# Sinn Féin's tax proposals?



## Techhead

Im looking at Sinn Féin’s policy that proposed a 3% tax on individual incomes over 140k. Im confused does that mean a married couple with a combined income over 140k won’t infer this tax? I was just curious.


----------



## Protocol

Yes, what you state is what is implied.

This proposal might mean the introduction of another tax rate / tax band? 0% - 20% - 40% - 43%? That implies 3% extra tax on any income over 140k?

However, it could also be read as 3% special tax on *all *income of anybody earning over 140k?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

There is a USC surcharge of 3% for all non-PAYE income over €100,000.

I guess it could work a bit like this.


----------



## Techhead

Yikes so that’s 55% tax rate. I wonder do folks know they are voting for more taxes actually not less with SF  . You would think income tax for middle to middle high earners is pretty tapped already at this point guess not. How will folks in Dublin pay rents them if they pay more tax. Oh I forgot SF will fix housing.


----------



## Mocame

If people don't know they are voting for more taxes if they vote Sinn Féin then they are rather silly.  How do they think all of the extra public spending SF are promising will be paid for?  The extra subsidies for affordable housing and cost rental housing so it is 'really affordable'.  The abolition of property tax?  Funding of the rebuilding of micra infested mansions in Donegal?  Etc, etc.  Someone has to pay and I imagine very few people with incomes above €140k vote SF so from their perspective this cohort would be a logical place to start with extra taxes.  But I'm sure it won't end there.


----------



## Protocol

I am looking at the SF 2020 manifesto, p110, the last page.
The planned tax changes are listed.

*Nine tax cuts*

GIVING WORKERS AND FAMILIES A BREAK – Tax Spend €2.4 BILLION
- Abolish USC on the first €30,000 earned €1,219 million
- Abolish Local Property Tax €485 million
- Increase Earned Income Credit to €1,650 €35 million
- 1 month rent relief €301 million
- Retain Mortgage interest relief €35 million
- Restore tax credit for trade union membership €40 million
- End Motor tax surcharge for quarterly and 6-month payments €43 million
- Abolish 3% stamp duty on non-life insurance policies €160 million
- Abolish 2% levy on non-life insurance policies €69 million


*16 tax increases*

FUNDING REAL CHANGE AND A BETTER FUTURE – Tax Revenue €3.8 BILLION
- End the corporation tax break for the banks €175 million
- Increase income from the annual bank levy €50 million
- Tax intangible assets onshored by multinationals €722 million
- Introduce a 5% high income levy on individual incomes above €140,000 €452 million
- Taper out tax credits on individual incomes over €100,000 to €140,000 €260 million
- Introduce a wealth tax for the wealthiest 1% in the State at a rate of 1% on the
portion of net wealth held over €1 million with a number of exemptions including farms €89 million
Abolish the Special Assignee Relief Programme €23 million
- Increase Capital Acquisition Tax by 3% to rate of 36% €45 million
- Reduce subsidies to gold-plated pensions by reducing the earnings
limit and reducing the Standard Fund Threshold to €1.2 million €494 million
- Introduce a 15.75% rate of employer’s PRSI on portion of salaries
over €100,000 €532 million
- Increase excise duty on a packet of cigarettes over 5 years €175 million
- Increase Stamp Duty on commercial property to 12.5% €440 million
- Increase the Dividend Withholding Tax on REITs and IREFs to 33% €20 million
- Increase the Vacant Site Levy to 15% to prevent land hoarding €107 million
- Introduce a 2nd home charge at a rate of €400 €104 million
- Replace Help-to-Buy scheme with pubic and affordable homes €102 million


----------



## Protocol

Note that the largest tax rise is not an increase at all!! It's a tax relief postponed.

Allowing firms to deduct less intangibles assets expenses per annum, simply makes the tax relief last further into the future.

So it is a timing issue.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

What a load of populist tripe. They really are the lowest of the low. People need to educate themselves as the good ship Ireland is heading for the rocks with these jokers in charge.


----------



## sm7940333

Protocol said:


> *16 tax increases*
> - Reduce subsidies to gold-plated pensions by reducing the earnings limit and reducing the Standard Fund Threshold to €1.2 million €494 million



Gold-plated pensions - does this include the civil servant gold-plated pensions or just the few DB pensions in the private sector?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Protocol said:


> Introduce a 5% high income levy on individual incomes above €140,000 €452 million


So there's a taxable base of €9bn assumed here.

Is  this on the portion of income above €140k?

Total household income is about €110bn, not all taxable of course.

But very hard to see how around a tenth of the income tax base is derived from the portion of individual incomes >€140k.


----------



## Baby boomer

An earlier iteration of SF policy (not sure if they've now seen sense) was standard rating all pension tax relief.  

So you'd get 20% relief on the way in and pay 40% when taking the very same money out!


----------



## nest egg

Gordon Gekko said:


> What a load of populist tripe. They really are the lowest of the low. People need to educate themselves as the good ship Ireland is heading for the rocks with these jokers in charge.


A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support.


----------



## Shirazman

sm7940333 said:


> Gold-plated pensions - does this include the civil servant gold-plated pensions or just the few DB pensions in the private sector?



I suspect that it means whatever Pearse wants it to mean at any point in time - and depending on who is asking him the question.    

I assume that it will include politicians' gold plated pensions so poor old Caoimhin Whatsisname up in Cavan-Managhan will be among those to be affected.


----------



## Nicklesilver

Interesting that they exclude farms from 1% wealth tax and not your residence, small business, pension fund value, and all other assets. This on top of increased income tax will hit the wealth creators hard.


----------



## noproblem

I don't believe I will vote SF. However, I really hope they win an election and start to manage our country.
 I love watching and listening to my grandchildren playing shop. Oh what ideas they have, also fabulous to watch it run without actual money and every customer very happy. Thankfully there's no end of year accounts, no staff to get paid, no overheads and the management are glorious dreamers. I also find that they will never let you run it for them, won't listen and are certain to refuse you everything if you mess with them. Reminds me of Mary Lou playing with her kids, the big ones, the little ones, and the in between ones. Someone's going to have to tell her about Santa Claus one of these days.  Then again, maybe some public servant will spill the beans to them about Santa.


----------



## tomdublin

Once in power they will probably turn into a (hopefully slightly less corrupt and somewhat more competent) version of FF.  I wouldn't pay too much attention to their economic programme as it doesn't stem from any kind of real ideological committment.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

tomdublin said:


> Once in power they will probably turn into a (hopefully slightly less corrupt and somewhat more competent) version of FF.  I wouldn't pay too much attention to their economic programme as it doesn't stem from any kind of real ideological committment.



Do you prefer mild corruption or a party that’s involved in leg-breaking, bank robberies, racketeering, drug-dealing, and prostitution?

This country is sleep-walking into Armageddon…some people are conflating Liam Lawlor with ISIS.


----------



## tomdublin

I take your point regarding SF which is why I would not vote for them.  It would be great if there was a third party with a realistic chance of forming the next government but there isn't.  So the alternative is between flawed SF and FG on whose watch rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Dublin has risen to 2000 Euro and which has knowingly condemned a generation to squalor, exploitation and despair in order to drive up property prices & enrich its cronies.  It's a grim choice between a party with an ambivalent stance on the rule of law and a party that created one of the gravest social catastrophes in post-war Western Europe.


----------



## Shirazman

tomdublin said:


> I take your point regarding SF which is why I would not vote for them.  It would be great if there was a third party with a realistic chance of forming the next government but there isn't.  So the alternative is between flawed SF and FG on whose watch rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Dublin has risen to 2000 Euro and which has knowingly condemned a generation to squalor, exploitation and despair in order to drive up property prices & enrich its cronies.  It's a grim choice between a party with an ambivalent stance on the rule of law and a party that created one of the gravest social catastrophes in post-war Western Europe.



Poor Tom appears to have confused _Askaboutmoney.com_ with _The Journal.ie_ which is where such hysterical, hyperbolic, ill-informed bilge can normally be read!


----------



## Gordon Gekko

tomdublin said:


> I take your point regarding SF which is why I would not vote for them.  It would be great if there was a third party with a realistic chance of forming the next government but there isn't.  So the alternative is between flawed SF and FG on whose watch rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Dublin has risen to 2000 Euro and which has knowingly condemned a generation to squalor, exploitation and despair in order to drive up property prices & enrich its cronies.  It's a grim choice between a party with an ambivalent stance on the rule of law and a party that created one of the gravest social catastrophes in post-war Western Europe.


That’s the type of logic that got Kang elected US President ahead of Kodos and Ross Perot!

You’re comparing a legitimate party’s policy weakness with the Corleones of Irish politics…


----------



## tomdublin

Gordon Gekko said:


> You’re comparing policy weakness with the Corleones of Irish politics…


The policy isn't weak at all.  It has succeeded in what it set out to, namely to drive property prices back up to boom levels at the expense of everything else.  What is "weak" is the moral compass guiding the policy.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

tomdublin said:


> The policy isn't weak at all.  It has succeeded in what it set out to, namely to drive property prices back up to boom levels at the expense of everything else.  What is "weak" is the moral compass guiding the policy.


That doesn’t really matter when the choice is between FF/FG, who have their faults admittedly, and a crime syndicate/terror group.


----------



## The Horseman

tomdublin said:


> The policy isn't weak at all.  It has succeeded in what it set out to, namely to drive property prices back up to boom levels at the expense of everything else.  What is "weak" is the moral compass guiding the policy.


Increasing property prices are a problem in the Western world. 

Political parties on the left make promises but expect someone else to pay for these promises.

What about the "moral compass" of those who don't pay mortgages or rent? What about the "moral compass" of those who play the system?


----------



## tomdublin

It's precisely the lower middle classes that work, contribute to society and don't play the system that are suffering most from FG's policy of driving up rents and property prices.  They are driven into SF's dodgy arms  (no pun intended) by the despair it is causing them.


----------



## The Horseman

tomdublin said:


> It's precisely the lower middle classes that work, contribute to society and don't play the system that are suffering most from FG's policy of driving up rents and property prices.  They are driven into SF's dodgy arms  (no pun intended) by the despair it is causing them.


I hope people don't fall for the empty promises being made.


----------



## Shirazman

The Horseman said:


> I hope people don't fall for the empty promises being made.



Looks as though some of the "lower middle classes" already have!


----------



## Purple

tomdublin said:


> The policy isn't weak at all.  It has succeeded in what it set out to, namely to drive property prices back up to boom levels at the expense of everything else.  What is "weak" is the moral compass guiding the policy.


When the Financial System collapsed  in 2008 governments around the world (through their Central Banks) printed money in order to put cash back into peoples bank accounts. That's what recapitalising the banks meant; making up new money and putting it back into the current and savings accounts of ordinary people. They then printed far more money in order to continue to pay teachers and nurses and all State employees. They then kept that going in order to stimulate the economy. The net result was roughly a doubling of global money supply since 2008. In 2020 alone the US increased money supply by 26%. The net result is that those who owned capital before 2008 have seen a massive increase in the value of that capital (mainly houses and pensions) and those who do not own capital (young people) have seen a corresponding decrease in the real value of their income relative to capital values.
Ireland is a small open economy so anyone who thinks that our housing boom is the result of Irish government policy is an idiot.
Given that political decisions have more than doubled the wealth of older people (property and pension owners) in the last 13 years a Wealth tax that excludes property and pensions isn't a wealth tax at all.
To all the comfortable middle aged (like me) and elderly people out there with hundreds of thousands or millions in property and pension assets; you didn't earn your wealth, you lost more than half of it and political decisions gave it back to you at the expense of the young. While you are at it remember when you are whinging about the increase in the wealth of billionaires the exact same factors have made you rich.

SF's policies are populist and short sighted. They know what's true and choose to ignore it. They are no different to the Tories who pick on immigrants and dark skinned people in that they single out a minority that the chattering classes dislike and tell us that we aren't part of the problem, that minority is. The reality is or course, much more unpalatable.

Their pension policy would require a significant reduction in DB pension payments for ESB employees, Bank staff, Civil and Public Servants, Doctors, Gardaí and many others. If they were included I'd be all for it.


----------



## tomdublin

Fair enough but none of this explains why the government didn't build the tens of thousands of apartments needed to preempt the housing crisis.  It was aware of the democraphic trends fuelling demand, it had the money and the land, it could have used the planning system to ease height restrictions and the tax system to tackle vacant properties, dereliction and land hoarding but it did none of these. Gobal macroeconomics doesn't explain this - lack of empathy and wanting to enrich cronies and elderly middle class voters does.


----------



## Purple

tomdublin said:


> Fair enough but none of this explains why the government didn't build the tens of thousands of apartments needed to preempt the housing crisis.  It was aware of the democraphic trends fuelling demand, it had the money and the land, it could have used the planning system to ease height restrictions and the tax system to tackle vacant properties, dereliction and land hoarding but it did none of these. Gobal macroeconomics doesn't explain this - lack of empathy and wanting to enrich cronies and elderly middle class voters does.


50,000 apartments would cost north of €15 billion. 
We don't have the sites to build them on.
We don't have the people to build them.

High rise apartments cost more to build. It takes 5-8 years to build a substantial development, longer if there are lots of objections. Given the financial and Covid crises we haven't done too badly but the Government is constrained by the structural incompetence of the Construction sector and the structural incompetence of local authorities and the very limited resources of the Department of the Environment. We need more Civil Servants, that would be a good start.
There's no conspiracy to enrich any cronies, that's just more divisive SF claptrap akin to the blaming the Jews for Germanys woes after the First World War (I often hear the faint echo of jackboots when SF people are talking).


----------



## Leo

tomdublin said:


> it could have used the planning system to ease height restrictions and the tax system to tackle vacant properties, dereliction and land hoarding but it did none of these.



None of these? What about the Vacant site levy introduced in 2018, and increased in 2019? The €70M grant to the Housing Agency to purchase and refurb vacant housing? Public opinion is very much against increasing the height restrictions, so you need to blame the public for that one.



tomdublin said:


> Gobal macroeconomics doesn't explain this - lack of empathy and wanting to enrich cronies and elderly middle class voters does.



If they wanted to enrich cronies, doing much of what you said would have been a perfect way to achieve that. They'd have made billions in development related income.  

Don't get fooled that we have some abnormal issue with vacant or derelict properties. In 2014 it was reported we had over 400,000 vacant properties, many in unfinished ghost estates where no one wanted to buy. The 2016 census reported the number of vacant properties was down to 180k. The 2020 GeoView Report found ~90k vacant properties, and how many of those are second homes or owned by people in long-term care? That's progress in anyone's book.


----------



## tomdublin

Purple said:


> There's no conspiracy to enrich any cronies, that's just more divisive SF claptrap akin to the blaming the Jews for Germanys woes after the First World War


That comparison is a bit inappropriate.  There is huge lobbying of the government by developers and some policies (such as the shared equity scheme whose unstated aim is to fuel property prices sill further) are entirely the result of such lobbying.


----------



## Purple

tomdublin said:


> That comparison is a bit inappropriate.


I think it's accurate and appropriate. When a minority is singled out as the source of a systemic problem it is very dangerous.
SF are cold, calculating and manipulative. It's not so long ago that they shot their enemies, more recently they beat them and they still intimidate them. Subjecting them to unfair characterisations is nothing by comparison.



tomdublin said:


> There is huge lobbying of the government by developers and some policies (such as the shared equity scheme whose unstated aim is to fuel property prices sill further) are entirely the result of such lobbying.


There is huge lobbying of the government by all sorts of vested interest groups including unions, industry bodies, banks, financiers, farmer and developers. They all cause bad things to happen.


----------



## Firefly

tomdublin said:


> There is huge lobbying of the government by developers


I would have thought developers make more money building houses than not, so I would question the effectiveness of this huge lobbying given the dearth of building activity..


----------



## tomdublin

Firefly said:


> I would have thought developers make more money building houses than not, so I would question the effectiveness of this huge lobbying given the dearth of building activity..


They prefer to do less work for more as opposed to doing more work for less.


----------



## Firefly

tomdublin said:


> They prefer to do less work for more as opposed to doing more work for less.


Sorry, but I don't buy that at all. Developers during the CT were building like there was no tomorrow and enjoying themselves to no end


----------



## Leo

tomdublin said:


> They prefer to do less work for more as opposed to doing more work for less.


That would be the very opposite of what they have been lobbying for.


----------



## tomdublin

Here is the developers' preference schedule ranked in descending order:
1) More for more 
2) Less for more
3) More for less
4) Less for less


----------



## Purple

tomdublin said:


> Here is the developers' preference schedule ranked in descending order:
> 1) More for more
> 2) Less for more
> 3) More for less
> 4) Less for less


If so that just makes them human but what's that got to do with SF's tax proposals and building more houses?


----------



## Shirazman

tomdublin said:


> Here is the developers' preference schedule ranked in descending order:
> 1) More for more
> 2) Less for more
> 3) More for less
> 4) Less for less



Congrats on being appointed official spokesperson for the CIF!      Tom Parlon is a lucky guy to have you as his sidekick.


----------



## Peanuts20

I have to admit, I would agree with a few of the SF proposals and it will be interesting to see how many come to pass over the next 2 or 3 budgets, the corporation tax break for banks being a case in point. I would not be surprised to see the current Govt implement some of these.

Having said that, some of what they are proposing is rather naive. For example, the taxation on things like patents held by multinationals onshore. Multinationals well paid tax experts and lawyers will have those moved elsewhere in the blink of an eye and that is 20% of the potential tax increases being proposed.

I wouldn't be surprised also if their €100k "high salary" taxes also get an increased threshold. In 2016, the CSO reported that 14% of households had an income in excess of that, I would expect post Covid and hopefully a return to normality, that that figure will be significantly higher, especially with the CSO also reporting that average wage inflation is hitting 5%. That proposed tax increase will hit SF in the commuter belt constituencies and hence, I expect it will be watered down.


----------



## Purple

Peanuts20 said:


> the corporation tax break for banks being a case in point.


All companies can carry forward losses. What is the specific tax break for Banks?


----------



## Shirazman

Purple said:


> All companies can carry forward losses. What is the specific tax break for Banks?



I think that the SF 'logic' here is that because "we" bailed out the banks they shouldn't be allowed to avail of the same facility as other commercial entities are.        Utter tripe, but highly populist.


----------



## Conan

Shirazman said:


> I think that the SF 'logic' here is that because "we" bailed out the banks they shouldn't be allowed to avail of the same facility as other commercial entities are.        Utter tripe, but highly populist.


Agree. The so called “bank bailout” was mostly a “depositor bailout”. Had the Government not “intervened” then depositors (the so called “ordinary people”) would have been on the streets marching for a bank bailout. But that fact does not fit with the SF narrative of nasty bankers being bailed out.


----------



## Purple

Conan said:


> Agree. The so called “bank bailout” was mostly a “depositor bailout”. Had the Government not “intervened” then depositors (the so called “ordinary people”) would have been on the streets marching for a bank bailout. But that fact does not fit with the SF narrative of nasty bankers being bailed out.


'The Banks', as in the owners of the banks, as in the shareholders, were not bailed out at all.
We borrowed billions to give the middle classed, middle aged and elderly the money back that they lost when the banks collapsed. We called it 'recapitalising the banks'. 
It sounds better than 'robbing your children and grandchildren of their future so you can maintain your lifestyle you bunch of greedy, foolish, selfish, whingers'.


----------



## Nicklesilver

The shareholders were not bailed out and lost everything. The foreign bondholders were bailed out. Many so called middle class people lost a great deal of their lifetime savings.


----------



## Purple

Nicklesilver said:


> Many so called middle class people lost a great deal of their lifetime savings.


Yes, if they had those savings in Bank shares. If they owned shares then they were ‘The Banks’ and they were not bailed out. If they owned a broad range of shares or property then they have been more than bailed out through quantitative easing in the last decade or so as that the reason their pension fund, property and share portfolio have increased at rates far exceeding inflation or wage growth. 
That’s also the reason there’s a housing affordability crisis and future generations of average people won’t own their own homes. 

More than anything it’s the lack of gratitude and sense of entitlement from older people that gets me.


----------



## Shirazman

Purple said:


> More than anything it’s the lack of gratitude and sense of entitlement from older people that gets me.



This older person - about to get a Contributory State Pension that he doesn't really need and having just received an "age" tax credit that he also doesn't really need - is in full agreement with you!

I'll redress things slightly by sharing my 'windfall' with my adult kids, but I shouldn't really have that option.


----------



## Nicklesilver

A big IF. They didn’t, most only had bank shares, they thought they were a one way bet, blue blue chip. They were not sophisticated investors.  They were not bailed out.  They were hard working self reliant people who paid taxes all there lives. An easy target for those re writing history.


----------



## PMU

Purple said:


> 'The Banks', as in the owners of the banks, as in the shareholders, were not bailed out at all.
> We borrowed billions to give the middle classed, middle aged and elderly the money back that they lost when the banks collapsed. We called it 'recapitalising the banks'.
> It sounds better than 'robbing your children and grandchildren of their future so you can maintain your lifestyle you bunch of greedy, foolish, selfish, whingers'.


 
You are confusing two things here.  The 'bank guarantee' (i.e. CIFS) of 2008 guaranteed both retail AND corporate deposits of six Irish banks.  The amount guaranteed was about EUR 440 billion, of which about 17 billion was retail deposits.  Note it was a guarante, NOT a transfer of funds to the banking system, nor to deposit holders' accounts.    The guarantee cost the state nothing, and the banks paid a fee for participation in the guarantee. 


Purple said:


> 'The Banks', as in the owners of the banks, as in the shareholders, were not bailed out at all.
> We borrowed billions to give the middle classed, middle aged and elderly the money back that they lost when the banks collapsed. We called it 'recapitalising the banks'.
> It sounds better than 'robbing your children and grandchildren of their future so you can maintain your lifestyle you bunch of greedy, foolish, selfish, whingers'.


The bank 'bail-out' of Dec 2008 concerned the recapitalization of three Irish banks, essentially a 'bail-out' of the bondholders.  Equity owners were wiped out.  Deposit holders were already covered by the deposit guarantee scheme.  It is just incorrect to state that Ireland borrowed billions to bail out retail depositors.  We borrowed billions to bail-out foreigners who held Irish bank debt.


----------



## Purple

PMU said:


> You are confusing two things here.  The 'bank guarantee' (i.e. CIFS) of 2008 guaranteed both retail AND corporate deposits of six Irish banks.  The amount guaranteed was about EUR 440 billion, of which about 17 billion was retail deposits.  Note it was a guarante, NOT a transfer of funds to the banking system, nor to deposit holders' accounts.    The guarantee cost the state nothing, and the banks paid a fee for participation in the guarantee.
> 
> The bank 'bail-out' of Dec 2008 concerned the recapitalization of three Irish banks, essentially a 'bail-out' of the bondholders.  Equity owners were wiped out.  Deposit holders were already covered by the deposit guarantee scheme.  It is just incorrect to state that Ireland borrowed billions to bail out retail depositors.  We borrowed billions to bail-out foreigners who held Irish bank debt.


The banks had lent out the deposits. They were gone. Calling it a guarantee is window dressing. You could just as easily say they guaranteed the bond holders and bailed out the depositors. Both were  screwed and both were set to lose everything.


----------



## Purple

Nicklesilver said:


> A big IF. They didn’t, most only had bank shares, they thought they were a one way bet, blue blue chip. They were not sophisticated investors.  They were not bailed out.  They were hard working self reliant people who paid taxes all there lives. An easy target for those re writing history.


Why do you know they were hard working and self reliant? Were there no welfare scrounges and tax dodgers in the 70’s and 80’s? Was nobody on welfare? Was nobody a net recipient from the exchequer? Was nobody in subsidised social housing?

If they kept their life’s savings in bank stocks then describing them as simple is more than generous.


----------



## tomdublin

Purple said:


> If so that just makes them human but what's that got to do with SF's tax proposals and building more houses?


It illustrates that contrary to what some have claimed here it's not irrational for developers to lobby for Option 2 while the  challenge for society is to move them to Option 3.


----------



## Deiseblue

Shirazman said:


> This older person - about to get a Contributory State Pension that he doesn't really need and having just received an additional "age" tax credit that he also doesn't really need - is in full agreement with you!
> 
> I'll redress things by sharing my 'windfall' with my adult kids, but I shouldn't really have the option.


Both myself and my wife are in receipt of defined benefit pensions under the Bank of Ireland pension scheme , I also receive the non contributory state pension and my wife is to receive same shortly  - the true Rolls Royce of pensions !
I know how lucky we are and are extremely thankful but no more than the children’s allowance I believe strongly that the State Pension should be means tested .
I too have attempted to redress the balance by enriching Paddy Power but my bets on football games have been spectacularly successful to the extent that I now have a third source of income - won’t last of course !


----------



## Leo

Nicklesilver said:


> Many so called middle class people lost a great deal of their lifetime savings.


It's estimated that only 15 to 20% of the adult population in Ireland own shares.


----------



## Purple

Leo said:


> It's estimated that only 15 to 20% of the adult population in Ireland own shares.


And how many of those own share due to their employment in MNC's that give them shares as part of their remuneration?


----------



## Leo

Purple said:


> And how many of those own share due to their employment in MNC's that give them shares as part of their remuneration?


Good point. I knew a couple of low level bank staff who were using those options to save up for a house deposit. They lost it all, but sure they were bankers so who cares


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> Both myself and my wife are in receipt of defined benefit pensions under the Bank of Ireland pension scheme , I also receive the non contributory state pension and my wife is to receive same shortly  - the true Rolls Royce of pensions !
> I know how lucky we are and are extremely thankful but no more than the children’s allowance I believe strongly that the State Pension should be means tested .
> I too have attempted to redress the balance by enriching Paddy Power but my bets on football games have been spectacularly successful to the extent that I now have a third source of income - won’t last of course !


Given that AIB used €1.1 billion of the Money it received from the National Pension Reserve Fund to bail out it's own pension fund and BOI have more or less done the same thing your pension represents a transfer of wealth from the poor to the middle classes. Not good for your socialist credentials.


----------



## Purple

Leo said:


> Good point. I knew a couple of low level bank staff who were using those options to save up for a house deposit. They lost it all, but sure they were bankers so who cares


They are lucky they weren't burned at the stake!


----------



## PMU

Purple said:


> The banks had lent out the deposits. They were gone. Calling it a guarantee is window dressing. You could just as easily say they guaranteed the bond holders and bailed out the depositors. Both were  screwed and both were set to lose everything.


It's not window dressing. 

No.  The two events were totally diffferent.  The guarantee schemes (CITS and its sucessor CIELG) were essentially state-backed insurance schemes.    The banks paid premia to participate in the scheme.   The re-capitalization (62.8 billion) represented a transfer of funds frm the taxpayer to the banks' bondholders.  The bank guarantee (440 billion) did not represent an increase in Ireland's national debt.  It was never paid out.  The recapitalization did; Ireland' sovereign debt yields increased to 7%; effectively making it impossible for the country to borrow internationally; so the country was bailed out (85 billion) by the EU/IMF in 2010.


----------



## Purple

PMU said:


> It's not window dressing.
> 
> No.  The two events were totally diffferent.  The guarantee schemes (CITS and its sucessor CIELG) were essentially state-backed insurance schemes.    The banks paid premia to participate in the scheme.   The re-capitalization (62.8 billion) represented a transfer of funds frm the taxpayer to the banks' bondholders.  The bank guarantee (440 billion) did not represent an increase in Ireland's national debt.  It was never paid out.  The recapitalization did; Ireland' sovereign debt yields increased to 7%; effectively making it impossible for the country to borrow internationally; so the country was bailed out (85 billion) by the EU/IMF in 2010.


The Banks were insolvent or, at best, had no liquidity. Without recapitalising them there would have been a collapse and deposits would have been lost. You can call it what you like but the €62.8 billion was borrowed from future tax payers to avoid a banking collapse which would have resulted in depositors of all types losing their money. How that's represented on a balance sheet is all very interesting but a distraction from the core issue. It is worth noting that we've got most of that money back. What we haven't got back and won't get back it the money we borrowed from future generations to maintain our lifestyles when we couldn't pay for them and that was far more expensive than the recapitalisation of the banks.


----------



## Deiseblue

Nobody can accuse Sinn Fein of lacking political nous.
Their understanding of the political zeitgeist is second to none , their ability to encourage people to vote for them who never voted or contemplated voting due to the hard work done by party members on the ground is the envy of other parties.
Younger voters don't really care or perhaps are unaware about their violent roots and simply see them as simply a political party that they would like to represent them and older voters unfortunately are either ambivalent about their past or perhaps believe they've changed.
Their communication skills are polished and they come across extremely well in the media , there's little doubt that a lot of money has been spent on polishing such skills.
They have funds , perhaps of somewhat doubtful provenance , that no other party can match.
In Waterford David Cullinane was elected with a surplus of 10,000 votes and speculation is rife that SF could possibly take 3 of the 4 seats at the next election.
FF who are no slouchs themselves when it comes to sensing which way the political winds are blowing have opened the door to the idea of a possible coalition with SF.
As for their populist economic policies nobody ever has lost votes on a policy of taxing the rich to benefit  everybody else and once in power the great readjustment can be made blaming of course the mess that they've inherited .
I am enthused about their promise to restore the tax credit for Trade Union membership subscriptions- not so much for the relatively small benefit but as an indication that we could at last see a party in power who would actively support pro Union recognition legislation.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> You can call it what you like but the €62.8 billion was borrowed from future tax payers ..... It is worth noting that we've got most of that money back.


I've often thought about this. What did the government do with the funds they received back? I would have expected to see the national debt being reduced...


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> I've often thought about this. What did the government do with the funds they received back? I would have expected to see the national debt being reduced...


Threw it into the bottomless pit that is current expenditure.


----------



## Shirazman

Deiseblue said:


> I am enthused about their promise to restore the tax credit for Trade Union membership subscriptions- not so much for the relatively small benefit but as an indication that we could at last see a party in power who would actively support pro Union recognition legislation.



Yep, supporting the Unions is likely to be a key part of SF's anti-business, anti-FDI agenda!  Happily they'll be creating tens of thousands of jobs in the social housing construction sector, so losing all of those well-paid private sector jobs won't really matter.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> Threw it into the bottomless pit that is current expenditure.


That would surely mask the level of current expenditure too..


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> That would surely mask the level of current expenditure too..


Well it does mask the level of real borrowing.


----------



## Deiseblue

Shirazman said:


> Yep, supporting the Unions is likely to be a key part of SF's anti-business, anti-FDI agenda!  Happily they'll be creating tens of thousands of jobs in the social housing construction sector, so losing all of those well-paid private sector jobs won't really matter.


We are an outlier in Europe when it comes to mandatory Trade Union recognition by employers and such recognition hasn't had a delitoriorious effect on  those countries.
Allied to that I believe that we have extremely constrained and engaged Trade Unions in Ireland .


----------



## Shirazman

Deiseblue said:


> We are an outlier in Europe when it comes to mandatory Trade Union recognition by employers and such recognition hasn't had a delitoriorious effect on  those countries.



Yes it has.   That's partly why we do so well with FDI.    But SF's attitude is: who needs FDI just as long as the beards are happy!     

Amusingly, in an interview in today's Examiner, Mary-Lou states that: _"Tackling the "constipated" public and civil service will be one of the biggest challenges for Sinn Féin in government" - _which is presumably intended to convince us that she's willing to take on the public service unions!   I'm not holding my breath!


----------



## Nicklesilver

My guess is SF will move to the centre once in power, after all MaryLou is private educated south sides, 5 bed house, big pension middle class, designer clothes, ex FF and is every bit as posh as posh Leo.


----------



## Deiseblue

Shirazman said:


> Yes it has.   That's partly why we do so well with FDI.    But SF's attitude is: who needs FDI just as long as the beards are happy!
> 
> Amusingly, in an interview in today's Examiner, Mary-Lou states that: _"Tackling the "constipated" public and civil service will be one of the biggest challenges for Sinn Féin in government" - _which is presumably intended to convince us that she's willing to take on the public service unions!   I'm not holding my breath!


C'mon the biggest single attraction for FDI's in Ireland was the attractive corporation tax rate which is now a thing of the past .
Germany has probably the most Union friendly legislation in Europe and has a huge amount of FDI's.
There is a private members bill submitted in May 2021 by people before profit to grant recognition of Trade Unions by employers , I see the door beginning to open and believe it's only a matter of time before our out of step position is regulated in tandem with our EU partners.
Mary Lou may indeed attempt to change Public Sector practices but she can only do so in tandem with the Unions and as usual she is attempting to be all things to all people !


----------



## tomdublin

Nicklesilver said:


> My guess is SF will move to the centre once in power, after all MaryLou is private educated south sides, 5 bed house, big pension middle class, designer clothes, ex FF and is every bit as posh as posh Leo.


If SF comes to power one good and two bad outcomes are possible:
1) They morph into a pragmatic and competent Continental-style social democratic party.
2) They become a lazy, incompetent, corrupt and opportunistic mouthpiece for vested interests (basically a new edition of FF).
3) They underperform/overpromise and try to compensate by resorting to nasty, belligerent and exclusionary nationalism, esp. regarding NI but possibly also domestic minorities, migrants or the EU.

3 would be the worst outcome but 2 seems more likely (with 1 also a distinct possibility).


----------



## Purple

I don’t have the energy to reply to this nonsense. 
Supporting the Shinners so that they compel employers to engage with Unions even when the majority of employees don’t want them. I suppose the Shinners have a long history of forcing people to do things so why not.

This thread was about SF taxation policy. I took it off topic by pointing out the hypocrisy of a Party claiming to be socialist rejecting real wealth taxes. They say they will redress the balance in society by taxing high earners, earners who still can’t afford a 4 bed semi in most parts of our cities. Populist nonsense, unjust, unfair and unsustainable. 

They are charlatans run by murderers and the people who vote for them are idiots or morally bankrupt or both. I’d rather see Paul Murphy running the country. At least he hasn’t killed anyone or covered up child rape or carried the coffins of child killers. At least he’s not pretending to be something he’s not.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Purple said:


> I don’t have the energy to reply to this nonsense.
> Supporting the Shinners so that they compel employers to engage with Unions even when the majority of employees don’t want them. I suppose the Shinners have a long history of forcing people to do things so why not.
> 
> This thread was about SF taxation policy. I took it off topic by pointing out the hypocrisy of a Party claiming to be socialist rejecting real wealth taxes. They say they will redress the balance in society by taxing high earners, earners who still can’t afford a 4 bed semi in most parts of our cities. Populist nonsense, unjust, unfair and unsustainable.
> 
> They are charlatans run by murderers and the people who vote for them are idiots or morally bankrupt or both. I’d rather see Paul Murphy running the country. At least he hasn’t killed anyone or covered up child rape or carried the coffins of child killers. At least he’s not pretending to be something he’s not.


If you don't mind, I think I'm going to rob some of your post here for when SF knock at my door. I've no time at all for them and it galls me to think of them in charge of ministries such as Justice, Education and Foreign Affairs. 

The Gardai must be loathe to think of information being available to a SF minister who can and will leak it back to the Army Council in Belfast. An absolutely shocking scenario for all of us.


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> ..... I’d rather see Paul Murphy running the country. At least he hasn’t killed anyone or covered up child rape or carried the coffins of child killers. At least he’s not pretending to be something he’s not.


Careful now!  While he may not have killed anybody he subscribes to an extreme left ideology that, whenever and wherever implemented, has resulted in murderous oppression and tyranny.  (Death toll at about 100 million and counting.) 
PBP and their fellow travellers are NOT democrats and see the parliamentary process as merely a stepping stone to a new socialist socioeconomic and political system.  In fact, they engage in endless internal debate about the dangers (for their movement) of parliamentarianism.  As distinct from other forms of "struggle."

I'm no Shinner, but I'd take them ahead of PBP any day.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> Careful now!  While he may not have killed anybody he subscribes to an extreme left ideology that, whenever and wherever implemented, has resulted in murderous oppression and tyranny.  (Death toll at about 100 million and counting.)
> PBP and their fellow travellers are NOT democrats and see the parliamentary process as merely a stepping stone to a new socialist socioeconomic and political system.  In fact, they engage in endless internal debate about the dangers (for their movement) of parliamentarianism.  As distinct from other forms of "struggle."
> 
> I'm no Shinner, but I'd take them ahead of PBP any day.


Oh they'd be a disaster but, unlike the Shinners, they haven't actually killed anyone (yet) and if anyone things that the people who actually run the Shinners are parliamentarian I've a bridge to sell them.


----------



## Peanuts20

Purple said:


> I’d rather see Paul Murphy running the country. At least he hasn’t killed anyone or covered up child rape or carried the coffins of child killers. At least he’s not pretending to be something he’s not.



Hang on now, this is the Paul Murphy, the son of a leading business exec from Goatstown,  who was sent to posh fee paying schools, including a Leaving Cert grind factory and is now on his 3rd (at least) political party/group?  

Regardless of these tax position, I'll vote for Sinn Fein the day they apologise for rattling my windows when Canary wharf went off, and blowing my desk up when Bishopsgate went off or detonating a litter bin bomb 2 streets over from me one night down the west end when I was going to see a play. In addition, I'll consider voting for them when they have united policy positions north and south. But I can't see any of that happening soon.


----------



## Purple

Peanuts20 said:


> Hang on now, this is the Paul Murphy, the son of a leading business exec from Goatstown, who was sent to posh fee paying schools, including a Leaving Cert grind factory and is now on his 3rd (at least) political party/group?


Yep, that's the one. He's nearly as well to do as Clare Daily and Mary Lou. 
Paul's Party is run from this country, unlike Mary Lou's. The people who run his party have never murdered children. I would never vote for him or his party but they aren't run by a  terrorist organisation headquartered in a foreign country.


----------



## Deiseblue

Peanuts20 said:


> Hang on now, this is the Paul Murphy, the son of a leading business exec from Goatstown,  who was sent to posh fee paying schools, including a Leaving Cert grind factory and is now on his 3rd (at least) political party/group?
> 
> Regardless of these tax position, I'll vote for Sinn Fein the day they apologise for rattling my windows when Canary wharf went off, and blowing my desk up when Bishopsgate went off or detonating a litter bin bomb 2 streets over from me one night down the west end when I was going to see a play. In addition, I'll consider voting for them when they have united policy positions north and south. But I can't see any of that happening soon.


Equally I will never vote for Sinn Fein as I’m aware of the vile background from whence they sprung .
Equally I have never voted for either FF or FG but only because I disagree with their politics , nonetheless in recent years I find myself agreeing with more of their policies mainly because such policies reflect a move to the left driven by the inexorable rise in SF’s popularity.
I certainly never envisaged Leo Varadkar agreeing to set up a high level group to look at collective bargaining and industrial relations and to look at legal and constitutional issues.
I commend Paul Murphy for his private members bill on trade Union recognition and SF for their plan to reintroduce the tax credit for union subs - no reason not to from my point of view.


----------



## Purple

What the Shinners and the rest of the populist left miss is that the wealth inequality in this country is not being driven by earned income. They are, as usual, shooting at the wrong target (pun not intended but now that I see it it seems apt).


----------



## Baby boomer

Peanuts20 said:


> Hang on now, this is the Paul Murphy, the son of a leading business exec from Goatstown,  who was sent to posh fee paying schools, including a Leaving Cert grind factory and is now on his 3rd (at least) political party/group?


No comfort there.  Pol Pot was the son of a wealthy Cambodian family who was privately educated in the best French speaking schools and went to university in Paris.  Look how he turned out - death toll approximately 2 million, about 25% of the population.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> No comfort there.  Pol Pot was the son of a wealthy Cambodian family who was privately educated in the best French speaking schools and went to university in Paris.  Look how he turned out - death toll approximately 2 million, about 25% of the population.


It's strange how Labour become more palatable as time goes by; actually democrats who respect the will of the people, actually socialists who are in favour of real wealth taxes (property taxes) and they've never murdered any children.


----------



## Shirazman

Purple said:


> It's strange how Labour become more palatable as time goes by; actually democrats who respect the will of the people, actually socialists who are in favour of real wealth taxes (property taxes) and they've never murdered any children.



Ireland's very own SDLP, sadly.


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> It's strange how Labour become more palatable as time goes by; actually democrats who respect the will of the people, actually socialists who are in favour of real wealth taxes (property taxes) and they've never murdered any children.


Yes, but remember there are two lines of descent making up the current Irish Labour Party.  There is the nice, cuddly traditional Labour sort who are (somewhat naively in my view) attached to the idea that Government knows best, and we should allow it to run more and more of the economy and society generally.

Then there's the other half of the merger - the line descended from Democratic Left, formerly The Worker's Party, formerly Sinn Fein the Worker's Party, formerly Official Sinn Fein, formerly Sinn Fein.  This line maintained its army well into the 1980's for fundraising purposes and was involved in bloody warfare against the INLA and other far left Republican splinter groups.  It also maintained cordial fraternal relations with the most unsavoury of Communist regimes and regularly sent and received delegations to places like North Korea.

Oddly enough, the former "Officials" never decommissioned their arms, and yet, they were welcomed with open arms into "respectable" politics.   Can't imagine why.  It's almost as if they had vast armies of people burrowing their way into the newspapers and RTE


----------



## Shirazman

Baby boomer said:


> Yes, but remember there are two lines of descent making up the current Irish Labour Party.  There is the nice, cuddly traditional Labour sort who are (somewhat naively in my view) attached to the idea that Government knows best, and we should allow it to run more and more of the economy and society generally.
> 
> Then there's the other half of the merger - the line descended from Democratic Left, formerly The Worker's Party, formerly Sinn Fein the Worker's Party, formerly Official Sinn Fein, formerly Sinn Fein.  This line maintained its army well into the 1980's for fundraising purposes and was involved in bloody warfare against the INLA and other far left Republican splinter groups.  It also maintained cordial fraternal relations with the most unsavoury of Communist regimes and regularly sent and received delegations to places like North Korea.
> 
> Oddly enough, the former "Officials" never decommissioned their arms, and yet, they were welcomed with open arms into "respectable" politics.   Can't imagine why.  It's almost as if they had vast armies of people burrowing their way into the newspapers and RTE



There's a third element too: let's call it the O'Riordan/Bacik woke fringe, a sub-cult about which I have nothing nice to say.


----------



## Purple

Purple said:


> Yes, if they had those savings in Bank shares. If they owned shares then they were ‘The Banks’ and they were not bailed out. If they owned a broad range of shares or property then they have been more than bailed out through quantitative easing in the last decade or so as that the reason their pension fund, property and share portfolio have increased at rates far exceeding inflation or wage growth.
> That’s also the reason there’s a housing affordability crisis and future generations of average people won’t own their own homes.
> 
> More than anything it’s the lack of gratitude and sense of entitlement from older people that gets me.


On the QE point this article from two years ago by Patrick Jennings in the Financial Times puts QE front and centre as the reason for our house price and rent inflation.
When us over 40's meet a young person we should remember to say thanks, apologise maybe, but certainly say thanks.


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> On the QE point this article from two years ago by Patrick Jennings in the Financial Times puts QE front and centre as the reason for our house price and rent inflation.
> When us over 40's meet a young person we should remember to say thanks, apologise maybe, but certainly say thanks.


And sure they can thank us in return for paying 65% tax plus PRSI plus levies on our relatively modest 1980's salaries to pay for their education.   T'was far from avocados and lattes we were while saving to qualify for a mortgage at rates of 10% plus.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> And sure they can thank us in return for paying 65% tax plus PRSI plus levies on our relatively modest 1980's salaries to pay for their education.


It's a pity our generation wasn't better educated, we might have not wrecked the economy.


Baby boomer said:


> T'was far from avocados and lattes we were while saving to qualify for a mortgage at rates of 10% plus.


But with an average enough job you could buy a house, right?
I know which I'd prefer.
I started working part time in 1987, fulltime in 1990. It was certainly much easier back then than it is now.
I also know that the value of my pension and my house was more than halved in the late 2000's and the only reason I have equity or a decent pension now is because of quantitative easing and the debt that's been thrust on young people. I am very grateful for that and I'd be happy to pay a wealth tax to partially redress the balance.

Oh, and a high interest rate environment is, by far, the best one in which to buy a house. That should be obvious to everyone.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> And sure they can thank us in return for paying 65% tax plus PRSI plus levies on our relatively modest 1980's salaries to pay for their education.


Actually if they were educated in the last 12 years it was paid for using a student loan. The loan was taken out as part of a larger package costing over €100 billion that we took out to pay for the 10 year party we have in the 00's.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Purple said:


> I am very grateful for that and I'd be happy to pay a wealth tax to partially redress the balance.


You do realise that if you are happy to pay a wealth tax, just contact the department of finance and make a payment. Alternatively, do not claim tax refunds, credits etc to the value of your wealth tax. How's the air up there in your ivory tower tell us Purple?


----------



## Shirazman

Purple said:


> It's a pity our generation wasn't better educated, we might have not wrecked the economy.



Not all of us voted for the snake oil being offered by FF, FG  and the PDs back in the days when Digout Man was running/ruining the country.


----------



## Shakespeare

Purple said:


> It's a pity our generation wasn't better educated, we might have not wrecked the economy.
> 
> But with an average enough job you could buy a house, right?
> I know which I'd prefer.
> I started working part time in 1987, fulltime in 1990. It was certainly much easier back then than it is now.
> I also know that the value of my pension and my house was more than halved in the late 2000's and the only reason I have equity or a decent pension now is because of quantitative easing and the debt that's been thrust on young people. I am very grateful for that and I'd be happy to pay a wealth tax to partially redress the balance.
> 
> Oh, and a high interest rate environment is, by far, the best one in which to buy a house. That should be obvious to everyone.


To be honest, as someone in late 40s who paid 9% stamp duty on the full cost of the house, had no help to buy schemes, nobody fretting about my childcare costs and within 2 years of taking same, ended up with an increase in marginal tax rate of about 8% (none of which has been temporary!) tax reliefs all cut to standard rate, I only now, after almost 20  years have a house edging on what I paid for it.

At no other time that I know of has someone bought a house and almost 20 years later have had the noose of that mortgage be as big a burden as it was on day 1 - there has been collapse  of house prices and negligble/zero inflation since 2006 until now so I find it a bit difficult to feel a huge amount of sympathy - at least these days there are voices caring about house prices - no one gave a s*** in 2006/7. Guess what, I couldn't afford to buy anywhere near where I grew up  - all the talk of excessive house prices now, largely references the cost of new builds at talk of Eur400k+
You can buy a very spacious (1,250 sq ft ) 3 bed duplex 2 mins from a train station in a quiet area (20 mins to city on train) for under Eur300k - that is not beyond what lots of people could afford as a couple both earning and it's less for a 2 bed  but that kind of realism doesn't suit the media populist narrative

apols, rant over.


----------



## Purple

Shakespeare said:


> To be honest, as someone in late 40s who paid 9% stamp duty on the full cost of the house, had no help to buy schemes, nobody fretting about my childcare costs and within 2 years of taking same, ended up with an increase in marginal tax rate of about 8% (none of which has been temporary!) tax reliefs all cut to standard rate, I only now, after almost 20 years have a house edging on what I paid for it.


I'm in the same situation. I'm just pointing out that the increase in the value of your house and mine was due to quantitative easing and that has disadvantaged those who don't own houses.


----------



## Purple

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> You do realise that if you are happy to pay a wealth tax, just contact the department of finance and make a payment. Alternatively, do not claim tax refunds, credits etc to the value of your wealth tax. How's the air up there in your ivory tower tell us Purple?


That's a silly post.


----------



## The Horseman

Purple said:


> That's a silly post.


It's not really. If you as an individual feel you want to pay a wealth tax or give something back to the state then you can.


----------



## Purple

The Horseman said:


> It's not really. If you as an individual feel you want to pay a wealth tax or give something back to the state then you can.


It really is.

This is about SF tax policy and their populist lie that the will tax the wealthy. They won't and have no intention of doing do because most of the wealthy don't understand the different between wealth and income. It's also true to say the most of the wealth held by the wealthy is due to political decisions rather than their own hard work. That doesn't mean they don't work hard, it's just a reflection of the fact that most wealth is held in the form of pensions and property (the primary place of residence) and their values have more than doubled over the last 12 years due to political decisions. At the same time real wage growth over that 12 years has been less than 10%.
I'm simple acknowledging my good fortune as one of those people and proposing that it would be fair to return some of that unearned wealth to those have been disadvantaged by events and will have to pay for it in the longer term. Think of it as giving them the resources to pay our debt for us since we are unwilling to do so.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Purple said:


> That's a silly post.


I'm just following your lead. House prices increase due to inflation as well and over time, prices go up. A house in 1900 was cheaper than in 1950 and again cheaper than in 2000. Was there quantitive easying since 1900 and earlier?

Nobody agrees with your train of thought here it seems. You are like a priest, pontificating and telling us all the errors of our ways without doing anything to atone yourself. Your a Purple alright


----------



## Purple

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I'm just following your lead. House prices increase due to inflation as well and over time, prices go up. A house in 1900 was cheaper than in 1950 and again cheaper than in 2000. Was there quantitive easying since 1900 and earlier?


This is an interesting study on house prices between 1709 and 1949.  We've always had booms and busts but the difference between then and the last 12 years was the size and cause of the changes. This time it's been caused by QE and no, that's never happened before because governments were much smaller in economic terms back then. 


PebbleBeach2020 said:


> You are like a priest, pontificating and telling us all the errors of our ways without doing anything to atone yourself. Your a Purple alright


I don't know what you mean by that. I'm advocating for a Wealth Tax that actually taxes wealth. That's all. What errors are you talking about?


----------



## The Horseman

Purple said:


> It really is.
> 
> This is about SF tax policy and their populist lie that the will tax the wealthy. They won't and have no intention of doing do because most of the wealthy don't understand the different between wealth and income. It's also true to say the most of the wealth held by the wealthy is due to political decisions rather than their own hard work. That doesn't mean they don't work hard, it's just a reflection of the fact that most wealth is held in the form of pensions and property (the primary place of residence) and their values have more than doubled over the last 12 years due to political decisions. At the same time real wage growth over that 12 years has been less than 10%.
> I'm simple acknowledging my good fortune as one of those people and proposing that it would be fair to return some of that unearned wealth to those have been disadvantaged by events and will have to pay for it in the longer term. Think of it as giving them the resources to pay our debt for us since we are unwilling to do so.


It is. 

Sinn Fein will tax the wealthy as they want to appeal to the "have not's" as they see them. Property goes up on in value as inflation increases the value of an asset will increase in monetary terms (not necessarily in real terms). Pensions go up because pension funds are invested in economic activity be it shareholding by pension funds, govt bonds, property investment etc. This is exactly what should happen otherwise where do the funds for economic activity come from. 

I am in my early 50's and have gone through high interest rates, stamp duty etc. What we are encountering is a populist view of pandering to peoples wants irrespective of the economic consequences.


----------



## Purple

The Horseman said:


> Property goes up on in value as inflation increases the value of an asset will increase in monetary terms (not necessarily in real terms). Pensions go up because pension funds are invested in economic activity be it shareholding by pension funds, govt bonds, property investment etc. This is exactly what should happen otherwise where do the funds for economic activity come from.


Yes, that's what normally happens but QE doubled the money supply and that is the main driver in property and share price inflation in the last 12 years. Therefore the increases in wealth are due to QE, not economic activity. There's been almost no inflation due to economic activity in that period. I'm not saying that QE should not have happened, I'm just pointing out the result.


----------



## Brian C

Leo said:


> None of these? What about the Vacant site levy introduced in 2018, and increased in 2019? The €70M grant to the Housing Agency to purchase and refurb vacant housing? Public opinion is very much against increasing the height restrictions, so you need to blame the public for that one.
> 
> 
> 
> If they wanted to enrich cronies, doing much of what you said would have been a perfect way to achieve that. They'd have made billions in development related income.
> 
> Don't get fooled that we have some abnormal issue with vacant or derelict properties. In 2014 it was reported we had over 400,000 vacant properties, many in unfinished ghost estates where no one wanted to buy. The 2016 census reported the number of vacant properties was down to 180k. The 2020 GeoView Report found ~90k vacant properties, and how many of those are second homes or owned by people in long-term care? That's progress in anyone's book.


Leo, the 400,00 down to 180,000 down to 90,000 isn't progress. It's just a correction of an incorrect figure. The 400,000 "vacant properties" never existed nor did the 180,000. With the 2016 census, a large amount of the 180,000 related to when if someone didn't answer the door the property was marked as vacant. 

Also Dublin City Council like many other councils have said that their vacant numbers are much lower than what a national figure of 180,00 would give them. In fact a large number of them are actually holiday homes. Ultimately these figures are thrown around by opposition politicians. They are unsubstantiated rubbish. It is surprising that they are still being used.


----------



## Purple

Brian C said:


> Dublin City Council like many other councils have said that their vacant numbers are much lower than what a national figure of 180,00 would give them. In fact a large number of them are actually holiday homes.


The local authorities are a major part of the problem when it comes to freeing up properties which should be on the market.

I have a feeling that if the average public servant was as competent and hard working as the average civil servant we'd be in a much better place as a country.


----------



## Leo

Brian C said:


> With the 2016 census, a large amount of the 180,000 related to when if someone didn't answer the door the property was marked as vacant.


It wasn't as simple as that, unless the enumerator didn't do their job properly, they were issues with guidance on a number of steps to carry out in an attempt to evaluate if it was truely vacant prior to registering it as such. Ultimately I believe all those numbers are somewhat exaggerated, but the overall downward trend is indicative of a reducing problem which makes sense when you consider the increase in property values over the period.


----------



## galway_blow_in

Nicklesilver said:


> Interesting that they exclude farms from 1% wealth tax and not your residence, small business, pension fund value, and all other assets. This on top of increased income tax will hit the wealth creators hard.


no surprise , a lot of farmers in the SF heartlands of Monaghan , Cavan , Donegal and North Louth have always voted SF


----------



## galway_blow_in

Nicklesilver said:


> A big IF. They didn’t, most only had bank shares, they thought they were a one way bet, blue blue chip. They were not sophisticated investors.  They were not bailed out.  They were hard working self reliant people who paid taxes all there lives. An easy target for those re writing history.


investing in banks in a small european nation is not investing in a pension , its highly risky , its not up to anyone to educate said people , anyone who was reasonably well diversified going into the crash has seen their pension pot more than recover in the past thirteen or fourteen years


----------



## galway_blow_in

Shirazman said:


> There's a third element too: let's call it the O'Riordan/Bacik woke fringe, a sub-cult about which I have nothing nice to say.


they are probably to the forefront in Labour right now as they are constantly having to look over their shoulder at the Soc Dems who more or less out WOKE them on every topic


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

galway_blow_in said:


> they are probably to the forefront in Labour right now as they are constantly having to look over their shoulder at the Soc Dems who more or less out WOKE them on every topic


that bacik one, is not my cup of tea at all. She'd put me off voting Labour full stop. Is that comment allowed?


----------



## RetirementPlan

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> that bacik one, is not a nice person. She'd put me off labour regardless of if they ran This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Christ in my constituency.


Have you spent much time with her, or is it just that you disagree with her politics?


----------



## Purple

RetirementPlan said:


> Have you spent much time with her, or is it just that you disagree with her politics?


I disagree with much of her politics but I respect her and her intellect and think she's a good addition to the body politic.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

RetirementPlan said:


> Have you spent much time with her, or is it just that you disagree with her politics?


both


----------



## RetirementPlan

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> both


I've met her twice, some years back, and I'd have a very different view. In real life, she seemed quite different to her on-screen persona, much warmer in fact. Regardless, I don't think it's a nice thing to say about anyone, and fairly inappropriate. Disagree with her politics all you like, but it's just a bit personal imo.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

I said I didn't like the woman or her politics. I was told that's not nice. What's been said on this thread about the murdering Shinners must be very upsetting altogether for some readers


----------



## jpd

I don't think Shinners are on Askaboutmoney 

They already got their pension pot courtesy of you know who


----------



## Purple

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I said I didn't like the woman or her politics.


You said _"that bacik one, is not a nice person". _You've since edited it so maybe you agree that it wasn't a nice thing to say.


PebbleBeach2020 said:


> What's been said on this thread about the murdering Shinners must be very upsetting altogether for some readers


Saying that there are Shinners who are murderers is a statement of fact. 
Saying that they are child killers is a statement of fact. 
Saying that they don't recognise this country as a country and will not use the name of this country and that they are run from a foreign country are statements of fact.  
I don't recall ever singling individuals out for attack (unlike the Shinners ).


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Purple said:


> You said _"that bacik one, is not a nice person". _You've since edited it so maybe you agree that it wasn't a nice thing to say.


No I was told to edit it or it would be deleted. Having an opinion that someone is not a "nice person" apparently is worse than calling them murderers and child killers (even though most Shinners would deny all such accusations. Sure Gerry Adams still denies being a member of the IRA to this day doesn't he?


----------



## RetirementPlan

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I said I didn't like the woman or her politics. I was told that's not nice. What's been said on this thread about the murdering Shinners must be very upsetting altogether for some readers


If you had said that you didn't like her, I wouldn't have queried it.


----------



## Purple

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> No I was told to edit it or it would be deleted. Having an opinion that someone is not a "nice person" apparently is worse than calling them murderers and child killers (even though most Shinners would deny all such accusations. Sure Gerry Adams still denies being a member of the IRA to this day doesn't he?


He does but other disagree.


----------



## Purple

Interesting article on the Shinners in today's Irish Times.


----------



## evil_g

Purple said:


> Interesting article on the Shinners in today's Irish Times.


That's an excellent article.


----------



## Purple

Another article in the Irish Times making the point that the Shinners tax policy it populist and hypocritical.


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> Another article in the Irish Times making the point that the Shinners tax policy it populist and hypocritical.


And populist and hypocritical policies are exactly what we tend to implement


----------



## RetirementPlan

Purple said:


> Another article in the Irish Times making the point that the Shinners tax policy it populist and hypocritical.


They've been banging the anti-SF drum hard in recent weeks.  Are they overplaying that card, and possibly pushing people the other direction?


----------



## jpd

Baby boomer said:


> And populist and hypocritical policies are exactly what we tend to implement


because we elect politicians espousing populist policies - who is against lower taxes?


----------



## Purple

RetirementPlan said:


> They've been banging the anti-SF drum hard in recent weeks.  Are they overplaying that card, and possibly pushing people the other direction?


Overplaying their hand? With their fan-girl Una Mullally writing her puff-pieces for them most weeks? Are you serious?
Other journalists are pointing out facts. Una is offering half-baked opinions and conjecture that wouldn't make it past a Transition Year debating society. While she gets to treat us to her 'insights' the Irish Times, the traditional paper of the Smoked-Salmon Socialist, could hardly be accused of not giving oxygen to populist pseudo-socialist drivel.


----------



## Purple

jpd said:


> because we elect politicians espousing populist policies - who is against lower taxes?


Yep, and the men in West Belfast know that. 

If we elect the Shinners can there be  national apology for all the things we said about the Americans who elected Trump? Because if you vote for the Shinners you are the same as the people who voted for Trump.


----------



## ClubMan

jpd said:


> because we elect politicians espousing populist policies - who is against lower taxes?


Have you not been reading Brendan's posts lately?


----------



## RetirementPlan

Purple said:


> Overplaying their hand? With their fan-girl Una Mullally writing her puff-pieces for them most weeks? Are you serious?
> Other journalists are pointing out facts. Una is offering half-baked opinions and conjecture that wouldn't make it past a Transition Year debating society. While she gets to treat us to her 'insights' the Irish Times, the traditional paper of the Smoked-Salmon Socialist, could hardly be accused of not giving oxygen to populist pseudo-socialist drivel.


You're not seeing any trend here then? 









						Kathy Sheridan: Will the real Sinn Féin please stand up?
					

Party members cannot continue to deny legitimacy of the State SF is expected to govern




					www.irishtimes.com
				












						Sinn Féin climate policy remains hazy as debate on costs heats up
					

Party majors on climate justice and just transition to exclusion of almost everything else




					www.irishtimes.com
				












						Newton Emerson: Sinn Féin rides two horses in chase of hobgoblins
					

Party's agenda North and South leaves nothing to chance – something for everyone




					www.irishtimes.com
				












						At some point, Sinn Féin will need to confront its violent past and grapple with 'sorry'
					

Party has mastered the non-apology but will need to confront its past




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## Shirazman

Purple said:


> Overplaying their hand? With their fan-girl Una Mullally writing her puff-pieces for them most weeks? Are you serious?
> Other journalists are pointing out facts. Una is offering half-baked opinions and conjecture that wouldn't make it past a Transition Year debating society. While she gets to treat us to her 'insights' the Irish Times, the traditional paper of the Smoked-Salmon Socialist, could hardly be accused of not giving oxygen to populist pseudo-socialist drivel.



Yep.  Mullally is the blithering idiot who finally convinced me (after being a daily reader for almost 50 years) not to renew my online sub to the Fintan O'Toole Daily.


----------



## Shirazman

RetirementPlan said:


> You're not seeing any trend here then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kathy Sheridan: Will the real Sinn Féin please stand up?
> 
> 
> Party members cannot continue to deny legitimacy of the State SF is expected to govern
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.irishtimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinn Féin climate policy remains hazy as debate on costs heats up
> 
> 
> Party majors on climate justice and just transition to exclusion of almost everything else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.irishtimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newton Emerson: Sinn Féin rides two horses in chase of hobgoblins
> 
> 
> Party's agenda North and South leaves nothing to chance – something for everyone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.irishtimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, Sinn Féin will need to confront its violent past and grapple with 'sorry'
> 
> 
> Party has mastered the non-apology but will need to confront its past
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.irishtimes.com



You raise a good point;  maybe Mullally's editor should invite her to reply to the legitimate questions raised in those articles.


----------



## Purple

Shirazman said:


> You raise a good point;  maybe Mullally's editor should invite her to reply to the legitimate questions raised in those articles.


Excellent point!


----------



## Purple

RetirementPlan said:


> You're not seeing any trend here then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kathy Sheridan: Will the real Sinn Féin please stand up?
> 
> 
> Party members cannot continue to deny legitimacy of the State SF is expected to govern
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.irishtimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinn Féin climate policy remains hazy as debate on costs heats up
> 
> 
> Party majors on climate justice and just transition to exclusion of almost everything else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.irishtimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newton Emerson: Sinn Féin rides two horses in chase of hobgoblins
> 
> 
> Party's agenda North and South leaves nothing to chance – something for everyone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.irishtimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, Sinn Féin will need to confront its violent past and grapple with 'sorry'
> 
> 
> Party has mastered the non-apology but will need to confront its past
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.irishtimes.com


Yes, I see people making factual points about facts.
Una issues press statements on behalf of her party.


----------



## RetirementPlan

Purple said:


> Yes, I see people making factual points about facts.
> Una issues press statements on behalf of her party.


They seem to be mostly opinion pieces, rather than factual. I hadn't read most of them, or Mullally's stuff tbh. As others noted, the Irish Times has lost a lot of trust in recent years. 
But it seemed like a bit of a trend there, working hard to rile up middle class voters or scare them about SF. I'm not sure that it will have the intended effect.


----------



## Shirazman

RetirementPlan said:


> They seem to be mostly opinion pieces, rather than factual. I hadn't read most of them, or Mullally's stuff tbh. As others noted, the Irish Times has lost a lot of trust in recent years.
> But it seemed like a bit of a trend there, working hard to rile up middle class voters or scare them about SF. I'm not sure that it will have the intended effect.



I doubt than anything will at this point.    It's always difficult to persuade those who really don't want to be persuaded.   Their minds are made up and they're going to buy those magic beans, come hell or high water.


----------



## Purple

AN excellent piece in today's Irish Times outlining the hypocrisy of the Shinners policies which actually pander to the rich and hurt middle income working people.


----------



## greenhedge

sinn fein will do what Bertie and Charlie did run the country into judge debt and and line their pockets then go out of government and leave Finn Geal to clean up the mess


----------



## RetirementPlan

greenhedge said:


> leave Finn Geal to clean up the mess


And find another smaller party to take all the flak - maybe the SDs next time around?


----------



## Purple

greenhedge said:


> sinn fein will do what Bertie and Charlie did run the country into judge debt and and line their pockets then go out of government and leave Finn Geal to clean up the mess


Charlie was a crook but he didn’t begged the country the way Bertie did and FG under Fitzgerald were a disaster economically.

The Child Killers are like a populist 1970’s FF.


----------



## HyperionDayz

I’ve never voted SF and most likely never will. In reading the posts above, I think it would be worth asking - has any party said that they won’t fix housing? I’d hazard a guess that the real answer is no. 

We all know in our heart of hearts that housing has been a serious issue in Ireland since the founding of the state. Governments are reticent about building social housing because it’s hugely capital intensive, takes years to bear fruit and then of course has significant ongoing costs for maintenance that the tenant doesn’t pay.

What I find fascinating is that the number 1 issue in the last general election was health and there’s been precious little progress there (Sláintecare continues to be more theatre rather than implementable policy). SF have very deftly played the younglings and convinced them of the age old Irish fallacy that there’s ‘a house for everyone in the audience’. The journos who let’s face it are usually young and poorly paid are keeping the focus on issue number 2 from the last general election and will continue to do so until they get their own homes.

I think we need to come to terms with the fact that all our largest political parties are derived from paramilitaries (SF/FF/FG) and none of them are whiter than white. All the parties are populist in their approaches, so it’s probably not fair to just call out SF for it. I can’t stand the idea that we’ll all be called upon to pay more taxes to fund a leaking ship that serves the needs of none of it’s citizens particularly well.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Enough has been said and it's way off into Letting Off Steam territory.


----------

