Children penalised for the actions of parents

Feathers

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Would that not still be penalising them for the actions of their parents?

That's akin to people who are ineligible for a grant at the moment anyway. It's only penalising them for the 'actions' of their parents in that their parents earn too much money — i.e. one of the requirements for grant eligibility as set down in law.

Slightly different to picking up an arbitrary tax & making that part of the criteria on a whim.

jam_mac_jam

Biggins wrote: »

Has the mentality of a nation stopped so low that we now justify making innocent offspring, be penalised for the sins of another?

Seriously? Is that what our nation has come to and a direction we are going?

I say its a step backwards in thinking.

Innocent offspring? Innocent of what exactly? They want lots of money off the state so mammy and daddy don't have to pay for college and its a bit deal because they have to pay 100 quid? 100.

How much do the poor innocent lickle babies get from the state in a grant and its a bad direction to ask people to pay their taxes?

Biggins

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If parents are found to be vastly underdeclaring their income and gettign grants they are not entitled to , would the grant be cut off?

Originally Posted by Biggins
If they are directly underdeclaring their income, then directly that which they are trying to get, should be effected.

However, not paying for one bill, should not mean that another payment for another separate person should be cut.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Would that not still be penalising them for the actions of their parents?

The penalty would be clearly directly related to the under-declaring - not because a government of the day decides, well maybe next week because you haven't paid this tax or that tax, we are going to make your kids suffer again!

Biggins

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Innocent offspring? Innocent of what exactly?

Sad that you don't get it.
Its been stated many times already. Go read the thread.
Even go read the title of the thread!

Guy:Incognito

Feathers wrote: »

So you're seriously suggesting the options for collecting more tax revenue is:

1. Household Charge
2. Nothing

? Being against the household charge isn't being against the payment of more tax.

So you reckon if they said to everyone that refuses to pay, "right, we'll just take an extra €100 income tax off you, so you wont have to pay the €100 houshold charge" they'll be fine with that?

Muir

I actually don't understand how people are okay with blackmail. If the government decide next week that you pay an extra €500 a year or they will no longer allow your child to attend school, or that they wont look after roads anymore, or they'll get rid of medical cards/drug payment scheme, or they'll cut off social welfare etc. People will complain when it affects them, when they hit you with something you can't afford and then blackmail you for the money.

It's actually sad to see how people argue against things when it isn't affecting them too much. It's all okay until you can't afford it, and then you'll complain and no one will be left to be on your side. I wonder where other people who are okay with the HHC and water charges and blackmail & everything else will finally draw the line?

Guy:Incognito

Biggins wrote: »

The penalty would be clearly directly related to the under-declaring - not because a government of the day decides, well maybe next week because you haven't paid this tax or that tax, we are going to make your kids suffer again!

Surely the government of the day, as elected officials, have every right to decide how to spend the money of the tax payers that elected them?

jam_mac_jam

Biggins wrote: »

Sad that you don't get it.
Its been stated many times already. Go read the thread.
Even go read the title of the thread!

Great reply, you have completely convinced me now. They are not even children anyway.

RoundyMooney

Feathers wrote: »

So you're seriously suggesting the options for collecting more tax revenue is:

1. Household Charge
2. Nothing

? Being against the household charge isn't being against the payment of more tax.

No, not at all. But a fair property tax does represent a necessary broadening of the tax base. As I said earlier, I've paid many tens of thousands in stamp duty in the last decade and a bit-but will still be paying the property tax once its sorted. We're too much in the hole to pretend otherwise.

What I am against, is a blanket charge on all households, it was and is ill advised, badly executed, and yet another mark against Hulk Hogan. But, we're stuck with it, I'm afraid.

Biggins wrote: »

Has the mentality of a nation stopped so low that we now justify making innocent offspring, be penalised for the sins of another?

Seriously? Is that what our nation has come to and a direction we are going?

I say its a step backwards in thinking.

I say you've misjudged your usual populist rhetoric and have been somewhat surprised at the notion that to take out, you gotta pay in, holds so much sway.

Here's one for you, have you paid the HHC?

Shelflife

I think that you are being pedantic and technical in your arguement. You are well aware of how the grant system works and how the applicant and their parents are effectively tied together as unit for the purposes of the grant.

Otherwise the student would have to apply in their own right as an individual and seing as the vast majority would have no assets at all how would you determine who would get a grant and who wouldnt ???

I dont like the charge, but in order to fulfil my obligations i paid it. If clare co co want to ensure that they only pay grants to tax compliant applications , well that makes perfect sense to me.

Anita Blow

Biggins wrote: »

Student grants are paid OUT by the councils, who have been given the money from the state - who in turn have collected it from every other tax/charge up to now.

The household charge does not contribute to any education grant!

Sure ultimately all council services are funded with money from the state.
Roadworks are carried by the council with central funding.
Parks are maintained by the council with central funding.
etc. etc.

In the same way, HE grants are ultimately funded by the central government but it still comes under the council's control. Since it's under council control, they are perfectly within their right to ensure that people are paying their HHC.

Guy:Incognito

Muir wrote: »

I actually don't understand how people are okay with blackmail. If the government decide next week that you pay an extra €500 a year or they will no longer allow your child to attend school, or that they wont look after roads anymore, or they'll get rid of medical cards/drug payment scheme, or they'll cut off social welfare etc. People will complain when it affects them, when they hit you with something you can't afford and then blackmail you for the money.

Thats how government works. We give them money and they spend it.If theres no money for the roads (theres been huge cutbacks in spending on roads) or the drugs payment scheme (hasnt the amound peopel pay each month risen in recent years?). , cutbacks are made.

Anita Blow

JRant wrote: »

It's an awful way to go about collecting this charge. There are many different avenues open for them to do this but they choose to go down this one.
Pointing a metaphorical 'loaded gun' at dependents to get the parents to comply is cowardly in the extreme.

I should say that I don't necessarily think it's a great way to go about it either, but at the end of the day, the councils need this charge. We all heard Phil Hogan a few months ago saying council funding could be cut in proportion to the amount of people who have paid the charge.
Clare Coco is doing what it can to ensure that the charge is paid to maintain it's funding.

Feathers

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So you reckon if they said to everyone that refuses to pay, "right, we'll just take an extra €100 income tax off you, so you wont have to pay the €100 houshold charge" they'll be fine with that?

As I said earlier, I'm not eligible for the household charge, but if I was I wouldn't pay it. I would at the moment, be happier to pay a percentage increase in income tax equivalent to €200 than a flat fee of €100, for a couple of reasons —

• it's percentage linked, so people pay according to what they can afford; especially if people lose their job, go out sick etc, you're only taxed versus your equivalent salary. & the people who can afford much more, pay more.
• it's not a tax against a person's home (that they mightn't have budgetted for, thinking once the mortgage was paid, they were free from debt against it);
• it's harder for the government to increase it multiple times without justification — you could find that a household charge becomes index-linked at the very least, even if your salary is not.

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

I say you've misjudged your usual populist rhetoric and have been somewhat surprised at the notion that to take out, you gotta pay in, holds so much sway.

Since I first became an employee (and employer at various times) I have and continue to "pay in" in many, many ways!

But hey, stuff all that.
Lets throw all that out the window and because one don't pay one particular charge, lets let a government pick on our kids instead of coming after the person directly not paying.

Yea, that fair!

(Not!)

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

Since I first became an employee (and employer at various times) I have and continue to "pay in" in many, many ways!

But hey, stuff all that.
Lets throw all that out the window and because one don't pay one particular charge, lets let a government pick on our kids instead of coming after the person directly not paying.

Yea, that fair!

(Not!)

So, you haven't paid it?

And, in the spirit of your post-this week I shall be mainly not paying...let's see...my income tax. Lovely, that's a nice four or five hundred in my pocket that the government won't see. But hey, I paid in before, right?

JRant

Shelflife wrote: »

I think that you are being pedantic and technical in your arguement. You are well aware of how the grant system works and how the applicant and their parents are effectively tied together as unit for the purposes of the grant.

Otherwise the student would have to apply in their own right as an individual and seing as the vast majority would have no assets at all how would you determine who would get a grant and who wouldnt ???

I dont like the charge, but in order to fulfil my obligations i paid it. If clare co co want to ensure that they only pay grants to tax compliant applications , well that makes perfect sense to me.

They have to follow the laws they set as much as we are expected to follow them though.
It boils down to whether or not the CoCo have the right to do this ad-hoc and they most certainly have not.

Biggins

Shelflife wrote: »

...If clare co co want to ensure that they only pay grants to tax compliant applications , well that makes perfect sense to me.

There was me thinking it was the state tax office who's job it was, to ensure tax compliance.
Isn't that what tax offices and their staff are for?

O' well, we can sack all them now, the county councils have taken over that role.

Feathers

RoundyMooney wrote: »

But a fair property tax does represent a necessary broadening of the tax base.

…

What I am against, is a blanket charge on all households, it was and is ill advised, badly executed, and yet another mark against Hulk Hogan. But, we're stuck with it, I'm afraid.

I completely agree with a necessary broadening of the tax base. I'm against taxing a person's home (as our a lot of people who voted for Fine Gael, I'm sure) but wouldn't be as opposed to a fair property tax.

Regarding being stuck with a blanket charge, we are and we aren't. I think civil disobedience is a valid form of protest & if the government want to tackle that by all means do, but do it on the issue. Twisting someone's hand to force them to pay a charge they are opposed to is completely removing the debate from the situation & is underhanded IMO.

animaal

Feathers wrote: »

So, is this just taxes or laws in general?

If the imposition of taxes by this state triggered claims of human rights abuses, it would be similar to your examples (you could also add examples of laws in today's world; e.g. the middle east). There's an argument not to comply/pay. Although even then, the state is subservient to the European court of human rights. You've a good point, but between our own variety of democracy (didn't apply to Rosa Parks) and the international governance (not applicable to Rosa Parks situation or the Godwin thing), I don't see similar situations applying to our jurisdiction.

Feathers wrote: »

Do you think it's right that the council can arbitrarily call up any tax and use it as an excuse for refusal of any service?

Mostly. I 'm not comfortable with withholding services that are essential for health & safety. But otherwise I'd be fine with any service provider (including the state, in the form of its various bodies) withholding service from a customer who's refusing to pay in full.

Feathers wrote: »

For what it's worth, I wouldn't be eligible for the household charge but as I said earlier, I'd be happier with an increase in income tax than it's introduction (where I at home).

If you're vocal about this tax, while you yourself aren't either a home owner or a student, then that deserves respect. But I'd suggest you're in the minority.

Muir

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Innocent offspring? Innocent of what exactly? They want lots of money off the state so mammy and daddy don't have to pay for college and its a bit deal because they have to pay 100 quid? 100.

How much do the poor innocent lickle babies get from the state in a grant and its a bad direction to ask people to pay their taxes?

No. Usually students want financial help because mammy and daddy can't afford to send them to college & if they can't get an education they'll be signing on & costing the government more money. Yeah, €100, what's it gonna be next year? The year after? Some people are at breaking point, can't afford it, and their children are trying to educate themselves to have a better future but that's apparently a bad thing.


@ Guy:Incognito
I know how the government & cutbacks work. People are okay with it when it doesn't hurt them too much. But it is now at the point of blackmail, not just an increase but new charges introduced & then trying to blackmail the money off people by using their children. It's not right. & it'll only get worse if it's allowed.

usernamegoes

The question on if the CC acted outside the law in doing this, remains to be answered. If they did then they should be forced to comply with the law. We live in a state of laws. However, the law should then be changed to permit it in future.

The real question is though if they should be entitled to withhold the grant for in a situation were a dependant's parent is not tax compliant. For me the answer is similar to the requirement to get a P21, to prove 1) the income and 2) that income tax was paid properly.

If you want to get rid of the dependency rule then argue for that, but it seems we have linked a dependant to the finances of the parents, if the parents' finances aren't in order then that will affect the dependant.

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

So, you haven't paid it?

And, in the spirit of your post-this week I shall be mainly not paying...let's see...my income tax. Lovely, that's a nice four or five hundred in my pocket that the government won't see. But hey, I paid in before, right?

Nope.

Let me make that quite clear.

I have paid and continue to pay every other tax under the sun since I was 16, decades ago.
That money has gone towards in some small/large way, to many an education grant I assume
When a household charge is proved to go towards education grants, I will seriously consider paying it!

If I fail to pay a tax - come after ME, not my kids like the rat bastards in our government cowardly is doing!

666irishguy

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Innocent offspring? Innocent of what exactly? They want lots of money off the state so mammy and daddy don't have to pay for college and its a bit deal because they have to pay 100 quid? 100.

How much do the poor innocent lickle babies get from the state in a grant and its a bad direction to ask people to pay their taxes?

Well in fairness when they introduced the household charge, they never made any mention of this being the result of not paying it. Likewise when people applied for the grant there was no mention of having to prove this, or any other charge was paid. I think what riles people up is the typical farcical manner in which all these things have been done. They had no idea how many people should pay the charge because they didn't have a registry, had no idea what they would do if the majority just shunned it and then they just announced out of the blue today that they have decided this new course of action, which I think is blackmail. If that is anyway to run a modern state than I have little hope for us with this kind of make it up as you go along way of doing things. I think people need to get off their moral high horse. It's a hundred ****ing euro, is it worth clouding or using a 17 year old kids future in this manner for a hundred Euro?. Fair enough it's tax evasion, but I doubt we will hear of the children of tax defaulters published in the paper, being denied any service that may be payed for by the state. Why not I ask? surely it's the moral value of the crime not the monetary value? The only thing this move will succeed in doing is denying kids a fair shot at going to college , who let's be realistic need that college education if they are to get on in life in this country or sadly abroad. I thought we would have learned our lesson at this stage about making money the be all and end all of everything.

jam_mac_jam

Muir wrote: »

No. Usually students want financial help because mammy and daddy can't afford to send them to college & if they can't get an education they'll be signing on & costing the government more money. Yeah, €100, what's it gonna be next year? The year after? Some people are at breaking point, can't afford it, and their children are trying to educate themselves to have a better future but that's apparently a bad thing.


@ Guy:Incognito
I know how the government & cutbacks work. People are okay with it when it doesn't hurt them too much. But it is now at the point of blackmail, not just an increase but new charges introduced & then trying to blackmail the money off people by using their children. It's not right. & it'll only get worse if it's allowed.

well, there are more vulnerable people suffering due to cut backs so sorry if I don't have much sympathy for students. I would say there are very few people who can't get a hundred quid if it means their child can't go to college. If there are then I feel sorry for them but I would say a lot of parents choose not to pay this not that they couldn't.

And please don't give me the lecture that poor people get grants, have a look at the percentage of self employed/ farmers who get it. That's just a coincidence?

Yes it is **** for those who can't afford it but really they should be grateful they are getting a grant the way the finances are in this country.

Feathers

animaal wrote: »

If the imposition of taxes by this state triggered claims of human rights abuses, it would be similar to your examples (you could also add examples of laws in today's world; e.g. the middle east). There's an argument not to comply/pay. Although even then, the state is subservient to the European court of human rights. You've a good point, but between our own variety of democracy (didn't apply to Rosa Parks) and the international governance (not applicable to Rosa Parks situation or the Godwin thing), I don't see similar situations applying to our jurisdiction.

I don't know if I'd agree that it has to be a human rights issue to allow for civil disobedience. People are oftern saying Iceland were out on the streets & had their PM up for trial; the Greek are on the streets; what about the Irish?

People gave a majority to a political party that professed change & were vehemently against taxing a person's home. They feel strongly about it & plenty are happy to face the fine, face the punishment — but then push the discourse that goes with that. It's OK getting fined double the amount, so long as that drives the headlines & keeps the media talking about how the electorate aren't happy with this — it's the only way of putting an item on the politcal agenda as a voter.

The government are trying to side-step this though — they don't like the bad publicity of dealing with this issue head-on & are trying to quietly get everyone signed up. But bending the law to twist people's arms isn't the way to do it!

animaal wrote: »

If you're vocal about this tax, while you yourself aren't either a home owner or a student, then that deserves respect. But I'd suggest you're in the minority.

Not a student either, but in the interest of full disclosure, not living in Ireland at the moment, unfortunately. I have volunteered funds towards any fines against my family home though, if my dad wants to hold out against payment.

usernamegoes wrote: »

The question on if the CC acted outside the law in doing this, remains to be answered. If they did then they should be forced to comply with the law. We live in a state of laws. However, the law should then be changed to permit it in future.

The real question is though if they should be entitled to withhold the grant for in a situation were a dependant's parent is not tax compliant. For me the answer is similar to the requirement to get a P21, to prove 1) the income and 2) that income tax was paid properly.

If you want to get rid of the dependency rule then argue for that, but it seems we have linked a dependant to the finances of the parents, if the parents' finances aren't in order then that will affect the dependant.

Not according to the Dept of Education:

A spokeswoman for the Department of Education said it was neither consulted nor informed of the move by Clare County Council. "The Student Support Act 2011 does not provide for withholding of the payment of a student grant on foot of non-payment of the household charge," she said.

hardCopy

Biggins wrote: »

RoundyMooney wrote: »

So, you haven't paid it?

And, in the spirit of your post-this week I shall be mainly not paying...let's see...my income tax. Lovely, that's a nice four or five hundred in my pocket that the government won't see. But hey, I paid in before, right?

Nope.

Let me make that quite clear.

I have paid and continue to pay every other tax under the sun since I was 16, decades ago.
That money has gone towards in some small/large way, to many an education grant I assume
When a household charge is proved to go towards education grants, I will seriously consider paying it!

If I fail to pay a tax - come after ME, not my kids like the rat bastards in our government cowardly is doing!

You can choose which taxes you pay.

You don't get to pick the consequences of not paying.

Feathers

hardCopy wrote: »

You can choose which taxes you pay.

You don't get to pick the consequences of not paying.

But neither do clerks in Clare County Council offices.

Biggins

hardCopy wrote: »

You can choose which taxes you pay.

You don't get to pick the consequences of not paying.

...And NO government should pick on offspring for the crimes of others - well except in Ireland now its seems, using any excuse they can use!

A spokeswoman for the Department of Education said it was neither consulted nor informed of the move by Clare County Council. "The Student Support Act 2011 does not provide for withholding of the payment of a student grant on foot of non-payment of the household charge," she said.

On possible indirect discrimination and/or the above, I can see this issue legally going further.
If necessary, to the EU courts.

Its not the first time an Irish government though has given two fingers to laws though!

homeless student

cant believe theres so much uproar over 100 squid lol you would find more money down the back of the sofa.

usernamegoes

Not according to the Dept of Education:

I am not sure the SS Act is the only legal rule that could be used here, but regardless if the CC acted ultra vires (outside) their powers then they should be required to comply.

This does not speak to the question on if they should be given the those powers hereafter. Perhaps it should have been considered when the bill was being discussed.

Biggins

homeless student wrote: »

cant believe theres so much uproar over 100 squid lol you would find more money down the back of the sofa.

I can't believe you don't see the larger issue of picking on one person for the antics of another!

What next in two or five years time!
Don't pay your car tax - so you lose your medical card?
Its possible, that door has now been opened!

Muir

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

well, there are more vulnerable people suffering due to cut backs so sorry if I don't have much sympathy for students. I would say there are very few people who can't get a hundred quid if it means their child can't go to college. If there are then I feel sorry for them but I would say a lot of parents choose not to pay this not that they couldn't.

And please don't give me the lecture that poor people get grants, have a look at the percentage of self employed/ farmers who get it. That's just a coincidence?

Yes it is **** for those who can't afford it but really they should be grateful they are getting a grant the way the finances are in this country.

That's the kind of attitude causing the problem. "Oh well I lost my job so students don't deserve help" or "my tax is gone up so why should someone get social welfare". No one will have sympathy for your problems if you have none for anyone else.

I know people who can't afford an extra €100.

I also never made any argument that only poor people get grants. The system obviously isn't perfect. But there are plenty of low income people who do get the grant & do need it.

Muir

homeless student wrote: »

cant believe theres so much uproar over 100 squid lol you would find more money down the back of the sofa.

Really? Can I borrow whatever magic money-filled sofa you're sitting on then? 'Cause I could certainly do with that money & wouldn't have it just lying around.

homeless student

Biggins wrote: »

I can't believe you don't see the larger issue of picking on one person for the antics of another!

What next in two or five years time!
Don't pay your car tax - so you lose your medical card?
Its possible, that door has now been opened!

look if the cc didnt need the money they wouldnt be looking for it but they badly need it so pay up, if thats not good enough dont expect others to pay your way for ya and maybe you should go live in some other country then you might see how good you actually had it.

usernamegoes

Biggins wrote: »

What next in two or five years time!
Don't pay your car tax - so you lose your medical card?
Its possible, that door has now been opened!

That's a fine rule!

However, before you say it, I wouldn't allow hospitals to refuse urgent medical treatment to those not tax complaint, but they should be duly billed for such treatment (where such is billable), or until they get their card back when they are tax compliant.

Biggins

homeless student wrote: »

look if the cc didnt need the money they wouldnt be looking for it but they badly need it so pay up, if thats not good enough dont expect others to pay your way for ya and maybe you should go live in some other country then you might see how good you actually had it.

As I stated earlier:

So... have a separately payable price for the processing of that application.
This is NOT rocket science!

Meanwhile the Household charge can go towards the water/rubbish/whatever the hell services that they physically go out and do!

Not penalise offspring because someone ELSE has not paid a bill on a house!

johnory1

Zulu wrote: »

Biggins wrote: »

Children penalised for the actions of parents is disgusting.

Eh Biggins, are you looking to replicate sensationalist headlines?

We always penalise children for the actions of their parents. Just because you are a parent, doesn't give you a "get-out-of-jail-free" card.

You speed. You are fined. Your insurance rates increase. Your child is penalised.
You kill someone. You are jailed. Your child is penalised.

The grant is linked to the income of the parent. If you don't bother paying, you are depriving others. Frankly it's just that you are the first to suffer.

"oh won't someone think of the children" :rolleyes:

Think of poor little Gunther starving , you selfish b**t**ds pay the bankhold tax, and let the young lad get his bratwurst

Shelflife

Biggins wrote: »

I can't believe you don't see the larger issue of picking on one person for the antics of another!

What next in two or five years time!
Don't pay your car tax - so you lose your medical card?
Its possible, that door has now been opened!

Again while they may technically be picking on a separate person they are penalising the "unit" that applied for the loan.

Biggins why should people who refuse (as opposed to those who cant afford) to pay what they owe be afforded the same benefits as those who pay?

By the same token why not just go into a shop and take what you want without paying --its effectively the same principal.

Biggins

usernamegoes wrote: »

That's a fine rule!

However, before you say it, I wouldn't allow hospitals to refuse urgent medical treatment to those not tax complaint, but they should be duly billed for such treatment (where such is billable), or until they get their card back when they are tax compliant.

Well we might see how that now plays out in the courts of Ireland, then maybe Europe.

Great, more money for solicitors.

jam_mac_jam

Muir wrote: »

That's the kind of attitude causing the problem. "Oh well I lost my job so students don't deserve help" or "my tax is gone up so why should someone get social welfare". No one will have sympathy for your problems if you have none for anyone else.

I know people who can't afford an extra €100.

I also never made any argument that only poor people get grants. The system obviously isn't perfect. But there are plenty of low income people who do get the grant & do need it.

There are some low income people who need a grant. I agree with you there. However they should still be happy they get it. They don't have to take out huge student loans like they do in other countries.

Its nothing to do with me or my circumstances, its a matter of priority and I think others should get it before students. Things like hospitals and the disabled. That's just me though others may think students would come higher up the list.

homeless student

Muir wrote: »

Really? Can I borrow whatever magic money-filled sofa you're sitting on then? 'Cause I could certainly do with that money & wouldn't have it just lying around.

no I need it lol

JRant

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Muir wrote: »

No. Usually students want financial help because mammy and daddy can't afford to send them to college & if they can't get an education they'll be signing on & costing the government more money. Yeah, €100, what's it gonna be next year? The year after? Some people are at breaking point, can't afford it, and their children are trying to educate themselves to have a better future but that's apparently a bad thing.


@ Guy:Incognito
I know how the government & cutbacks work. People are okay with it when it doesn't hurt them too much. But it is now at the point of blackmail, not just an increase but new charges introduced & then trying to blackmail the money off people by using their children. It's not right. & it'll only get worse if it's allowed.

well, there are more vulnerable people suffering due to cut backs so sorry if I don't have much sympathy for students. I would say there are very few people who can't get a hundred quid if it means their child can't go to college. If there are then I feel sorry for them but I would say a lot of parents choose not to pay this not that they couldn't.

And please don't give me the lecture that poor people get grants, have a look at the percentage of self employed/ farmers who get it. That's just a coincidence?

Yes it is **** for those who can't afford it but really they should be grateful they are getting a grant the way the finances are in this country.

Students this time, yet again I might add, but what next?
It really isn't that much of a step to suggest they might with-hold children's allowance for non-payment of some other new charge they come up with.
This type of tomfoolery is the last thing we need.
Why not a root and branch overhaul of the whole tax system?
Plenty of other countries have this and we could easily implement one here. Have a broader more fluid scale of taxation for a start.

Biggins

Shelflife wrote: »

Again while they may technically be picking on a separate person they are penalising the "unit" that applied for the loan.

Biggins why should people who refuse (as opposed to those who cant afford) to pay what they owe be afforded the same benefits as those who pay?

By the same token why not just go into a shop and take what you want without paying --its effectively the same principal.

Why go after what is someones kid, for the legal possible crime of another person, be they even related!

Penalising the "unit" ???
Thats a nice handy catch-all phrase.

Tell you what, when you or your future family is using state money to help them get through life - lets stop it all and make them suffer because you didn't pay your TV licence!
Stuff the fact that you have paid everything else to the state!

This is great fun isn't it!

usernamegoes

Biggins wrote: »

Well we might see how that now plays out in the courts of Ireland, then maybe Europe.

Great, more money for solicitors.

I am trying to think of a doctrine or Irish, EU, or Council or Europe law that would interact with what I said, I am sure there could be arguments made, but what I expressed was an ideological position, if prevented by law (ultimately all law can be amended) then que sera sera

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

Why go after what is someones kid, for the legal possible crime of another person, be they even related!

Penalising the "unit" ???
Thats a nice handy catch-all phrase.

I'm someone's kid-they'd have no problem coming after me.

Enough of this sensationalist claptrap, I'm off to bed, some of us have work in the morning.

Shelflife

Biggins wrote: »

Why go after what is someones kid, for the legal possible crime of another person, be they even related!

Penalising the "unit" ???
Thats a nice handy catch-all phrase.

They are not, they are "going after" the unit which made the application, but you know that but you seem to want to ignore the logic behind that in order to fan your daily mail esque headlines.

Libadour

Biggins wrote: »

Shelflife wrote: »

Again while they may technically be picking on a separate person they are penalising the "unit" that applied for the loan.

Biggins why should people who refuse (as opposed to those who cant afford) to pay what they owe be afforded the same benefits as those who pay?

By the same token why not just go into a shop and take what you want without paying --its effectively the same principal.

Why go after what is someones kid, for the legal possible crime of another person, be they even related!

A 'child' living at home is dependant on their parents, presumabely, paying for their education. If their parents choose to abdicate their responsibilty by not paying taxes then they should not recieve a grant.

Muir

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

There are some low income people who need a grant. I agree with you there. However they should still be happy they get it. They don't have to take out huge student loans like they do in other countries.

Its nothing to do with me or my circumstances, its a matter of priority and I think others should get it before students. Things like hospitals and the disabled. That's just me though others may think students would come higher up the list.

Who said they weren't happy that they get it? I'm sure most students are delighted to get the grant.

Most European countries have lower fees than us and see the importance of third level education. Huge student loans certainly aren't commonplace in Europe.

I think education is very important to get us out of the recession. We need skilled and educated workers. I see it as a priority because it's an investment in the future of the country.

usernamegoes

Biggins wrote: »

Why go after what is someones kid, for the legal possible crime of another person, be they even related!

Penalising the "unit" ???
Thats a nice handy catch-all phrase.

Do you think this shouldn't be the case if the PAYE or similar isn't in compliance? Is it just the HHT that concerns you?

If you want to unlink the child from the parents' finances then argue that. The way it works now is that the child will be affected by the parents' decisions.