nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 3] Poll Reset

Micky Dolenz

This is a continuation of this thread and this thread.
If you were thread banned in part 2, you are free to post here.

Keep it clean, no flaming or baiting. Report posts you think cross the line.

Find more posts tagged with

aliens!

nazis joe

still no reminder letter

revenue me arse

ghandee's watchin ;o/

free ghandee!

fine gael comedy roadshow

Comments

tayto lover

It has just been announced on the News that Dracula a few zombies and "undead" have now paid. I have "grave" doubts though.

Bullseye1

Not every tax payer has access to a computer. For my €500-1000 a one or two page letter which can be distributed with the local paper is not unwarranted. Take the €500 postage allowance from the TDs if there is a shortfall.

Chips Lovell

That's why paper copies of annual reports are also available. It would be a needless expense to send them out to everyone.

ilovesleep

Right from the start of this household tax and even before that, I was and still am of the opinion that things are not going to be easy and we'll all have to cutback and make changes to our own personal finances and lifestyles and many people and families have done just this. Things are not going to be easy for the forseeable future and many people are hard pressed and will be pressed further.

Something else I kept in mind is state expenditure and expenditure at local leves in the LA's and wastefullness. Wastefulness at state level. In the politics forum on boards here, it is reported that 150k will be spent by senators on xmas cards. That's 150,000 euro. That sh1t has to stop. How can they justify that?

donalg1

ilovesleep wrote: »

Right from the start of this household tax and even before that, I was and still am of the opinion that things are not going to be easy and we'll all have to cutback and make changes to our own personal finances and lifestyles and many people and families have done just this. Things are not going to be easy for the forseeable future and many people are hard pressed and will be pressed further.

Something else I kept in mind is state expenditure and expenditure at local leves in the LA's and wastefullness. Wastefulness at state level. In the politics forum on boards here, it is reported that 150k will be spent by senators on xmas cards. That's 150,000 euro. That sh1t has to stop. How can they justify that?

They couldnt ever justify it and won't ever even try to. They are never held to account and won't be we all know the senate should have been scrapped a long time ago. Basically they want everyone to take a hit bar themselves

donalg1

ilovesleep wrote: »

Right from the start of this household tax and even before that, I was and still am of the opinion that things are not going to be easy and we'll all have to cutback and make changes to our own personal finances and lifestyles and many people and families have done just this. Things are not going to be easy for the forseeable future and many people are hard pressed and will be pressed further.

Something else I kept in mind is state expenditure and expenditure at local leves in the LA's and wastefullness. Wastefulness at state level. In the politics forum on boards here, it is reported that 150k will be spent by senators on xmas cards. That's 150,000 euro. That sh1t has to stop. How can they justify that?

darkhorse

darkhorse wrote: »

Now, if it was as you say everyone who was liable for the HHC could indeed register without paying, well, would'nt that defeat the purpose of the government expecting said €160 million.

lugha wrote: »

And you could register, without payment./QUOTE]

I put it to you that you cannot, unless you are exempt. I would really loved to be proved wrong on this matter.

Chips Lovell

Unless they've changed it, you can register and not pay even if you're liable.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

And of course you are making a huge (and I would say false) assumption that all that are not paying are so doing at a matter of principle. Some are. I can't say how many, but I think it only a small fraction of 600K.

Well, lugha, I am being honest with you when I tell you that I know at least twenty five people, who would rather not have paid, but who paid out of fear. Most of these people I am talking about, own their own homes and when I asked them do they agree or disagree with a property tax on homes, they all said pretty much the same thing, which was that they worked hard to be in the position that are in, which is owning their own homes, and they cant understand why, after all that hard work, that they have to start paying all over again, as a couple of them put it to me, in their final years. How would you, lugha, explain to seventy and eighty year old people that it is now a burden on them owning their own home.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

But this is the strategy of those that don't want to pay their share.

Their share of what exactly.

dxhound2005

darkhorse wrote: »

Well, lugha, I am being honest with you when I tell you that I know at least twenty five people, who would rather not have paid, but who paid out of fear. Most of these people I am talking about, own their own homes and when I asked them do they agree or disagree with a property tax on homes, they all said pretty much the same thing, which was that they worked hard to be in the position that are in, which is owning their own homes, and they cant understand why, after all that hard work, that they have to start paying all over again, as a couple of them put it to me, in their final years. How would you, lugha, explain to seventy and eighty year old people that it is now a burden on them owning their own home.

Please go back and tell the ones that don't own their own homes that they needn't have paid. They can apply for a refund.

https://www.householdcharge.ie/Forms/RequestForRefund_web.pdf

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Yes, you can register for your liability (or waiver) and not pay. Or least you could when the system first went live.

Thank you.

lugha

darkhorse wrote: »

I know at least twenty five people, who would rather not have paid, but who paid out of fear.

Fear of what? The consequences of not abiding by the law? And how is that different from any other law that they do abide by?

You could just as well say that people obey the traffic laws our of fear of getting penalty points, or pay their TV licence out of fear of being fined.

Every law we have is accompanied by penalties to act as a deterrent not to abide by them. The HHC is no different.

darkhorse wrote: »

… which was that they worked hard to be in the position that are in, which is owning their own homes …

well I don’t agree your view (though I accept that it is widely held) that you have done the state some service by owning (as opposed to providing) your own home. But go on ….

darkhorse wrote: »

… and they cant understand why, after all that hard work, that they have to start paying all over again

And workers might ask after all their hard work during the boom why are their wages, and even jobs, being cut? Why are services and allowances (children’s etc.) being cut? Why are new taxes and charges being introduced?

Short answer; because we are in a jam. And despite me asking, oh about 3,000 times, if anyone can propose a comprehensive solution that will address our crisis without impacting on the ordinary kind of people you are referring to, still none is forthcoming. (There have been some populists suggestions like curtailing the cost of politicians and a few questionable proposals. But even if all this was done and had the hoped for impact you would still have to back to the well that is the ordinary worker.)

darkhorse wrote: »

How would you, lugha, explain to seventy and eighty year old people that it is now a burden on them owning their own home.

First, some (not all I stress) of the elderly are in far better financial shape (no mortgage, no child-rearing / educations costs, truckload of freebees etc.) than many people. But for the rest, if they have troubled paying a property tax, why not attach this cost as a liability to a property to be discharged by whoever inherits the house?

darkhorse wrote: »

Their share of what exactly.

Their share of the burden of getting us out of the mess we are in. Surely you don’t deny that there are always some who don’t want to pay their share of anything, and not because of any great principle?

dvpower

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Not every tax payer has access to a computer. For my €500-1000 a one or two page letter which can be distributed with the local paper is not unwarranted. Take the €500 postage allowance from the TDs if there is a shortfall.

Everybody has access to the internet through the library service, funded by the HHC.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

I put it to you that you cannot, unless you are exempt. I would really loved to be proved wrong on this matter.

You can.
Just fill in the form, but don't include payment.
Put it in an envelope and post it to your local council.

Simples.

darkhorse

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Where did I say that local authorities would unilaterally raise their own wage rates. I stated that you will see a correlation between raised commercial rates which will include the property tax and wage increase. They can raise property tax. And then their employees can put pressure on the GOVERNMENT through unions for wage increases.

And drop the condescending lines of "what don't you understand".

Hi, Bullseye, as I said before, this is exactly what these people do, even though they know what we are talking about. I would'nt indulge them.

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

Do you seriously think any public servant will see an increase in their wages, come 2014 they will all be reduced property tax or not.

Can you really say that as a fact.

Column: Public sector increments are like a parallel universe

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

Like the protest we were supposed to see when the first person was taken to court over the hhc.

There were no single home owners, ie. people that have just a family home, taken to court yet, as far as I know.

Chips Lovell

darkhorse wrote: »

Can you really say that as a fact.

Column: Public sector increments are like a parallel universe

That column is about increments, not pay rises.

Le_Dieux

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That column is about increments, not pay rises.

Duh...what's the difference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Increment
An increment is an increase of some amount, either fixed or variable. For example one's salary may have a fixed annual increment or one based on a percentage of its current value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Pay+rise&go=Go

Chips Lovell

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Duh...what's the difference?

One is part of your contact of employment, the other isn't. If you abolish increments, you're effectively giving them a pay cut.

Le_Dieux

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

One is part of your contact of employment, the other isn't. If you abolish increments, you're effectively giving them a pay cut.

Really have no idea what dictionary You are reading from Vlad? No increment means a PAY CUT??? If You opened the wikipedia page on 'pay rises' it says a page doesn't exist. It does however prompt You to go to imcrement.

When I went to school, an increment was another word for pay rise.

Chips Lovell

Simply put, a public servant's contract of employment might be that, subject to satisfactory performance, their pay would initially be x, in year two it's x+1% and year three x+3% and so on until they hit the max of the scale. That is the agreed salary that they've been offered and what they've signed up to. If you strip out the increments, then you are cutting their pay.

A pay rise is when that basic rate is increased, above what's been laid out in the contract of employment.

Le_Dieux

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Simply put, a public servant's contract of employment might be that, subject to satisfactory performance, their pay would initially be x, in year two it's x+1% and year three x+3% and so on until they hit the max of the scale. That is the agreed salary that they've been offered and what they've signed up to. If you strip out the increments, then you are cutting their pay.

A pay rise is when that basic rate is increased, above what's been laid out in the contract of employment.

Not going to get into an argument with You except to say I completely disagree with Your understanding of the interpretation of the words. For me there is no difference between pay rise & increment. Reading Wikipedia, I seem to interpret their understanding as the same.

lugha

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Not going to get into an argument with You except to say I completely disagree with Your understanding of the interpretation of the words. For me there is no difference between pay rise & increment. Reading Wikipedia, I seem to interpret their understanding as the same.

I fail to see why there is such a focus on pay increments?

If you want to cut public sector pay then surely the fairest way to do so is to cut pay rates rather than abolish increments?

If you do the latter, you are impacting more on those who have not advanced very far but leaving untocuhed those who have already gotten most, or even all, of the increments.

Chips Lovell

The problem with adopting your own understanding of words is that it does lead to misunderstandings. In this instance, both the employer and the employees (i.e. the government and public sector workers) have the same interpretation of increments as being part of core pay.

mikom

dvpower wrote: »

You can.
Just fill in the form, but don't include payment.
Put it in an envelope and post it to your local council.

Simples.

You may as well dangle your mickey over a bear pit while you are at it.

darkhorse

darkhorse wrote: »

Well, lugha, I am being honest with you when I tell you that I know at least twenty five people, who would rather not have paid, but who paid out of fear. Most of these people I am talking about, own their own homes and when I asked them do they agree or disagree with a property tax on homes, they all said pretty much the same thing, which was that they worked hard to be in the position that are in, which is owning their own homes, and they cant understand why, after all that hard work, that they have to start paying all over again, as a couple of them put it to me, in their final years. How would you, lugha, explain to seventy and eighty year old people that it is now a burden on them owning their own home.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Please go back and tell the ones that don't own their own homes that they needn't have paid. They can apply for a refund.

I have a feeling that you know what I meant, but I will try and make it clearer. When I said that most of the people I was talking about own their homes outright , I meant actually free of mortgages. People that pay mortgages, in the majority of cases, are liable, therefore would not be entitled to a refund. I apologize if my post was'nt clear enough for you to understand.

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Unless they've changed it, you can register and not pay even if you're liable.

I could wait for a bus at a bus stop too but not get on it.
Why would anyone want to register if they disagree with the tax?

Chips Lovell

tayto lover wrote: »

I could wait for a bus at a bus stop too but not get on it.
Why would anyone want to register if they disagree with the tax?

I don't know. I was just answering as to whether it was possible or not.