Is Household charge fair?

Purple said:
Yes, but the interest bill if we borrowed on the open market would be at least 3 times as high. That would be bigger than all of the repayment s we are currently being asked to make.
Click to expand...

Understood.

So, is it accurate to state that the Government income is being used to repay (the loans incurred as a consequence of the decision to stand over the debts arising from) the bondholders ?

Trying to claim causality between the Household Charge and the debts of bondholders is a matter of opinion. It would be equally accurate, or inaccurate, to link the Household Charge with the Croke Park Agreement and salary increments ;) (see what I did there) ?
 
umop3p!sdn said:
...and who is paying back the IMF/EU bailout fund? Many of these cuts and new taxes were introduced as a condition of that bailout.

Do you understand now?

There are two problems:
1. Ireland's huge overspend Vs Income
2. paying for bust banks, and giving money to bondholders, unsecured and otherwise.

We (and future generations) are paying for both.
Click to expand...

I’ll say it again.

If we hold the bond holders to go to hell then we wouldn’t have to repay them but the EU/IMF wouldn’t have given us any money to fund our current budget deficit. We’d therefore have to borrow that money on the open market and the interest rate charged would be 3 times what we are currently paying.
Cost of bank bailout: €60 billion
Current budget deficit: €18 billion per year. Therefore the cost of funding that deficit would be equal to the total cost of funding the bank bailout and that would be a yearly cost, not a once off cost. Roll that up over a 10 year period and we’re much better off getting screwed by the troika than getting screwed by the open market.
 
I see a group of 9 of our elected legislators are actively encouraging poeple to break the law that the parliment they are members of have enacted.

They should be thrown out with no compensation.

They are a disgrace.
 
We can't just continue to run huge budget deficits. The measures being introduced at the moment would be no less severe if we hadn't take on bank debts.

I find it tremendously disingenuous of people to argue against cutting the budget deficits as if there was some realistic alternative. I've thought about it from many angles, but in the end decided that you just have to grow up and accept the practicalities of the situation we are in rather than engage in these childish antics of thinking we could live in the fools paradise of the boom years forever.

If we'd burned the banking bondholders and somehow europe still agreed to fund us, would we really get away with not cutting the €18bn deficit by 2015????

More realistically if we'd burned the banking bondholders how on earth would we immediately cut the €18bn deficit to zero?
 
I was watching a BBC documentary about Government expenditure. Gordon Brown, as Chancellor for the Exchequer, introduced a winter fuel allowance at a rate of £20. By the time they left Government, it had been increased to a rate of £200.

That's how budget deficits are allowed to grow. Commitments to increase expenditure for political reasons, and not for reasons of economics or social justice.
 
Local household charges are in existence in many other European countries, so why not here?

I think that people need to get real and realise that many local authority services (such as public parks, playgrounds, public libraries, street cleaning and the maintence and upkeep of public spaces, etc.) so on, cost money and are free to use for everyone, so why not contribute to the cost of them?

I think the household charge is a good thing and I don't think that contributing €2 per week for street cleaning, the use of public parks (and their upkeep) and the use and services for public libraries and so on, is not a lot to contribute to them.

I have noticed in the last 2 or so years that the number of people using public amenities such as (parks, and so on) this has increased substantially so I think that it's reasonable for people to contribute.

Thinking that because you pay X amount in motor tax and Y in income tax to pay for the maintenance and upkeep (and ongoing existence of these services) is just silly.
 
i dont think the outrage the ULA are on about is out there. Plus it is reckless for elected politicians to encuorage non payment. What are they goin to do for people landed with 000s of euros fines. This ideological crusade could end very badly for people. Lefties looking for their place in leftie history


Just saw mick wallace on the news sitting with the rest of the non paying TDs. Doesnt he owe enough money already
 
Joe Higgins,Thomas Pringle, Mick Wallace, John Halligan and Ming Flannigan; TDs Richard Boyd Barrett ,Joan Collins; Seamus Healy from Workers and Unemployed Action Group/United Left Alliance.

Support the boycott of the household charge.

Hmm, doesnt that mean they are telling everyone of their intention to break the law?

If I said I was going to do something to break the law and put it into the public domain,and then go on to break it,I hope that I get exactly the same treatment as those mentioned above do..

I will watch closely to see how they are treated,In fairness if they can break the law and if they get away with it,then its each man for himself!

Dont they enact the law?
 
CMCR said:
Local household charges are in existence in many other European countries, so why not here?

I think that people need to get real and realise that many local authority services (such as public parks, playgrounds, public libraries, street cleaning and the maintence and upkeep of public spaces, etc.) so on, cost money and are free to use for everyone, so why not contribute to the cost of them?

I think the household charge is a good thing and I don't think that contributing €2 per week for street cleaning, the use of public parks (and their upkeep) and the use and services for public libraries and so on, is not a lot to contribute to them.

I have noticed in the last 2 or so years that the number of people using public amenities such as (parks, and so on) this has increased substantially so I think that it's reasonable for people to contribute.

Thinking that because you pay X amount in motor tax and Y in income tax to pay for the maintenance and upkeep (and ongoing existence of these services) is just silly.
Click to expand...

Yes, alot of persons who bought properties over the last 10 years or so have paid up to 40 years of a property tax in the form of stamp duty.

No problem, if the government is willing to give this back, then I would have no problems paying it.

Its a double taxation in my opinion.
 
Pope John 11 said:
Yes, alot of persons who bought properties over the last 10 years or so have paid up to 40 years of a property tax in the form of stamp duty.

No problem, if the government is willing to give this back, then I would have no problems paying it.

Its a double taxation in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I've paid over €100'000 in stmp duty in the last 10 years. I see no link between that and a property tax.
 
DerKaiser said:
We can't just continue to run huge budget deficits. The measures being introduced at the moment would be no less severe if we hadn't take on bank debts.

I find it tremendously disingenuous of people to argue against cutting the budget deficits as if there was some realistic alternative. I've thought about it from many angles, but in the end decided that you just have to grow up and accept the practicalities of the situation we are in rather than engage in these childish antics of thinking we could live in the fools paradise of the boom years forever.

If we'd burned the banking bondholders and somehow europe still agreed to fund us, would we really get away with not cutting the €18bn deficit by 2015????

More realistically if we'd burned the banking bondholders how on earth would we immediately cut the €18bn deficit to zero?
Click to expand...

+1 DerKaiser. Really I'm fed up listening to the self appointed spokepeople for the "vulnerable in society"* banging on about the hardships faced as if somehow there is a built in entitlement to everything they receive. Just for a second if we were to take one representative of the many groups, put them all into a room and remove the government from the equation and have the same discussions I think it would paint a much different picture. For example if 38% of the people in the room were not contributing anything and were receiving cash from the other 62% would they be so demanding? If the 15% who are contributing most (through hard work and enterprise) were in front of those 38% would they be getting the negative comments they currently get as a group? Those 9 looney left tds are indeed a disgrace. It's about time those paying the majority of the tax to run the country were given a stronger voice and those representing the "vulnerable in society"* had just a bit more humility and see the state of the country for what it is. Everybody is taking a hit here but those carrying the burden of paying the taxes are taking a damn sight more of a hit than they are being given credit for.

*"vulnerable in society" - without doubt there are those who are vulnerable and deserve some protection but to listen to the politicians claiming to represent them you would think over half the country were in this group!
 
Ceist Beag said:
I'm fed up listening to the self appointed spokepeople for the "vulnerable in society"* banging on about the hardships faced as if somehow there is a built in entitlement to everything they receive.
Click to expand...

When you take it up one level it is really embarassing.

There are people in Africa starving to death and Ireland, where everyone has the safety net of a home, free medical care and €190pw, believes it is acceptable that we are subsidised to the tune of €18bn by the rest of the world?

We will never pay back all of our debts. It's quite likely as well as defaulting on the €40bn banking losses (some of which we are responsible for also let's not forget) we'll also default on another €40bn we have spent in the last number of years to maintain our lifestyles.

If the rest of the world has €40bn to just give away, do we really think the best use of it is to save the Croke Park agreement, maintain social welfare rates or even spare the poor citizens of Ireland €2 a week on property tax? Absolute bull. Let's see now, do we think saving 2m householders a property tax in Ireland is up there with saving 2m starving kids?

I don't want to pontificate about it, but that's what Mick Wallace, Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Boyd Barrett, etc stand for. Let the rest of the world pay for our standard of living. I for one question our entitlement to that.
 
CMCR said:
Local household charges are in existence in many other European countries, so why not here?
Click to expand...
If that was the argument to bring in the charge, then we could equally bring in 24hour drinking laws, legalised prostitution, legalised drugs etc. Just because something is in existence somewhere else is no reason to bring it in here. We must think for ourselves, if we are capable of that.
Also, we already pay for the services provided, through a variety of other taxes. We are soon to have the highest VAT rate in Europe. We already have amongst the highest energy costs. Our motor taxes are very high, and getting higher. Our higest rate of tax kicks in at one of the lowest levels of income in Europe. And almost 50% of people pay no income tax at all.
Soon we'll have every tax under the sun in here, with none of the benefits of the greater European nations. What then? Then it will be untenable for the thinking person to remain here.
And yes, I find it ironic that elected representatives are advocating breaking the law. So is it a citizens choice as to what laws to obey and what laws to break? But we already know there is a special law for our political masters and our civic bureaucracy - the law where none of them are ever held responsible.
 
How many of those who cant pay 100 a year are able to pay multiples of that in tax on ciggarettes & alcohol. I know there are people out there who cant afford and dont drink or smoke but id like to know of those who are exempt or are protesting how many of them have no issue with paying multiples of 100 on tax on cig & drink. 100pa!!!
People need to break down what money goes on a week a and publish the average spend on certain items within households.


People need to break down the disposable income left at the end of the week for long term unemployed with families, recently unemployed with families, working with familes on avg indst wage. To see who are at the pin of their collar and who's not!!
 
This links back to 1977 and the decision to abolish local rates. A mate of mine lives in Belfast and pays close on GBP 1000 a year in local rates.
 
1. Household charge is a fair, equitable, sustainable and constant source of tax income for the exchequer. Finally, there is a tax that EVERYONE has to pay. Both those currently contributing nothing (welfare recipients who don't work and continue to claim every benefit under the sun); plus those working and already paying income tax, VAT, etc. This is the first time that this has happened to my recollection.
2. Using the phrase "The most vulnibble in society" is the Irish version of Godwins Law. Anyone using it has instantly lost the argument.
3. The TDs refusing to pay this charge...will they be non-tax-compliant ? Does this mean they can be removed as a TD ? (Please say it is).
 
I'll pay it. Heard Eamon Dunphy on PK this morning saying he was not going to pay it. Jim Power (economist?) was on the same programme, saying that we should pay altho he acknowledged the government lacked moral authority given all the shenanigans of the last few years. I suppose you have to separate out the two, but I do feel a bit hard done by when no-one has been locked up or had pensions slashed, or even the whole Cardiff thing, which the current government can't lay off on FF.
 
Pique318 said:
2. Using the phrase "The most vulnibble in society" is the Irish version of Godwins Law. Anyone using it has instantly lost the argument.
Click to expand...

+1

And the argument "Is it fair that <insert wealthy person's name here> receive Childrená Allowance ?".

No, it's not fair but as long as the politicians lack the spine to link up Revenue data with Social Welfare data, that's the mess we're stuck with so everything else is compromised.

Anyone who says that it is not technically possible to link 2 IT systems, each with the PPN stored, is not competent to do their job and should step down.
 
The memory of the election is fading. I suppose a few TD's will get themselves convicted and led to jail with the TV cameras rolling to boost their profile

Much the same as Joe Higgins and bin charges while people outside the cities had been paying private waste operators for years and years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top