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

kr7

Izzy Skint wrote: »

sorry , so did I !

It's ok, my hubbie told me I can be too assertive sometimes.

But sometimes one has to stand up for what one believes in.

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

Well it will be no different than say the esb. If you don't pay for a service it gets cut off.
There is no uproar when someone's electricity gets cut off because they haven't paid their bill so I don't see why it would be any different

You can live without electricity, you can't live without water!

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Well it will be no different than say the esb. If you don't pay for a service it gets cut off.
There is no uproar when someone's electricity gets cut off because they haven't paid their bill so I don't see why it would be any different

You can live without electricity, you can't live without water!

Well they had better pay for it then.

Would you have any sympathy for someone who didnt pay their water charges and then had it cut off. I know I wouldn't.

And what if they were allowed to get away with not paying what then would you be willing to pay it for them.

lugha

kr7 wrote: »

Quite simple really.

I find this inequitable because the cash raised is to be used to pay for local services provided by the LA.

I use them the same as someone in LA housing uses them, the same as someone on the RAS scheme uses them, the same as someone getting rent allowance uses them and the same as a private renter uses them.

I don't cost my LA a cent to house me, I pay for my own home.

Why should they be exempt?

I would guess they are exempt for the pragmatic reason that the HHC is an interim measure leading to a full on property tax. There surely is some logic in not going through all of the logistics and bureaucracy of incorporating a cohort of people in to paying, what for most of us is a fairly modest charge, only to exclude them from next year when the charge becomes more substantial?

As to the why they shouldn’t pay something equivalent to a property tax, an LA charge or whatever, well surely no new ground is being broken here? We live in a welfare state and therein certain less well cohorts get entitlements that others do not. Are you equally miffed that your tax euros fund medical cards, or the various social welfare / OAP entitlements, even children’s allowance? Why does one particular benefit stick in the craw of so many?

BTW I would have thought that the real inequity in the HHC is that there is a flat rate. The Duke of Devonshire down in his castle in Lismore pays 100 bananas (if he does!), same as I do in my somewhat less palatial abode. Not surprisingly, not too many are drawing too much attention to this inequity!

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

Well they had better pay for it then.

Would you have any sympathy for someone who didnt pay their water charges and then had it cut off. I know I wouldn't.

And what if they were allowed to get away with not paying what then would you be willing to pay it for them.

It's a tough one that ok.

But as I've said, if it is seen a a fair charge on everyone, I'd reckon most would pay.

For the ones who constantly won't, maybe a meter that requires a card, like a prepay card or something, they'll soon realise that it's not acceptable to freeload.

It's very civil on here tonight, isn't it?

Izzy Skint

donalg1 wrote: »

Well it will be no different than say the esb. If you don't pay for a service it gets cut off.
There is no uproar when someone's electricity gets cut off because they haven't paid their bill so I don't see why it would be any different

Donal, for decades people have been cut off from the esb for many different reasons, but the past couple of years has seen an explosion in cut offs from gas and esb... why so many in the past few years ?....could it be that people are just refusing to pay ?...possibly, but that attitude has always been a reason...the only logical conclusion is that there are now added pressures on an already ripped off population....some people just can not afford to pay their domestic bills, some can not pay them all on time and the bills mount up to a unmanageable level, some people just prioritise which bills they pay first etc.
This is the reality for thousands of people in this country, as things stand they are just about managing to get by, believe me, many people can not take any more blows from the govt.

I will not even go into the gas / electricity costs in this country, or the energy regulator and the terrible decisions made by the regulator over the years, or the fact that esb workers are some of the highest paid in the public sector etc......:mad:

Izzy Skint

lugha wrote: »

I would guess they are exempt for the pragmatic reason that the HHC is an interim measure leading to a full on property tax. There surely is some logic in not going through all of the logistics and bureaucracy of incorporating a cohort of people in to paying, what for most of us is a fairly modest charge, only to exclude them from next year when the charge becomes more substantial?

As to the why they shouldn’t pay something equivalent to a property tax, an LA charge or whatever, well surely no new ground is being broken here? We live in a welfare state and therein certain less well cohorts get entitlements that others do not. Are you equally miffed that your tax euros fund medical cards, or the various social welfare / OAP entitlements, even children’s allowance? Why does one particular benefit stick in the craw of so many?

BTW I would have thought that the real inequity in the HHC is that there is a flat rate. The Duke of Devonshire down in his castle in Lismore pays 100 bananas (if he does!), same as I do in my somewhat less palatial abode. Not surprisingly, not too many are drawing too much attention to this inequity!

there are so many inequities with the hhc we could not even list them, it is the property tax however that is really going to cause massive inequities...the mind boggles

kr7

lugha wrote: »

I would guess they are exempt for the pragmatic reason that the HHC is an interim measure leading to a full on property tax. There surely is some logic in not going through all of the logistics and bureaucracy of incorporating a cohort of people in to paying, what for most of us is a fairly modest charge, only to exclude them from next year when the charge becomes more substantial?

As to the why they shouldn’t pay something equivalent to a property tax, an LA charge or whatever, well surely no new ground is being broken here? We live in a welfare state and therein certain less well cohorts get entitlements that others do not. Are you equally miffed that your tax euros fund medical cards, or the various social welfare / OAP entitlements, even children’s allowance? Why does one particular benefit stick in the craw of so many?

BTW I would have thought that the real inequity in the HHC is that there is a flat rate. The Duke of Devonshire down in his castle in Lismore pays 100 bananas (if he does!), same as I do in my somewhat less palatial abode. Not surprisingly, not too many are drawing too much attention to this inequity!

Maybe a system like the UK's would be better then. Most people pay a council tax regardless of weather they own the property or not.
Do you really believe that it's right to punish someone because they provide for their own housing needs?

Regarding the welfare state, I believe a flat 10% cut in welfare rates should be considered. This would save the country around €2 billion per year, it would probably be back to 2005 levels and as far as I remember people on welfare weren't in abject poverty then.
Someone who's earning over €100,000 a year and has kids should maybe be on a reduced child benefit rate, I think that would be fair.
Some OAP's state pensions should be taken off them, Michael fingeldon is an OAP, should he be entitled to the state pension? Again it should be means tested.

They reckon that location will be used, not site size or not house size, as a way of working out how much a property tax will be. Grossly unfair, I don't think there is a fair way and that's why it should be scrapped. Just because other countries have a property tax doesn't make it right.

I think these new charges should be dropped, income tax increased and welfare rates reduced to raise what we need for the next few years.
When things improve and the deficit is reduced to where it should be then the income tax rates can be reviewed again.

Bruthal

lugha wrote: »

BTW I would have thought that the real inequity in the HHC is that there is a flat rate. The Duke of Devonshire down in his castle in Lismore pays 100 bananas (if he does!), same as I do in my somewhat less palatial abode. Not surprisingly, not too many are drawing too much attention to this inequity!

Yea, 100 for everyone is inequitable. So charging a modest homeowner 700, and maybe charge the duke 1400, that will help the people that will struggle to make the 700 feel a lot better about struggling to pay it alright.

lugha

Izzy Skint wrote: »

This is the reality for thousands of people in this country, as things stand they are just about managing to get by, believe me, many people can not take any more blows from the govt.

This is a touch off topic but what would you do? The reality is that we have a multi-billion deficit that we must address. And notwithstanding a relatively small amount that can be raised from selling state assets the deficit must be closed by the people making sacrifices.

Our decision is really only about which people make the sacrifices. Is it to be a broad cross section of the people paying additional taxes of one kind or another? Is it to be a narrower grouping who indirectly will (partially) do so by paying themselves for services that will be discontinued by the state?

Will it be the social welfare recipient? No doubt you will conjure up the standard “never worked a day in his life” caricature. But what of the laid-off worker with the 400K mortgage, who cannot get a new job? Can he withstand a “blow from the government” (!) better than those of us (still the majority) who are fortunate to be still employed?

Or will it be public sector workers by way of extensive pay cuts or even compulsory redundancies? (I suspect that this is what you would target!). Regrettably I think the latter will happen. But surely this is a far bigger blow to whoever it might happen to that for a still employed person having to stump up an extra €700, or even twice that, a year?

Again I ask, what is your solution that does not cause extensive hardship to someone? I don’t think there is one. The amount of hardship (and there is a serious bucket load of it) to be ensured is pretty much constant. The task is to distribute it.

Am Chile

Watching the second half of vincent brown-the few mins they were talking about the abortion being made legal in certain circumstances-the fine gael representive gave his view just because something is legal doesn't mean its right- well I take the exact same view with property taxes/water charges just because something is legal doesn't mean its right.

lugha

kr7 wrote: »

Do you really believe that it's right to punish someone because they provide for their own housing needs?

Well they are already punished (with minimal complaint!) as they substantially pay for LA housing as well as their own! And are people not “punished” for providing for their own income needs via income tax are they not? And for providing for their health needs via seemingly ever increasing premiums etc. etc.

Again, in a welfare state, being well or even moderately well off can be bad for your financial well-being. Call it punishment if you like.

kr7 wrote: »

Regarding the welfare state, I believe a flat 10% cut in welfare rates should be considered. This would save the country around €2 billion per year, it would probably be back to 2005 levels and as far as I remember people on welfare weren't in abject poverty then.
Someone who's earning over €100,000 a year and has kids should maybe be on a reduced child benefit rate, I think that would be fair.
Some OAP's state pensions should be taken off them, Michael fingeldon is an OAP, should he be entitled to the state pension? Again it should be means tested.

Many such measures probably will have to be taken, but in addition to a property tax. Would you not agree that one of the reasons we have such a massive deficit is because out tax take was massively inflated during the boom years by property transactions? Had we a property tax or similar robust taxes in place in 2008 we would not be as deep in the do do as we are. And income tax, or any measures that impedes employment, is most certainly something we do not need now.

kr7

lugha wrote: »

Well they are already punished (with minimal complaint!) as they substantially pay for LA housing as well as their own! And are people not “punished” for providing for their own income needs via income tax are they not? And for providing for their health needs via seemingly ever increasing premiums etc. etc.

Again, in a welfare state, being well or even moderately well off can be bad for your financial well-being. Call it punishment if you like.



Many such measures probably will have to be taken, but in addition to a property tax. Would you not agree that one of the reasons we have such a massive deficit is because out tax take was massively inflated during the boom years by property transactions? Had we a property tax or similar robust taxes in place in 2008 we would not be as deep in the do do as we are. And income tax, or any measures that impedes employment, is most certainly something we do not need now.

Say for example you have 2 houses in the same estate.

House 1 is occupied by a couple in their late 40's / early 50's, both working, kids have left home, mortgage paid off.

House 2 is occupied by a young couple, both working, 3 young kids, large mortgage.

They both will be liable for the same amount of property tax.

Do you consider that this is fair or equitable?


P.S. Much more pleasant on here tonight, more things discussed sensibly.
It's quite refreshing. Hopefully dv and alastair have found somewhere else to vent their anger and we've heard the last from them.
Personally, I think I will log out from now on if/when they return.
Goodnight all.

Izzy Skint

lugha wrote: »

This is a touch off topic but what would you do? The reality is that we have a multi-billion deficit that we must address. And notwithstanding a relatively small amount that can be raised from selling state assets the deficit must be closed by the people making sacrifices.

Our decision is really only about which people make the sacrifices. Is it to be a broad cross section of the people paying additional taxes of one kind or another? Is it to be a narrower grouping who indirectly will (partially) do so by paying themselves for services that will be discontinued by the state?

Will it be the social welfare recipient? No doubt you will conjure up the standard “never worked a day in his life” caricature. But what of the laid-off worker with the 400K mortgage, who cannot get a new job? Can he withstand a “blow from the government” (!) better than those of us (still the majority) who are fortunate to be still employed?

Or will it be public sector workers by way of extensive pay cuts or even compulsory redundancies? (I suspect that this is what you would target!). Regrettably I think the latter will happen. But surely this is a far bigger blow to whoever it might happen to that for a still employed person having to stump up an extra €700, or even twice that, a year?

Again I ask, what is your solution that does not cause extensive hardship to someone? I don’t think there is one. The amount of hardship (and there is a serious bucket load of it) to be ensured is pretty much constant. The task is to distribute it.

Lugha, apologies if you thought that was off topic...but it wasn't...
government spending exploded during the boom years, all that stamp duty revenue is now gone so government spending should now be reversed....I think that is fairly straightforward and makes good economic sense ?...do you?
we are now paying a lot more tax than say 5 years ago , plus, the burden is even more on those still working due to the fact that there are 300,000 less people now paying tax to support the whole system.

god forbid ! public sector job cuts !...never mind about the 400,000 private sector people on the dole.

Social welfare spending definitely needs to be cut, be it a % cut across the board, more targetted cuts, rent allowance etc. I don't care which, just needs to be cut that is a must....many people find themselves better off on the dole, read the papers, watch the tv reports if you don't believe me...the govt. keep talking crap about getting people back to work, how will they ever do that when a family can get the equivalent of a €40k a year job by being on welfare ?

The unemployed person with a 400k mortgage is liable for the property tax too....thay are also liable for the hhc ....it is the govt. who are imposing these taxes on them, not me...do the govt. care about those people ?

A lot of these cuts can be done in a smarter way, of course some people will suffer, but why should we all be made to suffer just to support the status quo for a wasteful , inequitable system ?....we will only be postponing the inevitable cliff fall this country is heading for. We have a €15b deficit, we are OVERSPENDING by €300m A WEEK....time to get real !

The govt. need to cut massively and they need to do it now, but more importantly , they need to do this BEFORE they go hitting people with more taxes....lead by example...

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

Well they are already punished (with minimal complaint!) as they substantially pay for LA housing as well as their own! And are people not “punished” for providing for their own income needs via income tax are they not? And for providing for their health needs via seemingly ever increasing premiums etc. etc.

Again, in a welfare state, being well or even moderately well off can be bad for your financial well-being. Call it punishment if you like.



Many such measures probably will have to be taken, but in addition to a property tax. Would you not agree that one of the reasons we have such a massive deficit is because out tax take was massively inflated during the boom years by property transactions? Had we a property tax or similar robust taxes in place in 2008 we would not be as deep in the do do as we are. And income tax, or any measures that impedes employment, is most certainly something we do not need now.

then make everybody liable for the HHC and property tax.

People in council houses and lazing around on the dole need a kick in the hole to work if they want to benefit from anything. Another big impediment to getting people to work is the fact that its just not worth it with the benefits and cash available to them for doing f*** all.

At the moment were supposed to be in a state of austerity, but the only ones that are feeling the pinch are the middle class home owners.

lugha

kr7 wrote: »

Say for example you have 2 houses in the same estate.

House 1 is occupied by a couple in their late 40's / early 50's, both working, kids have left home, mortgage paid off.

House 2 is occupied by a young couple, both working, 3 young kids, large mortgage.

They both will be liable for the same amount of property tax.

Do you consider that this is fair or equitable?

And, on average, they will both be liable for the same amount of income tax, the same amount of motor tax etc. etc.

Are they any more or less fair or equitable than a property tax? Hardly. But you wouldn’t presumably, argue that these taxes should be done away with because they are not fair? I see no inherent unfairness in a property tax that is not manifest in any taxation measure. At best taxes / charges can only be approximately fair.

lugha

Izzy Skint wrote: »

The govt. need to cut massively and they need to do it now, but more importantly , they need to do this BEFORE they go hitting people with more taxes....lead by example...

Well I would say that they need to do both. I see no obvious reason why cuts should precede raised or new taxes. And you seem to regard cutting spending as some sort of noble act to be undertaken by the government, something that is an alternative to inflicting pain on the people. It DOES inflict pain, every bit as much as raising taxes does. You may not be effected by the particular services that are withdrawn and you may not have any sympathy for someone who has their welfare or PS salary, or even job, cut. But the hardship imposed on those is every bit as keen as a similar cut (or raised tax!) on a private sector worker. Again I say, the total pain that needs to be inflicted is more or less constant. Everybody is going to have to take an awful lot more, there simply is no alternative.

And we need a more sensible tax base. One of the reasons why we are in so much trouble is because so much of our tax take during the boom was from a temporary property bubble. If FF had not done their populist act in the 1970s and we had a property tax in 2008 we would not have acquired the 20 billion deficit we did, almost overnight.

Which is why some of us look past the short term “government blow” that is a property tax and recognise that in the long term we will have a much more stable and less volatile tax system. And given that there are going to be many, many more blows (IMO, we have seem nothing yet) one way or the other, it is only sensible to be supportive of the ones that will ultimately benefit us.

Contrary to some of the sillier suggestions, we don’t “love” paying tax. But we recognise sensible measures, even if they are painful.

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

And, on average, they will both be liable for the same amount of income tax, the same amount of motor tax etc. etc.

Are they any more or less fair or equitable than a property tax? Hardly. But you wouldn’t presumably, argue that these taxes should be done away with because they are not fair? I see no inherent unfairness in a property tax that is not manifest in any taxation measure. At best taxes / charges can only be approximately fair.

for one, property taxes are not fair because they dont effect everyone living in a property.

I bought my house to make it my home, i was careful purchasing my home so that we could afford it, i didnt spend 400k on a house because the banks said "well give you 400k", i bought a modest 3 bed semi for 240k and made sure it was in a location that suited a family not to make a profit on it, my home as not an asset because its not worth what i payed for it, my home is not an asset because i do not intend to make any money from it no matter what its worth rises to.

Thats for the Pro Tax brigade that feel all assets should be taxed.

ahal

Well I can only speak for my own patch. Bray Town Council desperately need the money in order to keep funding local services.

As it is, we have a superb Motor Tax office (opens early - 10 a.m. and closes late - 3 p.m.) which operates 3 days a week

Now it is true that B.T.C. recently found €19 million on deposit that they didn't know they had (and that no one knows from where it came) but you know, €19 million doesn't go far these days!

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

A great many people in practice can not. Suggesting people can do without their car is no more sensible that suggesting people sell their house to avoid property tax. In theory they can do both, the reality is very different.

Anyway all of this missed my point. Those who refuse to pay the HHC on the grounds that it is unfair should, if they are to be consistent, also refuse to pay motor tax, rather than stop using their car.

Don't be silly and in total denial Lugha.

Plenty of people have either sold cars, downsized cars, or simply taken them off the road altogether because they cannot afford the road tax charges.

Unfortunately, very few people (if indeed any one) are left with such a choice with the property tax, thanks to negative equity, strangling mortgages, and the fundamental reason of needing a family home .

You made a comparison with motor tax and property tax, and when presented with a viable argument ,refused to acknowledge it.

Until you do, I see no further reason to engage with you.

randylonghorn

kr7 wrote: »

Say for example you have 2 houses in the same estate.

House 1 is occupied by a couple in their late 40's / early 50's, both working, kids have left home, mortgage paid off.

House 2 is occupied by a young couple, both working, 3 young kids, large mortgage.

They both will be liable for the same amount of property tax.

Do you consider that this is fair or equitable?

Yes, because this is a *property* tax.

There are other ways though in which these two situations should be treated differently to take account of the circumstances you describe: tax allowances for the young, dependent children; mortgage relief perhaps ... measures which actually reflect the particular circumstances which are different, rather than the circumstance which is the same which is the similar property / house.

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

You made a comparison with motor tax and property tax, and when presented with a viable argument ,refused to acknowledge it.

You did not present a viable argument, you suggested all people can do without their cars. Certainly some can and did. But all?

So explain to me how the unfortunate couple who work in Dublin but live in a commuter town (50 miles away!) with children in a school the other side of town are to make do without a car? Or similarly with the many workers who live in their home town or village but work in the larger towns / cities? Cars are simple indispensable for a great many people if they are working.

And again I say, finding solutions or a work around misses the point. Those that refuse to pay the HHC because it is unfair wouldn’t be too receptive to solutions as to how they could get the €100 together. They would say “I am not paying as a matter of principle”. Thus they should similarly refuse to pay motor tax rather than find some work around, if the really do have a problem with “unfair” charges.

The anomaly is easily explained of course. The lack of fairness in the HHC is simply a red herring and thus an excuse rather than a reason. No tax or charge is completely fair. Had the government alternatively introduced a residents charge as an interim measure there would be every bit as much opposition to it.

And in any case, the HHC is entirely consistent with our current assorted arrangements that the better off pay higher or additional charges. Why the sudden reservations that some who are less well off should be getting entitlements that the rest of us do not? Are you similarly aggrieved that much the same cohort in LA housing are likely getting other benefits such as medical cards? Indeed why no angst that there is such a thing as LA housing in the first place, something you of course are funding?

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

You made a comparison with motor tax and property tax, and when presented with a viable argument ,refused to acknowledge it.

Until you do, I see no further reason to engage with you.

There's an awful lot of sensitive souls who just love to stick their heads in the sand, and don't want to hear anything that undermines their presumptions.

The comparison with motor tax is entirely valid - only people with cars are liable for the tax - those who take the bus are (in the attitude demonstrated by many in this thread) 'freeloading' and getting the benefit of that revenue without contributing themselves. The logistics of opting out of driving or home-owning are completely beside the point. There's no more inequity in a property tax, than there is in a motor tax.

kr7

lugha wrote: »

And, on average, they will both be liable for the same amount of income tax, the same amount of motor tax etc. etc.

Are they any more or less fair or equitable than a property tax? Hardly. But you wouldn’t presumably, argue that these taxes should be done away with because they are not fair? I see no inherent unfairness in a property tax that is not manifest in any taxation measure. At best taxes / charges can only be approximately fair.

Ah look, thanks from soulguy the serial thanker!

And now alsatair ( the tax defaulter depending on location) is on, time to check out.

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

for one, property taxes are not fair because they dont effect everyone living in a property.

Correct - only those who own the property.

Motor tax doesn't effect everyone in a motor vehicle either - just those who own the motor vehicle.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Ah look, thanks from soulguy the serial thanker!

And now alsatair is on, time to check out.

See ya!

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

You did not present a viable argument, you suggested all people can do without their cars. Certainly some can and did. But all?

So explain to me how the unfortunate couple who work in Dublin but live in a commuter town (50 miles away!) with children in a school the other side of town are to make do without a car? Or similarly with the many workers who live in their home town or village but work in the larger towns / cities? Cars are simple indispensable for a great many people if they are working.

And again I say, finding solutions or a work around misses the point. Those that refuse to pay the HHC because it is unfair wouldn’t be too receptive to solutions as to how they could get the €100 together. They would say “I am not paying as a matter of principle”. Thus they should similarly refuse to pay motor tax rather than find some work around, if the really do have a problem with “unfair” charges.

The anomaly is easily explained of course. The lack of fairness in the HHC is simply a red herring and thus an excuse rather than a reason. No tax or charge is completely fair. Had the government alternatively introduced a residents charge as an interim measure there would be every bit as much opposition to it.

And in any case, the HHC is entirely consistent with our current assorted arrangements that the better off pay higher or additional charges. Why the sudden reservations that some who are less well off should be getting entitlements that the rest of us do not? Are you similarly aggrieved that much the same cohort in LA housing are likely getting other benefits such as medical cards? Indeed why no angst that there is such a thing as LA housing in the first place, something you of course are funding?

Firstly, I never said every (plenty is not all) car owner could do without, I suggested that it was a hell of a lot easier for a car owner to make a decision on down sizing, taking car off the road or selling it. Besides this, They have the option to downsize their car, not do away with it. (as I previously stated)

A home owner does not have these simple choices to make.


Secondly, forget the €100 charge.

It's the (reported) €700 charge it will be next year, to some (the lucky ones) that will equate to an extra months mortgage payment.

To the unlucky ones (like me) in negative equity, it would represent nearly half of another mortgage payment. A mortgage payment that is increasingly hard to pay with the rising cost of everything and extra tax burdens.

Your argument is dead in the water Lugha. Give it up.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

Firstly, I never said every (plenty is not all) car owner could do without, I suggested that it was a hell of a lot easier for a car owner to make a decision on down sizing, taking car off the road or selling it.

A home owner does not have these simple choices to make.


Secondly, forget the €100 charge.

It's the (reported) €700 charge it will be next year, to some (the lucky ones) that will equate to an extra months mortgage payment.

To the unlucky ones (like me) in negative equity, it would represent nearly half of another mortgage payment. A mortgage payment that is increasingly hard to pay with the rising cost of everything and extra tax burdens.

Your argument is dead in the water Lugha. Give it up.

You cant use the fact you are in Negative Equity as an excuse to not pay your property taxes as most people in the country are in Negative Equity at the minute. But for someone like yourself who is clearly trying to sell their property then it would be in your best interest to pay the HHC and property tax as any sale will not go through until you have done this.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

You cant use the fact you are in Negative Equity as an excuse to not pay your property taxes as most people in the country are in Negative Equity at the minute. But for someone like yourself who is clearly trying to sell their property then it would be in your best interest to pay the HHC and property tax as any sale will not go through until you have done this.

I am

Donal, I've compared how motorists (who's motor tax has been compared to this charge) have at least an option to save money on that tax payment.
Then I gave an example as to how a home owner cannot make such simple choices.

That is all I've explained.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

I am

I assume you are if you are talking about Negative Equity.

I agree with the explanation of people being able to save money on Motor Tax if they can, I myself got rid of my car as myself and my wife can manage with one car so we were in the lucky position of halving our annual Motor Tax bills.