Banjo String wrote: » Care to quote me, and if possible any quotes I may have been responding to?
geeksauce wrote: » Not really now no, you know you were moaning about the Data Protection Act its back on page 20 I think. I don't see any need to quote you to show you what you said as you should remember saying it.
geeksauce wrote: » Anyway are you now saying you don't have any problems with giving IW your PPSN?
Banjo String wrote: » Ok fair enough, must've said it so. No.
REXER wrote: » Are there really so few people who are concerned about the fact that there will be an organisation that will have a data base of the residential location every PPS number resident in Ireland?
seamus wrote: » You mean like Revenue or DOSW? Getting into tinfoil hat territory here.
Oscar Gateaux wrote: » Giving your PPS number to Irish Water means that Phil Hogan will be able to see you when you touch yourself at night.
dxhound2005 wrote: » Your research may have shown you the evasion rate for the TV licence. I think it will be a good thing to bring these people into the fold if that is what is going to happen. If they had paid over the years it might have kept the fee down a bit for everyone.
dxhound2005 wrote: » It went up from €158 to the present €160 6 years ago. It has gone up by €8 in the last 10 years. Those are not massive increases and if 20% more of the population had been paying all along I think they could have been avoided.
Plazaman wrote: » I was out in the front garden last week when this fella in a hi viz and hard hat takes a photo of my house (presumably with me in the garden). "It's ok" he says "I'm with Irish Water, just getting are record of what houses are completed [with meters]". I asked him why did he take a picture of the house and not the meter. He says all details will go into a central database same as the property tax info. So I'm assuming not only will they know who lives where, they have a photo of that house. Very Big Brothery in my opinion.
niamh.foley wrote: » If RTE salary Capped there Staff, we wouldn't need this broadcasting Tax
Plazaman wrote: » So I'm assuming not only will they know who lives where, they have a photo of that house. Very Big Brothery in my opinion.
REXER wrote: » Not even close, those are state departments, that will not be sold off to fund short term political gains or to fund bribery of the electorate.IW will be sold off and as has been pointed out several times and that will go with the confidential details of all involved. :eek: (If that data has not already been compromised by that point!)
dxhound2005 wrote: » You're naive to think that any form of asset or economic activity will escape taxation or charge. There has been a broadcasting charge since 1926 and it is common practice around the world. Ireland is very unusual in that two of the things which are common around the world property tax and water charges are now only being introduced here.
dxhound2005 wrote: » Ireland is very unusual in that two of the things which are common around the world property tax and water charges are now only being introduced here.
REXER wrote: » IW will be sold off and as has been pointed out several times and that will go with the confidential details of all involved. :eek: (If that data has not already been compromised by that point!)
EunanMac wrote: » This is incorrect, the yarn and excuse we were fed for years, is that our taxation rates are higher because, they included these two charges.
dxhound2005 wrote: » The result of a vote buying exercise in 1977. It has proved to be unsustainable. A broader tax base, not just depending on income tax and VAT makes more economic sense.
EunanMac wrote: » Actually it was very sustainable up to the point ordinary taxpayers were forced to pay off billionaires private gambling and speculation debts for the next 30+ years, while they retain their lifestyles and wealth.
niamh.foley wrote: » Yes that is only for people who own a "TV" I dont Own a TV so Why should i pay for the Likes of Ryan Tubridy ? dont listen to RTE either on the Radio.
Barely There wrote: » So you shouldn't have to pay for Education if you don't have children? You shouldn't have to pay for Social Welfare if you're not unemployed? You shouldn't have to pay for Health if you haven't been sick? That's not how society or the taxation system works.
niamh.foley wrote: » what has me not owning a TV got to do with RTE ?
niamh.foley wrote: » if you want a TV and are happy to pay RTE 160 euros a year then be my guest but if RTE is a So called Free-To-Air Broadcasting Station why is it not on any of the Free-to-Air Boxes that you can buy in Aldi but yet BBC is available?
niamh.foley wrote: » and second point Social Welfare payment is done on how many Stamps i have earned while working Health is what i pay for on USC and PRSI Tax and if i do get sick i have to pay, 100 euro for the A&E 50 for the Doctor, 70 euros a night if i need to stay in. Education i pay tax well again PAYE , plus you pay per child to send to school. For a Country that Prides it self on Low Commercial tax for American Companies it sure knows how to rides its people
dxhound2005 wrote: » Why then did previous governments try to bring in property tax and water charges in the 1990's? And Motor Tax which was also abolished in 1977 was reintroduced. And you might recall that one of the first results of the reliance on Income Tax was the great PAYE marches. If someone has a house with no mortgage and they are getting a State pension I don't see why they should not contribute to the tax base instead of just putting everything on the shoulders of the workers. They are getting water services etc just like someone paying income tax. That is just an example.
EunanMac wrote: » You've missed the point, either people should pay water charges directly, or they should pay them through general taxation, not both.
Barely There wrote: » Why not.
EunanMac wrote: » Do you pay twice for everything ?
