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

Ghandee

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Jimmy the developer MIGHT have to pay CGT (an asset tax) if and when he sells the land or builds on it, paddy the homeowner doesnt have to pay CGT if and when he sells, BUT he will have to pay a recurring yearly fee for the privilege of living in his own, privately paid for, with no handouts from the govt, family home forever..

Fyp.

Not to mention that a house owner and a home owner are two very different people.
One may flip property for a profit, the other makes his property a home, somewhere he may very well die in.


Too many ifs and buts with your scenario.

If the govt are as stretched for cash as they say they are, why the reluctance to include many more people in the tax net?

Homeowners are the easy target.

Am Chile

Seen on facebook there was a protest earlier at cork city hall over the household charge and other issues-I just saying two nights ago-more of us need to get out to start similar protests at our local councils.

Reports
reaching these parts that members of the public have taken over the council
chamber in Cork City Hall tonight in protest against the Household Charge and
cuts in Home Helps hours. Lord Mayor and his officials left in disgust. Public
then took over seats of majority of councillors who had left and "voted" to
abolish the charges.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/127086754061716/

Ghandee

Am Chile wrote: »

Seen on facebook there was a protest earlier at cork city hall over the household charge and other issues-I just saying two nights ago-more of us need to get out to start similar protests at our local councils.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/127086754061716/

This could very well be the start of things to come.

If this is true, it'll be very interesting to watch/read RTE's take on it.

VB might give it a mention tonight though!

trellheim

Yes, because local councilors can't set the household charge or home help hours; a highly appropriate forum. Perhaps the council had some actual relevant business to conduct this evening that was appropriate for the local citizens.

washman3

The 2 buzzwords that will be most used during the next few weeks and especially at budget time will be : "special case"
Wait for it, just wait for it......;)

Hijpo

K-9 wrote: »

Base it on what a likely coalition will deliver. It was always likely we'd have a FG/Labour coalition so accepting that both parties would compromise on the Croke Park agreement was a reasonable expectation, didn't come as a surprise to me as an example.

We last elected a single party Government 35 years go. Manifestos these days are just mainly aspirations, you have to make an educated guess on what a coalition will agree on as the most important manifesto is the agreed Coalition afterwards.

Its a perfectly logical and practical way of looking at things as that's how Government works in reality, probably why it seems to come as a shock to so many.

So let me get this straight, what your saying is the door is wide open for partys to print posters and leaflets containing pre meditated lies to obtain a position and then blame it on a coalition for not commiting to there campaigns?

washman3

trellheim wrote: »

Yes, because local councilors can't set the household charge or home help hours; a highly appropriate forum. Perhaps the council had some actual relevant business to conduct this evening that was appropriate for the local citizens.

Think they were organising a junket to Brazil to investigate the plight of the black beetle in the rainforests (to coincide with the soccer World Cup of course)...;)

K-9

Hijpo wrote: »

So let me get this straight, what your saying is the door is wide open for partys to print posters and leaflets containing pre meditated lies to obtain a position and then blame it on a coalition for not commiting to there campaigns?

Nope, what I'm saying is it was obvious FG would introduce a property tax, Enda said it would be up to individual councils and when pressed on how that would work, couldn't explain it.

It constantly amazes me that people still get shocked at politicians doing politics and compromising in a coalition. Everybody moans about politicians lying so it seems a bit staged to me when voters then moan about said politician doing a u-turn.

tayto lover

K-9 wrote: »

Nope, what I'm saying is it was obvious FG would introduce a property tax, Enda said it would be up to individual councils and when pressed on how that would work, couldn't explain it.

It constantly amazes me that people still get shocked at politicians doing politics and compromising in a coalition. Everybody moans about politicians lying so it seems a bit staged to me when voters then moan about said politician doing a u-turn.

Doing a U-turn on a lie does not mean that they are now telling the truth. It is more likely that they are lying twice as much as they were.
It doesn't look now as it's a write-down of the Banking debt now at all. It sounds like they are just giving us more time to pay those debts.
If that's true then our politicians in Europe, inc Enda, are being taken for a ride altogether. Complete joke if it wasn't so serious. We should have sent out Mrs Browne.

tayto lover

Just spotted article which if it comes about will be another nail in our financial coffin. It will however satisfy many who make the trek north at Christmas --
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-to-decide-on-devolving-corporation-tax-to-northern-ireland-8216980.html

Hijpo

K-9 wrote: »

Nope, what I'm saying is it was obvious FG would introduce a property tax, Enda said it would be up to individual councils and when pressed on how that would work, couldn't explain it.

It constantly amazes me that people still get shocked at politicians doing politics and compromising in a coalition. Everybody moans about politicians lying so it seems a bit staged to me when voters then moan about said politician doing a u-turn.

So who compromised with who when it came to paying back billions to the bondholders?

Slick50

dvpower wrote: »

OK. Read the full post. It remains ridiculous for you to suggest that anyone would think that Enda Kenny didn't know about something that was in his own party manifesto.

It may seem ridiculous under normal circumstances, but with your steadfast assertions that Enda's opinion that "it is unfair to tax the family home" is

dvpower wrote: »

1994 - a different universe.

dvpower wrote: »

1994 was 18 years ago, not a 'mere few months' ago.

To put it in context - 1994 was also the year of the first IRA ceasefire. Should we hold everyone to the positions they once held a long time ago.

It wouldn't be too suprising if you tried to tell us Enda didn't know it was in his most recent manifesto.

dvpower wrote: »

If you thought a little bit more before pressing the Submit button, then perhaps you wouldn't have to apologise in advance. Or perhaps you should just put your preemptive apologies in your sig.

Is that not the same thing?

K-9

tayto lover wrote: »

Doing a U-turn on a lie does not mean that they are now telling the truth. It is more likely that they are lying twice as much as they were.
It doesn't look now as it's a write-down of the Banking debt now at all. It sounds like they are just giving us more time to pay those debts.
If that's true then our politicians in Europe, inc Enda, are being taken for a ride altogether. Complete joke if it wasn't so serious. We should have sent out Mrs Browne.

Politicians lie and spin, its hardly a shocking revelation. They all will do it. I prefer looking at it from a glass half empty view and then admire the rare exception. The John Humes of this world are very, very exceptional.

K-9

Hijpo wrote: »

So who compromised with who when it came to paying back billions to the bondholders?

Nobody compromised, just faced a reality of an outside force running the state like never before, another reality to be considered when voting.

AS a previous poster said, they could have ditched the property tax if they really wanted, that is had an alternative. Since they'd guaranteed Welfare rates, the Croke Park agreement and Income tax rates, they had no alternative. Both parties looked after their "core "values vested interests leaving little room to wriggle on a property tax.

Their ineptness in fudging the issue came as no surprise to me.

Hijpo

K-9 wrote: »

Nobody compromised, just faced a reality of an outside force running the state like never before, another reality to be considered when voting.

AS a previous poster said, they could have ditched the property tax if they really wanted, that is had an alternative. Since they'd guaranteed Welfare rates, the Croke Park agreement and Income tax rates, they had no alternative. Both parties looked after their "core "values vested interests leaving little room to wriggle on a property tax.

Their ineptness in fudging the issue came as no surprise to me.

Whos the outside force running the state?

I get that they need to cut spending but weigh up the priorities first.
The have no problem cutting essential home care for example before there own allowances. Joe Soaps essentials hit again before the fat cats non essentials.

K-9

Hijpo wrote: »

Whos the outside force running the state?

I get that they need to cut spending but weigh up the priorities first.
The have no problem cutting essential home care for example before there own allowances. Joe Soaps essentials hit again before the fat cats non essentials.

The Troika, though they have some wriggle room.

The reason they have to cut home help and tried to axe the rules on disability payments is because the guaranteed public service pay rates, social welfare rates and to not increase income tax rates. That's exactly why I disagree with those promises.

They've left something they can give their vested interests come the next election, enough to get re-elected with votes from the party faithful, all the while cutting essential services like home help.

Hijpo

K-9 wrote: »

The Troika, though they have some wriggle room.

The reason they have to cut home help and tried to axe the rules on disability payments is because the guaranteed public service pay rates, social welfare rates and to not increase income tax rates. That's exactly why I disagree with those promises.

They've left something they can give their vested interests come the next election, enough to get re-elected with votes from the party faithful, all the while cutting essential services like home help.

but the Troika have said they did not insist on bondholders being paid.

Why are they delaying cutting the non essential allowances racked up by fat cats and politicians, councils etc etc?
Are these not coming from the same pot as the welfare, disability etc?
Which in your opinion is more essential, home help or a payment for answering a phone?
Cost wise they probably dont come close, but if you add all the other silly allowances given to people on huge wages im sure it would narrow the gap and at the very least reduce the need to cut that amount of the home help service.

darkhorse

K-9 wrote: »

Nobody compromised, just faced a reality of an outside force running the state like never before, another reality to be considered when voting.

AS a previous poster said, they could have ditched the property tax if they really wanted, that is had an alternative. Since they'd guaranteed Welfare rates, the Croke Park agreement and Income tax rates, they had no alternative. Both parties looked after their "core "values vested interests leaving little room to wriggle on a property tax.

Their ineptness in fudging the issue came as no surprise to me.

Oh, and you left out their LIES. Don't matter which you dress it up, thats what got them elected.

Am Chile

Ghandee wrote: »

This could very well be the start of things to come.

If this is true, it'll be very interesting to watch/read RTE's take on it.

VB might give it a mention tonight though!

I found videos of the cork city hall protest-I doubt very much the state media Rte will mention it-fair play to all the protesters involved earlier tonight-more of us need to do similar protests at our local councils.

K-9

Hijpo wrote: »

but the Troika have said they did not insist on bondholders being paid.

Why are they delaying cutting the non essential allowances racked up by fat cats and politicians, councils etc etc?
Are these not coming from the same pot as the welfare, disability etc?
Which in your opinion is more essential, home help or a payment for answering a phone?
Cost wise they probably dont come close, but if you add all the other silly allowances given to people on huge wages im sure it would narrow the gap and at the very least reduce the need to cut that amount of the home help service.

The IMF apparently inisisted, I don't know, there's too much spin going on.

I'd put home help and disability payments ahead of allowance payments, a last resort, I'dhave them as a section of society to be protected, ahead of a 5% cut in pay to public servants, welfare recipients and a 2% rise in income tax rates too. I'm on a minority from what I gather.

Hijpo

K-9 wrote: »

The IMF apparently inisisted, I don't know, there's too much spin going on.

I'd put home help and disability payments ahead of allowance payments, a last resort, I'dhave them as a section of society to be protected, ahead of a 5% cut in pay to public servants, welfare recipients and a 2% rise in income tax rates too. I'm on a minority from what I gather.

And the ability for a politicians to get 2 or 3 pensions. Spending on swanky hotels for think tanks, people that can well afford to provide for there children being able to claim child benefit? I recall an interview where a woman was asked what she thought of cuts to the childrens allowance and she said "oh i dont know, it just gets paid into a bank account i dont even know how much it is" or something to that effect, she probably used it to buy feed for her ponies.

Not being racist or anything but the benefits and welfare non irish nationals get could be strongly reviewed to.

K-9

Yep stop protecting vested interests.

So yes, cut public service pay if that means less cuts to home help and not sacking classroom assistants, cut welfare if that means protecting payments to the disabled. Everybody stop protecting their own income stream.

Hijpo

K-9 wrote: »

Yep stop protecting vested interests.

So yes, cut public service pay if that means less cuts to home help and not sacking classroom assistants, cut welfare if that means protecting payments to the disabled. Everybody stop protecting their own income stream.

Im in full agreement, however you will see them cut welfare before they will scrap there own non essential allowances and second pensions. This is what infuriates people. Then you have some people who like to defend there decision because "cutting allowances and pay wont make a significant difference to the deficit"

dvpower

The government has published details of the new Fines bill.
Some of you guys should study it as you're likely to be suject to it in the near future.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1023/fines-bill-government.html

dvpower

K-9 wrote: »

Everybody stop protecting their own income stream.

You'll get good support for that sentiment here - mainly from people who are willing to break the law to protect their own resources.
An uncanny ability to insert a silent 'else' after 'Everybody'.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

The government has published details of the new Fines bill.
Some of you guys should study it as you're likely to be suject to it in the near future.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1023/fines-bill-government.html

I'll say it again.

This really means nothing, the govt still have to:

Find the non paying household.
Court appearance to fine homeowner.
Further court appearance when original fine hasn't been paid.
Judge makes order for charge to be placed on income.


Lot of money to be spent on identifying 600-700,000 people who've dug their heels in on this.

I reckon the courts in the country could be brought to their knees.

Maggie 2

I'll bet certain Politicians elderly relatives will keep their many home help hours.

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

You'll get good support for that sentiment here - mainly from people who are willing to break the law to protect their own resources.
An uncanny ability to insert a silent 'else' after 'Everybody'.

Lol, are you saying the pro taxers on here are not protecting their own resources? they are on here posting for the good of Ireland i suppose. ty for the laugh on a dull moring...:pac:

donalg1

K-9 wrote: »

Yep stop protecting vested interests.

So yes, cut public service pay if that means less cuts to home help and not sacking classroom assistants, cut welfare if that means protecting payments to the disabled. Everybody stop protecting their own income stream.

Oh the irony.

dvpower

bgrizzley wrote: »

they are on here posting for the good of Ireland i suppose.

Its probably difficult for you to understand - such an alien concept for tax evaders.