Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] *Poll Reset*

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

First of all can I say ha ha ha. You want us to borrow more money when we don't need to ha ha ha. that is the most ridiculous and idiotic and completely and utterly stupid thing I have ever read on boards and that is saying something.

Grow up a bit good one save the patronizing sh1te for someone else. You seem intent on wasting money that's not there and I need to grow up, ok sure thing.

And what is my shower that you refer to may I ask?

See my option makes money yours wastes money.

Wouldn't expect anything else from you than an immature post like that.
Well done you!

Just as an aside, where do you think enda is going to get the €2 billion odd he announced yesterday?
Alastairs pixies?

No, here's a clue, IT WILL HAVE TO BE BORROWED!

Now stop being so angry, jesus, you pro taxers are all so angry.

Do you need a hug?:D

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

First of all can I say ha ha ha. You want us to borrow more money when we don't need to ha ha ha. that is the most ridiculous and idiotic and completely and utterly stupid thing I have ever read on boards and that is saying something.

Grow up a bit good one save the patronizing sh1te for someone else. You seem intent on wasting money that's not there and I need to grow up, ok sure thing.

And what is my shower that you refer to may I ask?

See my option makes money yours wastes money.

Wouldn't expect anything else from you than an immature post like that.
Well done you!

Just as an aside, where do you think enda is going to get the €2 billion odd he announced yesterday?
Alastairs pixies?

No, here's a clue, IT WILL HAVE TO BE BORROWED!

Now stop being so angry, jesus, you pro taxers are all so angry.

Do you need a hug?:D

An immature post is it ok then. Is it immature because it proved you wrong or is it immature because it asked you questions you have no answers to?

The only immature one around here is yourself, when someone disagrees with you, you come back with the above nonsense.

And you can keep your hug too, I'm happily married so maybe you should start looking elsewhere.

But by all means please elaborate on your "my shower" post.

And then maybe you care to explain to me why you think anyone would choose to borrow 500 million when they don't need to. Considering they would end up repaying probably 800million.

And let's leave the patronizing name calling personal attacks out of your next post if possible. And if you can't manage that then maybe you should not bother saying anything.

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

An immature post is it ok then. Is it immature because it proved you wrong or is it immature because it asked you questions you have no answers to?

The only immature one around here is yourself, when someone disagrees with you, you come back with the above nonsense.

And you can keep your hug too, I'm happily married so maybe you should start looking elsewhere.

But by all means please elaborate on your "my shower" post.

And then maybe you care to explain to me why you think anyone would choose to borrow 500 million when they don't need to. Considering they would end up repaying probably 800million.

And let's leave the patronizing name calling personal attacks out of your next post if possible. And if you can't manage that then maybe you should not bother saying anything.

Alright, calm down.

If we borrow the money and get the leaks fixed and then say charge every household over 20 years (including the interest on the €500million) it works out cost neutral.
We would get the EU off our backs regarding water directives.
We would also create badly needed jobs in fixing the problems with our pipe infrastructure.

Do you seriously disagree with this plan?

Can you not just read the above and think it through.

Only messing with the hugs thing, I'm happily married myself.

mikom

donalg1 wrote: »

And you can keep your hug too, I'm happily married so maybe you should start looking elsewhere.

Riiiiight........

Izzy Skint

according to wikipedia, David Cameron, the British prime minister, leader of 60 million people, earns £142,000 a year which today equates to €182,000......meanwhile, in Ireland, Dublin City manager (John Tierney) earns €189,301 !!!! .......and Inda who is leader to 4.5m people earns €200,000...

ALASTAIR, DX, DV, DONAL, VLADIMIR, etc... try to defend those figures...explain to me how , I am getting value for money...explain to me how there is no room here for savings ?....and please, no stupid remarks like 'that's their salary' which Alastair is so good at making.
This is but one tiny example of the kind of sh!te that is killing this country.

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

An immature post is it ok then. Is it immature because it proved you wrong or is it immature because it asked you questions you have no answers to?

The only immature one around here is yourself, when someone disagrees with you, you come back with the above nonsense.

And you can keep your hug too, I'm happily married so maybe you should start looking elsewhere.

But by all means please elaborate on your "my shower" post.

And then maybe you care to explain to me why you think anyone would choose to borrow 500 million when they don't need to. Considering they would end up repaying probably 800million.

And let's leave the patronizing name calling personal attacks out of your next post if possible. And if you can't manage that then maybe you should not bother saying anything.

Alright, calm down.

If we borrow the money and get the leaks fixed and then say charge every household over 20 years (including the interest on the €500million) it works out cost neutral.
We would get the EU off our backs regarding water directives.
We would also create badly needed jobs in fixing the problems with our pipe infrastructure.

Do you seriously disagree with this plan?

Can you not just read the above and think it through.

Only messing with the hugs thing, I'm happily married myself.

Or we could charge for these services now and use the money raised to employ people to fix the leaks therefore not borrowing money we don't need to and not repaying hundreds of millions in interest on the money we borrowed.

Don't you think this is a far better and more cost effective way of doing things.

You get your jobs you get your leaks fixed and you get all this at a fraction of the cost.

donalg1

Izzy Skint wrote: »

according to wikipedia, David Cameron, the British prime minister, leader of 60 million people, earns £142,000 a year which today equates to €182,000......meanwhile, in Ireland, Dublin City manager (John Tierney) earns €189,301 !!!! .......and Inda who is leader to 4.5m people earns €200,000...

ALASTAIR, DX, DV, DONAL, VLADIMIR, etc... try to defend those figures...explain to me how , I am getting value for money...explain to me how there is no room here for savings ?....and please, no stupid remarks like 'that's their salary' which Alastair is so good at making.
This is but one tiny example of the kind of sh!te that is killing this country.

Why are you including me in there? Where have I ever defended them or their salaries? I believe I eluded to the fact that its a disgrace that enda earns more than Obama and I did so recently.

Izzy Skint

forgot to say a big thanks to ALASTAIR and co. for not answering my questions I posed to you....thanks for nothing guys, silence is golden eh ?.... stick your heads in the sand and it will all go away.... "Inda, please make them go away ! ":D:D:D:D

I would not blame you though, it is impossible to defend the indefensible:)

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

Or we could charge for these services now and use the money raised to employ people to fix the leaks therefore not borrowing money we don't need to and not repaying hundreds of millions in interest on the money we borrowed.

Don't you think this is a far better and more cost effective way of doing things.

You get your jobs you get your leaks fixed and you get all this at a fraction of the cost.

The problem with that is a lot of people won't pay up when they see that the wastage isn't being fixed and the EU are still coming after us and fining us under some directive or other.
A lot of people will think, and rightly so, that it's just another tax going into a black hole and meantime the problems with the infrastructure aren't sorted and no jobs have been created.

I do believe we should pay an annual charge for water as we all use it and it has to be paid for.

I will refuse to pay it though if large sections of the population are getting the same service for nothing.

Just like the household charge/tax.

When the people that yours and my hard earned tax goes to house are paying something back, I'll pay too.

Do you agree that this is a reasonable position to take?

Izzy Skint

donalg1 wrote: »

Why are you including me in there? Where have I ever defended them or their salaries? I believe I eluded to the fact that its a disgrace that enda earns more than Obama and I did so recently.

apologies Donal, it's just that I tend to count you in with 'those' guys...i will not do that in future and I accept that both of us even agree on many of the issues discussed here.....

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Or we could charge for these services now and use the money raised to employ people to fix the leaks therefore not borrowing money we don't need to and not repaying hundreds of millions in interest on the money we borrowed.

Don't you think this is a far better and more cost effective way of doing things.

You get your jobs you get your leaks fixed and you get all this at a fraction of the cost.

The problem with that is a lot of people won't pay up when they see that the wastage isn't being fixed and the EU are still coming after us and fining us under some directive or other.
A lot of people will think, and rightly so, that it's just another tax going into a black hole and meantime the problems with the infrastructure aren't sorted and no jobs have been created.

I do believe we should pay an annual charge for water as we all use it and it has to be paid for.

I will refuse to pay it though if large sections of the population are getting the same service for nothing.

Just like the household charge/tax.

When the people that yours and my hard earned tax goes to house are paying something back, I'll pay too.

Do you agree that this is a reasonable position to take?

But if anyone refuses to pay their bill they just have their water cut off until they pay up. It's different from the hhc in that way.

Am Chile

donalg1 wrote: »

But if anyone refuses to pay their bill they just have their water cut off until they pay up. It's different from the hhc in that way.

Some people don't remember the last anti water charges campaign-last time water was cut off but the campaign had volenteers and just reconnected the water each time-I know some might say theres water meters involved this time-but those water meters are by no means tamper proof-I have being told some Intel about them from someone whos done the water meter Installation course.

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

But if anyone refuses to pay their bill they just have their water cut off until they pay up. It's different from the hhc in that way.

The day this government allow LA's to start cutting families water off is the day they'll be ran out of office.

I asked do you think my position regarding charges is reasonable?

kr7

Am Chile wrote: »

Some people don't remember the last anti water charges campaign-last time water was cut off but the campaign had volenteers and just reconnected the water each time-I know some might say theres water meters involved this time-but those water meters are by no means tamper proof-I have being told some Intel about them from someone whos done the water meter Installation course.

True enough, it's easy to turn it back on if you know what your doing.
Thank god for the hubbie.....

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

But if anyone refuses to pay their bill they just have their water cut off until they pay up. It's different from the hhc in that way.

The day this government allow LA's to start cutting families water off is the day they'll be ran out of office.

I asked do you think my position regarding charges is reasonable?

Well the LA's are providing a service that costs them tens of millions each year which they don't charge a cent for. This is completely unreasonable.

Your position being that why should you pay for a service if others don't pay for it? That too is unreasonable as its saying sure them over there break the law so I will too.

What do you suggest they do to those that refuse to pay it?

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

Well the LA's are providing a service that costs them tens of millions each year which they don't charge a cent for. This is completely unreasonable.

Your position being that why should you pay for a service if others don't pay for it? That too is unreasonable as its saying sure them over there break the law so I will too.

What do you suggest they do to those that refuse to pay it?

It's not that they don't charge a cent for.
They get central government funds.
They get rates.
They charge for refuse collection, those of them who didn't sell out to private companies.
They have all kind of fee structures etc etc.

I don't think it's fair or right to charge one section of society and not another for using the same services.
Think about it, if I proposed that only black people should pay and not white, or the other way round for that matter, there be uproar from all sides.

I think if it is seen by all as a fair and just charge, very few will refuse to pay it.

That's why around 650,000 haven't paid the household charge, myself included.
When it's fair and equitable, I'll pay it.

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Well the LA's are providing a service that costs them tens of millions each year which they don't charge a cent for. This is completely unreasonable.

Your position being that why should you pay for a service if others don't pay for it? That too is unreasonable as its saying sure them over there break the law so I will too.

What do you suggest they do to those that refuse to pay it?

It's not that they don't charge a cent for.
They get central government funds.
They get rates.
They charge for refuse collection, those of them who didn't sell out to private companies.
They have all kind of fee structures etc etc.

I don't think it's fair or right to charge one section of society and not another for using the same services.
Think about it, if I proposed that only black people should pay and not white, or the other way round for that matter, there be uproar from all sides.

I think if it is seen by all as a fair and just charge, very few will refuse to pay it.

That's why around 650,000 haven't paid the household charge, myself included.
When it's fair and equitable, I'll pay it.

I'm talking about water charges still

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

I'm talking about water charges still

Same thing to me. When it's fair and equitable, I'll pay.

I've had enough of paying for freeloaders.

You might be prepared just to pay up, I'm not.

I don't think we're too different in our opinions, I just see it a bit different from you.

lugha

kr7 wrote: »

That's why around 650,000 haven't paid the household charge, myself included.
When it's fair and equitable, I'll pay it.

I think you rather assume to much if you think there is one single reason why so many did not pay.

May I ask, what exactly you find inequitable about the HHC? And if this is the sole charge/tax/license etc. that you decline to pay? Is every last one of these, other than the HHC, acceptably fair and equitable?

kr7

lugha wrote: »

I think you rather assume to much if you think there is one single reason why so many did not pay.

May I ask, what exactly you find inequitable about the HHC? And if this is the sole charge/tax/license etc. that you decline to pay? Is every last one of these, other than the HHC, acceptably fair and equitable?

Quite simple really.

I find this inequitable because the cash raised is to be used to pay for local services provided by the LA.

I use them the same as someone in LA housing uses them, the same as someone on the RAS scheme uses them, the same as someone getting rent allowance uses them and the same as a private renter uses them.

I don't cost my LA a cent to house me, I pay for my own home.

Why should they be exempt?

N.B. This is the only tax/charge that I am liable for that I'm refusing to pay.

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

I'm talking about water charges still

Same thing to me. When it's fair and equitable, I'll pay.

I've had enough of paying for freeloaders.

You might be prepared just to pay up, I'm not.

I don't think we're too different in our opinions, I just see it a bit different from you.

I can't see how water charges can be compared to the hhc though. At least if you don't pay the water charges they can easily and directly take action unlike the hhc.

golden lane

kr7 wrote: »

Quite simple really.

I find this inequitable because the cash raised is to be used to pay for local services provided by the LA.

I use them the same as someone in LA housing uses them, the same as someone on the RAS scheme uses them, the same as someone getting rent allowance uses them and the same as a private renter uses them.

I don't cost my LA a cent to house me, I pay for my own home.

Why should they be exempt?

agreed......

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

I can't see how water charges can be compared to the hhc though. At least if you don't pay the water charges they can easily and directly take action unlike the hhc.

As I said earlier, the day a government allows a LA to disconnect the most basic resource needed for life, will be the day they're fcuked out of office.

And rightly so.

kr7

Isn't is so peaceful on here without alastair and dv to wind people up?

Just shows, it's possible to have a calm and sensible discussion with the right people.

Ghandee

kr7 wrote: »

True enough, it's easy to turn it back on if you know what your doing.
Thank god for the hubbie.....

I thought you were a bloke:eek:

Very sexist assumption Ghandee

kr7

Ghandee wrote: »

I thought you were a bloke:eek:

Very sexist assumption Ghandee

How dare you!

Izzy Skint

has anybody heard anything lately on the planned water charges, seems to be very little mention of it over the past few months ?

also, has anybody got a reminder letter from uncle Phil yet ?....or hear of anyone who has got one ?

Izzy Skint

kr7 wrote: »

How dare you!

sorry , so did I !

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

I can't see how water charges can be compared to the hhc though. At least if you don't pay the water charges they can easily and directly take action unlike the hhc.

As I said earlier, the day a government allows a LA to disconnect the most basic resource needed for life, will be the day they're fcuked out of office.

And rightly so.

Well it will be no different than say the esb. If you don't pay for a service it gets cut off.
There is no uproar when someone's electricity gets cut off because they haven't paid their bill so I don't see why it would be any different

tayto lover

Geuze wrote: »

Most analysts agree that too heavy taxes on labour are a bad idea, so it's better to rebalance the tax system towards taxes that have less negative distortions.

One of the many advantages of an annual PT is its lack of negative incentives or distortions.

We want to change your behaviour with plastic bags, so we tax them - good idea. Indeed, if this tax is very successful, the tax yield will be less.

But we don't want you to work less, so we shouldn't tax work too hard, so 52% marginal income tax rates are crazy for average workers.

You have to live in a house, a PT won't change that, so in that sense a PT provides a steady stream of revenue for the LA.

Mine won't.