Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 3] *Poll Reset*

Micky Dolenz

This is a continuation of this thread and this thread.
If you were thread banned in part 2, you are free to post here.

Keep it clean, no flaming or baiting. Report posts you think cross the line.

Cantona's Collars

DON'T REGISTER, DON'T PAY!!

squod

Wohoo! Another poll. Still voting no. Still the vast majority of people I know have not paid. Still massive waste going on in local government. People still seeing this charge as a way of propping up the pension schemes of pen pushers in the PS.

No Change

bgrizzley

20,000 posts of utter sh1te, who would have thought it.
And our teachers said we would never achieve anything...

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Still havent paid and have no intention to..........."Come at me Bro Council"!

Hijpo

From the previous government. There's been no more bank recapitalisation since this one was elected.

Apparently the banks were recapitalised enough when the government bought shares in BOI, PTSB and AIB.

Did they use money that wasnt there?
Did they have to take out a loan to do this?
Are the irish people now having to pay back the loans the government took out?
Are members of AIB now paying back the governments debts aswell as paying higher interest rates because a bank the government has shares in isnt profitable enough?

Ghandee

Still waiting in an answer as to why FG lied to the nation about being obliged to pay unsecured bondholders.

Who, like FF before them, are they protecting?

Cantona's Collars

@ am chile,here's the leaflet I got.

http://tnypic.net/833c9.jpg

http://tnypic.net/09785.jpg

Izzy Skint

Ghandee wrote: »

Still waiting in an answer as to why FG lied to the nation about being obliged to pay unsecured bondholders.

Who, like FF before them, are they protecting?

if some pro taxer does wish to answer Ghandee's question, could you also attempt to answer another one....why have FF / FG / Lab also lied to us about the IMF / Troika "insisting" on the introduction of a property tax...it was our own politicians who proposed this and offered it to the troika as a potential revenue raiser ?
.....Ghandee, I doubt there will be any takers...I wonder why ?

Ghandee

Izzy Skint wrote: »

if some pro taxer does wish to answer Ghandee's question, could you also attempt to answer another one....why have FF / FG / Lab also lied to us about the IMF / Troika "insisting" on the introduction of a property tax...it was our own politicians who proposed this and offered it to the troika as a potential revenue raiser ?
.....Ghandee, I doubt there will be any takers...I wonder why ?

Because it doesn't suit them to speak ill of their dear leader's. (ask any of them what that thought of hegarty and Reilly both appearing in Stubbs) they'll refuse to Condem their across and behaviour!

They're quicker to jump on some trivial misconception or mistake such as a date or a percentage of something.

Am Chile

zerks wrote: »

@ am chile,here's the leaflet I got.

http://tnypic.net/833c9.jpg

http://tnypic.net/09785.jpg

Thanks for posting the leaflet-just looking at it I wouldn,t believe for a minute over 60% paid in Wexford-all the pictures on it,-I dount many people will fall for the oh think of the services argument on it.

dvpower

Izzy Skint wrote: »

if some pro taxer does wish to answer Ghandee's question, could you also attempt to answer another one....why have FF / FG / Lab also lied to us about the IMF / Troika "insisting" on the introduction of a property tax...it was our own politicians who proposed this and offered it to the troika as a potential revenue raiser ?
.....Ghandee, I doubt there will be any takers...I wonder why ?

What's the evidence for this?

Chips Lovell

Izzy Skint wrote: »

if some pro taxer does wish to answer Ghandee's question, could you also attempt to answer another one....why have FF / FG / Lab also lied to us about the IMF / Troika "insisting" on the introduction of a property tax...it was our own politicians who proposed this and offered it to the troika as a potential revenue raiser ?

It's actually in the memorandum of understanding:

7. Ireland shall adopt the following measures during 2011, in line with specifications in the
Memorandum of Understanding:

(a) a 10 % pay reduction for new entrants to the public service. The Irish government
shall also consider an appropriate adjustment, including in relation to the public
service wage bill, to compensate for potential shortfalls from projected savings from
administrative efficiencies and public service numbers reductions;

(b) the adoption of a budget for 2012 including fiscal consolidation measures amounting
to at least EUR 3,6 billion and aiming at a reduction of the general government
deficit within the timeframe referred to in Article 3(3). The draft budget shall,
in particular, include revenue measures to yield EUR 1,5 billion in a full year
including, inter alia: a lowering of personal income tax bands and credits; a reduction
in private pension tax relief; a reduction in general tax expenditure; a new property
tax; a reform of capital gains tax and capital acquisitions tax; and, an increase in the
carbon tax. The budget shall provide for a reduction of expenditure in 2012 of
EUR 2,1 billion including social expenditure reductions; cuts in public sector
employment; adjustments in public sector pensions and in other expenditure set out
in the Programme; and reductions in capital expenditure;

(c) the finalisation of an independent assessment of transfer of responsibility for water
services provision from local authorities to a water utility, and preparation of
proposals for implementation with a view to starting charging in 2012-2013;

Chips Lovell

The property tax was also proposed by the independent Commission on Taxation, which issued its report long before the EU/IMF memorandum was signed.

We consider that as a matter of general principle all property should be subject to recurrent
taxation – either through the local government commercial rates system or an annual tax on
residential property, which we are proposing. Such an annual property tax should form a key
part of broadening the overall tax base. We consider that an annual property tax (APT) should
be implemented at the earliest possible date, taking account of the very significant administrative
challenge for the Revenue Commissioners who will have to develop an assessment, collection and
accounting system.

In this context it is appropriate to move away from an undue reliance on stamp duty – where the
tax revenues are contingent on the level and value of property transactions. There are significant
benefits to moving to a more stable tax base, which provides for a reliable revenue stream and a
sustainable source of Exchequer funding.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

What's the evidence for this?

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's actually in the memorandum of understanding:

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The property tax was also proposed by the independent Commission on Taxation, which issued its report long before the EU/IMF memorandum was signed.

Sigh....


I'll ask again.




Why did they lie to the Irish people when they told us they had to repay bondholders under orders from the troika?

I feel like Vincent Browne here guys.

Ghandee

@Vlad.


That's not insisting.

The troika have now told independents they ate open to discussion on any other means of raising revenue.

The govt lied to us.

They lied.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Sigh....


I'll ask again.




Why did they lite to the Irish people when they told us they had to repay bondholders under orders from the troika?

I feel like Vincent Browne here guys.

wtf has the bondholder repayments got to do with the question of who insisted on a property tax?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

@Vlad.


That's not insisting.

The troika have now told independents they ate open to discussion on any other means of raising revenue.

The govt lied to us.

They lied.

Exactly what lie are you talking about? And what is the evidence of the lie?

btw, I don't have the document to hand, but the troika have said that they are open to negotiation on the property tax, but only on the basis of a qualitatively equivalent measure being proposed in its place - they go on to mention the good qualities of a property tax (like it being a stable and dependable revenue stream etc). So the idea that we could substitute it with an income tax or VAT increase isn't realistic.

ilovesleep

What was in FG's manifesto in 2011.

They were going to reduce the size of government. They were going to do this by reducing county counsils and counsellors.

Well this is what's happening in Galway:

http://www.galwaynews.ie/28364-major-change-electoral-areas-city-pipeline

They are adding more counsillors.

And this is the small piece over at the Galway forum:
http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=81322660#post81322660

Phil Hogan is over this.

Chips Lovell

So if I've got this straight, if we had a commitment to introduce a property tax in our agreement with the troika and the government told us about this agreement, because the troika now says that it would consider other similar measures, this means that we've been lied to all along? OK

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

wtf has the bondholder repayments got to do with the question of who insisted on a property tax?

For Christs sakes DV man up and answer the question.

You know well that the two things are related.

HHC, brought in to close a deficit we're told, it'll raise 160,000,000 we're told.

Property tax/hhc both introduced to help fund the bailout.

This months 1 billion AIB payout to unsecured bondholders would have paid a hhc for over six years alone, never mind the rest of the bondholders being needlessly paid back.

Had that single payout not have happened we could have delayed the hhc for six years maybe the country might have recovered enough by that time that it wouldn't be as hurtful to some already struggling home owners, or even better, it wouldn't be required at all!

Surely a man who is so knowledgeable on all things govt related can see how there's some connectivity between our debt, bailout, bondholders and a property tax (introduced on the back of the bailout)

If you can't, your either acting dumb, being obnoxious, or being a die hard blue shirt fan boy.

Maybe now you'll answer me?

Why did FG lie that they were instructed not to burn the bondholders by the troika?

I would like an answer, if you have not got one, just say so.

dvpower

ilovesleep wrote: »

What was in FG's manifesto in 2011.

They were going to reduce the size of government. They were going to do this by reducing county counsils and counsellors.

Well this is what's happening in Galway:

http://www.galwaynews.ie/28364-major-change-electoral-areas-city-pipeline

They are adding more counsillors.

Perhaps you need to sleep less.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1016/phil-hogan-local-government-cabinet-politics.html

The measures will reduce the number of councillors from over 1,600 to 950.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

For Christs sakes DV man up and answer the question.

You know well that the two things are related.

No. Please explain how the question of who insisted we repay bondholders is related to the question of who introduced the idea of a property tax to the troika.

Ghandee wrote: »

Maybe now you'll answer me?

Why did FG lie that they were instructed not to burn the bondholders by the troika?

I would like an answer, if you have not got one, just say so.

You may be getting confused. I wasn't involved in that discussion with you at all.

Anyway, I thought it was common knowledge that the ECB were insisting on bondholders being repaid - at least until Draghi took over. Is there someone saying that the ECB were never insisting on this?

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

No. Please explain how the question of who insisted we repay bondholders is related to the question of who introduced the idea of a property tax to the troika.


You may be getting confused. I wasn't involved in that discussion with you at all.

Anyway, I thought it was common knowledge that the ECB were insisting on bondholders being repaid - at least until Draghi took over. Is there someone saying that the ECB were never insisting on this?

That's what we were told.

The troika say the opposite though.

http://www.stephendonnelly.ie/featured/so-i-met-the-troika-yesterday/

ilovesleep

dvpower wrote: »

Perhaps you need to sleep less.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1016/phil-hogan-local-government-cabinet-politics.html

How will adding more reduce the numbers?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

That's what we were told.

The troika say the opposite though.

http://www.stephendonnelly.ie/featured/so-i-met-the-troika-yesterday/

What charge exactly are you making against the current government (you may want to re-read what Donnelly actually wrote before answering)?

Izzy Skint

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So if I've got this straight, if we had a commitment to introduce a property tax in our agreement with the troika and the government told us about this agreement, because the troika now says that it would consider other similar measures, this means that we've been lied to all along? OK

I read it in the Evening Echo recently and I know what I read...unable to find a link........Ciaran Lynch, a labour td for Cork south central stated in a recent article that the property tax was proposed by FF in 2010...etc....and that we (FG / Lab) now have to enforce it.....

our politicians proposed , negotiated and pushed hard for this with the IMF...less cuts for them to make elsewhere, especially in the public service pay and pension bill....they are lying to us ....true , the IMF / troika may want it introduced now, but it was our own politicians who planted the seed......

ot....VLAD...is that an Eddie Irvine picture you use?

squod

For people who don't twit-ter

''Stephen Donnelly TD @DonnellyStephen
@sendboyle Who knows. Troika told us yesterday that payment of unguaranteed snr BHs in pillar banks was at insistence of Gov.''

Am Chile

Anti property tax leaflets have being sent out by Willie O Dea in the Limerick constituency-these people in Fianna Fail must think Irish people have short memories.

Ghandee

It doesn't matter which govt insisted DV, if it was FF decision, that decision should have been made null and void when a new govt was formed.

They promised to burn bondholders before they got into govt, then u-turned when they got in.

Meanwhile the troika tell us the opposite of what both govt's have said.

You may want to watch this clip btw.

Izzy Skint

f***ing lies...disgraceful....traitors....
http://www.thejournal.ie/kenny-says-well-pay-our-dues-a-year-after-varadkar-said-not-another-cent-350805-Feb2012/
more broken promises
DX, DV, VLAD, ......comment please..

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

It doesn't matter which govt insisted DV, if it was FF decision, that decision should have been made null and void when a new govt was formed.

Good to see you've reconsidered your position.
So Stephen Donnelly found out that the previous (FF) government shackled this state with a blanket guarantee. No **** sherlock!

(Do you really think that the state can simply renege on its responsibilities every time there is a change of government, because if they can I say we should just boeeow a heap more money - sure the debt will die with the next change of government :pac::pac:)

dvpower

Izzy Skint wrote: »

f***ing lies...disgraceful....traitors....
http://www.thejournal.ie/kenny-says-well-pay-our-dues-a-year-after-varadkar-said-not-another-cent-350805-Feb2012/
more broken promises
DX, DV, VLAD, ......comment please..

That article is nine months old. You should look back on part one of this thread to catch up on the discussion on that.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

Good to see you've reconsidered your position.
So Stephen Donnelly found out that the previous (FF) gove]rnment shackled this state with a blanket guarantee. No **** sherlock!

(Do you really Ithink that the state can simply renege on its responsibilities every time there is a change of government, because if they can I say we should just boeeow a heap more money - sure the debt will die with the next change of government :pac::pac:)

I've nowhere near reconsidered my position.

Its not made clear which govt insisted on paying the bondholders.

More stuffs emerging each day though, and I'm expecting someone to confirm the govt in question is this one as well add the previous one.

Do you really Ithink that the state can simply renege on its responsibilities every time there is a change of government, because if they can I say we should just boeeow a heap more money - sure the debt will die with the next change of government

Well, FG seemed to think it also, remember the 'not another red cent' promises?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

I've nowhere near reconsidered my position.

Its not made clear which govt insisted on paying the bondholders.

More stuffs emerging each day though, and I'm expecting someone to confirm the govt in question is this one as well add the previous one.

So you're saying that the information is sketchy, fluid and incomplete.

And just a few posts ago you were like a dog with a bone - funny that.

Izzy Skint

dvpower wrote: »

That article is nine months old. You should look back on part one of this thread to catch up on the discussion on that.

DV, is that your comment "That article is nine months old."...????...promises were made to the people, those promises were broken, AND, to cap it all, they decided to do the very opposite of those promises, instead of "not another red cent" it became "every red cent"....LIARS and TRAITORS.
would you like to comment on the content of the article please....I have asked you nicely....oh, article was 9 months old...and everything that applied then apllies now....we are now more screwed than ever.

dvpower

Izzy Skint wrote: »

I read it in the Evening Echo recently and I know what I read...unable to find a link........Ciaran Lynch, a labour td for Cork south central stated in a recent article that the property tax was proposed by FF in 2010...etc....and that we (FG / Lab) now have to enforce it.....

our politicians proposed , negotiated and pushed hard for this with the IMF...less cuts for them to make elsewhere, especially in the public service pay and pension bill....they are lying to us ....true , the IMF / troika may want it introduced now, but it was our own politicians who planted the seed......

Are you seriously expecting us to accept this on (at best) fourth hand information coming through someone who wasn't even in a government party at the time of the bailout negotiations?

btw, I don't see any mention of it in a search of the Evening Echo.

Izzy Skint

dvpower wrote: »

Are you seriously expecting us to accept this on (at best) fourth hand information coming through someone who wasn't even in a government party at the time of the bailout negotiations?

btw, I don't see any mention of it in a search of the Evening Echo.

accept it or not, I personally don't care....but I do know what I read....as I have said, I can't find it either on the web but it was stated by C. Lynch.

FG / Lab were not in govt. then, but, they are in govt. for the past 18 months...they know what happened...at least Ciaran Lynch did !!!!

dvpower

Izzy Skint wrote: »

DV, is that your comment "That article is nine months old."...????...promises were made to the people, those promises were broken, AND, to cap it all, they decided to do the very opposite of those promises, instead of "not another red cent" it became "every red cent"....LIARS and TRAITORS.
would you like to comment on the content of the article please....I have asked you nicely....oh, article was 9 months old...and everything that applied then apllies now....we are now more screwed than ever.

This has been the subject of discussion on this thread a number of times and it gets brought up again from time to time (like it had something to do with the property tax) - even Ghandee is on about it again today.

I doubt you seriously want to debate it again, but if you do, will you at least look back on what people have said about it in the past (or, better, open a different thread about it).
An any case, I think Varadkar was foolish to make promises that he didn't have the power to keep. If that eases your anger somewhat then all to the good.

dvpower

Izzy Skint wrote: »

accept it or not, I personally don't care....but I do know what I read....as I have said, I can't find it either on the web but it was stated by C. Lynch.

FG / Lab were not in govt. then, but, they are in govt. for the past 18 months...they know what happened...at least Ciaran Lynch did !!!!

There is no evidence that Ciaran Lynch said what you say he did, so its not correct to say that he knew what a rival party negotiated with the troika.

You are mistaken on this one.

Micky Dolenz

Enda Kenny 1994 wrote:

“It is morally unjust and unfair to tax a person's home, and by so doing grind him into the ground. Indeed in cases it could probably be unconstitutional” “It reminds me of a vampire tax in that it drives a stake through the heart of home ownership, through enthusiasm and initiative, and sucks the life blood of people who want to own their own home and better their position”

A liar and a liar.

Enda Kenny 1994 wrote:

“If the Government fail to appreciate the passion with which people will defend their rights to own their home and have it looking as well as it should, it is making a serious mistake”

Could not have said it better myself Enda.

dvpower

1994 - a different universe.

Micky Dolenz

dvpower wrote: »

1994 - a different universe.

So promises they give now could be broke in a mere few months as it's a different time, blah blah blah.

Enda, don't speak with piss and vinegar when you don't say what you mean or mean what you say.

Without your bond, you are nothing. :P

Empty words and promises. We need leadership with strength and back bone. I actually do not see where we will get that from. FG are as bad as FF. Without doubt, we are the laughing stock of Brussels.

Le_Dieux

Izzy Skint wrote: »

if some pro taxer does wish to answer Ghandee's question, could you also attempt to answer another one....why have FF / FG / Lab also lied to us about the IMF / Troika "insisting" on the introduction of a property tax...it was our own politicians who proposed this and offered it to the troika as a potential revenue raiser ?
.....Ghandee, I doubt there will be any takers...I wonder why ?

My interpretation of the answer Izzy - Because ALL politicians are damn lairs. The whole lot of them couldn't tell the truth if You paid them.

I think, personally, kenny has a cheek going to Merkel pleading for help when he is paid only $23,000 per annum less than Her. She is Chancellor of the 3rd largest economy in the world, has a population of around 80 million, yet She get $283,608 per annum ( source: http://www.therichest.org/celebnetworth/tag/angela-merkel-salary/ ) while poor ould enda gets €200,000 ( source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoiseach ) and that is just over $260,000 ( source: http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert/?Amount=200000&From=EUR&To=USD ).

Sadly, these td's(???) are so involved in their own world, while the country is going to rack and ruin.

OMG, 2014 can't come soon enough!!!

Slick50

dvpower wrote: »

I don't have the document to hand, but the troika have said that they are open to negotiation on the property tax, but only on the basis of a qualitatively equivalent measure being proposed in its place - they go on to mention the good qualities of a property tax (like it being a stable and dependable revenue stream etc). So the idea that we could substitute it with an income tax or VAT increase isn't realistic.

It is false to pretend that this is a stable and dependable stream of income, unless you decide to ignore peoples ability to pay, and levy the charge against the home anyhow.... which as far as I am concerned is just another very good reason to oppose a tax on the home.

dvpower

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

So promises they give now could be broke in a mere few months as it's a different time, blah blah blah.

1994 was 18 years ago, not a 'mere few months' ago.

To put it in context - 1994 was also the year of the first IRA ceasefire. Should we hold everyone to the positions they once held a long time ago.



btw, what's the source and context of that second quote?
Originally Posted by Enda Kenny 1994
“If the Government fail to appreciate the passion with which people will defend their rights to own their home and have it looking as well as it should, it is making a serious mistake”

Izzy Skint

dvpower wrote: »

There is no evidence that Ciaran Lynch said what you say he did, so its not correct to say that he knew what a rival party negotiated with the troika.

You are mistaken on this one.

NO DV, I am not, I am going to phone C. Lynch's office next week and put this point to him....it was printed on a daily paper...there will be a record of it somewhere....I will report back on this matter.

dvpower

Slick50 wrote: »

It is false to pretend that this is a stable and dependable stream of income, unless you decide to ignore peoples ability to pay, and levy the charge against the home anyhow.... which as far as I am concerned is just another very good reason to oppose a tax on the home.

It is far more stable than pretty much any of the other main tax heads.

Bullseye1

Telling lies is nothing new, but it is shocking to think its acceptable as Incan only assume those defending those statements are government shills.

Who in their right mind would trust these people with your money.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

So promises they give now could be broke in a mere few months as it's a different time, blah blah blah.

Enda, don't speak with piss and vinegar when you don't say what you mean or mean what you say.

Without your bond, you are nothing. :P

Empty words and promises. We need leadership with strength and back bone. I actually do not see where we will get that from. FG are as bad as FF. Without doubt, we are the laughing stock of Brussels.

Izzy Skint

dvpower wrote: »

1994 was 18 years ago, not a 'mere few months' ago.

To put it in context - 1994 was also the year of the first IRA ceasefire. Should we hold everyone to the positions they once held a long time ago.

DV, how does the passing of time alter morality ???.....do financial matters dictate whether something can be considered moral or immoral ?

Hijpo

Le_Dieux wrote: »

while poor ould enda gets €200,000 ( source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoiseach ) and that is just over $260,000 ( source: http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert/?Amount=200000&From=EUR&To=USD ).

not including expenses, which is €118,981 in annualy
if your on 3800 per week why would you need an extra 2288 per week in expenses?
What can you possibly be spending 3800 in one week on that you would need an extra 2288 to buffer yourself with?