Rabble rabble time - Government ministers are exempt from the household charge

super_furry

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/03/13/00247.asp

"The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 provides for a number of exemptions and waivers from payment of the household charge. The exemptions from payment of the household charge are -

· Residential properties that are part of the trading stock of a business and have not been sold or been the source of any income since construction,

· Residential property owned by a Minister of the Government, a housing authority or the Health Service Executive,"

The Sinners, ULA and the rest are going to have an absolute field day over this. It's astounding that someone thought it'd be a good idea to put this clause in, how can they try tell people to pay it when they won't be paying it themselves?

howsyourtusk

They make it so easy for us *laughs evilly*

msg11

It's not like they don't have the money, all the ministers are ****ing loaded at this stage. In fact it's getting to the stage it's like the premier league the wages some of them are on.

Ghost Buster

super_furry wrote: »

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/03/13/00247.asp

"The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 provides for a number of exemptions and waivers from payment of the household charge. The exemptions from payment of the household charge are -

· Residential properties that are part of the trading stock of a business and have not been sold or been the source of any income since construction,

· Residential property owned by a Minister of the Government, a housing authority or the Health Service Executive,"

The Sinners, ULA and the rest are going to have an absolute field day over this. It's astounding that someone thought it'd be a good idea to put this clause in, how can they try tell people to pay it when they won't be paying it themselves?

Proof N.o 220076 that this country is sh1te, always was and always will be

stupidusername

What difference does it make,€100 is nothing to them anyway. Or is it the principle?

ANXIOUS

I couldn be wrong but i think that you are missing reading the law.

My take on it, is that for example the army have houses in the curragh that are owned by the minister of defense. Same with the minister of justice in templemore. These are exempt.

syklops

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Proof N.o 220076 that this country is sh1te, always was and always will be

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Thoie

Even if they paid it, they'd probably claim it back on expenses anyway - maybe they were trying to cut down administration?:mad:

youtube!

This has to be a wind up surely?

Degag

Bunch of idiots if true. Did they really think there wouldn't be uproar when it was found out?

Padraig Mor

That doesn't mean what you think it does OP.

Thoie

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I couldn be wrong but i think that you are missing reading the law.

My take on it, is that for example the army have houses in the curragh that are owned by the minister of defense. Same with the minister of justice in templemore. These are exempt.

Why wouldn't they phrase it as "Residential property owned by the government" or something like that. I presume the Minister of Defense doesn't personally own the houses in the Curragh - they're government property managed by his department.

The_Minister

Are we sure that means what we think it means?

Read the sentence

"· Residential property owned by a Minister of the Government, a housing authority or the Health Service Executive,"[/I]

That would seem to imply property held in their official capacity.

Are we sure this applies to their personal capacity as well?

mattjack

I knew our government was fun.


Oireachtas Games

Learn about the Oireachtas and the world of parliamentary politics in a fun way with our three online games.

System requirements: You will need Adobe Flash Player Version 8 or higher installed on your computer for each game to function properly. A broadband Internet connection is also required.

Beat the Bell
Answer each question before your time runs out - if you hear the Ceann Comhairle's bell you've been too slow. Play the Game
Parliament Pairs
Find pairs of images of famous politicians before the time runs out. If you are quick enough you may get on the leader board. Play the Game
Word Scramble
Unscramble as many words as you can, and try to get on the high score table. Play the Game

howsyourtusk

Padraig Mor wrote: »

That doesn't mean what you think it does OP.

Seems to say what I think it does. May include other properties that a minister doesn't live in but I cannot see how that statement doesn't apply to their own house?

Gee Bag

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I couldn be wrong but i think that you are missing reading the law.

My take on it, is that for example the army have houses in the curragh that are owned by the minister of defense. Same with the minister of justice in templemore. These are exempt.

Spot on, I'm pretty certain this is what the wording means.

Ghost Buster

stupidusername wrote: »

What difference does it make,€100 is nothing to them anyway. Or is it the principle?

What bizzarre logic
The less one can afford a tax the more one is obliged to pay it?

YES ITS THE BLOODY PRINCIPAL!!!!!!!!

super_furry

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I couldn be wrong but i think that you are missing reading the law.

My take on it, is that for example the army have houses in the curragh that are owned by the minister of defense. Same with the minister of justice in templemore. These are exempt.

I'm actually hoping that's it. While the language used is nowhere near clear enough, the fact that those "Minister of the Government" properties are followed by "a housing authority or the Health Service Executive", suggest you might be right.

The alternative is just insane.

howsyourtusk

Gee Bag wrote: »

Spot on, I'm pretty certain this is what the wording means.

Why not say "owned by a government ministry" then? I think that's the spirit of it alright but I think we can use this as a stick to beat the corrupt twats anyway.

Gee Bag

Thoie wrote: »

Why wouldn't they phrase it as "Residential property owned by the government" or something like that. I presume the Minister of Defense doesn't personally own the houses in the Curragh - they're government property managed by his department.

Wording like that would mean including every residential property in NAMA.

mawk

I too would screw the system.
but until I'm given the chance, I'm furious at other assholes who do it!

KyussBishop

Heh. Even if it's intended for residential buildings owned in an official capacity, it doesn't explicitly state that, and is put in such a broad enough way that it clearly can be interpreted as covering private property.

There's no way to tell as far as I can see, if (functionally, in law) it would equate to that, unless a judge rules on it in a court case (and in the meantime, I would say ministers could successfully use it to exempt themselves until challenged).

ANXIOUS

Thoie wrote: »

Why wouldn't they phrase it as "Residential property owned by the government" or something like that. I presume the Minister of Defense doesn't personally own the houses in the Curragh - they're government property managed by his department.

In his capacity as minister of defense he owns them, that's why when people are suing they always include the minister also.

Joko

This is a non story. It is referring to property owned by the Dept of Social Protection and other local authority schemes.

Monty Burnz

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I couldn be wrong but i think that you are missing reading the law.

My take on it, is that for example the army have houses in the curragh that are owned by the minister of defense. Same with the minister of justice in templemore. These are exempt.

In the same way that the minister of Finance owns the ESB? That makes sense, as long as they don't use it to wriggle out of the property they own in a private capacity.

ilovesleep

KyussBishop wrote: »

Heh. Even if it's intended for residential buildings owned in an official capacity, it doesn't explicitly state that, and is put in such a broad enough way that it clearly can be interpreted as covering private property.

There's no way to tell as far as I can see, if (functionally, in law) it would equate to that, unless a judge rules on it in a court case (and in the meantime, I would say ministers could successfully use it to exempt themselves until challenged).

I agree with this. The wording of this makes it unclear as to what the intended purpose of this clause is for and it could be used by a minister of the government to avoid paying the household tax for his/her private residential property. We need clarification.

goose2005

Thoie wrote: »

Why wouldn't they phrase it as "Residential property owned by the government" or something like that. I presume the Minister of Defense doesn't personally own the houses in the Curragh - they're government property managed by his department.

He does own them, but as part of his job, not as his personal property. All Age cards technically belong to the Minister of Justice/Defence.

Thirdfox

super_furry wrote: »

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/03/13/00247.asp

"The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 provides for a number of exemptions and waivers from payment of the household charge. The exemptions from payment of the household charge are -

· Residential properties that are part of the trading stock of a business and have not been sold or been the source of any income since construction,

· Residential property owned by a Minister of the Government, a housing authority or the Health Service Executive,"

The Sinners, ULA and the rest are going to have an absolute field day over this. It's astounding that someone thought it'd be a good idea to put this clause in, how can they try tell people to pay it when they won't be paying it themselves?

This has already been debunked on boards.ie - check the Politics forum:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056581256

The statement made is not the legal text, always refer to original legislation when discussing the law:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0036/sec0002.html

(b) a building vested in a Minister of the Government, a housing authority (within the meaning of the Act of 1992) or the Health Service Executive;

Vested, not owned. Meaning in an official capacity and not his/her private accommodation.

Hopefully a mod can change the thread title to reflect that this has been debunked. There may be legitimate grievances against the government but this isn't one.

dr.bollocko

Thirdfox wrote: »

This has already been debunked on boards.ie - check the Politics forum:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056581256

The statement made is not the legal text, always refer to original legislation when discussing the law:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0036/sec0002.html



Vested, not owned. Meaning in an official capacity and not his/her private accommodation.

Hopefully a mod can change the thread title to reflect that this has been debunked. There may be legitimate grievances against the government but this isn't one.

What he said.