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

darkhorse

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

It's an investment for the future!!
We'll get a decent sustainable tax base out of this (and it's capable of ultimately bridging at least 10% of our current budget deficit) assuming we can get it up to a reasonable level (say Eur1k per annum).

Also assuming that there will be anyone with that kind of disposable income left that you talk about.

Izzy Skint

lugha wrote: »

This reality and the fact that our immediate problem (with the emphasis on OUR) is our deficit has been pointed out dozens of times at this stage, yet you can be sure a page won't go by without some one coming out with the dross that all these adjustments are to "pay off bondholders"

Now it is possible that they are all trolling or maybe are very, very, very slow learners but I doubt it. I suspect that they simply can't face the reality that we have a deficit that equates to of the order of €10K per worker (NOT per household), which is about 20 property taxes!

Unfortunately, Egyptian rivers will do nothing to solve our problems. So the refrain will go on. If big Phil would f**k right off and the Troika would do likewise, our problems will vanish.

I wonder what, if anything, you could do to get them to engage in even a little reality?

Lugha, my public sector comrade, answer me this ......govt. spending almost doubled between 2000 and 2009, where has the money gone?.....what was it spent on ???....I can't see any improvements in health, education, services etc....

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

darkhorse wrote: »

Let us just look at this statement. Are you telling me that if I got a LA house, that I would be paying the above mentioned figure? I doubt that very much.

€850 is ball park average rent for a 3 bedroom semi. You may pay more or less depending on what you rent and where. But of course you don't have to pay rent because you have a house.

Why you can't quite see that one of the advantages (which can be measured in a euro amount) of having your own house is that you do not pay rent, an out-going that otherwise you would have to pay, is to put it very mildly, puzzling. I would have though it is kind of obvious?

We dont pay rent, we pay a mortgage that for many is more than 850 aswell as house insurance and life insurance all of which carry levies that go to the government. Then there is the maintanance of our homes that is coverd by ourselfs. Surely the government make more money off home owners than they do from tennants either private or LA.

lugha

Izzy Skint wrote: »

......govt. spending almost doubled between 2000 and 2009, where has the money gone?.....what was it spent on ???....I can't see any improvements in health, education, services etc....

It was spent on many things. There are some improvements in services, transport infrastructure for example. Social welfare rates were raised. Public sector wages went up (the fault of the private sector needless to say! ) and yes, public sector numbers went up. And don’t forget that personal taxes were cut during this time too.

Now who benefits from all of this. All workers benefited from the tax cuts. All citizens benefited from the improvement in services, how ever little you think there were of them. And private sector workers, or the ones unfortunate enough to be made redundant, are now benefiting from generous welfare rates. So your constituency did not do all that badly out of what went on during the boom.

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

We dont pay rent, we pay a mortgage that for many is more than 850 aswell as house insurance and life insurance all of which carry levies that go to the government. Then there is the maintanance of our homes that is coverd by ourselfs. Surely the government make more money off home owners than they do from tennants either private or LA.

That doesn't negate my essential point that you home generates revenue that you benefit from, even if it is not in cash form. And the cost to you of this benefit is the interest you pay on your mortgage, not the full mortgage amount.

dxhound2005

Izzy Skint wrote: »

Lugha, my public sector comrade, answer me this ......govt. spending almost doubled between 2000 and 2009, where has the money gone?.....what was it spent on ???....I can't see any improvements in health, education, services etc....

I have no recent experience of the education system, I don't know about you. But I got the impression that there are more third level students now than pre 2000 and at national and secondary level more supports like Special Needs Assistants for children. The population of the country increased by one million over the last 20 years and is continuing to increase. It is fair to think that there are more children than ever before including a lot from abroad so that would necessitate an increase in expenditure. But it seems the percentage of overall spending devoted to education has remained much the same.

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/ireland/public-spending-on-education

Of course the period you mention was under Fianna Fail, PD's and Greens. Not sure what the relevance to HHC is?

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

Hijpo wrote: »

We dont pay rent, we pay a mortgage that for many is more than 850 aswell as house insurance and life insurance all of which carry levies that go to the government. Then there is the maintanance of our homes that is coverd by ourselfs. Surely the government make more money off home owners than they do from tennants either private or LA.

That doesn't negate my essential point that you home generates revenue that you benefit from, even if it is not in cash form. And the cost to you of this benefit is the interest you pay on your mortgage, not the full mortgage amount.

Wtf? Unless your charging you kids rent your home does not generate income. By your logic renting generates more income for the LA tennants as they dont spend as much on there rented occomodation.

tayto lover

Izzy Skint wrote: »

Lugha, my public sector comrade, answer me this ......govt. spending almost doubled between 2000 and 2009, where has the money gone?.....what was it spent on ???....I can't see any improvements in health, education, services etc....

The big boys at the trough have it invested in the Caymans. I am told that the amount of money that left this country is serious.

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

The state forcing someone out of their home only to re-house them doesn't make sense to me. ........

You make a lot of points here about a lot of different things. From the impracticality of putting people out of their homes (ignoring the fact that this probably won’t happen) to alternatives to property tax to the matter of restraining the excesses of government. Some of which I would agree with it.

But I cannot find a single argument in your post about the immorality of taxing the home. You say it is immoral in your opinion, but offer no argument.

And of course you have the unenviable task of trying to explain why so many countries see no moral dilemma in relation to property tax. It is immoral in all of these countries too?

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

Wtf? Unless your charging you kids rent your home does not generate income. By your logic renting generates more income for the LA tennants as they dont spend as much on there rented occomodation.

If you didn't have a house then you would have to pay rent to provide accommodation for your family. So you have an income in this nominal sense. Now you probably will argue that this is not real income because there is no cash coming in to your hand.

But there is no cash going out of your hand because your home is in negative equity, if it is, yet I suspect you have no difficulty accepting that the equally nominal notion of negative equity is real?

dxhound2005

tayto lover wrote: »

The big boys at the trough have it invested in the Caymans. I am told that the amount of money that left this country is serious.

I don't see as many offshore account cases as before in the more recent Revenue tax defaulters lists. Maybe there are lots more in the Caymans that are just too hidden for them to find. If the person who told you about them passed on the information to Revenue it might help.

I wonder how many of these characters have a principled objection to property tax like yourself, you're in good company.

darkhorse

dxhound2005 wrote: »

How do the authorities go about collecting the charge? Are they entitled to write to people asking them to pay? According to some people that is bullying and intimidation. What do you think yourself?

Well, since you ask, dx, I don't agree with the charge. However, if it was a fair charge, yes, by all means I think they would be entitled to write to people asking them to pay. Doing what the council done in clare was bullying and intimidation to young people, pure and simple. Think about it. If this behaviour was allowed to be the norm, then whats to stop the authorities from arresting, trying and convicting an 18 year old for a crime that his father or mother committed. Does that make any sense to you.

Izzy Skint

lugha wrote: »

It was spent on many things. There are some improvements in services, transport infrastructure for example. Social welfare rates were raised. Public sector wages went up (the fault of the private sector needless to say! ) and yes, public sector numbers went up. And don’t forget that personal taxes were cut during this time too.

Now who benefits from all of this. All workers benefited from the tax cuts. All citizens benefited from the improvement in services, how ever little you think there were of them. And private sector workers, or the ones unfortunate enough to be made redundant, are now benefiting from generous welfare rates. So your constituency did not do all that badly out of what went on during the boom.

"Public sector wages went up (the fault of the private sector needless to say! ".....incorrect, it is the fault of short sighted spineless politicians and greedy threatening unions.

"So your constituency did not do all that badly out of what went on during the boom".....yeah, we done good, paying a lot more tax than ever before, huge rises in cost of living, transport, healthcare etc....oh yeah, forgot about the 100,000 + who have emmigrated and the 40,000 who continue to emmigrate annually....we done very well !

"are now benefiting from generous welfare rates."....so generous in fact that it does not pay many to go to work, one thing's for sure though, not many public sector workers will never have to rely on these "generous welfare rates"...you should really have put more emphasis on the generous rates of pay + pensions for our public sector workers...that remain "untouchable"

"All citizens benefited from the improvement in services"...what services have improved?...that is what i asked you , where has the money gone?.....so we have a few new stretches of motorway, a port tunnel and a luas....what else have we got to show for the billions spent over the past decade ?

dxhound2005

darkhorse wrote: »

Well, since you ask, dx, I don't agree with the charge. However, if it was a fair charge, yes, by all means I think they would be entitled to write to people asking them to pay. Doing what the council done in clare was bullying and intimidation to young people, pure and simple. Think about it. If this behaviour was allowed to be the norm, then whats to stop the authorities from arresting, trying and convicting an 18 year old for a crime that his father or mother committed. Does that make any sense to you.

A person can hold an opinion that any law is unfair. In a democracy where the rule of law applies that does not allow them to break that law.

Some of the lawbreakers on this thread are very concerned that everything done by a public body must be fully legal. Something which I agree with myself but it smacks of double standards and hypocrisy coming from lawbreakers.

Hijpo

And of course you have the unenviable task of trying to explain why so many countries see no moral dilemma in relation to property tax. It is immoral in all of these countries too?

You fail to give legitimate reason why we do not recieve the same level of services as other countries. They get refuse collection, we pay seperate.

Izzy Skint

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I have no recent experience of the education system, I don't know about you. But I got the impression that there are more third level students now than pre 2000 and at national and secondary level more supports like Special Needs Assistants for children. The population of the country increased by one million over the last 20 years and is continuing to increase. It is fair to think that there are more children than ever before including a lot from abroad so that would necessitate an increase in expenditure. But it seems the percentage of overall spending devoted to education has remained much the same.

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/ireland/public-spending-on-education

Of course the period you mention was under Fianna Fail, PD's and Greens. Not sure what the relevance to HHC is?

DX, approx 80% of the increase in spending in education has gone on pay, pensions and allowances.....nothing to do with population increase.
Most third level students are funded through the hard work of themselves and their parents....very little cuts to staff pay.
FG and Labour are in govt. now so it is their responsibility to correct mistakes of the past.
Any wasteful spending by the govt. at a time when people are struggling to survive and being asked to cough up more has imo everthing to do with the hhc

darkhorse

dxhound2005 wrote: »

A person can hold an opinion that any law is unfair. In a democracy where the rule of law applies that does not allow them to break that law.

Some of the lawbreakers on this thread are very concerned that everything done by a public body must be fully legal. Something which I agree with myself but it smacks of double standards and hypocrisy coming from lawbreakers.

So, I take it that you agree with the second part of my post.

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

But I cannot find a single argument in your post about the immorality of taxing the home. You say it is immoral in your opinion, but offer no argument.

lugha wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slick50
The right to shelter is a human right, which is why so many people are given housing by the state. So it is immoral to put a person in a position where they can be denied that shelter, they have provided for themselves.

A few things here.

As the state does indeed provide housing, does that not rather knock the legs out from under your argument that a property tax might render someone homeless? Even if the tax did lead them to lose their home, which I doubt, it would not leave them without a home.

No wonder this thread is heading for 20,000 posts...

lugha wrote: »

And of course you have the unenviable task of trying to explain why so many countries see no moral dilemma in relation to property tax. It is immoral in all of these countries too?

I don't have to explain the tax system of any other country. Who says the people of all the countries who have a property tax are happy about it?

We always get this clapped out justification of "they're all doing it" when it suits government purposes. But are told we have sovereignty over our own decisions when it doesn't.

lugha

Izzy Skint wrote: »

Incorrect, it is the fault of short sighted spineless politicians and greedy threatening unions.

But what leverage did the unions use to negotiate higher pay for their members? The looked at pay levels that were rising in the private sector.

And what was pushing these wages up? A labour shortage!

Greedy selfish employers, who were only concerned with the interests of their own firms, paid higher wages to attract a better calibre of worker!

Of course they were not really greedy. It is only to be expected that they will act in their own selfish interests. So why is it greedy when PS unions act in their own selfish interests?

Izzy Skint wrote: »

yeah, we done good, paying a lot more tax than ever before, huge rises in cost of living, transport, healthcare etc....

So these new costs (more tax???) were only levied at private sector workers? Where do I apply for the PS exemption?????

Izzy Skint wrote: »

so generous in fact that it does not pay many to go to work,

These will change. But my point is that they are “benefits” that the private sector enjoy.

Izzy Skint wrote: »

pay + pensions for our public sector workers...that remain "untouchable"

The won’t remain untouchable. There will be some serious full on touching and groping post 2014. There will have to be.

Izzy Skint wrote: »

what else have we got to show for the billions spent over the past decade ?

I would agree that we should have a lot more to show for all the money that was swilling around during the boom. But we did elect FF three times on the spin who presided over all of this. And as private sector workers outnumber the PS ones by about 5 to 1, I think you should take 5 times more blame that me for these failings. :P

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

Hijpo wrote: »

Wtf? Unless your charging you kids rent your home does not generate income. By your logic renting generates more income for the LA tennants as they dont spend as much on there rented occomodation.

If you didn't have a house then you would have to pay rent to provide accommodation for your family. So you have an income in this nominal sense. Now you probably will argue that this is not real income because there is no cash coming in to your hand.

But there is no cash going out of your hand because your home is in negative equity, if it is, yet I suspect you have no difficulty accepting that the equally nominal notion of negative equity is real?

You have absolutely no concept of owning a house what so ever. You come across as some 1st year economics or business student or even worse someone who picked up a dodgy quick guide to money book. How in the real world of working for a living does one generate an income from there own expenditure?? Not only that, but cashless income at that lmao

Izzy Skint

lugha wrote: »

But what leverage did the unions use to negotiate higher pay for their members? The looked at pay levels that were rising in the private sector.

And what was pushing these wages up? A labour shortage!

Greedy selfish employers, who were only concerned with the interests of their own firms, paid higher wages to attract a better calibre of worker!

Of course they were not really greedy. It is only to be expected that they will act in their own selfish interests. So why is it greedy when PS unions act in their own selfish interests?


So these new costs (more tax???) were only levied at private sector workers? Where do I apply for the PS exemption?????


These will change. But my point is that they are “benefits” that the private sector enjoy.


The won’t remain untouchable. There will be some serious full on touching and groping post 2014. There will have to be.


I would agree that we should have a lot more to show for all the money that was swilling around during the boom. But we did elect FF three times on the spin who presided over all of this. And as private sector workers outnumber the PS ones by about 5 to 1, I think you should take 5 times more blame that me for these failings. :P

Seeing as you and your employer (the govt) are the ones spending 100% of everthing we contribute, and then spending another €13b on top of that I think you should take 100% of the blame....
we used to outnumber you by 7 to 1 but emmigration and unemployment has reduced that to 5 to 1, your numbers need to be cut and fast!!

PS unions had their snouts in the revenue trough, they had more than their share, but sure the govt. are also ps workers !!....there was never going to be any objections there, benchmarking, one of the greatest con jobs ever imposed on the Irish people.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

If you didn't have a house then you would have to pay rent to provide accommodation for your family. So you have an income in this nominal sense. Now you probably will argue that this is not real income because there is no cash coming in to your hand.

But there is no cash going out of your hand because your home is in negative equity, if it is, yet I suspect you have no difficulty accepting that the equally nominal notion of negative equity is real?

Will you please answer me the following question, up straight, no bull.
If my business goes belly up tomorrow, bear in mind I have no entitlements.
Could I go in to the bank and maybe the supermarket and give them them the explation that you have outlined above, instead of cash, and walk out of each building happy, or would I be going home to my family with bad news.

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

I don't have to explain the tax system of any other country. Who says the people of all the countries who have a property tax are happy about it?

If, as you assert, there was something fundamentally immoral about property tax, surely in at least some, if not all, modern democratic countries there would be a realization of the immorality of it and eventually such contemptible notions would be done away with? You know, in the way that say homosexuality was decriminalised or racist or sexist or sectarian urges have been, and continue to be expunged?

It doesn’t happen because they don’t see a moral dimension to property tax because it isn’t there. Opponents who cite morality really mean novelty. Property tax is a novel idea here and for some what is new and unfamiliar is unwelcome and yes, immoral.

Slick50 wrote: »

We always get this clapped out justification of "they're all doing it" when it suits government purposes. But are told we have sovereignty over our own decisions when it doesn't.

I’m not quite sure what you are saying here. But if you think I am arguing that we should simply ape what other countries do, then I am not. See above.

Izzy Skint

Hijpo wrote: »

You have absolutely no concept of owning a house what so ever. You come across as some 1st year economics or business student or even worse someone who picked up a dodgy quick guide to money book. How in the real world of working for a living does one generate an income from there own expenditure?? Not only that, but cashless income at that lmao

Hijpo......Lugha has not got a clue.....or maybe he does?....could it be that he has a vested interest in ensuring as many tax raising measures as possible are introduced as opposed to big spending cuts which may effect him...?....don't worry lugha, the dole is "very generous" these days....the amount of tax I pay makes sure of that !

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

You have absolutely no concept of owning a house what so ever.

That’s funny. Because I do own a house.

Hijpo wrote: »

How in the real world of working for a living does one generate an income from there own expenditure??

The expenditure provides the asset and the asset generates an income. If instead of buying a house you had bought a small business, you would now be paying of the loan drawn down to buy that business. But would you insist that the business did not generate an income because you bought / are buying the business?

Hijpo wrote: »

Not only that, but cashless income at that lmao

Nothing unusual about cashless income. Think of benefit in kind.

darkhorse wrote: »

If my business goes belly up tomorrow, bear in mind I have no entitlements.
Could I go in to the bank and maybe the supermarket and give them them the explation that you have outlined above, instead of cash, and walk out of each building happy, or would I be going home to my family with bad news.

You can give them the cash that you have by virtue of not having to pay ~ €850 in rent.

You may of course be broke if your business went and have no cash to give anyone. But if you did not have a house, you would be even worse off again. To the tune of … well you know!

If you had an employer who provided you with a car then that would in effect be regarded as part of your income. You couldn't take that to the bank either. Doesn't make the income "unreal".

lugha

Izzy Skint wrote: »

Hijpo......Lugha has not got a clue.....or maybe he does?....could it be that he has a vested interest in ensuring as many tax raising measures as possible are introduced as opposed to big spending cuts which may effect him...?....don't worry lugha, the dole is "very generous" these days....the amount of tax I pay makes sure of that !

Ah now Izzy. In fairness, and up until now, you had steered clear of the 'aul conspiracies.


Do you really think the ramblings of one, or even a thousand posters here, will have even the teeniest effect on how the fortunates of this country will play out in the next 15-20 years?

Even those fine men and women that make up out government only have very limited influence on what will happen.

So don't be fretting yourself that I might go and change the world order with what I post here, if you don't keep an eye on me! :P

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

You can give them the cash that you have by virtue of not having to pay ~ €850 in rent.
You may of course be broke if your business went and have no cash to give anyone. But if you did not have a house, you would be even worse off again. To the tune of … well you know!
QUOTE]

Up to now, some of you're rantings and ravings have been somewhat amusing, but now, you're having a giraffe. This is actually the most unfunniest statement that you came out with. This only shows me that you get off on other peoples misery.

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

That’s funny. Because I do own a house.

Did you buy your house for the sole purpose of making a profit from it? i would find it easy for you to class it as an asset/gamble. unlike all the working single property home owners in the country.

lugha wrote: »

The expenditure provides the asset and the asset generates an income. If instead of buying a house you had bought a small business, you would now be paying of the loan drawn down to buy that business. But would you insist that the business did not generate an income because you bought / are buying the business?

it is my house, it is not a business, please do your best to understand this. my home is for sheltering my family from the elements. It doesnt generate any products or supply an service to other people that provides an income for me. I did not buy my house with any intention of selling it for a profit, i bought my house to raise my children and live in as a family, i am not a business man interested in profit and assets. My house will not generate profit in the future because it will not be sold.

lugha wrote: »

Nothing unusual about cashless income. Think of benefit in kind.

Benefit in kind does not apply here, my house is not supplied to me seperatly or in addition to my weekly earned income by an employer. My weekly earned income is used to pay for my €980 a month mortgage. I see no financial return from the money i put into my house.

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

It is my house, it is not a business, plea…………

Let me remind you of what you said in the post I replied to

Hijpo wrote: »

How in the real world of working for a living does one generate an income from there own expenditure??

Note the complete lack of reference to anything about how one views ones house, or even a mention of house or home.

You asked a clear and straight forward question (i.e. how can you generate income when you have to pay for that which generates it) and I gave a very clear answer (i.e. this is the case with many small businesses). You asked and I answered. I did not argue that your house is a business.

Hijpo wrote: »

Benefit in kind does not apply here

Once again, let me remind you of what you said in the post I replied to.

Hijpo wrote: »

Not only that, but cashless income at that lmao

The implication seeming to be that if income is not in cash form it is not real. I gave an example of an income (BIK) that is also cashless but is real. So again I have answered your point. I did not suggest that your house was supplied to you and as such, constituted BIK.

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

You asked a clear and straight forward question (i.e. how can you generate income when you have to pay for that which generates it) and I gave a very clear answer (i.e. this is the case with many small businesses). You asked and I answered. I did not argue that your house is a business.
The implication seeming to be that if income is not in cash form it is not real. I gave an example of an income (BIK) that is also cashless but is real. So again I have answered your point. I did not suggest that your house was supplied to you and as such, constituted BIK.

So what youv just done there is explain to me how putting my home in the same context as a business was utterly pointless as its a house and not an income generating business. Then you go on to make a point of BIK which again can not be attributed to a home, but a business.

Once again, the single property home owners are not business people who sought to buy an asset or income generating property.

If houses are what you call an asset and income generating, why is the CC not making any money from all the houses they own but are instead up to the eyes in over spending.