Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…247248250252253…332

Comments

  • Options
    #7472
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Am Chile wrote: »
    I finish by asking you the following questions- If the Irish government were to pass new laws making it Illegal to collect rainwater, denying women the right to drive,for a black person to give up a seat on a bus for a white person, If the Irish government were to bring in a new tax equivalent to a Jizyah Tax on people to try persuade people to convert to a certain religion, do you think people should blinding obey such laws and pay such taxes without question ?
    You asked this before and it was answered before. There is a case to be made to disobeying a law that infringes on your human rights; allow it for anything else and you are in to very murky waters.

    Where would you draw the line? Can anybody break any of our tax laws provided they do not agree with them, or genuinely think them unjust?

    Because an awful lot of very rich people think it unjust that they pay a lot more tax than the rest of us (and in absolute terms, they do). Would you give them carte blanche to ignore the law?


  • Options
    #7473
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    lugha wrote: »
    You asked this before and it was answered before. There is a case to be made to disobeying a law that infringes on your human rights; allow it for anything else and you are in to very murky waters.

    Where would you draw the line? Can anybody break any of our tax laws provided they do not agree with them, or genuinely think them unjust?

    Because an awful lot of very rich people think it unjust that they pay a lot more tax than the rest of us (and in absolute terms, they do). Would you give them carte blanche to ignore the law?

    Mick Wallace is able to ignore paying his taxes and there seems to be no sanction against him.
    James Reilly is in breach of a high court order and there seems to be no sanction against him.
    We didn't pay a dodgy €100 HHC and are being lambasted all over the place and even being accused of directly denying people their disabled access grants. (the best bit of trolling I've seen here yet)


  • Options
    #7474
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    ncdadam wrote: »
    Mick Wallace is able to ignore paying his taxes and there seems to be no sanction against him.
    James Reilly is in breach of a high court order and there seems to be no sanction against him.
    We didn't pay a dodgy €100 HHC and are being lambasted all over the place and even being accused of directly denying people their disabled access grants. (the best bit of trolling I've seen here yet)
    That didn't address the question at all.


  • Options
    #7475
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,760 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    lugha wrote: »
    You asked this before and it was answered before. There is a case to be made to disobeying a law that infringes on your human rights; allow it for anything else and you are in to very murky waters.

    Where would you draw the line? Can anybody break any of our tax laws provided they do not agree with them, or genuinely think them unjust?

    Because an awful lot of very rich people think it unjust that they pay a lot more tax than the rest of us (and in absolute terms, they do). Would you give them carte blanche to ignore the law?

    By the same token one of these rich people decided to leave the country and spend most of his time abroad in order to avoid tax. He retained a home here and when he came back a few weeks ago certain Govt ministers, past and present, were clamouring over themselves to attend his free bash there.


  • Options
    #7476
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    dvpower wrote: »
    That didn't address the question at all.

    Which question?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7477
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    tayto lover wrote: »
    By the same token one of these rich people decided to leave the country and spend most of his time abroad in order to avoid tax. He retained a home here and when he came back a few weeks ago certain Govt ministers, past and present, were clamouring over themselves to attend his free bash there.
    That didn't address the question either.

    These are like the excuses that a small child would give: "The big boys were stealing so why shouldn't I steal a little too."


  • Options
    #7478
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    tayto lover wrote: »
    By the same token one of these rich people decided to leave the country and spend most of his time abroad in order to avoid tax. He retained a home here and when he came back a few weeks ago certain Govt ministers, past and present, were clamouring over themselves to attend his free bash there.

    Sure wasn't that same individual quite 'friendly' with a FG minister a few years ago?


  • Options
    #7479
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    ncdadam wrote: »
    Which question?
    You clearly didn't read the post you quoted. Nevermind.


  • Options
    #7480
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    dvpower wrote: »

    These are like the excuses that a small child would give: "The big boys were stealing so why shouldn't I steal a little too."

    Yea, sounds a bit like "I've paid my HHC but the other boys won't pay theirs!"


  • Options
    #7481
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    dvpower wrote: »
    You clearly didn't read the post you quoted. Nevermind.

    He asked three questions in that post, which one are you referring to?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7482
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    ncdadam wrote: »
    He asked three questions, which one are you referring to?
    All of them (the questions are clearly all related)


  • Options
    #7483
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,760 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    dvpower wrote: »
    That didn't address the question either.

    These are like the excuses that a small child would give: "The big boys were stealing so why shouldn't I steal a little too."

    Not at all. I paid more tax than a man on the floor of my business but a lot less than the man above me. I also paid more for my home than the man living next to me but less than another man down the road. Again I have no bother with tax as long as it's not aimed at my home. I find that repugnant.
    With regard to people leaving to avoid it then let them. We are better off without them in the long run but that didn't stop the minister enjoying his free feed and licking up to him.


  • Options
    #7484
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    The reason I shall be giving for non payment of the property tax (if it does indeed see the light of day) will be this:

    "No. My personal circumstances don't allow that at the moment."


  • Options
    #7485
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    dvpower wrote: »
    All of them (the questions are clearly all related)

    So not the question as you posted.

    OK.

    1. I draw the line at a tax that is only aimed at people who own property.
    2.Only this 'tax' law as it is ill conceived and seems to attack only one section of society.
    3. I would not give rich people 'carte blanche' to ignore the law.


  • Options
    #7486
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    ncdadam wrote: »
    So not the question as you posted.

    OK.

    1. I draw the line at a tax that is only aimed at people who own property.
    2.Only this 'tax' law as it is ill conceived and seems to attack only one section of society.
    3. I would not give rich people 'carte blanche' to ignore the law.
    Did attempt to evade the property tax (stamp duty) on buying your home?


  • Options
    #7487
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    ncdadam wrote: »
    Mick Wallace is able to ignore paying his taxes and there seems to be no sanction against him.
    James Reilly is in breach of a high court order and there seems to be no sanction against him.
    Well the Reilly situation is more complicated but let's assume he personally took it upon himself to ignore a law he didn't agree with. And similarly with Wallace.

    On what basis can you criticise them, if you endorse the view that it is up to the individual to decide which law they will and won't obey?


  • Options
    #7488
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    dvpower wrote: »
    Did attempt to evade the property tax (stamp duty) on buying your home?

    I'd assume he did not.

    Hence why he refuses to pay again.

    Also, stamp duty = one off payment.
    Property tax = yearly payment due for the privilege of living in your own privately paid for abode. (aka rent on your own property)


  • Options
    #7489
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,655 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    ncdadam wrote: »
    I draw the line at a tax that is only aimed at people who own property

    The property tax is only aimed at people that own property? That's disgraceful, next the tax on dog food will be only aimed at dog owners.


  • Options
    #7490
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,760 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    lugha wrote: »
    You asked this before and it was answered before. There is a case to be made to disobeying a law that infringes on your human rights; allow it for anything else and you are in to very murky waters.

    Where would you draw the line? Can anybody break any of our tax laws provided they do not agree with them, or genuinely think them unjust?

    Because an awful lot of very rich people think it unjust that they pay a lot more tax than the rest of us (and in absolute terms, they do). Would you give them carte blanche to ignore the law?

    Sorry. I was concentrating on your last sentence only.

    1. The law either applies to all or none.
    2. I would support anyone who broke any law that they could explain as unjust and unfair if I agreed with them.
    The number who have refused to pay the HHC prove that many think it unfair and unjust and those numbers should at least ensure a Govt re-think.


  • Options
    #7491
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    dvpower wrote: »
    Did attempt to evade the property tax (stamp duty) on buying your home?

    Wasn't liable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7492
    Knight who says Meh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 464 ✭✭Knight who says Meh


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    The property tax is only aimed at people that own property? That's disgraceful, next the tax on dog food will be only aimed at dog owners.
    Actually it is supposed to pay for street lighting, parks, libraries etc. Im pretty sure the homeless can avail of these, as can flat dwellers but they get it free.


  • Options
    #7493
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    lugha wrote: »
    Well the Reilly situation is more complicated but let's assume he personally took it upon himself to ignore a law he didn't agree with. And similarly with Wallace.

    On what basis can you criticise them, if you endorse the view that it is up to the individual to decide which law they will and won't obey?

    See my reply to dvpower in relation to your other post.


  • Options
    #7494
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    The property tax is only aimed at people that own property? That's disgraceful, next the tax on dog food will be only aimed at dog owners.

    Everyone in the state lives somewhere.
    Not everyone in the state has a dog.


  • Options
    #7495
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,760 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    The property tax is only aimed at people that own property? That's disgraceful, next the tax on dog food will be only aimed at dog owners.

    You clearly don't understand what it is for. Read the thread before making wired comments.


  • Options
    #7496
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    lugha wrote: »
    Well the Reilly situation is more complicated but let's assume he personally took it upon himself to ignore a law he didn't agree with. And similarly with Wallace.

    On what basis can you criticise them, if you endorse the view that it is up to the individual to decide which law they will and won't obey?


    Every section of society must obey signed contacts put in place by a money lending institution, these repayment details would have been legally signed for when entering the contract. This law would apply to Reilly as much as Joe Soap, the LA tenant.

    Ditto Wallace. He was legally obliged to pay his vat, as are the rest of the population, renters /home owners, everyone in the same boat.


  • Options
    #7497
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,655 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Jaysus, it's afterhours lads, keep your pants on. (and pay your taxes)


  • Options
    #7498
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,760 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    lugha wrote: »
    Well the Reilly situation is more complicated but let's assume he personally took it upon himself to ignore a law he didn't agree with. And similarly with Wallace.

    On what basis can you criticise them, if you endorse the view that it is up to the individual to decide which law they will and won't obey?

    On the basis that they are accusing us of being law-breakers. Hypocrites.
    And theirs was not done on principle theirs was done in a right criminal fashion by trying to hide it. I'm telling everyone i'm not paying and therefore not being a hypocrite. I have principle.


  • Options
    #7499
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    Jaysus, it's afterhours lads, keep your pants on. (and pay your taxes)

    We don't have a property tax, yet!
    All other taxes I'm liable for are paid.


  • Options
    #7500
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    tayto lover wrote: »
    1. The law either applies to all or none.
    Delighted to hear you say this. Long may you hold this view.
    (I would say all.)
    tayto lover wrote: »
    2. I would support anyone who broke any law that they could explain as unjust and unfair if I agreed with them.
    Dear oh dear! :( Well that didn't last too long! :)

    ncdadam wrote: »
    See my reply to dvpower in relation to your other post.
    Saw it. Doesn't answer my question.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7501
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    lugha wrote: »

    Saw it. Doesn't answer my question.

    ON the basis that these people are legislators in this country and are being paid for by my taxes. (except the HHC, obviously)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement