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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1…9293959798…200

Comments

  • #4702
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gurramok wrote: »
    Being in employment does not automatically mean they are rich. Some people from the flats do have part time jobs or full time low paid jobs, while alot more do not have jobs. Alot grew up in disadvantaged areas.

    If you think they have well paid jobs, why on earth do you think they would stay there to live in a junkie infested flat complex instead of moving out?

    You seem to think most have it good, why don't you apply for a flat and see what its like then? Guess it would be a legal way of avoiding the 100quid charge.

    I wouldnt qualify for Social Housing as I have no need for housing. A lot of them do have it good, they have affordable predictable rent that is means tested and they have security of tenure far better than most in private rented.

    Are you saying that nobody in Social Housing has a well paid job?

    And not all Social Housing is in "a junkie infested flat complex", your view of Social Housing and Social Housing tenants is very skewed.


  • #4703
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    donalg1 wrote: »
    I wouldnt qualify for Social Housing as I have no need for housing. A lot of them do have it good, they have affordable predictable rent that is means tested and they have security of tenure far better than most in private rented.

    Are you saying that nobody in Social Housing has a well paid job?

    And not all Social Housing is in "a junkie infested flat complex", your view of Social Housing and Social Housing tenants is very skewed.

    So good = affordable predictable rent that is means tested and they have security of tenure far better than most in private rented. How does that make them not poor?

    You seem to have this notion that people in council flats are living the high life, that is indeed very skewed. One or two frauds does not equal the entire tenant population!


  • #4704
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gurramok wrote: »
    So good = affordable predictable rent that is means tested and they have security of tenure far better than most in private rented. How does that make them not poor?

    You seem to have this notion that people in council flats are living the high life, that is indeed very skewed. One or two frauds does not equal the entire tenant population!

    How is security of tenure not good? How is predictable affordable rent not good? Are you saying these arent good things.

    Where did I say they are all living the high life I said they arent all poor and living in junkie infested flats, which you seem to assume they are, shameful view of Social Housing and Social Housing tenants you have. Maybe you should get out more and educate yourself on Social Housing before claiming they are all junkies living in poverty and squalor.


  • #4705
    Mr CJ
    Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Mr CJ


    Am Chile wrote: »
    Theres meant to be a story in tomorrows Irish daily mail relating to the household tax how the goverment and frightening old people with their recent threats, the blueshirts have sunk a new low frightening old people not even Fianna Fail sunk that low, there a lot of the rest of us who aren,t old people who won,t be frightned or Intimidated by goverment threats.

    And who said I was ridiculous stating that this government is the same if not worse than FF??

    Like I said before I have seen nothing over the last yr to make me see different


  • #4706
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    You will have to change your username if they go along with not paying:)


    :D


  • #4707
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    black francis wrote: »
    It will be soon.

    And how will value be accessed? Over estimated by a fair way no doubt. Its one thing putting a price on a house to sell it, its another to get that price in the sale.

    And you say the property tax soon will be liked to income. How? A home bought 10 years ago may have no link to whether the owner has an income now or not. And many will just have state pensions.

    So how does the home owners tax relate to income level? Thats a contradiction to posters saying it would be a steady income.

    Steady because ability to pay does not matter.

    fraid you do for all practical purposes - unless you effectivly make the car 'un-drivable' but that would be a bit silly now woundn't it?
    It does not have to be undrivable. Just not used on public roads. If a person loses their job, they may not need the car for a while.

    Does a home owner have to pay the tax on a house they are not using? I would imagine they do.

    The difference is though francis, a renter and a home owner can both fully live in a house, avail of all services, but only one pays the tax. It will likely be passed on, but they are not liable.

    So glad you agree
    Do we? Thats good, because i was pointing out that the tv licence tax is another form of poll tax. And you agree. But it seems you only read the first seven words. So perhaps not.

    But they are trying to get everyone to pay the tv licence tax, its not descriminating really, as they want everyone to pay this. (It says that in the post). Thats why it might become the broadcast charge, to get everyone.

    Owning one always has been - ever heard of renting?
    Thats the whole point francis. Renters dont have to pay. Yet avail of the same services. Descrimination as mentioned. However, owning dogs is optional.


    Hardly much of an agrument to be putting up by Gerry in the first place now was it?
    Still reckon it's betweer than the 'household charge is the same as forced euthenasia' comparison though.
    Yea i think your right there. But i think their point was, that if a government says something, and its law, does that mean we have no rights, just obey without question? Thats me suggesting what they were asking, not me asking.


  • #4708
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    gurramok wrote: »
    Much of it is "i'm not paying bondholders", "i'm not paying bankers", "i'm not paying as a protest against the govt". Scaremongering on issues nothing to do with the charge.

    I look at them and all i see is what people think, or know already.

    The charge is to supposedly to pay for the operation of the state, part of which are the items you mention above.


  • #4709
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    donalg1 wrote: »
    How is security of tenure not good? How is predictable affordable rent not good? Are you saying these arent good things.

    No, i'm asking how are those terms equal to the tenants having lots of money? They're not.
    donalg1 wrote: »
    Where did I say they are all living the high life I said they arent all poor and living in junkie infested flats, which you seem to assume they are, shameful view of Social Housing and Social Housing tenants you have. Maybe you should get out more and educate yourself on Social Housing before claiming they are all junkies living in poverty and squalor.

    Well, it(high life) was the first thing that came to your mind about social housing.
    There are plenty of people in Social Housing that have a lot more disposable income than those in employment

    And yet you will not try to live the life in a housing complex. I never said they are all junkies, lots of housing complexes contain junkies which ruin it for everyone, different thing.

    I've been in those complexes and I wouldn't fancy living in one, the poorest in our society live there.


  • #4710
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gurramok wrote: »
    No, i'm asking how are those terms equal to the tenants having lots of money? They're not.



    Well, it(high life) was the first thing that came to your mind about social housing.


    And yet you will not try to live the life in a housing complex. I never said they are all junkies, lots of housing complexes contain junkies which ruin it for everyone, different thing.

    I've been in those complexes and I wouldn't fancy living in one, the poorest in our society live there.

    Where did I say they have lots of money, I said some people in Social Housing have more disposable income than those paying mortgages.

    Where did I say they live the high life?

    You are the one saying everyone in Social Housing is poor.

    You have a disgraceful view of social housing and a disgraceful view of people in general


  • Advertisement
  • #4711
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    And how will value be accessed? Over estimated by a fair way no doubt. Its one thing putting a price on a house to sell it, its another to get that price in the sale.

    And you say the property tax soon will be liked to income. How? A home bought 10 years ago may have no link to whether the owner has an income now or not. And many will just have state pensions.
    .

    Surely, your first paragraph demonstrates you understood the point I made - so why do you try to deliberatly mis-understand the point in the second paragraph :confused:


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    So how does the home owners tax relate to income level? Thats a contradiction to posters saying it would be a steady income.

    Steady because ability to pay does not matter.

    .

    Not a contradiction - you seem to be just getting confused by the difference between a steady income for the state vs a steady income for a homeowner.

    robbie7730 wrote: »
    It does not have to be undrivable. Just not used on public roads. If a person loses their job, they may not need the car for a while. .

    Yep, so it's undrivable for all practical purposes - unless you're proposing driving it around your back garden?

    robbie7730 wrote: »
    The difference is though francis, a renter and a home owner can both fully live in a house, avail of all services, but only one pays the tax. It will likely be passed on, but they are not liable. .

    Well that was actually the point I was making - you were the one who suggested that owning a home and therfore being liable for this tax was 'not a choice'.

    You're quite simple wrong to suggest this.





    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Thats the whole point francis. Renters dont have to pay. Yet avail of the same services. Descrimination as mentioned. However, owning dogs is optional. .

    You seem very confused on the points you are trying to make - are you trying to say it's unfair because you can't avoid paying it, or it's unfair because you can avoid paying it?

    You really can't argue both sides of the same point in the same post without looking silly.


  • #4712
    Jimmy Bottlehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,121 ✭✭✭✭Jimmy Bottlehead


    Anyone else hear one of Ray D'Arcy's listeners suggestions this morning?

    Instead of paying the Household Charge, pay it to Crumlin Childrens Hospital instead, then send the receipt to the Government.

    Much as I love the idea, I can't see it being accepted, no matter how many people do it. Would be excellent though.


  • #4713
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Where did I say they have lots of money, I said some people in Social Housing have more disposable income than those paying mortgages.

    Where did I say they live the high life?

    You are the one saying everyone in Social Housing is poor.

    You have a disgraceful view of social housing and a disgraceful view of people in general

    Ignoring your last sentence of a slur, you said:

    "A lot of them do have it good", nice generalisation. My view is a view from the ground not from some ivory tower. They are exempt for a reason, they cannot afford it.


  • #4714
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gurramok wrote: »
    Ignoring your last sentence of a slur, you said:

    "A lot of them do have it good", nice generalisation. My view is a view from the ground not from some ivory tower. They are exempt for a reason, they cannot afford it.

    If you want to speak of generalisations I direct you to the part in bold above. There are some in Social Housing that can afford €100, however, you seem to think that this is not the case and everyone in Social Housing is poor which by the way is an extremely silly and shameful generalisation.

    You talk about Ivory Towers and you then claim everyone in Social Housing is poor and a junkie, well seems to me the only one with a view that could be gained from an Ivory Tower is you.


  • #4715
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    donalg1 wrote: »
    If you want to speak of generalisations I direct you to the part in bold above. There are some in Social Housing that can afford €100, however, you seem to think that this is not the case and everyone in Social Housing is poor which by the way is an extremely silly and shameful generalisation.

    You talk about Ivory Towers and you then claim everyone in Social Housing is poor and a junkie, well seems to me the only one with a view that could be gained from an Ivory Tower is you.

    So you think people who live in deprived areas are wealthy?:rolleyes:

    I never said everyone in social housing is a junkie, point that out?

    I said they have to live amongst junkies who ruin it for everyone.


  • #4716
    daithi84
    Registered Users Posts: 197 ✭✭daithi84


    No i will not pay it as i pay €2200 a year in management fees and the council doesnt provide me with anything!!


  • Advertisement
  • #4717
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gurramok wrote: »
    donalg1 wrote: »
    If you want to speak of generalisations I direct you to the part in bold above. There are some in Social Housing that can afford €100, however, you seem to think that this is not the case and everyone in Social Housing is poor which by the way is an extremely silly and shameful generalisation.

    You talk about Ivory Towers and you then claim everyone in Social Housing is poor and a junkie, well seems to me the only one with a view that could be gained from an Ivory Tower is you.

    So you think people who live in deprived areas are wealthy?:rolleyes:

    I never said everyone in social housing is a junkie, point that out?

    I said they have to live amongst junkies who ruin it for everyone.

    So social housing is only located in deprived areas? Ever heard of Part V?

    Everyone lives amongst people with addictions it is not solely a problem of social housing estates.

    Way off topic now though.


  • #4718
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Who pays the tax for people on the affordable housing scheme? The government own half the property...


  • #4719
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    donalg1 wrote: »
    So social housing is only located in deprived areas? Ever heard of Part V?

    Everyone lives amongst people with addictions it is not solely a problem of social housing estates.

    Way off topic now though.

    Most are located in deprived areas. Its only in the last 10years or so where the policy shifted to move social housing into mixed communities. It hasn't achieved a widespread mix yet, it will takes years.

    Anyway, we just have to agree to disagree on why council tenants are excluded from the charge.


  • #4720
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    black francis wrote: »
    Surely, your first paragraph demonstrates you understood the point I made - so why do you try to deliberatly mis-understand the point in the second paragraph :confused:
    Originally Posted by black francis
    Originally Posted by robbie7730
    Income earners are making a profit. Generally having an income is an advantage. The income tax paid is ralated to the income level. The home owners tax is not. Its simply a poll tax, but targeted at a certain sector. .

    It will be soon.

    That seems to suggest you think the property tax will be linked to income.
    if not, perhaps you can explain what soon will be then? You highlighted the section of the quote yourself to reply to it.
    Not a contradiction - you seem to be just getting confused by the difference between a steady income for the state vs a steady income for a homeowner.
    If you claim the property tax is linked to the owners income, then also claiming the property tax will be a steady income is a contradiction.

    I know its not linked. But you seem to have posted that it "soon will be". That is a contradictory statement, to a steady property tax income.

    Yep, so it's undrivable for all practical purposes - unless you're proposing driving it around your back garden?
    unless you effectivly make the car 'un-drivable' but that would be a bit silly now woundn't it?
    That suggests you meant do something to it so it wont drive. My one is in the garden, not taxed since dec, i did not have to make it undrivable. Whats silly about that. You compared it to property tax, not me.

    If i own a home but dont use it, do i pay? if so, the comparrison is gone.

    But the car thing is another item. We all need somewhere to live.

    Well that was actually the point I was making - you were the one who suggested that owning a home and therfore being liable for this tax was 'not a choice'.

    You're quite simple wrong to suggest this.

    No, i asked is a home optional now, as in a place to live.
    Here is the quote again, maybe careful reading will tell you that.
    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Most people need a home. Is a home optional now? A dog licence is €20. Hardly much of a comparison.

    See where it says "is a home an option now", that means somewhere to live, its not saying people must own their own homes.


    You seem very confused on the points you are trying to make - are you trying to say it's unfair because you can't avoid paying it, or it's unfair because you can avoid paying it?

    I was taking up the point about discrimination in this mini debate. Read the post it started with, and carefully this time.
    You really can't argue both sides of the same point in the same post without looking silly.
    Similar to linking dog licences and VAT, with home owners tax, in a discrimination comparison i suppose.


  • #4721
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    smash wrote: »
    Who pays the tax for people on the affordable housing scheme? The government own half the property...

    No they dont, affordable housing is the same as a Mortgage from a bank, the shared ownership scheme is different however and probably what you are thinking of and those that bought houses through the Shared Ownership Scheme are exempt.


  • Advertisement
  • #4722
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gurramok wrote: »
    Most are located in deprived areas. Its only in the last 10years or so where the policy shifted to move social housing into mixed communities. It hasn't achieved a widespread mix yet, it will takes years.

    Anyway, we just have to agree to disagree on why council tenants are excluded from the charge.

    I think thats for the best, I do agree with you on some points in so far as a lot of social tenants are marginalised by society but not all are living in poverty, and there are some benefits to living in Social Housing compared to private rented accommodation.


  • #4723
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,267 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    dvpower wrote: »
    Is this the suggestion that because it can't be paid at the post office, its more difficult for old people?

    Yes. This is certainly the lowest point that any government in the history of the state has ever sunk to.:rolleyes:

    Just stand back and watch this shower sink even lower.
    Angela and Nicky will be well pleased.


  • #4724
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,267 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    black francis wrote: »
    Income tax discriminates against income earners.
    Motor tax discriminates against car owners.
    TV license fee discriminates against tv owners
    Dog license fee discriminates against dog owners
    VAT discriminates against consumers.

    Enjoyed reading through the last few pages this morning - seems like the anti-tax crowd are becoming increasing hysterical as the deadline approaches.

    I think the Pro Tax crowd are absolutely hysterical. Did you not see the baldy lad on the news the other night threatening all sorts of things he has NO power to carry out. I had a great laugh at him.


  • #4725
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,267 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    gurramok wrote: »
    Thats so far and yes some have been scaremongered into not paying. It ain't March 31st yet.

    Beware the Ides of March Gurramok.


  • #4726
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    That seems to suggest you think the property tax will be linked to income.
    if not, perhaps you can explain what soon will be then? You highlighted the section of the quote yourself to reply to it.


    If you claim the property tax is linked to the owners income, then also claiming the property tax will be a steady income is a contradiction.

    I know its not linked. But you seem to have posted that it "soon will be". That is a contradictory statement, to a steady property tax income..

    I never claimed property tax would be linked to someone's income, but it will be linked with either site value or property value. This was in response to the point you had made that the charge was the same for everyone - therefore unfair.
    robbie7730 wrote: »
    That suggests you meant do something to it so it wont drive. My one is in the garden, not taxed since dec, i did not have to make it undrivable. Whats silly about that. You compared it to property tax, not me.


    If i own a home but dont use it, do i pay? if so, the comparrison is gone.

    But the car thing is another item. We all need somewhere to live. ..


    I'm really bored of this argument - talk about getting bogged down in semantics
    robbie7730 wrote: »
    No, i asked is a home optional now, as in a place to live.
    Here is the quote again, maybe careful reading will tell you that.



    See where it says "is a home an option now", that means somewhere to live, its not saying people must own their own homes. ..

    No - you said "is a home an option now" in the context that while a motor tax/dog liscense is avoidable, the property tax wasn't.

    The property tax is avoidable - because while we "all need a home" we don't all need to own one.


  • #4727
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    donalg1 wrote: »

    Way off topic now though.

    Its amazing for such a long thread, it has stayed generally in line.


  • #4728
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    black francis wrote: »


    No - you said "is a home an option now" in the context that while a motor tax/dog liscense is avoidable, the property tax wasn't.

    The property tax is avoidable - because while we "all need a home" we don't all need to own one.

    So, it is discriminating against home owners v renters, who use the same services then? Glad we have that sorted.


  • #4729
    Am Chile
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭Am Chile


    dvpower wrote: »
    Is this the suggestion that because it can't be paid at the post office, its more difficult for old people?

    Yes. This is certainly the lowest point that any government in the history of the state has ever sunk to.:rolleyes:

    Todays story reads many pensioners are afraid if they refuse to pay the household tax they will be evicted from their homes and placed into state care, so Il repeat what I said in my last post the goverment have sunk a new low Intimidating eldery people like this.


  • #4730
    lividduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,250 ✭✭✭lividduck


    Am Chile wrote: »
    Todays story reads many pensioners are afraid if they refuse to pay the household tax they will be evicted from their homes and placed into state care, so Il repeat what I said in my last post the goverment have sunk a new low Intimidating eldery people like this.
    If the eldery are afraid of being evicted it is NOT the governments fault, rather it is the fault of certain sections of the Anti-charge campaign who purposely are creating a false fear.
    Place the blame where it belongs with the scaremongerers.


  • #4731
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,267 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    lividduck wrote: »
    If the eldery are afraid of being evicted it is NOT the governments fault, rather it is the fault of certain sections of the Anti-charge campaign who purposely are creating a false fear.
    Place the blame where it belongs with the scaremongerers.

    What about that baldy lad on the 6.01 news threatening all sorts of things he has no power to do, like using the E.S.B. to get details of people's accounts ?


  • Advertisement
  • #4732
    Am Chile
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭Am Chile


    lividduck wrote: »
    If the eldery are afraid of being evicted it is NOT the governments fault, rather it is the fault of certain sections of the Anti-charge campaign who purposely are creating a false fear.
    Place the blame where it belongs with the scaremongerers.

    At no public meeting was there ever any such talk telling eldery people about evictions for non payment, it came from the pro household tax side not the other way around.


  • #4733
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Am Chile wrote: »
    Todays story reads many pensioners are afraid if they refuse to pay the household tax they will be evicted from their homes and placed into state care, so Il repeat what I said in my last post the goverment have sunk a new low Intimidating eldery people like this.
    Where exactly have the government said or insinuated that elderly people "will be evicted from their homes and placed into state care"?


  • #4734
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    tayto lover wrote: »
    What about that baldy lad on the 6.01 news threatening all sorts of things he has no power to do, like using the E.S.B. to get details of people's accounts ?
    He never said anything about forcing pensioners into state care nor anything like it.

    He did say that he would be getting details from ESB bills - they are in talks with the ESB and the Data Protection Commissioner to do just that. That's not scaremongering - its just laying out the facts.


  • #4735
    Am Chile
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭Am Chile


    dvpower wrote: »
    Where exactly have the government said or insinuated that elderly people "will be evicted from their homes and placed into state care"?

    Ask that to some eldery people who feel Intimidated about being evicted for non payment.


  • #4736
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Am Chile wrote: »
    At no public meeting was there ever any such talk telling eldery people about evictions for non payment, it came from the pro household tax side not the other way around.
    Can you show us where the government have said that people are going to be evicted from their homes if they don't pay.


  • #4737
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Am Chile wrote: »
    Ask that to some eldery people who feel Intimidated about being evicted for non payment.
    I'm asking you. You made the claim.


  • #4738
    Rabidlamb
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,202 ✭✭✭Rabidlamb


    lividduck wrote: »
    If the eldery are afraid of being evicted it is NOT the governments fault, rather it is the fault of certain sections of the Anti-charge campaign who purposely are creating a false fear.
    Place the blame where it belongs with the scaremongerers.

    Most of the elderly aren't as dothery as they let on, if the tag buys them another few weeks of government indecision they'll gladly wear it while Skyping their grandkids from Lanzorotte.
    I'm speaking about my mother-in-law here, buy you & sell you she would.


  • #4739
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,267 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Rabidlamb wrote: »
    Most of the elderly aren't as dothery as they let on, if the tag buys them another few weeks of government indecision they'll gladly wear it while Skyping their grandkids from Lanzorotte.
    I'm speaking about my mother-in-law here, buy you & sell you she would.

    Good woman. I hope she's around to vote in the next General Election so we can send this shower into obscurity just like the shower before them.


  • #4740
    bladespin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,368 ✭✭✭bladespin


    http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/govt-holding-firm-on-household-charge-543659.html


    "The Government has refused to scrap the household charge despite a High Court ruling that legislation bringing in the tax was unconstitutional."

    From another thread, thought you might be interested.
    Untitled Image

    MasteryDarts Ireland - Master your game!



  • Advertisement
  • #4741
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,267 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    dvpower wrote: »
    He never said anything about forcing pensioners into state care nor anything like it.

    He did say that he would be getting details from ESB bills - they are in talks with the ESB and the Data Protection Commissioner to do just that. That's not scaremongering - its just laying out the facts.

    Ruari Quinn now threatening to take people to court.
    Now that is a threat. Where did the bit where it would be attached to your house when you try to sell it go ?
    http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/govt-holding-firm-on-household-charge-543659.html


  • #4742
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    So, it is discriminating against home owners v renters, who use the same services then? Glad we have that sorted.

    Please refer to a post of mine where I suggested otherwise - seriously any post will do!

    I think you've spectactularly missed the point here, either that or you're trying to build up some strawmen and then claim that you've somehow 'won' some pointless argument.

    Of course it's 'discriminating' - it's a ****ing tax directed at homeowners - how could it not be 'discriminating' - lots of other taxes are discriminating as well, as I pointed out in my original reply which started this bs argument.

    You're the one who came in and said that while other taxes were discriminatory, they were avoidable, whereas needing a home was not avoidable.

    So you weren't arguing with me about the tax being 'dicriminatory' or not, you were arguing that you somehow couldn't avoid this tax.

    Go back and read your posts again - I really can't be arsed doing any more copy and pasting.


  • #4743
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Ruari Quinn now threatening to take people to court.
    Now that is a threat. Where did the bit where it would be attached to your house when you try to sell it go ?
    The legislation hasn't changed at all. :confused:


  • #4744
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Ruari Quinn now threatening to take people to court.
    Now that is a threat. Where did the bit where it would be attached to your house when you try to sell it go ?
    http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/govt-holding-firm-on-household-charge-543659.html
    Where in that article has Ruairi Quinn threatened to take people to court?

    The only line in the article referring to court was written by the author, it's not a quote from Quinn.


  • #4745
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Am Chile wrote: »
    Todays story reads many pensioners are afraid if they refuse to pay the household tax they will be evicted from their homes and placed into state care, so Il repeat what I said in my last post the goverment have sunk a new low Intimidating eldery people like this.

    Quoting the Daily Fail is not good for your argument. Try one of the mainstream non-sensationalist papers instead.


  • #4746
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    gurramok wrote: »
    Quoting the Daily Fail is not good for your argument. Try one of the mainstream non-sensationalist papers instead.
    At least this provides some insight as to how people manage to get completely incorrect information into their heads, like the conscription fears about the Lisbon treaty.


  • Advertisement
  • #4747
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,267 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    seamus wrote: »
    Where in that article has Ruairi Quinn threatened to take people to court?

    The only line in the article referring to court was written by the author, it's not a quote from Quinn.

    Householders have until March 31 to register and the Government has warned that those who fail to pay up will be summoned to court.
    Quinn is part of the Govt. even if he didn't say it himself.


  • #4748
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Yes, but the article gives absolutely no source or context for this "warning". For all you know it was a warning given 3 months ago, not yesterday.


  • #4749
    trooney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,268 ✭✭✭trooney


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Householders have until March 31 to register and the Government has warned that those who fail to pay up will be summoned to court.
    Quinn is part of the Govt. even if he didn't say it himself.

    If the legislation has been deemed unconstitutional does that pave the way for legal challenges to not only the household charge itself, but being summonsed for lack of payment?


  • #4750
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    trooney wrote: »
    If the legislation has been deemed unconstitutional does that pave the way for legal challenges to not only the household charge itself, but being summonsed for lack of payment?
    Strictly speaking it doesn't provide a legal avenue to challenge actually paying the household charge, it only provides a legal avenue whereby someone can argue that it is not due on 31st March because an Irish translation of the law has not been made available within a reasonable timeframe.

    The law then effectively only applies when an Irish translation has been made available. Basically meaning that the Government would have to give a new deadline date for payment of the charge and would be unable to levy penalties or late fees on anyone who paid after 31st March.

    It's a petty and pointless requirement of the law, but it's there so it can't be ignored. The last government got egg on their face over an identical blunder, you'd think the DOJ would have learned by now :rolleyes:


  • #4751
    tin79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭tin79


    seamus wrote: »
    It's a petty and pointless requirement of the law, but it's there so it can't be ignored.

    I am no fan of the Irish language myself but I dont think its petty and pointless. Those who choose to speak the native language have a right to have legislation provided in that language IMO.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement