Who are the 22 Irish judges who refuse to pay the pension levy?

Dionysus

This story is a huge two fingers to every garda, fireman, nurse, teacher, doctor, porter, county council worker etc, and of course the Irish taxpayer.

Janitors, cleaners, clerical officers, postmen, bus drivers - everybody who works for this state - has to pay this levy except judges, who collectively claimed it would be unconstitutional to reduce their pay. Instead, as you might remember, their representative said that, uniquely among all Irish public servants, they would make a voluntary contribution. This government didn't challenge them (the vast majority of judges are Fianna Fáil government appointees). 125 of the 147 judges have paid it. How very nice of judges on €500,000 per year to voluntary offer to pay what a clerical officer on €22,000 is forced to pay.

However, 22 judges in this state have refused to pay the levy. The Irish Times does not name them, but I think we all should be told the names of these 22 judges, because none of these mean, dishonest, mé féiners who are devoid of any semblance of civic responsibility are in a moral position to judge any of us. And these, the supposedly eminent dispensers of justice in this republic.

Do you think we have a right to know the names of these 22 judges?

---

(for mobiles)
'TWENTY-TWO of the State’s 147 judges failed to pay a voluntary pension levy last year as an equivalent to the public service pension levy, according to new Revenue figures.

A total of 125 judges paid the voluntary pension levy last year, yielding €1,246,787 in taxes.

The figures were contained in the Revenue Commissioners’ preliminary figures for 2010, released yesterday.

The voluntary pension levy for judges was introduced in May 2009 when the Government said it could not impose the pension levy applied to all other public servants because of the constitutional prohibition on reducing the remuneration of judges. Instead judges could pay a voluntary sum equivalent to the pension levy.

Defending the low take-up among judges initially in paying the voluntary levy, Chief Justice John Murray said in June 2009 that he expected there would be “strong and continuous participation” by the judiciary in the scheme.

The previous April, an agreement for a voluntary payment was drawn up after talks between the Chief Justice and Revenue chairwoman Josephine Feehily.'

Story: 22 judges failed to pay voluntary pension levy

22 judges decline to sign up for voluntary pension levy

22 judges fail to make contributions in lieu of levy

Gunsfortoys

Louis Walsh is one....I think....

Ciaran500

Not really a voluntary levy if we string them up in the media for not paying it...

Dionysus

No; we don't have a right to know their names

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Not really a voluntary levy if we string them up in the media for not paying it...

Why should they be paying a voluntary levy in the first place? Everybody knows judges are not being singled out with the levy, and the constitutional safeguard was put there to prevent that. This entire 'voluntary' malarkey is plainly the judiciary hiding behind a constitutional safeguard which they've totally distorted out of its original meaning and intention to serve their own financial interests.

If it were any other aspect of the constitution in question, a judicial review would undoubtedly be forthcoming without delay. And they would lose and be forced to pay up like the rest of the public service. Fortunately for them, judges are responsible for giving judicial reviews of the Irish constitution.

Guill

They didn't volunteer for it, end of story.

Dyr

We should be stringing them up in the street, and never mind the bleedin media

NeedaNewName

If I was given the option I wouldn't pay it either. Social levy my arse. Bailout Levy more like!

:mad:

Son Of A Vidic

No; we don't have a right to know their names

Sack the selfish bast@rds.

Jesus Wept

It's more retarded that it can't be deducted at source.

phantom_lord

Dionysus wrote: »

(for mobiles)
'TWENTY-TWO of the State’s 147 judges failed to pay a voluntary pension levy last year as an equivalent to the public service pension levy, according to new Revenue figures.

A total of 125 judges paid the voluntary pension levy last year, yielding €1,246,787 in taxes.

125/147 did voluntarily give it up under very little obligation though. That's pretty commendable imo.

almostnever

Dionysus wrote: »

are in a moral position to judge any of us.

Just to clear something up:
morally, nobody is in a position to judge any of us, but legally, it's the responsibility of certain people (judges) to do so.

If it's a voluntary payment then I don't really see why it's being made into such a big issue.

Mark200

Dionysus wrote: »

This government didn't challenge them (the vast majority of judges are Fianna Fáil government appointees). 125 of the 147 judges have paid it. How very nice of judges on €500,000 per year to voluntary offer to pay what a clerical officer on €22,000 is forced to pay.

The constitution is very clear on this issue:

5. The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.

Dionysus

No; we don't have a right to know their names

phantom_lord wrote: »

125/147 did voluntarily give it up under very little obligation though. That's pretty commendable imo.

It is, if we believe it's correct that they have an opt-out in the first place. I don't, and I think the way the judiciary have distorted the constitution's meaning in order to support their financial interests is an incredible two fingers to everybody else who has been forced to pay it. It's an Irish judiciary version of "only the little people pay taxes".

Mark200

Dionysus wrote: »

It is, if we believe it's correct that they have an opt-out in the first place. I don't, and I think the way the judiciary have distorted the constitution's meaning in order to support their financial interests is an incredible two fingers to everybody else who has been forced to pay it. It's an Irish judiciary version of "only the little people pay taxes".

I quoted the constitution above your post. They didn't distort anything.

admiralofthefleet

sacrifice....arse

montane

No; we don't have a right to know their names

Mark200 wrote: »

The constitution is very clear on this issue:

No surprise to see judges hide behind the constitution. Seems their lordships and ladyships dont want their huge salaries touched (district court judges €147,000 per annum; circuit court judges €177,000; high court judges €243,000; supreme court judges €257,000 and the chief justice €295,000), along with huge expense allowances and free state drivers from circuit court judges up.

Supreme Court case of O’Byrne v Minister for Finance

Relating to Article 35.5 of the constitution Judge Kingsmill Moore stated: "The object was to secure the independence of the judges and the impartial administration of justice. The legislation was for the protection of the people, not for the interests of the judges. A judge who was subject to removal or to have his salary reduced would be under temptation to be subservient to the wishes of those in whose power it was to ensure his removal or reduce his salary. Any discrimination by tax or otherwise… would be equally objectionable. But I fail to see how a tax which is non-discriminatory against judges can assail the judicial independence… "

All public sector workers were subject to the pension levy and applying this to judges would not have been discriminatory. I rest my case m'lord :cool:

davetherave

*Looks at poll results* :eek:

What difference would knowing their names make to anyone, other than possibly making them a target for violence. As has been pointed out already it is in the Constitution that their wage/salary/renumeration/whatever you want to call it can not be reduced while they are serving.

Yes it is a kick in the balls to every other public servant who is forced to pay it but it is a voluntary levy and they[the judges] have chosen not to.

EDIT: Yes it would be nice to know, but I don't think we "have a right" to know, as the poll phrases it.

mikom

Dionysus wrote: »

Who are the 22 Irish judges who refuse to pay the pension levy?

That bollox of a dog from Wanderly Wagon is one of them. I'd bet.
"Look for a safe place" me hole.

phantom_lord

Dionysus wrote: »

It is, if we believe it's correct that they have an opt-out in the first place. I don't

The AG does though and I think his opinion carries a bit more weight in fairness.

almostnever

phantom_lord wrote: »

The AG does though and I think his opinion carries a bit more weight in fairness.

AG is the Attorney General, yeah?

Rodin

Why can't we just change the constitution?

FreudianSlippers

montane wrote: »

No surprise to see judges hide behind the constitution. Seems their lordships and ladyships dont want their huge salaries touched (district court judges €147,000 per annum; circuit court judges €177,000; high court judges €243,000; supreme court judges €257,000 and the chief justice €295,000), along with huge expense allowances and free state drivers from circuit court judges up.

Supreme Court case of O’Byrne v Minister for Finance

Relating to Article 35.5 of the constitution Judge Kingsmill Moore stated: "The object was to secure the independence of the judges and the impartial administration of justice. The legislation was for the protection of the people, not for the interests of the judges. A judge who was subject to removal or to have his salary reduced would be under temptation to be subservient to the wishes of those in whose power it was to ensure his removal or reduce his salary. Any discrimination by tax or otherwise… would be equally objectionable. But I fail to see how a tax which is non-discriminatory against judges can assail the judicial independence… "

All public sector workers were subject to the pension levy and applying this to judges would not have been discriminatory. I rest my case m'lord :cool:

If you knew half of the travel and expenses incurred by Judges on Circuit you would change your mind.

They work very hard and long hours.

Rodin

OisinT wrote: »

If you knew half of the travel and expenses incurred by Judges on Circuit you would change your mind.

They work very hard and long hours.

So do lots of public sector workers.
It's not like they're neurosurgeons

montane

No; we don't have a right to know their names

OisinT wrote: »

If you knew half of the travel and expenses incurred by Judges on Circuit you would change your mind.

Expenses, travel (state supplied driver), and phone are paid for by the state. I have no doubt they work hard and long hours, as do many of their counterparts in the public service who were subject to the pension levy.

phantom_lord

almostnever wrote: »

AG is the Attorney General, yeah?

Yep.

Rodin wrote: »

Why can't we just change the constitution?

Yeah but it would cost a multiple of what it'd bring in, and would be a very myopic decision.

Rodin

phantom_lord wrote: »

Yep.

Yeah but it would cost a multiple of what it'd bring in, and would be a very myopic decision.

Let's just let them away with it so

phantom_lord

That article is in the constitution for a very good reason in the first place and in fairness the vast majority of them are paying the levy.

Rodin

phantom_lord wrote: »

That article is in the constitution for a very good reason in the first place and in fairness the vast majority of them are paying the levy.

That is such an Irish attitude
Shur at least we got some of them. Big clap on our backs.
Sure it'll be grand

almostnever

Rodin wrote: »

That is such an Irish attitude
Shur at least we got some of them. Big clap on our backs.
Sure it'll be grand

Another example of the Irish attitude is the "let's spend ten times more money on working out a way of making all of 'em pay it! Sure we'll just take more cash from the IMF if we're left short, at least we'll have shown them!" approach. Which is dangerous.

Trog

We don't have a right to know their names any more than we have a right to know the names of people who don't opt to give money to charity. The 22 judges, selfish bastards as they are, are fully within the law not to pay, since their objection to the levy has not been challenged.

The real problem here is that the government didn't even challenge them. There is no legal pressure to make them pay, because the people responsible for excerting that legal pressure, the government, choose not to do so. They have grounds to object, however, as it's a blanket tax, as someone else pointed out, so judges may not be protected from it.

The people of Ireland need to stop trying to string up individuals when it clearly does no constructive good. This 'make an example of X, Y, or Z person' attitude completely undermines the fact that this country suffers from a political malaise which is ultimately grounded in the structure of our political system. I'll never understand when people shout 'string this person up', when they should be shouting 'reform the Dail' at the top of their voices, and straight into their local TD's face at close range. Reduce the number of TDs and real leadership will shine through. Force people to decide between the likes of Conor Lenihan and Pat Rabbitte, for example, and the big parties will lose the power that is granted to them by people giving their 2nd and 3rd votes to candidates who they've never even heard of based on their party.

Jesus Wept

Rodin wrote: »

That is such an Irish attitude
Shur at least we got some of them. Big clap on our backs.
Sure it'll be grand

85.034013605442176870748299319728% is more than some.
Yes, I worked out the percentage. :cool:

phantom_lord

Rodin wrote: »

That is such an Irish attitude
Shur at least we got some of them. Big clap on our backs.
Sure it'll be grand

I think the attitude of getting angry and bitter when the vast amount of them are paying it and wanting to make a frankly dangerous change to the constitutional just to "get them" is more Irish tbh.

montane

No; we don't have a right to know their names

Of course it was no surprise to see the government rolling over on this issue, given it is them who has largely stuffed the judiciary with their own supporters. Far too many twats of former FF solicitors/hacks inhabiting the District Court Bench. Of course their politics have nothing to do with it, and they secured those lucrative posts solely on merit

almostnever

The-Rigger wrote: »

85.034013605442176870748299319728% is more than some.
Yes, I worked out the percentage. :cool:

Sure that's an A2 in the Leaving Cert, seeing as I was lynched for complaining about that on results day I will proceed to lynch anyone who says it's too low now. :pac:

Dionysus

No; we don't have a right to know their names

almostnever wrote: »

Just to clear something up:
morally, nobody is in a position to judge any of us, but legally, it's the responsibility of certain people (judges) to do so.

If it's a voluntary payment then I don't really see why it's being made into such a big issue.

Legally, judges are supposed to look at the legalities of a case. That much of their work involves making moral judgements on character, while 22 of them are refusing to pull their weight with every other public servant in the state, does call into question the fitness of their character for such a moralising position on the bench.

On the second point, why should they be making a voluntary payment, when every other public servant is forced to make the payment?

Dionysus

No; we don't have a right to know their names

Mark200 wrote: »

The constitution is very clear on this issue:

But an article of the constitution is rarely judged in isolation and in this case it is universally agreed that that safeguard is there to protect judges from a vengeful government, which is obviously not the case with the pension levy. The constitution was equally clear with Article 40.3 which forbade abortion, but after judicial review judges decided that the constitution could be interpreted in a way that a woman's wish to have an abortion could be to a degree facilitated as she also had a constitutional right to freedom of travel and to receive information in Ireland about abortion services available in another jurisdiction. This is clearly against the meaning and spirit of the constitution's clear opposition to abortion. If it could be done there, it can be done in this case.

There's an interesting editorial in The Irish Times from last week going against these 22 judges, and stating that a referendum isn't necessary, here.

Rodin

phantom_lord wrote: »

I think the attitude of getting angry and bitter when the vast amount of them are paying it and wanting to make a frankly dangerous change to the constitutional just to "get them" is more Irish tbh.

Just to get them?
Its all in the name of fairness. I as a public servant have to pay it, when it would be much better for me to use it on college debts.
They, as public servants should be paying it too.

Or, in this country are we just ok with all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?

Trog

Dionysus wrote: »

But an article of the constitution is rarely judged in isolation and in this case it is universally agreed that that safeguard is there to protect judges from a vengeful government, which is obviously not the case with the pension levy. The constitution was equally clear with Article 40.3 which forbade abortion, but after judicial review judges decided that the constitution could be interpreted in a way that a woman's wish to have an abortion could be to a degree facilitated as she also had a constitutional right to freedom of travel and to receive information in Ireland about abortion services available in another jurisdiction. This is clearly against the meaning and spirit of the constitution's clear opposition to abortion. If it could be done there, it can be done in this case.

There's an interesting editorial in The Irish Times from last week going against these 22 judges, and stating that a referendum isn't necessary, here.

Abort the judges?

montane

No; we don't have a right to know their names

Rodin wrote: »

Just to get them?
Its all in the name of fairness. I as a public servant have to pay it, when it would be much better for me to use it on college debts.
They, as public servants should be paying it too.

Or, in this country are we just ok with all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?

No the judges would somehow be discriminated against if it applied to them also, and this would compromise their independence :rolleyes:

galwayrush

No; we don't have a right to know their names

So, these totally out of touch with reality people get to judge and sometimes pass sentence on people who appear in court because of financial difficulty...... Incredible.:mad:

Dionysus

No; we don't have a right to know their names

phantom_lord wrote: »

Yep.



Yeah but it would cost a multiple of what it'd bring in, and would be a very myopic decision.

Amending Article 35.5 on judicial pay can be done on the same day as the general election (as Alan Shatter proposed here), and it's not as if constitutional referenda have traditionally been viewed as potential jackpots before. If necessary, the constitution should be changed because it's correct, not because it's going to make the state rich. I don't see how ensuring judges pay their fair share is 'myopic'.

montane

No; we don't have a right to know their names

galwayrush wrote: »

So, these totally out of touch with reality people get to judge and sometimes pass sentence on people who appear in court because of financial difficulty...... Incredible.:mad:

The judiciary and their hangers on have always been above the law. Thats why they wear horse hair on the head, and a pocket on back of the gown - to let people slip money into it as officially they cant be seen to be handling filthy lucre.

Dionysus

No; we don't have a right to know their names

phantom_lord wrote: »

That article is in the constitution for a very good reason in the first place and in fairness the vast majority of them are paying the levy.

And that reason has nothing to do with why judges are opposing it. It is there to protect the government of the day discriminating against a judge who has discommoded them in some way. That is a good reason for it to be there - but it has nothing to do with this stunt by the judiciary. There is no government discrimination here in 2010/11: all public servants must pay it.

Article 35.5 was not written to protect judges in this scenario.

Daroxtar

Rodin wrote: »

Why can't we just change the constitution?

There are a whole raft of constitutional changes that need to be made. Its not just this case that needs to be looked at, Ivor Callelly springs to mind hiding behind the constitution when he was busy claiming expenses that would have him jailed if he was a british MP. Or Judge Curtain being caught with a laptop full of child porn but the constitution preventing him from getting the sack. Change is badly needed