Le_Dieux wrote: » You took offence with me when I told you to grow up, yet You also told the 'non brigade' to grow up in a previous post ( famous #1271 ). Anyhow, I'm not going to get into a shouting match over who needs to grow up - you can work out who does - and I'm going to watch the 2nd half of the rugby.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » So far we've had people being accused of being Fine Gaelers, Civil Servants and now sock puppets. What's next? Germans?
lugha wrote: » Interesting logic! So 600,000 people doing absolutely squat diddly can be interpreted as an active political message being sent to the government? So can the fact that close to 5 million people are doing squat diddly in protesting as how the government is running the counrty be interpreted as the government having close to 100% satisfaction rating? Goodness, Enda will be pleased! First, he gets his mug on Time mag. Then Euorpean of the year. And now this! All he needs now is Mayo man of the year to complete the trophy haul! (Mind, I was getting the impression that a few of your lads here were a little less than 100% satisfied with the government? But who am I to argue with your logic. )
Ghandee wrote: » Donal and DNC, it must be nice to be in the safely insulated position of being employed in the cs/ps were you are still receiving pay rises (aka increments) pensions, and jobs guaranteed for life. Of course, our taxes pay for your salaries, so you guys advocating the rest of us to pay this charge is pretty much expected. (I presume you're public/civil servants, right?)
bgrizzley wrote: » Interesting ideas Lugha but 5 million people arent breaking the law, non payers of the HHC are in protest.
Ghandee wrote: » I'm confident a few posters can wear some of them name badges (with pride in some cases) Edit, actually with some of them flat out denying what they 'are' despite the evidence there to back it up , beggars belief.
DoesNotCompute wrote: » Ghandee, here's a reality check for you. Civil and Public servants pay taxes too.
lugha wrote: » Boycott me arse! One of the dafter things the “no” side are trying to claim (in a very strong field!) is that doing nothing amounts to protesting! A Boycott would at least cause a degree of inconvenience as products / services would have to be done without, or take more effort to get. The very opposite is the case with the “no” gang. It took effort and money to not protest! And it is almighty leap to assume that all the “didn’t pay” gang are principled objectors. Pretty much all human life is mixed in there and while I don’t think any have credible reasons for opposing a property tax, some, but only some, may have admirable, if confused, motivation for not doing so. In that number, as well as the small number of principled objectors, you have the freeloaders, the lazy, the cute hures (wait and see), the mega rich (who will do very nicely ta if there is no property tax) etc. etc. The HHC / property tax would be stone dead by now if there was any kind of serious, organised opposition to it. There isn’t so its not.
lugha wrote: » That they are defying the law of the land is irrelevant. Most (real!) protests do not involve the breaking of the law. And of course you are making a huge (and I would say false) assumption that all that are not paying are so doing at a matter of principle. Some are. I can't say how many, but I think it only a small fraction of 600K. Voices in your head in not evidence Ghandee.;) Have you given any consideration to my question as to why you think there is a public/private sector divide here when many, if not most, that are not on the “pro tax” side are proposing as an alternative to property tax, er, tax from income? And of course, I’m fairly sure that most, if not all, making the case for a property tax agree that there will have to cuts in public spending as well.
bgrizzley wrote: » its very relevant, you guys wouldnt be getting so hot under the collar if we werent. do you honestly think that all the people that paid did so on principle? Did you pay on principle lugha? And many, many protests involved breaking stupid laws, we've been through all this before (ie Ghandi(the other one :pac:)) by the way im not sure about your figures. i would think 600k is a little light.
boycott [ˈbɔɪkɒt] vb (tr) to refuse to have dealings with (a person, organization, etc.) or refuse to buy (a product) as a protest or means of coercion to boycott foreign produce n an instance or the use of boycotting [after Captain C. C. Boycott (1832-97), Irish land agent for the Earl of Erne, County Mayo, Ireland, who was a victim of such practices for refusing to reduce rents]
ghandee wrote: » You tell Mr Hogan that the boycott of the hhc, and the people refusing to register is not an 'inconvenience' to him so. You're now telling us that what is happening with the non registering (never mind non paying) isn't a boycott.
ghandee wrote: » Its like when half a dozen or so gave him a summarisation of how this charge was 'immoral', Lugha said 'those reasons aren't immoral'.
bgrizzley wrote: » its very relevant, you guys wouldnt be getting so hot under the collar if we werent.
bgrizzley wrote: » do you honestly think that all the people that paid did so on principle?
bgrizzley wrote: » And many, many protests involved breaking stupid laws, we've been through all this before (ie Ghandi(the other one ))
lugha wrote: » Ah well, if they had the courage of their conviction and publicly professed their unwillingness to abide by a law (as some public representatives, to be fair to them have done), then yes, that can be classified as a principled objection. And those liable for the charge could do likewise by registering but not paying. But anonymously ducking your obligations to the state, appealing to the possibility (as you have pointed out), that you will probably get away with it? That’s more in the form book of grubby tax evader and not principled objector. (Do you think Rosa Parks, who refused to give her seat to a white passenger, did so thinking that there was a fair chance that she might get away with it???? The very opposite was the case of course, as it would have to be and always is, when you are considered people that really are taking a principled stand) And of course, you continue with the delusion that all non-payers are principled objectors. No shortage of laughs on this thread, that’s for sure. Ah lovely. This ‘aul sh*te again. Immoral why? Because 1. “it’s my house FFS” and “Enda says so”? Now maybe Enda’s word is gospel to you but I half expect people to back up what they say with some kind of argument. Enda didn’t because he can’t. And neither can you. Jasus. I’m as cool as could be. Even have a couple of beers on the side in case of any of you go raising my temperature. One thing about our great little country is that you are not likely to fall down and bang your head with shock at the notion that some think the law shouldn’t apply to them. Alas it is an attitude that is widespread. I think people have a better grasp on economic realities that most (well all to be honest) of the no side here. They fully understand that even without any of the waste and questionable spending that you lads love to point out, that there is some very unpleasant medicine we are going to have to take. And bitching and whining and griping and looking at the news for the latest mistake or downright cock-up of the government make, and other diversions, won’t change that simply reality. And we have also been through the patent absurdity of allowing people the “choice” to break the laws they don’t agree with, other than in very exceptional cases such as where fundamental human rights are being infringed. Though the “no” side are continually confused by this. We have even some who would condemn Sean Quinn for defying the courts because he felt (and he obviously does) that he is been treated unfairly though they advocate exactly the same approach for those who think the HHC is unfair.
lugha wrote: » And those liable for the charge could do likewise by registering but not paying.
bgrizzley wrote: » Did you pay on principle?
darkhorse wrote: » Now, if it was as you say and everyone who was liable for the HHC could indeed register without paying, well, would'nt that defeat the purpose of the government expecting said €160 million.
darkhorse wrote: » You are the third person on here who said that you can register and not pay the HHC, lugha. So will you please explain to me how is that possible, bearing in mind that according to the governments projections, the estimated take from the HHC was to be in the region of €160 million. Now, if it was as you say and everyone who was liable for the HHC could indeed register without paying, well, would'nt that defeat the purpose of the government expecting said €160 million. If I am wrong on this, please let me know, as, hearing the same thing from three people, who I perceive to be fairly intelligent, has me confused a bit confused.
lugha wrote: » No more so that when I pay for car tax / insurance, TV licence or any payment that the rules of society oblige me to pay. Unlike Sean Quinn and the no side here I don’t think that a personal opinion that a law is unfair is sufficient to justify not abiding by it.
Le_Dieux wrote: » PLEASE Lugha, DON'T associate me - who is on the 'no side' - with Quinn. For me, he is no different to the bunch in DE....just wears his shoe on the other foot.
mikemac1 wrote: » Yet people in social housing are exempt Do they not use these services too?
lugha wrote: » Well Sean is bankrupt so you are probably doing a bit better than him on that score. And no doubt you are different in many respects. But with respect to your attitude to the law, you are taking, or advocating taking, exactly the same approach. Sean Quinn believes (and it is quite clear that he does) that he is being treated very unfairly by the law and took it upon himself to disobey the direction of a court (and is now paying for it). If and when any of you lads are brought before the beak, you tell us (whether you can be believed is another matter!) that you will similarly disobey the court. Some of your number (tayto for one) have even reasoned that it would be worth taking the punishment meted out if it meant keeping your name off a property tax register. Which is IMO, is pretty much the way SQ is thinking too. Now of course, I fully expect you to miss the point and starting pointing out the negative impact some of the actions of SQ will have on us all, and other irrelevancies. But your attitude to the law, which is where I am comparing you, is fairly similar. And of course, the SQ affair neatly illustrates the problem of allowing people to decide for themselves if the law is or is not fair, and abiding by it, or not, accordingly.
lugha wrote: » Yes they do. But many of the people in social housing do not pay income tax either. So the argument you make, also applies if local services are funded by income tax, as is (essentially) currently the case.
Le_Dieux wrote: » For me, I take umberage over your assessment of my regard for the Law, of which I hold in the HIGHEST regard.
Le_Dieux wrote: » Prove this please!
lugha wrote: » No more so that when I pay for car tax / insurance, TV licence or any payment that the rules of society oblige me to pay.
lugha wrote: » Well the whole point of protesting against any government purpose is to defeat that purpose wouldn’t you say?
lugha wrote: » And you could register, or at least make yourself known to them, by submitting the form but without payment. Or if you feel the need to register a more robust opposition, write “kiss my arse” in the payment section.
dvpower wrote: » No you do not. Not only are you breaking the law, but you are encouraging others to do so too.
A tale of two Supreme Court rulings against government referendum publicity campaigns NOEL WHELAN On November 17th, 1995, the Supreme Court found the then Fine Gael-Labour government was acting unconstitutionally in spending public money to support one particular outcome in the second divorce referendum. The case arose from a challenge by Patricia McKenna to the government’s plan to spend £500,000 on publicity and advertising activities encouraging a Yes vote. The court found such expenditure amounted to a breach of the constitutional rights to equality, freedom of expression and a democratic process in referendums and put the voting rights of citizens favouring a constitutional amendment above the voting rights of those opposed. The judgment also said the government had a duty to spend money on giving information to the public about the implications of a constitutional amendment and to explain the referendum. The implications of the McKenna judgment were both immediate and long term. The judgment came just eight days before polling. It hobbled the government’s effort for a Yes vote and was a shot in the arm to the No campaign. However, it also set the non-government Yes campaign alight. Those of us involved at the time in the Right to Remarry campaign vividly recall how the phones hopped and the funds flowed rapidly into campaign headquarters in the days after the McKenna judgment. Up to that point it had been assumed the amendment would be passed; all of a sudden it was in jeopardy. The implications of this week’s McCrystal judgment, in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed the McKenna principles, will also have short and long-term significance. It is an embarrassment for the Government that 48 hours before its flagship constitutional referendum on children’s rights, the Supreme Court has unanimously cited it for unconstitutional behaviour in the content of its information campaign. On Thursday a summary judgment on McCrystal’s application was published in the name of the Chief Justice; full judgments will be published on December 11th. The detailed Supreme Court reasoning will make fascinating reading, not least because it seems to be based on entirely different findings on the facts from those made by the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Kearns, when he rejected McCrystal’s case.
Ghandee wrote: » Park the car up for part of the year, save on insurance and notify the tax office and get off the road status (tax refund discount).
Maggie 2 wrote: » When you register you fill in all your details, then you are asked if you wish to pay now or later. If you tick the later option, you finish registering without paying.
