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

Household charge

135678

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    Well actually I do pay tax to support services for the elderly/disabled/social welfare/health etc and will happily do so even if I currently do not avail of these services. (I may have to in the future). But I have a problem with paying for services I will never have access to and subsidising others who get the services and can afford to pay for them. Not everyone living in the towns or cities is poor you know.

    I'm not sure what point you are making to be honest... I never said anyone was rich, poor or otherwise..

    I merely explained why the tax is likely to exist, and that personally I can't see the arguement why people believe that if they pay a management company that they should be immune from a household tax.. We all pay for services that we don't receive... as we don't run a consumption based taxation system.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,467 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    Welease wrote: »
    On the other hand, I still don't get why people think they are paying twice.. Paying twice for what? The road may be adopted, and maybe the sewerage.. but buildings upkeep, insurance, bins, parking facilities, security, non street lighting, landscaping/garden tending (in private areas) etc etc etc. are not provided by the council anyway.. to anyone.. I imagine a large part of the fees to management companies cover those costs, costs were are paid privately by private house owners.

    So if the management company are paying the council for the road and sewage, does that mean that when the tax comes in that the household tax will cover that as it is going to the local council and the management company can then reduce their costs because they no longer have to pay for the sewage or the road as they are now looked after by the council? This is why people are asking about the reduction in the management fees.

    See this is my problem with these charges, the same for the water charges, is are we going to see improvement in services, will I see more rubbish bins in my village, will I see cleaner streets, will I see cleaner water in my taps that I can drink, if this was the case then great the tax is worth paying but I don't we will see these kinda improvements or changes and then this annoys people because it causes us to ask what are we paying for?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13 Alastriona73


    Welease wrote: »
    I'm not sure what point you are making to be honest... I never said anyone was rich, poor or otherwise..

    I merely explained why the tax is likely to exist, and that personally I can't see the arguement why people believe that if they pay a management company that they should be immune from a household tax.. We all pay for services that we don't receive... as we don't run a consumption based taxation system.

    I think in that case they should just come out and call it a property tax then instead of trying to pretend it is a charge for something we are all receiving. Sorry my point about rich and poor is that I don't mind paying tax for services for the most vulnerable and poor in our society or for services which are supposed to be available to all such as health/education/roads etc but I object to paying for services I have no access to.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    Floppybits wrote: »
    So if the management company are paying the council for the road and sewage, does that mean that when the tax comes in that the household tax will cover that as it is going to the local council and the management company can then reduce their costs because they no longer have to pay for the sewage or the road as they are now looked after by the council? This is why people are asking about the reduction in the management fees.

    But (and this is a key point) a reduction in management charges are completely different from a reduction in household tax charges. Managementcompany charges are a private agreement between tenants/owners and a company to provide services.
    It also assumes that the council suddently start covering the cost of those charges (lighting, roads etc.) which may not be the case..

    This is a tax.. I have not seen anything to indicate that councils will adopt all blocks/estate currently beyond their remit, and if that does not happen then I wouldnt expect to see a reduction in management fees either.

    (also.. are the MC actually paying the Council for roads & sewerage as you say? I would have assumed they are private roads, and nothing has been paid to the council.. much the same as my road and sewerage system)
    Floppybits wrote: »
    See this is my problem with these charges, the same for the water charges, is are we going to see improvement in services, will I see more rubbish bins in my village, will I see cleaner streets, will I see cleaner water in my taps that I can drink, if this was the case then great the tax is worth paying but I don't we will see these kinda improvements or changes and then this annoys people because it causes us to ask what are we paying for?

    We are paying for our defecit and bank bailout.. You will likely not see an improvement in services.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭ART6


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

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

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


  • Advertisement


  • ART6 wrote: »
    All this demonstrates is that the current government is just as good at cheating and lying as was the previous one. "If we are elected, no new taxes". "Oh, these are not taxes, they are charges."

    They are all stealth TAXES. A household utility charge is a TAX. A pension funds levy is a TAX.

    "Levy" is my new least favourite word. I am sick of flat rate this, that, and the other being foisted on all and sundry, regardless of the situation they are in or the fairness or equitability of the charge. All that these blunt instrument taxes and levies do is further marginalise the most marginalised people in society. They hit the people whose living standards have taken the biggest hit already the hardest, despite the fact that they usually had little or nothing to do with getting us in this situation in the first place.

    I am no fan of new taxes, but let's face it, they are inevitable if the country is to survive, but if they are inevitable can't we do them in a fairer manner? Enough pussyfooting around and introducing new stealth taxes that aren't really taxes. Stick a couple of percent on income tax across the board, bring in a tax band for higher earners, and have done with it.

    Get more tax from the people who have more money, and less tax from the people who have less, and while you're at it, stop making excuses and tackle the inefficiency in the bloody public sector. Sort out the health service, root out the dole bludgers, and stop wasting money that taxpayers are literally going hungry over in order to pay you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,467 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    "Levy" is my new least favourite word. I am sick of flat rate this, that, and the other being foisted on all and sundry, regardless of the situation they are in or the fairness or equitability of the charge. All that these blunt instrument taxes and levies do is further marginalise the most marginalised people in society. They hit the people whose living standards have taken the biggest hit already the hardest, despite the fact that they usually had little or nothing to do with getting us in this situation in the first place.

    I am no fan of new taxes, but let's face it, they are inevitable if the country is to survive, but if they are inevitable can't we do them in a fairer manner? Enough pussyfooting around and introducing new stealth taxes that aren't really taxes. Stick a couple of percent on income tax across the board, bring in a tax band for higher earners, and have done with it.

    Get more tax from the people who have more money, and less tax from the people who have less, and while you're at it, stop making excuses and tackle the inefficiency in the bloody public sector. Sort out the health service, root out the dole bludgers, and stop wasting money that taxpayers are literally going hungry over in order to pay you.


    +1,000,000. Well said MackDadi, its time to stop pussyfooting around and time to start banging heads and get things sorted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Get more tax from the people who have more money, and less tax from the people who have less,

    But our income tax system is famously progressive: half of all earners pay no income tax at all. We need to broaden the base, collect tax from more people, not just more tax from the same people.

    A big benefit of rates is that even self-employed wealthy people with clever accountants like to own a nice house, even if they massage the books to minimise their "income" for tax purposes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 795 ✭✭✭rasper


    I wonder how they plan to collect it, like the RTE levy or the 2nd house tax, can see a hugh amount of people not paying either by ,wonder how many of the 2 million households will end up paying
    Hope there is mass refusal but we know the Irish sap will whinge and moan and then pay the bondholders their property tax.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭ART6


    "Levy" is my new least favourite word. I am sick of flat rate this, that, and the other being foisted on all and sundry, regardless of the situation they are in or the fairness or equitability of the charge. All that these blunt instrument taxes and levies do is further marginalise the most marginalised people in society. They hit the people whose living standards have taken the biggest hit already the hardest, despite the fact that they usually had little or nothing to do with getting us in this situation in the first place.

    I am no fan of new taxes, but let's face it, they are inevitable if the country is to survive, but if they are inevitable can't we do them in a fairer manner? Enough pussyfooting around and introducing new stealth taxes that aren't really taxes. Stick a couple of percent on income tax across the board, bring in a tax band for higher earners, and have done with it.

    Get more tax from the people who have more money, and less tax from the people who have less, and while you're at it, stop making excuses and tackle the inefficiency in the bloody public sector. Sort out the health service, root out the dole bludgers, and stop wasting money that taxpayers are literally going hungry over in order to pay you.

    I fully agree with everything you've said. The trouble is that the policy you suggest would require the liars to come out in the open and admit just how much they are costing the average Joe. We have stealth taxes, "levies", and "Household Utility charges" because they are so used to cheating everyone that they can't imagine doing anything else. They won't change their own lifestyles any more than marginally, and they won't get rid of their pet quangos and "boards" as that would put their mates out of a nice little earner each. So Average Joe must pay.

    Well, I bloody well won't!:mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,833 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    well there would be no need for this if they were actually bothered tackling the PS pay and numbers, along with god knows what else! will the poor pensioners be excluded again? These levy's are just another tax, the thing is though, that they are much easier to get away with because, the argument will be made that "pretty much all other countries in EU have them..." "the IMF are making us do it", now you go and try and increase PAYE, or decrease welfare or cut PS pay again, to raise the same amount as these levy's will! Good Luck! LOL


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭ART6


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    the thing is though, that they are much easier to get away with because, the argument will be made that "pretty much all other countries in EU have them..." "the IMF are making us do it", now you go and try and increase PAYE, or decrease welfare or cut PS pay again, to raise the same amount as these levy's will! Good Luck! LOL

    Yes, the get out is always that someone else is making us do it. Are we a sovereign country? (Edit -- I know the answer to that). "Most other countries in Europe have them." So does that make it either right or suitable for Ireland? Many other countries in the EU have water meters and charges, but they have climates where water is likely to be scarce. Some EU countries have large manufacturing industries, so we should have them too. Some EU countries have sophisticated health systems -- so why don't we? Some EU countries have strict immigration controls that prevent non-nationals from sponging on the public purse. Why don't we? Why do we pay children's allowance to families that don't live in the state?

    Oh yes, but we can blame the IMF though, can't we? Did the IMF actually demand domestic rates (taxes) and water charges? They don't usually dictate to that extent as far as I am aware. To me it's more likely that these stealth taxes were offered by our politicians rather than demanded of them, because doing that was an easier option than doing as other posters here have suggested.

    I didn't vote for FF, FG, or Labour because I believed all of them as far as I could throw a dead rat. I feel justified:(


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,560 ✭✭✭Mizu_Ger


    Reading through the posts here I think it's just best to see this as what it is... a new tax. That's all. It's not going to make the local community any better. It'll just be there to pay the council so the government doesn't have to. That's about it. There's no justification for it other than we (as a country) have bills to pay.

    Although I will be contacting my local TD to see if she can explain it to me!




  • Mizu_Ger wrote: »
    Reading through the posts here I think it's just best to see this as what it is... a new tax. That's all. It's not going to make the local community any better. It'll just be there to pay the council so the government doesn't have to.

    So why not just call it a council tax, and stop treating us like morons? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, there's a good chance it's a duck. We are not complete idiots.

    How about a little respect from government for a change?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,864 ✭✭✭Daegerty


    Mizu_Ger wrote: »
    Reading through the posts here I think it's just best to see this as what it is... a new tax. That's all. It's not going to make the local community any better. It'll just be there to pay the council so the government doesn't have to. That's about it. There's no justification for it other than we (as a country) have bills to pay.

    Although I will be contacting my local TD to see if she can explain it to me!
    So why not just call it a council tax, and stop treating us like morons? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, there's a good chance it's a duck. We are not complete idiots.

    How about a little respect from government for a change?


    Special purpose taxes are a scam. No money is ever ringfenced, it all goes onto a big heap and off to the EU or who ever is selling us overpriced loans at the time


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,157 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Mizu_Ger wrote: »
    Reading through the posts here I think it's just best to see this as what it is... a new tax. That's all. It's not going to make the local community any better. It'll just be there to pay the council so the government doesn't have to. That's about it. There's no justification for it other than we (as a country) have bills to pay.

    Although I will be contacting my local TD to see if she can explain it to me!

    That sums it up well Mizu G. Don't waste your time asking your TD

    about it.

    If there is a car tax why shouldn't there be a property tax?

    IMO the reason for the delicacy in naming the tax is that the TDs/Govt are

    scared or intimidated by the intemperance of many people on this issue -

    as shown by quite a lot of the posters to this thread.

    (Btw it's a wealth tax not a stealth tax)


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    All this demonstrates is that the current government is just as good at cheating and lying as was the previous one. "If we are elected, no new taxes".

    The coalition parties made clear that they would implement the plan agreed with the IMF which included this. The IMF quite reasonably proposed taxes and charges that are usual in other countries as a suitable way of raising revenue.
    I'll be damned if I will willingly pay these devils for the privilege of using something I own and for which I paid with already well taxed income, and I intend to shout at any b***dy TD I can get at.

    Quit whining. You may have already well taxed income, but the State does not have enough taxes as taxes were reduced during the boom owing the the large amount collected from stamp duty and so taxes are lower than other places and lower than in previous decades. They sensibly do not wish to penalise earning further, so they propose to stop supplying free water, which is appropriate for a state that can't fund itself. They do not provide free food and that is equally essential.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    ardmacha wrote: »
    You may have already well taxed income, but the State does not have enough taxes as taxes were reduced during the boom
    ...and expenditure multiplied vastly. Cut the costs!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Jaysoose


    Im interested to know what the charge wiill be spent on, there has to be a case for the people demanding a clear breakdown of expenditure in the local authority they live in. A simple root and branch breakdown of how much money is taken in, what this money is spent on and the criteria used when making decisions about spending money on projects etc.

    I would also like to see a clear case put out as to why this additional money is required and justification of the current expenditure levels.

    However we all know that none of this household charge will make its way into the local authorities and will be poured into the black hole up at leisnter house to keep this whole sorry episode ticking over...nothing to see here, we have turned a corner, we need a stable banking system...the croke park deal is delivering, we cant say exactly what its delivering but it is...etc etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,993 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Jaysoose wrote: »
    Im interested to know what the charge wiill be spent on, there has to be a case for the people demanding a clear breakdown of expenditure in the local authority they live in.

    Agreed.


    A simple root and branch breakdown of how much money is taken in, what this money is spent on and the criteria used when making decisions about spending money on projects etc.

    Surely all LA publish their accounts already??

    I would also like to see a clear case put out as to why this additional money is required and justification of the current expenditure levels.

    It is to make up for a loss of central Govt grants to local authorities. There won't be any extra spending.

    However we all know that none of this household charge will make its way into the local authorities and will be poured into the black hole up at leisnter house to keep this whole sorry episode ticking over...

    It will go directly to each Co Co. Whether we get value for it is a good question.

    ...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭ART6


    The last time the government tried to introduce water charges (in 1995 was it?) the majority refused to pay and the whole idea collapsed. Now, the financial position of a lot of families is worse than it was then. I suspect this isn't yet the done deal that environment minister believes.


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


    So those struggling and paying their bills will pay and those struggling and not paying their bills won't? That's BS.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,375 ✭✭✭DoesNotCompute


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    So those struggling and paying their bills will pay and those struggling and not paying their bills won't? That's BS.

    Exactly.

    And middle income earners will be cruxified to make up for the exemptions for low wage earners, those on social welfare, elderly people, etc, God forbid we should expect them to pay while the rest of us do!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,819 ✭✭✭dan_d


    Jaysoose wrote: »
    Im interested to know what the charge wiill be spent on, there has to be a case for the people demanding a clear breakdown of expenditure in the local authority they live in. A simple root and branch breakdown of how much money is taken in, what this money is spent on and the criteria used when making decisions about spending money on projects etc.

    I would also like to see a clear case put out as to why this additional money is required and justification of the current expenditure levels.

    However we all know that none of this household charge will make its way into the local authorities and will be poured into the black hole up at leisnter house to keep this whole sorry episode ticking over...nothing to see here, we have turned a corner, we need a stable banking system...the croke park deal is delivering, we cant say exactly what its delivering but it is...etc etc.

    There is a case. I have said this before, many authorities in the UK and Europe publish a once-a-year breakdown of what they are spending money on and post it in people's doors. One or two pages - Here's our budget, here's what we've spent on XYZ. It's well time we started demanding this. As I've said before, this thing of having all the money going into a central pot, being allocated out by Dept, and then the rest is there for anyone to dip their fingers in (and they do - FAS, anybody? SIPTU slush funds?) has been proven not to work.

    At the very least we could contact local authorities and TD's about that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 902 ✭✭✭DoneDL


    Minister Hogan has said that he was looking at the possibility of exemptions applying for those on low incomes, social welfare or those struggling to pay their mortgages.

    Surely thats 80 - 90% of the population.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,375 ✭✭✭DoesNotCompute


    dan_d wrote: »
    As I've said before, this thing of having all the money going into a central pot, being allocated out by Dept, and then the rest is there for anyone to dip their fingers in (and they do - FAS, anybody? SIPTU slush funds?) has been proven not to work.

    This just goes to show that our system is broken. We can't even trust public bodies to spend our money wisely. There is so much waste in the way that services such as FAS use their budgets that we can potentially save a mountain of cash if waste was addressed, rather than loading struggling families with yet another charge/levy/tax/fiscal measure/deduction that they cannot afford to pay.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    dan_d wrote: »
    There is a case. I have said this before, many authorities in the UK and Europe publish a once-a-year breakdown of what they are spending money on and post it in people's doors. One or two pages - Here's our budget, here's what we've spent on XYZ. It's well time we started demanding this.
    Sure, you're entitled to a receipt every time you spend money on something, why shouldn't we get a detailed receipt for our taxes? The usual answer is to look at such and such a report published in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory behind a door that says "Beware of the tiger", but a nice clear breakdown would be very beneficial I feel.
    dan_d wrote: »
    At the very least we could contact local authorities and TD's about that.
    Contact the media instead.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    There may well be further economies possible, but many economies have already been achieved and it is increasingly hard to get more. But the tax system has to move from its boom structure to one similar to other countries, if public finances are to be sustainable. It is as simple as that.

    Presumably half of the people whining about this voted for Bertie and brought about this situation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    ardmacha wrote: »
    There may well be further economies possible, but many economies have already been achieved and it is increasingly hard to get more.
    Really. So why do we have a Health Board and a HSE? I'd say it would be exceedingly simple to find further economies, and plenty of them. Where it gets complicated is trying to convince bloated unions to put the national good before their own overinflated bank accounts.
    ardmacha wrote: »
    But the tax system has to move from its boom structure to one similar to other countries, if public finances are to be sustainable. It is as simple as that.
    But the public sector has to move from its boom structure to one similar to other countries, if public finances are to be sustainable. It is as simple as that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    But the public sector has to move from its boom structure to one similar to other countries, if public finances are to be sustainable. It is as simple as that.

    That is fair comment. But it is not a substitute for the changes in the tax system, everything has to move away from its boom structure to a normal one.

    As I said, I'd be very interested to see the exact changes that occurred between 2000 and 2008. The changes in staff, the ratio of frontline to admin staff, the changes in salaries, the range of services provided etc.


Advertisement