Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 3] *Poll Reset*

Bishop_Donal

pitkan wrote: »

I've been following this and the previous threads on the household charge and ,really and truely, when you stand back from it and see it for what it is, it must surely rank as the all time number one Irish joke.
It goes like this: "Howya. Listen, we haven't a clue who you are but would you ever mind filling out the form enclosed, now don't forget the dogs name if ya have one, and send it back with 100 euro and we'll get up on your back next year"
Hogan dumped this on Revenue foolishly thinking that this would put an end to the protests he faced everywhere he went.
It seems that there is a new threat every week now as to what Revenue will do.Oddly enough, Mick Wallace, a tax defaulter, is exempt from this household charge so I say Revenue, bring it on, I won't be returning your form next March and this suggests to me that you know as little about us as the ESB and others from which a data base was to be produced.

I see what you mean.

Must tell them in M&S tomorrow that I'm not going to pay the VAT on my groceries for same reasons!!!

K-9

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

I'd have thought the 'Don't Register, Don't Pay' brigade would have been begging for publication!!

There's one thing for sure imo. You'd be better off not to be caught as a deliberate tax defaulter. But time will tell how that all works out.

Why would they be treated differently to others who get tax audits?

K-9

pitkan wrote: »

Oddly enough, Mick Wallace, a tax defaulter, is exempt from this household charge so I say Revenue, bring it on, I won't be returning your form next March and this suggests to me that you know as little about us as the ESB and others from which a data base was to be produced.

First I heard of that, you've a link?

Bishop_Donal

K-9 wrote: »

Why would they be treated differently to others who get tax audits?

Well, it's such a principle'd stance isn't it?
HHC and LPT defaulters are just like regular tax cheats are they?:D:D

pitkan

K-9 wrote: »

First I heard of that, you've a link?

It's always the first defence on Boards to ask for a link.
It was stated early in the introduction that Ministers and TD's were to be exempt from the charge. It has been well documented about Wallaces affairs.

mikom

pitkan wrote: »

It's always the first defence on Boards to ask for a link.
It was stated early in the introduction that Ministers and TD's were to be exempt from the charge.

Absolute horseshit.
The "anti" side can do without misinformation/misinterpretation like this.

Bishop_Donal

mikom wrote: »

Absolute horseshit.
The "anti" side can do without misinformation/misinterpretation like this.

Funny Horse**** though!:D

mikom

dxhound2005 wrote: »

This may make those who do not pay and who are subject to settlement proceeding liable to having their name and address published on the Revenue Defaulters List.

Cool, I can get my name printed on a defaulters list just like the minister for health.......

Chips Lovell

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Unions only exist to keep people in jobs who should be fired.

Really?

Unions: The people who brought you the weekend.

Bishop_Donal

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Really?

Unions: The people who brought you the weekend.

So they are the fuc**rs who invented Mondays then!!

pitkan

mikom wrote: »

Absolute horseshit.
The "anti" side can do without misinformation/misinterpretation like this.

I stand corrected on saying TD's were exempt.
It apparently applies to, say for instance, the Minister for Defence who would be in charge of an Army Barracks, then the Minister is exempt from the charge on the Barracks.

darkhorse

MadYaker wrote: »

Fu*k the government! It's all their fault! They are all evil assholes even though I voted for them because I'm so naive.

MadYaker wrote: »

I didn't vote in the last election because there wasn't even 1 candidate worth voting for.

I'd like to call my next witness, M'lud, though I think he may be a bit iffy.

K-9

pitkan wrote: »

I stand corrected on saying TD's were exempt.
It apparently applies to, say for instance, the Minister for Defence who would be in charge of an Army Barracks, then the Minister is exempt from the charge on the Barracks.

Obviously.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

A ten year old could tell you that you cannot indefinitely spend more money that you earn.

They should put a few ten year old's in positions of prominence in some of the banks here, maybe one or two in D.E.

K-9

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

Well, it's such a principle'd stance isn't it?
HHC and LPT defaulters are just like regular tax cheats are they?:D:D

Doesn't matter what I think. The default limit for publication is over €12,500 IIRC, then only if not voluntarily disclosed. Why would Revenue set aside normal practice for this tax?

pitkan wrote: »

It's always the first defence on Boards to ask for a link.
It was stated early in the introduction that Ministers and TD's were to be exempt from the charge. It has been well documented about Wallaces affairs.

Ah, I see you backtracked already. Sharing facebook links and other such nonsense is not what well documented means, well documented means widely reported in the media, usually with substance.

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Also, the Indo is reporting that, as with Income Tax, failure to pay the new Property Tax could lead to an audit:

I think this is a very welcome initiative, and not before time. Its just a pity that it had to take so long to come, as, if it had of been decided years ago to go this route, it might have saveed a lot of money, although it would have had to been directed in the right sectors. But, if anything, having audits done now, years after the money dissapeared, it would show exactly where the money has not gone, which can only be a good thing as far as us peasants are concerned.

tayto lover

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with you.

They are recorded properly within the inappropriately lenient rules of the system under which they are claimed. As I understand it, this latitude is afforded in consideration for a lower rate (than that which is allowed for vouched expenses).

You could argue the merits of the cost/benefit (and I'm not privy to the full details - so I'm not going down that road), but at face value I would advocate a system whereby people demonstrate what they are entitled to claim (and claim accordingly).

All that said, still not the Black Economy.

It is Black Economy if the mileage is being claimed but not being done and there is no paperwork to match. It's a licence to print money actually.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

I would have thought it broadly applies, unless you can get yourself a sugar daddy? Do you disagree?

Like Merkel done, di ya mean? Yeah, I agree with ya.

lugha

darkhorse wrote: »

Like Merkel done, di ya mean? Yeah, I agree with ya.

Not really. Contrary to what some confused folk in this parish might think, the Troika is giving us money to keep the good ship Eire afloat.

They are our sugar daddies, or as near as we are likely to get to one to same in the current climate.

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

Some of those recommendations are interesting enough, such as

Interest and penalties in respect of evasion of LPT should count for consideration for publication in the same way as any other tax or duty evaded.

I know that we dont agree on many things, but I find myself in agreement with you on this one. However, I would have one stupilation, which is, when they are publishing the names, that they would also photograph the defaulters that are queueing up in the soup kitchens in various parts of the country. If the govt. is all about transparency, this should be no problem.

MadYaker

MadYaker wrote: »

You're probably right. I surrender.

Fu*k the government! It's all their fault! They are all evil assholes even though I voted for them because I'm so naive I believed all the rubbish they fed me before the last election. Now I'm off the read the daily mail and then ring joe duffy to complain about the increase in the price of cigarettes.

darkhorse wrote: »

I'd like to call my next witness, M'lud, though I think he may be a bit iffy.

That post of mine was clearly sarcasm. Obviously went over your head a bit.

In reality Fianna Fail, if they weren't such a bunch of wasters, should have brought in property tax and water charges back in the good old days. There would have been a lot less resistance. But even so I don't think anything brought in by this budget will be reversed. A lot of people will complain but in reality most are too spineless to take part in any real protest.

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Some interesting stuff in the report too on why they chose a market value tax versus site value one.

Alternatively, Vlad, they may just have too many friends, sitting on big landbank piles, justing waiting for the next boom. Would that sound like a better case for not having a SV tax.

dxhound2005

K-9 wrote: »

Doesn't matter what I think. The default limit for publication is over €12,500 IIRC, then only if not voluntarily disclosed. Why would Revenue set aside normal practice for this tax?



Ah, I see you backtracked already. Sharing facebook links and other such nonsense is not what well documented means, well documented means widely reported in the media, usually with substance.

I think you are mixing up settlements and fines, settlements under a certain sum are not published. However if a prosecution is taken every case is published when it results in a fine or a term of imprisonment. Even when the fine is only in the hundreds. These prosecutions can be for things like fraudulent medical expenses claims and failure to make VAT returns. The new legislation could specify a heading to be included in the Defaulters regulations of failure to declare a property but that is just speculation on my part, we will have to await it's publication.

In any case the name would then only be published if the offending party defied the law to the point that a prosecution had to be taken. I would think plenty of opportunity would be given to become compliant before that and if that involved a settlement then that would certainly be below the limit for publication next year at least.

K-9

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I The new legislation could specify a heading to be included in the Defaulters regulations of failure to declare a property but that is just speculation on my part, we will have to await it's publication.

Well we'll ponder the new legislation if it passes. I don't indulge speculation too much so I think you are very wrong in your speculation.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

It’s a bit dishonest to put lump together under the “can’t afford” umbrella, someone who may have to cancel their golf club subscription and someone who has to cancel their health insurance subscription, wouldn’t you say?

My first thoughts when I see whats typed above is, that only someone who could afford the above would come out with such a statement. Because, ya cant convince me that ordinary people, such as myself, from the inner city could even contemplate things like golf or health insurance.

MadYaker

I notice many people are hoping that the government will fall in the next year (unlikely if they survive the next month) and a new government will abolish the HHC and property tax but people who didn't pay when these charges/taxes were in place will still be pursued by the Revenue Commission regardless of whether the tax is subsequently abolished or not.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

Alas, there isn't my answer. Unless you can demonstrate how going after the bankers alone will close a deficit of 13 billion?

Alternatives to a property tax have been put forward. A comprehensive alternative to deal with the crisis we are in and that does not involve austere measures has not been put forward..... yet! (Maybe you would like to have a go? )

Ya see, this is what I find amusing. The bankers alone will not close the deficit no matter what reductions ya may impose-your words. The politicians alone will not close the deficit no matter what reductions ya may impose-your words. The many Co Council highly paid staff at the top, all around the country will not close the deficit no matter what reductions ya may impose-your words. The people at the top of the PS/CS alone will not close the deficit no matter what reductions ya may impose-your words. It would have been a bloody good start, and then come back to us to take more.

dxhound2005

darkhorse wrote: »

Ya see, this is what I find amusing. The bankers alone will not close the deficit no matter what reductions ya may impose-your words. The politicians alone will not close the deficit no matter what reductions ya may impose-your words. The many Co Council highly paid staff at the top, all around the country will not close the deficit no matter what reductions ya may impose-your words. The people at the top of the PS/CS alone will not close the deficit no matter what reductions ya may impose-your words. It would have been a bloody good start, and then come back to us to take more.

But under your system you could just keep saying I want something else, I am not happy with X Y Z so I won't obey the law. Was there ever a time in the past you were happy with anything, maybe before you finished up living in Donegal?

MadYaker

darkhorse wrote: »

Ya see, this is what I find amusing. The bankers alone will not close the deficit no matter what reductions ya may impose-your words. The politicians alone will not close the deficit no matter what reductions ya may impose-your words. The many Co Council highly paid staff at the top, all around the country will not close the deficit no matter what reductions ya may impose-your words. The people at the top of the PS/CS alone will not close the deficit no matter what reductions ya may impose-your words. It would have been a bloody good start, and then come back to us to take more.

There are a lot of over paid people in the PS. No arguments there. But there are also a lot jobs in the PS/banks which require highly qualified, intelligent and skilled people. Therefore these jobs needs to come with high wages and good pensions to compete with jobs of a similar level in the private sector/other countries or else all the best candidates will go to the private sector/other countires and our public sector and banks will be even more dysfunctional than they already are because they would be run by under-qualified and inexperienced people. This is why top level public servants and bankers have to be paid well. You need to offer good money to attract the best people, someone running a bank has to be paid more than the guy cleaning the streets.

However it needs to be more performance related. If the banks are responsible for creating messes like they created here then the people in charge at the time should not be given huge pensions for having done a sh!te job.

darkhorse

Ghandee wrote: »

Won't, as in won't be handing money over on a yearly basis simply to live in their own home, if the govt/council want to claim its for services, why exactly do they have an issue of linking it exactly to these services, ie, bins, water, education, health etc etc?

I cant see ya getting an answer to that one, G, as I am sure even those that think its right to keep adding on taxes on top of taxes, know exactly where the money is earmarked for, but it would be a bit embarrassing for them admitting the truth of the matter.