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

namloc1980

dvpower wrote: »

Its laid out in black and white in the legislation. Have you examined it?

Which particular section of the Act will give people who don't pay a criminal record?

Chucky the tree

Ghandee wrote: »

Francis, unless it's more than fifty percent compliance, after midnight on April 1st, it will be be pretty difficult to haul half the population of households liable for the charge inn front of a court, and organize charges to be set against the properties.

We don't need a mathematician to do the sums here.

Currently, 33% have paid, over a period of three months.
You expect more than half that number to pay in a day?

33 + 17 = 50.

The sums don't stack up mate.

Why will it be difficult to organise against the properties?

Frank Black

Ghandee wrote: »

Francis, unless it's more than fifty percent compliance, after midnight on April 1st, it will be be pretty difficult to haul half the population of households liable for the charge inn front of a court, and organize charges to be set against the properties.

We don't need a mathematician to do the sums here.

Currently, 33% have paid, over a period of three months.
You expect more than half that number to pay in a day?

33 + 17 = 50.

The sums don't stack up mate.

I see you got those goalposts moved.
50% is it now?

Well according to the latest Red C poll this will be easily achieved before the penalties become too severe. A lot of non-payers are just waiting to see if the charge will remain before paying their money, they're willing to spend a bit extra in penalty payments rather than risk the full €100 up front. They'll soon pay up.

Think you're going to have to shift the goalposts again soon.

lugha

xflyer wrote: »

Few if any people will get a criminal record from this and if they do it will literally take years. But that's not the impression given if you listen to government ministers and others.

Perhaps that is down to how people interpret, or misinterpret or possible choose to misinterpret what was actually said. Look at how that solicitors letter was grossly misinterpreted.

And no, there probably won't be too many criminal convictions. Possible one or two high publicity show trials of a high profile objector. And even that I would doubt.

Any in any case, what is so terrible about insisting that the law of the land be upheld? One of the troubling things about this campaign is that there seems to be almost no recognition from the no side that there is anything amiss with deliberately breaking the law. Ming is the only voice I can recall who alluded to the idea that breaking the law is not something to be taken lightly.

There have been some posters on this threat who thought it appropriate to jeer some of those who paid for being “law abiding”. There was even a poster a few pages back who, bizarrely and amusingly in equal measure, declared he had the right to break this law!! He may have the choice, but he certainly had no legal right to do so.

And possibly due to a complete incapacity to detect irony at best, or staggering hypocrisy at worse, there are demands to jail (the moderate ones are prepared to tolerate a trial first!) politicians who broke anti-corruptions laws!

And we prepared to entertain arguments from these fellows that they genuinely felt that the laws that they broke were unjust?

(Robbing €50K from FF? I think I could find it in my heart to forgive that. )

gerryo777

black francis wrote: »

You really belive that's the only reason?

Cuts in pay and numbers in the ps is IMO inevitable, but to suggest that we can solve the budget deficit by this measure alone is either mischievous or naive.

It is one of the major problems we have, allowances for everything, on top of wages that increase year on year. The sooner the IMF/EU sort it out the better.

A knickers and bra's allowance for female garda, what planet do these people live on. Berties children alright.

Frank Black

gerryo777 wrote: »

It is one of the major problems we have, allowances for everything, on top of wages that increase year on year. The sooner the IMF/EU sort it out the better.

A knickers and bra's allowance for female garda, what planet do these people live on. Berties children alright.

Not answering the question Gerry.

Do you believe ps cuts on their own are enough?

Ghandee

black francis wrote: »

I see you got those goalposts moved.
50% is it now?

Well according to the latest Red C poll this will be easily achieved before the penalties become too severe. A lot of non-payers are just waiting to see if the charge will remain before paying their money, they're willing to spend a bit extra in penalty payments rather than risk the full €100 up front. They'll soon pay up.

Think you're going to have to shift the goalposts again soon.

What goalposts have I been moving

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77788030&postcount=8037

Also, I'm using my phone at the minute, but I predicted earlier in the thread that 38% would be registered by the deadline.

I'll dig that link out later on if you do wish me to.

dxhound2005

Something which will happen in a short time for some non payers and eventually inevitably for all is that the house will have to change hands. At that point a certificate will be required by the conveyancing soliciitors showing that the charge is fully paid.

What to do? Obviously call CAHWT and ask them to provide one of their legal team to do the work. Small problem, all solicitors are prohibited by law from aiding and abetting financial crime. While judging from things that happened in the past some might be tempted to get involved with money laundering or insurance fraud I doubt if any would be stupid enough to forge a certificate for the household charge.

So it will be left to your friendly local solicitor who will have to add something to the fee for this extra service. And if the inevitable happens in 3 or 10 years time (but I don't see anyone being able to evade a tax for that long) then CAHWT will be long gone and the people who followed their advice will suffer the consequences.

In case anyone want to accuse me of bullying or scaremongering I am simply outlining the facts.

dvpower

namloc1980 wrote: »

Which particular section of the Act will give people who don't pay a criminal record?

Have you read the act?

Ghandee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Something which will happen in a short time for some non payers and eventually inevitably for all is that the house will have to change hands. At that point a certificate will be required by the conveyancing soliciitors showing that the charge is fully paid.

What to do? Obviously call CAHWT and ask them to provide one of their legal team to do the work. Small problem, all solicitors are prohibited by law from aiding and abetting financial crime. While judging from things that happened in the past some might be tempted to get involved with money laundering or insurance fraud I doubt if any would be stupid enough to forge a certificate for the household charge.

So it will be left to your friendly local solicitor who will have to add something to the fee for this extra service. And if the inevitable happens in 3 or 10 years time (but I don't see anyone being able to evade a tax for that long) then CAHWT will be long gone and the people who followed their advice will suffer the consequences.

In case anyone want to accuse me of bullying or scaremongering I am simply outlining the facts.

Non of this will be applicable when FG/labour cease to be in Government though.
so, roll on next elections.

Oh, and also. 58%? Still your prediction?

dxhound2005

Ghandee wrote: »

Non of this will be applicable when FG/labour cease to be in Government though.
so, roll on next elections.

Oh, and also. 58%?

I'm not shifting from my 58% (928,000 on a base of 1.6 m) prediction. And I also predict that this tax will not be removed from the statute book by any future government in the next 40 years.

donegal_road

black francis wrote: »

I see you got those goalposts moved.
50% is it now?

Well according to the latest Red C poll this will be easily achieved before the penalties become too severe. A lot of non-payers are just waiting to see if the charge will remain before paying their money, they're willing to spend a bit extra in penalty payments rather than risk the full €100 up front. They'll soon pay up.

Think you're going to have to shift the goalposts again soon.

you have made over 60 posts on this thread in the last 2 days.. its Friday evening, life is too short... shouldn't you be out drinking beer and listening to some rock n roll?

Frank Black

Ghandee wrote: »

What goalposts have I been moving

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77788030&postcount=8037

Also, I'm using my phone at the minute, but I predicted earlier in the thread that 38% would be registered by the deadline.

I'll dig that link out later on if you do wish me to.

these goalposts.

Ghandee wrote: »

Ireland may well have a population of +/- 4million.

Not all of the population own a house though.

The approx figures of house owners in the country its 1.6 million, still though, that means that even if we see 160,000 registered by the end of March. That still only equates to 10% compliance.

90% non compliance would mean a massive failure to the bond holders govt.


Don't register.

Don't pay!

you've gone from speculating that 90% is a failure to 50%.

And i think you're going to have to either revise that figure again or admit that the charge is not going to be scrapped.

Ghandee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I'm not shifting from my 58% (928,000 on a base of 1.6 m) prediction. And I also predict that this tax will not be removed from the statute book by any future government in the next 40 years.

According to RTE only an hour ago it was 33% though? (they said two thirds still hadn't )

Frank Black

donegal_road wrote: »

you have made over 60 posts on this thread in the last 2 days.. its Friday evening, life is too short... shouldn't you be out drinking beer and listening to some rock n roll?

My postcount seems to be attracting some comment - anyone would think that the 'no' side want to get rid of me.

I'm afraid Friday nights of drinking beer and rock n roll are long behind me. I might open a nice malbec later though and settle down to some serious posting.

Ghandee

black francis wrote: »

these goalposts.



you've gone from speculating that 90% is a failure to 50%.

And i think you're going to have to either revise that figure again or admit that the charge is not going to be scrapped.

Francis, stop acting the maggot.

Above quote, I've said 90% would be a massive failure.

The one I quoted myself in said anything less than 51% compliance would be a failure.

Your trolling, I'm certain of it.

constitutionus

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Something which will happen in a short time for some non payers and eventually inevitably for all is that the house will have to change hands. At that point a certificate will be required by the conveyancing soliciitors showing that the charge is fully paid.

What to do? Obviously call CAHWT and ask them to provide one of their legal team to do the work. Small problem, all solicitors are prohibited by law from aiding and abetting financial crime. While judging from things that happened in the past some might be tempted to get involved with money laundering or insurance fraud I doubt if any would be stupid enough to forge a certificate for the household charge.

So it will be left to your friendly local solicitor who will have to add something to the fee for this extra service. And if the inevitable happens in 3 or 10 years time (but I don't see anyone being able to evade a tax for that long) then CAHWT will be long gone and the people who followed their advice will suffer the consequences.

In case anyone want to accuse me of bullying or scaremongering I am simply outlining the facts.

i think ill be more conscerned with my death.

seeing as thats what makes most houses change hands in this country .

this flipping-trading up/down nonsence is strictly the preserve of the upper and middle classes.

the vast majority of us will die in the first house we buy.

Frank Black

Ghandee wrote: »

Francis, stop acting the maggot.

Above quote, I've said 90% would be a massive failure.

The one I quoted myself in said anything less than 51% compliance would be a failure.

Your trolling, I'm certain of it.

Isn't that kind of accusation against the Charter you're fond of quoting?

Ghandee

black francis wrote: »

Isn't that kind of accusation against the Charter you're fond of quoting?

Not when it's true. Report my post if the 'accusation' bothers you.

The proof of your crap is in black and white for all to see.

Go drink your malbec lol.

Frank Black

Ghandee wrote: »

Not when it's true. Report my post if the 'accusation' bothers you.

The proof of your crap is in black and white for all to see.

Go drink your malbec lol.

I never bother reporting posts, unless it's something I come across that's offensively racist or some such.

Don't know why you would think seeking clarification on something you've seemingly revised your position on is trolling though.

Ghandee

black francis wrote: »

I never bother reporting posts, unless it's something I come across that's offensively racist or some such.

Don't know why you would think seeking clarification on something you've seemingly revised your position on is trolling though.

Like when you accused me of being a sexist lol?

Micky Dolenz

Mod.

Gentlemen, if you have a problem with a post, please report it. Lets not bicker.

dxhound2005

constitutionus wrote: »

i think ill be more conscerned with my death.

seeing as thats what makes most houses change hands in this country .

this flipping-trading up/down nonsence is strictly the preserve of the upper and middle classes.

the vast majority of us will die in the first house we buy.

That's a fair point, you certainly can't escape death. Someone else can pay your taxes.

Where a person who is the sole owner of a residential property
dies and, at the date of his or her death, a household charge, a late
payment fee, late payment interest or any part of such charge, fee or
interest remains unpaid in relation to that property, no further late
payment fee or late payment interest shall be payable in accordance
with subsection (1) in relation to that property until a grant of representation
to the estate of the deceased person issues to the personal
representative of such deceased person.
(4) The personal representative of a deceased person shall, as
soon as a grant of representation to the estate of the deceased person
issues to him or her, be liable to pay to the relevant local authority
the full amount due and owing by the deceased, at the date of his or
her death, in respect of a household charge and related late payment
fee and late payment interest.
(5) If the said full amount is paid by the said personal representative
within 3 months of the date of issue of a grant of representation
to the estate of the deceased person, he or she shall have no further
liability in respect of the said household charge and related late payment
fee and late payment interest due and owing by the deceased
at the date of his or her death.
(6) If the said full amount is not paid by the said personal representative
within 3 months of the date of issue of a grant of representation
to the estate of the deceased person, he or she shall be
liable to pay to the relevant local authority, in addition to the said
full amount, a late payment fee and late payment interest in respect
of each month or part of a month in which any part of such charge,
fee or interest remains unpaid from the date of such issue.
(7) In this section, a reference to “grant of representation” is,
where 2 or more such grants are issued to the estate of a deceased
person, a reference to the first of such grants to issue.

gerryo777

black francis wrote: »

Not answering the question Gerry.

Do you believe ps cuts on their own are enough?

I said it was one of the major problems.
Of course PS cuts alone are not enough.

Until confidence grows and people start spending, thus creating jobs, we're just going to keep on this downward spiral.
Introducing more taxes using 'the bigger boy made me do it' line is not going to increase confidence in our country, so someone better start thinking outside the box a bit.
And before you ask, I'm not a policy maker and I'm not a politician.
I just run my business, pay my taxes (except this one) and hope things improve.

gurramok

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/minister-in-final-appeal-over-household-charge-545641.html

617,000 paid so far out of 1.65m, its hurtling towards that 50% mark fast.

Also, FG still command support of 35% of the electorate with Labour on 16% despite this charge.

breakingnews.ie wrote:

Despite warnings of a mass revolt, the Paddy Power opinion poll showed 35% of the electorate would vote for Fine Gael if an election were called tomorrow.

Independents would secure first preference votes from 20% of the population, followed by Labour with 16%, Fianna Fail with 15% and Sinn Féin on 14%.

Frank Black

gerryo777 wrote: »

I said it was one of the major problems.
Of course PS cuts alone are not enough.

Until confidence grows and people start spending, thus creating jobs, we're just going to keep on this downward spiral.
Introducing more taxes using 'the bigger boy made me do it' line is not going to increase confidence in our country, so someone better start thinking outside the box a bit.
And before you ask, I'm not a policy maker and I'm not a politician.
I just run my business, pay my taxes (except this one) and hope things improve.

Fully agree, but to think that taxes can remain unchanged is a strange position to adopt.
Any solution will be a combination of tax increases, spending cuts and growth.

Frank Black

gurramok wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/minister-in-final-appeal-over-household-charge-545641.html

617,000 paid so far out of 1.65m, its hurtling towards that 50% mark fast.

Also, FG still command support of 35% of the electorate with Labour on 16% despite this charge.

If the Shinners can't even get 15% in the middle of a recession when an unpopular tax has been introduced, they never will.

The electorate can (thankfully) see through their political opportunism, especially regarding this Charge.

dxhound2005

There's something strange going on with the poll here this last two weeks. For a long time it was roughly 60/40 but it has gradually shifted more to the NO side, now at 64/36 (counting NO and YES only). How this matches the real figures we will see but it surely will seriously under represent the percentage who will pay. I am also struck by how the recent 2012 General Election poll gives Sinn Fein 37% about double what scientific polls say. It makes me think that polls on Boards on political matters are not to be taken as an indicator of the opinions of the general populace.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=21357

JENNYWREN19

no, I'm not paying it. I already pay enough to the banks. I'm not subbing their debts by paying the house hold tax as well. I can't make my monthly mortgage payments at the moment

gurramok

From the link

a spokesman for the minister said he was delighted by the latest surge in registration numbers, rising from 463,238 yesterday afternoon.

Thats about 154,000 signing up in 24hours, perhaps another 154,000 at least before the deadline tomorrow night. If more register, that would be a majority for the Yes side.