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

Bullseye1

alastair wrote: »

By that logic, you should be coughing up motor tax on your lawnmower.

LOL :rolleyes: comparing a tax which is to pay for local amenities and services and to lawnmowers and motor tax. Riiiight.

I take it your happy for the rest of us to subsidise those who are exempt. Fair enough.

smash

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Comparing the use of of public amenities (which this tax is being linked to) to linking lawnmower to motor tax.

Well they do pollute, and motor tax is carbon based now!

Bruthal

alastair wrote: »

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Since this is called a Household Charge by definition those using the house should be responsible just as they are for ESB, phone and heating.

By that logic, you should be coughing up motor tax on your lawnmower.

Where do you get your comparisons from? You honestly can not see the point the poster was making? I think you can. But are simply trying to be the big pro property tax man here.

donalg1

alastair wrote: »

Tenants aren't exempt from paying for local services, they're exempt from a tax on property because they don't have property. See motor tax and non-motorists

Tenants of LA housing should be made pay an equivalent charge as they also benefit from local services. Home owners that are liable for the household charge currently pay towards local services the same as tenants however homeowners are now being asked to pay more. And the point of my post was that the tenants should also be asked to pay more, it doesnt have to be called property tax or household charge, it could be called a LA Tenant charge for all I care. If the Government want to promote Social Inclusion or Fairness they need to include everyone under the umbrella of increased or newly introduced charges.

donalg1

kronas wrote: »

I'm just wondering, I don’t own my house until I pay the last payment on my morgage, So does the bank not own my house at the moment? should they not be paying "my" household charge/tax?

Starting a revolution )

Yes you do own your house. By your reasoning the bank is technically a landlord and you the tenant which is not right at all. This argument has been brought up and refuted many times on this thread. You owned your house from the day you signed the contract and started paying the mortgage.

Frank Black

The main problem with the anti-tax side is that I would imagine it's difficult for them to agree on anything other than they don't like the current propoal.

• Some of them are against any kind of tax on one's home as a matter of principle.
• Some of them are against the charge as it is a flat rate.
• Some of them are against the charge on the basis that renters don.'t have to pay.
• Some of them are against the charge on the basis that taxes should not be raised unless spending/waste is cut first.
• Some of the are against the charge as they believe it will all go towards paying back banking dept.
• Some of them are against the charge as they want the grass in their estate cut first.
• Some of them are against the charge because they sense a political opportunity to push a radical leftwing agenda due to voter anger.
• Some of them think ps pay should be cut.
• Some of them are in the ps and think income tax should be raised.
• Some of them are economic illiterates and just want to have a moan.
• Some of them say they can't afford an extra €100.
• Some of the posters who like to appear 'right-on' by thanking the posts of people in financial difficulty - will merrily post about cutting spending (including sw support) a few posts later without any sense of irony
• Some of them won't pay because they fear it will increase beyond €100 next year.
• Some of them are under the impression that the bank own thier house.
• Some of them are just waiting to see what way things will pan out before registering.

Well, you get the picture.

Mousewar

I've decided not to pay for the simple reason that I consider a tax to be a levy on something of value to me - like my salary. My house is worth at least 100k less than I paid for it because of these clowns and now they're going to tax me on it. Make my house worth something to me again and then I'll pay it.

donalg1

Mousewar wrote: »

I've decided not to pay for the simple reason that I consider a tax to be a levy on something of value to me - like my salary. My house is worth at least 100k less than I paid for it because of these clowns and now they're going to tax me on it. Make my house worth something to me again and then I'll pay it.

You paid what you thought was a reasonable price for your house, so to say it is someone elses fault when the price of your house drops is a bit unreasonable, "these clowns" didnt make you buy your house at the price you paid for it, you bought your house during a property boom, boom being the operative word meaning the prices were higher than usual and were bound to fall at some stage.

Phill Ewinn

Some people are flat broke, owe more than they take in and can't afford it. Others who won't pay are the very wealthy who own property here and live mostly abroad.

Of these two groups the ones least likely to pay are the very rich.

tin79

black francis wrote: »

The main problem with the anti-tax side is that I would imagine it's difficult for them to agree on anything other than they don't like the current propoal.

• Some of them are against any kind of tax on one's home as a matter of principle.
• Some of them are against the charge as it is a flat rate.
• Some of them are against the charge on the basis that renters don.'t have to pay.
• Some of them are against the charge on the basis that taxes should not be raised unless spending/waste is cut first.
• Some of the are against the charge as they believe it will all go towards paying back banking dept.
• Some of them are against the charge as they want the grass in their estate cut first.
• Some of them are against the charge because they sense a political opportunity to push a radical leftwing agenda due to voter anger.
• Some of them think ps pay should be cut.
• Some of them are in the ps and think income tax should be raised.
• Some of them are economic illiterates and just want to have a moan.
• Some of them say they can't afford an extra €100.
• Some of the posters who like to appear 'right-on' by thanking the posts of people in financial difficulty - will merrily post about cutting spending (including sw support) a few posts later without any sense of irony
• Some of them won't pay because they fear it will increase beyond €100 next year.
• Some of them are under the impression that the bank own thier house.
• Some of them are just waiting to see what way things will pan out before registering.

Well, you get the picture.

That just shows how many issues there are with the planned charge. You could say the same too for the pro-charge people or those who will pay

• Some of them will pay because its only 100 euro
• Some of them will pay because they will follow any law
• Some of them will pay to support local services
• Some of them will pay because they are afraid they will be fined
• Some of them will pay because they are afraid they will go to court
• Some of them will pay to help the fiscal situation

Well, you get the picture.

Bottom line is that the Government will be doing well to even reach 40% now, IMO that is all that matters. Individuals reasons for paying or not are secondary to the big picture and that is that people seem to not be willing to pay en masse.

If there is only 40% compliance the whole thing must be considered a failure and should be a wake up call to the Government.

Anyone

Why do people keep banging on about the money is going to the banks or the bondholders? Its 160m, that's not enough to cover anything either bank or bondholder wise. Makes you look incredibly miss informed if that's your argument for not paying.

tin79

Anyone wrote: »

Why do people keep banging on about the money is going to the banks or the bondholders? Its 160m, that's not enough to cover anything either bank or bondholder wise. Makes you look incredibly miss informed if that's your argument for not paying.

That IMO is a ridiculous statement. Its flawed logic. You could say that about your income tax too - oh its only 500 euro this month that wont cover a bank bailout so its not going to go there.

It all goes in the same pot, its not ring fenced.

smash

Anyone wrote: »

Why do people keep banging on about the money is going to the banks or the bondholders? Its 160m, that's not enough to cover anything either bank or bondholder wise. Makes you look incredibly miss informed if that's your argument for not paying.

It makes you look incredibly miss informed to even make that statement. Do you think the government just say "Ah there's a few billion there"?

No, they make it up from small amounts, this is one of them! :rolleyes:

Mousewar

donalg1 wrote: »

You paid what you thought was a reasonable price for your house, so to say it is someone elses fault when the price of your house drops is a bit unreasonable, "these clowns" didnt make you buy your house at the price you paid for it, you bought your house during a property boom, boom being the operative word meaning the prices were higher than usual and were bound to fall at some stage.

I didn't buy during the boom actually - if I had I'd be about 300k in the hole now. And concentrating on my negative equity misses my point which is that it's distasteful for me and many others to be taxed on something that is a financial burden rather than an asset.

Paparazzo

Just heard Minister James Reilly's comments about it yesterday. He said "Do we want facilities for oursevles and our children, do we want our footpaths safe etc etc etc"
Hilarious! People are getting killed daily because of our poor quality footpaths. Please pay this to keep the footpath deaths down. And for gods sake, won't someone think of the children! They'll have nothing if we don't pay this charge. Pathetic! They can't even make up something worthwhile that it'll be spent on.

PauloMN

Decided to pay this charge and have paid it. However, I do think they way this charge has been handled, and the constant comparisons to "other" countries in Europe has been very annoying.

If FG insist on comparing us to other countries when talking about property tax, I wish they would compare the costs of VRT, motor tax, childcare, GP visits, bin charges, stamp duty etc. also with these other countries.

I have family living in Germany, and they pay higher income taxes - but boy do they get their value for money out of them!

tayto lover

Bullseye1 wrote: »

So your saying they won't be paying or shouldn't pay? You agree with the exemptions? Maybe we should also feed them?

We are. They get money for nothing.

Wossack

have yet to receive my bill, so I've been unable to forward it to the majority share holders of the house (AIB)

at this stage, I can only presume they've billed the bank directly?

Frank Black

tin79 wrote: »

That just shows how many issues there are with the planned charge. You could say the same too for the pro-charge people or those who will pay.

Of course you could, the difference being that you don't need to come up with an alternative if you are already in favour of something.

tin79 wrote: »

Bottom line is that the Government will be doing well to even reach 40% now, IMO that is all that matters. Individuals reasons for paying or not are secondary to the big picture and that is that people seem to not be willing to pay en masse.

If there is only 40% compliance the whole thing must be considered a failure and should be a wake up call to the Government.

A 40% compliance rate by the deadline would be looked on as a success - certainly enough of a critical mass to render any calls to abolish the tax moot.

copeyhagen

PauloMN wrote: »

If FG insist on comparing us to other countries when talking about property tax, I wish they would compare the costs of VRT, motor tax, childcare, GP visits, bin charges, stamp duty etc. also with these other countries.

THIS! we are being r4ped in so many ways.

tayto lover

black francis wrote: »

The main problem with the anti-tax side is that I would imagine it's difficult for them to agree on anything other than they don't like the current propoal.

• Some of them are against any kind of tax on one's home as a matter of principle.
• Some of them are against the charge as it is a flat rate.
• Some of them are against the charge on the basis that renters don.'t have to pay.
• Some of them are against the charge on the basis that taxes should not be raised unless spending/waste is cut first.
• Some of the are against the charge as they believe it will all go towards paying back banking dept.
• Some of them are against the charge as they want the grass in their estate cut first.
• Some of them are against the charge because they sense a political opportunity to push a radical leftwing agenda due to voter anger.
• Some of them think ps pay should be cut.
• Some of them are in the ps and think income tax should be raised.
• Some of them are economic illiterates and just want to have a moan.
• Some of them say they can't afford an extra €100.
• Some of the posters who like to appear 'right-on' by thanking the posts of people in financial difficulty - will merrily post about cutting spending (including sw support) a few posts later without any sense of irony
• Some of them won't pay because they fear it will increase beyond €100 next year.
• Some of them are under the impression that the bank own thier house.
• Some of them are just waiting to see what way things will pan out before registering.

Well, you get the picture.

AND some of them see a tax on a family home as unjust but they are not on their own here -

"It is morally wrong, unjust and unfair to tax a persons home" - Enda Kenny, 1994

tayto lover

Anyone wrote: »

Why do people keep banging on about the money is going to the banks or the bondholders? Its 160m, that's not enough to cover anything either bank or bondholder wise. Makes you look incredibly miss informed if that's your argument for not paying.

Makes you look incredibly mis-informed if you think it will stay at 100e.
People are looking ahead and you should do so too.

tayto lover

black francis wrote: »

Of course you could, the difference being that you don't need to come up with an alternative if you are already in favour of something.






A 40% compliance rate by the deadline would be looked on as a success - certainly enough of a critical mass to render any calls to abolish the tax moot.

Ha ha !! Do I detect a big climb down here. 40% have registered with many of them exempt and its a success ???

mconigol

black francis wrote: »

The main problem with the anti-tax side is that I would imagine it's difficult for them to agree on anything other than they don't like the current propoal.

• Some of them are against any kind of tax on one's home as a matter of principle.
• Some of them are against the charge as it is a flat rate.
• Some of them are against the charge on the basis that renters don.'t have to pay.
• Some of them are against the charge on the basis that taxes should not be raised unless spending/waste is cut first.
• Some of the are against the charge as they believe it will all go towards paying back banking dept.
• Some of them are against the charge as they want the grass in their estate cut first.
• Some of them are against the charge because they sense a political opportunity to push a radical leftwing agenda due to voter anger.
• Some of them think ps pay should be cut.
• Some of them are in the ps and think income tax should be raised.
• Some of them are economic illiterates and just want to have a moan.
• Some of them say they can't afford an extra €100.
• Some of the posters who like to appear 'right-on' by thanking the posts of people in financial difficulty - will merrily post about cutting spending (including sw support) a few posts later without any sense of irony
• Some of them won't pay because they fear it will increase beyond €100 next year.
• Some of them are under the impression that the bank own thier house.
• Some of them are just waiting to see what way things will pan out before registering.

Well, you get the picture.

And??...people do many things for many different reasons. It doesn't really matter what those are at this point in time.

black francis wrote: »

Of course you could, the difference being that you don't need to come up with an alternative if you are already in favour of something.

A 40% compliance rate by the deadline would be looked on as a success - certainly enough of a critical mass to render any calls to abolish the tax moot.

....and the back tracking and excuses begins.

donalg1

Mousewar wrote: »

I didn't buy during the boom actually - if I had I'd be about 300k in the hole now. And concentrating on my negative equity misses my point which is that it's distasteful for me and many others to be taxed on something that is a financial burden rather than an asset.

Well regardless of when you bought your property, you were the one that chose to purchase a house and nobody made you do it, its not like the bank dragged you off the street and forced you to sign a mortgage agreement. Negative equity is only an issue when you are trying to sell your property and has been made a huge issue by those in Government looking for votes.

tayto lover

donalg1 wrote: »

Well regardless of when you bought your property, you were the one that chose to purchase a house and nobody made you do it, its not like the bank dragged you off the street and forced you to sign a mortgage agreement. Negative equity is only an issue when you are trying to sell your property and has been made a huge issue by those in Government looking for votes.

Well they offered me far more than I wanted plus money for a new car BUT Tayto Lover was very wise and rejected their advances. They were like "bold" women -- husseys.

Frank Black

mconigol wrote: »

....and the back tracking and excuses begins.

Backtracking from what exactly?

Simply replying to a poster who suggested that a 40% compliance rate would be judged a failure.

Unfortunately for you guys hoping this charge will be abolished, there's already enough people registered to eliminate any possibility of that happening.

dvpower

tin79 wrote: »

It all goes in the same pot, its not ring fenced.

It is.

Mousewar

donalg1 wrote: »

Well regardless of when you bought your property, you were the one that chose to purchase a house and nobody made you do it, its not like the bank dragged you off the street and forced you to sign a mortgage agreement. Negative equity is only an issue when you are trying to sell your property and has been made a huge issue by those in Government looking for votes.

You're missing the point again. Obviously I chose to buy the house. But I didn't choose to buy with the knowledge that I'd have to pay a property tax. Introducing one after the event and on something that is a financial burden rather than an asset is repugnant.
And negative issue is very much an issue when I could have 10 years less on my mortgage were I to have bought now rather than then.

seamus

black francis wrote: »

Simply replying to a poster who suggested that a 40% compliance rate would be judged a failure.

A 40% compliance rate on Sunday would be a stunning success.

A 40% compliance rate at the end of June would be a massive failure.