The Cavalry of the Household Charge

[CMK]

Point taken about being clear who my post was addressed to. It was to those who fling cynical one-liners here about 'Trots'. Said one-liners bearing no relation to, or envincing no understanding of the very seriousness, of the situation you accurately allude to above. It's politics at a very base level when what is required is a serious approach, one you obviously take, but too many others here seem to eschew.

What would I consider a success for this campaign?

Well, as you could probably understand, 'success' and 'failure' in a complex and evolving political situation are tricky things to assess and determine.

Personally, there are several factors which would indicate that the campaign was being successful, in no order of priority.

Firstly, that the campaign narrows, severely, the parameters of austerity and dramatically increases the political costs of imposing austerity. Given the abdication by the unions of any role in resisting austerity, beyond rhetorical resistance, the government has had, up until the household charge campaign, more or less a free hand. Ideally, I'd like to see a resumption of political trade unionism where a finance minister drafting a budget would know, explicitly, that X or Y measure would trigger a general strike. But, as we all know, that's never going to happen here. So, by default, campaigns like the household tax are the only vehicles for coherent, sustained, resistance to austerity. I acknowledge, however, that it is a narrow issue, with all the dangers entailed, but, so far, it's been the only show in town.

Secondly, that the campaign leads to the politicisation of thousands or tens of thousands and that that politicisation leads them to get and stay organised. My preference would be for them to reach socialist conclusions, but that will only take place for a few, but even if people were to move into solid Social Democrat grounds (not Labour 'social democracy') like organising for increasing and protecting workers rights, defending public tax funded services, a wealth tax, facing down of IBEC and the business elite.

Thirdly, that the household charge be rescinded and replaced by broad wealth and capital taxes and that the taxation burden be pushed onto the elite who still have escaped from the consequences of crash, to a considerable degree. This feeds into the first factor above.

[Baron von Biffo]

Point taken about being clear who my post was addressed to. It was to those who fling cynical one-liners here about 'Trots'. Said one-liners bearing no relation to, or envincing no understanding of the very seriousness, of the situation you accurately allude to above. It's politics at a very base level when what is required is a serious approach, one you obviously take, but too many others here seem to eschew.

What would I consider a success for this campaign?

Well, as you could probably understand, 'success' and 'failure' in a complex and evolving political situation are tricky things to assess and determine.

Personally, there are several factors which would indicate that the campaign was being successful, in no order of priority.

Firstly, that the campaign narrows, severely, the parameters of austerity and dramatically increases the political costs of imposing austerity. Given the abdication by the unions of any role in resisting austerity, beyond rhetorical resistance, the government has had, up until the household charge campaign, more or less a free hand. Ideally, I'd like to see a resumption of political trade unionism where a finance minister drafting a budget would know, explicitly, that X or Y measure would trigger a general strike. But, as we all know, that's never going to happen here. So, by default, campaigns like the household tax are the only vehicles for coherent, sustained, resistance to austerity. I acknowledge, however, that it is a narrow issue, with all the dangers entailed, but, so far, it's been the only show in town.

Well you must mark the first test as a fail so. Non-payment hasn't brought about any change in government policy. All it's succeeding in doing is cutting local government services.

Secondly, that the campaign leads to the politicisation of thousands or tens of thousands and that that politicisation leads them to get and stay organised. My preference would be for them to reach socialist conclusions, but that will only take place for a few, but even if people were to move into solid Social Democrat grounds (not Labour 'social democracy') like organising for increasing and protecting workers rights, defending public tax funded services, a wealth tax, facing down of IBEC and the business elite.

Second test also gets a fail.

5000 turn up for a march in Cavan to support Sean Quinn but the anti HC campaign can only muster a couple of hundred for a protest in Dublin.

Thirdly, that the household charge be rescinded and replaced by broad wealth and capital taxes and that the taxation burden be pushed onto the elite who still have escaped from the consequences of crash, to a considerable degree. This feeds into the first factor above.

And that's going to fail as well because there's no party or politician that enjoys any level of public support or respect advocating such a course.

[CMK]

Well you must mark the first test as a fail so. Non-payment hasn't brought about any change in government policy. All it's succeeding in doing is cutting local government services.



Second test also gets a fail.

5000 turn up for a march in Cavan to support Sean Quinn but the anti HC campaign can only muster a couple of hundred for a protest in Dublin.



And that's going to fail as well because there's no party or politician that enjoys any level of public support or respect advocating such a course.

That's not a particularly insightful or thoughtful response. At the risk of talking to the wall, it hasn't brought about a change in policy yet but it has given the government the most serious political headache since it was elected. The 'cutting local services' angle is really nonsense and I wouldn't expect someone who comments regularly on PW to stoop to that level. Any reasonably informed politically aware individual in this state knows that over the course of 2012 several billion will have been handed over to bondholders (1 billion to an unsecured AIB bondholder on 1 October). Six years of the household tax going in a flash to some merchant bank or hedge fund that took a punt on an AIB bond before the crash and instead of getting burned they're getting every cent of it back and they know that the Irish government are gimps for doing so. If even that bond weren't paid and the funds re-directed to local services we could put it towards all of the things local governments managers can't wait to cut.

The game starts all over again next year, in even worse financial circumstances for most households, and this campaign, if it survives the clearly telegraphed onslaught in the Autumn will remain the only vehicle for those who can't pay next year.

5,000 poor deluded souls marched in Cavan (voluntarily or under duress (Quinn employees)) granted, but you may have missed the household tax rallies in March: 4,000 at the National Stadium 10-15,000 at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis and several thousand more at Labour's conference - no doubt you regard the latter as deluded. Yes, July 18 wasn't a great success turnout wise but it was pissing for most of the march and it was held at a time when many probably couldn't make it from around the country.

I think your conflation of 'respected politicians' with opposition to wealth and capital taxes betrays a frankly perverse perspective. Many of these 'respected politicians' voted for the bank guarantee, lied through their teeth during the February 2011 election campaign and have rolled over for the Troika since then. Whatever 'respect' they have is diminishing sharply. Of course, from reading your contributions to PW it's clear you loath, deeply and madly, politicians (especially those in the ULA) who have advocated increases in wealth taxes and capital taxes. But each to his/her own. I suspect many of your 'respected politicians' will find themselves facing a hostile and impoverished electorate in 2016 and that electorate may well turn to the parties and groups you abhor for answers.

[Baron von Biffo]

That's not a particularly insightful or thoughtful response. At the risk of talking to the wall, it hasn't brought about a change in policy yet but it has given the government the most serious political headache since it was elected. The 'cutting local services' angle is really nonsense and I wouldn't expect someone who comments regularly on PW to stoop to that level. Any reasonably informed politically aware individual in this state knows that over the course of 2012 several billion will have been handed over to bondholders (1 billion to an unsecured AIB bondholder on 1 October). Six years of the household tax going in a flash to some merchant bank or hedge fund that took a punt on an AIB bond before the crash and instead of getting burned they're getting every cent of it back and they know that the Irish government are gimps for doing so. If even that bond weren't paid and the funds re-directed to local services we could put it towards all of the things local governments managers can't wait to cut.

The government said it will cut grants to local authorities in line with underpayment of the HC and it's doing just that. There's not the slightest chance that the government will suddenly reverse its policy on the banks so you might as well complain about the rain for all the good it will do.

The game starts all over again next year, in even worse financial circumstances for most households, and this campaign, if it survives the clearly telegraphed onslaught in the Autumn will remain the only vehicle for those who can't pay next year.

The campaign is a vehicle to get Boyd-Barrett, Higgins et al re-elected and that's all it is. And it might be less successful than they hoped given that the highest compliance with the HC is in Boyd-Barrett's constituency.

5,000 poor deluded souls marched in Cavan (voluntarily or under duress (Quinn employees)) granted, but you may have missed the household tax rallies in March: 4,000 at the National Stadium 10-15,000 at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis and several thousand more at Labour's conference - no doubt you regard the latter as deluded. Yes, July 18 wasn't a great success turnout wise but it was pissing for most of the march and it was held at a time when many probably couldn't make it from around the country.

If you'd gone from a couple of hundred in March to 15,000 in July you could have claimed some sort of success, to go from 15,000 in March to a few hundred in July looks more like terminal illness.

I think your conflation of 'respected politicians' with opposition to wealth and capital taxes betrays a frankly perverse perspective. Many of these 'respected politicians' voted for the bank guarantee, lied through their teeth during the February 2011 election campaign and have rolled over for the Troika since then. Whatever 'respect' they have is diminishing sharply. Of course, from reading your contributions to PW it's clear you loath, deeply and madly, politicians (especially those in the ULA) who have advocated increases in wealth taxes and capital taxes. But each to his/her own. I suspect many of your 'respected politicians' will find themselves facing a hostile and impoverished electorate in 2016 and that electorate may well turn to the parties and groups you abhor for answers.

I said that no politicians who are respected by the public are advocating what you propose and that's correct.

My disdain for the ULA is because they actually damage the causes they claim to support.

[Baron von Biffo]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...322965788.html

The IT claims that the government has decided to go with a market value based tax rather than house size.

In principle that's the only fair way to do it but because it means urban houses, and in particular, Dublin houses, will pay more I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. My guess is there will be some sort scam to 'correct' for variation in house values in different areas.

[Baron von Biffo]

And on cue RTE radio news reports that unnamed 'opponents' are saying a value based charge would be unfair to city dwellers.

[Baron von Biffo]

The president of the Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers, an organisation that heroically but fruitlessly urged us to resist the excesses of the property boom, has said it's madness to introduce a property tax.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/a...sh-564371.html

Well it they're against it it must be very bad for the country. Perhaps I should reconsider my position on this issue.

[Baron von Biffo]

Property tax being discussed on Plank now. Karl Dieter opposing a market value based tax. I wonder how much his house is worth?

[Baron von Biffo]

He wants people to pay for what they're using but won't accept that those in cities get more services so they should have to pay more.

[Baron von Biffo]

Now he wants to tax those of us who have paid off our mortgages for having paid off our mortgages!

[Baron von Biffo]

WhineLine caller claiming that because he paid tax when he bought his house he shouldn't have to pay property tax.

I wonder if I should claim that because I paid 65% PAYE in the last recession I should be exempt from paying any more?

[C. Flower]

He wants people to pay for what they're using but won't accept that those in cities get more services so they should have to pay more.

His argument was that people in rural areas get more spent, per capita, on services.

Look!

Fianna Fail has started a "Can't Pay" campaign.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/f...ax-564581.html

[Sam Lord]

Fianna Fail has started a "Can't Pay" campaign.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/f...ax-564581.html

Now there's some rank opportunism.

[Dr. FIVE]

I take it whatever way they end up going will lead to more smoke and mirrors in the property market. On top of NAMA and everything else. Are we looking at upward and downward pressure on prices. In one way you have tax payer on one side and speculator on the other with conflicting interest (surprise!) while at the same time people go along way to minimise their tax bill and the most powerful among them are those who usually have an interest in inflated property values.

[Baron von Biffo]

His argument was that people in rural areas get more spent, per capita, on services.

It would be nice to see how he put his numbers together. One thing that struck me was his banging on about roads. Now fair enough, rural people use roads but they're not exclusively a rural benefit. How would food get to D4 if there were no rural roads?

Look!

Fianna Fail has started a "Can't Pay" campaign.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/f...ax-564581.html

They haven't gone away you know.