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

darkhorse

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

PURE F**KING GREED. Hands up those who agree, hands up those who don't.

lugha

darkhorse wrote: »

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:

You are mixing up two different potential problems with polls here. One relates to the methodology of how it is done (bias pollsters) and the other to the fact that sometimes respondents don't respond honestly.

darkhorse wrote: »

PURE F**KING GREED. Hands up those who agree, hands up those who don't.

How will you tell if people have their hands up because they agree or have them up because they disagree? :pac:

dvpower

lugha wrote: »

How will you tell if people have their hands up because they agree or have them up because they disagree? :pac:

He's just giving an example of a biased pollster.

d9oiu2wk07blr5

People who are on 50-50 mortgages which are part owned by the council are considered to be council tenants, which means that they are also exempted from the charge.

darkhorse

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.

That seems to be the story here.

Reverse phsycology, tayto, the more you owe, the less of a criminal you are. Did'nt someone in the paper a few days ago refer to the way this country conducts monetary affairs as back to front economics. Here it is in action.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

You are mixing up two different potential problems with polls here. One relates to the methodology of how it is done (bias pollsters) and the other to the fact that sometimes respondents don't respond honestly.

How will you tell if people have their hands up because they agree or have them up because they disagree? :pac:

I am not mixing up anything. I am merely explaining how polls work, also how they can be made to work in a different way to suit a particular situation. If you are not happy with my explanation, tough.

Regarding your second paragraph, you do know that I was speaking metaphorically, as I am sure that the majority of the posters here know, if they are in agreement, that will thank the post. Now, how that happens, is, there is a little hand to the extreme right of the

---

.:pac::pac::pac:

Hijpo

darkhorse wrote: »

lugha wrote: »

You are mixing up two different potential problems with polls here. One relates to the methodology of how it is done (bias pollsters) and the other to the fact that sometimes respondents don't respond honestly.

How will you tell if people have their hands up because they agree or have them up because they disagree? :pac:

I am not mixing up anything. I am merely explaining how polls work, also how they can be made to work in a different way to suit a particular situation. If you are not happy with my explanation, tough.

Regarding your second paragraph, you do know that I was speaking metaphorically, as I am sure that the majority of the posters here know, if they are in agreement, that will thank the post. Now, how that happens, is, there is a little hand to the extreme right of the

---

.:pac::pac::pac:

I see the government are now refusing to pay a college grant unless the parent shows proof that she paid the hhc. I didnt see college grants as one of the ring fenced items on the hhc site.

mikom

Hijpo wrote: »

I see the government are now refusing to pay a college grant unless the parent shows proof that she paid the hhc. I didnt see college grants as one of the ring fenced items on the hhc site.

Ah, the famed FG knowledge economy......

Valetta

bgrizzley wrote: »

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

Think you would need to brush up on your knowledge of tax laws and not be posting potentially defamatory statements.

ncdadam

Valetta wrote: »

Think you would need to brush up on your knowledge of tax laws and not be posting potentially defamatory statements.

It was stated in court that the guy she got to finish the job was not registered for income tax or VAT.
Although, funnily enough, the case against her was dropped and the hubby took the rap.
Amazing that, isn't it.

Ghandee

Hijpo wrote: »

I see the government are now refusing to pay a college grant unless the parent shows proof that she paid the hhc. I didnt see college grants as one of the ring fenced items on the hhc site.

Seriously?

Have you a source for this?
Won't do the campaign much good with their claims on what it's supposedly ring fenced for.

flutered

donalg1 wrote: »

I know this but I am talking about the cuts to the disabled persons grants and cuts to the services provided by the LA's that are related to the non payment of the HHC.

the home service that i will never recieve are not provided by the la, they are supposed to be put in place by the hse, jut to clead this one up.

flutered

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:

according to fg pravda aka rte news at six this evening, a reporter (i think it was the wig wearer) has claimed that fg are riding high on the polls, who is the porkie teller.

flutered

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,

could one then claim that their oh would not pay the charge, is this not bottlers story.

flutered

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?

one add bruton to the list, according to todays news, the english building collapse has axeled him, no wonder none wanted to burn anglo.

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

darkhorse wrote: »

lugha wrote: »

You are mixing up two different potential problems with polls here. One relates to the methodology of how it is done (bias pollsters) and the other to the fact that sometimes respondents don't respond honestly.

How will you tell if people have their hands up because they agree or have them up because they disagree? :pac:

I am not mixing up anything. I am merely explaining how polls work, also how they can be made to work in a different way to suit a particular situation. If you are not happy with my explanation, tough.

Regarding your second paragraph, you do know that I was speaking metaphorically, as I am sure that the majority of the posters here know, if they are in agreement, that will thank the post. Now, how that happens, is, there is a little hand to the extreme right of the

---

.:pac::pac::pac:

I see the government are now refusing to pay a college grant unless the parent shows proof that she paid the hhc. I didnt see college grants as one of the ring fenced items on the hhc site.

Saw that too on facebook absolutely hilarious the way people are giving out about it. How much is the grant bout 2000 or more. And people are giving out because the council have said to this girl you give us 100 and we will give you 2000. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

dvpower

Hijpo wrote: »

I see the government are now refusing to pay a college grant unless the parent shows proof that she paid the hhc. I didnt see college grants as one of the ring fenced items on the hhc site.

Interesting development if true. However, given the level of spin, misinformation and lies on this thread, I doubt it is.

flutered

seamus wrote: »

You're letting your paranoia get the better of you.

Your local council are compiling the electoral register for next year. They knocked on my door. I didn't bother answering because it's usually salespeople in the evenings.

So he put a registration form through the letterbox.

They don't really care if they get your details, you just won't be able to vote if you're not on the register.

You're being totally paranoid.

how come the op did not recieve a regestration form, surely he would have said paranoid or not.

dvpower

flutered wrote: »

one add bruton to the list, according to todays news, the english building collapse has axeled him, no wonder none wanted to burn anglo.

What list?

Are you now labeling Richard Bruton as a criminal or a defaulter because he lost some money on a property investment?

dxhound2005

Hijpo wrote: »

I see the government are now refusing to pay a college grant unless the parent shows proof that she paid the hhc. I didnt see college grants as one of the ring fenced items on the hhc site.

We will wait to see if this is true or can you give your source? And I don't know what you mean by ring fenced. I think it would be reasonable to expect people to provide a tax clearance certificate before handing over a college grant given the number of tax dodgers in the wealthy classes being uncovered by the Revenue.

People are happy to take thousands for Child Benefit and then expect thousands more for college grants but won't hand over €100 for the HHC. And some of these same people are on here shouting for increments for public service workers to be stopped.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

Saw that too on facebook absolutely hilarious the way people are giving out about it. How much is the grant bout 2000 or more. And people are giving out because the council have said to this girl you give us 100 and we will give you 2000. Sounds like a pretty good deal blackmail to me.

Fixed.

flutered

dvpower wrote: »

What list?

Are you now labeling Richard Bruton as a criminal or a defaulter because he lost some money on a property investment?

no, the list of people in kildare street who cannot run their own buisness never mind run a country.

dvpower

flutered wrote: »

no, the list of people in kildare street who cannot run their own buisness never mind run a country.

Your list could include almost anyone who invested in property or many othet assets in the last 10 years, making it a pretty pointless list.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

Your list could include almost anyone who invested in property or many othet assets in the last 10 years, making it a pretty pointless list.

Like bonds for example?

Guaranteed return on bonds in this country. Fool proof, some might say.

donalg1

donalg1 wrote: »

Saw that too on facebook absolutely hilarious the way people are giving out about it. How much is the grant bout 2000 or more. And people are giving out because the council have said to this girl you give us 100 and we will give you 2000. Sounds like a pretty good deal blackmail to me.

Fixed.

don't see how you can say its blackmail they are telling them if they want a service they have to pay for it. Seems like a normal order of business really. If someone said to me " ill give you 2000+ if you give me 100" I wouldn't be calling it blackmail id call it a brilliant deal

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Like bonds for example?

Guaranteed return on bonds in this country. Fool proof, some might say.

Only a fool would say that there is a guaranteed return on Irish Government bonds.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

don't see how you can say its blackmail they are telling them if they want a service they have to pay for it. Seems like a normal order of business really. If someone said to me " ill give you 2000+ if you give me 100" I wouldn't be calling it blackmail id call it a brilliant deal

What would you say when the 100 this year, turns into 2000 in 2014 (speculation I know, but this is the govts problem, a lack of clarity)

Don't think I'm exaggerating either Donal, these lads are going to an awful lot of trouble over this measly €100.

Once you've registered and paid, you've given them a blank cheque made out to them.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

Only a fool would say that there is a guaranteed return on Irish Government bonds.

Only a foolish govt would pay returns on bonds that the investors lost on.

Sarcasm detector must be broken tonight dv.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Only a foolish govt would pay returns on bonds that the investors lost on.

Sarcasm detector must be broken tonight dv.

Only a fool would describe a bond that was paid back in full as 'lost'.

mikom

donalg1 wrote: »

don't see how you can say its blackmail they are telling them if they want a service they have to pay for it. Seems like a normal order of business really. If someone said to me " ill give you 2000+ if you give me 100" I wouldn't be calling it blackmail id call it a brilliant deal

Services........?

The Household Charge is an annual charge introduced by the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 which is payable by owners of residential property.

These services are essential to your community. They include: fire and emergency services; maintenance and cleaning of streets; planning and development; public parks; street lighting; libraries; open spaces and leisure amenities.

So they have added college now.
Making it up as they go along........ as are the sycophants.
.
.