TDs urging people not to pay tax - criminal negligence?

Kavrocks

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Is there not a rumour going around that it may be taken out of peoples wages like the USC?

The Minister for Justice is looking at bringing that in (as well as for fines) at the moment and it should be here pretty quickly, I eluded to that earlier.

tayto lover wrote: »

They will not be in a position to pay fines so are there enough prison places for them all?

If they can't pay the fines they will have no income and no money to buy food with do you honestly think people will be stupid enough to break the law so much to a point where they have absolutely no income left to live on? A minority will as there is always a small few who will go to the ends of the earth but there won't be the amount which you think there will be.

Am Chile

Is there not a rumour going around that it may be taken out of peoples wages like the USC?

To address the rumours of taking from welfare/wages, At the moment its only talk,some points Il make on that, one under present law they can,t do it,two ifs doubtful they can change the law to do it both legally and constitionly, thirdly for arguments sake lets say they could do under present law it would still require a court order,and with signifigant amount of people refusing to pay the courts would be very clogged up,fourth the can,t pay/won,t pay campaign has a legal team ready to challenge such stuff in court and to defend all non payers.

You don't seem to realise that people are making choices on whether to pay bills or feed their children properly. It's gone that bad with a lot of families I know.
More taxes are going to make that a lot worse.

I completely agree, some of these pro household charge posters are out of touch with how things are for many people out there,Most people are well aware if it were to succeed, it would be €1000 combined with water charges, and most people just cannot afford that,as someone invilved with the can,t pay/won,t pay campaign a signifigant amount of people around other parts of the country who have signed up for non payment have already said we are not signing up out of principle, we are signing up simply because we won,t and don,t have that kinda money the goverment will be looking for in relation to a full property tax, the goverment cannot get a blood out of a stone, and in their own words succesfully tax us out of a recession.

mikom

Am Chile wrote: »

I completely agree, some of these pro household charge posters are out of touch with how things are for many people out there

Some are also paid government shills, no doubt.

oscarBravo

mikom wrote: »

Some are also paid government shills, no doubt.

Yeah, that's right. Only paid government shills believe that it's wrong to refuse to pay taxes.


You couldn't make it up.

gbee

darkman2 wrote: »

What do you think?

I voted SF.

mikom

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, that's right. Only paid government shills believe that it's wrong to refuse to pay taxes.


You couldn't make it up.

Original post highlighted for clarity....

Quote:
Some are also paid government shills, no doubt.

Yes you could make it up.

Liam Byrne

Kavrocks wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Not quite. They are not our debts because we didn't take out the loans or agree to pay them back.

You don't seem open to reason so I won't bother explaining it again to you.

Really ? What about NAMA and what about the interest on the borrowed money ?

All being borrowed for at the moment and the hope is overall NAMA will return a profit.
We are due to pay something like 3 billion interest some time next year which we are already planning to borrow from the ECB/IMF to pay.

NAMA cannot return a profit and is a complete disaster from day one.

Are you really saying that absolutely none of our taxes are going to ANY of the hair-brained ponzi schemes?

Telling the likes of Ahern and Quinn and their other mates that they weren't getting pensions would save the state money too, but they wouldn't dream of doing that because it would affect them and not us.

So you would like them to commit a crime and disobey the law? They can only go so far with their pensions and they have started by taxing them.

So there's a limit to what they can do to those who caused this, with their cushy undeserved pensions, but no limit to what they'll take from the rest of us ?

If everybody in the country actually opened their eyes and paid attention to what was going on instead of reading the tripe in the tabloids they would have a much better picture of what was going on and people wouldn't be so angry.

What a load of condescending rubbish. I don't read tabloids.

tayto lover

Its very easy for staunch little Fine Gael supporters with cushy numbers to criticise people less well-off than them because they hold views that they don't agree with. Fine Gael are F.F Mk2 and nothing else. They told lies and got votes by lying through their teeth and the population see through them now.

hallelujajordan

tayto lover wrote: »

If the people who could afford to pay more i.e. the farmers who pay f/all paid their share then the rest of us might get a break.
Wait and see how the Property Tax will effect this sector because I believe they will get away on the cheap yet again and the urban dwellers will have to take the burden.

So when you said we would all pay less what you really meant was that you would pay less and someone else would pay more to compensate ??

tayto lover wrote: »

If that happens then you will really see the anger of the people and we will take to the streets in our hundreds of thousands. I predict it will cost them more in the long run because things will really get rough with civil disobedience on a large scale. Most people I know are very angry about this tax. It might be a very bad idea in the long run.

Tayto Lover, you are not the first and you wont be the last poster calling for the revolution on boards.ie . . I have been reading nonsense like this for the last three years. . Do you really think that 'hundreds of thousands' of people are going to hit the streets over what is in principle a very fair and reasonable tax ? ?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, that's right. Only paid government shills believe that it's wrong to refuse to pay taxes.

You couldn't make it up.

This thread is getting ridiculous . . Do these posters really believe the government are paying people to argue with them on boards.ie ?

hallelujajordan

tayto lover wrote: »

Its very easy for staunch little Fine Gael supporters with cushy numbers to criticise people less well-off than them because they hold views that they don't agree with. Fine Gael are F.F Mk2 and nothing else. They told lies and got votes by lying through their teeth and the population see through them now.

And its equally easy for you to dismiss those who do not agree with you as "staunch little Fine Gael supporters with cushy numbers" . . Has it crossed your mind that some of those who do not agree with you might actually be less well off than you ?

tayto lover

hallelujajordan wrote: »

And its equally easy for you to dismiss those who do not agree with you as "staunch little Fine Gael supporters with cushy numbers" . . Has it crossed your mind that some of those who do not agree with you might actually be less well off than you ?

No it didn't nor would anyone who is poor want to pay more taxes while the favoured people don't pay as much.
Would it ever occur to you that some of us are taxed-out?

tsoparno

Can i say, I've actually been educated from this thread. I'm on the side of not paying this tax! Why, because I've already paid 4,800 in stamp duty and see it as unjust on the people who worked hard not to end up in a government sponsored house.
That said, I can see the other sides argument and how the deficit has to be made up. It really is a mixture of why we ended up here and how we get out of it(absolutely no one knows).
Like most posters, I want to see the government take some action with regards the waste of public money and then i might actually see some merit in paying this unfair tax. But until then i can't see myself putting more money into the cesspool the is the government purse.

Liam Byrne

Kavrocks wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The ONLY debts we should be paying are OUR OWN. The other ones aren't ours, and wouldn't be if Fianna Fail hadn't hung us out to dry.

You have very subtlety contradicted yourself. The debts are ours and they are ours because of the blanket bank guarantee put in place by Fianna Fail and your contradiction shows you know that but don't want to admit it.

No, I made the distinction in order to emphasise the flaw in the analogy - the core reason why this approach is horrendously unethical and unfair.

The debts are not ours and Lenihan did not have a mandate to take them on.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Kavrocks wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The ONLY debts we should be paying are OUR OWN. The other ones aren't ours, and wouldn't be if Fianna Fail hadn't hung us out to dry.

You have very subtlety contradicted yourself. The debts are ours and they are ours because of the blanket bank guarantee put in place by Fianna Fail and your contradiction shows you know that but don't want to admit it.

No, I made the distinction in order to emphasise the flaw in the analogy - the core reason why this approach is horrendously unethical and unfair.

The debts are not ours and Lenihan did not have a mandate to take them on.

How do you define whether or not they are 'ours' ? Legally, as you know, they are unquestionably ours and Lenihans mandate came from his ministerial post. . .

I know that you do not believe that he did the right thing but the fact is, he did and you cannot deny or alter the reality that the debts of banks that were guaranteed or subsequently nationalised are now ours . .

hallelujajordan

tayto lover wrote: »

hallelujajordan wrote: »

And its equally easy for you to dismiss those who do not agree with you as "staunch little Fine Gael supporters with cushy numbers" . . Has it crossed your mind that some of those who do not agree with you might actually be less well off than you ?

No it didn't nor would anyone who is poor want to pay more taxes while the favoured people don't pay as much.
Would it ever occur to you that some of us are taxed-out?

Do you think anyone wants to pay more taxes ???

You do know that philosophically most working class socialists would accept that property taxes are a fundamentally fair means of collecting revenue?

tayto lover

hallelujajordan wrote: »

How do you define whether or not they are 'ours' ? Legally, as you know, they are unquestionably ours and Lenihans mandate came from his ministerial post. . .

I know that you do not believe that he did the right thing but the fact is, he did and you cannot deny or alter the reality that the debts of banks that were guaranteed or subsequently nationalised are now ours . .

Would you define the word "ours" please.
When it comes to tax it seems to have various or selective meanings.

tayto lover

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Do you think anyone wants to pay more taxes ???

You do know that philosophically most working class socialists would accept that property taxes are a fundamentally fair means of collecting revenue?

How can you say "most" ?
I seriously doubt that.

hallelujajordan

tayto lover wrote: »

hallelujajordan wrote: »

How do you define whether or not they are 'ours' ? Legally, as you know, they are unquestionably ours and Lenihans mandate came from his ministerial post. . .

I know that you do not believe that he did the right thing but the fact is, he did and you cannot deny or alter the reality that the debts of banks that were guaranteed or subsequently nationalised are now ours . .

Would you define the word "ours" please.
When it comes to tax it seems to have various or selective meanings.

The 'ours' refers to the debts that Liam claim do not belong to us. He is wrong. Legally they do belong to us . . 'us' refers to the people of Ireland . .

Which part of this is confusing ?

hallelujajordan

tayto lover wrote: »

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Do you think anyone wants to pay more taxes ???

You do know that philosophically most working class socialists would accept that property taxes are a fundamentally fair means of collecting revenue?

How can you say "most" ?
I seriously doubt that.

Doubt away . .

I can say 'most' because the idea of paying for local services using property tax has always been a core left wing principle. . .

tayto lover

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The 'ours' refers to the debts that Liam claim do not belong to us. He is wrong. Legally they do belong to us . . 'us' refers to the people of Ireland . .

Which part of this is confusing ?

I think Liam is correct to say that those debts were negotiated illegally. It should have been put to the people especially when it will concern them and rely on them for generations
The part that says that the taxes used to repay "our" debts are not provided or collected equally from all sectors of society concerns me too. Many big farmers are escaping them.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

tayto lover wrote: »

hallelujajordan wrote: »

How do you define whether or not they are 'ours' ? Legally, as you know, they are unquestionably ours and Lenihans mandate came from his ministerial post. . .

I know that you do not believe that he did the right thing but the fact is, he did and you cannot deny or alter the reality that the debts of banks that were guaranteed or subsequently nationalised are now ours . .

Would you define the word "ours" please.
When it comes to tax it seems to have various or selective meanings.

The 'ours' refers to the debts that Liam claim do not belong to us. He is wrong. Legally they do belong to us . . 'us' refers to the people of Ireland . .

Which part of this is confusing ?

Your shower of preferred half-wits stepped WAAAAY beyond their mandate with that brain-dead call.

So no, I don't accept that they belong to "us" - maybe they belong to the fictional FF "we all" ?

Or maybe FF are redefining words as they go along, as usual.

hallelujajordan

tayto lover wrote: »

I think Liam is correct to say that those debts were negotiated illegally. It should have been put to the people especially when it will concern them and rely on them for generations
The part that says that the taxes used to repay "our" debts are not provided or collected equally from all sectors of society concerns me too. Many big farmers are escaping them.

You can't just claim that something was illegal because you don't like it. . If you believe that the government were broke the law in agreeing the bank guarantee (which, by the way was also approved by a majority in both Dail Eireann and Seanad Eireann) can you please point out specifically which laws were broken, by whom and your evidence of such law breaking comes from. . .

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Your shower of preferred half-wits stepped WAAAAY beyond their mandate with that brain-dead call.

So no, I don't accept that they belong to "us" - maybe they belong to the fictional FF "we all" ?

Or maybe FF are redefining words as they go along, as usual.

As above, how is it above his mandate for the Minister of Finance to make a recommendation to parliament which he believed was necessary at the time and which also approved cross-party support in Dail Eireann . .

These are pretty outrageous allegations you are throwing about without a single shred of evidence.

tayto lover

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You can't just claim that something was illegal because you don't like it. . If you believe that the government were broke the law in agreeing the bank guarantee (which, by the way was also approved by a majority in both Dail Eireann and Seanad Eireann) can you please point out specifically which laws were broken, by whom and your evidence of such law breaking comes from. . .




As above, how is it above his mandate for the Minister of Finance to make a recommendation to parliament which he believed was necessary at the time and which also approved cross-party support in Dail Eireann . .

These are pretty outrageous allegations you are throwing about without a single shred of evidence.

I don't believe that the truth was told in the Dail as to the extent of the trouble and that T.D.'s voted for it on falsified figures given by F.F. At that time some of the ministers didn't seem to know what was going on and some even denied or were not told that the Troika were in town. The figures regarding Anglo were being increased with every announcement too.

hallelujajordan

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't believe that the truth was told in the Dail as to the extent of the trouble and that T.D.'s voted for it on falsified figures given by F.F. At that time some of the ministers didn't seem to know what was going on and some even denied or were not told that the Troika were in town. The figures regarding Anglo were being increased with every announcement too.

You are confusing many different events that happened over an extended timeframe there Tayto Lover . .

First, you believe that Brian Lenihan lied to the Dail and overstated the problem at the time of the bank guarantee ? Personally I find this hard to fathom given that we now know that the figures are worse than he believed then but lets entertain your theory . . on what evidence is it based ? ? ?

Second, you are correct that some ministers did not appear to know that negotiations were going on with the Troika. Lenihan argued at the time that it did not make sense to openly attempt to negotiate a bailout when the media (and worse, the markets!) were watching . . but you seem to think his motives were somewhat more sinister . . again, where is your evidence. .

You have now made a number of allegations of illegal behaviour without a single shred of evidence.

tayto lover

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You are confusing many different events that happened over an extended timeframe there Tayto Lover . .

First, you believe that Brian Lenihan lied to the Dail and overstated the problem at the time of the bank guarantee ? Personally I find this hard to fathom given that we now know that the figures are worse than he believed then but lets entertain your theory . . on what evidence is it based ? ? ?

Second, you are correct that some ministers did not appear to know that negotiations were going on with the Troika. Lenihan argued at the time that it did not make sense to openly attempt to negotiate a bailout when the media (and worse, the markets!) were watching . . but you seem to think his motives were somewhat more sinister . . again, where is your evidence. .

You have now made a number of allegations of illegal behaviour without a single shred of evidence.

I gave an opinion which I believe to be true. They are politicians after all and rarely tell the truth. Just look at F.G. before they got in, lied through their teeth. "not another red cent" or "we will not close Roscommon hospital"

Its what they do best -- lie and look after their cronies.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

you seem to think his motives were somewhat more sinister . . again, where is your evidence. .

You have now made a number of allegations of illegal behaviour without a single shred of evidence.

Defending Lenihan's credibility ? Seriously ?

Mr "cheapest bailout ever" ? Mr "the IMF aren't coming" ?

He was torn to shreds by Paxman re lies and evasion.

There's no way he deserves any benefit of the doubt.

hallelujajordan

tayto lover wrote: »

I gave an opinion which I believe to be true. They are politicians after all and rarely tell the truth. Just look at F.G. before they got in, lied through their teeth. "not another red cent" or "we will not close Roscommon hospital"

Its what they do best -- lie and look after their cronies.

When your 'opinion' also includes an allegation of criminal activity then it is absolutely appropriate to ask for the evidence on which you base this allegation. . . There is a difference between making promises they cannot keep (i.e. FG/LAB on the run up to the General Election) and the serious allegation you have levelled against Brian Lenihan (i.e. that he illegally brought in the bank guarantee). .

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Defending Lenihan's credibility ? Seriously ?

Mr "cheapest bailout ever" ? Mr "the IMF aren't coming" ?

He was torn to shreds by Paxman re lies and evasion.

There's no way he deserves any benefit of the doubt.

Nice attempt to subtly change the direction of the discussion.. This is not about Lenihan's credibility. I have debated that elsewhere and have no desire to drag this thread even further off topic ..

This is about your accusation that the bank guarantee and subsequent nationalisation of banks was an illegal act. And on the basis of this illegality you or others may be justified in not paying the household charge . . I have asked (about 5 times now) for evidence of this illegality and each time either you or TL dodge the question.

tayto lover

hallelujajordan wrote: »

When your 'opinion' also includes an allegation of criminal activity then it is absolutely appropriate to ask for the evidence on which you base this allegation. . . There is a difference between making promises they cannot keep (i.e. FG/LAB on the run up to the General Election) and the serious allegation you have levelled against Brian Lenihan (i.e. that he illegally brought in the bank guarantee). .



Nice attempt to subtly change the direction of the discussion.. This is not about Lenihan's credibility. I have debated that elsewhere and have no desire to drag this thread even further off topic ..

This is about your accusation that the bank guarantee and subsequent nationalisation of banks was an illegal act. And on the basis of this illegality you or others may be justified in not paying the household charge . . I have asked (about 5 times now) for evidence of this illegality and each time either you or TL dodge the question.

Fianna Fail and Lenihan in particular tried to hide the facts from the people which to me is corruption. It is safe to say that Lenihan bankrupted Ireland by unilaterally guaranteeing bank debts. He had other options, according to many economic experts at the time and since, but chose to give the guarantee which left the country with an unsustainable debt and he stood by his decisions even when exposed. Meanwhile his friends and cronies seemed to be withdrawing money from the same banks and investing or hiding it abroad. There seems to have been huge amounts of money leaving the country while Lenihan was seemingly "dittering". Then apart from the cronyism we have the so-called Regulator leaving with a big lump after presiding over the bank fiasco and not a thing done to him. Lenihan was his boss.
Corruption ?? What else was it?

gbee

tayto lover wrote: »

Fianna Fail and Lenihan in particular tried to hide the facts from the people which to me is corruption.

Total and absolute. ***

I've long complained that we don't live in a democracy in Ireland and haver not for several years already.

hallelujajordan

tayto lover wrote: »

Fianna Fail and Lenihan in particular tried to hide the facts from the people which to me is corruption. It is safe to say that Lenihan bankrupted Ireland by unilaterally guaranteeing bank debts. He had other options, according to many economic experts at the time and since, but chose to give the guarantee which left the country with an unsustainable debt and he stood by his decisions even when exposed. Meanwhile his friends and cronies seemed to be withdrawing money from the same banks and investing or hiding it abroad. There seems to have been huge amounts of money leaving the country while Lenihan was seemingly "dittering". Then apart from the cronyism we have the so-called Regulator leaving with a big lump after presiding over the bank fiasco and not a thing done to him. Lenihan was his boss.
Corruption ?? What else was it?

Decision making .. perhaps bad decision making depending on your perspective . . It is certainly clear that Lenihan was trying his best to prevent the spread of negative information about our banking system. . my view is that this is prudent in a situation where the markets are watching and where so much is dependent on market reaction to an evolving situation. . .

You say that Lenihans friends were withdrawing money and hiding it abroad . . Do you have some evidence to support this ??

But all this is kind of irrelevant and you are continuing to dodge the question. You accused Lenihan of bringing in an illegal bank guarantee and so far (after lots of challenges) you have not produced a single piece of supporting evidence to demonstrate that the guarantee was illegal ..

It clearly wasn't or it's legality would certainly have been challenged in the courts by now but I repeat my challenge . . point out to us how the bank guarantee and subsequent bank nationalisations were illegal ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . .

tayto lover

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Decision making .. perhaps bad decision making depending on your perspective . . It is certainly clear that Lenihan was trying his best to prevent the spread of negative information about our banking system. . my view is that this is prudent in a situation where the markets are watching and where so much is dependent on market reaction to an evolving situation. . .

You say that Lenihans friends were withdrawing money and hiding it abroad . . Do you have some evidence to support this ??

But all this is kind of irrelevant and you are continuing to dodge the question. You accused Lenihan of bringing in an illegal bank guarantee and so far (after lots of challenges) you have not produced a single piece of supporting evidence to demonstrate that the guarantee was illegal ..

It clearly wasn't or it's legality would certainly have been challenged in the courts by now but I repeat my challenge . . point out to us how the bank guarantee and subsequent bank nationalisations were illegal ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . .

Something or anything that is brought in on the basis of lies or untruths is illegal in my view.
The man was not straight up with the people and apparently even with some of his own party. So I am convinced that the whole thing was illegal and as such corrupt. So to me he and his cronies caused the mess that I and every ordinary tax-payer are supposed to pay for. I say "ordinary" because some will get a cheap ride.

djpbarry

tayto lover wrote: »

Do you believe that there are people in Ireland getting an easy ride with taxes? I do.

I do too, but they're at the opposite end of the pay scale to those you're thinking of.

tayto lover wrote: »

And do you think that the people who were in power and in charge of the economy for umpteen years had basic arithmetic too

What does that say about the people who voted for them?

tayto lover wrote: »

It is safe to say that Lenihan bankrupted Ireland by unilaterally guaranteeing bank debts. He had other options, according to many economic experts at the time and since...

Are these the same economic experts you were dismissing earlier in the thread?

djpbarry

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I know we have a serious deficit one where we spend more than we make. So spend less. Much less. Let the private sector recover and it create jobs.

Apart from the fact that such a move would meet with massive union/public opposition, there's no way that anything close to €18 billion in savings is achievable by eliminating waste. Tax increases are absolutely necessary to maintain public service levels.

thebman wrote: »

How does one best object to tax increases while still paying them but send a strong enough message to government that they realise it is going to be less objectionable to most people if they tackle the waste now rather than continuing to put it on the long finger.

Tell your local TD's.

Am Chile wrote: »

Most people are well aware if it were to succeed, it would be €1000 combined with water charges, and most people just cannot afford that...

Most people? I find that extremely hard to believe.

hallelujajordan

tayto lover wrote: »

Something or anything that is brought in on the basis of lies or untruths is illegal in my view.
The man was not straight up with the people and apparently even with some of his own party. So I am convinced that the whole thing was illegal and as such corrupt. So to me he and his cronies caused the mess that I and every ordinary tax-payer are supposed to pay for. I say "ordinary" because some will get a cheap ride.

First of all, which law is broken on the basis of parliament making a decision based on an untruth by a minister ?

You can't just make up laws to suit you y'know !!

Second, can you answer the question I posed around your accusation that Lenihan's friends took money out of Irish banks and hit it abroad ? ? If you want to throw outrageous allegations about you need to be prepared to back them up with evidence.

Kavrocks

tayto lover wrote: »

He had other options, according to many economic experts at the time and since, but chose to give the guarantee which left the country with an unsustainable debt and he stood by his decisions even when exposed.

Hindsight is of little value in the decision-making process. It distorts our memory for events that occurred at the time of the decision so that the actual consequence seems to have been a "foregone conclusion." Thus, it may be difficult to learn from our mistakes.

DIANE F. HALPERN, Thought and Knowledge

Very apt for our current situation.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Defending Lenihan's credibility ? Seriously ?

Mr "cheapest bailout ever" ? Mr "the IMF aren't coming" ?

He was torn to shreds by Paxman re lies and evasion.

There's no way he deserves any benefit of the doubt.

Nice attempt to subtly change the direction of the discussion.. This is not about Lenihan's credibility. I have debated that elsewhere and have no desire to drag this thread even further off topic ..

This is about your accusation that the bank guarantee and subsequent nationalisation of banks was an illegal act. And on the basis of this illegality you or others may be justified in not paying the household charge . . I have asked (about 5 times now) for evidence of this illegality and each time either you or TL dodge the question.

Define "illegal"

I have said that he didn't have the authority or mandate to make such a decision. Whether or not hanging the country for decades to come was unconstitutional is a separate question, but I never claimed that it was "illegal" and so I don't have to support that claim and I am not dodging anything.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Define "illegal"

I have said that he didn't have the authority or mandate to make such a decision. Whether or not hanging the country for decades to come was unconstitutional is a separate question, but I never claimed that it was "illegal" and so I don't have to support that claim and I am not dodging anything.

Illegal=Against the law

Tayto Lover said this . .

Tayto lover wrote:

I think Liam is correct to say that those debts were negotiated illegally

. . and you thanked him . . which I presume means that you agree with his summary of your position ..

Either way it is irrelevant since neither of you can demonstrate why the guarantee was illegal or why Lenihan had no mandate to negotiate it.

tayto lover

Correct Liam and that is my opinion too. Completely illegal.

goat2

they will not have enough room in the jails to jail those who will not pay, or more to the point, cannot afford to pay, and most of us are in that bracket

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Define "illegal"

I have said that he didn't have the authority or mandate to make such a decision. Whether or not hanging the country for decades to come was unconstitutional is a separate question, but I never claimed that it was "illegal" and so I don't have to support that claim and I am not dodging anything.

Illegal=Against the law

Tayto Lover said this . .

Tayto lover wrote:

I think Liam is correct to say that those debts were negotiated illegally

. . and you thanked him . . which I presume means that you agree with his summary of your position ..

Either way it is irrelevant since neither of you can demonstrate why the guarantee was illegal or why Lenihan had no mandate to negotiate it.

You are extrapolating incorrectly and seeing what you want in order to score cheap political points - very like your former hero Ahern.

I thanked the gist of that post but yes, I should have pulled tayto lover up on misrepresenting me.

That said, illegality is all relative when it comes to Fianna Failers - for example a certain Ivor Callely and John O'Donoghue and said-same Bertie Ahern apparently didn't do anything illegal, but certainly did plenty immoral and unethical.

So I wouldn't put any credibility in an FFer's definition of "illegal" - it has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong.

In fact, you have defended O'Dea and his BOTH illegal and unethical actions and view him as suitable for office, so you castigating other TDs for potentially illegal activities is as laughable as it comes.

tayto lover

Here's another article from Morgan Kelly. He seems baffled by Lenihan's actions too.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0507/1224296372123.html

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You are extrapolating incorrectly and seeing what you want in order to score cheap political points - very like your former hero Ahern.

I thanked the gist of that post but yes, I should have pulled tayto lover up on misrepresenting me.

That said, illegality is all relative when it comes to Fianna Failers - for example a certain Ivor Callely and John O'Donoghue and said-same Bertie Ahern apparently didn't do anything illegal, but certainly did plenty immoral and unethical.

So I wouldn't put any credibility in an FFer's definition of "illegal" - it has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong.

In fact, you have defended O'Dea and his BOTH illegal and unethical actions and view him as suitable for office, so you castigating other TDs for potentially illegal activities is as laughable as it comes.

Gimme a break Liam. . I quoted you and Tayto Lover pretty directly . . neither of you left much room for extrapolation one way or another..

And no, legality is not relative, it is pretty black and white . . It's based on the law of the land and if you have information to say that Ahern or anyone else broke the law you should go to the Gardai .. and you are right, it has little to do with right or wrong but this debate is not about what is right or wrong. The bank guarantee may well have been wrong and you have every right to hold that opinion but if you want to argue either that it was illegal or that the government had no mandate (despite a cross party majority vote in parliament) to bring in the guarantee then I will challenge you.

btw, which 'other' TDs did I castigate for 'potentially illegal activities' ? ? ? ? ? ?

hallelujajordan

tayto lover wrote: »

Here's another article from Morgan Kelly. He seems baffled by Lenihan's actions too.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0507/1224296372123.html

An interesting opinion piece. Kelly clearly believes that the bank guarantee was a mistake and makes a strong argument in support of his position.

You should learn from him . . you believe the bank guarantee was illegal but you have made absolutely no argument to support your belief.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You are extrapolating incorrectly and seeing what you want in order to score cheap political points - very like your former hero Ahern.

I thanked the gist of that post but yes, I should have pulled tayto lover up on misrepresenting me.

That said, illegality is all relative when it comes to Fianna Failers - for example a certain Ivor Callely and John O'Donoghue and said-same Bertie Ahern apparently didn't do anything illegal, but certainly did plenty immoral and unethical.

So I wouldn't put any credibility in an FFer's definition of "illegal" - it has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong.

In fact, you have defended O'Dea and his BOTH illegal and unethical actions and view him as suitable for office, so you castigating other TDs for potentially illegal activities is as laughable as it comes.

Gimme a break Liam. . I quoted you and Tayto Lover pretty directly . . neither of you left much room for extrapolation one way or another..

And no, legality is not relative, it is pretty black and white . . It's based on the law of the land and if you have information to say that Ahern or anyone else broke the law you should go to the Gardai .. and you are right, it has little to do with right or wrong but this debate is not about what is right or wrong. The bank guarantee may well have been wrong and you have every right to hold that opinion but if you want to argue either that it was illegal or that the government had no mandate (despite a cross party majority vote in parliament) to bring in the guarantee then I will challenge you.

btw, which 'other' TDs did I castigate for 'potentially illegal activities' ? ? ? ? ? ?

Nice dodge! Absolutely zero mention of Willie O'Dea and his crimes, despite your other posts supporting his suitability as a TD! Stunning and convenient oversight ?

The "other" TDs are the ones that are the subject of this thread.

But why did you not mention O'Dea's unsuitability due to HIM breaking the law ?

Why no objection there ? Why support him and not these TDs ?

And why completely gloss over the reference ? Did you seriously think you'd get away with that one ?

Why the double-standards hallelujah?

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Nice dodge! Absolutely zero mention of Willie O'Dea and his crimes, despite your other posts supporting his suitability as a TD! Stunning and convenient oversight ?

The "other" TDs are the ones that are the subject of this thread.

But why did you not mention O'Dea's unsuitability due to HIM breaking the law ?

Why no objection there ? Why support him and not these TDs ?

And why completely gloss over the reference ? Did you seriously think you'd get away with that one ?

Why the double-standards hallelujah?

This is the second thread in the last couple of weeks where you have criticised me for not getting drawn into an off-topic O'Dea debate. . . I'm not sure what you want me to say . . Willie O'Dea was neither charged or convicted of any crime and I have explained in detail on previous threads why I believe he did not commit perjury. I ignore it here because it is irrelevant to a thread about property tax but if you want to debate it elsewhere I am happy to.

I have not castigated these TDs at all . . I do believe they are mostly engaged in a cynical vote-getting exercise. . . I do not believe they should be encouraging people to break the law and then walking away and leaving them with big fines but most of all I am engaged in this debate because I believe that property tax is both a necessary and fair means of raising revenue. .

Not sure what reference I have glossed over ??

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Nice dodge! Absolutely zero mention of Willie O'Dea and his crimes, despite your other posts supporting his suitability as a TD! Stunning and convenient oversight ?

The "other" TDs are the ones that are the subject of this thread.

But why did you not mention O'Dea's unsuitability due to HIM breaking the law ?

Why no objection there ? Why support him and not these TDs ?

And why completely gloss over the reference ? Did you seriously think you'd get away with that one ?

Why the double-standards hallelujah?

This is the second thread in the last couple of weeks where you have criticised me for not getting drawn into an off-topic O'Dea debate. . . I'm not sure what you want me to say . . Willie O'Dea was neither charged or convicted of any crime and I have explained in detail on previous threads why I believe he did not commit perjury. I ignore it here because it is irrelevant to a thread about property tax but if you want to debate it elsewhere I am happy to.

I have not castigated these TDs at all . . I do believe they are mostly engaged in a cynical vote-getting exercise. . . I do not believe they should be encouraging people to break the law and then walking away and leaving them with big fines but most of all I am engaged in this debate because I believe that property tax is both a necessary and fair means of raising revenue. .

Not sure what reference I have glossed over ??

Forget it. You deliberately left O'Dea out while replying re Ahern & others because we know about O'Dea's crimes - libel & perjury. Why did he have to pay damages again ?

Your transparency in terms of glossing over the sins of those you support is astonishing and disgraceful, but typical of FF. You say that we're not allowed an opinion re what's legal, but then you go on to say you "believe" that O'Dea committed no crime.

We can't have opinions on what's illegal, but you can (even when the facts contradict you 100%) ?

Some TDs try to call a halt to the general public getting ridden and you "don't believe they should be encouraging law-breaking" but you defend the suitability of a perjuror for office......you're fine with that (provided, of course, they're in FF)

And don't get me started on "cynical vote-getting exercises" - you guys invented them!

I cannot debate or discuss with someone who has such blatant double-standards.

Come back to me at some stage when you object to all crimes and questionable actions proportionally & equally, and maybe then you'll be credible enough to have a leg to stand on.

Until then you cannot criticise any TD.

Bullseye1

The bank guarantee was the biggest decision this country made since its foundation yet it was not put to a referendum and it wasn't even voted on by cabinet. Is it even constitutional? Is it possible for a private citizen to take it in front of the Supreme Court?

Kavrocks

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I have said that he didn't have the authority or mandate to make such a decision.

If the Minister for Finance can't recommend to the Government or Dáil a particular course of action to take regarding the economy and the countries finances then what is the point in having a Minister for Finance?

tayto lover

Kavrocks wrote: »

If the Minister for Finance can't recommend to the Government or Dáil a particular course of action to take regarding the economy and the countries finances then what is the point in having a Minister for Finance?

Especially one who panics and agrees to anything he's told to do by the Germans.

Liam Byrne

Kavrocks wrote: »

If the Minister for Finance can't recommend to the Government or Dáil a particular course of action to take regarding the economy and the countries finances then what is the point in having a Minister for Finance?

That almost makes it sound reasonable, but in this case it was the size of the particular course of action that made it inappropriate.

Think of your company dept head - they can probably sign off on something for €100, but they can't sign a PO for €500,000,000; that might require a board meeting or a shareholder vote. If that decision puts the company at risk, then the shareholders are perfectly entitled to point out that the individual had no remit for a decision of that magnitude.

I sincerely believe that a decision of this magnitude warranted a referendum, and was certainly inappropriate for a rookie Minister - a non-practicing solicitor with absolutely no training or expertise in Finance - to decide on behalf of the Irish state.