Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
18283858788107

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭kr7


    lugha wrote: »
    Not true. I cannot recall any “pro-taxer” arguing that cuts in public spending, and big ones, are essential. No one is seriously arguing against this. The discussion is really about whether higher taxes should play some part in digging us out of the hole we are in.

    As to your solution, you think the people that should bear the enormous burden for dealing with our massive deficit, in summary are:

    1. Those less well of that you (SW recipients, lower earners)



    And
    2. Those better of that you (higher earners, public sector workers)



    Now the everyone should pay but me, “I’m all right Jack” attitude is understandable up to a point. I think all of us would prefer if there was a solution that didn’t affect us personally. But that simply won’t be possible. Ordinary, modest earners (and a sizable number of public sector workers ARE exactly this), will have to make massive sacrifices, the deficit is simply too big to exclude them.

    Many of the measures you mentioned above will have to be taken, and will be taken. But taxes for “ordinary workers” will also be part of the mix


    I know people on welfare personally who have more disposable income at the end of the month than I do.
    I work the guts of 200 hours a month and they don't work.
    Who's 'less well off'?
    Of course, they get a house and all it's related LA services provided for them, whereas I'm expected to pay.

    Ordinary modest earners, in the private sector anyway, are already making massive sacrifices.

    It seems that we are the 'chosen' targets.

    FG won't go after the richest in society and Labour won't touch the CPA or welfare.

    Middle Ireland gets screwed again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 51,926 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    There should be an incentive to work. At the moment there is not with all the taxes and charges. I do not agree with cutting wages in any sector except at the top. We are crippled with taxes and people try to tell us that we are better off than workers in other countries. I do not for one second believe that. Its 50e to visit a doctor and maybe the same for your prescription. A tank of heating oil is out of most people's reach, 2,500 per child for education before trying to pay for a house or flat for them. Child Care costing more than some people earn. Garages are closing because there are no new cars being sold with the VRT being so high here.
    The country is on its knees and there is no chance of us getting out of it. Property Tax is just another item that people cannot afford. We need to go back and look for debt forgiveness asap. Ireland can't continue on this path and cutting wages thus making people even worse off will not fix anything.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    kr7 wrote: »
    I know people on welfare personally who have more disposable income at the end of the month than I do.
    I work the guts of 200 hours a month and they don't work.
    Who's 'less well off'?
    Of course, they get a house and all it's related LA services provided for them, whereas I'm expected to pay.

    We all hear about the anecdotes, or the tabloids will tell us about them if we don’t! And undoubtedly, there are some (perhaps 5% of people) who seem to regard the dole as a career choice. But the majority of the almost 15% who are not working would probably prefer to be working if they could.
    kr7 wrote: »
    Ordinary modest earners, in the private sector anyway, are already making massive sacrifices.

    It seems that we are the 'chosen' targets.

    Everybody has made (or been forced to make) sacrifices, not just the private sector as you seem to think. There has been cuts in social welfare as well as a diminishing of conditions of service in the public sector, and their will be more.
    kr7 wrote: »
    FG won't go after the richest in society and Labour won't touch the CPA or welfare.

    One of the most effective ways to “go after” the richest in society is to tax their property. But of course this is a no no for you. And despite the obvious appeal of hoping that the fat cats can bear all the pain it is simply not realistic. The ordinary people will have to shoulder a substantial part of the burden, if not via a property tax then by some other means. We, collectively, have to pay, one way or another.

    And I don’t think it is wise at this stage to do anything but let CPA run its course as you would almost certainly lose more than you would gain. And contrary to what you suggest, it has delivered. Certainly, more will be required from the public sector, but IMO, it is no small achievement that they got the cuts they did get with almost no industrial action.

    And I wouldn’t single out Labour. No party wants to “go after” the public sector workers as it would be political suicide, plain and simple. But they will do so because they will have to do so.
    There should be an incentive to work. At the moment there is not with all the taxes and charges. I do not agree with cutting wages in any sector except at the top. We are crippled with taxes and people try to tell us that we are better off than workers in other countries. I do not for one second believe that. Its 50e to visit a doctor and maybe the same for your prescription. A tank of heating oil is out of most people's reach, 2,500 per child for education before trying to pay for a house or flat for them. Child Care costing more than some people earn. Garages are closing because there are no new cars being sold with the VRT being so high here.
    The country is on its knees and there is no chance of us getting out of it. Property Tax is just another item that people cannot afford. We need to go back and look for debt forgiveness asap. Ireland can't continue on this path and cutting wages thus making people even worse off will not fix anything.

    This I’m afraid again betrays a lack of understanding of our problem. You seem to be confusing our debt with our deficit. We may hope for a break with the former but we simply have to deal with the latter. The only choice we have relates to the time scale of the adjustment and even that is dictated by outside agents. Whether we can afford it or not, we have to deal with it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    While duly noting all the fine arguments for this tax, i am still under no circumstances going to pay a Phil Hogan a rent on my home.

    however, in the fullness of time, when FG reconsider their error, i will pay any other tax they deem fit provided they dont connect it to the roof over my head.

    Regards
    B


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    kr7 wrote: »
    FG won't go after the richest in society and Labour won't touch the CPA or welfare.
    The problem is that if you go after 'the richest' they just up sticks to London or somewhere (or a tax haven if you are tax-exile populist like JP McManus or whoever) and you end up with even less tax revenue than you had before. This is the reverse of the low corpo tax situation that draws big companies into Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    lugha wrote: »
    There has been cuts in social welfare as well as a diminishing of conditions of service in the public sector, and their will be more.
    Can you please outline some of these social welfare cuts?


  • Registered Users Posts: 695 ✭✭✭TheSpecialOne


    The problem is that if you go after 'the richest' they just up sticks to London or somewhere (or a tax haven if you are tax-exile populist like JP McManus or whoever) and you end up with even less tax revenue than you had before. This is the reverse of the low corpo tax situation that draws big companies into Ireland.

    A Myth spouted by the right for the business elite. JP doesn't pay tax but gives far more away each year than he would if he paid to people/charities/communities...which is fantastic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    A Myth spouted by the right for the business elite.
    I guess you'll have no problem backing up that claim with evidence?
    JP doesn't pay tax but gives far more away each year than he would if he paid to people/charities/communities...which is fantastic.
    I guess you'll have no problem backing up that claim with, you know, evidence?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭kr7


    lugha wrote: »





    One of the most effective ways to “go after” the richest in society is to tax their property. But of course this is a no no for you. And despite the obvious appeal of hoping that the fat cats can bear all the pain it is simply not realistic. The ordinary people will have to shoulder a substantial part of the burden, if not via a property tax then by some other means. We, collectively, have to pay, one way or another.

    I've never said it's a no no for me.

    I have stated time and time again that when all people who have the benefit of property, weather it be private renters, LA tenants or homeowners are liable for a property tax, maybe similar to the council tax in the UK, and the services that are provided there are included here, I will pay it.

    Everyone is saying that 'every country in the western world has a property tax' and 'Ireland is the last country not to have a property tax'.
    People in every other country get a hell of a lot more than we get here.

    This is just a way of screwing people who got up off their arse and provided for their own home.

    BTW, this is not the most effective way to tax the 'richest'.
    The 'richest' will sell their property here and go somewhere else, maybe malta.
    If they want to call themselves Irish they'll just stay the requisite amount of days outside Ireland so as not to be liable for tax here like they've always done.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    kr7 wrote: »
    Seems to me that the pro-taxers here are not interested in debating any way to get the deficit down.

    All we get are the 'we have to have a property tax, and it has to be more than the HHC cost'.

    You people are not here to debate anything, you're here to continually insist that a property tax is the only way.

    With one particular poster it's just question after question after question, never capable of answering any questions put though.

    You people also seem to think that it's proper and fair to only tax 'owners' for local services provided and it's fine that private renters and LA tenants continue to be carried by the rest of us.

    If any of you want to have a decent debate then lets have one and stop picking fights about bu11****e.

    What I don't get is, why do not some of these most brilliant minds that are posting on this thread, come up with a more feasable way to drive down the deficit. Just because other govts. impose a property tax on it citizens, does'nt make it right.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭kr7


    darkhorse wrote: »
    What I don't get is, why do not some of these most brilliant minds that are posting on this thread, come up with a more feasable way to drive down the deficit. Just because other govts. impose a property tax on it citizens, does'nt make it right.

    The deficit will only be seriously tackled when people have the opportunity to get back to work.

    This will only happen when jobs are being created in the domestic economy.

    We bend over backwards for the multinationals but do damn all for our indigenous industry.

    The domestic economy is dying day by day because of a lack of confidence and a fear of what taxes are around the corner.

    The circle will not be broken because we are stuck in a cycle of cuts and taxes.

    There's no thinking outside of this, no making it easier for employers to take on people, even part time.
    No making it easier for people on welfare to work, especially part time or seasonal work.

    Red tape and bureaucracy, that's what the powers to be are good at.

    I speak,by the way, as a small scale employer.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 86 ✭✭Mach Lei


    kr7 wrote: »
    I've never said it's a no no for me.

    I have stated time and time again that when all people who have the benefit of property, weather it be private renters, LA tenants or homeowners are liable for a property tax, maybe similar to the council tax in the UK, and the services that are provided there are included here, I will pay it.

    Everyone is saying that 'every country in the western world has a property tax' and 'Ireland is the last country not to have a property tax'.
    People in every other country get a hell of a lot more than we get here.

    This is just a way of screwing people who got up off their arse and provided for their own home.

    BTW, this is not the most effective way to tax the 'richest'.
    The 'richest' will sell their property here and go somewhere else, maybe malta.
    If they want to call themselves Irish they'll just stay the requisite amount of days outside Ireland so as not to be liable for tax here like they've always done.

    Im in agreement with most of what you said, however in the uk the council tax doesn,t cover water the northern rates does cover water, if there was a council tax everyone pays regardless of renting/la tenants with waste collection and water services provided as part of local services then Id pay.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭kr7


    I proposed earlier that anyone on €100,000 or more should have their child benefit cut off.

    Lo and behold, watching the VB show and apparently the government are going to 'try to create a mechanism where people earning €100,000 or more can voluntary hand back their child benefit'.

    That's right folks, they're going to try to create a mechanism where people can voluntary hand back their child benefit.

    We're fcuked if this is the attitude in government.

    I'll try to link the report from tomorrows paper when I find it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    lugha wrote: »
    We all hear about the anecdotes, or the tabloids will tell us about them if we don’t! And undoubtedly, there are some (perhaps 5% of people) who seem to regard the dole as a career choice.
    This I’m afraid again betrays a lack of understanding of our problem. You seem to be confusing our debt with our deficit. We may hope for a break with the former but we simply have to deal with the latter. The only choice we have relates to the time scale of the adjustment and even that is dictated by outside agents. Whether we can afford it or not, we have to deal with it.

    I think that the lack of understanding lies with our collective leaders. You say we hope for a break with our debt so that we may deal with our deficit and you are dead right on this. However, I just cant see how we can ever deal with the latter, as long as we have the former, ever, ever, no matter how much govt. hits us for. I mean, four years of austerity, country is much worse off. I don't know what the answer is, but I know what its not, putting everyone on the poverty line. Oh, before anyone claims that I'm pretending again, I still cant afford it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    kr7 wrote: »
    I proposed earlier that anyone on €100,000 or more should have their child benefit cut off.

    Lo and behold, watching the VB show and apparently the government are going to 'try to create a mechanism where people earning €100,000 or more can voluntary hand back their child benefit'.

    That's right folks, they're going to try to create a mechanism where people can voluntary hand back their child benefit.

    We're fcuked if this is the attitude in government.

    I'll try to link the report from tomorrows paper when I find it.


    voluntary,lol.

    i wonder how many of those people will go...

    "My personal circumstances do not allow it at the moment"


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    kr7 wrote: »
    I have stated time and time again that when all people who have the benefit of property, weather it be private renters, LA tenants or homeowners are liable for a property tax, maybe similar to the council tax in the UK, and the services that are provided there are included here, I will pay it.

    But you have yet to give an answer, despite me asking you several times, as to why this particular concession to LA tenants bugs you so much yet you don’t seem equally vexed about the myriad of concessions, not least the actual houses they live in, to much the same cohort of people in our welfare state?

    And surely if you insist that the less well off should pay about the same amount as the reasonably well off then can’t the very well off make the same argument in turn, and pay in the same ball park as you?
    kr7 wrote: »
    This is just a way of screwing people who got up off their arse and provided for their own home.
    See above.
    kr7 wrote: »
    BTW, this is not the most effective way to tax the 'richest'.
    The 'richest' will sell their property here and go somewhere else, maybe malta.
    If they want to call themselves Irish they'll just stay the requisite amount of days outside Ireland so as not to be liable for tax here like they've always done.
    Well then we will tax whoever buys their property! :) You now seem to be suggesting that it is not possible to tax the super rich? So we are back to the situation (that I think is the reality) where modest earners will have to address the deficit.
    darkhorse wrote: »
    What I don't get is, why do not some of these most brilliant minds that are posting on this thread, come up with a more feasable way to drive down the deficit..
    Well if you could find a way to generate double digit growth for about a decade, that might do it! Realistically, some combination of new/higher taxes and spending cuts is the only way to go. It is going to cause incredible hardship to an awful lot of people, even if there were no negative consequences of taking money out of the economy (which there is). And I think we are going to be poorer and our standard of living may drop quite considerably.

    But if you think there is an alternative, never mind a better way to go then we are all ears. And please don’t cite overpaid politicians/advisors/civil servants. The case for them to make do with more modest renumeration is more about morale / leading by example. It would make close to zero practical difference.
    darkhorse wrote: »
    Just because other govts. impose a property tax on it citizens, doesn’t make it right.

    No it doesn’t and nobody is saying it does. But many on the no side insist that there is something fundamentally wrong in principle with the idea of a property tax. (They don’t all cite the same principle mind and some seem to be too sure about what their preferred principle is!). In any case, if you are arguing that something is fundamentally wrong but pretty much the entire world disagrees with you, surely you can see it makes your argument a little more difficult to stand up?

    Now if you were trying to argue that slavery was wrong, in principle ……..:pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    lugha wrote: »

    But if you think there is an alternative, never mind a better way to go then we are all ears. And please don’t cite overpaid politicians/advisors/civil servants. The case for them to make do with more modest renumeration is more about morale / leading by example. It would make close to zero practical difference.
    pacman.gif

    it would make a hell of a difference to morale, if we all knew that politicians had to shop in Aldi, like the rest of us, rather than them wondering what is the best year for Bolinger.

    They need to have the same mindset as the people they work for. As it is they are too busy thinking about lavish parties down at JPs and complaining about the bill cause the pool boy didnt get out all the leaves at their Portuguese getaways.
    :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    lugha wrote: »

    But if you think there is an alternative, never mind a better way to go then we are all ears. And please don’t cite overpaid politicians/advisors/civil servants. The case for them to make do with more modest renumeration is more about morale / leading by example. It would make close to zero practical difference.
    pacman.gif

    it would make a hell of a difference to morale, if we all knew that politicians had to shop in Aldi, like the rest of us, rather than them wondering what is the best year for Bolinger.

    They need to have the same mindset as the people they work for. As it is they are too busy thinking about lavish parties down at JPs and complaining about the bill cause the pool boy didnt get out all the leaves at their Portuguese getaways.
    :p

    So everything lugha asked goes unanswered. See this is why the anti sides argument never hold up once they are asked straight and clear questions the deflection comes followed by smiley faces and other emoticons or some silly claims.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭kr7


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    voluntary,lol.

    i wonder how many of those people will go...

    "My personal circumstances do not allow it at the moment"

    Like big phil when he didn't take the pay cut because 'personal circumstances wouldn't allow it'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    kr7 wrote: »
    Like big phil when he didn't take the pay cut because 'personal circumstances wouldn't allow it'.

    I think most people got the reference the first time out - or the second, or the third, etc.

    I've no problem with the voluntary CB refund arrangement tbh - it's a better option than forcing those who say they don't need it to keep the money.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭kr7


    lugha wrote: »
    But you have yet to give an answer, despite me asking you several times, as to why this particular concession to LA tenants bugs you so much yet you don’t seem equally vexed about the myriad of concessions, not least the actual houses they live in, to much the same cohort of people in our welfare state?

    Have you ever heard the expression 'enough is enough'? or 'the straw that broke the camel's back'?

    It's quite hard to believe in this day and age and with things the way they are that numerous posters on here think it's ok for a vast section of society to be exempt from contributing to the cost of the local services they avail of.

    LA tenants paying rent is one thing, but it's a rent subsidised by everyone else and that may be ok because as has been said, they'll never own the property. They do get the benefit of the property at a hugely reduced rate though.
    The services they use are on top of the cost of housing them.

    Why should private renters be exempt?
    They choose to live in private rented homes, that's their choice.
    They still use the exact same services as everyone else.

    When the above are liable, I'll pay up. Not before.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭kr7


    donalg1 wrote: »
    So everything lugha asked goes unanswered. See this is why the anti sides argument never hold up once they are asked straight and clear questions the deflection comes followed by smiley faces and other emoticons or some silly claims.

    Your argument is 'we must force home owners to pay property tax'.

    I'll ask you again, as have other posters, have you any other ideas on how to bring the deficit down or is a property tax the only way?

    Talk about deflection!


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    kr7 wrote: »
    It's quite hard to believe in this day and age and with things the way they are that numerous posters on here think it's ok for a vast section of society to be exempt from contributing to the cost of the local services they avail of.

    Perhaps that's because - as has been repeatedly pointed out to you (to no avail it seems) that they are not? Everyone contributes to local authority funding - regardless of whether they're liable for property tax or not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭kr7


    alastair wrote: »
    I think most people got the reference the first time out - or the second, or the third, etc.

    I've no problem with the voluntary CB refund arrangement tbh - it's a better option than forcing those who say they don't need it to keep the money.

    It'll never happen, of that you can be assured.

    They're talking of at least 2 years before they can even come up with a 'mechanism' to enable people to refund it to the state, if they were that way inclined. LMAO.

    Our brilliant PS/CS at it's best.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭kr7


    alastair wrote: »
    Perhaps that's because - as has been repeatedly pointed out to you (to no avail it seems) that they are not? Everyone contributes to local authority funding - regardless of whether they're liable for property tax or not.

    You have a selective way of thinking (or denial) but that's ok, I wouldn't expect anything else.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    kr7 wrote: »

    Our brilliant PS/CS at it's best.

    They've been struggling to find a solution for the same problem in the UK - so maybe it's actually more problematic than you believe?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/22/child-benefit-changes-self-assessment


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    kr7 wrote: »
    You have a selective way of thinking (or denial) but that's ok, I wouldn't expect anything else.

    So - aside from what you might expect from me (:rolleyes:) - you're still refusing to acknowledge the reality of how local authority funding works? That's handy alright.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭kr7


    alastair wrote: »
    They've been struggling to find a solution for the same problem in the UK - so maybe it's actually more problematic than you believe?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/22/child-benefit-changes-self-assessment

    You love using the UK as an example don't you.

    Two things though.

    1. While you lived there you refused to pay a similar type of tax because you didn't think it was fair.

    2. When I mention that I would agree with the 'council tax' system that they use over there, where tenants and owner occupiers are liable you use some other excuse to dismiss this.

    Why do you think it's right that renters in the UK pay but they shouldn't pay here?
    Surely by your logic if they pay just the rent in the UK they're already contributing?

    Do you ever sit back and have a look at your double standards?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    kr7 wrote: »
    You love using the UK as an example don't you.

    Two things though.

    1. While you lived there you refused to pay a similar type of tax because you didn't think it was fair.

    2. When I mention that I would agree with the 'council tax' system that they use over there, where tenants and owner occupiers are liable you use some other excuse to dismiss this.

    Why do you think it's right that renters in the UK pay but they shouldn't pay here?
    Surely by your logic if they pay just the rent in the UK they're already contributing?

    Do you ever sit back and have a look at your double standards?

    The link related to child benefit in the UK - and the problem's they're having with moving away from universal provision.

    I protested payment of the poll tax - which is nothing like a property tax. The tax I was paying was closer to what we'll be getting next year.

    I've no problem with a rates/council charge type system being established here - but that's not what we're getting - we're getting a property tax - which clearly doesn't apply to those without property. Both are perfectly just systems. That you've a bee in your bonnet that local authority renters won't be stung for a tax that they're not liable for is your problem - but not one you've managed to articulate beyond base spite - and that's being honest.

    I'm not spiteful by nature, and consequently don't have a problem with being liable for a just tax that other's are not.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 51,926 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    alastair wrote: »
    The link related to child benefit in the UK - and the problem's they're having with moving away from universal provision.

    I protested payment of the poll tax - which is nothing like a property tax. The tax I was paying was closer to what we'll be getting next year.

    I've no problem with a rates/council charge type system being established here - but that's not what we're getting - we're getting a property tax - which clearly doesn't apply to those without property. Both are perfectly just systems. That you've a bee in your bonnet that local authority renters won't be stung for a tax that they're not liable for is your problem - but not one you've managed to articulate beyond base spite - and that's being honest.

    I'm not spiteful by nature, and consequently don't have a problem with being liable for a just tax that other's are not.

    1. People in so-called "unfinished estates" should not escape either. What is not finished about them? As far as i can see all that's unfinished are the roads and where i live the roads are brutal, so there's no difference.
    2. Renters should also pay their share as should LA tenants.
    3. If they call it a new name and not target my home then i'll even pay it too providing i'm getting the services like proper roads, water, bin collection etc. I don't see that happening though and believe this is just a finance collecting effort by the Govt to pay bondholders and bank debts while collecting this for services we won't get.
    Why not call it a Service Tax and give us the services to go with it?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement