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

Frank Black

mapaco wrote: »

very smart-i dont know where you're living but i would guess 80% of the council estate occupants in ireland are unemployed and not working because they have more money being at home

Which is a great reason not to increase income tax, which is kinda my point.

mapaco

black francis wrote: »

agree with everything except this.
OAP's have been protected enough in past budgets. They bear as much responsibility for our current situation as any of us. Arguably they bear more responsibility than other demographics, as they generally voted for FF, who bought them with a series of generous budgets.

I would accept that there should be a mechanism whereby OAP's on low income could apply for a waiver, but there is plenty of untapped tax money we should be getting from well-off OAP's.

deluded or Troll? i cant decide.
as with everything in this country it is the low income OAPs that would be screwed as it appears to be blasphemous to even TRY to take money off the well off ANYBODY in ireland

tayto lover

black francis wrote: »

agree with everything except this.
OAP's have been protected enough in past budgets. They bear as much responsibility for our current situation as any of us. Arguably they bear more responsibility than other demographics, as they generally voted for FF, who bought them with a series of generous budgets.

I would accept that there should be a mechanism whereby OAP's on low income could apply for a waiver, but there is plenty of untapped tax money we should be getting from well-off OAP's.

While I don't disagree with your comments at all do you think that the present crop of F.G. voters are guilty of putting them into power on a series of lies and false promises ?

Frank Black

gerryo777 wrote: »

So someone who lives in a council house, pays a small amount of rent and has a decent enough job should be subsidised even more by someone in a similar job who just happens to own their home?

That's hardly my point. I'm not arguing that people on LA housing should be exempt from a property tax, I'm asking how is increasing income tax as an alternative proposal a better option for dealing with this issue?

donalg1

black francis wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

People in LA housing have jobs too. I do agree they should be made pay an equivalent charge though, the exemptions annoyed me more than paying the charge did.

If I had my way I would make all LA tenants pay and scrap every other exemption and then consider allowing OAP's to be exempt

agree with everything except this.
OAP's have been protected enough in past budgets. They bear as much responsibility for our current situation as any of us. Arguably they bear more responsibility than other demographics, as they generally voted for FF, who bought them with a series of generous budgets.

I would accept that there should be a mechanism whereby OAP's on low income could apply for a waiver, but there is plenty of untapped tax money we should be getting from well-off OAP's.

I think a well off OAP has earned the right to be exempt from this charge especially when you consider the amount of tax they will have paid throughout their lifetime.

It's very annoying to see an 80 yr old lady paying when there are 20 or 30 year olds exempt simply because they live in a council estate.

Frank Black

tayto lover wrote: »

While I don't disagree with your comments at all do you think that the present crop of F.G. voters are guilty of putting them into power on a series of lies and false promises ?

I don't claim to know the mind of anyone else. I can only say, I choose not to believe in election promises when deciding to cast my vote. The economic realty was quite obvious, and anyone who thought that a property tax would not be introduced during the current term was either naive or deluded.

Bishop_Donal

black francis wrote: »

agree with everything except this.
OAP's have been protected enough in past budgets. They bear as much responsibility for our current situation as any of us. Arguably they bear more responsibility than other demographics, as they generally voted for FF, who bought them with a series of generous budgets.

I would accept that there should be a mechanism whereby OAP's on low income could apply for a waiver, but there is plenty of untapped tax money we should be getting from well-off OAP's.

Dead right.

Plenty of them have escaped blue murder so far. There are people with whopping great big net worths and pensions, and just because they are over 60, they seem to be exempted from making a contribution.

They should make a proportionate contribution and there should be no 'positive discrimination'.

Frank Black

donalg1 wrote: »

I think a well off OAP has earned the right to be exempt from this charge especially when you consider the amount of tax they will have paid throughout their lifetime.

It's very annoying to see an 80 yr old lady paying when there are 20 or 30 year olds exempt simply because they live in a council estate.

You're entitled to your opinion, but in mine, both groups should be paying.

tayto lover

black francis wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion, but in mine, both groups should be paying.

What about the super rich ? Now they hardly pay taxes at all i'm told !!

Bishop_Donal

gerryo777 wrote: »

So someone who lives in a council house, pays a small amount of rent and has a decent enough job should be subsidised even more by someone in a similar job who just happens to own their home?

I think the difference between a property and/or wealth tax v's income tax is pretty obvious.

The former are means tested, the latter are based on income.

Taxes that are based on income discourage employment / effort. Taxes that are based on wealth / assets are the exact opposite (because human nature drives people to try to maintain their net worth).

I really don't see what is hard to comprehend about this?

People who have no means shouldn't be taxed on them!! People who pretend they have no means should be taxed, penalised, and levied with every punishment (financial) that has been thought of.

gerryo777

My wifes parents live in a council estate, they bought their house years ago and finished paying for it about 3 years ago.
They're both 70 next week.

The mother-in-law paid this tax last week because of one reason.....fear!

They have just about enough to live on as it is.
They don't have a car, they don't go on holidays.


Now, next door are another couple, married with 3 kids I think.
They rent.

The following is true, no messing!

Around last october they were moved out of their house.
A building contractor arrived and fitted new double glazed windows, a complete new heating system, re-wired the house, fitted a new kitchen and bathroom and then the whole house was painted and decorated inside and out.
The couple moved back in.

Neither of these two work.
Neither of these two have to pay any household tax.
These two people seem to have more disposable income than my in-laws even though they have 3 kids to rear.
They have a 07 ford focus in the drive.
They have at least 1 foreign holiday a year.

There is something seriously wrong with this country and I hope the IMF/EU stay until it's sorted out.

donalg1

black francis wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

I think a well off OAP has earned the right to be exempt from this charge especially when you consider the amount of tax they will have paid throughout their lifetime.

It's very annoying to see an 80 yr old lady paying when there are 20 or 30 year olds exempt simply because they live in a council estate.

You're entitled to your opinion, but in mine, both groups should be paying.

If I work my ass off for 40 odd years and make something of my life, manage to get a decent pension or retirement fund just to have this taxed to the hilt by the government despite the fact I will have paid an awful lot of tax throughout my career I'd be on the first plane out of here with my money to a country that respects its elderly and doesn't tax their life savings to pay for some lazy 20 yr old to sit at home on the dole all day.

donalg1

gerryo777 wrote: »

My wifes parents live in a council estate, they bought their house years ago and finished paying for it about 3 years ago.
They're both 70 next week.

The mother-in-law paid this tax last week because of one reason.....fear!

They have just about enough to live on as it is.
They don't have a car, they don't go on holidays.


Now, next door are another couple, married with 3 kids I think.
They rent.

The following is true, no messing!

Around last october they were moved out of their house.
A building contractor arrived and fitted new double glazed windows, a complete new heating system, re-wired the house, fitted a new kitchen and bathroom and then the whole house was painted and decorated inside and out.
The couple moved back in.

Neither of these two work.
Neither of these two have to pay any household tax.
These two people seem to have more disposable income than my in-laws even though they have 3 kids to rear.
They have a 07 ford focus in the drive.
They have at least 1 foreign holiday a year.

There is something seriously wrong with this country and I hope the IMF/EU stay until it's sorted out.

Worst thing is everyone knows people like this.

tayto lover

donalg1 wrote: »

If I work my ass off for 40 odd years and make something of my life, manage to get a decent pension or retirement fund just to have this taxed to the hilt by the government despite the fact I will have paid an awful lot of tax throughout my career I'd be on the first plane out of here with my money to a country that respects its elderly and doesn't tax their life savings to pay for some lazy 20 yr old to sit at home on the dole all day.

That's my story.
Was never entitled to Education Grants for kids or any other grants. Always paid my way but will not pay a Household Tax. You shouldn't retire to pay unfair taxes after paying for over 40 years.

gerryo777

black francis wrote: »

That's hardly my point. I'm not arguing that people on LA housing should be exempt from a property tax, I'm asking how is increasing income tax as an alternative proposal a better option for dealing with this issue?

Because that is being fair.
The guy with a job who lives in a council house pays the same as the guy with a job who lives in his own house.
This tax is not going to work.
I would rather pay more income tax than this tax.

All income should be treated/taxed the same, weather that be from social welfare or pensions or employment.
Now that would be fair.

gerryo777

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

Dead right.

Plenty of them have escaped blue murder so far. There are people with whopping great big net worths and pensions, and just because they are over 60, they seem to be exempted from making a contribution.

They should make a proportionate contribution and there should be no 'positive discrimination'.

Isn't yer man fingleton a pensioner????

Bishop_Donal

gerryo777 wrote: »

My wifes parents live in a council estate, they bought their house years ago and finished paying for it about 3 years ago.
They're both 70 next week.

The mother-in-law paid this tax last week because of one reason.....fear!

They have just about enough to live on as it is.
They don't have a car, they don't go on holidays.


Now, next door are another couple, married with 3 kids I think.
They rent.

The following is true, no messing!

Around last october they were moved out of their house.
A building contractor arrived and fitted new double glazed windows, a complete new heating system, re-wired the house, fitted a new kitchen and bathroom and then the whole house was painted and decorated inside and out.
The couple moved back in.

Neither of these two work.
Neither of these two have to pay any household tax.
These two people seem to have more disposable income than my in-laws even though they have 3 kids to rear.
They have a 07 ford focus in the drive.
They have at least 1 foreign holiday a year.

There is something seriously wrong with this country and I hope the IMF/EU stay until it's sorted out.

I agree that what you outline is genuinely disgraceful.

The Social Welfare benefits in the country are a fcuking disgrace and a complete disincentive to work, and based on what you outline if I was in your in-laws position I'd be totally pissed of.

Bottom line for me is that you need to seriously reduce SW benefits for layabouts, and ideally reduce taxes on employment and income to encourage Rose and Onslow to get up off their fat (I suspect) holes and contribute something to society.

All that said, it doesn't mitigate the requirement for a properly structured house / wealth tax in this country. That is needed in addition to the changes referred to above.

Bishop_Donal

gerryo777 wrote: »

Isn't yer man fingleton a pensioner????

Yes. Very good point!!!! (And Seanie while your at it!!) Would we think he should be exempt from paying tax on his 'accrued' wealth (just because he is 60 or 65)??

I certainly don't!!

gerryo777

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

All that said, it doesn't mitigate the requirement for a properly structured house / wealth tax in this country. That is needed in addition to the changes referred to above.

As I said, maybe, just maybe in a few years when this country gets up off it's arse and we see a lot of the pure wastage done away with.

Hopefully the IMF/EU will sort that out for us, at least it will be the one positive thing to come out of the mess bertie & FF left us in.

gerryo777

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

Yes. Very good point!!!! (And Seanie while your at it!!) Would we think he should be exempt from paying tax on his 'accrued' wealth (just because he is 60 or 65)??

I certainly don't!!

Ah, sure seanie is bankrupt!!!!

Bishop_Donal

gerryo777 wrote: »

Ah, sure seanie is bankrupt!!!!

But his elderly wife ain't, so maybe she could throw in a few euro (unless her age dictates that it wouldn't be fair).

Freddie59

lugha wrote: »

The allegation is that collecting the HHC from those that don't pay voluntarily is bullying. This has nothing to do with where the money is or is not ultimately spent.

It has everything to do with it. And as for using thr word "patriotic" it sickens me to here it. Patriotic? To bail out banksters?

Freddie59

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You forgot to say what is that thing which is too terrible to contemplate. You seem to have a fixation on borrowing and the public service. If you know all other countries have lower numbers and wages in their public service than ourselves then show a few examples. You can amuse yourself looking at how other countries are doing with their debt levels. Looks like the Norwegians and the Canadians who are usually held up as examples of probity are not much different from ourselves. And Japan must be a basket case.


http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock

I think the withholding of funding for even a week or two will be catastrophic. And it will happen. Much as you want to wish it away......:rolleyes:

Freddie59

black francis wrote: »

It's nothing to do with local services.

It's everything to do with balancing the budget.

Goverenment have shot themselves in the foot with their attempt to link the payment to services. I could have told them the problems which would arise trying to sell this message, and I'm a lot cheaper than their advisors.

And they still pay them €130k a year. Proof, if ever it was needed, that it is the same circus. But with different clowns.

Izzy Skint

black francis wrote: »

Given that even the most vehement anti household charge protestors probably accept that some form of revenue raising is required, what is the preference?

They are really only 2 choices, consumption taxes or income taxes.

Why are we so obsessed with raising taxes / generating income....the focus should be squarely on CUTTING SPENDING, CUTTING NOW and CUTTING SEVERELY....
this is far more preferable to raising taxes....ok, so cutting spending will take money out of the economy, but the savings and deficit reduction from this would far outweigh any effects from the loss of this money in the economy....
there is plenty of cuts that could be made but start with public sector pay and pensions and social welfare.....it would take politicians with balls to do this....unfortunately all we have are bullies, wasters and Europe's "yes" boys.
How do they expect to close a deficit of €15b -€18b (or whatever it is at the moment) without MASSIVE spending cuts ??...there is really no other way and the sooner the better....I think it is already too late....

Izzy Skint

and before anybody accuses me of wanting to close police stations, sack teachers, sack nurses etc. that is not what I want BUT the cuts can still be made without severely effecting the "frontline"....there must be a huge amount of waste on senior managers, junior managers, administration etc but as I have said it will take guts to do this.
Plenty of more cuts such as reduce the "rolls royce" public sector pensions, cut civil service numbers and pay, scrap the seanad, reduce number of TD's and their pay and expenses, cut the size of the army, cut the quangos (how many are there?...the government don't even know! ), cut social welfare and / or tax it and all the other benefits received, cut number of councils / corporations and the concillors...this is just for starters and there are many more.
until I can see the government making a serious and successful attempt at tackling all of the above there is not a hope in hell they will get a penny in household charges from me.

alastair

So... just to be clear

You don't want to severely impact on public sector frontline staff, unless they're civil servants or in the defence forces?

You want to reduce the overhead of 'rolls royce' pensions, conveniently ignoring the fact that public sector workers now are obliged to pay their pension levy, and that the terms of public sector pensions were considerably reduced a few years back - the 'rolls royce' pension deals are pretty hard to come by these days.

Which quango do you want to cut? Specifics would be nice - since quite a few of them offer very good value returns for their funding.

The number of local authority bodies here makes little sense alright, but ditching the Seanad offers little in the way of savings, and costs the overhead of a referendum. I'm also guessing that you've never had the pleasure of having to get by on the proceeds of signing on? You might not be so eager to slash and burn in that area if you had.

You'll still be paying your household charge though. As you should.

Izzy Skint wrote: »

and before anybody accuses me of wanting to close police stations, sack teachers, sack nurses etc. that is not what I want BUT the cuts can still be made without severely effecting the "frontline"....there must be a huge amount of waste on senior managers, junior managers, administration etc but as I have said it will take guts to do this.
Plenty of more cuts such as reduce the "rolls royce" public sector pensions, cut civil service numbers and pay, scrap the seanad, reduce number of TD's and their pay and expenses, cut the size of the army, cut the quangos (how many are there?...the government don't even know! ), cut social welfare and / or tax it and all the other benefits received, cut number of councils / corporations and the concillors...this is just for starters and there are many more.
until I can see the government making a serious and successful attempt at tackling all of the above there is not a hope in hell they will get a penny in household charges from me.

alastair

donalg1 wrote: »

It's very annoying to see an 80 yr old lady paying when there are 20 or 30 year olds exempt simply because they live in a council estate.

It's very annoying to see an 80 yr old lady motorist paying her motor tax when there are 20 or 30 year olds exempt simply because they take the bus.

When we get the proper tiered property tax system, there will be mechanisms for ability to pay, so notional 80 year old dear will probably have a nice waiver, unless she's a rich 80 year old dear.

Wild Bill

alastair wrote: »

When we get the proper tiered property tax system, there will be mechanisms for ability to pay, so notional 80 year old dear will probably have a nice waiver, unless she's a rich 80 year old dear.

So Al, what % householders have registered for this illegitimate tax at this stage (deadline + 3 days)?

A simple answer please. :rolleyes:

dvpower

Wild Bill wrote: »

So Al, what % householders have registered for this illegitimate tax at this stage (deadline + 3 days)?

A simple answer please. :rolleyes:

Are you not able to look it up yourself?

You could post the answer here when you find out.