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

squod · 28-03-2012 7:09pm

blowtorch wrote: »

http://www.ipav.ie/documents/Industry/IPAV_holds_meeting_with_Minister_Hogan.pdf

Phil Hogan (Auctioneer) confides in his fellow Auctioneers last July that (as regards the household charge) 'It was likely, he said, that the monies raised would go to the Exchequer rather than to the local authorities'

Enough is enough. Parking Levy, Motor Insurance Levy, Life Assurance Levy, Health Insurance Levy (€285 per adult and € 95 per child), ESB (PSO) Levy etc.etc. Get lost Phil 'bully-boy' Hogan

Black and white. Cheers.

squod · 28-03-2012 7:11pm

dvpower wrote: »

If I was a civil servants, would that make me an interested party?

I asked which department you worked for not whether you were or were not a civil servant. It's up to you to declare your interest(s).

Ghandee · 28-03-2012 7:11pm

Been quite busy today, was over in the isle of man on business, what have I missed?

Few of the yes posters seem to have faded away a wee bit?

dvpower · 28-03-2012 7:14pm

squod wrote: »

Black and white. Cheers.

The legislation makes it clear where the money is going. There is no mystery about it.
One would think that the government don't publish accounts and they can somehow hide where money goes from the people.

squod · 28-03-2012 7:14pm

Ghandee wrote: »

Been quite busy today, was over in the isle of man on business, what have I missed?

Isle of man eh? Suit you........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1fMf8CB7jE

buzz123 · 28-03-2012 7:15pm

Here's another reason I won't be paying...

http://www.herald.ie/news/loophole-that-exempts-1m-houses-from-levy-3063378.html

Fair and equitable?? NOT!

Cesium Clock · 28-03-2012 7:16pm

dvpower wrote: »

The legislation makes it clear where the money is going. There is no mystery about it.
One would think that the government don't publish accounts and they can somehow hide where money goes from the people.

as the 250m euro tribunal proved

dvpower · 28-03-2012 7:16pm

squod wrote: »

I asked which department you worked for not whether you were or were not a civil servant. It's up to you to declare your interest(s).

How would working in any government department be an interest ?

Freddie59 · 28-03-2012 7:17pm

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I've been asking for days for a reputable link from anyone providing proof that the money from the household charge is going to "foreign gamblers". Nothing even approaching proof has arrived.

The one guy that claimed he had previously proven it ended up getting banned for using two accounts to agree with himself and thank his own posts. Before that he spent his time insulting me and a few other people in between parroting the SF and ULA slogans and never getting around to reposting his "proof".

The entire no campaign is based on half truths, conspiracy theories and outright lies. Just be honest, you don't want to pay because you'd rather have the 100 bucks in your own arse-pocket.

In fairness Micky, a child in Senior Infants could see the stroke being pulled here. Money being pulled from local authorities to pay off a gambling debt which we do not owe, with the so-called "household charge" being collected in an attempt to substitute it.

So the money does indeed go to foreign gamblers. Those gamblers being the foreign financial institutions which took a massive gamble funding the their Irish equivalents. A private debt between two sets of greedy, incompetent buffoons.

And the taxpayer is supposed to foot the bill - because we're borrowing €400m a week from the same people in order to fund the lifestyles of our Public Sector workers, Civil Servants, and an overly-generous Social Welfare System.

No matter what way it's spun, this is the reality my friend.:(

Ghandee · 28-03-2012 7:18pm

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I've been asking for days for a reputable link from anyone providing proof that the money from the household charge is going to "foreign gamblers". Nothing even approaching proof has arrived.

Is that proof Micky?

http://www.ipav.ie/documents/Industry/IPAV_holds_meeting_with_Minister_Hogan.pdf

squod · 28-03-2012 7:18pm

dvpower wrote: »

How would working in any government department be an interest ?

Your saying it's not?

dvpower · 28-03-2012 7:18pm

Cesium Clock wrote: »

as the 250m euro tribunal proved

Could you explain what the tribunal proved about the transparency of state accounts? :eek:

Freddie59 · 28-03-2012 7:18pm

blowtorch wrote: »

http://www.ipav.ie/documents/Industry/IPAV_holds_meeting_with_Minister_Hogan.pdf

Phil Hogan (Auctioneer) confides in his fellow Auctioneers last July that (as regards the household charge) 'It was likely, he said, that the monies raised would go to the Exchequer rather than to the local authorities'

Enough is enough. Parking Levy, Motor Insurance Levy, Life Assurance Levy, Health Insurance Levy (€285 per adult and € 95 per child), ESB (PSO) Levy etc.etc. Get lost Phil 'bully-boy' Hogan

While exempting those who can afford to pay it. It's straight out of Kilnascully.

Freddie59 · 28-03-2012 7:21pm

5live wrote: »

No, TDs and senators will have to pay it too. The wording on the bill is poor but it basically says that houses owned by the Mininter of the Environment are exempt but this relates to local authority housing stocks, NOT his personal residence

Confirmation then, that a household charge is only applied to some households. FFS.

blowtorch · 28-03-2012 7:22pm

Mmmmmm...... Up to now, the Exchequer (where our taxes have been going) have funded Local Authorities. These same taxes are now as well, funding repayments to the foreign gamblers'.

So our Government now threaten us that unless we pay this new tax, Local Authority services will be cut, as it is this new tax that is going to fund them. The 'old' funding, from existing taxes, will then go to pay the 'Foreign Gamblers'.

In July 2011 Phil Hogan confided in his Auctioneer friends the following as regards the household charge.........
It was likely, he said, that the monies raised would go to the Exchequer rather than
to the local authorities.

Page 7 of http://www.ipav.ie/Documents/Industry/Magazines/PP-Aut-11.pdf

Freddie59 · 28-03-2012 7:23pm

Newaglish wrote: »

Surely by now you understand this tax has nothing to do with repaying bondholders? That without any of those problems we're still running a massive deficit?

Yes, we're quite aware of where the money is being squandered. It is, indirectly going to pay these cnuts, as they are what caused it in the first place.

dvpower · 28-03-2012 7:23pm

squod wrote: »

Your saying it's not?

I don't know - you'd have to explain first what you mean by an interest.

Biggins · 28-03-2012 7:25pm

Ghandee wrote: »

Is that proof Micky?

http://www.ipav.ie/documents/Industry/IPAV_holds_meeting_with_Minister_Hogan.pdf

Cheers for that.

For those on phones, etc:

IPAV HOLDS WIDE-RANGING MEETING WITH ENVIRONMENT MINISTER

On Monday, July 25th IPAV President Padraig Smith led a delegation to the Custom House for a meeting with the Minister for the Environment, Community & Local Government Phil Hogan TD.

The meeting covered a number of topics of interest to auctioneers including the recently announced property tax and the lack of credit by the financial institutions.

The delegation consisted of CEO Fintan McNamara, National Council members Tom Crosse and Ron Duff along with Padraig Smith. The IPAV President introduced the delegation and expressed his thanks to the Minister for the meeting.

Fintan McNamara outlined a number of IPAV concerns over the Property Services Regulation Bill which will regulate auctioneers and estate agents. The Bill is due back before a Dáil Committee in the Autumn. He said there were worries about the cost of the new license which was expected to bring in a total of €3m to fund the new National Property Services Regulatory Authority. He said IPAV was of the firm view that the new licences should be valid for a 5 to 10 year period as was the practice in other European countries.

Minister Hogan said he noted IPAV’s concerns and was sympathetic to them. He said he would pass IPAV’s views to his colleague, the Minster for Justice & Law Reform Alan Shatter who has charge of the Bill. His personal view was that there would be rationalisation of a number of regulatory bodies in the coming months and he believed the Regulatory would be merged with other or other regulatory bodies thus leading to a more cost effective administration.

As the meeting took place on the eve of the Government’s approval of the new property tax he said this was part of the terms of agreement with the IMF/EU/ECB package. It was likely, he said, that the monies raised would go to the Exchequer rather than to the local authorities. IPAV CEO Fintan McNamara pointed out that all non-owner occupied houses and units of accommodation were already subject to the €200 levy and this would cause an additional burden.
Furthermore, it looked as though water charges were coming down the line in a short time.

Minister Hogan replied that he was open to capping the amount of money any one property would have to contribute in one year but he had not worked out the detail. He said he would “take a pragmatic approach” to apartments and investment units in a single house.

The lack of credit by the financial institutions was raised by the IPAV delegates as being the main stumbling block to kick-starting the property market. Minister Hogan outlined the recent financing of Bank of Ireland and this hopefully represented the first vote of confidence in generating interest in the private sector.

“If you get the banks sorted, you have the country sorted,” said the Minister.

Both Tom Crosse and Ron Duff underlined the major effects the lack of credit was having on the property industry as well as the pointlessness of foreclosing on people who could not afford their repayments.

The Minister said he found the meeting worthwhile and had taken a note of the points raised which he would bear in mind in the course of the weeks and months ahead.

dvpower · 28-03-2012 7:25pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

Confirmation then, that a household charge is only applied to some households. FFS.

Are you suffering memory loss or are you just learning now that this doesn't apply to all households?

Freddie59 · 28-03-2012 7:27pm

coup1917 wrote: »

Its refreshing to hear Phil tell it like it is, its not arrogance, its treating people like adults who are refusing to accept their obligations..

This moaning about tax makes me sick....

And listening to BS makes me equally sick. WTF is this "obligation" you speak of?

Paying back defunct business entities because they lost a bet?

Propping up a bloated, overpaid, and underworked Civil Service and Public Sector?

Propping up a ludicrous SW system and its abuses?

FFS get real man. "Telling it like it is" my hole.

mickydoomsux · 28-03-2012 7:28pm

Ghandee wrote: »

Is that proof Micky?

http://www.ipav.ie/documents/Industry/IPAV_holds_meeting_with_Minister_Hogan.pdf

No, that's completely unrelated and was in the legislation that set up the household charge anyway.

Freddie59 · 28-03-2012 7:28pm

dvpower wrote: »

Are you suffering memory loss or are you just learning now that this doesn't apply to all households?

Ah the standard bearer for phil. No, it's just shocking that these people are exempt. Even someone like YOU must agree with this. What are the phrases being bandied about? Fair and equitable?

golfwallah · 28-03-2012 7:29pm

Under questioning on RTE’s Pat Kenny radio programme today, Minister Phil Hogan covered a whole raft of issues on Household Charges, related communications / process problems and, most interestingly, Local Government Reform.

I’m summarising, but he said that, in years to come, property tax would become more progressive and fairer, based on ability to pay. He said issues being looked at by an “expert group” (report to be published within next few months) included Local Authority Tenants and Privately Rented property.

He also stated that a Package of Local Government Reform was included in the remit of this “expert group”. Reform would include the number of councils, new admin processes, more efficiencies and a new “Croke Park Agreement”.

In response to Pat Kenny’s question about the unfairness of people in remote rural areas being asked to pay for Council services they couldn’t avail of, he said they needed to take account of an element of community solidarity and the common good. People in these areas used roads maintained by the Councils to access other National Roads and services, etc.

Responding to the point that Deputy Luke “Ming” Flanagan had introduced a fear factor as regards tax collection, he said that Law Makers should not be advocating that people break the law.
For recorded interview go to: http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/

hondasam · 28-03-2012 7:31pm

Listening to Phil Hogan on Matt Cooper show earlier would not convince me to pay that's for sure, some callers said he came across as arrogant which he did.
He is still convinced majority of people will have paid by the 31st.

squod · 28-03-2012 7:32pm

mickydoomsux wrote: »

No, that's completely unrelated and was in the legislation that set up the household charge anyway.

You're assuming much.

dvpower · 28-03-2012 7:32pm

mickydoomsux wrote: »

No, that's completely unrelated and was in the legislation that set up the household charge anyway.

Some people would much prefer to construct a conspiracy theory than read what's written in black and white in the legislation and in exchequer accounts.

Freddie59 · 28-03-2012 7:33pm

Reform has to start by example. A typical example of the waste in this country is the Fire service. I stand corrected if wrong, but I believe that London (with around 10m population) has ONE Fire chief, ONE assistant Fire Chief, and so on.

Munster (pop. around 1.5m) has a Fire Chief in almost EVERY County. Replicate that wastage across the civil Service and you get the picture.

Ghandee · 28-03-2012 7:34pm

golfwallah wrote: »

Under questioning on RTE’s Pat Kenny radio programme today, Minister Phil Hogan covered a whole raft of issues on Household Charges, related communications / process problems and, most interestingly, Local Government Reform.

I’m summarising, but he said that, in years to come, property tax would become more progressive and fairer, based on ability to pay. He said issues being looked at by an “expert group” (report to be published within next few months) included Local Authority Tenants and Privately Rented property.

He also stated that a Package of Local Government Reform was included in the remit of this “expert group”. Reform would include the number of councils, new admin processes, more efficiencies and a new “Croke Park Agreement”.

In response to Pat Kenny’s question about the unfairness of people in remote rural areas being asked to pay for Council services they couldn’t avail of, he said they needed to take account of an element of community solidarity and the common good. People in these areas used roads maintained by the Councils to access other National Roads and services, etc.

Responding to the point that Deputy Luke “Ming” Flanagan had introduced a fear factor as regards tax collection, he said that Law Makers should not be advocating that people break the law, but that they should in fact, attempt to change the law, thus making the unlawful, lawful(to suit themselves.)
For recorded interview go to: http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/

FYP. :rolleyes:

squod · 28-03-2012 7:34pm

golfwallah wrote: »

.

He also stated that a Package of Local Government Reform was included in the remit of this “expert group”. Reform would include the number of councils, new admin processes, more efficiencies and a new “Croke Park Agreement”.

I don't believe a word of it. We've been talking about reform since as far back as I can remember.

Freddie59 · 28-03-2012 7:34pm

dvpower wrote: »

Some people would much prefer to construct a conspiracy theory than read what's written in black and white in the legislation and in exchequer accounts.

Sure there isn't really a conspiracy.:rolleyes: They're just giving the money for local services to European gamblers and asking us to foot the bill. Again.

As I said, a child in Senior Infants could see this.

Biggins · 28-03-2012 7:35pm

golfwallah wrote: »

Under questioning on RTE’s Pat Kenny radio programme today, Minister Phil Hogan covered a whole raft of issues on Household Charges, related communications / process problems and, most interestingly, Local Government Reform.

I’m summarising, but he said that, in years to come, property tax would become more progressive and fairer, based on ability to pay. He said issues being looked at by an “expert group” (report to be published within next few months) included Local Authority Tenants and Privately Rented property.

He also stated that a Package of Local Government Reform was included in the remit of this “expert group”. Reform would include the number of councils, new admin processes, more efficiencies and a new “Croke Park Agreement”.

In response to Pat Kenny’s question about the unfairness of people in remote rural areas being asked to pay for Council services they couldn’t avail of, he said they needed to take account of an element of community solidarity and the common good. People in these areas used roads maintained by the Councils to access other National Roads and services, etc.

Responding to the point that Deputy Luke “Ming” Flanagan had introduced a fear factor as regards tax collection, he said that Law Makers should not be advocating that people break the law.
For recorded interview go to: http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/

One gaping flaw in all that which Hogan stated...

If we are/were to believe everything they previously stated they were going to do either by election words and/or promise, the country would already be far better off!

More words about supposed future things (yet another sales pitch) that frankly I DO NOT trust.
This government has failed so far in what they stated they were going to do already (never mind the absolute amazing amount of u-turns!), that any more schite I hear from them, is also a complete waste of time and CANNOT be trusted!

dvpower · 28-03-2012 7:35pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

. No, it's just shocking that these people are exempt.

Shocking???
It was as clear as day from the outset that non homeowners were excluded.

Freddie59 · 28-03-2012 7:36pm

dvpower wrote: »

Shocking???
It was as clear as day from the outset that non homeowners were excluded.

Yes. But still shocking. Would you not agree? We're told it's a household charge, not a property tax. Ergo every household should pay.

BTW, I still have not received any kind of bill or communication to me personally about this proposed charge.

goz83 · 28-03-2012 7:38pm

dvpower wrote: »

Of course its not true. Don't be so silly.

Nothing silly there. It was suggested, but it was changed when the government knew that there would be even more upset by the public if this were to happen.

dvpower · 28-03-2012 7:38pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

Sure there isn't really a conspiracy.:rolleyes: They're just giving the money for local services to European gamblers and asking us to foot the bill. Again.

As I said, a child in Senior Infants could see this.

I agree - that is a childish analysis.

dvpower · 28-03-2012 7:39pm

goz83 wrote: »

Nothing silly there. It was suggested, but it was changed when the government knew that there would be even more upset by the public if this were to happen.

Show me the evidence for this please?

dvpower · 28-03-2012 7:43pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

BTW, I still have not received any kind of bill or communication to me personally about this proposed charge.

Did you bang your head recently? There was never any suggestion that a bill was going to be sent out.
For someone who has been posting on the topic for the last few weeks, you know remarkably little about it.

hondasam · 28-03-2012 7:47pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yes. But still shocking. Would you not agree? We're told it's a household charge, not a property tax. Ergo every household should pay.

BTW, I still have not received any kind of bill or communication to me personally about this proposed charge.

Mr Hogan pointed out today there is no database of home owners in this country,this is the reason they need us to register in order to collect said data.
The household charge can only go to the home owner not a tenant.

Ghandee · 28-03-2012 7:49pm

dvpower wrote: »

Did you bang your head recently? There was never any suggestion that a bill was going to be sent out.
For someone who has been posting on the topic for the last few weeks, you know remarkably little about it.

Would it not have been cheaper (than fancy multi colored leaflets) and made much more sense to send out invoices though?

Wouldn't have the resentment against the charge by as many people.

Seriously though, why post leaflets en masse to the population, instead of invoices?

I can't get my head around this one.

Edit, Sam just answered my question above ^

[they don't know who owns what]

hondasam · 28-03-2012 7:53pm

Ghandee wrote: »

Would it not have been cheaper (than fancy multi colored leaflets) and made much more sense to send out invoices though?

Wouldn't have the resentment against the charge by as many people.

Seriously though, why post leaflets en masse to the population, instead of invoices?

I can't get my head around this one.

Who would they invoice? they do not have a database of home owners. It's possible they could miss loads of houses.

Biggins · 28-03-2012 7:55pm

hondasam wrote: »

Mr Hogan pointed out today there is no database of home owners in this country,this is the reason they need us to register in order to collect said data.
The household charge can only go to the home owner not a tenant.

What the hell have I been filling in the consensus forms then for every few years?
Seriously!
I have stated every time on those my housing conditions!
That's a miserable excuse! Dose the fool think we are all stupid and have short memories about what we stated repeatedly on those forms alone?

If he is willing to grab data from ESB bills - surely he can do the same with his own state CSO office data!
The man is a blithering idiot!

dvpower · 28-03-2012 7:56pm

Ghandee wrote: »

Would it not have been cheaper (than fancy multi colored leaflets) and made much more sense to send out invoices though?

Wouldn't have the resentment against the charge by as many people.

Seriously though, why post leaflets en masse to the population, instead of invoices?

I can't get my head around this one.

I agree. I think the required data exists across various databases. They should have done the data merge they are currently undertaking and used that to send out individual notices. They couldn't have sent out invoices, because a property may have one persons name on the stamp duty or registry record, but a different liable householder.

hondasam · 28-03-2012 7:57pm

Biggins wrote: »

What the hell have I been filling in the consensus forms then for every few years?
Seriously!
I have stated every time on those my housing conditions!
That's a miserable excuse! Dose the fool think we are all stupid and have short memories about what we stated repeatedly on those forms alone?

It does not state who owns the house apparently. This is why they cannot invoice as they do not know who the owner is.

dvpower · 28-03-2012 7:59pm

Biggins wrote: »

What the hell have I been filling in the consensus forms then for every few years?
Seriously!
I have stated every time on those my housing conditions!
That's a miserable excuse! Dose the fool think we are all stupid and have short memories about what we stated repeatedly on those forms alone?

If he is willing to grab data from ESB bills - surely he can do the same with his own state CSO office data!
The man is a blithering idiot!

Pretty obvious why they would be reluctant to use census data tbh, quite apart from data protection issues.

Freddie59 · 28-03-2012 8:00pm

dvpower wrote: »

Did you bang your head recently? There was never any suggestion that a bill was going to be sent out.
For someone who has been posting on the topic for the last few weeks, you know remarkably little about it.

Hmmm. Getting a little worked up there DV? I was making the point that, in the normal course of events, you would receive written notice of any charge. However, given how whacked out your predictions are for those who will pay, I can cut you a little slack my friend.:p

blowtorch · 28-03-2012 8:00pm

Ghandee wrote: »

Would it not have been cheaper (than fancy multi colored leaflets) and made much more sense to send out invoices though?

Wouldn't have the resentment against the charge by as many people.

Seriously though, why post leaflets en masse to the population, instead of invoices?

I can't get my head around this one.

Edit, Sam just answered my question above ^

[they don't know who owns what]

They're on a 'Let's get an up-to-date database' mission on property ownership. The Social Welfare / Revenue databases wouldn't show who-owns-what. Likewise, any information they get from the Utility companies will be flawed, as in the case of ESB for instance, the homeowner is not necessarily the bill payer. This is a total mire, and you can imagine the amount of new staff that's going to be required to try and get the information needed.

So - easier to get everyone to self-declare. (So they thought anyway). Do they really expect me to 'Register' that I am liable for a charge, and that I will be liable for any future charges they like to impose. If I am liable for a charge, then I want to receive a bill for it, with a breakdown of each service (and the cost of it) that I receive. 'You will not receive a bill' - = you will not receive payment

Biggins · 28-03-2012 8:01pm

hondasam wrote: »

It does not state who owns the house apparently. This is why they cannot invoice as they do not know who the owner is.

I have stated repeatedly on them that I have a mortgage and that the household is in my name.
What was I doing filling that part in? Wasting my time because Hogan can't be arsed to look it up and collate the data?
Isn't that what we are paying the CSO for alone besides sorting out other vital info on the people of our state?

Its must more Hogan pitiful excuses. One after another. One fcuk-up after another!
If he was working for a private company - his arse would be fired a long time ago!

Freddie59 · 28-03-2012 8:01pm

hondasam wrote: »

Mr Hogan pointed out today there is no database of home owners in this country,this is the reason they need us to register in order to collect said data.
The household charge can only go to the home owner not a tenant.

So why is it not called a property tax?

Biggins · 28-03-2012 8:03pm

dvpower wrote: »

Pretty obvious why they would be reluctant to use census data tbh, quite apart from data protection issues.

O' please!!!

Data protection issues?
Hasn't stopped them from now trying to dip into the ESB data - and thats a semi-state body - never mind an actual fully fledged CSO government department!

Data protection issues? Don't let the fools in FG make us laugh any more!

hondasam · 28-03-2012 8:05pm

Biggins wrote: »

I have stated repeatedly on them that I have a mortgage and that the household is in my name.
What was I doing filling that part in? Wasting my time because Hogan can't be arsed to look it up and collate the data?
Isn't that what we are paying the CSO for alone besides sorting out other vital info on the people of our state?

Its must more Hogan pitiful excuses. One after another. One fcuk-up after another!
If he was working for a private company - his arse would be fired a long time ago!

I can't remember if they ask who owns the house or not, how many people fill out the census but don't own the house, this is the problem there. It would not be accurate.
For example if I was not at my own house on the night of the census then my house would be missed for this purpose now, I see this is the reason they want us to volunteer out information.
Data protection will probably not allow then collect it any other way. He did mention something about the law.

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

Comments