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

baldymac

housetypeb wrote: »

"People should not fear their government, their government should fear the people"
Do we work for the government or do they work for us?
If the majority of people are clearly against this badly thought out tax by the government -why do they insist on pushing it through?

cause they are mupputs

dvpower

Biggins wrote: »

To repeat my add-on to my previous post:

O' and if (again) you watch the videos of the Late Late, you will here a FG minister admit that councils are "ring-fenced" (HIS EXACT WORDS) - but that didn't stop them previous and now from taking the 170 million!

So much for ring-fencing.
The government still comes along and takes it? I call that thieving!
I'm sure you will disagree!

It is completely lawful for the government to decide what organisations get state funding and how much. They just need for the Dail to agree the vote, which they did.

More than just lawful - its their job.

This isn't theft by any reasonable definition Biggins. You must know this.

Frank Black

baldymac wrote: »

i dont care i wont be paying it, if they put us both in jail me an my gf wont be wont be able to pay our mortgage so what then ??????

Maybe you'll be able to take a course in English literacy.

lugha

@Biggins
Can I put a question to you again that I put rather flippantly earlier but one which I think deserves consideration.

You argument (or one strand there of) seems to be that people having paid stamp duty on their house should not have to pay another tax.

Of course the amount of stamp duty collected during the boom years would probably pay for local services a few dozen times over, if not considerably more.

Alas, the money is spent. And a substantial portion was given back to the people in the form of reduced tax rates, higher welfare etc. Given that this essentially was a misspending of the money, would you support a forensic accounting analysis being done to ascertain how much we all received “illicitly” from this stamp duty money, and require that we each repay it?

I expect that will more that cover the cost of local services for many years, and the tax will only haven been paid once as you desire. How about it?

dvpower

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Embezzlement being the misappropriation of funds. Thank you for your time.

Gimme a break

b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

phil1nj

MightyBouche wrote: »

.

Their unwillingness to pay will merely see the money being taken from more crucial services, such as the police and hospitals.As I said previously, it's ignorant, selfish and horrendously short sighted.

Yep because these and other services haven't been cut at all yet (and there was me thinking that at there was a hiring freeze in place within the PS that prevented the hiring/promotion of front line staff) Or maybe it was the closing of several hospitals and an army barracks that I was thinking of ? These (and more cuts) happened because they need to be made. Yet funnily enough certain cuts haven't happened. Will still have 166 TDs (which is laughable in the extreme for a country of just over 4 million) and the Seanad is still in place despite there being an election promise to abolish it.

BarackPyjama

dvpower wrote: »

Gimme a break

Thank you for your time. Now please go and pay your household charge like a good little citizen. Or are you lucky enough to be exempt?

Izzy Skint

dvpower wrote: »

I want evidence to back up what you said i.e. that the government are thieving money.
You are providing links to something entirely different.

You're very loose with your language around here biggins.

DVPOWER, thieving?....so what do you call it when somebody uses our taxes to pay off others debts, all under duress from Europe?......my tax contributions are not being used for what they are intended.....these taxes are being thieved by our government.....and then they threaten me with further taxes because they are not collecting enough in tax to maintain the country!!!!!....ffs ....get a grip, muppet.

Biggins

dvpower wrote: »

It is completely lawful for the government to decide what organisations get state funding and how much. They just need for the Dail to agree the vote, which they did.

More than just lawful - its their job.

This isn't theft by any reasonable definition Biggins. You must know this.

A thing can be made "lawful" all it wants - and just because its law - that still doesn't make it right!

If the government decided tomorrow to say in law that the colour red was illegal or that one category of the poor was evil by producing a law to say so, does that make it right?

No (and I know (hope) you will agree))

...But hell, lets tax a person a number of times over the same items and write it into law!
That will make it right!

You do know that even the Roman Catholic church now admits that its not infallible!

dvpower

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Thank you for your time. Now please go and pay your household charge like a good little citizen. Or are you lucky enough to be exempt?

No problem - glad to clear up your misconception:)

I've already paid btw.

dvpower

Izzy Skint wrote: »

DVPOWER, thieving?....so what do you call it when somebody uses our taxes to pay off others debts, all under duress from Europe?......my tax contributions are not being used for what they are intended.....these taxes are being thieved by our government.....and then they threaten me with further taxes because they are not collecting enough in tax to maintain the country!!!!!....ffs ....get a grip, muppet.

Now, now. Play nice.

baldymac

black francis wrote: »

Maybe you'll be able to take a course in English literacy.

paid by the tax payer guess

Frank Black

housetypeb wrote: »

"People should not fear their government, their government should fear the people"
Do we work for the government or do they work for us?
If the majority of people are clearly against this badly thought out tax by the government -why do they insist on pushing it through?

There's really only 3 reasonable explanations.

1. The Goverenment and their expensive advisors are to a man, thick as pig**** and unable to comprehend how introducing an unpopular tax might damage their re-election prospects.

2. They know what they're doing but are evil and want to inflict pain and misery on the general population, for ****s and giggles.

3. The economic situation is so dire, they've no choice but to introduce unpopular but stable new taxes.

Wonder which one it could be?

jluv

I have'nt recieved a pay rise in 5 years.We have had to streamline which means I am doing more work. The politicians who are on the news in support of the household charge are earning 4 times what I do. You think a €100 a year from me will help this? What would a quarter of their wages do? They may not have been in government at the time but would have had some say in the running of local services. I'm willing to give something to the yes people.Perhaps you have not been affected in the past.But for those of us who have lived frugally,saved hard,bought within our means, not begrudged others, this is a kick in the teeth. Some people question Phil Hogan being brought into the equation,he is on TV news promoting this charge but he was the one who would not take a 10% pay cut on a very generous salary paid by you and I.Because his circumstances didn't allow for it. My circumstances don't allow it. Alright guys....

BarackPyjama

dvpower wrote: »

No problem - glad to clear up your misconception:)

I've already paid btw.

Good on you. Hopefully in a few years now you'll be happily paying a nice % of your property value annually and won't that be delightful?

You're what's wrong with this country... along with the corrupt government you champion.

porsche boy

MightyBouche wrote: »

porsche boy wrote: »

list of some tax defaulters and amounts paid
nuf said.

No, not really. That does not change the facts whatsoever. I would say I hope you see why, but you clearly don't, although truth and facts are things the "don't register, don't pay" group aren't really familiar with.

The ignorance of the "don't register, don't pay" crowd is pretty astounding.

No, your really missing the point here. You said all wealthy people pay huge tax. I proved you were wrong. I proved my comment that wealthy poeple can and do avoid paying proper tax. Now your just calling a group of people ignorant and again you are totally missing the point.
It has been stated and proven that this €100 payment is not going to local governments and that going forward the average house will be liable for approximately €1500 annually. If you and the likes of Allister want to blindly pay and let the corruption continue then dont ever expect anything to change. COP ON!

MightyBouche

Izzy Skint wrote: »

get a grip, muppet.

Argument: Lost.

Not that you were doing particularly well up until then, admittedly.

phil1nj

black francis wrote: »

There's really only 3 reasonable explanations.

1. The Goverenment and their expensive advisors are to a man, thick as pig**** and unable to comprehend how introducing an unpopular tax might damage their re-election prospects.

2. They know what they're doing but are evil and want to inflict pain and misery on the general population, for ****s and giggles.

3. The economic situation is so dire, they've no choice but to introduce unpopular but stable new taxes.

Wonder which one it could be?

It must be late because I can't decide between 1 and 2 above

alastair

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Good on you. Hopefully in a few years now you'll be happily paying a nice % of your property value annually and won't that be delightful?

He will and so will you. Property taxes are here to stay. Our holiday from rates has come to an end.

Biggins

lugha wrote: »

@Biggins
Can I put a question to you again that I put rather flippantly earlier but one which I think deserves consideration.

You argument (or one strand there of) seems to be that people having paid stamp duty on their house should not have to pay another tax.

Of course the amount of stamp duty collected during the boom years would probably pay for local services a few dozen times over, if not considerably more.

Alas, the money is spent. And a substantial portion was given back to the people in the form of reduced tax rates, higher welfare etc. Given that this essentially was a misspending of the money, would you support a forensic accounting analysis being done to ascertain how much we all received “illicitly” from this stamp duty money, and require that we each repay it?

I expect that will more that cover the cost of local services for many years, and the tax will only haven been paid once as you desire. How about it?

Apologies in delay in returning post:

You argument (or one strand there of) seems to be that people having paid stamp duty on their house should not have to pay another tax.

Stamp Duty/Tax.
Correct.
Paying twice for the same damn think is just wrong and so far a lot of 1.3 million people might agree it seems.

If FG and Labour was not too busy taking €170 million from the councils, we wouldn't have such a problem of covering the cost of local services for many years!
Its not my fault that the for all the massive paid advisor's and actual ministers of the day, couldn't establish a better revenue gathering system - hell, we were/still are paying them enough to come up with such things!
But no, they fcuk up and we yet again pay twice over!

So say we don't pay it and await till a fairer system is brought in - return the funding to pre FG/Labour antics and initiate other methods of revenue funding.
What those methods can be, can stretch into many, many areas!

Taking money from people once for their walls and roof might be justified - but doing it possible again and again?
They can sod off!
1.3 million might agree with me!

dvpower

Biggins wrote: »

If the government decided tomorrow to say in law that the colour red was illegal or that one category of the poor was evil by producing a law to say so, does that make it right?

You can't just change the colour red by a law.
This analogy makes no sense, but I'll go along with the idea that something can be lawful, but not 'right'. I'm simply saying that it isn't theft. Your categorizing it as theft would lead someone to believe that something illegal was going on - this isn't the case.

BarackPyjama

Seems to be huge support for the tax. I wonder is there any merit in asking those who seem to literally welcome it to pay multiples of the tax while those who are against it don't have to pay it? I mean, for those on this thread who are literally creaming themselves at the idea, what's the difference between €100 and €900?

phil1nj

alastair wrote: »

He will and so will you. Property taxes are here to stay. Our holiday from rates has come to an end.

Welcome back after your short break. Now would care to answer my question from several posts back about your refusal to pay the poll tax yet you happily pay this one?

BarackPyjama

alastair wrote: »

so will you.

Unlikely.

alastair

porsche boy wrote: »

It has been stated and proven that this €100 payment is not going to local governments and that going forward the average house will be liable for approximately €1500 annually. If you and the likes of Allister want to blindly pay and let the corruption continue then dont ever expect anything to change. COP ON!

Maybe before you tell people to cop on, you'd consider stop repeating absolute piffle? 100% of this household charge goes to local authorities - as clearly required by the act that allows for the introduction of the charge. That's 100% to local authorities - nowhere else.

MightyBouche

porsche boy wrote: »

No, your really missing the point here. You said all wealthy people pay huge tax. I proved you were wrong. I proved my comment that wealthy poeple can and do avoid paying proper tax.

Big into your generalizations, are you? Yes, some wealthy people evaded tax. The people in this "don't register, don't pay" are trying to evade tax. Their mates selling cigarettes they bought outside the country and paid no duty on are evading tax also etc etc. Tax evasion is not confined to the wealthy and indeed, I would imagine that a lot more non-wealthy people are committing tax evasion per year here than the wealthy.

I said that the wealthy here pay the majority of the tax taken by the government here, indeed a disproportionate amount. They also indirectly create a lot of tax revenue for the government.

Now your just calling a group of people ignorant and again you are totally missing the point.

You're not making a point. You're grasping at straws.

It has been stated and proven that this €100 payment is not going to local governments and that going forward the average house will be liable for approximately €1500 annually. If you and the likes of Allister want to blindly pay and let the corruption continue then dont ever expect anything to change. COP ON!

The current government is corrupt? Proof, please?

Do you think that if this isn't paid, it will just go away? If so, you're being incredibly naive. We will have a property tax in Ireland next year, what is being done now will not avoid that.

BarackPyjama

alastair wrote: »

Maybe before you tell people to cop on, you'd consider stop repeating absolute piffle? 100% of this household charge goes to local authorities - as clearly required by the act that allows for the introduction of the charge. That's 100% to local authorities - nowhere else.

How do you know that? Nobody I know has received anything in the door from the government to tell them where the money is going.

alastair

phil1nj wrote: »

Welcome back after your short break. Now would care to answer my question from several posts back about your refusal to pay the poll tax yet you happily pay this one?

The poll tax was unjust on the basis of shifting rates from a weighted basis to a flat rate. It also simply didn't work to the point of being counterproductive. This property tax is progressive, fair, and easily administrated.

Biggins

dvpower wrote: »

You can't just change the colour red by a law.
This analogy makes no sense, but I'll go along with the idea that something can be lawful, but not 'right'. I'm simply saying that it isn't theft. Your categorizing it as theft would lead someone to believe that something illegal was going on - this isn't the case.

Well IF they brought in a law to take this money - then claim the councils are supposed to be legally ring-fenced, I smell that something is rotten!

I call it thieving - you might call it something else,
The result is still the same.

They have taken the money and in return as they go with it, they make the rest of us pay twice now for something we have already paid on!

alastair

BarackPyjama wrote: »

How do you know that? Nobody I know has received anything in the door from the government to tell them where the money is going.

The act is publicly available - and I for one posted a link to it in this thread. After that there's the burden of written comprehension, which seems to trip a few up alright.