RTE & the property tax

Le_Dieux

Phoebas wrote: »

Just listened to it. It was a pretty straightforward fact based interview with a tax specialist, not a political interview, so I don't know why you would expect her to express any view on the pros or cons of the tax itself.

I guess it's how one interprets the interview. For me, it came across as if it was the norm to pay the lpt, which I am totally against.

You are entitled to your opinion PB, just like I am to mine.

Le_Dieux

I am not too long on Boards, but need to ask a question:

Phoebas, the more You comment, the more You sound like DV Power. I also note that DV has not commented once on this topic. Are people allowed to have aliases here?

bgrizzley

Le_Dieux wrote: »

I am not too long on Boards, but need to ask a question:

Phoebas, the more You comment, the more You sound like DV Power. I also note that DV has not commented once on this topic. Are people allowed to have aliases here?

I think DV knew he was arguing a losing battle so he closed his ac . theres also a rumour going around that he re-reged and came over to the No side when he realised just how wrong he was...

what do you think Phoebus?:)

darkhorse

Phoebas wrote: »

How do you see the 'policies' of DDI delivering this for you?

In somewhat the same kind of way that a lot of the electorate seen, by his manifesto, that EK was going to end cronyism, deal with quango's etc.

darkhorse

MilanPan!c wrote: »

So you're siding with the same group that the OKC Bomber belonged too?

Maybe you should ask the leader of the Montana Freeman, who came up with the term Freeman, how it worked out for him, these beliefs.

Oh wait, you can't. He died in federal prison.

Maybe ask the white supremacist that devolved the whole sovereign citizens thing? Oh you can't. He died in prison as well.

But sure.

These guys aren't nutters.

The next time you visit the US, make sure you tell the immigration guy that you think Freeman are A-OK.

Let us know how that works out.

I have to agree with the poster previous to your post here. You are a little paranoid. Will you have another read of your post, you'll see what I'm talking about.

darkhorse

MilanPan!c wrote: »

It's not nonsense.

The cult Giltoy belongs too is the same one Timothy McVeigh belonged to.

Yer really pushing the boat out here. That's a slanderous statement.

darkhorse

SamHall wrote: »

Seems like a good deal to me.

What is included with the one we are meant to be getting?

Bin emptied for free again is it?
No more a&e charges, and free gp visits?
Book fees now abolished, and school transport and dinners provided?

Lastly, to claim its an 'SF tax' is a bit of a fib is it not?

Did ya ever notice, whatever thread we seem to be on, when this question comes up, there's not one poster that can either compare of justify the difference.

mariaalice

mikom wrote: »

Revenue will run this tax for approx two years to put the shits up folks, so that they all offer up their name and house location.
I predict after the two years are up and most folks have been roped in, then this tax collection will be auctioned off to a collection company.
This collection company like all the other leeches in this country will get fat off the new poor.

I would also like to alert people to the reason behind the fact that there are so many "inaccurate" valuations of homes being sent out.
It causes Mary and Paddy to get stroppy and send in their own valuation as a two fingers to the government.
Those "two fingers" are the entrapment.

I would like to add as a home owner that I have not received a letter yet.
I have no chance of putting my name forward to pay "rent" to the state on something I worked hard for and own outright.
I will also not be giving them the location of my septic tank.

They can come around with my local guard if they like............... but they will have to book him between 1 and 2 or 7 and 8, as he is not in the barracks at any other times.

You do know they can take it from you salaried or social welfare payment unless that was just an idle threat.

Banjo String

mariaalice wrote: »

You do know they can take it from you salaried or social welfare payment unless that was just an idle threat.

They said the same about the hhc, never happened though.

If revenue do decide to start dipping into private bank accounts and so on., labour as a working man's party should be ashamed of themselves for standing idly by.

darkhorse

.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I'm predicting their behaviour.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

NO I DID NOT GIVE YOU ANY REASON.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I'm predicting their behaviour.

darkhorse

bgrizzley wrote: »

tsk tsk tsk, property deals....

... if he plays his cards right he might get into Stubbs Gazette:pac:


http://www.thejournal.ie/pictures-james-reilly-stubbs-gazette-defaulters-list-516285-Jul2012/[/QUOTE]

He might even get a job in the same place as Mick Wallace.:p

Micky Dolenz

Mod

Can we stop with the large font please.

View

SamHall wrote: »

The people in the North get a wide array of services provided with the rates system.
Yes it may be more expensive compared to ours (in some instances) but the better value to be had its definitely up north.

Services in NI are largely provided by the various agencies of the (central) NI government not by the local councils (whose services are paid for using most, but not all, of the rate monies).

Those (NI) centrally provided services are paid for by:
a) a massive contribution from the UK Treasury (most of which comes from elsewhere in the UK), and,
b) a (small) contribution from rates raised in NI (i.e. the balance of the rate monies).

Hence most of those "better value" services in NI are being paid for by a massive subsidy from the rest of the UK not by local generated taxation in NI (be it rates or otherwise).

How massive is that subsidy to NI from the rest of the UK?

Well, the UK's CEBR claims that NI has a taxation receipts:expenditure gap of roughly -40% of GDP - an "over-spending" figure so over the top that it makes even the worst EU "bailout" member state seem prudently managed by comparasion.

Were NI ever to be required to balance its books via a "Troika" bailout programme, the required austerity package would be so awful, you'd have an easier time trying to turn around the Greek economy....

dxhound2005

darkhorse wrote: »

Did ya ever notice, whatever thread we seem to be on, when this question comes up, there's not one poster that can either compare of justify the difference.

You're asking here about what servces family homeowners get in the North for the Sinn Fein family home tax. I'm pretty sure that I pointed out that most of the money there for local services is provided by central government. In fact I'm certain I have done so on more than one occasion. Of course that means that they (but mostly their UK mainland fellow taxpayers) are paying through income tax VAT etc for the local services in NI. So their £1000 or so average SF family home tax doesn't actually get them very much.

They would probably have to pay £5000 on average per house to cover the real cost but only the super rich with big mansions would be paying that much or more. But wait, SF make sure that the super rich with big mansions pay only what a person with a house worth £400,000 pays in SF family home tax because they have made that the upper value limit.

There is no upper limit here.

Banjo String

View wrote: »

Services in NI are largely provided by the various agencies of the (central) NI government not by the local councils (whose services are paid for using most, but not all, of the rate monies).

Those (NI) centrally provided services are paid for by:
a) a massive contribution from the UK Treasury (most of which comes from elsewhere in the UK), and,
b) a (small) contribution from rates raised in NI (i.e. the balance of the rate monies).

Hence most of those "better value" services in NI are being paid for by a massive subsidy from the rest of the UK not by local generated taxation in NI (be it rates or otherwise).

How massive is that subsidy to NI from the rest of the UK?

Well, the UK's CEBR claims that NI has a taxation receipts:expenditure gap of roughly -40% of GDP - an "over-spending" figure so over the top that it makes even the worst EU "bailout" member state seem prudently managed by comparasion.

Were NI ever to be required to balance its books via a "Troika" bailout programme, the required austerity package would be so awful, you'd have an easier time trying to turn around the Greek economy....

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You're asking here about what servces family homeowners get in the North for the Sinn Fein family home tax. I'm pretty sure that I pointed out that most of the money there for local services is provided by central government. In fact I'm certain I have done so on more than one occasion. Of course that means that they (but mostly their UK mainland fellow taxpayers) are paying through income tax VAT etc for the local services in NI. So their £1000 or so average SF family home tax doesn't actually get them very much.

They would probably have to pay £5000 on average per house to cover the real cost but only the super rich with big mansions would be paying that much or more. But wait, SF make sure that the super rich with big mansions pay only what a person with a house worth £400,000 pays in SF family home tax because they have made that the upper value limit.

There is no upper limit here.

Firstly, DX In particular constantly refers to rates as a 'SF home/property tax' which is completely inaccurate.

SF are a Junior partner in a coalition in the North, the bigger party being the DUP, but the rates system have been in place for decades before they got into power sharing.

Taxation issues in the North are by and large set and controlled in London.

The rates system existed when it was the SDLP/UUP in power previous to the current coalition, so constantly referring to it as an SF tax isn't doing your cause much good, other than further attempting to muddy the waters.

Secondly, this Central taxation pot your both referring to, that subsidises the North via the UK tax payments. ....

I could say ditto here in Ireland.

Dublin for example would have a lot more people paying income tax, car tax, etc etc then somewhere like (Let's say) Leitrim.

The Dublin tax payers cash goes into a central fund, (like everyone else's will) and then distributed as and where it's needed to fund other services in other parts of the country.

Exactly like you've described in the above two posts.

What's your point exactly?

View

SamHall wrote: »

Secondly, this Central taxation pot your both referring to, that subsidises the North via the UK tax payments. ....

I could say ditto here in Ireland.

Dublin for example would have a lot more people paying income tax, car tax, etc etc then somewhere like (Let's say) Leitrim.

The Dublin tax payers cash goes into a central fund, (like everyone else's will) and then distributed as and where it's needed to fund other services in other parts of the country.

Exactly like you've described in the above two posts.

What's your point exactly?

The point is that the RoI is not receivng a massive "free" subsidy every year unlike NI. Of course, it is real easy for NI politicians to provide "better value" public services when they are doing so largely by spending other (non-NI) people's money.

Obviously if you (or SF) are proposing we re-join the UK in order to receive comparable subsidies or you (or they) can find someone outside the RoI stupid enough to donate vast sums of money to the RoI every year, we too could enjoy such "better value" public services here in the RoI.

If not, then with our large expenditure deficit, we get back to the questions of "Which taxes do we raise?" and/or "Which services do we cut?"

dxhound2005

SamHall wrote: »

Firstly, DX In particular constantly refers to rates as a 'SF home/property tax' which is completely inaccurate.

SF are a Junior partner in a coalition in the North, the bigger party being the DUP, but the rates system have been in place for decades before they got into power sharing.

Taxation issues in the North are by and large set and controlled in London.

The rates system existed when it was the SDLP/UUP in power previous to the current coalition, so constantly referring to it as an SF tax isn't doing your cause much good, other than further attempting to muddy the waters.

Secondly, this Central taxation pot your both referring to, that subsidises the North via the UK tax payments. ....

I could say ditto here in Ireland.

Dublin for example would have a lot more people paying income tax, car tax, etc etc then somewhere like (Let's say) Leitrim.

The Dublin tax payers cash goes into a central fund, (like everyone else's will) and then distributed as and where it's needed to fund other services in other parts of the country.

Exactly like you've described in the above two posts.

What's your point exactly?

I'll call it the DUP/SF/UUP/SDLP/Alliance Domestic Rates tax from now on if that's what you want. It is a property tax and it is completely accurate to describe it as such. The agency which collects it calls it a property tax, but maybe you think you know better than them.

There is no family home tax in this country there is a Local Property Tax.

Banjo String

View wrote: »

The point is that the RoI is not receivng a massive "free" subsidy every year unlike NI. Of course, it is real easy for NI politicians to provide "better value" public services when they are doing so largely by spending other (non-NI) people's money.

And the point I'm making is that our Central tax fund works in exactly the same manner.

How many people are in England v the population in the North?

View wrote: »

Obviously if you (or SF) are proposing we re-join the UK in order to receive comparable subsidies or you (or they) can find someone outside the RoI stupid enough to donate vast sums of money to the RoI every year, we too could enjoy such "better value" public services here in the RoI.

I'm not suggesting that

I'm pointing out (agreeing with you actually) that their Central fund system, in that one jurisdiction subsidises another works in the same way here.

View wrote: »

If not, then with our large expenditure deficit, we get back to the questions of "Which taxes do we raise?" and/or "Which services do we cut?"

Let's see. ....

Raise income tax, introduce another higher band for big earners.
Slash the ps pension bill ( for starters)

Banjo String

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I'll call it the DUP/SF/UUP/SDLP/Alliance Domestic Rates tax from now on if that's what you want. It is a property tax and it is completely accurate to describe it as such. The agency which collects it calls it a property tax, but maybe you think you know better than them.

I don't know better than the agency that collects it, but then again it's not me that keeps referring to it as an 'SF home tax' that's your baby.

SF didn't introduce the tax, that's all I was getting at. No need to get the auld knickers in a twist :P

dxhound2005 wrote: »

There is no family home tax in this country there is a Local Property Tax.

I'm aware of that. I've not described it as anything else though.

It would be fair to assume though, that some properties are in fact family homes.

What was your opinion when Enda Kenny said it was morally wrong, unjust and unfair to tax them?

Slick50

SamHall wrote: »

It would be fair to assume though, that some properties are in fact family homes.

It would be fair to assume that the vast majority are family homes.

Banjo String

Slick50 wrote: »

It would be fair to assume that the vast majority are family homes.

No response as I expected.

Fierce quiet tonight on this thread since the collapse of the cpa earlier.

What will happen next I wonder?

Revenue might well be in no rush now to collect a tax on behalf of a govt that have just shafted them ( or may be about to)

Are labour finally done in govt?

Personally I'd be worried now for anyone that's already handed over their cash for the lpt as I'd be worried about getting a refund if and when it all collapses.

Today's events have just brought this whole sorry mess one step closer to collapsing.

Slick50

SamHall wrote: »

Are labour finally done in govt?

Gilmore and Co, in the cabinet will be holding on for as long as possible, to enhance their pensions. They must recognise that they are done in politics.

SamHall wrote: »

Personally I'd be worried now for anyone that's already handed over their cash for the lpt as I'd be worried about getting a refund if and when it all collapses.

Refunds are not going to happen.

SamHall wrote: »

Today's events have just brought this whole sorry mess one step closer to collapsing.

The public service pay bill has to be addressed. These f*ckers just seem to have a talent for pissing everybody off, trying to ram home all of their ideas.

View

SamHall wrote: »

And the point I'm making is that our Central tax fund works in exactly the same manner.

It does, does it?

So who exactly - outside the RoI - is subsiding services for tax-payers in the RoI at levels comparable to those people from outside NI (i.e. tax-payers in the rest of the UK) subside those provided to the tax-payers in NI?

Because if the answer is no one then any and all comparasions between local services provided to and paid for SOLELY by the people in the RoI and local/NI-level services provided to people in NI but largely paid for by people elsewhere in the UK are meaningless B%lls%^t of the highest order.

To put it bluntly, NI (be it local or NI-level government) operates in an economic fantasy. We don't have that option although we do try to do so from time to time.

Banjo String

View wrote: »

It does, does it?

So who exactly - outside the RoI - is subsiding services for tax-payers in the RoI at levels comparable to those people from outside NI (i.e. tax-payers in the rest of the UK) subside those provided to the tax-payers in NI?

I think your getting confused tbh.

Who is subsidising people in the North outside the UK?

View wrote: »

Because if the answer is no one then any and all comparasions between local services provided to and paid for SOLELY by the people in the RoI and local/NI-level services provided to people in NI but largely paid for by people elsewhere in the UK are meaningless B%lls%^t of the highest order.

To put it bluntly, NI (be it local or NI-level government) operates in an economic fantasy. We don't have that option although we do try to do so from time to time.

We can go around in circles all day if that's what you want?

Your argument is invalid though. The UK have a Central fund that gets distributed to different parts of its jurisdiction's, so some areas subsidise other areas.

Just like we do.

We can discuss how the UK might subsidise other rural, sparsely populated areas of England/Wales or Scotland if it makes you feel better?

The endv result will be the same though.

View

SamHall wrote: »

I think your getting confused tbh.

Who is subsidising people in the North outside the UK?

Try answering the question not dodging it.

You can do so, can't you?

SamHall wrote: »

We can go around in circles all day if that's what you want?

Your argument is invalid though. The UK have a Central fund that gets distributed to different parts of its jurisdiction's, so some areas subsidise other areas.

No one is disputing that the UK has a central fund that distributes funding throughout the UK. That in fact is the point.

And the "validity" of the point is that most of the "local services" in NI are NOT paid for out of local rates (a tax on property) from NI but are instead paid for by money from outside NI.

By way of contrast, all "local services" (and "central services") in the RoI have to be paid for by people in the RoI.

There is no one outside the RoI willing to subsidise our spending. In contrast, NI - the UK's Leitrim to use your analogy - is massively subsidised by the rest of the UK.

Rates in NI do NOT pay for the full cost of "local services" provided in NI - they pay for a small part of the bill at best.

It is real easy for people in NI to enjoy "better value" services for their rates when others are paying most of the bill for their spending. No one though is going to pay ANY part of the bill for us here in the RoI.

Got it now?

If so, we can move on from the economic fantasy of NI's "better value" local services and discuss why if it is okay for tax-payers in every other OECD economy to pay taxes based on property it is "wrong" for us to do so here.

Banjo String

View wrote: »

Try answering the question not dodging it.

You can do so, can't you?



No one is disputing that the UK has a central fund that distributes funding throughout the UK. That in fact is the point.

And the "validity" of the point is that most of the "local services" in NI are NOT paid for out of local rates (a tax on property) from NI but are instead paid for by money from outside NI.

By way of contrast, all "local services" (and "central services") in the RoI have to be paid for by people in the RoI.

There is no one outside the RoI willing to subsidise our spending. In contrast, NI - the UK's Leitrim to use your analogy - is massively subsidised by the rest of the UK.

Rates in NI do NOT pay for the full cost of "local services" provided in NI - they pay for a small part of the bill at best.

It is real easy for people in NI to enjoy "better value" services for their rates when others are paying most of the bill for their spending. No one though is going to pay ANY part of the bill for us here in the RoI.

Got it now?

No I don't 'get it now'.

Whether we like it or not, the North is governed by the UK, therfore is technically part of the UK.

Leitrim is part of Ireland.

Why would Ireland or the UK receive subsidies from any other countries to fund their services?

There's less than two million people in the North, whereas the population of the whole of the UK is over 62 million.

The population of Ireland is circa 4.5 million. Leitrim has 32, 000 give or take.

So, tax payers in Dublin might subsidise Leitrim ( both in Ireland)
Tax payers in London might subsidise Armagh (both in the UK)

To answer your question, who outside roi subsidises roi for its services? No one.

Who subsidises the UK to provide services in other parts of the UK? No one.

Let me know what your having difficulty understanding and I'll run through it with you.

If so, we can move on from the economic fantasy of NI's "better value" local services and discuss why if it is okay for tax-payers in every other OECD economy to pay taxes based on property it is "wrong" for us to do so here.

Oh one of these arguments?

Why don't we hike up our corporation tax to match other OECD economies of we're keeping up with the Jones?

Ditto with VRT, alcohol and tobacco taxation while we're at it, sure we might as well go the full hog.

Le_Dieux

SamHall wrote: »

No response as I expected.

Fierce quiet tonight on this thread since the collapse of the cpa earlier.

What will happen next I wonder?

Revenue might well be in no rush now to collect a tax on behalf of a govt that have just shafted them ( or may be about to)

Are labour finally done in govt?

Personally I'd be worried now for anyone that's already handed over their cash for the lpt as I'd be worried about getting a refund if and when it all collapses.

Today's events have just brought this whole sorry mess one step closer to collapsing.

Said it before and I'll say it again: Last time FG were in power, they taxed the daylights out of everything, and got done when trying to add VAT to children's shoes. I think history is about to repeat itself. I can't see the likes of Keaveney or R. Shortall staying sturm in the LB backseats. I think EG is history ( which is a good thing IMHO) and He'll be gone before summer, and then they'll pull the plug on that other bunch.

And at the same time as SamHall says, I think this LPT will be mothballed.

Am Chile

Prior to the croke park 2 rejection-brendan howling threatened a cut of 7% across the board if croke park was rejected-now that its being rejected-along with the property tax they are threatening to deduct money out of private bank accounts etc in events of non payment-I wouldnt put it past fine gael for a second to carry out both threats-however it remains to be seen if labour haves the ballz to carry out both threats via cuts of 7% and deducting money from private bank accounts-cuz if labour were to go head to carry out and stand over such threats il hate to see what will happen to the labour party in the long term.

paddy147

So if you chose to pay it in the Post office in installments,you will now get hit with extra charges each time you pay it???

Am I hearing and reading this right?????

Le_Dieux

paddy147 wrote: »

So if you chose to pay it in the Post office in installments,you will now get hit with extra charges each time you pay it???

Am I hearing and reading this right?????

Welcome to the land that screws You for every single cent You have.