Thomas Pringle not paying the household charge

firemansam4

Going Forward wrote: »

You are making my point for me now, as a car is indeed a "luxury" and not a basic requirment by any stretch of the imagination.

Nobody rides a bike anymore out of nessecity and very few walk.

That is a ridiculous statement, if you live in the country and have to go to find work or go for an interview that could be 20 or 30 miles away you just walk or cycle?? you obviously live in a city, totally different.
get realistic, what about getting your shopping or bringing your kids to the doctors etc?
a car is a need for some people not living in a city with easy access to public transport.

20Cent

11 TD's boycotting household charge now according to news headlines on Vince Brown. Could this by FG/Labours poll tax fiasco?

opinionated3

zootroid wrote: »

Glad to see the spirit of tax evasion is alive and well in this thread :rolleyes:

opinionated3 wrote: »

I wont be paying either. Rumoured to rise to 1600euro after first two years are completed. Is mr pringle organising a campaign of some sort that we can sign up to? You can dress it up any way you want to but this is just another tax to pay back gamblers who lost. Shame on you kenny, noonan et al....you disgust me.

You do realise, that even if we didn't have to bail out the banks, that we're still spending 20 billion more than we take in in tax? So we have to either raise taxes, cut spending, or both. There is no other solution. But some people don't want to live in the real world...

How about just cutting spending and ditch the poxy croke park agreement? I suppose that is why the unions won't be organising a campaign against this grossly unfair tax.....cos it might threaten their precious croke park agreement. By the way I do live in the real world....a world where I am surrounded by people crucified by taxes and the gangsters who put us in the s##t are out playing golf...laughing at us from their cosy living rooms in their oversized houses. If we all refuse to pay it there is nothing the government can do. Theoretically I have no problem with a property tax as long as it paid for better roads,services,bin collecting etc. but it won't......merkozy will be happy though....

coup1917

Household charge...
A couple of points...
If you dont pay it, the balance will increase year on year as well as a court appearance. If you ever want to sell the house, the household charge will have to be paid along with any other outstanding charges. I would assume this charge will also kick in if a property were to be left to a family member in a will etc...
One way or another the tax will have to be paid for at some stage..its your choice whether to manage it now or kick the can down the road and you or your family receive a sustantial bill...

Interesting point on tadio today...
A phone poll on whether people will pay this tax..
Over 70% txtd in to say No..........at a cost of 30c per txt.
The household charge works out at less than 29c a day...!!!

Cmon people, wise up and pay your tax to rescue this country. We are currently spending someone elses money to run this business of Ireland.

Time for the gombeen thick Irish paddy culture to be stamped out. Otherwise we could end up with a far more unstable civilisation in the near future.

Brian?

Tipp Man wrote: »

Just to put your f**king tax on a home that you paid for in context.

My sister lives in New Jersey USA, bought a nice house there circa 1996 for something in the region of USD 250k - so nice but nothing excessive

The ANNUAL household charge/tax is IN EXCESS of USD 10,000 - so lets not get carried away with your EUR 100 charge

We talk about broadening our tax base to provide a solid consistent income for our government but when the government takes action to do this we get up in arms - that confuses me or is it another case tax everybody else except me? Most developed countries seem to have a household or poll tax from what i can see.

I also fully expect this tax to rapidly increase - probably be up to 1,000 EUR in a couple of years. I think most other people should expect the same and plan accordingly

That's terrible logic. Awful. Do you happen to know the % income tax your sister in NJ pays by any chance? The reason property taxes are so high in the states is that the local governments raise their own taxes, instead of recieving federal support.

In Ireland we pay high income tax, which is actually a reasonably fair tax as the ones who earn the most then pay the most. With obvious exceptions for the super high earners who can afford to pay people to help them avoid paying tax.

Raskolnikov

Victor wrote: »

Close some hospitals?

Or maybe burn an Anglo bondholder?

sarumite

briankeating wrote: »

In Ireland we pay high income tax, which is actually a reasonably fair tax as the ones who earn the most then pay the most. With obvious exceptions for the super high earners who can afford to pay people to help them avoid paying tax.

Never really sure why taxing someone who earns more is considered fair . Say I work 60 hours a week, why should I be taxed higher than a person working 30 hours a week?

Brian?

sarumite wrote: »

Never really sure why taxing someone who earns more is considered fair . Say I work 60 hours a week, why should I be taxed higher than a person working 30 hours a week?

I think it's about as fair a tax as you can levy, because it's proportinate to your earnings. You're still going to take home more money.

ArphaRima

because it's proportinate to your earnings

Eh no. The taxes are in bands. A higher earning taxpayer pays a higher percentage as well as obviously a higher amount.

It's one of those things that annoys the hell out of me every time I read it in the Evening Herald or equivalent - "poor hit hardest in latest rates change". You read on and it's nothing of the sort. Usually something along the likes of a 1% increase all around. Equal burden? Not according to the left and the tabloids.
As much as I hate the Republicans in American politics (or Tories in British politics), I wish there was some party like them over here to moderate our weak bunch. No, the PD's were not it.

Mr.Micro

20Cent wrote: »

11 TD's boycotting household charge now according to news headlines on Vince Brown. Could this by FG/Labours poll tax fiasco?

Pure publicity stunt IMO. Its not acceptable for TD s as public representatives to be encouraging people to willfully break the law. It will help get them re elected no doubt. Its rich coming from the likes of Wallace when he has many debts to clear. I fail to see how all this will help save the country?

Tipp Man

briankeating wrote: »

That's terrible logic. Awful. Do you happen to know the % income tax your sister in NJ pays by any chance? The reason property taxes are so high in the states is that the local governments raise their own taxes, instead of recieving federal support.

In Ireland we pay high income tax, which is actually a reasonably fair tax as the ones who earn the most then pay the most. With obvious exceptions for the super high earners who can afford to pay people to help them avoid paying tax.

The majority of people in this country don't pay high income tax - that is the problem.

5% are contributing nearly 50% of income tax - that is completly unfair. 800,000 people aren't paying hardly any income tax

Icepick

The delusion of the communist is only matched - and surpassed - by the delusion of the religious.

They asked Joe Higgins how we should collect the money instead. He said we could collect 10 billion by taxing the 5% wealthiest people.
He did not explain why nor what impact that would have on the economy and the budget.
These communists also do not admit that the main part of the deficit is created by PS and welfare expenses. Would they want to cut those?
They keep repeating the 'burn the bondholders' mantra, although that would mean that we would have to cut the welfare and PS bill by 30-40% immediately.
They also do not seem to realize that those vilified bond holders may be ordinary people's pension fund or credit union.

MungBean

Icepick wrote: »

The delusion of the communist is only matched - and surpassed - by the delusion of the religious.

They asked Joe Higgins how we should collect the money instead. He said we could collect 10 billion by taxing the 5% wealthiest people.
He did not explain why nor what impact that would have on the economy and the budget.
These communists also do not admit that the main part of the deficit is created by PS and welfare expenses. Would they want to cut those?
They keep repeating the 'burn the bondholders' mantra, although that would mean that we would have to cut the welfare and PS bill by 30-40% immediately.
They also do not seem to realize that those vilified bond holders may be ordinary people's pension fund or credit union.

But the people your talking about are not even communist.

K-9

Icepick wrote: »

The delusion of the communist is only matched - and surpassed - by the delusion of the religious.

They asked Joe Higgins how we should collect the money instead. He said we could collect 10 billion by taxing the 5% wealthiest people.
He did not explain why nor what impact that would have on the economy and the budget.
These communists also do not admit that the main part of the deficit is created by PS and welfare expenses. Would they want to cut those?
They keep repeating the 'burn the bondholders' mantra, although that would mean that we would have to cut the welfare and PS bill by 30-40% immediately.
They also do not seem to realize that those vilified bond holders may be ordinary people's pension fund or credit union.

Jaysus Joe, €10 Billion isn't far of the total Income tax returns in a single year! Basically double Income tax, well done Joe.

View

In the case of elected representatives, the property tax should probably be deducted directly from their wages by the government to head off "stunt politics" by any of them.

Better yet, might be to make a much higher "provisional property tax deduction" from their wages with the amount above the actual property tax being refundable once they actually pay it.

GSF

I see Mick Wallace is one of the 11. Doesnt believe in paying his staff pension contributions or his taxes. Part of the developers set that brought the country down. How the hell did this joke candidate get elected?

Mr.Micro

GSF wrote: »

I see Mick Wallace is one of the 11. Doesnt believe in paying his staff pension contributions or his taxes. Part of the developers set that brought the country down. How the hell did this joke candidate get elected?

So irresponsible that he does not worry about paying €100 when he owes millions. He is a joke IMO. The only way the raggle taggle independents will get noticed these days is through public disobedience and get publicity to boot.

firemansam4

coup1917 wrote: »

Household charge...
A couple of points...
If you dont pay it, the balance will increase year on year as well as a court appearance. If you ever want to sell the house, the household charge will have to be paid along with any other outstanding charges. I would assume this charge will also kick in if a property were to be left to a family member in a will etc...
One way or another the tax will have to be paid for at some stage..its your choice whether to manage it now or kick the can down the road and you or your family receive a sustantial bill...

Interesting point on tadio today...
A phone poll on whether people will pay this tax..
Over 70% txtd in to say No..........at a cost of 30c per txt.
The household charge works out at less than 29c a day...!!!

Cmon people, wise up and pay your tax to rescue this country. We are currently spending someone elses money to run this business of Ireland.

Time for the gombeen thick Irish paddy culture to be stamped out. Otherwise we could end up with a far more unstable civilisation in the near future.

I'm not saying that I agree to not paying this tax but This idea that its just 2 euros a week is flawed because I think most people agree that its just a precursor to a much higher household charge which might end up well in excess of 1000 euros a year.
And this is what people are scared of, if it was only going to stay at 100 euros a year, i for one will be well happy with that.

walshb

People will pay this. They may moan and say they will not, but the law must be upheld. Some will not, will pay for it, and the rest will fall in line

I don't disagree with it. I would just love to see the money taken in being spent wisely.

MungBean

walshb wrote: »

People will pay this. They may moan and say they will not, but the law must be upheld. Some will not, will pay for it, and the rest will fall in line

I don't disagree with it. I would just love to see the money taken in being spent wisely.

I dunno, when you have quite a few members of the Dail leading the charge ordinary people will feel more confident that they can refuse. Unless the TD's that refuse to pay are either jailed (which would cause an unholy scene) or back down I can see a lot of people not paying this and getting away with it.

The government will back down before anyone is prosecuted for refusing to pay this I think.

Mr.Micro

MungBean wrote: »

I dunno, when you have quite a few members of the Dail leading the charge ordinary people will feel more confident that they can refuse. Unless the TD's that refuse to pay are either jailed (which would cause an unholy scene) or back down I can see a lot of people not paying this and getting away with it.

The government will back down before anyone is prosecuted for refusing to pay this I think.

I do not think so. The TD s involved are maverick and I question their motives. If it was a mass of FG and Labour then yes. I cannot see that happening.

huey1975

Councils should just disconnect water supplies to anyone who doesn't pay the charge. This country is full of lazy scroungers who expect the well off to supply them with all they need to maintain their pointless cosy existence

Good loser

Icepick wrote: »

The delusion of the communist is only matched - and surpassed - by the delusion of the religious.

They asked Joe Higgins how we should collect the money instead. He said we could collect 10 billion by taxing the 5% wealthiest people.
He did not explain why nor what impact that would have on the economy and the budget.
These communists also do not admit that the main part of the deficit is created by PS and welfare expenses. Would they want to cut those?
They keep repeating the 'burn the bondholders' mantra, although that would mean that we would have to cut the welfare and PS bill by 30-40% immediately.
They also do not seem to realize that those vilified bond holders may be ordinary people's pension fund or credit union.

The French have a 1% wealth tax and collect about €5 bn per annum.

I assume this includes residences.

Clare Daly doesn't admit that house property is 'wealth'.

That PBP TD today said houses weren't 'property'.

Are we ruled by sentient beings?

skimac

most people who built house in the country paid a development charge when they biult there house i myself paid 4000 euro an i know several people paid up to 8000euro an we have my own sewrage an sink my own well a cut our own hedges an never se the council doing anythig on the road where there is pot holes like the grand canyon an now the want us to pay 100 euros a year for what to pay the big pensions an big wages for the people that ****ed up the country well they can **** off

MungBean

Good loser wrote: »

The French have a 1% wealth tax and collect about €5 bn per annum.

I assume this includes residences.

Clare Daly doesn't admit that house property is 'wealth'.

That PBP TD today said houses weren't 'property'.

Are we ruled by sentient beings?

She said that the family home shouldnt be taxed as wealth. And I assume whatever PBP TD your talking about meant the same thing. The family home should be exempt from property tax. I'm sure they would have no problem in the taxing of second and third homes or other property assets held. But not the primary residence.

MungBean

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I do not think so. The TD s involved are maverick and I question their motives. If it was a mass of FG and Labour then yes. I cannot see that happening.

Maverick or not there quite a few of them with others such as Aengus o'snodaigh publicly stating that they will also refuse to pay. I think their motives are pretty honest, they see it as wrong and think that together making a stand will force the government to change on the matter.

FG and Labour are in government, if a mass of them were against it then we wouldnt be having this conversation. The members who are refusing will not just draw support from their own supporters. A lot of people will jump on the bandwagon thinking they will avoid having to pay I'd wager and it could get to a point where the government has no choice.

hallelujajordan

I see that Eamonn Dunphy has now jumped on this populist bandwagon . . . To be fair, things are probably a little tight for him since he gave up his highly paid, 2 hour a week gig at Newstalk.

GSF

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I see that Eamonn Dunphy has now jumped on this populist bandwagon . . . To be fair, things are probably a little tight for him since he gave up his highly paid, 2 hour a week gig at Newstalk.

Some people will do anything to get into the papers.

RichardAnd

I've just been wondering about this protest. I will be honest and say that a mass boycott (and by mass, I mean hundreds of thousands of refusals to pay) is not something I think we will see. However, what if a a few score thousand or even a few dozen thousand people refuse to pay?

I read that a fine of 2500 euro will be placed upon those that fail to make the payment but if 10000 people did so, surely it's not viable to put each and every one of them on trail?

It's just a though, what would other people think of this?

whatstherush

RichardAnd wrote: »

I've just been wondering about this protest. I will be honest and say that a mass boycott (and by mass, I mean hundreds of thousands of refusals to pay) is not something I think we will see. However, what if a a few score thousand or even a few dozen thousand people refuse to pay?

I read that a fine of 2500 euro will be placed upon those that fail to make the payment but if 10000 people did so, surely it's not viable to put each and every one of them on trail?

It's just a though, what would other people think of this?

Think a charge is put on the property and if it's ever sold, that sum is automatically deducted from it.

edanto

I will be paying the Household charge, and I think it's a fair tax - once it's adjusted to take account of site value and household income. It's said that will happen in the second year, I presume that it needs the house price database to made public before the graduated charge can come in.

For me, a key aspect of the property tax that I want to see is that it is a SITE-VALUE tax - thus property developers with large land parcels have to pay a proportion of the site value in tax each year. There would be exceptions for the stereotypical old (wo)man with a farm.

As regards the money collected being spent on bailing out broken banks etc - the only level of control I have over that is the people that I campaign and vote for in the Dail. And I'l be doing all the campaigning I can up to the next election.

Anyone interested in the figures and reasons behind a property tax could read this blog post by Ronan Lyons

http://www.ronanlyons.com/2010/07/13/falling-house-prices-or-not-ireland-needs-a-property-tax/

Ronan Lyons wrote:

My opinion now, though, is that Ireland needs to put in place a smarter tax, one that doesn’t mess with the incentive people should have to invest in their home and make it worth more. For this, Ireland needs to put in place a land value tax. A land value tax, where you pay an annual amount based on the value of the land you hold, not the value of what’s on the land, is the fairest way of implementing a tax. It also prevents land-hoarding and should reduce the likelihood of further property bubbles. A land value tax could be brought in perhaps not overnight, but also relatively quickly.

HivemindXX

I think this is great. As people have said you can't drag thousands of people to court and stick them in jail.

You can take these high profile cheer leaders and do it though. There's quite a few of them I wouldn't mind seeing in prison for a couple of months.

skimac

they would a lot of other polations an bankers put in jail before the heros that are standing up for the irish people who thinks enough is enough

Godge

MungBean wrote: »

She said that the family home shouldnt be taxed as wealth. And I assume whatever PBP TD your talking about meant the same thing. The family home should be exempt from property tax. I'm sure they would have no problem in the taxing of second and third homes or other property assets held. But not the primary residence.

so that mansion that JP McManus built for himself shouldn't be taxed because it is his primary residence?

CJ Haughey would be delighted with Higgins and the lot saying that Kinsealy should be exempt because it is a primary residence.

Bitto Bono, Enya and the rest of the glitterati with their big houses in Killiney. All exempt. Does any socialist in Ireland have a clue?

RandomName2

Tipp Man wrote: »

Just to put your f**king tax on a home that you paid for in context.

My sister lives in New Jersey USA, bought a nice house there circa 1996 for something in the region of USD 250k - so nice but nothing excessive

The ANNUAL household charge/tax is IN EXCESS of USD 10,000 - so lets not get carried away with your EUR 100 charge

We talk about broadening our tax base to provide a solid consistent income for our government but when the government takes action to do this we get up in arms - that confuses me or is it another case tax everybody else except me? Most developed countries seem to have a household or poll tax from what i can see.

I also fully expect this tax to rapidly increase - probably be up to 1,000 EUR in a couple of years. I think most other people should expect the same and plan accordingly

We already pay stamp duty on our houses.

I don't really care about €100, but as you said, it's likely to quickly rise :eek:

MungBean

Godge wrote: »

so that mansion that JP McManus built for himself shouldn't be taxed because it is his primary residence?

CJ Haughey would be delighted with Higgins and the lot saying that Kinsealy should be exempt because it is a primary residence.

Bitto Bono, Enya and the rest of the glitterati with their big houses in Killiney. All exempt. Does any socialist in Ireland have a clue?

Prior to this there was no property tax and nobody paid anything at all whether it be Joe Soap or the glitterati. Now Bono and McManus are paying €100 same as the rest of us on their second, third, fourth homes (I'm sure they have more than one house in their names).

The wealth tax the Socialist Party talk about is a tax on actual wealth. Bono's €200 million and McManus's €1.2 Billion or whatever parts of that is held in Ireland. So I dont know how you can come to conclusion that they would be exempt from the tax.

Just to sum up for you as you dont seem to grasp it. Property tax and wealth tax are not the same thing. One is a tax on owning property and the other is a tax on wealth. You may not agree with them but you could make some sort of attempt to understand what they are saying before calling them clueless.

woodoo

edanto wrote: »

I will be paying the Household charge, and I think it's a fair tax - once it's adjusted to take account of site value and household income. It's said that will happen in the second year, I presume that it needs the house price database to made public before the graduated charge can come in.

For me, a key aspect of the property tax that I want to see is that it is a SITE-VALUE tax - thus property developers with large land parcels have to pay a proportion of the site value in tax each year. There would be exceptions for the stereotypical old (wo)man with a farm.

As regards the money collected being spent on bailing out broken banks etc - the only level of control I have over that is the people that I campaign and vote for in the Dail. And I'l be doing all the campaigning I can up to the next election.

Anyone interested in the figures and reasons behind a property tax could read this blog post by Ronan Lyons

http://www.ronanlyons.com/2010/07/13/falling-house-prices-or-not-ireland-needs-a-property-tax/

A site value tax would be best. But i heard Phil Hogan say that people in bigger houses will pay more. That disadvantages rural dwellers more than city dwellers and isn't fair. I understand that house value doesn't suit Dubliners either. They really have to come up with something fair.

I fear our politicians will make a pigs ear of the property tax.

K-9

MungBean wrote: »

Prior to this there was no property tax and nobody paid anything at all whether it be Joe Soap or the glitterati. Now Bono and McManus are paying €100 same as the rest of us on their second, third, fourth homes (I'm sure they have more than one house in their names).

The wealth tax the Socialist Party talk about is a tax on actual wealth. Bono's €200 million and McManus's €1.2 Billion or whatever parts of that is held in Ireland. So I dont know how you can come to conclusion that they would be exempt from the tax.

Just to sum up for you as you dont seem to grasp it. Property tax and wealth tax are not the same thing. One is a tax on owning property and the other is a tax on wealth. You may not agree with them but you could make some sort of attempt to understand what they are saying before calling them clueless.

There used to be a property tax based on valuation but FG scrapped it, the tax wasn't very popular!

A site value tax makes sense as it gets around the difference between urban and rural areas. Rural sites would tend to be bigger so there's some correlation with small urban sites.

MungBean

K-9 wrote: »

There used to be a property tax based on valuation but FG scrapped it, the tax wasn't very popular!

A site value tax makes sense as it gets around the difference between urban and rural areas. Rural sites would tend to be bigger so there's some correlation with small urban sites.

Well as far as the Socialist TD's seem to be concerned the taxation of land/property should only apply to those above a certain size or value I assume.

I understand a site value tax may make more sense than a tax on the property value but only once you have decided that a tax on homes is ok. Strikes me as akin to renting the property you already own and have paid tax on though. Its another TV licence job where your charged simply for existing for a lot of people.

Whatever way it is worked I dont think it will be fair when levied against all homes. Whether its me paying the same for a dirt field as the million euro mansion next door with site value tax or the guy in town paying twice as much as me because he was born in the town centre through property value tax. Either way it strikes me as impossible to be evenly rolled out and just dumping made up charges onto everyone to increase revenue rather than levying it against the extra homes and excessive houses that are built for luxury or profit that could warrant an extra tax.

Thats my take on it anyway which is why I'd give credence to what the Socialist Party advocate. I know life isnt fair, stuff has to be done and revenue has to be increased or the whole thing goes down the drain. But I also understand why people are incensed about it given the financial strain already on them, why they would make a stand and refuse to pay the charge and why the TD's who hold the same principles are making the stand with them or on their behalf.

Going Forward

firemansam4 wrote: »

That is a ridiculous statement, if you live in the country and have to go to find work or go for an interview that could be 20 or 30 miles away you just walk or cycle?? you obviously live in a city, totally different.
get realistic, what about getting your shopping or bringing your kids to the doctors etc?
a car is a need for some people not living in a city with easy access to public transport.

My point however unclear I am making it, is that someone in receipt of a jobseekers allowance payment and who is able to run a car for their mainly leisure purposes is not exactly on the breadline.

I think its fair to say that our benefits are the most generous in Europe, and insofar as this household charge is concerned it "at the moment" equates to less than a litre and a half of petrol a week, or a litre of milk or a half pint of the devils brew.

Having said all of that, I certainly do not agree with whats coming next, ie, a full blown property tax based somehow on a mix of property value and size, etc, as it makes dangerous assumptions that a house's physical size equates directly to the current income of the occupier.

K-9

MungBean wrote: »

Well as far as the Socialist TD's seem to be concerned the taxation of land/property should only apply to those above a certain size or value I assume.

I understand a site value tax may make more sense than a tax on the property value but only once you have decided that a tax on homes is ok. Strikes me as akin to renting the property you already own and have paid tax on though. Its another TV licence job where your charged simply for existing for a lot of people.

Whatever way it is worked I dont think it will be fair when levied against all homes. Whether its me paying the same for a dirt field as the million euro mansion next door with site value tax or the guy in town paying twice as much as me because he was born in the town centre through property value tax. Either way it strikes me as impossible to be evenly rolled out and just dumping made up charges onto everyone to increase revenue rather than levying it against the extra homes and excessive houses that are built for luxury or profit that could warrant an extra tax.

Thats my take on it anyway which is why I'd give credence to what the Socialist Party advocate. I know life isnt fair, stuff has to be done and revenue has to be increased or the whole thing goes down the drain. But I also understand why people are incensed about it given the financial strain already on them, why they would make a stand and refuse to pay the charge and why the TD's who hold the same principles are making the stand with them or on their behalf.

But that's where the problems start and the disadvantage of the site value method.

Say it's €50,000, those just above it will moan loudly, put it above €100,000, those just above it will moan loudly but there'll be less moaning. Put it above €250,000, hardly anybody will be moaning and most will say they can afford it. It wont raise a lot though. It needs numbers to be meaningful!

A property tax just isn't going to go down well here, it's my plot and all that nonsense.

Extra homes are already taxed, the NPPR tax, that could be increased but I'd say a large section of those are landlords struggling as it is to not have the bank take it over.

nesf

MungBean wrote: »

Its another TV licence job where your charged simply for existing for a lot of people.

Merely by existing in this country you benefit from public services. Even my two year old does ffs.

MungBean

nesf wrote: »

Merely by existing in this country you benefit from public services. Even my two year old does ffs.

Over simplifying the point a tad I think. But then again you did just take one sentence out of context. As you yourself said to me nesf "Context is everything". I never argued anything to the contrary. And is "ffs" really necessary ? :P

I understand full well the role public services plays in a persons life and I understand it has to be paid for. There are a lot of other taxes and charges though that are there for the purpose of paying for public services already.

Theres also a lot of people that argue for a cut in welfare rates or means tested payments in different aspect, reform, pay caps etc etc. Not to get into it but there are plenty of reasons to argue for the reduction in public spending which hasnt happened so a blind acceptance of all tax on the grounds that the public services need paying for doesnt cut it for me.

MungBean

K-9 wrote: »

But that's where the problems start and the disadvantage of the site value method.

Say it's €50,000, those just above it will moan loudly, put it above €100,000, those just above it will moan loudly but there'll be less moaning. Put it above €250,000, hardly anybody will be moaning and most will say they can afford it. It wont raise a lot though. It needs numbers to be meaningful!

A property tax just isn't going to go down well here, it's my plot and all that nonsense.

Extra homes are already taxed, the NPPR tax, that could be increased but I'd say a large section of those are landlords struggling as it is to not have the bank take it over.

I know its a money grab and they will apply it to as many people as possible to get as much as possible. When you resign yourself to the fact that a tax will be imposed and you need to generate a lot of revenue from it you limit a lot of your options in how you can implement that tax.

There shouldnt be a lot of revenue expected from this in my view. If a property tax was to be introduced I think it should only be on extra homes (or the NPPR increased as you mentioned) and homes valued above a certain amount.

I'd be against using a property tax to generate the revenue the government are expecting to generate so whats meaningful for me would be different than whats meaningful for you in relation to it.

edanto

Godge wrote: »

Does any socialist in Ireland have a clue?

Are you trying to take the mick out of socialism here or are you a socialist at heart and frustrated at the lack of leadership?

Does anyone know who is making the Household Charge policy in the Socialist Party and why in the world they are against it?

MungBean

edanto wrote: »

Are you trying to take the mick out of socialism here or are you a socialist at heart and frustrated at the lack of leadership?

Does anyone know who is making the Household Charge policy in the Socialist Party and why in the world they are against it?

Taking more money out of the pockets of the working class I presume would be their answer as to why they are against it.

simplistic2

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You have every right to protest. . that right does not extend to breaking the law and are lawmakers should not openly encourage such behaviour

“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”
Henry David Thoreau

K-9

MungBean wrote: »

I know its a money grab and they will apply it to as many people as possible to get as much as possible. When you resign yourself to the fact that a tax will be imposed and you need to generate a lot of revenue from it you limit a lot of your options in how you can implement that tax.

There shouldnt be a lot of revenue expected from this in my view. If a property tax was to be introduced I think it should only be on extra homes (or the NPPR increased as you mentioned) and homes valued above a certain amount.

I'd be against using a property tax to generate the revenue the government are expecting to generate so whats meaningful for me would be different than whats meaningful for you in relation to it.

Well I suppose it comes back to how much they expect to raise, €160 Million is a pittance really, especially for Co. Co. funding which this is going on.

Even if they raise it over the next few years and raise a Billion, tax revenues are about €35 Billion odd.

Tbh, I'd prefer they just put 5% on Income Tax rates and stop this pretend nonsense that is going on! Leave property, VAT and water rates alone and just raise Income Tax and PAYE. Would simplify things easily and narrow the political debates!

MungBean

K-9 wrote: »

Well I suppose it comes back to how much they expect to raise, €160 Million is a pittance really, especially for Co. Co. funding which this is going on.

Even if they raise it over the next few years and raise a Billion, tax revenues are about €35 Billion odd.

Tbh, I'd prefer they just put 5% on Income Tax rates and stop this pretend nonsense that is going on! Leave property, VAT and water rates alone and just raise Income Tax and PAYE. Would simplify things easily and narrow the political debates!

Yeah I'd go along with that, compound all these sneaky charges into an actual tax relevant to your earnings. Nothing left to do but haggle over the percentage. And Joe Higgins doesnt go to jail.

charlemont

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You have every right to protest. . that right does not extend to breaking the law and are lawmakers should not openly encourage such behaviour

Protesting won't get nowhere, Just don't pay it..Yes our lawmakers should encourage people to break it as this charge is pathetic.