Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Force a Referendum on the Property Tax

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Sudsy86 wrote: »
    Current Statistic as of close of business yesterday

    http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/household-charge-registrations-still-far-short-of-expectations-544677.html

    It's not surprising given the ridiculous campaigns being run about it. You'd think the country had even slightly balanced books and they were looking for 10 grand off people.


  • Options
    #123
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,561 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    meglome wrote: »
    It's not surprising given the ridiculous campaigns being run about it. You'd think the country had even slightly balanced books and they were looking for 10 grand off people.
    To balance the books, the state needs "get" another 3+k per person (men, women and children) via cuts or taxation.
    Thats just to balance the books. To repay or debt -well thats where it gets ridiculous.

    I should add, they can knock another 4 kpa off my wages in taxation and I'd probably accept that.
    At least it was all done and dusted, and I'd know where I stood.
    Obviously thats not feasible across the board.


  • Options
    #124
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,829 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    JustinDee wrote: »
    The "home" isn't being taxed. The land it sits upon is. Thats why it is called a 'Property Tax'.
    A Land Value Tax is one possible form of Property Tax, there is no guarantee we will get this, although it is the best option.


  • Options
    #125
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    kippy wrote: »
    To balance the books, the state needs "get" another 3+k per person (men, women and children) via cuts or taxation.
    Thats just to balance the books. To repay or debt -well thats where it gets ridiculous.

    Which is why it doesn't generally happen. Public debt is rolled over (replaced with fresh debt) rather than paid off.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #126
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,561 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Which is why it doesn't generally happen. Public debt is rolled over (replaced with fresh debt) rather than paid off.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    The 3K+ per person was in relation to just closing the deficit, but I realise you understand that.
    Rolling over debt - yeah, that is indeed what happens, but the more debt you have and the more you roll over, the more the interest charges are, is that no the case? Indeed, the more you roll over, and the more interest you pay, the less likely you are to be able to take on more debt. At some point the capital is going to have to be repaid (to some extent)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    srsly78
    Registered Users Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭srsly78


    Countries inflate or grow their way out of debt, rather than repay it. Even during the boom we had our debt wasn't paid down. It shrank as a % of GDP but not in real terms.


  • Options
    #128
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,561 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    srsly78 wrote: »
    Countries inflate or grow their way out of debt, rather than repay it. Even during the boom we had our debt wasn't paid down. It shrank as a % of GDP but not in real terms.

    Is't that okay so long as an economy is growing? And don't some countries end up in so much debt, it is inpossible to grow their way out of it?

    Sorry, this is going way OT. I've said what I wanted to say on this thread.
    Thanks for all the replies.
    Kippy


  • Options
    #129
    srsly78
    Registered Users Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭srsly78


    Yes countries can get away with stuff like this usually. Sometimes it goes tits up tho :pac:


  • Options
    #130
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Social housing is also someone else house. It belongs to the local authority and ultimately the tax payer until the tenant decides to buy.

    Why are local authority tenants exempt from paying the household tax¿


  • Options
    #131
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    I watch TV, I pay a television licence. I live somewhere and avail of local services then I should pay for them. The services are provided by the council, they should be paid for by the residents of that county.

    If the government changed the charge so that it wasn't on the property owner, if they made it a local income surcharge payable by all residents of the county at a flat rate of €50 (assuming that the average household is 2 person) would you object to it?

    No, as it appears to be a fairer system.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,798 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Going Forward wrote: »
    No, as it appears to be a fairer system.
    So my friend who lives with his wife and three young children in a small terraced house would pay five times as much as a millionaire living alone in a mansion on several acres?

    "Fair" is a pretty subjective concept.


  • Options
    #133
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So my friend who lives with his wife and three young children in a small terraced house would pay five times as much as a millionaire living alone in a mansion on several acres?

    "Fair" is a pretty subjective concept.

    A family of five can be expected to utilise more services than one person.

    And FYI Fergus O'Dowd has just said that the household tax is unfair.


  • Options
    #134
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,798 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Going Forward wrote: »
    A family of five can be expected to utilise more services than one person.
    So you'd consider the situation I described to be fair?

    Wow.


  • Options
    #135
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So you'd consider the situation I described to be fair?

    Wow.

    Thats life.

    If we accept the party line that this is to pay for the provision of "community services", yes.

    Any unfairness can be addressed by a wealth tax for millionaires in our midst.

    Its not rocket science.


  • Options
    #136
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Imagine the dressing down that nice Fergus is going to get from Dr. Phil and his advisors for admitting that the household charge is unfair!


  • Options
    #137
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Going Forward wrote: »
    If we accept the party line that this is to pay for the provision of "community services", yes.
    All tax revenue goes into a central exchequer, from which all local authority funding is drawn. Ergo, any tax funds community services.
    Going Forward wrote: »
    Any unfairness can be addressed by a wealth tax for millionaires in our midst.
    That's not fair.


  • Options
    #138
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    djpbarry wrote: »
    All tax revenue goes into a central exchequer, from which all local authority funding is drawn. Ergo, any tax funds community services.
    That's not fair.

    Whats your point?

    Should or should not an 8 person family have to make a greater contribution towards the provision of local services than a 1 person family?

    Or, put differently, in the future, should a single occupancy home be charged for the same flat water rate usage as an 8 person family?


  • Options
    #139
    Duiske
    Registered Users Posts: 3,087 ✭✭✭Duiske


    Going Forward wrote: »
    Why are local authority tenants exempt from paying the household tax¿

    All tenants are exempt, not just local authority tenants. Its the property owners who are liable for the charge. The local authorities, as property owners, are exempt because the charge is being handed back to the local authorities to make up for shortfalls dues to cutbacks in funding from central Government. What would be the point of giving with one hand and taking away with the other ?


  • Options
    #140
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Then people in receipt of social welfare shouldn't have to pay car tax, VAT, duty etc on goods and services. After all what would be the point of giving with one hand and taking away with the other?

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #141
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Duiske wrote: »
    Going Forward wrote: »
    Why are local authority tenants exempt from paying the household tax¿

    All tenants are exempt, not just local authority tenants. Its the property owners who are liable for the charge. The local authorities, as property owners, are exempt because the charge is being handed back to the local authorities to make up for shortfalls dues to cutbacks in funding from central Government. What would be the point of giving with one hand and taking away with the other ?
    That's the "ministerial houses" thing everyone was moaning about. Since the minister technically owns the social housing he would be liable for the household charge on them. So they exempted him from paying for those (but he still must pay for his personal property)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Fuinseog
    Registered Users Posts: 5,371 ✭✭✭Fuinseog


    tomasocarthaigh wrote: »
    Seeing as the governement are going to force deduction-at-source, why can we not as people force a referendum on the issue?

    I propose the following to be campaigned for inclusion in the constitution -

    "The family home, that is the primary residence of the family, shall be free from property taxes or rates"

    Anyone with me?

    brilliant idea. the country has no money and we should spend millions on a referendum.
    people are bitching here that the country is banjaxed and their kids have to go abroad yet are not willing to make a contribution to make things better.


  • Options
    #143
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    I'm still in no way clear why or what a referendum on this issue would say, let alone how it would arise. Cloud cuckoo land as to how this remains open?!


  • Options
    #144
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,561 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    I dont particularily believe there should be a referendum on it (that is a tad pointless).
    However there have been decisions taken on the past five years that have had far more outreaching consequences for every man woman and child in this country than a lot of the referendum votes we have had in the past.


  • Options
    #145
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Then people in receipt of social welfare shouldn't have to pay car tax, VAT, duty etc on goods and services. After all what would be the point of giving with one hand and taking away with the other?


    Are you suggesting that social welfare rates should be cut so that nobody on social welfare can afford a car, nobody on social welfare can afford luxury goods (large TVs, ipods etc.) that attract the higher rate of VAT (and have to buy second-hand clothes) nobody on social welfare should be able to buy their own house and finally that they shouldn't be allowed buy cigarettes and alcohol?

    If you are not suggesting that the welfare rates should be cut, why shouldn't they pay taxes on those things like everyone else? I know people on my road who work for a living who have a lower standard of living than others on my road who are on social welfare.


  • Options
    #146
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,561 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Godge wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that social welfare rates should be cut so that nobody on social welfare can afford a car, nobody on social welfare can afford luxury goods (large TVs, ipods etc.) that attract the higher rate of VAT (and have to buy second-hand clothes) nobody on social welfare should be able to buy their own house and finally that they shouldn't be allowed buy cigarettes and alcohol?

    If you are not suggesting that the welfare rates should be cut, why shouldn't they pay taxes on those things like everyone else? I know people on my road who work for a living who have a lower standard of living than others on my road who are on social welfare.

    Nope, he was just expanding on some logic used by another poster to explain where tenants of local authorities (or people getting their rent paid by local authorities)

    To be fair, theres a lot of this "giving with one had and taking with another", or making payments that would more easily be made in a different manner.


  • Options
    #147
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Going Forward wrote: »
    Should or should not an 8 person family have to make a greater contribution towards the provision of local services than a 1 person family?
    Maybe, but eight times more? I don't think so.

    It's not really the best comparison though, as an eight-person family will generally reside in a larger property than an individual living on their own.
    Going Forward wrote: »
    Or, put differently, in the future, should a single occupancy home be charged for the same flat water rate usage as an 8 person family?
    Water should be charged for as used.


  • Options
    #148
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Godge wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that social welfare rates should be cut so that nobody on social welfare can afford a car, nobody on social welfare can afford luxury goods (large TVs, ipods etc.) that attract the higher rate of VAT (and have to buy second-hand clothes) nobody on social welfare should be able to buy their own house and finally that they shouldn't be allowed buy cigarettes and alcohol?

    If you are not suggesting that the welfare rates should be cut, why shouldn't they pay taxes on those things like everyone else? I know people on my road who work for a living who have a lower standard of living than others on my road who are on social welfare.

    So do I.
    I made the point that those who didnt purchase their own houses have landed on their feet.

    We still dont know why a sizeable swathe of local service and amenity users are exempt!


  • Options
    #149
    ednwireland
    Registered Users Posts: 14,364 ✭✭✭✭ednwireland


    was thinking about why so many people are protesting, and a thought struck me, protesting outside the dail makes no difference, writing letters / emails makes no difference facebook page come on. so how do you embarass a gov. this may be small but hell it has them worried (even if 90% of people will have paid in 6 months time

    just a thought

    My weather

    https://www.ecowitt.net/home/share?authorize=96CT1F



  • Options
    #150
    johnory1
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭johnory1


    tomasocarthaigh wrote: »
    Seeing as the governement are going to force deduction-at-source, why can we not as people force a referendum on the issue?

    I propose the following to be campaigned for inclusion in the constitution -

    "The family home, that is the primary residence of the family, shall be free from property taxes or rates"

    Anyone with me?
    i agree with you totally, i would also like to that we maybe the only country in the western world not to have property tax , but then again we were probably the only country in the western world to also have a decent economy for the last 20years, property taxes take to much money directly out of the economy, its basic econmics, i lived in the states for a while and i'll you this much property tax cripple peoples spending power, and if it is brought in, i can see things getting alot worse.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    johnory1
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭johnory1


    our vat rate is 23% in florida its 6% in new jersey theres no vat on clothes. when you pay your pp it includes your bin collection,
    our system of stamp duty is fair, because when you buy your house you can afford to pay the tax , unlike now, when you never know where you will stand, in america i have seen old people who's house has been fully paid for taken away from them becuase they couldn't afford property tax, and for this, i hate property tax


Advertisement