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

Bishop_Donal

kr7 wrote: »

Fair play to you so.

At least you admit that it all goes into the one pot, now why can't the powers that be do that. Call a spade a spade so to speak.

Why don't they just say that because a person owns and pays for their property and doesn't cost the state to house them, they're to be penalised?

Would you agree that my points 2,3 and 4 need to be addressed?

Go back and read the thread.

kr7

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

Go back and read the thread.

I've better things to do than read through 5000 odd posts.

You have your views and I have mine.

We'll leave it at that.

Bishop_Donal

kr7 wrote: »

I've better things to do than read through 5000 odd posts.

You have your views and I have mine.

We'll leave it at that.

c. 15,000 posts to be accurate (attention to detail).

Our views on many of the points that you mention are not that different at all.

But certainly I am happy 'to leave it at that' with anybody who infers issues surrounding my tax compliance and then can't substantiate the comment.

Hijpo

touched a nerve there kr7

If the money is going to local authorities, let the local authorities collect it themselfs instead of it all going into a big pot that the government has there dirty hands wrapped around.
The amount thats collected should be proportionate to the amount of residents in them. Residents Association members can meet with councils and debate on how much gets spent on what, local ballots can finalise the decisions. It would be easier to collect aswell instead of one hypocritical ignorant pig on a power trip dishing out threats.


I wouldnt mind that system. Anything that stops greedy corrupt ass holes that have no appreciation for money making a decision on where it goes or what its spent on is good in my view.

Chips Lovell

They are collecting it themselves.

Hijpo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

They are collecting it themselves.

Each one, individually??

Chips Lovell

Hijpo wrote: »

Each one, individually??

LGMA collects it on their behalf and then distributes it to each local authority.

Hijpo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

LGMA collects it on their behalf and then distributes it to each local authority.

Based on what?

Am Chile

Given we are in the middle of July-earlier in the year a group was set up to give recommendations for next years property tax- surely by now the government would of seen these recommendations and made a decision on what recommendation they thought was best-it was July last year we all learned about the household tax months in advance before the budget-strange they won't let us know yet how much money they will be looking for off people next year for the real value based property tax.

squod

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

They are collecting it themselves.

Just on that point. Dundalk council are currently missing ~€8.5m in development levies.

Speaking after the meeting, Cllr. Dearey said he was aware that there was 110 outstanding contributions owed, to an amount of €8.5 million.

County Manager Conn Murray said it 'wasn't appropriate' for an elected representative to be working alongside council staff in the efforts to collect unpaid development levies.

http://www.argus.ie/news/give-councillors-a-role-in-collecting-unpaid-development-levies-says-dearey-3170212.html


The same council were owed €4m at the end of 2010 and according to the same document didn't even know how much in rates were outstanding.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:a2TVlGqHg6EJ:www.louthcoco.ie/en/Louth_County_Council/Minutes_of_Statutory_Meetings/2011/January_2011.doc+&hl=en&gl=ie&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShoDtJaGvFsY_mPU2DTfggGYzcpHH2aXXVnPJ5XJXqo1SFqmd9vME3F8Mql9zq7UDGpQKCacKRlzh8tsoMYuv3kvbA-BDSj_jdD8Id8d2Xbnj7b_kO0609KdEuNxUnWCPBSXUDi&sig=AHIEtbSC8OymRkvHZqFeVd33aqXcA9Okww&pli=1


Still the FF/FG policy of one rule for some and another rule for someone else. Wonder how much of this is going on nationwide???

Am Chile

squod wrote: »

Just on that point. Dundalk council are currently missing ~€8.5m in development levies.


http://www.argus.ie/news/give-councillors-a-role-in-collecting-unpaid-development-levies-says-dearey-3170212.html


The same council were owed €4m at the end of 2010 and according to the same document didn't even know how much in rates were outstanding.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:a2TVlGqHg6EJ:www.louthcoco.ie/en/Louth_County_Council/Minutes_of_Statutory_Meetings/2011/January_2011.doc+&hl=en&gl=ie&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShoDtJaGvFsY_mPU2DTfggGYzcpHH2aXXVnPJ5XJXqo1SFqmd9vME3F8Mql9zq7UDGpQKCacKRlzh8tsoMYuv3kvbA-BDSj_jdD8Id8d2Xbnj7b_kO0609KdEuNxUnWCPBSXUDi&sig=AHIEtbSC8OymRkvHZqFeVd33aqXcA9Okww&pli=1


Still the FF/FG policy of one rule for some and another rule for someone else. Wonder how much of this is going on nationwide???

The same council were owed €4m at the end of 2010 and according to the same document didn't even know how much in rates were outstanding.

Unpaid commercial rates are more common then what people think-some Interesting stories for people to read.

Councils write off millions in unpaid rates

http://www.kerryman.ie/news/councils-write-off-millions-in-unpaid-rates-3142208.html

CITY COUNCIL OWED 16 MILLION IN UNPAID RATES
May 15, 2012 - 6:25pm



Galway City Council is owed more than sixteen million euro in unpaid commercial rates from last year alone.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/25824-city-council-owed-16-million-unpaid-rates

Local authorities are losing hundreds of millions of euro in unpaid rates and levies from businesses, property developers and householders, according to local government auditors.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0630/breaking5.html

Unpaid rates leave Council in €24m mire
December 2, 2011 - 8:15am


Local authority resigned to writing-off millions as businesses shut up shop

http://www.galwaynews.ie/23012-unpaid-rates-leave-council-%E2%82%AC24m-mire

KERRY County Council is owed over €6.1 million in unpaid commercial rates and water charges according to the authority's annual financial statement for 2010, which was published this week.

http://www.kerryman.ie/news/council-owed-millions-in-unpaid-rates-2651784.html

€1m unpaid water rates

http://www.longfordleader.ie/news/local/1m-unpaid-water-rates-1-1960111

Councils write off €17 million as bad debts

http://westcorktimes.com/home/?p=1391

Chances are for those who won't be able to afford to pay the real property tax combined with water charges won't have their debt written off by the local councils.

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

touched a nerve there kr7

If the money is going to local authorities, let the local authorities collect it themselfs instead of it all going into a big pot that the government has there dirty hands wrapped around.
The amount thats collected should be proportionate to the amount of residents in them. Residents Association members can meet with councils and debate on how much gets spent on what, local ballots can finalise the decisions. It would be easier to collect aswell instead of one hypocritical ignorant pig on a power trip dishing out threats.


I wouldnt mind that system. Anything that stops greedy corrupt ass holes that have no appreciation for money making a decision on where it goes or what its spent on is good in my view.

Local Authorities are collecting it and they will be given what they collect to spend where they like, not where a Residents Association tells them to. The amount of Resident Associations in a county would be far too high for some lad from the local council to go and meet and spend days discussing where to spend their money not to mention the fact that there are thousands of people living in areas where there are no Resident Associations, local ballots would never work as who gets to decide what is voted on.

People are employed to make decisions on where the money goes, sure if a member of the public wants to request that money is spent on a certain area they can contact the LA and ask them to bear it in mind or contact a local TD and ask them to lobby the LA on thier behalf.

Chips Lovell

Hijpo wrote: »

Based on what?

I'm not sure I understand your question. If you live in Cork, you pay the the charge to the LGMA and it hands it over to Cork County Council.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

1. The household charge is classified as a charge, not a tax, so it's yourself who should see your accountant/professional advisor if your that confused.

Does your accountant also tell you that the USC isn't a tax? :rolleyes:

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

touched a nerve there kr7

If the money is going to local authorities, let the local authorities collect it themselfs instead of it all going into a big pot that the government has there dirty hands wrapped around.
The amount thats collected should be proportionate to the amount of residents in them. Residents Association members can meet with councils and debate on how much gets spent on what, local ballots can finalise the decisions. It would be easier to collect aswell instead of one hypocritical ignorant pig on a power trip dishing out threats.

If local authorities could only generate revenue from their own residents, there would be some pretty service-impoverished counties. Rural local authority services cost way more per resident to run - they need the subsidy that urban residents provide.

alastair

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand your question. If you live in Cork, you pay the the charge to the LGMA and it hands it over to Cork County Council.

That's not actually the case. The LGMA distributes the national HHC revenues on the basis of local authority need - the probability is that a piece of the notional Cork contribution fund goes to Mayo (or wherever).

Chips Lovell

alastair wrote: »

That's not actually the case. The LGMA distributes the national HHC revenues on the basis of local authority need - the probability is that a piece of the notional Cork contribution fund goes to Mayo (or wherever).

Apologies. You're correct.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

Local Authorities are collecting it and they will be given what they collect to spend where they like,

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If you live in Cork, you pay the the charge to the LGMA and it hands it over to Cork County Council.

Alastair sorted that one

alastair wrote: »

That's not actually the case. The LGMA distributes the national HHC revenues on the basis of local authority need - the probability is that a piece of the notional Cork contribution fund goes to Mayo (or wherever).

So in effect, that it opens the door for enda and the lads to "advise" the LGMA to give pump funds into the big cities like dublin and cork, and then an extra little bit to say the likes of Mayo or any other LA that the scammers running the country were brought up in or owe to a few LA for doin a favour for a friend and maybe turning a blind eye to rates not paid?

donalg1 wrote: »

The amount of Resident Associations in a county would be far too high for some lad from the local council to go and meet and spend days discussing where to spend their money not to mention the fact that there are thousands of people living in areas where there are no Resident Associations, local ballots would never work as who gets to decide what is voted on.

Not really, most estates are right next to eah other, so what suits one estate could be in the best interest of the one beside it and so on. They would be encouraged to decide on best spending for the entire locality not per estate. So meeting with a few residents representitives is a waste of time? two weeks out of the year?
All the more reason for people to set up a residents association. Local ballots would work because the residents representitives that met with "the lad from the council" already decided what to vote on.

donalg1 wrote: »

People are employed to make decisions on where the money goes, sure if a member of the public wants to request that money is spent on a certain area they can contact the LA and ask them to bear it in mind or contact a local TD and ask them to lobby the LA on thier behalf.

From previous experiene the people employed to make the decisions havent really given anyone much faith in there capabilities.
Come on donal you know as well as i do that a TD getting a call from "some lad" isnt really going to care to much.

alastair wrote: »

If local authorities could only generate revenue from their own residents, there would be some pretty service-impoverished counties. Rural local authority services cost way more per resident to run - they need the subsidy that urban residents provide.

Not really, the LA are subsidised anyway and will be even if thise HHC is collected 100%. what does the LA budget need to be cut by?
take the total after the cut, divide it proportionally to each county on the number of occupied housing. thats your, say, benchmark that the funds cannot drop below. Its up to the residents then to contribute and take pride in there locality, which will be easier to do because they will know that the money they pay is indeed going to there own LA and will have a say in what its gets spent on due to the local ballots idea. If they decide not to pay and leave it go to **** then thats nobodies fault but there own.

the credit union break down there figures and tell all there memebers at the end of the year with a leaflet, nothing should stop a LA doing the same.

you'll more than likely pick the idea to **** and rubbish it completely but atleast its an attempt at making this charge fair and just.

Chips Lovell

It's actually distributed on the basis of population size:

The fund will be allocated evenly among local authorities, taking account of population size, and will not reflect the level of uptake of the new charge in each area.

Anecdotal evidence suggests the rate of registrations varies across the country, from 25 per cent in northern counties to 50 per cent in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown.

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

you'll more than likely pick the idea to **** and rubbish it completely but atleast its an attempt at making this charge fair and just.

The residents in Mayo will never be able to provide enough LA revenue on their own to support the overheads required to sustain existing services. To that end, there's always going to be a need for some degree of equalistaion/subsidy from other regions - or reduction in services - or massively increased charges for that county's services. No way around that set of choices.

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

The residents in Mayo will never be able to provide enough LA revenue on their own to support the overheads required to sustain existing services. To that end, there's always going to be a need for some degree of equalistaion/subsidy from other regions - or reduction in services - or massively increased charges for that county's services. No way around that set of choices.

Where did the massive overhead come from? do other counties have the same massive over head? if so no matter how much you spread the costs there will always need to be a cut in services and an increase in charges.

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

Alastair sorted that one



So in effect, that it opens the door for enda and the lads to "advise" the LGMA to give pump funds into the big cities like dublin and cork, and then an extra little bit to say the likes of Mayo or any other LA that the scammers running the country were brought up in or owe to a few LA for doin a favour for a friend and maybe turning a blind eye to rates not paid?




Not really, most estates are right next to eah other, so what suits one estate could be in the best interest of the one beside it and so on. They would be encouraged to decide on best spending for the entire locality not per estate. So meeting with a few residents representitives is a waste of time? two weeks out of the year?
All the more reason for people to set up a residents association. Local ballots would work because the residents representitives that met with "the lad from the council" already decided what to vote on.


From previous experiene the people employed to make the decisions havent really given anyone much faith in there capabilities.
Come on donal you know as well as i do that a TD getting a call from "some lad" isnt really going to care to much.



Not really, the LA are subsidised anyway and will be even if thise HHC is collected 100%. what does the LA budget need to be cut by?
take the total after the cut, divide it proportionally to each county on the number of occupied housing. thats your, say, benchmark that the funds cannot drop below. Its up to the residents then to contribute and take pride in there locality, which will be easier to do because they will know that the money they pay is indeed going to there own LA and will have a say in what its gets spent on due to the local ballots idea. If they decide not to pay and leave it go to **** then thats nobodies fault but there own.

the credit union break down there figures and tell all there memebers at the end of the year with a leaflet, nothing should stop a LA doing the same.

you'll more than likely pick the idea to **** and rubbish it completely but atleast its an attempt at making this charge fair and just.

Letting members of the public decide where the money is spent will only improve services to areas where people can shout the loudest not to areas where they are needed the most.

Chips Lovell

Hijpo wrote: »

Where did the massive overhead come from? do other counties have the same massive over head? if so no matter how much you spread the costs there will always need to be a cut in services and an increase in charges.

My understanding is that it costs more per head to provide services in counties with low population densities.

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

Where did the massive overhead come from? do other counties have the same massive over head? if so no matter how much you spread the costs there will always need to be a cut in services and an increase in charges.

Too few people to support the standard level of service provision. It's not necessarily that the overhead is massive - it's that there's not enough people to support it. Other countries with low population density authorities either provide less services, charge more for services, or utilise revenue transfers of one kind or another.

Hijpo

The only people who will be listend to are the people representing the residents, it wouldnt be a free for all and as i said they should be encouraged to debate on the locality as a whole instead of the single areas. This could be done by introducing a kaizen to priorities what services are essential for funding.

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

The only people who will be listend to are the people representing the residents, it wouldnt be a free for all and as i said they should be encouraged to debate on the locality as a whole instead of the single areas. This could be done by introducing a kaizen to priorities what services are essential for funding.

Something along the lines of a County Development Board then.

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

Too few people to support the standard level of service provision. It's not necessarily that the overhead is massive - it's that there's not enough people to support it. Other countries with low population density authorities either provide less services, charge more for services, or utilise revenue transfers of one kind or another.

What is the standard level of services? i cant find them

have they not dropped the standard level of public service by dropping bin collections and soon water and waste with the introduction of new charges etc?

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

What is the standard level of services? i cant find them

have they not dropped the standard level of public service by dropping bin collections and soon water and waste with the introduction of new charges etc?

The level of services has been cut acroos the board, on the back of funding cuts across the board - nothing to do with equalisation / population density.

Hijpo

but with the residents of the locality getting a say in what is financed instead of it ultimatly stopping at the CDB or business's from what i can tell by the make up of the panel.
there is very little represntation for the residents, 2 people out of a panel of 28 hardly seems adiquate.

Am Chile

Most of us prob know what areas in our local town has high or low payment rates for the household tax- Was out cycling earlier cycled by one area that was high enough for payment- I noticed the potholes on the road' the broken footpaths remained the same -despite that area having high payment one might of thought those living there would of seen repairs made on the roads and footpaths for their area-after all we were all told local services included for the household charge included local services fixing and repairing of roads and footpaths-

Minister
Howlin said the levy is fair, and he is confident people will see that it is for
the good of their local communities.

"It's
a fair and a just imposition on people," he said.

"We
need to broaden the tax base and we need to ensure that people understand the
link between the payment at local level and the services at local
level.

"We
want to ensure that local services, that people depend upon
to fix their roads and their
footpaths; to ensure that their parks and their library
services all are maintained into the future," he added.

other posters here as well have a look your local town/your local area have you seen or noticed any Improvements at all in the roads and footpaths.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/howlin-household-charge-fair-and-just-545072.html