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

Maggie 2

My understanding of the Supreme court case was that they said that the Government was wrong to word the document as they did, using taxpayers money. It didn't say anywhere that they should defer the Referendum, so the Government didn't ignore the SC. They closed down the website until the wording was removed.
Sean Quinn decided that rather than pay the money owed to the banks (Us), that he and his family would squirrel as much away as possible and give the 2 fingers to us all, banks, Lawmakers, courts.

Ghandee

Maggie 2 wrote: »

My understanding of the Supreme court case was that they said that the Government was wrong to word the document as they did, using taxpayers money. It didn't say anywhere that they should defer the Referendum, so the Government didn't ignore the SC. They closed down the website until the wording was removed.
Sean Quinn decided that rather than pay the money owed to the banks (Us), that he and his family would squirrel as much away as possible and give the 2 fingers to us all, banks, Lawmakers, courts.

I'm with you on the Sean Quinn part.
Greatest hood the country ever produced, no doubt.

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

Easier option to do as has been done by hundreds of thousands.

That's the beauty of the hhc, protesting against it, means not registering and not paying.

And of course someone like Rosa Parks possibly could have tried to avoid being prosecuted, perhaps by apologising afterwards, or whatever. (No doubt, this is what you would have advised her to do! :rolleyes:)

But she didn’t. A crucial part of her stance was that she DID go to court and publicly make known her abhorrence of the law. Her protest would be meaningless if she had not done this. This is what a REAL protestor would do.

And of course I do not think too many “protesting” the HHC / property tax will do likewise, because for most of them, I l believe their real goal is to avoid paying their share, and not to make any great principled stand.

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

And of course someone like Rosa Parks possibly could have tried to avoid being prosecuted, perhaps by apologising afterwards, or whatever. (No doubt, this is what you would have advised her to do! :rolleyes:)

But she didn’t. A crucial part of her stance was that she DID go to court and publicly make known her abhorrence of the law. Her protest would be meaningless if she had not done this. This is what a REAL protestor would do.

And of course I do not think too many “protesting” the HHC / property tax will do likewise, because for most of them, I l believe their real goal is to avoid paying their share, and not to make any great principled stand.

Don't register don't pay has been a slogan used against the hhc from day zero Lugha.

The simplest form of protesting (which means do nothing) is working nicely. :cool:

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

Don't register don't pay has been a slogan used against the hhc from day zero Lugha.

The simplest form of protesting (which means do nothing) is working nicely. :cool:

I don't dispute that people "protesting" (anonymously!) has an effect. But this is the strategy of those that don't want to pay their share, not of those that have a principled objection.

Chips Lovell

darkhorse wrote: »

You are the third person on here who said that you can register and not pay the HHC, lugha. So will you please explain to me how is that possible, bearing in mind that according to the governments projections, the estimated take from the HHC was to be in the region of €160 million. Now, if it was as you say and everyone who was liable for the HHC could indeed register without paying, well, would'nt that defeat the purpose of the government expecting said €160 million. If I am wrong on this, please let me know, as, hearing the same thing from three people, who I perceive to be fairly intelligent, has me confused a bit confused.

Yes, you can register for your liability (or waiver) and not pay. Or least you could when the system first went live.

mikemac1 wrote: »

Supposed to fund local services like lighting, libraries, roads and whatever else.
And maybe it won't and it'll get spent somewhere else but we're told local services.

Yet people in social housing are exempt

Do they not use these services too?

They do of course. That argument might have some validity if local authority services were funded exclusively from the household charge, but they're not. A significant amount of local authority budgets still come from the general taxation pool. The net effect is that the household charge and the new property tax mean that property owners will, relatively speaking, be paying proportionally more than non-property owners.

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

I don't dispute that people "protesting" (anonymously!) has an effect. But this is the strategy of those that don't want to pay their share, not of those that have a principled objection.

Not registering nor paying is a much easier option than the only others which are.

Registering, but not paying. (helping with the database there)
Paying, then objecting/complaining afterwards.

The yes side have finally ran out of logical arguments.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

Don't register don't pay has been a slogan used against the hhc from day zero Lugha.

The simplest form of protesting (which means do nothing) is working nicely. :cool:

Ghandee you aren't even liable for the hhc so what you are talking about is anyone's guess. By your logic we are all protesting against something by not paying it

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

No you do not.
Not only are you breaking the law, but you are encouraging others to do so too.

being a "law" doesnt make something right...

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

Ghandee you aren't even liable for the hhc so what you are talking about is anyone's guess. By your logic we are all protesting against something by not paying it

Now Donal.

For a man well up on council entitlements/state benefits, I'm surprised you don't know that:

Waivers If you are entitled to Mortgage Interest Supplement on the liability date (1 January each year) you can claim a waiver of the Household Charge. People living in certain unfinished housing estates can also claim a waiver for the years 2012 and 2013. Details of qualifying estates are published on the Household Charge website. They are also listed in the Local Government (Household Charge) Regulations 2012 (SI 1/2012). If your estate is not listed, you will not get the waiver.

You must still register your property in order to claim either waiver – see ‘How to apply’ below.

I'm not one of the 'I'm alright, so fcuk you jack' brigade.

I'm supposed to register to be exempt. You've had this pinned out to you numerous times on the thread, (and indeed I think you may have even said it yourself on an earlier thread)

Like I said, the yes side have finally run out of viable arguments.

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

being a "law" doesnt make something right...

As Sean Quinn might say. :pac:

But if you think this out, you might spot a tweeny problem in permitting people do decide what law is and is not right.

Virtually all of us disagree with some, or many, laws. Would you propose a free for all for anyone to break any law, provided they felt the law wasn't "right"?

Ghandee wrote: »

The yes side have finally ran out of logical arguments.

So you accept out arguments up to now were logical?
Give it another, oh 6 months, and you might just get that what we are saying now is logically too.

If you feel the urge anytime soon to cross over to ourside, we'll be all glad to have you. :P

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

Now Donal.

For a man well up on council entitlements/state benefits, I'm surprised you don't know that:



I'm not one of the 'I'm alright, so fcuk you jack' brigade.

I'm supposed to register to be exempt. You've had this pinned out to you numerous times on the thread, (and indeed I think you may have even said it yourself on an earlier thread)

Like I said, the yes side have finally run out of viable arguments.

Yes ghandee I am well up on them as I am well up on a lot of other things are you trying to suggest something? Or just making more silly claims. I am going to call it ghandees crazy claim of the day since you come up with one on a daily basis now.

Your idea of a protest is a joke its absolutely pathetic really.

Bullseye1

There has not been any protest against a "Property Tax" as it does not exist yet. The protest has been against a HHC, a charge and not a tax so no tax defaulters, no matter how much DV likes to spout. When people here that they will be paying €500-1000 on average then you will see a protest.

lugha wrote: »

And of course someone like Rosa Parks possibly could have tried to avoid being prosecuted, perhaps by apologising afterwards, or whatever. (No doubt, this is what you would have advised her to do! :rolleyes:)

But she didn’t. A crucial part of her stance was that she DID go to court and publicly make known her abhorrence of the law. Her protest would be meaningless if she had not done this. This is what a REAL protestor would do.

And of course I do not think too many “protesting” the HHC / property tax will do likewise, because for most of them, I l believe their real goal is to avoid paying their share, and not to make any great principled stand.

donalg1

Bullseye1 wrote: »

There has not been any protest against a "Property Tax" as it does not exist yet. The protest has been against a HHC, a charge and not a tax so no tax defaulters, no matter how much DV likes to spout. When people here that they will be paying €500-1000 on average then you will see a protest.

Like the protest we were supposed to see when the first person was taken to court over the hhc. More crazy claims me thinks but sure we will wait and see.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

Yes ghandee I am well up on them as I am well up on a lot of other things are you trying to suggest something? Or just making more silly claims. I am going to call it ghandees crazy claim of the day since you come up with one on a daily basis now.

Your idea of a protest is a joke its absolutely pathetic really.

Pathetic jokes are what you funded by paying the hhc, councillor Donal.

A COUNTY Limerick family have been left upset and angry after a household charge warning letter was sent to their father, who died 15 years ago.

The family, who didn’t wish to go public, showed the letter to the Limerick Leader.

“When it arrived it was addressed to my dad who died in 1997. You can imagine the great distress it caused to my mum, who is in her eighties, and my siblings. It is complete stupidity in this modern age,” said a son.

As his father died quite a young man, he says it has brought the pain of his passing all back again.

“She is a very quiet woman but we know when she is out of sorts. I contacted Limerick County Council on her behalf. I explained the situation and the terrible state that this had left my mum in and they were all apologies.

“I made enquiries about whether my mum, who is on a widow’s pension, was entitled to a waiver. I was astounded to learn that she was not eligible. This is completely unacceptable,” he said.

Many others who have paid have received a warning letter.

One is Theresa Gavin, Clarina, a widow in her seventies.

“I thought about not paying it, I wasn’t going to do it but I like to live within the law so I paid it. I was very mad when I got this letter last week and it has gone up to €127. I am on a group water scheme and have my own septic tank so we have no services but I
did pay it. And then I am asked to pay it again,” said Ms Gavin.

http://m.limerickleader.ie/news/business/household-tax-warning-sent-to-limerick-man-dead-for-15-years-1-4458209

Bullseye1

donalg1 wrote: »

Like the protest we were supposed to see when the first person was taken to court over the hhc. More crazy claims me thinks but sure we will wait and see.

This is disingenuous as the first person taken to court is a landlord with many properties. This protest was never in support of people who owned many properties and who form part of the blame for the mess we are in.

So you think people will be happy to pay €500-1000 a year for no improvements? I'm sure the auld county manager cannot wait to get his hands on the cash. I'm sure we will see a corrulation between rises in local authority wages and a property tax increases when Hogan gives them the okay to set their own rates. Or do you believe that the rates will remain at the introduced rates?

I don't trust these people to be either transparent or not to be corrupt. Just look at the corruption in spending at FAS when they were left to their own devices.

Chips Lovell

I didn't know that there weren't any single property owners in mortgage arrears.

Nor did I know that local authorities are now allowed set their own pay rates.

donalg1

Bullseye1 wrote: »

This is disingenuous as the first person taken to court is a landlord with many properties. This protest was never in support of people who owned many properties and who form part of the blame for the mess we are in.

So you think people will be happy to pay €500-1000 a year for no improvements? I'm sure the auld county manager cannot wait to get his hands on the cash. I'm sure we will see a corrulation between rises in local authority wages and a property tax increases when Hogan gives them the okay to set their own rates. Or do you believe that the rates will remain at the introduced rates?

I don't trust these people to be either transparent or not to be corrupt. Just look at the corruption in spending at FAS when they were left to their own devices.

Oh whatever saying a landlord was taken to court is just another example of those on the anti side moving the goalposts.

Bullseye1

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I didn't know that there weren't any single property owners in mortgage arrears.

Nor did I know that local authorities are now allowed set their own pay rates.

Hogan stated that they would allow LA to set their own rates in the future, or at least it was a possibility.
What has mortgage arrears got to do with this debate??

Bullseye1

donalg1 wrote: »

Oh whatever saying a landlord was taken to court is just another example of those on the anti side moving the goalposts.

I'm sorry your getting frustrated by logic and non-aggressive responses.

I do find it interesting that you don't comment on the other points.

Chips Lovell

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Hogan stated that they would allow LA to set their own rates in the future, or at least it was a possibility.
What has mortgage arrears got to do with this debate??

He did. But he didn't say he'd allow local authorities to set their own pay rates.
What has mortgage arrears got to do with this? Well you said that people with multiple properties "form part of the blame for the mess we are in". People with single properties do too.

donalg1

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm sorry your getting frustrated by logic and non-aggressive responses.

I do find it interesting that you don't comment on the other points.

What logic.

Local authorities won't ever be allowed to say their own pay rates they will be given guidelines to set the rates of property tax alright but won't have control over salaries

Bullseye1

The valuations office provide guidelines for rates but the local authority can chose the raise it lower them. It is only logical to think they will raise them when them when they come under pressure from staff for increases in wages.

Chips Lovell

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The valuations office provide guidelines for rates but the local authority can chose the raise it lower them. It is only logical to think they will raise them when them when they come under pressure from staff for increases in wages.

I think you're confusing local authority rates and pay rates. The valuations office provides guidance for the former, but has nothing to do with the latter.

donalg1

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The valuations office provide guidelines for rates but the local authority can chose the raise it lower them. It is only logical to think they will raise them when them when they come under pressure from staff for increases in wages.

They can't adjust the levels of pay given to their staff what don't you understand about this.

The govt set out the rates of pay for council employees the council have no control over this.

Bullseye1

donalg1 wrote: »

They can't adjust the levels of pay given to their staff what don't you understand about this.

The govt set out the rates of pay for council employees the council have no control over this.

Where did I say that local authorities would unilaterally raise their own wage rates. I stated that you will see a correlation between raised commercial rates which will include the property tax and wage increase. They can raise property tax. And then their employees can put pressure on the GOVERNMENT through unions for wage increases.

And drop the condescending lines of "what don't you understand".

donalg1

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Where did I say that local authorities would unilaterally raise their own wage rates. I stated that you will see a correlation between raised commercial rates which will include the property tax and wage increase. They can raise property tax. And then their employees can put pressure on the GOVERNMENT through unions for wage increases.

And drop the condescending lines of "what don't you understand".

Do you seriously think any public servant will see an increase in their wages, come 2014 they will all be reduced property tax or not. The point of the property tac is to bridge the deficit increasing wages won't do this.

Bullseye1

People need to realise that the property tax is only the begining. It will rise and you won't see any benefit.

I have yet to see one pro-HHC campaigner on here advocating local Authorites getting their own house in order. They seem fine with handing over money no questions asked.

In principal I have no issue with a property tax is

1. The tax collected from me is spent in my locality.
2. I get a receipt for my payment.
3. I get an annual statement of where the money collected has been spent. I don't want my taxes which should be spent on proving amenities in my area spent on holidays for councillors. They have no business travelling abroad.
4. If rate increases then service quality should also increase. It should not be used to justify maintaining current standards.

Chips Lovell

You already get 1-3.

As for 4, that's fair enough. Although there could be some cases where a tax may have to be increased to maintain existing levels of service if property values don't track inflation.

donalg1

Bullseye1 wrote: »

People need to realise that the property tax is only the begining. It will rise and you won't see any benefit.

I have yet to see one pro-HHC campaigner on here advocating local Authorites getting their own house in order. They seem fine with handing over money no questions asked.

In principal I have no issue with a property tax is

1. The tax collected from me is spent in my locality.
2. I get a receipt for my payment.
3. I get an annual statement of where the money collected has been spent. I don't want my taxes which should be spent on proving amenities in my area spent on holidays for councillors. They have no business travelling abroad.
4. If rate increases then service quality should also increase. It should not be used to justify maintaining current standards.

I don't disagree with the above but they do say the property tax is being introduced to give local authorities more autonomy which will make them less reliant on central government and will give you're local council greater control over their own funding and will enable them to decide where to spend that money collected.

LA's publish an annual report every year so you can see what they spend money on whenever you want you will get a receipt and it will be spent in your local area.