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

Household charge

123457

Comments

  • #182
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    Godge wrote: »
    Which investors?
    How much risk?
    What loss?

    Sean Quinn
    Sean Dunne
    Treasury Holdings
    Liam Carroll
    Kelly
    Doctors
    Dentists
    Solicitors ( Byrne and the fella that in Croatia with his wife)
    All the Bank Bondholders that were paid in full with intrest rates of 4-5% for loaning money to the banks

    These are the investors ,the ordinary Joe Soap that bought a house is going to be pursued to hell and back. I find it intresting that the IMF and EMF are complaining about the new insolvency legislation, I know that it will create issues for the banks but why should Sean Dunne pay for a fancy wedding for his son and not pay back the money he owes.


  • #183
    Worztron
    Registered Users Posts: 8,663 ✭✭✭Worztron


    Godge wrote: »
    Which investors?
    How much risk?
    What loss?

    The UN-guaranteed bond holders.

    Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."



  • #184
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    creedp wrote: »
    Having said all that this is not a legal issue ..its a political one. We didn't sign up to this agreement in the courts we signed up politically. The only solution here is political .....

    That might have been true in October 2008 but in the intervening time that political commitment was backed up with legal commitments which we are signed up for.

    Arguing that we shouldn't have "broken the eggs" back then is all very well but it doesn't enable you to "unbreak" them now.


  • #185
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Worztron wrote: »
    The UN-guaranteed bond holders.


    Since when did the United Nations guarantee bond-holders?:D:D

    What you and some of the others here are missing is that up to 2008, bondholders, depositers and everyone else were only guaranteed up to €100,000. Then an idiot Finance Minister, on the advice of David McWilliams, on behalf of the Irish people, legally removed that cap. Once that decision was made, the genie was out of the bottle. Everything that has happened follows from that stupid decision. There was no way politically or legally to row back on that decision, wishing it were so is an idiot's dream.


  • #186
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    What you and some of the others here are missing is that up to 2008, bondholders, depositers and everyone else were only guaranteed up to €100,000.

    Actually I think bondholders weren't guaranteed at all, and depositors only up to €20,000. The idiot Finance Minister guaranteed everything, when increasing the deposit guarantee and new interbank loans was all that was needed.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,561 ✭✭✭creedp


    View wrote: »
    That might have been true in October 2008 but in the intervening time that political commitment was backed up with legal commitments which we are signed up for.

    Arguing that we shouldn't have "broken the eggs" back then is all very well but it doesn't enable you to "unbreak" them now.


    I know but isn't is now the issue that most of this debt is held by the ECB as the majority of the disputed bondholders have already ran away with the money. So its up to the ECB to decide what debt is written off. If I'm wrong enlighten me as this is the problem with the media .. easy to confuse oneself


  • #188
    blowtorch
    Registered Users Posts: 178 ✭✭blowtorch


    ardmacha wrote: »
    What's your point here? Are you claiming that these are not included in the 29.8% of national income quoted by Geuze? Do you have a point?

    Geuze says 'Tax' ..of National income. Quite clear - Tax. If a 'Levy' is a Tax, then why not call it a Tax?


  • #189
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    If a 'Levy' is a Tax, then why not call it a Tax?

    The government used makes it revenue from stamp "duty", it now takes in some money in "levies". It makes little difference what you call it and pedantry on the issue is pointless. The main issue is the aggregate level of government revenue in the the economy when compared to other European economies. Contrary to oft expressed opinion here, government in Ireland does not collect a lot of tax, whatsoever called.


  • #190
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    creedp wrote: »
    I know but isn't is now the issue that most of this debt is held by the ECB as the majority of the disputed bondholders have already ran away with the money. So its up to the ECB to decide what debt is written off. If I'm wrong enlighten me as this is the problem with the media .. easy to confuse oneself

    I am not certain about this but I don't think that is the case.

    My understanding about it is that, while the ECB certainly has provided considerable extra-ordinary assistance to the banks to shore up their balance sheets, the bonds themselves have been paid directly by our government using monies borrowed by them (but not from the ECB). I guess that as the banks approach operating normally again the ECB position in them will be gradually unwound over time.


  • #191
    Madbod
    Registered Users Posts: 35 ✭Madbod


    blowtorch wrote: »
    Geuze says 'Tax' ..of National income. Quite clear - Tax. If a 'Levy' is a Tax, then why not call it a Tax?

    'levy' sounds better


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Welease
    Registered Users Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    Madbod wrote: »
    'levy' sounds better

    It also allows the Government to keep their promise of no increases to income tax..


  • #193
    Icepick
    Registered Users Posts: 2,452 ✭✭✭Icepick


    Worztron wrote: »
    Do you seriously think paying back investors that took a risk and lost is just?
    It is unjust to people who did not cause it. But that does not mean that we can now refuse to pay it without consequences.


  • #194
    ART6
    Registered Users Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭ART6


    A sign Mr. Hogan?

    "Nah. You will pay. I know where you live!"


    http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/05/15/1000971/greece-when-the-lights-go-out/?ftcamp=traffic/email/content/booster//memmkt


  • #195
    Good loser
    Registered Users Posts: 3,167 ✭✭✭Good loser


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Actually I think bondholders weren't guaranteed at all, and depositors only up to €20,000. The idiot Finance Minister guaranteed everything, when increasing the deposit guarantee and new interbank loans was all that was needed.

    They may not have been 'guaranteed'. The EU/ECB however insisted, and were always going to insist, that we not let any of our banks default on their senior bonds regardless of what happened these banks i.e.the Govt was obliged to pay the bonds if the banks didn't - which is what happened!
    The EU could insisit on this as when the Euro was set up the major political decision was taken that each country had to police its own banks.
    Our regulatory failure to do so was yet another example of public service ineptitude. The consequences are severe.


  • #196
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    The regulatory failure was a consequence of government policy. However, we rolled over too easily at that time by guaranteeing everything.


  • #197
    Good loser
    Registered Users Posts: 3,167 ✭✭✭Good loser


    ardmacha wrote: »
    The regulatory failure was a consequence of government policy.

    Not so.

    The Financial Regulator had, I believe, 500 or 600 staff. He was an independent State employee.


  • #198
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,561 ✭✭✭creedp


    Good loser wrote: »
    Not so.

    The Financial Regulator had, I believe, 500 or 600 staff. He was an independent State employee.

    I think this could be the subject of a good debate! Sometime in the future .. probably pretty distant future .. a lot of this stuff will come out in the wash. Not that this will change anything but it would be interesting to know what really happenned. No point listening to politicians as they are incapable of telling the truth .. its media spin that has been the true policy success over recent times and it ain't going away ..


  • #199
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Not so.

    The Financial Regulator had, I believe, 500 or 600 staff. He was an independent State employee.

    Are you saying that it was government policy to reduce lending by banks?
    Quite the reverse. it is total nonsense to claim that the Financial Regulator's office was instructed by the government to tighten things up and that they failed to do it through inefficiency. The reports have shown that concerns were raised in the office, but ignored at the top level.


  • #200
    Good loser
    Registered Users Posts: 3,167 ✭✭✭Good loser


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Are you saying that it was government policy to reduce lending by banks?
    Quite the reverse. it is total nonsense to claim that the Financial Regulator's office was instructed by the government to tighten things up and that they failed to do it through inefficiency. The reports have shown that concerns were raised in the office, but ignored at the top level.

    No - to your question.

    The Financial Regulator was under no obligation to take instructions from the Govt.

    His job was to police/control the banking sector. That's what independent means.


  • #201
    Worztron
    Registered Users Posts: 8,663 ✭✭✭Worztron


    DoesNotCompute wrote: »
    Yes, he will pay, as he is liaible, and no it won't be subsidised because there is no clause in the Household Charge legislation that says the HHC for stately homes will be subsidised.

    I don't think Reilly will have to pay the household charge since he is living (the life of Riley) in a listed building.

    Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."



  • Advertisement
  • #202
    ART6
    Registered Users Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭ART6


    Worztron wrote: »
    I don't think Reilly will have to pay the household charge since he is living (the life of Riley) in a listed building.
    I read that provided that he opened the place to the public for a couple of days a year (??) then no household charge would be due. How very convenient! Once again, one rule for the proles and another for us the elite.


  • #203
    golfwallah
    Registered Users Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭golfwallah


    A number of very irate people were on today's Joe Duffy show telling of cheques, bank drafts, etc plus completed forms being returned to them because they had arrived after the deadline of 31st March. The reason - they had missed the deadline and should have paid €111 (including fine for late payment).

    The people on complaining had only just missed the deadline.

    Of course, the bureaucrats returning the payments and forms could see no way to keep the payments and request the difference or put the balance on their accounts.

    Another man was on explaining how a cheque sent in mid March had only been cashed in May. Have public servants no idea of the importance of cash flow and opportunity costs of the interest lost through delays in lodging payments?

    What sort of way is this to run a business? Are the public servants and their political masters so out of touch with the ordinary taxpayer, that they can treat them with such contempt?

    Oh, I forgot .... these are the folk protected by the Croke Park Agreement, while pensioners who missed the deadline by a few days are treated like criminals and the country at large is saddled with a shed load of unnecessary extra work and expense.

    To my mind a bunch of junior cert students would make a better job of managing the collection of household charges.


  • #204
    kingstown
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭kingstown


    Don't wish to reopen recent wounds etc but, I checked through my bank statement over the weekend and noticed the cheque I posted in March for the household charge hasn't been cashed yet.

    Sent it last week of March so I would have thought they would have cashed it by now?
    Maybe the Government doesn't need my money??


  • #205
    Floppybits
    Registered Users Posts: 7,518 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    kingstown wrote: »
    Don't wish to reopen recent wounds etc but, I checked through my bank statement over the weekend and noticed the cheque I posted in March for the household charge hasn't been cashed yet.

    Sent it last week of March so I would have thought they would have cashed it by now?
    Maybe the Government doesn't need my money??

    Absolutely ridiculous. I thought FF were bad but FG are making them look good with this sort of carry on.

    I cant believe they are sending the money back and not just cashing it. It beggers belief


  • #206
    Nate--IRL--
    Registered Users Posts: 2,219 ✭✭✭Nate--IRL--


    Floppybits wrote: »
    Absolutely ridiculous. I thought FF were bad but FG are making them look good with this sort of carry on.

    I cant believe they are sending the money back and not just cashing it. It beggers belief

    FF,FG? It's the feckin civil service who run these things.

    Nate


  • #207
    Jaysoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Jaysoose


    Nate--IRL-- wrote: »
    FF,FG? It's the feckin civil service who run these things.

    Nate

    Yep..and im sure it will be declared that pointing out how stupid and inefficient the handling of this has been is just "civil servant bashing".


  • #208
    kingstown
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭kingstown


    Does anyone know who or where (Dept) to ring / email to find out why my cheque hasn't been lodged. ??


  • #209
    Atilathehun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 521 ✭✭✭Atilathehun


    kingstown wrote: »
    Does anyone know who or where (Dept) to ring / email to find out why my cheque hasn't been lodged. ??


    You should email Brendan Howlin to start with ................ oh, and put a CC to the Troika:D That would get a move on Howlin ;)

    Why not a cc also to the Sindo and Vincent Brown


  • #210
    kingstown
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭kingstown


    Funny isn't it ;)- here I am complaining that my money wasn't lodged or cashed, when I wasn't overly happy with paying it over in the first place, but did so.......

    Little confused with myself :confused:- maybe I need counseling, would the State pay for that for me:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Madbod
    Registered Users Posts: 35 ✭Madbod


    bear in mind they make a tenner per month on the fines so it is in their interest to have as many late payers as possible. The civil servants chasing up these late payments would still have been paid

    so the debacle of only around 50% households registering for this tax, will net the govt hundreds of thousands extra €€ by the time it's all been done


Advertisement