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

Slick50

John_Rambo wrote: »

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

Oh! hilarious.... not.! If everyone could just move on, "because it's been dealt with" this thread would never have made mega-thread. But your contributions have been truly insightful.

My bridge is ready...

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm still waiting lugha.

You really don't see the hypocrisy, do you?

Bruthal

lugha wrote: »

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.

So if I drive 140kph on the m50, I cant then condemn someone who shoots a post office worker?

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

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.

Reilly and Wallace disobeyed court orders and laws regarding vat that apply to every member of society equally, and doesn't single anyone out.


When you're told that local services, that are used and enjoyed by every member of society, now have to be paid for through a hhc, which only applies to property owners, then the law is unjust and unfair.

I find it difficult to believe you haven't grasped the 'moral' side to the argument yet lugha?
You come across as an intelligent individual.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

You really don't see the hypocrisy, do you?

Do you think Reilly and Wallace behaved in a criminal fashion ?
I will keep asking this of you until you answer and you will not look too good here if you don't.

lugha

robbie7730 wrote: »

So if I drive 140kph on the m50, I cant then condemn someone who shoots a post office worker?

If you drive @ 140kph on the m50, you cant (shouldn't) condemn someone else who drives @ 140kph.

If you refuse to fulfill your tax obligations you shouldn't criticise others for not fulfilling their tax obligations.

Jellicoe

Where's Fiasco Phil these days, they're all keeping very quiet about collecting the outstanding household charge.

Ghandee

Jellicoe wrote: »

Where's Fiasco Phil these days, they're all keeping very quiet about collecting the outstanding household charge.

He was in China, dunno if he's still there though.

John_Rambo

Ghandee wrote: »

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.

Fair point Ghandee, I am stirring it up a bit... but here's my position.

I paid it, I thought long and hard about it, but the area I chose to live in has excellent services. I don't want the services to stop.

Friends of mine live in a rural one of house. They chose to build there, I thought they were nuts, but they wanted it. Their services are massivly subsidised, but they think they aren't because they paid various connection fees. I think they should pay it.

Slick50 wrote: »

Oh! hilarious....

Thanks.

ncdadam

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.

Laughable, delusional and a somewhat immature train of thought.
Sleep tight though, you've paid up so it won't be your fault if there's cuts.

Bruthal

lugha wrote: »

If you drive @ 140kph on the m50, you cant (shouldn't) condemn someone else who drives @ 140kph.

If you refuse to fulfill your tax obligations you shouldn't criticise others for not fulfilling their tax obligations.

A right. So, if I rob a bank,I can still criticise someone for not paying their hhc?

Or can you supply a chart showing which law breakers can criticise which other ones?

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

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.

This is a discriminatory law. If enough people object to a law, then the government should take a further look at it. People are not sneaking around evading this tax, they are making a very public and obvious objection to it.

That's hardly the same as the situation of other examples that have been used here.

I wonder how many votes Wallace would have got if his tax situation had been public knowledge, prior to the election.

donalg1

ncdadam wrote: »

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.

Laughable, delusional and a somewhat immature train of thought.
Sleep tight though, you've paid up so it won't be your fault if there's cuts.

Seriously you are still trying to deny that la's budgets are being cut as a result of people not paying the hhc. I didn't think anyone thought that but there's always one I suppose.

It certainly won't be my fault thanks, maybe you are finally getting it.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

Do you think Reilly and Wallace behaved in a criminal fashion ?
I will keep asking this of you until you answer and you will not look too good here if you don't.

Let me confirm the question you are asking then Tayto? You want to know if Wallace, who choose not to fulfill his tax obligations to the state, exactly as Tayto Lover will not fulfill his obligations to the state, is a criminal? :pac::pac::pac::pac:

(FWIW, and from what I know about his affairs, I don't think Reilly behaved in any way inappropriately)

Bruthal

John_Rambo wrote: »

Fair point Ghandee, I am stirring it up a bit... but here's my position.

I paid it, I thought long and hard about it, but the area I chose to live in has excellent services. I don't want the services to stop.

Friends of mine live in a rural one of house. They chose to build there, I thought they were nuts, but they wanted it. Their services are massivly subsidised, but they think they aren't because they paid various connection fees. I think they should pay it.

You thought long and hard about paying your ones, and decided to because you have excellent services.

Do your friends have excellent services?

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

This is a discriminatory law.

It is no more a discriminatory tax measure than any other tax measure is.

Slick50 wrote: »

If enough people object to a law, then the government should take a further look at it.

Do you think any austerity or difficult measure that ANY government ever has to take would meet with the approval of a majority?

If people are unhappy with the overall performance of a government they can dismiss them at the next election.

Slick50 wrote: »

I wonder how many votes Wallace would have got if his tax situation had been public knowledge, prior to the election.

Embarrassing as I’m sure it is, Wallace is on the side of the “won’t pay”!
And regrettably, and going by precedents in other constituencies, I am not so sure he would have been that damaged electorally at all.

John_Rambo

robbie7730 wrote: »

Do your friends have excellent services?

Not necessarily, but their choice of housing costs the tax payer a lot more than my choice.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Let me confirm the question you are asking then Tayto? You want to know if Wallace, who choose not to fulfill his tax obligations to the state, exactly as Tayto Lover will not fulfill his obligations to the state, is a criminal? :pac::pac::pac::pac:

(FWIW, and from what I know about his affairs, I don't think Reilly behaved in any way inappropriately)

So Reilly failed to comply with a High Court judgement and you see nothing wrong in that ? A Govt minister is named in Stubbs Gazette as a debt defaulter !!
He also broke a signed legal agreement to repay 8 investors their money and you see nothing wrong in that either?

You agree that Wallace has criminal tendencies for what he did but Reilly has not?
I am disappointed with you lugha. You seemed to be so joined at the hip to the party that you are prepared to overlook the actions of those who make up it's hierarchy yet you would condemn those who fail, through principle, to pay a 100e HHC but who have not even had judgments made in court against them.

Talk about being blind and brainwashed.

Bruthal

John_Rambo wrote: »

Not necessarily, but their choice of housing costs the tax payer a lot more than my choice.

You based paying your charge on having excellent services, after much deliberating. But still expect your friends to pay anyway.

Seems more likely you paid, but would not have if the services were not good, and are now slightly bitter that they have not paid, and the level of services now does not come into it.

John_Rambo

robbie7730 wrote: »

You based paying your charge on having excellent services, after much deliberating. But still expect your friends to pay anyway

Correct. The services were in place when I bought my second hand house, the country is in trouble, I knew when I voted there would be more charges, and I expect my friends and you to pay too.

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

It is no more a discriminatory tax measure than any other tax measure is.

I believe it is. We are being told we can't expect to get these services for free (which we aren't) but only a particular group of people have to pay for it, in a ridiculous attempt to justify taxing our homes.

lugha wrote: »

Do you think any austerity or difficult measure that ANY government ever has to take would meet with the approval of a majority?

Yes. When stamp duty was originally introduced, it was as a wealth tax. The majority of people agreed with that.

If they introduced a ban on ministers claiming multiple pensions, or claiming any pension prior to retirement age. I'm sure the majority would support that.

But I'm also sure these are far to dificult to tackle, or some legal reason why they can't do that.

lugha wrote: »

If people are unhappy with the overall performance of a government they can dismiss them at the next election.

Too late then though. At least if the government crumbles we won't have to pay the f*ckers a handy pension though.

lugha wrote: »

Embarrassing as I’m sure it is, Wallace is on the side of the “won’t pay”!
And regrettably, and going by precedents in other constituencies, I am not so sure he would have been that damaged electorally at all.

I'm not embarressed, it shows he has some principals after all.

Hard to disagree with your last point alright.

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

My €100 will have no affect on TD's Salaries and expenses, they would be getting this regardless. My €100 will have an affect on Housing Grants for the Disabled though.

In all your posts today, donal(33 so far), you have really done trojan work in promoting the HHC, which, incidently, is a precursor to the property tax that is being introduced in 2013. Now, in the majority of your posts today, you have lambasted anyone that could not or would not pay this charge, all on the pretext that a minister said that the reason that he is withholding funds from the LAs, is because less than half of the people liable to pay this charge, did'nt pay. The other thing that you said then, was because these people did'nt pay, it is their fault that grants are being withheld from the disabled and they are being cut. Now, this kind of thinking on your part and people with likeminded thoughts, really pleases the govt., as it makes their job much easier to manage the public(it is called divide and conquer). But I think that you know deep down that every extry cent raised is purely raised primarally to pay debts, why else would the IMF try to push our govt. to extract more from us in respect of the property tax than even our govt. had planned on looking for. As regards playing the blame game and saying something like the disabled person not being able to renovate their home because some people won't pay €100, all I can say to ya is that I know a few disabled people that have been looking for grants to renovate their homes for a long time and they are still waiting, even though the €100 charge is only in from march of this year, so please don't pull that one.

Bruthal

John_Rambo wrote: »

Correct. The services were in place when I bought my second hand house, the country is in trouble, I knew when I voted there would be more charges, and I expect my friends and you to pay too.

So you did not pay because you had excellent services as you previously claimed. You paid to save the country.

So you spent a while considering whether to pay or not. Made a decision, and then expect others to also pay, based on your deliberations, and not their own?

Slick50

donalg1 wrote: »

Seriously you are still trying to deny that la's budgets are being cut as a result of people not paying the hhc. I didn't think anyone thought that but there's always one I suppose.

The LA budgets are being cut, as a form of blackmail, by Big Phil to coerce people to pay.

What about the people who have paid? are they not entitled to the services they have paid for? Doesn't matter to Phil.

What will happen when they revert to revenue collecting this tax next year, will they allocate funds to the particular LA's according to where the people who have paid this tax are from? It's gonna be very complicated, a bigger fiasco than the hhc debacle. Big Phil will probably resolve that with another load of bullsh*te to reasure the plebs.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

Talk about being blind and brainwashed.

You've said it boss! :pac: Somebody willfully breaking the law throwing a strop because someone else breaks the law.

I would say more confused that brainwashed though

Bruthal

Slick50 wrote: »

The LA budgets are being cut, as a form of blackmail, by Big Phil to coerce people to pay.

Thats exactly what it is.

lugha

darkhorse wrote: »

But I think that you know deep down that every extry cent raised is purely raised primarally to pay debts

No it isn’t. Repeat that as often as you like, it won’t become true.

We have a massive deficit that we have to address, even if their were no issue with bailouts or bondholders. We are spending more than we raise in taxes, simply as that.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

You've said it boss! :pac: Somebody willfully breaking the law throwing a strop because someone else breaks the law.

I would say more confused that brainwashed though

But you were prepared to condemn one while excusing the other and that's downright hypocritical. Do you think someone with criminal tendencies should hold a ministerial position? I don't think they should be in Govt at all. I would not pay my HHC but I would also not expect to run the country having failed to do so.

ncdadam

lugha wrote: »

No it isn’t. Repeat that as often as you like, it won’t become true.

We have a massive deficit that we have to address, even if their were no issue with bailouts or bondholders. We are spending more than we raise in taxes, simply as that.

So how's this going to help?
OK, people will pay their property tax but at what price?
The money they pay for a property tax will then not be spent in the local economy,less VAT will be collected, more businesses will fail putting more people on the dole.
Result? less income tax collected & a bigger welfare bill.

As long as the troika are happy though, eh?

Le_Dieux

donalg1 wrote: »

Can you when quoting me ensure to quote me in full so as not to take what I said out of context please.

When I asked what planet he was living on, I was referring to the fact he expect his waste to be collected and disposed of for free by the Council as well as his grass being cut. But you know this as it is quite clear in the post you semi quoted and moved around.

Planet inventor, I used the waste collection as an EG....I have to pay for doctor's fees ( which are paid for up north ) I pay PRSI and get SWEET FICK ALL back ( I am self employed ).

I could go on and on, but think my point is made. So listen now You, I live on a planet where I expect fair play from one and all. These bastards are screwing us left right and centre.