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

darkhorse

Robbo wrote: »

Here's some source material which should be a good start for your homework.

O.K., I put up the link, here's the story, and what do I do next.

Thu 08 Aug 2011Judge challenged to produce oath by man disputing summonsA JUDGE was challenged by a defendant yesterday to produce his oath of office before proceeding with a case being heard at Wexford District Court.
Declaring that he was before the court “under duress”, Bobby Oliver Sludds (29), Ballagh Cove, Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, said Judge David Anderson had no jurisdiction to deal with the case unless he first produced his oath.

crusher000

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Pretty much any new tax or tax increase potentially has an effect on retail spending and thus on jobs in retail.

However, this isn't being what is being referred to when its said that raising income taxes can impact on employment. Instead, its the impact of income tax rates on the incentive to either find employment or get a better job. The higher the rate of tax, the lower the incentive to earn more, since more goes to the exchequer.

For example, say hypothetically the top rate of tax is 90 per cent. Pretty much nobody would take a job that put them on to the top rate since there is little incentive to do so. In that situation, there is little point in having a top rate on that, since the revenue raised from it would likely be much smaller than the take from a lower top rate. If the top rate is 80 per cent, maybe more people would take jobs on that rate, but perhaps not as much as 60 per cent, and so on...

Your right and to tell you the truth I'm employment at the moment and it's hardly worth my while working with all the tax and prsi, universal charge etc. Dam all incentive here either.

Bruthal

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Pretty much any new tax or tax increase potentially has an effect on retail spending and thus on jobs in retail.

However, this isn't being what is being referred to when its said that raising income taxes can impact on employment. Instead, its the impact of income tax rates on the incentive to either find employment or get a better job. The higher the rate of tax, the lower the incentive to earn more, since more goes to the exchequer.

For example, say hypothetically the top rate of tax is 90 per cent. Pretty much nobody would take a job that put them on to the top rate since there is little incentive to do so. In that situation, there is little point in having a top rate on that, since the revenue raised from it would likely be much smaller than the take from a lower top rate. If the top rate is 80 per cent, maybe more people would take jobs on that rate, but perhaps not as much as 60 per cent, and so on...

Yes, so give people an incentive by taking all their money off them in tax, after income tax is taken, in effect fooling them into thinking they have more.

The government are in effect, gradually getting the average person used to having nothing, while thanking them for giving them a life free of financial burden themselves.

dxhound2005

For anyone interested the Revenue booklet and a sample LPT form are now online. Google "LPT1 Booklet".

Chips Lovell

I don't think anyone is being "fooled" really. They haven't exactly been shy about publicising it.

dvpower

dxhound2005 wrote: »

For anyone interested the Revenue booklet and a sample LPT form are now online. Google "LPT1 Booklet".

The return.


The guide.

Bruthal

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I don't think anyone is being "fooled" really. They haven't exactly been shy about publicising it.

They publicise that as a justification for taxing peoples homes instead of their wages, not as a piece of info to benefit people.

This tax is still an income tax. If people feel they are better off with €500 extra tax taken from wages after paye than at the same time, then it is a false feeling.

The reality is, people see their take home pay and think thats ok. Very few on low wages factor in the bulk of the tax they will pay is after they get wages.

Most people think mainly of tax they pay as their wage paye. So they are in effect being given a false sense of being in a low tax setup, when they look at their payslip.

This does not mean I dont think extra paye is a dis-incentive. Just that people are being guided like a flock of mindless sheep by a shepherd government, with the better off sheep happy with such clever guidance.

Chips Lovell

I don't think that many people are simple enough to think that income tax is the only tax they're going to have to pay.

But if someone does think that because it isn't being deducted at source, it will lull them into a false sense of security regarding how much disposable income they have, they can always opt to have it deducted from their wages. It's one of the payment options outlined in the booklet dvpower linked to above.

Bruthal

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I don't think that many people are simple enough to think that income tax is the only tax they're going to have to pay.

Really?. Because when I asked earlier in the thread who pays the higher percentage tax, a €100k worker, or a minimum wage worker, the instant answers that were posted from the pro taxers, where that the 100k worker pays much much more. Why was that? Because they instinctively only considered income tax.

Chips Lovell

I'm not sure what that has to do with it.

Bruthal

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'm not sure what that has to do with it.

If tax before wages are paid is a dis-incentive to work, but if taken after wages are paid is not, then somewhere, people are given a false belief of being better off.

You said people are not so simple as to only consider paye when thinking of taxes paid from income, well the above, and previous posts would indicate otherwise.

Bruthal

dvpower wrote: »

tax evaders

There must be an extra function key on your keyboard you keep hitting

Chips Lovell

Bruthal wrote: »

If tax before wages are paid is a dis-incentive to work, but if taken after wages are paid is not, then somewhere, people are given a false belief of being better off.

You said people are not so simple as to only consider paye when thinking of taxes paid from income, well the above, and previous posts would indicate otherwise.

It's not whether the tax is paid at source or later that's the disincentive. It's what's being taxed in the first place, i.e. income from work.

The more tax you put on income, the more you're disincentivised from earning more since a larger proportion goes on tax.

In a similar fashion, you could say that putting too high a tax on property would disincentivise people from buying a property or buying a larger one.

Whether either tax is deducted at source or not is not the issue here.

Bruthal

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's not whether the tax is paid at source or later that's the disincentive. It's what's being taxed in the first place, i.e. income from work.

Any tax a person pays will be paid from income from work, if they have a job. Different named taxes, they all reduce a persons money. The incentive part was never in dispute. It is how people are easily led that is.

Motor tax is an example. its not for the roads they tell us. As soon as they said that, people instantly completely disassociated motor tax with road maintenance. Yet realistically there has to be some link between them.

The more tax you put on income, the more you're disincentivised from earning more since a larger proportion goes on tax.

More of a disincentive for higher earners alright.

In a similar fashion, you could say that putting too high a tax on property would disincentivise people from buying a property or buying a larger one.

99+% of those affected, already have them. So putting too high a tax on them, wont matter now. The current one is too high imo.

Whether either tax is deducted at source or not is not the issue here.

No, the issue is, taxing people for having a home. At the end of the day, call each tax any name you like, people are being left with nothing.

Chips Lovell

Bruthal wrote: »

Any tax a person pays will be paid from income from work, if they have a job. Different named taxes, they all reduce a persons money. The incentive part was never in dispute. It is how people are easily led that is.

Yes, they all reduce a persons disposable income. But different taxes disincentivise different things. Higher income tax creates higher disencentives to work. Property Tax doesn't create that disincentive because you're still liable regardless.

Bruthal wrote: »

More of a disincentive for higher earners alright.

Depending on how it's structured, it can disincentive any class of earner. Having a high lower rate for example will disincentivise someone from getting a job in the first place.

Bruthal wrote: »

99+% of those affected, already have them. So putting too high a tax on them, wont matter now. The current one is too high imo.

That wasn't really the point of what I was saying. It was an example for illustrative purposes. I don't think the current rate of tax will affect most people's property purchasing decisions. It only would if they raised the rates significantly.

Bruthal

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That wasn't really the point of what I was saying. It was an example for illustrative purposes.

I realised what you meant alright:)

tayto lover

Geuze wrote: »

Short answer - there will be less consumer spending and saving in the economy.

Tax payments will rise somewhat, households will spend and save less, but the Govt will borrow less.


It's the same answer to any tax rise, except that a property tax is less hurtful to employment than other taxes.

AND ...
Businesses will close, unemployment will rise, taxes will rise and ...........

People will starve and then we will have a happy Government, happy Germans and happy disciples on Boards.

tayto lover

Anti Property Tax meeting in the --
Lisdoo Arms, Newry Road, Dundalk, at 8.00 p.m. on Monday 18th Feb 2013.

Claire Daly and Joan Collins are guest speakers.

Notice through the door yesterday. I might go and listen to what they have to say.

Am Chile

tayto lover wrote: »

Anti Property Tax meeting in the --
Lisdoo Arms, Newry Road, Dundalk, at 8.00 p.m. on Monday 18th Feb 2013.

Claire Daly and Joan Collins are guest speakers.

Notice through the door yesterday. I might go and listen to what they have to say.

I think its important for people who oppose the family home tax go to as many public meetings over the next few months.

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I was talking about freemen on the land.

Robbo wrote: »

Ben Gilroy would be a common figurehead for the Freemen and DDI.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

They have a rather odd interpretation of the law. They're kind of the lunatic fringe and any new party would need to consider the PR of associating with them.

O.K., how's this for a solution. If ye don't like these freemen and ye think they could be a threat to the lawful running of the state, what we should do is, if any party stands on a platform of committing to re-introducing the relevant articles, whereby we the people can decide to hold a referendum, the we could hold a referendum with the aim of getting rid of these so called freemen. If you were in agreement with this, then all it takes a number of like minded people with the same issues to sign a petition to abolish freemen of the land, if enough people think it needs to be done then a referendum will be called, and if more people agree with you, well, this would achieve your goal of eradicating freemen of the land. Or perhaps you could draw up your own laws to be implemented to fix the broken ones that apparently the freemen are trying to show up. Whatever way that you, I, or anyone tries to wipe out all DDIs credibility, it seem to me that their main goal is to give us, the citizens, more say in how the country is run, at least thats what I, and other people that I speak to about about this issue, get from their video clips(of which I have already posted on this thread).
Would ye support direct democracy if there someone else involved, or are ye just simply against this type of democracy, and are ye just using freeman as a way of bolstering your opinion on DDI.

Chips Lovell

I don't think its a case of needing a referendum to get rid of the Freemen. More that if a few of them are figureheads of DDI, it would probably mean people will be less likely to vote for them or take them seriously.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

I lol at your attempt at casting common tax evaders as revolutionaries.

Will I tell you what I LOL at. I LOL at the fact that posters get banned for less than what you come out with. You must be very influential indeed.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

Will I tell you what I LOL at. I LOL at the fact that posters get banned for less than what you come out with.

Like what?




..... and why would you laugh at people getting banned

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's not whether the tax is paid at source or later that's the disincentive. It's what's being taxed in the first place, i.e. income from work.

But the bottom line is, whether the taxes and charges are deducted from your wages, or are taken from you after you receive your wages, you are paying all from the income that you earn from work. No matter how you choose to do the math, or whatever formula you may use, you will still be down the same amount of money/spondulux/shekals.
Now, the government had a choice in the budget with regards to inflicting a tax on homes, raising income tax, or raising usc for those earning above a certain threshold. Who would stand to lose the most, had they chosen either of the latter two(I'll give you a hint, it was'nt me).
Honestly, there are people here that seems to think that the government es doing us a favour.

Slick50

Here's an idea for the "keyboard warriors", send an e-mail to your local representatives, telling them how you feel about the property tax. Call on them to repeal the property tax, and let them know where your vote won't be going at the next election, if they don't. Get anyone you know who feels the same to do like wise. Flood their e-mail boxes with complaints from their constituents. Act now, so they get a sense of the ammount of resentment amongst the public, before the motion to repeal is voted on in the Dáil.

Just not registering is not enough now, people need to stand up, get out and be counted, too. Information on national campaign activities can be got at the CAHWT site.

dvpower

Slick50 wrote: »

Information on national campaign activities can be got at the CAHWT site.

I just checked for upcoming campaign events .... and they don't have any listed.

This campaign is dead.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

Like what?




..... and why would you laugh at people getting banned

You know exactly what I am talking about, as we covered it many times on this thread.

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

I just checked for upcoming campaign events .... and they don't have any listed.

This campaign is dead.

A wee bit previous. July will tell the tale. I know very few people who are willing to pay. Many of them say they might re-consider when there are a lot of bankers, politicians and the old regulator in prison but not until.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

You know exactly what I am talking about, as we covered it many times on this thread.

Then why are you bringing it up again?

Geuze

darkhorse wrote: »

But the bottom line is, whether the taxes and charges are deducted from your wages, or are taken from you after you receive your wages, you are paying all from the income that you earn from work. No matter how you choose to do the math, or whatever formula you may use, you will still be down the same amount of money/spondulux/shekals.
Now, the government had a choice in the budget with regards to inflicting a tax on homes, raising income tax, or raising usc for those earning above a certain threshold. Who would stand to lose the most, had they chosen either of the latter two(I'll give you a hint, it was'nt me).
Honestly, there are people here that seems to think that the government es doing us a favour.

Obviously all taxes are paid from income/wealth.

But a property tax does not interfere with the labour supply decision.

I also support a higher income tax rate - I suggest four rates 20, 30, 40 and 50%.

However, people on average incomes of 30-40k should not face the 50% MTR, that should be reserved for high earners.

The current 52% MTR on single people earning 33k or more is CRAZY. Have a 50% MTR, yes, but not on average earnings.

I would join a protest against that.