Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, and Joan Collins misuse expenses

daltonmd

Duplicate

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

How does it change everything. He was wrong, he shouldn't have done it, he should pay it back.

How is he a guilty FG TD when you haven't labelled the other three guilty? At least I'm consistent. They all misused the allowance

:D Come on, let's see the same condemmnation rethoric about Hayes and his master.
Is he 'an embarassment to his colleagues'?'

And just to keep you honest, what should happen now? Sackings? resignations?

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

:D Come on, let's see the same condemmnation rethoric about Hayes and his master.
Is he 'an embarassment to his colleagues'?'

And just to keep you honest, what should happen now? Sackings? resignations?

You called him guilty. Let's see consistency from you first.

When one of his colleagues says he's an embarrassment I'll be sure to post the quote as I did with the three socialists

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

You called him guilty. Let's see consistency from you first.

Well, let's see, the story so far.
Higgins, Daly, Collins openly publish their accounts which show they used this fund....Oireachtas investigates. The three admit to being GUILTY of using the fund in this way but give their defence and stress (from the begining) that they will repay the funds if the Oireachtas inquiry and legal advice say they are wrong.
Oireachtas delivers it's findings and they are indeed wrong to claim these expenses. The three seek legal advice themselves but reassure the public again, that if wrong they will repay funds.

Morning dawns, and senior FG TD slithers out from under a rock to admit that he too was GUILTY and had claimed expenses in this way. He hadn't of course, published accounts, so we, the public, had to depend on his HONESTY, (not the impending **** storm), to find it out.

I can see guilt here, can you? So what should happen next?

creedp

Am Chile wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0705/1224319429077.html

I wonder will all those bashing Joe and Clare also call for Brian Hayes to return the money he used from travel allowance to travel around the country as an opposition td? although I won,t hold my breath.

I wonder how many other TDs are now considering their options here .. fess up now or be exposed after. The Minister for Public Sector Reform has a fair neck to be describing someone as having a brass neck to ask PQs about the multitude of allowances paid out in the PS while at the same time claiming expenses in exactly the same way as a member of his Govt did in the past. He might want to wind in his neck before be causes himself an injury. In addition, it is his Department that approved these expenses for payment. If he is so sure that what happenned was so wrong why did his Department approve the bloody things. Given that the expenses are vouched, those approving them would know that a Dublin based TD would not be driving/requiring accommodation in far flung destinations around the country so should not have approved.

Having said all that I don't agree with the practice but its the hyprocisy surrounding the complaints that I find hard to swallow.

daltonmd

Joe Higgins states; "TDs are national legislators"

The definition of a legislator is:

"A person who makes laws; a member of a legislative body."

Claiming allowances to go around the country actively encouraging people to break the law is not within his remit.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

Joe Higgins states; "TDs are national legislators"

The definition of a legislator is:

"A person who makes laws; a member of a legislative body."

Claiming allowances to go around the country actively encouraging people to break the law is not within his remit.

Are you sure you are including the full context of his statement? Source please.

fattyplumps

Couldn't agree more - you have summed him up perfectly!

20Cent

daltonmd wrote: »

Joe Higgins states; "TDs are national legislators"

The definition of a legislator is:

"A person who makes laws; a member of a legislative body."

Claiming allowances to go around the country actively encouraging people to break the law is not within his remit.

Dangerous precedent, Homosexuality used to be against the law would campaigning to leglise it be outside of the remit of a TD? Lots of things are illegal doesn't mean TDs can't campaign against them. Otherwise what is the point in even having an opposition.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

Joe Higgins states; "TDs are national legislators"

The definition of a legislator is:

"A person who makes laws; a member of a legislative body."

Claiming allowances to go around the country actively encouraging people to break the law is not within his remit.

As I suspected, the full context of the statement has a 'slightly' different slant. :rolleyes:

“We’re told that we need a break from the parish pump politics and that TDs should be concerned about what happens outside their cabbage patch but that’s not the approach,” he said.

“It shows a lack of imagination on the part of the Oireachtas that TDs would not be concerned with acting on issues which affect people outside of their constituency. TDs are national legislators.”

Some 700,000 property owners have yet to pay the charge and face a “three strikes and it’s court” system. Two red reminder letters will be sent before a third threatens legal action.

“It is scurrilous and underhanded to suggest some kind of impropriety in using a Dail travel allowance to travel around the country addressing mass meetings and rallies against the household tax or indeed any other issue,” the Socialist spokesman added.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you sure you are including the full context of his statement? Source please.

The source is Joe Higgins.


“It shows a lack of imagination on the part of the Oireachtas that TDs would not be concerned with acting on issues which affect people outside of their constituency. TDs are national legislators.”


It's not out of context, he views TD's as national legislators - law makers, yet doesn't differenciate that he is in fact encouraging and (mis) leading people into breaking the law.

"In Cork North Central, Socialist Party candidate Mick Barry had an outstanding campaign, polling 4,803.

The party also has a very good platform to challenge in Dublin South West, where our candidate Mick Murphy got 2,461 votes or 5.25%. In the Dublin Mid West seat, Rob Connolly got 622 or 1.5%. In Laois Offaly, Ray Fitzpatrick got 561 or 0.8%. In Dublin North East, Brian Greene got 869 or 2%. Carlow Kilkenny saw Conor MacLiam get 1135 or 1.5% and finally in Limerick City, Socialist Party candidate Cian Prendiville got 721 or 1.7%."

People voted with their feet and only returned Joe to his seat and Claire Daly was voted in - both in Dublin.

There are already TD's in the constituencies that Joe visited - these are being paid from the taxpayers purse to represent their consituents.

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

I can see guilt here, can you? So what should happen next?

Yes anyone who misuses expenses, either purposely or through ignorance or misunderstanding of the rules is wrong.

I'm not going to call for sacking, resignations or hangings and I haven't done so far.

An admission of wrongdoing, repayment of the allowance and then hopefully reform of the system would be the consequences I'd like to see

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

As I suspected, the full context of the statement has a 'slightly' different slant. :rolleyes:

How is it a "slightly different slant" he presents himself as a "National Legislator" - it doesn't change what it means whatever the context.

Laminations

20Cent wrote: »

Dangerous precedent, Homosexuality used to be against the law would campaigning to leglise it be outside of the remit of a TD? Lots of things are illegal doesn't mean TDs can't campaign against them. Otherwise what is the point in even having an opposition.

Put it this way. If we had a socialist government who brought in a wealth tax, would you think it appropriate and commendable if right wing TDs toured the country telling rich people how to evade tax. Didnt Beverly Cooper Flynn get done for that? God if she only knew her defence could've been 'this is something I really believe in'. The time and place to make the case is in the Dail.

You'd be happy with opposition TDs using taxpayers money to give clinics to the rich in how to evade a wealth tax?

daltonmd

Laminations wrote: »

Yes anyone who misuses expenses, either purposely or through ignorance or misunderstanding of the rules is wrong.

I'm not going to call for sacking, resignations or hangings and I haven't done so far.

An admission of wrongdoing, repayment of the allowance and then hopefully reform of the system would be the consequences I'd like to see

If I am "confused" about anything, I ask. That a law has to be changed for people to ask what the law actually means is just ridiculous in my opinion, as I said - whether they can go around the country or not and be paid is not really the issue - it's what they were doing, what they represent that's the issue.

K-9

daltonmd wrote: »

Joe Higgins states; "TDs are national legislators"

The definition of a legislator is:

"A person who makes laws; a member of a legislative body."

Claiming allowances to go around the country actively encouraging people to break the law is not within his remit.

He's also a politician who is entitled to campaign against Government policies and legislation, after all opposition is part of our system, I'd be worried if it wasn't! There seems to be confusion over the payments as shown by Hayes, I don't know why that is, politicians should be informed of the rules from day 1.

daltonmd

K-9 wrote: »

He's also a politician who is entitled to campaign against Government policies and legislation, after all opposition is part of our system, I'd be worried if it wasn't! There seems to be confusion over the payments as shown by Hayes, I don't know why that is, politicians should be informed of the rules from day 1.

Well my view is that you put yourself on a platform to fight those issues from within the system, not outside of it. If you want to fight the law, then you really should do it out of party funds - not taxpayers funds.

After all they represent a minority of people, not the majority. It is the Socialist party views that they represent not the entire country.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

The source is Joe Higgins.


“It shows a lack of imagination on the part of the Oireachtas that TDs would not be concerned with acting on issues which affect people outside of their constituency. TDs are national legislators.”


It's not out of context, he views TD's as national legislators - law makers, yet doesn't differenciate that he is in fact encouraging and (mis) leading people into breaking the law.

"In Cork North Central, Socialist Party candidate Mick Barry had an outstanding campaign, polling 4,803.

The party also has a very good platform to challenge in Dublin South West, where our candidate Mick Murphy got 2,461 votes or 5.25%. In the Dublin Mid West seat, Rob Connolly got 622 or 1.5%. In Laois Offaly, Ray Fitzpatrick got 561 or 0.8%. In Dublin North East, Brian Greene got 869 or 2%. Carlow Kilkenny saw Conor MacLiam get 1135 or 1.5% and finally in Limerick City, Socialist Party candidate Cian Prendiville got 721 or 1.7%."

People voted with their feet and only returned Joe to his seat and Claire Daly was voted in - both in Dublin.

There are already TD's in the constituencies that Joe visited - these are being paid from the taxpayers purse to represent their consituents.

The POINT he was making that this is a NATIONAL issue and he is entitled to inform and support a sizable number of people in attempting to get a law changed. That is a perfectly consistent point of view for a TD and they all do it.

Laminations wrote: »

Yes anyone who misuses expenses, either purposely or through ignorance or misunderstanding of the rules is wrong.

I'm not going to call for sacking, resignations or hangings and I haven't done so far.

An admission of wrongdoing, repayment of the allowance and then hopefully reform of the system would be the consequences I'd like to see

There is a huge difference between the 2 bolded words above. One is wrong and the other, in any normal working environment is excuseable. In our haste to change the way we are governed, we need to be reasonable. Jumping in to condemm is wrong. Always look before you leap and never be led by vested interests, like onesided media.

JustinDee

Sully wrote: »

They completely contradict their policies.

Yep, they sure do.
The clambering around for excuses and their moral relativist diversionary tactics (pointing at everyone else) from the TDs in question and their support is actually quite entertaining.

Nabbed. Suck it up and pay it back.

Laminations

daltonmd wrote: »

If I am "confused" about anything, I ask. That a law has to be changed for people to ask what the law actually means is just ridiculous in my opinion, as I said - whether they can go around the country or not and be paid is not really the issue - it's what they were doing, what they represent that's the issue.

Well while that's an issue I think the flagrant use of taxpayers money is also important. Regardless of what the rules say, they could say you can use taxpayers money to fix your toilet, a politician should ask 'is this something I should be charging to taxpayers'. Campaigning around the country on a party issue should be paid for out of party funds.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

Well my view is that you put yourself on a platform to fight those issues from within the system, not outside of it. If you want to fight the law, then you really should do it out of party funds - not taxpayers funds.

After all they represent a minority of people, not the majority. It is the Socialist party views that they represent not the entire country.

Who was paying for Phil Hogan's time when he was proposing this as a FG/Lab proposal?
Your position is not logical and impossible to legislate for. The simple sensible thing to do and what should have been done is make the regulation clear and introduce vouched expense claims. Remember, we only know of Brian Hayes flouting of the regs because he 'volunteered' the information. He has yet, to my knowledge, to publish his accounts in full.

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

Remember, we only know of Brian Hayes flouting of the regs because he 'volunteered' the information. He has yet, to my knowledge, to publish his accounts in full.

He flouts the regs but the others misunderstand? You can't be consistent to save your life.

Done with this.

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

He flouts the regs but the others misunderstand? You can't be consistent to save your life.

Done with this.

Yes, because he is only admitting it because he knows the aftermath is going to engulf him. I trust somebody who openly publishes their accounts before I trust somebody who owns up a year or two later because somebody else has been reprimanded. That's consistency.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

The POINT he was making that this is a NATIONAL issue and he is entitled to inform and support a sizable number of people in attempting to get a law changed. That is a perfectly consistent point of view for a TD and they all do it.

He is not campaigning to get the law changed - he is campaigning for people to break the law. This is the view of his party and as such any costs associated with this should be paid out of their own funds. Not taxpayers.

By the way, they "all do it" is no defence.


The same taxpayers money that can not be used by the government to take a particular stance on other "national issues", such as the recent referendum.

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is a huge difference between the 2 bolded words above. One is wrong and the other, in any normal working environment is excuseable. In our haste to change the way we are governed, we need to be reasonable. Jumping in to condemm is wrong. Always look before you leap and never be led by vested interests, like onesided media.

No there isn't any difference. A legislator is a legistlator, a law maker.

I'm not jumping to condemn anyone, I am not led by VI's in the media - I can make up my own mind and it is MY view that allowances designated for a specific purpose, should not be used by a party with one specific agends, that is not in the "national interest".

Property Tax was on the cards prior to FG/Labour coming into power, they were committed to bringing it in and people voted them in knowing this.

K-9

daltonmd wrote: »

Well my view is that you put yourself on a platform to fight those issues from within the system, not outside of it. If you want to fight the law, then you really should do it out of party funds - not taxpayers funds.

After all they represent a minority of people, not the majority. It is the Socialist party views that they represent not the entire country.

Well I suppose there is a difference between Hayes and Higgins actively campaigning against a Government tax. If it turns out that even Hayes was wrong in claiming for out of constituency expenses I'd say there'll be a lot of TD's paying money back! There seems to be a big difference in oversight of the system compared to the UK as far as I can see.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

He is not campaigning to get the law changed - he is campaigning for people to break the law. This is the view of his party and as such any costs associated with this should be paid out of their own funds. Not taxpayers.

By the way, they "all do it" is no defence.


The same taxpayers money that can not be used by the government to take a particular stance on other "national issues", such as the recent referendum.

Well let's wait and see how taxpayers money was spent by others, shall we? We have one senior government minister coming out and saying that he did it.

Property Tax was on the cards prior to FG/Labour coming into power, they were committed to bringing it in and people voted them in knowing this.

And a sizable amount of people elected left wing politicians on an anti-household tax platform. You are proposing tying their hands, that is an illogical stance.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who was paying for Phil Hogan's time when he was proposing this as a FG/Lab proposal?
Your position is not logical and impossible to legislate for. The simple sensible thing to do and what should have been done is make the regulation clear and introduce vouched expense claims. Remember, we only know of Brian Hayes flouting of the regs because he 'volunteered' the information. He has yet, to my knowledge, to publish his accounts in full.

The sensible thing to do is investigate first and the look for clarification and change.

Joe Higgins position is this:

I feel justified in using tax payers money to encourage people to break the law.

If I am proved wrong then I will repay it.

Now the difficulty I have with this, is as Laminations said - should they ever have even comtemplated using the allowance in the first place?

Should they not have said :

Should we use more taxpayers money in this way.

The 2 TD's give back 2/3rds of tapayers money to fund the party - should they not have used this money for their cause?


They shoul dlead by example, not follow the lead.

Now I had very little time for RBB, but he has gone up in my estimation because he didn't feel comfortable using taxpayers money in this way. He investigated it and chose not to make the claim.
This to me is practicing what you preach.
Joe is digging his heals in, instead of taking a step back, repaying the money, getting the clarification enforced and abiding by it in the future.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well let's wait and see how taxpayers money was spent by others, shall we? We have one senior government minister coming out and saying that he did it.

And a sizable amount of people elected left wing politicians on an anti-household tax platform. You are proposing tying their hands, that is an illogical stance.

Not a sizeable amount in fairness, a minority. And as for Brian Hayes, yes if he claimed the same expenses then of course he should repay it - but he didn;t campaign for people to actively break the law and that to me is the fundemental difference between them.

I held high hopes for the SP - I really thought they would change the way business was done, bring a conscience to the Dail. I am very disappointed at their stance in this.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

The sensible thing to do is investigate first and the look for clarification and change.

Joe Higgins position is this:

I feel justified in using tax payers money to encourage people to break the law.

If I am proved wrong then I will repay it.

Now the difficulty I have with this, is as Laminations said - should they ever have even comtemplated using the allowance in the first place?

Should they not have said :

Should we use more taxpayers money in this way.

The 2 TD's give back 2/3rds of tapayers money to fund the party - should they not have used this money for their cause?


They shoul dlead by example, not follow the lead.

Now I had very little time for RBB, but he has gone up in my estimation because he didn't feel comfortable using taxpayers money in this way. He investigated it and chose not to make the claim.
This to me is practicing what you preach.
Joe is digging his heals in, instead of taking a step back, repaying the money, getting the clarification enforced and abiding by it in the future.

This is ridiculous. You have made a moral decision about Higgin's stance on the Household charge and your opinion on taking the expenses is based on that. You can't do that, his stance on the charge is an entirely different matter.
You can only judge in the context of the expenses themselves. Which he has said, ad infinitum, that he used as he considered what he was doing part of his duties as an elected TD and that he will repay if it is found to be wrongful use.

Would you tie Brian Hayes hands in a similar way if it is found that he used his expenses to promote the charge or some similar policy?

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

Not a sizeable amount in fairness, a minority.

A sizeable amount of those liable for the charge!

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

This is ridiculous. You have made a moral decision about Higgin's stance on the Household charge and your opinion on taking the expenses is based on that. You can't do that, his stance on the charge is an entirely different matter.
You can only judge in the context of the expenses themselves. Which he has said, ad infinitum, that he used as he considered what he was doing part of his duties as an elected TD and that he will repay if it is found to be wrongful use.

Would you tie Brian Hayes hands in a similar way if it is found that he used his expenses to promote the charge or some similar policy?

And in the context of the expenses they were to be used for the purpose of going to and from work, there is a grey issue of whether TD's could claim them from going around the country on Dail matters, but they were never designed for one party to go around the country actively encouragng people to break the law.

That Joe Higgins chose not to seek this clarification, when another member of the same technical group chose to seek advice on the matter is where the question of morality comes into it.

By the way - he was elected as a TD in Dublin only.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

A sizeable amount of those liable for the charge!

Who voted FG/Labour in while knowing that the charge/property tax was coming in, in some form.

Jolly Red Giant

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Don't forget that the taxpayer pays pension contributions for the ULA shysters based on their full TD wage, and they will later receive a pension based on this wage. All aboard the gravy train!

Actually - you are WRONG again on this one - Socialist party representatives are not allowed to retain the Dail pension - and Clare Daly stated this publicly on tv last week. I'll repreat again - Socialist Party representatives are not allowed to make any financial gain from their political positions - be that from salary, expenses, pension, newspaper columns, tv appearances etc.

The political system in this country is the system of the ruling establishment - it is designed to maintain their rule, to operate in their interests and to ensure their political representatives toe the line. the establishment only tolerate the limited democracy we have as long as it suits their interests.

The Socialist Party and the ULA are intent on bringing down the entire edifice - on changing the system and putting power in the hands of ordinary working class people. We make no apology for attempting to do this and we will fight tooth and nail in the interests of working class people on this and every other issue.

Laminations wrote: »

Well they don't have the exclusive claim to these voters.

Never said they did - but the others are happy to pocket the salary and expenses and live the life of the richest 10%

Laminations wrote: »

For representatives of the common man they shouldn't really be standing by a tax cheat ex-millionaire developer who shafted his workers and doubled his salary as his company was failing and purposely evaded tax.

More bullsh*t - the Socialist Party has rightly condemned the actions of Mick Wallace and are the only party demanding that he pay every penny of tax owed.

Laminations wrote: »

This expenses issue is the latest example of them being typical politicians, look after your own and fleece the system. Calling for regulation reform is the right thing to do but abusing the system until it happens is wrong.

The 'expenses issue' is a political witchhunt in an attempt to undermine the campaign against household and water taxes by a tax-dodging exile who has a vested financial interest in defeating the campaign. Joe Higgins, Clare Daly and Joan Collins did not and have not abused the system - they have made absolutely no financial gain from these expenses. The real issue is that the political establishment are p*ssed that someone dares to stand up to their dictats and assist local communities in fighting an unfair tax. It is notable that the FG/LP/FF Ministers and backbenchers have been so quiet on this issue - they know that the Indo has opened up a hornets nest and they know when the dust settles that they will be far more damaged than all the efforts being heaped on the left.

Laminations wrote: »

they never stopped to ask themselves 'wait is it really right for us to use tax payers money for this?'

It was absolutely a correct use of these expenses that is what they are there for.

yore wrote: »

(They should be looking for the median, not the average if they want to be on a par with the "average person", but however).

The left are criticised because they want TDs salaries reduced - they live on the AIW - and now you have the temerity to come out with this nonsense

yore wrote: »

All TD's get paid far more than the AIW. And I'm sure that every TD will incur expenses in order to keep their standing in the local community or get their name about. That might be small things like buying tickets for the local GAA car raffle or expenses on attended whatever local function to be seen. Most don't get to write it off as pseudo expenses - which is what the SP do by claiming their full wages and "writing off" the portion they put towards their own party in order to increase their election chances.

The politicians of the establishment get large amounts of money from big business to run their election campaigns (€3million undeclared by FG in the last election) - as well as large amounts of coverage in the so called 'independent' media. Socialist Party representatives donate the legally permitted amount to the Socialist Party and are open about that fact - the Socialist Party actually had the highest amount of personal donations declared last year which shows how the establihsment are fiddling the system. Establishment TDs have for decades and continue to pocket large amounts of unvouched for expenses and have been known on occasions to use bogus receipts as well - all to line their own pockets.

daltonmd wrote: »

He said if the legal advice that they took advice and it was shown that the money should not have been used for that purpose then he would repay it - they did as he asked and he's not repaying it.

The Commission refused to meet the ULA before they made their ruling and the Commission have failed to furnish the legal advice they received. This is a political manoeuvre in order not to drag the establishment's ministers and TDs into the hornet's nest = but that is not going to happen. If the Commission are intent on ruling on the use of expenses then the Socialist Party will insist that they rule on all allowances and expenses that exist and we will see who will suffer from the fall-out.

daltonmd wrote: »

That shows an absolute lack of respect for taxpayers money -

The lack of respect for taxpayers money was handing over €1.5billion to bondholders last week when you said before the election 'not a penny more'

daltonmd wrote: »

it really is saying "we will use it for whatever we want and if we are wrong then prove us wrong"

Bullsh*t - they used the expenses for doing the job they were elected to do - fight austerity.

daltonmd wrote: »

If there was confusion then why didn't Joe Higgins check it out BEFORE claiming it?

There was no confusion - the use of expenses in this fashion was absolutely legitimate - the ruling yesterday is an indictment of the parish pump nature of Irish politics and a pocket-lining exercise for establishment TDs - who the heel needs €28K+ a year to travel 25Km to and from work. The latest published figures are from May and only three TDs in the Dail had claimed less expenses than Joe Higgins and Clare Daly.

Laminations wrote: »

You'd be happy with opposition TDs using taxpayers money to give clinics to the rich in how to evade a wealth tax?

they have accountants and solicitors for that - and have been assisted by banks (remember- the same bunch we are bailing out to the tune of €64billion) - and when the get caught sure the government will just create a tax amnesty.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

That Joe Higgins chose not to seek this clarification, when another member of the same technical group chose to seek advice on the matter is where the question of morality comes into it.

We now have representatives across the Dail in some confusion as to how the rule works in practice. To misunderstand what is obviously confusing (RBB did have to seek clarification after all) legislation is unfortunate but it is not immoral. As I said earlier, be reasonable, this is a democracy.

Laminations

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

More bullsh*t - the Socialist Party has rightly condemned the actions of Mick Wallace and are the only party demanding that he pay every penny of tax owed.

Empty demands, he cant pay it back, you may as well demand he flies. How about demanding a criminal investigation or demanding his banks force him into bankruptcy so he loses his Dail seat. Do you think he is (note I'm not asking about other TDs so please don't deflect) sufficient calibre to sit in the Dail, being a tax cheat? Does he meet the socialists standards. If not why aren't you demanding his resignation?

they have accountants and solicitors for that - and have been assisted by banks (remember- the same bunch we are bailing out to the tune of €64billion)

That wasn't the question. Would you be happy with TDs spending tax payers money supporting the rich in evading a wealth tax, a tax the right wing could logically argue they are morally against?

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

Who voted FG/Labour in while knowing that the charge/property tax was coming in, in some form.

I think a sizable amount of people are 'disappointed' with how the current incumbents have implemented their election promises, across the board.

Do the maths, a sizable amount of those liable for the household charge are against it.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

We now have representatives across the Dail in some confusion as to how the rule works in practice. To misunderstand what is obviously confusing (RBB did have to seek clarification after all) legislation is unfortunate but it is not immoral. As I said earlier, be reasonable, this is a democracy.

But he asked and he received the answer as to what the allowance should be used for.

It is a democracy, I think Joe should be made aware of that so.

daltonmd

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There was no confusion - the use of expenses in this fashion was absolutely legitimate - the ruling yesterday is an indictment of the parish pump nature of Irish politics and a pocket-lining exercise for establishment TDs - who the heel needs €28K+ a year to travel 25Km to and from work. The latest published figures are from May and only three TDs in the Dail had claimed less expenses than Joe Higgins and Clare Daly.

No it wasn't - as RBB discovered when he queried it.

As for "they live on the AIW" - No, they do not, because people on the AIW cannot claim 23k per year expenses, as did Claire Daly. People on the "AIW" don't get any money to get themselves to and from work, they don't get paid for the food that they eat during lunch - this notion that they live the same as ordinary people is just beyond a joke at this stage.

murphaph

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

More bullsh*t - the Socialist Party has rightly condemned the actions of Mick Wallace and are the only party demanding that he pay every penny of tax owed.

He's a member of your technical group though, so you stand shoulder to shoulder with him regardless.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

But he asked and he received the answer as to what the allowance should be used for.

And the people RBB asked subsequently passed Joe's accounts. Confused? :rolleyes:

It is a democracy, I think Joe should be made aware of that so.

Well, he's one step ahead of our govenors...he publishes his accounts for all to see.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think a sizable amount of people are 'disappointed' with how the current incumbents have implemented their election promises, across the board.

Do the maths, a sizable amount of those liable for the household charge are against it.

But that sizable amount elected in FG/Labour who did not say there would be no property tax, it was coming in, in some form. Their hands were tied to this, admittedly by the previous government. But it was still there.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

But that sizable amount elected in FG/Labour

How do you know that the people who oppose the charge voted for FG/Lab? Source

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

And the people RBB asked subsequently passed Joe's accounts. Confused? :rolleyes:


Well, he's one step ahead of our govenors...he publishes his accounts for all to see.

Because they are unvoched - not verified.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

How do you know that the people who oppose the charge voted for FG/Lab? Source

It stands to reason with the result of the election. You said yourself that a sizable amount of people are disappointed with how the incumbents have implemented their election promises.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

It stands to reason with the result of the election. You said yourself that a sizable amount of people are disappointed with how the incumbents have implemented their election promises.

Wot?

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

Wot?

I think I made myself very clear.

You yourself have stated that this is "a national issue" - yet the SP only received 2 seats in Dublin.

The claims in question relate to expenses for travelling around the country on this "national issue".

According to Joe himself half of the 1.8 million households liable for the charge have not paid it. I have posted the full election results in an earlier post and they don't amount to 900k people.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

I think I made myself very clear.

You yourself have stated that this is "a national issue" - yet the SP only received 2 seats in Dublin.

The claims in question relate to expenses for travelling around the country on this "national issue".

Wow!!!!!! Now I'm confused. Let me get something straight here.

Are you saying that a TD should only be paid by the tax payer for dealing with stuff pertinent to his/her constituency?

Jolly Red Giant

Laminations wrote: »

Empty demands, he cant pay it back, you may as well demand he flies.

He could pay back a substantial amount of it if all the assets from other companies he and his family own were used to pay the tax - but the establishment reject changing the law to facilitate this - plus he could contribute more from his Dail salary than he is proposing.

Laminations wrote: »

How about demanding a criminal investigation or demanding his banks force him into bankruptcy so he loses his Dail seat.

I am opposed to the bankruptcy rule in relation to TDs - this rule has been used in the past in a politically motivated witch-hunt to remove a TD from the Dail. In the same way that I am opposed to the six months in jail rule for the same reason - politically motivated cases can be used to remove political opponents. This is also the position of the Socialist Party.

Laminations wrote: »

Do you think he is (note I'm not asking about other TDs so please don't deflect) sufficient calibre to sit in the Dail, being a tax cheat?

Well - who are you comparing Wallace with - the two LP ministers who over the past couple of days on national tv admitted that they lied to the electorate during the last general election campaign - or the FG minister who said 'not a penny more' and promptly turned around and broke his promise - or the government who are handing over €billions every few weeks to unsecured bondholders?

Wallace is a tax-cheat but he is no more a cheat than FG were when they were dodging paying tax or Michael Lowry was when he was taking large sums of money from Denis O'Brien or Charlie McCreevy was when he cut CGT in half a few days before Denis O'Brien sold ESAT.

Laminations wrote: »

Does he meet the socialists standards.

Of course not - Wallace is a property developer and a tax cheat. The ULA ran a candidate against him in the last election in Wexford and will do so again next time out.

Laminations wrote: »

If not why aren't you demanding his resignation?

Wallace was elected by the people of Wexford - they are the ones who should decide whether he stays or goes - not the howling of the Independent or the Daily Mail and not the political establishment. If the political establishment were interested in ensuring democracy is promoted then they would support the Socialist Party / ULA proposals for the implementation of a recall system for all elected representatives - but not surprisingly they won't do that because it would threaten their power.

Laminations wrote: »

Would you be happy with TDs spending tax payers money supporting the rich in evading a wealth tax, a tax the right wing could logically argue they are morally against?

The right-wing will use every means at their disposal to defend the interests of the wealthy including taxpayers money - it is the nature of politics in a capitalist society. This has absolutely nothing to do with morals - the morals of the ruling elites are not my morals - it has to do with power and control. The establishment have the power and they will use every means at their disposal to defend it - up to and including dispensing with demoncracy if they feel it necessary. Looking through some morally reflective rose-tinted glasses does not relate to the political realities in this country and the measures the establishment through their control of the political system, the economic system, the media etc etc use to maintain that power.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

Wow!!!!!! Now I'm confused. Let me get something straight here.

Are you saying that a TD should only be paid by the tax payer for dealing with stuff pertinent to his/her constituency?

I'm not sure where your confusion lies - you asked me a question and I answered.

You said firstly:

"And a sizable amount of people elected left wing politicians on an anti-household tax platform"

I answered:

"But that sizable amount elected in FG/Labour"

I already posted the election results and it is clear that they received the most support in Dublin, not around the country, so they weren't nationally supported in their anti household charge campaign.

You then asked:

"How do you know that the people who oppose the charge voted for FG/Lab? Source"

And I answered: That the election results spoke for themselves.


Joe Higgins is going around the country on an issue that wasn't a national one - it is HIS party's issue, and using taxpayers money to encourage people to now break the law is wrong.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

I'm not sure where your confusion lies - you asked me a question and I answered.

You said firstly:

"And a sizable amount of people elected left wing politicians on an anti-household tax platform"

I answered:

"But that sizable amount elected in FG/Labour"

I already posted the election results and it is clear that they received the most support in Dublin, not around the country, so they weren't nationally supported in their anti household charge campaign.

You then asked:

"How do you know that the people who oppose the charge voted for FG/Lab? Source"

And I answered: That the election results spoke for themselves.


Joe Higgins is going around the country on an issue that wasn't a national one - it is HIS party's issue, and using taxpayers money to encourage people to now break the law is wrong.

Please answer this question first;

Are you saying that a TD should only be paid by the tax payer for dealing with stuff pertinent to his/her constituency?