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
Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] *Poll Reset*
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
dxhound2005 wrote: »The same rules do not apply in all of the UK. For instance in England and Wales people have to pay for water separately over and above their Council Tax. Not happening in the North yet but it will.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/cut-water-bills
And so it should.
I've never said we shouldn't pay for our water.
I have said that our water infrastructure should be fixed first.
For the people on here who keep comparing a house to a car
might understand it this way.
If you were buying a car for a certain price and it had a leak in the fuel line wouldn't you be sure the fuel line was fixed before you handed over your money?0 -
Advertisement
-
And so it should.
I've never said we shouldn't pay for our water.
I have said that our water infrastructure should be fixed first.
For the people on here who keep comparing a house to a car might understand it this way.
If you were buying a car for a certain price and it had a leak in the fuel line wouldn't you be sure the fuel line was fixed before you handed over your money?
And I pointed out how ridiculous this statement was, which you have chosen to ignore.0 -
-
Most analysts agree that too heavy taxes on labour are a bad idea, so it's better to rebalance the tax system towards taxes that have less negative distortions.
One of the many advantages of an annual PT is its lack of negative incentives or distortions.
We want to change your behaviour with plastic bags, so we tax them - good idea. Indeed, if this tax is very successful, the tax yield will be less.
But we don't want you to work less, so we shouldn't tax work too hard, so 52% marginal income tax rates are crazy for average workers.
You have to live in a house, a PT won't change that, so in that sense a PT provides a steady stream of revenue for the LA.
Down with this sort of sensible, logical thought process.
It's not wanted around these parts.
0 -
-
-
-
But that what the pro taxers want to do, attack the vulnerable in the country because their the easiest targets.
Any law that is passed for any purpose is generally accompanied by resources to detect /enforce adherence (e.g. traffic wardens / corp, inspectors for TV license / safety / food / tax etc. etc.) and sanctions for those that disobey (when all else fails, the courts of law). It is simply daft to devise any law if you are not intent on enforcing it. But the “bullying” line was wheeled out early and often by the no side, to such an extent that there are now some who actually do believe that enforcing a law passed by parliament constitutes bullying!
Granted it is effective, but it is silly. If you deliberately flaunt the laws of the land you can’t have grounds for complaint if you are taken to task for it.They don't want to compare the level of service because it blows their argument all the way out of the water.
But what had level of service got to do with mode of payment, which is all that the HCC is really about? If the no side do succeed in defeating this charge then we will likely revert back to the previous indirect funding model for services, which of course is the taxpayer (there is a remarkable failure by some on the no side to appreciate that the tax payer WILL pay for local services one way or another, only the mode of payment is up for discussion). And that begs the question: where was the great concern for waste / poor value for money etc. etc. from all on the no side before the HHC was proposed?For the people on here who keep comparing a house to a car might understand it this way.
I think you (and quite a few others) miss the point of the car & motor tax comparison. No one is arguing that a car is the same as a house.
Two of the strongest arguments put for the no side for not paying are
1. it is an unfair charge and
2. they already have paid tax on the purchase of their house (or the transaction if you want to split hairs).
But both of these objections apply to motor tax, a tax BTW like the HHC that you have the option of declining to pay on principle.
Yet I have heard no one on the no side say they do not pay motor tax in principle. And that somewhat calls in to doubt that the reasons above that they cite are genuine. If they were, would they not be consistent in their attitude to all taxes/charges? This is the point of the comparison.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I don’t think anyone had provided a compelling reason why not (“because it’s my home FFS is not a compelling reason”No one on here has disagreed with taxes needing to paid, plenty have disagreed with placing a tax over the family home though.) And if there is some compelling reason for it then why so many other countries have no difficulty with it? (Which is not to argue BTW that we should simply ape what other countries do).If the budget is a bit tight, anyone can opt to take the car off the road for half the year/altogether.
A great many people in practice can not. Suggesting people can do without their car is no more sensible that suggesting people sell their house to avoid property tax. In theory they can do both, the reality is very different.
Anyway all of this missed my point. Those who refuse to pay the HHC on the grounds that it is unfair should, if they are to be consistent, also refuse to pay motor tax, rather than stop using their car.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement