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

dxhound2005

darkhorse wrote: »

Well, lugha, I am being honest with you when I tell you that I know at least twenty five people, who would rather not have paid, but who paid out of fear. Most of these people I am talking about, own their own homes and when I asked them do they agree or disagree with a property tax on homes, they all said pretty much the same thing, which was that they worked hard to be in the position that are in, which is owning their own homes, and they cant understand why, after all that hard work, that they have to start paying all over again, as a couple of them put it to me, in their final years. How would you, lugha, explain to seventy and eighty year old people that it is now a burden on them owning their own home.

darkhorse wrote: »

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Please go back and tell the ones that don't own their own homes that they needn't have paid. They can apply for a refund.

I have a feeling that you know what I meant, but I will try and make it clearer. When I said that most of the people I was talking about own their homes outright , I meant actually free of mortgages. People that pay mortgages, in the majority of cases, are liable, therefore would not be entitled to a refund. I apologize if my post was'nt clear enough for you to understand.

Was this an organised survey and if so to what purpose? The detailed information and opinions you gathered from 25 or more people does not strike me as what could be acquired from meeting them casually. Did you not find even one person who was in favour of the HHC and was not motivated by fear when they paid?

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

As Sean Quinn might say. :pac:

But if you think this out, you might spot a tweeny problem in permitting people do decide what law is and is not right.

Virtually all of us disagree with some, or many, laws. Would you propose a free for all for anyone to break any law, provided they felt the law wasn't "right"?

over and over and over we go. slavery? would you have agreed to that? the salt tax the british brought in that ghandi defied? And i know you'll say you cant compare the HHC with the slavery, but you might spot a tweeny problem in permitting people do decide what law is and is not right.:eek:

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

over and over and over we go. slavery? would you have agreed to that? the salt tax the british brought in that ghandi defied? And i know you'll say you cant compare the HHC with the slavery, but you might spot a tweeny problem in permitting people do decide what law is and is not right.:eek:

So where would you draw the line? Would you give Sean Quinn a free pass, provided he genuinely felt that he was been treated unfairly?

Bullseye1

I have no time for Sean Quinn. But for **** sake it's not his fault the government were stupid enough to nationalise Anglo. Cowen and anyone else involved should be getting as much if not more scrutiny on this.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

Their share of the burden of getting us out of the mess we are in.

Good post and articulate. Now, I am not going to go over the same ground again. As you state in the sixth paragraph of your post, you have asked certain questions 3,000 times, which I concede to, but that being the case, those questions were answered by at least 3 people, making it a total of 9,000 times that you had these questions answered. That not withstanding, I would like to address the above with a piece by independent td stephen donnelly.

Column: 3 reasons why we shouldn’t pay the Anglo billion-dollar bond

Ya probably wont read it anyway, but after reading it, could you please explain why the govt. could not have been more instrumental in helping us along the way whilst dealing with all this so called austerity, also was it in their remit to try and soften the blow to us, who they are apparently supposed to be representing, if indeed what stephen donnelly says is correct. With the exception off the HHC, would you agree that it is the same people time and time again who are paying all the share of the burden of debt, which we find ourselves in.

(I hope the link works)

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That's why paper copies of annual reports are also available. It would be a needless expense to send them out to everyone.

I dont think needless expenses were ever a major concern to our government or our count councils, Vlad.

Chips Lovell

darkhorse wrote: »

I dont think needless expenses were ever a major concern to our government or our count councils, Vlad.

Is that a reason for generating even more needless expenses?

Bullseye1

We got rid of voting machines because the electorate would not accept it with out a paper trail. And that wasn't costing us money, when voting. Yet if we have over €500-1000 it's too much to expect a simple document outline public expenditure.

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That column is about increments, not pay rises.

Is there a difference?

Chips Lovell

Bullseye1 wrote: »

We got rid of voting machines because the electorate would not accept it with out a paper trail. And that wasn't costing us money, when voting. Yet if we have over €500-1000 it's too much to expect a simple document outline public expenditure.

I agree. Fortunately there is one. Anyone with an internet connection can see it. Anyone without one can request a paper copy.

darkhorse wrote: »

Is there a difference?

See above: i.e.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Simply put, a public servant's contract of employment might be that, subject to satisfactory performance, their pay would initially be x, in year two it's x+1% and year three x+3% and so on until they hit the max of the scale. That is the agreed salary that they've been offered and what they've signed up to. If you strip out the increments, then you are cutting their pay.

A pay rise is when that basic rate is increased, above what's been laid out in the contract of employment.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

You can.
Just fill in the form, but don't include payment.
Put it in an envelope and post it to your local council.

Simples.

So if everyone did that, would that not impede greater on the overall plan by govt. to collect the anticipated €160 million?

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

So where would you draw the line? Would you give Sean Quinn a free pass, provided he genuinely felt that he was been treated unfairly?

i wouldnt draw any line, life isnt so black and white as you guys think.
No, i dont like Sean Quinn, God knows how much of my tax money its taking to fix his fcukin thievery. (Plus he cost me E6 on my insurance the other day (on top of the myriad of other taxes i pay the government on it)). he'll have his day in court, same as me(hopefully it will cost him more;))

And im lost at the logic of comparing someone who has not paid a E100 charge to someone who has stolen around E5,000,000,000 from the Irish people.
isnt thats the total take for the entire paid up population of this years HHC for 50 years? 50 years Lugha.

lugha

darkhorse wrote: »

those questions were answered by at least 3 people

The questions were not answered. Nobody gave a conprehenisve plan that will get us our of our difficulties without impacting on ordinary people because there is no such plan.

darkhorse wrote: »

That not withstanding, I would like to address the above with a piece by independent td stephen donnelly.

I am not sure why Stephen Donnolly's views on bailouts have any relevance to what I posted? Unless you are of the view that said bailouts are the sum total of our problems. But of course they are not.

And I don't know what you think the government (or ay other government) could do to soften the blow? When the property bubble burst we found ourselves spending about €10,000 per worker in the state per year MORE than we were taking in in taxes. And that simply had to be addressed. There is nothing to soften a blow like that. And of course the bulk of that hit has yet to be taken.

And who do you think should shoulder this burdern (and please don't say something silly "politicans" like others are doing. At the start of the crisis you would need 20 billion euro per year. Do a quick calculation on the back of an envelope and you will see that the various ideas plans that do not impact on ordinary people will barely make a dent on this. The bulk of it will come from hitting ordinary people becuase you cannot get anywhere close to enough without them)

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

One is part of your contact of employment, the other isn't. If you abolish increments, you're effectively giving them a pay cut.

But how could it be a pay cut, if they had'nt got it in the first place. Also, should people in the private sector get pay increments.

Chips Lovell

darkhorse wrote: »

But how could it be a pay cut, if they had'nt got it in the first place.

Effectively, they had gotten it. Their contract wasn't "your salary is x", instead it was "your salary is x in year one, y in year three, z in year six" and so on.

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

And im lost at the logic of comparing someone who has not paid a E100 charge to someone who has stolen around E5,000,000,000 from the Irish people.

The impact is very different but that's irrelevant. The principle is the same.
Sean Quinn feels he is being hard done by by the law of the land so he took it upon himself to defy the law. Exactly as many in the no camp are advocating.
I'm genuinely puzzled that you cannot see the clear similarity. (Playing the "but he is stealing much more" is a crock that a seven year old wouldn't try to pull).

We are not taking about basic human right issues such as slavery or apartheid or the like. These are ho-hum fiscal matters. If you reserve the right (!) to break such laws because you don't personally think them fair you have absolutely no credibility if you complain about others doing it. Even if they are doing it on a bigger scale.

darkhorse

dxhound2005 wrote: »

darkhorse wrote: »

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Please go back and tell the ones that don't own their own homes that they needn't have paid. They can apply for a refund.

Was this an organised survey and if so to what purpose? The detailed information and opinions you gathered from 25 or more people does not strike me as what could be acquired from meeting them casually. Did you not find even one person who was in favour of the HHC and was not motivated by fear when they paid?

No, nothing like that. My survey days are over. I'm just talking about people I know, be they friends, relations, or neighbours. On your second question, I have to be honest with you, I probably would have found someone eventually that was in favour of it, but nobody that I know, either payers or non payers, ever said that they were in favour of the HHC. Are you in favour of the HHC.

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

The impact is very different but that's irrelevant. The principle is the same.

its not irrelevant, a child could die on a hospital bed because of what he is doing. a hedge might not be cut because of what i am doing.

lugha wrote: »

Sean Quinn feels he is being hard done by by the law of the land so he took it upon himself to defy the law. Exactly as many in the no camp are advocating.
I'm genuinely puzzled that you cannot see the clear similarity. (Playing the "but he is stealing much more" is a crock that a seven year old wouldn't try to pull).

i never said he is stealing much more, i said both he and i would have our day in court.
You are puzzled because the similarity is not with us and Sean.
He stole E5000000000 from you and me and now the government are trying to steal E100 from you and me. except im not biting.

lugha wrote: »

We are not taking about basic human right issues such as slavery or apartheid or the like. These are ho-hum fiscal matters. If you reserve the right (!) to break such laws because you don't personally think them fair you have absolutely no credibility if you complain about others doing it. Even if they are doing it on a bigger scale.

look to your first argument, the law is the law for both Sean and us, yet you are saying lawful slavery/apartheid is not the same as lawful tax. You are contradicting yourself. i'd go further than saying reserving the right id say there is a duty on every citizen to break unjust laws.

By your argument the salt marches were a ho hum fiscal matter and Mahatma Ghandi was a criminal tax evader, who worse still encouraged other people to break the law.

Chips Lovell

India had Gandhi leading the fight against oppression.
Ireland has Ghandee.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

When the property bubble burst we found ourselves spending about €10,000 per worker in the state per year MORE than we were taking in in taxes.

And who do you think should shoulder this burdern (and please don't say something silly "politicans" like others are doing)

First of all, this we business were spending €10,000 per worker, I dont buy into this sort of crap, so speak for yourself. As regards to shouldering the burden, it should apply to everyone, not the same few over and over again.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

Everybody has access to the internet through the library service, funded by the HHC.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

India had Gandhi leading the fight against oppression.
Ireland has Ghandee.

Just don't mention the flip flop Vlad!

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

India had Gandhi leading the fight against oppression.
Ireland has Ghandee.

Ya dont know how right you are. Nail on the head.

Ghandee

What's this?

The council responsible for jumping the gun with the education grants has also been the first one to order that no more letters are to be sent out until a comprehensive database has been put in place!

Good news if you live in Clare! (it won't be completed without the publics help in most of our life times)

Expect other councils to follow suit, leading to the inevitable fizzling out of the hhc and property tax!

Not looking good now guys.....

Clare Co Co pass motion demanding no more household charge letters

Clare County Council has passed a motion that no further letters demanding payment of the household charge should be sent out by the council until such time as an appropriate database has been put in place.


The motion was passed following recent controversy, where many house-owners who had already paid the charge were sent letters reminding them to pay.

In other instances letters were addressed to individuals who are deceased.

The issue was described as a “fiasco” and a “public disgrace”.

A separate motion asking that the Local Government Management Agency -charged with collecting the charge - be disbanded was also passed.

A statement from Clare County Council said that the council was operating on instructions from the LGMA

You want proof that they don't have a clue who paid/hasn't paid? Who owns what and where they own it?

Read it and weep lads. :pac:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1113/clare-co-co-household-charge.html

Le_Dieux

Had a quiet chuckle when I heard this on the road today.

Love to know just HOW they are going to put 'an appropriate database' in place, and where they are going to get their information on it from? Let's be real here, they used what they had and screwed it up BIG time.

Ghandee

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Had a quiet chuckle when I heard this on the road today.

Love to know just HOW they are going to put 'an appropriate database' in place, and where they are going to get their information on it from? Let's be real here, they used what they had and screwed it up BIG time.

Ah......


DV's , Lugha etc's 'register but don't pay' if you want to protest statements suddenly becomes very clear now........


Proof that doing nothing is effective!

Its a sinking ship lads lol.

Slick50

darkhorse wrote: »

So if everyone did that, would that not impede greater on the overall plan by govt. to collect the anticipated €160 million?

No it would not, it would give them exactly what they are looking for, a complete database. That is what this whole charade is about, but that wasn't enough for them, they wanted to charge us €100 to add insult to injury in the process. Then they would have all the information they need to start sending out bills.

Ghandee

Slick50 wrote: »

No it would not, it would give them exactly what they are looking for, a complete database. That is what this whole charade is about, but that wasn't enough for them, they wanted to charge us €100 to add insult to injury in the process. Then they would have all the information they need to start sending out bills.

This.

I have been saying that very thing from day zero.

That was probably their greatest and ultimately fatal error.

The_Thing

People could also poison the database with false names, addresses, and credit card info, etc. They'd be chasing their tails for years.

Wilberto

My great grandmother just got a reminder for the household charge.

You'd think being deceased for a handful of decades would make you exempt.

Ghandee

The_Thing wrote: »

People could also poison the database with false names, addresses, and credit card info, etc. They'd be chasing their tails for years.

Pps number required, is it easy to make one up?