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

Biggins

hondasam wrote: »

Mr Hogan pointed out today there is no database of home owners in this country,this is the reason they need us to register in order to collect said data.
The household charge can only go to the home owner not a tenant.

What the hell have I been filling in the consensus forms then for every few years?
Seriously!
I have stated every time on those my housing conditions!
That's a miserable excuse! Dose the fool think we are all stupid and have short memories about what we stated repeatedly on those forms alone?

If he is willing to grab data from ESB bills - surely he can do the same with his own state CSO office data!
The man is a blithering idiot!

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Would it not have been cheaper (than fancy multi colored leaflets) and made much more sense to send out invoices though?

Wouldn't have the resentment against the charge by as many people.

Seriously though, why post leaflets en masse to the population, instead of invoices?

I can't get my head around this one.

I agree. I think the required data exists across various databases. They should have done the data merge they are currently undertaking and used that to send out individual notices. They couldn't have sent out invoices, because a property may have one persons name on the stamp duty or registry record, but a different liable householder.

hondasam

Biggins wrote: »

What the hell have I been filling in the consensus forms then for every few years?
Seriously!
I have stated every time on those my housing conditions!
That's a miserable excuse! Dose the fool think we are all stupid and have short memories about what we stated repeatedly on those forms alone?

It does not state who owns the house apparently. This is why they cannot invoice as they do not know who the owner is.

dvpower

Biggins wrote: »

What the hell have I been filling in the consensus forms then for every few years?
Seriously!
I have stated every time on those my housing conditions!
That's a miserable excuse! Dose the fool think we are all stupid and have short memories about what we stated repeatedly on those forms alone?

If he is willing to grab data from ESB bills - surely he can do the same with his own state CSO office data!
The man is a blithering idiot!

Pretty obvious why they would be reluctant to use census data tbh, quite apart from data protection issues.

Freddie59

dvpower wrote: »

Did you bang your head recently? There was never any suggestion that a bill was going to be sent out.
For someone who has been posting on the topic for the last few weeks, you know remarkably little about it.

Hmmm. Getting a little worked up there DV? I was making the point that, in the normal course of events, you would receive written notice of any charge. However, given how whacked out your predictions are for those who will pay, I can cut you a little slack my friend.:p

blowtorch

Ghandee wrote: »

Would it not have been cheaper (than fancy multi colored leaflets) and made much more sense to send out invoices though?

Wouldn't have the resentment against the charge by as many people.

Seriously though, why post leaflets en masse to the population, instead of invoices?

I can't get my head around this one.

Edit, Sam just answered my question above ^

[they don't know who owns what]

They're on a 'Let's get an up-to-date database' mission on property ownership. The Social Welfare / Revenue databases wouldn't show who-owns-what. Likewise, any information they get from the Utility companies will be flawed, as in the case of ESB for instance, the homeowner is not necessarily the bill payer. This is a total mire, and you can imagine the amount of new staff that's going to be required to try and get the information needed.

So - easier to get everyone to self-declare. (So they thought anyway). Do they really expect me to 'Register' that I am liable for a charge, and that I will be liable for any future charges they like to impose. If I am liable for a charge, then I want to receive a bill for it, with a breakdown of each service (and the cost of it) that I receive. 'You will not receive a bill' - = you will not receive payment

Biggins

hondasam wrote: »

It does not state who owns the house apparently. This is why they cannot invoice as they do not know who the owner is.

I have stated repeatedly on them that I have a mortgage and that the household is in my name.
What was I doing filling that part in? Wasting my time because Hogan can't be arsed to look it up and collate the data?
Isn't that what we are paying the CSO for alone besides sorting out other vital info on the people of our state?

Its must more Hogan pitiful excuses. One after another. One fcuk-up after another!
If he was working for a private company - his arse would be fired a long time ago!

Freddie59

hondasam wrote: »

Mr Hogan pointed out today there is no database of home owners in this country,this is the reason they need us to register in order to collect said data.
The household charge can only go to the home owner not a tenant.

So why is it not called a property tax?

Biggins

dvpower wrote: »

Pretty obvious why they would be reluctant to use census data tbh, quite apart from data protection issues.

O' please!!!

Data protection issues?
Hasn't stopped them from now trying to dip into the ESB data - and thats a semi-state body - never mind an actual fully fledged CSO government department!

Data protection issues? Don't let the fools in FG make us laugh any more!

hondasam

Biggins wrote: »

I have stated repeatedly on them that I have a mortgage and that the household is in my name.
What was I doing filling that part in? Wasting my time because Hogan can't be arsed to look it up and collate the data?
Isn't that what we are paying the CSO for alone besides sorting out other vital info on the people of our state?

Its must more Hogan pitiful excuses. One after another. One fcuk-up after another!
If he was working for a private company - his arse would be fired a long time ago!

I can't remember if they ask who owns the house or not, how many people fill out the census but don't own the house, this is the problem there. It would not be accurate.
For example if I was not at my own house on the night of the census then my house would be missed for this purpose now, I see this is the reason they want us to volunteer out information.
Data protection will probably not allow then collect it any other way. He did mention something about the law.

dvpower

Freddie59 wrote: »

. However, given how whacked out your predictions are for those who will pay, I can cut you a little slack my friend.:p

Thanks. I must have banged my head myself because I can't remember what prediction I made for who would pay.
I do predict that you will pay - eventually.

hondasam

Freddie59 wrote: »

So why is it not called a property tax?

I dunno. Not everyone that lives in a property owns it. Owner is liable.

Freddie59

dvpower wrote: »

Thanks. I must have banged my head myself because I can't remember what prediction I made for who would pay.
I do predict that you will pay - eventually.

Kinda like the Lotto then. If I live long enough.:)

dvpower

Biggins wrote: »

O' please!!!

Data protection issues?
Hasn't stopped them from now trying to dip into the ESB data - and thats a semi-state body - never mind an actual fully fledged CSO government department!

Data protection issues? Don't let the fools in FG make us laugh any more!

Read again Biggins. I said apart from data protection issues.

Freddie59

hondasam wrote: »

I dunno. Not everyone that lives in a property owns it. Owner is liable.

Yeah, but if it is per HOUSEHOLD then each household should pay. Ergo another 160,000 homes - who can easily afford it - would be brought into the net.

Biggins

hondasam wrote: »

...Data protection will probably not allow then collect it any other way. He did mention something about the law.

Aye, the one they can change when they want to?
When it suits them?
So they can try change the law to dip into a semi-state body - but can't be arsed to get their law changes right so that they can use their own collected government additional possible info too?

Seriously... It just goes and exposes yet another cock-up by them if truth be told!

Freddie59

Biggins wrote: »

O' please!!!

Data protection issues?
Hasn't stopped them from now trying to dip into the ESB data - and thats a semi-state body - never mind an actual fully fledged CSO government department!

Data protection issues? Don't let the fools in FG make us laugh any more!

Yep. Weren't they talking about bank accounts last week?

ratracer

587 pages and i finally get in....

In all the scaremongering about catching people by getting their details from the ESB etc, why did they not just do that in the first place? If they can't do it, as some people think here, then they can't do it rertrospectively either.

I'm just not paying.

hondasam

Biggins wrote: »

Aye, the one they can change when they want to?
When it suits them?
So they can try change the law to dip into a semi-state body - but can't be arsed to get their law changes right so that they can use their own collected government additional possible info too?

Seriously... It just goes and exposes yet another cock-up by them if truth be told!

would you prefer they collect out information illegally? If they did this it would cause even more drama.I don't see this as an issue myself
my problem is every person should pay not just the home owner. I still cannot see the money staying in the county it's collected in or used in local amenities.

UglyBolloxFace

Just watched the Prime Time online from yesterday, with Phil the Prick Hogan. What a horrible ****ty interview that was, mainly because it was obviously scripted. You can tell that he was furnished the questions beforehand so that he would be able to answer them the way he wanted.

The ****.

http://www.rte.ie/player/#!v=1142456

Biggins

hondasam wrote: »

would you prefer they collect out information illegally? If they did this it would cause even more drama.I don't see this as an issue myself
my problem is every person should pay not just the home owner. I still cannot see the money staying in the county it's collected in or used in local amenities.

I linked to it already previously in an earlier post, just on this matter.
Not only are they pushing the boundaries of Irish law and data sharing but they are also possibly breaking EU data protection laws to boot.

hondasam

Biggins wrote: »

I linked to it already previously in an earlier post, just on this matter.
Not only are they pushing the boundaries of Irish law and data sharing but they are also possibly breaking EU data protection laws to boot.

I did not see that link, what law are they breaking?

Biggins

hondasam wrote: »

I did not see that link, what law are they breaking?

Gimme a while, I'm eating my dinner - then will have to wade thru all the stuff I've posted so far, to find the previous relevant post!

coup1917

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yes. But still shocking. Would you not agree? We're told it's a household charge, not a property tax. Ergo every household should pay.

BTW, I still have not received any kind of bill or communication to me personally about this proposed charge.

Wtf, one minute your giving out about waste, the next you want a bill sent to every house when you know full well what you need to do.
Btw, its no skin off anyones nose if you are refusing to pay it...one way or the other you will be paying.......
You just haven't realised it yet.....:D:D

MaxyJazz

I'm glad all this years I filled the census with baloney

hondasam

Biggins wrote: »

Gimme a while, I'm eating my dinner - then will have to wade thru all the stuff I've posted so far, to find the previous relevant post!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77660107#post77660107

This the link?

Freddie59

coup1917 wrote: »

Wtf, one minute your giving out about waste, the next you want a bill sent to every house when you know full well what you need to do.
Btw, its no skin off anyones nose if you are refusing to pay it...one way or the other you will be paying.......
You just haven't realised it yet.....:D:D

Smilies ain't gonna make it so, butty!:D Real waste is one thing - a Government's obligations are another.

cocoshovel

Dont be a push over and give into the pressure put on by them :mad:

Freddie59

dvpower wrote: »

I agree - that is a childish analysis.

Yes it is. Because a child could see through this. Apparently "intellectuals' are having problems with it.:)

Frank Black

tayto lover wrote: »

Don't be mad. The Govt are exaggerating the numbers who have paid so that they don't look too bad. A man who works for Louth Co. Council told me that nowhere near the numbers being given by R.T.E. are paying.

:rolleyes: