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

dvpower

stevedublin wrote: »

Well it does in this case.

No. It doesn't.

stevedublin wrote: »

Why was "the deficit" not a major problem until now?

If you haven't even bothered to get to grips with the basics, I really think I'd be wasting both of our time.

username123

MagicSean wrote: »

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?"

Ive a friend in LA housing. She is currently earning in excess of 80k a year, her partner earns approx 45k a year. They both have substantial personal debt. They choose to stay in the LA housing because the rent is cheap (compared to private renting) so they can pay more off their debt. In effect, your taxes are helping clear their personal debt. Neither of them see anything wrong with this.

When the housing was assigned my friend was a single mother earning less than 30k a year. Circumstances have obviously changed but you dont get kicked out of the housing. The rent has been revised upwards to reflect her rising wage and her partner moving in - but its still low compared to renting privately.

MagicSean

dvpower wrote: »

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.

hondasam wrote: »

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.

Sorry i should have elaborated my position. People in local authority housing should be means tested annually and should have to pay rent dependent on their income until they move out. People in long term unemployment and in local authority housing should have reductions in other social welfare beenfits to take account of them being lazy scroungers.

lugha

Freddie59 wrote: »

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:

What??
Your reply has no bearing on the point I was making at all, which has nothing to do with whether our budget is in surplus, deficit or just balancing. It has to do with the folly of trying to insist that when there are many streams of revenue and many expenses that one income in particular is identified as the one used to pay for one particular expense.

Even when income streams are ring fenced for particular purposes this partitioning is illusionary. There may be some minor pragmatic reasons to ring fence some streams but of itself, it does not add or subtract a single euro to our total income.

Bannasidhe

MagicSean wrote: »

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?"

The fact that one may have had a low income when one was assessed for LA housing does not mean one continues to have a low income for the life of the tenancy.

Plus - LA tenancy can be inherited/transferred:

Q: What happens to the tenancy if my parents are the tenants and they die or leave?
On the death or departure of both parents, the tenancy will normally be given to a son or daughter, irrespective of the number in the family, provided that he/she has been registered as living there for at least two years immediately prior to the death or departure of the tenant. In determining succession, Cork City Council will have regard to the housing need and natural rights of surviving brothers, sisters, sons, daughters who have resided in the household for a period of two years or more. Each case will be examined on its merits.

http://www.corkcity.ie/services/housingcommunity/housingallocation/filedownload,2638,en.pdf



Low income is also not the only factor used when assessing need for LA housing - I am thinking of an NCO in the Irish army of my acquaintance who was given a 2 bed flat following the break-down of his marriage. He pays 90 euro a week rent, he rents out his 'spare' room for 60 a week so he pays a total of 30 euro a week rent out of his circa 500 a week net take home salary.

username123

MagicSean wrote: »

Sorry i should have elaborated my position. People in local authority housing should be means tested annually and should have to pay rent dependent on their income until they move out. People in long term unemployment and in local authority housing should have reductions in other social welfare beenfits to take account of them being lazy scroungers.

They are means tested annually. Many of them are not on social welfare at all. But the rent is still low compared to renting privately.

dvpower

MagicSean wrote: »

Sorry i should have elaborated my position. People in local authority housing should be means tested annually and should have to pay rent dependent on their income until they move out.

afaik, the local authorities do set the rents based on ability to pay, but I'm not sure how often they review this. Asking LA tenants to contribute a bit more towards local services does make sense.

AudreyHepburn

hondasam wrote: »

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.

Ok look I am really and truely sorry for any offense I have caused anyone here including you Hondasam or if anyone thinks I was being patronising because that genuinely was not my intention at all.

There is nothing wrong struggling and I do apologise if you feel I was implying there was.

This is way I wondered if I should bow out of the conversation.

Hijpo

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2012/04/02/government-facing-shortage-of-new-tax-ideas-to-piss-people-off-with/

stevedublin

dvpower wrote: »

If you haven't even bothered to get to grips with the basics, I really think I'd be wasting both of our time.

I have got to grips with the basics, you are just trying to muddy the waters and throw shapes to deflect from the elephant in the room.
Sorry if I can't get any more cliches in there, hehe.

Chucky the tree

stevedublin wrote: »

Well it does in this case.
Why was "the deficit" not a major problem until now?
Because there was not a whole load of govt debt (taken from banks) making it a problem.

How much has the Government spent since 2008 on the repaying the debt?

Cesium Clock

dvpower wrote: »

No. It doesn't.

If you haven't even bothered to get to grips with the basics, I really think I'd be wasting both of our time.

guaranteeing the massive debts of anglo irish and other failed banks by the last goverment have got us to the 'basic' state we are in now.

the interest payments alone will never be paid, never mind the principle.

so we have let another 2 banks the IMF and ECB, both privately owned, come to our so called aid, both banks lending us money and charging us interest.

that is why we are being taxed to the hilt.

DV none of your flim flam or evasion of facts will ever change my mind,

Hijpo

Until useless spending is stopped how do you know how much tax is genuinely needed to alleviate the problem?

unless its a case of blind taxes until the defecit is overturned?

blowtorch

Here's and interesting one. Register of Interests http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/tdssenators/registerofmembersinterests/

Now look up Phil Hogan for 2007 and 2011. In 2007 there is included that apartment in Portugal and an apartment in Haddington Square, Dublin as 'interests'. On the 2011 there isn't a mention of either. So, does he own anything now? Where does he live - in a box somewhere?

Hijpo

he must still have the one in portugal, isnt that the one he wont pay the service charges on??

blowtorch

blowtorch wrote: »

Here's and interesting one. Register of Interests http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/tdssenators/registerofmembersinterests/

Now look up Phil Hogan for 2007 and 2011. In 2007 there is included that apartment in Portugal and an apartment in Haddington Square, Dublin as 'interests'. On the 2011 there isn't a mention of either. So, does he own anything now? Where does he live - in a box somewhere?

And up to 2009 he was a shareholder in an auctioneering firm, and also a director or sorts in the same business. http://politico.ie/index2.php?option=com_politican&task=show_interest&id=79

Cesium Clock

blowtorch wrote: »

So, does he own anything now? Where does he live - in a box somewhere?

LA LA Land with the rest of em

dvpower

Cesium Clock wrote: »

DV none of your flim flam or evasion of facts will ever change my mind,

Nothing will change your mind I'm afraid. Its closed.

Cesium Clock

dvpower wrote: »

Nothing will change your mind I'm afraid. Its closed.

another informative post well thought out, how was school today ?

dvpower

blowtorch wrote: »

Here's and interesting one. Register of Interests http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/tdssenators/registerofmembersinterests/

Now look up Phil Hogan for 2007 and 2011. In 2007 there is included that apartment in Portugal and an apartment in Haddington Square, Dublin as 'interests'. On the 2011 there isn't a mention of either. So, does he own anything now? Where does he live - in a box somewhere?

Its worse than that. Of all of the Dail members on the register, only about five of them have declared an occupational income from being a TD.

Its a massive conspiracy, I tell ya - that's the only possible conclusion. :mad::rolleyes:

Frank Black

Cesium Clock wrote: »

another informative post well thought out, how was school today ?

Ironic post is very ironic.

Cesium Clock wrote: »

LA LA Land with the rest of em

gerryo777

paddy147 wrote: »

So why do FG keep on blowing tax payers money then????


The FG attitude seem to be,"ha ha,we got into goverment,so lets party".

Sounds familiar!

Bullseye1

Hijpo wrote: »

Until useless spending is stopped how do you know how much tax is genuinely needed to alleviate the problem?

This simple point evades a lot of people.

gerryo777

dvpower wrote: »

No matter what is proposed, they will pick on some aspect of it and say it is unfair. I expect the 'No to Property Tax' campaign to be led by the same people as the anti Household Charge people, but with the followers having nothing in common expect the certainty that Bono should be paying more.

Spoken like a true Fine Gaeler.

You really don't have a clue do you.
No idea what the average joe soap thinks.
Just like phil, alan, enda & co.
Maybe if you listened once in a while you might learn something new!

You and your FG buddies on here better enjoy the next 4 or so years, one would think that after the last shower and the way they were destroyed in the last election for not listening to the people, lessons would be learned.

Absolutely no difference.

Frank Black

gerryo777 wrote: »

Spoken like a true Fine Gaeler.

You really don't have a clue do you.
No idea what the average joe soap thinks.
Just like phil, alan, enda & co.
Maybe if you listened once in a while you might learn something new!

You and your FG buddies on here better enjoy the next 4 or so years, one would think that after the last shower and the way they were destroyed in the last election for not listening to the people, lessons would be learned.

Absolutely no difference.

It wasn't 'not listening to people' which destroyed the economy, probably the opposite.
I'm hopefully (but not optimistic) that this Goverenment will show a bit more backbone, and a bit less pandering to vocal minorities - which is what the anti-household charge protestors are fast becoming.

Bullseye1

black francis wrote: »

It wasn't 'not listening to people' which destroyed the economy, probably the opposite.
I'm hopefully (but not optimistic) that this Goverenment will show a bit more backbone, and a bit less pandering to vocal minorities - which is what the anti-household charge protestors are fast becoming.

Are you serious. 1.8 millon properties. 800,000 registered many exempt and the others a minority? This is wrong. Fact.

Now that may change by the end of the year but as it stands the people who paid are in the minority. Fact.

lugha

gerryo777 wrote: »

You and your FG buddies on here better enjoy the next 4 or so years, one would think that after the last shower and the way they were destroyed in the last election for not listening to the people, lessons would be learned.

FF were destroyed because the economy tanked, it had nothing to so with not listening to the people.

It is possible that the house hold charge will prove to be a seminal moment in the lifetime of this government but at this stage, I would have to say I doubt it.

My guess is that it may well turn out to be an issue like the NCT, or the smoking ban or the crackdown on drink driving, all issues that provoked a lot of anger at the time but were eventually widely accepted. None of those issues mattered at election time, despite the dark mutterings (similar to yours) that the people would bide their time and give FF a kicking in the election.

Unless FG go mad and reconvene the heavy gang or something to enforce this measure I think there will be very few for whom this will be an issue at the next election. (In part of course because there will be many, many more unpalatable things that we will have to endure that will upset us more )

Hijpo

the only reason FF got in so many times is because people didnt really care about politics in this country. Boom time was here, people made there money and were living it up, you could have put a rose bush in the taoiseach chair and people wouldnt have looked twice. But this is after attracting alot of attention and bad publicity and whats starting to come out on the back of all this all the reckless spending and hypocrisy stories making the people even angrier.

gerryo777

black francis wrote: »

It wasn't 'not listening to people' which destroyed the economy, probably the opposite.
I'm hopefully (but not optimistic) that this Goverenment will show a bit more backbone, and a bit less pandering to vocal minorities - which is what the anti-household charge protestors are fast becoming.

Would you call the auctioneering profession a vocal minority?

You know, phil's job on the side!

I'd say he made a few quid out of the 'boom', enough to buy a penthouse in Portugal perhaps?

Dartz

My parents intended to pay.


But for some mysterious reason householdcharge.ie is still failing to load. And being the only tech-person in the house, I'm the one they call on to fix it. It's not our problem.... probably a million people trying to get onto that site, no wonder it's going down. :rolleyes:


I suppose it is a mite hypocritical.