Household charge

MagicSean · 31-05-2011 10:23pm #1

The Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan is to introduce an interim household charge from the beginning of next year.

Speaking on the RTÉ's Six One News, Minister Hogan said that the charge will come into force from 1 January 2012.

Mr Hogan has said that he will be bringing details of the charge and how to implement it to Government in the next few weeks.

He said a comprehensive review of spending in all Government departments was currently underway and the outcome of the review would determine how much the charge needed to be.

Minister Hogan has said that he was looking at the possibility of exemptions applying for those on low incomes, social welfare or those struggling to pay their mortgages.

Phil Hogan has said that the household charge provides the Government with an opportunity to levy householders for the provision of local services.

The minister has said that the money raised from the charge will be ring fenced for local Government services.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0531/household_charge.html

WTF is this? The provision of local services. The council refuse to take over my estate and I pay for my own bins. Exactly what services will I be getting?

billyboy01 · 31-05-2011 11:00pm

LOL, what next! A fresh air tax!:rolleyes:

hmmm · 31-05-2011 11:00pm

What struck me was the list of people who would be excluded. Once again it is the middle class worker who is hit up for more tax, while the indolent carry on as normal.

If this is to pay for local services, it would be reasonable for taxpayers to ask exactly what the rest of their taxes are being spent on.

Daegerty · 31-05-2011 11:01pm

Local services have survived perfectly well without this charge in the past. I don't avail of any service from the council other than water which they want to bring in a separate charge for.

I don't want any more local services anyway. I live in the back of the beyonds, I leave them alone and expect them to leave me alone.

FG said they were against property tax which this is the precursor to, now they are going full steam ahead with FF's old plan and blaming the IMF for it

We're going to default anyway, I wish sooner rather than later because the EU & IMF are screwing us and the sooner we offload this massive amount of debt and get it over with the better.

Or else we'll be paying for this the next 100 years and by the time we're finished they'll have wiped out any advantages we have over mainland European countries through legislation they'll have pushed on us

Daegerty · 31-05-2011 11:01pm

hmmm wrote: »

W
If this is to pay for local services, it would be reasonable for taxpayers to ask exactly what the rest of their taxes are being spent on.

De Loan.

sollar · 31-05-2011 11:08pm

If they are going to bring it in set it low and charge everybody. €80 a year for everybody instead of exempting about a million people and leaving the rest to pay 200 or 300 for it.

I get the feeling though this is going to be their property tax by another name.

CO19 · 31-05-2011 11:14pm

Should just be called "the IMF charge" because that's probably what it's really going to be used for not our county councils !

jakdelad · 31-05-2011 11:18pm

sollar wrote: »

If they are going to bring it in set it low and charge everybody. €80 a year for everybody instead of exempting about a million people and leaving the rest to pay 200 or 300 for it.

I get the feeling though this is going to be their property tax by another name.

no thats still to come

Daegerty · 31-05-2011 11:18pm

sollar wrote: »

I get the feeling though this is going to be their property tax by another name.

He even said this in the video. Not a bit subtle about it, the ould fecker

Tora Bora · 31-05-2011 11:22pm

One word describes this charge."Rates"

Daegerty · 01-06-2011 12:18am

I think there should be a tax on paying tax.

Whatever tax you pay (include TV licenses or any of that other sh1te) they put a 5% extra administration fee onto it for the privilege of being allowed to pay the tax.

DoesNotCompute · 01-06-2011 12:50am

billyboy01 wrote: »

LOL, what next! A fresh air tax!:rolleyes:

A tax on w@nking

AlekSmart · 01-06-2011 12:51am

hmmm wrote: »

What struck me was the list of people who would be excluded. Once again it is the middle class worker who is hit up for more tax, while the indolent carry on as normal.

If this is to pay for local services, it would be reasonable for taxpayers to ask exactly what the rest of their taxes are being spent on.

It really is incredible how our Governments continually shirk the hard decisions...

First we had Mr Bruton announcing how he wanted to reduce the wage earning capacity of the lower income sector,ie: those covered by JLC's or other collective agreements....now we have this lad Hogan warning largely the same grouping that the Gubbermint wants to take more money offa them for "services"...whatever these may be ?

It was left to Ms Burton to keep the flag flying for the poor oul "underprivileged" who,naturally enough,in a caring society will be spared the indignity of having to pay for stuff...such as Public Transport,Telephone Rental,Accomodation Rental....etc etc etc....

If the books were skewed when this coalition took over,it's looking as if they'll be roasted by the time they leave !!!!

View · 01-06-2011 1:16am

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0531/household_charge.html

WTF is this? The provision of local services. The council refuse to take over my estate and I pay for my own bins. Exactly what services will I be getting?

You raise an interesting point. Namely that in recent years there has been a trend toward new developments being required to have management companies to provide services to the new developments. These charge a management fee for those services which residents - typically younger home owners - have to pay (in addition to their normal taxes).

Meanwhile older developments don't have these management companies and, up to now, residents of these older developments - typically older home owners - have had their services for "free" (or to be more specific paid for out of their normal taxes).

Now, if the government decides that home owners will have to pay a new charge for the local services they receive, residents of newer developments will in effect be charged twice. Once for their management fee to pay for the management company and the services it should provide them and then a second time to pay for the services which the local council should provide but won't because, of course, the new development has a management company that takes care of that.

ardmacha · 01-06-2011 1:17am

One word describes this charge."Rates"

Rates were based on the size of your house. It is not clear that this will be based on anything logical at all.

As for exemptions, I think everyone should pay this. It is proper for all citizens to contribute and this might be easier than cutting welfare rates.

hinault · 01-06-2011 1:25am

AlekSmart wrote: »

It really is incredible how our Governments continually shirk the hard decisions...

First we had Mr Bruton announcing how he wanted to reduce the wage earning capacity of the lower income sector,ie: those covered by JLC's or other collective agreements....now we have this lad Hogan warning largely the same grouping that the Gubbermint wants to take more money offa them for "services"...whatever these may be ?

It was left to Ms Burton to keep the flag flying for the poor oul "underprivileged" who,naturally enough,in a caring society will be spared the indignity of having to pay for stuff...such as Public Transport,Telephone Rental,Accomodation Rental....etc etc etc....

If the books were skewed when this coalition took over,it's looking as if they'll be roasted by the time they leave !!!!

And the CP deal remains in situ and untouched.

We really are in a banana republic.

The biggest spending departments social welfare and health.

01-06-2011 8:15am

ardmacha wrote: »

Rates were based on the size of your house. It is not clear that this will be based on anything logical at all.

As for exemptions, I think everyone should pay this. It is proper for all citizens to contribute and this might be easier than cutting welfare rates.

basing things on house size is wrong too, we have the smallest sq footage houses in the OECD bar the UK and the UK is densely populated - think London and the South East of England. We dont need more discouragement to build decent sized properties.

In an ideal world we would of told the banks to take a run and jump and any money spent on bailouts would have been on looking after citizens deposits up to the deposit guarantee. Then we would have had a firesale of properties allowing people to buy houses and apartments beside each other where walls could be knocked through to make decent sized properties.

We have far far too many 1 bed apartments for the least densely populated country in Europe.

Its really time we started protesting and showing that we dont want to pay for these debts - unless of course people do? Well why else arent people protesting??!?

DoesNotCompute · 01-06-2011 8:31am

ardmacha wrote: »

Rates were based on the size of your house. It is not clear that this will be based on anything logical at all.

This cleverly named "household charge" is an interim measure until the govt can get around to establishing a land registry of sorts that includes details of the size of everyone's house. At that point it will be rates.

JohnMarston · 01-06-2011 8:46am

Its a tax for what? Living in your own house? The council don't do sh*t for us. The only thing that they can charge me for is the water, which im sure are getting their own rates in the next few years

Tora Bora · 01-06-2011 9:03am

hinault wrote: »

And the CP deal remains in situ and untouched.

We really are in a banana republic.

The biggest spending departments social welfare and health.

And Brendan Howlin, says today the CP deal, is delivering the required savings.
See Irish Times http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0601/1224298207199.html

Separately yesterday, the Minister forecast the forthcoming first review of the Croke Park agreement on public service pay and reform would be positive.
“There have already been real and significant examples of change under the Croke Park agreement, such as the transfer of the community welfare service to the Department of Social Protection.
“The implementation body under the agreement will report in a few weeks, and I am confident that it will show we are on the right track in terms of savings in the pay bill and the ongoing delivery of services with fewer staff.”
The implementation group’s report, which is scheduled to be given to the Department of Finance before the end of the week, is likely to state that savings of close to €300 million have been realised under the deal.
The local authority sector has claimed savings of about €160 million, while the health sector has said it produced savings of some €100 million.

Zubeneschamali · 01-06-2011 9:07am

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

At that point it will be rates.

Well, yes. Rates should never have been abolished, it was a daft vote-buying Fianna Fáil stunt.

irishguy · 01-06-2011 9:23am

I am a house owner and I actually agree with property/water tax In Principle. A couple of things need to be considered:
1. People who provide there own water/local services through a management company should be charged a lower rate
2. There needs to be transparent and efficient use of the money made
3. Everyone should pay but at different rates if you really can't afford it
4. Local authority's should be made way more efficient to ensure these rates are kept as low as possible, this would require ~100% productivity increase (by improved work praticies/large pay cuts/outsourcing)

Jaysoose · 01-06-2011 9:43am

So basically normal working people are getting the shaft again while the "underpriviliged" "long term unemployed" and "people in mortgage diffculties" will most likely be exempt when do the paye workers stand up and say enough is enough?

If your bringing in the charge then everybody should pay regardless.

And as somebody that pays management fees while the local authority happily ignores the existent of my estate i feel there is something fundamentaly wrong with asking people to pay for "the provision of local services" when i dont get any.

Rookster · 01-06-2011 9:56am

The Brits never accepted the Poll tax but I have a feeling we will accept anything that is thrown at us as we are a cowardly nation when it comes to protesting or complaining about issues.

Also there is a rumour from Govt sources that there will be some full/partial exemption for Public Servants from the new charge. Is this true?

DoesNotCompute · 01-06-2011 10:38am

Rookster wrote: »

Also there is a rumour from Govt sources that there will be some full/partial exemption for Public Servants from the new charge. Is this true?

I would doubt it, that sounds like more anti-PS bullsh*t scaremongering. Where is this rumour originating from? Do you have any reliable sources (i.e. news articles, etc)?

Given the negative sentiments the public feel towards public and civil servant's pay and work conditions, I doubt Labour/Fine Gael would shoot themselves in the foot by granting exemptions to public/civil servants.

Here in the UK, Council Tax (the equivalent of this proposed Property Tax) reductions (not exemptions) apply in the following cases:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/YourlocalcouncilandCouncilTax/CouncilTax/DG_10037422 wrote:

•the property is empty
•only one adult lives there
•you are disabled
•you are a student
•you are a student nurse

EDIT: There's also a "Council Tax Benefit", which would apply to people on low incomes. If the property is not your main home, you may get a discount. Certain properties are exempt altogether, and foreign diplomats and Embassy/Consular technical/administrative staff posted to the UK are exempt completely. There's also some sort of scheme to allow disabled people to pay less on the basis that they live in a larger property than they would have needed if they were not disabled.

dan_d · 01-06-2011 10:55am

I do not understand this.I just don't.

They want to charge us for using water. From next year, (is that right?) a standing charge. We pay for ESB/Gas/Oil ourselves. Right now, my bin service is collected by a private company because they're cheaper. Prior to that,we paid the county council 110eur a year, plus the bin tags, for refuse collection.

Wtf is this for? Is this on top of all that?? What services? Fixing the broken water mains that their men didn't bury deep enough in the first place? (no, wait - the water charges should cover that). Providing street lights - oh hang on, the ESB/Airtricity do that. Street cleaning? Well they do that in some estates only, about once a week. Grass cutting - they hardly do that anymore in the name of "biodiversity".

So what? And if you live in an estate with a management company that you pay hefty fees to, how does that work? And given that builders have to pay a fee to the council when they build the estate to cover things like building footpaths and installing lights...how is this supposed to work???

I'm getting all worked up about it!!! Seriously though, why don't they just call it like it bloody well is. We have no money, we need to raise some, everyone hand over a couple of hundred each for the next 5 years or so.

On a side note about the "savings" implemented by the CPD...I haven't seen any changes in how Gov Depts do business or operate, so it just goes to show you how much wastage there is in there if they can save that much money, yet nothing appears to change.....

(end of rant, back on topic...)

Hoffmans · 01-06-2011 11:04am

i propose a tax on bullsh*t
would raise a billion a year from lenister house alone....

ardmacha · 01-06-2011 11:10am

the ESB/Airtricity do that.

you know perfectly well that the ESB do not pay for street lights

as for management companies, I don;t see why charges should not be adjusted to reflect these.

dan_d · 01-06-2011 11:24am

They provide the electricity to them. And given that the ESB have been working weekends in my town of late, taking down old poles and replacing them with new ones, I'd imagine that they do. As far as I'm aware, the contract has been transferred to Airtricity of late. The Council would, I imagine, have to pay the bills for that. Any construction project that I've worked on in the city centre, we (as the contractor/developer) put in the ductwork and connect the ducts from the street light locations to the electricity supply. Following which, the ESB/Council come along and install the lights and the ESB connect the power. Actually, now that I think of it, in one development, we actually installed the ductwork and the light posts - the ESB switched them on.

So I do know perfectly well....

As I said, I'd imagine that some if not all of the bill comes back to the Council, who have a contract with the ESB. But I'm not entirely sure of that. It may be that the ESB/Airtricity has a contract with the State to provide street lighting, as there are regulations about that, and the Councils ensure upkeep of the street lights.

pog it · 01-06-2011 11:37am

I will not pay. I would rather go to jail than pay this to cover the debts of the banks. Please, people, there is a protest in July organised by Richard Boyd Barrett, and there well be more besides.

Please please turn out at them. It is our ONLY way to get justice. There is now no other way.

Welease · 01-06-2011 12:11pm

ardmacha wrote: »

you know perfectly well that the ESB do not pay for street lights

as for management companies, I don;t see why charges should not be adjusted to reflect these.

Why should they be adjusted though? People in managed communities still have access to all the other council services (libraries, swimming pools, public lighting etc) and public roads etc.. They pay a fee to a company for some services which one could argue are duplicated, but many are services that the council wouldn't offer either.

I have to paint my own house, keep my own lawns in order, sort out my own security, provide my own road (~80m driveway), septic tanks, drainage/soak pits etc etc etc..
Shouldn't all non managed communities get a discount also then?

Floppybits · 01-06-2011 1:54pm

So with the introduction of this household tax does this mean that Management companies are now out of business and all housing estates will come under the management of the local authority?

RichardAnd · 01-06-2011 1:56pm

Do people renting have to pay this too? It might just be me but that report seemed to imply that it was only "home-owners" who would be affected.

Floppybits · 01-06-2011 1:57pm

RichardAnd wrote: »

Do people renting have to pay this too? It might just be me but that report seemed to imply that it was only "home-owners" who would be affected.

Well what will happen is that the landlord will increase the rent to cover the cost of this charge.

Rookster · 01-06-2011 2:04pm

Welease wrote: »

Why should they be adjusted though? People in managed communities still have access to all the other council services (libraries, swimming pools, public lighting etc) and public roads etc.. They pay a fee to a company for some services which one could argue are duplicated, but many are services that the council wouldn't offer either.

I have to paint my own house, keep my own lawns in order, sort out my own security, provide my own road (~80m driveway), septic tanks, drainage/soak pits etc etc etc..
Shouldn't all non managed communities get a discount also then?

Welease
There should be a knob tax! You would pay the higher rate. "My lawns, My Security and My 80m Driveway".

Welease · 01-06-2011 2:05pm

Floppybits wrote: »

So with the introduction of this household tax does this mean that Management companies are now out of business and all housing estates will come under the management of the local authority?

I doubt it.. The management companies are (as is my understanding) organised by the owners/tenants to provide services which can include services that would never be provided by the councils i.e. general upkeep of buildings, landscaping/lawn maintenance, security, parking control etc.

The tenants could look for a reduction in management charges if they felt that some services were no longer be required.. but its a private contract between the residents and the management company and would need to be driven by the residents themselves.

wiseguy · 01-06-2011 2:10pm

Rookster wrote: »

Welease
There should be a knob tax! You would pay the higher rate. "My lawns, My Security and My 80m Driveway".

There should be a begrudgery tax, the country would be out of recession in no time :rolleyes:

Welease · 01-06-2011 2:13pm

Rookster wrote: »

Welease
There should be a knob tax! You would pay the higher rate. "My lawns, My Security and My 80m Driveway".

Nice personal abuse..

The point is that any private owners have to pay personally for services which management companies provide for their residents.. I'd imagine any residents association could remove their management company, and provide the services themselves if they so wished (similar to a private house owner), but it probably would not be practical to do so hence their continued existence.

Any house owner with a garden has to pay for their lawn upkeep.. this is a service which (in general) a management company would contract out an charge residents for..
Any house owner who doesn't live in a lit street/estate (i.e. many people out in the countryside) had to pay privately for security lighting etc, which a management company would charge customer for providing..
and finally why is the road on a private managed community any different from the access road I need to pay for and upkeep to get to my front door?

And btw.. my house didnt cost much more than an apartment in Dublin, and considerably less than some 3 bed semi's were going for.. So spare me the "big I am" arguement..

Lockstep · 01-06-2011 2:20pm

Rookster wrote: »

Welease
There should be a knob tax! You would pay the higher rate. "My lawns, My Security and My 80m Driveway".

Lay off the personal abuse.

Amhran Nua · 01-06-2011 4:43pm

pog it wrote: »

Richard Boyd Barrett

Whoops. Listen, although there may well be civil strife before this is over, the trots will never succeed in dragging this country back to the 19th century.

seanin4711 · 01-06-2011 5:32pm

We are on our knees taxpayers that is.
How much more flogging can we take. Not much.
They can't lock up all of us!
Not much difference from new government than old one.

Daegerty · 02-06-2011 12:30am

Civil strife is always just around the corner until everyone decides Enda or Biffo or who ever is just a salt of the earth lad and he has his hands tied in a difficult situation and ah sure things aren't so bad after all

And then a huge backlash against the people who actually got up off their arse to protest. Only scumbags, hippies and relentless complainers who won't "man up" and take it.

ardmacha · 02-06-2011 12:32am

We are on our knees taxpayers that is.
How much more flogging can we take. Not much.

Ochone, ochone! As Colm Rapple pointed out last week taxes in Ireland are less than in 2000, and that was considered a good year.

lmimmfn · 02-06-2011 12:51am

ardmacha wrote: »

Ochone, ochone! As Colm Rapple pointed out last week taxes in Ireland are less than in 2000, and that was considered a good year.

well not for me, if i calculate all taxes including stealth taxes, USI, payment on my pension fund then its a resounding NO

Good loser · 02-06-2011 1:01am

The abolition of rates in 1978 by FF was verging on the irresponsibly criminal. An intensely, stupid, election promise which they implemented in full. If they even had the wit to leave it at £10 per house as they did with the car tax.

My recollection was that before the FF election promise FG/Labour had commenced a four year programme of abolition i.e. they were to abolish rates by four yearly instalments and had taken off the first 25%.
Our housing bubble would have been nothing like it was if there had been rates; think if FF had the wit to (even) threaten their reintroduction in 2004 - 2007.

Effectively rates are a wealth tax; historically they were used for revenue raising before income/company taxation. The theory is that if a person can afford to live in a property of a certain value it identifies them as being capable of paying a certain level of taxation; if values are accurately ascertained the level of tax will be proportionate - thus if your house is twice as valuable as your neighbours you should pay twice the rates. This is why under no circumstances should social welfare recipients be exempted; it makes no more sense than exempting them from car tax - another wealth tax.

The UK reliefs mentioned above seem reasonable and - specifically for Ireland now - a 5/10 year reducing relief may be necessary for those in serious mortgage arrears.

The occupier rather than owner must be the responsible person in the first instance; by paying less rent they can offset the burden onto the property/wealth owner.

Idbatterim · 02-06-2011 1:21am

What struck me was the list of people who would be excluded. Once again it is the middle class worker who is hit up for more tax, while the indolent carry on as normal.

the first thing i thought of when i heard about this!

Originally Posted by hinault
And the CP deal remains in situ and untouched.

We really are in a banana republic.

The biggest spending departments social welfare and health.

the second thing i thought of when i heard about this!

how pathetically predictable! tell me, will the pensioners, those on dole etc, will they actually have to pay any of these charges? or is it just the morons who go out and work?

Amhran Nua · 02-06-2011 2:34am

Daegerty wrote: »

And then a huge backlash against the people who actually got up off their arse to protest. Only scumbags, hippies and relentless complainers who won't "man up" and take it.

And trots. Mostly trots. In fact pretty much all trots. Basically if the trots went away the rest of us could have a good honest protest.

Good loser wrote: »

The occupier rather than owner must be the responsible person in the first instance; by paying less rent they can offset the burden onto the property/wealth owner.

So you are not only turning everyone into a permanent tenant, you're penalising actual tenants. The country did just fine without rates for decades, just because it's done in the UK doesn't mean we have to ape their bad ideas.

Mizu_Ger · 02-06-2011 9:18am

Welease wrote: »

I doubt it.. The management companies are (as is my understanding) organised by the owners/tenants to provide services which can include services that would never be provided by the councils i.e. general upkeep of buildings, landscaping/lawn maintenance, security, parking control etc.

The tenants could look for a reduction in management charges if they felt that some services were no longer be required.. but its a private contract between the residents and the management company and would need to be driven by the residents themselves.

The management company in my estate cover the cost of lighting in public areas, landscaping (cutting grass in public areas and picking up an rubbish), insurance in public areas. They also provide for bins and structural upkeep for people in apartments, but they pay extra for this. I'm not sure what other services the council would provide in my (or any) estate.

At the moment I pay for the following:

Electricity
Gas
Road Tax
Bins
TV Licence
and from next year, Water.

What's left? There's no swimming pool in my town. We do have a small library, and a small green area with a play ground, but that's about it. I don't mind paying for these, but it would be a very small amount when spread across the whole community.

What exactly are the services that the local authority provide? I would like to see a list (official) of these services.

Welease · 02-06-2011 9:36am

Mizu_Ger wrote: »

The management company in my estate cover the cost of lighting in public areas, landscaping (cutting grass in public areas and picking up an rubbish), insurance in public areas. They also provide for bins and structural upkeep for people in apartments, but they pay extra for this. I'm not sure what other services the council would provide in my (or any) estate.

At the moment I pay for the following:

Electricity
Gas
Road Tax
Bins
TV Licence
and from next year, Water.

What's left? There's no swimming pool in my town. We do have a small library, and a small green area with a play ground, but that's about it. I don't mind paying for these, but it would be a very small amount when spread across the whole community.

What exactly are the services that the local authority provide? I would like to see a list (official) of these services.

But that's my point.. I have to pay privately also for all those services.. So I fail to see why people are making the argument that people who pay management committee's should get a discount..

02-06-2011 10:04am

1-The government would want to sort out their strategy for breaking news to the public, and all get singing off the same hymn sheet. The recent breakdowns in communication have been at the least embarrassing and undermining, and at most genuinely worrying for already stressed taxpayers who have no clarity on what's going to happen. Nobody in government seems to have a definitive clue what the party line is on this and many other issues, and it's damaging confidence.

2-A property tax by any other name is still a property tax. Unfair and inequitable taxation rules in ireland. Imagine a first time buyer who bought at the top of the boom and is now in negative equity. They have a property they probably can't afford, don't want, can't sell, were over leveraged on by greedy banks, and were advised to buy by a crooked, incompetent government. Now the next government wants to slap another charge on their home to pay for the consequences of all the same greed by the bankers and politicians who remain unpunished to this day? It's disgusting.

3-Another easy option, blunt instrument, flat rate charge, that's yet another example of dodging the tough decisions and hitting everybody with the same stick. Different properties in different areas in different cities and under different public or private management schemes should all be taxed differently depending on individual situations, but that would be far too much work and take far too long for a bloated public service to figure out, so instead it's "let's just slap another levy on people and watch the money roll in, and increase it by 50 or 100 euro every time the budget rolls around, once they've gotten used to it". Where the hell do they think people are going to find the money for this?

4-And "ring fencing"?? My Arse. I've heard it so many times that i just don't believe it. This will go straight into the exchequer and have at most a fraction of it's total take spent on the infrastructure and local services it was ostensibly set up to fund, just like road tax, TV licence, water tax, and any number of other bloody charges. And besides, if this is to pay for local government costs, what the bloody hell am i paying PAYE for? The IMF? Corrupt Bankers? Senior Bondholders who don't want to lie in the bed they made for themselves?

Seriously, the reason for these taxes and charges, whether they're fair or unfair, is a different argument, but really, how in the name of god do they expect to have growth in the retail and consumer driven economy if they are taxing and charging ordinary workers to the brink of poverty? It's the modern equivalent of CJ Haughey trying to tax his way out of a recession in the 1980's and instead stagnating our economy for a decade and fuelling record emigration. It's not going to work.

People need to be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel. They need hope in order to stay the course, and need to be able to see an improvement, even a small one, to make their sacrifices worthwhile. If you're just working to pay the taxman and stay on your feet, and no matter what you do you're getting nowhere and there's always another tax or a charge around the corner to knock you on your back, where's the incentive not to just get the hell out and leave it all to all the other poor saps and go in search of a better life?

Floppybits · 02-06-2011 10:56am

Welease wrote: »

But that's my point.. I have to pay privately also for all those services.. So I fail to see why people are making the argument that people who pay management committee's should get a discount..

Welease, thats the thing if you are paying this household tax, is that not suppose to cover the costs that you are currently paying privately to a management company for? So when it does come in either Management companies are going to have to cut their bills because they will no longer have to pay for a lot of services, or else the local council will take over the estate and look after the management of the estate.

If that is not the case they what is the household tax for?

Household charge

Comments