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

donalg1

Am Chile wrote: »

We have all prob heard this Idle threat to switch off street lights all over the media, national radio/local radio these past few days-I call BS when I see it.

There would probaly be legal consequences if they actually did turn off street lights-for example lets say for someone who paid the household tax say (DV Power) was out driving at night, driving down a street with no street lights on and crashed the car and got seriously injured or worse even died from the car accident, surely DVS family could put in a claim and sue the local council for compensation, reasoning the household tax was paid by DV and then street lights were turned off resulting in a car accident, if they acually do turn off street lights a scenario like that is just waiting to happen.

Stop shouting. Anyway if DV did this then surely they would ask why he didnt have his headlights on. The country side where there are no street lights isnt exactly littered with cars driving around blindly crashing into anything and everything.

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

Voting it's a waste of time. The 700k people who didn't pay this charge have done more about waste in one peaceful protest than all the votes cast in the last 30 years

Can you offer an example of wasteful practices engaged in my LAs before the HHC was introduced that has now been discontinued because of this HHC?

Am Chile wrote: »

We have all prob heard this Idle threat to switch off street lights all over the media, national radio/local radio these past few days-I call BS when I see it.
There would probaly be legal consequences if they actually did turn off street lights-for example lets say for someone who paid the household tax say (DV Power) was out driving at night, driving down a street with no street lights on and crashed t[/COLOR]he car and got seriously injured or worse even died from the car accident, surely DVS family could put in a claim and sue the local council for compensation, reasoning the household tax was paid by DV and then street lights were turned off resulting in a car accident, if they acually do turn off street lights a scenario like that is just waiting to happen.

It is not unheard of. Didn’t some LAs in Britain do exactly this to save money? Some services will have to be cut. Why not street lighting?

bgrizzley

Am Chile wrote: »

We have all prob heard this Idle threat to switch off street lights all over the media, national radio/local radio these past few days-I call BS

donalg1 wrote: »

Stop shouting. Anyway if DV did this then surely they would ask why he didnt have his headlights on. The country side where there are no street lights isnt exactly littered with cars driving around blindly crashing into anything and everything.

im afraid you can't drive with your headlights on in built up areas

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

Am Chile wrote: »

We have all prob heard this Idle threat to switch off street lights all over the media, national radio/local radio these past few days-I call BS

im afraid you can't drive with your headlights on in built up areas

Thats news to me never heard of it before, do you mean full headlights or all headlights.

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

Can you offer an example of wasteful practices engaged in my LAs before the HHC was introduced that has now been discontinued because of this HHC?



It is not unheard of. Didn’t some LAs in Britain do exactly this to save money? Some services will have to be cut. Why not street lighting?

Sorry lugha don't know which area you are in. In my own they put up a lovely new building to replace the lovely old one. Also a new motor tax office in a different location that I can't see any sense or meaning to. Just a couple that annoy me but the HHC threads are littered with examples (pun intended):D

golden lane

lugha wrote: »

Can you offer an example of wasteful practices engaged in my LAs before the HHC was introduced that has now been discontinued because of this HHC?



It is not unheard of. Didn’t some LAs in Britain do exactly this to save money? Some services will have to be cut. Why not street lighting?

yes, that was in swindon......i got lost coming home from a night out at the dogs....

they have also switched off speed camera's........and many other things...

bgrizzley

donalg1 wrote: »

bgrizzley wrote: »

Thats news to me never heard of it before, do you mean full headlights or all headlights.

Lol busted, should have known I couldn't out-nitpick the protax side

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

Sorry lugha don't know which area you are in. In my own they put up a lovely new building to replace the lovely old one. Also a new motor tax office in a different location that I can't see any sense or meaning to. Just a couple that annoy me but the HHC threads are littered with examples (pun intended):D

Yes I have no difficulty accepting that there are many and varied examples of our money been spent in less than responsible ways. My question is, how does 700,000 people refusing to pay the HHC change this practice? (not of course that this is the reason that they are not paying)

Simply answer is that it won’t. Whether a property tax is introduced or not, there will be wasteful spending by LAs. And while some continue to think that you can address this problem by focusing on how the money is raised, and not as would seem more obvious, on how it is spent, there is little prospect that this will change.

You might as well argue that you are refusing to pay the HHC as a protest against the bad weather! :pac:

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Lol busted, should have known I couldn't out-nitpick the protax side

I wasnt nitpicking I was actually being genuine with that thought I was doing the wrong thing all these years!!

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

Yes I have no difficulty accepting that there are many and varied examples of our money been spent in less than responsible ways. My question is, how does 700,000 people refusing to pay the HHC change this practice? (not of course that this is the reason that they are not paying)

Simply answer is that it won’t. Whether a property tax is introduced or not, there will be wasteful spending by LAs. And while some continue to think that you can address this problem by focusing on how the money is raised, and not as would seem more obvious, on how it is spent, there is little prospect that this will change.

You might as well argue that you are refusing to pay the HHC as a protest against the bad weather! :pac:

they cant waste the money if they dont have it to waste.

Make the cuts to non essential spending in other parts of this countries expenditure and give it to the LA´s

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

they cant waste the money if they dont have it to waste.

Of course they can. There is no reason why the proportion of money that is wasted will diminish. If 10% of all spending was wasteful in the past it will continue to be 10%. Why on earth do you think it will be different?

True, the actual euro amount of waste will decrease if their funding is cut, as will the services offered and by the same factor but the obvious extension of that logic would be to cut their funding even more as this will lead to even greater savings. Why not go the whole hog and simply abolish all taxes (and of course all services) and let everyone fend for themselves? As this would give us zero waste of public money.

Hijpo wrote: »

Make the cuts to non essential spending in other parts of this countries expenditure and give it to the LA´s

Move the desk chairs around as much as you like and throw in red herring about waste as much as you like. But we still have a massive deficit to address and it will necessarily involve inflicting a lot of hardship on a lot of ordinary people.

emo72

Didnt the local councils in Dublin cut off the road lights in the early nineties? I remember the old n4 out in Lucan having no lights for a few weeks? No harm there really.

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

Of course they can. There is no reason why the proportion of money that is wasted will diminish. If 10% of all spending was wasteful in the past it will continue to be 10%. Why on earth do you think it will be different?

True, the actual euro amount of waste will decrease if their funding is cut, as will the services offered and by the same factor but the obvious extension of that logic would be to cut their funding even more as this will lead to even greater savings. Why not go the whole hog and simply abolish all taxes (and of course all services) and let everyone fend for themselves? As this would give us zero waste of public money.


Move the desk chairs around as much as you like and throw in red herring about waste as much as you like. But we still have a massive deficit to address and it will necessarily involve inflicting a lot of hardship on a lot of ordinary people.

Ghandee wrote: »

Quite a few alternative revenue raising exercises were proposed lugha.
Including taxing the rich, a 0.01 % charge on all financial transactions going through the Irish ifsc (which would apparently easily raise 500m per year without really hurting anyone) and also a small reduction on county managers salaries.

She dismissed them all, conveniently enough.

You should watch the show, its on tv3 player.

Lot to be learnt by it tbh.

Three alternative revenue raising proposals.

No response.

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

Of course they can. There is no reason why the proportion of money that is wasted will diminish. If 10% of all spending was wasteful in the past it will continue to be 10%. Why on earth do you think it will be different?

True, the actual euro amount of waste will decrease if their funding is cut, as will the services offered and by the same factor but the obvious extension of that logic would be to cut their funding even more as this will lead to even greater savings. Why not go the whole hog and simply abolish all taxes (and of course all services) and let everyone fend for themselves? As this would give us zero waste of public money.

So what your saying is, its ok to waste the funding because it has been common practice in the good times? Your really taking the piss now. If there budgets are cut there spending should be rebudgeted to provide the essential services that they are threatening to cut, its not good practice to cut essential services like lighting or street cleaning while there will still be enough money to throw a bloody mayors ball. Where as the ordinary people are expected to stay in doors and give up there sky subscription to pay there HHC. Yeah you would do well in the dail or on a council.

lugha wrote: »

Move the desk chairs around as much as you like and throw in red herring about waste as much as you like. But we still have a massive deficit to address and it will necessarily involve inflicting a lot of hardship on a lot of ordinary people.

jesus you really love that red hearing bull****e :rolleyes: the argument of "we have a defecit so we must up taxes and add charges" is a load of tripe.
We have a massive deficit to address, so why are the politicians and city managers still on boom time salaries, pensions, tax exemptions and bonuses? You must not be an ordinary person/home owner, either that or your apprehension of an "ordinary person" is completely skewed.

Actually, are you the little girl that still lives with mammy and daddy?
appologies if your not, there was one floating around here at one stage and your comments remind me of her.

dvpower

bgrizzley wrote: »

Am Chile wrote: »

im afraid you can't drive with your headlights on in built up areas

Let me get this straight - Your argurment hinges on my driving around an urban area, in the dark because the council have turned off the street lights, and my not using my headlights because its apparently not allowed and then my getting killed because of my stupidity and then my family suing the council.?

Have I got that right?

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

Three alternative revenue raising proposals.

No response.

…. in an exchange about how the opposing sides performed in a media debate. I contemplated pointing out to you that you rather (well completely!) missed the point of the exchange but …..

Hijpo wrote: »

So what your saying is, its ok to waste the funding because it has been common practice in the good times?

Oddly enough, but not surprisingly, that is nowhere in the neighbourhood of what I am saying. I am saying cutting funding, by virtue of tax evasion mind, will not cut waste

Hijpo wrote: »

If there budgets are cut there spending should be rebudgeted to provide the essential services that they are threatening to cut

Ah chief, that “sh” word there. That’s where you are getting things so badly wrong. We live in a “does happen” world, not a “should happen” one.

Hijpo wrote: »

jesus you really love that red hearing bull****e the argument of "we have a defecit so we must up taxes and add charges" is a load of tripe.

Grand, so you tell me how we deal with the problem (without affecting ordinary people)?

I’ll get you started: pay all public representatives a more modest salary, or none at all if you like.

Net effect? SFA! So you need to do take actually effective measures. So next step?

Hijpo wrote: »

Actually, are you the little girl that still lives with mammy and daddy?

:eek: So wrong in so many ways. But after a while, you get used to the no side being completely wrong about everything! :P

gerryo777

lugha wrote: »

:eek: So wrong in so many ways. But after a while, you get used to the no side being completely wrong about everything! :P

That's the problem with all you pro-taxers.

People against a property tax wrong about everything while you are right.

No discussion, no other way, just deflection and insults directed at anyone who begs to differ.

gerryo777

According to figures on VB the other night a 0.1% tax on international financial transactions through the IFSC would raise €500 million, a 1% tax would raise €5 billion.

That's over 31 times the HHC if it was paid in full.

A new, higher tax band for people earning over €120k (5% more on the higher rate) would raise another €500 million.

A 5% cut in welfare across the board is €1.1 billion.

There's €6.6 billion already.

But everything put forward by the anti HHC 'crowd' is wrong?

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

bgrizzley wrote: »

Let me get this straight - Your argurment hinges on my driving around an urban area, in the dark because the council have turned off the street lights, and my not using my headlights because its apparently not allowed and then my getting killed because of my stupidity and then my family suing the council.?

Have I got that right?

No, read back, that wasn't my argument. I'd prefer you didn't have an accident. You are too much fun on here.
(By the way, I meant full headlights and donal rightly pulled me up on it.(we incorrectly just call them headlights and dims in my corner of the country))

dvpower

bgrizzley wrote: »

I'd prefer you didn't have an accident. You are too much fun on here.

Thanks:)

You really need to sort out your quoting 'tho

dvpower

gerryo777 wrote: »

That's the problem with all you pro-taxers.

Complains about "pro taxers" ...

gerryo777 wrote: »

According to figures on VB the other night a 0.1% tax on international financial transactions through the IFSC would raise €500 million, a 1% tax would raise €5 billion.

... wants to raise €5bn in tax.
:eek:

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

Thanks:)

You really need to sort out your quoting 'tho

On phone, back to laptop after weekend, please bear with dodgy quoting til then:o

View

bgrizzley wrote: »

They use our taxes to hire traffic wardens and the wardens create revenue. It's a return on our taxes. revenue from mineral resources, our money. Ireland belongs to you and me.

You might want to have a read of the constitution, specifically Articles 10.2 & 10.1, because according to them all land, water and mineral resources belongs to the State.

You can argue about it but I doubt the Supreme Court would be inclined to overlooks the democratic decision to approve the constitution with those provisions in it.

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

…. in an exchange about how the opposing sides performed in a media debate. I contemplated pointing out to you that you rather (well completely!) missed the point of the exchange but …..

In a thread about the hhc though.

You've repeatedly asked if anyone had any other ideas on how to close the deficit.
I gave you three suggestions proposed on the VB show, and you've deliberately refused to acknowledge them, or make any comment. Instead you chose to attempt to side step the issue and deflect by asking another poster a series of question's.

You've deliberately made no comment on alternative revenue raising suggestions.

Just like you refused to acknowledge our earlier debate when i pointed out how someone with a car could choose lawfully not to tax it for a period of time by taking it off the road.

When in doubt say nowt.

View

Am Chile wrote: »

We have all prob heard this Idle threat to switch off street lights all over the media, national radio/local radio these past few days-I call BS when I see it.

There would probaly be legal consequences if they actually did turn off street lights-for example lets say for someone who paid the household tax say (DV Power) was out driving at night, driving down a street with no street lights on and crashed the car and got seriously injured or worse even died from the car accident, surely DVS family could put in a claim and sue the local council for compensation, reasoning the household tax was paid by DV and then street lights were turned off resulting in a car accident, if they acually do turn off street lights a scenario like that is just waiting to happen.

Out of curiosity, what have the legal consequences been when accidents have occurred in areas where the relevant local authority doesn't provide street lighting (e.g. in a rural area)?

Cesium Clock

View wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what have the legal consequences been when accidents have occurred in areas where the relevant local authority doesn't provide street lighting (e.g. in a rural area)?

Try injuryLawyers4you,

In the UK it was once possible to sue the local council if you tripped and injured yourself on a raised flagstone,

How the above would pan out here would be expensive

Izzy Skint

dvpower wrote: »

Complains about "pro taxers" ...



... wants to raise €5bn in tax.
:eek:

lugha wrote: »

…. in an exchange about how the opposing sides performed in a media debate. I contemplated pointing out to you that you rather (well completely!) missed the point of the exchange but …..


Oddly enough, but not surprisingly, that is nowhere in the neighbourhood of what I am saying. I am saying cutting funding, by virtue of tax evasion mind, will not cut waste

Ah chief, that “sh” word there. That’s where you are getting things so badly wrong. We live in a “does happen” world, not a “should happen” one.



Grand, so you tell me how we deal with the problem (without affecting ordinary people)?

I’ll get you started: pay all public representatives a more modest salary, or none at all if you like.

Net effect? SFA! So you need to do take actually effective measures. So next step?



:eek: So wrong in so many ways. But after a while, you get used to the no side being completely wrong about everything! :P

can i ask, what public sector area do you work in ?

Am Chile

View wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what have the legal consequences been when accidents have occurred in areas where the relevant local authority doesn't provide street lighting (e.g. in a rural area)?

(A)this is a new charge which we are told is supposed to pay directly for services including street lighting. (B)

here is the problem. phil hogan has promised certain services including street lighting to the people who have paid the household charge so now if he going to cut services to those who have paid in areas that don,t not receive the services he has promised the householders when he collected their money some might conclude he collected their money under false pretenses (C) if street lights were to turned off in an area if someone who paid the household charge was driving if a car accident were to occur wouldn,t they be able to claim against the local council for compensation, reasons he/she paid their household charge in the belief they were to receive services inlcuding street lighting which weren,t received resulting in a car accident. (D) even without any accidents for someone who paid the household charge if no services were provided to them, mightn,t that even be in breach of the goods and services act, ie someone paid a for a service which they didn,t receive.

Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980

“

business

”

includes profession and the activities of any State authority or local
authority;

(2) A reference in this Act to the supply

of a service includes reference to the rendering or provision of a service or
facility and to an offer to supply.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1980/en/act/pub/0016/sec0002.html#sec2

bgrizzley

View wrote: »

You might want to have a read of the constitution, specifically Articles 10.2 & 10.1, because according to them all land, water and mineral resources belongs to the State.

You can argue about it but I doubt the Supreme Court would be inclined to overlooks the democratic decision to approve the constitution with those provisions in it.

so you are saying the people don't own Ireland? Go on, I'm listening...

Izzy Skint

bgrizzley wrote: »

so you are saying the people don't own Ireland? Go on, I'm listening...

I think it also mentions something about equality !!!! ....now is that funny or what ?