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
1…189190192194195…332

Comments

  • Options
    #5732
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Hijpo wrote: »
    them

    Sorry - by any measure 5 grand is a greater amount than your property tax. They're also paying income tax etc - so the differential is down to the amount of that property tax compared to their rent.


  • Options
    #5733
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    mikom wrote: »
    They pay less.
    Our taxes subsidise their housing......... a local authority service.

    Your line of thinking is very confused.

    Our and their taxes subsidise their housing - but who's paying more to the council - them with their rent, or you with your property charge?


  • Options
    #5734
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    alastair wrote: »
    Sorry - by any measure 5 grand is a greater amount than your property tax. They're also paying income tax etc - so the differential is down to the amount of that property tax comapred to their rent.

    5 grand would not even begin to cover their housing and services.
    It's a loss making situation buoyed up by other taxpayers.

    I find it hard to believe you are serious with this line of thinking, or maybe it's desperate you are.


  • Options
    #5735
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    mikom wrote: »
    5 grand would not even begin to cover their housing and services.
    It's a loss making situation.
    Didn't say otherwise - that's why it's subsidised.
    mikom wrote: »
    I find it hard to believe you are serious with this line of thinking, or maybe it's desperate you are.
    So - not prepared to admit they may pay more to the LA than you?


  • Options
    #5736
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    alastair wrote: »
    Our and their taxes subsidise their housing - but who's paying more to the council - them with their rent, or you with your property charge?
    They are getting accommodation for their rent. A private renter will pay more plus get the charge added on by his landlord.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5737
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    alastair wrote: »
    Didn't say otherwise - that's why it's subsidised.


    So - not prepared to admit they may pay more to the LA than you?

    "Didn't say otherwise"............. wordplay............ very politician like

    You are talking absolute jazz.


  • Options
    #5738
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    mikom wrote: »
    You are talking absolute jazz.

    In your world 5 grand might be less than 100 euro, or even a grand, but not mine. The council tenant in that situation pays more to the council than you do.


  • Options
    #5739
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    They are getting accommodation for their rent. A private renter will pay more plus get the charge added on by his landlord.

    True - but that's not the case Hijpo made, is it?
    people in LA housing avail of more services and pay less, on the flip side people who already pay for there house availe of less LA services yet have to pay more.


  • Options
    #5740
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Talking Jazz.

    You probably don't even believe it yourself............ but if you do then you've shown yourself up.


  • Options
    #5741
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    mikom wrote: »
    Talking Jazz.

    You probably don't even believe it yourself............ but if you do then you've shown yourself up.

    Enlighten me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5742
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    im lost, are you saying mikom should pay 5g extra a year for a house he doesnt live in? or are you just saying that technically the LA renter gives more to the council for the extra service he recieves (accomodation)?


  • Options
    #5743
    phil1nj
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭phil1nj


    alastair wrote: »
    In your world 5 grand might be less than 100 euro, or even a grand, but not mine. The council tenant in that situation pays more to the council than you do.

    So by that logic the 5 grand rent goes only towards local services (as opposed to the measly 100 Euro HHC private property owners pay) therefore the LA "tenant" is actually living in the house for free? The rent they pay isn't actually for the roof over their head and continued maintenance of the property?:confused:


  • Options
    #5744
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    alastair wrote: »
    Enlighten me.


    You're a waste of time a Mhac.
    See if you can find another willing volunteer for your wordplay.


  • Options
    #5745
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    people in LA housing avail of more services and pay less, on the flip side people who already pay for there house availe of less LA services yet have to pay more.

    yea they get a subsidised house on top of these services of which you speak, are you saying it should be zero cost to them altogether?


  • Options
    #5746
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    im lost, are you saying mikom should pay 5g extra a year for a house he doesnt live in? or are you just saying that technically the LA renter gives more to the council for the extra service he recieves (accomodation)?

    The LA renter pays more for LA services than the private householder does. The LA renter obviously gets more benefit, but they (generally) don't pay less for it - they pay more.

    people in LA housing avail of more services
    In cost terms - yes - typically
    and pay less,
    No - typically not.
    on the flip side people who already pay for there house availe of less LA services
    In cost terms - yes - typically
    yet have to pay more.
    No - they pay less

    Typical LA rent > property tax


  • Options
    #5747
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    phil1nj wrote: »
    So by that logic the 5 grand rent goes only towards local services (as opposed to the measly 100 Euro HHC private property owners pay) therefore the LA "tenant" is actually living in the house for free? The rent they pay isn't actually for the roof over their head and continued maintenance of the property?:confused:

    That 5 grand does indeed go solely for local authority services. It's certainly not free though - it costs 5 grand!


  • Options
    #5748
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bgrizzley wrote: »

    yea they get a subsidised house on top of these services of which you speak, are you saying it should be zero cost to them altogether?

    No. I'm not. The house isn't 'on top' of services though - it's part of the services provided.


  • Options
    #5749
    phil1nj
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭phil1nj


    alastair wrote: »
    That 5 grand does indeed go solely for local authority services. It's certainly not free though - it costs 5 grand!

    Right, would these local authority services include their continued living in the house provided for them and its continued upkeep? These are services which I, a private property owner, will never avail of. You see in this case a LA "tenant" can't really complain about this deal as I'm guessing that the majority of the 5 grand is spent keeping them housed for 12 months of the year. Seems only right they should pay more as they appear to be getting a good deal more from the LA than private householders. No free lunch right.


  • Options
    #5750
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    alastair wrote: »
    No. I'm not. The house isn't 'on top' of services though - it's part of the services provided.


    so i can sell my house pay off my mortgage and insist on one?
    everyone can? why didnt anyone tell us this?


  • Options
    #5751
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    phil1nj wrote: »
    Right, would these local authority services include their continued living in the house provided for them and its continued upkeep? These are services which I, a private property owner, will never avail of.
    You might - who knows what the future holds?
    phil1nj wrote: »
    You see in this case a LA "tenant" can't really complain about this deal as I'm guessing that the majority of the 5 grand is spent keeping them housed for 12 months of the year.
    Why the scare quotes on tenant? Are they complaining? Yep - it certainly would be.
    phil1nj wrote: »
    Seems only right they should pay more as they appear to be getting a good deal more from the LA than private householders. No free lunch right.
    5 grand isn't free. And it's still more than any property tax figure I've seen mooted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5752
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    so i can sell my house pay off my mortgage and insist on one?
    everyone can? why didnt anyone tell us this?

    You can give it a shot - I suspect no-one would have much sympathy for your case.


  • Options
    #5753
    phil1nj
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭phil1nj


    alastair wrote: »

    Why the scare quotes on tenant?

    The quotes were around the word tenants because a tenant is someone who rents, pays rent for the use of a property. You have adopted the line that it is not rent they are paying but a higher payment for local authority services. Which is it? Rent or a LA service fee? Or is the rent actually a LA service fee?


  • Options
    #5754
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    alastair wrote: »
    You can give it a shot - I suspect no-one would have much sympathy for your case.


    why not? if i sold my house i reckon i'd still be in debt to the tune of 50k. i wouldnt be able to afford to repay that, plus rent. one or the other.
    with the exception of this E100 ive paid my taxes up to now. im surely entitled to these services. im already paying for them....


  • Options
    #5755
    kr7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭kr7


    A friend of mine has a 2 bed apartment leased to his LA on the RAS scheme.

    The LA has asked him to give the tenants an evicition notice because they haven't paid their portion of the rent. €45 per week, €180.00 per month.

    He has to pay the service charge on the apartment €1,300 per year which covers their bin collection, car parking, maintenance etc etc.

    He also has the NPPR and will be expected to pay the property tax when it comes in.

    €45 per week to have all your services paid for and they are €2,700 in arrears.

    That's the attitude of some renters.

    If the council wen't after the rent arrears people like these owe them it would fit them better.


  • Options
    #5756
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    phil1nj wrote: »
    The quotes were around the word tenants because a tenant is someone who rents, pays rent for the use of a property. You have adopted the line that it is not rent they are paying but a higher payment for local authority services. Which is it? Rent or a LA service fee? Or is the rent actually a LA service fee?

    It's a rent - that goes to the local authority. The housing is a service that the local authority provide.

    Let's take Tayto's golf example. I don't play golf. I'm paying for the provision of golf courses in my local authority taxation - but don't make use of that service myself. Let's say there's a realy avid golfer who made use of one of those courses on a weekly basis - paying the council a grand for his golfing entertainment over the tear. Who has paid the council more in that year - me or him? Does he get more for his outlay on the golf front? Yes he does. Am I bothered? No I am not.


  • Options
    #5757
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    why not? if i sold my house i reckon i'd still be in debt to the tune of 50k. i wouldnt be able to afford to repay that, plus rent. one or the other.
    with the exception of this E100 ive paid my taxes up to now. im surely entitled to these services. im already paying for them....

    Give it a shot.


  • Options
    #5758
    kr7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭kr7


    alastair wrote: »
    The LA renter pays more for LA services than the private householder does. The LA renter obviously gets more benefit, but they (generally) don't pay less for it - they pay more.



    In cost terms - yes - typically


    No - typically not.


    In cost terms - yes - typically


    No - they pay less

    Typical LA rent > property tax

    Delusional ramblings.


  • Options
    #5759
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    kr7 wrote: »
    Delusional ramblings.

    But enough about you.


  • Options
    #5760
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfGZB78R7uw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5761
    kr7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭kr7


    alastair wrote: »
    But enough about me.
    FYP


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement