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

K-9

Galtee wrote: »

The mounting interest bill, comes under the heading of debt servicing and that debt servicing is primarily down to bank bailouts. the deficit in 2007 was 1.7bn but at least then the debt was manageable. Since then the difference is down to the rise in the amount of debt being serviced. Budget adjustments would have covered the deficit since then otherwise. But you're right it's a topic for another thread.

When you deduct bail outs and interest costs the deficit was about €13 Billion last year, i.e. spending over tax revenues. I don't know how you can say the difference in deficits from €1.7 Billion to €13 Billion is down to bail outs, it simply doesn't add up mathematically! Tax revenues have fallen from near €50 Billion to €33 Billion. That's the simple answer for the structural deficit.

Democratic Right

Galtee wrote: »

If you're at the same machine the mods will know by your IP.

Good, because im not the other guy.
so when they check and i dont get banned will you just accept that and move on please.
fair play, lets differ but no need for any nastyness

Galtee

Democratic Right wrote: »

Good, because im not the other guy.
so when they check and i dont get banned will you just accept that and move on please.
fair play, lets differ but no need for any nastyness

Agreed.

Democratic Right

Galtee wrote: »

Agreed.

Thanks

Hijpo

Democratic Right wrote: »

Maybe what we should all be protesting for is a proper, fair, and progressive tax system that is transparent.
Instead of different groups opposing differnt parts of the tax system why dont we actually redesign it so that it is fit for purpose and fair.
I am paying the household charge but I oppose the Broadcasting Charge, it seems we just keep adding little bits on to a bad system instead of actually just accepting that we need a tax system that is fit for the twenty first century , not one that has been around for a hundred or more years.

I think thats what the majority of irish middle class would welcome with open arms. Tax doesnt apply to people on the dole all there lifes so they wont care and the wealthy can claim most of it back through social welfare entitlements, tax breaks and loopholes.
I dont think the government will be to keen on it though, its to lucrative for them the way it is.

Galtee

K-9 wrote: »

When you deduct bail outs and interest costs the deficit was about €13 Billion last year, i.e. spending over tax revenues. I don't know how you can say the difference in deficits from €1.7 Billion to €13 Billion is down to bail outs, it simply doesn't add up mathematically! Tax revenues have fallen from near €50 Billion to €33 Billion. That's the simple answer for the structural deficit.

Firstly, tax-spending does not = deficit. Secondly, do you not think it's a little coincidental that since we got the massive bailout in 2008 that the deficit has been larger despite massive budget adjustments for an economy our size? Thirdly, The actual maths you are looking for is the interest rate on the 115bn bailout of 2008.

Biggins

Here you go folks - the biggest complete U-turn of ideology and words for decades: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76627448&postcount=347

Read the words of FG in 1994 and laugh!

Frank Black

tayto lover wrote: »

Or a "goon" !! Or was that us ?

Well, I don't recall calling anyone a 'goon'.

You however ....

tayto lover wrote: »

OK sorry about that Ian.

tayto lover wrote: »

Yet another new F.G. invention with 5 posts in my opinion.

tayto lover wrote: »

What were you called previously ?

tayto lover wrote: »

Spoken like a good Party man. You will go far ... well to daddy's hideaway in France. is he a bondholder like Noonan?

tayto lover wrote: »

Pure sign of a sheeple.

tayto lover wrote: »

He hangs out with his Party faithful no doubt.

tayto lover wrote: »

Posted like a true little Enda Munchkin and backed up by another of his little disciples. Faithful little followers.

Surprised you haven't picked up a ban with the personalised nature of your posts. You should play the ball, not the man.

DrumSteve

Biggins wrote: »

Here you go folks - the biggest complete U-turn of ideology and words for decades: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76627448&postcount=347

Read the words of FG in 1994 and laugh!

Lol, Biggins you of all people know Ideology is for sale in this country. They'll say anything to get into office, but in the end they are all the same.

Biggins

DrumSteve wrote: »

Lol, Biggins you of all people know Ideology is for sale in this country. They'll say anything to get into office, but in the end they are all the same.

I and a few people hope to try changing that!

K-9

Galtee wrote: »

Firstly, tax-spending does not = deficit.

Obviously. Yet you seem to think a €17 Billion drop in tax revenues as had no bearing on our deficit, it's all the banks fault. It just doesn't add up, no matter how much you believe it.

Secondly, do you not think it's a little coincidental that since we got the massive bailout in 2008 that the deficit has been larger despite massive budget adjustments for an economy our size?

We got the bail out about a year or so ago. Obviously the banking bail out plays a part, I'm not the one who came out saying the deficit is all down to the banks. You seem to be living in some fantasy where tax revenues of near €50 Million have dropped to €33 Billion and it has had no effect on our deficit or borrowing costs. That you so firmly believe this has had no effect, and seem to be incredulous that anybody would think otherwise is frankly, astonishing.

Thirdly, The actual maths you are looking for is the interest rate on the 115bn bailout of 2008.

What €115 Billion bailout in 2008?

K-9

Biggins wrote: »

Here you go folks - the biggest complete U-turn of ideology and words for decades: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76627448&postcount=347

Read the words of FG in 1994 and laugh!

In fairness, to put that in context, that was a different property tax they were on about:

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/rpt/index.html

They did indeed scrap that tax, and it turned out a mistake.

Biggins

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness, to put that in context, that was a different property tax they were on about:

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/rpt/index.html

They did indeed scrap that tax, and it turned out a mistake.

The method of calculation might (or might not?) have been a mistake but even then it was still a 'House Tax' by whatever way of coming to a final figure.
...And as a 'House Tax' FG strongly opposed it - as they said "...by every means possible."
They gave not one reason but many for their opposing it then - but I suppose that was when they were in opposition.
Of course now that they are in power, sure (according to them!) that makes it all right!

Chips Lovell

So a politician can't change his mind about something 17 years later?

Biggins

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So a politician can't change his mind about something 17 years later?

Not one person - A whole party?

Of course they can - but have they ever stated why they completely changed their mind and explained just how they came massively as a collective, to have this huge brainstorm?
Have they ever justified such a massive u-turn?

Galtee

K-9 wrote: »

Obviously. Yet you seem to think a €17 Billion drop in tax revenues as had no bearing on our deficit, it's all the banks fault. It just doesn't add up, no matter how much you believe it.



We got the bail out about a year or so ago. Obviously the banking bail out plays a part, I'm not the one who came out saying the deficit is all down to the banks. You seem to be living in some fantasy where tax revenues of near €50 Million have dropped to €33 Billion and it has had no effect on our deficit or borrowing costs. That you so firmly believe this has had no effect, and seem to be incredulous that anybody would think otherwise is frankly, astonishing.



What €115 Billion bailout in 2008?

I beg your pardon, the 85bn in 2008, September 29th 2008 is when the first bailout was given.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/remember-how-ireland-was-ruined-by-bankers-2538092.html

K-9

Biggins wrote: »

The method of calculation might (or might not?) have been a mistake but even then it was still a 'House Tax' by whatever way of coming to a final figure.
...And as a 'House Tax' FG strongly opposed it - as they said "...by every means possible."
They gave not one reason but many for their opposing it then - but I suppose that was when they were in opposition.
Of course now that they are in power, sure (according to them!) that makes it all right!

Yep, they indulged in populism and we lost an important tool that could have been used to regulate the market. Probably wouldn't have been used given FF's policy on tax breaks for developers and First Time Buyers, that doesn't mean it was a bad idea.

It's just disappointing that after one of the biggest property crashes in Europe, the country doesn't seem to have changed much from 20 odd years ago.

Chips Lovell

Biggins wrote: »

Not one person - A whole party?

Same applies really. It's not like they pulled this out of their arses. It was recommended in the Commission on Taxation's report.

Biggins

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Same applies really. It's not like they pulled this out of their arses. It was recommended in the Commission on Taxation's report.

...And so they continued on with an original FF earlier idea.
So much time has passed - sometimes so little has changed.

FF, FG, Labour ...all behaving similar and end up following the same train of thought.
No wonder people are looking for alternatives. Can you blame them?

Chips Lovell

Biggins wrote: »

...And so they continued on with an original FF earlier idea.

Fianna Fail didn't write that report. Here's who was on the Commission:

http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/Membership.asp

K-9

Galtee wrote: »

I beg your pardon, the 85bn in 2008, September 29th 2008 is when the first bailout was given.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/remember-how-ireland-was-ruined-by-bankers-2538092.html

That wasn't a bail out and is not referred to as one, hence the confusion. If it was, it wasn't €115 or €85 Billion, it was €62.5 Billion!

Economic Incentives: The deficit and “the banks”

When you take out the pension reserve money, it's about €45/46 Billion borrowed for the banks. We've ran up about the same again up in borrowing just to run the country since 08, and by the time this IMF/EU bail out is over, deficit borrowing will exceed bank borrowing.

It just simply isn't true to say the deficit is down to the banks. Loads of people seem to believe it or want to believe it though as it's an easy out, so we can blame the banks, the Germans and the IMF.

donalg1

Id hope a politician changes his mind when the circumstances of the country change no point in having the same stance on a subject years later when the Country has changed so drastically.

K-9

Biggins wrote: »

Not one person - A whole party?

Of course they can - but have they ever stated why they completely changed their mind and explained just how they came massively as a collective, to have this huge brainstorm?
Have they ever justified such a massive u-turn?

Biggins wrote: »

...And so they continued on with an original FF earlier idea.
So much time has passed - sometimes so little has changed.

FF, FG, Labour ...all behaving similar and end up following the same train of thought.
No wonder people are looking for alternatives. Can you blame them?

Maybe that huge property crash we just had changed their minds on things?

Slick50

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Doesn't surprise me that much. Any politician who said they would never change their mind on any subject would be a fool. Part of the imperfect democratic system we have to put up with until someone finds a better one. An example of a politician who refused to change policy when a lot of others considered her position unsustainable is Mrs Thatcher "The lady's not for turning". Didn't win her all that much admiration as I recall.

They certainly can change their minds alright, and it's usually in line with public opinion. So if enough people hold out in demonstration of their point of view, FG/LB may change their mind again.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote:

Same applies really. It's not like they pulled this out of their arses.

Are you sure about that, because that's where they can shove it.

Phill Ewinn

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe that huge property crash we just had changed their minds on things?

It wasn't just a property crash. People borrowed cheap money and gambled it away. The outstanding debts can't be explained simply by loses in the property market.

The 50bn of counterfeit the central bank is on the hook for is a mystery in itself. NAMA is another cost to the tax payer you're not accounting for.

www.independent.ie/business/irish/state-of-emergency-some-truths-on-the-funds-keeping-our-banks-afloat-2533375.html

The Quadratic Equation

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

dr.bollocko

Democratic Right wrote: »

Thanks

Well this guy was a giggle.

eth0

Lads, its not 17 years ago since he changed his mind on this. You have to look no further back than Fine Gael's own election manifesto from before they got into government to find this gem

Funding Local Government: Fianna Fail’s proposal, now endorsed by the Labour Party, to introduce by
2014 an annual, recurring residential property tax on the family home is unfair. But as we tackle the fiscal
crisis, we will have to cut central exchequer funding for local authorities, and we recognise that local
authorities will have to find more sustainable sources of revenue appropriate to local circumstances. What
will be viewed as fair in South Dublin might be viewed as unworkable in rural Clare.
In this context, we will empower local authorities to put in place, following the 2014 local elections, fairer
alternatives to Fianna Fail’s and Labour’s recurring annual tax on the family home. The options would include:
• No extra local taxes, forcing local authorities to close non-priority services and / or to deliver increased efficiencies;
• Increased local user charges for waste etc.; or
• The option of a local “site sale profits tax”. Such a tax would be levied on the profit made from the site value on the sale of a residence (sales proceeds, less cost indexed by inflation, less stamp duty paid and
less home improvements)
The final measure might be considered as both fairer and more economically sensible than an annual
recurring property tax. Whichever option local electorates choose, for the first time since the 1970s local
government will have real independence from central government in deciding what services to provide at
local level and how to fund them.

Doc Ruby

eth0 wrote: »

Lads, its not 17 years ago since he changed his mind on this. You have to look no further back than Fine Gael's own election manifesto from before they got into government to find this gem

A hit sir, a palpable hit.

K-9

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

It wasn't just a property crash. People borrowed cheap money and gambled it away. The outstanding debts can't be explained simply by loses in the property market.

The 50bn of counterfeit the central bank is on the hook for is a mystery in itself. NAMA is another cost to the tax payer you're not accounting for.

www.independent.ie/business/irish/state-of-emergency-some-truths-on-the-funds-keeping-our-banks-afloat-2533375.html

NAMA is another by product of the property crash as is most of the ICB and ECB funding.

eth0 wrote: »

Lads, its not 17 years ago since he changed his mind on this. You have to look no further back than Fine Gael's own election manifesto from before they got into government to find this gem

Yep, if anybody has listened to Enda questioned on it they'd have known he was evading the question, passing it onto the Councils.

Politician lying shocker. Voters in shock about politicians lying shocker!