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

djpbarry

squonk wrote: »

Until they can tell me clearly, in their own words, what the background to the charge is, then I'm not paying.

But you know what the background to the charge is?

squonk wrote: »

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.

I’ve heard some ridiculous arguments against this charge, but this has to be the pinnacle – you’re justifying tax evasion on the grounds that the government has not personally delivered to you a satisfactory explanation of Ireland’s financial crisis?

meglome

squonk wrote: »

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.

I cringe every time I hear a government minister saying to the effect of "what will it look like if we don't play ball with Europe" etc etc. There is a sea of nonsense being talked about this household charge and what people are looking for is leadership and factual information. They are currently getting neither, except in some very vague way. How difficult can it be for the government to approach some respected academics or economists and get them to explain the facts.

Dannyboy83

It's absolutely cringeworthy today, to see how government ministers how gone from threatening the taxpayer to pleading and virtually begging!:rolleyes:

The CPA is going to have to be scrapped.
I genuinely believe a large chunk of those not paying simply do not have the means to do so.

hatrickpatrick

On my way out the door atm so will reply to the rest of your points later on, but briefly:

meglome wrote: »

You really think 100 euro a year is unfair?

While Bertie & co are still being paid, while rogue banks are still being bailed out, while government advisors are having the rules bent for them, while white collar abuses are either not being criminalized, or not prosecuted - ANY amount is unfair.

It's not about the amount, it's about who's being hit and who isn't. The people who made the mess should be hit harder than anyone else, and before anyone else.

EDIT: As I said before, I would have no problem whatsoever with this tax as long as the above is sorted out as well. It's not about the tax, it's what the tax represents - another attack on ordinary people while those at the top walk away without a scratch.

djpbarry

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

While Bertie & co are still being paid, while rogue banks are still being bailed out, while government advisors are having the rules bent for them, while white collar abuses are either not being criminalized, or not prosecuted - ANY amount is unfair.

So you’re refusing to pay additional taxes so long as there is injustice in Ireland? Is this a recently developed view or have you always promoted tax evasion on these grounds?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The people who made the mess should be hit harder than anyone else, and before anyone else.

“The mess” is Ireland’s massive expenditure on welfare and public services and the entire electorate (or “the ordinary people” as you insist on labelling them) made it.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I said before, I would have no problem whatsoever with this tax as long as the above is sorted out as well.

As long as what was sorted out? Still waiting for you to provide some specifics.

squonk

djpbarry wrote: »

But you know what the background to the charge is?
I’ve heard some ridiculous arguments against this charge, but this has to be the pinnacle – you’re justifying tax evasion on the grounds that the government has not personally delivered to you a satisfactory explanation of Ireland’s financial crisis?

They certainly haven't. Infact, they've made no effort to do anyting like that. What they have done is come out with vague statements such that this 100 is necessary. I know the current situation but I don't know what else had been considered as an option. I don't know what will be done with any information I give. I don't know what will be done with the money I hand over. Mumbling about Irish people paying their debts is simply not good explanation. They'd be far better off detailing all the issues involved clearly. Frankly, I see it as a much bigger issue and am using the charge to protest. If they can't clearly communicate the purpose of a charge, how the hell are they miscommunicating in other areas or misrepresenting us abroad? If I have good reasons and good justification to hand over my money, well and good. These lot wouldn't get me to buy them an ice cream the way they're going.

meglome

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

It's absolutely cringeworthy today, to see how government ministers how gone from threatening the taxpayer to pleading and virtually begging!:rolleyes:

There is rampant scaremongering about this charge from the No campaign. do you disagree with that too?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

While Bertie & co are still being paid, while rogue banks are still being bailed out, while government advisors are having the rules bent for them, while white collar abuses are either not being criminalized, or not prosecuted - ANY amount is unfair.

As I said previously there was even more waste and more corruption when taxes were going down. There is less waste and less corruption now but taxes are going up to a sustainable level. I don't seem to recall large numbers of people refusing on moral grounds to pay their taxes before now. Interesting that.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not about the amount, it's about who's being hit and who isn't. The people who made the mess should be hit harder than anyone else, and before anyone else.

Well as djpbarry said above we're all responsible for this. Fianna Fail told us what they were going to do and they were elected repeatedly. This idea that it was just 'the bankers' is nonsense.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

EDIT: As I said before, I would have no problem whatsoever with this tax as long as the above is sorted out as well. It's not about the tax, it's what the tax represents - another attack on ordinary people while those at the top walk away without a scratch.

Well if we go through all our taxes with the same rubbish criteria I'm sure we can find several more not to pay while we're at it. We have no money, we're borrowing 14 billion this year alone... there are going to be tax increases.

djpbarry

squonk wrote: »

I don't know what will be done with the money I hand over.

It will be used to close the gap between public revenue and expenditure. It's pretty simple.

Dannyboy83

meglome wrote: »

There is rampant scaremongering about this charge from the No campaign. do you disagree with that too?

I haven't seen any to be honest, do you have any links?
(I should clarify that I'm not liable for the levy)

Aside from the sheer lack of information, the government have sent all the wrong signals. It is the local government who should have been responsible for implementation of this tax, not the national government. This is politics 101.

Well as djpbarry said above we're all responsible for this. Fianna Fail told us what they were going to do and they were elected repeatedly. This idea that it was just 'the bankers' is nonsense.

I'm not criticizing you, I'm just saying this statement is out of touch with the political reality.
Idealistically, morally, ethically, you may be correct.
That doesn't mean you can ignore realpolitik.

Read HatTrickPatrick's post above.
That is the way the people on the ground feel.

A politician must see it a situation as it really is - and respond to that -, not how they would like it to be. That is politics.

(Never forget that this is a nation that continues to pretend we speak the Irish language and force our kids to learn it! LOL!)

djpbarry

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I haven't seen any to be honest, do you have any links?

When I was back in Dublin over Christmas, I distinctly remember seeing a placard claiming that, if people did not protest against the €100 charge, they would soon be forced to pay thousands in property and water charges.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Aside from the sheer lack of information, the government have sent all the wrong signals. It is the local government who should have been responsible for implementation of this tax, not the national government. This is politics 101.

Local governments to not have the authority to levy domestic taxes (as far as I am aware). This would require a pretty substantial overhaul of government in Ireland and that is going to take time.

squonk

djpbarry wrote: »

When I was back in Dublin over Christmas, I distinctly remember seeing a placard claiming that, if people did not protest against the €100 charge, they would soon be forced to pay thousands in property and water charges.

The point is, it can't be proved otherwise. I have seen nothing from the governement saying that's not the case.

All I can see is the 'Pay €100 as a charge, register your property and we'll figure out what happens next later on'. If the €100 charge was just a charge, I'd pay it, and I'd pay it every year. I object strongly to signing up for something when I don't know the full facts of what this entails down the line. If I shoved a page in your face, asked your for 50 quid and told you to sign it and register with me, would you? Why should you trust the government over me? Why sign up for something open ended when you don't know the full nature of what you're signing up for? Suppose the tax is €750 next year, and €1500 the year after. What will you do then?

We've had this before from local authorities with waste collection. In Fingal where I used to live we started with a waste collection service that was free. then, they brought in a paid model that started at €3. Fair enough. Then, they realised they needed more money to run the service and upped the charge to €5 and soon after to €8 with a €110 charge on top of that. Finally they farmed the service out to Greyhound so people are now paying for that service privately. They haven't got a good record in things like this. What guarantees am I getting for my 100 quid? What services can't they opt out of providing? Do I get a charter of services they guarantee and a level of service to expect? I've seen none of this discussed by the government in return for my €100. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me... and I don't intend to be a fool.

K-9

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Aside from the sheer lack of information, the government have sent all the wrong signals. It is the local government who should have been responsible for implementation of this tax, not the national government. This is politics 101.

This was actually in the FG manifesto and Martin brought Kenny up on it.

You can't leave it up to individual Councils, some will wriggle out of it, some wont. Then you have areas paying a Household tax, other similar areas, not.

djpbarry

squonk wrote: »

The point is, it can't be proved otherwise.

That's an argument against paying any form of tax, as it can't be proved that the government won't increase a given tax at some point in the future.

squonk wrote: »

If I shoved a page in your face, asked your for 50 quid and told you to sign it and register with me, would you? Why should you trust the government over me? Why sign up for something open ended when you don't know the full nature of what you're signing up for? Suppose the tax is €750 next year, and €1500 the year after. What will you do then?

Pay it, as I am legally obliged to do (if I owned a property in Ireland)?

squonk wrote: »

We've had this before from local authorities with waste collection. In Fingal where I used to live we started with a waste collection service that was free. then, they brought in a paid model that started at €3. Fair enough. Then, they realised they needed more money to run the service and upped the charge to €5 and soon after to €8 with a €110 charge on top of that. Finally they farmed the service out to Greyhound so people are now paying for that service privately.

You mean, the cost of the service inflated?

squonk wrote: »

They haven't got a good record in things like this. What guarantees am I getting for my 100 quid?

The same "guarantees" you get when you pay any other tax.

JustinDee

People moan about the charge and how a 'rich' person pays the same as a 'poor' (both are wealthy enough to afford a home loan as it happens. Judging by some comments, this would imply that means-testing it would deem it fairer in their eyes.

Yet . . . when it comes to non-means tested movement of money the OTHER way round (child allowance, for example), making it fairer is vehemently opposed.

That's the Irish for ya.

Good loser

squonk wrote: »

The point is, it can't be proved otherwise. I have seen nothing from the governement saying that's not the case.

All I can see is the 'Pay €100 as a charge, register your property and we'll figure out what happens next later on'. If the €100 charge was just a charge, I'd pay it, and I'd pay it every year. I object strongly to signing up for something when I don't know the full facts of what this entails down the line. If I shoved a page in your face, asked your for 50 quid and told you to sign it and register with me, would you? Why should you trust the government over me? Why sign up for something open ended when you don't know the full nature of what you're signing up for? Suppose the tax is €750 next year, and €1500 the year after. What will you do then?

We've had this before from local authorities with waste collection. In Fingal where I used to live we started with a waste collection service that was free. then, they brought in a paid model that started at €3. Fair enough. Then, they realised they needed more money to run the service and upped the charge to €5 and soon after to €8 with a €110 charge on top of that. Finally they farmed the service out to Greyhound so people are now paying for that service privately. They haven't got a good record in things like this. What guarantees am I getting for my 100 quid? What services can't they opt out of providing? Do I get a charter of services they guarantee and a level of service to expect? I've seen none of this discussed by the government in return for my €100. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me... and I don't intend to be a fool.

You consider you can bargain with the Govt regarding the payment of this tax.

For a bargain two sides have to discuss/debate.

How do you propose the Govt debates with YOU? And then with me? And then with X and Y?

The idea is absurd. Your chance to 'bargain' with the Govt was in the election as we operate a representative democracy.

You can lobby, write, say what you like but, in the meantime, obey the law as it is the law and take the consequences if you don't.

Delay and protest, as advocated by the cute hoors in the ULA/Independents/Sinn Fein, only increases the costs of running the State and delays recovery.

ShooterSF

While I think a land tax would be much fairer, the more land you hold the more you contribute, I am just shocked at some of the arguments against paying and confused by some of the protests.
Here in Meath we had a "community against cuts" protest who you would imagine would be all in favour of more taxes but they were against both this one and the septic tank one. How can you march against cuts and yet fight taxes which are needed to reduce cuts at the same time?

JustinDee

Because like the Greek protestors, the Irish objectors want everything handed to them on a plate and the socialistic society they allegedly want, to somehow magically function on thin air. An air of apathetic entitlement if you will.

nice_guy80

the main reason I will not pay, nor will my parents and why I have told anyone I met not to pay is that while €160 million is supposedly going to be collected by this charge, the government are going to continue cut funding of local government

allied to this, is the failure to rationalise local councils and other services
why do we need so many councils?? the amount of money being squandered every year is crazy

to keep some people in well paid jobs and lots of councillors on the gravy train!

BluntGuy

At the very least it'd be nice to see some groups come out and state their reason against paying is because of the bloat in the local councils, say, rather than allowing Joe and his gang to pretend as usual that it's a "mass revolt" fuelled by a rejection of the "capitalistic gambling IMF gambler speculator gambler" etc.

djpbarry

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the main reason I will not pay, nor will my parents and why I have told anyone I met not to pay is that while €160 million is supposedly going to be collected by this charge, the government are going to continue cut funding of local government

allied to this, is the failure to rationalise local councils and other services
why do we need so many councils??

You know it's possible to pay your taxes and protest at the same time, right?

For example, I am none too happy about the fact that the Ministry of Defence costs every man woman and child in the UK about £440 per year. However, I have chosen to live in the UK so I have to accept the policies of the democratically-elected government. But, that doesn't stop me from letting my local MP's know that I would like to see a substantial reduction in MoD funding.

john reilly

JustinDee wrote: »

People moan about the charge and how a 'rich' person pays the same as a 'poor' (both are wealthy enough to afford a home loan as it happens. Judging by some comments, this would imply that means-testing it would deem it fairer in their eyes.

Yet . . . when it comes to non-means tested movement of money the OTHER way round (child allowance, for example), making it fairer is vehemently opposed.

That's the Irish for ya.

affording a home loan and having one are two different things.
who is arguing against making childrens allowance fairer
dont think racist comments help

john reilly

djpbarry wrote: »

You know it's possible to pay your taxes and protest at the same time, right?

For example, I am none too happy about the fact that the Ministry of Defence costs every man woman and child in the UK about £440 per year. However, I have chosen to live in the UK so I have to accept the policies of the democratically-elected government. But, that doesn't stop me from letting my local MP's know that I would like to see a substantial reduction in MoD funding.

its a bit like f.g policy of paying bondholders and hoping that someday they
might agree to some write down. rest assured if you dont pay they would definetly be more interested in hearing from you
so you would accept any policies regardless. isnt that what happened in nazi germany

hatrickpatrick

djpbarry wrote: »

It will be used to close the gap between public revenue and expenditure. It's pretty simple.

"Expenditure", of course, which includes Bertie's expenses and Anglo's bondholders.
Again, this is why IMO people should boycott it. Sort out what we should be spending money on, and then spend it.

BluntGuy wrote: »

At the very least it'd be nice to see some groups come out and state their reason against paying is because of the bloat in the local councils, say, rather than allowing Joe and his gang to pretend as usual that it's a "mass revolt" fuelled by a rejection of the "capitalistic gambling IMF gambler speculator gambler" etc.

What's wrong with saying that, though? Is it really such an invalid position to hold? I don't want a cent of my money going into Bertie's or Anglo's pocket, simple as. Many others hold this same view.
As long as such unjust and unjustifiable payments fall under the bracket of "public expenditure", such people will be saying "cut that instead of charging ordinary people more". It may not make up the shortfall but it would be fair. THEN you can charge people €100 for a household charge and there would no longer be such a huge amount of bitter resentment about it.

I ask very simply, why should we pay extra when a man who no longer works for the taxpayer is still inexplicably being paid expenses by the taxpayer? Why should we pay extra when private investment banks like Anglo are being being pumped full of cash from our pockets with absolutely no discernible benefit to any of us ordinary people?

djpbarry

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

"Expenditure", of course, which includes Bertie's expenses and Anglo's bondholders.
Again, this is why IMO people should boycott it. Sort out what we should be spending money on, and then spend it.

And in the mean time, Ireland has to borrow the shortfall. It'd be a case of biting one's nose to spite one's face.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What's wrong with saying that, though?

It's gibberish?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't want a cent of my money going into Bertie's or Anglo's pocket, simple as.

And I don't want a significant chunk of my taxes going to the MoD, but that's democracy.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I ask very simply, why should we pay extra when a man who no longer works for the taxpayer is still inexplicably being paid expenses by the taxpayer?

Because thems the rules. By all means, campaign for a change of the rules, but you can't pick and choose what taxes to pay and what not to pay in the mean time - that'd make you no better than Lowry.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why should we pay extra when private investment banks like Anglo are being being pumped full of cash from our pockets with absolutely no discernible benefit to any of us ordinary people?

I don't like the fact that Anglo (in particular) was bailed out either, but making up the revenue shortfall would still have been necessary in the absence of the bailout.

JustinDee

john reilly wrote: »

affording a home loan and having one are two different things

If you can get the deposit down for a mortgage and have the income to attract a bank taking you on as a customer, then your "difference" is just subjective.
If you couldn't afford it and got one, then thats a different matter altogether. No-one held a gun to your head and forced you to take a mortgage you couldn't afford.

john reilly wrote: »

who is arguing against making childrens allowance fairer

Propose it and you'll find out.

john reilly wrote: »

dont think racist comments help

It wasn't "racist" so you can reel that one in. Don't be so melodramatic.

john reilly

JustinDee wrote: »

If you can get the deposit down for a mortgage and have the income to attract a bank taking you on as a customer, then your "difference" is just subjective.
If you couldn't afford it and got one, then thats a different matter altogether. No-one held a gun to your head and forced you to take a mortgage you couldn't afford.


Propose it and you'll find out.


It wasn't "racist" so you can reel that one in. Don't be so melodramatic.

what if you could afford and got one but due to paying increased taxes, higher cost of living and lower wages, your bags out trying to pay it.
re. childrens allowance dont propose it just do it and have the balls to see it through not like the old codgers and their medical card.
i know it wasnt racist sure all irish are mad stupid eejits (even enda admitted that) now say the same about africans and see how you get on

djpbarry

john reilly wrote: »

what if you could afford and got one but due to paying increased taxes, higher cost of living and lower wages, your bags out trying to pay it.

Moving house might be an option.

JustinDee

john reilly wrote: »

what if you could afford and got one but due to paying increased taxes, higher cost of living and lower wages, your bags out trying to pay it

Risks you must consider when preparing to borrow a house loan. Do you count the people who went for 100% loans in this apparently massive section of society of yours?

john reilly wrote: »

re. childrens allowance dont propose it just do it and have the balls to see it through not like the old codgers and their medical card

Start a thread on means-testing Children's Allowance and see the response.

john reilly wrote: »

i know it wasnt racist sure all irish are mad stupid eejits (even enda admitted that) now say the same about africans and see how you get on

Yes, it was nothing like a racist comment. It might be xenophobic were I not Irish myself. Racist though? Don't be ridiculous.

Godge

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the main reason I will not pay, nor will my parents and why I have told anyone I met not to pay is that while €160 million is supposedly going to be collected by this charge, the government are going to continue cut funding of local government

allied to this, is the failure to rationalise local councils and other services
why do we need so many councils?? the amount of money being squandered every year is crazy

to keep some people in well paid jobs and lots of councillors on the gravy train!

So you are not going to pay is because the government "are going to continute cut funding of local government" which means you are against cuts in local government funding.

But you are also not going to pay because of "the failure to rationalise local councils and other services....the amount of money being squandered every year is crazy....to keep some people in well paid jobs" which means you support cuts in local government funding so that money isn't wasted.

So you oppose the household charge because you don't want cuts in local government funding and because you want cuts in local government funding. This is the twisted logic of those against the household charge thrashing around looking for any reason not to pay. There is a complete absence of logic to the opposition.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

"Expenditure", of course, which includes Bertie's expenses and Anglo's bondholders.
Again, this is why IMO people should boycott it. Sort out what we should be spending money on, and then spend it.




What's wrong with saying that, though? Is it really such an invalid position to hold? I don't want a cent of my money going into Bertie's or Anglo's pocket, simple as. Many others hold this same view.
As long as such unjust and unjustifiable payments fall under the bracket of "public expenditure", such people will be saying "cut that instead of charging ordinary people more". It may not make up the shortfall but it would be fair. THEN you can charge people €100 for a household charge and there would no longer be such a huge amount of bitter resentment about it.

I ask very simply, why should we pay extra when a man who no longer works for the taxpayer is still inexplicably being paid expenses by the taxpayer? Why should we pay extra when private investment banks like Anglo are being being pumped full of cash from our pockets with absolutely no discernible benefit to any of us ordinary people?

Look, where the money is going doesn't justify not paying the household charge.

For example, the €100 I paid could be going to pay the overtime of the City Council cleaning staff who had to clean up the mess left on Dame Street by the ODS protesters. I would certainly resent that but it doesn't stop my paying the charge.

john reilly

JustinDee wrote: »

Risks you must consider when preparing to borrow a house loan. Do you count the people who went for 100% loans in this apparently massive section of society of yours?


Start a thread on means-testing Children's Allowance and see the response.


Yes, it was nothing like a racist comment. It might be xenophobic were I not Irish myself. Racist though? Don't be ridiculous.

sorry i thought you were british

john reilly

djpbarry wrote: »

Moving house might be an option.

what if it wasnt

colly10

Einhard wrote: »

It was something of a surprise then, to note that a grand total of 3000 people turned out for the nationa protest against the charge in Dublin today. That's less than some League of Ireland matches. It could be argued, of course, that people weren't aware of today's protest, but that's unlikely given the leaflets that I received on it over the past few days, and the posters I've seen erected in several different counties.

The goverment ignored around 80k signatures, numerous emails and TD visits for the Irish SOPA act. What's the point in a protest, the fact that people aren't paying shows the people are against it.
The people of this country have been ignored for a long time so they won't bother protesting, the majority will just refuse to pay.

JustinDee

john reilly wrote: »

sorry i thought you were british

Strange presumption to make.

djpbarry

john reilly wrote: »

what if it wasnt

It almost always is, it just seems to be unconscionable to a lot of people for some reason.

colly10 wrote: »

The people of this country have been ignored for a long time so they won't bother protesting.

Wasn't there a general election last year?

colly10

djpbarry wrote: »

Wasn't there a general election last year?

There was, that doesn't mean that we're not being ignored. All make promises they won't keep and all ignore the people when they get into power. It's a case of choosing the party that you think is the best of a bad bunch, it doesn't mean that I think the party i'm voting for will listen to me or they will run the country well

djpbarry

colly10 wrote: »

There was, that doesn't mean that we're not being ignored. All make promises they won't keep...

This has been covered already on this very thread - politicians make promises that they can't keep and it's up to the electorate to call them on this. I posted this earlier:

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?”

colly10

djpbarry wrote: »

This has been covered already on this very thread - politicians make promises that they can't keep and it's up to the electorate to call them on this. I posted this earlier:

I know it's been covered on this thread. I have said that people don't bother protesting because they are ignored. You said that the fact there was a general election means we are not ignored.

I pointed out the Irish SOPA act had around 80k signatures, they brushed this off and barely debated it. They ignored emails and TD visits. This is ignoring the people.

If you call them on it and you are ignored then whether or not there was a general election does not mean the people are not being ignored. They are happy to listen to the people until they get to power.

The thread is on why there is poor turn out at protests, in my opinion this is why. I will not waste my time protesting when my opinion is ignored.

djpbarry

colly10 wrote: »

I know it's been covered on this thread. I have said that people don't bother protesting because they are ignored. You said that the fact there was a general election means we are not ignored.

Yes I did, and I also alluded to the fact that the reason people feel that politicians break “promises” is because those promises are totally unrealistic. In my opinion, it’s something of an indictment of Irish democracy that a politician can promise their electorate pretty much anything, get elected on the back of said promise (no matter how unrealistic) and then be the subject of absolute fury when reality kicks in and they “break” their promise.

The problem with that chain of events is not that an unrealistic promise has been made. The problem is that nobody questions the likelihood that the politician in question can live up to their promises.

colly10 wrote: »

I pointed out the Irish SOPA act had around 80k signatures, they brushed this off and barely debated it. They ignored emails and TD visits. This is ignoring the people.

How many people marched on the Dail in protest at SOPA? I think the scale of the protest was somewhat exaggerated, but I could be wrong. I'd be pretty confident the average person in Ireland has no idea what SOPA is.

goat2

i dont see why we should pay this fee, when those who borrowed so heavily are still living the life of riley and being paid to do so, still living in their mansions and driving in top of the range vehicles, instead they should being taking all property from these people and selling it for what ever they can get for it,
and also cutting the dole on those who are on it over five years, they never had a notion to work in first place, and looking into disibility claims a bit more intensley,

Peanut2011

Personally I can say that I am against the charge and have not and will not pay it even if I am the last one or the only one that does not do it.

The reason I did not go to the protest is the fact that most of the protest lately have gotten a bad name for the antisocial behaviour a small minority will inflict.

I don't want to be associated with that. If I knew it would be a peaceful protest like the organisers would want to have it, I would be there.

femur61

colly10 wrote: »

I know it's been covered on this thread. I have said that people don't bother protesting because they are ignored. You said that the fact there was a general election means we are not ignored.

I pointed out the Irish SOPA act had around 80k signatures, they brushed this off and barely debated it. They ignored emails and TD visits. This is ignoring the people.

If you call them on it and you are ignored then whether or not there was a general election does not mean the people are not being ignored. They are happy to listen to the people until they get to power.

The thread is on why there is poor turn out at protests, in my opinion this is why. I will not waste my time protesting when my opinion is ignored.

If the PS were not protected there would be mass protests. Wait till 2014, or even sooner when we reject the referendum and nobody will give us money to fund our little island.

WolfgangWeisen

The turnout at the protest was pathetic and comprised of the same crowds that turn up at every protest. I very much doubt a majority in that crowd were even liable for the charge they were there to protest against.

The message I took from the low turnout was that although the average Irish householder might be discontent with the charge they're being presented with, they're not willing to stand side-by-side with organisations like Sinn Fein, the United Left Alliance and Eirigi.

These organisations always claim to have mass support, they did so when the first Lisbon referendum was shot down and they were claiming similar up until the protest last week. Indeed, they're still claiming the remaining unpaid households as their brethren despite the predominant message from the poor turnout being "we might agree on this matter, for whatever our individual reasons, but we are in no way your allies".

This is without even breaching the topic of the behaviour displayed by those who attended the protest. It is safe to say that the protest, and its poor turnout, was a major victory for those who actively oppose the organisations I mentioned above.