Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Government quakes as a massive 3000 people attend national property tax protest
Options
Comments
-
We could scrap all those pensions and expenses tonight (although I'm not sure specifically which ones you're referring to) and it would make shag all difference to the state of Ireland's finances.
As I keep saying ,this isn't about fixing the nation's finances, it's about making the solution FAIR.Besides, I'm pretty sure FG are/were planning on drafting legislation on precisely this issue.
Are they? If they would have done that BEFORE introducing the household tax, or at least outlined that it was going to happen - coupled with a guarantee that what happened in Anglo WILL be got to the bottom of - I would be protesting far less about the household charge.You're assuming there that there was some illegal goings-on at some point, waiting to be discovered - what if there wasn't?
Then the government should immediately draft legislation to MAKE those activities illegal and ensure that they can never, ever, ever happen again. Of course I accept that legislation can't apply retroactively, if that's the best we can do then so be it.How exactly would that work in practice? A quango (independent, of course) to censor election campaigns? Can't see any potential problems with that.
How does it work if you perjure yourself in court? Suppose we required that every statement made to the press by an official or potential official be made under oath, or a semi oath that "to the best of my knowledge, this is true at this time"?
If it can ever be proven later that a politician knowingly and willfully lied (as in Eamon Gilmore's case) there should be an immediate bye-election in that constituency. If the people decide they can tolerate that lie then the politician can stay.
It's one possible solution. Get caught red handed lying, immediately face the real prospect of losing your seat. Might encourage them to keep their mouths shut rather than feigning certainty where there is none.But the electorate didn't? Every third-level institution in the country has been screaming for years about lack of funding and the state doesn't have the means to make up the shortfall at present, but asking the students to pay is completely out of the question because Ruarai's signed some novelty-sized petition? Seriously?
He signed an agreement. I as a student voter voted for Labour in part due to this. If he didn't mean it and he knew he shouldn't have signed it, end of story.
Again it's not about the fees, it's about the lying. It shouldn't be allowed, period.He knew full well that, if elected, he would never have been able to live up to it and every single person who voted for him should have been well aware of that (if it was one of their pressing concerns).
And if he knew that and signed the document, then he has knowingly and willingly defrauded people who voted for him of their ballots. This is precisely what I'm arguing should be outlawed, it makes an absolute farce of democracy in every way.0 -
No, you didn’t. Nobody ever does, conveniently enough. So you’re basically refusing to pay any more taxes until some unspecified, arbitrary point in the future?
Know this wasn't directed at me but see my response above, how does that sound?
I'm refusing to pay any more taxes until banks stop being bailed out, crimes at Anglo are punished, and if those rogue activities turn out not to be crimes, legislation is tabled ASAP to criminalize them for every single bank in the future of the state. And cut off Bertie's expenses, and the rest of the cronyism gravy train that goes along with them.
Simple as. "All hands on deck" the government says to us about fixing the crisis. The reality at present is that ordinary people have to swab the decks, while the political elite and those responsible for ramming the ship into the iceberg lounge around on deck chairs.0 -
Would you agree that it's unfair that I don't get a PAYE tax credit even though I pay every cent of my income tax through the PAYE system?hatrickpatrick wrote: »As I keep saying ,this isn't about fixing the nation's finances, it's about making the solution FAIR.
Assuming you agree, is it OK for me to not pay income tax until the government addresses this unfairness?0 -
Fine. Review pensions and expenses, but let’s look at additional revenue streams too.hatrickpatrick wrote: »As I keep saying ,this isn't about fixing the nation's finances, it's about making the solution FAIR.
Done what exactly? Again, let’s have some specifics.hatrickpatrick wrote: »Are they? If they would have done that BEFORE introducing the household tax...
You mean in terms of possible criminality? You really think that’s a job for the government?hatrickpatrick wrote: »...coupled with a guarantee that what happened in Anglo WILL be got to the bottom of...
Regardless of what “those activities” are and the potential implications of such legislation?hatrickpatrick wrote: »Then the government should immediately draft legislation to MAKE those activities illegal and ensure that they can never, ever, ever happen again.
Proven by who? The courts? So we’d have TD’s being taken to court by some disgruntled voter pretty much every day. How much would all these legal proceedings cost?hatrickpatrick wrote: »Suppose we required that every statement made to the press by an official or potential official be made under oath, or a semi oath that "to the best of my knowledge, this is true at this time"?
If it can ever be proven later that a politician knowingly and willfully lied (as in Eamon Gilmore's case) there should be an immediate bye-election in that constituency.
I’m sure they would keep their mouths shut, to the point no politician would ever say anything in public (and that includes the Dáil, remember) for fear that someone considers what they say to be an absolute statement of fact. Hence, nothing would ever get done.hatrickpatrick wrote: »It's one possible solution. Get caught red handed lying, immediately face the real prospect of losing your seat. Might encourage them to keep their mouths shut rather than feigning certainty where there is none.
Well you won’t be doing that again, will you? What you could have done was contacted his office and asked what his alternative proposals were for funding third-level education, because, as I'm sure you are witnessing first hand, it is drastically underfunded.hatrickpatrick wrote: »He signed an agreement. I as a student voter voted for Labour in part due to this.
No, this makes a farce of democracy: a politician can promise pretty much anything and voters will buy it without question and elect said politician. Voters then become outraged when said polician fails to reverse the bailing out of Anglo and have Seán Fitzpatrick hung by his testacles from the Dublin Spire.hatrickpatrick wrote: »And if he knew that and signed the document, then he has knowingly and willingly defrauded people who voted for him of their ballots. This is precisely what I'm arguing should be outlawed, it makes an absolute farce of democracy in every way.
Yes, it really is that simple. I mean, it’s not like there are any “ordinary people” drawing exorbitant salaries from state entities like the ESB, for example, or swanning about with a ludicrously high rate of jobseekers benefit supporting them or anything like that.hatrickpatrick wrote: »Simple as. "All hands on deck" the government says to us about fixing the crisis. The reality at present is that ordinary people have to swab the decks, while the political elite and those responsible for ramming the ship into the iceberg lounge around on deck chairs.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »As I keep saying ,this isn't about fixing the nation's finances, it's about making the solution FAIR.
You really think 100 euro a year is unfair?
For a lot of the last 10 years state revenue hasn't been what you'd call efficiently spent. But because taxes were going down for most no one really gave a damn. Now when there has been actual savings (not enough I agree) we're protesting as taxes are going up. Are most people supporting this campaign not being very hypocritical?
Some facts.- 95% of the 14 billion we’re borrowing this year is for our spending deficit is not going to pay for bank debt. It’s just going to fund government services etc. That is a fact.
- The majority of the money we’ve borrowed full stop is for our overspending and not the banks. That is a fact.
- Even if we never made another payment to a bank or never made a payment in the first place we’d still have borrowed the majority of the money. That is a fact.
- Fianna Fail got rid of the sustainable domestic rates to buy an election in 1974 and with the many other tax deceases they have brought in to buy other elections we now do not have a sustainable tax base. That is a fact.
Some further reading… http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0323/1224313766388.html and http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2011/11/deficit-and-banks.html
No amount of anger can avoid the fact we're spending more than we have, by 14 billion this year alone. If we don't collect that 160 million from the household charge we'll be borrowing 14,160,000,000 instead.
Protest about government inefficiency and I'll support it all the way. Protest about a tax we cannot avoid as we're massively overspending and I won't be supporting you, it doesn't even make the slightest sense to support you.0 -
Advertisement
-
You really think 100 euro a year is unfair?
For at a lot of the last 10 years state revenue hasn't been what you'd call efficiently spent. But because taxes were going down for most no one really gave a damn. Now when there has been actual savings (not enough I agree) we're protesting as taxes are going up. Are most people supporting this campaign not being very hypocritical?
Some facts.- 95% of the 14 billion we’re borrowing this year is for our spending deficit is not going to pay for bank debt. It’s just going to fund government services etc. That is a fact.
- The majority of the money we’ve borrowed full stop is for our overspending and not the banks. That is a fact.
- Even if we never made another payment to a bank or never made a payment in the first place we’d still have borrowed the majority of the money. That is a fact.
- Fianna Fail got rid of the sustainable domestic rates to buy an election in 1974 and with the many other tax deceases they have brought in to buy other elections we now do not have a sustainable tax base. That is a fact.
Some further reading… http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0323/1224313766388.html and http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2011/11/deficit-and-banks.html
No amount of anger can avoid the fact we're spending more than we have, by 14 billion this year alone. If we don't collect that 160 million from the household charge we'll be borrowing 14,160,000,000 instead.
Protest about government inefficiency and I'll support it all the way. Protest about a tax we cannot avoid as we're massively overspending and I won't be supporting you, it doesn't even make the slightest sense to support you.
do these items not go hand in hand?
To be fair protesting about government inefficiencies isnt going to do jack all.
The government only respond when there is something to batter them with, alla withholding something they want. Its the first rule of bartering. Im quite surprised with such an intelligent post as your last one you cant see the basics of getting something you want is to barter and negotiate.
Its simple business.....0 -
listermint wrote: »do these items not go hand in hand?
To be fair protesting about government inefficiencies isnt going to do jack all.
The government only respond when there is something to batter them with, alla withholding something they want. Its the first rule of bartering. Im quite surprised with such an intelligent post as your last one you cant see the basics of getting something you want is to barter and negotiate.
Its simple business.....
I'm glad there is a protest movement in principle. I suppose the issue I'd personally have is most of the reasons given for not supporting the tax are simply not factually correct. Lots of ranting about banks etc when the elephant in the room is our massive overspending on our deficit. There is also a lack of any real credible alternative to this tax or another tax like it. We seem to be in the territory of 'we need to protest', 'I am protesting', 'therefore I am right'.0 -
What is being bartered? The arguments against the charge that I have read on this thread have been weak to non-existent.listermint wrote: »The government only respond when there is something to batter them with, alla withholding something they want. Its the first rule of bartering.0 -
tayto lover wrote: »The Household Tax protest is something you don't even have to leave your armchair to take part in. Just relax and don't pay.
Ireland in a nutshell.0 -
You really think 100 euro a year is unfair?
For a lot of the last 10 years state revenue hasn't been what you'd call efficiently spent. But because taxes were going down for most no one really gave a damn. Now when there has been actual savings (not enough I agree) we're protesting as taxes are going up. Are most people supporting this campaign not being very hypocritical?
Some facts.- 95% of the 14 billion we’re borrowing this year is for our spending deficit is not going to pay for bank debt. It’s just going to fund government services etc. That is a fact.
- The majority of the money we’ve borrowed full stop is for our overspending and not the banks. That is a fact.
- Even if we never made another payment to a bank or never made a payment in the first place we’d still have borrowed the majority of the money. That is a fact.
- Fianna Fail got rid of the sustainable domestic rates to buy an election in 1974 and with the many other tax deceases they have brought in to buy other elections we now do not have a sustainable tax base. That is a fact.
Some further reading… http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0323/1224313766388.html and http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2011/11/deficit-and-banks.html
No amount of anger can avoid the fact we're spending more than we have, by 14 billion this year alone. If we don't collect that 160 million from the household charge we'll be borrowing 14,160,000,000 instead.
Protest about government inefficiency and I'll support it all the way. Protest about a tax we cannot avoid as we're massively overspending and I won't be supporting you, it doesn't even make the slightest sense to support you.
A fair post and a good summation. However, I have heard NO government minister bring forward this point. The leaflet I received (a final reminder btw - where was my first and second reminders?) alluded to various vague descriptions of public services that the charge supports. I've heard various spoutings about 'The irish people always pay their debts' and 'Oh the charge applications are coming in in droves'. I have heard nowhere any such argument as the above posed by those levelling the charge. Until they can tell me clearly, in their own words, what the background to the charge is, then I'm not paying. If they can't do a simple job like getting a message across, they're demonstrating why they don't deserve my hard-earned money.0 -
Advertisement
-
But you know what the background to the charge is?Until they can tell me clearly, in their own words, what the background to the charge is, then I'm not paying.
I’ve heard some ridiculous arguments against this charge, but this has to be the pinnacle – you’re justifying tax evasion on the grounds that the government has not personally delivered to you a satisfactory explanation of Ireland’s financial crisis?If they can't do a simple job like getting a message across, they're demonstrating why they don't deserve my hard-earned money.0 -
A fair post and a good summation. However, I have heard NO government minister bring forward this point. The leaflet I received (a final reminder btw - where was my first and second reminders?) alluded to various vague descriptions of public services that the charge supports. I've heard various spoutings about 'The irish people always pay their debts' and 'Oh the charge applications are coming in in droves'. I have heard nowhere any such argument as the above posed by those levelling the charge.
I cringe every time I hear a government minister saying to the effect of "what will it look like if we don't play ball with Europe" etc etc. There is a sea of nonsense being talked about this household charge and what people are looking for is leadership and factual information. They are currently getting neither, except in some very vague way. How difficult can it be for the government to approach some respected academics or economists and get them to explain the facts.0 -
It's absolutely cringeworthy today, to see how government ministers how gone from threatening the taxpayer to pleading and virtually begging!:rolleyes:
The CPA is going to have to be scrapped.
I genuinely believe a large chunk of those not paying simply do not have the means to do so.0 -
On my way out the door atm so will reply to the rest of your points later on, but briefly:You really think 100 euro a year is unfair?
While Bertie & co are still being paid, while rogue banks are still being bailed out, while government advisors are having the rules bent for them, while white collar abuses are either not being criminalized, or not prosecuted - ANY amount is unfair.
It's not about the amount, it's about who's being hit and who isn't. The people who made the mess should be hit harder than anyone else, and before anyone else.
EDIT: As I said before, I would have no problem whatsoever with this tax as long as the above is sorted out as well. It's not about the tax, it's what the tax represents - another attack on ordinary people while those at the top walk away without a scratch.0 -
So you’re refusing to pay additional taxes so long as there is injustice in Ireland? Is this a recently developed view or have you always promoted tax evasion on these grounds?hatrickpatrick wrote: »While Bertie & co are still being paid, while rogue banks are still being bailed out, while government advisors are having the rules bent for them, while white collar abuses are either not being criminalized, or not prosecuted - ANY amount is unfair.
“The mess” is Ireland’s massive expenditure on welfare and public services and the entire electorate (or “the ordinary people” as you insist on labelling them) made it.hatrickpatrick wrote: »The people who made the mess should be hit harder than anyone else, and before anyone else.
As long as what was sorted out? Still waiting for you to provide some specifics.hatrickpatrick wrote: »As I said before, I would have no problem whatsoever with this tax as long as the above is sorted out as well.0 -
But you know what the background to the charge is?
I’ve heard some ridiculous arguments against this charge, but this has to be the pinnacle – you’re justifying tax evasion on the grounds that the government has not personally delivered to you a satisfactory explanation of Ireland’s financial crisis?
They certainly haven't. Infact, they've made no effort to do anyting like that. What they have done is come out with vague statements such that this 100 is necessary. I know the current situation but I don't know what else had been considered as an option. I don't know what will be done with any information I give. I don't know what will be done with the money I hand over. Mumbling about Irish people paying their debts is simply not good explanation. They'd be far better off detailing all the issues involved clearly. Frankly, I see it as a much bigger issue and am using the charge to protest. If they can't clearly communicate the purpose of a charge, how the hell are they miscommunicating in other areas or misrepresenting us abroad? If I have good reasons and good justification to hand over my money, well and good. These lot wouldn't get me to buy them an ice cream the way they're going.0 -
Dannyboy83 wrote: »It's absolutely cringeworthy today, to see how government ministers how gone from threatening the taxpayer to pleading and virtually begging!:rolleyes:
There is rampant scaremongering about this charge from the No campaign. do you disagree with that too?hatrickpatrick wrote: »While Bertie & co are still being paid, while rogue banks are still being bailed out, while government advisors are having the rules bent for them, while white collar abuses are either not being criminalized, or not prosecuted - ANY amount is unfair.
As I said previously there was even more waste and more corruption when taxes were going down. There is less waste and less corruption now but taxes are going up to a sustainable level. I don't seem to recall large numbers of people refusing on moral grounds to pay their taxes before now. Interesting that.hatrickpatrick wrote: »It's not about the amount, it's about who's being hit and who isn't. The people who made the mess should be hit harder than anyone else, and before anyone else.
Well as djpbarry said above we're all responsible for this. Fianna Fail told us what they were going to do and they were elected repeatedly. This idea that it was just 'the bankers' is nonsense.hatrickpatrick wrote: »EDIT: As I said before, I would have no problem whatsoever with this tax as long as the above is sorted out as well. It's not about the tax, it's what the tax represents - another attack on ordinary people while those at the top walk away without a scratch.
Well if we go through all our taxes with the same rubbish criteria I'm sure we can find several more not to pay while we're at it. We have no money, we're borrowing 14 billion this year alone... there are going to be tax increases.0 -
-
There is rampant scaremongering about this charge from the No campaign. do you disagree with that too?
I haven't seen any to be honest, do you have any links?
(I should clarify that I'm not liable for the levy)
Aside from the sheer lack of information, the government have sent all the wrong signals. It is the local government who should have been responsible for implementation of this tax, not the national government. This is politics 101.Well as djpbarry said above we're all responsible for this. Fianna Fail told us what they were going to do and they were elected repeatedly. This idea that it was just 'the bankers' is nonsense.
I'm not criticizing you, I'm just saying this statement is out of touch with the political reality.
Idealistically, morally, ethically, you may be correct.
That doesn't mean you can ignore realpolitik.
Read HatTrickPatrick's post above.
That is the way the people on the ground feel.
A politician must see it a situation as it really is - and respond to that -, not how they would like it to be. That is politics.
(Never forget that this is a nation that continues to pretend we speak the Irish language and force our kids to learn it! LOL!)0 -
When I was back in Dublin over Christmas, I distinctly remember seeing a placard claiming that, if people did not protest against the €100 charge, they would soon be forced to pay thousands in property and water charges.Dannyboy83 wrote: »I haven't seen any to be honest, do you have any links?
Local governments to not have the authority to levy domestic taxes (as far as I am aware). This would require a pretty substantial overhaul of government in Ireland and that is going to take time.Dannyboy83 wrote: »Aside from the sheer lack of information, the government have sent all the wrong signals. It is the local government who should have been responsible for implementation of this tax, not the national government. This is politics 101.0 -
Advertisement
-
When I was back in Dublin over Christmas, I distinctly remember seeing a placard claiming that, if people did not protest against the €100 charge, they would soon be forced to pay thousands in property and water charges.
The point is, it can't be proved otherwise. I have seen nothing from the governement saying that's not the case.
All I can see is the 'Pay €100 as a charge, register your property and we'll figure out what happens next later on'. If the €100 charge was just a charge, I'd pay it, and I'd pay it every year. I object strongly to signing up for something when I don't know the full facts of what this entails down the line. If I shoved a page in your face, asked your for 50 quid and told you to sign it and register with me, would you? Why should you trust the government over me? Why sign up for something open ended when you don't know the full nature of what you're signing up for? Suppose the tax is €750 next year, and €1500 the year after. What will you do then?
We've had this before from local authorities with waste collection. In Fingal where I used to live we started with a waste collection service that was free. then, they brought in a paid model that started at €3. Fair enough. Then, they realised they needed more money to run the service and upped the charge to €5 and soon after to €8 with a €110 charge on top of that. Finally they farmed the service out to Greyhound so people are now paying for that service privately. They haven't got a good record in things like this. What guarantees am I getting for my 100 quid? What services can't they opt out of providing? Do I get a charter of services they guarantee and a level of service to expect? I've seen none of this discussed by the government in return for my €100. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me... and I don't intend to be a fool.0 -
Dannyboy83 wrote: »
Aside from the sheer lack of information, the government have sent all the wrong signals. It is the local government who should have been responsible for implementation of this tax, not the national government. This is politics 101.
This was actually in the FG manifesto and Martin brought Kenny up on it.
You can't leave it up to individual Councils, some will wriggle out of it, some wont. Then you have areas paying a Household tax, other similar areas, not.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
That's an argument against paying any form of tax, as it can't be proved that the government won't increase a given tax at some point in the future.The point is, it can't be proved otherwise.
Pay it, as I am legally obliged to do (if I owned a property in Ireland)?If I shoved a page in your face, asked your for 50 quid and told you to sign it and register with me, would you? Why should you trust the government over me? Why sign up for something open ended when you don't know the full nature of what you're signing up for? Suppose the tax is €750 next year, and €1500 the year after. What will you do then?
You mean, the cost of the service inflated?We've had this before from local authorities with waste collection. In Fingal where I used to live we started with a waste collection service that was free. then, they brought in a paid model that started at €3. Fair enough. Then, they realised they needed more money to run the service and upped the charge to €5 and soon after to €8 with a €110 charge on top of that. Finally they farmed the service out to Greyhound so people are now paying for that service privately.
The same "guarantees" you get when you pay any other tax.They haven't got a good record in things like this. What guarantees am I getting for my 100 quid?0 -
People moan about the charge and how a 'rich' person pays the same as a 'poor' (both are wealthy enough to afford a home loan as it happens. Judging by some comments, this would imply that means-testing it would deem it fairer in their eyes.
Yet . . . when it comes to non-means tested movement of money the OTHER way round (child allowance, for example), making it fairer is vehemently opposed.
That's the Irish for ya.0 -
The point is, it can't be proved otherwise. I have seen nothing from the governement saying that's not the case.
All I can see is the 'Pay €100 as a charge, register your property and we'll figure out what happens next later on'. If the €100 charge was just a charge, I'd pay it, and I'd pay it every year. I object strongly to signing up for something when I don't know the full facts of what this entails down the line. If I shoved a page in your face, asked your for 50 quid and told you to sign it and register with me, would you? Why should you trust the government over me? Why sign up for something open ended when you don't know the full nature of what you're signing up for? Suppose the tax is €750 next year, and €1500 the year after. What will you do then?
We've had this before from local authorities with waste collection. In Fingal where I used to live we started with a waste collection service that was free. then, they brought in a paid model that started at €3. Fair enough. Then, they realised they needed more money to run the service and upped the charge to €5 and soon after to €8 with a €110 charge on top of that. Finally they farmed the service out to Greyhound so people are now paying for that service privately. They haven't got a good record in things like this. What guarantees am I getting for my 100 quid? What services can't they opt out of providing? Do I get a charter of services they guarantee and a level of service to expect? I've seen none of this discussed by the government in return for my €100. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me... and I don't intend to be a fool.
You consider you can bargain with the Govt regarding the payment of this tax.
For a bargain two sides have to discuss/debate.
How do you propose the Govt debates with YOU? And then with me? And then with X and Y?
The idea is absurd. Your chance to 'bargain' with the Govt was in the election as we operate a representative democracy.
You can lobby, write, say what you like but, in the meantime, obey the law as it is the law and take the consequences if you don't.
Delay and protest, as advocated by the cute hoors in the ULA/Independents/Sinn Fein, only increases the costs of running the State and delays recovery.0 -
While I think a land tax would be much fairer, the more land you hold the more you contribute, I am just shocked at some of the arguments against paying and confused by some of the protests.
Here in Meath we had a "community against cuts" protest who you would imagine would be all in favour of more taxes but they were against both this one and the septic tank one. How can you march against cuts and yet fight taxes which are needed to reduce cuts at the same time?0 -
Because like the Greek protestors, the Irish objectors want everything handed to them on a plate and the socialistic society they allegedly want, to somehow magically function on thin air. An air of apathetic entitlement if you will.0
-
the main reason I will not pay, nor will my parents and why I have told anyone I met not to pay is that while €160 million is supposedly going to be collected by this charge, the government are going to continue cut funding of local government
allied to this, is the failure to rationalise local councils and other services
why do we need so many councils?? the amount of money being squandered every year is crazy
to keep some people in well paid jobs and lots of councillors on the gravy train!0 -
At the very least it'd be nice to see some groups come out and state their reason against paying is because of the bloat in the local councils, say, rather than allowing Joe and his gang to pretend as usual that it's a "mass revolt" fuelled by a rejection of the "capitalistic gambling IMF gambler speculator gambler" etc.0
-
Advertisement
-
You know it's possible to pay your taxes and protest at the same time, right?nice_guy80 wrote: »the main reason I will not pay, nor will my parents and why I have told anyone I met not to pay is that while €160 million is supposedly going to be collected by this charge, the government are going to continue cut funding of local government
allied to this, is the failure to rationalise local councils and other services
why do we need so many councils??
For example, I am none too happy about the fact that the Ministry of Defence costs every man woman and child in the UK about £440 per year. However, I have chosen to live in the UK so I have to accept the policies of the democratically-elected government. But, that doesn't stop me from letting my local MP's know that I would like to see a substantial reduction in MoD funding.0
Advertisement