Now your talking SPN...
Its nice now and again to debate with people who actually address issues, and who aren't afraid to put the boot into SF the odd time based on policy differences rather than the old Nazi/baby eating jibes. Wait until some of the headbangers find this thread and all chance of reasonable debate will disappear.
I wonder if David can create a parallel P.ie for the headbangers to insult each other all day, while serious debate can go on elsewhere
1,197 people agree with me.. how many agree with you ?
Pure fluke I saw it but glad I did.
To watch on squinto-vision see below,
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1103/primetime.html
http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/2088178.smil
http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/2088181.smil
Originally Posted by Rocky
In fairness that was not the entirety of his argument. A number of times he mentioned the inequity of the very wealthy paying no tax.
It goes without saying that lower and middle income groups, the majority of the electorate, are appalled by this, unsurprisingly FG keeps sthum on this. Likewise on the costing of the numerous tax breaks.
He also referenced the views of economists such as in the viability of the various tax rises on the affluent and vested interests while highlighting the blatant inequities of the lowering of these taxes while at the same time increasing the various stealth taxes on the rest of the nation (i.e. Again your average joe public). But perhaps the economic behemoth Senor Bertie Socialisimo a la LSE could have filled in the blanks..
As regards the banks, anything that'll increase the market for Credit Unions and Building Societies the better. Afterall they offer the best value sans the crass advertising and hand that feeds robbery.
See http://www.politics.ie/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8259
The guy prior to Adam's interview (can't remember his name) was a complete raving idiot, in that he was likening SF's policies to those of the former Soviet Bloc! Thankfully later on Adams summed up (all of which I would agree with) by saying the economy at the moment is geared to the benefit to those at the very top and he wants to see it geared towards the provision of public services and then mentioned the history of the Nordic nations.
I also thought the point about a policy of optional re-nationalisation was completely blown out of all proportion. I mean that radical New Labour have availed of this with the dangerously failing RailTrack, also see the travails of New Zealand recently and the fluctuating ownership through history of just say water utilities etc.
In fact I would say any party or government which would explicitly rule out re-nationalisation as a possible policy, would be the ones to target as being irresponsible.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The problem with that is that if a multinational is considering whether to invest, or remain, in Ireland, a statement like that from a party in government will encourage them to leave, as there's no certainty about the tax regime they'll be operating in - particularly as the accession economies will be following our low corporation tax model, and the last thing we need to do is put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage re them. With every company that leaves, Corpo Tax revenue drops, unemployment rises, consumption tax revenue drops, and we move a little further towards "requiring to raise extra revenue" - in other words it becomes a self-perpetuating process. You may wish investors acted from higher motives than that, but the facts are that they don't, and never will.First of all, I'm not Neale - but I'll let that pass.
[quote:1qpn2igw]1. We stated that "if" extra revenue was required to be raised, we would look at raising corporation tax rather than income tax,
I will answer it directly. But before I do, the fact is that having low Corporation tax has hugely increased employment, thus reducing the number of dependents. More people are in the economy, contributing tax, than being outside the economy, receiving social welfare. And the phrase "ordinary workers" is so disingenous as to be meaningless - creating as it does images of an old-style, manufacturing-heavy, economy - which we no longer have. Now, to answer your question, I believe that the last thing that should be done is raise taxes on businesses - as to do so will decrease investment, increase unemployment, reduce the size of the business tax base, and ultimately increase even further the burden on the individual taxpayer. Again, we may all wish that businesses operated different thought processes than that, but they don't. And we're a very open economy, more vulnerable than most to the negative effects of a loss of inward investment confidence.Who do FG feel should pay more tax if its required, ordinary workers or businesses ? Please answer that directly, because if extra tax has to be raised, someone will have to pay it.
Nope.2. How many people on the doorstep do you think will care about how much extra tax banks have to pay ?
Will it be FG electioneering to tell the voters the banks deserve their million euro a day profit, and if extra tax is needed the banks should have to pay any ?
Probably not. (By the way, I'd heard that it was €100,000, not €127,000). But there are lots of people who don't earn €100k, but aspire to doing so in the not too distant future - and regardless of all the ins and outs of marginal tax rates, etc, the SF proposal will scare the cr*p outta them.3. How many times do I have to say, that the 50% rate is on €127,000 and upwards, will only be levied if extra tax is required, and will only be paid by a very small majority of income earners ?
Does FG think that the average voter, on the average industrial wage of €35,000 will have a lot of sympathy for someone earning over €127,000?
I'm still not Neale. ;-) But to answer your question, an awful lot of those soft middle-class voters, who were so crucial to FF's last two victories, know exactly what it is. And all we have to do is raise the spectre of an FF/SF government with them, and the sh*ts will be well and truly up 'em before you can say "Finance Minister, Martin Ferris".4. How many ordinary voters know what Capital Gains Tax is, let alone pay it Neale ?
[/quote:1qpn2igw][/quote:1qpn2igw][quote:1qpn2igw]You can come on TV anytime with me and debate these four issues in front of the whole country if you can get a slot somewhere. I know where the ordinary voters sympathies would lie when I was finished with you.
No thanks rock, I don't do television. ;-)
"Elite - a small superior group; esp one that has a power out of proportion to its size." (Oxford English Dictionary)
The majority cannot therefore be the elite.
Well why didn't he say that then? They didn't mention "re-nationalisation", they spoke about "nationalisation". That's a fairly big difference if your an MNC.
And what could be re-nationalised anyway? Eircom? That would involve either stealing people's shares away or spending millions buying them. If this was to happen after the next GE (probably '07), it's likely that Eircom will have been taken over by Babcock & Brown or Swisscom etc. Will the government buy or take it back?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Who is Garry Adams?
What is Pime Time?
Nicely done.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It was awful and Gerry lost a lot of credibility. Anyone who thinks that the whole thrust of economic and political policy is aimed at the top (23?!) people is unfit for government. Lowest common denominator, bottom- feeding, marxist claptrap.
In the SF rush to race to the bottom and play the jealous/chip on the shoulder card they've lost the faint remaining semblance of dignity that they built up on the Northern question.
Their election m.o. will be to
1. get a placard of Tony O'Reilly sunning himself in Monte Carlo, and
2. go around waving it in the council estates of West Dublin.
A pity, cos somewhere deep down I had an idea that Gerry was a statesman who really a nationalist idealist and was only going along with the marxist nonsense route to keep the soliders in line during battle and looting. Come on Gerry, give yourself a fighting chance, leave Connolly behind and become new Dev.
That's complete nonsense. I disagree with you.
In relation to Eircom, was it not Irish tax payers money who built it up in the first place? And that the Irish tax payer already "owned" eircom before the government sold it off?
Gerry was unprepared for the talk I felt, but wasn't it nice to hear him talking about economics instead of the North? Shows times have changed.
And I have no problem with people getting over E100,000 getting stung for more tax. Although Sinn Fein need to ditch the Karl Marx type language pronto.
Well I have to say from the outset that the interview was approached in a very antagonistic way. Of course Sinn Féin have not fully costed a programme for government, for a start to do that we need to know the extent of the problems and the related costs in fixing them, at this stage no opposition party has that level of detail, we could say 10billion for the health service, but without having all the figures, outstanding capital costs etc how can we fully say if this is the right amount. So likewise if we do not know how much is needed how can we be expected to state how we should raise it?
No party can provide an alternative book of estimates because they do not have the capacity to do so. But instead of listening to the rainbow fudging an answer to this question Adams was upfront and honest in admitting that he could not say for certain how much we would raise and how. What will have resonance with our voters however, and many others out there in the state, is the assertion that things can be made better, in a wealthy society it is not acceptable to simply say that areas such as education, healthcare and social exclusion cannot be tackled successfully, that pensioners should have to make a choice between fuel and food due a 40% increase in costs.
And last night was not Sinn Féin’s alternative budget; instead Gerry attempted to set out in very broad strokes the vision that Sinn Féin has for any future government they would be part of. It is one where policy is driven by the need to bring equity in society, and yes we might fail in that endeavour, but not to bother at all is simply criminal, I walk by the IFSC every night and watch the homeless lie in the doorways of the symbol of Irish economic success, it may be politics driven by the heart but I think its well over due.
When I was campaigning down in Meath or the local elections in places like Rathcoole and Firhouse our belief in better public services, that people should be able to go to a hospital and be seen by a Doctor rather than paying health insurance out of their wages, that their kids would have a prospect of getting into 3rd level education even if they attend a state school was one which large parts of the community support, and not just in working class areas but also heading out into the middle class districts too.
And I am very happy to say I am part of a party who thinks things can be made better and is not afraid to say so. I am proud to be part of a party who have a dream and a vision, and I will be proud when the election comes to argue for these policies on the doorstep.
SF are in danger of encountering the same problems as the 'old' left in Britain and Europe. They have abandoned any pretence to be socialist in the sense of radically altering property relations, and are getting hammered because they are proposing marginally higher rates of tax on higher incomes, company profits and property. Once having shifted onto their opponents ground they are asking for trouble.
IMHO SF would be better concentrating on the lack of support for domestic industry including agri based processing in contrast to a grant system heavily weighted towards export-oriented MNCs and the export of live animals. They should also not be afraid to make the connection between open door immigration and its use by business to drive down wages and attack working conditions.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote