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

tayto lover

ncdadam wrote: »

Well they don't provide it 'free'.

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

Exactly. There is nothing that the LA provide for free. It is already paid for by our taxes. All our services have been paid for by our taxes. The Property Tax is an extra one which can be raided to pay for their pals gambling debts. At the minute the only service we are not already paying for is water and that will change soon.
They can spin their tales but the people are wise to them.

ardmacha

All our services have been paid for by our taxes.

What planet are you on? Taxes collected are not enough to pay for services, that's why there is a deficit!

All our services have not been paid for by our taxes, many of them have been paid for by borrowing.

ncdadam

ardmacha wrote: »

All our services have not been paid for by our taxes, many of them have been paid for by borrowing.

And who pays back what we borrow?

srsly78

ncdadam wrote: »

And who pays back what we borrow?

We do, and probably future generations as well.

ncdadam

srsly78 wrote: »

We do, and probably future generations as well.

My point exactly.

It's not as if we get the money for nothing.

pwurple

dvpower wrote: »

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

Is this the database that was going to be published in june?

The problem with taking the last two year is that the volume is so low. Less than 30,000 units sold in that period... Compared with over 250,000 units in the 2005 - 2008 period (according to cso). It is just going to be wildly inaccurate.

I have no problem with a property tax in principle. I am in favour of wealth tax in general, and property is a very tangible, and taxable form of wealth. I am concerned that the implementation will be both clumsy and overly expensive.

paddy147

So how come no one in Ireland even knows how many houses are in Ireland and even who owns them??????

The Goverment,Phil Hogan and LGMA havent a bloody clue who owns what and even what amount of houses are in the country.Neither does Revenue.

NO ONE KNOWS.

So there is no house/property data base.

srsly78

I bet Google knows, even tho they aren't supposed to :pac:

Can imagine the Revenue firing up Street View... Google maps came in handy for the Greek taxman after all.

Chips Lovell

Revenue doesn't know how many people are liable for Income Tax either and it hasn't really been a problem to date. It's up to taxpayers to declare it as it may be up property owners to declare theirs.

dvpower

pwurple wrote: »

Is this the database that was going to be published in june?

The problem with taking the last two year is that the volume is so low. Less than 30,000 units sold in that period... Compared with over 250,000 units in the 2005 - 2008 period (according to cso). It is just going to be wildly inaccurate.

I have no problem with a property tax in principle. I am in favour of wealth tax in general, and property is a very tangible, and taxable form of wealth. I am concerned that the implementation will be both clumsy and overly expensive.

It was due to be published earlier and was put off and there is speculation that it will be delayed again.
And you are right - it will represent low volumes in a volitile market, so its value is limited, but still a useful resource that gets more and more useful as time goes on.

alastair

ncdadam wrote: »

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.

The property tax goes 100% to local authority funding. Not a cent goes to bondholders etc. That's the fact of the matter - no need to dress it up.

alastair

ncdadam wrote: »

Well they don't provide it 'free'.

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

And it's free at point of usage - as stated.

ncdadam

alastair wrote: »

The property tax goes 100% to local authority funding. Not a cent goes to bondholders etc. That's the fact of the matter - no need to dress it up.

Prove it.
You say that's a fact, now show me the proof.

Don't google and get me some LGMA paraphernalia. Proper proof.

ncdadam

alastair wrote: »

And it's free at point of usage - as stated.

And paid for by the people of this country. Not free.

dvpower

ncdadam wrote: »

Well they don't provide it 'free'.

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

I was clear that it was free at the point of usage. Of course all services need to he paid for and the library service is one such service, provided by your LA, and will be paid for, in part, by the new property tax.

Anyone evading the property tax will still get to use the library service and all other LA services. But I think tolerance will fade fast.

dvpower

ncdadam wrote: »

Prove it.
You say that's a fact, now show me the proof.

Don't google and get me some LGMA paraphernalia. Proper proof.

Have you read the legislation?

ncdadam

dvpower wrote: »

Have you read the legislation?

No.

There's legislation about a lot of things in this country, doesn't always mean that's what happens though.

You'll have to excuse me for being a bit of a cynic, governments of the past and the broken promises of this one kinda do that to ya!

K-9

ncdadam wrote: »

Prove it.
You say that's a fact, now show me the proof.

Don't google and get me some LGMA paraphernalia. Proper proof.

Well the local authority fund is being cut so in that respect it is going to your LA. As for bondholders, it's probably truer to say it indirectly is funding mostly Welfare and Public Service pay, Health, Education etc. the main expenditure services we have.

The budget deficit is falling to about €13 Billion this year and this helps bringing it down.

alastair

ncdadam wrote: »

Prove it.
You say that's a fact, now show me the proof.

I didn't notice you providing any proof for your contention, but no matter.

The property tax is going to be a continuation of the HHC statute, albeit now administered through the revenue - but legally directed to local authorities just as the HHC is: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=19980&CatID=87

12.—(1) All household charges, late payment fees and late payment
interest payable to a local authority pursuant to this Act are
placed under the care and management of the local authority
concerned.

alastair

ncdadam wrote: »

And paid for by the people of this country. Not free.

Free at point of usage. As was stated.

dvpower

ncdadam wrote: »

No.

There's legislation about a lot of things in this country, doesn't always mean that's what happens though.

You'll have to excuse me for being a bit of a cynic, governments of the past and the broken promises of this one kinda do that to ya!

Oh for fcuk sake.
You want proof but you won't even accept legislation as proof.

What proof would you accept?
On second thoughts dont bother. Next.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

Free at point of usage. As was stated.

Now you hardly want us to pay for the services twice, do you? :rolleyes:

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

Now you hardly want us to pay for the services twice, do you? :rolleyes:

How are you paying for them twice?
[Are you paying for them at all?]

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

How are you paying for them twice?
[Are you paying for them at all?]

All my other taxes are being kept separate then, are they?

ncdadam

dvpower wrote: »

Oh for fcuk sake.
You want proof but you won't even accept legislation as proof.

What proof would you accept?
On second thoughts dont bother. Next.

You ok there?

You might believe everything that this government put out as fact, I don't.

They lied through their teeth to get elected, 'things will change, things will be more transparent, there'll be no cronyism' etc etc.

They have proven in 18 months that they are exactly the same as what went before.

I had really high hopes for FG/Labour, I was sadly mistaken.

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

All my other taxes are being kept separate then, are they?

So you're only evading some taxes! Good on you.

dvpower

ncdadam wrote: »

You ok there?

You might believe everything that this government put out as fact, I don't.

They lied through their teeth to get elected, 'things will change, things will be more transparent, there'll be no cronyism' etc etc.

They have proven in 18 months that they are exactly the same as what went before.

I had really high hopes for FG/Labour, I was sadly mistaken.

So, what evidence would satisfy you?

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

Now you hardly want us to pay for the services twice, do you? :rolleyes:

The service is free at point of usage - regardless of whether you've paid for local authority services or not (it's also available to tourists, non-nationals, kids, etc).

As opposed to those local authority services that do require additional payment at point of usage (swimming pools, leisure centres, golf courses, etc)

ncdadam

dvpower wrote: »

So you're only evading some taxes! Good on you.

What tax is he evading?

alastair

ncdadam wrote: »

What tax is he evading?

The HHC.

srsly78

Hey now, nothing wrong with good old tax evasion. Avoiding tax however is the criminal one!

ncdadam

dvpower wrote: »

So, what evidence would satisfy you?

Suppose everyone pays the HHC or the property tax when it's eventually brought in and the LA's are still cutting services, would this not prove that the money is not going to the LA's?

If we see an improvement in services then I might believe it.

srsly78

ncdadam wrote: »

Suppose everyone pays the HHC or the property tax when it's eventually brought in and the LA's are still cutting services, would this not prove that the money is not going to the LA's?

If we see an improvement in services then I might believe it.

No that would prove that the HHC alone is not enough to fund the LAs, and that they need to be topped up from general coffers.

paddy147

700,000+ people decided not to pay the HHC either.

They are all very naughty people indeed.................:pac::pac:

alastair

srsly78 wrote: »

Hey now, nothing wrong with good old tax evasion. Avoiding tax however is the criminal one!

Nope. It's the other way 'round.

ncdadam

alastair wrote: »

The HHC.

Sure over half a million haven't paid that.

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

So you're only evading some taxes! Good on you.

I am not arguing with you. I pay all my other taxes and you told me on other threads that ALL taxes were put into the same pool. My point is that my income tax, PRSI and USC are in that pot and therefore paying for those services already. Nothing is free.
If I owe anything then it's 100e plus charges which I will always dispute as I feel a tax on homes is unfair and unjust and not everyone who uses the services are asked to pay for them. I paid a lot of stamp duty too.

dvpower

srsly78 wrote: »

Hey now, nothing wrong with good old tax evasion. Avoiding tax however is the criminal one!

Other way around.

srsly78

alastair wrote: »

Nope. It's the other way 'round.

Oops I always get that mixed up :pac:

dvpower

ncdadam wrote: »

Sure over half a million haven't paid that.

That makes 1/2 million evaders so.

alastair

ncdadam wrote: »

Suppose everyone pays the HHC or the property tax when it's eventually brought in and the LA's are still cutting services, would this not prove that the money is not going to the LA's?

If we see an improvement in services then I might believe it.

You're not going to see any improvement given that local authority funding is still going to be well down on previous years. The proof that the money goes to the local authorities has been presented to you.

Godge

paddy147 wrote: »

700,000+ people decided not to pay the HHC either.

They are all very naughty people indeed.................:pac::pac:

Yes they are. The rest of us good citizens who have paid our taxes are subsidising the leeches who haven't paid theirs.

alastair

ncdadam wrote: »

Sure over half a million haven't paid that.

...yet. And you did ask which tax he was evading - it's that tax.

paddy147

dvpower wrote: »

That makes 1/2 million evaders so.

It sure does,even more if the goverment actually gave out the real figures,instead of just pulling ones from thin air to suit themselves and scaremonger.:rolleyes:

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

I am not arguing with you. I pay all my other taxes and you told me on other threads that ALL taxes were put into the same pool. My point is that my income tax, PRSI and USC are in that pot and therefore paying for those services already. Nothing is free.
If I owe anything then it's 100e plus charges which I will always dispute as I feel a tax on homes is unfair and unjust and not everyone who uses the services are asked to pay for them. I paid a lot of stamp duty too.

It must be nice to be able to pick and choose the laws you choose to obay.

ncdadam

Godge wrote: »

Yes they are. The rest of us good citizens who have paid our taxes are subsidising the leeches who haven't paid theirs.

Leeches?

The leeches are that section of society who won't even be liable to pay anything!

alastair

dvpower wrote: »

It must be nice to be able to pick and choose the laws you choose to obay.

I'm sure it is until the sting of the penalties kick in.

ncdadam

dvpower wrote: »

It must be nice to be able to pick and choose the laws you choose to obay.

Have you ever broken a law dv?

Say a law was brought in that you found completely abhorrent, and went against all your principles, would you break it?

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

It must be nice to be able to pick and choose the laws you choose to obay.

We had many laws in this country over a long number of years that people actually took up arms over. Were Pearse, Connolly etc guilty in your eyes?

dvpower

paddy147 wrote: »

It sure does,even more if the goverment actually gave out the real figures,instead of just pulling ones from thin air to suit themselves and scaremonger.:rolleyes:

Scaremongering would be overestimating the number of criminals, not underestimating it.