New Household Tax - Boycott

Liam Byrne · 28-07-2011 6:05pm

murphaph wrote: »

Last time I looked it cost the same amount to send a letter from the arse end of nowhere to the arse end of nowhere as it did to send one inside a large urban area with its own sorting office. Be careful with the urban/rural cost of service provision comparisons

Define this "arse end of nowhere" lark.....it's trotted out so often on here by pompous Dubs, and I can think of nowhere that fits that description better than a the back of a soul-less housing estate.

I'd walk to the nearest shopping centre from here quicker than someone at the back of a housing estate in Tallaght or Swords would.

martingriff · 28-07-2011 6:17pm

While I sympathise with people who have paid stamp duty allready on there houses/apartments and should be subsitised for a while. But with the water charges I think everyone should pay IT DOES COST (contary to what you may believe) and some people do pay water charges be it company rates and water schemes. My parents pay water charges they are meterd on a water scheme

murphaph · 28-07-2011 6:36pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Define this "arse end of nowhere" lark.....it's trotted out so often on here by pompous Dubs, and I can think of nowhere that fits that description better than a the back of a soul-less housing estate.

I'd walk to the nearest shopping centre from here quicker than someone at the back of a housing estate in Tallaght or Swords would.

You know what I mean Liam. It's cheaper to provide a postal service to that soul-less estate in Swords or Tallaght OR any estate in a NON-DUBLIN urban area than to provide same to isolated rural dwellings!!

This is a simple matter of fact.

I was not making any particular points for or against rural housing, just reminding the poster that he would be well advised to be careful before claiming that rural dwellers would have particular cause for complaint wrt this tax.

I think you confused "rural" with "outside Dublin" Liam

.

Fulton Crown · 28-07-2011 7:01pm

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Look pal...your on a looser and you know it.

Do you not realise that as a country we have been bailed out by our European partners.

Part of the condition of this bail out is the introduction of a property tax.

The one question the lefties never answer is what would have happened if we had not got the bail out.
No money to pay Guards/Civil Servants/Teachers/Fire services etc...a run on the banks...empty ATM'S.

The country decends into chaos........enter The Stickies and their fellow travellers......

Exit the Multinationals and anyone with a bit o sense.........

Interesting to see they are still not answering !

RobitTV · 28-07-2011 8:16pm

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Look pal...your on a looser and you know it.

Do you not realise that as a country we have been bailed out by our European partners.

Part of the condition of this bail out is the introduction of a property tax.

The one question the lefties never answer is what would have happened if we had not got the bail out.

No money to pay Guards/Civil Servants/Teachers/Fire services etc...a run on the banks...empty ATM'S.

The country decends into chaos........enter The Stickies and their fellow travellers......

Exit the Multinationals and anyone with a bit o sense.........

Well im not against the Bailout at all, we needed the money badly to save the country and i fully understand that.

But increasing tax's and adding pressure on people who cannot afford to give more money, Is just not a Good idea.

The only positive is people on Social may get a reduction on how much they have to pay, but they will still have to contribute something.

If the goverment want's to increase tax's, They need to raise employment first, So people can actually pay it and not struggle.

At the moment its just not possible, i couldn't see people paying it on time, and some at all.

nesf · 28-07-2011 8:40pm

RobitTV wrote: »

Well im not against the Bailout at all, we needed the money badly to save the country and i fully understand that.

But increasing tax's and adding pressure on people who cannot afford to give more money, Is just not a Good idea.

The only positive is people on Social may get a reduction on how much they have to pay, but they will still have to contribute something.

If the goverment want's to increase tax's, They need to raise employment first, So people can actually pay it and not struggle.

At the moment its just not possible, i couldn't see people paying it on time, and some at all.

Unemployment will take many, many years to come down fully, we can't wait that long to sort out the deficit unfortunately. The Government doesn't have any choice but to cut spending and raise taxes.

bmaxi · 29-07-2011 11:24am

Why is the Government paying €750 million to unsecured bond holders this year if we are that urgently in need of cash? As far as I remember something in the same amount was paid last year. That would cover this household charge until a more equitable system is arrived at.

oscarBravo · 29-07-2011 11:51am

bmaxi wrote: »

Why is the Government paying €750 million to unsecured bond holders this year if we are that urgently in need of cash?

Are you working on the assumption that there would be no negative consequences to not paying the bondholders?

bmaxi · 29-07-2011 12:00pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you working on the assumption that there would be no negative consequences to not paying the bondholders?

If you have a definitive answer let's have it, instead of engaging in condescension.

oscarBravo · 29-07-2011 12:03pm

bmaxi wrote: »

If you have a definitive answer let's have it, instead of engaging in condescension.

I wasn't engaging in condescension (or offering a definitive answer), I was asking a question.

bmaxi · 29-07-2011 12:04pm

keithob wrote: »

will people get this bondholders malarky out of there heads........

the eu / imf and bondholders are in this for money and noting else.

I want to know the answer. I can understand why people covered by the State's, IMO insane, bank guarantee, having to be paid but not those who are not.

oscarBravo · 29-07-2011 12:09pm

bmaxi wrote: »

I want to know the answer. I can understand why people covered by the State's, IMO insane, bank guarantee, having to be paid but not those who are not.

OK, so you are working on the assumption that there would be no negative consequences to the state refusing to pay its debts, albeit unsecured debts, at a time when our credit rating is already in the crapper.

bastados · 29-07-2011 12:13pm

2010 is when the slave class replaced the working class...no money and a very dried up sense of humour...we are donkeys now.

OhNoYouDidn't · 29-07-2011 12:50pm

nesf wrote: »

Unemployment will take many, many years to come down fully, we can't wait that long to sort out the deficit unfortunately. The Government doesn't have any choice but to cut spending and raise taxes.

So let them raise taxes.

What is this obsesstion they have with keeping progressive personal taxes lower and introducing regressive indirect taxes?

I am a middle earning private sector worker who has gotten progressively better off as a result of these budgets. 2% more on my higher PAYE band is fair and affordable, and will make a serious dent on the defecit.

Instead I have to pay thousands in property tax on an apartment I paid stamp duty on and water charges that I already pay in my management fees.

bmaxi · 29-07-2011 12:51pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, so you are working on the assumption that there would be no negative consequences to the state refusing to pay its debts, albeit unsecured debts, at a time when our credit rating is already in the crapper.

I don't know, that's why I asked.

What you are saying is, unsecured investments are actually secured investments, we're just pretending they are not. It would appear "caveat emptor" applies to everybody except these bondholders and I'd like a definitive answer as to why that should be the case.
If nothing else, it seems to be a dangerous precedent to set.

oscarBravo · 29-07-2011 1:26pm

bmaxi wrote: »

What you are saying is, unsecured investments are actually secured investments, we're just pretending they are not.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we could default on our unsecured debts, but that doesn't mean we should.

If I have a mortgage secured on my house, but a personal loan without security, do you think I can just decide not to pay off the personal loan with zero consequences? What do you suppose it would do to my credit rating?

dave1982 · 29-07-2011 1:29pm

RedXIV wrote: »

As another someone with 2 kids, I sympathise. but I'm not gonna get thrown out of my house for an extra €9 a month

will you keep saying its just 9 euro,when they raise it every year?

I agree with the OP

I'm not paying:)

OhNoYouDidn't · 29-07-2011 1:33pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we could default on our unsecured debts, but that doesn't mean we should.

If I have a mortgage secured on my house, but a personal loan without security, do you think I can just decide not to pay off the personal loan with zero consequences? What do you suppose it would do to my credit rating?

Thats a bad analogy. What happens if they are your neighbours unsecured loans and you got cajoled into taking them on under false pretences?

alphabeat · 29-07-2011 1:36pm

FOR SALE:

Large island farm , containing 4.5 million highly productive, blinkered sheep .
all good tempered and easly pliable.

contact E.Kenny
Dublin

oscarBravo · 29-07-2011 1:41pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats a bad analogy. What happens if they are your neighbours unsecured loans and you got cajoled into taking them on under false pretences?

OK - so you believe that we can default on the unsecured bondholders without negative consequences?

zebrafumbler · 29-07-2011 1:46pm

This is one thing the right and left can agree on. Boycott this tax.

OhNoYouDidn't · 29-07-2011 1:47pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK - so you believe that we can default on the unsecured bondholders without negative consequences?

No, not after the treasonous decision to socialise private losses.

But I do believe that the consequences of 'burning' bondholders will be considerably less traumatic than continuing on the current course.

bmaxi · 29-07-2011 2:52pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we could default on our unsecured debts, but that doesn't mean we should.

If I have a mortgage secured on my house, but a personal loan without security, do you think I can just decide not to pay off the personal loan with zero consequences? What do you suppose it would do to my credit rating?

Surely the institution or person advancing an unsecured would be aware, by the very terminology, there is a risk that all or some of the loan might not be repaid. I'd imagine unsecured loans would attract a higher premium too.
It just appears to me that goalposts can be shifted by one side and not the other. It's easy for our politicians to commit money which is not theirs. I heard one Minister whining that they had already taken a 20% pay cut, not such a big deal when you are paying yourself 200% of the going rate for the job, plus expenses every time you wipe your arse.

!3theraven · 29-07-2011 3:13pm

Just read through most of the posts on this thread, for the very small few that seem happy to pay a property tax, what you don,t realize if you consent to pay anything in the form on property you already own whether it be an apartment or house, you are really consenting to recognize you re no longer the true landlord of your own property and that the goverment and local council are the landlord over your property now, which sets a dangerous precedent, if we all were to accept a property tax when it goes up every year, for those whose income who couldn,t afford the increases, the local council would have power to evict someone from their own property, that,s if you actually want to recognize the local council as your landlord, do you?

View · 29-07-2011 3:18pm

!3theraven wrote: »

Just read through most of the posts on this thread, for the very small few that seem happy to pay a property tax, what you don,t realize if you consent to pay anything in the form on property you already own whether it be an apartment or house, you are really consenting to recognize you re no longer the true landlord of your own property and that the goverment and local council and the landlord over your property now, which sets a dangerous precedent, if we all were to accept a property tax when it goes up every year, for those whose income who couldn,t afford the increases, the local council would have power to evict someone from their own property, that,s if you actually want to recognize the local council as your landlord, do you?

So, if you own a car and pay your car tax, the government really own your car? And presumably they own your TV if you pay your TV license? Do they also own your income if you pay income tax?

!3theraven · 29-07-2011 3:33pm

View wrote: »

So, if you own a car and pay your car tax, the government really own your car? And presumably they own your TV if you pay your TV license? Do they also own your income if you pay income tax?

Motor tax goes towards the upkeep of roads,if I don,t pay it, the goverment don,t have the power to take away my car, tv licence I don,t pay it, don,t use tv, watch everything on my pc,You pay motor tax to be legally allowed to use the car on the public roads. You can have a hundred cars and not pay a cent in motor tax if you do not use them on the public road.
Your motor tax/property tax comparison fails.

but back to this property tax and Il be specfic.

I wonder if anyone can tell me the difference between property taxes and rent?If I rent an apartment, I have to pay a tax – which is called rent – to stay in that apartment.Likewise, if I live on my own land, in my own house, I also have to pay rent – which is called a tax – a property tax – to stay on that land and in that house.

So is there any difference between rent and property tax?
Well, as far as I can tell, no there is not.
Let’s qualify this…
If I cease to pay my rent to my landlord for his apartment, the consequences of that action are for the landlord to evict me, with the city and state government’s support, of course. This I understand, for it is not my property for which I am living.

But what about my own land and home? The home that I might own outright, having paid all debt owed for that land and home? What if I cease to pay my rent (in the form of property taxes) to my landlord (who is the government) What will happen?
Well, as far as I know, the government will have the power to evict me from my own home who I am the landlord of.So is this a tax, or is it rent.

Lets go even further and call it for what it really is… extortion. Plain and simple.For through eminent domain, if a property tax is not resisted the goverment can take my property anytime you want. Just like a landlord can sell his property and kick you out of your apartment, anytime he likes.that,s if people choose to give the goverment a foot in the door with this property tax.

OhNoYouDidn't · 29-07-2011 3:37pm

View wrote: »

So, if you own a car and pay your car tax, the government really own your car? And presumably they own your TV if you pay your TV license? Do they also own your income if you pay income tax?

I think what he is getting at is that if you don't pay your property tax they can take away your home, like they can your car.

murphaph · 29-07-2011 3:48pm

!3theraven wrote: »

Motor tax goes towards the upkeep of roads,if I don,t pay it, the goverment don,t have the power to take away my car

I think you'll find they actually do.

A property tax does not mean you are now some sort of tenant. You cannot be evicted for failure to pay it. You can be prosecuted for failure to pay and a court could theoretically order that the debt be repaid through the forced sale of your home, but this theoretically applies to ANY debt.

!3theraven · 29-07-2011 3:57pm

murphaph wrote: »

I think you'll find they actually do.

A property tax does not mean you are now some sort of tenant. You cannot be evicted for failure to pay it. You can be prosecuted for failure to pay and a court could theoretically order that the debt be repaid through the forced sale of your home, but this theoretically applies to ANY debt.

exactly my point, if they are given the power to sell someones home,that person is no longer the rightful owner of that home, if the goverment are given that power,by the way how can someone have debt when they never signed any contract? with regards to this property tax, Im refering to contract law.

ei.sdraob · 29-07-2011 4:08pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK - so you believe that we can default on the unsecured bondholders without negative consequences?

No, not after the treasonous decision to socialise private losses.

But I do believe that the consequences of 'burning' bondholders will be considerably less traumatic than continuing on the current course.

Greece defaulted,the world did not end,if anything they got more money loaned to them out of fear,we could learn a thing or two

murphaph · 29-07-2011 4:17pm

!3theraven wrote: »

exactly my point, if they are given the power to sell someones home,that person is no longer the rightful owner of that home, if the goverment are given that power,by the way how can someone have debt when they never signed any contract? with regards to this property tax, Im refering to contract law.

I don't have to sign any contracts to incur debt. Don't know where you get that from tbh. If I eat a mars bar in a shop I am endebted a euro to the shop owner-never signed a contract though.

ei.sdraob · 29-07-2011 4:20pm

murphaph wrote: »

!3theraven wrote: »

exactly my point, if they are given the power to sell someones home,that person is no longer the rightful owner of that home, if the goverment are given that power,by the way how can someone have debt when they never signed any contract? with regards to this property tax, Im refering to contract law.

I don't have to sign any contracts to incur debt. Don't know where you get that from tbh. If I eat a mars bar in a shop I am endebted a euro to the shop owner-never signed a contract though.

If someone else eats the mars bar and walks out the door with a sack of chocolate how would you feel if the debt fell on you

bmaxi · 29-07-2011 4:23pm

murphaph wrote: »

I think you'll find they actually do.

A property tax does not mean you are now some sort of tenant. You cannot be evicted for failure to pay it. You can be prosecuted for failure to pay and a court could theoretically order that the debt be repaid through the forced sale of your home, but this theoretically applies to ANY debt.

What it does is impose a lien on the property, you can't sell or presumably remortgage the property unless the tax is paid. Of course there was a time when they couldn't seize your car for non payment of tax either, these things can change.
I'm deeply disappointed at the role of the Labour party in this Government, they have become the new Greens and presumably will suffer the same fate. Joan Burton was the vociferous champion of the homeowner when it came to the iniquitous management companies, she's not doing much shouting now and we still have the management companies.

murphaph · 29-07-2011 4:48pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

If someone else eats the mars bar and walks out the door with a sack of chocolate how would you feel if the debt fell on you

Obviously not very good.

I don't know what point you're trying to make tbh.

I am not in favour of increasing the amount of tax paid overall, just in favour of altering where those taxes are raised from. Hey, I'm a non-resident landlord guys. I pay income taxes in Germany and property and rent related income taxes in Ireland. These taxes will hit me harder than most but I know that we should not be taxing the balls off income as it's a disincentive to work.

I believe that the highest priority should not be figuring out new taxes however, rather finding ways to reduce current spending, then we should turn our attention to developing a stable tax base for the future of our country. A stable tax base includes property taxation and excludes windfall VAT and stamp duty receipts and the income taxes of overpaid block-layers and labourers.

That's all I'm saying.

!3theraven · 29-07-2011 4:59pm

murphaph wrote: »

I don't have to sign any contracts to incur debt. Don't know where you get that from tbh. If I eat a mars bar in a shop I am endebted a euro to the shop owner-never signed a contract though.

If you eat a mars bar in a shop you owe a euro,because the mars bar is the shopkeepers property until a custumer buys it, whe people bought their homes they already paid a property tax in the form of stamp duty, that would of being part of the original contract, what was not part of the original contract when most people bought their homes, was yearly property taxes and the fact these taxes can Increase every year, so no contract, no payment, the idea of property tax with they can resell your home to collect debt you don,t owe, is akin to a protection money racket, if I was a shopkeeper and someone one day came into the shop demanded a monthly or yearly sum of money (without a contract) and said if you pay everything be ok for you, if not we will torch the place. same analogy with a property tax.

View · 29-07-2011 5:20pm

!3theraven wrote: »

by the way how can someone have debt when they never signed any contract?

By act of the Oireachtas. Here for instance is a quotation concerning the property tax the Oireachtas has already introduced:

The NPPR Charge

The Local Government (Charges) Act 2009 introduces a €200 annual charge on non principal private residences, payable by the owners to the local authority in whose area the property concerned is located.

It is akin to arguing that you don't owe income tax because you never signed a contract to pay it.

RandomName2 · 29-07-2011 5:28pm

bkeano wrote: »

Hi all Boardies

Can we all please make a stance here and get our non boardies to do the same. Enough is Enough We should not pay this new household Tax. Its the same as the Poll tax in the UK. I am an normal Joe Soap with 2 kids. I cant pay any more Taxes. I can afford it as it is. I am lucky to have my Job.

We need to mount a serious objection here and nationwide.

thanks
Brian

I wouldn't even be against an emergency (temporary) poll tax that a defined end, and could not be hiked up, that was not means tested, and was reasonable. As it stands it looks like it is going to be a permanent money earner for the government. I don't think I remember this in the FG manifesto. :rolleyes:

Overheal · 29-07-2011 5:31pm

dev100 wrote: »

Technically if the water is sourced underground then its not yours. You may end up having to pay it

Strange logic, but no, you would not have to end up paying for it. The Water metering will go to pay for operating the water grid. Your well is not on the water grid. Therefore, no metering.

alejandro1977 · 29-07-2011 6:06pm

keithob wrote: »

will people get this bondholders malarky out of there heads........

the eu / imf and bondholders are in this for money and noting else.

you people are so hung up on bondholders - there is a huge deficit there anyway, how do you propose closing the difference between income and expenditure?

thebman · 29-07-2011 6:21pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK - so you believe that we can default on the unsecured bondholders without negative consequences?

Well our credit rating has already been downgraded so there is a logic that the defaulting on some bond payments has already been factored in.

If they don't want this to be the case or thought it wouldn't be then they would not have downgraded the debt. They obviously feel we are not likely to pay so it won't come as a big surprise to them if we don't.

The consequences are likely to be that we continue with the IMF anyway until they forget about it and then we can go back to the markets as if nothing happened as we will be a good investment again because we won't be over borrowed. In the past we have shown we are a good investment when that is the case. If it looks like we are heading toward an over borrowing territory again in the future then we will likely see bond yields rise again in the future but then I think we all plan not to end up here again.

Galia · 29-07-2011 6:40pm

So if i do not pay could the government just jail me or seize my home?

Which in a few years will jump to 500 euro and beyond and if you do not pay it you will be jailed and or fined or both and possibly if you refuse your home sold off ?

So everyone is really just renting back there home from the government!!?????

I do not understand how 1 person in this country can support such a thing .

ardmacha · 29-07-2011 7:47pm

So what the government has done really is a massive seizure of everyone's homes and if u want to keep it you have to pay the government a 100 euro tax.
Which in a few years will jump to 500 euro and beyond and if you do not pay it you will be jailed and or fined or both and possibly if you refuse your home sold off ?
So everyone is really just renting back there home from the government!!
I do not understand how 1 person in this country can support such a thing

.

Have you actually read the thread?

ilovesleep · 29-07-2011 7:57pm

alejandro1977 wrote: »

you people are so hung up on bondholders - there is a huge deficit there anyway, how do you propose closing the difference between income and expenditure?

Would the deficit be as large today if the last government were not as occuppied with saving banks and developers?

Galia · 29-07-2011 7:57pm

ardmacha wrote: »

.

Have you actually read the thread?

OK maybe i worded it wrong..... let me start again .
.......
I was basically saying what would be the worse case scenario if a person refused?
If people all over Ireland boycotted this tax Would a person be jailed or fined or a house seized if a failure to pay happened?
Basically would Government taking away someones property..to pay for the tax in a worst case scenario ..?

I will now edit my post so to simplify my point.
I am just so angry that this government is doing this .

bueno · 29-07-2011 8:19pm

sher55 wrote: »

Have u actually read my post?:rolleyes:

I was basically saying what would be the worse case scenario if a person refused?
Would a person be jailed or fined or a house seized if a failure to pay happened.
Basically would Government taking away someones property..to pay for the tax in a worst case scenario ..?
Am i right or wrong ?
I will now edit my post so to simplify my point.
I am just so angry that this government is doing this .

Everyone is angry but the country is f ##ed. The last government have left us in a total mess. Houses won't be seized for €100, so no need for all out panic/drama. I presume they will pursue the unpaid charge the way Revenue would pursue unpaid taxes - sheriff, court proceedings or attaching bank accounts. Saying that, I imagine they will use some discretion if people can show proof of inability to pay. The fact is taxes are going to get higher, wages lower and benefits will drop. The gap between income and expenditure and deficit is too large and has to be dealt with in some way, regardless of whether we are bailing out bondholders or not.

Galia · 29-07-2011 8:22pm

bueno wrote: »

Everyone is angry but the country is f ##ed. The last government have left us in a total mess. Houses won't be seized for €100, so no need for all out panic/drama. I presume they will pursue the unpaid charge the way Revenue would pursue unpaid taxes - sheriff, court proceedings or attaching bank accounts. Saying that, I imagine they will use some discretion if people can show proof of inability to pay. The fact is taxes are going to get higher, wages lower and benefits will drop. The gap between income and expenditure and deficit is too large and has to be dealt with in some way, regardless of whether we are bailing out bondholders or not.

Yes maybe not for 100 euro but these things tend to rise rapidly soon it will go to 500 euro and maybe more.

Bens · 29-07-2011 8:29pm

The backlash seems to be dying down. Will be just like the bin charges. People ranting and raving for a few weeks and then they all bend over to take their medicine in the end. Glad I left tbh.

!3theraven · 30-07-2011 4:50am

sher55 wrote: »

So if i do not pay could the government just jail me or seize my home?

Which in a few years will jump to 500 euro and beyond and if you do not pay it you will be jailed and or fined or both and possibly if you refuse your home sold off ?

So everyone is really just renting back there home from the government!!?????

I do not understand how 1 person in this country can support such a thing .

If you research how property taxes work in the states, if someone refuses to pay, or cannot afford to pay when property tax Increases the local goverment, local council Intervenes and sells the persons OWN PROPERTY off in an auction, and if people don,t resist property taxes here in this country the very same will happen here, and I agree with you how could one person in this country support such a thing?

alejandro1977 · 30-07-2011 10:08am

ilovesleep wrote: »

alejandro1977 wrote: »

you people are so hung up on bondholders - there is a huge deficit there anyway, how do you propose closing the difference between income and expenditure?

Would the deficit be as large today if the last government were not as occuppied with saving banks and developers?

Deficit in current spending? Do you know what current spending is?
yes it would still be unsustainable. Read this forum a little more.

Would you care to put some figures into your argument. Give a guess what the income is and repeat for expenditure.

bmaxi · 30-07-2011 2:59pm

!3theraven wrote: »

If you research how property taxes work in the states, if someone refuses to pay, or cannot afford to pay when property tax Increases the local goverment, local council Intervenes and sells the persons OWN PROPERTY off in an auction, and if people don,t resist property taxes here in this country the very same will happen here, and I agree with you how could one person in this country support such a thing?

I don't think people have actually cottoned on to what this means. This is a tax on your home, it is not a service charge. I have already paid thousands of pounds/euros in taxes on my home so I could own it outright. What this is saying is,I don't own it. It is not like tax on your car, where once you've paid vat or registration tax, the car is yours to do what you like with, any further tax you pay is for access to a public service. This is feudalism by another name.

New Household Tax - Boycott

Comments