Children penalised for the actions of parents

animaal

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!

No one can fairly justify that!

I object to the structure of the HHC, and I think it's unfair. While it's fine to object to the creation and imposition of any tax, I don't believe we can pick and choose the taxes we want to pay once they're in operation. It's a democratic country - we've put in power a government that implemented this tax. We're free to choose our next government to be one that removes it.

I doubt there's any official document that states "If you don't pay the HHC, the repercussions may not exceed...". If you take a stance on something, particularly your taxes, you have to accept there will be consequences.

The fact is many people decided not to pay, on the assumption that the government would be powerless to come after such a large number of people. If the powers that be subsequently discover a way they can pressure people into paying, particularly a cheap way that links non-compliance to the withholding of benefits, I'm all for it. People can have their moral stances, at their own cost.

Finally, just to throw some petrol on the fire - it's funny how so many people only get engaged with the moral stances that reduce the taxes they themselves pay. Would we see this much passionate debate if, I dunno, home help for the disabled was reduced?

Sappa

Biggins wrote: »

Irish children penalised for the actions of parents...

Is this what our state has come to?

EDUCATION Minister Ruairi Quinn this morning defended Clare County Council for refusing to approve third-level student grants unless their parents had paid the €100 household charge.

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/fury-as-council-blocks-student-grants-over-household-charge-3233555.html

I'm NOT here to argue for/against the household charge - there's a thread for that HERE.
...Have our present government become so low and fcuking bitter that they are hitting out at offspring for what is clearly the separate decisions of others?

Feel free to disagree with me but I think its fcuking disgusting!

Fairplsy to Clare county council,they are giving taxpayers money away in the grant and they depend on taxpayers to pay there taxes in order to facilitate this support.
If you don't contribute why should you receive,about time we should be doing this with everything.

dirtyden

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!

My argument still stands up. So you want to choose the taxes that you decide to pay? You want to not pay your taxes and have no consequences? You are looking for a state grant but you dont want to obey the laws of the state.

It would be harsh for the young to suffer for the sins of the elders, but the parents would be as much at fault if not more so than Clare county council.

Biggins

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

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

Tax evasion is unfair as is penalising one person for the crimes of another.

...But wait, seeing as the government has an excuse - that make their unfairness all right and for others to justify it, for it to continue!

You can't have it both ways.
You should call all things unfair where they are and fight them all - or not at all for same!
Anything otherwise is two-faced hypocritical.

RoundyMooney

Aidric wrote: »

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

Spare me.

"Stand up and fight until you get the bill!

Pay what you owe-no tale of woe!

Keep postin' till you make all your posts tell,

Show that crowd what you know!

Until you get that bill, that final bill,

Stand up and fight like hell!"

namloc1980

Biggins wrote: »

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

Please tell me that you realise that the maintenance grant is based on the income of the PARENTS, not the student....THE PARENTS!! Students only qualify for it because of the PARENTS...so if the PARENTS don't want to pay their dues then tough ****, they shouldn't expect or get benefits. You seem to think we should all be happy to pay for these scroungers.

Anita Blow

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!

Student grants are paid by the councils. If you do not pay the Household charge , which is used to fund Local councils, then you should not expect to be able to avail of such services for free.

The student is not totally separate from their parents in this case unless they are paying their own fees. If they aren't, they're classed as a dependent, and they must declare the income of those they are dependent on (Their parents or guardians). If those they are dependent on are not paying the HHC to their local council, then it's completely fair for the council to deny some services to them until they do pay.

tayto lover

There appears to be some people who are paying this charge without question.
Others who are scraping it together reluctantly through fear.
People who genuinely cannot afford it.
People who are refusing on a point of principle.
And Government shills who are brainwashed and maybe even posting here on behalf of "the party".
It's an interesting discussion but it has not convinced me to pay as yet anyway.

Aidric

Biggins wrote: »

I'm choosing to fight!

Biggins wrote: »

Who here can justify that thuggery! That extortion!

Relax there William Wallace. This isn't a cry to arms.

Biggins

dirtyden wrote: »

...It would be harsh for the young to suffer for the sins of the elders, but the parents would be as much at fault if not more so than Clare county council.

So if the parents are at fault - or the CoCo, why penalised someone else?


All I see here is people giving out about others not paying ONE tax while they have paid many others (over years) and that justifies innocent offspring being made into eventual suffering victims with a withdraw of funds, over something they have NO legal ability to intercede in.

Its backwards the mentality of some people is going in our government.

RoundyMooney

I'd have a sizeable wager earmarked for a worthy cause, that Biggins' fight consists of a couple of dozen angry posts on AH, a couple of posts on whatever tumbleweed domain he's using this week, and possibly, possibly, an unpublished letter to a national daily.

And that he quietly paid the HHC about six months ago.

hardCopy

tayto lover wrote: »

There appears to be some people who are paying this charge without question.
Others who are scraping it together reluctantly through fear.
People who genuinely cannot afford it.
People who are refusing on a point of principle.
And Government shills who are brainwashed and maybe even posting here on behalf of "the party".
It's an interesting discussion but it has not convinced me to pay as yet anyway.

Fair enough, but don't expect others to pay your grants.

Guy:Incognito

Biggins wrote: »

As one person stated in the Indo':

But its ok for parents to deprive them of education for the sake of €100?

Biggins

Anita Blow wrote: »

Student grants are paid by the councils. If you do not pay the Household charge , which is used to fund Local councils, then you should not expect to be able to avail of such services for free.

The student is not totally separate from their parents in this case unless they are paying their own fees. If they aren't, they're classed as a dependent, and they must declare the income of those they are dependent on (Their parents or guardians). If those they are dependent on are not paying the HHC to their local council, then it's completely fair for the council to deny some services to them until they do pay.

Student grants are paid OUT by the councils, who have been given the money from the state - who in turn have collected it from every other tax/charge up to now.

The household charge does not contribute to any education grant!

Feathers

animaal wrote: »

I don't believe we can pick and choose the taxes we want to pay once they're in operation. It's a democratic country - we've put in power a government that implemented this tax. We're free to choose our next government to be one that removes it.

So, is this just taxes or laws in general? You shouldn't stand up to laws that you don't believe in? Precisely because it's a democracy is the reason you can and should do this. I'm going to side-step the Goodwin & say what about the likes of Rosa Parks? Was she in the wrong, in your opinion?

animaal wrote: »

I doubt there's any official document that states "If you don't pay the HHC, the repercussions may not exceed...". If you take a stance on something, particularly your taxes, you have to accept there will be consequences.

There are two official documents that lists criteria for getting the grant & HHC is nowhere to be seen — that's the point. Do you think it's right that the council can arbitrarily call up any tax and use it as an excuse for refusal of any service?

animaal wrote: »

Finally, just to throw some petrol on the fire - it's funny how so many people only get engaged with the moral stances that reduce the taxes they themselves pay. Would we see this much passionate debate if, I dunno, home help for the disabled was reduced?

For what it's worth, I wouldn't be eligible for the household charge but as I said earlier, I'd be happier with an increase in income tax than it's introduction (where I at home).

Biggins

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

But its ok for parents to deprive them of education for the sake of €100?

No, its not - but penalise the parents, not the innocent offspring!

tayto lover

hardCopy wrote: »

Fair enough, but don't expect others to pay your grants.

Never received a grant in my life.

Biggins

Aidric wrote: »

Relax there William Wallace. This isn't a cry to arms.

We are getting there at this rate sadly.

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

The household charge does not contribute to any education grant!

Are you really so naive as to think that every single revenue stream is ringfenced?

JRant

namloc1980 wrote: »

Biggins wrote: »

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

Please tell me that you realise that the maintenance grant is based on the income of the PARENTS, not the student....THE PARENTS!! Students only qualify for it because of the PARENTS...so if the PARENTS don't want to pay their dues then tough ****, they shouldn't expect or get benefits. You seem to think we should all be happy to pay for these scroungers.

So you know that it's based on parents income, not tax compliance, and are still towing the party line. Unbelievible stuff

Guy:Incognito

Biggins wrote: »

No, its not - but penalise the parents, not the innocent offspring!

The local authorities now have leverage to get a percentage to pay a tax they were evading. I have no issue with them using that leverage.

the parents could always give the students a few grand a year tocover the grant they arent getting. At least they wont have paid the household charge....................

namloc1980

Biggins wrote: »

No, its not - but penalise the parents, not the innocent offspring!

You seem to be missing the point that the "innocent offspring" are using their parents means to access state funds. They can't be totally separated from the parents in this case where they are using them to get taxpayers to fund their education.

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Are you really so naive as to think that every single revenue stream is ringfenced?

So far with the amount that is collected, the household charge does not contribute to any education grant!

Wait, did FG themselves not say that money towards the household charge was ring-fenced for local services?

O' well if thats true and they did say that, lets change that story now to suit this unfair behaviour by our government and thus justify their thuggery!

namloc1980

JRant wrote: »

So you know that it's based on parents income, not tax compliance, and are still towing the party line. Unbelievible stuff

Tax compliance should be a standard condition for accessing state funds so fair play to Clare Co Co on this one.

JRant

Anita Blow wrote: »

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!

Student grants are paid by the councils. If you do not pay the Household charge , which is used to fund Local councils, then you should not expect to be able to avail of such services for free.

The student is not totally separate from their parents in this case unless they are paying their own fees. If they aren't, they're classed as a dependent, and they must declare the income of those they are dependent on (Their parents or guardians). If those they are dependent on are not paying the HHC to their local council, then it's completely fair for the council to deny some services to them until they do pay.

It's an awful way to go about collecting this charge. There are many different avenues open for them to do this but they choose to go down this one.
Pointing a metaphorical 'loaded gun' at dependents to get the parents to comply is cowardly in the extreme.

Biggins

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The local authorities now have leverage to get a percentage to pay a tax they were evading. I have no issue with them using that leverage.

There you have it, the end justifies the means.

...Even it means being unfair and making an innocent person have to suffer for the sins of others!

Nice, charming, grate modern behaviour of a state!

Our state can now never give out about other country's unfair methods when they, by their behaviour alone, are willing to be unfair themselves to their own people!

Feathers

namloc1980 wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point that the "innocent offspring" are using their parents means to access state funds. They can't be totally separated from the parents in this case where they are using them to get taxpayers to fund their education.

There's one rule in place that forcibly ties students to their parents income to decide on a grant eligibility. It's a strange law that's terribly ageist.

But it's outright bizarre to say that because this rule is in place & people aren't complaining about it, the council has the right to add on further hoops for people to jump through that have absolutely no basis in law.

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

There you have it, the end justifies the means.

...Even it means being unfair and making an innocent person have to suffer for the sins of others!

Nice, charming, grate modern behaviour of a state!

Our state can now never give out about other country's unfair methods when they, by their behaviour alone, are willing to be unfair themselves to their own people!

Oh, go and take the flippin' dog for a walk, you'll give yourself a coronary.

Guy:Incognito

Biggins wrote: »

There you have it, the end justifies the means.

...Even it means being unfair and making an innocent person have to suffer for the sins of others!

Nice, charming, grate modern behaviour of a state!

Our state can now never give out about other country's unfair methods when they, by their behaviour alone, are willing to be unfair themselves to their own people!

I dont see it as unfair.

Theres a choice here. Go it alone and pay for your child's expenses to be able to go to his free college education or pay your taxes and get free money to pay for those expenses.

namloc1980

Biggins wrote: »

There you have it, the end justifies the means.

...Even it means being unfair and making an innocent person have to suffer for the sins of others!

Nice, charming, grate modern behaviour of a state!

Our state can now never give out about other country's unfair methods when they, by their behaviour alone, are willing to be unfair themselves to their own people!

The parents who are willing to deny their child an education over €100 are the people who you should be venting your "anger" at!!!!

Biggins

Poll added.

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

So far with the amount that is collected, the household charge does not contribute to any education grant!

Wait, did FG themselves not say that money towards the household charge was ring-fenced for local services?

O' well if thats true and they did say that, lets change that story now to suit this unfair behaviour by our government and thus justify their thuggery!

They did, but where do you think the money would otherwise come from?

The crock of gold at the end of the rainbow, is it?

And don't point to Hulk's threats to cut council funding-everyone knows that's not a runner, as essential services will still have to maintained.

And for the love of Christ, will you stop posting like Daniel Defoe c. 1720; it's not "O", and "Aaaa", it's "Oh", and "Ah".

JRant

namloc1980 wrote: »

JRant wrote: »

So you know that it's based on parents income, not tax compliance, and are still towing the party line. Unbelievible stuff

Tax compliance should be a standard condition for accessing state funds so fair play to Clare Co Co on this one.

I'm not going to disagree with you on that but the fact remains it is not a requirement as things stand.
Now if the laws/rules had been changed to state this it would be a completely different argument.
Fair play to Clare CoCo for breaking their own rules, really?

Biggins

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I dont see it as unfair.

Theres a choice here. Go it alone and pay for your child's expenses to be able to go to his free college education or pay your taxes and get free money to pay for those expenses.

namloc1980 wrote: »

The parents who are willing to deny their child an education over €100 are the people who you should be venting your "anger" at!!!!

Ye don't get it or want to.

There can be NO justification for making innocents suffer for the sins of others!
Be they as in this case, related.

To do so, is a step backwards in progress.

lugha

Biggins wrote: »

So far with the amount that is collected, the household charge does not contribute to any education grant!

Wait, did FG themselves not say that money towards the household charge was ring-fenced for local services?

O' well if thats true and they did say that, lets change that story now to suit this unfair behaviour by our government and thus justify their thuggery!

Tweeny point of order. Clare CC is not our government.

Feathers

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I dont see it as unfair.

Theres a choice here. Go it alone and pay for your child's expenses to be able to go to his free college education or pay your taxes and get free money to pay for those expenses.

So you're saying it's not unfair on the parent, not the student.

Regardless, the point being that we pay TDs wages to legislate, councillors to make bye-laws; outside of this, people working for the civil service or county council should follow procedure & not make it up as they go along. & with people saying 'if it does turn out to be illegal, it'll soon get quashed by a court challenge' — that's a dangerous path of acceptance to go down…

humbert

Biggins wrote: »

Poll added.

I'd prefer if the poll distinguished between the general principle of it and the way it's being implemented here.


I agree with the general principle (that the parents should have their taxes in order before receiving grants, on behalf of their children) but definitely not the approach taken here.

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

They did, but where do you think the money would otherwise come from?

From where its come from previously since the creation of Education grants!

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

From where its come from previously since the creation of Education grants!

Ah right-up to 33% borrowed then.

Are we learning yet?

By the way, I was referring to local government funding, do try to keep up.

Biggins

lugha wrote: »

Tweeny point of order. Clare CC is not our government.

No, its the thin edge of the wedge as some others now are saying they might do same and in fact some I believe said they WILL do same.

Feathers

lugha wrote: »

Tweeny point of order. Clare CC is not our government.

It is if you live in Clare.

Guy:Incognito

Biggins wrote: »

Ye don't get it or want to.

There can be NO justification for making innocents suffer for the sins of others!
Be they as in this case, related.

To do so, is a step backwards in progress.

If parents are found to be vastly underdeclaring their income and gettign grants they are not entitled to , would the grant be cut off?

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Ah right-up to 33% borrowed then.

Are we learning yet?

By the way, I was referring to local government funding, do try to keep up.

Good for you, I'm referring to nationally collected taxes on every item every citizen has and continues to pay.

Biggins

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If parents are found to be vastly underdeclaring their income and gettign grants they are not entitled to , would the grant be cut off?

If they are directly underdeclaring their income, then directly that which they are trying to get, should be effected.

However, not paying for one bill, should not mean that another payment for another separate person should be cut.

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

Good for you, I'm referring to nationally collected taxes on every item every citizen has and continues to pay.

And, where does a large proportion of that funding presently come from? Take all the time you need.

jam_mac_jam

Jesus Christ, Its 100 quid. The grant is worth thousands, I don't understand this at all. Of all the things to be angry about,seeing as there are hundreds of people of trolleys this evening maybe students should be glad they get a grant.

The sense of entitlement in this country makes me sick.

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

However, not paying for one bill, should not mean that another payment for another separate person should be cut.

/headdesk

Let's keep borrowing money forever, way-hey!

Guy:Incognito

Biggins wrote: »

If they are directly underdeclaring their income, then directly that which they are trying to get, should be effected.

However, not paying for one bill, should not mean that another payment for another separate person should be cut.

Would that not still be penalising them for the actions of their parents?

Feathers

RoundyMooney wrote: »

/headdesk

Let's keep borrowing money forever, way-hey!

So you're seriously suggesting the options for collecting more tax revenue is:

1. Household Charge
2. Nothing

? Being against the household charge isn't being against the payment of more tax.

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

/headdesk

Let's keep borrowing money forever, way-hey!

Has the mentality of a nation stopped so low that we now justify making innocent offspring, be penalised for the sins of another?

Seriously? Is that what our nation has come to and a direction we are going?

I say its a step backwards in thinking.