Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] *Poll Reset*
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Again, you come out with the implication that half the people are opposed to this charge and disregard those whose motives are less than principled. And of course in addition to the cohorts I mentioned earlier there is probably a sizable number of people in the “wait and see” category. All in all, the genuine opposition to this tax is IMO, closer to 0 than it is to 50%. We will know eventually when we see the number of people prepared to pay court fines.but when half of the people speak, in whatever manner and for whatever reasons, a wise government would listen to them and rethink their law
Which isn’t to say that a substantial number of people do not like, or want, this tax. But I think you would get much the same opposition to any tax if it needed the cooperation of the people to be introduced. If the register of TV licence holders or the motor tax database were destroyed and the government had to seek cooperation from the people in recompiling them, do you really think they wouldn’t have a similar struggle on their hands as they do with the HHC? People are opposing this charge because they can, not (in most cases) because of any fundamental reasons.
BTW, a spurious comparison has been made between those that are refusing to pay this charge and those that opposed apartheid in SA. Here is another spurious one. If you think it is wise for a government to abandon a plan when half of the population are opposed to it, presumably you would have advised the British government to abandon any plans to introduce equality for nationalists in Northern Ireland, given that more than half the population would have opposed such a move?
Anyway, I don’t think you have addressed my substantial point. If you permit an a la carte attitude to the law for mundane issues such as tax collection, whether it’s a few or a lot who are doing so, then where, and indeed how, do you draw the line? I don’t think anyone on the no side has satisfactorily addresses this. The just say: “well I think this particular law is unfair so I am not going to abide by it”0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Again, you come out with the implication that half the people are opposed to this charge and disregard those whose motives are less than principled. And of course in addition to the cohorts I mentioned earlier there is probably a sizable number of people in the “wait and see” category. All in all, the genuine opposition to this tax is IMO, closer to 0 than it is to 50%. We will know eventually when we see the number of people prepared to pay court fines.
Which isn’t to say that a substantial number of people do not like, or want, this tax. But I think you would get much the same opposition to any tax if it needed the cooperation of the people to be introduced. If the register of TV licence holders or the motor tax database were destroyed and the government had to seek cooperation from the people in recompiling them, do you really think they wouldn’t have a similar struggle on their hands as they do with the HHC? People are opposing this charge because they can, not (in most cases) because of any fundamental reasons.
BTW, a spurious comparison has been made between those that are refusing to pay this charge and those that opposed apartheid in SA. Here is another spurious one. If you think it is wise for a government to abandon a plan when half of the population are opposed to it, presumably you would have advised the British government to abandon any plans to introduce equality for nationalists in Northern Ireland, given that more than half the population would have opposed such a move?
Anyway, I don’t think you have addressed my substantial point. If you permit an a la carte attitude to the law for mundane issues such as tax collection, whether it’s a few or a lot who are doing so, then where, and indeed how, do you draw the line? I don’t think anyone on the no side has satisfactorily addresses this. The just say: “well I think this particular law is unfair so I am not going to abide by it”
The issues in Northern Ireland were caused by a blatant disregard for Human Rights, together with opposing political ideologies.
How does this equate to the Irish people opposing a particular tax, in some cases combined with a (justifiable, imo) demand for accountability from our Government?
Your speculations might have some merit, if people had refused to pay any additional taxes, or accept any paycuts. Since that has not occurred - (apart from on the part of some Government Ministers, ironically) then one has to draw the conclusion that the opposition is to this tax.0 -
-
-
-
Again, you come out with the implication that half the people are opposed to this charge and disregard those whose motives are less than principled. And of course in addition to the cohorts I mentioned earlier there is probably a sizable number of people in the “wait and see” category. All in all, the genuine opposition to this tax is IMO, closer to 0 than it is to 50%. We will know eventually when we see the number of people prepared to pay court fines.
i didnt disregard it, i said whatever their motives, i cant answer for everyone who say no any more than you can answer for all of the yes side.Which isn’t to say that a substantial number of people do not like, or want, this tax. But I think you would get much the same opposition to any tax if it needed the cooperation of the people to be introduced. If the register of TV licence holders or the motor tax database were destroyed and the government had to seek cooperation from the people in recompiling them, do you really think they wouldn’t have a similar struggle on their hands as they do with the HHC? People are opposing this charge because they can, not (in most cases) because of any fundamental reasons.
like i said before you can oppose any tax in this country by not paying it, people do it every day(for greed mainly) this is a E2 pw tax . [/QUOTE]
i didnt make the comparison, and no i wouldnt. i wouldnt advice the british government anything, im not paying their wagesBTW, a spurious comparison has been made between those that are refusing to pay this charge and those that opposed apartheid in SA. Here is another spurious one. If you think it is wise for a government to abandon a plan when half of the population are opposed to it, presumably you would have advised the British government to abandon any plans to introduce equality for nationalists in Northern Ireland, given that more than half the population would have opposed such a move?
Anyway, I don’t think you have addressed my substantial point. If you permit an a la carte attitude to the law for mundane issues such as tax collection, whether it’s a few or a lot who are doing so, then where, and indeed how, do you draw the line? I don’t think anyone on the no side has satisfactorily addresses this. The just say: “well I think this particular law is unfair so I am not going to abide by it”
duly noted, but whats mundane to you seems to be very important to a substantial portion of the population.
if you dont mind me asking Lugha, what would be a tax too far for you? what would be the final straw?0 -
-
But apparently people can pick and choose what laws they want to break though. This is about the household charge and my point was by not paying it your breaking the law and I don't think I can pick and choose what laws I want to abide or what ones I want to ignore because breaking them benefits me.
It's like I break into someone's house and steal from them, then leave them a note saying I chose not to abide by the law that says I can't steal from you because it benefits me and I think it's a stupid law anyway.
Would you write that down on a wee bit of paper and sign it before I shoot you just inside my window 0 -
tayto lover wrote: »But apparently people can pick and choose what laws they want to break though. This is about the household charge and my point was by not paying it your breaking the law and I don't think I can pick and choose what laws I want to abide or what ones I want to ignore because breaking them benefits me.
It's like I break into someone's house and steal from them, then leave them a note saying I chose not to abide by the law that says I can't steal from you because it benefits me and I think it's a stupid law anyway.
Would you write that down on a wee bit of paper and sign it before I shoot you just inside my window
I could shoot you either and just put a footnote down saying I don't believe in that law either!!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The IMF have absolutely so authority whatsoever in Ireland. Ah ya gotta laugh at the sheer naivety of it. And Gerry, the Government may have no choice in taking on the Unions. Much the same was said pre-Thatcher. And look what happened there.
Ruairi Quinn's comments in recent days as much as confirm so:
"Mr Quinn pointed out that almost 80 per cent of the current budget in education was allocated to pay and pensions. This Government had protected education as much as it could, he said. Far greater reductions in the number of public servants were being made in other sectors relative to those in schools. But there were limits on the number of teaching posts we could afford."
Interestingly, these same unions are doing little to get teachers onto the employment ladder, by remaining strangely mute about retired teachers being allowed continue to teach - thus preventing their younger counterparts from being employed. Ah the ole PS gravy train........0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement