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

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

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.

Ah now, you are just pulling my leg! :pac:

lugha

ncdadam wrote: »

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

So they are obliged to obey the law but you can pick and choose what laws you will obey? Fair enough.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Delighted to hear you say this. Long may you hold this view.
(I would say all.)

Dear oh dear! Well that didn't last too long!


Saw it. Doesn't answer my question.

Is that the best you can come up with?
Would you agree that Reilly and Wallace are criminals?

Knight who says Meh

lugha wrote: »

Ah now, you are just pulling my leg! :pac:

Ghandee wrote: »

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.

FYP. You forgot to hi-lite the last bit

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

Ah now, you are just pulling my leg! :pac:

I addressed your question lugha.
I answered it truthfully and factually, your witty answer leads me to believe you can't argue with it?

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Ah now, you are just pulling my leg! :pac:

You must have a very elongated leg as F.G. are also pulling it quite often.

John_Rambo

ncdadam wrote: »

We don't have a property tax, yet!

Good point.

(note to self; must hire assassin, ncdadam caught me out there)

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

Would you agree that Reilly and Wallace are criminals?

But if they did break any laws, maybe they felt they were justified in doing so. And according to the prevailing wisdom around here, there is nothing wrong with that? So how (according to you can they be criminals? )

ncdadamr wrote: »

FYP. You forgot to hi-lite the last bit

No I didn’t. The one card the “won’t pay” definitely can not play in relation to others not complying with the law is that it is “legally binding”

ncdadam

Everyone's not in the same boat though are they.

County council tenants are being subsidised by the taxpayer.
PS workers are getting pay rises while the recession continues.
People on welfare are getting that much that for a lot of them it's not worth while going to work.
County managers are being paid more than some country's prime ministers.
A college head complains that he can't live on nearly €250,000 a year.
PS workers avail of €1.5 billion worth of allowances on top of their vastly bloated salary's.
The list goes on and on.

We're definitely not all in the same boat.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

But if they did break any laws, maybe they felt they were justified in doing so. And according to the prevailing wisdom around here, there is nothing wrong with that? So how (according to you can they be criminals? )

No I didn’t. The one card the “won’t pay” definitely can not play in relation to others not complying with the law is that it is “legally binding”

Maybe you would answer the question and stop trying to avoid it.
Do you consider Reilly and Wallace to have acted criminally?

Bruthal

John_Rambo wrote: »

(note to self; must hire assassin, ncdadam caught me out there)

Just remember one thing,,,,, a good supply of body bags.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe you would answer the question and stop trying to avoid it.
Do you consider Reilly and Wallace to have acted criminally?

It is you that is avoiding the question. I suggest you go back and read Am Chile's post to remind you about what are discussing.

And criminals are easily identified, they have criminal convictions.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

It is you that is avoiding the question. I suggest you go back and read Am Chile's post to remind you about what are discussing.

And criminals are easily identified, they have criminal convictions.

Please answer the question I addressed to you.

ncdadam

lugha wrote: »

So they are obliged to obey the law but you can pick and choose what laws you will obey? Fair enough.

Now you have it.
I'll correct you on one thing though, one law I will not obey, the rest I do.

John_Rambo

robbie7730 wrote: »

Just remember one thing,,,,, a good supply of body bags.

Amateur. Punctured belly, a large chain wrapped around the body and off the stern of the boat.

The tax on bodybags is a joke.

ncdadam

lugha wrote: »

And criminals are easily identified, they have criminal convictions.

Ahern, Cowan, McCreevey & co. don't have criminal convictions.
What they did to this country was criminal though, treasonous even.

lugha

ncdadam wrote: »

Now you have it.
I'll correct you on one thing though, one law I will not obey, the rest I do.

Fine and dandy. But I hope you accept that you are in no position to criticise someone else who breaks one law (is there a limit of one?) of their choosing?

ncdadam wrote: »

Ahern, Cowan, McCreevey & co. don't have criminal convictions.
What they did to this country was criminal though, treasonous even.

That didn't take long! Maybe treason was the one law they felt they could break?

ncdadam

lugha wrote: »

Fine and dandy. But I hope you accept that you are in no position to criticise someone else who breaks one law (is there a limit of one?) of their choosing?


That didn't take long! Maybe treason was the one law they felt they could break?

Maybe it was.
And we paid them to do it and continue to reward them with €150,000 a year until they're dead.
Hope it doesn't cost us too much...

ncdadam

Anyway all this bull****e is deflection, that's all.
The thread can be summed up in one way, people who pay up, no questions asked and people who won't pay on points of principle.

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

Fine and dandy. But I hope you accept that you are in no position to criticise someone else who breaks one law (is there a limit of one?) of their choosing?

I haven't yet seen you criticise either of these, who have defaulted/evaded to the tune of millions, yet repeatedly goad on this thread at people who can't/won't pay a hundred quid.

Are you perfectly sure your not in govt :cool:?

Bruthal

lugha wrote: »

But I hope you accept that you are in no position to criticise someone else who breaks one law

Are you in such a position?

Slick50

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.

This so called property tax is supposed to be for local services. If you want to use a dog analogy, it would be like only charging people tax on dog food if they own their own home. (and you have to give us €100 to register for the privilege of paying)

Bad law is bad law. This is a bad law, it is discriminatory and unjust. We have been paying for these services, that are now being withdrawn, all along. But we are now being told that we have to pay for them seperately, yet there has been no equivalent reduction in taxes. And still the government try to maintain that this is not an increase in tax.

John_Rambo

ncdadam wrote: »

The thread can be summed up in one way, people who pay up, no questions asked and people who won't pay on points of principle.

Ah comon ncdadam. Some people that payed up didn't just pay up with no questioned asked, they deliberated and had a good long chat with family in the household, considered their options, considered the local facilities available to them, looked at their finance and decided to pay the bill.

Your synopsis is not fair and pretty assumptions.

Slick50 wrote: »

If you want to use a dog analogy

It was a joke, it's been dealt with, build a bridge and move on!!

donalg1

ncdadam wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Highlighted above for you there ncdadam. Personally I dont think it is funny that people with disabilities are losing out on services because people wont pay their HHC.

You've obviously never heard of sarcasm.
The LMAO was aimed at your immature posts blaming the 600,000 personally who won't pay the HHC on cuts to the disabled grants budget.
If your so sure this is the case then show me a source or some facts to back this up.
If you can't, stop digging.

I was discussing the fact that people with disabilities are going to miss out on grants and you were laughing you may not have been laughing directly at them but still it was hardly the time for laughter. Very insensitive at best.

IIRC the Galway county manager said these grants would be affected by cuts to their budget as a direct result of the hhc. Seems to me like you are the one doing the digging. It's quite clear who is at fault for these budgets being cut. And its not those that paid the charge.

Bruthal

John_Rambo wrote: »

It was a joke, it's been dealt with, build a bridge and move on!!

One or 2 posters here might feel at home under it.

Ghandee

robbie7730 wrote: »

One or 2 posters here might feel at home under it.

Including Rambo himself?

I can't decide if he's here for a serious debate/the laugh/or to stir it up a bit.

His posts don't make it clear enough as yet.

Bruthal

donalg1 wrote: »

I was discussing the fact that people with disabilities are going to miss out on grants and you were laughing you may not have been laughing directly at them but still it was hardly the time for laughter. Very insensitive at best.

IIRC the Galway county manager said these grants would be affected by cuts to their budget as a direct result of the hhc. Seems to me like you are the one doing the digging. It's quite clear who is at fault for these budgets being cut. And its not those that paid the charge.

Well, at least you wont be to blame for any cuts inflicted anywhere:pac:

tayto lover

I'm still waiting lugha.

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

I haven't yet seen you criticise either of these, who have defaulted/evaded to the tune of millions, yet repeatedly goad on this thread at people who can't/won't pay a hundred quid.

I am not goading anyone. I am pointing out that there is a serious problem with adopting the line that you should have the right (!) not to abide by our tax laws, provided you genuinely feel the law is not fair.

One of the lesser consequences of this (and a point lost on those who whinge about Wallace and Reilly) is that it makes you a hypocrite if you wag your finger at someone else who breaks the tax laws.

The more significant consequence is that a system where people decide which laws they will and won't obey is ludicrous.

donalg1

ncdadam wrote: »

Knight who says Meh wrote: »

He also knows posters REAL motives for not paying this tax. He knows things...he just does....

But he can sleep at night full of the wonderful knowledge that he's done his bit and we're directly responsible for invalids not getting their grants.
Mind you, it wasn't us who had disabled people outside Leinster house all night last week in the cold fighting for their lives.
No, that was the HSE and their proposed cuts, brought about because the minister can't touch pay in the HSE because of the CPA.
Maybe a few of the PS crowd on here bleating about the HHC not being paid should have a good look at themselves first.

Invalids really? Think you might want to edit that.