Are you going to pay the household charge? [Part 1]

daheff

I'm anti this tax.

Reasons being
1- It'll be used to charge us for other taxes
2- Werent development levies added to every house when it was being built?
3- This tax is 'allegedly' for local services...but its not a hypothecated tax...it just gets lumped in with all the other taxes...so it may not all got to local services...even if it does, it'll mean some areas get less services than others

How many politicians have signed up for this so far? Thats one question I'm interested in hearing.

as for child allowance- thats a shambles the way that is administered. Its paid to the mother of the child (on the childs behalf)...so its not even possible to means test.

It should be cut and a tax break given to people earning under x amount (but thats a different threads discussion)

Bullseye1

Another 35m wasted on the Children's Hospital. This is where your money is going to end up. Wasted by wasters.

whatdoicare

I don't like the way this "charge" is being implemented, why are there properties exempt from paying this?

For example, four of my friends and myself all bought our homes in the space of a few months -

I bought a, I suppose you could call it second hand?, 12 year old property in an established estate. I bought within my means and it is by no means a huge property but it's my home. Recently the developer stopped paying towards the upkeep of the green areas and roads after, from what I understand, a previously agreed term and the council were supposed to take over from him but they refused to do this - so now we have to pay ourselves and organise to fix the roads (which need to be fixed every five months or so - at least twice a year) and pay a gardener to keep the green areas which are too large for a normal lawnmower.

My friends bought brand new larger houses in new estates and all paid stupid amounts of money for said properties. Their estates are just as finished as mine and there are no "unfinished" areas that I can see and if there are, they don't affect my friends in any way - they have the exact same facilities as I have, less the charge to upkeep their areas but are all on the list of areas that don't have to pay this charge!

This seems very unfair to me - I feel I am being punished for being sensible - I could have bought a much larger house and I'd be much better off!

So, basically, I'm not paying this charge, I don't understand why I should, I feel like I'm just going to be paying for it twice over as I'll still have to pay to keep my area as noone is else is taking responsibility for it. :mad:

PauloMN

I have no real problem with the household charge in principle. The country is broke, and we have to raise taxes to pay for services. However, like the poster above, I take issue with how this is being done - specifically the fact that there seems to be no distinction between housing estates that have been taken in charge by the local council, and those that have not.

If the green areas in my estate are looked after by the local council, if they look after the place in general, and if they fix broken street lights for example, then I've no problem in paying the household charge. But what if residents themselves have to pay for a private contractor to cut the grass in common areas of their estate? What if they hit a brick wall when trying to get lights fixed? Why should they pay the same household charge as those receiving the full array of services?

I also agree with the manner in which some estates have been deemed to be exempt and others not. In my view, it is very simple - if the local council have not taken an estate in charge, then those residents should not be liable for the household charge, or at least only have to pay a reduced amount. If the council has taken an estate in charge, and all services are being provided in that development - such as grass cutting, street cleaning and street light maintenance, then those residents should be liable for the full amount of the charge.


Are apartment owners who pay annual maintenance fees liable for this charge? If so, that is a disgrace - again there should be a reduced charge for those who do not receive council services in their developments.

donalg1

PauloMN wrote: »

I have no real problem with the household charge in principle. The country is broke, and we have to raise taxes to pay for services. However, like the poster above, I take issue with how this is being done - specifically the fact that there seems to be no distinction between housing estates that have been taken in charge by the local council, and those that have not.

If the green areas in my estate are looked after by the local council, if they look after the place in general, and if they fix broken street lights for example, then I've no problem in paying the household charge. But what if residents themselves have to pay for a private contractor to cut the grass in common areas of their estate? What if they hit a brick wall when trying to get lights fixed? Why should they pay the same household charge as those receiving the full array of services?

I also agree with the manner in which some estates have been deemed to be exempt and others not. In my view, it is very simple - if the local council have not taken an estate in charge, then those residents should not be liable for the household charge, or at least only have to pay a reduced amount. If the council has taken an estate in charge, and all services are being provided in that development - such as grass cutting, street cleaning and street light maintenance, then those residents should be liable for the full amount of the charge.


Are apartment owners who pay annual maintenance fees liable for this charge? If so, that is a disgrace - again there should be a reduced charge for those who do not receive council services in their developments.

If the council take an estate in charge they don't look after the green areas and certainly don't cut the grass they only take over the roads and services I.e. water and sewerage services and they will only ever take it in charge if there are no problems whatsoever with the estate which is very rare

whatdoicare

If the council take an estate in charge they don't look after the green areas and certainly don't cut the grass they only take over the roads and services I.e. water and sewerage services and they will only ever take it in charge if there are no problems whatsoever with the estate which is very rare

That's not true at all- my folks live five minutes from me in another private estate and the council cuts the grass on common areas, prunes the trees and any other upkeep needed. Any estate I know of in my area is the same. Only my estate and another estate are having this problem afaik. The council won't even take over the upkeep of the roads on our area.

donalg1

whatdoicare wrote: »

That's not true at all- my folks live five minutes from me in another private estate and the council cuts the grass on common areas, prunes the trees and any other upkeep needed. Any estate I know of in my area is the same. Only my estate and another estate are having this problem afaik. The council won't even take over the upkeep of the roads on our area.

Your Local Authority is the only one I have heard of that cuts the grass for estates they have taken in charge, the Councils do have a lot of estates in charge so they wouldnt spend all their time going around cutting grass in every estate now sure that would be a never ending job and would require a huge amount of people to be employed solely to cut grass.

The reason Councils dont take estates in Charge is either because there has never been an application made by the developer or the residents. And if there has been an application made the Council will then compile a report on every inch, nook and cranny in the estate, they then go back to the developer and hand them a list of the things that need to be rectified before they take the estate in charge.

They definitely arent going to take over an estate while there are any outstanding issues or any remedial works that need doing, as this could cost a fortune in maintenance for them. So they certainly wont take your estate in charge if the roads are in such a condition that they need to be fixed every six months or so.

PauloMN

donalg1 wrote: »

They must be actual Council estates then either that or your Local Authority is the only one around that cuts the grass for estates they have taken in charge, the Councils do have a lot of estates in charge so they wouldnt spend all their time going around cutting grass in every estate now sure that would be a never ending job and would require a huge amount of people to be employed solely to cut grass.

The reason Councils dont take estates in Charge is either because there has never been an application made by the developer or the residents. And if there has been an application made the Council will then compile a report on every inch, nook and cranny in the estate, they then go back to the developer and hand them a list of the things that need to be rectified before they take the estate in charge.

They definitely arent going to take over an estate while there are any outstanding issues or any remedial works that need doing, as this could cost a fortune in maintenance for them. So they certainly wont take your estate in charge if the roads are in such a condition that they need to be fixed every six months or so.

I lived in Fingal for years and the council cut the grass in the common green areas. They don't do verges as they expect householders to look after those (which most people do, except for rented houses). The estate I grew up in was looked after by the council also, grass cut, trees taken care of, street lights taken care of, broken paths fixed etc..

These were both private estates, always were.

My attitude to this household charge is if they expect people to pay extra for something they always paid for in their taxes, then they need to up their game. Simple as that. If you run a business and expect customers to start paying more, you need to provide more - you need to up the service.

The councils are washing their hands of as much as they can get away with, the Greyhound fiasco in Dublin being the latest example. We need to have a clear set of deliverables for these local councils, and they need to be held to account. They are getting away with murder. This vague nonsense they peddle on the household charge website is simply not good enough - "this money will be used for parks, street cleaning...." blah blah.

In a recession, these things (which have been covered by our taxes to date) should be getting cheaper. It's cheaper to get pretty much every service these days than it was in 2007. Why are we being expected to fork out more, especially estates which get nothing in terms of council services?

donalg1

Got this from Wicklow County Councils website.

•

While the Council does not take in charge combined drains* these must also be surveyed as part of the CCTV report. (*the expression “combined drain” means a single drain (normally located in private gardens) used for the drainage of two or more separate premises)

•

Maintenance of open space areas (including grass cutting) shall be the responsibility of the residents after the Taking In Charge process has been completed.

•

Where a private residential development is to be maintained by a management company, established for the purpose of maintaining the public lighting, roads, footways, parking areas, services and open spaces, the said public lighting, roads, footways etc. shall be conveyed to the management company. Any cash security lodged with the planning authority for such a development will not be released until the satisfactory completion of the works and the said roads, footways, services etc. are conveyed to the management company.

•

A request for taking in charge of a development is generally made by the developer however residents of a development can also make a request under Section 180 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000.The taking in charge procedure would still apply (from step 3 detailed earlier)

•

The above policy applies to roads within a housing development. Other roads installed by developers to facilitate their housing development should be dealt with under a separate process

donalg1

PauloMN wrote: »

I lived in Fingal for years and the council cut the grass in the common green areas. They don't do verges as they expect householders to look after those (which most people do, except for rented houses). The estate I grew up in was looked after by the council also, grass cut, trees taken care of, street lights taken care of, broken paths fixed etc..

These were both private estates, always were.

My attitude to this household charge is if they expect people to pay extra for something they always paid for in their taxes, then they need to up their game. Simple as that. If you run a business and expect customers to start paying more, you need to provide more - you need to up the service.

The councils are washing their hands of as much as they can get away with, the Greyhound fiasco in Dublin being the latest example. We need to have a clear set of deliverables for these local councils, and they need to be held to account. They are getting away with murder. This vague nonsense they peddle on the household charge website is simply not good enough - "this money will be used for parks, street cleaning...." blah blah.

In a recession, these things (which have been covered by our taxes to date) should be getting cheaper. It's cheaper to get pretty much every service these days than it was in 2007. Why are we being expected to fork out more, especially estates which get nothing in terms of council services?

The way its being collected is actually nonsense especially when they claim every cent will be used for Local Services, one way they could guarantee this would happen would be to allow the Local Authorities to collect it, keep it and use it, instead they allow the LA's to collect then its centralised and re-allocated to the LA's which they claim will be done properly and not done wrongly i.e. if Mayo County Council collected €10m then they would get the full €10m in the following years budget however if its the same as the NPPR they will most likely reduce the government grant portion of the LGF by €10m!

PauloMN

donalg1 wrote: »

Got this from Wicklow County Councils website.

•

While the Council does not take in charge combined drains* these must also be surveyed as part of the CCTV report. (*the expression “combined drain” means a single drain (normally located in private gardens) used for the drainage of two or more separate premises)

•

Maintenance of open space areas (including grass cutting) shall be the responsibility of the residents after the Taking In Charge process has been completed.

•

Where a private residential development is to be maintained by a management company, established for the purpose of maintaining the public lighting, roads, footways, parking areas, services and open spaces, the said public lighting, roads, footways etc. shall be conveyed to the management company. Any cash security lodged with the planning authority for such a development will not be released until the satisfactory completion of the works and the said roads, footways, services etc. are conveyed to the management company.

•

A request for taking in charge of a development is generally made by the developer however residents of a development can also make a request under Section 180 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000.The taking in charge procedure would still apply (from step 3 detailed earlier)

•

The above policy applies to roads within a housing development. Other roads installed by developers to facilitate their housing development should be dealt with under a separate process

Yep, it looks like grass-cutting is not included anymore for newer estates. This is from my local council's taking-in-charge policy (this must be since 2008, because my previous estate was built in '99/'00 and Fingal cut the grass every 2 weeks during summer):

Maintenance of public open spaces (That is, spaces to which the general
public have access to), not including grass cutting or maintenance of grass
verges, incidental ornamentation / landscaped areas, shrubbery’s or
playgrounds unless such playgrounds are required, as a facility which will
be available to the general public, by the Planning Authority by way of
planning condition.

Washing their hands of as much as possible again, but wanting to charge people more. Seriously, it is a f**king joke.

Anyway, street lights are an issue where I am - the developer is just ignoring the requests to fix them, the council are telling me they are not responsible, yet my estate is not exempt. It's so Irish, the usual ****e.

donalg1

PauloMN wrote: »

I lived in Fingal for years and the council cut the grass in the common green areas. They don't do verges as they expect householders to look after those (which most people do, except for rented houses). The estate I grew up in was looked after by the council also, grass cut, trees taken care of, street lights taken care of, broken paths fixed etc..

These were both private estates, always were.

My attitude to this household charge is if they expect people to pay extra for something they always paid for in their taxes, then they need to up their game. Simple as that. If you run a business and expect customers to start paying more, you need to provide more - you need to up the service.

The councils are washing their hands of as much as they can get away with, the Greyhound fiasco in Dublin being the latest example. We need to have a clear set of deliverables for these local councils, and they need to be held to account. They are getting away with murder. This vague nonsense they peddle on the household charge website is simply not good enough - "this money will be used for parks, street cleaning...." blah blah.

In a recession, these things (which have been covered by our taxes to date) should be getting cheaper. It's cheaper to get pretty much every service these days than it was in 2007. Why are we being expected to fork out more, especially estates which get nothing in terms of council services?[/QUOTE]

The price of goods and services generally drops in a recession but so does the revenue generated by local authorities and also the amount of grants and subsidies they receive from the EU so they need to figure out ways to raise the required revenue that is stable and predictable and doesnt depend on transactions like stamp duty did.

donalg1

PauloMN wrote: »

Yep, it looks like grass-cutting is not included anymore for newer estates. This is from my local council's taking-in-charge policy (this must be since 2008, because my previous estate was built in '99/'00 and Fingal cut the grass every 2 weeks during summer):



Washing their hands of as much as possible again, but wanting to charge people more. Seriously, it is a f**king joke.

Anyway, street lights are an issue where I am - the developer is just ignoring the requests to fix them, the council are telling me they are not responsible, yet my estate is not exempt. It's so Irish, the usual ****e.

Its the developer that should be hounded for this as it is his responsibility to fix the lights, they build estates sell the houses make a fortune and dont want to know any more after that just think they can walk away and leave everyone else to pay for their shoddy work.

Dont know how the department came up with the estates that are on the exempt list had a look at a few of the local ones and while some are unfinished and should be on the list others are fine and better than some estates that arent on the list so no idea what criteria the DOEHLG used to compile this list

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

What services will we get for the Household Tax ?

See the list below

1. .
2. .
3. .
4. .
5. .
6. .
7. .
8. .
9. .
10. .
11. .
12. .
13. .
14. .

That's good value for your money, because you're already paying!

gerryo777

Deleted User wrote: »

See the list below

1. .
2. .
3. .
4. .
5. .
6. .
7. .
8. .
9. .
10. .
11. .
12. .
13. .
14. .

That's good value for your money, because you're already paying!

The dogs on the street know that this tax/charge has nothing to do with providing services for the people of Ireland.

It is being used solely to pay off the debts of gamblers/speculators and bankers.

They can dress it up any way they like but at the end of the day that's where your money is going.

They're also trying to discriminate against people who now own property after years of encouraging people to buy, buy, buy, before it's too late.

I don't see the PC lot getting on their high horses when only people who own property have to pay for 'local services' and people who rent and use the same services are let off scot free! That's not right.

There are other ways to raise money in Ireland that I've pointed out elsewhere on this thread which would be considered fairer than this.

DON'T REGISTER / DON'T PAY

squod

LOCAL authorities are coming under intense pressure to dump costly parking fees.

They are losing millions of euro every year on their car parking service, with one-in-three spending more than they take in........

Of these, the highest spend versus income was in Kerry, which spent €620,149, but only collected €79,000.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/pressure-to-scrap-parking-fees-as-councils-lose-money-3026973.html

Losing millions of euro eh? Whats the bets they keep this scheme because some people have unbreakable contracts with huge pension schemes attached. We shall continue losing millions in many other areas as well me thinks.

egan2020

gerryo777 wrote: »

The dogs on the street know that this tax/charge has nothing to do with providing services for the people of Ireland.

It is being used solely to pay off the debts of gamblers/speculators and bankers.

They can dress it up any way they like but at the end of the day that's where your money is going.

They're also trying to discriminate against people who now own property after years of encouraging people to buy, buy, buy, before it's too late.

I don't see the PC lot getting on their high horses when only people who own property have to pay for 'local services' and people who rent and use the same services are let off scot free! That's not right.

There are other ways to raise money in Ireland that I've pointed out elsewhere on this thread which would be considered fairer than this.

DON'T REGISTER / DON'T PAY

The charge still applies to the house though so it just means that the landlord is paying it instead of the renter so even if the money were to go towards services, the contribution will have been made albeit not by the renter but instead by the landlord.

dvpower

gerryo777 wrote: »

It is being used solely to pay off the debts of gamblers/speculators and bankers.

It's not being used to bridge the deficit at all?

gerryo777

dvpower wrote: »

It's not being used to bridge the deficit at all?

The deficit wouldn't be so big if we weren't hobbling our domestic economy with all these extra taxes & charges in order to pay off gamblers.
You know where I stand dv on this charge and you seem happy enough to pay it.
What would you do if they turned around next year and said that the tax on your own house for 2013 was going to be €5,000 or €10,000, not saying that's going to happen but do you draw a line somewhere, what would it take for you to say no?

dvpower

gerryo777 wrote: »

The deficit wouldn't be so big if we weren't hobbling our domestic economy with all these extra taxes & charges in order to pay off gamblers.

The money we've been putting into the banks and using to pay bondholders is mostly borrowed - we aren't actually using tax receipts to pay these. We will be paying back these borrowings over a much longer period and that is when they will eat into our day to day taxation receipts.

At the moment, the major pressing problem is the deficit and this is the hole that the household charge is being used to fill in.
If we could write down all our banking debts by 100% tomorrow, the deficit wouldn't be altered in any major way. We would still have the IMF running the show and we would still be implementing a property tax.

Blaming the bankers and bondholders for all of our woes is populist, but misleading.

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

The money we've been putting into the banks and using to pay bondholders is mostly borrowed - we aren't actually using tax receipts to pay these. We will be paying back these borrowings over a much longer period and that is when they will eat into our day to day taxation receipts.

At the moment, the major pressing problem is the deficit and this is the hole that the household charge is being used to fill in.
If we could write down all our banking debts by 100% tomorrow, the deficit wouldn't be altered in any major way. We would still have the IMF running the show and we would still be implementing a property tax.

Blaming the bankers and bondholders for all of our woes is populist, but misleading.

I believe we could have serviced our debt quite easily with a bit of belt-tightening if we had not bailed out the banks and bondholders. With the two added we will be persecuted for years to come. The Govt Fcuked up big time and we are paying for it.

dvpower

gerryo777 wrote: »

What would you do if they turned around next year and said that the tax on your own house for 2013 was going to be €5,000 or €10,000, not saying that's going to happen but do you draw a line somewhere, what would it take for you to say no?

Any property tax needs to be reasonably modest because it doesn't really take into account ability to pay.
I'd be hard pressed to put an actual figure on it, but if we got to a point where we were raising more than about 20% of revenue from a property tax than we were from income tax, then I'd be lobbying against it.

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

I believe we could have serviced our debt quite easily with a bit of belt-tightening if we had not bailed out the banks and bondholders. With the two added we will be persecuted for years to come. The Govt Fcuked up big time and we are paying for it.

Have a look at the deficit figures.
You couldn't be further off the mark.

Pete M.

Wow! Still arguing...

And donalg, you post a lot on this. You must feel strongly.

Anyhoo, another meeting in Ballymote last night, couple of hundred at it.



It will be interesting indeed to see how many turn out all over the Country tomorrow. Put a few theories to the test I suspect

And I was waiting for the Nos to get 200 ahead of the YESs for ages.
Now we have +201 :cool:

dxhound2005

Pete M. wrote: »

Wow! Still arguing...

And donalg, you post a lot on this. You must feel strongly.

Anyhoo, another meeting in Ballymote last night, couple of hundred at it.



It will be interesting indeed to see how many turn out all over the Country tomorrow. Put a few theories to the test I suspect

And I was waiting for the Nos to get 200 ahead of the YESs for ages.
Now we have +201 :cool:

http://www.sligotoday.ie/details.php?id=18843&PHPSESSID=c492fcc6f11f0d62a2e6d304b48c252e

How come a campaign on behalf of private property owners seems to depend mostly on Socialists to organise it. The Ballymote meeting had Declan Bree Independent Socialist and Dr Brian O'Boyle Socialist Workers Party and ULA at the top table. The SWP is a Marxist party and its members have no interest in the welfare of private property owners. Take a look at their web site. Other meetings usually have a Socialist TD from Dublin in attendance. Not many private property owners would have voted for anyone like this in the election. Where are Sinn Fein in this campaign.

The report of the Ballymote meeting shows that it was largely about the septic tank issue, not surprising for a rural venue.

donalg1

Pete M. wrote: »

Wow! Still arguing...

And donalg, you post a lot on this. You must feel strongly.

Anyhoo, another meeting in Ballymote last night, couple of hundred at it.



It will be interesting indeed to see how many turn out all over the Country tomorrow. Put a few theories to the test I suspect

And I was waiting for the Nos to get 200 ahead of the YESs for ages.
Now we have +201 :cool:

To be honest with you now pete I don't feel too strongly about it. If you read the thread you would see me say I don't care who does or doesn't pay it. I think people that bother organising protests and wasting their evenings or days going along to them feel far stronger than I do.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

To be honest with you now pete I don't feel too strongly about it. If you read the thread you would see me say I don't care who does or doesn't pay it. I think people that bother organising protests and wasting their evenings or days going along to them feel far stronger than I do.

lol.

C'mon now Donal......

Your this threads number one contributor, you must feel something......

Bruthal

Ghandee wrote: »

Your this threads number one contributor, you must feel something......

Quality or quantity?

Just jokin Donal:D

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

To be honest with you now pete I don't feel too strongly about it. If you read the thread you would see me say I don't care who does or doesn't pay it. I think people that bother organising protests and wasting their evenings or days going along to them feel far stronger than I do.

lol.

C'mon now Donal......

Your this threads number one contributor, you must feel something......

Yeah I feel the need to defend myself when called a sheep for paying my taxes! No harm in a bit of mick Wallace bashing either

Westernman

I have been hit with enough new taxes to last a lifetime and dont intend to pay this charge