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…237238240242243…334

Comments

  • Options
    #7172
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    sonic85 wrote: »
    of course the size of your house matters.

    who said anything about water? thats a seperate issue. you have a big house you pay more thats the way it works. otherwise the whole thing is a waste of time. like i said its unfair to suggest people living in small bungalows have to pay the same as someone in a huge two storey or dormer.

    my gran for example lives in a small cottage. do you think then that she should pay the same rate as someone who went off in the boom and built a house for 350 or 400,000 just because that person now turns around and says im broke? whats fair about that?

    It's not about saying you're broke - its about providing evidence that you're not in a position to afford to pay. And a cottage in Foxrock might well be more valuable than a oversized pad in Leitrim. It's down to market value - not scale.


  • Options
    #7173
    sonic85
    Registered Users Posts: 4,214 ✭✭✭sonic85


    begrudgery my hole. the ignorance here is amazing. listen i get it you have big houses but you dont want to pay more for them. my question still remains - do you think its fair an 80 year old woman in a small cottage will possibly have to pay the same as somebody in a house three or four times its size? simple question.


  • Options
    #7174
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    sonic85 wrote: »
    begrudgery my hole. the ignorance here is amazing. listen i get it you have big houses but you dont want to pay more for them. my question still remains - do you think its fair an 80 year old woman in a small cottage will possibly have to pay the same as somebody in a house three or four times its size? simple question.

    I have no problem paying, I just don't see why I have to pay because my house is a little bigger than some old woman's.
    You tell me why I should pay more because my house is big?


  • Options
    #7175
    jonnygee
    Registered Users Posts: 589 ✭✭✭jonnygee


    Just picked this up from another forum and I havent thought about it like this before but it seems accurate to me:
    PROPERTY TAX = RENTING YOUR HOUSE OFF THE GOVERNMENT


  • Options
    #7176
    sonic85
    Registered Users Posts: 4,214 ✭✭✭sonic85


    alastair wrote: »
    It's not about saying you're broke - its about providing evidence that you're not in a position to afford to pay. And a cottage in Foxrock might well be more valuable than a oversized pad in Leitrim. It's down to market value - not scale.

    im talking about houses in the same area - in my particular area (rural) there are numerous new large houses mixed with smaller old ones. similar plots of land just built on different scales. id imagine my house would be worth significantly less than those larger houses even with the market the way it is. anyway im not here for an arguement im not paying the charge. not for a while anyway till i see what happens


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7177
    galwayrush
    Registered Users Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    sonic85 wrote: »
    begrudgery my hole. the ignorance here is amazing. listen i get it you have big houses but you dont want to pay more for them. my question still remains - do you think its fair an 80 year old woman in a small cottage will possibly have to pay the same as somebody in a house three or four times its size? simple question.

    People paid market value during the boom and houses have got larger than they were say, from what an 80 year old may have bought/ built back in the day., is it fair that they pay three to four times the stealth tax on top of the enormous amount of tax/ VAT/ stamp duty they paid buying / building their homes? Simple question..


  • Options
    #7178
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    sonic85 wrote: »
    im talking about houses in the same area - in my particular area (rural) there are numerous new large houses mixed with smaller old ones. similar plots of land just built on different scales. id imagine my house would be worth significantly less than those larger houses even with the market the way it is. anyway im not here for an arguement im not paying the charge. not for a while anyway till i see what happens

    You still cannot tell me why I should pay more because my house is a little bigger than someone else's. If I am asked to pay more then tell me what I'm paying for?


  • Options
    #7179
    sonic85
    Registered Users Posts: 4,214 ✭✭✭sonic85


    galwayrush wrote: »
    People paid market value during the boom and houses have got larger than they were say, from what an 80 year old may have bought/ built back in the day., is it fair that they pay three to four times the stealth tax on top of the enormous amount of tax/ VAT/ stamp duty they paid buying / building their homes? Simple question..

    it is a simple question but im not going to answer it because it will be controversial and like i said im not here for a fight. hopefully this charge will be defeated anyway and none of this will be relevant. peace out :D


  • Options
    #7180
    Samba
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,476 ✭✭✭Samba


    Can we put the 80 year old Woman into a large home for the sake of this argument?


  • Options
    #7181
    galwayrush
    Registered Users Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    Samba wrote: »
    Can we put the 80 year old Woman into a large home for the sake of this argument?

    Nursing home?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7182
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    sonic85 wrote: »
    it is a simple question but im not going to answer it because it will be controversial and like i said im not here for a fight. hopefully this charge will be defeated anyway and none of this will be relevant. peace out :D

    Spit it out man, we will not fight with ya I promise to be nice.:p:pac:


  • Options
    #7183
    twinQuins
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,199 ✭✭✭twinQuins


    hondasam wrote: »
    I have no problem paying, I just don't see why I have to pay because my house is a little bigger than some old woman's.
    You tell me why I should pay more because my house is big?

    If I may play devil's advocate: why do you pay more income tax if you earn more?


  • Options
    #7184
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    twinQuins wrote: »
    If I may play devil's advocate: why do you pay more income tax if you earn more?

    While that is a good point it does not explain what it is I will be paying for if I pay more due to house size?
    If I live in my house on my own why should I pay more than my neighbour who lives with his wife and three kids in a big house?


  • Options
    #7185
    twinQuins
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,199 ✭✭✭twinQuins


    I imagine that it's because if you have a larger house you paid more for it and so obviously have more money.
    But then if your neighbour has a family he can afford to have one... Ah, well, maybe for the purposes of the tax they're only taking house size into consideration. Bah, I really can't think straight.

    Maybe this'll make more sense when I'm not quite so tired.


  • Options
    #7186
    Kurz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 786 ✭✭✭Kurz


    A bigger house is typically sharing a larger border with public land, has more infastructure to facilitate water/electricity. It had more of an impact on the environment when it was being built. It makes a bigger impact on the appearance of the landscape. If it went on fire/flooded it would take more resources in an emergency situation. It's a no brainer.


  • Options
    #7187
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    I find it strange that two posters said people with big houses should pay more but neither can give a valid reason as to why.
    It's fair to assume people with big houses have money but the reality is often different.


  • Options
    #7188
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Kurz wrote: »
    A bigger house is typically sharing a larger border with public land, has more infastructure to facilitate water/electricity. It had more of an impact on the environment when it was being built. It makes a bigger impact on the appearance of the landscape. If it went on fire/flooded it would take more resources in an emergency situation. It's a no brainer.

    WTF is this babble.


  • Options
    #7189
    Kurz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 786 ✭✭✭Kurz


    mikom wrote: »
    WTF is this babble.

    Letters, when you put them together they become words and form sentences.


  • Options
    #7190
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Kurz wrote: »
    Letters, when you put them together they become words and form sentences.

    Try engaging your brain so the next time you "put them together to become words and form sentences"


    "It makes a bigger impact on the appearance of the landscape."
    How the fuck will paying yearly ground rent to the government do anything to improve this?


  • Options
    #7191
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    Kurz wrote: »
    A bigger house is typically sharing a larger border with public land, has more infastructure to facilitate water/electricity. It had more of an impact on the environment when it was being built. It makes a bigger impact on the appearance of the landscape. If it went on fire/flooded it would take more resources in an emergency situation. It's a no brainer.

    My local town is 10 miles away, the fire service is run by volunteers, if my house goes on fire it will be well gutted by the time they arrive bearing in mind they will probably get lost several times even with the smoke visible for miles.
    If it got flooded it would cost my insurance company and no one else.
    How did it have more of an impact on the environment?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7192
    Kurz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 786 ✭✭✭Kurz


    mikom wrote: »
    Try engaging your brain so the next time you "put them together to become words and form sentences"


    "It makes a bigger impact on the appearance of the landscape."
    How the fuck will paying yearly ground rent to the government do anything to improve this?

    I think it would perhaps be a disincentive to people in the future to build monstrous structures in otherwise nice environments. There are examples of this everywhere in the countryside. If you live in rural parts of France then your neighbours have to agree to your structure in order for you to obtain planning permission. Not that I agree with this tax, but I certainly think that if a property tax were to be efficient then it wouldn't be flat.


  • Options
    #7193
    Kurz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 786 ✭✭✭Kurz


    hondasam wrote: »
    How did it have more of an impact on the environment?

    More machinery burned more fuel, more materials were used.


  • Options
    #7194
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Kurz wrote: »
    More machinery burned more fuel, more materials were used.

    Everlasting carbon tax added on to property tax.
    Good Jesus.....


  • Options
    #7195
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    Kurz wrote: »
    More machinery burned more fuel, more materials were used.

    You could say we contributed more to the country re revenue in that case, more reason not to be hit again imo.
    There are planning laws here too, re neighbours have the right to object. You are clutching at straws with your reasons. I would say some houses are a bit on the big side and out of place.


  • Options
    #7196
    Kurz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 786 ✭✭✭Kurz


    hondasam wrote: »
    You could say we contributed more to the country re revenue in that case, more reason not to be hit again imo.
    There are planning laws here too, re neighbours have the right to object. You are clutching at straws with your reasons. I would say some houses are a bit on the big side and out of place.

    Yeah sure you've paid enough tax, you can stop now.

    And I'm the one clutching at straws :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #7197
    phil1nj
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭phil1nj


    alastair wrote: »
    That's how it works in most places. My parents live in what's become a very affluent area, and on a decent plot of land. They have lived there always. Their income is the state pension. They certainly would struggle to pay the suggested property tax band their house would warrant. Ability to pay needs to be taken into account.

    Right so the wealth they have accumulated in their house now becomes meaningless because they can't pay....now that's an amazing u-turn on what you've been saying along about a property tax being a tax on wealth . Please tell me how you can square that circle? Could they not rent out a room in their house to supplement their income? After all they have the potential to do so ? Or do you think it's fair to start tweaking the property tax rules to accommodate peiple like your folks who are lucky enough to own their own property? Paid for with cash that was actual wealth over the course if many years?


  • Options
    #7198
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Kurz wrote: »
    Yeah sure you've paid enough tax, you can stop now.

    And I'm the one clutching at straws :rolleyes:

    FFS, she's already paid stamp duty on the house, why should she have to pay more tax on a house she's already given the government a huge wad of cash for already>

    Along with her income tax, PSO levies, carbon tax, bin charges and upcoming water charges, just how much more bloody tax do you expect her to pay :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #7199
    phil1nj
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭phil1nj


    dark crystal wrote: »

    Along with her income tax, PSO levies, carbon tax, bin charges and upcoming water charges, just how much more bloody tax do you expect her to pay :rolleyes:

    Perhaps one of the best questions asked in this thread so far. How much are people expected to pay from their take home pay? 40% , 50%, 75%? Where will it end? And why isnt expenditure being tackled with such vim and vigour as intake? Spineless ****es in power, that's why.


  • Options
    #7200
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,411 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Been reading this thread the last few days. The arguement from the yes camp is that our €100 goes back into services in the community. I live outside a small village. There is no street lighting where i live, i pay for my own waste disposal from a private operater like my neighbours do. I don't have kids but there is a playground on the village, paid for thru fundraising that was done by the community themselves. So i fail to see what "services" we would all be getting from our €100. And Fergus O Dowd wasn't very convincing on the LLS telling us that he has kids and he was paying it and we were all in it together blah blah blah... This guy is on over 100 grand a year and i have to live on the minimun wage. If it was like Britain and we were getting good services for our money then fair enough but realistically we could all pay it and we would get F*** all in return for it. That's the reality.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7201
    psychward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭psychward


    phil1nj wrote: »
    folks who are lucky enough to own their own property?

    For most people, owning your own home has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with hard work for which they made many sacrifices. Now this turned out to be unlucky not just because of the attempt to use it to tax them more but because the chances are it is in negative equity and does not represent any real existing wealth to tax.
    Luck only comes into play with regard to inheritances. When will the spawn of the RTE/politico set start paying a reasonable inheritance tax on their ''lucky money'' instead of figuring out how to tax us more ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement