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

Bruthal

phil1nj wrote: »

Actually, the allegation of hypocrisy came about because the poster in question maintained that he didn't make any hypocritical statements in this thread. He did in fact admit to not paying the poll tax yet stated here that people should pay their taxes. He claimed the poll tax was unfair, that the household charge/tax was fair and then proceeded to sneer and be condescending to various posters on this thread who asked him why he was in a postion to make such a claim (I don't think he was an elected official somehow, but on boards you never know). Very principled indeed.

He also didn't strike me as being a particularly nice quy, but then again who am I to judge:D

Yes thats exactly it. I dont actualy like to see any posters being targeted in any way. But to come in here sneering, and condescending, and then tell people to pay their damn taxes, while refusing to pay one he deemed unfair, was the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

When i asked how taxing negative equity homes was a fair taxation of wealth, he said the full property tax when it comes in, might have an allowance for that, but we dont know.

But if he says that, then he is indicating that taxing negative equity homes may indeed be judged as unfair. But he still stuck to the negative equity owners as being a minority, and will soon be out of negative equity according to him, and the property still had wealth in it.

So it seems he believed only he could decide what was unfair, and what was not.

dvpower

black francis wrote: »

The main logic employed by anti-household charge protesters is that someone else needs to pay for the mess.

stevedublin wrote: »

So you are owning up to the fact that the household charge is effectively going to pay Anglo bondholders etc.

Strange logic there.
The 'mess' is the collapse of central government revenue to pay for local authority funding.

black francis didn't mention Anglo bondholders there at all. That is an obsession of people on the anti tax side. You've done a good job in illustrating his point.

stevedublin

dvpower wrote: »

Strange logic there.
The 'mess' is the collapse of central government revenue to pay for local authority funding.

Nothing strange about my logic at all.
The collapse of central government revenue for local authorities is because the money the central government used to spend on local authority funding is now going to pay banking debt that the govt took on.

Ghandee

stevedublin wrote: »

Nothing strange about my logic at all.
The collapse of central government revenue for local authorities is because the money the central government used to spend on local authority funding is now going to pay banking debt that the govt took on.

Just logged on to say the exact same thing.

Smoke and mirrors by FG,

'its not going to pay off a debt, its going to fund local services' the same local services that got cut in the budget to the tune of €170million by the gov.

They would have been much better admitting such from the beginning.

The Irish people detest being lied to, its being goin on now for far too long!

A change was voted for in the last election, as yet we've seen very little of the change that was promised.

dvpower

stevedublin wrote: »

Nothing strange about my logic at all.
The collapse of central government revenue for local authorities is because the money the central government used to spend on local authority funding is now going to pay banking debt that the govt took on.

Factually incorrect. The money borrowed to bail out Anglo (and the other banks) will be paid back over many years and only contributes to a minor part of the deficit.

Nobody seems to want to mention the deficit at all - probably because it doesn't allow for a simplistic analysis where our problems are all caused by someone else.

stevedublin

dvpower wrote: »

Nobody seems to want to mention the deficit at all - probably because it doesn't allow for a simplistic analysis where our problems are all caused by someone else.

The banking debt contributes to the deficit, stop throwing spanners in the works and putting spins on things to distract from the main issue.
The household charge was only introduced after the government took on bank debt, local authorities didn't have problems getting funding before that.

Chucky the tree

stevedublin wrote: »

The banking debt contributes to the deficit, stop throwing spanners in the works and putting spins on things to distract from the main issue.
The household charge was only introduced after the government took on bank debt, local authorities didn't have problems getting funding before that.

That's because we weren't running a €20bn deficit before.

paddy147

Dv Power......Honest question here...


Do you think the goverment have made an absolute balls of the household charge??


In view off what has been claimed,said,happened (or not happened in the case),threatened,and now with the revelation of not knowing the amount of houses in the country (after the deadline has passed).

Do you think they have made an ABSOLUTE BALLS of it??

Hijpo

Chucky the tree wrote: »

That's because we weren't running a €20bn deficit before.

but we were running a deficit, yet not one TD was looking for money for play areas for kids or street lighting or fixing roads.

now all of a sudden.....

suicide_circus

I saw recently where department of finance officials ran up a 70k bill on calling 11850 directory enquiries in 2011. This is, indirectly, why I would refuse to pay. 70k = 700 families giving the government 100euro so that out of touch with reality public servants can waste it on the likes of this. It is simply outrageous and until this level of waste is tackled, I see no justification of squeezing more cash out of hard pressed people to the laughable work practices and lifestyles of those in power. I simply dont believe a word the government says, I dont believe they will be able to sort out this mess. Dear Phil and enda, suck my balls, regards etc.

lugha

stevedublin wrote: »

The banking debt contributes to the deficit, stop throwing spanners in the works and putting spins on things to distract from the main issue.
The household charge was only introduced after the government took on bank debt, local authorities didn't have problems getting funding before that.

The bank debt is only a small part of the deficit.

But why does this nonsense persist where attempts are made to link particular monies raised with how it is spent? The government have led the way on this and almost everyone has followed.

There is a total amount of revenue that needs to be raised for all expenses, including bank debts. So some argue that the €170 M taken from local service expenditure is being used to pay off bank debts. Others insist that these payments are being made by other monies raised. What material difference does it make?

It would be like a household where spouses pool their income and then have tedious debates on whose money was being used to pay what bills! Daft!

paddy147

Hijpo wrote: »

but we were running a deficit, yet not one TD was looking for money for play areas for kids or street lighting or fixing roads.

now all of a sudden.....

37k salary increases,bankers salaries,blowing money on toll bridges and port tunnels,dail bar pi55 ups,lavish dinners and meals paid on credit cards at the tax payers expense.

Ah sure fcuk the children and the future of Ireland.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

stevedublin

Chucky the tree wrote: »

That's because we weren't running a €20bn deficit before.

Thats because the Irish govt didnt have to pay back enormous bank debt before. Its quite clear to many people whats happening here.

paddy147

TV3 are ripping Phil Hogan to pieces at the moment.

A good few nasty texts comming in about him too.

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

The bank debt is only a small part of the deficit.

But why does this nonsense persist where attempts are made to link particular monies raised with how it is spent? The government have led the way on this and almost everyone has followed.

There is a total amount of revenue that needs to be raised for all expenses, including bank debts. So some argue that the €170 M taken from local service expenditure is being used to pay off bank debts. Others insist that these payments are being made by other monies raised. What material difference does it make?

It would be like a household where spouses pool their income and then have tedious debates on whose money was being used to pay what bills! Daft!

You could also put it this way.

4 people rent a house

One person in the house buys €100 worth of celery per week that no one eats, leaves the shower running constantly, buys fags for themself, tops up his ladbrokes account etc. Then takes out a loan and ups the rent money to pay the loan without giving up the fags, turning off the shower, deleting his ladbrokes account or buying spuds instead of manky celery.

Chucky the tree

Hijpo wrote: »

but we were running a deficit, yet not one TD was looking for money for play areas for kids or street lighting or fixing roads.

now all of a sudden.....

We weren't really. Difference now is we need IMF/EU to tell us how to run a decent tax revenue system.

stevedublin wrote: »

Thats because the Irish govt didnt have to pay back enormous bank debt before. Its quite clear to many people whats happening here.

You should really educate yourself how/why the country is in such a mess as you don't have a clue about it.

steve9859

Two interesting things to come out of Newstalk interviews this lunchtime:

Institute of regional and spatial analysis: Concluded after detailed analysis that there are 1.72m eligible households, meaning uptake is < 50%

Head of Donegal county council: Says that funds will not go directly to local services, but will be collected centrally and dispursed as appropriate.

Seems like no-one knows exactly what is going on or how many houses there are!!

paddy147

So why do FG keep on blowing tax payers money then????


The FG attitude seem to be,"ha ha,we got into goverment,so lets party".

Hijpo

Chucky the tree wrote: »

We weren't really. Difference now is we need IMF/EU to tell us how to run a decent tax revenue system

So we wernt borrowing to run the country the past few years?

im pretty sure i saw somewhere stating that it was a couple of million a week, I dont have the figures in front of me (how often have we hear that one used to avoid an clear answer)

why didnt we need a decent tax revenue system before? if it was always broken how did the country survive?

steve9859 wrote: »

Head of Donegal county council: Says that funds will not go directly to local services, but will be collected centrally and dispursed as appropriate

in other words the bigger cities will get the majority of the money

dvpower

stevedublin wrote: »

The banking debt contributes to the deficit, stop throwing spanners in the works and putting spins on things to distract from the main issue.

I've said that the banking debt contributes ti the deficit. By a very small amount. Have a look at the 2012 estimates to see how much of the deficit is taken up by total debt repayments.

The deficit is the main issue.

stevedublin wrote: »

The household charge was only introduced after the government took on bank debt, local authorities didn't have problems getting funding before that.

You must be living under a rock.

dvpower

stevedublin wrote: »

Thats because the Irish govt didnt have to pay back enormous bank debt before. Its quite clear to many people whats happening here.

It is clear only to people who wear blinkers. Have a look at the accounts and take them off.

Chucky the tree

Hijpo wrote: »

So we wernt borrowing to run the country the past few years?

im pretty sure i saw somewhere stating that it was a couple of million a week, I dont have the figures in front of me (how often have we hear that one used to avoid an clear answer)

why didnt we need a decent tax revenue system before? if it was always broken how did the country survive?

We were running a deficit but FG and Labour were not in charge then, different parties will have different areas to run. The country survived by borrowing to cover the deficit when it had one, lately we've had a surplus thanks to a property bubble(nice and sustainable that always is) before that we had decent growth and had a surplus for that. Don't think we've had a large budget deficit since the mid 90s and before that but I could be wrong there.

Hijpo

dvpower wrote: »

I've said that the banking debt contributes ti the deficit. By a very small amount. Have a look at the 2012 estimates to see how much of the deficit is taken up by total debt repayments.

The deficit is the main issue

there is also a ridiculous amount of needless spends that can be stopped before you can expect people to be happy with being taxed more, lets be honest.

Surely you cant be happy with them spending millions on voting machines, thousands on wine, further thousands on lunches, phone bills, ministerial cars, massive pensions when they retire at 55, to name but a few.

Do people understand that this waste of money will never be curtailed while tax payers continue to hand over money without question.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

We were running a deficit but FG and Labour were not in charge then, different parties will have different areas to run. The country survived by borrowing to cover the deficit when it had one, lately we've had a surplus thanks to a property bubble(nice and sustainable that always is) before that we had decent growth and had a surplus for that. Don't think we've had a large budget deficit since the mid 90s and before that but I could be wrong there.

So why hasnt FG and Labour done away with any of the increases in wages to top earners that FF introduced to there buddys when there was a surplus? Thats the lack of action i think people are mostly frustrated with

Cesium Clock

dvpower wrote: »

It is clear only to people who wear blinkers. Have a look at the accounts and take them off.

from http://www.notourdebt.ie/faq

The Irish Government is scheduled to make €47.9 billion of promissory note related payments between March 2011 and March 2031 – this is composed of €30.6 billion capital reduction – the €30.6 billion owed – and €16.8 billion in interest repayments.
Much of this €47.9 billion of repayments will need to be borrowed unless the State is running substantial fiscal surpluses – very unlikely in the medium-term.
To put these repayments in context, €30.6 billion is equivalent to just under 20% of Ireland’s current GDP or €17,000 for each working person working for pay or profit in the State. €47.9 billion is 30% of Ireland’s current GDP.

It is estimated that the total cost to the State could reach €85 billion by 2031 (assuming a 4.7% interest rate on borrowings). Over 2% of GDP will be drained out of the State each year up to 2023 to make the promissory note repayments – this will be through an additional €3 billion to €4 billion of fiscal tightening (tax increases/spending cuts).

Freddie59

mikom wrote: »

Would this be the spar where they force you to buy mars bars........... plus make you pay for the ones given out for free to those from local authority housing?

Chucky the tree

Hijpo wrote: »

So why hasnt FG and Labour done away with any of the increases in wages to top earners that FF introduced to there buddys when there was a surplus? Thats the lack of action i think people are mostly frustrated with

Which top earners would these be? AFAIK nearly every one has had their wages cut under the current Government.

Freddie59

dvpower wrote: »

It is clear only to people who wear blinkers. Have a look at the accounts and take them off.

What, precisely, is 'not clear'? That we have a Government which continues to borrow €400m a week in order to:

* Keep PS/CS pay at unsustainable levels?

* Keep "entitlements" for same CS/PS at equally ridiculous levels?

* Keep paying ludicrously high SW levels and "benefits"?

Then expects hard=pressed working people - already taxed to the hilt - to keep all of this mob in the style to which they THINK they're entitled to?

Seems very clear to me.

Freddie59

Cesium Clock wrote: »

from http://www.notourdebt.ie/faq

The Irish Government is scheduled to make €47.9 billion of promissory note related payments between March 2011 and March 2031 – this is composed of €30.6 billion capital reduction – the €30.6 billion owed – and €16.8 billion in interest repayments.
Much of this €47.9 billion of repayments will need to be borrowed unless the State is running substantial fiscal surpluses – very unlikely in the medium-term.
To put these repayments in context, €30.6 billion is equivalent to just under 20% of Ireland’s current GDP or €17,000 for each working person working for pay or profit in the State. €47.9 billion is 30% of Ireland’s current GDP.

It is estimated that the total cost to the State could reach €85 billion by 2031 (assuming a 4.7% interest rate on borrowings). Over 2% of GDP will be drained out of the State each year up to 2023 to make the promissory note repayments – this will be through an additional €3 billion to €4 billion of fiscal tightening (tax increases/spending cuts).

And we will continue to borrow €400m a week to sustain "day to day" spending as described in my post above. Some Monday that cheque will be withheld. Then we'll see what happens.

Sykk

If you did pay. I feel sorry for you.

Freddie59

paddy147 wrote: »

So why do FG keep on blowing tax payers money then????


The FG attitude seem to be,"ha ha,we got into goverment,so lets party".

Power corrupts Paddy. The "Labour" party is evidence of this. On several different occasions. They'll jump into bed with anyone. Amazing when they were in power with FF though. If what happened with Phil Hogan yesterday happened in a FF admin, he would be gone today. The "Labour" party are strangely mute. Condoning it by their silence.