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

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes and I will be in great company.
Any idea when these 100 new prisons are being built ? They will need at least that amount to hold us.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I see in the North vacant properties have been added to the liable list since last October. I would think in future years people in local authority housing here could become liable, or have their rents increased to some extent to make it fairer. The Government probably thought it would provoke a much bigger protest movement if they were included this year. When the charge increases landlords will have to find some way of renegotiating rents.

K-9 wrote: »

I'd assume the registered owner or owners.



Whether this tax is necessary is debatable, the €16 Billion deficit last year and estimated €12/13 Billion one this year, ignoring bank bailouts, isn't! To put that in perspective, we don't even take those figures in with Income Tax receipts.

I've seen this dogs on the street argument, when presented with facts and links showing the bank costs are not as big and not the sole source of our problem, the dogs on the street seem to go very quiet!

boobar wrote: »

Just found this under FAQ

Who is liable to pay the charge where a property is jointly owned?


Liability falls on all co-owners but payment by any one co-owner discharges the liability of all co-owners.

Does that sort of look like "We don't give 2 fcuks who pays once someone pays"

K-9 wrote: »

I'd assume the registered owner or owners.

Whether this tax is necessary is debatable, the €16 Billion deficit last year and estimated €12/13 Billion one this year, ignoring bank bailouts, isn't! To put that in perspective, we don't even take those figures in with Income Tax receipts.

I've seen this dogs on the street argument, when presented with facts and links showing the bank costs are not as big and not the sole source of our problem, the dogs on the street seem to go very quiet!

Irish insolvency is now less a matter of economics than of arithmetic. If everything goes according to plan, as it always does, Ireland’s government debt will top €190 billion by 2014, with another €45 billion in Nama and €35 billion in bank recapitalisation, for a total of €270 billion, plus whatever losses the Irish Central Bank has made on its emergency lending. Subtracting off the likely value of the banks and Nama assets, Namawinelake (by far the best source on the Irish economy) reckons our final debt will be about €220 billion, and I think it will be closer to €250 billion, but these differences are immaterial: either way we are talking of a Government debt that is more than €120,000 per worker, or 60 per cent larger than GNP.

In other words, we have embarked on a futile game of passing the parcel of insolvency: first from the banks to the Irish State, and next from the State back to the banks and insurance companies [and next onto the ordinary tax payer and householder]. The eventual outcome will likely see Ireland as some sort of EU protectorate, Europe’s answer to Puerto Rico.

National survival requires that Ireland walk away from the bailout. At a stroke, the Irish Government can halve its debt to a survivable €110 billion.

The last election was reassuringly dull and predictable but the next, after the trauma and chaos of the bankruptcy, will be anything but.

K-9 wrote: »

Nah, you prefer the view of the economist who suits your politics I'd say!

NOBEL PRIZE-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has described the continued payments by the Government to [secret] unsecured bondholders as “unconscionable”.

Ireland’s chances of cutting its way back to health were negligible

In the complexity of the discussion over bondholders, Prof Stiglitz said simple facts were being overlooked: the unsecured bondholders were paid a normal interest rate for bearing a risk by investing in Irish banks, which was and is the nature of the market economy.

[url]
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0127/1224310806521.html[/URL]