Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] *Poll Reset*

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

The level of services has been cut acroos the board, on the back of funding cuts across the board - nothing to do with equalisation / population density.

can you find a link that states what the standard level of services is? im after googling all sorts and cant find a reference

Chips Lovell

How do you know which parts of your county have high payment rates? Where has it been said that areas which have high payment rates will receive priority?

Hijpo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

How do you know which parts of your county have high payment rates? Where has it been said that areas which have high payment rates will receive priority?

it hasnt, therefor an area that has a 90% compliance rate might still have broken footpaths and dodgy roads because mayo needs to be subsidised more because less people live there but still need to be provided the same amount of services

kr7

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

LGMA collects it on their behalf and then distributes it to each local authority.

The sad thing is that there are people who actually believe that.

You can dress it up any way you like, but the fact is that it is a tax on the family home only to be paid by people who bothered their arses to buy their own homes and didn't ask the state to house them.

Once again the private citizen is subsidising the welfare state.

Chips Lovell

That's the whole point of the welfare state. The well off subsidise the less well off.

Am Chile

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

How do you know which parts of your county have high payment rates? Where has it been said that areas which have high payment rates will receive priority?

Read in my local paper around a month ago what areas were high and low for payment for the household tax-

Where has it been said that areas which have high payment rates will receive
priority?[/

By big phil himself.

Environment
Minister Phil Hogan has said he is examining the idea of rewarding local
authorities which "pull out all the stops" to collect outstanding household
charge payments.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/hogan-urges-authorities-to-pull-out-all-the-stops-in-collecting-charge-545828.html

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That's the whole point of the welfare state. The well off subsidise the less well off.

I wouldnt agree with that.

Low/middle earners seem to get penalised way more than the high earners/super rich.

Chips Lovell

Am Chile wrote: »

Read in my local paper around a month ago what areas were high and low for payment for the household tax-

Which paper?

Am Chile wrote: »

By big phil himself.

He said he was examining the idea.

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

can you find a link that states what the standard level of services is? im after googling all sorts and cant find a reference

The normal stuff you'd expect - street lighting in populated areas, non-primary roads, libraries, sewage, parks, leisure centres, planning, firefighters, water, LA housing, dumps, recycling etc, etc.

kr7

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That's the whole point of the welfare state. The well off subsidise the less well off.

So someone who bought in 2005/2006, has a massive mortgage and in negative equity is 'well off'?

dvpower

kr7 wrote: »

1. The household charge is classified as a charge, not a tax, so it's yourself who should see your accountant/professional advisor if your that confused.

kr7 wrote: »

You can dress it up any way you like, but the fact is that it is a tax on the family home only to be paid by people who bothered their arses to buy their own homes and didn't ask the state to house them.

Confusion abounds

Chips Lovell

They own a house, don't they? It's an asset. And assets get taxed oftentimes.

kr7

Ghandee wrote: »

I wouldnt agree with that.

Low/middle earners seem to get penalised way more than the high earners/super rich.

There's really only 2 ways to be in Ireland.
1. Unemployed, few kids and living in subsidised rented accommodation.

or

2. Mega rich,availing of tax breaks and paying as little income tax as possible.

If your in between, your screwed.

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

They own a house, don't they? It's an asset. And assets get taxed oftentimes.

I'm still struggling to see what 'asset' I have, in something that cost me 340k in 06 and is now worth 150k?

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

The sad thing is that there are people who actually believe that.

It's because it's true - you know otherwise?

kr7 wrote: »

You can dress it up any way you like, but the fact is that it is a tax on the family home only to be paid by people who bothered their arses to buy their own homes and didn't ask the state to house them.

If you mean that it's a tax on people who own property that those who don't needn't pay - that's true - just as motor tax is levied only on those who own cars, and not those that take the bus.

kr7 wrote: »

Once again the private citizen is subsidising the welfare state.

As opposed to pixies?

kr7

dvpower wrote: »

Confusion abounds

Well done you, again!
Your great.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

There's really only 2 ways to be in Ireland.
1. Unemployed, few kids and living in subsidised rented accommodation.

or

2. Mega rich,availing of tax breaks and paying as little income tax as possible.

If your in between, your screwed.

The reality is a bit greyer: http://www.ronanlyons.com/2012/04/10/paying-tax-in-ireland-where-the-richest-and-poorest-pay/

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

I'm still struggling to see what 'asset' I have, in something that cost me 340k in 06 and is now worth 150k?

You have an asset worth 150k.

dvpower

kr7 wrote: »

So someone who bought in 2005/2006, has a massive mortgage and in negative equity is 'well off'?

Same could be said for the Income Tax system. It attempts to extract more tax from the better off by having different rates at different income levels, but it doesn't take account of ability to pay, so a person with a family/kids to support and a large mortgage pays the same tax as a person with nobody to support and the mortgage paid off.

It's an imprecise indicator of wealth.

Ghandee

alastair wrote: »

You have an asset worth 150k.

Alternatively (and far more realistically) I have a liability hanging around my neck that has plunged me into negative equity, and forced to bail out the very banks who got us into the mess we're in (Via the HHC). (who now refuse to lend/provide overdraft facilities etc)

kr7

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

They own a house, don't they? It's an asset. And assets get taxed oftentimes.

That wasn't the question I asked.
But once again one of the 'pro-taxers' as I would call them avoid answering the question posed.
There's 4 or 5 of you's on this thread that are exactly the same.
There's not really much point in engaging with people with that kind of attitude.

Chips Lovell

There's nothing unusual about assets declining in value still attracting a tax.

My car is worth less than it is when I bought it, but I still have to pay tax on it.

Either way, it's something of value that can ultimately be sold or passed on to someone else.

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

Alternatively (and far more realistically) I have a liability hanging around my neck that has plunged me into negative equity, and forced to bail out the very banks who got us into the mess we're in.

A 'liability' that you're living in - and saving you rental outgoings on a monthly basis, and that may well increase in value over the years and provide a nice nestegg for your golden years? I guess. You certainly felt it was worth the 340K you paid for it for at the time.

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

There's nothing unusual about assets declining in value still attracting a tax.

My car is worth less than it is when I bought it, but I still have to pay tax on it.

Either way, it's something of value that can ultimately be sold or passed on to someone else.

Ah, but you bought a car with the full knowledge that an annual tax on it was part and parcel of the whole deal did you not?

kr7

dvpower wrote: »

Same could be said for the Income Tax system. It attempts to extract more tax from the better off by having different rates at different income levels, but it doesn't take account of ability to pay, so a person with a family/kids to support and a large mortgage pays the same tax as a person with nobody to support and the mortgage paid off.

It's an imprecise indicator of wealth.

Is it not possible to have a fairer, more progressive system?

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

There's not really much point in engaging with people with that kind of attitude.

Not agreeing with you? The cheek!

Ghandee

alastair wrote: »

A 'liability' that you're living in - and saving you rental outgoings on a monthly basis, and that may well increase in value over the years and provide a nice nestegg for your golden years? I guess. You certainly felt it was worth the 340K you paid for it for at the time.

I did, but I'm not on here crying about being ripped off, as you state yourself, I thought it was worth it at the time.

But how the Govt can class something that is now in negative equity, an asset (Ie I owe more on the house than the house is worth) is mind boggling.

dvpower

kr7 wrote: »

Is it not possible to have a fairer, more progressive system?

Fairness is subjective and the real Property Tax will be somewhat progressive as it will be based on property value.

I've never heard anyone call for a means tested income tax system.

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

I did, but I'm not on here crying about being ripped off, as you state yourself, I thought it was worth it at the time.

But how the Govt can class something that is now in negative equity, an asset (Ie I owe more on the house than the house is worth) is mind boggling.

IT's not mind-boggling at all - your house has value - you stated as much yourself - are you being taxed on a notional value of 340K? No you are not. As regards not crying about being ripped off - what exactly does your negative equity situation have to do with the reality of you owning a taxable asset?

Chips Lovell

Ghandee wrote: »

Ah, but you bought a car with the full knowledge that an annual tax on it was part and parcel of the whole deal did you not?

Sure I did. It was also bought in the full expectation that taxes can go up down, be introduced or abolished.

Should I start whining if the government decides to hike the car tax next year because I didn't know that was going to happen when I bought it?