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

lugha

miftha wrote: »

And as far as the argument that other countries have this, so should we.

That is not the argument. Of course we should not simply ape what other countries do, no matter how many of them there are.

The reference to what other countries do is to rebut the claim that there is something fundamentally wrong with a charge of this type. It is hard to stand over such a claim unless you can come up with a plausible explanation as to why so many countries would get this fundamental so wrong.

The answer of course is that there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with it! We are just not used to such an idea. Also, we have a famine-inspired, Bull McCabe type "the land, the land" thing messing with our heads. :P

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

That is not the argument. Of course we should not simply ape what other countries do, no matter how many of them there are.

The reference to what other countries do is to rebut the claim that there is something fundamentally wrong with a charge of this type. It is hard to stand over such a claim unless you can come up with a plausible explanation as to why so many countries would get this fundamental so wrong.

The answer of course is that there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with it! We are just not used to such an idea. Also, we have a famine-inspired, Bull McCabe type "the land, the land" thing messing with our heads. :P

Well as many have already said the reason our Govt does not do the same as other countries and supply the services for the charge is because they have no intention of maintaining the services at all. They should have charges everyone 7/8 hundred euro per year and supply the bin collection, lighting, water etc.
But would they do that ? Not on your life as this money is wanted to pay bondholders and nothing else.
The people have seen through them and know exactly what's going on. They are not fools.
It should have been called a "Service Charge" with the services provided.

miftha

lugha wrote: »

That is not the argument. Of course we should not simply ape what other countries do, no matter how many of them there are.

The reference to what other countries do is to rebut the claim that there is something fundamentally wrong with a charge of this type. It is hard to stand over such a claim unless you can come up with a plausible explanation as to why so many countries would get this fundamental so wrong.

The answer of course is that there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with it! We are just not used to such an idea. Also, we have a famine-inspired, Bull McCabe type "the land, the land" thing messing with our heads. :P

It is a perfectly acceptable argument, why does your opinion count more that mine. It does not, we are both entitled to our opinion. You explain why it is plausible so?

So as we have VRT, card tax (and how many more indirect taxes) we should also accept that the rest of world should enforce the same? There is nothing fundamentally wrong with these?

I paid for my land, it is mine (down to whatever level the government allow bar finds of gold, etc). I am not prepared to rent my land now!

mikom

Christ, I nearly fell off my chair.
Herself came back after visiting her ould pair in the city (both in 70's) and said that they did not pay the household charge.
I couldn't believe it as these two do everything by the book and wouldn't even be caught jaywalking.

There's hope for this country yet.

tayto lover

From another thread.

Earlier today, we remarked on the story of a 77-year old Greek, now identified as Dimitris Christoulas, who at around 9 am took his life in the middle of Athens' central Syntagma Square with a bullet to his head. His full suicide note has been released. The note, presented below, ends in a solemn call to arms to "hang the traitors of this country."


Quote:
"The Tsolakoglou government has annihilated all traces for my survival, which was based on a very dignified pension that I alone paid for 35 years with no help from the state. And since my advanced age does not allow me a way of dynamically reacting (although if a fellow Greek were to grab a Kalashnikov, I would be right behind him), I see no other solution than this dignified end to my life, so I don’t find myself fishing through garbage cans for my sustenance. I believe that young people with no future, will one day take up arms and hang the traitors of this country at Syntagma square, just like the Italians did to Mussolini in 1945"

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120404-711634.html

As the Greeks previously said while protesting on the streets "we are not the Irish" but there are many who predict that in time the Irish will protest in earnest especially if the Govt continue to treat the people the people with the arrogance they have shown in the last few months.

Frank Black

miftha wrote: »

I paid for my land, it is mine. I am not prepared to rent my land now!

Excellent Bull McCabe impression.

miftha

black francis wrote: »

Excellent Bull McCabe impression.

Yawn!

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

Well as many have already said the reason our Govt does not do the same as other countries and supply the services for the charge is because they have no intention of maintaining the services at all. They should have charges everyone 7/8 hundred euro per year and supply the bin collection, lighting, water etc.
But would they do that ? Not on your life as this money is wanted to pay bondholders and nothing else.
The people have seen through them and know exactly what's going on. They are not fools.
It should have been called a "Service Charge" with the services provided.

Well this is a different point to the one I was addressing and has to do with how the money collected will be spent. The yes side insist it will, as the act says, be spent on local services, the no side that it will be used to pay our debts. Personally I think this is largely irrelevant.

If the government do pilfer the HHC for other purposes such as to pay debts or any other expenditure then they will fund local services from general taxation as before. If they do ring fence the money for local services then they will use the money they collect from general taxation to “pay the bankers”.

This fixation (on both sides) with trying to link particular monies collected with particular expenditures baffles me. Surely you can see that in terms of the hit on the taxpayer there is no difference?

If the electorate really wanted to take a substantially different approach to the crisis than that taken by FG + Lab or FF before them, they should have voted for SF + ULA. There was no ambiguity at all in what those latter parties were promising to do.

lugha

miftha wrote: »

It is a perfectly acceptable argument, why does your opinion count more that mine. It does not, we are both entitled to our opinion. You explain why it is plausible so?

So as we have VRT, card tax (and how many more indirect taxes) we should also accept that the rest of world should enforce the same? There is nothing fundamentally wrong with these?

I paid for my land, it is mine (down to whatever level the government allow bar finds of gold, etc). I am not prepared to rent my land now!

I don't think you understood my post. Perhaps you might like to read it again?

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Well this is a different point to the one I was addressing and has to do with how the money collected will be spent. The yes side insist it will, as the act says, be spent on local services, the no side that it will be used to pay our debts. Personally I think this is largely irrelevant.

If the government do pilfer the HHC for other purposes such as to pay debts or any other expenditure then they will fund local services from general taxation as before. If they do ring fence the money for local services then they will use the money they collect from general taxation to “pay the bankers”.

This fixation (on both sides) with trying to link particular monies collected with particular expenditures baffles me. Surely you can see that in terms of the hit on the taxpayer there is no difference?

If the electorate really wanted to take a substantially different approach to the crisis than that taken by FG + Lab or FF before them, they should have voted for SF + ULA. There was no ambiguity at all in what those latter parties were promising to do.

There were many ambiguities as you well know. Many many lies were told about not closing hospitals, re-negotiating debt, not a cent more to the banks, referendum on closing the Seanad within 100 days, no cronyism, no wage hikes for advisers etc etc. People believed F.G. to their downfall. They were elected on lies and false promises. Ambiguities galore.
Can you not see how they were elected or do you think it's o.k. to LIE through your teeth?

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

There were many ambiguities as you well know. Many many lies were told about not closing hospitals, re-negotiating debt, not a cent more to the banks, referendum on closing the Seanad within 100 days, no cronyism, no wage hikes for advisers etc etc. People believed F.G. to their downfall. They were elected on lies and false promises. Ambiguities galore.
Can you not see how they were elected or do you think it's o.k. to LIE through your teeth?

You're as slippery as an eel! Maybe you should be a politician? :pac:
You first replied to my post about what other countries do with an irrelevant (to that post) point about how the money would be spent.

So I respond with a view on how the money might be spent and you change the subject again to the matter of broken election promises!

No doubt if I replied to that you would come back with something about threats and scaremongering!

Can you not focus on one aspect of this charge at a time, without scuttling all over the place?

miftha

lugha wrote: »

I don't think you understood my post. Perhaps you might like to read it again?

There is something fundamentally wrong with it. You post appears to swing both ways, maybe I have it wrong, apologies if I do.

lugha

miftha wrote: »

There is something fundamentally wrong with it. You post appears to swing both ways, maybe I have it wrong, apologies if I do.

I suppose it swings both ways in that I do agree with you that we should not do something simply because other countries do it. But I also say that the fact that many others do it, undermines the argument from the no side that there is something fundamentally wrong with it.

For example, I don't believe non-residents should be allowed to vote in Irish elections. But I cannot credibly claim that there is something fundamentally wrong with affording such a right because a substantial number of countries DO allow ex-pats to vote. I would have to come up with an explanation as to why so many countries are getting it wrong, which I cannot do.

I can make an argument against voting rights for ex-pats. But the argument is not that there is something fundamentally wrong with it.

Ditto, IMO, with the house hold charge. To reply by saying "we shouldn't just copy what others do" (which we shouldn't) misses the point.

miftha

lugha wrote: »

I suppose it swings both ways in that I do agree with you that we should not do something simply because other countries do it. But I also say that the fact that many others do it, undermines the argument from the no side that there is something fundamentally wrong with it.

For example, I don't believe non-residents should be allowed to vote in Irish elections. But I cannot credibly claim that there is something fundamentally wrong with affording such a right because a substantial number of countries DO allow ex-pats to vote. I would have to come up with an explanation as to why so many countries are getting it wrong, which I cannot do.

I can make an argument against voting rights for ex-pats. But the argument is not that there is something fundamentally wrong with it.

Ditto, IMO, with the house hold charge. To reply by saying "we shouldn't just copy what others do" (which we shouldn't) misses the point.

Agreed in the main. What irks me is the argument that everyone else is doing it, so we should also. This is cherry picking one item to suit a cause. We are either all the same or not. We cannot pick one specific item to suit one justification and ignore all others, just to get one way over the other :eek:

We are clearly not the same as other countries when it comes to taxation and even more strikingly spending!

Phill Ewinn

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I haven't read all today's posts so maybe this has been mentioned before.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0403/1224314298666.html

One senior source said many Ministers were coming to the view that the full property tax should become the responsibility of Revenue, with the charge for the property being deducted from income.

Had to laugh at this. Love the idea being put forward here.

Revenue are the only reasonably functional department, therefore we should make them do the work of the poxy local authorities.

Accountability from local authorities and gurantees of efficiencies before I hand over cash.

Bruthal

mikom wrote: »

Christ, I nearly fell off my chair.
Herself came back after visiting her ould pair in the city (both in 70's) and said that they did not pay the household charge.
I couldn't believe it as these two do everything by the book and wouldn't even be caught jaywalking.

There's hope for this country yet.

Criminals the pair of them.

mikom

Ahh, the bould Phil Hogan.
this is the fella telling the young and old of the country to cough up 100 Euro and do their patriotic duty.

Unwilling to share the pain and take a pay cut as his "circumstances would not allow it".
Presides over shambles of a household charge system.
Unpaid service charges on a holiday home in Portugal.

And now.....

Hogan-Lowry meeting - Questions raised

Thursday, April 05, 2012


The controversy surrounding Fine Gael following Taoiseach Enda Kenny’s visible proximity to businessman Denis O’Brien at the embarrassing bell ringing event in Wall St is further deepened by today’s front page report of a meeting between Environment Minister Phil Hogan and disgraced former FG minister Michael Lowry.


Both Mr O’Brien and Mr Lowry were implicated in the Moriarty Report into payments to politicians and related matters. Arguably, the businessman’s presence in a group picture with the Taoiseach could be coincidental. But it was politically inept, unacceptable, should have been avoided, and will continue to dog Mr Kenny.

That Mr Lowry and Mr Hogan were friends is well known. However, the timing and duration of their meeting presents the party with an equally embarrassing problem. As today’s exclusive revelation of Mr Hogan’s diary shows, the scheduled meeting was longer than any afforded to any other TD or senator from any other party during his first year in office.

With the ink barely dry on the Moriarty document, their hour-long session behind closed doors was totally inappropriate. Perception is everything in politics and this matter raises further questions about Mr Hogan’s judgment and Fine Gael’s relationship with those implicated by Judge Moriarty’s damning report.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/editorial/hogan-lowry-meeting--questions-raised-189457.html#ixzz1r7uPyOnj

Hijpo

mikom wrote: »

Unwilling to share the pain and take a pay cut as his "circumstances would not allow it".

He probably has sky tv, broadband, enjoys a few drinks, all the things that the pro tax side are expecting the us to give up to pay the tax.

bgrizzley

Hijpo wrote: »

He probably has sky tv, broadband, enjoys a few drinks, all the things that the pro tax side are expecting the us to give up to pay the tax.

you forgot that old gem, "sell your house if you cant pay it"...

Phill Ewinn

mikom wrote: »

Ahh, the bould Phil Hogan.
this is the fella telling the young and old of the country to cough up 100 Euro and do their patriotic duty.

Unwilling to share the pain and take a pay cut as his "circumstances would not allow it".
Presides over shambles of a household charge system.
Unpaid service charges on a holiday home in Portugal.

And now.....

Ah, shure who'd have known? Phil has meeting with Lowry. Two of them laughing their heads off at us. Pay this, pay that, pay the other. Yeah, reckon Phils a real scream.

They should be in business together, if they're not already...........

alastair

Just to point out the obvious: This isn't the 'Phil Hogan Appreciation Charge'. It's a property tax - he's just the messenger.

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

Just to point out the obvious: This isn't the 'Phil Hogan Appreciation Charge'. It's a property tax - he's just the messenger.

So whos looking for this tax to be brought in?

Frank Black

Hijpo wrote: »

So whos looking for this tax to be brought in?

What an extraordinarily childish point.

Hijpo

black francis wrote: »

What an extraordinarily childish point.

:rolleyes:

I wasnt making a point, the question mark ? at the end would suggest im asking a question. Stop remarking to suit yourself and answer the question that was asked.

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

So whos looking for this tax to be brought in?

The democratically elected government of the day (along with a majority of TD's, for what that's worth).

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

The democratically elected government of the day (along with a majority of TD's, for what that's worth).

Thanks for answering the question, unlike some who seem to just want to post for the sake of posting :rolleyes:

i was under the impression it was part of some troika agreement or EU directive, its even more dodgy when its only a group that involves corrupt liars that want to bring it in.

Bruthal

mikom wrote: »

Ahh, the bould Phil Hogan.
this is the fella telling the young and old of the country to cough up 100 Euro and do their patriotic duty.

Unwilling to share the pain and take a pay cut as his "circumstances would not allow it".
Presides over shambles of a household charge system.
Unpaid service charges on a holiday home in Portugal.

And now.....

Sicken ye it would.

mikom

robbie7730 wrote: »

Sicken ye it would.

Shur we little people just get in the way most of the time.......... unless they want money of course.
"Hey Phil, where are those planning inquiries?"

slamman

miftha wrote: »

Firstly no one side has won or lost this household charge or what it should be really called the household registration charge fiasco!

Until the postal applications are opened and validated the number is still in the air – many contain a returned final notice (like mine)! A serious number of people have defied the government and it does not have to be the majority! Some may pay over time with a late payment fee but I doubt many will – many made their stand and will stick to it. Who knows what will happen when this charge increases, numbers paying may drop even further. The figures right now are irrelevant, majority or minority; either side will use them for their cause.

For the real property tax to come in, the government need the register of houses – that is the main goal. An incomplete register is useless to them, they need all to register out of the ~2million homes in Ireland as per census 2011 (less those exempt that they should be aware of – not big numbers). Using utility bills is useless, they need the owner. I also expect those in ghost estates, who registered for a waiver, will be in for a nice shock when they get a property tax bill in 2 years.

If the councils cannot enforce the NPPR charge (many not paying and no resources to follow up) what hope does this charge/tax have.

As for the shock tactics, you cannot sell your house until the bill is paid. Well for some that may be an issue in the short term, luckily I bought a house to live in for life so can worry about that in 50+ years when we are dead I need my already taxed income to live, no use to me when dead. Who knows what will come, it may be abolished by the next government (think of water rates before). As far as I know the outstanding amount cannot be held against a house for more than 12 years so that is another nail in it (and if not I still don’t care)! I am NOT paying now or ever. Nothing will convince me that this is justifiable on my home and my family. No threat of fines, jail (they say not) or removal of services will convince me. I am at my limit of taxation; this is no different to an increase on income (I still lose either way). There is also nothing in the troika deal that mandates this as the government keep lying about. It is simply one of the options to gather more income, not mandatory.

If I knew that I would have to pay a rent on my home for life I would have rented – I cannot guarantee I can afford ~1k/year after retirement. Why are second homes not taxed to a serious level to cover primary homes? This should have been done years ago and would have seriously stemmed the property bubble. If second and subsequent homes costs 5k+ per year how many would have bought homes for investments/speculation! However unfair, this could easily be done now – take the hit, you speculated and now you are losing out just like the bondholders should. The principle home should be safeguarded.

And as far as the argument that other countries have this, so should we. This is such a lame argument, we can all list a whole slew of taxes we have that other countries don’t have. Never mind that fact that they get way more for that property/council charge (bins is just one item that bugs me that can cost several hundred Euro a year alone).

There is only one way to get us out of this mess and that is to CUT spending. The deficit is not going away simply on a household charge/property tax. Just like those who have unfortunately lost jobs, lost income (both private and public workers); to survive on this reduction they had to cut expenditure to live within their means. We now have FG, who promised this and that to get into power (who are no different to FF), afraid and weak to tackle this issue. Career politicians, who only see the luxurious pension(s) awaiting them. This should be the first item to tackle!

A humble opinion on this massive thread!

Very well said!!

Freddie59

alastair wrote: »

1. You seem to have forgotten the remainder of overheads those borrowings fund. Strange that.
2. No property ownership, no property tax. It's a pretty simple principle.
3. I don't agree that there's much ludicrous about welfare payment levels.
4. By local authorities?
5. It's terrible isn't it. Gravy trains all over the place. Think of the children!

Well, Alastair, you're nothing if consistent. Dodging again. Your No. 5 comment smacks of Government arrogance, much as you deny it. given that the word "fair and equitable" are being bandied about in relation to the "household charge", I repeat the questions to you again:

1. Do you think it is fair that 400m is being borrowed weekly to prop up CS/PS wages & "entitlements"?

2. Do you think it is fair that 160,000 households which can well afford the "household charge" are exempt from it?

3. Do you think it is right to keep paying ludicrously high rates to SW recipients?

4. Do you think it is fair to keep paying ludicrously high rates to HSE "contractors"?

5. Do you think it is fair that the other 1.5m workers foot the bill for these gravy trains?

If it is a property tax, why is it not called that? Simple question.
Now, a simple yes or no to each question if you will. Without any of the childish comments, given the number of people on the breadline who are affected by this.