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

darkhorse

ncdadam wrote: »

This thread is, as far as I know, called 'Household charge mega-thread'.

Nowhere does it say it's about why a property tax should be ruled out that I can see.

I would have presumed it's a general discussion about this and other taxes that could reduce our deficit.

Hear, Hear, ncdadam,

Can I maybe add another suggestion. The next time a meeting of the Bilderberg Club comes around, dia think that maybe we could send Enda there and try and organize a whip a round for us. Oh wait, maybe M. Noonan will already be there and sure dont they know him well. Sorted, as my daughter would say.:):)

darkhorse

Izzy Skint wrote: »

lugha, you are correct, leaving aside the rape of the irish people for billions of € by our own politicians and european bankers / bondholders, we would still have a massive deficit....spot on....government spending DOUBLED between 2000 and 2008....what was it spent on?....any ideas ?....why can't it be cut to what it was before the property fiasco?....I can't recall any improvement in "local services" during these "boom" years, can you ?
it was spent on ps pay, pensions (remember benchmarking ?), wasted in the HSE, lavish social welfare system, quangos all over the place (we still have over 600 quangos !!!), a billion a year on FAS etc. etc. do you remember all of this ****e ?...this has to be reversed or we will be f*cked up good and proper.

I am sick of saying this, the govt. are liars, they are doing the very things they should NOT be doing in the present situation. You pro taxers want everyone to share the pain, you say extra taxes combined with spending cuts are the way to go...wrong, we have a €15b deficit, do you think this economy could take another lets say €5b in extra taxes ?....could people manage?....could the economy grow under these conditions?...the govt. are factoring in growth, without it we are going downhill fast.

Just one other point for you to ponder over, lets just say that they do manage to close the deficit to manageable levels, what happens if there is another financial meltdown ? or world recession? or major unemployment growth?....WE WOULD BE F*CKED as we would have no room for manoeuvre, we did not cut spending enough and we taxed too much....what do we do then ?....can we then heap further taxes on the people?....europe is up the creek at the moment, spain or italy could go belly up at any time (september will be an important month)...what about a decline in the US?, they have been printing money as fast as they can spend it, there are many potential pitfalls ahead for the world economy, we need to prepare for this, the chances and stakes are high....you can only take so much, the sooner the govt. realise the better for all of us, maybe they do realise this and haven't got the balls, after all, as you have said, those electricity workers are prone to a walkout or two, and we all know what teachers are like, Inda is one of them....nuff said.

F*cking great post, Iz. Heres a saying that I picked up and I really think it is very apt. in the circumstances.

The prospect of disaster, no matter how obvious, is no guarantee that nations will do what it takes to avoid that disaster.

Am Chile

If they re gonna try win people over to support a local property tax/charge they re gonna have to provide all proper services including water useage and bin/waste collections, in most countries where there is a local tax/charge all the services come with paying, when one looks up online the local services that come with property taxes in Northern Ireland, the UK
and Austrailia, there,s value for money when paying.



Local Services provided with property taxes up North as listed.

((•education
•emergency
services
•health
•housing
•roads
•water
and sewerage

•arts,
events and recreation
•building
control
•community
centres
•environmental
health
•leisure
facilities
•tourism
•waste
management)

http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/what-do-rates-pay-for

Local Services provided with property taxes in Austraila as listed.

Local councils charge rates on all properties in their areas to raise funds to pay for the services and infrastructure they provide.

Councils spend money on a wide range of services and infrastructure, including:

• roads and bridges
• housing planning and development
• waste and recycling
• water and sewer drainage
• libraries
• sport and recreation
• health and safety.

~

http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=326

http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/business,+industry+and+trade/Licensing+and+regulation/Taxation/Local+council+rates

Local Services Provided with the council tax in the UK.

• Planning and economic development
• Environmental Health
• Recreation and tourism
• Refuse collection and disposal
• Housing
• Libraries
• Education
• Other services

http://www.angus.gov.uk/services/view_service_detail.cfm?serviceid=1163

If they want people to approve and pay a property tax it needs to cover all local services- if not most people won,t pay or shouldn,t even consider paying -if people were to blindly accept and pay a local property tax, here,s the situation that will follow we will all end up paying multiple charges separately with less services thus getting ripped off, people already pay for their waste collection separately, some councils already charge separately for fire brigrade call outs-in two years time roughly we will be asked to pay for water separately,-cover all services together, people might feel they re getting value for money, which is what I want value for my money before I consider handing any money over for a property tax, if not I won,t be paying.

darkhorse

Flex wrote: »

Ghandee you and a lot of the no more taxes side dont seem understand this. That €1.6 isnt that big a deal. Its a once off payment. We wont even be paying it techncally, we'll simply be servicing interest on the money borrowed to pay it. For perspective, that €1.6B payout will add about €40m a year to our deficit of some €16B (0.25% of it), then thats it. The bank bailout isnt a major part of our deficit.

Ironically, the bank bailout is probably the best thing to happen for the 'no side' and the economically left; it allows them to avoid putting forward any coherent or rational arguments to support their position. Examples;

• Im not gonna support any cuts to welfare, because of the banks
• Im not gonna accept higher taxes, sure its all to bail out the banks
• Im not gonna do anything, sure its all for German bondholders
• The only reason the country has a deficit is because of the banks

And all these other things about ministers wasting thousands of euro. This is actually something Im completely on board with sorting out, but I suspect the people using it as an excuse to refuse to pay taxes are just using it as a strawman. If every piece of corruption and waste was eliminated Ive no doubt there'd then be objections along the lines of "Yea well Im not paying more taxes because the weather isnt warm enough. Once the government sorts out the cold weather, so the poor people of Ireland who cant afford foreign holidays in the sun can finally enjoy some good weather at home, THEN Ill pay more tax. Im sick of them going on sunny holidays while the rest of us have to stay here in the cold. Its morally unjust and unfair" (last paragraph there is an attempt to add a bit of humour by the way )

Well, I'm sorry, Flex, but ya shoulda left the plug attached, then plugged in in. This is my attempt at humour.

darkhorse

tayto lover wrote: »

Medical Cards and Social Welfare to be hit next by orders of the Troika.
Why do we need a Govt at all when Europe is already ruling us?

You're right there, tayto. All the same, are'nt they on f*ckin great money just for relaying messages to us.

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

Between 3rd Sept and 1st of Oct alone this year we will be paying back 1.6 billion, thats in a period of less than 30 days, but astonishingly its the equivalent of 10 years revenue they hope to get from the HHC. (paid out in less than a month)

Even if we did have to pay 1.6 billion out, that is still only about 10% of our deficit. It is a serious amount of money but it, and the other payments, are dwarfed by our deficit level (which is perhaps says more about how appalling our deficit is). The substantial point here is that the widespread belief that all of our problems are down to banks and bondholders is patently not true. Can I ask if you actually dispute this?

Ghandee wrote: »

Why, have the Govt been so adamant this payment must be collected …

The HHC take is buttons. Even a property tax take of 800 million next year, serious money in normal circumstances, will barely scratch our deficit.

But there’s a bigger picture here. Despite the widespread denial, severe pain will have to be inflicted on ordinary people, or some subgroup of the people. If not this property tax then some other taxes (but a property tax has positives that others don’t). And there will have to substantial cuts in public spending, particularly in public sector pay and in social welfare.

These two sectors will resist fiercely, particularly the former. And the public sector unions are formidable opponents. I know the anti-HCC campaigners think themselves a potent force (ignoring as they do that the 600K people in their ranks are there by default, as it took effort + €100 not to be a rebel) but they are amateurs compared to these boys. If the government cannot win, what for me is a minor skirmish, with property tax then they have to chance in the bigger battle ahead.

Our friend Izzy here as a charmingly naïve view of things, which is that if its just that public sector wings be clipped, well then that will effortlessly come to pass. In truth, it will be a hard, fiercely resisted battle, one which no government has faced into before. I am not sure if I really fancy our chances anyway but they will be severely diminished if they get a bloody nose from the anti-HCC lot. And I think we will be in serious trouble if they fail, have a look at Greece to get an idea of where we might be heading.

Can I ask how would you like to see everything play out? Obviously defeat the property tax. But presumably you would fight any other new taxes that would also be used to pay bondholders (!). What if you are mega-successful and defeat them all?

Our lenders of last support will put the plug and we have to make a 15 billion adjustment instantaneously. Widespread PS redundancies and strikes and the consequence effect this will have on private sector jobs (a point many such workers seem not to get). The amount of money circulating in the economy massively slashed. Social welfare possibly eliminated altogether with the inevitable rise in poverty and crime. Etc. etc.

In short, what is your master plan and where would it take us that isn’t markedly worse than where the government’s one would?

ncdadam wrote: »

I would have presumed it's a general discussion about this and other taxes that could reduce our deficit.

Well it is that. But pretty much every other proposal, be it a tax hike or a spending cut, will be judged on their merits. E.g. What savings would be achieved? Might it be counter-productive? etc. Property tax is a little different in that there is a widespread but erroneous belief that there is something fundamentally wrong with taxing a family home, that it simply should not be considered as an option. Hence the challenge to those who take such a stance is to reason why not? They have failed totally to so reason (they do so emote, which is something different)

tayto lover wrote: »

I am on my own side lugha. I am not part of a concerted campaign and never have been. I attended no meetings and read very little literature about it. I am not paying because I see it as an attack on my home. An attack on people who did the state a favour by being productive and not claiming from it. Working hard and paying a mortgage should not be punishable by extra taxes being heaped on you. I will stand up for what I believe in and I see myself as having nothing in common with the likes of Mick Wallace or for that matter Phil Hogan.

That’s super tayto but has you completely evaded the two substantial points I put to you.

1. How can you criticize Mick Wallace who evaded VAT in order to keep his operation afloat and his employees in work and simultaneously be critical of the fact that this exact course of action was not taken with Target Express?
2. How can you criticize Mick Wallace for evading a state sanctioned charge (VAT) when you are doing exactly the same thing (HHC)?

Hijpo wrote: »

what would be a right money saving project would be cut dail numbers to 80 and cap all TD's salaries at 100k and 80k for ministers half there allowances and tax exemptions and give them a modest pension.

No it would not. Do the numbers. It may have value as a PR exercise but the effect on our deficit would be close to zero.

donalg1

darkhorse wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Where did I say I was certain they don't own it.

donalg1 wrote: »

The green area in the estate doesn't belong to the council.

Does, too.

Sure that's grand then they may start cutting them so must tell the RA's to get on to them when it needs cutting so.

steve9859

lugha wrote: »

No it would not. Do the numbers. It may have value as a PR exercise but the effect on our deficit would be close to zero.

It would have more than just PR value. If TD's were to publicly cut back the gravy train, the HHC I think would sail through, given that the government would be fighting from the moral high ground. And the battle with the unions would be made significantly easier.

Without the moral high ground, the government is bound to fail, and by extension, the Irish people are screwed. They need to do something, anything, to show that they are in touch. The fact that they don't get that, shows how out of touch they are

dvpower

Le_Dieux wrote: »

I still would love to know just how DV is so certain the council don't own the greens. Surely then he/she must have some idea just who does!!!

I think you're getting mixed up. I made no comment on the ownership of green spaces - I haven't got the the faintest idea who owns them, but I would have assumed the council.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

I have, G.

Immoral and Unjust

... but not illegal - which was the point Ghandee was making.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

I do, yes.

I don't think you do. Can you provide it?

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

... but not illegal - which was the point Ghandee was making.

I made a few points as how to how deducting at source, and how threats of not being able to transfer property (by placing a lien on the property) may go against the constitution.
(by not paying hhc/property tax)

The very reason they don't seem to be keen to deduct from source basically confirms it to me.

You did not give any valid reason (in fact you gave none) as to how my thoughts were wrong.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

You did not give any valid reason (in fact you gave none) as to how my thoughts were wrong.

I gave you a number of examples of where deductons are already made at source - for taxes owed and for other money owed, with court orders and without court orders.

You seem to this that the fact that the tax derives from property ownership it makes sone difference, but you haven't pointed to what the substantial difference is. As I already pointed out, we have previously had a property tax in this country.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

I made a few points as how to how deducting at source, and how threats of not being able to transfer property (by placing a lien on the property) may go against the constitution.

Placing a lien on a property is already a very common practice - do you think it unconstitutional?

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

Placing a lien on a property is already a very common practice - do you think it unconstitutional?

We know its in place ref mortgages.
Its not common place ref a property Tax, not in this county.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

We know its in place ref mortgages.
Its not common place ref a property Tax, not in this county.

So, in summary.
Liens on property are constitutional.
Property tax is constitutional
Deductons from source are constitutional.

Glad we cleared that up.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

So, in summary.
Liens on property are constitutional.
Property tax is constitutional
Deductons from source are constitutional.

Glad we cleared that up.

We haven't cleared it up though.

Please explain how its within the constitution to deduct from source, and you can be prevented from selling/transferring property by not paying a property tax?

You're telling me it is, yet not explaining how it is.

Hijpo

Hijpo wrote: »

what would be a right money saving project would be cut dail numbers to 80 and cap all TD's salaries at 100k and 80k for ministers half there allowances and tax exemptions and give them a modest pension.
that might even get rid of the rest of the greedy scum only there for the salary and pension that enables them to retire at 55. then if you get into politics its because you have an interest in running the country and take **** seriously instead of bickering like a class of 3rd year secondry school students before sitting down with them for a pint in the bar afterwards in your place of work.
how many days in the year do they sit in the dail again?

lugha wrote: »

No it would not

lmao so cutting numbers, pay and pensions would not save money?

:rolleyes:

You are so out of touch with the average workers way of living its not even funny and thats most of the problem with them up there in the dail. They are all out of touch with reality i can see your reply alread
"the reality is we have a deficit"

Who created this gap in income versus expenditure?

Is it the Home owners who work, who pump money into the coffers through a massive number of taxes charges and levies for little return? Is it the people who take care of there own house and dont cost there local council a fortune? is it the people who pay for all the books and uniforms and supplies for there kids going to school? Is it the people who do there best to fend for themselfs financialy?

or is it the long term spoungers with no incentive to get work? the massive salaries, pensions, allowances and tax exemptions? is it the amount of pen pushers in the HSE? is it the number of salary caps that are broken? is it the amount of money being wasted to store electronic voting machines? is the amount of money being spent on silk ties? is the amount of money being spent on trips away by TD's and a hand full of ministers with advisors and secretaries? is it money they use to translations of official documents into Irish aswell as having in-house translation services?

It would be interesting to see how much the average working home owner payes to the state and compare it to how much the average working home owner costs the state.

Who here, who works and owns a home, knows exactly what they are entitled to by way of benefits etc etc?
and how many would be givin a straight answer if they enquired about it in there social welfare?
how many would be given the run around with stories of lost documents etc?

lugha

steve9859 wrote: »

It would have more than just PR value. If TD's were to publicly cut back the gravy train, the HHC I think would sail through, given that the government would be fighting from the moral high ground. And the battle with the unions would be made significantly easier.

Well this is what I would call PR value.

Hijpo wrote: »

lmao so cutting numbers, pay and pensions would not save money?

Let me remind you of what you said in the post I quoted.

Hijpo wrote: »

what would be a right money saving project would be cut dail numbers to 80 and cap all TD's salaries at 100k and 80k for ministers half there allowances and tax exemptions and give them a modest pension.

Of course any cuts will save some money but I dispute that it is “a right money saving project” in the context of the adjustments we need to make. Have you numbers to suggest otherwise?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

We haven't cleared it up though.

Please explain how its within the constitution to deduct from source, and you can be prevented from selling/transferring property by not paying a property tax?

You're telling me it is, yet not explaining how it is.

Your not seriouly asking me to show you a specific clause in the constitution that allows deduction at source? - if you are then you misunderstand what the constitution is.

Art 43.2 deals with limits on private property rights.

tayto lover

Quote:
Originally Posted by tayto lover
I am on my own side lugha. I am not part of a concerted campaign and never have been. I attended no meetings and read very little literature about it. I am not paying because I see it as an attack on my home. An attack on people who did the state a favour by being productive and not claiming from it. Working hard and paying a mortgage should not be punishable by extra taxes being heaped on you. I will stand up for what I believe in and I see myself as having nothing in common with the likes of Mick Wallace or for that matter Phil Hogan.
That’s super tayto but has you completely evaded the two substantial points I put to you.

1. How can you criticize Mick Wallace who evaded VAT in order to keep his operation afloat and his employees in work and simultaneously be critical of the fact that this exact course of action was not taken with Target Express?
2. How can you criticize Mick Wallace for evading a state sanctioned charge (VAT) when you are doing exactly the same thing (HHC)?

I think you will find that the bould Mick and his son secretly took a lot of money out of the business before the S*** hit the fan. I have always paid my taxes up to this but this is a bridge too far. I own my home completely now and owe nothing to anyone. I have not hidden any part of it or put it in another name to evade anything. Unlike you i don't see the HHC as fair as it's aimed at MY home, as I keep telling you, while there are many others in society who have no charge directed at where they live.
I have already acknowledged that I would pay extra income tax but not a tax aimed at my home. That's still my stance and it won't be changing. Like Enda I believe it to be unjust and unfair but unlike Enda I will not be changing like the wind.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

I don't think you do. Can you provide it?

By Charlie Weston and Fiach Kelly

Tuesday August 28 2012
647 Comments


FINANCE Minister Michael Noonan is facing a series of major headaches in his urgent drive to get the new property tax introduced on time.
Mr Noonan admitted for the first time last night that PAYE workers will have the tax deducted direct from their pay packets.

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

Well this is what I would call PR value.


Let me remind you of what you said in the post I quoted.

Of course any cuts will save some money but I dispute that it is “a right money saving project” in the context of the adjustments we need to make. Have you numbers to suggest otherwise?

yeah i said "a right money saving project" i didnt say the one and only project and i said "a right" in the context of it being a good money saving project not "the only right" project.

I know there is a deficit, im simply implying that cutting the burden on the coffers instead of taxing people to the hilt should be the number one priority. When we get to an acceptable level of saving then look at taxation/charges/levies because all that will happen now is a couple of cuts here and there will free up some money and the money taken in taxes will be the majority or the funding for the deficit which will then put the rest of the cuts on hold because they will be on the road to recovery through taxation and not helped by the cuts that are needed.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

I think you will find that the bould Mick and his son secretly took a lot of money out of the business before the S*** hit the fan.

Really? I didn’t hear anything about illegal business practices. In any case, the reason Mick got himself into bother was because he did not pay his VAT. And his claim was that he did so to save his business and the associated jobs, something you argue should have been done with Target Express. You haven’t reconciled these views so you have not addressed by first point

tayto lover wrote: »

I have always paid my taxes up to this …..

And on you go about why you think you are justified in refusing to pay your taxes. I am not disputing that you really believe your justifications have validity. I am asking how you can then go on to criticise someone else who also believed themselves to be justified in refusing to pay their taxes. So you have not addressed by second point either.

hijpo wrote: »

yeah i said "a right money saving project" i didnt say the one and only project and i said "a right" in the context of it being a good money saving project not "the only right" project.

Yes this is how you interpreted what you said; a right good measure meaning a seriously good measure. But it isn’t. The savings are (comparatively) trivial.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Really? I didn’t hear anything about illegal business practices. In any case, the reason Mick got himself into bother was because he did not pay his VAT. And his claim was that he did so to save his business and the associated jobs, something you argue should have been done with Target Express. You haven’t reconciled these views so you have not addressed by first point

And on you go about why you think you are justified in refusing to pay your taxes. I am not disputing that you really believe your justifications have validity. I am asking how you can then go on to criticise someone else who also believed themselves to be justified in refusing to pay their taxes. So you have not addressed by second point either.

Yes this is how you interpreted what you said; a right good measure meaning a seriously good measure. But it isn’t. The savings are (comparatively) trivial.

You need to read up on the Mick Wallace thing then. There was "crookery" involved.
With regard to Target Express you also need to read up on it. They would have been able to pay given time and 400 would not be on the dole eating up more taxes instead of contributing to the tax base. They were willing and able to pay if given time. We all get behind in our bills at times.
My stance on the HHC/Property Tax does NOT involve hiding anything or "crookery". I am completely up-front about my reasons for not paying. I will not pay a tax on my own home which I alone provided and maintained but especially when the tax is only being directed at homeowners.
You can reword your question and come back as often as you like but you will get the same answer. It is unjust and unfair.

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

My stance on the HHC/Property Tax does NOT involve hiding anything or "crookery".

It involves both. Hiding by not registering and 'crookery' by not paying.

Don't fool yourself into thinking you're not breaking the law.

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

Yes this is how you interpreted what you said; a right good measure meaning a seriously good measure. But it isn’t. The savings are (comparatively) trivial.

So you think those cuts shouldnt be made because they wont save 1billion straight away?

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

It involves both. Hiding by not registering and 'crookery' by not paying.

Don't fool yourself into thinking you're not breaking the law.

In this case it will not worry my conscience one bit whereas ordinarily if I felt it was wrong it would worry me.
There now.

Am Chile

darkhorse wrote: »

By Charlie Weston and Fiach Kelly

Tuesday August 28 2012
647 Comments


FINANCE Minister Michael Noonan is facing a series of major headaches in his urgent drive to get the new property tax introduced on time.
Mr Noonan admitted for the first time last night that PAYE workers will have the tax deducted direct from their pay packets.

Mixed messages on this PAYE deduction yesterdays report gave the Impression deduction from source was compulsory, meanwhile a report in the Irish times had this to say.

Meanwhile,
it emerged yesterday that householders will be given the option of paying
their property tax directly to the Revenue Commissioners or having it deducted
at source if they are PAYE taxpayers, according to Government
sources.

Householders
are expected to be given the option of paying the charge directly to the Revenue
in a lump sum or instalments.

Those
who are PAYE taxpayers are likely to be offered the choice of having the tax
deducted at source but they will not be obliged to pay it in that
fashion

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0829/1224323185230.html.

darkhorse

Am Chile wrote: »

Mixed messages on this PAYE deduction yesterdays report gave the Impression deduction from source was compulsory, meanwhile a report in the Irish times had this to say.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0829/1224323185230.html.

I wiil have to stand with the indo. on this one, A.C., as Noonan posed for a photo for the indo.