Minister James Reilly's gaf.

flutered · 03-06-2012 01:32PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think it speaks volumes that James Reilly sits in a cabinet that did not have the ability or inclination to introduce an equitable property charge and instead went ahead with the introduction of a charge which sees minister Reilly pay the same flat 100 euro for his country pile as the person in a one bed shoe box apartment.

just goes to show how much of an ejeet the shoe box owner is/was.

Bodhisopha · 03-06-2012 01:32PM

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Bono once said, There's a rich man with a big house up on the hill. Other nationalities drive by and say "OMG, I want to be just like that man". We Irish are dufferent, we drive by and say "some day I'm gonna get that bastard". Very true

Watching Oprah, were we?

BattleCorp · 03-06-2012 01:33PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think it speaks volumes that James Reilly sits in a cabinet that did not have the ability or inclination to introduce an equitable property charge and instead went ahead with the introduction of a charge which sees minister Reilly pay the same flat 100 euro for his country pile as the person in a one bed shoe box apartment.

Just a quick thought but is the minister supposed to pay commercial rates on the premesis instead of the €100 property charge? Seeing as he is carrying out a business there n'all.

senorwipesalot · 03-06-2012 01:34PM

Tommy Dillon wrote: »

Has anyone seen this? wha wha weee wha

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/for-hire-ministers-taxrelief-mansion-2630237.html

Heres the kitchen http://www.google.ie/imgres?q=chewbacca&start=89&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1R2GGHP_en-GBIE458&biw=1024&bih=567&addh=36&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=szxARje8uAF9xM:&imgrefurl=http://socialmediahansolo.com/digital-media/domain-names-and-your-blog/&docid=2MaG90hLWPBPiM&imgurl=http://socialmediahansolo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/chewbacca-kitchen.jpg&w=394&h=484&ei=aFjLT4zBIZS1hAf5lMneDw&zoom=1 twas done up in 1984 .

Battered Mars Bar · 03-06-2012 01:37PM

"Aight we got the 22's, check this sheeee' out...this sheeee' be fine classical work y'all, we got the pediments, we got the uh entablatures, we's ain't havin' no bungalow bliss I'm talkin' late 18th Century decor, that sheeee' will blo yo mind."

James Reilly*

*May not actually be Minister James Reilly

donvito99 · 03-06-2012 01:41PM

Did anyone else think the thread title referred to a political gaffe?

steddyeddy · 03-06-2012 01:43PM

Fair play to him if he worked hard for it I say! I have no time for these Be Dunne types though who inherited a position in life.

cournioni · 03-06-2012 01:51PM

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Bono once said, There's a rich man with a big house up on the hill. Other nationalities drive by and say "OMG, I want to be just like that man". We Irish are dufferent, we drive by and say "some day I'm gonna get that bastard". Very true

It's not just the irish that hate bono though! :pac:

Dyr · 03-06-2012 01:57PM

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Bono once said, There's a rich man with a big house up on the hill. Other nationalities drive by and say "OMG, I want to be just like that man". We Irish are dufferent, we drive by and say "some day I'm gonna get that bastard". Very true

Bono got it wrong, the irish are different because we say "maybe the little bollix should start paying some fkin tax"

Einhard · 03-06-2012 02:09PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think it speaks volumes that James Reilly sits in a cabinet that did not have the ability or inclination to introduce an equitable property charge and instead went ahead with the introduction of a charge which sees minister Reilly pay the same flat 100 euro for his country pile as the person in a one bed shoe box apartment.

The flat rate aonly applies this year because to introduce a progressive property tax would have been too problematic to achieve in such a short space of time. Next year, charges will be levied based on the value of the house or some such, and no doubt Reilly et al will be hit with higher charges. So your charge doesn;t really have much validity.

My name is URL wrote: »

I think the issue that people have with this story is that he avails of tax-breaks and subsidies in order to maintain the property even though they hire it out to people for weddings etc, which itself generates a healthy income.

He's not breaking any laws or rules, but on principle alone he probably shouldn't be availing of public funds for such things at a time when hospitals are being closed down etc. He's not short a few quid, and the money he receives for the upkeep of that particular house of his would be of more use elsewhere.

Over the years, too many "Big Houses" have been allowed fall into ruin because the cost of maintaining them can be astronomical. We're talking of paying tens of thousands a year in some instances just to keep these old houses in good condition. I don't want to see any more such houses fall into decay and decline, and so I have no problem with O'Reilly claiming some of the tax reliefs available in order to cover some of the costs of maintaining this historic building.

Also: don't really get the point of this thread. Man earns good money, and buys himself nice house. Then legitimately avails of the available tax reliefs in order to keep said house in good nick. Where's the problem exactly?

Napper Hawkins · 03-06-2012 02:09PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Fair play to him if he worked hard for it I say! I have no time for these Be Dunne types though who inherited a position in life.

Why?

later12 · 03-06-2012 02:59PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Fair play to him if he worked hard for it I say! I have no time for these Be Dunne types though who inherited a position in life.

I'm sure Ben Dunne is very concerned at your consternation,he must be crying into his handkerchief, made entirely of 50 euro notes.

Quite honestly, I don't see why it needs to be any of your concern whether someone owns property or assets via inheritence or personal gain. What difference does it make to your life?

Cardinal Richelieu · 03-06-2012 02:59PM

That's his weekend gaff! He doesn't struggle for a place to rest his head.

James Reilly 2011 Register of Members Interests

1) ½ acre Cock Hill, Stamullen, Co. Meath: site;
(2) Derelict ruin on ¼ acre, Balrothery, Co. Dublin: site - derelict - no planning permission; (3) Commercial building, Lusk Town Centre, Lusk: comprising surgery, treatment rooms, consulting rooms, offices, pharmacy, supermarket, bookmakers, barbers, unoccupied restaurant, 1 apartment & 3 sites for town houses & vacant floor: leased to tenants; (4) Former family farm: Baldrummond, Lusk, Co. Dublin, 86 acres: let for tillage; (5) Holiday home: Doonbeg: No. 32 The Courtyard: investment; (6) House: Seafoam, Rush, Co. Dublin on .7 acre: residence; (7) Green Hills Nursing Home, Carrick on Suir, Tipperary: ¼ share: care of the elderly: interest transferred to blind trust as per SIPO advice; (8) Commercial site on one third share of 1.3 acres at Nevinstown, Swords, Co. Dublin: commercial site undeveloped; (9) Land at Loughton, Moneygall, Co. Offaly: 150 acres: farming & woodland: 100 acres let for grazing; (10) Golf club membership at Doonbeg GC., Co. Clare: golf.

later12 · 03-06-2012 03:00PM

cock hill, lol.

joke's on him.

03-06-2012 03:00PM

Is there any evidence that the hiring out of the house provides a "healthy income" rather than it just being a way to hold onto the house? Unless someone can provide evidence of that and it not being a way to pay the bills I don't see the point of this thread.
Also if people agree with the tax breaks to keep such houses occupied but don't like this then where should the limit be? Earn over 40k per year and you don't get it? Also what are the details of the tax breaks?

My name is URL · 03-06-2012 03:13PM

Einhard wrote: »

I don't want to see any more such houses fall into decay and decline, and so I have no problem with O'Reilly claiming some of the tax reliefs available in order to cover some of the costs of maintaining this historic building.

Also: don't really get the point of this thread. Man earns good money, and buys himself nice house. Then legitimately avails of the available tax reliefs in order to keep said house in good nick. Where's the problem exactly?

I was just giving my opinion on it. You're entitled to your own. My view is that just because somebody is entitled to something, be it tax-reliefs to upkeep a stately home, or certain types of social welfare, it doesn't mean that they are obliged to avail of it, and if they're in a position financially to do without it then in principle they should waive whatever entitlement it is.

When's the last time any government minister showed a degree of principle though?.. that's way too much to ask or expect of our lot.

dvpower · 03-06-2012 03:16PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there any evidence that the hiring out of the house provides a "healthy income" rather than it just being a way to hold onto the house? Unless someone can provide evidence of that and it not being a way to pay the bills I don't see the point of this thread.

The point of the thread is to have an easy pop at James Reilly.

Pantsface · 03-06-2012 03:20PM

What a fabulous home!!! Fair balls to him

christmas2012 · 03-06-2012 03:22PM

imagine the property tax valuation on that(when valuation comes in after the property tax) i cant even imagine must be like a thousand a year for that place :eek:

ps: just to let you know we never paid the property tax and people of ireland should not pay it if enough protest by not paying we could win i think dont give in and dont be complacent

My name is URL · 03-06-2012 03:28PM

dvpower wrote: »

The point of the thread is to have an easy pop at James Reilly.

You'd be here fighting his or any other FG'ers corner regardless of what the thread was about.

Shur they can do no wrong in your, and a few other poster's eyes. Just the same as how FF could do no wrong in the eyes of their blinkered supporters.

03-06-2012 03:38PM

My name is URL wrote: »

I was just giving my opinion on it. You're entitled to your own. My view is that just because somebody is entitled to something, be it tax-reliefs to upkeep a stately home, or certain types of social welfare, it doesn't mean that they are obliged to avail of it, and if they're in a position financially to do without it then in principle they should waive whatever entitlement it is.

When's the last time any government minister showed a degree of principle though?.. that's way too much to ask or expect of our lot.

Do you know if they can do without it or not? The fact that they have it open for 5 months a year, 6 days per week for a few hours a day suggests they either need the money or are very tight.

My name is URL · 03-06-2012 03:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you know if they can do without it or not? The fact that they have it open for 5 months a year, 6 days per week for a few hours a day suggests they either need the money or are very tight.

I think it's fair to say that it's the latter

The Irish Daily Mail yesterday reported that while many landowners benefiting from the tax provisions open their facilities to the public for free, the Reillys charge between €3 and €5 for each entry – and only open the building for three months of the year.

http://www.thejournal.ie/minister-and-wife-claim-tax-breaks-on-13-bed-moneygall-mansion-127346-Apr2011/

And besides, if they can't afford to upkeep the house themselves, then they should sell it to someone that can, and stop living beyond their means

Scioch · 03-06-2012 03:49PM

christmas2012 wrote: »

imagine the property tax valuation on that(when valuation comes in after the property tax) i cant even imagine must be like a thousand a year for that place :eek:

ps: just to let you know we never paid the property tax and people of ireland should not pay it if enough protest by not paying we could win i think dont give in and dont be complacent

I'd imagine when the property charge comes in full force people like himself will be able to weasel out of it. Cant see them taxing him full whack if at present he's receiving help for maintenance.

Btw that article is from April 2011 so its pretty old news. Thought I remembered hearing about it before.

03-06-2012 03:50PM

My name is URL wrote: »

And besides, if they can't afford to upkeep the house themselves, then they should sell it to someone that can, and stop living beyond their means

They're not living beyond their means right now it seems. The scheme seems to exist to get people who otherwise couldn't afford such houses into them, of all the big houses near me there's far more that are derelict than occupied.

flutered · 03-06-2012 03:54PM

My gaf is pre 1900 there is no wway i would get any money to mantain it

steddyeddy · 03-06-2012 04:25PM

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Why?

Because Ben Dunne had a successful life handed to him yet he blew it on coke.

03-06-2012 04:55PM

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

FYI, before joining the politician gravy train, O'Reillys previous claim to fame was, as head of the IMO, negotiating a sweet heart deal for Consultants with the gov of the day which made them all even richer.

The imo does not represent consultants. That's the ihca.

RobbingBandit · 03-06-2012 04:59PM

Yeah so what, he is still a pr1ck.:pac:

Einhard · 03-06-2012 05:03PM

My name is URL wrote: »

I was just giving my opinion on it.

Obviously. And I gave mine in rebuttal. :cool:

My view is that just because somebody is entitled to something, be it tax-reliefs to upkeep a stately home, or certain types of social welfare, it doesn't mean that they are obliged to avail of it, and if they're in a position financially to do without it then in principle they should waive whatever entitlement it is.

Why? I mean, why should somebody not avail of legitimate credits or reliefs available to them? I mean, O' Reilly is a wealthy man. He therefore pays quite a lot of tax, which pays for credits and reliefs of peopel less well-off than he is (including myself when I was on the dole). He pays his fair share to society, and many others benefit from it. And yet, as well as paying his taxes and charges that accrue from wealth, he should also spurn any and all reliefs open to him? I'm sorry, but that seems quite classist to be honest- you're basically stating that anyone with a bit of money shuld only ever contibute to the system, and never expect anything from it.

When's the last time any government minister showed a degree of principle though?.. that's way too much to ask or expect of our lot.

I don't see how it shows principle to not avail of these credits.

later12 · 03-06-2012 05:07PM

flutered wrote: »

My gaf is pre 1900 there is no wway i would get any money to mantain it

Yes there is
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0039/sec0482.html
and
http://www.seai.ie/grants/better_energy_homes/

Minister James Reilly's gaf.

Comments