# A majority has registered for  the Household Charge - has a majority paid?



## Brendan Burgess

The last minute rush has resulted in just over 800,000 people paying the charge before the deadline. 

This is quite an achievement given 



the extraordinarily well run campaign against it which gave the impression that no one was paying it.
The encouragement by some elected TDs of people to break the law
The reluctance of most people to declare publicly that they were paying it
The government's shocking handling of the issue
The difficulties people experienced with the website
The government needs to extend the deadline now to the end of April to facilitate those who were misled into believing that the majority were against the charge.

They should also offer an incentive - such as giving a 10% discount on next year's charge to those who pay this year's charge before the end of April.


----------



## Marion

Brendan Burgess said:


> The last minute rush has resulted in just over 800,000 people paying the charge before the deadline.
> 
> The government needs to extend the deadline now to the end of April to facilitate those who were misled into believing that the majority were against the charge.
> 
> They should also offer an incentive - such as giving a 10% discount on next year's charge to those who pay this year's charge before the end of April.



I don't think this is fair to those Who had to find the money to pay on time this year. I would not be in favour of extending the deadline.


An incentive for next year is a good idea.

Marion


----------



## irishmoss

They should re-instate the direct debit option.


----------



## truthseeker

Its hard to know what the real numbers are, different media are reporting different figures, some based on 1.6 million being liable, some on 1.71 million being liable - *to pay*.

RTEis saying that 6.2 million euro has been collected, which means there are plenty of waivers in that number, plus some postal applications that have not been processed.


----------



## Leaky1

I think there should be a 2-week extension so people who didnt pay because they felt they would be with the majority can reconsider it now, if they wish to. Not exactly fair to those who may have struggled and succeeded in coming up with the money on time, but this charge was never fair anyway.

Brendan, on your point "The reluctance of most people to declare publicly that they were paying it" - I was verbally abused by a 'friend' on Friday night for having paid in February. Doesn't make it easy to admit having paid early! Obviously the 'friend' was staunchly in the "Don't Register, Don't Pay" corner. Actually now I think of it, I never told her I paid in Feb, just that I had paid - hard to think she could've got more irate than she was though.


----------



## tenchi-ghost

News headlines are often saying "x00,000 have paid the charge" then the main body of the article says "x00,000 have registered to pay or have already paid the charge". Quite a difference. 

I'd imagine more than one person selected the waiver option when they we're meant to, and hopefully a lot of dummy properties were entered in there.


----------



## serotoninsid

tenchi-ghost said:


> News headlines are often saying "x00,000 have paid the charge" then the main body of the article says "x00,000 have registered to pay or have already paid the charge". Quite a difference.


Yes - was just about to post this but you've got there before me.  I am among those who registered (in the first week - before thinking the whole thing through and reconsidering) and I'm sure there are others that fit into this category.  It's clearly misleading to give this stat - when it's the total number of people that have actually paid that is the relevant stat.



			
				Brendan Burgess said:
			
		

> They should also offer an incentive - such as giving a 10% discount on next year's charge to those who pay this year's charge before the end of April.


As if there wasn't enough injustice in this charge, you want to add to that injustice (by discriminating between those liable for the charge)?  That would be a case of sharp practice in order to break the momentum of those opposed to the charge...


----------



## truthseeker

Brendan I think you should change the title of the thread, its clear that over 800,000 people have registered, its not clear how many have paid yet.


----------



## chrisboy

With the figure of 62 million euros taken in, it actually appears that the majority did not pay.


----------



## Gervan

Brendan, you say 





> those who were misled into believing that the majority were against the charge.


.
I still believe the majority ARE against the charge. The fact that I may have paid does not mean I am not against it. It makes me absolutely furious.

So please don't think all those who have paid are supporters!


----------



## truthseeker

chrisboy said:


> With the figure of 62 million euros taken in, it actually appears that the majority did not pay.



Dont forget that people who chose direct debit will not have paid in full yet, plus they have not yet processed some amount of postal applications.

But even so, it is not clear at all to me that a majority have paid.

It has not yet been made clear if the base is on 1.71 million or 1.6 million.


----------



## The_Banker

Gervan said:


> Brendan, you say .
> *I still believe the majority ARE against the charge. The fact that I may have paid does not mean I am not against it. It makes me absolutely furious.*
> 
> So please don't think all those who have paid are supporters!


 

Excellent point


----------



## rekhib

Brendan Burgess said:


> The last minute rush has resulted in just over 800,000 people paying the charge before the deadline.


 
Yes, most sources are saying that just over 800,000 people have registered however the figure for waivers is being quoted at about 12.5k people so even on the 1.6m base, it seems those who haven't paid are in the majority.


----------



## Padraigb

Gervan said:


> ...
> I still believe the majority ARE against the charge. The fact that I may have paid does not mean I am not against it. It makes me absolutely furious.
> 
> So please don't think all those who have paid are supporters!


Neither can you claim that all those who have not paid are opposed in principle to the charge.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

The figures seem to contradict each other. I think that if it hasn't actually passed the halfway mark, it will do so with the applications posted on Friday and Saturday which won't be received until tomorrow. 

Brendan


----------



## Purple

tenchi-ghost said:


> I'd imagine more than one person selected the waiver option when they we're meant to, and hopefully a lot of dummy properties were entered in there.



yes, that's what we need; more members of the public wasting the time and resources of the state.


----------



## truthseeker

Brendan Burgess said:


> The figures seem to contradict each other. I think that if it hasn't actually passed the halfway mark, it will do so with the applications posted on Friday and Saturday which won't be received until tomorrow.



The most comprehensive figures Ive seen are:



> The Local Government Management Agency (LGMA) released the latest figures just after midnight which said that a total of 621,717 properties had registered or paid the flat rate while there were another 89,000 postal applications still to be processed.
> As of 2pm yesterday 12,677 properties had registered for the waiver while estimated tallies received from local authorities came in at 82,175.  This meant a total figure of 805,569.



Even if all unprocessed applications were payments with no waivers, the total of 805,569 registrations less 12,677 registered waivers gives less than 800,001 paid - which is the magic number needed for it to be a majority who have paid.

The figure of 62 million in money collected so far is misleading as it doesnt take into account the direct debits or the unprocessed registrations.

Certainly on the above figures it appears a majority has not paid.

Im not sure how much to trust the figures as various media have been reporting various numbers right from the start - the government have also been accused of downplaying the number required to pay in order to make the percentages of who paid look better.


----------



## mcaul

Marion said:


> I don't think this is fair to those Who had to find the money to pay on time this year. I would not be in favour of extending the deadline.
> 
> 
> An incentive for next year is a good idea.
> 
> Marion


 
I paid in early January, but I'd have no issue with a one month extension. Firstly because its a new charge, secondly, the way it was handled was a shambles, thirdly we are in recession and some people may need a little longer to budget, and finally it has got out that the charge is to pay for LOCAL services and not for bank bailouts etc as many SF / socialist types would make you believe.



Gervan said:


> Brendan, you say .
> I still believe the majority ARE against the charge. The fact that I may have paid does not mean I am not against it. It makes me absolutely furious.
> 
> So please don't think all those who have paid are supporters!


 
If asked, the majority of people would be against all tax, frankly I don't like charging / paying 23% vat, I hate fuel duty and I cry when I see the amount of tax taken off a hard worked for salary.

But hey, things have to be paid for, from teachers to schools, from housing to social welfare and evrything else inbetween - though I really believe the social welfare system is far too generous in Ireland and is not targeted properly.  


Having lived in UK, FRANCE and Boston, we have it quite easy in terms of tax.


----------



## serotoninsid

mcaul said:


> and finally it has got out that the charge is to pay for LOCAL services and not for bank bailouts etc as many SF / socialist types would make you believe.



Maybe so but they have displaced funding that would otherwise have been allocated to local authorities.  No question in what you say - it is supposed to cover local services but there's a clear kneejerk reaction here - and it's clear what's triggered that.  Of course, many would say that this is due to the running budgetary deficit but the notion that the bank bailout has contributed towards the introduction of this tax at this point in time - sticks in the craw of many people.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

mcaul said:


> I paid in early January, but I'd have no issue with a one month extension. Firstly because its a new charge, secondly, the way it was handled was a shambles, thirdly we are in recession and some people may need a little longer to budget,



Fully agree. But also because the very well organised campaign against it gave the impression that the vast majority were against it. Now that it is clear that the vast majority are not against paying it, it would be a good idea to incentivise the rest to pay it by a new deadline.


----------



## bullworth

Brendan Burgess said:


> it is clear that the vast majority are not against paying it



Hilarious. Is this thread an April Fools' joke ?


----------



## serotoninsid

Brendan Burgess said:


> But also because the very well organised campaign against it gave the impression that the vast majority were against it.


_Was_ it really a well organised campaign against or was that just the way it fell?


Brendan Burgess said:


> Now that it is clear that the vast majority are not against paying it


Is that a *fact* or an *assumption*? You don't feel that some paid it very begrudgingly?  I know I met someone today who was against it but told me he paid.  He said the thought of ever accumulating late fees would be just another monkey on his back (given that his financial position is precarious) - and that's the only reason he paid.  I would wager that there are many more like him out there.



Brendan Burgess said:


> it would be a good idea to incentivise the rest to pay it by a new deadline.


I understand what your trying to achieve with that - but do you not see just how disingenuous that would be! (and I can say that as someone who would benefit from it IF I decided to pay).


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Joe Higgins said on the news tonight that "the vast majority were against paying it" 

This is clearly wrong. It seems that a majority have actually paid it. 
It could be argued that a majority have not paid it.

But certainly it is incorrect to say "A vast majority are against it" 

The opponents have put this forward to encourage everyone else to break the law.


----------



## serotoninsid

Brendan Burgess said:


> Joe Higgins said on the news tonight that "the vast majority were against paying it"
> This is clearly wrong. It seems that a majority have actually paid it.
> It could be argued that a majority have not paid it.


LINK.
Just to balance this up, it *might* be wrong but I don't think it could be assumed that it is _clearly_ wrong.


----------



## truthseeker

Brendan I dont understand why you keep repeating that a vast majority have paid or are in favour, when it is quite clear from various reports that there is [broken link removed] a lot of confusion on the real figures, especially the base figure.



> The 2011 census found just under two million houses in the State. [Of these] 129,000 are owned by local authorities and do not have to be registered. This leaves 1.86 million houses that must be registered



If the above is true then it is only 43% who have registered/paid.

Do you have some kind of solid source for your continuing claim on a vast majority, because every figure Ive seen so far in various media would suggest 50% at best, but more likely to be a slight minority who have paid.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

serotoninsid said:


> LINK.
> Just to balance this up, it *might* be wrong but I don't think it could be assumed that it is _clearly_ wrong.



Sid 

Using the figures in your link



> Socialist Party TD Joe Higgins has claimed the figure is 1.8 million.
> 
> 
> 
> Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan this afternoon said that in  excess of 800,000 households had registered and paid the charge by the  close of business yesterday.



So the worst case is 1m out of 1.8m have not paid.

That is a majority. But it is not a vast majority.  It is 55% have not paid.


----------



## Shawady

It is worth pointing out that this household charge is only a token payment as a forerunner to a proper property tax next year. This is by all accounts going to be a lot more than €100.
It will be interesting how many will pay if they are expected to fork out €400-500 a year.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

truthseeker said:


> Brendan I dont understand why you keep repeating that a vast majority have paid or are in favour,



This is what I have actually said when the latest figures were published



> It seems that a majority have actually paid it.
> It could be argued that a majority have not paid it.



It is clear that the vast majority have not paid it. To me the _vast _majority would be at least 75%. 

As of now all we can say for certain is either 

A small majority have paid
or
A small majority have not paid.

Brendan


----------



## Shawady

Brendan Burgess said:


> Sid
> 
> 
> That is a majority. But it is not a vast majority. It is 55% have not paid.


 
Brendan, I agree but if it turns out that 51% of people paid, you can bet every governmnet TD will say "a majority of people paid the charge".
Whatever the finer details it is obvious that it is still a divisive issue.
I think the honest thing for the government to do is to decide what the criteria and cost for the property tax in 2013 is going to be.


----------



## truthseeker

Shawady said:


> It is worth pointing out that this household charge is only a token payment as a forerunner to a proper property tax next year. This is by all accounts going to be a lot more than €100.
> It will be interesting how many will pay if they are expected to fork out €400-500 a year.



If ability to pay is taken into account, the money will be getting collected off a smaller base. 

Although I did not pay the household charge myself directly, I indirectly contributed towards it because after my FIL paid it he was unable to afford his groceries so I gave him money.

Im sure he is not the only person in the country who found himself in that position. He paid out of fear.

If ability to pay is taken into account, I would imagine the 450,000 or so on the Live Register will be granted some kind of exemption or waiver, no doubt the pensioners - traditionally a vocal group who already successfully got the government to u-turn on the issue of medical cards - will kick up, and there will be many other pleas made.


----------



## serotoninsid

Brendan Burgess said:


> That is a majority. But it is not a vast majority.  It is 55% have not paid.


Ok, no worries - so a majority of people have not paid if those figures are accurate - no problem with that.


			
				Shawady said:
			
		

> Brendan, I agree but if it turns out that 51% of people paid, you can bet every governmnet TD will say "a majority of people paid the charge".  Whatever the finer details it is obvious that it is still a divisive issue.


majority, vast majority - just the semantics of spin.  Whatever way that pans out, it is proven beyond doubt that it is a divisive issue.


----------



## demoivre

I have paid the tax but I don't support a property tax that exempts people  because they live in social housing.


----------



## dereko1969

I heard Gerry Adams on the radio pontificating how he hadn't paid the charge - does he actually own a property in the State that would make him liable to the charge? I'm not aware of him having any problem with paying the council tax in the North, nor of his party campaigning against it. They're such a partitionist party, one policy for "down here" and another for Norn Iron.


----------



## oldnick

Brendan 


You clearly state in post 24 that *certainly it is  incorrect to say the vast majority are against it*
and
Joe Higgins was *clearly wrong *in stating that the vast majority were aginst paying it.

How could make such statements , other than in the belief that because one has paid one must be in favour of the charge ? 

I paid as did most of my friends -and we're all against it, often for different motives.
Maybe we're cowards, don't want any hassle or are just normal tax-paying drones who always pay. But we ARE against it- and paying it doesn't make us change our minds.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

dereko1969 said:


> I heard Gerry Adams on the radio pontificating how he hadn't paid the charge - does he actually own a property in the State that would make him liable to the charge?



Doesn't he have a holiday home in Donegal?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

It appears that the majority have paid the charge. 

We will know for sure after a few days - although maybe the antis will  still be disputed.

If it turns out that the majority have paid, then the antis will  have only one argument left "The majority have  paid but the vast majority are against it" 

I am against lots of things, but as a citizen of the country and as a democrat I accept the laws of the country. If I feel strongly enough about them, I try to change or improve them. 

Brendan


----------



## serotoninsid

Brendan Burgess said:


> If it turns out that the majority have paid, then the antis will  have only one argument left "The majority have  paid but the vast majority are against it"


Semantics.  Its proven beyond doubt to be a divisive issue.  



Brendan Burgess said:


> I am against lots of things, but as a citizen of the country and as a democrat I accept the laws of the country. If I feel strongly enough about them, I try to change or improve them.


I can see your point of view - but don't share it.  While democracy is the best system that we have, it is nevertheless flawed - or at least the irish application of it is flawed - with a lot of room for improvement.
Maybe it would be a more positive approach if peoples objections were handled systematically (as it appears that the rationale for not paying is very wide-ranging). Would that be democratic?


----------



## thedaras

Am I correct that TDs MUST be tax compliant?
If so ,those TDs who didnt pay the household charge should be out of a job soon enough..


----------



## Shawady

What we know is that approx 50% have paid the tax and 50% haven't.

What we don't know is (A) How many of the people that paid a modest €100 charge would go on and pay a more substanial property tax next also and (B) Are there people that refused to pay a flat charge on a matter of principle but would pay a means tested property tax?


----------



## seantheman

Brendan Burgess said:


> Doesn't he [_Gerry Adams..Mod Edit_] have a holiday home in Donegal?


 Indeed he does,in Gortahork


----------



## Harry31

I haven't paid the property tax as yet - as a matter of principle.  Alright, it may be a pointless gesture in some people's opinion & it probably is.  But it is born of frustration of not only the unfairness of this tax, but frustration of the past couple of years of cutbacks/additional taxed & the fact that none of the bankers/developers/politicians - years on - have been brought to account for their reckless & criminal behavior. I know to register my protest is going to cost me money & I will pay it at sometime in the future - it's the law & I have no choice, I understand that. I have never broken the law before.  But I believe my actions are true for many people who are totally frustrated by the situation currently in this country.  I'd like to add, that the statements by various members of the government are only adding fuel to this frustration - when will they learn that they are supposed to be servants of the people - not the other way around - they should learn to keep their mouths shut!


----------



## Luternau

thedaras said:


> Am I correct that TDs MUST be tax compliant?
> If so ,those TDs who didnt pay the household charge should be out of a job soon enough..



Its not a tax-its  a 'charge', so I guess those that did not pay, are still tax compliant.

I would say it is it totally incorrect to say a majority have paid. Perhaps a majority have registered, but how many of those that registered are exempt?

I am not against a property tax or a charge for the provision of local services instead of increases in income tax-as per FG commentary. However, as the owner of buy to let property, I am strongly opposed to paying for the provision of local services enjoyed by my tenants. Those who avail of street cleaning, road maintenance, parks etc should be the people that pay-unless exempted by the state. Asking landlords to pay is just wrong.


----------



## serotoninsid

Brendan Burgess said:


> Sid
> Using the figures in your link...So the worst case is 1m out of 1.8m have not paid


Just for the sake of clarity, a statistician was just interviewed on newstalk (from the National Institute for Regional & Spatial Analysis) backing up this assertion i.e. 1.8 is the correct figure rather than 1.6million figure asserted by Phil Hogan.


----------



## truthseeker

[broken link removed]



> The National Institute of Regional and Spatial Analysis says there are actually more homes liable for the Household Charge than the government estimates.
> 
> The Local Government Management Agency says around 1.6 million householders must pay the 100 euro levy.
> 
> 805,000 people had registered to pay the €100 household charge by the Saturday night deadline.
> 
> Professor Rob Kitchin is Director of NIRSA.
> 
> Speaking to KFM he says the real number of those liable for the tax is closer to 1.8 million.
> 
> “This is a tax on housing, not a tax on occupancy” he said.
> 
> “We know there’s 1.998 million houses and then we just work down for there”.
> 
> “So there’s 7 exemptions and 3 waivers and we probably come in a round 1.72 million houses are probably liable for the charge” he added.


----------



## ClaireM

The vast majority are against the charge? If that means they would rather not pay it but will do because they have to well it is hardly a surprise.

I would also rather not pay over half my income in Income Tax or pay VAT but I pay that because I have to too. I don't dislike one more than the other.


----------



## mcloving

Brendan Burgess said:


> The last minute rush has resulted in just over 800,000 people paying the charge before the deadline.
> 
> This is quite an achievement given
> 
> 
> 
> the extraordinarily well run campaign against it which gave the impression that no one was paying it.
> The encouragement by some elected TDs of people to break the law
> The reluctance of most people to declare publicly that they were paying it
> The government's shocking handling of the issue
> The difficulties people experienced with the website
> The government needs to extend the deadline now to the end of April to facilitate those who were misled into believing that the majority were against the charge.
> 
> They should also offer an incentive - such as giving a 10% discount on next year's charge to those who pay this year's charge before the end of April.



This is like a headline in the evening herald, it wasn't a majority.


----------



## mcloving

Luternau said:


> Its not a tax-its  a 'charge', so I guess those that did not pay, are still tax compliant.
> 
> I would say it is it totally incorrect to say a majority have paid. Perhaps a majority have registered, but how many of those that registered are exempt?
> 
> I am not against a property tax or a charge for the provision of local services instead of increases in income tax-as per FG commentary. However, as the owner of buy to let property, I am strongly opposed to paying for the provision of local services enjoyed by my tenants. Those who avail of street cleaning, road maintenance, parks etc should be the people that pay-unless exempted by the state. Asking landlords to pay is just wrong.



Agree, tenants should pay and not owners, as in UK


----------



## ClubMan

The _Irish Times _today mentioned 1.8M housholds as being liable. I have seen all sorts of other figures mentioned in other reports in recent weeks. The figures coming from the powers that be for the numbers who have actually paid seem unclear. We don't seem to know the numerator or the denominator for sure so it seems premature for anybody to claim with any certaintly that x% of those liable have actually paid...


----------



## Brendan Burgess

We need to see a table like this when they have finished counting - the figures are examples only 



total number of properties and units |1,998,000
Exempt| 298,000
Total number of "liable"properties|1,700,000
Qulaifying for waivers |30,000
Total waivers claimed|10,000
Total due to pay|1,670,000
Total registered|850,000
Total registered and paid|840,000
A majority will have paid when the Total Registered and Paid is greater than 50% of Total due to pay


----------



## Shawady

Just mentioned on Newstalk that the government's most up to date figures state that there is 1.5 million houses eligble to pay this charge, which would indicate a majority have paid.
This figure is the lowest I have heard yet and would be at odds with their own target of collecting €160 million.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Rob Kitchin has done a detailed analyis of the numbers on the "Ireland after Nama" blog




Eligible to pay|1,755,685
50% would be|877, 842
Paid |792, 892
Shortfall from majority|85,000Given the detail of his analysis, this is the best estimate yet.  If the government or anyone else disagrees with it, they can point out where the error is. 

The only thing not referenced is the figure for the number who have paid. Where does this figure come from?

Brendan


----------



## bazermc

Shawady said:


> Just mentioned on Newstalk that the government's most up to date figures state that there is 1.5 million houses eligble to pay this charge, which would indicate a majority have paid.
> .


 
Sounds like the government are reducing their estimate on a daily basis to make the picture look better that it is, I have heard 1.8m, 1.6m and now 1.5m.

At the end of the day, whether or not the government get a minor majority to pay the HC or not, the level of non compliance with the charge is striking and shows that the government have failed in their objective to raise revenue and have failed in a large part of their programme for government.


----------



## Pique318

bazermc said:


> the government have failed in their objective to raise revenue and have failed in a large part of their programme for government.


I find these types of comment strange.
Govt introduces tax/charge to raise revenue.
People don't pay said tax/charge.
Govt have failed.

Surely this is a catch-22. If the people pay, the govt succeeds. If the people don't pay, then the govt have failed and 'reneged' on their promises to raise revenue.
But it's the people's fault, so who is to blame?

My head hurts trying to reconcile that.

Also, back to Rob Kitchens figures. I don't see any mention of the NPPR houses removed from his figures, or was that inluded in the calculations?


His statement that





> “This is a tax on housing, not a tax on occupancy”
> “We know there’s 1.998 million houses and then we just work down for there”.


is slightly misleading based on the last census:
A Occupied by usual resident(s) of the household (Number)    1,649,408
B Occupied by visitors only (Number)    10,703
C Unoccupied - residents temporarily absent (Number)    45,283
D Unoccupied - vacant house (Number)    168,427
E Unoccupied - vacant flat (Number)    61,629
F Unoccupied - vacant holiday home (Number)    59,395
G Total housing stock ( A+B+C+D+E+F ) (Number)    1,994,845

There were 289000 vacant houses in the state according to the Census.

Also, according to that same census, the number of private households in the  state during the last census was 1,654,208.



Hopefully the census figures are valid, and I would have thought the population hasn't grown much (if at all) in the last year.


----------



## ClubMan

It's _Rob Kitch*i*n_ by the way 

[broken link removed]


----------



## truthseeker

Brendan Burgess said:


> The only thing not referenced is the figure for the number who have paid. Where does this figure come from?
> 
> Brendan



Its from here.

Rob Kitchin states that he has used the figures from namawinelake with a few updates.

From namawinelake:


> Last night at midnight, the deadline for registering and paying the charge passed. RTE reported at 1am this morning that 805,569 properties were “registered for the €100 charge”. RTE is not reporting this matter accurately, this blogpost examines the facts.
> 
> If you read the RTE report today it says that “An estimated 805,569 properties were registered for the €100 charge by the time the deadline passed. 1.6 million households are liable for the tax.” You might conclude that just over half of households had paid the charge. But that’s not true – the RTE itself reports that 621,717 properties “were processed”, and “89,000 postal applications were still to be processed and the agency estimated 82,175 registrations were on hand at local authority offices across the country. Nearly 12,500 properties were registered for a waiver”
> 
> Add together 621,717 + 89,000 + 82,175 + 12,500 and you get 805,392 – in other words, the headline figures reported by RTE include “waivers”.



Its 805,392 - 12,500 = 792,892


----------



## ClubMan

Brendan Burgess said:


> Rob Kitchin has done a detailed analyis of the numbers on the "Ireland after Nama" blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eligible to pay|1,755,685
> 50% would be|877, 842
> Paid |792, 892
> Shortfall from majority|85,000Given the detail of his analysis, this is the best estimate yet.  If the government or anyone else disagrees with it, they can point out where the error is.
> 
> The only thing not referenced is the figure for the number who have paid. Where does this figure come from?
> 
> Brendan


_LGMA _are claiming 886K registered now.

[broken link removed]

Assuming that they have registered AND paid (including those on _DD _who have paid the first installment) then that would be just over 50% of 1,755,685.

The details are all still a bit vague for my liking though...


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> The details are all still a bit vague for my liking though...



I suspect that they are just a bit short of the 50% but with a few late payments this week, it will bring them over the 50%. They can make the formal announcement then.

Brendan


----------



## Sunny

So what if just over 50% have paid. A lot of those who paid the charge disagree with it and probably wouldn't support any strong arm tactics on the part of Government or local authorities to collect the charge from those who didn't. I paid but I know plenty of people who didn't and I am not going to judge them. 

The whole thing was and remains a complete fiasco. 

P.S. I got the leaflet about the charge delivered last night. Not that is incompetence


----------



## serotoninsid

ClubMan said:


> Assuming that they have registered AND paid (including those on _DD _who have paid the first installment) then that would be just over 50% of 1,755,685.


Lets work on *facts* and not *assumptions*.  As an example I registered in the first week but mulled it over and rethought my position on it.  There are likely to be many more like me.


			
				Brendan Burgess said:
			
		

> I suspect that they are just a bit short of the 50% but with a few late payments this week, it will bring them over the 50%. They can make the formal announcement then.


yeah, a formal announcement of those that have registered and paid - not of those who have paid.  The latter provides a much different statistic if it is made available.


			
				Sunny said:
			
		

> So what if just over 50% have paid.


Absolutely right.  People trying to put some 'spin' on this.


			
				Sunny said:
			
		

> A lot of those who paid the charge disagree with it and probably wouldn't support any strong arm tactics on the part of Government or local authorities


The politics of fear at work.  Will be rolled out for the referendum in the Summer once again no doubt.


> I know plenty of people who didn't and I am not going to judge them.


+1


			
				Sunny said:
			
		

> The whole thing was and remains a complete fiasco.


I don't have so much of an issue with the organisation of it - if I wanted to, I could have done so (paid it).  However, I guess for the elderly and other marginalised groups, there was an issue - and payment via post office would have resolved this.


			
				Sunny said:
			
		

> P.S. I got the leaflet about the charge delivered last night. Not that is incompetence


The irony.  We are being pushed into a *service* charge - and even in the implementation of this, $ is wasted - as per your example.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Registered by the deadling |886,000
Registered after deadline|8,800
Add multiple registrations c. |10,000
Total registered |905,000
Less waivered|14,000
Total registered who should pay|891,000
Total paid - unknown

A majority have registered. 
We don't know yet, whether a majority have paid or not.


----------



## bullworth

Brendan Burgess said:


> A majority have registered.
> We don't know yet, whether a majority have paid or not.



Then why don't you change the title of the thread Brendan ? Leaving it as it is would indicate either bias, untruthfulness or irrational over exuberance.


----------



## serotoninsid

bullworth said:


> Then why don't you change the title of the thread Brendan ? Leaving it as it is would indicate either bias, untruthfulness or irrational over exuberance.


I would tend to endorse that viewpoint.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

As my initial title was "It seems a majority has paid..." it was absolutely correct.  

I have now made it more precise. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

From RTE 



> The Local Government Management Agency has said that as of 4pm yesterday  evening, 888,751 people had registered for the Household Charge.
> 
> The figure includes almost 14,000 people who have applied for a waiver. On Tuesday, a spokesman for Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan  said the overall figure of households liable had been identified as  1,570,814, based on the results of the last Census.
> 
> 
> However, opponents of the charge have said that there are actually 1.8 million households liable for the charge.


----------



## Shawady

And 11,000 have paid the charge including penalty since the deadline expired at the end of March.
I'd consider this a reasonably high amount in such a short space of time.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0410/over-11-000-pay-house-charge-penalty.html


I have just noticed another report states that actaully 27,000 have paid the charge after the deadline resulting in almost €300,000 in penalties paid to the state.

http://www.independent.ie/national-...harge-hit-by-300000-in-penalties-3076720.html


----------



## bazermc

Shawady said:


> And 11,000 have paid the charge including penalty since the deadline expired at the end of March.
> I'd consider this a reasonably high amount in such a short space of time.
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0410/over-11-000-pay-house-charge-penalty.html


 
I dont understand how so many people have paid the HC  late when it was well flagged and they had 3 months to pay it from the start of the year.

I know the penalty (11 euro) is relatively small but even still I would rather not pay it myself if it could be avoided.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I expect people were waiting to see how many paid it first. However once it got over 50% I think the majority people will pay in time to avoid higher fines. So they'll whittle down the numbers over time.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

*[broken link removed]*



In fact, 921, 568 have registered. WE don't know how many have actually paid.


But it's likely to be at least 50% by now. 



Brendan


----------



## truthseeker

Brendan Burgess said:


> In fact, 921, 568 have registered. WE don't know how many have actually paid.



Nor do we know how many are eligible to pay.


----------



## BONDGIRL

Call it pregnancy brain but I forgot to pay.. I heard about it one day and said I must pay that! Now my hosp bill is due that will take centre stage! WHOPS!


----------



## Frank

This seems to have completely disappeared from news and public forum.

Did the protest by the large minority make any real difference?

Seems to be about half a million still haven't paid.

A lot of people to have to chase.


----------



## truthseeker

Frank said:


> This seems to have completely disappeared from news and public forum.
> 
> Did the protest by the large minority make any real difference?
> 
> Seems to be about half a million still haven't paid.
> 
> A lot of people to have to chase.



Too many to chase, and will probably be promised to be reversed by next lot going for election.

Who knows. The administration on chasing the numbers is impractical.


----------



## reddanmm

The reason there is no mention on this issue at the moment is because of the upcoming referendum. No bad news is allowed at the moment and big Phil has been gagged for the duration.
I am sure the minute the referendum is finished they will all be ungagged and unleashed


----------



## demoivre

Up to date information from here .

  The Local Government Management  Agency (LGMA) is administering the household charge system on a shared  service/agency basis for all county and city councils. I understand,  from data provided by the LGMA, that as of noon on 14 May, a total of  845,442 property declarations have been processed by the household  charge bureau. 829,082 registered for payment of the charge equating to  some €83m. 16,360 residential property owners have registered for a  waiver from payment of the charge.
  In addition, 87,500 postal  applications have been received in the household charge bureau, which  have yet to be processed; these equate to a further €8.8m.  A further  6,500 declarations have been received by local authorities equating to  some €0.65.m. This gives a total number of 939,442 declarations made  equating to some €93m.


----------



## monore

Not too promising that there are still 94,000 applications to be processed a month and a half after the deadline. If they don't have the recourses to process what is sent to them how are they going to pursue the approx 900,000 households that haven't registered. Looks like this tax has failed.


----------



## ClubMan

Interesting interactive map here giving an indication of who has paid and where...

[broken link removed]

I think that the chart legend is slightly inaccurate and red should actually be < 50%!

I'm assuming that the data on which the chart is based is accurate in spite of earlier confusion about what the precise figures were for those liable, thos who had paid etc.


----------



## jhegarty

Surprised to see the west cost so high. Would have expected to see it the other way round.


----------



## ClubMan

Just under 1M households have paid up and around 600K remain outstanding according to this:

[broken link removed]


----------



## Brendan Burgess

This thread is about the percentage of people who have actually paid. Please discuss other issues in other threads or in a new thread if it's a new subject.

I have moved the discussion of the letters received to this thread: Anyone else get a letter?


----------

