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

TheZohanS

dvpower wrote: »

You think the people who register to pay the household charge want to pay it?
You think the people who register to pay the household charge have no problem paying it?
That's just a bit naive isn't it?

Well yeah...sure isn't that why they registered to pay for it. lol

I'm not going to pay it so I didn't register.

Clearly, if you want it to be increased, you must think it will survive. As long as it isn't scrapped, then it applies to every liable person, not just those who register.

No that's a logical fallacy. What I said, and I will not repeat myself again is NO I don't think the tax will survive. But if it does I hope those that have registered for it are charged €500 instead of €100. They clearly can afford to pay silly money for a silly tax. Let them subsidise me, I'm not paying it. lol...household tax...ffs.

dxhound2005

TheZohan wrote: »

Well yeah...sure isn't that why they registered to pay for it. lol

I'm not going to pay it so I didn't register.




No that's a logical fallacy. What I said, and I will not repeat myself again is NO I don't think the tax will survive. But if it does I hope those that have registered for it are charged €500 instead of €100. They clearly can afford to pay silly money for a silly tax. Let them subsidise me, I'm not paying it. lol...household tax...ffs.

Of course you do not have to pay our silly taxes, you are in New York. They have proper taxes there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72QuLo5Q9MY

TheZohanS

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Of course you do not have to pay our silly taxes, you are in New York. They have proper taxes there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72QuLo5Q9MY

Technically I was supposed to register in Ireland, but I lol'd hard at the suggestion of it. Let those that have loadsa money to squander pay it, let them pay it for all of us that won't be registering for the silly tax.

We are the 92 1/2%!!!

mikom

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Of course you do not have to pay our silly taxes, you are in New York. They have proper taxes there.

Where income tax rates range from 4% to 8.97%.

dvpower

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Of course you do not have to pay our silly taxes, you are in New York. They have proper taxes there.

The Zohan doesn't have to pay silly taxes. You don't mess with The Zohan :eek:

Slick50

dvpower wrote: »

The 100% in the poll is not 100% of all people, it is 100% of people who haven't already paid - that's c.90% of everyone.

So 44% of 90% will pay, that's 39.6% of the total, according to that poll.

dvpower wrote: »

The other c.10% have already paid.

Firstly this c.10% is an inflated figure too. Secondly, it represents the number of people who have registered, not the same as those who have paid. Thirdly, the 1.6 million represents those that are presumed to be liable to pay. The true figure of houses that need to register is far greater, as people are supposed to register in order to claim a waiver, another c.800,000.

The figures being bandied about are propaganda, trying to coerce people into paying.

dvpower

Slick50 wrote: »

So 44% of 90% will pay, that's 39.6% of the total, according to that poll.

Putting aside for a moment if it is 7.5% or 10% or something in between - the people who were polled were people who hadn't already paid; those who have already paid were excluded from the poll.

So that is 39.6% of the total (or close to). Add to that the 7.5% to 10% who have paid and you're getting towards the 50%. Add a proportion of the 'don't knows' and you're ahead of the 50%.

Once 50% are compliant, it's difficult to see how the tax would be abandoned. The government would come under pressure from these taxpayers to rigorously enforce the tax; much more than the pressure to abandon it.

If the anti-charge side are to win, I think they need something around 75% non compliance by the deadline.

dxhound2005

TheZohan wrote: »

Technically I was supposed to register in Ireland, but I lol'd hard at the suggestion of it. Let those that have loadsa money to squander pay it, let them pay it for all of us that won't be registering for the silly tax.

We are the 92 1/2%!!!

Here's an idea the silly Irish could import from NYC. Put a lien on your property for not registering and paying and sell it in lieu of payment. At least that what I think it means.


http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/property/property_bill_taxlien.shtml

TheZohanS

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Here's an idea the silly Irish could import from NYC. Put a lien on your property for not registering and paying and sell it in lieu of payment. At least that what I think it means.


http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/property/property_bill_taxlien.shtml

Oh.Dear.God.

So you reckon that c.600k homes will have to be sold then? ha ha! Oh that's a good one.

Look, let the people who register pay, I've no problem with people flashing their cash like that, I won't feel bad at all. Let those that want to pay the silly tax, pay it. Let them pay it for all of us who don't register.

Slick50

dvpower wrote: »

Once 50% are compliant, it's difficult to see how the tax would be abandoned. The government would come under pressure from these taxpayers to rigorously enforce the tax; much more than the pressure to abandon it.

I don't agree, I think a large ammount of those that do register and pay will be doing so very reluctantly. So why would they apply pressure to retain it.

dvpower wrote: »

If the anti-charge side are to win, I think they need something around 75% non compliance by the deadline.

It looks like, at best, about 50% will comply. I would say that's too low to try to enforce, and doesn't get the money in fast enough.

It is morally wrong, unjust and unfair to tax a persons home.

dxhound2005

TheZohan wrote: »

Oh.Dear.God.

So you reckon that c.600k homes will have to be sold then? ha ha! Oh that's a good one.

Look, let the people who register pay, I've no problem with people flashing their cash like that, I won't feel bad at all. Let those that want to pay the silly tax, pay it. Let them pay it for all of us who don't register.

Did you read post #3414?

TheZohanS

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Did you read post #3414?

No.

Do you honestly think that if the c.600,000 that say they're not going to pay this silly tax don't pay it that the government will force them to sell up?

Regarding a lien, that's a charge put against a property if you go to sell, it only last's 5 years in this country and a new application has to be made to the courts after that. Nobody is buying property in this shìthole because nobody can get a mortgage. Nobody should give a rats ass about a lien on their property, it simply doesn't matter because you can't sell property here unless you discount dramatically and/or find a cash buyer.

It's a silly tax for silly people. I won't be paying it.

lividduck

TheZohan wrote: »

No.

Do you honestly think that if the c.600,000 that say they're not going to pay this silly tax don't pay it that the government will force them to sell up?

Regarding a lien, that's a charge put against a property if you go to sell, it only last's 5 years in this country and a new application has to be made to the courts after that. Nobody is buying property in this shìthole because nobody can get a mortgage. Nobody should give a rats ass about a lien on their property, it simply doesn't matter because you can't sell property here unless you discount dramatically and/or find a cash buyer.

It's a silly tax for silly people. I won't be paying it.

Wrong, its 12 years for each years tax!

squod

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Here's an idea the silly Irish could import from NYC. Put a lien on your property* for not registering and paying and sell it in lieu of payment. At least that what I think it means.


http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/property/property_bill_taxlien.shtml

One of the ten countries who pay a property tax, leaving 190 or so in the world who don't.

*Even if the place has a lien against it, who says it'll sell? A couple of run down dumps in new york get sold at auction? What's new? Who in their right mind would want to flood the Irish market with more houses? I think you're forgetting who FF/FGs mates are...........builders and bankers.

dxhound2005

squod wrote: »

One of the ten countries who pay a property tax, leaving 190 or so in the world who don't.

*Even if the place has a lien against it, who says it'll sell? A couple of run down dumps in new york get sold at auction? What's new? Who in their right mind would want to flood the Irish market with more houses? I think you're forgetting who FF/FGs mates are...........builders and bankers.

Wikipedia lists ten countries in their entry for Property Taxes, including Australia. I googled three more beginning with A, Argentina, Austria and Azerbaijan and they all have property taxes. Without checking it out I think that with Ireland and Greece joining the club 26 out of the 27 EU countries now have a property tax, the odd man out being Malta. Where did you get your figure from?

alandublin33

no , I dont have a house to hold

gigino

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Wikipedia lists ten countries in their entry for Property Taxes, including Australia. I googled three more beginning with A, Argentina, Austria and Azerbaijan and they all have property taxes. Without checking it out I think that with Ireland and Greece joining the club 26 out of the 27 EU countries now have a property tax, the odd man out being Malta.

5 and 10 years ago Ireland had a property tax as well....it was called stamp duty. Some people paid 9% of the price of the home....it often was 40 or 80 grand on a nice home.
When you are looking up Wiki, see if any other countries had a property tax as high as that. Take a look at where the property tax went and see also if you can find any country in the world with as highly paid a public service as ours. Stamp duty has dried up now but it would make more sense to look properly at government spensing before introducing further taxes.
This new property tax will go the way of decentralisation - it will be scrapped after a few years.

Phill Ewinn

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Wikipedia lists ten countries in their entry for Property Taxes, including Australia. I googled three more beginning with A, Argentina, Austria and Azerbaijan and they all have property taxes. Without checking it out I think that with Ireland and Greece joining the club 26 out of the 27 EU countries now have a property tax, the odd man out being Malta. Where did you get your figure from?

Real Estate Taxes Argentina
Local governments assess the value of local real
estate and levy a progressive real estate tax on the
assessed values. The progressive rates run from
0.2 percent to 1.5 percent. Based on those
valuations, the municipality applies rates of 0.55
percent for lighting, sweeping and cleaning
services and 0.02 percent for pavement and
sidewalk maintenance.

Seems like they get something for the money they pay out. Zero chance of that happening in this country.

squod

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Wikipedia lists ten countries in their entry for Property Taxes, including Australia. I googled three more beginning with A, Argentina, Austria and Azerbaijan and they all have property taxes. Without checking it out I think that with Ireland and Greece joining the club 26 out of the 27 EU countries now have a property tax, the odd man out being Malta. Where did you get your figure from?

Property tax vs council tax. These countries have councils who impose a charge on the house hold to pay for services provided by that council. That's not what we have here! Dress it up any way you want.

I have previously said..........

squod wrote: »

If the government want a council tax then let's have it. A properly regulated system where money isn't spent on the black hole of PS pensions and poorly performing systems.

squod wrote: »

It's direct taxation on the worker to support the pension schemes of pen-pushers in the civil service. I doubt much more than 40% of whatever cash gets turned over to the local authorities will directly benefit the local people.

Mr CJ

dvpower wrote: »

Putting aside for a moment if it is 7.5% or 10% or something in between - the people who were polled were people who hadn't already paid; those who have already paid were excluded from the poll.

So that is 39.6% of the total (or close to). Add to that the 7.5% to 10% who have paid and you're getting towards the 50%. Add a proportion of the 'don't knows' and you're ahead of the 50%.

Once 50% are compliant, it's difficult to see how the tax would be abandoned. The government would come under pressure from these taxpayers to rigorously enforce the tax; much more than the pressure to abandon it.

If the anti-charge side are to win, I think they need something around 75% non compliance by the deadline.

DV sorry but this still makes no sense to me, unless my brain is not functioning correctly....

To simplify things it is safe to say from your comments that:

The survey conducted ONLY included the general public who have not paid, people who have paid where not included.

Ok we all agree so far?

We can safely deduce so far that the survey conducted may have included people who have registered but not paid.

If this is the case and that all the people who were polled 100% I am completely lost at how you keep adding this 10%?

To be more accurate I would only add 2% not 10% because as I stated before I am sure at least 80% of people who have registered would of paying.

The only conclusion I can think of is that the ones who have paid where not asked but where included in the 912 count?? if this is the case mystery solved... strange way of doing a survey

dxhound2005

Mr CJ wrote: »

DV sorry but this still makes no sense to me, unless my brain is not functioning correctly....

To simplify things it is safe to say from your comments that:

The survey conducted ONLY included the general public who have not paid, people who have paid where not included.

Ok we all agree so far?

We can safely deduce so far that the survey conducted may have included people who have registered but not paid.

If this is the case and that all the people who were polled 100% I am completely lost at how you keep adding this 10%?

To be more accurate I would only add 2% not 10% because as I stated before I am sure at least 80% of people who have registered would of paying.

http://issuu.com/behaviour_and_attitudes/docs/sunday-times-february-opinion-poll-report

The survey asked firstly how many of the 100% sample had already paid and got 10% as the answer, see page 9 (Base, all eligible voters). On page 10 (Base all who have not yet paid) the question was to the other 90% will you pay by 31 March. 44% said yes 36% no and 20% don't know. 44% of the 90% is approx 40% of the 100%. This 40% plus the 10% who have already paid (in their survey) plus half of the don't knows (9% of the 100% sample) give 59%.

Mr CJ

dxhound2005 wrote: »

http://issuu.com/behaviour_and_attitudes/docs/sunday-times-february-opinion-poll-report

The survey asked firstly how many of the 100% sample had already paid and got 10% as the answer, see page 9 (Base, all eligible voters). On page 10 (Base all who have not yet paid) the question was to the other 90% will you pay by 31 March. 44% said yes 36% no and 20% don't know. 44% of the 90% is approx 40% of the 100%. This 40% plus the 10% who have already paid (in their survey) plus half of the don't knows (9% of the 100% sample) give 59%.

I could not find that link before when I tried to check it, but your the first to mention here the survey got the result of 10%, thanks you answered my question... it seemed that the 10% was just picked from someones head

Cheers

Slick50

dxhound2005 wrote: »

http://issuu.com/behaviour_and_attitudes/docs/sunday-times-february-opinion-poll-report

The survey asked firstly how many of the 100% sample had already paid and got 10% as the answer, see page 9 (Base, all eligible voters).

Apologies dxhound, I probably caused a lot of the confusion. I jumped in, without realising you got your 10% figure from this survey, I thought you were using the figure being bandied about in the media of those that have actually registered/payed. I only realised the survey started on page 9. from your answer to Mr CJ.

LordSutch

So as we speak 120.000 households have signed up (out of a population of 4 million)!

The way I see it is, if the figures stay very low then we will all get off for free, but if we get to a stage where its in the balance, like a tipping point of about (two million signed up) then what will happen? will the other two million get fined or go to jail? I don't think so. The real pressure is now being exerted with talk of fines and all that jazz, so I say don't sign up on the website and don't pay, because once you have they will have you by the short & curlies, and in five years time when the household charge is in the thousands you'll be sorry!

We are not going to pay.

eth0

I'm already waiting for the non-householder's charge to be brought in. For people living in anything that isn't a house.

A damning report will be published that brands all homeless people as tax cheats and if householders without 2 cents to rub together can pay the household charge then surely the homeless can too.

Also if they are living off anything but the cheapest extra value "food" you can buy they are not genuinely struggling

dxhound2005

Slick50 wrote: »

Apologies dxhound, I probably caused a lot of the confusion. I jumped in, without realising you got your 10% figure from this survey, I thought you were using the figure being bandied about in the media of those that have actually registered/payed. I only realised the survey started on page 9. from your answer to Mr CJ.

That's OK. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is in a month anyway. It is a slightly odd situation people being able to pay from January 1 but having up to 31 March to pay without penalty. No ESB/phone bill would be like this. Using the 10% who have paid after 2 months to project a very low compliance is not valid to me. I predicted a few pages back (before the ST survey) that it would be over 50% and I stand by that.

Ghandee

LordSutch wrote: »

So as we speak 120.000 households have signed up (out of a population of 4 million)!

The way I see it is, if the figures stay very low then we will all get off for free, but if we get to a stage where its in the balance, like a tipping point of about (two million signed up) then what will happen? will the other two million get fined or go to jail? I don't think so. The real pressure is now being exerted with talk of fines and all that jazz, so I say don't sign up on the website and don't pay, because once you have they will have you by the short & curlies, and in five years time when the household charge is in the thousands you'll be sorry!

We are not going to pay.

Ireland may well have a population of +/- 4million.

Not all of the population own a house though.

The approx figures of house owners in the country its 1.6 million, still though, that means that even if we see 160,000 registered by the end of March. That still only equates to 10% compliance.

90% non compliance would mean a massive failure to the bond holders govt.


Don't register.

Don't pay!

Annasopra

LordSutch wrote: »

So as we speak 120.000 households have signed up (out of a population of 4 million)!

The way I see it is, if the figures stay very low then we will all get off for free, but if we get to a stage where its in the balance, like a tipping point of about (two million signed up) then what will happen? will the other two million get fined or go to jail? I don't think so.

There isn't 4 million houses in the country

Slick50

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It is a slightly odd situation people being able to pay from January 1 but having up to 31 March to pay without penalty. No ESB/phone bill would be like this.

It's to give people time to mull over paying or not, and the consequences, first time round.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Using the 10% who have paid after 2 months to project a very low compliance is not valid to me. I predicted a few pages back (before the ST survey) that it would be over 50% and I stand by that.

I still don't accept the 10% "payed" figure, which is probably why I jumped in so quick. And I think compliance will be well below 50% by the end of march. We'll see soon enough.

Am Chile

Slick50 wrote: »

It's to give people time to mull over paying or not, and the consequences, first time round.



I still don't accept the 10% "payed" figure, which is probably why I jumped in so quick. And I think compliance will be well below 50% by the end of march. We'll see soon enough.

After reading through all the posts on the last three pages-one factor no one has taken into account yet, the payment by installments option deadline is wednesday 29th february-I think most people who would intend to pay would rather pay by installments instead of paying a €100 in one go.