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

darkhorse

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, (lovely name) tell me, what do you think will happen to the people that hav'nt got the money?, cause no matter which way you look at it, (I reckon that the only people that dont know whats goin on, is the people thats sitting in their ivory towers, that we are paying for, btw, in DE) there are a lot of people in this situation.

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

Basically I was saying if you give people exemptions because of inability to pay, you undermine the arguement that it is a more stable tax. Which is apparently the great advantage of this tax.

More stable means that it is not as vulnerable to unfavourable economic dynamics. For example, stamp duty was as we can now clearly see, seriously unstable. Once the building boom ended, there was a sudden and catastrophic collapse in a revenue stream for the exchequer. Our problems now are considerably intensified because of this. Some of us are off the view that it might not be a bad idea to have a rethink about the structure of our tax system.

Even if there are extensive exemptions (I doubt if there will be) that will only impact on the total take from property tax, not on how stable it is.

Slick50 wrote: »

Well according to your previous argument, the guy paying the massive mortgage is saving himself a fortune.

According to a total misunderstanding of my argument, then yes, I suppose.

Slick50 wrote: »

The property tax will be charged irrelevant of a mortgage too.

Perhaps, but the argument being half-pushed is that income tax is somehow fair, or fairer than property tax because the latter takes no account of your circumstances. But that is no less true of income tax.

Slick50 wrote: »

A three tier tax system has been tried and tested, and seen us through the previous recession.... to the tiger years. Why should we not revert to that?

I think we will, as well.

Slick50 wrote: »

The main reason these two examples worked so well, and so quickly accepted,(in stark contrast to this) is they were both great ideas.

(There was practically one hundred percent compliance with the smoking ban over night.)

They did. But if you followed the discourse at the time (letters to papers etc) you would have believed that the government of the day and Micky Martin in particular, were signing their political death warrants!

And while I hear almost no real people discussing the HHC or property tax AT ALL in the present time, you could hardly go a day 10 years ago without encountering someone muttering darkly about biding their time until the election came around so that they could destroy FF.

Property tax may well be different, we will have to wait and see.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

An attachment is made against your bank account. Or maybe whatever happens to self employed people who are caught evading their other taxes.

I have no truck with that, as I never have any more than 3, maybe 4 Euros in my bank a/c going into the following week. Glad I have that sorted, as it was a worry.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

But are two thirds of the population prepared to defy the courts, if it comes to it? Clearly not as a majority have already paid the HHC and I would say most that have not will do so when the face the threat of fines.

Ya still dont get it, lugha, even apart from the people that wont pay out of principle, there are hundreds of thousands of people in the country that just dont have it to pay. There are people out there on a wide scale that are just trying to feed their kids. What they gonna, put an attachment order on food.

I cancelled watching a good film for this debate, which, by any stretch of the imagination, is, at best, repetitive (luckily, my son bought me a bottle of bacardi, therefore making my posts look more sensible with every glass I take).

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

And I would guess that many of those people are also welfare recipients and thus would also be immune form income tax.

So explain to me again why income tax is fair?

Well, one of the ideas being talked about as regards child allowance, is to tax it. Why, so, should not all welfare payments be taxed. That way, the whole country would be contributing to paying off the bondholders and bankers debts, and not just the same ol, same ol. After all, Enda Kenny said, the people went mad, he did'nt single out just a few, so why should we not all pay.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

I have no truck with that, as I never have any more than 3, maybe 4 Euros in my bank a/c going into the following week. Glad I have that sorted, as it was a worry.

That's no problem at all. The attachment order will activate when money goes into your account, not after it leaves.

lugha

darkhorse wrote: »

Ya still dont get it, lugha, even apart from the people that wont pay out of principle, there are hundreds of thousands of people in the country that just dont have it to pay. There are people out there on a wide scale that are just trying to feed their kids. What they gonna, put an attachment order on food.

I cancelled watching a good film for this debate, which, by any stretch of the imagination, is, at best, repetitive (luckily, my son bought me a bottle of bacardi, therefore making my posts look more sensible with every glass I take).

So you swilling Bacardi, enjoying your broadband and entertaining yourself with a movie (Sky?). And in the middle of all of this you tell us you don't have the money? :pac:

I kid. But when many people say they don't have the money what the mean is that they don't want to compromise on their creature comforts, which is understandable enough.

And it is you lads who just don't get it. We simply have to address our deficit. If we refuse to, our lenders of last resort will stop lending to us and we will have to make a 13 billion rather than a 3 billion adjustment in the December budget. What we must decide is, who pays and how much? (The answer to these questions IMO, is all of us, and an awful lot )

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

Perfectly, you want to take the moral high ground by paying but you only want to pay the smallest amount possible.

But surely the number of people working far out weighs the number of houses liable. So income tax may only need to be incremented a small bit as there are much larger numbers contributing, while property tax may need to be €2000 if a large number of houses are exempt.

And what exactly is wrong with trying to pay the smallest amount possible it makes the most economic sense to me, thats why I paid before March 31st I have paid the HHC and paid the smallest amount.

And personally if you gave me the choice between a raise in income tax or a property tax I would choose the property tax. And I would imagine there will be far less exempt houses with the property tax, as some estates in my county are exempt for no apparent reason ones that are in perfect condition so I am guessing they will be taken off the list of waivers.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

And what exactly is wrong with trying to pay the smallest amount possible it makes the most economic sense to me, thats why I paid before March 31st I have paid the HHC and paid the smallest amount.

And personally if you gave me the choice between a raise in income tax or a property tax I would choose the property tax. And I would imagine there will be far less exempt houses with the property tax, as some estates in my county are exempt for no apparent reason ones that are in perfect condition so I am guessing they will be taken off the list of waivers.

I wouldnt be to sure, there will have to be a loophole of some kind

Ghandee

Hogan has said their will be exemptions for 18,000 or so in mortgage difficulties etc.

Poor fella, he still hasn't twigged that nearly 700,000 have already given themselves 'exemptions' :pac:

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

I wouldnt be to sure, there will have to be a loophole of some kind

There is one estate in town here that has been finished for 30 years and was deemed unfinished and so put on the waiver list because somebody had applied to build 4 houses at some stage and had never gone ahead with this. There are also a few others on it that are completely finished and are still on the departments list so I assume they will be off it anyway as there was uproar here that some made it on to this list.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

Hogan has said their will be exemptions for 18,000 or so in mortgage difficulties etc.

Poor fella, he still hasn't twigged that nearly 700,000 have already given themselves 'exemptions' :pac:

No have given themselves the oppportunity to pay more than was necessary.

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

So you swilling Bacardi, enjoying your broadband and entertaining yourself with a movie (Sky?). And in the middle of all of this you tell us you don't have the money? :pac:

I kid. But when many people say they don't have the money what the mean is that they don't want to compromise on their creature comforts, which is understandable enough.

And it is you lads who just don't get it. We simply have to address our deficit. If we refuse to, our lenders of last resort will stop lending to us and we will have to make a 13 billion rather than a 3 billion adjustment in the December budget. What we must decide is, who pays and how much? (The answer to these questions IMO, is all of us, and an awful lot )

Address the over spending then, its spending that increased and not taxes and charges that decreased. Its not a case of implementing money generating exercises that were cut in the boom time.

lmao at the "all of us" bit, instead of "all of us" why isnt it "everybody"??

Can you point out any meaningful contribution people in government have made in these times of austerity?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Hogan has said their will be exemptions for 18,000 or so in mortgage difficulties etc.

Not quite

Mr Hogan said he had given them an exemption from the €100 household charge this year and would be taking them into account for the property tax. It was "not easy" for families who could not pay their mortgages, he said.

Ghandee wrote: »

Poor fella, he still hasn't twigged that nearly 700,000 have already given themselves 'exemptions' :pac:

They just gave themselves expensive deferrals :pac:

Hijpo

breaking news

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2012/10/22/government-send-traveller-carpet-salesman-to-renegotiate-bail-out-deal/?t=Government+Send+Traveller+Carpet+Salesman+to+%E2%80%98Renegotiate%E2%80%99+Bail+Out+Deal

bgrizzley

Hijpo wrote: »

breaking news

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2012/10/22/government-send-traveller-carpet-salesman-to-renegotiate-bail-out-deal/?t=Government+Send+Traveller+Carpet+Salesman+to+%E2%80%98Renegotiate%E2%80%99+Bail+Out+Deal

phil hogan wouldnt want to hear this...:D

Maggie 2

Ghandee wrote: »

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.



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.;)

I support getting the country back on it's feet. I'm waiting for a suitable alternative to the current crop. There's plenty of talk/griping on forums, but I have yet to see anyone step forward with a credible alternative. Yes, there's plenty wrong with the Government, but I really think they didn't know what they were letting themselves in for. I support the proposed changes in county/town councils, it's a step in the right direction, but I believe that in order for changes to TD's pay and expenses, a referendum would have to be held. Home helps are assigned to many people who don't really need them. What's wrong with family members looking after their elderly, if they are in a position to do so? There's nothing wrong with supporting the efforts of the Government and pointing out abuse of the system by some of the members of that government.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

That's no problem at all. The attachment order will activate when money goes into your account, not after it leaves.

Be that as it may, when a judge views my statement of incomings v outgoings, I imagine that he will make a decision as to what utility bill will have to go unpaid, in order to have the property tax paid, and I'm sure the same will apply to a whole lot of people in the same situation, thereby taking the decision out of my and others hands.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

Be that as it may, when a judge views my statement of incomings v outgoings, I imagine that he will make a decision as to what utility bill will have to go unpaid, in order to have the property tax paid, and I'm sure the same will apply to a whole lot of people in the same situation, thereby taking the decision out of my and others hands.

You need a judge to organise your household budget?
Man up.

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

You need a judge to organise your household budget?
Man up.

You need a judge to collect your taxes?
Fail

Chips Lovell

Ghandee wrote: »

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.

TD's aren't in receipt of €1 billion a year in allowances.

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

TD's aren't in receipt of €1 billion a year in allowances.

Sorry, you're correct.

I meant to include menders of the PS in that sentence.

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

You need a judge to collect your taxes?
Fail

No you need a judge to collect your taxes!!

View

Ghandee wrote: »

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?

Those laws are "generally accepted" because the State: a) actually makes a moderate effort to enforce them, b) the fines for breeching them are sufficiently unpleasant and c) once caught it is hard to evade the penalties. Hence most people comply with the relevant laws.

Previously though, prior to the current systems being introduced that is, those same laws were openly flouted by many people on a daily basis. Based on past experience with those laws, such flouting tends to result in tougher sanctions and enforcement being introduced.

You may be prepared to refuse to pay come what may but most of the people you mention will not be there with you when you decide to become a martyr over a €100 charge.

darkhorse

darkhorse wrote: »

I cancelled watching a good film for this debate, which, by any stretch of the imagination, is, at best, repetitive (luckily, my son bought me a bottle of bacardi, therefore making my posts look more sensible with every glass I take).

lugha wrote: »

So you swilling Bacardi, enjoying your broadband and entertaining yourself with a movie (Sky?).

Read the part in bold (I should'nt have to bold it, if you had read the whole post, before you got over excited with your reply). Also, I posted in this forum in May of this year, the fact that I cancelled my subscription to Sky (cause I could no longer afford it, due to cut in pay), and bought two free to air combo boxs (with a loan from the credit union), which is subscription free. Oh, and in the same post, I stated that my son pays the broadband subscrition, which is the reason that I am lucky enough to be in a position to communicate with you on this site (word for word).

darkhorse

Hijpo wrote: »

breaking news

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2012/10/22/government-send-traveller-carpet-salesman-to-renegotiate-bail-out-deal/?t=Government+Send+Traveller+Carpet+Salesman+to+%E2%80%98Renegotiate%E2%80%99+Bail+Out+Deal[/QUOTE]

This is classic. I hav'nt laughed this much in ages.:D:D:D

View

Ghandee wrote: »

Just to be clear.

Afaik, employers/govt cannot deduct any non-related to income (prsi, income tax, USC) etc from your salary/wage without your consent.

To deduct any monies from your income (not related to your gross income) requires either your consent, or a court order, ordering a deduction at source.

Or it requires the next Finance Act (which will be due to implement the budget) to say something to the effect:

1) Employers will deduct a Household Charge from the salaries of all their employees. Such a charge will be €250.

2) A Household Charge Tax Credit will apply to all employees where Revenue is satisfied that: a) they have paid their charge to their local authority or b) were not liable to pay it.

That might be a pain for Revenue to process but most people will choose at that point to pay their local authority that €100 rather than pay Revenue that extra €250.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

You need a judge to organise your household budget?

Nope. That was in reply to your post re the attachment order (I'm just assuming that an attachment order is made by a judge)

Ghandee

View wrote: »

Or it requires the next Finance Act (which will be due to implement the budget) to say something to the effect:

1) Employers will deduct a Household Charge from the salaries of all their employees. Such a charge will be €250.

2) A Household Charge Tax Credit will apply to all employees where Revenue is satisfied that: a) they have paid their charge to their local authority or b) were not liable to pay it.

That might be a pain for Revenue to process but most people will choose at that point to pay their local authority that €100 rather than pay Revenue that extra €250.

So, if I understand you correctly.


You agree with me thus far in that nobody can lawfully deduct the hhc/property charge, or any fine connected to it from your income. (without the various court appearances, and actually being singled out in the first place)

You've confirmed what I've said, is that right?

Incidentally, how sure are you that the current govt will still be running the show by the time the next finance act gets Introduced?

Chips Lovell

There's a Finance Act every year. It puts measures announced in the budget into law.