So.. I have paid 100 euro for property tax

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

From a cursory glance - it seems typical - Those efficient Danes appear to have tried to do a yellowpack arrangement and hoped to spend €35 million. The two previous presidencies were Poland at €115 million, and Hungary at €70-€75 million. Isn't Enda looking for corporate sponsors for some of the costs too?

Whereas we have a Yellowpack government trying to spend a Harrods budget.

the corporate sponsors is new to me, i hope its true, cause we cant afford to waste another 70 million wining and dining people.

alastair

AEDIC wrote: »

Dont see the difference. What the tax money is used for is irrelevant to the reason for collecting it. That decision is down to the Govt (rightly or wrongly)

A road tax is a tax on road use - or a tax directed at roads expenditure.
The motor tax is neither of those things.

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

Along with income tax, vat, vrt, and usc, various levies, service charges and now a grand a year on top all earmarked for the same pot?

This is getting ridiculous.

That grand a year - if that's the end figure, is earmarked for local authority spending - unlike the rest of your list.

phil1nj

alastair wrote: »

Maybe you hadn't noticed but there is a balance to dealing with the deficit. You'd think that we hadn't had any change in expenditure. This tax won't be the last introduced, and we haven't seen the last of cuts either.

Cuts you say? really? Well until the SW system and HSE expenditure get tackled head on (both of which have been tinkered with but not reformed in any significant way yet) I will say that the cutting has not truly begun. Meanwhile between the USC and a decrease in tax credit bands, taxation has gone up a notch. Couple that with rises in carbon tax, excise duty on fuel and VAT, I'd say that the taxation side is in full flow. The SW system (of which the medical card scenario I highlighted earlier falls under) accounts for 20+Billion of expecidture each year.

Sorry, I don't see a balanced effort yet. Plus with the CPA in place until 2014 another area of reform is off the table until then but the property tax will be up and running by then. Funny that.

smash

alastair wrote: »

That grand a year - if that's the end figure, is earmarked for local authority spending - unlike the rest of your list.

Phil Hogan among others already said it wasn't. There's interviews with Vincent Browne etc on youtube to show this.

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

Whereas we have a Yellowpack government trying to spend a Harrods budget.

the corporate sponsors is new to me, i hope its true, cause we cant afford to waste another 70 million wining and dining people.

Hmm - the indo is quoting a €60 million bill, rather than €70 million, but here's the sponsor stuff: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/coalition-seeking-sponsors-to-cut-cost-of-eu-presidency-3174225.html

alastair

smash wrote: »

Phil Hogan among others already said it wasn't. There's interviews with Vincent Browne etc on youtube to show this.

Links please? The property tax/HHC is 100% earmaked for local authority funding - the legislation is there for all to see.

AEDIC

alastair wrote: »

A road tax is a tax on road use - or a tax directed at roads expenditure.
The motor tax is neither of those things.

hmmmm....now I am not a car owner so might be on slightly dodgy ground here..... but arent there exemptions from paying the tax if you can prove your car is off the road?

Therefore....not a tax on the motor (as you still own it and therefore its irrelevant if it is on the road or not), but a tax on the fact that your 'motor' is using the road....in other words...a 'use of the road' tax?

Dave!

On the one hand you've got lefty loons calling for an end to the "savage cuts and austerity" which are being imposed, and then in this thread we have people refusing to pay tax because there have been no cuts in expenditure! Someone's not telling the truth

The reality is that there have already been cuts in expenditure, all pretty palatable ones so far. As the IMF pointed out though, the "low-hanging fruit" is gone now, so the next few budgets will see further reductions in expenditure, hopefully getting rid of universal benefits or taxing them at least, etc. You also have to bear in mind that the government is being held hostage by the public sector unions. The Croke Park Agreement is up at the end of 2013, so hopefully we'll be able to make some changes to that then, and will see further reductions in expenditure.

We need to both reduce expenditure, and increase the tax take if we want to reduce the massive budget deficit, which is what is being done gradually. It's a fairly precarious process. Some of the people in here are being pretty unrealistic.

If we start all of a sudden making massive cuts to the social welfare bill, then the government will get f*cked out after the next election and we'll be left with Sinn Féin in government, and we'll have no prospect of a sustainable recovery.

If we all of a sudden make cuts to public sector wages, then we'll end up with industrial unrest and strikes all over the shop. I have no desire to go down that route again.

alastair

AEDIC wrote: »

hmmmm....now I am not a car owner so might be on slightly dodgy ground here..... but arent there exemptions from paying the tax if you can prove your car is off the road?

Therefore....not a tax on the motor (as you still own it and therefore its irrelevant if it is on the road or not), but a tax on the fact that your 'motor' is using the road....in other words...a 'use of the road' tax?

The tax is on using the motor - if it's off the road (and yes - it's exempted then) the motor isn't being used. The tax is structured (loosely) on carbon emissions - not anything to do with the road. The tax doesn't go to roads - it goes into the general taxation pot.

AEDIC

alastair wrote: »

The tax is on using the motor - if it's off the road (and yes - it's exempted then) the motor isn't being used. The tax is structured (loosely) on carbon emissions - not anything to do with the road. The tax doesn't go to roads - it goes into the general taxation pot.

Again...how the govt decide to use the tax is irrelevant to the reason for collecting it. By your same logic, you cant call it a motor tax either, as the money goes into a central pot etc etc etc

alastair

AEDIC wrote: »

Again...how the govt decide to use the tax is irrelevant to the reason for collecting it. By your same logic, you cant call it a motor tax either, as the money goes into a central pot etc etc etc

You're being taxed on your motor - that's a pretty good reason to call it a motor tax.

smash

alastair wrote: »

Links please? The property tax/HHC is 100% earmaked for local authority funding - the legislation is there for all to see.

Go look through the other 100 threads about this, I don't have the time. And for what it's worth, the money generated from this charge will not cover the cost of cuts to local authorities so even if it 100% went there we'd still get less services than we did previously.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

We don't have a road tax - we've a motor tax - which goes into general taxation revenues.

Still on about the now debunked motor/road tax argument eh..

That's some obsession right there.

NEWSFLASH;

Everyone who uses the roads either driving in their own vehicle or as a paying passenger in any form of public transport is paying motor / road tax.

One pays directly because they own the vehicle.

The other pays indirectly as the running costs of that vehicle, including motor tax, are factored into the fares you pay.

FACT.


Cue alastair to FYP this...

AEDIC

alastair wrote: »

You're being taxed on your motor - that's a pretty good reason to call it a motor tax.

Well... not wanting to be pedantic.... but you are being taxed on the whole vehicle, the motor is the engine.

But I am still seeing your logic as a little flawed.

alastair

smash wrote: »

Go look through the other 100 threads about this.

No thanks. I'd be wasting my time. It's earmarked for local authority spending - 100%.

smash wrote: »

And for what it's worth, the money generated from this charge will not cover the cost of cuts to local authorities so even if it 100% went there we'd still get less services than we did previously.

It's only applied in addition to the ongoing revenues from general taxation. No-one claimed local authorities would be funded purely from property taxes.

kr7

AEDIC wrote: »

Well... not wanting to be pedantic.... but you are being taxed on the whole vehicle, the motor is the engine.

But I am still seeing your logic as a little flawed.

He doesn't / won't understand.

Very stubborn those OO lads.

alastair

AEDIC wrote: »

Well... not wanting to be pedantic.... but you are being taxed on the whole vehicle, the motor is the engine.

But I am still seeing your logic as a little flawed.

No - you're being taxed on the engine. A car without an engine isn't liable.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Still on about the now debunked motor/road tax argument eh..

That's some obsession right there.

NEWSFLASH;

Everyone who uses the roads either driving in their own vehicle or as a paying passenger in any form of public transport is paying road tax.

One pays directly because they own the vehicle.

The other pays indirectly as the running costs of that vehicle, including motor tax, are factored into the fares you pay.

FACT.


Cue alastair to FYP this...

There's no such thing as road tax. Equally there's no such thing as indirect motor tax.

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

Hmm - the indo is quoting a €60 million bill, rather than €70 million, but here's the sponsor stuff: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/coalition-seeking-sponsors-to-cut-cost-of-eu-presidency-3174225.html

thanks. i think i(or someone) linked to the 70 mill on the main thread, must be revised down(sorry cant search, have to go)

the indo article also states that 60 mill cost is likely to increase because of security meausre and that governemnt is trying to get state agencies to pay for gifts and dinners(thats our money too). all smoke and mirrors my friend. will be interesting to see the real cost after their budgeted 60.

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

thanks. i think i(or someone) linked to the 70 mill on the main thread, must be revised down(sorry cant search, have to go)

the indo article also states that 60 mill cost is likely to increase because of security meausre and that governemnt is trying to get state agencies to pay for gifts and dinners(thats our money too). all smoke and mirrors my friend. will be interesting to see the real cost after their budgeted 60.

Equally it would be interesting to see if the Danes managed to keep it down to €35 million.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

There's no such thing as road tax. Equally there's no such thing as indirect motor tax.

You have lost the argument, try a different tact.

opinion guy

alastair wrote: »

A place to own isn't though. And you pay your motor tax - which isn't applicable to all.

Because I have to. Personally I would prefer a fuel tax. Its more equitable to tax the generation of environmentally damaging gases on a usage basis than it is to tax someones possessions if you ask me.

IMHO some things should not be taxed - basic things. Wholesome food* Heating, light, healthcare. And the roof over your head. (hmmm I'm ok with taxing investment properties actually - but persons home - no).

*but I'm very PRO tax on crap food - tax the beejeesus out of anything with transfats, highfructosecornsyrup, too much salt......etc

alastair

opinion guy wrote: »

Because I have to.

If you own property - you have to pay this one too. The voluntary taxes don't seem to work so well.

opinion guy wrote: »

Personally I would prefer a fuel tax. Its more equitable to tax the generation of environmentally damaging gases on a usage basis than it is to tax someones possessions if you ask me.

IMHO some things should not be taxed - basic things. Wholesome food* Heating, light, healthcare. And the roof over your head. (hmmm I'm ok with taxing investment properties actually - but persons home - no).

*but I'm very PRO tax on crap food - tax the beejeesus out of anything with transfats, highfructosecornsyrup, too much salt......etc

You can have a roof over your head and not be liable for property ownership taxation. Lighting is already taxed, as is heating.

kr7

Speaking of motor / road tax, alastair doesn't tell us too often that he drives classic cars, with classic motor / road tax, a tax that the rest of us in normal fuel efficient modern cars subsidise.

He also doesn't tell us too often about how he was trying to find loopholes in the VRT system while importing noddy cars so as to avoid vehicle testing here.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Speaking of motor / road tax, alastair doesn't tell us too often that he drives classic cars, with classic motor / road tax, a tax that the rest of us in normal fuel efficient modern cars subsidise.

He also doesn't tell us too often about how he was trying to find loopholes in the VRT system while importing noddy cars so as to avoid vehicle testing here.

What exactly does VRT have to do with NCT testing? :rolleyes:

dvpower

kr7 wrote: »

Speaking of motor / road tax, alastair doesn't tell us too often that he drives classic cars, with classic motor / road tax, a tax that the rest of us in normal fuel efficient modern cars subsidise.

He also doesn't tell us too often about how he was trying to find loopholes in the VRT system while importing noddy cars so as to avoid vehicle testing here.

Didn't you get banned from the last thread for your bickering and sniping?

Can't you stick to the actual topic.

kr7

dvpower wrote: »

Didn't you get banned from the last thread for your bickering and sniping?

Can't you stick to the actual topic.

And the topic is property tax, not motor / road tax.

Have a word with your buddy and make the same point.

phil1nj

dvpower wrote: »

Didn't you get banned from the last thread for your bickering and sniping?

Can't you stick to the actual topic.

Both did, one went back though despite this......just saying like:D:D:D

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

And the topic is property tax, not motor / road tax.

Have a word with your buddy and make the same point.

I'm on topic:

smash wrote: »

Yes we would if people got off their asses! Before Motor tax we had road tax which paid for the roads, and even back then you'd see 1 guy filling a 1 meter hole while 6 others watch him. There's wastage all over the country.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

I'm on topic:

So what exactly has motor / road tax got to do with property?

Give it a rest.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

So what exactly has motor / road tax got to do with property?

Give it a rest.

Responding to the issue of waste in current system and it's impact on taxation. Unlike your off topic ramblings about VRT and NCT testing (?!).

kr7

alastair wrote: »

Responding to the issue of waste in current system and it's impact on taxation. Unlike your off topic ramblings about VRT and NCT testing (?!).

Won't be long now, enjoy your holidays.;)

biko

kr7 threadbanned

Sodden Pussy

I'm with SMASh on this one. I will gladly pay a tax in return for an efficient less-wasteful council service.
Two weeks ago in our small fart of a town 5 (yes FIVE) council workers emptied the public bins as follows:-
One driver of the council tipper body truck
One on the back of the truck
One in the cab with the driver
Two walking from bin to bin and carrying the trash over to the ruck (one of the workers spent over 10 mins chatting to his buddy that he met on the street)

ScumLord

crazy cabbage wrote: »

It could destroy a way of life. I agree that it could be detramental but with proper regulations in place i think it would be sastanabale.

Do you mind me asking what a zeitgeist city is.

It's basically a self sufficient city that grows it's own food, produces it's own power and even manufactures whatever products it needs. It works based on modern automation. It's all very doable, people would only need to maintain the city and it would provide almost everything the population needed.

Personaly i think the whole monetary system needs to be rethought or thrown in the bin. I dont want to come across as a hippy but i think society needs to take a cuple of steps back in order to move forward in a way that is sustanable. Our current system, while has given us many benifits is also killing our planet. This system is fuled by greed and love of power. Have never go anyone to side with me on that issue though so i wont dig myself a hole.

This is basically what the Zeitgeist movement is promoting, completely abandoning the monetary system. The movement is a bit wishy washy, it seems to be all talk and little practical application to prove anything they're talking about but I think the underlying ideal is sound.

bluecode

dxhound2005 wrote: »

That second house would be liable for NPPR. If she hasn't paid that and she owned the house since 2009 she will now have run up a bill of €2240 rising by €80 per month.

https://www.nppr.ie/Faq.aspx#fk0

Also she would need to be careful not to fall foul of the Revenue Commissioners by not paying tax on the rental income.

All paid in full and rental income fully declared along with all other income. Also registered with PRTB. Fully compliant. You can also be sure she'll be claiming for all expenses incurred.

But the household charge? They can wait.

bluecode

Sam Kade wrote: »

Enjoy laughing yourself to sleep for as long as you can because in the not too distant future you will be crying yourself to sleep

That sounds very sinister. Are you a government thug going to come around and arrest me?

Keep your threats to yourself.

dvpower

bluecode wrote: »

We sleep better from laughing ourselves to sleep at the fools who paid the charge, thus ensuring they will be the first to get caught for the full property tax when it comes into law.

Well done fools.:D

bluecode wrote: »

That sounds very sinister. Are you a government thug going to come around and arrest me?

Keep your threats to yourself.

You can dish it out...

martingriff

smash wrote: »

If we were to follow other countries then lets do it properly and introduce a property tax, dramatically reduce VRT and motor tax, better healthcare and education, free childcare, cut public service salaries etc etc...

see where this is going?

I think practically everyone would agree here with your point. Takes time and a backbone. In relation to the healthcare and the education this will take time to do less we have another debacle like the HSE where that was done over night and there was 10 different managers or we have the debacle of obamacare which was done so rushed it is wasting more money then the HSE.

alastair

martingriff wrote: »

I think practically everyone would agree here with your point. Takes time and a backbone.

And additional taxation.

bluecode

dvpower wrote: »

You can dish it out...

Sorry who did I threaten?

You and few others government mouthpieces have been careful to ignore the reason why so many of us refused to pay this charge. I'm not going to enumerate them again. You just repeat the mantra that it's tax and like all taxes it must be paid. That's this tax is needed for local services and that by not paying it a significant proportion of the population are a bunch of tax dodgers. You also completely ignore the likely reason many actually paid up reluctantly. Fear mongering, fear mongering just like Sam Kade tried with me.

Propaganda in fact.

The local free rag dropped through my door today and the lead article in it concerned Hogan's letter threatening to cut the local councils funding proportionate to the number who failed to pay the charge. Very clearly moral blackmail aimed at the non payers. and an attempt to push the problem onto the councils. Instead of realising the absolute mess he made of the whole issue.

Like you they continue to completely ignore the massive protest that this represents, ignore the reasons for it and simply repeat the lie that it's neccessary for continued public services.

We're all supposed to feel guilty now if something is cut locally. So now we're to blame, not the government or the bankers, not the EU, not the previous government. No it's down down to ordinary people who said 'enough is enough'. That this charge is unfair, ill thought out and frankly nothing more than a fishing exercise to find out who owns what for the future and likely to be excessive property tax. In my own family, it was significant who the only one who paid this charge were also the best off. My Mother living alone, aged 85 on her pension refused to pay. She should never have been asked to pay this charge in the first place.

All of this demonstrates quite clearly how out of touch with public opinion Kenny, Hogan, Gilmore and rest are.

So carry on with your smug crusade to blur the issues. Your motivation is clear though. Transparent even. So carry on. I won't be paying this charge until the cost of collecting it off me renders it pointless or unless it's included in fairly worked out property tax we've all been promised. If that ever happens.

UDP

I hope the government has the balls to go after everyone who hasn't paid it. Up to the point of putting a lien against their properties.

opinionated3

UDP wrote: »

I hope the government has the balls to go after everyone who hasn't paid it. Up to the point of putting a lien against their properties.

Pathetic comment.

UDP

opinionated3 wrote: »

Pathetic comment.

How so?

tiny timy

Gov = bullies
ordinary folks = victims

Its just like being a victim to bullies at school who want to take your money. Except you could do something in school about bullies.its easy to bully someone when you have nobody to answer to.isn't that right enda!Thought you been a teacher you would understand the whole bully issue.go have a word with your little lapdog phil.good man

opinionated3

UDP wrote: »

opinionated3 wrote: »

Pathetic comment.

How so?

Did not mean to come across as too harsh ~ I know it's just your opinion but this is the same government who don't have the balls to chase those who had a big hand in causing all this, who won't chase those who facilitated it (bertie and friends) and certainly won't negotiate with our German bosses! Balls? They just don't have em

Ghandee

bluecode wrote: »

Sorry who did I threaten?

You and few others government mouthpieces have been careful to ignore the reason why so many of us refused to pay this charge. I'm not going to enumerate them again. You just repeat the mantra that it's tax and like all taxes it must be paid. That's this tax is needed for local services and that by not paying it a significant proportion of the population are a bunch of tax dodgers. You also completely ignore the likely reason many actually paid up reluctantly. Fear mongering, fear mongering just like Sam Kade tried with me.

Propaganda in fact.

The local free rag dropped through my door today and the lead article in it concerned Hogan's letter threatening to cut the local councils funding proportionate to the number who failed to pay the charge. Very clearly moral blackmail aimed at the non payers. and an attempt to push the problem onto the councils. Instead of realising the absolute mess he made of the whole issue.

Like you they continue to completely ignore the massive protest that this represents, ignore the reasons for it and simply repeat the lie that it's neccessary for continued public services.

We're all supposed to feel guilty now if something is cut locally. So now we're to blame, not the government or the bankers, not the EU, not the previous government. No it's down down to ordinary people who said 'enough is enough'. That this charge is unfair, ill thought out and frankly nothing more than a fishing exercise to find out who owns what for the future and likely to be excessive property tax. In my own family, it was significant who the only one who paid this charge were also the best off. My Mother living alone, aged 85 on her pension refused to pay. She should never have been asked to pay this charge in the first place.

All of this demonstrates quite clearly how out of touch with public opinion Kenny, Hogan, Gilmore and rest are.

So carry on with your smug crusade to blur the issues. Your motivation is clear though. Transparent even. So carry on. I won't be paying this charge until the cost of collecting it off me renders it pointless or unless it's included in fairly worked out property tax we've all been promised. If that ever happens.

Excellent post.

More than a few home truths.

Elfinknight

dvpower wrote: »

Sending out some letters is bully tactics and force now?

Well, what would you call it?

They are basically: saying pay up or else.

If I tried it at work, i'd be sacked for bullying.

UDP

Elfinknight wrote: »

Well, what would you call it?

They are basically: saying pay up or else.

If I tried it at work, i'd be sacked for bullying.

Surely that is the way laws work?