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

lugha

ncdadam wrote: »

No, I'm just wondering if it would be possible to tax these too, there's supposed to be €140 billion in savings in Ireland, twice what is normal for a country of our size.
DIRT only taxes the interest, I'm wondering should we not tax the principle, it might encourage people to spend some of the money in our domestic economy and maybe start creating some jobs etc etc.
Now I know people will jump on me here about the run's on the banks and all that but we could bring in a law stopping this happening. Anything's possible when it comes to the banks you know.
As far as I know DIRT is liable on savings abroad too so it would be a natural extension of this.

What has any of this got to do with the morality of taxing a person's home? Or did you quote my post by mistake?

darkhorse

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You're one of the ones asking for workers increments to be stopped.
/QUOTE]

If I am, its only because of the fact that we are in the biggest economic crises in the history of the state.

ncdadam

donalg1 wrote: »

ncdadam wrote: »

Nope. But if someone wants to turn €100 into €2000 for me I won't be on facebook crying about it. I'd be absolutely delighted.

Isn't it a great country we live in, a magical country even.
I mean if we pay €100, just €100 to the government we get all these things for free.
College grants, education, roads, lighting etc etc and add to that we get to pay the 'elite' in the councils more money than the prime ministers of first world countries.
How long donal me auld flower do you think the HHC will be €100?
How long donal do you think the proposed property tax will be 'only a couple of hundred euro's?'
Will you still be happy donal when the property tax is €1000, €2000 or €5,000?
Because, and you can mark this post and come back to it in 5 years and see if I'm right, that's where it's heading.
And you can add to that increased income tax and a myriad of other taxes.
I hope you're still gainfully employed then donal and you get a good few increments before then, because you're going to need them.

ncdadam

lugha wrote: »

What has any of this got to do with the morality of taxing a person's home? Or did you quote my post by mistake?

The property tax is a tax on an asset and you guys are all for taxing asset's.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

Ah, this again! Has anyone managed to figure out yet why it is immoral to tax a person’s home.

Yeah, it has been explained to you here on this forum, by several people, over the past couple of months, but you constantly keep asking the same question over and over again. Now, if you have a problem remembering things, I would suggest that you take notes.

donalg1

donalg1 wrote: »

Nope. But if someone wants to turn €100 into €2000 for me I won't be on facebook crying about it. I'd be absolutely delighted.

ncdadam wrote: »

Isn't it a great country we live in, a magical country even.
I mean if we pay €100, just €100 to the government we get all these things for free.
College grants, education, roads, lighting etc etc and add to that we get to pay the 'elite' in the councils more money than the prime ministers of first world countries.
How long donal me auld flower do you think the HHC will be €100?
How long donal do you think the proposed property tax will be 'only a couple of hundred euro's?'
Will you still be happy donal when the property tax is €1000, €2000 or €5,000?
Because, and you can mark this post and come back to it in 5 years and see if I'm right, that's where it's heading.
And you can add to that increased income tax and a myriad of other taxes.
I hope you're still gainfully employed then donal and you get a good few increments before then, because you're going to need them.

€5000 really well that's a bit far fetched now would love to see where you it that from. Or even the €1000.

I don't get increments but don't worry the property tax won't reach 5000 so ill be ok.

She is asking for a couple of grand they are asking for 100 in return again she is getting a good deal if you ask me.

lugha

ncdadam wrote: »

The property tax is a tax on an asset and you guys are all for taxing asset's.

Well if it immoral to tax the asset that is your family home then surely you must think it is immoral to tax any asset?

And, as you point out, deposits ARE taxed on the interest that accrues on them. Actually dipping into the principle itself (all the many difficulties of such a law aside) strikes me as a bit iffy.

It would amount IMO to seizing private assets, which might be a tad unconstitutional. But again, we need the legal dudes to answer this.

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

Why its basically saying you give us 100 and we will give you back 2000.

Thats a little bit naive of you, donal.

ncdadam

donalg1 wrote: »

ncdadam wrote: »

€5000 really well that's a bit far fetched now would love to see where you it that from. Or even the €1000.

I don't get increments but don't worry the property tax won't reach 5000 so ill be ok.

She is asking for a couple of grand they are asking for 100 in return again she is getting a good deal if you ask me.

As I said, mark that post and we'll see in 5 years where it's at.
Some people on here constantly quote the UK, dx for one, and the fact that some people he knows pay well over £2000 sterling. Convert that to euro's and put the Irish way of doing things on it and within 3 years I can easily see the property tax being around the €3k mark.
Oh yea, we still wont get what they get for their money.

lugha

darkhorse wrote: »

Yeah, it has been explained to you here on this forum, by several people, over the past couple of months, but you constantly keep asking the same question over and over again. Now, if you have a problem remembering things, I would suggest that you take notes.

I have indeed asked over and over again. Alas, no one has been able to answer.

All you guys have is that Enda said it 18 years ago! Pity he did say it because if he hadn't, you would all be only too happy to pay! :pac:

But I like this new approach to the debate you are taking. Pretend you have answered a question when we both clearly know that you have not! :P

ncdadam

lugha wrote: »

Well if it immoral to tax the asset that is your family home then surely you must think it is immoral to tax any asset?

And, as you point out, deposits ARE taxed on the interest that accrues on them. Actually dipping into the principle itself (all the many difficulties of such a law aside) strikes me as a bit iffy.

It would amount IMO to seizing private assets, which might be a tad unconstitutional. But again, we need the legal dudes to answer this.

Sorry, I posed the question on the 'property tax rate' thread and was called all sorts.
I think it should be a runner for 3 years maybe, a kind of emergency tax until we reduce the deficit.

Jellicoe

darkhorse wrote: »

If I am, its only because of the fact that we are in the biggest economic crises in the history of the state.

Caused by ordinary workers increments ? lol

Ordindary workers money that ends up being paid back to the state in taxes and levies, and then on goods and services in the private sector. You're mad.

bgrizzley

Valetta wrote: »

Think you would need to brush up on your knowledge of tax laws and not be posting potentially defamatory statements.

:rolleyes:
car tax, train fares anyone.

darkhorse

Ghandee wrote: »

Alternative, no college grant, kid doesn't go to college, years on the dole, state provided house, etc etc etc.

Someone, somewhere didn't think that one through.

Most likely a scare tactic hoax I'd say.

Funny enough, this person that was on the panel on the frontline tonight was of the opinion that if someone could'nt pay for college tuition, then they should'nt be allowed go to college. Yeah, what a pleasent woman she was. I bet there are people here on boards that would share her sentiment of not agreeing with the grant system.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

Funny enough, this person that was on the panel on the frontline tonight was of the opinion that if someone could'nt pay for college tuition, then they should'nt be allowed go to college. Yeah, what a pleasent woman she was. I bet there are people here on boards that would share her sentiment of not agreeing with the grant system.

ncdadam?

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

The hhc is supposed to he used for local services provided by the council, the grant is a service provided by the council. What's not to understand

They include: fire and emergency services; maintenance and cleaning of streets; planning and development; public parks; street lighting; libraries; open spaces and leisure amenities. These facilities benefit everyone.

Can you spot whats missing?
Not everyone benefits from college grants, i dont, and that there is another reason not to pay the HHC. Apparently your paying for services you are not entitled to.

Jellicoe

donalg1 wrote: »

The hhc is supposed to he used for local services provided by the council, the grant is a service provided by the council. What's not to understand.

Supposed to be, but instead, as Fiasco Phil well knows, its being used to pay off the private gambling debts of wealthy speculators and bondholders. What's not to understand about people not being stupid enough to pay for this 200 billion euro scam.

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

Why its basically saying you give us 100 and we will give you back 2000. I fail to see the disgraceful part, seems quite nice to me.

I can't really the signature at the bottom of that letter offering to turn 100 into 2000, but, donal, it looks like

---

B Madoff

ncdadam

dvpower wrote: »

ncdadam?

What are you talking about?
I questioned why the wealthy were getting college grants, not the poorer.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

Well if it immoral to tax the asset that is your family home then surely you must think it is immoral to tax any asset?

And, as you point out, deposits ARE taxed on the interest that accrues on them. Actually dipping into the principle itself (all the many difficulties of such a law aside) strikes me as a bit iffy.

It would amount IMO to seizing private assets, which might be a tad unconstitutional. But again, we need the legal dudes to answer this.

Yet, you seem to have no problem in justifying the governments position on actually making it legal to seize the money from people in order to pay a tax on a private dwelling (or asset, as some people on this thread keeps refering to my home) even though I would have paid a generous amount of stamp duty, as I am sure a lot of people did, which, by the way, was a tax levied on the transaction.
Oh, yes, I do think it immoral that I should have to pay tax on any asset that I already paid tax on, don't you?

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

All you guys have is that Enda said it 18 years ago! Pity he did say it because if he hadn't, you would all be only too happy to pay! :pac:

I am being on the level with you, lugha, when I tell you that the first time I ever heard this quote from enda kenny was here on boards.ie about three or four weeks ago.

darkhorse

Well, guys, this upgrade on my broadband is just wow. My eyes are rolling around in my head from reading the posts so fast . If ye had a cam on me you could nearly see the smoke coming from my keyboard. I better head off now, her indoors is calling me. G'night all.

dvpower

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0918/clare-students-household.html

It appears that that college grant story has some truth to it.

lugha

darkhorse wrote: »

Yet, you seem to have no problem in justifying the governments position on actually making it legal to seize the money from people in order to pay a tax on a private dwelling (or asset, as some people on this thread keeps refering to my home) even though I would have paid a generous amount of stamp duty, as I am sure a lot of people did, which, by the way, was a tax levied on the transaction.

Your house generates an income of about €10K on average (taking about €850) as an average rent. If the property tax exceeds this amount then I think it would be similar to taking a chunk of someone’s saving (as opposed to tax on the income those savings generate in interest accrued). But I don’t think the property tax will be €10K!

Anyway, I am only speculating that it would be unconstitutional (right to property and all that). Perhaps it would be perfectly koscher.

Also, on the stamp duty thing, a point which I don’t think has been made is that had stamp duty being abolished, it is quite likely that the developers would up their prices by an equivalent amount and made (and lost!) even more money.

darkhorse wrote: »

Oh, yes, I do think it immoral that I should have to pay tax on any asset that I already paid tax on, don't you?

If you bought a house to let you would pay tax on the income you earn, even though you have already paid tax when buying the house. And yet you hear little about how immoral it is those with more than one house are being hit with NPPR tax. Surely this tax is also immoral?

Ditto if you bought or built up a business, paying all your taxes as you go, and possibly without any help from the state, you would still be taxed on the income your business generates. Immoral?

If you had bought a car, you would have paid a nice chunk of VAT / VRT at the time of purchase but you would still pay heavily on an ongoing basis in motor tax, duty on fuel etc. And while some of this money raised is spent on services to motorists (road maintenance etc.) a sizable portion is not. Surely requiring motorists to pay extra tax, beyond what they get back in services, is also immoral?

Etc. Etc.

So I’m afraid having paid tax on it already does nor really set your home apart. So my question as to why it is immoral remains unanswered. (Cos Enda K. says so is not a great reason! Enda is not God, he is not even the pope! :pac:)

crusher000

The decision to cut back on the services due to the short fall in payment of the HHC is a joke. Heard from a reliable source that the rate of payment is actually higher than what is being reported. There is a back log in the processing of the payments. They paid their HHC in March and still wasn't taken from their account by August. They paid by credit card and eventually rang the relelvant department to find out why they weren't charged. Explained back log of over 5000 in processing the payment. The minister is making a call on cuts on the basis of processed payments and not actual payments. This again is another smoke screen to justify cutting services despite they being paid for by the majority. FG/Labour the wolves in lamb clothing.

donalg1

donalg1 wrote: »

Why its basically saying you give us 100 and we will give you back 2000.

darkhorse wrote: »

Thats a little bit naive of you, donal.

How so

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0918/clare-students-household.html

It appears that that college grant story has some truth to it.

FG are playing with fire i think.

From the constitution.

The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

Educational services is not listed in the HHC, so they're shifting the goalposts if you ask me.

Might come back to haunt them, this may do the govt a lot more harm than good.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

FG are playing with fire i think.

From the constitution.



Educational services is not listed in the HHC, so they're shifting the goalposts if you ask me.

Might come back to haunt them, this may do the govt a lot more harm than good.

The processing of grant applications is a council service, regardless of whether it was listed on the HHC documentation - no list of services is listed in the actual legislation.

Anyway, what has this to do with FG? - it looks like an executive decision by the council.

lugha

dvpower wrote: »

The processing of grant applications is a council service, regardless of whether it was listed on the HHC documentation - no list of services is listed in the actual legislation.

Anyway, what has this to do with FG? - it looks like an executive decision by the council.

Which does not appear to be a council controlled by government parties.

Dub XV

lugha wrote: »

Also, on the stamp duty thing, a point which I don’t think has been made is that had stamp duty being abolished, it is quite likely that the developers would up their prices by an equivalent amount and made (and lost!) even more money.

I don't see any relevance in your point.


That's speculation and doesn't make any difference to people who already paid thousands upon thousands.