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

lugha

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Still only 27% of people in the poll here have paid the HHC, it is getting less and less representative of the real figures.

I'm beginning to think this place is mostly populated by people seeking mutual reassurance that nothing bad will happen if they continue to break the law.

I never vote on these things but I assume that once you vote one way you cannot change you mind?
If that was the case then no doubt many might honesty have said the didn't / wouldn't pay, only to go on later to see the error of their ways!

Any anyway, I don't think anyone would argue that AH would give you a representative sample of the population.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Again with the conspiracy theories! :rolleyes:

Anytime you have no answer for an awkward truth you come up with a conspiracy theory.

So you can’t point out where and when Reilly might have done things differently (which is not to say this can’t be done, only that you can’t), so you start ranting that whoever asks you these pesky question must be a paid up member of FG (I am not nor ever have been a member of any party and I have said several times here that it makes almost no difference who is in government)

You can’t explain why the government would remain fairly popular if there was widespread discontent with property tax so you allege that the polls are rigged!

And wasn’t it you that questioned the numbers who have paid the HHC because it undermines the suggestion that there is widespread opposition to it?

If you have to continually depart from reality to make your arguments stand up then at some point you might want to consider that these same arguments may not have the best of legs under them wouldn’t you say?

Reilly reneged on a signed legal agreement and defied a High Court Order. He refused to pay the 8 investors their money. Yet he is a man of wealth and had properties that we are all familiar with and as a result he ended up in Stubbs Gazette. If you see nothing wrong with that then Bertie Ahern must be a saint in your eyes.
With regard to opinion polls I have already explained that you can get them to tell you anything you want. Wait until the Property Tax is in and you won't have to resort to an Opinion Poll to tell you what the citizens of this country think. AND 600 thousand is in my opinion very significant opposition to it. Members of your party have already agreed that it is a big number too.

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers but your undying defence of something as stern as this measure made me think you were connected to FG.

Noelotool

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Still only 27% of people in the poll here have paid the HHC, it is getting less and less representative of the real figures.

I'm beginning to think this place is mostly populated by people seeking mutual reassurance that nothing bad will happen if they continue to break the law.

The only thing that can happen when people with a bit of backbone oppose a bad law is that it is repealed, and surely that will not be a bad thing.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

Reilly reneged on a signed legal agreement ….

Not quite. A consortium in which he was involved did. Have you evidence that he was one of those on the consortium who vetoed the decision to proceed with the investment?

tayto lover wrote: »

…. and defied a High Court Order.

My understanding is that he accepts the order (as he must) and insists he will abide by it

tayto lover wrote: »

He refused to pay the 8 investors their money.

Where is your evidence that he is refusing? Again, he says he will abide by the court order.

tayto lover wrote: »

With regard to opinion polls I have already explained that you can get them to tell you anything you want.

And again I tell you the reputable ones don’t do this.

tayto lover wrote: »

Members of your party have already agreed that it is a big number too.

I don’t know who they might be as I don’t have a party. But if and when a different political party or parties are elected to government I will hold exactly the same view that I do now.

I support the introduction of a property tax, not because I want to pay more tax, but because I know I have to pay more, and this is one of the more sensible taxes to introduce.

bgrizzley

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Still only 27% of people in the poll here have paid the HHC, it is getting less and less representative of the real figures.

I'm beginning to think this place is mostly populated by people seeking mutual reassurance that nothing bad will happen if they continue to break the law.

the reason its getting less and less representative is because more landlords are paying up and this is a one person one vote poll. the government figures would include the landlord who owns 400 houses as 400 homes as having paid up. ordinary owner occupiers are not paying. i still think the poll is incorrect but i estimate only around 50% of ordinary people, (who can only afford the roof over their head) have paid(many of those under duress).

the real figures FG/labour need to remember aare that when it comes to the real polling booth in a few years time, that paying landlord will only have one vote and 400 non paying owner occupiers will have 400 votes.:D

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

I never vote on these things but I assume that once you vote one way you cannot change you mind?
If that was the case then no doubt many might honesty have said the didn't / wouldn't pay, only to go on later to see the error of their ways!

Any anyway, I don't think anyone would argue that AH would give you a representative sample of the population.

Maybe one of the mods could organize a poll reset? Would be interesting to see if some people have paid since the start of thread. And maybe the addition of a question "I paid but wish I didn't"?

Le_Dieux

bgrizzley wrote: »

Maybe one of the mods could organize a poll reset? Would be interesting to see if some people have paid since the start of thread. And maybe the addition of a question "I paid but wish I didn't"?

I would like to 2nd this suggestion, though my vote won't be changing:p

tayto lover

Fake callers claiming to be from the council seeking the 100e HHC

www.independent.ie/national-news/warning-over-fake-household-charge-callers-3229654.html

Ghandee

Le_Dieux wrote: »

I would like to 2nd this suggestion, though my vote won't be changing:p

Third person suggesting it.

Can someone pm a mod and ask?

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Not quite. A consortium in which he was involved did. Have you evidence that he was one of those on the consortium who vetoed the decision to proceed with the investment?

My understanding is that he accepts the order (as he must) and insists he will abide by it

Where is your evidence that he is refusing? Again, he says he will abide by the court order.

And again I tell you the reputable ones don’t do this.


I don’t know who they might be as I don’t have a party. But if and when a different political party or parties are elected to government I will hold exactly the same view that I do now.

I support the introduction of a property tax, not because I want to pay more tax, but because I know I have to pay more, and this is one of the more sensible taxes to introduce.

lugha,

The judgement was made last February and Reilly is responsible for 25%.
How long will he be given ? Would you or I be given as much time to fix the problem? I doubt it.

Here's a poll that says that satisfaction with the Government is 24% a drop of 7% but I pay no heed to those kind of things.
www.rte.ie/news/2012/0915/sunday-times-poll-politics.html

ncdadam

Fourth person.
Should be interesting.

mikom

Fifth person.
Poll please.

Ghandee

tayto lover wrote: »

lugha,

The judgement was made last February and Reilly is responsible for 25%.
How long will he be given ? Would you or I be given as much time to fix the problem? I doubt it.

Here's a poll that says that satisfaction with the Government is 24% a drop of 7% but I pay no heed to those kind of things.
www.rte.ie/news/2012/0915/sunday-times-poll-politics.html

One has only to glance briefly throughout this thread to witness lugha's refusal to speak negatively about any FG member, regardless of what they were in the paper for recently.

He does however, in various posts speak/bad mouth SF, FF independents etc etc.


Make of that what you will.

bgrizzley

tayto lover wrote: »

lugha,

The judgement was made last February and Reilly is responsible for 25%.
How long will he be given ? Would you or I be given as much time to fix the problem? I doubt it.

Here's a poll that says that satisfaction with the Government is 24% a drop of 7% but I pay no heed to those kind of things.
www.rte.ie/news/2012/0915/sunday-times-poll-politics.html

wow 24% satisfaction, very similar to the 26% that have paid the tax on the boards poll. very interesting...:D

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

Maybe one of the mods could organize a poll reset? Would be interesting to see if some people have paid since the start of thread. And maybe the addition of a question "I paid but wish I didn't"?

I'm not sure what you think a new poll would tell you? If the number who say they have paid does not go up, then it probably just means people are telling porkies! :pac:

If you want an estimate of how many one-house only people have paid I would think you would come up with a better estimate by looking at the total number who have and factoring in the number of multiple property owners. I think you will be a lot closer than any poll here would give you.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

The judgement was made last February and Reilly is responsible for 25%.
How long will he be given ? Would you or I be given as much time to fix the problem? I doubt it.

Ah well now you are changing your tune. “Hasn’t yet done so” isn’t really the same as “Refusing to do so” is it?

And I see you are persisting with the pretence that there is no consortium and Reilly has it solely within his gift to resolve the matter.

tayto lover wrote: »

Here's a poll that says that satisfaction with the Government is 24% a drop of 7% but I pay no heed to those kind of things.
www.rte.ie/news/2012/0915/sunday-times-poll-politics.html

I bet they will pay attention to it. :pac:

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

I'm not sure what you think a new poll would tell you? If the number who say they have paid does not go up, then it probably just means people are telling porkies! :pac:

If you want an estimate of how many one-house only people have paid I would think you would come up with a better estimate by looking at the total number who have and factoring in the number of multiple property owners. I think you will be a lot closer than any poll here would give you.

that would be fine if we had independent figures on who has paid, but we dont.

as it is, im more interested in how things are panning out in the thread, how opinions have changed, and if i remember, you are the one who suggested people may have changed their minds and cant undo their vote.

or do you just disagree for the sake of disagreeing? you guys crack me up sometimes.;)

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

as it is, im more interested in how things are panning out in the thread, how opinions have changed

Ah well I think I can answer that for you without any poll. Not a single solitary regular poster on either side has changed their position one iota! :pac:

But on we will all charge to the 20,000 post mark!

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Ah well now you are changing your tune. “Hasn’t yet done so” isn’t really the same as “Refusing to do so” is it?

And I see you are persisting with the pretence that there is no consortium and Reilly has it solely within his gift to resolve the matter.


I bet they will pay attention to it. :pac:

How is that a change of tune. He is 25% responsible and although that is less than half a million he still has not paid. He could have sold one of his other properties if he wanted to. I think he's refusing. He could have bought himself out of trouble quite easily, maybe would have lost his tax-break though

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

How is that a change of tune. He is 25% responsible and although that is less than half a million he still has not paid. He could have sold one of his other properties if he wanted to. I think he's refusing. He could have bought himself out of trouble quite easily, maybe would have lost his tax-break though

Well this is something for someone with more legal knowledge than you or to adjudicate on. But my understanding is that he, as opposed to the consortium, can not act unilaterally.

Anyway, you are peddling this story to try and make the case that Reilly in a criminal. And that is plainly daft. It is clearly not a criminal matter,

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

Ah well I think I can answer that for you without any poll. Not a single solitary regular poster on either side has changed their position one iota! :pac:

But on we will all charge to the 20,000 post mark!

is that a change from,
If that was the case then no doubt many might honesty have said the didn't / wouldn't pay, only to go on later to see the error of their ways!

im fairly sure you are incorrect in your assertion though. iirc we had one pro taxer at the start of all this who changed his mind, but no way i'm trawling through 17k post to find out who it was

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Well this is something for someone with more legal knowledge than you or to adjudicate on. But my understanding is that he, as opposed to the consortium, can not act unilaterally.

Anyway, you are peddling this story to try and make the case that Reilly in a criminal. And that is plainly daft. It is clearly not a criminal matter,

He's not paying his dues and he's not a criminal.
We're not paying our HHC on principle but we are.

That seems to be the story here.

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

Well this is something for someone with more legal knowledge than you or to adjudicate on. But my understanding is that he, as opposed to the consortium, can not act unilaterally.

Anyway, you are peddling this story to try and make the case that Reilly in a criminal. And that is plainly daft. It is clearly not a criminal matter,

Criminal? Debatable.
Defaulter? Definitely.

Quite a few FG party members, ministers, councillors are acquiring that title of 'defaulter' now.

Enda could not be happy after, well. you know....

We will not 'have name of defaulter across our foreheads'

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/taoiseach-we-will-not-have-name-of-defaulter-across-our-foreheads-537162.html


Reilly and Hegarty are disobeying party orders?

bgrizzley

Ghandee wrote: »

Criminal? Debatable.
Defaulter? Definitely.

Quite a few FG party members, ministers, councillors are acquiring that title of 'defaulter' now.

Enda could not be happy after, well. you know....




http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/taoiseach-we-will-not-have-name-of-defaulter-across-our-foreheads-537162.html


Reilly and Hegarty are disobeying party orders?

didnt that healy eames lady pay cash to her plumber as well, id consider that tax evasion too..

Ghandee

bgrizzley wrote: »

is that a change from,
If that was the case then no doubt many might honesty have said the didn't / wouldn't pay, only to go on later to see the error of their ways!

im fairly sure you are incorrect in your assertion though. iirc we had one pro taxer at the start of all this who changed his mind, but no way i'm trawling through 17k post to find out who it was

We did indeed, one guy who only paid it because he had an earlier altercation regarding his bins with Dublin Coco.... (and strongly regretted doing so)

I'm not trawling through that thread to dig it out either lol

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

He's not paying his dues and he's not a criminal.
We're not paying our HHC on principle but we are.

I’m pretty sure that I did not suggest that you were. I do and did say that you should think long and hard before you make the decision that you will disobey a law of the land, simply because you don’t agree with it. One thing I will say in Mind the what’s it favour, is that he did at least acknowledge that this was not a decision you should take lightly.

bgrizzley wrote: »

is that a change from,
If that was the case then no doubt many might honesty have said the didn't / wouldn't pay, only to go on later to see the error of their ways!

Given that the total numbers who have paid has risen considerably since the poll was set up I think it would stand to reason that at least some of those who hadn’t paid at the beginning or said they wouldn’t, subsequently did pay. It doesn’t necessarily follow of course that they changed their view that there shouldn’t be a HHC / property tax. So number of payers might change but opinions might not.

bgrizzley wrote: »

im fairly sure you are incorrect in your assertion though. iirc we had one pro taxer at the start of all this who changed his mind, but no way i'm trawling through 17k post to find out who it was

If he was a regular poster, which is what I actually said, then you would only need to trawl back a couple of pages, would you not? And even amongst the occasional posters I doubt if there were too many who crossed over from either side. I think the majority of people made up their mind about this very early on.

But heartiest congratulations if we did lose one warrior to you in 17, 000 posts! Only 999,999 to go! (How many posts will that take? :pac:)

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

I’m pretty sure that I did not suggest that you were. I do and did say that you should think long and hard before you make the decision that you will disobey a law of the land, simply because you don’t agree with it. One thing I will say in Mind the what’s it favour, is that he did at least acknowledge that this was not a decision you should take lightly.

Given that the total numbers who have paid has risen considerably since the poll was set up I think it would stand to reason that at least some of those who hadn’t paid at the beginning or said they wouldn’t, subsequently did pay. It doesn’t necessarily follow of course that they changed their view that there shouldn’t be a HHC / property tax. So number of payers might change but opinions might not.


If he was a regular poster, which is what I actually said, then you would only need to trawl back a couple of pages, would you not? And even amongst the occasional posters I doubt if there were too many who crossed over from either side. I think the majority of people made up their mind about this very early on.

But heartiest congratulations if we did lose one warrior to you in 17, 000 posts! Only 999,999 to go! (How many posts will that take? :pac:)

lol, you do like arguing dont you...:pac:

dxhound2005

Ghandee wrote: »

We did indeed, one guy who only paid it because he had an earlier altercation regarding his bins with Dublin Coco.... (and strongly regretted doing so)

I'm not trawling through that thread to dig it out either lol

You might be referring to post #2495 9th April. Not much trawling required.

Of course you can disagree with the law and obey it!
people disagree with plenty of laws but reluctantly obey them, that doesn't mean that they are acting out of patriotism!
I cannot believe that you are essentially arguing that everyone in this country who pays the TV licience agrees that it is just,fair, and set at an appropriate level!
The reason i paid btw is that I foolishly listened to the anti bin charge people some years ago and refused to pay, when I sold my house in Ballinteer I had to pay a small fortune in upaid charges before the sale could go through, I learned my lesson the hard way, now i oppose things in other ways!

But the one that sticks in my mind is post #7 way back at the start of the original thread the one that went to 10,000 posts.

I will pay and so will 90% of the people who say the won't.

Armchair rebels surrender easily.

Ghandee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You might be referring to post #2495 9th April. Not much trawling required.

Of course you can disagree with the law and obey it!
people disagree with plenty of laws but reluctantly obey them, that doesn't mean that they are acting out of patriotism!
I cannot believe that you are essentially arguing that everyone in this country who pays the TV licience agrees that it is just,fair, and set at an appropriate level!
The reason i paid btw is that I foolishly listened to the anti bin charge people some years ago and refused to pay, when I sold my house in Ballinteer I had to pay a small fortune in upaid charges before the sale could go through, I learned my lesson the hard way, now i oppose things in other ways!

But the one that sticks in my mind is post #7 way back at the start of the original thread the one that went to 10,000 posts.

I will pay and so will 90% of the people who say the won't.

Armchair rebels surrender easily.

Wasn't referring to either of those.

Seeing as how I seem to have caught your attention though, will you now admit that you've been telling 'porkies' multiple times on this thread?

Your refusal to answer will sentence you.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

I'm not sure what you think a new poll would tell you? If the number who say they have paid does not go up, then it probably just means people are telling porkies! :pac:

Which is exactly why I felt compelled to explain to you earlier just how polls could work to the pollsters advantage, should s/he choose to distort poll to suit, but if you choose not to read every post, that is entirely up to you. Anyway, I know that you do not believe in conspiracy theories.:pac::pac: