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

Frank Black

Wild Bill wrote: »

I cannot believe that the same posters (between bans) are still rehashing the same arguments after 13,000 posts!

Let's give Bill the benefit, and presume the irony was intentional.

lividduck

Izzy Skint wrote: »

it won't be little for long, it will increase by 500% to 1000% next year...or maybe more....and it certainly ain't little if you have difficulty scraping €100 together

Source evidence for this claim? I mean evidence btw not conjecture or supposition.

dvpower

Hijpo wrote: »

yes i think 20k a week is to much to be giving a chap that your trying to get money from in the first place.

You've avoided the question.
Do you think 20k a week is too much? Why? What should they be paying for that office space, and why?

Hijpo wrote: »

Well its obviously to late now, but why didnt they move into office space that they seized? there was only 200 or so employed by nama when it was set up, surely the government have office space for 200 until they had found a bigger seized property to move in and expand?

It makes no sense for NAMA to move out of the premisis used by their parent agency, with whom they share services.

Nor does it make sense for the state to actively avoid renting space from property owners whose loans are on NAMAs books, the very same loans that the state needs to be performing, so that the taxpayer can get some of their money back.

Hijpo wrote: »

No i dont think all nama debts are those of scammers, it would be wrong to presume so, but how do you run up 1.7bn in loans most of which have defaulted if your not scamming somebody?

You're avoiding the question. Do you think that Johnny Ronan is a scammer? If you do, on what evidence? If you don't then what exactly was your reference to scammers in relation to Treasury Buildings about?

Hijpo wrote: »

Its an office space, surely it was ready to accomodate offices? unless it was just a space and they had to fit it all out themselfs in which case whats the point in moving into a building that doesnt cater to your needs in the first place? 825k is reasonable? you wouldnt spend that if you were turning an abattoir into a creche.

New office space usually comes in an open plan format and needs to be fitted out. This can involve all of the internal layouts, building canteens, restrooms, server rooms and their infrastructure, laying out network cabeling .. the list goes on.
I don't know if 825k was good value or not, but I do know it can be expensive. You seem to be presuming that 825k is unreasonable without providing any evidence that it is. That being the case, you're just ranting.

Hijpo wrote: »

Had to get a little dig in didnt you :rolleyes:

I'm telling it how I see it. You make a number of assertions (20k is too much, 825k is too much, certain individuals involved in Treasury Holdings are scammers), but you don't provide any reasoning - that is, in my view, 'spouting off without thinking stuff through'

dvpower

Izzy Skint wrote: »

DV, we have 600 government quangos in this country!!....do we need them all?....explain to me why?...thanks in advance for your detailed reply

I don't know how many we need.

I'm not sure why you're asking me this anyway - I didn't raise the issue of Quangos. But the topic seems to interest you, so perhaps you could tell us which quangos we don't need, and why?
A detailed reply would be good thanks, but put it in another thread, will you, 'cos this one is already getting clogged up with off topic side issues.

Freddie59

dvpower wrote: »

I don't know how many we need.

I'm not sure why you're asking me this anyway - I didn't raise the issue of Quangos. But the topic seems to interest you, so perhaps you could tell us which quangos we don't need, and why?
A detailed reply would be good thanks, but put it in another thread, will you, 'cos this one is already getting clogged up with off topic side issues.

Which are all related back to one issue - the borrowing of €400m a week to fund these quangos, along with CS/PS pay and "entitlements" plus a horrifically wasteful SW "system".

Hijpo

dvpower wrote: »

You've avoided the question Why? What should they be paying for that office space, and why?

They shouldnt be paying anything, if they have to stay there why not get the use instead of money.

dvpower wrote: »

It makes no sense for NAMA to move out of the premisis used by their parent agency, with whom they share services.

Nor does it make sense for the state to actively avoid renting space from property owners whose loans are on NAMAs books, the very same loans that the state needs to be performing, so that the taxpayer can get some of their money back.

Again if they want to get money from them why not get the use instead of paying for the space?

dvpower wrote: »

You're avoiding the question. Do you think that Johnny Ronan is a scammer? If you do, on what evidence? If you don't then what exactly was your reference to scammers in relation to Treasury Buildings about?

yes i think hes a scammer, as i said 1.7bn in debts with some defaulted you have to be scamming someone.

dvpower wrote: »

New office space usually comes in an open plan format and needs to be fitted out. This can involve all of the internal layouts, building canteens, restrooms, server rooms and their infrastructure, laying out network cabeling .. the list goes on.
I don't know if 825k was good value or not, but I do know it can be expensive. You seem to be presuming that 825k is unreasonable without providing any evidence that it is. That being the case, you're just ranting.

If the whole thing had to be fitted whats the point of moving into it? surely to god they could have found another actual "office" space. Open plan me arse, it doesnt cost 825k for some partitions and desks from argos. The way you describe it they moved into a shell as network cabeling, comms rooms go in when its being built especially if its being listed as office space.

dvpower wrote: »

I'm telling it how I see it. You make a number of assertions (20k is too much, 825k is too much, certain individuals involved in Treasury Holdings are scammers), but you don't provide any reasoning - that is, in my view, 'spouting off without thinking stuff through'

Iv provided reasoning, i just dont know whether you choose not to see it or whether your trying to wind people up by defending these people.

dvpower wrote: »

I don't know how many we need.

I'm not sure why you're asking me this anyway - I didn't raise the issue of Quangos. But the topic seems to interest you, so perhaps you could tell us which quangos we don't need, and why?
A detailed reply would be good thanks, but put it in another thread, will you, 'cos this one is already getting clogged up with off topic side issues.

LMAO and you accuse me of avoiding answers :rolleyes:

tayto lover

slapstick wrote: »

how long till alastair is allowed out again ? i miss him

The problem is that after being locked in for a period he behaves like a calf that has been inside for the winter. He goes mad with the freedom and fresh air and runs into fences, other calves and even the farmer thus having to be constrained again.

Frank Black

Freddie59 wrote: »

Which are all related back to one issue - the borrowing of €400m a week

Are you trying to break the record for the number of times you can make the same point over and over in a single thread?

bgrizzley

its a good point, if you are borrowing E400 per week to keep your house going there isnt much point in stopping your kids E1.50 pocket money.

tigger123

Freddie59 wrote: »

Which are all related back to one issue - the borrowing of €400m a week to fund these quangos, along with CS/PS pay and "entitlements" plus a horrifically wasteful SW "system".

Honestly Freddie, are you not tired making the same point, again and again, in thread after thread after thread?

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

its a good point, if you are borrowing E400 per week to keep your house going there isnt much point in stopping your kids E1.50 pocket money.

There isn’t much point in doing any single small measure. But cumulatively a number of measures have an effect. All that is different about this one is that some people took a notion to oppose it, for no good reason other that it was possible to do so.

The deficit will have to be closed by a mixture of new taxes and spending cuts (though I was amused by one “no” poster who seemed to rule out both options!).

But those who are calling for immediate and drastic cuts in public sector wages are rather delusional if they think that all that is required is some rather large testicles, which apparently our politicians do not have.

Leaving aside the impact of large-scale strikes, surely some of those in the private sector making such calls must realize they are possibly arguing themselves into redundancy with such simplistic solutions. Or do they think that removing huge amounts of money from the economy in one swoop is not going to have an effect on them?

bgrizzley

tigger123 wrote: »

Honestly Freddie, are you not tired making the same point, again and again, in thread after thread after thread?

oh, the irony................

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

The problem is that after being locked in for a period he behaves like a calf that has been inside for the winter. He goes mad with the freedom and fresh air and runs into fences, other calves and even the farmer thus having to be constrained again.

I suggest putting a fetter on him for a day or two when he is next released.
Worked for calves in the old days.

Freddie59

black francis wrote: »

Are you trying to break the record for the number of times you can make the same point over and over in a single thread?

As long as it takes. Until the people who are trying to ignore and sideline it realize that it is at the core of the problem.

Freddie59

bgrizzley wrote: »

its a good point, if you are borrowing E400 per week to keep your house going there isnt much point in stopping your kids E1.50 pocket money.

Yeah, but DV and Francis would have you believe that the €400m is not really much of an issue:rolleyes: Good comparison by you though.......

Freddie59

lugha wrote: »

But those who are calling for immediate and drastic cuts in public sector wages are rather delusional if they think that all that is required is some rather large testicles, which apparently our politicians do not have.

No more delusional that the teachers unions threatening the government today about wage reduction. FFS are these people in the real world at all?

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

...........The deficit will have to be closed by a mixture of new taxes and spending cuts (though I was amused by one “no” poster who seemed to rule out both options!).

Leaving aside the impact of large-scale strikes, surely some of those in the private sector making such calls must realize they are possibly arguing themselves into redundancy with such simplistic solutions. Or do they think that removing huge amounts of money from the economy in one swoop is not going to have an effect on them?

The money is going to be taken out of the economy any how... all that is being argued is where it is to be taken from.

It would be interesting to see a similar report to this being done here... http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/osborne-im-going-wealthy-tax-200021296.html

lugha

Freddie59 wrote: »

As long as it takes. Until the people who are trying to ignore and sideline it realize that it is at the core of the problem.

No Freddie. You obsession certainly IS a problem but it is only obliquely related to the household charge, which is the topic of this thread. Unless of course you are of the opinion that the deficit can be addressed solely by spending cuts and that no new or raised taxes should be considered at all?

Freddie59 wrote: »

No more delusional that the teachers unions threatening the government today about wage reduction. FFS are these people in the real world at all?

I don’t think it’s delusional. Why would you say that? People will always act in their own best interests, or what they believe to be their best interests. You might say they were delusional if they had no hope of succeeding, if government(s) always faced down influential unions!

You might say they are selfish or unreasonably or unethical, but hardly delusional.

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

There isn’t much point in doing any single small measure. But cumulatively a number of measures have an effect. All that is different about this one is that some people took a notion to oppose it, for no good reason other that it was possible to do so.

The deficit will have to be closed by a mixture of new taxes and spending cuts (though I was amused by one “no” poster who seemed to rule out both options!).

But those who are calling for immediate and drastic cuts in public sector wages are rather delusional if they think that all that is required is some rather large testicles, which apparently our politicians do not have.

Leaving aside the impact of large-scale strikes, surely some of those in the private sector making such calls must realize they are possibly arguing themselves into redundancy with such simplistic solutions. Or do they think that removing huge amounts of money from the economy in one swoop is not going to have an effect on them?

i agree with much of what you say Lugha. (i do think there were good reasons to oppose this though).
personally i wouldnt mind paying more tax in some other form, my main problem with this is that it feels like a lifetime rent on something i paid for already, that and im worried that i wont be able to afford it when it goes skywards, which it almost certainly will, because the guys deciding the charge have no idea whats its like to have to decide which bill can wait a bit longer.

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

The money is going to be taken out of the economy any how... all that is being argued is where it is to be taken from.

It would be interesting to see a similar report to this being done here... http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/osborne-im-going-wealthy-tax-200021296.html

Well now, this is interesting.

Some of the no side have (laughably) tried to liken their decision to disregard the law to those that opposed apartheid, but I think the common or garden tax evader is a far closer analogy.

If you listen to some of the “wealthy tax dodgers” they will tell you that they think it is fundamentally unfair that they are subjected to the penal tax levels that the law demands.

Many of them will provide private sector employment, which contributes to the economy. They may be wealthy but they could just as easily be struggling with a large personally guaranteed loan had their gamble not paid off and their business failed. They wouldn’t even have being able to get dole had this happened. In short, many of them genuinely believe that the tax laws are unjust and have no personal qualms about breaking them.

Now I can say to such people that we, as a civil society have agreed a code of behavior that we must all abide by, even if think the laws unfair, and that thus, they too should obey the law.

What would you say to them?

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

i agree with much of what you say Lugha. (i do think there were good reasons to oppose this though).
personally i wouldnt mind paying more tax in some other form, my main problem with this is that it feels like a lifetime rent on something i paid for already, that and im worried that i wont be able to afford it when it goes skywards, which it almost certainly will, because the guys deciding the charge have no idea whats its like to have to decide which bill can wait a bit longer.

The unfortunate fact is that we will be paying anyway. So this measure may be defeated and their will be no HHC or property tax. But you will pay more in other taxes. And the net effect (in terms of the total contribution from the taxpayer) will be the same.

I think you need an absolute killer argument to justify the breaking of any laws. Any while some argument can be made against this charge, particularly on grounds of fairness (all taxes are unfair to some extent), they simply are not strong enough.

Freddie59

lugha wrote: »

No Freddie. You obsession certainly IS a problem but it is only obliquely related to the household charge, which is the topic of this thread. Unless of course you are of the opinion that the deficit can be addressed solely by spending cuts and that no new or raised taxes should be considered at all?

I don’t think it’s delusional. Why would you say that? People will always act in their own best interests, or what they believe to be their best interests. You might say they were delusional if they had no hope of succeeding, if government(s) always faced down influential unions!

You might say they are selfish or unreasonably or unethical, but hardly delusional.

Much as people wish to complicate matters, here are , AGAIN, the realities:

1. We are spending more than we raise in taxes (€400m a week more, which is being borrowed). The "household charge" is one offshoot of this, introduced because of it.

2. We can no longer afford high salaries/"entitlements" & large staff numbers in the public Sector and Civil Service. It has to be one or the other.

3. Until the Government runs the State like a private company does - efficiently - we will continue to borrow €400m a week to fund this madness. Until a halt has to be called - and it will be.

Some call this an obsession. Sane people see it for what it is - the reality facing us.

Freddie59

lugha wrote: »

The unfortunate fact is that we will be paying anyway. So this measure may be defeated and their will be no HHC or property tax. But you will pay more in other taxes. And the net effect (in terms of the total contribution from the taxpayer) will be the same.

I think you need an absolute killer argument to justify the breaking of any laws. Any while some argument can be made against this charge, particularly on grounds of fairness (all taxes are unfair to some extent), they simply are not strong enough.

A killer argument would be for all PS/CS workers, companies, and the State to operate within what their income allows.

Freddie59

lugha wrote: »

Well now, this is interesting.

Some of the no side have (laughably) tried to liken their decision to disregard the law to those that opposed apartheid, but I think the common or garden tax evader is a far closer analogy.

If you listen to some of the “wealthy tax dodgers” they will tell you that they think it is fundamentally unfair that they are subjected to the penal tax levels that the law demands.

Many of them will provide private sector employment, which contributes to the economy. They may be wealthy but they could just as easily be struggling with a large personally guaranteed loan had their gamble not paid off and their business failed. They wouldn’t even have being able to get dole had this happened. In short, many of them genuinely believe that the tax laws are unjust and have no personal qualms about breaking them.

Now I can say to such people that we, as a civil society have agreed a code of behavior that we must all abide by, even if think the laws unfair, and that thus, they too should obey the law.

What would you say to them?

You quote "the law". That's fine. If it apples across all sectors of society. It doesn't. For example, we have the situation of a developer being paid a €250k per year salary by NAMA holidaying in the Caribbean at the moment, while a garage for 12 cars is being built at his house.

You can appreciate why people want to break 'the law" as you put it.

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

bgrizzley wrote: »

i agree with much of what you say Lugha. (i do think there were good reasons to oppose this though).
personally i wouldnt mind paying more tax in some other form, my main problem with this is that it feels like a lifetime rent on something i paid for already, that and im worried that i wont be able to afford it when it goes skywards, which it almost certainly will, because the guys deciding the charge have no idea whats its like to have to decide which bill can wait a bit longer.

The unfortunate fact is that we will be paying anyway. So this measure may be defeated and their will be no HHC or property tax. But you will pay more in other taxes. And the net effect (in terms of the total contribution from the taxpayer) will be the same.

I think you need an absolute killer argument to justify the breaking of any laws. Any while some argument can be made against this charge, particularly on grounds of fairness (all taxes are unfair to some extent), they simply are not strong enough.

They dont have there spending priorities in order for it to be ok to take more money from the citizens, yet.
Thats my argument and my reason for not paying.

RobbieTheRobber

Freddie59 wrote: »

A killer argument would be for all PS/CS workers, companies, and the State to operate within what their income allows.

Indeed close the hospitals and the schools they cost too much!

Freddie59

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Indeed close the hospitals and the schools they cost too much!

No. Keep them open. Just pay the people who work there the rate which the State can afford. Kinda radical really.:rolleyes:

RobbieTheRobber

Freddie59 wrote: »

No. Keep them open. Just pay the people who work there the rate which the State can afford. Kinda radical really.:rolleyes:

That is not really how private companies work though, they often cut loss making sectors of companies to salvage profitable sectors.

I dont see how the hospitals gererate revenue so close them!

Edit: I forgot to add :rolleyes:

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

Some of the no side have (laughably) tried to liken their decision to disregard the law to those that opposed apartheid, but I think the common or garden tax evader is a far closer analogy.

I think you're missing their point. Bad law is bad law, and should be opposed.

lugha wrote: »

If you listen to some of the “wealthy tax dodgers” they will tell you that they think it is fundamentally unfair that they are subjected to the penal tax levels that the law demands.

If their personal earnings are taxed at the same rates as everybody elses, it would be hard to claim they are being penalised.

lugha wrote: »

Many of them will provide private sector employment, which contributes to the economy. They may be wealthy but they could just as easily be struggling with a large personally guaranteed loan had their gamble not paid off and their business failed. They wouldn’t even have being able to get dole had this happened. In short, many of them genuinely believe that the tax laws are unjust and have no personal qualms about breaking them.

They don't provide employment out of the goodness of their hearts. They employ people to do work that they couldn't get done without them, which in most cases, makes more money for them than their employees. There is a huge difference between a multy millionaire, and someone struggling to keep an enterprise afloat. You seem to be bunching them all together.

lugha wrote: »

Now I can say to such people that we, as a civil society have agreed a code of behavior that we must all abide by, even if think the laws unfair, and that thus, they too should obey the law.

What would you say to them?

I would say they are starting to sound like P. Flynn, bemoaning how expensive it is trying to maintain such a lavish lifestyle.

lugha

Freddie59 wrote: »

Much as people wish to complicate matters, here are , AGAIN, the realities:

1. We are spending more than we raise in taxes (€400m a week more, which is being borrowed). The "household charge" is one offshoot of this, introduced because of it.

2. We can no longer afford high salaries/"entitlements" & large staff numbers in the public Sector and Civil Service. It has to be one or the other.

3. Until the Government runs the State like a private company does - efficiently - we will continue to borrow €400m a week to fund this madness. Until a halt has to be called - and it will be.

Some call this an obsession. Sane people see it for what it is - the reality facing us.

Yes I think we all get your point about how we need to need to address our budget deficit. What we don’t get is your obsession with it on this thread, which is not specifically about that.

Indeed, given that one (!!!) of the measures that can be used to close the deficit is to introduce new taxes and charges, it would seem that you on the wrong side of the household charge argument.

Freddie59 wrote: »

You quote "the law". That's fine. If it apples across all sectors of society. It doesn't. For example, we have the situation of a developer being paid a €250k per year salary by NAMA holidaying in the Caribbean at the moment, while a garage for 12 cars is being built at his house.

You can appreciate why people want to break 'the law" as you put it.

I only skimmed the article so I am not clear as to what law was broken. But assuming that this is the case, how exactly does that argument work. Some people break the law and get away with it, therefore it is ok for me to do so too?