Household Charge - Next Steps

Yawlboy

So the Household Charge is now law and 50% or so of households have not paid it, including a number of TD's. What should the govt do next?

How about going after the TD's who have refused to pay and prosecuting them to the full extent of the law? Would that make people take it seriously and pay up?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

goat2

they will have no room in their jails to keep all of us, so is it going to be 99 lashes, eviction, criminal records being put on honest people, is the next vote on referendum going to be yes or no, and looking at the quarter of us paying it looks like a defeat as people will vote in anger

RichardAnd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Didn't you say in another thread that you won't pay the charge until the CPA is scrapped?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichardAnd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Misunderstanding then, apologies. I would agree that most will, eventually, pay the charge but I'm curious, do you think that such high levels of non-payment will have any effect on the future of property tax?

beeftotheheels

RichardAnd wrote: »

Misunderstanding then, apologies. I would agree that most will, eventually, pay the charge but I'm curious, do you think that such high levels of non-payment will have any effect on the future of property tax?

Nah, because as demonstrated so perfectly by PB the opposition are opposing it for far too many reasons.

There's the anger non-payer.
The issue non-payer (CPA??? I'm laughing, really not paying until the CPA is abolished???)
The "flat rate tax is unfair" non-payer
The rural non-payer - I don't get any services
The why should I pay if no body else is non-payer
The my home is my castle non-payer

But it is only the last lot who oppose a property tax on principle. The others don't, or at least don't oppose it any more than they'd oppose a hike in their income tax to compensate.

So if the gov introduced an equitable tax and explained it properly to people, including the alternative which might involve cutting €1 per week from welfare and increasing the USC by say 0.5% I think people will accept a property tax.

They just need to feel properly informed, including about how we created this completely unsustainable tax base for ourselves which we now need to alter.

squonk

I posed this question on another thread yesterday. I think from the government's point of view, they have to do nothing. The amount is payable on your property. Whether you pay it now with interest or it's paid when you pass on your home down the line, they'll get their pound of flesh. The immediate problem is the shortfall from non-payment. I'm assuming they're going to just take whatever funds they have and distribute them to local authorities as appropriate?

lugha

Yawlboy wrote: »

How about going after the TD's who have refused to pay and prosecuting them to the full extent of the law?

I think if we did get to a point where an overwhelming majority did pay then the government might be very well advised to simply leave these TDs be.

It would rather undermine some in SF and the ULA who call for extra taxes on the "super rich" when they themselves are part of a minority who refuse to pay their full taxes (as they describe the HHC) to the state.

Am Chile

squonk wrote: »

I posed this question on another thread yesterday. I think from the government's point of view, they have to do nothing. The amount is payable on your property. Whether you pay it now with interest or it's paid when you pass on your home down the line, they'll get their pound of flesh. The immediate problem is the shortfall from non-payment. I'm assuming they're going to just take whatever funds they have and distribute them to local authorities as appropriate?

Two things about this threat we will register a charge against the a property, it requires a court order, even if a court order is reached, the charge can only apply for 12 years its not forever.

Am Chile

Yawlboy wrote: »

So the Household Charge is now law and 50% or so of households have not paid it, including a number of TD's. What should the govt do next?

How about going after the TD's who have refused to pay and prosecuting them to the full extent of the law? Would that make people take it seriously and pay up?

Despite all the threats and fearmongering from the goverment more then 50% haven,t paid, how about listening to the will of the people abolish this tax and go back to the drawing board.

KyussBishop

Everyone will pay it eventually, but that (from my point of view) isn't even the point; the non-payment now is primarily useful as a general public protest, i.e expression of general dissatisfaction with government and with the bad implementation of this tax.

They'll get their 'pound of flesh' as squonk put it, it'll just have a notable cost in popularity and support.

meglome

Am Chile wrote: »

Despite all the threats and fearmongering from the goverment more then 50% haven,t paid, how about listening to the will of the people abolish this tax and go back to the drawing board.

Okay when a property tax is seen as sustainable tax on wealth all over the world how is it somehow unfair here?

RichardAnd

KyussBishop wrote: »

Everyone will pay it eventually, but that (from my point of view) isn't even the point; the non-payment now is primarily useful as a general public protest, i.e expression of general dissatisfaction with government and with the bad implementation of this tax.

They'll get their 'pound of flesh' as squonk put it, it'll just have a notable cost in popularity and support.

Agreed. I think the refusal to pay was, for most people, a means of protest and not a subject related to money.

BluntGuy

I don't agree. I think most people simply wanted to see if they could get away with not paying it. The types telling us this was a "public revolt" etc. tend to be the types that tell us that every demonstration represents such. Given FG's consistently strong poll figures of support, the idea that this represents a huge turn against the government doesn't really stack up for me.

KyussBishop

BluntGuy wrote: »

I don't agree. I think most people simply wanted to see if they could get away with not paying it. The types telling us this was a "public revolt" etc. tend to be the types that tell us that every demonstration represents such. Given FG's consistently strong poll figures of support, the idea that this represents a huge turn against the government doesn't really stack up for me.

Well, it's not a huge turn against government, it's just a form of protest with an exceptionally low barrier to entry (simply not doing something, rather than going out and doing something); the on-the-ground protests against this haven't been insignificant either.

Still, unless there was a poll done on reasons people haven't paid the charge, there's not really an objective way to tell what the publics primary reasons are, one way or the other.

squonk

BluntGuy wrote: »

I don't agree. I think most people simply wanted to see if they could get away with not paying it. The types telling us this was a "public revolt" etc. tend to be the types that tell us that every demonstration represents such. Given FG's consistently strong poll figures of support, the idea that this represents a huge turn against the government doesn't really stack up for me.

I don't agree. My aim is certainly not to get off without paying it. I live here so I have to contribute but I objected to this charge on the grounds that it was poorly organised, poorly explained and I felt bad seeing a party I support generally, pressuring senior citizens into paying this with bluster and scaremongering. No clear plan appeared to be in place regarding what exactly I was paying for or how the total pot would be distributed. I also had no clear explanation of what I was registering for. Years on the internet has taught me to only give out information when absolutely necessary and I carry that view in day to day life also. No indication was given of the likely increase in the charge next year. Another factor is that I am not seeing the type of reforms in the public services that I hope to see. I know there is a limited amount any government can do in 12 months but I'm not even seeing an effort being made. Finally if I paid up this time without protest, I wouldn't discount the government trying to create another charge or two next year in the same manner, especially if 100% paid this time without question. It's highly likely I'll pay in time but even from my response, I have a myriad of reasons. For me, it's not a black and white issue but I can assure you that wanting to pull a fast one and not pay €100 doesn't really come into it for me.

Manach

For those that did not pay, a segment of those that did pay, this tax on a non-productive asset will be a point of alienation from the current status quo. That the Government would put the vested interests of the State ahead of the people and seek prop up a burdensome state sector which taking the example of the UK, is growing in size compared to none state activity. An adjustable increase on taxes would have been acceptable (been there, done that), or to me personally a decimation in public spending, but by imposing a tax on non-productive homes it cuts the link between workers earnings and the state coffers, thus freeing the state from a core feedback cycle of low wages implying low tax returns.

20Cent

Fine Gael managed to attract the largest protest seen at any Ard Fheis to date. They have called over half the homeowners in the country criminals and told them to "get a life". On top of that they are now indicating that areas with a low payment rate will be punished for this with less services. This means they are also annoying those who actually did pay and collectively punishing them. Its hard to imagine how they could have made a bigger mess of it.
More threats and scare tactics will divide people even further. For no good reason as the sum its supposed to raise is paltry (if it was all collected 2/3rds of it would pay for the increased interest due to their great victory over the Anglo deal).
I think people are willing to pull together and make sacrifices but not be the sacrifice. See some "tough" decisions which do not only involve the poor and the weakest in society and we'll see more compliance.

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

See some "tough" decisions which do not only involve the poor and the weakest in society and we'll see more compliance.

This standard excuse (I feel like calling it a lie but don't want to fall foul of the mods) used by opponents of the household charge really annoys me.

The fact is that the poorest and weakest in society are either

(1) homeless
(2) living in council housing
(3) renting
(4) receiving mortgage interest supplement or
(5) bought a house in a ghost estate

and are therefore not liable for the household charge.

I wish that the opponents would be honest and admit the reality that this is a wealth tax (as all property taxes are by definition) opposed by the middle classes and the minority of the working class who have managed to get themselves into a position to buy property. I consider it a fair tax on those rich enough to own property although the replacement tax coming next year will be fairer.


Should have added

(6) living at home with mammy and daddy

Icepick

I wish they used the low compliance to justify widespread PS and welfare cuts.

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

This standard excuse (I feel like calling it a lie but don't want to fall foul of the mods) used by opponents of the household charge really annoys me.

The fact is that the poorest and weakest in society are either

(1) homeless
(2) living in council housing
(3) renting
(4) receiving mortgage interest supplement or
(5) bought a house in a ghost estate

and are therefore not liable for the household charge.

I wish that the opponents would be honest and admit the reality that this is a wealth tax (as all property taxes are by definition) opposed by the middle classes and the minority of the working class who have managed to get themselves into a position to buy property. I consider it a fair tax on those rich enough to own property although the replacement tax coming next year will be fairer.


Should have added

(6) living at home with mammy and daddy

When saying the poorest and weakest are hit hardest I wasn't referring to the 100 euro household charge but the austerity measures, thought that was obvious.

Austerity measures hitting poorest families the hardest
Yet those who brought country to its knees are rewarded with 'golden handshakes', writes Sr Stanislaus Kennedy
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/austerity-measures-hitting-poorest-families-the-hardest-2873056.html

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

When saying the poorest and weakest are hit hardest I wasn't referring to the 100 euro household charge but the austerity measures, thought that was obvious.

Austerity measures hitting poorest families the hardest
Yet those who brought country to its knees are rewarded with 'golden handshakes', writes Sr Stanislaus Kennedy
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/austerity-measures-hitting-poorest-families-the-hardest-2873056.html[/QUOTE]


So you support the household charge as without it, we would have to cut social welfare rates or something like that?

srvhead

BluntGuy wrote: »

I don't agree. I think most people simply wanted to see if they could get away with not paying it. The types telling us this was a "public revolt" etc. tend to be the types that tell us that every demonstration represents such. Given FG's consistently strong poll figures of support, the idea that this represents a huge turn against the government doesn't really stack up for me.

Can you give us some evidence of FG's consistently strong poll figures??:eek:
Of course the media 'types' will inflate the importance of every demonstration to sell papers etc but this tax became a bridge too far for many, and is seen as the thin end of a large wedge.

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

20Cent wrote: »

When saying the poorest and weakest are hit hardest I wasn't referring to the 100 euro household charge but the austerity measures, thought that was obvious.

Austerity measures hitting poorest families the hardest
Yet those who brought country to its knees are rewarded with 'golden handshakes', writes Sr Stanislaus Kennedy
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/austerity-measures-hitting-poorest-families-the-hardest-2873056.html[/QUOTE]


So you support the household charge as without it, we would have to cut social welfare rates or something like that?

You think 160m is going to make much difference?
I'd support a proper property tax which was fair in conjunction with action taken against those most responsible for the financial meltdown, evidence that corruption was being taken seriously and tackling the massive waste that is happening.

WolfgangWeisen

BluntGuy wrote: »

I don't agree. I think most people simply wanted to see if they could get away with not paying it. The types telling us this was a "public revolt" etc. tend to be the types that tell us that every demonstration represents such. Given FG's consistently strong poll figures of support, the idea that this represents a huge turn against the government doesn't really stack up for me.

Oh it absolutely doesn't. The terrible turnout at the protest just highlighted the fact that the average person wants nothing to do with the organisations involved in the protest. The same organisations that turn up at every protest and claim it's the beginning of a revolution.

Be it Sinn Fein, the United Left Alliance or others, the average Irish person will not stand with them, despite agreeing on a few things. It speaks volumes as to how these organisations are perceived by Irish society and in effect, the whole thing was essentially a landslide victory for those who oppose/laugh at the organisations listed.

The next steps are for the Government to act rationally, apply the charges and interest where applicable and learn their lesson as to how to deal with these things in future. The administration of the charge has been a joke, however out of naivety than anything else, so hopefully they'll just let the revenue or others handle it in future.

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

You think 160m is going to make much difference?
I'd support a proper property tax which was fair in conjunction with action taken against those most responsible for the financial meltdown, evidence that corruption was being taken seriously and tackling the massive waste that is happening.

Well, in my job, while I might be working simultaneously on a number of things, I don't wait until the last one is done before signing off on the first one.

The excuse that people will accept the property tax if done in conjunction with X or Y doesn't wash with me. One thing at a time, the budget deficit needs to be closed, one of the measures to do it is the property tax, let's get that collected and move on to the next practical issue.

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

Well, in my job, while I might be working simultaneously on a number of things, I don't wait until the last one is done before signing off on the first one.

The excuse that people will accept the property tax if done in conjunction with X or Y doesn't wash with me. One thing at a time, the budget deficit needs to be closed, one of the measures to do it is the property tax, let's get that collected and move on to the next practical issue.

Well done. Pity the gov can't do that. The lessons learnt from this debacle are worth a lot more than 160m. Those who didn't pay are doing the country a favour.

nip102

I don't believe for a second that 50% have paid, knowing how our government institutions work, its just more spin and propaganda with the aim of applying a false sense of peer pressure!!

Xenophile

Watch how quickly T.D's, solicitors and broadcasters etc. will pay up when they are faced with not getting a Government cheque because they will not be able to furnish a Tax Clearence Certificate. Their followers, who followed their advice so sheepishly will be indeed made look so foolish. So my advice now is to anyone who can afford to pay is to do it now. The government from the outset may have handled this matter very badly, but think about it , now, as in most developed economies this tax is here to stay. Do not be fooled by angry anarchists who will themselves pay up when the chips are down.

flutered

my objections are based on the large pensions former goverment ministers are recieving for haveing used my country as their own personal have play thing, the leader of this country being entitled to a school teacher, a tds and a prime ministers pensions, that upon retirement the president is entitled to five pensions, he could be drawing four pensions and a presidents salary if he wished, the cutback in former ministers pensions, which resulted in ray bourke being out of pocket to the tune of the price of a can of coke each day, aherne b having cars secetarys and fones paid for by the state, the army chief who has a bigger salary than both the chief of staff of both the u.s. and uk forces, all the while the cuts hit the sick the old the poor and especially my countrys future the school children, councils who spent money like there is no tomorrow claim that they need the money for services, the only services they are going to do are their massive loan interest rates, i will spare you my anger at the way the banks behaved plus how they are being treated compared to the workers in the private sector.

Wider Road

lugha wrote: »

Yawlboy wrote: »

How about going after the TD's who have refused to pay and prosecuting them to the full extent of the law?

I think if we did get to a point where an overwhelming majority did pay then the government might be very well advised to simply leave these TDs be.

It would rather undermine some in SF and the ULA who call for extra taxes on the "super rich" when they themselves are part of a minority who refuse to pay their full taxes (as they describe the HHC) to the state.

Dr James Reilly FG doesn't have to pay for his second home. Is he undermined, in your opinion?

lugha

Wider Road wrote: »

Dr James Reilly FG doesn't have to pay for his second home. Is he undermined, in your opinion?

Is Dr James one of the TDs who oppose the household charge?