Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » So if we bundled the property tax, water charges and waste charges into one, you'd be happy to pay? How is one an "attack on the family home" and the other not?
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » Their bailout was of a similar order of magnitude to ours. And what do you think Iceland spent a lot of it's bailout money on? Yep, it's banks. And I presume you do know the reason why AIB had to put money into its pension fund? Banks have two ways of righting the ship. Lowering costs and increasing income? Do you actually want state own banks to have unprofitable interest rates? They were savings, not bonds. UK and Netherlands said they were guaranteed. Iceland said not. The courts will now decide. happy days, unfortunatly the only figures growing here is unemployment rates, suicides, and crime. Conveniently none can be tied to the state the country is in. As I've said before, a property tax made sense before this mess we got ourselves into and it still makes sense. It's certainly a sight better than the previous property taxation regime we employed, which is one of the reasons we are where we are now.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » As I've said before, a property tax made sense before this mess we got ourselves into and it still makes sense.
dxhound2005 wrote: » If you intend selling your house any prospective purchaser will require a Certificate of Discharge in respect of the Household Charge before purchasing the property and all outstanding charges and penalties will need to be paid before the Certificate will issue.
darkhorse wrote: » The solution to that dilemma would be to give the prospective buyer a €100 discount.:D
Ghandee wrote: » Or....... Let's say your house sold for 300k, but had an 'attachment' related to non payment of the hhc. Attachment = (purely arguments sake) 5k. Sell house for 295, but new owner pays hhc/fines up front. Its like selling an untaxed car. Apply discount so new buyer can then tax it. Simples :pac:
darkhorse wrote: » Did ya see the nine o clock news. Enda got an Oscar and the Germans love us now. Things are looking up.
Ghandee wrote: » Was an expensive Oscar! Enda (coincidentally of courser) picked up his gong on the same day that Anglo (unsecured) bondholders received €24 million from the Irish tax payers.
lugha wrote: » Someone is annoyed that he did not get European of the year award! :P Ah well, maybe next year! Seriously though, I would be interested to know, and have been meaning to ask, what your understanding of the government real reasons for authorising these payments, and other unpopular decisions? FR After all, most of them are parents and grandparents, or will be. And presumably, they would want a decent country for their children every bit as much as the rest of us Do you not think that they genuinely believe, that seemingly unpalatable decisions like this really involve selecting the least worst option? (Whether they are correct or not is of course a matter for debate, but a different matter). Or do you imagine that they are some kind of political trolls, taking such decisions for the thrill of winding a few people up? And of course, foreshortening their own political careers into the bargin.
Ghandee wrote: » Yesterdays ruling by the supreme court might just do that for him Lugha.
lugha wrote: » So your not going to have an 'aul stab at an answer then?
Do you not think that they genuinely believe, that seemingly unpalatable decisions like this really involve selecting the least worst option? (Whether they are correct or not is of course a matter for debate, but a different matter).
lugha wrote: » And yesterday's ruling won't shorten any political career by a day. Nobody really gives a monkey's about trivial stuff like this.
lugha wrote: » It is as Bill Clinton says, "the economy stupid", The upcoming budget on the other hand will likely have a severe impact on career longevity for some.
Ghandee wrote: » :pac:
lugha wrote: » I am actually asking a serious question. Have you not given any thought at all as to why the government are making the decisions they are making? You surely cannot seriously believe that they are deliberately opting to screw everything up for their children and grandchildren? Or maybe you do believe that? :eek:
Ghandee wrote: » Decisions. Why have they decided to go back on almost every promise made pre election? Why (even though they said they were against any property tax, did they not only go and introduce one, but not even go with labours suggested sure value based one, that would have targeted billions of euros worth of land banks? Why did they decide to continue to pump billions into failed banks, despite promising not to? Why did they decide to break pay caps, they put in place?
bgrizzley wrote: » Politics is a family business, once they have their excessive wages/pensions secured the gravy train runs down the family line (pun intended).
lugha wrote: » First, they are all questions, not answers. And second, none of them are remotely related to the actual question I asked you? But I think I can deduce that they answer to my question would be: no, you have not given any thought as to why they are making the decisions they are making. But why? Why deliberately screw everything up?
Bullseye1 wrote: » The government never makes a decision without consulting with the permanent government "civil servants". Do you not see that there is a level of protectionism going on here? It was highlighted in the recent agreement with current employees maintaining the current status quo while those coming into the system on much lower rates. I guess if I were in the system I'd be trying to protect my livelihood. But it would be to the detriment of the greater population.
lugha wrote: » But the particular question I put to Ghandee related to the payments made on unsecured bonds. Do you think there is some selfish, or other motivation, behind these decisions. And what do you think it is?
dxhound2005 wrote: » Seeing as you are in it for the long haul you are probably aware of the complications which will arise down the line. Even if you avoid prosecution for non payment there is still the small matter of what happens when the title of your proprerty has to be transferred. I'm sure our friends in the legal profession will be happy to collect a little something for themselves along with everything that has to be paid to effect transfer.http://kmccarthysolicitors.ie/2012/07/household-charge/If you intend selling your house any prospective purchaser will require a Certificate of Discharge in respect of the Household Charge before purchasing the property and all outstanding charges and penalties will need to be paid before the Certificate will issue.
lugha wrote: » You surely cannot seriously believe that they are deliberately opting to screw everything up for their children and grandchildren? Or maybe you do believe that? :eek:
CptMackey wrote: » I have no intention of ever selling. I'll be long dead in the cold ground before this shower of liars get there 100€ Just get the person that I want to take the House to start squating while I'm on the way out and claim squatters once I'm gone.
darkhorse wrote: » I personally would find it hard to believe that politicians would have the forsight to look beyond their own term in office.
Ghandee wrote: » Who might that effect more, politicians on their vast salaries and multiple pensions (funded by whom?) Or, private workers, earning legitimate honest wages, funded by private businesses?
DoesNotCompute wrote: » Two more charge defaulters up before court in Co. Mayo this week:http://www.advertiser.ie/mayo/article/56538/ballinrobe-men-before-court-over-household-charge
tayto lover wrote: » AND adjourned by the judge. I wonder why? Is there some problem with these prosecutions and are they on owners with multiple properties? If so then I have no problem with them, as long as they are not on a person's sole property and home.
donalg1 wrote: » So you are not against the HHC if people with more than one property have to pay? Why is it you are against the HHC then? Is it because you have to pay it? It clearly isnt based on a point of principle or for any moral reason. Really you dont want to pay the HHC because you dont want to pay it, and thats the only reason same reason as everyone else despite their claims to the contrary.
m4r10 wrote: » I'd say he meant that landlords are in that business for the money while your regular Joe who's struggling to pay the mortgage shouldn't be put in the same position regarding the HHC. While the former are well able to pay the HHC, most of the latter can't really take another hit anymore.
