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

lugha

dvpower wrote: »

ncdadam wrote: »

Why dv, do you think these people should not be liable for the property tax?

'Cos they don't own property, silly.

It is clearly daft to think they should pay a property tax but they will eventually have to shoulder some of the burden, which they will do via cuts in welfare rates.

Maggie 2

ncdadam wrote: »

Dads Army?:D

Who do you think you're kidding..............

Le_Dieux

dvpower wrote: »

That's 'cos I didn't apologise.

Anyway, earlier on you were calling me demented. What pension cuts were you referring to?

Right, may I clarify a couple of things here?

1) I am under the impression that there was a cut in the pension payouts cum fuel allowances - again if I am wrong, I apologise. I also have looked back on my messages and can't find where I called You demented, please would You be so kind and let me know the message # so I can apologise unequivically.

2) I still take offence DV as You haven't apologised for YOUR mistake in omitting my apology.

3) I also notice You still haven't given an opinion on the cronyism. Or are we just being selective now?

Again if I am wrong, apologies!

Maggie 2

Fuel allowances were cut for everyone, not just pensioners. They get paid €20 a week for 26 weeks down from 32 weeks.

ncdadam

lugha wrote: »

It is clearly daft to think they should pay a property tax but they will eventually have to shoulder some of the burden, which they will do via cuts in welfare rates.

It's not 'daft' in the UK, which gets used as an example on here often enough.

lugha

ncdadam wrote: »

lugha wrote: »

It is clearly daft to think they should pay a property tax but they will eventually have to shoulder some of the burden, which they will do via cuts in welfare rates.

It's not 'daft' in the UK, which gets used as an example on here often enough.

It is daft to expect people to pay a tax for owning property if they don't own property.

Should people who don't own motors pay motor tax?

Le_Dieux

Maggie 2 wrote: »

Fuel allowances were cut for everyone, not just pensioners. They get paid €20 a week for 26 weeks down from 32 weeks.

OK Maggie, thank You for enlightening me. I was wrong, or partially. Thanks for putting the record straight.

On You comment # 8365, didn't the govt state the number of multiple houseowners? Wasn't there an announcement earlier this past summer (?), where one person paid for 140 properties ( used as an example)?

ncdadam

lugha wrote: »

It is daft to expect people to pay a tax for owning property if they don't own property.

Should people who don't own motors pay motor tax?

It's a tax for local services or so we're told.
A tax to fund the councils, isn't it?
The councils who provide services for the people.
Do people who rent not use these services?
Should they not pay to use these services?

What does motor tax have to do with anything?
Last time I looked, a car was optional, having a roof over your head isn't.

Mind you, your the one that reckons a house in negative equity gives people an income, so anything you say after that will be taken with a pinch of salt!

lugha

ncdadam wrote: »

lugha wrote: »

It is daft to expect people to pay a tax for owning property if they don't own property.

Should people who don't own motors pay motor tax?

It's a tax for local services or so we're told.
A tax to fund the councils, isn't it?
The councils who provide services for the people.
Do people who rent not use these services?
Should they not pay to use these services?

What does motor tax have to do with anything?
Last time I looked, a car was optional, having a roof over your head isn't.

But we are not considering a council tax, we are lookong at a property tax. If you want to argue that it should be the former then fine. But I suspect you would still have a load that wouldn't pay that either.

And for many, a car is every bit as optional, or not, as a house. You don't have to own either in theory. The reality is rather different.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

It is daft to expect people to pay a tax for owning property if they don't own property.

Should people who don't own motors pay motor tax?

If I drive someone else's car without it being taxed I can be done for not having tax as can the owner. I wonder will they do that with homes too

lugha

ncdadam wrote: »

Mind you, your the one that reckons a house in negative equity gives people an income, so anything you say after that will be taken with a pinch of salt!

Good news for landlords in that boat then. If there houses aren't generating am income then they won't have to pay any tax.

Le_Dieux

lugha wrote: »

And for many, a car is every bit as optional, or not, as a house. You don't have to own either in theory. The reality is rather different.

I am self employed and need a vehicle to survive. My OH works up in Dublin ( we live in Newbridge ) on shifts. Getting public transport is not an option for us. So sorry Lugha, in theory we must have wheels!

ncdadam

lugha wrote: »

But we are not considering a council tax, we are lookong at a property tax. If you want to argue that it should be the former then fine. But I suspect you would still have a load that wouldn't pay that either.

And for many, a car is every bit as optional, or not, as a house. You don't have to own either in theory. The reality is rather different.

A rates system or a council tax, paid by every household, would be fine with me.
Being victimised just for owning my home is not.

Have you got over your 'negative equity house generating an income' nonsense so we can start taking you seriously again?
You do strike me as a very intelligent poster so I couldn't believe it when you came out with that.

lugha

Le_Dieux wrote: »

lugha wrote: »

And for many, a car is every bit as optional, or not, as a house. You don't have to own either in theory. The reality is rather different.

I am self employed and need a vehicle to survive. My OH works up in Dublin ( we live in Newbridge ) on shifts. Getting public transport is not an option for us. So sorry Lugha, in theory we must have wheels!

Er. That is exactly the point I am making. I suggest you point this out to those who think a car, for many of us, is optional.

ncdadam

lugha wrote: »

Good news for landlords in that boat then. If there houses aren't generating am income then they won't have to pay any tax.

Oh, you haven't!
That must mean then that I'm the landlord of the house I live in and pay a mortgage on.

Le_Dieux

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le_Dieux
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugha

And for many, a car is every bit as optional, or not, as a house. You don't have to own either in theory. The reality is rather different.


I am self employed and need a vehicle to survive. My OH works up in Dublin ( we live in Newbridge ) on shifts. Getting public transport is not an option for us. So sorry Lugha, in theory we must have wheels!
Er. That is exactly the point I am making. I suggest you point this out to those who think a car, for many of us, is optional.

I am confused. I am trying to make the point that I MUST have wheels, it's NOT an option. You state above ' You don't have to own either in theory. The reality is rather different.'.

My knowledge of the English language tells my that I am saying something different to Your message Lugha.

Maggie 2

Le_Dieux wrote: »

OK Maggie, thank You for enlightening me. I was wrong, or partially. Thanks for putting the record straight.

On You comment # 8365, didn't the govt state the number of multiple houseowners? Wasn't there an announcement earlier this past summer (?), where one person paid for 140 properties ( used as an example)?

Yes, that's right. The CAHWC use the number of people and the Gov use the number of units. It's a case of Lies, damn lies and statistics! My point is that the Prof was handed the figures prepared by the CAHWC and he did the sums and agreed with them. He didn't actually come up with the figures himself. I'm sure he's also agree with the Government figures too.

lugha

ncdadam wrote: »

lugha wrote: »

Good news for landlords in that boat then. If there houses aren't generating am income then they won't have to pay any tax.

Oh, you haven't!
That must mean then that I'm the landlord of the house I live in and pay a mortgage on.

Your inability to refute my point is noted.

I have no expectations that the light will shine anytime soon for the no side here. Such is the tunnel vision of some that the insist that if something is called a charge, it is not a tax! (The USC certainly feels like a tax to me!)

But even those with a little more vision would struggle to see the nominal worth of rent free living. Which is a shame. Because there are some fairness advantages in linking any property tax to income.

ncdadam

Maggie 2 wrote: »

Yes, that's right. The CAHWC use the number of people and the Gov use the number of units. It's a case of Lies, damn lies and statistics! My point is that the Prof was handed the figures prepared by the CAHWC and he did the sums and agreed with them. He didn't actually come up with the figures himself. I'm sure he's also agree with the Government figures too.

The CAHWC doesn't have a lot of credibility anyway.
I don't think anyone on here who hasn't paid is involved with the CAHWT.

ncdadam

lugha wrote: »

Your inability to refute my point is noted.

I have no expectations that the light will shine anytime soon for the no side here. Such is the tunnel vision of some that the insist that if something is called a charge, it is not a tax! (The USC certainly feels like a tax to me!)

But even those with a little more vision would struggle to see the nominal worth of rent free living. Which is a shame. Because there are some fairness advantages in linking any property tax to income.

If someone was given a house for free, I would take your point.
It's would still be a theoretical income only though.But, as people are heavily mortgaged and other people have paid off their mortgage over 25 years or whatever I don't take it.

lugha

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le_Dieux
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugha

And for many, a car is every bit as optional, or not, as a house. You don't have to own either in theory. The reality is rather different.


I am self employed and need a vehicle to survive. My OH works up in Dublin ( we live in Newbridge ) on shifts. Getting public transport is not an option for us. So sorry Lugha, in theory we must have wheels!
Er. That is exactly the point I am making. I suggest you point this out to those who think a car, for many of us, is optional.

I am confused. I am trying to make the point that I MUST have wheels, it's NOT an option. You state above ' You don't have to own either in theory. The reality is rather different.'.

My knowledge of the English language tells my that I am saying something different to Your message Lugha.

Well let me clarify. It is not an option for many people, such as yourself, to not have a car.

One of the silly arguments made by the won't pay side in the past was that motor tax differs from property tax in that you can avoid liability for the former by either not having a car or taking your car off the road.

They would argue that it was silly to suggest prop tax could be avoided by selling your home but failed to see that it was equally silly to suggest doing without a car was an option for many of us.

ncdadam

lugha wrote: »

Well let me clarify. It is not an option for many people, such as yourself, to not have a car.

One of the silly arguments made by the won't pay side in the past was that motor tax differs from property tax in that you can avoid liability for the former by either not having a car or taking your car off the road.

They would argue that it was silly to suggest prop tax could be avoided by selling your home but failed to see that it was equally silly to suggest doing without a car was an option for many of us.

Bang goes your credibility again so....ah well!
People 'could' do without a car, it might make things very difficult but it could be done.
99.999% of people have to have a roof over their head.

lugha

ncdadam wrote: »

lugha wrote: »

Your inability to refute my point is noted.

I have no expectations that the light will shine anytime soon for the no side here. Such is the tunnel vision of some that the insist that if something is called a charge, it is not a tax! (The USC certainly feels like a tax to me!)

But even those with a little more vision would struggle to see the nominal worth of rent free living. Which is a shame. Because there are some fairness advantages in linking any property tax to income.

If someone was given a house for free, I would take your point.
It's would still be a theoretical income only though.But, as people are heavily mortgaged and other people have paid off their mortgage over 25 years or whatever I don't take it.

It is the interest on the mortgage payment that counts, not the total payment. (The money you pay to actually buy the bricks and mortar stays in your possession, in the form of a property whose value you can realise in the future by selling or bequeathing)

Even the average interest repayment, by my calculations, would still be less that rental costs for most of us. So you are better from this perspective to own a home

Of course you might well lose more overall if your house is worth much less when you do pay it off. Though I am not too sure that that will be the case.

lugha

ncdadam wrote: »

lugha wrote: »

Well let me clarify. It is not an option for many people, such as yourself, to not have a car.

One of the silly arguments made by the won't pay side in the past was that motor tax differs from property tax in that you can avoid liability for the former by either not having a car or taking your car off the road.

They would argue that it was silly to suggest prop tax could be avoided by selling your home but failed to see that it was equally silly to suggest doing without a car was an option for many of us.

Bang goes your credibility again so....ah well!
People 'could' do without a car, it might make things very difficult but it could be done.
99.999% of people have to have a roof over their head.

They don't have to own the roof over their head. Whether the own their home or not makes close to no difference to how they live their lives.

Not having a car, on the other hand, would make a huge difference to many people's lifestyle.

ncdadam

lugha wrote: »

It is the interest on the mortgage payment that counts, not the total payment. (The money you pay to actually buy the bricks and mortar stays in your possession, in the form of a property whose value you can realise in the future by selling or bequeathing)

Even the average interest repayment, by my calculations, would still be less that rental costs for most of us. So you are better from this perspective to own a home

Of course you might well lose more overall if your house is worth much less when you do pay it off. Though I am not too sure that that will be the case.

Point is though, why should we pay a property tax on our homes?
We haven't cost the country anything to house us.
In fact when you add up the stamp duty and VAT, we've paid a fortune just to own a home.
People who rent on the other hand, in LA provided housing cost the country a small fortune every day.

ncdadam

lugha wrote: »

They don't have to own the roof over their head. Whether the own their home or not makes close to no difference to how they live their lives.

Not having a car, on the other hand, would make a huge difference to many people's lifestyle.

Right, enough of the comparisons with owning a car. It's a vacuous argument, much like the income from paying a mortgage on a house in negative equity argument.

Owning or not owning does make a difference to how they live their lives.
A huge amount of home owners are pin to their collar as it is and another tax will put many over the edge.
Renters can keep their money in their pockets or use it for a holiday or something like that, so there is a difference in how they live their lives.
Will you be happy when this tax comes in and it puts people under the official poverty line?

lugha

ncdadam wrote: »

lugha wrote: »

It is the interest on the mortgage payment that counts, not the total payment. (The money you pay to actually buy the bricks and mortar stays in your possession, in the form of a property whose value you can realise in the future by selling or bequeathing)

Even the average interest repayment, by my calculations, would still be less that rental costs for most of us. So you are better from this perspective to own a home

Of course you might well lose more overall if your house is worth much less when you do pay it off. Though I am not too sure that that will be the case.

Point is though, why should we pay a property tax on our homes?

For me the question is why should a home be exempt?

The argument you make about people proving housing for themselves by borrowing heavily and not burdening the state could equally be made for those that borrowed heavily to provide a livelihood for themselves, also not burdening the state.

Yet no one would argue that the latter should not pay income tax.

ncdadam

I presume most people have heard of this report?
A proper report on peoples finances, an 'on the ground' report and not some government pen pushers report designed to 'spin' the figures.


http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rte.ie%2Fnews%2F2012%2F0709%2Fnew-report-shows-consumers-struggling-to-pay-bills.html&ei=Ee1dUNT7EIGRhQfs-YCQDw&usg=AFQjCNFMYQIPCidBhbEtl6jpss-1132_bw&sig2=CYzEsQR5XdJzpjfnV2UPjw

ncdadam

lugha wrote: »

For me the question is why should a home be exempt?

The argument you make about people proving housing for themselves by borrowing heavily and not burdening the state could equally be made for those that borrowed heavily to provide a livelihood for themselves, also not burdening the state.

Yet no one would argue that the latter should not pay income tax.

Sure then all savings in the country should be taxed too, not just the interest.
What's the difference?
Items of jewellery, expensive art works, fur coats etc etc....
They're all assets.

Am Chile

ncdadam wrote: »

I presume most people have heard of this report?
A proper report on peoples finances, an 'on the ground' report and not some government pen pushers report designed to 'spin' the figures.


http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rte.ie%2Fnews%2F2012%2F0709%2Fnew-report-shows-consumers-struggling-to-pay-bills.html&ei=Ee1dUNT7EIGRhQfs-YCQDw&usg=AFQjCNFMYQIPCidBhbEtl6jpss-1132_bw&sig2=CYzEsQR5XdJzpjfnV2UPjw

I,ve seen this report and all the other league of credit union reports too-an anti household tax public meeting I went to recently enough-a fellow who deals with budgeting advice to people-stood up and spoke of how people are coming into him with money worries, via rising bills,rising taxes, mortgage payments etc-he gave his view that ordinary people can,t afford to pay any more new taxes they re thinking of they have enough money budgeting issues as it is-oh yeah he also said he didn,t pay himself and wasn,t going to pay.