Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 3] *Poll Reset*

K-9

darkhorse wrote: »

It turns out, K-9, that it was more than a theory when some of us said that we did'nt really believe that the govt. were collecting all the extra charges/taxes to ensure we got better services. What has changed, donalg1, is that Mr Noonan is practically telling us now where the extra money is going, but sure we already had a fair idea anyway.

Banker pensions are 'indirectly' funded by taxes
FINANCE Minister Michael Noonan has said he is unable to "categorically" deny that taxpayers' money was used to prop up pensions of "disgraced senior bankers" in State-owned banks AIB and IBRC (the former Anglo Irish Bank).

Well tax payers money did go to the banks, its hardly a shocking revelation. My God, some of ye would make great spindoctors!

The same logic is, it's going to hospitals and schools but that wouldn't be as eye catching and outrageous.

Hijpo

K-9 wrote: »

Well tax payers money did go to the banks, its hardly a shocking revelation. My God, some of ye would make great spindoctors!

The same logic is, it's going to hospitals and schools but that wouldn't be as eye catching and outrageous.

That would be because it would be tax payers money going to services for the tax payer not a lavish pension for some figure fiddelong prick already on 150k

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

That would be because it would be tax payers money going to services for the tax payer not a lavish pension for some figure fiddelong prick already on 150k

So its ok if taxpayers money is spent on providing services then is it.

D_murph

Ghandee wrote: »

No, this has been well publicised slick.

I'm expecting a big turn out for this.

Not by RTE it hasnt but then again, Im not surprised about that :rolleyes:.

K-9

Hijpo wrote: »

That would be because it would be tax payers money going to services for the tax payer not a lavish pension for some figure fiddelong prick already on 150k

Ach, they'll make the retired politicians, regulators and top civil servants feel less reviled, they should all start a group or something.

Vizzy

D_murph wrote: »

Not by RTE it hasnt but then again, Im not surprised about that :rolleyes:.

Wait a sec.
You want the national broadcaster to publicise a march/protest which promotes the breaking of the law.
I don't want my licence fee going towards that,thanks very much.

D_murph

Vizzy wrote: »

Wait a sec.
You want the national broadcaster to publicise a march/protest which promotes the breaking of the law.
I don't want my licence fee going towards that,thanks very much.

Arent you a good little girl eh :rolleyes:?

Besides, that march is mostly people legally protesting against austerity, which we are democratically entitled to do. Of course it doesnt suit the govt to promote this so they have gagged RTE (once again) on this matter and I can guarantee you they will tell us that a lot less people were there than what really turned up when this is all over.

Just like a few other marches I was at myself or heard about from those that did attend :rolleyes:.

darkhorse

Vizzy wrote: »

Wait a sec.
You want the national broadcaster to publicise a march/protest which promotes the breaking of the law.

So its now against the law to protest?

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

Well nothing has really changed then as we all knew taxpayers money was being used for this.

But, do you mean to say that there is a possibility that the HHC is also to be used for this purpose.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

So its ok if taxpayers money is spent on providing services then is it.

Are you confused?
When i am being force fed stories of recession, austerity and a public sector over spending by billions so i must lose more of my spendable income to pay extra taxes, then i would expect that when i pay taxes they are in return for services and not to prop up an already wealthy persons lavish pension.
A TD can afford to put 1000 euro a month into there pension, 1000 euro lol my net pay is just over that per month and 80% of thats to pay for mortgage, car etc

K-9

darkhorse wrote: »

But, do you mean to say that there is a possibility that the HHC is also to be used for this purpose.

Be honest, if it wasn't bankers pensions, you'd just point to some other Government waste and be suitably outraged.

darkhorse

K-9 wrote: »

Be honest, if it wasn't bankers pensions, you'd just point to some other Government waste and be suitably outraged.

Sorry, is that an answer to my question?

K-9

darkhorse wrote: »

Sorry, is that an answer to my question?

Sorry, I answered that in my previous reply to you. It pays for bankers pensions as much as it pays for a childs operation in Crumlin, roadworks, garda overtime, quangos, your child going to school, it goes into the general taxation pool in a roundabout way.

Question answered so feel free to answer mine.

Ghandee

Vizzy wrote: »

Wait a sec.
You want the national broadcaster to publicise a march/protest which promotes the breaking of the law.
I don't want my licence fee going towards that,thanks very much.

An anti-austerity march is 'against the law' now

Oh my God! I've woken up in Pyongyang! :eek:

Ghandee

K-9 wrote: »

Be honest, if it wasn't bankers pensions, you'd just point to some other Government waste and be suitably outraged.

So, let me get this straight K-9 (so you and me are both singing from the same hymn sheet as it were)

We've been told, that the troika insisted a property tax must be introduced as a fundamental term of our bailout, (which the troika then came out and said they were open to any other revenue raising measures)

We've been told, that in order to 'keep the lights on' so to speak, essential services in urban and rural areas must now be funded by, first the hhc (which will set up the database needed to establish a property Tax) and that the money collected would be ringfenced to fund these 'local services' even receiving threats that rebel counties budgets would be cut to make up the shortfall of those refusing to pay for the sham.

The reason the troika are in town is because bankers and politicians and a non existence regulator let the country go to the wall, resulting inIreland losing its sovereignty, and enslaving its citizens to a life time of debt, for the next few generations, a debt racked up by bankers in a private institution. The debt had/has no bearing on the Irish people in any shape or form, yet we're the ones that have been saddled with it by the EU.

Then............

Despite all the promises and reassurances by the govt of 'ring fencing' this and 'essential local services' that, Noonan comes out and tells us, that 'he cannot guarantee that our tax payers money, has and does, in some shape or form fund pensions of bankers' the very people who got its into the shíts we're in now, while hundreds of thousands of citizens lost their jobs, due to their recklessness and negligence, and as those lucky enough to still have jobs see their salaries raped and pillaged of further tax increases/USC charges and drops in salaries due to the shyte economy.......

Yet, your on here basically telling us, 'ah sure look it, if it wasn't bankers pensions getting funded by your cash, you'd find another reason not to pay it'

Lies after lies after lies, the economy is in ruins and austerity still is snapping at the ales of hundreds of thousands of ordinary men and woman, while the very people who created the mess still enjoy lavish salaries and multiple pensions at our expense.

You're ok with that?

The mind boggles.

Ghandee

Noonan claims he can't touch the pensions......

Waiting in the wings, FF, and SF both opposing a property tax, and then they drop this bombshell.....:D

BANKERS' pensions would be slashed by as much as 99pc on amounts over €100,000 under separate proposals put forward by opposition parties.

It comes as new figures show that 47 people have retired on pensions of above €100,000 a year since 2008, after leaving either a bailed-out bank, NAMA or the NTMA.

Four people have retired from the Department of Finance on similarly high pensions.

Yesterday, Fianna Fail's Michael McGrath and Sinn Fein's Pearse Doherty vied with each other to bring forward tough new proposals aimed at slashing such payouts.

But Finance Minister Michael Noonan insists there are major hurdles to be overcome before pensions can be touched.
Both sets of proposals would leave the first €100,000 untouched. But under Fianna Fail's proposals, pensions of between €100,000 and €150,000 would be cut by 20pc.

Pensions of €150,000 to €200,000 would be reduced by 30pc, and those in excess of €400,000 would be cut by 40pc.
That would mean a reduction of at least €160,000 a year for the highest paid. The cuts are modelled on a 20pc cut already imposed on the pensions of some retired civil servants. Fianna Fail says that these cuts could be imposed by amending the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010.

It would not fall foul of constitutional protections or existing pension law, Michael McGrath claimed. Legal advice showed it would stand a Constitutional challenge. The proposed changes would apply to pensions of the retired staff of AIB, Bank of Ireland, the former Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society as well as EBS and Permanent TSB –all bailed out.

Under plans put forward by Mr Doherty, any pension of more than €100,000 from the rescued banks would be hit with a 99pc levy on amounts above that figure. He also wants new levies on pay for current bank staff, including a 40pc levy on pay over €250,000, a year. Perks Meanwhile, as the pension controversy continues to rage new figures released to Sinn Fein show that almost 3,000 staff at bailed-out banks still earn over €100,000 a year, including pay and perks.

Bank of Ireland (BoI) and Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) were already known to be still paying some executives more than the €500,000.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ff-and-sf-call-for-massive-cuts-to-banker-pension-deals-3301345.html

Why FG continue to sit on their hands and not curtail the wastage at the banks, (like they promised pre-election is beyond me.

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

An anti-austerity march is 'against the law' now

Oh my God! I've woken up in Pyongyang! :eek:

Protesting against austerity is not against the law. It is about as silly as protesting against the bad weather IMO, but it isn’t illegal.

Not paying the HHC charge is. But of course you knew full well that this is what Vizzy was referring to.

It would be interesting to see how many who support this protest against the HHC (as well as other non-illegal things!) have condemned Sean Quins’s supporters for their protests?

Mind we know that that is different. When SQ breaks the law and costs the exchequer money, he is stealing from the people. When the gang here won’t pay the HHC and costs the exchequer money, they are stopping the government (!) stealing from them.

BTW, I notice on the Facebook page for the protest that one of the “likes” comes from a property management crew. Always good to have the auctioneers on board! Sure if you get a few bankers and builders to add their support I’d say you have every chance of beating the number that turned up in Westport for the first prosecution.

Ghandee wrote: »

Despite all the promises and reassurances by the govt of 'ring fencing' this and 'essential local services' that, Noonan comes out and tells us, that 'he cannot guarantee that our tax payers money, has and does, in some shape or form fund pensions of bankers

False dichotomy

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

Protesting against austerity is not against the law. It is about as silly as protesting against the bad weather IMO, but it isn’t illegal.

Keep telling yourself that Mr.;)

Portugal's government is preparing a U-turn on an announced rise in social security contributions that would have instantly increased workers' payments by nearly two-thirds amid a growing popular revolt against austerity measures.

Hundreds of thousands of people took to town squares across the country a week ago to protest at the announced rise, which raised contributions from 11 to 18% of salaries, sparking a pledge by the government this weekend to reconsider the unpopular move.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/23/portugal-u-turn-social-security?cat=world&type=article

lugha wrote: »

Not paying the HHC charge is. But of course you knew full well that this is what Vizzy was referring to.

No, go back through the posts Lugha.
Start with slick, move on through the other posts and how vizzy reached his concussion.

lugha wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how many who support this protest against the HHC (as well as other non-illegal things!) have condemned Sean Quins’s supporters for their protests?

Mind we know that that is different. When SQ breaks the law and costs the exchequer money, he is stealing from the people. When the gang here won’t pay the HHC and costs the exchequer money, they are stopping the government (!) stealing from them.

We're now on our third thread, I cannot recall seeing support for Mr Quinn by either side yet.
Why you bringing him to the table?

lugha wrote: »

BTW, I notice on the Facebook page for the protest that one of the “likes” comes from a property management crew. Always good to have the auctioneers on board! Sure if you get a few bankers and builders to add their support I’d say you have every chance of beating the number that turned up in Westport for the first prosecution.

Whoa, hold the horses there auld hand....

There hasn't been any prosecution yet.:pac:

lugha wrote: »

False dichotomy

Tax payers money is tax payers money.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

So, let me get this straight K-9 (so you and me are both singing from the same hymn sheet as it were)

We've been told, that the troika insisted a property tax must be introduced as a fundamental term of our bailout, (which the troika then came out and said they were open to any other revenue raising measures)

We've been told, that in order to 'keep the lights on' so to speak, essential services in urban and rural areas must now be funded by, first the hhc (which will set up the database needed to establish a property Tax) and that the money collected would be ringfenced to fund these 'local services' even receiving threats that rebel counties budgets would be cut to make up the shortfall of those refusing to pay for the sham.

The reason the troika are in town is because bankers and politicians and a non existence regulator let the country go to the wall, resulting inIreland losing its sovereignty, and enslaving its citizens to a life time of debt, for the next few generations, a debt racked up by bankers in a private institution. The debt had/has no bearing on the Irish people in any shape or form, yet we're the ones that have been saddled with it by the EU.

Then............

Despite all the promises and reassurances by the govt of 'ring fencing' this and 'essential local services' that, Noonan comes out and tells us, that 'he cannot guarantee that our tax payers money, has and does, in some shape or form fund pensions of bankers' the very people who got its into the shíts we're in now, while hundreds of thousands of citizens lost their jobs, due to their recklessness and negligence, and as those lucky enough to still have jobs see their salaries raped and pillaged of further tax increases/USC charges and drops in salaries due to the shyte economy.......

Yet, your on here basically telling us, 'ah sure look it, if it wasn't bankers pensions getting funded by your cash, you'd find another reason not to pay it'

Lies after lies after lies, the economy is in ruins and austerity still is snapping at the ales of hundreds of thousands of ordinary men and woman, while the very people who created the mess still enjoy lavish salaries and multiple pensions at our expense.

You're ok with that?

The mind boggles.

I dont think anyone is ok with the fact we have to pay more taxes to bail out a bunch of idiotic bankers, gamblers and the stupidest political party in our history. However, fact is when the two Brians guaranteed the banks they left us to pick up the bill, now if there is some other way to get us out of this mess that doesnt involve paying more taxes then of course that would be great but unfortunately nobody has come up with a plausable way of making that happen.

We were screwed by FF, and screwed by the banks, and screwed by the developers and citizens that got greedy, thats the reality here today.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

I dont think anyone is ok with the fact we have to pay more taxes to bail out a bunch of idiotic bankers, gamblers and the stupidest political party in our history. However, fact is when the two Brians guaranteed the banks they left us to pick up the bill, now if there is some other way to get us out of this mess that doesnt involve paying more taxes then of course that would be great but unfortunately nobody has come up with a plausable way of making that happen.

We were screwed by FF, and screwed by the banks, and screwed by the developers and citizens that got greedy, thats the reality here today.

There is a way to show your displeasure at how they're reacting though Donal.

For some (that submitted their details) that ship has sailed though.

Chips Lovell

darkhorse wrote: »

It turns out, K-9, that it was more than a theory when some of us said that we did'nt really believe that the govt. were collecting all the extra charges/taxes to ensure we got better services. What has changed, donalg1, is that Mr Noonan is practically telling us now where the extra money is going, but sure we already had a fair idea anyway.

Banker pensions are 'indirectly' funded by taxes
FINANCE Minister Michael Noonan has said he is unable to "categorically" deny that taxpayers' money was used to prop up pensions of "disgraced senior bankers" in State-owned banks AIB and IBRC (the former Anglo Irish Bank).

Like a lot of things raised on this thread, this has precious little to do with the Household Charge.

Funding raised by the tax is going to local authorities, as evidenced by the fact that central government grants to local authorities are now being dictated by collection levels in individual counties.

Even if it was going into a central funding pot, then it still isn't being used to prop up AIB's pension fund. AIB received its last bailout long before the Household Charge was introduced, indeed before the current government was elected.

Not to mention the fact that there were sound reasons for AIB recapitalising its pension fund, but again, that's beside the point.

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Like a lot of things raised on this thread, this has precious little to do with the Household Charge.

Funding raised by the tax is going to local authorities, as evidenced by the fact that central government grants to local authorities are now being dictated by collection levels in individual counties.

Even if it was going into a central funding pot, then it still isn't being used to prop up AIB's pension fund. AIB received its last bailout long before the Household Charge was introduced, indeed before the current government was elected.

Not to mention the fact that there were sound reasons for AIB recapitalising its pension fund, but again, that's beside the point.

The last unsecured bondholders (AIB) was made when?

Chips Lovell

Ghandee wrote: »

The last unsecured bondholders (AIB) was made when?

What's that got to do with when AIB was bailed out?

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

Keep telling yourself that Mr.;)

Well I appreciate and accept that a campaign against austerity just might have as big as success as it could hope for and bring down the government. No doubt you lads will party hard and happy if that happens.

But it is the next bit that where the details are a bit sketchy. A new government is formed and there is no more austerity! And we find a generous lender who will happily lend to us as we spend more than we raise. You couldn’t give us an ‘aul one-liner as to how that will work, could you?

Ghandee wrote: »

We're now on our third thread, I cannot recall seeing support for Mr Quinn by either side yet. Why you bringing him to the table?

It has to do with consistency of argument. A central plank in the no sides argument is that it is permissible to break the law if you sincerely believe the law is unfair / unjust. It is quite clear that Sean Quinn believes he is been treated unfairly. Ergo, he is justified in breaking the law.
Of course, and as you point out, the no side do not agree with and condemn him as much as anyone else. Surely you can see the inconsistency here? And when there is an inconsistency, that rather undermines someone’s argument.

Ghandee wrote: »

There hasn't been any prosecution yet

You’re playing word games. And not doing too well IMO. There has been a prosecution, just no conviction. Yet .

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

What's that got to do with when AIB was bailed out?

Who owns AIB now?

And where do you think the money came from to pay them?

Chips Lovell

Ghandee wrote: »

Who owns AIB now?

And where do you think the money came from to pay them?

We do. And the money came in long before the Household Charge was introduced. Claiming your Household Charge money is being used to repay bondholders or prop up AIB's pension fund is incorrect.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

There is a way to show your displeasure at how they're reacting though Donal.

For some (that submitted their details) that ship has sailed though.

I wouldnt think so you see people can pay the HHC and still protest against austerity, in fact I would say they have more reason to protest against it as it has cost them more than someone who hasnt paid it. Plus those that have paid it would carry a lot more weight than those that havent, as those that havent could be pointed at and branded as law breakers.

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

We do. And the money came in long before the Household Charge was introduced. Claiming your Household Charge money is being used to repay bondholders or prop up AIB's pension fund is incorrect.

You need to have a word with Noonan so.

'Tax payers money'

That term could (and no doubt will evolve into) a wide spectrum.

Chips Lovell

Ghandee wrote: »

You need to have a word with Noonan so.

'Tax payers money'

That term could (and no doubt will evolve into) a wide spectrum.

Of course it was taxpayers money. The point is that taxpayers money was given to AIB long before the Household Charge was introduced.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

I wouldnt think so you see people can pay the HHC and still protest against austerity, in fact I would say they have more reason to protest against it as it has cost them more than someone who hasnt paid it. Plus those that have paid it would carry a lot more weight than those that havent, as those that havent could be pointed at and branded as law breakers.

How many of the protestors will turn up on Saturday, 110% regretting paying the hhc would you think?