DoesNotCompute wrote: » Basically that's the crux of it. Although the "DON'T REGISTER, DON'T PAY" crowd are coming up with all sorts of noble reasons to oppose the charge to obfuscate the real reason why they don't want to pay.
donalg1 wrote: » Well what about someone who has 2 houses and bought the second for the money as you say, and now has 2 mortgages to pay, I mean who's to say they are any better off than someone with one mortgage. And the same can be said for someone with 10 properties.
Hijpo wrote: » Why dont they do what so many pro's are advising the single home owners that cant afford the one mortgage to do? Sell it.
donalg1 wrote: » Because like many of those with one mortgage they would probably struggle to find a buyer, and if they do they probably arent going to pay the price they need.
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.
Hijpo wrote: » jesus christ donal they have 2 houses. the people with one mortgage have that house as there home. the people who gambled for greed and got bitten in the arse should sell the property that is dragging them down. Sell it to the bank, sell it to the council, lower the price to sell it. If they didnt have people in that house its still costing them money. Why jump into the deep end clutching onto a concrete block that you can let go of if you really wanted to.
tayto lover wrote: » Because the people who are landlords with loads of properties are no better than the speculators, bankers, politicians, accountants etc etc who got us into the mess we are in. Anyone with a sole home which is not a purpose built Celtic Tiger type mansion is not the cause of this mess and should not have to pay for it. You don't seem to get much Donalg1 after so many pages of posts. Are you actually a politician?
donalg1 wrote: » Why because chances are the rent they receive will pretty much cover the second home so they may have to pay a slight bit extra to top it up, whereas if they sell it chances are they will be left with a nice debt to pay (NE) which could end up costing them more than the top up they would be paying anyway. Grand if they arent in Negative Equity and sell it for enough to clear the mortgage then happy days.
donalg1 wrote: » What is your reason for not paying the HHC?
donalg1 wrote: » How do you know these landlords arent paying thier debts in full and on time every month? What makes you think they have any bad debts anywhere? What is your reason for not paying the HHC? Again by reading your post above all I see is everyone except me should pay, because I dont want to.
tayto lover wrote: » I never suggested they weren't paying their debts at all. Maybe they are struggling because they borrowed too much now that you mention it and are in over their heads. My point was that anyone with a single home in which they live is not a speculator though and not out to make a profit, but you knew that anyway.
lugha wrote: » Flawed question Donal. Tayto and a few of the others cannot give a reason because they did not arrive at the position they take by a process of reasoning. They followed an emotive process, which can be succinctly captured with he oft used proclamation “it’s my home FFS”. (Which is not to say that using your heart rather than your head is without merit in some cases) And the fact that they feel that there should not be a property tax rather then think or reason that there shouldn’t be one just means that when they try to present their positions as one’s they have reasoned out, you see all the goal-post moving and inconsistencies and contradictions that you constantly see here.
Hijpo wrote: » Oh i see, its coming clear to me now. So, its ok to throw the could shoulder to the single family home owner if they are in trouble with negative equity but dont dare even suggest it to a landlord/business person. Where do ye people get off eh?
donalg1 wrote: » So what is your reason for not paying it tayto?
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:
donalg1 wrote: » What are you on about?
Le_Dieux wrote: » Lugha I am just home from work, so apologies if others have replied. I think that these politicians are so FAR REMOVED from normal daily life it's surreal. I also listen to Joe Duffy ( He is not alone here) and to hear a man on (what?) €150,000/annum sympatise with people ringing in voicing how tough it is and the hardship they have to endure sickens me. I listened to an interview with Roisin Shortall yesterday where She is trying to get answers on the pension issue ( I think the interview was on Morning Ireland, but I could be wrong). Now here IS A woman who talks the talk, and for me, for gilmore to go and do what he did to her is nothing short of criminal. If a manager in industry did what he did to her, that manager would have a rebellion on his/her hands. My one wish now is for RS to go and resign from the labour (?) party and form Her own, I would join it tomorrow.
Le_Dieux wrote: » I think that these politicians are so FAR REMOVED from normal daily life it's surreal.
lugha wrote: » That might explain why politicians may take decisions that do not take account of difficult circumstances that people on more modest incomes have to endure. And that is something you are likely to see when any government, anywhere, is in power for too long a time. But that is not what I asked I asked why would the take decisions (specifically the one to pay unsecured bonds) if they did not believe (rightly or wrongly) that it was ultimately in the best interests of the country to pay them? Why would they take a decision to deliberately screw over the country that their children and grandchildren will have to (or at least will want to!) live in?
Hijpo wrote: » im talking about someone on the pro sides mentality that is "if you cant afford to keep it sell it" .
tayto lover wrote: » I am not resorting to the parrot mentality again Donal. Like lugha you can search back for the answers which were posted several times by so many.
donalg1 wrote: » The answers have changed so often tayto I'm lost I mean they change on a weekly basis I'm just wondering what your reason for not paying is. I thought its a pretty straight forward question, but if you don't know the reason you should just say.
Hijpo wrote: » Maybe they are buddies?
tayto lover wrote: » Again. Do your own searching back. I ain't doing it for you or repeating myself.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » Here we go again.
Ghandee wrote: » You're employed in that sector too, right Vlad?
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » Nope. Private sector.
donalg1 wrote: » What a ridiculous answer the anti side is becoming a joke at this stage with their refusals to answer even the most basic questions. What a joke the whole thing is, absolutely hilarious though.
