Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] Poll Reset

Bruthal · 02-04-2012 11:31am

phil1nj wrote: »

Actually, the allegation of hypocrisy came about because the poster in question maintained that he didn't make any hypocritical statements in this thread. He did in fact admit to not paying the poll tax yet stated here that people should pay their taxes. He claimed the poll tax was unfair, that the household charge/tax was fair and then proceeded to sneer and be condescending to various posters on this thread who asked him why he was in a postion to make such a claim (I don't think he was an elected official somehow, but on boards you never know). Very principled indeed.

He also didn't strike me as being a particularly nice quy, but then again who am I to judge:D

Yes thats exactly it. I dont actualy like to see any posters being targeted in any way. But to come in here sneering, and condescending, and then tell people to pay their damn taxes, while refusing to pay one he deemed unfair, was the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

When i asked how taxing negative equity homes was a fair taxation of wealth, he said the full property tax when it comes in, might have an allowance for that, but we dont know.

But if he says that, then he is indicating that taxing negative equity homes may indeed be judged as unfair. But he still stuck to the negative equity owners as being a minority, and will soon be out of negative equity according to him, and the property still had wealth in it.

So it seems he believed only he could decide what was unfair, and what was not.

dvpower · 02-04-2012 11:37am

black francis wrote: »

The main logic employed by anti-household charge protesters is that someone else needs to pay for the mess.

stevedublin wrote: »

So you are owning up to the fact that the household charge is effectively going to pay Anglo bondholders etc.

Strange logic there.
The 'mess' is the collapse of central government revenue to pay for local authority funding.

black francis didn't mention Anglo bondholders there at all. That is an obsession of people on the anti tax side. You've done a good job in illustrating his point.

stevedublin · 02-04-2012 11:44am

dvpower wrote: »

Strange logic there.
The 'mess' is the collapse of central government revenue to pay for local authority funding.

Nothing strange about my logic at all.
The collapse of central government revenue for local authorities is because the money the central government used to spend on local authority funding is now going to pay banking debt that the govt took on.

Ghandee · 02-04-2012 11:50am

stevedublin wrote: »

Nothing strange about my logic at all.
The collapse of central government revenue for local authorities is because the money the central government used to spend on local authority funding is now going to pay banking debt that the govt took on.

Just logged on to say the exact same thing.

Smoke and mirrors by FG,

'its not going to pay off a debt, its going to fund local services' the same local services that got cut in the budget to the tune of €170million by the gov.

They would have been much better admitting such from the beginning.

The Irish people detest being lied to, its being goin on now for far too long!

A change was voted for in the last election, as yet we've seen very little of the change that was promised.

dvpower · 02-04-2012 11:58am

stevedublin wrote: »

Nothing strange about my logic at all.
The collapse of central government revenue for local authorities is because the money the central government used to spend on local authority funding is now going to pay banking debt that the govt took on.

Factually incorrect. The money borrowed to bail out Anglo (and the other banks) will be paid back over many years and only contributes to a minor part of the deficit.

Nobody seems to want to mention the deficit at all - probably because it doesn't allow for a simplistic analysis where our problems are all caused by someone else.

stevedublin · 02-04-2012 12:12pm

dvpower wrote: »

Nobody seems to want to mention the deficit at all - probably because it doesn't allow for a simplistic analysis where our problems are all caused by someone else.

The banking debt contributes to the deficit, stop throwing spanners in the works and putting spins on things to distract from the main issue.
The household charge was only introduced after the government took on bank debt, local authorities didn't have problems getting funding before that.

Chucky the tree · 02-04-2012 12:17pm

stevedublin wrote: »

The banking debt contributes to the deficit, stop throwing spanners in the works and putting spins on things to distract from the main issue.
The household charge was only introduced after the government took on bank debt, local authorities didn't have problems getting funding before that.

That's because we weren't running a €20bn deficit before.

paddy147 · 02-04-2012 12:23pm

Dv Power......Honest question here...

Do you think the goverment have made an absolute balls of the household charge??

In view off what has been claimed,said,happened (or not happened in the case),threatened,and now with the revelation of not knowing the amount of houses in the country (after the deadline has passed).

Do you think they have made an ABSOLUTE BALLS of it??

Hijpo · 02-04-2012 12:25pm

Chucky the tree wrote: »

That's because we weren't running a €20bn deficit before.

but we were running a deficit, yet not one TD was looking for money for play areas for kids or street lighting or fixing roads.

now all of a sudden.....

suicide_circus · 02-04-2012 12:27pm

I saw recently where department of finance officials ran up a 70k bill on calling 11850 directory enquiries in 2011. This is, indirectly, why I would refuse to pay. 70k = 700 families giving the government 100euro so that out of touch with reality public servants can waste it on the likes of this. It is simply outrageous and until this level of waste is tackled, I see no justification of squeezing more cash out of hard pressed people to the laughable work practices and lifestyles of those in power. I simply dont believe a word the government says, I dont believe they will be able to sort out this mess. Dear Phil and enda, suck my balls, regards etc.

lugha · 02-04-2012 12:27pm

stevedublin wrote: »

The banking debt contributes to the deficit, stop throwing spanners in the works and putting spins on things to distract from the main issue.
The household charge was only introduced after the government took on bank debt, local authorities didn't have problems getting funding before that.

The bank debt is only a small part of the deficit.

But why does this nonsense persist where attempts are made to link particular monies raised with how it is spent? The government have led the way on this and almost everyone has followed.

There is a total amount of revenue that needs to be raised for all expenses, including bank debts. So some argue that the €170 M taken from local service expenditure is being used to pay off bank debts. Others insist that these payments are being made by other monies raised. What material difference does it make?

It would be like a household where spouses pool their income and then have tedious debates on whose money was being used to pay what bills! Daft!

paddy147 · 02-04-2012 12:29pm

Hijpo wrote: »

but we were running a deficit, yet not one TD was looking for money for play areas for kids or street lighting or fixing roads.

now all of a sudden.....

37k salary increases,bankers salaries,blowing money on toll bridges and port tunnels,dail bar pi55 ups,lavish dinners and meals paid on credit cards at the tax payers expense.

Ah sure fcuk the children and the future of Ireland.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

stevedublin · 02-04-2012 12:33pm

Chucky the tree wrote: »

That's because we weren't running a €20bn deficit before.

Thats because the Irish govt didnt have to pay back enormous bank debt before. Its quite clear to many people whats happening here.

paddy147 · 02-04-2012 12:36pm

TV3 are ripping Phil Hogan to pieces at the moment.

A good few nasty texts comming in about him too.

Hijpo · 02-04-2012 12:39pm

lugha wrote: »

The bank debt is only a small part of the deficit.

But why does this nonsense persist where attempts are made to link particular monies raised with how it is spent? The government have led the way on this and almost everyone has followed.

There is a total amount of revenue that needs to be raised for all expenses, including bank debts. So some argue that the €170 M taken from local service expenditure is being used to pay off bank debts. Others insist that these payments are being made by other monies raised. What material difference does it make?

It would be like a household where spouses pool their income and then have tedious debates on whose money was being used to pay what bills! Daft!

You could also put it this way.

4 people rent a house

One person in the house buys €100 worth of celery per week that no one eats, leaves the shower running constantly, buys fags for themself, tops up his ladbrokes account etc. Then takes out a loan and ups the rent money to pay the loan without giving up the fags, turning off the shower, deleting his ladbrokes account or buying spuds instead of manky celery.

Chucky the tree · 02-04-2012 12:42pm

Hijpo wrote: »

but we were running a deficit, yet not one TD was looking for money for play areas for kids or street lighting or fixing roads.

now all of a sudden.....

We weren't really. Difference now is we need IMF/EU to tell us how to run a decent tax revenue system.

stevedublin wrote: »

Thats because the Irish govt didnt have to pay back enormous bank debt before. Its quite clear to many people whats happening here.

You should really educate yourself how/why the country is in such a mess as you don't have a clue about it.

steve9859 · 02-04-2012 12:47pm

Two interesting things to come out of Newstalk interviews this lunchtime:

Institute of regional and spatial analysis: Concluded after detailed analysis that there are 1.72m eligible households, meaning uptake is < 50%

Head of Donegal county council: Says that funds will not go directly to local services, but will be collected centrally and dispursed as appropriate.

Seems like no-one knows exactly what is going on or how many houses there are!!

paddy147 · 02-04-2012 12:48pm

So why do FG keep on blowing tax payers money then????

The FG attitude seem to be,"ha ha,we got into goverment,so lets party".

Hijpo · 02-04-2012 12:49pm

Chucky the tree wrote: »

We weren't really. Difference now is we need IMF/EU to tell us how to run a decent tax revenue system

So we wernt borrowing to run the country the past few years?

im pretty sure i saw somewhere stating that it was a couple of million a week, I dont have the figures in front of me (how often have we hear that one used to avoid an clear answer)

why didnt we need a decent tax revenue system before? if it was always broken how did the country survive?

steve9859 wrote: »

Head of Donegal county council: Says that funds will not go directly to local services, but will be collected centrally and dispursed as appropriate

in other words the bigger cities will get the majority of the money

dvpower · 02-04-2012 12:56pm

stevedublin wrote: »

The banking debt contributes to the deficit, stop throwing spanners in the works and putting spins on things to distract from the main issue.

I've said that the banking debt contributes ti the deficit. By a very small amount. Have a look at the 2012 estimates to see how much of the deficit is taken up by total debt repayments.

The deficit is the main issue.

stevedublin wrote: »

The household charge was only introduced after the government took on bank debt, local authorities didn't have problems getting funding before that.

You must be living under a rock.

dvpower · 02-04-2012 12:58pm

stevedublin wrote: »

Thats because the Irish govt didnt have to pay back enormous bank debt before. Its quite clear to many people whats happening here.

It is clear only to people who wear blinkers. Have a look at the accounts and take them off.

Chucky the tree · 02-04-2012 12:58pm

Hijpo wrote: »

So we wernt borrowing to run the country the past few years?

im pretty sure i saw somewhere stating that it was a couple of million a week, I dont have the figures in front of me (how often have we hear that one used to avoid an clear answer)

why didnt we need a decent tax revenue system before? if it was always broken how did the country survive?

We were running a deficit but FG and Labour were not in charge then, different parties will have different areas to run. The country survived by borrowing to cover the deficit when it had one, lately we've had a surplus thanks to a property bubble(nice and sustainable that always is) before that we had decent growth and had a surplus for that. Don't think we've had a large budget deficit since the mid 90s and before that but I could be wrong there.

Hijpo · 02-04-2012 1:03pm

dvpower wrote: »

I've said that the banking debt contributes ti the deficit. By a very small amount. Have a look at the 2012 estimates to see how much of the deficit is taken up by total debt repayments.

The deficit is the main issue

there is also a ridiculous amount of needless spends that can be stopped before you can expect people to be happy with being taxed more, lets be honest.

Surely you cant be happy with them spending millions on voting machines, thousands on wine, further thousands on lunches, phone bills, ministerial cars, massive pensions when they retire at 55, to name but a few.

Do people understand that this waste of money will never be curtailed while tax payers continue to hand over money without question.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

We were running a deficit but FG and Labour were not in charge then, different parties will have different areas to run. The country survived by borrowing to cover the deficit when it had one, lately we've had a surplus thanks to a property bubble(nice and sustainable that always is) before that we had decent growth and had a surplus for that. Don't think we've had a large budget deficit since the mid 90s and before that but I could be wrong there.

So why hasnt FG and Labour done away with any of the increases in wages to top earners that FF introduced to there buddys when there was a surplus? Thats the lack of action i think people are mostly frustrated with

Cesium Clock · 02-04-2012 1:12pm

dvpower wrote: »

It is clear only to people who wear blinkers. Have a look at the accounts and take them off.

from http://www.notourdebt.ie/faq

The Irish Government is scheduled to make €47.9 billion of promissory note related payments between March 2011 and March 2031 – this is composed of €30.6 billion capital reduction – the €30.6 billion owed – and €16.8 billion in interest repayments.
Much of this €47.9 billion of repayments will need to be borrowed unless the State is running substantial fiscal surpluses – very unlikely in the medium-term.
To put these repayments in context, €30.6 billion is equivalent to just under 20% of Ireland’s current GDP or €17,000 for each working person working for pay or profit in the State. €47.9 billion is 30% of Ireland’s current GDP.

It is estimated that the total cost to the State could reach €85 billion by 2031 (assuming a 4.7% interest rate on borrowings). Over 2% of GDP will be drained out of the State each year up to 2023 to make the promissory note repayments – this will be through an additional €3 billion to €4 billion of fiscal tightening (tax increases/spending cuts).

Freddie59 · 02-04-2012 1:29pm

mikom wrote: »

Would this be the spar where they force you to buy mars bars........... plus make you pay for the ones given out for free to those from local authority housing?

Chucky the tree · 02-04-2012 1:31pm

Hijpo wrote: »

So why hasnt FG and Labour done away with any of the increases in wages to top earners that FF introduced to there buddys when there was a surplus? Thats the lack of action i think people are mostly frustrated with

Which top earners would these be? AFAIK nearly every one has had their wages cut under the current Government.

Freddie59 · 02-04-2012 1:32pm

dvpower wrote: »

It is clear only to people who wear blinkers. Have a look at the accounts and take them off.

What, precisely, is 'not clear'? That we have a Government which continues to borrow €400m a week in order to:

* Keep PS/CS pay at unsustainable levels?

* Keep "entitlements" for same CS/PS at equally ridiculous levels?

* Keep paying ludicrously high SW levels and "benefits"?

Then expects hard=pressed working people - already taxed to the hilt - to keep all of this mob in the style to which they THINK they're entitled to?

Seems very clear to me.

Freddie59 · 02-04-2012 1:33pm

Cesium Clock wrote: »

from http://www.notourdebt.ie/faq

The Irish Government is scheduled to make €47.9 billion of promissory note related payments between March 2011 and March 2031 – this is composed of €30.6 billion capital reduction – the €30.6 billion owed – and €16.8 billion in interest repayments.
Much of this €47.9 billion of repayments will need to be borrowed unless the State is running substantial fiscal surpluses – very unlikely in the medium-term.
To put these repayments in context, €30.6 billion is equivalent to just under 20% of Ireland’s current GDP or €17,000 for each working person working for pay or profit in the State. €47.9 billion is 30% of Ireland’s current GDP.

It is estimated that the total cost to the State could reach €85 billion by 2031 (assuming a 4.7% interest rate on borrowings). Over 2% of GDP will be drained out of the State each year up to 2023 to make the promissory note repayments – this will be through an additional €3 billion to €4 billion of fiscal tightening (tax increases/spending cuts).

And we will continue to borrow €400m a week to sustain "day to day" spending as described in my post above. Some Monday that cheque will be withheld. Then we'll see what happens.

Sykk · 02-04-2012 1:34pm

If you did pay. I feel sorry for you.

Freddie59 · 02-04-2012 1:35pm

paddy147 wrote: »

So why do FG keep on blowing tax payers money then????

The FG attitude seem to be,"ha ha,we got into goverment,so lets party".

Power corrupts Paddy. The "Labour" party is evidence of this. On several different occasions. They'll jump into bed with anyone. Amazing when they were in power with FF though. If what happened with Phil Hogan yesterday happened in a FF admin, he would be gone today. The "Labour" party are strangely mute. Condoning it by their silence.

Vizzy · 02-04-2012 1:39pm

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Which top earners would these be? AFAIK nearly every one has had their wages cut under the current Government.

Yeah,everyone except Mr Hogan who cant afford to take a paycut.
Oh and Enda's new advisor who actually got an increase.

Freddie59 · 02-04-2012 1:40pm

lugha wrote: »

The bank debt is only a small part of the deficit.

But why does this nonsense persist where attempts are made to link particular monies raised with how it is spent? The government have led the way on this and almost everyone has followed.

There is a total amount of revenue that needs to be raised for all expenses, including bank debts. So some argue that the €170 M taken from local service expenditure is being used to pay off bank debts. Others insist that these payments are being made by other monies raised. What material difference does it make?

It would be like a household where spouses pool their income and then have tedious debates on whose money was being used to pay what bills! Daft!

Not quite the same thing though, is it? For example, does one spouse go off and bail out their cousin, who has loaned several times that household income, while borrowing, say, €18k a year even though the couple have a combined income of only €32k a year.

While the cousin continues to employ people and pay for their gym/golfclub membership, and also continues to pay for the cousin's employee's "entitlements" into the bargain - even though the cousin's total outgoings could amount to €200k per year?

Yeah I can see that working alright.......:rolleyes:

Freddie59 · 02-04-2012 1:42pm

dvpower wrote: »

I've said that the banking debt contributes ti the deficit. By a very small amount. Have a look at the 2012 estimates to see how much of the deficit is taken up by total debt repayments.

The banking debt is way more than the deficit - which in itself is huge.

dvpower wrote: »

The deficit is the main issue.

At last! You've woken up! Caused by.......come on now.......you can say it............PS/CS wages/"entitlements" and an overly-generous SW system.

dvpower wrote: »

You must be living under a rock.

Coming from someone who has consistently defended this "Government" and Phil Hogan's non=payment of legally-due charges?

Yeah. Right.

hondasam · 02-04-2012 1:43pm

lugha wrote: »

Interesting that both of you should subsequently thank a post that refuted mine (well, it didn't actually), if you didn’t understand the point I was making? :P

The allegation against a poster was that he was a hypocrite because he refused on principle to pay the poll tax in Britain but did not respect Irish people’s right to do the same. That would be all fine and dandy if those making the allegation respected his principled stance. But I don’t think Paddy does respect his stance given that he has expressed the view

That poster refused on principle to pay the poll tax in the UK but could not understand why we were refusing on the same principle to pay the household charge here.
He was telling us do the very thing he refused to do in the UK. Yes he was paying the household charge here but that does not excuse the fact he was being a hypocrite telling us to ''pay our damn tax'' when he refused to pay his own.

hondasam · 02-04-2012 1:46pm

steve9859 wrote: »

yeh, up to €30 in a year's time. Scary!! That's a price I am prepared to pay to drag this thing out for as long as possible.

Thats 8 cents a day - I lose more than that down the back of the sofa.

You do know we are on the same side, I have not paid either and have no intentions of paying.
My point was that it's €100 this year but how much will we be asked to pay next year.

dvpower · 02-04-2012 1:49pm

Cesium Clock wrote: »

from http://www.notourdebt.ie/faq

The Irish Government is scheduled to make €47.9 billion of promissory note related payments between March 2011 and March 2031 – this is composed of €30.6 billion capital reduction – the €30.6 billion owed – and €16.8 billion in interest repayments.
Much of this €47.9 billion of repayments will need to be borrowed unless the State is running substantial fiscal surpluses – very unlikely in the medium-term.
To put these repayments in context, €30.6 billion is equivalent to just under 20% of Ireland’s current GDP or €17,000 for each working person working for pay or profit in the State. €47.9 billion is 30% of Ireland’s current GDP.

It is estimated that the total cost to the State could reach €85 billion by 2031 (assuming a 4.7% interest rate on borrowings). Over 2% of GDP will be drained out of the State each year up to 2023 to make the promissory note repayments – this will be through an additional €3 billion to €4 billion of fiscal tightening (tax increases/spending cuts).

The debt burden imposed on us by borrowing for bank bailouts in indeed massive. But it is, by and large, not immediate. It is to be paid off over a protracted period.
The deficit is the reason that we are having to cut services and raise taxes - interest payments on debt we are using to bail out the banks is only a very small element if the deficit.

MagicSean · 02-04-2012 1:49pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

What, precisely, is 'not clear'? That we have a Government which continues to borrow €400m a week in order to:

* Keep PS/CS pay at unsustainable levels?

* Keep "entitlements" for same CS/PS at equally ridiculous levels?

* Keep paying ludicrously high SW levels and "benefits"?

Then expects hard=pressed working people - already taxed to the hilt - to keep all of this mob in the style to which they THINK they're entitled to?

Seems very clear to me.

i work for the public sector. I work very hard and earn every cent i am paid. Yet still I am in financial difficulty because i am taxed to the hilt, taxed more than a private sector employee. i don't expect anything from you but I'll bet you'd expect the world from me if you ever had to call on my services. i think most people in the emergency services would be in the same boat as i am.

dvpower · 02-04-2012 1:52pm

Hijpo wrote: »

there is also a ridiculous amount of needless spends that can be stopped before you can expect people to be happy with being taxed more, lets be honest.

Surely you cant be happy with them spending millions on voting machines, thousands on wine, further thousands on lunches, phone bills, ministerial cars, massive pensions when they retire at 55, to name but a few.

Do people understand that this waste of money will never be curtailed while tax payers continue to hand over money without question.

Who could possibly be happy with this and why is there some assumption that people who support the household charge are in favour of waste?

Biggins · 02-04-2012 1:56pm

steve9859 wrote: »

Two interesting things to come out of Newstalk interviews this lunchtime:

Institute of regional and spatial analysis: Concluded after detailed analysis that there are 1.72m eligible households, meaning uptake is < 50%

One analysis:

The percentage of those paid, based on those figures = 45.16% (54.84% left to pay)

Source: http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/household-charge-numbers/

Long version:

There’s been a fair bit of commentary on twitter re. the household charge numbers and speculating in the media. Having just watched RTE1 News at 6pm it seems incredible to me that the Local Government Management Agency seems to have little idea as to how many housing units are liable for the household charge. It seems even more odd that number seems to be floating between 1.6m and 1.8m. There seems to be a conflation between households (1.654m according to Census 2011) and housing stock minus exemptions/waivers (1.755m based on calculation below, probably 1.72m +/- 20k with the other minor exemptions taken out). It is housing stock that is the base for the household charge (a vacant house is just as liable as an occupied house – this is a tax on property not occupancy). Namawinelake has a post up about who is and isn’t eligible. Working off the data contained in his post (I’ve updated a couple of his figures to Census 2011 data and added a couple, but otherwise I’m quoting his figures and sources) we come up with the following. [On request, I have updated this post to match the data to the exemptions and waivers exactly as set out on the householdcharge.ie website - 21.15pm, Apr 1st]

What is eligible:

All housing units in the state, with seven exemptions and two waivers
Housing units in the state according to Census 2011: 1,994,845

What is exempt:

(1) Residential properties that are part of the trading stock of a business and have not been sold or been the source of any income since construction
18,638 unoccupied vacant housing units in unfinished estates the vast majority of which are unsold (under-construction were not counted in Census), plus small amount of unsold one-offs

(2) Residential property vested in a Minister of the Government or the Health Service Executive
Not known but small, ask govt depts and HSE

(3) Residential property vested in a housing authority, including property where households are purchasing their homes under the Shared Ownership Scheme and where the local authority still retains an ownership stake,
129,033 (renting social housing, Census 2011, Table 39), DECLG should have exact figure
23,547 (being bought from LAs, Census 2006 – I can’t find in Census 2011), DECLG should have exact figure

(4) Voluntary and co-operative housing,
14,942 (renting voluntary housing, Census 2011, Table 39)

(5) Residential property subject to commercial rates and wholly used as a dwelling,
Not known but small, ask local authorities (there was a question on the Census, Table 38, but the class also includes apts in converted houses – total was 27,666 so know it was less than that – could ask CSO if it could disaggregate; )

(6) Residential property owned by certain charities or comprised in a discretionary trust, and
Not known but small

(7) Residential property where a person has to leave their house due to long-term mental or physical infirmity (e.g. a person that has moved into a nursing home).
Not known but small, possibly ask HSE. There was a question on the Census. Table 11 shows 28,395 people live in nursing and children’s homes, not all in nursing home will own property, so know less than that; could see if CSO can disaggregate.

What is waivered:

(1) Owners of residential property entitled to mortgage interest supplement
19,000 (mortgage interest relief, Keane Report), Dept Soc Protection should have exact figure

(2) Owners of residential property located in certain prescribed unfinished housing estates
34,000 (category 3/4 unfinished estates, Money Guide Ireland, exact figure can be obtained from the Housing Development Survey undertaken by DECLG)

Houses eligible – a calculation based on above:

1,994,845 (housing units, Census 2011)
-18,638 (unoccupied vacant housing units unsold, Housing Development Survey, DECLG, 2011)
-129,033 (renting social housing, Census 2011, Table 39)
-14,942 (renting voluntary housing, Census 2011, Table 39)
-23,547 (being bought from LAs, Census 2006 – I can’t find in Census 2011)
-19,000 (mortgage interest relief, Keane Report)
-34,000 (category 3/4 unfinished estates, Money Guide Ireland)
= 1,755,685 (this still needs other small amounts of property taken-off namely exemptions 2, 5, 6, 7 – all of these will be very low in number and should not substantially alter this figure, probably 1.72m +/- 20k based on data above)

Households paid, minus the 12,500 who have registered but qualify for the waiver

621,717 (already processed)
+89,000 (by post awaiting processing)
+ 82,175 (registered in local authority offices yesterday)
= 792,892

The percentage of those paid, based on those figures = 45.16% (54.84% left to pay)

Now if we outside the system can get that far, one would think that LGMA could get an even more precise figure by talking to the people who hold the relevant data (basically CSO, DECLG, Dept Social Protection, HSE). I appreciate it is difficult to get an exact number because it’ll be difficult to know how many are exempt for reasons 2, 5, 6, 7 as set out above, but we can certainly make a reasonable estimate within a few thousand based on known data (rather than somewhere between 1.6-1.8m!) This is not rocket science.

dvpower · 02-04-2012 2:00pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

What, precisely, is 'not clear'? That we have a Government which continues to borrow €400m a week in order to:

* Keep PS/CS pay at unsustainable levels?

* Keep "entitlements" for same CS/PS at equally ridiculous levels?

* Keep paying ludicrously high SW levels and "benefits"?

Then expects hard=pressed working people - already taxed to the hilt - to keep all of this mob in the style to which they THINK they're entitled to?

Seems very clear to me.

You're exactly right Freddie - we are borrowing €400m a week or whatever to fund public spending. And also some debt repayments, but mostly public spending.

We need to narrow the gap between income and expenditure. You seem to want to do it by spending cuts alone and very quickly. I differ in that I'd like to see it bridged by a mix of spending cuts and tax increases and over a longer period.
So we agree on the nature of the problem, but differ on the nature of the solution.

stevedublin · 02-04-2012 2:01pm

dvpower wrote: »

interest payments on debt we are using to bail out the banks is only a very small element if the deficit.

Interest payments are only one part of the debt used to bail out the banks. Capital repayments are greater again.

Timeline:
1. No household charge, local authorities received central goverment funding.
2. Govt takes on enormous bank debt.
3. We suddenly need a household charge, otherwise where does the money come from to pay for local services.

AudreyHepburn · 02-04-2012 2:04pm

I really don't understand the problem with expecting people to pay for their services???

It's not as if this tax is on a service that no-one needs or needs. You want a home, you have pay for it. I don't understand the outrage tbh.

I know that there are those genuinely struggling but surely we can't expect to get everything handed to us on a silver platter.

Hijpo · 02-04-2012 2:05pm

dvpower wrote: »

Who could possibly be happy with this and why is there some assumption that people who support the household charge are in favour of waste?

but if your not in favour of the waste why are you giving more money to waste? If you were giving your child a fiver pocket money a week and you saw him buying fags or tearing it up would you give him a tenner next week?

Can anyone tell me why these guys need over 150k in salary when all the services they avail of are either put down as expenses or its subsidised. If it costs them little to live why do they need the big salary and pension?
Even there laundry is subsidised for christ sake.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I really don't understand the problem with expecting people to pay for their services???

It's not as if this tax is on a service that no-one needs or needs. You want a home, you have pay for it. I don't understand the outrage tbh.

I know that there are those genuinely struggling but surely we can't expect to get everything handed to us on a silver platter.

but they are piss poor services, water quality is terrible, awful roads are patched together. Phil Hogan himself said you cant be expected to pay for services your not happy with. The town i live in had to hold raffles and fund raisers to get the money to build a play park and a skate park for the kids. Im already paying the bank (who gave me the money, not the government) for my home, way more than its worth in everyones case.

dvpower · 02-04-2012 2:06pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

The banking debt is way more than the deficit - which in itself is huge.

The deficit is every single year - until we cut it.
The annual cost of the banking debt repayments is a very small part of the deficit

Freddie59 wrote: »

At last! You've woken up! Caused by.......come on now.......you can say it............PS/CS wages/"entitlements" and an overly-generous SW system.

Its you that is just waking up. I've been banging on about the deficit being the main problem for ages.
And I can say it -we need to get rid of the CPA and deal with public sector workers just like any others. Social welfare payments also need to be cut.

You have been struggling under the illusion that just because someone supports one element if government policy, they must support all others.

mikom · 02-04-2012 2:08pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You want a home, you have pay for it. I don't understand the outrage tbh.

we can't expect to get everything handed to us on a silver platter

Jesus christ........... I don't think there is enough irony in the world to cope with that post.

dvpower · 02-04-2012 2:11pm

stevedublin wrote: »

Interest payments are only one part of the debt used to bail out the banks. Capital repayments are greater again.

Capital repayments aren't been made right now. States very rarely pay down the the actual debt - they usually wait for inflation to take care of that.

stevedublin wrote: »

Timeline:
1. No household charge, local authorities received central goverment funding.
2. Govt takes on enormous bank debt.
3. We suddenly need a household charge, otherwise where does the money come from to pay for local services.

Correlation does not equal causation.

hondasam · 02-04-2012 2:12pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

What, precisely, is 'not clear'? That we have a Government which continues to borrow €400m a week in order to:

* Keep PS/CS pay at unsustainable levels?

* Keep "entitlements" for same CS/PS at equally ridiculous levels?

* Keep paying ludicrously high SW levels and "benefits"?

Then expects hard=pressed working people - already taxed to the hilt - to keep all of this mob in the style to which they THINK they're entitled to?

Seems very clear to me.

You think PS workers do not work hard? we all agree those in the middle and at the top are over paid but the ones at the bottom who actually do work are the ones suffering the most.
PS workers at the bottom cannot afford to take any more cuts in wages or allowances.

AudreyHepburn · 02-04-2012 2:15pm

mikom wrote: »

Jesus christ........... I don't think there is enough irony in the world to cope with that post.

I don't honestly want to devote too much or energy to dealing with your snideness so I'll just say this;

I pay my way at home, I don't expect or want my parents to hand me everything for free and they don't.

Do me and yourself a favour and drop the attitude. It doesn't help anyone.

phil1nj · 02-04-2012 2:15pm

MagicSean wrote: »

Since you bring up the poster who appears to have been banned for being spammed he did actually respond to that particular question in the first thread in the middle somewhere. He didn't explain himself very well though. The difference between the poll tax and this tax seems quite obvious. The poll tax required you only to exist. This tax requires you to have purchased a major asset.

This will be my last post about the banned individual. No one in here argued that the poll tax was not an unfair tax. Plenty argued that the household charge was an unfair tax and gave reasons why (flat rate tax, didn't take ability to pay in to consideration, didn't take value/square footage in to consideration, reason for the tax was cited as LA services which led to other questions etc). Yet despite all these questions/reasons the poster in question continued with his repeated line that the HHC was a fair tax usually followed by some snide remark or other (I think I was called stupid in one of my first back and forths with the guy).

Then he let it slip that he refused to pay the poll tax because it was unfair. He then followed this gem with a call to arms for all of us to pay our damn taxes. Try as you might, he tripped himself up and has done himself no favours on here. When the hypocrisy thing was put to him, him started going on about context (a touch of the Patrick Vieras about that) and still continued with his carry on. He just didn't see the No sides reason for this charge being unfair to the point that all could do was ridicule instead of discuss. Anyway that's my 2 cents.

hondasam · 02-04-2012 2:17pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I really don't understand the problem with expecting people to pay for their services???

It's not as if this tax is on a service that no-one needs or needs. You want a home, you have pay for it. I don't understand the outrage tbh.

I know that there are those genuinely struggling but surely we can't expect to get everything handed to us on a silver platter.

Audrey, do you not think workers pay enough all ready? why is it ok for some people to be exempt if they use the same services?
I did pay for my home and what's more I'm still paying for it. I have never got anything handed to me on a silver plate, I can guarantee you I and everyone else here have worked hard for what we have.
I'm really not sure you thought that post through before posting it. Sorry.

Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] *Poll Reset*

Comments

Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] Poll Reset