New Household Tax - Boycott

Gloomtastic!

I believe Mr Hogan is one of the big players in FG and therefore will not have to move anywhere.

His arrogance is pretty breathtaking though and I'm sure he's pissing off all his colleagues who he's throwing into the firing line whilst he himself hides. It's only a matter of time before a well placed dagger hits the spot!:eek:

K-9

New thread merged with the current Household charge thread.

galway2007

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

I believe Mr Hogan is one of the big players in FG and therefore will not have to move anywhere.

His arrogance is pretty breathtaking though and I'm sure he's pissing off all his colleagues who he's throwing into the firing line whilst he himself hides. It's only a matter of time before a well placed dagger hits the spot!:eek:[/
I know he is a big player and that is why Enda has a chance to show who is boss
But then again Enda is allowing them to decide the date of the referendum while he is not there so you would have to wonder who is the boss??
But Hogan has arrogance and that is the main reason that I am not paying
So I say Enda remove him and you would be surprised of how many people will pay then
He reminds me of P Flynn
QUOTE]

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The public, however, is far more concerned about attempting to control private sector pay which is ludicrous.

Are you referring to banks here? I think once a company has failed, and had to be bailed out by the taxpayer, it and its employees can no longer be regarded as "private sector" in any normal sense of the word. If we have to take on their losses we should also be taking on their profits, and have a massive say in how they are run.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The average taxpayer isn't demanding those things. The average taxpayer is carping on about bondholders and the IMF.

Would you not agree that ending the practice of looking after mates and bailing out private companies which run themselves into the ground is part of demanding reform?

As I said earlier: if the most vocal opponents of this tax were advocating deep and painful austerity in its place, I might have some respect for their views. The fact that most of the same people who are advocating tax evasion are also complaining about austerity speaks for itself.

Why exactly is this? Do you not see the connection between injustice, and opposition of both austerity AND this tax?

As I said earlier, bring on the austerity, but only if those who caused the mess bear the brunt of it before anyone else.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We were forced into nothing. Your post is nothing but emotive rabble. You mention being in line with Europe but fail to address that point, you seem to think the government isn't "us" and you refuse to contribute a frankly insultingly low amount to attempt to get back on track.

When they have lost their mandate, and are acting in a corrupt manner as our previous government was, they are no longer "us", hence why I consistently advocate for greater democratic accountability and the ability to prematurely fire a government before they can cause any more damage. Do you support such proposals, incidentally?

This is not mentioning the selling out soul nonsense - I truly hope that people who do not pay with your type of intent are prosecuted to the fullest extent available under the law.

And do you say the same for Bertie and his cronies, for the people who fiddled the books of Anglo and Nationwide, etc?
In your posts, you seem to place a greater emphasis in coming down hard on ordinary people who are suffering the consequences of corruption and incompetence, than on the corrupt and incompetent who caused it. Why is this?

djpbarry

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I said earlier, bring on the austerity, but only if those who caused the mess bear the brunt of it before anyone else.

Everyone in receipt of a salary from the state and/or welfare?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When they have lost their mandate, and are acting in a corrupt manner as our previous government was, they are no longer "us", hence why I consistently advocate for greater democratic accountability and the ability to prematurely fire a government before they can cause any more damage.

The electorate had the opportunity to get rid of the last government on two occasions, but they chose to re-elect. Democratic accountability can only exist if the electorate demands it.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Would you not agree that ending the practice of looking after mates and bailing out private companies which run themselves into the ground is part of demanding reform?

If ending the practice of bailing out private companies can be done without consequence to the wider economy: sure, I'm all for it. I'm not particularly cheered by the fact that the IMF had to bail out our broken economy, but that makes me want to see the economy fixed, not the "IMF out".

Why exactly is this? Do you not see the connection between injustice, and opposition of both austerity AND this tax?

Opposing austerity is like opposing bad weather. All I ever hear is people bitching about how bad austerity is, rather than explaining how we avoid it.

As I said earlier, bring on the austerity, but only if those who caused the mess bear the brunt of it before anyone else.

Once again, this argument is predicated on the premise that austerity - or, more accurately, living (as a country) within our means - is somehow just one of a number of options open to us.

If you believe there is an alternative to reducing expenditure and increasing revenue until they're sustainably close to each other, please outline it.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And do you say the same for Bertie and his cronies, for the people who fiddled the books of Anglo and Nationwide, etc?

There's no dichotomy. In fact, it's more logically consistent to want to see Bertie Ahern answer some hard questions from the Revenue and to demand punishment of those who would evade the property tax.

Cookie_Monster

Didn't take the fraudsters long...
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/warning-as-bogus-property-tax-collectors-hit-homes-3063142.html

COUNTY councils have warned the public to be on high alert after unscrupulous conmen have been spotted going door-to-door trying to extort the €100 household tax.

A spokesperson for Meath County Council confirmed two bogus callers have visited houses in various parts of the county in recent days, attempting to collect the hugely controversial tax.

meglome

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Didn't take the fraudsters long...
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/warning-as-bogus-property-tax-collectors-hit-homes-3063142.html

Considering some of things people are claiming they will do if people come onto their property looking for the charge it would seem to be a risky move.

Raiser

Can someone please give an educated and informed guess at what is likely to happen? (in so much as you can tell the future.......) ie. will the 31st of March date be pushed back at the very least etc.

- I'm all for not paying but I don't want to be the one handing over €100 plus penalties in 3 months time etc.

I wish nobody had paid the fcuking thing.

- I wonder what the next ignorant overnight tax to be invented is going to be called - KY Jelly Tax?

seamus

Raiser wrote: »

Can someone please give an educated and informed guess at what is likely to happen? (in so much as you can tell the future.......) ie. will the 31st of March date be pushed back at the very least etc.

Given the current figures and rush of people to pay, what looks most likely to happen is that we will be pushing 600,000 registrations by Saturday morning.

The website will freeze, collapse or go slow for most of Saturday due to the rush to pay, but there will also be a huge backlog of postal payments at that stage too. Taking both into account, an extension to the deadline will be announced for Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.

By the end of May, 75% of all households will be registered, and the remaining 25% will be systematically worn down until we have a compliance rate of about 90%.

RichardAnd

Raiser wrote: »

Can someone please give an educated and informed guess at what is likely to happen? (in so much as you can tell the future.......) ie. will the 31st of March date be pushed back at the very least etc.

- I'm all for not paying but I don't want to be the one handing over €100 plus penalties in 3 months time etc.

I wish nobody had paid the fcuking thing.

- I wonder what the next ignorant overnight tax to be invented is going to be called - KY Jelly Tax?

I was wondering what might happen myself, perhaps it's worth a thread?

Anyway, based on the increases in payment seen over the last few days, I would put the final tally of payment at around 30 - 35 %. I find it extremely unlikely that well over one million people will pay the charge by saturday evening so that leaves quite an interesting situation to be considered. I don't believe that the government can rightly fine that many people and I don't think they will try.

I would predict a constant pushing back of the payment date. Many people will, eventually, pay the charge and once the numbers start to rise, more and more will follow suit as they will fear reprisals when those not paying the tax are in a minority.

squonk

What reprisals can there be though? The government are a pack of cowards. They've already said they are not criminalising anyone for non-payment and from that I can assume that nobody will be prosecuted. The fines will rack up because that's the most convenient way for them to do what they need. Personally to me it's worth the tenner to see a bit of egg on the government's face, and Phil Hogan's in particular. I think if they grind people down with this charge, next year there'll be a sudden charge on people who own puppies and another for those living near water. Where will it end? If we roll over now, we're saying that this sort of codology is just fine and give our tacit approval to the government and an invitation to keep on doing this sort of thing.

seamus

squonk wrote: »

I think if they grind people down with this charge, next year there'll be a sudden charge on people who own puppies and another for those living near water. Where will it end? If we roll over now, we're saying that this sort of codology is just fine and give our tacit approval to the government and an invitation to keep on doing this sort of thing.

Ah yes, the "slippery slope" fallacy.

The majority of people accept that paying a charge to fund local services is fair and reasonable. I fail to see the logic which requires that accepting the household charge is tacit acceptance of random other charges.

later12

It's largely a question of simple arithmetic .

If Paddy pays €100 and no action is taken on those who don't, Paddy has just lost €100.

If Paddy doesn't pay the charge and action is taken, the fine is €10 and €1 per subsequent month. So eventually, Paddy gives in and pays €111.

€11 is the eventual cost to Paddy of having assumed the view that the Government could do a U Turn, and sheltering himself from a potentially greater loss. I think the small penalties are probably encouraging people to hold back on paying.

squonk

Yes, if the government had a pair they'd have said that non payment incurrs a 100% penalty from day 1, so by Sunday I'd owe €200. I might have some respect for them in that case. By the current set up, they've either shown that they haven't thought out the process well enough or are simply too chicken to fully stand behind and enforce their policies. I can only imagine then that if that is the attitude they are employing at home, god knows what the hell is happening in European discussions where our interests are on the line. I'd find it hard to believe that they're cowards at home and suddenly heroes the minute they set foot in an EU meeting chamber.

seamus

squonk wrote: »

Yes, if the government had a pair they'd have said that non payment incurrs a 100% penalty from day 1, so by Sunday I'd owe €200. I might have some respect for them in that case.

Sometimes you can't win, can you?

So if this "unfair" charge was backed up by punitive charges which are actually unfair and disproportionate, you would respect them?

But instead when they apply reasonable and proportionate late penalty charges, you have less respect for them?

No wonder FF got voted in, twice. You people don't have a fncking clue what you want out of your government.

squonk

Not at all. By more punitive charges they would at least be making a statement. Right now they are making nothing, jut begging. Adding a bit of sugar to the medicine in low entry points and less puntitive charges just means it's an invite to another rogering down the line when they need more money. Punitive charges would have made people question even more what was going on.

meglome

squonk wrote: »

Not at all. By more punitive charges they would at least be making a statement. Right now they are making nothing, jut begging. Adding a bit of sugar to the medicine in low entry points and less puntitive charges just means it's an invite to another rogering down the line when they need more money. Punitive charges would have made people question even more what was going on.

How do I put this... the government tried to do this in the namby pamby way Irish governments do these things. They should have explained it better, they should have collected it better and they should have been more aggressive over it but that doesn't make it any less necessary that everyone pays.

I paid in online for my father today and without any doubt I have never seen so many screens to make a payment on anything ever. It's no wonder people haven't done it.

tunney

seamus wrote: »

Ah yes, the "slippery slope" fallacy.

The majority of people accept that paying a charge to fund local services is fair and reasonable. I fail to see the logic which requires that accepting the household charge is tacit acceptance of random other charges.

If it was a charge for local services then surely all consumers of local services should pay it - renters included.

djpbarry

squonk wrote: »

Personally to me it's worth the tenner to see a bit of egg on the government's face, and Phil Hogan's in particular. I think if they grind people down with this charge, next year there'll be a sudden charge on people who own puppies and another for those living near water. Where will it end?

When the public deficit has been reduced to a sustainable level?

meglome

tunney wrote: »

If it was a charge for local services then surely all consumers of local services should pay it - renters included.

The owners of those properties pay it, and either try to pass it along or not. But it is being paid.

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When they have lost their mandate, and are acting in a corrupt manner as our previous government was, they are no longer "us", hence why I consistently advocate for greater democratic accountability and the ability to prematurely fire a government before they can cause any more damage. Do you support such proposals, incidentally?

They still represent the people until they are removed by the people. Undoubtedly, corrupt or inept politicians should be promptly removed by the government - but the idea of losing their mandate is manifestly different to the idea that they no longer represent the people.

And do you say the same for Bertie and his cronies, for the people who fiddled the books of Anglo and Nationwide, etc?

Yep.

In your posts, you seem to place a greater emphasis in coming down hard on ordinary people who are suffering the consequences of corruption and incompetence, than on the corrupt and incompetent who caused it. Why is this?

"Ordinary people" is such a populist and nonsensical term. We all caused this, it isn't like we can trace back accountability to one person who lit the match.
Ordinary people are for the most part just as accountable as the "non ordinary people".
Do you suggest we remove rights to vote from people who are in negative equity because they made a poor decision to take out a loan? What about people who purchased houses with 100% mortgages that couldn't reasonably believe that they could repay it?

squonk wrote: »

What reprisals can there be though? The government are a pack of cowards. They've already said they are not criminalising anyone for non-payment and from that I can assume that nobody will be prosecuted.

Have they?

The fines will rack up because that's the most convenient way for them to do what they need. Personally to me it's worth the tenner to see a bit of egg on the government's face, and Phil Hogan's in particular. I think if they grind people down with this charge, next year there'll be a sudden charge on people who own puppies and another for those living near water. Where will it end? If we roll over now, we're saying that this sort of codology is just fine and give our tacit approval to the government and an invitation to keep on doing this sort of thing.

You seem to think summary conviction is a difficult thing to obtain. It isn't and it will end up costing you more than a tenner in the end. You will have the conviction and the charge plus the fine of no less than €1,000 and a bill for the states costs.

later12 wrote: »

It's largely a question of simple arithmetic .

If Paddy pays €100 and no action is taken on those who don't, Paddy has just lost €100.

If Paddy doesn't pay the charge and action is taken, the fine is €10 and €1 per subsequent month. So eventually, Paddy gives in and pays €111.

€11 is the eventual cost to Paddy of having assumed the view that the Government could do a U Turn, and sheltering himself from a potentially greater loss. I think the small penalties are probably encouraging people to hold back on paying.

If he pays at the end of one month that is. Not to mention that if you are summarily tried under the Act, you are liable for expenses in the case against you.

ednwireland

why do i have to pay a second charge fro the second home charge why isnt it just 300 when that comes around

later12

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If he pays at the end of one month that is. Not to mention that if you are summarily tried under the Act, you are liable for expenses in the case against you.

Paddy's not going to let it go to court. The Government aren't either. Paddy's just going to give it a month to see what happens. He figures the €11 is worth the risk.

seamus

later12 wrote: »

Paddy's not going to let it go to court. The Government aren't either. Paddy's just going to give it a month to see what happens. He figures the €11 is worth the risk.

Well then Paddy's going to be down €11.

Even if the tax ended up scrapped, it'll be 3 months before any Government seriously considers scrapping it. Calling it a failure less than a month after the deadline has passed would be very poor decision making unless the compliance rate was below 10%.

later12

Good point. So it could skyrocket to like... €14.

Is anybody really intimidated by the penalties? Whatever one's opinion on the household charge, surely they are a large part of the reason why approximately 1,000,000 households are unlikely to pay by this Saturday.

The opportunity cost of paying the household charge is high for many families, whereas the penalties if they do not pay are relatively minor. Was this not very predictable? I'm beginning to worry that Phil Hogan may not be the political mastermind we had all fondly anticipated.

seamus

Like I said before, you can't win.

If the penalties were severe, the government would be accused of making life difficult for already struggling families. It's only €100. For someone who misses the payment deadline because they genuinely can't afford it, then slapping another €50 or €100 onto it solves nothing except to put them further in the mire.

If someone doesn't pay the deadline because they're wilfully refusing to pay it, then any amount of penalty is irrelevant and they need to be brought to court anyway.

The point of the penalty charge is a happy medium - adding to the charge in a reasonable and proportionate manner rather than being unreasonably punitive.

MajorMax

When did we turn into a nation of whingers? This is a tax that was a requirement of the last bailout funds we have received and spent.

The Government aren't bringing this in for a laugh. We have no more money, we need more money.

Part of the Social Contract is that we agree that the Government can and will levy taxes and we will duly pay them.

I paid this tax and IF it increases in the coming years I will pay that as well.

The Government agreed not to increase Income tax to raise money and so far they haven't. Where did you think the money was going to come from?

I have to laugh at people who say that we need Michael O' Leary to run this country and he'd sort it out. How? happy thoughts and teddy bears? No. He'd tax the crap out of us, probably literally.

If you don't want to pay this tax then don't, leave, the door is open. If you want to stay in this country you are expected to pay your way.

later12

seamus wrote: »

Like I said before, you can't win.

Open up a very sentient tax head that may involve going to an ATM withdrawing cash, then fail to adequately distribute leaflets or bills demanding payment, fail to agree a payment facility via the post offices or banks, mix this altogether with negligible penalties over a time period and yep: you probably can't win.

I'm not saying that people are right to use any of the above excuses for not paying the household charge. There are far better justifications not to pay. Nevertheless, many people will use these as justifications for not paying.

That ought to have been foreseen. This has been on the Government's agenda for the past 12 months.