Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] Poll Reset

Bannasidhe · 02-04-2012 2:21pm

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.

Yes, everyone needs those services, the problem is not everyone pays for these services. Tenants are exempt, now in the case of private tenants their landlord is liable -so someone is paying. But who pays for LA tenants who, it could be argued, benefit more then anyone from local services?

There seems to be this belief that all LA tenants are unemployed - a belief that is far from correct.

LA tenants live in housing paid for by the taxpayer. They are not liable for maintenance costs etc, their rent is subsidised. It certainly could be argued that LA tenants are, proportionally, in receipt of more LA services then non-LA tenants yet are not required to make any contribution towards meeting the cost of local services.

So this begs the question- are local authorities required to pay a 100 euro household charge per residential unit they own to fund local services?
If yes - where does this money come from?
If no - doesn't this mean that LA tenants are essentially getting a free ride when it comes to local services?

AudreyHepburn · 02-04-2012 2:26pm

hondasam wrote: »

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.

Ah now, when did I ever say it was ok to have different rules for everyone? Of course we should all pay the same. I never said otherwise. Stop reading things into my posts that aren't there.

Sorry if I've offended you or anyone else btw. Perhaps I'm better off keeping my mouth shut about these topics?

hondasam · 02-04-2012 2:31pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ah now, when did I ever say it was ok to have different rules for everyone? Of course we should all pay the same. I never said otherwise. Stop reading things into my posts that aren't there.

Sorry if I've offended you or anyone else btw. Perhaps I'm better off keeping my mouth shut about these topics?

You need to put more thought into your posts before posting something that comes across as patronising as that last one.
I would have no problem paying if we all paid the same and the guaranteed us it would be left at €100 for a few years.
You have not offended me really and don't start with the '' I should not have an opinion'' you are as much entitled to have your say same as us all.

AudreyHepburn · 02-04-2012 2:37pm

hondasam wrote: »

You need to put more thought into your posts before posting something that comes across as patronising as that last one.

That wasn't meant to be patronising at all, sorry. I just asked that you don't put words in my mouth.

I would have no problem paying if we all paid the same and the guaranteed us it would be left at €100 for a few years.

I agree with this 100%

You have not offended me really and don't start with the '' I should not have an opinion'' you are as much entitled to have your say same as us all.

It's not that I don't have an opinion. I do and I will hold to it. I just meant it might be better if I didn't push on those here who seem to be really struggling.

I just don't want to offend anyone is all.

mikom · 02-04-2012 2:38pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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.

*posted from the nest*

hondasam · 02-04-2012 2:40pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That wasn't meant to be patronising at all, sorry. I just asked that you don't put words in my mouth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AudreyHepburn
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.

This is the patronising post. read it again and you will see it is going to annoy lots of people.

It's not that I don't have an opinion. I do and I will hold to it. I just meant it might be better if I didn't push on those here who seem to be really struggling.

I just don't want to offend anyone is all.

That line in itself is patronising and offensive, you cannot assume just because we refuse to pay an unfair charge we are struggling.

MagicSean · 02-04-2012 2:46pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes, everyone needs those services, the problem is not everyone pays for these services. Tenants are exempt, now in the case of private tenants their landlord is liable -so someone is paying. But who pays for LA tenants who, it could be argued, benefit more then anyone from local services?

There seems to be this belief that all LA tenants are unemployed - a belief that is far from correct.

LA tenants live in housing paid for by the taxpayer. They are not liable for maintenance costs etc, their rent is subsidised. It certainly could be argued that LA tenants are, proportionally, in receipt of more LA services then non-LA tenants yet are not required to make any contribution towards meeting the cost of local services.

So this begs the question- are local authorities required to pay a 100 euro household charge per residential unit they own to fund local services?
If yes - where does this money come from?
If no - doesn't this mean that LA tenants are essentially getting a free ride when it comes to local services?

Why would a tenant pay an annual charge when they might only be in a house for a month or two. That seems extremely unfair. It's more appropriate to charge the landlord and let him pass the charge on through rent fees.

As for local authority housing, the point of it is to help people who can't afford a home so it makes sense they wouldn't pay it. What you should be asking is "How are people with such large incomes able to get local authority housing?"

dvpower · 02-04-2012 2:50pm

MagicSean wrote: »

As for local authority housing, the point of it is to help people who can't afford a home so it makes sense they wouldn't pay it. What you should be asking is "How are people with such large incomes able to get local authority housing?"

Local Authority housing is usually long term accomodation and can be generational. Someone who needed local authority housing thirty years ago might have completely different circumstances now.

stevedublin · 02-04-2012 2:50pm

dvpower wrote: »

Correlation does not equal causation.

Well it does in this case.
Why was "the deficit" not a major problem until now?
Because there was not a whole load of govt debt (taken from banks) making it a problem.

hondasam · 02-04-2012 2:52pm

MagicSean wrote: »

Why would a tenant pay an annual charge when they might only be in a house for a month or two. That seems extremely unfair. It's more appropriate to charge the landlord and let him pass the charge on through rent fees.

As for local authority housing, the point of it is to help people who can't afford a home so it makes sense they wouldn't pay it. What you should be asking is "How are people with such large incomes able to get local authority housing?"

I assume they got the houses when they were not working and held on to them. I would say there is a lot of people living in Local authority houses who can well afford to buy their own homes.

dvpower · 02-04-2012 2:54pm

stevedublin wrote: »

Well it does in this case.

No. It doesn't.

stevedublin wrote: »

Why was "the deficit" not a major problem until now?

If you haven't even bothered to get to grips with the basics, I really think I'd be wasting both of our time.

username123 · 02-04-2012 2:57pm

MagicSean wrote: »

As for local authority housing, the point of it is to help people who can't afford a home so it makes sense they wouldn't pay it. What you should be asking is "How are people with such large incomes able to get local authority housing?"

Ive a friend in LA housing. She is currently earning in excess of 80k a year, her partner earns approx 45k a year. They both have substantial personal debt. They choose to stay in the LA housing because the rent is cheap (compared to private renting) so they can pay more off their debt. In effect, your taxes are helping clear their personal debt. Neither of them see anything wrong with this.

When the housing was assigned my friend was a single mother earning less than 30k a year. Circumstances have obviously changed but you dont get kicked out of the housing. The rent has been revised upwards to reflect her rising wage and her partner moving in - but its still low compared to renting privately.

MagicSean · 02-04-2012 2:58pm

dvpower wrote: »

Local Authority housing is usually long term accomodation and can be generational. Someone who needed local authority housing thirty years ago might have completely different circumstances now.

hondasam wrote: »

I assume they got the houses when they were not working and held on to them. I would say there is a lot of people living in Local authority houses who can well afford to buy their own homes.

Sorry i should have elaborated my position. People in local authority housing should be means tested annually and should have to pay rent dependent on their income until they move out. People in long term unemployment and in local authority housing should have reductions in other social welfare beenfits to take account of them being lazy scroungers.

lugha · 02-04-2012 2:58pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

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:

What??

Your reply has no bearing on the point I was making at all, which has nothing to do with whether our budget is in surplus, deficit or just balancing. It has to do with the folly of trying to insist that when there are many streams of revenue and many expenses that one income in particular is identified as the one used to pay for one particular expense.

Even when income streams are ring fenced for particular purposes this partitioning is illusionary. There may be some minor pragmatic reasons to ring fence some streams but of itself, it does not add or subtract a single euro to our total income.

Bannasidhe · 02-04-2012 3:00pm

MagicSean wrote: »

Why would a tenant pay an annual charge when they might only be in a house for a month or two. That seems extremely unfair. It's more appropriate to charge the landlord and let him pass the charge on through rent fees.

As for local authority housing, the point of it is to help people who can't afford a home so it makes sense they wouldn't pay it. What you should be asking is "How are people with such large incomes able to get local authority housing?"

The fact that one may have had a low income when one was assessed for LA housing does not mean one continues to have a low income for the life of the tenancy.

Plus - LA tenancy can be inherited/transferred:

Q: What happens to the tenancy if my parents are the tenants and they die or leave?
On the death or departure of both parents, the tenancy will normally be given to a son or daughter, irrespective of the number in the family, provided that he/she has been registered as living there for at least two years immediately prior to the death or departure of the tenant. In determining succession, Cork City Council will have regard to the housing need and natural rights of surviving brothers, sisters, sons, daughters who have resided in the household for a period of two years or more. Each case will be examined on its merits.

http://www.corkcity.ie/services/housingcommunity/housingallocation/filedownload,2638,en.pdf

Low income is also not the only factor used when assessing need for LA housing - I am thinking of an NCO in the Irish army of my acquaintance who was given a 2 bed flat following the break-down of his marriage. He pays 90 euro a week rent, he rents out his 'spare' room for 60 a week so he pays a total of 30 euro a week rent out of his circa 500 a week net take home salary.

username123 · 02-04-2012 3:01pm

MagicSean wrote: »

Sorry i should have elaborated my position. People in local authority housing should be means tested annually and should have to pay rent dependent on their income until they move out. People in long term unemployment and in local authority housing should have reductions in other social welfare beenfits to take account of them being lazy scroungers.

They are means tested annually. Many of them are not on social welfare at all. But the rent is still low compared to renting privately.

dvpower · 02-04-2012 3:04pm

MagicSean wrote: »

Sorry i should have elaborated my position. People in local authority housing should be means tested annually and should have to pay rent dependent on their income until they move out.

afaik, the local authorities do set the rents based on ability to pay, but I'm not sure how often they review this. Asking LA tenants to contribute a bit more towards local services does make sense.

AudreyHepburn · 02-04-2012 3:09pm

hondasam wrote: »

This is the patronising post. read it again and you will see it is going to annoy lots of people.

That line in itself is patronising and offensive, you cannot assume just because we refuse to pay an unfair charge we are struggling.

Ok look I am really and truely sorry for any offense I have caused anyone here including you Hondasam or if anyone thinks I was being patronising because that genuinely was not my intention at all.

There is nothing wrong struggling and I do apologise if you feel I was implying there was.

This is way I wondered if I should bow out of the conversation.

Hijpo · 02-04-2012 3:10pm

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2012/04/02/government-facing-shortage-of-new-tax-ideas-to-piss-people-off-with/

stevedublin · 02-04-2012 3:13pm

dvpower wrote: »

If you haven't even bothered to get to grips with the basics, I really think I'd be wasting both of our time.

I have got to grips with the basics, you are just trying to muddy the waters and throw shapes to deflect from the elephant in the room.
Sorry if I can't get any more cliches in there, hehe.

Chucky the tree · 02-04-2012 3:21pm

stevedublin wrote: »

Well it does in this case.
Why was "the deficit" not a major problem until now?
Because there was not a whole load of govt debt (taken from banks) making it a problem.

How much has the Government spent since 2008 on the repaying the debt?

Cesium Clock · 02-04-2012 3:26pm

dvpower wrote: »

No. It doesn't.

If you haven't even bothered to get to grips with the basics, I really think I'd be wasting both of our time.

guaranteeing the massive debts of anglo irish and other failed banks by the last goverment have got us to the 'basic' state we are in now.

the interest payments alone will never be paid, never mind the principle.

so we have let another 2 banks the IMF and ECB, both privately owned, come to our so called aid, both banks lending us money and charging us interest.

that is why we are being taxed to the hilt.

DV none of your flim flam or evasion of facts will ever change my mind,

Hijpo · 02-04-2012 3:29pm

Until useless spending is stopped how do you know how much tax is genuinely needed to alleviate the problem?

unless its a case of blind taxes until the defecit is overturned?

blowtorch · 02-04-2012 4:10pm

Here's and interesting one. Register of Interests http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/tdssenators/registerofmembersinterests/

Now look up Phil Hogan for 2007 and 2011. In 2007 there is included that apartment in Portugal and an apartment in Haddington Square, Dublin as 'interests'. On the 2011 there isn't a mention of either. So, does he own anything now? Where does he live - in a box somewhere?

Hijpo · 02-04-2012 4:19pm

he must still have the one in portugal, isnt that the one he wont pay the service charges on??

blowtorch · 02-04-2012 4:25pm

blowtorch wrote: »

Here's and interesting one. Register of Interests http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/tdssenators/registerofmembersinterests/

Now look up Phil Hogan for 2007 and 2011. In 2007 there is included that apartment in Portugal and an apartment in Haddington Square, Dublin as 'interests'. On the 2011 there isn't a mention of either. So, does he own anything now? Where does he live - in a box somewhere?

And up to 2009 he was a shareholder in an auctioneering firm, and also a director or sorts in the same business. http://politico.ie/index2.php?option=com_politican&task=show_interest&id=79

Cesium Clock · 02-04-2012 4:32pm

blowtorch wrote: »

So, does he own anything now? Where does he live - in a box somewhere?

LA LA Land with the rest of em

dvpower · 02-04-2012 4:52pm

Cesium Clock wrote: »

DV none of your flim flam or evasion of facts will ever change my mind,

Nothing will change your mind I'm afraid. Its closed.

Cesium Clock · 02-04-2012 5:01pm

dvpower wrote: »

Nothing will change your mind I'm afraid. Its closed.

another informative post well thought out, how was school today ?

dvpower · 02-04-2012 5:12pm

blowtorch wrote: »

Here's and interesting one. Register of Interests http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/tdssenators/registerofmembersinterests/

Now look up Phil Hogan for 2007 and 2011. In 2007 there is included that apartment in Portugal and an apartment in Haddington Square, Dublin as 'interests'. On the 2011 there isn't a mention of either. So, does he own anything now? Where does he live - in a box somewhere?

Its worse than that. Of all of the Dail members on the register, only about five of them have declared an occupational income from being a TD.

Its a massive conspiracy, I tell ya - that's the only possible conclusion. :mad::rolleyes:

Frank Black · 02-04-2012 5:13pm

Cesium Clock wrote: »

another informative post well thought out, how was school today ?

Ironic post is very ironic.

Cesium Clock wrote: »

LA LA Land with the rest of em

gerryo777 · 02-04-2012 5:34pm

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".

Sounds familiar!

Bullseye1 · 02-04-2012 5:41pm

Hijpo wrote: »

Until useless spending is stopped how do you know how much tax is genuinely needed to alleviate the problem?

This simple point evades a lot of people.

gerryo777 · 02-04-2012 5:42pm

dvpower wrote: »

No matter what is proposed, they will pick on some aspect of it and say it is unfair. I expect the 'No to Property Tax' campaign to be led by the same people as the anti Household Charge people, but with the followers having nothing in common expect the certainty that Bono should be paying more.

Spoken like a true Fine Gaeler.

You really don't have a clue do you.
No idea what the average joe soap thinks.
Just like phil, alan, enda & co.
Maybe if you listened once in a while you might learn something new!

You and your FG buddies on here better enjoy the next 4 or so years, one would think that after the last shower and the way they were destroyed in the last election for not listening to the people, lessons would be learned.

Absolutely no difference.

Frank Black · 02-04-2012 5:48pm

gerryo777 wrote: »

Spoken like a true Fine Gaeler.

You really don't have a clue do you.
No idea what the average joe soap thinks.
Just like phil, alan, enda & co.
Maybe if you listened once in a while you might learn something new!

You and your FG buddies on here better enjoy the next 4 or so years, one would think that after the last shower and the way they were destroyed in the last election for not listening to the people, lessons would be learned.

Absolutely no difference.

It wasn't 'not listening to people' which destroyed the economy, probably the opposite.
I'm hopefully (but not optimistic) that this Goverenment will show a bit more backbone, and a bit less pandering to vocal minorities - which is what the anti-household charge protestors are fast becoming.

Bullseye1 · 02-04-2012 5:52pm

black francis wrote: »

It wasn't 'not listening to people' which destroyed the economy, probably the opposite.
I'm hopefully (but not optimistic) that this Goverenment will show a bit more backbone, and a bit less pandering to vocal minorities - which is what the anti-household charge protestors are fast becoming.

Are you serious. 1.8 millon properties. 800,000 registered many exempt and the others a minority? This is wrong. Fact.

Now that may change by the end of the year but as it stands the people who paid are in the minority. Fact.

lugha · 02-04-2012 6:03pm

gerryo777 wrote: »

You and your FG buddies on here better enjoy the next 4 or so years, one would think that after the last shower and the way they were destroyed in the last election for not listening to the people, lessons would be learned.

FF were destroyed because the economy tanked, it had nothing to so with not listening to the people.

It is possible that the house hold charge will prove to be a seminal moment in the lifetime of this government but at this stage, I would have to say I doubt it.

My guess is that it may well turn out to be an issue like the NCT, or the smoking ban or the crackdown on drink driving, all issues that provoked a lot of anger at the time but were eventually widely accepted. None of those issues mattered at election time, despite the dark mutterings (similar to yours) that the people would bide their time and give FF a kicking in the election.

Unless FG go mad and reconvene the heavy gang or something to enforce this measure I think there will be very few for whom this will be an issue at the next election. (In part of course because there will be many, many more unpalatable things that we will have to endure that will upset us more

)

Hijpo · 02-04-2012 6:16pm

the only reason FF got in so many times is because people didnt really care about politics in this country. Boom time was here, people made there money and were living it up, you could have put a rose bush in the taoiseach chair and people wouldnt have looked twice. But this is after attracting alot of attention and bad publicity and whats starting to come out on the back of all this all the reckless spending and hypocrisy stories making the people even angrier.

gerryo777 · 02-04-2012 6:19pm

black francis wrote: »

It wasn't 'not listening to people' which destroyed the economy, probably the opposite.
I'm hopefully (but not optimistic) that this Goverenment will show a bit more backbone, and a bit less pandering to vocal minorities - which is what the anti-household charge protestors are fast becoming.

Would you call the auctioneering profession a vocal minority?

You know, phil's job on the side!

I'd say he made a few quid out of the 'boom', enough to buy a penthouse in Portugal perhaps?

Dartz · 02-04-2012 6:23pm

My parents intended to pay.

But for some mysterious reason householdcharge.ie is still failing to load. And being the only tech-person in the house, I'm the one they call on to fix it. It's not our problem.... probably a million people trying to get onto that site, no wonder it's going down. :rolleyes:

I suppose it is a mite hypocritical.

tigger123 · 02-04-2012 6:28pm

lugha wrote: »

FF were destroyed because the economy tanked, it had nothing to so with not listening to the people.

It is possible that the house hold charge will prove to be a seminal moment in the lifetime of this government but at this stage, I would have to say I doubt it.

My guess is that it may well turn out to be an issue like the NCT, or the smoking ban or the crackdown on drink driving, all issues that provoked a lot of anger at the time but were eventually widely accepted. None of those issues mattered at election time, despite the dark mutterings (similar to yours) that the people would bide their time and give FF a kicking in the election.

Unless FG go mad and reconvene the heavy gang or something to enforce this measure I think there will be very few for whom this will be an issue at the next election. (In part of course because there will be many, many more unpalatable things that we will have to endure that will upset us more )

It's an interesting point. I wonder if this anger will/can be maintained. The registration is approx 50% this year, so if only an additional 10% sign up every year, within 5 years you'll have an almost completely registered home-owning population.

dvpower · 02-04-2012 6:49pm

gerryo777 wrote: »

Spoken like a true Fine Gaeler.

You really don't have a clue do you.
No idea what the average joe soap thinks.
Just like phil, alan, enda & co.
Maybe if you listened once in a while you might learn something new!

You and your FG buddies on here better enjoy the next 4 or so years, one would think that after the last shower and the way they were destroyed in the last election for not listening to the people, lessons would be learned.

Absolutely no difference.

In the opinion polls FG are holding up brilliantly. The average joe put FG in power and want them to stay in power.

MagicSean · 02-04-2012 6:54pm

gerryo777 wrote: »

Would you call the auctioneering profession a vocal minority?

You know, phil's job on the side!

I'd say he made a few quid out of the 'boom', enough to buy a penthouse in Portugal perhaps?

So? Lots of people made money in the boom.

tayto lover · 02-04-2012 6:58pm

black francis wrote: »

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

That is not my logic at all.
I see this Tax as an attack on my home. A home that already caused me many struggles, sometimes working two jobs to pay my mortgage. I also paid a good amount of Stamp Duty.
They should have called it a "Service Tax" and also gave us the services to go with it. I have to pay my own bin charges to a company that the Council/Govt sold the job to. Could never understand why they did that. In other countries this is not the case as stated by many posters earlier as services are part of the contract and are very well provided.

I also have a problem with the same people being hit all the time. People on SW and in Council Houses should also pay a small amount of "Service Tax".

Its the Property bit that I have the problem with.
I won't pay a Property Tax on my home but would pay a "Service Tax" even with a struggle.
There are many who have the same problem as I have.

tayto lover · 02-04-2012 7:02pm

dvpower wrote: »

In the opinion polls FG are holding up brilliantly. The average joe put FG in power and want them to stay in power.

I have no problem with F.G. in power at all.
I do have a problem with the way they got there, lies, false promises and vote buying. I am also annoyed with the arrogance some of their Ministers are showing.

Cesium Clock · 02-04-2012 7:04pm

MagicSean wrote: »

So? Lots of people made money in the boom.

mainly speculators, propety gamblers, and unsecured bond holders.

gerryo777 · 02-04-2012 7:07pm

MagicSean wrote: »

So? Lots of people made money in the boom.

Read that in context please or is that beyond you?

Frank Black · 02-04-2012 7:09pm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Are you serious. 1.8 millon properties. 800,000 registered many exempt and the others a minority? This is wrong. Fact.

Now that may change by the end of the year but as it stands the people who paid are in the minority. Fact.

I don't really care about the numbers, once 15% compliance was achieved, the anti-household charge campaign was a dead duck.

I just like to bring up the figures because I know it annoys you guys, I guess being a tax-defaulter doesn't have the same moral authority when you're in the minority?

gerryo777 · 02-04-2012 7:10pm

dvpower wrote: »

In the opinion polls FG are holding up brilliantly. The average joe put FG in power and want them to stay in power.

Coming from what we had in power, that really doesn't say a lot.
If anything it reflects the extremely sad state of politics and class of politician we have in this country.

gerryo777 · 02-04-2012 7:11pm

black francis wrote: »

I don't really care about the numbers, once 15% compliance was achieved, the anti-household charge campaign was a dead duck.

I just like to bring up the figures because I know it annoys you guys, I guess being a tax-defaulter doesn't have the same moral authority when you're in the minority?

No reply to 1290 then frannie?

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

Comments

Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] Poll Reset