revenue issues threat to every homeowner in the country.

dxhound2005

Some back of an envelope economics.

Three bed semi in a commuter town bought in 2006 for €300,000, mortgage €250,000 over 35 years. House would now sell for €140,000.

Total HHC/LPT for five years 2012-2016 €888, about €3.50 a week. Mortgage for one month €1100 plus.

I think most people will get used to the idea. Far worse for this example would be if interest rates started going up. They were well over 10% for long periods in the past 30 years and as high as 18% at times.

Le_Dieux

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Just for a start.....slash their own salaries, perks, kwango's ( which mr ek promised he would do, but appears not to have the balls to carry this promise out), have a big look at the LA's. We have a glass house up in Naas, which must have cost an absolute fortune. EG of inneptitude: I applied for my new card driving license 4-5 weeks ago, was told I will have the card within 3 weeks, yet only last week, i got my CC payment slip, with the following written on a piece of paper: You will have Your new license IN DUE COURSE.

Get govt departments working like a 1st world country, and stop acting like a third world dictatorsship.

After all above is done, then perhaps start hammering the slave in the street.

Just a follow-up on this: Due course came the next day, with my new card license arriving.

But now, yet another underhand trick by this bunch of thieves masquerading as a government. I had a license for driving almost everything, including a motorbike, which I have NEVER driven in my entire life ( am in my late 50's). Now, they have seperated a van license from a car license, ( as well as truck categories), and licensed is valid for these ONLY FOR 5 YEARS. So, I'll have to incur more expense just to keep my van, & truck license valid.

BE WARNED, the lowness this bunch will go to screw you is mind-boggling.:mad::mad::mad:

Bruthal

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I don't think I am. As I said, aside from the advantages of having a more sensible taxation system, if you're in difficulties, the option of being able to defer this is far more preferable than having your income tax hiked again or your benefits cut.

Consider someone with a house worth €150,000. Their liability this year is €112 and on a full year basis its, €225. That means they've got to come up with an extra €2.15 a week this year and an extra €4.33 a week thereafter to cover the tax.

Now, there's no doubt people are in difficulties and those extra few euro may be the straw that breaks the camel's back for some. So they opt to defer the tax till they get back on their feet again. Say five years. You do that and the interest bill comes to €112.

Now that's no an insignificant sum, but if you're struggling with a mortgage, it's a tiny proportion of extra debt and a small price to pay to avoid going under.

Other alternative taxes like raising income tax don't have that kind of get out to them.

But it is not a get out, it is simply adding to peoples debts. How adding to someones debts is a get out, is a mystery.

Bruthal

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Just a follow-up on this: Due course came the next day, with my new card license arriving.

But now, yet another underhand trick by this bunch of thieves masquerading as a government. I had a license for driving almost everything, including a motorbike, which I have NEVER driven in my entire life ( am in my late 50's). Now, they have seperated a van license from a car license, ( as well as truck categories), and licensed is valid for these ONLY FOR 5 YEARS. So, I'll have to incur more expense just to keep my van, & truck license valid.

BE WARNED, the lowness this bunch will go to screw you is mind-boggling.:mad::mad::mad:

They know as a nation, we are fools.

People`s debt is taxed and all, with credit card stamp duty. No end to it.

Chips Lovell

Bruthal wrote: »

But it is not a get out, it is simply adding to peoples debts. How adding to someones debts is a get out, is a mystery.

If debt by definition was bad, none of us would have a mortgage. Would you rather pay now and tip your family into poverty or pay it, along with an extra €100 five years down the line to avoid that? Or would you rather not have that choice at all and have to contribute more now whether you like it or not?

dxhound2005

Bruthal wrote: »

But it is not a get out, it is simply adding to peoples debts. How adding to someones debts is a get out, is a mystery.

It's an equal mystery to me why some people think breaking the law and adding to their debts is a good choice (the Won't Pay brigade).

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If debt by definition was bad, none of us would have a mortgage. Would you rather pay now and tip your family into poverty or pay it, along with an extra €100 five years down the line to avoid that? Or would you rather not have that choice at all and have to contribute more now whether you like it or not?

But your alternative (and I mean no disrespect) is that if you can't pay up, pass the debt on to your family, who may already have serious financial difficulties as is.

This has all arose from the 'coup' the gov achieved by deferring the promissory notes.

Chips Lovell

SamHall wrote: »

But your alternative (and I mean no disrespect) is that if you can't pay up, pass the debt on to your family, who may already have serious financial difficulties as is.

Again, you have to compare this against alternative measures where you may have no alternative but to pay up.

You aren't necessarily passing it on to your family. You can discharge it at any time, such as a few years down the road.

Bruthal

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It's an equal mystery to me why some people think breaking the law and adding to their debts is a good choice (the Won't Pay brigade).

Are you another who breaks no laws ever?

Banjo String

Bruthal wrote: »

Are you another who breaks no laws ever?

Dail privileges.

squod

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It's an equal mystery to me why some people think breaking the law and adding to their debts is a good choice (the Won't Pay brigade).

Bigger picture DX. You know the people who dreamed up this tax fuhken hate us for sheltering tax-dodging criminals. You know they're having a poke at us by levying this stupid tax on people because they think they can get away with it.

Bottom line DX. You're playing for the wrong team. No-one believes a bluddy word you're saying.

Ireland’s role in facilitating tax avoidance by multinationals has also annoyed officials and politicians in Paris and Berlin. They take a dim view of how Ireland’s low tax rate attracts multinational profits here at the expense of revenue collection in larger EU states such as France and Germany.
The role played by Ireland in the tax affairs of multinationals was highlighted recently in a lengthy article in the New York Times. The report told of how schools in California were laying off teachers for lack of funding. These included schools that were educating the children of employees of the most successful technology companies in the world – companies that had gone to great lengths to avoid paying taxes in California and the US generally.

Bruthal

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If debt by definition was bad, none of us would have a mortgage.

I didnt give the definition of debt.

Would you rather pay now and tip your family into poverty or pay it, along with an extra €100 five years down the line to avoid that?

That really does read like a government justification of adding more burden onto desperate families, while completely detached from any possibility of the same affliction themselves.

Or would you rather not have that choice at all and have to contribute more now whether you like it or not?

See above. I mean, you are rock solidly referring to this deferral setup as if you came up with the idea yourself.

Wibbs

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Consider someone with a house worth €150,000. Their liability this year is €112 and on a full year basis its, €225. That means they've got to come up with an extra €2.15 a week this year and an extra €4.33 a week thereafter to cover the tax.

I've seen average figures likely higher than that, but OK.

Now, there's no doubt people are in difficulties and those extra few euro may be the straw that breaks the camel's back for some. So they opt to defer the tax till they get back on their feet again. Say five years. You do that and the interest bill comes to €112.

Now that's no an insignificant sum, but if you're struggling with a mortgage, it's a tiny proportion of extra debt and a small price to pay to avoid going under.

Eh V while my maths ability tends to go south when I run outa fingers, you forgot about the principle yearly sum this imaginary household has deferred. Over five years that comes to 1125.00, plus the 112.00 interest. Would that all they had to pay was 100 odd quid after 5 years.

Consider many on the higher bands. Many people in ordinary suburbs throughout the country in average semi dees with only three beds will be paying 495 a year. After deferring for 5 years they're looking down the barrel of a 2475.00 bill, excluding the interest, while looking for another 500 quid for the following year. Never mind the water charges etc. Never mind the tendency for tax to rise rather than fall now we're all in the line of sight.

By the by if someone defaults on payment that rises to 8% interest per annum.

Other alternative taxes like raising income tax don't have that kind of get out to them.

Again you're entirely missing the point. If I'm paying income tax that tends to mean I've an income such as it may be, so if I lose that income I also stop paying income tax. With this tax that is not taken into account, only deferred. The financial ball is merely kicked down the road growing like a snowball down a hill as it goes. Adding more debt to an already endebted population. Big bloody difference right there.

dxhound2005

squod wrote: »

Bigger picture DX. You know the people who dreamed up this tax fuhken hate us for sheltering tax-dodging criminals. You know they're having a poke at us by levying this stupid tax on people because they think they can get away with it.

Bottom line DX. You're playing for the wrong team. No-one believes a bluddy word you're saying.

I enjoy reading about the other chancers with the Don't Register, Don't pay mindset.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/tax-defaulters-list-includes-three-tribunal-witnesses-224596.html

Banjo String

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I enjoy reading about the other chancers with the Don't Register, Don't pay mindset.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/tax-defaulters-list-includes-three-tribunal-witnesses-224596.html

Wasn't your party in that list some years ago?

(open to correction here)

Wibbs

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If debt by definition was bad, none of us would have a mortgage.

Actualy I would consider debt or rather the ease of credit at crazy rates to people who may not be able to pay down the line is bad. Credit is what got us into this mess. The lure of "easy money" fostered by the financial system and bought into by people who thought they could have it all now and pay, or not later.

Would you rather pay now and tip your family into poverty or pay it, along with an extra €100 five years down the line to avoid that? Or would you rather not have that choice at all and have to contribute more now whether you like it or not?

Eh V you're still missing the principle yearly tax accruing over the five years.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Again, you have to compare this against alternative measures where you may have no alternative but to pay up.

Again income tax, requires income to tax. Lose said income, no income tax. The house tax never lets up. Oh yes it "defers", which means an even bigger hit down the line.

OK lets imagine for a moment income tax was run the same way. In that scenario, even if you were out of work for a year you would be still charged the same rate you were while working, only they would "defer" that tax until you were working again and put it on top of your new rate. Would you work in a country like that? My arse you would V. See the difference now?

You aren't necessarily passing it on to your family. You can discharge it at any time, such as a few years down the road.

Few years? How many. Say ten? On an average semi dee that would be five grand you'd need to discharge at once. Plus interest. If and it's a big if the tax rate remained the same. It would be likely closer to 6 grand.

Chips Lovell

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh V while my maths ability tends to go south when I run outa fingers, you forgot about the principle yearly sum this imaginary household has deferred. Over five years that comes to 1125.00, plus the 112.00 interest. Would that all they had to pay was 100 odd quid after 5 years.

I'm not forgetting the principal. What I'm saying is that the cost of deferral to a person in those circumstances is going to be €112. That isn't a lot extra to pay to get out of a hole.

Bruthal

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'm not forgetting the principal. What I'm saying is that the cost of deferral to a person in those circumstances is going to be €112. That isn't a lot extra to pay to get out of a hole.

Its a fair whack to pay to get into a bigger one.

Earlier you said who in their right mind would not pay the HC in early 2012, and pay it this year for an extra €100

Wibbs

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'm not forgetting the principal. What I'm saying is that the cost of deferral to a person in those circumstances is going to be €112. That isn't a lot extra to pay to get out of a hole.

While avoiding my other points. The cost of deferral to a person in those circumstances is NOT going to be €112, that's the penalty, the debt keeps building and you're completely ignoring this point. For a start they don't pay the deferral penalty until they pay the principle back taxes. So there's no getting out of a hole involved, merely digging it deeper.

bgrizzley

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I enjoy reading about the other chancers with the Don't Register, Don't pay mindset.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/tax-defaulters-list-includes-three-tribunal-witnesses-224596.html

your enjoyment could be curtailed by a short list from now on, with all their manpower dedicated to chasing those ole' E2's per week...

Chips Lovell

Wibbs wrote: »

Actualy I would consider debt or rather the ease of credit at crazy rates to people who may not be able to pay down the line is bad. Credit is what got us into this mess. The lure of "easy money" fostered by the financial system and bought into by people who thought they could have it all now and pay, or not later. .

That's a bit of an over-simplification. Debt is not always bad. In some circumstances, it's good. Because without it only a rare few of us would be able to buy a house. Or start a business or whatever.

Bullseye1

Advising someone to defer the property tax is as crazy as telling someone to pay back the minimum payment on your credit card.

Bruthal

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That's a bit of an over-simplification. Debt is not always bad. In some circumstances, it's good. Because without it only a rare few of us would be able to buy a house. Or start a business or whatever.

What debt is good when a deferral is needed due to the debt?

Chips Lovell

Wibbs wrote: »

While avoiding my other points. The cost of deferral to a person in those circumstances is NOT going to be €112, that's the penalty, the debt keeps building and you're completely ignoring this point. For a start they don't pay the deferral penalty until they pay the principle back taxes. So there's no getting out of a hole involved, merely digging it deeper.

It is the cost of deferal in that you had the same tax liability whether your opt to defer or not, excluding the interest.

You're operating on the assumption that people's circumstances are never going to change and that if they're struggling now, they'll still be struggling five, ten years down the line and thus kicking the can further down the road.

And you're also operating on the assumption that if we didn't introduce this, then there'd be no alternative revenue raising exercise that didn't have such options built in. As I said earlier, you can't defer a hike in Income Tax or defer a cut in your dole. Once that happens, the money's gone.

bgrizzley

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That's a bit of an over-simplification. Debt is not always bad. In some circumstances, it's good. Because without it only a rare few of us would be able to buy a house. Or start a business or whatever.

at least the debt you incur with a mortgage gives you something tangible, a roof, or a business loan, an income(hopefully:))

What do you get from this debt? please dont say services!


Debt is not always bad but its the worst in this scenario

darkhorse

seamus wrote: »

What do you suggest they tax instead of property? Can you give me an example of a stable tax which can bring in the same income as the LPT but which is guaranteed to not put any families at risk?

Me, Me, Pick Me, Pick Me.
INCOME TAX.

Wibbs

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That's a bit of an over-simplification. Debt is not always bad. In some circumstances, it's good. Because without it only a rare few of us would be able to buy a house. Or start a business or whatever.

"Not always", "some" thems the operative words. The plain fact is the current global and especially European mess was and is down to overstretching because of buying into the easy credit/debt cycle. Indeed I'd agree with you, debt isn't always bad, people unfortunately often are. In the hands of sensible people a credit card is a very handy tool, in the hands of buy now shít yourself later people it's the work of the very devil. Throw in interest rates that are close to usury and they're beyond dodgy. Course the cynics might suggest the CC companies want people to get into a certain level of debt, knowing that they'll likely never pay the principle, but so long as the oul interest keeps coming in they'll earn their principle back and have them for decades if not life. The pay off on mortgages is very sweet too. Even better if people get into difficulties, then you can "defer" on to the back end and/or penalise them. Win win for the lenders. With interest only they're really onto a winner.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It is the cost of deferal in that you had the same tax liability whether your opt to defer or not, excluding the interest.

You're operating on the assumption that people's circumstances are never going to change and that if they're struggling now, they'll still be struggling five, ten years down the line and thus kicking the can further down the road.

If they're moving a debt on they are kicking the can down the road.

And you're also operating on the assumption that if we didn't introduce this, then there'd be no alternative revenue raising exercise that didn't have such options built in. As I said earlier, you can't defer a hike in Income Tax or defer a cut in your dole. Once that happens, the money's gone.

I know this may come as a shock to the credit kiddies deferred pain principle, but that's actually easier to deal with as it's happening now and it's over now. It's not building and building. Like I pointed out with my example if income tax was run like this you wouldn't want to work in a tax system like that. Income tax assumes the ability to pay a portion of that income, but just because someone has a house does not mean they have the means to pay a tax on it.

Then look at how daft people became on easy credit. Acting like millionaires on a busmans salary. Buy now pay later! Yay. Deferment is another example of that and wait until they see the same crap happen again.

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

People on low incomes or in mortgage difficulties can apply for a deferral.

What's the limit of income that would allow a homeowner to apply for a deferral.

Wibbs

darkhorse wrote: »

Me, Me, Pick Me, Pick Me.
INCOME TAX.

Maybe, but partially. The thing is I do actually favour some sort of a property tax, but based on the ability to pay. So I would exclude those who can't. I wouldn't saddle them with the utter bullshít that is deferral. I'd include those who have already paid, often handsomely those who've lobbed out thousands on stamp duty for example. I'd exclude those folks who are in mortgage arrears for longer than six months. Or if they still want their pound of flesh give groups like that a significantly lower tax band that they may be able to pay. EG I have no mortgage. My neighbour has and is really struggling in arrears after losing his job. I don't have three kids to support, he does. I dont have the bank ringing me at all hours hounding me for payment I don't have and adding monthly penalties to the already growing arrears, he does. We'll both be asked to pay the same. How the glorified fcuk is that equitable? I'll give you a hint, its not.

spank_inferno

Your example has merit Wibbs.

The thing is, you would have the whole country coming up with some "inability to pay" excuse.

There are already a lot people who will get opt outs.

bgrizzley

darkhorse wrote: »

What's the limit of income that would allow a homeowner to apply for a deferral.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/lpt/deferring-payment.html

15k for a single person 25k for couple.

Wibbs

spank_inferno wrote: »

Your example has merit Wibbs.

The thing is, you would have the whole country coming up with some "inability to pay" excuse.

I'd be damned strict about it. Bank statements, financial records etc, full disclosure or **** right off. This current way is the lazy easy way of course. The blunderbuss approach.

There are already a lot people who will get opt outs.

Who SI? All I can see are "deferrals" in the vast majority of cases.

dxhound2005

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe, but partially. The thing is I do actually favour some sort of a property tax, but based on the ability to pay. So I would exclude those who can't. I wouldn't saddle them with the utter bullshít that is deferral. I'd include those who have already paid, often handsomely those who've lobbed out thousands on stamp duty for example. I'd exclude those folks who are in mortgage arrears for longer than six months. Or if they still want their pound of flesh give groups like that a significantly lower tax band that they may be able to pay. EG I have no mortgage. My neighbour has and is really struggling in arrears after losing his job. I don't have three kids to support, he does. I dont have the bank ringing me at all hours hounding me for payment I don't have and adding monthly penalties to the already growing arrears, he does. We'll both be asked to pay the same. How the glorified fcuk is that equitable? I'll give you a hint, its not.

Inability to pay shouldn't rule out a significant number. 90% of people at work who want to work, 75% of mortgages not in any trouble, probably 30% of those that are is deliberate. And there are hundreds of thousands of houses owned outright with no mortgage. One million households with Pay TV, 300,000 people with more than one house, €120 billion in private savings etc etc.

An alternative could be something like Council Tax benefit in the UK for poor people but I prefer the deferral method. People who want to will eventually find work and mortgages will be paid off in time. The sum to be deferred for five years is typically just one months' mortgage.

tayto lover

Nobody should pay a tax on THEIR own private home no matter what.

They will just have to come up with an alternative way to raise revenue.
People will always rebel against an attack on their private residence.

darkhorse

tayto lover wrote: »

It would make a lot of people a bit happier trying to pay it.

There is no point going over old ground again. People have suggested many ways and alternatives to Property Tax but they fall on deaf ears.
The party line just has to be towed it seems.

Hey, tayto, when they gag even their own TDs for trying to speak up for the people(Peter Matthews).

Chips Lovell

Wibbs wrote: »

If they're moving a debt on they are kicking the can down the road.

Only if your circumstances never change, which is unlikely in most cases. If you find yourself better off in a few years time, the cost of paying it back, plus interest, may have less of an impact then than it would now if you're teetering on the poverty line at present.

dxhound2005

tayto lover wrote: »

Nobody should pay a tax on THEIR own private home no matter what.

They will just have to come up with an alternative way to raise revenue.
People will always rebel against an attack on their private residence.

As someone once said the worst sort of tax is a new tax. Except it is a very old tax, uniquely abandoned here for 35 years. Normality is being restored and people will get used to it.

darkhorse

seamus wrote: »

And these are all stable forms of taxation which will not cause any family to have to suffer economic hardship?

But, seamus, families are suffering economic hardship for the past few years. From now on in, families will not only be suffering economic hardship, but many homeowners, who otherwise may never have been in trouble with the law, are going end up being criminilized, as they will not be in a position to pay the future taxes coming down the road. Sure a lot of people cant afford to pay their current bills. Incidently, who would suffer the most from higher income tax, the rich or the poor?

username123

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Only if your circumstances never change, which is unlikely in most cases. If you find yourself better off in a few years time, the cost of paying it back, plus interest, may have less of an impact then than it would now if you're teetering on the poverty line at present.

Most cases of deferral will be with circumstances that dont change because it will overwhelmingly be older retired people on state pensions who have the kind of low incomes that will fall into the deferral bracket. In younger folk one or both may be working.

Theyll never be able to pay it plus interest and penalties and it will be taken from their estate after they die. So the government will be grave-robbing.

Incidentally, deferral at an interest rate of 4% may well be unconstitutional, as the government will be engaging in a form of money lending, so its quite likely it will lead to a constitutional challenge.

dxhound2005

darkhorse wrote: »

But, seamus, families are suffering economic hardship for the past few years. From now on in, families will not only be suffering economic hardship, but many homeowners, who otherwise may never have been in trouble with the law, are going end up being criminilized, as they will not be in a position to pay the future taxes coming down the road. Sure a lot of people cant afford to pay their current bills. Incidently, who would suffer the most from higher income tax, the rich or the poor?

If people have more money for income tax then they must have money for property tax unless they are all renting. One good thing about property tax is that it hits the rich in their mansions who may be able to evade other taxes. I wouldn't have criminalised myself for a tax of €100 covering 18 months (€1.50 a week) and I think anyone who did is foolish both legally and financially.

darkhorse

seamus wrote: »

Right. Any reason why you haven't gone to the government with details?

I have this one, Well, seamus, we sorta mentioned it to some of the govt TDs.
I think one of them might have mentioned it in the big blue house. Have to get back to ya on who it might have been.

---

Oh yeah, it was Peter Matthews.

username123

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If people have more money for income tax then they must have money for property tax unless they are all renting. One good thing about property tax is that it hits the rich in their mansions who may be able to evade other taxes. I wouldn't have criminalised myself for a tax of €100 covering 18 months (€1.50 a week) and I think anyone who did is foolish both legally and financially.

eh, the rich are being protected with the tax not being charged on more than 1 acre!

MadsL

username123 wrote: »

Theyll never be able to pay it plus interest and penalties and it will be taken from their estate after they die. So the government will be grave-robbing.

Is there no end to this hyperbole? I suppose you regard most taxes as some form of theft.

dxhound2005

username123 wrote: »

Most cases of deferral will be with circumstances that dont change because it will overwhelmingly be older retired people on state pensions who have the kind of low incomes that will fall into the deferral bracket. In younger folk one or both may be working.

Theyll never be able to pay it plus interest and penalties and it will be taken from their estate after they die. So the government will be grave-robbing.

Incidentally, deferral at an interest rate of 4% may well be unconstitutional, as the government will be engaging in a form of money lending, so its quite likely it will lead to a constitutional challenge.

Given the very generous level of pensions in this country and the fact that the retired people will overwhelmingly have no mortgage to pay it shouldn't really be difficult in many cases. People tend to get richer as they get older and it would be a foolish person who arrived at retirement with nothing but the state pension to live on while being the owner outright of a private house.

Did you read through the act to form your interesting legal opinion?

bgrizzley

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If people have more money for income tax then they must have money for property tax unless they are all renting. One good thing about property tax is that it hits the rich in their mansions who may be able to evade other taxes. I wouldn't have criminalised myself for a tax of €100 covering 18 months (€1.50 a week) and I think anyone who did is foolish both legally and financially.

Didnt FG exempt anything over an acre? i think that covers most of their buddies:rolleyes:

EDIT
beat to the punch;)

Bruthal

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I wouldn't have criminalised myself for a tax of €100 covering 18 months (€1.50 a week) and I think anyone who did is foolish both legally and financially.

You might have if you had been in certain circumstances. But many cant see beyond their own comfort zone.

dxhound2005

username123 wrote: »

eh, the rich are being protected with the tax not being charged on more than 1 acre!

Not as much as in the North under Sinn Fein where there is an upper limit of £400,000. People with houses worth millions pay the same as a person with a house worth £400,000. And they give allowances to landlords for their non family home. Here there is no upper limit, in fact houses worth over €1 million pay a higher percentage.

Banjo String

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Not as much as in the North under Sinn Fein where there is an upper limit of £400,000. People with houses worth millions pay the same as a person with a house worth £400,000. And they give allowances to landlords for their non family home. Here there is no upper limit, in fact houses worth over €1 million pay a higher percentage.

Under SF



Please.clarify, I thought they were junior partners in a coalition, relatively new partners at that.

Unless of course the DUP have abandoned govt.

darkhorse

MadYaker wrote: »

Pointless discussion really. If you're liable there is no way to avoid paying it.

Yaker, do ya ever wonder where is all the tax money going? Don't say services, unless where you live is an exeption.

MadYaker

darkhorse wrote: »

Yaker, do ya ever wonder where is all the tax money going? Don't say services, unless where you live is an exeption.

Its going to plug the massive hole in our public finances and to pay back all the money we got in the bailout. Along with all the other taxes they have brought in.

Anybody who expects to see a return in services is delusional.

And tayto lover, I have to ask, do you honestly believe that the government is paying people to post in this thread in support of this tax??? I hope for your sake that its a failed attempt at trolling. Although this dxhound2005 guy seems to be awfully fond of FG I doubt they're actually paying him to post here.

Also, I have been renting for the last couple of years and bar some miracle, like winning the lotto, I don't think I'll ever buy a house in this country.