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

DoesNotCompute

darkhorse wrote: »

I think it really would be a big disincentive to buying a house though,

So? Irish people have an unhealthy obsession with property ownership... even to the extent of loading themselves down with a lifetime of unsustainable debt just to be able to say they are homeowners. Nothing wrong with not buying a house and renting.

darkhorse wrote: »

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.

As above. Nothing wrong with renting. It is possible to rent from your own resources and not ask the State to assist you.

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

There's a Finance Act every year. It puts measures announced in the budget into law.

Hasn't 2012's already been announced for this year though?

Chips Lovell

Ghandee wrote: »

Hasn't 2012's already been announced for this year though?

Yes
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2012/en.act.2012.0009.pdf

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Yes
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2012/en.act.2012.0009.pdf

Exactly, so my point stands.

A lot of civil unrest and protest predicted post-budget.

Chips Lovell

Ghandee wrote: »

Exactly, so my point stands.

Sorry, I don't follow.

View

Ghandee wrote: »

So, if I understand you correctly.


You agree with me thus far in that nobody can lawfully deduct the hhc/property charge, or any fine connected to it from your income. (without the various court appearances, and actually being singled out in the first place)

You've confirmed what I've said, is that right?

Not quite, I haven't read all the provisions of the current Finances and Taxes Acts so I can't confirm either way.

The next Finance Act (for 2013) should be on its way in the next 4-5 months or so and there is nothing to prevent a simple amendment being included in it should it be necessary.

Ghandee wrote: »

Incidentally, how sure are you that the current govt will still be running the show by the time the next finance act gets Introduced?

Fairly sure, given the government majority - I'd suspect a short term collapse is highly improbable.

DoesNotCompute

Ghandee wrote: »

A lot of keyboard warriors cribbin' and moanin' post-budget.

FYP.

Ghandee

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

FYP.

Thanks Brendan!

DoesNotCompute

Ghandee wrote: »

Thanks Brendan!

No Worries

darkhorse

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

So? Irish people have an unhealthy obsession with property ownership.

What in the name of God is unhealthy about wanting to own your own home?

DoesNotCompute

darkhorse wrote: »

What in the name of God is unhealthy about wanting to own your own home?

As explained above, and conveniently snipped out the quote you lifted from my post, proudly being able to say "I am a homeowner" is something of a phyrric victory when you loaded yourself with a lifetime of unsustainable debt in the process.

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

Address the over spending then, its spending that increased and not taxes and charges that decreased.

It was both. Granted, there was a lot more of the former but taxation levels were decreased in the boom years.

Hijpo wrote: »

lmao at the "all of us" bit, instead of "all of us" why isnt it "everybody"??

I would say all of us IS everybody, wouldn’t you?

Hijpo wrote: »

Can you point out any meaningful contribution people in government have made in these times of austerity?

No, because as has been pointed out many times before, it is not possible for them to make a meaningful contribution because there are simply too few of them. They certainly could make an adjustment to their pay and conditions, which might serve to set a good example or boast morale or generally convey the notion that they are in the same sorry boat as the rest of us. But can they personally do anything that will have a meaningful effect on our deficit? Nope.

Ghandee wrote: »

Sorry, you're correct.
I meant to include menders of the PS in that sentence.

Still not correct. I suggest you read the links that you cite in your own posts.

doesnotcompute wrote: »

So? Irish people have an unhealthy obsession with property ownership... even to the extent of loading themselves down with a lifetime of unsustainable debt just to be able to say they are homeowners. Nothing wrong with not buying a house and renting.

It is more than an unhealthy obsession. If people were prepared to invest the same money in job creation initiatives as they are in purchasing their home we would be far better off.

darkhorse

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Nothing wrong with not buying a house and renting.

But if you're going to be shelling out money anyway, why not buy it. Because, if you are planning on settling and putting down roots, ya may as well own it some day, rather than someone else own it..

DoesNotCompute

darkhorse wrote: »

But if you're going to be shelling out money anyway, why not buy it. Because, if you are planning on settling and putting down roots, ya may as well own it some day, rather than someone else own it..

If you rent, you won't be struggling to meet mortgage repayments and property tax. You'll have a better quality of life and you'll be able to move to a cheaper area of the landlord jacks up your rent. You'll have a better quality of life.

Any socialist worth their salt ought to support a property tax. It's bizarre how all the self professed working class heroes on this thread support property ownership yet oppose a property tax. Seems to be a distinctly Irish phenomenon.

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

It was both. Granted, there was a lot more of the former but taxation levels were decreased in the boom years.

So the majority of the problem is a spending problem. How many charges have been introduced since those taxes were lowerd?

lugha wrote: »

I would say all of us IS everybody, wouldn’t you?

Obviously not if the government has not cut needless allowances, pensions and salaries that all have an effect on public spending.

lugha wrote: »

No, because as has been pointed out many times before, it is not possible for them to make a meaningful contribution because there are simply too few of them. They certainly could make an adjustment to their pay and conditions, which might serve to set a good example or boast morale or generally convey the notion that they are in the same sorry boat as the rest of us. But can they personally do anything that will have a meaningful effect on our deficit? Nope.

So what your saying is that because there are a small number of them they shouldnt have to do without any of there expenses, salaries and whatever else makes them capable of living the high life will others have to submit to austerity??

lugha wrote: »

It is more than an unhealthy obsession. If people were prepared to invest the same money in job creation initiatives as they are in purchasing their home we would be far better off.

Job creation initiatives?
I have two IT qualifications right? i work 12 hour weekend shifts in a factory not working within IT. I desperately want to get into IT so to gain experience i wanted to sign up for an internship but wasnt eligible for the position because i was employed, i tried to do a course to expand my qualifications within IT but i wasnt eligible for the course because i was employed. So in order for me to gain the experience to start a career i need to quit my job and go on the job seekers allowance. To get a more recognised qualification ie: computer science i need to be on the dole to be eligible as my current wage wont come anywher near enough to pay a couple of grand to go to college.
Job creation initiatives lol

Hijpo

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

If you rent, you won't be struggling to meet mortgage repayments and property tax. You'll have a better quality of life and you'll be able to move to a cheaper area of the landlord jacks up your rent. You'll have a better quality of life.

that goes completely against lughas argument that its cheaper to own a home than rent as it generates notional income. Would you like to take it up with lugha? Lugha can you explain to him why hes wrong?

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

More stable means that it is not as vulnerable to unfavourable economic dynamics.

Stamp duty has now "stabilized", and become "predictable" (the great attributes of a property tax)... you can rely on it for about €50 per annum.

lugha wrote: »

For example, stamp duty was as we can now clearly see, seriously unstable. Once the building boom ended, there was a sudden and catastrophic collapse in a revenue stream for the exchequer. Our problems now are considerably intensified because of this.

The loss of stamp duty, while not negligible, is not the great loss, and justification for a property tax, it is being presented as.

The real consequences of the collapse in the building industry are, loss of vat from material sales, the loss of paye and all the other taxes associated with 150,000+ employees, and then the double whamy of that many net contributors, now being a drain on scarce ressourcess.

lugha wrote: »

Some of us are off the view that it might not be a bad idea to have a rethink about the structure of our tax system.

I'm aware of the need to review our tax system. I'm against a property tax being part of it.

lugha wrote: »

Even if there are extensive exemptions (I doubt if there will be) that will only impact on the total take from property tax, not on how stable it is.

If there are no exemptions or deferrals, then it is hard to argue that it is fair... If there are, it is hard to argue it is predictable. If stability and predictability is what is so important.... see top of post.

lugha wrote: »

According to a total misunderstanding of my argument, then yes, I suppose.

I got you were making the point that paye is no more fair than a property tax. I just couldn't figure who you thought would be losing out in your given scenario.

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps, but the argument being half-pushed is that income tax is somehow fair, or fairer than property tax because the latter takes no account of your circumstances. But that is no less true of income tax.

I don't think so, If you have a drop in earnings for whatever reason, your income tax is reduced proportionately. That is not the case with property tax.

darkhorse

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

As explained above, and conveniently snipped out the quote you lifted from my post, proudly being able to say "I am a homeowner" is something of a phyrric victory when you loaded yourself with a lifetime of unsustainable debt in the process.

Is that another way of saying that paying someone rent fof the rest of your life is sustainable.
And, no, loading myself with debt, is not my idea of a Pyrrhic victory, however, providing my family with a home, whichever way I went about it, and I deemed it my duty, just so happened I chose to buy.

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

So the majority of the problem is a spending problem. How many charges have been introduced since those taxes were lowerd?

There have been some. But true, there will have to be an awful lot more.

Hijpo wrote: »

So what your saying is that because there are a small number of them they shouldnt have to do without any of there expenses, salaries and whatever else makes them capable of living the high life will others have to submit to austerity??

I am saying you could cut their pay and allowances to nothing if you like. It will have close to zero effect on the deficit. I’m not saying not to do it. I am saying it won’t have a meaningful (to use your own word) effect. Symbolic? Yes. Meaningful? No.

Hijpo wrote: »

that goes completely against lughas argument that its cheaper to own a home than rent as it generates notional income. Would you like to take it up with lugha? Lugha can you explain to him why hes wrong?

Purely in money terms you are probably better off to own (and it has nothing to do with notional income). If you could buy a house for €150 K at a rate of 4.5% it would cost you about €550 in interest payments. You could probably pay the bones of €1,000 to rent the same house.

Of course, you probably won’t get an interest only deal from the bank and will have to pony up an extra chunk each month to pay off the capital and this will probably take you beyond the renting cost. And it is this additional commitment that has many people struggling. That you would (normally!) get this money back in the future, in the form of a valuable asset, and unlike the interest payments, which simply go to fatten some banker’s arse somewhere, is little comfort if you are struggling to make a mortgage payment.

People took on mortgages that they could just about cope with in the good times and many of those are now struggling. If we didn’t have our obsession with ownership they simply would not have done this. And our property boom would be considerably less boomy (Lads flogging a 2 banana box apartment for the guts of a millions squid would be told what they could do with it!)

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

There have been some. But true, there will have to be an awful lot more.

There wouldnt have to be half as much if they cut there spending, unless now you want to factor in bank bailouts as deficit.

lugha wrote: »

I am saying you could cut their pay and allowances to nothing if you like. It will have close to zero effect on the deficit. I’m not saying not to do it. I am saying it won’t have a meaningful (to use your own word) effect. Symbolic? Yes. Meaningful? No.

Can you see they are cutting all public spending except the expence of there public sector fat cats, advisors, consultants and there own wages, salaries and pensions, allowances, benefits, tax exemptions etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc So it goes alot deeper than being symbolic, it goes right down to proving everyone has to make sacrafices not just the pesants.

lugha wrote: »

Purely in money terms you are probably better off to own (and it has nothing to do with notional income). If you could buy a house for €150 K at a rate of 4.5% it would cost you about €550 in interest payments. You could probably pay the bones of €1,000 to rent the same house.


Of course, you probably won’t get an interest only deal from the bank and will have to pony up an extra chunk each month to pay off the capital and this will probably take you beyond the renting cost. And it is this additional commitment that has many people struggling. That you would (normally!) get this money back in the future, in the form of a valuable asset, and unlike the interest payments, which simply go to fatten some banker’s arse somewhere, is little comfort if you are struggling to make a mortgage payment.

People took on mortgages that they could just about cope with in the good times and many of those are now struggling. If we didn’t have our obsession with ownership they simply would not have done this. And our property boom would be considerably less boomy (Lads flogging a 2 banana box apartment for the guts of a millions squid would be told what they could do with it!)

So hes wrong then?

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

There wouldnt have to be half as much if they cut there spending, unless now you want to factor in bank bailouts as deficit.

There will have to be both extensive new taxes and charges and massive cuts in public spending. We have barely started to deal with the problem yet.

Our deficit equates in ball park figures to about €10,000 per worker (a bit more at the start of the crisis, a bit less now). And it is a deficit so this is not a once of payment. We need to find this amount per worker, EVERY year!

A property tax will be a picnic compared to what we eventually will have to endure.

Hijpo wrote: »

So it goes a lot deeper than being symbolic, it goes right down to proving everyone has to make sacrafices not just the pesants.

Proving that everyone has to make sacrifices IS symbolic. You asked me would it make a meaningful difference. In terms of its impact on the deficit, it won’t.

Hijpo wrote: »

So hes wrong then?

No he is not. There is no conflict in what we are saying. It can be cheaper to buy than to rent (as I say) but the consequence of buying (repaying the capital) can have a seriously negative impact on your quality of life (as DoesNotCompute says)

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

There will have to be both extensive new taxes and charges and massive cuts in public spending. We have barely started to deal with the problem yet.

Our deficit equates in ball park figures to about €10,000 per worker (a bit more at the start of the crisis, a bit less now). And it is a deficit so this is not a once of payment. We need to find this amount per worker, EVERY year!

A property tax will be a picnic compared to what we eventually will have to endure.

but if you work your entitled to very little if anything from the public sector. so the worker cant be the drain on the public spending yet they are expected to pay for the gravy trains and the scroungers etc etc etc. Same as the HHC, home owners who are less of a burden are made to pick up the tab. When you say worker do you mean Public aswell as Private?

lugha wrote: »

Proving that everyone has to make sacrifices IS symbolic. You asked me would it make a meaningful difference. In terms of its impact on the deficit, it won’t.

but not everyone is making the sacrifices, thats my point.

lugha wrote: »

No he is not. There is no conflict in what we are saying. It can be cheaper to buy than to rent (as I say) but the consequence of buying (repaying the capital) can have a seriously negative impact on your quality of life (as DoesNotCompute says)

yes there is, hes saying youll have a better quality of life if you rent ie: more money to spend because its cheaper that paying mortgage repayments. But your saying youll have more money if you buy. it cant be both.

Although when you jockey the figures to only factor in the interest to be paid its obviously going to work out cheaper to own. however when you remove your head from the economists arse, you will see that people dont just budget there income on interest only its the total amount. which per week is a hell of alot more than what someone renting, especially in a council house, is paying.

So which is it, cheaper to rent or cheaper to buy? It would be great if we were in person and get ye both to answer at the same time.

bgrizzley

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

If you rent, you won't be struggling to meet mortgage repayments and property tax.

renters will still pay the property tax for their landlord

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

You'll have a better quality of life and you'll be able to move to a cheaper area of the landlord jacks up your rent.

Not a problem if you own your own house

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

You'll have a better quality of life.

How so? moving to the "cheaper" area?

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Any socialist worth their salt ought to support a property tax. It's bizarre how all the self professed working class heroes on this thread support property ownership yet oppose a property tax.

this isnt about our "property", its about our homes. (also who are all the self professed working class hero on this thread. has anyone even declared themselves a socialist?)

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Seems to be a distinctly Irish phenomenon.

When everyone in this country couldnt do anything else but rent, the landlords threw them out on the side of the road and pulled the roofs of their homes.

damn right i own my own house.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

You need a judge to organise your household budget?
Man up.

Step off your cloud for a few minutes and turn to TV3.

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

When everyone in this country couldnt do anything else but rent, the landlords threw them out on the side of the road and pulled the roofs of their homes.

damn right i own my own house.

The logic of your argument would appear to be that you are less likely to be made homeless if you own your home. Unfortunately, while it is true that you own your home from the moment you purchase it, there will be some risk of you losing it until you have fully paid for it.

And if you were unfortunate enough to find yourself in circumstances where you were unable to afford a be rental payment, you might find that "owning" your home is not quite the same as owning it, free of liabilities.

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

The logic of your argument would appear to be that you are less likely to be made homeless if you own your home. Unfortunately, while it is true that you own your home from the moment you purchase it, there will be some risk of you losing it until you have fully paid for it.

And if you were unfortunate enough to find yourself in circumstances where you were unable to afford a be rental payment, you might find that "owning" your home is not quite the same as owning it, free of liabilities.

So what happens if you sell your house because its cheaper to rent. Then the tax increases force the landlord to increase the rent so he isnt left scraping the barrel which puts you in a position where you cant afford to rent his property. Would you say the banks would give your house back if you asked them nicely?

How about if we go with your idea and keep the house but only pay the interest because that way its cheaper to own your home than it is to rent

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

The logic of your argument would appear to be that you are less likely to be made homeless if you own your home. Unfortunately, while it is true that you own your home from the moment you purchase it, there will be some risk of you losing it until you have fully paid for it.

And if you were unfortunate enough to find yourself in circumstances where you were unable to afford a be rental payment, you might find that "owning" your home is not quite the same as owning it, free of liabilities.

the majority of homeowners in this country probably own their house outright (or almost). the biggest threat to them losing it, is this property tax...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/10/real_estate/tax-liens/index.htm


yeah i know someone will post and say "its not in the legislation that you can lose your home over this tax" but i trust Robert Mugabe more than i trust a single Gombeen Irish politician (at least you know what hes at). They will change legislation to suit their own agendas.
You let them get their foot in the door on this tax and even you Lugha could find yourself in a position of having to go cap in hand to them, looking for a roof to put over your kids head.

Dont Register, Dont Pay...

Slick50

bgrizzley wrote: »

the majority of homeowners in this country probably own their house outright (or almost). the biggest threat to them losing it, is this property tax...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/10/real_estate/tax-liens/index.htm


yeah i know someone will post and say "its not in the legislation that you can lose your home over this tax" but i trust Robert Mugabe more than i trust a single Gombeen Irish politician (at least you know what hes at). They will change legislation to suit their own agendas.
You let them get their foot in the door on this tax and even you Lugha could find yourself in a position of having to go cap in hand to them, looking for a roof to put over your kids head.

Dont Register, Dont Pay...

:eek: But that could never happen here..... surely!

darkhorse

Hey you guys,
I want you to take a guess, what genius said the following in wed's indo:-

It was "not easy" for families who could not pay their mortgages, he said.

Izzy Skint

Ghandee wrote: »

Hasn't 2012's already been announced for this year though?

yeah, and 2011's was announced early too, from Frankfurt !.....remember that VAT increase leaked from Germany and denied by the Irish govt. for weeks after?