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

Freddie59

black francis wrote: »

Sounds like a bs opinion piece by the Shinners.

(un)Surprisingly light on anything which demonstrates Iceland are better off financially having told the IMF to **** off.

Not so. I would admire them greatly, If only this country had done the same......but then you need a leader with balls. Something we haven't had in years.

Chucky the tree

black francis wrote: »

Sounds like a bs opinion piece by the Shinners.

(un)Surprisingly light on anything which demonstrates Iceland are better off financially having told the IMF to **** off.

That's because Iceland never told the IMF to **** off.

Freddie59

Chucky the tree wrote: »

That's because Iceland never told the IMF to **** off.

Yes. They told the brits and the dutch to **** off.....and still retained a line of credit from the IMF. Genius really.:)

lugha

Freddie59 wrote: »

Not so. I would admire them greatly, If only this country had done the same......but then you need a leader with balls. Something we haven't had in years.

Balls don’t come in to it. What would you have done about the 20 billion deficit?

Instant adjustment? Certainly some were suggesting we go that route. But others including the last government reckoned that would be catastrophic and took the route we are on.

Perhaps the other approach might have worked out better but for me it was a judgment call, not a lack of courage (what courage was needed?)

Freddie59

lugha wrote: »

What would you have done about the 20 billion deficit?

That famous €400m a week that we're borrowing for PS/CS pay? Grabbed the bull by the horns and told the unions the facts of life.

Which is where the balls come in..........:rolleyes:

lugha

Freddie59 wrote: »

That famous €400m a week that we're borrowing for PS/CS pay? Grabbed the bull by the horns and told the unions the facts of life.

So you are talking about an instant adjustment. Are you satisfied that the economy could have survived that kind of impact?

Freddie59

lugha wrote: »

So you are talking about an instant adjustment. Are you satisfied that the economy could have survived that kind of impact?

Are you confident it can survive borrowing €400m a week indefinitely?

gerryo777

black francis wrote: »

Iceland are doing nicely?

Biggest load of ****e yet posted - educate yourself man on the drop in living standards experienced in Iceland befroe you post such ill-informed rubbish.

Sure there's been no drop in living standards in Ireland, at least not for our cosseted PS/CS employees.

gerryo777

black francis wrote: »

Just because you say it's correct does not make it true.

Ireland's unemployment rate was over 4% prior to the economic crisis as measured by Eurostat, unless of course you'd like to post a link to back up your 3% claim.

I await with interest.

Ok, so it's almost quadrupled!

lugha

gerryo777 wrote: »

Sure there's been no drop in living standards in Ireland, at least not for our cosseted PS/CS employees.

Gerry, would you not agree that the campaign against the HHC, if successful, would have the effect of undermining the authority and clout of the government and that it turn would make it harder for them to tackle the PS unions?

gerryo777

Cesium Clock wrote: »

and answer post #2773

Your wasting your time, as I've said before the pro tax brigade aren't able to answer questions.

They love taxes because it keeps the increments (pay rises to you and me) coming.

lugha

Freddie59 wrote: »

Are you confident it can survive borrowing €400m a week indefinitely?

I'm confident we can't! The issue is how quick do you make the adjustment. You seem to be suggesting that we should have done it instantly (i.e. never brought in the IMF)

Well the PS issue would be solved. The couldn't be paid because there would be no money to pay them.

But do you think that that would be the only effect, and all would be rosey in the garden? (Remember, we are talking about taking 20 billion euro out of the economy in one go!). Do you not think that maybe, there may have been some side effects?

Frank Black

Chucky the tree wrote: »

That's because Iceland never told the IMF to **** off.

Someone needs to tell Clocky.

Cesium Clock wrote: »

Iceland and Brazil told the IMF to f**k off as you put it and they are doing nicely now,

,

gerryo777

lugha wrote: »

Gerry, would you not agree that the campaign against the HHC, if successful, would have the effect of undermining the authority and clout of the government and that it turn would make it harder for them to tackle the PS unions?

No Irish government has the will to take on the PS/CS unions.

Our only hope is that the IMF/ECB stay here until it's done.
Enda & co have cover now that they're here, so the time has come to act.

The household charge might have worked if it hadn't been discriminatory towards property owners.

I might have even paid it myself!;)

lugha

gerryo777 wrote: »

No Irish government has the will to take on the PS/CS unions.

Our only hope is that the IMF/ECB stay here until it's done.

The IMF have absolutely so authority whatsoever in Ireland. The can demand that certain things be done but ultimately, it must be the government that does it.

Do you imagine the IMF are going to take seats in the Dail or something?

gerryo777

lugha wrote: »

The IMF have absolutely so authority whatsoever in Ireland. The can demand that certain things be done but ultimately, it must be the government that does it.

Are you serious?

Have you ever heard the expression 'he who pays the piper, calls the tune'?

The government will implement exactly what their told like they're trying to do with a discriminatory tax.
But, nowhere in the MOI with the troika did it say that new taxes are to be discriminatory!

dxhound2005

dxhound2005 wrote: »

France has a property tax. And a wealth tax as well.

http://www.french-property.com/guides/france/finance-taxation/taxation/local-property-taxes/

Ghandee wrote: »

The French get services provided for their service charge.

We won't.

Going back a bit. You responded within four minutes claiming knowledge of what the French property tax pays for. I decided to do a little research.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0124/1224310672329.html

In addition to the two main household taxes, there are smaller levies and charges that local authorities can use to generate income for specific services. These include a rubbish collection tax (calculated from the notional rental value of your home) and a street cleaning tax (based mainly on the type of street). Households also pay for the water they use. Rates vary from region to region, but they are calculated via water meters installed in houses and apartment buildings. The system is usually managed by private companies, and their involvement in local water provision has been a source of controversy.

Chucky the tree

black francis wrote: »

Someone needs to tell Clocky.

He's to busy looking for articles to copy and paste I think.

lugha

gerryo777 wrote: »

Are you serious?

Have you ever heard the expression 'he who pays the piper, calls the tune'?

The government will implement exactly what their told …

Well you don’t refute my argument that it must be the government that implements any PS changes, even if it at the behest of the IMF so I’ll assume you accept this. So my original question stands. If you weaken the government (the agent that effects any change in the PS) then are you not ensuring that reform will come later rather than sooner.

And BTW, why exactly would the IMF be any great rush to see the Irish PS sorted out? After all, the longer we are borrowing, the more interest we ultimately pay to them, no?

Maybe Enda & co are gagging to go to work on the PS but the IMF won’t let them?

Ghandee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Going back a bit. You responded within four minutes claiming knowledge of what the French property tax pays for. I decided to do a little research.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0124/1224310672329.html

In addition to the two main household taxes, there are smaller levies and charges that local authorities can use to generate income for specific services. These include a rubbish collection tax (calculated from the notional rental value of your home) and a street cleaning tax (based mainly on the type of street). Households also pay for the water they use. Rates vary from region to region, but they are calculated via water meters installed in houses and apartment buildings. The system is usually managed by private companies, and their involvement in local water provision has been a source of controversy.

Oh I did some research before I posted what you have just quoted me on from last night too.
This is what I came up with though......

If you live in a rural area you will find that a refuse collection service will not come to your home, but some areas do offer this service. Those that do not will have collection points. However, it is a service that you pay for in the form of a tax. Most collection services are run by private companies under the direction of the local mairie and the charge for this is known as the ‘taxe d’enlevement des ordures menageres’ which is included in the tax bill given for the property taxes each year. In some areas this might not appear on your bill as some communes are able to cover the charges without the need to charge you extra. It is likely in the future that this tax will be calculated on the amount of waste being produced by each household. Homes that are exempt from the annual property tax will still need to pay for the waste disposal tax.

Taken from a website that gives advice to expats, and people considering moving to France.

http://www.expatfocus.com/expatriate-france-waste-disposal


You took yours from the Irish times website.
From a newspaper that is so far right in economic matters, it can hardly be wrong now can it?

I'll leave it up to the readers of this thread to decide whose version of events could possibly be careless with the truth.

Frank Black

Ghandee wrote: »

I'll leave it up to the readers of this thread to decide whose version of events could possibly be careless with the truth.

The unverified expat website I'd imagine.

Ghandee

black francis wrote: »

The unverified expat website I'd imagine.

Lol.

Your gas Francie.


You truly are.

Cesium Clock

Chucky the tree wrote: »

That's because Iceland never told the IMF to **** off.

Well spotted and spotted a lot quicker than some others

Frank Black

Cesium Clock wrote: »

Well spotted and spotted a lot quicker than some others

:rolleyes:

bgrizzley

I don’t accept that re-running those treaties were undemocratic. You could argue that it arrogant or disrespectful for the government to have done so, but ultimately the people voted for them. Hence the charge of undemocratic fails. Anyway, there is little point in opening up a new front on an unrelated topic, unless you genuinely reject my assertion that the people should accept the government the people elect, even if they did not vote for them?

have to disagree with you there, making people vote til they do it the way you want is fundamentally undemocratic. why dont the people get a second GE when it doesnt go our way?


Again, we have the no side insisting that all of those who did not pay, and quite a few that did (because of this imaginary bullying) are principled opponents of this charge. And I accept that many of them are (I don’t think they have a credible case, but I accept that they themselves genuinely think they do). But all of them, principled objectors?
Well lets see. As you rightly point out, there are a sizable proportion of the population who are freeloaders and will always look to avoid paying their share. Let’s say it is 15% of the people (feel free to offer your own estimate, if you disagree).
Now, where do you suppose those 15% are on the HHC issue? Do you think they have repented of their freeloading ways and paid up? Or is it not more likely that they are in the ranks of the “did not pay”, quite possible pretending that they have a principled objection?
I’m (half!) joking of course. But it is daft to dismiss the reality that there is a sizable chunk on the no side who are not quite as principled as you suggest. What would your estimate be?

you are quiet correct not all are doing for pricipled motives, my own are probably self serving, but can you really say that all the Yes voters here are doing so for the good of the country. there are no self serving interests among them? on the tax evaders figure i would guess it to be much higher in Ireland, i see it every day.


Again, this is OT IMO but briefly, I myself did not voluntarily take a pay cut and request that the monies be returned to the exchequer to do my bit. (Like many, Phil included, I did had some involuntarily taken!).

Of course I could never afford what Phil probably could afford but I might have swung a nominal few hundred a year at a push. But I didn’t so I won’t be hypocritical and criticize a fellow citizen for not doing something that I was unprepared to do myself. May I ask, how much of a voluntary pay cut did you take to aid the state?

0% but like you i wouldnt be on the kind of wages and expenses that Phil is on. Having said that i think i have already pointed out that if i was asked to, i would give more money , i just wont do it as what is tantamount to a rent on my home.



It is close to impossible to identify the afore-mentioned old FF voter. Granted, one or two make is fairly obvious but most won’t admit it. But there are a few indicators. And the mantra that “they are all the same” is one such tell. Something you would like to share with us?

lmao, of all or them going i wouldnt vote FF. in fact i think they are the only bunch that never even got a transfer from me.
but i guess never say never......

jluv

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I feel I am justified in my choice not to pay.The reasons being..
1. I feel the primary reason for imposing this tax is not to generate money for services but to get people to register their houses.This is why even those exempt for this need to register.The money generated from this won't last anytime when you consider some of the pay scales within the LA.
2.I paid a lot of money already for services when I built my house and did not recieve the services that that kind of money should have been used for.Had to pay additional for these services.
3.I was in a position where the LA would have been quite happy to provide me with housing,not because I needed it but because the terms to recieving LA housing are so lax. Yes I chose not to but a lot of others who did not need it did and now they also get an exemtion from this tax.Even if they are in shared ownership with the LA they do not have to pay any part of this even though they have a property same as I do. If they buy this house from the LA they can sell it with no fear of liens on their house but because of this unfair tax I will have a lien on my house.
4.I refuse to get upset when people call me a tax dodger/unpatriotic/scrounger because I have always paid my way and I am proud of it.I have never been a burden to this country.So I get really peeved when the government think that I am a fool.Be upfront about what you are doing.I know they would get a better response from me.
Again no point in saying to me about the country's debt.I understand all that.The issue for me is that I don't believe this is going to help much and that the underlying reason for this tax is not what they are telling us..

sdanseo

Doesn't apply to me, would have paid anyway if it did.

Law is law, no mater how much we hate it.

Slick50

Snakeblood wrote: »

I dunno if you're wilfully misunderstanding me.

There was no misunderstanding. It was a suitably flippant response to your post.

Snakeblood wrote: »

The government needs to get money from the populace. I pay about 35% of my gross income in PAYE tax. Tax rates used to be far higher and people used to pay far more as a percentage of their income in PAYE tax. They came down during the bubble because property related income was so high for the government they could afford to reduce the take. Now that property income is gone. The government promised (which they shouldn't have done) that they wouldn't increase income tax, or reduce dole. As a result, the money has to be taken from somewhere.

Stamp duty was never meant to be a major part of government income. It was introduced as a wealth tax, with the first one hundred and twentyfive thousand euros exempt, well above the then price of the average home. Consecutive governments failed to adjust the exemption limits as property prices soared, accepting the unexpected "windfall" to swell the states cashflow.

The property boom is not what allowed the governments to reduce paye and prsi rates. That was possible because of the economy taking off, largely due to the influx of international companies setting up here. Which led to a reduction of numbers unemployed, and an increase in economic activity overall. This had a snowball effect, leading to further reductions in unemployment and more economic activity. This lead to "full employment" realeasing more money for "discretionary spending" by the government, because SW payments became negligable.

So this myth that our whole economy was based on unsustainable property/stamp duty returns is bunkum.

So we managed to sustain our economy without a property tax for fifteen or so years, even managing to grow into the "boom years" without one. Why shouldn't we go back to that economic model, when it worked before. Even if it does mean the government has to go back on it's word, that has never been a problem for them before.

Snakeblood wrote: »

Your second point is right insofar as it makes us stupid. We should have had one instead of relying on one off Stamp duty for money. Thank Fianna Fail for that I suppose. It's not a reason to not return to a property tax, which is a steady income for the Government that isn't as affected by property booms and busts.

"Because they have one" is not reason enough to introduce a property tax here, as far as I'm concerned, besides even at the hight of the boom stamp duty was bringing in around one and a half billion. Which is only "sustainable" if people can afford it.

Slick50

black francis wrote: »

Actually you were the one who initially raised the example of Iceland as a shining example of telling the IMF to **** off.

A claim you've been unable to back up in any way.

Keep on spoofing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucky the tree
That's because Iceland never told the IMF to **** off.

black francis wrote:

Someone needs to tell Clocky.

Your not usualy so shy about doing that????

jluv

sdeire wrote: »

Doesn't apply to me, would have paid anyway if it did.

Law is law, no mater how much we hate it.

And believe it or not I have been a law abiding citizen to this point.I am willing to accept whatever consequences this may bring due to my choice.However I cannot sit quietly and pay what I feel is a discriminatory,bogus tax.