Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] *Poll Reset*

donalg1

desodon wrote: »

Are you trying to say that an IT multinational would not care if 8 in 10 people in this country did not have access to broadband at their home?




Right back at ya.

They couldnt care less if you or I have broadband in our homes they are in now way concerned by that as long as they have access to Broadband.

bgrizzley

Donal, most of the money the government put in the health system is being spent on administration. how are office clerks going to treat lung cancer?
it all goes back to the same thing, if the government managed the country properly they wouldnt need to charge rent to people on their own houses.

donalg1

hondasam wrote: »

You did in a roundabout way actually.

The government are not guilty of waste ? That's grand so.

No actually I did not. You claimed I did which you are still claiming I did yet I havent seen you quote any of my posts in which I said it. So obviously I didnt otherwise you would have quoted it.

Did I say anything about the government and whether or not they are guilty of waste? No I didnt, so you are actually putting words in my mouth again for the umpteenth time. So if at all possible can you stop making stuff up about me and claiming I said things that I quite clearly didnt.

gerryo777

donalg1 wrote: »

FFS how do you actually keep missing my point seriously? I said the money the government make from people buying cigarettes will be outweighed by the money they spend treating them when they develop cancer as a result of smoking. When and where did I say the only people that have cancer are those that smoke. Please show me where by all means I would love to see it. Otherwise read what I have posted and get the point.

Have you some facts or a study to back this up?

Jesus Donal, you came on here last week going on about how people are still on here arguing about the household tax.
You've hardly been off the thread since...

Keep it on topic, you're arguing now about how much people who are sick are costing the exchequer as opposed to how much people who smoke pay in taxes on their habit.

Anyway, back to work for me....

Chips Lovell

Is there any point arguing about people being unable to pay the charge without any figures on just how many people would be unable to afford it?

hondasam

donalg1 wrote: »

Did I say anything about the government and whether or not they are guilty of waste? No I didnt, so you are actually putting words in my mouth again for the umpteenth time. So if at all possible can you stop making stuff up about me and claiming I said things that I quite clearly didnt.

No you never say anything about the government that's the problem, you see no wrong with them at all.
I asked you the question Are the government guilty of waste? you failed to answer again. I'm not putting words in your mouth at all you avoid what you don't want to answer.

ilovesleep

Well done to everybody who caved so quickly with this household tax.

10,000 ties - silk ones - will be bought in celebration.

donalg1

hondasam wrote: »

No you never say anything about the government that's the problem, you see no wrong with them at all.
I asked you the question Are the government guilty of waste? you failed to answer again. I'm not putting words in your mouth at all you avoid what you don't want to answer.

So now you are saying I never said anything about it, after previously saying I did, if its not putting words in my mouth then what would you call it.

I dont think there is a single person in this Country that thinks the Government arent guilty of waste now in all fairness.

I have highlighted the above to show you yet another example of how you are making claims about what I think, despite the fact there is no way you could possibly no my thoughts on that subject. I will have to ask you again to stop doing this.

DoesNotCompute

Ghandee wrote: »

different slant to the story from the same source.

http://www.thejournal.ie/joe-higgins-clare-daly-joan-collins-thomas-pringle-united-left-alliance-expenses-household-charge-boycott-508036-Jul2012/




Lol, its wasting tax payers money when they're travelling the country advising the public not to pay into a sham tax where their money shall be wasted by the coalition goons in govt.

Oh the irony lol.

Yes, it is wasting tax payer's money, as they are travelling around the country instructing people to break the law.

If it wasn't dodgy, why would the Oireachtas be looking for legal advice?

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

Donal, most of the money the government put in the health system is being spent on administration. how are office clerks going to treat lung cancer?
it all goes back to the same thing, if the government managed the country properly they wouldnt need to charge rent to people on their own houses.

So if a person develops some form of cancer as a result of smoking the Government pays nothing towards thier health care costs then?

Am Chile

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's not like refusing to repay bondholders is a magic bullet that would solve all our ills. For a start, there are consequences to such a move,


People should read the following article about denmark and bondholders, makes interesting reading.


Denmark burns bondholders, shuns euro -- and markets love it

Despite leaving bondholders twisting in the wind, Denmark's newest bond has less than zero per cent yields -- because markets view it as such a super-safe bet.

The Danish central bank auctioned a new bond yesterday and the investors piled in. In contrast, bondholder-appeasing Ireland faces a Herculean struggle to return to the markets at all this year.

Denmark allowed two of its banks -- Amagerbanken and Fjordbank Mors, which collapsed leaving the state on the hook for about €2bn between them -- to fail, burning senior bondholders in the process.

Ireland was prevented by the ECB from giving haircuts, with €1.25bn worth of Anglo debt paid out to unsecured, unguaranteed senior bondholders in February.

That said, the two bondholder-burning banks were worth less than 1 per cent of the Danish banking sector.

Danish 10-year bonds have an even lower yield than German bonds at just 1.2 per cent, and a recent 18-month Danish bond maturing in November 2013 has a yield of below -2 per cent.

Global investors are so sure of Denmark's economy that they were willing to buy this latest inflation-linked bond at a loss to keep their money safe.

"If inflation unfolds as expected these bonds will have a negative yield of 0.4 per cent," said Owen Callan, a senior dealer at Danske Bank.

"So you're losing 0.4 per cent per year over the 11 years after inflation. But people are willing to take a small real loss for safety's sake.

For the same reason, the Danish krone has soared to a five-month high against the euro.

http://www.independent.ie/business/world/denmark-burns-bondholders-shuns-euro-and-markets-love-it-3119809.html

Am Chile

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Yes, it is wasting tax payer's money, as they are travelling around the country instructing people to break the law.

If it wasn't dodgy, why would the Oireachtas be looking for legal advice?

They re doing what you promised to do pre election which was to fight against Austerity, you re sticking to their pre election promises/commitments at least, pity the same can,t be said about fg/lab-besides think all the leaflets, all the advertising, all the posters, all the travelling and canvassing for the yes vote in the recent referendum would of being used by taxpayers money wheres the media outrage over that? besides its some coincidence this story is the media at the very same time the warning letters have being sent out over the household tax.

Some people are Intelligent enough to see This for what it really is, a politically motivated witch-hunt against people who are unwilling to bend over and take what the IMF/ECB want to dish out. The establishment and their political lapdogs are desperate to stifle all opposition.

But lets see if the Oireachtas will be looking for legal advice on tax payers money wasted by phil phil in rio although I wouldn't hold my breath.

bgrizzley

donalg1 wrote: »

So if a person develops some form of cancer as a result of smoking the Government pays nothing towards thier health care costs then?

i didnt say they paid nothing, my issue is pouring money into administration rather than frontline.
however, 20-a-day over 30 years gives the government E73,474.50 and not every smoker ends up with lung cancer or any more illnesses than any non smoker. Add to that the money they pay in other taxes over their lifetime, PRSI, USC.
Does the government really spend that much to have them on a trolley in a corridor(while 5 people in an office fill out their admitance forms in triplicate)?

desodon

donalg1 wrote: »

They couldnt care less if you or I have broadband in our homes they are in now way concerned by that as long as they have access to Broadband.

Wow. Either you're really misinformed or living in the past.

I can assure you the company I work for cares that I have broadband, and a mobile phone. Voluntary remote desktop sessions vastly improve the overall efficiency of the company. Access to work email from home speeds up communications otherwise hampered by timezone differences within multinationals.

But sure, they couldn't care less...

It should be glaringly obvious, that end user level infrastructure is of major concern to investment within this country.

You're views are fascinating. Wrong, but fascinating. I still wonder which planet it is you're from.

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

i didnt say they paid nothing, my issue is pouring money into administration rather than frontline.
however, 20-a-day over 30 years gives the government E73,474.50 and not every smoker ends up with lung cancer or any more illnesses than any non smoker. Add to that the money they pay in other taxes over their lifetime, PRSI, USC.
Does the government really spend that much to have them on a trolley in a corridor(while 5 people in an office fill out their admitance forms in triplicate)?

I couldnt possibly say if the cost of treatment for a patient with a smoking related form of cancer is €73,474.50 as there would be countless factors to be taken into account I am sure.

My point was that someone who spends their money on cigarettes cant claim that they cant afford to pay the HHC.

Chips Lovell

Am Chile wrote: »

People should read the following article about denmark and bondholders, makes interesting reading.


Denmark burns bondholders, shuns euro -- and markets love it



http://www.independent.ie/business/world/denmark-burns-bondholders-shuns-euro-and-markets-love-it-3119809.html

The Danish experience was that they let two banks, which were relatively much smaller than any of our banks fail and burned senior bondholders. What happened was that borrowing costs for all of Denmark's other banks were driven up:

European regulators weighing measures to save taxpayers from paying the bill when banks go bust can learn from the crisis in Denmark, where an attempt to share the burden with senior creditors backfired.

The Nordic country, with 5.6 million residents and about 120 lenders, enacted a law in October making it the first European Union member to force senior bondholders to take losses if a bank fails. When Copenhagen-based Amagerbanken A/S collapsed four months later and those creditors took a hit, international investors curbed funding to most of the nation’s banks. The government is still trying to remedy the situation.

Following the experience, the Danish government rowed back from burning bondholders and haven't resorted to the measure again.

Danish lawmakers have since agreed on a package designed to spur troubled lenders to combine and help them avoid resorting to the country’s resolution bill.

With due respect to the Indo, saying that the success of a sovereign debt auction more than a year after the Danish government back away from a policy of burning bank bondholders is reason for us to reverse our own policy isn't that compelling.

donalg1

desodon wrote: »

Wow. Either you're really misinformed or living in the past.

I can assure you the company I work for cares that I have broadband, and a mobile phone. Voluntary remote desktop sessions vastly improve the overall efficiency of the company. Access to work email from home speeds up communications otherwise hampered by timezone differences within multinationals.

But sure, they couldn't care less...

It should be glaringly obvious, that end user level infrastructure is of major concern to investment within this country.

You're views are fascinating. Wrong, but fascinating. I still wonder which planet it is you're from.

So the company you work for is indicative of every other company in Ireland, sorry I didnt realise that. And I also didnt realise that everyone in Ireland works for these multinationals but thanks for letting me know.;)

bgrizzley

donalg1 wrote: »

I couldnt possibly say if the cost of treatment for a patient with a smoking related form of cancer is €73,474.50 as there would be countless factors to be taken into account I am sure.

My point was that someone who spends their money on cigarettes cant claim that they cant afford to pay the HHC.

and on that point we do agree. my point is that the government will get more money from a smoker than they will ever get trying to screw him/her with this tax.

they are a filthy habit anyway:P

Ghandee

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Yes, it is wasting tax payer's money, as they are travelling around the country instructing people to break the law.

If it wasn't dodgy, why would the Oireachtas be looking for legal advice?

how much was spent on Pro HHC propaganda, media coverage, radio advertisements, fliers,.

Not to mention the 'final reminder' notices :rolleyes: sent to almost every house on the island, including houses exempt from the charge?

Why does the country wish to penalise the folk who kept their pre-election promises, and turn a blind eye to the fraudsters in govt?

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

and on that point we do agree. my point is that the government will get more money from a smoker than they will ever get trying to screw him/her with this tax.

they are a filthy habit anyway:P

Thats a true point, sure it would only be a couple of weeks before they make the €100.

Tis a filthy habit altogether.

bgrizzley

Ghandee wrote: »

how much was spent on Pro HHC propaganda, media coverage, radio advertisements, fliers,.

Not to mention the 'final reminder' notices :rolleyes: sent to almost every house on the island, including houses exempt from the charge?

Why does the country wish to penalise the folk who kept their pre-election promises, and turn a blind eye to the fraudsters in govt?

one could say they were performing a far more useful public service than a minister at a climate conference in brazil at multitudes of the money they are talking about investigating:)

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

When and where did I say the only people that have cancer are those that smoke.

:rolleyes:
I didnt say you did

I do agree smoking is a luxury and in no way benefits a way of life, but i never said people shouldnt be made give up smoking to pay the HHC. I was simply pointing out that it is another form of income for the government, that increases in every budget.
I also never said that the government were making a killing (excuse the pun) on the price increases on cigarettes either. 30% of the over all cancer bill and the government dont pay 100% of the costs either, how much could it be? i cant find figures.

desodon

donalg1 wrote: »

And I also didnt realise that everyone in Ireland works for these multinationals but thanks for letting me know.;)

ha ha. you're some man

gerryo777

If we need more money why don't we try here....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0704/top-10-000-earners-pay-effectively-29-income-tax.html

Have to laugh then when people suggest that the 'rich will leave Ireland' if we tax them too much. Well,
1. Let them find a country that taxes them less, and
2. If that's all Ireland means to them, let them **** off out of here.
They're not welcome.

tayto lover

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

If ye want to talk about waste, how about this:

http://www.thejournal.ie/oireachtas-travel-expenses-household-charge-joe-higgins-clare-daly-508817-Jul2012/

Elected lawmakers travelling around the country to attend meetings advocating breaking of the law, and then claiming it back on expenses. Outrageous.

And yet their expenses are much less than the Govt politicians ??? Yes indeed that really annoys me. What are they spending theirs on ?

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Is there any point arguing about people being unable to pay the charge without any figures on just how many people would be unable to afford it?

Here's a few for a start -


Yes 233 26.75%
No 589 67.62%
Other (specify on thread) 49 5.63%
Voters: 871. You have already voted on this poll

tayto lover

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Yes, it is wasting tax payer's money, as they are travelling around the country instructing people to break the law.

If it wasn't dodgy, why would the Oireachtas be looking for legal advice?

The Oireachtas would be better off stopping the purchase of the silk scarves and silk ties for the people who are still living on Fantasy Island. Now there's a waste.

Noreen1

tayto lover wrote: »

The Oireachtas would be better off stopping the purchase of the silk scarves and silk ties for the people who are still living on Fantasy Island. Now there's a waste.

Very true.

It smacks of CJ Haughey, and his french shirts. So much for eliminating waste....

tayto lover

Noreen1 wrote: »

Very true.

It smacks of CJ Haughey, and his french shirts. So much for eliminating waste....

Yes there are two different worlds on this small island. Those who must cutback to survive and those who don't. Our Govt are in the latter obviously and an arrogant bunch to even contemplate this act while other ordinary folk are tightening their belts.

flutered

Noreen1 wrote: »

Very true.

It smacks of CJ Haughey, and his french shirts. So much for eliminating waste....[/QUOTE|

is not our spiffing president shopping at the boutique as haughy used to, was there no a pic of his on some newspaper recently proudly displaying a 100 euro tie.