Children penalised for the actions of parents

JRant

GreeBo wrote: »

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...

Well if Enda said it, it must be true!!

Nobody can opt out of everything, thats a complete straw man.

There are defined ways to deal with non compliance of tax issues, to suggest CoCo can go about it in an ad-hoc manner is laughable.
If the powers that be don't follow the rules what hope have we?

steddyeddy

GreeBo wrote: »

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...

Actually many people in college are struggling as it is on the grant so I can imagine with holding the grant is penalising them. Chances are those who need the grant for their children can least afford the 100 euro aswell.

Steodonn

I think its sensationalist to talk about "children penalised"....are these children claiming the grant or is it the parents?

Nope its the children. Everything for my grant was in my name ( save for the parents income part) and is going to be paid into my bank account sometime in the next few months well after I have to buy (very expensive) books

steddyeddy

Steodonn wrote: »

Nope its the children. Everything for my grant was in my name ( save for the parents income part) and is going to be paid into my bank account sometime in the next few months well after I have to buy (very expensive) books

Yes indeed. Some students who have say six modules could be looking at book fews of a few hundred at least. Good luck in college and remember there is always student welfare funds to avail of if you are stuck for books.

JRant

steddyeddy wrote: »

GreeBo wrote: »

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...

Actually many people in college are struggling as it is on the grant so I can imagine with holding the grant is penalising them. Chances are those who need the grant for their children can least afford the 100 euro aswell.

What really annoys me is how quick people are to throw due process out the window to suit populist ideals.
I've read some bizarre comments on this thread and have to say it worries me greatly.

JRant

steddyeddy wrote: »

Steodonn wrote: »

Nope its the children. Everything for my grant was in my name ( save for the parents income part) and is going to be paid into my bank account sometime in the next few months well after I have to buy (very expensive) books

Yes indeed. Some students who have say six modules could be looking at book fews of a few hundred at least. Good luck in college and remember there is always student welfare funds to avail of if you are stuck for books.

Absolutely, I have 6 modules per semsester, totaling 12 for a full term, all of them requiring completely seperate reading material. Thats a huge chunk of change on amazon let me tell you.

steddyeddy

JRant wrote: »

What really annoys me is how quick people are to throw due process out the window to suit populist ideals.
I've read some bizarre comments on this thread and have to say it worries me greatly.

Some of the comments on here have reeked of ignorance put nicely. Some people call their comments right wing but in reality their ignorant.

steddyeddy

JRant wrote: »

Absolutely, I have 6 modules per semsester, totaling 12 for a full term, all of them requiring completely seperate reading material. Thats a huge chunk of change on amazon let me tell you.

I know I did it myself once. The books are expensive but not to mention lab books, lab equitment and printing.

Slurryface

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!

Fully back Clare on this.
I would go further though and refuse any and all services to anyone who cannot provide either a payment reciept number for their Household Charge or a waiver for the address that they reside at. Applications for everything from exam numbers,SW payments,Medical cards, grants, etc etc should only be handled for tjose who have paid.
You pay you get- you dont pay, you dont get, simples!

steddyeddy

Slurryface wrote: »

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!

Fully back Clare on this.
I would go further though and refuse any and all services to anyone who cannot provide either a payment reciept number for their Household Charge or a waiver for the address that they reside at. Applications for everything from exam numbers,SW payments,Medical cards, grants, etc etc should only be handled for tjose who have paid.
You pay you get- you dont pay, you dont get, simples!

well that cuts out half the farming community anyway and a lot more people who dont pay full tax.

JRant

Slurryface wrote: »

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!

Fully back Clare on this.
I would go further though and refuse any and all services to anyone who cannot provide either a payment reciept number for their Household Charge or a waiver for the address that they reside at. Applications for everything from exam numbers,SW payments,Medical cards, grants, etc etc should only be handled for tjose who have paid.
You pay you get- you dont pay, you dont get, simples!

To do that that we'd need to rip up the constitution.
Do you realise that due process and the seperation of powers are part of our constitution?
Or does this little fact not matter to you as long as it doesn't effect you.
Get real would you, this would be the first step to a complete breakdown of our society.

thesimpsons

children have always been penalised or alternatively reaped the rewards of their parents. whether the parenting styles or good or not, the children will always be on the receiving end of the parenting style. If the parents choose to drink every penny they have, then the kids are on receiving end. If parents choose to pay every penny they have on holidays, education, cars, whatever, the kids will suffer or reap rewards relative to this. Equally, children who can apply for a grant based on parents earnings reap rewards college costs which children of parents whose earning are over the limits, suffer the hardship of having to try fund it themselves or through loans backed by parents.

So many comments here about being eligible for a grant means you obviously can't afford the 100e make me laugh. Because we can't apply for the grant for my kids, it has put us in the situation where the 100e for the HC was hard enough to come by.

JRant

thesimpsons wrote: »

children have always been penalised or alternatively reaped the rewards of their parents. whether the parenting styles or good or not, the children will always be on the receiving end of the parenting style. If the parents choose to drink every penny they have, then the kids are on receiving end. If parents choose to pay every penny they have on holidays, education, cars, whatever, the kids will suffer or reap rewards relative to this. Equally, children who can apply for a grant based on parents earnings reap rewards college costs which children of parents whose earning are over the limits, suffer the hardship of having to try fund it themselves or through loans backed by parents.

So many comments here about being eligible for a grant means you obviously can't afford the 100e make me laugh. Because we can't apply for the grant for my kids, it has put us in the situation where the 100e for the HC was hard enough to come by.

The grant system is far from perfect and can see parents just over the thresehold having to pay the full costs themselves, unfairly if you ask me. I think a more fluid system whereby if you are near that thresehold you get a percentage of the grant that decreases as you get further from this limit.
However this is a completely seperate issue from the HC and has no business being mixed together. It's a slippery slope if a CoCo/Government are allowed to just make stuff up that has no bearing in law.

Piliger

GreeBo wrote: »

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...

Absolutely. Unfortunately we live in the 'entitlement' generation and it is so disturbing to read so many comments that try to pawn off these parasites with loony left wing 'due process'' and children's rights nonsense.

Dependent children are assessed according their parents means. They do so and are happy to do in order to get their grants.

NO grants or services like this should be available to people who refuse to pay their due taxes. I find it extraordinarily arrogant that there are people like this - people who actually complain about not being given handouts by others who actually pay their taxes ... while they refuse.

Biggins

JRant wrote: »

To do that that we'd need to rip up the constitution.
Do you realise that due process and the seperation of powers are part of our constitution?
Or does this little fact not matter to you as long as it doesn't effect you.
Get real would you, this would be the first step to a complete breakdown of our society.

Yep - a LOT of folk are spouting (I paraphrase) "...but we have to help the country out!" or "we have have no choice!" or "I've got a huge chip on my shoulder, I'm paying and they aren't! Sob... sob..."

But everyone one in them in their own way is avoiding the legal issue at stake here and/or willing to conveniently over-look that illegal move for the sake of seeing that their view is justified.

The law of many modern countries - like it or lump it! - is that if I break the law then I - ME!!! - should be punished. Absolutely quite correct!
* It is wrong - get that? WRONG, to punish one person for the actions of a separate person.
* What's more, its wrong to strong-arm one person which is innocent and has NO legal responsibility to pay such a tax but backball them and punish them!

The grants are applied for by the student, its their name that goes on the application form - they are asked for income details so they can be assessed.
No decent country (well except Ireland now to its utter shame) penalises at state level, one person for possible the sins of another.

If we start going down that road, it its absolutely a terrifying step to take.
We will be throwing the rule of law - hell, of just plain unfairness, out the fcuking window!

...But NO!
Lets do this!
Lets punish one for the sins of another - and fools are try this justify this?
Seriously?

So its ok for the state to openly be unfair to innocent people/offspring, to victimise them, to make them a target for the possible actions/inactions of another?
...Because thats what this state is doing - others in opposition will spout excuses and/or try to window-dress it up in spin and "but... but..."

Seriously?
Is this the gurrier low level that we are stepping down to?
And some defend this?

This is not an Ireland I want when this happens.
The Ireland I know can be better than this.
The Ireland I thought I knew, SHOULD be better than this!

There is NO justification for punishing one person for the possible sins of another!

NONE!

tayto lover

Slurryface wrote: »

Fully back Clare on this.
I would go further though and refuse any and all services to anyone who cannot provide either a payment reciept number for their Household Charge or a waiver for the address that they reside at. Applications for everything from exam numbers,SW payments,Medical cards, grants, etc etc should only be handled for tjose who have paid.
You pay you get- you dont pay, you dont get, simples!

Ok Alastair.

Sergeant

Biggins wrote: »

The grants are applied for by the student, its their name that goes on the application form - they are asked for income details so they can be assessed.
No decent country (well except Ireland now to its utter shame) penalises at state level, one person for possible the sins of another.

Lots of countries penalise parents for not looking after there children in a responsible manner, when the child is found guilty of petty crime. Families are often collectively punished for the actions of one of the group in committing welfare fraud. It isn't exactly sippenhaft taking place here.

We live in a society, and pay taxes to allow a social-democratic society such as ours to exist (you know, the type that pays out grants). If you willfully engage in tax evasion (no matter how strongly you disagree with the tax), then how can you expect to gain benefit from the self-same system?

You need to tone down your contrived moral outrage, Biggins. You engage in the type of populist drivel that not even the most brass-necked of Sinn Fein spin doctor's would consider spouting. Continuously spouting about every single cutback, while never having a single grounded and logical idea about how the State pays for these services in the first place.

Piliger

Biggins wrote: »

There is NO justification for punishing one person for the possible sins of another!

NONE!

Well actually there is. Married couples regularly get punished for one partners situation when their joint income is taken into account for welfare or tax purposes.

But of course this is not even remotely close to punishing one person for another. The parents are being punished, not the children. This is just vacuous stuff.

Biggins

Piliger wrote: »

Well actually there is. Married couples regularly get punished for one partners situation when their joint income is taken into account for welfare or tax purposes.

But of course this is not even remotely close to punishing one person for another. The parents are being punished, not the children. This is just vacuous stuff.

The situation you describe in the first paragraph is indeed down to a single application that contains two names.
If one of those names is a person that is culpable in causing pain/hardship to the other, they should be held accountable.
Not have their kids be punished (by the state) or the man living two doors down.

The parents are not being punished, they are being strong-armed - and sometimes this is necessary but do it to them - not hold their offspring as 'hostage' over them as a state threat!
Thats the actions of a a rouge state. See historic similar actions in previous Libya, apartheid South Africa and many others which took this terrible method to force one person to capitulate by making another suffer.

It is ever close to punishing one person for another.
Actually, I'm wrong.
It IS punishing one person for another!

You engage in the type of populist drivel...

Pardon me for trying to see that the right person is held accountable.
I guess thats bloody wrong now too and people doing it should be chastised.
If that what's called now in spin, is "populist drivel" - I'm guilty of it and proud!

Piliger

Biggins wrote: »

Pardon me for trying to see that the right person is held accountable.
I guess thats bloody wrong now too and people doing it should be chastised.
If that what's called now in spin, is "populist drivel" - I'm guilty of it and proud!

Firstly that was not my quote you responded to.

Secondly, populism is no crime so I have no issue with that.

Abusing the english language and undergoing verbal gymnastics to justify welfare parasites is what I take issue with.

People cannot have it both ways. No taxes, no welfare support. End of. The responsibility lies with these disgusting parents. Totally.

steddyeddy

Piliger wrote: »

Well actually there is. Married couples regularly get punished for one partners situation when their joint income is taken into account for welfare or tax purposes.

But of course this is not even remotely close to punishing one person for another. The parents are being punished, not the children. This is just vacuous stuff.

How in the name of st.pubus is a removal of a grant not potentially going to hurt a child??

steddyeddy

Piliger wrote: »

Firstly that was not my quote you responded to.

Secondly, populism is no crime so I have no issue with that.

Abusing the english language and undergoing verbal gymnastics to justify welfare parasites is what I take issue with.

People cannot have it both ways. No taxes, no welfare support. End of. The responsibility lies with these disgusting parents. Totally.

What if they cant afford 100?

Biggins

Piliger wrote: »

Firstly that was not my quote you responded to.

That was noted previously.

Piliger wrote: »

Secondly, populism is no crime so I have no issue with that.

Nor do I.
Sometimes populism also contains things that are right also sometimes.
I sure you agree.
But those opposing it in total blankness, don't want to see/hear that.

Piliger wrote: »

Abusing the english language and undergoing verbal gymnastics to justify welfare parasites is what I take issue with.

The trick is to separate 'verbal gymnastics' from thinking that anyone doing this, is also advocating that they are justifying welfare parasites as you title them (maybe with justification, maybe not).

Speaking for myself, I try to verbalise with clarity and how I stand/opinionate.
If I have to talk things around and get sometimes things back on track and/or make it clear on what point I'm addressing directly, I will do so.

I can't stand "parasites" myself. There is some in government and outside it, sadly.

Piliger wrote: »

People cannot have it both ways. No taxes, no welfare support.

So go after those DIRECTLY doing the bad deeds. I don't have a problem with this.
Does anyone?

Piliger wrote: »

...The responsibility lies with these disgusting parents. Totally.

...So hold the parents responsible - not victimise someone else.

steddyeddy

I have to laugh at the drivel being pumped out by those who hate people who dont pay the household tax. Hate the parents but anyone who wants to take this out on children who have no choice in the matter are sick human beings.

JRant

Piliger wrote: »

Absolutely. Unfortunately we live in the 'entitlement' generation and it is so disturbing to read so many comments that try to pawn off these parasites with loony left wing 'due process'' and children's rights nonsense.

Dependent children are assessed according their parents means. They do so and are happy to do in order to get their grants.

NO grants or services like this should be available to people who refuse to pay their due taxes. I find it extraordinarily arrogant that there are people like this - people who actually complain about not being given handouts by others who actually pay their taxes ... while they refuse.

What are you on about with your 'entitlement' generation?
Do you mean the 300,000+ people who have lost their jobs since the recession hit?
As I see it we had close enough to full employment during the 'boom' years and yet you are suggesting that these people just gave up their jobs to live off the state. I can't begin to tell you how wrong this is.

I'd also like to remind you that we all rely on the state to some extent, whether you work or not. Does that make the whole population 'parasites' as you so eloquently put it, or just those who may need a little bit more help to get by?

Lastly, due process has nothing to do with the "loony left" or anything of the sort. Try thinking before posting this drivel would you. Imagine a scenario where the Garda show up at your door, arrest you, don't tell you why and then leave you rotting in prison for years without ever seeing trial. I'm sure you'd be more than happy with this situation as due process is only for the "loony left" and believe me this happens across the globe in countries without it. Be very very careful what you wish for.

Galwayguy35

steddyeddy wrote: »

I have to laugh at the drivel being pumped out by those who hate people who dont pay the household tax. Hate the parents but anyone who wants to take this out on children who have no choice in the matter are sick human beings.

But sure it's going to be given to the students so it isn't even an issue.

Peanut2011

Piliger wrote: »

Absolutely. Unfortunately we live in the 'entitlement' generation and it is so disturbing to read so many comments that try to pawn off these parasites with loony left wing 'due process'' and children's rights nonsense.


NO grants or services like this should be available to people who refuse to pay their due taxes. I find it extraordinarily arrogant that there are people like this - people who actually complain about not being given handouts by others who actually pay their taxes ... while they refuse.

So the "entitlement" age as you put it only seems to apply to ordinary citizens when they need some help. Does it? Should our TD's who are there to make sure we have fair society not lead by example? They all seem to be "entitled" to milk us all dry just so they can hold on to their own gravy train.

In relation to the second paragraph, do we than scrap the whole social welfare system? Sure if you are not paying your taxes why should we give you anything?

Should we than stop single parent payments if they are not working?

Where does this end? It seems that the people who want to stand up for their rights and tell these morons enough is enough are all of a sudden tax cheats. How many households are struggling to pay the mortgage / rent, bills and so on? But I guess if that is not you than you don't care.

The household charge was just thrown out there without due process. The bully tactics worked of some people but there are still number that won't just bend over cos Phil said it!

These people in government have broken every promise they made. Even the people who want to do what they promised are not allowed as they must follow the "party" policy. I never knew that when you vote you vote on party policy not an individual.

Furthermore with the laws for them being separate from us (obviously) they can do what they like? Don't think so!

I did not see you complaining the fact Mick Wallace is still in the Dail after defrauding the state out of millions but you are here complaining about people not paying €100.

It is quite clear that the bigger the financial crime the lesser the punishment. Should we stop paying for the teachers in private schools where Mick Wallace's children go?

Should Mick Wallace be refused hospital treatment should he need one unless he brings cash?

dark crystal

Can't find a link now, but heard on the news this morning that a woman applying for social welfare has been sent an application checklist which included proof that she has paid the household charge.

I think this story is going to get bigger folks. The government is going to be holding this charge over many people's heads soon...

Slurryface

steddyeddy wrote: »

I have to laugh at the drivel being pumped out by those who hate people who dont pay the household tax. Hate the parents but anyone who wants to take this out on children who have no choice in the matter are sick human beings.

The only ones who are potentially hurting the children are the parents who are choosing to evade their obligations.
Personally I have zero sympathy for them.

Slurryface

dark crystal wrote: »

Can't find a link now, but heard on the news this morning that a woman applying for social welfare has been sent an application checklist which included proof that she has paid the household charge.

I think this story is going to get bigger folks. The government is going to be holding this charge over many people's heads soon...

Not a day too soon.
Nobody should be allowed to avail of any state service or payment unless they can produce proof of payment of the charge or proof of waiver/ineligibility.

tayto lover

dark crystal wrote: »

Can't find a link now, but heard on the news this morning that a woman applying for social welfare has been sent an application checklist which included proof that she has paid the household charge.

I think this story is going to get bigger folks. The government is going to be holding this charge over many people's heads soon...

Plus when the water charge, and property tax is brought in it will get worse. I can see a lot of marches and revolt in the near future. We are getting near the tipping point now.

dark crystal

Slurryface wrote: »

Not a day too soon.
Nobody should be allowed to avail of any state service or payment unless they can produce proof of payment of the charge or proof of waiver/ineligibility.

You're all heart Slurryface :pac:

fishy fishy

dixiefly wrote: »

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.

why is everything based on you - you have no idea of others "spending power" unless you live with them and know them intimately. You are basing your opinion on what you "see". You actually have no idea what other peoples life is like. Just be happy that you are in a position that you don't have to struggle, and don't make assumptions about others.

ilovesleep

Slurryface wrote: »

Fully back Clare on this.
I would go further though and refuse any and all services to anyone who cannot provide either a payment reciept number for their Household Charge or a waiver for the address that they reside at. Applications for everything from exam numbers,SW payments,Medical cards, grants, etc etc should only be handled for tjose who have paid.
You pay you get- you dont pay, you dont get, simples!

And yet Bertie Ahern, dodgy as fcuk and up to his neck in sh1te including tax affairs continues to receive a healthy pension. And this is after being incompetent in his duty to care for this country.

But don't pay 100 euro, call an ambulance and you're going to be let die.
Call a fire brigade and they'll see your sleeping children burn in a house fire.

We have a welfare and social state, all over inflated and raised on taxes on a credit fuelled bubble. That bubble burst. Private sector went under. Welfare state - there's been some chops but not near enough. Socially as in the PS system, there's been some changes and cuts but nowhere near enough. In fact we have a CPA protecting wages but at the expense of SW, services, and the private sector, draining away what's left of it.

The non payment of the HHC is either
1) one does not have it due to falling on hard times and perhaps a having a family to support.
Or
2) a protest. Many logical and reasonable arguements for against.

The private sector took an awful battering and SW and PS and public expeniture don't reflect this, draining what't left of the private sector.

This household tax is to go to LAs. Have there been any reforms for their wasteful spending? Probably not, considering services are being cut. They will continue to spend on projects such as upgrading roundabouts and junctions.

We're expected to pay into an over inflated system and a system of greed. The non payment is a protest to cull this sh1te.

Earlier this year it was reported that the CEO of the ESB retired on a pension of 100,000 and something a a year, along with a lump sum package of 800,000 in which 200,000 of that was tax free.
There's been countless such examples of such pay, conditions and perks and bonuses.

There's been countless more similiar.

Can you not see anything wrong with those pensions, perks and bonuses, paid out by the state?

Coming at a time of austerity.

Many people in the private sector lost their jobs. Others got their hours slashed and so their wage too.

People unemployed, people on a weekly wage of 200, 250 or 300 are expected to pay into this system to keep it going.

All of this has to stop and stop from the top down. Pay into the system and you haven't got a chance of it to change.

Instead the government is working from the bottom up, draining what's left of the private sector, the very sector that will pull us out from a recession with the export and tourism sectors. But at the same time protecting their pockets and nests.

I'm all for paying and I'll pay all that I can out from my weekly wage of 230 euro to help Ireland get better. but by golly and christ, not when its fcuked back into my face with many on very large pensions, perks, bonuses and pay.

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

Yep - a LOT of folk are spouting (I paraphrase) "...but we have to help the country out!" or "we have have no choice!" or "I've got a huge chip on my shoulder, I'm paying and they aren't! Sob... sob..."

But everyone one in them in their own way is avoiding the legal issue at stake here and/or willing to conveniently over-look that illegal move for the sake of seeing that their view is justified.

The law of many modern countries - like it or lump it! - is that if I break the law then I - ME!!! - should be punished. Absolutely quite correct!
* It is wrong - get that? WRONG, to punish one person for the actions of a separate person.
* What's more, its wrong to strong-arm one person which is innocent and has NO legal responsibility to pay such a tax but backball them and punish them!

The grants are applied for by the student, its their name that goes on the application form - they are asked for income details so they can be assessed.
No decent country (well except Ireland now to its utter shame) penalises at state level, one person for possible the sins of another.

If we start going down that road, it its absolutely a terrifying step to take.
We will be throwing the rule of law - hell, of just plain unfairness, out the fcuking window!

...But NO!
Lets do this!
Lets punish one for the sins of another - and fools are try this justify this?
Seriously?

So its ok for the state to openly be unfair to innocent people/offspring, to victimise them, to make them a target for the possible actions/inactions of another?
...Because thats what this state is doing - others in opposition will spout excuses and/or try to window-dress it up in spin and "but... but..."

Seriously?
Is this the gurrier low level that we are stepping down to?
And some defend this?

This is not an Ireland I want when this happens.
The Ireland I know can be better than this.
The Ireland I thought I knew, SHOULD be better than this!

There is NO justification for punishing one person for the possible sins of another!

NONE!

I suppose thats how you'd feel if you saw the third level grant as a right and not the privilege it is.

Biggins

Joey Gifted Smokehouse wrote: »

I suppose thats how you'd feel if you saw the third level grant as a right and not the privilege it is.

I feel the right for every person to have access to further education, should be facilitated - not hampered by others - as those others seek to make their parents capitulate and in turn victimise their offspring!

Slurryface

Biggins wrote: »

I feel the right for every person to have access to further education, should be facilitated - not hampered by others - as those others seek to make their parents capitulate and in turn victimise their offspring!

It is the indolent parents, refusing to pay their due charges/taxes, who are victimizing their own kids. If mummy and daddy wont pay the HHC then tough, no grant and no free fees. Simples!

Biggins

Slurryface wrote: »

It is the indolent parents, refusing to pay their due charges/taxes, who are victimizing their own kids. If mummy and daddy wont pay the HHC then tough, no grant and no free fees. Simples!

So make the parents pay - not the kids.

Peanut2011

Slurryface wrote: »

It is the indolent parents, refusing to pay their due charges/taxes, who are victimizing their own kids. If mummy and daddy wont pay the HHC then tough, no grant and no free fees. Simples!

Your last word must really describe you well.

Are you saying that only the people who can afford to pay all the taxes and charges the government comes up with should be entitled to education?

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

I feel the right for every person to have access to further education, should be facilitated - not hampered by others - as those others seek to make their parents capitulate and in turn victimise their offspring!

But it's not that simple. Plenty of people who aren't entitled to the grant can't go to college, have to work so much that their grades suffer or take out massive loans. Why aren't you complaining about that? Most people in the world don't have the 'right' go to go college for free.

Biggins

Joey Gifted Smokehouse wrote: »

But it's not that simple. Plenty of people who aren't entitled to the grant can't go to college, have to work so much that their grades suffer or take out massive loans. Why aren't you complaining about that? Most people in the world don't have the 'right' go to go college for free.

I'm not complaining about that - where have I?

I'm opposing making one person having to pay for another, be it the parents by their actions/in actions or worse practised by a state and its officials.

dark crystal

Slurryface wrote: »

Not a day too soon.
Nobody should be allowed to avail of any state service or payment unless they can produce proof of payment of the charge or proof of waiver/ineligibility.

Any state services?? You actually believe that's viable?

So the consequences of not paying €100 extra on top of whatever money, taxes and duties you already forked out for your house, is suspension of all further state services?

Now would this then include all or any of the following:

All social welfare payments (including carers, old aged pensioners and the disabled), legal aid, emergency services, prison services (I could see this one benefitting the criminals alright!), non-private hospital care and medical cards and primary, secondary and for many, third-level education.

This seems a rational step to you?

The state supposedly ringfenced this charge for local services - how on earth can you justify witholding state services for non payment of a local service charge?

Slurryface

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Your last word must really describe you well.

Are you saying that only the people who can afford to pay all the taxes and charges the government comes up with should be entitled to education?

They can have as much education as they want, so long as they don't expect the rest of us to pay for it because they come from families who believe only other people should pay tax while they grab,grab, grab.

Slurryface

dark crystal wrote: »

Any state services?? You actually believe that's viable?

So the consequences of not paying €100 extra on top of whatever money, taxes and duties you already forked out for your house, is suspension of all further state services?

Now would this then include all or any of the following:

All social welfare payments (including carers, old aged pensioners and the disabled), legal aid, emergency services, prison services (I could see this one benefitting the criminals alright!), non-private hospital care and medical cards and primary, secondary and for many, third-level education.

This seems a rational step to you?

The state supposedly ringfenced this charge for local services - how on earth can you justify witholding state services for non payment of a local service charge?

In a word , yes!

fishy fishy

ilovesleep wrote: »

And yet Bertie Ahern, dodgy as fcuk and up to his neck in sh1te including tax affairs continues to receive a healthy pension. And this is after being incompetent in his duty to care for this country.

But don't pay 100 euro, call an ambulance and you're going to be let die.
Call a fire brigade and they'll see your sleeping children burn in a house fire.

We have a welfare and social state, all over inflated and raised on taxes on a credit fuelled bubble. That bubble burst. Private sector went under. Welfare state - there's been some chops but not near enough. Socially as in the PS system, there's been some changes and cuts but nowhere near enough. In fact we have a CPA protecting wages but at the expense of SW, services, and the private sector, draining away what's left of it.

The non payment of the HHC is either
1) one does not have it due to falling on hard times and perhaps a having a family to support.
Or
2) a protest. Many logical and reasonable arguements for against.

The private sector took an awful battering and SW and PS and public expeniture don't reflect this, draining what't left of the private sector.

This household tax is to go to LAs. Have there been any reforms for their wasteful spending? Probably not, considering services are being cut. They will continue to spend on projects such as upgrading roundabouts and junctions.

We're expected to pay into an over inflated system and a system of greed. The non payment is a protest to cull this sh1te.

Earlier this year it was reported that the CEO of the ESB retired on a pension of 100,000 and something a a year, along with a lump sum package of 800,000 in which 200,000 of that was tax free.
There's been countless such examples of such pay, conditions and perks and bonuses.

There's been countless more similiar.

Can you not see anything wrong with those pensions, perks and bonuses, paid out by the state?

Coming at a time of austerity.

Many people in the private sector lost their jobs. Others got their hours slashed and so their wage too.

People unemployed, people on a weekly wage of 200, 250 or 300 are expected to pay into this system to keep it going.

All of this has to stop and stop from the top down. Pay into the system and you haven't got a chance of it to change.

Instead the government is working from the bottom up, draining what's left of the private sector, the very sector that will pull us out from a recession with the export and tourism sectors. But at the same time protecting their pockets and nests.

I'm all for paying and I'll pay all that I can out from my weekly wage of 230 euro to help Ireland get better. but by golly and christ, not when its fcuked back into my face with many on very large pensions, perks, bonuses and pay.

if you call a fire brigade you get billed up to 400 per hour (or minute thereof) for EACH one that comes out.

People will get an awful land, when they realize that the 100 household charge "for services" do not include any services. :D

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

I'm not complaining about that - where have I?

I'm opposing making one person having to pay for another, be it the parents by their actions/in actions or worse practised by a state and its officials.

But that's life. Every student is 'paying' for their parents' actions. As I see it, you can't pick and choose. You can't expect to receive a full grant based on your parents' income and then complain when you don't get it because they haven't made a minimal contribution to society. I think you're blaming the government when you should be blaming the parents themselves. If your kid can't go to college because you didn't pay an obligatory charge, then how is it anyone's fault but yours?

Peanut2011

Joey Gifted Smokehouse wrote: »

But that's life. Every student is 'paying' for their parents' actions. As I see it, you can't pick and choose. You can't expect to receive a full grant based on your parents' income and then complain when you don't get it because they haven't made a minimal contribution to society. I think you're blaming the government when you should be blaming the parents themselves. If your kid can't go to college because you didn't pay an obligatory charge, then how is it anyone's fault but yours?

But these people refused to pay the charge for the local council. The grant money is from Department of Education which comes from general taxation, which in most cases is collected from PAYE.

So they made contribution!

Now can you come up with the better argument?

Zulu

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Now can you come up with the better argument?

The HHC is for the councils services. The service the council provide is to process the grant application. You don't pay for the service, the council don't process it.

Now, can you come up with a better argument?

Biggins

Joey Gifted Smokehouse wrote: »

But that's life.

...But should we lie down and accept it - or should we try for change?

I choose the latter.

Joey Gifted Smokehouse wrote: »

...You can't expect to receive a full grant based on your parents' income and then complain when you don't get it because they haven't made a minimal contribution to society.

Its ONE charge - they have made minimal contribution?
You know they have not paid everything else, every day which had state charges/taxes/levy's on items/services?
You somehow know this about everyone that has not paid the €100 charge?
Thats amazing insight.
There loads of minimal charges/taxes/levy's they have paid - and not even complained about!

Joey Gifted Smokehouse wrote: »

...If your kid can't go to college because you didn't pay an obligatory charge, then how is it anyone's fault but yours?

..And that will be MY fault - make ME pay - come after ME - not justify state victimisation upon another innocent!

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

...But should we lie down and accept it - or should we try for change?

I choose the latter.


Its ONE charge - they have made minimal contribution?
You know they have not paid everything else, every day which had state charges/taxes/levy's on items/services?
You somehow know this about everyone that has not paid the €100 charge?
Thats amazing insight.
There loads of minimal charges/taxes/levy's they have paid - and not even complained about!



..And that will be MY fault - make ME pay - come after ME - not justify state victimisation upon another innocent!

But it's not state victimisation. It's the parents' fault. If some students are denied the privilege of a free ride to college, why blame anyone other than the parents who caused that to happen because they wouldn't pay 100 euro?

I also think it's ridiculous to make out that students will be unable to attend college if they don't get the grant. Plenty of people support themselves through college.