Upcoming Irish property tax to cost 'on average' €1000 per house.(can you afford it?)

kr7

Don't forget now lads, there's people on here who believe owning a home, paying a mortgage and being in negative equity is giving you an income.:D

We should be grateful for another tax. LOL

kr7

alastair wrote: »

Well - actually you will. Plus penalties of course.

Using the bit that suits the point you want to make there again, Alastair?
You're always at that.

bgrizzley

donalg1 wrote: »

Thats fair enough and I do agree with you about everyone paying to a certain extent, it is most definitely unfair that those using local services arent always liable for paying for them. Yet the unfairness has existed pretty much forever, its only now that people seem to have a problem with it for some reason which I have still to figure out.

However, this is a property tax and household charge so those that own property pay the property tax.

You said you have a small business, well arent you a little concerned that the LA will increase your rates next year as a result of the non payment of the HHC by 40% of the population?

the cc and valuation office raised my rates by over 100% during the boom. not a penny drop since the crash.
but at least i have the options of closing the door and walking. which would be next to impossible with my home.

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

the cc and valuation office raised my rates by over 100% during the boom. not a penny drop since the crash.
but at least i have the options of closing the door and walking. which would be next to impossible with my home.

Yes you could do this easily enough with the business, but if you were given an option to pay the HHC or close your business what would you do.

karlth

alastair wrote: »

Not on the back of the bank bailout they weren't. On average the Icelandic people lost two thirds of their savings more or less instantly on their response to their banking crisis.

That is not true. The stock market was almost wiped out but deposit savings were intact.

It was the currency took the biggest hit so all imports got a lot more expensive (cars especially).

alastair

karlth wrote: »

That is not true. The stock market was almost wiped out but deposit savings were intact.

It was the currency took the biggest hit so all imports got a lot more expensive (cars especially).

It's true alright - unless you restrict your definition of savings to purely domestic deposit accounts.

Depositors in other countries raced to pull their money out of Icelandic banks. The government didn’t have the resources for a bailout; the banks failed. The government did guarantee that Icelanders would not lose the money in their savings accounts, but other financial assets — including the many investment funds that the banks offered — plummeted in value, and many ordinary Icelanders lost large sums that they believed were safely invested.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iceland/index.html

Around ISK 200 billion were lost when the pension funds’ shares in the Icelandic banks became worthless after the collapse

http://icelandpulse.com/icelandreview/7204-new-report-iceland-pension-funds-lost-billions

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

It's true alright - unless you restrict your definition of savings to purely domestic deposit accounts.


http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iceland/index.html


http://icelandpulse.com/icelandreview/7204-new-report-iceland-pension-funds-lost-billions

That's what should have happened here instead of distorting and interfering with the way capitalism should work.

People gamble with their money, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose!

Over here bondholders gambled with their money but here it's always you win, always you win and the taxpayer loses!

I don't remember any of our 'leaders' being prosecuted for anything either, in fact they were all massively rewarded with huge lump sums and pensions as much as, if not more, than other country's current leaders get.

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

That's what should have happened here instead of distorting and interfering with the way capitalism should work.

People gamble with their money, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose!

Just to be clear - you'd happily forego your pension savings etc just to bulwark the purity of capitalism? I suppose it'd serve you right for such reckless gambling. And wouldn't the state (Icelandic and Irish) securitisation of domestic deposit accounts be equally 'interfering with the way capitalism should work'?

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

Just to be clear - you'd happily forego your pension savings etc just to bulwark the purity of capitalism? I suppose it'd serve you right for such reckless gambling. And wouldn't the state (Icelandic and Irish) securitisation of domestic deposit accounts be equally 'interfering with the way capitalism should work'?

My pension, for what it was, was destroyed anyway.
I don't/didn't have savings in any bank.

BTW, anyone who had shares in the banks was wiped out anyway.

Do you think bailing out the banks was a good idea?

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

My pension, for what it was, was destroyed anyway.
I don't/didn't have savings in any bank.

Kinda easy for you to say they should have gone bust then. Mind you, I presume you rely on the cash flow they provide to those that you do get income from?

gerryo777 wrote: »

BTW, anyone who had shares in the banks was wiped out anyway.

And what of the pension funds they managed?

gerryo777 wrote: »

Do you think bailing out the banks was a good idea?

I think it was a rash decision, but I'm not so sure that the alternative would have been any better. I'm pretty sure that 'leaving capitalism to do what it will' would have been a recipe for disaster - as in it would have wiped out all deposit accounts, pension schemes, cash flow, and screwed us all to a degree we can't imagine.

Bullseye1

There is no defense in bailing out the banks, not Anglo anyway, it was a commercial bank used by gamblers to gamble. Nationalising the banks was also a disaster which is going to cost the tax payer billions over 30-40 years. While unbridled capitalism has been shown to not work so has socialism and bloating up the public service with people who have no work to do and who cannot be sacked and who will have very nice pensions when they eventually do retire, increasing social welfare, pensions and childrens allowance was all fine and good in the good times but its alot harder to take back and to give out.

bgrizzley

donalg1 wrote: »

Yes you could do this easily enough with the business, but if you were given an option to pay the HHC or close your business what would you do.

Close it. I know it sounds mad to do something like that over a tiny charge but unlike our successive government I can see long term. 500 next year, doubled like my rates over the next few years. This only goes one way for sweet **** all return.
I'd close it on principle in a heart beat, I can always make money some other way.

karlth

alastair wrote: »

It's true alright - unless you restrict your definition of savings to purely domestic deposit accounts.[/url]

Here are the numbers: 100% of deposit savings and government bonds intact after banking crash, approx. 80% of investment funds, 80-90% of pensions but only around 10-30% of stocks and company bonds.

Almost all private savings were and are in deposit savings, pension funds and government bonds.

alastair

karlth wrote: »

Here are the numbers: 100% of deposit savings and government bonds intact after banking crash, approx. 80% of investment funds, 80-90% of pensions but only around 10-30% of stocks and company bonds.

Almost all private savings were and are in deposit savings, pension funds and government bonds.

So - 100% of deposit savings and government bonds intact. But how much are those savings now worth in purchasing terrms? The króna is worth about a third of what it did before the banks crashed. That's a pretty meaningless 100% if it's only worth a third of what it once did.

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

Close it. I know it sounds mad to do something like that over a tiny charge but unlike our successive government I can see long term. 500 next year, doubled like my rates over the next few years. This only goes one way for sweet **** all return.
I'd close it on principle in a heart beat, I can always make money some other way.

Well your rates are most likely going to be increased as a result of the poor collection rate of the HHC if you believe some of what they say, which personally I dont think is very fair as it is targetting people who are trying to make a living. Granted you dont care but the person in the shop beside yours who has paid their hhc may not be so eager to close up shop and stick one finger up at Phil.

gerryo777

donalg1 wrote: »

Well your rates are most likely going to be increased as a result of the poor collection rate of the HHC if you believe some of what they say, which personally I dont think is very fair as it is targetting people who are trying to make a living. Granted you dont care but the person in the shop beside yours who has paid their hhc may not be so eager to close up shop and stick one finger up at Phil.

That'd be right in good old Ireland ok, more taxes on business owners using non-collection of the HHC as cover.

So that'll be more taxes on middle Ireland, decreasing the amount of disposable income they have to spend in the local economy.

More taxes and rates on shops and other businesses forcing them to close and put more people on the dole.

Not to mention upward only rent reviews.

And it'll be all because this incompetent government couldn't collect €60 or €70 million in a HHC?

A government devoid of ideas apart from more taxes on the people who elected them.

Who's sorry now?

dvpower

gerryo777 wrote: »

And it'll be all because this incompetent government couldn't collect tax evaders criminally evaded €60 or €70 million in a HHC?

FYP

gerryo777

dvpower wrote: »

FYP

I know you just have to disagree with everything I post, dv, and you love changing peoples words to suit your own agenda.

But really, your starting to get ridiculous now!:rolleyes:

You've about as much credibility as your average FG politician.:D

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

And it'll be all because this incompetent government couldn't collect €60 or €70 million in a HHC?

Have you paid your HHC? If not who's responsibility is that?

gerryo777

The thug Hogan is bullying LA's now too, telling the ones with the lowest collection rates that they'll be the ones with the biggest cuts from central government.

Mindless, devoid of any ideas, incompetent and hitting the poorest LA's the hardest.

Hit the weakest FG, they're an easier target.

Roll on the LA elections and the GE after that.

It'll be off to wilderness with FG and all it's shills.

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

Have you paid your HHC? If not who's responsibility is that?

NO, and I won't be paying it either. My responsibility.

But if your trying to blame that fact on the continuing deterioration of our domestic economy you'd be sadly mistaken.

The fact is that the more you take out of peoples pockets and the more you threaten to take from them, the less they will spend and the more they'll try and save.
Businesses will continue to close and more people will be on welfare for the simple fact that people aren't spending as they should.

But tax away FG, you're doing a great job!

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

NO, and I won't be paying it either. My responsibility.

But if your trying to blame that fact on the continuing deterioration of our domestic economy you'd be sadly mistaken.

I'm happy enough to blame it for the local authority funding shortfall for this year. The one you blame on this 'incompetent government'.

It's not terribly complicated.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

I'm happy enough to blame it for the local authority funding shortfall for this year. The one you blame on this 'incompetent government'.

It's not terribly complicated.

Wrong Al. They were cutting the **** out of the LA budgets long before there was any mention of the HHC. They were also closing Post Offices, garda Stations etc. They were also blaming the Troika for the HHC while it was their own agenda.
The people eventually saw through their lies.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

Wrong Al. They were cutting the **** out of the LA budgets long before there was any mention of the HHC.

The local authorities knew their funding levels for this year. They had been subject to cuts like every other aspect of state expenditure - but their budgets for this year had been allocated. Any shortfall on the HHC portion of that funding is down to those of you who haven't paid up so far. It's not the fault of the government, it's not the fault of the local authorities - it's your fault. No-one elses.

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

I'm happy enough to blame it for the local authority funding shortfall for this year. The one you blame on this 'incompetent government'.

It's not terribly complicated.

Who cut the LA funding by up to 15% this year?
I'll give you a clue, it wasn't me!

Looks like they're going to drag the flat rate HHC out for another year now because they really haven't a clue what they're doing.

They don't even know how many properties they should be trying to tax.

You really have to laugh at the incompetence and mismanagement of it all.

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

Who cut the LA funding by up to 15% this year?
I'll give you a clue, it wasn't me!

See above. As I say - it's not too complicated.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

The local authorities knew their funding levels for this year. They had been subject to cuts like every other aspect of state expenditure - but their budgets for this year had been allocated. Any shortfall on the HHC portion of that funding is down to those of you who haven't paid up so far. It's not the fault of the government, it's not the fault of the local authorities - it's your fault. No-one elses.

Well that just suits very well -- no services, no pay. Win / win.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

Well that just suits very well -- no services, no pay. Win / win.

Your unwillingness to acknowledge the services you do recieve is rather more to do with you sticking your head in the sand, than it is to do with your local authority. And you'll be paying up in the final analysis - have no doubt.

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

The local authorities knew their funding levels for this year. They had been subject to cuts like every other aspect of state expenditure - but their budgets for this year had been allocated. Any shortfall on the HHC portion of that funding is down to those of you who haven't paid up so far. It's not the fault of the government, it's not the fault of the local authorities - it's your fault. No-one elses.

Yep, it's my fault that I'm receiving the same ****ty services as I always did.
I won't miss what I never had.

Turn off the lights (none near me), close the libraries (modern technology makes them redundant), stop collecting my refuse, oh wait.....

Who gives a fcuk!

BTW, make sure we pay the county managers from €135,000 to €189,000 per year plus allowances!

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

See above. As I say - it's not too complicated.

Dv ?