Children penalised for the actions of parents

666irishguy

Einhard wrote: »

They're refusing to pay the charge, and yet demand that they get every red cent of what they deem themselves to be entitled. I'm not paying that €100, but godammit you'll give my son €8k.

Talk about entitlement and arrogance!

The parents might refuse to pay, but they aren't the ones entitled to the grant.

Einhard

Feathers wrote: »

So what if I said to my son — I'm happy to clothe you, feed you, house you, but on a point of principle I'm not going to pay the household charge. What options is he left with? Move out to be classed as an INDEPENDENT adult? He won't be able to claim the dole while in full-time education, he'll get a lower maintenance paymeny for living within 45km of the college, even though this is rented accommodation & he's unlikely to get enough work these days to make up the balance of the bills. Not really an option for most people.

If you're gonna be the type of asshole that would fu*k your own son over on a point of principle, then all he has to do is get €100, pay the charge, and claim his €8000. And then hopefulyl break of links with you.

(By you, of course, I don't mean you)

The_Thing

In the long run it is better for people to forfeit the college grant than it is to pay the household charge in order to receive the grant because long after your children have left education you will be paying for the gambling debts of the bond holders. The blue-shirts are nothing more than glorified debt collectors and should be told to fcuk off and die.

JRant

oldyouth wrote: »

Bottom line

Student applying for a grant is RELYING TOTALLY on the financial status of the parents. Student is now trying to distance themselves from the actions of the parents as an INDEPENDENT adult

Can't have it both ways

Sure don't let the facts get in the way of a good yarn.
It couldn't be more simple:
Student applies for said grant.
Student in 'Dependent' category needs to produce parents P60 for previous tax year.
Student presents all the documentation required of them at said time ( please note that nowhere is it stated that a tax clearance cert is required )
Some gimp in an office in Ennis decides to move the goalposts with no notice or consultation with anyone.
Student is no longer going to receive the grant as said gimp in Ennis says so, because Mammy/Daddy has the temerity to be involved in an ongoing dispute. As far as I know nobody has been before the courts or deemed to have broken any law yet.

Your right you can't have it both ways.
You either live by the laws of the land or face the courts. Local CoCo's have zero remit in this process.

mikom

oldyouth wrote: »

If Mom and Pop couldn't afford to pay €1.92 a week towards their legal obligations, then yes, it is not fair and modern Ireland is a cruel place at present.

Come back to Mom and Pop after 5 years and see how much they are paying a week.......and how little they are getting for it.

ilovesleep

Cork county councillor on tax defaulter list:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfqlqlcwauau/rss2/#ixzz1gVOHc8hR

I wonder was his pay or pension removed from him?

oldyouth

Feathers wrote: »

So what if I said to my son — I'm happy to clothe you, feed you, house you, but on a point of principle I'm not going to pay the household charge. What options is he left with? Move out to be classed as an INDEPENDENT adult? He won't be able to claim the dole while in full-time education, he'll get a lower maintenance paymeny for living within 45km of the college, even though this is rented accommodation & he's unlikely to get enough work these days to make up the balance of the bills. Not really an option for most people.

So you want to exercise your principles without ANY consequence to your actions and at the same time enjoy the benefits of those that go without to comply with the law of the land (no matter how unfair it is).

Feathers

Einhard wrote: »

If you're gonna be the type of asshole that would fu*k your own son over on a point of principle, then all he has to do is get €100, pay the charge, and claim his €8000. And then hopefulyl break of links with you.

(By you, of course, I don't mean you)

By all means, but as far as I'm aware my son can't pay a household charge for a property he doesn't own… Open to correction on that one. Even so, if I'm that type of asshole ( ) in the first place, I'll probably tear up my receipt of payment when I get it.

Basically the point being, under the new statutory instrument, a person under 23 is automatically considered a dependent so they're tied to their parents. It's bad enough making them tied to their income, but they shouldn't be tied to their actions.

Feathers

oldyouth wrote: »

So you want to exercise your principles without ANY consequence to your actions and at the same time enjoy the benefits of those that go without to comply with the law of the land (no matter how unfair it is).

No, that's not what I said. I said that I want to exercise my principles with the expected consequences to my actions — if I jump the barrier at Drumcondra train station, I expect to be fined the penalty fare; possibly I might get taken to court if I don't pay. My elderly mother's medical card shouldn't be taken away though. Regardless of the consequences that I should suffer, another adult citizen shouldn't be bound to them.

Biggins

oldyouth wrote: »

So you want to exercise your principles without ANY consequence to your actions and at the same time enjoy the benefits of those that go without to comply with the law of the land (no matter how unfair it is).

Yet you want the state to exercise their powers as you even say though that "it is not fair and modern Ireland is a cruel place at present" - so that makes it all right then and justified?
...Or are you now supporting a state which does unjustified/unfair things now?
What sort of fair mentality is that! The end justifies the means?

We are will waiting for you to explain what student is supposed to do if

...they can't afford to distance themselves?
...And/or are under 23?

So far you have dodged answering that!

Einhard

Feathers wrote: »

By all means, but as far as I'm aware my son can't pay a household charge for a property he doesn't own… Open to correction on that one. Even so, if I'm that type of asshole ( ) in the first place, I'll probably tear up my receipt of payment when I get it.

Basically the point being, under the new statutory instrument, a person under 23 is automatically considered a dependent so they're tied to their parents. It's bad enough making them tied to their income, but they shouldn't be tied to their actions.

As I said, it's not a great approach, but that stems from that fact that the gant is linked to parental income which shouldn't be the case. And the fact is that the vast majority of students are dependent on their parents after they turn 18, and the grant acts like a subsidy for those parents. I don't think it's unfair to ask that they contribute €100 in return. I mean, this is our money we're talking about...yours, mine etc. It's not Enda Kenny's. Yet people seem outraged that someone getting thousands of their money should be entitled not to pay all their taxes. And still get someone elses' money. I don't get that.

oldyouth

Feathers wrote: »

No, that's not what I said. I said that I want to exercise my principles with the expected consequences to my actions — if I jump the barrier at Drumcondra train station, I expect to be fined the penalty fare; possibly I might get taken to court if I don't pay. My elderly mother's medical card shouldn't be taken away though. Regardless of the consequences that I should suffer, another adult citizen shouldn't be bound to them.

But your child will only be entitled to a grant based on YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES, that has always been the case. You can't have them qualify on your difficult financial circumstances one minute and ask them to ignore your legal obligations to the State that provides this grant the next

kflynn

Einhard wrote: »

As I said, it's not a great approach, but that stems from that fact that the gant is linked to parental income which shouldn't be the case. And the fact is that the vast majority of students are dependent on their parents after they turn 18, and the grant acts like a subsidy for those parents. I don't think it's unfair to ask that they contribute €100 in return. I mean, this is our money we're talking about...yours, mine etc. It's not Enda Kenny's. Yet people seem outraged that someone getting thousands of their money should be entitled not to pay all their taxes. And still get someone elses' money. I don't get that.

The €100 is not in return for the grant. You can't pay ESB to get your TV License.

Feathers

Einhard wrote: »

As I said, it's not a great approach, but that stems from that fact that the gant is linked to parental income which shouldn't be the case. And the fact is that the vast majority of students are dependent on their parents after they turn 18, and the grant acts like a subsidy for those parents. I don't think it's unfair to ask that they contribute €100 in return. I mean, this is our money we're talking about...yours, mine etc. It's not Enda Kenny's. Yet people seem outraged that someone getting thousands of their money should be entitled not to pay all their taxes. And still get someone elses' money. I don't get that.

A subsidy to send them to college! It's the student that benefiting from it. The thresholds are so low for these things that if you're getting a grant, especially with little to no part-time work going these days, you're not going off to college & still having money left over to let your parents buy a new TV or go on holiday.

& people are outraged because of the principle of it; it isn't just about paying money. I would happily pay £200 in income tax over a £100 household charge. You have to have some separation though. Again, if you're motor tax is overdue, should you be refused hospital facilities? If I don't return a book to the library on time, should my poor elderly mother that you keep ignoring have her bus pass taken away?

JRant

Einhard wrote: »

Feathers wrote: »

So what if I said to my son — I'm happy to clothe you, feed you, house you, but on a point of principle I'm not going to pay the household charge. What options is he left with? Move out to be classed as an INDEPENDENT adult? He won't be able to claim the dole while in full-time education, he'll get a lower maintenance paymeny for living within 45km of the college, even though this is rented accommodation & he's unlikely to get enough work these days to make up the balance of the bills. Not really an option for most people.

If you're gonna be the type of asshole that would fu*k your own son over on a point of principle, then all he has to do is get €100, pay the charge, and claim his €8000. And then hopefulyl break of links with you.

(By you, of course, I don't mean you)

Sure if you don't have any principles whats the point in the first place. That child will grow up realising that money isn't everything, shock horror, or that it's right to stand up to bullies.

The main point is that the CoCo's have no bloody business sticking their oar into the household tax arena. Stick to what they're paid to do and leave the collection of this latest charge to whatever body Hogan dreams up in the future.

This situation is an outrageous violation of the powers vested in CoCo's and they need putting back in their box fairly lively.

kflynn

oldyouth wrote: »

But your child will only be entitled to a grant based on YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES, that has always been the case. You can't have them qualify on your difficult financial circumstances one minute and ask them to ignore your legal obligations to the State that provides this grant the next

Free will. The students can't force their parents to do anything. They can only go on facts which would be the amount of money coming in.

Then, go back to the parents and exhaust all other avenues. Only then is it someway legal to implicate a 3rd party.

UDP

Biggins wrote: »

...they can't afford to distance themselves?
...And/or are under 23?

If they cannot afford to distance themselves then they are dependent on the financial state of affairs of their parents. Besides it is not that difficult to get a job in Tesco or the likes and earn enough money to be able to live independently.

Age doesn't matter as long as they are over 16 as is state in the law I quoted previously.

kflynn

Feathers wrote: »

If I don't return a book to the library on time, should my poor elderly mother that you keep ignoring have her bus pass taken away?

lol!:p

dxhound2005

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!

This person is a teacher.

Feathers

oldyouth wrote: »

But your child will only be entitled to a grant based on YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES, that has always been the case. You can't have them qualify on your difficult financial circumstances one minute and ask them to ignore your legal obligations to the State that provides this grant the next

Based on my income, yes, not my circumstances. But who gets to make the decision on what other circumstances get included? Is it any outstanding payments that you owe to the local authority & your entitled to no service from the local authority?

Galwayguy35

JRant wrote: »

Where did you get that little caveat from?
From what I have read it is a flat out refusal to process the grant forms.

Also Who are they to judge whats fair and who should be processed first. They are paid to do their job, end of.

Well if you listened to the radio you would have heard it.

Polar wizard adventure

Great idea. Stick it to the scroungers.

Chucky the tree

zcorpian88 wrote: »

Disgraceful thing to do to the next generation of taxpayers for this country. Would just give me more incentive to hop on a plane, get a job abroad and give Fine Gael the two fingers, and every other young qualified skilled person should follow suit.

They are not skilled or qualified in anything. All they have is a leaving cert.

oldyouth

kflynn wrote: »

Free will. The students can't force their parents to do anything. They can only go on facts which would be the amount of money coming in.

Then, go back to the parents and exhaust all other avenues. Only then is it someway legal to implicate a 3rd party.

Sorry, not being smart, but I don't follow what you are saying.

Again, I will say that Student A cannot claim that they need financial support because their parents are unable to assist them, but at the same time, do not look at what they have chosen to spend their money on (for idealistic reasons or otherwise)

ilovesleep

UDP wrote: »

If they cannot afford to distance themselves then they are dependent on the financial state of affairs of their parents. Besides it is not that difficult to get a job in Tesco or the likes and earn enough money to be able to live independently.

Age doesn't matter as long as they are over 16 as is state in the law I quoted previously.

Ah, tesco internship?


With thanks from the governments internship scheme - taking real jobs out from the economy.

Biggins

UDP wrote: »

If they cannot afford to distance themselves then they are dependent on the financial state of affairs of their parents. Besides it is not that difficult to get a job in Tesco or the likes and earn enough money to be able to live independently.

Yes, of course there's loads of jobs in Tesco (or such like) for every student in the country!
...And to live independently, one has to have a near full time wage if one is attending further education (food, clothing, heating bills, travel costs).
Yea, dead easy - there's loads of jobs for every single one!
Loads of hours too to work a five day week while also attending full time education!

...And if they are under 18 where laws apply as regards how many hours they can work?
...And we haven't even approached the different minimum pay rates for different ages!

But no, everything is bloody dandy in Lala land!

And if they are over 18 but under 23 - reliant on the parents?
Once again we are back to the situation - one person is paying for the actions of another!

Thats a disgusting, medieval, stupid position to take!
A position that belongs far back in the dark ages when thugs always claim that what ever the occasion, by what ever means (bugger it if its unfair!), the end justifies the means!

An absolute archaic stupid position to take!

Einhard

Feathers wrote: »

A subsidy to send them to college! It's the student that benefiting from it. The thresholds are so low for these things that if you're getting a grant, especially with little to no part-time work going these days, you're not going off to college & still having money left over to let your parents buy a new TV or go on holiday.

I got a grant. If I hadn't, my parents would have found the money somehow to send me to college. I know of many others who were in that position. i also know self-employed people who diced their books so they'd get a grant they didn't deserve. Of course the grant pays for college education, but quite often it subsidises parents too, who otherwise would have foudn some way to pay the costs.

& people are outraged because of the principle of it; it isn't just about
paying money. I would happily pay £200 in income tax over a £100 household
charge. You have to have some separation though. Again, if you're motor tax is
overdue, should you be refused hospital facilities? If I don't return a book to
the library on time, should my poor elderly mother that you keep ignoring have
her bus pass taken away?

Actually, i'd be of the opinion that if you refuse to pay your taxes, then you forfeit the right to access some of those services which are paid for through taxes.

JRant wrote: »

Sure if you don't have any principles whats the point in the first place. That child will grow up realising that money isn't everything, shock horror, or that it's right to stand up to bullies.

I don't think it's very principled to refuse to pay taxes or charges, and then think that you are entitled to every service and subsidy provided for through such charges.

The main point is that the CoCo's have no bloody business sticking their oar
into the household tax arena. Stick to what they're paid to do and leave the
collection of this latest charge to whatever body Hogan dreams up in the future.

The County Councils are charged with the collection of the charge.

Feathers

UDP wrote: »

Age doesn't matter as long as they are over 16 as is state in the law I quoted previously.

According to the Student Grant Scheme 2012:

Statutory Instruments: SI No. 189 of 2012 wrote:

Classes of applicant

13. (1) For the purposes of this Scheme there shall be two classes of applicant
as follows —

(a) independent student; and
(b) dependent student.

(3) In this scheme an “independent student” means a mature student who did not ordinarily reside with his or her parents, or either of them, from 1 October of the year before the first point of entry to an approved post leaving certificate course or an approved higher education course or re-entry to an approved course.

(4) “Mature student” means a student who on 1 January—

(a) in the year of entry for the first time to an approved post leaving certificate course;
(b) in the year of entry for the first time to an approved higher education course (other than a course known for the time being as a post leaving certificate course); or
(c) in the year of re-entry to an approved course,

is at least 23 years old.

AlmightyCushion

Biggins wrote: »

...And if they are under 18 where laws apply as regards how many hours they can work?
...And we haven't even approached the different minimum pay rates for different ages!

If you are 16 are older, you can still work a full time job and I doubt many 15 year olds are going to college. As for Tesco, they pay people under 18 the same as everyone else. Obviously, different companies may not.

Biggins wrote: »

Once again we are back to the situation - one person is paying for the actions of another!

Thats a disgusting, medieval, stupid position to take!
A position that belongs far back in the dark ages when thugs always claim that what ever the occasion, by what ever means (bugger it if its unfair!), the end justifies the means!

An absolute archaic stupid position to take!

No it's not. Like the example I gave earlier, if the parents don't pay the ESB bill then when the ESB cut them off, the kids will suffer as a result of their parents actions. It's the same for any bill, gas, TV, broadband, phone.

Feathers

Einhard wrote: »

Actually, i'd be of the opinion that if you refuse to pay your taxes, then you forfeit the right to access some of those services which are paid for through taxes..

Any taxes? So again, you'd be happy if your bins weren't collected if your library book was overdue?

JRant

oldyouth wrote: »

kflynn wrote: »

Free will. The students can't force their parents to do anything. They can only go on facts which would be the amount of money coming in.

Then, go back to the parents and exhaust all other avenues. Only then is it someway legal to implicate a 3rd party.

Sorry, not being smart, but I don't follow what you are saying.

Again, I will say that Student A cannot claim that they need financial support because their parents are unable to assist them, but at the same time, do not look at what they have chosen to spend their money on (for idealistic reasons or otherwise)

Then answer this for me so.
In all the documentation required by the local CoCo, nowhere is it stated that a tax clearance cert or proof of HHC payment is required. Now armed with this fact, what gives them the right to make stuff up as they go along?

Einhard

Feathers wrote: »

Any taxes? So again, you'd be happy if your bins weren't collected if your library book was overdue?

Well no, but I thought we were being serious here. And I said refuse.

I mean, say i refusd to pay my income tax? Do yo think I should be able to demand entitlements? Because if you do, it's little wonder we have such massive deficits.

SeaFields

I've been reading this thread and the one over in politics.

A poll would be very interesting. A lot of very good arguments being made n both sides.

Feathers

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

If you are 16 are older, you can still work a full time job and I doubt many 15 year olds are going to college. As for Tesco, they pay people under 18 the same as everyone else. Obviously, different companies may not.

Now that the market is awash with people looking for jobs & employers have their pick, how many places do you know employing 16 year olds?

oldyouth

JRant wrote: »

Then answer this for me so.
In all the documentation required by the local CoCo, nowhere is it stated that a tax clearance cert or proof of HHC payment is required. Now armed with this fact, what gives them the right to make stuff up as they go along?

They're getting creative. I wouldn't have thought they had it in them, but on account of legitimately due funds, I supposed it spurred them from inactivity

Biggins

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

If you are 16 are older, you can still work a full time job and I doubt many 15 year olds are going to college. As for Tesco, they pay people under 18 the same as everyone else. Obviously, different companies may not.

And is there many 16 years olds living away from home?
17 years olds?

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

No it's not. Like the example I gave earlier, if the parents don't pay the ESB bill then when the ESB cut them off, the kids will suffer as a result of their parents actions. It's the same for any bill, gas, TV, broadband, phone.

Except the offspring is away already studying and at college and not living at home to suffer from an ESB bill cut off.

A daft comparison to be honest!
We are not talking about a physical supply of a material to a building.
We talking about a grant to maintain books, food and possible rent for a student - not some crap coming down a wire or pipeline!

What the government is saying now is that the end justifies the means.
Stuff you, if you don't pay up, we are going make sure your offspring will suffer!
Don't pay some small charge - even though you might have paid for everything else since day one and been a good loyal citizen - stuff it, we, the government is going in convenience, to throw all that out the window and inflict penalties upon your children who themselves have done absolutely bloody NOTHING wrong!

Thats fcuking disgrace and only a poor demented fool would justify that position and action!

Its the mental behaviour of thugs - with a thug mentality by those that support that position!
(I'm talking about our government politicians here and their party members)

dxhound2005

JRant wrote: »

Then answer this for me so.
In all the documentation required by the local CoCo, nowhere is it stated that a tax clearance cert or proof of HHC payment is required. Now armed with this fact, what gives them the right to make stuff up as they go along?

You seem to want everything very much by the book a strange attitude from someone who supports lawbreaking. The CoCo have to collect more of the charge otherwise they lose funding so why shouldn't they be creative about it. Especially as we have learned now one of the services they provide and which costs them money is assessing and processing student grant applications.

Einhard

Biggins wrote: »

Thats fcuking disgrace and only a poor demented fool would justify that position and action!

Calm down Biggins, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Feathers

Einhard wrote: »

Well no, but I thought we were being serious here. And I said refuse.

I mean, say i refusd to pay my income tax? Do yo think I should be able to demand entitlements? Because if you do, it's little wonder we have such massive deficits.

I'm being serious in that I don't think any government body should be able to demand anything of you without making by-laws for it first, or it coming under other legal instruments — in this case, neither applies.

Firstly, I doubt that the county council has evidence that the grant applicant's parent is a home owner, simply that they haven't paid the charge. If that's the case, the council have no idea whether they have refused to pay the charge or are ineligible to pay the charge.

Secondly, if the charge was eligible & deliberately not paid, it would be the parent not paying it, not the grant applicant.

Einhard

Feathers wrote: »

I'm being serious in that I don't think any government body should be able to demand anything of you without making by-laws for it first, or it coming under other legal instruments — in this case, neither applies.

Oh I agree totally. But I'm talking about the principle of the thing. I mean, if the action is legally dubious it'll be struck down pretty quickly.

Biggins

Einhard wrote: »

Calm down Biggins, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

The point is that its wrong - and no one should justify any state practising unfair actions.

We give out about foreign states doing so - but when its our own?

O' well thats different!

Einhard

Biggins wrote: »

The point is that its wrong - and no one should justify any state practising unfair actions.

We give out about foreign states doing so - but when its our own?

O' well thats different!

Jesus Biggins, life is unfair. Deal with it. I'm a newly qualified teacher. I'll start this year on €11k less than someone who started two years ago. That's bloody unfair. But guess what? I suck it up and live with it because that's what has to happen to repair the hole in our finances.

AlmightyCushion

Biggins wrote: »

And is there many 16 years olds living away from home?
17 years olds?

Just pointing out that a 16 year old can still get a full time job whereas you seemed to imply they couldn't.

Biggins wrote: »

Except the offspring is away already studying and at college and not living at home to suffer from an ESB bill cut off.

A daft comparison to be honest!
We are not talking about a physical supply of a material to a building.
We talking about a grant to maintain books, food and possible rent for a student - not some crap coming down a wire or pipeline!

What the government is saying now is that the end justifies the means.
Stuff you, if you don't pay up, we are going make sure your offspring will suffer!
Don't pay some small charge - even though you might have paid for everything else since day one and been a good loyal citizen - stuff it, we, the government is going in convenience, to throw all that out the window and inflict penalties upon your children who themselves have done absolutely bloody NOTHING wrong!

Thats fcuking disgrace and only a poor demented fool would justify that position and action!

Its the mental behaviour of thugs - with a thug mentality by those that support that position!

Not all students move out for college. Also, your moral outcry is about the injustice of one person being penalised for the actions of another. How is a child losing electricity (something that is essential in our society) because the parent doesn't pay the ESB bill not the same as a child losing out on the grant because a parent doesn't pay the HHC?

dxhound2005

Einhard wrote: »

Oh I agree totally. But I'm talking about the principle of the thing. I mean, if the action is legally dubious it'll be struck down pretty quickly.

It won't be hard to find two lawyers who will give diametrically opposing opinions depending on who is paying them.

Feathers

Einhard wrote: »

Oh I agree totally. But I'm talking about the principle of the thing. I mean, if the action is legally dubious it'll be struck down pretty quickly.

I'm talking about the principle of the thing

If the Student Grant Scheme instrument mentioned full tax compliance on whoever's income is being assessed as a requirement to receive the grant, I'd have no problem with it. It also only came out this year, they could easily have put it in if they wanted to. Although, as a separate point, I think there should be a way for someone under 23 to be considered an independent applicant — not doing so is frankly ageism.

My issue is with CCs overstepping their jurisdiction & punishing one person for the crimes of another.

mr kr0nik

It doesn't matter what any of us think here because this will be challenged if the CoCo goes ahead and will be deemed illegal (I agree with the CoCo sentiment but they are going about it the wrong way).

JRant

Einhard wrote: »

Feathers wrote: »

A subsidy to send them to college! It's the student that benefiting from it. The thresholds are so low for these things that if you're getting a grant, especially with little to no part-time work going these days, you're not going off to college & still having money left over to let your parents buy a new TV or go on holiday.

I got a grant. If I hadn't, my parents would have found the money somehow to send me to college. I know of many others who were in that position. i also know self-employed people who diced their books so they'd get a grant they didn't deserve. Of course the grant pays for college education, but quite often it subsidises parents too, who otherwise would have foudn some way to pay the costs.

& people are outraged because of the principle of it; it isn't just about
paying money. I would happily pay £200 in income tax over a £100 household
charge. You have to have some separation though. Again, if you're motor tax is
overdue, should you be refused hospital facilities? If I don't return a book to
the library on time, should my poor elderly mother that you keep ignoring have
her bus pass taken away?

Actually, i'd be of the opinion that if you refuse to pay your taxes, then you forfeit the right to access some of those services which are paid for through taxes.

JRant wrote: »

Sure if you don't have any principles whats the point in the first place. That child will grow up realising that money isn't everything, shock horror, or that it's right to stand up to bullies.

I don't think it's very principled to refuse to pay taxes or charges, and then think that you are entitled to every service and subsidy provided for through such charges.

The main point is that the CoCo's have no bloody business sticking their oar
into the household tax arena. Stick to what they're paid to do and leave the
collection of this latest charge to whatever body Hogan dreams up in the future.

The County Councils are charged with the collection of the charge.

So you got your grant and are more than happy to now stick it to people in a similar position.

I think it's well within peoples rights to stand up to what they believe is a grossly unfair situation. Do you think people are just doing this for the 'craic'?
We all contribute to various services, through taxes, that most of us will see no personal benefit from but as a society judge it to be worthwhile.

If CoCo's are charged with this, then why is Hogan talking about moving into the Revenues remit?
Also if people are to be penalised for nonpayment then thats a matter for the courts to decide. Thats why we have seperation of powers in this country. As it stands the CoCo are acting as judge, jury and executioner.

kflynn

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

No it's not. Like the example I gave earlier, if the parents don't pay the ESB bill then when the ESB cut them off, the kids will suffer as a result of their parents actions. It's the same for any bill, gas, TV, broadband, phone.

The ESB bill is something used communally and is directly associated with your electricity.

Biggins

Einhard wrote: »

Jesus Biggins, life is unfair. Deal with it. I'm a newly qualified teacher. I'll start this year on €11k less than someone who started two years ago. That's bloody unfair. But guess what? I suck it up and live with it because that's what has to happen to repair the hole in our finances.

You will suck it up because you accept it.
Not all of us will or wish to.
Some of us will fight unfairness, not just accept it out of blind loyalty to a state!

Feathers

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

How is a child losing electricity (something that is essential in our society) because the parent doesn't pay the ESB bill not the same as a child losing out on the grant because a parent doesn't pay the HHC?

Because a 'child' of 23, who has decided to live at home, could use their earnings from their readily available Tesco job to pay for the electricity bill if they were suffering extensively from it. Can they pay the household charge though, if they're not the home owner, in order to qualify for the grant?