New Household Tax - Boycott

Ian64 · 18-01-2012 8:27pm

Am Chile wrote: »

Ian from all your posts its obvious to most other posters you re either a member of fine gael or a member of fianna fail, who seems to have a very vested Interested in people paying the household tax.

There,s a hell of a difference between the anti household tax campaign and the previous anti bin tax campaign, the anti bin tax wasn,t nationwide, it was more in the bigger cities like dublin, when the anti bin tax campaign was going on I never recalled any public meetings in my town about it, the anti household tax campaign was held over 100 crowded meetings all around the country in every county which the anti bin tax campaign never did, plus the anti bin tax campaign didn,t have 18 tds on its side all boycotting like the anti household tax campaign does,as well as a signifigant number of councilers prepared to boycott too.

One of the points the anti bin tax campaign argued was bin services would be privatised, they have been proven right.

You re gonna face signifigant opposition to the household tax and you re gonna face signifigant opposition to the septic tank charges also.

Sorry but whatever illegal drugs youre on aint working and Im not now, nor ever have been a member of FG or FF they are both far too left wing for me!
I believe in Privatization of all services.
I believe if people want something then they should ppay for it.
I am against this countries obsession with giving freebies away like exorbitant dole,free electricty/tv liciences/travel etc.
I have a huge vested interest in seeing this country wake up from its celtic tiger hangover and take responsibility for itself instead of looking for someone else to blame.
You all had your noses in the trough, SSIA accounts/low taxes, high Social welfare, free water, and a public service in which a job was a gravy train for life.
This tax cant be defeated because if you dont pay the penalties and interest just keep adding up, they form a charge on the property which mean it cannot be sold, transferred ,remortgaged unless the total tax+penalties+interest are paid and the government can wait until you die if necessary because your will cant be probated until it is paid!
This tax will endure just like the bin tax that Looney Higgins and Loopy Daly et al said would be defeated.
It is time that you lot realised that if you want public services the catch is you have to pay for them, you all rode the tiger now boys and girls its time to pay!

mikom · 18-01-2012 8:44pm

Ian64 wrote: »

Sorry but whatever illegal drugs youre on aint working and Im not now, nor ever have been a member of FG or FF they are both far too left wing for me!
I believe in Privatization of all services.
I believe if people want something then they should ppay for it.
I am against this countries obsession with giving freebies away like exorbitant dole,free electricty/tv liciences/travel etc.
I have a huge vested interest in seeing this country wake up from its celtic tiger hangover and take responsibility for itself instead of looking for someone else to blame.
You all had your noses in the trough, SSIA accounts/low taxes, high Social welfare, free water, and a public service in which a job was a gravy train for life.
This tax cant be defeated because if you dont pay the penalties and interest just keep adding up, they form a charge on the property which mean it cannot be sold, transferred ,remortgaged unless the total tax+penalties+interest are paid and the government can wait until you die if necessary because your will cant be probated until it is paid!
This tax will endure just like the bin tax that Looney Higgins and Loopy Daly et al said would be defeated.
It is time that you lot realised that if you want public services the catch is you have to pay for them, you all rode the tiger now boys and girls its time to pay!

So..... much....... anger......

gerryo777 · 18-01-2012 9:10pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Good idea. We should invest our annual budget surplus - whatever tax revenue is left over after we've paid public service wages and social welfare benefits - in infrastructure and jobs.

Remind me: how much is that budget surplus, again?

We will never have a budget surplus if people don't get back to work. End of story!

Matt Holck · 18-01-2012 9:13pm

don't they have bank loans and rent to pay?

gerryo777 · 18-01-2012 9:13pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, no. Mostly we borrow a hell of a lot of money to pay public servants and social welfare recipients.

Remind me, how much are we putting into our bankrupt banks???
If I remember correctly, the 'bailout' is €85 billion and the banking disaster costs are about €70 billion all told. It doesn't take a genius to work out what is going on here....

gerryo777 · 18-01-2012 9:18pm

mikom wrote: »

So..... much....... anger......

It's because the PD's disbanded:D

Good loser · 19-01-2012 1:53am

mikom wrote: »

So..... much....... anger......

And so accurate.

opinionated3 · 19-01-2012 8:26am

Ian64, you gained nothing from the tiger years? Were you living in this country? You must have gained something significant from the era cos you seemingly have no problem affording all these new taxes. What's your attitude to a couple with, say, two kids, who never spent beyond their means (or 'rode the tiger' as you put it) but have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and quite obviously cannot afford a new water charge, septic tank charge and household charge on top of their mortgage,utility bills etc...Have a heart man,.......or are you a banker incapable of such....?

FreudianSlippers · 19-01-2012 10:23am

opinionated3 wrote: »

Ian64, you gained nothing from the tiger years? Were you living in this country? You must have gained something significant from the era cos you seemingly have no problem affording all these new taxes. What's your attitude to a couple with, say, two kids, who never spent beyond their means (or 'rode the tiger' as you put it) but have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and quite obviously cannot afford a new water charge, septic tank charge and household charge on top of their mortgage,utility bills etc...Have a heart man,.......or are you a banker incapable of such....?

If they didn't spend beyond their means, they would have a mortgage they could have afforded as well as savings. This means when they become redundant, they receive a redundancy package that they can use to keep them going until they find a new job as well as the JSB/JSA they receive.
Will times be tough? Yes. Should they be able to afford to keep going? Yes, if they were actually not "spending beyond their means" during the "tiger".

meglome · 19-01-2012 3:35pm

psychward wrote: »

Eh.... Yes. Somehow mysteriously you typed the letters YES as no.

I believe we borrowed 70 billion for the banks which we will sell for something in the future. It's 110 billion for our overspending, which will grow and we will see nothing back. So he was correct.

Ian64 · 19-01-2012 9:14pm

Poster Beware
Be very careful about making any critical comments regarding those who oppose the Household Tax , I was banned from After Hours for being Liberal and being critical of the Loooney Left in Irish Politics, obviously Dr.Bollocko the resident censor from the ULA is determined to ensure Stalinist ideas regarding free speech are enforced on Leftie.ie , ooops i mean boards.ie

FreudianSlippers · 19-01-2012 9:18pm

Ian64 wrote: »

Poster Beware
Be very careful about making any critical comments regarding those who oppose the Household Tax , I was banned from After Hours for being Liberal and being critical of the Loooney Left in Irish Politics, obviously Dr.Bollocko the resident censor from the ULA is determined to ensure Stalinist ideas regarding free speech are enforced on Leftie.ie , ooops i mean boards.ie

After Hours is to Politics what Grangegorman is the the Mater; we're all sick, but some are just a different kind of sick.

Welcome.

gerryo777 · 19-01-2012 9:52pm

Ian64 wrote: »

Poster Beware
Be very careful about making any critical comments regarding those who oppose the Household Tax , I was banned from After Hours for being Liberal and being critical of the Loooney Left in Irish Politics, obviously Dr.Bollocko the resident censor from the ULA is determined to ensure Stalinist ideas regarding free speech are enforced on Leftie.ie , ooops i mean boards.ie

And you'll get banned from politics too if you keep up with the attitude..... You were warned in after hours! You're new so You'll learn.

Biggins · 20-01-2012 3:32pm

Lest we forget about FG's MASSIVE u-turn!

Ladies and gentlemen - I give you 1994...

They forgot to add the following image:

mikom · 20-01-2012 3:40pm

gerryo777 wrote: »

And you'll get banned from politics too if you keep up with the attitude..... You were warned in after hours! You're new so You'll learn.

Too late.

meglome · 20-01-2012 8:23pm

Biggins wrote: »

Lest we forget about FG's MASSIVE u-turn!

Ladies and gentlemen - I give you 1994...

Sorry but are you genuinely saying they are doing a U-turn on something from over seventeen years ago? Really?

Biggins · 21-01-2012 12:14pm

meglome wrote: »

Sorry but are you genuinely saying they are doing a U-turn on something from over seventeen years ago? Really?

What do you think?
Are you capable of not being able to tell?

A house tax is still a house tax no matter what year it is - or has that bit escaped your train of thought?

Chucky the tree · 21-01-2012 12:39pm

Biggins wrote: »

What do you think?
Are you capable of not being able to tell?

A house tax is still a house tax no matter what year it is - or has that bit escaped your train of thought?

So any political party who was anit-abortion has to keep that stance forever and isn't allowed to change their opinion on it? Pretty laughable really.

Biggins · 21-01-2012 1:08pm

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So any political party who was anit-abortion has to keep that stance forever and isn't allowed to change their opinion on it? Pretty laughable really.

Look again what you have written above.

Firstly, if what not one person but a whole party is capable of so radically in massive u-turn, changing their minds from something they called exactly "a vampire tax... it will suck our blood", something so evil that its quote "morally unjust and unfair to tax a persons home and by so doing grind him into the ground. It reminds me of a vampire tax, in that it drives a stake through the heart of home ownership, through enthusiasm and initiative, and such the the life blood of the people who want to own their own home and better their position" - if they are so cable of wishing to fight off a home tax that they state previous they "...will be opposing it by every means possible" - then they in their massive u-turn, in allowing such an evil as they MASSIVELY and COLLECTIVELY saw it, they frankly are willing to not only entertain the evil tax now but invite the devil right inside to everyone's home in the country.

Secondly, it says a lot about just how absolute two faced FG can get! It says and shows how far they are willing to go when they have switched sides with the then government in power, that they are willing to adopt a very similar policy!
...And thus it shows their true character.
It shows that for any reason or excuse, they are willing to compromise something they hated so much, that they are willing to give ALL that up so that they can fill a financial shortfall while they are still giving billions to German bondholders (and that includes Noonan that owns some!), another 1.25 billion in TWO days!

If on reflection you also consider the above too "Pretty laughable" - I say go with the Fine Gael party and stick with them.
They are as rotten to the core as their predecessors!
They deserve to be consigned to history just like FF - their twin!

Look again what you have written above - and if you can't see the above which I have written, you and FG would be well matched!

Chucky the tree · 21-01-2012 1:17pm

I'd be alot happier going with a party who are willing to their stance on issues rather then committ to the same issue from day 1 and never ever change their mind.

Biggins · 21-01-2012 1:19pm

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I'd be alot happier going with a party who are willing to their stance on issues rather then committ to the same issue from day 1 and never ever change their mind.

They condemned it that much and consistently in vitriol that is near beyond comprehension as to how they can excuse themselves in such a massive u-turn!
...and by that very action, make the people of Ireland suffer even further!

Chucky the tree · 21-01-2012 1:21pm

It'll be interesting reading how the IDP will get us out of this deficit by not making people suffer.

Biggins · 21-01-2012 1:32pm

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It'll be interesting reading how the IDP will get us out of this deficit by not making people suffer.

Sadly we will all suffer for many years to come.
That is inescapable in some form or not.
The serious feeling that I get from inside of the IDP is that we hope to show that we are not EVER willing to compromise any extreme feelings we have on a matter just to see that banks and their related gamblers are eventually left satisfied!

We all as a nation, are sick to the teeth of the u-turns by our present and past governments, often at very few moments notice.

meglome · 21-01-2012 7:57pm

Biggins wrote: »

What do you think?
Are you capable of not being able to tell?

A house tax is still a house tax no matter what year it is - or has that bit escaped your train of thought?

Oh I can tell all right. I'm just incredulous that you'd actually bring up something from over 17 years ago to make your point.

Given the situation we're in I'd expect the government to do whatever it takes even if that is the opposite to what was said before they got elected. Harsh reality is what is at play here.

I'm very happy that you are getting involved in this new political party and I hope many more people do as well but if bringing up a FG policy from over 17 years ago is the best you can do it doesn't bode well. Especially when we do actually need the money.

Biggins · 21-01-2012 8:31pm

meglome wrote: »

Oh I can tell all right. I'm just incredulous that you'd actually bring up something from over 17 years ago to make your point.

Given the situation we're in I'd expect the government to do whatever it takes even if that is the opposite to what was said before they got elected. Harsh reality is what is at play here.

I'm very happy that you are getting involved in this new political party and I hope many more people do as well but if bringing up a FG policy from over 17 years ago is the best you can do it doesn't bode well. Especially when we do actually need the money.

You clearly missed the later point I made or is just by-passing it - possibly thinking its irrelevant.

Your entitled to your opinion and fair enough.

FreudianSlippers · 22-01-2012 11:49am

I think the point is, and I'm no FG supporter, that times have certainly changed and it's a bit rough to drag up something almost 2 decades old

Policy changes; now if that was 5 years old I could see your point

The Waltzing Consumer · 22-01-2012 12:24pm

Biggins wrote: »

The serious feeling that I get from inside of the IDP is that we hope to show that we are not EVER willing to compromise any extreme feelings we have on a matter just to see that banks and their related gamblers are eventually left satisfied!

I think the highlighted part is important.

At the moment, it is the banks and gamblers you are annoyed at, after them it will be something else and then something else. The fact that you are pretty much campaigning as a no compromise party is very backward and is pretty much the same as other extreme fringe parties. It is naive to back up this "attitude" with pointing of fingers to a 17 year old FG policy.

I ain't interested at all in any group, political, legal, educational who will simply stay with their stance for the sake of it rather then adjusting to the present situation and facts.

I would usually not argue with Biggins, he is usually pretty objective, but your posts on this 17 year old policy are emotive and scream of politicising with your new party.

Biggins · 22-01-2012 1:25pm

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I think the highlighted part is important.

At the moment, it is the banks and gamblers you are annoyed at, after them it will be something else and then something else. The fact that you are pretty much campaigning as a no compromise party is very backward and is pretty much the same as other extreme fringe parties. It is naive to back up this "attitude" with pointing of fingers to a 17 year old FG policy.

I ain't interested at all in any group, political, legal, educational who will simply stay with their stance for the sake of it rather then adjusting to the present situation and facts.

I would usually not argue with Biggins, he is usually pretty objective, but your posts on this 17 year old policy are emotive and scream of politicising with your new party.

Apologies but I would NEVER campaign as "a no compromise party".
I meant in the expression OF MY OWN OPINION that if our pure basic ideas, and/or even our core values that caused partly the foundation of the party are so reversed, that members within said organisation need to look at themselves and ask the hard question "Are we originally what we started out as - and if not, should we state now we are something different and rename ourselves as such? Should we carry on under our original title, make possible endless excuses for huge position u-turns and for ever, endlessly equally get criticised for such?"

You are right on one point.
..."your posts on this 17 year old policy are emotive" - They certainly are. We are humans, not automatic automatons. Policy effects people and people subsequently are emotive over issues.

As for "politicising" the issue...
Well I had been giving out about the issue since 1994 when the home tax was first suggested and be I in the IDP or any other party, be I be protesting as as individual standing alone on O'Connell street with a sign above my head, I will continue to politicise the matter. The matter has come about via politics and will be addressed/resolved that way.
If any party wishes to agree with me on such an issue, I will be very damn grateful for their support.

I again should state that the position in referring back to 1994, is one I have taken and is NOT a position taken by the IDP.
I'd like all to be clear on that. Thanks.

P.S.
I'd also like to apologise of I have given the wrong impression of the IDP.
The party is very open, honest and strikes me of decency all the way though it to its core.

The Waltzing Consumer · 22-01-2012 1:53pm

Biggins wrote: »

I meant in the expression OF MY OWN OPINION that if our pure basic ideas, our core values that caused partly the foundation of the party are so reversed, that members within said organisation need to look at themselves and ask the hard question "Are we originally what we started out as - and if not, should we state now we are something different and rename ourselves as such? Should we carry on under our original title, make possible endless excuses for huge position u-turns and for ever, endlessly equally get criticised for such?"
.

I see what you are saying but I don't think it needs to be like that. Why should a political party need to be so rigid? Why should a party's policies not be like policies of any other area of interest? Do you think scientists should hold on to their core beliefs even if they are proved incorrect by other scientists? No, of course not. The language of the politician is also annoying as hell because the goalposts can be constantly moved so this is why parties should be free to change policies based on what their current members want.

Example!

Party A core principle is defending the poor from cuts (*at the time of this policy, the poor have the lowest level of social welfare in Europe, has huge education difficulties, high alcohol and drug abuse rates, infant mortality, terrible standard of living etc.)

17 years later...Party A supports a cut in social welfare for "poor" and is lambasted by the opposition for u-turn and abandoning it's principles (* at the current time, the "poor" have the highest social welfare rates in Europe, has free medical cards, for the vast majority, pays no tax whatsoever and has been greatly exploited by welfare fraud and enjoys a very high standard of living, and the current Government needs to cut spending as this welfare budget is one of the biggest spending areas and is unsustainable)

So should that party wrongly stick to their "principles" or should they look at the present and future and create an honest policy not based on emotion and out-of-date principles?

Biggins · 22-01-2012 2:20pm

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I see what you are saying but I don't think it needs to be like that. Why should a political party need to be so rigid? Why should a party's policies not be like policies of any other area of interest? Do you think scientists should hold on to their core beliefs even if they are proved incorrect by other scientists? No, of course not. The language of the politician is also annoying as hell because the goalposts can be constantly moved so this is why parties should be free to change policies based on what their current members want.

Example!

Party A core principle is defending the poor from cuts (*at the time of this policy, the poor have the lowest level of social welfare in Europe, has huge education difficulties, high alcohol and drug abuse rates, infant mortality, terrible standard of living etc.)

17 years later...Party A supports a cut in social welfare for "poor" and is lambasted by the opposition for u-turn and abandoning it's principles (* at the current time, the "poor" have the highest social welfare rates in Europe, has free medical cards, for the vast majority, pays no tax whatsoever and has been greatly exploited by welfare fraud and enjoys a very high standard of living, and the current Government needs to cut spending as this welfare budget is one of the biggest spending areas and is unsustainable)

So should that party wrongly stick to their "principles" or should they look at the present and future and create an honest policy not based on emotion and out-of-date principles?

You ask a good question.

My own opinion?
Of course you are right.
A party should be able to look at the present and future and create an honest policy not based on emotion and out-of-date principles.

I problem I have (and I cannot state enough - I could be TOTALLY wrong for thinking this and I admit to that) is that FG (and now Labour) are so very willing to jump into this newer home tax for the simple reason of trying (I surmise) to fill a financial shortfall partly created by the shoving of money towards the banks and bondholders - and for that reason only, that is what has caused a position-reversal.

Their position-reversal not being about party policy towards whats good for the the people but simple for them to later facilitate the ability to do the above (banks and bondholders) in the long run, one way or another.
Its unsettling (to me) that they are willing to adopt a home tax for the sake of pure financial reasons and although that might make sense - it begs the question:

"Should all positions be allowed be reversed/compromised due to finance reasons alone?"

I hope I'm making sense what I'm trying to say.
(Even if I am wrong in saying it)

New Household Tax - Boycott

Comments