dvpower wrote: » Why are you continuing to scaremonger? There is no proposal at all, by anyone, to introduce any of the measures contained in your link. (yet) The only possible reason for you to introduce it to this discussion is to scaremonger.
dvpower wrote: » Still scaremongering.
Ghandee wrote: » Fixed.
dvpower wrote: » I'm glad to see that you agree with me that @bgrizzley is engaging in scaremongering. He should cut it out, nobody's buying it.
bgrizzley wrote: » tell me truthfully it could never happen and ill pay the tax within the hour...
dvpower wrote: » It couldn't happen without constitutional change (not in the power of the government). Now pay your damn taxes.
Ghandee wrote: » Not as informative as this was.http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1031/1224325936119.html?via=mr[/QUOTE] Ya know what I'll never forget. I'll never forget a certain polititian on a chat show several months ago saying, If you want to make money, dont get into politics. I very nearly choked as I was drinking a cup of tea and it went with my breadth.
bgrizzley wrote: » comparing to the smoking ban isnt like with like.
bgrizzley wrote: » You are backed into a corner with an implied threat on your home.
bgrizzley wrote: » yes the field comes into it here, but try and remember that if half of the country didnt have the passion for their homes that you see in the protest about this tax, we wouldnt even be a Republic now...
bgrizzley wrote: » Are you foolish enough to trust an Irish government in the future not to follow that practice in the States?
dvpower wrote: » A few posts ago you were saying that the HHC introduced a threat to a persons property. It does not.
dvpower wrote: » Why are you continuing to scaremonger?.
lugha wrote: » I’m not saying they are alike. I mention one aspect only where there is a similarity. The similarly is in relation to the response of a small number, then and now, who argue / argued that the government made a monumental misjudgement of the people they represent and are introducing / introduced measures that were anathema to the people that will / would never be accepted. That proved to be completely false in the case of the smoking ban. It may well be the same with property tax.
lugha wrote: » Given that the property tax will, for many, be in the ball park of 5% of their mortgage payment, a far bigger threat to your home (and it is a small one) will arise from the failure to pay your mortgage. And we know that failure to pay your mortgage might lead to your home being repossessed. You are speculating on the basis of an article from the US on what might happen if you do not pay your property tax.
lugha wrote: » I was about to agree with this until I saw how it ended! “… wouldn’t be a republic now”? I though you were going to say “ … wouldn’t be in as big a mess now!” And you are assuming that those that have not paid the HHC have this emotive attitude to their homes. I would suggest that a substantial number of people who bough homes during the boom would have made a different choice if they had their time over again.
lugha wrote: » And what’s to stop a future government from introducing a measure that will allow you home to be possessed to discharge any tax liability, or indeed any liability? I’ll answer that myself! Possibly the constitution. (Or possibly not, the CAB setup for example, didn’t require a referendum, though perhaps they can’t go after a PPI?) But the biggest impediment to a government in a democracy going off reservation so to speak, is democracy. If there really is a fundamental no-no amongst the electorate and the government either misread this or press on regardless, they will pay dues at the next general election. And of course the next government can reverse whatever was done. I would say that the Irish electorate would not be too receptive to people being thrown out of their homes for not being able to pay property tax. And I don’t think this, or any other government would opt for this, other than in very exceptional circumstances. Is property tax itself a fundamental no-no with the electorate? I don’t think so. But time will tell.
darkhorse wrote: » Ghandee wrote: » Not as informative as this was.http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1031/1224325936119.html?via=mr[/QUOTE] Ya know what I'll never forget. I'll never forget a certain polititian on a chat show several months ago saying, If you want to make money, dont get into politics. I very nearly choked as I was drinking a cup of tea and it went with my breadth. I think the situation is summed up by some of the comment which are under the article in your link. Noonan says he is powerless to prevent the bank paying out such huge pensions. This has to be a lie as we are financing the banks. They are our banks as such and we can change the terms and conditions of their pensions. That is if the Govt had the will to do so. But as they are "all friends together" I doubt they will do anything.
Le_Dieux wrote: » Serious divisions? Yeah, my a*shttp://www.independent.ie/national-news/coalition-tensions-grow-over-budget-tax-plans-3281814.html[/QUOTE] Interesting on a couple of fronts. I was told by a poster here a week ago that the USC is a tax, a minister in the paper to-day said its not.
bgrizzley wrote: » you agree with the poster who brought up the field, but when i agree with both of you, you disagree.
bgrizzley wrote: » DV couldnt truthfully guarantee me that a future Irish government wouldnt sell my house to collect this tax if i was unable to pay. Can you?
lugha wrote: » Is property tax itself a fundamental no-no with the electorate? I don’t think so. But time will tell.
tayto lover wrote: » darkhorse wrote: » I think the situation is summed up by some of the comment which are under the article in your link. Noonan says he is powerless to prevent the bank paying out such huge pensions. This has to be a lie as we are financing the banks. They are our banks as such and we can change the terms and conditions of their pensions. That is if the Govt had the will to do so. But as they are "all friends together" I doubt they will do anything. Absolutely correct. It was the same with the promise to end upward only rent reviews. If the political will was there it could be done, but they have bowed to pressure from NAMA and other vested interests not to do so.
darkhorse wrote: » I think the situation is summed up by some of the comment which are under the article in your link. Noonan says he is powerless to prevent the bank paying out such huge pensions. This has to be a lie as we are financing the banks. They are our banks as such and we can change the terms and conditions of their pensions. That is if the Govt had the will to do so. But as they are "all friends together" I doubt they will do anything.
lugha wrote: » I agree that “the Field” mentality is a factor (though some do not). I disagree that this is an admirable or worthy mentality to have. If we did not have this mentality there may have been fewer of us willing to pay for massively over-priced houses and apartments, taking on crippling debts to do so.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Minister for Finance Michael Noonan has agreed to allow IBRC, formerly Anglo Irish Bank to employ the services of Russian oligarch controlled Alfa Group to recoup €435 million worth of assets hidden by Sean Quinn. The cost? €155 million. Almost the entire amount that will be raised by the imposition of the household charge if there is 100% compliance.http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1103/1224326090644.html
K-9 wrote: » Between the cost to Anglo in fees and them now needing to call in specialists it probably isn't worth the cost, all of which are a result of Quinns illegal acts, but yeah, let's blame the Government and Anglo.
tayto lover wrote: » Quinn should remain locked up but it is partly Anglo's fault. Did they not know what was happening in their own business until it was too late? Really?
emo72 wrote: » http://crazyemailsandbackstories.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/icelands-amazing-peaceful-revolution-still-not-in-the-news-backstory/ interesting piece about our friends in Iceland. It belongs in this thread I think.
dvpower wrote: » No it doesn't. This thread is supposed to be a discussion about the HHC / Property Tax. That blog post has nothing to do with this thread topic at all.
dvpower wrote: » No it doesn't. This thread is supposed to be a discussion about the HHC / Property Tax. That blog post has nothing to do with this thread topic at all. Mind you, the thread has become a dumping ground for almost any topic at all.
