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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

New Household Tax - Boycott

1…1112141617…20

Comments

  • #652
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »
    True, but I think you new civil servants are getting the new rules and salaries and should really have your own unions to defend you instead of being lumped in with the existing unions who take care of the pampered public service.

    The new changes are mostly just going to effect new hires and the next generation, whilst the workers who raked it in and look forward to their huge pensions and perks, do not get touched in a fair and balanced way.

    Yeah there's truth in that, but as far as I know, the average public servant has taken a hit in their take home pay of about 11%. That's not an insignificant amount.


  • #653
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Honest question here- how do those people who are against the property charge propose to fund the services that the state provides?


  • #654
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Einhard wrote: »
    Honest question here- how do those people who are against the property charge propose to fund the services that the state provides?

    Through existing taxes and efficiencies and cuts to social welfare. If working people are expected to take a reduction in take home pay why not people on social welfare and pensions?


  • #655
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    If working people are expected to take a reduction in take home pay why not people on social welfare and pensions?
    Because then the self-same people complaining about this tax would be complaining about attacks on the most vulnerable in society.


  • #656
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Through existing taxes and efficiencies and cuts to social welfare. If working people are expected to take a reduction in take home pay why not people on social welfare and pensions?

    That's a fair enough answer, but it omits the fact that people on social welfare have already taken significant cuts to their payments, and that many people on social welfare have contributed significantly to it through their PRSI. Also, and perhaps most importantly, we have a deficit of approx €20billion pa. I shudder to think of the social carnage that would ensue were that to be addressed entirely through cutbacks.

    Anyway, many of those most vociferously opposed to the charge would scream blue murder were allowances and benefits to be slashed. What do they propose?


  • #657
    Fizzlesque
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    Einhard wrote: »
    Honest question here- how do those people who are against the property charge propose to fund the services that the state provides?

    I'd quite happily pay ten euro more USC per month or a fee under another name, payable directly to the local services it's intended to fund.

    My issues with the property charge are:

    (1) why are only those who own houses charged? Surely everyone should pay, if anyone should pay. I've no problem paying towards a better society for all, but I disagree with that being connected to my home.
    I don't drive - can't afford it.
    I don't have a television - can't afford it.
    I take care of my own waste management instead of paying a waste management company to take my waste away - can't afford it.
    I barely use the heating in my house - can't afford it.
    I don't eat very much - can't afford it.

    All these cutbacks and sacrifices I make are now null and void because any money I've managed to not spend on these things the government want me to give them in tax. A tax for having a place to live that isn't rented.

    (2) when the charge/tax rises, as we all know it will, I won't be able to afford it (I can't afford it at the moment, so what chance when it's three, or more, times the current amount). When I bought a house I made sure to only get a mortgage I could afford to pay - I didn't factor in a tax that has no cut-off point - I knew there might come a time when I'd have to get rid of my TV, eat less, all the above-mentioned 'can't afford' list, and I have no issue doing those things to make sure the mortgage is paid. I've been living on a tight budget for a few years now, working only two days per week, and lucky to have those two days, but I'm perfectly happy to do so, in order to make sure my home is paid for.

    Taxes on earnings are fine with me - before the recession started I worked full time and paid all the required taxes, and was perfectly happy to do so. A tax on a house is totally different, in my opinion. I'm being penalised for wanting to get out of the bedsit I was in for three years before buying - I'm being penalised for wanting to have a place to live when I'm an old lady, a place that's paid for (by me) and a place that nobody can kick me out of, a place that I won't have to continue to pay rent for till death arrives.

    If I can reduce my expenses by 70% - why can't the government follow suit ? Cutting your coat to suit your cloth doesn't only apply to the little people like me. It needs to be across the board.

    A home shouldn't be taxed. It's not a luxury.


  • #658
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    zom wrote: »
    The point is that for some people expect that everyone get €27k straight after graduation and that everyone can easily pay €100 (or even €1000) household charge.
    I don't understand your point? First of all, the average annual salary in Ireland is around about €36k. Secondly, so what if not every fresh graduate gets €27k - the vast majority do not own property.
    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Through existing taxes and efficiencies and cuts to social welfare.
    €14 billion worth?


  • #659
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    A tax for having a place to live that isn't rented.
    Eh, rented properties will still be taxed? They are owned by someone after all.
    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    When I bought a house I made sure to only get a mortgage I could afford to pay...
    If you have to eat less in order to meet your mortgage payments, then you clearly cannot afford your mortgage.
    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    All these cutbacks and sacrifices I make are now null and void because any money I've managed to not spend on these things the government want me to give them in tax.
    ...
    If I can reduce my expenses by 70%...
    Hang on there now - you've reduced your expenditure by 70% and the savings only amount to €100 per annum? You're living on 82 cents per week?


  • #660
    Fizzlesque
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Eh, rented properties will still be taxed? They are owned by someone after all.

    The person living there isn't liable, unless their landlord adds it to their rent.


    [/QUOTE] If you have to eat less in order to meet your mortgage payments, then you clearly cannot afford your mortgage. [/QUOTE]

    Nonsense, once I can pay the mortgage, that means I can afford it - even though these days it's in the 'just about' category. I could afford it plenty before the recession resulted in my employer needing to reduce my working days from 5 to 2. When I took on the mortgage I worked full time.


    [/QUOTE] Hang on there now - you've reduced your expenditure by 70% and the savings only amount to €100 per annum? You're living on 82 cents per week? [/QUOTE]

    Nice try Mister Pedantic Calculus, but (a) it won't be 100 per annum after this year and (b) my reducing my expenditure by 70% happened long before this household tax was introduced. I didn't do it to try afford this tax. They're two separate points.


  • Advertisement
  • #661
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    The person living there isn't liable, unless their landlord adds it to their rent.
    That’s between the landlord and their tenants. The point is that the charge is not being escaped just because a property is rented.
    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    Nice try Mister Pedantic Calculus, but (a) it won't be 100 per annum after this year and (b) my reducing my expenditure by 70% happened long before this household tax was introduced. I didn't do it to try afford this tax. They're two separate points.
    They’re not two separate points. You said you reduced your expenditure by 70%. You also said that your efforts were in vain because anything you saved will now be spent on the household charge. If that 70% equates to €100, that would mean you are now only spending about €43 per year (and previously only spending about €143 per year), which is obviously complete nonsense.

    Oh and that's not calculus, it's simple arithmetic.


  • #662
    Fizzlesque
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    djpbarry wrote: »
    They’re not two separate points. You said you reduced your expenditure by 70%. You also said that your efforts were in vain because anything you saved will now be spent on the household charge. If that 70% equates to €100, that would mean you are now only spending about €43 per year (and previously only spending about €143 per year), which is obviously complete nonsense.

    They are two separate points. However, I will admit I didn't express them as well as I could, or perhaps, should, have done.

    My mention of 70% reduction in my expenditure was in relation to the fact I've had to reduce my expenditure considerably since this recession resulted in my working week being slashed to two days, instead of five. If I can make that kind of a reduction, then surely it's possible for the government to reduce their expenditure too. That was my intended point.

    My apologies for what, obviously, looked like I was saying ALL my savings, throughout ALL of this recession, due to these sacrifices, would now be taken from me by the government. Those savings are actually only on-paper savings anyway because I don't have the 'saved cash', I just don't have the expenses any more. There isn't more money in my pocket because of these changes I've made, but nor are there demands for payment arriving in my door because I'm not availing of these services. The 70% reduction didn't happen overnight - it has been a cumulative process over a number of years.

    However, in order to stick with your rigid interpretation of my hastily typed post, let me add this: This year, I couldn't afford the 100 euro Greyhound wanted up-front for bin collections so I decided to take on that chore myself (I cycle to the recycle centre, and use a compost bin, and take good care not to bring 'stuff' into my house that will need to be disposed of in one form or another), so, with regard to that particular 'saving', which did happen at the same time as the household charge came into being, yes, the government do want ALL of what I've managed not to spend this year - namely 100 euro.

    I've already outlined, in my original post, that I have no problem paying a little extra to fund local authorities, my issue is with it being connected to my house. It's common knowledge the fee will increase considerably in the coming years - regardless of the fact my house doesn't earn an income. If I'm earning more, I'll happily pay more tax, because I'll be able to afford to, but I don't believe my house should be considered a taxable thing.


  • #663
    Fizzlesque
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Oh and that's not calculus, it's simple arithmetic.

    T'was a tongue in cheek response, a jovial nick-name. You're far too serious a chap for me. :)


  • #664
    john reilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭john reilly


    The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »
    Point 1) :confused:How is it more decent and selfless to protest something that does not effect you? There has always been a large element of people who are exempt from taxes/charges protesting these issues, not for the moral point, but simply for publicity, good example, the bin charge.

    Point 2) They don't give it away, they give it to SF. If this was "honourable", they would return it to the exchequer. Can you explain how if the average wage this TD takes is 36k, how can he claim 31k in explenses for 2011? Is he saying that he spent 31k of his 36k salary on expenses? How does that add up? Only 5k of his salary was spent on everything else? The Evening Herald article says he spends 1k a month on rent, so that is 12k. So these figures do not add up.

    Also look at the expense spreadsheet again before you start yapping about troughs. ;) The smaller parties are well able to stick their noses in it and that is backed up by the figures.

    Point 3) People do not argue like that but I am sick to death of smaller political parties who try to champion themselves as defenders of "the poor" who are simply liars and have the snout stuck in the trough just as much, if not much, then the larger parties. Again, look at the expenses spreadsheet for 2011.
    the famines in africa dont affect me but i still give to charities working there.


  • #665
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I don't understand your point? First of all, the average annual salary in Ireland is around about €36k. Secondly, so what if not every fresh graduate gets €27k - the vast majority do not own property.
    €14 billion worth?

    As much of that €14 billion as possible. Your entitled to your opinion on where and how taxes are taken. And in principle I have no problem with the proposed property tax. But before I see more significant tax taken out of my disposable income i want to see significant savings in public expenditure. If your spending beyond your means you need to cut back.


  • #666
    The Waltzing Consumer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,949 ✭✭✭The Waltzing Consumer


    john reilly wrote: »
    the famines in africa dont affect me but i still give to charities working there.

    That is very nice :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    I've paid the household charge, partly as I'm going through a marital seperation and don't want it to add to any issues in the final seperation/divorce.

    I've also paid it as I feel it's only right to obey the laws of the land

    However I do feel a deep resentment that while I consider myself to be a good citizen, this money is going to support a system which signed up to the CPA and yet nothing significant appears to have been achieved as a result of that agreement, the HSE still have thousands of staff in HR, the public sector still appears inefficient etc.

    The irony is how efficient they have been in dealing with setting up a system to cope with the household charge!


  • #668
    neris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,066 ✭✭✭✭neris


    Ive gone to pay just now but not paying as it wants my pps number but dont see what a pps number has to do with it im putting in a wrong number which tells me im wrong .. do they think theres a phantom household charge paying fairy going around who might pay random stangers fees just for the fun of it


  • #669
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    neris wrote: »
    Ive gone to pay just now but not paying as it wants my pps number but dont see what a pps number has to do with it im putting in a wrong number which tells me im wrong .. do they think theres a phantom household charge paying fairy going around who might pay random stangers fees just for the fun of it

    Eh so the revenue can match you up on your PPS number and the properties you own?


  • #670
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    As far as I know you can click no PPS on the first page so it's not necessary.


  • #671
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,508 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    neris wrote: »
    Ive gone to pay just now but not paying as it wants my pps number but dont see what a pps number has to do with it im putting in a wrong number which tells me im wrong .. do they think theres a phantom household charge paying fairy going around who might pay random stangers fees just for the fun of it

    I love that they make you do two capchas as well.

    Clearly stopping all those spam bots registering and paying €100.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    zom wrote: »
    djpbarry wrote: »
    €27k is a pretty good salary for a fresh graduate.


    The point is that for some people expect that everyone get €27k straight after graduation and that everyone can easily pay €100 (or even €1000) household charge. There is still people like that (especially in government), absolutely disconnected from reality...
    How do people own a house on €27k right after graduation?


  • #673
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Einhard wrote: »
    Honest question here- how do those people who are against the property charge propose to fund the services that the state provides?

    Through existing taxes and efficiencies and cuts to social welfare. If working people are expected to take a reduction in take home pay why not people on social welfare and pensions?
    That completely fails to realistically consider the budget. There is no way to cut spending to plug the hole. Well, there is; but it would mean ending welfare for the foreseeable future.


  • #674
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    That completely fails to realistically consider the budget. There is no way to cut spending to plug the hole. Well, there is; but it would mean ending welfare for the foreseeable future.

    Spending still needs to be cut. No matter how much it hurts. Expecting people to pay more taxes without change is also unrealistic.


  • #675
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    neris wrote: »
    Ive gone to pay just now but not paying as it wants my pps number but dont see what a pps number has to do with it im putting in a wrong number which tells me im wrong .. do they think theres a phantom household charge paying fairy going around who might pay random stangers fees just for the fun of it
    God forbid the government gets your PPS number and knows not to charge you with a criminal offence of non-payment.


  • #676
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Spending still needs to be cut. No matter how much it hurts. Expecting people to pay more taxes without change is also unrealistic.

    They are cutting billions off the budget each year, or have you not noticed?


  • #677
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Rojomcdojo wrote: »
    They are cutting billions off the budget each year, or have you not noticed?

    Half by tax rises and expenditure on public infrastructure. The low level fruit.


  • #678
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    That completely fails to realistically consider the budget. There is no way to cut spending to plug the hole. Well, there is; but it would mean ending welfare for the foreseeable future.

    Spending still needs to be cut. No matter how much it hurts. Expecting people to pay more taxes without change is also unrealistic.
    I would submit the government has made cuts in line with the amount of the household charge. Not enough. I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you that we need to make serious cuts, but that's no reason to say that the household charge is wrong.

    The problem is that everyone is moaning about "austerity". I could go outside this minute and find 5 posters that have that word on them in a 2 minute walk. They don't know austerity and the government cuts thus far are miles away from austerity. We need deep cuts as much as we need te household charge and, in reality, property tax.


  • #679
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Half by tax rises and expenditure on public infrastructure. The low level fruit.

    FreudianSlippers puts it well, the problem being that half who oppose the household charge oppose it for reasons relating to a lack of significant cuts, while the other half oppose it because they feel that they have been on the receiving end of *too many* cuts.

    The rest of us are in the middle somewhere.


  • #680
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I would submit the government has made cuts in line with the amount of the household charge. Not enough. I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you that we need to make serious cuts, but that's no reason to say that the household charge is wrong.

    The problem is that everyone is moaning about "austerity". I could go outside this minute and find 5 posters that have that word on them in a 2 minute walk. They don't know austerity and the government cuts thus far are miles away from austerity. We need deep cuts as much as we need te household charge and, in reality, property tax.

    I agree with you. I'm just making the point we need to tackle waste while the IMF are still here or we have no chance. When the pensioners took to the street they folded. We cannot afford them to fold on reductions in social welfare and public sector pay and pensions or we are well and truely finished.


  • #681
    Fizzlesque
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    I'd like to ask the posters who are perfectly happy to pay a property tax, and (seemingly) have plenty of money to do so, a few questions:

    1. What figure/amount would you consider appropriate for this tax?

    2. What figure/amount would the tax need to reach for it to be difficult for you to manage to pay?

    3. Do you think this tax should rise every year?

    4. Do you think those who can't afford to pay it should sell their houses in order cease to be liable for the charge? Or should there be waivers for those who don't have the money - if yes, do you believe the charge should accumulate until they're earning more money, if that happens in the future, and be paid in full then or start at the beginning then?

    5. What do you truly believe the money from this tax will be spent on?

    6. What do you think is the fairest method of assessing how much each household should be charged? [I know that's very similar to question 1, but I mean method rather than amount].


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    I'd like to ask the posters who are perfectly happy to pay a property tax, and (seemingly) have plenty of money to do so, a few questions:

    1. What figure/amount would you consider appropriate for this tax?

    2. What figure/amount would the tax need to reach for it to be difficult for you to manage to pay?

    3. Do you think this tax should rise every year?
    For this tax, the household charge? €100 is fine. When this is replaced by the property tax, I suggested a 10 year fixed tax of 0.1% per annum of the value of your property (either appraised right now or based on future sales) on the owner of the property.

    So if your house is worth €150,000 on the market on a set date by the legislation, say 1st January 2013, then for 10 years you pay €150/year. If you sell that house for €200,000 then the new buyer would pay €200/year and you buy a house for €500,000 you pay €500/year. The percentage rate does not change until a review in 2022 to be implemented in 2023 (with the understanding at least that it should stay under 0.5% ish).

    There is also flat €50 per annum "household charge" for renters.
    4. Do you think those who can't afford to pay it should sell their houses in order cease to be liable for the charge? Or should there be waivers for those who don't have the money - if yes, do you believe the charge should accumulate until they're earning more money, if that happens in the future, and be paid in full then or start at the beginning then?
    As it stands it levels a charge against the house. Nobody is being forced to sell their house - however, if you cannot afford the €100/year perhaps home ownership is generally a poor choice for you at the moment.
    5. What do you truly believe the money from this tax will be spent on?
    Local governmental services.
    6. What do you think is the fairest method of assessing how much each household should be charged? [I know that's very similar to question 1, but I mean method rather than amount].
    I touch on this in the beginning of the post. I suppose the only fair way to do it is to have each household appraised by an independent group of people that calculate based on the size of your home, the area and comparable listings/sales in the area for the first "valuation". Then after that it's based on the actual purchase price of the home in future sales.


  • #683
    oldyouth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,754 ✭✭✭oldyouth


    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    I'd like to ask the posters who are perfectly happy to pay a property tax, and (seemingly) have plenty of money to do so, a few questions:

    1. What figure/amount would you consider appropriate for this tax?

    2. What figure/amount would the tax need to reach for it to be difficult for you to manage to pay?

    3. Do you think this tax should rise every year?

    4. Do you think those who can't afford to pay it should sell their houses in order cease to be liable for the charge? Or should there be waivers for those who don't have the money - if yes, do you believe the charge should accumulate until they're earning more money, if that happens in the future, and be paid in full then or start at the beginning then?

    5. What do you truly believe the money from this tax will be spent on?

    6. What do you think is the fairest method of assessing how much each household should be charged? [I know that's very similar to question 1, but I mean method rather than amount].

    I paid the tax and can answer you as follows.

    1. I don't think any figure is appropriate, it is not a well thought out tax
    2. It wasn't too difficult to pay it at €100, but my circumstances are changing shortly, so even that amount will be a challange when it increases next year
    3. I don't think it should but I think it will
    4. I don't care what other people do as long as those liable to pay, like me, do so.
    5. The tax will be used to pay off the National Debt, I'm under no illusions about that
    6. A property tax based on the size of the house they live in (not value) including those in local authority housing


  • #684
    Fizzlesque
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    For this tax, the household charge? €100 is fine. When this is replaced by the property tax, I suggested a 10 year fixed tax of 0.1% per annum of the value of your property (either appraised right now or based on future sales) on the owner of the property.

    So if your house is worth €150,000 on the market on a set date by the legislation, say 1st January 2013, then for 10 years you pay €150/year. If you sell that house for €200,000 then the new buyer would pay €200/year and you buy a house for €500,000 you pay €500/year. The percentage rate does not change until a review in 2022 to be implemented in 2023 (with the understanding at least that it should stay under 0.5% ish).

    There is also flat €50 per annum "household charge" for renters.


    As it stands it levels a charge against the house. Nobody is being forced to sell their house - however, if you cannot afford the €100/year perhaps home ownership is generally a poor choice for you at the moment

    Thanks for your reply, Freudian Slippers. I can't figure out how to choose portions of a post to quote - so sorry for having to lump the whole thing together instead of responding to selected sections.

    If the charge was to remain as small as 150 for ten years, and then reviewed in ten years and only increased a small amount (or decreased) I'd be less nervous about it. I don't like the idea of my house being taxed because it means I'll be paying for it forever instead of only until the mortgage is paid off - which kind of defeats some of the purpose, for me.

    However, if it was to remain a small and manageable sum, I'd be less inclined to fight it. I have visions of thousands upon thousands being demanded in a few year's time - and I simply don't have that kind of money. When I bought my house, I was living in a bedsit and paying almost as much in rent as I ended up paying for my mortgage, so it made (and still makes) good sense to become a home owner.

    At no point during this entire fiasco has any effort been made to calm people's fears of an extremely high tax eventually being the case. I mentioned in an earlier post that when I bought my house, I made sure to take a reasonable and affordable mortgage out, I didn't borrow huge sums of money, but I didn't factor in a property tax. I've never missed a payment even though I've been on short time for three years now, I take my financial responsibilities seriously. I live alone and pay the mortgage alone; and a forever increasing property tax scares me. Much more than the possibility of increased interest rates on my mortgage. At least I was aware of the possibility of increased rates when I made the decision to buy.

    It would be nice to have some reassurance I won't be hit with a 2,000+ bill every year for the rest of my life, on top of every other living expense. I know how to live frugally, I'm very good at managing on very little, but everything has its limit. I don't want to become Old Mother Hubbard with her totally bare cupboard while handing over huge swathes of cash to be thrown into a black and endless hole of Ireland's badly managed finances.

    When you say 'local government services' can you be a bit more specific please?


  • #685
    Fizzlesque
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    oldyouth wrote: »

    1. I don't think any figure is appropriate, it is not a well thought out tax
    2. It wasn't too difficult to pay it at €100, but my circumstances are changing shortly, so even that amount will be a challange when it increases next year
    3. I don't think it should but I think it will
    4. I don't care what other people do as long as those liable to pay, like me, do so.
    5. The tax will be used to pay off the National Debt, I'm under no illusions about that
    6. A property tax based on the size of the house they live in (not value) including those in local authority housing

    Thanks for your reply, oldyouth.

    Do you think, if the tax had been better thought out, there would be an appropriate figure, or do you not consider taxing someone's property to be appropriate?

    The tax being used to pay off the National Debt (which I also believe) makes it frighteningly likely the tax will increase enormously every year - and, like yourself, I don't think that should be the case.

    One reason (among many) I decided not to buy an apartment was because of the management fees - although I'm very happy I bought a house instead of an apartment (again, for many reasons) this tax reminds me of those management fees I wanted to avoid.


  • #686
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    Thanks for your reply, Freudian Slippers. I can't figure out how to choose portions of a post to quote - so sorry for having to lump the whole thing together instead of responding to selected sections.

    If the charge was to remain as small as 150 for ten years, and then reviewed in ten years and only increased a small amount (or decreased) I'd be less nervous about it. I don't like the idea of my house being taxed because it means I'll be paying for it forever instead of only until the mortgage is paid off - which kind of defeats some of the purpose, for me.

    However, if it was to remain a small and manageable sum, I'd be less inclined to fight it. I have visions of thousands upon thousands being demanded in a few year's time - and I simply don't have that kind of money. When I bought my house, I was living in a bedsit and paying almost as much in rent as I ended up paying for my mortgage, so it made (and still makes) good sense to become a home owner.

    At no point during this entire fiasco has any effort been made to calm people's fears of an extremely high tax eventually being the case. I mentioned in an earlier post that when I bought my house, I made sure to take a reasonable and affordable mortgage out, I didn't borrow huge sums of money, but I didn't factor in a property tax. I've never missed a payment even though I've been on short time for three years now, I take my financial responsibilities seriously. I live alone and pay the mortgage alone; and a forever increasing property tax scares me. Much more than the possibility of increased interest rates on my mortgage. At least I was aware of the possibility of increased rates when I made the decision to buy.

    It would be nice to have some reassurance I won't be hit with a 2,000+ bill every year for the rest of my life, on top of every other living expense. I know how to live frugally, I'm very good at managing on very little, but everything has its limit. I don't want to become Old Mother Hubbard with her totally bare cupboard while handing over huge swathes of cash to be thrown into a black and endless hole of Ireland's badly managed finances.

    When you say 'local government services' can you be a bit more specific please?
    The thing about property tax is that it must be, at its core, an ad valorem tax. That is, it must be based on the value of the property - which is why a percentage rate is the most fair. In my scenario, if you own a €100,000 home you pay €100/year and if you live in a €1,000,000 home you pay €1,000/year.

    An annual tax on a €100,000 home that came to €2,000/year would be a 2% annual tax which would be considered amongst the highest taxes in the world on property on a site value. But do we have justification to presume or assume or jump to any sort of conclusion as to what our government (elected by us) will do regarding a rate?
    I could have missed it but I don't see any conclusive reports on what will be in the future property tax at all.

    As for local government services, I don't know. Keeping the street lights on and the roads paved and all that sort of stuff. I really wish we had more transparency in our taxation system, but what can you do!?


  • #687
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    If the charge was to remain as small as 150 for ten years, and then reviewed in ten years and only increased a small amount (or decreased) I'd be less nervous about it.
    The tax levels that FreudianSlippers has given are in the same ball park as what the Commission on Taxation advised (€188 per annum for properties worth up to €150k). The government is looking to raise about €1.2 billion per annum with the property tax – that’s a pretty modest amount. Claims that the tax will be increased to thousands of Euro per property are completely baseless.
    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    I don't like the idea of my house being taxed because it means I'll be paying for it forever...
    But you’ll be paying other taxes forever too?!? What makes the property tax so different?
    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    At no point during this entire fiasco has any effort been made to calm people's fears of an extremely high tax eventually being the case.
    That’s really not true – the government have been pretty open about how much they intend to raise with the property tax. The problem has been that left-wing extremists have claimed the tax will rise inexorably upwards. But what gets me is that there plenty of other taxes that people already pay, yet I don’t see the SWP claiming that we should stop paying VAT, because the government’s going to jack it up to five million per cent in a few years.


  • #688
    Fizzlesque
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    djpbarry wrote: »
    T
    But you’ll be paying other taxes forever too?!? What makes the property tax so different?

    First things first, what's the procedure for selecting parts of a post to quote, as opposed to clicking 'quote' and ending up with the entire post you're replying to being reposted?

    What makes a property tax different is:

    (a) I bought a house because I didn't want to pay rent for the rest of my life; I wanted to own a property so I'd have somewhere to live that didn't remain as costly as renting for the duration of my life. Rent will always be X amount, no matter how long I've lived in said rented accommodation, but as a mortgage reduces, so does the monthly repayment, eventually becoming very little or nothing at all. If, as I've been lead to believe, and you're telling me isn't the case, a property tax continues to rise, it means I'll never be able to live without needing to find money to pay for my accommodation.

    (b) tax on income will be dependent on me having an income; as long as I am earning, I don't mind paying tax on my earnings, and VAT depends on me purchasing whatever goods or services come with VAT. I can choose not to purchase a product, or avail of a service if the tax is too much or I'm a bit broke at that time, I can't do that with my home. I have to live somewhere, that's not really negotiable.


  • #689
    Fizzlesque
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    djpbarry wrote: »
    T
    That’s really not true – the government have been pretty open about how much they intend to raise with the property tax. The problem has been that left-wing extremists have claimed the tax will rise inexorably upwards. But what gets me is that there plenty of other taxes that people already pay, yet I don’t see the SWP claiming that we should stop paying VAT, because the government’s going to jack it up to five million per cent in a few years.

    Can you give me a link (or two) regarding this openness of the government as to how much they intend to raise the property tax? I've read a ridiculous amount of articles and comments on this subject and haven't had my mind put at ease in relation to the eventual cost. I've read plenty of snidey remarks from politicians telling us we'd better pay up or else, but nothing to stop the worry of ending up with a tax bill that continues to grow and grow year after year. I'd love to read some literature that tells me this isn't their long term plan.


  • #690
    blahfckingblah
    Registered Users Posts: 1,666 ✭✭✭blahfckingblah


    john reilly wrote: »
    the famines in africa dont affect me but i still give to charities working there.
    and you are being forced to do so? and charged more if you dont? and told that you are a true patriot for doing so?


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    This controversy is really irritating me. Ireland is one of the few developed nations without any kind of property tax. We are in a complete fiscal mess and we need to raise revenue. A property tax is not ideal as it does not take account of your income, but it is an important revenue stream. At one hundred euro per household it is not exorbitant. People really need to get a life and see the bigger picture.

    The crusties on the far left like to convince us that we can magically balance the books by charging 99% tax on millionaires but the reality is that we need to expand our revenue base, and this includes taxes on property.

    The most odious element of Irish politics is the tendency of its citizens to deny reality. This fabricated outrage is another manifestation of that.


  • #692
    oldyouth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,754 ✭✭✭oldyouth


    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    Thanks for your reply, oldyouth.

    Do you think, if the tax had been better thought out, there would be an appropriate figure, or do you not consider taxing someone's property to be appropriate

    We all live in houses/apartments/flats and we all avail of local services. Providing it is done correctly a 'property' tax would seem to be the most equitable. I don't see why a local authority tenant should be exempt either, as they enjoy public services to the same extent as home owners. And don't get me going on those that own homes on wheels.


  • #693
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    Can you give me a link (or two) regarding this openness of the government as to how much they intend to raise the property tax? I've read a ridiculous amount of articles and comments on this subject and haven't had my mind put at ease in relation to the eventual cost. I've read plenty of snidey remarks from politicians telling us we'd better pay up or else, but nothing to stop the worry of ending up with a tax bill that continues to grow and grow year after year. I'd love to read some literature that tells me this isn't their long term plan.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1221/1224309341804.html
    The commission recommended a system of property tax that would raise €1.2 billion a year, which is eight times greater than the €160 million that will be raised by the €100 charge.

    Under the commission’s proposed scheme a charge of €188 would be paid on houses valued at up to €150,000; €563 on houses between €150,000 and €300,000; €938 on houses up to €450,000; €1,313 on houses valued at up to €600,000; €1,699 on houses up to €750,000; €2,188 on houses valued at up to €1 million; €3,125 on houses up to €1.5 million and 0.25 per cent of the valuation on houses over that.


  • #694
    john reilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭john reilly


    being the owner of property doesnt make one rich. infact in many cases the opposite. this makes this tax inequitable and unfair. the only fair tax would be an air tax. if you are alive and breathing you should be charged for it. if you dont pay it the goverment could stop your air supply till you cough up


  • #695
    The Waltzing Consumer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,949 ✭✭✭The Waltzing Consumer


    john reilly wrote: »
    being the owner of property doesnt make one rich. infact in many cases the opposite. this makes this tax inequitable and unfair. the only fair tax would be an air tax. if you are alive and breathing you should be charged for it. if you dont pay it the goverment could stop your air supply till you cough up

    :confused: That makes no sense whatsoever. You said earlier you give to charity every year, which is great, yet you are against paying less then 2 Euro a week to fund local services and decrease the deficit in running local Government?


  • #696
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    I'd like to ask the posters who are perfectly happy to pay a property tax, and (seemingly) have plenty of money to do so, a few questions:

    1. What figure/amount would you consider appropriate for this tax?

    2. What figure/amount would the tax need to reach for it to be difficult for you to manage to pay?

    3. Do you think this tax should rise every year?

    4. Do you think those who can't afford to pay it should sell their houses in order cease to be liable for the charge? Or should there be waivers for those who don't have the money - if yes, do you believe the charge should accumulate until they're earning more money, if that happens in the future, and be paid in full then or start at the beginning then?

    5. What do you truly believe the money from this tax will be spent on?

    6. What do you think is the fairest method of assessing how much each household should be charged? [I know that's very similar to question 1, but I mean method rather than amount].



    1. A property tax based on €1 per sq. foot of accommodation would give a €1300 per year on a four-bedroomed house, €500 on a small apartment, €3,000 on a large detached house. Alternatively, it could be based on a combination of site value and house size. Such levels would be similar to other countries.

    2. Any tax would be difficult to pay but I am a supporter of property taxes as I believe that they should be as high as possible while income tax should be lower to encourage people to work. if that is how it works, impossible to say what level would cause a problem as I would be paying less income tax.

    3. No, the tax doesn't need to rise every year. If based on site value, revenue will increase if site value increases, if based on house size, revenue would increase if extensions are built or new houses are built.

    4. That is one possibility. The other is something like in the nursing home scheme where it is paid when the house is sold/inherited. The interest rate and penalties could be lower in such cases than where people avoid the tax. It would also have to be subject to a very low household income, say less than €20,000.

    5. Reducing the budget deficit and then funding income tax reductions would be where I would like the revenue spent.

    6. See answer to 1.

    Finally, I have seen a lot of people on Facebook who are saying they are not paying the charge yet they have put up pictures of their last holiday. I didn't have a holiday last year yet I paid so it is not true that everyone who paid the charge has plenty of money, some of us believe that property taxes are right. I also believe that most of those who are not paying can well afford to pay it, what is wrong with them is that they don't like the idea that their living standard is dropping from the unsustainable level it was at.


  • Advertisement
  • #697
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    john reilly wrote: »
    being the owner of property doesnt make one rich. infact in many cases the opposite. this makes this tax inequitable and unfair. the only fair tax would be an air tax. if you are alive and breathing you should be charged for it. if you dont pay it the goverment could stop your air supply till you cough up

    Nonsensical post. Being the owner of property does make you rich, you are certainly richer than a homeless person or a tenant.


  • #698
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,508 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    First things first, what's the procedure for selecting parts of a post to quote, as opposed to clicking 'quote' and ending up with the entire post you're replying to being reposted?

    Its a manual thing, you can just edit the parts of the quote that you don't want, as I've done by removing paragraphs 2 and 3 of your post.

    In order to do part quoting, that is, quote a small part of a post, answer it, then quote the next part and answer that etc, this is also just a manual task.
    If you quote my post you'll see [QQUOTE=ArmaniJeanss;573466] at the start and [/QUOTE] at the end. You can copy these 'start' and 'end' tags so you could place an end tag at the end of my first paragraph, comment on it, then place another start quote at the beginning of next paragraph.

    Its actually far easier than it sounds, easier to do than explain.

    Theres a test forum here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=361 where you can start a thread, reply to yourself and familiarise yourself with the editing.


  • #699
    john reilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭john reilly


    Godge wrote: »
    Nonsensical post. Being the owner of property does make you rich, you are certainly richer than a homeless person or a tenant.
    nonsense post. I own a house and am 100,000 euro in debt. if i was renting or even better living in a council house not only would i not be in debt but i would not have to pay for the upkeep of my house. it has been announced that the council are going to reginerate a council housing estate where i live. if i was foolish enough to pay the 100 euro charge i would be paying to fix somebody elses house while struggling to mantain my own. some people just havent a clue. and yes i am aware that their are a lot of people around the world worse off than me who deserve charity. but people licing in council houses whether they are working or living off welfare or both , dont come under that heading. as for the homeless what do local goverment do for them


  • #700
    john reilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭john reilly


    The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »
    :confused: That makes no sense whatsoever. You said earlier you give to charity every year, which is great, yet you are against paying less then 2 Euro a week to fund local services and decrease the deficit in running local Government?

    what are these alledged local services. that i should be priviliged to fund. strange how the same people who would have objected to these charges under a f.f led goverment are now the strongest supporters under this f.g led administration


  • #701
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    bkeano wrote: »
    Hi all Boardies

    Can we all please make a stance here and get our non boardies to do the same. Enough is Enough We should not pay this new household Tax. Its the same as the Poll tax in the UK. I am an normal Joe Soap with 2 kids. I cant pay any more Taxes. I can afford it as it is. I am lucky to have my Job.

    We need to mount a serious objection here and nationwide.

    thanks
    Brian

    If you can afford it why dont you pay it instead of leaving it to others to carry the can?

    I dont welcome it, but I will be paying shortly.
    If I could not afford it, I would not be able to cough up, but so be it, I would have a clear conscience.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement