Are you going to pay the household charge? [Part 1]

goz83 wrote: »

It has? Proven where?

An Ipsos MRBI poll conducted for the Irish Times recently addressed the issue.

Link.

goz83 wrote: »

Thats not proof. That's a biased opinion, just like yours and you could say mine too. We can all find links to suit our purposes. Take it from the president:

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/President-Higgins-honors-Irish-emigrants-forced-to-leave-in-St-Patricks-Day-message-142606246.html

You don't understand what a poll is.

Nice irrelevant link.

goz83 wrote: »

I suspect mickeydoomsux and MightyBouche are one in the same. Can this be checked by a mod?

Yeah, i want it checked to.

I'd hate to think i was stooping to the lows used by the no campaigners earlier on in this thread.

goz83 wrote: »

Professionally carried out? Have you seen how some of these surveys are carried out? I was changing a wheel on my brother car when I was approached by a lady doing a survey. I told her I didn't live locally and she said, "that's ok, I just need to ask a couple of questions". By the end of the survey, it was obvious that the area was important for the survey and she didnt want my address, but insisted my brothers address was fine. It stunk of dishonesty, so I kindly had her cross out the page she completed with my name. Surveys are not always done "professionally".

Another anecdote?

Was that lady form Ipsos MRBI?

goz83 wrote: »

... that you've created another account to preach for it will fall flat on its face. And when the government find another way to get the money from us, (in the same way they got a "yes" vote in a certain treaty we voted no to) we simply won't all bend over and take it in the ass like some seem very eager to do.

Might want to ease up on the accusations there fella. I'm perfectly happy for a mod to check if me and MightyBouche are the same person because i assure you we're not.

You might also want to ease of on the thinly veiled homophobia as well. It's a rather cheap debating technique.

lugha wrote: »

The logical of your argument that individuals have already paid local services charges via stamp duty and therefore should not pay it again surely implies that monies collected in stamp duty should be, and should have been, used to fund this services. Alas, this money (and a far load of it there was) is already spent, (1) with only a tiny fraction been spent on local services. (3) But the rest was returned to or spent on the people on the likes of lower taxes, better social welfare etc.

Thus the government cannot use this money to fund local services because it is gone, with sizable chunks of it been given to you (and me and many others). So if you want to argue that you shouldn’t be taxed for the same think twice, surely (4) you should return the money that was “wrongly” given to you as lower taxes or whatever, and let that be spent that on local services?

Or you could take the more practical ”melting pot” approach with the view that a certain amount of revenue must be raised from the people and not be unduly concerned with matching particular revenue raising with particular spending.

The people did pay huge amounts in stamp duty over the year but they got this back in one form or another. (5) But one of the ways was not to secure future local services funding. (6) Hence the illusion that you are paying it twice. You are not paying twice. You paid once and the money was used for something else but (7) something that was of benefit to you so now you must pay “again”.

(8) It would be like ordering a sandwich and a pint, handing over €5 to pay for the pint but the barman taking for the sandwich instead, and you insisting you shouldn’t have to pay twice for the pint!

(BTW, were you not also paying in twice when it was coming from the exchequer, that you pay to, given that you were still paying off your stamp duty to the bank?)

Its a big question/post (partly caused by my inability to understand your question of course).
I will reply by sections of it, if thats ok.

1. If stamp duty is collected previously - what indeed is it collected for then if not for also help councils also?

2. You advocate that only a tiny percentage was spent on local services - thats debatable but as side-track issue - one I'm willing to tackle if you wish but I'd like to see figures to show just how small that tiny percentage was (not to argue with you over numbers but genuine curiosity).

3. How the government of the day decided to spend the money of the day, is their very decision - as is how they wish to also invest and look to the future, utilising that same money (or part of it if the had any sense) for other items which they should have known, was also coming on a day to day, monthly, yearly basis, and they should have planned for these things knowing they have certain revenue still coming in from the likes of stamp duty and other many possible resources.
Isn't that partly what we are paying them for, electing them for? Not to just look to the "now" but to look to the "future".
Hell, we even let them have many, many high paid additional advisor's to aid them in doing just this - and our other tax money pays for this too!

(4) Who said anything about "wrongly" used?
It was the governments choice how to use it. I don't think any forced them (nor am I saying your advocating that either).
If they are willing to admit they spent money wrongly - why should the rest of us be forced to cough up again anyway?

(5) So your saying now "one of the ways was not to secure future local services funding" ? Correct?
So where was previous stamp duty sent to and if that the case, WHAT money and from where, was used to fund local services previously?
Follow on from those questions, if money was coming from elsewhere then, why can it come from the same source now? Huh?

(6) There is NO illusion. People are paying a tax twice on the same thing - this point alone has been gone over repeatedly.

(7) Correct - even you say it "You must pay again" on the same damn thing!

(8) If I buy a pint - I pay for a pint and the tax included in that pint price - as goes for a sandwich or whatever comes across a counter that I have ordered, with its included tax inbuilt into the price.
How many times do I have to pay for it, for ordering it once?

---

The fact is that the Household Tax is seen as an unfair tax - for a number of reasons which have been discussed.
Just because as some might say "Its the law" - that don't make it right.

Just because previous governments and present ones either have screwed up or have a stupid inability to even organise a proper tax, never mind screwing up even the methods of informing the people about it and their methods of collecting it, why should the public then have to pay this "We screw-up, you pay tax" for ever more - on the same darn thing over and over again?

Why are we paying part of our other present taxes to the state so they can spend millions on advisor's that its seems, can't even advise right to the government TD's they are supposed to be working for?

Is it all our fault now that for all these government TD's with their massive wages AND their advisor's have an inane inability to not plan right and come up with alternative revenue streams other than making a home owner have to pay out more than once on an item they actually only purchased once?
Whats next? We have to pay more than one tax for a TV, for the purchase of a car, etc because my god, we have the audacity to go and purchase something?
As some seem to say "Aaa... well, but we have a deficit" - so that makes it all right then? Seriously?