Yes when I said "at source" I meant PAYE.Leinsterman wrote: Do you mean income tax levels?
This was kept low as a cynical electioneering tactic
Moderator: moderators
Yes when I said "at source" I meant PAYE.Leinsterman wrote: Do you mean income tax levels?
sarah_lennon wrote:Yes when I said "at source" I meant PAYE.Leinsterman wrote: Do you mean income tax levels?
This was kept low as a cynical electioneering tactic
No. I think we should tax kiddies shoes.Leinsterman wrote:sarah_lennon wrote:Yes when I said "at source" I meant PAYE.Leinsterman wrote: Do you mean income tax levels?
This was kept low as a cynical electioneering tactic
So you'd advocate raising income tax and then cutting taxs on VAT, duty etc?
sarah_lennon wrote: the lower rate needs looking at.
I agree with that. Rent is the biggie.sarah_lennon wrote:
Costs aren't necessarily down to VAT alone, anti-competiveness, rent & insurance are all playing their part. The minimum wage argument is a red herring.
sarah_lennon wrote:
Our income tax contribution is too low but that needs to be strategically raised (over years) so as not to completely destroy consumer spending. There needs to be more tax bands imo, up to 4.
Definitelysarah_lennon wrote: The problem is the tax take was too low when there was nigh on full employment
Well yes, this was a disgrace. How many % points of income tax does €1bn equte to?sarah_lennon wrote:
(not to mention a €1bn training & employment agency at a time of full employment!)
Lowering the lower rate, it's a lot higher than other EU countriesLeinsterman wrote:sarah_lennon wrote: the lower rate needs looking at.
It does in its hole. Look at what happened when the upper rate was increased by 0.5%.
sarah_lennon wrote: Lowering the lower rate, it's a lot higher than other EU countries
I'm going to get hammered for this but, that levy was such a scam. The USC has completely pulled the rug from under anyone with a medical card (ie. Me). The Health Levy was introduced to all excluding medical card holders (which made sense it been a health levy), but when they upped the rates and changed it to a USC they pulled the medical card exemption. This has taken a further €2,500 from me, on top of the my salary been cut (happy to be here) by 27%, I don't know how much more I can take.Leinsterman wrote:sarah_lennon wrote: Lowering the lower rate, it's a lot higher than other EU countries
OK, sounds good. I'll agree with that.
Where do you stand on water and property charges though?
Propert ycharges annoy me, simply because if water charges are introduced, we will be paying for services such as water, electricity, gas, bin charges etc so where is the justification in the property charge that is supposed to cover these?
Hospitals? Already covered by the levy
Schools? Possibly.
Roads, potholes etc.... that's what the motor tax is supposed to be for, isn't it?
Don't worry about it DC.Dave Cahill wrote:So what you are saying is that a labour Minister for Finance will increase the tax burden without controlling spending despite the fact that the only time we had a labour minister for finance he decreased the tax burden by, in part, controlling spending.sheepshagger wrote:I'm talking from an overall tax view -that's what affects the man on the street. It's all well and good to make promises to reverse the cuts already implemented but someone has to pay for them (savings from wastage in the system if tackled won't be enough).
The fact that a creton like Healy-Rae can be repeatedly inflicted upon the Dail is a reflection on the fact that there are way, way to many constituancies and representatives for such a small populace (116 for 2 million voters or one TD per 12,561 voters, the US has 435 for 82.5 million or one Rep per 189,655 voters). That gombeen gets elected on the back of less than 15% first preferences FFS(-6k votes).fourthirtythree wrote:I disagree: people vote for FF year after year, generation after generation because they have been in power (or the candidates father has been in power) and has engaged in gombeenism.Logorrhea wrote: You are right, but thats how our system works isnt it? The alternative is to vote for the party first, and candidate second. Isnt that what re-elects FF year after year after year and also got us into this mess?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVRYzqvRtww
This is the kind of mentality we have to fight. Local government represents local issues, national does national issues. The focus on local is how FF have managed to be in power for most of the last 70 years without ever actually having policy. Their only real core value is to get power. They stand for nothing else. Look at Bertie, not a notion of political philosophy in his brain, but he was a fixer. Forever pulling strokes. See Ray Burke, Charlie McCreevy etc. etc.
100% with you on the numbers. How do we get the turkeys to vote for Christmas though?Sea_point wrote:The fact that a creton like Healy-Rae can be repeatedly inflicted upon the Dail is a reflection on the fact that there are way, way to many constituancies and representatives for such a small populace (116 for 2 million voters or one TD per 12,561 voters, the US has 435 for 82.5 million or one Rep per 189,655 voters). That gombeen gets elected on the back of less than 15% first preferences FFS(-6k votes).fourthirtythree wrote:I disagree: people vote for FF year after year, generation after generation because they have been in power (or the candidates father has been in power) and has engaged in gombeenism.Logorrhea wrote: You are right, but thats how our system works isnt it? The alternative is to vote for the party first, and candidate second. Isnt that what re-elects FF year after year after year and also got us into this mess?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVRYzqvRtww
This is the kind of mentality we have to fight. Local government represents local issues, national does national issues. The focus on local is how FF have managed to be in power for most of the last 70 years without ever actually having policy. Their only real core value is to get power. They stand for nothing else. Look at Bertie, not a notion of political philosophy in his brain, but he was a fixer. Forever pulling strokes. See Ray Burke, Charlie McCreevy etc. etc.
Merge some constituencies, lose some seats and you will end up with more fluid and effective representation instead of local councillers in government blocking progress because of local interests...
With regards to FG turning on Labour, think it's the right thing to do if they as a party believe that a FG government is the best option rather than settling for a chance of sharing power. FG has a real opportunity if they can communicate cogently to the voters. TBH I'd be more concerned about the electorate's ability to see through the sh*tfest that will start from tomorrow than the prospect of FG in power..
I see that there are some still intending to vote FF, I'd love to know the rationale behind their thinking...
The Levy should be renamed the "Bailing out foreign banks levy". It is not a universal social charge as all the services supposed to be covered by it are actually being cut. And we have to pay for water and stop pretending we don't have to.Leinsterman wrote:sarah_lennon wrote: Lowering the lower rate, it's a lot higher than other EU countries
OK, sounds good. I'll agree with that.
Where do you stand on water and property charges though?
Propert ycharges annoy me, simply because if water charges are introduced, we will be paying for services such as water, electricity, gas, bin charges etc so where is the justification in the property charge that is supposed to cover these?
Hospitals? Already covered by the levy
Schools? Possibly.
Roads, potholes etc.... that's what the motor tax is supposed to be for, isn't it?
fourthirtythree wrote: The Levy should be renamed the "Bailing out foreign banks levy". It is not a universal social charge as all the services supposed to be covered by it are actually being cut. And we have to pay for water and stop pretending we don't have to.
Sure, we're paying for water out of central taxation. I've no problem with it being separated out and paying for it under a water charge. We managed to hide it for years. My point is that we're pretending things like our "USC" are for one purpose rather than admitting it all goes into the pot and out to the ECB without touching the bottom.Leinsterman wrote:fourthirtythree wrote: The Levy should be renamed the "Bailing out foreign banks levy". It is not a universal social charge as all the services supposed to be covered by it are actually being cut. And we have to pay for water and stop pretending we don't have to.
Hold on, I'm not one of the hand-wringers who are calling for charges on everything.
That was the point of my post. We are taxed on our income and then we pay for our services.
Now we can expect to be charged for more of the services on top of our income tax and the government say that it is necessary because it "ain't free".
Water is the perfect example. We're already paying for it through taxes yet they want us to pay more for it.
Of course, plenty of people are already paying water charges.
What's also galling is how the excuse of "everyone else in Europe is paying for it" or "EU directives tell us X, Y and Z" are rolled out to attempt to justify everything that is done here.
fourthirtythree wrote: My point is that we're pretending things like our "USC" are for one purpose rather than admitting it all goes into the pot and out to the ECB without touching the bottom.
Not all voters of johng's ilk are compu-capable, so i would actualy expect the numbers to be higher!sarah_lennon wrote:FF still polling at 15% here, roughly what they'll get in the general election! Ireland really is a country of religion and politics with a very blurry line between the two!
I have been called many things in my time. But FF Voter?Peg Leg wrote:Not all voters of johng's ilk are compu-capable, so i would actualy expect the numbers to be higher!sarah_lennon wrote:FF still polling at 15% here, roughly what they'll get in the general election! Ireland really is a country of religion and politics with a very blurry line between the two!
I take that seriously too, and I would too, but NOT Mary Lou. I'd spoil my vote even if they fined you for it sooner than vote for her.johng wrote: I'd sooner vote for Gerry Adams! And I don't say that lightly.