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

Hijpo

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I'd say Sinn Fein should be happy with this. Their government in the North does something similar for landlords.

We are not in the north, sinn fein are not leading the country, we don't get what the north gets for our taxes, sweet Jesus mother of Mary Christ on a bike almighty will you **** off!!!!!!!!!

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

I believe you are.


I think you're probably the most disingenuous person in this whole thread.

You've consistently contradicted yourself now on thread, I've seriously struggled to work out what you support and don't support.

Where have I contradicted myself, I have had the same stance on this whole thing from day one, havent moved the goalposts at all, unlike some.

Ghandee wrote: »

Some one posts something on how the govt have changed a law to enable them to basically steal from us, Donal 'thanks' the post (which id assume means you supported the decision)

You claim (on this thread several times) that you weren't advocating payment, or promoting the hhc, two or three posts later you're telling us to 'stop moaning and pay'it.

Again for like the 10th time now that was a tongue in cheek response to another poster Ghandee, convenient for you to leave this part out of course. And dont forget the thousand times I have said that what people do with their own money is up to them and I dont care if they pay it or not.

Ghandee wrote: »

Then you sneer down your nose at protests (or as you say, lack of them) by anti property tax and and anti HHC campaigners, yet you say you're one yourself, but I'd bet you were first in the queue to pay it (what with it being the 'law' and all):rolleyes:

No Ghandee I dont sneer at anyone for protesting I sneer at people for talking about protesting while doing nothing, I sneer at them for making silly crazy claims while doing nothing, and I sneer at them for moving the goalposts constantly.

Ghandee wrote: »

See above ref who pretends to be anything around here Donal.

Yes Ghandee I know you have been pretending to be protesting for a long time now.

Ghandee wrote: »

What protests today? I wasn't aware there were any

I wonder why that was, oh yes too busy mashing keyboards to actually protest, another day without any, I wonder if today will be any different. :rolleyes:

Ghandee wrote: »

Your major downfall is Donal, that you clearly think you're one up on the rest of us here, but as I've repeatedly found contradictions, half truths, and downright lies in a lot of your tales and beliefs, you'll need to improve your memory slightly to get one over on me.

I think that really?

Contradictions? Half truths and downright lies? And I suppose you have some evidence to back these claims up then?

Remember now Ghandee you were warned just last week about making stuff up.

Ghandee wrote: »

You're spending so much time on this thread attempting to speak coherently from both sides of your mouth, you keep forgetting what you've said at an earlier date. When exposed for what you are, its off to report a post, and call for back up.

The above is just rambling nonsense, what are you even talking about there Ghandee, making stuff up again is it.

Ghandee wrote: »

Stop pretending to be anti property tax for Christ's sake.

I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for you as a poster if you finally nailed your colours to your mast.

The only person your fooling around here is yourself.

Again who is pretending, you still havent explained why anyone would be pro property tax. I for one cant think of anyone that would want to pay more tax.

And as for wanting your respect Ghandee well you neednt worry about that as that is the last thing I am worried about, I have zero for you so your respect is not something I am here for.

You talk about protesting yet do nothing, you advise others not to pay the HHC while not even being liable for it yourself, you advise others to open themselves up to consequences that you yourself are not open to. It must be very easy for you to tell others not to pay it seeing as you have nothing to lose yourself for not paying.

You will be the last person I listen to with regards to the HHC you arent even liable for it!!!

You are only fooling yourself Ghandee with all these claims about protests and what not, you wont do any of it, the most you will do is move the goalposts again.

Lets not talk about protests anymore until you are actually protesting, to keep going on about it is just more hot air from you.

dr.bollocko

Hijpo wrote: »

will you **** off!!!!!!!!!

donalg1 wrote: »

No Ghandee I dont sneer at anyone for protesting I sneer at people for talking about protesting while doing nothing, I sneer at them for making silly crazy claims while doing nothing, and I sneer at them for moving the goalposts constantly.



Yes Ghandee I know you have been pretending to be protesting for a long time now.



I wonder why that was, oh yes too busy mashing keyboards to actually protest, another day without any, I wonder if today will be any different. :rolleyes:


Remember now Ghandee you were warned just last week about making stuff up.





The above is just rambling nonsense, what are you even talking about there Ghandee, making stuff up again is it.



Again who is pretending, you still havent explained why anyone would be pro property tax. I for one cant think of anyone that would want to pay more tax.

And as for wanting your respect Ghandee well you neednt worry about that as that is the last thing I am worried about, I have zero for you so your respect is not something I am here for.

You talk about protesting yet do nothing, you advise others not to pay the HHC while not even being liable for it yourself, you advise others to open themselves up to consequences that you yourself are not open to. It must be very easy for you to tell others not to pay it seeing as you have nothing to lose yourself for not paying.

You will be the last person I listen to with regards to the HHC you arent even liable for it!!!

You are only fooling yourself Ghandee with all these claims about protests and what not, you wont do any of it, the most you will do is move the goalposts again.

Lets not talk about protests anymore until you are actually protesting, to keep going on about it is just more hot air from you.

Ghandee wrote: »

I believe you are.

I think you're probably the most disingenuous person in this whole thread.

You've consistently contradicted yourself now on thread, I've seriously struggled to work out what you support and don't support.

Some one posts something on how the govt have changed a law to enable them to basically steal from us, Donal 'thanks' the post (which id assume means you supported the decision)

You claim (on this thread several times) that you weren't advocating payment, or promoting the hhc, two or three posts later you're telling us to 'stop moaning and pay'it.

Then you sneer down your nose at protests (or as you say, lack of them) by anti property tax and and anti HHC campaigners, yet you say you're one yourself, but I'd bet you were first in the queue to pay it (what with it being the 'law' and all):rolleyes:



See above ref who pretends to be anything around here Donal.



What protests today? I wasn't aware there were any

Your major downfall is Donal, that you clearly think you're one up on the rest of us here, but as I've repeatedly found contradictions, half truths, and downright lies in a lot of your tales and beliefs, you'll need to improve your memory slightly to get one over on me.

You're spending so much time on this thread attempting to speak coherently from both sides of your mouth, you keep forgetting what you've said at an earlier date. When exposed for what you are, its off to report a post, and call for back up.

Stop pretending to be anti property tax for Christ's sake.

I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for you as a poster if you finally nailed your colours to your mast.

The only person your fooling around here is yourself.

MOD:

All three of you are now permanently banned from this thread. Post again = get banned.

Bruthal

MadYaker wrote: »

I give up. Its not as simple as you are trying to make it and I don't think I can explain what I'm trying to say any better than I already did so I'm giving up.

Well, if your theory of taxing income indirectly through property tax leads to no reduction in them spending, then you have hit a genius idea.

Why not do away with PAYE altogether, and take one lump sum annually. And, according to your theory, here.....

MadYaker wrote: »

I know their net income is the same regardless. €50 less in pay = €50 for some new tax but physically having a smaller paycheck has a psychological effect on people causing them to spend less money than they could.

.....it wont affect their spending, as their pay packet is now tax free each week.

So if they earn 40k, take 20k tax in one go every year, but they can spend each week as if they earn 40k, as they are free from the psychological effect of a tax reduced pay packet. Genius

bgrizzley

K-9 wrote: »

There could be something to the idea of not taxing wages directly. Economics is a social science after all, not an exact one. FF did exactly this during the boom, give people more money in their wage packets with tax cuts and low rates of PRSI, then let them pay high spending taxes through buying houses, cars, LCD TV's etc.

one could say that policy gave people the false sense that they had more money that they actually did, borrowing more and more against their "huge" wages, spending like lunatics buying houses in Bulgaria and ski trips in San Moritz. until everything went bust.

Didnt work the first time round K9. Tax the wages, stop using psychology to make people think they are wealthy, let people know where they stand.

MadYaker

Bruthal. I never said it lead to no reduction in spending I said it led to less of a reduction in spending. Please read my posts again.

Bgrizzley you are taking it to extremes. People borrowing against their "massive" wages is not what I'm talking about and is utter nonsense. It's impossible to have an intelligent debate here because people who don't agree with you refuse to even consider what you're saying and constantly take things out of context.

Edit: and I see the only person on the no side who was able to put together a coherent post has just been thread banned.... Might as well give up now.

tayto lover

Some of us are losing our way on this thread.
I have been thinking of a way to keep it in focus and to generate debate that will not lead to insulting one another.

While I have a personal reason for not paying the HHC or the Property Tax I would like to ask posters if --

1. Would they still have a problem paying these taxes if they were convinced that the money was actually staying in the country to support and pay for services and not being used to pay for E.U. debts that are not ours?

2. Pay these taxes if the cuts started at the top and didn't hit the services we need like nurses, garda etc

3. The services actually were seen to improve the quality of life i.e. better roads, better water etc like in the U.K and included all the services the U.K. citizens receive.

4. If it was affordable and was guaranteed to remain so for the next number of years.

bgrizzley

MadYaker wrote: »

Bruthal. I never said it lead to no reduction in spending I said it led to less of a reduction in spending. Please read my posts again.

Bgrizzley you are taking it to extremes. People borrowing against their "massive" wages is not what I'm talking about and is utter nonsense. It's impossible to have an intelligent debate here because people who don't agree with you refuse to even consider what you're saying and constantly take things out of context.

Edit: and I see the only person on the no side who was able to put together a coherent post has just been thread banned.... Might as well give up now.

how can it be utter nonsense? it has been discussed ad nauseum about how people borrowed more during the boom than they could pay ever hope to pay back . (btw my use of brackets around Huge is sarcasm. a joke.)

i absolutely agree with what you and k9 say about the psychology of it, i just dont agree with its use by politicians to fool people into spending more than they have. its no better than Hogan throwing that Patriotism sh1t around to try and get people to pay the HHC.

Maybe the people want the truth for a change, not creative fcuking accounting!

Cathyht

Yes, Tayto. You've made some valid points.

Also why are working people in council houses, who have a very low mortgage or small rent not charged this tax? Yet people who own their own home, who may be trying to pay large mortgages from social welfare payments, they MUST pay? Am I right that this is the situation? Even if an unemployed person living in their own home has a large mortgage and is only paying interest only, they could easily be paying more to have a roof over their heads than a lot of employed people in council homes. Does anyone know the detail regarding this? This couldn't be the situation, where people with jobs in council homes are not eligible, could it?

In general, I just don't think people after working to have a home of their own, still must pay tax after all the tax paid from Sale agreed until the last mortgage payment. They will never be free of paying for their home. The reason I sacrificed to put so much into paying my mortgage etc etc., was that I thought, well, that will be my home paid for. Projecting into the future I assessed if I needed to do renovations when the building is over 30 years, at least I won't have the mortgage or rent. I was trying to plan ahead and be more or less self sufficient on retirement. Now there has been legislation with lightening speed to lumber us with this tax.

Also if people are renting a council house, the council does their repair and maintenance. This is a fact, I have worked in the housing section of a council.

Chips Lovell

Cathyht wrote: »

Also why are working people in council houses, who have a very low mortgage or small rent not charged this tax?

Simply put, it's a tax on property you own. If you don't own the property you live in, you're not liable.

The Thornhill report, from the expert group charged with investigating the best way of introducing a property tax addressed this issue. It recommended not taxing local authority tenants:

The recommendation of the Group is that owners of properties are the liable persons for the LPT. Consequently, tenants in social housing would not have a liability. The Group considered the situation ofproperty owner/occupiers in difficult economic circumstances as compared with some social housing tenants with comparable or higher incomes. The planned reforms of the differential rents system provide, in the Group’s view, a more appropriate strategy for ensuring horizontal equity.

Cathyht wrote: »

Also if people are renting a council house, the council does their repair and maintenance. This is a fact, I have worked in the housing section of a council.

And private landlords are responsible for the repair and maintenance of private rented accomodation.

K-9

bgrizzley wrote: »

how can it be utter nonsense? it has been discussed ad nauseum about how people borrowed more during the boom than they could pay ever hope to pay back . (btw my use of brackets around Huge is sarcasm. a joke.)

i absolutely agree with what you and k9 say about the psychology of it, i just dont agree with its use by politicians to fool people into spending more than they have. its no better than Hogan throwing that Patriotism sh1t around to try and get people to pay the HHC.

Maybe the people want the truth for a change, not creative fcuking accounting!

Well putting a couple of cents on the tax rates would make more sense but FG have promised not to do that, while Labour protect core Public service pay and Welfare rates. You'd have less protests that way but the Government seems to prefer these taxes.

Just a general point on the protests, I don't think they'll ever work, too many diverging opinions, you've people complaining about Public Service pay, not enough cuts, cut Welfare, then you've people who'd want all that protected.

MadYaker

tayto lover wrote: »

Some of us are losing our way on this thread.
I have been thinking of a way to keep it in focus and to generate debate that will not lead to insulting one another.

While I have a personal reason for not paying the HHC or the Property Tax I would like to ask posters if --

1. Would they still have a problem paying these taxes if they were convinced that the money was actually staying in the country to support and pay for services and not being used to pay for E.U. debts that are not ours?

2. Pay these taxes if the cuts started at the top and didn't hit the services we need like nurses, garda etc

3. The services actually were seen to improve the quality of life i.e. better roads, better water etc like in the U.K and included all the services the U.K. citizens receive.

4. If it was affordable and was guaranteed to remain so for the next number of years.

For the record I don't own my own house, I'm renting. I assume my landlord will be passing this on to me through increased rent.

1. I don't have a problem paying this tax because I understand why we need to pay it. In the future when our deficit isn't so massive I would be hopeful that the government would use this money to improve services.

2. I am in favour of more cuts at the top. Especially for bankers and highly paid PS workers. The fact that our government own the banks but can't prevent the CEOs from awarding themselves huge bonuses is outrageous. However regardless of how much cuts there are at the top frontline services in the gardai, hospitals, schools etc will still have to be cut hugely. Taking more money from the people at the top would be a token gesture and wouldn't actually bring in that much more revenue.

3. I'm hopeful that services will improve once we have paid our debts. But at the moment thats not going to happen and to expect it is unrealistic.

4. Whether its affordable varies based on peoples individual circumstances. The government have said they won't be increasing it but to be honest I have never believed anything they say. They will do what is necessary regardless of what promises they have made. If they get lucky and the world economy picks up over the next few years things will improve here and then they won't have to increase it.

Cathyht wrote: »

Yes, Tayto. You've made some valid points.

Also why are working people in council houses, who have a very low mortgage or small rent not charged this tax? Yet people who own their own home, who may be trying to pay large mortgages from social welfare payments, they MUST pay? Am I right that this is the situation? Even if an unemployed person living in their own home has a large mortgage and is only paying interest only, they could easily be paying more to have a roof over their heads than a lot of employed people in council homes. Does anyone know the detail regarding this? This couldn't be the situation, where people with jobs in council homes are not eligible, could it?

In general, I just don't think people after working to have a home of their own, still must pay tax after all the tax paid from Sale agreed until the last mortgage payment. They will never be free of paying for their home. The reason I sacrificed to put so much into paying my mortgage etc etc., was that I thought, well, that will be my home paid for. Projecting into the future I assessed if I needed to do renovations when the building is over 30 years, at least I won't have the mortgage or rent. I was trying to plan ahead and be more or less self sufficient on retirement. Now there has been legislation with lightening speed to lumber us with this tax.

Also if people are renting a council house, the council does their repair and maintenance. This is a fact, I have worked in the housing section of a council.

Do working people generally qualify for social housing? I would have thought it was reserved for people on the verge of homelessness. As usual people on social welfare will get a free ride paid for by us, the working taxpayers.

Bruthal

MadYaker wrote: »

Edit: and I see the only person on the no side who was able to put together a coherent post has just been thread banned.... Might as well give up now.

You thanking it, has confirmed the coherence of your posts of course.

Bullseye1

This has already been discussed about ownership of property and who should be responsible for paying the property tax.

But there should be a residential tax for those who rent. They also use public services for which this property tax is being paid. Why should they be exempt from contributing towards local authority financing?

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Simply put, it's a tax on property you own. If you don't own the property you live in, you're not liable.

The Thornhill report, from the expert group charged with investigating the best way of introducing a property tax addressed this issue. It recommended not taxing local authority tenants:






And private landlords are responsible for the repair and maintenance of private rented accomodation.

Chips Lovell

Bullseye1 wrote: »

This has already been discussed about ownership of property should be responsible for paying the property tax.

But there should be a residential tax for those who rent. They also use public services for which this property tax is being paid. Why should they be exempt form contributing towards local authority financing?

They aren't exempt though. They do contribute, since the Property Tax forms only part of local authority budgets. A portion is still coming from central taxation.

In short, property owners are being asked to pay a greater share, rather than should all of the load.

Bullseye1

That is besides the point. There should still be a residential tax in line with other European countries where renters also pay. No more exemptions. We have too many.

Chips Lovell

It varies. Some countries charge residents, some property owners. My personal preference is one on property owners. But I wouldn't object too much to a UK style rates system either.

I suspect most landlords will pass the cost on to the tenants when they can anyway, so I don't think it's a big deal.

Bullseye1

Local authority house residents also need to contribute.

DoesNotCompute

MadYaker wrote: »

Do working people generally qualify for social housing? I would have thought it was reserved for people on the verge of homelessness. As usual people on social welfare will get a free ride paid for by us, the working taxpayers.

Yes, people working only a few hours a week, earning a very small wage may qualify for social housing, as would others on the poverty line; it's not just reserved for those on the verge of homelessness, necessarily.

Chips Lovell

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Local authority house residents also need to contribute.

Check out my link to the Thornhill report on the previous page. They concluded that it would be better that local authority tenants contribute to local government financing through the proposed reforms in rents.

DoesNotCompute

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Local authority house residents also need to contribute.

There have been reports in the media that local councils will have to levy council tenants with in increase in differential rates, to offset the property taxes that councils will be paying for their housing stock.

So basically the Councils will be liable to pay the Local Property Tax on their housing stock, and they will pass this on to local authority tenants, just as a private landlord would (in theory) increase rents on his tenants to offset the Local Property Tax(es) that he is due to pay on his housing stock.

Chips Lovell

I don't think local authorities will be liable for the Property Tax on their own housing stock. Thornhill report concluded that it would make little sense as it was a circular payment.

Bruthal

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

They aren't exempt though. They do contribute, since the Property Tax forms only part of local authority budgets. A portion is still coming from central taxation.

In short, property owners are being asked to pay a greater share.

Yes, many of whom have paid a huge property tax already on their home. many others are financially worse off than they ever were, because of the item they are now being taxed on.

Its a soft target, but one that is easily justified in the eyes of the pro people, simply by calling it a wealth tax. All it is, is a tax taken from people without having to bother with checking they have the means to pay.

If it is indeed a wealth tax, then it must be that only the wealthy have bought homes.

Chips Lovell

I don't think anybody's disputing that most people are worse off than before.

To my mind, the Property Tax is a better move than alternative measures, such as raising Income Tax.

DoesNotCompute

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I don't think local authorities will be liable for the Property Tax on their own housing stock. Thornhill report concluded that it would make little sense as it was a circular payment.

Revenue seem to think differently:

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/lpt/lpt-faqs.pdf

In the case of housing provided by local authorities and social housing organisations, the local authority or housing organisation will be liable for LPT.

The Thornhill Report was commissioned to give the govt recomendations in relation to the proposed property tax. Not all of those recomendations were adopted. Personally I wouldn't give it much weight now, as not all of it's recomendations were adopted.

Chips Lovell

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Revenue seem to think differently:

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/lpt/lpt-faqs.pdf



The Thornhill Report was commissioned to give the govt recomendations in relation to the proposed property tax. Not all of those recomendations were adopted. Personally I wouldn't give it much weight now, as not all of it's recomendations were adopted.

That's interesting. I wonder why they did that? I suppose with a minimum of 65 per cent going to the local authority concerned, it could have an effect on regional distribution.

Bruthal

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I don't think anybody's disputing that most people are worse off than before.

Yea, but many home owners are even more worse off due to going to the trouble of housing themselves. And now its tax them extra for doing so.

To my mind, the Property Tax is a better move than alternative measures, such as raising Income Tax.

All taxes are income taxes. But the property one, takes no realistic account of income level.

Chips Lovell

Bruthal wrote: »

All taxes are income taxes. But the property one, takes no realistic account of income level.

The Household Charge didn't, but the Property Tax does. Generally speaking, the more valuable a house you own, the better off you are. Yes, its not exact, but then neither is Income Tax, when you think about it. Someone earning €50K a year is taxed the same regardless of how big their mortgage is or how many kids they have.

Am Chile

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Local authority house residents also need to contribute.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

That is besides the point. There should still be a residential tax in line with other European countries where renters also pay. No more exemptions. We have too many.

I know some people have with the attitude that if the house owners have to pay a property tax then council tenants plus renters so should pay too.

I hope people see through what is happening here.

If some insist council tenants should pay-all its really doing is helping the government screw more money out of more people for less services-people already pay for their waste collection, some councils already charge separately for fire brigrade call outs-soon we will be asked to pay for water separately-we will end up in a situation with multiple separate charges and less services.

The whole point people must realize is that NO ONE SHOULD BE PAYING. This tax is unfair no/one should pay it be it property owner or council tenant, or people renting, when the round of anti propertyt tax public meetings start soon renters/council tenants need to also come out to them this time as they re gonna be effected by it with increases in their rent.

Chips Lovell

Having seen loads of discussion on it here and other forums, I think there's several reasons why people are opposed to it. Just as I suppose there's several reasons why people may support it.

1. There's those who think a Property Tax is wrong full stop.
2. There's those who who'd only support it if private and local authority tenants pay it too.
3. There's those who'd only support it provided the government cuts expenditure more - of which there's several variations, such as cutting public sector workers pay or cutting social welfare, or both, or something else.