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

Chips Lovell

darkhorse wrote: »

I can't speak for anyone else, but as far as my particular financial position is concerned, every tax and charge I am paying or will have to pay, all come from 1 income. That, being a matter of fact, is what makes it relative for me.

Nobody's disputing that, but this is a thread about the Property Tax/HHC. It isn't one about every tax or charge we're liable for.

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

tbh if you live in a world where you think politicians can and do forge the State's annual accounts, then there is really nothing that can help you.

lulz, did you ever hear of creative accounting DV? You would trust the accounts of the people who got us into this mess? the kind of people who would state guarantee private gambling debts?

you do cheer me up sometimes DV;)

lol
Details of review into €3.6bn Finance Dept blunder emerge

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0605/323703-details-of-review-into-3-6bn-finance-dept-blunder/

dvpower

bgrizzley wrote: »

lulz, did you ever hear of creative accounting DV? You would trust the accounts of the people who got us into this mess? the kind of people who would state guarantee private gambling debts?

you do cheer me up sometimes DV;)

lol
Details of review into €3.6bn Finance Dept blunder emerge

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0605/323703-details-of-review-into-3-6bn-finance-dept-blunder/

There is a big difference between a blunder and what you seem to think - that DoF annual accounts are just made up by politicians.

That's not even amusing - that's just straight deluded - even the most nutty conspiracy nut would laugh at that.

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

There is a big difference between a blunder and what you seem to think - that DoF annual accounts are just made up by politicians.

That's not even amusing - that's just straight deluded - even the most nutty conspiracy nut would laugh at that.

well you suggested it not me :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:


dont feel bad though, its not unheard of.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/greek-debt-crisis-how-goldman-sachs-helped-greece-to-mask-its-true-debt-a-676634.html

Bruthal

MadYaker wrote: »

Bord Gais is a profitable company, its a semi state so trying to make out that our taxes will be paying this mans salary is nonsense. And your hypothetical situation about Bord Gais losing all there customers it totally irrelevant.

This is supposed to be about the property tax/household charge.

So bord gais will pay this salary to head a tax collection company, from their profits then.

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Really?

Quote:
Irish water will be a public utility - there is absolutely no intention to privatise water services. The investment in this sector is key to our strategic interests and legislation will restate the existing prohibition on the privatisation of water assets. Internationally, publicly owned utilities are the norm in the water sector. Any revenue generated by Irish Water will be re-invested in infrastructure, as there is a huge requirement for upgrading our infrastructure and providing new infrastructure over the coming decade.
I really would'nt beleive another thing that this government says, Vlad

---

Not if they were sitting on a giant Bible

Chips Lovell

Well I guess we can discuss that if it ever does come to happen.

For the record, I wouldn't be too keen on the idea of water privatisation, but that's really a debate for another day.

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

tbh if you live in a world where you think politicians can and do forge the State's annual accounts, then there is really nothing that can help you.

Didn't they sign over the country to the Germans for God's sake.
Who was in the room that night and why aren't we being told?

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Only Bord Gais Energy is being privatised. The rest of it isn't.

That sounds like a determined answer, but would you bet you life on it.

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Nobody's disputing that, but this is a thread about the Property Tax/HHC. It isn't one about every tax or charge we're liable for.

Yeah, I know, but I was just answering the question that you asked me.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

tbh if you live in a world where you think politicians can and do forge the State's annual accounts, then there is really nothing that can help you.

Don't be silly. Nobody would ever think that politicians could be that dishonest.

Slick50

Am Chile wrote: »

New video doing the rounds on social media, phil hogan greeted by protesters today.

Good to see "Calamity Phil" being given an appropriately warm welcome. He seems to have enjoyed his greeting, judging by the stupid grin on his face.

Quote:
Irish water will be a public utility - there is absolutely no intention to privatise water services. The investment in this sector is key to our strategic interests and legislation will restate the existing prohibition on the privatisation of water assets. Internationally, publicly owned utilities are the norm in the water sector. Any revenue generated by Irish Water will be re-invested in infrastructure, as there is a huge requirement for upgrading our infrastructure and providing new infrastructure over the coming decade.

When morality can change, and legislation changes at a whim, it is only a matter of time.

K-9

To be fair the Government has said if the ESB was ever privatised ESB Networks would stay in state ownership so Irish water remaining in state hands if BG was ever privatised would be consistent. It would probably drag down the value of BG as well!

Am Chile

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Only Bord Gais Energy is being privatised. The rest of it isn't.

For the moment as Irish Water isn,t fully up and running at this point in time so it wouldn,t be sold off just yet-I should of brought up and pointed out some EU Competion rules earlier,I urge people to read them and understand them they will get the jist of why water charges will lead to water privatization, so lets look at them.

Any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market-Article
107 TEC.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E107:EN:NOT

Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition-Article 106
TFEU

http://host.uniroma3.it/facolta/economia/db/materiali/insegnamenti/562_5677.pdf

EU competion rules stating once a service is charged for and becomes a revenue generating monopoly,like with one only water company (Irish Water ) the state will be required to have water services open to private competition between private companies-at present we have many different private bin companies competing out there at the moment, I picture the same scene ahead with private water companies if the government get their way in the longer term.

Geuze

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/RB20120402.pdf

The ESRI today published some research on the macro impacts of taxes.

They compared a carbon tax with a lump-sum property tax and income taxes.

"All taxes have negative effects on the economy, but some taxes have particularly harmful effects on employment and GNP. A recently published article considers the impact on the economy of raising revenue through three different tax instruments: a carbon tax, a lump sum tax (similar to a flat property tax) and taxes on income.

In the article each of the three taxes were increased by a
similar amount, so as to reduce government borrowing, ex ante, by around 0.5
per cent of GDP. This means that the macro-economic effects of each tax change can be directly compared."

RESULT:

In the case of a lump sum tax (flat property tax) there is no direct change in work incentives.

For example, the benefits of paid employment for spouses are
unaffected by the tax. All of the initial impact of the tax is on personal income so that there are negative effects on consumption. However, as shown in the Table, the effects on employment are more moderate than for a tax on income (-0.1 per cent) and, hence, the negative impact on GNP is also lower at -0.2 per cent.

Geuze

It has long been known that lump-sum taxes, like a property tax, have less negative distortionary impacts on employment and income.

Our 52% MTR on income over 36k is madness - that needs to change.

Higher property taxes, lower MTR on average incomes.

Slick50

Geuze wrote: »

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/RB20120402.pdf

This has already been posted. This is from the guy who told us our housing market was heading for a "soft landing", for a year or more after it had actually collapsed. The ESRI constantly change their forecast to try and reflect what has happened.

Geuze

I got a payslip today.

Hit for 41 + 7 = 48% tax plus pension conts.

I considered giving up the work.

The 100 euro HHC did not lead me to think about working less. It's a fixed lump-sum cost, so no affect on work decisions.

Slick50

Geuze wrote: »

I got a payslip today.

Hit for 41 + 7 = 48% tax plus pension conts.

I considered giving up the work.

The 100 euro HHC did not lead me to think about working less. It's a fixed lump-sum cost, so no affect on work decisions.

But if they had increased the PAYE rates enough to average the intended LPT take, you "would" have quit.? You've got to be kidding. Or else you are extremely lucky to be in the position to make such a decision. Would you seek a job with lower pay, to avoid making such a contribution.?

Geuze wrote: »

The 100 euro HHC did not lead me to think about working less. It's a fixed lump-sum cost, so no affect on work decisions.

How about when they announced the LPT rates? What about when they hit the full LPT?

Bruthal

Geuze wrote: »

I got a payslip today.

Hit for 41 + 7 = 48% tax plus pension conts.

I considered giving up the work.

The 100 euro HHC did not lead me to think about working less. It's a fixed lump-sum cost, so no affect on work decisions.

Was it your first payday or something?

Geuze

Bruthal wrote: »

Was it your first payday or something?

No, it's extra work, so I face a 50% approx marginal tax rate.

That's ok for high income people, but here it hits at 36k for single people. Crazy.

Geuze

Any lump sum tax doesn't interfere with a labour-leisure decision, by definition.

In tim same way as the payment of VRT shouldn't affect the decision on what mode to take to get to Cork.

They are fixed lump sum taxes, sunk costs.

I don't drive more or less due to motor tax. But fuel duty may affect my decision.

Slick50

Geuze wrote: »

Any lump sum tax doesn't interfere with a labour-leisure decision, by definition.

In tim same way as the payment of VRT shouldn't affect the decision on what mode to take to get to Cork.

They are fixed lump sum taxes, sunk costs.

I don't drive more or less due to motor tax. But fuel duty may affect my decision.

Well, with this tax, you must pay it. You won't have the luxury of deciding... if I don't drive. Owning your own home, (or paying a mortgage in the hope of eventually owning it) is not a labour or leisure decision.

Bruthal

Geuze wrote: »

Any lump sum tax doesn't interfere with a labour-leisure decision, by definition.

In the same way as the payment of VRT shouldn't affect the decision on what mode to take to get to Cork.

The vrt is a once off for the car. And can be avoided on anything other than new or fairly new cars. Property tax is not a once off.

They are fixed lump sum taxes, sunk costs.

So a €500 property tax is a sunk cost? It is no more sunk when paid in one go, than if paid at €10 a week.

I don't drive more or less due to motor tax. But fuel duty may affect my decision.

What you needed to say there, to compare like with like, was if you could pay your fuel duty in one big lump sum, then it wouldnt put you off driving as much as paying as you go.

K-9

Geuze wrote: »

No, it's extra work, so I face a 50% approx marginal tax rate.

That's ok for high income people, but here it hits at 36k for single people. Crazy.

I don't think we are that out of synch at hitting the high tax level, we've also a very low PRSI rate that compensates for the perceived high tax levels. You'd be crucified by NIC in the UK to give a comparison, pay 3 times the level I'd say.

We also have high tax credits despite the cuts to them a couple of years ago. If you are on 15/20k here you pay little tax and PRSI compared to other countries.

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

For the record, I wouldn't be too keen on the idea of water privatisation, but that's really a debate for another day.

I would'nt be at all keen on the idea either, Vlad. But, ya know what I can't understand. How could you (or anyone) be in favour of a tax on your family home that could have the pontential of putting your family home at risk, yet not like the idea of water privatisation, which, when ya think about it, would only result in having your water turned off (should you be unable to pay).

darkhorse

K-9 wrote: »

To be fair the Government has said if the ESB was ever privatised ESB Networks would stay in state ownership so Irish water remaining in state hands if BG was ever privatised would be consistent. It would probably drag down the value of BG as well!

I think they'll do what the troika tells them to do, no matter what that is.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

I would'nt be at all keen on the idea either, Vlad. But, ya know what I can't understand. How could you (or anyone) be in favour of a tax on your family home that could have the pontential of putting your family home at risk, yet not like the idea of water privatisation, which, when ya think about it, would only result in having your water turned off (should you be unable to pay).

How does it do that?

darkhorse

Geuze wrote: »

I got a payslip today.

Hit for 41 + 7 = 48% tax plus pension conts.

I considered giving up the work.

The 100 euro HHC did not lead me to think about working less. It's a fixed lump-sum cost, so no affect on work decisions.

Just on that note, I met a guy at the local hospital that I had not seen in a few years. During the course of our conversation, I happened to ask him if he was working. He said, are ya mad, and that he just could'nt afford to work, that it too costly. So, make of that what you will.

Yer right about the €100 HHC, not even worth talking about, but come back in about 2/3 years and lets make a comparison then.

darkhorse

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think we are that out of synch at hitting the high tax level, we've also a very low PRSI rate that compensates for the perceived high tax levels. You'd be crucified by NIC in the UK to give a comparison, pay 3 times the level I'd say.

At what point in their wages does a worker in the UK start to pay the USC.