darkhorse wrote: » Do ya mean by that we should pay them everything we have, cause thats the way yer coming across constantly on this thread.
Ghandee wrote: » Didn't see it myself, but i believe Mr Rabbite was on the week in politics tonight. When challenged about the party slogan, keep child benefit, vote for our labour, Pat apparently said, "shure isn't that what you do in elections to get votes?" That'll go down well with your voters.....:eek:
K-9 wrote: » I did, a couple of times, no mention of the welfare budget which eats up over 60% of our tax revenue. How could anybody think we pay for our services when 60% of our tax revenues go on welfare?
dxhound2005 wrote: » The nazi's were nothing on this lot...and I'm NOT being sarcastic!!! Dictatorship HAS taken over!!! This may pass as making sense in Donegal, I call it histrionics.
darkhorse wrote: » You do realize that the poster was speaking metaphorically? But, you cant deny that this government are inflicting massive pain and suffering on the most vunerable people in our society, unless you have been living in a cocoon.
tayto lover wrote: » I hope this is the truth but somehow I smell a rat.
Am Chile wrote: » Ain,t it just some happy little coincidence he happens to say this post budget-some might suspect he,s only saying it to quell any protests-but only happen to do the opposite at the last minute-on a side note has anyone heard about proposed demos in the new year relating to the debt ?
Ghandee wrote: » Speaking of welfare, do we still pay for kids that are not and ofttimes have not ever set got in this country? Genuine question.
lugha wrote: » Just on this point. One of the gripes the no side have about the property tax relates to the possibility that tax raised in a region may be spent in another (nothing odd about that I would say, urban areas always in effect subsidised more rural ones) However, if you do take a dim view of such a state of affairs, them I would have thought that the alternative would be to require some to make additional contributions for services in their area if council budgets did not cover the cost. (And anyone who grew up in a rural area with minor roads will know that the money rarely runs far enough to maintain the lesser roads properly). And if you must pay extra in your area and if it is a choice between the council deciding how it is spent or you dictating directly how it is to be spent then is the latter not more appealing?
dxhound2005 wrote: » I said it was histrionics, you said he was making sense. I said it was histrionics again and now you say it is metaphorical. I don't see any methaphors in there.
tayto lover wrote: » I hope this is the truth but somehow I smell a rat.http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1209/labour-budget-fine-gael.html Maybe i'm just a complete skeptic but then again what would have made me that way?
darkhorse wrote: » O.K., you dont see any metaphors, how about comparisons, if not, I give up.
darkhorse wrote: » Also, Pat Rabbitte said that they did'nt pay it in 2012, Pearse said they did. Whose right?
Am Chile wrote: » Since the budget last wednesday- I have observed via facebook a signifigant number of people have left angry comments on fine gael/labour tds facebook pages- only to have the comments deleted afterwards-it seems they can,t handle or take criticism from people- I observed women leaving comments on simon harris facebook page angry about the child benefit cuts telling him they will never be voting for fine gael again-others left comments on paudie coffeys page angry about the carers respite grant cuts- labour tds got similar remarks posted on their pages-while they may delete away comments all they like, people will have long memories regarding all the false empty promises fine gael/labour made pre election last year-plus how fine gael/labour choose to target the vulnerable, single mothers/carers-if I was Labour counciller with local council elections just over a year and half away-I would resign from the labour party in order to save my seat-I would not want to be a labour candidate going around knocking on doors trying to seek votes in a year and half.
dxhound2005 wrote: » If they are the sort of angry comments which are posted here I'm not surprised that they are removed. Why would they leave vile stuff like that up there for normal people to read?
bgrizzley wrote: » maybe normal people are writing it. there nothing wrong with anger DX, its docile complacency is the problem in this country...
Bishop_Donal wrote: » The docile complacency is only perpetrated by those who are opposed to the imposition of the tax (of course!!)?
Bishop_Donal wrote: » If no-one listened to the w*nk he goes on with, he'd soon disappear & we wouldn't have a forum for 70yo men with five kids (aged 5 to whatever) to be crying on radio.
What's bullsh*t about it?
bgrizzley wrote: » ? im sure its on both sides of the fence.
darkhorse wrote: » Should we start worrying.
Ghandee wrote: » What do you think?
House charge body pays €26k for council officials’ US course By Gordon Deegan Tuesday, December 11, 2012 The taxpayer has footed a €31,000 bill for sending local government officials from one county council to a management course at a US university — with the body that collects the household charge paying course fees. At a meeting of Clare County Council last night, the local authority confirmed that three officials have participated in a three-week management programme at the prestigious Harvard University over the past five years. The council confirmed that the body charged with collecting the household charge, the Local Government Management Agency, paid the course fees of €26,221, while the council paid an additional €5,726 in travel and subsistence that included cost of flights. The un-named council figures to have participated in the course between 2008 and 2012 are two directors of finance and one director of service. At the meeting in Shannon last night, Cllr Gerry Flynn (Ind) described the costs as "high". "Elected members are often under the cosh and vilified by the media for spending a few hundred euro and I think it is high time that we turned this around on the high costs of sending officials on these trips." Mr Flynn said county and city managers sit on the board of the LGMA. "It is about time that the public realised the link between the council getting funds from the LGMA and supplying funds to them." Funding the three council executive members’ participation is part of a €253,050 spend by the LGMA to send 28 local government figures on the course over the last five years. Since 2008, it has cost $313,550 (€253,050) to fund 28 senior local government officials. LGMA chief executive Paul McSweeney attended the programme this year. In 2012, it cost the LGMA $80,150 to send seven top local government officials to Harvard for this year’s programme. The seven attendees included the manager of Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown County Council, Owen Keegan. The course fee per participant this year was $11,450 —an increase on the $11,200 charged in the previous three years. According to the formal council response on the issue, "the programme is an intensive and challenging three-week executive management programme delivered by the JFK School of Government at Harvard". "The Kennedy School has become the global leader in educating and empowering individuals committed to advancing the public interest," said the response. "Participants on the programme are drawn from senior executive in the public evince, local government around the world. Participants benefit from the renowned Harvard faculty and a dynamic curriculum. "The programme focused on a range of public management areas including strategy, policy development, management controls and operations and management of human resources. "The curriculum is designed to enhance and build on the skills of experienced executives to become more effective public managers."
darkhorse wrote: » Thats classic. Wait til I tell ya. I was watching the nine o clock news, you know the story about us getting another award, this time for peace. Dont get me wrong, I am glad to see all our politicians at peace with each other, although my heart did go to Angela, poor thing was filled with emotion. Anyway, after the award ceremony, they showed a bit of a clip of EK and another guy in another room talking, talking about how they dont want see money going into a black hole, well, it was at this stage that I nearly fcuking chocked on a my cup tea. Their comedy just gets better and better, pity the last laugh's on us.
darkhorse wrote: » You seem to be the one with all the answers. Could you tell us here is stephen donnelly right or wrong in what he is saying.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xBbWWN6Lds&feature=player_embedded
Bishop_Donal wrote: » In general he is wrong (but I turned it off after three minutes as I can't be listening to this type of rubbish). First of all, he says that the increased tax is being applied entirely against Anglo / other bank debt. When the only repayments that we are making are Bank debts (or interest thereon), I'll accept that point. But as long as we are borrowing to fund our day to day expenses, I won't. If you think of his logic and strip out the increased taxes and assume they are solely applied against bank debt, then our day to day position is even worse (so we should do even more to resolve te position)!!! Re: his points on the regressive nature of the budget, the only answer I have to that is 'Get Real, Stephen'. If you want to examine the position, then you need to look at the overall impact of all the changes cumulatively since 2008. Then you'll see whether the changes are progressive or not. The bottom line is that this country has reached the point of diminishing returns on taxation from bigger earners. If taxes are increased, ex-pats will start using the remittance basis of taxation to fully avoid Irish Income Tax (and in fact we will probably see a reduction in FDI). Thankfully a few people in the Dept of Finance seem to be aware of this. The only way of resolving this mess is to get our current budget deficit eliminated. Then our government is empowered to really get relief on the Bank debt (as we are not cap in hand trying to get money to prevent starvation on the streets).
