# Sinn Fein : wealth risk



## fistophobia (4 Feb 2020)

What are the impending risks of a Sinn Fein controlled government?
I am seeing a lot of socialist speak in the media, a gradual shift to the left.
We could see a planned 5% tax on earners above a certain level.
Its not talked about much, but there could be a purge on stored wealth and high earnings.
What do people think are the risks to one's wealth?
Theres only so much people will take, before they consider leaving the country.
Most financial assets can be easily moved overseas.
Interested to hear people's thoughts.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (4 Feb 2020)

If in government, Sinn Féin will not be the lead partner.

This is what their manifesto says on tax:



> Sinn Féin priorities:
> » Making all income below €30,000 exempt from USC, benefitting all workers.
> This will mean no USC is paid on the first €30,000 you earn
> » Abolishing the Local Property Tax (LPT), replacing it with direct Exchequer
> ...


----------



## Leper (4 Feb 2020)

Well Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael had control of our economy for a hundred years. Sinn Féin can't do much worse. However, I hope SF won't be controlling the purse strings, but a timely warning to the other political parties is being dished out.


----------



## Purple (4 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> but a timely warning to the other political parties is being dished out.


Yea, be even more populist; the electorate is even more economically illiterate and short sighted than you thought.


----------



## Conan (4 Feb 2020)

Mary Lou's understanding of economics was exposed last night to be as good as Grizzly Adams. She could not even explain her own policies. The SF "money tree" is apparently flourishing even in Winter.


----------



## Protocol (4 Feb 2020)

SF propose a wealth tax.

See their GE 2020 manifesto:



			https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf
		


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 

To raise 89m.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> Well Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael had control of our economy for a hundred years. Sinn Féin can't do much worse. However, I hope SF won't be controlling the purse strings, but a timely warning to the other political parties is being dished out.


As noted before, FG/FF have made Ireland the 4th richest country in the world.  But I do agree that this has brought its problems with housing affordability and congestion.  SF would plunge us back to the ‘80s and maybe that would not be such a bad thing.


----------



## Purple (4 Feb 2020)

Protocol said:


> SF propose a wealth tax.
> 
> See their GE 2020 manifesto:
> 
> ...


Those exemptions include pension pots, primary dwelling houses, family farms and family businesses. What's left that can't be moved out of the country?


----------



## Purple (4 Feb 2020)

The OECD has very interesting date on income, income inequality, poverty, GNI etc.
Ireland does really well, and is improving, by just about every indicator.


----------



## Leper (4 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As noted before, FG/FF have made Ireland the 4th richest country in the world.  But I do agree that this has brought its problems with housing affordability and congestion.  SF would plunge us back to the ‘80s and maybe that would not be such a bad thing.



No Duke - It was the people of Ireland through sacrifices of working longer and for less helped make Ireland one of the richest countries of the world..


----------



## Purple (4 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> No Duke - It was the people of Ireland through sacrifices of working longer and for less helped make Ireland one of the richest countries of the world..


Are you saying that the people didn't work hard of sacrifice until the late 80's? Because that's when things started to really get better.


----------



## Leper (4 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Are you saying that the people didn't work hard of sacrifice until the late 80's? Because that's when things started to really get better.


I never said that. You're misquoting me again.


----------



## Sunny (4 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> No Duke - It was the people of Ireland through sacrifices of working longer and for less helped make Ireland one of the richest countries of the world..



Well then surely it was the people of Ireland who destroyed the Country 10 years ago?

I have to be honest. This is the first election where I can understand people voting entirely for local reasons. This election at National Level has been pitiful by all the political parties. All I have heard is what these people and spin doctors think I want to hear. And they are wrong every single time.


----------



## josh8267 (4 Feb 2020)

First off I have no time for SF just to get that out of the way
,FF/FG/LAB policies have us well on the way to a Wealth tax already , High earners already see it,
When the TROIKA came in the first thing the did was force the Government to take the  USC  type taxes off the people paying PRSI A1 and apply it to all earned income,
In any other EU Country that I know of leaving the UK out  have a Social insurance system where all worked income pay's Around the same amount self Employed farners and so fort pay a lot higher Social insurance,
Because this was never done in Ireland correctly already  the Government have had to put PRSI claas s on all Earned Income, even after all of this,we now have a situation where all of the PRSI S class collected only covers 23% of the pension paid out to this Group if you take the time to check you will see the commission or group who looked at Prsi in the past year or two report said this should be increased,

So at present  time we have a Wealth  tax of sorts on landlords and others  PRSI+ USC to make up for this ,
I think the reason no one is happy in Ireland is we all know of lots of loop holes and unfairness that needs reform and the rise of SF is Directly linked to it,
Just to give you an example I have family working in Austria they were self employed in Ireland for a good number of years working on line and paying all the social insurance  required,
The decided to move to Austria and still work on line for the same Irish customers  to this day,

after a year they had to move  to the Austrian social insurance system  this was the year before USC came in,

There Austrian accountant could not understand how such a system could work , He had Austrian Farm Farm accounts so he Decided to cross check the Austrian System  and the Irish system , he just put in something like social Insurance farmers Ireland it brought him to the IFA web site , He said I belieive you now,
I can tell you the people on high Income  people with wealth than cannot be transferred  and most of all the people paying these low rates of Social Insurance  Will finish up footing the bill, os something to this affect,

FF/FG/LAB are now having to tax the people who the let away up to now , FG/FF got there vote telling them they would do away with the USC ,

To do that they would have to increase paye payroll PRSI UP over 20% but how do you put PRSI back up to the same rate as it was before the TROIKA arrived the plebs will notice and there are 2 million of them now,

The only way around the rise of SF is Major reform and building fairness into the system FF?FG/Lab will have to dump the Galway Tent type supporters , and go looking after the people the were trying to increase the pension age on,

The above may not be easy to read but it is on message,

Purple the people drifting away from FF/FG/LAB don't need to read reports thet can see with there own eyes the unfairness FF/FG/LAB have built into the system,


----------



## Leper (4 Feb 2020)

Sunny said:


> Well then surely it was the people of Ireland who destroyed the Country 10 years ago?
> 
> I have to be honest. This is the first election where I can understand people voting entirely for local reasons. This election at National Level has been pitiful by all the political parties. All I have heard is what these people and spin doctors think I want to hear. And they are wrong every single time.



No Sunny, it was the people saved the country others nearly broke it.


----------



## Leo (4 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> No Sunny, it was the people saved the country others nearly broke it.



Was it the Illuminati?


----------



## Sunny (4 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> No Sunny, it was the people saved the country others nearly broke it.



That doesn't really make sense. So when things go bad, it is other peoples fault. When things go well, it is because of us. Nice to be able give ourselves a pat on the back and none of the blame I suppose.....


----------



## Purple (4 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> No Sunny, it was the people saved the country others nearly broke it.


Riiiighht, sure it was.
In fairness you are consistent.


----------



## john luc (4 Feb 2020)

Childless couples that want to hand on their after taxed wealth can be told thanks as a third of this wealth will feed into the bottomless pit of public funds.


----------



## josh8267 (4 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As noted before, FG/FF have made Ireland the 4th richest country in the world.  But I do agree that this has brought its problems with housing


I say the same thing to my daughter ,
She says she felt safer having her babies in Austria
The childcare is away better family life is away better , she will tell you  she has a better life in Austria than her friends back in Ireland,
I spend some of my retirement time over there I can see why Irish people are uneasy with FF/FG/LAB,
If we are the 4th richest country  try telling that to the people after working and paying 20% payroll into the system for 50 years they have to work  another few years to get the state pension,


----------



## Purple (4 Feb 2020)

josh8267 said:


> I say the same thing to my daughter ,
> She says she felt safer having her babies in Austria
> The childcare is away better family life is away better , she will tell you  she has a better life in Austria than her friends back in Ireland,
> I spend some of my retirement time over there I can see why Irish people are uneasy with FF/FG/LAB,


Austria has been rich, most of the time, for the last 300 years. We've been rich for the last 30. The social, capital and State infrastructure needs a few more decades to catch up with our new found income. 



josh8267 said:


> If we are the 4th richest country  try telling that to the people after working and paying 20% payroll into the system for 50 years they have to work  another few years to get the state pension,


The rates of social insurance here are amongst the lowest in the developed world. The pension rates are amongst the highest. Very few people will pay into the system for 50 years (I will but that's not usual) and they have to work another few years to ease the burden they have placed on their children and grandchildren. I'd tell those people not to be so greedy and selfish.


----------



## dereko1969 (4 Feb 2020)

It doesn't seem to have gotten much play but the SF manifesto proposes a €42 a week increase for Jobseekers Allowance and One Parent Family payments, a 20% increase in an era of virtually full employment!


----------



## Purple (4 Feb 2020)

dereko1969 said:


> It doesn't seem to have gotten much play but the SF manifesto proposes a €42 a week increase for Jobseekers Allowance and One Parent Family payments, a 20% increase in an era of virtually full employment!


And there I was thinking they were going to help working people!


----------



## odyssey06 (4 Feb 2020)

Fianna Fail


dereko1969 said:


> It doesn't seem to have gotten much play but the SF manifesto proposes a €42 a week increase for Jobseekers Allowance and One Parent Family payments, a 20% increase in an era of virtually full employment!



Sure if you're going to deal in fantasy economics and dole out bribes you may as well aim big.


----------



## josh8267 (4 Feb 2020)

john luc said:


> Childless couples that want to hand on their after taxed wealth can be told thanks as a third of this wealth will feed into the bottomless pit of public funds.


Childless Couples in other EU countries pay more tax ,
You can only blame FF/FG/Lab for that , And they will be coming after more every year,have you forgotten they robbed private pension pot's to pay for  FF/FG/LAB reckless auction politics in past general elections,


----------



## josh8267 (4 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Austria has been rich, most of the time, for the last 300 years. We've been rich for the last 30. The social, capital and State infrastructure needs a few more decades to catch up with our new found income.
> 
> 
> The rates of social insurance here are amongst the lowest in the developed world. The pension rates are amongst the highest. Very few people will pay into the system for 50 years (I will but that's not usual) and they have to work another few years to ease the burden they have placed on their children and grandchildren. I'd tell those people not to be so greedy and selfish.


Totally wrong Everyone pay's around the same amount into there social security system and no vested Interest Groups are allowed to rob it ,
fairness and no loopholes is what the people value most from there elected members ,
Thrifty hardworking people  they don't tip there hats to the likes of FF/FG/LAB over there ,  FF/FG/LAB would be found out long ago,


----------



## Purple (4 Feb 2020)

josh8267 said:


> Totally wrong Everyone pay's around the same amount into there social security system and no vested Interest Groups are allowed to rob it ,
> fairness and no loopholes is what the people value most from there elected members ,
> Thrifty hardworking people  they don't tip there hats to the likes of FF/FG/LAB over there ,  FF/FG/LAB would be found out long ago,


I don't understand your post.


----------



## josh8267 (4 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> I don't understand your post.


Sorry purple, I understand yours ,
Vote for the people who wrecked this country and handed you the bill and blame the people who went out to work for fifty years and seen 20% of payroll taken in PRSI, I am a Capitalist and God Willing  I am well on my way to getting a good return on the money invested through payroll PRSI,

Austrians would not put up with what is going on in Ireland, ,FF/FG  would not last two weeks over there the people who get up in the morning and go to work are the most respected no pulling the wool over there eyes ,none of this rubbish of being rich for the last 30 years and we bailed out in the past 10 years, and the bill handed to high earners,

The purple and josh the Irish  taxpayer are only codding themselves, seeing over 50% of wages gone in tax,and getting sweet all in return,thinking they live in a rich Country, payroll tax/prsi is going in one direction up for high earners,

From reading and replying to your posts the drift I am getting is Vote for the parties who did lots of  damage and more to do
The top 20% of earners may as well stay voting for FF/FG/LAB ,for a reason,
They are well matched,


----------



## Leo (5 Feb 2020)

josh8267 said:


> Sorry purple, I understand yours ,



Ah, but Purple knows where 'there' is...


----------



## josh8267 (5 Feb 2020)

Leo said:


> Ah, but Purple knows where 'there' is...


Judging by  Purple posts, Purple is not bothered by things like that,Purple well able for a bit of banter,
Just wondering what is biting others,


----------



## Leo (5 Feb 2020)

josh8267 said:


> Judging by Purple posts, Purple is not bothered by things like that



You may have missed the point, but better structure and learning the difference between their and there would help make your posts more comprehensible.


----------



## josh8267 (5 Feb 2020)

Leo said:


> You may have missed the point, but better structure and learning the difference between their and there would help make your posts more comprehensible.


Did you ever hear the saying, Mockery gets you Nowhere,
Possibly,  I know lots who would be more comprehensible but I would not like to have (there) shortcomings ,


----------



## Leo (5 Feb 2020)

josh8267 said:


> Did you ever hear the saying, Mockery gets you Nowhere,



Well you obviously missed the point there. Unlike your earlier mockery of another user for what you mistakenly understood as a spelling mistake, my intention isn't mockery, it's to encourage you to take the time to form your points. The better formed, the clearer your argument will be.


----------



## Sunny (5 Feb 2020)

josh8267 said:


> Sorry purple, I understand yours ,
> Vote for the people who wrecked this country and handed you the bill and blame the people who went out to work for fifty years and seen 20% of payroll taken in PRSI, I am a Capitalist and God Willing  I am well on my way to getting a good return on the money invested through payroll PRSI,
> 
> Austrians would not put up with what is going on in Ireland, ,FF/FG  would not last two weeks over there the people who get up in the morning and go to work are the most respected no pulling the wool over there eyes ,none of this rubbish of being rich for the last 30 years and we bailed out in the past 10 years, and the bill handed to high earners,
> ...



I don't understand it either. Are you not completely contradicting yourself??


----------



## josh8267 (5 Feb 2020)

Sunny said:


> I don't understand it either. Are you not completely contradicting yourself??


I know very well after the General Election the main party in Government has to be ether FF or FG I also know( there )is a meltdown going on in (there) support base from around 80%  25 years ago to less than 50% now, the results of this is we have auction politics trying to win an extra few % to become the main governing party,(there) supporters the 50% are the only people who will Pay extra tax and not kick up fuss,,

FF?FG Supporters will blame  Unions and others But deep down they know they are the ones going to pay extra taxes to buy the votes FF/FG need and not kick up a fuss,
I am  having a little bit of  Banter with the likes of Purple telling him a few home truths , as far as I am concerned he is a good natured stranger who can give and take a little bit of banter and a few home truths thrown in for good measure ,

The problem  FF/FG supporters face whichever party finishes up in power  will have to honour there Naked promises and transfer more wealth from the 50% who support them to the 50% who don't to survive,


----------



## Purple (5 Feb 2020)

josh8267 said:


> Sorry purple, I understand yours ,
> Vote for the people who wrecked this country and handed you the bill and blame the people who went out to work for fifty years and seen 20% of payroll taken in PRSI, I am a Capitalist and God Willing  I am well on my way to getting a good return on the money invested through payroll PRSI,
> 
> Austrians would not put up with what is going on in Ireland, ,FF/FG  would not last two weeks over there the people who get up in the morning and go to work are the most respected no pulling the wool over there eyes ,none of this rubbish of being rich for the last 30 years and we bailed out in the past 10 years, and the bill handed to high earners,
> ...


I vote for the Party which I think will do the least damage to the economy. The excludes the Shinners and the rest of the extreme left. After that there's not a lot of choice. It's all about damage limitation.

But yes, it is only the internet so nothing said here should be taken to heart.


----------



## Allpartied (6 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> I vote for the Party which I think will do the least damage to the economy. The excludes the Shinners and the rest of the extreme left. After that there's not a lot of choice. It's all about damage limitation.
> 
> But yes, it is only the internet so nothing said here should be taken to heart.



The party which would do the least damage to the economy?  

It's hard to believe that FF can still accuse SF of being a danger to the economy, after they, basically, bankrupted the country.  But, that's the power of propaganda. 
It wasn't really Bertie's fault or FF's fault that the whole cat and caboodle came crashing down in 2008, it was the nature of the beast. 
This is end stage capitalism, the only thing that kept the entire western economy from completely tanking was massive state intervention, or communism as it is known.  The only difference being that the massive state intervention, which is still continuing, was, primarily, aimed at the richest and wealthiest.  Without massive state intervention, allowing the capitalist jungle to sort out the financial crisis of 2008 would have seen billionaires wiped out, millionaires decimated.  The rest of us would have suffered, for sure, but we suffered anyway, and we would have got by, recovered. 

The next massive global financial crisis is just around the corner, maybe next year, maybe in 10 years time. Rest assured it's coming and the terrifying thing is that there is very little that can be done to stop it. The only certainty is that the governmental intervention will be even greater, whole industries will be nationalised, the banking system included and the priority will be to ensure that the wealth of the wealthiest is protected, at all costs.


----------



## Firefly (6 Feb 2020)

Allpartied said:


> The only difference being that the massive state intervention, which is still continuing, was, primarily, aimed at the richest and wealthiest.



The beneficiaries of the bail-out certainly included bond holders, but they also included deposit holders.

The cost of capitalising the banks is less than 20% of our national debt. The vast majority of the rest of it was built up from 2008 - 2014 or thereabouts to ensure that those dependent on the state for income, (public sector workers, pensioners and those on the dole) would not have lost out. So to say that this "was, primarily, aimed at the richest and wealthiest." is incorrect.



Allpartied said:


> It's hard to believe that FF can still accuse SF of being a danger to the economy, after they, basically, bankrupted the country.  But, that's the power of propaganda.
> It wasn't really Bertie's fault or FF's fault that the whole cat and caboodle came crashing down in 2008, it was the nature of the beast.



This may be so, but the western world, through free markets, has showed incredible resiliance in bouncing back time and again. Look at socialist / communist economies on the other hand and they end up in a downward spiral that can take generations to solve (and usually end up with so much poverty & suffering)



Allpartied said:


> This is end stage capitalism



Can you back this up please?



Allpartied said:


> the only thing that kept the entire western economy from completely tanking was massive state intervention, or communism as it is known.


You're having a laugh!!!! I know Bertie was a self-described socialist, but communism has never fixed anything, unless you can show otherwise....



Allpartied said:


> Without massive state intervention, allowing the capitalist jungle to sort out the financial crisis of 2008 would have seen billionaires wiped out, millionaires decimated.


Possibly, but those who would have suffered most would have been ordinary deposit holders and public sector workers, pensioners & those on the dole.




Allpartied said:


> The next massive global financial crisis is just around the corner, maybe next year, maybe in 10 years time.


Sounds like you should take out a BigShort



Allpartied said:


> Rest assured it's coming and the terrifying thing is that there is very little that can be done to stop it. The only certainty is that the governmental intervention will be even greater, whole industries will be nationalised, the banking system included and the priority will be to ensure that the wealth of the wealthiest is protected, at all costs.



Source for this vision into the future please.


----------



## Purple (7 Feb 2020)

Allpartied said:


> The party which would do the least damage to the economy?
> 
> It's hard to believe that FF can still accuse SF of being a danger to the economy, after they, basically, bankrupted the country.  But, that's the power of propaganda.
> It wasn't really Bertie's fault or FF's fault that the whole cat and caboodle came crashing down in 2008, it was the nature of the beast.
> ...


Having read that utter nonsense you do seem to fit the profile of a Shinner Voter.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> The cost of capitalising the banks is less than 20% of our national debt.



Is that all? We are talking about 2/3 banks here?
Imagine if 20% of GDP was used to provide public services instead, healthcare, third level education, housing the homeless.



Firefly said:


> The vast majority of the rest of it was built up from 2008 - 2014 or thereabouts to ensure that those dependent on the state for income, (public sector workers, pensioners and those on the dole) would not have lost out



Public sector workers are not 'dependent' on the State for income. What patronising, ill-informed, indoctrinated thinking. 
Try running a state _without _a public sector to who is dependent on who. 



Firefly said:


> This may be so, but the western world, through free markets, has showed incredible resiliance in bouncing back time and again.



This is the indoctrinated delusion. That 'free markets' have brought western economies 'bouncing back' 
That 20% of GDP intervention in Ireland, landed on the shoulders of generations of Irish people to come, held to pay it back. 



Firefly said:


> Look at socialist / communist economies on the other hand and they end up in a downward spiral that can take generations to solve (and usually end up with so much poverty & suffering)



The QE intervention, the 20% of national debt _is _the intervention of centralised command economies. 
The 'free market' is a figment of the imagination. We live in a highly centralised, highly controlled monetary system.


----------



## Purple (9 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Is that all? We are talking about 2/3 banks here?
> Imagine if 20% of GDP was used to provide public services instead, healthcare, third level education, housing the homeless.


That 20% was a once off payment and it was used to bail out bond holders and depositors. The people who owned the banks lost everything. I am very surprised that you didn’t know these things.

I do agree that state employees run the country and many do a very good job but they also have to take some responsibility for the people on trolleys and homelessness. That said at an individual level most work hard and earn their pay.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> That 20% was a once off payment and it was used to bail out bond holders and depositors. The people who owned the banks lost everything. I am very surprised that you didn’t know these things.



I do know these things. I also that  depositors have their deposits insured by the State to the tune of €100,000. The vast majority of whom had nowhere near €100,000 on deposit.
Had the much vaunted 'free-market' rules of capitalism of risk-reward been adhered to, then the cost to Irish state would have been a fraction of what was eventually paid.
Instead, when it came to it, the capitalist free-market risk-takers when cap-in-hand in one hand, and 'financial time-bomb' in the other hand, to bail themselves out of their disastrous and corrupted financial speculations. 



Purple said:


> I do agree that state employees run the country and many do a very good job but they also have to take some responsibility for the people on trolleys and homelessness.



They do take responsibility, all of the time. That there is a trolley crisis and homelessness crisis is a result of political decisions, such as, the aforementioned political decision to use State funds to bail out so called 'free-market risk takers' (this terminology really is a joke) thus perpetuating the trolley crisis and homelessness crisis.


----------



## Purple (9 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I do know these things. I also that  depositors have their deposits insured by the State to the tune of €100,000. The vast majority of whom had nowhere near €100,000 on deposit.
> Had the much vaunted 'free-market' rules of capitalism of risk-reward been adhered to, then the cost to Irish state would have been a fraction of what was eventually paid.


 are you saying that all those pension funds (the bond holders) should have been left to collapse? 




WolfeTone said:


> They do take responsibility, all of the time. That there is a trolley crisis and homelessness crisis is a result of political decisions, such as, the aforementioned political decision to use State funds to bail out so called 'free-market risk takers' (this terminology really is a joke) thus perpetuating the trolley crisis and homelessness crisis.


 are you saying that we should have borrowed €40 billion more than we did already to fund the health sector? Do remember that the majority (80%) of our debt came from the cost of funding current expenditure so in reality we probably did borrow €40 billion for health already. Therefore are you suggesting that we should have borrowed more?

You have made the point that the growth in the private sector since the crash was kick started with that injection of borrow money and I agree with you. How do you think the economy would be doing if we hadn’t bailed out the banks? Do remember that the net cost of that bail out is down to €20 billion and is now just under 10% of our National debt.

as for the free market being an artificial construct, I agree with you on that too. I’ve made that point many times here.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> are you saying that all those pension funds (the bond holders) should have been left to collapse?



No, im saying that the notion propagate earlier of 'free markets bouncing back' is an indoctrinated ideology.
For sure there are plenty of examples of where it does occur. But when vast sums of wealth (such as pension funds) are left in the control and management of few, then it will induce corrupt practices leading ti financial chaos.
Invariably, those that cheer-lead the free market most will be those demanding state interventions and bail outs when their chips are cooked.
In other words, the State has a responsibility, on behalf of the people, to ensure not only that the poor are given a hand up, but that the rich cannot accumulate extreme levels of concentrated wealth that invariably lead to corrupt practices.


----------



## Purple (9 Feb 2020)

Are you suggesting that the State should control private pension funds?

I’m all for effective regulation, underpinned by competent legislation, but I don’t understand the point you are making about who should manage the pension funds. 
I’d like to see those who are in charge of recklessly run funds, and those who failed in their regulatory duty, to spend a few decades in prison. But that would challenge both the monies establishment and the Public a Sector establishment so it will never happen.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Feb 2020)

No, im saying the propagated notion of 'free-market' economies 'bouncing back' is indoctrinated ideology. 
Im saying that public sector workers are not dependent on the State for their income anymore than anyone else is.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Feb 2020)

_Wolfie _you may recall that Fierce Doherty was the most adamant voice for "burning the bondholders".  It's pure speculation but do you think the  country would be in a better place today if we had followed that advice?

You keep repeating the mantra about "free market capitalism".  No-one is arguing that unfettered fmc is the correct model; our civilisation is much too complex for that.  Instead, all of the successful economies have for some time operated a "*regulated *fmc" model.  For example Mario said he would do whatever it took to save the euro, the antithesis of "let the market rip".  Lefties and anarchos were salivating at the prospect of the collapse of the euro as they had earlier salivated at the hoped for meltdown of the capitalist system and then cried foul (as you are) when the authorities successfully interfered to save the situation

The putative alternative to rfmc for  organising our civilisation is the command economy.  Every attempt at this latter has been a disaster so just accept that rfmc is the best we have at this point of our development.


----------



## cremeegg (9 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Is that all? We are talking about 2/3 banks here?
> Imagine if 20% of GDP was used to provide public services instead, healthcare, third level education, housing the homeless.


Yes just imagine. That would represent a huge cut on what we currently spend.

I am continually surprised at how many people have no idea about just how much the state spends.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Feb 2020)

cremeegg said:


> Yes just imagine. That would represent a huge cut on what we currently spend.
> 
> I am continually surprised at how many people have no idea about just how much the state spends.



My bad, I said GDP instead of national debt. 
But as a side, what should the State its revenues on?


----------



## joe sod (9 Feb 2020)

Sinn Fein in government !!, what would the american multinationals make of it, what about the 11 billion apple tax in the escrow account that the government are fighting the EU over, Will they make a grab for that ?
They could upend 50 years of successful irish industrial policy by frightening away the american horses.


----------



## cremeegg (9 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> My bad, I said GDP instead of national debt.
> But as a side, what should the State its revenues on?



I don't really think that is the question.

Throwing money at difficult issues doesn't resolve those issues.

Take housing, anyone who says that the country can spend it way out of the housing shortage, hasn't thought very much about it, and perhaps dont want to.

Understanding the causes of the problem, In my opinion the high costs of construction and associated items, and developing a response, taxing land, taxing zoned heavily, training more builders, reducing development levies for a start. Spending more money on housing will only entrench the problems.


----------



## Firefly (9 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Public sector workers are not 'dependent' on the State for income.



Who else is going to pay them?


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Feb 2020)

cremeegg said:


> Throwing money at difficult issues doesn't resolve those issues.



Throwing money at it is wrong, true. Take the bank bailout for instance. Do we have a functioning banking system here that serves the interests of the economy as a whole? Are mortgage holders being charged fairly, competitively?
Are businesses able to borrow at competitive rates? 


Spending more money in a planned, organised way, where there is a market failure can solve problems. 



cremeegg said:


> Understanding the causes of the problem, In my opinion the high costs of construction and associated items, and developing a response, taxing land, taxing zoned heavily, training more builders, reducing development levies for a start.



Exactly. And policy decisions can help resolve alot of the problems associated with house building. 



cremeegg said:


> Spending more money on housing will only entrench the problems.



I would have to disagree. Spending money on housing will build more houses (which are needed) and help alleviate the problem.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It's pure speculation but do you think the country would be in a better place today if we had followed that advice?



Yes it is pure speculation, so I do not know the answer. Perhaps looking at an economy that did burn bondholders would help. Iceland for instance. By all economic indicators it has recovered, and in quicker time too.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> You keep repeating the mantra about "free market capitalism".



In the context that some assume that the economic recovery is down to the free market - that principles of social democracy, socialism for short, have no or little part to play.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Instead, all of the successful economies have for some time operated a "*regulated *fmc" model



Yes, and what does 'regulated' generally mean?
Generally, a set of rules mandated from State institutions, like parliaments, or Central banks mandated to regulate financial systems deriving from principles of social democracy eg. your €10 note is no more or less valuable than my €10 note.
Its when those rules are broken, or corrupted, or applied for some but not to others, to favour one over another, that the problems begin.
But in order for State institutions to function, in order for State rules and regulations to apply, there requires investment in people to establish, monitor, administer, inspect, investigate etc....ie a State sector.
Without it, there is no functioning free-market, regulated or not.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> For example Mario said he would do whatever it took to save the euro, the antithesis of "let the market rip".



This is when the rules are broken. This is not the free-market, nor the regulated free-market. The regulated free-market said that if you enter into a private transaction and that transaction goes sour, you lose.
Instead, the regulated free-market, became the regulated socialised monetary system.
That is what we live in today. A monetary system that has crashed and is 'bouncing back' because principles of socialism are being applied to the financial system. Not in a democratic way, but from a centralized command authority - the ECB.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The putative alternative to rfmc for organising our civilisation is the command economy. Every attempt at this latter has been a disaster so just accept that rfmc is the best we have at this point of our development.



The regulated free-market economy is the best model we have, I have never disputed this.
The regulated free-market is a social construct, built on principles of social democracy - fairness and equality.

We don't have that now.

It is a corrupted system designed to break its own rules in favour of some (bondholders in this instance) over others, - shareholders, pension funds, taxpayers, working people, home owners, rent payers, insurance policy holders, small businesses, students, etc.

You may have noticed, that while the economic numbers are improving or have stabilised, the political landscape in Ireland, UK and much further afield has seen some more than significant disruption -
except, perhaps Iceland.

The Rise of Extremist politics I think some might call it?
Is this the consequence of the regulated free-market bouncing back?


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> Who else is going to pay them?



You could privatise the whole State sector. Judges, politicians, gardai, civil servants, doctors, teachers, nurses, prison officers etc...then there would be no more dependence on the State to pay their incomes.


----------



## Firefly (9 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> You could privatise the whole State sector. Judges, politicians, gardai, civil servants, doctors, teachers, nurses, prison officers etc...then there would be no more dependence on the State to pay their incomes.



You didn't answer the question.


----------



## cremeegg (9 Feb 2020)

Does the election go to penalties if they finish level? You’d have to fancy Sinn Féin in the shootout....

sorry, couldn’t resist that.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> You didn't answer the question.



I did. Privatise the public sector and then teachers, gardai, judges, prison officers can have their wages paid by private market rates. 

But lets not beat about the bush here, lets look at your ill-informed comment



Firefly said:


> The vast majority of the rest of it was built up from 2008 - 2014 or thereabouts to ensure that those dependent on the state for income, (public sector workers, pensioners and those on the dole) would not have lost out



The clear inference here is that aside from 20% of national debt to bail out banks, that the rest of the national is down to particular identifiable sectors of the population who are 'dependent' on the State for income. 
This is an insidious comment to portray public sector workers, pensioners and people on the dole as a burden to the rest of society. 
Lets get some things straight, the national debt is a consequence of borrowing to pay for ALL State services in which ALL sectors of society are dependent in some shape or form.
- if you have children and receive child benefit, you are contributor to that debt and that dependent on the State for that income.
- if you are a PAYE worker in receipt of a tax credit you are a contributor to that debt and dependent on the State for that income it provides.
- if the government has ever borrowed to keep part of your income at 20% you are dependent on the State
- if you ever had cause to call and rely on emergency services you are contributor to that debt and are dependent on the State to provide for the cost of that service. 
- if your kids go to a State school....
- if you use public roads, street lighting, public sewers...
- jaysus, if you live in a democratic society, can cast a vote without fear or favour, and be confident that the count is impartial, fair and free, you are a contributor to that debt and are dependent on the State. 

The insidious nature of your comments in general,  is that you fail wholeheartedly to apply any _value _to the work of public sector workers. That the national debt is 69% of GDP is not because GDP has been generated by the free-market alone, it has been generated by the free-market that operates on a platform that provides the public services in which such wealth can be generated by attracting investment, attracting people into the workforce, providing the political stability, assurances to corporations and people, security, healthcare, education, etc in which economies can prosper. 

It is by no means perfect, but to allude that the 80% national debt is attributable to certain sectors of society, without acknowledging the value that those sectors provide to the wealth of the economy is an insidious comment to make.


----------



## Delboy (10 Feb 2020)

I don't know, this whole SF in Govt could be great:
- No more rises in carbon taxes (or even a reduction)
- Property tax abolished
- No USC on the 1st 30k of income
- Pension age restored to 65

All paid for by the fat cats on over 120k or so and the Goggles of this world. Bring it on


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The clear inference here is that aside from 20% of national debt to bail out banks, that the rest of the national is down to particular identifiable sectors of the population who are 'dependent' on the State for income.
> This is an insidious comment to portray public sector workers, pensioners and people on the dole as a burden to the rest of society.
> Lets get some things straight, the national debt is a consequence of borrowing to pay for ALL State services in which ALL sectors of society are dependent in some shape or form.
> - if you have children and receive child benefit, you are contributor to that debt and that dependent on the State for that income.
> ...


I have to agree with you but I don't think that's the point being made by Firefly. The fact that State pensions weren't touched by the crash is a disgrace. The fact that property tax is so low is a disgrace. The fact that rich people get children's allowance is a disgrace. The fact that rich people send their kids to 3rd level for free is a disgrace. There are loads of things wrong with society and how the country is being run but claiming that the problem is quantitative easing or the banking system or some other flagbearer for capitalism is nonsense. 
We have a functioning banking system.
We have competitive interest rates considering that it is impossible to repossess a house so in effect mortgages are unsecured lending.  
Businesses can borrow from banks. Frankly I am amazed at some of the SME's who are able to get credit. 

WE have problems but you are looking in the wrong place. There's no one issue, no one target, no easy fix. There are thousands of small things that make up bigger solutions. Yes the government must take a leadership role but the entire State sector collectively runs the country and collectively they have to do a better job. The private sector and the citizenry at large can't do that. They can only make sure they pay their taxes and hope.


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2020)

Delboy said:


> I don't know, this whole SF in Govt could be great:
> - No more rises in carbon taxes (or even a reduction)
> - Property tax abolished
> - No USC on the 1st 30k of income
> ...


Someone on €120k a year who just bought a house, or is renting in Dublin will have a lower disposable income than their neighbour on €70K who owns their home. Gross income is a bad measure of wealth and wealth is more important than income when measuring financial inequality.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> The fact that State pensions weren't touched by the crash is a disgrace. The fact that property tax is so low is a disgrace. The fact that rich people get children's allowance is a disgrace. The fact that rich people send their kids to 3rd level for free is a disgrace.



These are all political decisions. If the government of the day decides not to cut pensions, it is the job of public service not to cut pensions. If government of the decides to increase unemployment benefit, it is the job of public service to ensure that those entitled to receive it, get it.
Ditto property tax, child benefit, 3rd level education etc 



Purple said:


> We have a functioning banking system.



We have a functioning banking system insofar as it is serving its own interests very well. Mortgage rates are well above what they could be and there is little indication of other banks entering the market to compete. 
All is not well in the banking sector. 



Purple said:


> the entire State sector collectively runs the country and collectively they have to do a better job. The private sector and the citizenry at large can't do that. They can only make sure they pay their taxes and hope.



Of course improvements can be made, but we live in a developed society, one of the richest countries in the world, unemployment is low, etc
There are of course deficiencies, housing stock, waiting lists etc...but these can resolved by political decisions.


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> These are all political decisions. If the government of the day decides not to cut pensions, it is the job of public service not to cut pensions. If government of the decides to increase unemployment benefit, it is the job of public service to ensure that those entitled to receive it, get it.
> Ditto property tax, child benefit, 3rd level education etc
> 
> 
> ...


So it's all down to the politicians then. I see. That means that now the Shinners are in there's be no homelessness, no waiting lists and no deficiencies in the provision of health services within the next few years. It was the politicians holding everything back.


----------



## Firefly (10 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The insidious nature of your comments in general


*Please have the decency to back this up*



WolfeTone said:


> I did. Privatise the public sector and then teachers, gardai, judges, prison officers can have their wages paid by private market rates.


You didn't, unless you really think we should privatise the public sector. Do you?



WolfeTone said:


> But lets not beat about the bush here, lets look at your ill-informed comment
> The clear inference here is that aside from 20% of national debt to bail out banks, that the rest of the national is down to particular identifiable sectors of the population who are 'dependent' on the State for income.


You are jumping to conclusions. I never said it was "down to", or the fault of those dependent on the state for income.



WolfeTone said:


> This is an insidious comment to portray public sector workers, pensioners and people on the dole as a burden to the rest of society.


I never said that and certainly did not wish to portray that.



WolfeTone said:


> - if you have children and receive child benefit, you are contributor to that debt and that dependent on the State for that income.
> - if you are a PAYE worker in receipt of a tax credit you are a contributor to that debt and dependent on the State for that income it provides.
> - if the government has ever borrowed to keep part of your income at 20% you are dependent on the State
> - if you ever had cause to call and rely on emergency services you are contributor to that debt and are dependent on the State to provide for the cost of that service.
> ...


I agree with all of that. But you're only seeing one side of the cost/benefit, the _benefit_. I am discussing the cost element. We borrowed billions and billions which your kids and mine are going to be lumped with. Maybe it was a good idea to try to maintain a level of public services that we are/were used to, but should we have borrowed so so much????



WolfeTone said:


> you fail wholeheartedly to apply any value to the work of public sector workers.


If you are going to accuse me of something, again, *please have the decency to back this up*



WolfeTone said:


> That the national debt is 69% of GDP is not because GDP has been generated by the free-market alone, it has been generated by the free-market that operates on a platform that provides the public services in which such wealth can be generated by attracting investment, attracting people into the workforce, providing the political stability, assurances to corporations and people, security, healthcare, education, etc in which economies can prosper.


I agree except you are again only focusing on the benefit and not the cost.




WolfeTone said:


> It is by no means perfect, but to allude that the 80% national debt is attributable to certain sectors of society, without acknowledging the value that those sectors provide to the wealth of the economy is an insidious comment to make.


Again, I did not say or wish to infer this. I am merely stating the money borrowed was to help ensure that those dependent on the state for income did not lose out.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> So it's all down to the politicians then. I see. That means that now the Shinners are in there's be no homelessness, no waiting lists and no deficiencies in the provision of health services within the next few years. It was the politicians holding everything back.



This makes no sense, sorry. First, the Shinners are not in, nothing has been agreed.
Second, my previous comments were referring to the simpleminded notion that the national debt, or 80% of it, is attributable to certain identifiable sectors of society. 

If there are issues in providing public services, and there are, then obviously they need to be resolved. But lets not equate it to 80% of national debt, or anything near it - which I think you have agreed already.


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> This makes no sense, sorry. First, the Shinners are not in, nothing has been agreed.
> Second, my previous comments were referring to the simpleminded notion that the national debt, or 80% of it, is attributable to certain identifiable sectors of society.
> 
> If there are issues in providing public services, and there are, then obviously they need to be resolved. But lets not equate it to 80% of national debt, or anything near it - which I think you have agreed already.


I was responding to your assertion that the cause of the shortcomings I outlined is the political decisions which have been made. By that dubious logic now that the child killers are the largest political party in the country they will get into power and sort everything out. 
80% of our national debt is due to borrowing to fund the cost of paying for services which we can't afford. It has nothing to do with banks or the financial sector or the lizard people or the jews or the illuminati.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> I never said that and certainly did not wish to portray that.



Ok, perhaps I over-reacted after misinterpreting the intent of your comment. For that, I apologize and retract my 'insidious' remark. It was unwarranted. 



Firefly said:


> I am merely stating the money borrowed was to help ensure that those dependent on the state for income did not lose out.



Ok, looking at the borrowing over that period, in flat terms, yes, the borrowing was to keep the whole show on the road, public sector wages, pensions, unemployment benefits, child benefit, tax credits, etc. 
But its primary purpose was to ensure that the entire economy didn't run into a meltdown.
Simple example, if judges and gardai are not paid, the entire law and order system begins to collapse. In turn, the insurance industry collapses, in turn businesses cannot open their doors, in turn we will quickly revert to a banana republic. 
The borrowing was to ensure that you and I, and as many others as possible, could go about our business in a civilized society as normal. 
In the main, a total economic collapse was averted, but not without casualties - the thousands who lost their jobs, the businesses that folded, the mortgage debt hanging from necks of working people, the homeless, the extortionate rents paid by working people, shareholders of banks whose investments were plundered, the next generation of people who are excluded from progressing their adult lives, forced to live at home into their thirties etc...etc...

So the economy has bounced back, in economic figures terms at least. Was the additional borrowing worth it? Could we have borrowed less and still 'bounced back', or would the aforementioned casualties be more profound?
Impossible to tell. 

But what is clear, to me at least, that notions of 'free-market' ideology being the primary driver in the economic recovery are defunct. 
The free-market, the regulated free-market, is secondary to the principles of social democracy that facilitate the operation of the free-market. 
A good example of unregulated free-market and its inability to prosper without principles of social democracy being applied as a platform for it to operate is unregulated free-market live animal markets in places like Wuhan.


----------



## joe sod (10 Feb 2020)

Protocol said:


> 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
> 
> To raise 89m.



I think they will have to move alot on that downwards to raise any money, it would have to start at 500,000, that would pull alot of people into that net including alot of people that voted for Sinn Fein in Dublin.
Presumably a share portfolio would be in Sinn Feins sights but then what about a pension pot surely that would be equivalent to a share portfolio in a wealth tax. Then Sinn Fein are in very tricky waters because a private sector worker with a pension pot could argue convincingly that he is still poorer than a state worker with a guaranteed pension worth much more, That would be a no no in Sinn Fein ideology


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> But what is clear, to me at least, that notions of 'free-market' ideology being the primary driver in the economic recovery are defunct.
> The free-market, the regulated free-market, is secondary to the principles of social democracy that facilitate the operation of the free-market.
> A good example of unregulated free-market and its inability to prosper without principles of social democracy being applied as a platform for it to operate is unregulated free-market live animal markets in places like Wuhan.


I don't see anyone disagreeing with you on that. I still don't know what point you are making.


----------



## Firefly (10 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Ok, perhaps I over-reacted after misinterpreting the intent of your comment. For that, I apologize and retract my 'insidious' remark. It was unwarranted.


Thanks, appreciate it.




WolfeTone said:


> Ok, looking at the borrowing over that period, in flat terms, yes, the borrowing was to keep the whole show on the road, public sector wages, pensions, unemployment benefits, child benefit, tax credits, etc.
> 
> But its primary purpose was to ensure that the entire economy didn't run into a meltdown.
> 
> ...



But paying for pensions, public sector works and the dole is not a binary choice. It's not a case of either pay them or not. Public sector wages were cut for example and the economy didn't run into a meltdown. Why did public sector workers have to endure pay cuts whilst those on pensions and the dole get away scot-free?









						Ireland National Debt 2022
					






					countryeconomy.com
				




Our national debt at Dec 2007 stood at 47bn.
In Mar 2019 is stood at 215bn.
Take away the 40bn we capatilised the banks with and the difference is 128bn. 128bn seems like an extraordinarily large amount of money to keep the show on the road to me.




WolfeTone said:


> In the main, a total economic collapse was averted, but not without casualties - the thousands who lost their jobs, the businesses that folded, the mortgage debt hanging from necks of working people, the homeless, the extortionate rents paid by working people, shareholders of banks whose investments were plundered, the next generation of people who are excluded from progressing their adult lives, forced to live at home into their thirties etc...etc...


It was pretty bad alright. Do you think that 128bn euro that was borrowed went to the right areas then?



WolfeTone said:


> So the economy has bounced back, in economic figures terms at least. Was the additional borrowing worth it? Could we have borrowed less and still 'bounced back', or would the aforementioned casualties be more profound?
> 
> Impossible to tell.



I agree we'll never really know. I would argue that we didn't need to borrow so much. I would have pruned the hedge first to see what was actually healthy.



WolfeTone said:


> The free-market, the regulated free-market, is secondary to the principles of social democracy that facilitate the operation of the free-market.
> 
> A good example of unregulated free-market and its inability to prosper without principles of social democracy being applied as a platform for it to operate is unregulated free-market live animal markets in places like Wuhan.


I would argue that without free-markets an economy cannot flourish and without a strong economy all those things we take for granted are impossible. Take a look at communist states for many examples of what happens when the state tries to control markets. The economy goes off a cliff, the communists take control of everything else and then the people suffer. I'm not saying free-markets or capitalism is the panacea for all our problems, but it is the best system we have ever tried.


----------



## odyssey06 (10 Feb 2020)

These were the detailed proposals from Sinn Fein for wealth tax in 2013, unclear if this will be the shape of what they propose now.


			https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2013/WealthTaxProposalsWeb.pdf


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> Why did public sector workers have to endure pay cuts whilst those on pensions and the dole get away scot-free?



This is a contradictory question. How can you say that the tens of thousands who lost their jobs got away 'scot-free'.
They suffered more than anybody. That the government borrowed to maintain welfare rates was a political decision made, in no small part to retain social cohesion.
Imagine losing your job because of the financial mismanagement of the banking sector and then the ignominy of having your benefits cut at the very time you need that support.
In terms of social cohesion, could you envisage any potential negative consequences.



Firefly said:


> 128bn seems like an extraordinarily large amount of money to keep the show on the road to me.



It is an extraordinary large amount of money. As I recall, the collapse of the construction sector left a gaping hole of some €20bn to keep the show on the road plus fulfill our requirements to repay debts as they fell due.



Firefly said:


> Do you think that 128bn euro that was borrowed went to the right areas then?



Its simply not possible to quantify. The economy has recovered, on paper at least, but there are many societal deficiencies.
So some of it worked well, other sums of it not so well.



Firefly said:


> I would have pruned the hedge first to see what was actually healthy.



How would you go about that?
The government of the day set up a Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes chaired by Colm McCarthy and whose members included directors from the banking and financial services sector.
The Special Group identified €5.3bn worth of 'savings', including cuts in public service numbers of 17,000 and a 5% cuts in welfare payments.
Still someway short of the overall deficit. Bear in mind, when the government cuts spending, it is money that is extracted from the economy putting jobs and businesses at risk - in other words, in danger of perpetuating the problem it is attempting to fix.
But perhaps you have other suggestions as to how the deficit in public finances would be plugged?



Firefly said:


> I would argue that without free-markets an economy cannot flourish and without a strong economy all those things we take for granted are impossible.



A free-market (in the truest sense of its meaning) is the best system to innovate and invent.
But in order for free-markets to flourish, they need to operate on principles of social democracy that provide fair and equitable opportunity.
We dont have that now. This recovery is engineered by a centralized command authority - the ECB.
You point to the national debt of €47bn in 2007. It was also about 30% of GDP meaning the economic activity was valued at around €150bn.
In the 13yrs since then, that included the worst economic crash in our history, where one of the largest sectors, construction, was relatively dormant, and our debt has spiraled to €200bn - this debt is calculated at roughly 70% GDP. Meaning, in the space of 4-5yrs when economic indicators pointed to recovery, our economy is now valued at near twice the amount as it was in 2007 at its peak.
With inflation at near zero for the period, this should point to a massive expansion of the workforce. But there is little actual difference in the numbers at work in 2007 than today.
It should point to much higher wages, but wage increases have been modest at best.
It should point to the value of your home being worth a lot than its peak price in 2007?
Is it?
Interest rates are next to zero, but personal loans, credit card rates are way above what you would expect in a free market. Mortgage rates are also way above what they should be.
Insurance claims and the value of those claims has fallen, but insurance premiums are rising.
Everything from your mobile phone subscription, TV, electricity bill, health insurance is regulated. Some prices to move only up or down within set parameters.
You cant go for a cup of coffee without knowing that a regular size is set at a price between €2.50 and €3.20.
Products lined up in hardware and software stores have recommended retail prices, which are rarely altered.
There are of course the black Friday, January, Summer Sales advertising 20/30/50% off - invariably on a limited out of date stock.

Is this the free-market? Doesn't feel like it to me. It is a highly centralised price controlled market commanded and regulated by central banks.


----------



## Firefly (10 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> This is a contradictory question. How can you say that the tens of thousands who lost their jobs got away 'scot-free'.



In the private sector, permanent and temporary workers lost their jobs. In the public sector only temporary workers lost their jobs their jobs. Do you think this is fair?


----------



## joe sod (10 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> These were the detailed proposals from Sinn Fein for wealth tax in 2013, unclear if this will be the shape of what they propose now.
> 
> 
> https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2013/WealthTaxProposalsWeb.pdf



it doesn't seem too bad in fairness, however most people will be excluded from this tax therefore they will not raise enough money to fund all their spending commitments, of course once they bring in this tax then they reduce the threshold to raise the cash, they have to.
It could have the consequence of reducing property prices though especially the ones at the top of the market, thereby reducing construction activity again, this could take a few years to play out though. 
In other words the problems we have now are the problems of a wealthy country, Sinn feins solution will be to make us less wealthy, asset prices will fall


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> In the private sector, permanent and temporary workers lost their jobs. In the public sector only temporary workers lost their jobs their jobs. Do you think this is fair?



No, but you seem to think that those who lost their jobs got away scot-free?
How can you say that the tens of thousands who lost their jobs and ended up on the dole during the crash got away 'scot-free'?


----------



## Firefly (10 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> No, but you seem to think that those who lost their jobs got away scot-free?
> 
> How can you say that the tens of thousands who lost their jobs and ended up on the dole during the crash got away 'scot-free'?


Where did I say that?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Feb 2020)

The wealth tax to me seems unworkable.  Pension pots excluded!   Totally unfair on those who did not provide for their retirement with a formal pension fund structure.  Big boon to the pension industry of course.  
Wealth is assessed on households.  Anyone with a second home will then claim that this is the residence of the other half.


----------



## Firefly (10 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> They suffered more than anybody. That the government borrowed to maintain welfare rates was a political decision made, in no small part to retain social cohesion.
> 
> Imagine losing your job because of the financial mismanagement of the banking sector and then the ignominy of having your benefits cut at the very time you need that support.
> 
> In terms of social cohesion, could you envisage any potential negative consequences.


They could have quite easily kept the dole at the same rates for anyone made redundant but who has worked for the past 3 years, but cut it for everyone else. The OAP could also have been cut. 



WolfeTone said:


> The government of the day set up a Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes chaired by Colm McCarthy and whose members included directors from the banking and financial services sector.
> 
> The Special Group identified €5.3bn worth of 'savings', including cuts in public service numbers of 17,000 and a 5% cuts in welfare payments.
> 
> Still someway short of the overall deficit.



€5.3bn is nothing to be sneezed at. It would transform public housing today for example.



WolfeTone said:


> Bear in mind, when the government cuts spending, it is money that is extracted from the economy putting jobs and businesses at risk


The government slashed what it spent on health, but I don't recall it affecting the general economy too much.




WolfeTone said:


> But perhaps you have other suggestions as to how the deficit in public finances would be plugged?


I'm not an expert in the area, but I can tell you something, there is no way the company I am doing work for would countenance borrowing money to pay my rates.



WolfeTone said:


> But in order for free-markets to flourish, they need to operate on principles of social democracy that provide fair and equitable opportunity.


Free markets can flourish without principles of social democracy in the strictest sense, but I agree that to actually benefit people, boundaries & regulations are needed, inside which the participants can freely trade.



WolfeTone said:


> Interest rates are next to zero, but personal loans, credit card rates are way above what you would expect in a free market. Mortgage rates are also way above what they should be.
> Insurance claims and the value of those claims has fallen, but insurance premiums are rising.
> Everything from your mobile phone subscription, TV, electricity bill, health insurance is regulated. Some prices to move only up or down within set parameters.
> You cant go for a cup of coffee without knowing that a regular size is set at a price between €2.50 and €3.20.
> ...



This is quite an interesting topic and I agree with everything you have said here. I would like to see more resources and powers go to the The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission. I would love to see them investigate and punish collusion in the market place.

I acknowledge that we of course do not have free-markets in the strictest sense, we have markets that are, by and large, free to trade within regulations and I think this is a good thing.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> Why did public sector workers have to endure pay cuts whilst those on pensions and the dole get away scot-free?



You inferred it above. Tens of thousands of working people lost their jobs during the crash and ended up on the dole. 
I took from your comment above, that having lost their job, you believe they should have had their welfare cut also.
Perhaps you can clarify?


----------



## Firefly (10 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> You inferred it above. Tens of thousands of working people lost their jobs during the crash and ended up on the dole.
> 
> I took from your comment above, that having lost their job, you believe they should have had their welfare cut also.
> 
> Perhaps you can clarify?



Sorry, didn't mean that at all. Those lost their jobs lost the most & I think the dole should have been kept the same for them. The dole could have been reduced for those who haven't worked in years.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> Those lost their jobs lost the most & I think the dole should have been kept the same for them. The dole could have been reduced for those who haven't worked in years.



The Long Term Unemployment rate for years before the crash was less than 2%. And its not really evident that that 2% were the same people. Of course the LTUR did spike during the crash, but that was because tens of thousands of working people lost their jobs. 
The LTUR has now returned to less than 2%. 
So it really is tinkering around the edges. Of course, to cut the dole in such circumstances, would do little to alleviate the €128bn in borrowings, but do much to anger tens of thousands of working people who were unfortunate to lose their jobs during the crash. 



Firefly said:


> I would like to see more resources and powers go to the The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission



What?? Now you want to increase public sector spending???



Firefly said:


> I'm not an expert in the area, but I can tell you something, there is no way the company I am doing work for would countenance borrowing money to pay my rates.



I can't speak for your company, obviously, but it is a fallacy to compare private for profit corporations (im assuming that is what it is) that provide goods and services into the marketplace with State run institutions that provide public services as mandated for the people of the State through political representation. 

Don't be surprised if your company has borrowed to pay your wages, it is not unusual for corporations to run losses for a period to invest in recruitment, research and development, increases in market share etc.


----------



## Firefly (10 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> What?? Now you want to increase public sector spending???



In this area absolutely. Of course I am sure with the billions spent in other areas, money could be reallocated


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> €5.3bn is nothing to be sneezed at. It would transform public housing today for example



With respect, what is it you are trying to achieve? Reduce public spending and borrowing, or just re-allocate the spending and borrowing but carry on the €200bn debt?


----------



## Allpartied (10 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Having read that utter nonsense you do seem to fit the profile of a Shinner Voter.



Because FF, or FG, who were cheering the celtic tiger with even more vigour, didn't crash the economy? Because we weren't minutes away from money, the actual concept of money, falling to pieces. Have a read of Alistair Darling's memoirs and see how close he came to sending the army on to the streets. 

The only reason the banking system survives today, is because they are de facto nationalised.  

The stock markets too, inflated by massive government subsidies, and assets.  

But, sure, everything is fine, just keep the 3000 euro rents for kips in Drumcondra rolling in, we'll be grand.


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Because FF, or FG, who were cheering the celtic tiger with even more vigour, didn't crash the economy? Because we weren't minutes away from money, the actual concept of money, falling to pieces. Have a read of Alistair Darling's memoirs and see how close he came to sending the army on to the streets.
> 
> The only reason the banking system survives today, is because they are de facto nationalised.
> 
> ...


So what's the solution?


----------



## Sunny (10 Feb 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Because FF, or FG, who were cheering the celtic tiger with even more vigour, didn't crash the economy? Because we weren't minutes away from money, the actual concept of money, falling to pieces. Have a read of Alistair Darling's memoirs and see how close he came to sending the army on to the streets.
> 
> The only reason the banking system survives today, is because they are de facto nationalised.
> 
> ...



It wasn't any political party in Ireland that caused the banking crisis. It was a banking sector that completely lost the run of itself and behaved abhorrently not just here but all across Europe and the US. Does anyone forget that??? No. Does anyone think it was ok? No.

Government policies of the day were built on huge budget surpluses which were built on stamp duty and construction related taxes. So the developers were doing well, the banks were doing well AND the people of Ireland were doing well. We had SSIA schemes with 25% returns for savers, imaginary benchmarking for public sector workers to justify double digit pay rises , we had tax cuts, we had billions poured into health, we had dole increases when the country had full employment, we had constant pension increases, we built infrastructure, we hired more teachers, we abolished third level fees...The list is endless. All that was paid for with revenues from the same thing that brought down the banks. Property. Nobody at the time from ANY political party either left or right were saying stop. This is crazy. So this was not a failure of just FF (even though they were more incompetent than most). It was a failure of the Country. 

And now we are going to repeat it all over again. NAMA surplus? Spend on housing instead of reducing debt. Rainy Day Fund? Nah, don't need it. Corporation Tax that everyone accepts is temporary? Spend it. Pension age as our kids face a pension crisis? Reduce it. Health Service? Sure spend another few billion chasing health Nirvana. Tax Cuts? For everyone in the audience. 

Sure the boom and bust was exciting the first time. I am sure it will be exciting the next time.


----------



## Firefly (10 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> With respect, what is it you are trying to achieve? Reduce public spending and borrowing, or just re-allocate the spending and borrowing but carry on the €200bn debt?


Reduce public spending and borrowing. You had said that the €5.3bn was still someway short of the overall deficit, but I am saying it's still a significant amount.


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2020)

Thanks Sunny. I didn't have the energy.


----------



## Allpartied (10 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> So what's the solution?





Sunny said:


> It wasn't any political party in Ireland that caused the banking crisis. It was a banking sector that completely lost the run of itself and behaved abhorrently not just here but all across Europe and the US. Does anyone forget that??? No. Does anyone think it was ok? No.
> 
> Government policies of the day were built on huge budget surpluses which were built on stamp duty and construction related taxes. So the developers were doing well, the banks were doing well AND the people of Ireland were doing well. We had SSIA schemes with 25% returns for savers, imaginary benchmarking for public sector workers to justify double digit pay rises , we had tax cuts, we had billions poured into health, we had dole increases when the country had full employment, we had constant pension increases, we built infrastructure, we hired more teachers, we abolished third level fees...The list is endless. All that was paid for with revenues from the same thing that brought down the banks. Property. Nobody at the time from ANY political party either left or right were saying stop. This is crazy. So this was not a failure of just FF (even though they were more incompetent than most). It was a failure of the Country.
> 
> ...



So, its the system that's broken. I mean we can have all those things, the healthcare, the decent pensions, the modern transport systems, holidays in the med, secure jobs, but every few years we have to blow it all up and start again.  
Why is that?  What suddenly stops all that progress from continuing, from spreading to all sections of society? 
What is this concept of capitalism, ever growing, devouring, yet continually crushing people, pushing them back, after pulling them up?

We are near the end now anyway,  one way or another.  
Keep going, exploiting the earth, burning its resources and we face extinction.  The alternative is to calm down a bit, live a simpler life, less stuff, less waste and share what we have more efficiently.


----------



## Leo (10 Feb 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Keep going, exploiting the earth, burning its resources and we face extinction. The alternative is to calm down a bit, live a simpler life, less stuff, less waste and share what we have more efficiently.



So capitalism is broken. What country is the closest to achieving your Utopian ideal?


----------



## Sunny (10 Feb 2020)

Allpartied said:


> So, its the system that's broken. I mean we can have all those things, the healthcare, the decent pensions, the modern transport systems, holidays in the med, secure jobs, but every few years we have to blow it all up and start again.
> Why is that?  What suddenly stops all that progress from continuing, from spreading to all sections of society?
> What is this concept of capitalism, ever growing, devouring, yet continually crushing people, pushing them back, after pulling them up?
> 
> ...




So who is promising to slow things down and live a simpler life with less things?? Must have missed that manifesto.


----------



## odyssey06 (10 Feb 2020)

Allpartied said:


> We are near the end now anyway,  one way or another.
> Keep going, exploiting the earth, burning its resources and we face extinction.  The alternative is to calm down a bit, live a simpler life, less stuff, less waste and share what we have more efficiently.



Slightly tongue in cheek but... don't live as long... or live slower


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2020)

Allpartied said:


> So, its the system that's broken. I mean we can have all those things, the healthcare, the decent pensions, the modern transport systems, holidays in the med, secure jobs, but every few years we have to blow it all up and start again.
> Why is that?  What suddenly stops all that progress from continuing, from spreading to all sections of society?
> What is this concept of capitalism, ever growing, devouring, yet continually crushing people, pushing them back, after pulling them up?
> 
> ...


So what have you done?

I don't expect to get a State pension.
I don't think I should be getting Children's allowance.
I am a strong supporter of property tax.
I am a strong supporter of water charges and other green taxes.
I don't think that my children should get free 3rd level education.
I drive a 10 year old car as the carbon footprint of replacing it far outweighs the footprint of keeping it.
I buy fewer, better clothes.
I've stopped eating meat.
I don't buy any food that arrives here on an aeroplane.

I also don't think that people should be given a house unless they have worked for it (subsidise it by all means but if people don't work when they can work I'd let them starve. Literally.)


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> Reduce public spending and borrowing. You had said that the €5.3bn was still someway short of the overall deficit, but I am saying it's still a significant amount.



It is a significant amount. But if you take it out of the economy to reduce spending and borrowing, then it wont transform public housing as you suggested earlier. 
It will only transform public housing if you spend this borrowed money on public housing. 
Incidentally, the €5.6bn is not too far off the amount SF proposed to use to transform public housing (€6.5bn). 
So what did you do, vote for SF to transform public housing, or vote for the party that promised to reduce spending and borrowing and leave the housing crisis to sort itself out?


----------



## joe sod (10 Feb 2020)

Leo said:


> So capitalism is broken. What country is the closest to achieving your Utopian ideal?



Venezuela


----------



## Deiseblue (10 Feb 2020)

joe sod said:


> Venezuela


Probably Ireland after a FF/SF/Green coalition.


----------



## odyssey06 (10 Feb 2020)

If we still had our own currency it would be tanking on the markets right now...


----------



## Conan (10 Feb 2020)

Perhaps Mary Lou’s objection to property tax is influenced by her big house in Cabra and her holiday home in Florida (where presumably she pays property tax).


----------



## Leper (11 Feb 2020)

Conan said:


> Perhaps Mary Lou’s objection to property tax is influenced by her big house in Cabra and her holiday home in Florida (where presumably she pays property tax).



. . . . and nobody in FF, FG, LAB etc own big houses and foreign holiday homes? I didn't even mention their extensive property portfolios in Ireland.


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2020)

Conan said:


> Perhaps Mary Lou’s objection to property tax is influenced by her big house in Cabra and her holiday home in Florida (where presumably she pays property tax).


Will she not have a share in the big family home in leafy Rathgar?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> If we still had our own currency it would be tanking on the markets right now...


Except the Irish stock market doesn’t seem to be the least fazed.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Feb 2020)

Conan said:


> Perhaps Mary Lou’s objection to property tax is influenced by her big house in Cabra and her holiday home in Florida (where presumably she pays property tax).



I'm not sure if foreign holiday homes are in the scope of their proposed wealth tax... 
Bit if a PPR property is worth over €1.2 million it would be liable (based on the detailed document linked above).


----------



## Firefly (11 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> I'm not sure if foreign holiday homes are in the scope of their proposed wealth tax...


My reading of it is that if someone is resident/ordinarily resident then the wealth tax would apply to global assets, but I'm sure a special exemption could be found.


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> My reading of it is that if someone is resident/ordinarily resident then the wealth tax would apply to global assets, but I'm sure a special exemption could be found.


I think undeclared holiday apartments in Spain will be exempt as the Shinners have to play to their base (and no, that is not aimed at any poster here).


----------



## Firefly (11 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> I think undeclared holiday apartments in Spain will be exempt as the Shinners have to play to their base (and no, that is not aimed at any poster here).



To qualify you need to show that you've had 2 "All day Irish breakfasts" every day and got smashed at every Celtic match.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Except the Irish stock market doesn’t seem to be the least fazed.



Eh then why are the papers reporting this...
_Shares in the country's biggest banks, AIB and Bank of Ireland, plunged more than 6pc, knocking over €700m off their value, while Cairn Homes slumped more than 8pc, with Glenveagh down over 8pc and Ires Reit off by almost 7pc. Sinn Féin wants to increase the bank levy to €200m from €150m and end banks' ability to use crash-era losses to shelter current profits. _

Our credit rating isn't affected... yet.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Eh then why are the papers reporting this...
> _Shares in the country's biggest banks, AIB and Bank of Ireland, plunged more than 6pc, knocking over €700m off their value, while Cairn Homes slumped more than 8pc, with Glenveagh down over 8pc and Ires Reit off by almost 7pc. Sinn Féin wants to increase the bank levy to €200m from €150m and end banks' ability to use crash-era losses to shelter current profits. _
> 
> Our credit rating isn't affected... yet.


In overall terms hardly a blip on ISEQ but yes selective sectors like banks and property were hit.  But these are on very specific manifesto pledges which could well be honoured, such as no credit for past losses.  There is not a general meltdown fear of Venezuela Syndrome. 

I wonder have SF moved slightly towards centre from the days of our hero the Fierce Bondburner.  For example a marginal tax rate of 57% on incomes over 140k seems benign compared to the 73% charged on middle incomes during the 80s.  The wealth tax is unworkable.


----------



## joe sod (11 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Our credit rating isn't affected... yet.



the credit rating agencies were never that prescient in the past sure they kept Lehman brothers on "A" rating upto 5 days before it collapsed. Then they downgrade beaten down stocks just as they are about to recover.


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> In overall terms hardly a blip on ISEQ but yes selective sectors like banks and property were hit.  But these are on very specific manifesto pledges which could well be honoured, such as no credit for past losses.  There is not a general meltdown fear of Venezuela Syndrome.
> 
> I wonder have SF moved slightly towards centre from the days of our hero the Fierce Bondburner.  For example a marginal tax rate of 57% on incomes over 140k seems benign compared to the 73% charged on middle incomes during the 80s.  The wealth tax is unworkable.


They have certainly moved away from their more crackpot policies such as leaving the EU but when their housing spokesperson dresses up as Trotsky it's hard not to be worried.


----------



## Allpartied (11 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> So what have you done?
> 
> I don't expect to get a State pension.
> I don't think I should be getting Children's allowance.
> ...



Not getting a state pension means you must have significant assets or capital to substitute ( about 250 to 300k is the value of state pension over 25 to 30 years)  
The other stuff is admirable and I have also said that third level should be paid by the graduate, either a student loan or graduate tax. 

I don't eat meat either.  Not sure how you work out which foods arrived on boats and not planes. 

Your idea to starve those who don't work is cracker barrell.  The work ethic in Ireland is pretty impressive, to be honest.  Young people work their socks off in all sorts of jobs, working far longer hours, with far fewer entitlements than previous generations.  The slackers are my generation, I'm afraid.  All retiring early, sitting on capital appreciation the next generation will never see, and burning the planet like billy ho, whilst somehow claiming that they earnt it all.  

The other looming problem is the billions of people around the planet who want the same lifestyle as us.  The washing machines, the cars, the electric cookers, central heating, air conditioning,  foods delivered from every corner of the planet, foreign holidays, etc.  Ireland is a small cork floating around on a sea of volatility. The billionaires or Trillionaires, largely unchallenged and unaccountable,  will keep hoarding capital, but it's gonna blow soon enough.  Our little decisions this weekend, won't amount to a hill of beans.


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Not getting a state pension means you must have significant assets or capital to substitute ( about 250 to 300k is the value of state pension over 25 to 30 years)


 I don't think there's be any money left in the pot then I get to the State pension age in 20 years or so. That's why I don't expect one. 


Allpartied said:


> I don't eat meat either. Not sure how you work out which foods arrived on boats and not planes.


 Fresh berries from Peru didn't come here on a ship.


Allpartied said:


> Your idea to starve those who don't work is cracker barrell. The work ethic in Ireland is pretty impressive, to be honest. Young people work their socks off in all sorts of jobs, working far longer hours, with far fewer entitlements than previous generations.


 I agree that younger people have a great work ethic. I'm talking about the minority who make the decision not to work. 


Allpartied said:


> The slackers are my generation, I'm afraid. All retiring early, sitting on capital appreciation the next generation will never see, and burning the planet like billy ho, whilst somehow claiming that they earnt it all.


 Agree 100%


Allpartied said:


> The other looming problem is the billions of people around the planet who want the same lifestyle as us. The washing machines, the cars, the electric cookers, central heating, air conditioning, foods delivered from every corner of the planet, foreign holidays, etc. Ireland is a small cork floating around on a sea of volatility. The billionaires or Trillionaires, largely unchallenged and unaccountable, will keep hoarding capital, but it's gonna blow soon enough. Our little decisions this weekend, won't amount to a hill of beans.


 Agree 100% there as well.

I've always said that we ask the wrong questions in this country and this election is a good example. Blaming this last government for the global problem of homelessness as we experience it in this country is like blaming the government for stronger storms and more rain due to the increasing temperatures (and therefore energy levels) in the gulf stream.

There are 6 times as many homeless per capita in London. There are 40,000 rough sleepers in Los Angeles. That's due to the Amazon effect; fewer people in the supply chain resulting in fewer jobs, a higher proportion of wealth created being retained by capital (and less going to labour) and the concentration of wealth amongst those billionaires who control that capital. Those of us who have capital now (own houses bought before the last boom, have shares or big pension funds) are on the right side of that equation.  Nothing the Shinners have proposed does anything to fix that. Property tax goes a small way but those populist clowns want to abolish it.


----------



## Conan (11 Feb 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Not getting a state pension means you must have significant assets or capital to substitute ( about 250 to 300k is the value of state pension over 25 to 30 years)


If you are a couple claiming full State Pension plus Additional Adult Dependant payment (total c€25,000 pa) and you build in some level of indexation in each future Budget, then you are looking at a capital value (Annuity cost) of c€700,000. But no doubt the SF money tree will support all their promises (reducing tax for the vast majority, 100,000 social (free ?) houses, abolish property tax etc etc etc).


----------



## mtk (11 Feb 2020)

Scary stuff IMHO: 
1) How many will be caught by the wealth tax as described per their website will also depend on how a couple are treated e.g. all multiplied by 2 etc. so €1m becomes€ 2m essentially ? 
2 Another big risk is it comes in @ €1m  and falls quickly to bolster tax receipts ....
What has happened to the country ?!


----------



## ATC110 (12 Feb 2020)

Considering they're a fascist party masquerading as socialist, commandeering personal deposits to fulfil their public spending plans isn't beyond the realms.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Feb 2020)

@Firefly ive been censured. Apologies if you believe I took your comments out of context. Was not intended, I just agreed with the sentiment you expressed


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

ATC110 said:


> Considering they're a fascist party masquerading as socialist, commandeering personal deposits to fulfil their public spending plans isn't beyond the realms.


That's the worry alright. We are about to find out just how far the Shinners have travelled down the road of constitutional democracy.


----------



## ATC110 (12 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> That's the worry alright. We are about to find out just how far the Shinners have travelled down the road of constitutional democracy.



Fascism and constitutional democracy in the same sentence


----------



## Allpartied (28 Apr 2020)

Purple said:


> Having read that utter nonsense you do seem to fit the profile of a Shinner Voter.


Still seem like nonsense?
FF and FG are lining up to outdo SF in the amount of massive state intervention they can promise the public. 
Capitalism is over, just waiting for what comes next.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Still seem like nonsense?


Yes, more so than ever.


Allpartied said:


> FF and FG are lining up to outdo SF in the amount of massive state intervention they can promise the public.


 We are in worrying times. Once again we will mortgage our children's future to bail out old people. 


Allpartied said:


> Capitalism is over, just waiting for what comes next.


 You are one in a long line of people who have proclaimed that and we have never been further from it happening. Thankfully the worst excesses of capitalism have been tempered by taxation and legislation and the ultimate State imposed artificial mechanism which controls capitalism is still in place; the free market.

Capitalism being dead means that private property ownership is dead, business ownership is dead, any sort of free market is dead and freedom and self determination are dead. Is that really something you want?
People vote their way into far left governments but they often have to shoot their way out.


----------



## Baby boomer (29 Apr 2020)

Purple said:


> People vote their way into far left governments but they often have to shoot their way out.


That's a good line!  I think I'll "borrow" it for use elsewhere if that's ok.


----------



## Allpartied (1 May 2020)

Purple said:


> Yes, more so than ever.
> We are in worrying times. Once again we will mortgage our children's future to bail out old people.
> You are one in a long line of people who have proclaimed that and we have never been further from it happening. Thankfully the worst excesses of capitalism have been tempered by taxation and legislation and the ultimate State imposed artificial mechanism which controls capitalism is still in place; the free market.
> 
> ...



China has plenty of private property.  But capital is not free, it is heavily controlled and managed, for the greater good ( at least in principle)

The Chinese used to put their economic criminals up against the wall and shoot them. They have relented a little these days, but if you are a businessman who is deemed to be putting personal gain before the well being of society, you will still face a decade or so in a prison cell.

Here the economic criminals are still lauded and sitting in their D4 mansions, laughing at you.  That's just a symptom of the problem.  Our democracy is a sham, the power remains with the holders of capital.  But that is changing, just not sure which way it is going to go.


----------



## Sunny (1 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> China has plenty of private property.  But capital is not free, it is heavily controlled and managed, for the greater good ( at least in principle)
> 
> The Chinese used to put their economic criminals up against the wall and shoot them. They have relented a little these days, but if you are a businessman who is deemed to be putting personal gain before the well being of society, you will still face a decade or so in a prison cell.
> 
> Here the economic criminals are still lauded and sitting in their D4 mansions, laughing at you.  That's just a symptom of the problem.  Our democracy is a sham, the power remains with the holders of capital.  But that is changing, just not sure which way it is going to go.



Yeah that's China alright. You do know many millionaires and billionaires there are in China don't you????


----------



## Allpartied (1 May 2020)

Sunny said:


> Yeah that's China alright. You do know many millionaires and billionaires there are in China don't you????


Plenty, but they don't do anything, or spend anything, or start anything, or build anything, or buy anything, without the agreement of the Communist Party of China.


----------



## Sunny (1 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> Plenty, but they don't do anything, or spend anything, or start anything, or build anything, or buy anything, without the agreement of the Communist Party of China.



Eh???? You really don't know what you are talking about do you? So all these millionaires and billionaires don't do anything if it isn't good for the society as a whole?? I would suggest you visit China.


----------



## Allpartied (1 May 2020)

Sunny said:


> Eh???? You really don't know what you are talking about do you? So all these millionaires and billionaires don't do anything if it isn't good for the society as a whole?? I would suggest you visit China.


China is a controlled economy.  The Communist Party will allow people to become millionaires, or even billionaires, if they think it will benefit the common good.  They are on a journey to socialism and then communism.  If the Party deems billionaires to be a threat to this vision, they will confiscate their wealth and, quite possibly, imprison them.  
The Chinese govt owns the banks, the biggest companies and the energy industry..  What Lenin called " the commanding heights of the economy".  The Chinese Communist Party  is committed to this policy and it is only permitted to accumulate large amounts of wealth whilst this policy improves the overall wealth of the nation and lifts others out of poverty.  
Ask your friends in China, if they can deviate from the policy of the Party?  
The influence of the state is massive and all encompassing.


----------



## Purple (5 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> China is a controlled economy.  The Communist Party will allow people to become millionaires, or even billionaires, if they think it will benefit the common good.  They are on a journey to socialism and then communism.  If the Party deems billionaires to be a threat to this vision, they will confiscate their wealth and, quite possibly, imprison them.
> The Chinese govt owns the banks, the biggest companies and the energy industry..  What Lenin called " the commanding heights of the economy".  The Chinese Communist Party  is committed to this policy and it is only permitted to accumulate large amounts of wealth whilst this policy improves the overall wealth of the nation and lifts others out of poverty.
> Ask your friends in China, if they can deviate from the policy of the Party?
> The influence of the state is massive and all encompassing.


Okay. I know where you stand. 
Personally I prefer our democracy, flawed though it is, and our economic model, flawed though it is, over a one party state with no real freedom, massive economic and social inequality, concentration camps, no free press, no due process and censorship of every aspect of the lives of ordinary citizens, citizens who live in fear of the State. 

Each to their own I suppose.


----------



## Baby boomer (7 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> China is a controlled economy.  The Communist Party will allow people to become millionaires, or even billionaires,* if they think it will benefit the common good. *


Let me correct that for you: ...*if they think it will benefit the party leaders.*


Allpartied said:


> They are on a journey to socialism and then communism.


You had me there - for a minute I thought you were serious 


Allpartied said:


> If the Party deems billionaires to be a threat to *this vision*, they will confiscate their wealth and, quite possibly, imprison them.


Just need to fix this up a little: If the Party deems billionaires to be a threat to *the leadership,* they will confiscate their wealth and, quite possibly, imprison them, *torture them and kill them.*


Allpartied said:


> The Chinese govt owns the banks, the biggest companies and the energy industry..  What Lenin called " the commanding heights of the economy".  The Chinese Communist Party  is committed to this policy and it is only permitted to accumulate large amounts of wealth *whilst this policy improves the overall wealth of the nation and lifts others out of poverty. *


Don't you mean:   ...whilst this policy improves the overall wealth of the *leaders* and *keeps* others *in* poverty.


Allpartied said:


> Ask your friends in China, if they can deviate from the policy of the Party?
> The influence of the state is massive and all encompassing.



Well, that bit is true anyway!


----------



## Allpartied (13 May 2020)

Purple said:


> Okay. I know where you stand.
> Personally I prefer our democracy, flawed though it is, and our economic model, flawed though it is, over a one party state with no real freedom, massive economic and social inequality, concentration camps, no free press, no due process and censorship of every aspect of the lives of ordinary citizens, citizens who live in fear of the State.
> 
> Each to their own I suppose.



I too prefer pluralistic democracy. But if your yardstick is lifting people out of abject third world poverty then the Chinese have shown how to do it.
By the state taking command of the main levers of economic power and controlling the business cycle by intervening directly in the market.
If a few rich people get chucked in the hokey, well, that's a fair price to stop millions of people starving to death.

People who are starving to death, don't have much time to think about social inequality or the freedom of the press, what with them starving to death.


----------



## Seagull (13 May 2020)

Do you honestly believe there's no poverty or people starving to death in China?


----------



## Purple (13 May 2020)

Allpartied said:


> I too prefer pluralistic democracy. But if your yardstick is lifting people out of abject third world poverty then the Chinese have shown how to do it.
> By the state taking command of the main levers of economic power and controlling the business cycle by intervening directly in the market.
> If a few rich people get chucked in the hokey, well, that's a fair price to stop millions of people starving to death.
> 
> People who are starving to death, don't have much time to think about social inequality or the freedom of the press, what with them starving to death.


Folding Southeast Asia into the West's supply chain has lifted billions out of abject poverty. Capitalism did more for equality in 30 years from the 1980's than socialism or communism did in the previous 130. That's the great irony when people complain about inequality in rich countries and how the rich get richer; the real problem is that the poor got richer, the real poor that is. Of course that leaves much of sub-Saharan Africa and parts of central Asia worse off than ever (I recommend The Bottom Billion for more on that). 

China got rich making and selling stuff to the West. That is what had made Chinese people better off. When it was a communist country they had famines.  In order to do so it needed an educated workforce. With an educated workforce comes an impetus for less corruption, better public services and more democracy. The government viciously cracks down on those who want to be free but there is an inevitable drive towards democracy and you can't have that and real socialism.


----------



## Purple (13 May 2020)

Seagull said:


> Do you honestly believe there's no poverty or people starving to death in China?


Yea, but they are Muslims and minorities so they don't count.


----------



## cremeegg (17 May 2020)

fistophobia said:


> What are the impending risks of a Sinn Fein controlled government?
> I am seeing a lot of socialist speak in the media,
> there could be a purge on stored wealth and high earnings.
> What do people think are the risks to one's wealth?
> ...



No need to leave the country, come the revolution there will be

"breaded fried oysters with gribiche dressing and devilled spider crab in sherry and cream sauce"

for all.

Seemingly that's the English for  'tiocfaidh ár lá'


----------

