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

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

:rolleyes:

That arguement was made before they made the announcment that LA tenants are liable, is that the only one that contradicts? there isnt even a bottom left on the barrel now, youv scraped your way through it and have now started on the hole.



If they didnt break the caps, that they set in place, then its money saved to be put back into the coffers, it doesnt really matter to me how little of a difference it makes, money saved is money saved and in the state the country is in money saved should be priority instead of making life more difficult on the people who are already paying for everything be it through taxation, levies and charges or indirectly through the loss of services.

Sorry, I don't get either of the points you are making here?

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

It may also be unconstitutional.
Requiring a referendum? Do you think it would pass?

I doubt if it's unconstitutional but no, a referendum would not pass.

Ghandee wrote: »

Self employed, how will it be deducted from their source?

Same difficulty we have with income tax.

Ghandee wrote: »

How will they implement it without us registering on the database?
What about paye worker,v who pays his tax in the north?

These are minor logistical concerns. I have every faith in the fine people in the civil service to sort them out.:)

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

It may also be unconstitutional.

Specifically what bit of the constitution?

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

Sorry, I don't get either of the points you are making here?

Whats wrong, is alistair not around the PM you an argument?

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

Specifically what bit of the constitution?

Just a few issues I can see below.

Personal rights: The state is bound to protect "the personal rights of the citizen", and in particular to defend "the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen" (Article 40.3).

Right to own property.

Private property: The right to own and transfer private property is guaranteed by Article 43, subject to "the principles of social justice", and in accordance with laws passed reconciling the right "with the exigencies of the common good" (Article 43).


How can non payment of the hhc prevent private property being transferred (even if left in a will?)

The principles require, in summary, that:

"justice and charity" must "inform all the institutions of the national life". Everyone has the right to an adequate occupation. The free market and private property must be regulated in the interests of the common good. The state must prevent a destructive concentration of essential commodities in the hands of a few. The state must supplement private industry where necessary. The state should ensure efficiency in private industry and protect the public against economic exploitation. The state must protect the vulnerable, such as orphans and the aged. No one may be forced into an occupation unsuited to their age, sex or strength.

Essential commodities may include water? Shelter?
Private industry (paye private sector worker for example) must be protected against economic exploitation?
This could be seen as protecting a persons wage against economic exploitation, ie deducting at source to be exploited.

No doubt you'll argue, but the constitution sees to cover many aspects of owning a family home.

dvpower

@Ghandee

Exactly how is this in conflict with deducting tax at source? Or are you now saying that property tax itself is unconstitutional?
If so, how do you explain the previous property taxes we've had in this country and Stamp Duty and VAT on property.

Ghandee

The state should ensure efficiency in private industry and protect the public against economic exploitation.

I'd personally see my cash, being deducted at source, to pay back bondholders as exploitation.

Lawyers will have a fields day with this DV.
I suspect you know this already.

What about my points about having the legal right to own and transfer private property?

Thought posters here had previously stated that non payment of the hhc could prevent anyone inheriting or transferring property if it wasn't paid?

If it's deducted at source, I'll start to pay my tax and national insurance in the north again.

tayto lover

On another front, the Target Haulage Company seems to have been shut down by the Revenue as it owes 1 million to them. Now they have put 400 people out of work by doing this. It is estimated that the company owes 2,500 e per worker to the Revenue.
How can it make sense to shut this company down as those workers will now be claiming dole etc every week. They will have claimed a million in no time. So instead of contributing to the exchequer from their wages they are now taking money from it. Madness.
This could and should have been dealt with better.
The company say that they are also owed most of a million from semi-state agencies but have to wait up to 60 days for payment while the revenue will only wait 19 days. They blame the cost of fuel as being part of the problem which no doubt it is. Could the Govt not have done something to help keep these jobs and the company of the year 2011 in business?

How the cost of petrol is made up --

Litre of un refined oil – 52c
Refining cost – 17c
Irish Excise Taxes, Carbon taxes, Oil Reserves agency levy – 59c
Distributor – 6c
Retailer – 5 c
Vat on all of above – 32c

Total 1.71 e

Valetta

If the company paid it's taxes, they would still be in business.

Why should they be given special treatment aheat of their compeditors?

The revenue didn't shut them down, the directors closed the company themselves.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Lawyers will have a fields day with this DV.
I suspect you know this already.

What about my points about having the legal right to own and transfer private property?.

The CAHWT have already admitted that they have no legal grounds to fight this on, and I can't see any either, but I'm sure if people want to give their hard earned cash to lawyers, lawyers will gratefully accept it.

Having a property tax doesn't remove any legal right to own or transfer property.

donalg1

dvpower wrote: »

The CAHWT have already admitted that they have no legal grounds to fight this on, and I can't see any either, but I'm sure if people want to give their hard earned cash to lawyers, lawyers will gratefully accept it.

Having a property tax doesn't remove any legal right to own or transfer property.

Didnt the cahwt say they would pay the legal fees for everyone iirc?

dvpower

donalg1 wrote: »

Didnt the cahwt say they would pay the legal fees for everyone iirc?

No they didn't.
They said something like nobody would have to go to court alone, but they made no commitment on legal fees.
They haven't even said how much money, if any, they have for a legal fund.

Bunch of chancers.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

The CAHWT have already admitted that they have no legal grounds to fight this on, and I can't see any either, but I'm sure if people want to give their hard earned cash to lawyers, lawyers will gratefully accept it.

Having a property tax doesn't remove any legal right to own or transfer property.

What about my point on how it may be unconstitutional to deduct a property tax at source, as the constitution protects private employer from being exploited?

Why are court orders required to deduct attachments put on your wages such as fines etc?
They can deduct income tax, prsi, and USC afaik, because they relate to your scale of earnings. Property tax does not.

I'm of the opinion that unless it's related to your income earnings it cannot be deducted at source. (I'm no lawyer mind)

I'm open to correction on the above.

We'll see how this pans out if it reaches court.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

No they didn't.
They said something like nobody would have to go to court alone, but they made no commitment on legal fees.
They haven't even said how much money, if any, they have for a legal fund.

Bunch of chancers.

Hogan said reminders sent to non payers of hhc......
Turns out to only apply to multiple property owners.

Chancer?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

What about my point on how it may be unconstitutional to deduct a property tax at source, as the constitution protects private employer from being exploited?

Why are court orders required to deduct attachments put on your wages such as fines etc?
They can deduct income tax, prsi, and USC afaik, because they relate to your scale of earnings. Property tax does not.

I'm of the opinion that unless it's related to your income earnings it cannot be deducted at source. (I'm no lawyer mind)

I'm open to correction on the above.

We'll see how this pans out if it reaches court.

Sorry, but you haven't made any arguement for property tax collection at source being illegal or unconstitutional.
All you've done is made some disjointed and sometimes incorrect statements.

1. Private enployers already deduct PAYE from source.
2. Private employers also often deduct other non income tax amounts from source, like maintenance payments.
3. Not every deduction at source requires a court order. The Revenue can currently order an attachment on earnings on the say so of a Principal Officer in the Collector Generals office.

You haven't explained how property tax is different.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

Valetta wrote: »

Noonan said that it would be collected by the Revenue, not that it would be collected at source - that's just speculation by the Indo being reported as fact.


Mr Noonan admitted for the first time last night that PAYE workers will have the tax deducted direct from their pay packets.

tayto lover

Valetta wrote: »

If the company paid it's taxes, they would still be in business.

Why should they be given special treatment aheat of their compeditors?

The revenue didn't shut them down, the directors closed the company themselves.

It's no wonder the country is Fcuked with logic like that. They offered to pay but wanted/needed more time.
But another 400 on the dole suits F.G. better it seems.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

Mr Noonan admitted for the first time last night that PAYE workers will have the tax deducted direct from their pay packets.

Do you have a source for this?

Kashkai

Right then, can someone please explain this to me:

Our glorious leaders believe that a property tax is a fairer method of raising tax revenue for the Exchequer than raising income tax which they believe affects employment as the higher you raise income tax, the more attractive the dole becomes. However if you take say a thousand off me in property tax, that's a thousand less disposable income I have to spend in the shops, pub, restaurant etc (not that i do have a thousand to spend in those places anymore) and so that's less income for the retailers, business owners and thus they lay off staff, dole queues lengthen, etc etc.

Why are these ruling ar$eholes not challenged on this by the meeja? Because we have possibly the laziest journos in the world who are too cosy with their pals in the Dail to ever haul them over the coals in this non functioning democracy of ours? Just wondering:rolleyes:

Le_Dieux

darkhorse wrote: »

The only thing I can deduce, L_D, is, that it belongs to donal. What other reason could there be for him coming back with the answer that he came back with.

You see, the reason I say this is, well, right up to our last residents association meeting, which was held four weeks ago, the council actually owned said land. I would probably not even know this, only that I am treasurer. But, anything could have happened in the past four weeks and as one of donal's colleagues would say, I did'nt get the memo.

I was treasurer of our RA up to recently too DH.

I also despair at the inept reply that donal replied. I have been driving around today thinking, and want to ask him another question: Donal, if you are certain the CC don't own the green areas, then please enlighten me on that conclusion? SOMEBODY owns it. The half of the estate I am in has been handed over, so it damn well does not belong to the developer, who has gone bust, and left a derelict site (note) with concrete foundations excavated, and fencing falling down, Heavens forbid if a repeat of what occured in Mullingar( I think) should happen again. Sorry, the last part of that sentence is a digression.

Donal, please enlighten me on Your conclusion, would/could you?

DOBBER112

"The coming budget will be the straw that broke the camels back, people are already living week to week, hand to mouth and struggling to pay their monthly bills. No disposable income to be spent, which in turn means more job losses as more businesses go to the wall. The social welfare queues will get longer, emigration figures will soar again. Some people who are working will give up jobs and leave the country as the debt that they signed us all up for is too much to bear.

The Irish family has been sold out to bankers and bondholders. These men that sold us all out are nothing but traitors to the Irish free state. They lined their pockets and ran for the hills. Corrupt and systemic economic treason. No one person has been brought to account for the destruction of the Irish economy and the fallout that continues for our citizens daily. These men are nothing but gangsters in suits who promised much but deliver nothing, they continue to take and they will get it all. Your kids college money if you're lucky enough to have it. You're just in case the washing machine breaks down fund, they'll have it all and this will continue until the people unite and show them that strength in numbers and a dejected, unhappy public need to be heard.

A national peaceful protest in every county/city in the country needs to be organised. Get out into the streets as citizens of Ireland and show them that enough is enough. These people will continue to wipe their feet on your backs until the people of Ireland make a stand. In the past we had landlords throwing Irish people out of their homes and now we have banks doing it and for exactly the same reason "financial gain". The banks will stop at nothing to get what they want and don't rely on politicians to protect you, these fat cats are more worried about having to take a pay cut or not getting the mother of all pensions at the end of their failure to protect us.

A nation that fears it's government is a dictatorship, a government that fears its people is a democracy. We only need to look at some of our neighboring countries to see how docile we are. The time is nearing now, the next budget will break people financially, mentally and morally. It will get so bad that people will fight for food. Maybe they'll send the cheese trucks out. What a heartbreaking state this country is in and all down to the wealthy people that we so far have allowed to get away with it. Dia go bhfuil an saoránach na hÉireann ar feadh níos measa fós le teacht."

Le_Dieux

Hijpo wrote: »

Has this been linked to yet?

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/workers-to-have-property-tax-taken-from-wages-confirmed-3213307.html

Yesterday, 398 people lost their jobs due to a number of factors, including the price of diesel & the revenue.

I can seriously see a LOT of other people closing up shop if this is brought in. I know I for one will be locking the doors and throwing away the keys. I simply do not have the money....PERIOD!

Target is only the beginning I fear!

Le_Dieux

lugha wrote: »

Lads, you need to make up your mind what exactly it is about this tax that you object to. For so long you insisted that it was unfair that LA tenants did not pay …

Now, where does one start? Oh yes, why not this: WHAT are we paying for?

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

Sorry, but you haven't made any arguement for property tax collection at source being illegal or unconstitutional.
All you've done is made some disjointed and sometimes incorrect statements.

I've pointed you to parts of the constitution where it could be interpreted that aspects of the property tax/hhc penalties could be unconstitutional (rights to own and transfer property)

dvpower wrote: »

1. Private enployers already deduct PAYE from source.

That deduction is a tax in your earnings what better place to deduct it than the place you earned it? You realise paye means pay as you earn? Kinda self explanatory tbh.

dvpower wrote: »

2. Private employers also often deduct other non income tax amounts from source, like maintenance payments.

Not without your consent, or a court order

dvpower wrote: »

3. Not every deduction at source requires a court order. The Revenue can currently order an attachment on earnings on the say so of a Principal Officer in the Collector Generals office.

You haven't explained how property tax is different.

I did explain. A property tax has no relation to your earnings, therefore i don't believe it can be deducted from source.

Here's a few questions for you,

1, why haven't they deducted hhc from source, seeing as its proven the people won't register and pay it voluntarily?

2, if is deemed legal to deduct at source, how will they know how much to deduct from, and who to deduct it from?

3, What will happen to me if i decide i now want my salary, paid and taxed via my Derry address and bank Acc number?

Le_Dieux

tayto lover wrote: »

On another front, the Target Haulage Company seems to have been shut down by the Revenue as it owes 1 million to them. Now they have put 400 people out of work by doing this. It is estimated that the company owes 2,500 e per worker to the Revenue.
How can it make sense to shut this company down as those workers will now be claiming dole etc every week. They will have claimed a million in no time. So instead of contributing to the exchequer from their wages they are now taking money from it. Madness.
This could and should have been dealt with better.
The company say that they are also owed most of a million from semi-state agencies but have to wait up to 60 days for payment while the revenue will only wait 19 days. They blame the cost of fuel as being part of the problem which no doubt it is. Could the Govt not have done something to help keep these jobs and the company of the year 2011 in business?

How the cost of petrol is made up --

Litre of un refined oil – 52c
Refining cost – 17c
Irish Excise Taxes, Carbon taxes, Oil Reserves agency levy – 59c
Distributor – 6c
Retailer – 5 c
Vat on all of above – 32c

Total 1.71 e

It doesn't even stop there T_L. They had over 250 vans & trucks on the road. So, loss of income as You mention already, PLUS:

Road tax
The people employed to service these vans & trucks
The income derived from fuelling these vehicles

I am sure there are more, but there's a few between us already highlighted. The whole fcuking country is gone absolutly MAD. This revenue soon won't have anyone to audit, then what? The bucnch will be jobless themselves...or is it again, CS guaranteed a job??

I fcuking give up.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Here's a few questions for you,

1, why haven't they deducted hhc from source, seeing as its proven the people won't register and pay it voluntarily?

2, if is deemed legal to deduct at source, how will they know how much to deduct from, and who to deduct it from?

3, What will happen to me if i decide i now want my salary, paid and taxed via my Derry address and bank Acc number?

1. I don't think they had all of the ownership details then, but now they've got the database merges done and the HHC database. I don't think they're going to deduct the Property Tax at source either.

2. The various database merges for the who question. Self assesment for the how much. If people choose not to return a self aasesment, the Revenue will make an assesnent in their behalf.

3. The revenue will raise an assesment against you and pursue you like they would anyone else. They have a lot of experience in dealing with tax evaders.

Le_Dieux

dvpower wrote: »

1.

3. The revenue will raise an assesment against you and pursue you like they would anyone else. They have a lot of experience in dealing with tax evaders.

Never thought I would find common ground with You DV, but You never said a truer statement than above.

Simply put, they are leeches!:mad:

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

1. I don't think they had all of the ownership details then, but now they've got the database merges done and the HHC database. I don't think they're going to deduct the Property Tax at source either.

2. The various database merges for the who question. Self assesment for the how much. If people choose not to return a self aasesment, the Revenue will make an assesnent in their behalf.

3. The revenue will raise an assesment against you and pursue you like they would anyone else. They have a lot of experience in dealing with tax evaders.

1, the HHC database is only 61% complete (which in itself is highly debatable)

2, more or less same question as above ^ what databases, and how will they link the value of a house to a random name/home owner?

3, when i first moved here, I (as I still do) worked for the company I'm employed by at the minute, i was taxed via the inland revenue, paid my national insurance and paye at that source. (in county Derry)

I asked revenue here if that was ok, which they said it was 100% completely and utterly legal and above board, i continued to work this way up until 2009 [when i got married) i then chose to get taxed here (don't know why, just did)

How can i be a 'tax evader' if I'm paying it as a paye employee of the company i am employed by?

Ghandee

Here we go....

As a frontier worker you must pay income tax in the country where you earn your income, but your ultimate tax responsibility is with the country where you live so you must submit an annual self assessment each year.

That's pretty much me covered so

You can withdraw the evader remark now.

dvpower

@Ghandee.
Valuation will be by self assesment most likely, so they don't need another database for valuations, although they are expected to publish the property price database next month and I expect them to use this for validations.

They have a host of other databases also available to them now, some that they were tendering for people to do database matches on earlier this year.

You would firmly be a tax evader if you were liable fir property tax and you didn't pay it, even if you are paid to a bank account outside the juristiction.