Household charge

rasper

waffleman wrote: »

Seems it's only getting started - I have been talking to many people locally who are headin for Canada over the Summer. They've been on the dole for a few years now and don't see anything worth staying and fighting for and I can't blame them. With a whole raft of charges coming in to hammer everyone who works why would you bother stayin at all if you can get out. If ye don't want to shut up, work AND pay your taxes to see them wasted well we'll see ye next time there's a "boom".

the ones who can will leave and a fair chunk of the rest will stay at home , stuck in a poverty trap because of a social welfare system that enforces it,
hopefully at some stage we will learn to use and develop links with our people abroad and use it to our mutual benefits.
Could be a while though as the system isnt for changing yet, and that shows up by the total lack of support for our people abroad . Alway sickened over the elderly and needy Irish abroad even in our bubble times when our masters squandered billions

coolwings

The only effective way to make them change their policy of paying banks our money is to take away their funding.

Paying this extra property tax is giving yet more of your money to the government bully. If it gets more now, like all bullies, it will just come back for more once again ... everyone knows this.

How soon before we become assertive and deny government our compliance in this slow motion robbery?
For me that is RIGHT NOW.

What we really need in Ireland is a tax strike.

I would like to see a national tax strike movement get started.
That would put a stop to this in an amazingly short time.
This robbery of the Irish to pay off banks and property interests will stop within days (and government begin to represent the people again), when business owners withhold VAT, PAYE, rates, and employees withhold ALL taxes due.


Even discussing citizen assertiveness via a tax strike in massive numbers would make government begin to turn.
Above all else they want to be paid.
.

golfwallah

coolwings wrote: »

The only effective way to make them change their policy of paying banks our money is to take away their funding.

Paying this extra property tax is giving yet more of your money to the government bully. If it gets more now, like all bullies, it will just come back for more once again ... everyone knows this.

How soon before we become assertive and deny government our compliance in this slow motion robbery?
For me that is RIGHT NOW.

What we really need in Ireland is a tax strike.

I would like to see a national tax strike movement get started.
That would put a stop to this in an amazingly short time.
This robbery of the Irish to pay off banks and property interests will stop within days (and government begin to represent the people again), when business owners withhold VAT, PAYE, rates, and employees withhold ALL taxes due.


Even discussing citizen assertiveness via a tax strike in massive numbers would make government begin to turn.
Above all else they want to be paid.
.

Unfortunately, there is no us and them – there is only us. This is our Government, freely elected by the people, under our democratic process, with a mandate to put the economy of the country right.

Extract from Fine Gael Manifesto 2011:
“IMF-EU Fiscal Targets: Fine Gael accepts the fiscal targets set out in the National Recovery Plan, including the 3% of GDP deficit target by 2014. We will review the scale, pace and timeframe of the fiscal adjustment with the EU and IMF on an annual basis to take into account developments in the real economy”.

The Manifesto is also committed to “No Further Increases in Income Taxes”.

For full text see: http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/Fine%20Gael%20Manifesto%20low-res.pdf

I’m no fan of either Fine Gael or Labour but do favour democracy, however imperfect it may be, over the alternatives.

Yes, FG did oppose a flat rate household charge but, to comply with state commitment to the IMF-EU to introduce a property tax by end 2011 and following Dail debate, the Household Charge was passed into law, as a temporary measure to allow time for a “fairer” property tax to be introduced.

Nobody likes paying more taxes and I’ve no doubt that “fairer” will mean higher taxes to many of us, but the way to change things is to engage with the democratic process – not to urge people to strike against it – this is the route to anarchy.

coolwings

Hmm ...
you think this is democracy? Taxing the electorate to give bailouts (=donated funding) to corporate finance and big property?

You suggest anarchy is what you get if a government is made to represent the voters? No. That's democracy.

You say: "“fairer” will mean higher taxes to many of us,". Please speak for yourself, I am not one of your misleading .... "us"! And your use of the word fairer is not appropriate because this is about using power and taking money.

Your arguments for people not to organise financially to oppose financial attack from our own government is disengenuous, and not based on the facts of life as they are in Ireland.

You say FG/LAB opposed a flat charge? Well we got one anyway. A government's motivation is easily seen by it's actions, as their statements are normally camouflage. Actions show the real policy. It's here. They did it.

Undoubtedly we have a democratic election process, but if Irish government were a democracy the politicians would represent the electorate.
The reality is that the government represents power brokers, donors of funding, business associates, family and friends.
After that lot have been satisfied, all Irish governments represent the people with what resources are left over, or to tax what is owed when nothing remains.

This is already proven beyond dispute by history, a multitude of news reports, and tribunals of investigation.
Every party has participated in this, including FG, LAB, FF, (in the life of the present govt look for instance at the building of the Lowry casino in the middle of nowhere against planning guidelines. )

In which case if the people wish to be represented to a greater degree, they must become power brokers. Then they will move up the pecking order of priority for politicians of all parties, and government will listen to the people as much as they currently listen to certain other groups.

golfwallah

coolwings wrote: »

Hmm ...
you think this is democracy? Taxing the electorate to give bailouts (=donated funding) to corporate finance and big property?

You suggest anarchy is what you get if a government is made to represent the voters? No. That's democracy.

You say: "“fairer” will mean higher taxes to many of us,". Please speak for yourself, I am not one of your misleading .... "us"! And your use of the word fairer is not appropriate because this is about using power and taking money.

Your arguments for people not to organise financially to oppose financial attack from our own government is disengenuous, and not based on the facts of life as they are in Ireland.

You say FG/LAB opposed a flat charge? Well we got one anyway. A government's motivation is easily seen by it's actions, as their statements are normally camouflage. Actions show the real policy. It's here. They did it.

Undoubtedly we have a democratic election process, but if Irish government were a democracy the politicians would represent the electorate.
The reality is that the government represents power brokers, donors of funding, business associates, family and friends.
After that lot have been satisfied, all Irish governments represent the people with what resources are left over, or to tax what is owed when nothing remains.

This is already proven beyond dispute by history, a multitude of news reports, and tribunals of investigation.
Every party has participated in this, including FG, LAB, FF, (in the life of the present govt look for instance at the building of the Lowry casino in the middle of nowhere against planning guidelines. )

In which case if the people wish to be represented to a greater degree, they must become power brokers. Then they will move up the pecking order of priority for politicians of all parties, and government will listen to the people as much as they currently listen to certain other groups.

I am not arguing "for people not to organise financially to oppose financial attack from our own government" as you have stated. Quite the contrary, I'm all for freedom of expression and organisation, so long as it's done within the democratic process. And, with respect, if being labeled "disingenuous" is the price I have to pay for being a supporter of our democratic processes, I wonder what label you attribute to those who oppose the rule of law.

Democracy is a delicate flower, that can easily be extinguished. We should all be grateful that we live in a democratic society, however flawed, as it gives everyone the chance to be heard in some way or other.

I too don't like some of the abuses and reckless use of power that have happened - but, please, let's deal with these issues within the law. Where there are delays, certainly, people are right to protest and demand change. Experience shows that Governments do react to negative feedback. But they have little choice over property tax within the context of the agreement on the bailout.

My genuinely held view is that calls for a "tax strike" (however, we might feel about such things), go beyond the democratic processes and should be withdrawn.

Icepick

coolwings wrote: »

The only effective way to make them change their policy of paying banks our money is to take away their funding.

How do we pay the 15 billion deficit created after ECB take away their funding?

lmimmfn

Icepick wrote: »

How do we pay the 15 billion deficit created after ECB take away their funding?

sort out the deficit, its not representative of every man woman and child in the country, high pensions, high welfare/medical card/HSE costs, overpaid bankers, insane council wastage to name but a few.

No matter what people think if we dont get to 0 borrowings or close to( 3% of GDP or thereabouts as we'll vote on soon ), theres no point whatsoever in all of the austerity so far. We're spending far too much on the aforementioned and we can no longer afford it. This problem cant be taxed away( whether direct or indirect taxes ).

golfwallah

lmimmfn wrote: »

sort out the deficit, its not representative of every man woman and child in the country, high pensions, high welfare/medical card/HSE costs, overpaid bankers, insane council wastage to name but a few.

No matter what people think if we dont get to 0 borrowings or close to( 3% of GDP or thereabouts as we'll vote on soon ), theres no point whatsoever in all of the austerity so far. We're spending far too much on the aforementioned and we can no longer afford it. This problem cant be taxed away( whether direct or indirect taxes ).

The deficit and borrowing targets are set out in the 2011 Fine Gael Manifesto, the 2011 Programme for Government and the Fiscal Compact Treaty, that we will be voting for or against at the end of May.

These targets will bring about more austerity measures in addition to Household Charges.

Unfortunately, financial bailout with regard to Ireland's international debt requires strict compliance with these conditions.

The alternatives are to go it alone ..... and we all know just how vulnerable the Punt was to big money market speculators.

You pays your money and you takes your choice!

lmimmfn

golfwallah wrote: »

The deficit and borrowing targets are set out in the 2011 Fine Gael Manifesto, the 2011 Programme for Government and the Fiscal Compact Treaty, that we will be voting for or against at the end of May.

These targets will bring about more austerity measures in addition to Household Charges.

Unfortunately, financial bailout with regard to Ireland's international debt requires strict compliance with these conditions.

The alternatives are to go it alone ..... and we all know just how vulnerable the Punt was to big money market speculators.

You pays your money and you takes your choice!

thats the problem, more taxes when we should be sorting out our spending, law of diminishing returns, you can only bleed the tax payer so much and from what i can see thats close to being exhausted otherwise there will be severe consequences for the country and government.

This threat of voting no to the Stability treaty causing us a throwback to the cave man 80's times is ridiculous. While its a voyage into the unknown theres no proof that that is any worse than another 10 years of austerity. Even if we went back to the punt, wheres the problem with that? we gain soverignty, control over out finances and we cant take holidays abroad or import big tv's because our currency is so devalued to help exports, decrease cost of manufacturing and other labour costs.

As things stand i would rather we own our own country than have another 10 years of others deciding what we should and should not do regardless of the consequences to the people of this country.

creedp

lmimmfn wrote: »

Even if we went back to the punt, wheres the problem with that? we gain soverignty, control over out finances and we cant take holidays abroad or import big tv's because our currency is so devalued to help exports, decrease cost of manufacturing and other labour costs.

That's the problem though. There are many people in this recessionary ravaged country who like their Audi A6 and BMD 520D too much to contemplate doing anything that would upset their living standards. These are the people who hold sway in this country so it is those whose living standards have been hit most with tax increases both direct and indirect that will have to contribute proportionally more of what is left of thier take home pay so the Audi's and BMW's can continue to flow. So lets continue to pay the German/French bankers and lissten without complaint to the ECB because the alternative is too risky

Icepick

lmimmfn wrote: »

sort out the deficit, its not representative of every man woman and child in the country, high pensions, high welfare/medical card/HSE costs, overpaid bankers, insane council wastage to name but a few.

Be more specific and provide numbers.

lmimmfn

Icepick wrote: »

Be more specific and provide numbers.

read the news, get the numbers there, its all common knowledge. Theyve been posted several times in the forums here except maybe council wastage but that can be seen( i can give you numerous examples of that if you want ).

Icepick

lmimmfn wrote: »

read the news, get the numbers there, its all common knowledge. Theyve been posted several times in the forums here except maybe council wastage but that can be seen( i can give you numerous examples of that if you want ).

So you don't have anything but still claim you would be able to balance the budget overnight?

lmimmfn

Icepick wrote: »

So you don't have anything but still claim you would be able to balance the budget overnight?

1. I never said i would balance the budget overnight, i gave examples on where money is being wasted, my comment "to name but a few" highlights im not defining all wastages ergo balancing the bidget.
2. If youre too lazy to search the forums for the figures, dont expect me to provide them for you.

Icepick

lmimmfn wrote: »

1. I never said i would balance the budget overnight, i gave examples on where money is being wasted, my comment "to name but a few" highlights im not defining all wastages ergo balancing the bidget.
2. If youre too lazy to search the forums for the figures, dont expect me to provide them for you.

Nobody provided relevant figures.
When the socialists campaigning against the household charge are pressed to say where to get the billions, their only reply is 'tax the rich,' which is unfeasible and very ironic.

EricPraline

lmimmfn wrote: »

1. I never said i would balance the budget overnight, i gave examples on where money is being wasted, my comment "to name but a few" highlights im not defining all wastages ergo balancing the bidget.

You've picked a few low-hanging fruit like "council wastage", which might reduce the budgetary deficit by a small fraction. But what about the rest? Many of the "easy" cuts have been made in the last few budgets. Reducing our budgetary deficit to zero would require far more radical cuts across high-spending areas such as social welfare, education and health, plus significant tax increases - income, property, water etc. Would you be in favour of such policies - yes/no?

lmimmfn wrote: »

2. If youre too lazy to search the forums for the figures, dont expect me to provide them for you.

If you're going to propose a solution, it's not unreasonable to expect you to back it up. As others have said, waving hands and saying "taxing the rich" isn't going to balance the budget.

Idbatterim

Funny how there aren't call for benchmarking to work in reverse! sure many in private sector have had 100% paycuts and the cost of housing is down atleast 50%... You look at the insane increases in expenditure in health, education etc and ask yourself is the service any better, has it actually gone down hill? If its tax hikes or service cuts to an already appalling services, i know which id choose!

golfwallah

EricPraline wrote: »

You've picked a few low-hanging fruit like "council wastage", which might reduce the budgetary deficit by a small fraction. But what about the rest? Many of the "easy" cuts have been made in the last few budgets. Reducing our budgetary deficit to zero would require far more radical cuts across high-spending areas such as social welfare, education and health, plus significant tax increases - income, property, water etc. Would you be in favour of such policies - yes/no?


If you're going to propose a solution, it's not unreasonable to expect you to back it up. As others have said, waving hands and saying "taxing the rich" isn't going to balance the budget.

Even when you have the figures, it's a lot easier to balance the budget on paper than when you're in power and have responsibility for the consequences.

Just look at the ructions caused by a €100 Household Charge or the sneers thrown at Minister Rory Quinn, when he faced the teachers at their national conference recently (and they're mostly Labour supporters).

Changing things in reality requires real leadership such as provided by Roosvelt in the 1930s Depression or Churchill in World War 2.

donegal_road

does the data protection act mean that no one, including government, has the rights to access individual's personal information? If so, then why were the government threatening to use ESB accounts and welfare details to identify people who hadn't paid the property tax, or register their property? Surely they would not be allowed to do this under the rules of the Data Protection Act?

ardmacha

Surely they would not be allowed to do this under the rules of the Data Protection Act?

As your own posting says, the power to access such information was granted to local authorities under Section 14 of the Local Government (Household Charge) Act.

ART6

ardmacha wrote: »

As your own posting says, the power to access such information was granted to local authorities under Section 14 of the Local Government (Household Charge) Act.

In other words, when the rules don't suit us we will change them:mad:

golfwallah

ART6 wrote: »

In other words, when the rules don't suit us we will change them:mad:

Of course this has to happen!

The government have a mandate to fix the economy, that's what they were elected to do.

Next step is taking the action required to get the job done - what else would you expect - that they fix the economy by magic?

If that doesn't suit some people, then too bad - that's how democracy works.

ART6

golfwallah wrote: »

Of course this has to happen!

The government have a mandate to fix the economy, that's what they were elected to do.

Next step is taking the action required to get the job done - what else would you expect - that they fix the economy by magic?

If that doesn't suit some people, then too bad - that's how democracy works.

First point: They will never fix the economy by taxing it into oblivion. That is a fundamental rule of economics that has been proven many times.

Secondly, all governments and all electorates should operate within the law, not change it when it suits their political convenience.

meglome

ART6 wrote: »

First point: They will never fix the economy by taxing it into oblivion. That is a fundamental rule of economics that has been proven many times.

Secondly, all governments and all electorates should operate within the law, not change it when it suits their political convenience.

I'd start with showing we are being taxed into oblivion.

ART6

meglome wrote: »

I'd start with showing we are being taxed into oblivion.

Perhaps you are not, in which case you are fortunate. I do not have access to statistics to back up my comment. I can only judge by the surveys that I see published in the media. They suggest to me that we have reached the point where the levies, fees, stealth taxes, duties, etc. have reached the limit of sustainability.

ardmacha

Property taxes, such as the one proposed, as a standard feature of OECD economies, most of which have not faded into oblivion.

meglome

ART6 wrote: »

Perhaps you are not, in which case you are fortunate. I do not have access to statistics to back up my comment. I can only judge by the surveys that I see published in the media. They suggest to me that we have reached the point where the levies, fees, stealth taxes, duties, etc. have reached the limit of sustainability.

Why is it when you ask for evidence for something you are assumed to be disagreeing or not affected by it. I'm simply asking for evidence and I am affected by it. Though I don't believe we are paying very high taxes.

So why not start with the media stories?

But let me help...
Who pays tax in Ireland? The little quiz revisited
Paying tax in Ireland: Where the richest (and poorest) pay

and an older one
Are Irish workers undertaxed?

golfwallah

ART6 wrote: »

First point: They will never fix the economy by taxing it into oblivion. That is a fundamental rule of economics that has been proven many times.

There's plenty of evidence (see recent posts) that tax is not excessive in Ireland .... so, I can only conclude that you just made that one up.

ART6 wrote: »

Secondly, all governments and all electorates should operate within the law, not change it when it suits their political convenience.

Made that one up as well, didn't you! if the situation demands that a law be changed, then so be it. That's the democratic prerogative of Government.

What we need is Government action to fix the current crisis, not a bunch of excuses as to why they can't do it. As long as they work within the law, which they are, I can't see anything wrong (other than they are upsetting some sectional interests) with what they are doing.

mistermouse

I paid the household charge but really am agrieved that local authority houses are exempt.

These use services, possibly more so by their very existance and certainly the occupants use as many of not more services than me

LA houses seemed in the past to be given out in many cases a little too easily, some people even bought out and resold their houses at massive profits, sometimes to the LA again - its laughable

Road tax is far too high for what we get also and is completely mismanaged

ART6

golfwallah wrote: »

There's plenty of evidence (see recent posts) that tax is not excessive in Ireland .... so, I can only conclude that you just made that one up.
.

When you claim that tax is not excessive in Ireland I assume you mean by comparison with other countries. In that case you are clearly correct. However, my point is that the extent to which a level of taxation is sustainable has nothing to do with what it is in other countries. What matters is what the level is in relation to the strength of the national economy. If that is strong and vibrant, with consistent growth, then higher taxes are possible and may even be necessary to avoid overheating. If it is weak and in recession, with high unemployment and high company failures, then the level of tax sustainability must necessarily be much lower. There simply isn't the money there.