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

dvpower

Slick50 wrote: »

Civil disobedience is a legitimate way of registering your disagreement with what you regard as an unjust or amoral law. If enough people are willing to partake, then it is representative of the will of the people. This is as democratic as you can get, even more so than a coalition government, where each party blames the other for their decisions.

Civil disobedience is more democratic than an election where both government parties ran on a platform of implementing the MOU that explicitly requires us to implement a property tax?

If the government were to fall on this issue, do you expect that the people would elect a government that were against implementing the MOU?

donalg1

gerryo777 wrote: »

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well then, tell us your suggestions, or you`l have donal in saying you wont answer. And il thank his post then.

I think there may have been a PM or two there....donal is having a night off.
Why do YOU think that is??:D

Cause I have better things to do than listen to your nonsense Gerry, you say you are ignoring me but you can't stop talking about me, pretty weird and creepy!!! Seriously why are you obsessed with me?

donalg1

robbie7730 wrote: »

gerryo777 wrote: »

I think there may have been a PM or two there....donal is having a night off.
Why do YOU think that is??:D

Not being able to say "credibility" or "insult me" left feck all else to say, or could it be a rebadge or relation?

Nonsense and drivel as usual seriously what has any of this got to do with the household charge?

The only reason you support this anti campaign is because you don't want to pay it and you don't want to be the only one that hasn't paid it, not out of principle though as you claim.

You call me a sheep I call you cheap.

Slick50

dvpower wrote: »

Civil disobedience is more democratic than an election where both government parties ran on a platform of implementing the MOU that explicitly requires us to implement a property tax?

Where an overall majority of people are willing to partake in a display of civil disobedience, their actions demonstrate the will of the people.

A coalition government is a mish-mash of opinions, cobbled together by a bunch of politicians who couldn't get the support of a majority.

dvpower wrote: »

If the government were to fall on this issue, do you expect that the people would elect a government that were against implementing the MOU?

I am not saying I think the government will, or should fall on this issue. I'm saying they should recognise the mistake it is, as they have done on other issues, and reverse their decision.

donalg1

gerryo777 wrote: »

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do they have that?

dvpower wrote: »

As easy as that?:rolleyes:

Listen lads, go and pay your household tax.
You both really add nothing to this thread.
Any suggestion as to having a different view is mocked or replied to with a smart arsed answer.
I really don't know why you bother yourselves by coming on here.
Why do YOU think that is Sam?

You and robbie are the ones adding nothin to this thread other than smart arsed comments, and have been for days. Avoidance and deflection us your main tactic, pointless posts and drivel a close second

dvpower

Slick50 wrote: »

A coalition government is a mish-mash of opinions, cobbled together by a bunch of politicians who couldn't get the support of a majority.

The property tax is in the MOU. This was in place before the election so it isn't something that was cobbled together.

Slick50 wrote: »

I am not saying I think the government will, or should fall on this issue. I'm saying they should recognise the mistake it is, as they have done on other issues, and reverse their decision.

It's not in their gift. They have a binding agreement with the trioka to implement a property tax.

donalg1

gerryo777 wrote: »

Thank **** for that.......

And a final question Sam,
What's your favourite humming sound?
Mines, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!

How does this nonsense have anything to do with the thread?

Sticking to your usual form good lad why don't you stick to the point instead and stay on subject for a chanfe

donalg1

gerryo777 wrote: »

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry what was that about smart arsed answers?

I'm really gone now

Only messing!
It's a bit of banter...

Bit of backtracking you mean

Slick50

dvpower wrote: »

The property tax is in the MOU. This was in place before the election so it isn't something that was cobbled together.

I think you are deliberately miss-understanding me. I said the coalition is something that is cobbled together, not the MOU.

Who negotiated this, neither Enda or Eamon had any authority to negotiate it before the election.

For the record, it took FG/LB six days to negotiate (cobble) a program for government together between them. In which the best they could do was "agree to consider a property tax"

dvpower wrote: »

It's not in their gift .

What does this mean?, sounds like politico speak.

dvpower wrote: »

They have a binding agreement with the trioka to implement a property tax.

Before they were in a position to enter into any agreement with the troika, they entered into an agreement with the electorate of this country. Which should be more important to them?

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

The property tax is in the MOU. This was in place before the election so it isn't something that was cobbled together.


It's not in their gift. They have a binding agreement with the trioka to implement a property tax.

Not everything is written in stone. For one we have a different level of Corporate Tax to other countries in the same difficulties.

Noreen1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry mate I don't buy that. That comes under the "evil" heading. Even if they are detached from it they're still aware they're doing it and they must have a reason, one that doesn't make them look like cartoonish super villains

Evil? Hmm. Bridget McCole, anyone?
I'd certainly consider bullying a dying woman an evil act - and I'll make no apologies for that!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now that's just silly. The household charge will only have a negative effect on his re-election chances. So he's being embarrassed and at the same time negatively affecting his his future wage and pension prospects

From Wiki:

Michael Noonan (born 21 May 1943)

Ruairi Quinn (born 2 April 1946)

Pat Rabbitte (born 18 May 1949)

Joan Burton (born 1 February 1949)

Frances Fitzgerald (born 1 August 1950)

Enda Kenny (born 24 April 1951)

Alan Joseph Shatter (born 14 February 1951)

James "Jimmy" Deenihan (born 11 September 1952)

Richard Bruton (born 15 March 1953)

Eamon Gilmore (born 24 April 1955)

James Reilly (born 16 August 1955)

Brendan Howlin (born 9 May 1956)

Phil Hogan (born 4 July 1960)

Simon Coveney (born 16 June 1972)

Leo Varadkar (born 18 January 1979)

Seven members of Cabinet are over 60.

By 2016, eleven members will be over 60, with Brendan Howlin being 59.

If they haven't adequate pension provision by now (:rolleyes:) - maybe they really shouldn't attempt to manage a Nations finances?
However, given their very generous pay, expenses, and pension allocations, I'm fairly confident that they are financially secure!

No doubt some of them will copy Bertie, and top up their income by attending "speaking engagements" in various Countries - and get grossly overpaid, to boot!
There are, of course, various opportunities for lucrative positions in the EU, as well.

The truth is, FG did not earn sufficient votes to form a Government.
Between FG and Labour, they managed to deliver enough soundbites and false promises to lull the electorate.
The Irish people voted for change. For re-negotiation of the terms of the MOU, for "burning" unguaranteed bondholders, etc.

It hasn't happened.
Hence, the people have responded, at the earliest opportunity, with a campaign of civil disobedience.

Now, I ask you:

Is bullying a dying woman "Good" - or evil?

Is deliberately misleading people "Good" - or evil?

What about breaking promises - to the very people you are meant to protect, and represent? Is that moral - or unacceptable?

Over to you.....

steddyeddy

donalg1 wrote: »

robbie7730 wrote: »

gerryo777 wrote: »

I think there may have been a PM or two there....donal is having a night off.
Why do YOU think that is??:D

Not being able to say "credibility" or "insult me" left feck all else to say, or could it be a rebadge or relation?

Nonsense and drivel as usual seriously what has any of this got to do with the household charge?

The only reason you support this anti campaign is because you don't want to pay it and you don't want to be the only one that hasn't paid it, not out of principle though as you claim.

You call me a sheep I call you cheap.

People who dont pay a tax they feel is unjust are cheap? Nice rationale.

dvpower

Slick50 wrote: »

I think you are deliberately miss-understanding me. I said the coalition is something that is cobbled together, not the MOU.

That the coalition is cobbled together isn't pertinent. The MOU was in place prior to the coalition, and it contains the property tax.

Slick50 wrote: »

Who negotiated this, neither Enda or Eamon had any authority to negotiate it before the election.

Are you telling me you don't know who negotiated the MOU? Why don't you go off and do some basic research and then come back to the thread.

Slick50 wrote: »

For the record, it took FG/LB six days to negotiate (cobble) a program for government together between them. In which the best they could do was "agree to consider a property tax"

As I've said a good number of times now, the property tax was already in the MOU. It wasn't in the gift of the parties to 'agree to consider' it.

Slick50 wrote: »

What does this mean?, sounds like politico speak.

Seriously?

Slick50 wrote: »

Before they were in a position to enter into any agreement with the troika, they entered into an agreement with the electorate of this country. Which should be more important to them?

They had every choice to tell the troika to pack their bags, but they campaigned on a platform of implementing the bailout program and they were elected on that basis. The property tax is an explicit part of the bailout program.

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

That the coalition is cobbled together isn't pertinent. The MOU was in place prior to the coalition, and it contains the property tax.


Are you telling me you don't know who negotiated the MOU? Why don't you go off and do some basic research and then come back to the thread.


As I've said a good number of times now, the property tax was already in the MOU. It wasn't in the gift of the parties to 'agree to consider' it.


Seriously?


They had every choice to tell the troika to pack their bags, but they campaigned on a platform of implementing the bailout program and they were elected on that basis. The property tax is an explicit part of the bailout program.

They did NOT campaign on a platform of implementing the bail-out at all. They clearly said they would re-negotiate on behalf of the people and "not another cent", "no hospital closures" etc etc.
They lied to the electorate.

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

Not everything is written in stone. For one we have a different level of Corporate Tax to other countries in the same difficulties.

Our corporate tax rate isn't in the bailout program. It isn't their despite the efforts of various parties to the agreement trying to get in on the table. So we are free to change out corporation tax rate if we wish (but there is a wide consensus that we shouldn't).

The property tax is in the program, so we can't change that unilaterally.

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

They did NOT campaign on a platform of implementing the bail-out at all. They clearly said they would re-negotiate on behalf of the people and "not another cent", "no hospital closures" etc etc.
They lied to the electorate.

Either you have a very short memory or you're being disingenuous.

They clearly did campaign on the basis of the implementing the program with a promise to attempt to renegotiate elements of it, which, to some extent they already have.

Slick50

dvpower wrote: »

That the coalition is cobbled together isn't pertinent.

It was when we were discussing the legitimacy of civil disobedience as being indicative of the people's will.

dvpower wrote: »

The MOU was in place prior to the coalition, and it contains the property tax.

The MOU is an understanding, not an agreement.

dvpower wrote: »

Are you telling me you don't know who negotiated the MOU? Why don't you go off and do some basic research and then come back to the thread.

I'm telling you neither Enda or Eamon had any authority to enter into any agreement or understanding before they had a mandate from the people of Ireland

dvpower wrote: »

As I've said a good number of times now, the property tax was already in the MOU. It wasn't in the gift of the parties to 'agree to consider' it.

Yes you have!

dvpower wrote: »

Seriously?

Yes, very.

dvpower wrote: »

They had every choice to tell the troika to pack their bags, but they campaigned on a platform of implementing the bailout program and they were elected on that basis. The property tax is an explicit part of the bailout program.

No they didn't.

dvpower

Slick50 wrote: »

The MOU is an understanding, not an agreement.

What do you think are the major practical differences between the MOU and an 'agreement'?
For example, do you think the Government could ignore the property tax without consequence?

Definition of 'Memorandum of Understanding - MOU'
A legal document outlining the terms and details of an agreement between parties, including each parties requirements and responsibilities.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mou.asp#ixzz1nCjQpkwj

Slick50 wrote: »

I'm telling you neither Enda or Eamon had any authority to enter into any agreement or understanding before they had a mandate from the people of Ireland

They have authority. A massive mandate, won at the recent GE.
It was very clear to everyone (except tayto lover) that FG/LAB would work the bailout agreement.

Slick50 wrote: »

No they didn't.

They didn't have a choice to tell the trioka to pack their bags? How do you come to that conclusion?

Born to Die

I am going to pay it, seems that in the long term it could cause more hassle to me not to.

Death and taxes and all that malarkey.

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

Either you have a very short memory or you're being disingenuous.

They clearly did campaign on the basis of the implementing the program with a promise to attempt to renegotiate elements of it, which, to some extent they already have.

You forgot to comment on the "not another cent" bit of it.

donalg1

steddyeddy wrote: »

People who dont pay a tax they feel is unjust are cheap? Nice rationale.

And people that pay a tax they have to pay are called sheep? Nice rationale too of course.

gerryo777

dvpower wrote: »

Our corporate tax rate isn't in the bailout program. It isn't their despite the efforts of various parties to the agreement trying to get in on the table. So we are free to change out corporation tax rate if we wish (but there is a wide consensus that we shouldn't).

The property tax is in the program, so we can't change that unilaterally.

There is a property tax in the program ok, but nowhere does it state at what level it must be charged.
They could charge 1 cent per year and its still a tax 'per se'.
Make the savings needed elsewhere.
We're working to get the deficit down, how we do that is up to our government.

Mind you, there's some on here that say this years charge isn't a tax at all....

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

You forgot to comment on the "not another cent" bit of it.

I'm not sure what you expect me to say about that.
Varadkar was lying/spinning/being disingenuous/electioneering* when he said that.
Whoever said there would be "no hospital closures" was lying/spinning/being disingenuous/electioneering*.
Whenever FG said they weren't going to introduce a property tax they were lying/spinning/being disingenuous/electioneering*.

You should know that you can't fully trust politicians when they're in election mode.

In the last election we knew the parameters that any pro bailout party would need to live within - and that included a property tax. In the absence of them making property tax a red line issue, we knew that a property tax was coming down the line.



(*One or more of)

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

I'm not sure what you expect me to say about that.
Varadkar was lying/spinning/being disingenuous/electioneering* when he said that.
Whoever said there would be "no hospital closures" was lying/spinning/being disingenuous/electioneering*.
Whenever FG said they weren't going to introduce a property tax they were lying/spinning/being disingenuous/electioneering*.

You should know that you can't fully trust politicians when they're in election mode.

In the last election we knew the parameters that any pro bailout party would need to live within - and that included a property tax. In the absence of them making property tax a red line issue, we knew that a property tax was coming down the line.



(*One or more of)

I agree but I also would argue that you are not Democratically elected if you are elected on a platform of lies.

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

I agree but I also would argue that you are not Democratically elected if you are elected on a platform of lies.

If you agree that no Government has ever been democratically elected in the history of democratic elections.

Slick50

dvpower wrote: »

What do you think are the major practical differences between the MOU and an 'agreement'?
For example, do you think the Government could ignore the property tax without consequence?

As per my link below... "It is often used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement"
Enda and Eamon were not in a position to enter into a legally binding agreement, prior to the election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding

dvpower wrote: »

Read more:

Read above link too..

dvpower wrote: »

They have authority. A massive mandate, won at the recent GE.
It was very clear to everyone (except tayto lover) that FG/LAB would work the bailout agreement.

Tayto, very obviously, is not the only one who believes that FG and LB campaigned that they would be renegotiating the "bailout".

dvpower wrote: »

They didn't have a choice to tell the trioka to pack their bags? How do you come to that conclusion?

I think you'r pretending to be confused again. I was refering to...
Originally Posted by dvpower
They had every choice to tell the troika to pack their bags, but they campaigned on a platform of implementing the bailout program and they were elected on that basis. The property tax is an explicit part of the bailout program.

No they didn't, so tayto is not alone

dvpower

gerryo777 wrote: »

There is a property tax in the program ok, but nowhere does it state at what level it must be charged.

There is a 1.5bn figure across a range of tax increases and a further 1.1bn increase next year.

Are you now in favour of
a) the government introducing a tax that costs more to collect than it brings in?
b) the government signing up to a commitment with no intention of honestly implementing it (i.e. lying)?

gerryo777

dvpower wrote: »

There is a 1.5bn figure across a range of tax increases and a further 1.1bn increase next year.

Are you now in favour of
a) the government introducing a tax that costs more to collect than it brings in?
b) the government signing up to a commitment with no intention of honestly implementing it (i.e. lying)?

a) The way its going, this tax will cost more than it brings in.
b) This government has being lying to the electorate since it came into power (and long before that in hindsight).

The two elephants in the room are our corporate tax rate and the croke park agreement.
These have to, and will be, addressed in the next year or two.

dvpower

Slick50 wrote: »

Enda and Eamon were not in a position to enter into a legally binding agreement, prior to the election.

They didn't enter into any legally binding agreement. They campaigned on the basis of working the agreement with some commitments to seeking to renegotiate some parts of it.

The Government are free to ignore the agreement in its entirety if they wish to. But that would lead to the removal of the bailout money.

Now, do you think the Government could ignore the property tax without consequence?

Slick50 wrote: »

Tayto, very obviously, is not the only one who believes that FG and LB campaigned that they would be renegotiating the "bailout".

Well - where there was one, there was bound to be another.

gerryo777

I would probably be if favour of a water charge here because this is a resource the householder can control. Excessive usage of water should be charged at a set rate.
Although, until we stop allowing half our water disappear into the ground through leaks, I would not be prepared to pay.

The thing with a property tax is that it punishes people who own their homes, whilst letting people who rent off scot free.

Thats unjust and it's also discriminatory.