donalg1 wrote: » hmmm I dont think you are one to talk Ghandee now in all fairness, you seem to like digging around in other peoples posts too and bringing them in here dont you? I for one believe it is relevant, you see if one poster is questioning the sanity of others well then I think it only proper to question the credentials of that poster when making such declarations.
Do you think the markets would lend to a country with such colossal debt? Would you??
Ghandee wrote: » The only solution is to write off the Bank Debt and then deal with the rest or suffer what is coming...
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » They're already lending to us. It's not related to the Property Tax, I know, but you want to default on approx. a quarter of our national debt because you think this will make people more likely to lend money to us? I think I see a flaw in this plan.
The only solution is to write off the Bank Debt and then deal with the rest or suffer what is coming...
Ghandee wrote: » That's why I said
donalg1 wrote: » No the point is that we dont really have it that bad here at all in comparison to others, we moan here about not being able to afford sky movies or the newest iPhone, whereas some people live in a shack without water or electricity and with an open sewer runnig past their house. Basically the point is we could be an awful lot worse off than we are and I for one am thankful for having it as good as we do. I mean the irony is never lost on me when someone logs on to the internet to complain about how bad we have it here.
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » In that case, you should probably look up what happens to countries who engage in a sovereign default. Argentina defaulted on $81 billion in 2001. They've been locked out of the international lending markets ever since.
You may remember, two years ago Iceland was a mess. Its banks had borrowed, lent, and speculated recklessly. Iceland’s feds squirmed and winced. At first, the government decided it would do what Ireland was doing. It would rescue the banks, that is, it would bail out the banks’ lenders with public funds, but when the public caught on to what was going on, a referendum was held. Voters rejected the bailout as if they were voting against sin itself. More than 90% of voters cast ballots against a taxpayer bailout. We were impressed. We wrote about it. The “Patsy Revolt of 2009” we called it. Unable to stick the voters with the losses, the government left the banks to default. Was this the end of the world? Did Iceland slip below the North Atlantic waves, joining the Titanic on the chilly, dark bottom of the sea? Did commerce break down? Did the Icelandic money become worthless? Was this the end of time? Nope. In Iceland, inflation fell from 18% down to 5% last year. The cost of insuring Icelandic debt fell to less than a third of the price in early 2009. Unemployment is barely 6%. “Thanks to its rescue plan,” says the IMF, “the recession in Iceland has been less deep than expected and not worse than in the other countries deeply affected.” How did they achieve this? Are the Icelanders smarter than the Europeans? Not exactly. They tried the typical dead-end solution. The trouble was, no one would lend Iceland more money. Once the public revolted, after realizing that it would be left holding the bag, the Icelandic feds had no choice. They had exhausted all the bad ideas. They were forced to go with a good one. The foreign debt was consolidated into a few banks, which then went broke. The remaining banks were left intact, ready to keep the country’s financial machinery in business.
Bruthal wrote: » Grand, so no one needs to pay this charge, as we will never have it as bad as others.
Ghandee wrote: » Here's something to laugh at. We are currently running a total debt of €169 Billion Of this total debt, the banks were bailed out to the tune of €64 billion which is half of the total debt.
Valetta wrote: » Glad you're not the minister for finance.
Ghandee wrote: » Me too, I'm happy enough in my own job Alastair.
Valetta wrote: » Post reported. I don't like being falsley accused of re-registering.
donalg1 wrote: » No people should pay the charge and stop moaning about it, as we will never have it as bad as others.
Bullseye1 wrote: » This is nonsense. I have no objection to the property tax in principal but if you hand money over to government it should be spend wisely and for the benefit of the tax payer not to improve working conditions in PS pay and increasing numbers in the PS. People are sick of no accountability in how their money is wasted: 1. Voting machines. 2. Bottle bank lands bought at hugely inflated prices using public funds. 3. Wastage in the HSE running into hundreds of millions. 4. Dublin County Council wasting almost 50 million already on the waste incinerator and then our own Minister for Environment doing everything in his power to ensure it does not go ahead because he was afraid of not getting re-elected. etc etc If your happy to hand over your money and look for nothing in return THAT IS YOUR BUSINESS and I respect that.....but where do you get off telling people to shut up and pay up.
Clearly you have been reading me wrong if you think I am promoting the HHC or am a supporter of it.
Bruthal wrote: » Have you disconnected your sky/upc? Broadband? Are you in serious mortgage arrears? Are you struggling badly week to week? When you answer yes to all the above, then what you say will have more value. Because you are likely saying what you say above, to or about others much worse off than yourself here, in Ireland, in a pontificating sort of way.
Ghandee wrote: » Still confused I see too?http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82712632&postcount=4579 I think we all 'may have read you wrongly' Here you contradict yourself again. Do you support it, or do you not? You're posts are clearly muddled up.
Ghandee wrote: » Still confused I see too?http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82712632&postcount=4579 I think we all 'may have read you wrongly' Here you contradict yourself again. Do you support it, or do you not? Your posts are clearly muddled up.
donalg1 wrote: » Have those that claim to be broke done all of the above?
I wouldnt think so, I know of a few people claiming to be broke yet still spending all day on their broadband and iPhones posting about all the places they have been and the things they have done whilst supposedly being broke.
There is actual poverty and then there is something I refer to as the new poverty which is a condition I attribute to many in Ireland today. It all goes back to relativity.
donalg1 wrote: » I refer to my post after them that you conveniently left out there Ghandee. :rolleyes: No I do not support the HHC as I have outlined all along, and even if I was genuinely telling someone they should pay it doesnt mean I support it, it means I believe people should not break laws. See the difference? (almost certainly wont see it, #blinkered)
Bruthal wrote: » I see you thanked post 4732. But it was a go at your 100% record. Not a hope you proclaim you tell others to pay because its the law. Thats total BS. I agree with Ghandee on his claim that you support the HHC for what it is.
Bruthal wrote: » But it is you who says others have it worse off than us in africa. But you are saying this to people worse off than you. You dont see the problem with that, so you are incapable of grasping the concept. Well you made it clear you believe no one is broke, before in the thread(s), and clearly support the notion that people should spend every cent of disposable income on tax if it is asked of them. The strongest arguments in any debate, likely come from the experienced.
Ghandee wrote: » Donal supports the notion that those less of than he is should only exist to have an income that provides shelter and food.
donalg1 wrote: » Really?
donalg1 wrote: » Ok you agree with Ghandee then that really means nothing at the end of the day. I think I am the one best placed to decide whether or not I support something.
