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

Freddie59

black francis wrote: »

I think he asked you a straighforward question.

You going to answer it or keep trying to deflect?

And he got a straight answer. Which is more than I've gotten from you and your Public Sector buddies. Predictable really.

Freddie59

lugha wrote: »

You know, our side. The tax-loving, no balls, no spine, pro-discrimination, scare mongering, bullying, government shill (insert the rest yourself) side?

Wow! Admitting it to yourself is the first step in reconciliation Lugha!;):D

Bullseye1

lugha wrote: »

You know, our side. The tax-loving, no balls, no spine, pro-discrimination, scare mongering, bullying, government shill (insert the rest yourself) side?

If you care to look back at all my posts on this thread I've never told people to pay or not pay. I'm not interested in bullying people either way. But I do not believe this €100 is neither going to maintain or improve services which are generally poor depending on where you live.

FG/Labour has abandoned the domestic economy in favour of exports. Their biggest export is their own people. A great way to reduce the live register.

Frank Black

Freddie59 wrote: »

And he got a straight answer. Which is more than I've gotten from you and your Public Sector buddies. Predictable really.

He certainly did, if only by inference.

You're not very comfortable if you have to move outside your safe zone of repeating the same point, are you?

Frank Black

Bullseye1 wrote: »

How exactly does it subsidise you? What a foolish statement.

The more the stupids pay, the less the smarts will have to.

Simple

Bullseye1

black francis wrote: »

The more the stupids pay, the less the smarts will have to.

Simple

Oh god your giving me a migraine.

So you will pay less next year? Good luck with that smarty

later12

Freddie59 wrote: »

So you are saying that the country can keep on borrowing - ad infinitum - €400m a week.

Oh we borrow a lot more than that. That's just our all-in deficit.

€400 million per week looks tiny in relation to Ireland's overall stock of debt. Taking our National Debt alone, we borrow at the rate of €2.3 billion per week.

But to get back to my point, it is not that this is sustainable or unsustainable. My point is that simply coming up with a figure like €400m per week is utterly meaningless. Please don't try to pass that off as an indicator of unsustainability because you are talking nonsense.

We can look at resource gaps or debt as a ratio of revenues or GDP or something else, but simply stating that €400 million is unsustainable because it is €400 million or trivially stating "expenditure cannot exceed income", which is not true, will not get you very far in economic theory.

lugha

Bullseye1 wrote: »

If you care to look back at all my posts on this thread I've never told people to pay or not pay.

But you yourself did not pay, no?

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm not interested in bullying people either way.

This bullying nonsense again! Do you think a single, solitary person reading this thread paid this charge as a result of a telling off the got from anyone on the yes side? If anything, it probably persuaded people not to pay!

Bullseye1 wrote: »

But I do not believe this €100 is neither going to maintain or improve services

Yes, quite a few people are saying that, which is interesting given that it is explicitly written into the act that it will. What exactly do you think will happen? Will the government simple ignore the act, or repeal it, or what?

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

I got an email receipt immediately after paying if that's what you mean?

Are you thinking of coming over to our side?:pac:

that reminds me of something Lugha

Use the force Bulleye........

Bullseye1

lugha wrote: »

But you yourself did not pay, no?



This bullying nonsense again! Do you think a single, solitary person reading this thread paid this charge as a result of a telling off the got from anyone on the yes side? If anything, it probably persuaded people not to pay!



Yes, quite a few people are saying that, which is interesting given that it is explicitly written into the act that it will. What exactly do you think will happen? Will the government simple ignore the act, or repeal it, or what?

Firstly you were the one to include the word bullying in your first response. I care less what word you employ. Maybe you prefer persuade or intimidate. Who really cares. I am not here to persuade people one way or the other unlike many poster for and against including yourself. People can make up their own mind.

I am saying with certainty that this €100 will neither improve or maintain services provided by local authorities. Regardless if it's ringfenced. It won't make a blind bit of difference. Money is wasted on a daily basis by local authorities and central government. And it appears that a significant portion of the population are either not bothered by that fact and have accepted the government spoof about this €100 going towards maintaining library's, playgrounds, footpaths and lighting etc. Do people actually believe this? Just tell this to those of us paying commercial rates. We get nothing for it. We also pay water and rubbish collection.

It's simply a tax for owning a house with no benefits in return for the €100 soon to be €500-€1000 for average houses.

Frank Black

Bullseye1 wrote: »

It's simply a tax for owning a house with no benefits in return for the €100 soon to be €500-€1000 for average houses.

the benefit will be we're a step closer to regaining our economic sovereignty.

I don't care if we have to bully, scare, shame or intimidate those who refuse to play their part - this country has always had a small rump of radical leftist and tax dodgers, it's important that we keep them in the minority. Unfortunately we also seem to have a group of economic illiterates that can't see past their anger.

bgrizzley

black francis wrote: »

the benefit will be we're a step closer to regaining our economic sovereignty.

I don't care if we have to bully, scare, shame or intimidate those who refuse to play their part - this country has always had a small rump of radical leftist and tax dodgers, it's important that we keep them in the minority. Unfortunately we also seem to have a group of economic illiterates that can't see past their anger.

you're such a sea of calm Francis lol

dxhound2005

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Firstly you were the one to include the word bullying in your first response. I care less what word you employ. Maybe you prefer persuade or intimidate. Who really cares. I am not here to persuade people one way or the other unlike many poster for and against including yourself. People can make up their own mind.

I am saying with certainty that this €100 will neither improve or maintain services provided by local authorities. Regardless if it's ringfenced. It won't make a blind bit of difference. Money is wasted on a daily basis by local authorities and central government. And it appears that a significant portion of the population are either not bothered by that fact and have accepted the government spoof about this €100 going towards maintaining library's, playgrounds, footpaths and lighting etc. Do people actually believe this? Just tell this to those of us paying commercial rates. We get nothing for it. We also pay water and rubbish collection.

It's simply a tax for owning a house with no benefits in return for the €100 soon to be €500-€1000 for average houses.

A tax for owning a house. Which is the same as in the North or in all the other countries and will bring us into line with them in having a broader taxbase and not relying on income tax mostly like we have since 1977. People can dispute or question how this tax or any tax is spent but it doesn't give them the right to not pay. As far as services go there are libraries and parks and most towns have good water and sewerage installations which they take for granted.

Bullseye1

LOL. We are ten years away from getting our economic sovereignty back. We have 400,000 plus people out of work or have you forgot about that little figure.

In case you missed the point I pay commercial rates, collect VAT and pay income tax. I pay motor tax and my tv license. So if your referring to me as a tax dodger your WRONG.

Gloss over the 400,000 unemployed, companies goin out of business every day.

Economic sovereignty! Your having a laugh.

black francis wrote: »

the benefit will be we're a step closer to regaining our economic sovereignty.

I don't care if we have to bully, scare, shame or intimidate those who refuse to play their part - this country has always had a small rump of radical leftist and tax dodgers, it's important that we keep them in the minority. Unfortunately we also seem to have a group of economic illiterates that can't see past their anger.

Bullseye1

dxhound2005 wrote: »

A tax for owning a house. Which is the same as in the North or in all the other countries and will bring us into line with them in having a broader taxbase and not relying on income tax mostly like we have since 1977. People can dispute or question how this tax or any tax is spent but it doesn't give them the right to not pay. As far as services go there are libraries and parks and most towns have good water and sewerage installations which they take for granted.

If you pay tax, VAT and commercial rates you don't take anything for granted. People pay income tax to provide these services already. So taking for granted is nonsense.

We are running a deficit because there is not enough tax being collected (400,000 plus out of work), a huge social welfare bill (largely untouched) and a huge public sector wage bill.

FG/Labours stance on exports won't reduce the 400,000 figure unless your including emigration. Get people back to work should be priority and this government has done nothing to provide an environment for business and enterprise.

dxhound2005

Bullseye1 wrote: »

LOL. We are ten years away from getting our economic sovereignty back. We have 400,000 plus people out of work or have you forgot about that little figure.

In case you missed the point I pay commercial rates, collect VAT and pay income tax. I pay motor tax and my tv license. So if your referring to me as a tax dodger your WRONG.

Gloss over the 400,000 unemployed, companies goin out of business every day.

Economic sovereignty! Your having a laugh.

I don't understand 400,000 or 447,000 which is 14.47% unemployment from recent figures. This makes the base of workers plus unemployed over 3 million but we are supposed to have 1.8 million at work plus the 447,000 is nowhere near 3 million?

When we were bringing in hundreds of thousands of workers to fill our jobs there was still 4.5% unemployment so that means we have effectively 90% of people who want a job have one now. And plenty of people just don't want to pay for anything eventhough they have the money.

Bullseye1

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I don't understand 400,000 or 447,000 which is 14.47% unemployment from recent figures. This makes the base of workers plus unemployed over 3 million but we are supposed to have 1.8 million at work plus the 447,000 is nowhere near 3 million?

When we were bringing in hundreds of thousands of workers to fill our jobs there was still 4.5% unemployment so that means we have effectively 90% of people who want a job have one now. And plenty of people just don't want to pay for anything eventhough they have the money.

So why do we continue to subsidise those people? If anyone had the courage to say enough your cut off there would be uproar in the left led media.

Lone Stone

I think the anger among people from the attitude toward the public is reaching boiling point.

Hundreds of angry protesters stormed Garda barricades at a Labour Party conference today.

Crowds of placard-waving campaigners broke through security lines to picket the Bailey Allen building at NUI Galway, where the coalition party was holding its annual party meeting.

The mob used a coffin draped in the Irish flag as a battering ram, chanting: “They say cut back, we say fight back.”

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/protesters-break-through-garda-lines-at-labour-conference-547506.html#ixzz1s1xYDAtw

lugha

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Firstly you were the one to include the word bullying in your first response. I care less what word you employ. Maybe you prefer persuade or intimidate. Who really cares.

I thought it was clear I was parodying the sillyness from the no side?

There is no bullying. Any law that is enacted for any purpose will have penalties for those that don’t comply and assorted means of enforcing the laws. Hence we have TV licence inspectors, a traffic corps, revenue investigators, customs and excise, safety / fire / food / health inspectors etc, etc. to seek to ensure various laws are being obeyed. And we have courts as an ultimate sanction for those that insist on refusing to comply. There is nothing at all different in this respect with the HHC. “bullying” is a useful but dishonest propaganda catch cry for the no size but nothing more.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I am not here to persuade people one way or the other unlike many poster for and against including yourself. People can make up their own mind.

I think only the most deluded on either side here think that they will have any success in persuading anyone, one way of the other. So make room in that club of one for a few more or us!

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I am saying with certainty that this €100 will neither improve or maintain services provided by local authorities. Regardless if it's ringfenced. It won't make a blind bit of difference.

So you say. But you haven’t made clear why? Perhaps you are making the same spurious argument that many others are about waste? (See below)

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Money is wasted on a daily basis by local authorities and central government. And it appears that a significant portion of the population are either not bothered by that fact.

Yes, this nonsense again. Hardly a page goes by on this thread without someone posting up an example of LA or government waste. And all seem to fail to spot the tiny flaw in their reasoning. Let me paraphrase the argument they make:

“There are extensive examples of waste / excesses by LA (and this I don’t dispute) observed when the funding mode for these LA was indirect. Therefore we should continue with the very same indirect funding mode!!!”

The reality of course is that waste is identified by determining how money is spent, not by how it is raised.

Unless you can somehow argue that a direct funding mode will lead to more waste? If anything the opposite would be true (people might have show more concern about waste if they can identify a single outgoing that is paying for this waste).

My guess it will make little difference. There will be waste if LA are funded directly. There will be waste if LA are funded indirectly.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

….and have accepted the government spoof about this €100 going towards maintaining library's, playgrounds, footpaths and lighting etc. Do people actually believe this?

Do you think they will ignore what is written in the act (which will almost certainly see them being challenged in the courts) or do you think they will subsequently change the act?
For me this is a moot point anyway as ring fencing is substantially an illusion

Bullseye1 wrote: »

So why do we continue to subsidise those people? If anyone had the courage to say enough your cut off there would be uproar in the left led media.

Would you care to address my question to both Gerry and Freddie that they declined to answer? Do you think a successful campaign against the HHC would have the effect of undermining the government’s authority, thus making it less rather than more likely that they will take on the more difficult challenge of PS / SW reform?

dxhound2005

For people saying that the tax is discriminatory I think it is actually very inclusive. It takes in the owners of 1.6 million of the 2 million or so properties in the country (or use your own figures). By definition this includes the very richest people in the country and lots of retired people with substantial means and no mortgage to pay. It obviously includes also a lot of the 1.8 million people at work (including 300,000 PS) who pay other taxes and some unemployed people.

I would have thought that the Socialist Party would welcome the positive discrimination in favour of the minority who are not included. They have always been in favour of making the owners of private property pay more taxes which will be evidenced by their wealth tax if they ever get in power. A pensioner with a nice house and a "little nestegg" put away will find themselves a lot worse off if the ULA ever get their way.

Bullseye1

dxhound2005 wrote: »

For people saying that the tax is discriminatory I think it is actually very inclusive. It takes in the owners of 1.6 million of the 2 million or so properties in the country (or use your own figures). By definition this includes the very richest people in the country and lots of retired people with substantial means and no mortgage to pay. It obviously includes also a lot of the 1.8 million people at work (including 300,000 PS) who pay other taxes and some unemployed people.

I would have thought that the Socialist Party would welcome the positive discrimination in favour of the minority who are not included. They have always been in favour of making the owners of private property pay more taxes which will be evidenced by their wealth tax if they ever get in power. A pensioner with a nice house and a "little nestegg" put away will find themselves a lot worse off if the ULA ever get their way.

According to Brian Hayes those who had the largest Stamp Duty bills may well be exempt. So that 1 to 2 million euro house could be exempt since they would have paid the largest sum of stamp duty.

Why should pensioners be exempt from pain? Are they any more special than a young couple with kids and a mortgage?

gerryo777

black francis wrote: »

I don't care if we have to bully, scare, shame or intimidate those who refuse to play their part - this country has always had a small rump of radical leftist and tax dodgers, it's important that we keep them in the minority.

Sure don't your precious PS unions do enough bullying on your behalf.

Frannie, How much of my hard earned tax euro do you put in your pocket every week?

I know that your love of taxes is only to ensure you keep your bloated wages and entitlements but I'd like an answer to that question if you don't mind.

gerryo777

Bullseye1 wrote: »

According to Brian Hayes those who had the largest Stamp Duty bills may well be exempt. So that 1 to 2 million euro house could be exempt since they would have paid the largest sum of stamp duty.

Why should pensioners be exempt from pain? Are they any more special than a young couple with kids and a mortgage?

Now, don't start on the 'poor' pensioners!
Wouldn't cowan and ahern be classed as pensioners and sure they haven't a pot to piss in.

dxhound2005

Bullseye1 wrote: »

According to Brian Hayes those who had the largest Stamp Duty bills may well be exempt. So that 1 to 2 million euro house could be exempt since they would have paid the largest sum of stamp duty.

Why should pensioners be exempt from pain? Are they any more special than a young couple with kids and a mortgage?

The rich pensioners who resisted the first effort at reform in the country (meaning a pensioner couple can have €1400 per week income and still get a medical card) would organise against paying for anything and I am certainly not in their camp. Property taxes internationally are difficult to calculate from reading examples from the North and from France recently but it will certainly not be a minority of property owners who will be liable and should feel that they are being discriminated against.

Bullseye1

I'm glad you think waste of tax payers money is nonsense.

If you also bother to look back at my posts you will see that in principle I am not against the property tax. There are many people who are sick of seeing and reading about waste (voting machines, waste incinerators, children's hospital planning process, civil servant management giving everyone under their management positive work assessments thus costing the tax payer money in additional bonuses and wages etc etc). But not all of us are willing to accept this waste and if they want more taxes, then people are entitled to see changes and improvements in how that tax is spent. The HSE is a black hole of waste.

In response to your final question. I do not expect Labour or FG to see thr necessary changes in public expenditure and civil service/public sector implemented. Croke Park is going to be the final nail in the coffin of this country.

I would be in favour of local money collected spent locally. Then people would clearly see the benefit. I'm also in favour of County Managers being elected along with council officials. We need more power for local government.

lugha wrote: »

I thought it was clear I was parodying the sillyness from the no side?

There is no bullying. Any law that is enacted for any purpose will have penalties for those that don’t comply and assorted means of enforcing the laws. Hence we have TV licence inspectors, a traffic corps, revenue investigators, customs and excise, safety / fire / food / health inspectors etc, etc. to seek to ensure various laws are being obeyed. And we have courts as an ultimate sanction for those that insist on refusing to comply. There is nothing at all different in this respect with the HHC. “bullying” is a useful but dishonest propaganda catch cry for the no size but nothing more.


I think only the most deluded on either side here think that they will have any success in persuading anyone, one way of the other. So make room in that club of one for a few more or us!


So you say. But you haven’t made clear why? Perhaps you are making the same spurious argument that many others are about waste? (See below)


Yes, this nonsense again. Hardly a page goes by on this thread without someone posting up an example of LA or government waste. And all seem to fail to spot the tiny flaw in their reasoning. Let me paraphrase the argument they make:

“There are extensive examples of waste / excesses by LA (and this I don’t dispute) observed when the funding mode for these LA was indirect. Therefore we should continue with the very same indirect funding mode!!!”

The reality of course is that waste is identified by determining how money is spent, not by how it is raised.

Unless you can somehow argue that a direct funding mode will lead to more waste? If anything the opposite would be true (people might have show more concern about waste if they can identify a single outgoing that is paying for this waste).

My guess it will make little difference. There will be waste if LA are funded directly. There will be waste if LA are funded indirectly.


Do you think they will ignore what is written in the act (which will almost certainly see them being challenged in the courts) or do you think they will subsequently change the act?
For me this is a moot point anyway as ring fencing is substantially an illusion


Would you care to address my question to both Gerry and Freddie that they declined to answer? Do you think a successful campaign against the HHC would have the effect of undermining the government’s authority, thus making it less rather than more likely that they will take on the more difficult challenge of PS / SW reform?

lugha

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm glad you think waste of tax payers money is nonsense.

Well I'm afraid you will have to desist from being glad because that is not what I think and not what I posted.

I said that the waste argument is nonsense when discussing whether to fund LA directly or indirectly. Waste will not be eliminated if we simply continue with the current funding mode.

Syllabus

black francis wrote: »

The more the stupids pay, the less the smarts will have to.

Simple

do you honestly believe that even 1c of any fines raised by this dodgy tax will go anywhere other than to benefit the bigwigs in the gov.

do you really think that if they get an extra 40million they are going to say 'we'll knock this off the property tax so Joe Soap saves €15 on his next bill'

you're smart are you? Pfft:rolleyes:

lugha

Syllabus wrote: »

do you really think that if they get an extra 40million they are going to say 'we'll knock this off the property tax so Joe Soap saves €15 on his next bill'

If the get an extra 40 million net (above any costs of collecting the late payments) then yes, that is pretty much what will in effect happen. If the government get an extra 40 million in this fashion then that is 40 million less they will have to raise in taxes.

The may not explicitly knock a bit of our property tax bill but we will collectively be better off to the tune of €40 M. Thanks to the kindness of the late payers.

What do you think will happen?

Won’t make a huge difference to our fortunes TBH

gerryo777

lugha wrote: »

If the get an extra 40 million net (above any costs of collecting the late payments) then yes, that is pretty much what will in effect happen. If the government get an extra 40 million in this fashion then that is 40 million less they will have to raise in taxes.

The may not explicitly knock a bit of our property tax bill but we will collectively be better off to the tune of €40 M. Thanks to the kindness of the late payers.

What do you think will happen?

Won’t make a huge difference to our fortunes TBH

Delusional!

lugha

gerryo777 wrote: »

Delusional!

Ah be fair now. He is not delusional, he just fails to see a simple reality. :pac:

If the exchequer gets an extra unexpected 40 million in then the exchequer (i.e. us) are better off to the tune of 40 million. Simples.