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

lugha

kr7 wrote: »

So it's tax, tax and more tax (for middle Ireland) and cut, cut and more cuts (that'll mostly effect middle Ireland)?

Nothing to get people working again, remember the jobs strategy?, nothing to get a debt write down (to reduce our increasing interest bill), no burning the bondholders (we always pay our debts, even though their not ours) etc etc.

Although we do have the money for pay rises in the middle of a recession for our PS/CS, we do have money to overpay special advisors, we do have the money not to upset the CPA, we do have €22 billion a year for welfare etc etc.

There's something seriously wrong with this place when your better off on the dole in state provided housing than out working for a living.

I suppose bertie groomed a generation to expect that when he bought 3 elections on the way to destroying our economy.

But your plan (as would mine) involves cutting public sector pay and social welfare (many of whom were made redundant). Thus your solution will impact negatively on ordinary people. There are some who seem to be off the view that there is a solution which will insulate all ordinary people from austere measures. I don’t think there is. Do you?

Mind, I like you plan where we “get” a debt write down. Now why didn’t all those in negative equity think of that? March off to your lender and “get” a debt write down. :pac:

dvpower

kr7 wrote: »

Always with the questions dv, never with the answers!:rolleyes:

She said - not answering the question:rolleyes:

bgrizzley

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.

my apologies Donal, , it wasnt directed at me, however in a moment of madness i decided to make a comment. Ask me a question and ill answer(not above my paygrade though:p)

which bit of my claim was silly,, that embracing the commoners life would good for our morale or that they are still all thinking about the mad party they had at JPs?;)

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

K-9

dvpower wrote: »

Regardless of any other good idea to bridge the deficit, the government simply have no choice but to introduce a property tax - it is a specific condition of the bailout.

AFAIK it was in the original FF 5 year plan which became the main basis for the bailout package. It was largely accepted by the Troika because well, they wouldn't see anything wrong with a prperty tax! So blaming the Troika isn't really correct but sure that matters little!

K-9

kr7 wrote: »

Nothing to get people working again, remember the jobs strategy?, nothing to get a debt write down (to reduce our increasing interest bill), no burning the bondholders (we always pay our debts, even though their not ours) etc etc.

The interest bill has been reduced, the EU loans are now at a lower rate than the IMF and our great neighbours Britain. They are our debts, that's what happens when Governments guarantee debts, they becomes mines and yours, as much as I hate it.

dvpower

K-9 wrote: »

AFAIK it was in the original FF 5 year plan which became the main basis for the bailout package. It was largely accepted by the Troika because well, they wouldn't see anything wrong with a prperty tax! So blaming the Troika isn't really correct but sure that matters little!

Regardless of where it originated, it is part of the agreement, so the government couldn't decide not to implement it, even if they wanted to.

I don't blame the troika for it - I think its a good idea.

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

Given the previous promises of 'massive' rallies coming from your group (Campaign Against the Household and Water Taxes) on a regular basis - and the consequent turnouts - I wouldn't get too excited about these 'big number' predictions.

is 700,000 a big enough number for you Alastair?

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

5,000 isn't particularly impressive for a national rally.

I'm sure pensioners will be out in real force again if there are moves on the medical card - but quite what that has to do with property tax, or your campaign, escapes me.

it is when you consider that it was only 15,000 pensioners that marched.

thats 15,000 people with no job, plenty time on their hands and free travel to get to the dail.

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

is 700,000 a big enough number for you Alastair?

There isn't even that number unpaid any more - let alone willing to take to the streets about it.

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

it is when you consider that it was only 15,000 pensioners that marched.

thats 15,000 people with no job, plenty time on their hands and free travel to get to the dail.

You'd need numbers equivalent to the old PAYE protest march numbers to make any real sort of impression on taxation policy (and let's not forget - they didn't) - 700,000 odd. Only 695,000 to go then!

Am Chile

alastair wrote: »

You'd need numbers equivalent to the old PAYE protest march numbers to make any real sort of impression on taxation policy (and let's not forget - they didn't) - 700,000 odd. Only 695,000 to go then!

Prob your only post I agree with about the paye tax marches in 1979-the planned taxes property tax/water taxes just haven,t hit home for a lot of people as of yet-with property tax planned to be deducted at source next year along with metered water taxes when it all finally hits home for most people Im predicting similar numbers at protest marches then, equivalent to the 1979 tax marches-lets not forget the numbers that took to the streets over the Irish ferries wages issue in 2005 when people have less money in their pockets due to taxes/charges its a different game then.

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

my apologies Donal, , it wasnt directed at me, however in a moment of madness i decided to make a comment. Ask me a question and ill answer(not above my paygrade though:p)

which bit of my claim was silly,, that embracing the commoners life would good for our morale or that they are still all thinking about the mad party they had at JPs?;)

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

The whole post was silly tbh as is the above one, you decided against answering any of the questions and instead deflected with some rubbish that has nothing whatsoever to do with the introduction of a property tax. The same tactic employed by the anti brigade time and again because god forbid they actually admit they are wrong, sure its much better to post things like the quoted post above, helps the whole anti sides credibility no end.

bgrizzley

donalg1 wrote: »

The whole post was silly tbh as is the above one, you decided against answering any of the questions and instead deflected with some rubbish that has nothing whatsoever to do with the introduction of a property tax. The same tactic employed by the anti brigade time and again because god forbid they actually admit they are wrong, sure its much better to post things like the quoted post above, helps the whole anti sides credibility no end.

im reading that post in the voice of the Major from Monty Pythons sketch.

:Ddid it ever dawn on you that i might agree with some of what lugha says? why would i be arguing his questions just for the sake of arguing theres enough people doing that already.

And you do realise you are doing the same thing in the above post that i was doing in the previous one. its great crack isnt it?

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

im reading that post in the voice of the Major from Monty Pythons sketch.

:Ddid it ever dawn on you that i might agree with some of what lugha says? why would i be arguing his questions just for the sake of arguing theres enough people doing that already.

And you do realise you are doing the same thing in the above post that i was doing in the previous one. its great crack isnt it?

No you see you are deliberately avoiding answering questions posed to you because you have no answers for them, what you should be saying is look I dont know the answer to those questions or I agree with what you are saying completely. Instead you spout nonsense and stick an emoticon on as you think this comes across as clever.

As for doing the same thing as you I'm afraid I cant see how you claim that, you are deliberately deflecting, I however answered the one question you asked so really they are completely different things. And for Monty Python well that was well before my time I'm afraid and from what I have seen in repeats well it seems like a load of nonsensical tripe.

bgrizzley

No you see you are deliberately avoiding answering questions posed to you

im still waiting for this question i am avoiding. i think ive answered every question asked of me in this thread, if i've overlooked any i apologise.

because you have no answers for them, what you should be saying is look I dont know the answer to those questions or I agree with what you are saying completely.

i told you in a few posts ago i wouldnt answer qs above my paygrade. isnt that telling you that i wont answer if i am not qualified to?:eek:

Instead you spout nonsense and stick an emoticon on as you think this comes across as clever.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

And for Monty Python well that was well before my time I'm afraid and from what I have seen in repeats well it seems like a load of nonsensical tripe.

It is, you should watch it, it might give you a different take on life.:D

Stay frosty Donal!

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

No you see you are deliberately avoiding answering questions posed to you

im still waiting for this question i am avoiding. i think ive answered every question asked of me in this thread, if i've overlooked any i apologise.

because you have no answers for them, what you should be saying is look I dont know the answer to those questions or I agree with what you are saying completely.

i told you in a few posts ago i wouldnt answer qs above my paygrade. isnt that telling you that i wont answer if i am not qualified to?:eek:

Instead you spout nonsense and stick an emoticon on as you think this comes across as clever.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

And for Monty Python well that was well before my time I'm afraid and from what I have seen in repeats well it seems like a load of nonsensical tripe.

It is, you should watch it, it might give you a different take on life.:D

Stay frosty Donal!

In your original post with your comment/deflection you quoted part of a post from another user, the rest of that post had a number of questions that you conveniently chose to ignore, instead you quote a small portion of it and make a silly comment deflecting from all the questions. And based on every reply since I cant say this surprises me childish to say the least but maybe that comes from watching things such as Monty Python.

I merely pointed out how that was a widely used tactic by the anti side when they realise they dont have a clue what they are talking about.

But fine if you have overlooked these as you say well then thats fine as I dont really care if they are answered or not tbh just pointing out the constant deflection.

bgrizzley

donalg1 wrote: »

In your original post with your comment/deflection you quoted part of a post from another user, the rest of that post had a number of questions that you conveniently chose to ignore, instead you quote a small portion of it and make a silly comment deflecting from all the questions. And based on every reply since I cant say this surprises me childish to say the least but maybe that comes from watching things such as Monty Python.

I merely pointed out how that was a widely used tactic by the anti side when they realise they dont have a clue what they are talking about.

But fine if you have overlooked these as you say well then thats fine as I dont really care if they are answered or not tbh just pointing out the constant deflection.

i know you are not reading my responses then, Donal

1. i said that i agree with a lot of what Lugha says, (so why should i argue over points i agree with?, (im not on the yes side, after all ))
2. i told you i wont answer questions above my paygrade, (ie questions im not qualified to answer)

what more do you want?
this is After Hours, the type of chat you have with your mates after a few pints at a lock in. why so serious?

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

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.

bgrizzley wrote: »

i know you are not reading my responses then, Donal

1. i said that i agree with a lot of what Lugha says, (so why should i argue over points i agree with?, (im not on the yes side, after all ))
2. i told you i wont answer questions above my paygrade, (ie questions im not qualified to answer)

what more do you want?
this is After Hours, the type of chat you have with your mates after a few pints at a lock in. why so serious?

Where in the first post above, the original one I questioned does it say any of that?

And as for not answering questions above your pay grade, well what kind of sh1te is that? Oh and as for being serious well that is far from accurate as I find it hard to take someone who uses so many emoticons seriously at all.

bgrizzley

so you only read a post that wasnt directed at you then you ignore all responses to yourself? cmon Donal :rolleyes:

the other means that there are some things that i dont understand so i keep out of them. is that so difficult to understand?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Above_my_paygrade



this is becoming the kind of circular, "attacking the poster" argument that i prefer to stay out of so, ill leave you to it before the barman throws us both out

you are right, i am wrong, hope you are happy now. night
:rolleyes:

Noreen1

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:

alastair wrote: »

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

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?

Just as a matter of interest:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/nationwides-soft-loan-to-hogan-3161567.html

Phil Hogan, the minister responsible for collecting the household charge, availed of "soft" loans of close to €900,000 that were approved by toxic building society boss Michael Fingleton who has cost the State €5.4bn.
Hogan's unorthodox loans were personally approved by Fingleton to allow him buy a pied-a-terre house in Dublin 4 and a luxurious penthouse in Portugal using two interest- only loans of at least a decade each, an aggressive equity release, and what appears to have been, for his final loan, minimal paperwork.

Hogan declined to respond to detailed questions on his Irish Nationwide borrowings.
"I am not going to get involved in discussing my personal business -- no more would I ask you the same questions," he said.

His first loan from the society was a standard loan to buy his home in Kilkenny, and both capital and interest were repaid monthly on this €330,000 mortgage.
His next foray into the property market was to borrow about €450,000 to buy a property in Haddington Square in Dublin 4. Unusually included in the terms of this loan was that it should be interest-only for over a decade.
Hogan then leveraged up to buy a luxury apartment in Portugal after the society decided to give him an equity release -- as it believed that the combined value of his Kilkenny home and D4 property was €1.2m, far more than they are worth today.
It used this Irish property bubble valuation to lend him another €430,000 to buy his Portuguese holiday home. This loan was also interest-only for a decade.
Hogan described himself as being a "part-owner" of the property in luxury Villamoura on the Algarve in his 2007 register of interests.
The Sunday Independent understands that staff at the Nationwide could not find the usual loan-to-earnings assessments that would be demanded by more prudent lenders when advancing individuals more than €1m.

Why Fingleton personally granted certain prominent people loans with unorthodox terms and conditions has never really been explained.
The building society boss has maintained his silence since departing Nationwide with a €1m bonus, an expensive watch and a pension which at one stage was worth €27m.

Finally.

The favourable treatment of special borrowers contrasts with Fingleton's well documented treatment of ordinary people, with the society prepared down the years to chase widows to the Supreme Court and even send one borrower to jail.
The €5.4bn cost to the taxpayer of Irish Nationwide equates to collecting the household charge at current levels from now until 2045.

Hmm. Interesting.

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

so you only read a post that wasnt directed at you then you ignore all responses to yourself? cmon Donal :rolleyes:

the other means that there are some things that i dont understand so i keep out of them. is that so difficult to understand?



this is becoming the kind of circular, "attacking the poster" argument that i prefer to stay out of so, ill leave you to it before the barman throws us both out

you are right, i am wrong, hope you are happy now. night
:rolleyes:

I get you now about the "paygrade", just didnt understand what paygrades have to do with questions on forums unless of course you are on the talk to forum.

Yeah best to leave it grizzley, anyway I am more than happy now that you have realised I am right. Cheers!

dvpower

Noreen1 wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/nationwides-soft-loan-to-hogan-3161567.html




Finally.

Hmm. Interesting.

You may find the innuendo very interesting, but that doesn't amount to any wrongdoing on Hogan's part, now, does it?

What it has to do with the property tax is beyond me.

noodler

Noreen1 wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/nationwides-soft-loan-to-hogan-3161567.html




Finally.

Hmm. Interesting.

Are you going to actually make a point?

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/nationwides-soft-loan-to-hogan-3161567.html




Finally.

Hmm. Interesting.

That's all more a comment on lax lending during the bubble, this was the type of stuff that was going on. Think somebody posted earlier that the majority of "investment" loans were often interest only.

dxhound2005

There was an item on Kenny this morning (Myles Dungan filling in) giving the view a few of us are proposing here against the Cant Pay Wont Pay tide. If you want to see how biased this thread is view the poll results.

http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2012/pc/pod-v-15081215m01stodaywithpatkenny.mp3-pid0-901368_audio.mp3

Before anyone says RTE propoganda just because they allow that view to be aired they gave a CAHWT spokesman full rein to tout some very dodgy mathematics yesterday.

http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/player.html?20120814,3366615,3366615,flash,257

Ghandee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

There was an item on Kenny this morning (Myles Dungan filling in) giving the view a few of us are proposing here against the Cant Pay Wont Pay tide. If you want to see how biased this thread is view the poll results.

http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2012/pc/pod-v-15081215m01stodaywithpatkenny.mp3-pid0-901368_audio.mp3

Before anyone says RTE propoganda just because they allow that view to be aired they gave a CAHWT spokesman full rein to tout some very dodgy mathematics yesterday.

http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/player.html?20120814,3366615,3366615,flash,257

Granted I havent time to listen to the first podcast (I'm in work) but the second link, when clicked on has the headlines '50% of households still have not registered for the household charge'

Will definitely have a listen this evening when I get home from this office though.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Granted I havent time to listen to the first podcast (I'm in work) but the second link, when clicked on has the headlines '50% of households still have not registered for the household charge'

He reckons that the 1m of houses includes loads of landlords and this brings the number of individual householders registered to back down to 50%.
Naturally enough, he didn't provide any figures to back this up.

He also thinks we can do away with austerity measures and instead we could get the 'wealthy' to pay.

dvpower

dxhound2005 wrote: »

There was an item on Kenny this morning (Myles Dungan filling in) giving the view a few of us are proposing here against the Cant Pay Wont Pay tide. If you want to see how biased this thread is view the poll results.

http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2012/pc/pod-v-15081215m01stodaywithpatkenny.mp3-pid0-901368_audio.mp3

Interesting point he (Ronan Lyons) made is that property tax would apply to non residents who own property here - a new, albeit small, income stream that we haven't tapped before.

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

Interesting point he (Ronan Lyons) made is that property tax would apply to non residents who own property here - a new, albeit small, income stream that we haven't tapped before.

even he admitted this tax was unfair...

Noreen1

dvpower wrote: »

You may find the innuendo very interesting, but that doesn't amount to any wrongdoing on Hogan's part, now, does it?

What it has to do with the property tax is beyond me.

You said:

Originally Posted by dvpower
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.

Out of interest, I answered, since you both asked a question - and answered it yourself, with your more "baseless innuendo statement" - inaccurately, as it happens!

I'm just trying to be helpful, here!:p:D:D