darkhorse wrote: » Well, lugha, I am being honest with you when I tell you that I know at least twenty five people, who would rather not have paid, but who paid out of fear. Most of these people I am talking about, own their own homes and when I asked them do they agree or disagree with a property tax on homes, they all said pretty much the same thing, which was that they worked hard to be in the position that are in, which is owning their own homes, and they cant understand why, after all that hard work, that they have to start paying all over again, as a couple of them put it to me, in their final years. How would you, lugha, explain to seventy and eighty year old people that it is now a burden on them owning their own home.
darkhorse wrote: » dxhound2005 wrote: » Please go back and tell the ones that don't own their own homes that they needn't have paid. They can apply for a refund. I have a feeling that you know what I meant, but I will try and make it clearer. When I said that most of the people I was talking about own their homes outright , I meant actually free of mortgages. People that pay mortgages, in the majority of cases, are liable, therefore would not be entitled to a refund. I apologize if my post was'nt clear enough for you to understand. Was this an organised survey and if so to what purpose? The detailed information and opinions you gathered from 25 or more people does not strike me as what could be acquired from meeting them casually. Did you not find even one person who was in favour of the HHC and was not motivated by fear when they paid?
dxhound2005 wrote: » Please go back and tell the ones that don't own their own homes that they needn't have paid. They can apply for a refund. I have a feeling that you know what I meant, but I will try and make it clearer. When I said that most of the people I was talking about own their homes outright , I meant actually free of mortgages. People that pay mortgages, in the majority of cases, are liable, therefore would not be entitled to a refund. I apologize if my post was'nt clear enough for you to understand. Was this an organised survey and if so to what purpose? The detailed information and opinions you gathered from 25 or more people does not strike me as what could be acquired from meeting them casually. Did you not find even one person who was in favour of the HHC and was not motivated by fear when they paid?
I have a feeling that you know what I meant, but I will try and make it clearer. When I said that most of the people I was talking about own their homes outright , I meant actually free of mortgages. People that pay mortgages, in the majority of cases, are liable, therefore would not be entitled to a refund. I apologize if my post was'nt clear enough for you to understand.
lugha wrote: » As Sean Quinn might say. :pac: But if you think this out, you might spot a tweeny problem in permitting people do decide what law is and is not right. Virtually all of us disagree with some, or many, laws. Would you propose a free for all for anyone to break any law, provided they felt the law wasn't "right"?
bgrizzley wrote: » over and over and over we go. slavery? would you have agreed to that? the salt tax the british brought in that ghandi defied? And i know you'll say you cant compare the HHC with the slavery, but you might spot a tweeny problem in permitting people do decide what law is and is not right.:eek:
lugha wrote: » Their share of the burden of getting us out of the mess we are in.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » That's why paper copies of annual reports are also available. It would be a needless expense to send them out to everyone.
darkhorse wrote: » I dont think needless expenses were ever a major concern to our government or our count councils, Vlad.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » That column is about increments, not pay rises.
Bullseye1 wrote: » We got rid of voting machines because the electorate would not accept it with out a paper trail. And that wasn't costing us money, when voting. Yet if we have over €500-1000 it's too much to expect a simple document outline public expenditure.
darkhorse wrote: » Is there a difference?
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » Simply put, a public servant's contract of employment might be that, subject to satisfactory performance, their pay would initially be x, in year two it's x+1% and year three x+3% and so on until they hit the max of the scale. That is the agreed salary that they've been offered and what they've signed up to. If you strip out the increments, then you are cutting their pay. A pay rise is when that basic rate is increased, above what's been laid out in the contract of employment.
dvpower wrote: » You can. Just fill in the form, but don't include payment. Put it in an envelope and post it to your local council. Simples.
lugha wrote: » So where would you draw the line? Would you give Sean Quinn a free pass, provided he genuinely felt that he was been treated unfairly?
darkhorse wrote: » those questions were answered by at least 3 people
darkhorse wrote: » That not withstanding, I would like to address the above with a piece by independent td stephen donnelly.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » One is part of your contact of employment, the other isn't. If you abolish increments, you're effectively giving them a pay cut.
darkhorse wrote: » But how could it be a pay cut, if they had'nt got it in the first place.
bgrizzley wrote: » And im lost at the logic of comparing someone who has not paid a E100 charge to someone who has stolen around E5,000,000,000 from the Irish people.
dxhound2005 wrote: » darkhorse wrote: » dxhound2005 wrote: » Please go back and tell the ones that don't own their own homes that they needn't have paid. They can apply for a refund. Was this an organised survey and if so to what purpose? The detailed information and opinions you gathered from 25 or more people does not strike me as what could be acquired from meeting them casually. Did you not find even one person who was in favour of the HHC and was not motivated by fear when they paid? No, nothing like that. My survey days are over. I'm just talking about people I know, be they friends, relations, or neighbours. On your second question, I have to be honest with you, I probably would have found someone eventually that was in favour of it, but nobody that I know, either payers or non payers, ever said that they were in favour of the HHC. Are you in favour of the HHC.
darkhorse wrote: » dxhound2005 wrote: » Please go back and tell the ones that don't own their own homes that they needn't have paid. They can apply for a refund. Was this an organised survey and if so to what purpose? The detailed information and opinions you gathered from 25 or more people does not strike me as what could be acquired from meeting them casually. Did you not find even one person who was in favour of the HHC and was not motivated by fear when they paid? No, nothing like that. My survey days are over. I'm just talking about people I know, be they friends, relations, or neighbours. On your second question, I have to be honest with you, I probably would have found someone eventually that was in favour of it, but nobody that I know, either payers or non payers, ever said that they were in favour of the HHC. Are you in favour of the HHC.
dxhound2005 wrote: » Please go back and tell the ones that don't own their own homes that they needn't have paid. They can apply for a refund. Was this an organised survey and if so to what purpose? The detailed information and opinions you gathered from 25 or more people does not strike me as what could be acquired from meeting them casually. Did you not find even one person who was in favour of the HHC and was not motivated by fear when they paid?
lugha wrote: » The impact is very different but that's irrelevant. The principle is the same.
lugha wrote: » Sean Quinn feels he is being hard done by by the law of the land so he took it upon himself to defy the law. Exactly as many in the no camp are advocating. I'm genuinely puzzled that you cannot see the clear similarity. (Playing the "but he is stealing much more" is a crock that a seven year old wouldn't try to pull).
lugha wrote: » We are not taking about basic human right issues such as slavery or apartheid or the like. These are ho-hum fiscal matters. If you reserve the right (!) to break such laws because you don't personally think them fair you have absolutely no credibility if you complain about others doing it. Even if they are doing it on a bigger scale.
lugha wrote: » When the property bubble burst we found ourselves spending about €10,000 per worker in the state per year MORE than we were taking in in taxes. And who do you think should shoulder this burdern (and please don't say something silly "politicans" like others are doing)
dvpower wrote: » Everybody has access to the internet through the library service, funded by the HHC.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » India had Gandhi leading the fight against oppression. Ireland has Ghandee.
Clare County Council has passed a motion that no further letters demanding payment of the household charge should be sent out by the council until such time as an appropriate database has been put in place. The motion was passed following recent controversy, where many house-owners who had already paid the charge were sent letters reminding them to pay. In other instances letters were addressed to individuals who are deceased. The issue was described as a “fiasco” and a “public disgrace”. A separate motion asking that the Local Government Management Agency -charged with collecting the charge - be disbanded was also passed. A statement from Clare County Council said that the council was operating on instructions from the LGMA
Le_Dieux wrote: » Had a quiet chuckle when I heard this on the road today. Love to know just HOW they are going to put 'an appropriate database' in place, and where they are going to get their information on it from? Let's be real here, they used what they had and screwed it up BIG time.
darkhorse wrote: » So if everyone did that, would that not impede greater on the overall plan by govt. to collect the anticipated €160 million?
Slick50 wrote: » No it would not, it would give them exactly what they are looking for, a complete database. That is what this whole charade is about, but that wasn't enough for them, they wanted to charge us €100 to add insult to injury in the process. Then they would have all the information they need to start sending out bills.
The_Thing wrote: » People could also poison the database with false names, addresses, and credit card info, etc. They'd be chasing their tails for years.
