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

Bullseye1

donalg1 wrote: »

I for one cant see how a reduced level of funding will stop wastage in the LA's, the wastage occurs from people not doing their job more often than not or doing it badly. Not paying the HHC is not going to stop this.

This is a fair point. But if you don't do something about wastage before providing more funds or maintaining current funds through new taxation then lessons will never be learnt by those responsible for said wastage.

donalg1

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Personal homes or properties should be considered an investment which most people in the past 10 years will have lost on. But of course they are considered an asset by those in favour of the property tax yet the asset is worth significantly less than paid and when compared to the total payback will probably in many cases be 1/3rd of what they have paid back to the banks over the life of the mortgage. I would actually consider owning a home as an anchor around ones neck.

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=0bd65625-02a5-4dd5-b661-7e1f7de7a630

I would only consider it an anchor around ones neck if they are trying to sell it and are in negative equity. I dont consider mine to be an anchor as I have no intention of selling it, I am more than likely in Negative equity but that matters fcuk all to me as long as I am not trying to sell it.

However, if it ever came to it that I had to sell up then it could become an anchor alright.

donalg1

Bullseye1 wrote: »

This is a fair point. But if you don't do something about wastage before providing more funds or maintaining current funds through new taxation then lessons will never be learnt by those responsible for said wastage.

I know but then that falls down to trying to weed the incompetent people responsible for the wastage and putting them somewhere that they cant affect anything. Get those that have some ability and who are capable into the positions that will ensure the wastage is reduced as much as possible. With the CPA in its current form the chances of this happening are pretty much zero.

Bullseye1

donalg1 wrote: »

I would only consider it an anchor around ones neck if they are trying to sell it and are in negative equity. I dont consider mine to be an anchor as I have no intention of selling it, I am more than likely in Negative equity but that matters fcuk all to me as long as I am not trying to sell it.

However, if it ever came to it that I had to sell up then it could become an anchor alright.

Agreed. Unfortunately we have had a culture of "owning our own property" instead of being happy just renting. And now a significant number of people are unemployed and unable to pay their mortgage. And there are many who are barely making payments.

donalg1

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Agreed. Unfortunately we have had a culture of "owning our own property" instead of being happy just renting. And now a significant number of people are unemployed and unable to pay their mortgage. And there are many who are barely making payments.

Yeah and the culture of "owning our own property" manifested into "owning the biggest and best property in my area and out of all my friends and family and sure so what if I have a huge mortgage it'll be grand"

Bullseye1

And the bigger car and the 3-4 holidays a year.

Bullseye1

BTW I do believe there needs to be a balance between working for a living and living. Living to pay a mortgage is not what life is meant to be about.

Big Bad Phil

Those of you who owe money for your household charges will soon increase the risk of Revenue audit, as Revenue's risk systems look for behavioural indicators, and flat out non-compliance with a particular tax would surely be taken as a serious indicator about a taxpayer's willingness to comply generally,Revenue will soon begin Investigations into non payers.

bgrizzley

Big Bad Phil wrote: »

Those of you who owe money for your household charges will soon increase the risk of Revenue audit, as Revenue's risk systems look for behavioural indicators, and flat out non-compliance with a particular tax would surely be taken as a serious indicator about a taxpayer's willingness to comply generally,Revenue will soon begin Investigations into non payers.

Lol, i'd love to know who's hand is in your sock:D

Dub XV

Big Bad Phil wrote: »

Those of you who owe money for your household charges will soon increase the risk of Revenue audit, as Revenue's risk systems look for behavioural indicators, and flat out non-compliance with a particular tax would surely be taken as a serious indicator about a taxpayer's willingness to comply generally,Revenue will soon begin Investigations into non payers.

Ha ha that's gas. Behavioral indicators and all.

Ghandee

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Personal homes or properties should be considered an investment which most people in the past 10 years will have lost on. But of course they are considered an asset by those in favour of the property tax

Sounds like the bondholders tbh.
They invested, they lost, they still got paid out with interest as the initial investment did indeed become an 'asset'.

Explains why the pro tax are also pro Govt in some cases.

Le_Dieux

dvpower wrote: »

No.

Then why are people paying? And for what?

Le_Dieux

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The reduction in waste is happening already. Or rather the hours during which people can access their local waste recycling centres are being reduced, at least in Cavan.

http://www.northernsound.ie/news-details.php?nid=11377

Absolutely typical....NO mention of the workers who will not be working because of the shortened hours/days of opening. What becomes of them? Or are they just to be utilised elsewhere in the money cow that is a CC?? I really despair at the mentality of some in power in this country...get the effing HHC. but don't lay off some of the CC workers!!! At least that's what that article told me.

Will this damn country ever get it's priorities right???

bgrizzley

Quiet tonight lads!

Cesium Clock

Big Bad Phil wrote: »

Those of you who owe money for your household charges will soon increase the risk of Revenue audit, as Revenue's risk systems look for behavioural indicators, and flat out non-compliance with a particular tax would surely be taken as a serious indicator about a taxpayer's willingness to comply generally,Revenue will soon begin Investigations into non payers.

Busy times ahead for the auditors

elaverty

Big Bad Phil wrote: »

Those of you who owe money for your household charges will soon increase the risk of Revenue audit, as Revenue's risk systems look for behavioural indicators, and flat out non-compliance with a particular tax would surely be taken as a serious indicator about a taxpayer's willingness to comply generally,Revenue will soon begin Investigations into non payers.

BS,,,People that didnt pay it did so on a Principle,not because they are tax dodgers as some people describe us,I pay my TAXs as i think they are resonably calculated,if i make a profit i pay tax,if i dont i dont,,,There is nothing resonable in calculating the HHT,,

You obviously have another motive for saying such a statement,,and it smells of a Politician that uses the usual scare tactic idea,,:mad:

Am Chile

Big Bad Phil wrote: »

Those of you who owe money for your household charges will soon increase the risk of Revenue audit, as Revenue's risk systems look for behavioural indicators, and flat out non-compliance with a particular tax would surely be taken as a serious indicator about a taxpayer's willingness to comply generally,Revenue will soon begin Investigations into non payers.

Given all the threats we all heard in the last week about Impending court cases-cutting funds to councils etc-its obvious to most people they re starting to panic-its not surprising we have a new government shill on here making threats over non payment.

Am Chile

Was talking to someone' one of the few people I know who paid the household tax-he got a phone call recently from someone from the LGMA requesting his pps number as he forgot to fill it in on the form-the only reason I can see why they would ring for the pps number is if they re planning to deduct at source from the people who have registered so far.

Glenalla

County development Charge
Has anyone here built a house lately?

Have just received fpp for a 2 storey 275sq mtr house and am literally stunned at the price of the development charge.
It is coming in at a lovely figure of €17,875 for water, wastewater and roads&recreation.

I just cannot envisage being able to pay this,it is outrageous.



Taken from Kilkenny County section, is this on top of the HHC!!!!!!!

Ghandee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The reduction in waste is happening already. Or rather the hours during which people can access their local waste recycling centres are being reduced, at least in Cavan.

http://www.northernsound.ie/news-details.php?nid=11377

Sounds to me like they're cutting off their noses to spite their face.

They'll lose out on the revenue raised at recycling centres now, they'll lose out on recyclable materials they get their hands on too (I'm of the understanding that a lot of our recyclable material gets sold on)

Private recycle centres will make a fortune on this decision, I think it will have minimal impact on the public tbh.

(not to mention generate lots of illegal dumping which the council will have to clean up anyway eventually, do what's to be saved really?)

tayto lover

Big Bad Phil wrote: »

Those of you who owe money for your household charges will soon increase the risk of Revenue audit, as Revenue's risk systems look for behavioural indicators, and flat out non-compliance with a particular tax would surely be taken as a serious indicator about a taxpayer's willingness to comply generally,Revenue will soon begin Investigations into non payers.

Perhaps you would care to read this post from another thread and respond as none of the rest of the Pro side have been willing to do --

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056727029

Ghandee

tayto lover wrote: »

Perhaps you would care to read this post from another thread and respond as none of the rest of the Pro side have been willing to do --

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056727029

Link not working Tayto.

dvpower

Glenalla wrote: »

County development Charge
Has anyone here built a house lately?

Have just received fpp for a 2 storey 275sq mtr house and am literally stunned at the price of the development charge.
It is coming in at a lovely figure of €17,875 for water, wastewater and roads&recreation.

I just cannot envisage being able to pay this,it is outrageous.



Taken from Kilkenny County section, is this on top of the HHC!!!!!!!

That 2 -3 times the size of a standard 3 bed semi-d.
Have you considered building a smaller house if you can't afford the charges for this huge one?

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

Sounds to me like they're cutting off their noses to spite their face.

They'll lose out on the revenue raised at recycling centres now, they'll lose out on recyclable materials they get their hands on too (I'm of the understanding that a lot of our recyclable material gets sold on)

Private recycle centres will make a fortune on this decision, I think it will have minimal impact on the public tbh.

(not to mention generate lots of illegal dumping which the council will have to clean up anyway eventually, do what's to be saved really?)

I am open to correction but I seriously doubt that recycling is making any money for anybody, much less a fortune. And I also doubt that the kind of people who are conscientious enough to recycle in the first place would resort to fly-tipping.

In any case, you lads won’t pay your share so there is a funding shortfall. What options to the LAs have but to curtail services?

tayto lover wrote: »

Perhaps you would care to read this post from another thread and respond as none of the rest of the Pro side have been willing to do

One of the things that has bedevilled this debate is the no side being wholly disingenuous, repeatedly presenting spurious arguments that either do not stack up (the unfairness nonsense being the most obvious example) or do not apply to them or are not really believed by them.

The post you refer to discussed the economic merits, for some mortgage holders, of reneging on their mortgage by filing for bankruptcy in the UK, particularly those that bought near the peak of the boom. Presumably your argument is that because such houses will probably never be worth what they will cost then they somehow are not an asset?

However, as I recall you have already told us that you have paid your own mortgage off in full so even if your contention above is valid, it does not apply to you. I suspect you would still not be happy with a property tax that took account of, or even exempted, the cohort referenced in the post you cite?

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

I am open to correction but I seriously doubt that recycling is making any money for anybody, much less a fortune. And I also doubt that the kind of people who are conscientious enough to recycle in the first place would resort to fly-tipping.

In any case, you lads won’t pay your share so there is a funding shortfall. What options to the LAs have but to curtail services?


One of the things that has bedevilled this debate is the no side being wholly disingenuous, repeatedly presenting spurious arguments that either do not stack up (the unfairness nonsense being the most obvious example) or do not apply to them or are not really believed by them.

The post you refer to discussed the economic merits, for some mortgage holders, of reneging on their mortgage by filing for bankruptcy in the UK, particularly those that bought near the peak of the boom. Presumably your argument is that because such houses will probably never be worth what they will cost then they somehow are not an asset?

However, as I recall you have already told us that you have paid your own mortgage off in full so even if your contention above is valid, it does not apply to you. I suspect you would still not be happy with a property tax that took account of, or even exempted, the cohort referenced in the post you cite?

No you're jumping the gun there. Nothing to do with my home at all. I won't pay a tax on my home as I have previously said.
I'm asking if this lad's house is an asset then how so as he is losing no matter what he tries to do to in his situation.

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

I am open to correction but I seriously doubt that recycling is making any money for anybody, much less a fortune. And I also doubt that the kind of people who are conscientious enough to recycle in the first place would resort to fly-tipping.

In any case, you lads won’t pay your share so there is a funding shortfall. What options to the LAs have but to curtail services?

Few things wrong with this post.

Why did the private recycling centres/companies start up as businesses if there its no money to be made? I sincerely doubt greyhound, Thorntons and the likes operate in a non profit basis.

How can there be a 'funding short fall' when the recycling centres charge (by weight) to take your recyclable goods from you?

Why, if there is no money to be made, did the councils sell off the waste collection services (as in bins) but yet kept the recycling end of the business?

Lastly, i do pay 'my share' each time I empty my bins i pay for it, take something yo be recycled, i pay for it.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

No you're jumping the gun there. Nothing to do with my home at all. I won't pay a tax on my home as I have previously said.
I'm asking if this lad's house is an asset then how so as he is losing no matter what he tries to do to in his situation.

Perhaps some of the confusion about “assets” arises because you are focusing on the everyday understanding of what the word means?

For example an athlete’s speed or strength would be deemed as asset to them but their poor eyesight or beer belly would not. In such usages, the asset is necessarily beneficial.

Asset on the context of property however simply means you posses the property. And if your name is on the deeds then you do own it and you do have an asset. You may be far better off financially if you did not , but you do, and it is an asset.

What has this got to do with property tax anyway?

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

How can there be a 'funding short fall' when the recycling centres charge (by weight) to take your recyclable goods from you?

They don’t or didn’t (perhaps they have changed?). Arrangements varied in different centres I went to from, no payment for recycling to a nominal fee to recycle as much as you like.

And why would they limit the opening times of a money making operation to save money?

Ghandee wrote: »

Lastly, i do pay 'my share' each time I empty my bins i pay for it, take something yo be recycled, i pay for it.

You did not (unless you’ve been codding us all along) pay your €100 HHC and the consequences of this is that some services (which do not make money) must be curtailed.

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

They don’t or didn’t (perhaps they have changed?). Arrangements varied in different centres I went to from, no payment for recycling to a nominal fee to recycle as much as you like.

They charge you nowadays, one hundred percent.

lugha wrote: »

And why would they limit the opening times of a money making operation to save money?

Maybe what they bring in doesn't cover the wages which can't be touched?

lugha wrote: »

You did not (unless you’ve been codding us all along) pay your €100 HHC and the consequences of this is that some services (which do not make money) must be curtailed.

Reread this thread me old Mucker.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps some of the confusion about “assets” arises because you are focusing on the everyday understanding of what the word means?

Asset on the context of property however simply means you posses the property. And if your name is on the deeds then you do own it and you do have an asset. You may be far better off financially if you did not , but you do, and it is an asset.

What has this got to do with property tax anyway?

Hi,
I don't believe anybody is confused about the meaning of the word asset. It is something that makes you money. I have never regarded my house as an asset, no matter what explanation an economist may give. My reasoning for this is that from day one, whether you buy or build, you are spending money on maintenance. A TRUE asset is one that makes you money with NO outlay of expenses or fees. Now, if this was my belief before the recession, well, it just stands to reason that because I am in so much negative equity, you know the rest.

Just read your statement above in bold and you'll see what I am talking about. There are no IFs, BUTs or MAYs, if you have an asset you ARE better off financially.

On your question, what has this got to do with the property tax, well, there is a lot of posts since we started this, but as far as I can remember one of the people in favour of this tax on our homes actually brought it up in the context of a person being asset rich if they one their own home, therefore should pay a tax on it.