Are you going to pay the household charge? [Part 1]

daltonmd

tayto lover wrote: »

Alternatives to Property Tax.

1. Double Tax on second homes.
2. Put 1c tax on Text messages.
3. Put 5c on alcohol.
4. Put 5c more on fags.

These are all things we can do without and even though I drink myself and also text a lot I can see no reason why these should not be increased as I don't have to drink or text. I don't have to have a 2nd home either or smoke.

I don't agree, sorry :-)
There's already VAT on these services.
A tax on property, done in a fair and equitable manner is required. Part of the problem with the boom was that the last coalition got rid of it and brought in stamp duty, which fueled to bubble.
A property tax is not property activity dependent so it gives a steady stream of income.

smash

daltonmd wrote: »

I don't agree, sorry :-)
There's already VAT on these services.

But they're luxuries, a home is a necessity, even if you rent!

If you really want a fair household tax then the occupier should pay it and not the owner.

daltonmd

smash wrote: »

But they're luxuries, a home is a necessity, even if you rent!

If you really want a fair household tax then the occupier should pay it and not the owner.

I agree Smash. So introduce a household charge and not impose a vague "charge" which is basically a smash and grab on property owners, causing conflict between renters and their landlords.

I said in another post that what I see happening in 2 years is that the property tax will be done on site valuations, then the household charge will stay and be extended to tenants.

Edit - btw as I said there is already a tax on these luxuries - it's called VAT and that's been hiked by 2%.

Frank Black

smash wrote: »

But they're luxuries, a home is a necessity, even if you rent!

If you really want a fair household tax then the occupier should pay it and not the owner.

But the owner has the opportunity to pass it to the occupier through the rent he charges.

I'd imagine it would be a lot more difficult to collect this tax from tenants - just as it's more difficult to collect the tv license from renters than owners.

daltonmd

black francis wrote: »

But the owner has the opportunity to pass it to the occupier through the rent he charges.

I'd imagine it would be a lot more difficult to collect this tax from tenants - just as it's more difficult to collect the tv license from renters than owners.

Care to clarify?

Joan brophy

Does anybody know how they plan to collect this 100 euro. A 100 can be so much to somebody struggling and others pocket money for night out. Very unfair.

carfiosaoorl

Why should tenants have to pay this tax? They dont own the property. They pay rent for the priviledge of living in the property but other than that they dont gain from it in anyway.

trellheim

they dont gain from it in anyway.

This is a tax ( Actually it's an LA charge centrally administered) , remember ?


Where does "Gain" come into it ? it's not a fee for services rendered.

Frank Black

daltonmd wrote: »

Care to clarify?

Clarify what? - fairly self expanatory I would have thought.

justasking1

I dont think people will have a choice but to pay it but if the big cat TD's wont pay it then why should the rest of the country ?

smash

I paid enough stamp duty to cover the cost of this for over 300 years so I should be exempt and so should my kids and grand kids!

Freddie59

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Most of the media coverage focuses on how the PS do this and the PS get that, but there are few articles that highlight that not everybody in the PS get the same benefits as everybody else. There are contract workers! There are different terms for people depending on when they entered the service! There are lowly paid workers and there are people getting obscene amounts! It's the generalisations that are so depressing, and it's doubly depressing when they are swallowed whole by the media and the public alike.

And how many, precisely, are "contract workers"?

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

It's not really surreal. You say 'many' in these council houses could afford the tax, but I'm not really sure where you'd get the figures to back up that claim. Which is understandable, because neither could the government. The 'intention' is to make it means-related further down the line, but because the government is so deeply incompetent when it comes to running the country, they introduced the tax but had to issue blanket 'waivers' regardless of means so that it wouldn't cause even more of an outcry than it already has. The idea behind council houses (and I'm aware it's not the reality) is that these people can't afford to buy houses at normal market prices. The whole system would have to be upturned in order for this to be a fair tax, and I don't see that happening anytime soon (unless the IMF decree it).

The reality is that a tax has to be fair and equitable. There are MANY (and several families come to mind personally) living in Council estates who could afford this tax. Likewise, many who own their own homes CANNOT afford it.

daltonmd

black francis wrote: »

Clarify what? - fairly self expanatory I would have thought.

It obviously isn't if I asked you to clarify.

Are you saying that landlords collect the TV licence fee from tenants or are you saying that tenants are under different laws in regard to paying TV licences than owners?

Or - are you generalising and stating (without any facts whatsoever) that tenants do not pay their TV licence fees?

Freddie59

black francis wrote: »

It's not, but some of the posters on here (no prizes for guessing the self-thanking bunch of muppets I'm referring to) have no alternative proposals themselves on how they would attempt to address the budget deficit.

1. Reduce the dole.

2. Get rid of "disability payments" for those thousands claiming it who don't even need it, and let the ACTUAL disabled be cared for.

3. Reduce the wastage in the HSE.

4. Rip up all PS contracts. The entity with which these were agreed simply no longer exists, nor has the means to pay them.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

carfiosaoorl

trellheim wrote: »

This is a tax ( Actually it's an LA charge centrally administered) , remember ?


Where does "Gain" come into it ? it's not a fee for services rendered.

Yes but isnt it a tax on the ownership of the property? So surely the owner should have to pay and not the tenant.

daltonmd

Freddie59 wrote: »

1. Reduce the dole.

2. Get rid of "disability payments" for those thousands claiming it who don't even need it, and let the ACTUAL disabled be cared for.

3. Reduce the wastage in the HSE.

4. Rip up all PS contracts. The entity with which these were agreed simply no longer exists, nor has the means to pay them.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Agree with 1,3 and 4. On 2 I disagree. For a start who will care for them?

Freddie59

daltonmd wrote: »

Freddie I don't think it's true to say that a lot of low earning and frontline staff in the PS are coocooned - I am one of those and have seen my disposable income fall by 20% - now that's not enough I agree, but it is far from they are coocooned.

We have got to move away from the blame game and looking at who's being paid what - the previous government and this government have made the biggest mistake by leaving the basic pay untouched.

Everytime you turn on the radio you hear the union giving their take, reps for the lower paid, for the pensioners, for the poor, for the lone parents etc...

This country as a whole needs to wake up and stop clambering on the "I deserve" wagon - we don't have the money anymore - it's isn't about who deserves what - it's about - THE POT IS EMPTY.

As a PS worker it really irritates me to hear people I know complaining about the fact that they have less money - they don't seem to realise that the majority of their budgets in whatever department they work in is going on their salaries, while services are being cut in hospitals, schools etc..

So then they complain about the services, so I ask them what do they expect for a country that is bankrupt?

Do they not get that each time we borrow that the interest goes onto the existing deficit?

"But bank rescue costs caused the total exchequer deficit in the first 11 months of 2011 to soar. From €13.5 billion in the same period last year, the exchequer deficit jumped to €21.4 billion in the same period this year."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/1203/1224308522333.html

We are borrowing money to pay the PS incomes and SW at a rate that we had when we brought in 50 billion - we don't earn that anymore.

The crisis is getting worse, not better.

Q1 2012 will tell a lot.

I spoke to a friend of mine in the retail sector - she told me that business across the sector was down on this time last year - and this time last year we had the big freeze and was the worst Christmas ever for the sector - and it's worse!!


The only thing that the government have succeeded in doing is pitting us all against each other.

Private V Public
Owner V Renter
Employed V Unemployed
Young V Old

That's what is outrageous.

I would agree with some of your sentiments. But would you also not agree that Ireland, Inc is insolvent? And if it were a private company the situation would be a whole lot different. The company I work for went through some difficult times ten years ago. Sweeping redundancies, pay freezes, wage cuts, and was looking very dodgy for a while. That is the real world.

While I fully sympathise with your plight (and I genuinely mean that) you must see that the current situation is completely untenable. Things HAVE to change.

Freddie59

daltonmd wrote: »

Agree with 1,3 and 4. On 2 I disagree. For a start who will care for them?

I might have put it wrongly. There are many on 'disability payments' who are perfectly capable, with their husbands earning good money. When you get the disability (or is it invalidity?) book you, essentially, go on the old Age Pension no matter what age you are. You are also entitled to free public travel for you and your partner, even if you are able-bodied. it is completely nuts. And it can never be taken from you under current legislation.

daltonmd

Freddie59 wrote: »

I would agree with some of your sentiments. But would you also not agree that Ireland, Inc is insolvent? And if it were a private company the situation would be a whole lot different. The company I work for went through some difficult times ten years ago. Sweeping redundancies, pay freezes, wage cuts, and was looking very dodgy for a while. That is the real world.

While I fully sympathise with your plight (and I genuinely mean that) you must see that the current situation is completely untenable. Things HAVE to change.

Freddie, I think you need to reread my post - I wasn't looking for any sympathy for my situation (I know you are well intentioned), I certainly don't deserve it because I have a job and even with paycuts I am doing ok.

My point is that keeping SW and PS pay high - we all pay. Cutting them is the only chance we have to get out of this mess.

The less we borrow and have to borrow then the better off we are.

daltonmd

Freddie59 wrote: »

I might have put it wrongly. There are many on 'disability payments' who are perfectly capable, with their husbands earning good money. When you get the disability (or is it invalidity?) book you, essentially, go on the old Age Pension no matter what age you are. You are also entitled to free public travel for you and your partner, even if you are able-bodied. it is completely nuts. And it can never be taken from you under current legislation.

Ah, I agree with you there.

Frank Black

daltonmd wrote: »

It obviously isn't if I asked you to clarify.

Are you saying that landlords collect the TV licence fee from tenants or are you saying that tenants are under different laws in regard to paying TV licences than owners?

Or - are you generalising and stating (without any facts whatsoever) that tenants do not pay their TV licence fees?

There, you see you were able to work it out all by yourself - given that your first couple of statements are obviously nonsense.

And yes it is a generalisation, but I would stake a large amount of money that there is a far higher percentage of people who are renting and don't pay a tv license than those owning.

No facts or figures to back this up - but if you think it's wrong why don't you get some facts to dispute this?

daltonmd

black francis wrote: »

There, you see you were able to work it out all by yourself - given that your first couple of statements are obviously nonsense.

And yes it is a generalisation, but I would stake a large amount of money that there is a far higher percentage of people who are renting and don't pay a tv license than those owning.

No facts or figures to back this up - but if you think it's wrong why don't you get some facts to dispute this?

Search for your own facts. But take it from me you are wrong.

Tenants are ruled under the same law as owners. If they occupy the property then that is the name on the licence and they have to pay. If they don't then they are fined.

TV licence collectors knock on every house that hasn't got a licence, they get the name of the occupier and they send them a letter.

Frank Black

daltonmd wrote: »

Search for your own facts. But take it from me you are wrong.

Tenants are ruled under the same law as owners. If they occupy the property then that is the name on the licence and they have to pay. If they don't then they are fined.

TV licence collectors knock on every house that hasn't got a licence, they get the name of the occupier and they send them a letter.

You were obviously never a student :rolleyes:

daltonmd

black francis wrote: »

You were obviously never a student :rolleyes:

I think we're already way off topic. I'lll leave you with your sweeping generalisations,

Frank Black

daltonmd wrote: »

I think we're already way off topic. I'lll leave you with your sweeping generalisations,

Yeah, thanks to you asking for clarification on a point you patently understood.

Now, if you'll excuse me I have a few sweeping generalisations to attent to


- although I prefer to call them truisms

daltonmd

black francis wrote: »

Yeah, thanks to you asking for clarification on a point you patently understood.

Now, if you'll excuse me I have a few sweeping generalisations to attent to


- although I prefer to call them truisms

I'm sure you do. Nice to get an insight into your logic and way of thinking, I'll keep it for future reference.

tayto lover

daltonmd wrote: »

I agree Smash. So introduce a household charge and not impose a vague "charge" which is basically a smash and grab on property owners, causing conflict between renters and their landlords.

I said in another post that what I see happening in 2 years is that the property tax will be done on site valuations, then the household charge will stay and be extended to tenants.

Edit - btw as I said there is already a tax on these luxuries - it's called VAT and that's been hiked by 2%.

But we've already paid the tax on our houses. It's called Stamp Duty and was a lot more than 2%. Plus the Government also received tax from our mortgage payments when we paid back 3 or 4 times the value of our homes.
Property Tax is theft to me.

Frank Black

tayto lover wrote: »

But we've already paid the tax on our houses. It's called Stamp Duty and was a lot more than 2%. Plus the Government also received tax from our mortgage payments when we paid back 3 or 4 times the value of our homes.
Property Tax is theft to me.

What tax did they get back from this - unless you mean tax on the profits of the lending institute?

K-9

carfiosaoorl wrote: »

Why should tenants have to pay this tax? They dont own the property. They pay rent for the priviledge of living in the property but other than that they dont gain from it in anyway.

Seeing as the money is for Local Government they should pay, unless they don't avail of any of these services?

The way they brought this in was terrible, same as a flat water rate planned. If people seen it was based on valuations, means and the size of the property there'd be less opposition. Have a base rate and then up it for bigger properties. You'd still have opposition from the "tax is theft" types and Ireland still has an attachment to property and land, despite a massive property crash, but it would be more palatable.

Toby Take a Bow

black francis wrote: »

It's not, but some of the posters on here (no prizes for guessing the self-thanking bunch of muppets I'm referring to) have no alternative proposals themselves on how they would attempt to address the budget deficit.

I can see a fair few alternatives being offered. I can also see a fair few people on the other side who could be described as 'self-thanking bunch of muppets'.

Freddie59 wrote: »

And how many, precisely, are "contract workers"?

I don't know. Any ideas? My point is that they exist, so you can't generalise about the PS (or: you shouldn't generalise about people in the PS).

Freddie59 wrote: »

The reality is that a tax has to be fair and equitable. There are MANY (and several families come to mind personally) living in Council estates who could afford this tax. Likewise, many who own their own homes CANNOT afford it.

Interesting how you're concerned with exact figures above, but resort to vague notions of 'many' here. How many, precisely, can afford this law?

daltonmd wrote: »

My point is that keeping SW and PS pay high - we all pay. Cutting them is the only chance we have to get out of this mess.

The less we borrow and have to borrow then the better off we are.

There are other ways, and many have been listed previously. There's an increase in vat (which I wouldn't agree with) or an increase in income tax (which I would: and one specifically targeting the more wealthy).