Government quakes as a massive 3000 people attend national property tax protest

Einhard

For weeks now, there have been claim after claim on the Left that there is a massive upswelling of public resistance towards the property tax, that the people are finally awaking from their slumber and apathy, and are now determined to take on the government on this and other issues. The likes of Joe Higgins, the ULA, and Sinn Fein have sought to create an image of mass protest, with the public enthusiastically engaged in active resistance.

It was something of a surprise then, to note that a grand total of 3000 people turned out for the nationa protest against the charge in Dublin today. That's less than some League of Ireland matches. It could be argued, of course, that people weren't aware of today's protest, but that's unlikely given the leaflets that I received on it over the past few days, and the posters I've seen erected in several different counties.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0324/householdcharge.html

So...it seems that the public aren't particularly energised by this issue at all. Sure, those who have registered are in the minority so far, but the campaign of mass and active resistance that Higgins et al sought to claim as the reality, requires more than people simply failing to register or leaving it til the last moment.

Just like the campaign against bin charges, and the Shell to Sea campaign, it again looks like the mood of the public has been entirely misread and misrepresented by those who claim to stand for the public. In light of this embarassing turn out today, should Higgins, Sinn Fein et al, just take the hint and stop urging people to break the law?

DrumSteve

I think its more a case that people do not want to be associated with the usual types that turn out at marches like this rather than agreeing with a household tax.

geeman

You're implying people are happy to pay the charge because of low turnout to protest.

According to some news reports 1.3 million householders haven't paid.

If that's not indicative of how people feel, I don't know what is.

How would you feel about a land based charge? You're taxed on the value of your land rather than the value of house as there's a difference if we set out how the land is used.

Exempt from payment are those which use the land productively (farming for example)

Interested to know your thoughts on that because I don't agree with a household charge.

ted1

It's a hundred quid. My Saturday is worth more than that and no I won't be paying it.

If they were honest and called it a bank bailout tax I may consider it.

marozz

For a lot of people , myself included, not paying the property tax is a personal decision - it has nothing to do with the looney left.

spank_inferno

marozz wrote: »

For a lot of people , myself included, not paying the property tax is a personal decision - it has nothing to do with the looney left.

Exactly.
I haven't paid the tax, I'm in no rush to do so, and those reasons are my own.

Joe Higgins and his ilk make my flesh crawl.

Good loser

Notice that when it's put to Joe Higgins that he is encouraging people to break the law he answers by saying that the people themselves are mobilising against the law and he is merely providing leadership and direction.

This is dishonest sophistry.

(Incidently what oath of office do TD's take?)

What will Joe do when he introduces his wealth tax and those liable refuse to pay on the grounds that they disagree with it?

maamom

Irish people have never been good at turning up for a protest and I really fear that after all the usual complaining everyone will pay this tax at the last minute. Hope I'm wrong.

RichardAnd

The household tax isn't something I have to pay as I don't own a house. I don't support it for a number of reasons but perhaps the main one would be Hogan's claim that the levy as it currently is will "make way for a fairer property tax system in 2013."

To me, the fairer tax will inevitably mean a higher tax for the majority of people. I would rather see the money such a tax would raise come instead from the billions that will be thrown into various black holes.

Of course, the thoughts of the last day for this tax reminds me of that Simpsons episode where everyone tries to pay their taxes on the very last day. We'll see.

zumi

If anyone is in doubt, this is the rally from yesterday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ql0B1eDqvk

Wait till next when they march on the Fine Gael Ard Fheis we'll see politicians on the receiving end of their own scare tactics then.....

Pedro K

The national stadium only seats 2000 people and, although I can't find a link, I seem to remember seeing articles stating that they were expecting a turnout of about that number.

3000 is a good turnout, and at least people are getting up, getting out and protesting. It's a welcome change from the usual apathy.

link with some pictures from the rally

K-9

maamom wrote: »

Irish people have never been good at turning up for a protest and I really fear that after all the usual complaining everyone will pay this tax at the last minute. Hope I'm wrong.

Farmers used to have big protests, the pensioners not so long ago, PAYE workers in the 80's. People are too busy shopping and posting on Facebook or Twitter or Boards pointing out the pointlessness I suppose.

Einhard

DrumSteve wrote: »

I think its more a case that people do not want to be associated with the usual types that turn out at marches like this rather than agreeing with a household tax.

geeman wrote: »

You're implying people are happy to pay the charge because of low turnout to protest.

According to some news reports 1.3 million householders haven't paid.

If that's not indicative of how people feel, I don't know what is.

The above comments are fair enough. I wasn't attempting to state that the turnout indicates a high level of support for the tax, but rather that Higgins and the usual suspects should stop claiming that the non-payment is indicative of a broader clamour of resistance. To hear Higgins and his fellows on the far left talk, one would be forgiven for thinking that the people are on the cusp of mass revolt.

How would you feel about a land based charge? You're taxed on the value of your land rather than the value of house as there's a difference if we set out how the land is used.

Don't think I'd have much of a problem with that.

Interested to know your thoughts on that because I don't agree with a household charge.

Can I ask why not?

ted1 wrote: »

It's a hundred quid. My Saturday is worth more than that and no I won't be paying it.

So you can afford the charge, but refuse to pay it anyway? Must be a principled stand then- can I ask how exactly this charge so greviously offends your principle?

If they were honest and called it a bank bailout tax I may consider it.

If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that, irrespective of banks being bailed out, we have a deicit of almost €20 billion per annum in this country, and have had for the past few years. You'd also acknowledge that, actually, there is not such thing as magic money trees and that, unfortunately, we have to pay for the services we demand.

marozz wrote: »

For a lot of people , myself included, not paying the property tax is a personal decision - it has nothing to do with the looney left.

Again, fair enough. How exactly do you propose we close the massive current deficit? And please...don't bring up the bank bailout. It's a simple fact that we are spending more than we receive in taxes, and that has precious little to do with banks.

zumi wrote: »

Wait till next when they march on the Fine Gael Ard Fheis we'll see politicians on the receiving end of their own scare tactics then.....

Scare tactics? This I don't understand. The government has passed legislation and brought in sanctions against those who don't comply with the law of the land. When people invoke prison sentences as a response to, say, armed robbery, do you similarly claim scare tactics?

Einhard

Pedro K wrote: »

The national stadium only seats 2000 people and, although I can't find a link, I seem to remember seeing articles stating that they were expecting a turnout of about that number.

3000 is a good turnout, and at least people are getting up, getting out and protesting. It's a welcome change from the usual apathy.

link with some pictures from the rally

It's a pathetic number actually. The fact that they were expecting that number doesn't make it any less pathetic.

meglome

ted1 wrote: »

It's a hundred quid. My Saturday is worth more than that and no I won't be paying it.

If they were honest and called it a bank bailout tax I may consider it.

Why would they call it a bank bailout tax when it isn't?

I think people should realise that just because enough people repeat a lie it doesn't become true.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2011/11/deficit-and-banks.html
If we do a simple counterfactual and magic away the €62.5 billion we have pumped into the banks, the projected deficit for 2012 would fall from €13.6 billion to €12.8 billion or 8.0% of GDP. Eliminating the effect of the bank payments would knock 5% off the deficit; 95% of next year’s deficit is not related to the bank payments.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0323/1224313766388.html
Three claims are frequently made:
* Most public debt is a result of taking on banking debt;
* The economic and budgetary outlook would be transformed if banking debt could be offloaded;
* A bailout would not have been needed had it not been for socialised banking debt.

These claims are, respectively, plain wrong, wrong and debatable.

People should read these articles and see the don't pay campaign for the bull it is.

Einhard

meglome wrote: »

Why would they call it a bank bailout tax when it isn't?

I think people should realise that just because enough people repeat a lie it doesn't become true.





People should read these articles and see the don't pay campaign for the bull it is.

There are none so deaf as those who don't want to hear...

Chuck Stone

People are facing the threat of being a criminal if they refuse to pay. We shouldn't confuse apathy with fear.

meglome

Einhard wrote: »

There are none so deaf as those who don't want to hear...

Very true. None of us want to pay too much tax but it's best we face the harsh reality that there's going to be no backtracking on additional taxes as we cannot afford it.

I've been challenging people over on The Journal to read those two articles then explain why we shouldn't pay and how we can't pay. No one has answered my questions, unsurprisingly.

amacachi

Jesus, as cynical as I am I still thought it'd be a lot more than that.

meglome

amacachi wrote: »

Jesus, as cynical as I am I still thought it'd be a lot more than that.

The percentage we're paying for the bank bailouts will go up but it's really nothing like we're led to believe by the popular myth.

amacachi

meglome wrote: »

The percentage we're paying for the bank bailouts will go up but it's really nothing like we're led to believe by the popular myth.

I meant the turnout today. Funny enough as opposed as I was to the bank bailout the overall cost won't be anywhere near the levels popular myth would suggest.

meglome

amacachi wrote: »

I meant the turnout today. Funny enough as opposed as I was to the bank bailout the overall cost won't be anywhere near the levels popular myth would suggest.

My bad sorry. I did wonder after I'd posted it, though at this time of the morning the thought was short-lived.

amacachi

meglome wrote: »

My bad sorry. I did wonder after I'd posted it, though at this time of the morning the thought was short-lived.

This really isn't the right time for a worthwhile discussion :pac:

jill_valentine

I think after the last few protests, there's a general sense that peaceful protest in this country is effectively useless. Call it marching fatigue, I suppose.

I don't think that necessarily reflects on how many people are going to pony up though. Not paying is a form of protest that requires you to do nothing at all, is a personal act that doesn't associate you with any particular political party, and represents, in a nice round tangible way, exactly what everybody hates about our current situation. I will be interested to see how this goes, I think this might be the line in the sand everybody's been predicting all along.

geeman

jill_valentine wrote:

I think after the last few protests, there's a general sense that peaceful protest in this country is effectively useless.

Could not agree more and It's exactly why I don't protest -- absolute waste of time.

We don't live in democracy anymore, maybe we never did.

Of course you have "freedom" to bitch and moan about the government but there's essentially f*ck all you can do about it...no amount of protests will change anything.

B*tch all you want, you'll be forced to pay a tax you don't want to...that's not democracy.

Wibbs

Einhard wrote: »

So you can afford the charge, but refuse to pay it anyway? Must be a principled stand then- can I ask how exactly this charge so greviously offends your principle?

Well I can't speak for the other chap, but my issue is not with paying tax, it's with paying tax knowing it'll be pissed into the same bottomless pit of inefficiency that is the public purse of Ireland. Given it's for the councils? This goes quadruple.

Again, fair enough. How exactly do you propose we close the massive current deficit? And please...don't bring up the bank bailout. It's a simple fact that we are spending more than we receive in taxes, and that has precious little to do with banks.

I agree. The bank bailout is another matter entirely. How do we close it? Streamline the public purse. Its long overdue. Reduce the number of councils and councilors for a start. Where areas of expenditure are clearly run arseways fire them out to tender and let private companies take over. Kill off or severely reduce all vanity projects. Overseas aid going by the last figures I've seen is running at half a billion euro per year. Lovely thought, but we simply can't afford it at nearly 4 times what this council tax will bring in. It would be akin to a family where the breadwinners lost their jobs still keeping a monthly direct debit to Concern. Daft. Serve us far better to plough some of that money into direct help for both Ireland and third world nations through building mutually profitable businesses. Locally? Switch off half the street lights in suburban areas. On motorways like the M50 only have them on at junctions. That's why I have headlights on my car. Local facilities? Repair, don't upgrade. Kill off all quangos and commitaaaays. There are far too many of them, they cost far too much, smack of "jobs for the baays" and rarely bring anything approaching results. If two government depts. aren't communicating you don't need a bunch of overpaid consultants sitting down for 12 months to work out why. Rather than doing things to be seen doing things, just bloody do them. It's rarely the rocket science these consultants claim. Well of course turkeys won't vote for xmas so... Streamline social welfare. Do far more means testing. Just on my limited personal experience of folks I know in receipt of SW, some are simply getting too much, while others are barely scraping by. I doubt my experience is unusual. This goes double for pensioners. IMHO if you have a private pension above say 20k a year you shouldn't get public money. An uncle of mine has a private pension income of over 60k a year and yet still gets his SW pension and all the freebies. Make third level education pay for itself more. That's a subject in of itself as is the long in coming restructuring of our health service. Look I fully admit to being a rank amateur looking in, but even as a rank amateur I can see it.

I see Ireland like this: We're like a family who can't budget for the times. When the family was in full employment they thought they were actually millionaires and spent accordingly racking up huge debts on mad stuff. "But sure we're fine we can make the monthly payments". Then one breadwinner lost their job, but still the family kept spending with a small nod to "ah we'll only have one foreign holiday this year" as an "economising" measure. I certainly wouldn't give such a family more money to chase after all the other money pissed up a wall. It would make no sense. Start cutting their cloth to their measure and I'll be there with the cheque book.

dvpower

geeman wrote: »

B*tch all you want, you'll be forced to pay a tax you don't want to...that's not democracy.

The bill that created the tax was passed by the Dail, by a new government with a huge majority.

The fact that this tax, in some form, was coming down the line was well flagged, given that is was a specific condition in the EU/IMF MOU, which both parties in power said that they would be implementing during the election campaign.

We can never know for sure exactly what policies a government will implement when they assume power, especially when we elect a coalition, but its hardly undemocratic to implement specific unpopular measures.

matthew8

They were never going to get a massive number of people out to protest it. I don't think a property tax is really something that will get people out to protest, and the government did very well in the last budget that the property tax was the most controversial thing in there.

JustinDee

Einhard wrote: »

There are none so deaf as those who don't want to hear...

...as those who don't want to pay. That's about it really.

JustinDee

geeman wrote: »

Could not agree more and It's exactly why I don't protest -- absolute waste of time.

We don't live in democracy anymore, maybe we never did.

Of course you have "freedom" to bitch and moan about the government but there's essentially f*ck all you can do about it...no amount of protests will change anything.

B*tch all you want, you'll be forced to pay a tax you don't want to...that's not democracy.

Which democracy doesn't yield taxation revenue? Answer is simple. Chuck in a few 'model socialistic democracies' such as Scandinavia, Finland, etc as the example is even weaker.

The Waltzing Consumer

geeman wrote: »

Could not agree more and It's exactly why I don't protest -- absolute waste of time.

We don't live in democracy anymore, maybe we never did.

Of course you have "freedom" to bitch and moan about the government but there's essentially f*ck all you can do about it...no amount of protests will change anything.

B*tch all you want, you'll be forced to pay a tax you don't want to...that's not democracy.

Seriously

I want to respect posters in the politics forum but this kind of "spoilt" view of Ireland is quite hard to digest. You had an election a year ago and a huge mandate was given for a coalition.

You have free press, you have the phone numbers / emails / TD clinics, all open to you to paticipate. You have an extremely accessible participatory democracy yet you make it sound like we live in Syria.

The only real thing here is people don't agree with you. The will put off paying the charge, they may get a fine for paying late but at the end of the day, the majority of people in Ireland have a very good life and this is why they are not turning up for these invented political masochism nihilistic protests.

If Irish politics were like South Park, the ULA and these protests are the Goth Kids, plain and simple.

Dirk Gently

Einhard wrote: »

It's a pathetic number actually. The fact that they were expecting that number doesn't make it any less pathetic.

in all fairness, for the household tax, all people have to do to protest is do nothing. Turning up at a rally does nothing to enhance their protest, simply doing nothing and not registering is all the protest that's necessary. What are those numbers?

20Cent

A tenner a week to give an f you to the gov bargain.

If everyone did sign up to this and pay that would kill the chances of negotiating on the Anglo promissory notes and a better deal on the bailout. Why would the ECB/EU give us a break if the population will sign up to a website and handover their cash without so much as a letter.

meglome

20Cent wrote: »

A tenner a week to give an f you to the gov bargain.

If everyone did sign up to this and pay that would kill the chances of negotiating on the Anglo promissory notes and a better deal on the bailout. Why would the ECB/EU give us a break if the population will sign up to a website and handover their cash without so much as a letter.

But we wouldn't be giving an 'f you' to the government, we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot again. In a long history of shooting ourselves in the foot. Why in all that's holy would us showing we cannot get our house in order encourage a deal on the promissory notes.

We really do overestimate how important we are on the other EU states. We might have been important in the shaky days when the recession began and countries were afraid of contagion. Now though they don't need to care too much.

meglome

and if the fake solicitors letter wasn't bad enough, saw this on facebook earlier.

Wibbs

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

You have free press, you have the phone numbers / emails / TD clinics, all open to you to paticipate. You have an extremely accessible participatory democracy yet you make it sound like we live in Syria.

Oh I agree, this notion of we're not a democracy is a tad odd alright. That said our press is not so free as it appears. Many vested interests about. So it's not unlike people around here claiming "the right to free speech" because they heard it on American TV shows all their lives. It's not so applicable to Ireland. Ask any publisher in fear of lawsuits including this site.

meglome wrote: »

We really do overestimate how important we are on the other EU states. We might have been important in the shaky days when the recession began and countries were afraid of contagion. Now though they don't need to care too much.

Oh I don't know M. While we certainly had more leverage on that score before(and IMHO stupidly didn't use it) the EU is not out of the fiscal woods yet. Not by a long shot. Little enough has changed on that front since last year. Spain is still contracting with the dole queues lengthening, Greece is well fooked, Portugal is in recession and Italy is still climbing out of a big hole. The media attention may have widened it's focus or turned it elsewhere, but it's still a tinderbox.

golfball37

Until the govt & local authorities start by looking for the millions owed to them by developers they can sing for this 100 quid, which I can well afford.

Me and a few others have donated 100 euro to SVP instead. Let them clean up their local authorities and cut the wastage, then they can come looking for money off me.

hatrickpatrick

meglome wrote: »

Why would they call it a bank bailout tax when it isn't?

I think people should realise that just because enough people repeat a lie it doesn't become true.





People should read these articles and see the don't pay campaign for the bull it is.

As I've said a thousand times before, it's not about figrues, it's about principle. Those responsible for the mess should be hit first, and only after that should everyone else be hit.
In other words, I have no problem whatsoever paying an extra tax - but only AFTER Bertie and his cronies, the golden circle, etc have faced justice for what they've done, and been stripped of the money they're trying to walk away with from the mess. Bertie's expenses and pension for a start, along with everyone else in that motley crew who was involved in those decisions.

It's not about the hundred euro, it's about non drinkers being asked to pick up the tab for the alcoholics in the pub.

hatrickpatrick

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Seriously

I want to respect posters in the politics forum but this kind of "spoilt" view of Ireland is quite hard to digest. You had an election a year ago and a huge mandate was given for a coalition.

And they've failed to live up to almost all of the election promises I voted them in on the basis of, and been caught out downright lying about others.

You have free press, you have the phone numbers / emails / TD clinics, all open to you to paticipate. You have an extremely accessible participatory democracy yet you make it sound like we live in Syria.

Again, how is this valid if they can simply lie to us and face no consequences for that? Remember Eamonn Gilmore and wikileaks, for example? Or Rurai Quinn and the fees pledge he signed? Democracy is unenforceable unless there are rules about how much dishonesty they can get away with. IF you don't know for sure that you can't honour a promise then don't commit to it in the first place.

The only real thing here is people don't agree with you. The will put off paying the charge, they may get a fine for paying late but at the end of the day, the majority of people in Ireland have a very good life and this is why they are not turning up for these invented political masochism nihilistic protests.

Sorry but what does having a good life have to do with it? I have a very good life, does that mean I shouldn't be angry when injustice happens? Injustice isn't about its practical consequences, it's about principle and decency, which are depressingly thin on the ground in Irish politics.

If Irish politics were like South Park, the ULA and these protests are the Goth Kids, plain and simple.

So let me ask you, are you happy to live in such an unjust society, where we who had nothing to do with the crash have to cough up while Bertie & co are still getting money straight out of our pockets?

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

People are facing the threat of being a criminal if they refuse to pay.

Next thing you know there'll be a law against evading VAT or income tax. Fascists.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

IF you don't know for sure that you can't honour a promise then don't commit to it in the first place.

The day the Irish people stop demanding unrealistic promises from politicians as the price of their vote is the day we can, in fairness, expect politicians to keep their promises.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

The day the Irish people stop demanding unrealistic promises from politicians as the price of their vote is the day we can, in fairness, expect politicians to keep their promises.

It's irrelevant what people demand, if you can't keep a promise don't make one. Simple as, end of story.
Doing otherwise knowing that you're lying is something I can't distinguish from electoral fraud. Using fraudulent means to steal votes from people who otherwise wouldn't have given you one.

I wouldn't have voted for Labour if I had been aware, at the time, of Eamon Gilmore's dishonesty with regard to Lisbon II, or that Rurai Quinn was bullsh!tting when he signed the pledge against college fees. If representative democracy is to work, as should have zero tolerance to such antics.

Zombrex

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I've said a thousand times before, it's not about figrues, it's about principle. Those responsible for the mess should be hit first, and only after that should everyone else be hit.

The Irish people caused this mess. Now the Irish people have to pay for it. This is how democracy works.

hatrickpatrick

Zombrex wrote: »

The Irish people caused this mess. Now the Irish people have to pay for it. This is how democracy works.

The Irish people may have indirectly caused the mess. Those who directly caused it have so far escaped justice, and as long as that continues I will not support penalizing the Irish people for it.
If an elected minister for defense commits war crimes, does the fact that he or she was democratically elected mean they should not face justice? And should those electors be punished, and punished first and before the actual direct perpetrator?

Another issue is that the young generation in Ireland (Those born 1990+) never had the chance to vote against the corrupt regime, so there's no justification whatsoever in claiming "we ALL made this mess".

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's irrelevant what people demand...

Absolutely - if you're a politician whose primary goal in life is not to get elected.

Meanwhile, out here in the real world where real Irish people refuse to elect people who don't promise them the sun, the moon and the stars, unrealistic promises are the currency of elections.

If a candidate had gone door to door before the last election telling people that, if elected, he would have no choice but to vote for several years of tax increases and expenditure cuts - that no, he wouldn't be in a position to support keeping the local A&E open - that the potholes were going to have to stay unfilled for a few years - what would that candidate's chances of election be?

Zombrex

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The Irish people may have indirectly caused the mess. Those who directly caused it have so far escaped justice, and as long as that continues I will not support penalizing the Irish people for it.

Penalizing anyone is irrelevant.

Such arguments remind me of a situation that happened a few years ago when the residents of an apartment block my brother was living in got annoyed because the management company upped the management fee.

Having never once gone to a management company AGM, and clearly not realizing that they as apartment owners were actually the people who made up the management company, some of them refused to pay the management fee in some sort of misguided protest at the management agents that they, as the management company, had actually hired. They clearly did not understand this and just thought the management agents were trying to screw them.

Guess what happened. The bin collections eventually stopped, because the management agents had not received enough payments and were reluctant to go into the sinking fund to pay for bin collections. The "protestors" didn't realize that the management fee did not simply go to paying for new cars for the management agents, but actually when to paying for all the utilities in the apartment complex. It was already their money, they were the management company, all they were doing was not paying their own company to run the apartment complex.

I am reminded of this event every time I hear protests about the property tax.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If an elected minister for defense commits war crimes, does the fact that he or she was democratically elected mean they should not face justice? And should those electors be punished, and punished first and before the actual direct perpetrator?

How does not paying the property tax punish the members of the old FF government?

And how does punishing the old FF government increase tax revenue to pay for state services?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Another issue is that the young generation in Ireland (Those born 1990+) never had the chance to vote against the corrupt regime, so there's no justification whatsoever in claiming "we ALL made this mess".

How many people born after 1990 own property?

hatrickpatrick

Zombrex wrote: »

Penalizing anyone is irrelevant.

Such arguments remind me of a situation that happened a few years ago when the residents of an apartment block my brother was living in got annoyed because the management company upped the management fee.

Having never once gone to a management company AGM, and clearly not realizing that they as apartment owners were actually the people who made up the management company, some of them refused to pay the management fee in some sort of misguided protest at the management agents that they, as the management company, had actually hired. They clearly did not understand this and just thought the management agents were trying to screw them.

Guess what happened. The bin collections eventually stopped, because the management agents had not received enough payments and were reluctant to go into the sinking fund to pay for bin collections. The "protestors" didn't realize that the management fee did not simply go to paying for new cars for the management agents, but actually when to paying for all the utilities in the apartment complex. It was already their money, they were the management company, all they were doing was not paying their own company to run the apartment complex.

I am reminded of this event every time I hear protests about the property tax.

Your analogy is flawed. A better analogy would be if the management fee was increasing because the previous management company had siphoned off a bunch of the cash to help their troubled friends, and the new management company was asking people to pay more, while at best refusing the pursue the old management company, at best actively shielding them from their angry tenants.

In such a scenario the existing tenants would have every right to be pissed.

How does not paying the property tax punish the members of the old FF government?

When did I say it did? I think you missed my point, my argument was that if we ordinary people have to suffer for their screwups, they better be suffering as well, rather than receiving exorbitant pensions, expenses, and bailouts from OUR pockets.

And how does punishing the old FF government increase tax revenue to pay for state services?

It doesn't, it simply makes the pill a lot less bitter to swallow.

How many people born after 1990 own property?[/QUOTE]

This isn't about the property tax in isolation, that is just one more straw on the camel's back. Every single extra levy the Irish taxpayer has had to shoulder is unjust as long as those whose behavior led to the crash are not brought to justice over it.

I wrote a letter to the Irish Times about this today in fact. After explaining my anger at this property charge coinciding with the Mahon report and the news of Bertie and others' continued pension and expenses from the state, the last line reads: "People aren't objecting to paying tax to save Ireland, they're objecting to paying tax to save Ireland's untouchable political class. Cut them off first and THEN we'll talk about a household charge."

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Absolutely - if you're a politician whose primary goal in life is not to get elected.

Meanwhile, out here in the real world where real Irish people refuse to elect people who don't promise them the sun, the moon and the stars, unrealistic promises are the currency of elections.

If a candidate had gone door to door before the last election telling people that, if elected, he would have no choice but to vote for several years of tax increases and expenditure cuts - that no, he wouldn't be in a position to support keeping the local A&E open - that the potholes were going to have to stay unfilled for a few years - what would that candidate's chances of election be?

If all candidates were obligated by law to behave in the same honest manner without making any fanciful claims whatsoever, I imagine people would pick the best of a bad lot. Which is pretty much all there is at the moment given the state of the world. No one CAN offer anything better than being slightly less horrific than another proposed solution, no one should therefore be allowed to pretend otherwise.

As I said, Rurai Quinn signed a document pledging not to increase college fees, he has now done so. He knew perfectly well the state of the economy when he signed the pledge so one can only assume he knowingly and deliberately lied to the people, knowing it would be too late for them to redress it when his lie was laid bare.
In my opinion there should be serious repercussions for this. Not suggesting he should be forced to honour the pledge, but suggesting he should never have signed it in the first place knowing there was a large risk of not being able to live up to it.

Accountability, you see.

Are you objecting to this, BTW? Do you somehow feel it would be a bad thing to cut down on the amount of bullsh!t that gets thrown around during election campaigns?

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you objecting to this, BTW? Do you somehow feel it would be a bad thing to cut down on the amount of bullsh!t that gets thrown around during election campaigns?

I'd love to see it cut down, but that's up to us. If you want to refuse to vote for any politician who has failed to deliver on every single promise they've made, that's up to you. Unfortunately, this will fairly severely restrict your choice in the next election, and it won't make any difference to how anyone else votes.

You could introduce legislation to require politicians to deliver everything they've promised, but that will simply result in politicians promising to try really, really hard to deliver things instead, which doesn't materially change anything.

djpbarry

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think you missed my point, my argument was that if we ordinary people have to suffer for their screwups, they better be suffering as well, rather than receiving exorbitant pensions, expenses, and bailouts from OUR pockets.

We could scrap all those pensions and expenses tonight (although I'm not sure specifically which ones you're referring to) and it would make shag all difference to the state of Ireland's finances. Besides, I'm pretty sure FG are/were planning on drafting legislation on precisely this issue.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Every single extra levy the Irish taxpayer has had to shoulder is unjust as long as those whose behavior led to the crash are not brought to justice over it.

You're assuming there that there was some illegal goings-on at some point, waiting to be discovered - what if there wasn't?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If all candidates were obligated by law to behave in the same honest manner without making any fanciful claims whatsoever...

How exactly would that work in practice? A quango (independent, of course) to censor election campaigns? Can't see any potential problems with that.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I said, Rurai Quinn signed a document pledging not to increase college fees, he has now done so. He knew perfectly well the state of the economy when he signed the pledge...

But the electorate didn't? Every third-level institution in the country has been screaming for years about lack of funding and the state doesn't have the means to make up the shortfall at present, but asking the students to pay is completely out of the question because Ruarai's signed some novelty-sized petition? Seriously?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not suggesting he should be forced to honour the pledge, but suggesting he should never have signed it in the first place knowing there was a large risk of not being able to live up to it.

He knew full well that, if elected, he would never have been able to live up to it and every single person who voted for him should have been well aware of that (if it was one of their pressing concerns).

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If all candidates were obligated by law to behave in the same honest manner without making any fanciful claims whatsoever, I imagine people would pick the best of a bad lot. Which is pretty much all there is at the moment given the state of the world. No one CAN offer anything better than being slightly less horrific than another proposed solution, no one should therefore be allowed to pretend otherwise.

As I said, Rurai Quinn signed a document pledging not to increase college fees, he has now done so. He knew perfectly well the state of the economy when he signed the pledge so one can only assume he knowingly and deliberately lied to the people, knowing it would be too late for them to redress it when his lie was laid bare.
In my opinion there should be serious repercussions for this. Not suggesting he should be forced to honour the pledge, but suggesting he should never have signed it in the first place knowing there was a large risk of not being able to live up to it.

Accountability, you see.

Are you objecting to this, BTW? Do you somehow feel it would be a bad thing to cut down on the amount of bullsh!t that gets thrown around during election campaigns?

Quinn and Labour should have battled harder in the coalition talks on the issue then.

Not being smart, but you did realise Labour would be in a coalition when you voted? I can never understand this in this country were coalitions are now the norm, I can understand it a bit in the UK with the Lib Dems, but even their voters knew it would be a coalition if they got in.