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

dvpower

kr7 wrote: »

Back to this.
Where do the revenue commissioners refer to what we have in place now as a tax?

Why invoke the Revenue? - they're only responsible for a subset of all taxes.

alastair

Someone needs to tell the anti-HHC crowd they've got it all wrong: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/images/2012/0319/289892_1.jpg

kr7

dvpower wrote: »

Why invoke the Revenue? - they're only responsible for a subset of all taxes.

Exactly, taxes.

Do you not even admit that what's in place at the moment is a charge?

I think it's name kinda gives it away.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

Someone needs to tell the anti-HHC crowd they've got it all wrong: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/images/2012/0319/289892_1.jpg

Your right there slander boy, that poster is factually wrong. Well done.

lugha

Things have taken a turn around here!!!

There was a time, when this thread was in short pants, when the no side were absolutely insistent that the HHC WAS a tax! What caused that to change?

Personally it doesn't matter a toodle to me what you call them. Taxes, charges, fees, USC, PRSI, levies etc.

dvpower

kr7 wrote: »

Exactly, taxes.

Do you not even admit that what's in place at the moment is a charge?

I think it's name kinda gives it away.

Tax, charge, duty, obligation - all the same thing really. Only the tax evaders are attempting to draw distinctions; to what end, I don't understand.



Tax: noun
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Exactly, taxes.

Do you not even admit that what's in place at the moment is a charge?

I think it's name kinda gives it away.

You do get the meaning of subset?

Is the USC a tax? Does the name give away something there?

:rolleyes:

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Your right there slander boy, that poster is factually wrong. Well done.

Oooh the fear - slander!

How many ways can you dig yourself deeper into this nonsense?

dvpower

alastair wrote: »

Someone needs to tell the anti-HHC crowd they've got it all wrong: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/images/2012/0319/289892_1.jpg

Ha. Even the group set up to oppose it call it a tax.

kr7 wrote: »

Your right there slander boy, that poster is factually wrong. Well done.

You should probably stop digging now.

kr7

lugha wrote: »

Things have taken a turn around here!!!

There was a time, when this thread was in short pants, when the no side were absolutely insistent that the HHC WAS a tax! What caused that to change?

Personally it doesn't matter a toodle to me what you call them. Taxes, charges, fees, USC, PRSI, levies etc.

I actually agree with you lugha.

But changing someone's post's in the manner alastair keeps doing is against the charter and breaks every rule in the book here.

At that rate he could change my post to have me admitting to being a murderer or something worse.
That could involve me being questioned by the police etc etc.

I've reported him, don't like having to do that, but it's not on.

kr7

Time to log out now, the gruesome twosome are on a troll.
Later.

donalg1

Saw a jeep yesterday driving around covered in anti HHC posters and even had a small sandwich board on top saying something like stay strong resist the HHC. Just got me thinking though how its pretty ironic that a jeep drives around plastered in posters telling people not to pay for local services whilst using local services to get thier message across!!

Its kinda like the anti-hhc brigade here talking about how its unfair that people with exemptions can use local services and thats why they arent paying all the while using local services that they havent paid for either. Makes me wonder.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

I actually agree with you lugha.

But changing someone's post's in the manner alastair keeps doing is against the charter and breaks every rule in the book here.

At that rate he could change my post to have me admitting to being a murderer or something worse.
That could involve me being questioned by the police etc etc.

I've reported him, don't like having to do that, but it's not on.

Heh. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79828400&postcount=5319

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Time to log out now, the gruesome twosome are on a troll.
Later.

See ya! I'll keep an eye out for the solicitor's letter!

lugha

kr7 wrote: »

That's all, motor tax has nothing to do with the HHC, so people should stop comparing the two.

Opps! I replied to this earlier, but forgot to post is. So ....


We are not comparing them as such. We, well I, am exploring the bona fides of those who object to the HHC because it is unfair. If they really do have a principled objection to paying unfair taxes or charges they why can no one cite even one other scenario where they refuse to pay some charge / tax because it is unfair?

If someone said they won’t buy a TV license on principle (to get away from cars if you like!) because they don’t watch RTE / TG4 and therefore shouldn’t be expected to pay for it, then at least they would have form with respect to their principles. But you yourself said that there are no other taxes or charges that are sufficiently unfair to justify the non-payment of them. Unfortunately some can be quite adapt at quickly acquiring noble principles that suit their argument.

We are poking around to see if there is any evidence that those who found themselves troubled by the inequalities of the world only came to this noble calling once big Phil came to town.

So far, I’ve seen nothing. And I’m not going to because the unfairness argument is a non-runner (and one BTW most definitely not endorsed by those fine fellows over at the ULA).

Undoubtedly some are strongly opposed to paying this charge. But it would be far more satisfactory if they advanced their real reasons, instead of trying, and failing, to stand up the non-argument about the charge being unfair, or sufficiently unfair to justify the non-paying of it.

donalg1

lugha wrote: »

Opps! I replied to this earlier, but forgot to post is. So ....


We are not comparing them as such. We, well I, am exploring the bona fides of those who object to the HHC because it is unfair. If they really do have a principled objection to paying unfair taxes or charges they why can no one cite even one other scenario where they refuse to pay some charge / tax because it is unfair?

If someone said they won’t buy a TV license on principle (to get away from cars if you like!) because they don’t watch RTE / TG4 and therefore shouldn’t be expected to pay for it, then at least they would have form with respect to their principles. But you yourself said that there are no other taxes or charges that are sufficiently unfair to justify the non-payment of them. Unfortunately some can be quite adapt at quickly acquiring noble principles that suit their argument.

We are poking around to see if there is any evidence that those who found themselves troubled by the inequalities of the world only came to this noble calling once big Phil came to town.

So far, I’ve seen nothing. And I’m not going to because the unfairness argument is a non-runner (and one BTW most definitely not endorsed by those fine fellows over at the ULA).

Undoubtedly some are strongly opposed to paying this charge. But it would be far more satisfactory if they advanced their real reasons, instead of trying, and failing, to stand up the non-argument about the charge being unfair, or sufficiently unfair to justify the non-paying of it.

I dont watch any of the Irish stations at all ever, yet I still have to pay my TV licence, I feel its unfair yet I still pay it as I dont want to end up paying ridiculous fines for €160.

People say that the HHC is unfair because others dont have to pay it yet can use local services, now if everyone had to pay the same people would come up with another reason not to pay it, something along the lines of its unfair because everyone has to pay the same amount yada yada yada. However, the real reason people wont pay the HHC is because the fines for non payment are so small there is no deterrent against this.

To put it another way people dont want to spend €100 and will do whatever they can to get out of doing so, they will ignore the fact that it is against the law not to pay it and try and come up with one ridiculous excuse after another to avoid paying it.

alastair

The reality is that there's no real argument to be made against property tax on fairness, and any argument against it on the basis of re-aligning state taxation and spending has no place outside the broader democratic process.

The actual problems that do arise with the HHC - the current flat rate, and might arise with the upcoming system - will there be an inability-to-pay mechanism, how are valuations to be established, etc. are all sidelined by the sort of contortions applied by those opposed in their race to hide or distort the realities of the day. It's just handier to vent about big Phil's gaff and wealthy freeloaders in corpo houses, while pretending we don't need to pay more in taxes to get out of this fix.

lugha

donalg1 wrote: »

However, the real reason people wont pay the HHC is because the fines for non payment are so small there is no deterrent against this.

I've been meaning to ask this but keep forgetting with all the yak about cars but ...

why on earth did they arrange such a laughable penalty for late payments? Surely they would have anticipated that this was going to entice a truck load of people in to taking a wait and see attitude?

Was there some legal reason why they could not provide for proper sanctions?

Or, (puts on tinfoil hat), was it a deliberate ploy to draw the fire of the ULA and their allies, with them being confident that they would ultimately defeat them, thus rendering them somewhat impotent for more meaningful future battles?

donalg1

lugha wrote: »

I've been meaning to ask this but keep forgetting with all the yak about cars but ...

why on earth did they arrange such a laughable penalty for late payments? Surely they would have anticipated that this was going to entice a truck load of people in to taking a wait and see attitude?

Was there some legal reason why they could not provide for proper sanctions?

Or, (puts on tinfoil hat), was it a deliberate ploy to draw the fire of the ULA and their allies, with them being confident that they would ultimately defeat them, thus rendering them somewhat impotent for more meaningful future battles?

That is exactly what I have been wondering from day one the late payment penalties are a joke and pretty much guaranteed that people will wait and see as you say

They should have told everyone they had until 31st March to pay €100 or else this would increase by €50 per month thereafter, at least then they would have had a far higher collection rate.

If I was to put on my tinfoil hat I would agree with the above and go as far as to say that they do in fact know that the ULA will be defeated, and have made the penalties so small to encourage people to wait and see and then ultimately make them pay the HHC plus late fees thereby collecting more than they would have had they just collected €100 off everyone.

If I double up on the tinfoil hat I would say the ULA and FG/LAB are all in on it and are encouraging people to let the fines build up so they can collect way more than the €100 off everyone.

alastair

I think they thought they could apply a jedi mind trick of luring people into the system with a small charge and small penalties. It would have been more honest to levy a meaningful amount, and serious penalties from the get-go.

I seriously doubt that anyone had a devious gameplan in relation to groups opposed to new taxation. What I don't get is the stance the left-leaning opposition groups will take, if the fully-fledged property tax is a carefully crafted and progressive system. The rhetoric suggests nothing will be good enough for them.

donalg1

What it boils down to is everyone knows the country is broke and knows it needs to raise money. They accept this and know its true.

However, nobody wants any of the money that is to be raised to be taken from their pocket, they all want it to be taken from someone elses pocket.

Now most people know this is not possible and therefore accept things like the HHC, whereas others moan and whinge about it and say its not fair because I have to pay it. If you ask any of the anti HHC what they want they will tell you that what they want is for the money to be raised in some way that doesnt affect thier income.

They will admit the money has to be raised somehow, and will even tell you ways to raise it, the funny thing being the ways they suggest most likely wont impact on their disposable income.

tayto lover

Just a snippet from the Motor Tax website -

"It is a legal requirement in Ireland to have motor tax if you want to drive your vehicle in a public place. Motor tax is a charge imposed by the Government on some motor vehicles. Motor tax is collected by local authorities.

The amount of motor tax you pay for a vehicle registered before July 2008 is proportionate to the size of your vehicle's engine - in other words, the more powerful your vehicle, the higher the cost of your motor tax."

People who have thrown up the Motor Tax v HHC argument stated that you have to pay motor tax the same as you have to pay the HHC.

1. I don't use my house on the road so won't pay a tax on it.
2. The amount of motor tax you pay is proportionate to the size of the car's engine but the amount of HHC they want to charge is not i.e. James Reilly's mansion (if he does pay at all) is the same as a wee two bedroom semi.

Hardly a comparative argument at all methinks.

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

1. I don't use my house on the road so won't pay a tax on it.

Your house isn't situated on a road?

tayto lover wrote: »

2. The amount of motor tax you pay is proportionate to the size of the car's engine but the amount of HHC they want to charge is not i.e. James Reilly's mansion (if he does pay at all) is the same as a wee two bedroom semi.

The full property tax will be based on the property value, so that arguement (in so far as it is one) won't wash from next year.

tayto lover wrote: »

Hardly a comparative argument at all methinks.

Quite.

donalg1

tayto lover wrote: »

Just a snippet from the Motor Tax website -

"It is a legal requirement in Ireland to have motor tax if you want to drive your vehicle in a public place. Motor tax is a charge imposed by the Government on some motor vehicles. Motor tax is collected by local authorities.

The amount of motor tax you pay for a vehicle registered before July 2008 is proportionate to the size of your vehicle's engine - in other words, the more powerful your vehicle, the higher the cost of your motor tax."

People who have thrown up the Motor Tax v HHC argument stated that you have to pay motor tax the same as you have to pay the HHC.

1. I don't use my house on the road so won't pay a tax on it.
2. The amount of motor tax you pay is proportionate to the size of the car's engine but the amount of HHC they want to charge is not i.e. James Reilly's mansion (if he does pay at all) is the same as a wee two bedroom semi.

Hardly a comparative argument at all methinks.

1. Your Motor Tax funds Local Authorities - Your HHC funds Local Authorities

2. People who own cars pay Motor Tax, people who dont own cars dont pay Motor Tax - People who own houses pay HHC / Property tax, People who dont own houses dont pay HHC / Property Tax

See the comparisons?

tayto lover

No. My house is on a nice site with a nice garden in a row of town-houses. I maintain it myself without the Govt's help.
I pay for my own bin collection too and receive no services from the Govt. I even sweep and clean the footpath outside it as we never see a street cleaner, we don't mind that at all.
A few years ago the drains at the rear became blocked and when my neighbour contacted the council about getting them cleared we were told that our houses were private and nothing to do with the council at all. We paid a private contractor to clear them

I am glad that my house is private and nothing to do with the council now.

kr7

tayto lover wrote: »

Just a snippet from the Motor Tax website -

"It is a legal requirement in Ireland to have motor tax if you want to drive your vehicle in a public place. Motor tax is a charge imposed by the Government on some motor vehicles. Motor tax is collected by local authorities.

The amount of motor tax you pay for a vehicle registered before July 2008 is proportionate to the size of your vehicle's engine - in other words, the more powerful your vehicle, the higher the cost of your motor tax."

People who have thrown up the Motor Tax v HHC argument stated that you have to pay motor tax the same as you have to pay the HHC.

1. I don't use my house on the road so won't pay a tax on it.
2. The amount of motor tax you pay is proportionate to the size of the car's engine but the amount of HHC they want to charge is not i.e. James Reilly's mansion (if he does pay at all) is the same as a wee two bedroom semi.

Hardly a comparative argument at all methinks.

Your seriously wasting your time tayto lover, tried already to explain how even if you don't own a car but use taxi's etc, you indirectly pay the road tax on that vehicle through a certain percentage of your fare.

You can't argue with them orange men, stubborn as fcuk!

Best off using one of their phrases, 'away up the road with ya'....

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

I am glad that my house is private and nothing to do with the council now.

So - you're on a private water scheme, have a septic tank, and have private roads linking your house to the rest of the county? Nice.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Your seriously wasting your time tayto lover, tried already to explain how even if you don't own a car but use taxi's etc, you indirectly pay the road tax on that vehicle through a certain percentage of your fare.

There's no such thing as road tax - direct, 'indirect', or otherwise..

I'm still waiting for those solicitor's letters.

kr7

tayto lover wrote: »

No. My house is on a nice site with a nice garden in a row of town-houses. I maintain it myself without the Govt's help.
I pay for my own bin collection too and receive no services from the Govt. I even sweep and clean the footpath outside it as we never see a street cleaner, we don't mind that at all.
A few years ago the drains at the rear became blocked and when my neighbour contacted the council about getting them cleared we were told that our houses were private and nothing to do with the council at all. We paid a private contractor to clear them

I am glad that my house is private and nothing to do with the council now.

I seen a road sweeper going by my house last year, I think he was lost.

I have my own biocycle sewage treatment system, cost me almost €10,000 when it was installed, also I have a maintenance contract on that, costs €300 per year.
I am on the mains water supply and I would be prepared to pay for the water, providing everyone else in the state does too.
I pay for my own refuse collection too, costs over €500 per year.
I really am struggling to find a service the LA provides me with.
When I got planning permission I had to pay them over €3,000 in admin fees, €3k to allow me to build an extension.
No street lighting outside my house either.
Nope, can't think of anything I use that the LA pays for.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

I seen a road sweeper going by my house last year, I think he was lost.

I have my own biocycle sewage treatment system, cost me almost €10,000 when it was installed, also I have a maintenance contract on that, costs €300 per year.
I am on the mains water supply and I would be prepared to pay for the water, providing everyone else in the state does too.
I pay for my own refuse collection too, costs over €500 per year.
I really am struggling to find a service the LA provides me with.
When I got planning permission I had to pay them over €3,000 in admin fees, €3k to allow me to build an extension.
No street lighting outside my house either.
Nope, can't think of anything I use that the LA pays for.

I can spot two provided local authority services (and an implied thrird one) in that whinge list. Can anyone spot more?

oops! that's three, with an implied fourth.