Government quakes as a massive 3000 people attend national property tax protest

nuac

I think there should be a property tax, but this one is poorly planned and poorly sold.

Zombrex

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Your analogy is flawed. A better analogy would be if the management fee was increasing because the previous management company had siphoned off a bunch of the cash to help their troubled friends, and the new management company was asking people to pay more, while at best refusing the pursue the old management company, at best actively shielding them from their angry tenants.

In such a scenario the existing tenants would have every right to be pissed.

You are missing the point. How does being pissed off pay for the bin collection?

You can be as pissed off as you like with the previous FF government (I certainly am and the people who voted for them). But that doesn't magically generate money out of thin air. Public services need to be paid for. We spend the last 10 years paying for them with an imaginary property bubble. That doesn't exist any more.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When did I say it did? I think you missed my point, my argument was that if we ordinary people have to suffer for their screwups, they better be suffering as well, rather than receiving exorbitant pensions, expenses, and bailouts from OUR pockets.

So you support paying the house hold charge?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This isn't about the property tax in isolation, that is just one more straw on the camel's back. Every single extra levy the Irish taxpayer has had to shoulder is unjust as long as those whose behavior led to the crash are not brought to justice over it.

Sorry but that is largely wishful thinking. It would be lovely to think that some massive fraud or conspiracy got us into this mess. But that isn't true. What FF did was in the open and available for anyone who wanted to to know about. Everyone who bothered to look knew the banks were over extended, that the economy was being supported by a property boom, that we were not going to have a soft landing, that the state would eventually have to leverage the banks.

There is difference between fraud and ignorance. I appreciate the frustration people feel at how the government was managing the economy, but that is their fault. Don't vote in the government, and when they are acting badly vote them out. But people didn't want to believe the nay sayers.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I wrote a letter to the Irish Times about this today in fact. After explaining my anger at this property charge coinciding with the Mahon report and the news of Bertie and others' continued pension and expenses from the state, the last line reads: "People aren't objecting to paying tax to save Ireland, they're objecting to paying tax to save Ireland's untouchable political class. Cut them off first and THEN we'll talk about a household charge."

The current economy problems in Ireland were not caused by a fraud or by a closed door conspiracy. It was the democratic will of the people, they were just too ignorant to know it.

Dannyboy83

oscarBravo wrote: »

The day the Irish people stop demanding unrealistic promises from politicians as the price of their vote is the day we can, in fairness, expect politicians to keep their promises.

Open to correction, but does the total amount to be collect from this tax not equal the public service increments for this year?

Fine Gael promised to reform the public services.
They are doing the opposite.

The promised to get spending under control, yet have said on record numerous times in recent months that we'd be risking nuclear winter if we tried to renegotiate the Croke Park Agreement
Patricia King of Siptu threatened the same at the weekend.

I don't see how the electorate have been unreasonable in this case??
I'm genuinely confused as to what we are supposed to do.
Party A promise reform;
the electorate vote for them;
Party A do not deliver reform
.
.

happyman81

Some amount of goalpost shifting on the part of the 'revolutionaries', in this thread.

oscarBravo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Fine Gael promised to reform the public services.
They are doing the opposite.

Pretty sure Fine Gael said they'd honour the CPA.

The promised to get spending under control, yet have said on record numerous times in recent months that we'd be risking nuclear winter if we tried to renegotiate the Croke Park Agreement
Patricia King of Siptu threatened the same at the weekend.

Given the fact that public servants get to vote, what would the election result have looked like if FG promised to massively cut public service numbers before the election?

I don't see how the electorate have been unreasonable in this case??
I'm genuinely confused as to what we are supposed to do.
Party A promise reform;
the electorate vote for them;
Party A do not deliver reform
.
.

You could vote for the ULA and Sinn Fein next time - if you're confident that there's no possibility of them ever reneging on anything they've ever promised during an election campaign.

Or you could accept, as I've said, that politicians tell the electorate what they want to hear in the run-up to an election.

Or you can naively believe everything you're told, and then get all upset when it turns out that a politician told you what you wanted to hear in order to buy your vote.

gandalf

In principle I have no issue with a property tax. However until the Government make a real effort to tackle the costs of running public services I disagree strongly with paying additional taxes.

This tax is going to raise €160 million this year if everyone pays, if this Government stopped increments in PS wages it would have saved €360 million. You can just imagine the savings that can be made if a real effort was made at tidying up the administration in public organisations like the HSE.

From my perspective sort the waste and costs out first and then talk to us about additional taxation. I certainly I am not willing to have an increased slice taken out of my wages because the politicians haven't the balls to do the job we elected them to do.

For the moment I am happy to wait another three months and see what happens.

Dannyboy83

oscarBravo wrote: »

You could vote for the ULA and Sinn Fein next time - if you're confident that there's no possibility of them ever reneging on anything they've ever promised during an election campaign.

But that's not the issue.
Sinn Fein and the ULA stated they wouldn't touch the public services.
That was exactly why I didn't vote for them.

Fine Gael promised to reform the public services, that was why I did vote for them

Why would I vote for Sinn Fein when they're offering the opposite of what I want?

Or you could accept, as I've said, that politicians tell the electorate what they want to hear in the run-up to an election.

Or you can naively believe everything you're told, and then get all upset when it turns out that a politician told you what you wanted to hear in order to buy your vote.

That's not the issue tho

You said:

The day the Irish people stop demanding unrealistic promises from politicians as the price of their vote is the day we can, in fairness, expect politicians to keep their promises.

Then you say

Or you could accept, as I've said, that politicians tell the electorate what they want to hear in the run-up to an election.

Or you can naively believe everything you're told, and then get all upset when it turns out that a politician told you what you wanted to hear in order to buy your vote.

So it's a case of damned if we do & damned if we don't?

I don't see an option B in there?

oscarBravo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Fine Gael promised to reform the public services, that was why I did vote for them

Again: I'm pretty sure FG said they'd honour the CPA. Whatever about being annoyed at the government for not fulfilling their promises, it seems a little harsh to be annoyed about something they didn't promise.

In theory, the CPA involves public service reform. In practice the reform is much slower than it needs to be, but that seems to be down to union reluctance to implement reform as much as government unwillingness to push the issue.

Dannyboy83

oscarBravo wrote: »

Again: I'm pretty sure FG said they'd honour the CPA. Whatever about being annoyed at the government for not fulfilling their promises, it seems a little harsh to be annoyed about something they didn't promise.

But I'm not referring to something they didn't promise, I'm referring to something they explicity did promise.

Here, I will provide a quote for you

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1118/1224307765480.html

TAOISEACH ENDA Kenny has promised the Government’s public sector reform plan will produce a “leaner, smarter and better public service”, and said the Coalition was determined to “draw a line under the decentralisation programme”.

The Fine Gael leader said the proposed reforms were essential to avoid additional tax increases.

.
.
.

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin said the most significant item in the plan was the “extraordinary reduction” in public service numbers that would reduce the pay bill by more than €2.5 billion annually. “Based on the figures at the end of 2010, the total number of public service employees will be reduced by a further 23,500 by 2015. It’s a very large number. At that point, public service numbers will have fallen from their peak in 2008 by some 37,500, or 12 per cent.”

On cuts in the number of State bodies, he said 48 would be “rationalised” by the end of 2012, with a further 46 to be reviewed by mid-2012. Net savings from reductions in so-called quangos would be “modest enough”. Annualised savings on the first reduction would be about €20 million.

They have not delivered on the above, and we now people are paying a new tax, because of their failure to deliver.

THE COALITION parties may be on a collision course over the payment of €250 million in increments to public servants after a stout defence of the practice by Minister for Public Expenditure Brendan Howlin yesterday.
.
.

However, there is no reference to increments in the Croke Park deal with public sector workers, which forms the basis of the Coalition’s policy on public pay and numbers.

The part I'm confused and wish to have explained is the part where the electorate are somehow to blame for this.

Fine Gael promised to reform public expenditure;
The electorate voted for them;
Fine Gael have failed to deliver on their promise and the electorate now face tax increases.

You cannot vote for something which is not offered, only for something which is offered.

How are the electorate to blame?

In theory, the CPA involves public service reform. In practice the reform is much slower than it needs to be, but that seems to be down to union reluctance to implement reform as much as government unwillingness to push the issue.

Government unwillingness to push the issue is an inappropriate description (imo). It's not something which the cabinet are gently pushing - the opposite is the case- Kenny has come under attack from his under backbenchers due to refusal to tackle the issue.

djpbarry

gandalf wrote: »

From my perspective sort the waste and costs out first and then talk to us about additional taxation.

Seems like the rational approach would be to close the gap from both ends? Increase revenue and decrease expenditure.

djpbarry

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

They have not delivered on the above, and we now people are paying a new tax, because of their failure to deliver.

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense - tax increases are completely unavoidable. There is absolutely no way Ireland can get to where it needs to be with spending cuts alone.

oscarBravo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The part I'm confused and wish to have explained is the part where the electorate are somehow to blame for this.

Let's back away from "the electorate" for a second, and narrow this down to you as a Fine Gael voter: is it your genuinely-held view that Fine Gael should set aside every other consideration - industrial relations, the impact on the wider economy, everything - in order to come good on that one issue that's important to you personally? That the threats from SIPTU should be blithely ignored, even if it leads to widespread public sector strikes, because every single thing they've every said in an election campaign trumps all pragmatic considerations involved in actually running a country?

Dannyboy83

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's back away from "the electorate" for a second, and narrow this down to you as a Fine Gael voter: is it your genuinely-held view that Fine Gael should set aside every other consideration - industrial relations, the impact on the wider economy, everything - in order to come good on that one issue that's important to you personally? That the threats from SIPTU should be blithely ignored, even if it leads to widespread public sector strikes, because every single thing they've every said in an election campaign trumps all pragmatic considerations involved in actually running a country?

If you wish to narrow it down, then I ask you - What could I, as a voter, have done differently?

I couldn't vote for Labour, Sinn Fein or the ULA, because they offered the opposite of what I wanted.
I couldn't vote for Fianna Fail, because they offered what we currently have.

Fine Gael offered what I wanted - so I voted for them.

Is that not the nature of democracy?
Is that not how it works in every country?

In the UK, people voted for the tories (near majority), and the tories have been doing what they were elected to do.
In Ireland, people voted for FG (near majority), yet FG have not done what they were elected to do.

The day the Irish people stop demanding unrealistic promises from politicians as the price of their vote is the day we can, in fairness, expect politicians to keep their promises.

What do you propose the electorate should have done or what should I as a voter have done?

Godge

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But I'm not referring to something they didn't promise, I'm referring to something they explicity did promise.

Here, I will provide a quote for you


They have not delivered on the above, and we now people are paying a new tax, because of their failure to deliver.




.

The quote you seem to be referring to is the following:

"Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin said the most significant item in the plan was the “extraordinary reduction” in public service numbers that would reduce the pay bill by more than €2.5 billion annually. “Based on the figures at the end of 2010, the total number of public service employees will be reduced by a further 23,500 by 2015. It’s a very large number. At that point, public service numbers will have fallen from their peak in 2008 by some 37,500, or 12 per cent"

And you somehow seem to think that the government is not meeting this promise. Let me refer you to a Dail speech of the 8 March 2012, the most recent update I can find:

http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2012-03-08.320.0

"The size of the public service grew significantly in the early years of the last decade. By 2008, some 320,000 were employed in the public service and, by 2009, the gross Exchequer pay bill peaked at more than €17.5 billion. It is perhaps easy to become jaded in our discussion of public service pay costs. However, I would ask the House to note that the total net cost of the public service pay bill will be reduced from 2008 to 2015 by some €3.5 billion - by 20% in seven years. This reduction is necessary to contribute to the fiscal adjustment targets essential for our economy"

They are now promising that the reduction in the pay bill will be €3.5 billion rather than €2.5 billion and that will be 20% rather than 12%. Looks like they think they will overshoot the promise. But hey, that is by 2015, how are they getting on so far.

"By 2008, some 320,000 were employed in the public service "
"The numbers working in the public service have continued to fall, with the provisional outturn for the end of last year now standing at 296,900,"
"I am confident that, given the number of departures last year, together with estimated retirement figures for 2012, we are well on track to meet our 2012 target of 294,400."

So let me see, they promised a reduction of 37,500 by 2015. They have achieved a reductionby end-2011 of 23,100 and expect more by the end of 2012. Which bit of the promise are they not delivering on? What exactly is your problem? They promised to reduce the pay bill and the public sector numbers, the figures show that is what is happening, how can you say that they have not delivered?

If you want to find a promise of something that they didn't deliver, try and find one more credible than this.

Dannyboy83

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense - tax increases are completely unavoidable. There is absolutely no way Ireland can get to where it needs to be with spending cuts alone.

There is indeed a way; It's unpalatable, but neither impossible nor nonsense.
I'm not in favour of that method however.

I believe, as you said in your previous post, the rational approach would be to close the gap from both ends.
How that would be achieved is a different topic, and one covered infinite times on this forum already.

oscarBravo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

If you wish to narrow it down, then I ask you - What could I, as a voter, have done differently?

You could have voted for someone else. You could have stayed at home. You could have spoiled your vote. You could have taken into account the fact that it's not always possible, for pragmatic reasons as well as other less noble ones, for a government to deliver on every single campaign promise that they make in the run-up to an election.

In Ireland, people voted for FG (near majority), yet FG have not done what they were elected to do.

If you define "doing what they were elected to do" as "not varying in any detail from every single article of their election campaign despite the fact that they had to negotiate a program for government with a coalition partner who campaigned with a different set of pre-election promises", then yes: they haven't done what they were elected to do.

If that's the standard you're holding a political party to, you could be a while waiting for a party that will satisfy you.

But I'll ask again: did you vote for them in the firmly-held belief that there was no possibility of them deviating in any particular from every single detail of all their campaign promises?

What do you propose the electorate should have done or what should I as a voter have done?

Ah, I think I see what the problem is. I point out that the electorate make unrealistic demands of campaigning political parties, and you take this to mean that every single expectation held by every single voter is unrealistic.

Perhaps you should check your premises.

Dannyboy83

Godge wrote: »

"By 2008, some 320,000 were employed in the public service "
"The numbers working in the public service have continued to fall, with the provisional outturn for the end of last year now standing at 296,900,"
"I am confident that, given the number of departures last year, together with estimated retirement figures for 2012, we are well on track to meet our 2012 target of 294,400."

So let me see, they promised a reduction of 37,500 by 2015. They have achieved a reductionby end-2011 of 23,100 and expect more by the end of 2012. Which bit of the promise are they not delivering on? What exactly is your problem? They promised to reduce the pay bill and the public sector numbers, the figures show that is what is happening, how can you say that they have not delivered?

If you want to find a promise of something that they didn't deliver, try and find one more credible than this.

As an example:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/public-sector-reform-a-mirage-3005828.html
While 9,000 public sector workers might seem like a large number in absolute terms it is in fact only about four-tenths of the 23,000 workers who will leave the public sector by 2015 under the Government's plans for public sector reform. Public Expenditure and Reform Minister Brendan Howlin is relying upon natural wastage for the remaining 14,000 reduction in employment numbers.


At the same time as 9,000 public sector workers are taking retirement Mr Howlin has conceded that up to 3,000 public sector workers will be recruited this year. This 3,000 will be in addition to many "retired" public sector workers who will continue, at least temporarily, to do their old jobs in one guise or another. This means that predictions of disruption resulting from the retirements will almost certainly prove to have been overblown.

If you recall the public sector efficencies announced in June last year actually amounted to net 600m, rather the considerably larger figure being claimed.

Dannyboy83

oscarBravo wrote: »

You could have voted for someone else.

But no one else offered what I wanted?
There was no one else to vote for.

Fine Gael offered what I wanted, so it made sense to vote for them.

You could have stayed at home.
You could have spoiled your vote.

Fine Gael offered what I wanted, therefore I voted for them.
Why would I have refused to vote or wasted my vote?

The only way it can possibly be considered rational, is if I had a crystal ball to see into the future. I didn't then - nor will I have for the next election.

What am I supposed to do at the next election?

You could have taken into account the fact that it's not always possible, for pragmatic reasons as well as other less noble ones, for a government to deliver on every single campaign promise that they make in the run-up to an election.

Naturally, I did and always do.
But there are core issues and then there are secondary issues...

I don't think anyone would argue that this was a secondary issue.

For example, I would not expect the Greens vote compromise on toxic waste dumping and if they did, those who vote for them would not be pleased.

If you define "doing what they were elected to do" as "not varying in any detail from every single article of their election campaign despite the fact that they had to negotiate a program for government with a coalition partner who campaigned with a different set of pre-election promises", then yes: they haven't done what they were elected to do.

If that's the standard you're holding a political party to, you could be a while waiting for a party that will satisfy you.

Unfortunately, you are indeed correct.
But as I say, there are core issues and then there are secondary issues.

But I'll ask again: did you vote for them in the firmly-held belief that there was no possibility of them deviating in any particular from every single detail of all their campaign promises?

Of course not, I wished to see Irish made optional as promised.
I would like to see it happen, but accept it will not.
It's a secondary issue tho.

(I hope my post doesn't come across as ranty - it's not intended to be)

Ah, I think I see what the problem is. I point out that the electorate make unrealistic demands of campaigning political parties, and you take this to mean that every single expectation held by every single voter is unrealistic.

Actually, the point is that I don't understand your original statement.

The day the Irish people stop demanding unrealistic promises from politicians as the price of their vote is the day we can, in fairness, expect politicians to keep their promises.

I'm not trying to argue semantics, I'm genuinely curious as to what you would have the electorate do.

I do not see an alternative option.
I cannot vote for what is not offered, only for what is offered.

If I wish to participate (i.e. not spoil my vote), what am I supposed to do?

oscarBravo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I'm not trying to argue semantics, I'm genuinely curious as to what you would have the electorate do.

I do not see an alternative option.
I cannot vote for what is not offered, only for what is offered.

If I wish to participate (i.e. not spoil my vote), what am I supposed to do?

Vote for the party that you feel best represents your wishes. Make allowances for the fact that it won't always be possible for a party to do everything it would like to do once in government. Offer feedback to your elected representatives as to how well they've represented your wishes. And then rinse and repeat come the next election.

You could also ask candidates when they come canvassing not to promise anything that they're not absolutely certain they will be in a position to deliver.

djpbarry

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

In the UK, people voted for the tories (near majority), and the tories have been doing what they were elected to do.
In Ireland, people voted for FG (near majority), yet FG have not done what they were elected to do.

In Westminster, the Tories have more than five times as many seats as the Lib Dems. In the Dáil, FG have only about twice as many seats as Labour. That’s a big difference.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

There is indeed a way; It's unpalatable, but neither impossible nor nonsense.

Oh there are definitely ways. None of them are realistic, however.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I believe, as you said in your previous post, the rational approach would be to close the gap from both ends.
How that would be achieved is a different topic, and one covered infinite times on this forum already.

I don’t believe it’s all that difficult to achieve, in theory. But, there are two big problems in practice. The first is that the public seem to believe that absolutely every tax increase or spending cut is tied to “the banks” in some way. The second is union opposition to public sector reform. I’m honestly not sure what to do about either.

djpbarry

oscarBravo wrote: »

You could also ask candidates when they come canvassing not to promise anything that they're not absolutely certain they will be in a position to deliver.

Ruairi Quinn's pledge on third-level fees is a good example. If he came to my door telling me that he would absolutely not consider asking students to contribute toward their education, the first question that would come to my mind would be “ok, so what are you going to do about the under-funding of third-level education?”

JustinDee

djpbarry wrote: »

Ruairi Quinn's pledge on third-level fees is a good example. If he came to my door telling me that he would absolutely not consider asking students to contribute toward their education, the first question that would come to my mind would be “ok, so what are you going to do about the under-funding of third-level education?”

Third-level education is a choice for an individual. Not an entitlement bestowed upon them by everyone else.
Whats wrong with having to pay one's own way through this optional extension of one's educational journey? If university fees are to subsidised by the taxpayer, then why not every other third-level educational facility? Why not VECs etc? Adult Education programmes?

djpbarry

JustinDee wrote: »

Third-level education is a choice for an individual. Not an entitlement bestowed upon them by everyone else.
Whats wrong with having to pay one's own way through this optional extension of one's educational journey? If university fees are to subsidised by the taxpayer, then why not every other third-level educational facility? Why not VECs etc? Adult Education programmes?

I think that's a discussion for another thread - I was just using it as an example of a pre-election promise that was unlikely to be delivered.

golfball37

The HC is once again putting the cart before the horse. Until they tackle wastage and over payment of TD's, councillors and the top echelons of the public service they can take a run and jump.

When they have proved to me they are serious about reform then I'll gladly pay.

As for the poster who says nothing illegal happened during the banking crisis. Transferring moneys from one bank to another to prop up ones balance sheet IS a crime. This happened here between Anglo, TSB & nationwide. Again until the people directly responsible for where where we are,suffer for their mistakes I will not be funding this failed state anymore than I have to.

Politicians who will not administer their moral duty have some neck calling me a criminal for paying this. I will gladly show them a receipt from SVP, at least that money will go to some use.

Dannyboy83

djpbarry wrote: »

Ruairi Quinn's pledge on third-level fees is a good example. If he came to my door telling me that he would absolutely not consider asking students to contribute toward their education, the first question that would come to my mind would be “ok, so what are you going to do about the under-funding of third-level education?”

Just my opinion but the overwhelming majority of the electorate do this anyway:

I) Vote for the party that you feel best represents your wishes.
II) Make allowances for the fact that it won't always be possible for a party to do everything it would like to do once in government.
III) Offer feedback to your elected representatives as to how well they've represented your wishes.
IV) And then rinse and repeat come the next election.

(with the exception of III - which is where the problem lies imo)

I don't personally know anyone who doesn't do I.
II is mainly only possible because of III.
People stop doing IV because they become disillusioned.


Thats why this statement means nothing to me

The day the Irish people stop demanding unrealistic promises from politicians as the price of their vote is the day we can, in fairness, expect politicians to keep their promises.

It's a kind of a theoretical vision of how politics should work, with no bearing in reality. It's unachievable without change in the system - not change in the electorate.
It's like saying.... the day Irish people stop committing crimes, we will be able to disband the police.

As I've said many times before - if you hire a builder to build you a conservatory, and he builds you an outhouse, he gets his marching orders, whereas a politician is untouchable until the next election.

There is no step III in the Irish system and I wouldn't expect anything to change until the system is changed.

It's the system which needs to change, then the electorate will follow.

You could also ask candidates when they come canvassing not to promise anything that they're not absolutely certain they will be in a position to deliver.

This is utterly futile based on personal experience.
Politicians lie, that's what politicians do. (The same politician promised me a complete opposite lie to the one he promised my father at the last election)
They're mainly just trying to win a popularity contest, that's their primary goal, anything else is secondary.

djpbarry

golfball37 wrote: »

Until they tackle wastage and over payment of TD's, councillors and the top echelons of the public service they can take a run and jump.

None of which will make a blind bit of difference to the state of Ireland’s finances.

golfball37 wrote: »

As for the poster who says nothing illegal happened during the banking crisis.

That’s not what I said. It seems a large chunk of the population is waiting for someone to be convicted of a felony so they have someone to blame for Ireland’s mess. But, it’s quite possible that nobody will be convicted of anything. Furthermore, if someone is convicted of a crime, they will likely be used as a scapegoat, the entire financial crisis will be blamed on them, and nobody will learn anything.

djpbarry

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Just my opinion but the overwhelming majority of the electorate do this anyway...

I would agree that ‘III’ is rare. However, I think you’re overlooking the fact that for a lot of people, ‘I’ reads “vote for the party your Dad votes for”, or “vote for the party who supported the treaty”, or “vote for the guy who fixed the road”.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

This is utterly futile based on personal experience.
Politicians lie, that's what politicians do.

Some politicians do, some make promises they can’t keep. Either way, it should be relatively easy to see through them and call them on their bull****. Maybe not on everything, but certainly on issues that an individual voter regards as important.

oscarBravo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Just my opinion but the overwhelming majority of the electorate do this anyway:

I) Vote for the party that you feel best represents your wishes.
II) Make allowances for the fact that it won't always be possible for a party to do everything it would like to do once in government.
III) Offer feedback to your elected representatives as to how well they've represented your wishes.
IV) And then rinse and repeat come the next election.

(with the exception of III - which is where the problem lies imo)

I don't personally know anyone who doesn't do I.
II is mainly only possible because of III.
People stop doing IV because they become disillusioned.

I'm bemused at the fact that you've completely glossed over the fact that most people don't do II.

The sheer frothing outrage, the vitriol that has been heaped upon government TDs in Roscommon over their failure to secure the retention of the A&E department in the local hospital is the type of thing I'm talking about. If a candidate tells people on the doorstep that they're going to have to accept the fact that cuts are inevitable and that their local A&E could well be a target of those cuts, he won't get elected. If he tells them he'll fight to keep it open, and cold hard reality dictates otherwise, they're calling for him to be tarred and feathered.

It's a kind of a theoretical vision of how politics should work, with no bearing in reality. It's unachievable without change in the system - not change in the electorate.

As much as I want change in the system, it's quite simply not going to happen without change in the electorate. We elect the government. If we want better governments, we're going to have to elect better governments, but we're also going to have to be pragmatic and realise the limits of any given government's ability to deliver every single thing that we demand of them.

As I've said many times before - if you hire a builder to build you a conservatory, and he builds you an outhouse, he gets his marching orders, whereas a politician is untouchable until the next election.

The analogy is broken. If you hire a builder to build you a conservatory, you have a one-on-one contract with a single other party with a clearly defined contractual relationship.

The current government consists of two parties, each of which consists of dozens of elected representatives, each of which "promised" a great many things to a great many different people with a great many different and often conflicting desires. There is no explicit contract between any given TD and any given voter, never mind between the entire government and the entire electorate.

Politicians lie, that's what politicians do. (The same politician promised me a complete opposite lie to the one he promised my father at the last election)
They're mainly just trying to win a popularity contest, that's their primary goal, anything else is secondary.

You have the choice of holding them accountable for their lies by not voting for them the next time out. The downside is that you'll almost certainly never vote for an incumbent government candidate again.

happyman81

So basically this isn't about the protest anymore, right? Might I suggest a title change?

golfball37

djpbarry wrote: »

None of which will make a blind bit of difference to the state of Ireland’s finances.
That’s not what I said. It seems a large chunk of the population is waiting for someone to be convicted of a felony so they have someone to blame for Ireland’s mess. But, it’s quite possible that nobody will be convicted of anything. Furthermore, if someone is convicted of a crime, they will likely be used as a scapegoat, the entire financial crisis will be blamed on them, and nobody will learn anything.

They will save a hell of a lot more than the 160m they hope to raise with the HC by cutting costs and reducing wastage. If you are primarily concerned with the state of Irelands deficit you would be advocating doing this yourself.

Until they enforce real reform they cannot p1ss down peoples back and tell them its raining anymore.

BluntGuy

golfball37 wrote: »

They will save a hell of a lot more than the 160m they hope to raise with the HC by cutting costs and reducing wastage. If you are primarily concerned with the state of Irelands deficit you would be advocating doing this yourself.

How much do they have to save before it becomes acceptable to levy any new taxes?

golfball37

BluntGuy wrote: »

How much do they have to save before it becomes acceptable to levy any new taxes?

I didn't even mention that, I just want them to at least try.

How much will they be let get awy with before people shout stop is the opposite end of that question.

djpbarry

golfball37 wrote: »

They will save a hell of a lot more than the 160m they hope to raise with the HC by cutting costs and reducing wastage. If you are primarily concerned with the state of Irelands deficit you would be advocating doing this yourself.

Oh but I am. I just don’t see why raising additional revenue and cutting costs cannot be done in parallel?

golfball37 wrote: »

I didn't even mention that,

No, you didn’t. Nobody ever does, conveniently enough. So you’re basically refusing to pay any more taxes until some unspecified, arbitrary point in the future?

golfball37

djpbarry wrote: »

Oh but I am. I just don’t see why raising additional revenue and cutting costs cannot be done in parallel?
No, you didn’t. Nobody ever does, conveniently enough. So you’re basically refusing to pay any more taxes until some unspecified, arbitrary point in the future?

It would be fine if they were being done in parellel, I'd have no issue with this. I have no issue with a property tax either per se. Can you honestly tell me any effeort has been made to reform how our money is spent?

Why is this being collected centrally if its for local services also? This tax is being left up to the individual to pay and its the first chance we have to register a protest about the way the govt is doing business. Reform first then you can tax me.

On your 2nd point- Yes I guess i am though I will say additional taxes I already pay USC, PAYE, PRSI etc.

Hope that makes you feel better.

golfball37

How much are local authorities in hoc to developers throughout the country? Wonder is it more or less than 160m?

Why arent they vigourously pursuing this like they are the measly 160m they hope to get from the HC?

djpbarry

golfball37 wrote: »

Can you honestly tell me any effeort has been made to reform how our money is spent?

Any effort? Sure – cuts have been made, have they not?

Can you honestly tell me that billions of €’s worth of further cuts can be made without mass opposition from the general public?

golfball37 wrote: »

Why is this being collected centrally if its for local services also?

I believe the constitution dictates that it must be.

golfball37 wrote: »

This tax is being left up to the individual to pay and its the first chance we have to register a protest about the way the govt is doing business.

Bollocks. You can register a protest with your local TD’s any time you like, but somehow I doubt many of those who are refusing to pay the charge have considered that option.

golfball37 wrote: »

Reform first then you can tax me.

Reform what? Let’s have some specifics. What exactly is it you want to see done before you’ll pay the household charge?

golfball37 wrote: »

How much are local authorities in hoc to developers throughout the country?

I don’t know – how much?

Mr.Micro

golfball37 wrote: »

This tax is being left up to the individual to pay and its the first chance we have to register a protest about the way the govt is doing business. Reform first then you can tax me.

The law says that the tax has to be paid, so it has to be paid. People have to pay from now on, then its something that we all will have to get used to, in line with most of the rest of Europe. We can then hopefully, demand reform and accountability for our money, and get the shoddy County Councils into line. We pay a TV licence, car tax, insurance, fees of all types. What is the big deal about having to pay another tax..... is it just belligerence and pigheadedness, and someone else should pay?

oscarBravo

Mr.Micro wrote: »

We can then hopefully, demand reform and accountability for our money...

I don't disagree with the thrust of your point, but just as I've pointed out that we can't afford to wait for reform before paying taxes, it's only fair to point out that we should demand reform and accountability as our basic rights, not in return for paying new taxes. The two issues are orthogonal.

Mr.Micro

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't disagree with the thrust of your point, but just as I've pointed out that we can't afford to wait for reform before paying taxes, it's only fair to point out that we should demand reform and accountability as our basic rights, not in return for paying new taxes. The two issues are orthogonal.

Agreed. In view of the fact there is such opposition to the charge, then hopefully the Government will be fully focused on the need for reform, whilst collecting a very unpopular revenue. Up to now there has been little or no motivation for reform, and maybe this will help to get the ball rolling?

tayto lover

The Household Tax protest is something you don't even have to leave your armchair to take part in. Just relax and don't pay.

hatrickpatrick

djpbarry wrote: »

We could scrap all those pensions and expenses tonight (although I'm not sure specifically which ones you're referring to) and it would make shag all difference to the state of Ireland's finances.

As I keep saying ,this isn't about fixing the nation's finances, it's about making the solution FAIR.

Besides, I'm pretty sure FG are/were planning on drafting legislation on precisely this issue.

Are they? If they would have done that BEFORE introducing the household tax, or at least outlined that it was going to happen - coupled with a guarantee that what happened in Anglo WILL be got to the bottom of - I would be protesting far less about the household charge.

You're assuming there that there was some illegal goings-on at some point, waiting to be discovered - what if there wasn't?

Then the government should immediately draft legislation to MAKE those activities illegal and ensure that they can never, ever, ever happen again. Of course I accept that legislation can't apply retroactively, if that's the best we can do then so be it.

How exactly would that work in practice? A quango (independent, of course) to censor election campaigns? Can't see any potential problems with that.

How does it work if you perjure yourself in court? Suppose we required that every statement made to the press by an official or potential official be made under oath, or a semi oath that "to the best of my knowledge, this is true at this time"?
If it can ever be proven later that a politician knowingly and willfully lied (as in Eamon Gilmore's case) there should be an immediate bye-election in that constituency. If the people decide they can tolerate that lie then the politician can stay.

It's one possible solution. Get caught red handed lying, immediately face the real prospect of losing your seat. Might encourage them to keep their mouths shut rather than feigning certainty where there is none.

But the electorate didn't? Every third-level institution in the country has been screaming for years about lack of funding and the state doesn't have the means to make up the shortfall at present, but asking the students to pay is completely out of the question because Ruarai's signed some novelty-sized petition? Seriously?

He signed an agreement. I as a student voter voted for Labour in part due to this. If he didn't mean it and he knew he shouldn't have signed it, end of story.
Again it's not about the fees, it's about the lying. It shouldn't be allowed, period.

He knew full well that, if elected, he would never have been able to live up to it and every single person who voted for him should have been well aware of that (if it was one of their pressing concerns).

And if he knew that and signed the document, then he has knowingly and willingly defrauded people who voted for him of their ballots. This is precisely what I'm arguing should be outlawed, it makes an absolute farce of democracy in every way.

hatrickpatrick

djpbarry wrote: »

No, you didn’t. Nobody ever does, conveniently enough. So you’re basically refusing to pay any more taxes until some unspecified, arbitrary point in the future?

Know this wasn't directed at me but see my response above, how does that sound?
I'm refusing to pay any more taxes until banks stop being bailed out, crimes at Anglo are punished, and if those rogue activities turn out not to be crimes, legislation is tabled ASAP to criminalize them for every single bank in the future of the state. And cut off Bertie's expenses, and the rest of the cronyism gravy train that goes along with them.

Simple as. "All hands on deck" the government says to us about fixing the crisis. The reality at present is that ordinary people have to swab the decks, while the political elite and those responsible for ramming the ship into the iceberg lounge around on deck chairs.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I keep saying ,this isn't about fixing the nation's finances, it's about making the solution FAIR.

Would you agree that it's unfair that I don't get a PAYE tax credit even though I pay every cent of my income tax through the PAYE system?

Assuming you agree, is it OK for me to not pay income tax until the government addresses this unfairness?

djpbarry

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I keep saying ,this isn't about fixing the nation's finances, it's about making the solution FAIR.

Fine. Review pensions and expenses, but let’s look at additional revenue streams too.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are they? If they would have done that BEFORE introducing the household tax...

Done what exactly? Again, let’s have some specifics.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...coupled with a guarantee that what happened in Anglo WILL be got to the bottom of...

You mean in terms of possible criminality? You really think that’s a job for the government?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Then the government should immediately draft legislation to MAKE those activities illegal and ensure that they can never, ever, ever happen again.

Regardless of what “those activities” are and the potential implications of such legislation?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Suppose we required that every statement made to the press by an official or potential official be made under oath, or a semi oath that "to the best of my knowledge, this is true at this time"?
If it can ever be proven later that a politician knowingly and willfully lied (as in Eamon Gilmore's case) there should be an immediate bye-election in that constituency.

Proven by who? The courts? So we’d have TD’s being taken to court by some disgruntled voter pretty much every day. How much would all these legal proceedings cost?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's one possible solution. Get caught red handed lying, immediately face the real prospect of losing your seat. Might encourage them to keep their mouths shut rather than feigning certainty where there is none.

I’m sure they would keep their mouths shut, to the point no politician would ever say anything in public (and that includes the Dáil, remember) for fear that someone considers what they say to be an absolute statement of fact. Hence, nothing would ever get done.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He signed an agreement. I as a student voter voted for Labour in part due to this.

Well you won’t be doing that again, will you? What you could have done was contacted his office and asked what his alternative proposals were for funding third-level education, because, as I'm sure you are witnessing first hand, it is drastically underfunded.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And if he knew that and signed the document, then he has knowingly and willingly defrauded people who voted for him of their ballots. This is precisely what I'm arguing should be outlawed, it makes an absolute farce of democracy in every way.

No, this makes a farce of democracy: a politician can promise pretty much anything and voters will buy it without question and elect said politician. Voters then become outraged when said polician fails to reverse the bailing out of Anglo and have Seán Fitzpatrick hung by his testacles from the Dublin Spire.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Simple as. "All hands on deck" the government says to us about fixing the crisis. The reality at present is that ordinary people have to swab the decks, while the political elite and those responsible for ramming the ship into the iceberg lounge around on deck chairs.

Yes, it really is that simple. I mean, it’s not like there are any “ordinary people” drawing exorbitant salaries from state entities like the ESB, for example, or swanning about with a ludicrously high rate of jobseekers benefit supporting them or anything like that.

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I keep saying ,this isn't about fixing the nation's finances, it's about making the solution FAIR.

You really think 100 euro a year is unfair?

For a lot of the last 10 years state revenue hasn't been what you'd call efficiently spent. But because taxes were going down for most no one really gave a damn. Now when there has been actual savings (not enough I agree) we're protesting as taxes are going up. Are most people supporting this campaign not being very hypocritical?

Some facts.

• 95% of the 14 billion we’re borrowing this year is for our spending deficit is not going to pay for bank debt. It’s just going to fund government services etc. That is a fact.
• The majority of the money we’ve borrowed full stop is for our overspending and not the banks. That is a fact.
• Even if we never made another payment to a bank or never made a payment in the first place we’d still have borrowed the majority of the money. That is a fact.
• Fianna Fail got rid of the sustainable domestic rates to buy an election in 1974 and with the many other tax deceases they have brought in to buy other elections we now do not have a sustainable tax base. That is a fact.

Some further reading… http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0323/1224313766388.html and http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2011/11/deficit-and-banks.html

No amount of anger can avoid the fact we're spending more than we have, by 14 billion this year alone. If we don't collect that 160 million from the household charge we'll be borrowing 14,160,000,000 instead.
Protest about government inefficiency and I'll support it all the way. Protest about a tax we cannot avoid as we're massively overspending and I won't be supporting you, it doesn't even make the slightest sense to support you.

listermint

meglome wrote: »

You really think 100 euro a year is unfair?

For at a lot of the last 10 years state revenue hasn't been what you'd call efficiently spent. But because taxes were going down for most no one really gave a damn. Now when there has been actual savings (not enough I agree) we're protesting as taxes are going up. Are most people supporting this campaign not being very hypocritical?

Some facts.

• 95% of the 14 billion we’re borrowing this year is for our spending deficit is not going to pay for bank debt. It’s just going to fund government services etc. That is a fact.
• The majority of the money we’ve borrowed full stop is for our overspending and not the banks. That is a fact.
• Even if we never made another payment to a bank or never made a payment in the first place we’d still have borrowed the majority of the money. That is a fact.
• Fianna Fail got rid of the sustainable domestic rates to buy an election in 1974 and with the many other tax deceases they have brought in to buy other elections we now do not have a sustainable tax base. That is a fact.

Some further reading… http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0323/1224313766388.html and http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2011/11/deficit-and-banks.html

No amount of anger can avoid the fact we're spending more than we have, by 14 billion this year alone. If we don't collect that 160 million from the household charge we'll be borrowing 14,160,000,000 instead.
Protest about government inefficiency and I'll support it all the way. Protest about a tax we cannot avoid as we're massively overspending and I won't be supporting you, it doesn't even make the slightest sense to support you.

do these items not go hand in hand?


To be fair protesting about government inefficiencies isnt going to do jack all.


The government only respond when there is something to batter them with, alla withholding something they want. Its the first rule of bartering. Im quite surprised with such an intelligent post as your last one you cant see the basics of getting something you want is to barter and negotiate.

Its simple business.....

meglome

listermint wrote: »

do these items not go hand in hand?


To be fair protesting about government inefficiencies isnt going to do jack all.


The government only respond when there is something to batter them with, alla withholding something they want. Its the first rule of bartering. Im quite surprised with such an intelligent post as your last one you cant see the basics of getting something you want is to barter and negotiate.

Its simple business.....

I'm glad there is a protest movement in principle. I suppose the issue I'd personally have is most of the reasons given for not supporting the tax are simply not factually correct. Lots of ranting about banks etc when the elephant in the room is our massive overspending on our deficit. There is also a lack of any real credible alternative to this tax or another tax like it. We seem to be in the territory of 'we need to protest', 'I am protesting', 'therefore I am right'.

djpbarry

listermint wrote: »

The government only respond when there is something to batter them with, alla withholding something they want. Its the first rule of bartering.

What is being bartered? The arguments against the charge that I have read on this thread have been weak to non-existent.

JustinDee

tayto lover wrote: »

The Household Tax protest is something you don't even have to leave your armchair to take part in. Just relax and don't pay.

Ireland in a nutshell.

squonk

meglome wrote: »

You really think 100 euro a year is unfair?

For a lot of the last 10 years state revenue hasn't been what you'd call efficiently spent. But because taxes were going down for most no one really gave a damn. Now when there has been actual savings (not enough I agree) we're protesting as taxes are going up. Are most people supporting this campaign not being very hypocritical?

Some facts.

• 95% of the 14 billion we’re borrowing this year is for our spending deficit is not going to pay for bank debt. It’s just going to fund government services etc. That is a fact.
• The majority of the money we’ve borrowed full stop is for our overspending and not the banks. That is a fact.
• Even if we never made another payment to a bank or never made a payment in the first place we’d still have borrowed the majority of the money. That is a fact.
• Fianna Fail got rid of the sustainable domestic rates to buy an election in 1974 and with the many other tax deceases they have brought in to buy other elections we now do not have a sustainable tax base. That is a fact.

Some further reading… http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0323/1224313766388.html and http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2011/11/deficit-and-banks.html

No amount of anger can avoid the fact we're spending more than we have, by 14 billion this year alone. If we don't collect that 160 million from the household charge we'll be borrowing 14,160,000,000 instead.
Protest about government inefficiency and I'll support it all the way. Protest about a tax we cannot avoid as we're massively overspending and I won't be supporting you, it doesn't even make the slightest sense to support you.

A fair post and a good summation. However, I have heard NO government minister bring forward this point. The leaflet I received (a final reminder btw - where was my first and second reminders?) alluded to various vague descriptions of public services that the charge supports. I've heard various spoutings about 'The irish people always pay their debts' and 'Oh the charge applications are coming in in droves'. I have heard nowhere any such argument as the above posed by those levelling the charge. Until they can tell me clearly, in their own words, what the background to the charge is, then I'm not paying. If they can't do a simple job like getting a message across, they're demonstrating why they don't deserve my hard-earned money.