Hijpo wrote: » No, im stating that if you feel we are getting something for nothing then why dont you pay for it if you feel the need to. However, if i was to say yes, i want you to make up for my shortfall and you said no, then i would ask why is ok for you not to pay for my shortfall on services but ok for me to sub the money being poured into governments pensions, allowances, salaries and bondholders which in there own way contribute to the public services shortfall. ie: If they wernt so greedy by protecting there own needless and over the top resources there would be money freed up to put into the public services.
View wrote: » You forgot "Judge awards costs against the non-paying householder" and "income tax raised to fund courts to process non-paying householders cases". The non-paying householder will turn out a real winner in both those cases - you don't mind paying that extra income tax, right?
donalg1 wrote: » Where did i say you are getting something for nothing? I said if you are liable for the HHC then you should pay it, you are the one telling me to send money off to the Revenue for some reason. So again you want others to take cuts in pay while you are refusing to pay your own taxes.
tayto lover wrote: » Link ?
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act, the court shall order the person to pay to the relevant local authority the costs and expenses, measured by the court, incurred by the relevant local authority in relation to the investigation, detection and prosecution of the offence, unless the court is satisfied that there are special and substantial reasons for not so doing.
Hijpo wrote: » If you think you pay enough for services you receive then why pay more money for the services?? This is what they are telling us the HHC is for right? Is it for the sole reason that they want it so your giving it?
dvpower wrote: » http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0036/sec0015.html#sec15 It astounds me that people who are actively campaigning against the HHC don't know that they will end up paying costs on top of interest and penalties and fines.
darkhorse wrote: » Income tax - Ability to pay depending on earnings. Property tax - Whether ya have it or not, we want it.
Am Chile wrote: » And when people refuse to pay the court costs what will try do then ?
lugha wrote: » I'm gonna guess: the same thing that always happens when anyone refuses to pay a fine/costs as ordered by a court! No?
dvpower wrote: » Contempt of court => jail.
donalg1 wrote: » No I am giving it because to not give it would be to break the law which is not something I want to do.
tayto lover wrote: » We will all end up sitting in the office of Mountjoy Prison for about 2 hours waiting to be told "go home your fine is now deemed to be paid as we have no room for you here". That is what's happening now as it stands.
dvpower wrote: » That might just work for the court costs. The €2500 fine will be enforced via the Fines Act, or the new Fines Bill that was published today. This allows for attachment of income or assets for people who refuse to pay fines. I predicted this in this thread about six months ago and I was accused of scaremongering - seems I was right on the button.
tayto lover wrote: » Nobody will pay the fines and end up in court again.See what I did there
dvpower wrote: » Yes. You ignored the fact that there will be no further court appearance necessary - the income attachment will not require one.
Hijpo wrote: » Do you not have to agree for extra charges to be taken from your income?
lugha wrote: » Really? I could have sworn Sean Quinn Jnr had to do his bit of porridge for his of 'aul contempt of court? Not to worry! I'm sure you have thought this whole thing through! :pac:
dvpower wrote: » No. That's a different thing. That's if you want the property tax to be deducted from income in the first instance. If you get fined and refuse to pay the fine, they can attach your earnings under the new Fines Bill.
tayto lover wrote: » The Govt has nothing to do with my pension and I don't get SW.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » If the Fines Act is passed before they start prosecuting, they won't need to jail anyone.
tayto lover wrote: » They can do whatever they like I certainly will not pay a tax on MY home or a fine. A home I paid for myself and also paid stamp duty on. We seem to have gone full circle now.
View wrote: » Given the number of people in negative equity, it is an enormous assumption to make that a "high income" correlates with an "ability to pay", yet it still a case of "Whether ya have it or not, we want it". Either people in negative equity should have to pay little or no income tax or, for property tax, as currently we do for income tax, your "ability to pay" should be discounted when levying taxes.
