26 counties poll for local elections.

[seafoid]

Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

A. Vote for the lads that crippled the country
B. Vote for the lads that are making us pay property tax, water charges, USC, that couldnt get us a good deal with the EU, and that are reducing public service levels
C. Vote for the lads who would make an economic recovery an impossbility
D. Vote for an Independent who will find it difficult to do anything other than disrupt those who try to govern.
E. Don't vote

It is the electorate in Camp A, B, C, D or E who are the f*uckin stupid ones??

A and B are a subset of C.

Nope, C is Sinn Fein (and possibly include the AAA).

Economy is definitely improving under B, but no getting away from the fact that its a painful process and mistakes have been made.

At least now that C is a viable alternative in terms of voting power, they will have to come up with proper costed and published economic policy, which should mean they ditch some of the populist nonsense and come up with realistic taxing and spending policies (the major thing being to hopefully confirm they won't touch the 12.5% corporation tax rate).

That's your opinion but I think it's highly questionable. I don't accept that the economic situtation is improving. Didn't we have Noonan on about 2 billion in tax hikes and cuts a few weeks ago? Austerity is paying bank debt but crippling ordinary people and by its very nature retards economic growth.

I do not accept that SF or whoever you mean in group C would "make make an economic recovery an impossbility". Interesting that you take the line of SF's policies not being costed - something SF vehemently deny. Brian Hayes saying it would not be possible to cost a "wealth tax" the other night seemed laughable to me. I agree that the 12.5% CT rate needs to be kept to attract inward investment and promote job creation but is it really correct for all companies to avail of this rate? In a country where we cannot afford medical cards for people who are dying or seriously ill, proper care for sick and disabled people is it right that a compnay employing 5 or 6 people gets the same tax incentive as a company employing 5/6000? It needs to be discussed at the very least.

What got us here was closed minds and groupthink. We need to get away from that and challenge "accepted wisdom". If it holds up then good but if it needs changing then change it. I think we have huge scope for recovery and sustainable economic and social growth if we have brave leadership who will try to do things on their merits and not in some pre-determined (by Europe) join the dots type approach. SF and others may well turn out to be no use but FF/FG/Lab have proven over the last 95 years that they are no use.

Economic recovery can only happen if the ECB changes tack.
There is nothing the Shinners can do that will change the dynamic.

[Maguire01]

Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

A. Vote for the lads that crippled the country
B. Vote for the lads that are making us pay property tax, water charges, USC, that couldnt get us a good deal with the EU, and that are reducing public service levels
C. Vote for the lads who would make an economic recovery an impossbility
D. Vote for an Independent who will find it difficult to do anything other than disrupt those who try to govern.
E. Don't vote

It is the electorate in Camp A, B, C, D or E who are the f*uckin stupid ones??

A and B are a subset of C.

Nope, C is Sinn Fein (and possibly include the AAA).

Economy is definitely improving under B, but no getting away from the fact that its a painful process and mistakes have been made.

At least now that C is a viable alternative in terms of voting power, they will have to come up with proper costed and published economic policy, which should mean they ditch some of the populist nonsense and come up with realistic taxing and spending policies (the major thing being to hopefully confirm they won't touch the 12.5% corporation tax rate).

That's your opinion but I think it's highly questionable. I don't accept that the economic situtation is improving. Didn't we have Noonan on about 2 billion in tax hikes and cuts a few weeks ago? Austerity is paying bank debt but crippling ordinary people and by its very nature retards economic growth.

I do not accept that SF or whoever you mean in group C would "make make an economic recovery an impossbility". Interesting that you take the line of SF's policies not being costed - something SF vehemently deny. Brian Hayes saying it would not be possible to cost a "wealth tax" the other night seemed laughable to me. I agree that the 12.5% CT rate needs to be kept to attract inward investment and promote job creation but is it really correct for all companies to avail of this rate? In a country where we cannot afford medical cards for people who are dying or seriously ill, proper care for sick and disabled people is it right that a compnay employing 5 or 6 people gets the same tax incentive as a company employing 5/6000? It needs to be discussed at the very least.

What got us here was closed minds and groupthink. We need to get away from that and challenge "accepted wisdom". If it holds up then good but if it needs changing then change it. I think we have huge scope for recovery and sustainable economic and social growth if we have brave leadership who will try to do things on their merits and not in some pre-determined (by Europe) join the dots type approach. SF and others may well turn out to be no use but FF/FG/Lab have proven over the last 95 years that they are no use.

I'm confused - are you saying that we raise CT for small businesses?

[armaghniac]

Seanie, I think there's a small bit of obfuscation going on with regard to 'costings'. I mentioned on another thread that I heard Pat Rabbitte and Pearse Doherty going on about this yesterday, and Pat Rabbitte said that Sinn Fein have never costed a proper Budget. They have costed individual measures, but never a balanced budget. Pearse wasn't able to really take that argument apart. That makes me wonder.

I'd say a proper budget would uncover some miscalculation. Say I have €1m (I don't, at present, but hope springs eternal) in the bank, where it earns interest and I already pay €12,000 DIRT, Do SF come along and charge me 1% on my "wealth" as well, which would be €10,000?  A lot of this stuff is very poorly thought out. For example a lot of "wealthy" people also owe considerable amounts, like Sean Quinn in the past or Tony O'Reilly who is selling stuff to pay back loans (as discussed in the papers over the weekend).

[magpie seanie]

Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

A. Vote for the lads that crippled the country
B. Vote for the lads that are making us pay property tax, water charges, USC, that couldnt get us a good deal with the EU, and that are reducing public service levels
C. Vote for the lads who would make an economic recovery an impossbility
D. Vote for an Independent who will find it difficult to do anything other than disrupt those who try to govern.
E. Don't vote

It is the electorate in Camp A, B, C, D or E who are the f*uckin stupid ones??

A and B are a subset of C.

Nope, C is Sinn Fein (and possibly include the AAA).

Economy is definitely improving under B, but no getting away from the fact that its a painful process and mistakes have been made.

At least now that C is a viable alternative in terms of voting power, they will have to come up with proper costed and published economic policy, which should mean they ditch some of the populist nonsense and come up with realistic taxing and spending policies (the major thing being to hopefully confirm they won't touch the 12.5% corporation tax rate).

That's your opinion but I think it's highly questionable. I don't accept that the economic situtation is improving. Didn't we have Noonan on about 2 billion in tax hikes and cuts a few weeks ago? Austerity is paying bank debt but crippling ordinary people and by its very nature retards economic growth.

I do not accept that SF or whoever you mean in group C would "make make an economic recovery an impossbility". Interesting that you take the line of SF's policies not being costed - something SF vehemently deny. Brian Hayes saying it would not be possible to cost a "wealth tax" the other night seemed laughable to me. I agree that the 12.5% CT rate needs to be kept to attract inward investment and promote job creation but is it really correct for all companies to avail of this rate? In a country where we cannot afford medical cards for people who are dying or seriously ill, proper care for sick and disabled people is it right that a compnay employing 5 or 6 people gets the same tax incentive as a company employing 5/6000? It needs to be discussed at the very least.

What got us here was closed minds and groupthink. We need to get away from that and challenge "accepted wisdom". If it holds up then good but if it needs changing then change it. I think we have huge scope for recovery and sustainable economic and social growth if we have brave leadership who will try to do things on their merits and not in some pre-determined (by Europe) join the dots type approach. SF and others may well turn out to be no use but FF/FG/Lab have proven over the last 95 years that they are no use.

Economic recovery can only happen if the ECB changes tack.
There is nothing the Shinners can do that will change the dynamic.

Well FF/FG/Lab sure as hell won't.

[magpie seanie]

Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

A. Vote for the lads that crippled the country
B. Vote for the lads that are making us pay property tax, water charges, USC, that couldnt get us a good deal with the EU, and that are reducing public service levels
C. Vote for the lads who would make an economic recovery an impossbility
D. Vote for an Independent who will find it difficult to do anything other than disrupt those who try to govern.
E. Don't vote

It is the electorate in Camp A, B, C, D or E who are the f*uckin stupid ones??

A and B are a subset of C.

Nope, C is Sinn Fein (and possibly include the AAA).

Economy is definitely improving under B, but no getting away from the fact that its a painful process and mistakes have been made.

At least now that C is a viable alternative in terms of voting power, they will have to come up with proper costed and published economic policy, which should mean they ditch some of the populist nonsense and come up with realistic taxing and spending policies (the major thing being to hopefully confirm they won't touch the 12.5% corporation tax rate).

That's your opinion but I think it's highly questionable. I don't accept that the economic situtation is improving. Didn't we have Noonan on about 2 billion in tax hikes and cuts a few weeks ago? Austerity is paying bank debt but crippling ordinary people and by its very nature retards economic growth.

I do not accept that SF or whoever you mean in group C would "make make an economic recovery an impossbility". Interesting that you take the line of SF's policies not being costed - something SF vehemently deny. Brian Hayes saying it would not be possible to cost a "wealth tax" the other night seemed laughable to me. I agree that the 12.5% CT rate needs to be kept to attract inward investment and promote job creation but is it really correct for all companies to avail of this rate? In a country where we cannot afford medical cards for people who are dying or seriously ill, proper care for sick and disabled people is it right that a compnay employing 5 or 6 people gets the same tax incentive as a company employing 5/6000? It needs to be discussed at the very least.

What got us here was closed minds and groupthink. We need to get away from that and challenge "accepted wisdom". If it holds up then good but if it needs changing then change it. I think we have huge scope for recovery and sustainable economic and social growth if we have brave leadership who will try to do things on their merits and not in some pre-determined (by Europe) join the dots type approach. SF and others may well turn out to be no use but FF/FG/Lab have proven over the last 95 years that they are no use.

I'm confused - are you saying that we raise CT for small businesses?

I am not saying that - just that it needs to be looked at.  Why not discuss it?

[easytiger95]

Just re Shinners costings etc

They don't make things easy for themselves - I have an innate distrust of them from my own family's particular persuasion, and that distrust doesn't dispel when they are so easily challenged on their plans. They make a big deal of having the Dept of Finance  cost their proposals but never actually talk about those figures that they supposedly received. I thought Hayes demolished Lyn on that in the Prime Time debate.

But - and it is a big but - at times saying the unsayable and challenging the unchallengable is a vital public service, no matter how cartoonish your policies are. With regard to CT, I'm with Seanie - the more SF talk about it, the bigger the debate. And we need the debate.

One of the most deeply held truisms in Irish politics is that raising CT will scare away all the inward investment - especially among tech and pharma companies. Ok. I can see the logic to this position - but a debate with only one side is not a debate, it's a lecture. And with the utmost respect to Joe Higgins et al the opposing view was really only articulated by isolated, fringe figures.

Now SF has a rising tide and are articulating this position and de facto it has to be taken seriously. Which is very good for all concerned in our democracy.

As for the specific debate on CT itself, I'm always reminded of a conversation I had in 2010 with a friend of mine home from London. At the time he was a commodities trader with a large American bank in London and he earned more money than God. after a few pints I was banging on about the guarantee, the unfairness of it all etc before finishing up "Ah sure, what could we do? We guaranteed it, we had to pay it."

He starts to laugh then says to me "We had a default factored into our predictions - we thought at best we'd get 40 cents in the euro, and most of the other bondholders thought the same." So i said that's all well and good but you'd never lend to us again. He says "We would have stayed away for six months to a year and if it looked like it was turning around we would have steamed back in. We're all about making money, sometimes we get burned, but if an opportunity presents itself in the same country we wouldn't have a problem going back in"

Bear in mind this is at least a year before Michael Lewis' Vanity Fair piece.

If we were wrong about that (and despite the ECB pressure etc if we had realised the true position we could have gotten away with paying a lot less) we could be wrong about CT as well.

Group think on a giant scale got us into this position. Although, at the moment, I wouldn't vote SF, their increasing presence will force a lot of people to be more creative in their policies. Only a good thing.

[seafoid]

Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

A. Vote for the lads that crippled the country
B. Vote for the lads that are making us pay property tax, water charges, USC, that couldnt get us a good deal with the EU, and that are reducing public service levels
C. Vote for the lads who would make an economic recovery an impossbility
D. Vote for an Independent who will find it difficult to do anything other than disrupt those who try to govern.
E. Don't vote

It is the electorate in Camp A, B, C, D or E who are the f*uckin stupid ones??

A and B are a subset of C.

Nope, C is Sinn Fein (and possibly include the AAA).

Economy is definitely improving under B, but no getting away from the fact that its a painful process and mistakes have been made.

At least now that C is a viable alternative in terms of voting power, they will have to come up with proper costed and published economic policy, which should mean they ditch some of the populist nonsense and come up with realistic taxing and spending policies (the major thing being to hopefully confirm they won't touch the 12.5% corporation tax rate).

That's your opinion but I think it's highly questionable. I don't accept that the economic situtation is improving. Didn't we have Noonan on about 2 billion in tax hikes and cuts a few weeks ago? Austerity is paying bank debt but crippling ordinary people and by its very nature retards economic growth.

I do not accept that SF or whoever you mean in group C would "make make an economic recovery an impossbility". Interesting that you take the line of SF's policies not being costed - something SF vehemently deny. Brian Hayes saying it would not be possible to cost a "wealth tax" the other night seemed laughable to me. I agree that the 12.5% CT rate needs to be kept to attract inward investment and promote job creation but is it really correct for all companies to avail of this rate? In a country where we cannot afford medical cards for people who are dying or seriously ill, proper care for sick and disabled people is it right that a compnay employing 5 or 6 people gets the same tax incentive as a company employing 5/6000? It needs to be discussed at the very least.

What got us here was closed minds and groupthink. We need to get away from that and challenge "accepted wisdom". If it holds up then good but if it needs changing then change it. I think we have huge scope for recovery and sustainable economic and social growth if we have brave leadership who will try to do things on their merits and not in some pre-determined (by Europe) join the dots type approach. SF and others may well turn out to be no use but FF/FG/Lab have proven over the last 95 years that they are no use.

Economic recovery can only happen if the ECB changes tack.
There is nothing the Shinners can do that will change the dynamic.

Well FF/FG/Lab sure as hell won't.

Government debt is 130% of what the country produces in a year and anything above 100% is not ideal. 
Private debt is even higher.
How are the Shinners going to get the debt down ? Or grow the economy ?
the respectable parties have no choice either.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Government debt is 130% of what the country produces in a year and anything above 100% is not ideal. 
Private debt is even higher.
How are the Shinners going to get the debt down ? Or grow the economy ?
the respectable parties have no choice either.

That is termed the 'deficit'.

The National Debt is where it is because of a totally incompetent FF administration that was too inept to deal with the international market players, compounded by an equally ineptly compliant FG and Labour maladministration. 

[mylestheslasher]

Just re Shinners costings etc

They don't make things easy for themselves - I have an innate distrust of them from my own family's particular persuasion, and that distrust doesn't dispel when they are so easily challenged on their plans. They make a big deal of having the Dept of Finance  cost their proposals but never actually talk about those figures that they supposedly received. I thought Hayes demolished Lyn on that in the Prime Time debate.

But - and it is a big but - at times saying the unsayable and challenging the unchallengable is a vital public service, no matter how cartoonish your policies are. With regard to CT, I'm with Seanie - the more SF talk about it, the bigger the debate. And we need the debate.

One of the most deeply held truisms in Irish politics is that raising CT will scare away all the inward investment - especially among tech and pharma companies. Ok. I can see the logic to this position - but a debate with only one side is not a debate, it's a lecture. And with the utmost respect to Joe Higgins et al the opposing view was really only articulated by isolated, fringe figures.

Now SF has a rising tide and are articulating this position and de facto it has to be taken seriously. Which is very good for all concerned in our democracy.

As for the specific debate on CT itself, I'm always reminded of a conversation I had in 2010 with a friend of mine home from London. At the time he was a commodities trader with a large American bank in London and he earned more money than God. after a few pints I was banging on about the guarantee, the unfairness of it all etc before finishing up "Ah sure, what could we do? We guaranteed it, we had to pay it."

He starts to laugh then says to me "We had a default factored into our predictions - we thought at best we'd get 40 cents in the euro, and most of the other bondholders thought the same." So i said that's all well and good but you'd never lend to us again. He says "We would have stayed away for six months to a year and if it looked like it was turning around we would have steamed back in. We're all about making money, sometimes we get burned, but if an opportunity presents itself in the same country we wouldn't have a problem going back in"

Bear in mind this is at least a year before Michael Lewis' Vanity Fair piece.

If we were wrong about that (and despite the ECB pressure etc if we had realised the true position we could have gotten away with paying a lot less) we could be wrong about CT as well.

Group think on a giant scale got us into this position. Although, at the moment, I wouldn't vote SF, their increasing presence will force a lot of people to be more creative in their policies. Only a good thing.

Cant understand how you could say that. Hayes said she hadn't costed anything in and she pulled out a letter saying that they had. If anything Hayes looked like a fool and maybe his vote showed that.

[foxcommander]

the respectable parties have no choice either.

Respectable? FF/FG/Lab?

You havin' a laugh?

These continual snide remarks about SF are getting a little tiresome.

[easytiger95]

Just re Shinners costings etc

They don't make things easy for themselves - I have an innate distrust of them from my own family's particular persuasion, and that distrust doesn't dispel when they are so easily challenged on their plans. They make a big deal of having the Dept of Finance  cost their proposals but never actually talk about those figures that they supposedly received. I thought Hayes demolished Lyn on that in the Prime Time debate.

But - and it is a big but - at times saying the unsayable and challenging the unchallengable is a vital public service, no matter how cartoonish your policies are. With regard to CT, I'm with Seanie - the more SF talk about it, the bigger the debate. And we need the debate.

One of the most deeply held truisms in Irish politics is that raising CT will scare away all the inward investment - especially among tech and pharma companies. Ok. I can see the logic to this position - but a debate with only one side is not a debate, it's a lecture. And with the utmost respect to Joe Higgins et al the opposing view was really only articulated by isolated, fringe figures.

Now SF has a rising tide and are articulating this position and de facto it has to be taken seriously. Which is very good for all concerned in our democracy.

As for the specific debate on CT itself, I'm always reminded of a conversation I had in 2010 with a friend of mine home from London. At the time he was a commodities trader with a large American bank in London and he earned more money than God. after a few pints I was banging on about the guarantee, the unfairness of it all etc before finishing up "Ah sure, what could we do? We guaranteed it, we had to pay it."

He starts to laugh then says to me "We had a default factored into our predictions - we thought at best we'd get 40 cents in the euro, and most of the other bondholders thought the same." So i said that's all well and good but you'd never lend to us again. He says "We would have stayed away for six months to a year and if it looked like it was turning around we would have steamed back in. We're all about making money, sometimes we get burned, but if an opportunity presents itself in the same country we wouldn't have a problem going back in"

Bear in mind this is at least a year before Michael Lewis' Vanity Fair piece.

If we were wrong about that (and despite the ECB pressure etc if we had realised the true position we could have gotten away with paying a lot less) we could be wrong about CT as well.

Group think on a giant scale got us into this position. Although, at the moment, I wouldn't vote SF, their increasing presence will force a lot of people to be more creative in their policies. Only a good thing.

Cant understand how you could say that. Hayes said she hadn't costed anything in and she pulled out a letter saying that they had. If anything Hayes looked like a fool and maybe his vote showed that.

Hayes said quite clearly that they had for asked for individual measures to be costed but had not put them all together as a plan for the Dept to see if the total added up - that was after she produced the letter. So, i thought,in my opinion, he demolished her and I find a lot of their proposals straddle the border between fantasy and balatant populism.

Not such a bad thing though - the Shinners have demonstrated up North that they soon forget about their Marxist principles once in power - I'm just looking for them to fulfil their promise and give us a moderate, progressive left option we can vote for. However you'd fear for them if they got in, the electorate has demonstrated with Labour that if you campaign on idealism, you damn well better deliver.

[macdanger2]

Government debt is 130% of what the country produces in a year and anything above 100% is not ideal. 
Private debt is even higher.
How are the Shinners going to get the debt down ? Or grow the economy ?
the respectable parties have no choice either.

That is termed the 'deficit'.

The National Debt is where it is because of a totally incompetent FF administration that was too inept to deal with the international market players, compounded by an equally ineptly compliant FG and Labour maladministration.

Is it??

My understanding is that the deficit is the difference between what the exchequer takes in and what it costs to run the country - currently stands at around 13bn. This gap is a result of FF govt policy during the boom times where they placated the unions with the proceeds of the bubble (stamp duty, etc)

National debt is entirely different and the increase is directly related to the sovereign taking on the bank debts.

Open to correction on both of those however

[seafoid]

Government debt is 130% of what the country produces in a year and anything above 100% is not ideal. 
Private debt is even higher.
How are the Shinners going to get the debt down ? Or grow the economy ?
the respectable parties have no choice either.

That is termed the 'deficit'.

The National Debt is where it is because of a totally incompetent FF administration that was too inept to deal with the international market players, compounded by an equally ineptly compliant FG and Labour maladministration.

Is it??

My understanding is that the deficit is the difference between what the exchequer takes in and what it costs to run the country - currently stands at around 13bn. This gap is a result of FF govt policy during the boom times where they placated the unions with the proceeds of the bubble (stamp duty, etc)

National debt is entirely different and the increase is directly related to the sovereign taking on the bank debts.

Open to correction on both of those however

Debt increase is due to bank debts but almost as importantly the 5 years of deficits . If the budget is not balanced the deficit is funded by new debt.
McCreevy ramped up spending on Public sector salaries, pensions, social welfare basically everything. Cowen continued the party.
Charlie said "if I have money i'll spend it".
It was funded by the boom and when the boom collapsed so did revenue. Very hard to reduce the spending as it is so political. 

[armaghniac]

My understanding is that the deficit is the difference between what the exchequer takes in and what it costs to run the country - currently stands at around 13bn. This gap is a result of FF govt policy during the boom times where they placated the unions with the proceeds of the bubble (stamp duty, etc)

The unions got pay increases to be sure, but about the same as everyone else in those halcyon days and 3 pay cuts have changed things in that respect. The bigger increases in that period were in social welfare. But over the years stamp duty and related puff tax replaced other sources of revenue and people lost any association of getting services with having to pay for them. A large proportion of people believe that tax is something for other people.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Government debt is 130% of what the country produces in a year and anything above 100% is not ideal. 
Private debt is even higher.
How are the Shinners going to get the debt down ? Or grow the economy ?
the respectable parties have no choice either.

That is termed the 'deficit'.

The National Debt is where it is because of a totally incompetent FF administration that was too inept to deal with the international market players, compounded by an equally ineptly compliant FG and Labour maladministration.

Is it??

My understanding is that the deficit is the difference between what the exchequer takes in and what it costs to run the country - currently stands at around 13bn. This gap is a result of FF govt policy during the boom times where they placated the unions with the proceeds of the bubble (stamp duty, etc)

National debt is entirely different and the increase is directly related to the sovereign taking on the bank debts.

Open to correction on both of those however

My apologies,  you're quite correct - I misinterpreted what seafoid was actually stating there.