It's easy to imagine folks living abroad might get caught by changes in legislation like this. Heck, you could owe a fortune if you fell into a coma for a few years. It is an extortionate rate of interest that a money lender would be embarrassed by. There's no good reason for this particular charge (tax by another name) to have such a punitive interest rate applied.
There should be penalties for non or late payment, but reasonable penalties please!
If you are living abroad WHILE running a business in this country, you have a responsibility yourself to stay up to date on relevant legislation in this country. It's not good enough to say 'Oh the Govt never told me'. If you run a business here, you have a duty to stay informed yourself.It's easy to imagine folks living abroad might get caught by changes in legislation like this. Heck, you could owe a fortune if you fell into a coma for a few years. It is an extortionate rate of interest that a money lender would be embarrassed by. There's no good reason for this particular charge (tax by another name) to have such a punitive interest rate applied.
If somebody does have Alzheimers or goes into a coma, the usual process would involve the appointment of a ward of court to manage their affairs. If they do own a rental property here, then somebody will have to do a whole lot of other stuff for them, including managing and maintaining the property and paying tax on rent. The NPPR tax is just a small part of the overall picture.If we follow RainyDays reasoning to its logical conclusions, there would be no upper limit on what would be a fair, legal fine, and no 'credible' reasons for being uninformed of the fine. So it would be fair and legal if someone who fails to pay for one year, due to Alzheimers or being in a coma after a car-crash, loses the entire value of their property for failure to pay.
or does your brain have only room for one of them at one time:
That's plain silly. People have a right not to be fined excessively, whether they have met their obligations or not. Nothing you said makes that 'moot'.
Your argument just denies the existence of excessive punishment. You might as well say that if someone is punished with removal of their driving licence for the rest of their lives, for the offense of driving 5mph above the speed limit once, that their 'best solution to any concern about the magnitude of the punishment was not to drive 5mph over the speed limit, in which case any concern about the excessiveness of the punishment is moot'.
Your response seem to lack ordinary logic, and any concession at all to the concept of natural justice, or any recognition that excessive punishment is, well, excessive.
P.S. non-recognition of the right not to be fined or punished excessively by the state can rightly be described as 'fascist' or 'totalitarian'. Limitations on state authority to fine or punish are hallmarks of a democratic society.
If we lose all our rights as a result of offending the state, then we lose all our rights, period.
If you want to think about natural justice or fairness, RainyDay, you have to leave prejudical and reflexive thinking behind. You can't have both. You seem to have made up your mind that those who face excessive fines under the NPPR deserve everything they get, based on some emotional thinking.
Emotional thinking and fairness just don't go together. The illogical transition from 'some people are chancers' to 'everyone is a chancer' can't be made and fairness preserved. You're making up all these stories in your head about what people who are heavily fined under the NPPR are all about, and what I am all about.
Would the case for excessive fines be strengthened or weakened if I were 'stung' as you say? What on earth do I and my case have to do the fairness of it?
It so happens that I haven't been personally stung at all, and am taking this issue up as a favor to someone who is less positioned to do anything about it than I am. When I heard his story, I perceived injustice, and decided to act. That's why I'm here. No other reason. No personal gain on my part.
All true - fully agree.If you wouldn't help on this issue because you think there are more pressing ones, fair enough. If you think it is a low priority in your list of issues, fair enough.
People don't pick issues to work on on the basis that it is the most important issue in the world or the country. If they did, very few issues would be worked on at all. Can anyone justify that the spoiling of a view in a local development is more important than disability aid? They pick issues for many reasons, some of it is perception of their own ability to help -- and perception of whether they are likely to be a success.
Then there is 'moral proximity'. People feel more morally impelled to prioritize issues that are in some sense closer to them. For this reason, we may consider it reprehensible to let a child die of starvation on our doorstep, but acceptable to let children die while we go to the movies but could save faraway children by giving our movie money to humanitarian aid.
For me, 'moral proximity' is part of it, as this has happened to a person I know. I am working on seeing if I can do something about it partly based on my own inclinations and perceptions of what can potentially happen.
While I have the greatest sympathy for any individual dealing with Alzheimers and their family, it doesn't hold up to me as a genuine reason.I'm not sure what you mean by 'credible'. But getting Alzheimers is a reason for not paying the tax.
The ESB bill arrives out to the property and is clearly something that needs paying. If the NPPR was demanded by way of reminder notice like car tax or what have you then you might have a point but the lad cutting the grass may well himself never have heard of the NPPR charge.In the cases that I've come across, there is usually some family around that is taking care of the person's affairs, either informally or formally through the ward of court process. If there is someone who is there to maintain the property, insure the property, pay the ESB bill and cut the grass, then there is someone who can pay the NPPR bill.
If there is no-one around to help manage the affairs, then the estate can pay at a later stage.
The problem seems to arise when there is no-one round to help manage affairs then the person is alive, but only appears to 'help' when the will is being sorted out.
I really haven't looked that closely at it.Do you think the current penalty for late payment is too little, just right or not enough by the way?
The idea of people being sent to jail for non-payment, or more specifically, being taken to jail, processed, and then let out through a revolving door after a couple of hours is ridiculous.What about other things like the TV licence, are the penalties there stiff enough for your liking?
You're right, I didn't address this. And I won't be addressing it or any other ridiculous scenarios that you dream up.I'm a firm believer in everyone paying their share and of penalties for non-compliance, but the penalty should reflect the "crime" as it does in most every other walk of life. The 10 km/h over the speed limit is a classic example that I don't think you fully addressed. Why should something that could literally mean the difference between life and death for a pedestrian struck by such a vehicle not carry a more severe penalty than 2 points and a fixed penalty notice? Surely there should be a penalty of instant disqualification as all the driver has to do to avoid this penalty is drive within the designated speed limits at all times, as I'm sure you do.
In the cases that I've come across, there is usually some family around that is taking care of the person's affairs, either informally or formally through the ward of court process. If there is someone who is there to maintain the property, insure the property, pay the ESB bill and cut the grass, then there is someone who can pay the NPPR bill.
Okay rainyday, let's take the scenario you describe where someone is ill and someone is looking after their affairs, and do manage to think of and pay the NPPR bill, the property tax, PRTB registration etc. but they're all late because the person has been busy getting the proper care for the person first and all the pandemonium that comes with someone being so ill, why should the penalties for the late NPPR be so disproportionate to the Property Tax and the PRTB for example ??? There is no reason that makes any sense.
I am currently looking after my brother's affairs since he was diagnosed terminally ill earlier this year, believe me, this stuff takes a back seat behind medical care, emotional care, grief, the list goes on.....
Anyhoo, because of all that was going on I was about two months late paying his property tax, there wasn't a word said, no penalty, no issue, just thanks for your call is basically what they told me so the NPPR should not be so wildly different.
Okay rainyday, let's take the scenario you describe where someone is ill and someone is looking after their affairs, and do manage to think of and pay the NPPR bill, the property tax, PRTB registration etc. but they're all late because the person has been busy getting the proper care for the person first and all the pandemonium that comes with someone being so ill, why should the penalties for the late NPPR be so disproportionate to the Property Tax and the PRTB for example ??? There is no reason that makes any sense.
I am currently looking after my brother's affairs since he was diagnosed terminally ill earlier this year, believe me, this stuff takes a back seat behind medical care, emotional care, grief, the list goes on.....
Anyhoo, because of all that was going on I was about two months late paying his property tax, there wasn't a word said, no penalty, no issue, just thanks for your call is basically what they told me so the NPPR should not be so wildly different.