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

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

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

All the HHC/Property tax goes into the one pot alright - the local authority funding pot. You can rest assured none of it will go to Viagra, Bankers, Red Herrings, etc.

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

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

... asked the tax dodger.

Ghandee

Valetta wrote: »

Why wouldn't he pay tax on it?

In fairness, he's already a reputation for defaulting....... no?

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

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.

Change 'Viagra' to wasting public funds.

There's talk of installing meters on everyone's property at a national cost estimated at around the €1 billion mark.

It is also estimated that it would cost around half of that to fix the existing leaking pipe network.

Would the country not be be better served if we fixed the wastage of water and then considered water charges?

I suppose it's like the general problem we have in central and local government.

Would the country not be better served if we stopped the wastage of public funds first before we decide on more taxes which will undoubtedly just be further wasted?

kr7

dvpower wrote: »

... asked the tax dodger.

Charge dodger, get it right:rolleyes:

kr7

alastair wrote: »

All the HHC/Property tax goes into the one pot alright - the local authority funding pot. You can rest assured none of it will go to Viagra, Bankers, Red Herrings, etc.

You really do believe that, don't you?

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

You really do believe that, don't you?

Because it's fact. Try moving away from forum fantasies and do a bit of reading up on the legislation.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

Because it's fact. Try moving away from forum fantasies and do a bit of reading up on the legislation.

Thankfully, I'm not so gullible and I see the big picture.

I don't believe a single word that comes out of any politician's / dept. head's dirty mouth.

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

Change 'Viagra' to wasting public funds.

There's talk of installing meters on everyone's property at a national cost estimated at around the €1 billion mark.

It is also estimated that it would cost around half of that to fix the existing leaking pipe network.

Would the country not be be better served if we fixed the wastage of water and then considered water charges?

I suppose it's like the general problem we have in central and local government.

Would the country not be better served if we stopped the wastage of public funds first before we decide on more taxes which will undoubtedly just be further wasted?

They are going to charge for water (and about time too imo) so they need to meter it at the tap as this will stop people wasting time and money saying there is a leak in a pipe that is causing their bill to be higher than it should be.

So that way they neednt worry about the leaks in pipes to properties initially. They can cover the cost of installing water meters by charging people for the installation of them, they either do this when they are installed or they add a levy to each bill until the cost is covered. Then what they take in from the charges will cover the cost of actually treating the water and getting the water to the tap for people to use something which is currently free.

Anything that is then left over can be used to repair and maintain the existing pipework.

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

They are going to charge for water (and about time too imo) so they need to meter it at the tap as this will stop people wasting time and money saying there is a leak in a pipe that is causing their bill to be higher than it should be.

So that way they neednt worry about the leaks in pipes to properties initially. They can cover the cost of installing water meters by charging people for the installation of them, they either do this when they are installed or they add a levy to each bill until the cost is covered. Then what they take in from the charges will cover the cost of actually treating the water and getting the water to the tap for people to use something which is currently free.

Anything that is then left over can be used to repair and maintain the existing pipework.

As usual in Ireland, arse about face!

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Thankfully, I'm not so gullible and I see the big picture.

The law is there for you to see, if you choose to open your eyes.

alastair

Oh dear - the monster anti-HHC rally seems to have yet another damp squib.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

The law is there for you to see, if you choose to open your eyes.

There was a law for you to comply with in England, you didn't!

Keep your eyes closed over there, did you?

kr7

alastair wrote: »

Oh dear - the monster anti-HHC rally seems to have yet another damp squib.

Who needs a rally?
Just do nothing, it's a protest in itself.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

There was a law for you to comply with in England, you didn't!

Yes - and I didn't pretend that the Poll Tax revenues were destined for anywhere other than the local authorities. We're not talking about the Poll Tax though - we're talking about the fact that the HHC is 100% for local authority funding - as laid down in law. Whether you choose to believe it, or not.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Who needs a rally?
Just do nothing, it's a protest in itself.

The pay-a-penalty campaign, you mean?

kr7

alastair wrote: »

Yes - and I didn't pretend that the Poll Tax revenues were destined for anywhere other than the local authorities. We're not talking about the Poll Tax though - we're talking about the fact that the HHC is 100% for local authority funding - as laid down in law. Whether you choose to believe it, or not.

So it was ok to protest by not paying your charges/taxes in England but it's not ok here?

Double standards, no?

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

So it was ok to protest by not paying your charges/taxes in England but it's not ok here?

Double standards, no?

Ehh - I wasn't deluding myself as to where the Poll Tax was earmarked for - you're sticking your head in the sand regarding where the HHC is legally obligated to be spent - 100% local authority funding. There's one difference. The amount of whinging and red herrings from those who won't pay this tax approaches farce.

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

Oh dear - the monster anti-HHC rally seems to have yet another damp squib.

huh?

Protesting against the "interim measure" is a premptive action against the larger costs.

When the term "charge" is changed to "tax" legaly what does that mean?
Does it mean that new regulations must be/can be drawn up because your changing the title of the payment?

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

huh?

Protesting against the "interim measure" is a premptive action against the larger costs.

It's all well and good to say that after the fact, but the promise beforehand was of a huge show of strength.

Hijpo wrote: »

When the term "charge" is changed to "tax" legaly what does that mean?
Does it mean that new regulations must be/can be drawn up because your changing the title of the payment?

It'll mean new legislation - yes. The current law doesn't cover progressive bands, ability to pay, etc. nothing to do with the terms 'charge' or 'tax' though - they're both taxes.

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

It'll mean new legislation - yes. The current law doesn't cover progressive bands, ability to pay, etc. nothing to do with the terms 'charge' or 'tax' though - they're both taxes.

Sure why not just call it what it is? either property charge or a household tax?

Does that mean they can turn around and say "the Household Charge was ring fenced for the LA, it was never agreed that the Property Tax was to be ring fenced"??

Im not poking holes or trying to get technical, im just wondering if there is a loophole that allows the government to do so.

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

Sure why not just call it what it is? either property charge or a household tax?

Well - did you have a problem when the Health levy became the Universal Social Charge, and did you believe either of them wasn't a tax? I really don't care what they call it tbh.

Hijpo wrote: »

Does that mean they can turn around and say "the Household Charge was ring fenced for the LA, it was never agreed that the Property Tax was to be ring fenced"??

Im not poking holes or trying to get technical, im just wondering if there is a loophole that allows the government to do so.

With new legislation, they could do whatever they liked - but keep in mind it's being ushered in primarily on the back of the commitment made to the troika. And there's no benefit (to sneaky government ministers) to not earmarking it all for local authorities - it's only a minor percentage of LA funding, so the larger lump of central revenue would be much handier to divert to Viagra, or wealthy LA tenants, or whatever the latest red herring might be.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

Ehh - I wasn't deluding myself as to where the Poll Tax was earmarked for - you're sticking your head in the sand regarding where the HHC is legally obligated to be spent - 100% local authority funding. There's one difference. The amount of whinging and red herrings from those who won't pay this tax approaches farce.

Double standards.

Ever consider a political career?

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Double standards.

Ever consider a political career?

Ever consider basic comprehension as a hobby? Where do you see a double standard?

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

They are going to charge for water (and about time too imo) so they need to meter it at the tap as this will stop people wasting time and money saying there is a leak in a pipe that is causing their bill to be higher than it should be.

So that way they neednt worry about the leaks in pipes to properties initially. They can cover the cost of installing water meters by charging people for the installation of them, they either do this when they are installed or they add a levy to each bill until the cost is covered. Then what they take in from the charges will cover the cost of actually treating the water and getting the water to the tap for people to use something which is currently free.

Anything that is then left over can be used to repair and maintain the existing pipework.

As usual in Ireland, arse about face!

How so?

kr7

alastair wrote: »

Ever consider basic comprehension as a hobby? Where do you see a double standard?

If I have to explain that to you It'd make you perfect for a political career.

But I'll try.

In England you refused to pay a tax/charge because you thought it was unjust.
That's ok by you.

In Ireland, when people refuse to pay a tax/charge because they think it's unjust.
That's not ok by you.

Now, that's there in black and white for you to see.

Double standards.

I will presume you won't see it that way because you are blinded by anger/resentment of people who have a different viewpoint to yourself.

Good evening!

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

How so?

In any 'normal' society, one would fix the problems with a service before expecting to be paid for it.

A bit like big phil and his charges in Portugal.

He refuses to pay for a service because he isn't happy with same service.

I don't expect yourself,dv,alastair to see things this way as your anger/resentment towards people with a different view to yours is glaringly obvious.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

In Ireland, when people refuse to pay a tax/charge because they think it's unjust.
That's not ok by you.

Nah - I've no problem with those who are opposed to it on it's own terms. My problem is with the following (represented in this very thread, over and over).

Delusions about it not being a real tax.
Delusions about it not going 100% to local authority funding.
Delusions about James Reilly's gaff being exempt (so why should I pay :rolleyes: )
Red herring nonsense about James Reilly Portugese management fees dispute
Delusions that people won't have to pay the thing
Delusions about evading tax not making you a tax evader
Delusions about the ability of the state to identify property tax evaders (the clue to this delusion is a bricks and mortar one)
Whinging about 'intimidation'
Assuming anyone who supports property taxation is a shill for FG/FF/Enda/Reilly/etc
Rolling out every bleeding sob story / rant about state mis-spending when the scale of our taxation deficit is obvious to anyone who looks.
Those who can't discern the distinction between a poll tax and a property tax
Those who seem to think we can magically graft UK levels of local services into this state before they'll cough up their tax.
Those who can't spot that taxation levels are higher in the UK, and that this might just have something to do with the gap in service provision.
And people who think they can just whinge about their choice not to pay the tax, and the thought of how extra-whingey they'll be when they have to stump up their tax with penalties.

dvpower

kr7 wrote: »

In any 'normal' society, one would fix the problems with a service before expecting to be paid for it.

Where in the world are there services provided that aren't paid for?

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

How so?

In any 'normal' society, one would fix the problems with a service before expecting to be paid for it.

A bit like big phil and his charges in Portugal.

He refuses to pay for a service because he isn't happy with same service.

I don't expect yourself,dv,alastair to see things this way as your anger/resentment towards people with a different view to yours is glaringly obvious.

Ha good one in a normal society people are expected to pay for services provided, whereas here we pay nothing for these services.

Your idea is for the govt to waste 1.5 billion euro before they receive a cent back. My way is to waste nothing before making money on water charges.

I know which way make the most sense. Spending 1.5 billion when you don't need to is pretty stupid.