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

geeman

I see no solutions to Irelands debt problems except to let the banks run the country into the ground and everyone just blow their brains out...unless you've a better suggestion?

Signed,
Phil Hogan

alastair

Wild Bill wrote: »

I don't think it's Al's reading skills, while dodgy, are the real problem. It's his comprehension (and maths) seem to be the major impediment to rational debate.

Also he's a bit rude. :cool:

What is it about "the current Government debt is unsustainable and cannot be repaid" that is so difficult to understand?

And that you can't tax your way out of a recession?

Who's taxing their way out of recession? It's an attempt to repay our national debt. Stacking up external borrowings won't help pull us out of recession either.

geeman

TDs will not be paying the house hold charge? betcha didn't know that...

alastair

geeman wrote: »

More serious not...did you know that TDs will not be paying the house hold charge? betcha didn't know that...

Because they will?

geeman

alastair wrote: »

Who's taxing their way out of recession? It's an attempt to repay our national debt. Stacking up external borrowings won't help pull us out of recession either.

alastair, do you know anything about Modern Monetary Theory?

geeman

alastair wrote: »

Because they will?

No actually, they won't be paying, they're exempt

Biggins

alastair wrote: »

Who's taxing their way out of recession? It's an attempt to repay our national debt. Stacking up external borrowings won't help pull us out of recession either.

1. Don't tell us your that blind!

2. Which is it? Paying for local services or now as you say "It's an attempt to repay our national debt" (so its NOT for those services now? Huh?).
You need to make up your mind - it seems to change with the ongoing debate!

alastair

geeman wrote: »

No actually, they won't be paying, they're exempt

Ehh, no they're not actually. Read the thread.

geeman

Residential property owned by a Minister of the Government, a housing authority or the Health Service Executive

Was that discussed?

dxhound2005

geeman wrote: »

No actually, they won't be paying, they're exempt

If people are going to start making stuff up then I will say the Socialist TD's are secretly taking much more than the average industrial wage.

geeman

I didn't make anything up, i read that any residential property owned by a government minister is exempt from paying...

alastair

Biggins wrote: »

1. Don't tell us your that blind!

2. Which is it? Paying for local services or now as you say "It's an attempt to repay our national debt".
You need to make up your mind - it seems to change with the ongoing debate!

I need to make my mind up about what? Our taxes go into a pot that cover service provision and debt repayment. All taxes contribute to both in the final analysis. The proposition that this tax will be earmarked for local authority funding is something of a distraction from the big picture.

Biggins

geeman wrote: »

Was that discussed?

I think the following was conveniently skipped over by a few!

Residential property owned by a Minister of the Government,

geeman

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/03/13/00247.asp

dxhound2005

geeman wrote: »

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/03/13/00247.asp

Read this instead. Under exemptions.

https://www.householdcharge.ie/Faq.aspx

alastair

geeman wrote: »

Was that discussed?

Yep. It's not TD's (or even minister's) homes.

Biggins

alastair wrote: »

I need to make my mind up about what? Our taxes go into a or that cover service provision and debt repayment. All taxes contribute to both in the final analysis. The proposition that this tax will be earmarked for local authority funding is something of a distraction from the big picture.

Now here is where the confusion arises.

We have been PR spun by our current lot that the revenue raised by boroughs with this home tax, will go towards service and facilities in those areas!
Is this right or wrong?

Is this is so - PLEASE show/produce the legal statue law that allows a government to dip into local raised funding and steal it away for paying off a debt!

You see we are being sold this tax by the shower in Dublin by they saying that it will be of benefit to our direct communities - but here you are saying "...and debt repayment."

So it IS a "we fcuk up - you pay for it tax" on top of the taking of money that is supposed to be for one thing as been PR spun in order to sell it to the masses - but in fact will go - by your very own words - to pay off debt!

You need to get your facts straight, make up your mind just what this invented tax is for and where its really going!

The proposition that this tax will be earmarked for local authority funding...

Yet its the shower of fcuks in Dublin that saying this!
...Or have you forgotten about that bit conveniently?
Amazing that is it not?

alastair

It's right as far as that's what's been claimed (earmarked for local authority funding - but not necessarily your local authority)

Does that actually matter in the bigger picture? Not really IMO. It's all part of the greater pot.

All taxes are invented btw.

Biggins wrote: »

Now here is where the confusion arises.

We have been PR spun by our current lot that the revenue raised by boroughs with this home tax, will go towards service and facilities in those areas!
Is this right or wrong?

Is this is so - PLEASE show/produce the legal statue law that allows a government to dip into local raised funding and steal it away for paying off a debt!

You see we are being sold this tax by the shower in Dublin by they saying that it will be of benefit to our direct communities - but here you are saying "...and debt repayment."

So it IS a "we fcuk up - you pay for it tax" on top of the taking of money that is supposed to be for one thing as been PR spun in order to sell it to the masses - but in fact will go - by your very own words - to pay off debt!

You need to get your facts straight, make up your mind just what this invented tax is for and where its really going!

Solair

Considering that they haven't sent anyone an invoice for this, and most people haven't even been formally notified of this new tax, how do they even think they've a leg to stand on legally?

You could quite reasonably go into court and say "what tax?" "nobody told me about it"... I thought the website was a phishing exercise...

You cannot implement new taxes and notify people by rumours spread on the grapevine!

alastair

Solair wrote: »

Considering that they haven't sent anyone an invoice for this, and most people haven't even been formally notified of this new tax, how do they even think they've a leg to stand on legally?

You could quite reasonably go into court and say "what tax?" "nobody told me about it"... I thought the website was a phishing exercise...

You cannot implement new taxes and notify people by rumours spread on the grapevine!

Ignorance of the law is not generally seen as a defence.

The legal basis for the charge is sound - even if the mechanisms for its introduction were a shambles.

bgrizzley

Solair wrote: »

I thought the website was a phishing exercise...

it is a phishing exercise, thats why the relatively low E100 tax this year, to get you to put your name on a golden list of people who will fork out money to them

Hoffmans

on the op poll , the non applicables distorts the real figures, which are a resounding 84% NO to this extra tax , on top of the tv tax, taxes on electric, taxes on gas/coal/kerosene and everything else bought in for the households...

Bullseye1

alastair wrote: »

Deary me - what a hissy fit.

It's perfectly feasible to have equity in a property, but not in the mortgage - the only question that arises is who holds the equity. Mortgage lenders are generally further inside a security buffer than the mortgage borrower. Property has a market value regardless of the circumstances of the mortgage applied to it. If a lender calls in a mortgage and reposseses a property, it's not improbable that they retain equity in the property - or might well after a short period. Property is an asset - always had been, and the tax is on the basis of the wealth in that asset - the reason this is a homeowner tax, and not a householder tax - its about the wealth anchored in the property.

But this tax is supposed to finance local authority services, services which the occupier of the house avail. That includes renters. Why should a renter be exempt if this tax is indeed being employed to finance local services.

A house is only an asset if you decide to sell it and make money on your investment. Equity in a property is not likely to be sufficent to pay off a mortgage if sold. I would suggest that most people who have invested in a property in the past 10 years are not viewing the house as an asset but an anchor around their neck.

The government has already made a significant amount of money on each unit built. The stamp duty paid on buying site, the vat paid on materials used to construct the property, the taxes paid by developers and self employed construction of these properties, the substantial levies paid to local authorities by developers. I'm sure if you were to do an analysis on the entire figures the government has already received substantial monies on property.

If they are not making enough to cover the deficit reduce your costs like they promised and scrap the Croke Park Agreement which is propping up a poorly run PS.

Biggins

alastair wrote: »

It's right as far as that's what's been claimed.

Does that actually matter in the bigger picture? Not really IMO. It's all part of the greater pot.

Thats absolute utter stupid rot - a silly childish simplistic view and understanding - if only alone pertaining to local and national statues which regulate what funding can be collected, whom can gain from them, who is excluded from dipping into them and syphoning them off for other reasons, etc!
Go bone up on the law!
(I recommend "Essentials of Irish law" by Aine Keenan and "Principles of Irish Law" by Brian Doolan as a good place to start!)

Does it matter? Of course it bloody does!
We are being sold one thing in one form and then they do another!
(Once again - Fianna Fail and the Greens, part two!)

So much then for transparency and honesty that Kenny spoke of the day he was first standing in the Dail (as elected leader of the country) with his so called profound speech!
Remember that one - or has that been forgotten about too?
You know, the one that mentions honesty and transparency!

All part of the bigger pot?
Get real!
Understand this, local funding - IF thats what its supposed to be - is supposed to stay local.
NOT be robbed by the state to do with whatever the fcuk it likes.
Thats why certain statues and laws were enacted to make sure these areas where and still are very separate and clearly defined.

...But then again we have a government now that once again, eventually kops on that their very actions is possibly breaking national and even EU laws - so guess what... they re-write the national one's at least, to screw the public and get what they can steal away!

My name is URL

Only one sixth of those eligible to pay have registered so far. It's comedy gold.

If they're serious about chasing those who do not pay, it's gonna cost them more than what they take in. Scrapping it now would be the best idea all round.

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

it is a phishing exercise, thats why the relatively low E100 tax this year, to get you to put your name on a golden list of people who will fork out money to them

Yep - because they've made it quite clear that the subsequent taxation system won't involve higher tiered payments. Oh wait...

Bruthal

alastair wrote: »

Deary me - what a hissy fit.

It's perfectly feasible to have equity in a property, but not in the mortgage - the only question that arises is who holds the equity. Mortgage lenders are generally further inside a security buffer than the mortgage borrower. Property has a market value regardless of the circumstances of the mortgage applied to it. If a lender calls in a mortgage and reposseses a property, it's not improbable that they retain equity in the property - or might well after a short period. Property is an asset - always had been, and the tax is on the basis of the wealth in that asset - the reason this is a homeowner tax, and not a householder tax - its about the wealth anchored in the property.

Thats not the meaning of equity as i see it.
A few Equity definitions.
Here

4. In the context of real estate, the difference between the current market value of the property and the amount the owner still owes on the mortgage. It is the amount that the owner would receive after selling a property and paying off the mortgage.

Here

Home equity is the market value of a homeowner's unencumbered interest in their real property—that is, the difference between the home's fair market value and the outstanding balance of all liens on the property. The property's equity increases as the debtor makes payments against the mortgage balance, and/or as the property value appreciates. In economics, home equity is sometimes called real property value.

And your wealth according to alastair.

Technically, home equity has a zero rate of return and is not liquid. Home equity management refers to the process of using equity extraction via loans—at favorable, and often tax-favored, interest rates—to invest otherwise illiquid equity in a target that offers higher returns.

Here

4. Real Estate: The difference between what a property is worth and what the owner owes against that property (i.e. the difference between the house value and the remaining mortgage or loan payments on a house).

Most of the equity in peoples homes is from money they paid into the mortgage. Their own money.

gerryo777

Biggins wrote: »

Now here is where the confusion arises.

We have been PR spun by our current lot that the revenue raised by boroughs with this home tax, will go towards service and facilities in those areas!
Is this right or wrong?

Is this is so - PLEASE show/produce the legal statue law that allows a government to dip into local raised funding and steal it away for paying off a debt!

You see we are being sold this tax by the shower in Dublin by they saying that it will be of benefit to our direct communities - but here you are saying "...and debt repayment."

So it IS a "we fcuk up - you pay for it tax" on top of the taking of money that is supposed to be for one thing as been PR spun in order to sell it to the masses - but in fact will go - by your very own words - to pay off debt!

You need to get your facts straight, make up your mind just what this invented tax is for and where its really going!


Yet its the shower of fcuks in Dublin that saying this!
...Or have you forgotten about that bit conveniently?
Amazing that is it not?

Hold on Biggins, Don't be blaming the Dubs, Noonan is from Limerick and Hogan is from Carlow/Kilkenny.:D

Bruthal

alastair wrote: »

Yep - because they've made it quite clear that the subsequent taxation system won't involve higher tiered payments. Oh wait...

Another serious display of a lack of common sense. How many on this very thread have said its a paltry €8 a month? Now if they believe that, then so will many more.

If it started at the true intended level this year, it would beyond any doubt have failed.

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

Yep - because they've made it quite clear that the subsequent taxation system won't involve higher tiered payments. Oh wait...

and you believe anything they say? by your own admission earlier they lied to get into power.

alastair wrote: »

You believed FG promises and statements ahead of the election? I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.