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

Ghandee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

France has a property tax. And a wealth tax as well.

http://www.french-property.com/guides/france/finance-taxation/taxation/local-property-taxes/

The French get services provided for their service charge.

We won't.

Frank Black

Syllabus wrote: »

here's my arguement.

paying now leads the way to a larger and ever increasing charge down the line. regardless of what the gov. says the tax is for it is DEFINITELY going to pay the debts incurred by the reckless bankers and the previous gov. why should i have to pay for something i had nothing to do with. why should anyone??

Spoken like a 5 year old.

Do you stamp your feet and storm off after declairing 'it's just not fair'?

Best to leave the complex economic matters to the grown-ups you know.

Syllabus

black francis wrote: »

Spoken like a 5 year old.

Do you stamp your feet and storm off after declairing 'it's just not fair'?

Best to leave the complex economic matters to the grown-ups you know.

so basically, a valid point which you don't want to acknowledge as such as it would dilute your argument is a 5 yr olds opinion


i NEVER declared 'it's just not fair'

i ASKED a question - why should i have to pay?? do you have an answer?

what are your specific qualifications to comment on the complex economic matters?
typical condescending Indo reader. any opinion that isnt your opinion or, as is usually the case, an opinion you gleaned from the people you consider to be your peers is a wrong opinion.

if i decided to gamble a load of money i was holding for a group of people and lost it all would you give me a few quid to replace it




imo

Syllabus

dxhound2005 wrote: »

France has a property tax. And a wealth tax as well.

http://www.french-property.com/guides/france/finance-taxation/taxation/local-property-taxes/

i like the idea of a wealth tax:)

althought i'd say the vast majority of the yes camp on here would vote no to that particular tax:rolleyes:

tayto lover

black francis wrote: »

Spoken like a 5 year old.

Do you stamp your feet and storm off after declairing 'it's just not fair'?

Best to leave the complex economic matters to the grown-ups you know.

We did that before and look what happened

slapstick

black francis wrote: »

Spoken like a 5 year old.

Do you stamp your feet and storm off after declairing 'it's just not fair'?

Best to leave the complex economic matters to the grown-ups you know.

you can hear posts ? pretty funny you trying to come across all grown up and intelligent with spelling like "declairing"

gerryo777

black francis wrote: »

Best to leave the complex economic matters to the grown-ups you know.

Like we did for the last 15-20 years???

gerryo777

slapstick wrote: »

you can hear posts ? pretty funny you trying to come across all grown up and intelligent with spelling like "declairing"

Who's clair?

Syllabus

slapstick wrote: »

you can hear posts ? pretty funny you trying to come across all grown up and intelligent with spelling like "declairing"

lets not desend to a level that allows him to justifiably condesend to us by commenting on spelling and grammer.

lugha

Syllabus wrote: »

you're quite the condescending keyboard warrior aren't you.

Well when you make such a claim you rather undermine it when in the same post you say:

Syllabus wrote: »

your stance of 'pay the charge help the country' makes you the type of weak minded person the gov. were banking on

The sniping and swiping is being dished out by both sides here. It seems to be that it is just the no side who get miffed when they are on the receiving end.

And I wasn’t intending to be condescending. I genuinely do not think that any of the no side currently posting are making any real attempt to address the arguments put by the yes side. I really do think that they have not thought out their arguments beyond the rather infantile notion that we should stop “them” (the government) taking money of “us”. That is certainly the impression their posts gives with their chatter about bananas and the like. Maybe they do have good arguments but they are making a very poor effort at presenting them.

Syllabus wrote: »

regardless of what the gov. says the tax is for it is DEFINITELY going to pay the debts incurred by the reckless bankers and the previous gov.

We elected a government who are broadly committed to following the same line as the previous administration. We DID have a choice and we broadly knew what they were doing to do. They are committed to paying these debts. This is what they will do, one way or another, HHC or not. And they were the choice of the people.

The only way we could have avoided paying those debts would be to have put the ULA+ SF in power. Of course there would then be no IMF “help” and we would be considerably worse off than we are now.

As to what will be done with the money, well my view on this is that this is entirely irrelevant.

If they do take the money from this charge and use all of it to pay our debts, in spite of what the act says, then there will be €160 million less in other taxes that the government will otherwise have to raise.

If they ring fence the money, they WILL have to raise the €160 million in either taxes or cut. The net effect on the average citizen is the same.

It amounts to EXACTLY the same thing. It is truly depressing that so few can see what is a blindingly obvious reality to me.

You will not stop any debts being paid to anyone by opposing this charge. I would argue that you will make things worse because a weakened government will be less likely to take on the much more important task of dealing with the public sector.

Syllabus wrote: »

why should i have to pay for something i had nothing to do with. why should anyone??

Morally you shouldn’t. Almost nobody says you should. But we have to deal with reality. Do you think we would have being “helped” by the IMF + ECB if we did not deal with them on their terms?

Syllabus wrote: »

your stance of 'pay the charge help the country' makes you the type of weak minded person the gov. were banking on

Well that is your view. My view is that cutting of your nose can be tempting. But there is a downside down the line. This juvenile notion of “standing up to the government” has a simplistic appeal but some of us see merit in looking a few steps ahead.

Paying the charge will in itself only make a tiny difference. But there is not a single credible reason to single out this particular austere measure (which indirectly it is) to oppose but there are very good reasons why we do not want to have a weak government

Syllabus

lugha wrote: »

Well when you make such a claim you rather undermine it when in the same post you say:



The sniping and swiping is being dished out by both sides here. It seems to be that it is just the no side who get miffed when they are on the receiving end.

And I wasn’t intending to be condescending. I genuinely do not think that any of the no side currently posting are making any real attempt to address the arguments put by the yes side. I really do think that they have not thought out their arguments beyond the rather infantile notion that we should stop “them” (the government) taking money of “us”. That is certainly the impression their posts gives with their chatter about bananas and the like. Maybe they do have good arguments but they are making a very poor effort at presenting them.



We elected a government who are broadly committed to following the same line as the previous administration. We DID have a choice and we broadly knew what they were doing to do. They are committed to paying these debts. This is what they will do, one way or another, HHC or not. And they were the choice of the people.

The only way we could have avoided paying those debts would be to have put the ULA+ SF in power. Of course there would then be no IMF “help” and we would be considerably worse off than we are now.

As to what will be done with the money, well my view on this is that this is entirely irrelevant.

If they do take the money from this charge and use all of it to pay our debts, in spite of what the act says, then there will be €160 million less in other taxes that the government will otherwise have to raise.

If they ring fence the money, they WILL have to raise the €160 million in either taxes or cut. The net effect on the average citizen is the same.

It amounts to EXACTLY the same thing. It is truly depressing that so few can see what is a blindingly obvious reality to me.

You will not stop any debts being paid to anyone by opposing this charge. I would argue that you will make things worse because a weakened government will be less likely to take on the much more important task of dealing with the public sector.




Morally you shouldn’t. Almost nobody says you should. But we have to deal with reality. Do you think we would have being “helped” by the IMF + ECB if we did not deal with them on their terms?



Well that is your view. My view is that cutting of your nose can be tempting. But there is a downside down the line. This juvenile notion of “standing up to the government” has a simplistic appeal but some of us see merit in looking a few steps ahead.

Paying the charge will in itself only make a tiny difference. But there is not a single credible reason to single out this particular austere measure (which indirectly it is) to oppose but there are very good reasons why we do not want to have a weak government

Briefly -

being weak of mind and being condescending are not mutually exclusive afaik. you can be condescending in tone and completely wrong/ignorant at the same time

from what i've read in my brief time in this thread, posters on the no side have repeatedly stated, when it has been brought into question, that they have made strong, coherant, valid arguments for their side which, again, from what i've read has been convenietly ignored by the yes side.

i did not vote for this gov.

what the charge is to be spent is totally relevant and is one of the main issues the no side has with the charge afaik. if it is indeed to be spent on public areas etc and people in LA have access and full use of these areas then they should be paying for the benefit.
if it is going to be spent paying debts then i believe the gov. should have been upfront about it and took a one off % of all PAYE earners wages and not tried piss poorly to hide behind a HHC

my reason for singling out this tax/charge is based on the unjustified(certainly the amount anyway - imo) stamp duty i paid when buying my house; the USC; the public sector levy and it basically being the veritable straw.
the gov. get enough money out of us, the common worker, between tax on fuel, energy, PPE and so on. they pay themselves huge wages, get all sorts of benefits, are exempt from all sorts of things that their huge wage could easliy afford them. why give them more money
they have proven they cant run a country in the years gone by and i cant see that changing.

i'm sure i'll get a bashing for what i've just said but its a vaild point.

the money, or at least a large part of it could be raised solely by cutting 20% of all elected officals and TDs pay, cutting the amount of embassies we hold world wide, cutting the dole and other SW payments, particulary to foreign nationals and long term unemployed(not wanting to work as opposed to not able to work), abolishing once and for all reckless spending (E-Voting for example; i know, yawn)

i will probably end up having to pay the charge but imo i'd rather be ass f%$ked against my will then bend over and present the lube with a smile

dr.bollocko

black francis wrote: »

Spoken like a 5 year old.

Do you stamp your feet and storm off after declairing 'it's just not fair'?

Best to leave the complex economic matters to the grown-ups you know.

slapstick wrote: »

you can hear posts ? pretty funny you trying to come across all grown up and intelligent with spelling like "declairing"

gerryo777 wrote: »

Who's clair?

Mod:

Let's leave this kind of stuff out from here on please.

lugha

Syllabus wrote: »

from what i've read in my brief time in this thread, posters on the no side have repeatedly stated, when it has been brought into question, that they have made strong, coherant, valid arguments for their side which, again, from what i've read has been convenietly ignored by the yes side.

Well I have summarised here what I think are the main arguments from the no side and what I think is wrong with them. (The most coherent response I got was from someone who most helpfully pointed out that the opinion I expressed in the post was, er, my opinion :rolleyes:)

Would you care to outline specifically why I have not addresses these arguments, or if you think I have misrepresented the “no” side?

Syllabus wrote: »

i did not vote for this gov.

Irrelevant. We live in a democracy. We accept the will of the people, even if we don’t agree with them.

Syllabus wrote: »

what the charge is to be spent is totally relevant ….

But you don’t make any attempt to refute my argument where I say it isn’t relevant? I essentially suggest that the notion of ring fencing monies for a particular purpose is an illusion. If you see a flaw in my interpretation then point it out. It is wholly unsatisfactory in any debate to present a counter argument that completely ignores the argument it counters!

Syllabus wrote: »

my reason for singling out this tax/charge is based on the unjustified(certainly the amount anyway - imo) stamp duty i paid when buying my house; the USC; the public sector levy and it basically being the veritable straw.

Well, unfortunately it will be far from the last straw. I still say people opposed this one because they could, not because it stands heads and shoulder above other taxes/charges in the unfairness stakes.

Syllabus wrote: »

the gov. get enough money out of us, the common worker, between tax on fuel, energy, PPE and so on.

This is what I find, with respect, to be the rather juvenile attitude taken by some. The government are not some colonial power plundering the natives for their personal wealth. They do not “get money out of us”. The are democratically elected to run the country and manage the economy. There is still a massive multi-billion euro deficit (bank debts are a relatively small portion of this BTW) which simply must be bridged. This will be done by some balance of introducing new / higher taxes and making extensive cuts to public spending (including some of the ones you mention). We cannot keep borrowing money indefinitely to make up the shortfall. Ask Freddie? And it really is juvenile to interpret new taxes introduced by the government to close this deficit as “them” out to get “us”

Syllabus wrote: »

they pay themselves huge wages, get all sorts of benefits, are exempt from all sorts of things that their huge wage could easliy afford them. why give them more money

Once again, we are not giving “them” money. They are managing the economy. The effect of reeling in wages / benefits for politicians will have close to zero effect on our deficit. There may be a principled argument from equity or leading by example or moral boasting or whatever. But it will have no meaningful effect .

Syllabus wrote: »

they have proven they cant run a country in the years gone by and i cant see that changing.

“They” have not been in power since before the boom, never mind the bust!

bgrizzley

Irrelevant. We live in a democracy. We accept the will of the people, even if we don’t agree with them.

Lisbon treaty, nice treaty


Well, unfortunately it will be far from the last straw. I still say people opposed this one because they could, not because it stands heads and shoulder above other taxes/charges in the unfairness stakes.

its possible to evade most taxes in this country, and people do so everyday quietly. the people standing against this tax are doing it loud and clear and not for greed, its only E2 per week



This is what I find, with respect, to be the rather juvenile attitude taken by some. The government are not some colonial power plundering the natives for their personal wealth.

there has been plenty of dodgy deals by corrupt politicians in this country that i would think qualify as plundering the natives.


Once again, we are not giving “them” money. They are managing the economy. The effect of reeling in wages / benefits for politicians will have close to zero effect on our deficit. There may be a principled argument from equity or leading by example or moral boasting or whatever. But it will have no meaningful effect .

it may have a very meaningful effect on the mind of the nation. just because its a small amount of money in the greater scheme of things doesnt mean that its a free-for-all payroll gravy train. (Phil is exempt from this statement, i understand he had personal circumstances that meant he couldnt take a pay cut:))



“They” have not been in power since before the boom, never mind the bust!

they are all the same Lugha, you know that. even Alastair agreed they lied to get in. its only a twist of fate that we havent a Fine Fail government today, with Fine Gael in the corner with the dunces hat

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

Lisbon treaty, nice treaty

I don’t accept that re-running those treaties were undemocratic. You could argue that it arrogant or disrespectful for the government to have done so, but ultimately the people voted for them. Hence the charge of undemocratic fails. Anyway, there is little point in opening up a new front on an unrelated topic, unless you genuinely reject my assertion that the people should accept the government the people elect, even if they did not vote for them?

bgrizzley wrote: »

its possible to evade most taxes in this country, and people do so everyday quietly. the people standing against this tax are doing it loud and clear and not for greed, its only E2 per week

Again, we have the no side insisting that all of those who did not pay, and quite a few that did (because of this imaginary bullying) are principled opponents of this charge. And I accept that many of them are (I don’t think they have a credible case, but I accept that they themselves genuinely think they do). But all of them, principled objectors?

Well lets see. As you rightly point out, there are a sizable proportion of the population who are freeloaders and will always look to avoid paying their share. Let’s say it is 15% of the people (feel free to offer your own estimate, if you disagree).

Now, where do you suppose those 15% are on the HHC issue? Do you think they have repented of their freeloading ways and paid up? Or is it not more likely that they are in the ranks of the “did not pay”, quite possible pretending that they have a principled objection?

And there is another cohort amongst the no side whose motives might not be so pure. The old FF voter, who voted FF ever and always (up to 2011). Now they may have desisted from voting FF (maybe!) but they have not changed so much that they would not pass up an opportunity to kick FG! Hard to estimate the number of old FF voters, but at a guess I would say 30%.

So if 15 + 30 = 45% of the 50% on the no side then that leaves only 5% who truly are principled objectors.

I’m (half!) joking of course. But it is daft to dismiss the reality that there is a sizable chunk on the no side who are not quite as principled as you suggest. What would your estimate be?

bgrizzley wrote: »

it may have a very meaningful effect on the mind of the nation.

Which is exactly what I said! But it will do little for the budget deficit.

bgrizzley wrote: »

Phil is exempt from this statement, i understand he had personal circumstances that meant he couldnt take a pay cut

Again, this is OT IMO but briefly, I myself did not voluntarily take a pay cut and request that the monies be returned to the exchequer to do my bit. (Like many, Phil included, I did had some involuntarily taken!).

Of course I could never afford what Phil probably could afford but I might have swung a nominal few hundred a year at a push. But I didn’t so I won’t be hypocritical and criticize a fellow citizen for not doing something that I was unprepared to do myself. May I ask, how much of a voluntary pay cut did you take to aid the state?

bgrizzley wrote: »

they are all the same Lugha

It is close to impossible to identify the afore-mentioned old FF voter. Granted, one or two make is fairly obvious but most won’t admit it. But there are a few indicators. And the mantra that “they are all the same” is one such tell. Something you would like to share with us?

Cesium Clock

lugha wrote: »

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. .

this 'law' you speak of is a tax imposed upon us by a private bank the IMF.

I dont remember voting for them in the last democratic election.

lugha

Cesium Clock wrote: »

this 'law' you speak of is a tax imposed upon us by a private bank the IMF.

I dont remember voting for them in the last democratic election.

We overwhelmingly endorsed two political parties who were quite clear in their commitment to engaging with the IMF / ECB, which of course was substantially on their terms.

Out of curiosity, what course of action would you propose? Are you one of those of the view that we should tell the IMF to f**k off?

nice_very

Hogans AUDI "attacked"

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/protesters-attack-hogans-car-over-household-charge-3078890.html

With a nod to the security presence, the minister said during his speech: "I didn't think I'd ever have that many people looking after me. It's great to see so many people can't get in."

what a smug git

Cesium Clock

lugha wrote: »

We overwhelmingly endorsed two political parties who were quite clear in their commitment to engaging with the IMF / ECB, which of course was substantially on their terms.

Out of curiosity, what course of action would you propose? Are you one of those of the view that we should tell the IMF to f**k off?

we had no choice as no party had the balls to stand up to the IMF, but of course one lied about doing it, and continues to change unsecured debt into soveriegn debt for us all to enjoy.

Iceland and Brazil told the IMF to f**k off as you put it and they are doing nicely now,

as it stands the debts Ireland has now will never be repaid and we will continue to be slaves to the interest on the debt,

Frank Black

Cesium Clock wrote: »

Iceland and Brazil told the IMF to f**k off as you put it and they are doing nicely now,

as it stands the debts Ireland has now will never be repaid and we will continue to be slaves to the interest on the debt,

Iceland are doing nicely?

Biggest load of ****e yet posted - educate yourself man on the drop in living standards experienced in Iceland befroe you post such ill-informed rubbish.

lugha

Cesium Clock wrote: »

we had no choice as no party had the balls to stand up to the IMF, but of course one lied about doing it, and continues to change unsecured debt into soveriegn debt for us all to enjoy.

I was hoping you might have an opinion as to what we would have done about a 20 billion deficit, given that we couldn't borrow money in the conventional way and the IMF / ECB had been sent home? What next?

Gileadi

The arguement of "I wont pay a HHC if it is being used to pay off debt that has nothing to do with me!" is poppycock imo, I don't have any children so can I refuse that any of my PAYE taxes go to schools or teachers that have nothing to do with me.

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

I genuinely do not think that any of the no side currently posting are making any real attempt to address the arguments put by the yes side. I really do think that they have not thought out their arguments beyond the rather infantile notion that we should stop “them” (the government) taking money of “us”. That is certainly the impression their posts gives with their chatter about bananas and the like.

Well that is your view. My view is that cutting of your nose can be tempting. But there is a downside down the line. This juvenile notion of “standing up to the government” has a simplistic appeal but some of us see merit in looking a few steps ahead.

Paying the charge will in itself only make a tiny difference. But there is not a single credible reason to single out this particular austere measure (which indirectly it is) to oppose but there are very good reasons why we do not want to have a weak government

lugha wrote:

It is truly depressing that so few can see what is a blindingly obvious reality to me.

Perhaps being blinded by your self-righteousness, is preventing you from seeing any validity in other peoples points.

I have asked on numerous occasions, why is taxing a persons home the best/only way to raise this money, without reply. You have said numerous times "it's all the same", the money will have to be raised. So will you answer, why does it have to be levied on our homes?

tayto lover

I see poor old Hulk Hogan had to take refuge in a church in Carlow yesterday after those awful Household Tax protesters swarmed around his official car.
He was then shouted at and abused while in the church. What is the country coming to ??

I hope Enda doesn't get a protest letter from the Vatican about the trouble it caused.

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

I have asked on numerous occasions, why is taxing a persons home the best/only way to raise this money, without reply.

It isn’t the best way, it isn’t the only way. Can you quote anyone on the yes side who says that it was?

Slick50 wrote: »

You have said numerous times "it's all the same", the money will have to be raised. So will you answer, why does it have to be levied on our homes?

The exact same question could be asked if motor tax is raised. Why does it have to be on the car? Or if income tax is raised. Why does it have to be on income? Or if a XXXX tax us introduced. Why does it have to be on XXXX? The logical conclusion from that line of thinking is that NO tax or charge or NO cut can be made! Because it does not absolutely have to be on any one particular thing.

The argument anyone opposing any particular tax or charge has to make it why that particular charge or tax should NOT be introduced or raised. And the reply “because it’s my house FFS” is not an argument many of us find convincing.

You could make an argument against every single tax / charge or spending cut, without exception, and a very good one in some cases. What argument against the HHC can not also be made that can not also be made against other taxes or charges? None, IMO.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

It isn’t the best way, it isn’t the only way. Can you quote anyone on the yes side who says that it was?


The exact same question could be asked if motor tax is raised. Why does it have to be on the car? Or if income tax is raised. Why does it have to be on income? Or if a XXXX tax us introduced. Why does it have to be on XXXX? The logical conclusion from that line of thinking is that NO tax or charge or NO cut can be made! Because it does not absolutely have to be on any one particular thing.

The argument anyone opposing any particular tax or charge has to make it why that particular charge or tax should NOT be introduced or raised. And the reply “because it’s my house FFS” is not an argument many of us find convincing.

You could make an argument against every single tax / charge or spending cut, without exception, and a very good one in some cases. What argument against the HHC can not also be made that can not also be made against other taxes or charges? None, IMO.

On cars because cars use the roads which have to be kept in good nick.
Now I look after my own home and services, so why a tax on my home ?
I will say again, I will not pay a tax on my own home. If they rename it I might consider paying it but not a Household Tax.

Ghandee

tayto lover wrote: »

On cars because cars use the roads which have to be kept in good nick.
Now I look after my own home and services, so why a tax on my home ?
I will say again, I will not pay a tax on my own home. If they rename it I might consider paying it but not a Household Tax.

If they renamed it the service charge, and actually provided a 'service' for it (like the service big Phil received in the maintenance of his penthouse in Portugal) then a lot more people in Ireland may, just may, be happy about paying a charge on the house they own.

If the service wasnt up to scratch, we should be allowed to refuse to pay it too.

(Like big Phil refused to pay the one on his penthouse in Portugal)

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

It isn’t the best way, it isn’t the only way. Can you quote anyone on the yes side who says that it was?

If it's not the best or only way, perhaps the government should reconsider, and look for a better way. A lot of the people affected by this tax oppose it. The government should be listening to the people they represent, they are our employees, not our masters.

lugha wrote: »

The exact same question could be asked if motor tax is raised. Why does it have to be on the car? Or if income tax is raised. Why does it have to be on income? Or if a XXXX tax us introduced. Why does it have to be on XXXX? The logical conclusion from that line of thinking is that NO tax or charge or NO cut can be made! Because it does not absolutely have to be on any one particular thing.

Meh. These arguments have all been done to death. None of which justified taxing our homes.

lugha wrote: »

The argument anyone opposing any particular tax or charge has to make it why that particular charge or tax should NOT be introduced or raised. And the reply “because it’s my house FFS” is not an argument many of us find convincing.

It's good enough for me.

lugha wrote: »

You could make an argument against every single tax / charge or spending cut, without exception, and a very good one in some cases. What argument against the HHC can not also be made that can not also be made against other taxes or charges? None, IMO.

None of the other taxes gives the government leverage against my home.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

On cars because cars use the roads which have to be kept in good nick.

Not entirely true.
First some road users do not pay motor tax, hence there is that element of unfairness. But the more substantial unfairness in association with motor tax is that more money than is needed to maintain the roads is collected. So motorists must pay a discriminatory tax, which goes to general exchequer funds, pure and simply because they are motorists, and this tax has nothing to do with road maintenance. Nobody else pays this tax! Why not a campaign of disobedient against this inequality?

tayto lover wrote: »

Now I look after my own home and services

How exactly do look after your own "services"? Did you never use a LA service of any kind, or did you always reimburse the LA when you did?

tayto lover wrote: »

If they rename it I might consider paying it but not a Household Tax.

Would you be happy if they made it explicit in the legislation that monies raised would be ring fenced for LA? :pac:

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

It's good enough for me.

Well if FFS is a good enough argument for you then fair enough.

But you don't want to be getting upset when some of us suggest that we think some of the arguments on the "no" side are not very convincing.