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

Am Chile

tiny timy wrote: »

Are you the only one who has rec'd these letters? (or are you aware of others?)
How did they identify you?

Not alone,seen on other sites where people have received them.dont know how they pulled my name out but im gona have to pay,havent got 2000+ to have to fork out. Probably just testing the waters with these threats to attack and make examples of those that challenge the tax so they can attack the rest of the country[/QUOTE]

The government has said long ago they won,t jail anyone for non payment-if someone goes to court and gets a fine, and decides they re not paying what might they try then ? my guess is they will attach the fine as a charge on the property, which will only last 12 years it won,t last forever, and chances are come 12 years the household/property tax will have being abolished by then.

Bishop_Donal

Am Chile wrote: »

The government has said long ago they won,t jail anyone for non payment-if someone goes to court and gets a fine, and decides they re not paying what might they try then ? my guess is they will attach the fine as a charge on the property, which will only last 12 years it won,t last forever, and chances are come 12 years the household/property tax will have being abolished by then.

The charge also attaches to the penalties and interest from the date of accrual of same. I reckon the accumulated interest and charges by the second half of year 12 will be hefty & will keep arising!!

You wouldn't want to be starting off with too high a charge on your house (if you ever want to have a shred of equity).

BTW, you mightn't want to have kids wanting to go to college & needing a grant (and probably wouldn't want a sick parent needing nursing home support either) for the next 12 years.

Am Chile

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

The charge also attaches to the penalties and interest from the date of accrual of same. I reckon the accumulated interest and charges by the second half of year 12 will be hefty & will keep arising!!

You wouldn't want to be starting off with too high a charge on your house (if you ever want to have a shred of equity).

BTW, you mightn't want to have kids wanting to go to college & needing a grant (and probably wouldn't want a sick parent needing nursing home support either) for the next 12 years.

After the 12 years the charge itself, any Interest with penalties no longer apply, statue of limitations.

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

The right to shelter is a human right, which is why so many people are given housing by the state. So it is immoral to put a person in a position where they can be denied that shelter, they have provided for themselves.

A few things here.

As the state does indeed provide housing, does that not rather knock the legs out from under your argument that a property tax might render someone homeless? Even if the tax did lead them to lose their home, which I doubt, it would not leave them without a home.

Second, could not the same argument be made for income tax? A substantial increase in this tax might well move some who are currently struggling to pay their mortgage to a position where they simply have to default, which could lead to their house being repossessed by the lender. Does this not render income tax also immoral, albeit indirectly?

And you seem to have a very draconian sort of property tax in mind here. An option for those who cannot pay would be to attach these tax liabilities to the property, which could be discharged as a future data.

But I get the impression from those who put out the immoral line that it is not these extreme cases that inform their view. They suggest it is immoral in principle, even for those who would have no difficulty in paying. Were the legislation for a property tax to stipulate that people who could not pay could not be evicted from their homes, which I think it should, I don’t think that would placate those who think this tax is immoral.

Any the many difficult measures that will have to be taken in the next 10-15 years or longer, will hit some (probably many) people very hard. Some will have to compromise on things as important as shelter, like home heating or their children’s health or education or possible even food. I don’t see why such measures are more moral than a tax on a home.

Slick50 wrote: »

You're being disingenuous here. If you buy a house to let, you have started a business, and will pay tax on the earnings from that business.

This was a response to a spurious argument that it is immoral to tax an asset on which you have already paid tax.

Slick50 wrote: »

Your house may generate this sort of money if you are prepared to vacate it, but you're going to have to live somewhere. So what are you going to do??? rent??? There will probably be no net gain.

And that was responding to those who dispute that your home does in effect generate income by virtue of the money you save by not having to rent.

tayto lover

Aren't Fine Gael / Labour doing a great job of sorting out the mess our country is in? It wasn't them who made the shambles of this country.
They just sat on their hands for 10 years in silent opposition and allowed it to happen. No it's not their fault at all. They even cried out at times that F.F. were not giving out enough in the budgets.

Changed days now when they got into power but they don't like to be reminded of their idle past. In fact come to think of it I can't really see any difference in either party. One chose to punish us by over-feeding us and the other by starving us. Death by 1,000 cuts.

darkhorse

Hijpo wrote: »

I will pay for water if the govenment gives me a grant to replumb my house so that im not flushing money down the toilet.

donalg1 wrote: »

Why would they give you a grant to replumb your house? Do such grants exist, if they do I would imagine you would have a hard time getting one seeing as you have not paid the HHC.;)

donalg1 wrote: »

They may have grants of some sort who knows, could be similiar to ones for the solar panels etc. But an initial outlay could save a fortune over time, water butts and some system of diverting rain water from the gutters to a seperate tank in the attic which you use for the loos maybe for example.

Really we should be doing this already as we have more than enough rain in this country.

darkhorse wrote: »

Why would they give you a grant to insulate your house? I know they exist, cause I know a lot of people who availed of them.

donalg1 wrote: »

They gave grants to the elderly to insulate their houses as this was a nice thing to do.

I wanted to know why they would now decide to give people grants to replumb their house in order to save money on water charges. Especially when you consider how little money the LA's have.

darkhorse wrote: »

I don't think that my thirty something and forty something neighbours would like you refering to them as "the elderly".

donalg1 wrote: »

I don't think your neighbours got their grant from the council though as these were for over 60's only or maybe 65's can't remember.

Notice your last post, I will underline the relevant words for you. Now, look at the original post from Hijpo, which I have in bold for you. You will see that we did not mention the council. Hijpo said "if the government gives me a grant" and I said that know a lot a lot of people who availed of insulation grants, and yes, they were government co funded. So, I don't know where you are coming from with above post.

Le_Dieux

tayto lover wrote: »

Aren't Fine Gael / Labour doing a great job of sorting out the mess our country is in? It wasn't them who made the shambles of this country.
They just sat on their hands for 10 years in silent opposition and allowed it to happen. No it's not their fault at all. They even cried out at times that F.F. were not giving out enough in the budgets.

Changed days now when they got into power but they don't like to be reminded of their idle past. In fact come to think of it I can't really see any difference in either party. One chose to punish us by over-feeding us and the other by starving us. Death by 1,000 cuts.

Just watched VB tear Lucinda Creighton apart on tv. She makes a statement that the Govt. might have to RELOOK at the agreement of 2 days old with the GP's....VB tore into Her:-)

This government are TOTALLY out of their depth.

darkhorse

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

The only thing that we are paying increased taxes for at the moment are the costs of running our own affairs.
QUOTE]

Thats a really nice sentiment, but ya don't genuinely believe it, do ya.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

I'm a busy man tonight, doing work for eh..... Work!

Maybe you could do what I just did and point it out for me?

I can't see the court threats?

I'll look properly through the legislation tomorrow, deadlines to meet !

Edit, is this what you're referring to?



Lol.......

Section 5 (1) of the Act sets out the offence for not registering and paying and section 5(4) sets the fine as a Class C fine.
The Fines Act 2010 sets the maximum Class C fine at €2500.

So, a potential €2500 fine plus the charge with penalties plus the LAs legal costs are what face people being prosecuted.
I'd say most people getting that third letter will pay up, and I wouldn't blame them; the campaign aren't going to help pay any of this.

darkhorse

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Just watched VB tear Lucinda Creighton apart on tv. She makes a statement that the Govt. might have to RELOOK at the agreement of 2 days old with the GP's....VB tore into Her:-)

This government are TOTALLY out of their depth.

Ya might say their experimenting their trade and we are the lab rats. I am sorely tempted to phone in to phsyics live and ask this girl on the tv what does she make of it.

darkhorse

Slick50 wrote: »

It is immoral to tax your home, because it is an avenue to gaining the right to remove you from your property. The right to shelter is a human right, which is why so many people are given housing by the state. So it is immoral to put a person in a position where they can be denied that shelter, they have provided for themselves.

Taxing someone's income is based on their ability to pay, as it is a percentage of their income, and not discriminatory between people with the same income.



You're being disingenuous here. If you buy a house to let, you have started a business, and will pay tax on the earnings from that business.



Your house may generate this sort of money if you are prepared to vacate it, but you're going to have to live somewhere. So what are you going to do??? rent??? There will probably be no net gain, just a lot of hassle. Of course this has been suggested as a "legitimate way of avoiding the HHC, except you have to sell the house and rent.

Even the government thinks if you are willing to sacrifice your privacy in your own home for €10k, you're welcome to it, tax free.

There are people here, Slick, who just don't want to hear anything of what you talk about, which I complement you on btw, cause I am in agreement with everything you say. The bottom line is, the govt. just want to keep taking from us and there is a certain few people who are in total agreement with them, no matter what the sacrifice.

Le_Dieux

darkhorse wrote: »

There are people here, Slick, who just don't want to hear anything of what you talk about, which I complement you on btw, cause I am in agreement with everything you say. The bottom line is, the govt. just want to keep taking from us and there is a certain few people who are in total agreement with them, no matter what the sacrifice.

BTW, where is Big Fat Phil these days?

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

your home does in effect generate income

All I can say, Slick, is, this guy really put my hopes up this past couple of weeks. He came across as very convincing. But, I have looked extensively everywhere in my house and I have to say, it definitely did'nt generate any money.

Am Chile

dvpower wrote: »

Section 5 (1) of the Act sets out the offence for not registering and paying and section 5(4) sets the fine as a Class C fine.
The Fines Act 2010 sets the maximum Class C fine at €2500.

So, a potential €2500 fine plus the charge with penalties plus the LAs legal costs are what face people being prosecuted.
I'd say most people getting that third letter will pay up, and I wouldn't blame them; the campaign aren't going to help pay any of this.

And if someone decides not to pay the fine,plus legal costs, since they have pledged not to jail people, what do you think they re gonna do then when people won,t pay any fines,legal costs,late fees.

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

Section 5 (1) of the Act sets out the offence for not registering and paying and section 5(4) sets the fine as a Class C fine.
The Fines Act 2010 sets the maximum Class C fine at €2500.

So, a potential €2500 fine plus the charge with penalties plus the LAs legal costs are what face people being prosecuted.
I'd say most people getting that third letter will pay up, and I wouldn't blame them; the campaign aren't going to help pay any of this.

what if you dont pay the E2500? Jail(judge) or No Jail(Phil)

Minister Hogan said there will be no threat of jail to those who do not pay.


AmChile beat me to it:)

Hijpo

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

Am Chile wrote: »

The government has said long ago they won,t jail anyone for non payment-if someone goes to court and gets a fine, and decides they re not paying what might they try then ? my guess is they will attach the fine as a charge on the property, which will only last 12 years it won,t last forever, and chances are come 12 years the household/property tax will have being abolished by then.

The charge also attaches to the penalties and interest from the date of accrual of same. I reckon the accumulated interest and charges by the second half of year 12 will be hefty & will keep arising!!

You wouldn't want to be starting off with too high a charge on your house (if you ever want to have a shred of equity).

BTW, you mightn't want to have kids wanting to go to college & needing a grant (and probably wouldn't want a sick parent needing nursing home support either) for the next 12

I have become used to surviving without benefits and social welfare entitlements and grants for this, that and the other because even though i pay my other taxes and charges im not entitled to anything so i dont rely on them.
My kids will probably be the same. When they go to college we will probably pay full whack, thats if the government still have prices set so that commoners can attend. God forbid myself or my partner need nursing care, but sure they are making medical services so bad that only decent care left is for the rich that can afford private health care. Lets face it the only place you can get a bed these days is private clinics, anyone else is wheeled up against a wall in a corridor.

So in the grand scheme of things, well have to take loans out for our kids education (which should be paid for with my property taxes) and when we start getting old and frail the kids will hopefully be able to spare a moment to pop in to our massive fine ridden, charge burdend house to make sure we are ok. Although if we raised them right they wont want anything to do with criminals.

Lmao equity, the only time i will see equity from my house is if it goes for more than 313k and thats if i sell it which i have no intention of doing.

lugha

darkhorse wrote: »

The bottom line is, the govt. just want to keep taking from us ……

Or as those of us that actually do realise that we are in a crisis might put it: we (there is no govt V us!) have to make many very painful adjustments to bring our deficit under control. If we do not then we will be bequeathing an even bigger nightmare to our children / grandchildren than they are currently in line to receive. (Now that would be immoral!).

It would be nice if ranting and raving and throwing strops would make our problems go away. Alas ….

darkhorse wrote: »

But, I have looked extensively everywhere in my house and I have to say, it definitely did'nt generate any money.

You need the light to catch it in the right way to see it! Just cause you don’t see it does not mean that it isn’t there. If your home happens to be in negative equity there isn’t anything you can look at in your house that will reveal this but that don’t mean it aint there.

The difference is of course that being in negative equity makes no difference to how much cash we have in our pocket. Not so with the revenue your home generates.

If you are still doubtful I suggest you burn your house down or otherwise make your house uninhabitable. The €850 or so you would have to find every month to rent a new home for your family, that’s the revenue stream that you are unable to see. :pac:

Am Chile wrote: »

And if someone decides not to pay the fine,plus legal costs, since they have pledged not to jail people, what do you think they re gonna do then when people won,t pay any fines,legal costs,late fees.

I don’t think this aspect has been teased out very much. My interpretation of the govt position is that jail will not be part of the punishment for those that don’t pay. And that part is clear.

However, if someone subsequently refuse to pay a fine then I don’t think anything in the HHC legislation is relevant. They will have moved from civil disobedience to defying the courts. And I don’t think politicians can (or should) have the power to direct the courts on what punishment they should mete out. If you continually defy a court order I think you could be held in contempt and jailed for that, as opposed to being jailed for not paying the HHC.

Perhaps someone who knows the law might offer a view?

Mr.Crinklewood

Any chance of the poll being reset?

Ghandee

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Any chance of the poll being reset?

Well i Pm'd a mod and asked.

Sadly though, the mod in question did not even bother his Barney in having the decency to even acknowledge getting the pm.

Had they of been unwilling to reset the poll, so be it.
At least have the common courtesy to respond and tell a poster your decision.(otherwise all this 'pm a mod' shyte goes right out the window) :mad:

dvpower

Am Chile wrote: »

And if someone decides not to pay the fine,plus legal costs, since they have pledged not to jail people, what do you think they re gonna do then when people won,t pay any fines,legal costs,late fees.

In a thread with more than the average number of dumb posts, this is one of the dumbest.

There is nothing in the legislation that can send you to jail, but if you refuse to pay a fine or comply with a court order then you are in a whole different ballpark and committing a whole range of other offences, for which you most certainly can go to jail.
The idea that the government could prevent the courts from sending someone to jail no matter how far they go in refusing to pay this charge displays a complete lack of understanding about how our system works.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

In a thread with more than the average number of dumb posts, this is one of the dumbest.

There is nothing in the legislation that can send you to jail, but if you refuse to pay a fine or comply with a court order then you are in a whole different ballpark and committing a whole range of other offences, for which you most certainly can go to jail.
The idea that the government could prevent the courts from sending someone to jail no matter how far they go in refusing to pay this charge displays a complete lack of understanding about how our system works.

Mr Hogan and Minister for Justice Alan Shatter said separately that those who did not pay would not face jail. Mr Shatter said thatthe Fines Act would come into operation and ultimately the fines, penalties and interest could be attached against properties.

For his part, Mr Hogan said: “There is no reason why anyone should go to prison . . . I do not envisage anybody going to jail for a €100 household charge.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0330/1224314100036.html

Hogan and shatter have said separately that no one would be jailed, and if the fine act came into play,

the Fines Act would come into operation and ultimately the fines, penalties and interest could be attached against properties.

Which applies for twelve years only.

His post wasn't that dumb DV. Environment and justice minister are both on record of saying so, surely they wouldn't do yet another u-turn though?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0330/1224314100036.html

Hogan and shatter have said separately that no one would be jailed, and if the fine act came into play,


Which applies for twelve years only.

His post wasn't that dumb DV. Environment and justice minister are both on record of saying so, surely they wouldn't do yet another u-turn though?

Its not a political matter.

We do have separation of powers in this country. The government can't dictate who the courts send to jail and if you refuse to follow a court order, you can go to jail - not for the original offense, but for the subsequent offense.

El Weirdo

Ghandee wrote: »

Well i Pm'd a mod and asked.

Sadly though, the mod in question did not even bother his Barney in having the decency to even acknowledge getting the pm.

Had they of been unwilling to reset the poll, so be it.
At least have the common courtesy to respond and tell a poster your decision.(otherwise all this 'pm a mod' shyte goes right out the window) :mad:

So you PM'd a mod?

How long ago was this?

Maybe the mod in question missed it or simply hasn't been online since - we are volunteers, you know?

Did you send a gentle reminder to the mod in question?

Did you think of sending a PM to any of the other seven mods of After Hours to ask if the poll could be reset?

Or did you just fancy a bit of a moan?

Ghandee

El Weirdo wrote: »

So you PM'd a mod?

I did.

El Weirdo wrote: »

How long ago was this?

Sunday

El Weirdo wrote: »

Maybe the mod in question missed it or simply hasn't been online since - we are volunteers, you know?

They were online when i posted it, and many times since.

El Weirdo wrote: »

Did you send a gentle reminder to the mod in question?

No, because i didn't want to be seen as harping on, I asked once, that should be enough.

El Weirdo wrote: »

Did you think of sending a PM to any of the other seven mods of After Hours to ask if the poll could be reset?

No, i asked one mod, one time, for the above reason.

El Weirdo wrote: »

Or did you just fancy a bit of a moan?

No, but in fairness I personally asked for it to be reset, many in the thread openly asked also, I'd be surprised if those requests/suggestions got missed by all seven mods on the forum.

El Weirdo

Ghandee wrote: »

I did.

Ghandee wrote: »

Sunday

Ghandee wrote: »

They were online when i posted it, and many times since.

As I said, a single PM can go missed. A gentle reminder would probably have done the job.

Ghandee wrote: »

No, because i didn't want to be seen as harping on, I asked once, that should be enough.

Ghandee wrote: »

No, i asked one mod, one time, for the above reason.

Really? I'll see can I arrange that all the mods are at your beck and call in the future.

Ghandee wrote: »

No, but in fairness I personally asked for it to be reset, many in the thread openly asked also, I'd be surprised if those requests/suggestions got missed by all seven mods on the forum.

Funnily enough, we don't read every singe post on the forum. I know this is the first time I've opened this thread in a long time.

Anyway, enough of the derailment - leave it with me and I'll speak to the other mods about the poll.

donalg1

darkhorse wrote: »

Notice your last post, I will underline the relevant words for you. Now, look at the original post from Hijpo, which I have in bold for you. You will see that we did not mention the council. Hijpo said "if the government gives me a grant" and I said that know a lot a lot of people who availed of insulation grants, and yes, they were government co funded. So, I don't know where you are coming from with above post.

Well it is simple really and quite obvious we were talking about the supply of water which is provided by the Local Authorities. You decided to jump in half way through our discussion and talk about other agencies without alluding to the fact you werent talking about the LA's as myself and Hijpo clearly were.

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

In a thread with more than the average number of dumb posts, this is one of the dumbest.

There is nothing in the legislation that can send you to jail, but if you refuse to pay a fine or comply with a court order then you are in a whole different ballpark and committing a whole range of other offences, for which you most certainly can go to jail.
The idea that the government could prevent the courts from sending someone to jail no matter how far they go in refusing to pay this charge displays a complete lack of understanding about how our system works.

so phil hogan was lying through his teeth when he said?

Minister Hogan said there will be no threat of jail to those who do not pay.



Amchile is only point out the obvious, you should be directing your "dumb" detectector at Phil Hogan who is stupid enough to think he can control the justice system


its ok DV, Ghandee beat me to it.

dvpower

bgrizzley wrote: »

so phil hogan was lying through his teeth when he said?

Minister Hogan said there will be no threat of jail to those who do not pay.



Amchile is only point out the obvious, you should be directing your "dumb" detectector at Phil Hogan who is stupid enough to think he can control the justice system

No. You still miss the point.

There is no threat of jail for not paying the HHC.
There is a threat of jail if you don't pay a fine for not paying the HHC or if you fail to comply with a court order to pay it or if you fail to comply with a court order to pay costs awarded against you.

Simples.

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

No. You still miss the point.

There is no threat of jail for not paying the HHC.
There is a threat of jail if you don't pay a fine for not paying the HHC or if you fail to comply with a court order to pay it or if you fail to comply with a court order to pay costs awarded against you.

Simples.

is there any reason the government can bypass court and just lock you up?
or is phil dumb enough to think there is, to say he had to point out he wouldnt jail people.? does he realise the courts are suppose to be independent?

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

No. You still miss the point.

There is no threat of jail for not paying the HHC.
There is a threat of jail if you don't pay a fine for not paying the HHC or if you fail to comply with a court order to pay it or if you fail to comply with a court order to pay costs awarded against you.

Simples.

the Fines Act would come into operation and ultimately the fines, penalties and interest could be attached against properties.

Looks like what they're saying is that fines etc would be attached to property?

Not going to jail for not paying the hhc, or any fines in relation to it should mean just that, if they didn't mean for it to be interpreted that way, they should come out and say so.