Who will form the next government? - The results
- Thread starter Purple
- Start date
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
Look on the bright side, we could have been facing the prospect of Grisly being the next Teashop 
Ok, Grisly and his mates on the Falls Road will be calling the shots anyway, but just imagine him representing Ireland at the UN, say
Ok, Grisly and his mates on the Falls Road will be calling the shots anyway, but just imagine him representing Ireland at the UN, sayOf course Gerry will deny ever calling any shots or even being near anyone when any shots were called...
Ok, my answer to your question is no. I assume what you have outlined is in some part the dire warning to the other 75%?
If so, shouldn't the 75% take responsibility to save us from this?
So does that mean you oppose the narrowing of the tax base proposed by the Shinners, specifically the 5% tax increase on incomes over €140k and the abolition of property tax?
They should not vote for far left parties like SF and Slogans before Reality (aka PBP).
By raising additional taxes on wealth they propose to broaden the tax base.
The 75% didn't vote for SF. Can you answer the question now, third time of asking - If a 25% vote for SF represents a dire warning, shouldn't the 75% in some shape or form be prepared to go into government to protect the Irish people from the dire of SF?
That explains a lot... Taxing fewer people more is not broadening the tax base.
Part of that 75% are in a different country. Do you understand how that causes a problem when forming a government in one of them?
The Shinners and other far left parties have made significant gains in this country in the election. They made those gains on the basis of people wanting a "change". I think that the onus is on them to try to form a government. Turning the place into a socialist paradise like Venezuela will certainly be a change.
?? By introducing new revenue streams (wealth tax) that is broadening the tax base.
I dont see how fewer people are being taxed?
Broadening the tax base can simply mean restructuring the tax code to generate more revenues. This could entail lowering tax rates or excluding certain sectors from tax if the subsequent consequence is to generate economic activity that in turn generates additional tax revenues from other revenue streams.
Btw, I have no idea if SF tax proposal on wealth will achieve this, only time will tell.
Im minded to think that if wealth is to be taxed, it should start with the wealthiest and work down, rather than increasing tax rates from the bottom up.
I think the onus is on them also having achieved highest preference vote. But the reality is that the electorate has returned a block of 3 parties more or less equal.
Media soundbites of the people wanting change are just that, soundbites. They do not form the basis of sound decision making.
If the consequences of a SF government are dire, then it is a complete abdication of responsibility of other parties, combining of 50%+1 not to try form a government on the basis of media soundbites of people wanting change.
For my part, I think the dire warnings and depictions of economic collapse are just more soundbites propagated by people trying to pitch a sale about something they know very little about.
Compared to some of the gangsters from other countries at the UN he would like Mother Theresa
Since the family home, pension funds, family farms and family businesses are excluded what's left other than the high earners who already pay more tax than in any other country in the developed world? How is taxing those same people even more broadening the tax base?
AH, the Jimmy Savile isn't as bad as Fred West argument.
I still wouldn't have let either of them babysit, would you?
Shhh, you'll be on the list.
I'm on it already. When I disappear it will be because I'm a criminal. They might do a Jean McConville on me.
Best case is a few years in a reeducation camp. Long live the revolution!
Fear not me ole stock. We have a way to get our wealth out of the country should SF try to impose a wealth tax. It's a solution much debated on this site and even the bould tecate has provided a step-by-step "how to" guide for. I for one have been a sceptic up until now. But no longer....
Ladies & Gentlemen, we have finally found a real use case for BITCOIN
Yes it can mean that, but its a somewhat incomplete understanding of the concept.
I take it we all agree that the tax base is all tax revenue streams? Income tax, VAT, USC, Corporation tax, property tax, motor tax, etc...etc...?
So invariably, we all pay taxes in some form or another. So getting more people to pay tax when everybody already pays tax is somewhat a contradiction.
Broadening the tax base is increasing, decreasing, eliminating, or introducing new tax codes that generate greater revenue streams than what existed before.
If tax codes are altered (increased, decreased, eliminated or new ones introduced) that result in lower revenues then the tax base is narrowed.
Ladies & Gentlemen, we have finally found a real use case for BITCOIN
Back up 194% over twelve months...you are missing out.
That's not broadening the tax base. There can be no other interpretation of broadening the tax base that increasing the different sources from which tax is levied \ due. What you have described is a deepening of existing tax base. You are confusing the sources of tax with the amount of tax \ qualitiative versus quantitative difference.
If you want to argue broadening of the tax base isn't needed, that's a different argument but what you are presenting here just doesn't tally with usual usage.
I understand the point, but in my view 'broadening' and 'deepening' is simply splitting hairs.
Limiting the definition of broadening the tax base to;
is incomplete.
For what purpose would a government want to broaden the tax base?
Obviously to raise additional revenues, correct? Those additional revenues can serve to provide additional services, or can be used to reduce tax rates on other sources to provide a more equitable tax system.
Additional sources of tax revenue can also be punitive. They can inadvertently have the opposite effect to raising revenue and instead reduce revenue streams - for what purpose is broadening the tax base through increasing the different sources then?
There is little to be gained from broadening the tax base if the knock on consequences on the total value of revenue streams are not considered.
losttheplot
Registered User
- Messages
- 602
A broad tax base would be more stable. We're overly reliant on corporation tax.