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

K-9

Doc Ruby wrote: »

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.

It's another take on it.

You could cut PS pay and Welfare by 50% tomorrow.

Should solve the deficit in one go. You think it would?

Doc Ruby

K-9 wrote: »

It's another take on it.

You could cut PS pay and Welfare by 50% tomorrow.

Should solve the deficit in one go. You think it would?

Probably. But theres a lot of other areas that could be cut without too much collateral damage. Quangos, redundant HSE and health boards, its a long list.

K-9

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Probably. But theres a lot of other areas that could be cut without too much collateral damage. Quangos, redundant HSE and health boards, its a long list.

Probably?

So if we cut say €18 Billion of Welfare and PS pay tomorrow the deficit would be wiped out overnight?

Think about that one before you answer!

daddydick

Am Chile wrote: »

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?

No not really. Hiw else are we going to bridge the gap? Reality check people - Govt needs to raise a lot more money!!

Doc Ruby

K-9 wrote: »

Probably?

So if we cut say €18 Billion of Welfare and PS pay tomorrow the deficit would be wiped out overnight?

Think about that one before you answer!

You're the one coming out with the silly season ideas here - blanket cuts are a bad idea. There are huge areas of waste and redundancy that could very easily be targeted.

Doc Ruby

daddydick wrote: »

No not really. Hiw else are we going to bridge the gap? Reality check people - Govt needs to raise a lot more money!!

It needs to stop spending like it was still the middle of a boom is what it needs.

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

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



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

Hmm. The fact that Stamp Duty was based on valuation would suggest that it was a tax based on the family home being taxed as an asset. Since that "asset" has become a significant loss to many a poor soul, methinks they're due a refund.

By the way, I never had a Mortgage. I don't get Mortgage Interest relief.

K-9 wrote: »

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!

The particular bunch of idiots who came up with that idea may actually be surpassed by the current bunch of idiots who think they can tax their way out of this mess.

Don't get me started about "Labours way, not Frankfurts way" or "re-negotiating the terms of senior bonds not covered by the Irish Government guarantee".

K-9 wrote: »

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.

You're missing the point.
I have two water supplies. One private well, owned by yours truly. All pipes and pumps paid for by yours truly.

Some 40 -50 years ago, my parents and their neighbours paid to have pipes laid from a lake which is on "Commonage" ie. Land which is co-owned by landowners in several townlands. All expenses were paid by this group, cost to the Council was zilch.

Since then, the Council has extended this water supply to non-landowners.
Then, the Council decided to charge water rates. Foolishly enough, people paid.

Now, if the Council can charge people for water - why can't the people who actually own the water charge the Council for the use of their resource?
No-one dreamt of denying new homeowners the use of water - but being charged for the privilege of giving it away is a step too far, imo.

Bin collection in my area has been privatised.
There is a charge for the Fire Brigade.
The Council provides no services that have not already been paid for by the people, apart from public roads - and road tax was originally supposed to pay for that.

Why can't they just call it what it is - a Tax!
This play on words, whether to cover up for pre-election promises, or to avoid legal loopholes on double taxation - is completely hypocritical.

K-9

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You're the one coming out with the silly season ideas here - blanket cuts are a bad idea. There are huge areas of waste and redundancy that could very easily be targeted.

I asked you a direct question. If the Government cut welfare and PS pay by €18 Billion tomorrow, the exact amount of the deficit, would it solve the deficit?

You said probably.

So a €18 Billion cut in Welfare and PS pay would probably cut the deficit? How so?

The ould left wingers and right wingers are great craic.

Doc Ruby

K-9 wrote: »

I asked you a direct question.

So what, I could ask you a direct question about the colour of your shoes and it would still be an attempt to avoid the substance of the discussion.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

Hmm. The fact that Stamp Duty was based on valuation would suggest that it was a tax based on the family home being taxed as an asset. Since that "asset" has become a significant loss to many a poor soul, methinks they're due a refund.

By the way, I never had a Mortgage. I don't get Mortgage Interest relief.

Lucky you. I take it you aren't opposed to pointing to stamp duty and taking away the mortgage interest relief? That it doesn't apply to you is an individualist opt out.

The particular bunch of idiots who came up with that idea may actually be surpassed by the current bunch of idiots who think they can tax their way out of this mess.

They are doing it the wrong way round. The aim is a sustainable tax base that you obviously agreed with a few years ago. You agree they went way too far.

Don't get me started about "Labours way, not Frankfurts way" or "re-negotiating the terms of senior bonds not covered by the Irish Government guarantee".

Never fell for that nonsense myself. I listen to debates and answers to tough questions, not party political broadcasts. Amazingly it seems most voters vote on broadcasts!

You're missing the point.
I have two water supplies. One private well, owned by yours truly. All pipes and pumps paid for by yours truly.

Seeing as I agreed with you, I'm not missing the point.

Some 40 -50 years ago, my parents and their neighbours paid to have pipes laid from a lake which is on "Commonage" ie. Land which is co-owned by landowners in several townlands. All expenses were paid by this group, cost to the Council was zilch.

Since then, the Council has extended this water supply to non-landowners.
Then, the Council decided to charge water rates. Foolishly enough, people paid.

Now, if the Council can charge people for water - why can't the people who actually own the water charge the Council for the use of their resource?
No-one dreamt of denying new homeowners the use of water - but being charged for the privilege of giving it away is a step too far, imo.

They should. Donegal people and land! I'm surprised the issue hasn't arisen already!.

Bin collection in my area has been privatised.
There is a charge for the Fire Brigade.
The Council provides no services that have not already been paid for by the people, apart from public roads - and road tax was originally supposed to pay for that.

Why can't they just call it what it is - a Tax!
This play on words, whether to cover up for pre-election promises, or to avoid legal loopholes on double taxation - is completely hypocritical.

It's a Household tax. What I find funny is the people saying I'll pay it through Income Tax, not a house tax. After a 50% property crash you'd think the emotional attachment to the ould plot would have gone.

Nope, an Irishman/woman and his land will never be separated.

K-9

Doc Ruby wrote: »

So what, I could ask you a direct question about the colour of your shoes and it would still be an attempt to avoid the substance of the discussion.

You know rightly that a €18 Billion cut in Welfare and PS Pay will go nowhere near solving the €18 Billion deficit.

You right and left wingers are hilarious. Loads of proposals and loads of noise and giving it all that, until questioned, then go strangely reticent in answering in detail. Evasion and ad hominems is all that is left.

Doc Ruby

K-9 wrote: »

You right and left wingers are hilarious. Loads of proposals until questioned, then go strangely reticent in answering in detail. Evasion and ad hominems are more fun though.

Do you just go on autopilot in these discussions? I already made it clear how it could be done.

K-9

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Do you just go on autopilot in these discussions? I already made it clear how it could be done.

Nah, another right winger who knows the way but can't answer basic mathematical and logical questions! Who'd have thunk it?

How do you reduce a left winger and a right winger to silence and stupidity? Ask simple mathematical and logical questions.

Doc Ruby

K-9 wrote: »

Nah, another right winger who knows the way but can't answer basic mathematical and logical questions! Who'd have thunk it?

How do you reduce a left winger and a right winger to silence and stupidity? Ask simple mathematical and logical questions.

Apparently said deficiency extends even to those who claim neither camp. Allow me to make a last attempt to salvage the conversation.

Taxes are leakage from the economy. The public sector is fuelled by taxes from private commercial activity, and not much else. Fianna Fail boosted spending on the back of a false dawn, the property bubble. Fine Gael is now intent on borrowing to keep the same bloated sector on the go, whether or not the interest payments cripple us.

My suggestion is to cut our cloth to measure, and reduce spending rather than hike up taxes. We have already reached the point of diminishing returns. The deficit has hopped to €25 billion in the last year alone. You cannot, cannot tax your way out of this. The VAT increase will be the final drop of the axe, mark my words.

Now some, not all, of those taxes are redistributed into the economy in the form of welfare payments, public sector payments, and a wide variety of other payments. Interest payments on government loans are not redistributed. But you can claim arguably that cutting expenditure will lead to economic damage, since the redistribution will be reduced.

This is true, unless you simultaneously cut taxes.

Yes, cut taxes.

That way what is taken out of the economy is reduced, while government tax returns increase. The trick is to focus on those areas with minimal impact on the overall economy for cuts, and then reducing payroll and salaries elsewhere secondly.

Its pretty simple really, but needs a coordinated vision that wasn't taken out of IBEC's cristmas list nor that of the unions. And this is where our politicians fail us yet again.

WoollyRedHat

Shenshen wrote: »

It's €100, that's around €8.33 a month.

I'm finding it absolutely baffling how people can get worked up over this, yet will happily spend as much on a single drink on a night out....

Get a grip. Seriously.

Then how willl all these people pay their monthly donation to Concern?

Irish Steve

K-9 wrote: »

It's a Household tax. What I find funny is the people saying I'll pay it through Income Tax, not a house tax. After a 50% property crash you'd think the emotional attachment to the ould plot would have gone.
.

The issue for many people is that if it's an INCOME tax, it's based on INCOME, whereas a property tax is based arbitarily on a value that has nothing at all to do with the income coming into the property, which may be high, or may be low.

In simplest terms, a property being lived in by 8 (or more) people all working full time is making a lot more demand on local services than an identical property next door that's being lived in by a widow.


Yes, that example may be extreme, but right now, the property tax makes NO distiction between those extremes. The 8 are effectively responsible for just over €12 each this year, the widow the full €100, but what happens if the property is in Dublin 4, and ends up with a property tax value of €3000 per annum. Force the widow to sell up and move to a "more affordable" property. Anyone that suggests that form of human rights abuse needs to be dealt with very rapidly. Make the charge more balanced? One way to do that is share the charge across all the users in proportion to the use made of things like water, waste water disposal, landfill, roads, street lighting and all the other things that everyone in the state uses to a greater or lesser extent. Basing it on a notional property value does very little to change the problems that are there, and a great deal to damage the underlying structure of society, by destroying communities in ways and at times when they may be most vulnerable. That's not a good way to change things for the better.

Doc Ruby

And further, its a throwback to feudal times. I don't rent my house permanently from the civil service, in the same way I don't doff my cap to some laird on his way to claim droit de seigneur.

It may suit the French and Germans, but the French haven't run a surplus in 30 years and the Germans still aren't allowed to sing their own national anthem.

Frank Black

Doc Ruby wrote: »

the Germans still aren't allowed to sing their own national anthem.

Wow, please explain this bizarre statement - don't even worry about it's relevance to the property tax.

Doc Ruby

black francis wrote: »

Wow, please explain this bizarre statement - don't even worry about it's relevance to the property tax.

Educate yourself lad...

"Deutschland Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt" means "Germany Germany over everything, over everything in the world" and is an extremely nationalist, supremacist statement. In addition, this stanza, originally the first stanza of the "Song of the Germans", states the rivers Maas, Memel, Etsch and Belt as German borders - which would mean a much bigger Germany, as these rivers are in France, Belgium, Denmark, Italy and Poland now. So singing this stanza as the national anthem would mean totally unjustified territorial claims from other countries.
The second stanza of the "Song of the Germans" is something about German women and German wine - not so useful for a national anthem either. So now only the third stanza ("Unity and justice and freedom for the German fatherland...") is used.

It has nothing to do with sweeping history under the carpet. It is not swept under the carpet. There is a lot of documentation and education about the Nazi period. It's just that lyrics like those of the first two stanzas are simply inacceptable for a national anthem now.

And by the way not everything was fine before the Nazi rule, it was pre-Nazi German nationalism and supremacism that produced Nazism and World War II could only happen because people didn't learn the right lessons from World War I.

They aren't allowed to sing it on account of the two world wars and genocidally shovelling millions of innocent people into furnaces within living memory. Or to be more accurate, I don't think there's a law against it per se, but its not the done thing unless you happen to be a soccer hooligan.

Lets just have a bit of a think about who it is exactly we're happy to copy.

Frank Black

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Educate yourself lad...

They aren't allowed to sing it on account of the two world wars and genocidally shovelling millions of innocent people into furnaces within living memory. Or to be more accurate, I don't think there's a law against it per se, but its not the done thing unless you happen to be a soccer hooligan.

Lets just have a bit of a think about who it is exactly we're happy to copy.

Thanks for the education - sounds totally inacceptable all right :rolleyes:.

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

Lucky you. I take it you aren't opposed to pointing to stamp duty and taking away the mortgage interest relief? That it doesn't apply to you is an individualist opt out.

You are presuming a bit much, there.

I have no desire to push any more hard-pressed homeowners into having their homes re-possessed.

I'm merely pointing out that mortgage interest relief doesn't apply to all homeowners.
There are actually people in the Country who bought/built their homes mortgage free.
There are also significant numbers of newly unemployed - what benefit is mortgage interest relief to them?

K-9 wrote: »

They are doing it the wrong way round. The aim is a sustainable tax base that you obviously agreed with a few years ago. You agree they went way too far.

I do?
There is a difference between a sustainable tax base, and a property tax.

K-9 wrote: »

Never fell for that nonsense myself. I listen to debates and answers to tough questions, not party political broadcasts. Amazingly it seems most voters vote on broadcasts!

The choice of who to vote for would rather depend on the quality of candidates and parties available, wouldn't you agree?
In Ireland, sadly, I've yet to find a party that tells the truth, hence the electorate have to indulge in a guessing game about who's telling the biggest lies.
That's why I have no allegiance to any party. I tend to vote for the best of a bad/awful lot.

K-9 wrote: »

Seeing as I agreed with you, I'm not missing the point.



They should. Donegal people and land! I'm surprised the issue hasn't arisen already!.

Really, snide comments about Donegal people don't help your argument.

Just how familiar are you with the history of a piped water supply?
My area is not the only rural area where people provided their own water supply.
Hence, maybe the question should be, how many people have already paid for a service that they themselves provided - and does the Government think it's equitable to try to make them pay yet again?

K-9 wrote: »

It's a Household tax. What I find funny is the people saying I'll pay it through Income Tax, not a house tax. After a 50% property crash you'd think the emotional attachment to the ould plot would have gone.

I never said I was happy to pay it through income tax. Let the Government cut waste on quangos and ridiculous "expenses".
Let them defend the interests of the electorate, rather than tugging the forelock to Europe. For God's sake, even the IMF were saying that Ireland needed better terms recently.

When all that is done - then I'll decide, on the basis of what is equitable, what taxes I agree with.
A charge levied on a property that has already been taxed to the hilt is unlikely to meet with my approval, no matter how "equitable" the spin doctors may wish to portray it as being.

K-9 wrote: »

Nope, an Irishman/woman and his land will never be separated.

Another snide comment, this time about the Irish people...
I'm curious. Do you think people shouldn't be allowed own land or homes?
Or just that they should be taxed again and again for the same thing - meanwhile driving us further into a downward economic spiral, and destroying the SMEs that are the backbone of the Economy.

AeoNGriM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Educate yourself lad...

They aren't allowed to sing it on account of the two world wars and genocidally shovelling millions of innocent people into furnaces within living memory. Or to be more accurate, I don't think there's a law against it per se, but its not the done thing unless you happen to be a soccer hooligan.

Lets just have a bit of a think about who it is exactly we're happy to copy.

Hmmmmm, kinda.

Deutschlandlied is still the national anthem of Germany and has been since 1922.

However, it is only the 3rd verse which is sung today. The first 2, including the well known and controversial opening line line 'Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles, uber alles in der welt' (which means 'Germany, Germany above all, above all in the world) have been omitted.

Doc Ruby

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Deutschlandlied is STILL the national anthem of Germany and has been since 1922.

However, it is only the 3rd verse which is sung today. The first 2, including the well known and controversial opening line line 'Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles, uber alles in der welt' (which means 'Germany, Germany above all, above all in the world) have been omitted.

Yeah thats what I said.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

You are presuming a bit much, there.

I have no desire to push any more hard-pressed homeowners into having their homes re-possessed.

I'm merely pointing out that mortgage interest relief doesn't apply to all homeowners.
There are actually people in the Country who bought/built their homes mortgage free.
There are also significant numbers of newly unemployed - what benefit is mortgage interest relief to them?

You get mortgage interest tax relief regardless of paying tax. It seems you are going to lengths to find ways out of it so I don't think you can argue with the rationale that if people are going on about stamp duty paid, they should also go on about Mortgage tax relief received. There'll always be exceptions to the rule and obviously if they didn't get tax relief well it isn't a problem then.

I do?
There is a difference between a sustainable tax base, and a property tax.

A reasonably worked out property tax is sustainable. The Govt. have made a mess of introducing this, they are nearly a year in power and rather than actually spend that time implementing a fair scheme they've wasted that playing politics with it. Some of the proposals for the future tax make more sense, taking account of different circumstances.

The choice of who to vote for would rather depend on the quality of candidates and parties available, wouldn't you agree?
In Ireland, sadly, I've yet to find a party that tells the truth, hence the electorate have to indulge in a guessing game about who's telling the biggest lies.
That's why I have no allegiance to any party. I tend to vote for the best of a bad/awful lot.

I favour the one telling the least lies which seems to change in each election!

Really, snide comments about Donegal people don't help your argument.

Just how familiar are you with the history of a piped water supply?
My area is not the only rural area where people provided their own water supply.
Hence, maybe the question should be, how many people have already paid for a service that they themselves provided - and does the Government think it's equitable to try to make them pay yet again?

A snide comment because I'd already agreed that the likes of group water schemes should be exempt so I don't why you were still going on about them. The Government seem to be ceding this point too and rightly so.

I never said I was happy to pay it through income tax. Let the Government cut waste on quangos and ridiculous "expenses".
Let them defend the interests of the electorate, rather than tugging the forelock to Europe. For God's sake, even the IMF were saying that Ireland needed better terms recently.

When all that is done - then I'll decide, on the basis of what is equitable, what taxes I agree with.
A charge levied on a property that has already been taxed to the hilt is unlikely to meet with my approval, no matter how "equitable" the spin doctors may wish to portray it as being.

Loads of things could be cut. What I find about this cut waste argument, everybody agrees with it, but when I ask how much waste do they need to cut, nobody seems to be able to estimate it. They could cut loads of waste tomorrow and some "scandal" will come out about some other type of waste. With a Government this size and so many different agencies it would be impossible to have no waste of some sort. Its as if some people purposefully set out an impossible standard intentionally!

As for taxed to the hilt, I don't see much about that isn't taxed to the hilt, cars, disposable income, savings, you name it.

Another snide comment, this time about the Irish people...
I'm curious. Do you think people shouldn't be allowed own land or homes?

What?

Or just that they should be taxed again and again for the same thing - meanwhile driving us further into a downward economic spiral, and destroying the SMEs that are the backbone of the Economy.

I keep seeing stupid points like I'm not getting taxed to the hilt on my house, when people already get taxed to the hilt on many things. That suggests to me an emotional attachment to the ould plot and I haven't seen much to suggest otherwise.

It doesn't really matter whether we tax or cut Welfare, PS pay and other services. Either way is taking money out of the economy, out of businesses etc. There is no easy way out of this, even if we got the IMF/EU loans wiped in the morning!

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

You get mortgage interest tax relief regardless of paying tax. It seems you are going to lengths to find ways out of it so I don't think you can argue with the rationale that if people are going on about stamp duty paid, they should also go on about Mortgage tax relief received. There'll always be exceptions to the rule and obviously if they didn't get tax relief well it isn't a problem then.

How isn't it a problem?
I don't see the Revenue Commissioners offering rebates to those people.

K-9 wrote: »

A reasonably worked out property tax is sustainable. The Govt. have made a mess of introducing this, they are nearly a year in power and rather than actually spend that time implementing a fair scheme they've wasted that playing politics with it. Some of the proposals for the future tax make more sense, taking account of different circumstances.

What are the chances of a reasonably worked out property tax?
I'd suggest, given the dire financial straits that we find ourselves in, that the chances are very close to Zero.
Realistically speaking, this will be milked as a cash cow. "Reasonable" taxation, historically, tends to disappear in times of recession.

K-9 wrote: »

I favour the one telling the least lies which seems to change in each election!

Agreed. I'd like to vote for a party that A: Told no lies, and B: Had a halfway realistic economic and social policy, though.
Needless to say, I couldn't find such a party in the last election.

K-9 wrote: »

A snide comment because I'd already agreed that the likes of group water schemes should be exempt so I don't why you were still going on about them. The Government seem to be ceding this point too and rightly so.

Hmm. I think you may find that, in return for promises made (and never kept!) by County councils, any group water schemes agreed to cede their rights to the scheme, in return for ongoing maintenance.
For example, I have rights, as part of a group water scheme. My neighbour, two doors up, (about 400 yards) has no such rights, since the group who extended the original scheme ceded their rights, in return for promised maintenance and upgrades that never happened. Yet, they originally paid for the pipes that are still in use, just as we (as in my family and neighbours) did.
Legal? Yes.
Just or equitable? Absolutely not!

K-9 wrote: »

Loads of things could be cut. What I find about this cut waste argument, everybody agrees with it, but when I ask how much waste do they need to cut, nobody seems to be able to estimate it. They could cut loads of waste tomorrow and some "scandal" will come out about some other type of waste. With a Government this size and so many different agencies it would be impossible to have no waste of some sort. Its as if some people purposefully set out an impossible standard intentionally!

As for taxed to the hilt, I don't see much about that isn't taxed to the hilt, cars, disposable income, savings, you name it.

Do you seriously think that anyone without access to Dept of Finance, and various semi-state agencies, or quangos figures could give a reasonable estimation of potential savings?

Yet, you talk about impossible standards?

It's true that some waste is inevitable. However, that is no excuse for doing little or nothing. That just smacks of deliberately hitting the easy target, because anything else might upset "The Elite", or, God forbid, involve Politicians actually doing what they get paid for!

K-9 wrote: »

What?

I keep seeing stupid points like I'm not getting taxed to the hilt on my house, when people already get taxed to the hilt on many things. That suggests to me an emotional attachment to the ould plot and I haven't seen much to suggest otherwise.

Eh, people have already been taxed to the hilt on their houses. VAT on raw materials, Stamp duty, outlandish charges associated with planning, inheritance tax, where applicable.
Now they're supposed to suck it up, and pay again.
I always thought discouraging home ownership was a Communist ideal - maybe not?

The attachment to property in Ireland is well-founded, historically.
Whereas people can control their day to day expenditure with regard to basics vs luxuries, fluctuations in the rental market are very difficult to plan for - as are taxes that can be revised at the whim of the Government, at any time.
Hence, the "attachment" you refer to is actually based on logic!

K-9 wrote: »

It doesn't really matter whether we tax or cut Welfare, PS pay and other services. Either way is taking money out of the economy, out of businesses etc. There is no easy way out of this, even if we got the IMF/EU loans wiped in the morning!

It matters a great deal, actually.
It's true that there is no easy way out, but to suggest that cutting those with the least disposable income doesn't affect the SMEs that are the backbone of the economy is patently untrue.
Fewer SMEs equals less growth in the Economy, necessitating even more cuts.
It's rather important then, to try to limit the damage. Would you agree?

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

How isn't it a problem?
I don't see the Revenue Commissioners offering rebates to those people.

Of course they aren't and with good reason! It's a debate outside this discussion really but saying I bought a house and paid loads of stamp duty isn't really going to wash. Tax doesn't really work like that unfortunately!

What are the chances of a reasonably worked out property tax?
I'd suggest, given the dire financial straits that we find ourselves in, that the chances are very close to Zero.
Realistically speaking, this will be milked as a cash cow. "Reasonable" taxation, historically, tends to disappear in times of recession.

Reasonable based on value, site size, income, that type of thing. Of course if you are idealistically opposed to a property tax there is no such thing as a "reasonable" tax so its a pointless debate, it never will be reasonable, ever for you so end of really.

Agreed. I'd like to vote for a party that A: Told no lies, and B: Had a halfway realistic economic and social policy, though.
Needless to say, I couldn't find such a party in the last election.

Yeah, I couldn't find a party that didn't want to buy the electorate in some way in 2007 either, all of them had unsustainable tax policies as far as I remember.

Hmm. I think you may find that, in return for promises made (and never kept!) by County councils, any group water schemes agreed to cede their rights to the scheme, in return for ongoing maintenance.
For example, I have rights, as part of a group water scheme. My neighbour, two doors up, (about 400 yards) has no such rights, since the group who extended the original scheme ceded their rights, in return for promised maintenance and upgrades that never happened. Yet, they originally paid for the pipes that are still in use, just as we (as in my family and neighbours) did.
Legal? Yes.
Just or equitable? Absolutely not!

I already ceded this point, as has the Government so I don't see the point in commenting much on it. If you have to pay to maintain water infrastructure..............

Do you seriously think that anyone without access to Dept of Finance, and various semi-state agencies, or quangos figures could give a reasonable estimation of potential savings?

Yet, you talk about impossible standards?

It's true that some waste is inevitable. However, that is no excuse for doing little or nothing. That just smacks of deliberately hitting the easy target, because anything else might upset "The Elite", or, God forbid, involve Politicians actually doing what they get paid for!

It was a high standard question but you have ceded there'll always be some waste of some kind.

Eh, people have already been taxed to the hilt on their houses. VAT on raw materials, Stamp duty, outlandish charges associated with planning, inheritance tax, where applicable.
Now they're supposed to suck it up, and pay again.
I always thought discouraging home ownership was a Communist ideal - maybe not?

A property tax is going to discourage home ownership? I don't think it has in Northern Ireland, they'd a similar boom so I think this is just some emotional scare tactic. High Stamp Duty and bubble prices didn't put people either.

The attachment to property in Ireland is well-founded, historically.
Whereas people can control their day to day expenditure with regard to basics vs luxuries, fluctuations in the rental market are very difficult to plan for - as are taxes that can be revised at the whim of the Government, at any time.
Hence, the "attachment" you refer to is actually based on logic!

Every tax is at the whim of a Government. Reductions in tax during the late 80's, 90's and 00's as well. The attachment may well be well founded historically but people should move on, the amount of people taken for a fecking ride in the last decade because of that emotional attachment is unreal. Time to move on, especially after the fascination with property has cost people a fortune. Still having an attachment to the ould plot after the events of the last decade is not logical, by any measure.

It matters a great deal, actually.
It's true that there is no easy way out, but to suggest that cutting those with the least disposable income doesn't affect the SMEs that are the backbone of the economy is patently untrue.
Fewer SMEs equals less growth in the Economy, necessitating even more cuts.
It's rather important then, to try to limit the damage. Would you agree?

Yep. Unfortunately we've very few options than to tax and cut our way out of it. The deficit is so enormous that left wing or right wing politics isn't any good any more. The scale is beyond what they can come up with. Raising taxes causes problems, austerity budgets cause problems, but what's the alternative given the size of it? Raise taxes or cut already low incomes? You end up in the same place anyway. What is sure is we can't go on paying €26/27 Billion in Welfare when we only take in half that in Income Tax and USC. The Government has taken as many soft options as they could up to now, there isn't many left and the next couple of budgets are really going to hit the Welfare budget and probably PS pay as well.

People think there is some easy way around paying double Income Taxes on Welfare, much as I'd love to see it, there isn't. Revenues have to be raised somewhere and cuts made because the scale is just too big.

u_c_thesecond

im paying it- and im only paying it because id be the one they would catch for non payment and "make an example of". id be that unlucky:(

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

Of course they aren't and with good reason! It's a debate outside this discussion really but saying I bought a house and paid loads of stamp duty isn't really going to wash. Tax doesn't really work like that unfortunately!

Reasonable based on value, site size, income, that type of thing. Of course if you are idealistically opposed to a property tax there is no such thing as a "reasonable" tax so its a pointless debate, it never will be reasonable, ever for you so end of really.

It is unreasonable to re-tax the same thing, over and over, ad-infinitum.
Since we are all aware that we will actually see severely reduced services in the coming years, then the Government stance that this is a Household charge for (often non-existent) services is completely hypocritical.
Dressing it up as "fair" or "equitable" is only adding insult to injury.

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, I couldn't find a party that didn't want to buy the electorate in some way in 2007 either, all of them had unsustainable tax policies as far as I remember.

Agreed.

K-9 wrote: »

I already ceded this point, as has the Government so I don't see the point in commenting much on it. If you have to pay to maintain water infrastructure..............

If you have to pay to maintain water infrastructure, so be it?
But we have already paid to maintain water infrastructure - and it hasn't been maintained. I don't believe it will be maintained if we pay it again, either.

K-9 wrote: »

It was a high standard question but you have ceded there'll always be some waste of some kind.

I recognise that there will always be waste - I have not ceded that waste is acceptable, and that we should ignore it.
Therefore, my point still stands.

K-9 wrote: »

A property tax is going to discourage home ownership? I don't think it has in Northern Ireland, they'd a similar boom so I think this is just some emotional scare tactic. High Stamp Duty and bubble prices didn't put people either.

Northern Ireland is not comparable, for obvious reasons.
An unaffordable property tax will certainly have the ability to seriously affect peoples ability to own their own home.
It may well prove to be the straw that pushes many people who are already struggling to pay their mortgage, over the edge, and trigger mortgage default.
Seriously, do you live in some imaginary Utopia, where people have limitless disposable income?
You must have noticed the serious lack of "confidence" (read lack of money, instead) in the runup to Christmas, or at least heard about it on the News.

K-9 wrote: »

Every tax is at the whim of a Government. Reductions in tax during the late 80's, 90's and 00's as well. The attachment may well be well founded historically but people should move on, the amount of people taken for a fecking ride in the last decade because of that emotional attachment is unreal. Time to move on, especially after the fascination with property has cost people a fortune. Still having an attachment to the ould plot after the events of the last decade is not logical, by any measure.

Precisely why people fear this tax.

The same well founded historical reasons for attachment to the "ould plot" are as valid today as they were years ago. The Landlords have changed, that's all!:D

Fascination with property is not what cost people a fortune. Greed, poor Governance, Golden circles, and lack of regulation are what permitted the ridiculous bubble to expand unabated. Prior to the bubble, people still aspired to the security of Home ownership - but without the ridiculous price tag.
Hence, your theory is not valid.

K-9 wrote: »

Yep. Unfortunately we've very few options than to tax and cut our way out of it. The deficit is so enormous that left wing or right wing politics isn't any good any more. The scale is beyond what they can come up with. Raising taxes causes problems, austerity budgets cause problems, but what's the alternative given the size of it? Raise taxes or cut already low incomes? You end up in the same place anyway. What is sure is we can't go on paying €26/27 Billion in Welfare when we only take in half that in Income Tax and USC. The Government has taken as many soft options as they could up to now, there isn't many left and the next couple of budgets are really going to hit the Welfare budget and probably PS pay as well.

People think there is some easy way around paying double Income Taxes on Welfare, much as I'd love to see it, there isn't. Revenues have to be raised somewhere and cuts made because the scale is just too big.

Revenues have to be raised, yes.
Raising them from those who can no longer pay is actually counter-productive even for the elite, long term.
After all, when the majority of the population can no longer pay for goods and services, then where do the elite expect to sell these goods and services?

This financial crisis is creating a race to the bottom. Impoverishing people will cause more harm to the Economy, at a time when we can least afford it.
When even the IMF are advising better terms for Ireland, and Goodbody's are predicting that Ireland will not meet its 3% target, don't you think it's time to change the recipe, before we are all burned beyond repair?

Frank Black

Noreen1 wrote: »

It is unreasonable to re-tax the same thing, over and over, ad-infinitum.
QUOTE]


The campaign to remove motor tax starts now!

Noreen1

black francis wrote: »

Noreen1 wrote: »

It is unreasonable to re-tax the same thing, over and over, ad-infinitum.
QUOTE]


The campaign to remove motor tax starts now!

When does the campaign to pay tax by another name on your radio, washing machine, DVD player etc., begin?:p