Children penalised for the actions of parents

Einhard

Feathers wrote: »

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.

I agree it's unfair. But I think it's more unfair to expect people who are fully tax compliant to pay for those who are not, and IMO, quite a substantial proportion of parents benefit from the grant by not having to pay out as much as they otherwise would have. I appreciate the points you're making though...nice to have a good debate on it!!:D

Biggins

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

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

I implied that there is not just loads of jobs out there from Tesco's (or such like) for every student at a previous poster seems to espouse.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The grant is awarded based on the income of the parents.

Indeed so, and I have stated that myself now a number of times.
On INCOME of the parents.
Not what possible crimes and/or in-actions of a separate individual.

Tom Joad

Will never happen in my opinon - how could this legally stand up - this is great PR for county councils/Government to scare people into paying the charge and it will work on some people so they will consider it a result..

Einhard

Biggins wrote: »

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!

Blind loyalty to the state?

I accept it because we're billions in deficit every single year because we spend too much! That's reality, and however much you want to stick your head int he sand and ignore it, it won't go away Biggins.

Also, I accept it, because despite being manifestly unfair, it's still a good salary. So i can live with the inequity because I appreciate the complete financial hole we're in.

Muir

Consider a parent who has always been on social welfare, never contributed income tax. Should their child be allowed avail of public schools?

Cause that's the sort of thing we're going into if this kind of crap is allowed. A student can't make their parent pay, if they are under 23 they can't get a grant in their own right, and jobs are few & far between for them to earn enough money themselves.

There are all these little things being announced that target certain groups in society. When Social Welfare is hit, certain people who give out about people lazing about getting paid are glad that it has been hit. When students are hit, the people who resent having to pay for someone else's education are glad. With the household charge, they bring it in for home owners who are angry council tenants don't pay, but eventually it'll be brought in for council tenants and these people will be glad and forget the real reason they opposed it etc. Divide & conquer, that's what seems to be going on.

If someone is entitled to the grant they should get it. It's blackmail. Pay up or we take things away, and the cost to pay will get higher and higher.

JRant

oldyouth wrote: »

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

But these forms had to be in by the 31st August. If they wanted to do it this way they had all summer to revise what they needed and bring in the necessary bye-laws etc. instead they wait until just 18 days after the deadline to move the goalposts or get creative as you put it.

Biggins

Einhard wrote: »

Blind loyalty to the state?

I accept it because we're billions in deficit every single year because we spend too much! That's reality, and however much you want to stick your head int he sand and ignore it, it won't go away Biggins.

Also, I accept it, because despite being manifestly unfair, it's still a good salary. So i can live with the inequity because I appreciate the complete financial hole we're in.

Lucky you then that your in that position.
Many are not.

...And just because we're billions in deficit every single year, that justifies this unfair action?
What next that the government will do that is unfair (and possibly illegal!) ?

Where does one draw the line?

Where in a line in the sand, does the end justifies the means, becomes right and excusable?

Where does a possible line of unfair actions end?

oldyouth

JRant wrote: »

But these forms had to be in by the 31st August. If they wanted to do it this way they had all summer to revise what they needed and bring in the necessary bye-laws etc. instead they wait until just 18 days after the deadline to move the goalposts or get creative as you put it.

So you want the Council to play by the rules, whereas some others deliberately broke the law

dirtyden

Biggins wrote: »

I implied that there is not just loads of jobs out there from Tesco's (or such like) for every student at a previous poster seems to espouse.



Indeed so, and I have stated that myself now a number of times.
On INCOME of the parents.
Not what possible crimes and/or in-actions of a separate individual.

So parents to qualify for grant not separate individuals.........but to avoid you not qualifying they should not be treated as parents but as separate individuals.

kflynn

dirtyden wrote: »

So parents to qualify for grant not separate individuals.........but to avoid you not qualifying they should not be treated as parents but as separate individuals.

If they were treated as individuals there would be €0 in income. That's why the parents are included....because it benefits the government. We'd all have loved to have been assessed on our own income!

The household income should look after all out goings inc education. There are no household crimes.....completely completely ......completely separate things here.

ilovesleep

Copied from the politics forum here because I think this is so funny:

JimiTime wrote: »

In other news, Leinster house politicians still collect 'Tiger' wages while pontificating about how we must understand the dire financial crisis we're in. They were also seen laughing as the Irish public were too busy begrudging each other and delighting in extortion to care.

He's right too. I know their pay and perks is a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things but they are not living in the real world and they don't have the stress and pressure of wondering where the money will come from to pay a bill, or for a small grocery shop or for a pair of shoes. Because they are people just like this, up to their eyeballs in stress and financial difficulty, up and down the country.

Biggins

dirtyden wrote: »

So parents to qualify for grant not separate individuals.........but to avoid you not qualifying they should not be treated as parents but as separate individuals.

For OFFSPRING to qualify for a grant...

...they must make sure their parents are law abiding citizens!
And if they don't or can't?

...Punish one for the sins of the other it seems!

Justify that!

Feathers

oldyouth wrote: »

So you want the Council to play by the rules, whereas some others deliberately broke the law

Have they broken the law? Maybe they were ineligibilty for the tax.

JRant

dxhound2005 wrote: »

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.

Lawbreaking eah! As far as I know nobody has been convicted of anything regarding the HHC.

Imagine wanting CoCo's to have to go by the book! Must be outta my mind altogether. If the powers that be don't abide by their own rules, what hope is there for the rest of us?

MaxSteele

I'd love to know how many here outraged at these dangerous household charge dodgers, paid the tax out of unquestionable moral obligation or just plainly out of fear ?

Einhard

Biggins wrote: »

Lucky you then that your in that position.
Many are not.

LOL I'm not that lucky. I can't get a teachign job so I'm emigrating next month. Waaaaaaaaah! Poor me! Waaaaaaaah! Sorry, but that's what a lot of other people are doing, so I s'pose I should start too, right?

Asking a parent to pay €100 so their son or daughter can avail of thousands in grants is not unreasonable. Simple as that.

...And just because we're billions in deficit every single year, that justifies
this unfair action?

No Biggins...the fact that we're billions ind eficit and some people still can't grasp that and refuse to pay their taxes justifies this measure.

I mean FFS, what kind of brass neck does it take to refuse to pay a charge or tax or whatever, and then become outraged when you can't claim all you think you're entitled to? That's absurd.

What next that the government will do that is unfair (and possibly illegal!) ?

If it's illegal it'll be struck down.

Where does one draw the line?





Where in a line in the sand, does the end justifies the means, becomes right
and excusable?





Where does a possible line of unfair actions end?

Jesus Biggins, it's not a fascist state. Pay €100...your son or daughter gets thousands. That's a pretty fupping good bargain in anyone's book.

questionmark?

Total disgrace and I would like to see this challenged in court to see if it is even legal.

JRant

oldyouth wrote: »

JRant wrote: »

But these forms had to be in by the 31st August. If they wanted to do it this way they had all summer to revise what they needed and bring in the necessary bye-laws etc. instead they wait until just 18 days after the deadline to move the goalposts or get creative as you put it.

So you want the Council to play by the rules, whereas some others deliberately broke the law

No law has been broken yet.

Of course I want the CoCo's to play by the rules. If they don't why should the rest of us?

oldyouth

JRant wrote: »

No law has been broken yet.

Of course I want the CoCo's to play by the rules. If they don't why should the rest of us?

Like it or not (and I don't), paying the household tax is the law, not paying it has broken the law

Biggins

Einhard wrote: »

...Jesus Biggins, it's not a fascist state. Pay €100...your son or daughter gets thousands. That's a pretty fupping good bargain in anyone's book.

I can pay it, maybe others cannot - and when the rates go higher?

What then? Does the unfair actions of our state heads get any more right?

Long story short, by any means fair or fowl, they are using tactics which is wrong.
Simply wrong.

Now one can cower to them (for whatever excuse that makes unfairness justified in one own mind) or one can fight it!

I'm choosing to fight!
I suspect I won't be on my own.
Its not just fear of whats today - but what next is tomorrow for we have started down this road of unfairness, of punishing one for the sins of another!

No one can fairly justify that!

Feathers

oldyouth wrote: »

Like it or not (and I don't), paying the household tax is the law, not paying it has broken the law

What if they don't own a house?

kflynn

Einhard wrote: »

Asking a parent to pay €100 so their son or daughter can avail of thousands in grants is not unreasonable. Simple as that.

No Biggins...the fact that we're billions ind eficit and some people still can't grasp that and refuse to pay their taxes justifies this measure.

I mean FFS, what kind of brass neck does it take to refuse to pay a charge or tax or whatever, and then become outraged when you can't claim all you think you're entitled to? That's absurd.

If it's illegal it'll be struck down.


Jesus Biggins, it's not a fascist state. Pay €100...your son or daughter gets thousands. That's a pretty fupping good bargain in anyone's book.

And thats the issue...."pay €100 for the grant". That is not what the HHC is for. That is why it can not be used in this manner. That is bribery. Tax/Revenue collection is needed, not this.

Its not what the adult is entitled to...it is what the student is entitled to.

With all the things they could have withheld there is no legitimate reason for choosing the one that impacts a third party with something as important as their education.

oldyouth

Feathers wrote: »

What if they don't own a house?

Then this debate isn't an issue, it is for those who were due, but didn't pay. the charge

JRant

Einhard wrote: »

Biggins wrote: »

Lucky you then that your in that position.
Many are not.

LOL I'm not that lucky. I can't get a teachign job so I'm emigrating next month. Waaaaaaaaah! Poor me! Waaaaaaaah! Sorry, but that's what a lot of other people are doing, so I s'pose I should start too, right?

Asking a parent to pay €100 so their son or daughter can avail of thousands in grants is not unreasonable. Simple as that.

...And just because we're billions in deficit every single year, that justifies
this unfair action?

No Biggins...the fact that we're billions ind eficit and some people still can't grasp that and refuse to pay their taxes justifies this measure.

I mean FFS, what kind of brass neck does it take to refuse to pay a charge or tax or whatever, and then become outraged when you can't claim all you think you're entitled to? That's absurd.

What next that the government will do that is unfair (and possibly illegal!) ?

If it's illegal it'll be struck down.

Where does one draw the line?





Where in a line in the sand, does the end justifies the means, becomes right
and excusable?





Where does a possible line of unfair actions end?

Jesus Biggins, it's not a fascist state. Pay €100...your son or daughter gets thousands. That's a pretty fupping good bargain in anyone's book.

So your either a teacher on €11k less starting salary, because you feel its the right thing to do as we are in such a mess financally or your emigrating because you've no work!!!!

Feathers

oldyouth wrote: »

Then this debate isn't an issue, it is for those who were due, but didn't pay. the charge

So, leading on from that, how are Clare CoCo differentiating between these groups: those who have to pay but haven't yet & those who are ineligible. The council doesn't have a clue — they know the people who have paid & that's it. There's no property register in the country, after that it's just guess work.

Clare CoCo are asking people to prove they are 'in compliance' — i.e. either that they've paid or that they do not need to pay. It's called guilty until proven innocent.

statesaver

Well done Clare County Co. Hope others follow.

Pay your taxes. I do and will not pay for you so your kids can go to college.

JRant

oldyouth wrote: »

JRant wrote: »

No law has been broken yet.

Of course I want the CoCo's to play by the rules. If they don't why should the rest of us?

Like it or not (and I don't), paying the household tax is the law, not paying it has broken the law

Until somebody has been pursued through the proper channels, ie the courts/revenue, then nobody has broken any law as far as I can see.

Biggins

To add to the unfairness as described already, there is the fact that we are talking about the Household charge here.

Describe the basis for the charge as you can (be it fair or unfair in itself - argue this in other thread), its a charge though for the home and all services pertaining to it.

So in not paying for a charge for one thing - your offspring is going to be penalised for a totally separate thing - their education!

Nice!

Maggie 2

Feathers wrote: »

So, leading on from that, how are Clare CoCo differentiating between these groups: those who have to pay but haven't yet & those who are ineligible. The council doesn't have a clue — they know the people who have paid & that's it. There's no property register in the country, after that it's just guess work.
Clare CoCo are asking people to prove they are 'in compliance' — i.e. either that they've paid or that they do not need to pay. It's called guilty until proven innocent.

Everyone has to register. If entitled to a waiver, then they'll have paperwork to show this. If they haven't paid, then they are not tax compliant and therefore the County Council's (Clare are not alone) are within their rights to disallow payment. The answer is, to comply with the law and like the 70% that have already paid, pay up!

RoundyMooney

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.

Biggins doesn't deal in solutions-he dines out on the problems. And he would do well to have a bit of patience when others disagree with him.

A poster earlier-"Calm down Biggins, he's entitled to his opinion"

Biggins-"B-b-but, he's WRONG!" (emphasis mine)

Biggins wrote: »

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!

Um, it isn't about blind loyalty-it's about paying your fair share. It's as simple as that. If you have a better idea as to how we can bridge the deficit, than broadening the tax base, let's hear it. I won't hold my breath in the meantime.

I'll pay the property tax when the time comes-and I've paid enough in stamp duty in the last fifteen years to make your ears bleed. And I haven't even mentioned income tax. And why? Because we won't get our economy moving again, and our people back to work without sacrifices being made.

Some of us don't have time to beat our chests alll day and night on the internet, because we're too busy keeping on keeping on.

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

...
So in not paying for a charge for one thing - your offspring is going to be penalised for a totally separate thing - their education!

Nice!

And how pray tell, is that different from tax evasion of one form or another, and the inevitable cuts to service, or deficits that result?

Say, I decided to give out on the internet all day, and not work. Say I decided not to pay my VAT, say I decided not to pay my motor tax or whatever.

Now, multiply that by a couple of tens of thousands. Your brood then have to shiver in pre-fabs, or deal with the loss of SNAs.

How is that any different?

dirtyden

Biggins wrote: »

For OFFSPRING to qualify for a grant...

...they must make sure their parents are law abiding citizens!
And if they don't or can't?

...Punish one for the sins of the other it seems!

Justify that!

How about for parents to make sure their children qualify for state awarded education grants they pay their taxes. It does not sound as hyperbolic my way.

Feathers

Maggie 2 wrote: »

Everyone has to register. If entitled to a waiver, then they'll have paperwork to show this.

This is the official line on waivers:

The waivers from payment of the household charge are as follows:

• Owners of residential property entitled to mortgage interest supplement
• Owners of residential property located in certain prescribed unfinished housing estates (see Unfinished Housing Estates section for more detail)

Persons claiming entitlement to a waiver are required to register their property.

Only home owners have to register; tenants aren't part of their system. But the County Council doesn't know if you're a tenant or a home-owner.

Maggie 2 wrote: »

If they haven't paid, then they are not tax compliant and therefore the County Council's (Clare are not alone) are within their rights to disallow payment. The answer is, to comply with the law and like the 70% that have already paid, pay up!

Really? Link please. Here's what the Dept has to say on it:

Irish Times wrote:

A spokeswoman for the Department of Education said it was neither consulted nor informed of the move by Clare County Council. "The Student Support Act 2011 does not provide for withholding of the payment of a student grant on foot of non-payment of the household charge," she said.

Feathers

dirtyden wrote: »

How about for parents to make sure their children qualify for state awarded education grants they pay their taxes. It does not sound as hyperbolic my way.

That's fine if it's the law, rather than something they made up on the spot with no authority after the application deadline closed.

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

...Um, it isn't about blind loyalty-it's about paying your fair share. It's as simple as that...

Yes, that the excuse being churned constantly out by those trying to justify every action by this disreputable government.

Where does this "fair share" end?
Who says where this "fair share" ends? Enda? Merkel? Who - and when?

A government that is practising unfair methods by making one person pay for the penalties of another?

What stupidity is it in people to follow such an unfair government and try justify with their excuses, their unfair practises?

hardCopy

It's a household charge, the kids are part of that household.

Why do people expect the government to fund the lifestyle of tax dodgers?

oldyouth

JRant wrote: »

Until somebody has been pursued through the proper channels, ie the courts/revenue, then nobody has broken any law as far as I can see.

Moot point there, a law is a law even if not challenged in the court

RoundyMooney

dirtyden wrote: »

How about for parents to make sure their children qualify for state awarded education grants they pay their taxes. It does not sound as hyperbolic my way.

Ah dirtyden-you won't get *any* attention by phrasing your posts in such a reasonable and accurate manner as that!

No, you need to be as dramatic and overbearing as possible! Always draw from your inexhaustible arsenal of grubby impoverished mites, huddled masses, fat cats and exclamation marks!

And never suggest paying for something yourself, if there's even the remotest possibility of the state (i.e. other people) doing so.

Biggins

dirtyden wrote: »

How about for parents to make sure their children qualify for state awarded education grants they pay their taxes. It does not sound as hyperbolic my way.

To repeat:

To add to the unfairness as described already, there is the fact that we are talking about the Household charge here.

Describe the basis for the charge as you can (be it fair or unfair in itself - argue this in other thread), its a charge though for the home and all services pertaining to it.

So in not paying for a charge for one thing - your offspring is going to be penalised for a totally separate thing - their education!

...And what if they have paid every other tax/charge/levy under the sun?

No, lets throw the baby out with the bathwater and fcuk all the other payments - they don't count now!

We. the government want our money, you dig it up for one charge or we will punish your kids on another separate item altogether!

Who here can justify that thuggery! That extortion!

FionnK86

Fair enough the government needs road tax to maintain the roads, VAT to pay for the maintenance of services, but a household charge? I don't see Enda Kenny coming into my kitchen and fixing my broken oven door:mad:

And stopping grants when were supposed to be an information technology economy? Sure I may aswell have dropped out after the Junior Cert and gone and worked in the coalmines:cool:

JRant

Maggie 2 wrote: »

Feathers wrote: »

So, leading on from that, how are Clare CoCo differentiating between these groups: those who have to pay but haven't yet & those who are ineligible. The council doesn't have a clue — they know the people who have paid & that's it. There's no property register in the country, after that it's just guess work.
Clare CoCo are asking people to prove they are 'in compliance' — i.e. either that they've paid or that they do not need to pay. It's called guilty until proven innocent.

Everyone has to register. If entitled to a waiver, then they'll have paperwork to show this. If they haven't paid, then they are not tax compliant and therefore the County Council's (Clare are not alone) are within their rights to disallow payment. The answer is, to comply with the law and like the 70% that have already paid, pay up!

CoCo's have rules to follow to do these things. This ad-hoc approach is lunacy if you ask me.
To summize what you're saying then it's okay for the CoCo to disregard the rules but everyone else has to comply.

statesaver

FionnK86 wrote: »

Fair enough the government needs road tax to maintain the roads, VAT to pay for the maintenance of services, but a household charge? I don't see Enda Kenny coming into my kitchen and fixing my broken oven door:mad:

And stopping grants when were supposed to be an information technology economy? Sure I may aswell have dropped out after the Junior Cert and gone and worked in the coalmines:cool:

rubbish

end of the road

Valetta wrote: »

If the parents don't want the children to be "punished", they should pay their dues.

not this due they shouldn't. actually they should deffinitely not pay it now, and see how low the state will actually go, people give enough as it is, in most cases they can't afford any more. and i don't care if other countries have a property tax, we didn't and it should stay that way.

FionnK86

statesaver wrote: »

rubbish

Yeah that too, he doesn't take the bins out either:mad:

JRant

oldyouth wrote: »

JRant wrote: »

Until somebody has been pursued through the proper channels, ie the courts/revenue, then nobody has broken any law as far as I can see.

Moot point there, a law is a law even if not challenged in the court

Well I'd be very careful about calling anyone a lawbreaker or tax dodger without that person being given due process.

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

Yes, that the excuse being churned constantly out by those trying to justify every action by this disreputable government.

I think you need a better hobby than winding yourself up endlessly on the computer. Because you're yet again taking an online discussion to your own babbling extreme. Where have I ever tried to justify everything? Take a step back and relax, chief.

Biggins wrote: »

Where does this "fair share" end?
Who says where this "fair share" ends? Enda? Merkel? Who - and when?

That's pretty obvious-when we're not borrowing shedloads of money to keep the show on the road. In all your endless and wasted hours, scattergunning every Irish forum with your various identities and blogs, have you not figured that out yet?

Biggins wrote: »

A government that is practising unfair methods by making one person pay for the penalties of another?

What stupidity is it in people to follow such an unfair government and try justify with their excuses, their unfair practises?

Yes, everyone's stupid except you.

We're paying, and it seems you aren't, so maybe you're on to something...

namloc1980

Biggins wrote: »

Yes, that the excuse being churned constantly out by those trying to justify every action by this disreputable government.

Where does this "fair share" end?
Who says where this "fair share" ends? Enda? Merkel? Who - and when?

A government that is practising unfair methods by making one person pay for the penalties of another?

What stupidity is it in people to follow such an unfair government and try justify with their excuses, their unfair practises?

The only unfairness I can see is the unfairness of people who expect their children's education to be state funded while not paying their dues.

Aidric

Biggins wrote: »

I'm choosing to fight!
I suspect I won't be on my own.
Its not just fear of whats today - but what next is tomorrow for we have started down this road of unfairness, of punishing one for the sins of another!

Fight? Because of a refusal to pay a hundred quid in lieu of a generous maintenance grant.

Spare me.

AlmightyCushion

Biggins wrote: »

To repeat:



...And what if they have paid every other tax/charge/levy under the sun?

No, lets throw the baby out with the bathwater and fcuk all the other payments - they don't count now!

We. the government want our money, you dig it up for one charge or we will punish your kids on another separate item altogether!

Who here can justify that thuggery! That extortion!

So, tax evasion is ok as long as you pay most of your taxes?

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

...We're paying, and it seems you aren't, so maybe you're on to something...

No, your blindly paying because you think your always doing the right thing - where does the right things end?
Your simply continuing as an enabler, the government to continue with its unfair practises.
Someone else today - maybe you too tomorrow!

namloc1980 wrote: »

The only unfairness I can see is the unfairness of people who expect their children's education to be state funded while not paying their dues.

So that justifies penalising one person for the crimes of another.
Right! Got it.
Great modern thinking there!