Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » I didn't say that taxpayer wasn't bailing out AIB. I said the HHC wasn't being used to bail out AIB.
tayto lover wrote: » If it goes into a central pot then it's fairly obvious it does.
Ghandee wrote: » 'it's only €100' they say. Tell that to these folk. Householders opting to have power cut off By Seán McCárthaigh Thursday, November 22, 2012 Householders with large arrears on electricity bills are opting to be dis-connected rather than have pre-paid meters installed. The chairman of the Commission for Energy Regulation, Dermot Nolan, said he was surprised that threequarters of those in serious arrears were opting to be switched off rather than falling into further debt. He told the Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications that 5,000 residential electricity customers had been disconnected in the first quarter of 2012, and 1,600 customers had their gas supply cut off. However, Mr Nolan said the number of disconnections would fall during the second quarter of 2012. He said about 10% of all electricity and gas customers were struggling to pay utility bills, representing approximately 200,000 electricity customers and 62,800 gas customers. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/householders-opting-to-have-power-cut-off-214727.html As long as bankers pensions/TD's salaries and PS overspending isnt affected, it's all ok though.
Bullseye1 wrote: » You believe the property tax will be €100 next year? Good luck with that.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » Didn't say that. It's not like people are saying "I'll pay €100 but not more", is it? They're refusing to pay even €100.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » A. How can money collected after the bailout be used to finance the bailout? B. How can you deny that local authorities aren't receiving HHC money?
tayto lover wrote: » There is still money being paid over to Bankers and bondholders. Another 3.1 billion in March I believe. LA's might get some but it is still coming, we are told, from a central fund of taxes.
bgrizzley wrote: » Vlad, would you sign a lifetime contract with a company to, (for example) service your car for E100 this year when you know they will charge you E500 next year for the same service. (and god knows how much in year 3)
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » Except they aren't comparable. A tax liability isn't a contract. It's not something you opt into.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » Except they aren't comparable. A tax liability isn't a contract. It's not something you opt into. I think you've misunderstood how the bank bailout is structured. A lot of people seem to think the government is writing a cheque every time a bond repayment is due. Instead, it's coming from the banks themselves, who after recapitalisation, have the funds necessary to repay their debt obligations. None of the tax money collected this year is going to the banks.
Bullseye1 wrote: » One is related to the other. Those who haven't paid have done so knowing that it will be much more next year.
Ghandee wrote: » Vlad, the govt (we) own the banks. Each time the bank write a cheque, it's on the govts behalf.
Reloc8 wrote: » Why does anyone think not paying the HHC will actually change anything ? That's your protest ? Yikes. The establishment must be quaking in their boots. (for the record, I paid it. I'm lucky enough that I could afford it, and its the law, so there you go).
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » Nobody's disputing we own the banks. What I'm saying is that HHC money isn't going to the banks.
Ghandee wrote: » See any similarity with tax payers money/central fund/where it goes?
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » When have the banks received state money since the HHC was introduced?
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » Yes, but if they thought it was reasonable, they could have paid this year and refused to next year, no?
gurramok wrote: » If your staff rent, nice of you to support the passing of the forthcoming property tax onto the tenants, rather than the owners making a stand against the tax. A bit of mé féin right there.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81807039&postcount=105
Ghandee wrote: » Are you being difficult now for the craic? Who is repaying the money the banks got (via the state)? Tax payers is it not?
Hijpo wrote: » What good would refusal do when they have your details? how would we go about refusing it?
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » Indeed, but that wasn't the question, was it? Are you trying to avoid the tax or not pay it as a point of principle? If it's the latter, surely you shouldn't care if they have your details?
Hijpo wrote: » But you said Which would be classed as a generalisation covering everyone against the HHC. So if you can find one post from everyone against the HHC that states "i dont get paid enough....." your credibility might go up a notch to 0.01
lugha wrote: » This particular sub-discussion was about austerity and not the HHC in particular. And I asked the question of those who support this campaign against austerity on Saturday, where would we get the 13 billion a year we need if we decide not to pursue spending cuts or raise taxes. Ghandee responded by saying he wasn’t get paid enough (in other words, he doesn’t know). Nobody else answered, which is itself an answer. Several posters did offer opinions on how austerity does not work. Which is super! But alas has no bearing on the question asked. So once again lads, here in its splendid simplicity is the question. If we abandon austere measures, who will lend us the 13 billion a year? Any takers?
bgrizzley wrote: » im sure there are some of us not answering because we are not against austerity per se, just against this tax.
bgrizzley wrote: » let me ask you one. how is 160 million euros going to help with the 13 billion pa.
lugha wrote: » But some were at pains to point out that the campaign on Saturday is against austerity in general, and not the HHC in particular. (This was an attempt to distance themselves from the supporters of Sean Quinn who have also decided to pick and choose which laws they will obey) It won’t make much of a difference. But those that argue against austerity (i.e. this Saturday gang) oppose any such measure and not just this one in particular. We might make some progress in addressing our deficit without a property tax. We definitely will not if we rule out all taxes and all spending cuts.
bgrizzley wrote: » Well, if it doesnt make much difference its just an excerise in futility.
bgrizzley wrote: » its about fcuking time everyone stood together...
lugha wrote: » There is no single measure that the government could take that alone would have much impact on our deficit. But cumulatively, they do have an effect. And the property tax will be bringing in quite a bit more that 160 million. I would say it is about time everyone faced reality. And the reality is that it makes almost no difference who is in government. There is little sense in complaining about how the government is tackling our problems unless you can propose a better way. And apart from minor tweaking of detail, there isn’t really an alternative that avoids the need for austere measures.
