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

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

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: »

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

the only other point you could be making is that nothing can be done about councils wasting there funding? if thats the case then even with the governments apparent ring fencing, our HHC may still be wasted therefor on those additional grounds i will not be paying.

by the way, just because you are of the opinion that paying city managers etc a modest wage wont effect the defecit by much still does not justify there rediculous salaries and just because it appears we live in a "does happen" world doesnt mean we cant change it to a "make happen" country.

also i wasnt aware that you could ask a wrong question. i asked if you were that girl because you remind me of her, i didnt say you were that girl.

lugha

gerry0777 wrote: »

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

It was clearly a light hearted comment as was clearly evident with the use of this little fellow :P. Only the most paranoid could choose to seriously see this as an insult. Calling someone a dickhead on the other hand ….

Ghandee wrote: »

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.

There are distinct yet on topic discussions that can be had about the HHC, or any other topic. The question of the fairness of the HHC / property tax for example, is largely a different discussion to the matter of how the government have handled its introduction which in turn is largely a different matter to what measures might be taken to address out deficit.

If you quote an entire post I think it is reasonable to assume that you are offering an opinion on the sub-topic under discussion in the post you quote. If you go on to talk about something unrelated then it simply appears that you misunderstood the matter of discussion in the sub-topic. If you want to change the subject from the FG media performance to the different matter of alternatives to property tax then you should make it clear that this is your intension.

So if you want my opinions on the alternatives proposed by you and Gerry I would say as a general point that there clearly has to be other measures other than a property tax (unless that tax is about €10,000 per year!). The debate is about why a property tax should not be one of these measures, despite have a number of advantages over many alternatives. Is there a fundamental reason why a property tax should not be included in the suite of taxes that any modern democracy must have? The no side have failed completely to make a case for exclusion, indeed many of them have failed to even realize that they need to make an argument for exclusion.

Ghandee wrote: »

Including taxing the rich

I have commented on this already. There is little chance of taxing their liquid assets as they will simply move them before you can. For me, the real hope is to tax their properties, but of course you are opposed to that.

Ghandee wrote: »

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)

I am always suspicious of big yielding solutions. When you look at them in detail (e.g. our 200 billion fishing industry! Or our “potentially” high yielding oil reserves!) they don’t really stack up. And of course someone could have pointed to the pots of gold that could be and were generated during the boom by property related taxes, stamp duty in particular. Of course the downside of relying on such a fickle income stream is evident to us all (well most of us) now when they collapse. But if we really could generate that kind of revenue, without losing the business, then fine, throw it in the pot. That will eliminate another 2-3% of our deficit! The primary argument remains: where is the rational for excluding property tax?

Ghandee wrote: »

and also a small reduction on county managers salaries.

There is clearly a case for this from the perspective of fairness. But it will have close to zero impact on our deficit.

gerry0777 wrote: »

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

I have always said that a cut in social welfare will be necessary and will happen. But I have asked, and have not been answered, why those who reject property tax on grounds of fairness think it is fair to hammer further those who would like to work but simply can not. (I estimate this to be about 2 out of every 3 people unemployed)

Ghandee wrote: »

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.

I did answer this. I said that as a suggestion, it had as much credibility as the one that says you can avoid property tax by selling your house. In both cases, the “advice” is in theory valid but utterly impractical in reality. Most people cannot sell their house because of economic conditions and they cannot take their cars of the road because they reply too much on their cars. Silly solutions are silly.

Izzy Skint wrote: »

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

I am perplexed as to why you would want to know. If I was making an argument solely in my own personal interests (as you are doing by insisting that only workers in the public sector should be subject to painful measures) they you might have a point (sort of).

But I am not doing so, as a selfish public sector argument would insist on new taxes only and no cuts in the PS. However I have consistently said that extensive cuts are needed in public spending including cuts to PS pay and quite likely compulsory redundancies. Hence, I don’t know why you are asking this?

Hijpo wrote: »

the only other point you could be making is that nothing can be done about councils wasting there funding? if thats the case then even with the governments apparent ring fencing, our HHC may still be wasted therefor on those additional grounds i will not be paying.

The people have the power to elect who they see fit in local elections (and national ones for that matter). If waste really was a burning issue with the electorate then they could make it an election issue and this could bring about change. But the reality is that despite unconvincing attempts to weave it into the anti-HHC campaign, the electorate do not really care all that much, beyond the odd whinge, about waste, or certainly not enough to do anything about it, by using the most effective tool at their disposal, their vote.

View

Am Chile wrote: »

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

Interesting but does the legislation that introduced the Household Charge actually state what services a Household will receive in return for payment?

If not, then you'll have a tough time getting them for failing to deliver services they haven't legally agreed to provide. If yes, then every rural boreen is going to need street lighting on it.

Am Chile

View wrote: »

Interesting but does the legislation that introduced the Household Charge actually state what services a Household will receive in return for payment?

If not, then you'll have a tough time getting them for failing to deliver services they haven't legally agreed to provide. If yes, then every rural boreen is going to need street lighting on it.

The household charge website where someone can make a payment states what services are covered-other sites say similar.

Revenues from the household charge will support the provision of local services.
Internationally, local services are administered by local authorities and
financed by local service charges. In Ireland, local authorities are responsible
for, among other services, public parks; libraries; open spaces and leisure
amenities; planning and development; fire and emergency services; maintenance
and cleaning of streets and street lighting. These facilities benefit everyone.

https://www.householdcharge.ie/Faq.aspx#fk7

The Legislation and General
Information

http://www.westmeathcoco.ie/en/media/Household%20Charge%20FAQ's.pdf

View

bgrizzley wrote: »

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

I am pointing out what the constitution states.

I don't see any article that states "The people own Ireland".

Perhaps, the assumption is that, rather than regarding the State as a hostile force out to get them (as some seem to), the people would seek to govern their State well?

View

Am Chile wrote: »

The household charge website where someone can make a payment states what services are covered-other sites say similar.

A website is not legislation. Secondly, it states will "support" the provision of services not is payment for the provision of any specific services. The Local Authority would appear to be free to choose which services it provides and to what level of service. Third, a majority of each Local Authorities monies come from central government (i.e. the State) - there does not appear to be anything that on that website that requires that to continue.

Hence, if:
A) the State cuts it's funding to your county/city as it seems to be entitled to, and,
local householders won't pay their household charges (or property taxes),
how could a Local Authority be expected by a court to provide services other than by chasing those non-paying householders?

bgrizzley

View wrote: »

I am pointing out what the constitution states.

I don't see any article that states "The people own Ireland".

Perhaps, the assumption is that, rather than regarding the State as a hostile force out to get them (as some seem to), the people would seek to govern their State well?

They didn't include that night follows day in it either. Would it be possible that it was not written into the constitution because it was so obvious?
And why would I consider the state a hostile force? I'm a little disappointed in it sometimes never hostile

dvpower

View wrote: »

Interesting but does the legislation that introduced the Household Charge actually state what services a Household will receive in return for payment?

No.

gerryo777

dvpower wrote: »

Complains about "pro taxers" ...



... wants to raise €5bn in tax.
:eek:

Oh I'm sorry dv, shall I change that to pro-property taxes just to make you feel better.
Pedantic bull****e as usual.

donalg1

(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.

Seriously though how would a lack of street lighting cause an accident? And an accident that would be deemed to be the fault of the LA that didnt provide said lighting?

gerryo777

lugha wrote: »

Calling someone a dickhead on the other hand ….

Ah, did the little fella come crying to you as well as crying to the moderators.

He adds nothing to this thread but questions, pedanticism and trollish posts.

Dismisses any other ideas just for the sake of it etc etc.

So if I consider him a d***head, that's what I believe he is.

donalg1

gerryo777 wrote: »

Ah, did the little fella come crying to you as well as crying to the moderators.

He adds nothing to this thread but questions, pedanticism and trollish posts.

Dismisses any other ideas just for the sake of it etc etc.

So if I consider him a d***head, that's what I believe he is.

Good lad / girl

gerryo777

donalg1 wrote: »

Good lad / girl

Quite sad that.

Your obvious immaturity shines through in every post.

You're the one who thinks that Irish people get their water for 'free', aren't you?

Go and do a bit of work and stop wasting your employer's money/time.

donalg1

gerryo777 wrote: »

Quite sad that.

Your obvious immaturity shines through in every post.

You're the one who thinks that Irish people get their water for 'free', aren't you?

Go and do a bit of work and stop wasting your employer's money/time.

My immaturity shows through really?

Seems to me that you are the one around here abusing people for no apparent reason, which to me shows more immaturity than anything else.

gerryo777

donalg1 wrote: »

My immaturity shows through really?

Seems to me that you are the one around here abusing people for no apparent reason, which to me shows more immaturity than anything else.

Maybe you should read through the thread.

Does your boss know you spend half the day on boards.ie?

No wonder the country's broke.

donalg1

gerryo777 wrote: »

Maybe you should read through the thread.

Does your boss know you spend half the day on boards.ie?

No wonder the country's broke.

Do you know where I work or at what time I work? Maybe I am at home now or maybe I am self employed and work from home? Or do you just assume everyone works the same hours as you do?

gerryo777

donalg1 wrote: »

Do you know where I work or at what time I work? Maybe I am at home now or maybe I am self employed and work from home? Or do you just assume everyone works the same hours as you do?

Your not though are you?

PS I'd reckon, although you guys never tell. (apart from alastair, who at least runs his own business)


I work my own hours, thank God.

donalg1

gerryo777 wrote: »

Your not though are you?

PS I'd reckon, although you guys never tell. (apart from alastair, who at least runs his own business)


I work my own hours, thank God.

Maybe I am Gerry or maybe I am even unemployed. I know you work your own hours you have told me before you work from home, granted that was when you were pretending to be kr7 so its hard to know if there is any truth to that at all.

gerryo777

donalg1 wrote: »

Maybe I am Gerry or maybe I am even unemployed. I know you work your own hours you have told me before you work from home, granted that was when you were pretending to be kr7 so its hard to know if there is any truth to that at all.

So predictable, back from the tea break and back online. LOL.

I won't take up anymore of your time, so get back to work and stop wasting my hard earned tax euro's.

Bye.....

donalg1

gerryo777 wrote: »

So predictable, back from the tea break and back online. LOL.

I won't take up anymore of your time, so get back to work and stop wasting my hard earned tax euro's.

Bye.....

Whats wrong Gerry have you run out of arguments is that why you have again resorted to abusing people, asking people about their personal circumstances and deflecting away from the fact you have clearly reregistered.

Funny how kr7 seems to say the same things and sign off in a similiar fashion.

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

The people have the power to elect who they see fit in local elections (and national ones for that matter). If waste really was a burning issue with the electorate then they could make it an election issue and this could bring about change. But the reality is that despite unconvincing attempts to weave it into the anti-HHC campaign, the electorate do not really care all that much, beyond the odd whinge, about waste, or certainly not enough to do anything about it, by using the most effective tool at their disposal, their vote.

But as you say yourself, waste happens in this "does happen" world. why would who we elect change what waste is occuring? This on the other hand CAN stop the waste. If the funding is cut essential services must be provided with the funding as a priority instead of being wasted. If you dont have money to buy fags you wouldnt walk around the house in the dark for a week so you wont have an electricity bill. Or can your kids (if you have any) elect a new parent? Weve seen how effective elections are in the past, false promises and lies to get in and when they do nothing changes. Elections me hole.

View

bgrizzley wrote: »

They didn't include that night follows day in it either. Would it be possible that it was not written into the constitution because it was so obvious?

It could but since the constitution explicitly states in Articles 10.2 & 10.1 that they belong to the State, it would appear futile to argue that they in fact belong to someone else.

bgrizzley wrote: »

And why would I consider the state a hostile force? I'm a little disappointed in it sometimes never hostile

If you note, I said some people, I did not say you consider. It was a general comment on the attitude that some people seem to have rather than a specific comment on your attitude.

gerryo777

Hijpo wrote: »

But as you say yourself, waste happens in this "does happen" world. why would who we elect change what waste is occuring? This on the other hand CAN stop the waste. If the funding is cut essential services must be provided with the funding as a priority instead of being wasted. If you dont have money to buy fags you wouldnt walk around the house in the dark for a week so you wont have an electricity bill. Or can your kids (if you have any) elect a new parent? Weve seen how effective elections are in the past, false promises and lies to get in and when they do nothing changes. Elections me hole.

The CPA doesn't allow for 'real' cuts in the wastage budget.
Waste is accepted by the government and insisted on by the PS unions.

It's a culture that'll never be changed.

I know one guy (not you donal;)) who works in a certain government department in Abbey street, Dublin. He spends most of his day online to his mates talking about football.
That's the truth.

The PS is full of 'wasters', a lot of them go in there with good intentions but soon find out that they have to tow the line.

It's not really the place for initiative and productive work practices.

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

But as you say yourself, waste happens in this "does happen" world. why would who we elect change what waste is occuring?

They would, if it really was an election issue. If the people, as an electorate, clearly say: we are not prepared to tolerate the waste of public money AND we will punish with our votes those that defy us.

But of course public misspending is not a serious election issue any more than political corruption is anymore than welfare abuse is. The economy however, as Bill “stupid” Clinton pointed out IS an issue, indeed THE issue. Which is why FF + Greens got a serious arse-reddening last time out (and not as some wrongly believe because they tolerated low standards in high office, or were corrpupt)

Hijpo wrote: »

This on the other hand CAN stop the waste. If the funding is cut essential services must be provided with the funding as a priority instead of being wasted.

Can you cite even one example where this actually happened? Where a reduction in funding was fully, or even mostly, absorbed by a reduction in waste?

Happily we are in a position to assess your theory. If the non-payers of the HHC continue to hold out, giving rise to a shortfall in LA funding then we should expect to see a reduction in waste of a magnitude approximately equal to this shortfall.

donalg1

I for one cant see how a reduced level of funding will stop wastage in the LA's, the wastage occurs from people not doing their job more often than not or doing it badly. Not paying the HHC is not going to stop this.

tayto lover

From listening to the news regarding 1 in 10 mortgages being well behind I'd imagine that many home owners will be more worried about heating their home for the winter than street lighting. Things seem to be going downhill for many. Yet some posters consider that those same homes are assets.

dxhound2005

lugha wrote: »

They would, if it really was an election issue. If the people, as an electorate, clearly say: we are not prepared to tolerate the waste of public money AND we will punish with our votes those that defy us.

But of course public misspending is not a serious election issue any more than political corruption is anymore than welfare abuse is. The economy however, as Bill “stupid” Clinton pointed out IS an issue, indeed THE issue. Which is why FF + Greens got a serious arse-reddening last time out (and not as some wrongly believe because they tolerated low standards in high office, or were corrpupt)


Can you cite even one example where this actually happened? Where a reduction in funding was fully, or even mostly, absorbed by a reduction in waste?

Happily we are in a position to assess your theory. If the non-payers of the HHC continue to hold out, giving rise to a shortfall in LA funding then we should expect to see a reduction in waste of a magnitude approximately equal to this shortfall.

The reduction in waste is happening already. Or rather the hours during which people can access their local waste recycling centres are being reduced, at least in Cavan.

http://www.northernsound.ie/news-details.php?nid=11377

gerryo777

tayto lover wrote: »

From listening to the news regarding 1 in 10 mortgages being well behind I'd imagine that many home owners will be more worried about heating their home for the winter than street lighting. Things seem to be going downhill for many. Yet some posters consider that those same homes are assets.

Assets tayto, from which we derive an income. LOL.

Bullseye1

Personal homes or properties should be considered an investment which most people in the past 10 years will have lost on. But of course they are considered an asset by those in favour of the property tax yet the asset is worth significantly less than paid and when compared to the total payback will probably in many cases be 1/3rd of what they have paid back to the banks over the life of the mortgage. I would actually consider owning a home as an anchor around ones neck.

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=0bd65625-02a5-4dd5-b661-7e1f7de7a630

gerryo777

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Personal homes or properties should be considered an investment which most people in the past 10 years will have lost on. But of course they are considered an asset by those in favour of the property tax yet the asset is worth significantly less than paid and when compared to the total payback will probably in many cases be 1/3rd of what they have paid back to the banks over the life of the mortgage. I would actually consider owning a home as an anchor around ones neck.

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=0bd65625-02a5-4dd5-b661-7e1f7de7a630

It is, but there's still at least one poster on here, who read an article by one economist, and now reckons people are actually deriving an income from owning their own property.

Mad or what?