Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] *Poll Reset*

Hijpo

dvpower wrote: »

We have legal and democratic remedies in this country. If you want to fight the HHC, there are proper routes available to you..

can you let us know what proper routes are available to us?
For arguments sake, what routes would you take to get the result you wanted?

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

Reminder for what?

Correct!

I never received the original demand, so the letter if it arrived, won't be a reminder.

tayto lover

Will Dr Reilly get a reminder about the 1.9 million he owes?

bgrizzley

tayto lover wrote: »

Will Dr Reilly get a reminder about the 1.9 million he owes?

yeah, kenny sent him a note saying ,

"Jimmy
Will you ever just feckin pay it its only the price of 950,000 half pints
Regards
Flowerpot"

dvpower

bgrizzley wrote: »

C'mon DV you is just trollin' now. you said,

Painting tax evasion as some kind of act of political dissent is nothing more than hyperbole.

to which i pointed out that tax evasion has always been used for political dissent giving examples.

In Ireland there is full access to the political system, so people should use those avenues rather than illegal ones.

bgrizzley wrote: »

What do the cahwt have to do with real people? they are just more politicians squawking their own agenda, same as fg.

Real people cant afford to take this on legally but they can and have done much better by just not paying it and making the government look like the incompetent shower of gombeenmen they are.:D

Perhaps they should get together, maybe organise a campaign, and then exert the strength of many people:eek:

Hijpo wrote: »

can you let us know what proper routes are available to us?
For arguments sake, what routes would you take to get the result you wanted?

Organise politically.

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

Perhaps they should get together, maybe organise a campaign, and then exert the strength of many people:eek:
.

We did, my friend, we did.
All 700,000 of us .

Hijpo

dvpower wrote: »

Organise politically.

.....for instance???

Firefox11

Hijpo wrote: »

.....for instance???

Richard Boyd Barrett, Joe Higgins..are these not the poster boys for anti household charge crowd? :rolleyes:

tayto lover

Firefox11 wrote: »

Richard Boyd Barrett, Joe Higgins..are these not the poster boys for anti household charge crowd? :rolleyes:

As opposed to Reilly and Hogan :rolleyes:

Hijpo

Firefox11 wrote: »

Richard Boyd Barrett, Joe Higgins..are these not the poster boys for anti household charge crowd? :rolleyes:

Roll eyes, making people feel clever since Today 02:46


Explain to me what "organized politicaly" is.

tbh

Hijpo wrote: »

Roll eyes, making people feel clever since Today 02:46


Explain to me what "organized politicaly" is.

put simply, if the majority of votes at the next election go to parties that oppose the HHC, then those parties will be able to repeal the HHC.

I agree with the poster who said that overspending in government must also be tackled, but the fact remains that the HHC is the law, and it must be paid.

I'd also dispute the fact that 700,000 (or however many) are making a political point, I'd assume that number includes people who intend to pay but are waiting until they are forced to pay, those just taking a chance that it'll go away somehow, and those who don't pay any tax (car tax etc)

Simple fact: there is a deficit in this country that must be filled. IF the HHC doesn't do it, cuts will. There are - and this is fact - people in this country who can easily afford to pay the HHC, but choose not to, and not because of any political ideals, but because they think they'll get away with it. Once the letters go out, we'll see how it shakes out.

Ghandee

tbh wrote: »

Simple fact: there is a deficit in this country that must be filled. IF the HHC doesn't do it, cuts will. There are - and this is fact - people in this country who can easily afford to pay the HHC, but choose not to, and not because of any political ideals, but because they think they'll get away with it. Once the letters go out, we'll see how it shakes out.

Drop in the ocean.

Its like a teaspoon of water being tipped into an Olympic sized pool.

Start at the top government wasting money, ridiculous salaries to ministers, pensions, expenses,.
Mi
Next tackle the scandalous PS huge salaries (and I obviously mean the guys at the top)

Then, and only then, should the homeowners and low and middle earners be hit. Even then, the charge should include services. Why are some people in favour of paying a tax on something you've already paid for, and been taxed on again? Money for nothing? Some of you lot obviously have cash to burn?

phil1nj

tbh wrote: »

Simple fact: there is a deficit in this country that must be filled. IF the HHC doesn't do it, cuts will.

Not having a pop or anything but that is a poor choice of words to use. The deficit must be reduced not filled. Reduction implies either an increase in taxes or a cutting back in outgoings. So far all the talk has been about taxation (water charges, HHC/property taxes, possible income tax/PRSI hikes) all are designed to take money out of peoples pockets and reduce spending power therefore depressing the economy even more. I want to see cuts on government expenditure that hit directly at the other end of the equation i.e ridiculously high pensions and perks, government waste, social welfare refrom etc etc.

As far as I'm concerned anyone out there currently working has been hit with more than their fair share of "cuts" to their take home pay already in the form of USC, levies and increased income tax over the past several years. Let see the expenditure side get a bit of a shake up and then and only then start talking about increased taxation on individuals.

The governemnt talk about austerity but it only seems to be going one way at the moment.

tbh

Ghandee wrote: »

Drop in the ocean.

Its like a teaspoon of water being tipped into an Olympic sized pool.

Start at the top government wasting money, ridiculous salaries to ministers, pensions, expenses,.
Mi
Next tackle the scandalous PS huge salaries (and I obviously mean the guys at the top)

Then, and only then, should the homeowners and low and middle earners be hit. Even then, the charge should include services. Why are some people in favour of paying a tax on something you've already paid for, and been taxed on again? Money for nothing? Some of you lot obviously have cash to burn?

First off: On the cuts that need to happen in Gov't: yes. yes for sure.

However, there isn't enough money to pay for everything.
Govt can: Introduce cuts (which will hurt the less well-off disproportionally hard, as they are the ones who rely most on the state), raise income tax (which will hit the middle-incomes hardest) or bring back rates (where you will eventually pay more if your house is bigger). Simple economics. Third option is my preferred option, imo it's the fairest option.

Better state service means more state income. The problem is that the states record on delivering value-for-money is poor. That definitely needs to change, and needs to be seen to be changing. However, if the Gov't can deliver Swedish-type services with Swedish-type tax levels (i.e. higher), then I'm all for that.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Why are some people in favour of paying a tax on something you've already paid for, and been taxed on again? Money for nothing? Some of you lot obviously have cash to burn?

Why do some people not realise that services are an ongoing expense that need to be provided for each and every year and that the other property based transaction taxes that used to fund local services are no longer available?

Hijpo

tbh wrote: »

put simply, if the majority of votes at the next election go to parties that oppose the HHC, then those parties will be able to repeal the HHC.

I agree with the poster who said that overspending in government must also be tackled, but the fact remains that the HHC is the law, and it must be paid.

I'd also dispute the fact that 700,000 (or however many) are making a political point, I'd assume that number includes people who intend to pay but are waiting until they are forced to pay, those just taking a chance that it'll go away somehow, and those who don't pay any tax (car tax etc)

Simple fact: there is a deficit in this country that must be filled. IF the HHC doesn't do it, cuts will. There are - and this is fact - people in this country who can easily afford to pay the HHC, but choose not to, and not because of any political ideals, but because they think they'll get away with it. Once the letters go out, we'll see how it shakes out.

ah right so we ARE supposed to wait until 2016, thats no good and you know it. Its people sitting back and giving out while waiting for something to happen thats contributing to the mess the country is in, not 700,000 not paying 100 euro.
There is a deficit yes, but you make the cuts to unnecessary spending and close the gap before taking normal everyday items off a family like TV, home phones, internet etc like what was expected by other posters in this thread.

If you were running a deficit in your house, would you send the missus out to work or would you downgrade your car from a merc to a vectra, would you stop buying silk ties etc?
im not saying you do all those, im just giving examples of needless spending that can close the gap while showing the people that they are serious about doing it. extra taxes especially when they have no idea of all the facts that are needed to calculate how much needs to be made and how much can be made.

I have a feeling this is how it will go. We register for the HHC, we pay the charge, we get hit with water rates and property tax. there is a short fall because of all the exemptions and the fact that they dont know how many houses are actually lived in in ireland. The water rates and property tax goes up due to the short fall. They make no cuts to there spending, why would they need to when they can just take more tax. I doubt im far off when you think about it.

Chips Lovell

phil1nj wrote: »

Let see the expenditure side get a bit of a shake up and then and only then start talking about increased taxation on individuals.

The governemnt talk about austerity but it only seems to be going one way at the moment.

Current Government Expenditure:

2009: €55.7 billion
2010: €54.3 billion
2011: €53 billion

phil1nj

tbh wrote: »

The problem is that the states record on delivering value-for-money is poor.

Speaking for myself, but when the introduction of a HHC was first raised, this was one of the first thoughts that went through my head. I saw it as just another charge that was being brought in to get money to fill the endless bottomless pit that is govt expenditure.

Then all the guff and nonsense about the HHC charge being used to pay for local services/amenities started even though that argument doesn't stand up when scrutinised (i.e those who are in local authority housing enjoy the same ameities yet are exempt etc).

hiram

the groutch wrote: »

anyone gotten their "reminder letter" yet?

Nope.....didn't even get the first letter....by the way, my nan is currently delighted she stood up to hogans scaremongering and didn't pay up. Talk about giving a woman a new lease of life, unlike those quivering idiots who paid. Great woman, my nan, from back when people had backbones.

phil1nj

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Current Government Expenditure:

2009: €55.7 billion
2010: €54.3 billion
2011: €53 billion

Right so a quick back of the envelope calculation here:

Government Expenditure has dropped from 55.7 Billion to 53 Billion - a delta of 2.7 Billion or 4.85% in 3 years.

My take home pay is down approx 10% (if not more ) during the same period due to increased levies etc :rolleyes:. Not to mention the increase in VAT and other charges that have occurred in the same period.

tbh

Hijpo wrote: »

If you were running a deficit in your house, would you send the missus out to work or would you downgrade your car from a merc to a vectra, would you stop buying silk ties etc?.

I understand the point you're making, but the fact is, I'd do both. It's not enough to simply cut the my outgoings, because there will always be outgoings, and there will always be unexpected outgoings. You also have to raise your income so the buffer is greater.

The other point, of course, is that the HHC is a condition of the bailout. So whatever about cuts, which I agree are needed in Gov't, this is something that has to be introduced (although I agree with it, in any case)

dvpower

phil1nj wrote: »

Then all the guff and nonsense about the HHC charge being used to pay for local services/amenities started even though that argument doesn't stand up when scrutinised (i.e those who are in local authority housing enjoy the same ameities yet are exempt etc).

The fact that money raised by the HHC is going to local authority fundingis undisputable - it is in black and white in the legislation.

You are confusing what it is being spent on with who is paying it.

tbh

hiram wrote: »

Nope.....didn't even get the first letter....by the way, my nan is currently delighted she stood up to hogans scaremongering and didn't pay up. Talk about giving a woman a new lease of life, unlike those quivering idiots who paid. Great woman, my nan, from back when people had backbones.

wonder how your nan would feel if she couldn't get medical care because the quivering idiots decided to stop paying tax. Wonder how you'd feel, actually.

Hijpo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Current Government Expenditure:

2009: €55.7 billion
2010: €54.3 billion
2011: €53 billion

I cant find where it says they are cutting minster TD's and taoiseach pensions, making it so they can claim ONLY 1 pension, cutting salaries, cutting expenses and stopping tax exemptions. I also cant find where it says they are stopping all non essential spending on luxury items like the big ministerial cars etc

Chips Lovell

phil1nj wrote: »

Right so a quick back of the envelope calculation here:

Government Expenditure has dropped from 55.7 Billion to 53 Billion - a delta of 2.7 Billion or 4.85% in 3 years.

My take home pay is down approx 10% (if not more ) during the same period due to increased levies etc :rolleyes:. Not to mention the increase in VAT and other charges that have occurred in the same period.

Agreed. We should base government expenditure on the amount of money in your individual pay packet.

hiram

tbh wrote: »

hiram wrote: »

Nope.....didn't even get the first letter....by the way, my nan is currently delighted she stood up to hogans scaremongering and didn't pay up. Talk about giving a woman a new lease of life, unlike those quivering idiots who paid. Great woman, my nan, from back when people had backbones.

wonder how your nan would feel if she couldn't get medical care because the quivering idiots decided to stop paying tax. Wonder how you'd feel, actually.

Actually, she wouldn't give a toss as she has her loving family to look after her..and who pay for her healthcare. She learned many years ago not to rely on the state for much. Backbone.

tbh

hiram wrote: »

Actually, she wouldn't give a toss as she has her loving family to look after her..and who pay for her healthcare. She learned many years ago not to rely on the state for much. Backbone.

deadly. continued health and wealth to ye all.

phil1nj

dvpower wrote: »

The fact that money raised by the HHC is going to local authority fundingis undisputable - it is in black and white in the legislation.

You are confusing what it is being spent on with who is paying it.

No confusion here chief. I'm not disputing what the government say the HHC is being spent on (like you say, it is the legislation and the powers that be wouldn't dare lie to the general populace, would they?)

What I am saying is that when the HHC was first touted in the media it was a charge that was being levied on all homeowners in the country period. All of the guff about local amenities and services came AFTER this. Then the list of exemptions was published and the questions came (some of which I've posted on here a long, long time ago). Why are people in local authority housing exempt, what about people who live in rural areas and don't use these services, why am I charged a call out fee for the fire brigade even though the HHC is earmarked for this.

In a side note, I live in Co. Kildare and I have to say that the new CC offices in Naas are a thing of beauty, they consist of structures built entirely out of glass, they are also slanted (a touch of post modernism added to the design). A truly stunning building, built during the boom years. It's also total unnecessay and a folly (it gets way too hot during the summer/sunny days) and I just can't help wondering in the proceeds from the HHC charge is going towards the upkeep of this building.

Hijpo

tbh wrote: »

I understand the point you're making, but the fact is, I'd do both. It's not enough to simply cut the my outgoings, because there will always be outgoings, and there will always be unexpected outgoings. You also have to raise your income so the buffer is greater.

The other point, of course, is that the HHC is a condition of the bailout. So whatever about cuts, which I agree are needed in Gov't, this is something that has to be introduced (although I agree with it, in any case)

and i understand where your coming from, but would you not reduce your deficit and find out how much is still needed to bridge the gap?
after that you can make a better decision as to either do an extra hour OT during the week or get rid of the tumble drier that drives up your electricity bill and put the clothes on the radiator.

The fact that money raised by the HHC is going to local authority funding is undisputable - it is in black and white in the legislation.

The HHC is 100 euro, is that enough to pay for services recieved?
if not why make us pay 100 euro and not just have us register?
If the HHC is enough why bring in a property tax which will be much higher, to pay for the same mediocre services that we were paying 100 euro for?

DoesNotCompute

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Current Government Expenditure:

2009: €55.7 billion
2010: €54.3 billion
2011: €53 billion

Any breakdown of those figures available? I'd like to see:

1. Spend on Local Government
2. Spend on Pay, Renumeration, Pensions, Golden Handshakes, etc for Ministers and Public/Civil Servants
3. Spend on Health
4. Spend on Social Welfare
5. Spend on Justice
6. Spend on Foreign Affairs

I think I read a statistic that govt spend 40% of their budget on Health, 35% on Social Welfare, and 25% on everything else (including pay/remuneration for ministers, civil and public service, advisors, etc). If this is true, then the anti-HHC argument that the government should stop wasting money on huge pensions doesn't hold any water - even if all the ministers and government workers worked for free, that would still only address less than 25% of total govt expenditure.

Drop in the ocean, indeed.