Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, and Joan Collins misuse expenses

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

I didn't ask for that.

I asked for a link from a newspaper that accuses them of intending to defraud the state.

Where has any newspaper reported/claimed that the actions of the SP of claiming expenses for one purpose was an "intentional act of fraud".

"To constitute fraud the misrepresentation or omission must be made knowingly and intentionally, not as a result of mistake or accident, or in negligent disregard of its truth or falsity".

No-one accused them of this, as far as I have seen anyway.

I didn't say 'accuse' I said 'insinuation', two different things. Would you say the 2 articles posted are 'fair' comment?

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

I didn't say 'accuse' I said 'insinuation', two different things. Would you say the 2 articles posted are 'fair' comment?

If they are not being accused of it by anyone, then where can the insinuation come from?


"What in the world has Dempsey and e-voting machines got to do with this? "

Because he misused and wasted taxpayers money.

RE: the Indo.

Wouldn't wipe my ()** with that paper.

conor93a

You just know that if some rabidly right wing politician misused tax payers' money supporting some conservative agenda, the people defending Higgins would have the pitchforks out.

Ah, the hypocrisy of the left

sarumite

conor93a wrote: »

You just know that if some rabidly right wing politician misused tax payer's money supporting some conservative agenda, the people defending Higgins would have the pitchforks out.

Ah, the hypocrisy of the left

Since anyone who doesn't fall into the very narrow viewpoint that the ULA/SF occupy are right wing, every politician outside of SF and the techincal group are 'right wing'. Of course, the hard left complain about people legally avoiding tax while actively promoting people to illegally evade tax.

Am Chile

Sully wrote: »

Just after the Oireachtas and the country got over Sinn Feins latest expenses controversy, another batch of opposition TDs claiming to represent the working class are now embroiled in a new expenses controversy.

Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, and Joan Collins have been claiming expenses, under the travel allowance, from the state / tax payer for travelling around the country for their anti-government campaign (in particular the household charge).

The controversy broke yesterday after questions emerged whether or not the TDs were entitled to use their travel allowances for anything other than to/from work.

Joe Higgins was quick to respond claiming that "It is absolutely justifiable" to do so and has today slammed the "manufactured controversy" and blamed the Independent Media Group for the latest news on opposition TDs screwing the country to the wall. Richie Boy Barret doesn't, apparently, use the allowances because he was told by the Oireachtas it wasn't permitted.

The Oireachtas this evening have had to come out with yet again another statement to clarify the expenses system and to respond to Joe Higgins claim that it was perfectly acceptable. They have now stated that it was never foreseen the current situation arising where TDs would use the expenses to travel anywhere other than to and from Leinster House and around their constituencies. They are seeking legal advise on the matter.

Source(s):
http://www.thejournal.ie/oireachtas-travel-expenses-household-charge-joe-higgins-clare-daly-508817-Jul2012/

http://www.thejournal.ie/joe-higgins-clare-daly-joan-collins-thomas-pringle-united-left-alliance-expenses-household-charge-boycott-508036-Jul2012/

http://www.thejournal.ie/joe-higgins-clare-daly-household-charge-boycott-absolutely-justifiable-506918-Jul2012/

My own take on this is simple enough. I cant believe that the TDs in question think that it covers travelling all around the country. But even if it actually did, is it not a bit of a contradiction?

Here we have TDs going around fighting against austerity and measures by the government to try recoup money to balance the books. They claim to represent the working class and complain about the harsh taxes, levies and cuts the people have to suffer. Yet they claim a generous wage, always get generous expenses regardless, and have a lovely pension to retire from and now they are abusing the expenses system by milking it for even more money!

I thought this was just a Sinn Fein tactic, but it seems all these left-thinking parties in the Dail who claim to be elected to fight for the working class are all just out to rob the country blind. The rich, the poor, and the very poor – all paying for these TDs wages, expenses, and pension.

They completely contradict their policies.

It seems after all the hysteria in some parts in the media about Joe Higgins misusing his travel expenses-Brendan Howlin has now confirmed Joe was actually entitled to use his travel expenses to travel outside dublin.

SOCIALIST PARTY TD Joe Higgins was entitled to use a Dáil allowance to cover travelling expenses outside Dublin, Minister for Public Expenditure Brendan Howlin has confirmed.

Mr Howlin has written to the Dublin West TD saying his claims for travelling expenses to attend anti-household charge rallies and meetings throughout the country were allowable under new rules laid down in 2010.

In his letter Mr Howlin stated: “The tasks the electors expect of elected representatives may involve a range of activities not limited to their constituency duties including . . . involvement in groups and meetings with a wide range of bodies and persons.” Mr Higgins had received legal advice to that effect when the controversy first arose in July and said yesterday that Mr Howlin’s letter vindicated his position.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1020/1224325504143.html

yore

Am Chile wrote: »

It seems after all the hysteria in some parts in the media about Joe Higgins misusing his travel expenses-Brendan Howlin has now confirmed Joe was actually entitled to use his travel expenses to travel outside dublin.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1020/1224325504143.html

In fairness, who gives a sh1te what he's "entitled to". "entitled to" just means allowable under current rules. It doesn't make it right and I'm sure it's fairly trivial to find examples of himself hypocritically pontificating against wastes of resources by other politicians. Resources that they'd be similarly "entitled to".

Scioch

yore wrote: »

In fairness, who gives a sh1te what he's "entitled to". "entitled to" just means allowable under current rules. It doesn't make it right and I'm sure it's fairly trivial to find examples of himself hypocritically pontificating against wastes of resources by other politicians. Resources that they'd be similarly "entitled to".

The fact he is entitled to it AND expected by those who voted for him to organise and attend such protests and rallies means he did absolutely nothing wrong.

He didnt waste those resources one personal business, he used them in carrying out the duties he was elected to do. So I dont see any way you can see what he did as "wrong" other than the fact you just dont like it.

Sully

Doesn't make it right. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. These people are supposed to be representing the working class, the folk that are struggling and are hit the hardest. How can you represent them if you milk the system and claim all sorts of expenses and a full salary? They are partly the cause of such cuts - the state needs to balance the books and a big part of it is the expenses and salary paid out to TDs and Ministers.

For god sake, we have a "People Before Profit" TD Richard Boyd Barret who lives 12km from the Dail getting the most out of his benefits which again hurts the taxpayer and the people he represents. The hypocrisy of these TDs is unreal.

PEOPLE Before Profit TD Richard Boyd Barrett is using taxpayers' money to pay for repairing his car.

The left-wing TD has been a strident critic of Government cutbacks and this week challenged Taoiseach Enda Kenny in the Dail over the reduction in home-help hours.

But he has confirmed that he claimed €12,000 last year in expenses for travelling to the Dail from his home in Glenageary, in his Dun Laoghaire constituency -- a distance of just 12km.

He said he used the full amount for travel expenses -- including his car-repair bills.

More: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/richard-boyd-barrett-claims-12000-for-car-repairs-and-travelling-12km-to-dail-3263871.html

Scioch

Sully wrote: »

Doesn't make it right. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. These people are supposed to be representing the working class, the folk that are struggling and are hit the hardest. How can you represent them if you milk the system and claim all sorts of expenses and a full salary? They are partly the cause of such cuts - the state needs to balance the books and a big part of it is the expenses and salary paid out to TDs and Ministers.

For god sake, we have a "People Before Profit" TD Richard Boyd Barret who lives 12km from the Dail getting the most out of his benefits which again hurts the taxpayer and the people he represents. The hypocrisy of these TDs is unreal.



More: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/richard-boyd-barrett-claims-12000-for-car-repairs-and-travelling-12km-to-dail-3263871.html

They were elected to do it, thats why they can. Just because you dont agree doesnt make it wrong.

Whinge all you want about the left wing TD's but at least they are not claiming expenses to bolster their wages. They are claiming them to do what they were elected to. That involves a lot of travelling to various meetings in support of people and groups they represent. Its the working classes that are at these meetings and want these TD's to travel to them.

Really only shows how weak the argument is thats trying to rubbish them. They take half the industrial wage, they actually do what they were elected to do and go out and meet with the people and argue their corner unlike the rest who sit there an solely vote in line with their party while taking every single cent they can. And they are entitled to claim expenses to help them do that. There is no hypocrisy and all this talk trying to rubbish them is simply pathetic nonsense.

Sully

Scioch wrote: »

They were elected to do it, thats why they can. Just because you dont agree doesnt make it wrong.

Whinge all you want about the left wing TD's but at least they are not claiming expenses to bolster their wages. They are claiming them to do what they were elected to. That involves a lot of travelling to various meetings in support of people and groups they represent. Its the working classes that are at these meetings and want these TD's to travel to them.

Really only shows how weak the argument is that's trying to rubbish them. They take half the industrial wage, they actually do what they were elected to do and go out and meet with the people and argue their corner unlike the rest who sit there an solely vote in line with their party while taking every single cent they can. And they are entitled to claim expenses to help them do that. There is no hypocrisy and all this talk trying to rubbish them is simply pathetic nonsense.

I'm all for them representing the people they were elected to do so, but its insulting to do so while claiming the full wage and expenses against the exchequer. Its not for the electorates benefit because the state cannot afford it and when TDs like Boyd Barret go billing their car repairs to the state (and TDs on the right do similar) than it draws from the funds available and increases our debt resulting in the state making more cuts against the very people Barret spent money representing.

No TD, right left or middle, should be allowed claim such ridiculous expenses when the state is in such a financial mess. You may think its a positive because he spreads his anti-government propaganda to his electorate but in doing so he is billing them for his services at a significant rate and thus they remain less well off and keep getting the cuts that Barret is so furious about.

The same with the whole 'Industrial Wage' malarkey. In the bank accounts and pay cheques the tax payers get they don't see this. It makes no difference to them. The taxpayer will be treated the same. There is no saving to them - Richie & Co claimed the FULL wage along with their expenses at a cost to the taxpayers resulting in the state making cuts and savings to keep up with these silly payments.

Scioch

Sully wrote: »

I'm all for them representing the people they were elected to do so, but its insulting to do so while claiming the full wage and expenses against the exchequer. Its not for the electorates benefit because the state cannot afford it and when TDs like Boyd Barret go billing their car repairs to the state (and TDs on the right do similar) than it draws from the funds available and increases our debt resulting in the state making more cuts against the very people Barret spent money representing.

Claiming the full wage wasnt their choice, they only accept the industrial wage to show solidarity with the poeple in that regard. The expenses are there to help them do their job in representing the people so its no insult to claim them.

In the eyes of some people you cannot be a left wing TD AND have a life it seems. They are using the expenses to pay for costs incurred in representing the people. There is nothing wrong with that, its absolutely absurd to think they should shoulder the costs themselves out of their already reduced wages.

No TD, right left or middle, should be allowed claim such ridiculous expenses when the state is in such a financial mess. You may think its a positive because he spreads his anti-government propaganda to his electorate but in doing so he is billing them for his services at a significant rate and thus they remain less well off and keep getting the cuts that Barret is so furious about.

Nonsense. As I said above he is doing what he was elected to do and those expenses are incurred in doing that. Considering they do not take the full TD salary to highlight how excessive it is I dont think there are any grounds to claim they are a needless drain on the state resources. Those costs are incurred while doing what the people wanted him to do !!

The same with the whole 'Industrial Wage' malarkey. In the bank accounts and pay cheques the tax payers get they don't see this. It makes no difference to them. The taxpayer will be treated the same. There is no saving to them - Richie & Co claimed the FULL wage along with their expenses at a cost to the taxpayers resulting in the state making cuts and savings to keep up with these silly payments.

If the choice was down to Joe Higgins the people would see that, that is the point in them taking that pay cut. Your ignoring the fact that other TD's refuse to lower the wages in favour of attacking Joe Higgins for not making a difference when he is trying to.

Seems to me that you have nothing but your dislike of left wing TD's to go on here. If you actually did give a shít about expenditure left wind TD's would be the least of your worries.

Sully

The full wage is taken. It might be donated to the party/group/other groups but its still taken down. It could be refused and sent back into the exchequer. Your wages should be used to cover the work that you did, and if your struggling on half - take more.

But its taking the piss by milking expenses along the way and then going out and giving out that the government are making cuts that they are causing.

Scioch

Sully wrote: »

The full wage is taken. It might be donated to the party/group/other groups but its still taken down. It could be refused and sent back into the exchequer. Your wages should be used to cover the work that you did, and if your struggling on half - take more.

But its taking the piss by milking expenses along the way and then going out and giving out that the government are making cuts that they are causing.

The full wage is paid, its not taken by the individual though. So Joe Higgins wages to fund his personal life are significantly lower than other TD's. He chose to only take that amount in an effort to highlight the fact that TD's wages were too high.

The high wages are more of a drain than the expenses. At least the expenses (in relation to Joe Higgins and co) are incurred when doing what the people who elected them to do. Its not taking the piss by claiming expenses to do that. Taking the piss is claiming everything and having nothing to show for it which is what a lot of TD's do. So on the scale of "misusing expenses" the socialist TD's would rank pretty low.

I know none of this will matter because even if Joe Higgins only took a tenner a week and paid for everything out of his own savings. He'd be lambasted for having a nest egg and taking a tenner from the state. There is absolutely nothing those TD's can do to avid criticism from those who are intent on doing nothing but criticising.

yore

Scioch wrote: »

The fact he is entitled to it AND expected by those who voted for him to organise and attend such protests and rallies means he did absolutely nothing wrong.

He didnt waste those resources one personal business, he used them in carrying out the duties he was elected to do. So I dont see any way you can see what he did as "wrong" other than the fact you just dont like it.

Grand. I take it that you are equally as supportive of the big gold plated pensions of Bertie/McCreevy/Cullen/Lowry/Burke et. al. who are equally as "entitled" and "expected by those who voted for" them.

Not to mention Mr. O'Snodaighs 50k printer cartridges. Sure he was entitled to that too.

Scioch

yore wrote: »

Grand. I take it that you are equally as supportive of the big gold plated pensions of Bertie/McCreevy/Cullen/Lowry/Burke et. al. who are equally as "entitled" and "expected by those who voted for" them.

Not to mention Mr. O'Snodaighs 50k printer cartridges. Sure he was entitled to that too.

You are claiming what Joe Higgins did was wrong and makes him a hypocrite. It doesnt as the expenses were incurred while he was doing what people wanted him to do. While he personally only accepted half the wage other TD's get. He's not in it for the money and he's not wasting state money in doing what the people want him to do.

The pensions paid to those conmen are ridiculous. Thats a real waste of money, millions paid every year to people who were shamed out of office. There is no comparison between those pensions and Joe Higgins claiming expenses to help him attend meetings and rallies for the people he represents.

How in gods name can you compare the two ?

yore

Scioch wrote: »

You are claiming what Joe Higgins did was wrong and makes him a hypocrite. It doesnt as the expenses were incurred while he was doing what people wanted him to do. While he personally only accepted half the wage other TD's get. He's not in it for the money and he's not wasting state money in doing what the people want him to do.

The pensions paid to those conmen are ridiculous. Thats a real waste of money, millions paid every year to people who were shamed out of office. There is no comparison between those pensions and Joe Higgins claiming expenses to help him attend meetings and rallies for the people he represents.

How in gods name can you compare the two ?

Lowry and O'Snodaigh are still in the Dail, no?

Higgins gets expenses for doing the job he was elected to do. That is the claim you are using to justify it for him. You can just as equally apply the same logic to Bertie and co. insofar that they got pensions for jobs that people elected them to do. The same as higgins will get a pension. The same as Clare Daly will get a pension even though she left the socialist party and presumably isn't, and won't be, handing over half of her future salary or pension to them

Higgins is a hypocrite. Moan and moan about waste but then go and abuse "entitlements" just as much as he can and as bad as those that he pontificates against.

Scioch

yore wrote: »

Lowry and O'Snodaigh are still in the Dail, no?

Higgins gets expenses for doing the job he was elected to do. That is the claim you are using to justify it for him. You can just as equally apply the same logic to Bertie and co. insofar that they got pensions for jobs that people elected them to do. The same as higgins will get a pension. The same as Clare Daly will get a pension even though she left the socialist party and presumably isn't, and won't be, handing over half of her future salary or pension to them

Higgins is a hypocrite. Moan and moan about waste but then go and abuse "entitlements" just as much as he can and as bad as those that he pontificates against.

Gets expenses for doing a job ? Your deliberately trying to make it sound like a bonus payment. He incurs costs while doing what the people want him to do. What he was elected to do. He claimed expenses to cover that cost, as he only take for himself the average industrial wage. How is that being hypocritical ? And how are expenses in any way similar to pensions ??

You seem very eager to call him a hypocrite and claim he's as bad as the rest but you dont seem to know where to start to show thats the case.

He did nothing wrong at all whether in relation to whats expected of him. what he promised or what he stands for and claiming expenses makes him no more a hypocrite than using the tea bags in the Dail canteen.

As I said to Sully, if you did have actual concern over expenditure Joe Higgins wouldnt even be on your radar. But your not, you just dont like the left wing TD's and are looking for a reason to have a go. Unfortunately for you all here though the whole "Higgins misuses expenses" thing fell flat on its arse so your trying to fall back to the old routine of calling him a hypocrite because he's not funding everything out of his own pocket.

yore

Scioch wrote: »

Gets expenses for doing a job ? Your deliberately trying to make it sound like a bonus payment. He incurs costs while doing what the people want him to do. What he was elected to do. How is that being hypocritical ? And how are expenses in any way similar to pensions ??

You seem very eager to call him a hypocrite and claim he's as bad as the rest but you dont seem to know where to start to show thats the case.

He did nothing wrong at all whether in relation to whats expected of him. what he promised or what he stands for and claiming expenses makes him no more a hypocrite than using the tea bags in the Dail canteen.

As I said to Sully, if you did have actual concern over expenditure Joe Higgins wouldnt even be on your radar. But your not, you just dont like the left wing TD's and are looking for a reason to have a go. Unfortunately for you all here though the whole "Higgins misuses expenses" thing fell flat on its arse so your trying to fall back to the old routine of calling him a hypocrite.

Yeah whatever. the same as Richard "Man of the people" Boyd Barret claims 12,000 untaxed expenses for travelling to 10 miles to and from the Dail to his house. Sure that's a normal amount. My sister and her husband both travel about 50 miles to their work. Five times as far as the "man of the people" . That would bring make their travel expenses be about 5 times as much as his right? and there's two of them. So about 120K a year on the RBB scale.

These people make a joke of the people they claim to represent. Higgin's is no better. Neither is O'Snodaigh. The Looney left are just as adept at creaming it from the state as their central/right counterparts! They just have the added hypocritical element

Scioch

yore wrote: »

Yeah whatever. the same as Richard "Man of the people" Boyd Barret claims 12,000 untaxed expenses for travelling to 10 miles to and from the Dail to his house. Sure that's a normal amount. My sister and her husband both travel about 50 miles to their work. Five times as far as the "man of the people" . That would bring make their travel expenses be about 5 times as much as his right? and there's two of them. So about 120K a year on the RBB scale.

These people make a joke of the people they claim to represent. Higgin's is no better. Neither is O'Snodaigh. The Looney left are just as adept at creaming it from the state as their central/right counterparts! They just have the added hypocritical element

That all the travelling Richard does is it ? You wouldnt be confusing the distance he lives from the Dail with the travelling he does for his job now would ya ?

The people they claim to represent are delighted with the representation they are getting. Regular meetings all over the country to organise and discuss how certain measures will affect people and what people can do to try and be heard. People are very grateful that Richard and Joe and the others can take the time to travel around to these things and are not just sitting back ala Mick Wallace and taking care of themselves. There is no hypocrisy and you just repeatedly saying there is wont make it so.

They were elected and have done what they promised to do. Unlike the others who turned their backs on the voters as soon as they got into office. But I'm sure all this will fall on deaf ears because you just dont like the "looney left" and thats all is to it.

yore

Scioch wrote: »

That all the travelling Richard does is it ? You wouldnt be confusing the distance he lives from the Dail with the travelling he does for his job now would ya ?

The people they claim to represent are delighted with the representation they are getting. Regular meetings all over the country to organise and discuss how certain measures will affect people and what people can do to try and be heard. People are very grateful that Richard and Joe and the others can take the time to travel around to these things and are not just sitting back ala Mick Wallace and taking care of themselves. There is no hypocrisy and you just repeatedly saying there is wont make it so.

They were elected and have done what they promised to do. Unlike the others who turned their backs on the voters as soon as they got into office. But I'm sure all this will fall on deaf ears because you just dont like the "looney left" and thats all is to it.

RBB was elected by the people of his constituency; not to represent every person on the island. Sure, using your logic, all the politicians could claim travel expenses for their holidays to the US/South America/Australia and say they were representing the people over there . RBBs job is to represent his constituents. If he wants to feck off to Kerry/Galway for the weekend for a nice break, that's a personal choice. Let him pay for it.

Or are you advocating a system where the travel expenses are not based on where you live. Do you think that everyone should get the same expenses? Big fan of Ivor Calelly eh? Think he was hard done by for claiming expenses as living in Cork? Surely it wouldn't be fair not to give him the same expenses as a TD actually living in Cork. He might equally as well have meetings around the country as a TD from Kerry or Donegal.

Should Richard Bruton in Dublin North be entitled to claim the same travel expenses as Pearse Doherty?

do you see what I did there?

yore

Oh, and what have the looney left promised to do that they've actually achieved? Name me one achievement. Apart from get big salaries and expenses for themselves.

hatrickpatrick

Good loser wrote: »

What they do - travel to these meetings - is not an obligation on them.

It is something they choose/elect to do - the anthithesis of an obligation.

It is an *obligation* as it was part of an election promise. It is exactly what their voters elected them to do.

The country would be a far better place if more politicians realized that their "obligations" are to represent their constituents.

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It is an *obligation* as it was part of an election promise. It is exactly what their voters elected them to do.

The country would be a far better place if more politicians realized that their "obligations" are to represent their constituents.

No. It is not an obligation. It is a choice.

Plus it's immoral - advocating law breaking. And hypocritical claiming they are not advocating law breaking when that is exactly what they're doing.

Should be a law against that 'Contempt of the Dail' - suspension and no pay the penalties

yore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It is an *obligation* as it was part of an election promise. It is exactly what their voters elected them to do.

The country would be a far better place if more politicians realized that their "obligations" are to represent their constituents.

Grand. So at what level do you draw the line? Someone who gets on their local school Board Of Management should have their countywide travel expenses refunded by the government once they got elected on the pretext of fighting cutbacks in education and then decide to go on a series of jaunts around the country? The same for the local councillor. Or the guard that claims for weekend travel from Dublin back to his house in Kerry, coz sure there's crime there and it's his job to fight crime. Unlimited expenses. :rolleyes:

Shea O'Meara

Seems to me the entire thread is setup on the age old chestnut, "If you're so Socialist, how come you're as bad as me?" Meaning what's common and/or acceptable for a right wing party or person is a civic scandal if a left wing person does it.
The under lying subtext of course is that left wing people are held to higher standards because, well they generally have higher standards.

Godge

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Seems to me the entire thread is setup on the age old chestnut, "If you're so Socialist, how come you're as bad as me?" Meaning what's common and/or acceptable for a right wing party or person is a civic scandal if a left wing person does it.
The under lying subtext of course is that left wing people are held to higher standards because, well they generally have higher standards.

No, the age old story that comes to mind is "The Emperor with no clothes".

If you remember that story, the Emperor is convinced he looks better than anyone else and anyone that cannot see how well his clothes look is a fool. In the same way a left-wing/independent/holier-than-thou (take your pick) election candidate goes around saying I am better than those FF/FG/Lab TDs and will not rob the country blind in expenses.

Then the Emperor walks the streets to show off his finery until the little boy realises that the Emperor is actually wearing no clothes and is just like everyone else. Everyone has a good laugh at the Emperor and he is treated as the fool he is. In the same way, take your election candidate above, he gets elected to the Dail, still proclaiming his virtue, claims his expenses, including for car repairs and sooner or later a little boy points out that he is not better than the rest, that he rips the country off as well. Just like the Emperor who loses his dignity and is laughed at, so too the self-styled virtuous TD.

Shea O'Meara

Godge wrote: »

No, the age old story that comes to mind is "The Emperor with no clothes".

If you remember that story, the Emperor is convinced he looks better than anyone else and anyone that cannot see how well his clothes look is a fool. In the same way a left-wing/independent/holier-than-thou (take your pick) election candidate goes around saying I am better than those FF/FG/Lab TDs and will not rob the country blind in expenses.

.......Just like the Emperor who loses his dignity and is laughed at, so too the self-styled virtuous TD.

As regards your analogy; Biffo comes to mind.
Just look at your choice of adjectives. Seems to me you're proving my theory. If it were Martin or Kenny it wouldn't make the papers.

Godge

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

As regards your analogy; Biffo comes to mind.
Just look at your choice of adjectives. Seems to me you're proving my theory. If it were Martin or Kenny it wouldn't make the papers.

No, your theory is completely wrong. My theory is that there is no point voting for the likes of Mick Wallace, Mick Lowry, Richard Boyd-Barrett, Shane Ross, Clare Daly or Joe Higgins because they will all either bloat their expenses or double-job with some other income or evade tax or engage in corrupt behaviour. Independents are the most open to this sort of thing because they have no party to answer to.

At least when we see whole parties open to corruption (such as FF) or linked to violence and racketeering (such as SF) we can vote against any of their candidates and not just the criminals. The pity is, we all can't vote against the likes of Richard the Boy Wonder, Uncle Joe (but I can:)), pink Mick or Tipp Mick.

yore

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Seems to me the entire thread is setup on the age old chestnut, "If you're so Socialist, how come you're as bad as me?" Meaning what's common and/or acceptable for a right wing party or person is a civic scandal if a left wing person does it.
The under lying subtext of course is that left wing people are held to higher standards because, well they generally have higher standards.

That bit made me chuckle. Pray tell, "higher standards" of what exactly?

Shea O'Meara

Godge wrote: »

No, your theory is completely wrong. My theory is that there is no point voting for the likes of Mick Wallace, Mick Lowry, Richard Boyd-Barrett, Shane Ross, Clare Daly or Joe Higgins because they will all either bloat their expenses or double-job with some other income or evade tax or engage in corrupt behaviour. Independents are the most open to this sort of thing because they have no party to answer to.

At least when we see whole parties open to corruption (such as FF) or linked to violence and racketeering (such as SF) we can vote against any of their candidates and not just the criminals. The pity is, we all can't vote against the likes of Richard the Boy Wonder, Uncle Joe (but I can:)), pink Mick or Tipp Mick.

You should really look at each person...eh, independently? I guess you've tarred them all with the same brush, which is your right. Giving them all pet names...:rolleyes:
Which one of the civil war parties do you vote for come rain or shine?
It should be noted that it's those very parties who's members you say can be held accountable, *laughs* such as say, FFail that are the very ones with the track record of kissing the independent ass should it help keep them in power regardless of the damage to the country.
I would argue it's easier for an independent to take a fall, should the public wish it for there is no party to hide them or move them or simply put them on a shelf until it all blows over and reinstate them...again, as happens with the larger inbred lot.

Shea O'Meara

yore wrote: »

That bit made me chuckle. Pray tell, "higher standards" of what exactly?

Agreed, should be held to the same as everyone else, but based on the record of FFail I think, as we're grouping them all together, left orientated folk have a less corrupt track record over all.

Godge

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

You should really look at each person...eh, independently? I guess you've tarred them all with the same brush, which is your right. Giving them all pet names...:rolleyes:
Which one of the civil war parties do you vote for come rain or shine?
It should be noted that it's those very parties who's members you say can be held accountable, *laughs* such as say, FFail that are the very ones with the track record of kissing the independent ass should it help keep them in power regardless of the damage to the country.
I would argue it's easier for an independent to take a fall, should the public wish it for there is no party to hide them or move them or simply put them on a shelf until it all blows over and reinstate them...again, as happens with the larger inbred lot.

"civil war parties" is an interesting term, usually used by a member of the "lunatic fringe" of SF, ULA etc.

I have given a first preference to four different parties in the last four general elections, none of them FF, SF or ULA, all of whom I consider unworthy of a preference of any kind, one for their incompetence and corruption, another for their recent violent past for which they have not apologised and the third for their refusal to countenance wealth and service taxes such as the household charge, water charges and a property tax.

Shea O'Meara

Godge wrote: »

"civil war parties" is an interesting term, usually used by a member of the "lunatic fringe" of SF, ULA etc.

I have given a first preference to four different parties in the last four general elections, none of them FF, SF or ULA, all of whom I consider unworthy of a preference of any kind, one for their incompetence and corruption, another for their recent violent past for which they have not apologised and the third for their refusal to countenance wealth and service taxes such as the household charge, water charges and a property tax.

Fairs fair;
I've most recently voted Labour with a nod to some independents. Doubt I'll go so next time. I'm not tied year in year out to anyone.
My use of the term 'Civil War parties' relates to the great number of their supporters who pay little heed to current political dealings and more to who their father and his father supported rather than the good of the nation as a whole. Meaning their support is literally based on loyalties dating back to the 20's. I've actually met some of these people and it's quite unnerving.
I can't really discuss anything with people who say 'lunatic fringe' or 'looney left' for that matter because it usually means there's no debate to be had just a mud slinging match. Just to say, if it were Martin, Kenny or the like we would not see a thread like this because it's pretty much par for the course on the right.

Jolly Red Giant

Godge wrote: »

the third for their refusal to countenance wealth and service taxes such as the household charge, water charges and a property tax.

The household charge is not a wealth tax - it is a tax on a home and is regressive in that it doesn't take into account ability to pay.

service taxes are also regressive as they are also not based on ability to pay and are esigned to pave the way for the privatisation of public services (as amply demonstrated by the bin charges)

Good loser

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The household charge is not a wealth tax - it is a tax on a home and is regressive in that it doesn't take into account ability to pay.

service taxes are also regressive as they are also not based on ability to pay and are esigned to pave the way for the privatisation of public services (as amply demonstrated by the bin charges)

Not everything can be based on what you call 'ability to pay'. Such as the price of bread and butter, toll charges, entry fee to a cinema.

If you were to go on 'ability to pay' the first issue is how to measure this ability. Those on social welfare often have more disposable income than the so-called middle class. If you go on income what about those with wealth such as lotto winners, inheritors, savings, pension funds?

Taken to extremes (on your terms) there would be no VAT, excise duties on fags, liquor or car tax and everything would be an income tax. Then tax evasion would mutiply.

Far better to have a range of taxes - hence the term 'widening the tax base'. If each tax is not exhorbitant less effort will be spent on evasion.

The household charge is a 'wealth tax' on residential property. The more valuable the house you own/occupy the more tax you can afford to pay in theory - this is a reasonable inference to make.

Maura74

Good loser wrote: »

Then tax evasion would mutiply.

It is about time this billionaire was taken to buck about his taxes, I expect that is all they could get him.

It made me laugh when he said that he would not be running for prime minister next time around. :eek::eek:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/26/silvio-berlusconi-sentenced-four-years

Godge

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The household charge is not a wealth tax - it is a tax on a home and is regressive in that it doesn't take into account ability to pay.

service taxes are also regressive as they are also not based on ability to pay and are esigned to pave the way for the privatisation of public services (as amply demonstrated by the bin charges)

Yes it is a wealth tax, Irish people are so delusional in denying this.

If you are homeless, you will not pay the household charge.
If you live in council housing, you will not pay the household charge.
If you live in rented accommodatiion, the landlord will pay the household charge.

Ability to pay only comes into account in taxes on income, it has no role in taxes on wealth or property. If the wealth or property is under-utilised, or not utilised, it will not earn an income. Forcing property and wealth to be productive and earn an income is one way of kick-starting an economy.

The Socialist Party and the rest of the ULA are the biggest hypocrites in the country. Any decent socialist anywhere in Europe would support a household charge, water charges and a property tax. But "Irish Socialists" are different.

yore

Godge wrote: »

The Socialist Party and the rest of the ULA are the biggest hypocrites in the country. Any decent socialist anywhere in Europe would support a household charge, water charges and a property tax. But "Irish Socialists" are different.

At the risk of dragging the thread off course, I'll add that I was amused when they rallied in support of those wealthy landlord couple being evicted from D4 or wherever it was that time.

I'm response to earlier posts I made, I don't think that the lefties are worse than their more right brethern, I just don't think they are inherently any better. The reasons they haven't the same FF style corruption skeletons in the closet is just that they haven't had the same opportunities. The point is, that in spite of their pontificating, it seems that when given the opportunity to take advantage of the system, they are equally as adept!

Scioch

yore wrote: »

At the risk of dragging the thread off course, I'll add that I was amused when they rallied in support of those wealthy landlord couple being evicted from D4 or wherever it was that time.

I'm response to earlier posts I made, I don't think that the lefties are worse than their more right brethern, I just don't think they are inherently any better. The reasons they haven't the same FF style corruption skeletons in the closet is just that they haven't had the same opportunities. The point is, that in spite of their pontificating, it seems that when given the opportunity to take advantage of the system, they are equally as adept!

I still see no reason to say they are taking advantage of the system. Thats not to say they are better than their right wing counterparts or can actually achieve anything. But they seem to be doing what the people wanted them to do which is all you can really expect them to do.

Its absolute rubbish to say the reason we havent seen FF style corruption is because they havent had the same opportunities. We havent seen FF style corruption because they havent engaged in FF style corruption. End of story.

It amuses me how people have so little to actually be offended about in regards to the ULA that they regularly invent possible crimes they might commit if they had opportunity to hang them with.

yore

Scioch wrote: »

I still see no reason to say they are taking advantage of the system. Thats not to say they are better than their right wing counterparts or can actually achieve anything. But they seem to be doing what the people wanted them to do which is all you can really expect them to do.

Its absolute rubbish to say the reason we havent seen FF style corruption is because they havent had the same opportunities. We havent seen FF style corruption because they havent engaged in FF style corruption. End of story.

It amuses me how people have so little to actually be offended about in regards to the ULA that they regularly invent possible crimes they might commit if they had opportunity to hang them with.

I never invented anything.

I think they've proven that as soon as they've gotten their noses near the trough, they've wasted no time with getting stuck in.

The ULA is a "new" grouping, no? And small membership? It's not really fair to do an absolute comparison with more established parties over a long period of time. It would make more sense to do a relative one. E.G what percentage of ULA people have been caught with their noses in said trough compared to current members of the longer established parties.

I'd be surprised if, despite all their pontification, they were not just as bad, if not more so!


EDIT: As for taking advantage, yes it is clear that they do. They claim travel expenses and justify them against their personal random travel around the country. The expenses are not for that. Regardless of the fact that people voted for them or not. Expenses are for their travel to and from their job and represetnting their own constituents.

If my employers send me on travel, they'll pay my expenses. I can't claim for my personal holidays and then if it was spotted, claim that it was ok because the employer had employed me!

Scioch

yore wrote: »

I never invented anything.

I think they've proven that as soon as they've gotten their noses near the trough, they've wasted no time with getting stuck in.

The ULA is a "new" grouping, no? And small membership? It's not really fair to do an absolute comparison with more established parties over a long period of time. It would make more sense to do a relative one. E.G what percentage of ULA people have been caught with their noses in said trough compared to current members of the longer established parties.

I'd be surprised if, despite all their pontification, they were not just as bad, if not more so!

You said given the chance THEY would engage in FF style corruption. The ULA may be a new grouping but the likes of Joe Higgins have been around a long time and never showed anything to lead anyone to believe he would engage in corruption given a chance. Even those who staunchly disagree with his views wouldnt accuse him of that I dont think.

By "nose in the trough" you mean claiming expenses ? So if enough members of the ULA claim expenses that means they are capable of corruption ? That makes no sense.

I still see nothing but you looking for a reason to say they MIGHT be as bad as everyone else given the opportunity therefore they ARE as bad as everyone else. And what you have found to help you so far is them claiming expenses they are entitled to claim. Expenses they use to do what they were elected to do. While accepting only the average industrial wage in solidarity with the people they represent.

I just dont see anything other than you saying "I dont like them" over and over again.

Scioch

yore wrote: »

EDIT: As for taking advantage, yes it is clear that they do. They claim travel expenses and justify them against their personal random travel around the country. The expenses are not for that. Regardless of the fact that people voted for them or not. Expenses are for their travel to and from their job and represetnting their own constituents.

If my employers send me on travel, they'll pay my expenses. I can't claim for my personal holidays and then if it was spotted, claim that it was ok because the employer had employed me!

Expenses are for them to do their job. Part of their job as they made clear pre election is to represent their constituents by organising country wide meetings and rallies to protect their interests. Those meetings are in the interest of their constituents and a huge part of the reason people voted for them. They knew they wouldnt just sit there and talk, they would be active in organising people across the whole country which is what they are doing.

Thats not them going on holidays, thats them doing what they were elected to do. So how in the name of jesus is it like you wanting your employer to pay for your holidays ??

So you still have nothing to go by other than the fact you dont like what other people voted for.

yore

Scioch wrote: »

You said given the chance THEY would engage in FF style corruption. The ULA may be a new grouping but the likes of Joe Higgins have been around a long time and never showed anything to lead anyone to believe he would engage in corruption given a chance. Even those who staunchly disagree with his views wouldnt accuse him of that I dont think.

By "nose in the trough" you mean claiming expenses ? So if enough members of the ULA claim expenses that means they are capable of corruption ? That makes no sense.

I still see nothing but you looking for a reason to say they MIGHT be as bad as everyone else given the opportunity therefore they ARE as bad as everyone else. And what you have found to help you so far is them claiming expenses they are entitled to claim. Expenses they use to do what they were elected to do. While accepting only the average industrial wage in solidarity with the people they represent.

I just dont see anything other than you saying "I dont like them" over and over again.

As much as Joe higgins annoys me with his rhetoric and sometimes (in my personal opinion) nonsensical views, I would not call him corrupt. Misguided maybe, but not corrupt.
But the rest of them not so much so.


I would consider the abuse of expenses a form of corruption!

yore

Scioch wrote: »

Expenses are for them to do their job. Part of their job as they made clear pre election is to represent their constituents by organising country wide meetings and rallies to protect their interests. Those meetings are in the interest of their constituents and a huge part of the reason people voted for them. They knew they wouldnt just sit there and talk, they would be active in organising people across the whole country which is what they are doing.

No, their job is to represent their constituents, not the constituents of other counties. Those other counties already have their own state-funded representatives, over whom they have full elective power.

Your argument is a bit like saying that it was a FF TD's job to meet and greet developers in the Galway tent back in the day because it might have been in the interests of their constituents

Scioch

yore wrote: »

As much as Joe higgins annoys me with his rhetoric and sometimes (in my personal opinion) nonsensical views, I would not call him corrupt. Misguided maybe, but not corrupt.
But the rest of them not so much so.


I would consider the abuse of expenses a form of corruption!

They didnt abuse the expenses.

Scioch

yore wrote: »

No, their job is to represent their constituents, not the constituents of other counties. Those other counties already have their own state-funded representatives, over whom they have full elective power.

Your argument is a bit like saying that it was a FF TD's job to meet and greet developers in the Galway tent back in the day because it might have been in the interests of their constituents

There is no need to use deceptive analogies here, just stick to the point and stop trying to paint it to be something its not.

My argument is that they are doing what people voted them in to do. They were elected to organise and attend these meetings country wide. They stated this pre election, people who voted for them knew they would do this, they wanted them to do this. As you said its a small enough outfit, they dont have elected representatives in every county. The small few who were elected attend meetings across the country to bring together all these people with the aim of supporting those who they have been elected to represent. Who elected them for that very purpose !!

yore

Scioch wrote: »

They didnt abuse the expenses.

Did they not claim "unusual" expenses for travel despite living within a few miles of the Dail? And when pointed out, tried to justify by listing their travel around the country?

I seriously don't think that RBB's travel to and from the Dail justified a 12,000 claim. That's more than a person gets in a year on the SW.
Yeah, technically he's entitled to it. but technically Bertie et. al are also entitled to their big pensions

yore

Scioch wrote: »

My argument is that they are doing what people voted them in to do. They were elected to organise and attend these meetings country wide. They stated this pre election, people who voted for them knew they would do this, they wanted them to do this.

Number one, you can't say why each voter did or did not vote for a particular candidate.

Number two. Just because people in one constituency vote for something, it does not give the elected person carte blanche to spend as they like. If Michael Healy Rae (Just using him instead of what would have been the better example of his retired father) said, as one of many policies in his next election manifesto, that he would encourage foreign companies to invest in Kerry, and he subsequently got elected, it would not mean that the state should fund his travel to anywhere in the world on the basis of bringing jobs to Kerry. If Dana got elected into the Dail on the back of a platform of anti-gay marraige for example, she shouldn't be given state spending to travel around the country to preach whatever to small groupings. By all means she can do so, but not with state funding. The Dana analogy is probably a bit more analogous to the ULA household tax situation.

Scioch wrote: »

As you said its a small enough outfit, they dont have elected representatives in every county. The small few who were elected attend meetings across the country to bring together all these people with the aim of supporting those who they have been elected to represent. Who elected them for that very purpose !!

People in those counties can elect whomsoever they please. If they want a ULA candidate, they should elect one.

Scioch

The other issue is merging into this one. So I'll just carry on here.

yore wrote: »

Number one, you can't say why each voter did or did not vote for a particular candidate.

Number one, ammm yes ya can. Its where the notion of a mandate comes from. The ULA ran on a set number of promises. One of those was to be active around the country in organising the people to resist cuts and austerity. People voted for them and their policies.

Number two. Just because people in one constituency vote for something, it does not give the elected person carte blanche to spend as they like. If Michael Healy Rae (Just using him instead of what would have been the better example of his retired father) said, as one of many policies in his next election manifesto, that he would encourage foreign companies to invest in Kerry, and he subsequently got elected, it would not mean that the state should fund his travel to anywhere in the world on the basis of bringing jobs to Kerry.

It dosnt give them carte blanche to spend what they like but I dont remember hearing of anyone spending what they liked. Just claiming expenses related to doing the job they were elected to do.

And yet again more odd analogies, stop with the analogies and the ifs and buts and what abouts and just argue the point. Whatever the reason for election if the expenses (which are legally available to TD's) are claimed to enable the TD's to keep those promises and do what they were elected to do then its not abuse of expenses.

yore

Scioch wrote: »

And yet again more odd analogies, stop with the analogies and the ifs and buts and what abouts and just argue the point. Whatever the reason for election if the expenses (which are legally available to TD's) are claimed to enable the TD's to keep those promises and do what they were elected to do then its not abuse of expenses.

Ok. I'll stop now as we're going around in circles. My point is that it's their job to represent their constituents in the Dail.

It's not to represent people in other constituencies or even the tenuous excuse of rallying support for their own constituents by organising groups or setting up branches in other constituencies. That's the responsibility of the party structure. Similarly, FF TDs shouldn't be allowed to claim expenses to travel the country to rebuild their party by reviving or setting up new cumann. Nor should FG/SF/whatever.