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

Frank Black

robbie7730 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

Ruari Quinn now threatening to take people to court.
Now that is a threat. Where did the bit where it would be attached to your house when you try to sell it go ?

The legislation hasn't changed at all.

seamus

tayto lover wrote: »

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

Where in that article has Ruairi Quinn threatened to take people to court?

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

gurramok

Am Chile wrote: »

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

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

seamus

gurramok wrote: »

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

At least this provides some insight as to how people manage to get completely incorrect information into their heads, like the conscription fears about the Lisbon treaty.

tayto lover

seamus wrote: »

Where in that article has Ruairi Quinn threatened to take people to court?

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

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

seamus

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

trooney

tayto lover wrote: »

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

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

seamus

trooney wrote: »

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

Strictly speaking it doesn't provide a legal avenue to challenge actually paying the household charge, it only provides a legal avenue whereby someone can argue that it is not due on 31st March because an Irish translation of the law has not been made available within a reasonable timeframe.

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

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

tin79

seamus wrote: »

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

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

heyjude

Am Chile wrote: »

Theres meant to be a story in tomorrows Irish daily mail relating to the household tax how the goverment and frightening old people with their recent threats, the blueshirts have sunk a new low frightening old people not even Fianna Fail sunk that low,

Fine Gael may have sunk to a new low, but it was Fianna Fail that committed the country(as part of the bailout terms) to introducing both the property tax and the forthcoming water tax, in the first place, while perhaps knowing that they wouldn't be in office when the time came to implement what they knew were sure to be hugely unpopular taxes. That is pretty low too.

I'm just waiting for Fianna Fail or one of its TDs to launch into a speech/campaign condemning the property tax/water tax, while conveniently forgetting that it was their party that gave the commitment to the troika, to introduce them. :rolleyes:

gerryo777

black francis wrote: »

Income tax discriminates against income earners.
Motor tax discriminates against car owners.
TV license fee discriminates against tv owners
Dog license fee discriminates against dog owners
VAT discriminates against consumers.

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

Everyone has a home but only certain people have to pay this tax, that's discrimination, like it or not.
As for what you've quoted above, stinks of desperation from yourself and the pro-tax brigade.

Frank Black

gerryo777 wrote: »

Everyone has a home but only certain people have to pay this tax, that's discrimination, like it or not.
As for what you've quoted above, stinks of desperation from yourself and the pro-tax brigade.

even homeless people?

Freddie59

While listening to the Radio yesterday an ad came on for the immoral tax, citing how it's for "local services".:rolleyes: Then the subsequent news bulletin carried a warning from that cnut Rehn about reneging on "our" banking debt.

Freddie59

tayto lover wrote: »

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

Ah, Mr. Quinn. The king of the smoked-salmon socialists. Some things never change.

gerryo777

black francis wrote: »

even homeless people?

What can I say to that?
If that's all you can come up with, you've already lost the argument....:rolleyes: but you know that anyway!

Bruthal

black francis wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eh no, i was pointing out the lack of connection between your examples of other taxes being discriminating, compared to the household charge. Your best example`s were VAT and dog licences. So you were suggesting that home owners paying for the services of all, is ok, simply because paying VAT (one of your great examples), is discriminatory against consumers too, even though we all pay that.

There was also no claimed victory either. You seem good at twisting posts meanings around. So your the winner there, as they will mean whatever you say.

In reality, there will likely be no winners here in the overall scheme of things.

lividduck

tayto lover wrote: »

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

And replace them with what?
SF, a party that condems in the Republic (or Down Here, as they prefer to call my country) the policies that it pursues in government in Northern Ireland? Or Independents, like we really need Lowery, the Healy raes, and Ming the Muppet in power.
Im no fan of FF?FG/or the Labour, but their is no alternative to those three at the moment, unless someone wants to start a new centre right party.

Frank Black

robbie7730 wrote: »

Eh no, i was pointing out the lack of connection between your examples of other taxes being discriminating, compared to the household charge. Your best example`s were VAT and dog licences. So you were suggesting that home owners paying for the services of all, is ok, simply because paying VAT (one of your great examples), is discriminatory against consumers too, even though we all pay that.

You do realise that we have 2 Vat rates?
A low one mostly on 'essentials' and a higher one generally on 'discretionary' items. So VAT is 'discriminatory' against consumers.

Slick50

black francis wrote: »

You do realise that we have 2 Vat rates?
A low one mostly on 'essentials' and a higher one generally on 'discretionary' items. So VAT is 'discriminatory' against consumers.

Your talking sh*te, give it up. VAT is paid on a purchase, it doesn't discriminate against who is making the purchase.

You also have the option of not making the purchase.

Ghandee

lividduck wrote: »

And replace them with what?
SF, a party that condems in the Republic (or Down Here, as they prefer to call my country) the policies that it pursues in government in Northern Ireland? Or Independents, like we really need Lowery, the Healy raes, and Ming the Muppet in power.
Im no fan of FF?FG/or the Labour, but their is no alternative to those three at the moment, unless someone wants to start a new centre right party.

They don't though.

Frank Black

Slick50 wrote: »

Your talking sh*te, give it up. VAT is paid on a purchase, it doesn't discriminate against who is making the purchase.

You also have the option of not making the purchase.

Or of renting a house.

Slick50

dvpower wrote: »

Would I believe Joe Higgins who has only the power of speculation or the head of the organisation tasked with collecting the charge who has access to all of the actual figures?

Let me just take a second to consider ....
:rolleyes:

Why do you think they are not giving a break down of the registered figures, re: those registering and actually paying, and those registering to claim a waiver.

Also, "considerate" TD's going around exempt estates encouraging people to register. Would they not be doing better trying to encourage people liable to pay, to register and do so?

Slick50

black francis wrote: »

Or of renting a house.

Are you suggesting that all the people who bought their houses should now sell them and rent, if they are not happy with this new tax. And who would they be renting from, somebody has to own the property.

Ghandee

black francis wrote: »

Or of renting a house.

Right......

So you propose that a home owner should sell up, (good luck with that one:rolleyes:) and then rent, just so as they can 'avoid' this sham charge?

Btw, when many almost every home owner in this country bought their house, many whom now own it outright, there was neither mention, nor plans to tax your residence.

Stupid argument Francis.

Edit, actually that last post has lost whatever little credibility you had left tbh.

Take a bow son.

squod

tayto lover wrote: »

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

Householders* have until March 31 to register and the Government has warned that those who fail to pay up will be summoned to court.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/govt-holding-firm-on-household-charge-543659.html#ixzz1pDqsDJq2

Pronunciation: /ˈhaʊshəʊldə/
noun
*a person who owns or rents a house; the head of a household.

Bank owns my house, I don't rent and the head of a household is another legal minefield. It must have taken an accomplished bunch of ejits to pen this law.

Frank Black

Slick50 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that all the people who bought their houses should now sell them and rent, if they are not happy with this new tax. And who would they be renting from, somebody has to own the property.

No, I'm sugegesting that you've been unable to prove your contention that the Household Charge is significantly more 'discriminatory' than other forms of taxation.
I suspect ye already know you've lost the argument on this point, which is why you're attempting to make the argument about something different.

Bruthal

black francis wrote: »

You do realise that we have 2 Vat rates?
A low one mostly on 'essentials' and a higher one generally on 'discretionary' items. So VAT is 'discriminatory' against consumers.

There are actually about 5 rates i think, including the 0% rate. But for the main 2, unless you can live only on essentials like coal and food, then everyone pays both.

People better off are more likely to spend more in the higher bracket, by choice. So i dont see too much discrimination, in any way similar to the property tax.

Early in the thread it was sugggested it was a wealth tax. At least that rubbish seems to have died off now. All this is, is a poll tax, simply linked with homes as a way of justifying it. Some have asked would they rather peoples income is taxed. Well where is this tax coming from, only peoples income.

But as a seperate tax, they can now be hammered, with the perceived value of the home as the guide to the level. Ability to pay, or level of income is not a consideration. What financial value in a home is of use to a home owner anyway? They have to have somewhere to live.


So how is a home owner more able to pay extra tax than a renter? Or is it just that the home owner is an easy target?

Frank Black

Ghandee wrote: »

Take a bow son.

Better than "good girl :rolleyes:", I suppose.

gerryo777

black francis wrote: »

No, I'm sugegesting that you've been unable to prove your contention that the Household Charge is significantly more 'discriminatory' than other forms of taxation.
I suspect ye already know you've lost the argument on this point, which is why you're attempting to make the argument about something different.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!