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

Phoebas

bgrizzley wrote: »

i wonder who will take responsibilty the first time a house goes up in flames and there is only a dribble of water on site to put it out. Irish water? Irish Gas? Siteserve? Fine gael?

Your ridiculous list of candidates include everybody except the householder whose supply has been limited because they refuse to pay their bills.

bgrizzley

Phoebas wrote: »

Your ridiculous list of candidates include everybody except the householder whose supply has been limited because they refuse to pay their bills.

stick 'em on then. but the headlines will still be the same...


(thats of course assuming they are refusing and not that they simply cant afford to.)

hju6

oscarBravo wrote: »

I see the good old Irish "I have a god-given right to have whatever I want and to demand that someone else pay for it" attitude is alive and well.

Thriving, http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/denis-obrien-tax-court-win-1072253-Sep2013/

Milk the country from afar,

bgrizzley

hju6 wrote: »

Thriving, http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/denis-obrien-tax-court-win-1072253-Sep2013/

Milk the country from afar,

i wonder if i pull the doors of the kitchen units in my house will i be exempt from the LPT:pac::pac::pac:

Am Chile

oscarBravo wrote: »

I see the good old Irish "I have a god-given right to have whatever I want and to demand that someone else pay for it" attitude is alive and well.

Excluding people who wont pay on principle- there will be a good per % of people who simply wont be able to afford to pay the water rates-who will then face the prospect of being threatened of having their water restricted- however if anyone finds their water pressure reduced and their water restricted there wull be volenteers set up in different areas to increase the water pressure back to normal- reading over some posts it seems those who in favour of water rates havent taken into consideration yet there will be people who simply wont be able to pay .

Slick50

oscarBravo wrote: »

I see the good old Irish "I have a god-given right to have whatever I want and to demand that someone else pay for it" attitude is alive and well.

Phoebas wrote: »

except the householder whose supply has been limited because they refuse to pay their bills.

I see some are still determined to portray anybody who objects to a particular form of tax, or simply can't afford it, as freeloaders and scroungers.

Phoebas

Slick50 wrote: »

I see some are still determined to portray anybody who objects to a particular form of tax, or simply can't afford it, as freeloaders and scroungers.

... and some others are determined to portray thieves and tax evaders as moral crusaders. :rolleyes:

Godge

Slick50 wrote: »

I see some are still determined to portray anybody who objects to a particular form of tax, or simply can't afford it, as freeloaders and scroungers.

I have yet to see a logical principled sensible argument against the property tax.

As for the water charges, the fact that there will be a free allowance for everyone means at the very least we have to wait and see what that is before drawing any conclusions about affordability.

Godge

hju6 wrote: »

Thriving, http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/denis-obrien-tax-court-win-1072253-Sep2013/

Milk the country from afar,

The great thing about the property tax is that you won't be able to avoid it by going to Portugal or anywhere else unlike previous taxes.

You would think therefore that those who don't like what Denis O'Brien legally got away with would be delighted at the new tax.

beeftotheheels

Godge wrote: »

The great thing about the property tax is that you won't be able to avoid it by going to Portugal or anywhere else unlike previous taxes.

You would think therefore that those who don't like what Denis O'Brien legally got away with would be delighted at the new tax.

The irony being that he was involved in legal avoidance and they are engaged in willful criminal evasion.

I'm not saying I'm happy he paid no tax, I was cheering for Revenue, but he did abide by the law of the land.

bgrizzley

Godge wrote: »

The great thing about the property tax is that you won't be able to avoid it by going to Portugal or anywhere else unlike previous taxes.

You would think therefore that those who don't like what Denis O'Brien legally got away with would be delighted at the new tax.

that's priceless! :pac:

oscarBravo

bgrizzley wrote: »

Do you think someone would watch a small fire take over their house while waiting half an hour for the fire brigade? or is it possible they would run a tap and try to put it out?

Let me see if I've got this clear: you're arguing that it's stupid and short-sighted to reduce the water pressure to the home of someone who's refusing to pay for that water, just in case that same householder manages to set the house on fire?

It never occurred to you that maybe the stupidity and myopia is more on the part of the householder who, (apparently) having no other firefighting capability on-site than a kitchen tap, refused to pay the bill required to keep that tap up to pressure?

bgrizzley

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let me see if I've got this clear: you're arguing that it's stupid and short-sighted to reduce the water pressure to the home of someone who's refusing to pay for that water, just in case that same householder manages to set the house on fire?

It never occurred to you that maybe the stupidity and myopia is more on the part of the householder who, (apparently) having no other firefighting capability on-site than a kitchen tap, refused to pay the bill required to keep that tap up to pressure?

i've already addressed that point to Phoebas if you read the last few posts.
The headlines will still be the same, optics are everything.

Do you think a paper will attack the victims of the fire (who possibly couldnt afford this tax) or the powers that shut down their water?


any chance we could get back to the property tax?

hju6

Godge wrote: »

The great thing about the property tax is that you won't be able to avoid it by going to Portugal or anywhere else unlike previous taxes.

You would think therefore that those who don't like what Denis O'Brien legally got away with would be delighted at the new tax.

Is it not true that Noonan avoids his propety tax within Portugal ?

alastair

hju6 wrote: »

Is it not true that Noonan avoids his propety tax within Portugal ?

Noonan?

It's Phil Hogan has the property in Portugal - which he pays property tax on like everyone else. You're seemingly getting confused with his dispute over management service charges in his apartment there.

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

Do you think a paper will attack the victims of the fire (who possibly couldnt afford this tax) or the powers that shut down their water?

Well, that seems unlikely, given that most house fires aren't successfully fought with the tap, and there's an immersion full of water in most people's gaff that would suffice for anything small, in any case this is what we've been told so far:

Officials say the move would be targeted at those who opt not to pay, rather than those who cannot afford to pay, and would only occur after customers have refused all options available to pay their bills.

hju6

alastair wrote: »

Noonan?

It's Phil Hogan has the property in Portugal - which he pays property tax on like everyone else. You're seemingly getting confused with his dispute over management service charges in his apartment there.

Ok so Hogan 'disputes ' his charges, whilst anyone else who objects to the LPT is a tax evader,

beeftotheheels

hju6 wrote: »

Ok so Hogan 'disputes ' his charges, whilst anyone else who objects to the LPT is a tax evader,

Ehm Yup!

You can dispute the legality of a charge levied under contract with the other contracting party, unless and until the matter is resolved by a court of law.

You can dispute the legality of an Irish tax levied based on it contravening either EU law or the Irish constitution. I personally don't see such a basis for a challenge.

But even were such a basis to exist, the Act enjoys the presumption of constitutionality unless and until the High Court or Supreme Court hold it to be unconstitutional.

So yes, under Irish law, if you don't pay the local property tax because you oppose it in principle, unless you are the one challenging it through the courts because you believe it somehow contravenes the Bunreacht, you are a tax evader.

For the avoidance of doubt, if you're involved with Acorn to Oak Communications Plc then the Irish High Court has recently confirmed that Salomon v Salomon is still good law that a company and its shareholders are separate and distinct legal persons, so being the shareholder of a company which is litigating the tax does not mean that you are litigating the tax and as such failure to pay renders you a tax evader. See the Revenue Solicitors Office letter on the attackthetax website for confirmation that this is their (in my opinion wholly correct) view on the matter.

hju6

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Ehm Yup!

You can dispute the legality of a charge levied under contract with the other contracting party, unless and until the matter is resolved by a court of law.

You can dispute the legality of an Irish tax levied based on it contravening either EU law or the Irish constitution. I personally don't see such a basis for a challenge.

But even were such a basis to exist, the Act enjoys the presumption of constitutionality unless and until the High Court or Supreme Court hold it to be unconstitutional.

So yes, under Irish law, if you don't pay the local property tax because you oppose it in principle, unless you are the one challenging it through the courts because you believe it somehow contravenes the Bunreacht, you are a tax evader.

For the avoidance of doubt, if you're involved with Acorn to Oak Communications Plc then the Irish High Court has recently confirmed that Salomon v Salomon is still good law that a company and its shareholders are separate and distinct legal persons, so being the shareholder of a company which is litigating the tax does not mean that you are litigating the tax and as such failure to pay renders you a tax evader. See the Revenue Solicitors Office letter on the attackthetax website for confirmation that this is their (in my opinion wholly correct) view on the matter.

Thanks, I'm off to Portugal, where I can smoke dope legally, and dispute any taxes charges stuck upon me, bye all.

beeftotheheels

hju6 wrote: »

Thanks, I'm off to Portugal, where I can smoke dope legally, and dispute any taxes charges stuck upon me, bye all.

You may wish to reconsider how wise a course of action that would be.

As was pointed out Phil is disputing a management charge with a private management company under contract, he is not disputing the legality of a tax charge with the Portuguese State who would be responsible for levying taxes.

Disputing Portuguese taxes is far harder than disputing Irish taxes, be prepared to wait seven or eight years before even getting a first hearing.

In Ireland the first hearing will usually be in months.

bgrizzley

beeftotheheels wrote: »

You may wish to reconsider how wise a course of action that would be.

As was pointed out Phil is disputing a management charge with a private management company under contract, he is not disputing the legality of a tax charge with the Portuguese State who would be responsible for levying taxes.

Disputing Portuguese taxes is far harder than disputing Irish taxes, be prepared to wait seven or eight years before even getting a first hearing.

In Ireland the first hearing will usually be in months.

8 years smoking dope while waiting. It's a win win... :pac:

darkhorse

Godge wrote: »

I have yet to see a logical principled sensible argument against the property tax.

Google Enda Kenny on property tax.

Phoebas

darkhorse wrote: »

Google Enda Kenny on property tax.

I just did.
It said his Government just introduced one.

kippy

darkhorse wrote: »

Google Enda Kenny on property tax.

Why the hell is this still coming up in the thread. It's relevance has been rubbished numerous times and it's time to move on at this point.
A politician wasnt into property tax a number of years ago - big deal.

oscarBravo

darkhorse wrote: »

Google Enda Kenny on property tax.

You do realise that "a politician is infallible whenever he agrees with me" is a pretty pathetic argument, right?

beeftotheheels

oscarBravo wrote: »

You do realise that "a politician is infallible whenever he agrees with me" is a pretty pathetic argument, right?

Nah oscarBravo, you're missing the point. It is that a primary school teacher looking for votes is therefore an expert in Irish Constitutional Law.

When I thought it was about political infallibility I wasn't swayed either but now I've realised the issue is Enda's in depth knowledge of the constitutional concerns associated with introducing a local property tax that brought me around!:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Nah oscarBravo, you're missing the point. It is that a primary school teacher looking for votes is therefore an expert in Irish Constitutional Law.

When I thought it was about political infallibility I wasn't swayed either but now I've realised the issue is Enda's in depth knowledge of the constitutional concerns associated with introducing a local property tax that brought me around!:rolleyes:

Ah, gotcha.

Just so I'm clear: is Enda only a constitutional expert when he agrees with darkhorse?

beeftotheheels

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, gotcha.

Just so I'm clear: is Enda only a constitutional expert when he agrees with darkhorse?

Ah no, he's always a constitutional expert although he's forced to outsource some decisions as to constitutionality to the A-G, and ultimately the Supreme Court may be asked to test the correctness of his view either by a litigant or via the presidential referral route.

But even experts sometimes make mistakes so he's only "absolutely right" in his views on the potential constitutional issues when he agrees with some one else's preferred position.

Got it?

Banjo String

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Ah no, he's always a constitutional expert although he's forced to outsource some decisions as to constitutionality to the A-G, and ultimately the Supreme Court may be asked to test the correctness of his view either by a litigant or via the presidential referral route.

But even experts sometimes make mistakes so he's only "absolutely right" in his views on the potential constitutional issues when he agrees with some one else's preferred position.

Got it?

On that point. What was his opinion on Phil's stance?

beeftotheheels

Banjo String wrote: »

On that point. What was his opinion on Phil's stance?

Don't know that he would have any particular expertise in dealing with Portuguese contract law... Because again Phil's thing is a contractual dispute with his management company and not a refusal to pay a tax levied by the law of the land.

Even if it were a tax dispute, it would still no be relevant to this debate, but as it is it's about as relevant as me objecting to the tax on the basis I don't like Eamonn Gilmore's choice in suits!

Banjo String

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Don't know that he would have any particular expertise in dealing with Portuguese contract law... Because again Phil's thing is a contractual dispute with his management company and not a refusal to pay a tax levied by the law of the land.

Let me get this straight. Tax or no tax, do you think Phil Hogan isn't lawfully obliged to pay this charge, bearing in mind it is to fund the services he enjoys on his Portuguese property? Not to mention I'm presuming he voluntarily signed a contract, agreeing to same.

(I think there's a similarity tbh)

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Even if it were a tax dispute, it would still no be relevant to this debate, but as it is it's about as relevant as me objecting to the tax on the basis I don't like Eamonn Gilmore's choice in suits!

I don't think Eamo will be needing suits for much more than weddings or funerals very shortly if the drop in support continues. 8% and falling.

Anyhow, the fact you claim to see no similarities in Phil's moral stance on his service charge, and an lpt here which (citation needed) will fund the same thing, doesn't say much anyway.

beeftotheheels

Banjo String wrote: »

Let me get this straight. Tax or no tax, do you think Phil Hogan isn't lawfully obliged to pay this charge, bearing in mind it is to fund the services he enjoys on his Portuguese property? Not to mention I'm presuming he voluntarily signed a contract, agreeing to same.

(I think there's a similarity tbh)

I have no idea because I have no idea what is in the contract and I know nothing about Portuguese contract law. But if, for example, the contract provided that the management company would provide certain services which they were not providing - in breach of the contract - then could I imagine that there may be scenarios where he may be justified in not paying it depending upon the particulars of the actual contract and Portuguese contract law. Certainly in most Irish contracts in that scenario there could be such a justification.

There is no such justification for not paying a tax lawfully levied by the Oireachtas unless you are personally raising a constitutional challenge to that tax. None.

Hence his contractual dispute with his management company based on unknown facts, and unknown law, is of absolutely no relevance to this debate. None

Banjo String wrote: »

Anyhow, the fact you claim to see no similarities in Phil's moral stance on his service charge, and an let here which (citation needed) will fund the same thing, doesn't say much anyway.

I don't for one moment believe his stance is moral, from what little information is in the public domain his challenge is legal, under a contract, against a private sector service provider who may or may not be providing services under their contract.

This is a tax lawfully levied by the Government of Ireland.

Banjo String

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I have no idea because I have no idea what is in the contract and I know nothing about Portuguese contract law. But if, for example, the contract provided that the management company would provide certain services which they were not providing - in breach of the contract - then could I imagine that there may be scenarios where he may be justified in not paying it depending upon the particulars of the actual contract and Portuguese contract law. Certainly in most Irish contracts in that scenario there could be such a justification.

There is no such justification for not paying a tax lawfully levied by the Oireachtas unless you are personally raising a constitutional challenge to that tax. None.

Hence his contractual dispute with his management company based on unknown facts, and unknown law, is of absolutely no relevance to this debate. None



I don't for one moment believe his stance is moral, from what little information is in the public domain his challenge is legal, under a contract, against a private sector service provider who may or may not be providing services under their contract.

This is a tax lawfully levied by the Government of Ireland.

Ok.

Same questions to those that refused the hhc. (which wasn't a tax)

Hogan is a hypocritical liar. He can choose his words and excuses how he likes, but at the end of the day, he stood at the forefront, drawing up a tax to fund local services (citation needed) while refusing to pay his own in the Algave.

I'd like to hear Enda Kennys opinion on that.

beeftotheheels

Banjo String wrote: »

Ok.

Same questions to those that refused the hhc. (which wasn't a tax)

Hogan is a hypocritical liar. He can choose his words and excuses how he likes, but at the end of the day, he stood at the forefront, drawing up a tax to fund local services (citation needed) while refusing to pay his own in the Algave.

I'd like to hear Enda Kennys opinion on that.

How was the household charge not a tax? Seriously, the Oireachtas enacted legislation to enforce the collection of monies. That's a tax, I don't care what you call it, it is not a contractual obligation but an obligation, under statute, to give money to the Government.

Again, the Phil Hogan position is of zero relevance to that.

Banjo String

beeftotheheels wrote: »

How was the household charge not a tax? Seriously, the Oireachtas enacted legislation to enforce the collection of monies. That's a tax, I don't care what you call it, it is not a contractual obligation but an obligation, under statute, to give money to the Government .

At least you admit where it was going lol.

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Again, the Phil Hogan position is of zero relevance to that.

Lol.

Next you'll be telling me that reilly being named in stubbs gazette, and the old 'we'll not have defaulter stamped on our forehead' proclaimed by Enda.

beeftotheheels

Banjo String wrote: »

At least you admit where it was going lol.



Lol.

Oh no, you caught me out there. Morto!:o

Banjo String wrote: »

Next you'll be telling me that reilly being named in stubbs gazette, and the old 'we'll not have defaulter stamped on our forehead' proclaimed by Enda.

Not going to defend James Reilly or Phil Hogan as ministers. I think both are unfit for purpose and should be removed. I think the fact that a sitting minister was in the Stubbs Gazette means he is unfit for ministerial office but alas that is not the law of Ireland. Ditto the judgement against John Perry. Again my views and the laws of Ireland differ.

However, as to an argument on the LPT I don't see the relevance. Are you going to bring up the whip system in the passage of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act or Alan Shatter's arrogance next??

Banjo String

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Oh no, you caught me out there. Morto!:o





Not going to defend James Reilly or Phil Hogan as ministers. I think both are unfit for purpose and should be removed. I think the fact that a sitting minister was in the Stubbs Gazette means he is unfit for ministerial office but alas that is not the law of Ireland. Ditto the judgement against John Perry. Again my views and the laws of Ireland differ.

However, as to an argument on the LPT I don't see the relevance. Are you going to bring up the whip system in the passage of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act or Alan Shatter's arrogance next??

No.

Thanks for your replies though.

oscarBravo

Banjo String wrote: »

Hogan is a hypocritical liar. He can choose his words and excuses how he likes, but at the end of the day, he stood at the forefront, drawing up a tax to fund local services (citation needed) while refusing to pay his own in the Algave.

What you've stated here is factually incorrect - you're claiming something that is not true in order to somehow wedge a creaky support under your charge of hypocrisy.

The statement I've quoted above, when parsed out, clearly indicates that Hogan refused to pay a tax. You know this isn't the case, because it has been repeatedly pointed out to you, but you claimed it anyway.

Undoubtedly you'll be applauded by those who already agree with you - confirmation bias is a wonderful thing - but aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself for continuing to assert something that has repeatedly been pointed out to you just isn't even a little bit true?

Banjo String

oscarBravo wrote: »

What you've stated here is factually incorrect - you're claiming something that is not true in order to somehow wedge a creaky support under your charge of hypocrisy.

The statement I've quoted above, when parsed out, clearly indicates that Hogan refused to pay a tax. You know this isn't the case, because it has been repeatedly pointed out to you, but you claimed it anyway.

Undoubtedly you'll be applauded by those who already agree with you - confirmation bias is a wonderful thing - but aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself for continuing to assert something that has repeatedly been pointed out to you just isn't even a little bit true?

Tax or no tax, do you think Phil Hogan isn't lawfully obliged to pay this charge, bearing in mind it is to fund the services he enjoys on his Portuguese property?

You must have missed where I posted that part.

oscarBravo

Banjo String wrote: »

You must have missed where I posted that part.

I didn't miss it. You're still conflating a contractual dispute with tax evasion, and you made that conflation after you acknowledged that there's a difference.

You are deliberately claiming that the two are equivalent, when you know that they are not, and you're trying to wriggle out of the fact that you've claimed something you know to be untrue by pretending that your acknowledgement that they're not the same thing makes it OK to subsequently pretend that they are.

I may be in dispute with Vodafone over my mobile phone bill. That doesn't make me not a tax evader if I refuse to pay my income tax - and you know it.

Banjo String

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't miss it. You're still conflating a contractual dispute with tax evasion, and you made that conflation after you acknowledged that there's a difference.

You are deliberately claiming that the two are equivalent, when you know that they are not, and you're trying to wriggle out of the fact that you've claimed something you know to be untrue by pretending that your acknowledgement that they're not the same thing makes it OK to subsequently pretend that they are.

I may be in dispute with Vodafone over my mobile phone bill. That doesn't make me not a tax evader if I refuse to pay my income tax - and you know it.

Where did I claim Phil was a tax evader?

My comparison was him not paying a service charge. (a charge to fund his services)


Take your time.

bgrizzley

We all know it wasnt really a tax OB, but you must admit its pure comedy gold from FG, especially where Phil justifies by saying "would you pay a charge if you weren't happy with the services?"
Cracks me up every every single time!

Wont make much difference soon anyhow, Phil will be off to his E250k reward in Europe anon,(maybe his circumstances will alllow him to pay it then.)

God forbid they would give the good people of Carlow-Kilkenny the chance to show him what they think of his bullyboy tactics over the last couple of years.

darkhorse

Godge wrote: »

I have yet to see a logical principled sensible argument against the property tax.

darkhorse wrote: »

Google Enda Kenny on property tax.

kippy wrote: »

Why the hell is this still coming up in the thread. It's relevance has been rubbished numerous times and it's time to move on at this point.
A politician wasnt into property tax a number of years ago - big deal.

Well, seeing as you asked, kippy, I posted in answer to Godge's post above. You see, I, and other's on this thread, and similar thread's, have stated many times, why we are not in agreement with the tax on our family homes, but the fact that the politician who was eventually to become our leader, adds some authenticity, don't you think? Also, it was reiterated in the FG manifesto in 2011, as I'm sure you are aware.

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

You do realise that "a politician is infallible whenever he agrees with me" is a pretty pathetic argument, right?

Yeah, but most of them sound so convincing.

beeftotheheels

darkhorse wrote: »

Yeah, but most of them sound so convincing.

Darkhorse - this is how the system works. People say things that they think will be popular to get elected. They don't consider whether those things are economically sound, in the best interests of the country, possible, rational or any of that. All they're aiming for is popular.

In the past they then had almost unfettered discretion to make good on those promises to the ruination of the country.

Fianna Fail 1977, and Fianna Fail in 2002 would be the most recent egregious examples.

Once we are in the $h!te their ability to make good on popular promises is tempered by reality.

Once we emerge from the $h!te things will return to normal of politicians making unsound but popular promises in order to get elected.

And repeat ad infinitum...

darkhorse

beeftotheheels wrote: »

But even experts sometimes make mistakes so he's only "absolutely right" in his views on the potential constitutional issues when he agrees with some one else's preferred position.

Diya mean he's a

---

Liar? God forbid.

beeftotheheels

darkhorse wrote: »

Diya mean he's a

---

Liar? God forbid.

I'm saying that's how they system works. In 1977 FG and Labour ran a reasonably responsible election campaign.

FF campaigned on the basis that they'd abolish rates with no explanation of where the replacement taxes were to come from but god dammit they would stop the nonsense of taxing people's property or people's cars.

Went down a storm with the billy bunters, FF were elected with a landslide and crashed our economy in a similar manner to that which it is now in. The subsequent FG Finance Minister left to try and fix the mess thought about calling in the IMF.

The only difference by 2002 was that the other parties realised that there is no point in running an Irish election campaign based on the facts or in the long term best interests of the country, if you don't tell the people what they want to hear, they won't elect you!

darkhorse

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Darkhorse - this is how the system works. People say things that they think will be popular to get elected. They don't consider whether those things are economically sound, in the best interests of the country, possible, rational or any of that. All they're aiming for is popular.

In the past they then had almost unfettered discretion to make good on those promises to the ruination of the country.

Fianna Fail 1977, and Fianna Fail in 2002 would be the most recent egregious examples.

Once we are in the $h!te their ability to make good on popular promises is tempered by reality.

Once we emerge from the $h!te things will return to normal of politicians making unsound but popular promises in order to get elected.

And repeat ad infinitum...

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I'm saying that's how they system works. In 1977 FG and Labour ran a reasonably responsible election campaign.

FF campaigned on the basis that they'd abolish rates with no explanation of where the replacement taxes were to come from but god dammit they would stop the nonsense of taxing people's property or people's cars.

Went down a storm with the billy bunters, FF were elected with a landslide and crashed our economy in a similar manner to that which it is now in. The subsequent FG Finance Minister left to try and fix the mess thought about calling in the IMF.

The only difference by 2002 was that the other parties realised that there is no point in running an Irish election campaign based on the facts or in the long term best interests of the country, if you don't tell the people what they want to hear, they won't elect you!

Of course, you are 100% correct in everything you say, and, notice in both of your posts, the two common denominators in the ruination of our country are FF and FG, which shows that throughout history, with both these parties, that it is party before country, at any cost. That not withstanding, and aside from Enda Kenny's views on LPT in the past, whether those views be moralistic, or just lies to the electorate in order to secure votes, I could never, in all conscientiousness, agree that there is any justification to a tax on my family home.

beeftotheheels

darkhorse wrote: »

Of course, you are 100% correct in everything you say, and, notice in both of your posts, the two common denominators in the ruination of our country are FF and FG, which shows that throughout history, with both these parties, that it is party before country, at any cost. That not withstanding, and aside from Enda Kenny's views on LPT in the past, whether those views be moralistic, or just lies to the electorate in order to secure votes, I could never, in all conscientiousness, agree that there is any justification to a tax on my family home.

That's just because it is a new tax for you. I lived in the UK where council tax many many times higher than the LPT was the norm. Over time you get used to it and then it seems normal.

Any new tax is going to have the same effect. Imagine I told you that from tomorrow you'd have to pay €1 tax every time you wore a blue tee-shirt?

Despite the fact that you could easily avoid that tax by never again wearing a blue tee-shirt it would strike you as nonsensical and unjust (and okay that one probably would be). One of the reasons it would strike you as such is because it is taxing something new that was never taxed before.

The point is we need new stable taxes which people can't avoid, and that don't fall away when the economy tanks the way stamp duty and CGT did, so we have to tax reasonably stable things like income (USC) and groceries (VAT) and houses (LPT) but because the last one costs you less then the changes to the other two, but taxes something new, it strikes you as more unjust than the VAT rate hike, or replacement of the health levy with USC because they were familiar taxes.

This is how people have always reacted to new taxes, from throwing tea off a ship in the US, through bricking up their chimneys to avoid hearth tax (and risking dying of smoke inhalation), or bricking up windows to avoid window tax.

It is just the way of the world, but if you hadn't always lived in Ireland it wouldn't strike you as inherently unfair to tax your house - most countries do it and tax it a lot more heavily than we do.

darkhorse

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I lived in the UK where council tax many many times higher than the LPT was the norm.

Yeah, me too.