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

Slick50

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

I remain firmly of the viewpoint that effort and work should be rewarded and encouraged.

Well, we can agree on something then.

Bishop_Donal

Bruthal wrote: »

Where is the connection between that, and a low earner struggling to get by, and now having to pay extra tax on no extra income?

My contention is simple.

Property Tax does not act as a disincentive to effort. That is positive and fair in my view. I believe in expansionary economics. The more that every person contributes, the better for all (even the current lower earner / contributor).

We already have a highly progressive tax system (one of the most progressive systems in the developed world). That is a fact. As a consequence, I firmly believe that spending cuts and broad based tax increases (LPT / Water Charges etc) will more strongly support economic recovery than punitive Income Tax rates which will yield diminishing returns.

ranger4

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Why are people arguing with people who create theft.

Just say NO. that's all you have to say. You are not put on this planet to give the tax man money. The tax man is going to get a rude awakening soon and it would be great if the rest of us, awoken too, and got real here.

Absolutly, IF householders are forced to pay by theft from earnings/ub then i would imagine other Revenue streams will face non payment such as motor tax/mortgage payments etc etc etc, untill gov are forced to abandon EU banker tax.

MadYaker

ranger4 wrote: »

Absolutly, IF householders are forced to pay by theft from earnings/ub then i would imagine other Revenue streams will face non payment such as motor tax/mortgage payments etc etc etc, untill gov are forced to abandon EU banker tax.

Keep on dreaming.

Bruthal

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

My contention is simple.

Property Tax does not act as a disincentive to effort. That is positive and fair in my view. I believe in expansionary economics. The more that every person contributes, the better for all (even the current lower earner / contributor).

So a low earner, barely able to get by, will be better off when they contribute more. I get you now:pac: Are you in this same struggling to get by bracket yourself? Of course your not, but you can of course, tell people that are, all about your contention.

We already have a highly progressive tax system (one of the most progressive systems in the developed world). That is a fact. As a consequence, I firmly believe that spending cuts and broad based tax increases (LPT / Water Charges etc) will more strongly support economic recovery than punitive Income Tax rates which will yield diminishing returns.

Its progressive alright, Property tax will be progressively more difficult, the lower a persons earnings are.

dvpower

ranger4 wrote: »

Absolutly, IF householders are forced to pay by theft from earnings/ub then i would imagine other Revenue streams will face non payment such as motor tax/mortgage payments etc etc etc, untill gov are forced to abandon EU banker tax.

... or forced to abandon paying UB.

Slick50

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

Property Tax does not act as a disincentive to effort. That is positive and fair in my view. I believe in expansionary economics. The more that every person contributes, the better for all (even the current lower earner / contributor).

Do you also think it was progressive, and fair to make a sweeping cut across the board of child benefit too... rather than targetting the cuts at top end earners, people who wouldn't even bat an eyelid at such a loss?

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

We already have a highly progressive tax system (one of the most progressive systems in the developed world). That is a fact. As a consequence, I firmly believe that spending cuts and broad based tax increases (LPT / Water Charges etc) will more strongly support economic recovery than punitive Income Tax rates which will yield diminishing returns.

I don't think it would require a punitive rate of tax to offset the take of the LPT. The loss of jobs, and diminishing pay rates, diminishing work hours have all contributed to diminishing income tax returns. So you think the solution of taking more of what's left from people in financial distress is fair and progressive?

Bishop_Donal

Bruthal wrote: »

So a low earner, barely able to get by, will be better off when they contribute more. I get you now:pac: Are you in this same struggling to get by bracket yourself? Of course your not, but you can of course, tell people that are, all about your contention.



Its progressive alright, Property tax will be progressively more difficult, the lower a persons earnings are.

I don't really think you 'get me now', but at least our policy makers (and democratically elected representatives) do!!:D

Re: progressive tax: everyone has to make a contribution. NIMBY mentality won't resolve the problems this country has to resolve. You might as well get used to an adjustment to living standards.

Bishop_Donal

Slick50 wrote: »

Do you also think it was progressive, and fair to make a sweeping cut across the board of child benefit too... rather than targetting the cuts at top end earners, people who wouldn't even bat an eyelid at such a loss?

I think this is off topic, however for what it's worth I think that Child Benefit should be phased out completely and the money should be used to support the development of appropriate services for all Children. I absolutely do not believe that entitlement to Child Benefit should become another disincentive to work. We have too many of them already.

Slick50 wrote: »

I don't think it would require a punitive rate of tax to offset the take of the LPT. The loss of jobs, and diminishing pay rates, diminishing work hours have all contributed to diminishing income tax returns. So you think the solution of taking more of what's left from people in financial distress is fair and progressive?

I think you might want to do some research on what level of increase in the marginal rate of tax would need to apply to replace the projected taxtake from the LPT (particularly if you only want to hit High Earners i.e. >100k). It really might surprise you!

Slick50

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

I think this is off topic, however for what it's worth I think that Child Benefit should be phased out completely and the money should be used to support the development of appropriate services for all Children. I absolutely do not believe that entitlement to Child Benefit should become another disincentive to work. We have too many of them already.

Just trying to get a perspctive of your idea of progressiveness/fairness. You've said we have one of the most progressive tax systems in the developed world. Seems to me you want to roll back on that position.

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

I think you might want to do some research on what level of increase in the marginal rate of tax would need to apply to replace the projected taxtake from the LPT (particularly if you only want to hit High Earners i.e. >100k). It really might surprise you!

Sounds like you're holding out on us, but I wouldn't limit extra take to over €100k earners exclusively. You're probably right though, we haven't seen the true figures for what this is really going to cost in the long run. I don't find that at all reassuring.

Aquarius34

Did you pay your tax.

No. whaddagonnado!!!!!???

Slick50

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

(and democratically elected representatives) do!!:D

That's funny alright!

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

NIMBY mentality won't resolve the problems this country has to resolve.

Not In My Bank Yet?

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

You might as well get used to an adjustment to living standards.

I've had years of practice already, seemingly no end to it though.

Bruthal

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

I don't really think you 'get me now', but at least our policy makers (and democratically elected representatives) do!!:D

Yea you would seem to be similar to them alright, and their interests are absolutely vested.

Re: progressive tax: everyone has to make a contribution. NIMBY mentality won't resolve the problems this country has to resolve.

O I see, so the extra taxes are only for people not making a contribution. Yea. Whats next, mass?

You might as well get used to an adjustment to living standards.

Mine are as they always were. But I do have the insight to see others in extreme difficulty, not just my own position.

The irony of you using the word nimby seems to be passing you by, unless of course you can show us how you are in serious difficulty, while calling for more taxes.

bgrizzley

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

I think this is off topic, however for what it's worth I think that Child Benefit should be phased out completely and the money should be used to support the development of appropriate services for all Children. I absolutely do not believe that entitlement to Child Benefit should become another disincentive to work. We have too many of them already.



I think you might want to do some research on what level of increase in the marginal rate of tax would need to apply to replace the projected taxtake from the LPT (particularly if you only want to hit High Earners i.e. >100k). It really might surprise you!

If the estimated take from the lpt is supposed to be E250 million, divide that between 1.7 million workers is E147 ea PA (or E2.80 pw) (thats not even taking into account that higher earners would be paying progressively)
Sound reasonable? i think anyone would prefer E2.80 deducted from their wages rather than an implied threat to the roof over their head.

Am Chile

Live debate on the property tax on newstalk right now.

darkhorse

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

There's a fundamental difference between Tax on Income and a Property Tax collected through the Income Tax system.

No there is not. It is all coming out of the same Income Earned.

darkhorse

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

I remain firmly of the viewpoint that effort and work should be rewarded and encouraged.

Agree with you 100%, and I believe most people would agree with you here.
Now, a person decides that he/she wants to own their own home. OK, that person will not be renting from a private landlord, therefore that person will not be looking for rent supplement from DSP, saving the state al least €500+ per month, just for starters, and that is before that person goes near a lending institution for their mortgage, and with every step, that person is not only saving the state having to house them, after whatever amount of time they would be on the waiting list for a LA house, but every single thing they do whilst they endeavour to procure their own home, would'nt it be correct to assume that there will be a lot of taxes going to the government coffers, whether that person is building or buying. Now, multiply that figure, whatever it may be, by the amount of people who own their own home, I think you'll find that these people have saved the state a few billion, by virtue of the fact that they chose to own their own home. You're a fairly intelligent person, Bish, so ya dont need me to go through the whole script, do the math. So, tell me, are these people being rewarded and encouraged for their efforts.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

Agree with you 100%, and I believe most people would agree with you here.
Now, a person decides that he/she wants to own their own home. OK, that person will not be renting from a private landlord, therefore that person will not be looking for rent supplement from DSP, saving the state al least €500+ per month, just for starters, and that is before that person goes near a lending institution for their mortgage, and with every step, that person is not only saving the state having to house them, after whatever amount of time they would be on the waiting list for a LA house, but every single thing they do whilst they endeavour to procure their own home, would'nt it be correct to assume that there will be a lot of taxes going to the government coffers, whether that person is building or buying. Now, multiply that figure, whatever it may be, by the amount of people who own their own home, I think you'll find that these people have saved the state a few billion, by virtue of the fact that they chose to own their own home. You're a fairly intelligent person, Bish, so ya dont need me to go through the whole script, do the math. So, tell me, are these people being rewarded and encouraged for their efforts.

You haven't got the first clue about what you're talking about here.

Privately renting doesn't entitle anyone to rent allowance; anyone in receipt of rent allowance wouldn't be taking out a mortgage in the first place, and the DSP also support home owners on their books with mortgage interest supplement.

Rent Supplement is paid to people living in private rented accommodation who cannot provide for the cost of their accommodation from their own resources. In general, you will qualify for a Rent Supplement, if your only income is a social welfare payment and you satisfy the other conditions - see 'Rules' below.

the groutch

looks like the impending water charges are going to be even more unfair than the household charge

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/homeowners-to-be-hit-with-water-charge-based-on-size-of-their-house-3370031.html

so as a person living by myself and out at work half the time, I'll pay the same as a family of 4 or 5 in the same size property who will use double the amount of water, or possibly more.
and living in an apartment building, when the metering comes in I'm apparently going to have to pay for other people's usage.

Lone Stone

I am absolutely dreading this water charge on my mother's house she is severely disabled with ms and things are extremely tight since all the cuts to her benefits fuel allowance,bin charges and prescription fee's we haven't registered or signed up for the hhc shockingly not exempt my mother who can barely use one one hand and is wheel chair bound struggling to get by on here allowance and im the only taking care of her at the moment.

So now she is expected to all of a sudden have the money to pay for all of this on the whim of some cronies in the dail and now this water charge. Literally dont have any money for this crap and if the water pipes are going to be anything like the sewer system around here (we found a rusted barrel connecting two sewer pipes & they constantly get blocked) i dread to think what the water pipes might be like.

Im finding myself getting more and more angry towards this government, i was fuming yesterday when i saw kenny and co just not answering questions about their blatant cronyism. Their just constantly attacking the poor and im pissed off.

Am Chile

Lone Stone wrote: »

I am absolutely dreading this water charge on my mother's house she is severely disabled with ms and things are extremely tight since all the cuts to her benefits fuel allowance,bin charges and prescription fee's we haven't registered or signed up for the hhc shockingly not exempt my mother who can barely use one one hand and is wheel chair bound struggling to get by on here allowance and im the only taking care of her at the moment.

So now she is expected to all of a sudden have the money to pay for all of this on the whim of some cronies in the dail and now this water charge. Literally dont have any money for this crap and if the water pipes are going to be anything like the sewer system around here (we found a rusted barrel connecting two sewer pipes & they constantly get blocked) i dread to think what the water pipes might be like.

Im finding myself getting more and more angry towards this government, i was fuming yesterday when i saw kenny and co just not answering questions about their blatant cronyism. Their just constantly attacking the poor and im pissed off.

It gets even better the fellow they appointed to head up Irish water is set to get a €200,000 a year Salary,a good few of us are old enough to remember what happened the last time they attempted to bring in water charges, they can expext similar resistance this time too.

A spokeswoman for Irish Water confirmed that Mr Tierney would take up his role in April, after he steps down from his current position as the manager of Dublin City Council.
His full salary will be €200,000 per year,

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/200k-salary-for-head-of-water-agency-gets-go-ahead-221119.html

MadYaker

Thats outrageous. There is no reason for him to be paid that much. I bet he'll get a huge pension as well. €100,000 a year would be plenty.

Bruthal

Am Chile wrote: »

It gets even better the fellow they appointed to head up Irish water is set to get a €200,000 a year Salary,

A recession free home for him then, ensured by the increasing recession of many others.

Slick50

MadYaker wrote: »

Thats outrageous. There is no reason for him to be paid that much.

MadYaker wrote: »

I bet he'll get a huge pension as well. €100,000 a year would be plenty.

I'd say you're right on both counts.

(I know that's not what you meant)

ilovesleep

Am Chile wrote: »

It gets even better the fellow they appointed to head up Irish water is set to get a €200,000 a year Salary,a good few of us are old enough to remember what happened the last time they attempted to bring in water charges, they can expext similar resistance this time too.



http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/200k-salary-for-head-of-water-agency-gets-go-ahead-221119.html

Jesus christ!

Many people are going to bend over & pay up all the same with an apathetic attitude of 'ah sure, what can we do but pay up?'.

These people - politicians, civil service folks, ceo's of quangos, etc should be leading by example.

So many people had to deal with huge wage cuts either through unemployment or reduced hours & have the same bills & more to deal with.

Is it too hard for them to lead by example? The country & the nation are supposed to be in austerity because of a deficit & debt & interest that ireland owes yet there's plenty of money to pay 200,000 euro a pop.

ilovesleep

Also something else,

for sometime the excuse of contracts have been used to not cut current salaries. As in they are tied into a contract.

I would persume that this water man would have a new contract. This is a new position after all and the contract should be new. Why is it that he gets a salary of 200,000 euro a year?

They can cut the pay of new nurses entering into work by 20%. Why not cut the new ceo's or whoever they are of quangos.

mikom

"If elected we will reduce the amount of state quangos"

"Water's not free, ya know"

"We all have to tighten our belts"

*pays head of quango €200,000 a year.

Liars, cheats, and thieves.

ilovesleep

mikom wrote: »

"If elected we will reduce the amount of state quangos"

"Water's not free, ya know"

"We all have to tighten our belts"

*pays head of quango €200,000 a year.

Liars, cheats, and thieves.

Fcuking cnuts the lot of them. How we can sit back with this sh1t under our noses and allow it to continue is beyond me.

I read some where that Eamon Gilmore and his wife who he appointed to a job takes home 5750 or 5570 or some such figure around that, either before tax or after tax, a week between them.

There would be couples in Ireland who can't even get 188 euro a week in unemployment assistance between them.

Eamonn Gilmore and his wife's weekly earnings would mount to near enough 20,000 a month.

There's many people working who don't even get that sum a year.

tayto lover

ilovesleep wrote: »

Fcuking cnuts the lot of them. How we can sit back with sh1t under our noses and allow it to continue is beyond me.

I read some where that Eamon Gilmore and his wife who he appointed to a job takes home 5750 or 5570 or some such figure around that, either before tax or after tax, a week between them.

There would be couples in Ireland who can't even get 188 euro a week in unemployment assistance.

Eamonn Gilmore's and wife's weekly earnings would mount to near enough 20,000 a month.

There's many people working who don't even get that sum a year.

New Labour.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

You haven't got the first clue about what you're talking about here.

I do actually.