Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…7677798182…332

Comments

  • Options
    #2342
    jluv
    Registered Users Posts: 3,719 ✭✭✭jluv


    The fact that you have been on boards all day yet"working" leads me to believe that you are of the same frame of mind that MAY have got this country in the "!problems" it is in.If I was to add up your time on boards would your employer appraciate it? If we were to save your salary how much less would I have to pay:)


  • Options
    #2343
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Who got banned Robbie?
    Missed a bit there.

    A fella came on with new account, called k.eithM89, giving alastair abuse.

    Alastair quoted him saying he is going on ignore.

    I said to him he must be a genius thinking he has to put that poster on ignore, for obvious reasons. But you know alastair. I was wrong of course. And he was not grasping why i said no need to ignore a new account with that username.


  • Options
    #2344
    slapstick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26 ✭slapstick


    alastair wrote: »
    A nice cup of ignore for you.


    A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term—a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock—originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about himself while pretending to be another person.[1] The term now includes other uses of misleading online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a third party or organization.[2] A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[3] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer

    me a sockpuppet :confused: paranoid or just plain deluded ?


  • Options
    #2345
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    O this is his belief throughout the thread. He insisits on the household charge being a tax on wealth.

    The first time i asked him to explain, his answer was that negative equity owners were a small minority. And that they would be in positive equity soon. That seemed to be his explanation a while back for taxing negative equity owners.

    Now he says it is a tax on them because the property has wealth in it, even though the purchase price of buying it is a lien on it. Its not like the mortgage is a seperate debt. But he wont accept that. Id say he knows everything amongst friends.

    I've been consistent in stating that the property tax is a wealth tax. I've equally been consistent in stating that the tax is on the property - not the mortgage. The wealth in the property is independent of the mortgage on the property - and yes, in terms of ability to pay - a majority of home owners are either mortgage-free or in positive equity, and many in negative equity won't be so for the long term.

    You seem to have grasped my position, so maybe we can dispense with the idiotic mantra of asking me to restate it?


  • Options
    #2346
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    A fella came on with new account, called k.eithM89, giving alastair abuse.

    Alastair quoted him saying he is going on ignore.

    I said to him he must be a genius thinking he has to put that poster on ignore, for obvious reasons. But you know alastair. I was wrong of course. And he was not grasping why i said no need to ignore a new account with that username.

    Isn't that a mods name? the same mod that banned him last week?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2347
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    jluv wrote: »
    The fact that you have been on boards all day yet"working" leads me to believe that you are of the same frame of mind that MAY have got this country in the "!problems" it is in.If I was to add up your time on boards would your employer appraciate it? If we were to save your salary how much less would I have to pay:)

    I'm my employer. Thanks for the creative thinking all the same.


  • Options
    #2348
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    I've both names on ignore now - cheers.

    I somehow doubt an ignore on a username of k.eithM89 will be needed. Any idea why?:D


  • Options
    #2349
    Izzy Skint
    Closed Accounts Posts: 304 ✭✭Izzy Skint


    alastair wrote: »
    Sorry you didn't like it - was there something in particular you disagree with?

    yeah, i have 2 niggling problems with your answer...the logic and the mathematics....


  • Options
    #2350
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Isn't that a mods name? the same mod that banned him last week?
    Was it the same one who banned you the week before that?
    What was that for anyway, and did you learn your lesson?


  • Options
    #2351
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Izzy Skint wrote: »
    yeah, i have 2 niggling problems with your answer...the logic and the mathematics....

    Specifics please.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2352
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    alastair wrote: »
    I'm my employer. Thanks for the creative thinking all the same.

    Things must be quiet!


  • Options
    #2353
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Isn't that a mods name? the same mod that banned him last week?

    It was a new account, 3 posts, closely copying a mod username.


  • Options
    #2354
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    dvpower wrote: »
    Was it the same one who banned you the week before that?
    What was that for anyway, and did you learn your lesson?

    Na, that was dr bolleko. Not the first time he's banned me. Think it's personal.


  • Options
    #2355
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Things must be quiet!

    Not really - glad to say.


  • Options
    #2356
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    It was a new account, 3 posts, closely copying a mod username.

    My god, who would do such a thing. **** it, I missed that.


  • Options
    #2357
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    I've been consistent in stating that the property tax is a wealth tax. I've equally been consistent in stating that the tax is on the property - not the mortgage. The wealth in the property is independent of the mortgage on the property - and yes, in terms of ability to pay - a majority of home owners are either mortgage-free or in positive equity, and many in negative equity won't be so for the long term.

    You seem to have grasped my position, so maybe we can dispense with the idiotic mantra of asking me to restate it?

    There is no position to grasp. A negative equity owner has no wealth due to his property.


  • Options
    #2358
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Na, that was dr bolleko. Not the first time he's banned me. Think it's personal.
    But you're such an affable bloke :pac:


  • Options
    #2359
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    There is no position to grasp. A negative equity owner has no wealth due to his property.

    The wealth is in the asset.


  • Options
    #2360
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    My god, who would do such a thing. **** it, I missed that.

    Yes, so did alastair:D, but you were not here and he was.


  • Options
    #2361
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    dvpower wrote: »
    But you're such an affable bloke :pac:
    Thanks.
    PM me with any more complements though, we both got a warning last time;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2362
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    The wealth is in the asset.

    I now believe it is geniune, you truely believe a negative equity home owner is wealthy.


  • Options
    #2363
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    I now believe it is geniune, you truely believe a negative equity home owner is wealthy.

    I give up. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #2364
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    alastair wrote: »
    I give up. :rolleyes:

    I wish you would.:p


  • Options
    #2365
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    I give up. :rolleyes:

    Do you believe a negative equity home owner is wealthy, due to owning that property? Thats the basic question.


  • Options
    #2366
    Carter P Fly
    Registered Users Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Carter P Fly


    You still own a house, even if that hosue cost you more then its currently worth. That by any standard is being pretty wealthy.


  • Options
    #2367
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Carter P Fly wrote: »
    You still own a house, even if that hosue cost you more then its currently worth. That by any standard is being pretty wealthy.

    Who is more wealthy, an owner with a 200k house and a 300k mortgage, or someone living at home with parents and does not own a house?

    Perhaps you can explain. Because it seems it is beyond our current equity expert to explain how such an owner is wealthy.


  • Options
    #2368
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    Carter P Fly wrote: »
    You still own a house, even if that hosue cost you more then its currently worth. That by any standard is being pretty wealthy.

    owning a house does not make you wealthy when you are working your ass of to pay for it. What's the point in owning a house if you have no money.


  • Options
    #2369
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Do you believe a negative equity home owner is wealthy, due to owning that property? Thats the basic question.

    I can only repeat the same answer - the wealth is in the asset. That's what's being taxed. Other than with ability-to-pay concerns, the overall wealth of the owner, beyond their property, is irrelevant.


  • Options
    #2370
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    hondasam wrote: »
    What's the point in owning a house if you have no money.

    You have a asset with a market value? Would you rather be broke with a house, or broke without a house?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2371
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    I can only repeat the same answer - the wealth is in the asset. That's what's being taxed. Other than with ability-to-pay concerns, the overall wealth of the owner, beyond their property, is irrelevant.

    I never asked about their wealth beyond the property.

    My posts clearly ask, does a negative equity owner have wealth due to the properry. That obviously means is the property a source of wealth.

    If its a wealth tax, then presumably the person liable is being taxed on their wealth. Which they dont have, with a negative equity property.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement