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

Cantona's Collars

Posted this in the Wexford forum.

http://www.wexford.ie/wex/PayOnline/HouseholdCharge/Thefile,19568,en.pdf

Not only do they want €100 but also want to know where you get your water supply from:rolleyes:

At the protest on Saturday I met people who pay all their bills and are type who would be mortified not to but this charge is the straw that breaks the camels back and is the one bill they won't be paying.

Don't let the politicians and their spin fool you,not one cent of this charge will be reinvested into the community.

D_murph

This was taken from the protest in Cork on Saturday, which I also attended....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsn1Jl52dnI

This was just one of 40 similar protests around the country that day also .

uberalles

Nodin wrote: »

Can't drop the PS bashing, can ye?

Well it's true. It's what has us in this sh1t

Pete M.

uberalles wrote: »

Well it's true. It's what has us in this sh1t

Dude :cool:

Please.

I think you'll find that we're in the sh1t because of another group of people, not public sector workers.

gigino

Pete M. wrote: »

Dude :cool:

Please.

I think you'll find that we're in the sh1t because of another group of people, not public sector workers.

ahem, it was the public sector - from the government to the central bank to the regulator to the dept. of finance - who f****d up. It was their job to govern, control and regulate the economy. They failed pathetically. Now they have trouble borrowing the 18 billion a year for their own pay and pensions they think they can rob everyone else even more.

As the Public accounts chief said last week:"When governments spent, opposition parties called for more and trade unions asked for more, and were given more; which largely went into the pay packets of senior civil servants who in many cases were doing the country a lot less service than they were doing themselves," he said. Mr McGuinness said that we have sought to blame everyone from German banks to rapacious builders for the country's demise, but the real cause was "the absence of good governance in many areas, and the lack of backbone that makes that possible".

Pete M.

gigino wrote: »

ahem, it was the public sector - from the government to the central bank to the regulator to the dept. of finance - who f****d up. It was their job to govern, control and regulate the economy. They failed pathetically. Now they have trouble borrowing the 18 billion a year for their own pay and pensions they think they can rob everyone else even more.

So the public sector are now the government, the central bank and the regulator and the dept.of finance ?

What about the thousands upon thousands of ordinary public sector workers, on average wages, clerical & admin officers, nurses, carers, firemen, guards etc. who have to put up with all this sh1te as well as their counterparts in the private sector?

If you're going to have a go at them, then yeah sure go ahead, but there'll be plenty who'll have a go right back.

But if you're going to have a go at elected representatives or mandarins in a government department someplace, then I'm with you.

When we talk of us and them, then it's the people with the money and the power that we should be having a go at, not the buck who works down at the dole office that lives on the same street.

gigino wrote: »

As the Public accounts chief said last week:"When governments spent, opposition parties called for more and trade unions asked for more, and were given more; which largely went into the pay packets of senior civil servants who in many cases were doing the country a lot less service than they were doing themselves," he said. Mr McGuinness said that we have sought to blame everyone from German banks to rapacious builders for the country's demise, but the real cause was "the absence of good governance in many areas, and the lack of backbone that makes that possible".

Srsly?

That is so funny. You're quoting John McGuinness, dark prince of Fianna Fail, who in the piece above blames the Unions and senior civil servants, along with an absence of good government (by FF) and a lack of backbone (also FF) for the countries woes above German banks and rapacious builders.

gigino

Pete M. wrote: »

I think you'll find that we're in the sh1t because of another group of people, not public sector workers.

I merely point out the truth we are in this **** because of a group of workers who were public sector workers. Its noteworthy the Public Accounts chief specifically criticised the role of top civil servants, whom he described as the chief beneficiaries of the boom. "Seduced by the tinkling of what Yeats called the 'greasy till'," top civil servants and politicians forgot "our obligations to each other, to our country and to our children's future", he said.

Like many others, I'm not paying a hundred quid to line the scandalous pensions of the chief beneficiaries of the boom. Hell will freeze over first.

Pete M.

gigino wrote: »

I merely point out the truth we are in this **** because of a group of workers who were public sector workers.

And I would point to a group including Sean Fitzpatrick, Michael Fingleton, the Ronan brothers, Sean Quinn etc., who were 'private sector' workers, but I wouldn't ever lump them in with the guy who works in the local petrol station or the lady who cleans the toilets where I work.

What those who have gotten us in this sh1t have in common is that they are on far higher wages than most of the rest of us.

The public vs. private argument is invalid

gigino wrote: »

Like many others, I'm not paying a hundred quid to line the scandalous pensions of the chief beneficiaries of the boom. Hell will freeze over first.

And shur we're pretty much on the same side here brother, but I do work in the public sector, so go easy like

gigino

Pete M. wrote: »

And I would point to a group including Sean Fitzpatrick, Michael Fingleton, the Ronan brothers, Sean Quinn etc., who were 'private sector' workers,

and who should have been regulated by the public sector. They did not do their jobs, the public sector. If Quinn and others broke the law he should be fined or in jail. He is bankrupt now anyway. By contrast the top public servants still have their golden pensions, their long holidays and weekends off....and the hundred quids go to the public service, not to the private sector.

Pete M.

gigino wrote: »

and who should have been regulated by the public sector. They did not do their jobs, the public sector. If Quinn and others broke the law he should be fined or in jail. He is bankrupt now anyway. By contrast the top public servants still have their golden pensions, their long holidays and weekends off....and the hundred quids go to the public service, not to the private sector.

What's wrong with having the weekend off?
Fcuks sake, it's not that much of a perk really is it?

And believe me, I'm not defending top level public sector workers. There was a dereliction of duty and heads should roll for sure.

As for the €100 going to public services, yeah right, robbing peter to pay paul more like.

And would you like even more money to go to the 'private sector'? Because sure as night follows day, fcuk all of it would go to anyone earning average wage.

gigino

Pete M. wrote: »

And believe me, I'm not defending top level public sector workers. There was a dereliction of duty and heads should roll for sure..

Roll they should, instead of sending them 100 from each house.

Pete M. wrote: »

As for the €100 going to public services, yeah right, robbing peter to pay paul more like.

And would you like even more money to go to the 'private sector'? Because sure as night follows day, fcuk all of it would go to anyone earning average wage.

You are right. Most in the public service are not earning average wage, they are earning far higher than the average wage. Average public sector wage is over 48,000 : average private sector wage is in the early thirties.

donalg1

D_murph wrote: »

This was taken from the protest in Cork on Saturday, which I also attended....


This was just one of 40 similar protests around the country that day also .

I just dont understand why anyone would bother organising or attending a protest, the beauty of self declaration is if you dont want to pay it then you simply dont pay it, there is no need to waste your day walking around a street carrying a sign.

dvpower

donalg1 wrote: »

I just dont understand why anyone would bother organising or attending a protest, the beauty of self declaration is if you dont want to pay it then you simply dont pay it, there is no need to waste your day walking around a street carrying a sign.

To encourage other people not to pay.
To get media attention on the issue.
To demonstrate to to the government the strength and committment of the anti-charge campaign.

The campaign is trying to get the law overturned. Simply not paying doesn't get anyone anywhere if the law isn't overturned - it just puts off the date of eventual payment.

donalg1

dvpower wrote: »

To encourage other people not to pay.
To get media attention on the issue.
To demonstrate to to the government the strength and committment of the anti-charge campaign.

The campaign is trying to get the law overturned. Simply not paying doesn't get anyone anywhere if the law isn't overturned - it just puts off the date of eventual payment.

Encouraging others not to pay makes no sense to me either why does anyone care what other people do with their money? What difference does it make to you if I pay it?

Most people that are going to pay wont be swayed by any amount of protests there may be a few undecided that could be swayed but I wouldnt imagine there would be a huge amount of these.

The government arent going to care or take any notice of any protest either they never do, I dont think protests ever have any affect on Government thinking if anything they might just say "oh we better be more careful in the future" but I dont think the law will ever be overturned.

This whole campaign has been organised by opposition TD's whose main objective is to oppose any suggestions by the current government, but imo if they were the ones in Government now this charge would've been introduced by them too as it is a condition of the bailout, and the government are just puppets of the EU IMF.

tayto lover

Gigino comes in on his usual rant and spoils another good thread.

dvpower

donalg1 wrote: »

Encouraging others not to pay makes no sense to me either why does anyone care what other people do with their money? What difference does it make to you if I pay it?

If 80% of the people don't pay then the government will scrap the tax. If 80% of the people do pay then the government will persue the tax.

donalg1 wrote: »

Most people that are going to pay wont be swayed by any amount of protests there may be a few undecided that could be swayed but I wouldnt imagine there would be a huge amount of these.

There are 20% undecided according to the recent opinion poll.

donalg1 wrote: »

The government arent going to care or take any notice of any protest either they never do, I dont think protests ever have any affect on Government thinking if anything they might just say "oh we better be more careful in the future" but I dont think the law will ever be overturned.

Remember the pension cuts a couple of years ago. Those were overturned after pensioners took to the streets. It can and has happenned.

donalg1 wrote: »

This whole campaign has been organised by opposition TD's whose main objective is to oppose any suggestions by the current government, but imo if they were the ones in Government now this charge would've been introduced by them too as it is a condition of the bailout, and the government are just puppets of the EU IMF.

True. I can't see this being overturned unless there is massive non compliance.

donalg1

dvpower wrote: »

If 80% of the people don't pay then the government will scrap the tax. If 80% of the people do pay then the government will persue the tax.


There are 20% undecided according to the recent opinion poll.


Remember the pension cuts a couple of years ago. Those were overturned after pensioners took to the streets. It can and has happenned.


True. I can't see this being overturned unless there is massive non compliance.

That to me looks like people dont want to pay and are trying to get others not to pay so they wont be the only ones not to do it. Like I will do it if you do it first type of thing, but surely if you feel strongly enough about it and dont care about the consequences (if any) for not paying then why bother protesting just dont pay surely the best form of protest is non payment.

Seems like everyone is standing around looking at each other waiting to see what they all do which gives me the impression more will actually end up paying when the deadline approaches than the current opinion polls suggest, last minute jitters and all that.

tayto lover

I haven't attended any meetings but there is one in Dundalk tonight at 6p.m. (i think) and seeing that I will be in that town I might just go along and listen. The more I read things like this
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/that-promissory-note-could-literally-be-torn-up-3031903.html
The more I am against paying. Our grandchildren will be paying for this in years to come.

dvpower

donalg1 wrote: »

That to me looks like people dont want to pay and are trying to get others not to pay so they wont be the only ones not to do it.

Of course - they need some momentum if they are going to get the tax overturned.

donalg1 wrote: »

Like I will do it if you do it first type of thing, but surely if you feel strongly enough about it and dont care about the consequences (if any) for not paying then why bother protesting just dont pay surely the best form of protest is non payment.

Where did you get the idea that they don't care about the consequences? Some, I'm sure, are in it for wider political purposes, some just don't think it a fair tax and some feel that just can't afford it.

Pete M.

Another public meeting in Manorhamilton (Bee Park) at 8:00pm tonight.

Ghandee

Taken from Irish Times Website (roughly updated an hour ago)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0228/breaking21.html


Just over 133, 000 homes have been registered for the €100 household charge, the Department of the Environment has said, as the deadline approaches for those who wish to pay by direct debit.

Some 133,365 properties had been registered by yesterday evening, raising a total of €13.3 million. The Government expects to raise about €160 million from the charge this year but has already pledged to replace it with a property tax.

Tomorrow is the final date for setting up direct debits to allow householders pay the charge online in four €25 installments.

Householders have until March 31st to pay the €100 and failure to pay that date will result in penalties, on a sliding scale depending on how late the payment is made.

A late payment fee of 10 per cent will be added if the charge is paid within six months of March 31st. This will increase to 20 per cent after six months and to 30 per cent after a year.

Late payment interest of 1 per cent per month from the due date will also apply until the charge has been paid.

The Department of the Environment said people may choose to pay the €100 online by credit or debit card, or by cheque, postal order or bank draft at their local authority office.

Payment forms may also be downloaded from the householdcharge.ie website and sent by post.

Chair of the Household Charge Project Board Jackie Maguire warned that non-payment of the charge was an offence and that late payments would be subject to increasing fines.

She said information circulating online that residential property owners could “opt out” of the charge where they had not “given consent” to the law was incorrect.

Property owners were bound by the laws passed by the Oireachtas and they could not avoid those laws by “withdrawing consent” to them, Ms Maguire said.

Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan said anyone who had a preference for paying the charge in instalments should register online to do so either today or tomorrow.

There were some problems with the householdcharge.ie website this morning, but the Department of the Environment said it expected these would be addressed shortly.

The Campaign Against Household and Water Taxes said the fact that only 133,365 properties had been registered confirmed that “mass non-registration” was “entirely possible”.

It called on householders to maintain a boycott of what it said was “an austerity tax to benefit the bondholders and super wealthy”.

donalg1

dvpower wrote: »

Of course - they need some momentum if they are going to get the tax overturned.


Where did you get the idea that they don't care about the consequences? Some, I'm sure, are in it for wider political purposes, some just don't think it a fair tax and some feel that just can't afford it.

A few people here have said they arent paying it and screw the consequences, I would also assume anyone that doesnt pay it isnt too worried about the consequences.

The reason I am paying it, is because I care about the consequences and dont want a charge registered against my property thats the only reason I am paying it.

I suppose then the protests arent really about the charge being unfair or arent for any moral reason but are really organised by people because they dont want to pay and dont want the charge registered against their property.

Phill Ewinn

Point was made again last night about the Irish central bank ''needing'' €3.1bn again this year to pay back the promisary notes issed by it to the ECB.

That's in simple accounting terms ''fvcking stupid''.
This shower care more about the counterfeit money than they do about the people, the peoples children or the peoples childrens future.

It like having a thousand years of household charges washed down the toilet.

There should be a ''fvcking stupid'' tax imposed on Enda and co for being so fvcking stupid.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

A few people here have said they arent paying it and screw the consequences, I would also assume anyone that doesnt pay it isnt too worried about the consequences.

The reason I am paying it, is because I care about the consequences and dont want a charge registered against my property thats the only reason I am paying it.

I suppose then the protests arent really about the charge being unfair or arent for any moral reason but are really organised by people because they dont want to pay and dont want the charge registered against their property.

Donal, I dont want to fall out with you, because tbh a lot of what you type on here makes absolute, sound sense.

However, the main reason people dont want to pay is because (as we've already agreed) the 100euro will turn into a thousand in a few years, and none of us believe the money will make its way into our LC's, and will be used to pay back unsecured bondholders. Bondholders who took a risk, and lost.

If this Govt would grow a pair, and come out and explain to us in laymans terms, the real consequences of not paying billions to these super elite billionaires, a lot of people could then decide if they should part with the cash.

This is my reason anyway.

dxhound2005

tayto lover wrote: »

I haven't attended any meetings but there is one in Dundalk tonight at 6p.m. (i think) and seeing that I will be in that town I might just go along and listen. The more I read things like this
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/that-promissory-note-could-literally-be-torn-up-3031903.html
The more I am against paying. Our grandchildren will be paying for this in years to come.

I got the Dont Register Dont Pay leaflet in through the door at 9 o'clock last night and I see a big poster at one of our roundabouts. Someone is spending a bit of money on this. The Dundalk meeting is in the Muirhevnamore Sports Complex at 7.30 pm on Wednesday 29th. I know we are on different sides but if you go along could you ask about their plan to deal with what happens when a house with arrears is being sold.

I never got the Government leaflet yet.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Bondholders who took a risk, and lost.

They took a risk on what were once regarded as blue chip banks, and won. They are being repaid in full.

Ghandee wrote: »

If this Govt would grow a pair, and come out and explain to us in laymans terms, the real consequences of not paying billions to these super elite billionaires, a lot of people could then decide if they should part with the cash.

Categorising them as super elite billionaries is a little bit dishonest, isn't it?
Do you even know how many of them were individual billionaires?, how many were normal investment funds?, how many were Irish investment funds?, how many were pension funds owned by ordinary people etc?

We do know the consequences of not paying them. It is that the EU/IMF bailout deal we have would be off the table and we would potentially have to close the deficit immediately. The deficit, by the way, is the main reason we are having to raise taxes; paying unsecured bondholders is a secondary reason.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

Donal, I dont want to fall out with you, because tbh a lot of what you type on here makes absolute, sound sense.

However, the main reason people dont want to pay is because (as we've already agreed) the 100euro will turn into a thousand in a few years, and none of us believe the money will make its way into our LC's, and will be used to pay back unsecured bondholders. Bondholders who took a risk, and lost.

If this Govt would grow a pair, and come out and explain to us in laymans terms, the real consequences of not paying billions to these super elite billionaires, a lot of people could then decide if they should part with the cash.

This is my reason anyway.

Your probably right the Govt should let us all know exactly what will happen if they dont pay back the billions they have borrowed and the Govt needs to come out and admit what everyone already knows rather than trying to bulls**t everyone about "Local Services". If they really want people to believe its going to be used for Local Services then let the local authorities collect it and keep it rather than centralise it they would also need to guarantee the LGF wouldnt be reduced next year by something equivalent to what the LA's collect.

At least then they could stand by their claims that this is going to be used for Local Services.

smash

"This will raise €160m"

Strange, you could recoup that 10x by reverting the daft Co2 based motor tax! I think the figures from 2008/2009 was a loss of over €800m after it was introduced.

Stay away from people's homes, they're not luxury items for most people.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

They took a risk on what were once regarded as blue chip banks, and won. They are being repaid in full.


Categorising them as super elite billionaries is a little bit dishonest, isn't it?
Do you even know how many of them were individual billionaires?, how many were normal investment funds?, how many were Irish investment funds?, how many were pension funds owned by ordinary people etc?

We do know the consequences of not paying them. It is that the EU/IMF bailout deal we have would be off the table and we would potentially have to close the deficit immediately. The deficit, by the way, is the main reason we are having to raise taxes; paying unsecured bondholders is a secondary reason.

Why though?

Isn't this a classic example of robbing Peter to pay Paul?

I mean, what odds to the EU/IMF if an unsecured bondholder doesnt get their unsecured debt paid back?

I honestly admit that I understand little of these things, but I really cant fathom why it is in our Govts best interests to pay back a debt they were not obliged to pay?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

I mean, what odds to the EU/IMF if an unsecured bondholder doesnt get their unsecured debt paid back?

I guess because renaging on these debts would eventually hit the balance sheets of European banks and European governments may end up having to recapitalise them, at European taxpayer expense.

Ghandee wrote: »

I honestly admit that I understand little of these things, but I really cant fathom why it is in our Govts best interests to pay back a debt they were not obliged to pay?

Its not in their direct interest. They're being forced by the troika to pay this debt as a condition of the bailout.

It does seem unfair that Irish taxpayers should have to shoulder all of the burden, but they have us over a barrel. If we want the bailout money, we need to pay the bondholders.
This is why the deficit is the real issue. If we were able to fund our own expenditure without having to go to the EU/IMF, we would have been more free to burn the unsecured bondholders.