Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are you going to pay the household charge? [Part 1]

Options
1…232233235237238…334

Comments

  • Options
    #7022
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    phil1nj wrote: »
    Do we trust the current policy makers with this money or is it just going in to a black hole from which many nests will be feathered first before things actually change?

    It's going into local authorities. If you don't like how they're being run, vote for something better next local elections.


  • Options
    #7023
    phil1nj
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭phil1nj


    alastair wrote: »
    It's going into local authorities. If you don't like how they're being run, vote for something better next local elections.

    And if you believe that , I've got some magic beans you might be interested in...:D


  • Options
    #7024
    phil1nj
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭phil1nj


    alastair wrote: »
    Eh? If you can rent out a room for profit - it's a source of income (taxed or not), and it doesn't really matter who opts in or out of this option - it's still a potential source of revenue.
    .

    Right so you're in favour of texting potential sources of revenue now? I own a car to get me to work during the week but I could use it as a taxi at the weekends? Should I pay income tax on the potential profit I could make by moonlighting as a taxi service?


  • Options
    #7025
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    phil1nj wrote: »
    And if you believe that , I've got some magic beans you might be interested in...:D

    You have information to the contrary? Or just empty bluster?


  • Options
    #7026
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    phil1nj wrote: »
    Right so you're in favour of texting potential sources of revenue now? I own a car to get me to work during the week but I could use it as a taxi at the weekends? Should I pay income tax on the potential profit I could make by moonlighting as a taxi service?

    Oh dear. I'm simply responding to your claim that the only means of generating revenue from a primary residence was at point of sale - that's clearly not the case. End of. No-one suggested income tax could be levied from a house.

    Yep - you can use your car for a taxi service - just buy the licence and knock yourself out. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7027
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    alastair wrote: »
    I'm not in the business of believing any politician - try finding an economist (of any shade) who believes that a property tax isn't an appropriate part of fixing our mess. Try finding a nation that doesn't believe that property tax is a just and proper component of their taxation system.

    'Fixing OUR mess'? Fixing the mess caused by a shower of greedy, useless' inept clowns. MAYBE WE COULD TRY:

    1. Nor spending more than we take in - no matter what the cost.

    2. Reduce PS/CS wages to an appropriate level which corresponds with the country's income.

    3. Get rid of the ludicrous PS/CS "entitlements".

    4. Reduce the SW gravy train accordingly.

    A better place to start really.


  • Options
    #7028
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    alastair wrote: »
    Oh dear. I'm simply responding to your claim that the only means of generating revenue from a primary residence was at point of sale - that's clearly not the case. End of. No-one suggested income tax could be levied from a house.

    Yep - you can use your car for a taxi service - just buy the licence and knock yourself out. :rolleyes:

    Just a licence?
    Anything else required by law............... Mr Law?


  • Options
    #7029
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    alastair wrote: »
    It's going into local authorities. If you don't like how they're being run, vote for something better next local elections.

    Oh my Lord. You don't ACTUALLY believe that - do you? If you do, you are far more naive than anyone previously thought.


  • Options
    #7030
    phil1nj
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭phil1nj


    alastair wrote: »
    You have information to the contrary? Or just empty bluster?

    I have as much proof as you do that it will actually be spent on local services. Supposedly it's listed on the leaflets that were delivered to some houses around the country ( didn't get one myself so I wouldn't know). But in a country where wasting taxpayers money is par for the course (35 million on on childrens hospital that will never be built) I wouldn't trust Irish politicians to run a bath. But that's just me.


  • Options
    #7031
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    alastair wrote: »
    Despite that, the vast majority of Irish homeowners are in positive equity.

    But the vast amount of mortgage holders are not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7032
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    'Fixing OUR mess'? Fixing the mess caused by a shower of greedy, useless' inept clowns. .

    Dunno about you, but the mess has certainly made itself known in my life - unless you've been immune from it somehow, it's our mess to sort out.


  • Options
    #7033
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    mikom wrote: »
    50,000 people required to pay 100 Euro every day between now and the end of the month to reach just 50% compliance.
    Go on the pro-taxers.
    Given that 10,000 people per day registered over the past week even though it's not due for another 8 days, 50,000 per day suddenly doesn't seem insane.

    You'll never get 50% compliance at the deadline date anyway. We're on track for 25% compliance by the deadline date, just like I predicted last week.

    At the moment, compliance is now running at more than 17% (nearly 20% if you exclude exempt people). A small figure sure, but it means that the 85% opposition claimed by the no side is obviously just a piece of hot air with no basis.


  • Options
    #7034
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    But the vast amount of mortgage holders are not.

    Mortgages aren't being taxed - properties are. In any case the majority of Irish mortgages are in positive equity (by about a ratio of 3:2).


  • Options
    #7035
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    alastair wrote: »
    Dunno about you, but the mess has certainly made itself known in my life - unless you've been immune from it somehow, it's our mess to sort out.

    Far from it. As I listed above, the deficit is caused by sheer stupidity regarding PS/SW/CS wages/payments. Easily rectified. Cut your cloth and live within your means.

    The rest of the debt is a private debt between failed business entities. Again your naivety shines through.


    'Immune from what', precisely?


  • Options
    #7036
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    alastair wrote: »
    Mortgages aren't being taxed - properties are. In any case the majority of Irish mortgages are in positive equity in any case.

    Sweet Jesus. Of course they are.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #7037
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    seamus wrote: »

    You'll never get 50% compliance at the deadline date anyway. We're on track for 25% compliance by the deadline date, just like I predicted last week.

    I was way ahead of ya.


    Originally Posted by dxhound2005 viewpost.gif
    What's your prediction for 31st March?


    Post date 02-03-2012
    mikom wrote: »
    Approx 25%.


  • Options
    #7038
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Oh my Lord. You don't ACTUALLY believe that - do you? If you do, you are far more naive than anyone previously thought.

    Again - any evidence to the contrary - or just empty bluster?


  • Options
    #7039
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Sweet Jesus. Of course they are.:rolleyes:

    Umm. Yep. They are.


  • Options
    #7040
    phil1nj
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭phil1nj


    alastair wrote: »
    Oh dear. I'm simply responding to your claim that the only means of generating revenue from a primary residence was at point of sale - that's clearly not the case. End of. No-one suggested income tax could be levied from a house.

    Yep - you can use your car for a taxi service - just buy the licence and knock yourself out. :rolleyes:

    Don't start moving goal posts here my friend. A person can rent out a room and earn revenue up to a certain amount before being liable for tax (10k I think maybe more maybe less). After that they are liable for tax on money they have received from renting. The existing laws are in place to deal with this situation but guess what, not everyone who owns a house does it. The government don't see it as a potential revenue stream because, well you know, it's a pointless exercise to try and tax people on money they have not, will not or font want to earn.


  • Options
    #7041
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    phil1nj wrote: »
    Don't start moving goal posts here my friend.

    Between moving goal posts and pushing boats out....... this one will never be idle.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7042
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    'Immune from what', precisely?

    So, you've not been impacted by the knackered economy at all? Well done you.


  • Options
    #7043
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    alastair wrote: »
    Again - any evidence to the contrary - or just empty bluster?

    No. Just the well-publicised facts. Something you seem oblivious to. You love that word bluster. How fitting.:)


  • Options
    #7044
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    alastair wrote: »
    Umm. Yep. They are.

    *Facepalm*


  • Options
    #7045
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    alastair wrote: »
    So, you've not been impacted by the knackered economy at all? Well done you.

    How do you define impacted?

    Do you agree with keeping PS/CS wages at the amount they are - even if it means borrowing €400m EVERY WEEK?

    Do you agree with keeping SW rates and continuing to borrow for same?

    Do you agree with failed business entities being bailed out while other Private Sector companies go to the wall, without State aid?


  • Options
    #7046
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    mikom wrote: »
    Between moving goal posts and pushing boats out....... this one will never be idle.

    Yep.


  • Options
    #7047
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    phil1nj wrote: »
    Don't start moving goal posts here my friend. A person can rent out a room and earn revenue up to a certain amount before being liable for tax (10k I think maybe more maybe less). After that they are liable for tax on money they have received from renting. The existing laws are in place to deal with this situation but guess what, not everyone who owns a house does it. The government don't see it as a potential revenue stream because, well you know, it's a pointless exercise to try and tax people on money they have not, will not or font want to earn.

    Stupid or obtuse? I'm not sure.

    I don't care about taxation of rented rooms tbh - my only point (again!) is that it's clearly a means of generating revenue from your home - a clear contradiction to the claim made by you, that the only way to generate revenue from your home was at point of sale. End of.


  • Options
    #7048
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,557 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    alastair wrote: »
    So - when you say that 'The definition of the property tax differs after that' - it's really a distraction from your core unwillingness to pay your way. Fair enough.

    Pay MY way ?
    You want ME to pay for the crimes of others, the mismanagement of the country, it's economy and the corruption of it's elected Government.
    I've paid my way all along but there comes a time when the waste has to stop and this is as good a time as any.


  • Options
    #7049
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    *Facepalm*

    Yeah - I'm embarrassed for you too.


  • Options
    #7050
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    No. Just the well-publicised facts. Something you seem oblivious to. You love that word bluster. How fitting.:)

    The well publised fact is that the household charge is 100% earmarked for local authority funding.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7051
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    alastair wrote: »
    The well publised fact is that the household charge is 100% earmarked for local authority funding.

    To replace the money being hemorrhaged to the PS/CS/Banks. Keeping up now, are we? How about an answer to those questions?

    How do you define impacted?

    Do you agree with keeping PS/CS wages at the amount they are - even if it means borrowing €400m EVERY WEEK?

    Do you agree with keeping SW rates and continuing to borrow for same?

    Do you agree with failed business entities being bailed out while other Private Sector companies go to the wall, without State aid?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement