Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, and Joan Collins misuse expenses

daltonmd

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.

I'm glad you brought up David Norris.

He first started campaigning in the 70's, he took the AG to the high court in 1980 where he lost, in 1983 he appealed to the supreme court and again lost.

He wasn't elected to public office until 1987.

After he was elected he went to the Human Court of Human Rights where it was found that the law contradicted the European Convention on human rights.

The law was repealed in 1993.

At all times David Norris took the cases as a "citizen" not as a politician and was awarded HIS costs. He did not use taxpayers money to fight his single issue.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

Please answer this question first;

Well answer me this first:

Should all TD's be allowed to use taxpayers money to promote whatever issues they see fit, even if it involves breaking the law?

Should Mattie McGrath and Jackie Healy Ray been allowed to use taxpayers money to travel around the country and actively campaign and encourage people to continue drinking and driving, break and ignore the new drink - driving laws that came in 2009/10?

Should Luke Flanagan be allowed to campaign up and down the country for his bog fight and be paid from the public purse?

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

Well answer me this first:

Should all TD's be allowed to use taxpayers money to promote whatever issues they see fit, even if it involves breaking the law?

As long as they are prepared to take whatever consequences accrue, I think democracy can cope with this stance, in this instance.

Should Mattie McGrath and Jackie Healy Ray been allowed to use taxpayers money to travel around the country and actively campaign and encourage people to continue drinking and driving, break and ignore the new drink - driving laws that came in 2009/10?

As there is a threat to innocent life in taking this stance then I think that would be wrong. MMcG and H-R agree as they never took that stance.

Should Luke Flanagan be allowed to campaign up and down the country for his bog fight and be paid from the public purse?

Yes, as he was mandated by those who voted for him to do that.

I see nothing wrong with civil disobedience if people are making a conscientious objection to something.

yore

Ivor Callelly must be pis$ed that he didn't think of claiming that he was fighting against austerity in Cork....he'd have gotten a lot of support here

He could have just said he was "mandated" for whatever!

Happyman42

yore wrote: »

Ivor Callelly must be pis$ed that he didn't think of claiming that he was fighting against austerity in Cork....he'd have gotten a lot of support here

He could have just said he was "mandated" for whatever!

No, he couldn't.


btw, for the record, I don't agree with Higgins, Daly or Collins, but they have every right to fulfil their mandates. to attempt to deny them on silly biased condemnation rants and slanted media campaigns is anti-democracy imo.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

As long as they are prepared to take whatever consequences accrue, I think democracy can cope with this stance, in this instance.

So you agree that TD's can go around campaigning for what they want, even if it entails encouraging people to break the law?

Happyman42 wrote: »

As there is a threat to innocent life in taking this stance then I think that would be wrong. MMcG and H-R agree as they never took that stance.

So you don't agree? You see you cannot pick and choose the laws you break. That's not the way it works.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, as he was mandated by those who voted for him to do that.

In Dublin only. His party was rejected everywhere else - so he is not "supporting" people around the country, he is actively drumming up support and encouraging people to break the law - a law that his party disagrees with but is using taxpayers money to do it.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with civil disobedience if people are making a conscientious objection to something.

I see no problem with that either. And I'll give those who firmly stand behind their beliefs one thing- at least they pay for their own petrol to get to these rallies.

Means Of Escape

The abuse of expenses allowances has got to stop.If the TDs salaries were capped at 70k a year and all expenses had to be vouched and vetted by a company employed to make sure that money is not wasted on junkets .TDS who are expected to be in the Dail and don't show up because of "constituency" business should have their appearance fee at the Dail docked.
We had the farce not too long ago where a Fine Gael TD and his wife claimed hotel expenses and stayed in separate rooms and claimed for both rooms on numerous occasions.
All false expenses declared should be docked from the salaries of the offending TD.
How many people would go for election if there was a maximum payment for an elected member of state?
A Kerry TD amassed a small fortune on expenses and at tomes didn't even show up for work in the Dail.
Needs to be tightened up and fast.People have had enough.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

So you agree that TD's can go around campaigning for what they want, even if it entails encouraging people to break the law?

A TD has to be responsible, as we do. In this instance Joe Higgins is supporting people who are not paying their household charge. I don't have a problem with that.

So you don't agree? You see you cannot pick and choose the laws you break. That's not the way it works.

Yes you can, if you are prepared to take the consequences. You can have whatever opinion you want on that, that is your right.

In Dublin only. His party was rejected everywhere else - so he is not "supporting" people around the country, he is actively drumming up support and encouraging people to break the law - a law that his party disagrees with but is using taxpayers money to do it.

Are SP members restricted to Dublin? There are no Lab party representatives in my constituency, the candidate lost by 90 odd votes....are the 4 to 5 thousand Labour supporters not allowed representation in the Dail? Are you serious?



Now, can you answer my question please.

Jolly Red Giant

me bolly wrote: »

TDS who are expected to be in the Dail and don't show up because of "constituency" business should have their appearance fee at the Dail docked.

There is actaully a long list of mainly government TDs who signed in for their Dail attandance allowance and then missed votes in the Dail chamber. Tom Hayes is an example - missing 10 votes out of 24 he was signed in for in the first two months after last year's election.

Jolly Red Giant

daltonmd wrote: »

Joe Higgins is going around the country on an issue that wasn't a national one

750,000+ households boycotting an unjust tax is not a national issue - what the hell is? - opening a pub for a local party supporter maybe? :rolleyes:

Min

Joe Higgins and co used tax payers money in his bid to get people to break the law.
As a taxpayer I think this is a digraceful waste of taxpayer money.

Where will he be when the people who choose to break the law are finding the €100 plus penalties has become a €2,500 fine?

People may not like the law, if anyone wants someone else to break the law they should not be using taxpayers money to do it.

Jolly Red Giant

Min wrote: »

Joe Higgins and co used tax payers money in his bid to get people to break the law.
As a taxpayer I think this is a digraceful waste of taxpayer money.

Where will he be when the people who choose to break the law are finding the €100 plus penalties has become a €2,500 fine?

People may not like the law, if anyone wants someone else to break the law they should not be using taxpayers money to do it.

Better to break the law than break the poor -

FG/LP/IMF/ECB want to screw ordinary households to bailout banks, bondholders, spivs and speculators while letting the super-rich off without paying a penny.

And 750,000+ households in the country agree with him.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

A TD has to be responsible, as we do. In this instance Joe Higgins is supporting people who are not paying their household charge. I don't have a problem with that.

Fine, then let him do it on his own buck.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes you can, if you are prepared to take the consequences. You can have whatever opinion you want on that, that is your right.

Fine, but fund yourself from your own pocket.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are SP members restricted to Dublin? There are no Lab party representatives in my constituency, the candidate lost by 90 odd votes....are the 4 to 5 thousand Labour supporters not allowed representation in the Dail? Are you serious?

Sorry, but you seem to have this habit of taking what you see form my responses, turning them into my answers and then disagreeing with the answer that I never gave you in the first place.

You said: "Yes, as he was mandated by those who voted for him to do that."

And I said - In Dublin only. He was mandated in Dublin for his Anti - household charge campaign. So his campaign is not on behalf if the electorate around the country - who rejected his party and who have other elected representives to fight on their behalf.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Now, can you answer my question please.

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

I don't think they should nationally campaign on an issue that encourages people to break the law and take the cost of this from the taxpayers purse.

This is a party issue first and foremostly and if that party wants to continue campaigning on an issue that has been decided, that is now law then they should fund themselves.

As an aside. You agree that the taxpayer should fund any campaign regardless of whether or not it blatantly breaks the law yes?

daltonmd

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

750,000+ households boycotting an unjust tax is not a national issue - what the hell is? - opening a pub for a local party supporter maybe? :rolleyes:

750,000 + households did not vote for the SP. the majority of them voted in the present government.

daltonmd

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Better to break the law than break the poor -

FG/LP/IMF/ECB want to screw ordinary households to bailout banks, bondholders, spivs and speculators while letting the super-rich off without paying a penny.

And 750,000+ households in the country agree with him.

So they don't want the rich to pay property taxes?

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

Fine, then let him do it on his own buck.

He will, now that the legislation is clear, he never said anything different.

Sorry, but you seem to have this habit of taking what you see form my responses, turning them into my answers and then disagreeing with the answer that I never gave you in the first place.

You said: "Yes, as he was mandated by those who voted for him to do that."

And I said - In Dublin only. He was mandated in Dublin for his Anti - household charge campaign. So his campaign is not on behalf if the electorate around the country - who rejected his party and who have other elected representives to fight on their behalf.

You are missing the point and being ridiculous.

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

I don't think they should nationally campaign on an issue that encourages people to break the law and take the cost of this from the taxpayers purse.

This is a party issue first and foremostly and if that party wants to continue campaigning on an issue that has been decided, that is now law then they should fund themselves.

Answer the question, not your version of it and without your moral interpretation of his actions. Forget about this campaign if it helps. Answer it in a general sense.

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

Am Chile

daltonmd wrote: »

750,000 + households did not vote for the SP. the majority of them voted in the present government.

Based on a heap of lies and false empty promises- as admitted by pat rabbitte on vincent brown tuesday night and ruairi quinn on labours way on rte they knew they were making promises more then likely they mightn,t keep, but hey as long as they get peoples votes that,s all that matters.same goes for fine gael and their broken promises of not one more red cent to the banks/bondholders, not to close to roscommon accident and emergency. some people were naive enough to beleive they were voting for change when they beleived their promises.

Happyman42

Am Chile wrote: »

Based on a heap of lies and false empty promises- as admitted by pat rabbitte on vincent brown tuesday night and ruairi quinn on labours way on rte they knew they were making promises more then likely they mightn,t keep, but hey as long as they get peoples votes that,s all that matters.same goes for fine gael and their broken promises of not one more red cent to the banks/bondholders, not to close to roscommon accident and emergency. some people were naive enough to beleive they were voting for change when they beleived their promises.

And now the right wing will attempt to remove representation for those bearing the brunt. Quelle suprise!

sarumite

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Better to break the law than break the poor -

So property owners are now "the poor" and a €100 charge would break them?

Am Chile

sarumite wrote: »

So property owners are now "the poor" and a €100 charge would break them?

Buts it not about the €100, most of us are Intelligent enough to realeaze this is a gateway tax, once they have your details, bam the door is wide open for high property taxes/high water charges and whatever other taxes they might be considering-and will peoples ability and means to pay be taken into account for next years property tax ?

Jolly Red Giant

daltonmd wrote: »

750,000 + households did not vote for the SP. the majority of them voted in the present government.

Let the government call an election and we will see how many votes they will get now.

daltonmd wrote: »

So they don't want the rich to pay property taxes?

property taxes - like all taxes - should be based on the ability to pay - and the richest 10% have the ability to pay.

Furthermore - a property tax should not be levied on the family home.

Happyman42

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Let the government call an election and we will see how many votes they will get now.


property taxes - like all taxes - should be based on the ability to pay - and the richest 10% have the ability to pay.

Furthermore - a property tax should not be levied on the family home.

Thread is not about the property tax or the morals of supporting ot not supporting any political policy.

sarumite

Am Chile wrote: »

Buts it not about the €100, most of us are Intelligent enough to realeaze this is a gateway tax, once they have your details, bam the door is wide open for high property taxes/high water charges and whatever other taxes they might be considering-and will peoples ability and means to pay be taken into account for next years property tax ?

They have started sending out letters to households.... so it would appear that they have your details anyway.

Are peoples means or ability to pay taken into account for income tax? prsi? motor tax?

sarumite

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

property taxes - like all taxes - should be based on the ability to pay - and the richest 10% have the ability to pay.

Furthermore - a property tax should not be levied on the family home.

How do you measure a persons ability to pay?

Am Chile

sarumite wrote: »

They have started sending out letters to households.... so it would appear that they have your details anyway.

Are peoples means or ability to pay taken into account for income tax? prsi? motor tax?

Getting someones name off a esb/utility bill does not prove ownership.

K-9

southsiderosie wrote: »

MOD NOTE:

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

Just a reminder of the previous mod warning. This isn't a thread to discuss the success or workings of the household charge, we already have one on the board for that. Keep the thread on topic which is about expenses claimed outside their constituencies and travel to the Dail. Obviously the campaign is central to that but not the workings or success of it, otherwise we'll be posting about Phil Hogan next!

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

otherwise we'll be posting about Phil Hogan next!

oh yeh! I remember him, big grumpy fella with glasses?

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

He will, now that the legislation is clear, he never said anything different.

It was clear to RBB. Or at the very least vague enough to force him to check it out.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are missing the point and being ridiculous.

Sorry? Please don't accuse me of being ridiculous, if you can't discuss the matter in a civil manner then maybe don't discuss it.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Answer the question, not your version of it and without your moral interpretation of his actions. Forget about this campaign if it helps. Answer it in a general sense.

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

Sorry again, but your answer to me was your version and your moral interpretation of the actions of other TD's.

Here's a reminder of that question:
Should all TD's be allowed to use taxpayers money to promote whatever issues they see fit, even if it involves breaking the law?

Your "answer":

"As long as they are prepared to take whatever consequences accrue, I think democracy can cope with this stance, in this instance."

You were then given an example and said:

"As there is a threat to innocent life in taking this stance then I think that would be wrong. MMcG and H-R agree as they never took that stance."

And finally:

Should Luke Flanagan be allowed to campaign up and down the country for his bog fight and be paid from the public purse?


"Yes, as he was mandated by those who voted for him to do that."


So what is your answer? Yes or no? If that's what you expect from me, then you can give me the courtesy of the same answer.

daltonmd

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Let the government call an election and we will see how many votes they will get now.

You think they'll win more seats? Really? I doubt it.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Let property taxes - like all taxes - should be based on the ability to pay - and the richest 10% have the ability to pay.

I reckon they will be. There may be exemptions for those who paid stamp duty in the past few years, there may be exemtions for those unable to pay. But isn;t the best way to fight for these at the table?

The richest 10% may have the ability to pay, but they don't own 90% of property.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Let Furthermore - a property tax should not be levied on the family home.

Well, unfortunately that option is not available to us, regardless of what you say about bondholders the state needs to have a steady stream of cash coming in - as they had during the boom that was only reliable as long as we had a boom.

yore

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

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.

You seem to know what you are talking about man so I'll ask you to explain something to me. The SP TDs get wages of say 90K; they claim to donate most of this to their party. But isn't there a limit of something like 5k for personal donations?
Also this bit

fact - the Socialist Party actually had the highest amount of personal donations declared last year which shows how the establihsment are fiddling the system.

has absolutely no logic or sense to it at all. That kind of rhetoric and bluster works on the lowest common denominator. It sounds great, but the majority of people will realise it's total crap and that's why the SP and their ilk will always have a ceiling as to their popularity.

yore

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, he couldn't.


btw, for the record, I don't agree with Higgins, Daly or Collins, but they have every right to fulfil their mandates. to attempt to deny them on silly biased condemnation rants and slanted media campaigns is anti-democracy imo.

Why not? I'm not saying he should have been allowed to claim that, but the argument (in relation to his travel expenses) would have been the same as being used by the ULA expense scammers. Every politician has at lest a few general all-purpose statements such as "increasing equality" etc. Instead of claiming he was living in Cork and travelling to the Dail, he could have claimed expenses for living in Dublin and travelling to Cork to fulfill his "mandate" . If you allow for one, then you have to allow for all. Not just the ones whose policies you agree with.

I'm not sticking up for him, I'm just pointing out that he, or any other TD, could try the same excuse to expense any travel once you allow that reason to be used. How would the ULA supporters react if they found out that FF TDs had been using their constituency expenses to pay for their travel, accommodation and entrance tickets to the Galway races tent! Because they could just as easily say they were using it to "fulfill their mandate".

Everyone who gets elected has a "mandate". I'd like to see evidence of the ULA election material where they explicitly proposed travelling around the country to other constituencies and helping those people (rather than the people in their own constituencies) as a main component.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

It was clear to RBB. Or at the very least vague enough to force him to check it out.



Sorry? Please don't accuse me of being ridiculous, if you can't discuss the matter in a civil manner then maybe don't discuss it.






Sorry again, but your answer to me was your version and your moral interpretation of the actions of other TD's.

Here's a reminder of that question:
Should all TD's be allowed to use taxpayers money to promote whatever issues they see fit, even if it involves breaking the law?

Your "answer":

"As long as they are prepared to take whatever consequences accrue, I think democracy can cope with this stance, in this instance."

You were then given an example and said:

"As there is a threat to innocent life in taking this stance then I think that would be wrong. MMcG and H-R agree as they never took that stance."

And finally:

Should Luke Flanagan be allowed to campaign up and down the country for his bog fight and be paid from the public purse?


"Yes, as he was mandated by those who voted for him to do that."


So what is your answer? Yes or no? If that's what you expect from me, then you can give me the courtesy of the same answer.

Anything to avoid the question I suppose.....but anyway, here goes again.....

Should all TD's be allowed to use taxpayers money to promote whatever issues they see fit, even if it involves breaking the law?

It depends on what the issue is. There is no yes or no answer. The world isn't black and white.
A campaign of civil disobediance might come to my rescue one day or to the rescue of my conscience and I would be loathe to prevent others right to do it.
In relation to something that is intriniscally wrong like drink driving or sexual liberities like legalising paedophila or issues of that nature then the answer is no.
I haven't a notion what the issues with the bogs are but I have no problem with Ming representing a large body of affected people if he sees fit.
Understanding of course that everybody is RESPONSIBLE for their actions.

Every day life is complicated, why would you expect politics to be different.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

Anything to avoid the question I suppose.....but anyway, here goes again.....

Should all TD's be allowed to use taxpayers money to promote whatever issues they see fit, even if it involves breaking the law?

It depends on what the issue is. There is no yes or no answer. The world isn't black and white.
A campaign of civil disobediance might come to my rescue one day or to the rescue of my conscience and I would be loathe to prevent others right to do it.
In relation to something that is intriniscally wrong like drink driving or sexual liberities like legalising paedophila or issues of that nature then the answer is no.
I haven't a notion what the issues with the bogs are but I have no problem with Ming representing a large body of affected people if he sees fit.
Understanding of course that everybody is RESPONSIBLE for their actions.

Every day life is complicated, why would you expect politics to be different.

No I don't expect politics to be any different and you have actually proved my own point and that is that you (or I) cannot answer that question with a yes or no - because it can vary.

You are trying to pin me down on for a definitve answer - when you have clearly pointed out that it's not that black & White.


I am also abit taken aback by the claims from the SP about the medias role in this.

This whole debacle started AFTER Claire Daly clarified to VB how she accrued the expenses, he was taken aback as he clearly understood that the allowances were for a different purpose.

After this the Oireactas investigated it - so the newspapers reported on the issue rather than "exposing it".

Her "defence" on the night - "that is the system". The system that they want to change?

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

No I don't expect politics to be any different and you have actually proved my own point and that is that you (or I) cannot answer that question with a yes or no - because it can vary.

You are trying to pin me down on for a definitve answer - when you have clearly pointed out that it's not that black & White.

Answer me question......pleeeeeese. :rolleyes:

Sully

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

What's quite amusing is that the OP is a shill for Paudie Coffey TD. A TD who has claimed nearly twice the amount of expenses as Joe Higgins has, but chooses to claim them under the 'unvouched' system, so no one knows exactly what Coffey has spent taxpayers money he's claimed back on.

This contrasts nicely to Joe Higgins who at least declares all his expenses publicly.

Where's the outrage Sully? why aren't you giving out about your man taking advantage of the ridiculous 'unvouched' expenses system? where's your outrage about the political party which you're a member of having 2 TDs in your constituency who claim expenses in a manner which can easily be abused?

It's not like the FG organisation in Waterford can exactly claim to be whiter then white given recent headlines.....

Well firstly, its old news. This topic is all about Joe, Clare and Joan who claim to represent the working people but whom are able to go around claiming additional expenses for work outside their constituency, and also for the promotion of an illegal activity. If we had a thread about some controversy in relation to members of a party which I support, I wont be hiding from it.

Secondly, I have openly criticised the expenses system in the Dail and Senate. The options that are there are excessive and open to abuse - as shown here. I firmly believe that this is one key area in political reform and I do not believe the party is taking it as a high priority. It is my intention to try seek a motion on the matter at the next available opportunity. Sadly, I have no active Fine Gael branch in my area.

yore wrote: »

I had to google coffey's name. It tells me he's a TD for Waterford. You can't claim that expenses from Waterford should be the same as someone from West Dublin!

If this Coffey fella had been pontificating about these types of abuses, I'd say that you'd have a point in showing his hypocracy. Maybe he has; feel free to point me to examples. I don't think know if he has because as I said, I'd never heard of him or ever seen him on nightly TV panel shows shouting rhetorical crap.

The expenses in question were not specifically travel related.

QUOTE=Am Chile;79559660]The Senate sat for only 98 days last year but average expenses for the Waterford senators were from €48,000 for Paudie Coffey

http://www.munster-express.ie/local-news/waterford-senators%E2%80%99-expenses/

I've seen paudie coffey in action and heard in him in debates, he has a habit of constantly Interupting people, paudie in action in this debate bashing peoples right to join a trade union. 3.50 into the video.

[/QUOTE]

Indeed I couldn't agree more that the expenses were extremely high. Again, I repeat that the reforms given to the expenses do not go far enough and more accountability and strict control over them needs to be brought in as part of political reform.

The difference here between you and I is that I will happily stand up and criticise the expenses incurred of a party/TD I support. I wont start long rambling posts dodging the question, or trying to create long winded arguments to justify it or trying to drag in other posters parties to shine the spotlight as far away from the people you support.

However, you cannot say that Paudie Coffey claimed expenses inappropriately by breaching the rules he has to obey. Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, and Joan Collins misused the expenses system and did not obey the rules. The expenses they claimed were never supposed to be used in the way they used them. While its on the topic of expenses, they are polar opposites on the crust of the issue.

Joe etc. immediate response is to blame the media, blame everyone else and not just simple say "If I have made a mistake, I apologise to the people of Ireland and I will do my best to rectify it". Sinn Fein blamed the Oireachtas (its their fault they were allowed claim so much, according to Mary Lou on the Ink Gate scandal). Both these parties claim to represent the working class. The working class do not have the luxury of super wages, super expenses, super bonuses for committees and leaders allowances, and super pensions which their representatives go around claiming and abusing. They elected people to fight for the lower paid - but they elected people who do the exact things they don't like.

Would Joe, Clare and Joan continue to go around the country pushing their agenda if they thought they would be caught out and told to pay it back? If they knew that they wouldn't get away and would actually be out of pocket- would they do it?

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

Answer me question......pleeeeeese. :rolleyes:

lol, Happyman, I have answered it. You yourself cannot give a definitive answer to basically the same question. You have stated that it's not black & white and I agree with that.

But to get to the nub of the issue - I do not agree that any TD, regardless of the issue, should go around the country, inciting, encouraging or supporting people to break the law. I'm sorry, but that does not wash with me. No TD, no legislator who sits in a democratically elected dail, that has democratically voted to bring in a property tax as law should, number one, do this in the first instance and number two, fund it from the public purse.

We cannot pick and choose which laws we feel justified in breaking. If we disagree with the law then we fight it in a legal manner on the relevant and available platforms.

In the next election people can show their disapproval by voting this government out of office. They can then choose to believe the next crowd when they say - we won't raise taxes/cut welfare/cut PS pay/bring in a property tax. All the while the country remains up the creek.

There is no silver bullet to fix the problem - and I am not anti-left, I beleive they are a much needed voice - but they have made a fatal mistake by going by the system, the same system where they demand change.

They say - expenses should be cut, TD's wages should be cut - yet they interpret the rules to their advantage - because that is the system.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

lol, Happyman, I have answered it. You yourself cannot give a definitive answer to basically the same question. You have stated that it's not black & white and I agree with that.

But to get to the nub of the issue - I do not agree that any TD, regardless of the issue, should go around the country, inciting, encouraging or supporting people to break the law. I'm sorry, but that does not wash with me. No TD, no legislator who sits in a democratically elected dail, that has democratically voted to bring in a property tax as law should, number one, do this in the first instance and number two, fund it from the public purse.

That's utterly unworkable and tantamount to a dictatorship. You are giving carte blanche to dictators.
Wouldn't it be great if Enda thought that would be the way no matter what auterity he introduced.
As I said, I, like all the other non payers, have no problem with campaigns of civil dis-obedience. I am a citizen, I deserve representation.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's utterly unworkable and tantamount to a dictatorship. You are giving carte blanche to dictators.
Wouldn't it be great if Enda thought that would be the way no matter what auterity he introduced.
As I said, I, like all the other non payers, have no problem with campaigns of civil dis-obedience. I am a citizen, I deserve representation.

You have representation. Just not enough to vote down the property tax issue.

It's not a dictatorship - Enda is not acting alone, he has the majority of support in the Dail, these were democratically voted in by the electorate. Now they may take issue with his turnaround on issues - but they chose to vote for the party that made empty promises, much like FF did in the 2007 election.

I didn't vote for them - for me the notion that given the state of the economy that anyone believed the no taxes would be raised/no PS wages cut/no SW cut/ no property tax introduced, made no sense to me whatsoever. I didn't buy it. People chose to, despite the warnings of the left, warnings from other sections of society - people wanted the easy way out - and now they have discovered that there isn't one.

Jolly Red Giant

yore wrote: »

You seem to know what you are talking about man so I'll ask you to explain something to me. The SP TDs get wages of say 90K; they claim to donate most of this to their party. But isn't there a limit of something like 5k for personal donations?

Joe Higgins TD, Clare Daly TD and Paul Murphy MEP donate the legal limit allowed to the Socialist Party on a yearly basis - no more and no less.

yore wrote: »

Also this bit has absolutely no logic or sense to it at all. That kind of rhetoric and bluster works on the lowest common denominator. It sounds great, but the majority of people will realise it's total crap and that's why the SP and their ilk will always have a ceiling as to their popularity.

well let me try and explain it to you seeing as you don't appear to know how the system works -

In 2011 the following political parties reported that they received the following donations -

Fine Gael - zero
Labour Party - zero
Fianna Fail - €6,348
Sinn Fein - €12,000
Socialist Party - €12,649
PBP - zero

(source: http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/PressReleases/Name,15702,en.htm )

In 2010 the following was declared
Fianna Fail - zero
Fine Gael - zero
Labour Party - zero
Sinn Fein - €24,000
Socialist Party - €5,819
PBP - zero
Green Party - €38.088

(source: http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Reports/AnnualDisclosures/DisclosurebyPoliticalParties/270511-DonationStatementsfurnishedbyPoliticalPartiesfor2010/Name,14060,en.htm

2009 was the same story - none of the three main political parties in the country declared any donations during 2009.

At the same time Fine Gael are known to have received donations to the tune of over €3million in the run-up to the General Election -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354159/FG-s-secret-cash-developers-Hundreds-thousands-euro-handed-lavish-golf-events.html

Included in the donors are two property developers who owe approx. €1 billion each to NAMA.

Harcourt Developments, owned by Pat Doherty, which has had to negotiate a survival plan with Nama, stopped funding Fianna Fáil before the last election and backed Fine Gael. The firm had been prolific funders of Fianna Fáil during its time in power. The company had donated lesser sums to Fine Gael while in opposition. Its most recent returns recorded a single political donation of 1,500 United Arab Emirates dirham (€330) to Fine Gael. In March, Nama registered a charge against all of Harcourt’s assets arising out of loans it had taken out with AIB and the IBRC. In 2010, the shareholders of the company were paid €1.6m in dividends but this was leant back to Harcourt as it had lost more than €50m in €24 months. The donation to Fine Gael was below the reporting threshold.

What is also known is that Fine Gael accepted political donations from a Wexford company, Custom Compost, that used a secret account to hide more than €235,000 in staff bonuses from the Revenue Commissioners (a stunt Fine Gael itself pulled for nine years before getting caught). In June 2011, the company pleaded guilty to three charges of tax evasion. Its former managing director and financial controller, Michael O’Sullivan, of Clonattin Rd, Gorey, also admitted to three charges of filing incorrect returns. We know that this company made the donation to Fine Gael because it is in the company accounts that the Revenue Commissioners got their hands on in July 2011.

The names of none of the people who donated a total of more than €3million to Fine Gael in the run up to the General Election were disclosed.

When asked by Richard Boyd Barrett in the Dail to name those who made the donations Phil Hogan replied 'We got nothing'.
(source: http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/03/27/00023.asp )

An example of how the rules are circumvented - Oireachtas members are prohibited from accepting donations in excess of €2,548 from any one individual.

The brother of junior minister Alan Kelly, and a company co-owned by him, donated €7,500 in one year to help elect the north Tipperary politician to Dáil Éireann.
Mr Kelly has already declared that his brother Declan Kelly, from his address in New York, donated €2,480 in 2010.
A company jointly owned by Mr Kelly, Stone Park Taverns, also gave the new TD €2,500.
Accounts for the same company show that, on top of that, it made a €2,500 payment to "North Tipperary Labour Party".
Separately in 2010, Declan Kelly’s 50:50 business partner in Stonepark, Michael Madden, donated €1,000 to the junior minister. This was done through his other business, Ronoc Financial Solutions.

The same stunt was pulled in 2009 -

In 2009, declarations filed with Sipo showed Declan Kelly donated €2,500 to the campaign, his partner in Stonepark, Mr Madden, donated another €2,400 under his own name and Stonepark itself donated €2,500 as a company.
In addition, Mr Madden’s Ronoc Financial Investments put in €2,500.
Mr Madden’s 50:50 partner in Ronoc, Nessa Kennedy-Madden, donated €2,500 to Mr Kelly in a personal capacity. In 2008, Mr Kelly later returned €2,500 to Mr Madden because he had already given the maximum amount allowed that year.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/political-donations-under-the-radar-195723.html

The system is structured and designed to facilitate big business control over the political establishment while keeping all these payment under the table.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

You have representation.

I'm glad you qualified it, and I'm glad you finally answered the question. Because people watching this thread would have thought that what you were saying earlier in the thread was; that TD's should only be paid taxpayers money to represent the views of their constituents

Like I know you didn't really mean stuff like this

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

I am glad I asked the question. I understand you now. We'll all sit here like good little electors and let Enda and Eamonn get on with it. Sure, who are we?

K-9

Excellent post. I think the ceiling for a single donation is €5,000 or maybe £5,000 old punts, makes sense given the FF declaration. It isn't total donations, just amounts above the limit.

I wouldn't be surprised if some found a way around these limits though, but I've nothing to back that up.

Jolly Red Giant

K-9 wrote: »

Excellent post. I think the ceiling for a single donation is €5,000 or maybe £5,000 old punts, makes sense given the FF declaration. It isn't total donations, just amounts above the limit.

Donations received by a political party exceeding an aggregate value of €5,078.95 are required to be disclosed. The maximum value of donations which a political party can accept from the same person in the same calendar year is €6,348.69.

Political parties are required to report details of the following donations (you will note the figures are in £ and not € - this again is from sipo):

• donations of more than £1,000 made to an accounting unit (e.g. a branch) of the party;
• donations of more than £5,000 made to the party headquarters;
• donations of more than £1,000 made to the party headquarters by anyone who has already made a donation in the same year;
• donations of more than £5,000 made to different sections of the party;
• any donations from impermissible or unidentifiable sources.

K-9 wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if some found a way around these limits though, but I've nothing to back that up.

Of course they do - read some of the links I provided and here is another one-

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/revealed-corporate-donations-the-parties-didnt-tell-you-about-3021728.html

here is a table that provides some information over a period of years - it makes some interesting reading but the most notable thing is the lack of info about the two government parties -
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjmjK2zwIIBvdEZCZTlVNnhSODZ0Z0duZXZsWW40cHc&hl=en_GB#gid=0

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

As I said, I, like all the other non payers, have no problem with campaigns of civil dis-obedience.

...as long as you agree with the campaign's cause. You don't support people's right to break laws they disagree with; you support people's right to break laws you disagree with.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm glad you qualified it, and I'm glad you finally answered the question. Because people watching this thread would have thought that what you were saying earlier in the thread was; that TD's should only be paid taxpayers money to represent the views of their constituents

Like I know you didn't really mean stuff like this

Like, please dont't take me out of context (as you accused me earlier in the thread, so maybe give the same standards you expect) and post the entire quote:


"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 wrote: »

I am glad I asked the question. I understand you now. We'll all sit here like good little electors and let Enda and Eamonn get on with it. Sure, who are we?

At least I answered, maybe not to your liking. You still haven't answerd mine. Again, do you agree that any/all TD's should campaign on any issue they choose,even if it encourages people to break the law - any law and pay from it from the public purse?


You also made no reference to your claim that the expenses were passed and paid - where I told you that they were "unvouched", meaning that they weren't verified?


As an aside, what you thought I said and what I actually said are two different things, I can't be responsible for what you think.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

...as long as you agree with the campaign's cause. You don't support people's right to break laws they disagree with; you support people's right to break laws you disagree with.

'I may disagree with he is saying but I will defend to the death his right to say it.' would be a fairly basic tenet of a democrat, and not really a very difficult position to hold.

daltonmd wrote: »

Like, please dont't take me out of context (as you accused me earlier in the thread, so maybe give the same standards you expect) and post the entire quote:


"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. "




At least I answered, maybe not to your liking. You still haven't answerd mine. Again, do you agree that any/all TD's should campaign on any issue they choose,even if it encourages people to break the law - any law and pay from it from the public purse?


You also made no reference to your claim that the expenses were passed and paid - where I told you that they were "unvouched", meaning that they weren't verified?


As an aside, what you thought I said and what I actually said are two different things, I can't be responsible for what you think.

I answered the question clearly over a number of posts.
As I said, we know your position now, I asked the question originally because the tone of what you where saying seemed to suggest that TD's had no right to use taxpayers money on campaigns outside their constituency. It looked like you had a conflict going on between a moral objection to the campaign and TD's being entitled to expenses.

AFAIK The accounts where public and accompanied by receipts and passed for payment (As he has to pay them back)

sarumite

Happyman42 wrote: »

'I may disagree with he is saying but I will defend to the death his right to say it.' would be a fairly basic tenet of a democrat, and not really a very difficult position to hold.

Does that include, say, the inciting of hate crimes? If I encourage violence against minorities but do not partake, would you still defend my right to do so?

Happyman42

sarumite wrote: »

Does that include, say, the inciting of hate crimes? If I encourage violence against minorities but do not partake, would you still defend my right to do so?

Covered ages ago. Read the thread.

sarumite

Happyman42 wrote: »

Covered ages ago. Read the thread.

I am actually asking as a result of your argument in post #246.

Happyman42

sarumite wrote: »

I am actually asking as a result of your argument in post #246.

You can say whatever you want but you must take the consequences. I do think some things are intrinsically wrong though, like advocating that people drink and drive, or supporting the legalising of paedophilia, or advocating hate of a particular minority. It's a grey area and caution is advised, but I think our version of democracy works ok in respect of responsibility for what you say in public life. The whole David Norris preidential campaign was interesting from that point of view.

sarumite

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can say whatever you want but you must take the consequences. I do think some things are intrinsically wrong though, like advocating that people drink and drive, or supporting the legalising of paedophilia, or advocating hate of a particular minority. It's a grey area and caution is advised, but I think our version of democracy works ok in respect of responsibility for what you say in public life. The whole David Norris preidential campaign was interesting from that point of view.

I think encouraging people to evade tax is intrinsically wrong. I agree it is a grey area, which is why I asked the question. Our version of democracy relies upon people to contribute to society as a whole, including the payment of taxes. I have no problem with the hard left fighting to have the tax repealed. As a legislator, that would fall within the remit of Higgin's et al job function. However, actively encouraging people to evade tax is not. Using tax payers money to support a campaign that encourages people to evade tax is also wrong imo.