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

gerryo777

lugha wrote: »

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.

Yea, it might cover the changes to TD's and ministers expenses that came into effect last week which allows them extra money now to hire private PR firms as well as the ones provided by the state. Simples!

Syllabus

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

they will view EVERY penny raised in fines as their own money - as in money not expected/earmarked for the IMF - and a new fleet of Mercs will be bought, maybe a few more entitlements or pay rises, an upgrade to the private jet - whatever.

ANY gov. over the last 20yrs hasn't extactly had the greatest track record when deciding what to do with OUR money




imo

lugha

gerryo777 wrote: »

Yea, it might cover the changes to TD's and ministers expenses that came into effect last week which allows them extra money now to hire private PR firms as well as the ones provided by the state. Simples!

And if the fine money does not come in then these costs will have to be paid for out of other taxes we have to pay.

If we get 40 million then we are better of by 40 million.

Syllabus

lugha wrote: »

And if the fine money does not come in then these costs will have to be paid for out of other taxes we have to pay.

If we get 40 million then we are better of by 40 million.

if this IS the case then WE are ALL better off, not just the YESers

gerryo777

lugha wrote: »

And if the fine money does not come in then these costs will have to be paid for out of other taxes we have to pay.

If we get 40 million then we are better of by 40 million.

You really don't get it , do you?

Wasting money on a PR company to write speeches for ministers is ok now as long as everyone pays their discriminatory household tax?

lugha

Syllabus wrote: »

they will view EVERY penny raised in fines as their own money - as in money not expected/earmarked for the IMF - and a new fleet of Mercs will be bought, maybe a few more entitlements or pay rises, an upgrade to the private jet - whatever.

ANY gov. over the last 20yrs hasn't extactly had the greatest track record when deciding what to do with OUR money

I think the IMF might have a contrary view if they did. But what does "fine" money have to do with this? If they are going to do as you say (they are not!), then why wouldn't they do it anyway?

Syllabus wrote: »

If this IS the case then WE are ALL better off, not just the YESers

That is true. But the yes people won't be paying 1c of this 40 million. The no people will pay it all.

mikemac1

PS all over this thread when it could mean public sector and private sector

What's the point

lugha

gerryo777 wrote: »

You really don't get it , do you?

Wasting money on a PR company to write speeches for ministers is ok now as long as everyone pays their discriminatory household tax?

We are not talking about waste.

gerryo777

lugha wrote: »

I think the IMF might have a contrary view if they did. But what does "fine" money have to do with this? If they are going to do as you say (they are not!), then why wouldn't they do it anyway?


That is true. But the yes people won't be paying 1c of this 40 million. The no people will pay it all.

I wonder how much it will cost to collect this magical '40 million'.

Suppose it'll give a good few PS workers something to do to justify their existence.

gerryo777

lugha wrote: »

We are not talking about waste.

Your right there, I'll give you that!

Syllabus

lugha wrote: »

I think the IMF might have a contrary view if they did. But what does "fine" money have to do with this? If they are going to do as you say (they are not!), then why wouldn't they do it anyway?


That is true. But the yes people won't be paying 1c of this 40 million. The no people will pay it all.

i wont be paying 40million

Freddie59

black francis wrote: »

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?

If you want to keep decrying the pointing out of the obvious then knock yourself out. Its that very attitude that has brought the country to the brink.

Last week on Today FM, noted economist Moore McDowell pointed out the exact same thing. I presume you think he's also wrong?

Ruairi Quinn has inferred the same to the teachers unions last week, going as far as to say they do not appreciate the severity of the fiscal crisis.

I don't know how many times people like you have to hear it until you do indeed understand the gravity of it, but we'll keep trying to clue you in - impossible as it might seem.

Freddie59

later12 wrote: »

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.

Is 125% of GDP of debt repayment sustainable then? God, it's hard to credit how people refuse to recognise this. And "expenditure not exceeding" income being trivial? Sweet Jesus. PLEASE don't tell me you're any way nvolved with economic decisions in either the Public or Private Sector.

If you are it explains how we are in the state that we are in.

Freddie59

dxhound2005 wrote: »

And plenty of people just don't want to pay for anything eventhough they have the money.

Explain further please.

gerryo777

Freddie59 wrote: »

If you want to keep decrying the pointing out of the obvious then knock yourself out. Its that very attitude that has brought the country to the brink.

Last week on Today FM, noted economist Moore McDowell pointed out the exact same thing. I presume you think he's also wrong?

Ruairi Quinn has inferred the same to the teachers unions last week, going as far as to say they do not appreciate the severity of the fiscal crisis.

I don't know how many times people like you have to hear it until you do indeed understand the gravity of it, but we'll keep trying to clue you in - impossible as it might seem.

They'll find out soon enough.

Then they'll see how much phil and his buddies really think of them.

Higher property tax and water rates on smaller wages, things will start to get tight for frannie and her mates.

She's not getting any more of my money.

Freddie59

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. Unfortunately we also seem to have a group of economic illiterates that can't see past their anger.

Who's the "we" francis? Something you're not telling us? And oh boy there sure are economic illiterates alright, who seem to think that the current batch of quangos, debt, and CS/PS gravy trains will go on forever. The sooner the better they're brought screeching to a halt. Economic illiterates. I'm still laughing at the sheer neck of you to post something like that, given your stance.

Freddie59

gerryo777 wrote: »

They'll find out soon enough.

Then they'll see how much phil and his buddies really think of them.

Higher property tax and water rates on smaller wages, things will start to get tight for frannie and her mates.

She's not getting any more of my money.

Indeed Gerry.:)

gerryo777

Freddie59 wrote: »

Who's the "we" francis? Something you're not telling us? And oh boy there sure are economic illiterates alright, who seem to think that the current batch of quangos, debt, and CS/PS gravy trains will go on forever. The sooner the better they're brought screeching to a halt. Economic illiterates. I'm still laughing at the sheer neck of you to post something like that, given your stance.

Maybe in her last sentence she was referring to herself.

Freddie59

gerryo777 wrote: »

Maybe in her last sentence she was referring to herself.

Or where she's employed........

Frank Black

Lone Stone wrote: »

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



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

Freddie59 wrote: »

If you want to keep decrying the pointing out of the obvious then knock yourself out. Its that very attitude that has brought the country to the brink.

Last week on Today FM, noted economist Moore McDowell pointed out the exact same thing. I presume you think he's also wrong?

Ruairi Quinn has inferred the same to the teachers unions last week, going as far as to say they do not appreciate the severity of the fiscal crisis.

I don't know how many times people like you have to hear it until you do indeed understand the gravity of it, but we'll keep trying to clue you in - impossible as it might seem.

Presume away. No idea what you're talking about, I suspect you mightn't either.

I'm well aware of the gravity of the situation, I think you might be better trying to convince your fellow 'no' voters about that. Although you mightn't be the best person, as you're literally the only person I've ever heard who thinks the current deficit can be bridged without raising taxes.

Moore McDowell would laugh his ass off at your position I've no doubt.

gerryo777

Freddie59 wrote: »

Indeed Gerry.:)

Tell you one thing.

Next week I have a meeting with my accountant and I will be instructing him to find as many legal 'tax avoidance' measures as he can for my business.

No point in paying more than I have to, especially when it's been used to pay pampered and cosseted PS/CS workers like frannie.

We all have to do our bit.;)

later12

Freddie59 wrote: »

Is 125% of GDP of debt repayment sustainable then? God, it's hard to credit how people refuse to recognise this.

Some people say 80% is unsustainable, some people say 120% is unsustainable. The last official figures I saw indicated that Irish debt will rise to 119% of GDP before falling back. I know our debt went to 125% in the 1980's but I haven't seen that figure repeated in contemporary official forecasts.

I would much rather have a debate on sovereign debt expressed as a percentage of GDP, or other commonly used indicators. I think that's a worthwhile endeavour, and i'm not attempting to defend that level of sovereign indebtedness for an economy like the Irish economy.

My point here was in the utter irrelevance of your €400m comment. Please stop repeating that, because it is meaningless in the context of sustainability in itself.

Especially when you are accusing other contributors of being economically illiterate.

gerryo777

later12 wrote: »

Especially when you are accusing other contributors of being economically illiterate.

Freddie was just repeating something frannie keeps saying about people who don't want discriminatory taxes.

Freddie59

black francis wrote: »

Presume away. No idea what you're talking about, I suspect you mightn't either.

I'm well aware of the gravity of the situation, I think you might be better trying to convince your fellow 'no' voters about that. Although you mightn't be the best person, as you're literally the only person I've ever heard who thinks the current deficit can be bridged without raising taxes.

Moore McDowell would laugh his ass off at your position I've no doubt.

I doubt it - seeing as he was saying the exact same thing. But you keep on living in that state of denial Francis. The main problems that people have are quite simple really:

1. Paying for the gambling debts of failed bankrupt institutions which are still being bankrolled by a ludicrously stupid Government.

2. Funding a deficit caused by the same Government which refuses to recognise the impact of the high numbers/wages/"entitlements" in the CS/PS, thus necessitating the borrowing of €400m a week to keep these people in the style they've come to expect.

3. Listening to the nonsensical daily ravings of people who lecture others while feathering their own beds.

4. Paying high taxes to fund and Education "system" which blows 80% of its budget on salaries and "entitlements".

5. Paying the same taxes to fund a Health "system" which blows 70% of its budget on salaries.

And you've now moved onto criticising economists who also disagree with this madness and those who support it? Says it all really.

Freddie59

later12 wrote: »

Some people say 80% is unsustainable, some people say 120% is unsustainable. The last official figures I saw indicated that Irish debt will rise to 119% of GDP before falling back. I know our debt went to 125% in the 1980's but I haven't seen that figure repeated in contemporary official forecasts.

I would much rather have a debate on sovereign debt expressed as a percentage of GDP, or other commonly used indicators. I think that's a worthwhile endeavour, and i'm not attempting to defend that level of sovereign indebtedness for an economy like the Irish economy.

My point here was in the utter irrelevance of your €400m comment. Please stop repeating that, because it is meaningless in the context of sustainability in itself.

Especially when you are accusing other contributors of being economically illiterate.

So €400m a week in borrowings is irrelevant? God help us all. How is it meaningless, pray tell?

Freddie59

later12 wrote: »

I would much rather have a debate on sovereign debt expressed as a percentage of GDP, or other commonly used indicators. I think that's a worthwhile endeavour, and i'm not attempting to defend that level of sovereign indebtedness for an economy like the Irish economy.

At least we agree on something. And I wasn't the one who raised the economic illiterates comment. Read the thread.;)

Frank Black

gerryo777 wrote: »

Tell you one thing.

Next week I have a meeting with my accountant and I will be instructing him to find as many legal 'tax avoidance' measures as he can for my business.

No point in paying more than I have to, especially when it's been used to pay pampered and cosseted PS/CS workers like frannie.

We all have to do our bit.;)

You're only doing this now?

What kind of businessman are you Gerry?

gerryo777

black francis wrote: »

You're only doing this now?

What kind of businessman are you Gerry?

A fairly good one as it happens.
He did it for me last year so I'll just be getting him to check again for any new measures that may apply to me.

the groutch

lugha wrote: »

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.

http://4closurefraud.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/captain-obvious.jpg

jluv

lugha wrote: »

We are not talking about waste.

But as we are discussing a tax which is being introduced rightly/wrongly as an introduction to a property tax,necessery to alleviate the debt/lower borrowing for our country,then I think the fact that this "waste" of money is still happening is relevent.