Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, and Joan Collins misuse expenses

Laminations

20Cent wrote: »

They probably think that those expenses were reasonable and necessary. Personally I don't but if they are the rules then so be it. I hear that Joe Higgins spent 900 euros approx and has offered to pay it back if it is found to have been misspent. Clare Daly said similar on Vincent Browne last night. They came out said what happened were open about the whole thing, much more honesty that you get with any other party.

Honesty doesn't absolve people of wrongdoing. Some people seem to think it does and they excuse behaviour like this and people like Mick Wallace. 'Ah shure he came clean and offered to pay it back' shouldn't be the standard of response we expect.

Am Chile

yore wrote: »

So I'll assume that you are consistent in your logic and that because Phil Hogan doesn't appear to have made any personal financial gain on his junket that you support it fully :rolleyes:


At least Hogan has an official position representing the country! And we can probably safely assume that he travelled there on official government business. Maybe it could have been done it cheaper but the country as a whole probably got better value for that money than for Daly and
Higgin's romantic nights away down the country.

So its perfectly ok for hogan to blow taxpayers money travelling but when opposition tds travel to campaign against certain goverment policies its terrible, nice to see the double standards being exposed here.

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

I am critical. I contribute to threads on any politician taking the mick with expenses or otherwise engaged in conduct unbecoming of a public representative and I've criticised government and the system many times. Doing so in a thread about a specific case I would see as deflection and an attempt at thread derailment.

Imagine if every thread about the conduct of Sean Fitzpatrick was hijacked by someone constantly deflecting responsibility for his actions to the regulator. 'Ah but the banking system needs better regulation and the government is responsible for that'. Yes true but it doesn't absolve Fitzpatrick of his behaviour under those lax regulations. It is an overarching (but irrelevant to the thread) issue.

No it deosn't excuse Fitzpatrick or anybody else, but the politics of condemnation that you indulge in is pointless. We can condemm until the cows come home but if the calls to change the system are ignored by those with the 'actual' power to change it nothing will ever change and you will be starting these threads for eternity. Try putting your weight behind those who are 'actually' calling for a change.

oscarBravo

Am Chile wrote: »

So its perfectly ok for hogan to blow taxpayers money travelling but when opposition tds travel to campaign against certain goverment policies its terrible, nice to see the double standards being exposed here.

Assuming that you don't have such double standards, which is your position: that government ministers shouldn't use taxpayers' money to travel while doing their jobs, or that it's OK for any TD to spend taxpayers' money on travelling anywhere they want, as long as they feel justified in doing so?

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

No it deosn't excuse Fitzpatrick or anybody else, but the politics of condemnation that you indulge in is pointless. We can condemm until the cows come home but if the calls to change the system are ignored by those with the 'actual' power to change it nothing will ever change and you will be starting these threads for eternity. Try putting your weight behind those who are 'actually' calling for a change.

I do add my weight (the miniscule weight of posting on an internet forum and the miniscule weight of emailing TDs) to both condemnation and calling for change. Both are necessary.

There are two factors at play: Lax regulations and people taking advantage of those regulations. You can have the former without the latter, which makes the latter a choice. You cannot have the latter without the former which makes reform of the former very important.

So I don't adhere to your mantra of 'don't hate the player, hate the game'

Jolly Red Giant

oscarBravo wrote: »

Assuming that you don't have such double standards, which is your position: that government ministers shouldn't use taxpayers' money to travel while doing their jobs, or that it's OK for any TD to spend taxpayers' money on travelling anywhere they want, as long as they feel justified in doing so?

Hogan went to Rio a couple of weeks ago with six (6) department officials, stayed in a hotel at a cost of €560 per night and delivered a 3 page speech (with double line spacing) that was so full of utter waffle it could ahve been issued as a press statement by Brian Hayes.

Total cost = €10,000

Now here are a few questions -

Was it not possible to find a hotel with a cheaper room rate?

Why did the govenrment not rent an apartment for a week to house Hogan and the six officials?

Was it actually necessary to bring six officials to help him write a 3 page speech (with double line spacing) that my 10-year-old could have written with her eyes closed?

What was the point of going there in the first place?

Now in relation to the last question some might saw that he signed an agreement to bring 1,500 Brazilian students to Ireland to study. However, Hogan was not actually the minister responsible, the deal had already been agreed and what was the problem with signing the agreement in his ministerial office and sending it by registered post to Brazil saving €9,990.

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Hogan went to Rio a couple of weeks ago with six (6) department officials, stayed in a hotel at a cost of €560 per night and delivered a 3 page speech (with double line spacing) that was so full of utter waffle it could ahve been issued as a press statement by Brian Hayes.

Total cost = €10,000

Now here are a few questions -

Was it not possible to find a hotel with a cheaper room rate?

Why did the govenrment not rent an apartment for a week to house Hogan and the six officials?

Was it actually necessary to bring six officials to help him write a 3 page speech (with double line spacing) that my 10-year-old could have written with her eyes closed?

What was the point of going there in the first place?

Now in relation to the last question some might saw that he signed an agreement to bring 1,500 Brazilian students to Ireland to study. However, Hogan was not actually the minister responsible, the deal had already been agreed and what was the problem with signing the agreement in his ministerial office and sending it by registered post to Brazil saving €9,990.

So your point is that it's OK for an elected representative to spend taxpayers' money on gadding around the country encouraging people to break the law because you think the government is spending too much money on foreign travel?

Or are you simply trying to divert attention from the actual topic here, which is that elected representatives are spending taxpayers' money to encourage citizens to break the law?

Jolly Red Giant

Laminations wrote: »

Some people seem to think it does and they excuse behaviour like this and people like Mick Wallace.

There is no bloody comparison - Wallace fiddled his tax and should be made pay every penny of it. In fact the Socialist Party is the only political party to have demanded that ALL of Wallace's assets should be used to pay this tax - the establishment reject this because it would interfere with their fiddle under company law.

Joe Higgins, Clare Daly and Joan Collins were absolutely right to claim the cost of travelling around the country to do their job - the one they were elected to do. The political establishment want nice compliant backbench TDs who will sit in their clinics fill out medical forms and write references - but dare they oppose FG/LP/IMF/ECB dictat.

The political witchhunt is launched by a newspaper that is owned by two tax-dodging exiles one of whom has been hauled over the coals by a tribunal. Futhermore there is a clear conflict of interest here - Denis O'Brien has recently purchased a company - got the Anglo Irish Bank to write off €100million of debt and the company will be installing water meters that will be used to implement water charges in a contract worth up to €1billion. It is in O'Brien's personal financial interest to ensure the defeat of the household charge campaign and it is no coincidence that this rubbish appeared the day Hogan sent out threatening letter to people boycotting the household charge.

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The political witchhunt is launched by a newspaper that is owned by two tax-dodging exiles [...] the day Hogan sent out threatening letter to people boycotting the household charge.

The irony is completely lost on you, isn't it?

Jolly Red Giant

oscarBravo wrote: »

Or are you simply trying to divert attention from the actual topic here, which is that elected representatives are spending taxpayers' money to encourage citizens to break the law?

And that is what this is all about - the fact that a small number of elected representatives are willing to campaign with 1 million households to oppose an unjust tax while the richest 10% increase their wealth in the middle of the worst depression since the 1930s.

The ruling elites make the laws to suit themselves - they manipulate the political process to suit themselves - and they manipulate the media to denigrate people who are politically opposed to them.

Better to break the law than break the poor and the Socialist Party and the ULA will continue to fight all the attempts to make working class people pay for a crisis that they had no hand, act or part in.

SocSocPol

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And that is what this is all about - the fact that a small number of elected representatives are willing to campaign with 1 million households to oppose an unjust tax while the richest 10% increase their wealth in the middle of the worst depression since the 1930s.

The ruling elites make the laws to suit themselves - they manipulate the political process to suit themselves - and they manipulate the media to denigrate people who are politically opposed to them.

Better to break the law than break the poor and the Socialist Party and the ULA will continue to fight all the attempts to make working class people pay for a crisis that they had no hand, act or part in.

Get your facts right, the majority have paid, there are nowhere near 1,000,000 households campaigning againt the tax.
These clowns are just greedy manipulative cnuts taking advantage of the very system they claim to oppose.

Am Chile

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There is no bloody comparison - Wallace fiddled his tax and should be made pay every penny of it. In fact the Socialist Party is the only political party to have demanded that ALL of Wallace's assets should be used to pay this tax - the establishment reject this because it would interfere with their fiddle under company law.

Joe Higgins, Clare Daly and Joan Collins were absolutely right to claim the cost of travelling around the country to do their job - the one they were elected to do. The political establishment want nice compliant backbench TDs who will sit in their clinics fill out medical forms and write references - but dare they oppose FG/LP/IMF/ECB dictat.

The political witchhunt is launched by a newspaper that is owned by two tax-dodging exiles one of whom has been hauled over the coals by a tribunal. Futhermore there is a clear conflict of interest here - Denis O'Brien has recently purchased a company - got the Anglo Irish Bank to write off €100million of debt and the company will be installing water meters that will be used to implement water charges in a contract worth up to €1billion. It is in O'Brien's personal financial interest to ensure the defeat of the household charge campaign and it is no coincidence that this rubbish appeared the day Hogan sent out threatening letter to people boycotting the household charge.

Dam, you said what I was about to say and got there first, but as long as someone says it.

Jolly Red Giant

oscarBravo wrote: »

The irony is completely lost on you, isn't it?

Those boycotting the household charge are not tax-dodgers - and it is a disgraceful insult to suggest they are. Those boycotting the household charge are doing so because they cannot pay anymore while O'Brien and Reilly are using their power and wealth to avoid paying tax and to attack those who threaten their privilage.

O'Brien is the ultimate hypocrite - giving the FAI €1million to hire Trappatoni but won't pay his tax - and then attacking people who can't afford to pay and calling them tax-dodgers.

Austerity hasn't worked, doesn't work and won't work - but the likes of O'Brien and Reilly don't care about the misery it is causign as long as they can continue to increase their wealth (O'Brien was at €4.9billion at the last count - he could give the government €3.5billion so they wouldn't have to impose more cuts in DEcember and still have €1.4billion left to live on - it's not like he could ever spend the bloody money, its just a toy for him to play with).

Laminations

I'm not a fan of Hogan, and I think questions should be asked about costs of foreign trips and making greater use of embassy accommodation BUT

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Hogan went to Rio a couple of weeks ago with six (6) department officials, stayed in a hotel at a cost of €560 per night

Where is that €560 figure from? There have been nunmerous figures in the media and I'd like Hogan to produce receipts to clarify this but he disputes the figure insisting it was €340 - still too high IMO.

Total cost = €10,000

He signed a 25 million euro contract while there.

Now here are a few questions -

Was it not possible to find a hotel with a cheaper room rate?

Environment department officials denied the tax-payer would pay normal room rates of €575 per night for the luxurious Sheraton Hotel, but that the cost would be "just over €300" per night

source

Hogan - "We have kept this particular delegation as small as possible. We have kept it as cheap as we possibly can and €340 a night is far too much but it's the best we could get," he said.

There were apparently 40,000 attendees to this conference. While there may have been room in a B n' B or backpackers hostel, this delegation were representing Ireland, there were the official representatives of the Irish government. However, I would question whether they explored embassy use. And I would still criricise the 340 figure as being too high.

Why did the govenrment not rent an apartment for a week to house Hogan and the six officials?

Good question.

Was it actually necessary to bring six officials to help him write a 3 page speech (with double line spacing) that my 10-year-old could have written with her eyes closed?

The speech was not the only business they did there.

What was the point of going there in the first place?

The same point as most conferences I'd imaging. Networking. But I agree that politicians should have to provide justification for attendance to conferences / workshops etc. Signing the 25 million euro deal in person may have been a reason.

Now in relation to the last question some might saw that he signed an agreement to bring 1,500 Brazilian students to Ireland to study. However, Hogan was not actually the minister responsible, the deal had already been agreed and what was the problem with signing the agreement in his ministerial office and sending it by registered post to Brazil saving €9,990.

Optics and relationship management I'd imagine. Why do ministers go to the opening of xyz, for photo ops to publicise themselves and the project. They are often invited.

Now if you can show me that Hogan out of all environmental ministers in Europe or the world was the only one who went to this huge summit, then I'd say you were on to something. It seems it was well attended so many people involved in sustainable development must have thought it worthwhile.

Still, unlike Shinners and socialists, I encourage you to question expenses like this.

Am Chile

SocSocPol wrote: »

Get your facts right, the majority have paid, there are nowhere near 1,000,000 households campaigning againt the tax.
These clowns are just greedy manipulative cnuts taking advantage of the very system they claim to oppose.

The Department of Environment persists in stating that 1.6m households are liable for the household charge. This is patently not the case. It is houses that are liable for the tax not households. If a person owns two houses – one they live in, one a holiday home, they pay twice. They wouldn’t do that if it was a tax purely on households. The household charge is a tax on property. There are 1.994m habitable housing units in the state – they are all liable for the tax with some exemptions. Here is some useful data compiled by the Campaign Against Household & Water Taxes from official statistics and Dail questions. It gives a much more thorough picture of the liabilities relating to the household charge than the governments line, and that is the case whether you are for or against the charge.

1 Housing units in state 1,994,845 CSO

2 Unoccupied/vacant housing units unsold 18,636 Housing Development Survey, DECLG, 2011

3 Renting social housing 129,033 Census 2011, Table 39.

4 Renting voluntary housing 14,942 Census 2011, Table 39

5 Being bought from Local Authorities under shared ownership scheme 23,547 Census 2006. Doesn’t appear to be in Census 2011.

6 Mortgage interest relief 19,000 Keane Report

7 Housing units in unfinished estates 34,000 Money Guide Ireland

8 Number of landlords who registered Non Principal Private Residence (NPPR) in 2011 183,551 NAMAwinelake

9 Number of NPPR registered in 2011 for the NPPR Tax 339,431

10 Number of housing units for which the HHT was paid on 1st June 2012 915,408 Dail Question Ref No: 27986/12. Clare Daly.

11 Numbers waivered for HHT on 1st June 2012 17,167 Dail Question Ref No: 27986/12. Clare Daly.

12 Number of housing units registered to multiple accounts on 1st June 2012 332,900 Dail Question Ref No: 27986/12. Clare Daly.

13 Number of accounts to which more than one unit was registered on 1st June 2012 106,332 Dail Question Ref No: 27986/12. Clare Daly.

Figures calculated from above

14 Number of housing units liable to register for Household Tax (HHT) 1,808,687 (1-2-3-4-5)

15 Number of housing units liable to pay the Household Tax 1,755,687 (14-6-7)

16 Total number of property owners liable to register 1,469,256 (14-9)

17 Number of housing units actually registered on 1st June 2012 932,575 (10 + 11)

18 Number of housing units not registered on 1st June 2012 876,112 ( 14-17)

19 Number of NPPRs registered assuming the family home was also registered on the same account. 226,568 (12-13).

20 Number of property owners registered on 1st June 2012 (Accounts with LGMA) assuming each account also has the Principal Private Residence registered. 706,007 (10 + 11 – 19)

21 Number of property owners who have not registered. 763,249 (16-20)

22 % of property owners not registered 52

http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/what-are-the-real-household-charge-numbers/

Laminations

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And that is what this is all about - the fact that a small number of elected representatives are willing to campaign with 1 million households to oppose an unjust tax while the richest 10% increase their wealth in the middle of the worst depression since the 1930s.

No one is questioning their right to campaign, they are questioning their right to use tax payers money from an allowance with a specific purpose to promote themselves and their beliefs. By all means do a tour of the country telling people not to pay tax but pay for it from your party allowance or personal finances.

Jolly Red Giant

SocSocPol wrote: »

Get your facts right, the majority have paid, there are nowhere near 1,000,000 households campaigning againt the tax.

You are right - there is not 1 million households boycotting the tax - but there is a majority despite all the bluff of the government.

here are the facts -

Census 2011 - the most reliable measure there is - shows 1,994,845 units of housing in the state. When exemptions are taken out, 1.81 million properties must register and 1.76 million are liable to pay it.

In a Dáil answer to Clare Daly TD, the Dept of the Environment stated that 915,408 properties had paid, with 17,167 waivers.

Owners of multiple properties and landlords make up 332,900 of those registrations (or 14%.) When these are excluded, the stats for registration by actual HOMEOWNERS looks like this: registered 706,007; not registered 763,249.


This confirms that 52% of owners have not paid the household charge.

Laminations

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Better to break the law than break the poor

How does the household tax break the poor?

Laminations

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

while the richest 10% increase their wealth in the middle of the worst depression since the 1930s.

Source, with graphs and data please. As I've seen many times on here the graph that shows cuts have hit the wealthy (highest income) the most - in terms of reducing income

Laminations

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Those boycotting the household charge are not tax-dodgers - and it is a disgraceful insult to suggest they are. Those boycotting the household charge are doing so because they cannot pay anymore

You've canvassed a million people eh?

Jolly Red Giant

Laminations wrote: »

No one is questioning their right to campaign, they are questioning their right to use tax payers money from an allowance with a specific purpose to promote themselves and their beliefs.

They are not doing it to promote themselves or their beliefs - they are using it to assist communities who have asked them for help.

Laminations wrote: »

By all means do a tour of the country telling people not to pay tax but pay for it from your party allowance or personal finances.

it wouldn't stop the likes of the tax-dodging owners of the Independent from attacking them for advocating people 'breaking the law' - the establishment are capable of coming up with all sorts of excuses to attack those opposed to austerity - and the Socialist Party is well aware that this is only the start of it. But bring it on - we are well able to deal with this nonsense as Clare daly showed on VB last night.

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And that is what this is all about - the fact that a small number of elected representatives are willing to campaign with 1 million households to oppose an unjust tax...

The question is whether they are justified in spending taxpayers' money on a campaign to encourage people to engage in criminal activity.

Your position seems to be that they are justified in spending public funds on a campaign as long as you personally agree with their aims. You'll forgive me if I don't find that a compelling argument.

Better to break the law than break the poor and the Socialist Party and the ULA will continue to fight all the attempts to make working class people pay for a crisis that they had no hand, act or part in.

And they (and you) don't see any problem with spending taxpayers' money on that fight. Would they have an objection to government TDs spending taxpayers' money opposing them?

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Those boycotting the household charge are not tax-dodgers - and it is a disgraceful insult to suggest they are.

So when rich people decide not to pay taxes they don't want to pay, it's tax evasion, but when working class people decide not to pay taxes they don't want to pay, that's something completely different?

It seems that socialists only object to "one law for the rich, one for the poor" when the dichotomy works against their interests. What was that about double standards earlier in the thread?

Jolly Red Giant

Laminations wrote: »

Source, with graphs and data please. As I've seen many times on here the graph that shows cuts have hit the wealthy (highest income) the most - in terms of reducing income

Bullsh*t -

Central Statistic office report on Income and Living Conditions for 2010

Percentage change in equivalised disposable household income by decile SILC 2010

Poorest 10% - minus 26%
10%-20% - minus 14%
20%-30% - minus 11%
30%-40% - minus 11%
40%-50% - minus 12%
50%-60% - minus 9%
60%-70% - minus 9%
70%-80% - minus 8%
80%-90% - minus 3%
Richest 10% - plus 8%

While the poorest 10% of the population saw a drop in their disposable income of just over 26% - the richest 10% saw their disposable income INCREASE by 8%.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/silc/2010/silc_2010.pdf

Page 11.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Just a reminder to posters: this thread is not about the household charge. So let's pull things back on track here.

In addition, I'd like to remind folks of two key points in the forum charter:

If what you're doing isn't discussing politics but competing for the top slot on Joe Duffy, you're in the wrong place

Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters and people in the public eye. Using unsavoury language does not add to your argument.

Finally, before you post a snippy one-liner, take a moment to think another whether your post adds to the discussion, or will simply inflame other posters and/or pull things off-topic.

walshb

They use tax money in the wrong to campaign for people to not pay a tax. You couldn't make it up. A horrible showser of unscrupulous gits. They really are a horrible lot.

yore

Am Chile wrote: »

So its perfectly ok for hogan to blow taxpayers money travelling but when opposition tds travel to campaign against certain goverment policies its terrible, nice to see the double standards being exposed here.

Is that what you really think or are you trying to be sarcastic? You are the person who implied Daly/Higgins/etc. did nothing wrong because they made "no personal financial gain". You are the one with double standards it seems!

I never said that either was acceptable. However one was on official government business, organised at an official level to represent the people of Ireland. I have seen no evidence that it could have been similarly done for far cheaper. The other was an arbitrary abuse of a system for a personal cause. If it's a "party cause" then let the party pay for it.

What next? "I was elected to fight austerity so I'm justified in spending it to add an extension to my house...sure isn't it taking a few people off the dole"

Am Chile

walshb wrote: »

They use tax money in the wrong to campaign for people to not pay a tax. You couldn't make it up. A hiorroble showser of unscrupulouse gits. They really are a horrible lot.

Because they know in the longer term most ordinary people simply won,t be afford the kinda money the goverment over €1000 will be looking for in relation property taxes/water charges, but I guess there will be some on here who will patronise people first they said it was only €2 a week next they will say its only €20 a week.

Jolly Red Giant

oscarBravo wrote: »

The question is whether they are justified in spending taxpayers' money on a campaign to encourage people to engage in criminal activity.

For very many years women campaigning for the vote engaged in your so-called 'criminal activity'

Workers going on strike to defend their jobs and income engage in your so-called 'criminal activity'

I could go on - but the point is clear.

The laws in this country are made by the ruling elites who fund the political system (€3million to FG for the last election) - when these laws are attacking the jobs, livelihoods and services of the vast majority of the population in order to preserve the power and privilage of the elites then these laws should and have to be broken.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your position seems to be that they are justified in spending public funds on a campaign as long as you personally agree with their aims. You'll forgive me if I don't find that a compelling argument. And they (and you) don't see any problem with spending taxpayers' money on that fight. Would they have an objection to government TDs spending taxpayers' money opposing them?

Joe Higgins, Clare Daly and Joan Collins were doing the job that they were elected to do and are carrying out the election promises they made (I know it might be a little wierd for your that a politician actually keeps their election promises) - furthermore Government TDs and the entire political establishment have being using large amounts of taxpayers money to persude/intimidate ordinary working class people to bendover and take it up the rear to protect the power and wealth of the likes of Denis O'Brien and the O'Reilly family.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So when rich people decide not to pay taxes they don't want to pay, it's tax evasion, but when working class people decide not to pay taxes they don't want to pay, that's something completely different?

Through a combination of tax breaks, tax cuts, tax avoidance, tax evasion and blatant tax dodging the wealth pay little or nothing to the exchequer in comparison to their total wealth. PAYE workers don't have the same luxury - the government simply takes the money every week and then adds in extra taxes and deductions. Furthermore the government pile on indirect taxes that disproportionally hit the poorest because of the regressive nature of indirect taxes. Working class people have for centuries acted against the wealthy elites when they are getting blatantly screwed - just as is happening now.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It seems that socialists only object to "one law for the rich, one for the poor" when the dichotomy works against their interests. What was that about double standards earlier in the thread?

All laws operate in the interests of one section of society over another section of society - and when the wealthy elites control society then we have one law for the rich and another for the poor.

creedp

20Cent wrote: »

We'll have to wait to see what the legal advice the Oireachtas get back to see. Seems like a crazy situation anyway should be regulated as Sinn Fein and the SP have been calling for.
This witch hunt might backfire yet!

It will be very interesting to hear the legal advice but I think an NB point is that the SP claimed these expenses, they were approved and paid out by the Oireachtas. Now if they were inappropriate expenses why were they approved and paid out? Seems to me the Oireachtas did not believe them to be inappropriate and therefore approved them. It also suggest to me that this is not an unusual situation and I would be bloody amazed if these 2 geniuses were to first to come up with this rouse!!

Bottom line the expenses system should be changed and to be honest I don't see why T.D. should get mileage expenses to travel to work in the first place. Leaving that aside what's more incredulous is that they get mileage expenses even if they get the bus/train. I remember a funny story about a certain celebrated Kerry TD who didn't want people to know he took the train to the Dail because he was claiming mileage. Not only would that cover his costs but would earn his a massive bonus. Now that activity is not against Regulation as TDs are allowed to claim mileage irrespective of mode of travel but is it morally right? What do those of you that are shredding the SP now think of that situation ... are you railing against it? Similarly should a TD who hangs out in a friend's/family members gaff claim accommodation expenses? Is it against regulation? Is it morally wrong? Storm in a teacup this story but it suits the agenda

yore

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Joe Higgins, Clare Daly and Joan Collins were absolutely right to claim the cost of travelling around the country to do their job - the one they were elected to do. The political establishment want nice compliant backbench TDs who will sit in their clinics fill out medical forms and write references - but dare they oppose FG/LP/IMF/ECB dictat.

hmmm.....I'm not sure the people who voted for them were told that they'd be spending their time/money/energy on travelling around the country assisting voters in other constituencies who have their own votes and own representatives! If it was explicitly on their manifestos, please feel free to correct me

100 Euro a house is a basic minimum charge that every house should be paying (excluding waivers). There can't be a more progressive charge with higher amounts for wealthier people until the authorities register and catalogue the properties. All these people are doing is protecting those wealthy property owners.

If I was a poor person with a house, I'd rather pay my 100 and have the wealthy man up the road paying 1000 than for both of us to be paying nothing.

When on Fingal County Council, Daly and her short sighted ilk obstructed and rallied against changes and improvements to the bin collection services....the end result was that council could no longer afford to run the service and it had to be privatised!

Laminations

creedp wrote: »

that activity is not against Regulation ...but is it morally right?

This is the issue. Failing proper regulation can TDs conduct themselves in an appropriate (morally correct) manner.

Shinners and socialists seem to think that something is morally above board once no regulations are broken.

(BTW 20cent I'm waiting for your deliberation as to whether spending childrens allowance on booze is misusing that allowance or not)

I think that highlighting how people behave when they are not under tight regulation tells you something about their character - while we all would accept that most TDs are self-serving, we've heard for a long time how the socialist TDs have higher standards - clearly that is not the case.

Am Chile

100 Euro a house is a basic minimum charge

€100 is basic to start off with until its racked up and ability to pay isn,t taken into account, just like the septic tank registration fee is very basic at €5 until people know the real cost of upgrading septic tanks.

yore

creedp wrote: »

It will be very interesting to hear the legal advice but I think an NB point is that the SP claimed these expenses, they were approved and paid out by the Oireachtas. Now if they were inappropriate expenses why were they approved and paid out? Seems to me the Oireachtas did not believe them to be inappropriate and therefore approved them. It also suggest to me that this is not an unusual situation and I would be bloody amazed if these 2 geniuses were to first to come up with this rouse!!

Bottom line the expenses system should be changed and to be honest I don't see why T.D. should get mileage expenses to travel to work in the first place. Leaving that aside what's more incredulous is that they get mileage expenses even if they get the bus/train. I remember a funny story about a certain celebrated Kerry TD who didn't want people to know he took the train to the Dail because he was claiming mileage. Not only would that cover his costs but would earn his a massive bonus. Now that activity is not against Regulation as TDs are allowed to claim mileage irrespective of mode of travel but is it morally right? What do those of you that are shredding the SP now think of that situation ... are you railing against it? Similarly should a TD who hangs out in a friend's/family members gaff claim accommodation expenses? Is it against regulation? Is it morally wrong? Storm in a teacup this story but it suits the agenda

I think the salient point is that, regardless of who else was misusing their expenses in a similar way, these recently publicised cases have involved people who spend their days spouting rhetoric and pontificating about about these exact same abuses.

"Ordinary working man" my ar$e

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

No one is questioning their right to campaign, they are questioning their right to use tax payers money from an allowance with a specific purpose to promote themselves and their beliefs. By all means do a tour of the country telling people not to pay tax but pay for it from your party allowance or personal finances.

Yes you are questioning their right to campaign. You say they are wrong to believe that their mandate is to oppose austerity, when in fact, that is what they campaigned on. Much criticism is levelled at FG/Lab for renegeing on campaign promises.
They are, in their opinions, merely doing the business they were elected to do and claiming justifiable expenses.

yore

Am Chile wrote: »

€100 is basic to start off with until its racked up and ability to pay isn,t taken into account, just like the septic tank registration fee is very basic at €5 until people know the real cost of upgrading septic tanks.

Sorry if I was ambiguous.

I meant 100 should be the basic minimum charge! At least 100 for everyone and then more for the wealthier.

The socialist party are misusing expenses to rally the "ordinary working class person" together to form a nice little protective barrier for Mr. Wealthy and his mansion. Ironic eh? Because he won't get his increased property tax until a property tax is implemented in the first place......it's like how things work in Greece!

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Joe Higgins, Clare Daly and Joan Collins were doing the job that they were elected to do and are carrying out the election promises they made...

So it's unconditionally OK to spend taxpayers' money on carrying out election promises?

...furthermore Government TDs and the entire political establishment have being using large amounts of taxpayers money to persude/intimidate ordinary working class people to bendover and take it up the rear to protect the power and wealth of the likes of Denis O'Brien and the O'Reilly family.

And you're OK with this? Or are you indulging in those double standards yet again?

All laws operate in the interests of one section of society over another section of society - and when the wealthy elites control society then we have one law for the rich and another for the poor.

Which is a problem, because it goes against your wishes. If it worked in your favour, you'd be OK with it. You've made that clear already.

You're not looking for fairness; you're looking for unfairness that benefits you instead of someone else. Socialists have a problem with tax evasion when business people do it, but actively encourage others to do it. It's OK to spend taxpayers' money on espousing socialism, but morally wrong to spend it on anything else.

There's no doubt about it, we get the politicians we richly deserve.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes you are questioning their right to campaign.

Well, no. I'd question the morality of encouraging citizens to break the law, but that's not the issue here. The issue here is the spending of taxpayers' money on encouraging citizens to break the law, and whether that's an appropriate use of public funds.

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes you are questioning their right to campaign. You say they are wrong to believe that their mandate is to oppose austerity, when in fact, that is what they campaigned on. Much criticism is levelled at FG/Lab for renegeing on campaign promises.
They are, in their opinions, merely doing the business they were elected to do and claiming justifiable expenses.

To oppose austerity in the Dail perhaps. Yes be a vocal opposition, ask questions of the government, engage in serious debate about property taxes and how our deficit can be filled, but if you want to do a tour encouraging people not to pay tax then do so at the expense of the party or at your own expense.

And if they spent taxpayers money building a giant wickerman banker that they burnt to signify their struggle against austerity, or if they spent it on hosting a 'campaign against austerity' concert - that'd all have to be fine too under your rationale, that they can spend tax payers money on anything once it is campaigning against austerity, which is what they were elected for (according to you)

daltonmd

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Those boycotting the household charge are not tax-dodgers - and it is a disgraceful insult to suggest they are. Those boycotting the household charge are doing so because they cannot pay anymore while O'Brien and Reilly are using their power and wealth to avoid paying tax and to attack those who threaten their privilage.

O'Brien is the ultimate hypocrite - giving the FAI €1million to hire Trappatoni but won't pay his tax - and then attacking people who can't afford to pay and calling them tax-dodgers.

Austerity hasn't worked, doesn't work and won't work - but the likes of O'Brien and Reilly don't care about the misery it is causign as long as they can continue to increase their wealth (O'Brien was at €4.9billion at the last count - he could give the government €3.5billion so they wouldn't have to impose more cuts in DEcember and still have €1.4billion left to live on - it's not like he could ever spend the bloody money, its just a toy for him to play with).

And what of those who did pay? What about the taxpaying section who fulfilled their legal obligation to pay this charge?

Do they not have a say?

That we have TD's going around the country using ALL of taxpayers money to represent SOME without a by-your-leave is disgraceful.

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

To oppose austerity in the Dail perhaps. Yes be a vocal opposition, ask questions of the government, engage in serious debate about property taxes and how our deficit can be filled, but if you want to do a tour encouraging people not to pay tax then do so at the expense of the party or at your own expense.

And if they spent taxpayers money building a giant wickerman banker that they burnt to signify their struggle against austerity, or if they spent it on hosting a 'campaign against austerity' concert - that'd all have to be fine too under your rationale, that they can spend tax payers money on anything once it is campaigning against austerity, which is what they were elected for (according to you)

They have said that they see their mandate as opposing austerity, that is their business as elected representatives. I have no moral objection to that, and I can't see how anybody could have, unless of course, that they have an objection to 'opposing austerity' or to the mandates given to the left.

Laminations

One member, Waterford TD John Halligan, said that if a TD "read the rules", he would see that the travel expenses should only be used for constituency travel and for trips to and from Leinster House.
"I'm a first-time TD, but I read the rules and for me they are very clear," he said.

source


While a poster here has linked to the Irish statute book for the rules, the Oireactas guidelines, which is more likely to be consulted by TDs states:

This allowance covers the costs of travel to and from Leinster House, accommodation where applicable and, for Deputies only, constituency travel. The allowance is based on the Dublin band and twelve bands of 30km depending on the distance from Leinster House with a fixed accommodation allowance. Each Member is paid a band allowance based on the distance from their declared normal place of residence to Leinster House.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=%2Fdocuments%2Fmembers%2F20102527-2.htm



They are an embarrassment to their colleagues

Sources in the group said the episode had proved "highly embarrassing" as the three TDs are constantly railing against the 'Dail gravy train'.
Fianna Fail public expenditure spokesperson Sean Fleming said that the controversy had exposed the TDs.
"Everyone knows that Joe Higgins and his socialist colleagues get more cash from the exchequer than anyone else. They are constantly going on about the so-called 'establishment', but they have been exposed as hypocrites."

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

They have said that they see their mandate as opposing austerity, that is their business as elected representatives. I have no moral objection to that, and I can't see how anybody could have, unless of course, that they have an objection to 'opposing austerity' or to the mandates given to the left.

So you would have no problem with government TDs spending taxpayer money travelling around the country to encourage people to pay the household charge?

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

They have said that they see their mandate as opposing austerity, that is their business as elected representatives. I have no moral objection to that, and I can't see how anybody could have, unless of course, that they have an objection to 'opposing austerity' or to the mandates given to the left.

So in fulfilling their mandate to oppose austerity they should be allowed spend taxpayers money on anything they see fit? The wickerman? The concert? Anything once the message is 'oppose austerity?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you would have no problem with government TDs spending taxpayer money travelling around the country to encourage people to pay the household charge?

No, if it's government business, I don't actually. I have a problem with expenses and the spending of taxpayers money when it is lining somebody's personal pockets and when it's spending is deliberately hidden from public scrutiny.

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

So in fulfilling their mandate to oppose austerity they should be allowed spend taxpayers money on anything they see fit? The wickerman? The concert? Anything once the message is 'oppose austerity?

No. :rolleyes:

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

No. :rolleyes:

So they can't spend taxpayers money on anything in the name of 'fulfilling their mandate'

Okay, so where do you draw the line?

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have a problem with expenses ... when it's spending is deliberately hidden from public scrutiny.

So once the expenses are made public to be scrutinised you are happy enough. You don't seem to be happy with us scrutinising these expenses?

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

Okay, so where do you draw the line?

I ask the people with the power to act, to draw up where the line is, clearly, without room for movement. The design of the 'system' is their responsibility.
If my pipe leaks, I call the plumber, I don't curse the water, while the house floods. It's called being pragmatic.

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

So once the expenses are made public to be scrutinised you are happy enough. You don't seem to be happy with us scrutinising these expenses?

Do I think there is a difference between openly showing your accounts and hiding the fact.......YES!

As to you scutinising the accounts, that's fine too, but you also have to 'actually' listen to their interpretation, not condemm first and then spend many pages defending your position.
There is no more to be said about these particular cases, there is plenty to be said for the governments failure to answer calls for the system to be fixed.

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

I ask the people with the power to act, to draw up where the line is, clearly, without room for movement. The design of the 'system' is their responsibility.
If my pipe leaks, I call the plumber, I don't curse the water, while the house floods. It's called being pragmatic.

Water doesn't have a mind of its own, it can't make decisions as to the appropriate and inappropriate actions within a system.

Why if the system allows them to spend taxpayers money fulfilling their mandate would you reply 'no' to the idea that they spend it opposing austerity by burning a wicker man? You do seem to have a moral compass distinct from the system, you can tell what is appropriate and inappropriate behaviour within a system, you just refuse to do so on the matter of them spending tax payers money on a austerity campaign tour of Ireland, instead diverting responsibility for their actions to the system.