Potential court action for people who don't pay household charge

crusher000

Bye bye Phil, like carbon taxes etc. these are policies placed upon us by failed governments and politicans that we must endure long after they've left government. So I'll hang in their for the next two years until the next election and not vote for them like I didn't the last time. Yawn yawn court jails etc. heard it all before. This government talks to us like their the headmaster and we're little dis-obient children. I hate all our politicians equally.

Monty Burnz

Statistician wrote: »

In September 2008 the Irish government guaranteed the Irish banks. This was the turning point. Public money being blatantly misappropriated. I will resist any new taxes or charges introduced after Sept 2008

Great. We will all pay extra to make up for you dodging taxes so.

ResearchWill

Cedrus wrote: »

It'll be the same as the anti bin charges protest a decade ago, a few prominent leaders will be jailed the rest of the cheerleaders will quietly pay (or it will be found out that they paid it ages ago) and thousands of people who can't afford it will get hit for fines and back charges.

It's a criminal offence not to register, and any TD with a criminal record has to stand down, so the ULA will bang their drums about it but none of them will be caught out.

A TD is only disqualified from holding office if he convicted and receives a term of imprisonment exceeding 6 months. (Section 41 Electoral Act 1992) I believe that the Household Charge Act only allows for fines, so there is no problem with any TD being convicted.

crusher000

Good to see some actual facts being quoted rather than waffle.

Statistician

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Great. We will all pay extra to make up for you dodging taxes so.

You are paying extra because of decisions the FF/FG government have made. You are paying money to private individuals, with unsecured debt who are (probably) richer than you are.

By not paying these taxes, I am taking all the risks on your behalf. You should be grateful.

Statistician

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Data protection is only a 'problem' when it suits them. Even if it were a problem, can you think of any way a government could get around a legal problem? Because I can...

Aside from that, the Land Registry is accessible to anyone:

Data protection laws are there for a reason.

Do you think these should also be disregarded? At this stage we might as well just bring in a full jack boot police state and have done with it.

Monty Burnz

Statistician wrote: »

Data protection laws are there for a reason.

Do you think these should also be disregarded? At this stage we might as well just bring in a full jack boot police state and have done with it.

Wait a minute, why are you trying to change this into a philosophical argument?

You said that they couldn't figure out who owned what due to data protection legislation. I said they could with the land registry data, and that they could also change DP legislation if they wanted to.

So are you conceding the point?

Statistician

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Wait a minute, why are you trying to change this into a philosophical argument?

You said that they couldn't figure out who owned what due to data protection legislation. I said they could with the land registry data, and that they could also change DP legislation if they wanted to.

So are you conceding the point?

No, I'm not conceding the point.

If they use land registry data to administer the household charge, then they would be in contravention of Data Protection, because the data is being used for a different purpose to why it was originally collected. There is also the technical issue as to how clean,accurate and accessible the data is, and if all the relevant fields are there.

Do you not think that if this government could do this that they wouldn't have done so already?


Do you believe data protection legislation should be changed so that data can be used for any purpose once it it collected?

KarmaBaby

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They can check the land registry, electoral register, utility bills, the Revenue Commissioners etc., whatever. It's kind of hard to hide a house.

I believe that due to laws Under the freedom of information act the government can only access utility bills from the ESB which in itself does not prove ownership of a house. In fact it is already evident that, while the government has established that there are 1.85 Million households liable for registration, there is no database of the owners of those properties available.

The nature of the registration process should have told you this already. Households must register for the tax. If the government knew exactly who was liable, they'd just send them the bill. No registration required.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'd point out that the 'people of Ireland' and their representatives in the Dail are on the same side against sovereign default, so at best this is an own-goal.

"on the same side"?

The tax is being brought in under the terms of the agreement with troika which in itself is a vehicle for those organisations to funnel funds from the irish tax payer to cover debts incurred by European banks.

Even if you didn't agree that this was the case, it is far from an "own goal" to oppose a tax which in clearly unfair in its implementation, since it is not means tested in any way in terms of the value of the property or the income of the property owner.

Paying the tax would be an own-goal, and would allow this government a foot in the door to grow another unfair form of taxation. The ESRI, the unofficial think tank for FG has already stated that the tax is likely to increase sharply to to an average of 1000 euro (when water charges are included) per household.

Paying an unjust tax that can be defeated is just stupid and its clear that majority are opposed to it. Many of those that did pay, only did so out of fear; such is the nature of the governments tactics in introducing new taxes, treaties whatver...

Monty Burnz

Statistician wrote: »

No, I'm not conceding the point.

If they use land registry data to administer the household charge, then they would be in contravention of Data Protection, because the data is being used for a different purpose to why it was originally collected. There is also the technical issue as to how clean,accurate and accessible the data is, and if all the relevant fields are there.

The data in the land registry is there to show who owns what property. That is exactly what the government would use it for. The only 'fields' they would require would be the address and the name of the owner. The land registry is accurate.

Statistician wrote: »

Do you not think that if this government could do this that they wouldn't have done so already?

I imagine it will involve a lot more expense to do it that way.

Statistician wrote: »

Do you believe data protection legislation should be changed so that data can be used for any purpose once it it collected?

I would be happy to see it changed to catch criminals and tax-dodgers.

KarmaBaby

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I imagine it will involve a lot more expense to do it that way.

Pretty lame response that Monty. Not doing this has already cost the government €100 Million in uncollected taxation. How the **** could it have been more expensive to refer to the land registry?

gurramok

Most of the 43% who have not paid will probably get nervous for a day in court. A possible conviction(non-custodial) and fine will not go down well with their employers, this is where it will hurt and I reckon the route they will use to get compliance. Is it worth losing your job over non-payment?

Monty Burnz

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Pretty lame response that Monty. Not doing this has already cost the government €100 Million in uncollected taxation. How the **** could it have been more expensive to refer to the land registry?

I explained earlier in the thread. What's the point of inflicting a tax that costs a lot to collect? (this is why you don't pay any import duties on things costing less than €25 or whatever)

This protest will just mean that a fortune will be wasted in gathering the money - a fortune that will have to be cut or taxed from somewhere else. The amount of money the government repays the ECB will be the same anyway.

Statistician

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The data in the land registry is there to show who owns what property. That is exactly what the government would use it for. The only 'fields' they would require would be the address and the name of the owner. The land registry is accurate.

Would they need PPSN for example? Could there be cases where the person liable is not reflected in the land registry database? You are vastly underestimating this.

The government would be using this data to find out who owns the property, but to also levy a charge.

I would be happy to see it changed to catch criminals and tax-dodgers.

People who refuse to pay unfair taxes and charges are not criminals or tax-dodgers in my opinion. In my opinion, 'unvouched expenses' is a tax dodge.

Even so, the data should still only be used for the intention it was collected for. Otherwise you'd have every TD or councillor wanting the data for their own nasty little schemes.

Monty Burnz

Statistician wrote: »

Even so, the data should still only be used for the intention it was collected for. Otherwise you'd have every TD or councillor wanting the data for their own nasty little schemes.

You don't seem to understand: the sole purpose of the land registry is to show who owns what. I've already shown you this, but I'll post it again:

3. Certified Copy Folio/Title Map
The folios and title maps of the Register constitute a public record and any person may apply to inspect or obtain a copy folio/title plan, on payment of the appropriate fee.
If you know the relevant folio number you can apply for a copy by downloading and completing the Application Form for Copy Folio (fee €6) or Application Form for Copy Folio/Title Map (fee €25 or €60 for a map showing appurtenant rights of way and/or other “special features” relating to the lands) and sending the completed form together with a cheque/postal order for the appropriate fee to:
Customer Service Unit
Property Registration Authority
Chancery Street
Dublin 7
If you don’t know the relevant folio number you can apply for a mapping search or names index search to be carried out.

reprazant

Statistician wrote: »

People who refuse to pay unfair taxes and charges are not criminals or tax-dodgers in my opinion. In my opinion, 'unvouched expenses' is a tax dodge.

Its not for you to decide what is fair or unfair in the realms of tax.

That's like someone with high car insurance deciding that it is 'unfair' so he just won't have any.

Statistician

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You don't seem to understand: the sole purpose of the land registry is to show who owns what. I've already shown you this, but I'll post it again:

I have no problem with that. The government, or any one else can look up the database to see who owns what.

The problem is the next step in the process. Using the data to administer the household charge. The data is now being used for another purpose. It is also being processed in a different way than was originally intended.

I'm not just making this up. Here you go:
http://www.dataprotection.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/responsibilities/3bii.htm&CatID=54&m=y

Monty Burnz

Statistician wrote: »

I have no problem with that. The government, or any one else can look up the database to see who owns what.

The problem is the next step in the process. Using the data to administer the household charge. The data is now being used for another purpose. It is also being processed in a different way than was originally intended.

I'm not just making this up. Here you go:
http://www.dataprotection.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/responsibilities/3bii.htm&CatID=54&m=y

But what you are arguing is that the land registry data is just there as a curiosity. Everybody who pays good money to look at the data does so as a first step in a process - you don't just go and have a look at it for a laugh.

You seem to think that it is like a phone book that you can look at for fun but not dial any of the numbers?

(and aside from this, the government can amend the legislation anyway)

Statistician

reprazant wrote: »

Its not for you to decide what is fair or unfair in the realms of tax.

That's like someone with high car insurance deciding that it is 'unfair' so he just won't have any.

I'm free to decide it something is unfair or not.

I don't see the connection with car insurance. My car insurance is used for the purposes of insuring my car. The money is not all going to be handed over to unsecured debt holders.

Monty Burnz

Statistician wrote: »

I don't see the connection with car insurance. My car insurance is used for the purposes of insuring my car. The money is not all going to be handed over to unsecured debt holders.

How do you know where the money is going to go? More likely it is your income tax that will be paying off the ECB (the overwhelming majority of the bonds are repaid now).

Perhaps you should not pay your income tax and pay your household charge as that money will be directed towards local services for you and your community?

Statistician

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But what you are arguing is that the land registry data is just there as a curiosity. Everybody who pays good money to look at the data does so as a first step in a process - you don't just go and have a look at it for a laugh.

You seem to think that it is like a phone book that you can look at for fun but not dial any of the numbers?

(and aside from this, the government can amend the legislation anyway)

Why don't you just look at the data protection website I linked to? It's all explained there - what you can and can't do with data. You won't then have to read my third-hand explanation.

As I mentioned before, this legislation is there for a reason.

Statistician

Monty Burnz wrote: »

How do you know where the money is going to go? More likely it is your income tax that will be paying off the ECB (the overwhelming majority of the bonds are repaid now).

Perhaps you should not pay your income tax and pay your household charge as that money will be directed towards local services for you and your community?

I've had enough of this now.
We all know where the money is going.

Monty Burnz

Statistician wrote: »

Why don't you just look at the data protection website I linked to? It's all explained there - what you can and can't do with data. You won't then have to read my third-hand explanation.

Sure, I'll have a look in a while if I get a chance.

Statistician wrote: »

As I mentioned before, this legislation is there for a reason.

It is, but the legislation is flawed because the government very often uses it as an excuse to prevent the citizens from accessing data that they should be allowed (the long delay in creating a property-price database was blamed on this, and various other things).

And without getting into the rights and wrongs of it, the fact is that the government is free to amend the law if it needs to.

Monty Burnz

Statistician wrote: »

I've had enough of this now.
We all know where the money is going.

Well we don't, and that's a fact. At best, you can argue it all goes into a common pot and is not ring-fenced.

Cedrus

ResearchWill wrote: »

A TD is only disqualified from holding office if he convicted and receives a term of imprisonment exceeding 6 months. (Section 41 Electoral Act 1992) I believe that the Household Charge Act only allows for fines, so there is no problem with any TD being convicted.

What happens when he is fined and refuses to pay and still refuses to register?
Subsequent court orders and contempt of court are reasons for gaoling are they not?

My real point is that the cheerleaders will buckle the same as before and leave the ordinary people in the sh!te same as the anti bin charges movement.

KarmaBaby

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They can check the land registry, electoral register, utility bills, the Revenue Commissioners etc., whatever. It's kind of hard to hide a house.

I'd point out that the 'people of Ireland' and their representatives in the Dail are on the same side against sovereign default, so at best this is an own-goal.

Water charges were defeated in the past due to mass non-payment on a smaller scale and in fewer areas.

This time we have nationwide non-compliance of between 51% and 73% depending on the county.

Ultimately the government will have no choice but to abandon the process by which it is trying to collect the €100 charge, because they cannot throw 1 Million people in jail and people will defiantly ignore the fines.

The scale of the CAHWT is enormous. The people have spoken. They're not paying. What else can the government do?

murphaph

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The data in the land registry is there to show who owns what property. That is exactly what the government would use it for. The only 'fields' they would require would be the address and the name of the owner. The land registry is accurate.

I'm not so sure it would be a lot of use in many cases.

I own a rented out house and my address in the land registry for that house is that house, but I haven't lived there for a number of years. I would be relying on my tenants to pass the bill on and not throw it in the bin. The government could presumably "hunt me down" in a roundabout way through my mortgage or whatever but many landlords have no mortgage and would have rent collected. In this case, the only connection between a house and the owner could be as little as a mobile phone number.

Secondly, we have some family owned property that is not registered with the land registry at all, it is only registry of deeds. I know there are also lots of completely unregistered properties scattered across the country that have literally no deeds, no registration of any kind.

I think the government should establish a modern database with up to date details of who owns what. It should be capable of being used for tax purposes amongst other things. It should be compulsory to register any property you own and update the database whenever your circumstances change.

I don't think it's too much to ask for a neighbour to be able to easily locate the owner of the adjacent property should his oil tank start leaking into the soil or whatever.

KarmaBaby

Cedrus wrote: »

What happens when he is fined and refuses to pay and still refuses to register?
Subsequent court orders and contempt of court are reasons for gaoling are they not?

My real point is that the cheerleaders will buckle the same as before and leave the ordinary people in the sh!te same as the anti bin charges movement.

This has been answered many times before by the SP in relation to the anti-bin charges campaign.

No one involved in the campaign was left "in the sh1te" as you put it. This is a myth pedalled by opponent tot he CAHWT and has been answered comprehensively and repeatedly by the SP radio interviews.

If you can find evidence to contrary, please do.

KarmaBaby

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The amount of money the government repays the ECB will be the same anyway.

Really?

So you don't believe that Ireland is heading for an inevitable structured default anyway, after which all the austerity will have been for nothing?

murphaph

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Water charges were defeated in the past due to mass non-payment on a smaller scale and in fewer areas.

This time we have nationwide non-compliance of between 51% and 73% depending on the county.

Ultimately the government will have no choice but to abandon the process by which it is trying to collect the €100 charge, because they cannot throw 1 Million people in jail and people will defiantly ignore the fines.

The scale of the CAHWT is enormous. The people have spoken. They're not paying. What else can the government do?

The government can resign and let the people try to elect a government that sh!ts money.

In reality the government is right on this. We should have never abandoned domestic rates in the first place. We should have reformed them. property taxation is completely normal just about everywhere else in the civilised world and that includes the home of capitalism, the US, where property taxes can run into thousands of dollars a year.

Why many Irish people feel that there should simply be no property taxes is beyond me.

People can ignore fines but they can legislate to have the fines deducted from source income in the case of PAYE/Welfare and can add a lien to the property for anyone else, so you'll never be able to sell without clearing the tax, plus fines plus interest.

I guarantee you the non-compliance rate will tumble as soon as a few people are prosecuted. Most people pay the TV licence for God's sake.