TDs looking after themselves

Zebra3

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rates-freebie-for-enda-but-not-for-oxfam-3357990.html

Fair play to them.

They want us to pay new taxes on our homes to cover private gambling debts, they want charities to pay as well, but themselves?

F**k no!!! :rolleyes:

Sunnyisland

We here stories after stories about our TD,s and goverment parties every day,and yet the Irish people will still vote for the same people in the next General Election.

shedweller

Same as it ever was!

Fromthetrees

Rates should be slashed across the board anyway but having one law for 'us' and one law for 'them' just proves once again the type of society we live in.

Boo-urns I say, boo-cunting-urns.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Nothing new in this.

Myrddin

Rich politicians in tax exeption shocker

mikemac1

google maps

The article calls it lavish.
Just an ordinary looking office, nothing lavish about it


The street is lined with pubs though, Castlebar looks to be a great place for a session

Thoie

I believe that constituency offices should pay rates, and charity shops should possibly be exempt, the Indo has shown its tabloid tendencies again by referring to Kenny's HQ as "lavish". A quick look on Google maps shows that it's not exactly the Taj Mahal (though it is right next door to an Indian takeaway).

Myrddin

mikemac1 wrote: »

The article calls it lavish.
Just an ordinary looking office, nothing lavish about it

Thoie wrote: »

the Indo has shown its tabloid tendencies again by referring to Kenny's HQ as "lavish". A quick look on Google maps shows that it's not exactly the Taj Mahal (though it is right next door to an Indian takeaway).

What difference should it make whether its lavish or not? Every other premesis on that street pays no doubt extortionate rates so why shouldnt this one...lavish or not?

Zebra3

At a guess, I'd say it's lavish enough inside.

Not that it matters.

Thoie

EnterNow wrote: »

What difference should it make whether its lavish or not? Every other premesis on that street pays no doubt extortionate rates so why shouldnt this one...lavish or not?

Did you actually read what I had written?

galwayrush

Seriously, that is about as surprising as discovering water is wet.

Chips Lovell

Properties occupied by the state are exempt from rates. Presumably that's the reason. If they were liable they'd be claiming it back in expenses anyway. Looks like a non-story.

Zebra3

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Properties occupied by the state are exempt from rates. Presumably that's the reason. If they were liable they'd be claiming it back in expenses anyway.

Well, I'm sure Edna will happily stump up and pay what would be due by anyone else.

He did get voted in on a ticket for "Change" after all, or was that just a load of crap? :rolleyes:

Replies from FG apologists welcome.

stoneill

Imagine that - TD's not having to pay for stuff that the rest of us have to.

Thoie

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Properties occupied by the state are exempt from rates. Presumably that's the reason. If they were liable they'd be claiming it back in expenses anyway. Looks like a non-story.

That raises the question of why, if they're state properties, are they allowed dress them in their party colours?

KeithTS

If Enda owns the office, fair n'uf pay rates, however, if it's a state building it makes sense that its exempt. Why pay only to have it go to the people who paid it.

Can't see what the bother is about tbh.

keith16

realies wrote: »

We here stories after stories about our TD,s and goverment parties every day,and yet the Irish people will still vote for the same people in the next General Election.

Well it's not as if we have much a choice now, is it?

gbee

Don't know why this comes up all the time, it's still all tax payers money, if we make them pay taxes and rates, it's just more expenses and more taxes from us.

dxhound2005

Here is the same story from the same paper 5 years ago and even then it was old news.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tds-offices-exempt-from-council-rates-1265023.html

Chips Lovell

Thoie wrote: »

That raises the question of why, if they're state properties, are they allowed dress them in their party colours?

If decking your office out in party colours is considered part of doing you job as a TD, then probably yes.

ManMade

Don't charities receive state money( or as commonly put on here tax payers money!!!)? If commercial rates were reduced wouldn't the state simple reduce these donations?

sfwcork

Does he get free pints in the pubs too?now that would cause caos

tombozo

Funny how all these 'perks' get voted through the system with no fanfare? the same when during the budget they opted to vouch all expenses, but to lesson the blow they increased their expenses limit by 10 grand!
10 grand by 166 TDs? How many respite grants would that pay for?

GalwayGuy2

Replies from FG apologists welcome.

So everybody that disagrees with you is an FG apologist?

monkeypants

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Properties occupied by the state are exempt from rates. Presumably that's the reason. If they were liable they'd be claiming it back in expenses anyway. Looks like a non-story.

Are these offices owned by the state rather than by the party?

dxhound2005

tombozo wrote: »

Funny how all these 'perks' get voted through the system with no fanfare? the same when during the budget they opted to vouch all expenses, but to lesson the blow they increased their expenses limit by 10 grand!
10 grand by 166 TDs? How many respite grants would that pay for?

The legal question would be whether a politicians office could be regarded as a commercial operation set up for the purposes of making a profit and thus be regarded as liable for commercial rates. Premises occupied by charitable organisations are already exempt except where the premises are being used for commercial purposes like charity shops. The whole thing goes back to the Valuation Act of 2001 and is hardly new news.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2001050300005?opendocument

The Valuation Bill continues the existing exemption from rates of any land, building or any part of a building occupied by a charitable organisation which uses the land or building exclusively for charitable purposes, other than for profit. This means the administrative offices used by a charitable organisation, as well as buildings used directly for charitable relief, are exempt from rates. Buildings used by a charitable organisation for commercial use, such as charity shops, are engaged in a commercial activity for profit, despite the final use to which the profits are put. Therefore, such premises, like other commercial premises, are subject to rates. I fully acknowledge the valuable work undertaken by charities and charity shops and the contribution they make towards the Irish and international community. However, I consider charity shops should not be exempted from rates in the Bill. In this regard, the criteria for rating under the valuation code is based on occupation and the purpose for which the property is used. Charity shops are engaged in a commercial activity for profit, despite the final use to which any profits are put. Charity shops are in direct competition with other shops. Many of them are now selling brand new rather than second-hand goods. Second-hand shops are also subject to rates and such shops are likely to be aggrieved by having their competitors exempted from rates.

Biggins

shedweller wrote: »

Same as it ever was!

Indeed - big time.

* http://bigginsblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/the-irish-cronyism-abuses-still-continues-unabated-more-broken-promises/

* http://bigginsblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/the-cronyism-nepotism-continues-no-change-then-from-fianna-fail/

* http://bigginsblog.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/phil-hogan-fine-gael-and-more-cronyism/


Sadly people will still vote for them.

Sully

Biggins wrote: »

Indeed - big time.

* http://bigginsblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/the-irish-cronyism-abuses-still-continues-unabated-more-broken-promises/

* http://bigginsblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/the-cronyism-nepotism-continues-no-change-then-from-fianna-fail/

* http://bigginsblog.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/phil-hogan-fine-gael-and-more-cronyism/


Sadly people will still vote for them.

There is no alternative. All parties, including Sinn Fein, lie and say things during an election or in opposition they haven't a hope of implementing. I think that boils down to the electorate more than it does the parties.

We have probably one of the more honest parties in government and a party that was more honest during the election, that being Fine Gael. A lot of people talk about broken promises and stuff - but a lot of stuff they are doing was in their party manifesto. A lot of people were well warned the budgets were going to be very tough and there was no easy pathway that was going to be taken. Not to say that there were misleading statements and promises within, but compared with other elections and parties, there better.

bijapos

Sully wrote: »

There is no alternative. All parties, including Sinn Fein, lie and say things during an election or in opposition they haven't a hope of implementing. I think that boils down to the electorate more than it does the parties.

We have probably one of the more honest parties in government and a party that was more honest during the election, that being Fine Gael. A lot of people talk about broken promises and stuff - but a lot of stuff they are doing was in their party manifesto. A lot of people were well warned the budgets were going to be very tough and there was no easy pathway that was going to be taken. Not to say that there were misleading statements and promises within, but compared with other elections and parties, there better.

Being more honest than FF stilll doesn't make FG honest, not by a long shot, in fact they are still a pack of liars well and truly in the pockets of developers. Being a little bit better than one of the most appalling parties in Western European politics is nothing to be proud of, fact is FG could be a lot better if they wanted, but they choose not to.

And no they were not honest during the elections, they were utterly dishonest, everything from national policies "not another red cent" to god awful parish pump politics from the future Taoiseach "maintaining services at Roscommon hospital". And let's not forget their proposed reforms on party funding, political reform etc or promises to implement findings of the Mahon tribunal.

A pile of bollix, I'm just glad I stuck them at the bottom of the ballot along with FF.

Biggins

Sully wrote: »

...We have probably one of the more honest parties in government and a party that was more honest during the election, that being Fine Gael.

Are you serious?

You haven't heard about the various antics of our Minister for Health for example or the questions that now hang over the head of Phil Hogan in his own local constituency about planing permission being given after been refused clear-cut twice before he got involved apparently - and that just two examples in the last two weeks!

There are many others that are involved in similar antics in Fine Gael alone presently.
One of the most honest parties currently in government?
Either someone is leading you astray, having a laugh or quite simply not keeping you informed.