Property Tax (MOD REMINDER: Don't get too personal)

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

Hardly the exact same thing. He was in dispute about amanagement fee to a private management company in Portugal. That's a just a little bit different to refusing to pay your taxes, isn't it?

He said, and I quote, "Would you pay a charge if you were unhappy with the service?"

No I wouldn't Phil.

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

Hardly the exact same thing. He was in dispute about a management fee to a private management company in Portugal. That's a just a little bit different to refusing to pay your taxes, isn't it?

Principle is the same, he wasnt happy with the service so he didnt pay. We arnt happy with sloppy management of the countries finances so we shouldnt pay.

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

He said, and I quote, "Would you pay a charge if you were unhappy with the service?"

No I wouldn't Phil.

Hijpo wrote: »

Principle is the same, he wasnt happy with the service so he didnt pay. We arnt happy with sloppy management of the countries finances so we shouldnt pay.

What other taxes are you withholding on that basis? And have you informed revenue that you are in dispute with them?

darkhorse

Phoebas wrote: »

I fit into your criteria of what is poor.

This statement bemuses me. On the one hand, you staunchly defend the governments actions of charging a rent to people for something that those people will have spent most of their lives paying for(family home)by way of a mortgage, then on the other hand you come out with the above. What's that about.

Phoebas

darkhorse wrote: »

What's that about.

I was pointing out how ridiculous cageyeuclid's definition of poverty is.

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've never changed your mind about anything whatsoever over a 19-year period?

But, fast forward to 2011, and FG still thought it was unfair, as was in their manifesto.


Funding Local Government:

Fianna Fail's proposal, now endorsed by the Labour Party, to introduce by 2014 an annual, recurring residential property tax on the family home is unfair.

Banjo String

Let's get one thing straight Phoebas.

Last year the gov't introduced the household charge, imo it was merely a data buildingng exercise to see who owned what, what it was worth, and therefore start could be extracted from them.', many people though refused to A, throw more money to a govt that had no accountability as to where the money actually headed off to, and how it was spent. Others decided that the council's (who privatised almost every service to outside contractors as they could) weren't justified in getting further money to fund below par services, from council's with managers on 150+ salaries etc.

The govt then (admitted failure with the hhc) passed the collection on to revenue in the hope it would scare people into paying (I'm paye, so don't give a flying one spot them), or as a dirty, sly move, refuse to issue tax clearance certs to those self employed etc.

I'm not happy with the service I'm being asked to fund via the lpt, therefore I'm refusing to pay it. I can only hope enough off my fellow citizens sore the same courage and show a govt, only there by default, and only supported by one third of the population stand their ground too. They might very well take it from me forcibly. That it's a risk I'm willing to take tbh.

FG will be resigned to the political scrap heap over their lies and bullying in a few years. History won't be kind to Kenny and Gilmore, and rightfully so.

Seeing as you ask though, I've gotten rid of the tv (watch most shows/movies on the laptop/Xbox via a monitor) so that's a cheerio to The 'RTE tax' which I didn't think was worth it.

darkhorse

Phoebas wrote: »

I was pointing out how ridiculous cageyeuclid's definition of poverty is.

Or laughing at people that may be less fortunate than yourself?

Going Forward

darkhorse wrote: »

But, fast forward to 2011, and FG still thought it was unfair, as was in their manifesto.


Funding Local Government:

Fianna Fail's proposal, now endorsed by the Labour Party, to introduce by 2014 an annual, recurring residential property tax on the family home is unfair.

And from 1994:proptax2.jpg

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

What other taxes are you withholding on that basis? And have you informed revenue that you are in dispute with them?

None, which reinforces my point that nobody minds paying money aslong as they are in reciept of something of some kind of standard worthy of the collective money paid. I am of the opinion (as are others) that collectively paye, prsi, usc, carbon taxes, insurance levies, VAT, motor tax and all the rest should be enough to run a country within its means if the money collected is being managed efficiently. Are they still paying for storage of all thise evoting machines that were never used? How much are they paying england to store our gold reserves?

Enda kenny said that they will sell non stratigic assets, they sold the forests, they give away oil and gas, they are giving up land to build massive wind farms to power a different country. So does the state own ANY stratigic assets? Are the people of ireland ie: The work force there only stratigic assets?

Going Forward

Deleted User wrote: »

A tax is a tax, nobody particularly likes paying taxes but they are necessary to run a modern state.

Repeating quotes from twenty years ago isn't going to change that.

I dont think its as simple as that.

It is a brand new tax on something which up to recently people were encouraged by government to "buy into"; Get on the property ladder etc etc. And they did, in droves.

It is something of a slap in the face for those who fell for it to now be told by another government which does not appear to have all the answers either: "Look, we need another few bob off ye for that house you bought."

People cannot be treated that way.

cageyeuclid

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The poor, pro rata pay much much more of their income on VAT than the rich actually.
The Property Tax may need some tweeking but it is essentially a necessary and valid form of taxation.

Valid does not mean just, fair and caring ..... wouldn’t LPT tweaked to €15,000 a year (going up and up) be equally and “essentially a necessary and valid form of taxation” ...so that this lazy government could eventually grab all your property (on your demise) .... your statement with no argument does not stand up.

If you all think I am mad, then you do not remember the old rates, where 10 weeks wages (appox.) charge (yearly going up and up) was the norm.
That works out at about 20%
.
That would mean 20% of €65,000 or €13,000 yearly for each member of the Association of Higher Civil Public Servants.
Wheyyyy!!!! would not that be a rough justice ..... 20% instead of the miserable 4% they refused to accept.

My thinking is rational ... anyone who thinks this LPT is just, fair and caring must be in a very good job; otherwise they would fear the extortionate rate that LPT in line with all other unrestrained tax is likely to attain. Attained due to excessive and unrestrained govt expenditure and political greed.

This LPT is Unjust, Unfair and Cruel

cageyeuclid

Le_Dieux wrote: »

He lied period. And now we have the scenario, of taking between 5.5 & 8% off those higher paid PS's and giving it back in 2 insalments in 4-5 years time??? FFS, who knows a) who will be in power then & b) what the state of the economy will be in 4-5 years. More lies/deceptions in the offing???

Stangely, considering the theme of my posts ... I think Enda was telling the truth way back then .... and is now letting others do the dirty work, while he still knows
This LPT is Unjust, Unfair and Cruel ... how about that for leadership???

cageyeuclid

Phoebas wrote: »

I was pointing out how ridiculous cageyeuclid's definition of poverty is.

I hate those who missquote ... I did not define POOR ... I merely included those very hardpressed, who would eventually be presented with an extortionate LPT ... and if LPT succeeds it will eventually come to that.

We already know that after govt salary cuts there are quite a few highly paid people who are unable to pay their mortgages and LPT won't help.

This LPT is Unjust, Unfair and Cruel

cageyeuclid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

To be fair, people voted in the current Government. Both Labour and Fine Gael were up front about the fact that we are in the poo, and tax rises and/or spending cuts were inevitable.

If people really wanted to vote for a party which promised more spending and less tax, they could have voted Sinn Féin.

We all know the present govt were voted in by default (FFs didnt by and large vote) .. FG/Lab(rats) had little or no opposition then.

The last by election pointed the way ahead ... few Lab(rats) ... therefore no FG/Lab Coalition ... and SIGH! ... a very big gain for Sinn Fein.

What an interesting Local Election coming ???

I have been reliably infomed that, that + / - 15% on LPT will be a reserved function for Dublin City Councillors (City Manager cannot do it).

The local election will show This LPT is Unjust, Unfair and Cruel

cageyeuclid

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The poor, pro rata pay much much more of their income on VAT than the rich actually.
QUOTE]

This is patently false ... pro rata that is .... if you recalculate ... the big difference is the large proportion of income the poor pay for (zero VAT) food.

I am not sure of the %s but 40% is my guess for the poors' food bill.

This LPT is Unjust, Unfair and Cruel

Going Forward

Going Forward wrote: »

It is a brand new tax on something which up to recently people were encouraged by government to "buy into"; Get on the property ladder etc etc. And they did, in droves.

But it isn't a brand new tax - it is one of the oldest forms of taxation on the planet be it in the form of LPT, hearth tax, window tax or rates.

The post immediately below yours gives someone's experiences of rates in this country.

People bought houses for any number of reasons, I'd be amazed if you found someone for whom the deciding factor was government encouragement.

cageyeuclid

Deleted User wrote: »

But it isn't a brand new tax - it is one of the oldest forms of taxation on the planet be it in the form of LPT, hearth tax, window tax or rates.

The post immediately below yours gives someone's experiences of rates in this country......

LPT is new in so far as it would have an unprecedented level of Cruelty levied on the poor and worse still I have more bad news.

As regards the +/- 15% on LPT a Dublin City Councillor answered:

“ ...this will be a reserved function of the Councillors. The normal General Purpose Grant or Local Government fund will be cut and it will force councillors to increase the charge in my view.”

This LPT scenario gets worse and worse.

LPT is Unjust, Unfair and Cruel

Scofflaw

cageyeuclid wrote: »

LPT is Unjust, Unfair and Cruel

Don't continue doing this large font slogan-painting in the forum, please. It will be infracted from now, and may lead to a ban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Zubeneschamali

cageyeuclid wrote: »

LPT is new in so far as it would have an unprecedented level of Cruelty levied on the poor

It is not new - it is just the return of Domestic Rates, abolished by our friends, Fianna Fáil, in their 1977 vote-buying effort (which led to an Irish economic meltdown in the 80s, imagine that.)

cageyeuclid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is not new - it is just the return of Domestic Rates, abolished by our friends, Fianna Fáil, in their 1977 vote-buying effort (which led to an Irish economic meltdown in the 80s, imagine that.)

You are correct; (but from previous posts of mine) the old rates were extortionate and that is where LPT would (eventually) not be new.

As regards the 80s "economic meltdown" I disagee, it was mostly due to a British slump and in comparison to today's fiasco it was only a minor glitch ....

Remember the old rates went to Local Government (100%) and even after April 1978 the LG junkets didnt stop.

LPT is Cruel to many.

cageyeuclid

Deleted User wrote: »

..... I'd be amazed if you found someone for whom the deciding factor was government encouragement.

You are forgetting the Socially Affordable Housing (SAH). Most of these were subprime.
I know personally of where a €395,000 apartment was offered and accepted by 2 DA recipients for €275,000 (€3,500 down payment etc.). Luckily the 2 fell out and the deal was cancelled. That apartment was lately offered for €165,000 with no takers.
There are many many cases of SAH who are now in a seriously negative equity situation and all those SAH deals I know of were from a FG / Lab controlled Dublin City Council. I really don't know how many more in the rest of Ireland .... maybe someone can tell us. I don't blame DCC but to now "grind them" (A La Enda) is immoral and cruel.

Bottom line ... the encouragement was very real, so now you know.

Revenue expects Cruel LPT from them !!!

cageyeuclid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is not new - it is just the return of Domestic Rates, abolished by our friends, Fianna Fáil, in their 1977 vote-buying effort (which led to an Irish economic meltdown in the 80s, imagine that.)

Just so we are all reading from the same page:

In 1977 they were all trying to buy the electorate ... not just FF.

http://www.soldiersofdestiny.org/davidbeggbetrayal.htm

Page down a bit to what Gabriel O'Connor, published in 1999. .... Best to read the whole article.

......However, in view of the 1972 report and the E.S.R.I. 1975 report, it was somewhat surprising that the Coalition Government in 1976 decided to phase out domestic rates and, in 1977, the incoming Fianna Fail Government abolished domestic rates altogether.....

In the same book .... (maybe Enda had more than a point re the constitutionality of LPT.)

.......The position further deteriorated in 1983; following a High Court decision of July 1982 (upheld by the Supreme court in January 1984) that the collection of rates on land valuations as it operated was repugnant to the constitution. Rates on agricultural land were abolished from January 1st of that year.......

I am going to read up on the 1982 judgement ... hope Enda was right re cruel LPT.

Going Forward

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But it isn't a brand new tax - it is one of the oldest forms of taxation on the planet be it in the form of LPT, hearth tax, window tax or rates.

The post immediately below yours gives someone's experiences of rates in this country.

People bought houses for any number of reasons, I'd be amazed if you found someone for whom the deciding factor was government encouragement.

It is a new tax for the generation who bought.

Consider the impact of the non stop mortgage prime tv advertising of the time, the related unregulated practices and Mr. Ahern's none too subtle endorsements of the property bubble.

Bear in mind the majority of mortgage holders are repaying as per their contracts and have already paid a significant contribution to the economy.

And what is their thanks? Tax it again. Why? Because other countries do.

Because the Gov't has shot itself in the foot with pre election promises of no tax "increases" on labour, but that's ok we'll break different promises and party ideals and tax their houses, a window tax if you will.

It won't be forgiven or forgotten.

darkhorse

Phoebas wrote: »

What other taxes are you withholding on that basis? And have you informed revenue that you are in dispute with them?

I think that you should produce you identification if you're going to ask questions like that.

Phoebas

darkhorse wrote: »

I think that you should produce you identification if you're going to ask questions like that.

I should produce identification to who? How?


Why?

tayto lover

Scofflaw wrote: »

Don't continue doing this large font slogan-painting in the forum, please. It will be infracted from now, and may lead to a ban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

What a collection of FG supporters thanked this. Made me laugh.

Pete_Cavan

tayto lover wrote: »

What a collection of FG supporters thanked this. Made me laugh.

The Forum Charter, under rule 2 Posting in Threads, states;

This forum is for discussion and debate, we will not tolerate soapboxing. If you are here to "shout everyone down" with your opinions, we will see you as a negative contributor to the forum and will take appropriate action.

It is not unreasonable to consider repeating the same slogan in large, bolded letters at the end of every post as shouting everyone down. Thanking Scofflaws post is merely showing gratitude that the rules are being enforced. Many taxpayers will be equally appreciative when Revenue enforces the law relating to payment of the LPT.

tayto lover

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The Forum Charter, under rule 2 Posting in Threads, states;
It is not unreasonable to consider repeating the same slogan in large, bolded letters at the end of every post as shouting everyone down. Thanking Scofflaws post is merely showing gratitude that the rules are being enforced. Many taxpayers will be equally appreciative when Revenue enforces the law relating to payment of the LPT.

It's funny though that only the FG pro-tax people thanked it if it was that loud. Methinks they really detest being reminded of Enda's statement on Property Tax.

PS

How many have paid to date?

Going Forward

tayto lover wrote: »

It's funny though that only the FG pro-tax people thanked it if it was that loud. Methinks they really detest being reminded of Enda's statement on Property Tax.

PS

How many have paid to date?

The numbers are not relevant at all now, as the LPT legislation is probably the tightest ever written, to ensure maximum enforcement.

What I find ironic and faintly amusing is the likes of John Bruton and other well heeled members of the establishment exhortating the rest of us to embrace austerity.

Easy enough when you're in receipt of a generous state pension I suppose.

Which does make me wonder, what exactly would be the motivation for an "ordinary Joe soap" to support further taxation on his own income?

Does he see himself as some sort of martyr for the economic health of the nation?

Or a party activist?

Hijpo

Going Forward wrote: »

The numbers are not relevant at all now, as the LPT legislation is probably the tightest ever written, to ensure maximum enforcement.

What I find ironic and faintly amusing is the likes of John Bruton and other well heeled members of the establishment exhortating the rest of us to embrace austerity.

Easy enough when you're in receipt of a generous state pension I suppose.

Which does make me wonder, what exactly would be the motivation for an "ordinary Joe soap" to support further taxation on his own income?

Does he see himself as some sort of martyr for the economic health of the nation?

Or a party activist?

Not to mention when there personal secretary could possibly earning 30k in overtime. Or even €71,353 in overtime, mileage and subsistence.

Imagine extorting €400 from a family living in a house worth €150,000 and then spending €250,000 to kit out one single office.

One office for one person costing more to kit out than the asking price for a 3 bed semi for a family :eek:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/son-of-dail-spending-chief-earned-30k-in-overtime-with-dad-29263855.html

Yes, lets all give them more money without question because they really and truely do not get enough from taxes, levies and charges already.

Actually i notice in that article they say

The Irish Independent previously revealed how the taxpayer spent €250,000

As a tax payer i dont remember signing off on the request to spend €250,000 on his office, do any of ye?
im not quiet sure how the taxpayer gets the title of spender when it comes to these things when all we do is supply the never ending stream of funding without any kind of say on what its spent on.

Le_Dieux

Hijpo wrote: »

Not to mention when there personal secretary could possibly earning 30k in overtime. Or even €71,353 in overtime, mileage and subsistence.

Imagine extorting €400 from a family living in a house worth €150,000 and then spending €250,000 to kit out one single office.

One office for one person costing more to kit out than the asking price for a 3 bed semi for a family :eek:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/son-of-dail-spending-chief-earned-30k-in-overtime-with-dad-29263855.html

Yes, lets all give them more money without question because they really and truely do not get enough from taxes, levies and charges already.

Actually i notice in that article they say

As a tax payer i dont remember signing off on the request to spend €250,000 on his office, do any of ye?
im not quiet sure how the taxpayer gets the title of spender when it comes to these things when all we do is supply the never ending stream of funding without any kind of say on what its spent on.

I read that article today, felt SICK to the pits of my stomach. They are ALL at it, get into DE and become an ace at nepotism.

Banjo String

tayto lover wrote: »

Methinks they really detest being reminded of Enda's statement on Property Tax.

Ah now Tayto, Endas wasn't the only cringeworthy statement from a pre-election populist party.

Here's Leo from waaaay back in 2008.

“The National Economic and Social Council (NESC) is a Government body under the aegis of Brian Cowen’s Department. The Council consists of the great and the good from the Social Partnership system along with the Taoiseach’s right hand men and women. It is funded by the Department of the Taoiseach and is chaired by Dermot McCarthy, the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach. The Deputy Chairperson, Mary Doyle is also a senior official in the Taoiseach’s Department. Other members include trade union bosses David Begg, Peter McLoone and Jack O’Connor, IBEC’s Turlough O’Sullivan, Fr Sean Healy, Sean Gorman (Secretary General of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment) and the Taoiseach’s special advisor, Peter Clinch.


“Fine Gael in Government abolished the Residential Property Tax and is not in favour of re-introducing it. A property tax would further depress the housing market and would plunge Ireland even deeper into recession.


“Brian Cowen should immediately rule out the introduction of a property tax and to make it clear to the country that he is dissociating himself from the NESC on this matter.”

http://leovaradkar.ie/2008/07/varadkar-calls-on-cowen-to-rule-out-property-tax/

Then we have the man in charge of introducing the controversial household charge, a charge that was meant to

will support the provision of local services

, Big Phil Hogan, who wont pay towards services in his own gaff:

ENVIRONMENT Minister Phil Hogan, who is in the eye of a storm over the household charge, is refusing to pay service charges on his penthouse apartment in Portugal, the Sunday Independent can reveal.


Mr Hogan, who has an apartment in Villamoura on the Algarve, has an outstanding service charge of €4,320, according to a 'debtors' list document dated March 27.


Yesterday, the minister confirmed that fees "of that order" were outstanding but said that he was in dispute with the apartment complex's management company.


"Would you pay a charge if you were unhappy with the service?" he asked. :pac::pac::pac:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/phil-hogan-refuses-to-pay-4k-service-charges-on-his-portugal-holiday-penthouse-26838412.html

And its not like Phil couldn't afford it either.

FINE Gael frontbencher Phil Hogan yesterday refused to elaborate on the "personal circumstances" preventing him following his party leader in taking a voluntary pay cut from his €110,000 salary.
His party is currently calling for wage cuts on those earning over €100,000 in the public sector.


Leader Enda Kenny took a voluntary pay cut of 5pc since last October.
But Mr Hogan yesterday said he would not be following his own party's example.


"No. My personal circumstances don't allow that at the moment," Mr Hogan said.


The Carlow-Kilkenny TD last night insisted there was no contradiction between the party's official policy on wage cuts and his own refusal to take a voluntary pay cut.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fine-gael-deputy-on-e110000-cant-take-wage-cut-26515140.html

The real icing on the cake for me was this statement from Enda in Jan 2012.....

He said: "We are not going to have the name defaulter written across our foreheads.

"We will pay our way, we have never looked for a debt write-down. We do want an extension of flexibility in these facilities to help our taxpayers to help us deal with our deficit and to help us pay our debts in a more realistic fashion.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/taoiseach-we-will-not-have-name-of-defaulter-across-our-foreheads-537162.html


But only in July 2012, face palm:D

Minister for Health James Reilly is expected to explain to the Dáil tomorrow why his name appeared in Stubbs Gazette over an unpaid debt.

(in the name of fairness, this is linked back to RTE btw)
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0710/328538-james-reilly-debt-default/

Do as I say FG.

Stay classy y'all.

Le_Dieux

Going Forward wrote: »

The numbers are not relevant at all now, as the LPT legislation is probably the tightest ever written, to ensure maximum enforcement.

What I find ironic and faintly amusing is the likes of John Bruton and other well heeled members of the establishment exhortating the rest of us to embrace austerity.

Easy enough when you're in receipt of a generous state pension I suppose.

Which does make me wonder, what exactly would be the motivation for an "ordinary Joe soap" to support further taxation on his own income?

Does he see himself as some sort of martyr for the economic health of the nation?

Or a party activist?

Kenny is a copy of J Bruton. Was't he the gaffer who slapped VAT on Children's shoes and they got driven out of Kildare Street for 20 odd years?

Here in 2013 we have ek trying to do the exact same thing all over again.

Reminds me of the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QZq-wKaBWc

Phoebas

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Kenny is a copy of J Bruton. Was't he the gaffer who slapped VAT on Children's shoes and they got driven out of Kildare Street for 20 odd years?

Actually, for just one year. FF took over after that budget was defeated, they lasted less than one year and FG/LAB were back in power after that with Bruton back in a ministerial position.

Not that it has a whole lot to do with the LPT, but unfortunately and inevitably this thread is going the same way as all other Property Tax threads seem to go.

Going Forward

Phoebas wrote: »

Actually, for just one year. FF took over after that budget was defeated, they lasted less than one year and FG/LAB were back in power after that with Bruton back in a ministerial position.

Not that it has a whole lot to do with the LPT, but unfortunately and inevitably this thread is going the same way as all other Property Tax threads seem to go.

What way? People rejecting the property tax?

Are you waiting for some kind of national Pauline conversion in favour?

Le_Dieux

Re phoebas's post: Actually, for just one year. FF took over after that budget was defeated, they lasted less than one year and FG/LAB were back in power after that with Bruton back in a ministerial position.

Not that it has a whole lot to do with the LPT, but unfortunately and inevitably this thread is going the same way as all other Property Tax threads seem to go.

What You mean? As far as I can recall the HHC thread on AH clocked up something like 30,000 posts before it was locked down.

Personally, I don't like when people come on here making false statements to further their argument (re my post above to MA84 - who I might add stated last week, She was withdrawing from this thread as it was getting too personal, or words to that effect). And now, we have someone who claims to be from the arséhole of nowhere lecturing us about what the Charter says.

I am of the opinion that there are cllrs or higher up in power on this thread and I would think it's in their interest to have this thread locked down as it doesn't suit their aims. Hope I am wrong, but I just cannot fathom how a person can come on here and make a statement along the lines of 'I love paying taxes'

Phoebas

Going Forward wrote: »

What way? People rejecting the property tax?

Are you waiting for some kind of national Pauline conversion in favour?

quod erat demonstrandum

Scofflaw

Le Dieux, banned again, this time a week. tayto lover's original use of a Mod post to score a cheap point was just about forgivable (once), but Le Dieux's repeated follow-up use was taking the mick.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Am Chile

The document of the attackthetax summons of the high court challenge they are meant to bringing.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4Own72GRjrdZlo4YnpBRU1lSGs/edit

Going Forward

Phoebas wrote: »

quod erat demonstrandum

i cant believe its not butter

cageyeuclid

Phoebas wrote: »

quod erat demonstrandum

Q.E.D. should only be used to state that something has been argued successfully.

I cannot find one single argument from you justifying LPT on the poor.
In fact, you have uncaringly dismissed the very poor as an extreme example.

A law without justification should be made to fail in my opinion. (I believe Jefferson got it right).

I have given lots of reasoned argument why LPT is unjust, unfair and cruel, and SA comments (we should call them O’Reilly’s) by posters makes me more convinced that LPT is inherently unjust for all.
Your insistence that it has got to be paid has only stoked the fires of outright non compliance, and there you are quite helpful.

However, this is a forum where (like any good forum) it should contain reasoned argument; then and only then should you reasonably use Q.E.D. otherwise it just comes across as just SA nonsense.

How about a post to clarify the Dublin City Councillor answer re LPT:

“ ...this will be a reserved function of the Councillors. The normal General Purpose Grant or Local Government fund will be cut and it will force councillors to increase the charge in my view.”

BTW it seems some people think Local Govt rates were abolished ... afraid not ... as any business will tell you.

Also BTW I agree with Scoff; the banner was at the bottom of my posts automatically and getting boring. Apologies to all, hate to bore you.

barrackali

Am Chile wrote: »

The document of the attackthetax summons of the high court challenge they are meant to bringing.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4Own72GRjrdZlo4YnpBRU1lSGs/edit

That document is laughable...I'll tell you what chance they have of getting this tax scrapped.....none!

Phoebas

barrackali wrote: »

That document is laughable...I'll tell you what chance they have of getting this tax scrapped.....none!

I see they are looking for an order of costs. I wonder will costs be awarded against them when this nonsense is thrown out of court.

barrackali

When this nonsense of a "case" is thrown out I'd expect the state to be awarded their costs.

Banjo String

Musgrave complain property tax is affecting their sales.

Less money in the domestic economy, obviously will affect consumer spending power.

Musgrave, the biggest Irish owned retailer which runs the SuperValu and Centra empire, suffered a blip in sales as a result of the arrival of the hated property tax, according to chief executive Chris Martin.

problem with austerity is that it pushes people all the way. We've seen that in the last couple of weeks with the local property tax applications. It has clearly knocked consumers back. You can see it in the numbers. Not big amounts, but one minute you're up and the next you're not," Martin told the Sunday Independent.

"We'd seen good sales in Q1 and what we've seen in recent weeks is that March has been difficult for retailers. It wasn't as good as January or February. You can align that up with what happened," he said. "You're seeing a real reaction to all these things. Maybe four or five years ago you wouldn't have seen that as it was just continuous growth."

The property tax represented a wobble in Musgrave's otherwise bumper results, as group sales jumped 11 per cent to €4.9bn and operating profits increased by 13 per cent. Musgrave is now one of the few retailers in the country to record profit growth despite the downturn. The company plans to expand in Ireland this year with 65 new stores, creating 600 jobs. Musgrave is the second largest employer in the State with 34,000 staff – trailing the HSE.

Keep it up fg/lab.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/property-tax-hits-sales-at-retail-giant-musgrave-29226528.html

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

Musgrave complain property tax is affecting their sales.

Its pretty obvious that any tax impacts the economy, and there have been lots of people who are against the LPT wanting an income tax rise instead. One of the common arguments for a property tax is that it is the least worse option in terms of impacting the economy, particularly the labour market.

Musgraves are doing quite well despite it. Obviously I wouldn't expect you to credit FG/LAB for the relative stabilisation of the economy that allows them to report such positive figures.

The property tax represented a wobble in Musgrave's otherwise bumper results, as group sales jumped 11 per cent to €4.9bn and operating profits increased by 13 per cent.

...

The company plans to expand in Ireland this year with 65 new stores, creating 600 jobs.

cageyeuclid

Phoebas wrote: »

Its pretty obvious that any tax impacts the economy, and there have been lots of people who are against the LPT wanting an income tax rise instead. One of the common arguments for a property tax is that it is the least worse option in terms of impacting the economy, particularly the labour market.

Musgraves are doing quite well despite it. Obviously I wouldn't expect you to credit FG/LAB for the relative stabilisation of the economy that allows them to report such positive figures.

But, LPT is the worst option in terms of impacting the largest number of poor.

There are many posts in here explaining why the better (than LPT) option of an income tax rise has not happened,
that is due to the FG pre election promise which will eventually cause FGs demise, and more so the decimation of Labour.

Of course to get right to the heart of the deficit problem, a 20% cut in civil service salaries would be the optimum action for the economy, since it would affect the least number of people and since it has been posted in here that the LPT can easily be afforded, an extra 13% salary cut on top of the already projected 7% would be no problem to them instead of LPT. That 20% is where LPT is headed in any case, and the pro LPT posts in here leave little sympathy for revenue, very much in line with the lack of sympathy Phoebas has for the poorest.

Of course on even better option is for this lazy government to amend the LPT to take into account the financial circumstances of each homeowner (which should have been done in the first case) and to enshrine into the new LPT law a proper binding upper cap (no LG element) and the repeal of the amended LPT on the family home as soon as the deficit reduction allows. This last would lessen the possibility of a successful high court action (a la agri land 1982).
The worst aspect of the above is that govt promises would hardly be believed.

Isn’t revenue supposed to have the relevant information (financial circumstances of each homeowner) to hand anyway or are they as lazy as this govt?

Come on guys, wise up. Musgrave successfully purchased and reorganised SuperQuinn ... hence the extra turnover.

Right now, mass non compliance seems on the cards and any “you will have to pay” posts will only stimulate that non compliance.

Roll on the Local Elections where L in front of LPT will be the biggest mistake this lazy govt has made.
The cruel LPT will be rejected on every doorstep (except Phoebas’s doorstep, if he has one which I doubt, considering 20% LPT is no problem to him).

tayto lover

I cannot believe this story -

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0515/450449-new-laws-to-identify-those-without-waste-service/

People who are not using waste providers are to be sought out and prosecuted. I know people who have no waste service as they burn all their rubbish in their pot-belly stove and food goes into compost bin.

What next? A compulsory broadcasting charge?

This shower really can't get enough austerity charges in.
Oh how the Labour leaders of old must be spinning in their graves.
Why not just prosecute the people they find dumping illegally?

Phoebas

cageyeuclid wrote: »

But, LPT is the worst option in terms of impacting the largest number of poor.

I've heard a lot of crazy stuff spouted about property tax, but this takes the biscuit.