WileyCoyote wrote: » Jimmy the developer MIGHT have to pay CGT (an asset tax) if and when he sells the land or builds on it, paddy the homeowner doesnt have to pay CGT if and when he sells, BUT he will have to pay a recurring yearly fee for the privilege of living in his own, privately paid for, with no handouts from the govt, family home forever..
Reports reaching these parts that members of the public have taken over the council chamber in Cork City Hall tonight in protest against the Household Charge and cuts in Home Helps hours. Lord Mayor and his officials left in disgust. Public then took over seats of majority of councillors who had left and "voted" to abolish the charges.
Am Chile wrote: » Seen on facebook there was a protest earlier at cork city hall over the household charge and other issues-I just saying two nights ago-more of us need to get out to start similar protests at our local councils. http://www.facebook.com/groups/127086754061716/
K-9 wrote: » Base it on what a likely coalition will deliver. It was always likely we'd have a FG/Labour coalition so accepting that both parties would compromise on the Croke Park agreement was a reasonable expectation, didn't come as a surprise to me as an example. We last elected a single party Government 35 years go. Manifestos these days are just mainly aspirations, you have to make an educated guess on what a coalition will agree on as the most important manifesto is the agreed Coalition afterwards. Its a perfectly logical and practical way of looking at things as that's how Government works in reality, probably why it seems to come as a shock to so many.
trellheim wrote: » Yes, because local councilors can't set the household charge or home help hours; a highly appropriate forum. Perhaps the council had some actual relevant business to conduct this evening that was appropriate for the local citizens.
Hijpo wrote: » So let me get this straight, what your saying is the door is wide open for partys to print posters and leaflets containing pre meditated lies to obtain a position and then blame it on a coalition for not commiting to there campaigns?
K-9 wrote: » Nope, what I'm saying is it was obvious FG would introduce a property tax, Enda said it would be up to individual councils and when pressed on how that would work, couldn't explain it. It constantly amazes me that people still get shocked at politicians doing politics and compromising in a coalition. Everybody moans about politicians lying so it seems a bit staged to me when voters then moan about said politician doing a u-turn.
dvpower wrote: » OK. Read the full post. It remains ridiculous for you to suggest that anyone would think that Enda Kenny didn't know about something that was in his own party manifesto.
dvpower wrote: » 1994 - a different universe.
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.
dvpower wrote: » If you thought a little bit more before pressing the Submit button, then perhaps you wouldn't have to apologise in advance. Or perhaps you should just put your preemptive apologies in your sig.
tayto lover wrote: » Doing a U-turn on a lie does not mean that they are now telling the truth. It is more likely that they are lying twice as much as they were. It doesn't look now as it's a write-down of the Banking debt now at all. It sounds like they are just giving us more time to pay those debts. If that's true then our politicians in Europe, inc Enda, are being taken for a ride altogether. Complete joke if it wasn't so serious. We should have sent out Mrs Browne.
Hijpo wrote: » So who compromised with who when it came to paying back billions to the bondholders?
K-9 wrote: » Nobody compromised, just faced a reality of an outside force running the state like never before, another reality to be considered when voting. AS a previous poster said, they could have ditched the property tax if they really wanted, that is had an alternative. Since they'd guaranteed Welfare rates, the Croke Park agreement and Income tax rates, they had no alternative. Both parties looked after their "core "values vested interests leaving little room to wriggle on a property tax. Their ineptness in fudging the issue came as no surprise to me.
Hijpo wrote: » Whos the outside force running the state? I get that they need to cut spending but weigh up the priorities first. The have no problem cutting essential home care for example before there own allowances. Joe Soaps essentials hit again before the fat cats non essentials.
K-9 wrote: » The Troika, though they have some wriggle room. The reason they have to cut home help and tried to axe the rules on disability payments is because the guaranteed public service pay rates, social welfare rates and to not increase income tax rates. That's exactly why I disagree with those promises. They've left something they can give their vested interests come the next election, enough to get re-elected with votes from the party faithful, all the while cutting essential services like home help.
Ghandee wrote: » This could very well be the start of things to come. If this is true, it'll be very interesting to watch/read RTE's take on it. VB might give it a mention tonight though!
Hijpo wrote: » but the Troika have said they did not insist on bondholders being paid. Why are they delaying cutting the non essential allowances racked up by fat cats and politicians, councils etc etc? Are these not coming from the same pot as the welfare, disability etc? Which in your opinion is more essential, home help or a payment for answering a phone? Cost wise they probably dont come close, but if you add all the other silly allowances given to people on huge wages im sure it would narrow the gap and at the very least reduce the need to cut that amount of the home help service.
K-9 wrote: » The IMF apparently inisisted, I don't know, there's too much spin going on. I'd put home help and disability payments ahead of allowance payments, a last resort, I'dhave them as a section of society to be protected, ahead of a 5% cut in pay to public servants, welfare recipients and a 2% rise in income tax rates too. I'm on a minority from what I gather.
K-9 wrote: » Yep stop protecting vested interests. So yes, cut public service pay if that means less cuts to home help and not sacking classroom assistants, cut welfare if that means protecting payments to the disabled. Everybody stop protecting their own income stream.
K-9 wrote: » Everybody stop protecting their own income stream.
dvpower wrote: » The government has published details of the new Fines bill. Some of you guys should study it as you're likely to be suject to it in the near future.http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1023/fines-bill-government.html
dvpower wrote: » You'll get good support for that sentiment here - mainly from people who are willing to break the law to protect their own resources. An uncanny ability to insert a silent 'else' after 'Everybody'.
bgrizzley wrote: » they are on here posting for the good of Ireland i suppose.
