Ghandee wrote: » It doesn't matter which govt insisted DV, if it was FF decision, that decision should have been made null and void when a new govt was formed.
Izzy Skint wrote: » f***ing lies...disgraceful....traitors....http://www.thejournal.ie/kenny-says-well-pay-our-dues-a-year-after-varadkar-said-not-another-cent-350805-Feb2012/ more broken promises DX, DV, VLAD, ......comment please..
dvpower wrote: » Good to see you've reconsidered your position. So Stephen Donnelly found out that the previous (FF) gove]rnment shackled this state with a blanket guarantee. No **** sherlock!(Do you really Ithink that the state can simply renege on its responsibilities every time there is a change of government, because if they can I say we should just boeeow a heap more money - sure the debt will die with the next change of government :pac::pac:)
Do you really Ithink that the state can simply renege on its responsibilities every time there is a change of government, because if they can I say we should just boeeow a heap more money - sure the debt will die with the next change of government
Ghandee wrote: » I've nowhere near reconsidered my position. Its not made clear which govt insisted on paying the bondholders. More stuffs emerging each day though, and I'm expecting someone to confirm the govt in question is this one as well add the previous one.
dvpower wrote: » That article is nine months old. You should look back on part one of this thread to catch up on the discussion on that.
Izzy Skint wrote: » I read it in the Evening Echo recently and I know what I read...unable to find a link........Ciaran Lynch, a labour td for Cork south central stated in a recent article that the property tax was proposed by FF in 2010...etc....and that we (FG / Lab) now have to enforce it.....our politicians proposed , negotiated and pushed hard for this with the IMF...less cuts for them to make elsewhere, especially in the public service pay and pension bill....they are lying to us ....true , the IMF / troika may want it introduced now, but it was our own politicians who planted the seed......
dvpower wrote: » Are you seriously expecting us to accept this on (at best) fourth hand information coming through someone who wasn't even in a government party at the time of the bailout negotiations? btw, I don't see any mention of it in a search of the Evening Echo.
Izzy Skint wrote: » DV, is that your comment "That article is nine months old."...????...promises were made to the people, those promises were broken, AND, to cap it all, they decided to do the very opposite of those promises, instead of "not another red cent" it became "every red cent"....LIARS and TRAITORS.would you like to comment on the content of the article please....I have asked you nicely....oh, article was 9 months old...and everything that applied then apllies now....we are now more screwed than ever.
Izzy Skint wrote: » accept it or not, I personally don't care....but I do know what I read....as I have said, I can't find it either on the web but it was stated by C. Lynch. FG / Lab were not in govt. then, but, they are in govt. for the past 18 months...they know what happened...at least Ciaran Lynch did !!!!
Enda Kenny 1994 wrote: “It is morally unjust and unfair to tax a person's home, and by so doing grind him into the ground. Indeed in cases it could probably be unconstitutional” “It reminds me of a vampire tax in that it drives a stake through the heart of home ownership, through enthusiasm and initiative, and sucks the life blood of people who want to own their own home and better their position”
Enda Kenny 1994 wrote: “If the Government fail to appreciate the passion with which people will defend their rights to own their home and have it looking as well as it should, it is making a serious mistake”
dvpower wrote: » 1994 - a different universe.
Izzy Skint wrote: » if some pro taxer does wish to answer Ghandee's question, could you also attempt to answer another one....why have FF / FG / Lab also lied to us about the IMF / Troika "insisting" on the introduction of a property tax...it was our own politicians who proposed this and offered it to the troika as a potential revenue raiser ? .....Ghandee, I doubt there will be any takers...I wonder why ?
dvpower wrote: » I don't have the document to hand, but the troika have said that they are open to negotiation on the property tax, but only on the basis of a qualitatively equivalent measure being proposed in its place - they go on to mention the good qualities of a property tax (like it being a stable and dependable revenue stream etc). So the idea that we could substitute it with an income tax or VAT increase isn't realistic.
Micky Dolenz wrote: » So promises they give now could be broke in a mere few months as it's a different time, blah blah blah.
dvpower wrote: » There is no evidence that Ciaran Lynch said what you say he did, so its not correct to say that he knew what a rival party negotiated with the troika. You are mistaken on this one.
Slick50 wrote: » It is false to pretend that this is a stable and dependable stream of income, unless you decide to ignore peoples ability to pay, and levy the charge against the home anyhow.... which as far as I am concerned is just another very good reason to oppose a tax on the home.
Micky Dolenz wrote: » So promises they give now could be broke in a mere few months as it's a different time, blah blah blah. Enda, don't speak with piss and vinegar when you don't say what you mean or mean what you say. Without your bond, you are nothing. :P Empty words and promises. We need leadership with strength and back bone. I actually do not see where we will get that from. FG are as bad as FF. Without doubt, we are the laughing stock of Brussels.
dvpower wrote: » 1994 was 18 years ago, not a 'mere few months' ago. To put it in context - 1994 was also the year of the first IRA ceasefire. Should we hold everyone to the positions they once held a long time ago.
Le_Dieux wrote: » while poor ould enda gets €200,000 ( source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoiseach ) and that is just over $260,000 ( source: http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert/?Amount=200000&From=EUR&To=USD ).
Izzy Skint wrote: » DV, how does the passing of time alter morality ???.....do financial matters dictate whether something can be considered moral or immoral ?
dvpower wrote: » 1994 was 18 years ago, not a 'mere few months' ago. To put it in context - 1994 was also the year of the first IRA ceasefire. Should we hold everyone to the positions they once held a long time ago. btw, what's the source and context of that second quote?Originally Posted by Enda Kenny 1994 “If the Government fail to appreciate the passion with which people will defend their rights to own their home and have it looking as well as it should, it is making a serious mistake”
dvpower wrote: » It is far more stable than pretty much any of the other main tax heads.
Enda Kenny 1994 wrote: » “If the Government fail to appreciate the passion with which people will defend their rights to own their home and have it looking as well as it should, it is making a serious mistake”
Micky Dolenz wrote: » Could not have said it better myself Enda.
Slick50 wrote: » Maybe. But as I said only if you impose it irrespective of peoples ability to afford it. And that is what makes it unjust.... and also what puts your home at risk, which is immoral and unfair.
dvpower wrote: » It doesn't put your home at risk any more than any unpaid tax bill (or any other bill) puts your home at risk.
lugha wrote: » So you couldn’t say it better than Enda? Maybe you could say more than Enda and tell us why exactly it is immoral?
lugha wrote: » It is undoubtedly the case that many Irish people do have a passionate (if rather irrational) attitude to their home. And Kenny was seeking to make political capital from that weakness then, just as FF did in ’77 and again are now (and, according to recent opinion polls, possibly succeeding!). So you couldn’t say it better than Enda? Maybe you could say more than Enda and tell us why exactly it is immoral? Certainly a property tax affects the important social function of providing shelter for yourself and your family. But income tax affects the equally, or in some cases more, important social function of providing for your family, food and clothing and heating and health care and educational needs and basically everything under the sun, apart from shelter. So a simple question, posed many times on these threads, remains to be answered. Why is it immoral to apply a tax that impacts on just one of these essential needs, but it is perfectly acceptable to apply a tax that impacts on all of the others?
Slick50 wrote: » It does because it is a liability levied against your home, and is an opening to having a lein put on your home. What other tax(es) do that?
Hijpo wrote: » bare in mind lads that this one thinks owning a house is cheaper than renting because your house generates magical money that nobody can see or spend.
