New Household Tax - Boycott

Mr.Micro · 30-03-2012 5:21pm

Godge wrote: »

The use of the word endemic suggests that it is prevalent across all of society in Ireland. Suggestions that 5 out of 33 county councils may have some planning applications that were dealt with incorrectly or corruptly is not equivalent to saying that corruption is endemic.

Agreed, but perhaps it was time the Government had a look at all County Councils in view of the findings of the Mahon Tribunal. There was a property boom in the whole country so its presumptuous of me, but highly probable that such corruption existed in many other Co Councils.

KyussBishop · 30-03-2012 5:38pm

Godge wrote: »

I will return to the rest of your post later but where is the evidence for endemic ongoing corruption?

Mahon report for one.

djpbarry wrote:

That is, with all due respect, utter bull****. Are honestly you trying to say that the electorate in North Tipp are unaware of Lowry’s dodgy past?

I don't know what the electorate in North Tipperary knows, I do know that there is not enough journalistic reporting on corruption and that this has a direct affect on keeping the public apathetic.

I definitely don't know anything about the corruption going on in N. Tipp, and would want decent journalism in the country which can investigate that and inform me.

When this kind of stuff is uncovered, the whole country needs to know about it, it can't be left confined to a local community e.g. in N. Tipp, otherwise there's very little chance of anything happening.

What has the final report from the Mahon tribunal told us that we didn’t already know?

These kind of arguments don't make sense to me "sure we already knew, it hasn't changed anything"; without reports like these giving substance to information that would otherwise be unreported and more anecdotal than evidence based and objective, nothing can change because "everyone might know" person x or y is corrupt, but that doesn't mean shít (and has much less of a public impact) if you can't pin them down with evidence.

For example, in late 2006, Bertie admitted to receiving various unsolicited payments – it was widely publicised. You cannot tell me the electorate was unaware of this when he was re-elected in 2007 and again in 2011.

Tribunal after tribunal after tribunal has shown up the culture of corruption in Irish politics (and nobody is going to convince me that these tribunals are not well-covered by the media), but the electorate keep returning the same guys to the Dáil time and time again.

It's a travesty really that it has taken these tribunals to uncover the corruption; where the fúck has investigative journalism been in all this time?

The tribunals definitely publicize the issue better, but look how completely neutered they are to actually forcing any change? Look also, how subservient the news media is and how it dances around many issues, allowing politicians to set the agenda in the public spotlight.

I have to head out, so will reply to meglome and others later.

djpbarry · 30-03-2012 6:17pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

I definitely don't know anything about the corruption going on in N. Tipp...

Allegations about Lowry’s tax evasion were made while he was Minister for Communications – I’m not talking about something confined to his constituency. He was forced to resign from the cabinet and later from Fine Gael. It was all over the news.

KyussBishop wrote: »

These kind of arguments don't make sense to me "sure we already knew, it hasn't changed anything"; without reports like these giving substance to information that would otherwise be unreported and more anecdotal than evidence based and objective, nothing can change because "everyone might know" person x or y is corrupt, but that doesn't mean shít (and has much less of a public impact) if you can't pin them down with evidence.

But I am talking about evidence? For example, the evidence that Bertie gave at the Mahon Tribunal - it was obvious prior to the publishing of the tribunal’s report that he was not being entirely truthful, but people were still happy to elect him to the Dáil.

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's a travesty really that it has taken these tribunals to uncover the corruption; where the fúck has investigative journalism been in all this time?

Let’s back up here a second – you are trying to claim that the media in Ireland do not publicise political corruption. Are you honestly trying to tell me that, for example, Bertie giving testimony at the Mahon Tribunal was not front page news?

Hotblack Desiato · 30-03-2012 10:55pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's just as ridiculous as the people who won't pay their TV licence until there's wall-to-wall Irish on TV, or the French guy who doesn't want to pay his electricity bill until they get rid of nuclear.

Why stop at the household charge? Why not withhold your income tax as well, if you feel that strongly about it? Set up some offshore accounts, maybe?

And now the government, which has the political arm of the trade unions as its junior coalition partner, prefers the easy option of taxing households to pay for its mistakes rather than doing the morally right and fiscally responsible thing: Tear up the Croke Park Agreement, reduce the cost of providing services, and then present the public with a rational, costed program.

It's a bit silly to tie them to each other when the public sector pay bill is about 150 times greater than the amount the household charge, fully collected, is due to raise. Your position is entirely self-serving, you're evading it because you can, simply.

We also need to choose sensibly which services to continue funding. Public libraries, for instance, are largely a product of a bygone era when information was almost exclusively stored in printed paper form. While they have residual emotional appeal for many, they are largely redundant in the age of the internet. So, why keep them?

That is remarkably ignorant. Have you been inside a library since you were a kid?
We take our 4-year-old and our 1-year-old there every couple of weeks. He gets to play on a big mat with toys while his big sister gets to look at a huge range of books (you know, real books that she can hold in her hand, borrow and enjoy for 2 weeks) I wouldn't let her loose on an iPad if I could afford one. She loves real books and we buy her books, but with the library she can enjoy many more books than we could buy for her.

Meanwhile, downstairs, there's the adult library, which provides a good study area for secondary school kids, they encourage ethnic minority kids to avail of the facilities there and lots do, and there's free internet access for those who otherwise might not have it.

Libraries are great.

KyussBishop · 31-03-2012 1:01am

meglome wrote:

Sorry but I'm not buying your argument at all. The really amazing thing is Fianna Fail did pretty much tell people exactly what they were going to do. For the most part they did those things. The problem is the majority of the Irish people didn't ask any questions nor did they stop to consider the consequences. Worse still people had a very good idea FF were corrupt and often inept but they still voted for them. So yes we do deserve what we got.

Sorry but that's ridiculous, in 2007 41% of people voted for Fianna Fail, so clearly the majority of people did not vote for them, thus people don't "deserve what they get" and don't "get what they voted for" because the majority of people did not vote for them.

Are the remaining 59% "getting what they voted for", or do they "deserve it"? No, clearly not because they didn't vote for FF (and I know I didn't), and thus the generalized "we deserve it" crap is false.

meglome wrote:

The problem is the majority of the Irish people didn't ask any questions nor did they stop to consider the consequences.

How are the "Irish people" meant to ask questions and enquire? We need a decent watchdog media and investigative journalism to do that, that's their responsibility because you can't depend on the population to spontaneously do that.

meglome wrote:

Sorry but it's really not. We have an unsustainable tax base from the populist policies of mostly FF. So we can try to punish the government all we want for whatever ill we think they are responsible for, but it won't change the reality. I've called people out on the reasons they won't pay the household charge and they just switched to a different crappy reason. It's not very convincing.

The grand majority, nearing all people, will pay the property tax eventually; the protest will just withhold that tax for a longer period (potentially with fines, meaning paying more than the tax).

Using withholding of the household tax in this way, to protest government corruption and to protest unfair austerity policies, is quite an effective way to make a public statement and signal opposition, which will probably still result in the grand majority of the taxes being collected eventually (which does not diminish the effect of the protest, as it will have successfully promoted publicity on various issues).

Even if for many it is not to protest any specific issues, just to express general dissatisfaction with government and provide publicity to a host of concerns, that is still a valid protest in my opinion. In the end, the grand majority of these people will (imo) still pay up after expressing their dissatisfaction.

KyussBishop · 31-03-2012 1:12am

djpbarry wrote:

Allegations about Lowry’s tax evasion were made while he was Minister for Communications – I’m not talking about something confined to his constituency. He was forced to resign from the cabinet and later from Fine Gael. It was all over the news.

Okey, fair enough; I don't know enough about that, but it is ridiculous that he got voted in again after that became widely known to his constituents.

djpbarry wrote:

But I am talking about evidence? For example, the evidence that Bertie gave at the Mahon Tribunal - it was obvious prior to the publishing of the tribunal’s report that he was not being entirely truthful, but people were still happy to elect him to the Dáil.

While, as explained in my post above this one, I don't think it's fair to portray all Irish people as deserving of what came (due to vote percentages for one), I am curious about how Fianna Fail got such a high turnout in light of all this, and don't know enough about that.

I'd be curious to find the more detailed reasons behind that, but even if some FF voters turned a blind eye to the corruption, I don't think it's far to posit that they all did (I'm not sure there's a way to determine either), and certainly the majority of the country that voted didn't.

djpbarry wrote:

Let’s back up here a second – you are trying to claim that the media in Ireland do not publicise political corruption. Are you honestly trying to tell me that, for example, Bertie giving testimony at the Mahon Tribunal was not front page news?

Yes they publicize it when it is uncovered, but there is little investigative reporting to uncover corruption in the first place, and critical analysis of the ongoing problem of corruption has not been persistent over the years, which would be necessary to try and spur reform.

djpbarry · 31-03-2012 2:56pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Sorry but that's ridiculous, in 2007 41% of people voted for Fianna Fail...

Actually, 41% of people gave FF their first preference, but anyway, that’s democracy.

KyussBishop wrote: »

How are the "Irish people" meant to ask questions and enquire? We need a decent watchdog media and investigative journalism to do that, that's their responsibility because you can't depend on the population to spontaneously do that.

Just to be clear: you’re portraying the entire population of Ireland as a bunch of idiots who are incapable of inquiry and must be spoon-fed information about their politicians? Essentially, you’re saying it’s the media’s job to tell the public when to protest? People can’t pop into their local TD’s office and quiz them because ... ?

KyussBishop wrote: »

Using withholding of the household tax in this way, to protest government corruption and to protest unfair austerity policies, is quite an effective way to make a public statement...

What statement? “No to spending cuts, no to more taxes”?

KyussBishop wrote: »

Even if for many it is not to protest any specific issues...

That much is abundantly clear from the various so-called “occupy” movements.

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'd be curious to find the more detailed reasons behind that, but even if some FF voters turned a blind eye to the corruption, I don't think it's far to posit that they all did (I'm not sure there's a way to determine either), and certainly the majority of the country that voted didn't.

If Bertie was to stand as an independent candidate in the next election, I’d put my house (if I had one) on him winning a seat. Hell I think he'd still have a decent chance of being elected president.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes they publicize it when it is uncovered, but there is little investigative reporting to uncover corruption in the first place...

Well, that’s your opinion and it really depends on what you mean by “investigative journalism” (which often entails invasion of privacy). I’d hate to see Irish journalism going to the same extremes as British journalism in order to secure a scoop.

At the end of the day, you’re arguing that the likes of Lowry and Ahern get re-elected because people are unaware of their shenanigans – all the available evidence suggests that, unless the majority of the electorate are living in caves with their eyes shut and their fingers in their ears, voters are either turning a blind eye or being wilfully ignorant. People get the government they deserve.

KyussBishop · 31-03-2012 4:14pm

djpbarry wrote:

Actually, 41% of people gave FF their first preference, but anyway, that’s democracy.

Fair point, but if you think all Irish got what they deserve, you need to provide better statistics to back it up.

djpbarry wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

How are the "Irish people" meant to ask questions and enquire? We need a decent watchdog media and investigative journalism to do that, that's their responsibility because you can't depend on the population to spontaneously do that.

Just to be clear: you’re portraying the entire population of Ireland as a bunch of idiots who are incapable of inquiry and must be spoon-fed information about their politicians? Essentially, you’re saying it’s the media’s job to tell the public when to protest? People can’t pop into their local TD’s office and quiz them because ... ?

Eh, people quizzing their TD's is going to do feck-all really, because the TD's won't have a clue themselves. Do you seriously think people quizzing their TD's is an effective alternative to a decent watchdog media and investigative journalism?

How are the 'Irish people' meant to enquire and investigate, and find actual evidence or put together a general picture of alleged corruption, and then raise more public awareness of that? That's what the news media is for, and that's what they fail to do. Sure, they publicize it when something is uncovered, but sweet fúck all is done to properly investigate (with a handful of noble exceptions).

djpbarry wrote:

What statement? “No to spending cuts, no to more taxes”?

People have made a lot of specific arguments (probably loads in this thread, I haven't read most of it), and put all together it makes a general public statement of dissatisfaction with government, for a very wide variety of reasons.

You can take issue with some specific reasons people have, and discredit those particular reasons, which is fair enough; you can't take that and apply it to all people who are doing this as a protest though, because you don't know everyones reasons.

djpbarry wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

Even if for many it is not to protest any specific issues..

That much is abundantly clear from the various so-called “occupy” movements.

lol, yea all those 1 million people who were out on Dame street last year, and are now not paying their household tax, maybe they're angry about being evicted from their massive encampment?

djpbarry wrote:

Well, that’s your opinion and it really depends on what you mean by “investigative journalism” (which often entails invasion of privacy). I’d hate to see Irish journalism going to the same extremes as British journalism in order to secure a scoop.

Give me some good examples of the outstanding Irish investigative journalism that I'm missing out on. (on an off topic note, I would be massively surprised if Irish journalists did not have an undiscovered history of phone hacking; don't support it though)

djpbarry wrote:

At the end of the day, you’re arguing that the likes of Lowry and Ahern get re-elected because people are unaware of their shenanigans – all the available evidence suggests that, unless the majority of the electorate are living in caves with their eyes shut and their fingers in their ears, voters are either turning a blind eye or being wilfully ignorant.

I'm arguing that not enough people were aware of the extent of corruption, and that saying "well we deserved it" is stupid, because we should be directing our anger at not just government but also the utter failure of the journalistic outlets in this country, and not simply ourselves.

I mean really, look at the multiple levels of failure in the system here; could the government or news media be any more lucky, that the populous is thick enough to vent their anger and blame on themselves, rather than them?

djpbarry · 31-03-2012 4:36pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Eh, people quizzing their TD's is going to do feck-all really, because the TD's won't have a clue themselves. Do you seriously think people quizzing their TD's is an effective alternative to a decent watchdog media and investigative journalism?

Dude, it is not the job of the media to act as the government watchdog. That’s the job of the electorate.

Furthermore, I don’t think you’ve really thought through the consequences of what you’re suggesting to: that Irish people should be heavily reliant on Irish media to tell them what’s going on in government circles. What happens if (or when) said media is partisan?

KyussBishop wrote: »

People have made a lot of specific arguments...

They really haven’t, or at least, not a lot of specific arguments that made any sense.

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm arguing that not enough people were aware of the extent of corruption...

And I’m arguing that’s bull****, citing the re-election of Lowry and Ahern as evidence.

KyussBishop wrote: »

...we should be directing our anger at not just government but also the utter failure of the journalistic outlets in this country...

The media is not some regulatory body with a specific duty to watch over the government. With the exception of RTE, media outlets are independent enterprises free to report on whatever the hell they want. If you don’t like the standard of their reporting, then don’t buy their product. Or, go and set up your own media outlet.

KyussBishop · 31-03-2012 4:54pm

djpbarry wrote:

Dude, it is not the job of the media to act as the government watchdog. That’s the job of the electorate.

djpbarry wrote:

The media is not some regulatory body with a specific duty to watch over the government.

Hmm, no one of the primary (and most important) roles of a free press, is to be a government watchdog and hold them to account.

The electorate should do that too of course, but journalism takes an essential role in doing it.

djpbarry wrote:

Furthermore, I don’t think you’ve really thought through the consequences of what you’re suggesting to: that Irish people should be heavily reliant on Irish media to tell them what’s going on in government circles. What happens if (or when) said media is partisan?

That's the way it is right now, which is the problem.

djpbarry wrote:

With the exception of RTE, media outlets are independent enterprises free to report on whatever the hell they want. If you don’t like the standard of their reporting, then don’t buy their product. Or, go and set up your own media outlet.

I don't buy the product of any media comany here at all, and generally don't like most Irish newspapers because of how much dross they come out with. There are exceptions mind, but it's been a while since I checked on what's out there.

I would very much consider working with and writing for a media outlet in this country that I thought was good, and actually had balls enough to do some decent investigative journalism and critical analysis.

Einhard · 31-03-2012 5:22pm

xflyer wrote: »

Completely agree Permabear, but the government will not take on the public service unions. They're terrified of them. But they're quite happy to hack away at everyone else's incomes particularly the most disadvantaged.

But that day will arrive, no doubt when the troika turn their eyes onto the massive wages bill and also note that other countries have slashed their bloated public service bills.

I'll qualify as a teacher soon. The pay that I will receive in Ireland, in the unlikely event that I get a full time post in September, will be approx 25% less than what I would have received two years ago. I'll be on starting pay of about €27000 which, considering I spent 5 years in college to gain qualifications for the job, isn't exactly "bloated".

I'm happy for their to be a debate on the public service, and the reform that needs to happen therein. But, is it too much to ask for a bit of balance, and for people to deal in facts instead of wild and exaggerated generalisations?

The Waltzing Consumer · 31-03-2012 5:35pm

Does it seem strange that a SF TD who is one of the lading protesters is exempt from the household charge?

http://www.herald.ie/news/sf-td-leading-protests-against-the-household-charge-is-exempt-from-the-tax-3066668.html

How is a TD who earns 92k a year, and claims € 31,865.51 in 2011 for expenses
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlxJrxiwB44XdGJZcG0tUVI2aWVGZzdkUThWZG1FTHc#gid=0
credible to be leading this protest? We often hear talk that the rich should pay?

Is a person who is taking in over 120k a year not considered rich?

djpbarry · 31-03-2012 5:47pm

Einhard wrote: »

I'll be on starting pay of about €27000 which, considering I spent 5 years in college to gain qualifications for the job, isn't exactly "bloated".

€27k is a pretty good salary for a fresh graduate.

psychward · 31-03-2012 5:51pm

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Does it seem strange that a SF TD who is one of the lading protesters is exempt from the household charge?

http://www.herald.ie/news/sf-td-leading-protests-against-the-household-charge-is-exempt-from-the-tax-3066668.html

How is a TD who earns 92k a year, and claims € 31,865.51 in 2011 for expenses
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlxJrxiwB44XdGJZcG0tUVI2aWVGZzdkUThWZG1FTHc#gid=0
credible to be leading this protest? We often hear talk that the rich should pay?

Is a person who is taking in over 120k a year not considered rich?

Point 1 ) It's a lot more decent and selfless of someone who is renting to oppose a charge on ownership since they don't have to pay it if they keep their mouth shut but will have to continue to pay for everything from general taxation if and when it is abolished. Instead of the usual Irish unfortunately lazy ''not in my backyard'' whingefest this is to be applauded.

Point 2) Sinn Fein TDs only take the average wage. The rest of it they give away. How the feck can this be used as an argument against the likes of FG and Labour who are true pigs with their snouts in the trough ? Seriously how could what any member of a small party earns make them any worse than the pigs in the government partys earn ??

Point 3) I have feck all political affiliation to anyone but I am sick to my stomach of biased hypocrites in the media and mindless sheeple elsewhere calling out the names of SF and other smaller partys as though that is enough to persuade for an unrelated topic. Just saying one person is opposed to something does not form an argument that we the reader should be for it or against it regardless of it's merits. It's a ludicrous argument.

The Waltzing Consumer · 31-03-2012 6:03pm

psychward wrote: »

Point 1 ) It's a lot more decent and selfless of someone who is renting to oppose a charge on ownership since they don't have to pay it if they keep their mouth shut but will have to continue to pay for everything from general taxation if and when it is abolished. Instead of the usual Irish unfortunately lazy ''not in my backyard'' whingefest this is to be applauded.

Point 2) Sinn Fein TDs only take the average wage. The rest of it they give away. How the feck can this be used as an argument against the likes of FG and Labour who are true pigs with their snouts in the trough ? Seriously how could what any member of a small party earns make them any worse than the pigs in the government partys earn ??

Point 3) I have feck all political affiliation to anyone but I am sick to my stomach of biased hypocrites in the media and mindless sheeple elsewhere calling out the names of SF and other smaller partys as though that is enough to persuade for an unrelated topic. Just saying one person is opposed to something does not form an argument that we the reader should be for it or against it regardless of it's merits. It's a ludicrous argument.

Point 1)

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.

[Deleted User] · 31-03-2012 6:03pm

psychward wrote: »

Point 1 ) It's a lot more decent and selfless of someone who is renting to oppose a charge on ownership since they don't have to pay it if they keep their mouth shut but will have to continue to pay for everything from general taxation if and when it is abolished. Instead of the usual Irish unfortunately lazy ''not in my backyard'' whingefest this is to be applauded.

Point 2) Sinn Fein TDs only take the average wage. The rest of it they give away. How the feck can this be used as an argument against the likes of FG and Labour who are true pigs with their snouts in the trough ? Seriously how could what any member of a small party earns make them any worse than the pigs in the government partys earn ??

Point 3) I have feck all political affiliation to anyone but I am sick to my stomach of biased hypocrites in the media and mindless sheeple elsewhere calling out the names of SF and other smaller partys as though that is enough to persuade for an unrelated topic. Just saying one person is opposed to something does not form an argument that we the reader should be for it or against it regardless of it's merits. It's a ludicrous argument.

Sinn Fein TD's aren't giving their money to charity, it goes to the party. They have proven themselves just as corrupt (O' Snodaigh to the tune of 50k) and just as good at accepting party corruption (Mary Lou et al coming to the rescue) as the rest.

The reasons with which you hold them up as a party "of the people" are all hollow lies, to be frank.

Einhard · 31-03-2012 6:09pm

djpbarry wrote: »

€27k is a pretty good salary for a fresh graduate.

Oh I'm not complaining about it at all. Merely pointing out that it's not the massive amounts that some would claim.

Terrontress · 31-03-2012 6:11pm

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Sinn Fein TD's aren't giving their money to charity, it goes to the party. They have proven themselves just as corrupt (O' Snodaigh to the tune of 50k) and just as good at accepting party corruption (Mary Lou et al coming to the rescue) as the rest.

The reasons with which you hold them up as a party "of the people" are all hollow lies, to be frank.

Too right! I give lots of my salary away. There's the big chunk I give to the wife, the kids have their share, the bit that goes in the collection plate at mass and those charity direct debits.

Just because you don't spend your salary on yourself doesn't mean you don't cost your employer it.

The Waltzing Consumer · 31-03-2012 6:15pm

Einhard wrote: »

Oh I'm not complaining about it at all. Merely pointing out that it's not the massive amounts that some would claim.

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.

zom · 31-03-2012 6:22pm

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...

Einhard · 31-03-2012 6:24pm

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.

Einhard · 31-03-2012 6:29pm

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

Bullseye1 · 31-03-2012 6:33pm

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?

oscarBravo · 31-03-2012 6:39pm

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.

Einhard · 31-03-2012 6:48pm

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?

Fizzlesque · 31-03-2012 7:14pm

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.

djpbarry · 31-03-2012 7:51pm

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?

djpbarry · 31-03-2012 7:52pm

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?

Fizzlesque · 31-03-2012 8:03pm

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.

djpbarry · 31-03-2012 8:28pm

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.

New Household Tax - Boycott

Comments