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

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

I really don't care in the least which way you may choose to explain it away, but there is really something insidious in the way that the poorest in our society are stamped upon and are seen to be stamped upon, end of.
Last edited by darkhorse; Today at 18:36. Reason: By the way, there is nothing hoo-hah about laughing at the majority.

1. We're now talking about 'stamping on the poor' rather than fiscal stimulus packages?

2. Who's 'laughing at the majority', and about what?

noodler

gerryo777 wrote: »

I understand quite well where we are.

Every country has to borrow money from time to time, that's the way of the world.
Only difference this time is that were shut out of the bondmarkets.

What do you suggest we do?

Keep cutting back, thus increasing unemployment?

Keep on taxing, thus reducing the amount of disposable income people have to spend in the domestic economy and increasing unemployment?

We have to try and grow our way out of this mess not cut and tax our way out.

BTW, any thoughts on the fact that our PS are still getting pay rises?

Any thoughts on the government 'special advisors' getting pay rises.

Any thoughts on the extra quangos set up since this government took power?

Just wondering as we don't really need another FG stooge on here, there's enough of them.

Absolute nonsense of the highest order.

The highest proportional deficit in the Eurozone and you feel we should continue with the deficit as it is with our debt levels approaching 120% GDP in the next few years.

Implications?

1) Official sources (EU/IMF) will not lend to us if our goal is to continue to try and live beyond our means. Is it only because we are part of Europe that you believe this?

2) We will add 15bn per year (roughly 8/9% GDP) to our debt every year. This means our interest bill is bigger every year and ties our hands even further. Hypothetical in any case since nobody will lend to us in such a scenario but just for kicks? You'd gladly screw over subsequent generations? Put the country in a situation where the debt burden will only grow?

Its all well and good you saying "cutting X, Y and Z" hurts the economy - its is obvious - it would hurt my household if it was spending 15K every year more than it took in and the bank asked me to sort it out.

In summary, even if there were magic fairies willing to finance our deficit 'as is' every year at affordable rates, it would actually still be pretty irresponsible of the Government to not to make budget adjustments.

ART6

alastair wrote: »

So? The point is that those who say you can't tax your way out of a recession clearly are being selective with he truth. The ratio between cuts and tax increases to date here has been around 3:1. We don't have the facility to throw expenditure at the problem - regardless of how Keynesian you might be inclined, so our solution is bound to require taxes and cuts. property taxation is an obvious component of all modern sustainable tax models, and we certainly need a sustainable tax base for any sort of recovery.

With every respect for your posts, I feel that the argument that we are in severe deficit and have no choice but to increase taxes is as simplistic as those who claim that taxes should be cut to regenerate the economy. When taxes on people's incomes become unsustainable (ie. no money left after taxes, elevated energy bills, mortgages etc.) then the economy starts the downward spiral. The social charge, property tax, carbon tax, septic tank charges, increased fuel duties, increased VAT, are only bringing that unsustainability closer by the day. All of those taxes hit Joe Public, who has no means of increasing his income to cover them since he is not a politician(!)

So there must be cuts, but at present those all seem to be in front-line services rather than in government overheads. There must be tax increases, agreed, but where? Where is there some untapped money? Well, how about a variable rate of corporation tax with a low rate for manufacturing and export industries, and a higher rate for financial industries? A basic rate for anyone who makes or grows something, and a high rate for someone who speculates with the moneys of the makers and growers?

alastair wrote: »

Strangely enough - despite all the hoo-hah about overpaid advisors etc - public service expenditure is committed (to the IMF/EU again) to a reduction of €3.8 billion for 2015. That's reduced expenditure. Not a particularly compelling context to claim that the govt can throw money at the recession to cure it.

Reduced expenditure in what budgets? Politician's pensions and inflated salaries and expenses? -- Er...No. Salaries and expenses in jobs for the boys? Er...No. Cuts in Dail running costs? Er...No...Actually we have just spent another million of so on improving facilities for TDs. Have a bonfire of the quangos? Er...No. Let's create a few new ones instead. Burn the bondholders -- "Not one cent more." "Labour's way, not Frankfurt's way." Er...No. Actually the ECB/Troika/Angela Merkel and a diminutive Frenchman wouldn't let us. Cut out waste and excessive management in the HSE? Er...No. Instead we'll close beds and wards, and even hospitals, and get rid of front-line staff by offering them protected pensions for early retirement so that we can then hire them back again as temporary staff.

alastair

ART6 wrote: »

With every respect for your posts, I feel that the argument that we are in severe deficit and have no choice but to increase taxes is as simplistic as those who claim that taxes should be cut to regenerate the economy. When taxes on people's incomes become unsustainable (ie. no money left after taxes, elevated energy bills, mortgages etc.) then the economy starts the downward spiral. The social charge, property tax, carbon tax, septic tank charges, increased fuel duties, increased VAT, are only bringing that unsustainability closer by the day. All of those taxes hit Joe Public, who has no means of increasing his income to cover them since he is not a politician(!)

Septic tank charges? Really? A one-off 15 euro or whatever?
Our current taxation burden is still low on the european scale. That's right - perfectly sustainable levels of taxation evident on our doorstep, and they're higher than what we have. Is it any fun? Not really. Is it sustainable? Yes it is - far more sustainable than a model wedded to a construction bubble and cheap interest.

ART6 wrote: »

So there must be cuts, but at present those all seem to be in front-line services rather than in government overheads. There must be tax increases, agreed, but where? Where is there some untapped money? Well, how about a variable rate of corporation tax with a low rate for manufacturing and export industries, and a higher rate for financial industries? A basic rate for anyone who makes or grows something, and a high rate for someone who speculates with the moneys of the makers and growers?

Front-line services are part of government overheads. The bulk of expenditure goes to welfare and health spending, so even if every bit of pork at the top end was rooted out - it's still going to impact on front-line services. You realise that some of those quangos you dislike are also front-line services?

ART6 wrote: »

Reduced expenditure in what budgets? Politician's pensions and inflated salaries and expenses? -- Er...No. Salaries and expenses in jobs for the boys? Er...No. Cuts in Dail running costs? Er...No...Actually we have just spent another million of so on improving facilities for TDs. Have a bonfire of the quangos? Er...No. Let's create a few new ones instead. Burn the bondholders -- "Not one cent more." "Labour's way, not Frankfurt's way." Er...No. Actually the ECB/Troika/Angela Merkel and a diminutive Frenchman wouldn't let us. Cut out waste and excessive management in the HSE? Er...No. Instead we'll close beds and wards, and even hospitals, and get rid of front-line staff by offering them protected pensions for early retirement so that we can then hire them back again as temporary staff.

Salaries for politicians have been reduced (Ministers through the salary cuts, all TD's through introduction of PRSI liability), as have pension expenses on the back of the pension levy. Quangos have been axed - including useful ones that offered good value for the money they cost to run, the bondholders don't have anything to do with reducing state expenditure, etc, etc. The point is that cuts have outweighed tax increases by a multiple. That balance might change over the next few years, but it's certainly not going to mean that we don't have to pitch our taxation at typical european levels.

gerryo777

noodler wrote: »

Absolute nonsense of the highest order.

The highest proportional deficit in the Eurozone and you feel we should continue with the deficit as it is with our debt levels approaching 120% GDP in the next few years.

Implications?

1) Official sources (EU/IMF) will not lend to us if our goal is to continue to try and live beyond our means. Is it only because we are part of Europe that you believe this?

2) We will add 15bn per year (roughly 8/9% GDP) to our debt every year. This means our interest bill is bigger every year and ties our hands even further. Hypothetical in any case since nobody will lend to us in such a scenario but just for kicks? You'd gladly screw over subsequent generations? Put the country in a situation where the debt burden will only grow?

Its all well and good you saying "cutting X, Y and Z" hurts the economy - its is obvious - it would hurt my household if it was spending 15K every year more than it took in and the bank asked me to sort it out.

In summary, even if there were magic fairies willing to finance our deficit 'as is' every year at affordable rates, it would actually still be pretty irresponsible of the Government to not to make budget adjustments.

Would you like to point out where exactly I said that we should continue with the deficit as it is?

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

Septic tank charges? Really? A one-off 15 euro or whatever?

Our current taxation burden is still low on the european scale. That's right - perfectly sustainable levels of taxation evident on our doorstep, and they're higher than what we have. Is it any fun? Not really. Is it sustainable? Yes it is - far more sustainable than a model wedded to a construction bubble and cheap interest.

15 euros?. how much will it cost the householder to "repair" their tanks and i can assure you, when government is involved there will be repairs whether they needed or not.

sustainable tax? if the government did what they are handsomely paid for, and created employment for the 10% of people that want to work and kicked the @rses of the 4% that dont, we would have plenty tax coming in and not have to hassle people over the price of half pint every week.

dxhound2005

bgrizzley wrote: »

15 euros?. how much will it cost the householder to "repair" their tanks and i can assure you, when government is involved there will be repairs whether they needed or not.

sustainable tax? if the government did what they are handsomely paid for, and created employment for the 10% of people that want to work and kicked the @rses of the 4% that dont, we would have plenty tax coming in and not have to hassle people over the price of half pint every week.

On what basis are you able to assure us that perfectly good septic tanks which are not causing any pollution will have to be repaired?

Ghandee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

On what basis are you able to assure us that perfectly good septic tanks which are not causing any pollution will have to be repaired?

This basis.

Prob due the same reason that our perfectly maintained, 100% provided by ourselves, family homes, which cost the government nothing, and in fact brought them in quite a considerable level of tax, attached to the numerous products and services over the years, has now become a taxable, cash milking object to them (in their eyes)

They're out for cash in whatever way they can get it dx.

You can fool some people some time, but you won't fool all the people all of the time.

Seems like a reasonable presumption if you ask me.

dvpower

^^
That didn't answer the question at all.

bgrizzley

dxhound2005 wrote: »

On what basis are you able to assure us that perfectly good septic tanks which are not causing any pollution will have to be repaired?

hmmm, well a perfectly good septic tank would hardly need repair now would it?

my point exactly...

dxhound2005

Ghandee wrote: »

This basis.

Prob due the same reason that our perfectly maintained, 100% provided by ourselves, family homes, which cost the government nothing, and in fact brought them in quite a considerable level of tax, attached to the numerous products and services over the years, has now become a taxable, cash milking object to them (in their eyes)

They're out for cash in whatever way they can get it dx.

You can fool some people some time, but you won't fool all the people all of the time.

Seems like a reasonable presumption if you ask me.

The only evidence we have so far is the experience in Cavan and it does not point to any substance in this conspiracy theory. The implication of Grizzleys statement is that every septic tank owner in the country (hundreds of thousands) will have to get work done even if their tank is in perfect condition. In a situation where if Phil Hogan spends a fiver some newspaper has a FOI request in about it he could hardly get away with that.

http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2012/0126/media-3180169.html

BOHtox

If stealing 100% of someone's labour is slavery, what percentage isn't?

I firmly believe VAT and a property tax should be the government's source of income. Not income tax.

The bigger the house, the wealthier you are, the more you pay!

The wealthier you are, the more you spend, the more you pay in VAT.

gerryo777

BOHtox wrote: »

If stealing 100% of someone's labour is slavery, what percentage isn't?

I firmly believe VAT and a property tax should be the government's source of income. Not income tax.

The bigger the house, the wealthier you are, the more you pay!

The wealthier you are, the more you spend, the more you pay in VAT.

So, if you built/bought a 'bigger' house during the so called good times and you've now lost your job, that makes you wealthy?

Someone with 3 or 4 kids would probably be spending more weekly than someone with no kids.
Does that make them wealthy?

Back to the drawing board methinks...

dxhound2005

gerryo777 wrote: »

So, if you built/bought a 'bigger' house during the so called good times and you've now lost your job, that makes you wealthy?

Someone with 3 or 4 kids would probably be spending more weekly than someone with no kids.
Does that make them wealthy?

Back to the drawing board methinks...

Someone with three kids under 16 would be getting €5100 Child Benefit tax free but some of them are refusing to pay back €100 for Household Charge.

gerryo777

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Someone with three kids under 16 would be getting €5100 Child Benefit tax free but some of them are refusing to pay back €100 for Household Charge.

That's as maybe, but I was responding to the ridiculous post suggesting that all government income should be from VAT and property tax.

I would suggest that we cut between 5%-10% across the board from the welfare budget.

I would also suggest that anyone earning over €100k should not be entitled to child benefit in the first place.

trellheim

Go back to the introduction of CB and you will see why it is non means-tested ( and why it is paid to the mother ).

noodler

trellheim wrote: »

Go back to the introduction of CB and you will see why it is non means-tested ( and why it is paid to the mother ).

Still a valid reason though?

Means-testing is expensive. They should tax it at the source based simply on income.

Would be interesting to see what income they level they choose for tax exemption though.

tayto lover

BOHtox wrote: »

If stealing 100% of someone's labour is slavery, what percentage isn't?

I firmly believe VAT and a property tax should be the government's source of income. Not income tax.

The bigger the house, the wealthier you are, the more you pay!

The wealthier you are, the more you spend, the more you pay in VAT.

You didn't really think that out, did you ?

tayto lover

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Someone with three kids under 16 would be getting €5100 Child Benefit tax free but some of them are refusing to pay back €100 for Household Charge.

You obviously have no children.
What about feeding them, educating them etc. Do you think that amount would even begin to cover a bit of that. Not to forget the rise in College fees. If you had 3 children going to college it would cost you 7,500 euro or thereabouts.

BOHtox

tayto lover wrote: »

You didn't really think that out, did you ?

go on...

BOHtox

gerryo777 wrote: »

So, if you built/bought a 'bigger' house during the so called good times and you've now lost your job, that makes you wealthy?

Someone with 3 or 4 kids would probably be spending more weekly than someone with no kids.
Does that make them wealthy?

Back to the drawing board methinks...

Obviously not. If you but a 3 or 4 bed semi d then you'd be able to afford the tax. If you bought a mansion well then maybe not.
The property tax will be introduced, regardless. I'm just saying it should replace PAYE instead of just collecting more money. That does not mean it should raise an equal amount of revenue.

VAT is not on basic food so they would not be paying more VAT. So a family with 3 or 4 kids would only pay more VAT if they had the money to but luxury items, ie. they can afford to buy luxury items. Also, it has to be looked at that, that most people who have kids actually think can they afford it before bringing them into a sub-standard level of living. For instance, no sane person has a kid while not being able to provide for them and care for them.

Based on demography, a higher % of people in their 30s have kids than people in their 20s. But people in their 30s would also be more likely to have a career. This means that they'd be earning a higher wage.
This would transfer into paying VAT.

Never thought people didn't want to pay less tax.

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

hmmm, well a perfectly good septic tank would hardly need repair now would it?

my point exactly...

Yeah - your point which isn't actually anything more than your fantasy. Perfectly good, non-polluting septic tanks will bear a tax burden of a one-off €15. Terrible stuff altogether.

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

Yeah - your point which isn't actually anything more than your fantasy. Perfectly good, non-polluting septic tanks will bear a tax burden of a one-off €15. Terrible stuff altogether.

no, i said once there is governnment involvement , those perfect tanks will soon develop imaginary problems.

just to be clear i think any septic tank that isnt working correctly should be fixed. the DOE should have people out on the roads testing water quality and tracking them down.

this register is more about a fresh database than water quality.

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

no, i said once there is governnment involvement , those perfect tanks will soon develop imaginary problems.

As I say - your fantasy.

bgrizzley wrote: »

this register is more about a fresh database than water quality.

No - it's about window dressing to avoid EU fines for not overseeing potential pollution sources.

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

As I say - your fantasy.


No - it's about window dressing to avoid EU fines for not overseeing potential pollution sources.

not a fantasy, once you have them involved you get dragged down to their level of waste. you are making my point for me, when you use the words window dressing for the EU.

real people who are not profligate wasters dont need window dressing, databases or registration charges, they just need their septic tanks working correctly...

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

not a fantasy, once you have them involved you get dragged down to their level of waste. you are making my point for me, when you use the words window dressing for the EU.

real people who are not profligate wasters dont need window dressing, databases or registration charges, they just need their septic tanks working correctly...

Yes - a fantasy. One of your devising.

I'm not making your point whatsoever. There's an obligation on the state to provide oversight of septic tank pollution - that's an EU obligation. No state oversight/registration of septic tanks = fines from the EU. The window dressing aspect is that registration doesn't imply any actual active oversight - and I think we all know that this would require additional local authority funding - which is rather unlikely.

'Real people' aren't the issue. The resposibility is on the State to ensure they know who has septic tanks when pollution occurs. That pretty much requires a database (of 'real people').

dvpower

bgrizzley wrote: »

no, i said once there is governnment involvement , those perfect tanks will soon develop imaginary problems.

You don't want Government involvement.

bgrizzley wrote: »

just to be clear i think any septic tank that isnt working correctly should be fixed. the DOE should have people out on the roads testing water quality and tracking them down.

You do want Government involvment.

Make your mind up.

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

The window dressing aspect is that registration doesn't imply any actual active oversight .

Cmon Al. This is my point. Government making legislation that doesn't actually do anything useful on top of legislation they already have but don't bother using. FFS

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

Cmon Al. This is my point. Government making legislation that doesn't actually do anything useful on top of legislation they already have but don't bother using. FFS

It ensures that we don't have to hand over 25 grand daily to the EU in fines. I thought you wanted to reduce wasteful state overheads?

And like the man said:

just to be clear i think any septic tank that isnt working correctly should be fixed. the DOE should have people out on the roads testing water quality and tracking them down.

Yitzhak Rabin

tayto lover wrote: »

You obviously have no children.
What about feeding them, educating them etc. Do you think that amount would even begin to cover a bit of that. Not to forget the rise in College fees. If you had 3 children going to college it would cost you 7,500 euro or thereabouts.

and?

Why should someone else pay for your kids to go to college?