TDs urging people not to pay tax - criminal negligence?

tayto lover · 25-12-2011 12:14AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

If that refusal manifests in hospital closures, are you still happy with it? If that refusal manifests in increases in VAT and income tax rates, are you still happy with it? If that refusal manifests in bankruptcy for the country, are you still happy with it?

To be honest I have thought about the country going bankrupt and that is what happened in Iceland. They managed to get rid of the corrupt shower who were running it into the ground, refused to play along and are now doing fine thank you.

K-9 · 25-12-2011 12:36AM

tayto lover wrote: »

To be honest I have thought about the country going bankrupt and that is what happened in Iceland. They managed to get rid of the corrupt shower who were running it into the ground, refused to play along and are now doing fine thank you.

They just got another shower in and nothing much has changed, I'm sure if you went into the Icelandic equivalent of Boards they are all loved up with their new situation!

I don't think there's any pleasing you tbh! The rants are entertaining though.

oscarBravo · 25-12-2011 12:37AM

tayto lover wrote: »

I am refusing to continue funding the lifestyles of the ruling classes and their mates alright. You got it in one.

That's a style of argument that annoys the hell out of me, to be honest: pretending that I said something, and then agreeing with it.

If you haven't the intellectual honesty to accept what I say and either agree or disagree with it, then do me the courtesy of not bothering to reply to me. When I've replied to you, it's been to refute your points, not to pretend that you've said something I agree with.

Its time the real people of Ireland took back control from the lunatics and you are right again in saying I am paying enough.

This is more of it. I didn't say you're paying enough; I said - loud and clear and repeatedly - that you're not paying enough. You're not paying enough; I'm not paying enough. Hell, if there's anyone in this country paying enough, it's the people making substantial six-figure incomes - you know, the ones paying more than their share of income tax, to whom I've already alluded and which you haven't had the intellectual honesty to acknowledge.

The "real people of Ireland" - whatever the hell that particular nonsense slogan is supposed to mean - aren't paying enough, or a fraction thereof. If they were paying enough, we wouldn't have a colossal current deficit.

I know, I keep introducing facts. I'm an idealist. I live in hope that sooner or later you'll actually start thinking about the issue.

Meh, who am I kidding.

I do not see myself as being responsible for the mess as I have paid for everything I ever got and never received a grant of any description unlike many who support the Govt proposals. You are right as I am outside the tent pissing in. You see I was never invited in as many of the chosen few were.

The point you're working incredibly hard to miss is that it doesn't matter in practical terms who's responsible. We are spending tens of billions more every year than we're taking in. We either need to spend less, or take in more, or - most realistically - both.

Now, I can repeating this all day. You can keep pretending it isn't true (while refusing point-blank to refute it) all day. But the bottom line is that reality has an extremely annoying habit of refusing to conform to your expectations.

So, you can either explain exactly how we continue to fund our current level of public services without raising taxes, or where we need to cut public services in order to live within our means, or - finally - answer the question about where we're going to find enough millionaires to screw in order to save you a hundred quid a year.

Or you can continue to mouth SWP rhetoric. Your call.

tayto lover wrote: »

To be honest I have thought about the country going bankrupt and that is what happened in Iceland. They managed to get rid of the corrupt shower who were running it into the ground, refused to play along and are now doing fine thank you.

Oh yeah, let's all rush to be like Iceland:

The financial crisis has had serious consequences for the Icelandic economy. The national currency has fallen sharply in value, foreign currency transactions were virtually suspended for weeks, and the market capitalisation of the Icelandic stock exchange has dropped by more than 90%. As a result of the crisis, Iceland is currently undergoing a severe economic recession; the nation's gross domestic product decreased by 5.5% in real terms in the first six months of 2009. The full cost of the crisis cannot yet be determined, but already it exceeds 75% of the country's 2007 GDP. Outside Iceland, more than half a million depositors (far more than the entire population of Iceland) found their bank accounts frozen amid a diplomatic argument over deposit insurance. German bank BayernLB faces losses of up to €1.5 billion, and has had to seek help from the German federal government. The government of the Isle of Man will pay out half of its reserves, equivalent to 7.5% of the island's GDP, in deposit insurance.

Woo, go Iceland.

tayto lover · 25-12-2011 12:41AM

K-9 wrote: »

They just got another shower in and nothing much has changed, I'm sure if you went into the Icelandic equivalent of Boards they are all loved up with their new situation!

I don't think there's any pleasing you tbh! The rants are entertaining though.

There you go
http://www.politics.ie/forum/current-affairs/145299-iceland-out-recession-can-irish-take-leaf-out-their-book.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8187476/Iceland-offers-risky-temptation-for-Ireland-as-recession-ends.html

K-9 · 25-12-2011 12:51AM

tayto lover wrote: »

There you go
http://www.politics.ie/forum/current-affairs/145299-iceland-out-recession-can-irish-take-leaf-out-their-book.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8187476/Iceland-offers-risky-temptation-for-Ireland-as-recession-ends.html

Yeah its a great little place:

Economic Incentives: Ireland and Iceland

tayto lover · 25-12-2011 01:01AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a style of argument that annoys the hell out of me, to be honest: pretending that I said something, and then agreeing with it.

If you haven't the intellectual honesty to accept what I say and either agree or disagree with it, then do me the courtesy of not bothering to reply to me. When I've replied to you, it's been to refute your points, not to pretend that you've said something I agree with. This is more of it. I didn't say you're paying enough; I said - loud and clear and repeatedly - that you're not paying enough. You're not paying enough; I'm not paying enough. Hell, if there's anyone in this country paying enough, it's the people making substantial six-figure incomes - you know, the ones paying more than their share of income tax, to whom I've already alluded and which you haven't had the intellectual honesty to acknowledge.

The "real people of Ireland" - whatever the hell that particular nonsense slogan is supposed to mean - aren't paying enough, or a fraction thereof. If they were paying enough, we wouldn't have a colossal current deficit.

I know, I keep introducing facts. I'm an idealist. I live in hope that sooner or later you'll actually start thinking about the issue.

Meh, who am I kidding. The point you're working incredibly hard to miss is that it doesn't matter in practical terms who's responsible. We are spending tens of billions more every year than we're taking in. We either need to spend less, or take in more, or - most realistically - both.

Now, I can repeating this all day. You can keep pretending it isn't true (while refusing point-blank to refute it) all day. But the bottom line is that reality has an extremely annoying habit of refusing to conform to your expectations.

So, you can either explain exactly how we continue to fund our current level of public services without raising taxes, or where we need to cut public services in order to live within our means, or - finally - answer the question about where we're going to find enough millionaires to screw in order to save you a hundred quid a year.

Or you can continue to mouth SWP rhetoric. Your call.

Oh yeah, let's all rush to be like Iceland: Woo, go Iceland.

ha ha if i do not agree with your own points then I am completely in the wrong according to you BUt the polls are still in my favour. I will never be a little yes man rowing in behind a shower of chancers who caused all our trouble. Look where your economist friends got us. We need a Govt and a tax paying population with balls to fight these people who are using us whether they are from inside or outside our country. The Icelandic people were right to burn the bondholders. I do not trust F.G./Labour any more than I trusted F.F. Too much cronyism. Still have too many links to banks through Gareth Fitzgerald, Alan Dukes, Peter Sutherland etc and still looking after their Golden Circle. "Fool me once, shame on you -- fool me twice, shame on me".
You can listen to your washed-up economists but I won't.
You continue to ask questions of me around economics and I have told you that economics is not my business but to look at the economic failures of the so-called experts who have all got it wrong.
You have not answered any of the questions I have asked regarding the farming property issue and their Property Tax. you have not told me what services i will get for this new Property Tax either. Trying to put me down will not work as I will continue to fight against what I see as unjust and will never pay.
Happy Christmas, i'm off to bed.

oscarBravo · 25-12-2011 01:01AM

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah its a great little place:

Economic Incentives: Ireland and Iceland

Ah, but tayto lover is way ahead of you: he has already discounted anything that economists have to say about anything.

I've yet to see a credible analysis from him to replace those of the economists, but I'm sure we'll see one real soon now.

tayto lover · 25-12-2011 01:09AM

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah its a great little place:

Economic Incentives: Ireland and Iceland

Better than here judging from this
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0905/iceland.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hsxBKSMtE2DxfKI-jqYZLnclB4fg?docId=CNG.2fc2939539c3556330d5a93c55faac22.481

tayto lover · 25-12-2011 01:18AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, but tayto lover is way ahead of you: he has already discounted anything that economists have to say about anything.

I've yet to see a credible analysis from him to replace those of the economists, but I'm sure we'll see one real soon now.

ha ha No you won't as I am not economically educated and only went to Secondary School. But then again you're friends who are Economists got it completely wrong and fcuked up big -time. They were the so-called experts that you like to espouse and they wouldn't know their arses from their elbows. The annoying thing is that many of them are still in power and sadly allowed to remain so and we can probably expect more damage.
The paying people have enough of the bull**** and will take no more.

oscarBravo · 25-12-2011 01:23AM

tayto lover wrote: »

ha ha if i do not agree with your own points then I am completely in the wrong according to you BUt the polls are still in my favour.

You seem to subscribe to the modern disease of thinking that if enough people believe something, it's automatically true. I don't care what the majority of people think; I care what's objectively true.

Now, I understand that there are a number of people - over-represented on these forums, it has to be said - who don't want any truck with annoying things like facts and statistics, if they contradict whatever they personally want to believe. If you're one of those - someone who believes something that isn't true because it suits them to believe it - let me know, and I'll stop wasting my time pretending to have a rational discussion with you.

I will never be a little yes man rowing in behind a shower of chancers who caused all our trouble. Look where your economist friends got us.

I don't know any economists; I certainly don't know anyone that I consider my friends.

We need a Govt and a tax paying population with balls to fight these people who are using us whether they are from inside or outside our country.

Heh. I love the irony of you talking about a "tax paying population", while advocating tax evasion.

You continue to ask questions of me around economics and I have told you that economics is not my business but to look at the economic failures of the so-called experts who have all got it wrong.

See, that's just a cop-out answer. That's just arm-waving from someone who wants an excuse not to pay tax, and can't think of a rational one, so falls back on slogans instead.

The government's job is to levy whatever taxes are required to pay for the public services that they put in place. You've made it clear that you don't want to pay the tax, but you wriggle out of questions about how the public services should be paid for.

At the end of the day, you're no different from the Cayman Island scoundrels you were castigating earlier. They had all sorts of justifications to themselves why they shouldn't have to pay the taxes levied by the democratically-elected government of the day, just as you do now.

So, which is it: were they right, just as you are right now? Or are you wrong, just as they were then?

Or do you have some sort of magical justification for why it's OK for you to evade tax, but they're evil bastards for doing exactly the same thing?

You have not answered any of the questions I have asked regarding the farming property issue and their Property Tax.

I don't have an answer: that's the role of the government to decide. Unlike you, I accept that the government has the legal right - and responsibility - to determine the taxes that each individual has to pay. Unlike you, I'm planning to pay whatever taxes the government chooses to levy, and if I don't like those taxes, I can choose to elect a different government next time out.

You're the one who's claiming that the government don't have the legal right to levy this tax, but at the same time refusing to explain why they don't have this right. One of us is being inconsistent in his approach to the government's role vis-a-vis the law of the land, and it's not me.

you have not told me what services i will get for this new Property Tax either.

You'll get the services you're currently getting. In case you've missed my point all along, those are the services we're miserably failing to pay for.

You're claiming that you're paying enough taxes for those services, but the facts (yeah, I know, those boring old facts again) show the contrary - we're not paying for them. Either we need to cut spending, or we need to pay more to cover the cost of that spending.

Now, I've been consistent in my approach to this. I've accepted that we're not paying enough tax, and that we need to pay more. I've accepted that we need to broaden our tax base, which means that the average Joe will have to shoulder the burden. I've explained that we need to cut current expenditure, which will mean cuts to social welfare rates and to public services.

You seem to be labouring under the delusion that you're already fully funding the public services that you receive, and that you are therefore entitled to receive more for your hundred quid a year. Either you haven't been paying attention, or - more likely - you've bought wholesale into the quasi-socialist rhetoric that says we can all live like kings as long as we can find enough rich people to tax until their eyeballs bleed.

I can't force you to live in the real world, but I can keep arguing with you on this forum in order to make your arguments look as empty and stupid as possible. It's nothing personal; it's my (and your) small contribution towards raising the national consciousness. Christ knows it will almost certainly amount to nothing: there's none so deaf as them that will not hear.

Trying to put me down will not work as I will continue to fight against what I see as unjust and will never pay.

I'm not trying to put you down. I genuinely, heartfeltedly believe that you are as wrong as you can possibly be in this matter. I accept that there are millions of people who see things the same way you do, and I genuinely believe that they are all equally wrong. I refuse to believe that repeating a lie often enough makes it true.

We. Have. No. Friggin. Money.

In order to get out of this hole, we're all going to have to pay until it hurts, and then pay a little more. You can call that unjust, but that doesn't change the facts, unfortunately.

Happy Christmas, i'm off to bed.

G'night, happy Christmas. I hope you and yours have a good one.

tayto lover · 25-12-2011 01:29AM

I have NEVER refused to pay any tax until now. I simply won't pay it as I consider it theft.
I have NO faith in this Government or its advisors, economists etc to get us out of the mess. AND they will continue to come back year on year, budget on budget, with more crazy schemes to cover their debt. I will not pay.

What about the farmers? Any sign of you answering for a change?

Nite, nite.

tayto lover · 25-12-2011 11:08AM

Wishing all posters whether for or against the Property Tax a very Happy Christmas

Liam Byrne · 25-12-2011 10:59PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

tayto lover wrote: »

1. Do not hand over 3.5 Billion to unguaranteed Bondholders.

Thought exercise for you: you take out a loan, for which you are not required to provide collateral. You decide not to pay back the loan. You apply for another loan.

What do you suppose will be the outcome of the second application?

I think the relevant word in the above post is "you"

We didn't take out the loan. Let them take the issue up with the idiots that did, as well as the ignorant f**kwit that signed us up to take over their liabilities without a mandate to do so.

And the bondholders didn't take out a guaranteed bond, either - if they wanted a guarantee then they should have.

oscarBravo · 26-12-2011 01:20AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I think the relevant word in the above post is "you"

We didn't take out the loan. Let them take the issue up with the idiots that did, as well as the ignorant f**kwit that signed us up to take over their liabilities without a mandate to do so.

And the bondholders didn't take out a guaranteed bond, either - if they wanted a guarantee then they should have.

You're missing the point, and conflating the way you think the bond markets should work with the way they do.

People keep saying that we - the Irish state - shouldn't be paying unsecured bondholders. In other words, they're saying that we should tell the people who lend money to sovereign nations that we won't be paying the debts that they expect us to pay.

Now, the rights and wrongs of whether we should or shouldn't have to pay those debts is completely irrelevant to the question of whether we'll be in a position to borrow from those same bondholders in the future, if we tell them that they're not getting their money back now.

I'm assuming you've arrived at the correct conclusion of the thought exercise, which is that you will be refused credit once you've defaulted on a loan. The question of whether or not we should be refused credit is a completely separate one from that of whether we would be refused credit, and the people who want us to burn the bondholders need to explain why they think the burnt bondholders will queue up to lend us more money.

oscarBravo · 26-12-2011 01:25AM

tayto lover wrote: »

I have NEVER refused to pay any tax until now. I simply won't pay it as I consider it theft.

Maybe the people with money stashed in the Cayman Islands considered DIRT to be theft, and had a similarly principled objection to paying it.

You don't get to decide what's theft. The government has the legal right to levy taxes, and you refusing to pay a legally-mandated tax is tax evasion in precisely the same way that bogus non-resident accounts were vehicles for tax evasion. Not wanting to pay a tax isn't a good enough reason not to pay it.

I have NO faith in this Government or its advisors, economists etc to get us out of the mess. AND they will continue to come back year on year, budget on budget, with more crazy schemes to cover their debt. I will not pay.

I had no faith in the last couple of governments. I still paid every cent of tax that was levied on me. Why? Because I was legally required to do so, and I'm not a tax evader.

What about the farmers? Any sign of you answering for a change?

I answered: I don't know. It's not my call to make. The fact that I don't know what the best way is to levy property tax on a farm doesn't legitimise your tax evasion in any way.

Liam Byrne · 26-12-2011 09:53AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I think the relevant word in the above post is "you"

We didn't take out the loan. Let them take the issue up with the idiots that did, as well as the ignorant f**kwit that signed us up to take over their liabilities without a mandate to do so.

And the bondholders didn't take out a guaranteed bond, either - if they wanted a guarantee then they should have.

You're missing the point, and conflating the way you think the bond markets should work with the way they do.

People keep saying that we - the Irish state - shouldn't be paying unsecured bondholders. In other words, they're saying that we should tell the people who lend money to sovereign nations that we won't be paying the debts that they expect us to pay.

Now, the rights and wrongs of whether we should or shouldn't have to pay those debts is completely irrelevant to the question of whether we'll be in a position to borrow from those same bondholders in the future, if we tell them that they're not getting their money back now.

I'm assuming you've arrived at the correct conclusion of the thought exercise, which is that you will be refused credit once you've defaulted on a loan. The question of whether or not we should be refused credit is a completely separate one from that of whether we would be refused credit, and the people who want us to burn the bondholders need to explain why they think the burnt bondholders will queue up to lend us more money.

Read my post again, because the above has nothing to do with it.

Your thought exercise involved an individual taking out a loan. It did not involve a country taking out a loan. Why ? Because Ireland didn't take out those loans.

Lenihan's legacy has been to confuse the two, with our credit rating being hammered just because the cowboys like Drumm & Quinn and Fitzpatrick were let run loose by FF and then protected later.

And as I pointed out, the bondholders CHOSE to go for an unsecured bond.

I personally don't give a flying f**k how they think they "should" operate - they need to be given a reality check.

The ONLY debts we should be paying are OUR OWN. The other ones aren't ours, and wouldn't be if Fianna Fail hadn't hung us out to dry.

The politics charter prevents me from using a suitable word to describe them and what they did to my country.

Liam Byrne · 26-12-2011 09:59AM

The government's job is to levy whatever taxes are required to pay for the public services that they put in place.

That's how it SHOULD work, but doesn't. You're conflating how it should work with how it really works.

So given your explicit making of that distinction earlier re bondholders and markets I'm surprised that you trotted it out here.

oscarBravo · 26-12-2011 12:36PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Read my post again, because the above has nothing to do with it.

Your thought exercise involved an individual taking out a loan. It did not involve a country taking out a loan. Why ? Because Ireland didn't take out those loans.

Lenihan's legacy has been to confuse the two, with our credit rating being hammered just because the cowboys like Drumm & Quinn and Fitzpatrick were let run loose by FF and then protected later.

And as I pointed out, the bondholders CHOSE to go for an unsecured bond.

I personally don't give a flying f**k how they think they "should" operate - they need to be given a reality check.

You're still doing it.

I'll try another analogy. If you want to pick holes in the analogy instead of making the effort to understand what I'm trying to explain, that's your call:

You and your wife have a credit card in joint names. Without asking you, she lends her deadbeat brother a couple of grand to cover his drug and gambling debts, and finances the loan by taking out a cash advance on the credit card. He skips the country.

Now, you don't gamble or do drugs. So is it fair that you are stuck with a couple of grand of debt at a high interest rate?

My point is that it doesn't matter whether or not it's fair; what matters is that, as far as the credit card company is concerned, you owe them money. A credit card is unsecured debt - you don't put up your house as collateral when applying for one - but if you refuse to pay on the grounds that, morally, you shouldn't have to pay other people's debts, it's your credit record that suffers, and you won't get a car loan or a mortgage next time you need one.

The ONLY debts we should be paying are OUR OWN. The other ones aren't ours, and wouldn't be if Fianna Fail hadn't hung us out to dry.

The politics charter prevents me from using a suitable word to describe them and what they did to my country.

This is also true of the deadbeat brother-in-law in my analogy. You can rage and fume and call him all the names you want, but you have a choice: you can pay the debts you're stuck with, or you can kiss your credit rating goodbye.

I'm not saying it's fair. I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying I'm happy that this is where we are. I'm saying that it's all very well to talk about the things we should be doing (like burning bondholders) as if those were actions devoid of consequences, but we live in a country that we can't seem to run without borrowing (largely because we as a people are vocally opposed to a broad tax base), so we are choosing to live by the lenders' rules. It sucks, but it's how it is.

oscarBravo · 26-12-2011 12:40PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's how it SHOULD work, but doesn't. You're conflating how it should work with how it really works.

You're correct: it's how it should work. How it really works is that we take in insufficient tax revenue to cover the cost of public services, and borrow the difference at close to 7% on the bond markets. When the markets balk at lending a near-bankrupt country more money, we turn to the IMF for a bailout.

So yes: it SHOULD work the way I described, where the government cuts public expenditure and raises taxes until the books balance. It doesn't work that way, because when they try to raise taxes, they hit campaigns like this one where people refuse to pay them; and when they try to cut expenditure, there's a loud public protest against every single cutback.

I don't have any answers, I'm afraid.

Liam Byrne · 26-12-2011 02:20PM

OscarBravo wrote:

try to raise taxes, they hit campaigns like this one where people refuse to pay them; and when they try to cut expenditure, there's a loud public protest against every single cutback.

That - in my view - is because of their unethical and morally bankrupt way of doing things.

IF taxes were going on services instead of bailing out the Quinns or paying horrendous undeserved pensions to the Aherns of this world, THEN it could be argued that they are required.

So - as I've said hundreds of times - cut the rot an THEN come back to us for the balance.

Anything else gets even relative moderates like myself absolutely fuming, and rightly so.

oscarBravo · 26-12-2011 02:48PM

I'm not disagreeing with you, Liam. I'm making the point that we're talking about two different things. You're still arguing over the "why" of bridging the gap in our public finances; I'm discussing the "how".

The morals and ethics underlying the budget deficit are worthy of detailed debate. In the meantime, the credit card company is demanding payment, and you can't get the loan you need to send your kid to college if you refuse to pay. So you have a choice: you stick to your principled stance, and deny your kid an education, or you swallow your rage, pay off the loan, and make plans to kick the crap out of your brother-in-law in your own good time.

There are no palatable choices here, but there's not a lot of scope for a principled stand either.

tayto lover · 26-12-2011 04:01PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you, Liam. I'm making the point that we're talking about two different things. You're still arguing over the "why" of bridging the gap in our public finances; I'm discussing the "how".

The morals and ethics underlying the budget deficit are worthy of detailed debate. In the meantime, the credit card company is demanding payment, and you can't get the loan you need to send your kid to college if you refuse to pay. So you have a choice: you stick to your principled stance, and deny your kid an education, or you swallow your rage, pay off the loan, and make plans to kick the crap out of your brother-in-law in your own good time.

There are no palatable choices here, but there's not a lot of scope for a principled stand either.

Yet many people with money do not have to borrow on their credit card or anywhere else in order to educate their children because they get grants for nothing. They will have no problems with their credit rating unlike the middle class working man or the self employed man who is just surviving. This Property Tax is just another way of crucifying one section of the people yet again.
There is no such thing as equality in this country as far as I can see.

tayto lover · 26-12-2011 04:05PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe the people with money stashed in the Cayman Islands considered DIRT to be theft, and had a similarly principled objection to paying it.

You don't get to decide what's theft. The government has the legal right to levy taxes, and you refusing to pay a legally-mandated tax is tax evasion in precisely the same way that bogus non-resident accounts were vehicles for tax evasion. Not wanting to pay a tax isn't a good enough reason not to pay it. I had no faith in the last couple of governments. I still paid every cent of tax that was levied on me. Why? Because I was legally required to do so, and I'm not a tax evader. I answered: I don't know. It's not my call to make. The fact that I don't know what the best way is to levy property tax on a farm doesn't legitimise your tax evasion in any way.

I know I will be breaking the law but its worth it to me and it might highlight the inequality in the system as many households with a lot more money than mine take in will not have to pay it. Just wait and see how the farmers will be let off.
What services will we receive for this Property Tax that we are not paying for already?

oscarBravo · 26-12-2011 05:56PM

tayto lover wrote: »

This Property Tax is just another way of crucifying one section of the people yet again.
There is no such thing as equality in this country as far as I can see.

No, there's no such thing as equality in this country. The majority of the income tax is paid by the minority of the people. I've pointed this out three times already, and you've ignored it completely, because it doesn't support the narrative that justifies your tax evasion.

tayto lover wrote: »

I know I will be breaking the law but its worth it to me and it might highlight the inequality in the system...

Will you support me if I refuse to pay income tax, in order to highlight the inequality I've pointed out four times already?

What services will we receive for this Property Tax that we are not paying for already?

I'm getting tired of repeating myself. You obviously have your mind firmly made up, and no amount of logic or reason is going to make the slightest dent in your conviction.

Fine, go ahead and be a tax evader. Maybe if we all refuse to pay VAT or income tax or corporation tax, the money fairies will magically pay for the hospitals and roads and police. That seems to be what you're hoping for. Good luck with that.

tayto lover · 26-12-2011 06:11PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, there's no such thing as equality in this country. The majority of the income tax is paid by the minority of the people. I've pointed this out three times already, and you've ignored it completely, because it doesn't support the narrative that justifies your tax evasion.

Will you support me if I refuse to pay income tax, in order to highlight the inequality I've pointed out four times already? I'm getting tired of repeating myself. You obviously have your mind firmly made up, and no amount of logic or reason is going to make the slightest dent in your conviction.

Fine, go ahead and be a tax evader. Maybe if we all refuse to pay VAT or income tax or corporation tax, the money fairies will magically pay for the hospitals and roads and police. That seems to be what you're hoping for. Good luck with that.

Why should I when its not being taken from everyone? Here's another statistic relating to Denmark for you too.

Irish farm land is the most expensive in Europe at about €60,000 a hectare

Average Income Tax paid per farmer in 2007 was €1,895

Farmers have become landlords across Europe on the back of the billions made from development land

Farmers take from the Transport 21 roadbuilding budget of €18.5bn is €4.2bn - 23%, compared with 10% in Denmark

Irish farmers have been the biggest foreign purchasers of English land in recent years

From the introduction of the third level grant support scheme in the late 1960's, farmers children who drove their own cars to college, were likely to be also beneficiaries of the grant scheme

25% of total Irish revenue was raised directly by taxes on land in the 19th century; For most of the period since 1973, Ireland has been the top per capita beneficiary of European public funds via the EU's Common Agricultural Policy.

In the early years of the State, public monies were used for vote buying in rural areas through land distribution and more than ten times the social housing investment of urban areas.

The world is at the dawn of a boom in agriculture with growing demand in Emerging Economies for the type of agricultural products that Ireland produces. Australia is already gearing up for the growth in beef and dairy demand in 12 Asian countries, which account for 50% of the world's population. The IFA is fighting tooth and nail for its old style protections and priviliges as if it's oblivious to the many opportunities in new markets. It's obsessed with Brazilian beef but where in Europe would an Irish branded steak house be found?

Irish Farmers and Income Tax

Irish farmers paid €173 million in income tax last year or 1.3 per cent of the total income tax take in 2007, an average of €1,895 per farmer compared with €4,943 for PAYE workers and €12,927 for the self-employed.

The figure, which includes yields from special investigations carried out by the Revenue Commissioners, compares to 79.3% from the PAYE sector.

oscarBravo · 26-12-2011 06:19PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Why should I when its not being taken from everyone?

So you want a society where nobody has to pay anything unless everyone else pays exactly the same amount? You would prefer a more equal distribution of the income tax burden?

tayto lover · 26-12-2011 06:24PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you want a society where nobody has to pay anything unless everyone else pays exactly the same amount? You would prefer a more equal distribution of the income tax burden?

I am waiting a long time for them to "fix" that. If everybody paid what they should we would all pay less.

Liam Byrne · 26-12-2011 08:48PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you, Liam. I'm making the point that we're talking about two different things. You're still arguing over the "why" of bridging the gap in our public finances; I'm discussing the "how".

Huh? I suggested not bailing out the Sean Quinns of this world and not paying the gutter-rats like Ahern.

I agree that that wouldn't bridge the whole gap, but it would at least ensure that the extra money isn't being wasted.

Likewise, the fact remains that the bondholders not only gave the money to a PRIVATE company with which no average Irish person dealt, but also CHOSE to go go for an UNGUARANTEED bond; the laws of finance suggest that any returns unguaranteed bonds would be higher due to a COMPLETE LACK OF RISK......remove the risk and those bondholders aren't entitled to the amounts that they are being paid under ANY even remotely fair solution.

Those are the FACTS. And someone, somewhere needs to cop the f**k on and stop wasting cash on the elite of this country and the bondholders.

FG got elected on false pretences, so if the only way we can get them to represent us is to withhold tax until they act as they promised, then that is not our fault by any stretch of the imagination.

oscarBravo · 26-12-2011 11:46PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I am waiting a long time for them to "fix" that. If everybody paid what they should we would all pay less.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

FG got elected on false pretences, so if the only way we can get them to represent us is to withhold tax until they act as they promised, then that is not our fault by any stretch of the imagination.

I've run out of ways to try to bring any semblance of logic to this discussion.

Go ahead, continue the noble Irish tradition of finding excuses for not paying your taxes. The worst of it is, the government will probably cave in the face of a strong campaign of public opposition, and we'll continue to be a country that's incapable of broadening our tax base to the point where it's sustainable.

The real irony is that the same people who are demanding that we continue the same insane Fianna Fáil-inspired policy of an unsustainably narrow tax base will be the people in the front of the queue to criticise Fine Gael for continuing the same unsustainable policies of the previous government - and, what's worse, they are apparently intellectually incapable of recognising the irony of their position.

Jimmy Garlic · 27-12-2011 06:49AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've run out of ways to try to bring any semblance of logic to this discussion.

Go ahead, continue the noble Irish tradition of finding excuses for not paying your taxes. The worst of it is, the government will probably cave in the face of a strong campaign of public opposition, and we'll continue to be a country that's incapable of broadening our tax base to the point where it's sustainable.

Sustainable for who?. I am at the point where I can't pay any more tax without sacrificing the needs of my family.

The real irony is that the same people who are demanding that we continue the same insane Fianna Fáil-inspired policy of an unsustainably narrow tax base will be the people in the front of the queue to criticise Fine Gael for continuing the same unsustainable policies of the previous government - and, what's worse, they are apparently intellectually incapable of recognising the irony of their position.

FF ran a 'feel good' kleptocracy for 10+ years, they never touched their rich buddys. When the fake, baseless boom was going on they shat money in every direction. FG is continuing the same policy of rich buddy protection and expects everyone else to pay for it.

hallelujajordan · 27-12-2011 10:41AM

tayto lover wrote: »

I am waiting a long time for them to "fix" that. If everybody paid what they should we would all pay less.

Interested in understanding how you rationalise this argument. . If we all pay less then the overall tax take is lower and the deficit gets bigger . . am i missing something ???

Bullseye1 · 27-12-2011 10:50AM

There is another way to bridge the public finances and it was something people where told was going to happen.

1. Reduce the social welfare bill.
2. Reduce the public expenditure especially the size of the public sector and it's pension bill.

If the government was actually spending the money they collect in a better way and not just inflating public sector numbers (jobs for the boys) and allow the private sector to provide employment we would all be better off.

Do you trust government to spend money wisely? I don't.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you, Liam. I'm making the point that we're talking about two different things. You're still arguing over the "why" of bridging the gap in our public finances; I'm discussing the "how".

The morals and ethics underlying the budget deficit are worthy of detailed debate. In the meantime, the credit card company is demanding payment, and you can't get the loan you need to send your kid to college if you refuse to pay. So you have a choice: you stick to your principled stance, and deny your kid an education, or you swallow your rage, pay off the loan, and make plans to kick the crap out of your brother-in-law in your own good time.

There are no palatable choices here, but there's not a lot of scope for a principled stand either.

djpbarry · 27-12-2011 11:08AM

tayto lover wrote: »

I am refusing to continue funding the lifestyles of the ruling classes and their mates alright.

Taxing the bejesus out of the entire "ruling class and their mates" (whoever they are) wouldn't even make a dent in the deficit.

tayto lover wrote: »

ha ha No you won't as I am not economically educated and only went to Secondary School.

I'm not "economically educated" either, in that I have never formally studied economics.

I am, however, capable of performing basic arithmetic. Given that you have attended secondary school, I trust that you are too?

Jimmy Garlic · 27-12-2011 11:18AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Taxing the bejesus out of the entire "ruling class and their mates" (whoever they are) wouldn't even make a dent in the deficit.

Sing along, choir boy. There are more than a few gombenos in this country that have been getting "heads up'' and different treatment for years. You are a relic of the 'old skool', everybody knows who they are.

Liam Byrne · 27-12-2011 11:20AM

oscarBravo wrote:

Go ahead, continue the noble Irish tradition of finding excuses for not paying your taxes.

That's a low blow, and uncalled for. Trying to associate those objecting to waste with long-term tax evaders, now ?

The exact same argument could be spewed in relation to the noble Irish tradition of self-important deluded incompetents overpaying themselves and looking after their mates and not doing their jobs.

Both traditions need to be stopped, but those in power need to be taught that the waste needs to stop FIRST!

tayto lover · 27-12-2011 11:40AM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Interested in understanding how you rationalise this argument. . If we all pay less then the overall tax take is lower and the deficit gets bigger . . am i missing something ???

If the people who could afford to pay more i.e. the farmers who pay f/all paid their share then the rest of us might get a break.
Wait and see how the Property Tax will effect this sector because I believe they will get away on the cheap yet again and the urban dwellers will have to take the burden.

tayto lover · 27-12-2011 11:43AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Taxing the bejesus out of the entire "ruling class and their mates" (whoever they are) wouldn't even make a dent in the deficit.
I'm not "economically educated" either, in that I have never formally studied economics.

I am, however, capable of performing basic arithmetic. Given that you have attended secondary school, I trust that you are too?

Do you believe that there are people in Ireland getting an easy ride with taxes? I do. Just look at the farmers and I have posted details already.

oscarBravo · 27-12-2011 11:47AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's a low blow, and uncalled for. Trying to associate those objecting to waste with long-term tax evaders, now ?

No, I'm not. I object to waste as well, but I'm not going to compound the problem of government waste by withholding taxes that I'm legally obliged to pay. I consider it hypocritical to complain about people evading DIRT, all the while planning to evade the household charge.

If you're planning not to pay tax, you don't get to complain about other people who decide not to pay their taxes without opening yourself to a charge of hypocrisy.

Both traditions need to be stopped, but those in power need to be taught that the waste needs to stop FIRST!

And that's where you're wrong. The yawning chasm of deficit needs to stop first, for reasons that are pragmatic rather than principled.

Fixing a broken and largely corrupt society is something that can only be done over time. The correct time to do it is when the country is running well, but the electorate squandered their chance to do so by repeatedly voting for profligate and blatant vote-buying.

You may be sure it's many of the same people - along with many others, to be fair - who are loudly proclaiming that they won't pay their taxes until the government makes someone else pay first.

tayto lover · 27-12-2011 12:27PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Taxing the bejesus out of the entire "ruling class and their mates" (whoever they are) wouldn't even make a dent in the deficit.
I'm not "economically educated" either, in that I have never formally studied economics.

I am, however, capable of performing basic arithmetic. Given that you have attended secondary school, I trust that you are too?

And do you think that the people who were in power and in charge of the economy for umpteen years had basic arithmetic too?
Continue to be a little "yes" man and see where it gets you.

Kavrocks · 27-12-2011 12:30PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The ONLY debts we should be paying are OUR OWN. The other ones aren't ours, and wouldn't be if Fianna Fail hadn't hung us out to dry.

You have very subtlety contradicted yourself. The debts are ours and they are ours because of the blanket bank guarantee put in place by Fianna Fail and your contradiction shows you know that but don't want to admit it.

None of my taxes or your taxes have gone to pay off any of these debts. All the money pumped into the banks has been borrowed and not a cent has been paid by the taxpayer.

I can't wait to see what everybody who says they won't pay the property tax do when the Minister for Justice brings in the new law which will allow the Government to take taxes like the property tax and fines straight out of your income or social welfare payments. I think its a great idea and one that in the long run will save the state money.

Bullseye1 · 27-12-2011 12:40PM

How does in any way giving wasteful government more money make sense. As tax payers we are entitled to see our money spent wisely. It's been shown since the foundation of the state that no government has shown they are capable of wise governance when it comes to the public coffers. If people blindly agree to every new tax without serious political reform from top to bottom this country is going to be stagnant for generations.

I know we have a serious deficit one where we spend more than we make. So spend less. Much less. Let the private sector recover and it create jobs.

tayto lover · 27-12-2011 12:40PM

Kavrocks wrote: »

You have very subtlety contradicted yourself. The debts are ours and they are ours because of the blanket bank guarantee put in place by Fianna Fail and your contradiction shows you know that but don't want to admit it.

None of my taxes or your taxes have gone to pay off any of these debts. All the money pumped into the banks has been borrowed and not a cent has been paid by the taxpayer.

I can't wait to see what everybody who says they won't pay the property tax do when the Minister for Justice brings in the new law which will allow the Government to take taxes like the property tax and fines straight out of your income or social welfare payments. I think its a great idea and one that in the long run will save the state money.

If that happens then you will really see the anger of the people and we will take to the streets in our hundreds of thousands. I predict it will cost them more in the long run because things will really get rough with civil disobedience on a large scale. Most people I know are very angry about this tax. It might be a very bad idea in the long run.

oscarBravo · 27-12-2011 12:42PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Most people I know are very angry about this tax.

How many of them took to the streets to protest against Fianna Fáil's giveaway budgets and unsustainable tax policies?

Bullseye1 · 27-12-2011 12:51PM

About as many as the number increases in the public sector.

tayto lover · 27-12-2011 12:53PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many of them took to the streets to protest against Fianna Fáil's giveaway budgets and unsustainable tax policies?

A few but they are really losing patience now. If you keep going to the same well and that well is running dry then you can expect an increase in anger.
You don't seem to realise that people are making choices on whether to pay bills or feed their children properly. It's gone that bad with a lot of families I know.
More taxes are going to make that a lot worse.
You seem to make light of what I am saying but mark my words there will be serious protests sooner rather than later.

Liam Byrne · 27-12-2011 12:54PM

Kavrocks wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The ONLY debts we should be paying are OUR OWN. The other ones aren't ours, and wouldn't be if Fianna Fail hadn't hung us out to dry.

You have very subtlety contradicted yourself. The debts are ours and they are ours because of the blanket bank guarantee put in place by Fianna Fail and your contradiction shows you know that but don't want to admit it.

Not quite. They are not our debts because we didn't take out the loans or agree to pay them back.

None of my taxes or your taxes have gone to pay off any of these debts. All the money pumped into the banks has been borrowed and not a cent has been paid by the taxpayer.

Really ? What about NAMA and what about the interest on the borrowed money ?

I can't wait to see what everybody who says they won't pay the property tax do when the Minister for Justice brings in the new law which will allow the Government to take taxes like the property tax and fines straight out of your income or social welfare payments. I think its a great idea and one that in the long run will save the state money.

Telling the likes of Ahern and Quinn and their other mates that they weren't getting pensions would save the state money too, but they wouldn't dream of doing that because it would affect them and not us.

thebman · 27-12-2011 01:03PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, I'm not. I object to waste as well, but I'm not going to compound the problem of government waste by withholding taxes that I'm legally obliged to pay. I consider it hypocritical to complain about people evading DIRT, all the while planning to evade the household charge.

If you're planning not to pay tax, you don't get to complain about other people who decide not to pay their taxes without opening yourself to a charge of hypocrisy. And that's where you're wrong. The yawning chasm of deficit needs to stop first, for reasons that are pragmatic rather than principled.

Fixing a broken and largely corrupt society is something that can only be done over time. The correct time to do it is when the country is running well, but the electorate squandered their chance to do so by repeatedly voting for profligate and blatant vote-buying.

You may be sure it's many of the same people - along with many others, to be fair - who are loudly proclaiming that they won't pay their taxes until the government makes someone else pay first.

Here is the issue, if you keep letting them increase tax without objection, they'll keep doing as if they try to tackle the waste in the services they'll face mass objection from the people working there.

So your trapped between a rock and a hard place. How does one best object to tax increases while still paying them but send a strong enough message to government that they realise it is going to be less objectionable to most people if they tackle the waste now rather than continuing to put it on the long finger.

I'm not advocating not paying the tax but what is the alternative strong message to government? Realistically I can't see how you can tax increase first over reforming services as you don't know how much your reforms are going to realistically save so don't know how much you extra you need to take in from taxes. Seems like a backward way of going about it.

Kavrocks · 27-12-2011 01:21PM

tayto lover wrote: »

If that happens then you will really see the anger of the people and we will take to the streets in our hundreds of thousands. I predict it will cost them more in the long run because things will really get rough with civil disobedience on a large scale. Most people I know are very angry about this tax. It might be a very bad idea in the long run.

Civil disobedience will only play into their hands with more fines and more revenues.

It might be a bad idea but right now I think its a great idea and can't wait to see it come in and see what the outcome is.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Not quite. They are not our debts because we didn't take out the loans or agree to pay them back.

You don't seem open to reason so I won't bother explaining it again to you.

Really ? What about NAMA and what about the interest on the borrowed money ?

All being borrowed for at the moment and the hope is overall NAMA will return a profit.
We are due to pay something like 3 billion interest some time next year which we are already planning to borrow from the ECB/IMF to pay.

Telling the likes of Ahern and Quinn and their other mates that they weren't getting pensions would save the state money too, but they wouldn't dream of doing that because it would affect them and not us.

So you would like them to commit a crime and disobey the law? They can only go so far with their pensions and they have started by taxing them.

If everybody in the country actually opened their eyes and paid attention to what was going on instead of reading the tripe in the tabloids they would have a much better picture of what was going on and people wouldn't be so angry.

tayto lover · 27-12-2011 01:27PM

Civil disobedience will only play into their hands with more fines and more revenues.

It might be a bad idea but right now I think its a great idea and can't wait to see it come in and see what the outcome is.

They will not be in a position to pay fines so are there enough prison places for them all?

Galwayguy35 · 27-12-2011 01:30PM

Is there not a rumour going around that it may be taken out of peoples wages like the USC?

TDs urging people not to pay tax - criminal negligence?

Comments