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

Le_Dieux

zerks wrote: »

Still no letter threatening me,noticed one at the homeplace & they paid it already.

Am also still awaiting first, second, and final letter.

Something puzzles me: Why did they go after the multi dwelling owners first?

dxhound2005

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Am also still awaiting first, second, and final letter.

Something puzzles me: Why did they go after the multi dwelling owners first?

Because they have the details of some people who are lanlords and/or who registered and presumably paid the NPPR. Which would bolster the argument from the anti side here that those people were just fools for owning up and obeying the law. But in the long run they might turn out to be the wise ones. They have paid a maximum of €800 NPPR to date whereas a potential bill of €2700 ish and rising awaits anyone who is now identified as a NPPR defaulter.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0919/1224324160912.html


Almost all those who received letters have been second-home owners already liable for the non-principal private residence or second-home tax. These were identified using the NPPR database and the register of private rented accommodation held by the Private Residential Tenancies Board.

No warning letters have so far been sent to those who failed to meet the March 31st deadline to pay the €100 charge but own only their own home.

A spokeswoman for the Local Government Management Agency, which issues the letters, said the data set needed to issue these letters was still being finalised.

Single-home owners were to be identified using sources such as the Revenue Commissioners, ESB Networks and the Department of Social Protection.


https://www.nppr.ie/Faq.aspx#fk41

I don't recognise the description of a tax being a debacle just because it is new. It was easy enough for people who wanted to pay to do so.

bgrizzley

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Am also still awaiting first, second, and final letter.

Something puzzles me: Why did they go after the multi dwelling owners first?

i think maybe because many of them are already registered for the NPPR so they are low hanging fruit. they also figured landlords would be passing on this "wealth" tax to their tenants, who would have no choice but to pay it or get evicted. why would a landlord not register for a tax he doesnt have to pay?

they needed as many houses as possible paid up to try and make the biggest group fold, ordinary hardpressed taxpaying homeowners (thats not working out too well for them,:D)

then again i may be giving them too much credit...

Le_Dieux

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I don't recognise the description of a tax being a debacle just because it is new. It was easy enough for people who wanted to pay to do so.

Well DX, assuming the implementation date was March 1 2012, it's now 7 months later, and ( depending on which side You believe ) around 3/4 million who haven't registered or paid - me included. For me, the publicity and implementation of the said tax/charge was a deblacle.

What would You call it?

Jellicoe

How much do we owe the bondholders, multi-millionaire gamblers and private speculators now ?

dxhound2005

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Well DX, assuming the implementation date was March 1 2012, it's now 7 months later, and ( depending on which side You believe ) around 3/4 million who haven't registered or paid - me included. For me, the publicity and implementation of the said tax/charge was a deblacle.

What would You call it?

The original target set for collection was €161 million and there has been no change to that. So far approx €103 million has been collected. I predicted way back at the start of the original thread that about 75% of the target would be collected by year end and I'm sticking to that. TV Licence evasion is something like 15% so that might be a useful comparison. The self registration element is what leaves it open to non-compliance more than a system where people would have been invoiced. But in the absence of a database how could they have been invoiced? Also the low penalty for non-compliance is another factor. I still don't recognise the description of debacle.

de·ba·cle (d-bäkl, -bkl, db-kl)
n.
1. A sudden, disastrous collapse, downfall, or defeat; a rout.
2. A total, often ludicrous failure.


http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2012091800003?opendocument

General purpose grants contribute towards meeting the reasonable cost to local authorities of providing services to their customers. Some €651 million in general purpose grants had been allocated to local authorities for 2012. It has been necessary for me to withhold general purpose grant funding to local authorities in the third quarter of this year in light of the level of compliance so far this year with the household charge.


It is estimated that there are some 1.6 million residential properties liable for the household charge. As such, if collected in full, the household charge has the potential to raise €160 million annually. As of 14 of September, some €103 million had been collected nationally. A total of €15,695,292 was withheld from the Quarter 3 general purpose grant payment. For county and city councils, this represented a reduction of between 1% and 3% of the total general purpose grant allocation for 2012.


Phil Hogan in the Dail recently.

Le_Dieux

OK DX You are entitled to Your opinion and me to mine. I respect Your reasoning, but sorry, to use the tv license as a guidance is grabbing at straws afaiac. The license inspectors have a license to knock on your door and ask for the proof of licence, what is there there for this HHC tax/charge?

FOR ME, to think a government department had to spend 7 months and heavens knows how much money in advertisement campaigns ( not to mention the scaremongering tactics - Roscommon and Sth. Tipp spring to mind ) is the sign of desperation and a shambles ( using that word instead of debacle;) ).

dvpower

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Something puzzles me: Why did they go after the multi dwelling owners first?

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Because they have the details of some people who are lanlords and/or who registered and presumably paid the NPPR.

A number of other factors come into play:
1. There is no hurdle in establishing property ownership because these people have already paid another charge in respect of property ownership.
2. There is less likelihood of the CAHWT making a martyr of a person in the property ownership business than they might for an individual home owner.

They are targetting second home owners because these are 'low hanging fruit'. They'll get a few easy convictions. These will get hugh media attention and spur even more waverers to pay their taxes when they see what the end game of evasion looks like.

The CAHWT and the Socialist Party have promised to escalate the campaign when people are taken to court.

Socialist Party wrote:

Building on the huge successes in the first half of the year, the next battle must be at an even higher level. Any decision to take even a single non-payer to court should be the spark which ignites the underlying anger and opposition to austerity and bullying.
[...]
We must prepare the ground now to organise a powerful, mass response to any court cases; a response that can shut down the courts, or at least make the court cases such a nightmare for the government that they must back down.

I can just see Joe Higgins and RBB standing shoulder to shoulder with some property speculator who bought a property portfolio in the boom and now doesn't want to pay their taxes.


That sight might just be enough to finally put the pathetic campaign out of its misery.

dvpower

The CAHWT seems to have gone into hibernation. Here's a full list of their planned events.

04/10/2012 6:30 pm - 7:30 pm : Protest at Carlow Town Council meeting
08/10/2012 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm : Protest at Carlow County Council Meeting
09/10/2012 8:00 pm - 9:15 pm : Public Meeting [Location unspecified]
01/10/2012 6:30 pm - 7:15 pm : Drogheda Borough Council Protest
04/10/2012 8:00 pm - 9:30 pm : Public Meeting [Location unspecified]
04/10/2012 8:00 pm - 10:00 pm: Lawlor's hotel, Dungarvan Waterford

Maybe they've taken the advise of many around here that the best way to defeat the tax is to ignore it.

ncdadam

dvpower wrote: »

The CAHWT seems to have gone into hibernation. Here's a full list of their planned events.




Maybe they've taken the advise of many around here that the best way to defeat the tax is to ignore it.

The majority of people who haven't/won't pay this charge that discriminates against people who are paying for their own homes have absolutely nothing to do with joe higgins/clare daly/ mick wallace or any of the arseholes who claim to be the CAWHC or whatever they call themselves.
I would have nothing to do with these people, and I reckon most on here don't either.

Le_Dieux

ncdadam wrote: »

The majority of people who haven't/won't pay this charge that discriminates against people who are paying for their own homes have absolutely nothing to do with joe higgins/clare daly/ mick wallace or any of the arseholes who claim to be the CAWHC or whatever they call themselves.
I would have nothing to do with these people, and I reckon most on here don't either.

Hear hear NC...well said, and I completely agree with what You say!

Self employed socialist? tsk:eek:

dxhound2005

Le_Dieux wrote: »

OK DX You are entitled to Your opinion and me to mine. I respect Your reasoning, but sorry, to use the tv license as a guidance is grabbing at straws afaiac. The license inspectors have a license to knock on your door and ask for the proof of licence, what is there there for this HHC tax/charge?

FOR ME, to think a government department had to spend 7 months and heavens knows how much money in advertisement campaigns ( not to mention the scaremongering tactics - Roscommon and Sth. Tipp spring to mind ) is the sign of desperation and a shambles ( using that word instead of debacle;) ).

€103 million is 64% of the target (total in 14 Sept). Since all the returns between now and Christmas will be boosted by late fees there is every possiblity that 75% will be achieved. Would you still continue to describe that as a shambles.

sham·bles (shmblz)
pl.n. (used with a sing. verb)
1.
a. A scene or condition of complete disorder or ruin: "The economy was in a shambles" (W. Bruce Lincoln).
b. Great clutter or jumble; a total mess: made dinner and left the kitchen a shambles.
2.
a. A place or scene of bloodshed or carnage.
b. A scene or condition of great devastation.

I don't recognise scaremongering as appropriate to the argument either. It is just a word that is bandied about on this thread.

ncdadam

dxhound2005 wrote: »

€103 million is 64% of the target (total in 14 Sept). Since all the returns between now and Christmas will be boosted by late fees there is every possiblity that 75% will be achieved. Would you still continue to describe that as a shambles.

sham·bles (shmblz)
pl.n. (used with a sing. verb)
1.
a. A scene or condition of complete disorder or ruin: "The economy was in a shambles" (W. Bruce Lincoln).
b. Great clutter or jumble; a total mess: made dinner and left the kitchen a shambles.
2.
a. A place or scene of bloodshed or carnage.
b. A scene or condition of great devastation.

I don't recognise scaremongering as appropriate to the argument either. It is just a word that is bandied about on this thread.

We'll see how eager the pro taxers are in a couple of years when the property tax reaches €2k- €3k, which is the aim of this clueless government.
Like refuse collection when LA's started charging for it, €1.50 when it started first where I live, now €9.50 and a yearly charge of €115 too.
They better hope the CPA is extended or they'll be fcuked altogether!

Le_Dieux

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I don't recognise scaremongering as appropriate to the argument either. It is just a word that is bandied about on this thread.

Then what word would You use to describe the shenanigans used in Clare, Cavan ( I think ) & South Tipperary ( of which the 2nd and 3rd mentioned subsequently backtracked due to adverse publicity)?

ncdadam

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Then what word would You use to describe the shenanigans used in Clare, Cavan ( I think ) & South Tipperary ( of which the 2nd and 3rd mentioned subsequently backtracked due to adverse publicity)?

Desperation?

Royal Legend

I live in a city, am a registered voter, (the council came around and checked the election register lately) I am registered with the NPPR for another property and yet, still no letter whatsover over not paying the household charge.

dxhound2005

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Then what word would You use to describe the shenanigans used in Clare, Cavan ( I think ) & South Tipperary ( of which the 2nd and 3rd mentioned subsequently backtracked due to adverse publicity)?

This is another extract from what Phil Hogan said in the Dail recently.

I am keeping the income generated from the household charge under constant review. However, it is up to individual local authorities to address any potential funding shortfalls arising from non-compliance with the legislation and to pursue those who may have a liability and initiate court proceedings where it is considered appropriate. It is a matter for the authorities to use their local knowledge to follow-up on non-compliant households in order to maximise collection of the charge. Data-sharing exercises are also underway centrally in accordance with section 14 of the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 and it is intended that data will be used from sources such as the non-principal private residence charge, NPPR, Property Registration Authority, PRA, Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, ESB networks and other Departments, namely, the Departments of Social Protection and Revenue Commissioners, to identify households that may be liable to pay the household charge.

Since Local Authorities are losing money because of non-compliance it is not surprising to me that they would explore various possiblities to rectify this.

ncdadam

dxhound2005 wrote: »

This is another extract from what Phil Hogan said in the Dail recently.

I am keeping the income generated from the household charge under constant review. However, it is up to individual local authorities to address any potential funding shortfalls arising from non-compliance with the legislation and to pursue those who may have a liability and initiate court proceedings where it is considered appropriate. It is a matter for the authorities to use their local knowledge to follow-up on non-compliant households in order to maximise collection of the charge. Data-sharing exercises are also underway centrally in accordance with section 14 of the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 and it is intended that data will be used from sources such as the non-principal private residence charge, NPPR, Property Registration Authority, PRA, Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, ESB networks and other Departments, namely, the Departments of Social Protection and Revenue Commissioners, to identify households that may be liable to pay the household charge.

Since Local Authorities are losing money because of non-compliance it is not surprising to me that they would explore various possiblities to rectify this.

Why is it up to the LA's?
I thought the revenue were collecting it now?
Can't understand why pro taxers cannot understand what's happening here, the money goes into one pot and that's the end of it.
LA funding will be cut further no matter what happens. Turkeys voting for christmas comes to mind.
The people of Irland have to make a stand at some point and say enough is enough.
Taxes and cuts are crippling our country and if you pro tax people can't see that fact, there really is no hope for you, or for the country.

Le_Dieux

dxhound2005 wrote: »

This is another extract from what Phil Hogan said in the Dail recently.

I am keeping the income generated from the household charge under constant review. However, it is up to individual local authorities to address any potential funding shortfalls arising from non-compliance with the legislation and to pursue those who may have a liability and initiate court proceedings where it is considered appropriate. It is a matter for the authorities to use their local knowledge to follow-up on non-compliant households in order to maximise collection of the charge. Data-sharing exercises are also underway centrally in accordance with section 14 of the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 and it is intended that data will be used from sources such as the non-principal private residence charge, NPPR, Property Registration Authority, PRA, Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, ESB networks and other Departments, namely, the Departments of Social Protection and Revenue Commissioners, to identify households that may be liable to pay the household charge.

Since Local Authorities are losing money because of non-compliance it is not surprising to me that they would explore various possiblities to rectify this.

Well, if this isn't shambolic scaremongering (the word desperation also springs to mind), I don't know what is.

Also still wondering what word You would use to describe the actions of Clare CC, CavanCC & Sth Tipp CC (irrespective of which CC's backtracked on their motives)?

ncdadam

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Well, if this isn't shambolic scaremongering (the word desperation also springs to mind), I don't know what is.

Also still wondering what word You would use to describe the actions of Clare CC, CavanCC & Sth Tipp CC (irrespective of which CC's backtracked on their motives)?

How about illegal Le_Dieux?
Because it would have been had they followed through with their threats.

Le_Dieux

ncdadam wrote: »

How about illegal Le_Dieux?
Because it would have been had they followed through with their threats.

Oh! Clare CC also backtracked, NC? Even more reason to recognise the desperation.

Jellicoe

Even the Irish public copped on the HHC was a scam.
The HHC has been a total failure. The income tax based one won't be.
There will be no avoiding that one.

ncdadam

Jellicoe wrote: »

Even the Irish public copped on the HHC was a scam.
The HHC has been a total failure. The income tax based one won't be.
There will be no avoiding that one.

It's still a scam.
Racketeering by a different name.
Lets take another couple of billion out of an almost completely collapsed domestic economy. It'll do it the world of good
You know, I could understand bring in a property tax once the economy recovers, as long as everyone was liable for it. To bring it in now, while we're on our knees is pure and utter madness.
But as long as we have money to pay a bloated, overpaid and underworked PS on average 50% more than what the 'real world' earns, give them €1.5 billion in allowances and pay rises on top of that, everything is fine.
In a country governed by idiots and jokers, the final joke is on us.

Jellicoe

lol@ncadam. You talk of taking money out of the economy and then suggest pay cuts for ordinary public sector workers. Half their wages go back to the government on taxes and levies, and the other half are spent on local private sector goods and services. In rural Ireland, where there is fck all work, and never will be, a very large number of households rely on at least one wage from the public sector. If you’re serious about change, rather that just the usual envy frenzy shyte, then cuts are supposed to start at the top. i.e. the top of the public and private sector.

Le_Dieux

Jellicoe wrote: »

Even the Irish public copped on the HHC was a scam.
The HHC has been a total failure. The income tax based one won't be.
There will be no avoiding that one.

Which raises yet another conundrum: Just how will Revenue distinguish between who has paid the HHC and who hasn't?

ncdadam

Jellicoe wrote: »

lol@ncadam. You talk of taking money out of the economy and then suggest pay cuts for ordinary public sector workers. Half their wages go back to the government on taxes and levies, and the other half are spent on local private sector goods and services. In rural Ireland, where there is fck all work, and never will be, a very large number of households rely on at least one wage from the public sector. If you’re serious about change, rather that just the usual envy frenzy shyte, then cuts are supposed to start at the top. i.e. the top of the public and private sector.

The PS is less than 300,000 people.
By all means, cut the top management first and hardest.
I've told you before where I stand on PS cuts and well you know it.
For some reason you can't take in what I've said and continue to have a go at me when cuts are mentioned
For the record, I think people in the PS who earn €30-€40k should be left alone, nobody, absolutely nobody in the PS should earn more than €100k.
The management sector in the PS are only there for one reason and that's because they wouldn't make it in the private sector.
Anybody with an ounce of ambition does not go into the PS, full stop.

dxhound2005

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Which raises yet another conundrum: Just how will Revenue distinguish between who has paid the HHC and who hasn't?

Data sharing and exchange?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0036/print.html

a local authority shall, at such intervals as the Revenue Commissioners may specify, provide the Revenue Commissioners with such information obtained by the local authority pursuant to this Act, including tax reference numbers, as the Revenue Commissioners may reasonably require for the purpose of enabling them to perform their functions under a specified enactment.

Le_Dieux

ncdadam wrote: »

The PS is less than 300,000 people.
By all means, cut the top management first and hardest.
I've told you before where I stand on PS cuts and well you know it.
For some reason you can't take in what I've said and continue to have a go at me when cuts are mentioned
For the record, I think people in the PS who earn €30-€40k should be left alone, nobody, absolutely nobody in the PS should earn more than €100k.
The management sector in the PS are only there for one reason and that's because they wouldn't make it in the private sector.
Anybody with an ounce of ambition does not go into the PS, full stop.

Still leaves the queries unanswered on the kwango's & the overstaffing of PS.

ncdadam

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Data sharing and exchange?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0036/print.html

a local authority shall, at such intervals as the Revenue Commissioners may specify, provide the Revenue Commissioners with such information obtained by the local authority pursuant to this Act, including tax reference numbers, as the Revenue Commissioners may reasonably require for the purpose of enabling them to perform their functions under a specified enactment.

So people who registered for the HHC will have their details handed over to the revenue.
Well done lads.:D

Le_Dieux

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Data sharing and exchange?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0036/print.html

a local authority shall, at such intervals as the Revenue Commissioners may specify, provide the Revenue Commissioners with such information obtained by the local authority pursuant to this Act, including tax reference numbers, as the Revenue Commissioners may reasonably require for the purpose of enabling them to perform their functions under a specified enactment.

I could be wrong here DX, but isn't the 100 quid a CHARGE, not a TAX?