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

dvpower

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Where is the proof of which category 'they' are going after first?

The first 'reminder' letters went to people on the NPPR database - that has been widely reported. The second letters are going to the same people.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

Oh goody! You have thought of a few more fat cats you can hit to bridge our €15,000 million deficit. I believe you were all the up to, er €30 million! :pac:

The govt. could have asked the bondholders to wait for their money, until we got the country back to work. Deficit closed for a couple of years.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

The first 'reminder' letters went to people on the NPPR database - that has been widely reported. The second letters are going to the same people.

Would you care to tell us why only those folk on the NPPR database will be getting/have already gotten these letters?

I'm no lawyer, but i fail to see how a judge could prosecute anyone for non payment of something they received no invoice for.

If our judicial system is operating in any way within the law, this would surely have to be the case presented to the court. As such it should be thrown out of court.

Ghandee

darkhorse wrote: »

The govt. could have asked the bondholders to wait for their money, until we got the country back to work. Deficit closed for a couple of years.

Now now dark horse, the tail doesn't wag the dog you know!

The bondholders bark JUMP!

Inda springs in the air, and on the way up asks how high?

Le_Dieux

Ghandee wrote: »

Would you care to tell us why only those folk on the NPPR database will be getting/have already gotten these letters?

I'm no lawyer, but i fail to see how a judge could prosecute anyone for non payment of something they received no invoice for.

If our judicial system is operating in any way within the law, this would surely have to be the case presented to the court. As such it should be thrown out of court.

I am also sure anyone who is lucky enough to have more than 1 house, will use the victimisation' ticket if ever brought to court.

Sorry dv, I can't accept where You are coming from here. I also notice You didn't passcomment on my 2nd paragraph, any reason why?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Would you care to tell us why only those folk on the NPPR database will be getting/have already gotten these letters?

I don't know for sure, but I guess its much easier to target these since their details are known and they've alresady registered the fact that they are property owners etc.

Ghandee wrote: »

I'm no lawyer, but i fail to see how a judge could prosecute anyone for non payment of something they received no invoice for.

What legislation do you base this on? There are lots of other taxes that people pay without being invoiced.

Ghandee wrote: »

If our judicial system is operating in any way within the law, this would surely have to be the case presented to the court. As such it should be thrown out of court.

I look forward to the legal challanges so. (there won't be any - the CAHWT have already admitted that they have no grounds to challance the HHC / Property Tax)

dvpower

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Sorry dv, I can't accept where You are coming from here.

What bit do you not accept and why?

Le_Dieux wrote: »

I also notice You didn't passcomment on my 2nd paragraph, any reason why?

You're not happy with your council services. Why would I comment on that - it doesn't alter at all the fact of the HHC or its legality.
If you have a problem with council services, take it up with your council.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

I don't know for sure, but I guess its much easier to target these since their details are known and they've alresady registered the fact that they are property owners etc.

Let's call a spade a spade so.
They're only sending letters to the folk already on a database.
Non registering = non entry into the database = govt don't have the foggiest who owns what and where they own it.

dvpower wrote: »

What legislation do you base this on? There are lots of other taxes that people pay without being invoiced.

Let's say i get summonsed to court, reason being that i was caught by a speed camera doing 65 in a 50 zone, yet i never received the first and original speeding ticket, nor any subsequent reminder.
How could a judge fine me/impose penalty points without clear evidence they sent out original speeding ticket?

dvpower wrote: »

I look forward to the legal challanges so. (there won't be any - the CAHWT have already admitted that they have no grounds to challance the HHC / Property Tax)

Me too. I think the govt may get their comeuppance on this one.

dxhound2005

Ghandee wrote: »

Would you care to tell us why only those folk on the NPPR database will be getting/have already gotten these letters?

I'm no lawyer, but i fail to see how a judge could prosecute anyone for non payment of something they received no invoice for.

If our judicial system is operating in any way within the law, this would surely have to be the case presented to the court. As such it should be thrown out of court.

Read Section 5 of the legislation. As well as trying to get people to break the law here you seem to have set yourself up as some sort of legal advisor. I don't think people should take any notice of your opinion of the law.

http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/eAct/2009/a3009.pdf


5.—(1) A person who, on a liability date, is liable to pay a charge
to a relevant local authority shall make and provide to the relevant
local authority concerned a declaration to that effect in such form as
may be prescribed by the Minister.
(2) A declaration referred to in subsection (1) shall—
(a) contain such information as the Minister may prescribe,
(b) be provided to the local authority before the expiration of
the period referred to in section 3(4), and
(c) be accompanied by payment of the charge payable in
respect of the residential property concerned effected in
accordance with subsection (3).
(3) Payment of the charge in respect of a residential property shall
be effected by such means as may be prescribed.
(4) A person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an
offence.

Ghandee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Read Section 5 of the legislation. As well as trying to get people to break the law here you seem to have set yourself up as some sort of legal advisor. I don't think people should take any notice of your opinion of the law.

http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/eAct/2009/a3009.pdf


5.—(1) A person who, on a liability date, is liable to pay a charge
to a relevant local authority shall make and provide to the relevant
local authority concerned a declaration to that effect in such form as
may be prescribed by the Minister.
(2) A declaration referred to in subsection (1) shall—
(a) contain such information as the Minister may prescribe,
(b) be provided to the local authority before the expiration of
the period referred to in section 3(4), and
(c) be accompanied by payment of the charge payable in
respect of the residential property concerned effected in
accordance with subsection (3).
(3) Payment of the charge in respect of a residential property shall
be effected by such means as may be prescribed.
(4) A person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an
offence.

Oh, ok.

So let's say the scenario i mentioned above happens to you.
You receive summons to court for non payment of a fine you knew nothing about.

Would you roll up to court, take it on the chin, pay up any fine imposed on you, and take the penalty points/loss of license?

I'm willing to bet my home you would not. You'd fight it tooth and nail, and rightly so.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Let's call a spade a spade so.
They're only sending letters to the folk already on a database.
Non registering = non entry into the database = govt don't have the foggiest who owns what and where they own it.

We've been through this a hundred times before - there are lots of databases available to them - they have been doing database merges. And now they have a million properties on the HHC database.

If you still think that they don't have the foggiest then I don;t think I can help further.

Ghandee wrote: »

Let's say i get summonsed to court, reason being that i was caught by a speed camera doing 65 in a 50 zone, yet i never received the first and original speeding ticket, nor any subsequent reminder.
How could a judge fine me/impose penalty points without clear evidence they sent out original speeding ticket?

I'm not au fait with the Road Traffic legislation, but stick to the HHC legislation - what bit do you think you can get off on?
Have you read it at all?

Ghandee wrote: »

Me too. I think the govt may get their comeuppance on this one.

That's you hoping, not thinking.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Oh, ok.

So let's say the scenario i mentioned above happens to you.
You receive summons to court for non payment of a fine you knew nothing about.

Would you roll up to court, take it on the chin, pay up any fine imposed on you, and take the penalty points/loss of license?

I'm willing to bet my home you would not. You'd fight it tooth and nail, and rightly so.

Do you think anyone who told a judge that they knew nothing about the HHC would be credible?
Do you not think that they would write to the errant taxpayer demanding payment in advance of a court action anyway?

You're not thinking this through.

And haven't you just ignored the legislation when it is posted directly in response to your query?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

I'm willing to bet my home you would not. You'd fight it tooth and nail, and rightly so.

On what basis would you fight it tooth and nail?

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

We've been through this a hundred times before - there are lots of databases available to them - they have been doing database merges. And now they have a million properties on the HHC database.

This had been covered already.
Esb bills etc could be registered on anyones name.
Doesn't price ownership of a property though.

dvpower wrote: »

I'm not au fait with the Road Traffic legislation, but stick toEsb the HHC legislation - what bit do you think you can get off on?
Have you read it at all?

I'm not either. But common sense is the angle I've taken.
The scenario i portrayed is near perfect, how can you be taken to court and prosecuted for something of which you knew nothing about?

dvpower wrote: »

That's you hoping, not thinking.

Hoping 'justice' will be done when it gets to court.
Not expecting a miracle or special treatment. Only justice.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

On what basis would you fight it tooth and nail?

The notion of being summoned to court over a speeding ticket, that i never received, and as it was taken by an auto camera, never became aware off.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

This had been covered already.
Esb bills etc could be registered on anyones name.
Doesn't price ownership of a property though.

And the other databases? Like the Registry of Deeds and the Stamp Duty database?

Add to that the fact that the revenue are taking over collection. They just need to raise an assesment and it it up to the taxpayer to provide evidence that the assesment is wrong.

So you haven't really covered it at all.

Ghandee wrote: »

I'm not either. But common sense is the angle I've taken.
The scenario i portrayed is near perfect, how can you be taken to court and prosecuted for something of which you knew nothing about?

common sense isn't all that common.
What bit of the legislation that was posted for you are you not understanding?

Ghandee wrote: »

Hoping 'justice' will be done when it gets to court.
Not expecting a miracle or special treatment. Only justice.

Justice is where tax evaders are punished for their crimes.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

The notion of being summoned to court over a speeding ticket, that i never received, and as it was taken by an auto camera, never became aware off.

I get why you might fight it, but specifically what law would you fight it with?

I'm sure there are loads of cases where people say they didn't get their speeding fines. Do you really think that they all get off?

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

Do you think anyone who told a judge that they knew nothing about the HHC would be credible?
Do you not think that they would write to the errant taxpayer demanding payment in advance of a court action anyway?

You're not thinking this through.

And haven't you just ignored the legislation when it is posted directly in response to your query?

The judge has to assume your innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.
It would be more than credible in Ireland that lots of home owners aren't fully aware of the hhc (seriously) rural Irish folk, of which we have a huge number wouldn't care much for TV or internet discussions.

I don't see how they could write to me if they don't know i own property, as I'm not on a database.

I'd that was the case, all home owners in the country would already have received an invoice demanding payment, this would cover the govts back side should it reach the court.

Surely there's a reason they haven't done this already............?

I'm guessing it's because the don't know who to send them to.........

Hold firm folks, don't register..

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

I get why you might fight it, but specifically what law would you fight it with?

I'm sure there are loads of cases where people say they didn't get their speeding fines. Do you really think that they all get off?

The law of not knowing you'd been fined in the first place?

How can you be prosecuted for non/late payment of something you knew nothing about?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

The judge has to assume your innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.
It would be more than credible in Ireland that lots of home owners aren't fully aware of the hhc (seriously) rural Irish folk, of which we have a huge number wouldn't care much for TV or internet discussions.

I don't see how they could write to me if they don't know i own property, as I'm not on a database.

I'd that was the case, all home owners in the country would already have received an invoice demanding payment, this would cover the govts back side should it reach the court.

Surely there's a reason they haven't done this already............?

I'm guessing it's because the don't know who to send them to.........

Hold firm folks, don't register..

Pointless - you're just blindly ignoring that information you are being given.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

The law of not knowing you'd been fined in the first place?

Specifically - what law is that?

Ghandee wrote: »

How can you be prosecuted for non/late payment of something you knew nothing about?

Did you read the legislation?

OfflerCrocGod

Ghandee wrote: »

The law of not knowing you'd been fined in the first place?

How can you be prosecuted for non/late payment of something you knew nothing about?

Ignorantia juris non excusat. As usual with legal matters the Romans have already thought of it.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

Pointless - you're just blindly ignoring that information you are being given.

You're ignoring the very plausible argument put in front of you.

Would you take a punishment ref the speeding ticket argument i put forward?

Laws exist to protect everyone dv, not just the gov.

Signatures, recorded delivery etc exist to ensure folk don't try and claim they knew nothing about something they're about to be prosecuted for.

It works both ways.

lugha

darkhorse wrote: »

The govt. could have asked the bondholders to wait for their money, until we got the country back to work. Deficit closed for a couple of years.

Alas no. We have a deficit because there was an almighty crash in our income, in large part to our foolish dependency on unreliable property related income streams, and not because we agreed to pay bondholders. Bondholders or no, we would still have a massive deficit.

But of course this has been pointed out to you deniers many times already. I can see the obvious appeal of having the bondholder as the baddie responsible for all our woes, but I’m afraid this is at odds with reality.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

You're ignoring the very plausible argument put in front of you.

Would you take a punishment ref the speeding ticket argument i put forward?

Laws exist to protect everyone dv, not just the gov.

Signatures, recorded delivery etc exist to ensure folk don't try and claim they knew nothing about something they're about to be prosecuted for.

It works both ways.

I'll try once more.

Can you point to the actual law that could be used by someone who was brought to court for non payment of the HHC?

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

I'll try once more.

Can you point to the actual law that could be used by someone who was brought to court for non payment of the HHC?

To date no one has been prosecuted yet.
This is something all sides will have to wait it out for and see how it pans out.

Bare in mind though, unless the govt have every conceivable legal angle covered, the first case in court could be dismissed. Opening a flood gates for other non payers.

Given FGs current handling of the whole fiasco to date, i find this hard to believe though.

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

Alas no. We have a deficit because there was an almighty crash in our income, in large part to our foolish dependency on unreliable property related income streams, and not because we agreed to pay bondholders. Bondholders or no, we would still have a massive deficit.

But of course this has been pointed out to you deniers many times already. I can see the obvious appeal of having the bondholder as the baddie responsible for all our woes, but I’m afraid this is at odds with reality.

Who suggested we introduce a property tax?

Why did they suggest it?

Gloomtastic!

dvpower wrote: »

Justice is where tax evaders are punished for their crimes.

So if I haven't paid then I'm a criminal?

In 2006, when we bought our house we paid €75,000 in stamp duty at 9% of the purchase price. In 2012 that same house would be valued at 0% stamp duty (if based on the 2006 rates).

Now the fools that run this country want me to pay again because they f@cked up the first time. My mortgage would be 75% less if I hadn't of paid the tax the first time.

And you call me the criminal?

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Alas no. We have a deficit because there was an almighty crash in our income, in large part to our foolish dependency on unreliable property related income streams, and not because we agreed to pay bondholders. Bondholders or no, we would still have a massive deficit.

But of course this has been pointed out to you deniers many times already. I can see the obvious appeal of having the bondholder as the baddie responsible for all our woes, but I’m afraid this is at odds with reality.

Maybe but wouldn't it have been nice to see our Govt standing up for their own people instead of their friends. They thought more of the foreign bondholders than they did of their own people. The only threats they made were against their own while they kow-towed to the foreigners who couldn't believe their luck and i'm sure had a great laugh at them.
As regards the HHC I still know only two people who have paid it and they are sorry they did now.

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

Who suggested we introduce a property tax?

Why did they suggest it?

No idea what point you are trying to make?

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe but wouldn't it have been nice to see our Govt standing up for their own people instead of their friends.

Presumably you think the government could have done absolutely anything they wanted with the bondholders, banks etc and this would have no impact at all on the IMF / ECB decision to be a lender of last resort to us?

You have posted before in defence of ordinary public sector workers, naively IMO. Have you any idea what the landscape would look like for them now, not to mention the knock on effects for everyone, if we did not have access to this money?