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

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

SF aren't a foreign party and church taxes go to the churches, not to the state.

Our govt could change that though.
They've changed a fair amount of other laws to suit themselves.

miftha

dvpower wrote: »

SF aren't a foreign party and church taxes go to the churches, not to the state.

What planet are you on. Last time I heard NI was not part of the Republic. Therefore any party with the same name are not the same and policies do not have to be the same (different countries). I have no affiliation to SF.

We can be different here, we can tax them for the wealth they make (spiritual) and put it into central coffers for the bondholders. Same concept, different destination.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Our govt could change that though.
They've changed a fair amount of other laws to suit themselves.

You're not seriously suggesting that the state levy a tax on religious people? That's got to be the daftest idea I've heard on this thread so far.

dvpower

miftha wrote: »

What planet are you on. Last time I heard NI was not part of the Republic. Therefore any party with the same name are not the same and policies do not have to be the same (different countries). I have no affiliation to SF.

We can be different here, we can tax them for the wealth they make (spiritual) and put it into central coffers for the bondholders. Same concept, different destination.

What the he'll are you on about?
The SF proposal for a wealth tax was for this jurisdiction and was included in their pre budget submission.

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

You're not seriously suggesting that the state levy a tax on religious people? That's got to be the daftest idea I've heard on this thread so far.

whats so special about religious people? are they any better than dog owners? hard workers? car drivers? smokers?



Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's

miftha

dvpower wrote: »

You're not seriously suggesting that the state levy a tax on religious people? That's got to be the daftest idea I've heard on this thread so far.

Why not? It is a selection of people who can be taxed.

What is any different to a selection of people who own homes? Or what should be taxed, a selection of people who own multiple properties (more than the principle home) and make money from it.

darkhorse

Le_Dieux wrote: »

No offence DH, but personally, I would prefer if SF were kept out of this discussion. There are too many unanswered questions when it comes to them for my liking.

Hate to say this, but give me a 'ahearnless' FF any day above SF.

Thing is, L.D., Sinn Fein members were elected as T.D.s to our Parliament, so they are entitled to come up with alternatives on budgetary strategy, and really, we will never know if their alternatives will work if they the govt. dont take them on board. Look at this way, the country went south on FFs watch, FG are implementing the same policies, in spite of their promises to us before the election, remember, Labours way or Frankfurts way, FG said not another cent will the bondholders get. How much worse can things get.

miftha

dvpower wrote: »

What the he'll are you on about?
The SF proposal for a wealth tax was for this jurisdiction and was included in their pre budget submission.

Where did a wealth tax come into what I said.

I agreed with a wealth tax (not on principle home). Are SF in NI also proposing this (wealth tax to be clear)?

What you fail to see is, SF in the Republic are not SF in NI (in all but name and some that defected ). Different politics bar they want a united Ireland. Are Labour in the UK same and Labour in Republic?

dvpower

bgrizzley wrote: »

whats so special about religious people? are they any better than dog owners? hard workers? car drivers? smokers?

What's so special about the non religious that you want to exempt them?

this is a daft argument - you must be taking the piss

bgrizzley wrote: »

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's

You've managed to completely misunderstand the meaning of that quote.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

You're not seriously suggesting that the state levy a tax on religious people? That's got to be the daftest idea I've heard on this thread so far.

No, I'm not.

My post was in reply to yours, and an observation that the current govt seem fit to change any law to suit their own agenda.

You knew that though, and were being pedantic.

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

What's so special about the non religious that you want to exempt them?

this is a daft argument - you must be taking the piss

not an answer, answer the q and then i will, simples

dvpower wrote: »

You've managed to completely misunderstand the meaning of that quote.

jesus said "Pay your fcuking taxes";)

miftha

dvpower wrote: »

You're not seriously suggesting that the state levy a tax on religious people? That's got to be the daftest idea I've heard on this thread so far.

And I could and will equally say it is daft to tax the principle home!

dvpower

miftha wrote: »

Where did a wealth tax come into what I said?

post 989. you quoted my response to darkhorse re the SF wealth tax.
read the discussion if your going to attempt to contribute.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

A big hole in your alternative proposal so.

Not my alternative. I am only a keyboard warrior, according to one genius here on Boards.

dvpower

miftha wrote: »

And I could and will equally say it is daft to tax the principle home!

You could equally say anything you like. You still wouldn't be making sense.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

You knew that though, and were being pedantic.

I don't know. the idea seems to be gaining some traction:eek:

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

My post was in reply to yours, and an observation that the current govt seem fit to change any law to suit their own agenda.

They are legislators. Why are you so surprised that they would introduce, modify or sometimes repeal legislation? And yes, ruling parties do tend to introduce laws that suit their agenda, or political outlook. What do you think they should be doing?

miftha wrote: »

And I could and will equally say it is daft to tax the principle home!

You could and plenty here have. Alas, when you ask them why is it daft or immoral etc to tax a person’s home but not for example, their income, the responses aren’t terribly convincing.

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

They are legislators. Why are you so surprised that they would introduce, modify or sometimes repeal legislation? And yes, ruling parties do tend to introduce laws that suit their agenda, or political outlook. What do you think they should be doing?

Introducing laws that would benefit their constituents?

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

You're not seriously suggesting that the state levy a tax on religious people? That's got to be the daftest idea I've heard on this thread so far.

Yeah, dv, its right up there with, oh, lets say, the likes of imposing a tax on homes that people are already paying through the nose for by way of mortgage(in most cases for life), home insurance, maintainence, damage(accidental or otherwise). Not daft, mad.:mad:

miftha

dvpower wrote: »

post 989. you quoted my response to darkhorse re the SF wealth tax.
read the discussion if your going to attempt to contribute.

You replied to me in 995 and brough up wealth tax in reply to my post.

Either way it does not matter. I agree with taxing those more that have a very defined wealth (more specifically income) that can be taxed.

Having wealth, supposedly a family home with a mortgage, does not mean you are weathly (disposable incoming to pay the tax) as of now or in the future. Upon sale, any gain less interest and upkeep, could well be taxed.

miftha

dvpower wrote: »

You could equally say anything you like. You still wouldn't be making sense.

In YOUR opinion

To be honest I think that exact same about you.

Le_Dieux

Am Chile wrote: »

Reminder for all non payers-national anti susterity march to take place three weeks from now on November 24th-I hope all non payers will be able to make the march in three weeks time.

Also got the following under comments on the Independent link AC:

November 24th Dublin 1pm Anti-Austerity march contact your local Campaign Against Household Charges for bus details.

Ghandee

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Also got the following under comments on the Independent link AC:

November 24th Dublin 1pm Anti-Austerity march contact your local Campaign Against Household Charges for bus details.

Their will be plenty of banners from any number of political parties and anti austerity groups LD.

You're not obliged to affiliate with, or march under any banner representing any group either.

(done let anyone stop you marching if you feel it is right to do so mate)

bgrizzley

Fianna Fáil bounces back to become second largest party

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1017/breaking57.html

edit
(sorry its a couple of weeks old, hadnt seen it when it came out)

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

You could and plenty here have. Alas, when you ask them why is it daft or immoral etc to tax a person’s home but not for example, their income, the responses aren’t terribly convincing.

It does'nt make any difference what anyone has said on the matter, though, cause you always shrug it off. A few hundred posts later, just when you decide that there were so many posts that most of the posters wont remember what went on, you'll come back and start the same thing again. I dont think you will get a poster on here that you did'nt cross examine on something that you had already got answers to previously.

K-9

MadYaker wrote: »

I don't see why a property tax would be any more unpopular than any other tax that raises the same revenue in the same period of time. And don't try and tell me its the principle of having to pay a tax on your home that you and all the others disagree with, the reason there is such opposition is because people don't want to, or can't pay any more tax regardless of what form it comes in.

And I haven't seen any opposition parties or anyone in this thread come up with practical alternatives to a property tax that would somehow be more palatable to the electorate.

I do think this is more emotional, Irish people and the gra for the ould plot, fuelled the boom and the crash after all. The social charge was unpopular but this has "the Field" element to it as well.

K-9

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Guess we'll all be on the streets come the New Year: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tougher-budget-on-way-as-growth-stalls-3281210.html

And linked into the comments above is THIS, which is VERY disturbing: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/10/09/1199151/its-austerity-multiplier-failure/

Greece? Here we come!:(

Actually we are far from Greece. While the FT piece is correct internationally, Ireland is actually an outlier when it comes to austerity, it does damage but not to the extent of Greece, Portugal, France etc.

darkhorse

darkhorse wrote: »

Yeah, dv, its right up there with, oh, lets say, the likes of imposing a tax on homes that people are already paying through the nose for by way of mortgage(in most cases for life), home insurance, maintainence, damage(accidental or otherwise). Not daft, mad.:mad:

K-9 wrote: »

I do think this is more emotional.

You say emotional, K-9. No, emotional is losing a loved one to Cancer. Apart from that statement, Do you really not look at the economics where ordinary people are concerned, and, Do you really think that we should be paying more than we are already.

K-9

darkhorse wrote: »

You say emotional, K-9. No, emotional is losing a loved one to Cancer. Apart from that statement, Do you really not look at the economics where ordinary people are concerned, and, Do you really think that we should be paying more than we are already.

I get you, I'm well aware of personal emotions, thanks for that!

Seriously, politically taxing a house is suicidal here. I can remember the last property tax we had here and the clamour to get rid of it, which was a stupid thing to do. Instead of using a tax that might have controlled the bubble (probably wouldn't but it was a tool we had) we gave tax reliefs to developers and, people quickly forget, significant tax breaks for First Time Buyers and people moving house.

As for taxes, I looked for a party in the 07 election that at least wanted taxes to remain the same, I couldn't find one that didn't want to reduce taxes, that includes SF, a supposedly high tax party.

I saw no need to reduce taxes and increase tax credits, and reduce PRSI 10 years ago. if we hadn't we wouldn't be in as bad a situation as we are today. We are increasing taxes for no benefit whatsoever, other than pay debts.

As for the property tax, I've no moral objection to it, I understand the objections against, but seeing as FG have promised not to increase income tax rates (they'll cut tax credits instead) and Labour are protecting SW rates and PS pay (and cut services for the vulnerable instead, cancer patients included I'm sure to be emotional, respite and alzheimer services in my personal experience), I don't really see much alternative.

I suppose we could raise VAT yet again making things worse or cut tax credits again, 6 of one, half a dozen of another to me.

darkhorse

K-9 wrote: »

I get you, I'm well aware of personal emotions, thanks for that!

Seriously, politically taxing a house is suicidal here. I can remember the last property tax we had here and the clamour to get rid of it, which was a stupid thing to do. Instead of using a tax that might have controlled the bubble (probably wouldn't but it was a tool we had) we gave tax reliefs to developers and, people quickly forget, significant tax breaks for First Time Buyers and people moving house.

As for taxes, I looked for a party in the 07 election that at least wanted taxes to remain the same, I couldn't find one that didn't want to reduce taxes, that includes SF, a supposedly high tax party.

I saw no need to reduce taxes and increase tax credits, and reduce PRSI 10 years ago. if we hadn't we wouldn't be in as bad a situation as we are today. We are increasing taxes for no benefit whatsoever, other than pay debts.

As for the property tax, I've no moral objection to it, I understand the objections against, but seeing as FG have promised not to increase income tax rates (they'll cut tax credits instead) and Labour are protecting SW rates and PS pay (and cut services for the vulnerable instead, cancer patients included I'm sure to be emotional, respite and alzheimer services in my personal experience), I don't really see much alternative.

I suppose we could raise VAT yet again making things worse or cut tax credits again, 6 of one, half a dozen of another to me.

I really think that if the government had said they are going to bring in rates for example, to include services, it would have been a more equitable ideal, even though a recession is definitely the wrong time. I mean, if something like that was going to work, well, would'nt austerity have worked. I dont see a property tax being any different than, say, some thugs coming to my premises and extorting protection money from me under threat of violence(the govt are just doing it legally). Since this gig started, as you are quite aware, we, the general public have put on the jersey, as it were, in respect of usc, wage reductions etc. There are big holes starting to appear in the jersey at this stage and the majority of people are at the end of their tether financially. Now, I would understand the govt. wanting to uphold the irish reputation in europe in better times, but I have to agree with David McWilliams when he says, lets have growth first, worry about reputation later. One more thing, can ya see the govt. in germany treating their elderly and disabled like the way the govt. in ireland are treating theirs currently.