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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Clare Co Co pass motion demanding no more household charge letters

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    uberalles
    Registered Users Posts: 836 ✭✭✭uberalles


    yore wrote: »
    I have no anger. I just think that the wealthy should pay their fair share.

    The country is currently going through a bad time. I don't think that we should be supporting a nouveau elite aristocracy who feel entitled to wealth "just because".
    Do you think we should give a free pass to every eejit who bought three or four extra apartments to leech off other people who just didn't have access to the same finance at the time? Fair enough if you developed and designed a sustainable property that added to society, but most just outbid their "poorer" neighbour on a house and then rented it back to him so that he could pay for it for the landlord. Asking to give that landlord a free pass means society at large paying for that greedy person's assets. Then in 10 or 15 years when the economy is going again, that landlord will have their, now valuable again, asset and the poorer person will still have nothing. And that is supposed to be fair?

    Outbidding your neighbour on a property and then renting the property back to him does not contribute to society. It just leeches off it! So if you are a landlord and you were caught swimming naked when the tide went out, then tough shite my friend!


    +1

    Agree with you


  • Options
    #63
    yore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭yore


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    I'm not sure what way your thought processes are tbh, it's hard to keep up.
    I'm not asking anyone to 'top me up mid-scheme' whatever that means.
    Who's 'us'? Do you think I don't pay tax or contribute my fair share or something?
    Your posts seem a bit bitter because you say you didn't get to buy a house and can't afford one. Is that a reason to tax the bollix out of people who provide their own homes?

    I never said that I didn't get or couldn't afford to buy one :confused: Of course, if I had been unable to buy one, the greedy fu$kers who were using their cheap credit and buying extra houses and hyper-inflating the housing market would not have helped me.

    Top up "mid scheme" is a reference to the SSIA. People chose either fixed or equity linked SSIAs. In or around 2000, equities tumbled and so did equity linked SSIAs. They moaned and whinged that they wanted a top-up. They wanted society to give them back what they had "lost" up to that point which was "mid-scheme". They didn't get their money but the markets rebounded.

    You seem to want a free run because the market price of your investments have dipped. when they recover in the future, like the SSIA equity plans did, you might not be as quick to want to socialise your profits.

    If you have property you have wealth and should be taxed on it. If you don't want to pay your tax then sell it. Will you sell it? Probably not because you'll want to wait for the markets to recover. Which proves my point


  • Options
    #64
    uberalles
    Registered Users Posts: 836 ✭✭✭uberalles


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Who are 'the wealthy' you speak about?

    On another note, you do understand that people who rent are getting the use of the property without having a mortgage over their heads, without having to pay for maintenance of the property, without having to pay a property tax, without having to pay for the local services they use that we hear so much about etc etc.

    I think you'll also find that the 'poor' you keep going on about aren't as poor as you think.

    BTW, you'll aso find that the country/economy we're all meant to look up to (Germany) has a far higher percentage of renters than we have here, and the renters there have to pay a local service charge too.

    Renters don't get rode there with huge rent increases like what happened here in the boom. I had rent increases of 250 euro PM during the boom. Another year the increase was 175 pm. Greed

    Now you are crying?


  • Options
    #65
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    yore wrote: »
    I never said that I didn't get or couldn't afford to buy one :confused: Of course, if I had been unable to buy one, the greedy fu$kers who were using their cheap credit and buying extra houses and hyper-inflating the housing market would not have helped me.

    Top up "mid scheme" is a reference to the SSIA. People chose either fixed or equity linked SSIAs. In or around 2000, equities tumbled and so did equity linked SSIAs. They moaned and whinged that they wanted a top-up. They wanted society to give them back what they had "lost" up to that point which was "mid-scheme". They didn't get their money but the markets rebounded.

    You seem to want a free run because the market price of your investments have dipped. when they recover in the future, like the SSIA equity plans did, you might not be as quick to want to socialise your profits.

    If you have property you have wealth and should be taxed on it. If you don't want to pay your tax then sell it. Will you sell it? Probably not because you'll want to wait for the markets to recover. Which proves my point

    First, I refer you to your own post, no. 40.

    Secondly, I am paying for my house to rear my family in, not to sell it.
    You seem to think everyone was buying and selling houses to make profits.
    There's 600,000 or so people in this country refusing to get involved with this extortion racket. Why do you think that is?


  • Options
    #66
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    uberalles wrote: »
    Renters don't get rode there with huge rent increases like what happened here in the boom. I had rent increases of 250 euro PM during the boom. Another year the increase was 175 pm. Greed

    Now you are crying?

    You say greed, most would say market forces.

    I'm not crying about anything, I'm just telling you that I'm paying as much as I'm going to and it'll be a cold day in hell when I pay a ground rent on my own home.
    If your happy enough to pay extortion money, that's up to you (that's if you are actually liable to pay it!)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Well, why one and not the other?

    Well savings are already taxed but you're conveniently saying that DIRT doesn't count. But if you're positing that a property tax is unfair because people's jewellery isn't taxed, be my guest.


  • Options
    #68
    yore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭yore


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    First, I refer you to your own post, no. 40.

    Yeas, I've copied it below. I state I don't have a house. I don't say whether or not I could or can afford one.
    yore wrote: »
    No. I'm neither. Neither am I from Co. Clare .

    I don't have a house, either to live in or spare ones that I think other poorer people should be paying for for me.

    But this isn't even a thread on FG or the PS :confused:


    You ignored my question and tried to bypass it by answering your own. I'll take that as a yes. Obviously it's the internet and anyone can claim anything anyway.


  • Options
    #69
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    Well savings are already taxed but you're conveniently saying that DIRT doesn't count. But if you're positing that a property tax is unfair because people's jewellery isn't taxed, be my guest.

    DIRT is on the interest earned, not the asset itself.


  • Options
    #70
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    yore wrote: »
    Yeas, I've copied it below. I state I don't have a house. I don't say whether or not I could or can afford one.

    Are you homeless then? "I don't have a house".....


  • Options
    #71
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    DIRT is on the interest earned, not the asset itself.

    It is still a tax on the asset. In this case the value of the asset is deposit plus interest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    yore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭yore


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Are you homeless then? "I don't have a house".....

    Yeah I'm homeless. I'm typing this on my ipad in between asking passers by for loose change.

    Seriously though, I might be just waiting for the time when all the greedy people with two or three houses that they can't afford, face reality and the market picks up again. There isn't exactly a lot of houses with realistic asking prices out there on the market is there?

    Are you going to claim that the same landlords are doing people who are renting a service?

    Or maybe I'm a 14 year old living at home or someone who lives on the other side of the world. I stated "I don't have a house" as I was also stating I wasn't a supporter of whatever political party or in the PS (whatever relevance that was supposed to have)


  • Options
    #73
    Peanut2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭Peanut2011


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    It's a property tax, so if prople don't own a property it stands to reason they shouldn't be liable.

    As for the decision to use it to fund local services. First of all it isn't funding local services exclusively. Much of the local authorities budgets still comes from general taxation, which everyone pays. Secondly, it property owners are asked to pay proportionally more, it's because they stand to gain most out of local services, i.e. they affect the value of their property.

    NO, it's not property tax, it is Household Charge! It was also brought out to fund local services!

    I would love to know how property owners gain the most out of local services?


  • Options
    #74
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    You see, it's really down to the simple fact that money can be exhorted from people who own homes. It's a racket that criminals would be proud of.

    You have a strange view of taxation.

    I suppose income tax is money that can be extorted out of people who work.
    VAT is money that can be extorted out of people who buy stuff.
    Excise duty is money that can be extorted out of people who smoke and drink.

    Hey, probably worst of all, you hate CAT, which is money that can be extorted out of people who die, as if they didn't suffer enough.

    Man up and pay your taxation, don't be whinging and crying, playing the poor mouth while there are people homeless in the streets.


  • Options
    #75
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Godge wrote: »
    You have a strange view of taxation.

    I suppose income tax is money that can be extorted out of people who work.
    VAT is money that can be extorted out of people who buy stuff.
    Excise duty is money that can be extorted out of people who smoke and drink.

    Hey, probably worst of all, you hate CAT, which is money that can be extorted out of people who die, as if they didn't suffer enough.

    Man up and pay your taxation, don't be whinging and crying, playing the poor mouth while there are people homeless in the streets.

    LMAO!


  • Options
    #76
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    LMAO!

    Wonderful answer to the point raised:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Options
    #77
    bmaxi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,859 ✭✭✭bmaxi


    Peanut2011 wrote: »
    NO, it's not property tax, it is Household Charge! It was also brought out to fund local services!

    I would love to know how property owners gain the most out of local services?
    Then there are those of us who live in managed estates, who pay for their own roads, street lighting, maintenance etc. If you want an example of what your taxes go on, take a read of this.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1117/1224326705467.html
    talk about rubbing salt in the wound.


  • Options
    #78
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    bmaxi wrote: »
    Then there are those of us who live in managed estates, who pay for their own roads, street lighting, maintenance etc. If you want an example of what your taxes go on, take a read of this.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1117/1224326705467.html
    talk about rubbing salt in the wound.

    The Banana Republic is alive and well....


  • Options
    #79
    Peanut2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭Peanut2011


    bmaxi wrote: »
    Then there are those of us who live in managed estates, who pay for their own roads, street lighting, maintenance etc. If you want an example of what your taxes go on, take a read of this.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1117/1224326705467.html
    talk about rubbing salt in the wound.

    Exatly bmaxi! I live in the managed estate and council does not come anywhere near us for anything. I would gladly swap the management fee for the household charge.


Advertisement