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…184185187189190…200

Comments

  • #9302
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    black francis wrote: »

    Still not going to change the underlying problems - There's a big hole in our funding.

    Caused by a bloated, overpaid, underperforming, cosseted PS and their unions.


  • #9303
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    stevedublin wrote: »
    Yes he did, its in the first sentence (2nd line) of the letter you quoted!
    Do you not see a subtle difference between “will get” and “exposing themselves to”?


  • #9304
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    tayto lover wrote: »
    He is going into a "Hold Your Breath" contest in anticipation of a new tax being introduced to replace the failed Household Tax. The new tax is to be called the "Last Gasp Tax"

    The record in the Hold Your Breath contest is 7 days and the current holder is Hulk Hogan who has been holding his breath all week to no avail,

    Na, I heard francis and dv are getting married and selling one of their houses to save on the household tax.:D


  • #9305
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    stevedublin wrote: »
    Yes he did, its in the first sentence (2nd line) of the letter you quoted!

    He says that people expose themselves to potential fines ... and a criminal record, not that 'a million people will be getting a criminal record'
    xflyer wrote:
    So you and he actually think near enough a million people in this country will be getting a criminal record and fines for non payment. You really think that?
    Not only do those refusing to pay the household charge expose themselves to potential fines of up to €2,500, and a criminal record (John Sugrue, March 29th), but they also face complications regarding the title to their houses themselves.


  • #9306
    stevedublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 980 ✭✭✭stevedublin


    lugha wrote: »
    Do you not see a subtle difference between “will get” and “exposing themselves to”?

    Yes, "exposing themselves to" a criminal record suggests that they "will get" a criminal record.

    However I don't think its likely, its just scaremongering.


  • Advertisement
  • #9307
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    stevedublin wrote: »
    People don't get to live in Foxrock by being cowardly or stupid.

    Heard that ok, one has to be cowardly and clever to live in foxrock......:p


  • #9308
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    dvpower wrote: »
    Neither he nor Annabella1 suggested anything of the sort. :confused:
    lugha wrote: »
    Do you not see a subtle difference between “will get” and “exposing themselves to”?

    I don't really see any difference in 'suggesting' and 'exposing themselves to' though.

    Both are more or less another way of saying possibly/potentially if you ask me?


  • #9309
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    I can't see how we can get a criminal record for not paying.


  • #9310
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    stevedublin wrote: »
    Yes, "exposing themselves to" a criminal record suggests that they "will get" a criminal record.
    No . It doesn't.
    Ghandee wrote: »
    I don't really see any difference in 'suggesting' and 'exposing themselves to' though.
    No. You wouldn't.


  • #9311
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    hondasam wrote: »
    I can't see how we can get a criminal record for not paying.
    Which bit of the legislation are you unsure of?


  • Advertisement
  • #9312
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    dvpower wrote: »
    Which bit of the legislation are you unsure of?

    How can we get a criminal record?


  • #9313
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    hondasam wrote: »
    How can we get a criminal record?
    Its laid out in black and white in the legislation. Have you examined it?


  • #9314
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    dvpower wrote: »


    No. You wouldn't.


    Because it's true?
    Or some other reason?

    Suggest, make a suggestion to possibly do something.
    Potentially, something that may possibly happen.


    Don't take it out on me of your post was carelessly worded?
    I'm not trying to wind you up here, just stating the obvious.


  • #9315
    xflyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    To imply that more than half the country are too half-witted to understand that impalpable measures (of which this is merely one) have to be taken to deal with a massive budget deficit is frankly, depressing, and IMO, untrue.
    Total distortion of my comments and frankly typical of the kind of response we've come to expect from pro household charge side.

    We all understand the problems we're facing. We also fully understand that we taxpayers, those of us who did nothing more than work for a living and pay our taxes are now being asked to foot the bill for other people's mistakes, gross neglience and criminal activity.

    I for one would be happy to pay this charge if I actually believed it would do some good. But it will simply be fed into the black hole that is local authority services if it even gets that far, which I doubt. I would be happy to pay if I saw that that local authorities were being reformed away from the bloated inefficiency and incompetence that we see daily around us. They're not, it's much easier to cut front line services and hammer the fewer and fewer taxpayer further.

    I'm not paying because because it one way of protesting at the way the whole thing is being handled. I don't think I'm on my own either. You can beleive what you want too if it helps you sleep at night.


  • #9316
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    stevedublin wrote: »
    Yes, "exposing themselves to" a criminal record suggests that they "will get" a criminal record.

    However I don't think its likely, its just scaremongering.
    Ghandee wrote: »
    I don't really see any difference in 'suggesting' and 'exposing themselves to' though.

    Both are more or less another way of saying possibly/potentially if you ask me? .

    Well that answers one of the questions that has puzzled me.

    Many of the no side were detecting threats and scare mongering where I only saw the obvious being pointed out (i.e. if you break the law you are likely, indeed “exposing yourself”, to be held accountable, even if you have genuine, conscientious objections to that law).

    The curious reasoning here helps explain why. ;)


  • #9317
    xflyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    dvpower wrote: »
    He says that people expose themselves to potential fines ... and a criminal record, not that 'a million people will be getting a criminal record'

    That and all the other related posts are pure sophistry. :rolleyes: :mad:

    Ridiculous.


  • #9318
    stevedublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 980 ✭✭✭stevedublin


    hondasam wrote: »
    I can't see how we can get a criminal record for not paying.

    You won't, its just scaremongering and an attempt to bully people into paying for a charge that will be abandoned.

    dvpower, I'm not a professor of the english language, but I can't see the difference between saying that someone is exposed to something and suggesting they could get that something.

    In this case though its just not realistic for a democratically elected government to give a criminal record to a quater of its own population over a minor charge.


  • #9319
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Caused by a bloated, overpaid, underperforming, cosseted PS and their unions.

    You really belive that's the only reason?

    Cuts in pay and numbers in the ps is IMO inevitable, but to suggest that we can solve the budget deficit by this measure alone is either mischievous or naive.


  • #9320
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    xflyer wrote: »
    Total distortion of my comments and frankly typical of the kind of response we've come to expect from pro household charge side.

    Really? I don’t think so.
    xflyer wrote: »
    We all understand the problems we're facing. We also fully understand that we taxpayers, those of us who did nothing more than work for a living and pay our taxes are now being asked to foot the bill for other people's mistakes, gross neglience and criminal activity.

    Agreed.
    xflyer wrote: »
    I for one would be happy to pay this charge if I actually believed it would do some good. But it will simply be fed into the black hole that is local authority services if it even gets that far, which I doubt. I would be happy to pay if I saw that that local authorities were being reformed away from the bloated inefficiency and incompetence that we see daily around us. They're not, it's much easier to cut front line services and hammer the fewer and fewer taxpayer further.

    Ah, but this is not what you said in the post I quoted. You said:
    xflyer wrote: »
    This ignores the essential fact, most people who aren't paying are doing so deliberately to send a message to Hogan, Kenny, Gilmore and rest of them. Most of us are not left wingers. Just ordinary citizens who've had enough of being treated like serfs as we watch our country being humiliated and broken by foreign countries and bankers.

    You made a fairly bold claim in behalf of ALL of those who have not yet paid, which was the point I was challenging.

    Further, nothing in that quote suggests to me that you recognise that we do have a massive deficit (which we would have even without the extra banking problems) that needs to be addressed, regardless of who is or is not to blame for the mess.

    This post is in the same mode as many from the no side that take the form “they can all just f**k off” and is what I would call a half-witted argument. Perhaps you can make a better argument that this. But in that post you did not do so.


  • #9321
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    stevedublin wrote: »
    I can't see the difference between saying that someone is exposed to something and suggesting they could get that something.
    Perhaps there is not a great difference between "exposed to" and "could get".

    But the phrases here are "exposed to" and "will get".

    Pee Flynn for example may be exposed to getting a criminal conviction for corruption in light of the Mahon findings. Alas, that does not mean he will get one.


  • Advertisement
  • #9322
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    lugha wrote: »
    Well that answers one of the questions that has puzzled me.

    Many of the no side were detecting threats and scare mongering where I only saw the obvious being pointed out (i.e. if you break the law you are likely, indeed “exposing yourself”, to be held accountable, even if you have genuine, conscientious objections to that law).

    The curious reasoning here helps explain why. ;)

    WTF point (if any) are you trying to make by the waffle posted here?


  • #9323
    stevedublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 980 ✭✭✭stevedublin


    lugha wrote: »
    Perhaps there is not a great difference between "exposed to" and "could get".

    But the phrases here are "exposed to" and "will get".

    Pee Flynn for example may be exposed to getting a criminal conviction for corruption in light of the Mahon findings. Alas, that does not mean he will get one.

    Okay, can we all agree that the author of the letter did not mean that people who don't pay the household charge "will get" a criminal record?


  • #9324
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    On another note, RTE1 news has literally just announced that over two thirds have not paid.

    Give or take, by that statement that 33% have paid.

    Roaring success indeed.:cool:


  • #9325
    xflyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    lugha wrote: »
    Well that answers one of the questions that has puzzled me.

    Many of the no side were detecting threats and scare mongering where I only saw the obvious being pointed out (i.e. if you break the law you are likely, indeed “exposing yourself”, to be held accountable, even if you have genuine, conscientious objections to that law).

    The curious reasoning here helps explain why. ;)

    You don't appear to understand how propaganda works. Merely stating the 'obvious' endlessly and repeatedly ensure the message is rammed home. It's supposed to induce fear of being branded a criminal no matter how 'likely' it is or not.

    Another tactic is repeat over and over that local services are under threat if you don't pay. This is scaremongering and puts you in the position of not only being a 'possible' or 'likely criminal. But also responsible for cuts in services.

    Whether you are part of the propaganda or have been fooled by it, is your problem.


  • #9326
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    stevedublin wrote: »
    Okay, can we all agree that the author of the letter did not mean that people who don't pay the household charge "will get" a criminal record?

    In order to get a criminal record we would have to be taken to court, how would they go about this?
    We will not be getting a criminal record, end of imo.


  • #9327
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    xflyer wrote: »
    You don't appear to understand how propaganda works.
    I have been treated to a masterclass here. By equating "exposed to" with "will" the no side have changed the number who are likely to have a criminal conviction for not paying this charge from, give or take, approximately ZERO to about a million. ;)

    Any why hasn't Goebbels being mentioned yet? Isn't there some rule that he had to be wheeled out any time "propaganda" is mentioned? :pac:


  • #9328
    xflyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    lugha wrote: »
    You made a fairly bold claim in behalf of ALL of those who have not yet paid, which was the point I was challenging.
    I stand by it, maybe not ALL but a large proportion. Whether you or the government wants to face up to that or not is up to you.

    I suspect the government will get the message. If they continue with their current attitude. They will pay dearly for it.


  • #9329
    xflyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    lugha wrote: »
    I have been treated to a masterclass here. By equating "exposed to" with "will" the no side have changed the number who are likely to have a criminal conviction for not paying this charge from, give or take, approximately ZERO to about a million. ;)

    Any why hasn't Goebbels being mentioned yet? Isn't there some rule that he had to be wheeled out any time "propaganda" is mentioned? :pac:
    Well you mentioned him first. But he didn't invent it and it didn't die when he shot himself. It's alive and well and featured on RTE news every day.

    Few if any people will get a criminal record from this and if they do it will literally take years. But that's not the impression given if you listen to government ministers and others.


  • #9330
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    Ghandee wrote: »
    On another note, RTE1 news has literally just announced that over two thirds have not paid.

    Give or take, by that statement that 33% have paid.

    Roaring success indeed.:cool:

    And creeping up all the time.

    You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.


  • Advertisement
  • #9331
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    black francis wrote: »
    And creeping up all the time.

    You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

    Francis, unless it's more than fifty percent compliance, after midnight on April 1st, it will be be pretty difficult to haul half the population of households liable for the charge inn front of a court, and organize charges to be set against the properties.

    We don't need a mathematician to do the sums here.

    Currently, 33% have paid, over a period of three months.
    You expect more than half that number to pay in a day?

    33 + 17 = 50.

    The sums don't stack up mate.


  • #9332
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    dvpower wrote: »
    Its laid out in black and white in the legislation. Have you examined it?

    Which particular section of the Act will give people who don't pay a criminal record?


  • #9333
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Ghandee wrote: »
    Francis, unless it's more than fifty percent compliance, after midnight on April 1st, it will be be pretty difficult to haul half the population of households liable for the charge inn front of a court, and organize charges to be set against the properties.

    We don't need a mathematician to do the sums here.

    Currently, 33% have paid, over a period of three months.
    You expect more than half that number to pay in a day?

    33 + 17 = 50.

    The sums don't stack up mate.


    Why will it be difficult to organise against the properties?


  • #9334
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    Ghandee wrote: »
    Francis, unless it's more than fifty percent compliance, after midnight on April 1st, it will be be pretty difficult to haul half the population of households liable for the charge inn front of a court, and organize charges to be set against the properties.

    We don't need a mathematician to do the sums here.

    Currently, 33% have paid, over a period of three months.
    You expect more than half that number to pay in a day?

    33 + 17 = 50.

    The sums don't stack up mate.

    I see you got those goalposts moved.
    50% is it now?

    Well according to the latest Red C poll this will be easily achieved before the penalties become too severe. A lot of non-payers are just waiting to see if the charge will remain before paying their money, they're willing to spend a bit extra in penalty payments rather than risk the full €100 up front. They'll soon pay up.

    Think you're going to have to shift the goalposts again soon.


  • #9335
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    xflyer wrote: »
    Few if any people will get a criminal record from this and if they do it will literally take years. But that's not the impression given if you listen to government ministers and others.
    Perhaps that is down to how people interpret, or misinterpret or possible choose to misinterpret what was actually said. Look at how that solicitors letter was grossly misinterpreted.

    And no, there probably won't be too many criminal convictions. Possible one or two high publicity show trials of a high profile objector. And even that I would doubt.

    Any in any case, what is so terrible about insisting that the law of the land be upheld? One of the troubling things about this campaign is that there seems to be almost no recognition from the no side that there is anything amiss with deliberately breaking the law. Ming is the only voice I can recall who alluded to the idea that breaking the law is not something to be taken lightly.

    There have been some posters on this threat who thought it appropriate to jeer some of those who paid for being “law abiding”. There was even a poster a few pages back who, bizarrely and amusingly in equal measure, declared he had the right to break this law!! He may have the choice, but he certainly had no legal right to do so.

    And possibly due to a complete incapacity to detect irony at best, or staggering hypocrisy at worse, there are demands to jail (the moderate ones are prepared to tolerate a trial first!) politicians who broke anti-corruptions laws!

    And we prepared to entertain arguments from these fellows that they genuinely felt that the laws that they broke were unjust?

    (Robbing €50K from FF? I think I could find it in my heart to forgive that. :))


  • #9336
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    black francis wrote: »
    You really belive that's the only reason?

    Cuts in pay and numbers in the ps is IMO inevitable, but to suggest that we can solve the budget deficit by this measure alone is either mischievous or naive.

    It is one of the major problems we have, allowances for everything, on top of wages that increase year on year. The sooner the IMF/EU sort it out the better.

    A knickers and bra's allowance for female garda, what planet do these people live on. Berties children alright.


  • Advertisement
  • #9337
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    It is one of the major problems we have, allowances for everything, on top of wages that increase year on year. The sooner the IMF/EU sort it out the better.

    A knickers and bra's allowance for female garda, what planet do these people live on. Berties children alright.

    Not answering the question Gerry.

    Do you believe ps cuts on their own are enough?


  • #9338
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    black francis wrote: »
    I see you got those goalposts moved.
    50% is it now?

    Well according to the latest Red C poll this will be easily achieved before the penalties become too severe. A lot of non-payers are just waiting to see if the charge will remain before paying their money, they're willing to spend a bit extra in penalty payments rather than risk the full €100 up front. They'll soon pay up.

    Think you're going to have to shift the goalposts again soon.


    What goalposts have I been moving:confused:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77788030&postcount=8037

    Also, I'm using my phone at the minute, but I predicted earlier in the thread that 38% would be registered by the deadline.

    I'll dig that link out later on if you do wish me to.


  • #9339
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,387 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Something which will happen in a short time for some non payers and eventually inevitably for all is that the house will have to change hands. At that point a certificate will be required by the conveyancing soliciitors showing that the charge is fully paid.

    What to do? Obviously call CAHWT and ask them to provide one of their legal team to do the work. Small problem, all solicitors are prohibited by law from aiding and abetting financial crime. While judging from things that happened in the past some might be tempted to get involved with money laundering or insurance fraud I doubt if any would be stupid enough to forge a certificate for the household charge.

    So it will be left to your friendly local solicitor who will have to add something to the fee for this extra service. And if the inevitable happens in 3 or 10 years time (but I don't see anyone being able to evade a tax for that long) then CAHWT will be long gone and the people who followed their advice will suffer the consequences.

    In case anyone want to accuse me of bullying or scaremongering I am simply outlining the facts.


  • #9340
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Which particular section of the Act will give people who don't pay a criminal record?
    Have you read the act?


  • #9341
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Something which will happen in a short time for some non payers and eventually inevitably for all is that the house will have to change hands. At that point a certificate will be required by the conveyancing soliciitors showing that the charge is fully paid.

    What to do? Obviously call CAHWT and ask them to provide one of their legal team to do the work. Small problem, all solicitors are prohibited by law from aiding and abetting financial crime. While judging from things that happened in the past some might be tempted to get involved with money laundering or insurance fraud I doubt if any would be stupid enough to forge a certificate for the household charge.

    So it will be left to your friendly local solicitor who will have to add something to the fee for this extra service. And if the inevitable happens in 3 or 10 years time (but I don't see anyone being able to evade a tax for that long) then CAHWT will be long gone and the people who followed their advice will suffer the consequences.

    In case anyone want to accuse me of bullying or scaremongering I am simply outlining the facts.

    Non of this will be applicable when FG/labour cease to be in Government though.
    so, roll on next elections.

    Oh, and also. 58%? Still your prediction?


  • Advertisement
  • #9342
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,387 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Ghandee wrote: »
    Non of this will be applicable when FG/labour cease to be in Government though.
    so, roll on next elections.

    Oh, and also. 58%?

    I'm not shifting from my 58% (928,000 on a base of 1.6 m) prediction. And I also predict that this tax will not be removed from the statute book by any future government in the next 40 years.


  • #9343
    donegal_road
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭donegal_road


    black francis wrote: »
    I see you got those goalposts moved.
    50% is it now?

    Well according to the latest Red C poll this will be easily achieved before the penalties become too severe. A lot of non-payers are just waiting to see if the charge will remain before paying their money, they're willing to spend a bit extra in penalty payments rather than risk the full €100 up front. They'll soon pay up.

    Think you're going to have to shift the goalposts again soon.

    you have made over 60 posts on this thread in the last 2 days.. its Friday evening, life is too short... shouldn't you be out drinking beer and listening to some rock n roll?


  • #9344
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    Ghandee wrote: »
    What goalposts have I been moving:confused:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77788030&postcount=8037

    Also, I'm using my phone at the minute, but I predicted earlier in the thread that 38% would be registered by the deadline.

    I'll dig that link out later on if you do wish me to.

    these goalposts.
    Ghandee wrote: »
    Ireland may well have a population of +/- 4million.

    Not all of the population own a house though.

    The approx figures of house owners in the country its 1.6 million, still though, that means that even if we see 160,000 registered by the end of March. That still only equates to 10% compliance.

    90% non compliance would mean a massive failure to the bond holders govt.


    Don't register.

    Don't pay!

    you've gone from speculating that 90% is a failure to 50%.

    And i think you're going to have to either revise that figure again or admit that the charge is not going to be scrapped.


  • #9345
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    I'm not shifting from my 58% (928,000 on a base of 1.6 m) prediction. And I also predict that this tax will not be removed from the statute book by any future government in the next 40 years.

    According to RTE only an hour ago it was 33% though? (they said two thirds still hadn't )


  • #9346
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    donegal_road wrote: »
    you have made over 60 posts on this thread in the last 2 days.. its Friday evening, life is too short... shouldn't you be out drinking beer and listening to some rock n roll?


    My postcount seems to be attracting some comment - anyone would think that the 'no' side want to get rid of me.

    I'm afraid Friday nights of drinking beer and rock n roll are long behind me. I might open a nice malbec later though and settle down to some serious posting.


  • #9347
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    black francis wrote: »
    these goalposts.



    you've gone from speculating that 90% is a failure to 50%.

    And i think you're going to have to either revise that figure again or admit that the charge is not going to be scrapped.

    Francis, stop acting the maggot.

    Above quote, I've said 90% would be a massive failure.

    The one I quoted myself in said anything less than 51% compliance would be a failure.

    Your trolling, I'm certain of it.


  • #9348
    constitutionus
    Registered Users Posts: 7,988 ✭✭✭constitutionus


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Something which will happen in a short time for some non payers and eventually inevitably for all is that the house will have to change hands. At that point a certificate will be required by the conveyancing soliciitors showing that the charge is fully paid.

    What to do? Obviously call CAHWT and ask them to provide one of their legal team to do the work. Small problem, all solicitors are prohibited by law from aiding and abetting financial crime. While judging from things that happened in the past some might be tempted to get involved with money laundering or insurance fraud I doubt if any would be stupid enough to forge a certificate for the household charge.

    So it will be left to your friendly local solicitor who will have to add something to the fee for this extra service. And if the inevitable happens in 3 or 10 years time (but I don't see anyone being able to evade a tax for that long) then CAHWT will be long gone and the people who followed their advice will suffer the consequences.

    In case anyone want to accuse me of bullying or scaremongering I am simply outlining the facts.

    i think ill be more conscerned with my death.

    seeing as thats what makes most houses change hands in this country .

    this flipping-trading up/down nonsence is strictly the preserve of the upper and middle classes.

    the vast majority of us will die in the first house we buy.


  • #9349
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    Ghandee wrote: »
    Francis, stop acting the maggot.

    Above quote, I've said 90% would be a massive failure.

    The one I quoted myself in said anything less than 51% compliance would be a failure.

    Your trolling, I'm certain of it.

    Isn't that kind of accusation against the Charter you're fond of quoting?


  • #9350
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    black francis wrote: »
    Isn't that kind of accusation against the Charter you're fond of quoting?

    Not when it's true. Report my post if the 'accusation' bothers you.

    The proof of your crap is in black and white for all to see.

    Go drink your malbec lol.


  • #9351
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    Ghandee wrote: »
    Not when it's true. Report my post if the 'accusation' bothers you.

    The proof of your crap is in black and white for all to see.

    Go drink your malbec lol.

    I never bother reporting posts, unless it's something I come across that's offensively racist or some such.

    Don't know why you would think seeking clarification on something you've seemingly revised your position on is trolling though.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement