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

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.

nuac

I think there should be a property tax, but this one is poorly planned and poorly sold.

Zombrex

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

You are missing the point. How does being pissed off pay for the bin collection?

You can be as pissed off as you like with the previous FF government (I certainly am and the people who voted for them). But that doesn't magically generate money out of thin air. Public services need to be paid for. We spend the last 10 years paying for them with an imaginary property bubble. That doesn't exist any more.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

So you support paying the house hold charge?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

Sorry but that is largely wishful thinking. It would be lovely to think that some massive fraud or conspiracy got us into this mess. But that isn't true. What FF did was in the open and available for anyone who wanted to to know about. Everyone who bothered to look knew the banks were over extended, that the economy was being supported by a property boom, that we were not going to have a soft landing, that the state would eventually have to leverage the banks.

There is difference between fraud and ignorance. I appreciate the frustration people feel at how the government was managing the economy, but that is their fault. Don't vote in the government, and when they are acting badly vote them out. But people didn't want to believe the nay sayers.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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."

The current economy problems in Ireland were not caused by a fraud or by a closed door conspiracy. It was the democratic will of the people, they were just too ignorant to know it.

Dannyboy83

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.

Open to correction, but does the total amount to be collect from this tax not equal the public service increments for this year?

Fine Gael promised to reform the public services.
They are doing the opposite.

The promised to get spending under control, yet have said on record numerous times in recent months that we'd be risking nuclear winter if we tried to renegotiate the Croke Park Agreement
Patricia King of Siptu threatened the same at the weekend.

I don't see how the electorate have been unreasonable in this case??
I'm genuinely confused as to what we are supposed to do.
Party A promise reform;
the electorate vote for them;
Party A do not deliver reform
.
.

happyman81

Some amount of goalpost shifting on the part of the 'revolutionaries', in this thread.

oscarBravo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Fine Gael promised to reform the public services.
They are doing the opposite.

Pretty sure Fine Gael said they'd honour the CPA.

The promised to get spending under control, yet have said on record numerous times in recent months that we'd be risking nuclear winter if we tried to renegotiate the Croke Park Agreement
Patricia King of Siptu threatened the same at the weekend.

Given the fact that public servants get to vote, what would the election result have looked like if FG promised to massively cut public service numbers before the election?

I don't see how the electorate have been unreasonable in this case??
I'm genuinely confused as to what we are supposed to do.
Party A promise reform;
the electorate vote for them;
Party A do not deliver reform
.
.

You could vote for the ULA and Sinn Fein next time - if you're confident that there's no possibility of them ever reneging on anything they've ever promised during an election campaign.

Or you could accept, as I've said, that politicians tell the electorate what they want to hear in the run-up to an election.

Or you can naively believe everything you're told, and then get all upset when it turns out that a politician told you what you wanted to hear in order to buy your vote.

gandalf

In principle I have no issue with a property tax. However until the Government make a real effort to tackle the costs of running public services I disagree strongly with paying additional taxes.

This tax is going to raise €160 million this year if everyone pays, if this Government stopped increments in PS wages it would have saved €360 million. You can just imagine the savings that can be made if a real effort was made at tidying up the administration in public organisations like the HSE.

From my perspective sort the waste and costs out first and then talk to us about additional taxation. I certainly I am not willing to have an increased slice taken out of my wages because the politicians haven't the balls to do the job we elected them to do.

For the moment I am happy to wait another three months and see what happens.

Dannyboy83

oscarBravo wrote: »

You could vote for the ULA and Sinn Fein next time - if you're confident that there's no possibility of them ever reneging on anything they've ever promised during an election campaign.

But that's not the issue.
Sinn Fein and the ULA stated they wouldn't touch the public services.
That was exactly why I didn't vote for them.

Fine Gael promised to reform the public services, that was why I did vote for them

Why would I vote for Sinn Fein when they're offering the opposite of what I want?

Or you could accept, as I've said, that politicians tell the electorate what they want to hear in the run-up to an election.

Or you can naively believe everything you're told, and then get all upset when it turns out that a politician told you what you wanted to hear in order to buy your vote.

That's not the issue tho

You said:

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.

Then you say

Or you could accept, as I've said, that politicians tell the electorate what they want to hear in the run-up to an election.

Or you can naively believe everything you're told, and then get all upset when it turns out that a politician told you what you wanted to hear in order to buy your vote.

So it's a case of damned if we do & damned if we don't?

I don't see an option B in there?

oscarBravo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Fine Gael promised to reform the public services, that was why I did vote for them

Again: I'm pretty sure FG said they'd honour the CPA. Whatever about being annoyed at the government for not fulfilling their promises, it seems a little harsh to be annoyed about something they didn't promise.

In theory, the CPA involves public service reform. In practice the reform is much slower than it needs to be, but that seems to be down to union reluctance to implement reform as much as government unwillingness to push the issue.

Dannyboy83

oscarBravo wrote: »

Again: I'm pretty sure FG said they'd honour the CPA. Whatever about being annoyed at the government for not fulfilling their promises, it seems a little harsh to be annoyed about something they didn't promise.

But I'm not referring to something they didn't promise, I'm referring to something they explicity did promise.

Here, I will provide a quote for you

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1118/1224307765480.html

TAOISEACH ENDA Kenny has promised the Government’s public sector reform plan will produce a “leaner, smarter and better public service”, and said the Coalition was determined to “draw a line under the decentralisation programme”.

The Fine Gael leader said the proposed reforms were essential to avoid additional tax increases.

.
.
.

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin said the most significant item in the plan was the “extraordinary reduction” in public service numbers that would reduce the pay bill by more than €2.5 billion annually. “Based on the figures at the end of 2010, the total number of public service employees will be reduced by a further 23,500 by 2015. It’s a very large number. At that point, public service numbers will have fallen from their peak in 2008 by some 37,500, or 12 per cent.”

On cuts in the number of State bodies, he said 48 would be “rationalised” by the end of 2012, with a further 46 to be reviewed by mid-2012. Net savings from reductions in so-called quangos would be “modest enough”. Annualised savings on the first reduction would be about €20 million.

They have not delivered on the above, and we now people are paying a new tax, because of their failure to deliver.

THE COALITION parties may be on a collision course over the payment of €250 million in increments to public servants after a stout defence of the practice by Minister for Public Expenditure Brendan Howlin yesterday.
.
.

However, there is no reference to increments in the Croke Park deal with public sector workers, which forms the basis of the Coalition’s policy on public pay and numbers.

The part I'm confused and wish to have explained is the part where the electorate are somehow to blame for this.

Fine Gael promised to reform public expenditure;
The electorate voted for them;
Fine Gael have failed to deliver on their promise and the electorate now face tax increases.

You cannot vote for something which is not offered, only for something which is offered.

How are the electorate to blame?

In theory, the CPA involves public service reform. In practice the reform is much slower than it needs to be, but that seems to be down to union reluctance to implement reform as much as government unwillingness to push the issue.

Government unwillingness to push the issue is an inappropriate description (imo). It's not something which the cabinet are gently pushing - the opposite is the case- Kenny has come under attack from his under backbenchers due to refusal to tackle the issue.

djpbarry

gandalf wrote: »

From my perspective sort the waste and costs out first and then talk to us about additional taxation.

Seems like the rational approach would be to close the gap from both ends? Increase revenue and decrease expenditure.