Household charge

05-06-2011 12:54pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

I read a td comment that the free allowance would be large enough that very few people would actually go over the allowance...

I strongly doubt it. That would raise no tax revenue, which seems to be the main objective of how FG are approaching it. The greens mooted a water meter scheme to discourage waste of water, with a large enough allowance of water and punitive rates of you went over it, filling a swimming pool for instance. That was for ecological reasons, to encourage conservation more than to generate tax. FG are looking at it from a revenue raising perspective, so they're sure to structure it differently.

dvpower · 05-06-2011 1:45pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

I read a td comment that the free allowance would be large enough that very few people would actually go over the allowance...

There was talk during the week of a daily allowance of 40 - 60L.
We consume about 160L per day

ART6 · 05-06-2011 4:39pm

A minor, nitpicking point possibly, but --- I am expected to place all recyclable packaging in a recycling bag, for which I have to pay the local authority to whom I already pay an annual waste disposal charge. I am expected to wash that packaging before bagging it for collection. Soon I will have to pay for the water that I use to wash it.

Anyway, on the subject of household rates and water charges, I recall when I and my family lived and worked in the UK in a small south coast town. We paid rates on our smallish semi detached 3 bedroom house. The local authority provided water and sewage services.

Then came privatisation of water services and we became the "customers" of a regional private water utility. Very quickly I found that we still had house rates paid to the LA (and they, surprisingly, didn't drop), but now we had a separate water charge that dramatically increased every year. But we also then had a separate sewage charge, which included the cost of disposal of rain water from our roof. Having a well was no use as it was decreed that all water belonged to the regional company, wherever it was. If one had a well one still had to pay the water charge.

I tried demanding that if all water belonged to the company, then they must stop their bloody water falling on my roof so that I wouldn't have to pay them to take it away.:p Didn't work of course.

In a period of ten years or so I went from paying about £300 a year rates to £1,400 a year for rates, water, and sewage when I sold up and came home in 1994. The water companies, several owned by French parents, became very wealthy, but they still lost more water through leaks than they sold, and the justification for them on the grounds of environmental improvements became ludicrous -- their record of fines for environmental breaches became alarming. Unsurprisingly, their sole purpose was to make money, not to protect the environment.

So on the basis of that experience, let me offer a guess at what will happen here. A new state company, Irish Water (already planned) will be established, and a water services regulator (quango -- we MUST have more quangos) will appointed employing the great and good. The purpose of the new water company will be to centralise all water supply with a view to encouraging competition and eventual privatisation. The regulator will require the company's charges to be high in order to attract other competitors into the market (a-la ESB and electricity supply). This situation will stay in effect for at least ten years and more likely twenty.

New companies entering the market will lease pipe networks from the state company initially, until the regulator finally decides to release the state company and allow it to compete. It will then be bought by Veolia (French) and its residue will become Irish Water Networks. This will remain in control of the state so that all supply companies can continue to lease pipes. As a result no significant investment in new pipes or fixing leaks will take place (anyone who doubt that, consider our telephone network since privatisation and the massive leap forward in fibre optics and high speed broadband).

A point will then be reached where every household pays a household utility charge to a government that does not provide any utilities. A property tax based upon the notional rent for which a property could be let will also be introduced, but that of course will not be the dreaded "rates" lads. We wouldn't do that! We might make you pay twice for something you don't get, but we do need the money!

Water and sewage will be separately charged for by a regional and French owned water utility, and both must be paid irrespective of whether or not a property has its own well and septic tank. Charges will start low with a free issue of water sufficient for one shower per day and charged per cubic metre over that. However, the former will reduce year on year to become a free issue cupful while the charge will increase by at least 10% a year (in order to invest in the infrastructure that the water companies won't provide). The latter will be based upon the assumption that if a household consumes (say) 1.5 cubic metres of water a day then it must create that amount of sewage. That assessment will be increased by 10% to take account of the solids that have been introduced.

A further assessment will be made of how much rain water the utility company must dealt with. This will be based upon the ground area of the property, which will also, mysteriously, increase by 10% a year.

Within ten years, with a bit of luck and a following wind, every family will be paying a local authority at least twice for services it no longer supplies. It will be paying a water company to both supply and take away water at charges that are regulated at high levels in order to encourage "competition. Given my UK experience, and inflation over the years that followed, I sincerely believe that all of those charges will rapidly rise to at least €2,500 a year for every average household, and will do so in less than five years. Of course I can't support that with evidence as it is (somewhat cynical) crystal ball gazing. My only justification is that I have lived long enough to begin to understand just how politicians operate.

And to those in this thread who have said "You expect to pay for electricity and gas, and fuel for your car and food from the shop, so why shouldn't you pay for water?" (thus conveniently ignoring the fact that I already pay for water through my taxes), I would suggest: If I wished to I could do without electricity. I could use oil lamps or candles, and I could wash dishes by hand instead of in the dishwasher. I could do without gas and I could heat my house by lighting a fire of logs that are plentiful in my area. I could do without my car as I have two good legs, and at a push I could acquire a donkey. I am fortunate in owning a small patch of land around my house, and I could grow vegetables and keep a few chickens and a pig or two. I seem to recall that some ancestors managed that!

The one thing I cannot do without is water. I cannot live without it. Simple as. I could drill my own well of course, but the water wouldn't be treated and I would never know if it was potable, particularly if I also have a septic tank. That is why I expect my water to be supplied as a result of the taxes I pay to the state and not subject to a new charge by a private and profit making company whose interests are those of its shareholders rather than mine.

For all of these reasons I will oppose the current raft of highway robbery initiatives in any way that I can.:mad:

AlekSmart · 05-06-2011 5:00pm

ART6 wrote: »

Anyway, on the subject of household rates and water charges, I recall when I and my family lived and worked in the UK in a small south coast town. We paid rates on our smallish semi detached 3 bedroom house. The local authority provided water and sewage services.

Then came privatisation of water services and we became the "customers" of a regional private water utility. Very quickly I found that we still had house rates paid to the LA (and they, surprisingly, didn't drop), but now we had a separate water charge that dramatically increased every year. But we also then had a separate sewage charge, which included the cost of disposal of rain water from our roof. Having a well was no use as it was decreed that all water belonged to the regional company, wherever it was. If one had a well one still had to pay the water charge. .....................

..........In a period of ten years or so I went from paying about £300 a year rates to £1,400 a year for rates, water, and sewage when I sold up and came home in 1994. .......

................So on the basis of that experience, let me offer a guess at what will happen here. A new state company, Irish Water (already planned) will be established, and a water services regulator (quango -- we MUST have more quangos) will appointed employing the great and good. The purpose of the new water company will be to centralise all water supply with a view to encouraging competition and eventual privatisation. The regulator will require the company's charges to be high in order to attract other competitors into the market (a-la ESB and electricity supply). This situation will stay in effect for at least ten years and more likely twenty......................

.............As a result no significant investment in new pipes or fixing leaks will take place (anyone who doubt that, consider our telephone network since privatisation and the massive leap forward in fibre optics and high speed broadband).........

A point will then be reached where every household pays a household utility charge to a government that does not provide any utilities. A property tax based upon the notional rent for which a property could be let will also be introduced, but that of course will not be the dreaded "rates" lads. We wouldn't do that! We might make you pay twice for something you don't get, but we do need the money!

Water and sewage will be separately charged for by a regional and French owned water utility, and both must be paid irrespective of whether or not a property has its own well and septic tank. Charges will start low with a free issue of water sufficient for one shower per day and charged per cubic metre over that...........

...........A further assessment will be made of how much rain water the utility company must dealt with. This will be based upon the ground area of the property, which will also, mysteriously, increase by 10% a year.............

Within ten years, with a bit of luck and a following wind, every family will be paying a local authority at least twice for services it no longer supplies. It will be paying a water company to both supply and take away water at charges that are regulated at high levels in order to encourage "competition. Given my UK experience, and inflation over the years that followed, I sincerely believe that all of those charges will rapidly rise to at least €2,500 a year for every average household, and will do so in less than five years. Of course I can't support that with evidence as it is (somewhat cynical) crystal ball gazing. My only justification is that I have lived long enough to begin to understand just how politicians operate.

And to those in this thread who have said "You expect to pay for electricity and gas, and fuel for your car and food from the shop, so why shouldn't you pay for water?" (thus conveniently ignoring the fact that I already pay for water through my taxes), I would suggest: If I wished to I could do without electricity. I could use oil lamps or candles, and I could wash dishes by hand instead of in the dishwasher. I could do without gas and I could heat my house by lighting a fire of logs that are plentiful in my area. I could do without my car as I have two good legs, and at a push I could acquire a donkey. I am fortunate in owning a small patch of land around my house, and I could grow vegetables and keep a few chickens and a pig or two. I seem to recall that some ancestors managed that!...............

The one thing I cannot do without is water. I cannot live without it. Simple as. I could drill my own well of course, but the water wouldn't be treated and I would never know if it was potable, particularly if I also have a septic tank. That is why I expect my water to be supplied as a result of the taxes I pay to the state and not subject to a new charge by a private and profit making company whose interests are those of its shareholders rather than mine.

For all of these reasons I will oppose the current raft of highway robbery initiatives in any way that I can.:mad:

ART6,Congratulations on a most excellent post and one which is unerringly accurate.

Many Irish people remain blissfully unaware of just how much influence the policies of Margaret Hilda Thatcher and her small band of very far sighted Conservative Party supporters are still exerting on such a large part of our lives.

Every aspect of our State's delivery of Public Services has now fallen under this womans vast influence,even though she's now close to death by all accounts,she and her incredible period in Governance totally shifted the balance of existance in thse Islands.

She and her stalwarts,would of course be very miffed at just how those bloody Frogs managed to get their hands on so much of the UK's resources without having to wage war to get them.

The fact remains that Lady T's years in power saw the creation of a new and mighty financial and administrative ascendancy in the UK composed of largely anonymous grey-suited figures who quietly assumed the mantle of power and control we now see in action.

ART6,you obviously did not sit around in a stupor during time en Angletterre...you noticed and that stands you in very good stead indeed in a country where nobody appears to take good note of anything thank's to the ready supply of beer n`crisps dispensed to keep the "san's culottes" quiet...:mad: :mad: :mad:

Great Post altogether !!

Amhran Nua · 05-06-2011 9:27pm

ART6 wrote: »

In a period of ten years or so I went from paying about £300 a year rates to £1,400 a year for rates, water, and sewage when I sold up and came home in 1994.

I doubt it will go down exactly as you outline, but this part is bookmarked for reposting in 2016. One has to wonder why the jobsworths in the civil service insist on aping the actions of their UK counterparts, despite all evidence to suggest this is a bad idea.

Good loser · 06-06-2011 12:21am

That is why I expect my water to be supplied as a result of the taxes I pay to the state - - -

ARD 6. Your taxes unfortunately only cover 60% of Govt expenditure. The deficit is €18 billion per annum. This is being borrowed this year (2011). The only possible lenders are the IMF/ECB and these have imposed conditions including water/property taxes. All serious parties have agreed with their implementation. All that remains is the details. Between the two I expect they will be looking for up to €1,000 per average house within a few years.
I cannot see any good theoretical reasons not to introduce these taxes - most opponents seem to be in the I can't/I won't pay camps, which is only a pragmatic position.
I like the UK provisions for exemptions (see earlier).

irishproduce · 06-06-2011 4:10pm

ART6 wrote: »

All this demonstrates is that the current government is just as good at cheating and lying as was the previous one. "If we are elected, no new taxes". "Oh, these are not taxes, they are charges."

They are all stealth TAXES. A household utility charge is a TAX. A pension funds levy is a TAX. They are taxes levied by politicians who are too evasive and dishonest to ever let the people really know what the gang that masquerades as a government really costs them. And it's happening because we cannot possibly let reckless bond investors in Germany lose a cent, can we?

I am bitterly angry about the whole deal, and I will oppose it in any way that I can including flat refusal to pay. I'll be damned if I will willingly pay these devils for the privilege of using something I own and for which I paid with already well taxed income, and I intend to shout at any b***dy TD I can get at.:mad:

Excellent post by this person.

A lot of this is to cover spin and useless guff around the costs of keeping the politicians and councillors on their salaries. There is a huge amount of waste there that could be dealt with before levying households to cover the costs of it all! Apart from the bailout stuff, there is a lot of the revenue they are trying to generate will go directly to financing the public reps.

07-06-2011 4:57pm

Good loser wrote: »

That is why I expect my water to be supplied as a result of the taxes I pay to the state

I don't even expect that. I buy bottled water, simply because i don't trust the water that comes out of my taps. It's often dirty, grey, and looks anything but safe to drink, and i live in a major urban centre. Nothing has been spent on improving the infrastructure in donkey's years, and now they are proposing a tax that will be appropriated into the exchequer because we're broke, instead of ring fenced for improving the water systems.

Before a penny of my first water charge is paid i'll be sending a sample of my water off to be tested. If i'm paying for clean, clear, safe drinking water, then until i get it there won't be any money changing hands, and my solicitor will be the one explaining that to them, not me.

Daegerty · 08-06-2011 12:23pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't even expect that. I buy bottled water, simply because i don't trust the water that comes out of my taps. It's often dirty, grey, and looks anything but safe to drink, and i live in a major urban centre
.

That is often the case, with city pollution, leaks concealed beneath concrete and plenty of leaking sewerage pipes too

lazk · 16-06-2011 10:11pm

Alastriona73 wrote: »

Just wondering what the household charge is meant to cover? I live in the country so have my own water supply, own sewage disposal, no street lighting, take my own waste to the landfill, no local facilities that are funded by or maintained by the local government so I assume I don't have to pay? Or is this really just a property tax by another name rather than a tax for services provided?

Yes but what about the first class roads the council has provided you with to take you to town ? :rolleyes:

17-06-2011 1:43pm

MarkD09 wrote: »

Troll.

How was that trolling? His point was completely valid? In cities, pipes carrying water, sewage, etc are often in close proximity to one another due to lack of space etc. Sometimes pipes get burst by building work, freezing conditions, shifting ground, etc, and it's possible that cross-contamination can occur.

Take it easy with your "troll" pronouncements. :-/

rasper · 18-06-2011 7:26pm

Lads , everyone knows this is not about provision of services its plain and simple a tax, doesnt matter if you are an urban or rural dweller still costs to run the state,I'd imagine if a government was to decide the most efficient way to house and service a population then its in massive housing projects not sprawled all over the island, we are under taxed however we also have poor infrastructure and services so we are underserved, we will pay more and looks like get even less in return, but let us not forget year on year we vote for this system

Liam Byrne · 18-06-2011 7:53pm

The irony (and the complete lack of credibility and any coherent argument) is that this is the same government who will "criticise" the banks for raising interest rates saying that householders cannot afford increased charges.

And yet they'll have no problem screwing the householder themselves.

18-06-2011 8:28pm

rasper wrote: »

we will pay more and looks like get even less in return, but let us not forget year on year we vote for this system

What other option do we have? How do we force a change? Where do we start? How do we get enough of a consensus together to make something happen in a country where people talk all day but won't hit the streets in protest no matter what kind of crap is foisted on them?

galway2007 · 18-06-2011 8:59pm

What is the charge for??
If it is a property tax then call it a Tax
If it is a service charge, I don’t get any services
I already pay for water as I am on private supply with a meter and paid 1000 euro to join it
I don’t live in a town so don’t have the luxury of flushing the toilet and shipping the **** out to sea so I have to maintain a septic tank.
They are planning to put a charge on septic tanks also so I have no intention of paying a service charge to support dose in city and town.
Let those in the towns and cities pay for water, sewerage and street lighting first
It time rural Ireland told FG to **** off and I will be in court before I pay one cent of this charge

thebman · 19-06-2011 1:31am

lazk wrote: »

Yes but what about the first class roads the council has provided you with to take you to town ? :rolleyes:

LOLtastic, the ones that don't exist I presume. 3 posts and almost all of them trying to get attention. Coincidence?

Must be

rasper · 19-06-2011 1:28pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What other option do we have? How do we force a change? Where do we start? How do we get enough of a consensus together to make something happen in a country where people talk all day but won't hit the streets in protest no matter what kind of crap is foisted on them?

Irish people dont do that , we just emirgrate, its what our governments and wealthy elite have been training us to do since pre famine days, shut up and go paddy

waffleman · 19-06-2011 2:34pm

rasper wrote: »

Irish people dont do that , we just emirgrate, its what our governments and wealthy elite have been training us to do since pre famine days, shut up and go paddy

Seems it's only getting started - I have been talking to many people locally who are headin for Canada over the Summer. They've been on the dole for a few years now and don't see anything worth staying and fighting for and I can't blame them. With a whole raft of charges coming in to hammer everyone who works why would you bother stayin at all if you can get out. If ye don't want to shut up, work AND pay your taxes to see them wasted well we'll see ye next time there's a "boom".

goat2 · 19-06-2011 2:44pm

waffleman wrote: »

Seems it's only getting started - I have been talking to many people locally who are headin for Canada over the Summer. They've been on the dole for a few years now and don't see anything worth staying and fighting for and I can't blame them. With a whole raft of charges coming in to hammer everyone who works why would you bother stayin at all if you can get out. If ye don't want to shut up, work AND pay your taxes to see them wasted well we'll see ye next time there's a "boom".

what boom, that was all a lie, overspending, wasting, good time harries,

19-06-2011 3:45pm

goat2 wrote: »

what boom, that was all a lie, overspending, wasting, good time harries,

No, there was a boom, but it was squandered. With the right policies from government and the right amount of investment in infrastructure as well as proper planning and regulation of sectors like banks, developers, and estate agencies it could still have been going on right now, but that's all in the past.

As the politicians say, "we are where we are" and we have to make sure that our leaders learn from the past and take note that those mistakes can NEVER be made again. If that happens, at least some good will have come out of this disaster.

Meanwhile, an application for a massive supercasino in the middle of nowhere by a crooked TD and a multimillionaire property developer businessman that's totally at odds with the national spatial strategy and current gambling laws has just been given the green light by the planning authority.

Oh well...

rasper · 19-06-2011 6:49pm

waffleman wrote: »

Seems it's only getting started - I have been talking to many people locally who are headin for Canada over the Summer. They've been on the dole for a few years now and don't see anything worth staying and fighting for and I can't blame them. With a whole raft of charges coming in to hammer everyone who works why would you bother stayin at all if you can get out. If ye don't want to shut up, work AND pay your taxes to see them wasted well we'll see ye next time there's a "boom".

the ones who can will leave and a fair chunk of the rest will stay at home , stuck in a poverty trap because of a social welfare system that enforces it,
hopefully at some stage we will learn to use and develop links with our people abroad and use it to our mutual benefits.
Could be a while though as the system isnt for changing yet, and that shows up by the total lack of support for our people abroad . Alway sickened over the elderly and needy Irish abroad even in our bubble times when our masters squandered billions

coolwings · 09-04-2012 1:16pm

The only effective way to make them change their policy of paying banks our money is to take away their funding.

Paying this extra property tax is giving yet more of your money to the government bully. If it gets more now, like all bullies, it will just come back for more once again ... everyone knows this.

How soon before we become assertive and deny government our compliance in this slow motion robbery?
For me that is RIGHT NOW.

What we really need in Ireland is a tax strike.

I would like to see a national tax strike movement get started.
That would put a stop to this in an amazingly short time.
This robbery of the Irish to pay off banks and property interests will stop within days (and government begin to represent the people again), when business owners withhold VAT, PAYE, rates, and employees withhold ALL taxes due.

Even discussing citizen assertiveness via a tax strike in massive numbers would make government begin to turn.
Above all else they want to be paid.
.

golfwallah · 09-04-2012 9:48pm

coolwings wrote: »

The only effective way to make them change their policy of paying banks our money is to take away their funding.

Paying this extra property tax is giving yet more of your money to the government bully. If it gets more now, like all bullies, it will just come back for more once again ... everyone knows this.

How soon before we become assertive and deny government our compliance in this slow motion robbery?
For me that is RIGHT NOW.

What we really need in Ireland is a tax strike.

I would like to see a national tax strike movement get started.
That would put a stop to this in an amazingly short time.
This robbery of the Irish to pay off banks and property interests will stop within days (and government begin to represent the people again), when business owners withhold VAT, PAYE, rates, and employees withhold ALL taxes due.

Even discussing citizen assertiveness via a tax strike in massive numbers would make government begin to turn.
Above all else they want to be paid.
.

Unfortunately, there is no us and them – there is only us. This is our Government, freely elected by the people, under our democratic process, with a mandate to put the economy of the country right.

Extract from Fine Gael Manifesto 2011:
“IMF-EU Fiscal Targets: Fine Gael accepts the fiscal targets set out in the National Recovery Plan, including the 3% of GDP deficit target by 2014. We will review the scale, pace and timeframe of the fiscal adjustment with the EU and IMF on an annual basis to take into account developments in the real economy”.

The Manifesto is also committed to “No Further Increases in Income Taxes”.

For full text see: http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/Fine%20Gael%20Manifesto%20low-res.pdf

I’m no fan of either Fine Gael or Labour but do favour democracy, however imperfect it may be, over the alternatives.

Yes, FG did oppose a flat rate household charge but, to comply with state commitment to the IMF-EU to introduce a property tax by end 2011 and following Dail debate, the Household Charge was passed into law, as a temporary measure to allow time for a “fairer” property tax to be introduced.

Nobody likes paying more taxes and I’ve no doubt that “fairer” will mean higher taxes to many of us, but the way to change things is to engage with the democratic process – not to urge people to strike against it – this is the route to anarchy.

coolwings · 10-04-2012 11:31am

Hmm ...
you think this is democracy? Taxing the electorate to give bailouts (=donated funding) to corporate finance and big property?

You suggest anarchy is what you get if a government is made to represent the voters? No. That's democracy.

You say: "“fairer” will mean higher taxes to many of us,". Please speak for yourself, I am not one of your misleading .... "us"! And your use of the word fairer is not appropriate because this is about using power and taking money.

Your arguments for people not to organise financially to oppose financial attack from our own government is disengenuous, and not based on the facts of life as they are in Ireland.

You say FG/LAB opposed a flat charge? Well we got one anyway. A government's motivation is easily seen by it's actions, as their statements are normally camouflage. Actions show the real policy. It's here. They did it.

Undoubtedly we have a democratic election process, but if Irish government were a democracy the politicians would represent the electorate.
The reality is that the government represents power brokers, donors of funding, business associates, family and friends.
After that lot have been satisfied, all Irish governments represent the people with what resources are left over, or to tax what is owed when nothing remains.

This is already proven beyond dispute by history, a multitude of news reports, and tribunals of investigation.
Every party has participated in this, including FG, LAB, FF, (in the life of the present govt look for instance at the building of the Lowry casino in the middle of nowhere against planning guidelines. )

In which case if the people wish to be represented to a greater degree, they must become power brokers. Then they will move up the pecking order of priority for politicians of all parties, and government will listen to the people as much as they currently listen to certain other groups.

golfwallah · 11-04-2012 11:46am

coolwings wrote: »

Hmm ...
you think this is democracy? Taxing the electorate to give bailouts (=donated funding) to corporate finance and big property?

You suggest anarchy is what you get if a government is made to represent the voters? No. That's democracy.

You say: "“fairer” will mean higher taxes to many of us,". Please speak for yourself, I am not one of your misleading .... "us"! And your use of the word fairer is not appropriate because this is about using power and taking money.

Your arguments for people not to organise financially to oppose financial attack from our own government is disengenuous, and not based on the facts of life as they are in Ireland.

You say FG/LAB opposed a flat charge? Well we got one anyway. A government's motivation is easily seen by it's actions, as their statements are normally camouflage. Actions show the real policy. It's here. They did it.

Undoubtedly we have a democratic election process, but if Irish government were a democracy the politicians would represent the electorate.
The reality is that the government represents power brokers, donors of funding, business associates, family and friends.
After that lot have been satisfied, all Irish governments represent the people with what resources are left over, or to tax what is owed when nothing remains.

This is already proven beyond dispute by history, a multitude of news reports, and tribunals of investigation.
Every party has participated in this, including FG, LAB, FF, (in the life of the present govt look for instance at the building of the Lowry casino in the middle of nowhere against planning guidelines. )

In which case if the people wish to be represented to a greater degree, they must become power brokers. Then they will move up the pecking order of priority for politicians of all parties, and government will listen to the people as much as they currently listen to certain other groups.

I am not arguing "for people not to organise financially to oppose financial attack from our own government" as you have stated. Quite the contrary, I'm all for freedom of expression and organisation, so long as it's done within the democratic process. And, with respect, if being labeled "disingenuous" is the price I have to pay for being a supporter of our democratic processes, I wonder what label you attribute to those who oppose the rule of law.

Democracy is a delicate flower, that can easily be extinguished. We should all be grateful that we live in a democratic society, however flawed, as it gives everyone the chance to be heard in some way or other.

I too don't like some of the abuses and reckless use of power that have happened - but, please, let's deal with these issues within the law. Where there are delays, certainly, people are right to protest and demand change. Experience shows that Governments do react to negative feedback. But they have little choice over property tax within the context of the agreement on the bailout.

My genuinely held view is that calls for a "tax strike" (however, we might feel about such things), go beyond the democratic processes and should be withdrawn.

Icepick · 11-04-2012 5:33pm

coolwings wrote: »

The only effective way to make them change their policy of paying banks our money is to take away their funding.

How do we pay the 15 billion deficit created after ECB take away their funding?

lmimmfn · 11-04-2012 10:04pm

Icepick wrote: »

How do we pay the 15 billion deficit created after ECB take away their funding?

sort out the deficit, its not representative of every man woman and child in the country, high pensions, high welfare/medical card/HSE costs, overpaid bankers, insane council wastage to name but a few.

No matter what people think if we dont get to 0 borrowings or close to( 3% of GDP or thereabouts as we'll vote on soon ), theres no point whatsoever in all of the austerity so far. We're spending far too much on the aforementioned and we can no longer afford it. This problem cant be taxed away( whether direct or indirect taxes ).

golfwallah · 12-04-2012 12:49am

lmimmfn wrote: »

sort out the deficit, its not representative of every man woman and child in the country, high pensions, high welfare/medical card/HSE costs, overpaid bankers, insane council wastage to name but a few.

No matter what people think if we dont get to 0 borrowings or close to( 3% of GDP or thereabouts as we'll vote on soon ), theres no point whatsoever in all of the austerity so far. We're spending far too much on the aforementioned and we can no longer afford it. This problem cant be taxed away( whether direct or indirect taxes ).

The deficit and borrowing targets are set out in the 2011 Fine Gael Manifesto, the 2011 Programme for Government and the Fiscal Compact Treaty, that we will be voting for or against at the end of May.

These targets will bring about more austerity measures in addition to Household Charges.

Unfortunately, financial bailout with regard to Ireland's international debt requires strict compliance with these conditions.

The alternatives are to go it alone ..... and we all know just how vulnerable the Punt was to big money market speculators.

You pays your money and you takes your choice!

lmimmfn · 12-04-2012 2:12am

golfwallah wrote: »

The deficit and borrowing targets are set out in the 2011 Fine Gael Manifesto, the 2011 Programme for Government and the Fiscal Compact Treaty, that we will be voting for or against at the end of May.

These targets will bring about more austerity measures in addition to Household Charges.

Unfortunately, financial bailout with regard to Ireland's international debt requires strict compliance with these conditions.

The alternatives are to go it alone ..... and we all know just how vulnerable the Punt was to big money market speculators.

You pays your money and you takes your choice!

thats the problem, more taxes when we should be sorting out our spending, law of diminishing returns, you can only bleed the tax payer so much and from what i can see thats close to being exhausted otherwise there will be severe consequences for the country and government.

This threat of voting no to the Stability treaty causing us a throwback to the cave man 80's times is ridiculous. While its a voyage into the unknown theres no proof that that is any worse than another 10 years of austerity. Even if we went back to the punt, wheres the problem with that? we gain soverignty, control over out finances and we cant take holidays abroad or import big tv's because our currency is so devalued to help exports, decrease cost of manufacturing and other labour costs.

As things stand i would rather we own our own country than have another 10 years of others deciding what we should and should not do regardless of the consequences to the people of this country.

creedp · 12-04-2012 11:52am

lmimmfn wrote: »

Even if we went back to the punt, wheres the problem with that? we gain soverignty, control over out finances and we cant take holidays abroad or import big tv's because our currency is so devalued to help exports, decrease cost of manufacturing and other labour costs.

That's the problem though. There are many people in this recessionary ravaged country who like their Audi A6 and BMD 520D too much to contemplate doing anything that would upset their living standards. These are the people who hold sway in this country so it is those whose living standards have been hit most with tax increases both direct and indirect that will have to contribute proportionally more of what is left of thier take home pay so the Audi's and BMW's can continue to flow. So lets continue to pay the German/French bankers and lissten without complaint to the ECB because the alternative is too risky

Icepick · 12-04-2012 5:51pm

lmimmfn wrote: »

sort out the deficit, its not representative of every man woman and child in the country, high pensions, high welfare/medical card/HSE costs, overpaid bankers, insane council wastage to name but a few.

Be more specific and provide numbers.

lmimmfn · 13-04-2012 1:07am

Icepick wrote: »

Be more specific and provide numbers.

read the news, get the numbers there, its all common knowledge. Theyve been posted several times in the forums here except maybe council wastage but that can be seen( i can give you numerous examples of that if you want ).

Icepick · 13-04-2012 7:06pm

lmimmfn wrote: »

read the news, get the numbers there, its all common knowledge. Theyve been posted several times in the forums here except maybe council wastage but that can be seen( i can give you numerous examples of that if you want ).

So you don't have anything but still claim you would be able to balance the budget overnight?

lmimmfn · 14-04-2012 2:32am

Icepick wrote: »

So you don't have anything but still claim you would be able to balance the budget overnight?

1. I never said i would balance the budget overnight, i gave examples on where money is being wasted, my comment "to name but a few" highlights im not defining all wastages ergo balancing the bidget.
2. If youre too lazy to search the forums for the figures, dont expect me to provide them for you.

Icepick · 14-04-2012 9:38am

lmimmfn wrote: »

1. I never said i would balance the budget overnight, i gave examples on where money is being wasted, my comment "to name but a few" highlights im not defining all wastages ergo balancing the bidget.
2. If youre too lazy to search the forums for the figures, dont expect me to provide them for you.

Nobody provided relevant figures.
When the socialists campaigning against the household charge are pressed to say where to get the billions, their only reply is 'tax the rich,' which is unfeasible and very ironic.

EricPraline · 14-04-2012 11:14am

lmimmfn wrote: »

1. I never said i would balance the budget overnight, i gave examples on where money is being wasted, my comment "to name but a few" highlights im not defining all wastages ergo balancing the bidget.

You've picked a few low-hanging fruit like "council wastage", which might reduce the budgetary deficit by a small fraction. But what about the rest? Many of the "easy" cuts have been made in the last few budgets. Reducing our budgetary deficit to zero would require far more radical cuts across high-spending areas such as social welfare, education and health, plus significant tax increases - income, property, water etc. Would you be in favour of such policies - yes/no?

lmimmfn wrote: »

2. If youre too lazy to search the forums for the figures, dont expect me to provide them for you.

If you're going to propose a solution, it's not unreasonable to expect you to back it up. As others have said, waving hands and saying "taxing the rich" isn't going to balance the budget.

Idbatterim · 14-04-2012 11:22am

Funny how there aren't call for benchmarking to work in reverse! sure many in private sector have had 100% paycuts and the cost of housing is down atleast 50%... You look at the insane increases in expenditure in health, education etc and ask yourself is the service any better, has it actually gone down hill? If its tax hikes or service cuts to an already appalling services, i know which id choose!

golfwallah · 14-04-2012 11:31am

EricPraline wrote: »

You've picked a few low-hanging fruit like "council wastage", which might reduce the budgetary deficit by a small fraction. But what about the rest? Many of the "easy" cuts have been made in the last few budgets. Reducing our budgetary deficit to zero would require far more radical cuts across high-spending areas such as social welfare, education and health, plus significant tax increases - income, property, water etc. Would you be in favour of such policies - yes/no?

If you're going to propose a solution, it's not unreasonable to expect you to back it up. As others have said, waving hands and saying "taxing the rich" isn't going to balance the budget.

Even when you have the figures, it's a lot easier to balance the budget on paper than when you're in power and have responsibility for the consequences.

Just look at the ructions caused by a €100 Household Charge or the sneers thrown at Minister Rory Quinn, when he faced the teachers at their national conference recently (and they're mostly Labour supporters).

Changing things in reality requires real leadership such as provided by Roosvelt in the 1930s Depression or Churchill in World War 2.

donegal_road · 18-04-2012 12:38pm

does the data protection act mean that no one, including government, has the rights to access individual's personal information? If so, then why were the government threatening to use ESB accounts and welfare details to identify people who hadn't paid the property tax, or register their property? Surely they would not be allowed to do this under the rules of the Data Protection Act?

ardmacha · 18-04-2012 3:06pm

Surely they would not be allowed to do this under the rules of the Data Protection Act?

As your own posting says, the power to access such information was granted to local authorities under Section 14 of the Local Government (Household Charge) Act.

ART6 · 18-04-2012 3:10pm

ardmacha wrote: »

As your own posting says, the power to access such information was granted to local authorities under Section 14 of the Local Government (Household Charge) Act.

In other words, when the rules don't suit us we will change them:mad:

golfwallah · 18-04-2012 4:33pm

ART6 wrote: »

In other words, when the rules don't suit us we will change them:mad:

Of course this has to happen!

The government have a mandate to fix the economy, that's what they were elected to do.

Next step is taking the action required to get the job done - what else would you expect - that they fix the economy by magic?

If that doesn't suit some people, then too bad - that's how democracy works.

ART6 · 18-04-2012 4:53pm

golfwallah wrote: »

Of course this has to happen!

The government have a mandate to fix the economy, that's what they were elected to do.

Next step is taking the action required to get the job done - what else would you expect - that they fix the economy by magic?

If that doesn't suit some people, then too bad - that's how democracy works.

First point: They will never fix the economy by taxing it into oblivion. That is a fundamental rule of economics that has been proven many times.

Secondly, all governments and all electorates should operate within the law, not change it when it suits their political convenience.

meglome · 18-04-2012 4:59pm

ART6 wrote: »

First point: They will never fix the economy by taxing it into oblivion. That is a fundamental rule of economics that has been proven many times.

Secondly, all governments and all electorates should operate within the law, not change it when it suits their political convenience.

I'd start with showing we are being taxed into oblivion.

ART6 · 18-04-2012 5:20pm

meglome wrote: »

I'd start with showing we are being taxed into oblivion.

Perhaps you are not, in which case you are fortunate. I do not have access to statistics to back up my comment. I can only judge by the surveys that I see published in the media. They suggest to me that we have reached the point where the levies, fees, stealth taxes, duties, etc. have reached the limit of sustainability.

ardmacha · 18-04-2012 5:27pm

Property taxes, such as the one proposed, as a standard feature of OECD economies, most of which have not faded into oblivion.

meglome · 18-04-2012 5:28pm

ART6 wrote: »

Perhaps you are not, in which case you are fortunate. I do not have access to statistics to back up my comment. I can only judge by the surveys that I see published in the media. They suggest to me that we have reached the point where the levies, fees, stealth taxes, duties, etc. have reached the limit of sustainability.

Why is it when you ask for evidence for something you are assumed to be disagreeing or not affected by it. I'm simply asking for evidence and I am affected by it. Though I don't believe we are paying very high taxes.

So why not start with the media stories?

But let me help...
Who pays tax in Ireland? The little quiz revisited
Paying tax in Ireland: Where the richest (and poorest) pay

and an older one
Are Irish workers undertaxed?

golfwallah · 18-04-2012 6:40pm

ART6 wrote: »

First point: They will never fix the economy by taxing it into oblivion. That is a fundamental rule of economics that has been proven many times.

There's plenty of evidence (see recent posts) that tax is not excessive in Ireland .... so, I can only conclude that you just made that one up.

ART6 wrote: »

Secondly, all governments and all electorates should operate within the law, not change it when it suits their political convenience.

Made that one up as well, didn't you! if the situation demands that a law be changed, then so be it. That's the democratic prerogative of Government.

What we need is Government action to fix the current crisis, not a bunch of excuses as to why they can't do it. As long as they work within the law, which they are, I can't see anything wrong (other than they are upsetting some sectional interests) with what they are doing.

mistermouse · 19-04-2012 7:34am

I paid the household charge but really am agrieved that local authority houses are exempt.

These use services, possibly more so by their very existance and certainly the occupants use as many of not more services than me

LA houses seemed in the past to be given out in many cases a little too easily, some people even bought out and resold their houses at massive profits, sometimes to the LA again - its laughable

Road tax is far too high for what we get also and is completely mismanaged

ART6 · 19-04-2012 8:10am

golfwallah wrote: »

There's plenty of evidence (see recent posts) that tax is not excessive in Ireland .... so, I can only conclude that you just made that one up.
.

When you claim that tax is not excessive in Ireland I assume you mean by comparison with other countries. In that case you are clearly correct. However, my point is that the extent to which a level of taxation is sustainable has nothing to do with what it is in other countries. What matters is what the level is in relation to the strength of the national economy. If that is strong and vibrant, with consistent growth, then higher taxes are possible and may even be necessary to avoid overheating. If it is weak and in recession, with high unemployment and high company failures, then the level of tax sustainability must necessarily be much lower. There simply isn't the money there.

Household charge

Comments