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

Bullseye1

lugha wrote: »

I do see it.

What I don't see is how it has the slightest bearing on the point I made in the post you quoted.

You don't see the connection with spending beyond our means and increasing taxes to keep paying this waste?

Bullseye1

Izzy Skint wrote: »

"you must all bend over and take your medicine from uncle Phil ! it is the LAW !....or we will track you down!"....over my dead body Phil

Alan "get a life" Shatter.....f*ck you.... concentrate on justice for law abiding people instead of pandering to the criminals in our over lenient "justice system" which costs €100,000 a year to keep some scumbag locked up....oh and I almost forgot, the same tax payers who are the victims of these scumbags will also support the scumbags families while they are locked up!....

every aspect of our social services are in a mess, wasteful and are a complete joke and an insult to us, how much more do they think the ordinary people of Ireland can or will take??

supposedly, over 600,000 have "paid" this tax?.....BAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Shatter would be better off ensuring Life means Life in court sentencing. I've never been a fan of that guy.

gerryo777

lugha wrote: »

I do see it.

What I don't see is how it has the slightest bearing on the point I made in the post you quoted.

Where does over €500 million a year come from?
Magic fairies????

lugha

Bullseye1 wrote: »

You don't see the connection with spending beyond our means and increasing taxes to keep paying this waste?

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the point I made. Perhaps you might read the relevant post again?

Bruthal

lugha wrote: »

No I am saying that if you argue that paying this house hold charge amounts to double taxation as home owners already have paid stamp duty then it must also be deemed to be double taxation if the government take some of the money you pay in tax (about €100 per annum!) to pay for local services.

You currently will have paid your stamp duty and a portion of the tax you pay to the exchequer (about €100) goes to funding local services – double taxation!

Under the new proposals you will have will paid your stamp duty and €100 (in the first year) specifically towards a household charge – double taxation!

They were hit with this stamp duty, for the privelage of buying a home. Now they are hit again, on the same home. Where as someone that didnt buy one, were hit with no equivelant extra taxes.

So if a non home owner contributes €100 to local services through their taxes, and the new proposals means home owners contributre another €100 on top of what they already contribute in taxes, then it seems home owners are shuoldering an extra burden, for the second time, for the privelage of having made other sacrafices to own a home.

I see what your point is, but i can see why home owners see it as double taxation. Not because its seemingly paying for local services twice, but because the owners were hit for extra tax twice, for having bought a home.

charlemont

gerryo777 wrote: »

While big Phil does you from behind!










Sorry mods!

Baa Baa green sheep have you any wool ?
No Sir No Sir Big Phil done me like a bull
money for my master money for my dame
no money from the little boy
who lives in a council house down the lane

Sorry I had to, I'm impulsive...

lugha

robbie7730 wrote: »

They were hit with this stamp duty, for the privelage of buying a home. Now they are hit again, on the same home. Where as someone that didnt buy one, were hit with no equivelant extra taxes.

So if a non home owner contributes €100 to local services through their taxes, and the new proposals means home owners contributre another €100 on top of what they already contribute in taxes, then it seems home owners are shuoldering an extra burden, for the second time, for the privelage of having made other sacrafices to own a home.

I see what your point is, but i can see why home owners see it as double taxation. Not because its seemingly paying for local services twice, but because the owners were hit for extra tax twice, for having bought a home.

Ok but this is really a different argument, the “everyone should pay” one and not the “double taxation” one. And that first argument certainly has some credibility.

But those that advance the double taxation argument are saying this charge is wrong because some of us have to pay twice, not this charge is wrong because others are not paying at all, even once.

gerryo777

lugha wrote: »

Ok but this is really a different argument, the “everyone should pay” one and not the “double taxation” one. And that first argument certainly has some credibility.

But those that advance the double taxation argument are saying this charge is wrong because some of us have to pay twice, not this charge is wrong because others are not paying at all, even once.

It's very simple.

This tax is wrong because it's discriminatory.

I don't know why people can't see this, if any other section of the population was singled out like this, there'd be uproar.

Bruthal

lugha wrote: »

Ok but this is really a different argument, the “everyone should pay” one and not the “double taxation” one. And that first argument certainly has some credibility.

But those that advance the double taxation argument are saying this charge is wrong because some of us have to pay twice, not this charge is wrong because others are not paying at all, even once.

It depends on whether you are looking at it as a local services payment, or extracting extra tax from people based on owning their home though.

It appears as if the home is the factor used for people to pay extra taxes. Again, i see your point though.

howamidifferent

gerryo777 wrote: »

It's very simple.

This tax is wrong because it's discriminatory.

I don't know why people can't see this, if any other section of the population was singled out like this, there'd be uproar.

+1 Lets bring in a new tax. We'll call it a "woman tax" . Lets tax 50% of the population for being female. :mad:

Austo77

gerryo777 wrote: »

It's very simple.

This tax is wrong because it's discriminatory.

I don't know why people can't see this, if any other section of the population was singled out like this, there'd be uproar.

Only motorists pay motor tax.

Wild Bill

black francis wrote: »

Jaysus. What a fecking idiot.

Never thought I'd agree with Francie B!;)

He kinda sounds like Bertie in his suicide-advocacy period

(Shatter; not Francie)

lugha

gerryo777 wrote: »

It's very simple.

This tax is wrong because it's discriminatory.

I don't know why people can't see this, if any other section of the population was singled out like this, there'd be uproar.

Well I think there are a number of diverse reasons why people think this tax is wrong. But the point I make here is that double taxation isn’t one of them, or at least double taxation is not the best description of the argument being put. It is more an argument that the tax is not fair.

Any other section? Well let’s see. Motorists pay tax which far exceeds the cost of maintaining the road network. And the excess monies they pay is a tax that nobody else has to pay. Is that not discriminatory?

Izzy Skint

rte are reporting that 12,000 who had a waiver have registered....i thought there were over 200,000 with waivers?....that means about 6% of those with waivers have registered!!....very low....in fact suspiciously low!!.....are we being fed bullsh!t figures here?....if anything you would expect a higher % of those with waivers to register?.....are they bumping up the numbers who have "paid" as opposed to those who registered but not "paid" ??....either way they are all sheep...BAAAAAAAAA !!!!

dvpower

Izzy Skint wrote: »

rte are reporting that 12,000 who had a waiver have registered....i thought there were over 200,000 with waivers?....that means about 6% of those with waivers have registered!!....very low....in fact suspiciously low!!.....are we being fed bullsh!t figures here?....if anything you would expect a higher % of those with waivers to register?.....are they bumping up the numbers who have "paid" as opposed to those who registered but not "paid" ??....either way they are all sheep...BAAAAAAAAA !!!!

Yes. By you.

Some propeties are exempt. Others require waivers. Others are liable.

Wild Bill

black francis wrote: »

Bet if you asked 10 of them what we should do instead, you'd get 10 different answers.

Which only proves that of all the possible measures to try and tackle the crisis this illegitimate Regime has picked one so bad that almost anyone can think of something better

constitutionus

Izzy Skint wrote: »

rte are reporting that 12,000 who had a waiver have registered....i thought there were over 200,000 with waivers?....that means about 6% of those with waivers have registered!!....very low....in fact suspiciously low!!.....are we being fed bullsh!t figures here?....if anything you would expect a higher % of those with waivers to register?.....are they bumping up the numbers who have "paid" as opposed to those who registered but not "paid" ??....either way they are all sheep...BAAAAAAAAA !!!!

this is RTE were talking about.

they missed 70k people during the protests against the war in iraq back in the early 2000s.



when people keep going on about bags of mail in the back room in relation to this you know your getting the mushroom treatment.

lividduck

Wild Bill wrote: »

Which only proves that of all the possible measures to try and tackle the crisis this illegitimate Regime has picked one so bad that almost anyone can think of something better

How are the elected government an illigitmate regime?
Muppets..certainly
At odds with public opinion..definitley
But an Illigitamate regime?, please!

Frank Black

Izzy Skint wrote: »

rte are reporting that 12,000 who had a waiver have registered....i thought there were over 200,000 with waivers?....that means about 6% of those with waivers have registered!!....very low....in fact suspiciously low!!.....are we being fed bullsh!t figures here?....if anything you would expect a higher % of those with waivers to register?.....are they bumping up the numbers who have "paid" as opposed to those who registered but not "paid" ??....either way they are all sheep...BAAAAAAAAA !!!!

It seems that very few who have waivers are registering, which if anything is pushing the compliance % down.

Still, over 40% have registered and the deadline is still 7 hours away!

Terrible result for the anti household tax campaign.

tayto lover

lividduck wrote: »

Being reported that 4,000 turned out for the march, pretty poor turnout really.

You don't have to leave your chair to protest. Just don't pay like the MILLION householders have done.

Wild Bill

constitutionus wrote: »

this is RTE were talking about.

Indeed; RTE have always valued the views of their political paymasters more than truth and objectivity.

They have a lot of previous on this. :cool:

Izzy Skint

dvpower wrote: »

Yes. By you.

Some propeties are exempt. Others require waivers. Others are liable.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
BAAAA BAAAAA BAAAAA!!!

think i will get a slap up indian take away tonight... wooohoooo!!!

thanks for paying sheep ) BAAAAA!

Frank Black

lividduck wrote: »

How are the elected government an illigitmate regime?
Muppets..certainly
At odds with public opinion..definitley
But an Illigitamate regime?, please!

Ah Jaysus!
Don't start him off again.

Helix

Austo77 wrote: »

Only motorists pay motor tax.

you don't need a car, you do need a home

Ghandee

black francis wrote: »

Terrible result for the anti household tax campaign.

Lol.

lividduck

gerryo777 wrote: »

It's very simple.

This tax is wrong because it's discriminatory.

I don't know why people can't see this, if any other section of the population was singled out like this, there'd be uproar.

I actually do agree with Gerry, it is discriminatory.
I paid because my experience of the bin charges was that it cost me a fortune, but it cannot be argued that this charge is fair,proportional, or just.

Wild Bill

lividduck wrote: »

But an Illigitamate regime?, please!

How often do I have to explain the same thing? :rolleyes:

(I'll see if I can root out an earlier post on this very thread to join the dots for you)

Nate--IRL--

black francis wrote: »

It seems that very few who have waivers are registering, which if anything is pushing the compliance % down.

Still, over 40% have registered and the deadline is still 7 hours away!

Terrible result for the anti household tax campaign.

How is that a terrible result?

Nate

Sionach

black francis wrote: »

Izzy Skint wrote: »

rte are reporting that 12,000 who had a waiver have registered....i thought there were over 200,000 with waivers?....that means about 6% of those with waivers have registered!!....very low....in fact suspiciously low!!.....are we being fed bullsh!t figures here?....if anything you would expect a higher % of those with waivers to register?.....are they bumping up the numbers who have "paid" as opposed to those who registered but not "paid" ??....either way they are all sheep...BAAAAAAAAA !!!!

It seems that very few who have waivers are registering, which if anything is pushing the compliance % down.

Still, over 40% have registered and the deadline is still 7 hours away!

Terrible result for the anti household tax campaign.

I thought 40% was less then 60%!
How is this a terrible result if the majority haven't paid?

lividduck

black francis wrote: »

Ah Jaysus!
Don't start him off again.

oops, sorry:D