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

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So if we bundled the property tax, water charges and waste charges into one, you'd be happy to pay? How is one an "attack on the family home" and the other not?

I think (and suspect you know ) Tayto was referring to a domestic rates style charge were all services (health education etc) get tied to the charge.

Hijpo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Their bailout was of a similar order of magnitude to ours.
And what do you think Iceland spent a lot of it's bailout money on? Yep, it's banks. And I presume you do know the reason why AIB had to put money into its pension fund?
Banks have two ways of righting the ship. Lowering costs and increasing income? Do you actually want state own banks to have unprofitable interest rates?
They were savings, not bonds. UK and Netherlands said they were guaranteed. Iceland said not. The courts will now decide.
happy days, unfortunatly the only figures growing here is unemployment rates, suicides, and crime. Conveniently none can be tied to the state the country is in.
As I've said before, a property tax made sense before this mess we got ourselves into and it still makes sense. It's certainly a sight better than the previous property taxation regime we employed, which is one of the reasons we are where we are now.

All that still doesnt state a reason why we should continue to pump money into our broken system, pay sleazeball bankers and politicians big pensions and salaries, continue to elect slim ball politicians that are in government to feather there nests and be forced to abide by legislation and a constitution that allows them to do so and protects them if they do step out of line.

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

As I've said before, a property tax made sense before this mess we got ourselves into and it still makes sense.

How could it possibly make sense, Vlad, when the disposable income of just about half the population of the country is almost depleted. I keep asking the question, where are people going to get the money to keep paying extra taxes, but nobody seems to be able to answer that question. To put it another way, should people give up feeding their families and keeping them warm, for the sake of gathering money to pay back some of the wealthiest people on earth. As I said several times already, let our govt. tell the truth to the troika of the state of the countries citizens, financially, and let the creditors wait til the country is in a healthier financial state, then we will pay them back. Its not as if they need the money anytime soon. Now, there's no point telling me that any extra money collected from us by the govt. is going towards services, because that one is really played out at this stage.

darkhorse

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If you intend selling your house any prospective purchaser will require a Certificate of Discharge in respect of the Household Charge before purchasing the property and all outstanding charges and penalties will need to be paid before the Certificate will issue.

The solution to that dilemma would be to give the prospective buyer a €100 discount.:D

Ghandee

darkhorse wrote: »

The solution to that dilemma would be to give the prospective buyer a €100 discount.:D

Or.......

Let's say your house sold for 300k, but had an 'attachment' related to non payment of the hhc.

Attachment = (purely arguments sake) 5k.

Sell house for 295, but new owner pays hhc/fines up front.

Its like selling an untaxed car. Apply discount so new buyer can then tax it.

Simples :pac:

darkhorse

Ghandee wrote: »

Or.......

Let's say your house sold for 300k, but had an 'attachment' related to non payment of the hhc.

Attachment = (purely arguments sake) 5k.

Sell house for 295, but new owner pays hhc/fines up front.

Its like selling an untaxed car. Apply discount so new buyer can then tax it.

Simples :pac:

Did ya see the nine o clock news. Enda got an Oscar and the Germans love us now. Things are looking up.

Le_Dieux

They can love him all they want, but for me, the govt has ended up with a serious amount of egg on it's face over the Supreme Court ruling yesterday. Surely they have people from the legal profession working for them who would have foreseen this coming?

Then again, I honestly wouldn't have expected anything else. Yesterday's ruling just ( for me) shows another case of 'boys trying to do a man's job',

Will be very interesting to see whether this referendum goes ahead in it's present format, and if so, will it be mired ( in the future) in the courts...........sigh!

Ghandee

darkhorse wrote: »

Did ya see the nine o clock news. Enda got an Oscar and the Germans love us now. Things are looking up.

Was an expensive Oscar!

Enda (coincidentally of courser) picked up his gong on the same day that Anglo (unsecured) bondholders received €24 million from the Irish tax payers.

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

Was an expensive Oscar!

Enda (coincidentally of courser) picked up his gong on the same day that Anglo (unsecured) bondholders received €24 million from the Irish tax payers.

Someone is annoyed that he did not get European of the year award! :P
Ah well, maybe next year!

Seriously though, I would be interested to know, and have been meaning to ask, what your understanding of the government real reasons for authorising these payments, and other unpopular decisions?

After all, most of them are parents and grandparents, or will be. And presumably, they would want a decent country for their children every bit as much as the rest of us

Do you not think that they genuinely believe, that seemingly unpalatable decisions like this really involve selecting the least worst option? (Whether they are correct or not is of course a matter for debate, but a different matter).

Or do you imagine that they are some kind of political trolls, taking such decisions for the thrill of winding a few people up? And of course, foreshortening their own political careers into the bargin.

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

Someone is annoyed that he did not get European of the year award! :P
Ah well, maybe next year!

Seriously though, I would be interested to know, and have been meaning to ask, what your understanding of the government real reasons for authorising these payments, and other unpopular decisions? FR

After all, most of them are parents and grandparents, or will be. And presumably, they would want a decent country for their children every bit as much as the rest of us

Do you not think that they genuinely believe, that seemingly unpalatable decisions like this really involve selecting the least worst option? (Whether they are correct or not is of course a matter for debate, but a different matter).

Or do you imagine that they are some kind of political trolls, taking such decisions for the thrill of winding a few people up? And of course, foreshortening their own political careers into the bargin.

Yesterdays ruling by the supreme court might just do that for him Lugha.

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

Yesterdays ruling by the supreme court might just do that for him Lugha.

So your not going to have an 'aul stab at an answer then? Nevermind.

And yesterday's ruling won't shorten any political career by a day. Nobody really gives a monkey's about trivial stuff like this.

It is as Bill Clinton says, "the economy stupid", The upcoming budget on the other hand will likely have a severe impact on career longevity for some.

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

So your not going to have an 'aul stab at an answer then?

Do you not think that they genuinely believe, that seemingly unpalatable decisions like this really involve selecting the least worst option? (Whether they are correct or not is of course a matter for debate, but a different matter).

They didn't think it was the worst palatable decision pre election.
Remember 'not another red cent' :cool:

lugha wrote: »

And yesterday's ruling won't shorten any political career by a day. Nobody really gives a monkey's about trivial stuff like this.

Oh that's ok then. Just waste millions on a one sided/biassed (and ruled so by a court) on a 'trivial' matter :pac:

lugha wrote: »

It is as Bill Clinton says, "the economy stupid", The upcoming budget on the other hand will likely have a severe impact on career longevity for some.

Something we agree on? A-men!

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

:pac:

I am actually asking a serious question. Have you not given any thought at all as to why the government are making the decisions they are making?

You surely cannot seriously believe that they are deliberately opting to screw everything up for their children and grandchildren? Or maybe you do believe that? :eek:

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

I am actually asking a serious question. Have you not given any thought at all as to why the government are making the decisions they are making?

You surely cannot seriously believe that they are deliberately opting to screw everything up for their children and grandchildren? Or maybe you do believe that? :eek:

Decisions.

Why have they decided to go back on almost every promise made pre election?

Why (even though they said they were against any property tax, did they not only go and introduce one, but not even go with labours suggested sure value based one, that would have targeted billions of euros worth of land banks?

Why did they decide to continue to pump billions into failed banks, despite promising not to?

Why did they decide to break pay caps, they put in place?

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

I am actually asking a serious question. Have you not given any thought at all as to why the government are making the decisions they are making?

You surely cannot seriously believe that they are deliberately opting to screw everything up for their children and grandchildren? Or maybe you do believe that? :eek:

how can politicians screw up everthing for their children/grandchildren? Politics is a family business, once they have their excessive wages/pensions secured the gravy train runs down the family line (pun intended).

Screw everyone elses children...

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

Decisions.

Why have they decided to go back on almost every promise made pre election?

Why (even though they said they were against any property tax, did they not only go and introduce one, but not even go with labours suggested sure value based one, that would have targeted billions of euros worth of land banks?

Why did they decide to continue to pump billions into failed banks, despite promising not to?

Why did they decide to break pay caps, they put in place?

First, they are all questions, not answers.
And second, none of them are remotely related to the actual question I asked you?

But I think I can deduce that they answer to my question would be: no, you have not given any thought as to why they are making the decisions they are making.

bgrizzley wrote: »

Politics is a family business, once they have their excessive wages/pensions secured the gravy train runs down the family line (pun intended).

But why? Why deliberately screw everything up?

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

First, they are all questions, not answers.
And second, none of them are remotely related to the actual question I asked you?

But I think I can deduce that they answer to my question would be: no, you have not given any thought as to why they are making the decisions they are making.



But why? Why deliberately screw everything up?

I think if you answered my questions, you'd inadvertently answer your own.

Bullseye1

The government never makes a decision without consulting with the permanent government "civil servants". Do you not see that there is a level of protectionism going on here? It was highlighted in the recent agreement with current employees maintaining the current status quo while those coming into the system on much lower rates. I guess if I were in the system I'd be trying to protect my livelihood. But it would be to the detriment of the greater population.

lugha wrote: »

I am actually asking a serious question. Have you not given any thought at all as to why the government are making the decisions they are making?

You surely cannot seriously believe that they are deliberately opting to screw everything up for their children and grandchildren? Or maybe you do believe that? :eek:

lugha

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The government never makes a decision without consulting with the permanent government "civil servants". Do you not see that there is a level of protectionism going on here? It was highlighted in the recent agreement with current employees maintaining the current status quo while those coming into the system on much lower rates. I guess if I were in the system I'd be trying to protect my livelihood. But it would be to the detriment of the greater population.

Yes, this does get to the question I am asking (take note Ghandee!) and I agree, the willingness (and it has been gone on for a while) for trade unions to trade (apt word!) the preservation of conditions for current members as the expense of future ones is pretty unethical and selfish IMO, but you can understand it. People frequently (usually!) have selfish motivation for their actions / decisions.

But the particular question I put to Ghandee related to the payments made on unsecured bonds. Do you think there is some selfish, or other motivation, behind these decisions. And what do you think it is?

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

But the particular question I put to Ghandee related to the payments made on unsecured bonds. Do you think there is some selfish, or other motivation, behind these decisions. And what do you think it is?

Hard one to call actually.

However, ask yourself this.

If unsecured bondholders were indeed burned, and as we keep being told that no one would lend us money / balance the books over night blah blah blah.

Who might that effect more, politicians on their vast salaries and multiple pensions (funded by whom?) Or, private workers, earning legitimate honest wages, funded by private businesses?

CptMackey

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Seeing as you are in it for the long haul you are probably aware of the complications which will arise down the line. Even if you avoid prosecution for non payment there is still the small matter of what happens when the title of your proprerty has to be transferred. I'm sure our friends in the legal profession will be happy to collect a little something for themselves along with everything that has to be paid to effect transfer.

http://kmccarthysolicitors.ie/2012/07/household-charge/

If you intend selling your house any prospective purchaser will require a Certificate of Discharge in respect of the Household Charge before purchasing the property and all outstanding charges and penalties will need to be paid before the Certificate will issue.

I have no intention of ever selling. I'll be long dead in the cold ground before this shower of liars get there 100€

Just get the person that I want to take the
House to start squating while I'm on the way out and claim squatters once I'm gone.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

You surely cannot seriously believe that they are deliberately opting to screw everything up for their children and grandchildren? Or maybe you do believe that? :eek:

I personally would find it hard to believe that politicians would have the forsight to look beyond their own term in office.:eek:

dxhound2005

CptMackey wrote: »

I have no intention of ever selling. I'll be long dead in the cold ground before this shower of liars get there 100€

Just get the person that I want to take the
House to start squating while I'm on the way out and claim squatters once I'm gone.

Genius.

lugha

darkhorse wrote: »

I personally would find it hard to believe that politicians would have the forsight to look beyond their own term in office.

Yes, it is not difficult to believe that most politicians have as some priority, that they would get to the top and stay there for as long as possible.
And the best chance of this happening is for them to make decisions that are ….. unpopular?

Of course not! They would do the very opposite and avoid, if at all possible, ever making an unpopular decision.

But thank you for confirming exactly the point I was trying to make, the “no” side not really thinking through their views to see if they actually make sense!

Ghandee wrote: »

Who might that effect more, politicians on their vast salaries and multiple pensions (funded by whom?) Or, private workers, earning legitimate honest wages, funded by private businesses?

Are you now arguing that they are in fact acting in what they think are the best interests of the country but are going so because if it benefits the country it will benefit them more? :eek:

What exactly would you think they should do????

DoesNotCompute

Two more charge defaulters up before court in Co. Mayo this week:

http://www.advertiser.ie/mayo/article/56538/ballinrobe-men-before-court-over-household-charge

tayto lover

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Two more charge defaulters up before court in Co. Mayo this week:

http://www.advertiser.ie/mayo/article/56538/ballinrobe-men-before-court-over-household-charge

AND adjourned by the judge. I wonder why? Is there some problem with these prosecutions and are they on owners with multiple properties? If so then I have no problem with them, as long as they are not on a person's sole property and home.

donalg1

tayto lover wrote: »

AND adjourned by the judge. I wonder why? Is there some problem with these prosecutions and are they on owners with multiple properties? If so then I have no problem with them, as long as they are not on a person's sole property and home.

So you are not against the HHC if people with more than one property have to pay? Why is it you are against the HHC then? Is it because you have to pay it? It clearly isnt based on a point of principle or for any moral reason.

Really you dont want to pay the HHC because you dont want to pay it, and thats the only reason same reason as everyone else despite their claims to the contrary.

m4r10

donalg1 wrote: »

So you are not against the HHC if people with more than one property have to pay? Why is it you are against the HHC then? Is it because you have to pay it? It clearly isnt based on a point of principle or for any moral reason.

Really you dont want to pay the HHC because you dont want to pay it, and thats the only reason same reason as everyone else despite their claims to the contrary.

I'd say he meant that landlords are in that business for the money while your regular Joe who's struggling to pay the mortgage shouldn't be put in the same position regarding the HHC. While the former are well able to pay the HHC, most of the latter can't really take another hit anymore.

donalg1

m4r10 wrote: »

I'd say he meant that landlords are in that business for the money while your regular Joe who's struggling to pay the mortgage shouldn't be put in the same position regarding the HHC. While the former are well able to pay the HHC, most of the latter can't really take another hit anymore.

Well what about someone who has 2 houses and bought the second for the money as you say, and now has 2 mortgages to pay, I mean who's to say they are any better off than someone with one mortgage. And the same can be said for someone with 10 properties.

DoesNotCompute

donalg1 wrote: »

So you are not against the HHC if people with more than one property have to pay? Why is it you are against the HHC then? Is it because you have to pay it? It clearly isnt based on a point of principle or for any moral reason.

Really you dont want to pay the HHC because you dont want to pay it, and thats the only reason same reason as everyone else despite their claims to the contrary.

Basically that's the crux of it. Although the "DON'T REGISTER, DON'T PAY" crowd are coming up with all sorts of noble reasons to oppose the charge to obfuscate the real reason why they don't want to pay.