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

golfwallah

tayto lover wrote: »

I would have the opposite view.
I think this is an attack on home owners, many of whom are in negative equity. Your home is YOUR home and there should not be a tax on it. It is not right and I don't care whether other countries have it or not.
They can raise taxes some other way.

"An attack on home owners" - this is hyperbole ..... it's a tax not an artillery round.

Not paying or registering, on the other hand is breaking the law (that some people are not informing themselves about). From Household Charges FAQ: "The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 provides for a number of offences related to the household charge. The main offences relate to failure to declare a liability to a household charge, failure to pay it and to provide information that is false or misleading. The Act also provides for fines and other sanctions for persons found guilty of offences".

Posting your protest on an internet forum is all fine and dandy, but no defense against the rule of law. If you want to protest, write to your TD, Councillor, etc or join a political party and take it from there in a legitimate way.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

Such as?

Your car is YOUR own too - and yet there's tax liable on it's use on the public highways, fuel, the licence to drive it, the regular roadworthyness test, etc, etc. Your house remains your own, regardless of your obligation to pay property tax (which as you concede, is the norm internationally).

Negative equity is a red herring btw - you still pay motor tax even when depreciation has reduced the value of your car to a fraction of what you paid. The future (tiered) household charge will be on the basis of market value - not what you paid originally.

When you buy a house you also buy the site. You don't own the road you drive your car on. Totally different.

Mr CJ

seamus wrote: »

Do you not think it's just a little bit odd that on the one hand you have 85% of people not registering to pay, but on the other hand any rallies, meetings or "helplines" that have been set up to oppose this tax have virtually no participants?

It's almost like people aren't really that angry about it and are instead waiting to see what happens...

The joke of course is that the time to do anything about it has long passed. If you managed to get 150,000 marching on Leinster house in early January, they may have thought twice about it. In reality, any rally which had 150 participants was doing well, so the policitians rightly ignored them and the plans are already in motion. The time to "stand up" has passed.

I have not gone to any protest I know loads who have not gone to any either this has absolutely nothing to do with lack of support, we are still not paying they can make all the threats under the sun and they can save me a trip by delivering the fines into the green bin cause thats where ill be putting them

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

Maybe not now, but I'm betting time will tell another story.

Fair play to ya, if your such a good fortune teller, why don't you tell us how much you'll be paying in 3 years or 5 years in property tax and how much you'll be paying in water charges??
We'd love to know.

tayto lover

golfwallah wrote: »

"An attack on home owners" - this is hyperbole ..... it's a tax not an artillery round.

Not paying or registering, on the other hand is breaking the law (that some people are not informing themselves about). From Household Charges FAQ: "The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 provides for a number of offences related to the household charge. The main offences relate to failure to declare a liability to a household charge, failure to pay it and to provide information that is false or misleading. The Act also provides for fines and other sanctions for persons found guilty of offences".

Posting your protest on an internet forum is all fine and dandy, but no defense against the rule of law. If you want to protest, write to your TD, Councillor, etc or join a political party and take it from there in a legitimate way.

It quite clearly is an attack on home owners. Many people are sick with worry too. They are having their peace of mind threatened by an unjust attack on their homes. A man's home is his castle.
I have no interest in joining any group nor do I care if I am the only person in the country who is refusing to pay in the end. I see it as totally unjust and will not pay. An unjust law is a bad law and deserves to be broken.

gurramok

gerryo777 wrote: »

I've noticed that myself, my wife's sister and her husband, both PS employees have paid but her other sister and her husband, private sector, will not.
I wonder are PS employees living in fear??
I'm self-employed and won't be paying either.

I know 3 private sector workers outside work and a bunch of private sector workers in work, they all have either paid or intend to pay.

They are decent people after all, guess it shows.

Mr CJ

tayto lover wrote: »

meanwhile not one Banker, Builder or Speculator has been in court, some were actually given jobs in N.A.M.A. at 200k a year. You couldn't make it up.
Now they are trying their dirty tricks to make us pay a Property Tax but the Irish people will see these attacks on their homes as the last straw. I certainly do and I am refusing to pay. I don't even have to leave my armchair to protest. Enough is enough.

Very good points you made, I forgot all about that its absolutely crazy!!

Was there also a case where the government used buildings owned by developers in debt and actually paid for using them or something like this?

gerryo777

gurramok wrote: »

I know 3 private sector workers outside work and a bunch of private sector workers in work, they all have either paid or intend to pay.

They are decent people after all, guess it shows.

So your implying that people who don't pay this sham of a tax aren't decent people??
Who the f**k do you think you are??

tayto lover

gurramok wrote: »

I know 3 private sector workers outside work and a bunch of private sector workers in work, they all have either paid or intend to pay.

They are decent people after all, guess it shows.

I know a few Bankers and crooked politicians who are paying too -- more of your decent people.

gerryo777

tayto lover wrote: »

I know a few Bankers and crooked politicians who are paying too -- more of your decent people.

More of the sly, underhand insults there tayto from gurramok, sounds familiar doesn't it?

Mr CJ

gurramok wrote: »

I know 3 private sector workers outside work and a bunch of private sector workers in work, they all have either paid or intend to pay.

They are decent people after all, guess it shows.

I have heard it all now... what a complete tosser

tayto lover

gerryo777 wrote: »

More of the sly, underhand insults there tayto from gurramok, sounds familiar doesn't it?

Reincarnation.

gurramok

gerryo777 wrote: »

So your implying that people who don't pay this sham of a tax aren't decent people??
Who the f**k do you think you are??

How is breaking the law decent? Explain that one.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

When you buy a house you also buy the site. You don't own the road you drive your car on. Totally different.

Not at all. The tax is a 'household' charge - not a site charge. Put a rollercoaster on the site and avoid the charge if you like. If you concede that you own your car and taxes are liable on that ownership, then why should your ownership of a house be any different? If you don't like the taxes you can choose to not own a car, or to rent your house.

gerryo777

gurramok wrote: »

How is breaking the law decent? Explain that one.

You really are desperate now, aren't ya!
You, are nothing to me.
Now, on to the ignore list with ya.

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

Fair play to ya, if your such a good fortune teller, why don't you tell us how much you'll be paying in 3 years or 5 years in property tax and how much you'll be paying in water charges??
We'd love to know.

What's that got to do with anything? You think there's a future where we'll be paying less in tax? Whatever formula you care to devise will mean more outgoings in taxation one way or another.

Mr CJ

gurramok wrote: »

How is breaking the law decent? Explain that one.

Let me ask you the same question I asked dvpower as he was not able to answer it

This is a simple yes or no question

Can I ask you if they brought a law in tomorrow that states you must take a lethal pill when you reach 70 as the state cant cope with the health care and need to reduce it drastically, would you gladly take the pill when you reach 70 and object to anyone that diasagrees with it because after all this is the law?

The point I am trying to make is if you or the pro's will ever have some tiny bit of cop-on to question what the government can do, because if not there really is no hope and you guys are the totalitarian governments dream!!

Dont repeat the usual cukoo land crap I have heard it from dv just answer the question yes or no its quite simple

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

It quite clearly is an attack on home owners. Many people are sick with worry too. They are having their peace of mind threatened by an unjust attack on their homes. A man's home is his castle.
I have no interest in joining any group nor do I care if I am the only person in the country who is refusing to pay in the end. I see it as totally unjust and will not pay. An unjust law is a bad law and deserves to be broken.

It's unjust because you don't like it or what?

I'm pretty sure my home is not a castle. The lack of a drawbridge for starters.

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

Not at all. The tax is a 'household' charge - not a site charge. Put a rollercoaster on the site and avoid the charge if you like. If you concede that you own your car and taxs are liable on that ownership, then why should your ownership of a house be any different? If you don't like the taxes you can choose to not own a car, or to rent your house.

If it's a 'household charge', how come renters or council tenants who each have a 'household' and use all the services provided by the councils don't have to pay???
That's discrimination, pure and simple.
If they were in the UK they'd be paying.

mikom

Mr CJ wrote: »

Can I ask you if they brought a law in tomorrow that states you must take a lethal pill when you reach 70 as the state cant cope with the health care and need to reduce it drastically, would you gladly take the pill when you reach 70 and object to anyone that diasagrees with it because after all this is the law?

"But, it's the law!"
*Drools*
*Flags down the shortbus*

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

If it's a 'household charge', how come renters or council tenants who each have a 'household' and use all the services provided by the councils don't have to pay???
That's discrimination, pure and simple.
If they were in the UK they'd be paying.

Because it's a tax on a specified equity. If you don't hold that equity, it's not applicable.

gurramok

gerryo777 wrote: »

You really are desperate now, aren't ya!
You, are nothing to me.
Now, on to the ignore list with ya.

No, i'm not desperate. What I see is a few posters who intend to break the law. If they oppose the charge, they should what democracy is there for, lobby their TD's to oppose the charge on their behalf in the Dail.

The Dail passed the charge into legislation. The charge is in law. Not paying it is breaking the law.

Mr CJ wrote:

Can I ask you if they brought a law in tomorrow that states you must take a lethal pill when you reach 70 as the state cant cope with the health care and need to reduce it drastically, would you gladly take the pill when you reach 70 and object to anyone that diasagrees with it because after all this is the law?

Why should I answer someone who called me a name a few posts ago?

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything? You think there's a future where we'll be paying less in tax? Whatever formula you care to devise will mean more outgoings in taxation one way or another.

Yea, and I'm quite willing to pay more taxes, but not on my home. With me it's a point of principle.
If they want to raise/save money why not increase income tax or cut social welfare rates.
Once again we have a populist government owned by the unions and the dogs tail (labour) is wagging the dog, so to speak.

dxhound2005

Mr CJ wrote: »

Let me ask you the same question I asked dvpower as he was not able to answer it

This is a simple yes or no question

Can I ask you if they brought a law in tomorrow that states you must take a lethal pill when you reach 70 as the state cant cope with the health care and need to reduce it drastically, would you gladly take the pill when you reach 70 and object to anyone that diasagrees with it because after all this is the law?

The point I am trying to make is if you or the pro's will ever have some tiny bit of cop-on to question what the government can do, because if not there really is no hope and you guys are the totalitarian governments dream!!

Dont repeat the usual cukoo land crap I have heard it from dv just answer the question yes or no its quite simple

If you will allow I will answer that one. NO. But I don't see the equivalence between a new tax and a suicide pill.

Let me ask you a question. Which other laws do you feel justified in breaking?

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

Because it's a tax on a specified equity. If you don't hold that equity, it's not applicable.

One word, BOLLOX!

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

Yea, and I'm quite willing to pay more taxes, but not on my home. With me it's a point of principle.
If they want to raise/save money why not increase income tax or cut social welfare rates.
Once again we have a populist government owned by the unions and the dogs tail (labour) is wagging the dog, so to speak.

Increasing Income tax further would just result in a greater black economy and flight of revenue. You won't bridge the shortfall with welfare cuts either - there's probably about a billion to be garnered from the household charge when the tiered arrangement comes in.

Don't see where the unions play any role in this - they oppose the charge after all.

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

One word, BOLLOX!

If you say so. But actually, no.

alastair

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If you will allow I will answer that one. NO. But I don't see the equivalence between a new tax and a suicide pill.

Probably because it's a stupid analogy. An obligitary suicide pill law would be contrary to the constitution, and the UN charter of human rights for starters -or put simply; illegal.

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

Probably because it's a stupid analogy. An obligitary suicide pill law would be contrary to the constitution, and the UN charter of human rights for starters -or put simply; illegal.

But sure we don't need an obligitary suicide pill here, enough people are topping themselves because of the recession. Bertie must be delighted.

zumi

There is a National Assembly of the Campaign on March 24th, in the National Stadium on the South Circular Rd, Dublin starting at 1pm. It is open to all, and there will be buses coming from right across the country. This Assembly will bring together the campaign right across the country, and launch the final push before the registration deadline. Make sure to be there!