Auditor #9 wrote:

coc wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

The ICTU 10 Point Plan here - not a lot to it, by the looks of it:

http://www.ino.ie/Attachment.aspx?nAttID=2303

Is the National Recovery Bond not a good idea?

Begg selling it now. He's doing a good job too.

Will it be very transparent though ? The banks need to be bypassed at this stage.

The difficulty with a national bond could be that it would cause a problem for the banks as that's where most of the money would come from and if it caused a serious cash flow problem the Government could end up having to lend it back to the banks again. I like the idea of a national bond and I'm sure it would be well supported, but where's the cash going to come from in a way that doesn't hurt the banks ability to lend?

candide wrote:

He has refused to appear before the Dáil committee tomorrow according to the new on RTE

He is right not to attend, by the way. If he were my client I would certainly advise him not to attend before any committee which cannot force him to attend where he would be compelled to answer questions which might later be used as the basis for an action against him. He would be mad to attend.

Whether or not the Oireachtas should have powers to force attendance is an entirely different matter but in the absence of such power I would strongly advise someone in his position not to attend.

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Can we not estimate what the interest would be going to foreign debt first and issue a National Bond to this quanitity only for a start. Switching over radically to a whole new system all of a sudden is a bit mental anyway so couldn't it not be built up over time.

Projects that result would be published in the papers and so on. It'd be great - just like the lotto.

I'm not convinced this can't be done.

It can be done, I've no doubt of it, but equally it's not as straight forward a win win situation as it first appears.

The electricity grid is infinitely more complicated and works well - the Bond thing could not only work but could be voted on as to what it gets used for - buy Eircom back for example.

Is there another country with such a model does anyone know ?

Well now, there you go, taking a possibly good idea and fucking it up by wanting a vote on it. If you want to end up with a camel don’t start off by buying a horse.

eh... after what passed this era with the butchering of people's money left right and centre not to mention banking rules and management of a bubble I'd say there has to serous 'citizen oversight' at the least. Voting happes in other businesses why not in this.

Try to believe in the idea of Democracy tonys - it WILL come one day .... one day ...

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Can we not estimate what the interest would be going to foreign debt first and issue a National Bond to this quanitity only for a start. Switching over radically to a whole new system all of a sudden is a bit mental anyway so couldn't it not be built up over time.

Projects that result would be published in the papers and so on. It'd be great - just like the lotto.

I'm not convinced this can't be done.

It can be done, I've no doubt of it, but equally it's not as straight forward a win win situation as it first appears.

The electricity grid is infinitely more complicated and works well - the Bond thing could not only work but could be voted on as to what it gets used for - buy Eircom back for example.

Is there another country with such a model does anyone know ?

Well now, there you go, taking a possibly good idea and fucking it up by wanting a vote on it. If you want to end up with a camel don’t start off by buying a horse.

eh... after what passed this era with the butchering of people's money left right and centre not to mention banking rules and management of a bubble I'd say there has to serous 'citizen oversight' at the least. Voting happes in other businesses why not in this.

If they ever make a comedy out of that, I'll watch it, but don't ask me to put money into something that involves "citizen oversight" Jesus, I got a shiver just writing that phrase.

tonys wrote:

If they ever make a comedy out of that, I'll watch it, but don't ask me to put money into something that involves "citizen oversight" Jesus, I got a shiver just writing that phrase.

Tiocfaidh ár lá.

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

If they ever make a comedy out of that, I'll watch it, but don't ask me to put money into something that involves "citizen oversight" Jesus, I got a shiver just writing that phrase.

Tiocfaidh ár lá.

ah! don't come on with the chucky shit now.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Ronald Binge wrote:

Big up to my good friend Sarah Dallaghan, questioner in the audience.

The last girl who doesn't believe the Referendum should be rerun ?

And a sample of what's coming up in part II ...




xman - The Pin
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=209013#p209013

No. The girl in the red suit who asked the first question.

In fairness all those kids seem to have changed dramatically if you're watching it. They were right little bollixes at the start but gave a good account of themselves at the end.

David Coleman is great.

Fintan O'Toole is saying that the Government didn't know whether the pension levy was on gross or net income whent the put it to the Partership at 3 in the morning, or when they took it to the Dail.

Can it be the case that we are being governed by some virtually invisible civil servants while the lads whoop it up down the Dail bar?

Good point from Fintan O'Toole on private sector pension tax incentives. Up until two years ago a lot of very big earners paid virtually no tax and the pension subvention was one of the biggest loopholes. It still is a massive tax benefit. People could put it into property investment "trusts" - not much different from any private investment.

Fintan hitting a few marks - 41 billion of untaxed earnings in the last few years - all disappeared into tax shelters.

1.4 billion interest tax reliefs to landlords p.a.

The Minister's response is that there this would affect mobile investment. Fintan was not talking about caravans.

johnfás wrote:

candide wrote:

He has refused to appear before the Dáil committee tomorrow according to the new on RTE

He is right not to attend, by the way. If he were my client I would certainly advise him not to attend before any committee which cannot force him to attend where he would be compelled to answer questions which might later be used as the basis for an action against him. He would be mad to attend.

Whether or not the Oireachtas should have powers to force attendance is an entirely different matter but in the absence of such power I would strongly advise someone in his position not to attend.

That's interesting that you say that john. So, one of the principles of soliciting is that you don't do what you don't have to do in a legal situation?

cactus flower wrote:

Fintan hitting a few marks - 41 billion of untaxed earnings in the last few years - all disappeared into tax shelters.

1.4 billion interest tax reliefs to landlords p.a.

The Minister's response is that there this would affect mobile investment. Fintan was not talking about caravans.

Widening the tax base on property would reap significantly greater rewards than the pension levy and would be economically more desirable as it would be a tax on assets, rather than income. Closing off those tax reliefs and loopholes and making them sufficiently retrospective would go a long way towards righting our public finances and avoid many of the invidious things which the Government also seems likely to propose.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

johnfás wrote:

candide wrote:

He has refused to appear before the Dáil committee tomorrow according to the new on RTE

He is right not to attend, by the way. If he were my client I would certainly advise him not to attend before any committee which cannot force him to attend where he would be compelled to answer questions which might later be used as the basis for an action against him. He would be mad to attend.

Whether or not the Oireachtas should have powers to force attendance is an entirely different matter but in the absence of such power I would strongly advise someone in his position not to attend.

That's interesting that you say that john. So, one of the principles of soliciting is that you don't do what you don't have to do in a legal situation?

The role is to protect the best interests of your client. Justice is not carried out in a sub committee of the Oireachtas. It is the role of the courts and if he has done something wrong bring him before the courts. We have a separation between legislature, executive and judiciary for a reason.

Talking of the law, good to hear that the Fraud Squad is moving on the banks. Hope they have taken enough ironmongery with them.

cactus flower wrote:

Fintan hitting a few marks - 41 billion of untaxed earnings in the last few years - all disappeared into tax shelters.

1.4 billion interest tax reliefs to landlords p.a.

The Minister's response is that there this would affect mobile investment. Fintan was not talking about caravans.

Did the tax reliefs come as a welcome surprise to the landlords after they bought the properties or might it possibly have had some influence in their decision to invest their money here in the first place.

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Fintan hitting a few marks - 41 billion of untaxed earnings in the last few years - all disappeared into tax shelters.

1.4 billion interest tax reliefs to landlords p.a.

The Minister's response is that there this would affect mobile investment. Fintan was not talking about caravans.

Did the tax reliefs come as a welcome surprise to the landlords after they bought the properties or might it possibly have had some influence in their decision to invest their money here in the first place.

Our property-related boom was almost solely a domestic affair with little overseas interest. Our landlords should have more productively invested their billions into Irish companies in tradeable sectors of the economy so as to stimulate exports, employment and enterprise. Then we would have a deep reservoir of real economic activity on which to draw in recessionary times. As it is, we must deal with the property bust.

tonys wrote:

Did the tax reliefs come as a welcome surprise to the landlords after they bought the properties or might it possibly have had some influence in their decision to invest their money here in the first place.

Good point. One could also ask "do you think the pension arrangements came as a surprise to Public Servants after they succeeded in getting the job, or might it possibly have had some influence in their decision to invest their working life in a job in the public sector?"

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Fintan hitting a few marks - 41 billion of untaxed earnings in the last few years - all disappeared into tax shelters.

1.4 billion interest tax reliefs to landlords p.a.

The Minister's response is that there this would affect mobile investment. Fintan was not talking about caravans.

Did the tax reliefs come as a welcome surprise to the landlords after they bought the properties or might it possibly have had some influence in their decision to invest their money here in the first place.

In many cases people bought on the unwise assumption that they were acquiring an asset that would increase in value indefinitely. Its my guess that relatively few people bought because of the tax relief who otherwise would not have bought.

There should be much more effort put into making sure that rental property is registered and up to scratch, and rents taxed. Income tax should be able to take care of taxation aspects. Tax reliefs should be wound up.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Fintan hitting a few marks - 41 billion of untaxed earnings in the last few years - all disappeared into tax shelters.

1.4 billion interest tax reliefs to landlords p.a.

The Minister's response is that there this would affect mobile investment. Fintan was not talking about caravans.

Did the tax reliefs come as a welcome surprise to the landlords after they bought the properties or might it possibly have had some influence in their decision to invest their money here in the first place.

Our property-related boom was almost solely a domestic affair with little overseas interest. Our landlords should have more productively invested their billions into Irish companies in tradeable sectors of the economy so as to stimulate exports, employment and enterprise. Then we would have a deep reservoir of real economic activity on which to draw in recessionary times. As it is, we must deal with the property bust.

Irish investors had the choice to invest in international markets or at home, the tax incentives made it more attractive for them to invest here. There is no reason to believe that money not invested in Irish property by Irish investors would necessarily find its way into Irish business as against foreign property.

yehbut_nobut wrote:

tonys wrote:

Did the tax reliefs come as a welcome surprise to the landlords after they bought the properties or might it possibly have had some influence in their decision to invest their money here in the first place.

Good point. One could also ask "do you think the pension arrangements came as a surprise to Public Servants after they succeeded in getting the job, or might it possibly have had some influence in their decision to invest their working life in a job in the public sector?"

Probably that and the 20% extra wages, the extra holidays, the extra "sick days", the study time & payment of education fees at taxpayers expanse, the wage increases for being around the place for a period of time as against for being good enough, all of that and the fact that unlike the "landlord" who has to spend to get the tax incentive they didn't have to pay to get the pension.

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Fintan hitting a few marks - 41 billion of untaxed earnings in the last few years - all disappeared into tax shelters.

1.4 billion interest tax reliefs to landlords p.a.

The Minister's response is that there this would affect mobile investment. Fintan was not talking about caravans.

Did the tax reliefs come as a welcome surprise to the landlords after they bought the properties or might it possibly have had some influence in their decision to invest their money here in the first place.

In many cases people bought on the unwise assumption that they were acquiring an asset that would increase in value indefinitely. Its my guess that relatively few people bought because of the tax relief who otherwise would not have bought.

There should be much more effort put into making sure that rental property is registered and up to scratch, and rents taxed. Income tax should be able to take care of taxation aspects. Tax reliefs should be wound up.

That's not the case. People bought where they bought and what they bought because of the tax incentives. The tax arrangements can't be wound up, they're part of the contract.

tonys wrote:

Probably that and the 20% extra wages, the extra holidays, the extra "sick days", the study time & payment of education fees at taxpayers expanse, the wage increases for being around the place for a period of time as against for being good enough, all of that and the fact that unlike the "landlord" who has to spend to get the tax incentive they didn't have to pay to get the pension.

Even though you managed to cram a lot of factual inaccuracy in that short post, I'll still concede you the point.
Because if it's ok to levy or take benefits off those in the first group (even the lowest paid, who get 22 days annual leave a year btw), it's equally ok to take them off the latter.

After all, it's about "sharing the pain" - the government said so. They can't be lying can they?

yehbut_nobut wrote:

tonys wrote:

Probably that and the 20% extra wages, the extra holidays, the extra "sick days", the study time & payment of education fees at taxpayers expanse, the wage increases for being around the place for a period of time as against for being good enough, all of that and the fact that unlike the "landlord" who has to spend to get the tax incentive they didn't have to pay to get the pension.

Even though you managed to cram a lot of factual inaccuracy in that short post, I'll still concede you the point.
Because if it's ok to levy or take benefits off those in the first group (even the lowest paid, who get 22 days annual leave a year btw), it's equally ok to take them off the latter.

After all, it's about "sharing the pain" - the government said so. They can't be lying can they?

They are not comparable, as I said the "landlords" paid to get the tax incentive, the public service workers did not pay for the pension, more's the pity.

This public servant did pay for a pension, 6.5 % for 34 years. Not enough for a full pension. Most colleagues who could afford it took out AVCs, additional voluntary contributions, a form of private pension in order to make up the difference or they paid for additional years into their pension where eligible. I wasn't eligible.

We also pay an income continuance plan privately to protect against loss of employment through illness and we pay PRSI, having paid the full rate for many years.