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

Are you going to pay the household charge? [Part 1]

Options
1…8081838586…334

Comments

  • Options
    #2462
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Yeah but you see this tax was introduced as an interim measure to fund local services until the property tax is introduced. The money raised from this charge will help raise revenue for the government which is what he has said is needed. Yet he then says he wont pay this, very funny indeed poor lad.
    Why don't we stop throwing away billions to unsecured bondholders in anglo and we mightn't have to tax the life out of people.
    You have to remember that the more taxes that are imposed on people, the less money they have to spend in our domestic economy.
    If people aren't spending here there's going to be no job creation, so the amount of people unemployed will sit at around the 450,000 mark. That's a hefty welfare bill that's going to have to be paid for the foreseeable future.


  • Options
    #2463
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Why don't we stop throwing away billions to unsecured bondholders in anglo and we mightn't have to tax the life out of people.
    You have to remember that the more taxes that are imposed on people, the less money they have to spend in our domestic economy.
    If people aren't spending here there's going to be no job creation, so the amount of people unemployed will sit at around the 450,000 mark. That's a hefty welfare bill that's going to have to be paid for the foreseeable future.

    This thread is not about the welfare bill if you want to discuss that why dont you start a thread on it.

    The anti brigade here cant go more than two posts without mentioning the bondholders, but guess what they are going to be paid either way so then whatever is left is used to fund everything else so another hundred million cant do any harm now can it?


  • Options
    #2464
    Rabidlamb
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,202 ✭✭✭Rabidlamb


    Best case scenario, you win your fight . . . Yeah !
    Government just puts another 2c on fuel or drop the bands.
    They're going to get it from somewhere, go on anyway, it's like watching bald men fighting over a comb.


  • Options
    #2465
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    donalg1 wrote: »
    This thread is not about the welfare bill if you want to discuss that why dont you start a thread on it.

    The anti brigade here cant go more than two posts without mentioning the bondholders, but guess what they are going to be paid either way so then whatever is left is used to fund everything else so another hundred million cant do any harm now can it?
    The point I was making, if you would open your eyes, was that all these extra taxes are stopping people spending in our domestic economy.
    If there are no jobs being created because of this fact well then the difference between what we take in taxes and what we spend will remain static.
    Paying unsecured secondary bondholders in a bankrupt bank is just plain wrong and if you can't / won't see that then there's nothing I can say to you that will make a difference to your thinking.


  • Options
    #2466
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    The point I was making, if you would open your eyes, was that all these extra taxes are stopping people spending in our domestic economy.
    If there are no jobs being created because of this fact well then the difference between what we take in taxes and what we spend will remain static.
    Paying unsecured secondary bondholders in a bankrupt bank is just plain wrong and if you can't / won't see that then there's nothing I can say to you that will make a difference to your thinking.

    People arent spending now though, so I dont see your point as this charge will not have any effect on their spending as again they arent spending now as it is. And besides this charge is not being brought in to fund local businesses its being brought in to fund local services.

    So I fail to see how someone spending €100 in their local shop is going to fund local services, maybe you can enlighten me or as you say open my eyes!!

    Or what you could do is open your eyes and get your head outta the sand and see that the country is broke and realise that the government need to raise additional revenue and that they need to introduce charges such as the household charge to do this, otherwise they will just be burying their heads and watching things get worse and worse doing the exact same things and making the exact same mistakes as FF which got us in this mess in the first place.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2467
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Paying unsecured secondary bondholders in a bankrupt bank is just plain wrong and if you can't / won't see that then there's nothing I can say to you that will make a difference to your thinking.

    Maybe, just maybe we'd be in a better position to tell unsecured bondholders to **** off if we wearn't depending on the ECB/IMF to fund our country - we've billions of euro to make up in tax increases and reductions on spending, and rather than recognise the reality, most of the anti-tax brigade are happy to play the populist bull**** line of 'tell the bondholders to get stuffed'.


  • Options
    #2468
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    donalg1 wrote: »
    People arent spending now though, so I dont see your point as this charge will not have any effect on their spending as again they arent spending now as it is. And besides this charge is not being brought in to fund local businesses its being brought in to fund local services.

    So I fail to see how someone spending €100 in their local shop is going to fund local services, maybe you can enlighten me or as you say open my eyes!!

    Or what you could do is open your eyes and get your head outta the sand and see that the country is broke and realise that the government need to raise additional revenue and that they need to introduce charges such as the household charge to do this, otherwise they will just be burying their heads and watching things get worse and worse doing the exact same things and making the exact same mistakes as FF which got us in this mess in the first place.
    None so blind as those who cannot see.
    BTW if you think that the €160 million that they hope to raise this year will make any difference to our situation your sadly mistaken.


  • Options
    #2469
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    None so blind as those who cannot see.
    BTW if you think that the €160 million that they hope to raise this year will make any difference to our situation your sadly mistaken.

    Well it will make a damn sight more difference than the €0 you hope they raise.


  • Options
    #2470
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    black francis wrote: »
    Maybe, just maybe we'd be in a better position to tell unsecured bondholders to **** off if we wearn't depending on the ECB/IMF to fund our country - we've billions of euro to make up in tax increases and reductions on spending, and rather than recognise the reality, most of the anti-tax brigade are happy to play the populist bull**** line of 'tell the bondholders to get stuffed'.
    By the time the IMF/ECB are out of this country, all these unsecured bonds will have been paid off so it'll be a bit late then.
    As I've said before, taxing people too much only stops them from spending in the domestic economy.
    Reduced spending in the domestic economy = little or no job creation.
    No job creation = reduced income taxes, reduced spending etc etc and a continuing welfare bill.
    BTW black francis, how come when anyone has a view different from yours it's "populist bulls**t"?


  • Options
    #2471
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    By the time the IMF/ECB are out of this country, all these unsecured bonds will have been paid off so it'll be a bit late then.
    As I've said before, taxing people too much only stops them from spending in the domestic economy.
    Reduced spending in the domestic economy = little or no job creation.
    No job creation = reduced income taxes, reduced spending etc etc and a continuing welfare bill.
    BTW black francis, how come when anyone has a view different from yours it's "populist bulls**t"?

    Again an extra €100 in your pocket isnt going to mean mass job creation throughout Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2472
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Again an extra €100 in your pocket isnt going to mean mass job creation throughout Ireland.
    The fear is that next year that €100 could be €1000 or more, plus water charges, increasing bin charges and all the other stealth taxes that are going to be invented between now and then.
    The amount of savings in Ireland is almost double what can be expected in any normal economy.
    This is because of a fear of the unknown and it is crippling our domestic economy. The figures speak for themselves.


  • Options
    #2473
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Why don't we stop throwing away billions to unsecured bondholders in anglo and we mightn't have to tax the life out of people.
    You have to remember that the more taxes that are imposed on people, the less money they have to spend in our domestic economy.
    If people aren't spending here there's going to be no job creation, so the amount of people unemployed will sit at around the 450,000 mark. That's a hefty welfare bill that's going to have to be paid for the foreseeable future.

    The high welfare bill is just as much a problem as bondholder payments and needs to be cut which will effect spending in the economy, just as much as tax rises. Much as I wish it didn't need to be, when about 70% of taxes are spent on Welfare.................

    There really is no simple way out of it, job creation obviously helps but the budget deficit still needs to be cut, it isn't an and/or situation unfortunately.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #2474
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    donalg1 wrote: »
    People arent spending now though, so I dont see your point as this charge will not have any effect on their spending as again they arent spending now as it is. And besides this charge is not being brought in to fund local businesses its being brought in to fund local services.

    So I fail to see how someone spending €100 in their local shop is going to fund local services, maybe you can enlighten me or as you say open my eyes!!

    Or what you could do is open your eyes and get your head outta the sand and see that the country is broke and realise that the government need to raise additional revenue and that they need to introduce charges such as the household charge to do this, otherwise they will just be burying their heads and watching things get worse and worse doing the exact same things and making the exact same mistakes as FF which got us in this mess in the first place.
    If the local shop goes out of business it's not going to be paying commercial rates which apparently go to funding local services.


  • Options
    #2475
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    K-9 wrote: »
    The high welfare bill is just as much a problem as bondholder payments and needs to be cut which will effect spending in the economy, just as much as tax rises. Much as I wish it didn't need to be, when about 70% of taxes are spent on Welfare.................

    There really is no simple way out of it, job creation obviously helps but the budget deficit still needs to be cut, it isn't an and/or situation unfortunately.
    If we have more people working we won't be spending as much on welfare!
    We need to create a climate of confidence in our country and not continue with this fear of when the next stealth tax is going to be introduced.


  • Options
    #2476
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    By the time the IMF/ECB are out of this country, all these unsecured bonds will have been paid off so it'll be a bit late then.
    As I've said before, taxing people too much only stops them from spending in the domestic economy.
    Reduced spending in the domestic economy = little or no job creation.
    No job creation = reduced income taxes, reduced spending etc etc and a continuing welfare bill.
    BTW black francis, how come when anyone has a view different from yours it's "populist bulls**t"?

    Yeah, paid with money we've borrowed.

    How do you think we can re-negotiate the terms of repayments if we're depending on the same lenders to fund our day to day spending.

    Do you not think we'd be in a better position to re-negoitiate a write off of a significant portion of this money if we were self-sufficient?

    And I sasnd by my comment that most of the anti-tax brigade refuse to engage on the substantive question on how we bridge this gap and would rather trade in cheap sloganeering.


  • Options
    #2477
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    black francis wrote: »
    Yeah, paid with money we've borrowed.

    How do you think we can re-negotiate the terms of repayments if we're depending on the same lenders to fund our day to day spending.

    Do you not think we'd be in a better position to re-negoitiate a write off of a significant portion of this money if we were self-sufficient?

    And I sasnd by my comment that most of the anti-tax brigade refuse to engage on the substantive question on how we bridge this gap and would rather trade in cheap sloganeering.
    How to bridge the gap.
    Improve our domestic economy, encourage people with larger than normal savings to spend thus creating jobs, reducing the unemployment numbers and increasing tax take. NO?


  • Options
    #2478
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    How to bridge the gap.
    Improve our domestic economy, encourage people with larger than normal savings to spend thus creating jobs, reducing the unemployment numbers and increasing tax take. NO?

    Improve it how? All the anti-campaigns are very light on their own workable alternatives.

    You basically just said "We need to make thing more gooder!"

    Also, you just described the building boom that ****ed the country in the first place.


  • Options
    #2479
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    How to bridge the gap.
    Improve our domestic economy, encourage people with larger than normal savings to spend thus creating jobs, reducing the unemployment numbers and increasing tax take. NO?


    Quite a gamble you're prepared to take with the public finances - borrow a load more money to try to stimulate demand?

    I'd prefer to see us tackle waste in the delivery of public services and broaden our tax base to non-cyclical tax streams.


  • Options
    #2480
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    If the local shop goes out of business it's not going to be paying commercial rates which apparently go to funding local services.

    Well maybe if they can raise money for local services through the household charge and ultimately property tax then commercial rates can be reduced which will help with job creation.


  • Options
    #2481
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Well maybe if they can raise money for local services through the household charge and ultimately property tax then commercial rates can be reduced which will help with job creation.

    Fairy land.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtKADQnjQmc


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2482
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    black francis wrote: »
    Quite a gamble you're prepared to take with the public finances - borrow a load more money to try to stimulate demand?

    I'd prefer to see us tackle waste in the delivery of public services and broaden our tax base to non-cyclical tax streams.
    Or we could just try and tax our way out of this recession. Good luck with that!


  • Options
    #2483
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    mickydoomsux wrote: »
    Improve it how? All the anti-campaigns are very light on their own workable alternatives.

    You basically just said "We need to make thing more gooder!"

    Also, you just described the building boom that ****ed the country in the first place.
    Fool.


  • Options
    #2484
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    mikom wrote: »
    Fairy land.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtKADQnjQmc

    Well I am only responding to sills suggestions by the anti campaigners that by not paying the charge everyone will spend loads of money in their local economy and this will create huge amounts of jobs for everyone and then we will all live happily ever after!!


  • Options
    #2485
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Fool.

    Thats a Banning!!!


  • Options
    #2486
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    black francis wrote: »
    Yeah, paid with money we've borrowed.

    How do you think we can re-negotiate the terms of repayments if we're depending on the same lenders to fund our day to day spending.

    Do you not think we'd be in a better position to re-negoitiate a write off of a significant portion of this money if we were self-sufficient?

    And I sasnd by my comment that most of the anti-tax brigade refuse to engage on the substantive question on how we bridge this gap and would rather trade in cheap sloganeering.

    Not me, I didnt borrow it, why should the life be taxed out of me to repay it :confused:


  • Options
    #2487
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Fool.

    Great alternative, you've fixed the economy.

    More personal attacks by the anti brigade because they haven't got a clue.


  • Options
    #2488
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    Ghandee wrote: »
    Not me, I didnt borrow it, why should the life be taxed out of me to repay it :confused:

    Yeah, just go on ignoring the €18billion hole in our own finances.


  • Options
    #2489
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Thats a Banning!!!

    Well you know what they say about a fool and his money!

    Sorry mods, but I've been asked for suggestions on how we can improve our situation and I've given what I think are reasonable responses.
    donalg1,mickydoomsux and blackfrancis must have an agenda as anyone who doesn't agree with them is accused of trading in 'cheap sloganeering',spouting 'populist bulls**t' (a contradiction in terms there I do believe) and probably gets reported to a moderator for not agreeing with them.


  • Options
    #2490
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    mickydoomsux wrote: »
    Improve it how? All the anti-campaigns are very light on their own workable alternatives.

    You basically just said "We need to make thing more gooder!"

    Also, you just described the building boom that ****ed the country in the first place.
    Do you just read the first line of a post before you jump in?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2491
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    black francis wrote: »
    Yeah, just go on ignoring the €18billion hole in our own finances.
    Projected at €12 billion for 2012 depending on who you listen to.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement