Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Government quakes as a massive 3000 people attend national property tax protest
Options
Comments
-
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense - tax increases are completely unavoidable. There is absolutely no way Ireland can get to where it needs to be with spending cuts alone.Dannyboy83 wrote: »They have not delivered on the above, and we now people are paying a new tax, because of their failure to deliver.0 -
Let's back away from "the electorate" for a second, and narrow this down to you as a Fine Gael voter: is it your genuinely-held view that Fine Gael should set aside every other consideration - industrial relations, the impact on the wider economy, everything - in order to come good on that one issue that's important to you personally? That the threats from SIPTU should be blithely ignored, even if it leads to widespread public sector strikes, because every single thing they've every said in an election campaign trumps all pragmatic considerations involved in actually running a country?Dannyboy83 wrote: »The part I'm confused and wish to have explained is the part where the electorate are somehow to blame for this.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Let's back away from "the electorate" for a second, and narrow this down to you as a Fine Gael voter: is it your genuinely-held view that Fine Gael should set aside every other consideration - industrial relations, the impact on the wider economy, everything - in order to come good on that one issue that's important to you personally? That the threats from SIPTU should be blithely ignored, even if it leads to widespread public sector strikes, because every single thing they've every said in an election campaign trumps all pragmatic considerations involved in actually running a country?
If you wish to narrow it down, then I ask you - What could I, as a voter, have done differently?
I couldn't vote for Labour, Sinn Fein or the ULA, because they offered the opposite of what I wanted.
I couldn't vote for Fianna Fail, because they offered what we currently have.
Fine Gael offered what I wanted - so I voted for them.
Is that not the nature of democracy?
Is that not how it works in every country?
In the UK, people voted for the tories (near majority), and the tories have been doing what they were elected to do.
In Ireland, people voted for FG (near majority), yet FG have not done what they were elected to do.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.
What do you propose the electorate should have done or what should I as a voter have done?0 -
Dannyboy83 wrote: »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
They have not delivered on the above, and we now people are paying a new tax, because of their failure to deliver.
.
The quote you seem to be referring to is the following:
"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"
And you somehow seem to think that the government is not meeting this promise. Let me refer you to a Dail speech of the 8 March 2012, the most recent update I can find:
http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2012-03-08.320.0
"The size of the public service grew significantly in the early years of the last decade. By 2008, some 320,000 were employed in the public service and, by 2009, the gross Exchequer pay bill peaked at more than €17.5 billion. It is perhaps easy to become jaded in our discussion of public service pay costs. However, I would ask the House to note that the total net cost of the public service pay bill will be reduced from 2008 to 2015 by some €3.5 billion - by 20% in seven years. This reduction is necessary to contribute to the fiscal adjustment targets essential for our economy"
They are now promising that the reduction in the pay bill will be €3.5 billion rather than €2.5 billion and that will be 20% rather than 12%. Looks like they think they will overshoot the promise. But hey, that is by 2015, how are they getting on so far.
"By 2008, some 320,000 were employed in the public service "
"The numbers working in the public service have continued to fall, with the provisional outturn for the end of last year now standing at 296,900,"
"I am confident that, given the number of departures last year, together with estimated retirement figures for 2012, we are well on track to meet our 2012 target of 294,400."
So let me see, they promised a reduction of 37,500 by 2015. They have achieved a reductionby end-2011 of 23,100 and expect more by the end of 2012. Which bit of the promise are they not delivering on? What exactly is your problem? They promised to reduce the pay bill and the public sector numbers, the figures show that is what is happening, how can you say that they have not delivered?
If you want to find a promise of something that they didn't deliver, try and find one more credible than this.0 -
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense - tax increases are completely unavoidable. There is absolutely no way Ireland can get to where it needs to be with spending cuts alone.
There is indeed a way; It's unpalatable, but neither impossible nor nonsense.
I'm not in favour of that method however.
I believe, as you said in your previous post, the rational approach would be to close the gap from both ends.
How that would be achieved is a different topic, and one covered infinite times on this forum already.0 -
Advertisement
-
You could have voted for someone else. You could have stayed at home. You could have spoiled your vote. You could have taken into account the fact that it's not always possible, for pragmatic reasons as well as other less noble ones, for a government to deliver on every single campaign promise that they make in the run-up to an election.Dannyboy83 wrote: »If you wish to narrow it down, then I ask you - What could I, as a voter, have done differently?
If you define "doing what they were elected to do" as "not varying in any detail from every single article of their election campaign despite the fact that they had to negotiate a program for government with a coalition partner who campaigned with a different set of pre-election promises", then yes: they haven't done what they were elected to do.In Ireland, people voted for FG (near majority), yet FG have not done what they were elected to do.
If that's the standard you're holding a political party to, you could be a while waiting for a party that will satisfy you.
But I'll ask again: did you vote for them in the firmly-held belief that there was no possibility of them deviating in any particular from every single detail of all their campaign promises?
Ah, I think I see what the problem is. I point out that the electorate make unrealistic demands of campaigning political parties, and you take this to mean that every single expectation held by every single voter is unrealistic.What do you propose the electorate should have done or what should I as a voter have done?
Perhaps you should check your premises.0 -
"By 2008, some 320,000 were employed in the public service "
"The numbers working in the public service have continued to fall, with the provisional outturn for the end of last year now standing at 296,900,"
"I am confident that, given the number of departures last year, together with estimated retirement figures for 2012, we are well on track to meet our 2012 target of 294,400."
So let me see, they promised a reduction of 37,500 by 2015. They have achieved a reductionby end-2011 of 23,100 and expect more by the end of 2012. Which bit of the promise are they not delivering on? What exactly is your problem? They promised to reduce the pay bill and the public sector numbers, the figures show that is what is happening, how can you say that they have not delivered?
If you want to find a promise of something that they didn't deliver, try and find one more credible than this.
As an example:http://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/public-sector-reform-a-mirage-3005828.html
While 9,000 public sector workers might seem like a large number in absolute terms it is in fact only about four-tenths of the 23,000 workers who will leave the public sector by 2015 under the Government's plans for public sector reform. Public Expenditure and Reform Minister Brendan Howlin is relying upon natural wastage for the remaining 14,000 reduction in employment numbers.
At the same time as 9,000 public sector workers are taking retirement Mr Howlin has conceded that up to 3,000 public sector workers will be recruited this year. This 3,000 will be in addition to many "retired" public sector workers who will continue, at least temporarily, to do their old jobs in one guise or another. This means that predictions of disruption resulting from the retirements will almost certainly prove to have been overblown.
If you recall the public sector efficencies announced in June last year actually amounted to net 600m, rather the considerably larger figure being claimed.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »You could have voted for someone else.
But no one else offered what I wanted?
There was no one else to vote for.
Fine Gael offered what I wanted, so it made sense to vote for them.You could have stayed at home.
You could have spoiled your vote.
Fine Gael offered what I wanted, therefore I voted for them.
Why would I have refused to vote or wasted my vote?
The only way it can possibly be considered rational, is if I had a crystal ball to see into the future. I didn't then - nor will I have for the next election.
What am I supposed to do at the next election?You could have taken into account the fact that it's not always possible, for pragmatic reasons as well as other less noble ones, for a government to deliver on every single campaign promise that they make in the run-up to an election.
Naturally, I did and always do.
But there are core issues and then there are secondary issues...
I don't think anyone would argue that this was a secondary issue.
For example, I would not expect the Greens vote compromise on toxic waste dumping and if they did, those who vote for them would not be pleased.If you define "doing what they were elected to do" as "not varying in any detail from every single article of their election campaign despite the fact that they had to negotiate a program for government with a coalition partner who campaigned with a different set of pre-election promises", then yes: they haven't done what they were elected to do.
If that's the standard you're holding a political party to, you could be a while waiting for a party that will satisfy you.
Unfortunately, you are indeed correct.
But as I say, there are core issues and then there are secondary issues.But I'll ask again: did you vote for them in the firmly-held belief that there was no possibility of them deviating in any particular from every single detail of all their campaign promises?
Of course not, I wished to see Irish made optional as promised.
I would like to see it happen, but accept it will not.
It's a secondary issue tho.
(I hope my post doesn't come across as ranty - it's not intended to be)Ah, I think I see what the problem is. I point out that the electorate make unrealistic demands of campaigning political parties, and you take this to mean that every single expectation held by every single voter is unrealistic.
Actually, the point is that I don't understand your original statement.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.
I'm not trying to argue semantics, I'm genuinely curious as to what you would have the electorate do.
I do not see an alternative option.
I cannot vote for what is not offered, only for what is offered.
If I wish to participate (i.e. not spoil my vote), what am I supposed to do?0 -
Vote for the party that you feel best represents your wishes. Make allowances for the fact that it won't always be possible for a party to do everything it would like to do once in government. Offer feedback to your elected representatives as to how well they've represented your wishes. And then rinse and repeat come the next election.Dannyboy83 wrote: »I'm not trying to argue semantics, I'm genuinely curious as to what you would have the electorate do.
I do not see an alternative option.
I cannot vote for what is not offered, only for what is offered.
If I wish to participate (i.e. not spoil my vote), what am I supposed to do?
You could also ask candidates when they come canvassing not to promise anything that they're not absolutely certain they will be in a position to deliver.0 -
In Westminster, the Tories have more than five times as many seats as the Lib Dems. In the Dáil, FG have only about twice as many seats as Labour. That’s a big difference.Dannyboy83 wrote: »In the UK, people voted for the tories (near majority), and the tories have been doing what they were elected to do.
In Ireland, people voted for FG (near majority), yet FG have not done what they were elected to do.
Oh there are definitely ways. None of them are realistic, however.Dannyboy83 wrote: »There is indeed a way; It's unpalatable, but neither impossible nor nonsense.
I don’t believe it’s all that difficult to achieve, in theory. But, there are two big problems in practice. The first is that the public seem to believe that absolutely every tax increase or spending cut is tied to “the banks” in some way. The second is union opposition to public sector reform. I’m honestly not sure what to do about either.Dannyboy83 wrote: »I believe, as you said in your previous post, the rational approach would be to close the gap from both ends.
How that would be achieved is a different topic, and one covered infinite times on this forum already.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ruairi Quinn's pledge on third-level fees is a good example. If he came to my door telling me that he would absolutely not consider asking students to contribute toward their education, the first question that would come to my mind would be “ok, so what are you going to do about the under-funding of third-level education?”oscarBravo wrote: »You could also ask candidates when they come canvassing not to promise anything that they're not absolutely certain they will be in a position to deliver.0 -
Third-level education is a choice for an individual. Not an entitlement bestowed upon them by everyone else.Ruairi Quinn's pledge on third-level fees is a good example. If he came to my door telling me that he would absolutely not consider asking students to contribute toward their education, the first question that would come to my mind would be “ok, so what are you going to do about the under-funding of third-level education?”
Whats wrong with having to pay one's own way through this optional extension of one's educational journey? If university fees are to subsidised by the taxpayer, then why not every other third-level educational facility? Why not VECs etc? Adult Education programmes?0 -
I think that's a discussion for another thread - I was just using it as an example of a pre-election promise that was unlikely to be delivered.Third-level education is a choice for an individual. Not an entitlement bestowed upon them by everyone else.
Whats wrong with having to pay one's own way through this optional extension of one's educational journey? If university fees are to subsidised by the taxpayer, then why not every other third-level educational facility? Why not VECs etc? Adult Education programmes?0 -
The HC is once again putting the cart before the horse. Until they tackle wastage and over payment of TD's, councillors and the top echelons of the public service they can take a run and jump.
When they have proved to me they are serious about reform then I'll gladly pay.
As for the poster who says nothing illegal happened during the banking crisis. Transferring moneys from one bank to another to prop up ones balance sheet IS a crime. This happened here between Anglo, TSB & nationwide. Again until the people directly responsible for where where we are,suffer for their mistakes I will not be funding this failed state anymore than I have to.
Politicians who will not administer their moral duty have some neck calling me a criminal for paying this. I will gladly show them a receipt from SVP, at least that money will go to some use.0 -
Ruairi Quinn's pledge on third-level fees is a good example. If he came to my door telling me that he would absolutely not consider asking students to contribute toward their education, the first question that would come to my mind would be “ok, so what are you going to do about the under-funding of third-level education?”
Just my opinion but the overwhelming majority of the electorate do this anyway:I) Vote for the party that you feel best represents your wishes.
II) Make allowances for the fact that it won't always be possible for a party to do everything it would like to do once in government.
III) Offer feedback to your elected representatives as to how well they've represented your wishes.
IV) And then rinse and repeat come the next election.
(with the exception of III - which is where the problem lies imo)
I don't personally know anyone who doesn't do I.
II is mainly only possible because of III.
People stop doing IV because they become disillusioned.
Thats why this statement means nothing to meThe 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 a kind of a theoretical vision of how politics should work, with no bearing in reality. It's unachievable without change in the system - not change in the electorate.
It's like saying.... the day Irish people stop committing crimes, we will be able to disband the police.
As I've said many times before - if you hire a builder to build you a conservatory, and he builds you an outhouse, he gets his marching orders, whereas a politician is untouchable until the next election.
There is no step III in the Irish system and I wouldn't expect anything to change until the system is changed.
It's the system which needs to change, then the electorate will follow.You could also ask candidates when they come canvassing not to promise anything that they're not absolutely certain they will be in a position to deliver.
This is utterly futile based on personal experience.
Politicians lie, that's what politicians do. (The same politician promised me a complete opposite lie to the one he promised my father at the last election)
They're mainly just trying to win a popularity contest, that's their primary goal, anything else is secondary.0 -
None of which will make a blind bit of difference to the state of Ireland’s finances.golfball37 wrote: »Until they tackle wastage and over payment of TD's, councillors and the top echelons of the public service they can take a run and jump.
That’s not what I said. It seems a large chunk of the population is waiting for someone to be convicted of a felony so they have someone to blame for Ireland’s mess. But, it’s quite possible that nobody will be convicted of anything. Furthermore, if someone is convicted of a crime, they will likely be used as a scapegoat, the entire financial crisis will be blamed on them, and nobody will learn anything.golfball37 wrote: »As for the poster who says nothing illegal happened during the banking crisis.0 -
I would agree that ‘III’ is rare. However, I think you’re overlooking the fact that for a lot of people, ‘I’ reads “vote for the party your Dad votes for”, or “vote for the party who supported the treaty”, or “vote for the guy who fixed the road”.Dannyboy83 wrote: »Just my opinion but the overwhelming majority of the electorate do this anyway...
Some politicians do, some make promises they can’t keep. Either way, it should be relatively easy to see through them and call them on their bull****. Maybe not on everything, but certainly on issues that an individual voter regards as important.Dannyboy83 wrote: »This is utterly futile based on personal experience.
Politicians lie, that's what politicians do.0 -
I'm bemused at the fact that you've completely glossed over the fact that most people don't do II.Dannyboy83 wrote: »Just my opinion but the overwhelming majority of the electorate do this anyway:
(with the exception of III - which is where the problem lies imo)I) Vote for the party that you feel best represents your wishes.
II) Make allowances for the fact that it won't always be possible for a party to do everything it would like to do once in government.
III) Offer feedback to your elected representatives as to how well they've represented your wishes.
IV) And then rinse and repeat come the next election.
I don't personally know anyone who doesn't do I.
II is mainly only possible because of III.
People stop doing IV because they become disillusioned.
The sheer frothing outrage, the vitriol that has been heaped upon government TDs in Roscommon over their failure to secure the retention of the A&E department in the local hospital is the type of thing I'm talking about. If a candidate tells people on the doorstep that they're going to have to accept the fact that cuts are inevitable and that their local A&E could well be a target of those cuts, he won't get elected. If he tells them he'll fight to keep it open, and cold hard reality dictates otherwise, they're calling for him to be tarred and feathered.
As much as I want change in the system, it's quite simply not going to happen without change in the electorate. We elect the government. If we want better governments, we're going to have to elect better governments, but we're also going to have to be pragmatic and realise the limits of any given government's ability to deliver every single thing that we demand of them.It's a kind of a theoretical vision of how politics should work, with no bearing in reality. It's unachievable without change in the system - not change in the electorate.
The analogy is broken. If you hire a builder to build you a conservatory, you have a one-on-one contract with a single other party with a clearly defined contractual relationship.As I've said many times before - if you hire a builder to build you a conservatory, and he builds you an outhouse, he gets his marching orders, whereas a politician is untouchable until the next election.
The current government consists of two parties, each of which consists of dozens of elected representatives, each of which "promised" a great many things to a great many different people with a great many different and often conflicting desires. There is no explicit contract between any given TD and any given voter, never mind between the entire government and the entire electorate.
You have the choice of holding them accountable for their lies by not voting for them the next time out. The downside is that you'll almost certainly never vote for an incumbent government candidate again.Politicians lie, that's what politicians do. (The same politician promised me a complete opposite lie to the one he promised my father at the last election)
They're mainly just trying to win a popularity contest, that's their primary goal, anything else is secondary.0 -
So basically this isn't about the protest anymore, right? Might I suggest a title change?0
-
None of which will make a blind bit of difference to the state of Ireland’s finances.
That’s not what I said. It seems a large chunk of the population is waiting for someone to be convicted of a felony so they have someone to blame for Ireland’s mess. But, it’s quite possible that nobody will be convicted of anything. Furthermore, if someone is convicted of a crime, they will likely be used as a scapegoat, the entire financial crisis will be blamed on them, and nobody will learn anything.
They will save a hell of a lot more than the 160m they hope to raise with the HC by cutting costs and reducing wastage. If you are primarily concerned with the state of Irelands deficit you would be advocating doing this yourself.
Until they enforce real reform they cannot p1ss down peoples back and tell them its raining anymore.0 -
Advertisement
-
golfball37 wrote: »They will save a hell of a lot more than the 160m they hope to raise with the HC by cutting costs and reducing wastage. If you are primarily concerned with the state of Irelands deficit you would be advocating doing this yourself.
How much do they have to save before it becomes acceptable to levy any new taxes?0 -
-
Oh but I am. I just don’t see why raising additional revenue and cutting costs cannot be done in parallel?golfball37 wrote: »They will save a hell of a lot more than the 160m they hope to raise with the HC by cutting costs and reducing wastage. If you are primarily concerned with the state of Irelands deficit you would be advocating doing this yourself.
No, you didn’t. Nobody ever does, conveniently enough. So you’re basically refusing to pay any more taxes until some unspecified, arbitrary point in the future?golfball37 wrote: »I didn't even mention that,0 -
Oh but I am. I just don’t see why raising additional revenue and cutting costs cannot be done in parallel?
No, you didn’t. Nobody ever does, conveniently enough. So you’re basically refusing to pay any more taxes until some unspecified, arbitrary point in the future?
It would be fine if they were being done in parellel, I'd have no issue with this. I have no issue with a property tax either per se. Can you honestly tell me any effeort has been made to reform how our money is spent?
Why is this being collected centrally if its for local services also? This tax is being left up to the individual to pay and its the first chance we have to register a protest about the way the govt is doing business. Reform first then you can tax me.
On your 2nd point- Yes I guess i am though I will say additional taxes I already pay USC, PAYE, PRSI etc.
Hope that makes you feel better.0 -
How much are local authorities in hoc to developers throughout the country? Wonder is it more or less than 160m?
Why arent they vigourously pursuing this like they are the measly 160m they hope to get from the HC?0 -
Any effort? Sure – cuts have been made, have they not?golfball37 wrote: »Can you honestly tell me any effeort has been made to reform how our money is spent?
Can you honestly tell me that billions of €’s worth of further cuts can be made without mass opposition from the general public?
I believe the constitution dictates that it must be.golfball37 wrote: »Why is this being collected centrally if its for local services also?
Bollocks. You can register a protest with your local TD’s any time you like, but somehow I doubt many of those who are refusing to pay the charge have considered that option.golfball37 wrote: »This tax is being left up to the individual to pay and its the first chance we have to register a protest about the way the govt is doing business.
Reform what? Let’s have some specifics. What exactly is it you want to see done before you’ll pay the household charge?golfball37 wrote: »Reform first then you can tax me.
I don’t know – how much?golfball37 wrote: »How much are local authorities in hoc to developers throughout the country?0 -
golfball37 wrote: »
This tax is being left up to the individual to pay and its the first chance we have to register a protest about the way the govt is doing business. Reform first then you can tax me.
The law says that the tax has to be paid, so it has to be paid. People have to pay from now on, then its something that we all will have to get used to, in line with most of the rest of Europe. We can then hopefully, demand reform and accountability for our money, and get the shoddy County Councils into line. We pay a TV licence, car tax, insurance, fees of all types. What is the big deal about having to pay another tax..... is it just belligerence and pigheadedness, and someone else should pay?0 -
I don't disagree with the thrust of your point, but just as I've pointed out that we can't afford to wait for reform before paying taxes, it's only fair to point out that we should demand reform and accountability as our basic rights, not in return for paying new taxes. The two issues are orthogonal.We can then hopefully, demand reform and accountability for our money...0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I don't disagree with the thrust of your point, but just as I've pointed out that we can't afford to wait for reform before paying taxes, it's only fair to point out that we should demand reform and accountability as our basic rights, not in return for paying new taxes. The two issues are orthogonal.
Agreed. In view of the fact there is such opposition to the charge, then hopefully the Government will be fully focused on the need for reform, whilst collecting a very unpopular revenue. Up to now there has been little or no motivation for reform, and maybe this will help to get the ball rolling?0 -
Advertisement
-
The Household Tax protest is something you don't even have to leave your armchair to take part in. Just relax and don't pay.0
Advertisement