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

alastair

Am Chile wrote: »

Pay off debts belonging to other people you mean .

You might be happy to happy to pay off debts belonging to other people fingers pals/bondholders- and thats's your choice-but don't expect everyone else to pay off debts belonging to other people.

http://www.sundayworld.com/columnists/index.php?aid=12077

Oh spare me - if you're not witholding every cent of every tax you're liable for - you're 'paying off debts' in the state overhead like the rest of us. And you'll be paying that bit extra by delaying your HHC payment. I'm sure Fingers will be grateful.

Micky Dolenz

Hijpo wrote: »

i doubt bishop knows many people, they probaby avoid him like the plague judging by his character on here.

havent got a reminder meself. fact of the matter is, people in LA housing are reaping more than they sow.

Mod

Refrain from getting personal please.

Fair warning.

hondasam

Not checked in for awhile anyone got reminder letters yet.

Micky Dolenz

Whats the Point in a reminder letter?

I don't need a reminder not to pay.

hondasam

Did you get a letter? I have not got one yet. we will pay in the end most likely.

Micky Dolenz

hondasam wrote: »

Did you get a letter? I have not got one yet. we will pay in the end most likely.

No letter and speak for yourself.

hondasam

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

No letter and speak for yourself.

Go have a cup of tea and don't be so cranky

If you don't pay I won't pay either. Deal.

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

Personally, I try not to be a burden on the state.

But according to some on this thread, because I refuse to pay this immoral charge on my family home, I'm classed as a tax defaulter and a freeloader.

Maybe your right, I should sell my family home, screw the banks, declare myself bankrupt and apply for a council house and the dole.

Quid's in!

Only you wont get a council house as you will be deemed not to have a housing need, so you will be pretty fcuked really, you could always go into private rented though and avoid the HHC that way provided of course the landlord hasnt lumped it onto your rent.;)

Hijpo

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Hijpo wrote: »

i doubt bishop knows many people, they probaby avoid him like the plague judging by his character on here.

havent got a reminder meself. fact of the matter is, people in LA housing are reaping more than they sow.

Mod

Refrain from getting personal please.

Fair warning.

fair point
oul bishop found the funny side of it though :-D

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

Only you wont get a council house as you will be deemed not to have a housing need, so you will be pretty fcuked really, you could always go into private rented though and avoid the HHC that way provided of course the landlord hasnt lumped it onto your rent.;)

Won't be doing that so, won't be paying the charge/tax either.

Even if they change my tax credits as some reckon, being self-employed means what I'd lose on the swings I'd gain on the roundabouts;).

kr7

No exemptions if your property is a listed building unless your a minister it seems.
Gonna get my local TD to investigate for me.

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

A bit like the proposed water charges, wouldn't you think they'd fix the infrastructure, create some employment along the way and then consider charging people for it.

Like everything in Ireland it's done arse about face.

Sometimes the 'thick paddies' tag seems to be right about the powers that be.

Or they could just charge for it now, and use the money raised to fix anything that needs to be fixed and use the money to create employment, rather than just spending a fortune doing something when they dont have the money to do it.

Valetta

kr7 wrote: »

No exemptions if your property is a listed building unless your a minister it seems.
Gonna get my local TD to investigate for me.

This is factually wrong.

Residential properties vested in a Minister of the Government.are exempt.

Dr. Reilly's property has nothing to do with the office of any Minister of the Government.

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

Or they could just charge for it now, and use the money raised to fix anything that needs to be fixed and use the money to create employment, rather than just spending a fortune doing something when they dont have the money to do it.

They have over €6 million to spend yearly on Viagra for people with medical cards though.

Ghandee

Valetta wrote: »

This is factually wrong.

Residential properties vested in a Minister of the Government.are exempt.

Dr. Reilly's property has nothing to do with the office of any Minister of the Government.

But the fact remains he isn't liable (or more factually his property isnt()

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

They have over €6 million to spend yearly on Viagra for people with medical cards though.

So.

Valetta

Ghandee wrote: »

But the fact remains he isn't liable (or more factually his property isnt()

How have you come to this conclusion?

Which of the exemptions below does his house come under?

Quoted from Post # 4907


• Residential properties that are part of the trading stock of a business and have not been sold or been the source of any income since construction,
• Residential property vested in a Minister of the Government or the Health Service Executive,
• Residential property vested in a housing authority, including property where households are purchasing their homes under the Shared Ownership Scheme and where the local authority still retains an ownership stake,
• Voluntary and co-operative housing,
• Residential property subject to commercial rates and wholly used as a dwelling,
• Residential property owned by certain charities or comprised in a discretionary trust, and
•
Residential property where a person has to leave their house due to long-term mental or physical infirmity (e.g. a person that has moved into a nursing home).

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

So.

I suppose you agree with taxpayers money being used to help people have sex?

Hijpo

kr7 wrote: »

I suppose you agree with taxpayers money being used to help people have sex?

So any free loaders that have trouble gettin it up can get free viagra, have kids and claim child benefit

cant have the poor craters missing out on any benefits

kr7

Valetta wrote: »

How have you come to this conclusion?

Which of the exemptions below does his house come under?

Quoted from Post # 4907


• Residential properties that are part of the trading stock of a business and have not been sold or been the source of any income since construction,
• Residential property vested in a Minister of the Government or the Health Service Executive,
• Residential property vested in a housing authority, including property where households are purchasing their homes under the Shared Ownership Scheme and where the local authority still retains an ownership stake,
• Voluntary and co-operative housing,
• Residential property subject to commercial rates and wholly used as a dwelling,
• Residential property owned by certain charities or comprised in a discretionary trust, and
•
Residential property where a person has to leave their house due to long-term mental or physical infirmity (e.g. a person that has moved into a nursing home).

Maybe the one concerning commercial rates, doesn't he open to the public 3 or 4 days a year?

kr7

Hijpo wrote: »

So any free loaders that have trouble gettin it up can get free viagra, have kids and claim child benefit

cant have the poor craters missing out on any benefits

Great little country ok!
As bent as an S hook as the saying goes.

dvpower

kr7 wrote: »

No exemptions if your property is a listed building unless your a minister it seems.
Gonna get my local TD to investigate for me.

Ghandee wrote: »

But the fact remains he isn't liable (or more factually his property isnt()

Why are ye both still spinning this line without any evidence that its true?

Chucky the tree

kr7 wrote: »

I suppose you agree with taxpayers money being used to help people have sex?

I do. Why shouldn't it be allowed?

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

I suppose you agree with taxpayers money being used to help people have sex?

No but I fail to see the connection between the water charges which we were discussing and the fact the HSE give Viagra to people with Medical Cards, are you saying that because the HSE are wasting money doing this that the LA's should use money they dont have to employ people to fix the water infrastructure before they charge people for it.

Or were you trying to say that the HSE should use that money to put Viagra in the water supply as it would be easier to get to people and everyone could avail of it then?

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

No but I fail to see the connection between the water charges which we were discussing and the fact the HSE give Viagra to people with Medical Cards, are you saying that because the HSE are wasting money doing this that the LA's should use money they dont have to employ people to fix the water infrastructure before they charge people for it.

Or were you trying to say that the HSE should use that money to put Viagra in the water supply as it would be easier to get to people and everyone could avail of it then?

That's your problem right there, you don't see the connection between the waste of money in every aspect of government and the reason why these new charges/taxes are being brought in.

All tax goes into the one pot as one of your pro tax mates said recently.

I don't really care what happens, I'll not be paying a household charge/tax.

Even if by some freak of nature ,I'm left with no option but to pay it, I'll put it through my business and claim it as an expense. Easily & legitimately done as part of my property and bills can be claimed and offset against my tax liability.

Valetta

kr7 wrote: »

Even if by some freak of nature ,I'm left with no option but to pay it, I'll put it through my business and claim it as an expense. Easily & legitimately done as part of my property and bills can be claimed and offset against my tax liability.

I think you will find that this is also incorrect.

Neither the NPPR nor the Household Charge are tax deductible against any business profits.

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

That's your problem right there, you don't see the connection between the waste of money in every aspect of government and the reason why these new charges/taxes are being brought in.

All tax goes into the one pot as one of your pro tax mates said recently.

I don't really care what happens, I'll not be paying a household charge/tax.

Even if by some freak of nature ,I'm left with no option but to pay it, I'll put it through my business and claim it as an expense. Easily & legitimately done as part of my property and bills can be claimed and offset against my tax liability.

I only asked you why you think its a good idea to employ people to have a look at the water pipes in order to fix them before the charges are brought in when the LA's are broke. And you responded with your post about Viagra.

Would LA's not be better off charging for water and then using the money raised to improve the infrastructure rather than spending millions they dont have and then charging people for water a few years later when they are in even more debt.

tayto lover

kr7 wrote: »

Maybe the one concerning commercial rates, doesn't he open to the public 3 or 4 days a year?

He charges the public 5e a head too. I wonder does he pay tax on that?

Valetta

tayto lover wrote: »

He charges the public 5e a head too. I wonder does he pay tax on that?

Why wouldn't he pay tax on it?

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Maybe the one concerning commercial rates, doesn't he open to the public 3 or 4 days a year?

It's not a commercial premises. He doesn't pay rates on it. It's a residential premises - as made quite clear by it's NPPR status. It's liable for HHC. End of story.