Minister James Reilly's gaf.

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

I was just giving my opinion on it. You're entitled to your own. My view is that just because somebody is entitled to something, be it tax-reliefs to upkeep a stately home, or certain types of social welfare, it doesn't mean that they are obliged to avail of it, and if they're in a position financially to do without it then in principle they should waive whatever entitlement it is.

When's the last time any government minister showed a degree of principle though?.. that's way too much to ask or expect of our lot.

Do you know if they can do without it or not? The fact that they have it open for 5 months a year, 6 days per week for a few hours a day suggests they either need the money or are very tight.

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you know if they can do without it or not? The fact that they have it open for 5 months a year, 6 days per week for a few hours a day suggests they either need the money or are very tight.

I think it's fair to say that it's the latter

The Irish Daily Mail yesterday reported that while many landowners benefiting from the tax provisions open their facilities to the public for free, the Reillys charge between €3 and €5 for each entry – and only open the building for three months of the year.

http://www.thejournal.ie/minister-and-wife-claim-tax-breaks-on-13-bed-moneygall-mansion-127346-Apr2011/

And besides, if they can't afford to upkeep the house themselves, then they should sell it to someone that can, and stop living beyond their means

Scioch

christmas2012 wrote: »

imagine the property tax valuation on that(when valuation comes in after the property tax) i cant even imagine must be like a thousand a year for that place :eek:

ps: just to let you know we never paid the property tax and people of ireland should not pay it if enough protest by not paying we could win i think dont give in and dont be complacent

I'd imagine when the property charge comes in full force people like himself will be able to weasel out of it. Cant see them taxing him full whack if at present he's receiving help for maintenance.

Btw that article is from April 2011 so its pretty old news. Thought I remembered hearing about it before.

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

And besides, if they can't afford to upkeep the house themselves, then they should sell it to someone that can, and stop living beyond their means

They're not living beyond their means right now it seems. The scheme seems to exist to get people who otherwise couldn't afford such houses into them, of all the big houses near me there's far more that are derelict than occupied.

flutered

My gaf is pre 1900 there is no wway i would get any money to mantain it

steddyeddy

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Why?

Because Ben Dunne had a successful life handed to him yet he blew it on coke.

invinciblePRSTV

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

FYI, before joining the politician gravy train, O'Reillys previous claim to fame was, as head of the IMO, negotiating a sweet heart deal for Consultants with the gov of the day which made them all even richer.

The imo does not represent consultants. That's the ihca.

RobbingBandit

Yeah so what, he is still a pr1ck.:pac:

Einhard

My name is URL wrote: »

I was just giving my opinion on it.

Obviously. And I gave mine in rebuttal. :cool:

My view is that just because somebody is entitled to something, be it tax-reliefs to upkeep a stately home, or certain types of social welfare, it doesn't mean that they are obliged to avail of it, and if they're in a position financially to do without it then in principle they should waive whatever entitlement it is.

Why? I mean, why should somebody not avail of legitimate credits or reliefs available to them? I mean, O' Reilly is a wealthy man. He therefore pays quite a lot of tax, which pays for credits and reliefs of peopel less well-off than he is (including myself when I was on the dole). He pays his fair share to society, and many others benefit from it. And yet, as well as paying his taxes and charges that accrue from wealth, he should also spurn any and all reliefs open to him? I'm sorry, but that seems quite classist to be honest- you're basically stating that anyone with a bit of money shuld only ever contibute to the system, and never expect anything from it.

When's the last time any government minister showed a degree of principle though?.. that's way too much to ask or expect of our lot.

I don't see how it shows principle to not avail of these credits.

later12

flutered wrote: »

My gaf is pre 1900 there is no wway i would get any money to mantain it

Yes there is
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0039/sec0482.html
and
http://www.seai.ie/grants/better_energy_homes/

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

The flat rate aonly applies this year because to introduce a progressive property tax would have been too problematic to achieve in such a short space of time. Next year, charges will be levied based on the value of the house or some such, and no doubt Reilly et al will be hit with higher charges. So your charge doesn;t really have much validity.

So what you are saying is that the imposition of inequitable regressive taxes is legitimised based on the time period those taxes are applicable for.

The time constraint was not so pressing that a more equitable alternative to the flat rate tax could not be implemented so I think it is your apologist stance on behalf of the government that has no validity.

Think about it. An equitable tax that people accepted would have raised more revenue than an inequitable tax that 50% of people rejected.

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So what you are saying is that the imposition of inequitable regressive taxes is legitimised based on the time period those taxes are applicable for.

No...what I'm saying is that, per the terms of the bailout agreement, the government needed to implement some form of property charge. A truely progressive charge is quite a difficult thing to achieve because it would mean the valuation of all houses in the country, their categorisation into bands, and a mechanism to ensure efficent collection of charges based on those bands. It would not have been possible to introduce this year. The government therefore took the only possible action in the circumstances, and brought in a once off undifferentiated charge.

The time constraint was not so pressing that a more equitable alternative to the flat rate tax could not be implemented so I think it is your apologist stance on behalf of the government that has no validity.

I think you haven't a clue what you're talking about to be honest. It would not have been possible to introduce a more progressive charge in the time possible. Your argument is fatally undermined by the fact that next year, the government is planning to bring in jusy such a charge. If I'm an apologist for anything, it's common sense and facts.

Think about it. An equitable tax that people accepted would have raised more revenue than an inequitable tax that 50% of people rejected.

Yes I know. And the government knows. They've stated this on numerous occasions. However, a progressive charge such as that that you and I desire takes time, and unfortunately that time was not available. If, next year, the government continues with a flat rate, then I'll join in your outrage. Until then though, I'll stick with the view that a once off flat rate was, while not ideal, the only option this year.

My name is URL

Einhard wrote: »

And yet, as well as paying his taxes and charges that accrue from wealth, he should also spurn any and all reliefs open to him? I'm sorry, but that seems quite classist to be honest- you're basically stating that anyone with a bit of money shuld only ever contibute to the system, and never expect anything from it.

I never said that he should forgo 'any and all' reliefs open to him, I said that he should probably waive those that he or his business interests don't really depend upon.

It's not classist to say that people shouldn't necessarily avail of everything that they may be entitled to. One of the main problems in this country is the sense and culture of entitlement, and it shouldn't only be ignored when it's shown by those of greater wealth.

Einhard

My name is URL wrote: »

I never said that he should forgo 'any and all' reliefs open to him, I said that he should probably waive those that he or his business interests don't really depend upon.

It's not classist to say that people shouldn't necessarily avail of everything that they may be entitled to them. One of the main problems in this country is the sense and culture of entitlement, and it should only be ignored when it's shown by those of greater wealth.

To accuse O'Reilly of a sense of entitlement necessarily presuppsoes that he feels himself entitled to these reliefs. Merely availing of something is not the same thing as believing one entitled to it. I availed of free thid level education- I never felt that I was entitled to it.

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

No...what I'm saying is that, per the terms of the bailout agreement, the government needed to implement some form of property charge. A truely progressive charge is quite a difficult thing to achieve because it would mean the valuation of all houses in the country, their categorisation into bands, and a mechanism to ensure efficent collection of charges based on those bands. It would not have been possible to introduce this year. The government therefore took the only possible action in the circumstances, and brought in a once off undifferentiated charge.

I think you over estimate the difficulty of implementing a more equitable property than the one that was introduced.

An equitable system could also have been on a self assessment basis. The higher the value the more you pay. Its not rocket science.

At a time when so many people with experience of the property market auctioneers, etc are very underworked there was an oppourtunity to use them as a resource to check say 2% of property tax returns on a desk audit basis.

I have no doubt if the political will was there it could be easily achieved. The truth is Einhard that the political will was lacking.

And to say that the government "took the only possible action in the circumstances", is patently untrue how ever much you want to believe it.

I think you haven't a clue what you're talking about to be honest. It would not have been possible to introduce a more progressive charge in the time possible. Your argument is fatally undermined by the fact that next year, the government is planning to bring in jusy such a charge. If I'm an apologist for anything, it's common sense and facts.

Do you honestly believe that one of the highest paid cabinets in the world, yes in the world, together with their highly paid advisers and civil servants did not have the wherewithal to devise a more equitable tax from the beginning?

Is it not more accurate to suggest that the flat rate 100 euro tax was a cynical means to get as many households registered for the tax rather than any attempt at equity because this was politically expedient.

Yes I know. And the government knows. They've stated this on numerous occasions. However, a progressive charge such as that that you and I desire takes time, and unfortunately that time was not available. If, next year, the government continues with a flat rate, then I'll join in your outrage. Until then though, I'll stick with the view that a once off flat rate was, while not ideal, the only option this year.

If the government was interested in an equitable property tax then should they not have moved to introduce a value based NPPR rather than the flat €200 fee after, what 5 years?

recylingbin

He looks like a drunk Brendan Grace.
Is this really the man we want running our health service?

Zebra3

I can imagine Reilly uttering "let them eat cake".....

dvpower

My name is URL wrote: »

You'd be here fighting his or any other FG'ers corner regardless of what the thread was about.

Shur they can do no wrong in your, and a few other poster's eyes. Just the same as how FF could do no wrong in the eyes of their blinkered supporters.

I don't know what the basis for that is. Did I disagree with you about something in the past?

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think you over estimate the difficulty of implementing a more equitable property than the one that was introduced.

According to the CSO, there are epprox 1.9 million private households in the country. In order to implement a progressive, equitable property tax, each of these would have to be assessed and valued. In order to do raise such a tax this year, this would have to have been complated within 9-10 months of the government's coming to power. That simply wouldn't have been possible.

An equitable system could also have been on a self assessment basis. The higher the value the more you pay. Its not rocket science.

A huge number of people are against any notion of paying a property tax. Self-assessment would simply have been a non-starter.

I have no doubt if the political will was there it could be easily achieved. The truth is Einhard that the political will was lacking.

If that's the case, how do you explain the plans for a progressive tax from next year? Was the political will lacking for one year only? Your assertions don;t make any sense in that context. How can you claim that the political will is lacking to introduce a progressive system of taxation, then plans are in place to do just that?

Do you honestly believe that one of the highest paid cabinets in the world, yes in the world, together with their highly paid advisers and civil servants did not have the wherewithal to devise a more equitable tax from the beginning?

It's not about coming up with a more equitable tax, but rather with implementing it. 1.9 million houses in 10 months. it's simply not possible.

My name is URL

Einhard wrote: »

To accuse O'Reilly of a sense of entitlement necessarily presuppsoes that he feels himself entitled to these reliefs. Merely availing of something is not the same thing as believing one entitled to it. I availed of free thid level education- I never felt that I was entitled to it.

I'm not accusing him of having a sense of entitlement, I'm commenting on the fact that he obviously does feel entitled to these breaks. Has he ever suggested that he is not, or should not be entitled to it? He's a TD ffs, if he genuinely didn't feel as if he should be entitled to such breaks then he, more than others, is better placed to state it on record or bring about some sort of change on how such things are granted.

I'm not sure what third level education has to do with anything. Do you think that everyone, regardless of their own means; should be entitled to a free third level education? I don't, and have stated it many times before. I'm not a TD, though =p . O'Reilly is, yet seems quite happy to absorb every drop of the gravy that he's currently basting in.

But what's expected of any of those lads anyway?.. he's planning a ban on smoking in hospital car-parks.. that alone is probably enough to guarantee his reelection in this forsaken place.

Pantsface

recylingbin wrote: »

He looks like a drunk Brendan Grace.
Is this really the man we want running our health service?

lol he so does

Ellis Dee

Moneygall is in Michael Lowry's constituency. I bet Reilly feels right at home there.:):rolleyes::D

flutered

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you know if they can do without it or not? The fact that they have it open for 5 months a year, 6 days per week for a few hours a day suggests they either need the money or are very tight.

are your facts correct?, they are open by appointment only.

homerjay2005

that place has been available for weddings for many years now, how is that news all of a sudden?

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

According to the CSO, there are epprox 1.9 million private households in the country. In order to implement a progressive, equitable property tax, each of these would have to be assessed and valued. In order to do raise such a tax this year, this would have to have been complated within 9-10 months of the government's coming to power. That simply wouldn't have been possible.

Your understanding of how the taxation system works seems quite tenuous. New taxes are introduced at budget time and collected during the year. Thats how it works.

An equitable self assessed tax would not have encountered any of the difficulties you outline.

A huge number of people are against any notion of paying a property tax. Self-assessment would simply have been a non-starter.

I believe if you introduced the tax in an equitable way to begin with, a central plank in the anti charge campaign would have been removed.

If that's the case, how do you explain the plans for a progressive tax from next year? Was the political will lacking for one year only? Your assertions don;t make any sense in that context. How can you claim that the political will is lacking to introduce a progressive system of taxation, then plans are in place to do just that?

Again your understanding of political will seems limited. You cannot introduce a tax that you concede is inequitable and try to convince people that in a year's time government will have the political will to change it. Thats not what political will means.

We are already past the 10 month time frame, within which, you said it was impossible to introduce an equitable property tax and still how this will work has not been announced. So I wont be holding my breath.

If the government were serious about equity in property taxes would they not have already moved to make the NPPR charge value based, after, what , 5 years?

stovelid

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Bono once said, There's a rich man with a big house up on the hill. Other nationalities drive by and say "OMG, I want to be just like that man". We Irish are dufferent, we drive by and say "some day I'm gonna get that bastard". Very true

It suits bono to rationalise to himself that people only think he's a bell end because he's rich and famous.

Dudess

My name is URL wrote: »

I think the issue that people have with this story is that he avails of tax-breaks and subsidies in order to maintain the property even though they hire it out to people for weddings etc, which itself generates a healthy income.

He's not breaking any laws or rules, but on principle alone he probably shouldn't be availing of public funds for such things at a time when hospitals are being closed down etc. He's not short a few quid, and the money he receives for the upkeep of that particular house of his would be of more use elsewhere.

Exactly. Those arse-kissers who whinge about "begrudgery" (yawn) need to differentiate between someone doing well because of hard work, and those who are out and out greedy and taking advantage. Bono's full of sh1t too, with his "we" stuff.

I'm not sure Ireland is full of begrudgers tbh given all the simpering, toadying grovellers who always pop up in these threads appealing for us to stop being begrudgers. Just because you don't bow down before everyone who has more money than you doesn't make you a begrudger. :rolleyes:

steddyeddy

The irish definition of begrudgery is criticising someone who has money however they came across it. Aparantly according to some Im supposed to think someone who has more money is somehow better.

dvpower

steddyeddy wrote: »

The irish definition of begrudgery is criticising someone who has money however they came across it. Aparantly according to some Im supposed to think someone who has more money is somehow better.

Prusumably just better at making money.

Dudess

It seems to be "the thing" to say - perhaps people think it makes them seem intelligent/enlightened. People absolutely feverishly jump at the opportunity to say "We're" begrudgers. Can't say I see it that much tbh - or to an extent that would be any worse than other countries. I reckon it's something people heard and they thought it sounded clever so they use it a lot, as well as the whole Irish inferiority complex thing.

steddyeddy

dvpower wrote: »

Prusumably just better at making money.

Or inheriting it

DB21

Biggins wrote: »

Maybe they should sign here: http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3559/18288439960559342510912.jpg

Organised Anarchy. Heh.

Show Time

Biggins wrote: »

Not a bad little shack for a humble doctor.
How is he going to cope with all the new charges, the poor mite!

He is to smart for that.

Opening up the house for public view a few weekends of the year gets rid of the charge problem.

recylingbin

Dudess wrote: »

Exactly. Those arse-kissers who whinge about "begrudgery" (yawn) need to differentiate between someone doing well because of hard work, and those who are out and out greedy and taking advantage. Bono's full of sh1t too, with his "we" stuff.

I'm not sure Ireland is full of begrudgers tbh given all the simpering, toadying grovellers who always pop up in these threads appealing for us to stop being begrudgers. Just because you don't bow down before everyone who has more money than you doesn't make you a begrudger. :rolleyes:

Sing it loud, sista.

If it's someone on the dole taking advantage of the system, then they're scrounging layabouts - which I tend to agree with.
however when it's one of these useless b*stards riding the expenses system, taking advantage of every little grant, freebie and basically anything the taxpayer can fund for him ehile he pulls in 200K + a year for telling us that we need to put up with reduced services and pay more for them, then we're supposed to look the other way.

Don't forgot this b*llox has already cost us a fortune for his training to be a doctor which he's turned his back on.

Dead Kennedys

DB21 wrote: »

Organised Anarchy. Heh.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3559/18288439960559342510912.jpg

This sums up the Yes voter very well, the ingrained suspicion of anyone that questions authority, blindly following government soundbites sleepwalking into years of paying debts that belong to others and believing Phil Jones is a quality defender. A little bit of anarchy would be a good thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JimOmG6iQQ

steamengine

Do you have to queue up on a trolley to get a look round this stately pile ?

Dudess

recylingbin wrote: »

Sing it loud, sista.

If it's someone on the dole taking advantage of the system, then they're scrounging layabouts - which I tend to agree with.
however when it's one of these useless b*stards riding the expenses system, taking advantage of every little grant, freebie and basically anything the taxpayer can fund for him ehile he pulls in 200K + a year for telling us that we need to put up with reduced services and pay more for them, then we're supposed to look the other way.

Don't forgot this b*llox has already cost us a fortune for his training to be a doctor which he's turned his back on.

Well I wouldn't have a prob with the last bit as it's a good educational background for a health minister to have, but the rest, yeah, some of the types who piss their pants at "begrudgery" against types like him are the very ones who take issue with single mothers.

K-9

recylingbin wrote: »

Don't forgot this b*llox has already cost us a fortune for his training to be a doctor which he's turned his back on.

Whatever about the rest, can't make sense of that. He mightn't have received any grants at all, unless you know different.

While I'd question the overall benefit of the scheme, the only reason I can see for the whinging is that he's a TD. It's hardly Kinsealygate.

Goldfingers

I love how we're begrudgers when we've nothing (now) and are overly ambitious when we have something (celtic tigger).We can't win.Bono is an idiot who contributes very,very little pro-rata to this country as a lot of his wealth is offshore.He has no right to comment.He's a bad singer in a rich band.Reilly always was a me-feiner.I've never even seen him around his constituency here - minted for life in comparison to those he's meant to be working for.

dvpower

recylingbin wrote: »

.
Don't forgot this b*llox has already cost us a fortune for his training to be a doctor which he's turned his back on.

Turned his back on his training? He's the Minister for Health.

omgitsthelazor

Whatever about his house I've never looked the look of that guy, always had a shifty henchman look about him.

recylingbin

dvpower wrote: »

Turned his back on his training? He's the Minister for Health.

Exactly.

DB21

Dead Kennedys wrote: »

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3559/18288439960559342510912.jpg

This sums up the Yes voter very well, the ingrained suspicion of anyone that questions authority, blindly following government soundbites sleepwalking into years of paying debts that belong to others and believing Phil Jones is a quality defender. A little bit of anarchy would be a good thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JimOmG6iQQ

Oh noes, I'm so hurt.

For the record, I voted no. But you know what they say about assuming

My name is URL

Looks like James hasn't been paying his debts

Minister for Health James Reilly and a number of business partners have had a €1.9m judgment registered against them.

Dr Reilly is to be officially named this week on debt defaulters' list the Stubbs Gazette for failing to pay debts.

He is to be named along with several business partners for failing to comply with a High Court order relating to the purchase of a nursing home in Carrick-on-Suir, Co Tipperary.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0710/james-reilly-debt-default.html

tut tut

Stiffler2

Oh Lookey, a minister who owns a gaff that's so large he needs a tax break on it, F**K off.



Where's the address exactly ?

Boombastic

My name is URL wrote: »

Looks like James hasn't been paying his debts



http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0710/james-reilly-debt-default.html

tut tut

MMmm it seems this will affect his personal credit rating:pac:

Ghandee

My name is URL wrote: »

Looks like James hasn't been paying his debts



http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0710/james-reilly-debt-default.html

tut tut

He should be turfed out of the blue shirts for that.

You know, what with them having a 'we don't default on our debts' policy.

squod

Dr Reilly has been officially named this week on debt defaulters' list the Stubbs Gazette for failing to pay debts.
The debt arises from a business deal in which the minister and his co-investors had agreed to buy out a nursing home in Tipperary but failed to do so.

This is very serious. FF/FG and their mates should have a whip 'round to pay these debts or they should turf curly out of the party. Not like he's doing a whole lot anyway.

My name is URL

Ghandee wrote: »

He should be turfed out of the blue shirts for that.

You know, what with them having a 'we don't default on our debts' policy.

No no, they have a 'you don't default on your debts' policy. As far as they're concerned it's a matter of 'do as we say, not as we do'.

Thinking back to when the news broke about Wallace owing money, I remember Reilly saying something along the lines of 'it's totally unacceptable for somebody not to pay their dues'.

paddy147

dvpower wrote: »

Turned his back on his training? He's the Minister for Health.

Hes the "minister for fcuking up the health" system allright.;)

Hes now ****ed himself,as of this morning.:D


"what goes around comes back around" eh??