Election 2011 - General

[Spudulika]

Ah, I didn't realise he was Louth, that makes a lot of sense.

Thanks for that osarusan. They're ok with him stealing their money then? ;)

Lowry's Tipp, it's bad enough on the border as it is!

I am just suggesting that thanks to our mentality, alot of Irish admire the cute hoor and fella who gets things done. In any other country Bertie Ahern would be in jail, his former cellmate Haughey laid to rest in a prison graveyard. Instead they just retain their earning power.

[jinxy lilywhite]

I don't think Adams would poll him out though. Adams would get the SF vote in louth but probably nothing else from anywhere else in the county. alot of locals in louth dissappointed that adams is not local and would not stand for local issues or local interests. There is also the questions surrounding his brother, his IRA past, that would turn moderate voters off him. I thought tomas sharkey would of been a better SF candidate, as he was hi jacking the save the louth hospital campaign
With the Louth Hospital amongst others being the biggest issue in dlk, ahern might of struggled but he would of pulled enough ff from around louth to be seen comfortably over the line.

Louth is looking interesting though. O'Dowd (FG) will get in by his drogheda vote. Mid Louth will probably vote Mairead Mcguinnes (fg), Seamus kirk (ff) will be returned as ceann comhairle & they reckon sean gallagher is going to run on a ff ticket(probably will not get in as he isn't local), I don't think labour have a strong candidate, so the last seat will be an FF candidate, Adams, labour candidate. Mark Deary of the greens would be my pref but i doubt he will get enough to challenge for a seat. I reckon FF will still have enough hardcore and secret voters to have another FF in

[mypost]

I don't think Adams would poll him out though. Adams would get the SF vote in louth but probably nothing else from anywhere else in the county. alot of locals in louth dissappointed that adams is not local and would not stand for local issues or local interests. There is also the questions surrounding his brother, his IRA past, that would turn moderate voters off him. I thought tomas sharkey would of been a better SF candidate, as he was hi jacking the save the louth hospital campaign

One of the more fundamental aspects of standing in a constituency should be, that you have some connection with the constituency. I've no doubt he'll be elected, but what is Adams' specific connection with Louth?

The Lowry issue is strange alright. Former FG TD, now delaying them forming a new government by telling them to vote for the budget, rather than do it himself. Mad.

[ArdeeBhoy]

It's to do with proximity to the North, as in An Lu.
Once the 10th county of Ulaidh....no way would things have worked out as they did, if they'd kept them in!

[Macy]

One of the more fundamental aspects of standing in a constituency should be, that you have some connection with the constituency.
Totally agree - how would a TD know where the potholes are to get fixed without that local knowledge, never mind knowing where to deliver the passports...

[Eminence Grise]

One of the more fundamental aspects of standing in a constituency should be, that you have some connection with the constituency. I've no doubt he'll be elected, but what is Adams' specific connection with Louth?

Bunkers and silos, diesel, safe houses...

[BohsPartisan]

There are 33,000 tax dodging millionairs with a net worth of €121 billion euro. Going after public sector workers and social welfare recipients, who both took a hit last year is just plain wrong. The fact that Shell is still being allowed to remove natural resources worth €450 billion euro from our territory is also wrong. There is plenty of wealth around to sort out the country. These austerity measures are part of the Friedmanite agenda that has dominated mainstream economics for decades. What we are facing in terms of economic measures is a war on the working and middle class by big business sponsored governments who have been carrying out the transfer of wealth from working people to the rich. What we're facing is chicago school measures that were first implemented in Chile under Pinochet and led to skyrocketing inflation and mass unemployment. Don't buy the lie that we can't afford not to make cuts.

[geysir]

Pinochet was reckoned to be as thick as a brick when it came to economic matters, but even he kept the copper mines under State control.
That policy in regards to valuable State assets would not be tolerated by the EU and Ireland. They would set out with gusto to scuttle a perfectly healthy State company, in the name of competitive openness and efficiency.

[BohsPartisan]

Pinochet was reckoned to be as thick as a brick when it came to economic matters, but even he kept the copper mines under State control.
That policy in regards to valuable State assets would not be tolerated by the EU and Ireland. They would set out with gusto to scuttle a perfectly healthy State company, in the name of competitive openness and efficiency.

Yeah, the only reason the country didn't go under altogether. Friedmans disciples were advising him from day one so it's surprising they kept that public. Maybe they knew they were peddling a great steaming pile of sh*te after all.

[dahamsta]

There are 33,000 tax dodging millionairs with a net worth of €121 billion euro.

Got evidence for that? According to Brendas Burgess of AAM (http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=126706), just 359 people earning over 250k paid 0-20% of tax last year. Now I'm not a fan of Brendan's opinions on taxation, by any stretch of the imagination, but he does post data to support his assertion.

[BohsPartisan]

Got evidence for that? According to Brendas Burgess of AAM (http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=126706), just 359 people earning over 250k paid 0-20% of tax last year. Now I'm not a fan of Brendan's opinions on taxation, by any stretch of the imagination, but he does post data to support his assertion.

Cork IT Economics lecturer Tom O'Connor (http://www.insideireland.ie/index.cfm/section/news/ext/tomocconnor001/)

[jinxy lilywhite]

Totally agree - how would a TD know where the potholes are to get fixed without that local knowledge, never mind knowing where to deliver the passports...

But the fundamentals of politics is all about local issues being brought to the national agenda. it is the same all over the world.
I don't think Adams will get in. That is my gut feeling.
Though all the border constiteuncies do have a SF TD now.

[dahamsta]

Cork IT Economics lecturer Tom O'Connor (http://www.insideireland.ie/index.cfm/section/news/ext/tomocconnor001/)

I think perhaps you're reading that article slightly different to me. To me, Tom hasn't gone anywhere near suggesting that those millionaires are dodging tax, he's simply suggesting that they should be paying more tax. Big, big difference.

There's very little doubt that tax avoidance in Ireland is way too easy, but nearly all of us do it on some level. My company pays me a (very, very) small pension that would cost me more if I did it personally, and I check my entitlements every year and take advantage of them.

Personally, I don't consider that tax avoidance; and equally personally, I couldn't afford it any other way. However the wealthy say exactly the same thing, because they have much higher expenses. They also have expensive accountants who can a) find more loopholes, and b) lobby for even more loopholes.

That still doesn't make them tax dodgers though. Tax avoiders maybe. If you have a problem with it, lobby your TD to get the loopholes closed. Unfortunately that's how it works in Ireland.

adam

[osarusan]

From the article Bohspartisan linked to:

This is the part I find galling (if true)


These 33,000 millionaires have been the main beneficiaries of about €20bn in tax expenditures by the state since 2005 through various means: tax relief on pensions, which at one point was over €1m; a myriad of property tax reliefs; reliefs on private nursing homes and hospitals; capital allowances; the PRSI ceiling; and a whole raft of others.

In fact Dr Michael Collins, a Trinity based Economist and member of the Commission on taxation, reiterated the view on 17 October this year that there are still 110 of these so called "loop holes" in place, costing the exchequer €11bn per annum.

[dahamsta]

I'd be very suprised if it wasn't. The fact remains that they're not doing anything wrong by availing of them. It could be argued that morally they should ignore them and just pay the taxes, but on one level that would be like us paying full whack on the bins, rent, mortgage, etc. Of course they can afford it better than we can, but they have as much "right" to those reliefs as we do. The answer is to revoke the spurious ones, pure and simple.

[osarusan]

I'd be very suprised if it wasn't. The fact remains that they're not doing anything wrong by availing of them. It could be argued that morally they should ignore them and just pay the taxes, but on one level that would be like us paying full whack on the bins, rent, mortgage, etc. Of course they can afford it better than we can, but they have as much "right" to those reliefs as we do. The answer is to revoke the spurious ones, pure and simple.

Oh I know, I'm not galled by those availing of them, as I'd expect no less (or no more?) of them. i'm galled by those allowing them to continue, as after all the comments about everybody taking a hit, something like this one pops up. you'd hope that the EU/IMF, with a fine-tooth comb through our finances, would notice something like this.

[BohsPartisan]

I think perhaps you're reading that article slightly different to me. To me, Tom hasn't gone anywhere near suggesting that those millionaires are dodging tax, he's simply suggesting that they should be paying more tax. Big, big difference.



Okay, maybe I should have qualified that I didn't mean they were doing something illegal, but isn't dodging something just a more pro-active way of avoiding something? These guys haven't spent years making donations to the main political parties for nothing. They do it because they get to call the major policy shots, the ones you most certainly won't find in any manifesto (apart from the PDs and look what happened to them) because people don't want them. Me lobbying my TD on this matter is the equivelant of throwing a boomerang into the grand canyon and expecting it to come back. When money controls politics it controls what is legal and what is not and even when something is illegal money can find a way around it. Obviously not a level playing field. It's also virtually impossible for PAYE worker to avoid tax for example. Maybe we could avoid VAT by shoplifting but you'll find you get a harsher hand than the lads who slip a few quid to "the party".

Here's an interesting little video about money and the US political system that is food for thought...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVN8zADDvEg&feature=sub

[dahamsta]

Okay, maybe I should have qualified that I didn't mean they were doing something illegal, but isn't dodging something just a more pro-active way of avoiding something?

That's what "dodge" means, of course, but the term "tax dodger" is generally used to signify tax evasion rather than tax avoidance. The latter is morally questionable, the former is illegal and somewhat frowned upon by the Revenue. If you accuse someone of being a tax dodger - in particular if they're one of the aforementioned millionaires - you'd likely find yourself in court defending yourself against a defamation claim.


Me lobbying my TD on this matter is the equivelant of throwing a boomerang into the grand canyon and expecting it to come back.Sorry, but I have the same opinions on that as I do on not voting, starting with the simplistic:


If you're not in, you can't win.
If you're not in, you have no right to complain.
If you're not it, I have no interest in listening to you.
If you're not in, you're part of the problem.

I could go on, but that's generally how I feel about non-voters, non-lobbyers. It takes about as much energy to send an email, fax or letter to all of your representives as it does to vote, which is pretty much feck all. Make a list after the election, make up a template, off you go. Rant and rave to your heart's content, most of the time they'll actually reply.


When money controls politicsI can understand your cynicism, but that's just not true. Money certainly has an enormous part to play, but if it was the be-all and end-all, you wouldn't see them tripping over themselves with all the u-turns. Of course the fact that they're as willing to jump because of public opinion is another source of cynicism, but that's politics for you...


It's also virtually impossible for PAYE worker to avoid tax for example.You avoid tax exactly the way they do when you apply for tax relief on your bins, your rent, your mortgage, your child that lives with his mammy, etc, etc. As I said earlier, they just have more opportunities, and accountants to find them.

As osarusan says, closing the loopholes is the answer. And lobbying your representatives is the only way you, personally, have of helping to affect that change. If you don't, they will assume you're a-ok with them.

No offense, but I'm not going to watch the video. While I accept that we've replicated the excesses of America here, this remains a completely different country with completely different dynamics.

adam

[geysir]

Tax loopholes are deliberate tax avoidance schemes, often brought in for some supposedly beneficial purpose for society. Does society ever receive benefit more than a small % of the benefit that is gained by the financial elite?

There is also nothing wrong done when the government decides that bondholder debt becomes sovereign debt. The government is constitutionally entitled to make that decision. We don't blame the bondholders for saying yes. They would be pretty stupid if they decided voluntarily to take a 50% cut.
Afaic, the same morale is used to justify the existence of legal tax loopholes for the financial elite/corporations, as is used to justify the bailing out the bondholders. That morale is, the public interest is served by serving the vast needs of the financial elite as a priority, even to the point of flogging the public.

[BohsPartisan]

That's what "dodge" means, of course, but the term "tax dodger" is generally used to signify tax evasion rather than tax avoidance. The latter is morally questionable, the former is illegal and somewhat frowned upon by the Revenue. If you accuse someone of being a tax dodger - in particular if they're one of the aforementioned millionaires - you'd likely find yourself in court defending yourself against a defamation claim.

Again proves that there is one law for them, one for us.




Sorry, but I have the same opinions on that as I do on not voting, starting with the simplistic:


If you're not in, you can't win.
If you're not in, you have no right to complain.
If you're not it, I have no interest in listening to you.
If you're not in, you're part of the problem.

I could go on, but that's generally how I feel about non-voters, non-lobbyers. It takes about as much energy to send an email, fax or letter to all of your representives as it does to vote, which is pretty much feck all. Make a list after the election, make up a template, off you go. Rant and rave to your heart's content, most of the time they'll actually reply.

Replying is one thing (and it isn't actually them who reply, don't cod yourself) acting is another. What they'll do is send one of their stack's of pre-prepared representations to a government department where a civil servant of middlemanagement grade will draft a standard reply on why x,y or z can't be done or what long drawn out process is going on to make it happen. The letter will go through a few higher hands to check and it will be signed off on by the minister. Or one of the constituency workers will write back to you. Nothing will happen though (unless it's a query about potholes or rough kids hanging around on the corner)



I can understand your cynicism, but that's just not true. Money certainly has an enormous part to play, but if it was the be-all and end-all, you wouldn't see them tripping over themselves with all the u-turns. Of course the fact that they're as willing to jump because of public opinion is another source of cynicism, but that's politics for you...
Don't see them jumping due to public opinion right now on austerity or on resigning from government before the budget. For one thing, a lot of the issues they vacilate on are the non economic ones, for another not all rich people have the same interests on every single issue so you will get conflicted policy making. The reason I posted the video is it doesn't give a simplistic "they give money, get what they want" explanation.


You avoid tax exactly the way they do when you apply for tax relief on your bins, your rent, your mortgage, your child that lives with his mammy, etc, etc. As I said earlier, they just have more opportunities, and accountants to find them.
I get your point but we're really talking a miniscule amount for those things compared to what the wealthy get away with.

[pineapple stu]

Again proves that there is one law for them, one for us.
No it doesn't. Maybe it shows that they can afford better legal representation than you, but the law is the same for all - you can't falsely accuse someone of something illegal (dodging tax in this case). If I publicly and in writing accuse you of dodging tax by claiming medical expenses relief, you would have recourse to take me to court over it too. That you mayn't be able to afford to do so - or even have the inclination to do so - is irrelevant.

[Billsthoughts]

If I publicly and in writing accuse you of dodging tax by claiming medical expenses relief, you would have recourse to take me to court over it too. That you mayn't be able to afford to do so - or even have the inclination to do so - is irrelevant.

I would say it is very relevant to the discussion. Charles Haughey used the threat of expensive legal action to hide obvious wrong doing for years.

[Dodge]

Plus like most well known sayings, it isn't meant to be taken that literally

[pineapple stu]

That's different though. The case here is that if you falsely accuse someone of something illegal, then if they sue you, that doesn't prove that there's one law for them and one for us. And in any case, the law is the same even in the case you quoted; it may well constitute bullying, but that doesn't mean there's one law for them and one for us.

[BohsPartisan]

That's different though. The case here is that if you falsely accuse someone of something illegal, then if they sue you, that doesn't prove that there's one law for them and one for us. And in any case, the law is the same even in the case you quoted; it may well constitute bullying, but that doesn't mean there's one law for them and one for us.

The term "one law for them and one law for us" doesn't mean there are literally two different laws and it is adequately illlustrated by Billsthoughts. There may not be two different legal frameworks but the ability for some to use the system and others not to because of personal wealth has the same affect.

It is also well illustrated by the fact that politicians and speculators involved in planning corruption end up in tribunals rather than the courts like people who don't pay bin charges or are involved in small scale welfare fraud.

[pineapple stu]

Still doesn't mean you can go around falsely accusing people of dodging tax, which is what you seemed to used the phrase to defend doing.

[dahamsta]

Again proves that there is one law for them, one for us.

stu has convered this adequately. The law is the law. Moreover, your representatives write and/or enact these laws, so the following applies here too.


Replying is one thing (and it isn't actually them who reply, don't cod yourself)I've actually been a lobbyist on behalf of a small but relatively successful pressure group (http://irelandoffline.org/), and of course myself, so I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my hat. So:


Of course they don't write every response, in the same way you wouldn't write every response if a very large part of your job was correspondence. They do, however, generally dictate their own responses, which is essentially the same thing. Generally of course, not always; some delegate, some send form letters, some don't even reply. There's muppets in every field.
Of course they try to fob you off, that's how politics works; that's why pressure groups have the word "pressure" in the name. If you're not happy with their response, whether it comes directly from them or indirectly from a Minister, you have to refute their response and hit back. Again, it's not an all-consuming affair, it takes as much time to as it took to write your response to me.
Things do happen. I've had TDs and MEPs vote according to my wishes, and although it's very hard to know whether they would have voted that way anyway, if people don't get in touch and make their feelings known, they will vote with the way those companies and wealthy people you have so much disdain for will ask them to. I've met TDs, had coffee and lunch with them, and they will listen - and discuss - if you have something valid to say. And my colleagues in IrelandOffline have met ministers and encouraged them to implement things like government-mandated flat-rate internet access (http://www.google.ie/search?q=friaco+%22dermot+ahern%22). If it wasn't for the pressure they generated on top of the commercial lobbying, I'd wonder if we'd ever have had it.


Don't see them jumping due to public opinion right now on austerity or on resigning from government before the budget.Marching is very different to lobbying, and we both know that in the grand scheme of things, a 50k march isn't going to change anything. If perhaps 1m+ people descended on Dail Eireann, and a few hundred occupied the Dail successfully for a few days, there might be more success. That won't happen because we're just a lazy, lax nation of people.

If an equivalent or less number of people wrote to their TD and told them, in no uncertain terms - and followed up on it, both with replies and on election day - that if they vote for the budget they will not appear on their ballot card, the budget would likely fail and the government would likely fall. I have no proof for that, but I have absolutely no doubt it would be the case.


I get your point but we're really talking a miniscule amount for those things compared to what the wealthy get away with.I'm not arguing with that, but they're just as entitled as you while those reliefs exist, and complaining here about it will achieve even less than your estimation of the affect complaining to your TD about it will.

Do yourself a favour and break The Oirish Way mold. Take your complaints here, reframe them, and send them to your representatives. Which is more likely to actually change something? Because I can tell you right here and now, much as I love ye all posting here, ye'll change feck all doing it.

adam

[Macy]

Still doesn't mean you can go around falsely accusing people of dodging tax, which is what you seemed to used the phrase to defend doing.
Gotta say, I wouldn't equate tax dodging to only tax evasion. Tax dodging to me is evasion and avoidance. No idea how that would stand up in court, so I'll know to be careful in future when dishing out distain!

[pineapple stu]

Well yeah. I was going with dahamsta's definition really. It does sound to me more like tax evasion, and I think that was the way it was meant as well.

[dahamsta]

It must be true, I read it in the Sun.

(In an odd way, that's where my definition comes from. Not the fact that they use it, but the regularity with which they're sued over it. For that reason, if someone here called someone a tax dodger, I'd presume they meant tax evader and I'd deal with it that way. Perhaps I'm biased because I'm considered - wholly incorrectly - a publisher.)

[BohsPartisan]

Tax dodging is not a legal definition and it is well illustrated by Macy's point which is the way I meant it andcould easily be argued in court. It would be a pretty flimsy defamation case and I'd wager not many would want to take it as the amount of tax they legally avoid would become public knowledge.

Also, I wouldn't consider myself a practitioner of the Oirish way DH. Probably more the continental way and my occassional posts on here are by no means a proxy war by keyboard.

[dahamsta]

I never said it was a legal definition BP, and my point stands. When the media stops getting sued for calling people tax dodgers, I'll be happy to accept a different definition.

I wasn't calling you in particular a practitioner of the Oirish way, just that that's the way I view people that complain in public, rather than in a way that actually has any semblance of a chance of achieving something. You've obviously done it in the past, I recognise your failures, and sympathise with them. Unfortunately persistance is the only way to achieve anything with a politician. Complain to them first, us later.

[BonnieShels]

New poll out tonight...
Fine Gael 32%
Labour 24%
Sinn Féin 16%
Fianna Fáil 13%
Greens 3%

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1202/politics.html

[dahamsta]

I'll jizz myself with joy if FF drop into single figures.

[BonnieShels]

I'll jizz myself with joy if FF drop into single figures.

I'll join ya. ;)
If only to rub it in Dermo Ahern's homophobic face...

Oooh.

[culloty82]

A statistician at NUI Maynooth has come up with the following from the poll numbers:

FG 67
Lab 50
SF 22
Oth 15
FF 12

Only Canada would have seen anything like it.

[BonnieShels]

A statistician at NUI Maynooth has come up with the following from the poll numbers:

FG 67
Lab 50
SF 22
Oth 15
FF 12

Only Canada would have seen anything like it.

Which I translate as a Labour-SF government eep.

[Macy]

FF are dead if they are not even the main opposition!

[peadar1987]

Which I translate as a Labour-SF government eep.

Wouldn't be the worst. I don't like SF, but I think labour could temper their crazy a little!

[ArdeeBhoy]

Which I translate as a Labour-SF government

90 years or so too late, but it'd be a start.
Though whoever wins could be so unpopular because of the austerity measures, it might let in one of the previous shower next time round?

[BonnieShels]

Wouldn't be the worst. I don't like SF, but I think labour could temper their crazy a little!

But who will temper Labour's crazy.
Really I can't see SF jumping so high and FF falling so low.
SF poll results never translate into seat numbers. FF will still, unfortunately be in existence. I think if we have an FG-Labour super-majority governnent, ie. somewhere in the region of 110-120 seats then I think that they could manage to put through whatever measures are needed to be done in the country to fix it.
I've a fuzzy feeling this morning looking at those FF figures so forgive some of my hyperbole.

[OneRedArmy]

Oh to have a first past the post system for this election only. That would sort FF out permanently.

[BonnieShels]

Wouldn't that have been the ultimate irony if that was the end of them after Dev proposing that in the forties.
It's still disconcerting that 13% still think they are the answer.
Though to what question, god only knows. I can only hope they head the way of the PDs and election 2016 sees a proper left v right, FG v Labour-SF election.

[dahamsta]

SF poll results never translate into seat numbers.

I don't think there's enough data to support that assertion. SF's rise in interest has had, what, 2-4 data points? Even that's a stretch. Plus of course using polls as a data point either way is just a waste of time, the way they're run is dodgy at best.

[BonnieShels]

Very true, but look at the last election... they were getting fairly decent poll results but they didn't end up with the seats that the polls suggested.

[dahamsta]

That would be data point number 3 or 4. I don't mean to be rude, but did you not understand my post?

[BonnieShels]

I completely misunderstood your point. Why I ever bothered to comment on statistics whilst hungover I'll never know.

[dahamsta]

I find it's best to avoid the subject while sober too. ;)

[BonnieShels]

I try to avoid it at all costs.
Very quiet day politically. Probably nothing going to happen until Wednesday.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Wouldn't trust polls to any great degree. There is a large cohort of the electorate out there that has been voting FF and I'd take any indication from them that they'll vote any other way with a large pinch of salt. As likely as not they just won't vote at all which may actually be something of a help to the 13%+? who actually will vote FF.

Saw a lass on PK last night who was a classic case study. Frustrated, fervent FF supporter who is -on evidence presented fairly uninterested in politics itself beyond calling Sarah whatserface a blueshirt. She just supports FF the same way she supports ...I dunno ...Tipp hurlin', ManU and Mary Byrne in X factor.

But she still gets to put an X in a box and as far as she is concerned, despite some soapy comment when pressed by Pat about 'the left gettin together' that kind of trailed off, her voting choice will be FF or stay home.

Too many out there like that for the real knockout blow to be delivered.