New Household Tax - Boycott

oldyouth

Fizzlesque wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, oldyouth.

Do you think, if the tax had been better thought out, there would be an appropriate figure, or do you not consider taxing someone's property to be appropriate

We all live in houses/apartments/flats and we all avail of local services. Providing it is done correctly a 'property' tax would seem to be the most equitable. I don't see why a local authority tenant should be exempt either, as they enjoy public services to the same extent as home owners. And don't get me going on those that own homes on wheels.

FreudianSlippers

Fizzlesque wrote: »

Can you give me a link (or two) regarding this openness of the government as to how much they intend to raise the property tax? I've read a ridiculous amount of articles and comments on this subject and haven't had my mind put at ease in relation to the eventual cost. I've read plenty of snidey remarks from politicians telling us we'd better pay up or else, but nothing to stop the worry of ending up with a tax bill that continues to grow and grow year after year. I'd love to read some literature that tells me this isn't their long term plan.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1221/1224309341804.html

The commission recommended a system of property tax that would raise €1.2 billion a year, which is eight times greater than the €160 million that will be raised by the €100 charge.

Under the commission’s proposed scheme a charge of €188 would be paid on houses valued at up to €150,000; €563 on houses between €150,000 and €300,000; €938 on houses up to €450,000; €1,313 on houses valued at up to €600,000; €1,699 on houses up to €750,000; €2,188 on houses valued at up to €1 million; €3,125 on houses up to €1.5 million and 0.25 per cent of the valuation on houses over that.

john reilly

being the owner of property doesnt make one rich. infact in many cases the opposite. this makes this tax inequitable and unfair. the only fair tax would be an air tax. if you are alive and breathing you should be charged for it. if you dont pay it the goverment could stop your air supply till you cough up

The Waltzing Consumer

john reilly wrote: »

being the owner of property doesnt make one rich. infact in many cases the opposite. this makes this tax inequitable and unfair. the only fair tax would be an air tax. if you are alive and breathing you should be charged for it. if you dont pay it the goverment could stop your air supply till you cough up

That makes no sense whatsoever. You said earlier you give to charity every year, which is great, yet you are against paying less then 2 Euro a week to fund local services and decrease the deficit in running local Government?

Godge

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I'd like to ask the posters who are perfectly happy to pay a property tax, and (seemingly) have plenty of money to do so, a few questions:

1. What figure/amount would you consider appropriate for this tax?

2. What figure/amount would the tax need to reach for it to be difficult for you to manage to pay?

3. Do you think this tax should rise every year?

4. Do you think those who can't afford to pay it should sell their houses in order cease to be liable for the charge? Or should there be waivers for those who don't have the money - if yes, do you believe the charge should accumulate until they're earning more money, if that happens in the future, and be paid in full then or start at the beginning then?

5. What do you truly believe the money from this tax will be spent on?

6. What do you think is the fairest method of assessing how much each household should be charged? [I know that's very similar to question 1, but I mean method rather than amount].

1. A property tax based on €1 per sq. foot of accommodation would give a €1300 per year on a four-bedroomed house, €500 on a small apartment, €3,000 on a large detached house. Alternatively, it could be based on a combination of site value and house size. Such levels would be similar to other countries.

2. Any tax would be difficult to pay but I am a supporter of property taxes as I believe that they should be as high as possible while income tax should be lower to encourage people to work. if that is how it works, impossible to say what level would cause a problem as I would be paying less income tax.

3. No, the tax doesn't need to rise every year. If based on site value, revenue will increase if site value increases, if based on house size, revenue would increase if extensions are built or new houses are built.

4. That is one possibility. The other is something like in the nursing home scheme where it is paid when the house is sold/inherited. The interest rate and penalties could be lower in such cases than where people avoid the tax. It would also have to be subject to a very low household income, say less than €20,000.

5. Reducing the budget deficit and then funding income tax reductions would be where I would like the revenue spent.

6. See answer to 1.

Finally, I have seen a lot of people on Facebook who are saying they are not paying the charge yet they have put up pictures of their last holiday. I didn't have a holiday last year yet I paid so it is not true that everyone who paid the charge has plenty of money, some of us believe that property taxes are right. I also believe that most of those who are not paying can well afford to pay it, what is wrong with them is that they don't like the idea that their living standard is dropping from the unsustainable level it was at.

Godge

john reilly wrote: »

being the owner of property doesnt make one rich. infact in many cases the opposite. this makes this tax inequitable and unfair. the only fair tax would be an air tax. if you are alive and breathing you should be charged for it. if you dont pay it the goverment could stop your air supply till you cough up

Nonsensical post. Being the owner of property does make you rich, you are certainly richer than a homeless person or a tenant.

ArmaniJeanss

Fizzlesque wrote: »

First things first, what's the procedure for selecting parts of a post to quote, as opposed to clicking 'quote' and ending up with the entire post you're replying to being reposted?

Its a manual thing, you can just edit the parts of the quote that you don't want, as I've done by removing paragraphs 2 and 3 of your post.

In order to do part quoting, that is, quote a small part of a post, answer it, then quote the next part and answer that etc, this is also just a manual task.
If you quote my post you'll see [QQUOTE=ArmaniJeanss;573466] at the start and [/QUOTE] at the end. You can copy these 'start' and 'end' tags so you could place an end tag at the end of my first paragraph, comment on it, then place another start quote at the beginning of next paragraph.

Its actually far easier than it sounds, easier to do than explain.

Theres a test forum here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=361 where you can start a thread, reply to yourself and familiarise yourself with the editing.

john reilly

Godge wrote: »

Nonsensical post. Being the owner of property does make you rich, you are certainly richer than a homeless person or a tenant.

nonsense post. I own a house and am 100,000 euro in debt. if i was renting or even better living in a council house not only would i not be in debt but i would not have to pay for the upkeep of my house. it has been announced that the council are going to reginerate a council housing estate where i live. if i was foolish enough to pay the 100 euro charge i would be paying to fix somebody elses house while struggling to mantain my own. some people just havent a clue. and yes i am aware that their are a lot of people around the world worse off than me who deserve charity. but people licing in council houses whether they are working or living off welfare or both , dont come under that heading. as for the homeless what do local goverment do for them

john reilly

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever. You said earlier you give to charity every year, which is great, yet you are against paying less then 2 Euro a week to fund local services and decrease the deficit in running local Government?

what are these alledged local services. that i should be priviliged to fund. strange how the same people who would have objected to these charges under a f.f led goverment are now the strongest supporters under this f.g led administration

Going Forward

bkeano wrote: »

Hi all Boardies

Can we all please make a stance here and get our non boardies to do the same. Enough is Enough We should not pay this new household Tax. Its the same as the Poll tax in the UK. I am an normal Joe Soap with 2 kids. I cant pay any more Taxes. I can afford it as it is. I am lucky to have my Job.

We need to mount a serious objection here and nationwide.

thanks
Brian

If you can afford it why dont you pay it instead of leaving it to others to carry the can?

I dont welcome it, but I will be paying shortly.
If I could not afford it, I would not be able to cough up, but so be it, I would have a clear conscience.

Going Forward

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I'd like to ask the posters who are perfectly happy to pay a property tax, and (seemingly) have plenty of money to do so, a few questions:

1. What figure/amount would you consider appropriate for this tax?

2. What figure/amount would the tax need to reach for it to be difficult for you to manage to pay?

3. Do you think this tax should rise every year?

4. Do you think those who can't afford to pay it should sell their houses in order cease to be liable for the charge? Or should there be waivers for those who don't have the money - if yes, do you believe the charge should accumulate until they're earning more money, if that happens in the future, and be paid in full then or start at the beginning then?

5. What do you truly believe the money from this tax will be spent on?

6. What do you think is the fairest method of assessing how much each household should be charged? [I know that's very similar to question 1, but I mean method rather than amount].

Great post.
Why dont our outrageously paid TV and radio presenters ask these sort of questions? (And get answers)

Godge

john reilly wrote: »

nonsense post. I own a house and am 100,000 euro in debt. if i was renting or even better living in a council house not only would i not be in debt but i would not have to pay for the upkeep of my house. it has been announced that the council are going to reginerate a council housing estate where i live. if i was foolish enough to pay the 100 euro charge i would be paying to fix somebody elses house while struggling to mantain my own. some people just havent a clue. and yes i am aware that their are a lot of people around the world worse off than me who deserve charity. but people licing in council houses whether they are working or living off welfare or both , dont come under that heading. as for the homeless what do local goverment do for them

Once again you miss the point. You are buying a house. Some day the mortgage will be paid. You will own the house. Therefore you are in a better position than someone who is not buying a house. The selfishness of Irish people these days leaves me speechless. They want services for themselves, paid by someone else and if there is a service they don't want or need, it should be abolished and it is always someone else who should pay the tax.

100,000 is a small mortgage by today's standards, count yourself lucky.

Wibbs

Denerick wrote: »

We are in a complete fiscal mess and we need to raise revenue.

We also need to seriously restructure how existing revenue is being spent otherwise we're just throwing good money after bad.

At one hundred euro per household it is not exorbitant. People really need to get a life and see the bigger picture.

Get back to me on that bigger picture when you're paying a grand a year in the not too distant future. Plus a water charge. And still getting crappy service and return for that money. this only 100 euro is essentially a "build our tax database for us, so we can charge you more next year" charge.

The crusties on the far left like to convince us that we can magically balance the books by charging 99% tax on millionaires but the reality is that we need to expand our revenue base, and this includes taxes on property.

I agree most of the far left camp would be better off in homes for the bewildered dribbling on themselves. However again I point out that balancing the books is not all about raising revenue, it's just as much about reducing the wasteful outward flow of revenue.

JustinDee

john reilly wrote: »

being the owner of property doesnt make one rich. infact in many cases the opposite. this makes this tax inequitable and unfair. the only fair tax would be an air tax. if you are alive and breathing you should be charged for it. if you dont pay it the goverment could stop your air supply till you cough up

For a start, you have an asset in your name and therefore in a regular economy, a means to further investment.
You have an asset that will, one day, rise in value again.

As with all investments, affordability should be taken into account before leaping in.

Don't give the day job. Seriously, don't. Its a jungle out there.

djpbarry

Wibbs wrote: »

We also need to seriously restructure how existing revenue is being spent otherwise we're just throwing good money after bad.

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with that, but spending cuts have already been made, more are planned, and all are generally opposed by the same people opposing the household charge.

Wibbs wrote: »

Get back to me on that bigger picture when you're paying a grand a year in the not too distant future.

Where is this myth coming from? Why would you be paying a grand a year (unless you have an absolutely massive house)?

Wibbs wrote: »

And still getting crappy service...

Relative to what?

Wibbs

djpbarry wrote: »

Where is this myth coming from? Why would you be paying a grand a year (unless you have an absolutely massive house)?

As the article FreudianSlippers linked to outlined:

The commission recommended a system of property tax that would raise €1.2 billion a year, which is eight times greater than the €160 million that will be raised by the €100 charge.

Under the commission’s proposed scheme a charge of €188 would be paid on houses valued at up to €150,000; €563 on houses between €150,000 and €300,000; €938 on houses up to €450,000; €1,313 on houses valued at up to €600,000; €1,699 on houses up to €750,000; €2,188 on houses valued at up to €1 million; €3,125 on houses up to €1.5 million and 0.25 per cent of the valuation on houses over that.

There would be a lot of pretty average suburban semi dees family homes in Dublin that would be paying nearly a grand under that proposal and many times more paying 500 odd quid a year. Ah but it's only a proposal I hear you say? Indeed, but I will now bet you a round of drinks that in 5 years time those figures will be pretty damn close. Hell I'll raise that bet and say they'll be even higher. Never mind the proposed water charge.

Relative to what?

Relative to other EU states. Our decidedly third rate medical service for a start. Yet it's one of the most heavily funded per head in the EU. During the "boom" money was flying into the tax coffers and did anyone notice much of a change?

Bullseye1

Godge wrote: »

Nonsensical post. Being the owner of property does make you rich, you are certainly richer than a homeless person or a tenant.

This is rubbish. You do realise that that the majority of homes bought in the last ten years are in negative equity? Therefore people have borrowed up in some cases up to twice what the property is currently worth. So while they may have an asset it is no good to them unless they sell for a profit. Most if they decide to sell will sell for a loss. There are many renters in financially better situation and have more desposible income. There are also many elderly people who bought their houses in the 40's and 50's who have never moved and while they have an asset they are cash poor.

Fizzlesque

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The commission recommended a system of property tax that would raise €1.2 billion a year, which is eight times greater than the €160 million that will be raised by the €100 charge.

Under the commission’s proposed scheme a charge of €188 would be paid on houses valued at up to €150,000; €563 on houses between €150,000 and €300,000; €938 on houses up to €450,000; €1,313 on houses valued at up to €600,000; €1,699 on houses up to €750,000; €2,188 on houses valued at up to €1 million; €3,125 on houses up to €1.5 million and 0.25 per cent of the valuation on houses over that.

Thanks, Freudian Slippers. I did see that particular article, back in December last year - and, to be honest, it doesn't put my mind at rest. €563 a year is very different to €188 a year, such a large leap.

Another reason my mind isn't put at rest is; how come there haven't been lots more, and more recent, articles on the subject? Every day there are lots of articles on the subject of this tax, how come allaying people's fears about being whacked with an ever increasing bill year after year hasn't been addressed?

In addition to the above, this isn't the government saying this is what they have planned, this is The Commission on Taxation's recommendation.

"Whatever system is agreed by the Government, most householders will have to pay considerably more than the €100 flat charge for 2012 which is due to be paid by the end of next March."

What is 'considerably more'? They're certainly not the kind of words to calm people who are fearful of what lies ahead.

JustinDee

Bullseye1 wrote: »

This is rubbish. You do realise that that the majority of homes bought in the last ten years are in negative equity? Therefore people have borrowed up in some cases up to twice what the property is currently worth. So while they may have an asset it is no good to them unless they sell for a profit. Most if they decide to sell will sell for a loss

A tad generalistic and subjectively so.
Will sell at a loss if a sale takes place. "Negative equity", this demonic phrase that people bandy about as if doomsday is upon us, only concerns those who aim to shift an asset today or borrow using what is now a currently lower value as collateral. There is an asset of value in the owner's name.

Dirk Gently

Who values the house? Is it the original price paid for the house or will there be another army of clip boarders surveying each house in the country, or will geographical areas be allocated a value?

Fizzlesque

Thanks for replying to my query, ArmaniJeanss. I had tried the copying/pasting the bookend quote links but ended up with

instead of an actual quote so I wondered if there was some other system. It's possible I didn't have these [] close enough to the words I wanted to appear as quotes.

Not to worry, I'll probably stumble upon the reason it didn't work at some point. I appreciate you taking the time to write your detailed response, cheers

Godge

Bullseye1 wrote: »

This is rubbish. You do realise that that the majority of homes bought in the last ten years are in negative equity? Therefore people have borrowed up in some cases up to twice what the property is currently worth. So while they may have an asset it is no good to them unless they sell for a profit. Most if they decide to sell will sell for a loss. There are many renters in financially better situation and have more desposible income. There are also many elderly people who bought their houses in the 40's and 50's who have never moved and while they have an asset they are cash poor.

(1) A lot of homes are worth less than people paid for them but people who bought ten years ago have paid a lot of their mortgage already, a number of mortgages had short ten-year terms, others were trading-up and had significant equity, others used lump sums to pay down their mortgage so I doubt that a majority of homes bought in the last ten years are in negative equity.

(2) The asset is no good to them if they want to sell today, but if they were sensible (and there were quite a few fools around) and bought property as a long-term investment with an income protection policy then there is no issue if they hand on to the property and sell in ten years time.

(3) Of course there are many renters with greater disposable income but they don't own an asset.

(4) As for the elderly people who bought in the 40s and 50s, one of the issues with the property market in Ireland is people hanging on to their houses which they can no longer afford to maintain and making the market illiquid. In other European countries, people trade down as they get older.

djpbarry

Wibbs wrote: »

There would be a lot of pretty average suburban semi dees family homes in Dublin that would be paying nearly a grand under that proposal...

That depends on what you consider to be “average”. The only part of the country likely to have a reasonable number of properties that fall into the €300 – 450k valuation band is Dun Laoighaire-Rathdown – not exactly an “average” part of the country, is it? The average property nationwide will be taxed considerably less than €1k per annum.

Wibbs wrote: »

Relative to other EU states. Our decidedly third rate medical service for a start.

Ah, that old chestnut. Ireland does not have a “third-rate” healthcare system – it actually doesn’t compare all that badly at all to other OECD states (it compares pretty well to the UK, for example) and spending on health isn’t particularly high:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/53/43216301.pdf

I know it’s a popular pastime among Irish people to consider everything in Ireland to be ****e, but the reality is somewhat different.

JustinDee

djpbarry wrote: »

That depends on what you consider to be “average”. The only part of the country likely to have a reasonable number of properties that fall into the €300 – 450k valuation band is Dun Laoighaire-Rathdown – not exactly an “average” part of the country, is it?

On your guess above, the average 3-4 bedroom house in Maynooth, Co.Kildare is priced at around €300-€370k. At peak €420-550k.

djpbarry

JustinDee wrote: »

On your guess above, the average 3-4 bedroom house in Maynooth, Co.Kildare is priced at around €300-€370k.

Based on what I'm seeing on Daft at the moment, I think that's an over-estimate. But anyway, are we calling a 3-4 bed house "average"?

@djpbarry

@djpbarry: I'm a little late with my reply, apologies, only now getting time to catch up properly on the thread.

djpbarry wrote: »

I am not arguing against the sanctioning of TD’s who have been shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to have transgressed. What I am arguing against is the idea that sanctions should be imposed where a TD has “given the impression” of transgressing, because that is just plain ridiculous.

I don't agree. I think government ministers and other senior public servants are in a privileged and uniquely public and high-profile and influential position, and as such should have higher expectations to not only be entirely impartial, but also to be seen to be so. Their terms of employment and work practice rules (set by themselves, lest we forget) allow for many, many exceptions and special cases in how they are remunerated and how they must go about their work, is it not then reasonable of us, the electors, to expect special conditions on how they must behave in light of the influential and privileged position which they are in?

Furthermore, if a major report by several well respected judges, sanctioned by the state (albeit ironically, by Bertie) and at a cost of several million euros came to the distinct conclusion that several former government ministers had actively sought to undermine the work of an oireachtas sanctioned body of investigation, and came to this conclusion on foot of the public statements, and media appearances which those ministers made at the time, i feel that in such high profile cases, the appearance of improper influence or interference by a senior politician should be grounds enough for sanction, yes. Maybe not for criminal sanction, but certainly for internal party sanction, demotion, and widespread public criticism.

If we are ever to clean up the corrupt political system in ireland, then i think we must lay down stricter codes, rules and guidelines for our elected representatives. Politicians are populists. We must let them know that support for the crooked culture of the past is now gone, and they must take note or they will find themselves out of a job after the next polling day. They certainly aren't going to make such a change themselves without good reason, like turkeys voting for christmas, but it simply isn't good enough to apply the same already lacklustre, loophole-ridden codes of conduct and sanction which the public service at large has to adhere to to front line politicians in public positions with major influence which can be brought to bear for good or ill.

If politicians really want to clean up our crooked system, they must lead from the top, based on what their constituents tell them they will not get away with any longer. We should tell them that we wish them to be subject to even tighter codes, not looser ones than the rest of us, if they want to represent us, and i think that should include things like optics, media guidelines, and yes, appropriate sanction for any perception whatsoever of impropriety.

The old "well sure there's no law against it, technically" excuse should not be a hiding place any longer.

djpbarry wrote: »

Where to start...

A good retort, i can't argue with you there at all, so i won't try. Thanks for an informative and succint post.

It is the highest indictment of our entire political system that the man in question could still hold any form of public office whatsoever after the findings made against him, and speaks to exactly the point i have just made regarding the need for higher levels of accountability and transparency in public life.

Dirk Gently wrote: »

Who values the house? Is it the original price paid for the house or will there be another army of clip boarders surveying each house in the country, or will geographical areas be allocated a value?

In response this, and also to freudian slippers post on the possible structure of any framework for the calculation of charges: I really cannot see how this could fail to incite even bigger levels of outrage from taxpayers, regardless of which option is chosen by whoever it is that works out the final charges.

A system of charging based on the original purchase price of the property would be an enormous insult to the taxpayer, and would, i feel, incite enough rage and protest (even in peaceful little ireland) so as to make it a dead political duck. If the household charge protest we have seen recently is anything to judge by, it would never get off the ground.

To be charged a percentage of a vastly inflated house price, one that was largely a notional, pie-in-the-sky valuation of most properties which were sold (with the exception of for a few fleeting years during the boom when they were actually attainable) would be deeply deeply unjust to many. To be taxed at an inflated rate on an imaginary property price bearing no resemblance to the value of the home they will likely have to pay for for the rest of their working life, a legacy from a bygone era which came about as a direct a result of the major government and regulatory failures in politics, banking, construction, planning, and estate agency, would be such an enormous insult to anyone who bought in the boom that it would spark rage like we haven't yet seen in this country. It would galvanize hundreds of thousands in protest against a government with one eye on an impending re-election campaign.

The level of inequity a charge on this basis would give rise to would be staggering. Houses on the same street or in the same area, in some cases next-door neighbours who had bought adjoining, identical houses, but at different times during the boom and at different prices would be being charged different amounts on the same property. This would in effect be compounding the insult to them of having been gazumped due to the lack of regulation during the boom. It would be adding insult to injury for an entire cohort of people who already feel that they have been left out in the cold by the political system, and who are disillusioned to the point where this would be the push that would send them over the edge.

Conversely, any system of charging where areas, zones, estates, etc would be categorized en masse, would be subject to such inequitable exceptions, mistakes, injustices, etc (particularly given our "accident" prone public service) as to allow the ravenous tabloid media to whip the public up into an anti-government frenzy, as we get closer and closer to polling day....

This entire property tax issue is going to be really, REALLY difficult for the government to come away from unscathed, and is probably going to place enormous stress on the labour side of the coalition in particular, from it's grass roots. If there is one thing on the governments agenda with the potential to actually bring them down prematurely, i would say it's how this is handled.

I wonder if they'll give it to Phil Hogan to look after...;)

JustinDee

djpbarry wrote: »

Based on what I'm seeing on Daft at the moment, I think that's an over-estimate. But anyway, are we calling a 3-4 bed house "average"?

Yes, a 3 or 4 bedroom semi-detached house is "average".
The price guideline I gave you isn't an over-estimate either. I'm getting ready to sell so I've been doing my homework pretty extensively on the ground.

mattser

That's it.

Come car tax renewal time, count me out.

I paid the household charge, and if they have a go at me for car tax, I'll tell them to fcuk off and take me to court with the other half of the country.

This has set some precedent.

djpbarry

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes, a 3 or 4 bedroom semi-detached house is "average".

Well, according to the census, the average dwelling in Ireland has only 5-6 rooms in total.

JustinDee

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes, a 3 or 4 bedroom semi-detached house is "average"

Based on what the definition of an "average" family is, 2 parents, and 2-3 children, i would tend to agree. I don't think a 3-4 bedroom house is anything out of the ordinary. That's not to say that there aren't a lot of growing families out there living in less, but i think that's an overhang from the lack of proper planning as well as the negative equity issue that has a lot of young, growing families still stuck in starter homes they can't sell.

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, according to the census, the average dwelling in Ireland has only 5-6 rooms in total.

I would suspect that a lot of these are apartments, as per what i posted above.

From personal experience of urban apartment life, the standard of apartment building that went on during the boom in Ireland falls far short of what any growing family would need in terms of facilities, available expansion space, etc, but regardless, a lot of people have no option to trade up to a house due to the negative equity problem, and are unwilling not to have a family, so opt to raise kids in a space that's smaller than they need in the hope things will improve in the long term.

I would say that rather than a 3-4 bed house being above average, what the most recent census info suggests is that a lot of people in Ireland are stuck in property that is too small to meet their growing needs, and is below average size. To any 2 parent family with 2-3 kids, 3 bedrooms is far from excessive.

I'd be very interested to see any cut of the census figures to show who, of these people in 5-6 rooms total, is renting (ie :is resident there by choice), and who owns and has bought in the last 5-10 years (ie: is likely to have seen a 20-60% decrease in the value of their property, and is likely to be stuck in NE). From memory of the census form i think (correct me if I'm wrong) that it allowed for that data to be ascertained.