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

darkhorse

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Leading economic expert Professor John Fitzgerald says property tax is preferable to income tax, as it less damaging to employment.

Taxes on income (whether it's the Universal Social Charge or income tax) tend to be job-unfriendly," he said.

"They discourage people from working (and) make it difficult for people to work. Property tax and carbon taxes are likely to be much less damaging to employment."

Could someone tell me, would you/I have to pay a property tax and a carbon tax out of the money that you earn, ie, income from your job. Does anyone else, apart from me, get the irony of this experts statement.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

Yes.

Last month he reported a much reduced estimate in the total cost of winding down the IBRC.

But, if his estimate came down, it can also go up.

darkhorse

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Lots in there to admire but it would make the people who would be worse off very unhappy, nothing new there. The only thing I don't see (surprisingly from a socialist analysis) is a wide ranging private property tax. This is the tried and tested model giving a guaranteed long term income stream not easily open to evasion in practically every other developed country.

Anyway, was anyone watching the programme on Mon night with George Lee. There was this lady on that got a reminder letter for non-payment of HHC. When George asked her was she going to pay it, she said definitely not, as she had paid €35,000 in stamp duty when she bought her house a short time ago. So tell me, dv, donal, lugha or anybody, is she right not to pay.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

But, if his estimate came down, it can also go up.

Or come down even more.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

So tell me, dv, donal, lugha or anybody, is she right not to pay.

After all your time on this thread, why do you need to ask that question!

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

Taxes on income (whether it's the Universal Social Charge or income tax) tend to be job-unfriendly," he said.

"They discourage people from working (and) make it difficult for people to work. Property tax and carbon taxes are likely to be much less damaging to employment."

Could someone tell me, would you/I have to pay a property tax and a carbon tax out of the money that you earn, ie, income from your job. Does anyone else, apart from me, get the irony of this experts statement.

Where exactly do you see the irony? Can you see at all how some taxes can be more damaging to employment than others?

People who have no income from a job still need to pay property tax out of their pension income, social welfare income and investment income.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

Where exactly do you see the irony? Can you see at all how some taxes can be more damaging to employment than others?

People who have no income from a job still need to pay property tax out of their pension income, social welfare income and investment income.

What then happens the paye, home owner when they inevitably raise income tax regardless?

Bullseye1

Ghandee wrote: »

Ah, don't be so hard on him.

Anyone can make a mistake, ain't that right dx?





Think before you type auld hand.

Haha. When you are working on a 3" screen and your eyesight is deteriorating mistakes are probable. I'm sorry the politicians on here take offence to my lack of faith in their ability to get us out of this mess. I have full faith in them getting us into a bigger mess.

I'd also like to apologise to any monkey who frequents boards. Comparing you to a politician was uncalled for.

donalg1

darkhorse wrote: »

Anyway, was anyone watching the programme on Mon night with George Lee. There was this lady on that got a reminder letter for non-payment of HHC. When George asked her was she going to pay it, she said definitely not, as she had paid €35,000 in stamp duty when she bought her house a short time ago. So tell me, dv, donal, lugha or anybody, is she right not to pay.

No she is wrong obviously, as not paying is breaking the law.

bgrizzley

donalg1 wrote: »

No she is wrong obviously, as not paying is breaking the law.

she is correct, the law is morally wrong in her instance (whatever about mine)
She'll get no thanks for paying it (only a second letter asking her to pay the same thing again (and probably addressed to a deceased family member))

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

she is correct, the law is morally wrong in her instance (whatever about mine)
She'll get no thanks for paying it (only a second letter asking her to pay the same thing again (and probably addressed to a deceased family member))

No she is wrong. If she is liable to pay it then not paying it is breaking the law. Morals dont dictate what laws you can or cant abide by.

bgrizzley

donalg1 wrote: »

No she is wrong. If she is liable to pay it then not paying it is breaking the law. Morals dont dictate what laws you can or cant abide by.

lol. have a think about that one:D

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

lol. have a think about that one:D

You think you can choose what laws you abide by based on some morals you may have? And what gives someone the right to pick and choose the laws they abide by? Can we all do this now, I mean is it now legal to break laws?

Bruthal

donalg1 wrote: »

You think you can choose what laws you abide by based on some morals you may have? And what gives someone the right to pick and choose the laws they abide by? Can we all do this now, I mean is it now legal to break laws?

Driving at 121kph on a motorway is breaking the law, as is killing someone with a baseball bat. You can work out the rest yourself.

donalg1

robbie7730 wrote: »

Driving at 121kph on a motorway is breaking the law, as is killing someone with a baseball bat. You can work out the rest yourself.

Not paying your taxes is breaking the law too.

Geuze

darkhorse wrote: »

Taxes on income (whether it's the Universal Social Charge or income tax) tend to be job-unfriendly," he said.

"They discourage people from working (and) make it difficult for people to work. Property tax and carbon taxes are likely to be much less damaging to employment."

Could someone tell me, would you/I have to pay a property tax and a carbon tax out of the money that you earn, ie, income from your job. Does anyone else, apart from me, get the irony of this experts statement.

No irony, this is standard economics, in any textbook.

High marginal taxes on labour reduce the supply and/or the demand for labour.

High payroll or wages taxes give people incentives to evade or avoid them, by not working, not doing overtime, trying to be paid cash in the shadow economy, etc.

Whereas a property tax does not cause these changes in behaviour.

I must live in a house. When a property tax is introduced, I still live in a house. No change of behaviour, no direct impact on labour supply. I won't work less as a result.

Whereas the current crazy 52% marginal income tax rate causes people to work less, avoid tax, even evade tax.

Geuze

Obviously all taxes come out of your pocket, but some hurt employment more, and some hurt it less.

Property taxes have the big advantage that they don't distort people's labour decisions, compared to PRSI or income tax.

They are, in some sense, "lump-sum" taxes, not linked to wage earnings, and so shouldn't influence your work decisions.


A bit like an annual fixed car tax - it doesn't influence your decision to take a particular journey, as you have paid it on 1st Jan, so it is a sunk cost, and is not relevant when deciding car vs. bus, etc.

Bruthal

donalg1 wrote: »

Not paying your taxes is breaking the law too.

Do you ever break any laws?

Ghandee

Geuze wrote: »

A bit like an annual fixed car tax - it doesn't influence your decision to take a particular journey, as you have paid it on 1st Jan, so it is a sunk cost, and is not relevant when deciding car vs. bus, etc.

If things are tight, the car can be taken off the road.
If yearly motor tax on let's say my car for example, passat 07 I can sell it and downgrade to something with a lower tax bracket.

I could sell my house, but as its lost 50% of its value, yet I've still 100% of the original mortgage (minus payments made) that's not a viable (sensible) option.

I also, cannot take my home 'off the road'.

Anyways, we've covered this one before.

mikom

Geuze wrote: »

Obviously all taxes come out of your pocket, but some hurt employment more, and some hurt it less.

Property taxes have the big advantage that they don't distort people's labour decisions, compared to PRSI or income tax.

They are, in some sense, "lump-sum" taxes, not linked to wage earnings, and so shouldn't influence your work decisions.


A bit like an annual fixed car tax - it doesn't influence your decision to take a particular journey, as you have paid it on 1st Jan, so it is a sunk cost, and is not relevant when deciding car vs. bus, etc.

Tell me about the local authority cars.
Free from tax and available to rent at a discounted rate.........

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

You think you can choose what laws you abide by based on some morals you may have? And what gives someone the right to pick and choose the laws they abide by? Can we all do this now, I mean is it now legal to break laws?

Politicians introduce pay caps on bankers and their advisers, then go on to blatantly ignore them.

Good enough for them........

Bruthal

Ghandee wrote: »

If things are tight, the car can be taken off the road.
If yearly motor tax on let's say my car for example, passat 07 I can sell it and downgrade to something with a lower tax bracket.

I could sell my house, but as its lost 50% of its value, yet I've still 100% of the original mortgage (minus payments made) that's not a viable (sensible) option.

I also, cannot take my home 'off the road'.

Anyways, we've covered this one before.

Yea I remember it well

Hijpo

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Lots in there to admire but it would make the people who would be worse off very unhappy, nothing new there. The only thing I don't see (surprisingly from a socialist analysis) is a wide ranging private property tax. This is the tried and tested model giving a guaranteed long term income stream not easily open to evasion in practically every other developed country.

What parts would make people already under the cosh even more strained?
Theres a big difference in making someone earning over 100k a little worse of then hitting the same members of society with increased taxes in which you have many household where both parents work for an accumulated gross income of 54k a year.

dxhound2005

Hijpo wrote: »

What parts would make people already under the cosh even more strained?
Theres a big difference in making someone earning over 100k a little worse of then hitting the same members of society with increased taxes in which you have many household where both parents work for an accumulated gross income of 54k a year.

Do you think any government would get much thanks for increasing DIRT, carbon taxes, betting tax and the price of cigarettes? Anyway what do you think about a broad based private property tax, it would pick up substantial income from the groups that SIPTU want to target?

Hijpo

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Do you think any government would get much thanks for increasing DIRT, carbon taxes, betting tax and the price of cigarettes? Anyway what do you think about a broad based private property tax, it would pick up substantial income from the groups that SIPTU want to target?

The taxes proposed are aimed at people who are in a better position to be able to meet the charges. Simply saying "you own a house give us a grand in return for nothing we dont care how much you earn" is completely unacceptable and to be of the opinion that its acceptable to do so is arrogant and shows little appreciation for the people who already contribute the most and cost the least to keep.
People will smoke, people wil gamble IF they have the money to do so. People HAVE to live in there homes, there homes are there priority and money should not be extorted from them because they are in a situation they have to be in.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

Politicians introduce pay caps on bankers and their advisers, then go on to blatantly ignore them.

Good enough for them........

So if one person breaks a law its ok for eveyone else to do it, are they breaking a law by ignoring the pay caps?

donalg1

robbie7730 wrote: »

Do you ever break any laws?

No

bgrizzley

donalg1 wrote: »

No

everyone has prolly broken a law, though they mightnt even know it(unless you are perfect:)).

you may have once driven with a tail-light bulb blown for a few miles.
"Sorry garda i didnt know it was blown." "tough sh1t its the law"

Ever glanced at a hot chick while driving your car? "Sorry Garda she was haawt" "tough sht1, driving without due consideration"

Slick50

Geuze wrote: »

High payroll or wages taxes give people incentives to evade or avoid them, by not working, not doing overtime, trying to be paid cash in the shadow economy, etc.

So introducing a third band of tax on higher wages, is going to deter someone from taking up a position paying them.. say €80k?. I don't think so.

In the current economic climate, with people struggling to pay everyday bills, people would refuse to do extra hours? (if they could get them) Not someone on the average industrial wage.

Geuze wrote: »

I must live in a house. When a property tax is introduced, I still live in a house. No change of behaviour, no direct impact on labour supply. I won't work less as a result.

Whereas the current crazy 52% marginal income tax rate causes people to work less, avoid tax, even evade tax.

In this climate? You are kidding! Unless you mean when the've lost their jobs.

They are, in some sense, "lump-sum" taxes, not linked to wage earnings, and so shouldn't influence your work decisions.

Which is exactly what makes it unfair.

Geuze

Yes, high marginal income tax rates may well lead to less work done.

I myself consider refusing extra work due to the 52% MTR.

OK, I do take the work (this is your point), but somebody out there either doesn't do it, or tries to evade the high MTR.

MNCs are now suggesting that even though our CT rate is low, our MTR is getting too high to attract mobile executive talent.

We can collect more tax without the excessive damage caused by too high MTRs.