Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 3] *Poll Reset*
Options
Comments
-
-
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »So far we've had people being accused of being Fine Gaelers, Civil Servants and now sock puppets. What's next? Germans?
I'm confident a few posters can wear some of them name badges (with pride in some cases)
Edit, actually with some of them flat out denying what they 'are' despite the evidence there to back it up , beggars belief.0 -
Interesting logic! So 600,000 people doing absolutely squat diddly can be interpreted as an active political message being sent to the government?
So can the fact that close to 5 million people are doing squat diddly in protesting as how the government is running the counrty be interpreted as the government having close to 100% satisfaction rating?
Goodness, Enda will be pleased! First, he gets his mug on Time mag. Then Euorpean of the year. And now this! All he needs now is Mayo man of the year to complete the trophy haul!
(Mind, I was getting the impression that a few of your lads here were a little less than 100% satisfied with the government? But who am I to argue with your logic.
)
Interesting ideas Lugha but 5 million people arent breaking the law, non payers of the HHC are in protest.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »So far we've had people being accused of being Fine Gaelers, Civil Servants and now sock puppets. What's next? Germans?
You could be Russian. 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
You tell Mr Hogan that the boycott of the hhc, and the people refusing to register is not an 'inconvenience' to him so.
You're now telling us that what is happening with the non registering (never mind non paying) isn't a boycott.
Ah well, if they had the courage of their conviction and publicly professed their unwillingness to abide by a law (as some public representatives, to be fair to them have done), then yes, that can be classified as a principled objection. And those liable for the charge could do likewise by registering but not paying.
But anonymously ducking your obligations to the state, appealing to the possibility (as you have pointed out), that you will probably get away with it? That’s more in the form book of grubby tax evader and not principled objector.
(Do you think Rosa Parks, who refused to give her seat to a white passenger, did so thinking that there was a fair chance that she might get away with it????
The very opposite was the case of course, as it would have to be and always is, when you are considered people that really are taking a principled stand)
And of course, you continue with the delusion that all non-payers are principled objectors. No shortage of laughs on this thread, that’s for sure.Its like when half a dozen or so gave him a summarisation of how this charge was 'immoral', Lugha said 'those reasons aren't immoral'.
Ah lovely. This ‘aul sh*te again. Immoral why? Because 1. “it’s my house FFS” and “Enda says so”? Now maybe Enda’s word is gospel to you but I half expect people to back up what they say with some kind of argument. Enda didn’t because he can’t. And neither can you.its very relevant, you guys wouldnt be getting so hot under the collar if we werent.
Jasus. I’m as cool as could be. Even have a couple of beers on the side in case of any of you go raising my temperature. One thing about our great little country is that you are not likely to fall down and bang your head with shock at the notion that some think the law shouldn’t apply to them. Alas it is an attitude that is widespread.do you honestly think that all the people that paid did so on principle?
I think people have a better grasp on economic realities that most (well all to be honest) of the no side here. They fully understand that even without any of the waste and questionable spending that you lads love to point out, that there is some very unpleasant medicine we are going to have to take. And bitching and whining and griping and looking at the news for the latest mistake or downright cock-up of the government make, and other diversions, won’t change that simply reality.And many, many protests involved breaking stupid laws, we've been through all this before (ie Ghandi(the other one ))
And we have also been through the patent absurdity of allowing people the “choice” to break the laws they don’t agree with, other than in very exceptional cases such as where fundamental human rights are being infringed.
Though the “no” side are continually confused by this. We have even some who would condemn Sean Quinn for defying the courts because he felt (and he obviously does) that he is been treated unfairly though they advocate exactly the same approach for those who think the HHC is unfair.0 -
Ah well, if they had the courage of their conviction and publicly professed their unwillingness to abide by a law (as some public representatives, to be fair to them have done), then yes, that can be classified as a principled objection. And those liable for the charge could do likewise by registering but not paying.
But anonymously ducking your obligations to the state, appealing to the possibility (as you have pointed out), that you will probably get away with it? That’s more in the form book of grubby tax evader and not principled objector.
(Do you think Rosa Parks, who refused to give her seat to a white passenger, did so thinking that there was a fair chance that she might get away with it????
The very opposite was the case of course, as it would have to be and always is, when you are considered people that really are taking a principled stand)
And of course, you continue with the delusion that all non-payers are principled objectors. No shortage of laughs on this thread, that’s for sure.
Ah lovely. This ‘aul sh*te again. Immoral why? Because 1. “it’s my house FFS” and “Enda says so”? Now maybe Enda’s word is gospel to you but I half expect people to back up what they say with some kind of argument. Enda didn’t because he can’t. And neither can you.
Jasus. I’m as cool as could be. Even have a couple of beers on the side in case of any of you go raising my temperature. One thing about our great little country is that you are not likely to fall down and bang your head with shock at the notion that some think the law shouldn’t apply to them. Alas it is an attitude that is widespread.
I think people have a better grasp on economic realities that most (well all to be honest) of the no side here. They fully understand that even without any of the waste and questionable spending that you lads love to point out, that there is some very unpleasant medicine we are going to have to take. And bitching and whining and griping and looking at the news for the latest mistake or downright cock-up of the government make, and other diversions, won’t change that simply reality.
And we have also been through the patent absurdity of allowing people the “choice” to break the laws they don’t agree with, other than in very exceptional cases such as where fundamental human rights are being infringed.
Though the “no” side are continually confused by this. We have even some who would condemn Sean Quinn for defying the courts because he felt (and he obviously does) that he is been treated unfairly though they advocate exactly the same approach for those who think the HHC is unfair.
So they're boycotting?
We're agreed that a boycott is a protest? (a mass one at that)
Cheers.0 -
-
Ah well, if they had the courage of their conviction and publicly professed their unwillingness to abide by a law (as some public representatives, to be fair to them have done), then yes, that can be classified as a principled objection. And those liable for the charge could do likewise by registering but not paying.
But anonymously ducking your obligations to the state, appealing to the possibility (as you have pointed out), that you will probably get away with it? That’s more in the form book of grubby tax evader and not principled objector.
(Do you think Rosa Parks, who refused to give her seat to a white passenger, did so thinking that there was a fair chance that she might get away with it????
The very opposite was the case of course, as it would have to be and always is, when you are considered people that really are taking a principled stand)
And of course, you continue with the delusion that all non-payers are principled objectors. No shortage of laughs on this thread, that’s for sure.
Ah lovely. This ‘aul sh*te again. Immoral why? Because 1. “it’s my house FFS” and “Enda says so”? Now maybe Enda’s word is gospel to you but I half expect people to back up what they say with some kind of argument. Enda didn’t because he can’t. And neither can you.
Jasus. I’m as cool as could be. Even have a couple of beers on the side in case of any of you go raising my temperature. One thing about our great little country is that you are not likely to fall down and bang your head with shock at the notion that some think the law shouldn’t apply to them. Alas it is an attitude that is widespread.
I think people have a better grasp on economic realities that most (well all to be honest) of the no side here. They fully understand that even without any of the waste and questionable spending that you lads love to point out, that there is some very unpleasant medicine we are going to have to take. And bitching and whining and griping and looking at the news for the latest mistake or downright cock-up of the government make, and other diversions, won’t change that simply reality.
And we have also been through the patent absurdity of allowing people the “choice” to break the laws they don’t agree with, other than in very exceptional cases such as where fundamental human rights are being infringed.
Though the “no” side are continually confused by this. We have even some who would condemn Sean Quinn for defying the courts because he felt (and he obviously does) that he is been treated unfairly though they advocate exactly the same approach for those who think the HHC is unfair.
Did you pay on principle?0 -
-
Did you pay on principle?
No more so that when I pay for car tax / insurance, TV licence or any payment that the rules of society oblige me to pay.
Unlike Sean Quinn and the no side here I don’t think that a personal opinion that a law is unfair is sufficient to justify not abiding by it.Now, if it was as you say and everyone who was liable for the HHC could indeed register without paying, well, would'nt that defeat the purpose of the government expecting said €160 million.
Well the whole point of protesting against any government purpose is to defeat that purpose wouldn’t you say?
And you could register, or at least make yourself known to them, by submitting the form but without payment. Or if you feel the need to register a more robust opposition, write “kiss my arse” in the payment section. 0 -
-
-
Well Sean is bankrupt so you are probably doing a bit better than him on that score.PLEASE Lugha, DON'T associate me - who is on the 'no side' - with Quinn. For me, he is no different to the bunch in DE....just wears his shoe on the other foot. And no doubt you are different in many respects.
But with respect to your attitude to the law, you are taking, or advocating taking, exactly the same approach. Sean Quinn believes (and it is quite clear that he does) that he is being treated very unfairly by the law and took it upon himself to disobey the direction of a court (and is now paying for it).
If and when any of you lads are brought before the beak, you tell us (whether you can be believed is another matter!) that you will similarly disobey the court.
Some of your number (tayto for one) have even reasoned that it would be worth taking the punishment meted out if it meant keeping your name off a property tax register. Which is IMO, is pretty much the way SQ is thinking too.
Now of course, I fully expect you to miss the point and starting pointing out the negative impact some of the actions of SQ will have on us all, and other irrelevancies. But your attitude to the law, which is where I am comparing you, is fairly similar.
And of course, the SQ affair neatly illustrates the problem of allowing people to decide for themselves if the law is or is not fair, and abiding by it, or not, accordingly.0 -
Supposed to fund local services like lighting, libraries, roads and whatever else.
And maybe it won't and it'll get spent somewhere else but we're told local services.
Yet people in social housing are exempt
Do they not use these services too?
0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes they do. But many of the people in social housing do not pay income tax either. So the argument you make, also applies if local services are funded by income tax, as is (essentially) currently the case.Yet people in social housing are exempt
Do they not use these services too?0 -
Well Sean is bankrupt so you are probably doing a bit better than him on that score. And no doubt you are different in many respects.
But with respect to your attitude to the law, you are taking, or advocating taking, exactly the same approach. Sean Quinn believes (and it is quite clear that he does) that he is being treated very unfairly by the law and took it upon himself to disobey the direction of a court (and is now paying for it).
If and when any of you lads are brought before the beak, you tell us (whether you can be believed is another matter!) that you will similarly disobey the court.
Some of your number (tayto for one) have even reasoned that it would be worth taking the punishment meted out if it meant keeping your name off a property tax register. Which is IMO, is pretty much the way SQ is thinking too.
Now of course, I fully expect you to miss the point and starting pointing out the negative impact some of the actions of SQ will have on us all, and other irrelevancies. But your attitude to the law, which is where I am comparing you, is fairly similar.
And of course, the SQ affair neatly illustrates the problem of allowing people to decide for themselves if the law is or is not fair, and abiding by it, or not, accordingly.
For me, I take umberage over your assessment of my regard for the Law, of which I hold in the HIGHEST regard.
However, I am not going to take issue on that now. I am however going to REASK a question I asked last Thursdat night,directed at the PRO brigade and of which NOT ONE of You have answered yet ( If You have then I do apologise, I must have missed the response). You say SQ is displaying disdain for the Courts and is paying for it now - and I agree with You on this.
There is however a MUCH BIGGER picture here ( the question I asked last Thursday night): What is Your take on the GOVERNMENT's total disregard on the SC's ruling on the referendum yesterday. No matter what persuasion one is, it is very hard to not have noticed their disregard for the ruling, and subsequent disdain to it's consequences. ANYONE with a brain can see some long very drawn out court cases upcoming over the outcome of this shambolic referendum.
So, SQ shows contempt to the courts, the 'no brigade' ( accroding to You Lugha) shows contempt to the Courts, the government shows contempt to the courts. It's a disaster of a situation, and one the govt have nobody but themselves to blame.0 -
-
-
No more so that when I pay for car tax / insurance, TV licence or any payment that the rules of society oblige me to pay.
Getting it tight?
Park the car up for part of the year, save on insurance and notify the tax office and get off the road status (tax refund discount).
TV licence? Sell your TV. Plenty of ways to watch films/shows without the need for a TV.Well the whole point of protesting against any government purpose is to defeat that purpose wouldn’t you say?
The hhc is being defeated with every passing day (which you know to be true) the ultimate goal of the govt was a data collection exercise for the property tax.
It'll be kinda difficult to implement such a tax with only a 50% database (I'm being overtly kind here/including dead people etc)
The govt don't know who owns what.
I've yet to see any incentive to me to aid them in this exercise, what with the current wastage going on.And you could register, or at least make yourself known to them, by submitting the form but without payment. Or if you feel the need to register a more robust opposition, write “kiss my arse” in the payment section.
Vain attempt at coercing folk to fall into the trap of volunteering their details up and helping to build 'that database'
The simplest form of protest is working nicely.
Keep up the boycott folks.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement