Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…268269271273274…334

Comments

  • Options
    #8102
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    lugha wrote: »
    It is neither arrogant nor ignorant. It is a statement of the blindingly obvious, even if many on the no side cannot see it.
    No it's not. You're mixing your messages here.
    lugha wrote: »
    If the no campaign prevails and the government back away completely from this mode of charge then they will return to funding councils directly to the tune of 160 million.

    This is 160 million would have been used to reduce our deficit but because it has been diverted to fund councils, it must be replaced by other charges or cuts. These may take the form of greater cuts in welfare our increases in VAT / taxes and these cuts will be bourn by the taxpayer.

    Of course nobody will be told that the €10 rather than €5 taken off child benefit, or whatever, was because the housing charge did not get implemented. Some will be hit for a net amount of more than €100 and some for less than €100 but collectively the taxpayer will stump up exactly €160 million.

    So yes, you, as in you the taxpayer WILL pay! How on earth can you fail to see this?
    But not through a property tax. And that's the current issue.

    If they really want 160m for local funding, then make everyone locally pay for it and not just the house owners. Why should someone be allowed to rent and not pay? Why should someone in a council house with a 2 year old car not pay? etc etc.


  • Options
    #8103
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    lugha wrote: »
    Some will be hit for a net amount of more than €100 and some for less than €100 but collectively the taxpayer will stump up exactly €160 million.

    Sounds like what most were trumpeting the upcoming property tax as all along.

    Hit all service users or hit none.
    But sort out the waste firstly.


  • Options
    #8104
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    prinz wrote: »
    Other forms of income like a pension perhaps? Like I said in the beginning? Trying to be too smart by half. Everyday on boards brings a facepalm moment and you've done it for today. Congrats.

    She's been means tested and it was deemed that their other income was enough that she wasn't entitled to it. I don't see a facepalm moment here prinz, now go cry in the corner or something, you obviously need to get it out of your system.


  • Options
    #8105
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    smash wrote: »
    She's been means tested and it was deemed that their other income was enough that she wasn't entitled to it. I don't see a facepalm moment here prinz,....

    You said something made no sense. In fact it makes perfect sense as you are now realising and acknowledging above yourself. The "other income" is a pension.
    smash wrote: »
    ...now go cry in the corner or something, you obviously need to get it out of your system.

    I'll let you get back to bítching about the Household Charge, lol. Irony.


  • Options
    #8106
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    mikom wrote: »
    Hit all service users or hit none.
    TBH, this is an excuse. There would have been a campaign against this charge no matter how fair they had made, not because there are any sound reasons to oppose this particular one but because people can. And the couldn't do much to oppose other charges or cuts.
    mikom wrote: »
    But sort out the waste firstly.
    And again I say this is irrelevant. You are, and will continue to pay, for the services either directly or indirectly. The case for sorting out waste is equally compelling regardless of how services are funding. Red herring.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8107
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Originally Posted by mikom viewpost.gif
    But sort out the waste firstly.


    lugha wrote: »
    And again I say this is irrelevant.

    This is why things never change.

    Another fan of this band I see.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NqZy9RfceE


  • Options
    #8108
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    mikom wrote: »
    This is why things never change.

    Things never change because prior to the Household Charge nobody gave a toss about wastage at local government level and if it is scrapped, nobody will still really give a toss enough about it to actually do anything.


  • Options
    #8109
    Erper
    Registered Users Posts: 539 ✭✭✭Erper


    in fairnes, i think that ireland is the only country that this rule doesn't apply...
    where ever you turn, everyone is paying for water, electricity, bin-mans etc...
    why not to implement that here...

    i know that someone will throw stones at me, but if rate is 100e yearly, i dont get the point why would anyone avoid it...
    you spend 100 on stupid things, so this could be taken as one of them...


  • Options
    #8110
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    mikom wrote: »
    This is why things never change.

    Another fan of this band I see.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NqZy9RfceE
    I would dearly love to know why you are gravely concerned about how €160 M of taxpayers might be wasted but are seemingly entirely indifferent that €170 M might be wasted, but I expect you don’t really have a convincing answer.

    Never mind, I’ll listen to a few bars of the quo instead! :)


  • Options
    #8111
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    prinz wrote: »
    Things never change because prior to the Household Charge nobody gave a toss about wastage at local government level and if it is scrapped, nobody will still really give a toss enough about it to actually do anything.

    The ex mayor of Roscommon was very vocal on this issue before the bubble burst.
    People who give a toss do exist.

    If it is scrapped it may light a fire under some more.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8112
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    lugha wrote: »
    I would dearly love to know why you are gravely concerned about how €160 M of taxpayers might be wasted but are seemingly entirely indifferent that €170 M might be wasted, but I expect you don’t really have a convincing answer.

    Never mind, I’ll listen to a few bars of the quo instead! :)

    Whats €160 M by three?
    Erper wrote: »
    i know that someone will throw stones at me, but if rate is 100e yearly, i dont get the point why would anyone avoid it...
    you spend 100 on stupid things, so this could be taken as one of them...

    Can I PM you in three years time.


  • Options
    #8113
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    prinz wrote: »
    You said something made no sense. In fact it makes perfect sense as you are now realising and acknowledging above yourself. The "other income" is a pension.
    you said it like they're struggling. They obviously aren't, as the means testing has shown.
    Erper wrote: »
    i know that someone will throw stones at me, but if rate is 100e yearly, i dont get the point why would anyone avoid it...
    wrong. 100 is the introductory charge


  • Options
    #8114
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    DerryRed wrote: »
    Why not? Sure we could all then go out and kick ball with our kids on the green and we'd all be much more healthier. Less money then would need to be spent on healthcare services ;)

    Everyone's a winner.

    Great idea, after the game of football, you could explain to your kids, why after running up a huge budget deficit, the current generation couldn't be arsed addressing it, and instead actually worsened it by hiring hundreds of people to cut grass.

    Course by the time your kids grow up there won't be any health or education system or indeed real economy for them to work in - but hey, your grass will have been cut and the household charge defeated - that's what's important.


  • Options
    #8115
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    smash wrote: »
    donalg1 wrote: »
    And where does it say they own a percentage of your property? It is no different than a mortgage with a bank, when buying an affordable house you take out a mortgage either with a bank or with the LA itself.
    The clawback is there for a reason. The reason being that they've paid a percentage towards the property, which technically they own for 20 years.
    donalg1 wrote: »
    If you take out a mortgage with a bank to buy a house not under the Affordable Housing Scheme you dont think they own a percentage of your property do you?
    You must think everyone bar you is very stupid. :rolleyes: The truth is, by throwing out immature questions like that it's making you look like a complete child.

    My god really? The clawback is there because you got the house way below the market value at the time and the LA adds the clawback into the contract so that if you sell the property after a year you don't make a huge profit on it at their expense. It's that simple.

    As for ur comment about me thinkIng everyone is stupid well that's a load of crap what I said was a reasonable question to your responses. I outlined how the affordable housing scheme works and asked you a question afterwards.

    Maybe you should do some research on affordable housing seeing as you own one and your understanding of clawback is way off


  • Options
    #8116
    Erper
    Registered Users Posts: 539 ✭✭✭Erper


    smash wrote: »
    wrong. 100 is the introductory charge

    i just gave an example


  • Options
    #8117
    xflyer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    I notice the threat is that anyone who fails to pay will receive an initial reminder followed by a threat of legal action.

    That's a hollow threat, the main reason for this tax is to get people to register their details onto one database. It's not about the money raised. This is a fishing expedition. The threats of legal action are simply to scare people into handing over their details to the government. Because quite simply they have no idea who owns what and where. They cannot send you a letter unless they know where you are. Sure they can scour the lists and figure it out but that will probably cost more than any tax raised. Not to mention the embarrassment of sending threats to dead people, tenants, children etc.

    People need to keep their nerve and not register. But even if many do the momentum is such that tens of thousands won't register and it will rapidly turn into a ball of s***e for Kenny and his goons.

    In the end, yes of course we'll end up paying the tax in one form or another. After all we have to keep our leaders in Berlin happy. But this is the first opportunity for the Irish people to register their anger at the way this is handled in a manner that leaves the government in no doubt the are making a big mistake in their handling of this situation.

    Don't pay!


  • Options
    #8118
    xflyer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    Erper wrote: »
    i just gave an example
    As I said above this isn't about the €100. It's about collecting info so they have a list of people liable for water charges and property taxes and anything else they can think of. For many people these charges will be well into four figures whether they be rich or not.


  • Options
    #8119
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    DerryRed wrote: »
    donalg1 wrote: »
    So they can spend more money on public sector wages, forget about the moratorium on recruitment just so you can get your grass cut

    Why not? Sure we could all then go out and kick ball with our kids on the green and we'd all be much more healthier. Less money then would need to be spent on healthcare services ;)

    Everyone's a winner.

    Good argument well done resort to childish remarks when you know you are wrong and have no actual argument any more. It's far easier than admitting you are wrong anyway


  • Options
    #8120
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    xflyer wrote: »
    Erper wrote: »
    i just gave an example
    As I said above this isn't about the €100. It's about collecting info so they have a list of people liable for water charges and property taxes and anything else they can think of. For many people these charges will be well into four figures whether they be rich or not.

    Sure if they want to know who is using their water they just have to cut it off and then turn it on again when people pay for it


  • Options
    #8121
    Erper
    Registered Users Posts: 539 ✭✭✭Erper


    and to pay for reconnection would be few 1xxxxxx


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8122
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Although quite what the big deal about paying for water is is beyond me.


  • Options
    #8123
    Erper
    Registered Users Posts: 539 ✭✭✭Erper


    what i think, and fear that might happened, is that if you dont pay for those charges they will on force take it from your salary....


  • Options
    #8124
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    donalg1 wrote: »
    My god really? The clawback is there because you got the house way below the market value at the time and the LA adds the clawback into the contract so that if you sell the property after a year you don't make a huge profit on it at their expense. It's that simple.
    20 years Donal, read again.
    donalg1 wrote: »
    As for ur comment about me thinkIng everyone is stupid well that's a load of crap what I said was a reasonable question to your responses. I outlined how the affordable housing scheme works and asked you a question afterwards.
    No, it was your attempt at being condescending.
    donalg1 wrote: »
    Maybe you should do some research on affordable housing seeing as you own one and your understanding of clawback is way off
    That's one hell of an assumption. And it's a very wrong one! You're making yourself look silly now considering you just told me to do my research.


  • Options
    #8125
    xflyer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    Paying for water isn't a big deal, but this isn't about water or even property taxes. This is about slapping back the government for acting like tyrants and lacking the backbone to stand up and tell our masters that we cannot afford to pay back the money they say we, as in you, me, my kids, neighbours and everybody else supposedly owes the banks and a bunch of gamblers.

    This tax is not going to be used for improved public services, anyone who thinks that is incredibily naive.


  • Options
    #8126
    DerryRed
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭DerryRed


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Good argument well done resort to childish remarks when you know you are wrong and have no actual argument any more. It's far easier than admitting you are wrong anyway

    Yeah just like your comment about getting my garden done :rolleyes:

    Getting serious though. For the record I have no problem paying a household tax if it is introduced in a fair manner, which it is currently not.

    Why should a person with a 10 bedroom mansion be paying the same amount as someone with a 1 bedroom apartment?

    Why should someone in a rural area pay the same as someone in an urban area who benefits from many more local services?

    Why should someone renting from a council house not pay, when they are also benefiting from local services?


  • Options
    #8127
    Erper
    Registered Users Posts: 539 ✭✭✭Erper


    DerryRed wrote: »
    Yeah just like your comment about getting my garden done :rolleyes:

    Getting serious though. For the record I have no problem paying a household tax if it is introduced in a fair manner, which it is currently not.

    Why should a person with a 10 bedroom mansion be paying the same amount as someone with a 1 bedroom apartment?

    Why should someone in a rural area pay the same as someone in an urban area who benefits from many more local services?

    Why should someone renting from a council house not pay, when they are also benefiting from local services?

    we'll never know ;)


  • Options
    #8128
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    smash wrote: »
    donalg1 wrote: »
    My god really? The clawback is there because you got the house way below the market value at the time and the LA adds the clawback into the contract so that if you sell the property after a year you don't make a huge profit on it at their expense. It's that simple.
    20 years Donal, read again.
    donalg1 wrote: »
    As for ur comment about me thinkIng everyone is stupid well that's a load of crap what I said was a reasonable question to your responses. I outlined how the affordable housing scheme works and asked you a question afterwards.
    No, it was your attempt at being condescending.
    donalg1 wrote: »
    Maybe you should do some research on affordable housing seeing as you own one and your understanding of clawback is way off
    That's one hell of an assumption. And it's a very wrong one!

    Clawback applies to your property if you sell it within 20 years and I have explained what clawback is. If you buy an affordable house you take out a mortgage and buy 100% of the house from the LA. they don't own it then you do and you pay your mortgage same as any other mortgage on any other house.

    I don't see how you can say I am condescending when I am only telling you the truth and the facts of affordable housing and clawback


  • Options
    #8129
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    CajunOnTour wrote: »
    Are we talking about Rocketman Noonan here? What are the "personal circumstances" ??

    Sorry no, the one I was refering to was Big Phil Hogan, "He" needs to keep all the money he can lay his hands on apparently.


  • Options
    #8130
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Clawback applies to your property if you sell it within 20 years and I have explained what clawback is. If you buy an affordable house you take out a mortgage and buy 100% of the house from the LA. they don't own it then you do and you pay your mortgage same as any other mortgage on any other house.

    I don't see how you can say I am condescending when I am only telling you the truth and the facts of affordable housing and clawback
    I know what clawback is, and if you'd read my original post correctly you'd have seen I said it in jest based on the fact that the government partially paid for the property!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8131
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    xflyer wrote: »
    Paying for water isn't a big deal, but this isn't about water or even property taxes. This is about slapping back the government for acting like tyrants and lacking the backbone to stand up and tell our masters that we cannot afford to pay back the money they say we, as in you, me, my kids, neighbours and everybody else supposedly owes the banks and a bunch of gamblers.

    This tax is not going to be used for improved public services, anyone who thinks that is incredibily naive.


    No one said it's goin to pay for improved public service, but it is going to pay for the basic service we currently receive.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement