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

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

What has that got to do with who might lend us 13 billion if we abandon austerity

Find out where spending has increased since 2005 when our expenditure was 42b and try get back to those levels. then we might not need to borrow a large sum like 13 billion. Surely its not only an increase in public necessities and a decrease in tax that has caused the gap, which seem to be the only things that are being targeted.

Where would i find out how many irish citizens have left the country in contrast to how many foreign nationals arrived that are claiming social benefits. Especially when they can arrive with false documents to commit fraud with ease then claim to have children in a diffrent country only to be handed childrens allowance for them.

lugha

Hijpo wrote: »

Find out where spending has increased since 2005 when our expenditure was 42b and try get back to those levels.

We know where a good lump of it went. Increases in public sector pay and social welfare payments and cuts in taxation. But reversing these measures amounts to austerity. And those fine fellows taking to the streets in Saturday are having no truck with that.

Hijpo wrote: »

Surely its not only an increase in public necessities and a decrease in tax that has caused the gap?

Increases in outgoings (public spending) and / or reductions in income (taxes raises) pretty much is the way any budget deficit comes to be.

Hijpo

lugha wrote: »

We know where a good lump of it went. Increases in public sector pay and social welfare payments and cuts in taxation. But reversing these measures amounts to austerity. And those fine fellows taking to the streets in Saturday are having no truck with that.

Increases in outgoings (public spending) and / or reductions in income (taxes raises) pretty much is the way any budget deficit comes to be.

I used public necessities over public spending for a reason. I would imagine the reason people dont agree with austerity is because the government have implemented measures that only effect middle to low earners with homes to pay for already and havent really been seen to get the wealthy or themselfs making substantial contributions that can be well afforded. Conveniently as the rulers of the country they have no power.

John.Icy

This thread seriously makes me sad for the country.

D_murph

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I am actually. Tax receipts are up. Unemployment is still high, but at least has stabilised. GDP growth is sluggish, but at least we're no longer contracting. So yeah, it's improving. We've still a long way to go, but its a damn sight better than where we were, when there was a genuine concern the country would go bust.

To reply to the unemployment bit. It only appears to have "stabilised", because of the vast numbers of people that have left the country. If they were all still here, it would be a damn sight worse :rolleyes:.

Of course, Kenny and co are probably glad they all left so they dont have to give them the dole because after all, they dont give a f*k about the people on the ground. Not as long as they can massage the numbers to make it look like theyre doing a good job and stay in office long enough to collect their bloated pensions when their term is up :rolleyes:.

Reloc8

gerryo777 wrote: »

I am a building contractor, a small building contractor. I never got too big, I wasn't a developer, I'm not getting bailed out by NAMA. I didn't pay myself mad money and I didn't get carried away.
I have been trading for almost 25 years and I'm pricing work now as keenly as I can in order to keep the 3 staff I kept on in work and not put them on the dole.
I do my best to keep my lads going, even though they get paid as much as I do and in some cases more.

I suppose to some pro-taxers on here, the problems of the country are all down to people like me, employment creators.

No not at all.

But why should you not have to pay tax ? Including the HHC ?

Slick50

lugha wrote: »

Contracts is a red herring. There is no difference in principle between what he did and what some here are doing. He felt justified ignoring the law because he thought it was unfair.

Flaying the big "red herring" stamp of dismissal. If you can't see the difference, it's because you don't want to.

What if this bunch decided to introduce legislation making it illegal to march in protest, or raise any voice of dissent, would you feel obliged to obey this law too, because "it's the law"?. How about you Donal?

lugha wrote: »

First, the march on Sat is against austerity, not for a better kind of austerity!

People are marching under this banner, but there are many people marching for various reasons of their own, but united in their dissatisfaction with this bunch.

lugha wrote: »

Second, I don’t think there would be any substantial difference in how any government would handle things. Things would be every bit as tough no matter who is in government. The current gang will eventually be replaced and you’ll see very little difference in effect when the new crowd around.
People don’t like tough medicine and naturally blame who ever appears to be dishing it out. Now if someone actually had an alternative to austerity there might be some sense in agitating for a different approach. Alas …

My main bones of contention is they are levying this tax against my home. Also this "we don't want to increase tax on income" BS, when what they mean is we don't want to increase taxes on high earners.

I see FF have come up with a great slogan "A fairer way to recovery". I'm not sure if they mean the economy, or the party.
It will take more than that to change my mind about them, but at least they can identify public sentiment.

Reloc8

gerryo777 wrote: »

Tell you what though, if we had a properly functioning banking sector, I'd be employing more people.

That wouldn't be any chance be on the basis of borrowing money from the 'properly functioning banking sector' would it ? Because that worked out brilliantly the last time 'round in your sector.

Ghandee

Slick50 wrote: »

I see FF have come up with a great slogan "A fairer way to recovery". I'm not sure if they mean the economy, or the party.

They're some bunch of jokers alright.

I see a few of their proposals.... Tax alcohol, junk food :rolleyes: how imaginative....

Then, riding the public anger wave, they call 3% rise in usc for high earners, and vow to slash 11k from Bertie and Biffo's pensions. (give me strength) and also a halt to the property tax.

Their slogan should be:

'A fairer way to recovery, from the shyte we poisoned you with'

donalg1

Slick50 wrote: »

Flaying the big "red herring" stamp of dismissal. If you can't see the difference, it's because you don't want to.

What if this bunch decided to introduce legislation making it illegal to march in protest, or raise any voice of dissent, would you feel obliged to obey this law too, because "it's the law"?. How about you Donal?



People are marching under this banner, but there are many people marching for various reasons of their own, but united in their dissatisfaction with this bunch.



My main bones of contention is they are levying this tax against my home. Also this "we don't want to increase tax on income" BS, when what they mean is we don't want to increase taxes on high earners.

I see FF have come up with a great slogan "A fairer way to recovery". I'm not sure if they mean the economy, or the party.
It will take more than that to change my mind about them, but at least they can identify public sentiment.

Well in all fairness there is never going to be a law introduced that makes it illegal to protest or to dissent against the government one of the great things about democracy is the right to free speech AMD the right to have your say. I am all for protesting against things you aren't happy about. But there is a fair jump between a hhc and a law saying you have no right to free speech.

FF are taking the p1ss these days with all their hypocrisy i would be amazed if anyone was falling for this crap or if anyone had forgotten already that it was them that got us into this mess.

lugha

Slick50 wrote: »

Flaying the big "red herring" stamp of dismissal.

Goodness, how many metaphors (?) have you butchered in that one short sentence?

And the “contracts” argument is clearly daft. You didn’t specifically give your consent to, or sign a contract on, our laws against murder, theft, tax evasion, etc. Does that mean you are not bound by those laws either, if you think them unfair?

If you take the view that individuals are justified in breaking a law that they think unfair (and we are not dealing with fundamental human rights matters, just ho-hum tax / money matters) then the only logical view you can take in relation to Sean Quinn is that you may disagree with him but that his actions are personally justified.

But of course, none of you lads do. All of which reveal that their position is not “you can disregard a law you consider unfair”, rather it is “I can disregard a law I consider unfair”. Everybody else should abide by the rules.

Slick50 wrote: »

People are marching under this banner, but there are many people marching for various reasons of their own, but united in their dissatisfaction with this bunch.

Well they are going to the wrong march then! It is quite clear that this is being flogged as a march against austerity.

Slick50 wrote: »

My main bones of contention is they are levying this tax against my home.

Ah this again. Presumably you are entirely unconcerned that a much greater tax demand is being levied against your income?

Slick50 wrote: »

Also this "we don't want to increase tax on income" BS, when what they mean is we don't want to increase taxes on high earners.

Out of curiosity, why, if you think the government had a choice between upsetting a relatively small number of high earners and upsetting a much larger number of low to medium earners they would opt for the latter, given that their currency is votes?

Chips Lovell

It's inaccurate to say it's a tax on homes. It's a tax on property. You can have taxable property that isn't your home. Or a home that isn't taxable.

Bullseye1

For people with one home which they live in it is a tax on their home. There is already a tax on second homes.

Bullseye1

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I am actually. Tax receipts are up. Unemployment is still high, but at least has stabilised.

Which means less people are paying more tax. The real problem we have in this country is the unemployment. And this government had done nothing to make starting a business in this country any easier. It has simply given up on SMEs and thrown all of its eggs into exports and multinationals.

Unemployment hasn't stabilised, jobs are still being lost. The fact that those signing in has stabilised highlights the mass emigration going on.

bgrizzley

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's inaccurate to say it's a tax on homes. It's a tax on property. You can have taxable property that isn't your home. Or a home that isn't taxable.

its the tax on homes that is the problem, remember that the tax on properties such as rental can be passed on by landlords to their renters, so they dont have to bear it, their tenants pay their tax for them.
no wonder they were so fast to pay...

Chips Lovell

If it were a tax on homes, then people in rented accommodation and local authority housing would be liable as well.

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

Goodness, how many metaphors (?) have you butchered in that one short sentence?

And the “contracts” argument is clearly daft. You didn’t specifically give your consent to, or sign a contract on, our laws against murder, theft, tax evasion, etc. Does that mean you are not bound by those laws either, if you think them unfair?

If you take the view that individuals are justified in breaking a law that they think unfair (and we are not dealing with fundamental human rights matters, just ho-hum tax / money matters) then the only logical view you can take in relation to Sean Quinn is that you may disagree with him but that his actions are personally justified.

But of course, none of you lads do. All of which reveal that their position is not “you can disregard a law you consider unfair”, rather it is “I can disregard a law I consider unfair”. Everybody else should abide by the rules.

Well they are going to the wrong march then! It is quite clear that this is being flogged as a march against austerity.



Ah this again. Presumably you are entirely unconcerned that a much greater tax demand is being levied against your income?

Out of curiosity, why, if you think the government had a choice between upsetting a relatively small number of high earners and upsetting a much larger number of low to medium earners they would opt for the latter, given that their currency is votes?

just to put it in perspective E100 is not E4,000,000,000. if every single homeowner and landlord decided to pay this it makes E160,000,000, thats 4% of Seanins 4 billion euros if everyone paid.
you could build 6(six) new paediatric hospitals with 4,000,000,000
you can cut a hedge with E100(not all of it though)

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

its the tax on homes that is the problem, remember that the tax on properties such as rental can be passed on by landlords to their renters, so they dont have to bear it, their tenants pay their tax for them.
no wonder they were so fast to pay...

Ah now, you can’t be riding two bicycles (going in opposite directions) with one arse!

One of the stated objections to property tax is that it is unfair because some do not pay. And private renters are part of that some.

But not you are complaining that landlords will pass the cost on and renters will in fact have to pay?

Ye’d drive a lad to drink so ye would. :pac:

bgrizzley wrote: »

just to put it in perspective E100 is not E4,000,000,000. if every single homeowner and landlord decided to pay this it makes E160,000,000, thats 4% of Seanins 4 billion euros if everyone paid.
you could build 6(six) new paediatric hospitals with 4,000,000,000
you can cut a hedge with E100(not all of it though)

When I was seven, at my grandmothers knee, I learned that stealing was stealing. I can’t recall her saying anything about how as long as someone was stealing an awful lot more you were sound out?

Anyway, I have not said the effect of SQ’s actions were on the same scale as someone not paying the HHC, only that the principle is the same.

But SQ neatly illustrates the flaw in the argument that individuals are justified in breaking a law if they personally think they are being treated unfairly. Even if some of you still can’t see it.

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

Ah now, you can’t be riding two bicycles (going in opposite directions) with one arse!

One of the stated objections to property tax is that it is unfair because some do not pay. And private renters are part of that some.

But not you are complaining that landlords will pass the cost on and renters will in fact have to pay?

Ye’d drive a lad to drink so ye would. :pac:

When I was seven, at my grandmothers knee, I learned that stealing was stealing. I can’t recall her saying anything about how as long as someone was stealing an awful lot more you were sound out?

Anyway, I have not said the effect of SQ’s actions were on the same scale as someone not paying the HHC, only that the principle is the same.

But SQ neatly illustrates the flaw in the argument that individuals are justified in breaking a law if they personally think they are being treated unfairly. Even if some of you still can’t see it.

show me where i said renters should pay.
go back over my posts, that has never been my argument, landlords not paying this wealth tax (and the assetless renters paying it for them) is one of the unfairest thing about it IMO. you should be all for this argument with your notional income idea. isnt every renter in the country now paying double according to "Lughanomics"?



i see your point about Seanie, im just pointing out the insanity of the scale you are talking about. you wouldnt do as a judge anyway, giving serial killers the same sentences as tv licence evaders(or maybe you would do just fine in this country:D)

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

show me where i said renters should pay.
go back over my posts, that has never been my argument, landlords not paying this wealth tax (and the assetless renters paying it for them) is one of the unfairest thing about it IMO.

Well you are well out of sync with the rest of the gang. One of their biggest gripes all along is that the HHC is for local services that everybody (owners, renters, those in LA housing) uses, so therefore everyone should pay.

You can hardly complain that the government are not listening to the people when the people are making polar opposite demands?

bgrizzley wrote: »

isnt every renter in the country now paying double according to "Lughanomics"?

Not double but certainly (many) renters will pay more indirectly, and owner / occupiers will pay more directly. I don’t quite see the problem here?

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

Well you are well out of sync with the rest of the gang. One of their biggest gripes all along is that the HHC is for local services that everybody (owners, renters, those in LA housing) uses, so therefore everyone should pay.

i see their point, but ive been subsidising people all my life, complaining wont change that.
not paying the HHC will (in some way):D

lugha wrote: »

You can hardly complain that the government are not listening to the people when the people are making polar opposite demands?

isnt that their job?

lugha wrote: »

Not double but certainly (many) renters will pay more indirectly, and owner / occupiers will pay more directly. I don’t quite see the problem here?

many of you guys call this a wealth tax on owning property. that landlord who paid for the 400 properties is liable for E40,000 tax this year, yet his liability will be paid by his tenants(the people who dont own the asset)
He will pay E100 for his home. nice one for him(no change), not so nice for people who can barely afford to feed their kids(10pw less on groceries).

Chips Lovell

I think its quite legitimate that people can oppose a tax for different reasons.

In my opinion, the issue of landlords "passing it on" is a bit of a red herring. You could equally argue that if income tax were increased, landlords would also pass this on to their tenants.

What the system does do is allow the market to dictate things. The landlords who attempt to pass on too much will be penalised in favour of those who don't.

Bullseye1

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If it were a tax on homes, then people in rented accommodation and local authority housing would be liable as well.

But they have stated that there will be exemptions.

bgrizzley

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I think its quite legitimate that people can oppose a tax for different reasons.

In my opinion, the issue of landlords "passing it on" is a bit of a red herring. You could equally argue that if income tax were increased, landlords would also pass this on to their tenants.

What the system does do is allow the market to dictate things. The landlords who attempt to pass on too much will be penalised in favour of those who don't.

fair point unless this is a wealth tax. which the pro side have called throughout these threads. we've been told that we are sitting on wealth in our homes and that is why we are getting this tax. renters have no bricks and mortar asset, why should they pay the tax on one for someone else.
im just countering a yes argument.
if ye dont want the argument stop telling me im wealthy cause i own my own home(or will in years to come).

i hope your right about the last bit but i doubt someone will up sticks and move cause a landlord is shafting them over E2, even E5 pw, still doesnt take from the fact they are paying his wealth tax for him.

gerryo777

gurramok wrote: »

Hypocrisy exposed. You've no problem with the property tax as long as you can pass it on to some poor joe soap renting from you.

Perhaps you should look through the three threads on the HHC and you might understand my position on the idea of a property tax.
As usual with a pro-taxer, you've taken a few posts of mine and use them out of context to suit your own argument.
Nothing new there.

Chips Lovell

I don't think anyone's calling property owners wealthy. Owning property is a form of wealth. It doesn't make you wealthy, in the sense that most people understand it at least.

In the same way, having €500 in savings in the bank would be part of my wealth, but it doesn't make me wealthy.

Chips Lovell

bgrizzley wrote: »

i hope your right about the last bit but i doubt someone will up sticks and move cause a landlord is shafting them over E2, even E5 pw

No, you're right, people are unlikely to move over a small rent increase. But prices will make a difference the next time they are moving.

gerryo777

John.Icy wrote: »

This thread seriously makes me sad for the country.

Yea, your right there. The fact that we have so many pro-taxers who believe that we will slash and burn our way out of a recession is quite sad.

gerryo777

Reloc8 wrote: »

No not at all.

But why should you not have to pay tax ? Including the HHC ?

Yea, that's right. I don't have to pay tax:rolleyes:

gerryo777

Reloc8 wrote: »

That wouldn't be any chance be on the basis of borrowing money from the 'properly functioning banking sector' would it ? Because that worked out brilliantly the last time 'round in your sector.

We had a properly functioning banking sector before?
I think that's news to everyone on here, even the pro-taxers.