New "house tax" to be taken from your wages

donalg1

Muir wrote: »

Many people can't afford to pay it now either. Many more people will be unable to pay when it keeps increasing over the next few years.

There is a massive difference between €100 and €10,000. And I dont think there are really that many people that cant afford it now but lets not get into that one.

Muir

Well maybe the people you know are lucky enough to be able to afford it. It's going to go up and up, and less and less people will be able to afford it.
I wonder how many new taxes and charges and cuts need to be introduced before people who agree with it all start to have a problem with it.

donalg1

Muir wrote: »

Well maybe the people you know are lucky enough to be able to afford it. It's going to go up and up, and less and less people will be able to afford it.
I wonder how many new taxes and charges and cuts need to be introduced before people who agree with it all start to have a problem with it.

I honeslty dont know anyone that cant afford it, granted they may not have €100 this week but they could get it together over a few months if they wanted.

And I dont think too many people agree with it as new taxes and charges are never popular. I for one paid it already but did so through gritted teeth and dont necessarily agree with it.

tayto lover

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Out of curiosity, on what basis do you agree with Income Tax? How is it that you do not find it immoral, as you do with the Household Tax?

Also Enda Kenny said that in 1994. Times change and people's outlook on life change. We are in extraordinary times financially, so maybe Enda Kenny found it neccessary to adjust his beliefs based on the times that we live in. Do you still hold beliefs that you held 18 years ago?

Income tax goes directly from wages and for services for the community. If they put up the income tax for this purpose then I wouldn't have a problem with it but I will not pay a tax on my home.
I do hold beliefs. Well maybe all except one i.e. the trust I put in F.G. with my vote. They said to "vote for change" but all it turned out to be was F.F. Mk2.
Another broken promise today with the head of V.H.I. getting 50k more than the Govt pay cap.
I didn't hold the belief that they were lying b'stards but I was wrong I guess.

DoesNotCompute

Muir wrote: »

What if they decided that your property tax was going to be upwards of 10,000 a year? Would people still pay it?

One particular landlord has already paid €19,000. Four landlords have paid for between 300 and 400 properties, while 132 people paid for up to 200 properties: http://www.thejournal.ie/over-e90k-in-household-charge-fees-collected-from-three-people-457979-May2012/

You can imagine how much they will be paying when the full blown property tax kicks in.

Like donalg1, I cannot think of anybody that I know who cannot scrape together €100. I do know of several homeowners who refuse to pay, but they are far from short of money. Most of them went to Poland for Euro 2012, and I know of one in particular who is also going on several holidays this year.

There's plenty of untapped wealth in Ireland, and I simply don't believe those who refuse to pay because they say they can't.

Jay D

still haven't paid it, fúck them

tayto lover

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

One particular landlord has already paid €19,000. Four landlords have paid for between 300 and 400 properties, while 132 people paid for up to 200 properties: http://www.thejournal.ie/over-e90k-in-household-charge-fees-collected-from-three-people-457979-May2012/

You can imagine how much they will be paying when the full blown property tax kicks in.

Like donalg1, I cannot think of anybody that I know who cannot scrape together €100. I do know of several homeowners who refuse to pay, but they are far from short of money. Most of them went to Poland for Euro 2012, and I know of one in particular who is also going on several holidays this year.

There's plenty of untapped wealth in Ireland, and I simply don't believe those who refuse to pay because they say they can't.

It's not a matter of affordability with me at all. It's that I refuse to pay a Home Tax.

gerryo777

tayto lover wrote: »

It's not a matter of affordability with me at all. It's that I refuse to pay a Home Tax.

Tayto, your wasting your time.

The pro-taxers on here don't understand principles, they just can't grasp the fact that over 650,000 people in this state refuse to pay a discriminatory tax on their homes.

As I said before, renters get off scott free, council tenants get off scott free etc.

We all use the same 'local services' but FG/Lab expect only one section of society to pay up.

That's discrimination by anyone's standards, but the pro-taxers are too blind, stubborn or stupid to see.

Still haven't paid and won't be paying......

Muir

gerryo777 wrote: »

Tayto, your wasting your time.

The pro-taxers on here don't understand principles, they just can't grasp the fact that over 650,000 people in this state refuse to pay a discriminatory tax on their homes.

As I said before, renters get off scott free, council tenants get off scott free etc.

We all use the same 'local services' but FG/Lab expect only one section of society to pay up.

That's discrimination by anyone's standards, but the pro-taxers are too blind, stubborn or stupid to see.

Still haven't paid and won't be paying......

Actually they're bringing it in for Council tenants too.

gerryo777

Muir wrote: »

Actually they're bringing it in for Council tenants too.

Source?

And what about private renters?

Chips Lovell

It's a tax on asset you own. If you don't own that asset you don't pay the tax. It's like asking people who don't own a car to pay Motor Tax or someone who doesn't own a television to pay for a television licence.

It's hardly discriminatory.

donalg1

gerryo777 wrote: »

Source?

And what about private renters?

The landlords pay it obviously.

Muir

It was in the Sunday Business Post on the 24th June

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!search/council%2520tax

I think you have to pay to read the full article though, but it is there.

Some landlords will pass the charge onto their tenants who rent privately I would imagine.

I don't agree with the tax, but I don't get this argument against renters. If it's supposed to be a wealth tax on property, how can you expect people who are renting to pay when they don't own anything.

You have people who have to pay it pissed off at people who are exempt, creating a divide between people rather than all the people who don't agree with it for whatever reasons just sticking together. Causes a divide between people and makes them less likely to actually get up & do anything about it, which is exactly what the government want.

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's a tax on asset you own. If you don't own that asset you don't pay the tax. It's like asking people who don't own a car to pay Motor Tax or someone who doesn't own a television to pay for a television licence.

It's hardly discriminatory.

No it's a tax on a work ethic. The people who scrimped and scraped to make a good home for their families are being punished for their hard work. Simple as.

Chips Lovell

Income tax is a tax on work as well, but bizarrely you don't object to that.

People scrimp and save to buy themselves a car, but you don't object to Motor Tax either.

You've got quite an arbitrary attitude to it.

Highly Salami

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Income tax is a tax on work as well, but bizarrely you don't object to that.

People scrimp and save to buy themselves a car, but you don't object to Motor Tax either.

You've got quite an arbitrary attitude to it.

Air tax is a tax on breathing.

Food tax is a tax on eating.

Would you have taxes on eating and breathing?

Am Chile

Last weekends sunday business post on page 5, there was an article on next years property tax stating council tenants will be asked to pay next years property tax.

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Income tax is a tax on work as well, but bizarrely you don't object to that.

People scrimp and save to buy themselves a car, but you don't object to Motor Tax either.

You've got quite an arbitrary attitude to it.

My car moves on their roads. They upkeep the roads.
My Income tax pays for the services they provide. Lighting on streets etc.
My home is my own. I own it and the site it's built on and I pay for all services, private bin collection, e.s.b. gas etc. They provide nothing except water which I will pay for.
I will not pay a tax on my home.
It's amazing how some people can't see that yet.

Chips Lovell

tayto lover wrote: »

It's amazing how some people can't see that yet.

Because you're creating artificial differences between this tax and others. The reality is that it's not unprecedented and not discriminatory.

It's a tax that's be a.) recommended by an independent commission, b.) broadens our tax base rather than lumping more onto just PAYE workers c.) makes us less at the mercy of fluctuating tax revenues from other property taxes like stamp duty, which depend on booming construction and d.) has worked well in other countries.

It'll go toward funding local authorities. Are you honestly claiming that you and your house are an island that are completely unaffected and unserved by your own local authority?

A tax on redheads, now that would be discriminatory.

Am Chile

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Because you're creating artificial differences between this tax and others. The reality is that it's not unprecedented and not discriminatory.

It's a tax that's be a.) recommended by an independent commission, b.) broadens our tax base rather than lumping more onto just PAYE workers c.) makes us less at the mercy of fluctuating tax revenues from other property taxes like stamp duty, which depend on booming construction and d.) has worked well in other countries.

It'll go toward funding local authorities. Are you honestly claiming that you and your house are an island that are completely unaffected and unserved by your own local authority?

A tax on redheads, now that would be discriminatory.

I don’t think some people have actually cottoned on to what this means as of yet. This is a tax on your home, it is not a service charge. I have already paid thousands of pounds/euros in taxes on my home so I could own it outright. What this is saying is,I don’t own it. It is not like tax on your car, where once you’ve paid vat or registration tax, the car is yours to do what you like with, any further tax you pay is for access to a public service. This is feudalism by another name. I’m opposed to the fact that the Government wants to be given a stake in my home, which I have bought and paid for.

trellheim

Average prop tax in USA is 1180 but for NY I think you can go up to 10 times that and it is pretty severe I think if you don't pay it.

Am Chile

trellheim wrote: »

Average prop tax in USA is 1180 but for NY I think you can go up to 10 times that and it is pretty severe I think if you don't pay it.

You lose your home if you fall behind on property tax and can,t afford to pay in the USA, basically you could off have paid a mortgage, lose your job or have your wages/salary reduced no longer afford to pay the yearly property tax and lose your home over it, no one should ever have to lose their home because they can,t pay a tax on it.

seamus

Am Chile wrote: »

It is not like tax on your car, where once you’ve paid vat or registration tax, the car is yours to do what you like with, any further tax you pay is for access to a public service.

That's exactly what it is.

Motor tax doesn't pay for the roads. It doesn't even cover the bill. Each property individually has a stake in the use of local facilities, including your roads and water, street cleaners, parks, tree cutting, painting, building, and all those millions of little jobs that simply wouldn't get done without a local council, and more importantly, which cost money.
You and your property are not an independent principality which do not use local services.

We are paying for these now through a different form of taxatin because in years of populist governing, successive incompetent governments reduced our sources of taxation in order to try and get voted in at the next election without giving any real thought as to where the money comes from.

We need money to pay for local services. If you can think of a more logical place to get this money from than a property tax, then suggest it.

The only thing which I think would be fair would be to allow those in managed estates to offset a certain % of their management fee against their property tax. Logically, people use most public services closest to their home, so if these are being paid for already, then the property owner shouldn't really be paying twice for them.

Chips Lovell

Am Chile wrote: »

I don’t think some people have actually cottoned on to what this means as of yet. This is a tax on your home, it is not a service charge. I have already paid thousands of pounds/euros in taxes on my home so I could own it outright. What this is saying is,I don’t own it. It is not like tax on your car, where once you’ve paid vat or registration tax, the car is yours to do what you like with, any further tax you pay is for access to a public service. This is feudalism by another name. I’m opposed to the fact that the Government wants to be given a stake in my home, which I have bought and paid for.

Double taxation is not unprecedented or unusual. You'll get taxed on your wages but then if you use them to buy something, you'll get taxed again in form of VAT. This is a tax on wealth, in this case property wealth.

I'm also curious to see you saying that Motor Tax is fine because at least it pays for something. All taxes pay for something.

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's a tax on asset you own. If you don't own that asset you don't pay the tax. It's like asking people who don't own a car to pay Motor Tax or someone who doesn't own a television to pay for a television licence.

It's hardly discriminatory.

I pay my motor tax on my car because I drive it, I don't pay anyone else's road tax.
People who rent houses and own cars pay their road tax on their cars so why don't they have to pay for their 'local services' like home owners?

The car argument is bull**** as well you know.

Chips Lovell

gerryo777 wrote: »

I pay my motor tax on my car because I drive it, I don't pay anyone else's road tax.
People who rent houses and own cars pay their road tax on their cars so why don't they have to pay for their 'local services' like home owners?

The car argument is bull**** as well you know.

Hardly. People who rent houses don't own the asset being taxed. Their landlords do and they pay it.

Do you think taxi and bus passengers should pay the Motor Tax on the vehicles they use?

gerryo777

Muir wrote: »

If it's supposed to be a wealth tax on property, how can you expect people who are renting to pay when they don't own anything.

That's the thing, it's not supposed to be a wealth tax, it's supposed to be a tax that pays for local services we all use.

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Do you think taxi and bus passengers should pay the Motor Tax on the vehicles they use?

They do, it's factored into the fares.

Chips Lovell

gerryo777 wrote: »

They do, it's factored into the fares.

And landlords aren't going to factor it into rents?

trellheim

no one should ever have to lose their home because they can,t pay a tax on it.

that's a pretty big jump from A to B there. Why not ? Is that some Irish thing I missed in Bunreacht ? I'd prefer if no-one could lose their home except by due process of law, tbh.

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

And landlords aren't going to factor it into rents?

If it comes to it they will pay every last cent of it, and a bit more for the hassle.

tayto lover

seamus wrote: »

That's exactly what it is.

Motor tax doesn't pay for the roads. It doesn't even cover the bill. Each property individually has a stake in the use of local facilities, including your roads and water, street cleaners, parks, tree cutting, painting, building, and all those millions of little jobs that simply wouldn't get done without a local council, and more importantly, which cost money.
You and your property are not an independent principality which do not use local services.

We are paying for these now through a different form of taxatin because in years of populist governing, successive incompetent governments reduced our sources of taxation in order to try and get voted in at the next election without giving any real thought as to where the money comes from.

We need money to pay for local services. If you can think of a more logical place to get this money from than a property tax, then suggest it.

The only thing which I think would be fair would be to allow those in managed estates to offset a certain % of their management fee against their property tax. Logically, people use most public services closest to their home, so if these are being paid for already, then the property owner shouldn't really be paying twice for them.

Are you sure its not to pay the banking debts of the elite friends of politicians ? Local services my eye.

Chips Lovell

tayto lover wrote: »

Are you sure its not to pay the banking debts of the elite friends of politicians ? Local services my eye.

The household charge is going directly to local authorities.

Muir

gerryo777 wrote: »

That's the thing, it's not supposed to be a wealth tax, it's supposed to be a tax that pays for local services we all use.

But it was meant to be a wealth tax on those who could afford to own property, and it's supposed to soon go up to some percentage of what the property itself is worth. It was introduced as a wealth tax. This makes homeowners angry at those renting, but soon those renting will be forced to pay, and the homeowners will be happy that they were made pay too.
It's a case of turning people against each other to make these new taxes easier to introduce.

I don't agree that anyone should have to pay it. I think that politicians should be taking massive wage cuts, and no longer have things that can be put down to expenses that the country cannot afford to keep paying for. They shouldn't have all these big pensions. And those who caused the mess should be made have the same standard of living as everyone else, not living the high life while the average worker pays back their debts.

Maybe if they take some of those measures people might feel more willing to pay extra tax to help the country back on its feet, but as it is it's unfair to expect the normal citizen to take all these cuts and taxes.

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Double taxation is not unprecedented or unusual. You'll get taxed on your wages but then if you use them to buy something, you'll get taxed again in form of VAT. This is a tax on wealth, in this case property wealth.

I'm also curious to see you saying that Motor Tax is fine because at least it pays for something. All taxes pay for something.

Yes bondholders. Good call.

bgrizzley

Am Chile wrote: »

I don’t think some people have actually cottoned on to what this means as of yet. This is a tax on your home, it is not a service charge. I have already paid thousands of pounds/euros in taxes on my home so I could own it outright. What this is saying is,I don’t own it. It is not like tax on your car, where once you’ve paid vat or registration tax, the car is yours to do what you like with, any further tax you pay is for access to a public service. This is feudalism by another name. I’m opposed to the fact that the Government wants to be given a stake in my home, which I have bought and paid for.

Great post. +1

tayto lover

Muir wrote: »

But it was meant to be a wealth tax on those who could afford to own property, and it's supposed to soon go up to some percentage of what the property itself is worth. It was introduced as a wealth tax. This makes homeowners angry at those renting, but soon those renting will be forced to pay, and the homeowners will be happy that they were made pay too.
It's a case of turning people against each other to make these new taxes easier to introduce.

I don't agree that anyone should have to pay it. I think that politicians should be taking massive wage cuts, and no longer have things that can be put down to expenses that the country cannot afford to keep paying for. They shouldn't have all these big pensions. And those who caused the mess should be made have the same standard of living as everyone else, not living the high life while the average worker pays back their debts.

Maybe if they take some of those measures people might feel more willing to pay extra tax to help the country back on its feet, but as it is it's unfair to expect the normal citizen to take all these cuts and taxes.

Yes but many posters on here prefer to behave like laboratory mice. Programmed is not the word.

Chips Lovell

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes but many posters on here prefer to behave like laboratory mice. Programmed is not the word.

Good man. When you run out of arguments, resort to name calling.

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Good man. When you run out of arguments, resort to name calling.

But i haven't run out of arguments at all. I have a very good argument about it being a tax on a person's home, an immoral tax at that. (Just like Enda declared)

Chips Lovell

tayto lover wrote: »

But i haven't run out of arguments at all. I have a very good argument about it being a tax on a person's home, an immoral tax at that.)

Yet you've failed to explained why it's immoral. As we've seen already, there's nothing unusual about a persons assets being taxed in addition to their income or indeed nothing out of the ordinary about double taxation.

tayto lover wrote: »

(Just like Enda declared)

In 1994.

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Yet you've failed to explained why it's immoral. As we've seen already, there's nothing unusual about a persons assets being taxed in addition to their income or indeed nothing out of the ordinary about double taxation.



In 1994.

Of course it is unfair. Why should anyone now bother saving and paying a mortgage if the home is not theirs? It makes no sense to do so anymore. Maybe we should all leech and look for rented accommodation or council houses. A person's home is their own - not the Govt's. They provide no services to my home except water which I have no problem paying for, everything else I pay privately for.
No matter which way you dress it up it is immoral, unjust and unfair.
I won't be paying it.

Chips Lovell

tayto lover wrote: »

Of course it is unfair. Why should anyone now bother saving and paying a mortgage if the home is not theirs? It makes no sense to do so anymore. Maybe we should all leech and look for rented accommodation or council houses. A person's home is their own - not the Govt's. They provide no services to my home except water which I have no problem paying for, everything else I pay privately for.
No matter which way you dress it up it is immoral, unjust and unfair.
I won't be paying it.

Why should anyone bother earning a salary if they're going to have to pay income tax on it? A person's wages are their own, not the government's.

Why should anyone bother saving money if they're going to have to pay DIRT on the interest? A person's savings are their own, not the government's.

I see you're still claiming that you get zero benefit and services from your local authority, which is hardly plausible.

dvpower

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The household charge is going directly to local authorities.

That point has been made to tayto a hundred times on multiple threads. I think it offends his religious beliefs to accept it.

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Why should anyone bother earning a salary if they're going to have to pay income tax on it? A person's wages are their own, not the government's.

Why should anyone bother saving money if they're going to have to pay DIRT on the interest? A person's savings are their own, not the government's.

I see you're still claiming that you get zero benefit and services from your local authority, which is hardly plausible.

None of those other taxes are an attack on my home.

If you saw the road outside my home you would see that there are little or no services being provided. The street in the nearby town are rarely swept, lights not working on many poles. There is very little funds going to services because they are being diverted to pay off bondholders i'd say and that will continue even with extra taxes. It's all for elite bondholders and to keep Enda in Angela's good books. He likes that.

donalg1

tayto lover wrote: »

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Why should anyone bother earning a salary if they're going to have to pay income tax on it? A person's wages are their own, not the government's.

Why should anyone bother saving money if they're going to have to pay DIRT on the interest? A person's savings are their own, not the government's.

I see you're still claiming that you get zero benefit and services from your local authority, which is hardly plausible.

None of those other taxes are an attack on my home.

If you saw the road outside my home you would see that there are little or no services being provided. The street in the nearby town are rarely swept, lights not working on many poles. There is very little funds going to services because they are being diverted to pay off bondholders i'd say and that will continue even with extra taxes. It's all for elite bondholders and to keep Enda in Angela's good books. He likes that.

You moan about a lack of services being provided yet refuse to pay a tax that will directly fund these services! You want the road fixed outside your house then you should pay towards it very simple really unfortunately you insist on continuously missing this point.

When you pay for services you can moan about not receiving them until then you should stay quiet as it looks rather silly.

tayto lover

donalg1 wrote: »

You moan about a lack of services being provided yet refuse to pay a tax that will directly fund these services! You want the road fixed outside your house then you should pay towards it very simple really unfortunately you insist on continuously missing this point.

When you pay for services you can moan about not receiving them until then you should stay quiet as it looks rather silly.

I didn't "moan" at all. I mentioned the matter to prove that very little services are being provided because Enda & Co prefer to please Angela. The other poster, in your corner, brought up the services issue. Extra taxes will go the same way too.

donalg1

tayto lover wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

You moan about a lack of services being provided yet refuse to pay a tax that will directly fund these services! You want the road fixed outside your house then you should pay towards it very simple really unfortunately you insist on continuously missing this point.

When you pay for services you can moan about not receiving them until then you should stay quiet as it looks rather silly.

I didn't "moan" at all. I mentioned the matter to prove that very little services are being provided because Enda & Co prefer to please Angela. The other poster, in your corner, brought up the services issue. Extra taxes will go the same way too.

Seemed to me like you were moaning about them.

tayto lover

donalg1 wrote: »

Seemed to me like you were moaning about them.

I don't care if there were no services actually. Apart from water it's nearly that way around here already. We even fill in our own potholes around here.

donalg1

tayto lover wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Seemed to me like you were moaning about them.

I don't care if there were no services actually. Apart from water it's nearly that way around here already. We even fill in our own potholes around here.

So pay for services and then you won't have to.

tayto lover

donalg1 wrote: »

So pay for services and then you won't have to.

Yes and pigs will fly.