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

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

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.

That self-righteousness affecting your vision again? You're still avoiding the question.

Slick50 wrote: »

So will you answer, why does it have to be levied on our homes?

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

That self-righteousness affecting your vision again? You're still avoiding the question.

I have answered your question. If you want to pretend I didn't that's fine.

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

I have answered your question. If you want to pretend I didn't that's fine.

I'd trawl through your posts for it, but I really don't have the time. Any chance you could re-post, even a synopsis?

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

I'd trawl through your posts for it, but I really don't have the time. Any chance you could re-post, even a synopsis?

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.

If you accept the argument "you can raise the tax some other way" then EVERYONE can make the same argument about the particular tax they don't want and it becomes impossible to tax anything. The question is not "why tax it", it is "why exempt it".

Cesium Clock

black francis wrote: »

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.

so they would be better of with the IMF ?

BTW unemployment Iceland = 6.6%
unemployment Ireland = 15% +

Slick50

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.

If you accept the argument "you can raise the tax some other way" then EVERYONE can make the same argument about the particular tax they don't want and it becomes impossible to tax anything. The question is not "why tax it", it is "why exempt it".

Thanks! But we're not going to agree on this.

My opposition to this tax is, it gives the government leverage against my home. That cannot be said of any other tax. And if they think of any other tax that does, I will be vehemently opposed to that too.

I don't agree that people should have to justify their opposition to any new tax. I think it is up to the government to present a valid reason for each and every new piece of legislation they want to introduce, tax or otherwise. They have failed to do that in this case, which is why so many people are still opposed to this one, even amongst those that have paid.

Snakeblood

Slick50 wrote: »

Thanks! But we're not going to agree on this.

My opposition to this tax is, it gives the government leverage against my home. That cannot be said of any other tax. And if they think of any other tax that does, I will be vehemently opposed to that too.

I don't agree that people should have to justify their opposition to any new tax. I think it is up to the government to present a valid reason for each and every new piece of legislation they want to introduce, tax or otherwise. They have failed to do that in this case, which is why so many people are still opposed to this one, even amongst those that have paid.

I think the valid reason is that there's no god damned money anywhere, and most places have a property tax, so what makes us different?

Slick50

Snakeblood wrote: »

I think the valid reason is that there's no god damned money anywhere, and most places have a property tax, so what makes us different?

If there is no god damned money anywhere, how are we meant to pay it? We haven't had a property tax for over thirty years, makes us different.

Snakeblood

Slick50 wrote: »

If there is no god damned money anywhere, how are we meant to pay it? We haven't had a property tax for over thirty years, makes us different.

I dunno if you're wilfully misunderstanding me. The government needs to get money from the populace. I pay about 35% of my gross income in PAYE tax. Tax rates used to be far higher and people used to pay far more as a percentage of their income in PAYE tax. They came down during the bubble because property related income was so high for the government they could afford to reduce the take. Now that property income is gone. The government promised (which they shouldn't have done) that they wouldn't increase income tax, or reduce dole. As a result, the money has to be taken from somewhere.

Your second point is right insofar as it makes us stupid. We should have had one instead of relying on one off Stamp duty for money. Thank Fianna Fail for that I suppose. It's not a reason to not return to a property tax, which is a steady income for the Government that isn't as affected by property booms and busts.

Freddie59

black francis wrote: »

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

Like the Teacher's Unions - or the Public Sector Unions? Very grown-up indeed.

Freddie59

black francis wrote: »

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.

Interesting. Explain further if you will.

Frank Black

Cesium Clock wrote: »

so they would be better of with the IMF ?

BTW unemployment Iceland = 6.6%
unemployment Ireland = 15% +

And what was Iceland's unemployment rate prior to the economic crisis?



I'll answer that for you, it was about 1%.
So their rate of unemployment has increased by more than double ours - try again.

Cesium Clock

yes and ours was 3% thats a five fold increase

Frank Black

Cesium Clock wrote: »

yes and ours was 3% thats a five fold increase

Incorrect.

I'll give you one more chance.

Cesium Clock

its correct and Iceland has 3% growth predicted for this year, Ireland and the IMF have ?

Frank Black

Cesium Clock wrote: »

its correct and Iceland has 3% growth predicted for this year, Ireland and the IMF have ?

Just because you say it's correct does not make it true.

Ireland's unemployment rate was over 4% prior to the economic crisis as measured by Eurostat, unless of course you'd like to post a link to back up your 3% claim.

I await with interest.

Gin Fizz

I think the government were pretty clear from the outset that they would get the money from us one way or another. While I didnt enjoy paying it I wanted to avoid penalties which would impose more financial burden on me

Cesium Clock

black francis wrote: »

Just because you say it's correct does not make it true.

Ireland's unemployment rate was over 4% prior to the economic crisis as measured by Eurostat, unless of course you'd like to post a link to back up your 3% claim.

I await with interest.

waffle you still have not explained or answered why you think Iceland are not doing well without the IMF. as compared to Ireland and the IMF.

Frank Black

Cesium Clock wrote: »

waffle you still have not explained or answered why you think Iceland are not doing well without the IMF. as compared to Ireland and the IMF.

Let's see either an admission you were talking bollox about unemployment rates or a back up to your claim before engaging further.

Otherwise I'll have to assume you're a spoofer, and I haven't the time to waste discussing the matter with you further.

Cesium Clock

black francis wrote: »

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.

two pages back spoofy

Cesium Clock

and answer post #2773

Frank Black

Cesium Clock wrote: »

two pages back spoofy

Actually you were the one who initially raised the example of Iceland as a shining example of telling the IMF to **** off.

A claim you've been unable to back up in any way.

Keep on spoofing.

Freddie59

black francis wrote: »

Actually you were the one who initially raised the example of Iceland as a shining example of telling the IMF to **** off.

A claim you've been unable to back up in any way.

Keep on spoofing.

Francis, the more this thread has progressed the more you have been throwing insults at people. Facts are facts, particularly regarding the economic fiasco going on around us. 3% / 4% - does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

Frank Black

Freddie59 wrote: »

Francis, the more this thread has progressed the more you have been throwing insults at people. Facts are facts, particularly regarding the economic fiasco going on around us. 3% / 4% - does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

Yes, the facts are irrelevant.:rolleyes:

Freddie59

black francis wrote: »

Yes, the facts are irrelevant.:rolleyes:

Like the €400m we're borrowing every week.....which you regularly choose to ignore?:rolleyes:

Cesium Clock

Five years of a pure neo-liberal regime had made Iceland, (population 320 thousand, no army), one of the richest countries in the world. In 2003 all the country’s banks were privatized, and in an effort to attract foreign investors, they offered on-line banking whose minimal costs allowed them to offer relatively high rates of return. The accounts, called IceSave, attracted many English and Dutch small investors. But as investments grew, so did the banks’ foreign debt. In 2003 Iceland’s debt was equal to 200 times its GNP, but in 2007, it was 900 percent. The 2008 world financial crisis was the coup de grace. The three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir, went belly up and were nationalized, while the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro. At the end of the year Iceland declared bankruptcy.

Contrary to what could be expected, the crisis resulted in Icelanders recovering their sovereign rights, through a process of direct participatory democracy that eventually led to a new Constitution. But only after much pain.

Geir Haarde, the Prime Minister of a Social Democratic coalition government, negotiated a two million one hundred thousand dollar loan, to which the Nordic countries added another two and a half million. But the foreign financial community pressured Iceland to impose drastic measures. The FMI and the European Union wanted to take over its debt, claiming this was the only way for the country to pay back Holland and Great Britain, who had promised to reimburse their citizens.

Protests and riots continued, eventually forcing the government to resign. Elections were brought forward to April 2009, resulting in a left-wing coalition which condemned the neoliberal economic system, but immediately gave in to its demands that Iceland pay off a total of three and a half million Euros. This required each Icelandic citizen to pay 100 Euros a month (or about $130) for fifteen years, at 5.5% interest, to pay off a debt incurred by private parties vis a vis other private parties. It was the straw that broke the reindeer’s back.

What happened next was extraordinary. The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.

Of course the international community only increased the pressure on Iceland. Great Britain and Holland threatened dire reprisals that would isolate the country. As Icelanders went to vote, foreign bankers threatened to block any aid from the IMF. The British government threatened to freeze Icelander savings and checking accounts. As Grimsson said: “We were told that if we refused the international community’s conditions, we would become the Cuba of the North. But if we had accepted, we would have become the Haiti of the North.” (How many times have I written that when Cubans see the dire state of their neighbor, Haiti, they count themselves lucky.)

In the March 2010 referendum, 93% voted against repayment of the debt. The IMF immediately froze its loan. But the revolution (though not televised in the United States), would not be intimidated. With the support of a furious citizenry, the government launched civil and penal investigations into those responsible for the financial crisis. Interpol put out an international arrest warrant for the ex-president of Kaupthing, Sigurdur Einarsson, as the other bankers implicated in the crash fled the country.

But Icelanders didn’t stop there: they decided to draft a new constitution that would free the country from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money. (The one in use had been written when Iceland gained its independence from Denmark, in 1918, the only difference with the Danish constitution being that the word ‘president’ replaced the word ‘king’.)

To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape. The constitution that eventually emerges from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections.

Some readers will remember that Iceland’s ninth century agrarian collapse was featured in Jared Diamond’s book by the same name. Today, that country is recovering from its financial collapse in ways just the opposite of those generally considered unavoidable, as confirmed yesterday by the new head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde to Fareed Zakaria. The people of Greece have been told that the privatization of their public sector is the only solution. And those of Italy, Spain and Portugal are facing the same threat.

They should look to Iceland. Refusing to bow to foreign interests, that small country stated loud and clear that the people are sovereign.

Frank Black

Cesium Clock wrote: »

Five years of a pure neo-liberal regime had made Iceland, (population 320 thousand, no army), one of the richest countries in the world. In 2003 all the country’s banks were privatized, and in an effort to attract foreign investors, they offered on-line banking whose minimal costs allowed them to offer relatively high rates of return. The accounts, called IceSave, attracted many English and Dutch small investors. But as investments grew, so did the banks’ foreign debt. In 2003 Iceland’s debt was equal to 200 times its GNP, but in 2007, it was 900 percent. The 2008 world financial crisis was the coup de grace. The three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir, went belly up and were nationalized, while the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro. At the end of the year Iceland declared bankruptcy.

Contrary to what could be expected, the crisis resulted in Icelanders recovering their sovereign rights, through a process of direct participatory democracy that eventually led to a new Constitution. But only after much pain.

Geir Haarde, the Prime Minister of a Social Democratic coalition government, negotiated a two million one hundred thousand dollar loan, to which the Nordic countries added another two and a half million. But the foreign financial community pressured Iceland to impose drastic measures. The FMI and the European Union wanted to take over its debt, claiming this was the only way for the country to pay back Holland and Great Britain, who had promised to reimburse their citizens.

Protests and riots continued, eventually forcing the government to resign. Elections were brought forward to April 2009, resulting in a left-wing coalition which condemned the neoliberal economic system, but immediately gave in to its demands that Iceland pay off a total of three and a half million Euros. This required each Icelandic citizen to pay 100 Euros a month (or about $130) for fifteen years, at 5.5% interest, to pay off a debt incurred by private parties vis a vis other private parties. It was the straw that broke the reindeer’s back.

What happened next was extraordinary. The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.

Of course the international community only increased the pressure on Iceland. Great Britain and Holland threatened dire reprisals that would isolate the country. As Icelanders went to vote, foreign bankers threatened to block any aid from the IMF. The British government threatened to freeze Icelander savings and checking accounts. As Grimsson said: “We were told that if we refused the international community’s conditions, we would become the Cuba of the North. But if we had accepted, we would have become the Haiti of the North.” (How many times have I written that when Cubans see the dire state of their neighbor, Haiti, they count themselves lucky.)

In the March 2010 referendum, 93% voted against repayment of the debt. The IMF immediately froze its loan. But the revolution (though not televised in the United States), would not be intimidated. With the support of a furious citizenry, the government launched civil and penal investigations into those responsible for the financial crisis. Interpol put out an international arrest warrant for the ex-president of Kaupthing, Sigurdur Einarsson, as the other bankers implicated in the crash fled the country.

But Icelanders didn’t stop there: they decided to draft a new constitution that would free the country from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money. (The one in use had been written when Iceland gained its independence from Denmark, in 1918, the only difference with the Danish constitution being that the word ‘president’ replaced the word ‘king’.)

To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape. The constitution that eventually emerges from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections.

Some readers will remember that Iceland’s ninth century agrarian collapse was featured in Jared Diamond’s book by the same name. Today, that country is recovering from its financial collapse in ways just the opposite of those generally considered unavoidable, as confirmed yesterday by the new head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde to Fareed Zakaria. The people of Greece have been told that the privatization of their public sector is the only solution. And those of Italy, Spain and Portugal are facing the same threat.

They should look to Iceland. Refusing to bow to foreign interests, that small country stated loud and clear that the people are sovereign.

Sounds like a bs opinion piece by the Shinners.

(un)Surprisingly light on anything which demonstrates Iceland are better off financially having told the IMF to **** off.

Freddie59

Cesium Clock wrote: »

They should look to Iceland. Refusing to bow to foreign interests, that small country stated loud and clear that the people are sovereign.

Indeed. At least they were allowed to decide for themselves democratically.

Frank Black

Freddie59 wrote: »

Like the €400m we're borrowing every week.....which you regularly choose to ignore?:rolleyes:

Freddie, Freddie, Freddie.

How is recognising the need for the State to raise additional funds through taxation choosing to ignore the problem?
Quite the opposite I would say.

I merely regularly slag you off for making the same point every second post.

Freddie59

black francis wrote: »

Freddie, Freddie, Freddie.

How is recognising the need for the State to raise additional funds through taxation choosing to ignore the problem?
Quite the opposite I would say.

I merely regularly slag you off for making the same point every second post.

Ya see Francis, this is at the root of the entire problem. And much as people rabbit on about everything else, it all ultimately comes down to it. If the state wants Private sector workers to fund this through extra taxation, then the PS/CS must swallow the bitter pill of wage/job cuts. Only then can it be deemed "fair and equitable".