Children penalised for the actions of parents

ilovesleep

Does Mick Wallace have any children?
If so are they being penalised for their fathers actions?

usernamegoes

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Can I just remind everyone that:



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

This year, maybe not next.

Peanut2011

usernamegoes wrote: »

This year, maybe not next.

Well we are talking about what they are doing now! Who knows what next year brings. Maybe the government will not be there at all..... Sure next year is next year!

Zulu

Biggins wrote: »

Have I EVER stated (please show where) parents should be immune to prosecution?

It's implicit in your very first post Biggins. Do you not remember your sensationalist head line "Irish children penalised for the actions of parents..."?

So you don't want children penalised for the actions of the parents? That's the jist of your rant.
Then how do you justify taking the liberty of an adult parent? You can't.

So your logic only extends to the legal HHC? Selective rage!

blue4ever

I heard a fella on the radio yesterday complaining that he had made alterations to his house due to a disability - but his €14,000 alteration grant hadn't been paid out yet by his C.C. - when pressed he admitted he hadn't (and wouldn't) pay his household charge.

Stunned to say the least - take, take, take with this hand............

usernamegoes

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Well we are talking about what they are doing now! Who knows what next year brings. Maybe the government will not be there at all..... Sure next year is next year!

We were talking about both what they are doing now and what they should do.

Peanut2011

usernamegoes wrote: »

We were talking about both what they are doing now and what they should do.

What they should do??? They should do what they promised at election time based on what people elected them.

They did none of those things!

Furthermore, if when the HHC was introduced the government made it in legislation that any other subsidy will depend on your compliance to HHC there would be no issue, but the thing is that they know that would not fly. Instead they are playing make up your own rules...

Does not work that way...

usernamegoes

Peanut2011 wrote: »

What they should do??? They should do what they promised at election time based on what people elected them.

Yes they should. Agreed.

Furthermore, if when the HHC was introduced the government made it in legislation that any other subsidy will depend on your compliance to HHC there would be no issue, but the thing is that they know that would not fly. Instead they are playing make up your own rules...

Does not work that way...

A few times now I said that, they should comply with the law. When I said we were arguing about what they should do, I meant that they should provide that the person whose finances is assessed for a grant should be tax compliant.

BASHIR

Next we will need a tax clearance cert before the guards or firebrigade can be called out. Its bloody simple, by all means ask for a tax clearance cert off of the parents. They haven't paid make a note of it and send to revenue, or is that too much work. Don't deny a child a chance to be educated because of a parents failure to pay a certain tax.

Penny Dreadful

BASHIR wrote: »

Next we will need a tax clearance cert before the guards or firebrigade can be called out. Its bloody simple, by all means ask for a tax clearance cert off of the parents. They haven't paid make a note of it and send to revenue, or is that too much work. Don't deny a child a chance to be educated because of a parents failure to pay a certain tax.[/QUOTE]

The child has been educated. The State has fulfilled its obligation in that sense. The decison to go to third level was made by the child/family. The State is not obligated to pay for that in any way at all actually.

BASHIR

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Next we will need a tax clearance cert before the guards or firebrigade can be called out. Its bloody simple, by all means ask for a tax clearance cert off of the parents. They haven't paid make a note of it and send to revenue, or is that too much work. Don't deny a child a chance to be educated because of a parents failure to pay a certain tax.[/QUOTE]

The child has been educated. The State has fulfilled its obligation in that sense. The decison to go to third level was made by the child/family. The State is not obligated to pay for that in any way at all actually.

Then Why bother to facilitate grants at all then?

Peanut2011

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

The decison to go to third level was made by the child/family. The State is not obligated to pay for that in any way at all actually.

However the STATE has decided to have the grant system open in these cases and they decided what is required to qualify. Payment of HHC was not one of the things!

The sooner you realise that the sooner you can see that the argument of should people pay the HHC or not is not valid in this instance.

Penny Dreadful

Peanut2011 wrote: »

However the STATE has decided to have the grant system open in these cases and they decided what is required to qualify. Payment of HHC was not one of the things!

The sooner you realise that the sooner you can see that the argument of should people pay the HHC or not is not valid in this instance.

My point is not the HHC in particular but the payment of tax. If people do not pay their taxes they cannot expect to continue to be able to availe of services provided by the State. Services have to be paid for. The money has to come from somewhere.
The HHC tax and whatever property tax is coming down the line is actually a long over due tax. All other countries pay it. It is a much more sensible tax collecting method than stamp duty ever was or will be.

Penny Dreadful

BASHIR wrote: »

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Then Why bother to facilitate grants at all then?

The grant system could be / should be overhauled. Too many people have and continue to be able to exploit it.

username123

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

The grant system could be / should be overhauled. Too many people have and continue to be able to exploit it.

But that is a totally seperate issue to the HC.

Unless it was provided for in the legislation surrounding grant entitlement, it is totally unlawful (and has been admitted as much by Clare CC on the radio this morning) to try and link the two.

BASHIR

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

My point is not the HHC in particular but the payment of tax. If people do not pay their taxes they cannot expect to continue to be able to availe of services provided by the State. Services have to be paid for. The money has to come from somewhere.
The HHC tax and whatever property tax is coming down the line is actually a long over due tax. All other countries pay it. It is a much more sensible tax collecting method than stamp duty ever was or will be.

By that same logic, if I fail to declare some of my income tax my child cannot avail of the services of the guards for example.

ilovesleep

blue4ever wrote: »

I heard a fella on the radio yesterday complaining that he had made alterations to his house due to a disability - but his €14,000 alteration grant hadn't been paid out yet by his C.C. - when pressed he admitted he hadn't (and wouldn't) pay his household charge.

Stunned to say the least - take, take, take with this hand............

There are two groups of non-payers:
1) the people who don't have the money. Are utterly hard pressed.

Or

2) the non-payment is a protest. There are so many things that are are wrong in this country, the way its run, etc
There's are threads here on boards already. Highlighting so much and pleanty of reasonable and justified arguements.


Look at this that was in the paper today:
Goverment makes u-turn on 75 million PS allowance cuts:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0919/breaking1.html

There's plenty of money for a 41k allowance on top of his 93k salary, after he cheated revenue.

But now a 14,000 grant for adaptations may not be paid out to a family with a disabled kid due to the non payment of a 100 euro household charge.

ilovesleep

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0919/breaking1.html

Peanut2011

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

My point is not the HHC in particular but the payment of tax. If people do not pay their taxes they cannot expect to continue to be able to availe of services provided by the State. Services have to be paid for. The money has to come from somewhere.
The HHC tax and whatever property tax is coming down the line is actually a long over due tax. All other countries pay it. It is a much more sensible tax collecting method than stamp duty ever was or will be.

See this is the issue, they have not asked if people paid all their taxes as that is Revenues issue not Co.Co. They are only looking at the HHC because people said enough is enough.

As I said before I have no issues with taxes, they are a necessary evil, what I do have the issue with is the wasting of our taxes collected. Stop the waste and people will have less of an issue.

The country is in tatters and will not get out of it without some hard work but stop having two tier system. We need to see that our politicians do their fare share of burden carrying. After all, how many of them have more than one property, investments and so on.. If that "greed" was the reason we collapsed, surely they are as much part of it as well known bankers or builders.

It is as a result of people like that, that many people were stuck having to buy the overpriced houses. How many were denied planning permissions and had to buy bulk build houses as a result. How many builders got things their way only cos they were able to send a brown envelope along with application.

Co. Councillors along with TD's and others involved were "for hire" a lot of the time. We only know the small percentage of that... All that ensured that the prices you paid for anything were well over the real price.

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

The grant system could be / should be overhauled. Too many people have and continue to be able to exploit it.

The whole parish politics should be overhauled, but as someone stated you are asking turkeys to vote on Christmas.

BASHIR

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

The grant system could be / should be overhauled. Too many people have and continue to be able to exploit it.

Separate note I agree with you 100% on this

bluecode

The fact that they would even try something says everything about the way this government is beyond incompetent. It was disgusting to see that moron Phil Hogan defending this illegal stunt on the part of Clare CC.

Then there the backdown on the allowances in the PS. It simply demonstrates how the government is terrified of the unions. No it's much easier to hit the disabled and the poor. They have no union to protect them.

People like my elderly widowed Mother are fair game though. They can cut her pension and demand she pay the household charge. Meanwhile the people sending out the threatening letters are protected in their safe jobs with their allowances and convenient working hours.

Sickening isn't it?

Penny Dreadful

BASHIR wrote: »

By that same logic, if I fail to declare some of my income tax my child cannot avail of the services of the guards for example.

And that is happening. If you don't pay your income tax there is less money to pay for the Gardaí and so stations are being closed, recruitment is being frozen, retirements are not being matched with new intakes...........end result is less tax means fewer Gardaí

username123

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

And that is happening. If you don't pay your income tax there is less money to pay for the Gardaí and so stations are being closed, recruitment is being frozen, retirements are not being matched with new intakes...........end result is less tax means fewer Gardaí

Im curious to know why you seem to think everything must be funded by more taxation.

What about public sector reform, where they have just announced the failue to achieve even 5% of this years targeted savings? 3.5 million achieved out of 75 million targeted. You do realise the HC is a drop in the ocean compared to this?

Is it fair to continue to hound Joe and Jane Homeowner while Tom and Tina Public Sector Worker are protected?

Perhaps the government should clean up their own houses before coming after the publics?

BASHIR

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

And that is happening. If you don't pay your income tax there is less money to pay for the Gardaí and so stations are being closed, recruitment is being frozen, retirements are not being matched with new intakes...........end result is less tax means fewer Gardaí

Yes tax should be paid. But hold those who should be paying it responsible not their children.

periodictable

ilovesleep wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0919/breaking1.html

For effectively the last 30 years I'll bet state boards and the PS has been stuffed with FF loyalists, much as the current gang are now doing in their round of appointments.
Nothing will change in this state until these people are forcibly dealt with-it's unfortunate but true, and that's right across the board. The reason that there has been no agitation is that many families have a member or both working in the PS-so why rock the boat? On the other side are the nutters who scream about taking money and property from the "high earners". WTF is a high earner? Someone who kept at it perhaps, put in the study, made the sacrifices and has done well. We're an appalling welfare state with people believeing themseves "entitled" to everything from house furniture to exemptions on so many things.
I believe in a household tax, provided the money is used responsibly for local services. Problem is it won't be......Ireland is a ****hole run by gangsters.

Lollipops23

I was conflicted about this yesterday, while I don't think the household charge is right, I do hate the fact that most people have paid and some have just decided not to. That's not how it works.

However, it's not right to penalise the kid over it; I know plenty of decent kids who come from horrible families and it would not be fair to prevent them from doing better for themselves just because their parents didn't pay their taxes/charges.

Penny Dreadful

username123 wrote: »

Im curious to know why you seem to think everything must be funded by more taxation.

What about public sector reform, where they have just announced the failue to achieve even 5% of this years targeted savings? 3.5 million achieved out of 75 million targeted. You do realise the HC is a drop in the ocean compared to this?

Is it fair to continue to hound Joe and Jane Homeowner while Tom and Tina Public Sector Worker are protected?

Perhaps the government should clean up their own houses before coming after the publics?

Correct taxation rather than more taxation. If a fair and equitable tax system was in place (including the property tax, waste charges, water charges- these are services we all expect to avail of and should be paid for) then things would be better.
People often wax lyrical about the Swedish (for example) state and how people get a,b,c from the State. The people who live there also pay a far higher rate of basic tax than we do. I personally would prefer to do this and have all of my tax paid over in one go rather than the drip feeding of silent taxes we have here.

There is a huge amount of cleaning up that could be / really should be done in almost every section of the public service. I'm not excusing it from anything. I think the salaries of TDs and many of the high paid "advisors" should be capped at a far lower level. Its rather amusing to me that the members of the TROIKA who come here every quarter to examine our affairs are all earning less than Enda & Co.
Equally there are many members of the public sector who while having security in their employment, are not earning big bucks for nothing. Not for anything would I want to be or have my husband working as a guard at the moment. The men and women who police the streets hardly have decent stab vests to protect themselves never mind anything else. The revolving door system in the prisons makes a mockery of the work they do more often than not.
Nurses in hospitals put up with so much abuse and disrespect from people and if I was to think of doing that job I'd want a whole lot more money for that.
Teachers do a very important job. They are educating the future for our country. Yes they have long summer holidays but we all filled in the same CAO form and we all had the option to have these holidays. They don't get paid for doing nothing in the summer their pay is equalised over the year. Teachers put up with a lot of crap from kids and the kids parents. Again, I think they are generally undervalued by society.

There are huge changes that need to me made to how the State is run. I put forward no argument against that. Indeed I fully support the idea. In the meantime, we all expect, want, require public services and they have to be paid for somehow.

username123

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Correct taxation rather than more taxation. If a fair and equitable tax system was in place (including the property tax, waste charges, water charges- these are services we all expect to avail of and should be paid for) then things would be better.
People often wax lyrical about the Swedish (for example) state and how people get a,b,c from the State. The people who live there also pay a far higher rate of basic tax than we do. I personally would prefer to do this and have all of my tax paid over in one go rather than the drip feeding of silent taxes we have here.

There is a huge amount of cleaning up that could be / really should be done in almost every section of the public service. I'm not excusing it from anything. I think the salaries of TDs and many of the high paid "advisors" should be capped at a far lower level. Its rather amusing to me that the members of the TROIKA who come here every quarter to examine our affairs are all earning less than Enda & Co.
Equally there are many members of the public sector who while having security in their employment, are not earning big bucks for nothing. Not for anything would I want to be or have my husband working as a guard at the moment. The men and women who police the streets hardly have decent stab vests to protect themselves never mind anything else. The revolving door system in the prisons makes a mockery of the work they do more often than not.
Nurses in hospitals put up with so much abuse and disrespect from people and if I was to think of doing that job I'd want a whole lot more money for that.
Teachers do a very important job. They are educating the future for our country. Yes they have long summer holidays but we all filled in the same CAO form and we all had the option to have these holidays. They don't get paid for doing nothing in the summer their pay is equalised over the year. Teachers put up with a lot of crap from kids and the kids parents. Again, I think they are generally undervalued by society.

There are huge changes that need to me made to how the State is run. I put forward no argument against that. Indeed I fully support the idea. In the meantime, we all expect, want, require public services and they have to be paid for somehow.

I cant argue with any of the above.

Although I do think the areas of waste in the public sector are not in the visible (and usually emotive) jobs like teaching and nursing. There are massive wastes in administration, managers of managers of managers for example. There are the over inflated salaries (compared to other european countries) of consultants, politicians, etc...

And while people should pay taxes and the public sector should be cleaned up - that still does not excuse trying to extort a tax by threatening the education of a child for the sins of his or her parents. No matter whether or not someone agrees with the HC, what was tried by Clare CC was unlawful. We have due process.

Peanut2011

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Correct taxation rather than more taxation. If a fair and equitable tax system was in place (including the property tax, waste charges, water charges- these are services we all expect to avail of and should be paid for) then things would be better.

And you have just HIT the nail on the head. That is the issue people have here. The issue is the fact that they think we can't think for ourselves and try to feed us bull all the time.

The line that the HHC is for local services.... So many local services have been privatised and people are paying for them separately and you did not see major uproar about that. Waste collection is the perfect example.

Now that people said hang on, what is this for exactly? They decide we can't ask the question.

Has anyone considered if the HHC for the people living in apartments or town houses, who as a result of the local Co.Co. decision when they were being built, have to be paying for all their local services trough management fee??

Our green areas, public lighting, roads are being maintained trough this charge. Trust me I would much rather pay the €100 and get all that maintained by CoCo than having to pay over €1,500 a year to the management company.

Why should any such person pay the HHC?

So before we completely go off topic the bottom line is that the grant is provided by department for education and not by CoCo. Furthermore the real issue is that they took upon themselves to bully people in to it which they have no power to do and I hope they get everything that is coming to them.

Feathers

usernamegoes wrote: »

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.

No, not finances - income. It only became finances when Clare CC made an arbitrary decision this year - no such relationship exists between the rules on grant applications and the household charge either.

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.

I'm arguing from the principled position that it's not OK for those in power to make decisions on a whim on the basis that 'well if someone takes it to court & they were wrong to do it, it will be repealed so no harm done' - democracy shouldn't be pending your ability to take a court challenge & it's a very slippery slope to go down this line of thinking.

fishy fishy

so who would need a college grant I wonder....hmmmm not the rich, that's for sure - probably working class or lower middle class kids. So basically what the Labour (or should I say "hard labour") govt are now saying is

education for the rich
degradation for the poor

nice move LABOUR!!!

:rolleyes:

I've lost all faith in irish politics.

usernamegoes

Feathers wrote: »

No, not finances - income. It only became finances when Clare CC made an arbitrary decision this year - no such relationship exists between the rules on grant applications and the household charge either.

Two points here. 1) Even if you're right that it's only income then I think that should be changed

2) The authority administering the grant currently take note of the P21 statement for underpaid taxes and seek documents confirming compliance or agreement to comply when an underpayment is noticed. Ditto, if the person has been misclaiming social welfare.

The Local Authority has a duty to protect the public purse.

I'm arguing from the principled position that it's not OK for those in power to make decisions on a whim on the basis that 'well if someone takes it to court & they were wrong to do it, it will be repealed so no harm done' - democracy shouldn't be pending your ability to take a court challenge & it's a very slippery slope to go down this line of thinking.

We agree on this point. I have said that over and over. Let's leave it now and move on.

What I was saying was that my position was that the HC should be considered in principle, if not legally. If they are not allowed then the law should be amended. That is what I mean by principle.

road_hog

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I was conflicted about this yesterday, while I don't think the household charge is right, I do hate the fact that most people have paid and some have just decided not to. That's not how it works.

However, it's not right to penalise the kid over it; I know plenty of decent kids who come from horrible families and it would not be fair to prevent them from doing better for themselves just because their parents didn't pay their taxes/charges.

kids always pay for the sins of their parents , to think otherwise is naive

bamboozle

fishy fishy wrote: »

so who would need a college grant I wonder....hmmmm not the rich, that's for sure - probably working class or lower middle class kids. So basically what the Labour (or should I say "hard labour") govt are now saying is

education for the rich
degradation for the poor

nice move LABOUR!!!

:rolleyes:

I've lost all faith in irish politics.

i'd have actually thought what two county councils are saying is:

before we assess your claim for a 3rd level grant, please provide confirmation your principal private residence's household charge has been paid.

quite simple really.

Hats off the Clare and Tipp CoCo's and i hope the rest follow.

BASHIR

road_hog wrote: »

kids always pay for the sins of their parents , to think otherwise is naive

Yes this is true, but to consciously pursue and know they will suffer is quite a low and quite sinister move from someone who is suppose to represent the people of this country.

fishy fishy

bamboozle wrote: »

i'd have actually thought what two county councils are saying is:

before we assess your claim for a 3rd level grant, please provide confirmation your principal private residence's household charge has been paid.

quite simple really.

Hats off the Clare and Tipp CoCo's and i hope the rest follow.

so if they can' do this why not do it with everything else - let's have a council man on the door of A and E. If they haven't paid their "household charge" then they can die.

the people that might have trouble paying this "charge" are the people who's kids will need a grant to educate and better themselves.

I'll give it till after December, when the new budget comes out - I'd say there will be a lot more people taking off the rose-tinted glasses then.

labour should be ashamed of themselves.

Penny Dreadful

fishy fishy wrote: »

so if they can' do this why not do it with everything else - let's have a council man on the door of A and E. If they haven't paid their "household charge" then they can die.

the people that might have trouble paying this "charge" are the people who's kids will need a grant to educate and better themselves.

I'll give it till after December, when the new budget comes out - I'd say there will be a lot more people taking off the rose-tinted glasses then.

labour should be ashamed of themselves.

Well as you already have to pay to visit A&E (unless you have a medical card or letter from your GP) this is a pointless argument.

There are a lot of people who don't have difficulty paying the charge they have simply opted not to pay.
As I've said before third level education is not an entitlement. If you want it you pay for it.

fishy fishy

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Well as you already have to pay to visit A&E (unless you have a medical card or letter from your GP) this is a pointless argument.

There are a lot of people who don't have difficulty paying the charge they have simply opted not to pay.
As I've said before third level education is not an entitlement. If you want it you pay for it.

and as you are already paying for services in the taxes you pay, the household charge is is a pointless charge.

Cannot understand your highlight sentence above - are you actually agreeing that education is only for the rich? What a disgrace. Its like something from the upstairs/downstairs era.

ilovesleep

bamboozle wrote: »

i'd have actually thought what two county councils are saying is:

before we assess your claim for a 3rd level grant, please provide confirmation your principal private residence's household charge has been paid.

quite simple really.

Hats off the Clare and Tipp CoCo's and i hope the rest follow.

Why aren't they asking for proof of HHC payment for assessing applications for example for car tax, or car licenses?

Why single out not one type of application and not others?

Skinnykenyan

Simple way around it.. Pay your taxes even if you disagree with the tax but have every parent affected by this, plus all their friends family and the students if their of age write a letter pledging their vote in the next general election to an opposition candidate if this goes ahead.. if theirs no back track sure look we will have a new government with new screw us over taxes.. most people complaining about this are the same people who are too lazy to march on leinster house to show their discontent maybe its time to hit the streets and show the government we wont be walked all over.. or we could just drink tea??

Biggins

Update:

South Tipperary County Council, which yesterday said it would seek proof of payment of the €100 charge before releasing grants to third-level students who qualify for them, is no longer proceeding with the plans.

They kopped on that it would have clearly been illegal to do! (maybe they were each also individually worried about their asses next time getting re-elected! A possibility? You guess!)

County secretary John O’Mahony told The Journal.ie that the council had made the decision after taking “further legal advice”.

“Our initial legal opinion [...] was that we would have had an entitlement under general local authority legislation to withhold money,” he said. But when the matter was looked at more closely on a national level… on that basis it was decided not to continue.

LINK.

So after “further legal advice” they were we can assess, up s**t creek for trying the stunt and they had to backtrack. Now will the others trying similar do the same? Its a case of wait and see!

If they don't? The courts of Ireland are going to be filled up more over with the complete mess that is the Household Charge brought in by the useless Fine Gael and Labour.

dixiefly

Biggins wrote: »

Can you read?

Children penalised for the actions of parents is disgusting.
Are you that blind you can't make that out?

So its ok to hit out at children because of the actions of their parents!
Get a fcuking grip and kop yourself on!

Biggins,
Would YOU cop yourself on.

You invite discussion saying that people should feel free to disagree with you and then you attack the first poster that does. We get your point but this agressive attitude demeans a debate that you were only after starting.

On the topic, the attempt by the council could be unlawful but as a person who has paid the household charge AND pays fully for my child in college it is a little annoying when she tells me of all of her friends on grants, some of whom have better spending power than we do. In fact it was her flatmate on the grant that pushed and pushed for them to get the more expensive accomodation but that is a debate for another day.

I never thought of asking whether the parents of the other girls on grants had paid the household charge. The truth is that the grant relates to the income of the parents. I dont disagree with them asking the question but I think it is one of those things that will generate so much unrest that it is not worth it. Systems for identifying those that deserve the grants should be in place as the reported 40% on grants seems excessive to me.

In my opinion the objection to the household charge by many middle to low income families is misplaced as, in the longer term, it should facilitate a more equitable tax system. Rome wasnt built in a day and it's especially difficult in our case after the mess FF left us in.

Biggins

dixiefly wrote: »

Biggins,
Would YOU cop yourself on.

You invite discussion saying that people should feel free to disagree with you and then you attack the first poster that does.

For the record and again accuracy, I had an issue with the poster I assume you mean, because they stated something or tried to infer something, I did NOT state or infer: "So it's disgusting that people are forced to pay their taxes?".

Its had NOTHING to do with disagreeing with me.
I will face anyone that says or tries to say something, I have NOT said.

...as a person who has paid the household charge AND pays fully for my child in college it is a little annoying when she tells me of all of her friends on grants, some of whom have better spending power than we do. In fact it was her flatmate on the grant that pushed and pushed for them to get the more expensive accomodation but that is a debate for another day.

I sorry your put out (maybe within reason) by such things, but your person experience does not change the fact that the now cancelled (by some) action, was wrong.

fishy fishy

dixiefly wrote: »

as a person who has paid the household charge AND pays fully for my child in college it is a little annoying when she tells me of all of her friends on grants, some of whom have better spending power than we do. In fact it was her flatmate on the grant that pushed and pushed for them to get the more expensive accomodation but that is a debate for another day.
.

aren't you lucky to be able to do so. Some people are not as lucky as you - remember, it's a long life - one day you too might need to avail of a grant for something.

tayto lover

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Well as you already have to pay to visit A&E (unless you have a medical card or letter from your GP) this is a pointless argument.

There are a lot of people who don't have difficulty paying the charge they have simply opted not to pay.
As I've said before third level education is not an entitlement. If you want it you pay for it.

It is for farmers' children though and many people outside the PAYE net who can distort their earnings. Would love to see the figures broken down.

Steodonn

dixiefly wrote: »

Biggins,
Would YOU cop yourself on.

On the topic, the attempt by the council could be unlawful but as a person who has paid the household charge AND pays fully for my child in college it is a little annoying when she tells me of all of her friends on grants, some of whom have better spending power than we do. In fact it was her flatmate on the grant that pushed and pushed for them to get the more expensive accomodation but that is a debate for another day.

I never thought of asking whether the parents of the other girls on grants had paid the household charge. The truth is that the grant relates to the income of the parents. I dont disagree with them asking the question but I think it is one of those things that will generate so much unrest that it is not worth it. Systems for identifying those that deserve the grants should be in place as the reported 40% on grants seems excessive to me.

There is a scaling system. Not everyone on the grant gets the same so them 40% are probably not getting it all. http://www.studentfinance.ie/mp9552/grant-levels/index.html

The highest Non-adjacent Rate would just about cover rent so the rest has to come from somewhere else. And if they have more spending power they are getting their money somewhere else as the parents have to be under a certain income or Maybe their parents made cut backs else where to give them more money

Biggins

Just for clarity, they stated on RTE 6 news that one of the reasons why councils could not legally effect grants (if parents paid the tax or not) was because the Ed' grant was NOT council money.

dixiefly

fishy fishy wrote: »

aren't you lucky to be able to do so. Some people are not as lucky as you - remember, it's a long life - one day you too might need to avail of a grant for something.

Lucky, yes, in that I am not currently unemployed though I have been in the past so I know what it is like. I also stated that some of those on grants have better spending power or at least seem to have better spending power than me.

JRant

dixiefly wrote: »

Biggins wrote: »

Can you read?

Children penalised for the actions of parents is disgusting.
Are you that blind you can't make that out?

So its ok to hit out at children because of the actions of their parents!
Get a fcuking grip and kop yourself on!

Biggins,
Would YOU cop yourself on.

You invite discussion saying that people should feel free to disagree with you and then you attack the first poster that does. We get your point but this agressive attitude demeans a debate that you were only after starting.

On the topic, the attempt by the council could be unlawful but as a person who has paid the household charge AND pays fully for my child in college it is a little annoying when she tells me of all of her friends on grants, some of whom have better spending power than we do. In fact it was her flatmate on the grant that pushed and pushed for them to get the more expensive accomodation but that is a debate for another day.

I never thought of asking whether the parents of the other girls on grants had paid the household charge. The truth is that the grant relates to the income of the parents. I dont disagree with them asking the question but I think it is one of those things that will generate so much unrest that it is not worth it. Systems for identifying those that deserve the grants should be in place as the reported 40% on grants seems excessive to me.

In my opinion the objection to the household charge by many middle to low income families is misplaced as, in the longer term, it should facilitate a more equitable tax system. Rome wasnt built in a day and it's especially difficult in our case after the mess FF left us in.

Your annoyed they have more spending power than you and yet have no idea of their personal circumstances, seems fairly petty to me.

You really are misguided if you think this HC has anything to do with reforming the tax system. Low to middle income earners are objecting because they are the ones being affected most by all these charges. We've had VAT increases, USC and now this HC, all of which are regressive tax measures that hurt the less well off more. This is a known fact and can't be argued.

So I'll put this to you, why should low to middle income earners just put up with all these regressive taxation measures when there has not be a single change to facilitate a more equitable system?

GreeBo

Enda said today that the purpose of holding off the grant was because CoCo's have admin charges associated with facilitating the grant, so if you havent funded your CoCo (by paying the household charge then...)

I think its sensationalist to talk about "children penalised"....are these children claiming the grant or is it the parents?
Couldnt they do something crazy like, pay the charge, claim the grant and take 100 from the grant to cover the social charge?

Pay the taxes/charges that are due, or, if you opt out, then opt out of everything, you cant pick and choose, otherwise you get anarchy as no one "wants" to pay taxes/charges...