Clare Co Co pass motion demanding no more household charge letters

Godge

gerryo777 wrote: »

LOL.
So, someone who owns a house worth €100k and owes €300k on it is wealthy?
The lugha school of bu11****e economics, I suppose we'll be told about the 'notional' income derived from it next.

I despair sometimes.....

Yes, because eventually they will pay the loan and will own the house, or else they will die and the insurance will pay the mortgage and his estate will own the house.

Either way, that is something a homeless person will never have.

gerryo777

Godge wrote: »

Yes, because eventually they will pay the loan and will own the house, or else they will die and the insurance will pay the mortgage and his estate will own the house.

Either way, that is something a homeless person will never have.

Ah, I see.

So, an asset worth €100k, that cost €300k plus interest, is classed as wealth.
That's the sort of twisted economics that have this country where it is.

Homeless people aren't liable to pay any tax, so what they have to do with this is beyond me, mind you, the way this kip is going we will have a hell of a lot more homeless people in the future.

yore

gerryo777 wrote: »

LOL.
So, someone who owns a house worth €100k and owes €300k on it is wealthy?
The lugha school of bu11****e economics, I suppose we'll be told about the 'notional' income derived from it next.

I despair sometimes.....

this reminds me of the eejits who were crying back in the early 2000s after their equity linked SSIAs took a nosedive in the wake of the dotcom bubble. They were crying that they wanted the government to top up what they'd lost.

When the scheme finished and the markets had rebounded, those equity linked plans came out better off than the fixed plans. Yet they weren't making any noises to share those gains were they

That's effectively what you're asking. you're asking us to top you up mid-scheme even though it is likely that you will end the scheme with more than those not in on it.

Chips Lovell

It's probably useful to distinguish between "wealth" and "wealthy" here. A property tax is a tax on wealth. Describing it as a tax on the wealthy is inaccurate, at least in terms of how most people define the word.

gerryo777

yore wrote: »

this reminds me of the eejits who were crying back in the early 2000s after their equity linked SSIAs took a nosedive in the wake of the dotcom bubble. They were crying that they wanted the government to top up what they'd lost.

When the scheme finished and the markets had rebounded, those equity linked plans came out better off than the fixed plans. Yet they weren't making any noises to share those gains were they

That's effectively what you're asking. you're asking us to top you up mid-scheme even though it is likely that you will end the scheme with more than those not in on it.

I'm not sure what way your thought processes are tbh, it's hard to keep up.
I'm not asking anyone to 'top me up mid-scheme' whatever that means.
Who's 'us'? Do you think I don't pay tax or contribute my fair share or something?
Your posts seem a bit bitter because you say you didn't get to buy a house and can't afford one. Is that a reason to tax the bollix out of people who provide their own homes?

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's probably useful to distinguish between "wealth" and "wealthy" here. A property tax is a tax on wealth. Describing it as a tax on the wealthy is inaccurate, at least in terms of how most people define the word.

Ok, explain then how someone who is paying €300k plus interest for an asset worth €100k has wealth?

Chips Lovell

They still own an asset of significant value, albeit maybe worth less than they may have anticipated.

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

They still own an asset of significant value, albeit maybe worth less than they may have anticipated.

So then, if someone had a €100k cash 'asset' in the bank, they should taxed on that too. Not DIRT, which is only on the interest earned, but on the asset itself.
Or if someone has jewels worth €100, surely by your logic that should be taxed too.

You see, it's really down to the simple fact that money can be exhorted from people who own homes. It's a racket that criminals would be proud of.

Chips Lovell

Essentially you're arguing that unless all forms of wealth are taxed, none should be taxed?

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Essentially you're arguing that unless all forms of wealth are taxed, none should be taxed?

Well, why one and not the other?

uberalles

yore wrote: »

I have no anger. I just think that the wealthy should pay their fair share.

The country is currently going through a bad time. I don't think that we should be supporting a nouveau elite aristocracy who feel entitled to wealth "just because".
Do you think we should give a free pass to every eejit who bought three or four extra apartments to leech off other people who just didn't have access to the same finance at the time? Fair enough if you developed and designed a sustainable property that added to society, but most just outbid their "poorer" neighbour on a house and then rented it back to him so that he could pay for it for the landlord. Asking to give that landlord a free pass means society at large paying for that greedy person's assets. Then in 10 or 15 years when the economy is going again, that landlord will have their, now valuable again, asset and the poorer person will still have nothing. And that is supposed to be fair?

Outbidding your neighbour on a property and then renting the property back to him does not contribute to society. It just leeches off it! So if you are a landlord and you were caught swimming naked when the tide went out, then tough shite my friend!

+1

Agree with you

yore

gerryo777 wrote: »

I'm not sure what way your thought processes are tbh, it's hard to keep up.
I'm not asking anyone to 'top me up mid-scheme' whatever that means.
Who's 'us'? Do you think I don't pay tax or contribute my fair share or something?
Your posts seem a bit bitter because you say you didn't get to buy a house and can't afford one. Is that a reason to tax the bollix out of people who provide their own homes?

I never said that I didn't get or couldn't afford to buy one Of course, if I had been unable to buy one, the greedy fu$kers who were using their cheap credit and buying extra houses and hyper-inflating the housing market would not have helped me.

Top up "mid scheme" is a reference to the SSIA. People chose either fixed or equity linked SSIAs. In or around 2000, equities tumbled and so did equity linked SSIAs. They moaned and whinged that they wanted a top-up. They wanted society to give them back what they had "lost" up to that point which was "mid-scheme". They didn't get their money but the markets rebounded.

You seem to want a free run because the market price of your investments have dipped. when they recover in the future, like the SSIA equity plans did, you might not be as quick to want to socialise your profits.

If you have property you have wealth and should be taxed on it. If you don't want to pay your tax then sell it. Will you sell it? Probably not because you'll want to wait for the markets to recover. Which proves my point

uberalles

gerryo777 wrote: »

Who are 'the wealthy' you speak about?

On another note, you do understand that people who rent are getting the use of the property without having a mortgage over their heads, without having to pay for maintenance of the property, without having to pay a property tax, without having to pay for the local services they use that we hear so much about etc etc.

I think you'll also find that the 'poor' you keep going on about aren't as poor as you think.

BTW, you'll aso find that the country/economy we're all meant to look up to (Germany) has a far higher percentage of renters than we have here, and the renters there have to pay a local service charge too.

Renters don't get rode there with huge rent increases like what happened here in the boom. I had rent increases of 250 euro PM during the boom. Another year the increase was 175 pm. Greed

Now you are crying?

gerryo777

yore wrote: »

I never said that I didn't get or couldn't afford to buy one Of course, if I had been unable to buy one, the greedy fu$kers who were using their cheap credit and buying extra houses and hyper-inflating the housing market would not have helped me.

Top up "mid scheme" is a reference to the SSIA. People chose either fixed or equity linked SSIAs. In or around 2000, equities tumbled and so did equity linked SSIAs. They moaned and whinged that they wanted a top-up. They wanted society to give them back what they had "lost" up to that point which was "mid-scheme". They didn't get their money but the markets rebounded.

You seem to want a free run because the market price of your investments have dipped. when they recover in the future, like the SSIA equity plans did, you might not be as quick to want to socialise your profits.

If you have property you have wealth and should be taxed on it. If you don't want to pay your tax then sell it. Will you sell it? Probably not because you'll want to wait for the markets to recover. Which proves my point

First, I refer you to your own post, no. 40.

Secondly, I am paying for my house to rear my family in, not to sell it.
You seem to think everyone was buying and selling houses to make profits.
There's 600,000 or so people in this country refusing to get involved with this extortion racket. Why do you think that is?

gerryo777

uberalles wrote: »

Renters don't get rode there with huge rent increases like what happened here in the boom. I had rent increases of 250 euro PM during the boom. Another year the increase was 175 pm. Greed

Now you are crying?

You say greed, most would say market forces.

I'm not crying about anything, I'm just telling you that I'm paying as much as I'm going to and it'll be a cold day in hell when I pay a ground rent on my own home.
If your happy enough to pay extortion money, that's up to you (that's if you are actually liable to pay it!)

Chips Lovell

gerryo777 wrote: »

Well, why one and not the other?

Well savings are already taxed but you're conveniently saying that DIRT doesn't count. But if you're positing that a property tax is unfair because people's jewellery isn't taxed, be my guest.

yore

gerryo777 wrote: »

First, I refer you to your own post, no. 40.

Yeas, I've copied it below. I state I don't have a house. I don't say whether or not I could or can afford one.

yore wrote: »

No. I'm neither. Neither am I from Co. Clare .

I don't have a house, either to live in or spare ones that I think other poorer people should be paying for for me.

But this isn't even a thread on FG or the PS


You ignored my question and tried to bypass it by answering your own. I'll take that as a yes. Obviously it's the internet and anyone can claim anything anyway.

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Well savings are already taxed but you're conveniently saying that DIRT doesn't count. But if you're positing that a property tax is unfair because people's jewellery isn't taxed, be my guest.

DIRT is on the interest earned, not the asset itself.

gerryo777

yore wrote: »

Yeas, I've copied it below. I state I don't have a house. I don't say whether or not I could or can afford one.

Are you homeless then? "I don't have a house".....

Chips Lovell

gerryo777 wrote: »

DIRT is on the interest earned, not the asset itself.

It is still a tax on the asset. In this case the value of the asset is deposit plus interest.

yore

gerryo777 wrote: »

Are you homeless then? "I don't have a house".....

Yeah I'm homeless. I'm typing this on my ipad in between asking passers by for loose change.

Seriously though, I might be just waiting for the time when all the greedy people with two or three houses that they can't afford, face reality and the market picks up again. There isn't exactly a lot of houses with realistic asking prices out there on the market is there?

Are you going to claim that the same landlords are doing people who are renting a service?

Or maybe I'm a 14 year old living at home or someone who lives on the other side of the world. I stated "I don't have a house" as I was also stating I wasn't a supporter of whatever political party or in the PS (whatever relevance that was supposed to have)

Peanut2011

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's a property tax, so if prople don't own a property it stands to reason they shouldn't be liable.

As for the decision to use it to fund local services. First of all it isn't funding local services exclusively. Much of the local authorities budgets still comes from general taxation, which everyone pays. Secondly, it property owners are asked to pay proportionally more, it's because they stand to gain most out of local services, i.e. they affect the value of their property.

NO, it's not property tax, it is Household Charge! It was also brought out to fund local services!

I would love to know how property owners gain the most out of local services?

Godge

gerryo777 wrote: »

You see, it's really down to the simple fact that money can be exhorted from people who own homes. It's a racket that criminals would be proud of.

You have a strange view of taxation.

I suppose income tax is money that can be extorted out of people who work.
VAT is money that can be extorted out of people who buy stuff.
Excise duty is money that can be extorted out of people who smoke and drink.

Hey, probably worst of all, you hate CAT, which is money that can be extorted out of people who die, as if they didn't suffer enough.

Man up and pay your taxation, don't be whinging and crying, playing the poor mouth while there are people homeless in the streets.

gerryo777

Godge wrote: »

You have a strange view of taxation.

I suppose income tax is money that can be extorted out of people who work.
VAT is money that can be extorted out of people who buy stuff.
Excise duty is money that can be extorted out of people who smoke and drink.

Hey, probably worst of all, you hate CAT, which is money that can be extorted out of people who die, as if they didn't suffer enough.

Man up and pay your taxation, don't be whinging and crying, playing the poor mouth while there are people homeless in the streets.

LMAO!

Godge

gerryo777 wrote: »

LMAO!

Wonderful answer to the point raised:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

bmaxi

Peanut2011 wrote: »

NO, it's not property tax, it is Household Charge! It was also brought out to fund local services!

I would love to know how property owners gain the most out of local services?

Then there are those of us who live in managed estates, who pay for their own roads, street lighting, maintenance etc. If you want an example of what your taxes go on, take a read of this.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1117/1224326705467.html
talk about rubbing salt in the wound.

gerryo777

bmaxi wrote: »

Then there are those of us who live in managed estates, who pay for their own roads, street lighting, maintenance etc. If you want an example of what your taxes go on, take a read of this.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1117/1224326705467.html
talk about rubbing salt in the wound.

The Banana Republic is alive and well....

Peanut2011

bmaxi wrote: »

Then there are those of us who live in managed estates, who pay for their own roads, street lighting, maintenance etc. If you want an example of what your taxes go on, take a read of this.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1117/1224326705467.html
talk about rubbing salt in the wound.

Exatly bmaxi! I live in the managed estate and council does not come anywhere near us for anything. I would gladly swap the management fee for the household charge.