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

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

But if they openly admitted refusal to pay they would be easier to catch and would be in a better financial position to pay aswell, two big factors they have over the working class home owner. All ye seem to do is go on about how we are breaking the law and evading taxes blah blah blah, does this mean that working class home owners are being summonsed because they are not politicians?

There are 600k+ of you little scamps, I doubt that there will be a great problem locating a few of them to bring to court.

Do you disagree that the DPP going after opposition politicians first , would be perceived as political?

Predalien

lugha wrote: »

I think those bold-boys TDs presents a bit of a dilemma for the DPP. The DPP needs to be non-political and going after said TDs first would undoubtedly be perceived as political. But of course they cannot just ignore them as they flaunt the law.

My guess is that they won't be first up before the old beak, but they won't be too far behind.

DPP will have no involvement.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

Those odds show Paddy Power thinks the government will run a full term.

2016 (full term) at 2-1
2014 & 2015 both at 9/4 (or 2.25-1)
2013 4-1

All pre budget odds by the way.

Not much in it by any stretch.

Lot of the pro side had a very noticeable absence from this thread over the back holiday weekend.


All back at work now I assume ?:pac::pac::pac:

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

There are 600k+ of you little scamps, I doubt that there will be a great problem locating a few of them to bring to court.

I'd agree with you Lugha, 100%.

However, they may have a problem getting these people to pay up, judge or no judge.

We have a saying up around my neck of the woods,:

You can't take knickers of a bare ass.

Some of them don't have it to give Lugha. Simple as.

dvpower

Le_Dieux wrote: »

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Mayo County Council the first of many local authorities to issue summons:

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16440:household-charge-shambles&catid=23:news&Itemid=46

What is the 'household charge bureau'? Also, imho, this report proves that MCC are speaking a load of bollox. Reading through the report it says that 63% paid the charge, then further down it is stated (quote) approximately three out of every four householders in County Mayo have paid the household charge (unquote). I don't know if the people in MCC were taught by master Kenny, but when I went to school, 3 out of 4 was 75%...12% difference from a few paragraphs prior.

They really have NO idea, have they???

National compliance rate: 63%
Mayo compliance rate: almost 3 out of 4 (actually 72%)
National functional illiteracy rate: 22.6%

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

There are 600k+ of you little scamps, I doubt that there will be a great problem locating a few of them to bring to court.

Do you disagree that the DPP going after opposition politicians first , would be perceived as political?

I can already see the day they send a summons to someone whos already paid, better again the day someone dead 26 years doesnt turn up.

lugha

Predalien wrote: »

DPP will have no involvement.

Well if this is so then I guess the “won’t pay” TDs are not as far down the queue as I thought!

Is it the individual LAs who decide who they will pursue? If so, then I would think it ill-advised for a FG / Lab dominated council to initially go after an opposition politician. So I still would be surprised if politicians are first up. But who knows.

Ghandee wrote: »

We have a saying up around my neck of the woods,:

You can't take knickers of a bare ass.

Some of them don't have it to give Lugha. Simple as.

So what happens if your dream comes true and FG and Lab get booted out of office soon (and this is certainly a possibility) and get replaced by a party who will promise (and keep the promise!) not to introduce a property tax (very unlikely), then the revenue that would have been raised from a property tax will have to be raised in other ways.

And a sizable chunk of the money that has to be raised will have to come from the masses, or the knicker-less as you call them. You can throw out all sorts of ideas that will save a million (or even a hundred million) here and there but there simply is not a solution to the crisis that will not make gruelling demands on regular people.

I have made the analogy before that someone who has been made redundant might well argue that he cannot possible afford to take such a massive cut in income giving his mortgage / family etc. The reality is that he has no choice.

And neither do we have a choice. If we refuse to make a 3 billion adjustment in the next budget then nobody would lend to us and we would have to make a 13 billion adjustment instead.

And of course, a bit of clarity would help when people say they can’t afford it. Obviously, most people do not have several hundred euro lying around with nothing in particular to spend it on. They will need to sacrifice something to pay it. But there is a big difference for example, between having to cancel a health insurance subscription and a Sky subscription.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

2016 (full term) at 2-1
2014 & 2015 both at 9/4 (or 2.25-1)
2013 4-1

All pre budget odds by the way.

Not much in it by any stretch.

Lot of the pro side had a very noticeable absence from this thread over the back holiday weekend.


All back at work now I assume ?:pac::pac::pac:

Could be that or could be that we actually have better things to be doing over a bank holiday weekend than mashing our keyboards over the HHC, nice to be missed all the same though.

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

I can already see the day they send a summons to someone whos already paid, better again the day someone dead 26 years doesnt turn up.

And who is to blame for problems in the compilation of a valid registry of property owners????

Next, you will be advising people to fly-tip to save a few quid on waster collection charges and then berating councils for their policies on cleaning up the countryside!

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

And who is to blame for problems in the compilation of a valid registry of property owners????

Next, you will be advising people to fly-tip to save a few quid on waster collection charges and then berating councils for their policies on cleaning up the countryside!

The bit of a database they do have and they still cant use it properly or keep track of who has paid, what makes you think it would be any different with a full one? i think it would bring even more chaos.

Dont be silly, waste collection is a service i get in return for paying money. The same as the money i pay to have the grass cut in my housing estate. I get something in return for my money. As for HHC/Property tax, these carry no services for the money paid.

Can you grasp that fact? at all?

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

The bit of a database they do have and they still cant use it properly or keep track of who has paid, what makes you think it would be any different with a full one? i think it would bring even more chaos.

Dont be silly, waste collection is a service i get in return for paying money. The same as the money i pay to have the grass cut in my housing estate. I get something in return for my money. As for HHC/Property tax, these carry no services for the money paid.

Can you grasp that fact? at all?

Can you grasp the fact that you do actually receive services, well unless of course you live somewhere with no access and are 100% self sufficient of course.

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

The bit of a database they do have and they still cant use it properly or keep track of who has paid, what makes you think it would be any different with a full one? i think it would bring even more chaos.

I think you are under-estimating the challenge in compiling a property register from existing sources, a challenge the government anticipated which is in part, why they introduced the HHC.
I expect you would see the same teething problems were a special tax introduced for say, the super-rich who had extensive assets. Would you campaign against such a tax if it turned out that there were initial difficulties in setting up a database of those liable to pay?

Hijpo wrote: »

Dont be silly, waste collection is a service i get in return for paying money.

:rolleyes: I was using an analogy to highlight how silly it is for some to be criticising authorities for their handling of a problem when it is the afore-mentioned “some” who are the substantial cause of the problem. Nothing to do with waste collection. At all.

Hijpo wrote: »

Can you grasp that fact? at all?

Indeed.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

Can you grasp the fact that you do actually receive services, well unless of course you live somewhere with no access and are 100% self sufficient of course.

Even the people that have there own well, septic tank, no lights, **** roads, no library nearby, no school or public bus service passing etc etc have to pay for these "services" but someone who avails of these and much much more doesnt have to pay at all. If the council wants to sub me 20 quid for the filters for my filter jug because of there ****e water supply nice one, or if they unblock my drains (the probably wont seen as they are of the opinion its not there problem) how about sending a crew round to my estate to deweed the curbs, hang on the residents do that. Cut the grass? we pay for that to. Fix the hole in the play area where the kids are supposed to be able to play? been like that 3 years now. Ill just bring him to the play area built by the local GAA club with funds raised through raffles and events. **** it, give me the bulb and ill put it in the light outside meself, for free.

Gime a break.

When theres a deal on the table where we get meaningfull service or even an increase in the quality of these "services", ill pay it. However they have said there will be no such increases in the amount or quality of the services.

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

I think you are under-estimating the challenge in compiling a property register from existing sources, a challenge the government anticipated which is in part, why they introduced the HHC.
I expect you would see the same teething problems were a special tax introduced for say, the super-rich who had extensive assets. Would you campaign against such a tax if it turned out that there were initial difficulties in setting up a database of those liable to pay?

Im not campaigning against the HHC because its hard to set up

lugha wrote: »

:rolleyes: I was using an analogy to highlight how silly it is for some to be criticising authorities for their handling of a problem when it is the afore-mentioned “some” who are the substantial cause of the problem. Nothing to do with waste collection. At all.[/quote/

Turned out to be a **** analogy then didnt it.

lugha wrote: »

Indeed.

Whats your problem then?

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

Even the people that have there own well, septic tank, no lights, **** roads, no library nearby, no school or public bus service passing etc etc have to pay for these "services" but someone who avails of these and much much more doesnt have to pay at all. If the council wants to sub me 20 quid for the filters for my filter jug because of there ****e water supply nice one, or if they unblock my drains (the probably wont seen as they are of the opinion its not there problem) how about sending a crew round to my estate to deweed the curbs, hang on the residents do that. Cut the grass? we pay for that to. Fix the hole in the play area where the kids are supposed to be able to play? been like that 3 years now. Ill just bring him to the play area built by the local GAA club with funds raised through raffles and events. **** it, give me the bulb and ill put it in the light outside meself, for free.

Gime a break.

When theres a deal on the table where we get meaningfull service or even an increase in the quality of these "services", ill pay it. However they have said there will be no such increases in the amount or quality of the services.

So you do get services then and are saying well when I get more services then I will pay, hows about you pay for the services you get already first and then ask for more. As for your estate well thats a private estate by the sounds of it so why you want the council to do anything with it is a mystery.

Do you actually expect the Council to ever do your weeding for you? Or cut your grass for you?

Basically you want to decide what the Council does for you before you pay for any of the services you already avail of? Sure maybe you should be County Manager or a County Councillor then, that way you can decide what the Council spend thier funds on. Sure they could throw it all at the private estate in which you reside.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

So you do get services then and are saying well when I get more services then I will pay, hows about you pay for the services you get already first and then ask for more. As for your estate well thats a private estate by the sounds of it so why you want the council to do anything with it is a mystery.

Do you actually expect the Council to ever do your weeding for you? Or cut your grass for you?

Basically you want to decide what the Council does for you before you pay for any of the services you already avail of? Sure maybe you should be County Manager or a County Councillor then, that way you can decide what the Council spend thier funds on. Sure they could throw it all at the private estate in which you reside.

No im pointing out that private estates are looked after by the residents, that better facilities and services are provided by indipendant bodies. Therefor why should home owners be the only ones expected to pay for non existant/**** services.

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

No im pointing out that private estates are looked after by the residents, that better facilities and services are provided by indipendant bodies. Therefor why should home owners be the only ones expected to pay for non existant/**** services.

They shouldnt be but they are, but the point is you do get services so saying you will pay the HHC when you receive services doesnt really work as you are getting them already. Doesnt matter if your man down the road gets more from them or not. And a private estate is just that private, if you wanted to avail of more services from the Council then why not live in a council house in a council estate.

And by the sounds of it many council estates seem to be in better condition than your estate and a lot of other private estates so I wouldnt say there are better facilities and services in them.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

They shouldnt be but they are, but the point is you do get services so saying you will pay the HHC when you receive services doesnt really work as you are getting them already. Doesnt matter if your man down the road gets more from them or not. And a private estate is just that private, if you wanted to avail of more services from the Council then why not live in a council house in a council estate.

So you are of the opinion that we are getting services for free?
What level of service?
why are we paying taxes, charges and levies to the government? Why have the government given senetors and TD's a 4 million increase in spending if councils are cash strapped for basic services?

Thats just it, i dont avail of more services from the council, i dont expect to and the council will not provide extra services, so im not paying for them.

donalg1 wrote: »

And by the sounds of it many council estates seem to be in better condition than your estate and a lot of other private estates so I wouldnt say there are better facilities and services in them.

lol what the hell does that mean?

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

So you are of the opinion that we are getting services for free?
What level of service?
why are we paying taxes, charges and levies to the government? Why have the government given senetors and TD's a 4 million increase in spending if councils are cash strapped for basic services?

Thats just it, i dont avail of more services from the council, i dont expect to and the council will not provide extra services, so im not paying for them.

But you arent paying enough for the services you receive at present and that is the point. Councils are broke so they need to raise more money and thats why they have introduced the HHC.

lol what the hell does that mean?

You say that private estates have better services and facilities yet by the sounds of it your estate doesnt and I know of plenty of other estates that dont. But sure if you are happy with the level of services you receive in your estate I dont see why you feel the need to complain about them then. Thats what that means lol.;)

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

But you arent paying enough for the services you receive at present and that is the point. Councils are broke so they need to raise more money and thats why they have introduced the HHC.

Were not paying enough for nothing? what about the people paying nothing for more than we get and expecting us to pay for them?
Let me know where you like to dine, ill stick the bill on your table.

You failed to address the point i made about increased governmental spending on the back of home owners being the only ones forced to pay more for less available services.

donalg1 wrote: »

You say that private estates have better services and facilities yet by the sounds of it your estate doesnt and I know of plenty of other estates that dont. But sure if you are happy with the level of services you receive in your estate I dont see why you feel the need to complain about them then. Thats what that means lol.;)

I didnt say private estates, i said independant bodies ie: not the council. Im happy not to pay extra for non existant services.

Sure why wouldnt councils have better facilities?
any money the council collects gets injected into council estates, not the estates with the houses where the money comes from. So not only are we paying for our own homes and looking after our own estates but we are funding the councils houses and funding the maintanance of there esates aswell.

Pardon me for having a gripe at being landed with every feckin tab the government and councils can come up with.

DoesNotCompute

Hijpo wrote: »

any money the council collects gets injected into council estates, not the estates with the houses where the money comes from. So not only are we paying for our own homes and looking after our own estates but we are funding the councils houses and funding the maintanance of there esates aswell.

Incorrect. Council tenants pay rent, which goes towards the upkeep of council houses.

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

Were not paying enough for nothing? what about the people paying nothing for more than we get and expecting us to pay for them?
Let me know where you like to dine, ill stick the bill on your table.

You failed to address the point i made about increased governmental spending on the back of home owners being the only ones forced to pay more for less available services.



I didnt say private estates, i said independant bodies ie: not the council. Im happy not to pay extra for non existant services.

Sure why wouldnt councils have better facilities?
any money the council collects gets injected into council estates, not the estates with the houses where the money comes from. So not only are we paying for our own homes and looking after our own estates but we are funding the councils houses and funding the maintanance of there esates aswell.

Pardon me for having a gripe at being landed with every feckin tab the government and councils can come up with.

But this is how its always been as I said before if you have a problem with that why dont you live in a council estate and not a private estate?

The Govt are also the same as ever so why you are surprised by this I dont know, they will increase their wages while telling us to pay more taxes they are all the same and will never change.

My point is that I dont understand your logic when you say things like I will pay the HHC if they provide me with services, they already provide you with services so thats where your logic falls down. You basically want the ability to tell the state how to allocate its funds, whereas I dont think you or I will ever be in a position to do such a thing.

And why do you think the Council would inject money into a private estate, they have no reason or responsibility to do this, its up to the owners of the estate to do this, same way as the Council would own a Council estate and therefore inject money into the upkeep and maintenance of the estates they own.

Hijpo

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Incorrect. Council tenants pay rent, which goes towards the upkeep of council houses.

So the rent fully covers the upkeep costs??

Turns out our taxes do not go to councils which councils use to fund part of the upkeep of there houses :rolleyes:

What has the council done in your private estate?

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

But this is how its always been as I said before if you have a problem with that why dont you live in a council estate and not a private estate?

The Govt are also the same as ever so why you are surprised by this I dont know, they will increase their wages while telling us to pay more taxes they are all the same and will never change.

And where is your logic in putting up with it?
So you want anyone who has a problem with paying for others, to become one of the people being paid for by others? lol oh you should be on a stage

donalg1 wrote: »

My point is that I dont understand your logic when you say things like I will pay the HHC if they provide me with services, they already provide you with services so thats where your logic falls down. You basically want the ability to tell the state how to allocate its funds, whereas I dont think you or I will ever be in a position to do such a thing.

And i already provide them with money for these apparent services i recieve. I know where they dont allocate there funds, thats enough for me not to pay extra money.
How much would you pay for a bottle of ballygown laced with flouride and had to filter it before you drank it?

donalg1 wrote: »

And why do you think the Council would inject money into a private estate, they have no reason or responsibility to do this, its up to the owners of the estate to do this, same way as the Council would own a Council estate and therefore inject money into the upkeep and maintenance of the estates they own.

I dont think the council should inject money into private estates, therefor i dont think private estates should be expected to fund the services that the council doesnt provide to private estated..

For arguments sake lets pretend we dont pay anything for basic council services.

Cut them back to the basics of water, sewage, lighting, street cleaning, road repair (anything else? i cant think of any more necessities provided by the council)
If they cant be provided for with the current income then fair enough. However if they can be, which im pretty sure they can, then im paying enough as is. If the council want to fix up a house thats not being looked after then let the council off to fix it off there own back or charge the tennant, same with services supplied to council estates charge the residents. Its good enough for private estates to be left to pay there own way.

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

And where is your logic in putting up with it?
So you want anyone who has a problem with paying for others, to become one of the people being paid for by others? lol oh you should be on a stage

No I am saying that this is the way its always been those working and paying taxes have always subsidised those not working and not paying taxes so why all of a sudden are you annoyed about this. And why is it this particular tax you have decided not to pay as a result of the above and not any of the other taxes or charges you pay? (thats a rhetorical question as I already know the answer to it)

And i already provide them with money for these apparent services i recieve. I know where they dont allocate there funds, thats enough for me not to pay extra money.
How much would you pay for a bottle of ballygown laced with flouride and had to filter it before you drank it?


I dont think the council should inject money into private estates, therefor i dont think private estates should be expected to fund the services that the council doesnt provide to private estated..

The services you receive are not exclusive to your estate you do avail of services once you leave your estate you know? And if you dont think they should inject money into private estates why are you complaining about the weeds in the kerbs and the play area or lack of one and why are you complaining about having to cut the grass yourself?

For arguments sake lets pretend we dont pay anything for basic council services.

Cut them back to the basics of water, sewage, lighting, street cleaning, road repair (anything else? i cant think of any more necessities provided by the council)
If they cant be provided for with the current income then fair enough. However if they can be, which im pretty sure they can, then im paying enough as is. If the council want to fix up a house thats not being looked after then let the council off to fix it off there own back or charge the tennant, same with services supplied to council estates charge the residents. Its good enough for private estates to be left to pay there own way.

They cant though and thats the point as a result of reduced funding from central government and reduced revenue as a result of the genius' in the Green Party bringing in their carbon based related tax bands, and also as a result of a drop in the collection rates of commercial rates due to the recession.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

National compliance rate: 63%
Mayo compliance rate: almost 3 out of 4 (actually 72%)
National functional illiteracy rate: 22.6%

If you had read the story, you would find that Le_Dieux quote is correct, in so far as he has quoted the newspaper article word for word:-


"We havebeen told by Mayo County Council that 63 per cent of households have paid thecharge, but how dothey go about calculating their information if they counted one person fivetimes."
Nowhere does it say that the writer is referring to the National compliance rate.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

No I am saying that this is the way its always been those working and paying taxes have always subsidised those not working and not paying taxes so why all of a sudden are you annoyed about this. And why is it this particular tax you have decided not to pay as a result of the above and not any of the other taxes or charges you pay? (thats a rhetorical question as I already know the answer to it)

Have you not realised how much changed and that those paying taxes aswell as being less of a drain on the system are already having a bit of bother financing there own lives never mind filling other voids that shouldnt concern us.

The country is in a recession how can the struggling be ****in charity cases aswell?

Next well be told to sell our kids if we cant afford to keep them.

donalg1 wrote: »

The services you receive are not exclusive to your estate you do avail of services once you leave your estate you know? And if you dont think they should inject money into private estates why are you complaining about the weeds in the kerbs and the play area or lack of one and why are you complaining about having to cut the grass yourself?

Yes and we pay for them dont we?
Dont kid yourself, we get nothing for nothing in this country, well some of us anyway.
I wasnt complaining that the council should be doing it, i was making an example of what private estates do to keep there estates in some kind of order without any help from the council, will you please keep up. I for one am glad the council arnt doing it, they would probably make a **** of it anyway, 8 lads standing around a hole for a week.

donalg1 wrote: »

They cant though and thats the point as a result of reduced funding from central government and reduced revenue as a result of the genius' in the Green Party bringing in their carbon based related tax bands, and also as a result of a drop in the collection rates of commercial rates due to the recession.

If the government had there feckin affairs in order and prioritised funding for essentials then they could well afford it but nah well hand out a billion here and increase payments there. Maybe if councils didnt write off hundreds of millions in debts they might be alright aswell. but hey, **** it well get the private home owners to fill the gap. This **** annoys me to no end.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

And of course, a bit of clarity would help when people say they can’t afford it. Obviously, most people do not have several hundred euro lying around with nothing in particular to spend it on. They will need to sacrifice something to pay it. But there is a big difference for example, between having to cancel a health insurance subscription and a Sky subscription.

No matter what is said on this matter or any matter, to you, regarding affordability, you and some others seem to just have a problem believing what you are told on this this thread(I was actually accused by a poster of telling lies, because I said that I could not afford some things). Must be a paranoid nature or something.

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

And by the sounds of it many council estates seem to be in better condition than your estate and a lot of other private estates so I wouldnt say there are better facilities and services in them.

The most stupidest statement that I ever heard in my life.

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

Can you grasp the fact that you do actually receive services.

Without paying for them?