Children penalised for the actions of parents

dark crystal

Slurryface wrote: »

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.

But householders do pay tax - lots of it. They pay income tax, VAT, stamp duty, carbon tax and the USC. All these taxes go to pay for state services.

The household charge is an extra tax tacked on to supposedly pay for local services (which don't include their bins, the fire and ambulance service or, in the very near future, their water services). Their motor tax also pays towards their local roads.

Now, why should these people be denied the state services they do pay for? Remember, it was the government who called this charge a local services charge, no mention of it being needed to fund any state services.

Peanut2011

Zulu wrote: »

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?

As stated by Department of Education, they are not allowed to withhold the payment or introduce additional qualifying requirements.

Furthermore, when no money is given to Co.Co. by the government out of collected taxes and when they are purely being funded by HC than I will have no problem them refusing to perform the service.

Also, please read their own web site in relation to the grants:

http://www.clarecoco.ie/community/education/higher-education-grant/

Can you please point me to where does it mention the HC compliance?

Biggins

Joey Gifted Smokehouse wrote: »

But it's not state victimisation. It's the parents' fault.

Well if it is, make them accountable - make them pay, punish them - not their kids directly or indirectly.

Fine (for the sake of debate), the parents are always at fault and they caused their offspring to reach this crises, go after them, hold them accountable by punishing them.

Do not make one 'wrong' into two by further victimising offspring at state level (1) a possible illegal act and (2) by action, the state espousing that the 'end justified the means always'.

Joey Gifted Smokehouse wrote: »

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.

...I have never said anything diffrent. No argument here.

Zulu

Peanut2011 wrote: »

As stated by Department of Education, they are not allowed to withhold the payment...

My understanding was that they weren't withholding it, but that they were simply not providing a service to process it.

Fair enough to me.

Biggins

Zulu wrote: »

My understanding was that they weren't withholding it, but that they were simply not providing a service to process it.

PR spin semantics = amounting to the same thing.
Same end result.

Peanut2011

Zulu wrote: »

My understanding was that they weren't withholding it, but that they were simply not providing a service to process it.

Fair enough to me.

Pity you only half read the posts as your reply suggests.

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Furthermore, when no money is given to Co.Co. by the government out of collected taxes and when they are purely being funded by HC than I will have no problem them refusing to perform the service.

If they are going to withhold service on a willy nilly basis maybe there should be a list of what services are funded by the funding they already get from government and what services will be funded by HC?

Zulu

Biggins wrote: »

PR spin semantics = amounting to the same thing.
Same end result.

Does it? Is there absolutely no other way the person can get the grant other than through their local council?

Biggins

Zulu wrote: »

Does it? Is there absolutely no other way the person can get the grant other than through their local council?

If a way exists within their home residential area, I as yet, not know of it.

I'm open (and welcome) as with others I suspect, to be shown a way this might be possible.

Zulu

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Pity you only half read the posts as your reply suggests.

Does it address the salient point of my post? No??

Pity you resort to put-downs over productive conversation.

Peanut2011

Zulu wrote: »

Does it address the salient point of my post? No??

Pity you resort to put-downs over productive conversation.

When you start making conversations I will answer with conversation.

You still fail to take notice of the second part of my post. I guess you have no answer for that?

dark crystal

Zulu wrote: »

Does it? Is there absolutely no other way the person can get the grant other than through their local council?

All new grant applications can now go through SUSI (Student Universal Support Ireland) online, rather than through their current local authority or VEC.

Renewals or re-assessments still have to processed by the LA though.

http://www.studentfinance.ie/mp9544/quick-guide-to-the-susi-grant-process/index.html

Zulu

Peanut2011 wrote: »

If they are going to withhold service on a willy nilly basis maybe there should be a list of what services are funded by the funding they already get from government and what services will be funded by HC?

I don't see a point myself. Just withhold all services until people are paid up.

Biggins wrote: »

If a way exists within their home residential area, I as yet, not know of it.

Oh right, so you don't know if they can't for sure get it "outside their home residential area". Then, Biggins, it's not the same thing at all, is it?

It's not: "PR spin semantics = amounting to the same thing. Same end result." The person may still be able to get it, just not by burdening the council they refuse to pay for.

Biggins

Zulu wrote: »

Oh right, so you don't know if they can't for sure get it "outside their home residential area". Then, Biggins, it's not the same thing at all, is it?

It's not: "PR spin semantics = amounting to the same thing. Same end result." The person may still be able to get it, just not by burdening the council they refuse to pay for.

No, I don't proclaim to be the fountain of all knowledge.

Seeing as you brought it up - can YOU tell us if person can get the grant other than through their local council?

Can you? Please do - we will await your much informing answer!
Seeing as your the one espousing as it might be possible.

Peanut2011

Zulu wrote: »

I don't see a point myself. Just withhold all services until people are paid up.

So you believe we should all just pay what ever they can come up with next? We should not demand accountability and clarity where is all the money going to?

tayto lover

Joey Gifted Smokehouse wrote: »

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.

How do they come up with the fee of 2,500e in the first place? Not easy in this day and age never mind keeping themselves in Dublin all week. Very few jobs for student now as the unemployed, immigrants and businessmen's families are taking them.

Slurryface

tayto lover wrote: »

How do they come up with the fee of 2,500e in the first place? Not easy in this day and age never mind keeping themselves in Dublin all week. Very few jobs for student now as the unemployed, immigrants and businessmen's families are taking them.

UCC, NUIG,WIT,DKIT,UL,GMIT, etc etc , not all colleges are in Dublin.
Love the cheap jibe at the immigrants though, tres stylish.

Zulu

Biggins wrote: »

Seeing as you brought it up - can YOU tell us if person can get the grant other than through their local council?

I don't care - don't forget I support this

Peanut2011 wrote: »

So you believe we should all just pay what ever they can come up with next?

No, if you wish to protest do so - but you can't expect there to be no consequences.

tayto lover

Slurryface wrote: »

UCC, NUIG,WIT,DKIT,UL,GMIT, etc etc , not all colleges are in Dublin.
Love the cheap jibe at the immigrants though, tres stylish.

Oh Ali you are giving yourself away.
You know exactly what I meant but sure why not try and stir? It's all you ever do.

Biggins

Zulu wrote: »

I don't care - don't forget I support this

So you introduce to this thread that this a supposed other way to get this grant - bitch about others not being informed about this other way - then fail to say yourself about any details, links, back-up of any kind, about this other way that so far has come out of your mind, and state "I don't care - don't forget I support this".

Please don't introduce 'other way's' if they don't exist or cannot show them to exist.
(It does not your argument, to be honest, no good.)

Zulu

Biggins wrote: »

So you introduce to this thread that this a supposed other way to get this grant

More misrepresentation! I simply said what the council said: that they won't stop payments, but stop processing APPLICATIONS.

It was you who said there was no difference in that. I pointed out the difference.

bitch about others not being informed about this other way

Again, I asked if there was no otherway (as I don't personally know), and when you suggested there maybe, I pointed out how your assertion was incorrect; YOUR assertion that not processing an application was the same as not paying.

then fail to say yourself about any details, links, back-up of any kind, about this other way that so far has come out of your mind

Why should I? I don't support your arguments here. I'm happy that the council don't provide the service, and frankly it wouldn't bother me if this WAS the only way to get the grant. I was simply pointing out how you are misrepresenting what is happening.

Please don't introduce 'other way's' if they don't exist or cannot show them to exist.
(It does not your argument, to be honest, no good.)

I'm not.

You seem to be confused. Let me try to clarify:
YOU suggested not processing the application is the same as not paying it.
I said that wasn't true. (ie: there may exist other ways to get the payment)
I asked was there otherways to get the payment/did you know for sure it was the only way to get the payment. (ie: was your original assertion in fact true)
YOU said you didn't know. (So your original assertion was little more than hyperbole)

Now by asking me to provide "otherways", simply discredits your position further.


...but this isn't really anything new on this thread. You avoided my earlier refute that we already penalise children for the actions of their parents. And you remain very quiet on that point.

Listen your annoyed, I get that. I'm furious at this government for squandering the opportunity to make radicle changes over the past two years, where they had support, and the public had (in a relative sense) appetite, but...
Recognise the need to draw in funds, recognise and stop "giving" to those that only "take" and illegally avoid contributing. That's why I've no problem with this action - in fact, I applaud it.

Biggins

Zulu wrote: »

...I asked if there was no otherway (as I don't personally know), and when you suggested there maybe...

I DID NOT suggest there was!
Please prove this:

The following was posted by you:

Zulu wrote: »

Is there absolutely no other way the person can get the grant other than through their local council?

I simply replied:

If a way exists within their home residential area, I as yet, not know of it.

Where exactly have I suggested there is another way - please show this!

Read what's in front of you - not what actually in your mind.

Zulu wrote: »

You avoided my earlier refute that we already penalise children for the actions of their parents. And you remain very quiet on that point.

I have posted and addressed about that very point many, many times now.
Your eyesight seems to be failing.
No surprise there.

O' and if your worried about your tax money and where its going...
Read HERE!

Zulu

Biggins wrote: »

I DID NOT suggest there was!
Where exactly have I suggested there is another way - please show this!

Apologies Biggins, indeed you didn't.

However, you did not state that there wasn't another way; you do not know if there's another way - which makes your original assertion hyperbole. Nothing changes.

You can not claim, as you did, that it's: "PR spin semantics = amounting to the same thing. Same end result." because if there is another way to get the payment, then it's NOT the same thing, is it?

But hey, don't worry about it. You'd prefer to deal in sensationalist, tabloid, hyperbole - that's fine. I'm sure Debbie, 21, from page 3, is equally miffed at the councils decision not to process applications.

Triangla

I can't see on this where you are required to provide proof af household charge:

http://www.clarevec.ie/index.cfm/area/information/page/ThirdLevelGrants/

You are only liable for the household charge if you own a house.

How many third level students own there own houses so are affected by this?

Parents are under no legal obligation to provide adult children with financial information.

If you have no access to this information how can you respond to a request for this.

Piliger

Slurryface wrote: »

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.

Well said. These parents are the ones responsible. These parents are behaving like parasites and hypocrites. These parents are setting a disgusting example for their children and should be ostracised by every decent person in this country.

fishy fishy

look, its just a bully tactic - and those who are falling for it needs to open their eyes.

Blackmail and bullying

I thought there were laws against this - on, wait, this is Ireland - our govt seems to promote it by practice.

Zulu

Piliger wrote: »

These parents are setting a disgusting example for their children and should be ostracised by every decent person in this country.

Actually this is a good point. What are we teaching the children? At least this way the next generation see, directly, the effects of not paying tax.

Biggins

Zulu wrote: »

Apologies Biggins, indeed you didn't.

However, you did not state that there wasn't another way; you do not know if there's another way - which makes your original assertion hyperbole. Nothing changes.

What?
Anyone know what the hell Zulu is on about at this stage?
Besides straw-man arguments, introducing stuff that has no relevance and/or posting stuff that is false, the quality of this debate is going down hill.

Zulu wrote: »

...because if there is another way to get the payment, then it's NOT the same thing, is it?

...But no one - included you (who has singularly brought this up) has shown there is another way - so till someone does... Not processing the applications and also denying someone their claim DOES amount to the same thing.

The student ends up with lack of grant money.
This is not rocket science to understand - well to most of us.

Zulu wrote: »

You'd prefer to deal in sensationalist, tabloid, hyperbole

Really?
You see hyperbole - I see stated unfairness and I oppose it.
Meanwhile in doing do I see in opposition, retorts of straw-man arguments, introducing stuff that has no relevance and/or posting stuff that is false.

Keep it up, your doing well.

Piliger

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?

It is so outrageous it is almost comical.

If every child over 18 is to be treated as a separate person, then every child in the country will be entitled to a 100% grant. And the country cannot afford that because the actual tax payers, the ones who actually pay for the country to keep running, cannot afford to carry everyone to this level.

Zulu

Biggins wrote: »

...But no one - included you (who has singularly brought this up) has shown there is another way

I don't need to. YOU'RE the one making the assertions, so YOU'RE the one who has to support it.

so till someone does...

No, no, Biggins, it doesn't work that way. You make a statment, you need to back it up.

Keep it up, your doing well.

Patronize all you like Biggins, at the very least I'm capable of recognising when I err. Clearly you can't.

Biggins

Zulu wrote: »

I don't need to. YOU'RE the one making the assertions, so YOU'RE the one who has to support it.

...and I have in many, many replies.
Your eyesight is failing again.

Zulu wrote: »

No, no, Biggins, it doesn't work that way. You make a statment, you need to back it up.

Well at least I won't by posting stuff that others didn't say or espouse.

I have put forth my opinion and solidified it up with further thoughts as to how I have come to a conclusion of 'unfairness'.
Its your right to challenge it - but do so by posting about stuff I actually said, not what your mind thinks is typed out but don't exist in reality.

Zulu wrote: »

...at the very least I'm capable of recognising when I err. Clearly you can't.

I'm beginning to think you can't even recognise the text in front of you.
You posting of things that I never actually said - really shows this!

Zulu

Biggins wrote: »

Its your right to challenge it - but do so by posting about stuff I actually said, not what your mind thinks is typed out but don't exist in reality.

I'm beginning to think you can't even recognise the text in front of you.
You posting of things that I never actually said - really shows this!

I've already corrected & apologiesd for that Biggins. You're persistence to continue using it as a stick to beat me with just highlights how weak your argument and position is.

You can't refute my point so you keep dragging up something I apologised for & corrected. How very sad.

Biggins

Zulu wrote: »

I've already corrected & apologiesd for that Biggins. You're persistence to continue using it as a stick to beat me with just highlights how weak your argument and position is.

You can't refute my point so you keep dragging up something I apologies for & corrected. How very sad.

If you bring up me failing to recognise something, I'm going to reply with your lack of ability to recognise whats in front of you.
End of story.

Zulu wrote: »

You're persistence to continue using it as a stick to beat me

Aaa... I retorted it in one post since you acknowledged you stated a falsehood.
"Persistence" ?
If your going to bring these things up, don't expect them to not be replied to.

Zulu wrote: »

You can't refute my point so you keep dragging up something I apologies for & corrected. How very sad.

Its sad that you have failed to read though this thread and seen the points you keep going on about, being addressed by myself already, numerous times depending on the topic.

Carry on!

P.S.
I have reported myself for allowing this to turn into a bitch-fest.
Can we stay on topic?

squawkbox

Face it, it's not just kids applying for grants, it's their parents applying for grants for their kids. If your parents hadn't paid the charge because they were dead it wouldn't be an issue.

The whole grant system is nonsense anyway, why should Anyone get a grant when he goes to college? he's getting the benefit of the education. Loans should be available to all and those who got a grant in the past should pay it back.

It's like saying "Oh woe is me, my Dad fiddled his taxes and doesn't have a tax clearance cert, now I can't go to college"!

This letter was in the Irish Times during the week. No one pointed out that if this woman can afford to live at this address she shouldn't be getting a grant

Sir, – I don’t understand why anyone should be surprised if county councils refuse grants to people who haven’t paid the household charge.

In my experience of applying for third-level grants in the recent past, they were always dependent on people being tax-compliant. Up-to-date tax documents for myself, my husband and my daughter (including P45s for short-term part-time jobs she had), were necessary.

The blame for all this confusion rests with those irresponsible TDs who encourage citizens to break the law. – Yours, etc,

CECILIA MCGOVERN,
Wellington Road,
Ballsbridge,
Dublin 4.

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/

Biggins

Sir, – I don’t understand why anyone should be surprised if county councils refuse grants to people who haven’t paid the household charge.

In my experience of applying for third-level grants in the recent past, they were always dependent on people being tax-compliant. Up-to-date tax documents for myself, my husband and my daughter (including P45s for short-term part-time jobs she had), were necessary.

The blame for all this confusion rests with those irresponsible TDs who encourage citizens to break the law. – Yours, etc,

CECILIA MCGOVERN,
Wellington Road,
Ballsbridge,
Dublin 4.

The bold bit above is ironic when TD's in our own elected government is willing to defy rules when and if it suits themselves personally at at government departmental level.

But I suppose its now ok for them to do that by some's opinion, and overlook their actions when it suits their argument that others shouldn't get away with such things.

squawkbox

Biggins wrote: »

The bold bit above is ironic when TD's in our own elected government is willing to defy rules when and if it suits themselves personally at at government departmental level.

But I suppose its now ok for them to do that by some's opinion, and overlook their actions when it suits their argument that others shouldn't get away with such things.

Not sure what your point is, and it's not because of the misplaced apostrophes and mixing of plural and single.

Which rules are being flaunted and what bearing does it have on the issue at hand?

I note that you failed to address the more general point about grants to tax evaders and rich people generally. I expected a more substantial debate from someone with evidently so much time on his hands

Biggins

squawkbox wrote: »

Not sure what your point is, and it's not because of the misplaced apostrophes and mixing of plural and single.

Which rules are being flaunted and what bearing does it have on the issue at hand?

Apologies if my grammar is not perfect.
The grammar nazi's must be delighted.

I was point out the irony that someone is giving out about some people are not complying with rules when our own government TD's are willing to ignore rules too!

Like (a few simple separate examples):
* Here
* Here
* Here
* Here
* Here
* Here

squawkbox wrote: »

...what bearing does it have on the issue at hand?

Well is someone is going to post into this thread "The blame for all this confusion rests with those irresponsible TDs who encourage citizens to break the law."

Someone is going to post the irony of people giving out about rules being broken - when our own TD's are breaking them too.

"Do as we say - not as we do"

Eh?

squawkbox wrote: »

I note that you failed to address the more general point about grants to tax evaders and rich people generally. I expected a more substantial debate from someone with evidently so much time on his hands

I'm choosing to ignore the personal attack and address the more relevant part above.
What is your point about grants to tax evaders and rich people generally, which you would like me to address?

squawkbox

So to sum up:

Elected TDs break rules therefore everyone should get grants from the Government regardless of tax compliance status. :rolleyes:


I'm due to submit my tax return soon as I'm self employed. Would you be fine with me cheating on my taxes and then applying for a grant? Why is one form of tax sacrosanct and another evil? The tax was passed by the Dail, it's legal and if you are a democrat you must accept it. By all means protest and use your vote, but evading it is wrong.

I just looked at your links (foolish I know) one of the example you "cite" is a county councillor who is now in prison. What the hell does that have to do with anything? You really are a partisan hack if you think that this is some sort of valid point. You do realise that a Fine Gael TD reported the Cllrs to the Gardai? You referenced TDs breaking rules. Was he breaking a rule when he reported the allegation to the Gardai? You are crying like a baby because FG refused to comment on a former member being found guilty of an allegation made by another member - a sitting TD? Before sentencing as well! Grow up man!

Also as per another rubbish blog post: Michael D Higgins is no longer a member of the Government...


The plural of Nazi is Nazis. What is it with you and apostrophes?

Biggins

squawkbox wrote: »

...I'm due to submit my tax return soon as I'm self employed. Would you be fine with me cheating on my taxes and then applying for a grant? Why is one form of tax sacrosanct and another evil? The tax was passed by the Dail, it's legal and if you are a democrat you must accept it. By all means protest and use your vote, but evading it is wrong.

If you cheated on your taxes (is that grammar correct?) I (and I assume others) would not be happy.
I think I have said something similar previously a few times if memory serves me right.
Edit: Forgot to add that those not paying should be gone after - not their kids/offspring!

If you apply for a grant, I assume you will being doing so based on your earnings, not what you might or might not have paid outwards.

One form of tax is not necessary sacrosanct and another one evil - what can be bad is how a method of collecting either can be unfair to those that are not legally obligated to actually pay it but they end up being victimised because of others inability/unwillingness to pay it.

Speaking of legalities, I know not of any law where its legal to see one person punished for the 'antics' of another.
It sadly happens and our state heads want to do it - but that don't make it right and legal.

squawkbox wrote: »

The plural of Nazi is Nazis. What is it with you and apostrophes?

The nasty chappies are attacking me! They follow me everywhere!
Solutions please post to me on a post card?

squawkbox

Biggins wrote: »

If you cheated on your taxes (is that grammar correct?) I (and I assume others) would not be happy.
I think I have said something similar previously a few times if memory serves me right.

If you apply for a grant, I assume you will being doing so based on your earnings, not what you might or might not have paid outwards.

One form of tax is not necessary sacrosanct and another one evil - what can be bad is how a method of collecting either can be unfair to those that are not legally obligated to actually pay it but they end up being victimised because of others inability/unwillingness to pay it.

Speaking of legalities, I know not of any law where its legal to see one person punished for the 'antics' of another.
It sadly happens and out state heads want to do it - but that don't make it right and legal.


Solutions please post to me on a post card?

Punished? Actions?
What nonsense. Those who don't qualify for a grant are already being punished by the action of their parents- the action of going out to work!

You don't get a grant if you deliberately evade taxes. Whether that's income taxes or other taxes.

What do you mean paid "outwards" ?
You say you wouldn't be happy if I cheated on my taxes...! Does that mean you'd object to me getting a grant on said tax cheating?

You know of no law where it is legal... Do you of a law that allows for grant payments? Do you know of a law that outlaws tax evasion? I know of a law that requires people to pay the household charge! Funny that!


You haven't addressed your jejune blog posts either.

Biggins

squawkbox wrote: »

...Those who don't qualify for a grant already being punished by the action of their parents...

Where have I said the above?

Clearly on the matters here, we will have to agree to disagree.

You don't see unfairness and possibly double-standards which others do.
Thats your right.

Its others right to see such things though and mention them.

Biggins

You say you wouldn't be happy if I cheated on my taxes...! Does that mean you'd object to me getting a grant on said tax cheating?

* I would be unhappy if you cheated on your taxes.
* I would be happy for you to gain a grant if you got it truthfully on the money your bringing home in real value after deductions you have paid.
This includes having paid tax/duty on everything you have bought from a sandwich to petrol for your car, etc...
* I would expect (hope) the state would go after you - not your children in metering out and/or seeking resolution/answers to your tax issues.

squawkbox

Biggins wrote: »

* I would be unhappy if you cheated on your taxes.
* I would be happy for you to gain a grant if you got it truthfully on the money your bringing home in real value after deductions you have paid.
This includes having paid tax/duty on everything you have bought from a sandwich to petrol for your car, etc...
* I would expect (hope) the state would go after you - not your children in metering out and/or seeking resolution/answers to your tax issues.

Do you not realise that the state takes over half my pay at the marginal rate, do you not see that this means I have less money to give to my hypothetical children? The state is having its wicked way with my money which I could otherwise use to benefit my family.

You seem unable to grasp the connection between work, money, taxes and grants.

I don't feel entitled to a grant, I just wish the state would stop taking money from me to give to people who have done nothing to deserve it and who won't even get their own taxes in order

squawkbox

Biggins wrote: »

Where have I said the above?

Clearly on the matters here, we will have to agree to disagree.

You don't see unfairness and possibly double-standards which others do.
Thats your right.

Its others right to see such things though and mention them.

Ehh... You didn't say that. I said it, because it's a fact. People who miss out on grants don't do so because their their breath stinks, they miss out because of the hard work of their parents. People who don't work or who get paid cash in hand can get grants however.

Biggins

squawkbox wrote: »

Do you not realise that the state takes over half my pay at the marginal rate, do you not see that this means I have less money to give to my hypothetical children? The state is having its wicked way with my money which I could otherwise use to benefit my family.

You seem unable to grasp the connection between work, money, taxes and grants.

* I understand that your paying a great 'whack' of money to the state.
I'm personally sorry to hear this. I wish that situation was different for you (and others in similar situation).
I wish things could be different. I suspect many here do too.

* I grasp the connection between work, money, taxes and grants.
(I've studied Taxation and accountancy full time with the IATI, 8 Upper Pembroke Street)

squawkbox wrote: »

...I don't feel entitled to a grant, I just wish the state would stop taking money from me to give to people who have done nothing to deserve it and who won't even get their own taxes in order

Believe me, many wish it too, including I.
I acknowledge also that while some have an issue with one tax and that matter is being tried to be resolved, they have been at the same time had the decency to continue to pay the vast bulk of others.
They have done this rather than just completely stop paying all taxes.

Biggins

squawkbox wrote: »

Ehh... You didn't say that. I said it, because it's a fact. People who miss out on grants don't do so because their their breath stinks, they miss out because of the hard work of their parents. People who don't work or who get paid cash in hand can get grants however.

There is certainly unfairness in the present system.
You will get no argument from me about that.

Micky Dolenz

Mod

Quit the bickering please.

ilovesleep

fishy fishy wrote: »

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

That's it, Fishy Fishy.

Cicero

This is such a " rant" thread...and on a hiding to nothing..,the thread title is pure tabloid scare mongering trollism...it's Daddy or chips in a different form...get outta here OP.

LoonyLovegood

A bus left my university today filled with students going down to Ennis to protest. I think it's ridiculous, for many families (my own included), to pay the household tax can mean the mortgage doesn't get paid for a month, or someone doesn't eat as much as they need, or even that the electricity gets switched off for longer periods. It's not al black and white

Cicero

CTYIgirl wrote: »

A bus left my university today filled with students going down to Ennis to protest.

And how much did the diesel cost for that?;)