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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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!
 
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..
Click to expand...

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.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Sid
Using the figures in your link...So the worst case is 1m out of 1.8m have not paid
Click to expand...
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.
 
[broken link removed]

 
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.
 

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

Agree, tenants should pay and not owners, as in UK
 
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...
 
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
 
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.
 
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|85,000
Given 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
 
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.
.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bazermc said:
the government have failed in their objective to raise revenue and have failed in a large part of their programme for government.
Click to expand...
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”.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
The only thing not referenced is the figure for the number who have paid. Where does this figure come from?

Brendan
Click to expand...

Its from here.

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

From namawinelake:

Its 805,392 - 12,500 = 792,892
 
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...
 
The details are all still a bit vague for my liking though...
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
+1
Sunny said:
The whole thing was and remains a complete fiasco.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
The irony. We are being pushed into a service charge - and even in the implementation of this, $ is wasted - as per your example.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register