Are you going to pay the household charge? [Part 1]

golfwallah

tayto lover wrote: »

I would have the opposite view.
I think this is an attack on home owners, many of whom are in negative equity. Your home is YOUR home and there should not be a tax on it. It is not right and I don't care whether other countries have it or not.
They can raise taxes some other way.

"An attack on home owners" - this is hyperbole ..... it's a tax not an artillery round.

Not paying or registering, on the other hand is breaking the law (that some people are not informing themselves about). From Household Charges FAQ: "The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 provides for a number of offences related to the household charge. The main offences relate to failure to declare a liability to a household charge, failure to pay it and to provide information that is false or misleading. The Act also provides for fines and other sanctions for persons found guilty of offences".

Posting your protest on an internet forum is all fine and dandy, but no defense against the rule of law. If you want to protest, write to your TD, Councillor, etc or join a political party and take it from there in a legitimate way.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

Such as?

Your car is YOUR own too - and yet there's tax liable on it's use on the public highways, fuel, the licence to drive it, the regular roadworthyness test, etc, etc. Your house remains your own, regardless of your obligation to pay property tax (which as you concede, is the norm internationally).

Negative equity is a red herring btw - you still pay motor tax even when depreciation has reduced the value of your car to a fraction of what you paid. The future (tiered) household charge will be on the basis of market value - not what you paid originally.

When you buy a house you also buy the site. You don't own the road you drive your car on. Totally different.

Mr CJ

seamus wrote: »

Do you not think it's just a little bit odd that on the one hand you have 85% of people not registering to pay, but on the other hand any rallies, meetings or "helplines" that have been set up to oppose this tax have virtually no participants?

It's almost like people aren't really that angry about it and are instead waiting to see what happens...

The joke of course is that the time to do anything about it has long passed. If you managed to get 150,000 marching on Leinster house in early January, they may have thought twice about it. In reality, any rally which had 150 participants was doing well, so the policitians rightly ignored them and the plans are already in motion. The time to "stand up" has passed.

I have not gone to any protest I know loads who have not gone to any either this has absolutely nothing to do with lack of support, we are still not paying they can make all the threats under the sun and they can save me a trip by delivering the fines into the green bin cause thats where ill be putting them

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

Maybe not now, but I'm betting time will tell another story.

Fair play to ya, if your such a good fortune teller, why don't you tell us how much you'll be paying in 3 years or 5 years in property tax and how much you'll be paying in water charges??
We'd love to know.

tayto lover

golfwallah wrote: »

"An attack on home owners" - this is hyperbole ..... it's a tax not an artillery round.

Not paying or registering, on the other hand is breaking the law (that some people are not informing themselves about). From Household Charges FAQ: "The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 provides for a number of offences related to the household charge. The main offences relate to failure to declare a liability to a household charge, failure to pay it and to provide information that is false or misleading. The Act also provides for fines and other sanctions for persons found guilty of offences".

Posting your protest on an internet forum is all fine and dandy, but no defense against the rule of law. If you want to protest, write to your TD, Councillor, etc or join a political party and take it from there in a legitimate way.

It quite clearly is an attack on home owners. Many people are sick with worry too. They are having their peace of mind threatened by an unjust attack on their homes. A man's home is his castle.
I have no interest in joining any group nor do I care if I am the only person in the country who is refusing to pay in the end. I see it as totally unjust and will not pay. An unjust law is a bad law and deserves to be broken.

gurramok

gerryo777 wrote: »

I've noticed that myself, my wife's sister and her husband, both PS employees have paid but her other sister and her husband, private sector, will not.
I wonder are PS employees living in fear??
I'm self-employed and won't be paying either.

I know 3 private sector workers outside work and a bunch of private sector workers in work, they all have either paid or intend to pay.

They are decent people after all, guess it shows.

Mr CJ

tayto lover wrote: »

meanwhile not one Banker, Builder or Speculator has been in court, some were actually given jobs in N.A.M.A. at 200k a year. You couldn't make it up.
Now they are trying their dirty tricks to make us pay a Property Tax but the Irish people will see these attacks on their homes as the last straw. I certainly do and I am refusing to pay. I don't even have to leave my armchair to protest. Enough is enough.

Very good points you made, I forgot all about that its absolutely crazy!!

Was there also a case where the government used buildings owned by developers in debt and actually paid for using them or something like this?

gerryo777

gurramok wrote: »

I know 3 private sector workers outside work and a bunch of private sector workers in work, they all have either paid or intend to pay.

They are decent people after all, guess it shows.

So your implying that people who don't pay this sham of a tax aren't decent people??
Who the f**k do you think you are??

tayto lover

gurramok wrote: »

I know 3 private sector workers outside work and a bunch of private sector workers in work, they all have either paid or intend to pay.

They are decent people after all, guess it shows.

I know a few Bankers and crooked politicians who are paying too -- more of your decent people.

gerryo777

tayto lover wrote: »

I know a few Bankers and crooked politicians who are paying too -- more of your decent people.

More of the sly, underhand insults there tayto from gurramok, sounds familiar doesn't it?

Mr CJ

gurramok wrote: »

I know 3 private sector workers outside work and a bunch of private sector workers in work, they all have either paid or intend to pay.

They are decent people after all, guess it shows.

I have heard it all now... what a complete tosser

tayto lover

gerryo777 wrote: »

More of the sly, underhand insults there tayto from gurramok, sounds familiar doesn't it?

Reincarnation.

gurramok

gerryo777 wrote: »

So your implying that people who don't pay this sham of a tax aren't decent people??
Who the f**k do you think you are??

How is breaking the law decent? Explain that one.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

When you buy a house you also buy the site. You don't own the road you drive your car on. Totally different.

Not at all. The tax is a 'household' charge - not a site charge. Put a rollercoaster on the site and avoid the charge if you like. If you concede that you own your car and taxes are liable on that ownership, then why should your ownership of a house be any different? If you don't like the taxes you can choose to not own a car, or to rent your house.

gerryo777

gurramok wrote: »

How is breaking the law decent? Explain that one.

You really are desperate now, aren't ya!
You, are nothing to me.
Now, on to the ignore list with ya.

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

Fair play to ya, if your such a good fortune teller, why don't you tell us how much you'll be paying in 3 years or 5 years in property tax and how much you'll be paying in water charges??
We'd love to know.

What's that got to do with anything? You think there's a future where we'll be paying less in tax? Whatever formula you care to devise will mean more outgoings in taxation one way or another.

Mr CJ

gurramok wrote: »

How is breaking the law decent? Explain that one.

Let me ask you the same question I asked dvpower as he was not able to answer it

This is a simple yes or no question

Can I ask you if they brought a law in tomorrow that states you must take a lethal pill when you reach 70 as the state cant cope with the health care and need to reduce it drastically, would you gladly take the pill when you reach 70 and object to anyone that diasagrees with it because after all this is the law?

The point I am trying to make is if you or the pro's will ever have some tiny bit of cop-on to question what the government can do, because if not there really is no hope and you guys are the totalitarian governments dream!!

Dont repeat the usual cukoo land crap I have heard it from dv just answer the question yes or no its quite simple

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

It quite clearly is an attack on home owners. Many people are sick with worry too. They are having their peace of mind threatened by an unjust attack on their homes. A man's home is his castle.
I have no interest in joining any group nor do I care if I am the only person in the country who is refusing to pay in the end. I see it as totally unjust and will not pay. An unjust law is a bad law and deserves to be broken.

It's unjust because you don't like it or what?

I'm pretty sure my home is not a castle. The lack of a drawbridge for starters.

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

Not at all. The tax is a 'household' charge - not a site charge. Put a rollercoaster on the site and avoid the charge if you like. If you concede that you own your car and taxs are liable on that ownership, then why should your ownership of a house be any different? If you don't like the taxes you can choose to not own a car, or to rent your house.

If it's a 'household charge', how come renters or council tenants who each have a 'household' and use all the services provided by the councils don't have to pay???
That's discrimination, pure and simple.
If they were in the UK they'd be paying.

mikom

Mr CJ wrote: »

Can I ask you if they brought a law in tomorrow that states you must take a lethal pill when you reach 70 as the state cant cope with the health care and need to reduce it drastically, would you gladly take the pill when you reach 70 and object to anyone that diasagrees with it because after all this is the law?

"But, it's the law!"
*Drools*
*Flags down the shortbus*

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

If it's a 'household charge', how come renters or council tenants who each have a 'household' and use all the services provided by the councils don't have to pay???
That's discrimination, pure and simple.
If they were in the UK they'd be paying.

Because it's a tax on a specified equity. If you don't hold that equity, it's not applicable.

gurramok

gerryo777 wrote: »

You really are desperate now, aren't ya!
You, are nothing to me.
Now, on to the ignore list with ya.

No, i'm not desperate. What I see is a few posters who intend to break the law. If they oppose the charge, they should what democracy is there for, lobby their TD's to oppose the charge on their behalf in the Dail.

The Dail passed the charge into legislation. The charge is in law. Not paying it is breaking the law.

Mr CJ wrote:

Can I ask you if they brought a law in tomorrow that states you must take a lethal pill when you reach 70 as the state cant cope with the health care and need to reduce it drastically, would you gladly take the pill when you reach 70 and object to anyone that diasagrees with it because after all this is the law?

Why should I answer someone who called me a name a few posts ago?

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything? You think there's a future where we'll be paying less in tax? Whatever formula you care to devise will mean more outgoings in taxation one way or another.

Yea, and I'm quite willing to pay more taxes, but not on my home. With me it's a point of principle.
If they want to raise/save money why not increase income tax or cut social welfare rates.
Once again we have a populist government owned by the unions and the dogs tail (labour) is wagging the dog, so to speak.

dxhound2005

Mr CJ wrote: »

Let me ask you the same question I asked dvpower as he was not able to answer it

This is a simple yes or no question

Can I ask you if they brought a law in tomorrow that states you must take a lethal pill when you reach 70 as the state cant cope with the health care and need to reduce it drastically, would you gladly take the pill when you reach 70 and object to anyone that diasagrees with it because after all this is the law?

The point I am trying to make is if you or the pro's will ever have some tiny bit of cop-on to question what the government can do, because if not there really is no hope and you guys are the totalitarian governments dream!!

Dont repeat the usual cukoo land crap I have heard it from dv just answer the question yes or no its quite simple

If you will allow I will answer that one. NO. But I don't see the equivalence between a new tax and a suicide pill.

Let me ask you a question. Which other laws do you feel justified in breaking?

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

Because it's a tax on a specified equity. If you don't hold that equity, it's not applicable.

One word, BOLLOX!

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

Yea, and I'm quite willing to pay more taxes, but not on my home. With me it's a point of principle.
If they want to raise/save money why not increase income tax or cut social welfare rates.
Once again we have a populist government owned by the unions and the dogs tail (labour) is wagging the dog, so to speak.

Increasing Income tax further would just result in a greater black economy and flight of revenue. You won't bridge the shortfall with welfare cuts either - there's probably about a billion to be garnered from the household charge when the tiered arrangement comes in.

Don't see where the unions play any role in this - they oppose the charge after all.

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

One word, BOLLOX!

If you say so. But actually, no.

alastair

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If you will allow I will answer that one. NO. But I don't see the equivalence between a new tax and a suicide pill.

Probably because it's a stupid analogy. An obligitary suicide pill law would be contrary to the constitution, and the UN charter of human rights for starters -or put simply; illegal.

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

Probably because it's a stupid analogy. An obligitary suicide pill law would be contrary to the constitution, and the UN charter of human rights for starters -or put simply; illegal.

But sure we don't need an obligitary suicide pill here, enough people are topping themselves because of the recession. Bertie must be delighted.

zumi

There is a National Assembly of the Campaign on March 24th, in the National Stadium on the South Circular Rd, Dublin starting at 1pm. It is open to all, and there will be buses coming from right across the country. This Assembly will bring together the campaign right across the country, and launch the final push before the registration deadline. Make sure to be there!

LordSutch

The Yes's are getting worringly high :cool:

I will not be paying.

mikom

alastair wrote: »

Probably because it's a stupid analogy. An obligitary suicide pill law would be contrary to the constitution, and the UN charter of human rights for starters -or put simply; illegal.

Don't worry, you'd still have flutes putting their hands out for it.

Frank Black

Mr CJ wrote: »

Let me ask you the same question I asked dvpower as he was not able to answer it

This is a simple yes or no question

Can I ask you if they brought a law in tomorrow that states you must take a lethal pill when you reach 70 as the state cant cope with the health care and need to reduce it drastically, would you gladly take the pill when you reach 70 and object to anyone that diasagrees with it because after all this is the law?

Seriously, i can't believe you're going to persist with this analogy.

Household Charge is the same as forced euthanasia :rolleyes:

If you have to resort to these kind of arguments in opposing the charge, it only demonstrates the weakness of your position.

Ghandee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If you will allow I will answer that one. NO. But I don't see the equivalence between a new tax and a suicide pill.

Let me ask you a question. Which other laws do you feel justified in breaking?

Can I ask you a question now Dx?

Why did you fail to respond to me, and fail to correct yourself, when I pointed out that numerous times in this thread you stated that ' Sinn Fein in the North are operating a system of domestic rates'

You've said this numerous times, (admittedly I haven't counted, but I'd estimate at least half a dozen)

When pointed out to you, that what you were implying was far from the truth, you conveniently ignored my post?

The two major flaws in your statement being,

1, Sinn Fein DON'T operate the rates system in place,
2, how can you compare RATES, where the payer of said rates gets something for their money, ie bin collections, council waste services, non metered water etc etc, to a house hold charge where we pay a sum of money, and get nothing in return?
(serious question)

Could you clarify perhaps?

dxhound2005

Ghandee wrote: »

Can I ask you a question now Dx?

Why did you fail to respond to me, and fail to correct yourself, when I pointed out that numerous times in this thread you stated that ' Sinn Fein in the North are operating a system of domestic rates'

You've said this numerous times, (admittedly I haven't counted, but I'd estimate at least half a dozen)

When pointed out to you, that what you were implying was far from the truth, you conveniently ignored my post?

Could you clarify perhaps?

We had that discussion before and I pointed out that I pay €280 per annum for refuse collection and I pay nothing else. My neighbour who lives in Co Armagh pays the Newry and Mourne council over £2100 in domestic rates. The party with the highest representation on that council is Sinn Fein and it has one of the most expensive rates in the North. I think I am getting the better deal at present.

mikom

Ah.......... Yeahhhhhh.
Bring it on.....

The High Court have this evening granted leave to a Fianna Fáil councillor to challenge the household charge legislation because the legislation is in English only, and not in Irish. Cllr Thomas Brabazon argued that as the legislation wasn't in Irish, there may be an issue with it's application.

Brabazon, who's a solicitor who conducts much of his business in Irish also pointed out that the places name in the Gaeltacht were not actually in Irish. This was actually brought to Politics.ie's attention by Sinn Féin's Peadar Tóibín who this evening says he's calling on the Government to withdraw their plans to to levy the household charge by March 31st.
http://www.politics.ie/news/high-court-grants-leave-challenge-household-charge-legislation-because-s-not-irish-180.html

This is typical of a government that has forgotten that 500,000 daily Irish speakers exist. Irish speakers’ language rights have been ignored by a government that is at best indifferent to the Irish language and at worst hostile.

There seems to be a reasonable chance that the government will end up with egg on its face with regards to this challenge. Not only have 85% of the population decided not to sign up so far but it now looks likely that the legislation will be unconstitutional.

The household charge is grossly unfair and much of the money raised will end up paying off private debt. There are progressive revenue raising alternatives that would raise equal amounts of funds if not more. The government’s plans to introduce the household charge are in disarray and they need to withdraw it.

Peadar Tóibín TD

Mr CJ

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If you will allow I will answer that one. NO. But I don't see the equivalence between a new tax and a suicide pill.

Let me ask you a question. Which other laws do you feel justified in breaking?

Thanks for answering that, so there are situations when you would break the law.

And why would you break this law? because its unfair and wrong.

Believe it or not this conversation or similar came up on the radio before with a person agreeing to it.

Now can you not see this new law is unfair and wrong to perhaps millions of people of the state? This law is unfair and thankfully we are not living in a state were you get shot for speaking against government we have free speach and what is making people so angry is the fact they are not listening to us! Instead they are going to battle!

We can only argue so much it gets tiring after awhile but we should at least agree that yes the state needs to raise and save money but this is the wrong way to go about it.

Ghandee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

We had that discussion before and I pointed out that I pay €280 per annum for refuse collection and I pay nothing else. My neighbour who lives in Co Armagh pays the Newry and Mourne council over £2100 in domestic rates. The party with the highest representation on that council is Sinn Fein and it has one of the most expensive rates in the North. I think I am getting the better deal at present.

I'll think you'll find that I pointed out too,

You pay for doctor/a&e visit etc
Higher road tax/motor tax (presuming you've a car)
Higher VAT
Tolled roads
Ambulance/fire service call out charges


Also, you implied (intentionally or not) from your own post that ' Sinn Fein in the North are operating a system of domestic rates' that to anyone would look like you (perhaps on purpose) would like to give the impression that anyone considering giving SF a vote would prob still result in this charge being applicable.

Btw, Armagh council certainly doesn't represent all of the north. You could have quite easily have said the DUP or indeed the British Gov operate it. You however chose to target SF?

dxhound2005

Ghandee wrote: »

I'll think you'll find that I pointed out too,

You pay for doctor/a&e visit etc
Higher road tax/motor tax (presuming you've a car)
Higher VAT
Tolled roads
Ambulance/fire service call out charges


Also, you implied (intentionally or not) from your own post that ' Sinn Fein in the North are operating a system of domestic rates' that to anyone would look like you (perhaps on purpose) would like to give the impression that anyone considering giving SF a vote would prob still result in this charge being applicable.

Btw, Armagh council certainly doesn't represent all of the north. You could have write easily have said the DUP or indeed the British Gov operate it. You however chose to target SF?

Maybe the North should introduce that mansion tax which is being discussed in England. There are lots of mansions around South Armagh belonging to people with an interest in the local "oil industry".

Ghandee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Maybe the North should introduce that mansion tax which is being discussed in England. There are lots of mansions around South Armagh belonging to people with an interest in the local "oil industry".

Answer the question.

will you acknowledge that you deliberately tried to mislead some readers on SF operating a similar household charge operation in the north?

Also,

I couldn't care less about oil barons mansions in south Armagh tbh.

Are you just going to ignore the total lack of comparisons on a household tax, where ALL of our charges for local services and amenities remain in place with a domestic rates charge that once paid, takes over all other charges?

In lay mans terms, people inn the north pay once for something, but we in the south are expected to pay twice?

Mr CJ

black francis wrote: »

Seriously, i can't believe you're going to persist with this analogy.

Household Charge is the same as forced euthanasia :rolleyes:

If you have to resort to these kind of arguments in opposing the charge, it only demonstrates the weakness of your position.

If your mind was open a bit you would see im making a point!! How does it demonstrate weakness?

On the contrary I had to ask twice and both occassions it was not answered by who it was directed to and the reason for this is they did not want to admit they would break the law!

All the pro's are so caught up with the law to me its beyond believe. They can write up what ever they want and you will say yes no problem we will do that... and you get annoyed when called sheep??? Can you really blame the people calling you sheep?

dxhound2005

mikom wrote: »

Ah.......... Yeahhhhhh.
Bring it on.....



This is typical of a government that has forgotten that 500,000 daily Irish speakers exist. Irish speakers’ language rights have been ignored by a government that is at best indifferent to the Irish language and at worst hostile.

There seems to be a reasonable chance that the government will end up with egg on its face with regards to this challenge. Not only have 85% of the population decided not to sign up so far but it now looks likely that the legislation will be unconstitutional.

The household charge is grossly unfair and much of the money raised will end up paying off private debt. There are progressive revenue raising alternatives that would raise equal amounts of funds if not more. The government’s plans to introduce the household charge are in disarray and they need to withdraw it.

Peadar Tóibín TD

Interesting development. This is just a snippet from something on google.

Successive Supreme Court decisions found that the State must make Acts of the Oireachtas available through Irish as soon as is practicable, or within a reasonable period, of the Act being published in English.

So I suppose the question for decision would be whether it has been practicable for the Irish version to have been made available before now and what is the definition of a reasonable period. One for the judges.

dvpower

Mr CJ wrote: »

If your mind was open a bit you would see im making a point!!

Open it too much and your brain falls out.

Mr CJ

dvpower wrote: »

Open it too much and your brain falls out.

Dont worry I would not say that would be likely now in your case anyway

Mr CJ

Only about a week ago the poll above showed 200 more saying no than yes now its over 300.

It will be very interesting to see the government getting even more desperate in the next couple of weeks

drkpower

Mr CJ wrote: »

And why would you break this law? because its unfair and wrong.

Taxation is unfair. There's a new concept.

Can i get a rebate for all of the taxes that I have paid that I reasonably consider unfair?

Mr CJ

drkpower wrote: »

Taxation is unfair. There's a new concept.

Can i get a rebate for all of the taxes that I have paid that I reasonably consider unfair?

Are you new here?? if so I suggest you read every post before you reply with crap that has been discussed already!!

This is about a home tax been unfair not income tax, road tax or any other tax cop on.... Tax is important it has to be collected no one said tax in general is unfair.

I have to laugh this kind of rubbish proves they dont have a clue how to argue for this tax.

Flex

The posts in this thread from the "Im not paying" side are really really disheartening. Some serious head-in-sand stuff.

Some of the usual points;

• Im not paying! Its all just going to the banks!!!
• No, it isnt. We're only going to pay the interest on the money raised for the bank bailout. If we could wipe the bank bailout part of our national debt (or even our ENTIRE national debt, 75% of which will be non-bank bailout related when it peaks in a couple years) and didnt have to service interest on out national debt, we'd still have a deficit of about €10B a year we'd need to bridge.

• I already pay tax, why do I have to pay more?!?
• The state spends about €70B a year and takes in about €54B. Either the €70B needs to drop (cutting pensions, dole, 3rd level grants, public sector pay, closing hospitals/schools/Garda stations), or raise taxes (something sensible and stable, like a property tax ). There is no choice in this matter, its simple maths.

• Its a trap! Theyll increase it next year! Thats the secret they dont want us to know!
• Of course it will be increased, we need to take these measures to bridge our deficit.

• This wont increase the standard of public services or welfare I receive!!
• Thats because the standard of services and levels of welfare are already too expensive for the state. We can only maintain those levels because of the loan we've been given so we can reduce the deficit over a number of years, rather than overnight (which I hope you realise would be a disaster )

• Theyre taking money out of the economy with this tax! Theyre so dumb!
• We need to do this one way or another (cuts in services and welfare, higher income tax). Its not a choice.

• Im doing this to give the IMF the two fingers, theyre evil!!!
• The IMF is lending us money at lower interest rates than we were ever able to raise ourselves IIRC, even at the heigt of the Celtic Tiger.

• About 20 years ago Enda Kenny said this was an unjust tax! Therefore I dont have to pay!
• Circumstances have changed massively since then, and it was something he said nearly 2 decades ago, come on

Loads more I couldnt be bothered going through. The simple fact of the matter is we need to raise taxes and cut spending. I was in favour of a property tax because having read up on them I found that apparantly they cause less damage to an economy than other forms of taxation, because its a stable sustainable tax that can be calculated and relied on each year, rather than transaction taxes that can be up or down depending on consumer sentiment or once of stamp duty from a property bubble. It appears this tax is going to fail so I hope the government choose to gradually reduce tax credits, by say ~€700 a year.

Would the "No" side be ok with that, ~€700 a year less in tax credits (as in, are you against this tax because its a tax on a home), or do you just not want to know about the deficit?

drkpower

Mr CJ wrote: »

Are you new here?? if so I suggest you read every post before you reply with crap that has been discussed already!!

This is about a home tax been unfair not income tax, road tax or any other tax cop on.... Tax is important it has to be collected no one said tax in general is unfair.

I have to laugh this kind of rubbish proves they dont have a clue how to argue for this tax.

I havent argued for or against anything. I suggest you read just one post......

You might want this to be about one particular tax, but in order to argue reasonably about the unfairness of one particular tax you need to convincingly distinguish it from other types of taxation.

Mr CJ

this one is for all the pro people, in the unlikely event they are successfull bringing this thing in I can imagine the happy faces on you all. When next year come happy faces again when your reminded of the charge and you have to pay €1500 great stuff this is fantastic.

You's are all crazy...