Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are you going to pay the household charge? [Part 1]

Options
1…154155157159160…334

Comments

  • Options
    #4682
    gazzer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭gazzer


    Just heard a suggestion on the Ray Darcy show which imo is a great idea.

    Instead of paying the Household Charge send the €100 to Our Ladys Hospital in Crumlin.

    I think I might do that and then I will send a receipt to Phil Hogan and a note to say that I have decided to control where my portion of the Household Charge fee is going.


  • Options
    #4683
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gurramok wrote: »
    Then why vote for the pro-bailout parties? No matter who entered govt, they had to implement these new charges. This was well known and highlighted as terms of the loan given to us by the IMF.



    The reason there is social housing is for the poorest of society, they don't own any housing, they rely on housing from the state for a roof over their heads.



    If you bought your house and lost your job, you are entitled to Mortgage Interest Supplement hence exempt from the tax. As said already, pensioners get a generous state pension in this country. Unable to find less than a tenner a month for the tax is bordering outrageous.

    There are plenty of people in Social Housing that have a lot more disposable income than those in employment and paying mortgages. Just because you live in Social Housing doesnt necessarily mean you are poor. Successive governments have been all about Social Inclusion but seems they are only interested in this when it suits them.


  • Options
    #4684
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    smash wrote: »
    A few being 839 of the people who voted in the poll. Then there's the 85% of homeowners.

    Keyboard warriors.
    donalg1 wrote: »
    There are plenty of people in Social Housing that have a lot more disposable income than those in employment and paying mortgages. Just because you live in Social Housing doesnt necessarily mean you are poor. Successive governments have been all about Social Inclusion but seems they are only interested in this when it suits them.

    If you think there is fraud going on, report it. If you think they have it that good, pack your job in and live on the dole to get a council flat?


  • Options
    #4685
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    golfwallah wrote: »
    Would you mind explaining briefly what the EU/IMF MOU is and what relevance has it to Household Charges?

    Acronyms and txt speak are not my strong suit!
    The EU/IMF MOU is the European Union / International Monatary Fund Memorandum of Understanding with Ireland.

    It is, essentially, the bailout deal that we have with the trioka (EU / IMF / ECB).

    The Property Tax is explicitly agreed in the document with a timescale for implementation (Q4 of last year). The household charge is the precursor to the property tax.


  • Options
    #4686
    gremha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭gremha


    Heard on the radio this morning that the household charge has been ruled unconstitutional/illegal in court as none of the documentation is in Irish. It's due to go to either the high or supreme court in a couple of weeks (around the deadline).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4687
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    gurramok wrote: »
    Keyboard warriors.

    And the 85% of homeowners?


  • Options
    #4688
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    gremha wrote: »
    Heard on the radio this morning that the household charge has been ruled unconstitutional/illegal in court as none of the documentation is in Irish. It's due to go to either the high or supreme court in a couple of weeks (around the deadline).
    You heard wrong.


  • Options
    #4689
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    gremha wrote: »
    Heard on the radio this morning that the household charge has been ruled unconstitutional/illegal in court as none of the documentation is in Irish. It's due to go to either the high or supreme court in a couple of weeks (around the deadline).


    Well, you heard wrong so.

    He's only won the right to challange - there has been no judgement/ruling.


  • Options
    #4690
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    smash wrote: »
    And the 85% of homeowners?

    Thats so far and yes some have been scaremongered into not paying. It ain't March 31st yet.


  • Options
    #4691
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gurramok wrote: »
    Keyboard warriors.



    If you think there is fraud going on, report it. If you think they have it that good, pack your job in and live on the dole to get a council flat?

    Bit dramatic there now, of course there is fraud going on I dont think anyone denies that in fairness. I didnt say they all have it so good now did I? There are plenty of people in Social Housing in employment, you seem to think that anyone in Social Housing is on the dole or are poor, which is a very discriminatory view of those in Social Housing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4692
    prestigio1977
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭prestigio1977


    There is an exemption for people who are on mortgage interest assistance, which is fair enough, but what about the people who are not eligible for mortgage assistance because they are working, but still can't afford to pay their full mortgage. I have had to restructure my mortgage to pay interest only because I can't meet the repayments, so I can't afford it. I agree with the charge in principle, because the country is broke, but it's very unfair. We're being made to pay for the bankers' mistakes and not one of them are being held accountable. I want to help get the country back on track and I will do my bit to do so, because I don't want my children to have to emigrate when they leave school/college in a few years time. It should be means tested to make it fair for everybody.


  • Options
    #4693
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    black francis wrote: »
    Income tax discriminates against income earners.
    Income earners are making a profit. Generally having an income is an advantage. The income tax paid is ralated to the income level. The home owners tax is not. Its simply a poll tax, but targeted at a certain sector.
    Motor tax discriminates against car owners.
    You dont have to pay tax for simply owning a car.
    TV license fee discriminates against tv owners
    This one is like the property tax. Its another poll tax to pay for rte and its "talent". The tv link is a legal one, to net everyone, regardless of using the service or not.
    Dog license fee discriminates against dog owners
    Most people need a home. Is a home optional now? A dog licence is €20. Hardly much of a comparison.
    VAT discriminates against consumers.
    Every one of us are consumers. No discrimination there francis.
    Enjoyed reading through the last few pages this morning - seems like the anti-tax crowd are becoming increasing hysterical as the deadline approaches.
    Are they? Where do you see this? I look out the door and everything is as normal.


  • Options
    #4694
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Bit dramatic there now, of course there is fraud going on I dont think anyone denies that in fairness. I didnt say they all have it so good now did I? There are plenty of people in Social Housing in employment, you seem to think that anyone in Social Housing is on the dole or are poor, which is a very discriminatory view of those in Social Housing.

    Being in employment does not automatically mean they are rich. Some people from the flats do have part time jobs or full time low paid jobs, while alot more do not have jobs. Alot grew up in disadvantaged areas.

    If you think they have well paid jobs, why on earth do you think they would stay there to live in a junkie infested flat complex instead of moving out?

    You seem to think most have it good, why don't you apply for a flat and see what its like then? Guess it would be a legal way of avoiding the 100quid charge.


  • Options
    #4695
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    gurramok wrote: »
    Thats so far and yes some have been scaremongered into not paying. It ain't March 31st yet.

    How would you scare people into not paying?


  • Options
    #4696
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    I dont have my own house, though I pay the mortgage on my parent's. I think I will pay it for them simply because they are of the odl school "do what your told" generation and just to put their minds at ease I guess. If it was my house - forget it. Then again, I have't discussed it with them, perhaps they dont want it paid... hope not lol


  • Options
    #4697
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I dont have my own house, though I pay the mortgage on my parent's. I think I will pay it for them simply because they are of the odl school "do what your told" generation and just to put their minds at ease I guess. If it was my house - forget it. Then again, I have't discussed it with them, perhaps they dont want it paid... hope not lol

    You will have to change your username if they go along with not paying:)


  • Options
    #4698
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    How would you scare people into not paying?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77599184&postcount=4549


  • Options
    #4699
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    gurramok wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77599184&postcount=4549

    Not much thats very scary in there in fairness.


  • Options
    #4700
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Income earners are making a profit. Generally having an income is an advantage. The income tax paid is ralated to the income level. The home owners tax is not. Its simply a poll tax, but targeted at a certain sector. .

    It will be soon.
    robbie7730 wrote: »
    You dont have to pay tax for simply owning a car..

    fraid you do for all practical purposes - unless you effectivly make the car 'un-drivable' but that would be a bit silly now woundn't it?

    robbie7730 wrote: »
    This one is like the property tax. Its another poll tax to pay for rte and its "talent". The tv link is a legal one, to net everyone, regardless of using the service or not. .
    So glad you agree
    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Most people need a home. Is a home optional now? .

    Owning one always has been - ever heard of renting?

    robbie7730 wrote: »
    A dog licence is €20. Hardly much of a comparison..

    Hardly much of an agrument to be putting up by Gerry in the first place now was it?
    Still reckon it's betweer than the 'household charge is the same as forced euthenasia' comparison though.


  • Options
    #4701
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Not much thats very scary in there in fairness.

    Much of it is "i'm not paying bondholders", "i'm not paying bankers", "i'm not paying as a protest against the govt". Scaremongering on issues nothing to do with the charge.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4702
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gurramok wrote: »
    Being in employment does not automatically mean they are rich. Some people from the flats do have part time jobs or full time low paid jobs, while alot more do not have jobs. Alot grew up in disadvantaged areas.

    If you think they have well paid jobs, why on earth do you think they would stay there to live in a junkie infested flat complex instead of moving out?

    You seem to think most have it good, why don't you apply for a flat and see what its like then? Guess it would be a legal way of avoiding the 100quid charge.

    I wouldnt qualify for Social Housing as I have no need for housing. A lot of them do have it good, they have affordable predictable rent that is means tested and they have security of tenure far better than most in private rented.

    Are you saying that nobody in Social Housing has a well paid job?

    And not all Social Housing is in "a junkie infested flat complex", your view of Social Housing and Social Housing tenants is very skewed.


  • Options
    #4703
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    donalg1 wrote: »
    I wouldnt qualify for Social Housing as I have no need for housing. A lot of them do have it good, they have affordable predictable rent that is means tested and they have security of tenure far better than most in private rented.

    Are you saying that nobody in Social Housing has a well paid job?

    And not all Social Housing is in "a junkie infested flat complex", your view of Social Housing and Social Housing tenants is very skewed.

    So good = affordable predictable rent that is means tested and they have security of tenure far better than most in private rented. How does that make them not poor?

    You seem to have this notion that people in council flats are living the high life, that is indeed very skewed. One or two frauds does not equal the entire tenant population!


  • Options
    #4704
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gurramok wrote: »
    So good = affordable predictable rent that is means tested and they have security of tenure far better than most in private rented. How does that make them not poor?

    You seem to have this notion that people in council flats are living the high life, that is indeed very skewed. One or two frauds does not equal the entire tenant population!

    How is security of tenure not good? How is predictable affordable rent not good? Are you saying these arent good things.

    Where did I say they are all living the high life I said they arent all poor and living in junkie infested flats, which you seem to assume they are, shameful view of Social Housing and Social Housing tenants you have. Maybe you should get out more and educate yourself on Social Housing before claiming they are all junkies living in poverty and squalor.


  • Options
    #4705
    Mr CJ
    Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Mr CJ


    Am Chile wrote: »
    Theres meant to be a story in tomorrows Irish daily mail relating to the household tax how the goverment and frightening old people with their recent threats, the blueshirts have sunk a new low frightening old people not even Fianna Fail sunk that low, there a lot of the rest of us who aren,t old people who won,t be frightned or Intimidated by goverment threats.

    And who said I was ridiculous stating that this government is the same if not worse than FF??

    Like I said before I have seen nothing over the last yr to make me see different


  • Options
    #4706
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    You will have to change your username if they go along with not paying:)


    :D


  • Options
    #4707
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    black francis wrote: »
    It will be soon.

    And how will value be accessed? Over estimated by a fair way no doubt. Its one thing putting a price on a house to sell it, its another to get that price in the sale.

    And you say the property tax soon will be liked to income. How? A home bought 10 years ago may have no link to whether the owner has an income now or not. And many will just have state pensions.

    So how does the home owners tax relate to income level? Thats a contradiction to posters saying it would be a steady income.

    Steady because ability to pay does not matter.

    fraid you do for all practical purposes - unless you effectivly make the car 'un-drivable' but that would be a bit silly now woundn't it?
    It does not have to be undrivable. Just not used on public roads. If a person loses their job, they may not need the car for a while.

    Does a home owner have to pay the tax on a house they are not using? I would imagine they do.

    The difference is though francis, a renter and a home owner can both fully live in a house, avail of all services, but only one pays the tax. It will likely be passed on, but they are not liable.

    So glad you agree
    Do we? Thats good, because i was pointing out that the tv licence tax is another form of poll tax. And you agree. But it seems you only read the first seven words. So perhaps not.

    But they are trying to get everyone to pay the tv licence tax, its not descriminating really, as they want everyone to pay this. (It says that in the post). Thats why it might become the broadcast charge, to get everyone.

    Owning one always has been - ever heard of renting?
    Thats the whole point francis. Renters dont have to pay. Yet avail of the same services. Descrimination as mentioned. However, owning dogs is optional.


    Hardly much of an agrument to be putting up by Gerry in the first place now was it?
    Still reckon it's betweer than the 'household charge is the same as forced euthenasia' comparison though.
    Yea i think your right there. But i think their point was, that if a government says something, and its law, does that mean we have no rights, just obey without question? Thats me suggesting what they were asking, not me asking.


  • Options
    #4708
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    gurramok wrote: »
    Much of it is "i'm not paying bondholders", "i'm not paying bankers", "i'm not paying as a protest against the govt". Scaremongering on issues nothing to do with the charge.

    I look at them and all i see is what people think, or know already.

    The charge is to supposedly to pay for the operation of the state, part of which are the items you mention above.


  • Options
    #4709
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    donalg1 wrote: »
    How is security of tenure not good? How is predictable affordable rent not good? Are you saying these arent good things.

    No, i'm asking how are those terms equal to the tenants having lots of money? They're not.
    donalg1 wrote: »
    Where did I say they are all living the high life I said they arent all poor and living in junkie infested flats, which you seem to assume they are, shameful view of Social Housing and Social Housing tenants you have. Maybe you should get out more and educate yourself on Social Housing before claiming they are all junkies living in poverty and squalor.

    Well, it(high life) was the first thing that came to your mind about social housing.
    There are plenty of people in Social Housing that have a lot more disposable income than those in employment

    And yet you will not try to live the life in a housing complex. I never said they are all junkies, lots of housing complexes contain junkies which ruin it for everyone, different thing.

    I've been in those complexes and I wouldn't fancy living in one, the poorest in our society live there.


  • Options
    #4710
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    gurramok wrote: »
    No, i'm asking how are those terms equal to the tenants having lots of money? They're not.



    Well, it(high life) was the first thing that came to your mind about social housing.


    And yet you will not try to live the life in a housing complex. I never said they are all junkies, lots of housing complexes contain junkies which ruin it for everyone, different thing.

    I've been in those complexes and I wouldn't fancy living in one, the poorest in our society live there.

    Where did I say they have lots of money, I said some people in Social Housing have more disposable income than those paying mortgages.

    Where did I say they live the high life?

    You are the one saying everyone in Social Housing is poor.

    You have a disgraceful view of social housing and a disgraceful view of people in general


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4711
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    And how will value be accessed? Over estimated by a fair way no doubt. Its one thing putting a price on a house to sell it, its another to get that price in the sale.

    And you say the property tax soon will be liked to income. How? A home bought 10 years ago may have no link to whether the owner has an income now or not. And many will just have state pensions.
    .

    Surely, your first paragraph demonstrates you understood the point I made - so why do you try to deliberatly mis-understand the point in the second paragraph :confused:


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    So how does the home owners tax relate to income level? Thats a contradiction to posters saying it would be a steady income.

    Steady because ability to pay does not matter.

    .

    Not a contradiction - you seem to be just getting confused by the difference between a steady income for the state vs a steady income for a homeowner.

    robbie7730 wrote: »
    It does not have to be undrivable. Just not used on public roads. If a person loses their job, they may not need the car for a while. .

    Yep, so it's undrivable for all practical purposes - unless you're proposing driving it around your back garden?

    robbie7730 wrote: »
    The difference is though francis, a renter and a home owner can both fully live in a house, avail of all services, but only one pays the tax. It will likely be passed on, but they are not liable. .

    Well that was actually the point I was making - you were the one who suggested that owning a home and therfore being liable for this tax was 'not a choice'.

    You're quite simple wrong to suggest this.





    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Thats the whole point francis. Renters dont have to pay. Yet avail of the same services. Descrimination as mentioned. However, owning dogs is optional. .

    You seem very confused on the points you are trying to make - are you trying to say it's unfair because you can't avoid paying it, or it's unfair because you can avoid paying it?

    You really can't argue both sides of the same point in the same post without looking silly.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement