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

Do we already pay for water?

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    creedp wrote: »
    I wonder why gardens over an acre in size are not factored in to the value of the house for property tax purposes?

    The same reason SF excluded farms from their proposed wealth tax.

    Why levy a tax on a farmers ability to earn?


  • Options
    #63
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    creedp wrote: »
    I wonder why gardens over an acre in size are not factored in to the value of the house for property tax purposes?
    Would the property the house is on really not change the value for the purposes of the LPT?


  • Options
    #64
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    creedp wrote: »
    I wonder why gardens over an acre in size are not factored in to the value of the house for property tax purposes?

    Because they are, indirectly. Large gardens increase the market value the house, and the market value / the chargeable value is the basis for the tax valuation.


  • Options
    #65
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    alastair wrote: »
    Because they are, indirectly. Large gardens increase the market value the house, and the market value / the chargeable value is the basis for the tax valuation.
    I would have thought so!


  • Options
    #66
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,635 ✭✭✭creedp


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    The same reason SF excluded farms from their proposed wealth tax.

    Why levy a tax on a farmers ability to earn?


    Where did I mention farmers?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I would have thought so!

    The official line is rather convoluted. A garden can only extend to an acre, but outbuildings outside that acre should be factored in. But quite how the market value of a house with a garden bigger than an acre wouldn't be boosted by the bigger garden, is a bit of a mystery. Presumably it's to avoid the grey area where farmland that might be fallow, but could be productive in anther year is an issue.


  • Options
    #68
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,635 ✭✭✭creedp


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I would have thought so!


    If the exemption has no effect why include it in the legislation?


  • Options
    #69
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    creedp wrote: »
    If the exemption has no effect why include it in the legislation?

    For my guess - see above. Trying to find a conspiracy for 'big house' tycoons in the legislation makes no sense however - the market valuation for those properties would be the same though, regardless of how big you call the garden for LPT purposes.


  • Options
    #70
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    creedp wrote: »
    If the exemption has no effect why include it in the legislation?
    Can you post the legislation I'm on my mobile.


  • Options
    #71
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,635 ✭✭✭creedp


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Can you post the legislation I'm on my mobile.
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2012/en.act.2012.0052.pdf


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    For Reals
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    People genuinely can't fathom that.

    They will bleet "bondholder... Bondholder".

    Except that the bondholder tragedy accounts for about 3% of annual expenditure.

    The other 97% has to come from somewhere.

    Your right, debt is just a tax rise deferred.

    We need more money, so raise taxes...understood.


    Why do we need more money? "bondholder... Bondholder".

    The invention of IW will create more of a financial hole.
    It wasn't needed.
    Oscar Gateaux wrote: »
    Such is the amount of things now being pinned on the "bondholders", you'd actually have paid them back several times over at this stage.



    As BoJack Horseman points out, servicing the entire banking bailout bill accounts for 3% of public expenditure. The unsecured bondholders was a fraction of that.


    They are a symptom/example of a broken system. Throw property bubble and fraud at the highest levels in there too if it helps.


  • Options
    #73
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    creedp wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2012/en.act.2012.0052.pdf
    Not sure, but it seems to ensure that only 1 acre is included in the valuation of the residential property. Arbitrary at best, but I agree that it's impossible to state that there isn't intrinsic value to the "residential property" to be sitting on over an acre.


  • Options
    #74
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,635 ✭✭✭creedp


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Not sure, but it seems to ensure that only 1 acre is included in the valuation of the residential property. Arbitrary at best, but I agree that it's impossible to state that there isn't intrinsic value to the "residential property" to be sitting on over an acre.


    While that might be the case could it also be argued that the value of the garden in excess of 1 acre can be deducted from the total market value of the property?


  • Options
    #75
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    creedp wrote: »
    While that might be the case could it also be argued that the value of the garden in excess of 1 acre can be deducted from the total market value of the property?
    I wouldn't say it provides for that though. It simply says that over an acre should not be considered IMO. It's not well drafted though.


  • Options
    #76
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    creedp wrote: »
    While that might be the case could it also be argued that the value of the garden in excess of 1 acre can be deducted from the total market value of the property?

    No.


  • Options
    #77
    FREETV
    Registered Users Posts: 1,673 ✭✭✭FREETV


    Typical Fine Gael crap again from Varadkar.
    Is it any wonder he is getting so much flack when he is talking rubbish and telling porky pies just to try to fool the Public and justify their policies on a Denis O'Brien owned radio station.
    How very impartial indeed. :rolleyes:
    He is lying about the charges,the prices would rise year after year after the flat charge. Complete spin to justify extorting money from us.

    https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=640736962709920&set=vb.632003206916629&type=2&theater


  • Options
    #78
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    FREETV wrote: »
    Typical Fine Gael crap again from Varadkar.
    Is it any wonder he is getting so much flack when he is talking rubbish and telling porky pies just to try to fool the Public and justify their policies on a Denis O'Brien owned radio station.
    How very impartial indeed. :rolleyes:

    https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=640736962709920&set=vb.632003206916629&type=2&theater

    Who is supposed to be impartial in this scenario, and why are they not?

    I thought the 'crap' you said Varadkar was spouting was his perfectly valid point that you give your PPS to the dentist without any fear, so why would IW pose a concern?


  • Options
    #79
    FREETV
    Registered Users Posts: 1,673 ✭✭✭FREETV


    Under EU Competition Law as it is already a semi-state body it will be forced in time to be privatised and then the PPS numbers would be sold on to a lot of marketing companies to make millions by whoever buys Irish Water.

    http://richardboydbarrett.ie/2012/04/18/kenny-wrong-or-lying-eu-law-means-water-charges-equal-privatisation/

    Denis O' Brien owns GMC Sierra aka Siteserv and Newstalk Radio so of course they are to be biased in favour of Irish Water and water charges and keep pushing for them both.


  • Options
    #80
    seanaway
    Registered Users Posts: 646 ✭✭✭seanaway


    Just seen a pub in Dublin charged 20cents for a pint of tap water.

    Double double taxation.


  • Options
    #81
    For Reals
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    Hopefully there won't be similar levels of violence for a utility bill marginally higher than the TV lisence fee.

    Let change happen at the ballot box.

    Don't get me starte...too late.

    The TV licence is more IW/house tax codology.
    Let's call it a communication tax to wrangle in the rising tide of folk who don't bother with a TV.
    Scamola. Labour should disband for playing a role. I say Labour because I feel they still might be decent enough to do the honourable thing and bog off.

    IW, Communications tax, con jobs to raise funds without looking like raising any taxes. Continuation of the Housing tax, Kenny just being what we expect from a politician, sadly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    FREETV
    Registered Users Posts: 1,673 ✭✭✭FREETV


    seanaway wrote: »
    Just seen a pub in Dublin charged 20cents for a pint of tap water.

    Double double taxation.
    It is a joke, imagine if somebody was taken very ill and water was needed to save them or someone fainted, had a fit.
    I suppose they would still charge them for it. :rolleyes:
    Any excuse to make money and tax us again the cretins.


  • Options
    #83
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    FREETV wrote: »
    ...and then the PPS numbers would be sold on to a lot of marketing companies to make millions by whoever buys Irish Water.
    How exactly would a marketing company exploit a PPS number? Genuinely curious.


  • Options
    #84
    FREETV
    Registered Users Posts: 1,673 ✭✭✭FREETV


    alastair wrote: »
    Who is supposed to be impartial in this scenario, and why are they not?

    I thought the 'crap' you said Varadkar was spouting was his perfectly valid point that you give your PPS to the dentist without any fear, so why would IW pose a concern?

    Oh and the general feeling is that the majority of Irish people are saying no no no to Irish Water and water charges, infact 99.99% do on Facebook and Twitter.
    They want Labour and Fine Gael out too.


  • Options
    #85
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    FREETV wrote: »
    It is a joke, imagine if somebody was taken very ill and water was needed to save them or someone fainted, had a fit.
    I suppose they would still charge them for it. :rolleyes:
    Any excuse to make money and tax us again the cretins.

    I know I'm going to regret this, but whatever.

    The bar, as a commercial premises, has always been charged for its water, so they're rather unlikely to act any differently to this notional fainting spell than they ever did in the past.


  • Options
    #86
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    FREETV wrote: »
    Oh and the general feeling is that the majority of Irish people are saying no no no to Irish Water and water charges, infact 99.99% do on Facebook and Twitter.
    They want Labour and Fine Gael out too.

    Any sign of an actual answer to my questions?


  • Options
    #87
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    I don't get this we're paying twice for it stuff.
    Unless the money is just being buried in a field or something and not used for any other purpose, we are not paying for it twice.


  • Options
    #88
    FREETV
    Registered Users Posts: 1,673 ✭✭✭FREETV


    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    How exactly would a marketing company exploit a PPS number? Genuinely curious.
    They would sell on your details to companies who would pay them so that they could then advertise and send flyers, packs etc to original Irish Water customers aka junk mail on services, products and the like.


  • Options
    #89
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    FREETV wrote: »
    Under EU Competition Law as it is already a semi-state body it will be forced in time to be privatised and then the PPS numbers would be sold on to a lot of marketing companies to make millions by whoever buys Irish Water.

    http://richardboydbarrett.ie/2012/04/18/kenny-wrong-or-lying-eu-law-means-water-charges-equal-privatisation/

    Denis O' Brien owns GMC Sierra aka Siteserv and Newstalk Radio so of course they are to be biased in favour of Irish Water and water charges and keep pushing for them both.

    This seems to be another case of quoting law without apparently understanding it. The treaty articles do not require privatisation. What they require is what they say:
    “Services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in these treaties, in particular to the rules on competition.” (Article 106.2 TFEU)

    and
    “Any aid granted by a member state or through state resources which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain goods shall be insofar as it affects trade between member states be incompatible with the internal market.” (Article 107 TFEU)

    Irish Water therefore cannot be given government aid. How does that equal a requirement for privatisation? It doesn't. What it means is exactly what it says, that if Irish Water can charge (and the treaty clauses don't require that it does) then it's an undertaking that can make money. If it can make money, it could compete for contracts to manage, for example, UK water. If that were the case, and the government were subsidising Irish Water, that would be illegal under EU competition agreements.

    But everybody's complaint (including the egregious Boyd Barret's) is that Irish Water makes money - that is, that it's a form of taxation, a way for the government to charge for water. Therefore, the idea that the government would be subsidising it is clearly nonsensical, and the state aid competition rules are not going to be relevant to Irish Water.

    Such state aid rules are aimed at "national champions" that compete for business in other member states - semi-states like the ESB, or, back in the day, Aer Lingus. They're not a way of forcing privatisation, but of dealing with situations where a company has sufficiently good political connections to be supported by the state in its ventures abroad.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #90
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    FREETV wrote: »
    They would advertise and send flyers, packs etc to original Irish Water customers aka junk mail on services, products and the like of various other companies.

    Luckily, the legislation IW operate under excludes them from passing over PPS numbers to any marketing organisations.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    FREETV wrote: »
    They would advertise and send flyers, packs etc to original Irish Water customers aka junk mail on services, products and the like of various other companies.

    My PPSN is 5146365F.
    How does this help someone send me junk mail?


    Or anything else?


Advertisement