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

dvpower

bgrizzley wrote: »

I wonder how much Pat left on his plate the day your man was arrested for talking to him

A new level of pettyness.

Hijpo

dvpower wrote: »

bgrizzley wrote: »

I wonder how much Pat left on his plate the day your man was arrested for talking to him

A new level of pettyness.

HAH!!!

says dvpetty

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for! If we tell citizens of other countries that they are persona non garta, those countries may respond in kind. How do you think we might cope if all of the Irish citizens all over the world were send home?
QUOTE]

Funny enough, our leaders did'nt seem to have a problem deporting non-eu nationals, who were'nt getting paid childrens allowance for kids who were in another country.

darkhorse

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Izzy Skint wrote: »

Thanks IS. But they HAVE fu**ed me around too much. On top of above, I spent 3 hours yesterday deweeding ( with the estate's residents in a clean-up) the kerbside, something the bloody CC should be doing, but NEVER HAVE in 5 years since the estate opened.
.

donalg1 wrote: »

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Why would the CC deweed your estate for you? QUOTE]

BobMc wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

for my e100 though I'd expect my estate to be maintained to at least a minimum standard ie potholes filled, street lights maintained and grass cut bare minimum, our estate has not been taken over and we pay e50 for grass cutting per year

donalg1 wrote: »

BobMc wrote: »

And even if by some miracle they do take it over they wont be cutting the grass in the estate.

BobMc wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

and why wouldn't they cut the crass they should be cutting all public grass areas as far as I'm concerned its what are taxes are for collection, road and street maintenance, public parks etc etc, but looks like we'll be expected to pay a tax for no return on it

I also pay €50 annually, along with other residents, for grass cutting and to purchase weed killer, so that we may take care of the part of the estate that we are not inhabiting, ie, belongs to the council. I remember in one of my very first posts, I posed the question, should I have to pay the €100 HHC and pay €50 as well to someone to cut the grassy area that belongs to the council. The answer to that question was, yes, we the residents should take care of the council's stake in this estate. You'll never guess what quadrant that answer came from. OK, I'll give you a hint, it was'nt from the anti property-tax side. By the way

---

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.
By the way, the para. in bold, I'm really not that clever to make that up(no, really I'm not) It is from the HHC websites FAQs.

donalg1

BobMc wrote: »

I also pay €50 annually, along with other residents, for grass cutting and to purchase weed killer, so that we may take care of the part of the estate that we are not inhabiting, ie, belongs to the council. I remember in one of my very first posts, I posed the question, should I have to pay the €100 HHC and pay €50 as well to someone to cut the grassy area that belongs to the council. The answer to that question was, yes, we the residents should take of the council's stake in this estate. You'll never guess what quadrant that answer came from. OK, I'll give you a hint, it was'nt from the anti property-tax side. By the way

---

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.
By the way, the para. in bold, I'm really not that clever to make that up(no, really I'm not) It is from the HHC websites FAQs.

Ok but where in any of that does it say they will be cutting the grass in private estates? When a CC takes over an estate they dont cut the grass in the estate simple as that and this has nothing to do with the HHC.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

tbh if you don't already know the answers to most of the questions you posed, I don't think I'm qualified to help you.

You are qualified. I was talking to the captain of your debating team and he said that you are in charge while he is away. Now, answer the questions.

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

A new level of pettyness.

It's not petty for DX to say peasants shouldn't waste their food, but it is petty for this peasant to say Pat shouldn't waste his. You guys really would have us down the mines if you could get away with it lol

Kettle, pot and black.;)

lugha

darkhorse wrote: »

Well, apart from maybe telling the voters a few porky pies, so they would have a better chance of getting elected(they really convinced me)and then once elected, breaking pay caps, which they put in place themselves. There might be something else, I just cant think straight at the moment(I suppose its just me being preoccupied with things like, where the f*ck am I going to come up with the money to pay the myriad of taxes thats coming down the line, we could sell the wife's engagement ring, but after that, who knows). I really dont want to hear any wannabe politicians coming back and saying that they did'nt know what state what was in, it wont wash.

Ok. I would suggest you go through each and every sin you think the government committed and ask yourself, how much better your prospects would be had they not done so. Whether they did or did not break pay caps will have zero impact on the bleak prospects you, and many others, will have to face in the coming years.

If you want to make an issue of is, as a matter of principle, fine. But even if a campaign to reverse these payments were successful, what practical difference would it make to your pocket? Absolutely none.

darkhorse wrote: »

Funny enough, our leaders did'nt seem to have a problem deporting non-eu nationals, who were'nt getting paid childrens allowance for kids who were in another country.

Not sure what your point is here? We have laws, and all people, nationals and non-nationals alike, should abide by them and face the consequences if they do not.

Ghandee

bgrizzley wrote: »

It's not petty for DX to say peasants shouldn't waste their food, but it is petty for this peasant to say Pat shouldn't waste his. You guys really would have us down the mines if you could get away with it lol

Kettle, pot and black.;)

I'm still waiting on Dx to acknowledge that he is frequently spinning the same bare faced lies, with reference to the Domestic rates system in the North.


I've been correcting him now for almost 6 months, yet he continues to post the same lies, week after week, mointh after month.


He has challenged me in a few posts, and where I've been wrong, I have had the balls to admit it, and even apologise to him.

His refusal to acknowledge my posts where I challenge him, shows him up for what he really is.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80440149&postcount=52

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

Ok. I would suggest you go through each and every sin you think the government committed and ask yourself, how much better your prospects would be had they not done so. Whether they did or did not break pay caps will have zero impact on the bleak prospects you, and many others, will have to face in the coming years.

If you want to make an issue of is, as a matter of principle, fine. But even if a campaign to reverse these payments were successful, what practical difference would it make to your pocket? Absolutely none.



Not sure what your point is here? We have laws, and all people, nationals and non-nationals alike, should abide by them and face the consequences if they do not.

When law makers become law breakers, it has the potential to make a very dangerous society lugha.

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

No I think he was arrested for abusing someone and causing a disturbance, I am sure if he wanted to make a point he could have done so in a civil way but couldnt manage this. He was asked to leave by the staff and refused to do so and then mouthed off at the Guards when they arrived so was arrested. Well thats what I read anyway.

Surely, Pat must have had some idea that by lunching in a public place, that he was bound to bump into some of his employers. But, I suppose that their thinking is, that they are that high above us ordinary joe publics, that it would be quite easy to forget yourself and just carry on regardless. In other words, what were the odds that he was going to be confronted by and questioned by members of the public. Also, when do we get within talking distance of our ministers, whether or not they choose to answer any questions that may concern our tax dollars. Anyway, I cant figure out why the gardai arrested that other guy.

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

When law makers become law breakers, it has the possibilty to make a very dangerous society lugha.

Can you cite what law they broke? (Rhetorical question: you can't!)

But I'm pleased to see you coming around to the view that there's a lot to be said for abiding by the law of the land in a democracy.

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

Can you cite what law they broke? (Rhetorical question: you can't!)

But I'm pleased to see you coming around to the view that there's a lot to be said for abiding by the law of the land in a democracy.

When I say law, we both know I'm referring to a promise they made ref the pay caps, no need to be petty now lugha.

Also, when we're on the subject of laws of the land and democracy, what are your views on certain ministers changing 'The law' to suit themselves and their own agendas?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0318/breaking60.html

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

When I say law, we both know I'm referring to a promise they made ref the pay caps

Election promises are not legally binding contracts with the people! It might be fun if they were, but they are not. So they broke an election promise, not the law.

Ghandee wrote: »

Also, when we're on the subject of laws of the land and democracy, what are your views on certain ministers changing 'The law' to suit themselves and their own agendas?

Who would have in mind here now?

Izzy Skint

lugha wrote: »

I don’t know what you think is wrong with the “regime” but whatever fixes you have in mind will do little to address the massive problems we currently have.



Unfortunately, it may well come to this. But methinks your mask slips a bit. Your favoured solution to our problem of all cuts and no taxes was always fully skewed in favour of the private sector worker. But now it seems you are cutting loose the former private sectors workers who are now on the dole and demanding that they be hammered even further. It would seem your philosophy is less “stand up for the private sector worker” and more “Izzy is all right Jack!”



Be careful what you wish for! If we tell citizens of other countries that they are persona non garta, those countries may respond in kind. How do you think we might cope if all of the Irish citizens all over the world were send home?



No problem in principle. But do tell how many people are making that kind of money in Ireland and hence, how much tax this measure would bring in? Not too many I suspect and a number than will decline if they are subjected to that level of tax.

Lugha, you really need to read my posts properly, you either are twisting my words or you just don't get what I am saying...I think it is the latter.
The regime I refer to is the govt., ps and all govt. departments and services, by regime I am not just refering to the td's and Inda.... the "regime" in this country are massively overpaid, overstaffed, wasteful, inefficient, inept, gutless and worse of all some are LIARS !!
When people say cut the number of td's etc. the pro tax posters reply with "that will only save €30m etc....".....wrong, what we are saying is that from the top to the very bottom there are huge cuts needed in numbers, pay, pensions, county councils, quangos etc...there are € billions of € to be saved if the govt. done a proper job....but it is much easier to hit the ordinary worker / homeowner.
you said "It would seem your philosophy is less “stand up for the private sector worker” and more “Izzy is all right Jack!”...what are you on about? i support private sector workers, they are the ones who are paying taxes through their hard work and keeping this ship of fools afloat....I am not the cause of the deficit, GOVERNMENT OVERSPENDING is the cause, the solution lies with them, it is in their hands.

You stated that because of our situation morally wrong decisions may have to be taken to get us out of this mess, I gave a few "morally wrong" examples ie. cut dole by 50% and discriminate against non nationals when it comes to social assistance.....are these not morally wrong ?.... but according to you they could be an option....or can we just pick and choose which morally unjust actions to enforce ?.....such as taxing the roof over people's heads?

"How do you think we might cope if all of the Irish citizens all over the world were send home?"....exactly, we couldn't....this was our escape valve, these people have saved the govt. from paying out billions more in social welfare and the govt. damn well know it....also, the VAST MAJORITY, if not all of these people were private sector people, no guaranteed jobs, salaries, perks, pensions or huge pay offs for them !

Izzy Skint

lugha wrote: »

Election promises are not legally binding contracts with the people! It might be fun if they were, but they are not. So they broke an election promise, not the law.


Who would have in mind here now?

"So they broke an election promise, not the law."......so they LIED to us then ? ....please answer yes or no .

and they are still lying to us !

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

They wont cut the grass because that would be insane for them to do so, the amount of estates they would be responsible for cutting the grass in they would need an army of lads employed full time just to cut grass so it would make no sense at all and would be a complete waste of money.

donalg1 wrote: »

They should cut the grass because that would be proper for them to do so, the amount of estates they would be responsible for cutting the grass in they could get an army of unemployed lads, from the dole queue, employed full time and maybe given extra money, on top of their dole just to cut grass so it would make sense and would not be a complete waste of money.

OK, donal, just read your post, then read the altered version and tell me that it dos'ent make sense.

Izzy Skint

from RTE website...
"Mr Doherty said that the Troika made it clear to his party that aspects of the bailout could be renegotiated as long as revenue targets were met."

ASPECTS COULD BE RENEGOTIATED !!
what have I been saying all along?....this property tax was the govt's decision NOT the troika, they are lying to us, "OUR HANDS ARE TIED"....BULL**** I SAY !....their efforts to bring in this tax is a ploy, for them it is just a way of increasing revenue rather than introducing politically sensitive spending cuts that they haven't got the balls for anyway
The troika would much prefer the govt. to cut spending rather than hit the economy with a property tax or any other taxes for that matter.....govt. spending is what the troika are focused on, it makes the most economic sense and has knock benefits with borrowing and interest payments.....ffs, my jack russell could grasp that concept, and as jack russells go he would not be the brightest !!!
God only knows what dirty little negotiations take place in the govt. and troika meetings....no more I say, the Irish people are not fools.
PEOPLE, DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING THIS GOVERNMENT TELL YOU.

lugha

Izzy Skint wrote: »

The regime I refer to is the govt., ps and all govt. departments and services

Well that’s not what I understand by regime but anyway, go on ….

Izzy Skint wrote: »

When people say cut the number of td's etc. the pro tax posters reply with "that will only save €30m etc....".....wrong, what we are saying is that from the top to the very bottom there are huge cuts needed in numbers, pay, pensions, county councils, quangos etc...there are € billions of € to be saved if the govt. done a proper job....but it is much easier to hit the ordinary worker / homeowner.

I have always said that the pain has to be shared right across the board, private sector workers, public sector worker, social welfare recipients. You are the one insisting that the group you are in should be spared.

Even if it was fair I simply do not think it is possible to exclude them. Our deficit is of the order of €10,000 per worker! That means we need to find this amount for every worker in the state, every year. About 10-20 property taxes! And as private sector workers outnumber both the unemployed and the public sector by about 5:1, I just don’t see how it is realistically possible to give them a free pass.

But if you were to restrict adjustments to spending cuts only you would have to (I am sure you are thrilled to hear!) slash welfare, PS salaries and proceed with widespread compulsory redundancies (some of this will have to happen anyway), do you really think this would have no effect on the private sector?

How would private sector workers get to work if there is a public transport strike, possible with road blocks (the guards won’t be able to help, they’ll all be down with the flu :pac:), who’ll look after the children at home when the teachers are all out? And I suspect you are aware that electricity workers are not beyond a bit of radical action!! Etc. etc.

Also, if you are trading in the domestic economy, do you not think that instantly impoverishing a cohort, who probably do spend a fair chunk of the money that is being spent in the local economy, might just put a fair few private sectors jobs, in the hospitality industry for example, at risk?

Insulating the private sector from the horrors that face us is not only a bad idea, it is simply not an option.

Izzy Skint wrote: »

i support private sector workers, they are the ones who are paying taxes through their hard work and keeping this ship of fools afloat....

You support them until they are made redundant. Then they can feck off!

Izzy Skint wrote: »

or can we just pick and choose which morally unjust actions to enforce ?.....such as taxing the roof over people's heads?

I don’t believe there is anything morally wrong with “taxing the roof over people's heads” and no one has come anywhere close to making such an argument.

Enda said it 20 years ago, and it’s my home FFS seem to be the only cards they can play. :rolleyes:

But you can feel free to have a go! Why is it immoral to ask you for a few hundred quid per year in tax on your home but not immoral to ask you for quite a few thousand quid per year in tax on your income?

There isn’t one! It feels a bit off, only because we are not used to it. But you’ll adjust quickly enough! Remember how nippy we all were getting used to the diabolical infringement of human rights that was the smoking ban?

bgrizzley

]

darkhorse wrote: »

OK, donal, just read your post, then read the altered version and tell me that it dos'ent make sense.

Makes more sense than Jobsbridge...

Le_Dieux

donalg1 wrote: »

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Why would the CC deweed your estate for you? I have a pile of weeds in my driveway and certainly dont expect them to come out and spray them for me.

Big difference between a driveway and an estate. I used the deweeding as an example. Want me to go on? Who cuts the grass, who looks after the street lights? ( I have a light gone outside my house since last APRIL). I can honestly say the only thing we get from the CC is a street sweep 3 times/year.

Why the hell would I want to pay the HHC? And, for what?

Bruthal

lugha wrote: »

Why is it immoral to ask you for a few hundred quid per year in tax on your home but not immoral to ask you for quite a few thousand quid per year in tax on your income?

One is pay as you earn, the other is pay for having gone to the trouble of buying a home. And now you see them as similar? Alastair the second is it?

Le_Dieux

donalg1 wrote: »

Ok but where in any of that does it say they will be cutting the grass in private estates? When a CC takes over an estate they dont cut the grass in the estate simple as that and this has nothing to do with the HHC.

Since when is an estate taken in charge by the CC a 'private estate'?

Izzy Skint

lugha wrote: »

Well that’s not what I understand by regime but anyway, go on ….

I have always said that the pain has to be shared right across the board, private sector workers, public sector worker, social welfare recipients. You are the one insisting that the group you are in should be spared.

Even if it was fair I simply do not think it is possible to exclude them. Our deficit is of the order of €10,000 per worker! That means we need to find this amount for every worker in the state, every year. About 10-20 property taxes! And as private sector workers outnumber both the unemployed and the public sector by about 5:1, I just don’t see how it is realistically possible to give them a free pass.

But if you were to restrict adjustments to spending cuts only you would have to (I am sure you are thrilled to hear!) slash welfare, PS salaries and proceed with widespread compulsory redundancies (some of this will have to happen anyway), do you really think this would have no effect on the private sector?

How would private sector workers get to work if there is a public transport strike, possible with road blocks (the guards won’t be able to help, they’ll all be down with the flu :pac:), who’ll look after the children at home when the teachers are all out? And I suspect you are aware that electricity workers are not beyond a bit of radical action!! Etc. etc.

Also, if you are trading in the domestic economy, do you not think that instantly impoverishing a cohort, who probably do spend a fair chunk of the money that is being spent in the local economy, might just put a fair few private sectors jobs, in the hospitality industry for example, at risk?

Insulating the private sector from the horrors that face us is not only a bad idea, it is simply not an option.

You support them until they are made redundant. Then they can feck off!



I don’t believe there is anything morally wrong with “taxing the roof over people's heads” and no one has come anywhere close to making such an argument.

Enda said it 20 years ago, and it’s my home FFS seem to be the only cards they can play. :rolleyes:

But you can feel free to have a go! Why is it immoral to ask you for a few hundred quid per year in tax on your home but not immoral to ask you for quite a few thousand quid per year in tax on your income?

There isn’t one! It feels a bit off, only because we are not used to it. But you’ll adjust quickly enough! Remember how nippy we all were getting used to the diabolical infringement of human rights that was the smoking ban?

why should the pain be spread across the board? it was our governments who went on a 10 year spending spree, they were warned by economists and the EU numerous times over the years to cool off their spending, their reply was to give two fingers to those who issued a warning. What part of "this is a spending problem" do you not get ?

€10,000 per worker.....shows how much spending has outstripped revenue!

Yes, it would have an effect on the private sector, lower taxes, better streamlined services etc. are you saying these can't be done ?

spending on social welfare has to be cut, but start with the lifers, lazy gits etc....make it worth peoples while to work...or at least make them do something for their dole...what is wrong with that ?

"How would private sector workers get to work if there is a public transport strike, possible with road blocks (the guards won’t be able to help, they’ll all be down with the flu :pac:), who’ll look after the children at home when the teachers are all out? And I suspect you are aware that electricity workers are not beyond a bit of radical action!! Etc. etc."....you have just summed up another aspect of this country that needs to be sorted, threats from unions, excessive pay and dirty secret deals made behind closed doors with the govt.....all at the expense of the taxpayer....thanks Lugha....always knew you were on our side:)....oh, are those electricity workers the same ones who are some of the best paid employees in any semi state body?
That sounded like a threat to me, very similar to BIG Phil's threats....are you related ?

You think there is nothing wrong with taxing a persons home, you consider it an asset ?....I won't even reply to that :mad::mad:....but it's ok for the govt. to overspend by €300m a week? ...people are hurting mate, families are under severe stress....but I suppose once you and your ps buddies are secure then all's well with the world....

Izzy Skint

Lugha, I am still waiting for a reply, when the govt. broke their pre election promises, did they not in effect, lie to us ? it's a very simple question.
yes or no ?

lugha

robbie7730 wrote: »

One is pay as you earn, the other is pay for having gone to the trouble of buying a home. And now you see them as similar? Alastair the second is it?

If you spent say €200 K setting up a business, typically with borrowed money, you could provide yourself with an enterprise that generates an income stream for you. And even though you have done the state some service by eliminating the need for state to provide you with social welfare support, you will still be expected to be tax on the livelihood that this income stream generates.

If you spent say €200 K buying a home, typically with borrowed money, you could provide yourself with an a residence that generates an income stream (you can realize this income in cash if you lease the house or benefit directly otherwise). And even though you have done the state some service by eliminating the need for the state to provide you with housing, you …er.. are not currently expected to pay tax on the residence that this income stream generates!

Nope. I’m afraid I still don’t see it. Chalk and chalk to me.

Izzy Skint wrote: »

That sounded like a threat to me, very similar to BIG Phil's threats....are you related ?

Phil didn't threaten anyone. Stop being silly. And no it isn’t a threat, it is simply a consequence of me having to live in the real world and factor in what trade unions will do as opposed to what you would like them to do.

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

Ok but where in any of that does it say they will be cutting the grass in private estates? When a CC takes over an estate they dont cut the grass in the estate simple as that and this has nothing to do with the HHC.

So I take it by that answer that its proper and right to pay to have the councils grass cut, even if it is in our private estate. Also to pay the HHC this year, any impending property tax and any impending rise in whatever monies the residents ass. may look for, because the fuel that is used in the machine that the guy uses to cut the grass,(which is belong to the council), is rising at the pumps. By the way, it was the council that sold us our sites to build our private houses on in this private estate. But they still retain the several acres of leisure/amenity area that we, the residents, have developed over the years, at our expense, saving them literaly thousands.

tayto lover

Izzy Skint wrote: »

Lugha, I am still waiting for a reply, when the govt. broke their pre election promises, did they not in effect, lie to us ? it's a very simple question.
yes or no ?

If they are not lies and they not truths, what the Hell are they?

lugha

Izzy Skint wrote: »

Lugha, I am still waiting for a reply, when the govt. broke their pre election promises, did they not in effect, lie to us ? it's a very simple question.
yes or no ?

Political parties who form coalitions necessarily must break some of their pre-election promises, unless the coalesce with a party that have an identical mandate!

Even if there is single party government, in practice they will simply not succeed in implementing everything they promise.

Does this amount to lying? In general I would say not, unless they knew full well when they made the "promise" that they either would not nor could not keep it. That’s a judgement call we all have to make ourselves.

With regard to the special advisors whose pay they bumped up above the limit of €92 K, I am not sure that they even breached what they promised in that instance.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

Ok. I would suggest you go through each and every sin you think the government committed and ask yourself, how much better your prospects would be had they not done so. Whether they did or did not break pay caps will have zero impact on the bleak prospects you, and many others, will have to face in the coming years.

Right, I'll just keep away from the multi-quotes for a while. Anyway, someone once said the worlds a stage. No, it was'nt that, sorry. Seriously, if FG/Labour had nothing to fear at elections, why did they blatantly lie to the electorate.