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

kr7

dvpower wrote: »

I understand your confusion. It can't be helped.

As yer woman judge judy says, your listening ears aren't on!

kr7

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm just like Alaister

Only in England though, it's ok over there but it's not ok over here.

Confusion reigns supreme!:D

kr7

alastair wrote: »

This is 2012, we're adhering to the terms of the programme, and we have a property tax in operation.

No, we don't.

We have a household charge that about 60% of people liable have paid.

Keep up.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

There was a lot of legislation around banking and the banking regulator, equally there was a lot of legislation around the planning laws.

Just because something is legislated for doesn't mean what's in that legislation is put into effect.

God love the poor local authorities - who have been duped into believeing they were were recieving HHC revenues from the LGMA, and the witless troika inspectors - who clearly know nothing about oversight, the real story is only known to an interweb forum warrior with no proof of his unfounded theory whatsoever. Hold the presses!

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

No, we don't.

We have a property tax that more than 60% of people liable have paid.

Keep up.

Fixed that for you.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

God love the poor local authorities - who have been duped into believeing they were were recieving HHC revenues from the LGMA, and the witless troika inspectors - who clearly know nothing about oversight, the real story is only known to an interweb forum warrior with no proof of his unfounded theory whatsoever. Hold the presses!

Have you proof that any LA has received funding from the LGMA?

Actual proof, not another piece of legislation that you picked up on google.

Ghandee

kr7 wrote: »

No, we don't.

We have a household charge that about 60% of people liable have paid.

Keep up.

Personally, I do not believe them figures. Not for a second.

If it was 60% payment, (obviously) that would mean ona average, 6 out of every ten people you asked (liable for the charge) would have paid it.

I've asked literally hundreds of people, lets just say I know of one..... yes ONE person whose paid it.

Has their been any indpendent figures released with actual proof of compliance yet? (this is a genuine question btw)

kr7

alastair wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

Fair play, your still wrong though as is is called a household charge, you know, the HHC mentioned here every so often.

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

And all the local authorities are in on it. Shh! Keep it to yourself!

So theres nothing stopping from changing legislation when they change the name.

Why not keep the title of HHC and just up the payments? why is it necessary to change the name?

Is it a case of "well stick in a few waivers and exemptions for the HHC charge, when everyone registers and completes our database well change the name and bin the waivers and exemptions"?

kr7

Ghandee wrote: »

Personally, I do not believe them figures. Not for a second.

If it was 60% payment, (obviously) that would mean 6 out of every ten people you asked (liable for the charge) would have paid it.

I've asked literally hundreds of people, lets just say I know of one..... yes ONE person whose paid it.

Has their been any indpendent figures released with actual proof of compliance yet? (this is a genuine question btw)

Only from phil's department and they wouldn't lie now, would they?

dv might get you a few independent figures:D

Anyone get a reminder letter yet?

kr7

Hijpo wrote: »

So theres nothing stopping from changing legislation when they change the name.

Why not keep the title of HHC and just up the payments? why is it necessary to change the name?

Most lightly so they can set up another quango. Jobs for the boys and all that.

Ghandee

kr7 wrote: »

Only from phil's department and they wouldn't lie now, would they?

Anyone get a letter yet?

Yeah, Phil did.


It was from a property management company in the Algrave, lookin their money!

kr7

Ghandee wrote: »

Yeah, Phil did.


It was from a property management company in the Algrave, lookin their money!

Ah, he isn't happy with the services so he doesn't have to pay.;)

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Have you proof that any LA has received funding from the LGMA?

Actual proof, not another piece of legislation that you picked up on google.

In the face of the unambigious legal and contextual realities of the tax and it's earmarking, do you have one iota of evidence, from a local authority, from a politician opposed to the introduction to the tax, from a concerned whistleblower, that anything untoward has been taking place with regard to the distribution of the HHC revenues?

Bueller, Bueler?

Bruthal

Ghandee wrote: »

Yeah, Phil did.


It was from a property management company in the Algrave, lookin their money!

That was an unfair charge though. He was not getting value for money.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

In the face of the unambigious legal and contextual realities of the tax and it's earmarking, do you have one iota of evidence, from a local authority, from a politician opposed to the introduction to the tax, from a concerned whistleblower, that anything untoward has been taking place with regard to the distribution of the HHC revenues?

Bueller, Bueler?

It's not polite to answer a question with another question.

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

So theres nothing stopping from changing legislation when they change the name.

Why not keep the title of HHC and just up the payments? why is it necessary to change the name?

Is it a case of "well stick in a few waivers and exemptions for the HHC charge, when everyone registers and completes our database well change the name and bin the waivers and exemptions"?

1. Who knows if they'll change the name? Maybe they won't.
2. There's nothing to stop them introducing an act to direct all the money to Viagara for big Phil - as long as they can get it through the various Dail debates, and troika oversight reports. I wouldn't worry in that regard.
3. You don't have to register for the tax - you're liable regardless - they don't need to pull any bait and switch.

kr7

robbie7730 wrote: »

That was an unfair charge though. He was not getting value for money.

I am.
I get no services so I pay no money. Simples!

Geuze

I do not believe them figures. Not for a second.

If it was 60% payment, (obviously) that would mean 6 out of every ten people you asked (liable for the charge) would have paid it.

I've asked literally hundreds of people, lets just say I know of one..... yes ONE person whose paid it.

Has their been any indpendent figures released with actual proof of compliance yet? (this is a genuine question btw)[/Quote]

I know plenty of people who paid, and two who did not pay.

kr7

Geuze wrote: »

I do not believe them figures. Not for a second.

If it was 60% payment, (obviously) that would mean 6 out of every ten people you asked (liable for the charge) would have paid it.

I've asked literally hundreds of people, lets just say I know of one..... yes ONE person whose paid it.

Has their been any indpendent figures released with actual proof of compliance yet? (this is a genuine question btw)

I know plenty of people who paid, and two who did not pay.[/QUOTE]

Do you work in the PS/CS by any chance? Honest answer.

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

Personally, I do not believe them figures. Not for a second.

If it was 60% payment, (obviously) that would mean 6 out of every ten people you asked (liable for the charge) would have paid it.

I've asked literally hundreds of people, lets just say I know of one..... yes ONE person whose paid it.

Has their been any indpendent figures released with actual proof of compliance yet? (this is a genuine question btw)

The LGMA is a non-political body - it's a bunch of civil servants. I think it's safe to say that the people with access to the full databases are in a better position to comment than the outcome of your askaround amongst your mates.

Of the €160 million expected to be generated by the collection of the household charge, €96,894,986 has been received by the LGMA, the bureau in charge of processing the payment.

Ghandee

Geuze wrote: »

I know plenty of people who paid, and two who did not pay.

Don't believe this either. (if that makes any difference to you or not)

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Do you work in the PS/CS by any chance? Honest answer.

Ahh - another red herring I forgot I love.

Public sector workers are somehow more likely to pay their taxes. Just, eh... because, eh...

dvpower

kr7 wrote: »

Have you proof that any LA has received funding from the LGMA?

Actual proof, not another piece of legislation that you picked up on google.

If you don't accept the legislation as proof, what evidence (if any) would you accept?

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

If you don't accept the legislation as proof, what evidence (if any) would you accept?

Have you proof that 60% have paid so far?

From an independent source would be nice.

If not, I reserve the right to call BS on the Governments 'offical' figures.

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

Have you proof that 60% have paid so far?

From an independent source would be nice.

If not, I reserve the right to call BS on the Governments 'offical' figures.

Heh. You reserve the right to stick your head in the sand more like.

In the face of the unambigious legal and contextual realities of the tax and it's earmarking, do you have one iota of evidence, from a local authority, from a politician opposed to the introduction to the tax, from a concerned whistleblower, that anything untoward has been taking place with regard to the distribution of the HHC revenues?

Bueller, Bueler?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

From an independent source would be nice.

How could there be an 'independent' source? - any figures must originate from the LGMA and you don't think they're independent.

dvpower

kr7 wrote: »

Actual proof, not another piece of legislation that you picked up on google.

Bloody hell - this one doesn't seem to even believe that the legislation is real.

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

1. Who knows if they'll change the name? Maybe they won't.
2. There's nothing to stop them introducing an act to direct all the money to Viagara for big Phil - as long as they can get it through the various Dail debates, and troika oversight reports. I wouldn't worry in that regard.
3. You don't have to register for the tax - you're liable regardless - they don't need to pull any bait and switch.

Course they will, they have to to change the legislation to suit themselfs when they have a sufficient database.
The Dail lmao "were not touching your pay lads and well even stick in an tax break for ministers, how does that sound?"
the troika will get there money, its already been agreed that they dont care where it comes from or whos put out on the road aslong as they get it.
When you say tax, do you mean the household charge or the property tax?

Bruthal

alastair wrote: »

Heh. You reserve the right to stick your head in the sand more like.

No motor tax comparisons today? Maybe I missed them.