Potential court action for people who don't pay household charge

Statistician

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But what you are arguing is that the land registry data is just there as a curiosity. Everybody who pays good money to look at the data does so as a first step in a process - you don't just go and have a look at it for a laugh.

You seem to think that it is like a phone book that you can look at for fun but not dial any of the numbers?

(and aside from this, the government can amend the legislation anyway)

Why don't you just look at the data protection website I linked to? It's all explained there - what you can and can't do with data. You won't then have to read my third-hand explanation.

As I mentioned before, this legislation is there for a reason.

Statistician

Monty Burnz wrote: »

How do you know where the money is going to go? More likely it is your income tax that will be paying off the ECB (the overwhelming majority of the bonds are repaid now).

Perhaps you should not pay your income tax and pay your household charge as that money will be directed towards local services for you and your community?

I've had enough of this now.
We all know where the money is going.

Monty Burnz

Statistician wrote: »

Why don't you just look at the data protection website I linked to? It's all explained there - what you can and can't do with data. You won't then have to read my third-hand explanation.

Sure, I'll have a look in a while if I get a chance.

Statistician wrote: »

As I mentioned before, this legislation is there for a reason.

It is, but the legislation is flawed because the government very often uses it as an excuse to prevent the citizens from accessing data that they should be allowed (the long delay in creating a property-price database was blamed on this, and various other things).

And without getting into the rights and wrongs of it, the fact is that the government is free to amend the law if it needs to.

Monty Burnz

Statistician wrote: »

I've had enough of this now.
We all know where the money is going.

Well we don't, and that's a fact. At best, you can argue it all goes into a common pot and is not ring-fenced.

Cedrus

ResearchWill wrote: »

A TD is only disqualified from holding office if he convicted and receives a term of imprisonment exceeding 6 months. (Section 41 Electoral Act 1992) I believe that the Household Charge Act only allows for fines, so there is no problem with any TD being convicted.

What happens when he is fined and refuses to pay and still refuses to register?
Subsequent court orders and contempt of court are reasons for gaoling are they not?

My real point is that the cheerleaders will buckle the same as before and leave the ordinary people in the sh!te same as the anti bin charges movement.

KarmaBaby

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They can check the land registry, electoral register, utility bills, the Revenue Commissioners etc., whatever. It's kind of hard to hide a house.

I'd point out that the 'people of Ireland' and their representatives in the Dail are on the same side against sovereign default, so at best this is an own-goal.

Water charges were defeated in the past due to mass non-payment on a smaller scale and in fewer areas.

This time we have nationwide non-compliance of between 51% and 73% depending on the county.

Ultimately the government will have no choice but to abandon the process by which it is trying to collect the €100 charge, because they cannot throw 1 Million people in jail and people will defiantly ignore the fines.

The scale of the CAHWT is enormous. The people have spoken. They're not paying. What else can the government do?

murphaph

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The data in the land registry is there to show who owns what property. That is exactly what the government would use it for. The only 'fields' they would require would be the address and the name of the owner. The land registry is accurate.

I'm not so sure it would be a lot of use in many cases.

I own a rented out house and my address in the land registry for that house is that house, but I haven't lived there for a number of years. I would be relying on my tenants to pass the bill on and not throw it in the bin. The government could presumably "hunt me down" in a roundabout way through my mortgage or whatever but many landlords have no mortgage and would have rent collected. In this case, the only connection between a house and the owner could be as little as a mobile phone number.

Secondly, we have some family owned property that is not registered with the land registry at all, it is only registry of deeds. I know there are also lots of completely unregistered properties scattered across the country that have literally no deeds, no registration of any kind.

I think the government should establish a modern database with up to date details of who owns what. It should be capable of being used for tax purposes amongst other things. It should be compulsory to register any property you own and update the database whenever your circumstances change.

I don't think it's too much to ask for a neighbour to be able to easily locate the owner of the adjacent property should his oil tank start leaking into the soil or whatever.

KarmaBaby

Cedrus wrote: »

What happens when he is fined and refuses to pay and still refuses to register?
Subsequent court orders and contempt of court are reasons for gaoling are they not?

My real point is that the cheerleaders will buckle the same as before and leave the ordinary people in the sh!te same as the anti bin charges movement.

This has been answered many times before by the SP in relation to the anti-bin charges campaign.

No one involved in the campaign was left "in the sh1te" as you put it. This is a myth pedalled by opponent tot he CAHWT and has been answered comprehensively and repeatedly by the SP radio interviews.

If you can find evidence to contrary, please do.

KarmaBaby

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The amount of money the government repays the ECB will be the same anyway.

Really?

So you don't believe that Ireland is heading for an inevitable structured default anyway, after which all the austerity will have been for nothing?

murphaph

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Water charges were defeated in the past due to mass non-payment on a smaller scale and in fewer areas.

This time we have nationwide non-compliance of between 51% and 73% depending on the county.

Ultimately the government will have no choice but to abandon the process by which it is trying to collect the €100 charge, because they cannot throw 1 Million people in jail and people will defiantly ignore the fines.

The scale of the CAHWT is enormous. The people have spoken. They're not paying. What else can the government do?

The government can resign and let the people try to elect a government that sh!ts money.

In reality the government is right on this. We should have never abandoned domestic rates in the first place. We should have reformed them. property taxation is completely normal just about everywhere else in the civilised world and that includes the home of capitalism, the US, where property taxes can run into thousands of dollars a year.

Why many Irish people feel that there should simply be no property taxes is beyond me.

People can ignore fines but they can legislate to have the fines deducted from source income in the case of PAYE/Welfare and can add a lien to the property for anyone else, so you'll never be able to sell without clearing the tax, plus fines plus interest.

I guarantee you the non-compliance rate will tumble as soon as a few people are prosecuted. Most people pay the TV licence for God's sake.

Going Forward

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I suppose because it's cheaper for the taxpayer if they don't have to set hundreds of civil servants digging up this stuff, and one of the most important criteria for any tax is that it is efficient to levy it. If it costs them €50 to dig out the info for a €100 tax, it's not exactly good value for the taxpayer.

Of course, money lost in digging out the info due to non-payers will just have to be raised or cut from somewhere else. Cue howls of outrage over longer waits for hospital appointments etc...

thousands of workers in now idle planning departments must be crying out for a bit of work to keep themselves busy.

KarmaBaby

Monty Burnz wrote: »

How do you know where the money is going to go? More likely it is your income tax that will be paying off the ECB (the overwhelming majority of the bonds are repaid now).

Perhaps you should not pay your income tax and pay your household charge as that money will be directed towards local services for you and your community?

Yes, yes, we know the taxes are being collected into one big pot, but that's not the point.

The point is the government arguing that the tax is being used to fund local services but that is clearly not the case.

The cuts to local authority budgets last year were more than what the household charge could accumulate even with 100% compliance.

Also, while I don't have evidence of this I believe it to be the case that local authorities have not included income from the household charge as part of their funding for expenditure this year. I am sure I saw this in the minutes for one of the Dublin Council meetings earlier in the year but don't seem to be able to find it now.

KarmaBaby

murphaph wrote: »

The government can resign and let the people try to elect a government that sh!ts money.

In reality the government is right on this. We should have never abandoned domestic rates in the first place. We should have reformed them. property taxation is completely normal just about everywhere else in the civilised world and that includes the home of capitalism, the US, where property taxes can run into thousands of dollars a year.

Why many Irish people feel that there should simply be no property taxes is beyond me.

People can ignore fines but they can legislate to have the fines deducted from source income in the case of PAYE/Welfare and can add a lien to the property for anyone else, so you'll never be able to sell without clearing the tax, plus fines plus interest.

I guarantee you the non-compliance rate will tumble as soon as a few people are prosecuted. Most people pay the TV licence for God's sake.

I agree with a property tax based on wealth, but that is not what this is.

It's not that people don't believe in such taxation. It's that they've paid a butload of stamp duty already, they're in negative equity, they're broke, in debt, unemployed, they have no more money.......but they're being asked to pay the same €100 tax as a billionaire in a mansion.

That is not how it done in any other country where property tax exist, and before someone jumps in with the line straight out of the FG locker room about establishing a base level for the tax. That is not what the government is doing at all. The ESRI have already made that clear.

Monty Burnz

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Water charges were defeated in the past due to mass non-payment on a smaller scale and in fewer areas.

This time we have nationwide non-compliance of between 51% and 73% depending on the county.

Ultimately the government will have no choice but to abandon the process by which it is trying to collect the €100 charge, because they cannot throw 1 Million people in jail and people will defiantly ignore the fines.

The scale of the CAHWT is enormous. The people have spoken. They're not paying. What else can the government do?

Well ultimately if the tax isn't paid that way, it will be paid some other way. Hurray. Plus a load of taxpayers' money wasted in the process.

KarmaBaby

murphaph wrote: »

People can ignore fines but they can legislate to have the fines deducted from source income in the case of PAYE/Welfare and can add a lien to the property for anyone else, so you'll never be able to sell without clearing the tax, plus fines plus interest.

I guarantee you the non-compliance rate will tumble as soon as a few people are prosecuted. Most people pay the TV licence for God's sake.

Guarantee all you want, but you'd be ignoring what has happened in the past in relation to the water charges where the non-compliance rate was much lower.

At present, the state cannot take the tax/fines from people's salaries. They would need to bring in new legislation to do that. I'm not a solicitor but I don't believe they have a hope in hell of bringing in such laws.

Monty Burnz

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Really?

So you don't believe that Ireland is heading for an inevitable structured default anyway, after which all the austerity will have been for nothing?

Ah, that's a whole other debate for another thread. We should have defaulted a long time ago, but you do understand that there will be blood on the streets if/when that happens?

I think the misery of a default would be appalling, but it would be over in a couple of years.

KarmaBaby

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well ultimately if the tax isn't paid that way, it will be paid some other way. Hurray. Plus a load of taxpayers' money wasted in the process.

What other way? You're not listening. Ordinary people have no more money.

If you mean a wealth tax targeting the top 10% of high earners, that would be a huge success for the campaign.

KarmaBaby

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think the misery of a default would be appalling, but it would be over in a couple of years.

You've not been to Argentina any time in the last decade then? Try a couple of decades, not years.

Cedrus

KarmaBaby wrote: »

This has been answered many times before by the SP in relation to the anti-bin charges campaign.

No one involved in the campaign was left "in the sh1te" as you put it. This is a myth pedalled by opponent tot he CAHWT and has been answered comprehensively and repeatedly by the SP radio interviews.

If you can find evidence to contrary, please do.

I personally know people who were left with 4 & 5 years of back charges plus fines that they couldn't afford, unless you're alleging that they're liars and someone (SP?) stepped in and paid it for them.

KarmaBaby

Cedrus wrote: »

I personally know people who were left with 4 & 5 years of back charges plus fines that they couldn't afford, unless you're alleging that they're liars and someone (SP?) stepped in and paid it for them.

So what? The campaign was based on non-payment of the charge and the subsequent fines. People knew the risks when they signed up to the campaign, but you won't find someone that went to prison for non payment of the charge.

Monty Burnz

KarmaBaby wrote: »

You've not been to Argentina any time in the last decade then? Try a couple of decades, not years.

I lived there for a while, middle 2000s. I've a good idea of what sovereign default looks like. There's no reason that we shouldn't recover reasonably well after 5 years or so - Argentina have made a bit of a balls of it with woeful economic mismanagement.

The alternative is a generation or two of economic drag as we pay down our national debt and skimp on health/education/infrastructure spending.

It's really a case of 'choose your poison'.

Monty Burnz

KarmaBaby wrote: »

What other way? You're not listening. Ordinary people have no more money.

If you mean a wealth tax targeting the top 10% of high earners, that would be a huge success for the campaign.

And a disaster for the country as we chase everyone with any money out of it. This isn't the 19th century when wealth was immobile and easily taxed.

Cedrus

KarmaBaby wrote: »

So what? The campaign was based on non-payment of the charge and the subsequent fines. People knew the risks when they signed up to the campaign, but you won't find someone that went to prison for non payment of the charge.

I didn't say my friends were gaoled, but they were left in a financial and legal morass by a leadership some of whom had paid all their charges up to date while exhorting others not to pay.

There were a number of people jailed, as I said in my first post on this thread, IIRC it was about 10-20 of the prominent leadership.

KarmaBaby

Cedrus wrote: »

I didn't say my friends were gaoled, but they were left in a financial and legal morass by a leadership some of whom had paid all their charges up to date while exhorting others not to pay.

There were a number of people jailed, as I said in my first post on this thread, IIRC it was about 10-20 of the prominent leadership.

Those that were jailed were not for non payment of the fines but for blockades and they were all leading activists in the campaign, not ordinary people who simply didn't pay.

KarmaBaby

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And a disaster for the country as we chase everyone with any money out of it. This isn't the 19th century when wealth was immobile and easily taxed.

So basically what you're saying is that super rich people are so important that their riches need to be protected by he state? At least you're true to your handle.

Even from a capitalist perspective this is utterly bonkers, and a wealth tax exists right across Europe, but not yet in Ireland. It's inevitable in my view because the working class can't be squeezed any more. The same argument has been used for not increasing corporation tax and yet other countries in the EU with twice our corporation tax have only 4% or 5% unemployment.

Look, the only way to prevent the creation of an impoverished underbelly class in our society is to prevent the hyper-accumulation of wealth by a minority.

Not everyone believes the Denis O'Brien's and Dermot Desmond's of this world have anything to offer that will improve society. There should be an upper limit on their earnings. The rest should be taxed 100% by the state. If they want to leave, fine, we create a "leaving town tax" so there won't be any point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVo38a46zdc

Monty Burnz

KarmaBaby wrote: »

So basically what you're saying is that super rich people are so important that their riches need to be protected by he state? At least you're true to your handle.

No, their wealth does not need to be protected - but if you try to tax their assets, they will just move them out of the country, and possibly remove themselves too. In addition, it will be become difficult to attract or retain skilled workers if you make their taxes punitive. You end up with a big slice of a tiny pie. This isn't an ideological view (I despise ideology), it's pure pragmatism.

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Even from a capitalist perspective this is utterly bonkers, and a wealth tax exists right across Europe, but not yet in Ireland. It's inevitable in my view because the working class can't be squeezed any more. The same argument has been used for not increasing corporation tax and yet other countries in the EU with twice our corporation tax have only 4% or 5% unemployment.

I don't know whether wealth taxes exist across Europe - but I know for certain that property taxes do. Are you making a distinction between taxing assets and taxing income? Which countries have 5% unemployment and twice our corporation tax? Germany? Any more?

Sadly, we are not Germany. We have a tiny (labour intensive) manufacturing industry compared to them. We have no 'Mittelstand'.

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Look, the only way to prevent the creation of an impoverished underbelly class in our society is to prevent the hyper-accumulation of wealth by a minority.

I think there is a basic misunderstanding here...well, two of them.

Firstly, person A getting rich does not make person B poor - wealth is not a zero-sum game. Don't take my word for it, read up on the economics of it.

The other misunderstanding is the 'impoverished underbelly' - I think we already have that, although they are socially, not monetarily impoverished. Over-generous social welfare has led to a situation where there are families where three generations have never worked. Why bother working when you get all you need from the state? They have been trapped in the underclass by having everything handed to them. Clearly our current model of social welfare is doing them more harm than good.

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Not everyone believes the Denis O'Brien's and Dermot Desmond's of this world have anything to offer that will improve society. There should be an upper limit on their earnings. The rest should be taxed 100% by the state. If they want to leave, fine, we create a "leaving town tax" so there won't be any point.

Ok, this paragraph is deeply silly. But I would point out that if Denis O'Brien or Dermot Desmond fund or create the next SAP or Google, it would bring massive employment and wealth into the country - not just for them, but for their employees. You need private investment and entrepreneurs to create jobs and wealth.

Cedrus

KarmaBaby wrote: »

Those that were jailed were not for non payment of the fines but for blockades and they were all leading activists in the campaign, not ordinary people who simply didn't pay.

I can see you're having difficulty reading my posts, I never said ordinary people were gaoled, I said leadership.

There was no blockade in Cork but there were at least 3 gaoled and a number of others had warrants issued which were not acted upon, perhaps last minute payments were made.

blowtorch

murphaph wrote: »

Why many Irish people feel that there should simply be no property taxes is beyond me.

Of course there should be a property tax - if the property is contributing / generating an income/profit for someone (like an Hotel, Warehouse, Apartment that's let, etc.)

But, for someone's home that's actually generating no income / profit, but costs a fortune to upkeep, I'm sorry, but I don't agree that the houses people have bought and maintain/upkeep and which a lot of people have made a loss on - these should not be 'property' taxed.

murphaph

blowtorch wrote: »

Of course there should be a property tax - if the property is contributing / generating an income/profit for someone (like an Hotel, Warehouse, Apartment that's let, etc.)

Do you own this sort of property?

blowtorch wrote: »

But, for someone's home that's actually generating no income / profit, but costs a fortune to upkeep, I'm sorry, but I don't agree that the houses people have bought and maintain/upkeep and which a lot of people have made a loss on - these should not be 'property' taxed.

...or just this sort of property?

I bet I can guess the answer.

I'm sick of the "taxes for the other guy" brigade tbh. Property taxation on residential property (owner occupied) is the NORM across the civilised world. Ireland is an exception and is only so because of a populist move by the FF government in the late 70's.

Godge

KarmaBaby wrote: »

So basically what you're saying is that super rich people are so important that their riches need to be protected by he state? At least you're true to your handle.

Even from a capitalist perspective this is utterly bonkers, and a wealth tax exists right across Europe, but not yet in Ireland. It's inevitable in my view because the working class can't be squeezed any more. The same argument has been used for not increasing corporation tax and yet other countries in the EU with twice our corporation tax have only 4% or 5% unemployment.

Look, the only way to prevent the creation of an impoverished underbelly class in our society is to prevent the hyper-accumulation of wealth by a minority.

Not everyone believes the Denis O'Brien's and Dermot Desmond's of this world have anything to offer that will improve society. There should be an upper limit on their earnings. The rest should be taxed 100% by the state. If they want to leave, fine, we create a "leaving town tax" so there won't be any point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVo38a46zdc

Sounds great in principle, breaks down in practice.

Take just one example this week - Gavin O'Reilly. I and many others assumed he was resident in Ireland, I mean he is the CEO of Independent Newspapers in Ireland but it seems, from allegations made in court, that he is resident in the UK, probably because of lower taxes. That is the way things will go for a lot more if we increase income tax.

I just wish people would understand the difference between income and wealth. Nothing wrong with income, it is earned, mostly through hard work. Wealth is just sitting there and those living off it should be taxed.

Godge

blowtorch wrote: »

Of course there should be a property tax - if the property is contributing / generating an income/profit for someone (like an Hotel, Warehouse, Apartment that's let, etc.)

But, for someone's home that's actually generating no income / profit, but costs a fortune to upkeep, I'm sorry, but I don't agree that the houses people have bought and maintain/upkeep and which a lot of people have made a loss on - these should not be 'property' taxed.

Absolute rubbish, all property should be taxed. The lowest in society don't own property.

Going Forward

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And a disaster for the country as we chase everyone with any money out of it. This isn't the 19th century when wealth was immobile and easily taxed.

The argument of other countries having property taxes should also be applied in Ireland in favour of a wealth tax.

I dont think we are a haven for the wealthy either so it would hardly have disastrous consequences.

The other argument about it dis-incentivising work, etc. can also be used in favour of ordinary people who have worked hard for their property only to see it now being targeted as easy pickings for tax reasons.

These things go both ways, but the ordinary joe soap cannot be continually tapped again and again.

A proper wealth tax would be more equitable IMO, after all whats 2 euros a week said Enda.

Going Forward

Godge wrote: »

Absolute rubbish, all property should be taxed. The lowest in society don't own property.

Why should all property be taxed?

Perhaps you would also like to introduce a tax on our children too using the same logic.

Is there anything in this life that you think should be exempt?

Monty Burnz

Going Forward wrote: »

The argument of other countries having property taxes should also be applied in Ireland in favour of a wealth tax.

You can't have it both ways though - should we have a property tax or not? I'd argue a wealth tax is largely useless as you'd find the wealth would just disappear to the Caymans or some other 'tax efficient' trickery would ensure nothing is collected and the country is the poorer for it.

Going Forward wrote: »

I dont think we are a haven for the wealthy either so it would hardly have disastrous consequences.

That makes no sense to be honest. It will drive out whatever wealthy are here. If you are saying there are no wealthy, where are the ULA's billions going to come from?

Going Forward wrote: »

The other argument about it dis-incentivising work, etc. can also be used in favour of ordinary people who have worked hard for their property only to see it now being targeted as easy pickings for tax reasons.

If they see everyone paying it, then it's not unfair.

Going Forward wrote: »

A proper wealth tax would be more equitable IMO, after all whats 2 euros a week said Enda.

For practical reasons, as stated repeatedly, it would not work.

christmas2012

these government officials brought about this tax without first consulting the people..

i would like to see them try and bring every single person who has not paid to court and to jail..

the more people that do not pay the more difficult it is for them remember that and keep the faith..

Monty Burnz

christmas2012 wrote: »

these government officials brought about this tax without first consulting the people..

i would like to see them try and bring every single person who has not paid to court and to jail..

the more people that do not pay the more difficult it is for them remember that and keep the faith..

Do you think we need a referendum for every line in the budget? :rolleyes:

They are not sending anyone to jail, they will just take it out of your income or put a lien on the property.

christmas2012

Going Forward wrote: »

Why should all property be taxed?

Perhaps you would also like to introduce a tax on our children too using the same logic.

Is there anything in this life that you think should be exempt?

couldnt agree more this country is going to ****...

going to a small back village in eastern europe seems to be the answer there should be somewhere in the world that doesnt suffer from over regulation..

its ridiculous

and the taxing kids thing?dont say it.. it just might happen yet..

i remember people laughing saying their going to tax us for air,look at the carbon footprint tax their talking about / universal social charge..

they dont give a **** about the enviornment (if they did shell wouldnt have happened but it did..its all stealth taxes)

if they are taxing for property,water,and all this other stuff,the income rate tax should take a nosedive but no such luck with our fat bastards in the dail who regularly commit fraud (ruari quinn putting in false travel and phone expenses),mary harney the fas scandal,ivor callely etc..

Monty Burnz

christmas2012 wrote: »

couldnt agree more this country is going to ****...

Funny thing is that the country went to s**t between 2000-2007. That was when the damage was done due to the lack of regulation and crazy government. This is the hangover, the recovery.

If you don't know that by now, I really don't know what to say.

christmas2012

monty i think i would have to live under a rock to not know about it.. sheesh :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz

christmas2012 wrote: »

monty i think i would have to live under a rock to not know about it.. sheesh :rolleyes:

But don't you see that the problem was 2000-2009/10? It felt great during the bubble, but the country was drunk on credit. And now we've got the bill.

murphaph

christmas2012 wrote: »

couldnt agree more this country is going to ****...

going to a small back village in eastern europe seems to be the answer there should be somewhere in the world that doesnt suffer from over regulation..

Your average village in Eastern Europe will also require to pay property taxes and indeed will require citizens to register their abode and carry a national ID card at all times.

christmas2012

thats it i dont care im finding somewhere,(there has got to be),that doesnt charge you for ridiculous stuff,a property tax?**** that more stealth taxes..

Monty Burnz

christmas2012 wrote: »

thats it i dont care im finding somewhere,(there has got to be),that doesnt charge you for ridiculous stuff,a property tax?**** that more stealth taxes..

There are places I'm sure. But they are places without police, hospitals, schools, roads and all the other things your ridiculous taxes pay for.

Going Forward

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But don't you see that the problem was 2000-2009/10? It felt great during the bubble, but the country was drunk on credit. And now we've got the bill.

But that is'nt the whole story, the vast majority of credit (AFAIK) given to the electorate/joe public was and is being repaid.

The credit was fuelling the "good times" alright, but the twice a year holidays for example, or the new car bought in 2005 or even in 2007 is surely paid off by now?

Government overspending coupled with a lack of any thought whatsoever of a Plan B along with the bank guarantee got us where we are now.

Note that those "in control" who overlooked the last couple of points were paid handsomely to be au fait with, and be suitably qualified/advised to run government departments and the various financial institutions which royally screwed up, and the latter are really begining to appear as if they knew from a long time back that the thing had to end miserably!

The problem that the small man has, is that those very people who made such a balls of it are still living the high life, whether they are on a Ministerial pension or coping with a 200,000Euro pocket money allowance from NAMA.:mad:

murphaph

Going Forward wrote: »

Government overspending coupled with a lack of any thought whatsoever of a Plan B along with the bank guarantee got us where we are now.

We as a people elected that government. We have to take some responsibility for that. The people that did take an interest and did seek to change things back then will suffer with the rest of us, which seems unfair, but that's life.

Going Forward

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You can't have it both ways though - should we have a property tax or not? I'd argue a wealth tax is largely useless as you'd find the wealth would just disappear to the Caymans or some other 'tax efficient' trickery would ensure nothing is collected and the country is the poorer for it.

Maybe, as there is no property tax in The Caymans.

Monty Burnz

Going Forward wrote: »

But that is'nt the whole story, the vast majority of credit (AFAIK) given to the electorate/joe public was and is being repaid.

The credit was fuelling the "good times" alright, but the twice a year holidays for example, or the new car bought in 2005 or even in 2007 is surely paid off by now?

Why would you think that? Billions was borrowed through 'equity release' from property (so folks were essentially adding their car and holiday loans to their mortgages). Borrowing on credit cards might never be paid off if people pay the monthly minimums. New loans were taken out to pay old ones, rolling the debt over. The amount of consumer debt out there is astronomical - don't believe me, the figures are out there.

Going Forward wrote: »

Government overspending coupled with a lack of any thought whatsoever of a Plan B along with the bank guarantee got us where we are now.

Well, that's what got the state where it is, yes. The consumer credit over-borrowing and of course mortgage over-borrowing got many citizens into trouble.

Going Forward wrote: »

Note that those "in control" who overlooked the last couple of points were paid handsomely to be au fait with, and be suitably qualified/advised to run government departments and the various financial institutions which royally screwed up, and the latter are really begining to appear as if they knew from a long time back that the thing had to end miserably!

I'm not sure about that. The Dept. of Finance had a serious lack of economic graduates/post-grads. The regulator in charge of the banks was a life-time civil servant yes-man who did one year of Greek and Roman or something in Tirnners before entering the civil service. And of course the few people who did ring alarm bells were ignored. The mob didn't want to hear it, same as the mob won't pay their water charges/property taxes/whatever today.

And of course everybody now remembers telling everyone it wouldn't last, and how they knew all along the bubble would burst. The problem is that I was actually telling friends/colleagues/families this stuff in 2002-2006 and the very same people who tell you today that it was 'obviously' going to fail used to treat me like a complete nutter when the subject came up. It was as if I was telling them that the earth was really flat.

Going Forward wrote: »

The problem that the small man has, is that those very people who made such a balls of it are still living the high life, whether they are on a Ministerial pension or coping with a 200,000Euro pocket money allowance from NAMA.:mad:

Yup, that's disgusting. I agree 100%. It would be a lot easier for the public to put up with tax rises if they didn't see Bertie Ahern and Patrick Neary swanning around pocketing hundreds of grand a year in pensions paid for by us.

Going Forward

murphaph wrote: »

We as a people elected that government. We have to take some responsibility for that. The people that did take an interest and did seek to change things back then will suffer with the rest of us, which seems unfair, but that's life.

Everything I'm reading on boards lately comes down to "the electorate is to blame for voting in a government who f**ked up".

Thats a simple, lazy conversation stopper at this stage.

Perhaps you'd like a technocrat installed by the European Commission instead, and when he cant solve the mess, we'll go back to the old reliable but imperfect democracy.

The problems in this country began when politicians and bankers began to be paid too well for doing too little, like keeping an eye on the things they should have.

In other words none of them had to actually earn their money, in the case of politicians they abrogated all responsibility to quangos, and the bankers just saw figures multiplying on a screen.

Going Forward

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And of course everybody now remembers telling everyone it wouldn't last, and how they knew all along the bubble would burst. The problem is that I was actually telling friends/colleagues/families this stuff in 2002-2006 and the very same people who tell you today that it was 'obviously' going to fail used to treat me like a complete nutter when the subject came up. It was as if I was telling them that the earth was really flat.

I hope you made a killing so!

TBH though, the younger generation had no experience and new no better or different.

I often wondered how a young couple back then, working in say, a supermarket could afford one of those 250,000E houses, but they did!

I genuinely hope its working out for them- these are the people a property tax will really hit, no?

Give them a break.

Monty Burnz

Going Forward wrote: »

I hope you made a killing so!

Nope. There was no obvious way to profit for a simple man like myself (I'm not a hedge fund boss or anything) and of course, if it turned out that I was wrong then I'd have been in huge trouble. Just to give you an idea, I also confidently expected a crash in the UK housing market - it still hasn't happened.

Going Forward wrote: »

TBH though, the younger generation had no experience and new no better or different.

I often wondered how a young couple back then, working in say, a supermarket could afford one of those 250,000E houses, but they did!

I genuinely hope its working out for them- these are the people a property tax will really hit, no?

Give them a break.

It's a shambles. We are in a situation where there are no good options, and we are looking for the least worst.