New Household Tax - Boycott

Wibbs

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?

Incorrect. As later pointed out other areas fall into such a bracket. Mostly in the cities.

The average property nationwide will be taxed considerably less than €1k per annum.

I'll lay a bet again that the average will be paying close to or higher than 500 quid a year in short order.

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

"Health spending per capita in Ireland is above the OECD average, with spending of 3,781 USD in 2009 (adjusted for purchasing power parity) compared with an OECD average of 3,223 USD"

Plus if you think we have anything approaching a first rate health system in this country you thankfully haven't been exposed to much of it.

http://medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=posts_and_promises

Ireland has the lowest number of consultant neurologists in Europe. A wait of two years to see one is not unusual. We should as a minimum recommendation have 26 neurologists but we only have 6 on last count.

It's not the third world health service some might claim, but it's not a first world one either.

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

Certainly. We have a pretty good country in many ways, however there is an inordinate amount of shíte out there still.

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. As houses go in urban areas(where the majority live) a 3 bed semi is about as average as you can get.

Deleted User wrote:

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,

Very much so. Compared to apartment designs I've been in around the EU, too many Irish boom built apartments were very badly designed. More aimed at student digs or first steps to house ownership than long term homes in of themselves. I would lay the blame as much on the Irish homeowner as the designers TBH. The majority of people expect to live in the 3 bed semi as a matter of course so apartments were considered a stepping stone. The market didn't seem to demand more.

oscarBravo

Wibbs wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

The average property nationwide will be taxed considerably less than €1k per annum.

I'll lay a bet again that the average will be paying close to or higher than 500 quid a year in short order.

I'm not seeing a contradiction.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I'll lay a bet again that the average will be paying close to or higher than 500 quid a year in short order.

I would have to agree with you. I think €500 within 3-5 years is on the conservative side. As posted, there is a factor of eight between what the household charge was intended to raise and the total take which the troika have mandated needs to come from our property tax.

On average, not adjusting for means, equitability, property values, or however they intend to work it out, each household that is registered will be asked for 8x more than the current €100 charge. Even rounding this down generously by 25% you come to an average figure of €600 per property for the vast middle ground of property owners in Ireland who will be making up the 80% plus bulk of the total take. Some will be lower, some higher, but the majority will be there or thereabouts.

Wibbs wrote: »

if you think we have anything approaching a first rate health system in this country you thankfully haven't been exposed to much of it....

+1 for this. Selective, self-serving comparisons with other countries irritate me in general, but there are very few things which genuinely boil my blood as much as when i hear ministers and their supporters claim our health system is no worse than many countries in the EU or the developed world.

I defy anyone to visit Our Lady's hospital for sick children in Crumlin, Dublin, and take a day, just a day to see what goes on there, and still come away with the opinion that we have anything close to a first rate health system, regardless of our spend. For anyone who is lucky enough to have not had the pleasure, it is one of the most heart-breaking, sobering, frustrating, and angering experiences you will ever have. There are staff there, with more talent, heart, and genuine care for the seriously ill children they look after, than i have ever seen, but they are struggling under impossible constraints due to lack of funding and lack of efficiency, and everywhere that there is a shortfall, it means that a child dies, or becomes even more gravely ill.

There's nowhere else in Ireland that I've seen where the real, human cost of the mismanagement and waste in our public service has been more evident, and tangible, and where the human spirit has to work so hard to overcome the effects of such social injustice. This recent Times article puts it more eloquently than i ever could. We may spend as much as a country with a first rate health system does, but we are NOT not getting the level of service:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2012/0320/1224313567106.html

stevedublin

mattser wrote: »

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.

I think the difference between the household charge and the car tax is that the household charge is more than likely to increase year by year and evolve to a huge, onerous property tax that could see people being evicted from their homes (if they dont pay).
Also it is a NEW tax that has just been introduced to pay off bank bondholders, whereas the car tax has been around before the govt took on bank debt.
Lastly, most people would consider being thrown out of your house is more serious than being taken off the road (if people dont pay the tax). Having a roof over your head is generally considered more necessary than having a car.

oscarBravo

stevedublin wrote: »

I think the difference between the household charge and the car tax is that the household charge is more than likely to increase year by year...

As opposed to a car tax, which has decreased year on year since its introduction?

...and evolve to a huge, onerous property tax that could see people being evicted from their homes (if they dont pay).

There is no provision in law to evict people for non-payment of property tax. Sure, it's theoretically possible that a future law could be introduced to evict people for non-payment of property tax, but it's also theoretically possible that a future law could be introduced to evict people for non-payment of car tax.

It would be nice if we could stick to the facts while discussing this issue. I accept that it's unlikely to happen, though.

Also it is a NEW tax that has just been introduced to pay off bank bondholders...

Jesus wept, that idiotic meme just won't go away, will it?

Lastly, most people would consider being thrown out of your house is more serious than being taken off the road (if people dont pay the tax). Having a roof over your head is generally considered more necessary than having a car.

Just as well nobody - apart from anti-property tax scaremongers - is talking about people being thrown out of their houses then, isn't it?

squonk

stevedublin wrote: »

I think the difference between the household charge and the car tax is that the household charge is more than likely to increase year by year and evolve to a huge, onerous property tax that could see people being evicted from their homes (if they dont pay).
Also it is a NEW tax that has just been introduced to pay off bank bondholders, whereas the car tax has been around before the govt took on bank debt.
Lastly, most people would consider being thrown out of your house is more serious than being taken off the road (if people dont pay the tax). Having a roof over your head is generally considered more necessary than having a car.

Your post raises a good question that I have not seen answered yet. What is to happen those who don't pay the charge? I've seen mention of the charge remaining and being levied with interest at the time the house changes hands. It doesn't appear that those not paying will be taken to court. Certainly, it would be a huge PR headache for the government if those not paying were evicted from homes that they are otherwise paying mortgages on. I see a real problem even implementing that.

So, from the Govt's point of view, what next? Carry on and make do with the reduced intake for now, or get tough? Even this element of the charge hasn't been fully explained.

stevedublin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Jesus wept, that idiotic meme just won't go away, will it?

Yes, it won't go away.
No, it is not idiotic.
You can't hide the truth, people are not stupid.

djpbarry

Wibbs wrote: »

I'll lay a bet again that the average will be paying close to or higher than 500 quid a year in short order.

Just a few short posts ago you were telling us everyone was going to be paying a grand?

Wibbs wrote: »

Plus if you think we have anything approaching a first rate health system...

Hang on there now – I didn’t say that. I’m not saying it’s brilliant, I’m just saying it’s nowhere near as bad as some people like to think it is. By OECD standards, it’s fairly middle-of-the-road based on most indicators.

Wibbs wrote: »

As houses go in urban areas(where the majority live) a 3 bed semi is about as average as you can get.

I’m going to defer to the CSO on this – 2-3 is closer to average than 3-4.

djpbarry

stevedublin wrote: »

...people are not stupid.

Some people are - Joe Higgins and Richard Boyd-Barrett depend on them for a political career.

beeftotheheels

djpbarry wrote: »

Some people are - Joe Higgins and Richard Boyd-Barrett depend on them for a political career.

You forgot about Pringle and Coppinger

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0402/breaking7.html

oscarBravo

stevedublin wrote: »

Yes, it won't go away.
No, it is not idiotic.
You can't hide the truth, people are not stupid.

If someone continually and wilfully ignores the fact that our structural deficit - the difference between our tax revenue and our spending on (mostly) public service pay and social welfare - outweighs the cost of bondholder payments by a factor of nineteen to one and carps on and on about the latter while blithely ignoring the former - what word would you use to describe that?

JustinDee

djpbarry wrote: »

Some people are - Joe Higgins and Richard Boyd-Barrett depend on them for a political career.

Lovely delivery!

meglome

stevedublin wrote: »

Yes, it won't go away.
No, it is not idiotic.
You can't hide the truth, people are not stupid.

Well perhaps people are stupid.

Some facts.

• 95% of the 14 billion we’re borrowing this year is for our spending deficit is not going to pay for bank debt. It’s just going to fund government services etc. That is a fact.
• The majority of the money we’ve borrowed full stop is for our overspending and not the banks. That is a fact.
• Even if we never made another payment to a bank or never made a payment in the first place we’d still have borrowed the majority of the money. That is a fact.
• Fianna Fail got rid of the sustainable domestic rates to buy an election in 1974 and with the many other tax deceases they have brought in to buy other elections we now do not have a sustainable tax base. That is a fact.

If we do a simple counterfactual and magic away the €62.5 billion we have pumped into the banks, the projected deficit for 2012 would fall from €13.6 billion to €12.8 billion or 8.0% of GDP. Eliminating the effect of the bank payments would knock 5% off the deficit; 95% of next year’s deficit is not related to the bank payments.

It is impossible to be human and not to be furious about this. But anger – righteous or otherwise – should not cloud analysis. However understandable, that has happened in the debate on bank debt.

Three claims are frequently made:

• Most public debt is a result of taking on banking debt;
• The economic and budgetary outlook would be transformed if banking debt could be offloaded;
• A bailout would not have been needed had it not been for socialised banking debt.

These claims are, respectively, plain wrong, wrong and debatable.

Links... http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0323/1224313766388.html and http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2011/11/deficit-and-banks.html

later12

The problem with statements like the above is that they put the cost of things like the ELG at €0.00

meglome

later12 wrote: »

The problem with statements like the above is that they put the cost of things like the ELG at €0.00

Sure, not trying to do an exact analysis of what happened or is happening, just trying to dispel some myths. Myths which are repeated ad nauseum.

Wibbs

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not seeing a contradiction.

Look closer then. djpbarry was horrified at the very suggestion that anybody other than those living in "absolutely massive" houses would be paying that. Well if you have a semi dee over 300 K then look out, you will be paying over a grand. Even with the downturn that's a lot of households. Secondly I said "in the not too distant future". The tax commissions recommendations are a kick off and will very likely go higher and that was the bet I was placing and I reckon my money is pretty safe.

oscarBravo wrote: »

As opposed to a car tax, which has decreased year on year since its introduction?

Links please. Specifically show me the falling tax rates of a car of the same non diesel/hybrid engine size over the last decade. Good luck with that. Indeed put the same statement in the Motors forum and await the brickbats.

Jesus wept, that idiotic meme just won't go away, will it?

Agree 100% with you here OB. It's got nada to do with the banks. That's a separate issue entirely. EDIT meglome covered it perfectly

djpbarry wrote: »

Hang on there now – I didn’t say that. I’m not saying it’s brilliant, I’m just saying it’s nowhere near as bad as some people like to think it is. By OECD standards, it’s fairly middle-of-the-road based on most indicators.

If you consider having the worst ratio of consultants/specialised scanners to patients in the western world, never mind one of the highest ratios of admin to medical staff middle of the road I think we're done here.

I’m going to defer to the CSO on this – 2-3 is closer to average than 3-4.

You pointed out the cso's figures were according to the census, the average dwelling in Ireland has only 5-6 rooms in total. Did you read the parameters of the question on the census? It said do NOT count bathrooms, toilets, kitchenettes, utility rooms and various others. So lets look at an average 3 bed semi in the sprawl that is Irish suburbia. Three rooms upstairs, down stairs another three(front and back rooms and kitchen). That makes 6 in total.

stevedublin

meglome wrote: »

Sure, not trying to do an exact analysis of what happened or is happening,

Thats for sure.

I can see you are good at inventing excuses and distorting facts, well done.
Do you intend staying in this country for the next few years?
I hope you won't mind paying punitive taxes or the country enduring massive govt spending cuts to pay for the bad investment decisions of international financial institutions then.

oscarBravo

Wibbs wrote: »

Look closer then. djpbarry was horrified at the very suggestion that anybody other than those living in "absolutely massive" houses would be paying that. Well if you have a semi dee over 300 K then look out, you will be paying over a grand. Even with the downturn that's a lot of households. Secondly I said "in the not too distant future". The tax commissions recommendations are a kick off and will very likely go higher and that was the bet I was placing and I reckon my money is pretty safe.

If it doesn't come from property taxation - which, whether you choose to quibble about the term or not, is a wealth tax - it will have to come from income tax, which is a disincentive to employment, or from VAT and other consumption taxes, which are a disincentive to economic activity.

It still amazes me that the most vocal opponents of a wealth tax in this country are the loony left.

Links please. Specifically show me the falling tax rates of a car of the same non diesel/hybrid engine size over the last decade. Good luck with that. Indeed put the same statement in the Motors forum and await the brickbats.

Your irony detector is broken

stevedublin wrote: »

I can see you are good at inventing excuses and distorting facts, well done.

Would it be better if he was adept at avoiding any questions that would challenge his narrative?

djpbarry

Wibbs wrote: »

djpbarry was horrified at the very suggestion that anybody other than those living in "absolutely massive" houses would be paying that.

That was a poor choice of words on my part. My point was that the vast majority of properties in the country will not be taxed at anything close to €1k per annum.

Wibbs wrote: »

Well if you have a semi dee over 300 K then look out, you will be paying over a grand. Even with the downturn that's a lot of households.

The Commission on Taxation suggested a tax >€1k for properties valued in excess of €450k.

Wibbs wrote: »

If you consider having the worst ratio of consultants/specialised scanners to patients in the western world...

Utter nonsense – for example, Ireland has more “specialised scanners” (CT, MRI) per head of population than the UK. I couldn’t be bothered going into this any further and it’s not really relevant to the discussion anyway.

Wibbs wrote: »

You pointed out the cso's figures were according to the census, the average dwelling in Ireland has only 5-6 rooms in total. Did you read the parameters of the question on the census? It said do NOT count bathrooms, toilets, kitchenettes, utility rooms and various others.

Indeed it did.

Wibbs wrote: »

So lets look at an average 3 bed semi in the sprawl that is Irish suburbia. Three rooms upstairs, down stairs another three(front and back rooms and kitchen). That makes 6 in total.

Well done – how does that contradict what I said?

later12

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it doesn't come from property taxation - which, whether you choose to quibble about the term or not, is a wealth tax - it will have to come from income tax, which is a disincentive to employment, or from VAT and other consumption taxes, which are a disincentive to economic activity.

It still amazes me that the most vocal opponents of a wealth tax in this country are the loony left.

What still amazes me is this belief that any household tax is not a disincentive to consume, and is somehow better than a consumption tax in that respect.

If Biddy spends €1000 today on a property tax, how is she going to make up the balance of her planned expenses? With magic dust? Of course not. Biddy will simply consume less to balance her budget.

Extra household taxes are largely un-productive in recessions like ours.

stevedublin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would it be better if he was adept at avoiding any questions that would challenge his narrative?

Not really, I just want people to know the truth - if there were no bank bailouts we wouldn't be having this household charge/property tax.
Sorry if i dont have a time machine to be able to back that up.

stevedublin

oscarBravo wrote: »

It still amazes me that the most vocal opponents of a wealth tax in this country are the loony left.

If the middle classes were to be forced to leave the country because of this soon-to-be property tax, then there would be no-one left to support welfare entitlements or help create jobs of those who traditionallly vote for the "loony left".

relax carry on

stevedublin wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would it be better if he was adept at avoiding any questions that would challenge his narrative?

Not really, I just want people to know the truth - if there were no bank bailouts we wouldn't be having this household charge/property tax.
Sorry if i dont have a time machine to be able to back that up.

So the pretty large difference between what the state takes in taxes and what it spends has nothing to do with the introduction of a new tax to maybe cover a small portion of that difference?

oscarBravo

later12 wrote: »

What still amazes me is this belief that any household tax is not a disincentive to consume, and is somehow better than a consumption tax in that respect.

That's not an argument against a property tax; that's an argument against any tax increases whatsoever, and therefore an argument for swingeing cuts to public sector pay and social welfare.

If you have a recipe for fixing our structural deficit that doesn't involve taking money out of the economy in any way, it would be interesting to hear it.

stevedublin wrote: »

Not really, I just want people to know the truth - if there were no bank bailouts we wouldn't be having this household charge/property tax.
Sorry if i dont have a time machine to be able to back that up.

You don't need a time machine. You just need to open your mind.

For example, how are bank bailouts responsible for the fact that the difference between our spending on public sector pay and social welfare on the one hand, and tax receipts on the other, will amount to some fourteen billion euros this year?

stevedublin wrote: »

If the middle classes were to be forced to leave the country because of this soon-to-be property tax, then there would be no-one left to support welfare entitlements or help create jobs of those who traditionallly vote for the "loony left".

I wouldn't worry too much about welfare entitlements - with the encouragement of the loony left, there won't be any money to pay for them.

stevedublin

relax carry on wrote: »

So the pretty large difference between what the state takes in taxes and what it spends has nothing to do with the introduction of a new tax to maybe cover a small portion of that difference?

Not sure what it is your are asking.
Government spending has increased as a result of the bank bailouts so requiring this new tax.
Its not that complicated really, but people want to make it complicated to hide this inalienable truth.

later12

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not an argument against a property tax; that's an argument against any tax increases whatsoever

Actually it was a reply to your statement that "If it doesn't come from property taxation - which, whether you choose to quibble about the term or not, is a wealth tax - it will have to come from income tax, which is a disincentive to employment, or from VAT and other consumption taxes, which are a disincentive to economic activity."

,

and therefore an argument for swingeing cuts to public sector pay and social welfare.

I think people are probably bored of me re-posting papers on why revenue raising measures are less effective than expenditure cuts, but I can do it again if you'd like. I'm certainly not an apologist for such inexcusable expenditure.

If you have a recipe for fixing our structural deficit that doesn't involve taking money out of the economy in any way, it would be interesting to hear it.

Unabashed straw man there. While expenditure cuts can cause short term declines in domestic demand, they have been shown to be ultimately expansionary,not least in our own case.

Bullseye1

JustinDee wrote: »

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.

If you buy shares on the stock exchange at €5.00 euro a share and in a weeks time they are worth €2.00 a share. Sure its an asset but you have lost money on it. Regardless of when you sell. Now or in 20 years time you have lost money. How is this so difficult to understand.

Godge

Bullseye1 wrote: »

If you buy shares on the stock exchange at €5.00 euro a share and in a weeks time they are worth €2.00 a share. Sure its an asset but you have lost money on it. Regardless of when you sell. Now or in 20 years time you have lost money. How is this so difficult to understand.

No you haven't lost money, not now. In 20 years time, those shares may be worth €1,000.00 a share and you will have made money.

The point about property is that it is a long-term investment. If the value falls in the short-term, that does not mean you will lose money in the long-term.

stevedublin

oscarBravo wrote: »

For example, how are bank bailouts responsible for the fact that the difference between our spending on public sector pay and social welfare on the one hand, and tax receipts on the other, will amount to some fourteen billion euros this year?

The money used to borrow for the bank bailouts could have been used to help plug this gap without taxing the family home.
There are other ways to raise taxes that relate to the taxpayers ability to pay e.g. raise income tax or VAT.

Bullseye1

Godge wrote: »

No you haven't lost money, not now. In 20 years time, those shares may be worth €1,000.00 a share and you will have made money.

The point about property is that it is a long-term investment. If the value falls in the short-term, that does not mean you will lose money in the long-term.

How can you say they will be worth €1000 in a years time? This is pure speculation. Do you really expect those apartments sold in Dublin for 800,000 and now worth 300,000 to be worth 800,000 in 25-30 years time?