New Household Tax - Boycott

Going Forward

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I'd like to ask the posters who are perfectly happy to pay a property tax, and (seemingly) have plenty of money to do so, a few questions:

1. What figure/amount would you consider appropriate for this tax?

2. What figure/amount would the tax need to reach for it to be difficult for you to manage to pay?

3. Do you think this tax should rise every year?

4. Do you think those who can't afford to pay it should sell their houses in order cease to be liable for the charge? Or should there be waivers for those who don't have the money - if yes, do you believe the charge should accumulate until they're earning more money, if that happens in the future, and be paid in full then or start at the beginning then?

5. What do you truly believe the money from this tax will be spent on?

6. What do you think is the fairest method of assessing how much each household should be charged? [I know that's very similar to question 1, but I mean method rather than amount].

Great post.
Why dont our outrageously paid TV and radio presenters ask these sort of questions? (And get answers)

Godge

john reilly wrote: »

nonsense post. I own a house and am 100,000 euro in debt. if i was renting or even better living in a council house not only would i not be in debt but i would not have to pay for the upkeep of my house. it has been announced that the council are going to reginerate a council housing estate where i live. if i was foolish enough to pay the 100 euro charge i would be paying to fix somebody elses house while struggling to mantain my own. some people just havent a clue. and yes i am aware that their are a lot of people around the world worse off than me who deserve charity. but people licing in council houses whether they are working or living off welfare or both , dont come under that heading. as for the homeless what do local goverment do for them

Once again you miss the point. You are buying a house. Some day the mortgage will be paid. You will own the house. Therefore you are in a better position than someone who is not buying a house. The selfishness of Irish people these days leaves me speechless. They want services for themselves, paid by someone else and if there is a service they don't want or need, it should be abolished and it is always someone else who should pay the tax.

100,000 is a small mortgage by today's standards, count yourself lucky.

Wibbs

Denerick wrote: »

We are in a complete fiscal mess and we need to raise revenue.

We also need to seriously restructure how existing revenue is being spent otherwise we're just throwing good money after bad.

At one hundred euro per household it is not exorbitant. People really need to get a life and see the bigger picture.

Get back to me on that bigger picture when you're paying a grand a year in the not too distant future. Plus a water charge. And still getting crappy service and return for that money. this only 100 euro is essentially a "build our tax database for us, so we can charge you more next year" charge.

The crusties on the far left like to convince us that we can magically balance the books by charging 99% tax on millionaires but the reality is that we need to expand our revenue base, and this includes taxes on property.

I agree most of the far left camp would be better off in homes for the bewildered dribbling on themselves. However again I point out that balancing the books is not all about raising revenue, it's just as much about reducing the wasteful outward flow of revenue.

JustinDee

john reilly wrote: »

being the owner of property doesnt make one rich. infact in many cases the opposite. this makes this tax inequitable and unfair. the only fair tax would be an air tax. if you are alive and breathing you should be charged for it. if you dont pay it the goverment could stop your air supply till you cough up

For a start, you have an asset in your name and therefore in a regular economy, a means to further investment.
You have an asset that will, one day, rise in value again.

As with all investments, affordability should be taken into account before leaping in.

Don't give the day job. Seriously, don't. Its a jungle out there.

djpbarry

Wibbs wrote: »

We also need to seriously restructure how existing revenue is being spent otherwise we're just throwing good money after bad.

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with that, but spending cuts have already been made, more are planned, and all are generally opposed by the same people opposing the household charge.

Wibbs wrote: »

Get back to me on that bigger picture when you're paying a grand a year in the not too distant future.

Where is this myth coming from? Why would you be paying a grand a year (unless you have an absolutely massive house)?

Wibbs wrote: »

And still getting crappy service...

Relative to what?

Wibbs

djpbarry wrote: »

Where is this myth coming from? Why would you be paying a grand a year (unless you have an absolutely massive house)?

As the article FreudianSlippers linked to outlined:

The commission recommended a system of property tax that would raise €1.2 billion a year, which is eight times greater than the €160 million that will be raised by the €100 charge.

Under the commission’s proposed scheme a charge of €188 would be paid on houses valued at up to €150,000; €563 on houses between €150,000 and €300,000; €938 on houses up to €450,000; €1,313 on houses valued at up to €600,000; €1,699 on houses up to €750,000; €2,188 on houses valued at up to €1 million; €3,125 on houses up to €1.5 million and 0.25 per cent of the valuation on houses over that.

There would be a lot of pretty average suburban semi dees family homes in Dublin that would be paying nearly a grand under that proposal and many times more paying 500 odd quid a year. Ah but it's only a proposal I hear you say? Indeed, but I will now bet you a round of drinks that in 5 years time those figures will be pretty damn close. Hell I'll raise that bet and say they'll be even higher. Never mind the proposed water charge.

Relative to what?

Relative to other EU states. Our decidedly third rate medical service for a start. Yet it's one of the most heavily funded per head in the EU. During the "boom" money was flying into the tax coffers and did anyone notice much of a change?

Bullseye1

Godge wrote: »

Nonsensical post. Being the owner of property does make you rich, you are certainly richer than a homeless person or a tenant.

This is rubbish. You do realise that that the majority of homes bought in the last ten years are in negative equity? Therefore people have borrowed up in some cases up to twice what the property is currently worth. So while they may have an asset it is no good to them unless they sell for a profit. Most if they decide to sell will sell for a loss. There are many renters in financially better situation and have more desposible income. There are also many elderly people who bought their houses in the 40's and 50's who have never moved and while they have an asset they are cash poor.

Fizzlesque

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The commission recommended a system of property tax that would raise €1.2 billion a year, which is eight times greater than the €160 million that will be raised by the €100 charge.

Under the commission’s proposed scheme a charge of €188 would be paid on houses valued at up to €150,000; €563 on houses between €150,000 and €300,000; €938 on houses up to €450,000; €1,313 on houses valued at up to €600,000; €1,699 on houses up to €750,000; €2,188 on houses valued at up to €1 million; €3,125 on houses up to €1.5 million and 0.25 per cent of the valuation on houses over that.

Thanks, Freudian Slippers. I did see that particular article, back in December last year - and, to be honest, it doesn't put my mind at rest. €563 a year is very different to €188 a year, such a large leap.

Another reason my mind isn't put at rest is; how come there haven't been lots more, and more recent, articles on the subject? Every day there are lots of articles on the subject of this tax, how come allaying people's fears about being whacked with an ever increasing bill year after year hasn't been addressed?

In addition to the above, this isn't the government saying this is what they have planned, this is The Commission on Taxation's recommendation.

"Whatever system is agreed by the Government, most householders will have to pay considerably more than the €100 flat charge for 2012 which is due to be paid by the end of next March."

What is 'considerably more'? They're certainly not the kind of words to calm people who are fearful of what lies ahead.

JustinDee

Bullseye1 wrote: »

This is rubbish. You do realise that that the majority of homes bought in the last ten years are in negative equity? Therefore people have borrowed up in some cases up to twice what the property is currently worth. So while they may have an asset it is no good to them unless they sell for a profit. Most if they decide to sell will sell for a loss

A tad generalistic and subjectively so.
Will sell at a loss if a sale takes place. "Negative equity", this demonic phrase that people bandy about as if doomsday is upon us, only concerns those who aim to shift an asset today or borrow using what is now a currently lower value as collateral. There is an asset of value in the owner's name.

Dirk Gently

Who values the house? Is it the original price paid for the house or will there be another army of clip boarders surveying each house in the country, or will geographical areas be allocated a value?

Fizzlesque

Thanks for replying to my query, ArmaniJeanss. I had tried the copying/pasting the bookend quote links but ended up with

instead of an actual quote so I wondered if there was some other system. It's possible I didn't have these [] close enough to the words I wanted to appear as quotes.

Not to worry, I'll probably stumble upon the reason it didn't work at some point. I appreciate you taking the time to write your detailed response, cheers

Godge

Bullseye1 wrote: »

This is rubbish. You do realise that that the majority of homes bought in the last ten years are in negative equity? Therefore people have borrowed up in some cases up to twice what the property is currently worth. So while they may have an asset it is no good to them unless they sell for a profit. Most if they decide to sell will sell for a loss. There are many renters in financially better situation and have more desposible income. There are also many elderly people who bought their houses in the 40's and 50's who have never moved and while they have an asset they are cash poor.

(1) A lot of homes are worth less than people paid for them but people who bought ten years ago have paid a lot of their mortgage already, a number of mortgages had short ten-year terms, others were trading-up and had significant equity, others used lump sums to pay down their mortgage so I doubt that a majority of homes bought in the last ten years are in negative equity.

(2) The asset is no good to them if they want to sell today, but if they were sensible (and there were quite a few fools around) and bought property as a long-term investment with an income protection policy then there is no issue if they hand on to the property and sell in ten years time.

(3) Of course there are many renters with greater disposable income but they don't own an asset.

(4) As for the elderly people who bought in the 40s and 50s, one of the issues with the property market in Ireland is people hanging on to their houses which they can no longer afford to maintain and making the market illiquid. In other European countries, people trade down as they get older.

djpbarry

Wibbs wrote: »

There would be a lot of pretty average suburban semi dees family homes in Dublin that would be paying nearly a grand under that proposal...

That depends on what you consider to be “average”. The only part of the country likely to have a reasonable number of properties that fall into the €300 – 450k valuation band is Dun Laoighaire-Rathdown – not exactly an “average” part of the country, is it? The average property nationwide will be taxed considerably less than €1k per annum.

Wibbs wrote: »

Relative to other EU states. Our decidedly third rate medical service for a start.

Ah, that old chestnut. Ireland does not have a “third-rate” healthcare system – it actually doesn’t compare all that badly at all to other OECD states (it compares pretty well to the UK, for example) and spending on health isn’t particularly high:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/53/43216301.pdf

I know it’s a popular pastime among Irish people to consider everything in Ireland to be ****e, but the reality is somewhat different.

JustinDee

djpbarry wrote: »

That depends on what you consider to be “average”. The only part of the country likely to have a reasonable number of properties that fall into the €300 – 450k valuation band is Dun Laoighaire-Rathdown – not exactly an “average” part of the country, is it?

On your guess above, the average 3-4 bedroom house in Maynooth, Co.Kildare is priced at around €300-€370k. At peak €420-550k.

djpbarry

JustinDee wrote: »

On your guess above, the average 3-4 bedroom house in Maynooth, Co.Kildare is priced at around €300-€370k.

Based on what I'm seeing on Daft at the moment, I think that's an over-estimate. But anyway, are we calling a 3-4 bed house "average"?

@djpbarry

@djpbarry: I'm a little late with my reply, apologies, only now getting time to catch up properly on the thread.

djpbarry wrote: »

I am not arguing against the sanctioning of TD’s who have been shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to have transgressed. What I am arguing against is the idea that sanctions should be imposed where a TD has “given the impression” of transgressing, because that is just plain ridiculous.

I don't agree. I think government ministers and other senior public servants are in a privileged and uniquely public and high-profile and influential position, and as such should have higher expectations to not only be entirely impartial, but also to be seen to be so. Their terms of employment and work practice rules (set by themselves, lest we forget) allow for many, many exceptions and special cases in how they are remunerated and how they must go about their work, is it not then reasonable of us, the electors, to expect special conditions on how they must behave in light of the influential and privileged position which they are in?

Furthermore, if a major report by several well respected judges, sanctioned by the state (albeit ironically, by Bertie) and at a cost of several million euros came to the distinct conclusion that several former government ministers had actively sought to undermine the work of an oireachtas sanctioned body of investigation, and came to this conclusion on foot of the public statements, and media appearances which those ministers made at the time, i feel that in such high profile cases, the appearance of improper influence or interference by a senior politician should be grounds enough for sanction, yes. Maybe not for criminal sanction, but certainly for internal party sanction, demotion, and widespread public criticism.

If we are ever to clean up the corrupt political system in ireland, then i think we must lay down stricter codes, rules and guidelines for our elected representatives. Politicians are populists. We must let them know that support for the crooked culture of the past is now gone, and they must take note or they will find themselves out of a job after the next polling day. They certainly aren't going to make such a change themselves without good reason, like turkeys voting for christmas, but it simply isn't good enough to apply the same already lacklustre, loophole-ridden codes of conduct and sanction which the public service at large has to adhere to to front line politicians in public positions with major influence which can be brought to bear for good or ill.

If politicians really want to clean up our crooked system, they must lead from the top, based on what their constituents tell them they will not get away with any longer. We should tell them that we wish them to be subject to even tighter codes, not looser ones than the rest of us, if they want to represent us, and i think that should include things like optics, media guidelines, and yes, appropriate sanction for any perception whatsoever of impropriety.

The old "well sure there's no law against it, technically" excuse should not be a hiding place any longer.

djpbarry wrote: »

Where to start...

A good retort, i can't argue with you there at all, so i won't try. Thanks for an informative and succint post.

It is the highest indictment of our entire political system that the man in question could still hold any form of public office whatsoever after the findings made against him, and speaks to exactly the point i have just made regarding the need for higher levels of accountability and transparency in public life.

Dirk Gently wrote: »

Who values the house? Is it the original price paid for the house or will there be another army of clip boarders surveying each house in the country, or will geographical areas be allocated a value?

In response this, and also to freudian slippers post on the possible structure of any framework for the calculation of charges: I really cannot see how this could fail to incite even bigger levels of outrage from taxpayers, regardless of which option is chosen by whoever it is that works out the final charges.

A system of charging based on the original purchase price of the property would be an enormous insult to the taxpayer, and would, i feel, incite enough rage and protest (even in peaceful little ireland) so as to make it a dead political duck. If the household charge protest we have seen recently is anything to judge by, it would never get off the ground.

To be charged a percentage of a vastly inflated house price, one that was largely a notional, pie-in-the-sky valuation of most properties which were sold (with the exception of for a few fleeting years during the boom when they were actually attainable) would be deeply deeply unjust to many. To be taxed at an inflated rate on an imaginary property price bearing no resemblance to the value of the home they will likely have to pay for for the rest of their working life, a legacy from a bygone era which came about as a direct a result of the major government and regulatory failures in politics, banking, construction, planning, and estate agency, would be such an enormous insult to anyone who bought in the boom that it would spark rage like we haven't yet seen in this country. It would galvanize hundreds of thousands in protest against a government with one eye on an impending re-election campaign.

The level of inequity a charge on this basis would give rise to would be staggering. Houses on the same street or in the same area, in some cases next-door neighbours who had bought adjoining, identical houses, but at different times during the boom and at different prices would be being charged different amounts on the same property. This would in effect be compounding the insult to them of having been gazumped due to the lack of regulation during the boom. It would be adding insult to injury for an entire cohort of people who already feel that they have been left out in the cold by the political system, and who are disillusioned to the point where this would be the push that would send them over the edge.

Conversely, any system of charging where areas, zones, estates, etc would be categorized en masse, would be subject to such inequitable exceptions, mistakes, injustices, etc (particularly given our "accident" prone public service) as to allow the ravenous tabloid media to whip the public up into an anti-government frenzy, as we get closer and closer to polling day....

This entire property tax issue is going to be really, REALLY difficult for the government to come away from unscathed, and is probably going to place enormous stress on the labour side of the coalition in particular, from it's grass roots. If there is one thing on the governments agenda with the potential to actually bring them down prematurely, i would say it's how this is handled.

I wonder if they'll give it to Phil Hogan to look after...;)

JustinDee

djpbarry wrote: »

Based on what I'm seeing on Daft at the moment, I think that's an over-estimate. But anyway, are we calling a 3-4 bed house "average"?

Yes, a 3 or 4 bedroom semi-detached house is "average".
The price guideline I gave you isn't an over-estimate either. I'm getting ready to sell so I've been doing my homework pretty extensively on the ground.

mattser

That's it.

Come car tax renewal time, count me out.

I paid the household charge, and if they have a go at me for car tax, I'll tell them to fcuk off and take me to court with the other half of the country.

This has set some precedent.

djpbarry

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes, a 3 or 4 bedroom semi-detached house is "average".

Well, according to the census, the average dwelling in Ireland has only 5-6 rooms in total.

JustinDee

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes, a 3 or 4 bedroom semi-detached house is "average"

Based on what the definition of an "average" family is, 2 parents, and 2-3 children, i would tend to agree. I don't think a 3-4 bedroom house is anything out of the ordinary. That's not to say that there aren't a lot of growing families out there living in less, but i think that's an overhang from the lack of proper planning as well as the negative equity issue that has a lot of young, growing families still stuck in starter homes they can't sell.

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, according to the census, the average dwelling in Ireland has only 5-6 rooms in total.

I would suspect that a lot of these are apartments, as per what i posted above.

From personal experience of urban apartment life, the standard of apartment building that went on during the boom in Ireland falls far short of what any growing family would need in terms of facilities, available expansion space, etc, but regardless, a lot of people have no option to trade up to a house due to the negative equity problem, and are unwilling not to have a family, so opt to raise kids in a space that's smaller than they need in the hope things will improve in the long term.

I would say that rather than a 3-4 bed house being above average, what the most recent census info suggests is that a lot of people in Ireland are stuck in property that is too small to meet their growing needs, and is below average size. To any 2 parent family with 2-3 kids, 3 bedrooms is far from excessive.

I'd be very interested to see any cut of the census figures to show who, of these people in 5-6 rooms total, is renting (ie :is resident there by choice), and who owns and has bought in the last 5-10 years (ie: is likely to have seen a 20-60% decrease in the value of their property, and is likely to be stuck in NE). From memory of the census form i think (correct me if I'm wrong) that it allowed for that data to be ascertained.

Wibbs

djpbarry wrote: »

That depends on what you consider to be “average”. The only part of the country likely to have a reasonable number of properties that fall into the €300 – 450k valuation band is Dun Laoighaire-Rathdown – not exactly an “average” part of the country, is it?

Incorrect. As later pointed out other areas fall into such a bracket. Mostly in the cities.

The average property nationwide will be taxed considerably less than €1k per annum.

I'll lay a bet again that the average will be paying close to or higher than 500 quid a year in short order.

Ah, that old chestnut. Ireland does not have a “third-rate” healthcare system – it actually doesn’t compare all that badly at all to other OECD states (it compares pretty well to the UK, for example) and spending on health isn’t particularly high:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/53/43216301.pdf

"Health spending per capita in Ireland is above the OECD average, with spending of 3,781 USD in 2009 (adjusted for purchasing power parity) compared with an OECD average of 3,223 USD"

Plus if you think we have anything approaching a first rate health system in this country you thankfully haven't been exposed to much of it.

http://medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=posts_and_promises

Ireland has the lowest number of consultant neurologists in Europe. A wait of two years to see one is not unusual. We should as a minimum recommendation have 26 neurologists but we only have 6 on last count.

It's not the third world health service some might claim, but it's not a first world one either.

I know it’s a popular pastime among Irish people to consider everything in Ireland to be ****e, but the reality is somewhat different.

Certainly. We have a pretty good country in many ways, however there is an inordinate amount of shíte out there still.

djpbarry wrote: »

Based on what I'm seeing on Daft at the moment, I think that's an over-estimate. But anyway, are we calling a 3-4 bed house "average"?

Yes. As houses go in urban areas(where the majority live) a 3 bed semi is about as average as you can get.

Deleted User wrote:

From personal experience of urban apartment life, the standard of apartment building that went on during the boom in Ireland falls far short of what any growing family would need in terms of facilities, available expansion space, etc,

Very much so. Compared to apartment designs I've been in around the EU, too many Irish boom built apartments were very badly designed. More aimed at student digs or first steps to house ownership than long term homes in of themselves. I would lay the blame as much on the Irish homeowner as the designers TBH. The majority of people expect to live in the 3 bed semi as a matter of course so apartments were considered a stepping stone. The market didn't seem to demand more.

oscarBravo

Wibbs wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

The average property nationwide will be taxed considerably less than €1k per annum.

I'll lay a bet again that the average will be paying close to or higher than 500 quid a year in short order.

I'm not seeing a contradiction.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I'll lay a bet again that the average will be paying close to or higher than 500 quid a year in short order.

I would have to agree with you. I think €500 within 3-5 years is on the conservative side. As posted, there is a factor of eight between what the household charge was intended to raise and the total take which the troika have mandated needs to come from our property tax.

On average, not adjusting for means, equitability, property values, or however they intend to work it out, each household that is registered will be asked for 8x more than the current €100 charge. Even rounding this down generously by 25% you come to an average figure of €600 per property for the vast middle ground of property owners in Ireland who will be making up the 80% plus bulk of the total take. Some will be lower, some higher, but the majority will be there or thereabouts.

Wibbs wrote: »

if you think we have anything approaching a first rate health system in this country you thankfully haven't been exposed to much of it....

+1 for this. Selective, self-serving comparisons with other countries irritate me in general, but there are very few things which genuinely boil my blood as much as when i hear ministers and their supporters claim our health system is no worse than many countries in the EU or the developed world.

I defy anyone to visit Our Lady's hospital for sick children in Crumlin, Dublin, and take a day, just a day to see what goes on there, and still come away with the opinion that we have anything close to a first rate health system, regardless of our spend. For anyone who is lucky enough to have not had the pleasure, it is one of the most heart-breaking, sobering, frustrating, and angering experiences you will ever have. There are staff there, with more talent, heart, and genuine care for the seriously ill children they look after, than i have ever seen, but they are struggling under impossible constraints due to lack of funding and lack of efficiency, and everywhere that there is a shortfall, it means that a child dies, or becomes even more gravely ill.

There's nowhere else in Ireland that I've seen where the real, human cost of the mismanagement and waste in our public service has been more evident, and tangible, and where the human spirit has to work so hard to overcome the effects of such social injustice. This recent Times article puts it more eloquently than i ever could. We may spend as much as a country with a first rate health system does, but we are NOT not getting the level of service:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2012/0320/1224313567106.html

stevedublin

mattser wrote: »

That's it.

Come car tax renewal time, count me out.

I paid the household charge, and if they have a go at me for car tax, I'll tell them to fcuk off and take me to court with the other half of the country.

This has set some precedent.

I think the difference between the household charge and the car tax is that the household charge is more than likely to increase year by year and evolve to a huge, onerous property tax that could see people being evicted from their homes (if they dont pay).
Also it is a NEW tax that has just been introduced to pay off bank bondholders, whereas the car tax has been around before the govt took on bank debt.
Lastly, most people would consider being thrown out of your house is more serious than being taken off the road (if people dont pay the tax). Having a roof over your head is generally considered more necessary than having a car.

oscarBravo

stevedublin wrote: »

I think the difference between the household charge and the car tax is that the household charge is more than likely to increase year by year...

As opposed to a car tax, which has decreased year on year since its introduction?

...and evolve to a huge, onerous property tax that could see people being evicted from their homes (if they dont pay).

There is no provision in law to evict people for non-payment of property tax. Sure, it's theoretically possible that a future law could be introduced to evict people for non-payment of property tax, but it's also theoretically possible that a future law could be introduced to evict people for non-payment of car tax.

It would be nice if we could stick to the facts while discussing this issue. I accept that it's unlikely to happen, though.

Also it is a NEW tax that has just been introduced to pay off bank bondholders...

Jesus wept, that idiotic meme just won't go away, will it?

Lastly, most people would consider being thrown out of your house is more serious than being taken off the road (if people dont pay the tax). Having a roof over your head is generally considered more necessary than having a car.

Just as well nobody - apart from anti-property tax scaremongers - is talking about people being thrown out of their houses then, isn't it?

squonk

stevedublin wrote: »

I think the difference between the household charge and the car tax is that the household charge is more than likely to increase year by year and evolve to a huge, onerous property tax that could see people being evicted from their homes (if they dont pay).
Also it is a NEW tax that has just been introduced to pay off bank bondholders, whereas the car tax has been around before the govt took on bank debt.
Lastly, most people would consider being thrown out of your house is more serious than being taken off the road (if people dont pay the tax). Having a roof over your head is generally considered more necessary than having a car.

Your post raises a good question that I have not seen answered yet. What is to happen those who don't pay the charge? I've seen mention of the charge remaining and being levied with interest at the time the house changes hands. It doesn't appear that those not paying will be taken to court. Certainly, it would be a huge PR headache for the government if those not paying were evicted from homes that they are otherwise paying mortgages on. I see a real problem even implementing that.

So, from the Govt's point of view, what next? Carry on and make do with the reduced intake for now, or get tough? Even this element of the charge hasn't been fully explained.

stevedublin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Jesus wept, that idiotic meme just won't go away, will it?

Yes, it won't go away.
No, it is not idiotic.
You can't hide the truth, people are not stupid.

djpbarry

Wibbs wrote: »

I'll lay a bet again that the average will be paying close to or higher than 500 quid a year in short order.

Just a few short posts ago you were telling us everyone was going to be paying a grand?

Wibbs wrote: »

Plus if you think we have anything approaching a first rate health system...

Hang on there now – I didn’t say that. I’m not saying it’s brilliant, I’m just saying it’s nowhere near as bad as some people like to think it is. By OECD standards, it’s fairly middle-of-the-road based on most indicators.

Wibbs wrote: »

As houses go in urban areas(where the majority live) a 3 bed semi is about as average as you can get.

I’m going to defer to the CSO on this – 2-3 is closer to average than 3-4.

djpbarry

stevedublin wrote: »

...people are not stupid.

Some people are - Joe Higgins and Richard Boyd-Barrett depend on them for a political career.

beeftotheheels

djpbarry wrote: »

Some people are - Joe Higgins and Richard Boyd-Barrett depend on them for a political career.

You forgot about Pringle and Coppinger

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0402/breaking7.html

oscarBravo

stevedublin wrote: »

Yes, it won't go away.
No, it is not idiotic.
You can't hide the truth, people are not stupid.

If someone continually and wilfully ignores the fact that our structural deficit - the difference between our tax revenue and our spending on (mostly) public service pay and social welfare - outweighs the cost of bondholder payments by a factor of nineteen to one and carps on and on about the latter while blithely ignoring the former - what word would you use to describe that?

JustinDee

djpbarry wrote: »

Some people are - Joe Higgins and Richard Boyd-Barrett depend on them for a political career.

Lovely delivery!

meglome

stevedublin wrote: »

Yes, it won't go away.
No, it is not idiotic.
You can't hide the truth, people are not stupid.

Well perhaps people are stupid.

Some facts.

• 95% of the 14 billion we’re borrowing this year is for our spending deficit is not going to pay for bank debt. It’s just going to fund government services etc. That is a fact.
• The majority of the money we’ve borrowed full stop is for our overspending and not the banks. That is a fact.
• Even if we never made another payment to a bank or never made a payment in the first place we’d still have borrowed the majority of the money. That is a fact.
• Fianna Fail got rid of the sustainable domestic rates to buy an election in 1974 and with the many other tax deceases they have brought in to buy other elections we now do not have a sustainable tax base. That is a fact.

If we do a simple counterfactual and magic away the €62.5 billion we have pumped into the banks, the projected deficit for 2012 would fall from €13.6 billion to €12.8 billion or 8.0% of GDP. Eliminating the effect of the bank payments would knock 5% off the deficit; 95% of next year’s deficit is not related to the bank payments.

It is impossible to be human and not to be furious about this. But anger – righteous or otherwise – should not cloud analysis. However understandable, that has happened in the debate on bank debt.

Three claims are frequently made:

• Most public debt is a result of taking on banking debt;
• The economic and budgetary outlook would be transformed if banking debt could be offloaded;
• A bailout would not have been needed had it not been for socialised banking debt.

These claims are, respectively, plain wrong, wrong and debatable.

Links... http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0323/1224313766388.html and http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2011/11/deficit-and-banks.html

later12

The problem with statements like the above is that they put the cost of things like the ELG at €0.00

meglome

later12 wrote: »

The problem with statements like the above is that they put the cost of things like the ELG at €0.00

Sure, not trying to do an exact analysis of what happened or is happening, just trying to dispel some myths. Myths which are repeated ad nauseum.

Wibbs

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not seeing a contradiction.

Look closer then. djpbarry was horrified at the very suggestion that anybody other than those living in "absolutely massive" houses would be paying that. Well if you have a semi dee over 300 K then look out, you will be paying over a grand. Even with the downturn that's a lot of households. Secondly I said "in the not too distant future". The tax commissions recommendations are a kick off and will very likely go higher and that was the bet I was placing and I reckon my money is pretty safe.

oscarBravo wrote: »

As opposed to a car tax, which has decreased year on year since its introduction?

Links please. Specifically show me the falling tax rates of a car of the same non diesel/hybrid engine size over the last decade. Good luck with that. Indeed put the same statement in the Motors forum and await the brickbats.

Jesus wept, that idiotic meme just won't go away, will it?

Agree 100% with you here OB. It's got nada to do with the banks. That's a separate issue entirely. EDIT meglome covered it perfectly

djpbarry wrote: »

Hang on there now – I didn’t say that. I’m not saying it’s brilliant, I’m just saying it’s nowhere near as bad as some people like to think it is. By OECD standards, it’s fairly middle-of-the-road based on most indicators.

If you consider having the worst ratio of consultants/specialised scanners to patients in the western world, never mind one of the highest ratios of admin to medical staff middle of the road I think we're done here.

I’m going to defer to the CSO on this – 2-3 is closer to average than 3-4.

You pointed out the cso's figures were according to the census, the average dwelling in Ireland has only 5-6 rooms in total. Did you read the parameters of the question on the census? It said do NOT count bathrooms, toilets, kitchenettes, utility rooms and various others. So lets look at an average 3 bed semi in the sprawl that is Irish suburbia. Three rooms upstairs, down stairs another three(front and back rooms and kitchen). That makes 6 in total.

stevedublin

meglome wrote: »

Sure, not trying to do an exact analysis of what happened or is happening,

Thats for sure.

I can see you are good at inventing excuses and distorting facts, well done.
Do you intend staying in this country for the next few years?
I hope you won't mind paying punitive taxes or the country enduring massive govt spending cuts to pay for the bad investment decisions of international financial institutions then.

oscarBravo

Wibbs wrote: »

Look closer then. djpbarry was horrified at the very suggestion that anybody other than those living in "absolutely massive" houses would be paying that. Well if you have a semi dee over 300 K then look out, you will be paying over a grand. Even with the downturn that's a lot of households. Secondly I said "in the not too distant future". The tax commissions recommendations are a kick off and will very likely go higher and that was the bet I was placing and I reckon my money is pretty safe.

If it doesn't come from property taxation - which, whether you choose to quibble about the term or not, is a wealth tax - it will have to come from income tax, which is a disincentive to employment, or from VAT and other consumption taxes, which are a disincentive to economic activity.

It still amazes me that the most vocal opponents of a wealth tax in this country are the loony left.

Links please. Specifically show me the falling tax rates of a car of the same non diesel/hybrid engine size over the last decade. Good luck with that. Indeed put the same statement in the Motors forum and await the brickbats.

Your irony detector is broken

stevedublin wrote: »

I can see you are good at inventing excuses and distorting facts, well done.

Would it be better if he was adept at avoiding any questions that would challenge his narrative?

djpbarry

Wibbs wrote: »

djpbarry was horrified at the very suggestion that anybody other than those living in "absolutely massive" houses would be paying that.

That was a poor choice of words on my part. My point was that the vast majority of properties in the country will not be taxed at anything close to €1k per annum.

Wibbs wrote: »

Well if you have a semi dee over 300 K then look out, you will be paying over a grand. Even with the downturn that's a lot of households.

The Commission on Taxation suggested a tax >€1k for properties valued in excess of €450k.

Wibbs wrote: »

If you consider having the worst ratio of consultants/specialised scanners to patients in the western world...

Utter nonsense – for example, Ireland has more “specialised scanners” (CT, MRI) per head of population than the UK. I couldn’t be bothered going into this any further and it’s not really relevant to the discussion anyway.

Wibbs wrote: »

You pointed out the cso's figures were according to the census, the average dwelling in Ireland has only 5-6 rooms in total. Did you read the parameters of the question on the census? It said do NOT count bathrooms, toilets, kitchenettes, utility rooms and various others.

Indeed it did.

Wibbs wrote: »

So lets look at an average 3 bed semi in the sprawl that is Irish suburbia. Three rooms upstairs, down stairs another three(front and back rooms and kitchen). That makes 6 in total.

Well done – how does that contradict what I said?

later12

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it doesn't come from property taxation - which, whether you choose to quibble about the term or not, is a wealth tax - it will have to come from income tax, which is a disincentive to employment, or from VAT and other consumption taxes, which are a disincentive to economic activity.

It still amazes me that the most vocal opponents of a wealth tax in this country are the loony left.

What still amazes me is this belief that any household tax is not a disincentive to consume, and is somehow better than a consumption tax in that respect.

If Biddy spends €1000 today on a property tax, how is she going to make up the balance of her planned expenses? With magic dust? Of course not. Biddy will simply consume less to balance her budget.

Extra household taxes are largely un-productive in recessions like ours.

stevedublin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would it be better if he was adept at avoiding any questions that would challenge his narrative?

Not really, I just want people to know the truth - if there were no bank bailouts we wouldn't be having this household charge/property tax.
Sorry if i dont have a time machine to be able to back that up.

stevedublin

oscarBravo wrote: »

It still amazes me that the most vocal opponents of a wealth tax in this country are the loony left.

If the middle classes were to be forced to leave the country because of this soon-to-be property tax, then there would be no-one left to support welfare entitlements or help create jobs of those who traditionallly vote for the "loony left".

relax carry on

stevedublin wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would it be better if he was adept at avoiding any questions that would challenge his narrative?

Not really, I just want people to know the truth - if there were no bank bailouts we wouldn't be having this household charge/property tax.
Sorry if i dont have a time machine to be able to back that up.

So the pretty large difference between what the state takes in taxes and what it spends has nothing to do with the introduction of a new tax to maybe cover a small portion of that difference?

oscarBravo

later12 wrote: »

What still amazes me is this belief that any household tax is not a disincentive to consume, and is somehow better than a consumption tax in that respect.

That's not an argument against a property tax; that's an argument against any tax increases whatsoever, and therefore an argument for swingeing cuts to public sector pay and social welfare.

If you have a recipe for fixing our structural deficit that doesn't involve taking money out of the economy in any way, it would be interesting to hear it.

stevedublin wrote: »

Not really, I just want people to know the truth - if there were no bank bailouts we wouldn't be having this household charge/property tax.
Sorry if i dont have a time machine to be able to back that up.

You don't need a time machine. You just need to open your mind.

For example, how are bank bailouts responsible for the fact that the difference between our spending on public sector pay and social welfare on the one hand, and tax receipts on the other, will amount to some fourteen billion euros this year?

stevedublin wrote: »

If the middle classes were to be forced to leave the country because of this soon-to-be property tax, then there would be no-one left to support welfare entitlements or help create jobs of those who traditionallly vote for the "loony left".

I wouldn't worry too much about welfare entitlements - with the encouragement of the loony left, there won't be any money to pay for them.

stevedublin

relax carry on wrote: »

So the pretty large difference between what the state takes in taxes and what it spends has nothing to do with the introduction of a new tax to maybe cover a small portion of that difference?

Not sure what it is your are asking.
Government spending has increased as a result of the bank bailouts so requiring this new tax.
Its not that complicated really, but people want to make it complicated to hide this inalienable truth.

later12

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not an argument against a property tax; that's an argument against any tax increases whatsoever

Actually it was a reply to your statement that "If it doesn't come from property taxation - which, whether you choose to quibble about the term or not, is a wealth tax - it will have to come from income tax, which is a disincentive to employment, or from VAT and other consumption taxes, which are a disincentive to economic activity."

,

and therefore an argument for swingeing cuts to public sector pay and social welfare.

I think people are probably bored of me re-posting papers on why revenue raising measures are less effective than expenditure cuts, but I can do it again if you'd like. I'm certainly not an apologist for such inexcusable expenditure.

If you have a recipe for fixing our structural deficit that doesn't involve taking money out of the economy in any way, it would be interesting to hear it.

Unabashed straw man there. While expenditure cuts can cause short term declines in domestic demand, they have been shown to be ultimately expansionary,not least in our own case.

Bullseye1

JustinDee wrote: »

A tad generalistic and subjectively so.
Will sell at a loss if a sale takes place. "Negative equity", this demonic phrase that people bandy about as if doomsday is upon us, only concerns those who aim to shift an asset today or borrow using what is now a currently lower value as collateral. There is an asset of value in the owner's name.

If you buy shares on the stock exchange at €5.00 euro a share and in a weeks time they are worth €2.00 a share. Sure its an asset but you have lost money on it. Regardless of when you sell. Now or in 20 years time you have lost money. How is this so difficult to understand.

Godge

Bullseye1 wrote: »

If you buy shares on the stock exchange at €5.00 euro a share and in a weeks time they are worth €2.00 a share. Sure its an asset but you have lost money on it. Regardless of when you sell. Now or in 20 years time you have lost money. How is this so difficult to understand.

No you haven't lost money, not now. In 20 years time, those shares may be worth €1,000.00 a share and you will have made money.

The point about property is that it is a long-term investment. If the value falls in the short-term, that does not mean you will lose money in the long-term.

stevedublin

oscarBravo wrote: »

For example, how are bank bailouts responsible for the fact that the difference between our spending on public sector pay and social welfare on the one hand, and tax receipts on the other, will amount to some fourteen billion euros this year?

The money used to borrow for the bank bailouts could have been used to help plug this gap without taxing the family home.
There are other ways to raise taxes that relate to the taxpayers ability to pay e.g. raise income tax or VAT.

Bullseye1

Godge wrote: »

No you haven't lost money, not now. In 20 years time, those shares may be worth €1,000.00 a share and you will have made money.

The point about property is that it is a long-term investment. If the value falls in the short-term, that does not mean you will lose money in the long-term.

How can you say they will be worth €1000 in a years time? This is pure speculation. Do you really expect those apartments sold in Dublin for 800,000 and now worth 300,000 to be worth 800,000 in 25-30 years time?