New Household Tax - Boycott

meglome · 11-04-2012 4:23pm

psychward wrote: »

Excrement. No party ran on a platform of corruption and bankrupting the country. They at least made the effort to lie about it.

I never suggested any party ran on a platform of corruption. Though I seem to recall as a child people were asking about how Charlie Haughey funded his lifestyle. I had the impression Fianna Fail were corrupt as a kid, that impression wasn't changed as I got older. You really going to suggest that people didn't realise FF were corrupt?

What I was talking about was the FF low tax, high spend, hands-off little regulation policies. Their policies of moving from unpopular but sustainable taxes to much more popular but way less sustainable ones. Their inflation of an obvious property bubble to try to avoid having to deal with their previous poor decisions. I could go on.

psychward wrote: »

Then until brought to court the FF government denied people in Donegal the right to elect a TD. The courts had to force them to do this one thing they were always obligated to do.

And we kept voting for them... go figure.

psychward wrote: »

They kept a dead mans grip onto power even though they were highly unpopular for the last few years of their incompetent economically illiterate administration.

The only way a party can keep a 'dead mans grip' on power is because we the people vote for them. FF got over 40% of first preference votes in the 2007 election but must have had nearer 70% give them a preference to have that number of seats. As far I recall the change in the FF vote was 0.1% in 2007. So I repeat we need to have a long hard look at ourselves.

View · 11-04-2012 5:47pm

Xenophile wrote: »

The real bullies are the politicians who refused to help anxious constituents who for one reason or another wanted to register for either a waiver or pay the new household charge.

They are politicians not remedial teachers FFS - how hard is it fill out your name, address, PPSN and bank details (and/or a cheque)?

If people were to receive money by filling out such a form, there'd be no problem in completing it...

john reilly · 11-04-2012 8:13pm

meglome wrote: »

I never suggested any party ran on a platform of corruption. Though I seem to recall as a child people were asking about how Charlie Haughey funded his lifestyle. I had the impression Fianna Fail were corrupt as a kid, that impression wasn't changed as I got older. You really going to suggest that people didn't realise FF were corrupt?

What I was talking about was the FF low tax, high spend, hands-off little regulation policies. Their policies of moving from unpopular but sustainable taxes to much more popular but way less sustainable ones. Their inflation of an obvious property bubble to try to avoid having to deal with their previous poor decisions. I could go on.

And we kept voting for them... go figure.

The only way a party can keep a 'dead mans grip' on power is because we the people vote for them. FF got over 40% of first preference votes in the 2007 election but must have had nearer 70% give them a preference to have that number of seats. As far I recall the change in the FF vote was 0.1% in 2007. So I repeat we need to have a long hard look at ourselves.

maybe the reason people voted f.f because of the quality of the opposition. considering what the f.g and lab goverment have done so far maybe they were right

meglome · 11-04-2012 8:20pm

john reilly wrote: »

maybe the reason people voted f.f because of the quality of the opposition. considering what the f.g and lab goverment have done so far maybe they were right

Well I can't speak for why people voted for them. Though one thing I do find very interesting is that Fine Gael got a hammering in the 2002 election for proposing spending restraint. Which brings me back to us looking at ourselves.

I won't be patting FG and Lab on the back but they are not half as bad as some make out. The opinion polls show the public generally don't think they are that bad either.

john reilly · 11-04-2012 9:25pm

meglome wrote: »

Well I can't speak for why people voted for them. Though one thing I do find very interesting is that Fine Gael got a hammering in the 2002 election for proposing spending restraint. Which brings me back to us looking at ourselves.

I won't be patting FG and Lab on the back but they are not half as bad as some make out. The opinion polls show the public generally don't think they are that bad either.

the only indicator i think is valid is the job market. while i know a lot of people who have or are about to lose their jobs i know of nobody who has started employment.

JustinDee · 13-04-2012 11:17am

john reilly wrote: »

the only indicator i think is valid is the job market. while i know a lot of people who have or are about to lose their jobs i know of nobody who has started employment.

An anecdote pitched up against another anecdote doesn't really prove anything, however.

later12 · 14-04-2012 5:20pm

meglome wrote: »

Well I can't speak for why people voted for them. Though one thing I do find very interesting is that Fine Gael got a hammering in the 2002 election for proposing spending restraint.

Sorry, what?

They suggested putting spending growth at nominal GDP growth + 2% (which would have resulted in government expenditure being increased by 5% on 2002 figures, which is exactly what Charlie McCreevy increased it by in 2003)... Calling for increased social partnership in reforming public sector pay, and monetary "bonuses" being transferred to citizens from central government in light of "exceptional surpluses". They suggested keeping capital gains and income taxes at the levels set by Fianna Fail, they went on to propose free medical care for the bottom 60% of earners and for all pensioners as well as increased welfare benefits... and all of this in the midst of a global slowdown?

After the election, Richard Bruton went on to criticise the Budget as "the most niggardly bucket we have ever seen". FG also criticised the Government encouraging use of SSIAs, saying the money should be spent on tax reliefs.

I'm looking at Fine Gael's 2002 manifesto here in front of me,and I'm not quite sure how any of this could come under the heading of "spending restraint".

We all know the reasons Fine Gael was not returned in 2002. This is the first time I have heard someone suggest that "spending restraint" was one such reason. I find that remarkable.

john reilly · 14-04-2012 8:43pm

later12 wrote: »

Sorry, what?

They suggested putting spending growth at nominal GDP growth + 2% (which would have resulted in government expenditure being increased by 5% on 2002 figures, which is exactly what Charlie McCreevy increased it by in 2003)... Calling for increased social partnership in reforming public sector pay, and monetary "bonuses" being transferred to citizens from central government in light of "exceptional surpluses". They suggested keeping capital gains and income taxes at the levels set by Fianna Fail, they went on to propose free medical care for the bottom 60% of earners and for all pensioners as well as increased welfare benefits... and all of this in the midst of a global slowdown?

After the election, Richard Bruton went on to criticise the Budget as "the most niggardly bucket we have ever seen". FG also criticised the Government encouraging use of SSIAs, saying the money should be spent on tax reliefs.

I'm looking at Fine Gael's 2002 manifesto here in front of me,and I'm not quite sure how any of this could come under the heading of "spending restraint".

We all know the reasons Fine Gael was not returned in 2002. This is the first time I have heard someone suggest that "spending restraint" was one such reason. I find that remarkable.

f.g supporters like to fantasise that they ride into town nd clean up f,f mess. the facts for this though are only ever in their heads

Good loser · 14-04-2012 11:32pm

john reilly wrote: »

f.g supporters like to fantasise that they ride into town nd clean up f,f mess. the facts for this though are only ever in their heads

In an impossible situation they're doing their best. Give them time ffs.

ednwireland · 14-04-2012 11:37pm

Good loser wrote: »

In an impossible situation they're doing their best. Give them time ffs.

no their not, not even close, (how about awarding a 37k pay rises to advisors and useing secretarial allownaces for PR for a start)

Statistician · 14-04-2012 11:42pm

Good loser wrote: »

In an impossible situation they're doing their best. Give them time ffs.

They probably are doing their best.

Unfortunately they are either not capable or (more likely) like their sister party, FF, are just in it for themselves.

later12 · 15-04-2012 2:16pm

john reilly wrote: »

f.g supporters like to fantasise that they ride into town nd clean up f,f mess. the facts for this though are only ever in their heads

It's probably worthy of a thread of its own, but yes, I have heard that insinuation more than once. It's a bizarre degree of revisionism that has absolutely no basis in economic historical fact.

mikom · 15-04-2012 2:19pm

Good loser wrote: »

In an impossible situation they're doing their best. Give them time ffs.

Like Stevie wonder and Ray Charles carrying out open heart surgery.
Give them time ffs......

The Waltzing Consumer · 15-04-2012 3:44pm

john reilly wrote: »

the only indicator i think is valid is the job market. while i know a lot of people who have or are about to lose their jobs i know of nobody who has started employment.

John, Governments do not create jobs, unless you want move civil servants and public sector jobs?

Governments create the conditions, environment and infrastructure that can allow industries to create jobs, but if job creation is the only indicator to you, you have a lot to learn.

On a side note, I know people who have lost jobs and I know people who have started employment.

john reilly · 15-04-2012 4:55pm

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

John, Governments do not create jobs, unless you want move civil servants and public sector jobs?

Governments create the conditions, environment and infrastructure that can allow industries to create jobs, but if job creation is the only indicator to you, you have a lot to learn.

On a side note, I know people who have lost jobs and I know people who have started employment.

and f.g have increased the minimum wage, not dereased social welfare, want employers to pay sick leave and redundacy. what have they done to encourage companies to take on people. the best you could say was they went to china to get some short term jobs at the long term expense

meglome · 15-04-2012 5:23pm

later12 wrote: »

Sorry, what?

They suggested putting spending growth at nominal GDP growth + 2% (which would have resulted in government expenditure being increased by 5% on 2002 figures, which is exactly what Charlie McCreevy increased it by in 2003)... Calling for increased social partnership in reforming public sector pay, and monetary "bonuses" being transferred to citizens from central government in light of "exceptional surpluses". They suggested keeping capital gains and income taxes at the levels set by Fianna Fail, they went on to propose free medical care for the bottom 60% of earners and for all pensioners as well as increased welfare benefits... and all of this in the midst of a global slowdown?

After the election, Richard Bruton went on to criticise the Budget as "the most niggardly bucket we have ever seen". FG also criticised the Government encouraging use of SSIAs, saying the money should be spent on tax reliefs.

I'm looking at Fine Gael's 2002 manifesto here in front of me,and I'm not quite sure how any of this could come under the heading of "spending restraint".

We all know the reasons Fine Gael was not returned in 2002. This is the first time I have heard someone suggest that "spending restraint" was one such reason. I find that remarkable.

I'm not really being a cheerleader for FG policies though I'll happily admit I believe we would have been far better off with them than FF.

From the 2002 Fine Gael Manifesto.

Getting the economy back on track
What we must change
Fianna Fáil and the PDs have managed our economy badly:
• They have let public spending get totally out of control. Compared to a promise to keep growth to 4% a year, their actual annual spending growth averaged 15%. Then, as the boom slackened, they went on spending even faster last year, the growth hit a completely unsustainable 23%.
This demolished an Exchequer surplus of €3bn in 2000, and public finances are now on course for a €6bn deficit in 2004.
• Not only have they spent excessively, they have spent badly. Budgets have been over-run (in some cases by several hundred per cent), there has been no pursuit of value-for-money, there have been many procurement scandals and irregularities. Often, despite massive spending, there has been no visible improvement in ser vices.
• They have proved incapable of delivering infrastructural improvements to keep pace with the needs of the economy. The result has been a devastating negative impact, both on our national competitiveness and on the quality of life of everyone.
• They have pursued a narrow tax strategy under which many have not shared in the benefits of progress.
• They have failed to reform public ser vice pay structures and will bequeath substantial pay problems to a new government.

Some very wise words as it turns out, yet they got a hammering.

Good loser · 15-04-2012 11:46pm

ednwireland wrote: »

no their not, not even close, (how about awarding a 37k pay rises to advisors and useing secretarial allownaces for PR for a start)

That's peanuts you're referring to. What about the big issues?

Good loser · 15-04-2012 11:49pm

mikom wrote: »

Like Stevie wonder and Ray Charles carrying out open heart surgery.
Give them time ffs......

You say you live in the real world?

Naw

later12 · 16-04-2012 2:44am

meglome wrote: »

I'm not really being a cheerleader for FG policies though I'll happily admit I believe we would have been far better off with them than FF.

From the 2002 Fine Gael Manifesto.

Some very wise words as it turns out, yet they got a hammering.

But sure that list is just a list of criticisms. It means nothing if you look at what they were proposing in its place - their policies, which would have seen them increasing spending at the same rate as McCreevy increased it in Budget 2003, increased welfare transfer payments, and increased tax credits at the expense of SSIAs, for example, or transfers to the citizens in light of "exceptional surpluses" were not something that constituted spending restraint.

It is perfectly normal that an opposition would say that black was white so long as the government maintained the opposite. But you only have to look into FG's economic and social welfare pledges to see the hollowness of their claims.

It certainly was not "spending restraint" and I would challenge you to demonstrate that it was "spending restraint" that lost Fine Gael the 2002 election.

john reilly · 16-04-2012 8:07pm

[QUOTE=meglome;78142751]I'm not really being a cheerleader for FG policies though I'll happily admit I believe we would have been far better off with them than FF.

From the 2002 Fine Gael Manifesto.

Some very wise words as it turns out, yet they got a hammering.[/QUOTE]
thats not the impression Iam getting

ednwireland · 17-04-2012 8:20am

Good loser wrote: »

That's peanuts you're referring to. What about the big issues?

really peanuts, its a pay rise of 10k a year more than i earn.
you sir are part of the problem all these peanuts add up to an awfull lot of money, to me this is a big issue.

the big issue is that this gov doesnt have a plan, is creating inefficiency after inefficiency, how many seperate databases are they going to create do it once, do it right.
they claim to be broadening the tax base, they should tell the truth and tell us that they are increasing the tax base and what they plan to increase it to so we can plan for that, instead of drip feeding rubbish out every day

from the 2011 manifesto

1. Help protect and create jobs
2. Keep taxes low while fixing the deficit;
3. Deliver smaller, better government;
4. Create a completely new, fairer, more efficient health system; and
5. Overhaul the way our political system works to stamp out cronyism and low standards.

1. Focusing on budget cuts rather than job-destroying tax increases. The international evidence is clear: Tax hikes raise the unemployment rate by three times more than spending cuts.

havent seen any of that yet

cadete · 17-04-2012 8:37pm

COUNCIL VOTES TO BAN USE OF UTILITY BILLS TO TRACE HOUSEHOLD TAX DODGERS

Well done to the councillors who are standing up alongside the people of donegal. Hopefully more councils will follow suit.

http://www.donegaldaily.com/2012/04/17/council-votes-to-ban-use-of-utility-bills-to-trace-household-tax-dodgers/

meglome · 17-04-2012 8:53pm

cadete wrote: »

COUNCIL VOTES TO BAN USE OF UTILITY BILLS TO TRACE HOUSEHOLD TAX DODGERS

Well done to the councillors who are standing up alongside the people of donegal. Hopefully more councils will follow suit.

http://www.donegaldaily.com/2012/04/17/council-votes-to-ban-use-of-utility-bills-to-trace-household-tax-dodgers/

The worst council in Ireland for planning decisions, in a county with very high Sinn Fein representation does something populist. It's all a shock.

What proposals have the council put forward to cut costs and make things more efficient?

cadete · 17-04-2012 8:58pm

meglome wrote: »

The worst council in Ireland for planning decisions, in a county with very high Sinn Fein representation does something populist. It's all a shock.

What proposals have the council put forward to cut costs and make things more efficient?

I must agree

Populism can be defined as an ideology, political philosophy, or type of discourse. Generally, a common theme compares "the people" against "the elite", and urges social and political system changes.

Long may it continue :cool:

meglome · 17-04-2012 9:10pm

cadete wrote: »

I must agree

Populism can be defined as an ideology, political philosophy, or type of discourse. Generally, a common theme compares "the people" against "the elite", and urges social and political system changes.

Long may it continue :cool:

Hmm I think you might want to reread that.

A common theme compares inverted commas (the people) against inverted commas (the elite). So yes I agree the likes of Sinn Fein and the hard left do make those comparisons. The question is though do these 'elite' exist as the pantomime villains they are made out to be. Are 'the people' the innocent victims they are made out to be. I think the answer to both is no.

I'd take what Donegal CoCo has done seriously if they had made extensive changes to how the council operates to save money for the tax payer. But when they instead vote to do something pointless yet populist I'll call it for what it is.

cadete · 17-04-2012 9:24pm

To be honest i prefer the populist stance of donegal county council to the statist stance of labour/fg in the dail.

djpbarry · 17-04-2012 11:21pm

cadete wrote: »

To be honest i prefer the populist stance of donegal county council to the statist stance of labour/fg in the dail.

It's populism that got Ireland into it's present mess.

cadete · 18-04-2012 12:07am

djpbarry wrote: »

It's populism that got Ireland into it's present mess.

How did populism get ireland into this mess?
populism "political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people's needs and wishes" from Cambridge dictionary

The elected councillors of donegal from all parties bar fg supported this ban. Why did they support it? Because 70% of the population of Donegal refuse to pay this tax on their homes.

meglome · 18-04-2012 1:05am

cadete wrote: »

How did populism get ireland into this mess?
populism "political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people's needs and wishes" from Cambridge dictionary

The elected councillors of donegal from all parties bar fg supported this ban. Why did they support it? Because 70% of the population of Donegal refuse to pay this tax on their homes.

Populism Irish style is when you support things that cannot help, that you have no alternatives for but will garner you some votes come election time. We got into the mess we are in, partially at least, by Fianna Fail getting rid of sustainable but unpopular taxes like domestic rates and replacing them with unsustainable but more popular taxes.

When a council votes to do something popular over what is necessary like efficiency we all should object to that. I just cannot understand with the mess we're in how we haven't learned anything. It really boggles my mind.

cadete · 18-04-2012 1:31am

meglome wrote: »

Populism Irish style is when you support things that cannot help, that you have no alternatives for but will garner you some votes come election time. We got into the mess we are in, partially at least, by Fianna Fail getting rid of sustainable but unpopular taxes like domestic rates and replacing them with unsustainable but more popular taxes.

When a council votes to do something popular over what is necessary like efficiency we all should object to that. I just cannot understand with the mess we're in how we haven't learned anything. It really boggles my mind.

absolutely ridiculous, are you saying populism means something different in ireland?

domestic rates? please! blaming ff for everything back as far as 1978 now?

And yes there are alternatives, maybe burn unsecured bondholders, or how about a weath tax, or possibly bring the high earning public servents earning 100k plus onto a salary that reflects the current state of the nation? Possibly we could also reduce their exorbitant pensions?

meglome wrote: »

When a council votes to do something popular over what is necessary like efficiency.

What has the household charge got to do with efficiency?

Maybe we have learned maybe we have learned that enough is enough and we the ordinary people will no longer pay the price for everything that has happened in this country

New Household Tax - Boycott

Comments