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…102103105107108…334

Comments

  • Options
    #3122
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    The Croke park agreement is a sham, more pandering to the unions.
    The government run the country, not Jack O'Conner and his cronies.

    The agreement with the IMF did mention a property tax, it never set the rate.

    We're €18 billion in a hole mostly because of massive unemployment (SW bill), We need people back at work and paying taxes, by screwing everyone for every last cent they have the unemployment rate will not fall due to the flatlining of the domestic economy.
    You've just told us what you think we should do. The question was why do you think they didn't do that?


  • Options
    #3123
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You've just told us what you think we should do. The question was why do you think they didn't do that?

    Lack of a spine? or an inability to think 'outside the box'?


  • Options
    #3124
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,497 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No idea,.what's your point?

    Maybe our political representatives just made the wrong choices and are continuing on the wrong path. If so they have to be stopped. They are not bringing their electorate with them. Now they are selling off what few state assets we have left and the vultures will soon be picking on our bones.
    We have to make a stand.


  • Options
    #3125
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You've just told us what you think we should do. The question was why do you think they didn't do that?

    Lack of a spine? or an inability to think 'outside the box'?
    What do you mean by lack of a spine? There's massive opposition to this charge; seems like a pretty brave move to me so you must think that your alternative would cause even more unrest

    Do you not think that the solution that causes the least civil unrest is the best one for a government to pursue?


  • Options
    #3126
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No idea,.what's your point?

    Maybe our political representatives just made the wrong choices and are continuing on the wrong path. If so they have to be stopped. They are not bringing their electorate with them. Now they are selling off what few state assets we have left and the vultures will soon be picking on our bones.
    We have to make a stand.
    Well they weren't the ones who made these choices, they're just dealing with the consequences. Saying "wrong path" suggests that there is a better path that they're ignoring for some reason. So going back to my original question, what do you think that reason is?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3127
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,497 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Well they weren't the ones who made these choices, they're just dealing with the consequences. Saying "wrong path" suggests that there is a better path that they're ignoring for some reason. So going back to my original question, what do you think that reason is?

    The reason is the bad choices and promises made by F.F. BUT F.G. were elected on promises like "not another cent", "no hospital closures" and "we will re-negotiate the I.M.F. loans". Then when they got in they did the opposite to what they promised. Had they the guts we were lead to believe they had things might have been done differently. Is it any wonder people do not trust them now and are refusing to pay the likes of the Household Tax. They could have tried to re-negotiate the terms and length of the loans at least and maybe get it spread out to affordable levels.


  • Options
    #3128
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Well they weren't the ones who made these choices, they're just dealing with the consequences. Saying "wrong path" suggests that there is a better path that they're ignoring for some reason. So going back to my original question, what do you think that reason is?

    Dealing with the consequences badly obviously. So then, fill me in. What's the reason?


  • Options
    #3129
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    tayto lover wrote: »
    The reason is the bad choices and promises made by F.F. BUT F.G. were elected on promises like "not another cent", "no hospital closures" and "we will re-negotiate the I.M.F. loans". Then when they got in they did the opposite to what they promised. Had they the guts we were lead to believe they had things might have been done differently. Is it any wonder people do not trust them now and are refusing to pay the likes of the Household Tax. They could have tried to re-negotiate the terms and length of the loans at least and maybe get it spread out to affordable levels.
    You're not really answering my question. Why do you think they didn't do these things? You don't know they didn't try to renegotiate the loans and in fact the terms have got better since they came in (although but necessarily because of something they did)

    But assuming they didn't even try, why wouldn't they? If they could have made our situation massively better with a few meetings why would they just not bother doing it?


  • Options
    #3130
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Dealing with the consequences badly obviously. So then, fill me in. What's the reason?
    Imo it's because there is no practical alternative. It's the only explanation that doesn't require me to believe that Fine Gael and Labour are the most unfathomably lazy, evil and stupid people to ever walk the earth


  • Options
    #3131
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You're not really answering my question. Why do you think they didn't do these things? You don't know they didn't try to renegotiate the loans and in fact the terms have got better since they came in (although but necessarily because of something they did)

    But assuming they didn't even try, why wouldn't they? If they could have made our situation massively better with a few meetings why would they just not bother doing it?

    Do you want to put a few ideas forward yourself there Sam Vines or is every post you make going to be a series of questions?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3132
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,497 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You're not really answering my question. Why do you think they didn't do these things? You don't know they didn't try to renegotiate the loans and in fact the terms have got better since they came in (although but necessarily because of something they did)

    But assuming they didn't even try, why wouldn't they? If they could have made our situation massively better with a few meetings why would they just not bother doing it?

    Didn't Enda say in the Dail that they didn't ask for longer to pay ?
    He said we could make the payments, the good little boy he is.


  • Options
    #3133
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Imo it's because there is no practical alternative. It's the only explanation that doesn't require me to believe that Fine Gael and Labour are the most unfathomably lazy, evil and stupid people to ever walk the earth

    Oh dear. Well that's it then, we're screwed! Lay down and die people it's all over.

    If your trying to ignore everyone else on the planet that have a different view to you you're doing a fantastic job.

    FYI there are alternatives. We're not paying top dollar for the government to ''try''. If they can't do the job they must stand aside.


  • Options
    #3134
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Oh dear. Well that's it then, we're screwed! Lay down and die people it's all over.

    If your trying to ignore everyone else on the planet that have a different view to you you're doing a fantastic job.

    FYI there are alternatives. We're not paying top dollar for the government to ''try''. If they can't do the job they must stand aside.

    Sam Vines sounds a lot like another poster on here. Maybe they're related.:)
    What do you reckon tayto?


  • Options
    #3135
    Kippure
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭Kippure


    This is from a reader in The metro Herald. I,d like to know if there is any truth to this statement of Law.



    Could any of the legal eagles who
    read the Metro Herald let me know if
    the details in the e-mail I received
    below are true?

    ‘You won’t get a household charge
    bill because the charge is a statute.
    People need to understand this: A
    statute is a “legislated rule of society
    given the force of law by the consent of
    the governed”. (Black’s Law Dictionary
    4th edition). Who are those it governs?
    Us, the public.
    ‘This household charge is a statute,
    otherwise known as an Act of
    Government, and it only carries the
    force of law upon you if you consent to
    it – which means you are legally
    obliged to pay it if you register for it on
    householdcharge.ie.

    ‘Your silence and inaction gives you
    a stance of no consent. If you do not
    consent, a statute cannot affect you.
    ‘If you register for this ‘charge’
    however, you are consenting to this
    statute, i.e. you are signing the contract

    ‘This is why the Government is
    ASKING people to register for the
    household charge, rather than just
    billing each household.’ Sharkman


    K.


  • Options
    #3136
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    FYI there are alternatives.
    Alternatives to the household charge that was agreed with the IMF prior to the election. Can you put forward some (that have some prospect of being implemented and agreed with the troika)?
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    We're not paying top dollar for the government to ''try''. If they can't do the job they must stand aside.
    Stand aside and have another general election?
    There isn't a reasonable prospect of an anti IMF agreement party being elected, so the next government would be back to working the agreement, which contains an agreement to a property tax.

    Realistically, the best the anti household charge side can hope for is some short delay for maybe a year or two until a fully fledged property tax can be put in place - with the revenue shortfall being made up by general taxation.


  • Options
    #3137
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    tayto lover wrote: »
    The reason is the bad choices and promises made by F.F. BUT F.G. were elected on promises like "not another cent", "no hospital closures" and "we will re-negotiate the I.M.F. loans". Then when they got in they did the opposite to what they promised. Had they the guts we were lead to believe they had things might have been done differently. Is it any wonder people do not trust them now and are refusing to pay the likes of the Household Tax. They could have tried to re-negotiate the terms and length of the loans at least and maybe get it spread out to affordable levels.
    You're not really answering my question. Why do you think they didn't do these things? You don't know they didn't try to renegotiate the loans and in fact the terms have got better since they came in (although but necessarily because of something they did)

    But assuming they didn't even try, why wouldn't they? If they could have made our situation massively better with a few meetings why would they just not bother doing it?

    You will find Sam that they tend not to answer questions around here, just spout nonsense all day


  • Options
    #3138
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Kippure wrote: »
    This is from a reader in The metro Herald. I,d like to know if there is any truth to this statement of Law.



    Could any of the legal eagles who
    read the Metro Herald let me know if
    the details in the e-mail I received
    below are true?

    ‘You won’t get a household charge
    bill because the charge is a statute.
    People need to understand this: A
    statute is a “legislated rule of society
    given the force of law by the consent of
    the governed”. (Black’s Law Dictionary
    4th edition). Who are those it governs?
    Us, the public.
    ‘This household charge is a statute,
    otherwise known as an Act of
    Government, and it only carries the
    force of law upon you if you consent to
    it – which means you are legally
    obliged to pay it if you register for it on
    householdcharge.ie.

    ‘Your silence and inaction gives you
    a stance of no consent. If you do not
    consent, a statute cannot affect you.
    ‘If you register for this ‘charge’
    however, you are consenting to this
    statute, i.e. you are signing the contract

    ‘This is why the Government is
    ASKING people to register for the
    household charge, rather than just
    billing each household.’ Sharkman


    K.
    Yeah. That all seems pretty reasonable. If you don't consent to the law, it doesn't apply to you.


  • Options
    #3139
    Kippure
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭Kippure


    dvpower wrote: »
    Yeah. That all seems pretty reasonable. If you don't consent to the law, it doesn't apply to you.

    Can this charge be forced upon us?


  • Options
    #3140
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    dvpower wrote: »

    Stand aside and have another general election?

    I'd go for that.
    dvpower wrote: »

    Realistically, the best the anti household charge side can hope for is some short delay for maybe a year or two until a fully fledged property tax can be put in place - with the revenue shortfall being made up by general taxation.

    Realistically, property taxes have never worked in this country. Realistically!


  • Options
    #3141
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,497 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    donalg1 wrote: »
    You will find Sam that they tend not to answer questions around here, just spout nonsense all day

    Pray tell what the nonsense was in my post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3142
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    gerryo777 wrote: »

    Do you want to put a few ideas forward yourself there Sam Vines or is every post you make going to be a series of questions?
    see above
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Imo it's because there is no practical alternative. It's the only explanation that doesn't require me to believe that Fine Gael and Labour are the most unfathomably lazy, evil and stupid people to ever walk the earth

    Oh dear. Well that's it then, we're screwed! Lay down and die people it's all over.

    If your trying to ignore everyone else on the planet that have a different view to you you're doing a fantastic job.

    FYI there are alternatives. We're not paying top dollar for the government to ''try''. If they can't do the job they must stand aside.
    Which brings me back to my original question. If there are better practical alternatives, why aren't they being implemented? Bear in mind that I won't find an explanation that requires me to believe that they're lazy, evil or stupid very plausible


  • Options
    #3143
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Kippure wrote: »
    Can this charge be forced upon us?
    Yes. This issue has been done a few times already on this thread, in other threads in the Irish Economy forum and in the Legal Discussion forum.


  • Options
    #3144
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    tayto lover wrote: »
    donalg1 wrote: »
    You will find Sam that they tend not to answer questions around here, just spout nonsense all day

    Pray tell what the nonsense was in my post.

    Not yours in particular tayto other posters here that blankly refuse to answer questions you are one of the few who seem capable of having an actual decent discussion on this topic


  • Options
    #3145
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    donalg1 wrote: »
    You will find Sam that they tend not to answer questions around here, just spout nonsense all day

    Like something Varadkar would say.


  • Options
    #3146
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    squod wrote: »
    I'd go for that.
    We've just had an election. Do you honestly think the will of the Irish people has changed radically since then?

    squod wrote: »
    Realistically, property taxes have never worked in this country. Realistically!
    And now they're being forced upon us. The game has changed; we're not fully in control of our own finances.


  • Options
    #3147
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    see above

    Which brings me back to my original question. If there are better practical alternatives, why aren't they being implemented? Bear in mind that I won't find an explanation that requires me to believe that they're lazy, evil or stupid very plausible

    You tell me. Why do we have technical groups meeting and discussing stuff like this, why pay advisers and ignore advice.

    ''He made me do it'' doesn't wash.


  • Options
    #3148
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    You tell me. Why do we have technical groups meeting and discussing stuff like this, why pay advisers and ignore advice.

    ''He made me do it'' doesn't wash.
    I already told you. I think they're doing what they think is best for the country. They could well be wrong mind you but they're not stupid and imo if anyone could give them a workable alternative to austerity they'd jump at it. Any such alternative would be better for everyone in the country, including themselves


  • Options
    #3149
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    see above

    Which brings me back to my original question. If there are better practical alternatives, why aren't they being implemented?

    It seems the best alternative alright, in terms of a free easy to hit for any amount, tax burden on the same people already paying their taxes. And if/when this comes in, that wont stop the alternatives.

    Its not some untapped tax well they are hitting, its home owners i.e. already tax payers, paying a large amount of income tax just to service their repayments, many of which are in a worse financial position due to owning their home, than others that wont have to pay this tax. This is contrary to the many claims in this thread that this is a wealth tax.


  • Options
    #3150
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I already told you. I think they're doing what they think is best for the country.

    That will be a new political concept here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3151
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    It seems the best alternative alright, in terms of a free easy to hit for any amount, tax burden on the same people already paying their taxes. And if/when this comes in, that wont stop the alternatives.
    You're sidestepping now Robbie.

    If you were in power with the mandate that the current govenment have, and the restrictions, what would you do?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement