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

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

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



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



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.



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

I think your position can be summarized thus:

I reserve the right to refuse to abide by the laws of the land if I truly believe the laws to be bad / unjust / unfair.

But I don’t accept as valid the reasons put forward by others for declaring different laws to be bad / unjust / unfair so they have no justification for breaking the law.

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

I think your position can be summarized thus:

I reserve the right to refuse to abide by the laws of the land if I truly believe the laws to be bad / unjust / unfair.

But I don’t accept as valid the reasons put forward by others for declaring different laws to be bad / unjust / unfair so they have no justification for breaking the law.

And your's is "If you don't see it my way, your wrong!" ???

I'm not looking to live by different laws to others, I do believe that there are some bad laws, and this is one of them.

hondasam

Freddie59 wrote: »

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

Freddie your obsession with getting rid of PS/CS workers is taking over your life,it will not happen, your other point is cut their pay, you expect them to work for nothing?
Would you be happy to keep them but give drastic pay cuts? Pay what the state can afford or pay what people are worth?
Do you not think there has been enough pay cuts all ready?

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

And your's is "If you don't see it my way, your wrong!" ???

No, I am saying there is a flaw in the argument which says that others should meet their tax obligations to the state even if they don't agree with them, but I should be exempt from that requirement.

But don't worry if you don't see the flaw. A sizeable number of the "no" side don't see it either.

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

No, I am saying there is a flaw in the argument which says that others should meet their tax obligations to the state even if they don't agree with them, but I should be exempt from that requirement.

That is not what I have said, either. I don't think "I" should be exempt from this tax. I think it should be rescinded, so nobody has to pay this tax on the homes they have already paid for.

The money should be raised another way. And don't bother with the "how would resolve the entire budgetary deficit" BS response.

donalg1

Freddie59 wrote: »

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

By increasing charges and introducing new charges you mean, this would surely help them work within their income. But then the PS/CS is not a profit making service, unless of course you would like it to be, but obviously this would mean paying an awful lot more than what you are now, would you be ok with this?

I assume by the fact you talk so much about the deficit in the PS/CS and how it needs to be run like a private sector company you have paid this household charge?

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

That is not what I have said, either. I don't think "I" should be exempt from this tax. I think it should be rescinded, so nobody has to pay this tax on the homes they have already paid for.

And the super rich could equally say that they are not demanding personal exemptions either, that everybody in the same position as them should also be exempt. The problem still remains. If you can pick and choose which laws you will obey on the grounds of what you think is fair or not, why can’t others do so? Your previous post contained an extensive argument at to why other tax evaders should not have their argument entertained.

Slick50 wrote: »

The money should be raised another way. And don't bother with the "how would resolve the entire budgetary deficit" BS response.

No I won’t bother with that . I am much more interested in seeing if you can justify some (i.e. you) not paying you legal tax obligations while insisting that others (i.e. not you) should be pursued by the law for doing the same.

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

And the super rich could equally say that they are not demanding personal exemptions either, that everybody in the same position as them should also be exempt. The problem still remains. If you can pick and choose which laws you will obey on the grounds of what you think is fair or not, why can’t others do so? Your previous post contained an extensive argument at to why other tax evaders should not have their argument entertained.

I'm not arguing that everybody in the same position as me, should be exempt. I'm saying nobody, should have to pay tax on their home.

lugha wrote: »

No I won’t bother with that . I am much more interested in seeing if you can justify some (i.e. you) not paying you legal tax obligations while insisting that others (i.e. not you) should be pursued by the law for doing the same.

Everyone breaking the law should be persued for doing so, (but that doesn't happen here anyway). I don't want to be on the wrong side of the law, that is why I would like to see this law rescinded, but I am willing to pay the price of breaking it, rather than condone it by compliance.

Freddie59

hondasam wrote: »

Freddie your obsession with getting rid of PS/CS workers is taking over your life,it will not happen, your other point is cut their pay, you expect them to work for nothing?
Would you be happy to keep them but give drastic pay cuts? Pay what the state can afford or pay what people are worth?
Do you not think there has been enough pay cuts all ready?

Sam, I'm on record as saying simply this: we cannot pay out what we don't have. If we continue to do so it will come to a grinding halt.

I have no axe to grind with the workers themselves, merely with the attitude that the current pay rates/"entitlements" can be maintained.

EVERYTHING reverts back to that €400m a week we're borrowing - yet people want to sweep it under the carpet and ignore it. It cannot be ignored.

What people are worth and what their employer can afford are vastly different. Until the State realises that it must mimic the successful Private Sector in order to survive then we are digging an even deeper hole for our country.

Freddie59

donalg1 wrote: »

By increasing charges and introducing new charges you mean, this would surely help them work within their income. But then the PS/CS is not a profit making service, unless of course you would like it to be, but obviously this would mean paying an awful lot more than what you are now, would you be ok with this?

I assume by the fact you talk so much about the deficit in the PS/CS and how it needs to be run like a private sector company you have paid this household charge?

Absolutely not. And fund this ongoing fiasco? No it isn't a profit making service, but equally the rest of society cannot be expected to carry the can for some 300,000 workers. Ever.

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

Everyone breaking the law should be persued for doing so, (but that doesn't happen here anyway).

Well this is at odds with the overall attitude of the “no” side. If they were to say that they are refusing to abide by the law in principle but accepted that the law must be enforced, well that would be one thing.

But when they are told that the law will be enforced and that those that don’t willing abide will be pursued, then they make the hysterical (and ridiculous!) cries of “bully boy tactics and scare mongering”

Freddie59

lugha wrote: »

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?

No, it appears that there is one set of rules for developers and another set for the rest of us - to which we object very strongly. Seriously, can you defend paying someone €250k a year when the company is in NAMA?

lugha

Freddie59 wrote: »

No, it appears that there is one set of rules for developers and another set for the rest of us - to which we object very strongly. Seriously, can you defend paying someone €250k a year when the company is in NAMA?

I was under the impression that you reference this link as an example of someone breaking the law?

Did you reference the wrong link, or were you making another point, which had nothing to do with my post that you quoted? Perhaps you have an opinion on the budget deficit that you intended to share with us?

Freddie59

lugha wrote: »

I was under the impression that you reference this link as an example of someone breaking the law?

Did you reference the wrong link, or were you making another point, which had nothing to do with my post that you quoted? Perhaps you have an opinion on the budget deficit that you intended to share with us?

Nice try my friend. What I meant (and you know it) is that there are one set of rules for people who are being lectured to about the "household charge" and a completely different set for bankers and developers - which you have no problem condoning apparently.

donalg1

Freddie59 wrote: »

Absolutely not. And fund this ongoing fiasco? No it isn't a profit making service, but equally the rest of society cannot be expected to carry the can for some 300,000 workers. Ever.

Well if you want them to be able to fund themselves then one way is through the introduction of similiar charges to the Household Charge, Domestic Water Charges will be introduced shortly as well as a full blown property tax which will help fund LA's. Then maybe the Guards can start charging for thier time and charge call out fees, the fire services can increase their fees, as can hospitals, that way they will be closer to funding themselves as you want them to.

You want them to fund themselves but refuse to pay their fees and charges?

Freddie59

donalg1 wrote: »

Well if you want them to be able to fund themselves then one way is through the introduction of similiar charges to the Household Charge, Domestic Water Charges will be introduced shortly as well as a full blown property tax which will help fund LA's. Then maybe the Guards can start charging for thier time and charge call out fees, the fire services can increase their fees, as can hospitals, that way they will be closer to funding themselves as you want them to.

You want them to fund themselves but refuse to pay their fees and charges?

No. I am quite prepared to pay any charges. When the Government start paying salaries commensurate to their income. Just listening to the head of the INTO rabbiting on on The Last Word about "going after the Public Sector workers".

I'm not a fan of Moore McDowell, but as he pointed out, nobody's "going after" anyone.:rolleyes: There is an enormous deficit. The money is not there. So more cuts to salaries are inevitable. It is an economic necessity.

gerryo777

slapstick wrote: »

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

Think him and robbie got 6 days.
We should start a thread to 'free the boards 2'...........

hondasam

gerryo777 wrote: »

Think him and robbie got 6 days.
We should start a thread to 'free the boards 2'...........

NO thanks, this is not going to turn into Shell to sea.

gerryo777

Freddie59 wrote: »

No. I am quite prepared to pay any charges. When the Government start paying salaries commensurate to their income. Just listening to the head of the INTO rabbiting on on The Last Word about "going after the Public Sector workers".

I'm not a fan of Moore McDowell, but as he pointed out, nobody's "going after" anyone.:rolleyes: There is an enormous deficit. The money is not there. So more cuts to salaries are inevitable. It is an economic necessity.

Did you hear the teachers going on about what will happen if anyone touches their €505 million of 'gravy' never mind their basic pay?

If they don't like what their getting / going to be getting, let them **** off somewhere else to work.

See how much they would get in NI or the UK mainland for instance.

There's plenty of fully trained teachers here looking for work but can't get any because of the moratorium, who'd be only too willing to take their jobs.

lugha

Freddie59 wrote: »

Nice try my friend. What I meant (and you know it) is that there are one set of rules for people who are being lectured to about the "household charge" and a completely different set for bankers and developers - which you have no problem condoning apparently.

I fail to see how that relates to my post that you quoted. In that post I asked another user how they, with any authority, could ask that those that do not abide by the tax laws of this country because they thought them unjust be pursued when they were simply taking exactly the same a la carte attitude to the law as that user was.
What does this point have to do with bankers and developers?

Freddie59

gerryo777 wrote: »

Did you hear the teachers going on about what will happen if anyone touches their €505 million of 'gravy' never mind their basic pay?

If they don't like what their getting / going to be getting, let them **** off somewhere else to work.

See how much they would get in NI or the UK mainland for instance.

There's plenty of fully trained teachers here looking for work but can't get any because of the moratorium, who'd be only too willing to take their jobs.

And retired ones on full pensions preventing young teachers from starting their career. With no complaints from the teaching unions.

gerryo777

Freddie59 wrote: »

And retired ones on full pensions preventing young teachers from starting their career. With no complaints from the teaching unions.

Not to mention the ones on career breaks while they try their hand at running the country....

DON'T TOUCH MY GRAVY!!!!

Like pigs with their noses in the trough, you know that noise they make.

gerryo777

gerryo777 wrote: »

Not to mention the ones on career breaks while they try their hand at running the country....

DON'T TOUCH MY GRAVY!!!!

Like pigs with their noses in the trough, you know that noise they make.

Check this out.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/1500-teachers-earn-up-to-115k-a-year-189895.html

Caliden

I think I read it on here but someone mentioned that while it's 100 euro this year, what's to stop them increasing a few years down the road?
Enough is enough to be honest, implement a higher rate of tax on earnings that affects those earning 150k +/year instead of those earning 1/10th of that.

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

But when they are told that the law will be enforced and that those that don’t willing abide will be pursued, then they make the hysterical (and ridiculous!) cries of “bully boy tactics and scare mongering”

I don't think it was hysterical or ridiculous to point out that the government were using bullying and scare tactics. They obviously were, and deliberately so. They were wheeling out a different minister giving contradictory statements on a daily basis. Ministers who had nothing to do with the tax were coming out puting in their tuppence worth. Even judges were making public statements, councilors were out at it too.

And when they government realised that wasn't working, they began massaging the figures, to try and give the impression that they had the majority of people onside. Bob Mugabe would have been proud of it.

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

I don't think it was hysterical or ridiculous to point out that the government were using bullying and scare tactics.

No they weren’t. They were quite reasonably pointing out that the law was going to be enforced, as it should be. The stuff about bullying and scare tactics was simply propaganda spin from the no side.

Slick50 wrote: »

They were wheeling out a different minister giving contradictory statements on a daily basis. Ministers who had nothing to do with the tax were coming out puting in their tuppence worth. Even judges were making public statements, councilors were out at it too.

What has any of this got to do with allegations of bullying and scare tactics?

Slick50 wrote: »

And when they government realised that wasn't working, they began massaging the figures, to try and give the impression that they had the majority of people onside. Bob Mugabe would have been proud of it.

What has this got to do with allegations of bullying and scare tactics?

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

No they weren’t. They were quite reasonably pointing out that the law was going to be enforced, as it should be. The stuff about bullying and scare tactics was simply propaganda spin from the no side.

But they were contradictory as to what the consequences would/could be. They were constantly talking about the worst possible scenarios, whilst having put reasonable penalties in the legislation.

lugha wrote: »

Originally Posted by Slick50
They were wheeling out a different minister giving contradictory statements on a daily basis. Ministers who had nothing to do with the tax were coming out puting in their tuppence worth. Even judges were making public statements, councilors were out at it too.

What has any of this got to do with allegations of bullying and scare tactics?

It was deliberately causing confusion, which instills fear. Re-enforced by people who should not have been involved, (judges/councillors),much less given air time on the national broadcaster, warning of the dire consequences. Bullying in a nut shell.

lugha wrote: »

Originally Posted by Slick50
And when they government realised that wasn't working, they began massaging the figures, to try and give the impression that they had the majority of people onside. Bob Mugabe would have been proud of it.

What has this got to do with allegations of bullying and scare tactics?

It was deception, to creat the impression that the people opposed were in the minority, creating the feeling of insecurity. Bullying.

Declan Lander

lugha wrote: »

No they weren’t. They were quite reasonably pointing out that the law was going to be enforced, as it should be. The stuff about bullying and scare tactics was simply propaganda spin from the no side.


What has any of this got to do with allegations of bullying and scare tactics?


What has this got to do with allegations of bullying and scare tactics?

Bullshyte and lies. Most old people I know did not want to pay out of principle, but were scared stiff about the 'consequences', also heard the same from old people on many media interviews.

Anyway, Inda, big fat phil and their scumbags will get their dues in the end. They'll be as popular as Bertie and Seanie and their cronies when this is finished. It's a long road that has no turns.

gerryo777

We'll see how many of our precious PS/CS workers will be so smug in a couple of years when the inevitable happens, their gravy is taken away and the household 'charge' turns into a 'tax' costing 10 times the 'only €2 a week' it is now.

I honestly hope the IMF stay here for as long as it takes to give these people a serious dose of reality.

Until that happens and the discrimination against home owners stops, I won't be paying jack ****!

gerryo777

Declan Lander wrote: »

Bullshyte and lies. Most old people I know did not want to pay out of principle, but were scared stiff about the 'consequences', also heard the same from old people on many media interviews.

Anyway, Inda, big fat phil and their scumbags will get their dues in the end. They'll be as popular as Bertie and Seanie and their cronies when this is finished. It's a long road with no turns.

My mother is 85 years old and at least she seen through the bull****e and didn't pay.
Old folks rock!!

Ask cowan..........