Vote for me to go back to Catholic 1950's Ireland.... (No TARDIS involved)

Brian Shanahan · 19-05-2014 10:53PM

porsche959 wrote: »

So people with unpopular opinions should shut up. Is that not just another forum of repression?

No people whose idea of a political platform is to opress the majority of the people (i.e. all women, all non-catholics, all sane catholics in this case) should shut up.

It's a form of self-preservation.

Brian Shanahan · 19-05-2014 10:58PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Women like this always baffle me. Surely she is aware and appreciative of the women's movement over the past 100 years or so. She has benefited from that and yet she wants to actively work to undo some of that progress.

It's called "fcuk you, I got mine!" (copyright of said phrase held by the estate of Ayn Rand)

Brian Shanahan · 19-05-2014 11:15PM

robindch wrote: »

Ah, an anti-vaxxer as well.

Says all you need to know about this excellent lady.

She only wants to stop the cervical cancer vaccine as it'll allow all the unmarried wimminz have sexy fun times outside the marital bedroom. Sure, horrific cancer and painful chaemotherapy are a tiny price to pay to keep Ireland's maidens in a state of virginity.

oscarBravo · 19-05-2014 11:20PM

tipptom wrote: »

So you agree with going out hunting these geriatric arch criminals down?

With as much respect as I can muster, that's a pretty ridiculous reaction to what I posted.

I know loads of people who have their parents look after their children and they get either no payment or so little it could only be counted as pocket money that wouldn't even cover their petrol money but glad to hear that the EU and this government is going to "stick it to the man" for once.

If they get no payment, or so little that it's only pocket money, they don't have to pay tax on it.

porsche959 wrote: »

Prooof that whatever outrage Zanu FG/Zanu Labour come up with to screw the taxpayer, certain boards.ie moderators are happy to cheerlead it. I think if the government announced plans akin to Swift's satirical "A Modest Proposal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal) some of you would line up to applaud it.

It never ceases to amaze me that even the mention of having to file a tax return - not even necessarily pay taxes; merely declare that your income is such as not to warrant taxation - is enough to bring out inchoate spittle-flecked rage in certain quarters.

I'm also at a loss as to what my status as a boards.ie volunteer has to do with my opinions on tax policy.

Actually, never mind: I just realised the futility of trying to see the logic in a post that contained not one but two "Zanu" prefixes in place of coherent argument.

porsche959 · 19-05-2014 11:43PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me that even the mention of having to file a tax return - not even necessarily pay taxes; merely declare that your income is such as not to warrant taxation - is enough to bring out inchoate spittle-flecked rage in certain quarters.

Your trust in the state is really rather touching. The same one that presided over decades of cover-ups of child rape.

porsche959 · 19-05-2014 11:47PM

The Black Oil wrote: »

There's a difference between challenging and 'shouting down'.

Absolutely, but several posters in the thread have made clear that they do think opinions such as those held by this electoral candidate should not merely be vigorously challenged but essentially shouted down.

I think at times tolerance and freedom of speech are really mis-understood in this country, including by people who ought to know better, i.e. freethinkers/atheists.

Tolerance of opinions we do not like does not imply approving of them - but equally it doesn't mean they should be, essentially, bullied into shutting up. That approach doesn't sit well with me.

The writer Bret Easton Ellis (who is gay), in his podcasts, has often declaimed that "the culture" these days has become obsessed with looking for reasons to be outraged and offended and I think he has a point - see his most recent one with stand up comedian Doug Stanhope, for example.

http://www.podcastone.com/Bret-Easton-Ellis-Podcast

oscarBravo · 20-05-2014 12:15AM

porsche959 wrote: »

Your trust in the state is really rather touching. The same one that presided over decades of cover-ups of child rape.

Your mastery of the non-sequitur is breathtaking.

Basically, because the state has done things wrong (and still does, and always will) tax evasion is not merely OK but a moral imperative?

wp_rathead · 20-05-2014 12:39AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your mastery of the non-sequitur is breathtaking.

Basically, because the state has done things wrong (and still does, and always will) tax evasion is not merely OK but a moral imperative?

Don't drive on the road.
People die on the road.
Ergo by driving on the road you are supporting deaths.

/porsche959 Logic

porsche959 · 20-05-2014 01:41AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your mastery of the non-sequitur is breathtaking.

Basically, because the state has done things wrong (and still does, and always will) tax evasion is not merely OK but a moral imperative?

Post reported for defamation.

Un Croissant · 20-05-2014 01:52AM

Zimbabwe African National Union???

Eh?

expectationlost · 20-05-2014 01:56AM

https://www.constitution.ie/Convention.aspx click to page 8/9 for the documents about women in the home
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=4e0677ea-4678-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=7a8fbe52-9576-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=ae0eb9bc-977a-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=2e6badd4-977a-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=ee219062-2178-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=8ee5ffc2-4079-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=cee1b183-0b79-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4 convention suggested changing constitution from mother to parent

In the event that the Convention supports change, what change or
changes would you support?
•
Make it gender neutral to include other carers in the home
•
Yes
-
98%
•
No
-
2 %

Noting that Art. 41.2.2 says ‘The State shall, ...
endeavour
to ensure that [mothers] shall not be
obliged by economic necessity to engage in
labour to
the neglect of their duties in the home’, what level of
obligation should be placed on the State?

1-Endeavour to support- 20%
2-4%
3-Provide a reasonable level of support -35%
4-12%
5-Shall support -30%

um not sure what 2 and 4 mean

Potential applications of Article 41.
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=2e6badd4-977a-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
Some might consider Article 41.2.2 as a basis for obliging the State to improve
financial support for mothers in the home through the tax and social welfare system
and in 1987, the late Supreme Court judge Brian Walsh expressed astonishment at
the fact that what he called “this protective guarantee” had not, to that date, been
invoked in litigation
. However the obligation imposed on the State by Article 41.2.2 to
endeavour to ensure that mothers are not obliged to work outside the home through
economic necessity has been described as a “duty of imperfect obligation” and is
certainly not as onerous as other constitutional
duties imposed on the State
.
Given, moreover,that tax and social welfare matters directly affect public expenditure,
and that decisions on public expenditure are regarded as the preserve of the Oireachtas
and the executive, it is unlikely that the courts would use Article 41.2.2 to impose
additional financial obligations on the State to support mothers in the home

they are genuine arguements to give more support to _parenting_

Nodin · 20-05-2014 06:20AM

porsche959 wrote: »

Absolutely, but several posters in the thread have made clear that they do think opinions such as those held by this electoral candidate should not merely be vigorously challenged but essentially shouted down.

I think at times tolerance and freedom of speech are really mis-understood in this country, including by people who ought to know better, i.e. freethinkers/atheists.

Tolerance of opinions we do not like does not imply approving of them - but equally it doesn't mean they should be, essentially, bullied into shutting up. That approach doesn't sit well with me.
............

....at the end of the day, nobody here proposes enacting laws that directly affect her. The reverse, however, is not true.

Dades · 20-05-2014 10:15AM

porsche959 wrote: »

The writer Bret Easton Ellis (who is gay), in his podcasts, has often declaimed that "the culture" these days has become obsessed with looking for reasons to be outraged and offended and I think he has a point...

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your mastery of the non-sequitur is breathtaking.

Basically, because the state has done things wrong (and still does, and always will) tax evasion is not merely OK but a moral imperative?

porsche959 wrote: »

Post reported for defamation.

Classic.

Pherekydes · 20-05-2014 12:11PM

Dades wrote: »

Classic.

So are you going to action it?

/dodges ban hammer. :pac:

tipptom · 20-05-2014 02:10PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your mastery of the non-sequitur is breathtaking.

Basically, because the state has done things wrong (and still does, and always will) tax evasion is not merely OK but a moral imperative?

Maybe if they hunted down real tax evaders like their big business buddies first of instead of old people who paid the highest tax in this country has ever seen during the 70s,80s and 90s out of their pittance of salaries,your argument would carry some weight and maybe less of the superior smug comments like people are getting hysterical about it when they are obviously not which ironically smacks of intolerance to the opinion of others

Cabaal · 20-05-2014 02:28PM

tipptom wrote: »

Maybe if they hunted down real tax evaders like their big business buddies first of instead of old people who paid the highest tax in this country has ever seen during the 70s,80s and 90s out of their pittance of salaries,

errr,
But everything is the highest cost since the 70s,80s and 90
Not just tax, but the price of milk, bread etc etc, but then wages have also gone up and so has the pension.

your argument would carry some weight and maybe less of the superior smug comments like people are getting hysterical about it when they are obviously not which ironically smacks of intolerance to the opinion of others

So people shouldn't declare earnings?
How can you claim moral superiority saying big business should do this and that when you have problems with the little guy complying with the law?

Many big corporations pay little tax in Ireland and the uk etc, but what they are doing isn't illegal at all. Given half the chance the avg joe in this country would do the exact same thing and use these same loop holes if they could.

If you want to get really silly about this whole situation you could argue that these retired people being paid for child care are actually taking jobs away from younger people. Plenty of younger people will and capable of taking jobs in child care all around this country.

Given we have mass unemployment, are you not infavour of more jobs?

seamus · 20-05-2014 02:34PM

Maybe if they hunted down real tax evaders like their big business buddies first of instead of old people who paid the highest tax in this country has ever seen during the 70s,80s and 90s out of their pittance of salaries,your argument would carry some weight and maybe less of the superior smug comments like people are getting hysterical about it when they are obviously not which ironically smacks of intolerance to the opinion of others

Ah, whataboutery.

By that logic, Gardai should stop policing the roads until they've solved all the murders. Making people fill out tax and insurance forms after all that VAT and VRT they paid. It's extortion!

There's nothing unjust about asking people to declare their income. Playing the "poor old people" card is just an appeal to emotion and weakens your argument.

Grandparents who provide paid care to grandchildren are by definition physically able and mentally fit. So why should they be exempt from income declaration?

tipptom · 20-05-2014 03:01PM

You people make me laugh,trying to turn this in to a whole class of old people out there making undeclared money and stopping young people from taking these jobs.

Grandparents are enableing their sons and daughters to go out to work and pay tax back in to the exchequer BECAUSE they don't have to pay them and if they did not have their parents to do this then it would not be economically viable for them to go out to work and they then become a burden on the state.
But Hey if it makes you happy to go after the most vulnerable in society first,knock yourselves out,Im just glad that most people would not take that view in general in this country compared to this thread about this issue.

Cabaal · 20-05-2014 03:13PM

tipptom wrote: »

You people make me laugh,trying to turn this in to a whole class of old people out there making undeclared money and stopping young people from taking these jobs.

So you've no problem with cash in hand for jobs then?
You also think people shouldn't do any tax returns, even if they are below the level for paying tax?

The argument on the leaflet in this thread is old people shouldn't have to fill out forms, but yet they have to do that for medical cards etc. Form filling is part of life.

Grandparents are enableing their sons and daughters to go out to work and pay tax back in to the exchequer BECAUSE they don't have to pay them and if they did not have their parents to do this then it would not be economically viable for them to go out to work and they then become a burden on the state.

Or to look at it another way (devil's advocate)

These people are taking jobs away from a younger generation,

Even though these grand parents have a state pension (and many have their own private pension), you've no problem with them topping this up with cash in hand for a service that could provide employment to people below the retirement age.

These employed people would then in turn have a better income and they would buy goods and services, thus providing more employment to others.,

More creches would mean more competition for child care and more competitive prices,

But Hey if it makes you happy to go after the most vulnerable in society first,knock yourselves out,Im just glad that most people would not take that view in general in this country compared to this thread about this issue.

I like how you play the vulnerable card in order to say that cash in hand jobs are fine and dandy,

seamus · 20-05-2014 03:43PM

tipptom wrote: »

You people make me laugh,trying to turn this in to a whole class of old people out there making undeclared money and stopping young people from taking these jobs.

Actually what's happening here is people like this candidate trying to turn this into a whole class of people who are going to be pursued and hounded by Revenue for minding their grandchildren.

Grandparents are enableing their sons and daughters to go out to work and pay tax back in to the exchequer BECAUSE they don't have to pay them and if they did not have their parents to do this then it would not be economically viable for them to go out to work and they then become a burden on the state.

Grandparents who are not paid for providing childcare won't have to pay tax. In fact, they don't even have to fill out any forms if they're unpaid.

How exactly is this an attack on the most vulnerable?

Dades · 20-05-2014 04:50PM

The only ones who will need to fill out a tax return are the ones claiming the tax exemption. The idea that all of sudden grandparents - either minding for free or for a few quid a month - will be pursued is a nonsense.

Of course, as is apparent from this thread, it's not hard for someone like Theresa Heaney to misrepresent facts to drum up a bit of misplaced hysteria.

robindch · 20-05-2014 04:55PM

Dades wrote: »

The idea that all of sudden grandparents - either minding for free or for a few quid a month - will be pursued is a nonsense.

I believe that a child minder who's minding up to and including three children (not their own kids) is exempt from income tax for the first €15,000. They are required to report the income, even though it's non-taxable.

It's hard to see what Ms Heany is hyperventilating about - one assumes the heat is more important than the light.

seamus · 20-05-2014 05:10PM

robindch wrote: »

I believe that a child minder who's minding up to and including three children (not their own kids) is exempt from income tax for the first €15,000. They are required to report the income, even though it's non-taxable.

Yeah. So just to add some clarity on what's happening here:

Childminders minding up to 3 children in their own home are exempt from income tax on the first €15k they earn, provided that they register with the local authority as a childminder and submit an income tax return (form 11). Failure to do so will mean that you are liable for tax on the full amount if you get audited.

This is not a new or even recent rule. It was introduced in 2006 in an attempt to get people out of the black market childminding-wise. It failed. People couldn't be arsed registering with Revenue since they were unlikely to get audited anyway and many people want to stay under the radar of local authorities.

All Revenue did was issue a reminder back in March that this rule exists.

If someone earns less than €15k per year for minding a child in their own home, (unless they're a parent of that child, obviously), then all they have to do is fill out the forms and they're exempt from tax on that amount.

The form in question is a form 11. The entire form is 26 pages long. To apply for this exemption, childminders will have to enter information on five pages. Not fill out five pages, but the boxes they need to tick/fill are contained on roughly five different pages.

Form 11s are easy if you just read them. There's about 10 minutes prep involved in getting your documentation together, and another 10 minutes filling out the form.

In short, Revenue have not introduced any new rules, grandparents will not typically have to pay tax for minding their grandchildren, and nobody will have to fill out 26 pages of any forms.

As mentioned above, this is absolute hysteria over nothing being drummed up by this candidate and some others.

endacl · 20-05-2014 05:12PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Women like this always baffle me. Surely she is aware and appreciative of the women's movement over the past 100 years or so. She has benefited from that and yet she wants to actively work to undo some of that progress.

Indeed. Utter irony fail. She thinks women should stay at home and breed good little catlicks. Solution? From a woman?

Simple! Apply for a job. In another country.

What am I missing...?

foxy farmer · 20-05-2014 05:29PM

Well I know her husband does a sideline making wedding videos. I take it that she won't be letting him do same sex weddings based on her beliefs. You shouldn't bit the hand that feeds you and all that. He has 2 jobs as far as I know because she stays home. Heard she was conservative but never realised she was a complete head the ball.

Dades · 20-05-2014 06:07PM

foxy farmer wrote: »

Well I know her husband does a sideline making wedding videos.

I wonder is that represented on his Form 11? :pac:

shruikan2553 · 20-05-2014 06:21PM

seamus wrote: »

Yeah. So just to add some clarity on what's happening here:

Childminders minding up to 3 children in their own home are exempt from income tax on the first €15k they earn, provided that they register with the local authority as a childminder and submit an income tax return (form 11). Failure to do so will mean that you are liable for tax on the full amount if you get audited.

This is not a new or even recent rule. It was introduced in 2006 in an attempt to get people out of the black market childminding-wise. It failed. People couldn't be arsed registering with Revenue since they were unlikely to get audited anyway and many people want to stay under the radar of local authorities.

All Revenue did was issue a reminder back in March that this rule exists.

If someone earns less than €15k per year for minding a child in their own home, (unless they're a parent of that child, obviously), then all they have to do is fill out the forms and they're exempt from tax on that amount.

The form in question is a form 11. The entire form is 26 pages long. To apply for this exemption, childminders will have to enter information on five pages. Not fill out five pages, but the boxes they need to tick/fill are contained on roughly five different pages.

Form 11s are easy if you just read them. There's about 10 minutes prep involved in getting your documentation together, and another 10 minutes filling out the form.

In short, Revenue have not introduced any new rules, grandparents will not typically have to pay tax for minding their grandchildren, and nobody will have to fill out 26 pages of any forms.

As mentioned above, this is absolute hysteria over nothing being drummed up by this candidate and some others.

20 minutes? This is the most vulnerable part of society. We should provide people to fill out these forms so that they dont hurt themselves or accidentally fill in the wrong number.

keane2097 · 20-05-2014 06:24PM

People really don't think much of the elderly in this country.

lazygal · 20-05-2014 06:49PM

My dad's a pensioner and has been working on computers since the early 1970s. He gets mighty peeved with being painted as vulnerable and technologically illiterate.

What's the plural of tardis? Tardi? Or tardises?

tipptom · 20-05-2014 07:19PM

keane2097 wrote: »

People really don't think much of the elderly in this country.

Yep,chase the pensioners,thats what was wrong with the finances in Europe all along and the ground swell of people rising up about this problem and force the government to face up to this crises is deafening!!

What a small minded pathetic nation of people we have become if this is what we are reduced to.

Vote for me to go back to Catholic 1950's Ireland.... (No TARDIS involved)

Comments