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

alastair

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You pay tax on profits made not on your savings.

Same outcome. No savings - no tax liability.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The apparent reason for the tax is for LA. you use those services so you should pay.

Yep - it's used to fund local authority services. It's part of the total local authority funding taxation package.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Stamp duty is based on the value of the property.

At time of purchase - yes.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is a tax on property. You obviously don't understand valuation of property given what you said.

No - it's a tax on the transaction. Not on the property.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

As services in cities will be cheaper to provide yet more tax will be taken there is a disconnect from the valuation to the service provided.

There's always a disconnect in play there. I don't use the playground or the golf course provided by my local authority - so someone else benefits to a greater degree there. That's just a fact of life. Rural areas are subsidised by Urban taxpayers on account of the greater overhead to provide similar services in low population regions.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

HHC was forced in by the eu. It was meant to be as described. It was changed to be a property tax and said to be replaced. It didn't start as a property tax.

It certainly did - go read the HHC homepage for a start.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Reading back I see you changed what way valuation on property is done and how it is fair.

I didn't change anything.

donalg1

Dub XV wrote: »

Ha ha. How the jaysus would I know. You may just love a good wum like the rest!

Do you have a family to support?

I dont think anyone loves wum's.

And yes I do have a family

Lord of the Bongs

donalg1 wrote: »

Well obviously I would rather not pay taxes however, I dont see how I can pick and choose which ones I pay. If I am liable to pay them well then I must pay them as not paying them would be breaking the law. How do you keep missing this point? Or do you think its acceptable to break whatever laws we decide we dont like?

You openly and knowingly break laws, yet you say you are not a criminal?

Im not missing any point. I see were you are coming from, the saintly law abiding tax payer who pays whatever tax is thrown in front of him because its the law.

Funny word that, the Law, works for some others can get away with it. Seeing as others are getting away with it, to the tune of billions, they government can feck off if they think they are getting my pittens. Its mine I earned it and am not going to be screwed and squeezed just becaue of some new law telling me I owe money when really its someone else that owes and im been forced to pay for them.

Chips Lovell

If only the fiscal crisis we're in could be sorted out by getting developers to pony up their unpaid levies.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

So presumably you found a way to evade paying the USC? Would you be so good as to share your secret with us?

Boards won't allow that :mad:

K-9

dvpower wrote: »

Home ownership is a necessity now! :eek:

Apparently so, most countries learn from things like the biggest property crash in the developed world, Ireland wont. I blame the Brits myself!

Micky Dolenz

alastair wrote: »

Now - care to point to the specific threats you heard 'everywhere'? I'm not buying it.

No doubt they made a hash of it - but honestly? 'Threats'?

Certainly threatening language. Pay up cos we'll get it one way or another. It's true cos it turned someone who is compliant to someone who isn't. Me.

I could pay it. The money isn't an issue thankfully. I am being non compliant in protest. I have no will or desire to riot, I don't have time to sit outside the Dail. I do however have all the time in world not to pay this charge.

Will I in the future? Maybe. That depends on if our elected representives have learnt a lesson with this epic of all, rushed in failure. It did bring about the biggest peaceful protest or public non compliance that the state has ever seen.

So maybe when the goverment decide to feed me shit the next time they at least lay it on my plate in a solid forum and not the runny crap thy decided to deliver.

Lord of the Bongs

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If only the fiscal crisis we're in could be sorted out by getting developers to pony up their unpaid levies.

Might help the gov avoid all these ridiculous petty taxes if the 600 million owed to county councils was paid up, wouldnt you agree?

Nah sure let them away with it. go after the little PAYE

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If only the fiscal crisis we're in could be sorted out by getting developers to pony up their unpaid levies.

No. Our crowd of geniuses choose to pay them 200k a year to manage their own NAMA properties. You couldn't make that up.

donalg1

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

Im not missing any point. I see were you are coming from, the saintly law abiding tax payer who pays whatever tax is thrown in front of him because its the law.

I wouldnt go as far as to say saintly now, but yes you seem to be getting the point of being a law abiding citizen.

Funny word that, the Law, works for some others can get away with it. Seeing as others are getting away with it, to the tune of billions, they government can feck off if they think they are getting my pittens. Its mine I earned it and am not going to be screwed and squeezed just becaue of some new law telling me I owe money when really its someone else that owes and im been forced to pay for them.

So you admit that you break the law and are therefore a criminal? And you think because one person breaks the law the rest of us should do it too? Well that is truly a marvellous attitude to have, thankfully more people dont share it (oh look he has robbed a bank and benefitted, he has got away with it too, I think I will rob a bank because if he gets away with it then I can too, and everything will be ok for me, I know its illegal but I wont consider myself a criminal as I dont agree with the law), Good God.

Lord of the Bongs

donalg1 wrote: »

I wouldnt go as far as to say saintly now, but yes you seem to be getting the point of being a law abiding citizen.



So you admit that you break the law and are therefore a criminal? And you think because one person breaks the law the rest of us should do it too? Well that is truly a marvellous attitude to have, thankfully more people dont share it (oh look he has robbed a bank and benefitted, he has got away with it too, I think I will rob a bank because if he gets away with it then I can too, and everything will be ok for me, I know its illegal but I wont consider myself a criminal as I dont agree with the law), Good God.

Sigh. law abiding lamb would be closer to the truth. Im not a criminal but as im not paying this charges you have the right to claim me as such. Me on the other hand I prefer to think that this governent, past present and future needs to be given a good kick up the arse. My voting card doesnt give me that option as all the parties on this fair island are all different versions of the same thing. So I will, tell them to go and feck off with their little tax charges until they get what is owed to the from YEARS PAST. and you can sleep soundly at night my little lamb, until the wolf calls on you to pay another adn then another tax

Chips Lovell

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Certainly threatening language. Pay up cos we'll get it one way or another.

Isn't that the same kind of rhetoric that's used about all taxes though?

tayto lover wrote: »

No. Our crowd of geniuses choose to pay them 200k a year to manage their own NAMA properties. You couldn't make that up.

What's more important? Getting the best return possible for Nama or making life as a hard as possible for developers? I find it as unpalatable as you do, but if it means we get more for the Nama properties, then it's probably worth it.

Dub XV

donalg1 wrote: »

I wouldnt go as far as to say saintly now, but yes you seem to be getting the point of being a law abiding citizen.

Everybody has their tipping point.

You are comfortable at the minute so that's great.

dvpower

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Certainly threatening language. Pay up cos we'll get it one way or another.

Can you point to something specific that you thought was threatening, some language that sets the household charge apart from the language used for other taxes?

lugha

dvpower wrote: »

Can you point to something specific that you thought was threatening, some language that sets the household charge apart from the language used for other taxes?

I've asked this question a few times. Still no answer alas.

Truth is pretty much every law is accompanied by measures to see that it is enforced and sanctions for those that refuse to comply. There is nothing different about the HHC. Alas some ULA type threw out the bogus "bullying" argument early on and now some actually think that compelling people to abide by the law amounts to bullying. :rolleyes:

Micky Dolenz

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Isn't that the same kind of rhetoric that's used about all taxes though?

Nope. Not really. Certainly When you are trying to sell a
Bitter tax pill to the pollution. Be organised. It's not a lot to ask for.

dvpower wrote: »

Can you point to something specific that you thought was threatening, some language that sets the household charge apart from the language used for other taxes?

Actually I can.

It was a casual hack way of "here, take this half baked tax and eat it, don't
Worry though, we ll sort it out next year, good and proper"


A question to both of you.

Do you think the government handled this tax introduction efficiently?.

dvpower

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Actually I can.

It was a casual hack way of "here, take this half baked tax and eat it, don't
Worry though, we ll sort it out next year, good and proper"

So where is this threatening language? Can you link to some examples?

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

A question to both of you.

Do you think the government handled this tax introduction efficiently?.

No. It was quite badly handled, partially the Government's own fault, partially because they needed to introduce something before they were ready to satify the trioka.

Chips Lovell

I would have put it in the hands of the Revenue from the start. Aside from that, no, I don't see much different that could have been done. Asking people to pay as small flat fee in advance of a full, value based measure was reasonable, I feel.

Scanlas The 2nd

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Well obviously I would rather not pay taxes however, I dont see how I can pick and choose which ones I pay. If I am liable to pay them well then I must pay them as not paying them would be breaking the law. How do you keep missing this point? Or do you think its acceptable to break whatever laws we decide we dont like?

You openly and knowingly break laws, yet you say you are not a criminal?

Im not missing any point. I see were you are coming from, the saintly law abiding tax payer who pays whatever tax is thrown in front of him because its the law.

Funny word that, the Law, works for some others can get away with it. Seeing as others are getting away with it, to the tune of billions, they government can feck off if they think they are getting my pittens. Its mine I earned it and am not going to be screwed and squeezed just becaue of some new law telling me I owe money when really its someone else that owes and im been forced to pay for them.

How would you solve our financial crisis if you ran the country? How would you close are fiscal deficit?

Micky Dolenz

dvpower wrote: »

So where is this threatening language? Can you link to some examples?


No. It was quite badly handled, partially the Government's own fault, partially because they needed to introduce something before they were ready to satify the trioka.

Won't link to examples. Not in a position to right now and to be honest I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I know how I perceived it.

Our elected governers being forced into anything unsettles me. But that is the truth.

donalg1

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

I wouldnt go as far as to say saintly now, but yes you seem to be getting the point of being a law abiding citizen.



So you admit that you break the law and are therefore a criminal? And you think because one person breaks the law the rest of us should do it too? Well that is truly a marvellous attitude to have, thankfully more people dont share it (oh look he has robbed a bank and benefitted, he has got away with it too, I think I will rob a bank because if he gets away with it then I can too, and everything will be ok for me, I know its illegal but I wont consider myself a criminal as I dont agree with the law), Good God.

Sigh. law abiding lamb would be closer to the truth. Im not a criminal but as im not paying this charges you have the right to claim me as such. Me on the other hand I prefer to think that this governent, past present and future needs to be given a good kick up the arse. My voting card doesnt give me that option as all the parties on this fair island are all different versions of the same thing. So I will, tell them to go and feck off with their little tax charges until they get what is owed to the from YEARS PAST. and you can sleep soundly at night my little lamb, until the wolf calls on you to pay another adn then another tax

Yes you are a criminal u admit to breaking a number of laws so therefore can't deny that you are indeed a criminal. Personally I don't care if you are or aren't but there's no point pretending now is there

alastair

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Certainly threatening language. Pay up cos we'll get it one way or another. It's true cos it turned someone who is compliant to someone who isn't. Me.

That's not particularly threatening though - is it? Sounds about as scary as your typical TV licence campaign - less so tbh.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I could pay it. The money isn't an issue thankfully. I am being non compliant in protest. I have no will or desire to riot, I don't have time to sit outside the Dail. I do however have all the time in world not to pay this charge.

True - but like the 'threats' above - they will collect - with the penalties on top.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Will I in the future? Maybe. That depends on if our elected representives have learnt a lesson with this epic of all, rushed in failure. It did bring about the biggest peaceful protest or public non compliance that the state has ever seen.

No it didn't. Have a look at the compliance rates with the telly licence.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

So maybe when the goverment decide to feed me shit the next time they at least lay it on my plate in a solid forum and not the runny crap thy decided to deliver.

There's your mistake. It's a perfectly justifiable tax source. Irrespective of how badly it's been pitched.

Micky Dolenz

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I would have put it in the hands of the Revenue from the start. Aside from that, no, I don't see much different that could have been done. Asking people to pay as small flat fee in advance of a full, value based measure was reasonable, I feel.

I agree with part of your post. The rest, not so much.

Lord of the Bongs

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How would you solve our financial crisis if you ran the country? How would you close are fiscal deficit?

What you want me to answer that in a few paragraphs and spoil all the fun we are having as a country?

well i wont go into all of it but, Surprisingly, less taxation would be something I worth put forward. My 100 euros, if I had paid it for the HHC, would be better spend buying something in a shop somewere thus helping th e local busines economy . Im not actually sure what the HHC money is ringfenced for (some enlighten me)?? but i suspect its touted for road maintenance or filling in potholes.

Lord of the Bongs

donalg1 wrote: »

Yes you are a criminal u admit to breaking a number of laws so therefore can't deny that you are indeed a criminal. Personally I don't care if you are or aren't but there's no point pretending now is there

Would you tell on me to the cops or the CoCo if you knew me?? If you are the law abiding citizen you claim to be then its surely your duty to do so?

Micky Dolenz

alastair wrote: »

No it didn't. Have a look at the compliance rates with the telly licence.
.

I think you'll find the ratio is higher regarding home owners. Good
Point all the same. It's been around for ages and is easy to avoid.

People will, largely, pay their way.Straight forward and fair tax. And it's all in the pitch. Everything is. That's why it's called politics.

donalg1

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Yes you are a criminal u admit to breaking a number of laws so therefore can't deny that you are indeed a criminal. Personally I don't care if you are or aren't but there's no point pretending now is there

Would you tell on me to the cops or the CoCo if you knew me?? If you are the law abiding citizen you claim to be then its surely your duty to do so?

No I wouldn't as I haven't told on those I know haven't paid the hhc as this is none of my business what they do with their money.

Chips Lovell

One thing worth noting is that a telly is a much easier thing to hide than a house.

Micky Dolenz

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

One thing worth noting is that a telly is a much easier thing to hide than a house.

Only cos you're doing it wrong Man.

Lord of the Bongs

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

One thing worth noting is that a telly is a much easier thing to hide than a house.

LMAO

I will just tell them when they call that this is private property and we have a shoot to kill policy with any trespassers