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

Izzy Skint

lugha wrote: »

If you spent say €200 K setting up a business, typically with borrowed money, you could provide yourself with an enterprise that generates an income stream for you. And even though you have done the state some service by eliminating the need for state to provide you with social welfare support, you will still be expected to be tax on the livelihood that this income stream generates.

If you spent say €200 K buying a home, typically with borrowed money, you could provide yourself with an a residence that generates an income stream (you can realize this income in cash if you lease the house or benefit directly otherwise). And even though you have done the state some service by eliminating the need for the state to provide you with housing, you …er.. are not currently expected to pay tax on the residence that this income stream generates!

Nope. I’m afraid I still don’t see it. Chalk and chalk to me.


Phil didn't threaten anyone. Stop being silly. And no it isn’t a threat, it is simply a consequence of me having to live in the real world and factor in what trade unions will do as opposed to what you would like them to do.

Lugha, big Phil did threaten people, it was a constant stream of threats that lasted for a couple of months earlier this year...threats of mounting penalties, threats of court, threats of massive fines, elderly people were especially scared of all this, why do you think so many left it so late to pay?....believe me, most of these people were bullied in to paying....and it was not just big phil, others got in on the act also....absolute disgraceful......perhaps they should try some of these tactics on the unions next time ?

Le_Dieux

Ghandee wrote: »

When I say law, we both know I'm referring to a promise they made ref the pay caps, no need to be petty now lugha.

Also, when we're on the subject of laws of the land and democracy, what are your views on certain ministers changing 'The law' to suit themselves and their own agendas?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0318/breaking60.html

Good example Ghandee. This article is dated 18 March, so big fat phil ( 6 months later) still hasn't made the move on this count...I wonder why?

What a g*mbeen!

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

Political parties who form coalitions necessarily must break some of their pre-election promises, unless the coalesce with a party that have an identical mandate!

Even if there is single party government, in practice they will simply not succeed in implementing everything they promise.

Does this amount to lying? In general I would say not, unless they knew full well when they made the "promise" that they either would not nor could not keep it. That’s a judgement call we all have to make ourselves.

With regard to the special advisors whose pay they bumped up above the limit of €92 K, I am not sure that they even breached what they promised in that instance.

I'm sure sometimes they even form coalitions so they can break promises added bonus not to have the other party sniping from the oposition

Izzy Skint

lugha wrote: »

Political parties who form coalitions necessarily must break some of their pre-election promises, unless the coalesce with a party that have an identical mandate!

Even if there is single party government, in practice they will simply not succeed in implementing everything they promise.

Does this amount to lying? In general I would say not, unless they knew full well when they made the "promise" that they either would not nor could not keep it. That’s a judgement call we all have to make ourselves.

With regard to the special advisors whose pay they bumped up above the limit of €92 K, I am not sure that they even breached what they promised in that instance.

sorry Lugha, that is a total pile of crap, FG and LAB made the same promises, Labour will suffer more in the next election than FG will.
Are you saying they had no idea of the economic situation, that they genuinely did not know they would not be able to keep to their "promises"....if you do, then they should not be in politics....come on, do you think we are fools?....
If they did not break the pay cap then what was all the fuss about ?...they broke the cap, by their own actions they have shown themselves to be liars in front of the whole world.

lugha

Izzy Skint wrote: »

Lugha, big Phil did threaten people, it was a constant stream of threats that lasted for a couple of months earlier this year...threats of mounting penalties, threats of court, threats of massive fines, elderly people were especially scared of all this, why do you think so many left it so late to pay?....believe me, most of these people were bullied in to paying....and it was not just big phil, others got in on the act also....absolute disgraceful......perhaps they should try some of these tactics on the unions next time ?

Absolute nonsense. ANY law that is enacted always includes measures to ensure that it is enforced and penalties for those that refuse to comply. The HHC is no different.

Would you consider it bullying that poor Fidelma had her car impounded because her tax was out?

It is bullying to have TV licence inspectors? Or a traffic corp? Or health and safety officers?

The "bullying" soundbite was wheeled out by one of the silly people in the ULA (can't believe you are taking your cues from them) and it has just stuck since.

If you break the law you can expect consequences. Bullying my arse! :cool:

Bruthal

lugha wrote: »

If you spent say €200 K setting up a business, typically with borrowed money, you could provide yourself with an enterprise that generates an income stream for you. And even though you have done the state some service by eliminating the need for state to provide you with social welfare support, you will still be expected to be tax on the livelihood that this income stream generates.

And how much tax will they pay if the business generated no income?

If you spent say €200 K buying a home, typically with borrowed money, you could provide yourself with an a residence that generates an income stream (you can realize this income in cash if you lease the house or benefit directly otherwise). And even though you have done the state some service by eliminating the need for the state to provide you with housing, you …er.. are not currently expected to pay tax on the residence that this income stream generates!

Nope. I’m afraid I still don’t see it. Chalk and chalk to me.
.

Yes, chalk and chalk, a persons home is a business enterprise now:pac:

lugha

Izzy Skint wrote: »

If they did not break the pay cap then what was all the fuss about ?...they broke the cap, by their own actions they have shown themselves to be liars in front of the whole world.

Technically I don’t think they did. But you might argue that the worded the guidelines in a sneaky way.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

Can you cite what law they broke? (Rhetorical question: you can't!)

But I'm pleased to see you coming around to the view that there's a lot to be said for abiding by the law of the land in a democracy.

Did that fella with the long white hair and the pink shirt not break any laws. Was what he done cosher.
Did yer man with the beard and ponytail not break any laws. If they did'nt, I apologize for thinking it.

lugha

robbie7730 wrote: »

And how much tax will they pay if the business generated no income?

Your house does generate an income, by virtue of you not having to pay rent to live somewhere else.

lugha

darkhorse wrote: »

Did that fella with the long white hair and the pink shirt not break any laws. Was what he done cosher.
Did yer man with the beard and ponytail not break any laws. If they did'nt, I apologize for thinking it.

Interesting that the two you mentioned are vocal critics of the government and afaik have not been taken to task for any mis-deeds.

But a senator from the government party has been

Rather knocks on the head any notion of a government conspiracy wouldn't you say?

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

Your house does generate an income, by virtue of you not having to pay rent to live somewhere else.

Rent, grand a month.
Mortgage, a grand a month.
Property tax, paid yearly (so eh, rent?)

Wtf are you smoking?

How do you come to those conclusions?

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

Political parties who form coalitions necessarily must break some of their pre-election promises, unless the coalesce with a party that have an identical mandate!

Even if there is single party government, in practice they will simply not succeed in implementing everything they promise.

Does this amount to lying? In general I would say not, unless they knew full well when they made the "promise" that they either would not nor could not keep it. That’s a judgement call we all have to make ourselves.

With regard to the special advisors whose pay they bumped up above the limit of €92 K, I am not sure that they even breached what they promised in that instance.

Which paragraph is the yes answer and which paragraph is the no answer. Why does it not f*cking suprise me.:mad::mad:

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

Rent, grand a month.
Mortgage, a grand a month.
Property tax, paid yearly (so eh, rent?)

Wtf are you smoking?

How do you come to those conclusions?

Rent, grand a month, well under €900 I’d say on average

Mortgage interest, about €250 a month on average

Make some allowance for maintenance Ghandee is up €650 per month!

(Don’t smoke)

darkhorse wrote: »

Which paragraph is the yes answer and which paragraph is the no answer. Why does it not f*cking suprise me.

I thought my post was pretty clear?

Bruthal

lugha wrote: »

Your house does generate an income, by virtue of you not having to pay rent to live somewhere else.

Having the house means a mortgage for the vast majority. This will be an expense as the alternative to renting.

Taxing virtual incomes now. This is even better than the negative equity home owner being wealthy.

Bruthal

lugha wrote: »

(Don’t smoke)

Maybe you should pay tax on the revenue stream you have through not smoking.

tayto lover

Lugha,

I don't for one minute believe you mean half of the bull**** you post on here. Either that or your party have you completely brainwashed and you have also joined the Moonies.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. ANY law that is enacted always includes measures to ensure that it is enforced and penalties for those that refuse to comply. The HHC is no different.

Would you consider it bullying that poor Fidelma had her car impounded because her tax was out?

It is bullying to have TV licence inspectors? Or a traffic corp? Or health and safety officers?

The "bullying" soundbite was wheeled out by one of the silly people in the ULA (can't believe you are taking your cues from them) and it has just stuck since.

If you break the law you can expect consequences. Bullying my arse! :cool:

What are the consequences for these lads who are not paying their dues then?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0418/1224314877026.html

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

Your house does generate an income, by virtue of you not having to pay rent to live somewhere else.

So I should pay rent(tax) as well as a mortgage that I could be paying for the rest of my life? and still borrow money every year of two to maintain it, without even allowing for any emergency, such as any unforseen damage to the house that may occur. Thats some income generator.:(:(

Le_Dieux

tayto lover wrote: »

What are the consequences for these lads who are not paying their dues then?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0418/1224314877026.html

That's one of my arguments all along Tayto Lover....

One rule for the boys ( big fat phil's jaunt to Luxembourg springs to mind) & another for the average person in the street.

Up to today I still haven't received a reminder in the post on paying the HHC. Now, my business partner ( who paid,) is incredibly p1ssed off over having to pay.

This bunch of gib****es really are digging a hole of quicksand that they are sinking in.....They want to bring in a new property tax on January 1 2013, but still haven't a f1cking clue how to get the €100 from the defaulters in 2012.

Thisd bunch couldn't organise sex in a brothel - sorry to be so blunt, but this bunch of amateurs are a BIGGER threat to the future of this country than the last lot were.

lugha

robbie7730 wrote: »

Having the house means a mortgage for the vast majority. This will be an expense as the alternative to renting.

Not really. The interest you pay on the mortgage would be, but the bulk of the average repayment goes towards paying for your actual house. You put that money in now to the bricks and mortar and you will, or can, get it back in the future. The interest is gone in to the banks pockets but the rest you still have.

And for all intents and purposes this is like depositing this money in a savings account (presumably you do not regard money you saved as an expense?). But instead of having savings of say €200 K in 20 or 30 years time, you will have a house, or an asset, worth this amount.

Things are slightly messed up at the moment as many people’s house are worth a lot less than they will pay for them (whether this is the case in 20-30 years remains to be seem). But this unfortunate state of affairs is really no different to anything else you could put your money in to. Even traditionally safe bets like government bonds or even straight forward savings account could have lost you money. And dabbling in the stock market definitely did cost a lot of people.

tayto lover

And another thing lads, i'm fed up paying rent to myself. I can't afford it any longer and if i increase it then i may have to move out or claim rent subsidy.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

I thought my post was pretty clear?

No, it was'nt clear. You were asked a simple question. Did they lie or not. A yes or no will suffice. You dont need four paragraphs to answer yes or no.

Am Chile

lugha wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. ANY law that is enacted always includes measures to ensure that it is enforced and penalties for those that refuse to comply. The HHC is no different.

Would you consider it bullying that poor Fidelma had her car impounded because her tax was out?

It is bullying to have TV licence inspectors? Or a traffic corp? Or health and safety officers?

The "bullying" soundbite was wheeled out by one of the silly people in the ULA (can't believe you are taking your cues from them) and it has just stuck since.

If you break the law you can expect consequences. Bullying my arse! :cool:

Unpaid commercial rates are more common then what people think-yet those who haven,t paid the commercial rates haven,t being threatened by government ministers on airwaves and media in the same manner people were threatened about the household tax- plus there hasn,t being any media campaign with warnings of services to be cut due to unpaid commercial rates in the same manner all recent warning stories/newsclips we all seen with warnings of imminent cuts over the household tax- some Interesting stories for people to read.

Councils write off millions in unpaid rates

http://www.kerryman.ie/news/councils-write-off-millions-in-unpaid-rates-3142208.html

CITY COUNCIL OWED 16 MILLION IN UNPAID RATES
May 15, 2012 -
6:25pm



Galway City Council is owed more than sixteen million euro
in unpaid commercial rates from last year alone.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/25824-city-council-owed-16-million-unpaid-rates

Local authorities are losing hundreds of millions of euro in unpaid rates and
levies from businesses, property developers and householders, according to local
government auditors

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0630/breaking5.html

Unpaid rates leave Council in €24m mire
December 2, 2011 -
8:15am


Local authority resigned to writing-off millions as businesses shut up shop

http://www.galwaynews.ie/23012-unpaid-rates-leave-council-%E2%82%AC24m-mire

KERRY County Council is owed over €6.1 million in unpaid commercial rates and
water charges according to the authority's annual financial statement for
2010, which was published this week.

http://www.kerryman.ie/news/council-owed-millions-in-unpaid-rates-2651784.html

Councils write off €17
million as bad debts

http://westcorktimes.com/home/?p=1391

Chances are for those who won't be able to afford to pay the real property tax combined with water charges won't have their debt written off by the local councils.

lugha

darkhorse wrote: »

No, it was'nt clear. You were asked a simple question. Did they lie or not. A yes or no will suffice. You dont need four paragraphs to answer yes or no.

How about one line? :pac:

Le_Dieux

darkhorse wrote: »

No, it was'nt clear. You were asked a simple question. Did they lie or not. A yes or no will suffice. You dont need four paragraphs to answer yes or no.

Typical politician reply eh, DH? They will do ANYTHING but answer a simple question.

lugha

Am Chile wrote: »

Unpaid commercial rates are more common then what people think-yet those who haven,t paid the commercial rates haven,t being threatened by government ministers on airwaves and media in the same manner people were threatened about the household tax- plus there hasn,t being any media campaign with warnings of services to be cut due to unpaid commercial rates in the same manner all recent warning stories/newsclips we all seen with warnings of imminent cuts over the household tax

Because the HHC is new.

When any new tax/charge/rule is introduced (e.g. smoking ban, penalty points etc.) there usually is a campaign to educate people as to what the new rules are AND to inform them of the penalties if they fail to comply. Nothing new with the HHC.

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

Because the HHC is new.

When any new tax/charge/rule is introduced (e.g. smoking ban, penalty points etc.) there usually is a campaign to educate people as to what the new rules are AND to inform them of the penalties if they fail to comply. Nothing new with the HHC.

So when it's no longer new, ie next year, those that refuse/can't pay it or the property tax can expect to see their debt written off too?

EDIT....

Or alternatively, those not paying and acummulating late fees/fines need not worry as these too will eventually be written off by LA's in the country when the new tax is no longer considered 'new'?

Further reason to not pay/register right here!

When in a hole Lugha.

Le_Dieux

lugha wrote: »

Because the HHC is new.

When any new tax/charge/rule is introduced (e.g. smoking ban, penalty points etc.) there usually is a campaign to educate people as to what the new rules are AND to inform them of the penalties if they fail to comply. Nothing new with the HHC.

Sorry lugha. I can't let this go. Nothing new with the HHC? Are You for real? I am 56yo, and can't recall a peaceful more intense concerted campaign against any tax initiated by any government. I don't need education, I have no problem paying my bit, but I am a firm believer in playing on a LEVEL playing field.

This bunch of g1bsh1tes have done everything in the opposite direction.

dxhound2005

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Sorry lugha. I can't let this go. Nothing new with the HHC? Are You for real? I am 56yo, and can't recall a peaceful more intense concerted campaign against any tax initiated by any government. I don't need education, I have no problem paying my bit, but I am a firm believer in playing on a LEVEL playing field.

This bunch of g1bsh1tes have done everything in the opposite direction.

Not so peaceful when the workers collecting the charge get all sorts of abuse and even a shotgun cartridge in the post.

http://www.herald.ie/news/housetax-collector-sent-a-bullet-in-post-3205092.html

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

So when it's no longer new, ie next year, those that refuse/can't pay it or the property tax can expect to see their debt written off too?

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Sorry lugha. I can't let this go. Nothing new with the HHC? Are You for real? I am 56yo, and can't recall a peaceful more intense concerted campaign against any tax initiated by any government. I don't need education, I have no problem paying my bit, but I am a firm believer in playing on a LEVEL playing field.

This bunch of g1bsh1tes have done everything in the opposite direction.

I suggest both of you read what I posted again. Neither of your posts had any bearing on the point I made, which is that there is nothing unusual about informing people of the consequences if they do not abide by a new law, and that this does not constitute bullying.