New Household Tax - Boycott

I was printing of the forms to pay, two houses, and then Oli Rehn was on 6.1 saying we will not get a reduction on the promissory notes because we have taken a commitment to. In the same bulletin, Spain said they will not meet their targets and that’s OK, the EU will sort them out. Greece has literally defaulted, thats grand we'l bend over backwards for them and are still in the Euro. Now I am seriously thinking of not registering, we are such mugs, no wonder the English stayed for 800 years.

i dont see why it should be out of my bank account before its due, i'll pay but not before last week of march

I've kept out of this discussion for the most part but I feel drawn to make my own views know.

Firstly, let me say that I understand and agree that some form of taxation is required for any society to function as a whole. Just how much tax that is required depends on a great many things but let's not get into that. I don't disagree with taxation, that's my first point.

However, I do not like the idea of this household tax for a number of reasons thus, I would oppose it. Rather than exiting the discussion at that point, I would like to lay down why I believe this lest I be accused of pointing a finger and shouting "the bankers!"

My first issue is that this is an open ended tax. There is nothing, as far as I know, that acts as a upper limit on the amount that this tax can levy upon our citizens. This is why I don't agree with the adage of "sure it's only one hundred euro", it does not consider the aforementioned issue. IT is possible that the charge is simple testing the water to gauge the reaction of the people of IReland and if it is passed without any meaningful opposition, I would not be surprised to see it rise.

Next, I have a problem with the concept of a household charge in principal. I am aware that there is little difference between income tax and property tax but something about a charge upon a house does not sit well with me. In my mind, if someone has paid for their house, they should own it in every sense of the term and putting a charge upon that property does not seem right to me. Private property should be sacrosanct to a modern state because, as history demonstrate very well, little good comes about when the powers that be attempt to help themselves to what their citizens own. I am also aware there is an irony in socialist opposition to property tax but that's an aside.

Finally, and this is perhaps the underlying problem for me; I do not trust the government. Mismanagement of public monies has plagued this country (and many others) since its inception. I see no reason why the sate should be given more money by its people until it has demonstrated responsibly and care for what it already receives. If this charge is only going to generate 160 million euros then why not raise that money by not giving the same amount to a bank. Now I know that sounds dreadfully cliche but I believe it is a valid point. I know the reason cited is to maintain "confidence" to be quite honest, I think that is a rather empty excuse. After all, it often seems that the money loaded to create debt never truly existed, why not pretend the debt doesn't exist either?

Anyway, as I've made the effort of explaining myself I would ask that anyone taken to argue with me does so in an agreeable manner. Thank you.

Welease wrote: »

Would it be less of an issue if people looked at the tax for what is it.. A tax to continue to provide services to the locale where the house is?
People complain that they already paid a stamp duty etc.. but stamp duty doesn't and won't continue to pay for the installation and upkeep of roads, street lighting, libraries, municipal sewerage scheme's and all the other services that people expect and demand.

We can either add it to direct taxes or indirect taxes.. but either way we need to pay for these servers, and stop borrowing to fund them..

I understand what you're saying but to me, that's not what this tax does. All taxes go into one fund and as far as I know, there is no facility to "ringfence" any tax income so that it can only be used for a certain thing. This is also true for tax on petrol or motor tax. It's charged in relation to private transport but there is no guarantee that it's used to maintain roads.

Thus, with property tax, the government claims that it is for upkeep of local services yet there seems to be nothing set in stone that it will be used as such. If it were the case that all money collected by this tax was going into a special account with strict legal rulings preventing it being given to bank or spent otherwise, many people would likely feel different about the issue.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What about putting a charge (such as motor tax) on a car that I own in every sense of the term?

Tax is charged on a car because whilst you own it, you drive it on publicly maintained roads. The logic of the household tax is that houses depend on certain services but if you take a look at my reply to Welease, you'll see what I think of that.

If your belief is that the entire budget deficit should be bridged solely through spending cuts and with not a single penny from new taxes, can you indicate which cuts you believe will achieve the necessary savings?

That's not quite what I said. I said that I don't believe a government should be given more money until they have proven that they can manage what is currently available. If every cent collected was used properly and a deficit remained, then it would be time to look at raising taxes. Currently, given the level of waste in the public finances, I think more tax should be put off until certain areas of waste are addressed.

Can you also explain why you think a sustainably broad tax base is a bad thing?

I don't, nor did I say that I do. And also, that's another issue with the household charge. I've heard that it is to pay for local services and I have also heard that it is to provide a broad tax base that is more stable than income tax. There seems to be confusion as to what this tax is truly intended for and I don't like confusion, I like clear and honest information that describes where my taxes are to be spent.

Those points aside, there's one compelling reason why people should pay this tax, and that is that they are obliged to do so by law. If you don't like the tax, vote for a government that will remove it. Those TDs who are urging people to commit tax evasion should be deeply ashamed of themselves; they are unworthy of elected office.

This is an interesting point. Consider this, a tax is introduced that requires you to pay an extortionate amount of money to the state within a narrow time-frame, let's say ten thousand euros. Now if that passed through the dail it would be a law in the same sense that the household charge is a law so if TDs called for resistance, would they be wrong for doing so?

Surely you would rather have a TD in place that would stand by what he/she believes is morally right and in the best interests of the state as opposed to someone that supports a law simply because it exists? History has proven that when people stop questioning the actions of a government, ill tidings are abound. If something is passed into law that is wrong in the eyes of many then they have every right to resist because that is the essence of democracy.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're being logically inconsistent. You've pointed out that motor tax isn't ringfenced for road maintenance, but don't mind paying motor tax because you use your car on publicly maintained roads. You have a problem with paying a property tax on a house that benefits from public services, because the property tax isn't ringfenced. It doesn't add for me, I'm afraid.

Once again, no I didn't. I simply mentioned motor tax, I said nothing about my own views upon it.

Why stop there? Why not ask whether TDs should resist a law forcing people to murder their firstborn?

If I'd said that, then you could accuse me of hyperbole.

There's no need for the hyperbole. If a TD called on business owners to fiddle their VAT returns, most people would demand their head on a plate for encouraging tax evasion. But when TDs call on people not to pay a tax that they're required by law to pay - in other words, when they tell people to break the law by evading tax - they're principled heroes.

Sorry, but no. An elected representative has an obligation to be a model citizen in most civilised countries. That's why, in those civilised countries, when an elected representative is found to have done something wrong, he is obliged to relinquish his seat. Only in this country do we not only tolerate but applaud elected representatives who believe that obeying the law is optional. I have no problem with questioning the actions of government. I have a major problem with telling people to disobey the perfectly reasonable laws enacted by the democratically elected government of the people.

Let's cut through the bull, here. This isn't Syria; if we don't like the government we can elect another one. This tax isn't exorbitant; it's two euros a week. Other countries have property taxes, so the idea that a tax on property is inherently wrong just doesn't bear scrutiny.

I'm quite sure that recalcitrance, as you seem to believe this is, is lauded in more than one country in the world but that's another issue. Just because you think a law is a good thing does not mean everyone will agree with you and considering that many people here don't agree with this law, I would say that would amounts to a solid reason for those TDs to behave as they have.

Manach wrote: »

From a historical perspective, there are echos of the Land League struggle.

I'd be slow in evoking emotional ties to land as some type of advantage of a political campaign in 2012.

After all, part of the appeal of the bubble was emotional ties to land and the plot, it isn't necessarily a good thing. A house is bricks and mortar, land a piece of turf, people should never forget that, they did during the bubble and before it. Many the brother shot or disowned over land.

Evoking the Land League struggle is doing a huge disservice to Davitt and evictions. It's hysteria and an appeal to emotion, considering most households are now privately owned, the Irish are now the landlords, whether it be privately or banks.

murphaph wrote: »

Your point is correct but there are different ways of levying it on the actual users of the service (the tenants). In Germany (for example) I pay property tax to the city of Berlin as a property owner. I am legally entitled to pass this cost on in full to tenants (I don't have any here, it's our home) in full however, so if the city increases property taxes I can simply increase the rent immediately as these city levied taxes ARE actually ringfenced for services like water and sanitation (rent increases are legally controlled in Germany-a landlord cannot arbitrarily increase rents).

In the UK the actual tenant is liable for Council Tax, rather than involving the landlord at all. I prefer the UK way as it is not unknown for tenants to do a bunk owing back rent, especially in Ireland where the law is a complete mess and people often can't even be found (no national ID cards and registration of current address etc.) when the leg it leaving significant debts behind them.

Lordy Lordy,reading the above post,and its account of what the rest of the civilized world,finds to be a perfectly acceptable and sustainable method of regulating property occupation,makes me feel queasy.

Our national phsyche remains firmly rooted in some quasi-religious attachment to owning our own property.

This entitlement to Ownership is not bad of itself,BUT is positively lethal if its profferred as something which everybody has an entitlement to on a "Free at Point of Use" basis.

Successive Irish Governments,since the abolition of Domestic Rates in 1978,have actively stoked the flames of depression by sleight-of-hand in this respect.

There is a very informative paper here on the general topic...

http://www.psai.ie/conferences/papers2006/healy.pdf

It's worth noting that the Legal Obligation to pay Domestic Rates continues to exist,with the only difference being the then Governments decision to transfer that liability to the Central Exchequer rather than the individual property owner.

It is worth a debate,I feel,as to whether or not it would be
more equitable to simply re-introduce Domestic rates,probably by Statutory Instrument,and thus reactivate a collection system which has continued to exist in a state of readiness for over 3 decades.

As far as I'm aware,the various Local Authorities continue to maintain fully functional Rates Departments with up to date valuations still available for all properties in their areas.