Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, and Joan Collins misuse expenses

Scioch

yore wrote: »

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.

Well I disagree. I think its their job to do what they were elected to do. And in the case of the ULA they were elected to oppose the cuts and austerity measures and to do so by organising the people. And you just love them misleading analogies dont ya ? Its nothing like a party claiming expenses for internal reasons. Its a group of people claiming expense to do what they were ELECTED to do.

yore

Scioch wrote: »

Well I disagree. I think its their job to do what they were elected to do.

That attitude basically opens floodgates to do anything. A politician who gets elected with a mandate to bring development and jobs into an area could use your argument to justify shady deals.

Scioch wrote: »

And in the case of the ULA they were elected to oppose the cuts and austerity measures and to do so by organising the people. And you just love them misleading analogies dont ya ? Its nothing like a party claiming expenses for internal reasons. Its a group of people claiming expense to do what they were ELECTED to do.

Analogies are just useful in pointing out logical holes and inconsistencies in another persons argument. A FF/FG/SF TD who gets elected under the slogan of "rebuilding the party", and then using expenses to travel around the country to restart various cumann is the same as the ULA "fighting austerity" (in fact the ULA is using state money to encourage people to break the law and shortchange the state).
I support neither scenario. Am I correct in thinking that you support one and not the other?

Scioch

yore wrote: »

That attitude basically opens floodgates to do anything. A politician who gets elected with a mandate to bring development and jobs into an area could use your argument to justify shady deals.

No it doesnt, its just people doing what they were elected to do. Its democracy, if people vote for someone to bring development to an area then bringing development to an area is the reason he is in office and what he should be doing with his time. What justifies shady behaviour is the thought of not being held to the policies that got people elected.

Analogies are just useful in pointing out logical holes and inconsistencies in another persons argument. A FF/FG/SF TD who gets elected under the slogan of "rebuilding the party", and then using expenses to travel around the country to restart various cumann is the same as the ULA "fighting austerity" (in fact the ULA is using state money to encourage people to break the law and shortchange the state).
I support neither scenario. Am I correct in thinking that you support one and not the other?

Valid analogies are useless to an extent but your constant use of analogies and hypothetical scenarios which are not comparable just allows you to skirt the actual point.

If a party got elected under a slogan "rebuilding the party" then of course they have a mandate from the people to do so in the interests of the people. But no party would be elected to do that so its an irrelevant point. You might as well be throwing out stuff like "If Joe Higgins killed someone, should be claim expenses for disposing of the body". All your doing is trying to compare what they did with stuff you invented for the sole purpose of making it seem like its something its not.

I'm in favour of parties and TD's doing what they were elected to do. Those expenses are available to all TD's and if they are claimed to help them do their job then I have no issue with it. If you think those expenses shouldnt be there then you could argue that, but your not. Your just attacking the ULA for not being above everyone else. Even though they are doing exactly what was asked of them by the people.

Markcheese

If the politician does political milage pay them for it , if it's vouched ... Should actual receipts for fuel, servicing, insurance, purchase price /lease price be required , or should we pay by milage...
Using milage expenses for other political expenses cos you don't drive enough should be construed as fraud ...

Would anyone else like to see a binding independent oireachtas cost cutting commitee ... (by independent ,not all politicians, give it to Colm mcCarthy and co. ?)

yore

Scioch wrote: »

No it doesnt, its just people doing what they were elected to do. Its democracy, if people vote for someone to bring development to an area then bringing development to an area is the reason he is in office and what he should be doing with his time. What justifies shady behaviour is the thought of not being held to the policies that got people elected.

Similarly, if a person gets voted in to "fight austerity" they should do so by lawful means and by not abusing loopholes in rules

Scioch wrote: »

Valid analogies are useless to an extent but your constant use of analogies and hypothetical scenarios which are not comparable just allows you to skirt the actual point.

If a party got elected under a slogan "rebuilding the party" then of course they have a mandate from the people to do so in the interests of the people. But no party would be elected to do that so its an irrelevant point. You might as well be throwing out stuff like "If Joe Higgins killed someone, should be claim expenses for disposing of the body". All your doing is trying to compare what they did with stuff you invented for the sole purpose of making it seem like its something its not.

We're not talking about a "party being elected", we're talking about individuals. People stood for FF in the last election and will stand for them in future elections. I would be extremely surprised if FF members did not try to appeal to traditional FF voters by saying they wanted to rebuild the party etc.

Scioch wrote: »

I'm in favour of parties and TD's doing what they were elected to do. Those expenses are available to all TD's and if they are claimed to help them do their job then I have no issue with it. If you think those expenses shouldnt be there then you could argue that, but your not. Your just attacking the ULA for not being above everyone else. Even though they are doing exactly what was asked of them by the people.

I'm not attacking the ULA. I'm just saying they can't talk out of both their sides at once.

One of the higher profile members of the ULA, Clare Daly, has publicly stated that the reason she left the SP was that she saw huge potential with the ULA. Her going around the country and building up committees and support groups is no different that FF building up Cumainn.

I have no problem with either scenario per se. But I have equal problems with both if they used Dail expenses to support this; expenses that are supposed to be what they need to represent their constituents, in order to do so.
If they have spare "expense capacity" after looking after their constituents, then they should simply lobby to have the expenses reduced and not waste them.

yore

MMFF wrote: »

Socialist scum ! No surprise

There's no need putting it like that :rolleyes: . There are plenty of legitimate reasons to articulate what you want to say! That just deflects the debate.

Scioch

yore wrote: »

There's no need putting it like that :rolleyes: . There are plenty of legitimate reasons to articulate what you want to say! That just deflects the debate.

MMFF is trolling every forum on the site. Hopefully he'll be put down soon.

Scioch

yore wrote: »

Similarly, if a person gets voted in to "fight austerity" they should do so by lawful means and by not abusing loopholes in rules

The ULA are not breaking any laws so what they are doing is lawful. As for loopholes I dont seem the abusing any. They claim expenses which they are entitled to claim. They do so to enable them to do what they were elected to do.

We're not talking about a "party being elected", we're talking about individuals. People stood for FF in the last election and will stand for them in future elections. I would be extremely surprised if FF members did not try to appeal to traditional FF voters by saying they wanted to rebuild the party etc.

But they didnt and they haven't so whats it matter ? The ULA ran as a group and made very clear what they planned on doing and people voted for that. Its not comparable to FF hypothetically using state money to rebuild the party.

I'm not attacking the ULA. I'm just saying they can't talk out of both their sides at once.

One of the higher profile members of the ULA, Clare Daly, has publicly stated that the reason she left the SP was that she saw huge potential with the ULA. Her going around the country and building up committees and support groups is no different that FF building up Cumainn.

I have no problem with either scenario per se. But I have equal problems with both if they used Dail expenses to support this; expenses that are supposed to be what they need to represent their constituents, in order to do so.
If they have spare "expense capacity" after looking after their constituents, then they should simply lobby to have the expenses reduced and not waste them.

We are not going to agree on this. I see what they are doing as representing their constituents as its a huge part of their pre election plan of attack. I dont see it as a waste or as abuse to use expenses in doing what you were elected to do.

And if the ULA are gaining popularity and support (I dont know if they are) then its a result of them doing what they were elected to do and not just what they want to do for their own self interest.

Jolly Red Giant

There is an incredible amount of nonsense being spouted on this thread - so I am going to explain this for everyone - once only

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.

Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Joan Collins and others were elected by their constituents to fight the government's policy (and that of the ECB and IMF) of austerity - in order to fight austerity it necessitates the building of a countrywide movement of opposition to austerity. Austerity will not be defeated by running around your own constituency.

None of the three individuals above claimed any expenses for 'their personal random travel' - they claimed expenses for legitimate travel related to their work as a Dail representative.

Now - let's be clear about this - the Indo attempted to hype up the 'travelling expenses' issue in an effort not alone to policitally damage Joe Higgins, Clare Daly and Joan Collins but also the Campaign Against Household and Water Taxes. They jumped up and down and demanded action - the government hopped on the bandwagon and said they would refer it to the Dail Committee on Procedures and Privileges - next there is a statement from the committee saying that travelling expenses are not allowed outside a TDs constituency and that they are seeking legal advice.

Here is the rub - the Dail Committee never met, the Dail Committee never sought any legal advice, the Dail Committee never made a decision to issue any statement on travelling expenses. The statement was issued by a government bureaucrat who had not authority to do so on behalf of the Dail Committee on Procedures and Privileges.

The reason nothing more has been heard about it is because there is no issue - nobody broke any Dail rules and practically every TD in the house has claimed travelling expenses for travel outside their constituency.

Final point - the Socialist Party has consistently argued that the salaries of Taoiseach, ministers and TDs should be drastically reduced (the Senate should be abolished) and that all expenses should only be re-imbursed on the production of a valid receipt and scrutinised by an auditor. Being a public representative is a privilege and no one should make any financial gain from it.

Since he was first elected in 1997 Joe Higgins has produced yearly accounts outlining that he has taken as his income the average industrial wage, has been re-imbursed for receipted expenses and outlined where the rest of the money has gone (legal limit of €6,348.69 per year to the Socialist Party).

And here is a good one for you - according to the latest disclosures the Socialist Party received the most money from personal donations - €6348 from Joe Higgins and €6348 from Paul Murphy MEP - Sinn Fein received €12000 from two of their TDs - FF received €6348 from some guy in Cork and neither FG or the LP received anything.

yore wrote: »

Similarly, if a person gets voted in to "fight austerity" they should do so by lawful means and by not abusing loopholes in rules

Nobody is using any kind of loopholes - The law is structured and designed to protect the interests of the wealthy in society - socialists have a motto 'better to break the law than break the poor'

yore wrote: »

One of the higher profile members of the ULA, Clare Daly, has publicly stated that the reason she left the SP was that she saw huge potential with the ULA. Her going around the country and building up committees and support groups is no different that FF building up Cumainn.

As late as last Saturday, Clare Daly stated that her intention is to build a group in Dublin North and affiliate to the ULA - she does not appear to have any intention of travelling around the country 'building' the ULA and if she did I doubt she would claim Dail expenses for it (Joe Higgins certainly hasn't in the past).

Markcheese

"better break the law than break the poor"
Jaysus that could justify just about anything... I know I'm biased as I'm almost as anti socialist as I am anti FF.
I'd agree with you that public representatives wages are OTT. So are their expenses... Joe could be politically cleaner than clean but if he got his way he'd put everybody else in the country out of work ....personally I'd be in favour of a maximum wage but I can't see it happening ...
Sure I heard Richard boyd barrett on radio saying he used travel expenses to fund his party ... Hang him (not literally )

yore

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Joan Collins and others were elected by their constituents to fight the government's policy (and that of the ECB and IMF) of austerity - in order to fight austerity it necessitates the building of a countrywide movement of opposition to austerity. Austerity will not be defeated by running around your own constituency.

"Austerity" is just a buzzword. Most "socialists" only care about comparing themselves to people who are wealthier than them. Never those with less wealth.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

None of the three individuals above claimed any expenses for 'their personal random travel' - they claimed expenses for legitimate travel related to their work as a Dail representative.

No, they claimed what they were allowed to claim. And used their personal crusades to justify it. Simple as that.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Now - let's be clear about this - the Indo attempted to hype up the 'travelling expenses' issue in an effort not alone to policitally damage Joe Higgins, Clare Daly and Joan Collins but also the Campaign Against Household and Water Taxes. They jumped up and down and demanded action - the government hopped on the bandwagon and said they would refer it to the Dail Committee on Procedures and Privileges - next there is a statement from the committee saying that travelling expenses are not allowed outside a TDs constituency and that they are seeking legal advice.

Here is the rub - the Dail Committee never met, the Dail Committee never sought any legal advice, the Dail Committee never made a decision to issue any statement on travelling expenses. The statement was issued by a government bureaucrat who had not authority to do so on behalf of the Dail Committee on Procedures and Privileges.

I'm not sure what you are saying other than claiming there is a conspiracy against certain people or political persuasions?

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The reason nothing more has been heard about it is because there is no issue - nobody broke any Dail rules and practically every TD in the house has claimed travelling expenses for travel outside their constituency.

Final point - the Socialist Party has consistently argued that the salaries of Taoiseach, ministers and TDs should be drastically reduced (the Senate should be abolished) and that all expenses should only be re-imbursed on the production of a valid receipt and scrutinised by an auditor. Being a public representative is a privilege and no one should make any financial gain from it.

They talk out of both sides of their mouth at once. It's all very well to make noises, but how about some real action to support their bluster? It's really easy to make noises and soundbytes when you know the noises will have no effect on the income you gladly accept

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Since he was first elected in 1997 Joe Higgins has produced yearly accounts outlining that he has taken as his income the average industrial wage, has been re-imbursed for receipted expenses and outlined where the rest of the money has gone (legal limit of €6,348.69 per year to the Socialist Party).

I already stated above that I don't agree with JH on pretty much anything but don't think he's corrupt. The same as I don't really agree with any of Dana's right wing stuff, but I bellieve she does what she believes is right.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And here is a good one for you - according to the latest disclosures the Socialist Party received the most money from personal donations - €6348 from Joe Higgins and €6348 from Paul Murphy MEP - Sinn Fein received €12000 from two of their TDs - FF received €6348 from some guy in Cork and neither FG or the LP received anything.

This is an even better one. Why do the Socialists who claim to "take only the AIW" get to double claim their money? They claim they don't take it, and then claim credit for giving it away! If Mary Lou wants to give 6k to the party to keep them sweet and oiled, that's a good business decision. They back and support her to get and keep her nice high profile and well paid job.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Nobody is using any kind of loopholes - The law is structured and designed to protect the interests of the wealthy in society - socialists have a motto 'better to break the law than break the poor'

The idea behind expenses is that the person should not be out of pocket for legitimate expenses incurred in the course of representing their constituents. If they are "entitled" to claim up to 12,000 say unvouched for travel, they don't have to claim it. Similarly, if they are allowed to get free printer ink cartridges, it doesn't mean that they are correct in taking 10's of thousands of Euros worth of them.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

As late as last Saturday, Clare Daly stated that her intention is to build a group in Dublin North and affiliate to the ULA - she does not appear to have any intention of travelling around the country 'building' the ULA and if she did I doubt she would claim Dail expenses for it (Joe Higgins certainly hasn't in the past).

Again talking out both sides of her mouth at once. Travelling around the country building committees to "support her own constituents" but apparently not building the ULA.

They don't put in a specific claim for "travel to ULA meeting in Cork". They just claim everything they can but then perpetuate this myth about living off the AIW and excuse their big salaries and expenses on some moral cause. I'd be very very surprised if Enda Kenny/ Michael Martin / Eamonn Gilmore don't spend a penny towards their own election campaign costs or give nothing to their local cumann or any local charity. It'd be a bit like Ivor Callelly saying "yeah I claimed expenses i shouldn't have, but I spent it on election posters so it's grand"

Jolly Red Giant

I am going to let the rest of the rant go because there would be no point in arguing with you.

However, this -

yore wrote: »

They don't put in a specific claim for "travel to ULA meeting in Cork". They just claim everything they can but then perpetuate this myth about living off the AIW and excuse their big salaries and expenses on some moral cause. I'd be very very surprised if Enda Kenny/ Michael Martin / Eamonn Gilmore don't spend a penny towards their own election campaign costs or give nothing to their local cumann or any local charity. It'd be a bit like Ivor Callelly saying "yeah I claimed expenses i shouldn't have, but I spent it on election posters so it's grand"

You are insinuating here that ULA TDs fiddle their claims for travelling expenses - this is fale and utterly melicious and you should withdraw it.

The Socialist Party (and I am only speaking for them) have as a principle that no public representative who is a member of the Socialist Party can make any financial gain from being a public representative. Any public representative who does not abide by this principle is expelled on the spot. Both Joe Higgins and Paul Murphy take their full salaries and they claim expenses in accordance with the rules. The both receive a wage equivalent to the gross AIW. The rest of the money is donated to workers groups, community groups and is used to defend and promote the interests of working class people both here and abroad. The Socialist Party makes no apology for this - the accounts for the public representatives are submitted to the Socialist Party annual conference each year and are scrutinised by delegates. They are then published for general review.

Now you can whinge and whine all you want that they are no different than the right-wing hacks we have in the Dail - working class people clearly understand and respect the difference.

Markcheese wrote: »

"better break the law than break the poor"

Jaysus that could justify just about anything

Again - as I said above - working class people understand the distinction. I couldn't care less if you do or not.

Godge

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The Socialist Party (and I am only speaking for them) have as a principle that no public representative who is a member of the Socialist Party can make any financial gain from being a public representative. Any public representative who does not abide by this principle is expelled on the spot. Both Joe Higgins and Paul Murphy take their full salaries and they claim expenses in accordance with the rules. The both receive a wage equivalent to the gross AIW. The rest of the money is donated to workers groups, community groups and is used to defend and promote the interests of working class people both here and abroad. The Socialist Party makes no apology for this - the accounts for the public representatives are submitted to the Socialist Party annual conference each year and are scrutinised by delegates. They are then published for general review.

I can accept all of the above as being correct insofar as the Socialist Party believe it to be so. I can also accept the bona fides of the financial arrangements.

The one bit I cannot accept is that the Socialist Party are defending and promoting the interests of working class people. They are opposing the wealth tax in the form of a property tax which shows they have no interest in defending the interests of the real working class who can only afford to live in rented accommodation and council accommodation. Classic smoked salmon socialists they are.

This was epitomised by how long it took them to take a stand on the tax-dodging Pink Mick from Wexford.

Jolly Red Giant

Godge wrote: »

The one bit I cannot accept is that the Socialist Party are defending and promoting the interests of working class people. They are opposing the wealth tax in the form of a property tax which shows they have no interest in defending the interests of the real working class who can only afford to live in rented accommodation and council accommodation. Classic smoked salmon socialists they are.

The current household tax and the proposed property taxes are not wealth taxes - they are taxes on people's homes and are designed to hit those on poorer incomes far more than those on large incomes. The current Household charge is a flat tax that does not take into account ability to pay. No matter what way FG/LP introduce the property tax as long as it doesn't take into account a progressive ability to pay element it will be regressive. Furthermore, since the crash in 2008 the richest 10% of the population have seen their income/wealth INCREASE while the remaining 90% (the working class) have seen it DECREASE. If you want to impose a wealth tax then impose a wealth tax - 5% on all wealth over €1million - no cuts needed this year or next year.

Godge wrote: »

This was epitomised by how long it took them to take a stand on the tax-dodging Pink Mick from Wexford.

Let's be clear about this - and I am not going to rehash all the nonsense about Wallace - Wallace is a tax-dodging property developer. As soon as the scandal broke the Socialist Party issued a statement condemning his actions, demanded that he pay every penny owed and demanded that the government change company law so that assets could not be hidden by the wealthy who owe money to the exchequer. The Socialist Party is the only party to actually make this call and the Socialist Party has been utterly consistent throughout the entire episode.

Furthermore, the only party that Wallace has ever attacked during this entire episode is the Socialist Party - the latest episode when he was given an hour to play the victim on marian Finucane two weeks ago and when he blatantly and scurrilously lied about Joe Higgins. That should tell you who has been most critical of him.

Shea O'Meara

yore wrote: »

We're not talking about a "party being elected", we're talking about individuals. People stood for FF in the last election and will stand for them in future elections. I would be extremely surprised if FF members did not try to appeal to traditional FF voters by saying they wanted to rebuild the party etc.

Is a party not the sum of it's individuals?
Just a little side note; you cannot 'rebuild' or re-instill the core values of FFail, because they never went anywhere. Since inception the party has been occupied and in some circumstances, led by people who have no other goal in mind than gaining power to feather their nest and rip off the average Irish citizen be it at home or abroad. The party and it's fabled traditional grassroots of good ol' types is a fallacy.
It's a complete myth that FFail has always been made up of decent people who unfortunately and through no fault of their own get side tracked by criminals again and again and again and again.....
DeValera was an unpatriotic thief, proven fact. And he's the patron saint of the party. There's your FFail tradition.
So to post, like above, that okay FFail can't throw stones, but at least anyone campaigning would do so on the promise they'll re-build the party is bull**** and more of a threat than a promise of better things for you and I. So again, forgive my suprise at an entire thread based on a 'left' expense issue that wouldn't even make the papers had it been FFail or Fine Gael because frankly there's so much else it wouldn't have made it to the Horoscope section.

Godge

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The current household tax and the proposed property taxes are not wealth taxes - they are taxes on people's homes and are designed to hit those on poorer incomes far more than those on large incomes. The current Household charge is a flat tax that does not take into account ability to pay. No matter what way FG/LP introduce the property tax as long as it doesn't take into account a progressive ability to pay element it will be regressive.

You could have a developer sitting in a multi-million euro mansion in South Dublin who claims he has no income and who escapes paying the property wealth tax using your criteria. That is the big flaw in this silly progressive ability to pay argument.

The bottom line is if you don't own a house, then you are poor and you don't have to pay the property tax. End of. That is the way every other country in the world works but in Ireland even the so-called Socialists get caught up in the "everybody is entitled to own their own home and not pay any tax on it" mania.

Edit: If Mick Wallace goes bankrupt and keeps the family home, he won't have to pay and property tax on it using the Socialist Party criteria.

Shea O'Meara

There are well-to-do types cashing in on a childrens allowance loophole for decades. Along the lines of a lump sum they can claim having not availed of it during the actual upbringing of the child etc.
Anyway my point is there are always loop holes, the fewer the better of course, and always those undeserving who avail of it; social welfare, Dail expenses etc.
The household tax is penalising people who are fortunate enough to get a place to call there own after already paying a number of taxes to get it.
What gets me is that this 'fairs fair sure the country is ****ed' tax was only brought in to help us cover a private debt neither you nor I saw anything out of.

Jolly Red Giant

Godge wrote: »

You could have a developer sitting in a multi-million euro mansion in South Dublin who claims he has no income and who escapes paying the property wealth tax using your criteria. That is the big flaw in this silly progressive ability to pay argument.

Take the bloody mansion off of him

Godge wrote: »

The bottom line is if you don't own a house, then you are poor and you don't have to pay the property tax. End of.

Bullsh*t - never works like that and anyone who is renting will have it passed on in rent hikes

Godge wrote: »

That is the way every other country in the world works but in Ireland even the so-called Socialists get caught up in the "everybody is entitled to own their own home and not pay any tax on it" mania.

No it is not - in every county that has a property tax it is skewed in favour of the wealthy

Godge wrote: »

Edit: If Mick Wallace goes bankrupt and keeps the family home, he won't have to pay and property tax on it using the Socialist Party criteria.

Mick Wallace is bankrupt - he woes the banks €40million and revenue €2million and using the Socialist Party criteria company law would be changed to prevent the hiding of assets and to force payment of tax liabilities.

Markcheese

Any public representative using their wages to fund a cause or belief they believe in good for then ...using excess expenses payments to fund their cause is misapropriation of funds ....
It shows up how crap the expense situation is... And has been for years...

yore

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I am going to let the rest of the rant go because there would be no point in arguing with you.

However, this -


You are insinuating here that ULA TDs fiddle their claims for travelling expenses - this is fale and utterly melicious and you should withdraw it.

We can agree to disagree. I never insinuated that they fiddled anything. Callelly might have been a bad analogy but at the heart of (one of ) his crime(s) was the fact that he was getting travelling expenses that he wasn't actually spending on travel. Yes it was on a larger scale and explicitly guilty because of false submissions/declarations. But the underlying principle is that he was claiming money he wasn't spending on what is was claimed for . (Callelly would have been "entitled" to those travel expenses had he actually been living in Cork). Expenses are meant to reimburse you for your out of pocket expenses for a particular purpose. Not to create a little slush fund for you to spend on unrelated things.

I don't think it realistically costs RBB 12k a year for his travel too and from the Dail :rolleyes: .
Him excusing it by saying he was using it for party purposes etc. would be the same as Callelly trying to get away with it saying he was using his expenses for party purposes. That's all I'm saying.

O'Snodaigh on the other hand is a different matter. 10's of thousands on ink cartridges in a year which subsequently drops to almost zero when they start to police it ......

Jolly Red Giant

yore wrote: »

We can agree to disagree. I never insinuated that they fiddled anything.

Bullsh*t - you insinuated that

They don't put in a specific claim for "travel to ULA meeting in Cork". They just claim everything they can but then perpetuate this myth about living off the AIW and excuse their big salaries and expenses on some moral cause.

and you repeated it in your most recent post by saying

But the underlying principle is that he was claiming money he wasn't spending on what is was claimed for .

Your insinuation is clear - that Joe Higgins travelled to Cork for a ULA meeting and put in an expenses claim on the basis that he was travelling to something completely different. That is accusing him of fiddling in his claim for expenses and you should withdraw it immediately.

yore wrote: »

Expenses are meant to reimburse you for your out of pocket expenses for a particular purpose. Not to create a little slush fund for you to spend on unrelated things.

Expenses in the current system (and there are a lot of them) are a slush fund for TDs to line their pockets - nothing more, nothing less. The TDs of the establishment parties do just that - the representatives of the Socialist Party do not.

yore wrote: »

I don't think it realistically costs RBB 12k a year for his travel too and from the Dail :rolleyes: .

Of course it doesn't - yet you are not whinging about the 140 TDs from the right-wing parties who claim these expenses and put them in their pocket - you complain about the guy who puts it to (what I consider) good use.

yore wrote: »

O'Snodaigh on the other hand is a different matter. 10's of thousands on ink cartridges in a year which subsequently drops to almost zero when they start to police it ......

The system is corrupt and SF can answer for themselves.

yore

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Bullsh*t - you insinuated that
......

No. I never said that. They can't put in a claim for "travel to Cork" for example. Nobody thinks that If they had, it wouldn't have been granted!

But they claimed what they could unvouched, and then justified it ex-post by saying what they spent it on.

RBB et. al. might keep his internal receipts to show he's not personally gaining, but what he gets from the government isn't based on those receipts.

If he collects 12k for a few miles travel from the government then he's claimed the 12k that he doesn't spend on travel to/from the Dail. (He's stated what he spends it on as far as I'm aware). Whether he spends it on travel to a meeting in Cork or on coke and hookers is his own business.

If I steal boxes of pens (maybe even printer cartridges) from my employer, it makes no difference to the employer whether I sold then on ebay or gave them to my local primary school.

yore

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Your insinuation is clear - that Joe Higgins travelled to Cork for a ULA meeting and put in an expenses claim on the basis that he was travelling to something completely different. That is accusing him of fiddling in his claim for expenses and you should withdraw it immediately.

I'll address this one specifically. No I did not say this. You aren't listening to what I say. you are just being protective. The thread started because it turned out that members of the ULA were claiming large expenses (despite decrying government waste etc). They justified this by showing what they spent the money on. the problem is that the expenses weren't legitimately meant to cover those particular costs.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The system is corrupt and SF can answer for themselves.

guns don't kill, people do*


* Systems aren't corrupt. Only people are.

M three

yore wrote: »

No. I never said that. They can't put in a claim for "travel to Cork" for example. Nobody thinks that If they had, it wouldn't have been granted!

But they claimed what they could unvouched, and then justified it ex-post by saying what they spent it on.

RBB et. al. might keep his internal receipts to show he's not personally gaining, but what he gets from the government isn't based on those receipts.

If he collects 12k for a few miles travel from the government then he's claimed the 12k that he doesn't spend on travel to/from the Dail. (He's stated what he spends it on as far as I'm aware). Whether he spends it on travel to a meeting in Cork or on coke and hookers is his own business.

If I steal boxes of pens (maybe even printer cartridges) from my employer, it makes no difference to the employer whether I sold then on ebay or gave them to my local primary school.

Joe Higgins claimed travel expenses. Exactly how much?

You must be really annoyed about the 62 billion this and the previous government have have borrowed from the EU & the IMF just to give to private banks, which we have to pay back

yore

M three wrote: »

Joe Higgins claimed travel expenses. Exactly how much?

Jolly Red giant can probably give you a link to JH's income and expenditure if you want exact figures.

M three wrote: »

You must be really annoyed about the 62 billion this and the previous government have have borrowed from the EU & the IMF just to give to private banks, which we have to pay back

Ah, not really annoyed. From a selfish point of view, yeah if they had told the EU to go fu$k themselves then I'd be financially better off relative to people in Ireland (relative to the case where they accept the bailout, as I'm working abroad). However, I have friends and family there and have a social conscience, so I think it was the lesser of two evils to play along rather than create a scenario where the poorest in society are really fu$ked over.

You think it's bad now? Be careful what you wish for!!!

M three

yore wrote: »

Ah, not really annoyed

Why not?
Dont you think 62 billion versus 12 grand is worth getting annoyed about?
It makes 12000 look less than trivial

yore

M three wrote: »

Why not?
Dont you think 62 billion versus 12 grand is worth getting annoyed about?
It makes 12000 look less than trivial

Ah sure you could use your "logic" to justify giving Bertie a pension raise

M three

You avoided the question.
Why are you not proportionately more annoyed at the 62 billion we borrowed to give to private banks vs the 12k a socialist td claimed on travel expenses?

Is that logical enough for you?
perhaps you dont really care and are just using it as a stick to beat joe higgins with.

yore

M three wrote: »

You avoided the question.
Why are you not proportionately more annoyed at the 62 billion we borrowed to give to private banks vs the 12k a socialist td claimed on travel expenses?

Is that logical enough for you?
perhaps you dont really care and are just using it as a stick to beat joe higgins with.

No. You brought up 62 billion.

The answer to your question is in a post I made a few posts back.

I'm a bit annoyed at it for selfish reasons, but considering the potential impact of the alternative, it's the lesser of two evils.

It's incredibly naive to think that if we told Europe to fuck off that we'd have a big 62 billion pile of cash. That's what some appear to think!

Might the alternative be better in the long term? Possibly. Short term? Definitely not. Would the alternative affect me directly? No, I emigrated for work. My reasons for being annoyed would not be the same as ones you're thinking if!

M three

yore wrote: »

No. You brought up 62 billion.

The answer to your question is in a post I made a few posts back.

I'm a bit annoyed at it for selfish reasons, but considering the potential impact of the alternative, it's the lesser of two evils.

It's incredibly naive to think that if we told Europe to fuck off that we'd have a big 62 billion pile of cash. That's what some appear to think!

Might the alternative be better in the long term? Possibly. Short term? Definitely not. Would the alternative affect me directly? No, I emigrated for work. My reasons for being annoyed would not be the same as ones you're thinking if!

Jesus, maybe you should come back and go into politics, you really know how to avoid a straightforward question!

The reality is the sindo and all the other government ass kissing rags make a big deal about joe higgins doing something as he doesnt fit their agenda.

Do you recall ever seeing the figure "€62 billion" on the front page of the sindo or irish independent?
Me neither.
Plenty of bull**** non stories about rosanna davidson though.

Focus on the real issue at hand here and dont get sidelined with the non stories designed and distributed to take the average punters eye of the ball

Good loser

M three wrote: »

You avoided the question.
Why are you not proportionately more annoyed at the 62 billion we borrowed to give to private banks vs the 12k a socialist td claimed on travel expenses?

Is that logical enough for you?
perhaps you dont really care and are just using it as a stick to beat joe higgins with.

The State owns all the banks except Bank of Ireland and it owns 15% of that.

It did not 'give' the banks €62 bn. It bought them. They are no longer private. Just not a great investment - so far.

M three

Good loser wrote: »

The State owns all the banks except Bank of Ireland and it owns 15% of that.

It did not 'give' the banks €62 bn. It bought them. They are no longer private. Just not a great investment - so far.

The same was said of NAMA by the government - sure we'll make money on it within a few years. Instead they're paying developers huge salaries and indulging in a bit of "insider trading"

The stake in the banks wont turn out to be a great investment, the banks are too powerful and have most politicians by the balls to ensure we wont get any sort of decent return

yore

M three wrote: »

Jesus, maybe you should come back and go into politics, you really know how to avoid a straightforward question!

You asked if I was really annoyed by the 62 billion. I answered your question. Twice.

M three wrote: »

The reality is the sindo and all the other government ass kissing rags make a big deal about joe higgins doing something as he doesnt fit their agenda.

Let Joe do what he wants to do. Just don't let him pontificate out of both sides of his mouth at me at once.

M three wrote: »

Do you recall ever seeing the figure "€62 billion" on the front page of the sindo or irish independent?
Me neither.
Plenty of bull**** non stories about rosanna davidson though.

I'd be surprised if it never appeared.

M three wrote: »

Focus on the real issue at hand here and dont get sidelined with the non stories designed and distributed to take the average punters eye of the ball

Like Rosanna Davidson? And 62 billion? Neither of which have anything to do with misuse of expenses but have been added to the mix recently for some unknown reason....

M three

yore wrote: »

Let Joe do what he wants to do. Just don't let him pontificate out of both sides of his mouth at me at once.

Not sure he's speaking to you directly. But if you feel he is, well then maybe you should talk to someone about it.

Y'know, talk to joe, about joe

Theres a number here and everything;

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/

yore

M three wrote: »

Not sure he's speaking to you directly. But if you feel he is, well then maybe you should talk to someone about it.

Y'know, talk to joe, about joe

Theres a number here and everything;

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/

Thanks for the suggestion and links. Will I need to mention Rosanna and the 62 billion as well?

M three

yore wrote: »

Thanks for the suggestion and links. Will I need to mention Rosanna and the 62 billion as well?

Just Rosanna.
Remember Joe works for Rte so he's not going to want to talk about anything important.
Ditto for Tubs, Miriam etc.

yore

M three wrote: »

Just Rosanna.
Remember Joe works for Rte so he's not going to want to talk about anything important.
Ditto for Tubs, Miriam etc.

Grand. Thanks for the tips. The bould JD is the best paid socialist in Ireland so he is. Probably paid even more than self-styled-comrade Bertie.

Goodnight!

Jolly Red Giant

yore wrote: »

I'll address this one specifically. No I did not say this. You aren't listening to what I say. you are just being protective. The thread started because it turned out that members of the ULA were claiming large expenses (despite decrying government waste etc).

The ULA TD's claim among the lowest expenses of all the TDs in the Dail. Your latest accusation that they claimed 'large expenses' is as false as the insinuation that they were making dubious claims about where they were travelling and for what purpose.

yore wrote: »

They justified this by showing what they spent the money on.

Specifically €935 on visiting 22 different locations around the country at anti-Household Tax meetings - and average of €42 per location (including on several occasions paying for B&B

yore wrote: »

the problem is that the expenses weren't legitimately meant to cover those particular costs.

Here is the rub - the problem is that the expenses were legitimately meant to cover these expenses (as I have already outlined a couple of pages back) - the entire issue was hyped by the Indo in an attempt to try and politically damage ULA TDs and the government jumped on the bandwagon only for them to have to bury it when it turned out they were in the wrong.

yore wrote: »

guns don't kill, people do*


* Systems aren't corrupt. Only people are.

Bullsh*t - of course systems are corrupt - and the capitalist system is the most corrupt system of all. It is based on bribery, corruption, cronyism, nepotism, gambling, tax fiddling, wage slavery etc. etc. etc.

People aren't corrupt - the environment they are place in makes them corrupt and capitialism is an environment where corruption is rampant.

Jolly Red Giant

Good loser wrote: »

The State owns all the banks except Bank of Ireland and it owns 15% of that.

It did not 'give' the banks €62 bn. It bought them. They are no longer private. Just not a great investment - so far.

Oh holy f*ck - smell the brown stuff you're shovelling.

We didn't buy the banks -we took over their debts - the bankers are still doing what they have always done - playing the system and cranking up the salaries and bonuses while they sack bank tellers and screw people who can't pay their mortgages.

Markcheese

I'm not surprised that the socialist reps claim ( relatively ) low expenses, their constituencies are right next to the dail...they don't have to live away from home,or drive back and forth for constituency work...sure they could claim max expenses and have a lot more left over than some one living in Donegal.(was going to say west cork.. But Ivor C made it a bad example,and apparently what he did was within rules,even though he was taking the piss)

M three

Markcheese wrote: »

I'm not surprised that the socialist reps claim ( relatively ) low expenses, their constituencies are right next to the dail...they don't have to live away from home,or drive back and forth for constituency work...sure they could claim max expenses and have a lot more left over than some one living in Donegal.(was going to say west cork.. But Ivor C made it a bad example,and apparently what he did was within rules,even though he was taking the piss)

One ULA TD's constituency is Tipp South.
Check your facts.
They claim low expenses because they're not a bunch of corrupt, compromised fu*kers like the vermin that inhabit the main political parties

Markcheese

M three wrote: »

One ULA TD's constituency is Tipp South.
Check your facts.
They claim low expenses because they're not a bunch of corrupt, compromised pfu*kers like the vermin that inhabit the main political parties

Speaking of checking facts I deliberately said socialist not ULA,
And they're not compromised ?? Everyone in business, politics, education,life is compromised by their support or previous actions...I'd guess yours bit compromised by anger(see above)
I never suggested ULA were corrupt either.Committed, driven. in my view misguided..but definitely not bent..
I reckon there's a crap expense system that's open to some abuse .by many TDs...

M three

Markcheese wrote: »

Speaking of checking facts I deliberately said socialist not ULA,
And they're not compromised ?? Everyone in business, politics, education,life is compromised by their support or previous actions...I'd guess yours bit compromised by anger(see above)
I never suggested ULA were corrupt either.Committed, driven. in my view misguided..but definitely not bent..
I reckon there's a crap expense system that's open to some abuse .by many TDs...

Fair point.
The expenses system is still and has been way more abused by people in the main political parties.
But why is it that the irish independent and the sindo decided to focus in on Joe Higgins to the extent they did?
Do you think theres an agenda at play there?

Markcheese

Probably... The only thing more right wing than the sindo is news talk (maybe not mon crief ) .. Can't listen to the breakfast show anymore..and I'm right wing ish

M three

Markcheese wrote: »

Probably... The only thing more right wing than the sindo is news talk (maybe not mon crief ) .. Can't listen to the breakfast show anymore..and I'm right wing ish

What about today fm, the matt cooper show has that complete neo con pr*ck cal thomas from america on each week.

Dont listen to matt cooper because of him.

yore

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The ULA TD's claim among the lowest expenses of all the TDs in the Dail. Your latest accusation that they claimed 'large expenses' is as false as the insinuation that they were making dubious claims about where they were travelling and for what purpose.

Fair enough. I take it back. I guess my ideas of expenses is warped by the fact that I get a card with about 30 Euro a month on it from my work (any unused expires after the month). You obviously have a much better job than me in spite of your disdain for all things capitalist!
12k to drive 6 or 8 miles a day for the few days the Dail sits isn't large at all. Sure what was I thinking

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Specifically €935 on visiting 22 different locations around the country at anti-Household Tax meetings - and average of €42 per location (including on several occasions paying for B&B


Here is the rub - the problem is that the expenses were legitimately meant to cover these expenses (as I have already outlined a couple of pages back) - the entire issue was hyped by the Indo in an attempt to try and politically damage ULA TDs and the government jumped on the bandwagon only for them to have to bury it when it turned out they were in the wrong.

No. You are trying to use technicalities. Nobody thinks that TDs should be allowed to claim expenses for personal travel. Just because a rule hasn't been made explicitly against it doesn't make it wrong. We had a referendum back a few years to change the right to Irish citizenship when it became aware that the previous situation was open to abuse. It was grand for years but then we had to legislate against it.
Would you be ok if it turned out that there were sitting FF TD's who had used Dail expenses to pay for their hotels and expenses down to the "legendary" tent at the Galway Races? Surely you'd be fine with that also?

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Bullsh*t - of course systems are corrupt - and the capitalist system is the most corrupt system of all. It is based on bribery, corruption, cronyism, nepotism, gambling, tax fiddling, wage slavery etc. etc. etc.

People aren't corrupt - the environment they are place in makes them corrupt and capitialism is an environment where corruption is rampant.

I'm sorry. But :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

K-9

Thread is getting very rantish, cut out the language and talk to Joe stuff please.

Jolly Red Giant

yore wrote: »

Fair enough. I take it back. I guess my ideas of expenses is warped by the fact that I get a card with about 30 Euro a month on it from my work (any unused expires after the month). You obviously have a much better job than me in spite of your disdain for all things capitalist!
12k to drive 6 or 8 miles a day for the few days the Dail sits isn't large at all. Sure what was I thinking

And again - who are the people trying to reform the Dail expenses system and introduce a limited vouched for system of expenses- not FF/FG/LP

yore wrote: »

Nobody thinks that TDs should be allowed to claim expenses for personal travel.

There you go again with your insinuations - None of the ULA TDs claimed any expenses for 'personal travel' - they claimed expenses for travel related to their work as a public representative.

yore wrote: »

Just because a rule hasn't been made explicitly against it doesn't make it wrong. We had a referendum back a few years to change the right to Irish citizenship when it became aware that the previous situation was open to abuse. It was grand for years but then we had to legislate against it.
Would you be ok if it turned out that there were sitting FF TD's who had used Dail expenses to pay for their hotels and expenses down to the "legendary" tent at the Galway Races? Surely you'd be fine with that also?

And I will repeat my previous comment above - who are the people trying to reform the Dail expenses system and introduce a limited vouched for system of expenses- not FF/FG/LP

yore wrote: »

I'm sorry. But :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Human beings are conditioned by their environment - and in an environment where corruption is endemic then people will act in a corrupt fashion. Capitalism is about naked greed, exploitation and walking on your fellow human beings to line your own pockets - is it surprising that those who have all the advantages take advantage of the ability to engage in corruption. Create a society where instead of profit, people's needs are the priority, where society frowns upon one human being exploiting another for personal advantage, where people work together in a cooperative fashion rather than in cut-throat competition and you eliminate the environment where corruption is endemic and you go a long way towards eliminating the corruption.

JustinDee

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

People aren't corrupt - the environment they are place in makes them corrupt and capitialism is an environment where corruption is rampant.

Au contraire, every sane individual is responsible for their own actions as it is they who makes that call.

All a little . . . well . . . Irish to wag the finger elsewhere and jump on the moral relativist train. Part of the problem with this place.

Good loser

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Oh holy f*ck - smell the brown stuff you're shovelling.

We didn't buy the banks -we took over their debts - the bankers are still doing what they have always done - playing the system and cranking up the salaries and bonuses while they sack bank tellers and screw people who can't pay their mortgages.

Oh but we did (buy them). Doesn't the fact that we now own them mean we bought them?

The workers in the banks (your bankers) are now working for the State. Virtual civil servants!

Would they not then be in the kind-and-virtuous camp you are so taken with?