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

Heroditas

It's not a tax, it's a charge

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

It is sickening - services are being cut and those responsible, the tax evaders, are online trying to deflect responsibility.

The bigger picture being,

Services get cut to the majority (including those that paid)
Yet the salaries of those in the council gets untouched (the minority)

In my work, when things got tight, first thing they did to tackle reduced revenue income was cut everyone salary by 20%.
This applied to people at the top, from the MD, right down to Bernard, in charge of bogs and bins.

PS workers in the council aren't living in reality I'm afraid.

Hijpo

dvpower wrote: »

It is sickening - services are being cut and those responsible, the tax evaders, are online trying to deflect responsibility.

So? arnt public sector big wigs and government deflecting away from making changes that would effect there own pockets?

rn

Only in the public sector... Anyway if they continue to pay the salaries of the workers - why do they need close all these facilities - surely the main cost in running them is the wage bill - which is going to be met anyway? But of course I see one councils stating this is Roscommon co councils - definitely one of the most inefficient and ineffective organisations I have ever dealt with.

The councils should do their job... if they want their money, take the non-offenders to court instead of issuing rubbish, nonsensical statements.

lazeedaisy

I know there is a great divide between rural and urban living.

I built a new house a few years ago - had to pay the council 20k for the privilage, There is very little streetlighting in the rural area where I live so turning it off wont matter to a whole lot of us - we wont notice,

We dont have a library - occasionally the mobile one turns up - never has what you want, you have to order and that said - you never get it,

We dont have a lot of the facilities that other citites or towns have, we dont have any housing estates that can generate money,

I was told my 20K would go toward "local" services" yet I have seen nothing changed, the roads or lanes really are appalling,

My local services are in another county 6 miles away - yet the county council in my own county want my money for services for others in the larger towns or cities,

Its not very well thought out for very rural areas,

lugha

Izzy Skint wrote: »

I am paying more for my mortgage than I would be if I was renting so it is not "revenue generating" according to your definition...

Well, it is not my definition, “revenue generating” means what it says, it is a stream of income. It may not offset the cost of the mechanism that provides that stream but it is still an income stream. And BTW, the cost of the mechanism is the interest you pay on your mortgage, not the full payment. You will eventually have an asset with no liabilities on it and you will be free to cash in on its market value. Why would you expect (as I think darkhorse does) that this notional rental income should cover the cost of purchasing your house any more than it should cover the cost of running your car or your grocery bills or anything else?

Izzy Skint wrote: »

what if I decided to live under a tent in the corner of a muck field, then by your logic, this would be considered an extremely valuable asset as it would be saving me thousands on renting or a mortgage ?...would my little tent be considered "revenue generating" !!!

Er no, I am not sure how you came to that interpretation? But lets go with your tent idea for a moment, it may bring some illumination.

If you did live in a tent then your house (not the tent!) would be a valuable asset that you could rent for lets say €1,000 month. Presumably you agree that that would be a revenue stream for you? The tax man certainly would!

Now suppose you get tired of your tent but because of say a lease agreement, you go to live instead in the identical house adjacent to yours. Your tenant provides an income stream of €1,000 to you and you in turn pay this to your landlord. You might even arrange things so you need not be involved in any transactions!

Hopefully, it is still clear that these residential properties are still generating income streams? If you subsequently move back into your own property your financial position (tax matters aside) will be entirely unchanged!

Some people’s heads seem to hurt if they think of this in terms of being your own tenant, but in a sense that it what you are. You don’t get rent as cash but you get the benefit of it as you are do not need to pay out money to rent accommodation.

Buford Tannen

dvpower wrote: »

It is sickening - services are being cut and those responsible, the tax evaders, are online trying to deflect responsibility.

Rather be a tax evader than f**king gullible

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

Unbelievable.

Lights will go off, parks, libaries and other services will be cut, they will take all these measures before the will slash the €100,000+ salaries of some of the bloated salaries of those at the top of the PS?

Reading pure greed and arrogance like that would churn your stomach tbh.

Ha, so you are basically saying that if I walk into a shop tomorrow and receive a service, then I refuse to pay for said service the owner of the shop should pay for it out of their wages because they earn more than me?

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

Ha, so you are basically saying that if I walk into a shop tomorrow and receive a service, then I refuse to pay for said service the owner of the shop should pay for it out of their wages because they earn more than me?

~LOL......

No Donal, thats not what I said at all, at all.

What I said is any business that see's their revenue falter, normally would start to reduce their employees wages.

Essential services can be cut, yet the PS workers take home pay cannot.

Does not make sense.

Are you telling me that if this 'shop' in question had a worker on 400 a week, shop selling 2k of stock a week.
Gradually, shops profits/sales go down, now selling 1k a week.....

Does Joe the cashier still get 400 a week take home?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

In my work, when things got tight, first thing they did to tackle reduced revenue income was cut everyone salary by 20%.

And what do you do when your customers steal from you?

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

And what do you do when your customers steal from you?

Who has stole what?

DV is now insinusating that non payers are now.

Tax evaders and thieves.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Are you telling me that if this 'shop' in question had a worker on 400 a week, shop selling 2k of stock a week.
Gradually, shops profits/sales go down, now selling 1k a week.....

Does Joe the cashier still get 400 a week take home?

The Local Authorities have all let people go and have all had pay cuts.

In this case your analogy doesn't quite work, because the revenue shortfall leading to these cuts is a temporary one, caused by illegality. If someone was stealing from your shop, you wouldn't punish the cashier - you'd go after the criminal.

the groutch

Ghandee wrote: »

Essential services can be cut, yet the PS workers take home pay cannot.

Does not make sense.

Indeed, this country cannot even start to be "fixed" until the CPA is torn to shreds

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

The Local Authorities have all let people go and have all had pay cuts.

In this case your analogy doesn't quite work, because the revenue shortfall leading to these cuts is a temporary one, caused by illegality. If someone was stealing from your shop, you wouldn't punish the cashier - you'd go after the criminal.

700k people would argue, and probably get very upset that they've been labelled criminals.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

~LOL......

No Donal, thats not what I said at all, at all.

What I said is any business that see's their revenue falter, normally would start to reduce their employees wages.

Essential services can be cut, yet the PS workers take home pay cannot.

Does not make sense.

Are you telling me that if this 'shop' in question had a worker on 400 a week, shop selling 2k of stock a week.
Gradually, shops profits/sales go down, now selling 1k a week.....

Does Joe the cashier still get 400 a week take home?

Dont you think though that the customers of the business should pay for the services they receive, and if they refuse to pay for these services then the services are no longer given to the customer first.

Or are you saying the business should continue to provide the services to the customers and use the salaries of the employees to pay for these services. I can't comprehend how anyone would consider this to be a good way of doing business.

dvpower

Hijpo wrote: »

So? arnt public sector big wigs and government deflecting away from making changes that would effect there own pockets?

Yep. They need to do a lot more.

So, in summary.
1. Public sector and government big wigs need to implement more radical change.
2. People need to pay their lawful taxes and charges.

ScumLord

lugha wrote: »

And BTW, your home IS an asset, and a revenue generating one at that, even before you sell it. You can estimate the value of the revenue generated by determining what a similar house to yours in a similar location would cost to rent.

that doesn't make any sense. You either use your house to generate revenue or you don't. It's the same kind of false logic that you hear companies use where they expect to make a certain amount of money and when they don't they see that as someone taking that money away from them.

Just because it's possible to make money out of something doesn't mean you automatically have that money. Just like if I have a product for sale and put a price on it, it doesn't mean I have that money just by having the product in my possession. I have the opportunity to make money if I decide to sell and can find someone to buy.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

And what do you do when your customers steal from you?

Hello?


Who has stolen?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Hello?


Who has stolen?

In your analogy, customers are stealing from the shop.
In real life, tax evaders are effectively stealing from the state.

Chips Lovell

Croke Park is due to expire in 2014. If the economy stays the way it is, it will no doubt be followed by another agreement that further reduces the public sector pay bill.

Given the fact that it has already resulted in cutbacks, is it really wise to tear up the agreement before it expires and find ourselves with widespread industrial action? Do we think public sector workers are going to be more or less likely to accept further cuts if we tear up Croke Park? Are we trying to fix the public finances or pursue a vendetta?

Ghandee

Ghandee wrote: »

Are you telling me that if this 'shop' in question had a worker on 400 a week, shop selling 2k of stock a week.
Gradually, shops profits/sales go down, now selling 1k a week.....
Does Joe the cashier still get 400 a week take home?

dvpower wrote: »

In your analogy, customers are stealing from the shop.
In real life, tax evaders are effectively stealing from the state.

Nice side step Mr.

I said, and I quote my self here...

Gradually, shops profits/sales go down, now selling 1k a week.....[/B]
Does Joe the cashier still get 400 a week take home

No mention of stealing DV.

I admire your defence on salaries remaining untouched though.

the groutch

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Croke Park is due to expire in 2014.

is it a specific date? or is it expired from Jan 1st?
either way, I'd love for their be a public burning ceremony.

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Croke Park is due to expire in 2014. If the economy stays the way it is, it will no doubt be followed by another agreement that further reduces the public sector pay bill.

Given the fact that it has already resulted in cutbacks, is it really wise to tear up the agreement before it expires and find ourselves with widespread industrial action? Do we think public sector workers are going to be more or less likely to accept further cuts if we tear up Croke Park? Are we trying to fix the public finances or pursue a vendetta?

There have been calls for industrial action from the private sector also from unions following threats to dduct money from source.

The majority of PAYE workers are in the Private sector.

donalg1

the groutch wrote: »

is it a specific date? or is it expired from Jan 1st?
either way, I'd love for their be a public burning ceremony.

Think someone needs to change their name to The Troll.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

No mention of stealing DV.

That's where your analogy fell apart.

Cantona's Collars

Here's an example of how ringfencing wages have protected the high earners in LA's. One individual in Wexford retired from their post where they earned over €80k a year,they got a nice fat pension then the following week took up a new post and is earning over €90k a year along with the pension from the previous position.Crazy stuff.

It's stuff like this that causes people to question where the €100 is going,wasting money seems to be LA's forte from the guys throwing tar into puddles right to the big earners who play the system to reap the most reward for doing the least work.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

That's where your analogy fell apart.

Waffle waffle waffle.

It was your 'analogy' that someone has stolen something.

And what do you do when your customers steal from you?

I've asked you who has stolen?


Fail to put up a reasonable argument, because you simply do not have one.

Ghandee

zerks wrote: »

Here's an example of how ringfencing wages have protected the high earners in LA's. One individual in Wexford retired from their post where they earned over €80k a year,they got a nice fat pension then the following week took up a new post and is earning over €90k a year along with the pension from the previous position.Crazy stuff.

Unreal.

Heroditas

dvpower wrote: »

The Local Authorities have all let people go and have all had pay cuts.

People haven't been "let go". They've taken voluntary redundancy or have retired.
The rest were contract workers who didn't have them extended.


As for the "pay cut" bit....

dvpower

Heroditas wrote: »

People haven't been "let go". They've taken voluntary redundancy or have retired.
The rest were contract workers who didn't have them extended.

Redundancy and contract termination = 'let go.'

Heroditas wrote: »

As for the "pay cut" bit....

I await your follow up word of wisdom.