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

Freddie59

Declan Lander wrote: »

lol, while the Irish private sector developers, bondholders, SCAMA, estate agents, politicians, bankers, eircon, anglo bank, quinn, bondholders, bertie, seanie, fingers, and the golden circle are bastions of hardworking non entitlement and fairness. Don't try to make us laugh or insult us with your see though one sided corrupt cronie lies.

Yeah, all of the private sector workers - who cost the state nothing are to blame.:rolleyes: BS of the highest order really.

hondasam

Freddie59 wrote: »

I ask again - how long do you think we can continue to borrow €400m a week Francis. just a straight answer with a timeframe will do. Also, how much do you think a house owner should pay in property tax BTW?

How many PS/CS workers would you make redundant? How is this going to help, who will do their jobs? I agree there is still waste in the PS and there is more to be done to get it efficient.

Freddie59

alastair wrote: »

As is the fact that a majority have paid up nationally. Cheers to the non-payers for the current funding shortfall though!

1.8m homes liable. 800,000 paid. 50%?:rolleyes:

Freddie59

alastair wrote: »

Given that they're not motorists, no. As I say, you have to have ownership to be liable for a tax on your asset. Quite why you believe that local authority renters (the clue to the 'free gratis' misnomer should be evident there) should have to pay a property tax, when private sector renters don't, is a bit of a head-scratcher.

The bigger head scratcher is the "household" charge - from which 160,000 households - who can well afford it - are exempt. Our Government's - and their lunatic supporter's - definition of fair and equitable.

Freddie59

alastair wrote: »

Everybody pays for local services. Not everybody pays property tax. Not a difficult principle to follow surely?

Yea, let's just leave the 160,000 soak off the state and the rest of us pay for it. Sweet Jesus.:rolleyes:

Freddie59

hondasam wrote: »

How many PS/CS workers would you make redundant? How is this going to help, who will do their jobs? I agree there is still waste in the PS and there is more to be done to get it efficient.

Sam, I've already said - you cannot spend more than you earn. However many are affected will be however many are affected.

hondasam

Freddie59 wrote: »

Sam, I've already said - you cannot spend more than you earn. However many are affected will be however many are affected.

I know this but what do you propose, making people redundant is not the answer. All these people you want to get rid of, what are they to do? It will effect services. Are you suggesting getting rid of Gardai, Nurses, Teachers etc?

dvpower

Freddie59 wrote: »

So you believe that it is right to make it a disincentive for people to work as opposed to being on the dole? Great plan.:rolleyes:

I only said your plan wasn't realistic - nothing more. But please feel free to go ahead and extrapolate any old nonsence you want to.

dvpower

Freddie59 wrote: »

1.8m homes liable. 800,000 paid. 50%?:rolleyes:

1.8m? That's not the figure for liable homes.

Frank Black

Freddie59 wrote: »

I ask again - how long do you think we can continue to borrow €400m a week Francis. just a straight answer with a timeframe will do. Also, how much do you think a house owner should pay in property tax BTW?

Hmmm tricky question to answer without all the relevant information to hand. If only there was a way of answering the question with a meaningless platitude.

Hang on a minute.

Freddie59 wrote: »

However many are affected will be however many are affected.

We can continue to borrow for as long as we can continue to borrow.
The amount needed to be raised in property tax is the amount needed to be raised.

alastair

dvpower wrote: »

1.8m? That's not the figure for liable homes.

He knows that - it just sticks in his throat that a majority have already paid up.

alastair

Izzy Skint wrote: »

we all use local services?....am I right????....why not all pay????...it is a simple question

I'd have thought the simple answer - that everyone does pay, might have registered, but no. So, one more time; everybody does pay for local services, not everybody is liable for a property tax, on account of not owning, eh, property.

hondasam

alastair wrote: »

I'd have thought the simple answer - that everyone does pay, might have registered, but no. So, one more time; everybody does pay for local services, not everybody is liable for a property tax, on account of not owning, eh, property.

Household charge is for local services is it not? How does everyone pay?

alastair

hondasam wrote: »

Household charge is for local services is it not? How does everyone pay?

The entire national household charge would just about cover Mayo's running costs for the year - the rest is paid for out of general taxation, commercial rates, etc.

hondasam

alastair wrote: »

The entire national household charge would just about cover Mayo's running costs for the year - the rest is paid for out of general taxation, commercial rates, etc.

They need to make this more clear then or just stop changing their minds. Bottom line is everyone should pay something, not just home owners.

alastair

hondasam wrote: »

They need to make this more clear then or just stop changing their minds. Bottom line is everyone should pay something, not just home owners.

Make what clear? Change their minds on what? You thought that 160 million would pay for all local authority services?
The bottom line is everyone does pay.

Izzy Skint

alastair wrote: »

I'd have thought the simple answer - that everyone does pay, might have registered, but no. So, one more time; everybody does pay for local services, not everybody is liable for a property tax, on account of not owning, eh, property.

...so if we all pay for local services, then why is the HHC/property tax going towards local services?....if we all pay then why don't we all pay a little more instead of hitting homeowners?...why can't they call a spade a spade and just say they are revenue raising to pay our debts...how well would that go down with homeowners..eh ?

alastair, answer the questions freddie59 has asked you, instead of the stupid snide remarks and cut and paste you seem only capable of...

hondasam

alastair wrote: »

Make what clear? Change their minds on what? You thought that 160 million would pay for all local authority services?
The bottom line is everyone does pay.

No everyone does not pay. There are always people who contribute nothing.This charge was the same with certain people exempt. I know it will not pay for all services mostly because a lot of the money collected will go elsewhere.

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

Make what clear? Change their minds on what? You thought that 160 million would pay for all local authority services?
The bottom line is everyone does pay.

But someone who is paying for their home, not costing the state a cent, pays this charge and someone who gets their home from the state doesn't?

Discrimination son, no matter which way you look at it.

And don't start the bollox talk about car drivers and road tax. No comparison.

gerryo777

dvpower wrote: »

1.8m? That's not the figure for liable homes.

You don't know the figure. It's not 1.6 million though.

dvpower

gerryo777 wrote: »

You don't know the figure. It's not 1.6 million though.

No. 1.57m according to the Indo today, quoting government figures.

alastair

hondasam wrote: »

No everyone does not pay. There are always people who contribute nothing.This charge was the same with certain people exempt. I know it will not pay for all services mostly because a lot of the money collected will go elsewhere.

Everyone pays. It's kind of hard to get through life avoiding VAT etc. None of the property tax will go elsewhere - it's 100% destined for local authority funding.

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

But someone who is paying for their home, not costing the state a cent, pays this charge and someone who gets their home from the state doesn't?

That's right - it's a property tax.

No property = no tax

Freddie59

hondasam wrote: »

I know this but what do you propose, making people redundant is not the answer. All these people you want to get rid of, what are they to do? It will effect services. Are you suggesting getting rid of Gardai, Nurses, Teachers etc?

If we have to. You cannot pay out what you do not have. Why should the Public Sector be immune from redundancies?

Freddie59

dvpower wrote: »

I only said your plan wasn't realistic - nothing more. But please feel free to go ahead and extrapolate any old nonsence you want to.

Old nonsense? Because I'm pointing out the blatantly obvious, unlike the delusional drivel that you propagate.:rolleyes:

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

You don't know the figure. It's not 1.6 million though.

It's not 1.8 million either - even the anti-tax number crunchers conceded that the maximum possible number of register-liable households could only be 1.72 million (on the basis of the recent census figures). And we passed a majority of that figure a few days back.

Freddie59

black francis wrote: »

We can continue to borrow for as long as we can continue to borrow.

How exactly do you arrive at this conclusion Francis? And what exactly does it mean? How long do you realistically believe a country with a population of 4.5 million people can sustain such a horrific level before someone calls a halt to it? Which is what's going to happen.

Freddie59

alastair wrote: »

That's right - it's a property tax.

No property = no tax

But it's called a "household" charge. Just another example of delusional CS madness.

Freddie59

alastair wrote: »

Everyone pays. It's kind of hard to get through life avoiding VAT etc. None of the property tax will go elsewhere - it's 100% destined for local authority funding.

:D:D Delusion - ya gotta love it!

alastair

Freddie59 wrote: »

But it's called a "household" charge. Just another example of delusional CS madness.

Just like the USC isn't a tax eh?