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

the groutch

someone on another thread bought up the point that someone who "bought" an apartment is technically on a very very long term lease, and that the management company owns the property.
I'm wondering could that open up a whole nother can of worms?

mconigol

the groutch wrote: »

someone on another thread bought up the point that someone who "bought" an apartment is technically on a very very long term lease, and that the management company owns the property.
I'm wondering could that open up a whole nother can of worms?

Possibly for a property tax. A household charge isn't on the property though is it?

crusher000

If that is true my mortage is with Ulster bank and I won't own the house for antoher 15 years. grasping at straws I think

alastair

phil1nj wrote: »

I didn't just "say" that the tax was unjust, I asked specific questions (which you have continuosy ignored over the course of this thread btw) that re-enforce how unjust this particular charge/tax is.

One last time just so you get the point:

* If this charge is actually going toward local services, why isn't everyone being asked to pay it - tenants, those on mortgage interest relief, those in unfinished estates, those in council houses etc? Why the exemptions from paying for services that everyone in a locality has access to (they may not use them, but they are there). Why the targeting of home owners only?
* The flat rate of 100Euro for everybody regardless of income,ability to pay, property value or location? How is that fair or just?

You are the one who has stated time and time again that this charge/tax is entirely justified but you haven't managed to say why when both of the questoiosn above remain unanswered. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again in different forms - it's a property tax, it's the law, you have to pay it etc.

Nice, especially from someone who, in the past, chose not to pay a tax when it didn't suit them

1.(again) tenants etc. will contribute as always to local authority funding through the gamut of other taxes to be paid - just as we all continue to contribute to the maintenance of the roads regardless of whether we pay motor tax or not. No car, no motor tax. No home ownership, no property tax.

2. The flat rate €100 is wrong in principle, but it's also lower than the tiered rates for the vast majority, and only temporary, so the principle of the thing is outweighed by the practicalities. It's less than a TV licence, which we accept as a flat tax.

AboutTwoFiddy

crusher000 wrote: »

If that is true my mortage is with Ulster bank and I won't own the house for antoher 15 years. grasping at straws I think

No you own it, you just haven't finished paying for a loan that's secured on the property. Two totally different things.

I'm glad common sense has prevailed with this household charge. Back to the drawing board FG/Labour.

alastair

crusher000 wrote: »

If that is true my mortage is with Ulster bank and I won't own the house for antoher 15 years. grasping at straws I think

You own the house now. Ulster bank has a lien on the house to secure the mortgage. They don't own the house.

phil1nj

alastair wrote: »

1.(again) tenants etc. will contribute as always to local authority funding through the gamut of other taxes to be paid - just as we all continue to contribute to the maintenance of the roads regardless of whether we pay motor tax or not. No car, no motor tax. No home ownership, no property tax..

But homeowners also pay for local authority charges through the gamut of other taxes as well. So this is now taxation on the double based on your reasoning? Also, the motor tax analogy is incorrect. Motor tax is not soley for the roads. This is financed from the exchequer via the general tax intake which everybody pays. Motor tax is just that, a tax on using a car. It used to be ring-fenced for just the roads within a local authority area (and in my opinion should have stayed that way) but it was changed to just another tax revenue stream to fund day to day spending. Exactly the way I predict property tax will be used for other things other than just local authority spending.

alastair wrote: »

2. The flat rate €100 is wrong in principle, but it's also lower than the tiered rates for the vast majority, and only temporary, so the principle of the thing is outweighed by the practicalities. It's less than a TV licence, which we accept as a flat tax.

Ok, so it's just a little bit unfair (despite you saying earlier that it was entirely fair....or did I misread your post?). And once again you are incorrect with your analogy. The TV licence is a charge to fund the state broadcaster. It is not a tax. And even if it were a tax, there are exemptions for the TV licence (pensioners etc) but on the whole EVERYBODY that owns/uses/rents a TV is expected to pay this charge including those in rented buildings (I don't think a landlord is expected to pay this for his tenants). So once again the element of fairness goes out the window. Everybody is expected to pay this flat rate charge regardless of there circumstances but not everybody is expected to pay the flat rate charge to fund local services.......as I said unfair.

Cantona's Collars

Borrowed from YLYL. http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/542575_3598289555117_1209863871_3607027_184329310_n.jpg

My father is contemplating paying this charge as he fears the government will eventually end up taking it from his pension (as if they don't take enough already). It's this type of scaremongering and bullying that I really hate.He knows full well the money is going to pay off bondholders but the fear of having more money siphoned off his pension is his reason for wanting to pay up now despite my refusal to entertain the notion of paying it.

I hope the pro-tax brigade are proud of the way the pay-up campaign is going: Spreading fear & lies among the population. "If you don't pay,the council can't fix your roads,the libraries will close,no more local parks".
May as well have the Sheriff Of Nottingham riding around at this stage.

On the note of those calling round,will council workers be doing this during normal work hours thus neglecting their normal duties or will they get a nice wedge of overtime by doing it in the evenings and weekends?:rolleyes:

lugha

Biggins wrote: »

I will reply by sections of it, if thats ok.

I undoubtedly gave the impression that my post was making multiple points; it wasn’t. There was one single point which no doubt I over-elaborately made.

That is, that it is disingenuous to claim a house buyer in 2006 has already paid a local authority charge via stamp duty because that money (2.9 billion in 2006, enough to pay this charge nearly 20 times over!) was returned in kind to the people.

If it has all been flittered away by councils spending extravagantly there may be an argument not to pay it again. But it wasn’t. This was the money that substantially fuelled the good times that the majority of us benefited from.

In any case this two times tax argument has no substance. If this charge is abandoned and we return to a system of exchequer funding for local services then how is this not also double taxation? I.e. Some will continue to pay off stamp duty + interest, but also a portion of their income tax will make up the €160 M that government will have to find for local services.

---

And of course, as the no side seem not to appreciate, despite it being repeatedly pointed out, there is no not paying this tax. It may not be extracted from the people as a household charge but extracted it will be (unless you think our creditors will be good sports and simply reduce our obligations by €160 M a year, seeing as how we fought such a good fight!). And some who insist they cannot afford it WILL pay a lot more than €100 a year when the alternative revenue raising measure is introduced, again a point that is lost on them.

There is a rather naïve thinking process from some on the no side that seem to think that the government are akin to middle age royalty, taking from those who cannot afford it , just to amass a personal fortune for themselves. We have a budget deficit that simply has to be closed and one of the ways to do that is to devise new revenue streams.

----

For me, there is a campaign against this tax not because of its unfairness (I think you could make a decent argument that much of what was done since austerity began was unfair) but because it is possible to mount an effective campaign against it. I think similar campaigns would have been taken against other measures taken (child benefit cuts etc.) had an effective campaign been possible. This one is really only different because it requires an element of cooperation from the people.

Biggins wrote: »

The fact is that the Household Tax is seen as an unfair tax - for a number of reasons which have been discussed.
Just because as some might say "Its the law" - that don't make it right.

Ah, now here we step on a whole mess of worms. You argue that people are justified in breaking the law, if they sincerely believe that the law is wrong. There are of course some extreme circumstances where it can be tolerated if people human rights are being abused, but a mundane matter like how taxes should be levied and collected?

Well, lets see who else gets absolution under this a la carte thinking, where your own personal view may be taken into account when deciding what laws you should obey!

I heard Seanie Fitz (back when he was a hero!) in an interview once adamantly insist that financial regulations were too oppressive. And I think that he genuinely believed that. Was he justified in ignoring that law?

I happen to think that both Bertie Ahern and Pee Flynn genuinely believe that they did nothing wrong. Absolution for the lads is it?

I can even recall a couple of thugs been interviewed in primetime a few years ago who felt their mugging of people was justified because the state wasn’t sufficiently providing for them! And they too had convinced themselves of the merits of their own arguments.

And on it goes. Does everyone get a free pass provided that they can convince you that they in their conscience did not agree with the law that they broke?

Or we could behave like democrats. Elect governments every few years and give them legislative authority. If we are unhappy with their conduct (and latest opinion polls suggest the very opposite for FG in particular) then we can dismiss them at the next election. Or possibly mount a legal campaign to try and dissuade the government from a particular course of action.

But to nonchalantly opt for the route of breaking the law, in the week the Mahon report comes out, rather dampens any expectation that we have turned the corner with Mahon.

Resi12

The thing that gets me (makes me laugh) is the whole shtick about the money going to local services, parks etc. The only place this is going to is the banks/IMF.

It's so stupid.

seamus

zerks wrote: »

I hope the pro-tax brigade are proud of the way the pay-up campaign is going:

I love the way the anti-tax crowd have decided that if "You're not with us, you're agin' us".

I wish Varadkar would stop going on the airwaves talking about the property tax. It's completely and utterly outside his ministerial remit and he's probably the best unwitting anti-tax campaigner out there.

I have so far failed to see any lies however being spread by the non-anti-tax side. Scaremongering, sure. They give the impression that if you don't pay by the 31st, the next piece of mail will be a summons.

However, the anti-tax brigade have managed to create a lot of great lies in this;
- "Nobody is paying it" (rates are apparently at nearly 25% today)
- "They must send you a bill to make it legal"
- "You only have to pay if you register"
- "It's all to pay off the banks/IMF"
- "Ministers homes are exempt"
- "If you don't pay, the Government will be forced to drop it" (If the Government are forced to drop it, they will get the money out of you some other way. So you will pay this €100 eventually)
- "If you don't know about it, you don't have to pay"
- "It's undemocratic"

Anything else?

Cantona's Collars

seamus wrote: »

However, the anti-tax brigade have managed to create a lot of great lies in this;
- "Nobody is paying it" (rates are apparently at nearly 25% today)


Anything else?

That figure is just those who registered,if you're exempt you need to register to qualify for the exemption-how many of that 25% are actually exempt???
No figures for those who paid.

sunflower27

I haven't received anything in the post about this at all. Not sure why that is. I am in an apartment complex... maybe my management fees are taking care of it

sunflower27

seamus wrote: »

I love the way the anti-tax crowd have decided that if "You're not with us, you're agin' us".

I wish Varadkar would stop going on the airwaves talking about the property tax. It's completely and utterly outside his ministerial remit and he's probably the best unwitting anti-tax campaigner out there.

I have so far failed to see any lies however being spread by the non-anti-tax side. Scaremongering, sure. They give the impression that if you don't pay by the 31st, the next piece of mail will be a summons.

However, the anti-tax brigade have managed to create a lot of great lies in this;
- "Nobody is paying it" (rates are apparently at nearly 25% today)
- "They must send you a bill to make it legal"
- "You only have to pay if you register"
- "It's all to pay off the banks/IMF"
- "Ministers homes are exempt"
- "If you don't pay, the Government will be forced to drop it" (If the Government are forced to drop it, they will get the money out of you some other way. So you will pay this €100 eventually)
- "If you don't know about it, you don't have to pay"
- "It's undemocratic"

Anything else?

- "You're a mug"

seamus

zerks wrote: »

That figure is just those who registered,if you're exempt you need to register to qualify for the exemption-how many of that 25% are actually exempt???
No figures for those who paid.

Actually I was looking at a misquoted figure from breakingnews.ie who were claiming that 1.2 million eligble households had yet to pay, which would mean that 25% of those eligible have paid. Which is not correct. They were quoting the Indo, who stated 1.3m, which is taken from last Friday's figures.

We know that 330,000 have registered. Chances are that most of those are not exempt people. Why? Well two reasons:

- There's no legal reason why they should. You cannot be fine or prosecuted for failing to register. So why would you register if you don't have anything to do?
- Those occupying exempt properties would also occupy those socio-economic groups with the lowest education and least access to the internet and other media.

Even at a basic statistical level, 11% of properties are exempt. So it would stand to reason that probably 11% of those registered also exempt. Which means that as of last Friday, around 300,000 people had paid, or around 18.75%.
But in reality, for the reasons I outline above, I would be surprised if more than 1% of those registered are exempt propeties.

Cantona's Collars

seamus wrote: »

Actually I was looking at a misquoted figure from breakingnews.ie who were claiming that 1.2 million eligble households had yet to pay, which would mean that 25% of those eligible have paid. Which is not correct. They were quoting the Indo, who stated 1.3m, which is taken from last Friday's figures.

We know that 330,000 have registered. Chances are that most of those are not exempt people. Why? Well two reasons:

- There's no legal reason why they should. You cannot be fine or prosecuted for failing to register. So why would you register if you don't have anything to do?
- Those occupying exempt properties would also occupy those socio-economic groups with the lowest education and least access to the internet and other media.

Even at a basic statistical level, 11% of properties are exempt. So it would stand to reason that probably 11% of those registered also exempt. Which means that as of last Friday, around 300,000 people had paid, or around 18.75%.
But in reality, for the reasons I outline above, I would be surprised if more than 1% of those registered are exempt propeties.

How do they manage to spend so much time on Facebook if they have no internet or aren't educated enough to use a computer? Lots of tarring with a big brush there Seamus. I know a lot of people who live in areas you describe that are exempt and would put the rest of the population to shame when it comes to their entitlements and knowing how to avoid paying fees & charges so saying they aren't educated enough is pretty insulting.

Frank Black

seamus wrote: »

I love the way the anti-tax crowd have decided that if "You're not with us, you're agin' us".

They have no choice, because they know that unless a huge majority of the population refuse to sign up (and it's probably already passed critcial mass by this stage), the charge is here to stay and will be levelled against their property whether they pay or not.

I'd imagine that most of them are already feeling that the battle has been lost, thus the posts seem to becoming increasingly hysterical.

seamus

zerks wrote: »

How do they manage to spend so much time on Facebook if they have no internet or aren't educated enough to use a computer? Lots of tarring with a big brush there Seamus. I know a lot of people who live in areas you describe that are exempt and would put the rest of the population to shame when it comes to their entitlements and knowing how to avoid paying fees & charges so saying they aren't educated enough is pretty insulting.

Who mentioned facebook?
Yes that is a fairly big tarring brush, but I'm talking in general. If someone takes offence about a general statement, then that's their problem.

I'm not saying they're not educated enough to use a computer, but those with less education are less likely to have a computer and/or use the internet.

I'm also including the likes of people 50+ in there who would have little use for the internet - the same kind of people who are trying to pay the charge in the post office.

They have no requirement to register, so they're hardly going to bother going online to do it.

Am Chile

seamus wrote: »

Actually I was looking at a misquoted figure from breakingnews.ie who were claiming that 1.2 million eligble households had yet to pay, which would mean that 25% of those eligible have paid. Which is not correct. They were quoting the Indo, who stated 1.3m, which is taken from last Friday's figures.

We know that 330,000 have registered. Chances are that most of those are not exempt people. Why? Well two reasons:

- There's no legal reason why they should. You cannot be fine or prosecuted for failing to register. So why would you register if you don't have anything to do?
- Those occupying exempt properties would also occupy those socio-economic groups with the lowest education and least access to the internet and other media.

Even at a basic statistical level, 11% of properties are exempt. So it would stand to reason that probably 11% of those registered also exempt. Which means that as of last Friday, around 300,000 people had paid, or around 18.75%.
But in reality, for the reasons I outline above, I would be surprised if more than 1% of those registered are exempt propeties.

The actuall figures required to register are

A total of 1.8 million households are liable to register for the charge

http://www.nationalist.ie/news/local/healy_extends_scope_of_household_charge_protest_campaign_against_household_charge_1_3483950

330,000 have registered- that leaves more then 1.4 million unregistered and the real numbers registered is at 20%

seamus

Am Chile wrote: »

The actuall figures required to register are

"Required to register" is the misnomer here. Nobody is "required" to register - this is actually one of the few lies spouted by the government on the issue.

The only requirement is to pay the charge, of which about 1.6m of the 1.8 are liable.

The 200,000 exempt properties will likely never be voluntarily registered and will be manually compiled when they're chasing up those who haven't paid.

Biggins

I post this just for clarity:

Which Properties Will Be Exempt from the Household Charge ?

Mobile Homes will be exempt.

The following buildings are not defined as residential property and will not be liable for the charge : Buildings that are….

• Part of the trading stock of a business and from which no income has been derived since the building’s construction, and has never been used as a dwelling.

OR vested in certain public authorities ( includes property under the Shared Ownership Scheme where the local authority still retains an ownership stake) ;

OR owned by voluntary housing bodies;

OR wholly used as dwellings and liable for commercial rates

An owner of a residential property is exempt from the household charge if , on the liability date, the residential property is:

• Comprised in a discretionary trust;

OR Owned by an approved charity;

OR Vacated by the owner by reason of long term mental or physical infirmity.


Which People Will be Given a Waiver

The following households will have the charge waived :

1. Those in receipt of mortgage interest supplement – (about 18,000 households)

2. Those in certain unfinished housing estates (Estimated to be less than 1300 estates)
List of Unfinished Estates Available Here

No other Waivers Apply – people on welfare and pensions are expected to pay.

http://www.moneyguideireland.com/more-household-charge-exemptions-proposed.html

Cantona's Collars

seamus wrote: »

Who mentioned facebook?
Yes that is a fairly big tarring brush, but I'm talking in general. If someone takes offence about a general statement, then that's their problem.

I'm not saying they're not educated enough to use a computer, but those with less education are less likely to have a computer and/or use the internet.

I'm also including the likes of people 50+ in there who would have little use for the internet - the same kind of people who are trying to pay the charge in the post office.

They have no requirement to register, so they're hardly going to bother going online to do it.

The Facebook comment was just an observation.

From the Household Charge website:

Persons claiming entitlement to a waiver are required to register their property.

Paparazzo

Resi12 wrote: »

The thing that gets me (makes me laugh) is the whole shtick about the money going to local services, parks etc. The only place this is going to is the banks/IMF.

It's so stupid.

Yep, agree with this. Do they really need 100 euro from each house to fund public parks? Strange that councils were able to do it before.

seamus

zerks wrote: »

The Facebook comment was just an observation.

From the Household Charge website:

Ah OK, I was looking specifically at exempted properties. The legislation would appear to back this up.

The confusion may be down to the language used by the media. Are 200,000 properties actually exempt, or are 200,000 properties eligible to have the fee waivered?

Going by Biggins's figures, very few people are actually entitled to a waiver which would seem to me to indicate that the vast majority of those 330,000 registered have paid the charge.

Frank Black

Paparazzo wrote: »

Yep, agree with this. Do they really need 100 euro from each house to fund public parks? Strange that councils were able to do it before.

Why is it strange?

We had a budget surplus since 1997, now we're billions of euro in the red and borrowing to fund day to day spending.

stevenmu

Paparazzo wrote: »

Yep, agree with this. Do they really need 100 euro from each house to fund public parks? Strange that councils were able to do it before.

It's not strange at all. The government used to make a ton of money from stamp duty on house and property sales, rezoning levies and lots of other stuff associated with the property boom. This money funded a lot of things, including being distributed to the councils to pay for all the services they provide.

When the property market collapsed all of that income disappeared. People aren't willing to give up the services, so the money to pay for them has to come from somewhere.

ntlbell

I'm sure someone has asked but can't find the post.

Why is this not being stopped at source and instead they waste more money on employing a collection agency.

smash

I'd love a breakdown of the "services" that the councils provide and how they're currently funded. Because as far as I'm aware, they're currently funded through our taxes. So why exactly do they need the extra money?

seamus

smash wrote: »

So why exactly do they need the extra money?

You mightn't have noticed, in fact you probably haven't, the media haven't been reporting on it much. But shocking as it may be, our economy is in recession and our public services bill is running a few billion in the red since the amount of tax taken in has tanked after the housing market collapsed and 450,000 people ended up on social welfare.

I know, right? That's the kind of thing you'd think the media would have told us about.

smash

seamus wrote: »

You mightn't have noticed, in fact you probably haven't, the media haven't been reporting on it much. But shocking as it may be, our economy is in recession and our public services bill is running a few billion in the red since the amount of tax taken in has tanked after the housing market collapsed and 450,000 people ended up on social welfare.

I know, right? That's the kind of thing you'd think the media would have told us about.

Well hello there captain obvious. Perhaps you hadn't noticed but I asked what services they're actually providing that we're not already paying for and why they need extra money. I'm not talking about the public service bill. Most services in my area are with private companies that I pay for from my post tax income.