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

Banjo String

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That must be why bin charges and water charges were introduced so smoothly!

Bin charges didn't exactly go to plan to begin with.

There was an attempt at introducing water charges here before.
Remind me how that went again?

Do you think these may have been opposed for any particular reason?

Zubeneschamali

Banjo String wrote: »

Do you think these may have been opposed for any particular reason?

People don't want to pay for services they can see?

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

Replace it with domestic rates.

I don't think anyone would object to actually paying for services they can see.

It'd be easier to swallow a service charge, when you didn't have to fork out for services after you've paid a charge to a council.

I'd be all for an option like they have in the north. Free health care, schooling, refuse collections, etc etc.

Rates in the north don't pay for free health care or schooling. They do pay for bin collection, mind. So, assuming your gaff is worth £200,000, that'll be £1500 (1780 euro) per year. Sound good?

btw - my mates in Belfast were staying down in Wexford last week - they loved the bin collection arrangement there - wheelie bins were collected from their yard weekly - emptied and placed back where they were taken from. They only get fortnightly collection in Belfast, and have to ensure the bin is out on the pavement, or it doesn't get collected at all.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

Rates in the north doesn't pay for free health care or schooling. It does pay for bin collection, mind. So, assuming your gaff is worth £200,000, that'll be £1500 (1780 euro) per year. Sound good?

You're wrong about that.

Banjo String

Your rates bill:

Your rates bill is made up of two parts:

District rate
The district rate is fixed annually by individual councils and is used to pay for services such as bin collections, recycling and waste disposal, leisure services, street cleaning and parks.

Regional rate
The regional rate is set by central government and is used to pay for services such as roads, education and health.

http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/council/rates/whatarerates.aspx

Banjo String

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

People don't want to pay for services they can see?

I posted about a vat increase that was supposed to pay for things like these earlier in the thread.

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

You're wrong about that.

Fair enough - the council services / district portion of rates doesn't include those - so that'll be 900 euro annually (twice what we're paying) for including that bin collection on a modest property.

hju6

alastair wrote: »

Rates in the north don't pay for free health care or schooling. They do pay for bin collection, mind. So, assuming your gaff is worth £200,000, that'll be £1500 (1780 euro) per year. Sound good?

btw - my mates in Belfast were staying down in Wexford last week - they loved the bin collection arrangement there - wheelie bins were collected from their yard weekly - emptied and placed back where they were taken from. They only get fortnightly collection in Belfast, and have to ensure the bin is out on the pavement, or it doesn't get collected at all.

I was in Newry last week in Tesco, I loved the prices of beer and food

oscarBravo

Slick50 wrote: »

Yes, that's what I meant. It wasn't that difficult really. So what? so that's how we ensure a stable tax base, we finance ourselves by taxing welfare recipients.

As opposed to financing ourselves by not taxing welfare recipients? Is there anyone or anything else you'd like to not tax in order to broaden our tax base?

Anybody reading this thread, would have to be forgiven if they got the impression that it was the only option.

It happens to be the only option currently on offer, and also happens to be the topic of the thread.

But you always have other options. You can vote for whomever you want in the next election, including the party that will hike up income tax on minimum wage earners, or increase VAT, or tax the rich until their eyeballs bleed, or whatever other options are compatible with your personal morality.

Just because someone can see other options, does not mean they have to subscribe to another particular point of view.
If someone doesn't subscribe to your point of view, they're not living in reality?

If someone's point of view is that our tax base is sufficiently broad as it currently stands, then yes: I reserve the right to express the opinion that their view is not grounded in reality.

You can blow that condescending twaddle out your jacksie

I guess that's easier than actually demonstrating how our tax base is sufficiently broad.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

Fair enough - the council services / district portion of rates doesn't include those - so that'll be 900 euro annually (twice what we're paying) for including that bin collection on a modest property.

School books.
G.P visits
Prescriptions, capped at (iirc) £3
Abolition of tolled roads.
Motor tax at much, much cheaper rates.

Why have you chosen to zone in on only one aspect of the rates system up there?

hju6

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

OK, suppose you are the Shiny New Party's finance spokesman in the run up to the next election: how would you propose to replace the LPT?

A 0.5% rise in corporation tax would more than cover it,

oscarBravo

hju6 wrote: »

A 0.5% rise in corporation tax would more than cover it,

As I keep pointing out: Irish people love taxes that other people have to pay.

hju6

oscarBravo wrote: »

As I keep pointing out: Irish people love taxes that other people have to pay.

Yes and it's very boring and incorrect,

The Corporations are here in our country and we have a right to tax them accordingly, I thought this was the Republic of Ireland, not a tax haven for a privileged few,

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

btw - my mates in Belfast were staying down in Wexford last week - they loved the bin collection arrangement there - wheelie bins were collected from their yard weekly - emptied and placed back where they were taken from. They only get fortnightly collection in Belfast, and have to ensure the bin is out on the pavement, or it doesn't get collected at all.

That's exactly how Oxigen/AES/Ballymore bins/Thornton operate around my area.

That bin service in Wexford is most definitely not the norm Alistair.

Besides, who wants random strangers plodding through their private property at all hours of the morning

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

School books.
G.P visits
Prescriptions, capped at (iirc) £3
Abolition of tolled roads.
Motor tax at much, much cheaper rates.

Why have you chosen to zone in on only one aspect of the rates system up there?

I've restricted myself to council services only. Like for like. We are not looking at spending LPT on anything but local authority services. NI didn't have tolled roads, so hard to see where they've been abolished - there's lots of tolled roads across the UK though.

alastair

hju6 wrote: »

I was in Newry last week in Tesco, I loved the prices of beer and food

Speaking as someone who regularly shops in Belfast, the prices aren't much different to here. They were, for sure, but not so much these days.

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

That's exactly how Oxigen/AES/Ballymore bins/Thornton operate around my area.

That bin service in Wexford is most definitely not the norm Alistair.

Besides, who wants random strangers plodding through their private property at all hours of the morning

Just passing on the delight of a couple of Belfast Rates payers in terms of bin collection services. Well done Wexford bin men!

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

Speaking as someone who regularly shops in Belfast, the prices aren't much different to here. They were, for sure, but not so much these days.

I'd agree with you here.

I make regular, fortnightly visits to visit family/work. To be completely honest, I've found some items to be cheaper here now.

(In the name of fairness)

Godge

hju6 wrote: »

A 0.5% rise in corporation tax would more than cover it,

Your maths are more than a little off.

http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2013/Documents/Budget%202013%20-%20Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Outlook.pdf

The expected full-year collection of corporation tax is € 4.1 bn. The LPT is expected to bring in €250m this year and €500 m in a full year, approximately 1/8th of the corporation tax receipts. As the corporation tax rate is 12.5%, this would mean an increase of 1.5% in the corporation tax rate would be required to replace the LPT.

However, this does not take into account the law of unintended consequences. While a 0.5% increase might make little difference, a 1.5% increase in the corporation tax would certainly affect location decisions.

Say 5% of companies decide that they don't like the 1.5% increase and pull out of Ireland. That would mean a fall in corporation tax receipts of about 5%, equivalent to 0.7% on the corporation tax rate negating half of the expected increase.

That is before you take into account the falls in income tax, VAT, excise duty etc that would arise in the event of the increase.

At the end of the day, it is quite possible that an increase of 1.5% in the corporation tax rate could lead to an overall decline in tax revenue. Back to the drawing-board on your alternatives.

Zubeneschamali

hju6 wrote: »

A 0.5% rise in corporation tax would more than cover it

Now, consider that everyone (including all the "defenders" of LPT on this thread) expect the LPT to go up in the next few years.

Do you think announcing a rise in Corporation Tax this year with an expectation of more rises to come might have some consequences for the wider economy?

Do you recall an enormous fuss about whether the US or EU would pressure us into raising our corporation tax rate, and what might happen if we did?

Slick50

Godge wrote: »

We have been through several self-induced government finance crises in the last 30 years so you could say we have survived all right.

So have most of the economies in the developed world, including the ones that have rates/LPT.

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:There's enough circular debate on this thread so we can leave this one out.

Can we leave this one out too?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

OK, suppose you are the Shiny New Party's finance spokesman in the run up to the next election: how would you propose to replace the LPT?

oscarBravo wrote: »

As opposed to financing ourselves by not taxing welfare recipients?

It's akin to playing the slot machines to increase your income.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is there anyone or anything else you'd like to not tax in order to broaden our tax base?

This is a welfare reduction for a select few, who happen to be the ones who have probably contributed more to government finances than those who are not liable. If the government want to do that, they could show some of that courage they are always talking about, and do an across the board welfare reduction.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It happens to be the only option currently on offer, and also happens to be the topic of the thread.

So why contradict someone when they point out that it is not the only option?

oscarBravo wrote: »

But you always have other options. You can vote for whomever you want in the next election, including the party that will hike up income tax on minimum wage earners, or increase VAT, or tax the rich until their eyeballs bleed, or whatever other options are compatible with your personal morality.

Thanks very much:rolleyes:. Very condescending of you, you know what you can do with that.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If someone's point of view is that our tax base is sufficiently broad as it currently stands, then yes: I reserve the right to express the opinion that their view is not grounded in reality.

What you said earlier is...

sure: if you subscribe to the rather bizarre view expressed earlier in the thread that our taxation system is completely fit for purpose as it stands,

you were implying that, that is my point of view, which it isn't.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess that's easier than actually demonstrating how our tax base is sufficiently broad.

It was an apropriate response to your post.

oscarBravo

Slick50 wrote: »

It's akin to playing the slot machines to increase your income.

How is it akin to that?

This is a welfare reduction for a select few, who happen to be the ones who have probably contributed more to government finances than those who are not liable.

As is so often the case, I'm lost in a maze of pronouns. What is a welfare reduction? Who are the select few?

If the government want to do that, they could show some of that courage they are always talking about, and do an across the board welfare reduction.

I personally think that needs to be done, but if it were, it would be met with the same howls of indignation that have greeted the introduction of this tax.

So why contradict someone when they point out that it is not the only option?

I didn't.

Thanks very much:rolleyes:. Very condescending of you, you know what you can do with that.

Yes, that seems to be becoming your standard retort when you can't refute something.

What you said earlier is...

sure: if you subscribe to the rather bizarre view expressed earlier in the thread that our taxation system is completely fit for purpose as it stands,

you were implying that, that is my point of view, which it isn't.

You either agree with bgrizzley that our tax base is sufficiently broad and doesn't need broadening; or you don't. Which is it?

It was an apropriate response to your post.

Uh huh.

hju6

Godge wrote: »

Your maths are more than a little off.

http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2013/Documents/Budget%202013%20-%20Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Outlook.pdf

The expected full-year collection of corporation tax is € 4.1 bn. The LPT is expected to bring in €250m this year and €500 m in a full year, approximately 1/8th of the corporation tax receipts. As the corporation tax rate is 12.5%, this would mean an increase of 1.5% in the corporation tax rate would be required to replace the LPT.

However, this does not take into account the law of unintended consequences. While a 0.5% increase might make little difference, a 1.5% increase in the corporation tax would certainly affect location decisions.

Say 5% of companies decide that they don't like the 1.5% increase and pull out of Ireland. That would mean a fall in corporation tax receipts of about 5%, equivalent to 0.7% on the corporation tax rate negating half of the expected increase.

That is before you take into account the falls in income tax, VAT, excise duty etc that would arise in the event of the increase.

At the end of the day, it is quite possible that an increase of 1.5% in the corporation tax rate could lead to an overall decline in tax revenue. Back to the drawing-board on your alternatives.

My maths?
The so called mathmetistians that forecast (guess) the country's future each year are always way off.

Green shoots, corners turned, soft landings etc

Slick50

oscarBravo wrote: »

How is it akin to that? As is so often the case, I'm lost in a maze of pronouns. What is a welfare reduction? Who are the select few?

If you try reading the post, and interpret it in context with what is being discussed, it will help, like you did earlier. But you seem to be preoccupied with looking for flaws with a post, rather than it's actual meaning.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I personally think that needs to be done, but if it were, it would be met with the same howls of indignation that have greeted the introduction of this tax.

So you don't share the point of view that it has been broadly accepted? *(rhetorical)

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, that seems to be becoming your standard retort when you can't refute something.

There was nothing to refute....

oscarBravo wrote: »

But you always have other options. You can vote for whomever you want in the next election, including the party that will hike up income tax on minimum wage earners, or increase VAT, or tax the rich until their eyeballs bleed, or whatever other options are compatible with your personal morality.

Your post was purely condescending.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You either agree with bgrizzley that our tax base is sufficiently broad and doesn't need broadening; or you don't. Which is it?

You are ignoring the fact that you changed the statement from the one I responded to. (I already reposted your origional statement). Also, I do not have to share bgrizzley's point of view, to be able to object to this particular tax.

oscarBravo

Slick50 wrote: »

If you try reading the post, and interpret it in context with what is being discussed, it will help, like you did earlier. But you seem to be preoccupied with looking for flaws with a post, rather than it's actual meaning.

I'm only prepared to put so much effort into deciphering your posts. If you're interested in actually discussing the topic, it would help if you were clearer about what you're trying to say.

So you don't share the point of view that it has been broadly accepted? *(rhetorical)

Accepted? Yes. Welcomed? Not so much. Like I keep saying, Irish people don't like paying tax.

You are ignoring the fact that you changed the statement from the one I responded to. (I already reposted your origional statement). Also, I do not have to share bgrizzley's point of view, to be able to object to this particular tax.

You didn't answer the question.

Godge

hju6 wrote: »

My maths?
The so called mathmetistians that forecast (guess) the country's future each year are always way off.

Green shoots, corners turned, soft landings etc

Yes, your maths. When asked how you would replace the LPT, you came up with this gem.

hju6 wrote: »

A 0.5% rise in corporation tax would more than cover it,

When I demonstrate to you that this would be completely inadequate to cover up the shortfall and that the percentage rise required to replace the LPT would be such as to open up the risk of an overall decrease in tax revenue, you resort to the last refuge of the bewildered: shift the goalposts and blame someone else for something else.

Your solution is completely unrealistic so back to the drawing board.

Godge

Slick50 wrote: »

So you don't share the point of view that it has been broadly accepted? *(rhetorical)

Howls of misplaced moral indignation from a loud minority trying to bully the government into withdrawing the tax are not incompatible with the vast majority of the population accepting the tax and paying up.

Actually, that sounds like exactly what happened.

Slick50

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm only prepared to put so much effort into deciphering your posts. If you're interested in actually discussing the topic, it would help if you were clearer about what you're trying to say.

Fair enough, considering you had problems with the likes of...

Slick50 wrote: »

Where is the money supposed to come from, if people are unemployed.?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Accepted? Yes. Welcomed? Not so much. Like I keep saying, Irish people don't like paying tax.

I think you're confusing acceptance, with resignation.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You didn't answer the question.

Which question are you asking then? That the tax system was fit for purpose? Obviously not. That the tax base is broad enough? Yes.

Zubeneschamali

Godge wrote: »

the vast majority of the population accepting the tax and paying up.

Indeed, the exchequer figures for the first half of the year were rosier than expected because of the number of people who coughed up before the July 1 deadline:

The State’s overall tax revenues for the first half of this year amounted to just under €17.6bn; an improvement of €585m or 3.4% on the first six months of 2012.

Furthermore, the total was 1%, or €166m, ahead of expectations, helped by the receipt of €126m from the local property tax.

Slick50

Godge wrote: »

Howls of misplaced moral indignation from a loud minority trying to bully the government into withdrawing the tax are not incompatible with the vast majority of the population accepting the tax and paying up.

This point of view was countered many times, ages ago.

Godge wrote: »

Actually, that sounds like exactly what happened.

You sound suprised, as if this thought just dawned on you.

Godge

Slick50 wrote: »

This point of view was countered many times, ages ago.

You sound suprised, as if this thought just dawned on you.

How can you say it was countered when you then say I shouldn't be surprised that it happened? That is self-contradictory.

oscarBravo

Slick50 wrote: »

That the tax base is broad enough? Yes.

If your opposition to this tax is such that you have convinced yourself of such utter nonsense as this, then there's literally no point trying to have a rational discussion on the issue.

Slick50

Godge wrote: »

How can you say it was countered

Because it was.

Godge wrote: »

when you then say I shouldn't be surprised that it happened?

Where did I say that?

Godge wrote: »

That is self-contradictory.

Where is the contradiction?

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

Because it was.

The mass acceptance of the tax is a reality. People have paid their money over and we've all (bar a few who don't mind penalties) moved on. That's kind of hard to 'counter' after the fact.

hju6

Godge wrote: »

Yes, your maths. When asked how you would replace the LPT, you came up with this gem.




When I demonstrate to you that this would be completely inadequate to cover up the shortfall and that the percentage rise required to replace the LPT would be such as to open up the risk of an overall decrease in tax revenue, you resort to the last refuge of the bewildered: shift the goalposts and blame someone else for something else.

Your solution is completely unrealistic so back to the drawing board.

Your figures are from the lads who 'found' 6 billion lying about a couple of years ago,
I await a better solution from yourself that doesn't include taxing the working heart out of the country with charge after charge that will rise year after year,
Just to service the interest on other people's debt that was foisted upon us.

Not once have you proposed any ideas to raise finances on this thread, it's like Edna bleats and you run for your sheepskin wallet, god help you in a few years time when it all comes home to roost.

alastair

hju6 wrote: »

Your figures are from the lads who 'found' 6 billion lying about a couple of years ago,
I await a better solution from yourself that doesn't include taxing the working heart out of the country with charge after charge that will rise year after year,
Just to service the interest on other people's debt that was foisted upon us.

As you're well aware - not a cent of your LPT goes anywhere but funding local authority services. And we're still a relatively low-taxed nation compared to the rest of the EU.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:2_Ranking_of_total_tax_revenue_by_Member_States_and_EFTA_countries_as_a_%25_of_GDP.PNG&filetimestamp=20130102164221

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

The mass acceptance of the tax is a reality. People have paid their money over and we've all (bar a few who don't mind penalties) moved on. That's kind of hard to 'counter' after the fact.

I suppose your going to add 'acceptance' to your dictionary of re-definitions now.

alastair wrote: »

As you're well aware - not a cent of your LPT goes anywhere but funding local authority services.

Of course not. That's all legally ring fenced. But what about the portion of local services financed from central funds still? That's not guaranteed, and subject to a whim.

alastair wrote: »

And we're still a relatively low-taxed nation compared to the rest of the EU.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:2_Ranking_of_total_tax_revenue_by_Member_States_and_EFTA_countries_as_a_%25_of_GDP.PNG&filetimestamp=20130102164221

So adding a couple of percent to our income tax rates, or our corporation tax rates probably won't result in this mass exodus of higher earners, and or multi nationals after all then.

hju6

alastair wrote: »

As you're well aware - not a cent of your LPT goes anywhere but funding local authority services. And we're still a relatively low-taxed nation compared to the rest of the EU.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:2_Ranking_of_total_tax_revenue_by_Member_States_and_EFTA_countries_as_a_%25_of_GDP.PNG&filetimestamp=20130102164221

Nonsense absolute nonsense

It replaces the money took out, same thing

Low low taxes if you are a corporation, if corporations pay any in some cases

hju6

alastair wrote: »

The mass acceptance of the tax is a reality. People have paid their money over and we've all (bar a few who don't mind penalties) moved on. That's kind of hard to 'counter' after the fact.

Circular arguments are frowned upon here mate,

alastair

hju6 wrote: »

Nonsense absolute nonsense

It replaces the money took out, same thing

Money has been taken out of most areas of government expenditure - it's not like local authority funding is any different. Where's all that money going? Over 95% of your taxes go to paying for ongoing services, and servicing the deficit costs which have nothing to do with bank bailouts or any loans accrued to service them.

alastair

hju6 wrote: »

Circular arguments are frowned upon here mate,

I didn't notice that you had an argument.

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

So adding a couple of percent to our income tax rates, or our corporation tax rates probably won't result in this mass exodus of higher earners, and or multi nationals after all then.

You'd like to take that gamble? I'm not so sure.

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

Of course not. That's all legally ring fenced. But what about the portion of local services financed from central funds still? That's not guaranteed, and subject to a whim.

Same as it's always been. But have you any evidence that this will happen?

bgrizzley

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Do you mind me asking why you keep saying stuff, and then asking others to quote it back to you?

Because i added a proviso, and i wasnt sure if he was just purposely mis-quoting me to bolster his incorrect assumtion on property taxes being necessary, or accurately quoting some one else. (judging by his thanks, the former (as you correctly pointed out for a change:D))

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

Same as it's always been. But have you any evidence that this will happen?

Other than the fact we now have an LPT to finance local services. Last year we were asked "what is all the fuss about, it's less than €2 a week"
Less than a year later, it's more than double that, on average. It's only going one way, and that's steadily upwards, this was just to establish the 'principal'.
Personally, at the moment, I don't mind the how much, but it may well get to a point were I couldn't say that. What then? What about people who can't say that now?

Zubeneschamali

Slick50 wrote: »

So adding a couple of percent to our income tax rates

We've just discussed that, they'd have to take more than double per taxpayer, because only half the working population pays any income tax, ignoring those who don't work at all.

Some anti-LPT posters have said they'd happily pay more than double to avoid the horrible injustice of domestic rates returning, but not me!

Banjo String

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Some anti-LPT posters have said they'd happily pay more than double to avoid the horrible injustice of domestic rates returning, but not me!

Did they?

Zubeneschamali

Banjo String wrote: »

Did they?

I think both darkhorse and bgrizzley said they prefer to pay more extra in income tax than pay LPT.

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

Other than the fact we now have an LPT to finance local services. Last year we were asked "what is all the fuss about, it's less than €2 a week"
Less than a year later, it's more than double that, on average. It's only going one way, and that's steadily upwards, this was just to establish the 'principal'.
Personally, at the moment, I don't mind the how much, but it may well get to a point were I couldn't say that. What then? What about people who can't say that now?

It's going to go upwards (or downwards :rolleyes:) at a maximum of 15% per annum, and we all knew that the HHC was only an easing-in process for a proper property tax - they told us as much from the outset.

Banjo String

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think both darkhorse and bgrizzley said they prefer to pay more extra in income tax than pay LPT.

I said it too.

I don't think anyone said they'd pay double the income tax though.