Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] *Poll Reset*
Options
Comments
-
Chucky the tree wrote: »Which top earners would these be? AFAIK nearly every one has had their wages cut under the current Government.
Yeah,everyone except Mr Hogan who cant afford to take a paycut.
Oh and Enda's new advisor who actually got an increase.0 -
The bank debt is only a small part of the deficit.
But why does this nonsense persist where attempts are made to link particular monies raised with how it is spent? The government have led the way on this and almost everyone has followed.
There is a total amount of revenue that needs to be raised for all expenses, including bank debts. So some argue that the €170 M taken from local service expenditure is being used to pay off bank debts. Others insist that these payments are being made by other monies raised. What material difference does it make?
It would be like a household where spouses pool their income and then have tedious debates on whose money was being used to pay what bills! Daft!
Not quite the same thing though, is it? For example, does one spouse go off and bail out their cousin, who has loaned several times that household income, while borrowing, say, €18k a year even though the couple have a combined income of only €32k a year.
While the cousin continues to employ people and pay for their gym/golfclub membership, and also continues to pay for the cousin's employee's "entitlements" into the bargain - even though the cousin's total outgoings could amount to €200k per year?
Yeah I can see that working alright.......:rolleyes:0 -
I've said that the banking debt contributes ti the deficit. By a very small amount. Have a look at the 2012 estimates to see how much of the deficit is taken up by total debt repayments.
The banking debt is way more than the deficit - which in itself is huge.The deficit is the main issue.
At last! You've woken up! Caused by.......come on now.......you can say it............PS/CS wages/"entitlements" and an overly-generous SW system.You must be living under a rock.
Coming from someone who has consistently defended this "Government" and Phil Hogan's non=payment of legally-due charges?
Yeah. Right.0 -
Interesting that both of you should subsequently thank a post that refuted mine (well, it didn't actually), if you didn’t understand the point I was making? :P
The allegation against a poster was that he was a hypocrite because he refused on principle to pay the poll tax in Britain but did not respect Irish people’s right to do the same. That would be all fine and dandy if those making the allegation respected his principled stance. But I don’t think Paddy does respect his stance given that he has expressed the view
That poster refused on principle to pay the poll tax in the UK but could not understand why we were refusing on the same principle to pay the household charge here.
He was telling us do the very thing he refused to do in the UK. Yes he was paying the household charge here but that does not excuse the fact he was being a hypocrite telling us to ''pay our damn tax'' when he refused to pay his own.0 -
yeh, up to €30 in a year's time. Scary!! That's a price I am prepared to pay to drag this thing out for as long as possible.
Thats 8 cents a day - I lose more than that down the back of the sofa.
You do know we are on the same side, I have not paid either and have no intentions of paying.
My point was that it's €100 this year but how much will we be asked to pay next year.0 -
Advertisement
-
The debt burden imposed on us by borrowing for bank bailouts in indeed massive. But it is, by and large, not immediate. It is to be paid off over a protracted period.Cesium Clock wrote: »from http://www.notourdebt.ie/faq
The Irish Government is scheduled to make €47.9 billion of promissory note related payments between March 2011 and March 2031 – this is composed of €30.6 billion capital reduction – the €30.6 billion owed – and €16.8 billion in interest repayments.
Much of this €47.9 billion of repayments will need to be borrowed unless the State is running substantial fiscal surpluses – very unlikely in the medium-term.
To put these repayments in context, €30.6 billion is equivalent to just under 20% of Ireland’s current GDP or €17,000 for each working person working for pay or profit in the State. €47.9 billion is 30% of Ireland’s current GDP.
It is estimated that the total cost to the State could reach €85 billion by 2031 (assuming a 4.7% interest rate on borrowings). Over 2% of GDP will be drained out of the State each year up to 2023 to make the promissory note repayments – this will be through an additional €3 billion to €4 billion of fiscal tightening (tax increases/spending cuts).
The deficit is the reason that we are having to cut services and raise taxes - interest payments on debt we are using to bail out the banks is only a very small element if the deficit.0 -
What, precisely, is 'not clear'? That we have a Government which continues to borrow €400m a week in order to:
* Keep PS/CS pay at unsustainable levels?
* Keep "entitlements" for same CS/PS at equally ridiculous levels?
* Keep paying ludicrously high SW levels and "benefits"?
Then expects hard=pressed working people - already taxed to the hilt - to keep all of this mob in the style to which they THINK they're entitled to?
Seems very clear to me.
i work for the public sector. I work very hard and earn every cent i am paid. Yet still I am in financial difficulty because i am taxed to the hilt, taxed more than a private sector employee. i don't expect anything from you but I'll bet you'd expect the world from me if you ever had to call on my services. i think most people in the emergency services would be in the same boat as i am.0 -
Who could possibly be happy with this and why is there some assumption that people who support the household charge are in favour of waste?there is also a ridiculous amount of needless spends that can be stopped before you can expect people to be happy with being taxed more, lets be honest.
Surely you cant be happy with them spending millions on voting machines, thousands on wine, further thousands on lunches, phone bills, ministerial cars, massive pensions when they retire at 55, to name but a few.
Do people understand that this waste of money will never be curtailed while tax payers continue to hand over money without question.0 -
Two interesting things to come out of Newstalk interviews this lunchtime:
Institute of regional and spatial analysis: Concluded after detailed analysis that there are 1.72m eligible households, meaning uptake is < 50%
One analysis:The percentage of those paid, based on those figures = 45.16% (54.84% left to pay)
Source: http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/household-charge-numbers/
Long version:There’s been a fair bit of commentary on twitter re. the household charge numbers and speculating in the media. Having just watched RTE1 News at 6pm it seems incredible to me that the Local Government Management Agency seems to have little idea as to how many housing units are liable for the household charge. It seems even more odd that number seems to be floating between 1.6m and 1.8m. There seems to be a conflation between households (1.654m according to Census 2011) and housing stock minus exemptions/waivers (1.755m based on calculation below, probably 1.72m +/- 20k with the other minor exemptions taken out). It is housing stock that is the base for the household charge (a vacant house is just as liable as an occupied house – this is a tax on property not occupancy). Namawinelake has a post up about who is and isn’t eligible. Working off the data contained in his post (I’ve updated a couple of his figures to Census 2011 data and added a couple, but otherwise I’m quoting his figures and sources) we come up with the following. [On request, I have updated this post to match the data to the exemptions and waivers exactly as set out on the householdcharge.ie website - 21.15pm, Apr 1st]
What is eligible:
All housing units in the state, with seven exemptions and two waivers
Housing units in the state according to Census 2011: 1,994,845
What is exempt:
(1) Residential properties that are part of the trading stock of a business and have not been sold or been the source of any income since construction
18,638 unoccupied vacant housing units in unfinished estates the vast majority of which are unsold (under-construction were not counted in Census), plus small amount of unsold one-offs
(2) Residential property vested in a Minister of the Government or the Health Service Executive
Not known but small, ask govt depts and HSE
(3) Residential property vested in a housing authority, including property where households are purchasing their homes under the Shared Ownership Scheme and where the local authority still retains an ownership stake,
129,033 (renting social housing, Census 2011, Table 39), DECLG should have exact figure
23,547 (being bought from LAs, Census 2006 – I can’t find in Census 2011), DECLG should have exact figure
(4) Voluntary and co-operative housing,
14,942 (renting voluntary housing, Census 2011, Table 39)
(5) Residential property subject to commercial rates and wholly used as a dwelling,
Not known but small, ask local authorities (there was a question on the Census, Table 38, but the class also includes apts in converted houses – total was 27,666 so know it was less than that – could ask CSO if it could disaggregate; )
(6) Residential property owned by certain charities or comprised in a discretionary trust, and
Not known but small
(7) Residential property where a person has to leave their house due to long-term mental or physical infirmity (e.g. a person that has moved into a nursing home).
Not known but small, possibly ask HSE. There was a question on the Census. Table 11 shows 28,395 people live in nursing and children’s homes, not all in nursing home will own property, so know less than that; could see if CSO can disaggregate.
What is waivered:
(1) Owners of residential property entitled to mortgage interest supplement
19,000 (mortgage interest relief, Keane Report), Dept Soc Protection should have exact figure
(2) Owners of residential property located in certain prescribed unfinished housing estates
34,000 (category 3/4 unfinished estates, Money Guide Ireland, exact figure can be obtained from the Housing Development Survey undertaken by DECLG)
Houses eligible – a calculation based on above:
1,994,845 (housing units, Census 2011)
-18,638 (unoccupied vacant housing units unsold, Housing Development Survey, DECLG, 2011)
-129,033 (renting social housing, Census 2011, Table 39)
-14,942 (renting voluntary housing, Census 2011, Table 39)
-23,547 (being bought from LAs, Census 2006 – I can’t find in Census 2011)
-19,000 (mortgage interest relief, Keane Report)
-34,000 (category 3/4 unfinished estates, Money Guide Ireland)
= 1,755,685 (this still needs other small amounts of property taken-off namely exemptions 2, 5, 6, 7 – all of these will be very low in number and should not substantially alter this figure, probably 1.72m +/- 20k based on data above)
Households paid, minus the 12,500 who have registered but qualify for the waiver
621,717 (already processed)
+89,000 (by post awaiting processing)
+ 82,175 (registered in local authority offices yesterday)
= 792,892
The percentage of those paid, based on those figures = 45.16% (54.84% left to pay)
Now if we outside the system can get that far, one would think that LGMA could get an even more precise figure by talking to the people who hold the relevant data (basically CSO, DECLG, Dept Social Protection, HSE). I appreciate it is difficult to get an exact number because it’ll be difficult to know how many are exempt for reasons 2, 5, 6, 7 as set out above, but we can certainly make a reasonable estimate within a few thousand based on known data (rather than somewhere between 1.6-1.8m!) This is not rocket science.0 -
You're exactly right Freddie - we are borrowing €400m a week or whatever to fund public spending. And also some debt repayments, but mostly public spending.What, precisely, is 'not clear'? That we have a Government which continues to borrow €400m a week in order to:
* Keep PS/CS pay at unsustainable levels?
* Keep "entitlements" for same CS/PS at equally ridiculous levels?
* Keep paying ludicrously high SW levels and "benefits"?
Then expects hard=pressed working people - already taxed to the hilt - to keep all of this mob in the style to which they THINK they're entitled to?
Seems very clear to me.
We need to narrow the gap between income and expenditure. You seem to want to do it by spending cuts alone and very quickly. I differ in that I'd like to see it bridged by a mix of spending cuts and tax increases and over a longer period.
So we agree on the nature of the problem, but differ on the nature of the solution.0 -
Advertisement
-
interest payments on debt we are using to bail out the banks is only a very small element if the deficit.
Interest payments are only one part of the debt used to bail out the banks. Capital repayments are greater again.
Timeline:
1. No household charge, local authorities received central goverment funding.
2. Govt takes on enormous bank debt.
3. We suddenly need a household charge, otherwise where does the money come from to pay for local services.0 -
I really don't understand the problem with expecting people to pay for their services???
It's not as if this tax is on a service that no-one needs or needs. You want a home, you have pay for it. I don't understand the outrage tbh.
I know that there are those genuinely struggling but surely we can't expect to get everything handed to us on a silver platter.0 -
Who could possibly be happy with this and why is there some assumption that people who support the household charge are in favour of waste?
but if your not in favour of the waste why are you giving more money to waste? If you were giving your child a fiver pocket money a week and you saw him buying fags or tearing it up would you give him a tenner next week?
Can anyone tell me why these guys need over 150k in salary when all the services they avail of are either put down as expenses or its subsidised. If it costs them little to live why do they need the big salary and pension?
Even there laundry is subsidised for christ sake.AudreyHepburn wrote: »I really don't understand the problem with expecting people to pay for their services???
It's not as if this tax is on a service that no-one needs or needs. You want a home, you have pay for it. I don't understand the outrage tbh.
I know that there are those genuinely struggling but surely we can't expect to get everything handed to us on a silver platter.
but they are piss poor services, water quality is terrible, awful roads are patched together. Phil Hogan himself said you cant be expected to pay for services your not happy with. The town i live in had to hold raffles and fund raisers to get the money to build a play park and a skate park for the kids. Im already paying the bank (who gave me the money, not the government) for my home, way more than its worth in everyones case.0 -
The deficit is every single year - until we cut it.The banking debt is way more than the deficit - which in itself is huge.
The annual cost of the banking debt repayments is a very small part of the deficit
Its you that is just waking up. I've been banging on about the deficit being the main problem for ages.At last! You've woken up! Caused by.......come on now.......you can say it............PS/CS wages/"entitlements" and an overly-generous SW system.
And I can say it -we need to get rid of the CPA and deal with public sector workers just like any others. Social welfare payments also need to be cut.
You have been struggling under the illusion that just because someone supports one element if government policy, they must support all others.0 -
AudreyHepburn wrote: »You want a home, you have pay for it. I don't understand the outrage tbh.
we can't expect to get everything handed to us on a silver platter
Jesus christ........... I don't think there is enough irony in the world to cope with that post.0 -
Capital repayments aren't been made right now. States very rarely pay down the the actual debt - they usually wait for inflation to take care of that.stevedublin wrote: »Interest payments are only one part of the debt used to bail out the banks. Capital repayments are greater again.
Correlation does not equal causation.stevedublin wrote: »Timeline:
1. No household charge, local authorities received central goverment funding.
2. Govt takes on enormous bank debt.
3. We suddenly need a household charge, otherwise where does the money come from to pay for local services.0 -
What, precisely, is 'not clear'? That we have a Government which continues to borrow €400m a week in order to:
* Keep PS/CS pay at unsustainable levels?
* Keep "entitlements" for same CS/PS at equally ridiculous levels?
* Keep paying ludicrously high SW levels and "benefits"?
Then expects hard=pressed working people - already taxed to the hilt - to keep all of this mob in the style to which they THINK they're entitled to?
Seems very clear to me.
You think PS workers do not work hard? we all agree those in the middle and at the top are over paid but the ones at the bottom who actually do work are the ones suffering the most.
PS workers at the bottom cannot afford to take any more cuts in wages or allowances.0 -
Since you bring up the poster who appears to have been banned for being spammed he did actually respond to that particular question in the first thread in the middle somewhere. He didn't explain himself very well though. The difference between the poll tax and this tax seems quite obvious. The poll tax required you only to exist. This tax requires you to have purchased a major asset.
This will be my last post about the banned individual. No one in here argued that the poll tax was not an unfair tax. Plenty argued that the household charge was an unfair tax and gave reasons why (flat rate tax, didn't take ability to pay in to consideration, didn't take value/square footage in to consideration, reason for the tax was cited as LA services which led to other questions etc). Yet despite all these questions/reasons the poster in question continued with his repeated line that the HHC was a fair tax usually followed by some snide remark or other (I think I was called stupid in one of my first back and forths with the guy).
Then he let it slip that he refused to pay the poll tax because it was unfair. He then followed this gem with a call to arms for all of us to pay our damn taxes. Try as you might, he tripped himself up and has done himself no favours on here. When the hypocrisy thing was put to him, him started going on about context (a touch of the Patrick Vieras about that) and still continued with his carry on. He just didn't see the No sides reason for this charge being unfair to the point that all could do was ridicule instead of discuss. Anyway that's my 2 cents.0 -
Jesus christ........... I don't think there is enough irony in the world to cope with that post.
I don't honestly want to devote too much or energy to dealing with your snideness so I'll just say this;
I pay my way at home, I don't expect or want my parents to hand me everything for free and they don't.
Do me and yourself a favour and drop the attitude. It doesn't help anyone.0 -
AudreyHepburn wrote: »I really don't understand the problem with expecting people to pay for their services???
It's not as if this tax is on a service that no-one needs or needs. You want a home, you have pay for it. I don't understand the outrage tbh.
I know that there are those genuinely struggling but surely we can't expect to get everything handed to us on a silver platter.
Audrey, do you not think workers pay enough all ready? why is it ok for some people to be exempt if they use the same services?
I did pay for my home and what's more I'm still paying for it. I have never got anything handed to me on a silver plate, I can guarantee you I and everyone else here have worked hard for what we have.
I'm really not sure you thought that post through before posting it. Sorry.0 -
Advertisement
-
AudreyHepburn wrote: »I really don't understand the problem with expecting people to pay for their services???
It's not as if this tax is on a service that no-one needs or needs. You want a home, you have pay for it. I don't understand the outrage tbh.
I know that there are those genuinely struggling but surely we can't expect to get everything handed to us on a silver platter.
Yes, everyone needs those services, the problem is not everyone pays for these services. Tenants are exempt, now in the case of private tenants their landlord is liable -so someone is paying. But who pays for LA tenants who, it could be argued, benefit more then anyone from local services?
There seems to be this belief that all LA tenants are unemployed - a belief that is far from correct.
LA tenants live in housing paid for by the taxpayer. They are not liable for maintenance costs etc, their rent is subsidised. It certainly could be argued that LA tenants are, proportionally, in receipt of more LA services then non-LA tenants yet are not required to make any contribution towards meeting the cost of local services.
So this begs the question- are local authorities required to pay a 100 euro household charge per residential unit they own to fund local services?
If yes - where does this money come from?
If no - doesn't this mean that LA tenants are essentially getting a free ride when it comes to local services?0 -
Audrey, do you not think workers pay enough all ready? why is it ok for some people to be exempt if they use the same services?
I did pay for my home and what's more I'm still paying for it. I have never got anything handed to me on a silver plate, I can guarantee you I and everyone else here have worked hard for what we have.
I'm really not sure you thought that post through before posting it. Sorry.
Ah now, when did I ever say it was ok to have different rules for everyone? Of course we should all pay the same. I never said otherwise. Stop reading things into my posts that aren't there.
Sorry if I've offended you or anyone else btw. Perhaps I'm better off keeping my mouth shut about these topics?0 -
AudreyHepburn wrote: »Ah now, when did I ever say it was ok to have different rules for everyone? Of course we should all pay the same. I never said otherwise. Stop reading things into my posts that aren't there.
Sorry if I've offended you or anyone else btw. Perhaps I'm better off keeping my mouth shut about these topics?
You need to put more thought into your posts before posting something that comes across as patronising as that last one.
I would have no problem paying if we all paid the same and the guaranteed us it would be left at €100 for a few years.
You have not offended me really and don't start with the '' I should not have an opinion'' you are as much entitled to have your say same as us all.0 -
You need to put more thought into your posts before posting something that comes across as patronising as that last one.
That wasn't meant to be patronising at all, sorry. I just asked that you don't put words in my mouth.I would have no problem paying if we all paid the same and the guaranteed us it would be left at €100 for a few years.
I agree with this 100%You have not offended me really and don't start with the '' I should not have an opinion'' you are as much entitled to have your say same as us all.
It's not that I don't have an opinion. I do and I will hold to it. I just meant it might be better if I didn't push on those here who seem to be really struggling.
I just don't want to offend anyone is all.0 -
AudreyHepburn wrote: »I don't honestly want to devote too much or energy to dealing with your snideness so I'll just say this;
I pay my way at home, I don't expect or want my parents to hand me everything for free and they don't.
Do me and yourself a favour and drop the attitude. It doesn't help anyone.
*posted from the nest*0 -
AudreyHepburn wrote: »That wasn't meant to be patronising at all, sorry. I just asked that you don't put words in my mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by AudreyHepburn
I really don't understand the problem with expecting people to pay for their services???
It's not as if this tax is on a service that no-one needs or needs. You want a home, you have pay for it. I don't understand the outrage tbh.
I know that there are those genuinely struggling but surely we can't expect to get everything handed to us on a silver platter.
This is the patronising post. read it again and you will see it is going to annoy lots of people.
That line in itself is patronising and offensive, you cannot assume just because we refuse to pay an unfair charge we are struggling.It's not that I don't have an opinion. I do and I will hold to it. I just meant it might be better if I didn't push on those here who seem to be really struggling.
I just don't want to offend anyone is all.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Yes, everyone needs those services, the problem is not everyone pays for these services. Tenants are exempt, now in the case of private tenants their landlord is liable -so someone is paying. But who pays for LA tenants who, it could be argued, benefit more then anyone from local services?
There seems to be this belief that all LA tenants are unemployed - a belief that is far from correct.
LA tenants live in housing paid for by the taxpayer. They are not liable for maintenance costs etc, their rent is subsidised. It certainly could be argued that LA tenants are, proportionally, in receipt of more LA services then non-LA tenants yet are not required to make any contribution towards meeting the cost of local services.
So this begs the question- are local authorities required to pay a 100 euro household charge per residential unit they own to fund local services?
If yes - where does this money come from?
If no - doesn't this mean that LA tenants are essentially getting a free ride when it comes to local services?
Why would a tenant pay an annual charge when they might only be in a house for a month or two. That seems extremely unfair. It's more appropriate to charge the landlord and let him pass the charge on through rent fees.
As for local authority housing, the point of it is to help people who can't afford a home so it makes sense they wouldn't pay it. What you should be asking is "How are people with such large incomes able to get local authority housing?"0 -
Local Authority housing is usually long term accomodation and can be generational. Someone who needed local authority housing thirty years ago might have completely different circumstances now.As for local authority housing, the point of it is to help people who can't afford a home so it makes sense they wouldn't pay it. What you should be asking is "How are people with such large incomes able to get local authority housing?"0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Why would a tenant pay an annual charge when they might only be in a house for a month or two. That seems extremely unfair. It's more appropriate to charge the landlord and let him pass the charge on through rent fees.
As for local authority housing, the point of it is to help people who can't afford a home so it makes sense they wouldn't pay it. What you should be asking is "How are people with such large incomes able to get local authority housing?"
I assume they got the houses when they were not working and held on to them. I would say there is a lot of people living in Local authority houses who can well afford to buy their own homes.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement