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

Sionach

Alister,

As someone with first hand experience, what was the percentage of people like your self that did not pay the poll tax?

alastair

Sionach wrote: »

From that link: Households paid, minus the 12,500 who have registered but qualify for the waiver 621,717 (already processed) +89,000 (by post awaiting processing) + 82,175 (registered in local authority offices yesterday) = 792,892 The percentage of those paid, based on those figures = 45.16% (54.84% left to pay)

The more up-to-date figure for payment is 866,600. A majority. And an ever increasing one.

Sionach

alastair wrote: »

Bullseye1 wrote: »

You don't deal with facts. You deal with misinformation on a platform constructed of hypocrisy, ie your failure to pay the Poll Tax and then telling people they should put another €100 of their money into a broken system of waste and corruption.

Care to outline where my figures are wrong then? Or would you rather continue to harp on about my poll tax boycott, which has nothing to do with this charge, and involves no hypocrisy whatsoever (apples and oranges).

I did point out where your figures were wrong.

Sionach

alastair wrote: »

Sionach wrote: »

From that link: Households paid, minus the 12,500 who have registered but qualify for the waiver 621,717 (already processed) +89,000 (by post awaiting processing) + 82,175 (registered in local authority offices yesterday) = 792,892 The percentage of those paid, based on those figures = 45.16% (54.84% left to pay)

The more up-to-date figure for payment is 866,600. A majority. And an ever increasing one.

Source?

lugha

Sionach wrote: »

From that link: Households paid, minus the 12,500 who have registered but qualify for the waiver 621,717 (already processed) +89,000 (by post awaiting processing) + 82,175 (registered in local authority offices yesterday) = 792,892 The percentage of those paid, based on those figures = 45.16% (54.84% left to pay)

Out of curiosity, where is the logic in excluding the waivers, if the purpose is to establish the true depth of opposition to this charge?

Surely, if someone opposed this charge in principle, they would refuse to register, even if they were not liable to pay?

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

Out of curiosity, where is the logic in excluding the waivers, if the purpose is to establish the true depth of opposition to this charge?

Surely, if someone opposed this charge in principle, they would refuse to register, even if they were not liable to pay?

maybe the register to prove that they are exempt, just incase big phil comes knocking on the door with fines because they arnt on the register

alastair

Sionach wrote: »

Alister,

As someone with first hand experience, what was the percentage of people like your self that did not pay the poll tax?

Depends which year you look at, and what borough. It makes no odds though - the principles were very different. As I say - it wasn't anything comparable with the household charge - which better equates to the rates that it attempted to replace.

alastair

Sionach wrote: »

Source?

The RTE link above.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0403/cabinet-discusses-household-charge-registration.html

Cantona's Collars

Even if the split is 50/50,those left to pay are adamant that they won't pay it so what will the government do then,especially when they start bumping up the cost from €100 to €300 or even €600,they surely won't pay that.

Come back next year Alastair with proof as to how your community has benefited from the €100 contributions,I'm willing to bet nothing will change,there's still gona be litter in the ditches & dogsh1t on the footpaths,none of the lovely parks & happy people as pictured on the leaflets they sent out to us.I'll still pay a private company for my waste collection & the only LA worker I'll see is the one that lives up the road from me driving around the potholes in the road.

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

Depends which year you look at, and what borough. It makes no odds though - the principles were very different. As I say - it wasn't anything comparable with the household charge - which better equates to the rates that it attempted to replace.

Are you happy with the governments current spending practices?

If your not then why would you choose to put more funding into poor spending?
I think the fact that people dont mind paying the TV Licence, USC, PAYE, PRSI etc is evidence that people will pay for services they see as genuine and fair and that they arnt just out to make things difficult for government and be disobedient law breakers that they are being made out to be.

alastair

zerks wrote: »

Even if the split is 50/50,those left to pay are adamant that they won't pay it so what will the government do then,especially when they start bumping up the cost from €100 to €300 or even €600,they surely won't pay that.

Come back next year Alastair with proof as to how your community has benefited from the €100 contributions,I'm willing to bet nothing will change,there's still gona be litter in the ditches & dogsh1t on the footpaths,none of the lovely parks & happy people as pictured on the leaflets they sent out to us.I'll still pay a private company for my waste collection & the only LA worker I'll see is the one that lives up the road from me driving around the potholes in the road.

The drip feed of late registrants is going to leave 50/50 far behind.

I'm expecting nothing extra in services for my €100, and nor should anyone else. I do expect that the shortfall of funding on the back of non-payments will adversely impact on service provision all the same. So yeah - things will be worse, not better. Well done.

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

Are you happy with the governments current spending practices?

If your not then why would you choose to put more funding into poor spending?
I think the fact that people dont mind paying the TV Licence, USC, PAYE, PRSI etc is evidence that people will pay for services they see as genuine and fair and that they arnt just out to make things difficult for government and be disobedient law breakers that they are being made out to be.

I'm not happy with RTE's programming but I still pay my TV licence. If I have a problem with govt or council policy, I vote accordingly in the elections.

Cantona's Collars

alastair wrote: »

The drip feed of late registrants is going to leave 50/50 far behind.

I'm expecting nothing extra in services for my €100, and nor should anyone else. I do expect that the shortfall of funding on the back of non-payments will adversely impact on service provision all the same. So yeah - things will be worse, not better. Well done.

You are still deluded enough to think that this charge will go to our beleaguered LA's. Their funding was swallowed up last year due to the bad weather,resulting in huge overtime payments to workers trying to keep the country moving and then fixing roads wrecked by the snow & ice. This year they didn't suffer from these problems so hopefully the money set aside for that will be used wisely.
Anyone in the LA will tell you (probably off the record) that they won't see a cent of this charge,strange how the govt. can promise that this money is for LA's yet at the same time cut funding.

Nice to see you admit that you expect nothing from your €100.At last a bit of honesty from you.

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

I'm not happy with RTE's programming but I still pay my TV licence. If I have a problem with govt or council policy, I vote accordingly in the elections.

missing my point entirely

alastair

zerks wrote: »

You are still deluded enough to think that this charge will go to our beleaguered LA's. Their funding was swallowed up last year due to the bad weather,resulting in huge overtime payments to workers trying to keep the country moving and then fixing roads wrecked by the snow & ice. This year they didn't suffer from these problems so hopefully the money set aside for that will be used wisely.
Anyone in the LA will tell you (probably off the record) that they won't see a cent of this charge,strange how the govt. can promise that this money is for LA's yet at the same time cut funding.

Nice to see you admit that you expect nothing from your €100.At last a bit of honesty from you.

The money does go to the local authorities. 100% of it. That's the simple reality. Local Authority funding is massively down on the back of the economy - and this isn't going to change that fact, but it's certainly going to be used 100% by the councils.

What 'dishonesty' are you on about? Put up or shut up.

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

missing my point entirely

I don't think so. Tax evasion isn't any sort of mechanism to protest state spending. The ballot box is.

Cantona's Collars

alastair wrote: »

The money does go to the local authorities. 100% of it. That's the simple reality. Local Authority funding is massively down on the back of the economy - and this isn't going to change that fact, but it's certainly going to be used 100% by the councils.

What 'dishonesty' are you on about? Put up or shut up.

Blah,blah,blah,compliance,compliance,failed no campaign,pay the €100 or your local council is shagged,then the u-turn of "I expect nothing extra in my services for the €100"

I never mentioned any extra services,simply basics such as keeping the place looking clean,not too much to ask imo.Around here most of that is done by volunteers on tidy towns committees so the €100 won't make any difference there.

If we had a dedicated fund which was ringfenced and people saw improvements in services I'm sure a payment would be more palatable but it would have to be capped as even those who payed will admit that this charge will increase with no indication as to how high it will go-that is scary.It's like putting your bank details on an email to a Nigerian Prince.

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

I don't think so. Tax evasion isn't any sort of mechanism to protest state spending. The ballot box is.

did you give a yes vote for the electronic voting machines? did you give a yes vote to pay 3 million for their storage? did you vote yes to the decission for FOUR election officials to used their own premises to store the controversial electronic voting machines, getting more than €400,000 from the State? did you vote yes to give a 25-year contract to store the machines to a close relation of a fifth returning officer, even though they only have a 20-year lifespan?

The only thing the ballot box does is dictate who gets the next big handy pension, they dont even have to retire, they can quit and still get the big pension and not just one but 2 bloody pensions, the Nice treaty is another good example of what your vote is worth, we vote no "ah lads, c'mon now, lets try again" we vote yes "good little doggies"

your delusional if you think your vote has any impact on how money is spent. the only way government waste will be stopped is by not providing them with the funds to do so.

alastair

zerks wrote: »

Blah,blah,blah,compliance,compliance,failed no campaign,pay the €100 or your local council is shagged,then the u-turn of "I expect nothing extra in my services for the €100".

I'm taking the blah balh blah stuff as filler - but yeah - the no campaign was a failure, I never said the councils would be shagged, and there's no u-turn in pointing out that the household charge is doing nothing but transferring some funding from an indirect taxation, to a direct one.

zerks wrote: »

I never mentioned any extra services,simply basics such as keeping the place looking clean,not too much to ask imo.Around here most of that is done by volunteers on tidy towns committees so the €100 won't make any difference there.

You did see that funding for services is well down on what it once was?

zerks wrote: »

If we had a dedicated fund which was ringfenced

Like this charge?

zerks wrote: »

and people saw improvements in services I'm sure a payment would be more palatable but it would have to be capped as even those who payed will admit that this charge will increase with no indication as to how high it will go-that is scary.It's like putting your bank details on an email to a Nigerian Prince.

Or paying any other taxes - which might well go up in the future?

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

did you give a yes vote for the electronic voting machines? did you give a yes vote to pay 3 million for their storage? did you vote yes to the decission for FOUR election officials to used their own premises to store the controversial electronic voting machines, getting more than €400,000 from the State? did you vote yes to give a 25-year contract to store the machines to a close relation of a fifth returning officer, even though they only have a 20-year lifespan?

Given that I didn't vote for FF, no.

Sionach

alastair wrote: »

I'm expecting nothing extra in services for my €100, and nor should anyone else.

To quote Monty Python: You come from nothing, you leave with nothing so what have you got,nothing.

Sionach

alastair wrote: »

Hijpo wrote: »

did you give a yes vote for the electronic voting machines? did you give a yes vote to pay 3 million for their storage? did you vote yes to the decission for FOUR election officials to used their own premises to store the controversial electronic voting machines, getting more than €400,000 from the State? did you vote yes to give a 25-year contract to store the machines to a close relation of a fifth returning officer, even though they only have a 20-year lifespan?

Given that I didn't vote for FF, no.

That narrows it down. You didn't vote ff or fg .

Hijpo

You didnt vote for those things because you had no vote
You didnt vote for those things because you had no vote
You didnt vote for those things because you had no vote
You didnt vote for those things because you had no vote
You didnt vote for those things because you had no vote
You didnt vote for those things because you had no vote

do you get my point on this one?

the only way government waste will be stopped is by not providing them with the funds to do so

Is that a valid point?

alastair

Sionach wrote: »

To quote Monty Python: You come from nothing, you leave with nothing so what have you got,nothing.

Except the continuance of the services the councils do provide. You can deduct that household charge contribution from the kitty for provision of services until you finally stump up.

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

You didnt vote for those things because you had no vote
You didnt vote for those things because you had no vote
You didnt vote for those things because you had no vote
You didnt vote for those things because you had no vote
You didnt vote for those things because you had no vote
You didnt vote for those things because you had no vote

do you get my point on this one?

I get your perceived point, but it's hard to ignore the fact that you did have a vote on who went into office, and got to make decisions on your behalf. I'm not sure you've grasped the essence of representational democracy?

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

Is that a valid point?

Not really. No.

Hijpo

it doesnt matter who goes into government, the excess spending on wages, pensions, tax exemptions and all the rest that are bleeding this country dry will never change aslong as they are being funded by extra taxes.

How can you not comprehend this?

Cantona's Collars

Wow Alastair,you really are amazing in your delusion,now claiming the fund that this charge goes to is ringfenced for LA's,how much will have to go to bondholders for you to open your eyes and see it for the bait & switch that it really is.

Even if some of it goes to LA's it'll be wasted and never trickle down to frontline services.To make a point,one member of our LA retired from one post on a very large pension only to take up a new post on the LA with a nice fat salary.Getting paid once wasn't enough for him.This needs to be stamped out,the champagne and caviar culture still exists and we fund it.
To quote a local councillor here when speaking to a newly elected member, "What do you mean you don't drink brandy,you're on the Council now son,get used to it".

Sionach

alastair wrote: »

Sionach wrote: »

To quote Monty Python: You come from nothing, you leave with nothing so what have you got,nothing.

Except the continuance of the services the councils do provide. You can deduct that household charge contribution from the kitty for provision of services until you finally stump up.

Again what services are provided for rural people. We have our own wells septic tanks or treatment centers,no footpaths,street lighting or tarmacadam roads.
What do would we be gaining from this.

alastair

zerks wrote: »

Wow Alastair,you really are amazing in your delusion,now claiming the fund that this charge goes to is ringfenced for LA's,how much will have to go to bondholders for you to open your eyes and see it for the bait & switch that it really is.

Educate yourself. 100% goes to the local authorities. It's the law, as defined by the household charge act.