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

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If the Fines Act is passed before they start prosecuting, they won't need to jail anyone.

Fcuking scaremongering of the highest order (yet again)

First, they need to identify you.
Second, they need to Summons you to court for not paying.
Thirdly, when you refuse to pay fine, they've to summons you to court again[ to attach the charge to your income.

Then they've got to do that another 699,999 times.

All whilst public servants get five grand an month in unvouched expenses (a BILLION a year)

They can tidy up around their own house before they come looking me to fund over the top salaries and pensions of the PS/CS through a sham charge.

Said it before, lot of above mentioned employees on this thread worried about their pensions and salaries rather than 'any stable Tax base' .

Show the public they're making cuts at the top, preventing wastage at the top, before they start asking us to 'dig deeper'.

Hypocrites the lot of them.

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

Dry up Lugha lol.

Comparing a Quinn, who defrauded the state I'm BILLIONS to a man refusing to pay a hundred euro service charge is ludicrous (even for you)

Just when I thought you guys had reached the bottom. :pac:

There should be a tax on posters missing the point! You lads would have us out of the mire in no time. :pac:

Poor old Tayto certainly does not equate to Sean Quinn on most scores but if he openly defies a clear court directive you can be certain that he will find that he will have at least one thing in common with the (very) bauld Sean!

Seriously, do you guys really not get that a court simply cannot turn a blind eye to citizens openly defying it, no matter what the issue is? The seriousness of the primary offence has no relevance.

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

You still don't seem to get it.
They will just take it from you along with fines and costs. You do not have a choice in the matter.

You may not willingly pay it, but you will pay it.

Nah You always have a choice. I won't be paying it.

dvpower

@Ghandee. Only one court appearance is required.


I'm not sure that its correct to describe as scaremongering a course of action that is perfectly predictable.

Johro

Got my second letter. I now have to pay €127.-
I'm still not paying it.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

There should be a tax on posters missing the point! You lads would have us out of the mire in no time. :pac:

Poor old Tayto certainly does not equate to Sean Quinn on most scores but if he openly defies a clear court directive you can be certain that he will find that he will have at least one thing in common with the (very) bauld Sean!

Seriously, do you guys really not get that a court simply cannot turn a blind eye to citizens openly defying it, no matter what the issue is? The seriousness of the primary offence has no relevance.

Poor old Tayto will defy the courts and refuse to pay any fine pertaining to the home HE alone owns.

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

Nah You always have a choice. I won't be paying it.

And they will be taking it.
If the semantics make you feel a bit better then all to the good.

Chips Lovell

dvpower wrote: »

Only one court appearance is required.

Actually, it's two:

Following the enactment of the Bill, the fine collection system will work as follows:
o In the first instance, a person may pay the fine in full or pay by instalments over 12 months.
o If they fail to do either, they will be summonsed to court where the court will impose either: an attachment of earnings order; a recovery order; or a community service order.

Chips Lovell

Ghandee wrote: »

Then they've got to do that another 699,999 times.

Do you honestly believe that they'll have to take 600,000 people to court?

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Actually, it's two:

Ha ha sure we will all opt for the Community Service Order.
Have you seen how these work? In Dundalk some of the people on them send in sick notes. The whole thing is a laugh.

Chucky the tree

tayto lover wrote: »

Ha ha sure we will all opt for the Community Service Order.
Have you seen how these work? In Dundalk some of the people on them send in sick notes. The whole thing is a laugh.

You don't get a choice in it.

Chips Lovell

tayto lover wrote: »

Ha ha sure we will all opt for the Community Service Order.
Have you seen how these work? In Dundalk some of the people on them send in sick notes. The whole thing is a laugh.

What makes you think you can "opt" for that.

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

What makes you think you can "opt" for that.

I would actually, when I think about it, opt for the prison sentence. Two hours would go in fairly fast reading the paper in the office while they process the "fine paid" paperwork.

bgrizzley

donalg1 wrote: »

Alot of people working at the minute would probably be better off on Social Welfare as is, now if you raise Income Tax while leaving Social Welfare untouched well there are some out there that will make a conscious decision to give up working. So in that sense paying higher taxes is a deterrent.

there is no difference in take home pay, from taking E10 pw out of a paye workers wages for the property tax, or taking E10 pw out of his wages in higher income tax. Smoke and mirrors from the gombeenmen, Donal

Johro

I've worked hard and saved to build my house, I've built it myself, my water supply comes from a well and pump I've paid to have installed and I pay for its maintenance. I also pay for wheelie bins to take away my refuse and recycling. Years ago I bought a special composting toilet at the cost of about a grand, which means I don't need a septic tank as there's no plumbing involved.
To be fair, if the council supplied me with water I would not have a problem with paying a reasonable water charge, as I don't believe you have a right to complain about the state of the water you get out of your tap if you won't help pay for it's supply and to improve its quality, that all costs money.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with paying some kind of council rate to pay for things like road maintenance (by fuck do we need it), cleaning up of roadsides and streets, hedge trimming, keeping ditches and drains clear, streetlighting etc. Just be honest and call it a council rate or corporation charge though and don't charge me for having a fuckin roof over my head.
I believe people don't mind paying when they know the money is going to be well spent, and on the things they're meant for.
Not like, say, road tax, which doesn't even mean they'll fill our potholes.

Chips Lovell

bgrizzley wrote: »

there is no difference in take home pay, from taking E10 pw out of a paye workers wages for the property tax, or taking E10 pw out of his wages in higher income tax.

For the property-owning, PAYE worker, yes. But there are non-property owning PAYE workers. And lots of property owners who aren't PAYE>

bgrizzley

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Whereas a Property Tax nets tax from the rich who inherited property and never worked a day in their lives
(and paid inheritance tax over the threshold),
those who are retired
(and have already paid tax all their life),
those do not pay income tax,
(revenues job to collect this not double charge the rest of us to make it up)
or have purchased a home in cash,
(same, even though they wont have time now they will be collecting all those E100s)
from cash in hand jobs,
(same)
and those who work in the black market.
(same (but add social welfare))

It creates a more predictable, dependable, stable tax base, and is not a disincetive to creating jobs, which raising income tax would be.
(See my reply to Donal)

.

Hijpo

Johro wrote: »

I've worked hard and saved to build my house, I've built it myself, my water supply comes from a well and pump I've paid to have installed and I pay for its maintenance. I also pay for wheelie bins to take away my refuse and recycling. Years ago I bought a special composting toilet at the cost of about a grand, which means I don't need a septic tank as there's no plumbing involved.
To be fair, if the council supplied me with water I would not have a problem with paying a reasonable water charge, as I don't believe you have a right to complain about the state of the water you get out of your tap if you won't help pay for it's supply and to improve its quality, that all costs money.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with paying some kind of council rate to pay for things like road maintenance (by fuck do we need it), cleaning up of roadsides and streets, hedge trimming, keeping ditches and drains clear, streetlighting etc. Just be honest and call it a council rate or corporation charge though and don't charge me for having a fuckin roof over my head.
I believe people don't mind paying when they know the money is going to be well spent, and on the things they're meant for.
Not like, say, road tax, which doesn't even mean they'll fill our potholes.

Alot of people would agree with you.

I would have no problem paying for good quality water, however they have said that no increase in service or quality will be made when we pay these charges. So ill continue to pay what i pay at the moment for bad quality water.

Iv seen more streets swept, hedges trimmed, road works carried out than ever before since the government announced these cuts. Where are they getting the money from now and why was it not done on this scale before?

bgrizzley

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

For the property-owning, PAYE worker, yes. But there are non-property owning PAYE workers. And lots of property owners who aren't PAYE>

never said there wasnt, but according to the protax argument, there should be jobs lost and more people going on the dole from this sector . also add to the mix the self employed(as it was mentioned that the revenue would collect property tax from us, its the exact same as paying more income tax to me)

and bearing in mind all non property owners, paye or otherwise will be paying this wealth tax for their landlord(who owns this asset but can pass on the tax). i cant imagine they care whether its E10 pw out of their wages or possibly slightly more in their rent(adminstration charge by landlord:rolleyes:)

View

Ghandee wrote: »

Fcuking scaremongering of the highest order (yet again)

First, they need to identify you.
Second, they need to Summons you to court for not paying.
Thirdly, when you refuse to pay fine, they've to summons you to court again[ to attach the charge to your income.

Then they've got to do that another 699,999 times.

Did the Guards have to give every single speeding motorist on the road penalty points before people started slowing up because "Sure, I don't want to get penalty points"?

Did "the Clampers" have to clamp every illegally parked vehicle?

Does Revenue have to catch every single income tax-evader?

This is real "If we all park illegally, the Clampers can't clamp us all stuff", you are putting out.

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that they'll have to take 600,000 people to court?

Well, how many do you think it would really take to be brought to court before 600,000+ people started to pay en masse?

52 weeks in a year?

12,000 people a week,

2400 a day (based on a five day week?)

If someone wants to play the 'make an example of' card, there are plenty pof members of DE who've openly admitted to not paying (and wont be paying)

Whats to stop the govt from hauling them in front of a judge, and make a shining example of them?

They dont need to identify them, they've declared in public they wont pay, and they are well known names and faces, surely there are no better people to make the example of to get the public 'scared' into paying?

You didnt address my other points either, the fact that TD's are currently in receipt of €1billion per year collectively for 'allowances' this is after they've been paid their very, very decent salaries.

Why will they not set an example by giving these up, at least then they may be able to take the high moral ground before accusing us of not paying our way.

View wrote: »

Did the Guards have to give every single speeding motorist on the road penalty points before people started slowing up because "Sure, I don't want to get penalty points"?

Did "the Clampers" have to clamp every illegally parked vehicle?

Does Revenue have to catch every single income tax-evader?

This is real "If we all park illegally, the Clampers can't clamp us all stuff", you are putting out.

All of the above 'laws' have generally been accepted by the public though, hence the compliance of the public.

The last we had heard, 600-700,000 have rejected this sham (though I reckon its a lot more)

Did 600-700,000 reject the introduction of penalty points/clamping etc?

And opinions polls put over 66% of the public to now be against this HHC or any property tax that may replace it. (coincidentally we're now on to our third thread on the HHC, 66% seems to reflect opinions here also?)

Most of us against these charges really couldnt care less what threats the govt make, bring it on!

Fwiw though, with support for FF on the rise (God forgive us) who've now jumped on the band wagon of being against a property tax, and with a budget due in a couple of months that will be forced to take over 3 billion in cuts (all while we pay a third of that sum in unvouched expenses), I see very little hope of the govt being in power 6 months post budget, and very little chance of any replacement govt daring to try and intorduce a property tax after witnessing the demise of the Govt before them.

Wait and see.

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

there is no difference in take home pay, from taking E10 pw out of a paye workers wages for the property tax, or taking E10 pw out of his wages in higher income tax. Smoke and mirrors from the gombeenmen, Donal

Ah yeah but you see say I was lucky enough to get paid more next year after a promotion or something then that increased income tax takes more than a tenner every week whereas my property tax doesn't increase with my income so I can better afford it.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

Ah yeah but you see say I was lucky enough to get paid more next year after a promotion or something then that increased income tax takes more than a tenner every week whereas my property tax doesn't increase with my income so I can better afford it.

lol you think that if you get a promotion, which increases you pay, you wont be able to afford the tax on it?

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

or...
Income tax - Whether ya can afford it or not, we want it.
Property tax - Ability to pay depending on asset value.

Wrong again.

Slick50

donalg1 wrote: »

Ah yeah but you see say I was lucky enough to get paid more next year after a promotion or something then that increased income tax takes more than a tenner every week whereas my property tax doesn't increase with my income so I can better afford it.

I think you're in for a rude awakening if you think the property tax is not going to go up annually.

Maggie 2

After the first couple of court cases, when people see how much will be stopped out of their wages/social welfare, they will soon cop on and pay up, so it won't take long to process the few that will be left.

Hijpo

Maggie 2 wrote: »

After the first couple of court cases, when people see how much will be stopped out of their wages/social welfare, they will soon cop on and pay up, so it won't take long to process the few that will be left.

:rolleyes:
oh heres another one
we need a wagging finger smiley

Ghandee

Maggie 2 wrote: »

After the first couple of court cases, when people see how much will be stopped out of their wages/social welfare, they will soon cop on and pay up, so it won't take long to process the few that will be left.

Maggie, will you please clarify for me, are you against the BS happening in govt, and politicians taking our money to fund their own lavish lifestyles and perks.

I'll bet certain Politicians elderly relatives will keep their many home help hours.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81380480&postcount=268

Or are you in favour of supporting their cronyism as per your post above ^^

You're seriously mixed up it would seem.;)

tayto lover

Maggie 2 wrote: »

After the first couple of court cases, when people see how much will be stopped out of their wages/social welfare, they will soon cop on and pay up, so it won't take long to process the few that will be left.

Wake up Maggie I think i've got something to say to you.

1. You are taken to court and fined.
2. You refuse to pay the fine.
3. You are not on SW/Pension and are self-employed.

What happens now?

lugha

Maggie 2 wrote: »

After the first couple of court cases, when people see how much will be stopped out of their wages/social welfare, they will soon cop on and pay up, so it won't take long to process the few that will be left.

And of course the whole notion that 600K people are actively opposed to property tax (inferred from the fact that they did not pay the HHC) is rather doubtful.

If you have no qualms about breaking the law of the land then it makes sense not to pay the HHC with its miniscule fine (I still haven’t heard a plausible reason as to why the fine was set so low). You might stay under the radar and manage to evade you tax obligations when the full property tax comes in.

If you were off such a mindset, a fine of €20 or €30 euro was well worth the punt. Undoubtedly, many were in the wait and see camp and once the first hefty fines start to be dished out I expect a sizable number of that 600K will tear up their betting slip, deciding it was worth a go. Not all, but a good chunk of them.

IMO, there was more concern about, and opposition to, cuts in child benefit than there is to the HHC.