Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 3] *Poll Reset*

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

Its probably difficult for you to understand - such an alien concept for tax evaders.

Calling someone who pays all their taxes in general, a tax evader for not paying E100pa is pretty weak (though, i suppose, technically accurate).


You just get back to your patriotism (:rolleyes:) there DV, you know what they say about it...

Ghandee

The people running the country would do well to remember 'patriotic duties' when it comes to their unvouched expenses.

In an upcoming budget that is set to cut over €3 billion from the economy, they claim for over a BILLION euro for allowances etc.

Remember, allowances this is on top of their salaries.

Could they not do their patriotic duty and give up these allowances (perks) and keep that billion from being cut from services?

Bit hypocritical, no wonder other European states sneer at them.

Every year over €1 billion is paid out in overtime and allowances to the public sector.

Committee Chairman Deputy John McGuinness will be pressing the case for getting rid of unvouched allowances altogether.

The body is to seek information from all public bodies on the level of allowances paid to staff.

He says allowances should be fully accountable as they are in private businesses.

The total each year is paid out to members of the Oireachtas for travel, accommodation and other expenses.

http://www.newstalk.ie/2012/news/committee-examines-how-to-reduce-public-sector-allowances/

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

The government has published details of the new Fines bill.
Some of you guys should study it as you're likely to be suject to it in the near future.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1023/fines-bill-government.html

Fines will be treated the same as the Property Tax --

"No way - we won't pay"

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

Fines will be treated the same as the Property Tax --

"No way - we won't pay"

... but your employer / social welfare officer / bank manager will

View

Ghandee wrote: »

I'll say it again.

This really means nothing, the govt still have to:

Find the non paying household.
Court appearance to fine homeowner.
Further court appearance when original fine hasn't been paid.
Judge makes order for charge to be placed on income.


Lot of money to be spent on identifying 600-700,000 people who've dug their heels in on this.

I reckon the courts in the country could be brought to their knees.

You forgot "Judge awards costs against the non-paying householder" and "income tax raised to fund courts to process non-paying householders cases".

The non-paying householder will turn out a real winner in both those cases - you don't mind paying that extra income tax, right?

Hijpo

dvpower wrote: »

You'll get good support for that sentiment here - mainly from people who are willing to break the law to protect their own resources.
An uncanny ability to insert a silent 'else' after 'Everybody'.

When you way up the resources that the homeowner is trying to protect and the resources a politician is needlessly recieveing its a massive difference.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

Its probably difficult for you to understand - such an alien concept for tax evaders.

WHO ARE THE TAX EVADERS? WHAT TAX ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Ghandee

View wrote: »

You forgot "Judge awards costs against the non-paying householder" and "income tax raised to fund courts to process non-paying householders cases".

The judge will have to do this 700,00 times, .bearing in mind the same judge was recently made take a salary cut by this govt.

View wrote: »

The non-paying householder will turn out a real winner in both those cases - you don't mind paying that extra income tax, right?

Firstly, I've suggested raising income tax on these threads many times, it targets everyone earning a wage, all using these local services we've been told the money will be used for.

Secondly, income tax will be raised regardless, and would have been raised if the HHC had of got 100% compliance.

They weren't expecting the revolt they got, and once everyone had registered their details, that's when the inevitable would have happened on top of the hhc.

What guise they'll give for the reason of 'being forced to raise income Tax' remains to be seen, but it will be raised.

DoesNotCompute

Ghandee wrote: »

Firstly, I've suggested raising income tax on these threads many times, it targets everyone earning a wage

Whereas a Property Tax nets tax from the rich who inherited property and never worked a day in their lives, those who are retired, those do not pay income tax, or have purchased a home in cash, from cash in hand jobs, and those who work in the black market.

It creates a more predictable, dependable, stable tax base, and is not a disincetive to creating jobs, which raising income tax would be.

Hijpo

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

It creates a more predictable, dependable, stable tax base, and is not a disincetive to creating jobs, which raising income tax would be.

I wonder if there are more people working in ireland than there are houses eligible for the HHC or property tax.

Paying higher taxes does not deter people from getting a job, getting more/close to your wage off the social than you do for working 39 hours a week is.

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

I wonder if there are more people working in ireland than there are houses eligible for the HHC or property tax.

Paying higher taxes does not deter people from getting a job, getting more/close to your wage off the social than you do for working 39 hours a week is.

Alot of people working at the minute would probably be better off on Social Welfare as is, now if you raise Income Tax while leaving Social Welfare untouched well there are some out there that will make a conscious decision to give up working. So in that sense paying higher taxes is a deterrent.

dvpower

Hijpo wrote: »

When you way up the resources that the homeowner is trying to protect and the resources a politician is needlessly recieveing its a massive difference.

That old 'others are committing worse offences than I am' excuse is pretty lame.

darkhorse wrote: »

WHO ARE THE TAX EVADERS? WHAT TAX ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

No need to shout - you know exactly what I'm referring to.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

Alot of people working at the minute would probably be better off on Social Welfare as is, now if you raise Income Tax while leaving Social Welfare untouched well there are some out there that will make a conscious decision to give up working. So in that sense paying higher taxes is a deterrent.

Social welfare has been a deterant since this whole austerity thing started. People who had jobs didnt care for the payments, now that they see how much the benefit from being out of work some decided not to go back.

dvpower wrote: »

That old 'others are committing worse offences than I am' excuse is pretty lame.

I never mentioned offences
I simply made the comparison of an old age pensioner losing home care before a young minister loses his €3,500 in unvouched expenses for cleaning.

I cant help getting the feeling that any mentioning of cuts to allowances and benefits or raised income tax is taken as a direct attack on your own "resources".

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

Social welfare has been a deterant since this whole austerity thing started. People who had jobs didnt care for the payments, now that they see how much the benefit from being out of work some decided not to go back.

Well that is my point too, Social Welfare is fast becoming a preferred option for a lot of people as it is not worth their while working and a further increase in Income Tax will mean that more are going to start to think this way.

dvpower

Hijpo wrote: »

I never mentioned offences

Evading your property tax / HHC is an offence.

Hijpo wrote: »

I cant help getting the feeling that any mentioning of cuts to allowances and benefits or raised income tax is taken as a direct attack on your own "resources".

Nope.

lugha

donalg1 wrote: »

Alot of people working at the minute would probably be better off on Social Welfare as is, now if you raise Income Tax while leaving Social Welfare untouched well there are some out there that will make a conscious decision to give up working. So in that sense paying higher taxes is a deterrent.

The “we’ll pay income tax instead” argument is a spurious one anyway. It is a variation of the old “it’s not the money, it’s the principle!” malarkey (even if they are having a bit of bother trying to establish exactly what the principle is! )

The fact is that the many who will struggle to pay a property tax, and there will be many, will struggle every bit as much to pay increased income tax.

I wonder if and when increases in income tax appear on the horizon, will they unveil even more principles?

Hijpo

dvpower wrote: »

Evading your property tax / HHC is an offence

ah the ole switcheroo your so good at :rolleyes:

donalg1

lugha wrote: »

The “we’ll pay income tax instead” argument is a spurious one anyway. It is a variation of the old “it’s not the money, it’s the principle!” malarkey (even if they are having a bit of bother trying to establish exactly what the principle is! )

The fact is that the many who will struggle to pay a property tax, and there will be many, will struggle every bit as much to pay increased income tax.

I wonder if and when increases in income tax appear on the horizon, will they unveil even more principles?

I know its a silly argument to make stating they are not paying as a point of principle when really they are not paying because they dont want to. This has been the case from day one, as has been proven by the fact the principle seems to change from one week to the next.

Its now at the stage where they are telling others they should take pay cuts for the good of the country and lead by example and stop protecting their own incomes, while at the same time refusing to pay thier own taxes. :rolleyes:

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

I know its a silly argument to make stating they are not paying as a point of principle when really they are not paying because they dont want to. This has been the case from day one, as has been proven by the fact the principle seems to change from one week to the next.

Its now at the stage where they are telling others they should take pay cuts for the good of the country and lead by example and stop protecting their own incomes, while at the same time refusing to pay thier own taxes. :rolleyes:

If anyone of the Pros feel they themselfs dont contribute enough, why dont you stick whatever you think should be paid from your income and send it to the revenue.

darkhorse

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Whereas a Property Tax nets tax from the rich who inherited property and never worked a day in their lives, those who are retired, those do not pay income tax, or have purchased a home in cash, from cash in hand jobs, and those who work in the black market.

It creates a more predictable, dependable, stable tax base, and is not a disincetive to creating jobs, which raising income tax would be.

I think it really would be a big disincentive to buying a house though, thereby putting a lot of pressure on local authorities, also on dept. of social protection, as they would be paying out rent supplement to people who would be on the approved waiting list for a house from the local authority.

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

If anyone of the Pros feel they themselfs dont contribute enough, why dont you stick whatever you think should be paid from your income and send it to the revenue.

Well I contribute the taxes I am liable to contribute which is all I will do. I think its those that are willing to pay more income tax that should be sending it to the revenue now instead of paying their HHC as they have said they would be more than happy to do this.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

Well I contribute the taxes I am liable to contribute which is all I will do. I think its those that are willing to pay more income tax that should be sending it to the revenue now instead of paying their HHC as they have said they would be more than happy to do this.

Well, why only contribute what your liable? if your of the opinion that you get services that you are not paying for then off you go and pay for them.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

No need to shout - you know exactly what I'm referring to.

Nope, fraid not.

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

Well, why only contribute what your liable? if your of the opinion that you get services that you are not paying for then off you go and pay for them.

So now you are telling those that have paid all their taxes to pay more because you cant be bothered to pay your own, basically you want me to make up your shortfall. This just keeps getting better.

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

Well that is my point too, Social Welfare is fast becoming a preferred option for a lot of people as it is not worth their while working and a further increase in Income Tax will mean that more are going to start to think this way.

So, let government tackle it in one of two ways. I think you can see where I'm coming from.

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

The fact is that the many who will struggle to pay a property tax, and there will be many, will struggle every bit as much to pay increased income tax.

Income tax - Ability to pay depending on earnings.

Property tax - Whether ya have it or not, we want it.

View

darkhorse wrote: »

Income tax - Ability to pay depending on earnings.

Property tax - Whether ya have it or not, we want it.

Given the number of people in negative equity, it is an enormous assumption to make that a "high income" correlates with an "ability to pay", yet it still a case of "Whether ya have it or not, we want it".

Either people in negative equity should have to pay little or no income tax or, for property tax, as currently we do for income tax, your "ability to pay" should be discounted when levying taxes.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

Income tax - Ability to pay depending on earnings.

Property tax - Whether ya have it or not, we want it.

or...
Income tax - Whether ya can afford it or not, we want it.
Property tax - Ability to pay depending on asset value.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

So now you are telling those that have paid all their taxes to pay more because you cant be bothered to pay your own, basically you want me to make up your shortfall. This just keeps getting better.

No, im stating that if you feel we are getting something for nothing then why dont you pay for it if you feel the need to.

However, if i was to say yes, i want you to make up for my shortfall and you said no, then i would ask why is ok for you not to pay for my shortfall on services but ok for me to sub the money being poured into governments pensions, allowances, salaries and bondholders which in there own way contribute to the public services shortfall. ie: If they wernt so greedy by protecting there own needless and over the top resources there would be money freed up to put into the public services.

View

Ghandee wrote: »

The judge will have to do this 700,00 times, .bearing in mind the same judge was recently made take a salary cut by this govt.

You really think each person will await a court order before paying once the first few cases go to court?

More likely, is they'll decide discretion is the better part of valour and pay up quietly (as cyclical old me suspects some of the high profile anti-HHC campaigners have probably already done).

Ghandee wrote: »

Firstly, I've suggested raising income tax on these threads many times, it targets everyone earning a wage, all using these local services we've been told the money will be used for.

Secondly, income tax will be raised regardless, and would have been raised if the HHC had of got 100% compliance.

All of which is a case of the government taking money from your left pocket rather than your right one for the average single property tax-payer.

It is not of course for people who own more than one property but hey, it's "fairer" to hit the single property owner rather than the multiple property owner instead, right?