Why should I (we) pay the new Property Tax???

pwurple

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The tax looks likely to be value based.

This is the bit I don't get... house sale prices are considered private information. We have no list of values of houses.

How will the value be arrived at? The value of a house is what someone is willing to pay for it. No more, no less. And with such a small volume of sales currently, any value is going to be completely arbitrary, and to no-ones liking.

Plus, values change from year to year, depending on all sorts of things both within and out of a homeowners control. Take an example of property condition.

House A - built 50 years ago in a housing estate, lived in by owner occupiers, kept everything repaired and up to date. Replaced with windows with double glazing, insulated attic, best new boiler, decorated well, tidy garden.

House B - Identical site, location and structure. Next door. Rental property, damaged by a tenant ten years ago, landlord unable to afford any repairs, or deceased and the will is not settled. Roof partially falling in, gutters blocked, damp, overgrown with brambles.

Are these the same value?

If not -> who decides this, and maintains this list of the condition of every individual property in the country? And is it an encouragement to let a house run to disrepair?

If so -> Is the real value of House A or House B taken as the value, and how will that choice affect the sale price should either one of those owners wish to sell up?

alastair

Heroditas wrote: »

So that's it. You make an assumption based on something I state and then twist it to suit your argument.
Grand so. I can do that too.

Now, any issues with anything else I said in those first two posts in this thread?

So - you don't want the document you said you did?

jenchussey

alastair wrote: »

As has been pointed out repeatedly - the tax increases are a consequence of the deficit - not the banks.
The overhead of the bank bailout - and consequent bondholder payments etc contribute less than 4.5% of your and my tax burden. Over 95% of the problem, and your tax payments have nothing to do with bondholders etc.

But surley some of that deficit arrose from having to be bailed out because of the de-funked banks...??

alastair

jenchussey wrote: »

But surley some of that deficit arrose from having to be bailed out because of the de-funked banks...??

yep - and it accounts for 4.5% of the household tax burden.

Heroditas

alastair wrote: »

So - you don't want the document you said you did?

Any issues with anything else I said?
I take it you don't.
Actually, I'll assume you don't.

jenchussey

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

What ever the rights and wrongs of the proposed property tax, the €11,893 you paid doesn't make you particularly unique.
The 10,000s of people who bought estate houses in the suburbs of Dublin (and maybe other counties, I'm not sure) also paid high 4 or even 5 figure fees, though the payment was a little more indirect as it was paid by the builder who then passed it on to the purchaser of the new build in the total house price. But still effectively these levies were paid by the home owner.
Just annoys me when people who built their own houses believe these levies were something that only applied to them, and that therefore they should be exempt from some future charge.

I live down a cul-de-sac where the pot-holes cover one side of the road to the other. I have my own well and rain-water harvesting system, my own private sewage treatment system, there are no street lights, no footpaths. I live more than 6 miles form the nearest village, where there is a pub and a church - which is maintained by the parishoners. The nearest amenities to me are about 15 miles away in the larger town. The monies I paid to the council are for those such amenities, as is or will be the proprty tax.
I don't expect not to pay it but I certainly think, given what I have already contributed to the fat pockets of my local councilors I think there should be means testing for it.

Or even better don't impose it at all. DON'T pay out the €600,000,000 Anglo bond on Sept. 3rd or the €1,000,000,000 being paid out on October 1st or anything else going forward - save us all a **** load of money in the long run!

Heroditas

pwurple wrote: »

This is the bit I don't get... house sale prices are considered private information. We have no list of values of houses.

How will the value be arrived at? The value of a house is what someone is willing to pay for it. No more, no less. And with such a small volume of sales currently, any value is going to be completely arbitrary, and to no-ones liking.

Plus, values change from year to year, depending on all sorts of things both within and out of a homeowners control. Take an example of property condition.

House A - built 50 years ago in a housing estate, lived in by owner occupiers, kept everything repaired and up to date. Replaced with windows with double glazing, insulated attic, best new boiler, decorated well, tidy garden.

House B - Identical site, location and structure. Next door. Rental property, damaged by a tenant ten years ago, landlord unable to afford any repairs, or deceased and the will is not settled. Roof partially falling in, gutters blocked, damp, overgrown with brambles.

Are these the same value?

If not -> who decides this, and maintains this list of the condition of every individual property in the country? And is it an encouragement to let a house run to disrepair?

If so -> Is the real value of House A or House B taken as the value, and how will that choice affect the sale price should either one of those owners wish to sell up?

On the other hand, it might cost the same for the council to provide services to each of those houses so why should the value of the property determine how much each property owner/occupier pays?

Sleepy

later12 wrote: »

Of course not. And rural dwellers do pay taxes, and will end up paying the property tax. All that is being referred to here is whether or not it is fair to ask people to pay for a service they cannot receive. Now you may, and probably will, throw your hands up in the air and say that this is not a time to be considering equity or fairness, in which case I suggest that if it doesn't interest or concern you, move along.

As we stand, right now, rural dwellers are not covering the cost of the services they currently receive. They are subsidised by those living in urban areas.

As taxpayers we pay for lots of services we may never receive. It's part of the social contract of living in a country that provides (admittedly imperfect and sometimes downright poor) healthcare, education, emergency services, infrastructure, social security, defence services etc. etc. etc.

That someone feels hard done by when they're currently being subsidised by others is a bit galling tbh. Rural dwellers receive less services: that's part of the opportunity cost of having cleaner air, a larger home on a larger piece of land than you could afford in a city, less social problems etc.

In other words: don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Society at large recognised the importance of having a food supply so services are provided to rural areas that they couldn't otherwise afford. Reading the posts of those benefiting from this that are whinging about being asked to pay a new tax that the same urbanites who subsidise them will also be paying is just galling tbh. Particularly if they don't have anything to do with farming and are simply living in a rural setting as a lifestyle choice whilst commuting into a nearby town/city for work.

alastair

Heroditas wrote: »

Any issues with anything else I said?

Foolishly, I was waiting for your response to the questions I raised. I'll not bother with the rest of your post on that basis.

alastair

jenchussey wrote: »

Or even better don't impose it at all. DON'T pay out the €600,000,000 Anglo bond on Sept. 3rd or the €1,000,000,000 being paid out on October 1st or anything else going forward - save us all a **** load of money in the long run!

Who will you borrow from, if not the crowd who require us to make those payments as part of the loan they extended to us?

Heroditas

alastair wrote: »

Foolishly, I was waiting for your response to the questions I raised. I'll not bother with the rest of your post on that basis.

Oh that's a shame. I'll assume I'm correct in that case.

alastair

Heroditas wrote: »

Oh that's a shame. I'll assume I'm correct in that case.

Feel free to assume you're getting the ignore button treatment. Bye!

jenchussey

Sleepy wrote: »

As we stand, right now, rural dwellers are not covering the cost of the services they currently receive. They are subsidised by those living in urban areas.

As taxpayers we pay for lots of services we may never receive. It's part of the social contract of living in a country that provides (admittedly imperfect and sometimes downright poor) healthcare, education, emergency services, infrastructure, social security, defence services etc. etc. etc.

That someone feels hard done by when they're currently being subsidised by others is a bit galling tbh. Rural dwellers receive less services: that's part of the opportunity cost of having cleaner air, a larger home on a larger piece of land than you could afford in a city, less social problems etc.

In other words: don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Society at large recognised the importance of having a food supply so services are provided to rural areas that they couldn't otherwise afford. Reading the posts of those benefiting from this that are whinging about being asked to pay a new tax that the same urbanites who subsidise them will also be paying is just galling tbh. Particularly if they don't have anything to do with farming and are simply living in a rural setting as a lifestyle choice whilst commuting into a nearby town/city for work.

Your ****ting me, right?:mad:

Sleepy

jenchussey wrote: »

Your ****ting me, right?:mad:

No. It's a certifiable fact that the urban areas of this country are subsidising the rural. Have a search on the forum, plenty of figures available on it.

later12

Sleepy wrote: »

As we stand, right now, rural dwellers are not covering the cost of the services they currently receive. They are subsidised by those living in urban areas.

That someone feels hard done by when they're currently being subsidised by others is a bit galling tbh.

You appear unable to differentiate between those rural dwellers I referred to who live in small population clusters that enjoy the provision of public water supply, waste treatment, footpaths, lighting, drainage and all of the other main services, and those who live far more detached from these population centres, and therefore really beyond the reach of these services.

Is that so?

Because what I find galling, living 4 miles from the nearest village, in a property where drainage, maintenance, road maintenance, water supply and onsite waste treatment are all paid for by ourselves, is being told that we will have our property tax subsidized by you people. I find that astonishing.

K-9

Heroditas wrote: »

Oh that's a shame. I'll assume I'm correct in that case.

alastair wrote: »

Feel free to assume you're getting the ignore button treatment. Bye!

jenchussey wrote: »

Your ****ting me, right?:mad:

Cut out the sniping and the pointless replies. Last warning on this. Again, only post if you've something worthwhile to add.

alastair

later12 wrote: »

Because what I find galling, living 4 miles from the nearest village, in a property where drainage, maintenance, road maintenance, water supply and onsite waste treatment are all paid for by ourselves, is being told that we will have our property tax subsidized by you people. I find that astonishing.

Perhaps because you're again ignoring the gamut of local services that are effectively subsidised by urban taxpayers? When did your local authority stop maintaining public roads?

later12

alastair wrote: »

Perhaps because you're again ignoring the gamut of local services that are effectively subsidised by urban taxpayers? When did your local authority stop maintaining public roads?

I don't particularly want to use this as a sweeping example because in our own case, we pay for our road's maintenance along with neighbours who also use it; it's classed as a private road. That's not really relevant ; we are delighted to live where we live and will quite happily meet the costs of doing so.

The point is simply to highlight the fact that in doing so we are not being 'subsidized' by urban dwellers, especially if we are to pay a property tax which (in theory, of course) would largely fund services which they enjoy.

jenchussey

later12 wrote: »

You appear unable to differentiate between those rural dwellers I referred to who live in small population clusters that enjoy the provision of public water supply, waste treatment, footpaths, lighting, drainage and all of the other main services, and those who live far more detached from these population centres, and therefore really beyond the reach of these services.

Is that so?

Because what I find galling, living 4 miles from the nearest village, in a property where drainage, maintenance, road maintenance, water supply and onsite waste treatment are all paid for by ourselves, is being told that we will have our property tax subsidized by you people. I find that astonishing.

I completely agree. Galling.

Sleepy

later12 wrote: »

You appear unable to differentiate between those rural dwellers I referred to who live in small population clusters that enjoy the provision of public water supply, waste treatment, footpaths, lighting, drainage and all of the other main services, and those who live far more detached from these population centres, and therefore really beyond the reach of these services.

Is that so?

Not at all. Those who choose to live in such remote areas, however, still receive services:

• should their home go up in smoke, the fire brigade will still come when called (and no, the call out charge doesn't cover the cost of providing the service and nor should it).
• should they be the victim of a crime that occured in their home, the police will still call out to them.
• They still, for the most part, have telephone and electricity connections that were put in place by (at the time) tax-payer owned companies that wouldn't even countenance a request in such locations these days (ask UPC about a connection in these locations and expect to be laughed at).
• Should illegal dumping occur on their grounds, they can still call the council to come take it away.
• Presumably these individuals aren't complete hermits and venture into the nearest town every now and then where they can avail of the road to get them there, any street lights or paving that exist there and local services such as schools, a library, swimming pool / sports hall, cultural events etc.

That people choose to live in such remote locations as to make it impossibly expensive to provide them with the services which can be afforded for those who live in more built up areas (from small population clusters to metropoli) doesn't give them the right to opt out of society as society is still providing for them. Most likely at a level which exceeds their individual contributions towards those services.

It's a lifestyle choice and one which has benefits (clean air, peace and quiet, less / no exposure to anti-social behaviours, cheap land etc.) and consequences (it's more difficult to avail of services (both public and private) and some may be unavailable altogether - can't imagine too many take aways delivering for example.)

There is no option for a citizen of Ireland (or any country I'm aware of) to declare their own patch of land a sovereign state and exempt themselves from taxation.

EDIT FOR YOUR EDIT:

Because what I find galling, living 4 miles from the nearest village, in a property where drainage, maintenance, road maintenance, water supply and onsite waste treatment are all paid for by ourselves, is being told that we will have our property tax subsidized by you people. I find that astonishing.

I didn't say you'd have your property tax subsidised by anyone. I'm saying that the status quo results in a higher share of government expenditure being spent on someone in your situation than someone living in an urban area. The figures on Local Government support this. I'm saying it's no more unfair to charge you a property tax than it is my next-door neighbour in a Dublin suburb. Once the charge makes some account of the difference in the values of your properties (in either your favour or his), that's an equitable tax imo.

I've already stated that I'm in favour of a waiver scheme of some sort for those who are in negative equity. A wealth tax becomes a bit ludicrous if it's levied on liabilities.

jenchussey

alastair wrote: »

Perhaps because you're again ignoring the gamut of local services that are effectively subsidised by urban taxpayers? When did your local authority stop maintaining public roads?

The councy council have never maintained the cul-de-sac where I live, certainly not as long as I've been there, which is hitting on 29 years.
The fact that I have already paid my development contribution to the county council would also indicate that I am paying for the Urbanists servces, in those larger towns where alot of the city urbanists have moved to.

alastair

later12 wrote: »

I don't particularly want to use this as a sweeping example because in our own case, we pay for our road's maintenance along with neighbours who also use it; it's classed as a private road. That's not really relevant ; we are delighted to live where we live and will quite happily meet the costs of doing so.

Private roads aren't maintained by local authorities in urban areas either - so it would be irrelevant alright.

later12 wrote: »

The point is simply to highlight the fact that in doing so we are not being 'subsidized' by urban dwellers, especially if we are to pay a property tax which (in theory, of course) would largely fund services which they enjoy.

You are being subsidized if your local authority area doesn't provide enough revenue to maintain the services it provides to you, it's citizens. As this is the case for many low population regions, it's kind of hard to ignore the reality that cross-subsidization from high population areas to low population areas exists. It's not anything I've a problem with, but pretending it's not a fact - regardless of whether you've a septic tank or not, is problematic - as it runs counter to the fiscal facts..

alastair

jenchussey wrote: »

The councy council have never maintained the cul-de-sac where I live, certainly not as long as I've been there, which is hitting on 29 years.

Perhaps its not a priority in terms of remedial work - or doesn't require any? Or are you suggesting your local authority doesn't maintain public roads?

Sleepy

jenchussey wrote: »

The councy council have never maintained the cul-de-sac where I live, certainly not as long as I've been there, which is hitting on 29 years.
The fact that I have already paid my development contribution to the county council would also indicate that I am paying for the Urbanists servces, in those larger towns where alot of the city urbanists have moved to.

And what of the fact that they've paid their contributions too?

Or did you think Development Contributions were only charged to those building on a bit of farm land Daddy managed to get re-zoned for them through his contacts in the local Cumánn?

dvpower

Heroditas wrote: »

Does everyone have access to the internet?

Yes. Local authorities provide it free (at the point of usage) at the library service.

jenchussey

Sleepy wrote: »

And what of the fact that they've paid their contributions too?

Or did you think Development Contributions were only charged to those building on a bit of farm land Daddy managed to get re-zoned for them through his contacts in the local Cumánn?

I purchased a site that had no planning on it, because it was where I grew up, beside my parents - therefore the only chance I ever had at building my own home. I did not want to pay well over-the-odds good money for a box with paper walls in a noise-infected housing estate. So I spent 4 years trying to get planning permission and hit every possible brick wall that they threw at me. I spent thousands on architects to create a plan that the council would like. But I perservered because I wanted my children to have a childhhod that they'll look back on and smile, like I did.
So don't you dare look down your clontarf nose at me. I made a choice for me and my family and I worked my ass off to make that choice ( dream) a reality. It had nothing to do with anyone except me and my own hard earned cash and sweat and tears. So I will not apologise for the choice I made and I will not be told by you or anyone else that people like you subsidize my lifestyle choices.

dvpower

pwurple wrote: »

This is the bit I don't get... house sale prices are considered private information. We have no list of values of houses.

How will the value be arrived at? The value of a house is what someone is willing to pay for it. No more, no less. And with such a small volume of sales currently, any value is going to be completely arbitrary, and to no-ones liking.

Plus, values change from year to year, depending on all sorts of things both within and out of a homeowners control. Take an example of property condition.

House A - built 50 years ago in a housing estate, lived in by owner occupiers, kept everything repaired and up to date. Replaced with windows with double glazing, insulated attic, best new boiler, decorated well, tidy garden.

House B - Identical site, location and structure. Next door. Rental property, damaged by a tenant ten years ago, landlord unable to afford any repairs, or deceased and the will is not settled. Roof partially falling in, gutters blocked, damp, overgrown with brambles.

Are these the same value?

If not -> who decides this, and maintains this list of the condition of every individual property in the country? And is it an encouragement to let a house run to disrepair?

If so -> Is the real value of House A or House B taken as the value, and how will that choice affect the sale price should either one of those owners wish to sell up?

There is a house price database with actual sale prices going back two years due to be published next month.

Valuations are likely to be by self assesment with some validation done via the house price database and other valuations for similar houses. It will also likely to be a banded tax, so a rough valuation will suffice in most cases.

Even with that I'm sure there will be loads of edge cases, so the Revenue will need a mechanism to challange assesments and get their own or I dependant ones.

Heroditas

dvpower wrote: »

Yes. Local authorities provide it free (at the point of usage) at the library service.

I see the tag team are out in force.
Just because something is provided free doesn't mean everyone can access it.
There's a substantial difference in the two statements.

Sleepy

I'm renting a 3 bed terrace in Clontarf with my fiancée and two kids, not exactly in a position to look down on anyone and, a Lotto win aside, will never be in a position to build my own home.

You chose your lifestyle. I chose mine. Neither is better or worse, just more suitable for our families in our opinions.

Because of population densities, it costs the state more to provide an education to your children than it does to educate mine. It cost the state more to make electricity and phone lines available to your area than it did to provide them to mine. It costs them more per head to provide the road your house joins the public road network on than it did per capita for the one I live on. Facts are facts. That you seem to resent not being provided with every convenience of an suburban lifestyle whilst enjoying the benefits of a rural one does not change them. I live in an area which subsidises the services provided to yours.

later12

Sleepy wrote: »

Not at all. Those who choose to live in such remote areas, however, still receive services:

• should their home go up in smoke, the fire brigade will still come when called (and no, the call out charge doesn't cover the cost of providing the service and nor should it).
• should they be the victim of a crime that occured in their home, the police will still call out to them.
• They still, for the most part, have telephone and electricity connections that were put in place by (at the time) tax-payer owned companies that wouldn't even countenance a request in such locations these days (ask UPC about a connection in these locations and expect to be laughed at).
• Should illegal dumping occur on their grounds, they can still call the council to come take it away.
• Presumably these individuals aren't complete hermits and venture into the nearest town every now and then where they can avail of the road to get them there, any street lights or paving that exist there and local services such as schools, a library, swimming pool / sports hall, cultural events etc.

I think you're missing the point again. I readily agree that everyone does benefit from some council services, whether directly or indirectly (what exactly that has to do with the Garda Siochana is less clear. I should also point out that our insurance pays for fire services, which comes to about €400 per call out where I live).

My only point is that in the case of rural dwellers beyond the reach of the main services like water, waste treatment/ collection, lighting, paths and drainage, the benefits that fall or the value which accrues to one's property on foot of these benefits, directly or indirectly, can be nowhere near the same extent or magnitude as those who live in villages, towns or cities, and so as part of a principle of fairness in taxation, the property tax ought to be re-examined.

The whole point is probably moot since it is hard to see how farms will avoid the application of rates into the future anyway.

alastair wrote: »

You are being subsidized if your local authority area doesn't provide enough revenue to maintain the services it provides to you, it's citizens. As this is the case for many low population regions, it's kind of hard to ignore the reality that cross-subsidization from high population areas to low population areas exists.

Of course it exists; nobody is denying it exists. I'm saying that it is less likely to exist in cases like ours. We run a farm businesses and a related business at home, we pay all of our taxes, we cannot even incorporate ourselves because of likely commercial rates being applied to our outbuildings, which as mentioned earlier, is probably an inevitability now anyway.

Do you quite seriously not see any problem with this? It seems perfectly fair and legitimate to you?

alastair

later12 wrote: »

I should also point out that our insurance pays for fire services, which comes to about €400 per call out where I live).

Your insurance may well cover the cost of the callout - which is a small fraction of the cost of maintaining the service - which your local authority taxation actually covers.

Sleepy

later12 wrote: »

I think you're missing the point again. I readily agree that everyone does benefit from some council services, whether directly or indirectly (what exactly that has to do with the Garda Siochana is less clear. I should also point out that our insurance pays for fire services, which comes to about €400 per call out where I live).

My only point is that in the case of rural dwellers beyond the reach of the main services like water, waste treatment/ collection, lighting, paths and drainage, the benefits that fall or the value which accrues to one's property on foot of these benefits, directly or indirectly, can be nowhere near the same extent or magnitude as those who live in villages, towns or cities, and so as part of a principle of fairness in taxation, the property tax ought to be re-examined.

The whole point is probably moot since it is hard to see how farms will avoid the application of rates into the future anyway.

Since the lack of access to those services would be factored into the market value of your site or property, any non-flat-rate tax would take that into account, no?

alastair

later12 wrote: »

Of course it exists; nobody is denying it exists. I'm saying that it is less likely to exist in cases like ours. We run a farm businesses and a related business at home, we pay all of our taxes, we cannot even incorporate ourselves because of likely commercial rates being applied to our outbuildings, which as mentioned earlier, is probably an inevitability now anyway.

Do you quite seriously not see any problem with this? It seems perfectly fair and legitimate to you?

I'm not seeing how your individual business or planning arrangements impacts on the reality of cross-subsidization (urban to rural) of local authorities. I live in an urban area and only utilize a minority of local authority services - but I'm not pretending my local authority doesn't provide those services, or that property taxation should be re-assessed because of my individual circumstances. The funding is applied to the local authority as a whole, for services supplied as a whole.

later12

Sleepy wrote: »

Since the lack of access to those services would be factored into the market value of your site or property, any non-flat-rate tax would take that into account, no?

Firstly, the market value is not just based on council services. There are other features of where an individual lives which add value to a property which might more than compensate for the lack of services; in the absence of the main council service it is not equitable to tax these rural properties on the basis of a similar proportional 'value added' by way of the main council services as more urban dwellers.

Secondly, these services do exist for such properties; the facilities have been privately installed, the wells have been sunk, the sewage tank is in place, the drainage and other onsite waste infrastructure have been established.

later12

alastair wrote: »

Your insurance may well cover the cost of the callout - which is a small fraction of the cost of maintaining the service - which your local authority taxation actually covers.

Actually i think it's a mixture of both. I'm not quite convinced that the actual cost of putting out a chimney fire is about €400.

Nevertheless, as I have repeated at length, I do agree that some charge needs to apply across the board, my problem is its uniform application where householders have gone to great expense to privately provide crucial services like water and waste which the council cannot supply.

alastair

later12 wrote: »

in the absence of the main council service

That would suggest that sewage mains are the 'main' council service - which is something of a reach.

alastair

later12 wrote: »

Nevertheless, as I have repeated at length, I do agree that some charge needs to apply across the board, my problem is its uniform application where householders have gone to great expense to privately provide crucial services like water and waste which the council cannot supply.

Water charges are about to be levied on mains water services - with group schemes and individual wells exempted. Almost everyone pays privately for their waste collection/disposal at this stage.

Cheerful Spring

This was the stuff of conspiracy theories of years ago that the elite will make you more poorer and less well off eventually. And people used to call those people the crazy ones whos having the last laugh now.

60% or more of registered households have paid the household charge, so the majority of Irish people have been easily fooled and can be bullied to pay up. Same is going to happen here folks the majority of Irish citizens will continue on being subservient and will pay this property tax.

alastair

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This was the stuff of conspiracy theories of years ago that the elite will make you more poorer and less well off eventually. And people used to call those people the crazy ones whos having the last laugh now.

The crazy conspiracy theorists who don't understand the principles of taxation?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

60% or more of registered households have paid the household charge, so the majority of Irish people have been easily fooled and can be bullied to pay up. Same is going to happen here folks the majority of Irish citizens will continue on being subservient and will pay this property tax.

Law-abiding citizens you mean? How exactly do you belive those of us who have paid their HHC have been 'fooled', and how are those who will have to pay late penalties for 'not having been fooled' any less 'foolish'?

Blowfish

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This was the stuff of conspiracy theories of years ago that the elite will make you more poorer and less well off eventually. And people used to call those people the crazy ones whos having the last laugh now.

The wealthiest areas of Dublin are in the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown council area. This also happens to be the most compliant council when it comes to the household charge.

In other words, if 'the elite' were determined to make everyone else poorer and them richer, then they themselves being the most compliant when it comes to the household charge seems a pretty silly way of going about it.

dvpower

later12 wrote: »

Actually i think it's a mixture of both. I'm not quite convinced that the actual cost of putting out a chimney fire is about €400.

Nevertheless, as I have repeated at length, I do agree that some charge needs to apply across the board, my problem is its uniform application where householders have gone to great expense to privately provide crucial services like water and waste which the council cannot supply.

Its the cost of having that service on call 24/7 that's the killer.

I'd personally be in favour of individual reductions where major services are not made available to all (like waste collection or water where those services are still normally provided by the council).
But there's a limit to how granular the charging structure can get before people start whinging that they never go to the library or park and shouldn't have to pay for those.

later12

dvpower wrote: »

Its the cost of having that service on call 24/7 that's the killer.

I'd personally be in favour of individual reductions where major services are not made available to all (like waste collection or water where those services are still normally provided by the council).
But there's a limit to how granular the charging structure can get before people start whinging that they never go to the library or park and shouldn't have to pay for those.

Yes, I completely agree, it's probably not a wise path to go down.

The only time I get involved in this debate is when people mention the notion that we all avail of these essential services, or that there is some sort of black and white case of the rural dwellers being subsidized. In fact, this is just a method of raising badly needed revenue for central government which will assist them with their local authority subventions, as well as other expenditures. If were a little more honest and started seeing this in those terms, instead of necessarily being a payment for street lights and footpaths, it might cause considerably less trouble.

Cheerful Spring

alastair wrote: »

The crazy conspiracy theorists who don't understand the principles of taxation?


Law-abiding citizens you mean? How exactly do you belive those of us who have paid their HHC have been 'fooled', and how are those who will have to pay late penalties for 'not having been fooled' any less 'foolish'?

Lets tax the air while we are at why not? When does a tax become morally and legally unjustified? Because its the law of the land should Irish citizens feel obligated to pay those taxes? Personally i think Irish citizens are ill-informed about their choices, and been uneducated makes it easier to bully them.

Do we wish to see more people lose their homes in Ireland? Property taxes how is that going to help people pay off their mortgages. Ireland so many people are struggling to pay current taxes, but if they don't pay, they are punished. How is that a fair society?

If we are going to continue the culture of bringing in new taxation. Then we better make it is as fair as possible.

But see the problem i have with all this is new taxes are been brought in because this economy was managed badly. The real culprits squandered billions and now we are punishing Irish citizens for this mess. Politicians have a nerve to ask for more when they had more they wasted it.

Cheerful Spring

Blowfish wrote: »

The wealthiest areas of Dublin are in the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown council area. This also happens to be the most compliant council when it comes to the household charge.

In other words, if 'the elite' were determined to make everyone else poorer and them richer, then they themselves being the most compliant when it comes to the household charge seems a pretty silly way of going about it.

Your more likely to be complaint when your economically better off.

Were is the money going that is being sucked from this economy since 2008. It going into the bank accounts of elites and who is being punished for the bad loans Irish banks made. Well who you guessed it the Irish citizen. Who does the IMF and ECB answer to? You guessed it bankers. Its a circle were banking elites are looking out for each other.

dvpower

Heroditas wrote: »

I see the tag team are out in force.
Just because something is provided free doesn't mean everyone can access it.
There's a substantial difference in the two statements.

I'm sure there are some people, by reason of disability or some other inaccessbility, can't access the library service.
But I wouldn't think that that would be a reason for bulk mailing LA accounts to everyone in the country.

I do think that when the full property tax is introduced we should all be getting annual statements outlining where the money is being spent. Additional transparency, I think, is going to be one of the major benefits of the property tax.

Heroditas

dvpower wrote: »

Heroditas wrote: »

I see the tag team are out in force.
Just because something is provided free doesn't mean everyone can access it.
There's a substantial difference in the two statements.

I'm sure there are some people, by reason of disability or some other inaccessbility, can't access the library service.
But I wouldn't think that that would be a reason for bulk mailing LA accounts to everyone in the country.

I do think that when the full property tax is introduced we should all be getting annual statements outlining where the money is being spent. Additional transparency, I think, is going to be one of the major benefits of the property tax.

So, not everyone can access the net.
Again, I never asked for bulk mailing - Alastair dreamt that up to suit himself.
Anyway, a warning was issued by the mods so it's time to move on from that.

I 100% agree with the last bit - some sort of statement (either electronic or on paper) would be very welcome and additional transparency would go an awfully long way to alleviate the disgruntlement out there.

paddy147

There is no "major benifit" of paying an Irish property tax.

There isnt even any benifit at all.

What specific services will you get it for??

None.

You will still have to pay for bins
You will still have to pay for emergencey callouts
You will still have to pay for water

srsly78

If you get welfare or work in the public sector then it goes straight back into your pocket.

ncdadam

Heroditas wrote: »

There's a few things that bug me about the charge and they need to be clarified. My own opinion on it is:

1. The services indeed need to be paid for but we need to be specifically told what exactly we're funding, i.e. my bins are collected privately, I pay for electricity and gas, water will soon be metered. If we got a clear document stating what exactly my money will be funding in the local authority, it would ease the kick in the pills a bit

2. EVERYONE should pay the charge. Everybody benefits from the services so I should not have to subsidise others. This guff about social housing being exempt etc is infuriating. It just means that the middle earners cough up once again

3. How to calculate the tax.... should the tax be levied on property value or property size? A confusing one. How do council services vary based on the size or value of my house? Does it cost more to provide street lighting to identical houses if one is valued at €200k and the other at €400k? Seems a strange way of doing things. If the value of the house is supposed to show how people can afford to pay more, again... provision of services doesn't differentiate between this. Does a library cost more for someone with an expensive house than someone with a cheaper house?

Perhaps a flat rate is the best way of doing it but the rate may vary per county council.
What's particularly frustrating about this is that it's September and we're still getting plenty of kite flying and contradictory messages from ministers.
Just keep your traps shut and come to some sort of solution.

People need to realise that this tax has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with LA services.
This money is being thieved from people to give to unsecured bondholders.

As has been said, it all goes into the one pot only that pot is being emptied at a rapid rate, under the instruction of the ECB, to pay off unsecured secondary bondholders.

People who agree with this tax can dress it up any way they like but that's what's happening.

ncdadam

dvpower wrote: »

Yes. Local authorities provide it free (at the point of usage) at the library service.

Well they don't provide it 'free'.

We pay for it through general taxation like we do for all services provided by any LA.