Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…272273275277278…332

Comments

  • Options
    #8222
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    donalg1 wrote: »
    I had a look at the link you put up and just read on it that they use 2005 values to calculate the property tax. Id imagine this has been changed though awful unfair if not.

    Read it here http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/index/information-and-services/property-and-housing/rates/valuation-of-properties-for-rates/domestic-valuation.html


    Don't know how up to date this is. I'm on the phone so just had a quick look.

    Sorry Donal.

    I wanted to copy and paste from another site, but wouldn't let me copy the text.

    Try this link.

    http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/lps/index/property_rating/rates-calculator-2012-2013.htm


  • Options
    #8223
    Jellicoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 492 ✭✭Jellicoe


    dvpower wrote: »
    Some are, some aren't. But as I've said before, if you think that having a custodial sentence on your record is worth risking for €100 then go right ahead.

    Speaking of custodial sentences, when are we going to see Bertie, Seanie, Fitzie, Dunner, Paddy De Plasterer and other assorted cronies being dealt with ?


  • Options
    #8224
    Hijpo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,823 ✭✭✭Hijpo


    i take it you want to do the oul "its a charge, no its a tax" dance again then?


  • Options
    #8225
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    Ghandee wrote: »
    donalg1 wrote: »
    I had a look at the link you put up and just read on it that they use 2005 values to calculate the property tax. Id imagine this has been changed though awful unfair if not.

    Read it here http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/index/information-and-services/property-and-housing/rates/valuation-of-properties-for-rates/domestic-valuation.html


    Don't know how up to date this is. I'm on the phone so just had a quick look.

    Sorry Donal.

    I wanted to copy and paste from another site, but wouldn't let me copy the text.

    Try this link.

    http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/lps/index/property_rating/rates-calculator-2012-2013.htm

    Cheers, is it the capital value rates that change each year then and this is multiplied by the value got in 2005. Makes sense I.suppose that way there is only a need for one valuation and not annual ones.


  • Options
    #8226
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Hijpo wrote: »
    i take it you want to do the oul "its a charge, no its a tax" dance again then?
    You've obviously constructed some massive difference in your own mind if you can fully accept that you are a 'charge' evader, but call me a 'slanderous little prick' when you're called a 'tax' evader.

    Its all the same to me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8227
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Cheers, is it the capital value rates that change each year then and this is multiplied by the value got in 2005. Makes sense I.suppose that way there is only a need for one valuation and not annual ones.

    Doesn't take away from the fact that dx has, repeatedly chanced his arm on this thread (how he's escaped an infraction at this stage amazes me) by constant lies and attempting to mislead people, (I can only presume new comers to the thread) by comparing rates in the north with the hhc and any possible property tax introduction.

    I constantly correct him, yet he ignores my corrections, and won't/can't put any kind of argument up when corrected.

    That, ^^ is the classic description of an internet troll.


  • Options
    #8228
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    Ghandee wrote: »
    donalg1 wrote: »
    Cheers, is it the capital value rates that change each year then and this is multiplied by the value got in 2005. Makes sense I.suppose that way there is only a need for one valuation and not annual ones.
    Doesn't take away from the fact that dx has, repeatedly chanced his arm on this thread (how he's escaped an infraction at this stage amazes me) by constant lies and attempting to mislead people, (I can only presume new comers to the thread) by comparing rates in the north with the hhc and any possible property tax introduction.

    I constantly correct him, yet he ignores my corrections, and won't/can't put any kind of argument up when corrected.

    That, ^^ is the classic description of an internet troll.

    I'm confused. Whats that got to do with my question?


  • Options
    #8229
    Hijpo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,823 ✭✭✭Hijpo


    dvpower wrote: »
    Hijpo wrote: »
    i take it you want to do the oul "its a charge, no its a tax" dance again then?
    You've obviously constructed some massive difference in your own mind if you can fully accept that you are a 'charge' evader, but call me a 'slanderous little prick' when you're called a 'tax' evader.

    Its all the same to me.

    I havent evaded any taxes though, fix your statement if you wish.


  • Options
    #8230
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Hijpo wrote: »
    I havent evaded any taxes though, fix your statement if you wish.
    No. I'm happy with it.


  • Options
    #8231
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    donalg1 wrote: »



    I'm confused. Whats that got to do with my question?

    Nothing really i suppose.

    Only justifying why I had to resort to posting the same information from the same website once again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8232
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    Ghandee wrote: »
    donalg1 wrote: »
    Ghandee wrote: »



    I'm confused. Whats that got to do with my question?

    Nothing really i suppose.

    Only justifying why I had to resort to posting the same information from the same website once again.

    Oh right fair enough


  • Options
    #8233
    Hijpo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,823 ✭✭✭Hijpo


    dvpower wrote: »
    Hijpo wrote: »
    I havent evaded any taxes though, fix your statement if you wish.
    No. I'm happy with it.

    Easily pleased.


  • Options
    #8234
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    dvpower wrote: »
    Ouch!



    Apart from the HHC.

    Which isn't classed as a tax.


  • Options
    #8235
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    Hijpo wrote: »
    I havent evaded any taxes though, fix your statement if you wish.

    Don't bother Hijpo, it's just more trolling.


  • Options
    #8236
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    ncdadam wrote: »
    Which isn't classed as a tax.
    Yeah - we've been through this before a hundred times. It doesn't have the name tax in its title - just like the USC etc...
    As I say, tax evader / charge evader - its all the same to me.


  • Options
    #8237
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    ncdadam wrote: »
    Don't bother Hijpo, it's just more trolling.

    You can hardly make 5 posts without throwing that tired old accusation out.


  • Options
    #8238
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    I wonder if any of our regular posters on this thread, who are supporters of this tax, but first and foremost supporters of the govt ever attend any govt 'think ins' and shout EVADERS/DEFAULTERS at a few party members, who have been correctly labelled as such:confused:

    To not do so, reeks of hypocrisy in my eyes.


  • Options
    #8239
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    dvpower wrote: »
    You can hardly make 5 posts without throwing that tired old accusation out.

    Well stop trolling then and you won't be accused of doing it.:rolleyes:
    It's a bit like yourself with the tax evader accusations.


  • Options
    #8240
    Am Chile
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭Am Chile


    dvpower wrote: »
    They won't be jailed for non payment of the HHC - instead they'll be fined (a Class C fine, up to €2500).

    If they refuse to pay a fine, that's a separate matter. They may be jailed for that (Fines Act 2010).
    Its all in black and white on the relevant legislation.

    If someone by chance is jailed-there might be large pickets outside the homes of TDS who support the tax.


  • Options
    #8241
    NedKinsella
    Registered Users Posts: 45 ✭NedKinsella


    People are already overburdened with falling wages, rising prices, rising taxes. Where are people supposed to find money to pay another tax? The right wing clap trap being spouted here is beyond ridicilous.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8242
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    Am Chile wrote: »
    If someone by chance is jailed-there might be large pickets outside the homes of TDS who support the tax.

    no one will be jailed.

    The Govt simply don't have the balls to make a hero/martyr out of the first person to be sent to jail.

    The rest of the non payers (and possibly payers who now regret doing so) would be up in arms!

    They know it too!


  • Options
    #8243
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    Ghandee wrote: »
    no one will be jailed.

    The Govt simply don't have the balls to make a hero/martyr out of the first person to be sent to jail.

    The rest of the non payers (and possibly payers who now regret doing so) would be up in arms!

    They know it too!

    Ghandee, the little party in this government made Jim Larkin a hero/martyr.
    I wonder what he'd make of them now! 'Spinning Jim Larkin' he's known as now because he's turning in his grave that many times watching the antics of the labour party.


  • Options
    #8244
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Ghandee wrote: »
    Try telling these folk their home is generating an income.
    The question as to whether your home generates an income or not has nothing to do with people struggling to pay their mortgage.

    Would you say that a high street shop with a good customer base but whose taking is not sufficient to pay the lease is no longer generating an income? It may not be making a profit or may even be losing money, but the income stream is still there.
    donalg1 wrote: »
    I also am struggling with the concept that my home is generating an income for me. Ok I realise that the expenditure of my home is less than the rent I would pay in the private rented market and I realise too that this expenditure will decrease the longer I am there, however, when I take into account the amount of money I will spend on maintenance and what not over the next 30 years coupled with the incoming property tax I think the gap has decreased significantly and so the difference cant really be seen as a significant amount of income generated.
    Short answer to that is that in most places, and most of the time, there is a viable rental market. And to me that necessarily means that what you pay in rent must be more than what you would pay to house yourself. Otherwise, who would be in that game?

    And of course, property tax will probably be passed on to tenants, so that doesn’t move the goalposts too far.
    donalg1 wrote: »
    Anyway income generated is the wrong term as most people would assume you get money whereas it really is just saving money so instead of income generating its just expenditure saving.
    Well income generating or expenditure saving, it really amounts to the same effect on your pocket. And the fact that you don’t get money is no different from the money you don’t get if you are liable for BIK tax.

    As a basis for structuring a property tax it does have some advantages. For example, the concern about the asset rich, income poor retiree would be dealt with. They would pay property tax (as income tax) at the low rate, or perhaps not at all, while someone in a similar house but with a high income would pay at the top rate. So it does have a fairness appeal.

    But it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to sell. And were it to be sold, it would be all too likely that a future populist party would buy an election with a promise to abolish it.
    Hijpo wrote: »
    Ordinary home owners with 1 property are not business people buying to make a profit in the future.
    It is you that keeps steering this around to the “is the home a business or not” question. That question has nothing to do with whether your house generates an income or not.

    A bored retiree with a green thumb might amuse himself my tending to his neighbours gardens and they may reward him with regular tips. Neither he nor they might consider that he is engaged in a business in anyway, but he certainly has an income.


  • Options
    #8245
    Am Chile
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭Am Chile


    Household tax segment on prime time right now.


  • Options
    #8246
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    lugha wrote: »
    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.

    I don't mean novelty. Property tax is not new, we've had rates before, same thing. Property tax on the family home is immoral.
    lugha wrote: »
    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.

    But you keep citing what other countries are doing. Just because other countries have a property tax doesn't mean it is right, or that their citizens are happy with it. They are probably in the same position as ourselves, with a serious lack of choice on the ballot paper.
    lugha wrote: »
    The question as to whether your home generates an income or not has nothing to do with people struggling to pay their mortgage.

    Tell that to someone on the verge of having their home repossessed
    lugha wrote: »
    Short answer to that is that in most places, and most of the time, there is a viable rental market. And to me that necessarily means that what you pay in rent must be more than what you would pay to house yourself. Otherwise, who would be in that game?

    It doesn't have to pay short term. If you have a property let long term, you can take you profit on the re-sale. At least under normal circumstances.
    lugha wrote: »
    Well income generating or expenditure saving, it really amounts to the same effect on your pocket. And the fact that you don’t get money is no different from the money you don’t get if you are liable for BIK tax.

    Maybe http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/10-ways-turn-home-goldmine-114952922.html is what you're looking for
    lugha wrote: »
    As a basis for structuring a property tax it does have some advantages. For example, the concern about the asset rich, income poor retiree would be dealt with. They would pay property tax (as income tax) at the low rate, or perhaps not at all, while someone in a similar house but with a high income would pay at the top rate. So it does have a fairness appeal.

    You're making a lot of presumptions about the workings of this.
    lugha wrote: »
    But it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to sell.

    Wonder why?
    lugha wrote: »
    And were it to be sold, it would be all too likely that a future populist party would buy an election with a promise to abolish it.

    Once in place, it is extremely difficult to have this sort of thing rescinded. Even those who object initially, tend to leave them in place once the dirty work has been done, blaming their predecessors.


  • Options
    #8247
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    See the hulk has rowed back on the cuts he's proposing the councils take because of non collection of the HHC.
    Now he's going to give the councils half what they are due and on the other half have a sliding scale of cuts.
    Miriam O'Callaghan and the reporter could hardly keep a straight face trying to explain how it would work.
    It comes to something when professional broadcasters are ready to burst out laughing at the total **** up this charge has been.
    LMAO.


  • Options
    #8248
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Am Chile wrote: »
    If someone by chance is jailed-there might be large pickets outside the homes of TDS who support the tax.
    There won't be - the campaign can't even get large numbers out on the streets for a rally, never mind for a campaign of intimidation.
    Ghandee wrote: »
    no one will be jailed.

    The Govt simply don't have the balls to make a hero/martyr out of the first person to be sent to jail.
    Its not up to the government; its up to the judiciary (I know some people here aren't up up making the distinction).


  • Options
    #8249
    Hijpo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,823 ✭✭✭Hijpo


    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?

    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! ;)
    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.
    lugha wrote: »
    It is you that keeps steering this around to the “is the home a business or not” question. That question has nothing to do with whether your house generates an income or not.

    A bored retiree with a green thumb might amuse himself my tending to his neighbours gardens and they may reward him with regular tips. Neither he nor they might consider that he is engaged in a business in anyway, but he certainly has an income.

    round and round and round you go, when youll stop nobody knows... we all wish you f***ing would though.

    the above quotes are you trying to catagories homes as business's. Not me.

    more bull **** examples from you here.
    that man is doing a favour for his neighbour, its there choice if they want to pay him or not. Where as my house facilitates me and my family and only me and my family, if my neighbour used my toilet and gave me money for the privilage fair enough.

    people who are not liable for the charge or dont pay PAYE and PRSI avail of the same level of service that Home owners avail of. Home owners get nothing extra for there taxes, either on there own or in conjunction with the HHC. Your getting the same **** as the people who are not required to pay. As if services wernt **** enough, you have to pay for the privilage where as other dont.

    my negative equity house with all its bills generates a cashless income because when you seperate the interest from the amount of mortgage and only compare the interest payable to the ammount of rent the avarage person pays in rent its actually cheaper lmao cracks me up everytime lol


    Iv decided im paying the HHC, ill pay it out of my notional income.


  • Options
    #8250
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    Hijpo wrote: »
    round and round and round you go, when youll stop nobody knows... we all wish you f***ing would though.

    the above quotes are you trying to catagories homes as business's. Not me.

    more bull **** examples from you here.
    that man is doing a favour for his neighbour, its there choice if they want to pay him or not. Where as my house facilitates me and my family and only me and my family, if my neighbour used my toilet and gave me money for the privilage fair enough.

    people who are not liable for the charge or dont pay PAYE and PRSI avail of the same level of service that Home owners avail of. Home owners get nothing extra for there taxes, either on there own or in conjunction with the HHC. Your getting the same **** as the people who are not required to pay. As if services wernt **** enough, you have to pay for the privilage where as other dont.

    my negative equity house with all its bills generates a cashless income because when you seperate the interest from the amount of mortgage and only compare the interest payable to the ammount of rent the avarage person pays in rent its actually cheaper lmao cracks me up everytime lol


    Iv decided im paying the HHC, ill pay it out of my notional income.

    As I've said before Hijpo, lugha's argument, if you could call it that is a bull****e argument scraped from the bottom of the barrel of bull****e arguments.
    Don't feed it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8251
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    dvpower wrote: »
    Its not up to the government; its up to the judiciary (I know some people here aren't up up making the distinction).

    it is up to the government, they can decide to not take people to court.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement