The Waltzing Consumer wrote: » The people who definitely won't pay are the people who probably never had the pay in the first place and are exempt from this charge, but hey, they make the most noise as usual and have SWP and SP screaming bloody murder over it. The people who have to pay, will pay in the majority of cases because that's what we do, we pay our way.
Am Chile wrote: » Or some people def won,t pay, and some other people won,t pay just as of yet cuz they re seeing what way the wind is blowing.
RichardAnd wrote: » I wouldn't put low numbers of people paying this tax down to recalcitrance just yet. I'd say it's more a case of putting it off and the last week before the deadline could see a huge rise in payments. I'm reminded of that simpsons episode where Homer tries to pay his taxes on the last day possible. We'll see though.
Am Chile wrote: » Just take wexford alone,only 100 people have paid the Household Tax in Co.Wexford so far
Godge wrote: » Why are there certain months when most of the tax from the self-employed comes in? Because most of them wait until the last minute before paying their tax. Why should this tax be any different?
Biggins wrote: » Just from a practical aspect, the question might be asked if only to gauge if payments are being made, constantly coming in at a rate that indicates a positive eventual outcome. Constant questioning the speed/rate of incoming as collection process continues, will help show if incentives might have to be created to get people to pay up and/or there is something wrong also in the process. Waiting until the final pay-up date come and is then gone might be good in some ways but in another aspect, it might be allowing a bundle of various collection problems to build up and only be seen/assessed after that date - and not an ongoing problem, being constantly addressed as the process is already ongoing. Its just a thought.
hallelujajordan wrote: » Why would you raise the question now ? I think the government would expect the vast majority of these payments to come in March (i.e. when payment falls due). I'm not sure why people would pay now when they don't have to pay until March . . I'm not opposed to this tax but I will certainly leave the money in my bank account for as long as I can.
Am Chile wrote: » 33.00 paying so far is nothing out of more then 1.6 millions houses to register and pay the tax, lack of support? you obviously know nothing about the large crowds that have being coming to anti household tax meetings around the country,or nothing about work on the ground with activitsts have done with stalls and members of the public signing up to the campaign to oppose and boycott the household tax. Just take wexford alone,only 100 people have paid the Household Tax in Co.Wexford so far. The 2011 census revealed that there are 68,500 houses in the county.http://www.facebook.com/#!/permalink.php?story_fbid=309627239081255&id=244762212234425
Am Chile wrote: » Correct me if Im wrong, but wasn,it just a 1000 took part in this poll?
Biggins wrote: » The question should be raised in the Dail as to what percentage currently of the total applicable people, has actually paid so far! I suspect that those that have not paid yet is far higher than the government would be it to be known! ...Thus they might be staying quiet of releasing such more up to date figures nationally with reason?
Biggins wrote: » The question should be raised in the Dail as to what percentage currently of the total applicable people, has actually paid so far!
hallelujajordan wrote: » A poll was taken by RedC for Paddypower and commented on last week which showed that 15% of people would not pay the household charge. . that would seem to indicate that a majority in society accept the need for a household charge even if they don't like it . . And anyway, do we not need government to start thinking more about what society needs than what it wants. Isn't it years of giving society what it wanted in order to win votes what has us in this mess ? ?
Chucky the tree wrote: » What do you mean by representing? Majority of people probably don't want a property tax, however majority of people want to pay as little tax as possible. In general I don't Fine Gael or Labour will lose any votes due to the property tax, I think most sane people agree it's a smart tax that is needed. I think the complete lack of support for the loony lefties who are trying to boycott this while plenty of people have signed up shows this. So does the fact that according to polls support for FG and Labour hasn't dropped significantly.
Biggins wrote: » ...But (open question to all, not just directed at yourself) are they merely reflecting the majority of society presently when it come to the Home Tax? Be they a coalition or single party, are they representing the majority of society on this issue? Myself, I suspect not. (...But I could be wrong if a good poll was taken and I was rightly showed I was wrong)
hallelujajordan wrote: » A poll was taken by RedC for Paddypower and commented on last week which showed that 15% of people would not pay the household charge. . that would seem to indicate that a majority in society accept the need for a household charge even if they don't like it . .
The Waltzing Consumer wrote: » No you are right. But this is nature of coalitions is it not? Neither party got the mandate to party alone and implement all their policies. So whilst it is easier to point the finger at FG or LAB, they merely reflect the majority of society, that's who the blame should be put on.
Biggins wrote: » You ask a good question. My own opinion? Of course you are right. A party should be able to look at the present and future and create an honest policy not based on emotion and out-of-date principles. I problem I have (and I cannot state enough - I could be TOTALLY wrong for thinking this and I admit to that) is that FG (and now Labour) are so very willing to jump into this newer home tax for the simple reason of trying (I surmise) to fill a financial shortfall partly created by the shoving of money towards the banks and bondholders - and for that reason only, that is what has caused a position-reversal. Their position-reversal not being about party policy towards whats good for the the people but simple for them to later facilitate the ability to do the above (banks and bondholders) in the long run, one way or another. Its unsettling (to me) that they are willing to adopt a home tax for the sake of pure financial reasons and although that might make sense - it begs the question: "Should all positions be allowed be reversed/compromised due to finance reasons alone?" I hope I'm making sense what I'm trying to say. (Even if I am wrong in saying it)
The Waltzing Consumer wrote: » I see what you are saying but I don't think it needs to be like that. Why should a political party need to be so rigid? Why should a party's policies not be like policies of any other area of interest? Do you think scientists should hold on to their core beliefs even if they are proved incorrect by other scientists? No, of course not. The language of the politician is also annoying as hell because the goalposts can be constantly moved so this is why parties should be free to change policies based on what their current members want. Example! Party A core principle is defending the poor from cuts (*at the time of this policy, the poor have the lowest level of social welfare in Europe, has huge education difficulties, high alcohol and drug abuse rates, infant mortality, terrible standard of living etc.) 17 years later...Party A supports a cut in social welfare for "poor" and is lambasted by the opposition for u-turn and abandoning it's principles (* at the current time, the "poor" have the highest social welfare rates in Europe, has free medical cards, for the vast majority, pays no tax whatsoever and has been greatly exploited by welfare fraud and enjoys a very high standard of living, and the current Government needs to cut spending as this welfare budget is one of the biggest spending areas and is unsustainable) So should that party wrongly stick to their "principles" or should they look at the present and future and create an honest policy not based on emotion and out-of-date principles?
Biggins wrote: » I meant in the expression OF MY OWN OPINION that if our pure basic ideas, our core values that caused partly the foundation of the party are so reversed, that members within said organisation need to look at themselves and ask the hard question "Are we originally what we started out as - and if not, should we state now we are something different and rename ourselves as such? Should we carry on under our original title, make possible endless excuses for huge position u-turns and for ever, endlessly equally get criticised for such?" .
The Waltzing Consumer wrote: » I think the highlighted part is important. At the moment, it is the banks and gamblers you are annoyed at, after them it will be something else and then something else. The fact that you are pretty much campaigning as a no compromise party is very backward and is pretty much the same as other extreme fringe parties. It is naive to back up this "attitude" with pointing of fingers to a 17 year old FG policy. I ain't interested at all in any group, political, legal, educational who will simply stay with their stance for the sake of it rather then adjusting to the present situation and facts. I would usually not argue with Biggins, he is usually pretty objective, but your posts on this 17 year old policy are emotive and scream of politicising with your new party.
Biggins wrote: » The serious feeling that I get from inside of the IDP is that we hope to show that we are not EVER willing to compromise any extreme feelings we have on a matter just to see that banks and their related gamblers are eventually left satisfied!
meglome wrote: » Oh I can tell all right. I'm just incredulous that you'd actually bring up something from over 17 years ago to make your point. Given the situation we're in I'd expect the government to do whatever it takes even if that is the opposite to what was said before they got elected. Harsh reality is what is at play here. I'm very happy that you are getting involved in this new political party and I hope many more people do as well but if bringing up a FG policy from over 17 years ago is the best you can do it doesn't bode well. Especially when we do actually need the money.
