26 County General Election 2020

[Tony Baloney]

Albert Reynolds, one of the greatest Taoiseachs in the history of the state, in my opinion didn't have a third level education

Either he did or he didn't. 

[seafoid]

It will have to be another election. 37 is too low a starting point to arrive at 80 . SF didn't put forward enough candidates so it's partly their fault.

[Aaron Boone]

It will have to be another election. 37 is too low a starting point to arrive at 80 . SF didn't put forward enough candidates so it's partly their fault.

Who decides a second election is needed, Leo? They cost money.

[Dougal Maguire]

Albert Reynolds, one of the greatest Taoiseachs in the history of the state, in my opinion didn't have a third level education

Either he did or he didn't. 

Happy now?

[naka]

Imagine trusting SF to look after the economy. The mind boggles at what people think when they go to the polls!

Chuckling at the mentality of some people.
Ff/fg presided over the crash, the brown bag syndrome, the vulture funds

Not a shinner but they have some very capable people in the southern party who just might surprise a few of you.
All they need to do to get things moving is take a bit of the money Apple owe and throw it towards housing and health.

[armaghniac]

It will have to be another election. 37 is too low a starting point to arrive at 80 . SF didn't put forward enough candidates so it's partly their fault.

You'd need to study the transfers, but another election would give SF another half dozen seats, but at the expense of other left parties. FG and FF would refine the number of candidates and probably not do any worse, especially as some people might feel they had made their point and as their new manifestos would "respect the message of the people".  So SF would have a simpler job, but not an easy one.

[weareros]

Imagine trusting SF to look after the economy. The mind boggles at what people think when they go to the polls!

Chuckling at the mentality of some people.
Ff/fg presided over the crash, the brown bag syndrome, the vulture funds

Not a shinner but they have some very capable people in the southern party who just might surprise a few of you.
All they need to do to get things moving is take a bit of the money Apple owe and throw it towards housing and health.

Agree they have some very capable politicians. However, even if Apple lost the tax case, they will appeal to the EU court of justice and a final decision is not expected for many years. As the money is in Escrow, it cannot be touched by either party - so these issues would have to be solved with money from elsewhere. The 100,000 social/affordable houses alone will be a lot more than the 6.5 billion they threw out, likely twice that. The crash also happened long before 2011 when FG/Labour gov were tasked with the worst economic situation any government in this country has inherited.

[Chief]

Am I missing something in the economics talk here?

Firstly - I thought SF's manifesto was costed by the Department of Finance and they concluded that when their numbers were run that a budget surplus was still expected?

Secondly - what is the acceptable right/centre-right way of raising the funds to fix the housing, homelessness and housing crises? As I see it you can either tax, borrow or ignore the problem - those are your choices. So assuming you can't ignore it, and you don't want to add to the astronomical  national debt, then presumably you'll raise the funds via tax. If that's your conclusion then surely you want to tax progressively (I.e. richest pay the most) and is that not how SF have proposed to fix these problems?

[macdanger2]

Am I missing something in the economics talk here?

Firstly - I thought SF's manifesto was costed by the Department of Finance and they concluded that when their numbers were run that a budget surplus was still expected?

Secondly - what is the acceptable right/centre-right way of raising the funds to fix the housing, homelessness and housing crises? As I see it you can either tax, borrow or ignore the problem - those are your choices. So assuming you can't ignore it, and you don't want to add to the astronomical  national debt, then presumably you'll raise the funds via tax. If that's your conclusion then surely you want to tax progressively (I.e. richest pay the most) and is that not how SF have proposed to fix these problems?

SF claim that alright but from their manifesto:

Provide an additional €6.5 billion in order  to deliver over 100,000  public  homes on public  land  to meet social and affordable housing needs

Which seems impossible by any measure. Apart from the labour shortage, I can't see how that number of houses can be built for that kind of money no matter how the money itself is raised.

[armaghniac]

Am I missing something in the economics talk here?

Firstly - I thought SF's manifesto was costed by the Department of Finance and they concluded that when their numbers were run that a budget surplus was still expected?

Secondly - what is the acceptable right/centre-right way of raising the funds to fix the housing, homelessness and housing crises? As I see it you can either tax, borrow or ignore the problem - those are your choices. So assuming you can't ignore it, and you don't want to add to the astronomical  national debt, then presumably you'll raise the funds via tax. If that's your conclusion then surely you want to tax progressively (I.e. richest pay the most) and is that not how SF have proposed to fix these problems?

SF claim that alright but from their manifesto:

Provide an additional €6.5 billion in order  to deliver over 100,000  public  homes on public  land  to meet social and affordable housing needs

Which seems impossible by any measure. Apart from the labour shortage, I can't see how that number of houses can be built for that kind of money no matter how the money itself is raised.

In fairness, affordable homes are sold to people and then you can build another one with the same money.

[weareros]

Am I missing something in the economics talk here?

Firstly - I thought SF's manifesto was costed by the Department of Finance and they concluded that when their numbers were run that a budget surplus was still expected?

Secondly - what is the acceptable right/centre-right way of raising the funds to fix the housing, homelessness and housing crises? As I see it you can either tax, borrow or ignore the problem - those are your choices. So assuming you can't ignore it, and you don't want to add to the astronomical  national debt, then presumably you'll raise the funds via tax. If that's your conclusion then surely you want to tax progressively (I.e. richest pay the most) and is that not how SF have proposed to fix these problems?

We are supposed to already have the most progressive tax system in EU and 2nd in OECD.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-has-eu-s-most-progressive-tax-system-study-finds-1.4148368%3fmode=amp

[The Boy Wonder]

Laois-Offaly was traditionally a 5-seater but was split into two 3-seaters for 2016 election due to population increase.
For 2020 election it reverted to a 5-seater with some Laois-Offaly borderlands incorporated into Kildare-South.
The natives were unhappy – couldn't have Lily Whites taking a Laois-Offaly seat.

The solution was electing Portarlington resident, Independent Cathal Barry, in Kildare-South. Now Laois-Offaly is still home to 6 TDs.
Portarlington town is divided by the river Barrow – most of the town is in Laois with Gracefield on the Offaly side. I'm not sure if Waterford native Cathal Barry resides on the Laois or Offaly side of the town but anyway Laois-Offaly is claiming this Kildare TD 

[Chief]

Am I missing something in the economics talk here?

Firstly - I thought SF's manifesto was costed by the Department of Finance and they concluded that when their numbers were run that a budget surplus was still expected?

Secondly - what is the acceptable right/centre-right way of raising the funds to fix the housing, homelessness and housing crises? As I see it you can either tax, borrow or ignore the problem - those are your choices. So assuming you can't ignore it, and you don't want to add to the astronomical  national debt, then presumably you'll raise the funds via tax. If that's your conclusion then surely you want to tax progressively (I.e. richest pay the most) and is that not how SF have proposed to fix these problems?

We are supposed to already have the most progressive tax system in EU and 2nd in OECD.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-has-eu-s-most-progressive-tax-system-study-finds-1.4148368%3fmode=amp

Point taken. But my argument remains the same, if we're serious about ponying up the euros to fix these problems then asking the richer (it's all relative) to pay a bit more seems the fairest way to go about it. 

[armaghniac]

Am I missing something in the economics talk here?

Firstly - I thought SF's manifesto was costed by the Department of Finance and they concluded that when their numbers were run that a budget surplus was still expected?

Secondly - what is the acceptable right/centre-right way of raising the funds to fix the housing, homelessness and housing crises? As I see it you can either tax, borrow or ignore the problem - those are your choices. So assuming you can't ignore it, and you don't want to add to the astronomical  national debt, then presumably you'll raise the funds via tax. If that's your conclusion then surely you want to tax progressively (I.e. richest pay the most) and is that not how SF have proposed to fix these problems?

We are supposed to already have the most progressive tax system in EU and 2nd in OECD.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-has-eu-s-most-progressive-tax-system-study-finds-1.4148368%3fmode=amp

Point taken. But my argument remains the same, if we're serious about ponying up the euros to fix these problems then asking the richer (it's all relative) to pay a bit more seems the fairest way to go about it.

Yes, it is fair to ask rich people to pay a bit more, but also to ensure that everyone is asked to contribute something in recognition of their part as citizens of the Republic. And lumping everything on to income tax means that for every € you earn the State takes more than half and when that happens people find ways around that.

[magpie seanie]

Am I missing something in the economics talk here?

Firstly - I thought SF's manifesto was costed by the Department of Finance and they concluded that when their numbers were run that a budget surplus was still expected?

Secondly - what is the acceptable right/centre-right way of raising the funds to fix the housing, homelessness and housing crises? As I see it you can either tax, borrow or ignore the problem - those are your choices. So assuming you can't ignore it, and you don't want to add to the astronomical  national debt, then presumably you'll raise the funds via tax. If that's your conclusion then surely you want to tax progressively (I.e. richest pay the most) and is that not how SF have proposed to fix these problems?

We are supposed to already have the most progressive tax system in EU and 2nd in OECD.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-has-eu-s-most-progressive-tax-system-study-finds-1.4148368%3fmode=amp

That article refers to how our taxation system brings out income inequality pre tax to the EU average. There's room for it to be more progressive. Either that or address gross income inequality.

We are able to pony up Billions for a fibre broadband network (a technology that's possibly going to be outdated by the time it's implemented) that the State will not own. We'd be better off to build houses we can potentially get and income from as well as retain the capital value or sell.

There's massive waste in public finances (Children's hospital overrun). There's definitely plenty of money for important things if we stop wasting money through incompetence.