New Household Tax - Boycott

30-03-2012 9:06am

djpbarry wrote: »

If nobody is charged or arrested, people scream "corruption". When somebody is charged or arrested, people scream "corruption".

That's because in both cases it's evident that some level of corruption is occurring. In one, justice is being denied and delayed, in the other, the machinery of the state (the Gardai) is being instructed to time high profile arrests to give the maximum political benefit to their paymasters.

Now if the banking investigation was to continue apace by our law enforcement authorities, without any kind of involvement or influence from politicians whatsoever, and high profile arrests were announced when they were announced, instead of coincidentally being announced the evening before a bad news day for the presiding government, just in time to make the deadline for the next day's papers and morning radio shows, i might claim there was less corruption going on.

But a REAL separation of powers, and trusting that our politicians could just do their job and leave our law enforcement agencies to do theirs?? That's just wishful thinking in Ireland, isn't it.....

heyjude wrote: »

the fact that this tax is being introduced without any widespread campaign to root out wastage and inefficiencies in local government in the country, will just entrench higher rates of property tax than would be necessary if we stamped out the waste first............

They will chase the ordinary Joe to the gates of hell over a small sum, but to those that helped cause our downfall, no sign of legal action, fines or penalties against them, even several years later.

Justifying the introduction of a property tax through comparison with other countries, as the government has done, is a dangerous road to go down...............

Virtually all the countries mentioned also have a lower cost of living than we do here.......

Well done on an excellent post. I really can't argue with you much, as i feel that every point you made is valid, and highlights the very many concerns i have around the lack of social justice in Ireland today, which for me is what makes this regime of levies and tax hikes unpalatable.

It's not being asked to pay to fix this mess which galls me though, it's being asked to pay while a culture of greed and waste is still tolerated, as you pointed out, and the elite who caused the problem not only remain unpunished, but in many cases are getting away without any financial sanction or burden as part of the redress of the issues while everybody else is picking up their tab.

The point of my post though, was along the lines of: Aren't these other inequities and social injustices not for more worthy of protest than a tax which would appear to be being earmarked for local authority spending (albeit not in a perfect manner, as you pointed out)??

I don't like having to pay a local authority tax, on top of all the other taxes i have to pay which are spent inefficiently, and i especially don't like how every time a new tax is trotted out, the old excuse of "ah sure everybody else has been doing this for years" follows it without comparing apples with apples and admitting that the tax regime in the relevant countries is fundamentally different.

I fundamentally dislike this, but i dislike it a lot less than i do using taxpayers money to pay goldman sachs 100% of a €1billion bond that they bought for 20 cents in the euro from scared bondholders just months earlier.

I am more inclined to protest that there are children dying in chronically under-resourced pediatric hospitals which can't afford to give their patients a half decent level of service, and hundreds of patients lying on trollies in corridors up and down the country, and there's no money to improve things because the HSE is stuffed with overpaid middle managers with jobs for life, protected by trade union leaders who all still have their snouts in the celtic tiger trough.

It annoys me more that the chief architects of this disaster, all who have been found to be complicit and corrupt, are still swanning around in state cars paid for by hard pressed taxpayers, drawing down enormous pensions while the rest of us struggle to pay basic bills and make ends meet.

My point was this: Sure the household tax is far from ideal, but a small tax being paid to fund local authority services, as imperfect as they are, more or less directly helping the people who are paying it, surely is less worthy of protest than the issues we've both raised here? When you look at the various straws that the camel has been asked to bear up until this point, it seems strange to me that this is the one that has broken it's back.

djpbarry · 30-03-2012 9:47am

heyjude wrote: »

...where is the evidence of the same tough and speedy approach being applied to the pursuit of bankers, building society chiefs, property developers, businessmen and corrupt/incompetent politicians etc, whose behaviour led to the collapse of our economy ?

Yes, yes, yes, we know, everything was the fault of the bankers and politicians and they should be made pay for everything.

Someone, please, change the record.

heyjude wrote: »

Justifying the introduction of a property tax through comparison with other countries, as the government has done, is a dangerous road to go down, most of the named countries did not have the same high rates of stamp duty, do not have VRT, in many cases have much lower rates of excise duty on beer, wine and cigarettes and in the case of the US, they have far lower taxes on fuel and much lower VAT rates. Virtually all the countries mentioned also have a lower cost of living than we do here.

All of which is completely irrelevant. Ireland is spending more than it is receiving in income. End of story.

djpbarry · 30-03-2012 9:48am

Deleted User wrote: »

That's because in both cases it's evident that some level of corruption is occurring. In one, justice is being denied and delayed, in the other, the machinery of the state (the Gardai) is being instructed to time high profile arrests to give the maximum political benefit to their paymasters.

Unless you’ve get some evidence to support this, it’s just hearsay.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not being asked to pay to fix this mess which galls me though, it's being asked to pay while a culture of greed and waste is still tolerated, as you pointed out, and the elite who caused the problem not only remain unpunished, but in many cases are getting away without any financial sanction or burden as part of the redress of the issues while everybody else is picking up their tab.

When are we going to move away from this idea that this €14 billion hole in Ireland’s finances is exclusively the fault of “the elite”? It’s really, really simple – Ireland is paying far more than it can afford to on welfare and public sector salaries. “The elite” have nothing to do with it.

Godge · 30-03-2012 10:20am

heyjude wrote: »

The Household Charge is the straw that broke the camel's back, in of inself its true that it isn't significant, but it is the forerunner of a property tax regime that is sure to be far more expensive and the fact that this tax is being introduced without any widespread campaign to root out wastage and inefficiencies in local government in the country, will just entrench higher rates of property tax than would be necessary if we stamped out the waste first.

.

Let us be fair to local authorities. Take the 2012 budget for Fingal County Council:

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/YourLocalCouncil/AboutFingal/OtherServices/Finance/AnnualBudget/Annual%20Budget%202012.pdf

Have you read the bit that says: "The Council’s payroll costs for 2012, exclusive of pensions and travelling expenses is estimated at €66.5m. The equivalent cost in 2009 was €82.9m, a reduction of over 19.8% in the three years."

Or this bit "I am recommending a further reduction of 2% in commercial rates for 2012. A similar reduction was applied in 2011."

In total the budgeted expenditure for 2012 is 11% less than 2011. 11% IN ONE YEAR!! How much more efficiency do people want????

We are still getting rants on these boards about public services which ignore the facts that there have been huge efficiencies in many parts of the public service - local authorities, higher education, central civil service - while it is other areas such as the health service and primary and second-level education that have failed to deliver. The debate should be moving on from ill-informed rants to actual examination of figures, trends and statistics to determine where the reform has failed to date.

Permabear · 30-03-2012 10:37am

This post has been deleted.

30-03-2012 10:55am

djpbarry wrote: »

Unless you’ve get some evidence to support this, it’s just hearsay.

Really? Is this Bertie, posting under a nom de plume?

It doesn't suit your argument to acknowledge my point, so you rubbish it for lack of evidence even though the dogs in the street can see what's going on here?

Give people some credit and stop hiding behind the same tired old "you can't prove anything" line. Government ministers and secretaries are not in the habit of leaving phone transcriptions and paper trails behind them when they assert improper influence over the "independent" state institutions they should be staying well away from.

That doesn't mean that a blind man couldn't see that the timing of populist high profile arrests on the eve of expected bad press for the government is at the very least giving the impression of collusion. This in itself is grounds enough for sanction, even if there's absolutely nothing untoward going on (and that's a BIG "if")

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes, yes, yes, we know, everything was the fault of the bankers and politicians and they should be made pay for everything.

Someone, please, change the record...

No. No i absolutely will not change the record. Not until they ARE made to pay, which none of them have been made to do so far, because people with your frame of mind would have us believe that it's all OK to brush it under the carpet, forget it, and move on.

"We are where we are, and there's no point in looking back now". That's the classic fallacy that has us in this mess. We have zero visible deterrent against corruption, mismanagement, and criminal negligence in public life. No matter what happens, what's reported, how many millions are spent, nobody is brought to justice, and yet we're puzzled as to why it just keeps on happening to us.....

The more noise people like me make about injustices like this, the more difficult that brushing it all under the carpet becomes, and that's fine by me. I demand accountability for the crimes still going unpunished here, which have brought so much misery to so many people, and until i see it i will keep playing the same old record, and annoying people with attitudes like yours as much as i can.

later12 · 30-03-2012 12:08pm

Godge wrote: »

In total the budgeted expenditure for 2012 is 11% less than 2011. 11% IN ONE YEAR!! How much more efficiency do people want????[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

For real?

How many city, county, borough and town councils do people want?

By the time I drive out my parents' gateway in Tipperary and arrive at my aunt's house on the far side of that great shire, I will have passed through no less than seven different town or borough council areas, and two county council areas for that one county.

The latter arrangement is at last coming to an end, but is being maintained elsewhere. This sort of rubbish is an historical artifact of the Victorian era. It is not an efficient system of governance. I would absolutely reject its being propped up by household taxes in its current format on that principle alone.

djpbarry · 30-03-2012 12:21pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don’t agree with your reasoning, but it makes a change from “I’m not paying until we stop bailing out the IMF, or something”.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And also increasing salaries and/or employment opportunities, through public sector employment, for a sizeable chunk of the same public and therein lies the conflict of interest.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don’t think Irish people could be described as victims of anything – they’re reaping what they’ve sewn by repeatedly re-electing governments who implement unsustainable, populist policies.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your general point – I do think there is scope for huge reduction in public expenditure. But, not without massive public opposition which would likely bring the country grinding to a halt.

djpbarry · 30-03-2012 12:22pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't suit your argument to acknowledge my point, so you rubbish it for lack of evidence even though the dogs in the street can see what's going on here?

Ah, “the dogs on the street” – the last vestige of a baseless argument.

Deleted User wrote: »

That doesn't mean that a blind man couldn't see that the timing of populist high profile arrests on the eve of expected bad press for the government is at the very least giving the impression of collusion. This in itself is grounds enough for sanction, even if there's absolutely nothing untoward going on

I’m sorry, you’re saying it should be punishable under law for someone to give the impression that they are doing something illegal?

Deleted User wrote: »

No. No i absolutely will not change the record. Not until they ARE made to pay, which none of them have been made to do so far, because people with your frame of mind would have us believe that it's all OK to brush it under the carpet, forget it, and move on.

I have said no such thing. Quite the opposite in fact – anyone suspected of illegal activity should be prosecuted.

However, what I am pretty much sick and tired of hearing over the last number of years is this line that “the elite” are responsible for everything and we should all sit around and wait until they have been punished before moving forward and getting Ireland’s finances in order. Building cases against white collar criminals can take decades – Ireland doesn’t have that kind of time to kill.

Deleted User wrote: »

"We are where we are, and there's no point in looking back now". That's the classic fallacy that has us in this mess. We have zero visible deterrent against corruption, mismanagement, and criminal negligence in public life. No matter what happens, what's reported, how many millions are spent, nobody is brought to justice, and yet we're puzzled as to why it just keeps on happening to us.....

Because people keep electing **** politicians. Case in point: Michael Lowry is probably the most crooked TD in the country, yet he consistently tops the polls in Tipperary North. As I said above, people reap what they sow.

Godge · 30-03-2012 12:24pm

later12 wrote: »

For real?

How many city, county, borough and town councils do people want?

By the time I drive out my parents' gateway in Tipperary and arrive at my aunt's house on the far side of that great shire, I will have passed through no less than seven different town or borough council areas, and two county council areas for that one county.

The latter arrangement is at last coming to an end, but is being maintained elsewhere. This sort of rubbish is an historical artifact of the Victorian era. It is not an efficient system of governance. I would absolutely reject its being propped up by household taxes in its current format on that principle alone.

One thing at a time. Budgets are being slashed, the evidence is clear, there are savings to the taxpayers.

There is a process of amalgamation already under way in respect of the VECs. You don't have to be Einstein to realise that as that starts to work, a similar process will begin with the councils. It is easier to start with the VECs because there is less of a political problem in dealing with them.

Finally, amalgamations usually cost money in the short-term (one to two years), just examine accounts of large publicly-quoted firms.

bassy · 30-03-2012 12:25pm

of all the posters on this thread how many have since paid the household charge?.
and how many more shall be paying it on here since tomorrow is the 31st march deadline,go on dont be afraid to say you paid it after all your macho ranting waffle about you were,nt gonna pay it.

Gloomtastic! · 30-03-2012 12:40pm

djpbarry wrote: »

For starters what? I'm really not arsed reading through blog posts and/or a thread on another site - what's your point?

My point, and the point that several others are trying to put accross, is that everytime there is a payout to bondholders there is a coincidental arrest of a banker or, as in the case of Callaly, a politician that the public detest.

On the three occasions that the Irish Government made controversial payments of billions of Irish taxpayers money to international unsecured unguaranteed bondholders for Anglo Irish Bank debt (€29 billion in total bailout and now owned by the State) , this is also what happened either on the eve or the same day:

1st November 2011: former Anglo finance director, Willie McAteer was re-arrested. That was on the eve of the controversial payment of USD 1bn (€730m) to unsecured, unguaranteed bondholders.
9th December 2011: former Anglo chairman, Sean Fitzpatrick was re-arrested.
25th January 2012: Ivor Callely taken in for questioning over bogus mobile phone expense claims.

Yesterday, a couple of days before the latest round of bondholder payouts were due to be made, we see Fingleton is going to be charged. Considering Alan Dukes was promising these charges would be forthcoming several months ago, do you not think it is more than coincidental that these events always seem to coincide?

later12 · 30-03-2012 12:52pm

Godge wrote: »

There is a process of amalgamation already under way in respect of the VECs.

Yes, but I'm talking about local government itself. Revenue raising measures make it easier for governments to shirk on expenditure cuts. I'd rather the cuts came first, especially when the need for efficiency in the area of local government is so staggeringly obvious.

Finally, amalgamations usually cost money in the short-term (one to two years), just examine accounts of large publicly-quoted firms.

I'm not sure if I would liken the merger of North and South Tipperary County Councils to the merger between Exxon and Mobil. The above statement is hardly an argument against amalgamating councils. There is no justifiable reason to maintain so many local government bodies.

Permabear · 30-03-2012 1:21pm

This post has been deleted.

xflyer · 30-03-2012 1:39pm

Completely agree Permabear, but the government will not take on the public service unions. They're terrified of them. But they're quite happy to hack away at everyone else's incomes particularly the most disadvantaged.

But that day will arrive, no doubt when the troika turn their eyes onto the massive wages bill and also note that other countries have slashed their bloated public service bills.

30-03-2012 1:50pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, “the dogs on the street” – the last vestige of a baseless argument

The level of disrespect you show to posters with contradictory opinions on this forum is staggering, particularly as you are someone in a position of moderation who is well aware of the kind of standard of debate which boards.ie aspires to. I'm going to ignore your mudslinging from this point on. My point is valid and relevant, despite your "baseless argument" allegation.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m sorry, you’re saying it should be punishable under law for someone to give the impression that they are doing something illegal?

When did i mention punishment under law?. I merely mentioned that it was grounds enough for sanction or criticism of the minister or party in question, which it is. There is a difference between a sanction and a criminal sanction.

To quote myself:

Deleted User wrote: »

the timing of populist high profile arrests on the eve of expected bad press for the government is at the very least giving the impression of collusion. This in itself is grounds enough for sanction, even if there's absolutely nothing untoward going on

Government ministers who are in a privileged position of power should know better than to interfere, or to give the impression of having interfered with independent state instruments or institutions tasked with carrying out their duties in an impartial manner without bias or favour. They are expected to be incontrovertibly impartial to the activities of such bodies, and when they are not, there are grounds for sanction.

Have we not just seen the Mahon report criticising several senior ministers from our last government for doing exactly this? I fail to see how this point is arguable.

djpbarry wrote: »

Michael Lowry is probably the most crooked TD in the country, yet he consistently tops the polls in Tipperary North....

To quote you:

djpbarry wrote: »

Unless you’ve get some evidence to support this, it’s just hearsay....

Oh, and you had probably better not come back with the old "dog's on the street" argument. Apparently that doesn't fly here....;)

meglome · 30-03-2012 3:10pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree with all of this. However if we want to protest then these are things we should be protesting about. Not about a 100 euro charge that no matter what we are going to need. We don't have a sustainable tax base right now so we need to sort the things above and make our tax base more sustainable. It could take years to sort out the inefficiencies and in the meantime we'd have to borrow even more money.

There was massive waste during the bubble years and very few people protested. We were very happy to take the tax cuts we received without a complaint, no matter how inefficient the government was. Even though things are much more efficient now it's a big problem for us as we are getting tax increases. Honestly people made their beds and now don't want to lie in them. So while I do want efficiencies I'm not remotely inclined to support the household charge protests.

djpbarry · 30-03-2012 3:30pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Agreed - I’m not disputing that we’re talking about a (very) vocal minority. But I think people are over-stating the level of sympathy felt among the general public for the “plight” of so-called “front line” workers (nurses, gardaí, firemen, etc), especially when they we will be perceived as being unfairly targeted ahead of “the elite”.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Fair enough, but there’s always a least worst option. Furthermore, had the general public protested en masse against the extortionate levels of VRT and stamp duty that were being levied, it is not entirely inconceivable that the government may have been forced to reconsider its revenue streams, possibly resulting in a more sustainable tax system. Not only that, but it’s likely that taxation revenue would not have climbed anywhere nearly as high as it did, meaning welfare payments and public sector salaries would have remained at a more modest level.

djpbarry · 30-03-2012 3:32pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The level of disrespect you show to posters with contradictory opinions on this forum is staggering...

I’m not disrespecting anyone. I am questioning your logic. Correlation does not imply causation. I’m not even convinced that there is a correlation.

Deleted User wrote: »

Government ministers who are in a privileged position of power should know better than to interfere, or to give the impression of having interfered with independent state instruments or institutions tasked with carrying out their duties in an impartial manner without bias or favour.

“Give the impression” to whom? You? Me? The dogs on the street?

Deleted User wrote: »

Have we not just seen the Mahon report criticising several senior ministers from our last government for doing exactly this? I fail to see how this point is arguable.

I am not arguing against the sanctioning of TD’s who have been shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to have transgressed. What I am arguing against is the idea that sanctions should be imposed where a TD has “given the impression” of transgressing, because that is just plain ridiculous.

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, and you had probably better not come back with the old "dog's on the street" argument. Apparently that doesn't fly here....;)

Where to start...

It was revealed at the McCracken Tribunal that Ben Dunne paid almost IR£400,000 for an extension to Lowry’s house – that is one hell of an extension. The tribunal also concluded that Lowry was guilty of tax evasion, forcing him to resign from Fine Gael.

The Moriarty Tribunal found that Lowry, in his capacity as Minster for Communications in the mid 90’s, assisted Denis O’Brien’s Esat Digiphone in acquiring a mobile phone licence, describing his intervention as “disgraceful and insidious”. The tribunal tallied the known payments from O’Brien to Lowry at almost GBP£800,000 and also found that Lowry held four offshore accounts for the purpose of tax evasion – he had previously claimed at the McCracken tribunal that he didn’t have any.

KyussBishop · 30-03-2012 4:16pm

meglome wrote: »

I agree with all of this. However if we want to protest then these are things we should be protesting about. Not about a 100 euro charge that no matter what we are going to need. We don't have a sustainable tax base right now so we need to sort the things above and make our tax base more sustainable. It could take years to sort out the inefficiencies and in the meantime we'd have to borrow even more money.

There was massive waste during the bubble years and very few people protested. We were very happy to take the tax cuts we received without a complaint, no matter how inefficient the government was. Even though things are much more efficient now it's a big problem for us as we are getting tax increases. Honestly people made their beds and now don't want to lie in them. So while I do want efficiencies I'm not remotely inclined to support the household charge protests.

Regarding blaming the Irish people, posted this on another thread:

KyussBishop wrote:

Additionally, while there is a societal influence that allows much of this mismanagement and corruption in government, it is completely disingenuous to say or imply that this is the fault of the Irish people.

Without a functioning source of unrestrained information and decent investigative journalism, the population can't be kept informed, and can't really do a whole lot about government corruption they're unaware of.
Reports of backhanders, property rezoning fraud, nepotism etc. etc. are confined to anecdotal, unsubstantiated pub talk, and not being broadcast to the population at large like they should be.

That is not the fault of the populous, and blaming it on the Irish people without opposition, opens up a lot of other disingenuous arguments that e.g. Irish people deserve what they get, are at fault for their own suffering, and various other ridiculous arguments like that.

It's a very peculiar thing to be honest, that there is that kind of accepted nationalistic self-loathing in Ireland; I don't understand that at all, and it is highly in the governments interest to promote that (can't think of anyone else who can gain from it), so it kind of baffles me how it is accepted uncritically.

As for the Household Tax boycott, right now it is the most effective way for the Irish people to protest; protesting just involves a certain level of inaction rather than action (e.g. going to a protest march), which is the easiest way to protest, and it's pretty roundly putting pressure on government.

To me, it seems a pretty apt way of venting public anger and bringing greater public attention to various issues, particularly in light of the final Mahon report, and the endemic ongoing corruption and mismanagement.

Most people will pay up in the end, but in the meantime, it is a very effective method of protest and raising (much needed) dissatisfaction with government.

Godge · 30-03-2012 4:37pm

later12 wrote: »

Yes, but I'm talking about local government itself. Revenue raising measures make it easier for governments to shirk on expenditure cuts. I'd rather the cuts came first, especially when the need for efficiency in the area of local government is so staggeringly obvious.

I'm not sure if I would liken the merger of North and South Tipperary County Councils to the merger between Exxon and Mobil. The above statement is hardly an argument against amalgamating councils. There is no justifiable reason to maintain so many local government bodies.

It might be easier to understand if you used my full post rather than quoting selectively from it.

Godge wrote: »

One thing at a time. Budgets are being slashed, the evidence is clear, there are savings to the taxpayers..

You don't quote this first part of my post so I take it you are in full agreement with this statement.

Godge wrote: »

There is a process of amalgamation already under way in respect of the VECs. ..

In response you say "Yes, but I'm talking about local government itself". Believe it or not, I knew that you were talking about local government which is why I went on to say:

Godge wrote: »

You don't have to be Einstein to realise that as that starts to work, a similar process will begin with the councils. It is easier to start with the VECs because there is less of a political problem in dealing with them. ..

You see the very next sentence of my post mentioned "councils" but you chose to leave it out making the snide comment that you were talking about local government. It also allowed you (like many posters on here) to continue pontificating from on high about how they would use their crayons to reorganise the public service and ignore the realities that such change is rarely achived overnight and requires co-operation from those on the ground. "Smash the unions" sounds good from behind a computer keyboard or typing on a smartphone but the reality for public service management is how do you juggle maintaining and improving services, cutting costs, placating staff and at the same time undergoing major organisational change while at the same time you have politicians who will mouth that they are in favour of change yet resist it all the way. Change is coming, there is no doubt about that but amalgamating the VECs is a useful dry run exercise for doing the same with local councils.

Godge wrote: »

Finally, amalgamations usually cost money in the short-term (one to two years), just examine accounts of large publicly-quoted firms.

Find me a private sector publicly quoted company that has undergone amalgamation without incurring significant one-off exceptional charges relative to their size. Doesn't matter whether they are big or small, amalgamations cost money in the short run.

Finally, where in any of my posts have I sought to justify maintaining so many local government bodies. All I have done, which you have chosen to ignore because it doesn't suit the anti-public service rant (which is now allied to the won't pay the household charge rant), is to state that amalgamations will come, they won't happen overnight, the VEC amalgamations will provide a useful dry run and there will be short-term costs. Maybe it does take Einstein to understand my posts.

Godge · 30-03-2012 4:38pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

the endemic ongoing corruption.

I will return to the rest of your post later but where is the evidence for endemic ongoing corruption?

djpbarry · 30-03-2012 4:50pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Regarding blaming the Irish people, posted this on another thread:

KyussBishop wrote:

Without a functioning source of unrestrained information and decent investigative journalism, the population can't be kept informed, and can't really do a whole lot about government corruption they're unaware of.
Reports of backhanders, property rezoning fraud, nepotism etc. etc. are confined to anecdotal, unsubstantiated pub talk, and not being broadcast to the population at large like they should be.

That is, with all due respect, utter bull****. Are honestly you trying to say that the electorate in North Tipp are unaware of Lowry’s dodgy past?

KyussBishop wrote: »

To me, it seems a pretty apt way of venting public anger and bringing greater public attention to various issues, particularly in light of the final Mahon report, and the endemic ongoing corruption and mismanagement.

What has the final report from the Mahon tribunal told us that we didn’t already know? For example, in late 2006, Bertie admitted to receiving various unsolicited payments – it was widely publicised. You cannot tell me the electorate was unaware of this when he was re-elected in 2007 and again in 2011.

Tribunal after tribunal after tribunal has shown up the culture of corruption in Irish politics (and nobody is going to convince me that these tribunals are not well-covered by the media), but the electorate keep returning the same guys to the Dáil time and time again.

dsmythy · 30-03-2012 4:50pm

Those earning over 200k per year should stop paying tax, including from any businesses they run, in solidarity. Actually hopefully not..... Of course anyone earning over 200k but deciding they don't want to pay a particular tax would be subject of the mob's ire rather than the mob's sympathy.

heyjude · 30-03-2012 4:53pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes, yes, yes, we know, everything was the fault of the bankers and politicians and they should be made pay for everything.

Someone, please, change the record.
All of which is completely irrelevant. Ireland is spending more than it is receiving in income. End of story.

I wish somebody would change the record, but it seems the latest DJ is playing the same old tune. The last government didn't chase after the architects of our collapse and the current government aren't going to either, but they will chase after the ordinary man and woman.

As for the statement that the fact that 'almost every other country has a form of property tax' is completely irrelevant, I would say that it is being made relevant by being used at every possible opportunity by those defending the Household Charge, to justify its introduction. If it is truly irrelevant what other countries are doing, then why do they bring it up to support their argument, I could just as easily bring up the fact that these other countries don't have Vehicle Registration Tax, to claim that we shouldn't have it either. Only the pro Household Charge advocates have sought to introduce what happens in other countries into the discussion.

Mr.Micro · 30-03-2012 4:53pm

Godge wrote: »

I will return to the rest of your post later but where is the evidence for endemic ongoing corruption?

Well we are not going to get any if Phil Hogan just stops any real investigation into County Councils. Afraid of what he may find?

Godge · 30-03-2012 5:00pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Well we are not going to get any if Phil Hogan just stops any real investigation into County Councils. Afraid of what he may find?

The use of the word endemic suggests that it is prevalent across all of society in Ireland. Suggestions that 5 out of 33 county councils may have some planning applications that were dealt with incorrectly or corruptly is not equivalent to saying that corruption is endemic.

meglome · 30-03-2012 5:03pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Additionally, while there is a societal influence that allows much of this mismanagement and corruption in government, it is completely disingenuous to say or imply that this is the fault of the Irish people.

Without a functioning source of unrestrained information and decent investigative journalism, the population can't be kept informed, and can't really do a whole lot about government corruption they're unaware of.
Reports of backhanders, property rezoning fraud, nepotism etc. etc. are confined to anecdotal, unsubstantiated pub talk, and not being broadcast to the population at large like they should be.

That is not the fault of the populous, and blaming it on the Irish people without opposition, opens up a lot of other disingenuous arguments that e.g. Irish people deserve what they get, are at fault for their own suffering, and various other ridiculous arguments like that.

Sorry but I'm not buying your argument at all. The really amazing thing is Fianna Fail did pretty much tell people exactly what they were going to do. For the most part they did those things. The problem is the majority of the Irish people didn't ask any questions nor did they stop to consider the consequences. Worse still people had a very good idea FF were corrupt and often inept but they still voted for them. So yes we do deserve what we got.

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's a very peculiar thing to be honest, that there is that kind of accepted nationalistic self-loathing in Ireland; I don't understand that at all, and it is highly in the governments interest to promote that (can't think of anyone else who can gain from it), so it kind of baffles me how it is accepted uncritically.

We do have a self-loathing in this country, a leftover from empire I'd safely say. But the bigger issue here is another thing that's probably also left over from empire, a love of people who get one over on 'the man'. Unfortunately for us we're now doing it to ourselves and not to the British.

KyussBishop wrote: »

As for the Household Tax boycott, right now it is the most effective way for the Irish people to protest; protesting just involves a certain level of inaction rather than action (e.g. going to a protest march), which is the easiest way to protest, and it's pretty roundly putting pressure on government.

Sorry but it's really not. We have an unsustainable tax base from the populist policies of mostly FF. So we can try to punish the government all we want for whatever ill we think they are responsible for, but it won't change the reality. I've called people out on the reasons they won't pay the household charge and they just switched to a different crappy reason. It's not very convincing.

KyussBishop wrote: »

To me, it seems a pretty apt way of venting public anger and bringing greater public attention to various issues, particularly in light of the final Mahon report, and the endemic ongoing corruption and mismanagement.

As I keep saying corruption and inefficiency was far worse but hardly anyone protested. Nor did they protest about the large amounts of stamp duty they were paying. But now they realise the consequences of just what they were really voting for all those years they want to protest. Too little and too late.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Most people will pay up in the end, but in the meantime, it is a very effective method of protest and raising (much needed) dissatisfaction with government.

I've spent quite a considerable amount of time listening to anti-household charge protesters. And if the campaign was about making the government more efficient in a meaningful and sensible way I'd support it. But most the the reasons involve shouting about banks and other myths that people think are happening. They usually do not address at all how we save 14 billion this year alone. They usually will not listen even when it's shown to them that in fact most of the money we're borrowing is not for the banks. So to me this protest is the same populist rubbish which got FF elected repeatedly and I truly hate that.

later12 · 30-03-2012 5:10pm

Godge wrote: »

It might be easier to understand if you used my full post rather than quoting selectively from it.

When someone doesn't quote you I think you can assume they are in agreement with what you are saying or acknowledge that there is simply a difference of opinion, or feel that there would be no relevance to the point at hand.

You don't quote this first part of my post so I take it you are in full agreement with this statement.

Yes, I don't deny savings being made with respect to the VECs. Great. But I was talking about something a lot broader: namely county, city, town and borough councils.

You see the very next sentence of my post mentioned "councils" but you chose to leave it out making the snide comment that you were talking about local government. It also allowed you (like many posters on here) to continue pontificating from on high about how they would use their crayons to reorganise the public service and ignore the realities that such change is rarely achived overnight and requires co-operation from those on the ground. "Smash the unions" sounds good from behind a computer keyboard or typing on a smartphone but the reality for public service management is how do you juggle maintaining and improving services, cutting costs, placating staff and at the same time undergoing major organisational change while at the same time you have politicians who will mouth that they are in favour of change yet resist it all the way.

Sorry, but this is a rant. I have no idea where it's come from. I'm not anti public sector, you'd have to trawl through an awful lot of my posts to find the last time I complained about someone in the public sector. I have no interest in criticisng or defending public sector workers whatsoever.

I'm not interested in this public vs private sector divide quite frankly. If you want to get into a trench about it, do it with someone else. I'm talking about cuts to public expenditure on a broad basis in this thread, including welfare, because it's an economically wiser route to take to consolidation. The local government issue just has more resonance because the subject of the thread is essentially a local government charge.

Find me a private sector publicly quoted company that has undergone amalgamation without incurring significant one-off exceptional charges

I'm not saying they do or don't. I'm saying that short term costs might well arise. That's not a serious justification for maintaining such a high number of public bodies relative to the country's size.

Maybe it does take Einstein to understand my posts.

Bizarre.

djpbarry · 30-03-2012 5:14pm

heyjude wrote: »

The last government didn't chase after the architects of our collapse...

The last government were the architects of Ireland’s collapse.

Mr.Micro · 30-03-2012 5:21pm

Godge wrote: »

The use of the word endemic suggests that it is prevalent across all of society in Ireland. Suggestions that 5 out of 33 county councils may have some planning applications that were dealt with incorrectly or corruptly is not equivalent to saying that corruption is endemic.

Agreed, but perhaps it was time the Government had a look at all County Councils in view of the findings of the Mahon Tribunal. There was a property boom in the whole country so its presumptuous of me, but highly probable that such corruption existed in many other Co Councils.

KyussBishop · 30-03-2012 5:38pm

Godge wrote: »

I will return to the rest of your post later but where is the evidence for endemic ongoing corruption?

Mahon report for one.

djpbarry wrote:

That is, with all due respect, utter bull****. Are honestly you trying to say that the electorate in North Tipp are unaware of Lowry’s dodgy past?

I don't know what the electorate in North Tipperary knows, I do know that there is not enough journalistic reporting on corruption and that this has a direct affect on keeping the public apathetic.

I definitely don't know anything about the corruption going on in N. Tipp, and would want decent journalism in the country which can investigate that and inform me.

When this kind of stuff is uncovered, the whole country needs to know about it, it can't be left confined to a local community e.g. in N. Tipp, otherwise there's very little chance of anything happening.

What has the final report from the Mahon tribunal told us that we didn’t already know?

These kind of arguments don't make sense to me "sure we already knew, it hasn't changed anything"; without reports like these giving substance to information that would otherwise be unreported and more anecdotal than evidence based and objective, nothing can change because "everyone might know" person x or y is corrupt, but that doesn't mean shít (and has much less of a public impact) if you can't pin them down with evidence.

For example, in late 2006, Bertie admitted to receiving various unsolicited payments – it was widely publicised. You cannot tell me the electorate was unaware of this when he was re-elected in 2007 and again in 2011.

Tribunal after tribunal after tribunal has shown up the culture of corruption in Irish politics (and nobody is going to convince me that these tribunals are not well-covered by the media), but the electorate keep returning the same guys to the Dáil time and time again.

It's a travesty really that it has taken these tribunals to uncover the corruption; where the fúck has investigative journalism been in all this time?

The tribunals definitely publicize the issue better, but look how completely neutered they are to actually forcing any change? Look also, how subservient the news media is and how it dances around many issues, allowing politicians to set the agenda in the public spotlight.

I have to head out, so will reply to meglome and others later.

djpbarry · 30-03-2012 6:17pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

I definitely don't know anything about the corruption going on in N. Tipp...

Allegations about Lowry’s tax evasion were made while he was Minister for Communications – I’m not talking about something confined to his constituency. He was forced to resign from the cabinet and later from Fine Gael. It was all over the news.

KyussBishop wrote: »

These kind of arguments don't make sense to me "sure we already knew, it hasn't changed anything"; without reports like these giving substance to information that would otherwise be unreported and more anecdotal than evidence based and objective, nothing can change because "everyone might know" person x or y is corrupt, but that doesn't mean shít (and has much less of a public impact) if you can't pin them down with evidence.

But I am talking about evidence? For example, the evidence that Bertie gave at the Mahon Tribunal - it was obvious prior to the publishing of the tribunal’s report that he was not being entirely truthful, but people were still happy to elect him to the Dáil.

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's a travesty really that it has taken these tribunals to uncover the corruption; where the fúck has investigative journalism been in all this time?

Let’s back up here a second – you are trying to claim that the media in Ireland do not publicise political corruption. Are you honestly trying to tell me that, for example, Bertie giving testimony at the Mahon Tribunal was not front page news?

Hotblack Desiato · 30-03-2012 10:55pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's just as ridiculous as the people who won't pay their TV licence until there's wall-to-wall Irish on TV, or the French guy who doesn't want to pay his electricity bill until they get rid of nuclear.

Why stop at the household charge? Why not withhold your income tax as well, if you feel that strongly about it? Set up some offshore accounts, maybe?

And now the government, which has the political arm of the trade unions as its junior coalition partner, prefers the easy option of taxing households to pay for its mistakes rather than doing the morally right and fiscally responsible thing: Tear up the Croke Park Agreement, reduce the cost of providing services, and then present the public with a rational, costed program.

It's a bit silly to tie them to each other when the public sector pay bill is about 150 times greater than the amount the household charge, fully collected, is due to raise. Your position is entirely self-serving, you're evading it because you can, simply.

We also need to choose sensibly which services to continue funding. Public libraries, for instance, are largely a product of a bygone era when information was almost exclusively stored in printed paper form. While they have residual emotional appeal for many, they are largely redundant in the age of the internet. So, why keep them?

That is remarkably ignorant. Have you been inside a library since you were a kid?
We take our 4-year-old and our 1-year-old there every couple of weeks. He gets to play on a big mat with toys while his big sister gets to look at a huge range of books (you know, real books that she can hold in her hand, borrow and enjoy for 2 weeks) I wouldn't let her loose on an iPad if I could afford one. She loves real books and we buy her books, but with the library she can enjoy many more books than we could buy for her.

Meanwhile, downstairs, there's the adult library, which provides a good study area for secondary school kids, they encourage ethnic minority kids to avail of the facilities there and lots do, and there's free internet access for those who otherwise might not have it.

Libraries are great.

KyussBishop · 31-03-2012 1:01am

meglome wrote:

Sorry but I'm not buying your argument at all. The really amazing thing is Fianna Fail did pretty much tell people exactly what they were going to do. For the most part they did those things. The problem is the majority of the Irish people didn't ask any questions nor did they stop to consider the consequences. Worse still people had a very good idea FF were corrupt and often inept but they still voted for them. So yes we do deserve what we got.

Sorry but that's ridiculous, in 2007 41% of people voted for Fianna Fail, so clearly the majority of people did not vote for them, thus people don't "deserve what they get" and don't "get what they voted for" because the majority of people did not vote for them.

Are the remaining 59% "getting what they voted for", or do they "deserve it"? No, clearly not because they didn't vote for FF (and I know I didn't), and thus the generalized "we deserve it" crap is false.

meglome wrote:

The problem is the majority of the Irish people didn't ask any questions nor did they stop to consider the consequences.

How are the "Irish people" meant to ask questions and enquire? We need a decent watchdog media and investigative journalism to do that, that's their responsibility because you can't depend on the population to spontaneously do that.

meglome wrote:

Sorry but it's really not. We have an unsustainable tax base from the populist policies of mostly FF. So we can try to punish the government all we want for whatever ill we think they are responsible for, but it won't change the reality. I've called people out on the reasons they won't pay the household charge and they just switched to a different crappy reason. It's not very convincing.

The grand majority, nearing all people, will pay the property tax eventually; the protest will just withhold that tax for a longer period (potentially with fines, meaning paying more than the tax).

Using withholding of the household tax in this way, to protest government corruption and to protest unfair austerity policies, is quite an effective way to make a public statement and signal opposition, which will probably still result in the grand majority of the taxes being collected eventually (which does not diminish the effect of the protest, as it will have successfully promoted publicity on various issues).

Even if for many it is not to protest any specific issues, just to express general dissatisfaction with government and provide publicity to a host of concerns, that is still a valid protest in my opinion. In the end, the grand majority of these people will (imo) still pay up after expressing their dissatisfaction.

KyussBishop · 31-03-2012 1:12am

djpbarry wrote:

Allegations about Lowry’s tax evasion were made while he was Minister for Communications – I’m not talking about something confined to his constituency. He was forced to resign from the cabinet and later from Fine Gael. It was all over the news.

Okey, fair enough; I don't know enough about that, but it is ridiculous that he got voted in again after that became widely known to his constituents.

djpbarry wrote:

But I am talking about evidence? For example, the evidence that Bertie gave at the Mahon Tribunal - it was obvious prior to the publishing of the tribunal’s report that he was not being entirely truthful, but people were still happy to elect him to the Dáil.

While, as explained in my post above this one, I don't think it's fair to portray all Irish people as deserving of what came (due to vote percentages for one), I am curious about how Fianna Fail got such a high turnout in light of all this, and don't know enough about that.

I'd be curious to find the more detailed reasons behind that, but even if some FF voters turned a blind eye to the corruption, I don't think it's far to posit that they all did (I'm not sure there's a way to determine either), and certainly the majority of the country that voted didn't.

djpbarry wrote:

Let’s back up here a second – you are trying to claim that the media in Ireland do not publicise political corruption. Are you honestly trying to tell me that, for example, Bertie giving testimony at the Mahon Tribunal was not front page news?

Yes they publicize it when it is uncovered, but there is little investigative reporting to uncover corruption in the first place, and critical analysis of the ongoing problem of corruption has not been persistent over the years, which would be necessary to try and spur reform.

djpbarry · 31-03-2012 2:56pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Sorry but that's ridiculous, in 2007 41% of people voted for Fianna Fail...

Actually, 41% of people gave FF their first preference, but anyway, that’s democracy.

KyussBishop wrote: »

How are the "Irish people" meant to ask questions and enquire? We need a decent watchdog media and investigative journalism to do that, that's their responsibility because you can't depend on the population to spontaneously do that.

Just to be clear: you’re portraying the entire population of Ireland as a bunch of idiots who are incapable of inquiry and must be spoon-fed information about their politicians? Essentially, you’re saying it’s the media’s job to tell the public when to protest? People can’t pop into their local TD’s office and quiz them because ... ?

KyussBishop wrote: »

Using withholding of the household tax in this way, to protest government corruption and to protest unfair austerity policies, is quite an effective way to make a public statement...

What statement? “No to spending cuts, no to more taxes”?

KyussBishop wrote: »

Even if for many it is not to protest any specific issues...

That much is abundantly clear from the various so-called “occupy” movements.

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'd be curious to find the more detailed reasons behind that, but even if some FF voters turned a blind eye to the corruption, I don't think it's far to posit that they all did (I'm not sure there's a way to determine either), and certainly the majority of the country that voted didn't.

If Bertie was to stand as an independent candidate in the next election, I’d put my house (if I had one) on him winning a seat. Hell I think he'd still have a decent chance of being elected president.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes they publicize it when it is uncovered, but there is little investigative reporting to uncover corruption in the first place...

Well, that’s your opinion and it really depends on what you mean by “investigative journalism” (which often entails invasion of privacy). I’d hate to see Irish journalism going to the same extremes as British journalism in order to secure a scoop.

At the end of the day, you’re arguing that the likes of Lowry and Ahern get re-elected because people are unaware of their shenanigans – all the available evidence suggests that, unless the majority of the electorate are living in caves with their eyes shut and their fingers in their ears, voters are either turning a blind eye or being wilfully ignorant. People get the government they deserve.

KyussBishop · 31-03-2012 4:14pm

djpbarry wrote:

Actually, 41% of people gave FF their first preference, but anyway, that’s democracy.

Fair point, but if you think all Irish got what they deserve, you need to provide better statistics to back it up.

djpbarry wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

How are the "Irish people" meant to ask questions and enquire? We need a decent watchdog media and investigative journalism to do that, that's their responsibility because you can't depend on the population to spontaneously do that.

Just to be clear: you’re portraying the entire population of Ireland as a bunch of idiots who are incapable of inquiry and must be spoon-fed information about their politicians? Essentially, you’re saying it’s the media’s job to tell the public when to protest? People can’t pop into their local TD’s office and quiz them because ... ?

Eh, people quizzing their TD's is going to do feck-all really, because the TD's won't have a clue themselves. Do you seriously think people quizzing their TD's is an effective alternative to a decent watchdog media and investigative journalism?

How are the 'Irish people' meant to enquire and investigate, and find actual evidence or put together a general picture of alleged corruption, and then raise more public awareness of that? That's what the news media is for, and that's what they fail to do. Sure, they publicize it when something is uncovered, but sweet fúck all is done to properly investigate (with a handful of noble exceptions).

djpbarry wrote:

What statement? “No to spending cuts, no to more taxes”?

People have made a lot of specific arguments (probably loads in this thread, I haven't read most of it), and put all together it makes a general public statement of dissatisfaction with government, for a very wide variety of reasons.

You can take issue with some specific reasons people have, and discredit those particular reasons, which is fair enough; you can't take that and apply it to all people who are doing this as a protest though, because you don't know everyones reasons.

djpbarry wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

Even if for many it is not to protest any specific issues..

That much is abundantly clear from the various so-called “occupy” movements.

lol, yea all those 1 million people who were out on Dame street last year, and are now not paying their household tax, maybe they're angry about being evicted from their massive encampment?

djpbarry wrote:

Well, that’s your opinion and it really depends on what you mean by “investigative journalism” (which often entails invasion of privacy). I’d hate to see Irish journalism going to the same extremes as British journalism in order to secure a scoop.

Give me some good examples of the outstanding Irish investigative journalism that I'm missing out on. (on an off topic note, I would be massively surprised if Irish journalists did not have an undiscovered history of phone hacking; don't support it though)

djpbarry wrote:

At the end of the day, you’re arguing that the likes of Lowry and Ahern get re-elected because people are unaware of their shenanigans – all the available evidence suggests that, unless the majority of the electorate are living in caves with their eyes shut and their fingers in their ears, voters are either turning a blind eye or being wilfully ignorant.

I'm arguing that not enough people were aware of the extent of corruption, and that saying "well we deserved it" is stupid, because we should be directing our anger at not just government but also the utter failure of the journalistic outlets in this country, and not simply ourselves.

I mean really, look at the multiple levels of failure in the system here; could the government or news media be any more lucky, that the populous is thick enough to vent their anger and blame on themselves, rather than them?

djpbarry · 31-03-2012 4:36pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Eh, people quizzing their TD's is going to do feck-all really, because the TD's won't have a clue themselves. Do you seriously think people quizzing their TD's is an effective alternative to a decent watchdog media and investigative journalism?

Dude, it is not the job of the media to act as the government watchdog. That’s the job of the electorate.

Furthermore, I don’t think you’ve really thought through the consequences of what you’re suggesting to: that Irish people should be heavily reliant on Irish media to tell them what’s going on in government circles. What happens if (or when) said media is partisan?

KyussBishop wrote: »

People have made a lot of specific arguments...

They really haven’t, or at least, not a lot of specific arguments that made any sense.

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm arguing that not enough people were aware of the extent of corruption...

And I’m arguing that’s bull****, citing the re-election of Lowry and Ahern as evidence.

KyussBishop wrote: »

...we should be directing our anger at not just government but also the utter failure of the journalistic outlets in this country...

The media is not some regulatory body with a specific duty to watch over the government. With the exception of RTE, media outlets are independent enterprises free to report on whatever the hell they want. If you don’t like the standard of their reporting, then don’t buy their product. Or, go and set up your own media outlet.

KyussBishop · 31-03-2012 4:54pm

djpbarry wrote:

Dude, it is not the job of the media to act as the government watchdog. That’s the job of the electorate.

djpbarry wrote:

The media is not some regulatory body with a specific duty to watch over the government.

Hmm, no one of the primary (and most important) roles of a free press, is to be a government watchdog and hold them to account.

The electorate should do that too of course, but journalism takes an essential role in doing it.

djpbarry wrote:

Furthermore, I don’t think you’ve really thought through the consequences of what you’re suggesting to: that Irish people should be heavily reliant on Irish media to tell them what’s going on in government circles. What happens if (or when) said media is partisan?

That's the way it is right now, which is the problem.

djpbarry wrote:

With the exception of RTE, media outlets are independent enterprises free to report on whatever the hell they want. If you don’t like the standard of their reporting, then don’t buy their product. Or, go and set up your own media outlet.

I don't buy the product of any media comany here at all, and generally don't like most Irish newspapers because of how much dross they come out with. There are exceptions mind, but it's been a while since I checked on what's out there.

I would very much consider working with and writing for a media outlet in this country that I thought was good, and actually had balls enough to do some decent investigative journalism and critical analysis.

Einhard · 31-03-2012 5:22pm

xflyer wrote: »

Completely agree Permabear, but the government will not take on the public service unions. They're terrified of them. But they're quite happy to hack away at everyone else's incomes particularly the most disadvantaged.

But that day will arrive, no doubt when the troika turn their eyes onto the massive wages bill and also note that other countries have slashed their bloated public service bills.

I'll qualify as a teacher soon. The pay that I will receive in Ireland, in the unlikely event that I get a full time post in September, will be approx 25% less than what I would have received two years ago. I'll be on starting pay of about €27000 which, considering I spent 5 years in college to gain qualifications for the job, isn't exactly "bloated".

I'm happy for their to be a debate on the public service, and the reform that needs to happen therein. But, is it too much to ask for a bit of balance, and for people to deal in facts instead of wild and exaggerated generalisations?

The Waltzing Consumer · 31-03-2012 5:35pm

Does it seem strange that a SF TD who is one of the lading protesters is exempt from the household charge?

http://www.herald.ie/news/sf-td-leading-protests-against-the-household-charge-is-exempt-from-the-tax-3066668.html

How is a TD who earns 92k a year, and claims € 31,865.51 in 2011 for expenses
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlxJrxiwB44XdGJZcG0tUVI2aWVGZzdkUThWZG1FTHc#gid=0
credible to be leading this protest? We often hear talk that the rich should pay?

Is a person who is taking in over 120k a year not considered rich?

djpbarry · 31-03-2012 5:47pm

Einhard wrote: »

I'll be on starting pay of about €27000 which, considering I spent 5 years in college to gain qualifications for the job, isn't exactly "bloated".

€27k is a pretty good salary for a fresh graduate.

psychward · 31-03-2012 5:51pm

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Does it seem strange that a SF TD who is one of the lading protesters is exempt from the household charge?

http://www.herald.ie/news/sf-td-leading-protests-against-the-household-charge-is-exempt-from-the-tax-3066668.html

How is a TD who earns 92k a year, and claims € 31,865.51 in 2011 for expenses
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlxJrxiwB44XdGJZcG0tUVI2aWVGZzdkUThWZG1FTHc#gid=0
credible to be leading this protest? We often hear talk that the rich should pay?

Is a person who is taking in over 120k a year not considered rich?

Point 1 ) It's a lot more decent and selfless of someone who is renting to oppose a charge on ownership since they don't have to pay it if they keep their mouth shut but will have to continue to pay for everything from general taxation if and when it is abolished. Instead of the usual Irish unfortunately lazy ''not in my backyard'' whingefest this is to be applauded.

Point 2) Sinn Fein TDs only take the average wage. The rest of it they give away. How the feck can this be used as an argument against the likes of FG and Labour who are true pigs with their snouts in the trough ? Seriously how could what any member of a small party earns make them any worse than the pigs in the government partys earn ??

Point 3) I have feck all political affiliation to anyone but I am sick to my stomach of biased hypocrites in the media and mindless sheeple elsewhere calling out the names of SF and other smaller partys as though that is enough to persuade for an unrelated topic. Just saying one person is opposed to something does not form an argument that we the reader should be for it or against it regardless of it's merits. It's a ludicrous argument.

The Waltzing Consumer · 31-03-2012 6:03pm

psychward wrote: »

Point 1 ) It's a lot more decent and selfless of someone who is renting to oppose a charge on ownership since they don't have to pay it if they keep their mouth shut but will have to continue to pay for everything from general taxation if and when it is abolished. Instead of the usual Irish unfortunately lazy ''not in my backyard'' whingefest this is to be applauded.

Point 2) Sinn Fein TDs only take the average wage. The rest of it they give away. How the feck can this be used as an argument against the likes of FG and Labour who are true pigs with their snouts in the trough ? Seriously how could what any member of a small party earns make them any worse than the pigs in the government partys earn ??

Point 3) I have feck all political affiliation to anyone but I am sick to my stomach of biased hypocrites in the media and mindless sheeple elsewhere calling out the names of SF and other smaller partys as though that is enough to persuade for an unrelated topic. Just saying one person is opposed to something does not form an argument that we the reader should be for it or against it regardless of it's merits. It's a ludicrous argument.

Point 1)

How is it more decent and selfless to protest something that does not effect you? There has always been a large element of people who are exempt from taxes/charges protesting these issues, not for the moral point, but simply for publicity, good example, the bin charge.

Point 2) They don't give it away, they give it to SF. If this was "honourable", they would return it to the exchequer. Can you explain how if the average wage this TD takes is 36k, how can he claim 31k in explenses for 2011? Is he saying that he spent 31k of his 36k salary on expenses? How does that add up? Only 5k of his salary was spent on everything else? The Evening Herald article says he spends 1k a month on rent, so that is 12k. So these figures do not add up.

Also look at the expense spreadsheet again before you start yapping about troughs.

The smaller parties are well able to stick their noses in it and that is backed up by the figures.

Point 3) People do not argue like that but I am sick to death of smaller political parties who try to champion themselves as defenders of "the poor" who are simply liars and have the snout stuck in the trough just as much, if not much, then the larger parties. Again, look at the expenses spreadsheet for 2011.

31-03-2012 6:03pm

psychward wrote: »

Point 1 ) It's a lot more decent and selfless of someone who is renting to oppose a charge on ownership since they don't have to pay it if they keep their mouth shut but will have to continue to pay for everything from general taxation if and when it is abolished. Instead of the usual Irish unfortunately lazy ''not in my backyard'' whingefest this is to be applauded.

Point 2) Sinn Fein TDs only take the average wage. The rest of it they give away. How the feck can this be used as an argument against the likes of FG and Labour who are true pigs with their snouts in the trough ? Seriously how could what any member of a small party earns make them any worse than the pigs in the government partys earn ??

Point 3) I have feck all political affiliation to anyone but I am sick to my stomach of biased hypocrites in the media and mindless sheeple elsewhere calling out the names of SF and other smaller partys as though that is enough to persuade for an unrelated topic. Just saying one person is opposed to something does not form an argument that we the reader should be for it or against it regardless of it's merits. It's a ludicrous argument.

Sinn Fein TD's aren't giving their money to charity, it goes to the party. They have proven themselves just as corrupt (O' Snodaigh to the tune of 50k) and just as good at accepting party corruption (Mary Lou et al coming to the rescue) as the rest.

The reasons with which you hold them up as a party "of the people" are all hollow lies, to be frank.

Einhard · 31-03-2012 6:09pm

djpbarry wrote: »

€27k is a pretty good salary for a fresh graduate.

Oh I'm not complaining about it at all. Merely pointing out that it's not the massive amounts that some would claim.

Terrontress · 31-03-2012 6:11pm

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Sinn Fein TD's aren't giving their money to charity, it goes to the party. They have proven themselves just as corrupt (O' Snodaigh to the tune of 50k) and just as good at accepting party corruption (Mary Lou et al coming to the rescue) as the rest.

The reasons with which you hold them up as a party "of the people" are all hollow lies, to be frank.

Too right! I give lots of my salary away. There's the big chunk I give to the wife, the kids have their share, the bit that goes in the collection plate at mass and those charity direct debits.

Just because you don't spend your salary on yourself doesn't mean you don't cost your employer it.

The Waltzing Consumer · 31-03-2012 6:15pm

Einhard wrote: »

Oh I'm not complaining about it at all. Merely pointing out that it's not the massive amounts that some would claim.

True, but I think you new civil servants are getting the new rules and salaries and should really have your own unions to defend you instead of being lumped in with the existing unions who take care of the pampered public service.

The new changes are mostly just going to effect new hires and the next generation, whilst the workers who raked it in and look forward to their huge pensions and perks, do not get touched in a fair and balanced way.

zom · 31-03-2012 6:22pm

djpbarry wrote: »

€27k is a pretty good salary for a fresh graduate.

The point is that for some people expect that everyone get €27k straight after graduation and that everyone can easily pay €100 (or even €1000) household charge. There is still people like that (especially in government), absolutely disconnected from reality...

New Household Tax - Boycott

Comments