New Household Tax - Boycott

blackiebest

IMO it is each and every one of your patriotic duty to not pay this tax. Nor the 'broadcast tax' proposed. We, as a people need to take our country back. It is wrong and IMO you are 'less Irish' if you register and pay this tax REGARDLESS of your circumstances. You are giving it to a government who are incapable of not wasting money/resources. They are not fit to run a bath! Please see this. The time has come to make a principled stand, this is the opportunity, DO IT NOW! Everything has to be changed and 'fixed'

femur61

I was printing of the forms to pay, two houses, and then Oli Rehn was on 6.1 saying we will not get a reduction on the promissory notes because we have taken a commitment to. In the same bulletin, Spain said they will not meet their targets and that’s OK, the EU will sort them out. Greece has literally defaulted, thats grand we'l bend over backwards for them and are still in the Euro. Now I am seriously thinking of not registering, we are such mugs, no wonder the English stayed for 800 years.

RichardAnd

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Doesn't look like there were too many people there who would even be liable for the household charge. Except of course the Gardai who have to put up with that kind of crap.

Those people are expressing their opinions which they have every right to do. To dismiss another person's views as "crap" simply because you do not agree is incredibly ignorant and arrogant. The attitude you've just displayed is the type of cynicism that really gets on my nerves. If you don't agree with them, that's perfectly fine but there is no need to lambaste them.

ednwireland

i dont see why it should be out of my bank account before its due, i'll pay but not before last week of march

seamus

RandomName2 wrote: »

Huh? It's going to be around that in about a year's time, not ten. This isn't the property tax, this is just a temporary household tax.
Note the following (from MoneyGuide):

To be fair, by 2013 the average property price will stand below €150,000, so most people will still only be paying the smallest band.

Whatever the lowest cut-off point is, I can see a lot of people declaring their property at 1 euro below that

oscarBravo

blackiebest wrote: »

IMO it is each and every one of your patriotic duty to not pay this tax. Nor the 'broadcast tax' proposed.

Where does income tax fall in the "patriotic duty" stakes? Do I have a patriotic duty to pay it, or withhold it? How about VAT? Motor tax? Corporation tax?

Are you opposed to the payment of all taxes, or just these two? If just the two you mentioned, can you explain what it is about those taxes in particular that makes evading them a patriotic duty?

We, as a people need to take our country back.

Take it back from whom?

It is wrong and IMO you are 'less Irish' if you register and pay this tax REGARDLESS of your circumstances.

Who are you to decide that paying a tax makes a person "less Irish"? That's one of the most arrogant things I've heard in the course of this debate, and that's saying something.

You are giving it to a government who are incapable of not wasting money/resources. They are not fit to run a bath! Please see this.

I'm giving income tax, VAT, motor tax and corporation tax to the same government. Will I become more Irish in your eyes if I evade those taxes as well?

The time has come to make a principled stand, this is the opportunity, DO IT NOW! Everything has to be changed and 'fixed'

How do you propose to "fix" the country through tax evasion?

FreudianSlippers

Manach wrote: »

Hubris might be defined as going up against the Legal mod.
Thus (ARAIR) -
Common law has interfaced with land for centuries. There are reams of cases which give depth to the statutory interpretion of the laws in such areas as say easements, eminent domain and registration (including say Canada) which can be used as authorative rulings commonly on both sides of the Atlantic.
Indeed there are impacts from Europe. For instance in the UK, the ECHR has tweaked the balance of rights between pure possession of the land and various other rights - such as Article 8 family protection (Pillock case).
But property rights in both areas are protected except in the case of pressing social need. Ensuring that , as per a radio ad, the local library is kept going goes not strike me as particularly needful as there is no voter involvement in deciding what these social needs are. For instance in the state of California there are initiatives to curb excess property taxes that were successful and in New Hampshire a direct democracy ensure that funds raised from a property tax are effectively and locally spent. These are lessons that can be learnt from the US.

Yes, there is common law in relation to land law, but most of the stuff you described is actually stemming from Equity. Almost all of our law in relation to land comes from England rather than the US (Canada and the US both getting their laws from England, Canada moreso these days than the US).

Also to add: Does anyone posting here who is against paying the Household Charge honestly foresee people being thrown out of their houses en masse because of it? Do you not see even the slightest hint of ridiculousness in that notion?

Mr.Micro

It will be interesting to see how "united" people will be/feel when individual households get a demand for the charge in the near future. It will be in black and white, either pay the outstanding charge or face legal action. Most will pay IMO.

Fulton Crown

Big Phil has bet the money on this one ...for his credibliity he has to make it stick.

Will middle Ireland be forced to pay up again...me I've stumped up an now I'm depending on the Govt to ensure everybody who can afford to stumps up also.

Be really pissed off if a large cohort refused to pay and got away with it...really pissed off.

Take the TD'Ds agin it....interestin to see what happens to them....clearly identifyable...will be expecting them to see the inside of a cell or have the charge deducted from their salaries .

High wire stuff Phil...more depends on it than possibly you realise.

I will be certainly regarding it as an important Govt bell weather

DB21

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how "united" people will be/feel when individual households get a demand for the charge in the near future. It will be in black and white, either pay the outstanding charge or face legal action. Most will pay IMO.

What are they going to do? Bring ~1 million people to court? Doubt it.

later12

I always find it most interesting how taxpayers are ever so submissive toward new taxes like the USC, and before that the levies, and income tax rises and increases in social contribution charges. Academic economists are very interested in the salience of taxes and the "fiscal illusion": that is to say, the manner in which people ignore automatic deductions, but vehemently oppose contributions which they must physically make themselves, as if they were somehow 'more real.

I think that's what we are seeing here to some extent.

As well as that, I think anyone who is interested in rural Ireland and the dreadful effect that rates had on many of their ancestors up until their abolition in 1977 will have a great deal of sympathy for those who are opposed to the reintroduction of an Irish property tax.

Personally I would be naturally inclined to oppose a reintroduction of a property tax (for which this household charge is an admitted precursor) for the above selfish, sentimental, wholly irrational reasons. However from an economic point of view, there are both advantages and disadvantages. An example of this is the inelasticity of the tax - is that ultimately a good thing or a bad thing?

Overall I think one can find some logically pleasing arguments in favour of the introduction of a property tax, and I readily admit these exist. Having said that, I think I probably would be quietly glad to see the opponents victorious on this one.

later12

later12 wrote: »

Personally I would be naturally inclined to oppose a reintroduction of a property tax (for which this household charge is an admitted precursor) for the above selfish, sentimental, wholly irrational reasons. However from an economic point of view, there are both advantages and disadvantages. An example of this is the inelasticity of the tax - is that ultimately a good thing or a bad thing?

If there is one thing we should have all learned from the crash it's that tax revenues need to become both stable and reliable so we can go forward with sensible budgets and actually attempt to put a halt to this 20billion euro loss per year fiasco happening again.

I have yet to see one reason for not paying the household charge that relates to the budget deficit. It's all bankers this/evil government that.


I'm becoming incredibly disillusioned by the day. I honestly believed that Sean Gallagher as the front runner for president was as low as we'd sink.

later12

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I have yet to see one reason for not paying the household charge that relates to the budget deficit. It's all bankers this/evil government that.

The glaringly obvious one would be the economic arguments for local and central government expenditure cuts. The deficit can be tackled from either side of the balance sheet.

My point is that if one has an ideological preference for new revenue measures, then a property tax, from a sustainability and fiscal tightening point of view, is objectively legitimate. Personally I would rather tackle some welfare rates, as an example.

happyman81

It is a particularly odd brand of socialism that we have here in Ireland, calls for high government spending combined with low taxes for all but 1% of the population. Only in this country...

Monty Burnz

happyman81 wrote: »

It is a particularly odd brand of socialism that we have here in Ireland, calls for high government spending combined with low taxes for all but 1% of the population. Only in this country...

You'll be first against the wall come the revolution.

They also appear to be the only socialists in the world who are opposed to taxes on capital. Bizarre. You'd almost accuse them of populism and political opportunism, but surely that is beneath them?

happyman81

It is a particularly odd brand of socialism that we have here in Ireland, calls for high government spending combined with low taxes for all but 1% of the population. Only in this country...

later12

I'm not convinced that this is a socialist issue.

85% of households have not registered to pay the charge. Within that figure, the proportion of those actively resisting will become apparent over the next fortnight. However, I would seriously doubt that it represents a socialist headcount. The opposition seems to be much broader than that.

happyman81

later12 wrote: »

I'm not convinced that this is a socialist issue.

85% of households have not registered to pay the charge. Within that figure, the proportion of those actively resisting will become apparent over the next fortnight. However, I would seriously doubt that it represents a socialist headcount. The opposition seems to be much broader than that.

I'm referring to the organisers of the boycott movement, i.e. the ULA, etc.

JustinDee

As usual, taxpayers bear the non-taxpayers.
Thanks for that, folks. Much obliged.

later12

later12 wrote: »

The glaringly obvious one would be the economic arguments for local and central government expenditure cuts. The deficit can be tackled from either side of the balance sheet.

My point is that if one has an ideological preference for new revenue measures, then a property tax, from a sustainability and fiscal tightening point of view, is objectively legitimate. Personally I would rather tackle some welfare rates, as an example.

Which party/grouping that is against the household tax has plans to tackle the welfare bill? Sinn feinn, ULA or the SWP? :P

RichardAnd

I've kept out of this discussion for the most part but I feel drawn to make my own views know.

Firstly, let me say that I understand and agree that some form of taxation is required for any society to function as a whole. Just how much tax that is required depends on a great many things but let's not get into that. I don't disagree with taxation, that's my first point.

However, I do not like the idea of this household tax for a number of reasons thus, I would oppose it. Rather than exiting the discussion at that point, I would like to lay down why I believe this lest I be accused of pointing a finger and shouting "the bankers!"

My first issue is that this is an open ended tax. There is nothing, as far as I know, that acts as a upper limit on the amount that this tax can levy upon our citizens. This is why I don't agree with the adage of "sure it's only one hundred euro", it does not consider the aforementioned issue. IT is possible that the charge is simple testing the water to gauge the reaction of the people of IReland and if it is passed without any meaningful opposition, I would not be surprised to see it rise.

Next, I have a problem with the concept of a household charge in principal. I am aware that there is little difference between income tax and property tax but something about a charge upon a house does not sit well with me. In my mind, if someone has paid for their house, they should own it in every sense of the term and putting a charge upon that property does not seem right to me. Private property should be sacrosanct to a modern state because, as history demonstrate very well, little good comes about when the powers that be attempt to help themselves to what their citizens own. I am also aware there is an irony in socialist opposition to property tax but that's an aside.

Finally, and this is perhaps the underlying problem for me; I do not trust the government. Mismanagement of public monies has plagued this country (and many others) since its inception. I see no reason why the sate should be given more money by its people until it has demonstrated responsibly and care for what it already receives. If this charge is only going to generate 160 million euros then why not raise that money by not giving the same amount to a bank. Now I know that sounds dreadfully cliche but I believe it is a valid point. I know the reason cited is to maintain "confidence" to be quite honest, I think that is a rather empty excuse. After all, it often seems that the money loaded to create debt never truly existed, why not pretend the debt doesn't exist either?

Anyway, as I've made the effort of explaining myself I would ask that anyone taken to argue with me does so in an agreeable manner. Thank you.

Monty Burnz

RichardAnd wrote: »

Anyway, as I've made the effort of explaining myself I would ask that anyone taken to argue with me does so in an agreeable manner. Thank you.

I'd disagree with you on the topic, but that's a good post. This is how discussions on these matters should be carried out.

later12

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Which party/grouping that is against the household tax has plans to tackle the welfare bill? Sinn feinn, ULA or the SWP? :P

Indeed. My point was just that there are valid, technical arguments for not introducing a property charge. One being that for countries facing fiscal adjustments, expenditure cuts have been demonstrated to be more effective than new revenue initiatives.

However, some people, including the Government and perhaps some posters in this thread, have an ideological preference for coming up with new taxes.

Fair enough. If that is one's own economic bent then it can be argued that introducing a property tax is the next intelligent thing to do. It certainly is a very rigid tax which will maintain the size of Government. I don't particularly have an economic opinion on that, we all come from different approaches; except to say I understand why it's slightly infuriating to Irish taxpayers.

Welease

RichardAnd wrote: »

Next, I have a problem with the concept of a household charge in principal. I am aware that there is little difference between income tax and property tax but something about a charge upon a house does not sit well with me. In my mind, if someone has paid for their house, they should own it in every sense of the term and putting a charge upon that property does not seem right to me. Private property should be sacrosanct to a modern state because, as history demonstrate very well, little good comes about when the powers that be attempt to help themselves to what their citizens own. I am also aware there is an irony in socialist opposition to property tax but that's an aside.

Would it be less of an issue if people looked at the tax for what is it.. A tax to continue to provide services to the locale where the house is?
People complain that they already paid a stamp duty etc.. but stamp duty doesn't and won't continue to pay for the installation and upkeep of roads, street lighting, libraries, municipal sewerage scheme's and all the other services that people expect and demand.

We can either add it to direct taxes or indirect taxes.. but either way we need to pay for these servers, and stop borrowing to fund them..

Welease

Welease wrote: »

People complain that they already paid a stamp duty etc.. but stamp duty doesn't and won't continue to pay for the installation and upkeep of roads, street lighting, libraries, municipal sewerage scheme's and all the other services that people expect and demand.

Exactly! I'm seeing plenty of incredibly...lets just say...myopic statements...from individuals along the lines of "I'll pay the household charge when the government gives me back my stamp duty!"

Well, news flash: Your stamp duty was spent on buying your vote through the boom years! It's gone now.

oscarBravo

RichardAnd wrote: »

There is nothing, as far as I know, that acts as a upper limit on the amount that this tax can levy upon our citizens.

What's the upper limit on income tax? VRT? Excise duties?

In my mind, if someone has paid for their house, they should own it in every sense of the term and putting a charge upon that property does not seem right to me.

What about putting a charge (such as motor tax) on a car that I own in every sense of the term?

I see no reason why the sate should be given more money by its people until it has demonstrated responsibly and care for what it already receives.

If your belief is that the entire budget deficit should be bridged solely through spending cuts and with not a single penny from new taxes, can you indicate which cuts you believe will achieve the necessary savings? Can you also explain why you think a sustainably broad tax base is a bad thing?


Those points aside, there's one compelling reason why people should pay this tax, and that is that they are obliged to do so by law. If you don't like the tax, vote for a government that will remove it. Those TDs who are urging people to commit tax evasion should be deeply ashamed of themselves; they are unworthy of elected office.

RichardAnd

Welease wrote: »

Would it be less of an issue if people looked at the tax for what is it.. A tax to continue to provide services to the locale where the house is?
People complain that they already paid a stamp duty etc.. but stamp duty doesn't and won't continue to pay for the installation and upkeep of roads, street lighting, libraries, municipal sewerage scheme's and all the other services that people expect and demand.

We can either add it to direct taxes or indirect taxes.. but either way we need to pay for these servers, and stop borrowing to fund them..

I understand what you're saying but to me, that's not what this tax does. All taxes go into one fund and as far as I know, there is no facility to "ringfence" any tax income so that it can only be used for a certain thing. This is also true for tax on petrol or motor tax. It's charged in relation to private transport but there is no guarantee that it's used to maintain roads.

Thus, with property tax, the government claims that it is for upkeep of local services yet there seems to be nothing set in stone that it will be used as such. If it were the case that all money collected by this tax was going into a special account with strict legal rulings preventing it being given to bank or spent otherwise, many people would likely feel different about the issue.

Welease

RichardAnd wrote: »

I understand what you're saying but to me, that's not what this tax does. All taxes go into one fund and as far as I know, there is no facility to "ringfence" any tax income so that it can only be used for a certain thing. This is also true for tax on petrol or motor tax. It's charged in relation to private transport but there is no guarantee that it's used to maintain roads.

Thus, with property tax, the government claims that it is for upkeep of local services yet there seems to be nothing set in stone that it will be used as such. If it were the case that all money collected by this tax was going into a special account with strict legal rulings preventing it being given to bank or spent otherwise, many people would likely feel different about the issue.

I'm sorry but respectfully your point makes little sense to me..

Are you saying that because it's not ringfenced, we should continue to borrow money from abroad to manage our defecit, and add to our debts by having to pay interest on that instead of having people pay a property tax?

Do you also object to all forms of income tax, VAT, motor taxation because those are not ring fenced also..

What would be the point of locking down our ability to provide funding in required areas due to ringfencing..Should we stop allowing people to claim welfare once that ringfenced amount is used up from income tax?
The country (and any business) needs to have flexibility to react to changing situations and move funding and resources to where they are needed most when they are needed most..

Even without banking issues.. this country does not collect anywhere near enough taxes to fund it's requirements.. Extra taxation/cuts are required.. period.. Property taxation (if the goverment follows its plan) is a method to direct funding to local authorities to allow them to provide the services that residents in the locale demand. Granted it's largely an accounting exercise as they will cut centralised funding, but so what.. it doesn;t get around the simple fact they we need to raise more revenue..

RichardAnd

oscarBravo wrote: »

What about putting a charge (such as motor tax) on a car that I own in every sense of the term?

Tax is charged on a car because whilst you own it, you drive it on publicly maintained roads. The logic of the household tax is that houses depend on certain services but if you take a look at my reply to Welease, you'll see what I think of that.

If your belief is that the entire budget deficit should be bridged solely through spending cuts and with not a single penny from new taxes, can you indicate which cuts you believe will achieve the necessary savings?

That's not quite what I said. I said that I don't believe a government should be given more money until they have proven that they can manage what is currently available. If every cent collected was used properly and a deficit remained, then it would be time to look at raising taxes. Currently, given the level of waste in the public finances, I think more tax should be put off until certain areas of waste are addressed.

Can you also explain why you think a sustainably broad tax base is a bad thing?

I don't, nor did I say that I do. And also, that's another issue with the household charge. I've heard that it is to pay for local services and I have also heard that it is to provide a broad tax base that is more stable than income tax. There seems to be confusion as to what this tax is truly intended for and I don't like confusion, I like clear and honest information that describes where my taxes are to be spent.

Those points aside, there's one compelling reason why people should pay this tax, and that is that they are obliged to do so by law. If you don't like the tax, vote for a government that will remove it. Those TDs who are urging people to commit tax evasion should be deeply ashamed of themselves; they are unworthy of elected office.

This is an interesting point. Consider this, a tax is introduced that requires you to pay an extortionate amount of money to the state within a narrow time-frame, let's say ten thousand euros. Now if that passed through the dail it would be a law in the same sense that the household charge is a law so if TDs called for resistance, would they be wrong for doing so?

Surely you would rather have a TD in place that would stand by what he/she believes is morally right and in the best interests of the state as opposed to someone that supports a law simply because it exists? History has proven that when people stop questioning the actions of a government, ill tidings are abound. If something is passed into law that is wrong in the eyes of many then they have every right to resist because that is the essence of democracy.