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

Heroditas

dvpower wrote: »

That's it in a nutshell - less incentive to work, more expensive to create jobs.

The government are doing something about it - choosing property taxation over tax on labour or tax on consumption.

How is increasing income tax making it more expensive to create jobs?
Unless the employer increases the gross salary, the overall cost to them is the same.
The problem, in my opinion anyway, is therefore the "benefits" from not working.

One of the pillars for introducing this tax is it's supposed to broaden the tax base - that won't be the case unless everyone pays. It's still money that gets deducted from those who are gainfully employed and earning over a certain threshold. It's just getting taken away in a different form.

I realise the country's finances are in the toilet.
I know that money is needed in one form or another.
I know that there is still a lot of waste in expenditure.
Do I like the property tax? Hell no, but I reckon we're all going to have to cough up money in some form or another over the next few years and I'm preparing for that.

However, I don't agree with the "broadening of the tax base" argument. From past experience and also from the registrations to date of the household charge, it'll just be the same old people who pay this extra amount to the government. That's not broadening the tax base. It's just rearranging it.

Also, there is no difference in taking home €100 a week and then paying out €10 in a tax after that and taking home €90 .... you're still left with the €90.
It's not as if the tax is discretionary.

donalg1

dvpower wrote: »

How is social welfare an incentive to do some overtime, to go for a promotion, to try and achieve a bonus?

You have a very narrow view of what an incentive to work is.

Incentive to work mostly comes down to money, as do all the examples you gave above. Grand if you have a job then there is an incentive to work harder in order to gain promotion, do some overtime or achieve a bonus.

The unemployed need an incentive to accept a job offer, if you increase income tax then there will be less money in their pocket at the end of the week so this is a disincentive. If I was unemployed and was receiving say 25k a year in benefits from the state, and was offered a job with a salary of 22k there is no incentive for me to work then. The welfare system here is probably one of the major obstacles when it comes to generating employment. Even if in the above example I was offered 25k per annum I would have to give it some thought especially if I was faced with the real possibility of an increase in income tax.

I have no idea what sort of salary would encourage someone on Social Welfare to take up an offer of a job, but I do believe the incentive to work has to come the other way, as in if you stay on Social Welfare for a certain amount of time your benefits are cut, that is more of an incentive to work imo.

dvpower

Heroditas wrote: »

How is increasing income tax making it more expensive to create jobs?
Unless the employer increases the gross salary, the overall cost to them is the same.
The problem, in my opinion anyway, is therefore the "benefits" from not working.

One of the pillars for introducing this tax is it's supposed to broaden the tax base - that won't be the case unless everyone pays. It's still money that gets deducted from those who are gainfully employed and earning over a certain threshold. It's just getting taken away in a different form.

I realise the country's finances are in the toilet.
I know that money is needed in one form or another.
I know that there is still a lot of waste in expenditure.
Do I like the property tax? Hell no, but I reckon we're all going to have to cough up money in some form or another over the next few years and I'm preparing for that.

However, I don't agree with the "broadening of the tax base" argument. From past experience and also from the registrations to date of the household charge, it'll just be the same old people who pay this extra amount to the government. That's not broadening the tax base. It's just rearranging it.

Also, there is no difference in taking home €100 a week and then paying out €10 in a tax after that and taking home €90 .... you're still left with the €90.
It's not as if the tax is discretionary.

Increasing income tax puts upward pressure on wages - you identified that yourself.

Introducing a property tax does broaden the tax base; the property tax will apply to those not paying income tax at all (and this includes a lot if people in Ireland who are gainfully employed) and even non resident owners of property in the state. It is also less volatile - its yield will be very predictable, much more so than Income tax.

Heroditas

dvpower wrote: »

the property tax will apply to those not paying income tax at all (and this includes a lot if people in Ireland who are gainfully employed)

I'll believe it when I see it.
Currently €100 is tolerated but once the amount increases, you can be sure the bleeding heart brigade will be out in force ensuring vast swathes of the population are excluded.

EDIT: however, people are still left with the same amount whether the money is deducted via a charge or at source through income tax.
Most people look at gross salaries, not take-home pay so I'm still unconvinced that % increases in income tax put more upward pressure on salaries compared to a charge that reduces net discretionary spending money.

ncdadam

dvpower wrote: »

That's it in a nutshell - less incentive to work, more expensive to create jobs.

The government are doing something about it - choosing property taxation over tax on labour or tax on consumption.

At the same time then the welfare rates should be cut.
No loss of incentive then.

dvpower

Heroditas wrote: »

I'll believe it when I see it.
Currently €100 is tolerated but once the amount increases, you can be sure the bleeding heart brigade will be out in force ensuring vast swathes of the population are excluded.

I'm sure the government will come under pressure to introduce all kinds of exemptions - which I hope they resist.
In other jurisdictions they allow the tax to be deferred for elderly people who are asset rich but cash poor, so that it comes out of their estate.

dvpower

ncdadam wrote: »

At the same time then the welfare rates should be cut.
No loss of incentive then.

There are many ways to incentivise work - social welfare rates are one, income tax rates another.

Why limit the options?

dvpower

Heroditas wrote: »

.

EDIT: however, people are still left with the same amount whether the money is deducted via a charge or at source through income tax.
Most people look at gross salaries, not take-home pay so I'm still unconvinced that % increases in income tax put more upward pressure on salaries compared to a charge that reduces net discretionary spending money.

Deducting it at source is only using the PAYE system as a collection mechanism, it doesn't make it behave in any way like income tax so, for example, if you do some overtime, you won't pay property tax on it, but you would pay income tax. So income tax disincentives me to do overtime, but property tax doesn't.

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

Leo's reasons = economic
Enda's = moral.

You're not making sense at this stage lugha, time to give it up, stop back tracking.

Let me remind me of the question that I put to, which you are struggling to answer

lugha wrote: »

Once again, why do you think (as opposed to feel) it is moral to tax your livelihood but immoral to tax your home?

You will note that I asked for the moral arguments, and not the economic or any other sort, against property tax.

So far, the sum total of your arguments is that Enda Kenny said so, not argued so mind, said so, nearly 20 years ago!

Surely you have something you can add yourself?

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

Let me remind me of the question that I put to, which you are struggling to answer



You will note that I asked for the moral arguments, and not the economic or any other sort, against property tax.

So far, the sum total of your arguments is that Enda Kenny said so, not argued so mind, said so, nearly 20 years ago!

Surely you have something you can add yourself?

Hows about this?

It is morally wrong to demand a charge for a person to continue to live in their 100% private and indepedently paid for home especially when they have saved the state over how many years by not demanding social housing.

They demand this from us after propping up banks that should have been left to fail, and after paying out billions to bond holders they were not obliged to pay out.

I can see you now, about to hammer out on your keyboard that the bank bailout is a tiny sum in the overall picture, but define tiny?

How much do they hope to achieve from the HHC and property taxes per year?
Then tell me how much was wasted on the failed banks (that are now screwing the people that bailed them out) and how much has been, and continues to be paid to bondholders that the Govt were not 'morally' or legally obliged to pay out to?

Had they of refused, they could have been running a smaller deficit (to the tune of 1.6 Billion for Sept-Oct of this year alone), how many years of property tax will that equate to?

You now tell me how it is morally right to threaten a family out of their privately paid for home, whilst the govt hand over billions to unnamed faceless aristocrats in secret countries?

They've their priorities ciompletely back to front imo.

Heroditas

dvpower wrote: »

Deducting it at source is only using the PAYE system as a collection mechanism, it doesn't make it behave in any way like income tax so, for example, if you do some overtime, you won't pay property tax on it, but you would pay income tax. So income tax disincentives me to do overtime, but property tax doesn't.

Sorry, no I was referring to an increase in income tax, not the household charge being collected at source.
I do appreciate the statement about overtime though.
However, not everyone gets paid overtime for extra work. I do take your point though.

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

It is morally wrong to demand a charge for a person to continue to live in their 100% private and independently paid for home especially when they have saved the state over how many years by not demanding social housing.

Whataboutery wrote: »

It is morally wrong to demand a charge for a person to continue to live by their 100% private and independently paid for livelihood especially when they have saved the state over how many years by not demanding social welfare.

You assert the first claim but presumably reject the second? The truth is that the first feels wrong because it’s a foreign notion in this country but the second feels ok because we are familiar with it.

Ghandee wrote: »

They demand this from us after propping up banks ….

None of this specifically relates to the immorality of property tax. You could argue that each and every austerity measure we did have and will have to ensure is immoral using this same argument. In which case the question remains, is there some further reason that sets a tax on the home apart?

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

You assert the first claim but presumably reject the second? The truth is that the first feels wrong because it’s a foreign notion in this country but the second feels ok because we are familiar with it.



None of this specifically relates to the immorality of property tax. You could argue that each and every austerity measure we did have and will have to ensure is immoral using this same argument. In which case the question remains, is there some further reason that sets a tax on the home apart?

You seem to be the one 'struggling' now Lugha.

You have not answered me.

You now tell me how it is morally right to threaten a family out of their privately paid for home, whilst the govt hand over billions to unnamed faceless aristocrats in secret countries?

I'm looking forward to reading your justification of this one.

ncdadam

dvpower wrote: »

There are many ways to incentivise work - social welfare rates are one, income tax rates another.

Why limit the options?

FG have limited the options by continually refusing to raise the higher tax rate.

dvpower

ncdadam wrote: »

FG have limited the options by continually refusing to raise the higher tax rate.

... but not the bands and credits.

ncdadam

dvpower wrote: »

... but not the bands and credits.

So would you call that a rise in income tax by the back door then?

ncdadam

Ghandee wrote: »

You seem to be the one 'struggling' now Lugha.

You have not answered me.



I'm looking forward to reading your justification of this one.

You will be told that the HHC has nothing to do with it even though the world and her mother can see that these new taxes are being brought in to keep the troika happy e.g. not default on any bonds.

Ireland isn't allowed to 'rock the boat' as they say and we will implement whatever the ECB, the troika and the EU tell us to.

A 'full' member of the EU?
Not a chance, a servile member of the EU more like.

dvpower

ncdadam wrote: »

So would you call that a rise in income tax by the back door then?

No. But someone who wasn't paying attention might.

Hijpo

they will start to charge you for manky water after this

http://tinyurl.com/9387tzf

ncdadam

dvpower wrote: »

No. But someone who wasn't paying attention might.

So is it or isn't it a rise in income tax?

Curious to know your take on that.

dvpower

ncdadam wrote: »

So is it or isn't it a rise in income tax?

Curious to know your take on that.

A cut in a tax credit or a widening of bands results in an increase in the income tax a person pays.
What do you not understand?

ncdadam

dvpower wrote: »

A cut in a tax credit or a widening of bands results in an increase in the income tax a person pays.
What do you not understand?

Na, it'll be funny watching noonan tell us in the budget that there is no rise in income tax as promised in the programme for government while at the same time cutting tax credits and widening tax bands.

That's all.

FG double speak, we hear a lot of it from government and I see a lot of it on this site.

dvpower

ncdadam wrote: »

Na, it'll be funny watching noonan tell us in the budget that there is no rise in income tax as promised in the programme for government while at the same time cutting tax credits and widening tax bands.

That's all.

FG double speak, we hear a lot of it from government and see a lot of it on this site.

The promise was not to increase the rates, no?

ncdadam

dvpower wrote: »

The promise was not to increase the rates, no?

The difference being?

Double talk that's all.

dvpower

ncdadam wrote: »

The difference being?

Double talk that's all.

You still don't know the difference between rates, bands and credits?

Have a look on the Revenue website - there are some leaflets on there that explain it all in a very simple way.

ncdadam

dvpower wrote: »

You still don't know the difference between rates, bands and credits?

Have a look on the Revenue website - there are some leaflets on their that explain it all in a very simple way.

Loving the condescending tone.
Seems to suit you.

Mind you don't get infracted again.

dvpower

ncdadam wrote: »

Loving the condescending tone.
Seems to suit you.

Mind you don't get infracted again.

No need to take it personally - I'm only trying to help you.

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

You seem to be the one 'struggling' now Lugha.

Now? Who was struggling before? :P

Ghandee wrote: »

You now tell me how it is morally right to threaten a family out of their privately paid for home, whilst the govt hand over billions to unnamed faceless aristocrats in secret countries?

I'm looking forward to reading your justification of this one.

I don’t need to. Once again, you are getting tangled in your own arguments. You are attempting to argue that there is a moral argument against property tax, one that doesn’t apply to for example, income tax.

You are arguing that it is morally wrong to pay off some bad guys by introducing a property tax, the consequences of which are that you will “threaten a family out of a private home”.

Is it not equally morally wrong to pay off some bad guys by increasing income tax, the consequences of which are that you will “threaten a family out of a private home”?

Well I fail to see how you can argue one is moral and the other is not, so one more time: why exactly is it immoral to tax a home, and not income?

Heroditas

dvpower wrote: »

ncdadam wrote: »

Na, it'll be funny watching noonan tell us in the budget that there is no rise in income tax as promised in the programme for government while at the same time cutting tax credits and widening tax bands.

That's all.

FG double speak, we hear a lot of it from government and see a lot of it on this site.

The promise was not to increase the rates, no?

HERE he says....

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): As the Deputy is aware, the Programme for Government states that as part of the Government’s fiscal strategy we will maintain the current rates of income tax together with bands and credits. This commitment was delivered in Budget 2012. As I have stated many times before in the House, the Programme for Government sets out our strategy in this matter and, subject to agreement with the Troika, we intend to continue to deliver on these commitments.

18th April 2012

tayto lover

If you pay more tax and have less than you did in your wage packet then it's a Tax hike.