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

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

There is one glaringly obvious difference, SQ is being asked to repay monies that he borowed. He entered into a contract to do so. I for one did not.

Not so. SQ is in the clink because he disobeyed a court order. It has nothing to do with any contract he did or did not enter into. And you implicitly accept by being resident in a state that you will abide by the rules of that state, even the ones you don’t like. You may not call it a contract but you are bound by these rules (and for the most part, people accept this) every bit as much as someone who signs a formal contract.

Slick50 wrote: »

That is what this thread is about.

Yes. But we are being told that this Saturday protest is a wider campaign against austerity (i.e. efforts to stop spending more money that you raise!!). I don’t dispute that there are alternatives to property tax, only that they are not better than property tax. I do dispute that there is a real alternative to either cuts in spending, higher taxes of both.

Some make a valid argument that removing money from the economy, however it is done, is destructive. But what choice do we have if our lenders demand that we do. (Can I ask would you, if you had savings, lend money to the Irish state to over-spend by 20 billion a year more than they raised in taxes, if they insisted that they were going to do nothing to close the deficit? I know I wouldn’t. And I don’t think many would.)

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Not so. SQ is in the clink because he disobeyed a court order. It has nothing to do with any contract he did or did not enter into. And you implicitly accept by being resident in a state that you will abide by the rules of that state, even the ones you don’t like. You may not call it a contract but you are bound by these rules (and for the most part, people accept this) every bit as much as someone who signs a formal contract.


Yes. But we are being told that this Saturday protest is a wider campaign against austerity (i.e. efforts to stop spending more money that you raise!!). I don’t dispute that there are alternatives to property tax, only that they are not better than property tax. I do dispute that there is a real alternative to either cuts in spending, higher taxes of both.

Some make a valid argument that removing money from the economy, however it is done, is destructive. But what choice do we have if our lenders demand that we do. (Can I ask would you, if you had savings, lend money to the Irish state to over-spend by 20 billion a year more than they raised in taxes, if they insisted that they were going to do nothing to close the deficit? I know I wouldn’t. And I don’t think many would.)

Could you provide a link to show that we are spending 20 billion a year more than we are raising in taxes please?

gerryo777

tayto lover wrote: »

Could you provide a link to show that we are spending 20 billion a year more than we are raising in taxes please?

I'd like to see that too tayto.
According to some reports, if it wasn't for banking debt, by the end of 2013 we would be actually running a surplus.

Chips Lovell

How can you claim that the household charge isn't going to local authorities, when its clearly listed in their funding allocations and those counties that don't reach a certain level get their funding cut?

How can you claim that the money is going to banks when we haven't given them a cent since it wa introduced?

We've been through this already. Only this morning.

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

How can you claim that the household charge isn't going to local authorities, when its clearly listed in their funding allocations and those counties that don't reach a certain level get their funding cut?

How can you claim that the money is going to banks when we haven't given them a cent since it wa introduced?

We've been through this already. Only this morning.

Did you pay your HHC to your LA? No, you didn't. That's all word play, smoke and daggers.

Granted, we haven't re-capitalised them further but we are paying back what we borrowed for them, aren't we?

Noonan has stated on record that he can't guarantee that taxpayers money is not being used to pay bankers.

Chips Lovell

Taxpayers money they got before the HHC was introduced.

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Taxpayers money they got before the HHC was introduced.

And is being paid back now and for the next 50 years. Stop messing Vlad.

Chips Lovell

Aaaaand the goalposts move again....

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

Could you provide a link to show that we are spending 20 billion a year more than we are raising in taxes please?

We are not now. I think it is about 13 billion atm. But we would be if we decided not to bother making any adjustments to our budget 4 years ago AND (big, big and) we somehow found some very, very rich people who were regularly dropped on their heads as children who were prepared to lend us that kind of money to continue on our merry way.

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Aaaaand the goalposts move again....

How do you work that out?

We borrowed money for the banks, we then introduce more taxes because we haven't got enough now to pay back the loans.

Is this not the case?

tayto lover

Enda actually drove in his brand new car to open the homeless shelter today. One bystander complimented him on the beauty and size of the car.
Enda said "well if you all work hard and do extra hours and pay your Property Taxes I can get an even bigger car next year".

K-9

gerryo777 wrote: »

Noonan himself has said that taxpayers money is going to pay bankers.

It pays for the staff canteen as well.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

We are not now. I think it is about 13 billion atm. But we would be if we decided not to bother making any adjustments to our budget 4 years ago AND (big, big and) we somehow found some very, very rich people who were regularly dropped on their heads as children who were prepared to lend us that kind of money to continue on our merry way.

So we are not spending 20 billion a year more than we are taking in taxes. Thanks.

gerryo777

K-9 wrote: »

It pays for the staff canteen as well.

Not my staff canteen!
I pay for that myself. Mind you, it's a lot cheaper now that I'm not employing the 15 staff I was before the economy collapsed.

gerryo777

tayto lover wrote: »

Enda actually drove in his brand new car to open the homeless shelter today. One bystander complimented him on the beauty and size of the car.
Enda said "well if you all work hard and do extra hours and pay your Property Taxes I can get an even bigger car next year".

Not one for getting the irony of a situation, is he?

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Even if it was going into a central funding pot, then it still isn't being used to prop up AIB's pension fund. AIB received its last bailout long before the Household Charge was introduced, indeed before the current government was elected.

But Vlad, whether AIB got the money before or after the HHC was introduced, its borrowed money, and we the taxpayer are paying it back. It just seems to me that some people are paying it back a bit quicker than others and in bigger quantities. Thats my take on it anyway. As regards it not being used to prop up AIBs pension fund, did not the minister of finance clarify this.

Chips Lovell

I was responding to assertions HHC money was going to the banks.

Off topic, since it wasn't financed by the HHC, but I believe AIB wa right to bail out it's pension fund.

gerryo777

darkhorse wrote: »

But Vlad, whether AIB got the money before or after the HHC was introduced, its borrowed money, and we the taxpayer are paying it back. It just seems to me that some people are paying it back a bit quicker than others and in bigger quantities. Thats my take on it anyway. As regards it not being used to prop up AIBs pension fund, did not the minister of finance clarify this.

They used €1.1 billion to shore up the AIB pension fund.

Money that the government borrowed and the people will have to pay back, with interest. But, because the money was borrowed before the HHC was introduced, it doesn't count. The taxpayer isn't paying this bill:rolleyes:

The pro-taxer school of spin economics!

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

So we are not spending 20 billion a year more than we are taking in taxes. Thanks.

I know. Great news isn't it? And guess what? The deficit as a ratio to the workers in the state is now down to a paltry €8,000 per worker per year!

Sure that's buttons! What kind of a Mickey Mouse job would you be doing if you couldn't cough up an additional 8 g per year without breaking sweat?

Austerity me arse! Sure everything is grand. :pac:

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

Not so. SQ is in the clink because he disobeyed a court order. It has nothing to do with any contract he did or did not enter into. And you implicitly accept by being resident in a state that you will abide by the rules of that state, even the ones you don’t like. You may not call it a contract but you are bound by these rules (and for the most part, people accept this) every bit as much as someone who signs a formal contract.

I understand he is in jail for contempt of court (as we are told we will be if we fail to pay when/if ordered to), but it most certainly is related to his contracts, he would never have been in court in the first place only for them. He wanted to put as much cash/assets as possible beyond the reach of the state, rather than using them to offset his debts.

lugha wrote: »

Yes. But we are being told that this Saturday protest is a wider campaign against austerity (i.e. efforts to stop spending more money that you raise!!). I don’t dispute that there are alternatives to property tax, only that they are not better than property tax. I do dispute that there is a real alternative to either cuts in spending, higher taxes of both.

The protest is to demonstrate to the government the general dissatisfaction with how they are handling things. There does have to be cut backs and extra revenue raised, people in general are not happy with how they are going about it.

lugha wrote: »

(Can I ask would you, if you had savings, lend money to the Irish state to over-spend by 20 billion a year more than they raised in taxes, if they insisted that they were going to do nothing to close the deficit? I know I wouldn’t. And I don’t think many would.)

Not my meagre savings, no, they'd be no use any how. But on the grand scale of things if they keep going as is, and completely collapse the economy, those that have lent us would have very little hope of ever recovering what is outstanding. Which is the only reason we, or any of the "piigs" of europe are being entertained at all.

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I was responding to assertions HHC money was going to the banks.

Off topic, since it wasn't financed by the HHC, but I believe AIB wa right to bail out it's pension fund.

HHC money is taxpayers money, right?
Taxpayers money is paying back the money borrowed for the banks, right?
Perhaps AIB should get the money they need for their staff's pension from, oh I don't know, their staff!

darkhorse

Ghandee wrote: »

The last unsecured bondholders (AIB) was made when?

I know. Pick me, Pick me. €1 Billion on the 01/10/2012.:eek:

gerryo777

darkhorse wrote: »

I know. Pick me, Pick me. €1 Billion on the 01/10/2012.:eek:

Remember though, that €1 billion came from the money fairies at the end of enda's garden.

K-9

tayto lover wrote: »

So we are not spending 20 billion a year more than we are taking in taxes. Thanks.

We did a couple of years ago.

Its expected to be €13 Billion this year. What we are doing clearly isn't working in some parallel universe, what with the deficit significantly reduced as you highlighted and bond rates at near affordable levels.

I'm sure some rant will deflect away from those facts, a fact you highlighted.

K-9

gerryo777 wrote: »

Not my staff canteen!
I pay for that myself. Mind you, it's a lot cheaper now that I'm not employing the 15 staff I was before the economy collapsed.

What sector where you in?

gerryo777

K-9 wrote: »

We did a couple of years ago.

Its expected to be €13 Billion this year. What we are doing clearly isn't working, what with the deficit significantly reduced as you highlighted and bond rates at near affordable levels.

I'm sure some rant will deflect away from those facts, a fact you highlighted.

At what cost though? The emigration of half a million people before this is over? the slashing and burning of services for the most vulnerable in our society?

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

But it is the next bit that where the details are a bit sketchy. A new government is formed and there is no more austerity! And we find a generous lender who will happily lend to us as we spend more than we raise. You couldn’t give us an ‘aul one-liner as to how that will work, could you?

Funny you should mention that. I had an idea this morning. Next June, the G8 is in Fermanagh. As the hotel that they are in is only a half hour away from where I am, what I was thinking was, drive up there, meet the boys and girls, ask each one of them for a lend of 10 billion each and ask them to put it on the long finger, should bring us through the next few years, what ya think.

gerryo777

K-9 wrote: »

What sector where you in?

I am a building contractor, a small building contractor. I never got too big, I wasn't a developer, I'm not getting bailed out by NAMA. I didn't pay myself mad money and I didn't get carried away.
I have been trading for almost 25 years and I'm pricing work now as keenly as I can in order to keep the 3 staff I kept on in work and not put them on the dole.
I do my best to keep my lads going, even though they get paid as much as I do and in some cases more.

I suppose to some pro-taxers on here, the problems of the country are all down to people like me, employment creators.

Chips Lovell

Most vulnerable in our society? Weren't you the one advocating slashing the dole and making people in local authority housing pay propert tax?

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

I understand he is in jail for contempt of court (as we are told we will be if we fail to pay when/if ordered to), but it most certainly is related to his contracts, he would never have been in court in the first place only for them. He wanted to put as much cash/assets as possible beyond the reach of the state, rather than using them to offset his debts.

Contracts is a red herring. There is no difference in principle between what he did and what some here are doing. He felt justified ignoring the law because he thought it was unfair.

Slick50 wrote: »

The protest is to demonstrate to the government the general dissatisfaction with how they are handling things. There does have to be cut backs and extra revenue raised, people in general are not happy with how they are going about it.

First, the march on Sat is against austerity, not for a better kind of austerity!

Second, I don’t think there would be any substantial difference in how any government would handle things. Things would be every bit as tough no matter who is in government. The current gang will eventually be replaced and you’ll see very little difference in effect when the new crowd around.
People don’t like tough medicine and naturally blame who ever appears to be dishing it out. Now if someone actually had an alternative to austerity there might be some sense in agitating for a different approach. Alas ….

darkhorse wrote: »

Funny you should mention that. I had an idea this morning. Next June, the G8 is in Fermanagh. As the hotel that they are in is only a half hour away from where I am, what I was thinking was, drive up there, meet the boys and girls, ask each one of them for a lend of 10 billion each and ask them to put it on the long finger, should bring us through the next few years, what ya think.

Not the worst idea proposed by you lads! :pac:

At least you seem to be beginning to realize that we do have ourselves a mamma of a problem. And that's always step 1 towards any solution.