# Ask the President to refer the Finance Bill to the Supreme Court



## StevieC (27 May 2011)

On Newstalk yesterday Eddie Hobbs made the suggestion of asking the President to refer the Finance Bill (Pensions Levy) to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality.

I think most posters on this forum would agree that this levy is stepping over the line in the way it is being implimented (on capital not growth).

Attached below is a link of the letter Eddie is sending to the President

[broken link removed]

I would encourage others to do likewise to webmaster@president.ie as there have been many other ways suggested that the government could raise funds without taking these draconian steps.

- allowing people to cash in their pensions (to reduce mortgage debt and pay income tax, helping both the individual and the Revenue)
- Putting a tax on pension growth like DIRT instead of attacking capital savings
- Reducing tax free lump sums for the super rich
- Introducing lower pension caps to prevent the super rich avoiding tax while not affecting the ordinary workers pension

At this time the President is our only hope of stopping this as the Government seems hell bent on proceeding with this legislation.

I have no affliation with Eddie Hobbs, I just think he has made very important points on this issue.


----------



## Markjbloggs (27 May 2011)

So 0.6% of your pension fund is gone per year over the next 4 years....

Ask yourself, what is the % decline in that fund over the past 4  (or better than that, the past 10-15 years of mostly prosperity) and you will probably figure out that our rage should not be restricted to this governement and this levy, but to the pension fund management firms and their almost total incompetence.  And there is no escape from them.

Who do we refer that to?


----------



## gimp (28 May 2011)

I for one have sent this letter on to the President and agree that all people who have pension funds that would be affected should also consider this. I am infuriated that my hard earned savings can be targeted this way. If the Public sector were being penalized to the same extent and if it was equal across the board to all people, ministers included, I would have less of an issue with this proposal. Again the private sector is being used to bail out the public sector finances. I am so incensed with this proposal with only the private sector (in general) being penalized in this manner.


----------



## Time (28 May 2011)

Money bills *cannot *be referred to the Supreme Court. Eddie Hobbs needs to read up a bit on the powers of the President.



> _*Reference of Bills to the Supreme Court*_
> *Article 26*
> This Article applies to any Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by  	both Houses of the Oireachtas other than a Money Bill, or a Bill expressed to  	be a Bill containing a proposal to amend the Constitution, or a Bill the time  	for the consideration of which by Seanad Éireann shall have been abridged under  	Article 24 of this Constitution.


----------



## roker (29 May 2011)

I am already paying USC on my private pension (Annuity), so they will be taking funds by 2 methods.
I have also emailed a letter to the president.


----------



## Complainer (29 May 2011)

StevieC said:


> On Newstalk yesterday Eddie Hobbs made the suggestion of asking the President to refer the Finance Bill (Pensions Levy) to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality.
> 
> I think most posters on this forum would agree that this levy is stepping over the line in the way it is being implimented (on capital not growth).


What makes you think that 'most posters' would agree with you? Have you asked 'most posters'?

Did you not feel that the NPPR property tax (on capital, not growth) stepped over that line?



StevieC said:


> At this time the President is our only hope of stopping this as the Government seems hell bent on proceeding with this legislation.


Other posters have pointed out the constitutional issues involved. Regardless, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for President McAleese to come out against  any Govt on something like this.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 May 2011)

> I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for President McAleese to come out against  any Govt



She wouldn't be coming out for or against the government. 

Whether she agrees or not with the proposal,her job is to protect the constitution. If she thinks it breaches the constitution, she would have to refer it. 

brendan


----------



## Time (29 May 2011)

> If she thinks it breaches the constitution, she would have to refer it.


The problem here is she can't refer this bill as it is a money bill.

It would be up to some concerned citizen who this affects to bring a challenge later on.


----------



## boaber (29 May 2011)

Possible case of Godwin's Law Mr Hobbs?



> Sure, plain as day that the line the Irish Government is crossing in 2011 is nothing like very many lines the Nazi’s would cross - but it’s not too unlike their first radical departures.



[broken link removed]


----------



## Complainer (29 May 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> She wouldn't be coming out for or against the government.
> 
> Whether she agrees or not with the proposal,her job is to protect the constitution. If she thinks it breaches the constitution, she would have to refer it.



Perfectly true in theory. In practice, I couldn't see it happening. Didn't she call the council of state together to review the NAMA bill?


----------



## Slim (30 May 2011)

gimp said:


> I for one have sent this letter on to the President and agree that all people who have pension funds that would be affected should also consider this. I am infuriated that my hard earned savings can be targeted this way. If the Public sector were being penalized to the same extent and if it was equal across the board to all people, ministers included, I would have less of an issue with this proposal. Again the private sector is being used to bail out the public sector finances. I am so incensed with this proposal with only the private sector (in general) being penalized in this manner.


 
It is not the public servants' fault that successive governments have failed to to create 'pension funds' but pay public pensions out of current expenditure (I acknowledge the setting up of the Pensions reserve fund). Even if they did, they would simply be taxing their own funds to pay the levy. Public servants now pay an average of 14.5% towards their public pensions, the vast majority of which are going to be below the €40k that Eddie Hobbs regards as a threshhold. Many public servants now have PRSAs and AVCs to make up the shortfall in their pensions and they will also pay the levy. Please note that the levy is a 'tax' on the pension fund management, which will of course be passd on to punters, but is only an infinitesimal fraction of the tax foregone in establishing these funds over the years. I would think though that the levy should not be applicable to individual pension funds below a threshhold of , say, €250k. Slim


----------



## StevieC (30 May 2011)

Lets not make this thread a public vs private debate. There is plenty of other forums/threads for that. 

To answer some of the previous points;

- pension fund performance is irrelevant to this discussion, there are other threads for that.

- the second property tax is current taxation, its only going forward. They are not looking for monies for every year you previously owned the house. The property tax is not a regressive levy on savings. Aside from that you can opt to sell a second property if you dont want to pay the tax (the same way as you can not own a car/tv if you want to avoid those taxes/licences), there is no way to avoid paying this levy if you have not reached retirement age (except possibly move the fund to another jurisdiction which probably wont be economical for smaller fund holders).

- the money bill issue is a valid point, however the power of this legislation is unprecedented. The money bill was originally put in place to allow swift implementation of budgets/taxes on a current basis. This levy however is regressive and attacks savings built up over many years. To use a similar example, imagine if the government decided to confiscate 0.6% of all farmers land for 4 years, its the same principle. This is a very dangerous precedent that is being put forward.


----------



## Time (30 May 2011)

> This is a very dangerous precedent that is being put forward.


It will take a private citizen to bring an action to test it's constitutionality.


----------

