Children penalised for the actions of parents

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

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.

Again, good for you!
Keep coughing up like a good patriot to this disreputable government. Well done.

Biggins

usernamegoes wrote: »

...The way it works now is that the child will be affected by the parents' decisions.

Indeed, and the government of the day is unwilling to guarantee the individual right of their child to education with a grant scheme - but pull it instead because of the sins of another!

Its just arm twisting, back-stabbing, pick on the kids because they are unwilling to directly go after the persons DIRECTLY responsible.
They are passing the buck - and passing the penalty!

johnory1

Btw i always thought we had a centralized taxation system,

usernamegoes

Biggins wrote: »

Indeed, and the government of the day is unwilling to guarantee the individual right of their child to education with a grant scheme - but pull it instead because of the sins of another!

No such right exists beyond what is given by the state. The state could remove the grant scheme tomorrow if it wished.

Biggins

usernamegoes wrote: »

No such right exists beyond what is given by the state. The state could remove the grant scheme tomorrow if it wished.

Who said anything about "beyond what is given by the state" ?

Article 42
1. The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

It might be argued that by penalising a child for the penalty of others, the state is not guaranteeing to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means.

...And thats besides the victimisation of one person for the possible actions/crimes of another!

JRant

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

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.

How much more money can we throw at health while 70% of the total budget goes on pay and expect different results?
Of course disabled people should be looked after, I've not seen anybody here suggest otherwise.
But these are the options, dishonestly being put forward, we are being presented with by the powers that be. It's disability or college fees, socail welfare or teachers pay. If we choose to be divided in these matters there is literally nothing the Government/CoCo will not contemplate doing.

usernamegoes

Biggins wrote: »

Who said anything about "beyond what is given by the state" ?

It might be argued that by penalising a child for the penalty of others, the state is not guaranteeing to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means.

...And thats besides the victimisation of one person for the possible actions/crimes of another!

I said something about "beyond what is given by the state" to distinush between what is given by the People in the constitution, or inherent in our personhood.

You might argue that under Article 42, but I reckon the Court would read that as meaning the Family should be not be required to make certain payments to education, NOT a socio-economic right that requires the state to pay money.

I think the court would take not of the socio-economic rights in the constitution like the free primary education and say "if they wanted to give a grant system they would have said so like they have done in the primary education section"

Also most of the other S-E rights are contained in a section which is not enforceable so the court says "look they didn't want to give S-E rights that were enforceable"

Also the Court usually says it has no role in allocating funds in the constitution this is for the parliament under the separation of powers doctrine.

ilovesleep

Biggins, I've always admired you here on boards and still do and doubt this will change, for the work that you do here highlighting so much problems within the political field and Ireland. I value your contribution here to these forums so much and I would feel safe if you were in government because I think you are fair and you are not a greedy person.

As to the title of your thread:
'children penalised for their parents actions'

These words themselves are nothing new from where I'm sitting.

Here in Ireland the common attitude from parents is that when their kids turn 18, they are adults and they must start paying their way. For the most part their adult offspring are not going to have their own money and savings to move out. So they are at home. So it's now - pay up rent - time, parents comparing themselves to a landlord, and comparing their offspring to tenants and dishing out speeches on if you were renting and paying a landlord.
As if the parents are landlords.
-Are they going to declare their extra income from the rent to renvenue?
-If an appliance breaks down, are they going to replace as required by a landlord? I'll give you a clue - will they fcuk. They will go to their adult offspring and get them to pay their share of the appliance.
- if the room was empty, will they rent it out to a stranger? Will they fcuk.
- if you were renting, would you find your landlord at the end of your bed nagging and screaming at you? Would you fcuk - a landlord will find themselves in court.

The rent that an adult offspring is forced to pay is not even recognised by the state, on state forms for a medical card or for rent allowance.

Up and down the country, I'm sure there are many parents inflicting rules upon their adult off spring, either youngsters or adults who find themselves back at home and stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Is parents who demand for rent off their offspring - is that not abuse?
Abuse of their power, out of greed.
I'm all for adults to pay their way with bills and food and perhaps do house improvements if you can. But a blanket rent (on top of other expenses) as if you signed on a dotted form when you were born that at age 18 and after, your parents becomes your landlord.

Up and down this country there are parents penalising their own offspring for rent comparing themselves to landlords.

But once this penalising happens at a state level, it's enough to cause an uproar - turning a blind eye and ignoring what's happening up and down the country already in so many homes.

There are laws in place for domestic violence from a spouse to a spouse. But nothing in place to protect adult offspring from thieving, greedy abuse dressed up as rent. We'll be becoming much more like mainland europe. Adults will be living at home well into their 30s. I would much prefer to see new law to protect adult offspring.

Biggins

usernamegoes wrote: »

I said something about "beyond what is given by the state" to distinush between what is given by the People in the constitution, or inherent in our personhood.

You might argue that under Article 42, but I reckon the Court would read that as meaning the Family should be not be required to make certain payments to education, NOT a socio-economic right that requires the state to pay money.

I think the court would take not of the socio-economic rights in the constitution like the free primary education and say "if they wanted to give a grant system they would have said so like they have done in the primary education section"

Also most of the other S-E rights are contained in a section which is not enforceable so the court says "look they didn't want to give S-E rights that were enforceable"

Also the Court usually says it has no role in allocating funds in the constitution this is for the parliament under the separation of powers doctrine.

Let me spell it clearly out:

To Ireland's shame, it has become a further unfair country in the world where because the possible sins of one person, another is made directly to get punished!

In Clare, the County Council there has sent letters to recipients of third-level grants demanding that they submit proof of payment of the household charge for which their father or mother has paid. This is a charge for a number of local services such as local roads, rubbish collection and amenities such as parks and their care there of.

If a mother/father has not paid their charge for such services, the County Council will not only try punishing those direct, they are willing to take the step of punishing the offspring, off at college by withdrawing their state applied for Education Grants!
Now, get get this clear, the County Council is willing to pick on innocent offspring over a charge totally separate to Education Grants and willing to pick on offspring over a charge in which they have no legal basis on which to pay!
They are simple making one person suffer for the non-payment of another, for a non-related (to Education Grants) charge!

This is possibly highly illegal!
It could be in conflict with the constitution and from my years of studying law, it certainly is Indirect Discrimination.

Now we have those that are trying to dress it anyway they can by saying its justified for this 'reason' - or that 'reason'.
...But what they are trying to justify is simply unfairness and victimisation upon another person, for the actions/inaction of another separate.
In short, bullying upon an innocent person in hope of getting another to capitulate.
Thats the action of a thug!
Of course the dressing up of it will continue by those that wish to go down this line of wrong victimisation - to their shame.
They are in effect quite clearly saying that "the end justfies the means - even if it means making a number of illegal actions" themselves!
...So its ok for them to break the law - but when others do it, no, not lets go after them but pick on their sons and daughters instead!

Anyone that defends that should be ashamed of themselves!
They are a disgrace to this nation.

To repeat, its simply bullying upon an innocent person in hope of getting another to capitulate.


Now we shall hear retorts as they further come up with continuing excuses, for they advocating the use of this victimisation of offspring, for the sins of others!

I don't see a thing wrong with it. Everyone is 'penalised' by the actions of their parents. I didn't get a grant at all because my parents earn too much, yet still not enough to give me anything near as much as the grant. Should I have written to the government and told them that it's not my fault my parents earn so much and that I should be entitled to a grant?

There is such an entitlement mentality in Ireland, it's insane. The grant system is extremely generous. Money you get for studying that, unlike in the UK, you don't have to pay back. Free money, for doing something you chose to do. I could only have dreamed of having access to that. I worked through college and have a massive student loan. The only thing the government are asking is that families whose children want grants have paid the household charge, given something back in return for the thousands of euro their offspring is going to receive from the state and people actually have a problem with that?

Feathers

Shelflife wrote:

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

So if you were in a car with your wife driving & she was speeding, you wouldn't see a problem if the Garda just picked you at random to give points to instead of her, as he thought that'd teach her more of a lesson than giving her the points herself? I mean it's a family unit after all, you get taxed together, & you're also in the speeding 'unit'... It'd be ridiculous. The Garda can't make up rules from the top of his head, neither can the county council.

It's the equivalent of the teachers in primary school who would cancel PE for the class because one child was messing - they didn't have the ability to properly apply discipline so they try to get the kids to do it for them.

Lord TSC

As much as I think it's a joke, I can see why they've tried to punish the family. As has been said, "kids" getting such grants are getting them based off their parents financial capabilities, so it's all part of the same system. Not saying I agree with what they've done; simply that I can see why they've gone this route.

What I don't get, though, is why they are holding back the whole grant; surely they could hold back the price of the household charge, release the rest of the funds, and when the charge is proven as paid, the student gets the rest of the grant? What they are doing is risking that student's education, and there could be a wave of students unable to go to Uni if they don't get that grant asap....

Penny Dreadful

Biggins wrote: »

Irish children penalised for the actions of parents...

Is this what our state has come to?


http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/fury-as-council-blocks-student-grants-over-household-charge-3233555.html

I'm NOT here to argue for/against the household charge - there's a thread for that HERE.
...Have our present government become so low and fcuking bitter that they are hitting out at offspring for what is clearly the separate decisions of others?

Feel free to disagree with me but I think its fcuking disgusting!

If they're going to university they are hardly children.
The grant money comes from taxes collected. If people don't pay the tax there will be no grants.

Biggins

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

If they're going to university they are hardly children.
The grant money comes from taxes collected. If people don't pay the tax there will be no grants.

They will always be legally "children" to a parent.
One cannot argue that!
They are always "children" according to the state as their legally recognise parental lines.

The grant money comes from taxes collected. Yes.
STATE taxes.
The household charge is "ring-fenced" (government words - not mine) for local use!
Persons have been paying for years, decades - day in - day out. Through every possible thing they have bought or done!

The state is now picking on one person over a charge that is separate to to their own status and a charge that they themselves, have no legal obligation to pay anyway!
What part of that do people not get!

Zulu

Biggins wrote: »

Let me spell it clearly out:
...
Now we shall hear retorts as they further come up with continuing excuses, for they advocating the use of this victimisation of offspring, for the sins of others!

that's a great rant that continues to avoid the fact that already do this to parents & children.

Are you advocating that parents should be immune to prosecution on the basis that their innocent children would also be punished? You seem to stay very quiet on this Biggins.
Should we not jail miscreants simply because they are parents? Clearly you don't want to see innocent children deprived of the loving care of a parent.

The children shouldn't be victimised because of the sins of the parents, shouldn't they? Biggins?? Biggins???

Shelflife

Feathers wrote: »

So if you were in a car with your wife driving & she was speeding, you wouldn't see a problem if the Garda just picked you at random to give points to instead of her, as he thought that'd teach her more of a lesson than giving her the points herself? I mean it's a family unit after all, you get taxed together, & you're also in the speeding 'unit'... It'd be ridiculous. The Garda can't make up rules from the top of his head, neither can the county council.

It's the equivalent of the teachers in primary school who would cancel PE for the class because one child was messing - they didn't have the ability to properly apply discipline so they try to get the kids to do it for them.

But in this instance they are not picking you at random, you apply based on your parents income, if your parents are not tax compliant the grant isnt paid over.

Its not random

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

They will always be legally "children" to a parent.
One cannot argue that!
They are always "children" according to the state as their legally recognise parental lines.

The grant money comes from taxes collected. Yes.
STATE taxes.
The household charge is "ring-fenced" (government words - not mine) for local use!
Persons have been paying for years, decades - day in - day out. Through every possible thing they have bought or done!

The state is now picking on one person over a charge that is separate to to their own status and a charge that they themselves, have no legal obligation to pay anyway!
What part of that do people not get!

How do you not get that you can't pick and choose? If adults (and the vast majority of third level students are adults) want to use their parents' financial status to apply for grants, then why shouldn't they risk not receiving the grant if their parents haven't paid the household charge? You can't use your household income when it suits you and then complain when there are consequences for your parents' actions. Perhaps people will finally learn to stop being 'takers' and expecting the rest of the country to support their offspring through college when they can't even be bothered to pay one small charge. What is it with Ireland and personal responsibility?

periodictable

super_furry wrote: »

I'd love to see it challenged in court because I doubt it would stand up.

This is one for the anti-household charge group to fund. Few citizens will be able to pay for such an action. As an extra, Clare County Council in the summer sent one of its finface people to Harvard for 3 weeks on some sort of upskilling course in economics-to my mind 100 household charges down the drain.

Shelflife

To Ireland's shame, it has become a further unfair country in the world where because the possible sins of one person, another is made directly to get punished!

Ahhh Biggins will you get down off your high horse before you get hurt. Its not as if they are jailing john because jim robbed a shop.

You know well that in the case of the grant system the child and parents are viewed as the same application. as another poster pointed out if the parents earn over a certain amount the child is punished by not getting a grant.

Tell me Biggins where do you draw the line at tax avoidance?

Personally i dont see why someone who can and doesnt pay fully into the kitty gets to eat from the pot the same as everyone that does.

L.Jenkins

Joey Gifted Smokehouse wrote: »

How do you not get that you can't pick and choose? If adults (and the vast majority of third level students are adults) want to use their parents' financial status to apply for grants, then why shouldn't they risk not receiving the grant if their parents haven't paid the household charge? You can't use your household income when it suits you and then complain when there are consequences for your parents' actions. Perhaps people will finally learn to stop being 'takers' and expecting the rest of the country to support their offspring through college when they can't even be bothered to pay one small charge. What is it with Ireland and personal responsibility?

With all the picking and choosing aside, the action of Clare County Council is akin to putting a gun to one persons head in order to make another person pay. It's a dirty, desperate tactic if ever I saw one.

periodictable

Biggins wrote: »

The household charge is "ring-fenced" (government words - not mine) for local use!

Wonderful spin- how often has this phrase been used by all politicians? Fact is any money collected is going to pay off the debts of financial gamblers, to keep politicians nests feathers, and to pay for the lifestyles the self-important heads of quangos.
Off with their heads the whole fncking lot of them.

2 stroke

A widow I know has 3 attending college this year, and is in arrears on several bills including the household charge. She has worked regularly since she left school herself as did her husband. She is currently holding down 2 jobs, working about 70 hours a week, and is facing the dilemma that she may not qualify for grants next year as her income could be too high. It is morally wrong that her grants this year could be held up over non payment of this charge.

Penny Dreadful

Biggins wrote: »

They will always be legally "children" to a parent.
One cannot argue that!
They are always "children" according to the state as their legally recognise parental lines.

The grant money comes from taxes collected. Yes.
STATE taxes.
The household charge is "ring-fenced" (government words - not mine) for local use!
Persons have been paying for years, decades - day in - day out. Through every possible thing they have bought or done!

The state is now picking on one person over a charge that is separate to to their own status and a charge that they themselves, have no legal obligation to pay anyway!
What part of that do people not get!

Yes we are all, always and forever the children of our parents. There comes a time however, when as adult children we must make our own way in the world and not look to our parents to support us.
If people want to benefit from state payments then the payments must be paid by everyone.

Joey Gifted Smokehouse wrote: »

How do you not get that you can't pick and choose? If adults (and the vast majority of third level students are adults) want to use their parents' financial status to apply for grants, then why shouldn't they risk not receiving the grant if their parents haven't paid the household charge? You can't use your household income when it suits you and then complain when there are consequences for your parents' actions. Perhaps people will finally learn to stop being 'takers' and expecting the rest of the country to support their offspring through college when they can't even be bothered to pay one small charge. What is it with Ireland and personal responsibility?

Exactly.

L.Jenkins

periodictable wrote: »

Wonderful spin- how often has this phrase been used by all politicians? Fact is any money collected is going to pay off the debts of financial gamblers, to keep politicians nests feathers, and to pay for the lifestyles the self-important heads of quangos.
Off with their heads the whole fncking lot of them.

It's very easy to kick back and say 'off with there heads'. Of course, the Government will finish out their 4 years and we'll elect a new pack of wasters who'll saddle up and take us for another ride. And the cycle will continue, wash, rinse, repeat etc....

If people want change, they'd better drop the armchair warrior mentality rapid and do something for a change, because the complaining followed by inaction is becoming a little exhausting.

usernamegoes

They are simple making one person suffer for the non-payment of another, for a non-related (to Education Grants) charge!

No, they are saying that the person whose finances the grant qualification is based on does not meet their requirements (If payment of the HTT was requirement), they already do this with income taxes.

It could be in conflict with the constitution

It may be, but I am failing to see where the SC might find a conflict.

and from my years of studying law, it certainly is Indirect Discrimination.

Unless you want to do away with the whole dependency test, I don't see how this could be argued.

They are in effect quite clearly saying that "the end justfies the means - even if it means making a number of illegal actions" themselves!
...So its ok for them to break the law - but when others do it, no, not lets go after them but pick on their sons and daughters instead!

I have quite clearly stated that if the state breaks the law then it should be forced to comply.

Anyone that defends that should be ashamed of themselves!
They are a disgrace to this nation.

I am not.

To repeat, its simply bullying upon an innocent person in hope of getting another to capitulate.

No, they are say that the persons' whose finances their grant is contingent (which you think is fine), does not meet the qualification criteria.

Steven81

The one thing i hated about the grant was that if you owned your own business the accountant will get you a grant for your children, happened to a lot of people years ago in the boom years too. A bit of fiddling with the books and yes you have the grant yet for a lot of others that need it more cant get it.

Penny Dreadful

Itzy wrote: »

With all the picking and choosing aside, the action of Clare County Council is akin to putting a gun to one persons head in order to make another person pay. It's a dirty, desperate tactic if ever I saw one.

Yet if it is what they need to do to gather the money to pay the grants not to mention all of the other things that they need to fund, then its what they need to do.

Penny Dreadful

2 stroke wrote: »

A widow I know has 3 attending college this year, and is in arrears on several bills including the household charge. She has worked regularly since she left school herself as did her husband. She is currently holding down 2 jobs, working about 70 hours a week, and is facing the dilemma that she may not qualify for grants next year as her income could be too high. It is morally wrong that her grants this year could be held up over non payment of this charge.

The 3 adult children attending college could work too.
I never got a grant, went to college, worked at the weekends and all during the holidays to earn money to pay for my rent, books, etc.
University eduction is not a right its a privilage. Primary and secondary school education is a right and should be funded by the State. University eduction is not the same.

usernamegoes

Feathers wrote: »

So if you were in a car with your wife driving & she was speeding, you wouldn't see a problem if the Garda just picked you at random to give points to instead of her, as he thought that'd teach her more of a lesson than giving her the points herself? I mean it's a family unit after all, you get taxed together, & you're also in the speeding 'unit'... It'd be ridiculous. The Garda can't make up rules from the top of his head, neither can the county council.

Beside the point made elsewhere by others on this, this is also not the same inasmuch as the grant qualification is predicated on the parents' finances which most agree is fine. The situation you describe no such relationship exists.

Predalien

Can't believe some people still don't get this, the criteria Clare County Council can apply in assessing grant applications is what is set out in the relevant statutory instrument which makes no mention of the household charge. They quite simply have no legal basis to refuse or delay grants based on this. Should someone appeal to the Department of Education, the department will look at the criteria applied and tell Clare County Council they're wrong. If they don't it could be subject to Judicial Review where a Judge will tell the Department and County Council they are completely wrong and to cop themselves on.

usernamegoes

Predalien wrote: »

Can't believe some people still don't get this, the criteria Clare County Council can apply in assessing grant applications is what is set out in the relevant statutory instrument which makes no mention of the household charge. They quite simply have no legal basis to refuse or delay grants based on this. Should someone appeal to the Department of Education, the department will look at the criteria applied and tell Clare County Council they're wrong. If they don't it could be subject to Judicial Review where a Judge will tell the Department and County Council they are completely wrong and to cop themselves on.

Most people accept that if it's a breach of the law then the CC should be required to comply with the law; however most are arguing from a principle position.

Predalien

usernamegoes wrote: »

Most people accept that if it's a breach of the law then the CC should be required to comply with the law; however most are arguing from a principle position.

Well then I'm amazed people are so willing to welcome this kind of crap. Do people approve of loan sharks threatening family members to get their money?

2 stroke

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

The 3 adult children attending college could work too.
I never got a grant, went to college, worked at the weekends and all during the holidays to earn money to pay for my rent, books, etc.
University eduction is not a right its a privilage. Primary and secondary school education is a right and should be funded by the State. University eduction is not the same.

Believe me they do work, anything they can get from babysitting to cutting grass. Fact is, this family like many others have paid taxes for years to fund the grants of others. Now they need a little help themselves.

periodictable

Itzy wrote: »

If people want change, they'd better drop the armchair warrior mentality rapid and do something for a change, because the complaining followed by inaction is becoming a little exhausting.

Agree completely...but where to start and what to do?

Penny Dreadful

2 stroke wrote: »

Believe me they do work, anything they can get from babysitting to cutting grass. Fact is, this family like many others have paid taxes for years to fund the grants of others. Now they need a little help themselves.

Their taxes went on more than paying for grants of other people.

While I agree with you that yes, there are families that do qualify morally for grants, etc these grants still need to be paid for. They are paid for from taxes collected by the State. If people don't pay the taxes then the grants are there to be paid out.
There will always be the bleeding heart cases and stories of widows, people with disabilities, etc and the State does take care of of these people with medical cards, back to school allowances, free travel, etc. However we live in a world with less money now and if this is what it takes to get people to pay their tax (and there are a LOT of people who can afford to pay this €100 who have chosen not to) then this is what happens.
Also, university education is not a right compared to primary and secondary education. The State has no obligation to see that everyone gets to attend.

Biggins

Zulu wrote: »

...Are you advocating that parents should be immune to prosecution on the basis that their innocent children would also be punished? You seem to stay very quiet on this Biggins.
Should we not jail miscreants simply because they are parents? Clearly you don't want to see innocent children deprived of the loving care of a parent.

The children shouldn't be victimised because of the sins of the parents, shouldn't they? Biggins?? Biggins???

Have I EVER stated (please show where) parents should be immune to prosecution?
Anywhere? in fact I have stated the opposite - come after DIRECT those responsible.
I have stated this a number of times but if one bothers one's arse to read the thread, one would read this!

If I don't pay a tax or charge - come after me. Make this gobschite pay the price - but don't dare victimise my children, to get me to capitulate.
Do that and by god I will fight any government to the death!

Have the fcuking balls to come after me ye cowardly bastards in government - not pick on my children like cowards!

username123

A man from Clare CC just after being on the radio admitting that they cannot hold back the grant over the household charge.

Clearly theyve consulted their Havard educated staff after making this almighty balls up.

Penny Dreadful

username123 wrote: »

A man from Clare CC just after being on the radio admitting that they cannot hold back the grant over the household charge.

Clearly theyve consulted their Havard educated staff after making this almighty balls up.

To be fair Clare CC never said they were holding back the payments if people hadn't paid. They only asked for a copy of the receipt.

Red Hand

Biggins wrote: »

Have I EVER stated (please show where) parents should be immune to prosecution?
Anywhere? in fact I have stated the opposite - come after DIRECT those responsible.
I have stated this a number of times but if one bothers one's arse to read the thread, one would read this!

If I don't pay a tax or charge - come after me. Make this gobschite pay the price - but don't dare victimise my children, to get me to capitulate.
Do that and by god I will fight any government to the death!

Have the fcuking balls to come after me ye cowardly bastards in government - not pick on my children like cowards!

Your children aren't being picked on, though. If they are applying for a grant, then your income is being taken into account for the application to be valid. If this check on whether you have paid a certain tax, then that is just something extra. What if instead of doing this check, they decided that they would check whether you had paid any other tax?

It's like saying "oh, can't apply for a tax certificate for my car cause I don't have a valid NCT. I don't believe in the NCT (waste of money) and refuse to have it done, but the bastards are stopping me paying my motor tax and depriving me of my car".

username123

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

To be fair Clare CC never said they were holding back the payments if people hadn't paid. They only asked for a copy of the receipt.

Ah well thats grand then, clearly all the various threads on all the various forums plus the media news storm have all had the wrong end of the stick. Storm in a teacup.

Penny Dreadful

Biggins wrote: »

Have I EVER stated (please show where) parents should be immune to prosecution?
Anywhere? in fact I have stated the opposite - come after DIRECT those responsible.
I have stated this a number of times but if one bothers one's arse to read the thread, one would read this!

If I don't pay a tax or charge - come after me. Make this gobschite pay the price - but don't dare victimise my children, to get me to capitulate.
Do that and by god I will fight any government to the death!

Have the fcuking balls to come after me ye cowardly bastards in government - not pick on my children like cowards!

Your adult children being victimised by your failure to pay €100.00.
Who is letting who down there?

When are people going to see that no matter how much we dislike it there is very little money. The banks have been bailed out and love it or hate it that took loads of money. Now that money has to be found elsewhere, namely our taxes. I dislike paying taxes as much as the next person but I want to have schools, hospitals, Gardaí, lighting on footpaths, litter to be collected from the public bins, etc etc. This costs money. If we don't pay our taxes these things won't happen. A grant for 3rd level education will be far down anyone's list of priorities.

666irishguy

I've just listened to a Councillor form Clare CoCo on Clare Fm. He basically seemed to back track on the idea that they would withhold the grant. He said the letter was sent merely to highlight the issue of compliance. He also went on to indicate that nothing would happen to your grant regardless of compliance. Sounds like a load of ****e to me. He dodged answering the question of what they will do with the data they have collected as a result of tying this in with the grant, since according to the presenter of the interview, the Data protection officer says that they can't use it for anything else once it is part of the grants application. Typical Clare County council, they haven't a clue what they are doing and probably thought about this for about an hour before deciding to do it. Whatever Dutch courage they had has quickly evaporated once they became the centre of attention and things were looked into in any detail. Now they are changing their tune so attention will shift and they won't be looked at as the squirming bunch of gumbeen amateurs playing politics that they are. I'd just like to add, that nobody in Clare is fond of these idiots.

Skuxx

666irishguy wrote: »

I'd just like to add, that nobody in Clare is found of these idiots.

Nobody? Bit of an extreme generalisation don't ya think?

666irishguy

alan1990 wrote: »

Nobody? Bit of an extreme generalisation don't ya think?

And the point of you making this smart comment is?

The Big Red Button

If you want to be awarded a grant which is based upon your parents' circumstances, then it's understandable that ALL circumstances, including their compliance, should be taken into account.

Personally I managed college OK, with no grant, and little parental support. I worked.

If you have a problem, it should with the way grant decisions are made in the first place.

You can't expect free money based on someone else's income, and then whinge when that person does something which won't allow you to claim that free money.

Skuxx

666irishguy wrote: »

And the point of you making this smart comment is?

This is AH, it's what we do around here!

finty

.....

666irishguy

alan1990 wrote: »

This is AH, it's what we do around here!

Fair enough. Apologies for the snarky reply.

Penny Dreadful

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Your adult children being victimised by your failure to pay €100.00.
Who is letting who down there?

When are people going to see that no matter how much we dislike it there is very little money. The banks have been bailed out and love it or hate it that took loads of money. Now that money has to be found elsewhere, namely our taxes. I dislike paying taxes as much as the next person but I want to have schools, hospitals, Gardaí, lighting on footpaths, litter to be collected from the public bins, etc etc. This costs money. If we don't pay our taxes these things won't happen. A grant for 3rd level education will be far down anyone's list of priorities.

But this is Ireland, doncha know? How dare you imply that parents have any responsibility for their children? It's all the government's fault! Never mind that the country is broke and that there's no longer anywhere to get the money for endless third level grants. We have the right to refuse to pay our taxes and then complain when our kids don't get to go to college for free! Aren't we just all so hard done by as a nation? I don't care if the street lights don't work or that there's no money for life saving medical treatment in our public hospitals, my Aoife still deserves to go to college. Why should I have to contribute anything?

Peanut2011

Can I just remind everyone that:

However, the councils cannot refuse to pay the grants, the Department of Education said last night. Rules on payments of third-level grants did not allow payments to be withheld "on foot of non-payment of the household charge", a spokeswoman said.

I guess we know the rest. Pointless bullying, they will have to pay the grants out. FULL STOP.