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

Freddie59

robbie7730 wrote: »

Why did half not pay by the deadline then? And its hard to imagine all who payed didnt have opposition to it.

I know Robbie. It's a hard one to call. Given the opposition to this, I can't reconcile FG remaining stable in the polls, and, allegedly, 60% in favour of the economic dictatorship treaty.

Freddie59

lugha wrote: »

There is an upside for you Freddie, if the government do come through this scarp largely unscathed. There may be some chance they will take on the much bigger challenge of dealing with the PS.
They may not of course, but if they got badly beaten up over a paltry €160 M you can be fairly sure they would not be in any rush in going toe to toe with the far bigger bruisers that are the public sector unions. Every cloud and all that.

Yeah, unfortunately. But I firmly believe that bridge will have to be crossed. And very soon. In a week where we've seen Banking CEOs paid over €800k; 20 consultants paid €500k each by the VHI; and a litany of errors with the "household charge" something will give. AND VERY SOON. I've asked people how long that we, as a minnow state of some 4.5m people, can continue to borrow €400m a week to artificially prop up PS/CS wages, "entitlements", and employment numbers. No-one can answer.

Because the answer is too terrible to contemplate. But it is unavoidable. No matter what.

Freddie59

lugha wrote: »

Well your numbers are debatable. But certainly, of the order of half, give or take, have not yet paid. Your error is to assume that that those that did not are ALL fundamentally opposed to this charge.

Some no doubt are. But there another reasons why people may not have paid yet. I think we will have to wait until we see how many pay eventually to see how many "absolute nos" there are.

Many of those who PAID were also fundamentally against it - but felt intimidated and bullied.

Freddie59

lugha wrote: »

Corruption? Can you cite incidents of corruption as they pertain to the current government?

Advisors pay? Or is that hypocrisy? Or downright deviousness?

dxhound2005

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yeah, unfortunately. But I firmly believe that bridge will have to be crossed. And very soon. In a week where we've seen Banking CEOs paid over €800k; 20 consultants paid €500k each by the VHI; and a litany of errors with the "household charge" something will give. AND VERY SOON. I've asked people how long that we, as a minnow state of some 4.5m people, can continue to borrow €400m a week to artificially prop up PS/CS wages, "entitlements", and employment numbers. No-one can answer.

Because the answer is too terrible to contemplate. But it is unavoidable. No matter what.

Contemplate it anyway and let us know the awful doomsday that awaits us. Do you not think that a country which increased it's population by 500,000 in the last 5 years and by one million since 1991 and which has 1.8 million at work up by 600,000 could expect to see some expansion of numbers in it's public service. Instead of which by 2015 numbers employed in the PS will have fallen by 20% compared to 2008 with a consequent saving of €3.5 billion in costs.

We are not much different from lots of other countries with our borrowing requirement and our levels of debt, it seems to be the way the world works.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

Many people believe that making promises to get votes and then breaking them as soon as you are in is corruption. Me included. I think lying is corrupt.

You might thing is unethical behaviour (even if it is a staple of pretty much ANY political party who goes on to form a government) but it is not corruption.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Many of those who PAID were also fundamentally against it - but felt intimidated and bullied.

I’m afraid I don’t buy this intimidating / bullying line. Is it intimidating / bullying that there are TV licence inspectors who enforce the TV licensing laws? It is intimidating that the IR may seek to audit you? Is it intimidating that the Gardai may mount checkpoints to ensure that motor tax/NCT/insurance obligations are being met?

There is nothing different about the HHS in this respect. Once such a measure is introduced there is nothing amiss about putting means or personnel in place to enforce this. This charge of bullying is just spin from the no side.

bgrizzley

corruption
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: dishonesty
Synonyms: breach of trust, bribery, bribing, crime, crookedness, demoralization, exploitation, extortion, fiddling, fraud, fraudulency, graft, jobbery, malfeasance, misrepresentation, nepotism, on the take, payoff, payola, profiteering, racket, shadiness, shady deal, shuffle, skimming, squeeze*, unscrupulousness, venality

Freddie59

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Contemplate it anyway and let us know the awful doomsday that awaits us. Do you not think that a country which increased it's population by 500,000 in the last 5 years and by one million since 1991 and which has 1.8 million at work up by 600,000 could expect to see some expansion of numbers in it's public service. Instead of which by 2015 numbers employed in the PS will have fallen by 20% compared to 2008 with a consequent saving of €3.5 billion in costs.

We are not much different from lots of other countries with our borrowing requirement and our levels of debt, it seems to be the way the world works.

Ever heard of computerisation -or - gasp - efficiency? People living in their home town paid rent allowance, etc. The whole thing is nuts.

Can you name one other country in Europe (bar the PIIGS) which borrows as much as we do per capita every week?

Do these other countries you mention pay the exorbitantly high rates of pay and "entitlements" to their PS/CS employees?

We are borrowing €400m a week to fund this. As I already asked, how long do you think - realistically - a country the size of Ireland, and with a population as small as it, can continue to pay these rates AND borrow €400m a week?

And is it morally right to place such a burden on the other 1.5m workers?

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

corruption
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: dishonesty
Synonyms: breach of trust, bribery, bribing, crime, crookedness, demoralization, exploitation, extortion, fiddling, fraud, fraudulency, graft, jobbery, malfeasance, misrepresentation, nepotism, on the take, payoff, payola, profiteering, racket, shadiness, shady deal, shuffle, skimming, squeeze*, unscrupulousness, venality

I could pick at least one word out of that list which see those that refuse to pay as being corrupt!

And of course if you want to take a very broad definition of corruption then we might have the likes of Pee Flynn saying to us, "Sure isn't corruption only the same as misrepresentation? Don't we all do a bit of that from time to time" :pac:

I think we all have a sense of what corruption is, and telling fibs it aint.

Freddie59

lugha wrote: »

You might thing is unethical behaviour (even if it is a staple of pretty much ANY political party who goes on to form a government) but it is not corruption.



I’m afraid I don’t buy this intimidating / bullying line. Is it intimidating / bullying that there are TV licence inspectors who enforce the TV licensing laws? It is intimidating that the IR may seek to audit you? Is it intimidating that the Gardai may mount checkpoints to ensure that motor tax/NCT/insurance obligations are being met?

There is nothing different about the HHS in this respect. Once such a measure is introduced there is nothing amiss about putting means or personnel in place to enforce this. This charge of bullying is just spin from the no side.

Do the TV licence inspectors use the money to bail out banksters?

Do the Gardai?

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

I could pick at least one word out of that list which see those that refuse to pay as being corrupt!

And of course if you want to take a very broad definition of corruption then we might have the likes of Pee Flynn saying to us, "Sure isn't corruption only the same as misrepresentation? Don't we all do a bit of that from time to time" :pac:

I think we all have a sense of what corruption is, and telling fibs it aint.

ill guess you are talking about "crime", but just because its a crime doesnt mean that the law is fair....

lugha

Freddie59 wrote: »

Do the TV licence inspectors use the money to bail out banksters?

Do the Gardai?

The allegation is that collecting the HHC from those that don't pay voluntarily is bullying. This has nothing to do with where the money is or is not ultimately spent.

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

ill guess you are talking about "crime", but just because its a crime doesnt mean that the law is fair....

No it doesn't. But you could argue that a lot of laws are unfair. I think you could make a case that the afore-mentioned TV licence is not fair. But are people to be permitted to decide for themselves which laws they think are fair and hence, which ones they obey?

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

No it doesn't. But you could argue that a lot of laws are unfair. I think you could make a case that the afore-mentioned TV licence is not fair. But are people to be permitted to decide for themselves which laws they think are fair and hence, which ones they obey?

homosexuality was illegal here a few years ago. would you have reported someone for being gay? or would you have ignored the law? or fought against it?

dxhound2005

Freddie59 wrote: »

Ever heard of computerisation -or - gasp - efficiency? People living in their home town paid rent allowance, etc. The whole thing is nuts.

Can you name one other country in Europe (bar the PIIGS) which borrows as much as we do per capita every week?

Do these other countries you mention pay the exorbitantly high rates of pay and "entitlements" to their PS/CS employees?

We are borrowing €400m a week to fund this. As I already asked, how long do you think - realistically - a country the size of Ireland, and with a population as small as it, can continue to pay these rates AND borrow €400m a week?

And is it morally right to place such a burden on the other 1.5m workers?

You forgot to say what is that thing which is too terrible to contemplate. You seem to have a fixation on borrowing and the public service. If you know all other countries have lower numbers and wages in their public service than ourselves then show a few examples. You can amuse yourself looking at how other countries are doing with their debt levels. Looks like the Norwegians and the Canadians who are usually held up as examples of probity are not much different from ourselves. And Japan must be a basket case.


http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock

MagicSean

Freddie59 wrote: »

I know Robbie. It's a hard one to call. Given the opposition to this, I can't reconcile FG remaining stable in the polls, and, allegedly, 60% in favour of the economic dictatorship treaty.

As long as the opposition consists of SF and FF I have no wish to see Fg go out of power anythime soon. Hopefully we'll see the rise of another party or two in the coming years.

bgrizzley wrote: »

homosexuality was illegal here a few years ago. would you have reported someone for being gay? or would you have ignored the law? or fought against it?

Just as an aside, being gay wasn't illegal. Homosexual acts were. It's an important distinction because you can't help being gay but you can refrain from acting on it. It's the difference between making what you are illegal and making what you do illegal.

gerryo777

lugha wrote: »

House hold charge? There'll be a lad (in a blue shirt likely) with a clipboard calling to your home looking for 100 notes in the next couple of months. You need to assembled your house hold and lead them in a charge down your path to drive him away! :pac:

I might mistake him for a burglar..... I was feeling threatened, your honour!

Seriously though, will it take some on the brink with nothing else to lose to say "**** it, enough is enough", then bang, one dead civil servant, in order to wake this government up to what a lot of people are going through?

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

homosexuality was illegal here a few years ago. would you have reported someone for being gay? or would you have ignored the law? or fought against it?

There are certainly plenty of examples, besides the one you gave, where people certainly could be justified in defying the law. But clearly you have to draw a line somewhere. You simply cannot have people deciding arbitrarily which laws they will obey? Can a politician decide that there was absolutely nothing wrong with corruption (in my narrow definition of accepting remuneration for political favours)?

As a rough guide as to where I would put the line; I think laws which are oppressive of the individual (anti-gay laws, racist laws etc.), perhaps can be broken.

But because you have issues with the minor details of how a democratically elected government raises revenue for a state, I don’t think so.

Where would you draw the line?

MagicSean

gerryo777 wrote: »

I might mistake him for a burglar..... I was feeling threatened, your honour!

Seriously though, will it take some on the brink with nothing else to lose to say "**** it, enough is enough", then bang, one dead civil servant, in order to wake this government up to what a lot of people are going through?

Did somebody say scare tactics?

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

You might thing is unethical behaviour (even if it is a staple of pretty much ANY political party who goes on to form a government) but it is not corruption.



I’m afraid I don’t buy this intimidating / bullying line. Is it intimidating / bullying that there are TV licence inspectors who enforce the TV licensing laws? It is intimidating that the IR may seek to audit you? Is it intimidating that the Gardai may mount checkpoints to ensure that motor tax/NCT/insurance obligations are being met?

There is nothing different about the HHS in this respect. Once such a measure is introduced there is nothing amiss about putting means or personnel in place to enforce this. This charge of bullying is just spin from the no side.

You would have to be very close to a politician or a party to find it acceptable.

Frank Black

gerryo777 wrote: »

I might mistake him for a burglar..... I was feeling threatened, your honour!

Seriously though, will it take some on the brink with nothing else to lose to say "**** it, enough is enough", then bang, one dead civil servant, in order to wake this government up to what a lot of people are going through?

Careful Gerry, sounds like you're suggesting the murder of Civil Servants is required to make a political point.

gerryo777

black francis wrote: »

Careful Gerry, sounds like you're suggesting the murder of Civil Servants is required to make a political point.

I just asked a question.

I'm sure there are some people who are on the brink because of what they perceive to be going on in Ireland.

There's nutters in every country.

gerryo777

MagicSean wrote: »

Did somebody say scare tactics?

Howya Sean.

Frank Black

gerryo777 wrote: »

I just asked a question.

I'm sure there are some people who are on the brink because of what they perceive to be going on in Ireland.

There's nutters in every country.

Indeed, and public policy should not be designed around trying not to antagonise them.

tigger123

gerryo777 wrote: »

I might mistake him for a burglar..... I was feeling threatened, your honour!

Seriously though, will it take some on the brink with nothing else to lose to say "**** it, enough is enough", then bang, one dead civil servant, in order to wake this government up to what a lot of people are going through?

It sounds like a veiled threat.

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

There are certainly plenty of examples, besides the one you gave, where people certainly could be justified in defying the law. But clearly you have to draw a line somewhere. You simply cannot have people deciding arbitrarily which laws they will obey? Can a politician decide that there was absolutely nothing wrong with corruption (in my narrow definition of accepting remuneration for political favours)?

As a rough guide as to where I would put the line; I think laws which are oppressive of the individual (anti-gay laws, racist laws etc.), perhaps can be broken.

But because you have issues with the minor details of how a democratically elected government raises revenue for a state, I don’t think so.

Where would you draw the line?

my line is drawn Lugha. i wont pay rent on my home.

gerryo777

tigger123 wrote: »

It sounds like a veiled threat.

From who?

bgrizzley

MagicSean wrote: »

Just as an aside, being gay wasn't illegal. Homosexual acts were. It's an important distinction because you can't help being gay but you can refrain from acting on it. It's the difference between making what you are illegal and making what you do illegal.

homosexuality, or the act of, it still shows that politicians can make stupids laws that people need to stand up to. (thanks for the clarification though lol)

dxhound2005

gerryo777 wrote: »

I might mistake him for a burglar..... I was feeling threatened, your honour!

Seriously though, will it take some on the brink with nothing else to lose to say "**** it, enough is enough", then bang, one dead civil servant, in order to wake this government up to what a lot of people are going through?

You were all for good manners the other day. Do you not think it would be polite to allow a visitor to introduce themselves before killing them?

Frank Black

bgrizzley wrote: »

my line is drawn Lugha. i wont pay rent on my home.

Given that even the most vehement anti household charge protestors probably accept that some form of revenue raising is required, what is the preference?

They are really only 2 choices, consumption taxes or income taxes.