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

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?

dvpower

Izzy Skint wrote: »

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

I don't know what you're on about - I never said it was a issue of morality at all.

Micky Dolenz

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.



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”

I was making reference to the FG promise of "not paying another red cent" which they broke a mere few months later.

Don't speak which such passion when your words are empty.

Future promises mean nothing, as proved.

Slick50

dvpower wrote: »

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

Maybe. But as I said only if you impose it irrespective of peoples ability to afford it. And that is what makes it unjust.... and also what puts your home at risk, which is immoral and unfair.

lugha

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”

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Could not have said it better myself Enda.

It is undoubtedly the case that many Irish people do have a passionate (if rather irrational) attitude to their home. And Kenny was seeking to make political capital from that weakness then, just as FF did in ’77 and again are now (and, according to recent opinion polls, possibly succeeding!).

So you couldn’t say it better than Enda? Maybe you could say more than Enda and tell us why exactly it is immoral?

Certainly a property tax affects the important social function of providing shelter for yourself and your family. But income tax affects the equally, or in some cases more, important social function of providing for your family, food and clothing and heating and health care and educational needs and basically everything under the sun, apart from shelter.

So a simple question, posed many times on these threads, remains to be answered. Why is it immoral to apply a tax that impacts on just one of these essential needs, but it is perfectly acceptable to apply a tax that impacts on all of the others?

dvpower

Slick50 wrote: »

Maybe. But as I said only if you impose it irrespective of peoples ability to afford it. And that is what makes it unjust.... and also what puts your home at risk, which is immoral and unfair.

It doesn't put your home at risk any more than any unpaid tax bill (or any other bill) puts your home at risk.

Slick50

dvpower wrote: »

It doesn't put your home at risk any more than any unpaid tax bill (or any other bill) puts your home at risk.

It does because it is a liability levied against your home, and is an opening to having a lein put on your home. What other tax(es) do that?

dvpower

lugha wrote: »

So you couldn’t say it better than Enda? Maybe you could say more than Enda and tell us why exactly it is immoral?

I'm intrigued as to why some people think a property tax is immoral?
People throw that out from time to time (including EK), but nobody seems to be able to draw a clear moral line between a property tax (whose details are not yet known) and any of the other taxes.

What makes the Property Tax immoral, but Income Tax, VAT, CGT, CAT et al moral?

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

It is undoubtedly the case that many Irish people do have a passionate (if rather irrational) attitude to their home. And Kenny was seeking to make political capital from that weakness then, just as FF did in ’77 and again are now (and, according to recent opinion polls, possibly succeeding!).

So you couldn’t say it better than Enda? Maybe you could say more than Enda and tell us why exactly it is immoral?

Certainly a property tax affects the important social function of providing shelter for yourself and your family. But income tax affects the equally, or in some cases more, important social function of providing for your family, food and clothing and heating and health care and educational needs and basically everything under the sun, apart from shelter.

So a simple question, posed many times on these threads, remains to be answered. Why is it immoral to apply a tax that impacts on just one of these essential needs, but it is perfectly acceptable to apply a tax that impacts on all of the others?

bare in mind lads that this one thinks owning a house is cheaper than renting because your house generates magical money that nobody can see or spend.

dvpower

Slick50 wrote: »

It does because it is a liability levied against your home, and is an opening to having a lein put on your home. What other tax(es) do that?

The liability is leveled against the home owner - the whole lein thing only comes into play when you sell your home (i.e. you turn it into cash).

So how exactly does it put your home at risk? This is a red herring, isn't it?

Ghandee

Hijpo wrote: »

bare in mind lads that this one thinks owning a house is cheaper than renting because your house generates magical money that nobody can see or spend.

Also bear in mind that it has been answered to him many times on the previous threads.

Lugha considered all explanations, and dismissed them.


To summarise, if lugha thinks you're wrong, you must be wrong :rolleyes:

He can go back to the previous reasons if he wishes, I for one won't be wasting my time replying to his requests again.


The band have stated to play nearer my God to thee..... The ships a sinking!