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

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.

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”?

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

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.

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.

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

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

Neither he nor Annabella1 suggested anything of the sort.

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?

hondasam

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

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.

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?

hondasam

dvpower wrote: »

Which bit of the legislation are you unsure of?

How can we get a criminal record?

dvpower

hondasam wrote: »

How can we get a criminal record?

Its laid out in black and white in the legislation. Have you examined it?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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:

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.