Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 3] *Poll Reset*

donalg1

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Basically that's the crux of it. Although the "DON'T REGISTER, DON'T PAY" crowd are coming up with all sorts of noble reasons to oppose the charge to obfuscate the real reason why they don't want to pay.

Exactly and they think people actually believe they are not paying based on a point of principle I have never known goalposts to move so much and minds to change so often.

I would have more respect for someone if they said I am not paying because I dont want to, at least they are being honest.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

Well what about someone who has 2 houses and bought the second for the money as you say, and now has 2 mortgages to pay, I mean who's to say they are any better off than someone with one mortgage. And the same can be said for someone with 10 properties.

Why dont they do what so many pro's are advising the single home owners that cant afford the one mortgage to do?
Sell it.

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

Why dont they do what so many pro's are advising the single home owners that cant afford the one mortgage to do?
Sell it.

Because like many of those with one mortgage they would probably struggle to find a buyer, and if they do they probably arent going to pay the price they need.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

Because like many of those with one mortgage they would probably struggle to find a buyer, and if they do they probably arent going to pay the price they need.

jesus christ donal they have 2 houses. the people with one mortgage have that house as there home. the people who gambled for greed and got bitten in the arse should sell the property that is dragging them down. Sell it to the bank, sell it to the council, lower the price to sell it. If they didnt have people in that house its still costing them money. Why jump into the deep end clutching onto a concrete block that you can let go of if you really wanted to.

tayto lover

donalg1 wrote: »

So you are not against the HHC if people with more than one property have to pay? Why is it you are against the HHC then? Is it because you have to pay it? It clearly isnt based on a point of principle or for any moral reason.

Really you dont want to pay the HHC because you dont want to pay it, and thats the only reason same reason as everyone else despite their claims to the contrary.

Because the people who are landlords with loads of properties are no better than the speculators, bankers, politicians, accountants etc etc who got us into the mess we are in.
Anyone with a sole home which is not a purpose built Celtic Tiger type mansion is not the cause of this mess and should not have to pay for it.

You don't seem to get much Donalg1 after so many pages of posts. Are you actually a politician?

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

jesus christ donal they have 2 houses. the people with one mortgage have that house as there home. the people who gambled for greed and got bitten in the arse should sell the property that is dragging them down. Sell it to the bank, sell it to the council, lower the price to sell it. If they didnt have people in that house its still costing them money. Why jump into the deep end clutching onto a concrete block that you can let go of if you really wanted to.

Why because chances are the rent they receive will pretty much cover the second home so they may have to pay a slight bit extra to top it up, whereas if they sell it chances are they will be left with a nice debt to pay (NE) which could end up costing them more than the top up they would be paying anyway. Grand if they arent in Negative Equity and sell it for enough to clear the mortgage then happy days.

donalg1

tayto lover wrote: »

Because the people who are landlords with loads of properties are no better than the speculators, bankers, politicians, accountants etc etc who got us into the mess we are in.
Anyone with a sole home which is not a purpose built Celtic Tiger type mansion is not the cause of this mess and should not have to pay for it.

You don't seem to get much Donalg1 after so many pages of posts. Are you actually a politician?

How do you know these landlords arent paying thier debts in full and on time every month? What makes you think they have any bad debts anywhere?

What is your reason for not paying the HHC?

Again by reading your post above all I see is everyone except me should pay, because I dont want to.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

Why because chances are the rent they receive will pretty much cover the second home so they may have to pay a slight bit extra to top it up, whereas if they sell it chances are they will be left with a nice debt to pay (NE) which could end up costing them more than the top up they would be paying anyway. Grand if they arent in Negative Equity and sell it for enough to clear the mortgage then happy days.

Oh i see, its coming clear to me now. So, its ok to throw the could shoulder to the single family home owner if they are in trouble with negative equity but dont dare even suggest it to a landlord/business person.

Where do ye people get off eh?

lugha

donalg1 wrote: »

What is your reason for not paying the HHC?

Flawed question Donal. Tayto and a few of the others cannot give a reason because they did not arrive at the position they take by a process of reasoning. They followed an emotive process, which can be succinctly captured with he oft used proclamation “it’s my home FFS”. (Which is not to say that using your heart rather than your head is without merit in some cases)

And the fact that they feel that there should not be a property tax rather then think or reason that there shouldn’t be one just means that when they try to present their positions as one’s they have reasoned out, you see all the goal-post moving and inconsistencies and contradictions that you constantly see here.

tayto lover

donalg1 wrote: »

How do you know these landlords arent paying thier debts in full and on time every month? What makes you think they have any bad debts anywhere?

What is your reason for not paying the HHC?

Again by reading your post above all I see is everyone except me should pay, because I dont want to.

I never suggested they weren't paying their debts at all.
Maybe they are struggling because they borrowed too much now that you mention it and are in over their heads.
My point was that anyone with a single home in which they live is not a speculator though and not out to make a profit, but you knew that anyway.

donalg1

tayto lover wrote: »

I never suggested they weren't paying their debts at all.
Maybe they are struggling because they borrowed too much now that you mention it and are in over their heads.
My point was that anyone with a single home in which they live is not a speculator though and not out to make a profit, but you knew that anyway.

So what is your reason for not paying it tayto?

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Flawed question Donal. Tayto and a few of the others cannot give a reason because they did not arrive at the position they take by a process of reasoning. They followed an emotive process, which can be succinctly captured with he oft used proclamation “it’s my home FFS”. (Which is not to say that using your heart rather than your head is without merit in some cases)

And the fact that they feel that there should not be a property tax rather then think or reason that there shouldn’t be one just means that when they try to present their positions as one’s they have reasoned out, you see all the goal-post moving and inconsistencies and contradictions that you constantly see here.

Jaysus have you also missed the purpose of all those posts?
Please search back, i'm not doing it for you.

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

Oh i see, its coming clear to me now. So, its ok to throw the could shoulder to the single family home owner if they are in trouble with negative equity but dont dare even suggest it to a landlord/business person.

Where do ye people get off eh?

What are you on about?

tayto lover

donalg1 wrote: »

So what is your reason for not paying it tayto?

I am not resorting to the parrot mentality again Donal. Like lugha you can search back for the answers which were posted several times by so many.

Le_Dieux

lugha wrote: »

I am actually asking a serious question. Have you not given any thought at all as to why the government are making the decisions they are making?

You surely cannot seriously believe that they are deliberately opting to screw everything up for their children and grandchildren? Or maybe you do believe that? :eek:

Lugha

I am just home from work, so apologies if others have replied.

I think that these politicians are so FAR REMOVED from normal daily life it's surreal. I also listen to Joe Duffy ( He is not alone here) and to hear a man on (what?) €150,000/annum (TAX PAYERS Money mind!!!) sympatise with people ringing in voicing how tough it is and the hardship they have to endure sickens me. I am sorry to pick out JD here, but His programme is the one show which invites callers to phone in. The rest of them are also on HUGE salaries, which are also funded by the tax payer.

I listened to an interview with Roisin Shortall yesterday where She is trying to get answers on the pension issue ( I think the interview was on Morning Ireland, but I could be wrong). Now here IS A woman who talks the talk, and for me, for gilmore to go and do what he did to her is nothing short of criminal. If a manager in industry did what he did to her, that manager would have a rebellion on his/her hands. Anyhow, my perception of the lp is they are so POORLY supported now, they will sink like a ton of lead come the next elections, and gilmore will be history.....with another fat pension which the tax payer is funding. SICKENING!!!!!

My one wish now is for RS to go and resign from the labour (?) party and form Her own, I would join it tomorrow.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

What are you on about?

im talking about someone on the pro sides mentality that is "if you cant afford to keep it sell it"

yet when the same thing is suggested to a landlord it cant be done, no way they wouldnt get enough for the house. maybe not, but they would still have there home where as if someone who couldnt meet the repayments on the one mortgage for there home and decided to give it to the bank they would have NO home as the council will not put them up because they volountarily gave up there house.

tayto lover

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Lugha

I am just home from work, so apologies if others have replied.

I think that these politicians are so FAR REMOVED from normal daily life it's surreal. I also listen to Joe Duffy ( He is not alone here) and to hear a man on (what?) €150,000/annum sympatise with people ringing in voicing how tough it is and the hardship they have to endure sickens me.

I listened to an interview with Roisin Shortall yesterday where She is trying to get answers on the pension issue ( I think the interview was on Morning Ireland, but I could be wrong). Now here IS A woman who talks the talk, and for me, for gilmore to go and do what he did to her is nothing short of criminal. If a manager in industry did what he did to her, that manager would have a rebellion on his/her hands.

My one wish now is for RS to go and resign from the labour (?) party and form Her own, I would join it tomorrow.

I just heard on RTE that despite the Govt saying some time ago that there was only one Anglo boss on 500k + per year it turns out that in answer to a Dail question Noonan revealed that there are actually six.
The lies are tripping them up. One lie after the other and they are getting found out.

lugha

Le_Dieux wrote: »

I think that these politicians are so FAR REMOVED from normal daily life it's surreal.

That might explain why politicians may take decisions that do not take account of difficult circumstances that people on more modest incomes have to endure. And that is something you are likely to see when any government, anywhere, is in power for too long a time. But that is not what I asked

I asked why would the take decisions (specifically the one to pay unsecured bonds) if they did not believe (rightly or wrongly) that it was ultimately in the best interests of the country to pay them? Why would they take a decision to deliberately screw over the country that their children and grandchildren will have to (or at least will want to!) live in?

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

That might explain why politicians may take decisions that do not take account of difficult circumstances that people on more modest incomes have to endure. And that is something you are likely to see when any government, anywhere, is in power for too long a time. But that is not what I asked

I asked why would the take decisions (specifically the one to pay unsecured bonds) if they did not believe (rightly or wrongly) that it was ultimately in the best interests of the country to pay them? Why would they take a decision to deliberately screw over the country that their children and grandchildren will have to (or at least will want to!) live in?

Maybe they are buddies? They have a good record of looking after there buddies havent they?
Mad thing is, it cant be proven because they are hidden away like some executives dirty mistress.

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

im talking about someone on the pro sides mentality that is "if you cant afford to keep it sell it"

.

And where they I say they should sell it if they can't afford it.

Also what about those on the other side saying a landlord should have to pay the hhc but I shouldn't?

donalg1

tayto lover wrote: »

I am not resorting to the parrot mentality again Donal. Like lugha you can search back for the answers which were posted several times by so many.

The answers have changed so often tayto I'm lost I mean they change on a weekly basis I'm just wondering what your reason for not paying is. I thought its a pretty straight forward question, but if you don't know the reason you should just say.

tayto lover

donalg1 wrote: »

The answers have changed so often tayto I'm lost I mean they change on a weekly basis I'm just wondering what your reason for not paying is. I thought its a pretty straight forward question, but if you don't know the reason you should just say.

Again. Do your own searching back. I ain't doing it for you or repeating myself.

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

Maybe they are buddies?

Well they are anonymous! But leaving that aside and lets suppose that some of these anonymous lads just happen to have a couple of pals at the cabinet table.

Do you suppose the rest of the cabinet would cheerfully agree to give them an almighty wallop of money, given the impact it would have on their future generations? Or if you want to be cynical, the impact it would have on their future electoral prospects?

And of course, there is an additional problem in that the previous FF led government would have done the very same thing, if they were in power.

So they have friends at the top of FG / Lab who would willingly compromise their career to dig them out? (And persuade their colleagues to cooperate!) And ditto friends in the ranks of FF!

Those bondholders must be seriously charming dudes if they can pull that one off! Or perhaps they have compromising photographs of them all after a raucous session in the Dail bar? :P

I’m going to have to say I don’t find the “buddies” explanation to be terribly convincing.

See, this is the problem when you think things out. Some explanation that you might wheel out at a whim may not be quite as believable when you take a closer look.

donalg1

tayto lover wrote: »

Again. Do your own searching back. I ain't doing it for you or repeating myself.

What a ridiculous answer the anti side is becoming a joke at this stage with their refusals to answer even the most basic questions. What a joke the whole thing is, absolutely hilarious though.

Ghandee

Donal and DNC, it must be nice to be in the safely insulated position of being employed in the cs/ps were you are still receiving pay rises (aka increments) pensions, and jobs guaranteed for life.

Of course, our taxes pay for your salaries, so you guys advocating the rest of us to pay this charge is pretty much expected.

(I presume you're public/civil servants, right?)

Chips Lovell

Here we go again.

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Here we go again.

If its untrue/an unfair statement, feel free to point it out.

You're employed in that sector too, right Vlad?

Chips Lovell

Ghandee wrote: »

You're employed in that sector too, right Vlad?

Nope. Private sector.

Ghandee

E

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Nope. Private sector.

My apologies.

I could've sworn I seen you say you were in a previous thread, (pretty much).

Sorry about that.

tayto lover

donalg1 wrote: »

What a ridiculous answer the anti side is becoming a joke at this stage with their refusals to answer even the most basic questions. What a joke the whole thing is, absolutely hilarious though.

You are beginning to sound like Dougal on the altar wine now Donal.
I remember your own excuse for paying when you said you were betwixt and between but came down on the yellow side.