Galway City Council Offices this eve

Predalien

Oh and just on a side note it doesn't directly impact on tenants but upon the introduction of the property taxes of €400+ per annum expect a marked increase in rents, there is no way landlords will not pass it on. In urban areas, particularly in cities, this will cause difficulties for tenants. A higher proportion of properties are rented in urban areas, their value tends to be higher so the tax will be higher, all of this will result in an inequitable burden placed on tenants.

galwaycyclist

In my view it is right, proper and welcome that tenants should pay the tax. All residents of any local authority should be seen to pay direct taxation in support of that authority unless extenuating circumstances apply.

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In my view it is right, proper and welcome that tenants should pay the tax. All residents of any local authority should be seen to pay direct taxation in support of that authority unless extenuating circumstances apply.

If this were not the case, and if tenants did not pay, then it would give "people of property" more of an excuse to look down their noses at people who "merely" rent. It would further degrade the ability of tenants to have their needs respected.

Unless of course that is another part of the status quo that the "united left alliance" wish to preserve?

More smoked salmon anyone?

skelliser

galwaycyclist wrote: »

And one of the reasons they are not accountable is because of a system of local government where they are not spending locally raised taxes locally but act instead as an extension of the Dublin Civil service tossing tit bits to the grateful serfs.

It is system that is inherently wasteful and which rewards and incentivises the waste of community resources. If you wish to tackle waste you need to make the wasters accountable to taxpayers. One obvious way to do that is to make the chain between the taxpayer and the service provider as short and direct and transparent as possible.

But none of this is going to change with the household charge.

As Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government with responsibility for the management of the fund, I will disburse moneys back to local authorities in general-purpose grants.It is considered that this approach is preferable to allowing local authorities to directly retain moneys collected from the household charge in their areas.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/12/13/00025.asp

so more waste and no accountability
and they havent collected any of the charge yet!
more of the same gombeenomics!

galwaycyclist

skelliser wrote: »

But none of this is going to change with the household charge

That might be what the mandarins and their fellow travellers think. But I reckon that once people start paying they will develop a healthy sense of entitlememt that won't be long changing attitudes.

Paying for something has that effect on people. Look at the self righteousness a bit of car tax brings out in some people.

As an aside that is why as a cycling activist I am actually sympathetic to the idea of some form of annual tax on bikes.

Mrs OBumble

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In my view it is right, proper and welcome that tenants should pay the tax. All residents of any local authority should be seen to pay direct taxation in support of that authority unless extenuating circumstances apply.

While I agree with the philosophy (and believe that people would make less mess in the streets if they copped that it's their tax that pays for the cleaners), this would be an administrative nightmare, with people like students shifting house frequently.

It works better if the property owner collects the tax bit by bit in the rent each week.

skelliser

galwaycyclist wrote: »

That might be what the mandarins and their fellow travellers think. But I reckon that once people start paying they will develop a healthy sense of entitlememt that won't be long changing attitudes.

i dont understand what your saying? who are the "mandarins and their fellow travellers think"?

As stated by the minister above this charge is set up so that he decides were the money goes.
none of it goes to the local authority your in, so there is no traceability, transparency or accountability.

galwaycyclist

JustMary wrote: »

While I agree with the philosophy (and believe that people would make less mess in the streets if they copped that it's their tax that pays for the cleaners), this would be an administrative nightmare, with people like students shifting house frequently.

It works better if the property owner collects the tax bit by bit in the rent each week.

I agree but it should set out as a separate item that goes with the property not "hidden" in the rent. (Philosphically I prefer a poll tax of some description rather than property tax)

All tenants should be able to produce receipts showing payment of their property tax obligations.

skelliser

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I agree but it should set out as a separate item that goes with the property not "hidden" in the rent. (Philosphically I prefer a poll tax of some description rather than property tax)

All tenants should be able to produce receipts showing payment of their property tax obligations.

so if you want a poll tax in which everyone pays.

I knew Ireland was conservative but how far to the right is too far when people think a poll tax is a good idea.

Since your in favour of a poll tax then you will have no objection to cyclists paying/contributing to motor tax which goes towards the upkeep of the roads?

skelliser

JustMary wrote: »

It works better if the property owner collects the tax bit by bit in the rent each week.

sorry gotta disagree.
Other people dont pay my taxes and i dont expect them to either.

You are correct tho, landlords will attempt to pass this on. But thankfully we have a massive supply of rental property so they wont be long doing a uturn on such a move.

galwaycyclist

skelliser wrote: »

so if you want a poll tax in which everyone pays.

I knew Ireland was conservative but how far to the right is too far when people think a poll tax is a good idea.

Since your in favour of a poll tax then you will have no objection to cyclists paying/contributing to motor tax which goes towards the upkeep of the roads?

Re your cyclists contribution taunt. With respect I suggest that you fully read the posts that you are quoting.

It looks better if you don't ask questions that have already been answered.

As for conservatism -.you are the one trying to preserve the current, undemocratic, status quo - not me.

skelliser

You said that Philosphically you agree with a poll tax of some degree.

So would i be right in saying you think all service users should contribute in some way to services they use?

As a road user should you not contribute to the road you use?

skelliser

galwaycyclist wrote: »

As for conservatism -.you are the one trying to preserve the current, undemocratic, status quo - not me.

your the one who believes in a poll tax!!

I think you have me confused with someone else.
There is many things wrong with this country which have not been addressed and this charge will just continue on this path.

Doc Ruby

galwaycyclist wrote: »

As for conservatism -.you are the one trying to preserve the current, undemocratic, status quo - not me.

You don't fix that with a tax.

You fix that with more democracy on the local level.

Any reason why we shouldn't have something like direct democracy and do away with councillors entirely? Im after reading in the advertiser that Ollie Crowe, well known coat tail rider, is tabling motions to move along the occupy group. With geniuses like this at the helm I find myself longing for a spot of mob rule.

Predalien

JustMary wrote: »

While I agree with the philosophy (and believe that people would make less mess in the streets if they copped that it's their tax that pays for the cleaners), this would be an administrative nightmare, with people like students shifting house frequently.

It works better if the property owner collects the tax bit by bit in the rent each week.

Tenants should only pay based on ability to pay, that is how any tax should be charged. There are probably close to 15,000 student tenants in Galway, they dominate the rental market, for the most part they have close to no income available for additional taxation (they already contribute a lot in excise duties!). A property tax has to take income of the household into account.

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

A property tax has to take income of the household into account.

That's an income tax you're describing. A property tax on the property (and it's uses).

The one thing a property tax is not, and should not be, is a tax on the income of those using the property.

Predalien

antoobrien wrote: »

That's an income tax you're describing. A property tax on the property (and it's uses).

The one thing a property tax is not, and should not be, is a tax on the income of those using the property.

But it has to take their ability to pay into account, so it has to in some way look at the income of the household, otherwise it is clearly inequitable.

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

But it has to take their ability to pay into account, so it has to in some way look at the income of the household, otherwise it is clearly inequitable.

You're still describing an income tax - property ownership has nothing to do with income (unless you have a loan that you can't pay).

There are plenty of houses out there with no mortgage on them, so what you're saying is that somebody who "can't pay" for the tax on their house or aparment in the Taylors Hill area shouldn't have to pay, where my parents should pay for their house in the country side?

That makes a lot of sense - not!

Predalien

antoobrien wrote: »

That makes a lot of sense - not!

This describes your post best Borat.

All tax should be based on ability to pay, a flat household charge is inequitable, even Enda Kenny admits this. If the hypothetical person in their mortgage free house on Taylor's Hill is on social welfare, a low pension, in a minimum wage job or some such scenario then a property tax based on merely the valuation of their home (likely to be introduced in the next budget) will be unfair. That is obvious.

If your parents in the countryside are on an okay income but their house is valued at less than the one on Taylor's Hill (likely) why should they be liable for less tax based on the valuation of their home when their ability to pay is clearly better than the other scenario.

Red_Wake

A tax that is proportional to my income, is an income tax.

A property tax should be dependent on the property owned, not the owner's income.

Predalien

Red_Wake wrote: »

A tax that is proportional to my income, is an income tax.

A property tax should be dependent on the property owned, not the owner's income.

I completely agree with the first part, however I am not advocating another form of income tax, what I am saying is that a persons means must be assessed to determine if they should pay a full property tax or if reductions should apply. I in no way think a property tax should be proportional to income. If you earn €60,000 a year and live in a house worth €250,000 then €300-€400 is probably fair. If you earn €100,000 and live in a similar house next door then I still think €300-€400 is fair.

The difficulty lies in not allowing the tax to adversely impact low earners disproportionately, nor should tenants who for the most part are those not in a position to become property owners be expected to shoulder the burden of what is a desperate revenue raising attempt.

Predalien

Predalien wrote: »

All tax should be based on ability to pay, a flat household charge is inequitable, even Enda Kenny admits this. If the hypothetical person in their mortgage free house on Taylor's Hill is on social welfare, a low pension, in a minimum wage job or some such scenario then a property tax based on merely the valuation of their home (likely to be introduced in the next budget) will be unfair. That is obvious.

If your parents in the countryside are on an okay income but their house is valued at less than the one on Taylor's Hill (likely) why should they be liable for less tax based on the valuation of their home when their ability to pay is clearly better than the other scenario.

Then sell the valuable house and downsize or move to a lower rent area.

Not all taxes are or should be based on an ability to pay - excise duty and consumption taxes are very bluntly applied.

The whole point of a property tax as opposed to an income or transaction tax is that it should not vary all that much with the economic cycle and will provide a more stable tax base than the one we currently have.

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

All tax should be based on ability to pay

No it shouldn't - by that (lack of) logic you'll let off the person who claims they cant pay the tax for their house in the most expensive part of Galway.

Predalien wrote: »

a flat household charge is inequitable, even Enda Kenny admits this.

did you hear the bit where this charge will make way for a valued (value based I think) property tax in 2013?

You keep ignoring that bit, trying to keep up this theme of long tertm inequality where none exists.

Predalien wrote: »

If the hypothetical person in their mortgage free house on Taylor's Hill is on social welfare, a low pension, in a minimum wage job or some such scenario then a property tax based on merely the valuation of their home (likely to be introduced in the next budget) will be unfair. That is obvious.

If that's true, then they also can't afford the upkeep of the house.

The real inequality here is that you want me to subsidize this person living in an area they clearly can't afford to live in.

Predalien wrote: »

If your parents in the countryside are on an okay income but their house is valued at less than the one on Taylor's Hill (likely) why should they be liable for less tax based on the valuation of their home when their ability to pay is clearly better than the other scenario.

Which is due to happen next year, but you still want to excuse the "I can't pay" brigade.

Predalien

Deleted User wrote: »

Then sell the valuable house and downsize or move to a lower rent area.

Not all taxes are or should be based on an ability to pay - excise duty and consumption taxes are very bluntly applied.

The whole point of a property tax as opposed to an income or transaction tax is that it should not vary all that much with the economic cycle and will provide a more stable tax base than the one we currently have.

Force people to move home, brilliant solution.

Yes excise and consumption taxes are applied bluntly, but if you can't afford stuff you don't buy it so ability to pay is a huge factor in these taxes.

Mrs OBumble

Predalien wrote: »

But it has to take their ability to pay into account, so it has to in some way look at the income of the household, otherwise it is clearly inequitable.

But there are lots of ways of doing this.

Where I come from, if an old person cannot afford to pay their rates for reasons like the ones outlined, the local council says "fine, no problem, we'll just collect them the next time the property is sold". And they do.

It's not quite that simple, of course, there are some extra rules and interest rates to stop people abusing the system. But the principle of a property tax based on property value is upheld - because people who own an expensive property DO have more resources in teh vast majority of cases.

antoobrien

Also, anyone that can afford to buy a pack of cigarettes or a pint once a week can more than afford this charge.

Doc Ruby

Deleted User wrote: »

The whole point of a property tax as opposed to an income or transaction tax is that it should not vary all that much with the economic cycle and will provide a more stable tax base than the one we currently have.

But we did fine without it for years. Not to mention that the tax base should be linked to the economy so you don't end up strangling the thing with too high taxes in hard times.

Here's the problem, the government got a one-off surplus and put it into persistent costs. Spending skyrocketed during the bubble, and we didn't get much for it either.

Now the one-off windfall is gone, but the ongoing costs are still there. These costs need to be reduced far more than new taxes need to be raised. Our taoiseach earns more than his UK counterpart, to give a good idea of what those ongoing costs are.

antoobrien wrote: »

Also, anyone that can afford to buy a pack of cigarettes or a pint once a week can more than afford this charge.

Affordable has nothing to do with it. They aren't going to buy that pint or packet of cigarettes, and maybe a shop or pub goes out of business because of that, meaning four more people get unemployed. Obviously not over one pint but over a few thousand pints a week, or other such items. And that pub with employees was bringing in more tax than you gained from the local property taxes.

Its called diminishing returns, or killing the golden goose, beyond a certain point raising more taxes in fact reduces your tax returns. Seeing as the deficit hit €25 billion last year, its not unreasonable to imagine we're already there.

The economy isn't a life support machine for the government, and no amount of digging in the heels and saying nuh-uh with lower lips hanging out will make it so.

antoobrien

Doc Ruby wrote: »

But we did fine without it for years. Not to mention that the tax base should be linked to the economy so you don't end up strangling the thing with too high taxes in hard times.

I'd argue the contrary, we are in the situation we are in in part to the lack of a property tax. Also, as has been pointed out, a property tax isn't cyclical like income & consumption taxes (vat, excise & stamps), it's far more stable. The timing of it is unfortunate.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Now the one-off windfall is gone, but the ongoing costs are still there. These costs need to be reduced far more than new taxes need to be raised. Our taoiseach earns more than his UK counterpart, to give a good idea of what those ongoing costs are.

No arguments, but then - like motor tax - this is going into the local government fund so it's not going to pay for PS pay.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Affordable has nothing to do with it. They aren't going to buy that pint or packet of cigarettes, and maybe a shop or pub goes out of business because of that, meaning four more people get unemployed. Obviously not over one pint but over a few thousand pints a week, or other such items. And that pub with employees was bringing in more tax than you gained from the local property taxes.

Utter twaddle. The justifications for not paying this is getting more and more desperate. This charge works out at €2 per week for 1.6m households. That's like each household buying one less daily newspaper in 52 out of 52 weeks in the year.

The idea that shops or pubs will go out of business because of this is the worst type of scaremongering.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its called diminishing returns, or killing the golden goose, beyond a certain point raising more taxes in fact reduces your tax returns. Seeing as the deficit hit €25 billion last year, its not unreasonable to imagine we're already there.

The economy isn't a life support machine for the government, and no amount of digging in the heels and saying nuh-uh with lower lips hanging out will make it so.

Funny enough, when attempting to justify taxes on higher earners (who do pay the vast majority of tax) this isn't considered a valid argument by our nascent proto-communists who are refusing to pay this tax. You'll have to come up with a better one than that.

Doc Ruby

antoobrien wrote: »

No arguments, but then - like motor tax - this is going into the local government fund so it's not going to pay for PS pay.

antoobrien wrote: »

I'd argue the contrary

You argue the contrary then say no arguments to the exact same issue. We aren't in the situation through lack of a property tax, we're in this situation through massive overspending.

antoobrien wrote: »

Utter twaddle. The justifications for not paying this is getting more and more desperate. This charge works out at €2 per week for 1.6m households. That's like each household buying one less daily newspaper in 52 out of 52 weeks in the year.

The idea that shops or pubs will go out of business because of this is the worst type of scaremongering.

Reduce disposable income, siphon €3.2 million weekly out of the private economy with this and a hundred other measures, and see what happens. Really, come back to me in a year and tell me how the property tax saved us all.

And local authority workers are public sector. If the taxpayer signs your paycheque, you're public sector.

antoobrien wrote: »

Funny enough, when attempting to justify taxes on higher earners (who do pay the vast majority of tax) this isn't considered a valid argument by our nascent proto-communists who are refusing to pay this tax. You'll have to come up with a better one than that.

They might pay the vast majority of income tax but income tax isn't the vast majority of tax by a long shot. And I think you meant proto-libertarians there, yes proto-libertarians.

Besides I'm talking about cutting spending first, and cutting hard, in particular those areas that don't feed directly back into the economy (ie NOT WELFARE).

antoobrien

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You argue the contrary then say no arguments to the exact same issue. We aren't in the situation through lack of a property tax, we're in this situation through massive overspending.

What part of "property tax isn't cyclical like income & consumption taxes" did you not get. We got a massive boost based on cyclical consumption/transaction based taxes. Yes, this was badly mis used.

But a proper property tax would have stopped the whole thing getting out of control in the fashion that it did.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Reduce disposable income, siphon €3.2 million weekly out of the private economy with this and a hundred other measures, and see what happens. Really, come back to me in a year and tell me how the property tax saved us all.

Nobody's claiming this will save us, where do you get this rubbish?

Btw €160m less in disposable income means at worst €33.6m less vat - so we're really talking about a net gain of €126.4m in taxes.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

And local authority workers are public sector. If the taxpayer signs your paycheque, you're public sector.

It's going to pay for things like fixing potholes & footpaths.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

They might pay the vast majority of income tax but income tax isn't the vast majority of tax by a long shot. And I think you meant proto-libertarians there, yes proto-libertarians.

No I meant communist. These are the same people calling for wealth taxes, wealth transfers and other policies beloved of marxists.

For a quick analysis of just how little the vast majority of the population contributes to the overall take take read this post.

The headline is that those earning about or under the average wage contributed less than 1/4 of the overall take take in 2009 (the latest year such figures are available for). That was about 80% of the workforce.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Besides I'm talking about cutting spending first, and cutting hard, in particular those areas that don't feed directly back into the economy (ie NOT WELFARE).

Welfare feeding back into the economy, oh lord who's been brainwashing you? I suppose you believe that the PS wage bill is also a significant contributor to the economy when it's actually a massive tax drain.

Out of a DSP spend last year of €13 billion (current expense) the dole is about €4 billion - where are we spending the other €9 billion? A lot of the welfare is basically subsidising the likes of the ESB & private landlords - helping to keep their prices up. Take a scythe to the lot of it!