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

kr7

drdeadlift wrote: »

Seriously you lads can do some serious arguing.

It's not even meant to be arguing.

It's meant to be debating, but how can anyone debate with people who just ask questions and deflect everything else.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

No proposals then apart from a property tax then.
That's ok then, at least we know where we stand.

You offered the alternative of extending the property tax to renters and frightening off any corporate investment we've mangaged to muster (again - the only growth sector in the economy). That's where you stand.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

It clearly was too little too late.

Paddy speaks for himself, not me.

alastair

dvpower wrote: »

Spit it out lad - did he get an interest free mortgage or not? If he didn't get an interest free mortgage, but someone helped him with his repayments, can you give us the name?

More baseless innuendo.:mad:

It offers an alternative to grappling with the reality of deficit.

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

Spit it out lad - did he get an interest free mortgage or not? If he didn't get an interest free mortgage, but someone helped him with his repayments, can you give us the name?

More baseless innuendo.:mad:

I didn't hear of Big Phil suing Brendan O'Connor, did you?
Also how did he fund those mortgages on his wages?

kr7

alastair wrote: »

You offered the alternative of extending the property tax to renters and frightening off any corporate investment we've mangaged to muster (again - the only growth sector in the economy). That's where you stand.

Is that the only 2 things I wrote or are they just the ones you don't like?

Any ideas yourself Alastair, other than a property tax?

BTW, do you not think renters & LA tenants should contribute a bit more?

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

I didn't hear of Big Phil suing Brendan O'Connor, did you?
Also how did he fund those mortgages on his wages?

He didn't - which is why he sold the Dublin gaff.

golden lane

alastair wrote: »

It offers an alternative to grappling with the reality of deficit.

i wonder how much money have the government to borrow (the deficit) to give to the homeowners this year.....and how much for the non home owners.....??????

kr7

alastair wrote: »

You offered the alternative of extending the property tax to renters and frightening off any corporate investment we've mangaged to muster (again - the only growth sector in the economy). That's where you stand.

Why would increasing our already well below average corporate tax by a couple or more percent frighten off corporate investment?

Is that the only reason companies come to Ireland?

dvpower

kr7 wrote: »

Apart from bland ratios have you no specific proposals apart from a property tax?

I'm largely in agreement with the troika.
Also, there should also be further cuts in PS pay, starting with an increments freeze; wholesale outsourcing of many public sector functions (like the Motor tax collection, passport office etc).
Tax on all income, including benefits like CHB. A broadening of the tax base (Property tax and more people brought into the income tax base). Increases in Capital Acquisition taxes.



Anyway what about your ratio? Stop deflecting - How much spending cuts to tax rises?

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Is that the only 2 things I wrote or are they just the ones you don't like?

Any ideas yourself Alastair, other than a property tax?

BTW, do you not think renters & LA tenants should contribute a bit more?

I'd propose a cut in welfare across the board of 5%,

May yet happen - next budget is primarily going to be cuts focussed - and we already know a 3:1 cuts/taxes ratio is going to hurt.

a 3% raise in the higher rate of tax,

To boost the black economy?

a new tax band targeting those on over €100k,

Again - a boost to the black economy and flight of revenue abroad.

a charge to be levied on private renters and LA tenants of €300 PA, (if we also have to have a property tax)

So - extending the property tax you reckon is the cause of so many problems?

cut completely children's allowance for any household bringing in over €100k,

No argument in principle, but what's the overhead of achieving this?

a 50% cut in same for any household bringing in between €70-€100k,

Same story.

a 5% increase in corporate tax (still keeps us at a fairly modest rate).

Sheer madness - the only light at the end of the tunnel are export revenues - 90% of which are multinational-driven.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

He didn't - which is why he sold the Dublin gaff.

So you see nothing wrong with politicians getting favourible treatment from dubious bankers yet every day you mention that foreign countries have property tax and we should have the same. It's a pity we don';t have thew same standard in public office that others have -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/fe ... f-resigns1
I like this bit but can't ever see the same happening here :rolleyes:


Party-loving Wulff, a member of Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU), has been embroiled in the slow-burning affair since mid-December, when it emerged that he had received a private, €500,000 (£415,000) loan from a wealthy friend's wife in his previous job as governor of Lower Saxony state.

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

I didn't hear of Big Phil suing Brendan O'Connor, did you?

Brendan O'Connor didn't say that someone was helping him out with his mortgage - that's what you're insinuating. All I read in that article is Denis O'Brien making donations to FG.

So, can you name the person who you think helped Phil Hogan with his mortgage?

tayto lover wrote: »

Also how did he fund those mortgages on his wages?

Why can't you leave the innuendo behind and come out straight with what you want to say?

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Why would increasing our already well below average corporate tax by a couple or more percent frighten off corporate investment?

Is that the only reason companies come to Ireland?

It's the primary reason they come here rather than Scotland or elsewhere - ask the Scottish equivalent of the IDA.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

So you see nothing wrong with politicians getting favourible treatment from dubious bankers yet every day you mention that foreign countries have property tax and we should have the same. It's a pity we don';t have thew same standard in public office that others have -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/fe ... f-resigns1
I like this bit but can't ever see the same happening here :rolleyes:


Party-loving Wulff, a member of Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU), has been embroiled in the slow-burning affair since mid-December, when it emerged that he had received a private, €500,000 (£415,000) loan from a wealthy friend's wife in his previous job as governor of Lower Saxony state.

We should have property taxation - and now do. Even if the devil himself sorted Hogan's mortgage. The argument has nothing to do with the propriety of any politician.

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

Brendan O'Connor didn't say that someone was helping him out with his mortgage - that's what you're insinuating. All I read in that article is Denis O'Brien making donations to FG.

So, can you name the person who you think helped Phil Hogan with his mortgage?


Why can't you leave the innuendo behind and come out straight with what you want to say?

There was plenty of innuendo about Bertie too and while not proved we all know there was no smoke without fire. I believe that there are plenty of Berties in politics. How did he pay mortgages of that size on his wages?

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

There was plenty of innuendo about Bertie too and while not proved we all know there was no smoke without fire. I believe that there are plenty of Berties in politics. How did he pay mortgages of that size on his wages?

Not with property taxes. And so far we know of nothing illegal in anything associated with his finances - so let's move on from idle speculation.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

He didn't - which is why he sold the Dublin gaff.

Coincidently to another F.G. man :rolleyes:
How lucky can you get !!

kr7

dvpower wrote: »

I'm largely in agreement with the troika.
Also, there should also be further cuts in PS pay, starting with an increments freeze; wholesale outsourcing of many public sector functions (like the Motor tax collection, passport office etc).
Tax on all income, including benefits like CHB. A broadening of the tax base (Property tax and more people brought into the income tax base). Increases in Capital Acquisition taxes.



Anyway what about your ratio? Stop deflecting - How much spending cuts to tax rises?

I'd probably agree with the 3:1 ratio you suggest.

However the taxes I would bring in would be targeted at higher earners.

I'll never agree with the property tax as it is.
I don't believe that private renters and LA tenants should be exempt, that's a matter of principle with me, nothing else.
Everyone should be asked to pay for funding the local services they use.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

Coincidently to another F.G. man :rolleyes:
How lucky can you get !!

You think he took monopoly money for it or something? What difference does it make who he sold it to? - he had to sell it because he couldn't afford to keep it - and did.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Everyone should be asked to pay for funding the local services they use.

They are, and do.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

May yet happen - next budget is primarily going to be cuts focussed - and we already know a 3:1 cuts/taxes ratio is going to hurt.

To boost the black economy?

Again - a boost to the black economy and flight of revenue abroad.

So - extending the property tax you reckon is the cause of so many problems?

No argument in principle, but what's the overhead of achieving this?

Same story.

Sheer madness - the only light at the end of the tunnel are export revenues - 90% of which are multinational-driven.

Apparently, the black market is getting the biggest boost of all lately.
Did you ever stop to wonder why?

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Apparently, the black market is getting the biggest boost of all lately.
Did you ever stop to wonder why?

I never wondered if it was because we should be taxing higher wage earners more, rather than place that tax burden on tricky-to-move/hide property.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

It's the primary reason they come here rather than Scotland or elsewhere - ask the Scottish equivalent of the IDA.

What are the other reasons?

kr7

tayto lover wrote: »

Coincidently to another F.G. man :rolleyes:
How lucky can you get !!

Move on tayto, don't discuss phil's dodgy dealings too much now. :rolleyes:

kr7

alastair wrote: »

I never wondered if it was because we should be taxing higher wage earners more, rather than place that tax burden on tricky-to-move/hide property.

You've lost me now

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

What are the other reasons?

EU marketplace
Access to offshore IP financial trickery in the IFSC
Low level of industrial strife

That's about it.

The tax is the major reason.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

I never wondered if it was because we should be taxing higher wage earners more, rather than place that tax burden on tricky-to-move/hide property.

Do you not think it's something to do with the cost of all these extra taxes, VAT etc have on people?

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Move on tayto, don't discuss phil's dodgy dealings too much now. :rolleyes:

Given their complete irrelevence - even if true (which is pretty damn far from likely) - I'd say they're a major red herring.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

You think he took monopoly money for it or something? What difference does it make who he sold it to? - he had to sell it because he couldn't afford to keep it - and did.

Hogan is likely to be in serious negative equity.

Hogan is sitting at a cabinet table and deciding on issues relating to debt defaulters in this country.

Hogan is likely to be obliged to avail of some sort of debt management/forgiveness measures himself once his impossibly high interest-only mortgage runs out in a few years' time.

Hogan is therefore likely to be a generous benficiary of debt-forgiveness measures he himself, as a Cabinet Minister, can decide on.
That cannot be right.