they deserve everything coming to them.

In any other civilised country Fianna Fáil would not exist after what happened here.

Another one I heard the other day from FFs legacy is why we have the highest morgtage interest rates in the EU.

The banks have to have a certain amount of capital after the last crash strictly imposed by the central bank.

The amount of things that is FFs fault from the recession that people don’t realise.

Household charge.
Property tax.
USC.
High interest rates.
The housing crisis.

Anyway they will be back in and all of forgiven.

Zubeneschamali · 17-09-2019 10:10pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

FG can't get the formula right, otherwise they'd be at same.

The only FG leader to join the FF style party was Enda, who saw Baldy Noonan get destroyed for being a killjoy. But he still couldn't win until FF blew everything up - he might as well have told the truth and not promised to keep the party going.

I don't know if Varadkar has any backbone on the subject, he hasn't been tested yet.

is_that_so · 18-09-2019 9:35am

Podge_irl wrote: »

Why would it end up in the US? It will end up in various EU countries.

It is US money that would eventually be repatriated. Other countries have claimed they are owed money but they'll have a very long rocky road to prove it.

Podge_irl · 18-09-2019 1:32pm

is_that_so wrote: »

It is US money that would eventually be repatriated. Other countries have claimed they are owed money but they'll have a very long rocky road to prove it.

They are taxes deemed owed in the EU. Whether or not money would be subsequently taxed if repatriated to the US is irrelevant, this money will go to Ireland immediately if the judgement goes that way and then other EU countries will claim bits and pieces of it. The US has no claim on EU taxes.

Hotblack Desiato · 18-09-2019 1:48pm

Equally, other EU countries have no legal right to claim our corporation tax.

The Apple judgment is ridiculous and the appeal will carry.

is_that_so · 18-09-2019 1:55pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

They are taxes deemed owed in the EU. Whether or not money would be subsequently taxed if repatriated to the US is irrelevant, this money will go to Ireland immediately if the judgement goes that way and then other EU countries will claim bits and pieces of it. The US has no claim on EU taxes.

No, they are taxes owed to Ireland based on how Apple is set up in Europe and nobody else. That's what the judgement said. Other EU countries want a slice of it and think they can get it despite not having any tax laws that will allow them to do so.
Revenue deemed Apple to be tax compliant under its rules so it had no further claims on money Apple owned. Apple being a US corporation can repatriate it and yes it would be taxed in the US.
It'll be the guts of 10 years before it's resolved anyway, longer if Apple can stretch it out.

Jim2007 · 18-09-2019 2:11pm

is_that_so wrote: »

No, they are taxes owed to Ireland based on how Apple is set up in Europe and nobody else.

It is taxes the EU deem is owed to Ireland.

is_that_so wrote: »

That's what the judgement said.

It is not a judgement, it is the decision of a commissioner, subject to a judicial review.

is_that_so wrote: »

Other EU countries want a slice of it and think they can get it despite not having any tax laws that will allow them to do so.

No other member state has laid claim to it, nor could they.

is_that_so wrote: »

Revenue deemed Apple to be tax compliant under its rules so it had no further claims on money Apple owned. Apple being a US corporation can repatriate it and yes it would be taxed in the US.

According to the double taxation treaty, this is not the case.

is_that_so wrote: »

It'll be the guts of 10 years before it's resolved anyway, longer if Apple can stretch it out.

It is not in Apple's interests to do so as they do not have access to the reserves and it hinders their tax planning to have such a major issue undecided.

beggars_bush · 18-09-2019 2:16pm

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is taxes the EU deem is owed to Ireland.

It is not a judgement, it is the decision of a commissioner, subject to a judicial review.

No other member state has laid claim to it, nor could they.

According to the double taxation treaty, this is not the case.

It is not in Apple's interests to do so as they do not have access to the reserves and it hinders their tax planning to have such a major issue undecided.

Its not a tax case

Its a state aid case

is_that_so · 18-09-2019 5:58pm

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is taxes the EU deem is owed to Ireland.

It is not a judgement, it is the decision of a commissioner, subject to a judicial review.

No other member state has laid claim to it, nor could they.

According to the double taxation treaty, this is not the case.

It is not in Apple's interests to do so as they do not have access to the reserves and it hinders their tax planning to have such a major issue undecided.

Why in God's name can't you write paragraphs?

Apart from being next to impossible to read I'm really not sure what point you're making seeing as I've made most of these points already anyway. What treaties are you on about? Some of the them have been renewed and the Apple setup allowed them to recognise Ireland as a profit base.

is_that_so · 18-09-2019 6:00pm

beggars_bush wrote: »

Its not a tax case

Its a state aid case

Yeah and the assertion that the favourable agreement (AKA State aid) allowed Apple to pay a much better rate.

blanch152 · 19-09-2019 4:50pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Funnily enough it cites DCC a number of times. A comment on local government with a nod to national issue. Nothing to try shut down, mostly on DCC alright Marko. Got a dig in at SF though, kudos.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I can solve the housing crisis. Well I know a man who can.
I've been told numerous times that the state/LA's paying for builds to use as social, (to be rented out based on income) or affordable housing (to be sold at profit) wouldn't work because it is so expensive to build there's no money in it.
Well this man here is due to be making profit off public land. We should hire him to government post haste.

Not to mention gaining 'preferred bidder' status despite a shady record

Well done Matt. SF-led city council exposed for giving preferred bidder status to businessman with a shady record.

I am not as outraged as you, as glad to see houses are being built.

James Brown · 19-09-2019 8:01pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Well done Matt. SF-led city council exposed for giving preferred bidder status to businessman with a shady record.

I am not as outraged as you, as glad to see houses are being built.

Ah man, I thought I'd get a rest from you. I've not posted here in a while. You already commented on this. Did you go off and have a think about it and come back for more?

It's not a SF led council Blanch. It's actually a FF heavy one and FG have one more than SF on it. But it doesn't matter Blanch does it, unless you want to score points or something? As I said when I posted, I've been told there's no profit in building homes, (relating to state built social/affordable housing). Was showing this lad will be doing well. I also mentioned he got preferred bidder status despite his record, yes.
It's a DCC story relating to the national housing crisis. Why shut that down with your usual nonsense?
I don't vote SF much. I give the odd nod, (I've likely given more support to Fine Gael over the years). I don't come on here looking to burn you with comments on the Greens, I couldn't be arsed.
If you've no interest in the article I referenced, why comment at all? If you've been following you'll know more houses people can't afford won't help. A Noonan-esque vulture fund might buy them up and the tax payer can pay renting them I suppose.
Look, I'll mention FG as much as I mention the Labour party after the next election, should they lose, unless of course they prop up a FF government. This isn't even a FG or government article but it relates to previous conversations on the housing crisis.

L1011 · 19-09-2019 9:24pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Well done Matt. SF-led city council exposed for giving preferred bidder status to businessman with a shady record.

I am not as outraged as you, as glad to see houses are being built.

SF were nearly wiped out in Dublin and no longer control DCC. Not sure when he got that status but it could be reverted.

Mongfinder General · 20-09-2019 1:32pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They've already said its a No Deal Brexit budget, so no giveaways, keep the exchequer filled to deal with the fallout in case No Deal happens.

I dare FF to call for a giveaway, remind everyone who we are dealing with and how they haven't changed since the 70s.

The public would lap it up. Most of us can't see beyond our own pay packets. Invisible taxes like vat, customs/excise, sugar tax are for somebody else to pay. Some of us think that we can just cut back on petrol or alcohol to avoid paying taxes so the general preference is just to hit these.

Once again, FG resort to hitting the easy target, the Paye worker. And as we can now see, Varadkar's talk of a €50k entry point to the top rate of tax is horse ****. They are bereft of any innovative thinking when raising revenue. Voters will always take the populist route.

markodaly · 20-09-2019 4:14pm

L1011 wrote: »

SF were nearly wiped out in Dublin and no longer control DCC. Not sure when he got that status but it could be reverted.

The deal was done pre last Local elections.
Therefore the SF dominated DCC have some questions to answer for here.

blanch152 · 20-09-2019 5:44pm

markodaly wrote: »

The deal was done pre last Local elections.
Therefore the SF dominated DCC have some questions to answer for here.

That was obvious to anyone who read up on the issue, but too many didn't.

James Brown · 20-09-2019 7:26pm

markodaly wrote: »

The deal was done pre last Local elections.
Therefore the SF dominated DCC have some questions to answer for here.

And that changes the facts of the article how? There is still a developer going to make a fortune when the council sign off. They haven't yet by the way. It's in the article. But I couldn't care less if Bobby Sands himself stamped the approval.

blanch152 wrote: »

That was obvious to anyone who read up on the issue, but too many didn't.

Again, what has that got to do with the article and my comments on it relating to housing?

A Bartra spokesman said: "The procurement process is not yet complete. There are many hurdles still to be completed. As the preferred bidder our plan was deemed to most economically advantageous by the city council."

What did I win?

Podge_irl · 20-09-2019 9:10pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And that changes the facts of the article how? There is still a developer going to make a fortune when the council sign off. They haven't yet by the way. It's in the article. But I couldn't care less if Bobby Sands himself stamped the approval.

The developer isn't going to be building council housing so I fail to see the relevance.

James Brown · 23-09-2019 2:50pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

The developer isn't going to be building council housing so I fail to see the relevance.

If you read my comment it was regarding how I've been told on here that their is no profit to be made building houses, (regarding the LA's/State hiring contractors/developers for building our own for use as social). Here we have a developer set to make a fortune building and on public land, (currently). Also it's likely the tax payer will be paying for the LA/state to use some as social housing once completed. Also part of the developers pitch was he'd have some as affordable, starting at 700,000 I believe.

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Comments