Property tax rate

Geuze

average_runner wrote: »

Sorry but our taxes already pay for that.

Except that tax payments fall 15bn or so short of public expenditure.

So we need to collect more tax revenue and reduce public spending, so as to close the deficit.

Welease

average_runner wrote: »

They cut costs? They are paying IT contractors 1300 a day where they could hire some for 50,000 a year to do the job!!

Absolutely they could.. and it might or might not make sense depending on the situation..

But they sat down with representatives of a considerably part of the working populace a few years ago and came up with the CPA, and this is the outcome of what those parties came up with..
(which is why I sadly find it somewhat amusing that those who defend the process now complain that they have to extra taxes to the Local Councils).

It should also be added (in the interests of fairness.. as its not just PS workers or the CPA that is the issue) that this country voted in (several times) a government who removed necessary taxes and build an unstable financial base... We will have to pay to rectify that..

Do I agree with it? No.. Do I think it is enough? No
But thats where we are, and we now need to pay extra taxes to cover the remaining defecit.

avalon68

hognef wrote: »

Wouldn't even their ability to pay also depend on their circumstances? Some unemployed people live in their own, fully repaid, houses.

To receive unemployment assistance you have to have less than a certain amount in savings (10000??? Not sure what it is.....). I guess it depends on how much the tax is - could probably afford it if it was stretched over the year, or less than 1000. I can't see someone on job seekers being able to pay if it's 3000 - 4000, and I wouldn't expect them to.

Lorgach

The abillity of anyone to pay a tax is dependant on their income. Therefore to say that the Home Tax is not an extra Income Tax imposed on a person for deciding to buy his own home is ridiculous.

Brussels Sprout

Apologies if this has been answered already in this thread but will the revenue from this tax go directly to the local councils and then be controlled by the councillors or will the central government still control the council's budgets?

Farmer Pudsey

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Apologies if this has been answered already in this thread but will the revenue from this tax go directly to the local councils and then be controlled by the councillors or will the central government still control the council's budgets?

The money will go to the local councils to be spend at the county managers control. Government will reduce there allotment to a county council by more or less the same amount

Welease

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The money will go to the local councils to be spend at the county managers control. Government will reduce there allotment to a county council by more or less the same amount

My understand was that the funding by central government would be reduced by the potential total of the Property tax in that council area.. Any shortfall in local collection would lead to a shortfall in funding for that council, and a reduction in local services..

A minor but important difference.. because those areas with lower level of payments will suffer a larger reduction in services.

Japer

not yet wrote: »

True, But they cannot continue coming to the same well when consulants earn 250k + or college professors earn 200k +. SW seems to have a two tier system.

+1, well said. There will be huge costs involved in trying to collect the property tax, and many will not pay.
Besides, have the cost of my house went in tax ( stamp duty, vat, income tax, development levy etc etc ) , and I'm paying tax on income to try to pay for it.

I'm in negative equity...and increasing the property tax will only increase the negative equity + push some people over the edge.

maninasia

Yet any tax could push somebody over the edge, depending on the individual's circumstances. That's not a valid argument against the tax itself.
Plus it could be spun the other way, if property tax already existed it may have damped down some of the speculative excesses and actually reduced your exposure to negative equity.
Nor does negative equity automatically equal to not being able to pay your loan back.

hognef

Lorgach wrote: »

The abillity of anyone to pay a tax is dependant on their income. Therefore to say that the Home Tax is not an extra Income Tax imposed on a person for deciding to buy his own home is ridiculous.

By that logic, VAT, DIRT, motor tax, stamp duty, excise duty, etc. are all income taxes.

GUIGuy

Well for most people all tax is paid out of income, or savings derived from income.
It might not be levied on income itself but it sure as hell has to be paid out of it.


The Gov keep on saying the are against increasing income tax... that it harms the economy. Well for a significant amount of people it doesn't matter what you call a tax... it still has to be paid out of your income. What you call it doesn't make it more or less damaging/painful.
I agree that a property tax will be a more reliable revenue stream than windfall taxes... but this tax will only be as 'fruitful' as peoples ability to pay... which for most is dependant on their income.

It might be better just to be honest and increase income tax/broaden base... these are broader, more quantifiable taxs that are cheaper to implement, harder to avoid (for most) and wouldn't just hit mortgage payers... Why should those who rent, live with parents or in social housing not have to pay for 'local services' as well?

not yet

GUIGuy wrote: »

Well all tax is paid out of income. It might not be levied on income itself but it sure as hell has to be paid out of it.

The Gov keep on saying the are against increasing income tax... that it harms the economy. Well for a significant amount of people it doesn't matter what you call a tax... it still has to be paid out of your income. What you call it doesn't make it more or less damaging/painful.
I agree that a property tax will be a more reliable revenue stream than windfall taxes... but this tax will only be as 'fruitful' as peoples ability to pay... which for most is dependant on their income.

It might be better just to be honest and increase income tax/broaden base... these are broader, more quantifiable taxs that are cheaper to implement, harder to avoid (for most) and wouldn't just hit mortgage payers... Why should those who rent, live with parents or in social housing not have to pay for 'local services' as well?

They tell us it's a property tax to pay for local services etc, Do only houseowners use local sevices. I'd guess not, each and every person uses them but if you fall into the bracket of council tennet,rent allowance or any other bracket you don't have to pay.....how fcuking unfair is it that someone in negetive equity,struggling to pay bills have to pay AGAIN.

ardmacha

how fcuking unfair is it that someone in negetive equity,struggling to pay bills have to pay AGAIN.

Why not excuse people from having to pay anything at all and let the rest of society cover their costs while they put all of their money into a ridiculously priced house?

tayto lover

ardmacha wrote: »

Why not excuse people from having to pay anything at all and let the rest of society cover their costs while they put all of their money into a ridiculously priced house?

For years the Banks and the so-called economic "experts" were telling renters that they were paying out dead money on something they would never own and that they would be better off buying their own home. Some lads I knew fell for this and it's hard to blame them in hindsight because as the price of the properties rose so did the rent on leased properties. If nobody was buying them then they wouldn't have been so "ridiculously priced" but that was what they were being drip-fed by the Bankers and the media.
It's easy for people to sit on their high horses now and criticise especially after the Banks were looked after and the customers hung out to dry.

Geuze

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Apologies if this has been answered already in this thread but will the revenue from this tax go directly to the local councils and then be controlled by the councillors or will the central government still control the council's budgets?

Depends what you mean by "direct".

All HHC funds go into the Local Govt Fund (LGF), which is distributed to all LAs.

That's not the same as saying every penny from Offaly goes to Offaly LAs.

not yet

ardmacha wrote: »

Why not excuse people from having to pay anything at all and let the rest of society cover their costs while they put all of their money into a ridiculously priced house?

I'd like to reply with something that would get me banned but I wont, I bought my apartment in 2005, not to rent out,not to make money but simply to have a home, now I don't expect the likes of you to get this but the vast majority of people done the same. Are we know to be crucified for doing this whilst a huge sway off people some who are much better of then me pay nothing. Anyone in negative equity on their ''home'' should not have to pay this tax a'la council tenants,people in receipt of rent allowance, TD's in council housing, O.A.Ps etc etc.

Welease

not yet wrote: »

I'd like to reply with something that would get me banned but I wont, I bought my apartment in 2005, not to rent out,not to make money but simply to have a home, now I don't expect the likes of you to get this but the vast majority of people done the same. Are we know to be crucified for doing this whilst a huge sway of people some who are much better of then me pay nothing. Anyone is in negative equity on their ''home'' should not have to pay this tax a'la council tenants,people in receipt of rent allowance, TD's in council housing, O.A.Ps etc etc.

Why shouldn't you pay though? Neg Eq has little to do with your ability to pay taxes. My car is worth less than I paid, i still have to pay motor tax.

If the country needs to raise more taxes then people will have to pay more. I agree that the less people who are exempt the better (we can offer some degree of discount much like the UK), but to consider that you should be excluded becuase you own a house is daft (and yes, I too own a house)..

not yet

Welease wrote: »

Why shouldn't you pay though? Neg Eq has little to do with your ability to pay taxes. My car is worth less than I paid, i still have to pay motor tax.

If the country needs to raise more taxes then people will have to pay more. I agree that the less people who are exempt the better (we can offer some degree of discount much like the UK), but to consider that you should be excluded becuase you own a house is daft (and yes, I too own a house)..

I have no problem paying if the burden is shared equally, and by that I mean each and every household paying something regardless of income. Whats the difference between me paying say 1% of my income and someone on rent allowance or council housing or a OAP with a decent pension paying 1%. it's all about fairness not continually taxing the worker.

And by the way I don't ''own'' a house I ''owe'' 180k

murphaph

tayto lover wrote: »

It's easy for people to sit on their high horses now and criticise especially after the Banks were looked after and the customers hung out to dry.

What the hell are you on about? The Irish banks are/were publicly traded companies. They are/were owned by shareholders. Those shareholders were badly burned as their shares collapsed in value. There was no "looking after" of the bank owners (the shareholders).

hognef

To me, there appears to be a fundamental flaw in the proposed property tax system. At the moment it seems to be some sort of wealth tax (as the owner will be liable for it, not the occupier; and it's based on the value on the property).

If so, why not go the whole way, and actually implement a proper wealth tax? In other words, tax people's overall wealth, regardless of whether it is held in the form of property, gold or bank deposits.

With that solution, somebody with a negative net wealth (i.e. has a mortgage worth more than the house, and has no other wealth) wouldn't be liable for any wealth tax, whereas somebody with a fully-repaid million euro property and another million in the bank would. That way you're actually end up taxing people by how "rich" they are.

Under the government's proposed system, if I have €50,000 in a bank account, but no house, I will pay no tax. If I then then decide to spend it all plus a mortgage of €150,000 on a €200,000 house, I will suddenly be liable for the tax, even though my overall net worth hasn't changed.

If, on the other hand, the proposed system is not meant to be a wealth tax, but instead a local service charge, then it should surely be paid by the occupier, not the owner?

creedp

hognef wrote: »

To me, there appears to be a fundamental flaw in the proposed property tax system. At the moment it seems to be some sort of wealth tax (as the owner will be liable for it, not the occupier; and it's based on the value on the property).

If so, why not go the whole way, and actually implement a proper wealth tax? In other words, tax people's overall wealth, regardless of whether it is held in the form of property, gold or bank deposits.

With that solution, somebody with a negative net wealth (i.e. has a mortgage worth more than the house, and has no other wealth) wouldn't be liable for any wealth tax, whereas somebody with a fully-repaid million euro property and another million in the bank would. That way you're actually end up taxing people by how "rich" they are.

Under the government's proposed system, if I have €50,000 in a bank account, but no house, I will pay no tax. If I then then decide to spend it all plus a mortgage of €150,000 on a €200,000 house, I will suddenly be liable for the tax, even though my overall net worth hasn't changed.

If, on the other hand, the proposed system is not meant to be a wealth tax, but instead a local service charge, then it should surely be paid by the occupier, not the owner?

This is the problem isn't it .. the proposed property tax is not a wealth tax as it is not proposing to tax the net asset value of the house. Its simply a cynical way to extract money from home owners who, particularly in the current market, cannot seek to divest themseves of their 'wealth' and put it into the bank home or abroad (or maybe buy a farm which will certaintly be protect from any form of wealth tax). In other words there is no ability to avoid. If it was a wealth tax then all net assets would be subject to it; the problem there being the well healed with assets will simply avoid this tax so lets not bother taxing wealth. Course we can't raise income tax on high earners cos we are told by those who everything that they will simply leave their luxury abode behind and move abroad, so lets not bother raising tax (even temporarily) on high earners. No the only way is to hit those who can't avoid and of course home owners (not occupiers) are one of the safe bets. Pucker up lads and get the feel good factor eminating from protecting the wealthy from these recessionary times!!

avalon68

hognef wrote: »

If so, why not go the whole way, and actually implement a proper wealth tax? In other words, tax people's overall wealth, regardless of whether it is held in the form of property, gold or bank deposits.

With that solution, somebody with a negative net wealth (i.e. has a mortgage worth more than the house, and has no other wealth) wouldn't be liable for any wealth tax, whereas somebody with a fully-repaid million euro property and another million in the bank would. That way you're actually end up taxing people by how "rich" they are.

So your solution is to punish the people who saved their money and didnt buy properties they couldnt afford? Nice...... Should people who dont drive also pay motor tax? It doesnt matter a damn if someone is in negative equity - it does not affect their ability to pay, only their willingness.

Japer

hognef wrote: »

To me, there appears to be a fundamental flaw in the proposed property tax system. At the moment it seems to be some sort of wealth tax (as the owner will be liable for it, not the occupier; and it's based on the value on the property).

If so, why not go the whole way, and actually implement a proper wealth tax? In other words, tax people's overall wealth, regardless of whether it is held in the form of property, gold or bank deposits.

cos bank deposits are already taxed with dirt tax. Interfere any more and therre would be a huge flight of capital out of the country. The banks are bad enough as they are without losing any more money

hognef

Japer wrote: »

cos bank deposits are already taxed with dirt tax. Interfere any more and therre would be a huge flight of capital out of the country. The banks are bad enough as they are without losing any more money

DIRT is a capital gains tax, it's based on the income generated when your capital increases in value.

A wealth tax is based on the size of the wealth itself, a completely different concept.

Other countries have wealth taxes in place already, so I wouldn't think its introduction here would lead to a massive flight of capital.

Good loser

hognef wrote: »

DIRT is a capital gains tax, it's based on the income generated when your capital increases in value.

A wealth tax is based on the size of the wealth itself, a completely different concept.

Other countries have wealth taxes in place already, so I wouldn't think its introduction here would lead to a massive flight of capital.

The main objection to a fully fledged wealth tax is that it would raise very little income and cost a lot to administer. Plus the fact that once houses are taxed most wealth will be captured in the tax system - with rates on commercial property and DIRT on interest earned and income tax on dividends. The likelihood is that the tax will be put on occupiers rather than owners and LA tenants will not be exempted.
DIRT is not a capital gains tax.
Banks are frantically trying to increase their deposits so their leverage is reduced and they can lend more. A WT would not be in their interests.

hognef

avalon68 wrote: »

So your solution is to punish the people who saved their money and didnt buy properties they couldnt afford? Nice...... Should people who dont drive also pay motor tax? It doesnt matter a damn if someone is in negative equity - it does not affect their ability to pay, only their willingness.

I didn't actually suggest a solution at all, I just pointed out that the property tax should be either a wealth tax or a service charge, not some half-baked hybrid. I also stated that if the government are indeed aiming to tax people's wealth, they should tax their overall wealth, not just the value of their house.

Regarding the wealth tax option, I'm not talking about penalising anybody for not buying a house, nor am I talking about explicitly protecting those in negative equity. I'm only saying that people's overall net wealth should be taken into account, not just an arbitrary selection of it.

Just as higher net earners pay more income tax and more net profitable companies pay more corporation tax, higher net wealth ("richer") individuals would be paying more wealth tax.

And I ask again: why should I pay more tax just because I've moved my investment from gold or bank deposit to property? Surely a €100,000 house represents exactly the same wealth as a €100,000 deposit in a savings account?

ardmacha

why should I pay more tax just because I've moved my investment from gold or bank deposit to property? Surely a €100,000 house represents exactly the same wealth as a €100,000 deposit in a savings account?

A €100,000 deposit in a savings account would pay about €1000 in DIRT.

hognef

Good loser wrote: »

The main objection to a fully fledged wealth tax is that it would raise very little income

That would surely depend on the level at which it would kick in, and the rate of tax?

and cost a lot to administer.

Given the current state of our tax system, I can't argue with that. It would require a lot more communication between the various IT systems, for starters.

Plus the fact that once houses are taxed most wealth will be captured in the tax system - with rates on commercial property and DIRT on interest earned and income tax on dividends. The likelihood is that the tax will be put on occupiers rather than owners and LA tenants will not be exempted.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Time will tell, and I may have missed something, but all the speculation at the moment seems to indicate that the owner will pay.

DIRT is not a capital gains tax.

I should probably have said "like a CGT", or even "like an income tax". The point was that DIRT is a tax on the growth of value, whereas a wealth tax is a tax on high value itself.

Banks are frantically trying to increase their deposits so their leverage is reduced and they can lend more. A WT would not be in their interests.

We also want to get the property market moving again. Taxing the ownership of property won't help us towards that goal.

And we also want people to start spending their money rather than saving it. A wealth tax actually would encourage that.

hognef

ardmacha wrote: »

why should I pay more tax just because I've moved my investment from gold or bank deposit to property? Surely a €100,000 house represents exactly the same wealth as a €100,000 deposit in a savings account?

A €100,000 deposit in a savings account would pay about €1000 in DIRT.

A deposit won't pay any DIRT. A growth (from interest) of that deposit will. In the same way that a profit from buying (non-primary) property, then selling at a higher price will be subject to tax.

avalon68

hognef wrote: »

And we also want people to start spending their money rather than saving it. A wealth tax actually would encourage that.

I have no problem paying motor tax or a tax on property (though I would like to see increased services such as bin collection, and water charges included in the tax) - but I absolutely will not pay a tax because I chose to save my money and not blow it on a flashy car/flashy house. I also assume that a huge amount of people would just keep a bank account outside of the country if such a tax came in. It would also be difficult to implement - account balances fluctuate so much - how would you even calculate it?

hognef

avalon68 wrote: »

hognef wrote: »

And we also want people to start spending their money rather than saving it. A wealth tax actually would encourage that.

I have no problem paying motor tax or a tax on property (though I would like to see increased services such as bin collection, and water charges included in the tax) - but I absolutely will not pay a tax because I chose to save my money and not blow it on a flashy car/flashy house. I also assume that a huge amount of people would just keep a bank account outside of the country if such a tax came in. It would also be difficult to implement - account balances fluctuate so much - how would you even calculate it?

Why do people keep stamping their feet saying "I absolutely won't pay such and such"? Ultimately, if such and such is introduced, you will pay. It won't be optional.

Bank accounts outside the country would be liable for the tax, just the same as domestic accounts. This is already the case for DIRT, so there's no additional problem there.

As to "calculating" it - that's easy. Take the balance at a particular point in time, say 31st December. People's bank balances don't fluctuate massively throughout the year, or to put it like this: If it does, then that might be because they've invested in something, say a car or shares, both of which would be part of the tax base anyway. Again, this is exactly how it's already done elsewhere.

The main problem with this approach is that Revenue currently has no way to match a bank account, car, boat, share holding or other wealth to an individual. That would obviously need to be addressed.

ncdadam

Victor wrote: »

So, who should pay for street lighting, street sweeping and drainage?

Who do you think pays for it as it is?

ncdadam

hognef wrote: »

Why do people keep stamping their feet saying "I absolutely won't pay such and such"? Ultimately, if such and such is introduced, you will pay. It won't be optional.

Bank accounts outside the country would be liable for the tax, just the same as domestic accounts. This is already the case for DIRT, so there's no additional problem there.

As to "calculating" it - that's easy. Take the balance at a particular point in time, say 31st December. People's bank balances don't fluctuate massively throughout the year, or to put it like this: If it does, then that might be because they've invested in something, say a car or shares, both of which would be part of the tax base anyway. Again, this is exactly how it's already done elsewhere.

The main problem with this approach is that Revenue currently has no way to match a bank account, car, boat, share holding or other wealth to an individual. That would obviously need to be addressed.

Which bank account will they take it from? I have 4 bank accounts and my wife has 2, our house is in joint names.

ncdadam

JP 1800 wrote: »

The crux of the argument is how do we value a property, people will be in for a shock when a working property tax is introduced. When I was living in the UK my council tax was £1,000 a year for a 1 bed apartment along with water charges on top of that. This being Ireland a rate of over 1000 euro a year is foreseeable in the future.

Could I ask JP, what services did you receive for that £1000?

ncdadam

Tea drinker wrote: »

So you saved yourself 50 - 60 grand of rent as well, not such a bad deal then?

Yea, sure he doesn't have to pay a mortgage either.
And he didn't have to pay the €15-€20k stamp duty at all.
And he didn't pay the VAT involved in the construction of his apartment.
And he's not €90k in negative equity on his 'asset'.
You do understand what this means don't you? If this man had to sell in the morning he would be -€90K. That's a great asset isn't it?

I've heard the 'saving yourself from paying rent' argument before, it doesn't wash.

avalon68

hognef wrote: »

Why do people keep stamping their feet saying "I absolutely won't pay such and such"? Ultimately, if such and such is introduced, you will pay. It won't be optional.

As to "calculating" it - that's easy. Take the balance at a particular point in time, say 31st December. People's bank balances don't fluctuate massively throughout the year, or to put it like this: If it does, then that might be because they've invested in something, say a car or shares, both of which would be part of the tax base anyway. Again, this is exactly how it's already done elsewhere.

It would be quite optional - I could keep it under my mattress......or simply choose to not return to Ireland, which is probably what I would do if such a tax came to be.

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

Could I ask JP, what services did you receive for that £1000?

Bin collection is one, and if you look at local council sites in the UK, they outline how the money is divided to local services - police, fire, etc

ncdadam

avalon68 wrote: »

Bin collection is one, and if you look at local council sites in the UK, they outline how the money is divided to local services - police, fire, etc

See, that's the problem I have with this tax.
We have to pay for our bins on top of this.
I understand that in the UK schoolbooks are covered too.
I've just shelled out over €400 for books for my young lad for !st year.
In the UK they get free GP visits too, €55 a time for my doctor and with 3 young kids that's maybe 10 visits a year or €550 plus whatever medications are needed.
So those three things alone are costing me around €1,400 a year.
We are funding the local authorities already through taxation so this really is double taxation but only for people who own their homes and don't cost the state anything to house.
Something not right there.

ardmacha

We are funding the local authorities already through taxation so this really is double taxation but only for people who own their homes and don't cost the state anything to house.
Something not right there

Not right indeed. You are not funding local authorities sufficiently, there is a deficit.

Repeating this nonsense that things are already paid for is not helpful.

As for bins, people in NI pay about €1000 on average and get free bins. It doesn't look like people in the 26 counties will be asked to pay more than average of €500 or so, so they can cope with paying for their bins also.

OMD

ncdadam wrote: »

See, that's the problem I have with this tax.
We have to pay for our bins on top of this.
I understand that in the UK schoolbooks are covered too.
I've just shelled out over €400 for books for my young lad for !st year.
In the UK they get free GP visits too, €55 a time for my doctor and with 3 young kids that's maybe 10 visits a year or €550 plus whatever medications are needed.
So those three things alone are costing me around €1,400 a year.
We are funding the local authorities already through taxation so this really is double taxation but only for people who own their homes and don't cost the state anything to house.
Something not right there.

Assuming your income is about average or less then you would pay more income tax in UK than in Ireland. We offset this by taxing high earners more. On top of this in the UK they already pay for water and have council tax far higher than that proposed here. So even with new water charges and council tax you will still be substantially better off in Ireland. Yes I know new cars cost more here and vat is slightly higher.

In terms of what you get for council tax in UK
http://www.preston.gov.uk/yourservices/council-tax/how-council-tax-is-spent/explaining-council-tax/

mikom

ardmacha wrote: »

As for bins, people in NI pay about €1000 on average and get free bins. It doesn't look like people in the 26 counties will be asked to pay more than average of €500 or so........ for next year as an introduction.

Fixed your post.

How are you fixed now for schoolbooks, GP visits and fire service call out charges.
All covered by the €1000 in the UK.

Paddy has to horse out separately for them all.

OMD

mikom wrote: »

Fixed your post.

How are you fixed now for schoolbooks, GP visits and fire service call out charges.
All covered by the €1000 in the UK.

Paddy has to horse out separately for them all.

Council tax does not cover GP visits

Maggie 2

Lots of secondary school students are entitled to book rental schemes that costs roughly €50 a year. Saying that we already pay for services through current taxes is correct. Which is why services are so poor. We're not paying enough and the PAYE worker isn't being expected to carry his neighbours any longer. There should be NO exemptions whatsoever. If everyone paid, the amount would be smaller and everyone would appreciate the services provides, as they all pay for them.
In an ideal World, we wouldn't have to have more taxes, but we don't live in an ideal World, do we?

mikom

OMD wrote: »

Council tax does not cover GP visits

What about old people's homes, meals on wheels, home helps, children's homes, social workers, day centres etc.

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

See, that's the problem I have with this tax.
We have to pay for our bins on top of this.
I understand that in the UK schoolbooks are covered too.
I've just shelled out over €400 for books for my young lad for !st year.
In the UK they get free GP visits too, €55 a time for my doctor and with 3 young kids that's maybe 10 visits a year or €550 plus whatever medications are needed.
So those three things alone are costing me around €1,400 a year.
We are funding the local authorities already through taxation so this really is double taxation but only for people who own their homes and don't cost the state anything to house.
Something not right there.

For "free GP visits", you pay a rather hefty NHS tax......its not covered by council tax

murphaph

ardmacha wrote: »

Not right indeed. You are not funding local authorities sufficiently, there is a deficit.

...or perhaps it's not that simple. Perhaps local authorities are spending too much/unwisely as well as there being a simple shortfall in their funding. Perhaps there are too many LA staff twiddling their thumbs? (what does Dun Laoighaire-Rathdown County Council get its former bin men to do these days, now that they have contracted the entire service out to more efficient private sector operators but haven't made a single redundancy amongst its bin men??)

ardmacha wrote: »

As for bins, people in NI pay about €1000 on average and get free bins. It doesn't look like people in the 26 counties will be asked to pay more than average of €500 or so, so they can cope with paying for their bins also.

Teachers and welfare recipients in NI receive a good eal less as well. Are you up for that too?

I actually support the property tax as a better, more stable way to levy tax. I however do not feel it's black and white and I do understand that working, property owning people are p!ssed off as they look on and see no redundancies in the PS and relatively little by way of pay cuts and little by way of welfare reductions and then they see that they are being expected to take up the slack and pay for it all whilst enjoying no job security all the while.

I do not like paying more tax before serious measures are taken to reduce unnecessary overheads in the PS, especially in local government. I wouldn't mind paying more tax in parallel with a process to reduce head count (and I don't mean in a random way that relies on people retiring from the PS, I mean targetted redundancies of people who can be done without).

ncdadam

OMD wrote: »

Council tax does not cover GP visits

Thats as maybe, but every citizen in the UK gets free GP visits, and look, a maximum of £6.30 for each prescription.
Not in good old 'pay for everything/rip off Ireland'.



http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.21stcenturynurse.com%2Fgp_services.htm&ei=SblUUOn2E4nJhAfz1YCYDA&usg=AFQjCNFcD2quLjbSZjFQ4zcLyVYTJEwRoA&sig2=RsYeUkNQpLUNRmLdu_6sVA

ncdadam

avalon68 wrote: »

For "free GP visits", you pay a rather hefty NHS tax......its not covered by council tax

They have national insurance taken at source along with income tax.
We have PRSI, USC, income tax and whatever other tax noonan can come up with next.

avalon68

ncdadam wrote: »

They have national insurance taken at source along with income tax.
We have PRSI, USC, income tax and whatever other tax noonan can come up with next.

Im just making the point that its not free if you are working....taxes do pay for it. In Ireland the tax take is far short of paying for all of the services provided. This government cant win really - they try to increase the tax take - get lambasted, try to reduce expenditure - get lambasted.

murphaph

avalon68 wrote: »

Im just making the point that its not free if you are working....taxes do pay for it. In Ireland the tax take is far short of paying for all of the services provided. This government cant win really - they try to increase the tax take - get lambasted, try to reduce expenditure - get lambasted.

I would say the tax take is far short of paying the wages required to deliver sub-par services. I believe that if wages were seriously looked at that we could deliver the current (albeit sub-par) services for less. Heck, the fact that new entrants to the PS start on less money sort of proves it, and this was sanctioned by the unions themselves.

I do believe that we would need to increase overall tax take a bit to deliver continental European levels of service, but we don't have those levels at present anyway.