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

Galtee

mickydoomsux wrote: »

So we should disproportionately tax the rich?

But I thought we all wanted fairness.

That could be interpreted any old way. Please elaborate, what aspect of the discussion in particular are you applying the word fairness to?

HovaBaby

Say what you want about "armchair protestors" not putting up much of a fight, but I do think a sizeable amount of the 34% of people who said they won't pay in the poll, will not pay.

Am Chile

Interesting article to todays Irish examiner.

of meaningful economic growth this year look under threat as more than half of those surveyed for the Irish League of Credit Unions (ILCU) are falling behind on bills, up from 42% to 55% in just three months, and have less disposable income to spend. This may be explained by rising energy and fuel costs, which 86% of consumers said has impacted negatively on their spending ability.

All of whom will be expected to pay this household tax regardless of circumstances and regardless of Inability to pay, I can see even more people saying we can,t pay, as they won,t be able to afford any more.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/half-of-families-struggle-to-pay-bills-as-budget-cuts-bite-179477.html

mickydoomsux

That article should have been titled: "People who are constantly bombarded by the media telling them they are poor now think they are poor".

downey2003

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i think this is more to do with the services provided to your house.

It has got ***** all too do with any services - to or from your house!

Am Chile

Im still waiting for our state controlled rte to report on todays protest.

A meeting of Galway City Council had to be adjourned for a time this evening after a number of protestors stormed the Council Chamber.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/23627-gardai-called-protestors-disrupt-city-council-meeting

K-9

Galtee wrote: »

I appreciate you making it simple for me, it's most kind of you, I'm already paying enough tax, and don't really want to tax my brain on top of it. I'll try and reciprocate.

We do agree on one maybe two things, one of them being the exchequer deficit is most certainly the problem. I not so sure we agree on why though. You say that we haven't paid a red cent back from tax and I find this a bizarre statement. The whole reason the taxes have been raised for the last 5 budgets, is to close the deficit that was opened primarily by the amount of money paid to banks. Consequently, the current deficit has been largely caused by the cumulative servicing of debt as a direct result of loans that were used to bailout banks. It doesn't really matter if we sit down and record actual serial numbers on notes to determine which notes are being used to service the debt (although this does sound like a government method of reporting depending on who they are pitching to). The cost of servicing the debt in 2011 was 5.4bn as per the department of finace figures on the exchequer for 2011. This was 4bn in 2010 and god knows what in 2008 & 2009. Also, to account for the budget adjustments, there was a budget deficit of €1.7bn in 2007 and since then there has been budget adjustments of .5bn, 1bn, 2bn, 3.3bn and 3.6bn which is year on year BTW and would more than account for the adjustment to unemployment figures. For the record, tax receipts last year were 31.7bn. PRSI on top of that is another circa 9bn bringing it up over the 40bn mark. Revenue from state bodies is not factored in to this figure to the best of my knowledge. So where the hell is all the money going???

The budget deficit is €18 Billion this year before any payments to banks. Part of the interest payments is banks but people seem to forget we had to borrow to fund the deficit, pre the IMF/EU.

To get an idea on how it's structured, worth a read:
Economic Incentives: The deficit and “the banks”

As for the huge drop in taxes, it isn't down to banking bailouts, it's down to the property crash, the resultant drop in Stamp Duty and other Capital taxes, less Income Tax through less working, hours worked etc. and because our tax bases was based on low income tax to get people to spend, less VAT receipts. A triple whammy. If we'd had a proper tax bases including things like property and water taxes and higher income taxes, the drop wouldn't be as noticeable. Now we are trying to increase taxes in a recession, a quadruple whammy.

Trying to blame the deficit on the banks simply doesn't add up. People got used to taxes being cut and offered by all the main parties while also getting promises of increases in public services, which we still have to pay for.

And as for your comment saying that if you do this the super rich will leave, IMHO that shows a complete lack of respect for your fellow man, the ordinary worker who is out trying to grind a living and being taxed to the hilt on it meaning he has very little left over by comparison to the guys on higher income. That is the exact mentality that got us into this mess, leave the super rich alone and target the weak. Everyone should share the burden, agreed, but it should be relative to what you earn, a donkey with liqourice legs could tell you that.

There have been changes to the tax breaks and loopholes ensuring the wealthier pay more but I'd agree with you, I think far too much fear is spread about a small increases in tax, maybe on a temporary basis for a couple of years to help out. Raising taxes is seen as intrinsically bad after over 2 decades of cutting them.

The Quadratic Equation

Galtee wrote: »

It's just common sense. Even a black francis should know that.

Since when was common sense common in Ireland ?

Pete M.

K-9 wrote: »

Trying to blame the deficit on the banks simply doesn't add up.

Are you for real?

Who lent the money that the property speculators used to buy massively inflated land and buildings before it all crashed then eh?

The Banks are even more to blame than the Government.
They couldn't have gotten us into this mess all by themselves, they didn't have the wherewithal.

Roll on the 2nd bail out then you say then yeah?

At least we have the vanity of certain elements of western society to provide us with a few more jobs....

The Quadratic Equation

K-9 wrote: »

Trying to blame the deficit on the banks simply doesn't add up

lol, since when did such lies and spin = correct addition ?

Irish insolvency is now less a matter of economics than of arithmetic. If everything goes according to plan, as it always does, Ireland’s government debt will top €190 billion by 2014, with another €45 billion in Nama and €35 billion in bank recapitalisation, for a total of €270 billion, plus whatever losses the Irish Central Bank has made on its emergency lending. Subtracting off the likely value of the banks and Nama assets, Namawinelake (by far the best source on the Irish economy) reckons our final debt will be about €220 billion, and I think it will be closer to €250 billion, but these differences are immaterial: either way we are talking of a Government debt that is more than €120,000 per worker, or 60 per cent larger than GNP.

In other words, we have embarked on a futile game of passing the parcel of insolvency: first from the banks to the Irish State, and next from the State back to the banks and insurance companies. The eventual outcome will likely see Ireland as some sort of EU protectorate, Europe’s answer to Puerto Rico.

National survival requires that Ireland walk away from the bailout.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0507/1224296372123.html

theTinker

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

lol, since when did such lies and spin = correct addition ?



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0507/1224296372123.html

Can anyone from the 'this isnt true side' give some reasons to make me feel better after reading that horrible article?

K-9

Pete M. wrote: »

Are you for real?

Who lent the money that the property speculators used to buy massively inflated land and buildings before it all crashed then eh?

The Banks are even more to blame than the Government.
They couldn't have gotten us into this mess all by themselves, they didn't have the wherewithal.

Roll on the 2nd bail out then you say then yeah?

At least we have the vanity of certain elements of western society to provide us with a few more jobs....

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

lol, since when did such lies and spin = correct addition ?



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0507/1224296372123.html

My logic is backed up by a link to an economist, do pick holes in it.

I'm not saying banks aren't to blame, that would be stupid, but to try and blame the deficit on banks solely, is also stupid, hearing what you want to hear.

For 2 decades parties promised tax cut after tax cut and increased services, politicians gave what the electorate wanted to hear. This became the prevalent idea of social partnership, Government, employers, Unions, Unemployed, you name it. A degree of group think came in that reducing taxes is good.

That resulted in 50% of workers paying little or no Income Tax and very low PRSI.The idea was, increase wage packets and let them spend, so we'll get taxes through spending on houses, cars, LCD TV's. When the recession and crash came the results of that short sighted policy came home to roost, we got it from all sides on taxes from a poorly conceived and populist tax policy.

If we had property and water rates and higher income taxes, there wouldn't be near the same need to increase tax now. Trying to find a party who didn't want to cut income taxes in 2007 was impossible, that's the degree group think went.

I'm sure you'll point to the banks again and completely ignore all this because the SWP or SF told you some populist stuff.

K-9

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

lol, since when did such lies and spin = correct addition ?



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0507/1224296372123.html

€18 Billion of that is spending this year, about the same last year, €13/14 Billion next year, about another €50 Billion from the last few years, solely down to not being able to pay Welfare, PS pay and other essentials.

People think they pay plenty of tax, think they don't get enough Welfare, aren't paid enough, pay too high prices for things and populist parties pandered to it for years.

People point to countries like Norway, want their services, but not their taxes.

K-9

It's funny seeing traditionally high tax parties like SF and SWP oppose tax increases because the masses are up in arms!

If they had been up in arms about reductions in tax rates I'd take them more seriously!

Just to put the €13/14 Billion estimated deficit next year in perspective, that is what we take in on Income Tax alone.

Pete M.

K-9 wrote: »

...... because the SWP or SF told you some populist stuff.

Some populist stuff?

Like the corporations and bosses are flat out trying to devise new ways of getting more and more out of working people like?

I don't need either of the political groups that you refer to to 'tell me stuff' to realise that sh1t is fcuked up and I'm not happy with it.

You can blather away with your arguments about high taxation to low taxation to high taxation carry on, but whatever you say, your favored option of carrying on with bull**** macro fiscal corrections to the current system of mathematically imperfect economics will soon fail regardless.

Don't pay the Household Tax!!

For whatever reason you may have for not doing so :pac:

daddydick

I'm paying.

The country is on its knees. It's not my fault but contributing another €2 a week to help isn't going to bother me that much that my life is going to change.

K-9

Pete M. wrote: »

Some populist stuff?

Like the corporations and bosses are flat out trying to devise new ways of getting more and more out of working people like?

I don't need either of the political groups that you refer to to 'tell me stuff' to realise that sh1t is fcuked up and I'm not happy with it.

You can blather away with your arguments about high taxation to low taxation to high taxation carry on, but whatever you say, your favored option of carrying on with bull**** macro fiscal corrections to the current system of mathematically imperfect economics will soon fail regardless.

Don't pay the Household Tax!!

For whatever reason you may have for not doing so :pac:

Yeah, I already said I don't buy the don't tax the wealthy line. I also don't buy that a small, temporary increase in Corporation tax would mean that much.It's 2 decades of brain washing about reducing taxes being good.

But do feel free in painting extreme caricatures, without arguing details. You can't argue detail so dismiss on generalistic nonsense.


We'll get to US extremist politics yet and we'll get our own Ron Paul.

Kintarō Hattori

I've heard that the charge will go towards funding 'essential services' but what I'd like to know is this:

I pay income tax
I pay the USC
I already pay for refuse
I bought my house in 2011 but had to pay Stamp Duty
If I call the fire brigade or ambulance I'll have to pay for that
I will soon have private health insurance
I pay motor tax
I won't mind paying water rates when they come in


What essential services that I'm not already paying will this go towards?

Pete M.

K-9 wrote: »

But do feel free in painting extreme caricatures, without arguing details. You can't argue detail so dismiss on generalistic nonsense.

We'll get to US extremist politics yet and we'll get our own Ron Paul.

So because I'm keeping it general, it's nonsense?
That doesn't make sense :P

Why on earth would I bother my arse arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, in After Hours, when it's already apparent that you have been brainwashed (using your own terminology there btw) into doing what you are told to do.

Never met an economist who knew what they fcuk they were really talking about.

And no we will never get extremist US-like politics either.

Am Chile

daddydick wrote: »

I'm paying.

The country is on its knees. It's not my fault but contributing another €2 a week to help isn't going to bother me that much that my life is going to change.

Some of us have already heard John Fitzgerald pf the Ersi say the real amount of a property tax would be a €1,000 a year alone, lets do the maths on this one, which would work out at €19.23 a week, meaning it would be €2.74 a day, you would be asked to pay if they were to succeed in bringing in a full property tax alone.

http://www.laois-nationalist.ie/tabId/153/itemId/12052/Stop-the-taxes.aspx

You mightn,t mind paying a €2 a week at the moment, but would you mind paying €19.23 a week?

Noreen1

I'm curious.

Why did we pay stamp duty?
Was it because the Government regarded the acquisition of a home as an asset?

That being the case, with so many people in negative equity, their "asset" has become a loss, so, are these people then entitled to a tax refund?

If Stamp Duty wasn't because the home was regarded as an asset, then why was it charged? Was it for "services"? If so, then there is no justification for charging for these same services again.

When I built my home, I paid a raft of charges for "services". (Planning permission, Water, ESB, Mapping, I even paid for permission to open up the public mains water pipe (the same one that my parents and their neighbours paid to have laid 40 years ago - and then spent years paying water rates, despite the fact that they own the land where the water supply is located! Hmm. Maybe the landowners should start charging the council for the use of their water!).

I have a private road, paid to have pipes laid, paid for connection to ESB, (including the cost of the poles). I also have a private
well, and a septic tank.

So far, Council services to my house have cost the Council absolutely nothing, and cost me several thousand.

Yet now, I'm supposed to pay for water that myself and several of the neighbours own, (including the pipes), pay a septic tank charge for a modern tank, built to planning specificatons - and whatever other charges the EU/IMF/Irish Government, choose to levy.

Something tells me there must be a legal loophole there somewhere that the Government can't get around by calling this tax a "service charge".

K-9

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I've heard that the charge will go towards funding 'essential services' but what I'd like to know is this:

I pay income tax

Way too low, doesn't even cover the deficit.

I pay the USC

Just brought in and even counted as Income Tax, doesn't cover the deficit.

I already pay for refuse

Is it privatised?

I bought my house in 2011 but had to pay Stamp Duty

Stamp Duty is a one off tax. I assume you were aware there was a big chance of a property tax coming in? If stamp duty tax is that big an issue, don't buy. It obviously wasn't, you still bought.

If I call the fire brigade or ambulance I'll have to pay for that

It isn't supposed to.

I will soon have private health insurance

Loads of people are giving it up. Great to have the choice.

I pay motor tax

And?

I won't mind paying water rates when they come in

Think it's pretty pointless and a opportunistic tax but there you are!

What essential services that I'm not already paying will this go towards?

Zilch. Take a look at the exchequer figures. If you think you'll get anything extra the water tax, the increased VAT, the USC, the increased Income Tax by stealth please explain why? This is no different.

It's the ould romantic attachment to the plot isn't it? Go on, be honest.

Pete M. wrote: »

So because I'm keeping it general, it's nonsense?
That doesn't make sense :P

Why on earth would I bother my arse arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, in After Hours, when it's already apparent that you have been brainwashed (using your own terminology there btw) into doing what you are told to do.

Never met an economist who knew what they fcuk they were really talking about.

And no we will never get extremist US-like politics either.

You can't go into detail in points because you can't. Dismissive.

You engage in an ad hominem because you've nothing left when presented with a detailed argument. Dismissive.

Dismiss all Economists because you can't argue with this one. Dismissive.

We won't get US-like politics here. Dismissive.

Dismissive opinions creates extremes.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

I'm curious.

Why did we pay stamp duty?
Was it because the Government regarded the acquisition of a home as an asset?

We had a property bubble, quick revenue earner for the Govt.

That being the case, with so many people in negative equity, their "asset" has become a loss, so, are these people then entitled to a tax refund?

If they give up Mortgage Interest Tax Relief received, maybe.

If Stamp Duty wasn't because the home was regarded as an asset, then why was it charged? Was it for "services"? If so, then there is no justification for charging for these same services again.

Income Tax was reduced, low PRSI. They had to make up the money somewhere. Easy option. Reduce Income Tax, let them spend. Can't possibly go wrong!

When I built my home, I paid a raft of charges for "services". (Planning permission, Water, ESB, Mapping, I even paid for permission to open up the public mains water pipe (the same one that my parents and their neighbours paid to have laid 40 years ago - and then spent years paying water rates, despite the fact that they own the land where the water supply is located! Hmm. Maybe the landowners should start charging the council for the use of their water!).

I have a private road, paid to have pipes laid, paid for connection to ESB, (including the cost of the poles). I also have a private
well, and a septic tank.

If you have your own water supply I don't see the need for water rates. The ESB etc. don't see you as a one off connection and say that's it, Eircom either. The bill you pay every month goes towards upgrading services, connecting people etc. Same the taxes you pay don't mean you don't have to pay extra in the future.

That would be like a rich person paying 300k tax in a year and saying, "sure, that'll do me for the next 10 years". Pretty stupid.

Kintarō Hattori

K-9 wrote:

Way too low, doesn't even cover the deficit.

This is what peeves me off. During the boom I didn't buy a home, I didn't buy a car, I didn't take fancy holidays. I lived within my means.

K-9 wrote:

Just brought in and even counted as Income Tax, doesn't cover the deficit.

Again it peeves me that I have to pay through the nose for other peoples mistakes.

K-9 wrote:

Is it privatised?

It's Panda, so yes.

K-9 wrote:

Stamp Duty is a one off tax. I assume you were aware there was a big chance of a property tax coming in? If stamp duty tax is that big an issue, don't buy. It obviously wasn't, you still bought.

Regardless of it being a once off it's irritating that I have to pay a tax simply for buying somewhere to live.

I honestly don't see why I should have to pay a tax simply for owning the roof above my head. I hope that by the time I retire that I will own my home and no longer need to pay a mortgage. Had I decided to rent all my life I'd still need to find rent money once I retired- that's a pretty scary thought and one good reason to buy my own home.

I honestly don't see how it can be legal or moral to tax me simply for buying somewhere to live.

K-9 wrote:

It isn't supposed to.

Am I wrong in having read some months ago that both those services will carry a charge.

K-9 wrote:

Loads of people are giving it up. Great to have the choice.

To be honest with the state of the public health service you have no choice but to get private health insurance if you can.

K-9 wrote:

Zilch. Take a look at the exchequer figures. If you think you'll get anything extra the water tax, the increased VAT, the USC, the increased Income Tax by stealth please explain why? This is no different.

So you're telling me that essentially the government are telling porky pies when it's stated that the money from this new tax will pay for essential services? No I didn't believe it either but I don't like being lied to.

Doc Ruby

K-9 wrote: »

Way too low, doesn't even cover the deficit.

Here's a thought, why not just cut expenditure instead of damaging the economy further by raising taxes? I'm well aware there are all sorts of learned and not incidentally employed on the public euro individuals out there who swear this will be the end of us all but what

- You can't cut expenditure in good times because its politically unacceptable
- You can't cut expenditure in bad times because it will destroy the economy

Greece here we come!

The bottom line is you can cut expenditure and doing so will help the real economy. And really don't start on about welfare, 10 grand a year by 400,000 people is a humble €4 billion, about 5% of the tax take.

The money was pulled out of the economy in the first place, cutting costs and reducing taxes to slightly above the recycling effect leads to a net gain in government taxes. And thats what should be done if the lads hadn't croke double-parked.

Pete M.

K-9 wrote: »

You can't go into detail in points because you can't. Dismissive.

Nope, I don't because I couldn't be bothered.

K-9 wrote: »

You engage in an ad hominem because you've nothing left when presented with a detailed argument. Dismissive.

What ad hominem? The brainwashing jibe? Sorry if I upset you there. Wasn't intended, but hey, maybe too close to the bone?

K-9 wrote: »

Dismiss all Economists because you can't argue with this one. Dismissive.

Ah so you're a bona fide economist now? And here you are strutting your stuff in AH hah? Trying to show us rabble how the figures stack up? Like I said never met an economist who knew what they were on about.

But hey you're a trained economist right? So you realise that this tax is a drop in the ocean when it comes to the sea of sh1t that we're in right now.
To me it's a very big opportunity to get people who have been very close to rocking the boat for some time to do just that.

I won't engage in the minutiae of the economic argument because it is simply folly to me. I understand the figures and the various reasons for introducing it. I just don't agree with them or the system in general.

K-9 wrote: »

We won't get US-like politics here. Dismissive.

How could we? Shur we'll always have FG & FF. But seriously, considering the demographics, geography, history and society, we will certainly not see US style politics here anytime soon. But hey, whatever...

K-9 wrote: »

Dismissive opinions creates extremes.

My opinion and that of many others has been dismissed by the Establishment for a terribly long time, or so it seems to me, so forgive me if I tend to dismiss the opinions of those who make apologies for the shower who got us into this mess and who maintain that free market capitalism is anything but pure greed & avarice, dressed up in a fancy suit.


Dismissive dissenter is dismissive :cool:

K-9

I agree on a lot of the futility of this and I'm very cynical of politicians, I suppose I've seen this coming from a poor and populist tax policy for years. It would have ended up this way anyway, just the banks are a convenient and populist out. I don't buy populist arguments seeing as they got us into this mess in the first place!

This is what peeves me off. During the boom I didn't buy a home, I didn't buy a car, I didn't take fancy holidays. I lived within my means.

Indeed. Economics isn't based on the individual, I wish it was, I'd be with you, it's based on the collective. Its a social science after all.

Again it peeves me that I have to pay through the nose for other peoples mistakes.

Again, the above, as much as I wish it wasn't.

It's Panda, so yes.

At least you know it's going on collecting your waste.

Regardless of it being a once off it's irritating that I have to pay a tax simply for buying somewhere to live.

I honestly don't see why I should have to pay a tax simply for owning the roof above my head. I hope that by the time I retire that I will own my home and no longer need to pay a mortgage. Had I decided to rent all my life I'd still need to find rent money once I retired- that's a pretty scary thought and one good reason to buy my own home.

That's the way it has been for years. We all know we have to pay, no matter how objectionable it is. Maybe offer to forego Mortgage Interest Relief and do a contra entry?

I honestly don't see how it can be legal or moral to tax me simply for buying somewhere to live.

I don't think it is moral. Legal, apparently so. Don't buy a new car or you'll be more shocked, double and maybe even treble taxation!

I
Am I wrong in having read some months ago that both those services will carry a charge.

They've a charge for years.

To be honest with the state of the public health service you have no choice but to get private health insurance if you can.

My father paid insurance all his life, I seen no benefit when he passed away. So much for the private sector.

So you're telling me that essentially the government are telling porky pies when it's stated that the money from this new tax will pay for essential services? No I didn't believe it either but I don't like being lied to.

A bit of both, porkie pie and an inability of the ordinary person to grasp that increased taxes at best, mean less of a cut in services. Why they think they'll get increased services?

IMO, Being spoilt and pandered to for 25 years! We are in a strange warp hole between Boston and Berlin!

mr.wiggle

What are peoples opinions on what will happen to house owners who refuse to pay the charge and accrued penalties?
Court appearance and increased fines?
What happens if this isn't paid- jail?
Can't see it happening myself.
My wife and I ( both heavily taxed paye workers )have decided we won't be paying it, so I'll let you know what happens to us.
A nice bit of jail time might give us some fcuking rest !!

K-9

Pete M. wrote: »

Nope, I don't because I couldn't be bothered.

Sums it up perfectly. Re run of the X Factor on probably.

Doc Ruby

K-9 wrote: »

an inability of the ordinary person to grasp that increased taxes at best, mean less of a cut in services. Why they think they'll get increased services?

And what services they are.

Really, come on, who are you kidding.

If it wasn't for croke park and the unions, vested interests and comfortable jobs for the lads we'd already be in surplus.