TDs urging people not to pay tax - criminal negligence?

The Dagda · 23-12-2011 10:25am

tayto lover wrote: »

Fed up printing this.
1. Do not hand over 3.5 Billion to unguaranteed Bondholders.
2. Put 1c tax on text messages.
3. Cut the waste from the TOP of the H.S.E.
4. Put 5c on alcohol.
5. Put another 25/50c on cigarettes.
6. Pay cap on top wages in P.S.
7. Do away with Seanad Eireann.
8. Half the number of T.D.'s
Stop making the ordinary people pay for everything.

There that's it done for you.

There's already a tax on text messages, and it's more than 1c.

It's called VALUE ADDED TAX.

tayto lover · 23-12-2011 10:53am

The Dagda wrote: »

There's already a tax on text messages, and it's more than 1c.

It's called VALUE ADDED TAX.

So increase that.

tayto lover · 23-12-2011 10:56am

HivemindXX wrote: »

I see this analogy used over and over again and it is simply wrong.

They did gamble and they won. The banks are still there. If you can't understand the situation without resorting to comparisons to bookies then it's like you made a bet with Paddy Power that your horse would finish the grand national and it limps across the line with the jockey alongside holding it up and then when you try to collect Paddy Power tells you that they are in a bit of financial difficulty and they don't feel like paying out even though they are clearly legally obliged to. They are suprised when everyone else demands their bets be cancelled and their stake returned, nobody ever places a bet with them again and they go broke. They spend their nights in the carboard box wondering how it all went wrong, sure everyone told them they shouldn't pay out on those bets.

If not being able to lose means winning then they won. Still unfair because the opposite applies to us who didn't gamble at all.
How can they lose if we have to pick up their tab?

tayto lover · 23-12-2011 10:59am

djpbarry wrote: »

"Ordinary people" don't drink, smoke or use mobile phones?
I don't, but feel free to demonstrate otherwise. Think about it - you need about €4,000 from every single person in the country. A few extra cents from texts, cigarettes and booze will barely make a dent in that figure.
I completely disagree, but at least you've identified the root of the problem - everyone wants somebody else to pay to clean up the mess, preferably someone who earns more than them.

Yes everyone wants someone else to pay. BUT that someone else is always the middle income earner who is caught for everything. At least my way sees everyone paying something. AND it's not just the few cents you seem to think. There are millions of texts sent everyday.
Lets have your solution then.

djpbarry · 23-12-2011 12:01pm

bmaxi wrote: »

I don't have a difficulty with paying for services, what I do have a difficulty with is paying, for ever more, for something I've already paid for.

I don't understand this - are you suggesting that you have already paid for all local services provided in the vicinity of your home, for ever more?

djpbarry · 23-12-2011 12:01pm

tayto lover wrote: »

So increase that.

VAT was already increased recently.

tayto lover wrote: »

...it's not just the few cents you seem to think. There are millions of texts sent everyday.

I think "millions" is probably an over-statement, but, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Let's be really optimistic and say that every single person in the country sends 10 text messages every day. That's about 16.5 billion text messages every year. If we put an added tax of €0.01 on these texts and assume this has no effect on volume (which it probably will, because pay-as-you-go credit will run out faster), that equates to about €164 million, which represents less than 1% of the budget deficit. And that's being really optimistic.

tayto lover wrote: »

Lets have your solution then.

Reduce welfare. Drastically. Not only will this immediately reduce public spending, it will also provide a greater incentive for people to get back working, boosting tax revenue. There will also be less incentive for welfare fraud. Reducing all welfare payments by just 5% would save the state €1.5 BILLION. That's a tiny decrease to any one individual (and still leaves them with some of the highest welfare benefits in Europe), but represents big savings to the state. Reduce welfare by 5% every 6 months over 3 years, saving €9 billion, and we're half-way there.

The proposed property tax will bring in another €1.2 billion. Water charges will probably bring that up to about €1.5 billion. So that leaves a hole of about €7.5 billion.

As of Q3 2011, the average annual income in Ireland is just over €36k. Increasing tax on income by an average of 3.5% (applied to everyone) would yield another €2.6 billion, based on a labour force of 2.1 million.

So that leaves about €5 billion. I'm pretty confident that a fair chunk of that could be saved by cutting staff numbers in the public service (it's been estimated that €500 million could be saved by streamlining local authorities, for example), but it's hard to put a figure on it without detailed inside knowledge. Add in your proposed tax increases on tobacco and alcohol and I think we'd come pretty close to breaking even.

I accept that this is back-of-the envelope type stuff and obviously there's going to be complex interplays between these different variables (public sector job losses will mean a larger welfare bill, for example), but you get the idea - drastic cuts are required. But, while public expenditure has to be reduced substantially, it shouldn't be forgotten that we're setting off from a very, very high starting point.

oscarBravo · 23-12-2011 2:30pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Nothing but GAMBLING involved with the Bondholders.
Would Paddy Power give you your money back?

Buying bonds is lending money. If I buy a bond, whether from a government or a corporation, I'm lending that government or corporation money. In return, they promise to pay that money back after a set period of time, along with a premium - in effect, with interest.

You can call that gambling if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that if I lend someone money and they don't pay it back, I'm not going to lend to them again. Which is the minor detail that seems to be missed by the people who are desperate to burn every bondholder they can find, ideally at the stake: if we don't pay back borrowed money, it's going to be harder to borrow more money later.

tayto lover · 23-12-2011 3:19pm

djpbarry wrote: »

VAT was already increased recently.
I think "millions" is probably an over-statement, but, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Let's be really optimistic and say that every single person in the country sends 10 text messages every day. That's about 16.5 billion text messages every year. If we put an added tax of €0.01 on these texts and assume this has no effect on volume (which it probably will, because pay-as-you-go credit will run out faster), that equates to about €164 million, which represents less than 1% of the budget deficit. And that's being really optimistic.
Reduce welfare. Drastically. Not only will this immediately reduce public spending, it will also provide a greater incentive for people to get back working, boosting tax revenue. There will also be less incentive for welfare fraud. Reducing all welfare payments by just 5% would save the state €1.5 BILLION. That's a tiny decrease to any one individual (and still leaves them with some of the highest welfare benefits in Europe), but represents big savings to the state. Reduce welfare by 5% every 6 months over 3 years, saving €9 billion, and we're half-way there.

The proposed property tax will bring in another €1.2 billion. Water charges will probably bring that up to about €1.5 billion. So that leaves a hole of about €7.5 billion.

As of Q3 2011, the average annual income in Ireland is just over €36k. Increasing tax on income by an average of 3.5% (applied to everyone) would yield another €2.6 billion, based on a labour force of 2.1 million.

So that leaves about €5 billion. I'm pretty confident that a fair chunk of that could be saved by cutting staff numbers in the public service (it's been estimated that €500 million could be saved by streamlining local authorities, for example), but it's hard to put a figure on it without detailed inside knowledge. Add in your proposed tax increases on tobacco and alcohol and I think we'd come pretty close to breaking even.

I accept that this is back-of-the envelope type stuff and obviously there's going to be complex interplays between these different variables (public sector job losses will mean a larger welfare bill, for example), but you get the idea - drastic cuts are required. But, while public expenditure has to be reduced substantially, it shouldn't be forgotten that we're setting off from a very, very high starting point.

That won't work either.
The incentive to work is negated by the lack of jobs. So no increase in tax revenue there.
Cutting welfare will lead to less money being spent and less taxes paid too.
Cutting wages and jobs in the P.S. (while needed at the top) will leave less to be spent in shops, pubs etc so more jobs will be lost there. Highest welfare in Europe ?? Maybe but prices are high here too. VRT far higher here than anywhere else and that's only one tax. Road tax higher too. Tax on petrol/diesel very high here. Electrical goods dearer. Gas , heating oil electricity. Could go on.

hallelujajordan · 23-12-2011 4:30pm

bmaxi wrote: »

Alright lets put it this way. You buy a car, pay all the taxes associated with buying the car and park it on your drive. Would you consider it reasonable to have an ever increasing tax levied on that car, just for the privilege of owning it?
I don't have a difficulty with paying for services, what I do have a difficulty with is paying, for ever more, for something I've already paid for.
To call it a "Household Charge", is also misleading, It is a "Home Owners Tax".

For your analogy to make any sense it requires that you buy a car, leave it in your driveway and never use it . . Great Analogy . .

Here's another one . . TV licence . . is it unfair that you have to pay for a TV licence to use your TV even though you have already paid tax on the TV. . by your logic it is but someone has to fund public service broadcasting . . should this just come from central funds too ..

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes everyone wants someone else to pay. BUT that someone else is always the middle income earner who is caught for everything. At least my way sees everyone paying something. AND it's not just the few cents you seem to think. There are millions of texts sent everyday.
Lets have your solution then.

No . . the only additional taxes you suggest are transaction based taxes. . one can choose not to drink, smoke or send text messages . . On the other hand the governments way (i.e. household charge) actually does see pretty much everyone paying something . .

oscarBravo · 23-12-2011 4:34pm

tayto lover wrote: »

That won't work either.
The incentive to work is negated by the lack of jobs. So no increase in tax revenue there.
Cutting welfare will lead to less money being spent and less taxes paid too.
Cutting wages and jobs in the P.S. (while needed at the top) will leave less to be spent in shops, pubs etc so more jobs will be lost there.

That's the sort of argument there's far too much of - we can't cut public spending, and we can't raise taxes (except on other people).

We have to cut public spending, and we have to raise taxes. Every cut will hurt everyone, and tax hikes need to hurt a lot of people in order to be effective. Trying to think of ways of filling a gaping chasm while not offending anyone is just a long-winded way of refusing to address the problem.

Highest welfare in Europe ?? Maybe but prices are high here too.

And yet, you have suggested increasing VAT, thereby increasing prices.

Prices are a function of supply and demand. If prices are high, it's because people can afford them. As incomes decrease, so do prices. It works the other way too, which is why prices are so high in this country.

VRT far higher here than anywhere else...

I'd suggest that you check out the VRT rates in Denmark, if I thought you had any interest in silly things like facts.

Icepick · 23-12-2011 6:39pm

tayto lover wrote: »

That won't work either.
Cutting welfare will lead to less money being spent and less taxes paid too.
Cutting wages and jobs in the P.S. (while needed at the top) will leave less to be spent in shops, pubs etc so more jobs will be lost there.

We have to borrow the money so there is no economic loss if we don't borrow and give it out for free.

Frank Black · 23-12-2011 6:47pm

tayto lover wrote: »

That won't work either.
The incentive to work is negated by the lack of jobs. So no increase in tax revenue there.
Cutting welfare will lead to less money being spent and less taxes paid too.
Cutting wages and jobs in the P.S. (while needed at the top) will leave less to be spent in shops, pubs etc so more jobs will be lost there.

You're basically suggesting that we borrow money (at a pretty high interest rate) to fund P.S. workers and Social Welfare recipients spending money.

If you're going to borrow to stimulate the economy, you would be better off investing in infrastructure. You would generate jobs in a labour intensive industry and you would get the piece of infrastructure at the end of it- which would add value.
Would make way more sense.

tayto lover · 23-12-2011 10:42pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's the sort of argument there's far too much of - we can't cut public spending, and we can't raise taxes (except on other people).

We have to cut public spending, and we have to raise taxes. Every cut will hurt everyone, and tax hikes need to hurt a lot of people in order to be effective. Trying to think of ways of filling a gaping chasm while not offending anyone is just a long-winded way of refusing to address the problem. And yet, you have suggested increasing VAT, thereby increasing prices.

Prices are a function of supply and demand. If prices are high, it's because people can afford them. As incomes decrease, so do prices. It works the other way too, which is why prices are so high in this country. I'd suggest that you check out the VRT rates in Denmark, if I thought you had any interest in silly things like facts.

Love the way you mention Denmark. Why do you mention the highest one. I thought someone like you would have given us the VRT rates across Europe but no you pick the highest. As a matter of fact Finland and the Netherlands are higher than ours too but their other taxes are lower. Any more facts?

oscarBravo · 23-12-2011 10:57pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Love the way you mention Denmark. Why do you mention the highest one.

Because you said we were the highest, which isn't true. If you're going to make an argument, make sure you're arguing based on something that's true instead of something you just made up.

I thought someone like you would have given us the VRT rates across Europe...

Why would I? I didn't need to; I only needed one to point out that what you said wasn't true.

As a matter of fact Finland and the Netherlands are higher than ours too but their other taxes are lower. Any more facts?

Yes. We have a vast, colossal, gaping chasm in our public finances. That's a fact. A deficit that large can only be realistically closed by raising taxes and cutting spending - another fact. In order to bridge a gap of that magnitude, the taxes that have to be raised must be broadly-based, and that means that they will have to affect a lot of people, and will ipso facto be unpopular. The cuts that are required will be painful, and it will not be possible to make the necessary cuts without negatively impacting large numbers of people, many of them quite severely.

These are all facts. Now you get to refute them, if any of them are untrue. I've already shown you how.

tayto lover · 23-12-2011 11:25pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because you said we were the highest, which isn't true. If you're going to make an argument, make sure you're arguing based on something that's true instead of something you just made up. Why would I? I didn't need to; I only needed one to point out that what you said wasn't true. Yes. We have a vast, colossal, gaping chasm in our public finances. That's a fact. A deficit that large can only be realistically closed by raising taxes and cutting spending - another fact. In order to bridge a gap of that magnitude, the taxes that have to be raised must be broadly-based, and that means that they will have to affect a lot of people, and will ipso facto be unpopular. The cuts that are required will be painful, and it will not be possible to make the necessary cuts without negatively impacting large numbers of people, many of them quite severely.

These are all facts. Now you get to refute them, if any of them are untrue. I've already shown you how.

While the Danes pay a higher rate of VRT as you pointed out I see thast Ireland has the highest cost for cars in the 12 country euro currency zone, 30% higher than most
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006812.shtml

Is it also a fact that our Government are breaking their own rules by paying their advisors more than allowed. Is it also a fact that many rich people pay very little or no tax at all. Have the scams stopped? You said everyone will pay but judging from our history I seriously doubt that.
http://www.swp.ie/features/tax-dodges-rich/1708
Your facts are a bit misleading as not everyone pays in Ireland.
Did "Fingers" pay back the million euro he promised? No he did not. Anything done by the Govt. about taxing that at 90% like the bank workers? Again a big NO. You see some are more equal than others.
When everyone pays a fair share of the burden I will stop complaining but until then I will refuse to pay my so called Property Tax and continue to encourage others to do likewise. Fact.

oscarBravo · 23-12-2011 11:47pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Is it also a fact that our Government are breaking their own rules by paying their advisors more than allowed.

By what percentage would our annual deficit be reduced if every government advisor was paid no more than the limit? That's not a rhetorical question; I'd like to see a calculation, even if it's only back-of-an-envelope.

Is it also a fact that many rich people pay very little or no tax at all.

How many rich people? How much tax would you have them pay? By what percentage would our annual deficit be reduced if all the rich people were taxed to your satisfaction?

Have the scams stopped?

What scams?

Did "Fingers" pay back the million euro he promised? No he did not. Anything done by the Govt. about taxing that at 90% like the bank workers? Again a big NO.

I'll do the calculation on that one for you. If the government were to tax that million euro at 90%, it would contribute 0.005% towards the current budget deficit. Now all we need is another twenty thousand million-euro sums that we can tax at 90%. Any suggestions where we should start looking?

When everyone pays a fair share of the burden I will stop complaining but until then I will refuse to pay my so called Property Tax and continue to encourage others to do likewise. Fact.

According to a Ronan Lyons blog post I just read, the average millionaire in Ireland in 2008 paid six times the rate of income tax that the average earner paid. In the same year, two thirds of the people paying income tax in Ireland paid less than 10%. The median earner on 25 grand paid four percent in income tax.

Granted, things have changed somewhat in the past three years - but not to an earth-shattering extent. So if the top earners paying six times the average rate of income tax isn't "paying a fair share of the burden" in your book, exactly what is it that you want? A pound of actual flesh?

tayto lover · 24-12-2011 12:03am

oscarBravo wrote: »

By what percentage would our annual deficit be reduced if every government advisor was paid no more than the limit? That's not a rhetorical question; I'd like to see a calculation, even if it's only back-of-an-envelope. How many rich people? How much tax would you have them pay? By what percentage would our annual deficit be reduced if all the rich people were taxed to your satisfaction? What scams? I'll do the calculation on that one for you. If the government were to tax that million euro at 90%, it would contribute 0.005% towards the current budget deficit. Now all we need is another twenty thousand million-euro sums that we can tax at 90%. Any suggestions where we should start looking? According to a Ronan Lyons blog post I just read, the average millionaire in Ireland in 2008 paid six times the rate of income tax that the average earner paid. In the same year, two thirds of the people paying income tax in Ireland paid less than 10%. The median earner on 25 grand paid four percent in income tax.

Granted, things have changed somewhat in the past three years - but not to an earth-shattering extent. So if the top earners paying six times the average rate of income tax isn't "paying a fair share of the burden" in your book, exactly what is it that you want? A pound of actual flesh?

Yes i do want my "pound of flesh" as you put it. I want everyone to be seen to be doing their bit and not just the middle income workers. A rich man can afford more so should pay more.

oscarBravo · 24-12-2011 12:11am

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes i do want my "pound of flesh" as you put it. I want everyone to be seen to be doing their bit and not just the middle income workers. A rich man can afford more so should pay more.

I love the way you refuse to answer the questions you don't have answers to, and then continue with the content-free rhetoric.

Rich people do pay more. They pay vastly more; orders of magnitude more. I could have sworn I already made that point. Oh wait: I did, and you ignored it, because it doesn't suit your narrative.

Basically, you're making excuses for tax evasion. When so-called "rich people" don't pay tax, it's an unspecified "scam". When you don't pay tax, it's a noble crusade.

Guess what: if anyone doesn't pay tax they're legally mandated to pay, it's tax evasion. Deal with it.

tayto lover · 24-12-2011 12:26am

oscarBravo wrote: »

I love the way you refuse to answer the questions you don't have answers to, and then continue with the content-free rhetoric.

Rich people do pay more. They pay vastly more; orders of magnitude more. I could have sworn I already made that point. Oh wait: I did, and you ignored it, because it doesn't suit your narrative.

Basically, you're making excuses for tax evasion. When so-called "rich people" don't pay tax, it's an unspecified "scam". When you don't pay tax, it's a noble crusade.

Guess what: if anyone doesn't pay tax they're legally mandated to pay, it's tax evasion. Deal with it.

You know well enough that that these people find ways around paying taxes that P.A.Y.E workers and small businessmen cannot. There were no poor people using the Cayman Islands to hide their wealth years ago and none of the people found out served any time either. Fact. there are those who are paying every cent due and those who can wiggle out of it. Sure haven't NAMA even put some of the speculators on their pay roll. But sure these were always treated very well, Galway tent and all. Its only criminal to avoid tax when you're poor.

oscarBravo · 24-12-2011 12:40am

tayto lover wrote: »

You know well enough that that these people find ways around paying taxes that P.A.Y.E workers and small businessmen cannot.

Are you still pretending that I didn't post the figures earlier about who actually does the taxpaying in this country, or are you pretending that they're not true but not troubling to refute them? Because you keep coming out with the same rhetoric over and over and over again about how rich people don't pay tax, when it's the rich people who are paying the lion's share of the tax in this country. In fact, that's part of our core problem: the tax base isn't broad enough, and every attempt to broaden it is met with vicious resistance.

If you're just going to duck the issue again and post SWP-esque nonsense about how rich people are going to have to pay even more tax (how many rich people? how much tax? I could have sworn I asked those questions already - oh wait: I did) feel free to keep preaching to the choir, but that sort of empty rhetoric isn't going to pay the bills.

Godge · 24-12-2011 1:01am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you still pretending that I didn't post the figures earlier about who actually does the taxpaying in this country, or are you pretending that they're not true but not troubling to refute them? Because you keep coming out with the same rhetoric over and over and over again about how rich people don't pay tax, when it's the rich people who are paying the lion's share of the tax in this country. In fact, that's part of our core problem: the tax base isn't broad enough, and every attempt to broaden it is met with vicious resistance.

If you're just going to duck the issue again and post SWP-esque nonsense about how rich people are going to have to pay even more tax (how many rich people? how much tax? I could have sworn I asked those questions already - oh wait: I did) feel free to keep preaching to the choir, but that sort of empty rhetoric isn't going to pay the bills.

You are nearly right. People who earn a lot of money in one year in productive ways pay a lot of tax, nearly all the tax. That is ordinary workers and entrepreneurs who work hard.

People who are wealthy and have a lot of capital income or wealth tied up in non-productive property do not pay a lot of tax. Neither do those with wealth in stocks and investments. Neither do rich pensioners with lots of wealth built up. The property tax and the capital tax increase quite correctly (from a left-wing perspective) go after these people.

The most idiotic thing about the whole property tax thing is that so-called socialists are opposing it. A property tax is the raison d'etre of socialists.

Frank Black · 24-12-2011 1:11am

Godge wrote: »

The most idiotic thing about the whole property tax thing is that so-called socialists are opposing it. A property tax is the raison d'etre of socialists.

I don't think they're actually socialists though, in the sense that 'society' is not their primary concern.
They're more concerned with getting themselves re-elected by taking populist stances, without actually proposing sensible alternatives.

They've sullied the term 'socialst' - their motives are purely selfish.

Shame a lot of people can't see through their bull****.

tayto lover · 24-12-2011 1:15am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you still pretending that I didn't post the figures earlier about who actually does the taxpaying in this country, or are you pretending that they're not true but not troubling to refute them? Because you keep coming out with the same rhetoric over and over and over again about how rich people don't pay tax, when it's the rich people who are paying the lion's share of the tax in this country. In fact, that's part of our core problem: the tax base isn't broad enough, and every attempt to broaden it is met with vicious resistance.

If you're just going to duck the issue again and post SWP-esque nonsense about how rich people are going to have to pay even more tax (how many rich people? how much tax? I could have sworn I asked those questions already - oh wait: I did) feel free to keep preaching to the choir, but that sort of empty rhetoric isn't going to pay the bills.

As i already said rich people should pay more because they have more. There are many people with money getting away very lightly and it seems to contradict what you are saying. Big tax breaks etc. I am not an economist so i couldn't work out how much they should pay but then again look how the so-called economists got it so wrong in the past.
http://www.foresthill.ie/news/?tag=ireland-taxation
Also just look at the farming sector. They get loads of grants and free education for their children yet many poorer people have to pay to educate theirs. The legal (and medical profession) charge huge fees and should be taxed at a higher rate too as they are coining it particularly through the Free Legal Aid scheme which needs to be worked differently.

K-9 · 24-12-2011 1:21am

tayto lover wrote: »

Is it also a fact that many rich people pay very little or no tax at all. Have the scams stopped?

People on incomes over 400k now pay an effective 30% rate on all income, so yes they have stopped.

Tax breaks aren't an inherently bad thing, even property tax breaks served a purpose at one stage.

tayto lover · 24-12-2011 1:25am

black francis wrote: »

I don't think they're actually socialists though, in the sense that 'society' is not their primary concern.
They're more concerned with getting themselves re-elected by taking populist stances, without actually proposing sensible alternatives.

They've sullied the term 'socialst' - their motives are purely selfish.

Shame a lot of people can't see through their bull****.

Well according to the poll on Boards more people are against paying it than are for paying. Maybe we are all mad and should be forming queues to pay.

oscarBravo · 24-12-2011 1:26am

tayto lover wrote: »

I am not an economist so i couldn't work out how much they should pay...

So how will you know when they're paying enough to stop justifying your tax evasion?

K-9 · 24-12-2011 1:26am

Godge wrote: »

You are nearly right. People who earn a lot of money in one year in productive ways pay a lot of tax, nearly all the tax. That is ordinary workers and entrepreneurs who work hard.

People who are wealthy and have a lot of capital income or wealth tied up in non-productive property do not pay a lot of tax. Neither do those with wealth in stocks and investments. Neither do rich pensioners with lots of wealth built up. The property tax and the capital tax increase quite correctly (from a left-wing perspective) go after these people.

The most idiotic thing about the whole property tax thing is that so-called socialists are opposing it. A property tax is the raison d'etre of socialists.

The problem, same as the water rates, is the way it has been introduced. The plans for the future seem decent enough, the flat rate annoys people as the little cottage in the country is treated the same as the Shrewsbury Road pad, that isn't Socialist! (forgetting the rural vs. urban housing thing!)

This Government has had 9 months to plan it and they've come up with this?

Frank Black · 24-12-2011 1:27am

tayto lover wrote: »

Well according to the poll on Boards more people are against paying it than are for paying. Maybe we are all mad and should be forming queues to pay.

People would prefer not to pay additional taxes?

Who ever would have thought it.

oscarBravo · 24-12-2011 1:34am

K-9 wrote: »

This Government has had 9 months to plan it and they've come up with this?

Nothing is going to make people happy. Eamonn Dunphy was whining about not paying it because it's not a progressive tax, and said he'd pay a tax that was based on property values or similar. The government said they would switch to a progressive tax as soon as possible, and the lefty TDs immediately announced that they are opposed to any property tax at all.

If it's based on the size of the property, people outside of the cities will be taxed disproportionately. If it's based on the value, nobody will agree on what the value of a property is. And so on.

Besides, as we've seen, Irish people object to being taxed at all. It's a legacy of the FF years, when we bought into the fairytale that we could have world-class services in a low-tax economy.

K-9 · 24-12-2011 2:02am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nothing is going to make people happy. Eamonn Dunphy was whining about not paying it because it's not a progressive tax, and said he'd pay a tax that was based on property values or similar. The government said they would switch to a progressive tax as soon as possible, and the lefty TDs immediately announced that they are opposed to any property tax at all.

If it's based on the size of the property, people outside of the cities will be taxed disproportionately. If it's based on the value, nobody will agree on what the value of a property is. And so on.

Besides, as we've seen, Irish people object to being taxed at all. It's a legacy of the FF years, when we bought into the fairytale that we could have world-class services in a low-tax economy.

The site value idea seems to get around the rural vs. urban thing, well as good as you are going to get.

I've no problem with the tax and have debated the same on threads on the site. I do wonder if this is the best the Government could come up with in 9 months and lets be honest, its longer. FG knew it was coming in, they just passed the buck in the elections by saying it would be a council issue.

The water rates is a better example. They've had 9 months to alter a proposal and try and introduce water meters or amend the policy. Nothing.

I do think if they had introduced this tax based on something like the proposals in a couple of years, it would have had less opposition. You'll always have the "tax on property is illegal" type crowd. Joe Higgins running in a bye election on the refuse charge ticket and the 2 car households voting for him (when 2 cars meant something!).

thebman · 24-12-2011 2:30am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Besides, as we've seen, Irish people object to being taxed at all. It's a legacy of the FF years, when we bought into the fairytale that we could have world-class services in a low-tax economy.

Well it is really just the world. You increase taxes in any country and people will complain. Just look at the US.

tayto lover · 24-12-2011 11:26am

oscarBravo wrote: »

So how will you know when they're paying enough to stop justifying your tax evasion?

We will know when the "know all" and so-called expert and well paid Economists who didn't know the problems we were in until we were neck deep in dung all remain silent and let the likes of Constantine Gurdgiev get a word in. At least he predicted the mess that your friends made.
How are the farmers going to be assessed for property tax by the way? Will it be on the value of their property? You must have the answer to that.

tayto lover · 24-12-2011 11:28am

black francis wrote: »

People would prefer not to pay additional taxes?

Who ever would have thought it.

It's because people don't see it as fair. It will not be like for like.

bmaxi · 24-12-2011 12:52pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

For your analogy to make any sense it requires that you buy a car, leave it in your driveway and never use it . . Great Analogy . .

Here's another one . . TV licence . . is it unfair that you have to pay for a TV licence to use your TV even though you have already paid tax on the TV. . by your logic it is but someone has to fund public service broadcasting . . should this just come from central funds too ..

. .

No, the analogy is correct. You will also pay road tax, insurance and when appropriate, NCT. to bring it on the road. You pay a TV licence because the state provides a television service, in the days before RTE, there was no TV licence.

tayto lover · 24-12-2011 1:22pm

K-9 wrote: »

The problem, same as the water rates, is the way it has been introduced. The plans for the future seem decent enough, the flat rate annoys people as the little cottage in the country is treated the same as the Shrewsbury Road pad, that isn't Socialist! (forgetting the rural vs. urban housing thing!)

This Government has had 9 months to plan it and they've come up with this?

The Government have also allowed the same people who ran the banks into trouble to continue on. Many of the same failed accountants and economists are still there advising them too.
Is it any wonder the Germans took over. The 2 day budget was probably because it had to be translated from German into English for us.
As regards the rural v urban thing, maybe someone would tell us how a farm worth 3 million with a big house worth another million will be valued for property tax.

Galwayguy35 · 24-12-2011 1:49pm

I dont want to pay the tax but i admit i am a bit nervous of getting hit with the fine. I think that is just the way a lot of people are thinking.

tayto lover · 24-12-2011 1:56pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I dont want to pay the tax but i admit i am a bit nervous of getting hit with the fine. I think that is just the way a lot of people are thinking.

It IS a fine. A fine for going to the bother of working, paying your mortgage and eventually owning your own home.
Now if you were to leech of the state ....

Galwayguy35 · 24-12-2011 2:05pm

tayto lover wrote: »

It IS a fine. A fine for going to the bother of working, paying your mortgage and eventually owning your own home.
Now if you were to leech of the state ....

I agree. Paying for the privilage of living in your own home which most of us have sweated to have in the first place.

tayto lover · 24-12-2011 2:08pm

Yes but then the do-gooders will tell you that they have it in some other countries. That does not make it right or just. I won't pay as i regard it as illegal. I already pay for all the services i get.

darkman2 · 24-12-2011 3:06pm

Am Chile wrote: »

There will always be comformists like you who will accept any status quo, there are others who will not and I praise them, for those who say breaking the law, if you re saying its Illegal to boycott and refuse to pay the household charge, you re saying its Illegal to own your own private property, like the poll tax, laws that do not serve the Interests of the vast Majority will be broken whether you like it or not.

No, there are two types of people in this country - the sensible ones and the stupid ones.

If you don't recognise that what is being done is in the best interests of the majority then you belong in the latter cohort similar to the electorate responsible for electing the Governments that over decades (not only 10 years) have led us to where we are - on the cusp of becoming a failed state propped up by the "kindness of strangers".

People like you worry me because you don't get the seriousness of the situation. You really don't. You are part of a group in this country that believe children can never starve here again, that famine can never return, that we will always have electricity and clean water in this country and someone is going to pay for it. No one is going to pay for it. If the IMF left here tomorrow and we can't borrow on the market what type of a world would this country be in then? If we unilaterally burned a senior bondholder the IMF/EU programme would end immediately. The ECB would end it's flow of liquidity to our banks. The atms would be empty. Public servants would not be paid. Vital services would stop. We would have no currency. It would be anarchy.

Some people seriously need to take their head out of their ass and consider that. The level of delusion reflected from some of these TDs - they are mad. Completely nuts.

If it is a choice between two different directions I will take my chances with the IMF thanks very much and so will the vast majority of right thinking people. It may be morally questionable what goes on but we have no choice. None at all.

When we can borrow on the market again then we can make choices.

tayto lover · 24-12-2011 4:27pm

darkman2 wrote: »

No, there are two types of people in this country - the sensible ones and the stupid ones.

If you don't recognise that what is being done is in the best interests of the majority then you belong in the latter cohort similar to the electorate responsible for electing the Governments that over decades (not only 10 years) have led us to where we are - on the cusp of becoming a failed state propped up by the "kindness of strangers".

People like you worry me because you don't get the seriousness of the situation. You really don't. You are part of a group in this country that believe children can never starve here again, that famine can never return, that we will always have electricity and clean water in this country and someone is going to pay for it. No one is going to pay for it. If the IMF left here tomorrow and we can't borrow on the market what type of a world would this country be in then? If we unilaterally burned a senior bondholder the IMF/EU programme would end immediately. The ECB would end it's flow of liquidity to our banks. The atms would be empty. Public servants would not be paid. Vital services would stop. We would have no currency. It would be anarchy.

Some people seriously need to take their head out of their ass and consider that. The level of delusion reflected from some of these TDs - they are mad. Completely nuts.

If it is a choice between two different directions I will take my chances with the IMF thanks very much and so will the vast majority of right thinking people. It may be morally questionable what goes on but we have no choice. None at all.

When we can borrow on the market again then we can make choices.

Do you know that you could be right in most of what you say. However when you consider that most of the people who got us into this mess are still in charge is it any wonder that people have little faith in their ability to get us out of it. We have the worst opposition party in the history of the state now in charge. The same bankers mainly in charge. The same economists still employed and who even have the neck to still go on t.v. panels and spout their rubbished "logic" of where things went wrong without taking any of the blame. And alas the same tax payers still expected to row in with their schemes even though they don't believe they will work or that they will be fair and across the board. Is it any wonder that people are mad or as you put it "completely nuts"?

Am Chile · 24-12-2011 5:27pm

darkman2 wrote: »

No, there are two types of people in this country - the sensible ones and the stupid ones.

If you don't recognise that what is being done is in the best interests of the majority then you belong in the latter cohort similar to the electorate responsible for electing the Governments that over decades (not only 10 years) have led us to where we are - on the cusp of becoming a failed state propped up by the "kindness of strangers".

People like you worry me because you don't get the seriousness of the situation. You really don't. You are part of a group in this country that believe children can never starve here again, that famine can never return, that we will always have electricity and clean water in this country and someone is going to pay for it. No one is going to pay for it. If the IMF left here tomorrow and we can't borrow on the market what type of a world would this country be in then? If we unilaterally burned a senior bondholder the IMF/EU programme would end immediately. The ECB would end it's flow of liquidity to our banks. The atms would be empty. Public servants would not be paid. Vital services would stop. We would have no currency. It would be anarchy.

Some people seriously need to take their head out of their ass and consider that. The level of delusion reflected from some of these TDs - they are mad. Completely nuts.

If it is a choice between two different directions I will take my chances with the IMF thanks very much and so will the vast majority of right thinking people. It may be morally questionable what goes on but we have no choice. None at all.

When we can borrow on the market again then we can make choices.

Yawn, we were all told the exact same stuff would happen if we voted no to lisbon for a second time, we voted yes and nothing changed, judging from your post you believe anything and everything polticians tell you, well I don,t and others don,t either, and I and many others will not pay the goverment a cent for the privilege of living in our own homes whether you like it or not.

Am Chile · 24-12-2011 5:33pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I dont want to pay the tax but i admit i am a bit nervous of getting hit with the fine. I think that is just the way a lot of people are thinking.

One thing I see is some posts is the I word, people need to remember this, if you decide not to pay the household charge., you are far from alone.

In regards to the property tax, for anyone that, s opposed to it, there is a national boycott campaign being built that, s underway, we have already held many succesful meetings around the country in galway, cork, waterford, donegal, kilkenny, …where the majority who have attended these meetings have agreed non payment is the only way to go, and remember if you decide to boycott it and not pay it, you won, t be by any means on your own, there are others like minded people who feel the same way, who have signed up to this campaign, also the can,t pay/won,t pay campaign has a legal team ready to defend all non payers, everyone that decides to boycott you need to remember you are not on your own.

oscarBravo · 24-12-2011 5:58pm

Am Chile wrote: »

...I and many others will not pay the goverment a cent for the privilege of living in our own homes...

"I will not pay the government a cent for the privilege of driving my own car."

"I will not pay the government a cent for the privilege of watching my own TV."

"I will not pay the government a cent for the privilege of using my own credit card."

Tell me, what broad-based tax increases would you support? Higher income taxes? More VAT hikes?

tayto lover · 24-12-2011 6:59pm

"I will not pay the government a cent for the privilege of driving my own car."

"I will not pay the government a cent for the privilege of watching my own TV."

"I will not pay the government a cent for the privilege of using my own credit card."

1. There are facilities supplied to me for my car tax - roads, carparks, holes fixed etc.
2. There are t.v. channels provided to me for my t.v. licence fee.
3. There are credit terms and facilities provided for me if i want to use my credit card.

I will pay for my water because its purified etc and fit to drink and provided for me.
I already pay very high bin charges and pay these.
WHAT DO I GET FOR PAYING PROPERTY TAX? Will they paint my house for me or cut my grass, anything? Someone please tell me because i see nothing in exchange for paying it. I see it as a fine for going to the trouble of paying a mortgage and successfully raising a family without seeking a council house provided by them.

K-9 · 24-12-2011 11:53pm

tayto lover wrote: »

WHAT DO I GET FOR PAYING PROPERTY TAX? Will they paint my house for me or cut my grass, anything?

You'll see sweet F all for it because the days of getting extra services for taxes paid are gone. It's really that simple, hence loads of people having a problem with it. There is nothing in it for you. Local Government funding has been cut and this is to make up the difference.

oscarBravo · 25-12-2011 12:01am

tayto lover wrote: »

WHAT DO I GET FOR PAYING PROPERTY TAX?

You get to live in a country that levies taxes, and in return provides public services. If you'd prefer to live in the fantasy neverland that Fianna Fáil promised for so many years, and that the socialists seem to be in the business of promising now, where you can have world-class public services without the concomitant tax burden, fair enough: let me know how you get on with that.

I've enjoyed having this debate with you specifically, because you've been the poster boy for everything that's wrong with democracy in this country. You believe that it's possible to have a low-tax, high-spend economy as long as it's possible to find a short-term source of income to pay for it. You genuinely believe that you're paying enough in taxes to support the current regime of current expenditure, in the fact of an 11-digit annual budget deficit that proves differently.

In short, you are a shining example of the reason our best and brightest are forced to emigrate, and why I'll probably be following them some time in the next year or so.

Good luck with the tax evasion, and with explaining to yourself why it's OK when you do it and not when rich people do it.

tayto lover · 25-12-2011 12:02am

I already suspected that and won't be paying. I am refusing to continue to pay for someone else's fcuk ups. Especially when the same people are still there and still pontificating.

oscarBravo · 25-12-2011 12:04am

tayto lover wrote: »

I am refusing to continue to pay for someone else's fcuk ups.

If that refusal manifests in hospital closures, are you still happy with it? If that refusal manifests in increases in VAT and income tax rates, are you still happy with it? If that refusal manifests in bankruptcy for the country, are you still happy with it?

tayto lover · 25-12-2011 12:10am

oscarBravo wrote: »

You get to live in a country that levies taxes, and in return provides public services. If you'd prefer to live in the fantasy neverland that Fianna Fáil promised for so many years, and that the socialists seem to be in the business of promising now, where you can have world-class public services without the concomitant tax burden, fair enough: let me know how you get on with that.

I've enjoyed having this debate with you specifically, because you've been the poster boy for everything that's wrong with democracy in this country. You believe that it's possible to have a low-tax, high-spend economy as long as it's possible to find a short-term source of income to pay for it. You genuinely believe that you're paying enough in taxes to support the current regime of current expenditure, in the fact of an 11-digit annual budget deficit that proves differently.

In short, you are a shining example of the reason our best and brightest are forced to emigrate, and why I'll probably be following them some time in the next year or so.

Good luck with the tax evasion, and with explaining to yourself why it's OK when you do it and not when rich people do it.

I am refusing to continue funding the lifestyles of the ruling classes and their mates alright. You got it in one. Its time the real people of Ireland took back control from the lunatics and you are right again in saying I am paying enough. I do not see myself as being responsible for the mess as I have paid for everything I ever got and never received a grant of any description unlike many who support the Govt proposals. You are right as I am outside the tent pissing in. You see I was never invited in as many of the chosen few were.

TDs urging people not to pay tax - criminal negligence?

Comments