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

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

The deadline on the website says...

before 31st of March 2012.

Yet they counted payments made on saturday as before the deadline


Banana republic!

So a strict semantic interpretation of “before the deadline” should exclude the day of the deadline is now apparently evidence that we live in a banana republic! :eek:

Seriously, I don’t think the “no” side ever had much of an argument, but surely you can cobble together something better than this? :pac:

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

So a strict semantic interpretation of “before the deadline” should exclude the day of the deadline is now apparently evidence that we live in a banana republic! :eek:

The way this country is run and what happens/doesnt happen to those accountable for what has happend to banks is evidence that we live in a banana republic

Frank Black

Slick50 wrote: »

The deadline on the website says... read it again donal, I highlighted it in bold and underscored it.

Yet they counted payments made on saturday as before the deadline, also accepting postal registration into the middle of the following week. That is an extension. But continued to come on the media stating there would be NO extension

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0329/household-charge.html

So they have decided to bend the rules, because it suits their propaganda purposes. Some who missed the deadline won't have to pay late fees and interest, while others will. Banana republic!

There, there.
Time to give it up son.

A more fitting illustration of the paucity of arguments left open to the 'no' side would be hard to imagine.

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

So a strict semantic interpretation of “before the deadline” should exclude the day of the deadline is now apparently evidence that we live in a banana republic! :eek:

Seriously, I don’t think the “no” side ever had much of an argument, but surely you can cobble together something better than this? :pac:

So now you want to start re-defining the english language to suit your point of view. The day of the deadline was Friday, I didn't write the legislation, but it clearly states before saturday 31st. Why all the crowing about how delighted they'll be to collect the extra revenue, and then fail to do so. As for evidence we live in a banana republic, this is just another example.

They can feed us sh*te, but they can't keep us in the dark all the time. I can feel an amnesty coming, "to give people a final opportunity".

black francis wrote:

There, there.
Time to give it up son.

Daddy? where have you been?

black francis wrote:

A more fitting illustration of the paucity of arguments left open to the 'no' side would be hard to imagine.

Yes, we shouldn't question any bullsh*te the "government" espouses, just swallow hard. But isn't that how we came to be "where we are".

Hijpo

I think whats really wrong with the yes side is that they see nothing happening to people who havent paid despite all the warnings of what will happen if they didnt.

Now they are trying to jump on the political band wagon of scare tactics to put the rest of us in there position.

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

So now you want to start re-defining the english language to suit your point of view. The day of the deadline was Friday, I didn't write the legislation, but it clearly states before saturday 31st.

Ok, fess up! You are just having a bit of a laugh aren’t you? I certainly cannot possibly take that argument seriously.

What next? Big Phil didn’t cross a t somewhere so this is evidence that he is illegitimate and corrupt? FG made a few grammatical errors in their election publications so they are neo-nazis?

Go on, you are pulling our leg aren’t you? :pac:

bgrizzley

wasnt one of alan shatters arguments, "sure its only 79 punts". now thats weak.

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

Ok, fess up! You are just having a bit of a laugh aren’t you? I certainly cannot possibly take that argument seriously.

So do you want to answer the question then

Slick50 wrote:

If the government weren't "spinning" the numbers, how come they extended their own deadline for payment, whilst categorically denying they would do so?.

lugha wrote: »

What next? Big Phil didn’t cross a t somewhere so this is evidence that he is illegitimate and corrupt?

I didn't say that, but there have been rumblings in government about the company he's been keeping

lugha wrote: »

FG made a few grammatical errors in their election publications

Now who's pulling who's leg?

lugha wrote: »

so they are neo-nazis?

Blue shirts

lugha wrote: »

Go on, you are pulling our leg aren’t you? :pac:

About the facts?

Seve OB

i still havent paid and no intention of anytime soon

but i know i will have to at some stage

does anyone know how to find out what the current price is to include late fee and interest?

bgrizzley

10% extra for first 6 months, 20% for second 6 months, 30% after 12 months. plus 1% interest per month

Frank Black

Hijpo wrote: »

I think whats really wrong with the yes side is that they see nothing happening to people who havent paid despite all the warnings of what will happen if they didnt.

Now they are trying to jump on the political band wagon of scare tactics to put the rest of us in there position.

Personally I'm quite happy with how things are proceeding - and when you say 'nothing is happening', that's not quite true.
Interest and penalties are building up all the time now for the tax dodgers.

In time, as with most things, those too stupid or selfish to pay will subsidise those of us smart enough to avoid unnecessary expense.

Hijpo

black francis wrote: »

Personally I'm quite happy with how things are proceeding - and when you say 'nothing is happening', that's not quite true.
Interest and penalties are building up all the time now for the tax dodgers.

In time, as with most things, those too stupid or selfish to pay will subsidise those of us smart enough to avoid unnecessary expense.

And if people dont register OR pay the initial charge what happens with these penalties and interest?

mikom

black francis wrote: »

In time, as with most things, those too stupid or selfish to pay will subsidise those of us smart enough to avoid unnecessary expense.

Yep, works exceedingly well with the TV tax...............

jack67

black francis wrote: »

Personally I'm quite happy with how things are proceeding - and when you say 'nothing is happening', that's not quite true.
Interest and penalties are building up all the time now for the tax dodgers.

In time, as with most things, those too stupid or selfish to pay will subsidise those of us smart enough to avoid unnecessary expense.

i wont be subsidising all u smart people,im to stupid and to poor:D

Freddie59

hondasam wrote: »

We all agree the middle/top need to be cut. Cutting numbers, where do you start? I know there is waste in the PS/CS could not disagree with you on that.

There is waste in both Private AND Public Sector Sam. The difference is that it's tackled in the Private sector - otherwise the company stops trading. Economic necessity.

The cold hard fact is that the cash is there either to support the same numbers on a lower wage - or reduced numbers on the same salaries. NOT BOTH. There is no way out of it - for all the drum beating of the Teacher's unions this week.

hondasam

Freddie59 wrote: »

There is waste in both Private AND Public Sector Sam. The difference is that it's tackled in the Private sector - otherwise the company stops trading. Economic necessity.

The cold hard fact is that the cash is there either to support the same numbers on a lower wage - or reduced numbers on the same salaries. NOT BOTH. There is no way out of it - for all the drum beating of the Teacher's unions this week.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=croke%20park%20agreement&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CFEQqQIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishexaminer.com%2Fbreakingnews%2Fireland%2Fquinn-govt-standing-by-croke-park-agreement-546997.html&ei=8HOFT4nkCpO4hAfc0IXECA&usg=AFQjCNGFpcp2LrHW8NSk9E_sQ58EZpynGQ

I suggest the let half of the PS/CS take a break for a year and see what savings are made, will this make people happy. No staff will mean more delays for everything.

Freddie59

hondasam wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=croke%20park%20agreement&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CFEQqQIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishexaminer.com%2Fbreakingnews%2Fireland%2Fquinn-govt-standing-by-croke-park-agreement-546997.html&ei=8HOFT4nkCpO4hAfc0IXECA&usg=AFQjCNGFpcp2LrHW8NSk9E_sQ58EZpynGQ

I suggest the let half of the PS/CS take a break for a year and see what savings are made, will this make people happy. No staff will mean more delays for everything.

Maybe. But something has to give Sam. No two ways about it.

dxhound2005

Freddie59 wrote: »

Maybe. But something has to give Sam. No two ways about it.

What do you mean something has to give? What is going to happen?

hondasam

Freddie59 wrote: »

Maybe. But something has to give Sam. No two ways about it.

I don't know what's going to happen. I do know that when it comes to PS/CS people think all jobs are cushy and well paid, this is not the case.
The same people think it's perfectly ok to scam SW and cannot see anything wrong with this.
Ya cut the wages of those who are working everyday in order for the ones who are not working to have a cushy life. Makes perfect since to me Feddie.

Freddie59

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What do you mean something has to give? What is going to happen?

How many times do you need it explained?

* We are borrowing €400m a week for "day to day" expenses, i.e. PS/CS pay & "entitlements", along with an horrific SW bill.

* That equals €200Bn over ten years.

* 80% of the Education budget is spent on salaries & "entitlements".

* 70 % of the HSE budget is spent on salaries & "entitlements".


It's fairly obvious to even a mildly intelligent person that this cannot continue and that it is completely unsustainable.. We therefore have choices to reduce this deficit:


* Continue to tax and burden the Private Sector worker to string this gravy train out a little longer. A non-runner really. You can only go to that well for so long before it runs dry.

* Reduce PS/CS salaries & "entitlements", by doing so possibly keeping the majority in employment, albeit on a greatly reduced salary.

* Reduce the numbers in the PS/CS and keep those remaining at the same salary level by sacrificing those made redundant.

it was almost laughable to hear one of the teacher's Union Reps going on today about "the rate paid is the rate paid" and "you're not touching our allowances".

The rate paid is what the coffers can afford.

And it isn't 70 or 80% of the budget.

Freddie59

hondasam wrote: »

I don't know what's going to happen. I do know that when it comes to PS/CS people think all jobs are cushy and well paid, this is not the case.
The same people think it's perfectly ok to scam SW and cannot see anything wrong with this.
Ya cut the wages of those who are working everyday in order for the ones who are not working to have a cushy life. Makes perfect since to me Feddie.

I would agree with your sentiment there Sam. But financial realities are coming to bear on the situation. The decision may be taken from the Government's hands.

Hijpo

this thread is getting stupid now, the "Yes" side keep asking the same questions that the "No" side have already answered with no valid contradicting points being made by the Yes side at all.

Theres a problem with needless and wasteful spending, thats what needs to be cut in order to know how much tax needs to be increased.

Frank Black

Freddie59 wrote: »

How many times do you need it explained?

* We are borrowing €400m a week for "day to day" expenses,

I think I know what the 59 in your username stands for.

Frank Black

Hijpo wrote: »

this thread is getting stupid now, the "Yes" side keep asking the same questions that the "No" side have already answered with no valid contradicting points being made by the Yes side at all.

Theres a problem with needless and wasteful spending, thats what needs to be cut in order to know how much tax needs to be increased.

I'll give you a clue - it's more than €100 per year.

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

this thread is getting stupid now, the "Yes" side keep asking the same questions that the "No" side have already answered with no valid contradicting points being made by the Yes side at all.

I think you have this the wrong way around.

It is not for the yes side, or anyone else, to convince anyone that they should abide by the laws of the land in a democracy. The onus surely is on those who would break the law to make the argument to justify this (The fact that this seemingly self evident point seems to be lost on so many probably helps explains why we have so many tribunals).

And IMO, the no side have failed to make any substantial argument that had not being soundly rebutted.

They argue that there is an element of unfairness to the charge, but have no answer when it is pointed out that there is an element of unfairness in almost every tax we are obliged to pay.

They argue that that there is a fundamental reason not to have a tax/charge on people’s homes but cannot give an adequate explanation as to why most other countries do not see this difficulty.

The argue that there are many examples of waste in government / LA spending but ignore the fact that wastage is addressed by focusing on how money is spent, not on how it is raised.

They argue that the people cannot afford it, ignoring the fact that the people will be footing the bill, one way or another.

They argue that they have already paid stamp duty on their homes and should pay more tax on the same thing but ignore the fact that this is exactly what happens with motor tax and other goods.

The argue that the money goes to pay off our debts but seemingly fail to appreciate that the only way to avoid this was to vote for parties in the general election who gave clear commitments that they would not do so, and FG / Lab were most definitely not in that category.

In short, I think quite a few on the no side simply responded emotively rather than rationally to the HHC. They are protesting against this charge because they can, not because there is something uniquely and fundamentally wrong with is.

hondasam

lugha wrote: »

I think you have this the wrong way around.

It is not for the yes side, or anyone else, to convince anyone that they should abide by the laws of the land in a democracy. The onus surely is on those who would break the law to make the argument to justify this (The fact that this seemingly self evident point seems to be lost on so many probably helps explains why we have so many tribunals).

And IMO, the no side have failed to make any substantial argument that had not being soundly rebutted.

They argue that there is an element of unfairness to the charge, but have no answer when it is pointed out that there is an element of unfairness in almost every tax we are obliged to pay.

They argue that that there is a fundamental reason not to have a tax/charge on people’s homes but cannot give an adequate explanation as to why most other countries do not see this difficulty.

The argue that there are many examples of waste in government / LA spending but ignore the fact that wastage is addressed by focusing on how money is spent, not on how it is raised.

They argue that the people cannot afford it, ignoring the fact that the people will be footing the bill, one way or another.

They argue that they have already paid stamp duty on their homes and should pay more tax on the same thing but ignore the fact that this is exactly what happens with motor tax and other goods.

The argue that the money goes to pay off our debts but seemingly fail to appreciate that the only way to avoid this was to vote for parties in the general election who gave clear commitments that they would not do so, and FG / Lab were most definitely not in that category.

In short, I think quite a few on the no side simply responded emotively rather than rationally to the HHC. They are protesting against this charge because they can, not because there is something uniquely and fundamentally wrong with is.

IYO.

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

I think you have this the wrong way around.

It is not for the yes side, or anyone else, to convince anyone that they should abide by the laws of the land in a democracy. The onus surely is on those who would break the law to make the argument to justify this (The fact that this seemingly self evident point seems to be lost on so many probably helps explains why we have so many tribunals).

And IMO, the no side have failed to make any substantial argument that had not being soundly rebutted.

They argue that there is an element of unfairness to the charge, but have no answer when it is pointed out that there is an element of unfairness in almost every tax we are obliged to pay.

They argue that that there is a fundamental reason not to have a tax/charge on people’s homes but cannot give an adequate explanation as to why most other countries do not see this difficulty.

The argue that there are many examples of waste in government / LA spending but ignore the fact that wastage is addressed by focusing on how money is spent, not on how it is raised.

They argue that the people cannot afford it, ignoring the fact that the people will be footing the bill, one way or another.

They argue that they have already paid stamp duty on their homes and should pay more tax on the same thing but ignore the fact that this is exactly what happens with motor tax and other goods.

The argue that the money goes to pay off our debts but seemingly fail to appreciate that the only way to avoid this was to vote for parties in the general election who gave clear commitments that they would not do so, and FG / Lab were most definitely not in that category.

In short, I think quite a few on the no side simply responded emotively rather than rationally to the HHC. They are protesting against this charge because they can, not because there is something uniquely and fundamentally wrong with is.

Then why were there cries from the Yes camp of the No camp being unpatriotic and calculations of how much it will cost them in the end etc?
Any points that the Yes side have put forward, the No side have contradicted with clear evidence of corruption, figure fiddeling, lies and extreme wastes of money to name but a few, any single one of those is reason enough NOT to supply them with more money until the government get there **** together.

Alot of people think other taxes are unfair but still pay them, this simply reinforces the point that we do pay our way and are not out to disrupt the running of the country. Paying tax on tax like paying VAT on Carbon tax is wrong but we still pay it just like VRT.

I could disect your post further but its all been coverd in previous posts.
Your post has proved my point that the "Yes" camp are back asking the same questions and making the same points that have already been dealt with and answered by the "no" camp.

Im wasting my time checking this thread for any new or credible arguments from the Yes side.

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

lugha wrote: »

I think you have this the wrong way around.

It is not for the yes side, or anyone else, to convince anyone that they should abide by the laws of the land in a democracy. The onus surely is on those who would break the law to make the argument to justify this (The fact that this seemingly self evident point seems to be lost on so many probably helps explains why we have so many tribunals).

And IMO, the no side have failed to make any substantial argument that had not being soundly rebutted.

They argue that there is an element of unfairness to the charge, but have no answer when it is pointed out that there is an element of unfairness in almost every tax we are obliged to pay.

They argue that that there is a fundamental reason not to have a tax/charge on people’s homes but cannot give an adequate explanation as to why most other countries do not see this difficulty.

The argue that there are many examples of waste in government / LA spending but ignore the fact that wastage is addressed by focusing on how money is spent, not on how it is raised.

They argue that the people cannot afford it, ignoring the fact that the people will be footing the bill, one way or another.

They argue that they have already paid stamp duty on their homes and should pay more tax on the same thing but ignore the fact that this is exactly what happens with motor tax and other goods.

The argue that the money goes to pay off our debts but seemingly fail to appreciate that the only way to avoid this was to vote for parties in the general election who gave clear commitments that they would not do so, and FG / Lab were most definitely not in that category.

In short, I think quite a few on the no side simply responded emotively rather than rationally to the HHC. They are protesting against this charge because they can, not because there is something uniquely and fundamentally wrong with is.

Then why were there cries from the Yes camp of the No camp being unpatriotic and calculations of how much it will cost them in the end etc?
Any points that the Yes side have put forward, the No side have contradicted with clear evidence of corruption, figure fiddeling, lies and extreme wastes of money to name but a few, any single one of those is reason enough NOT to supply them with more money until the government get there **** together.

Alot of people think other taxes are unfair but still pay them, this simply reinforces the point that we do pay our way and are not out to disrupt the running of the country. Paying tax on tax like paying VAT on Carbon tax is wrong but we still pay it just like VRT.

I could disect your post further but its all been coverd in previous posts.
Your post has proved my point that the "Yes" camp are back asking the same questions and making the same points that have already been dealt with and answered by the "no" camp.

Im wasting my time checking this thread for any new or credible arguments from the Yes side.

It's very simple really you should pay the charge because it's the law of the country not to pay it is illegal. What other argument is there?

bgrizzley

Its all moot now anyway, half(ish) the people in the country have taken a stand, countless more are unhappy at having being cooerced into a charge they didnt want and time is running out for the government.
Tick, tock. Tick, tock......

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

Its all moot now anyway, half(ish) the people in the country have taken a stand, countless more are unhappy at having being cooerced into a charge they didnt want and time is running out for the government.
Tick, tock. Tick, tock......

What happens when the clock reaches zero