New Household Tax - Boycott

alejandro1977

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.

are also planning to boycott income tax? If not why not?

OhNoYouDidn't

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well a lot of Barristers never make it and spend their lives as office admin but applying your point to say 'consultants' or any high earners - they already pay income tax which is in proportion to their income.

They do. Its a progressive tax.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Not all taxes should be based on income. Could you imagine VAT changed for your income?

No, hence it's called VAT.

Economists have always argued against sales taxes on their inherent unfairness. There is also a reason there is no VAT on food and medicine by the way.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

A tax system should be a split between income and consumer usage. I have no problem with that.

You think people 'consume' their family home?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

A TV license which is more than the first round of property tax has nothing to do with your income. It is also far more unfair because you pay even if you never watch RTE.

But you can chose not to watch TV. You can't really chose not to have a family home.

I understand the pragmatic argument, even if I disagree with it. You actively welcome a regressive tax on homes that can see you lose the deeds if you cannot or will not pay it. And spare me the waffle that its only €100. You know as well as I do it will be increased and increased a lot when they get the infrastructure in place to do so.

alejandro1977

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

They do. Its a progressive tax.



No, hence it's called VAT.

Economists have always argued against sales taxes on their inherent unfairness. There is also a reason there is no VAT on food and medicine by the way.



You think people 'consume' their family home?

Links to your economists?

Actually many economists favour VAT as it is a consumption tax - in the US it's regarded as politically unpopular to introduce a new tax even though it's favoured by many experts.

Actually you do consume your home - you can chose to live modestly or in a big FO Celtic Tiger MacMansion complete with Jacuzzi

Tim Robbins

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But you can chose not to watch TV. You can't really chose not to have a family home.

Of course you can choose. You can rent.

Do you believe Car tax is fair because you choose to have a car? Ok so say you choose not to have a car. Following that logic, public transport should be free.

I understand the pragmatic argument, even if I disagree with it. You actively welcome a regressive tax on homes that can see you lose the deeds if you cannot or will not pay it. And spare me the waffle that its only €100. You know as well as I do it will be increased and increased a lot when they get the infrastructure in place to do so.

Yes. Hopefully it will be increased.

If you cannot pay because you are on unemployed - fair enough. Otherwise you pay for it.

It's extremely unlikely to push anyone into poverty. I think people just don't like the idea of it because they hate paying any form of tax. Particularly ones that are difficult to avoid.

Don't you think it's funny that people are going mad over a tax that is 100 euro when there is already a tax for 150 odd euro for one contraption in their house.

Property tax is extremly fair. Overall it's a tiny percentage of the capital value of the house.

Sizzler

Have to say out of sheer principle I wont be paying it. I see theres people on here saying its only €9 or so a month...so what? Its a tax that will be pi**ed up against the wall.......just like my private pension money was raided recently, for what, to reduce VAT so the majority of businesses could trouser the 4.5% ! F**k that.

Anybody lucky enough to be working has got USC as well as tax credit narrowing, worse already yet to come next year and now they want another few quid with water charges also looming!! No way !

Are they really going to take 100,000 people to court for non payment, thats ball park and a very modest figure but not a bad starting point, I can see at least 100k of people not paying it.

This isnt a brainwashing exercise its just my own opinion, good luck to anybody who will pay it when they get the bill

Tim Robbins

Sizzler wrote: »

Have to say out of sheer principle I wont be paying it. I see theres people on here saying its only €9 or so a month...so what? Its a tax that will be pi**ed up against the wall.......just like my private pension money was raided recently, for what, to reduce VAT so the majority of businesses could trouser the 4.5% ! F**k that.

Anybody lucky enough to be working has got USC as well as tax credit narrowing, worse already yet to come next year and now they want another few quid with water charges also looming!! No way !

Are they really going to take 100,000 people to court for non payment, thats ball park and a very modest figure but not a bad starting point, I can see at least 100k of people not paying it.

This isnt a brainwashing exercise its just my own opinion, good luck to anybody who will pay it when they get the bill

Do you pay your tv license?

bmaxi

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Of course you can choose. You can rent.

Do you believe Car tax is fair because you choose to have a car? Ok so say you choose not to have a car. Following that logic, public transport should be free.


Yes. Hopefully it will be increased.

If you cannot pay because you are on unemployed - fair enough. Otherwise you pay for it.

It's extremely unlikely to push anyone into poverty. I think people just don't like the idea of it because they hate paying any form of tax. Particularly ones that are difficult to avoid.

Don't you think it's funny that people are going mad over a tax that is 100 euro when there is already a tax for 150 odd euro for one contraption in their house.

Property tax is extremly fair. Overall it's a tiny percentage of the capital value of the house.

You don't pay car tax for owning a car, you pay it for using it on the road. If you don't want to watch TV then don't buy one and you won't have to pay a licence but who can do without a home?
I can't believe you still don't get this, I have bought and paid for my house so therefore it is mine. The Government are saying that if I don't pay this tax, for whatever reason, not just if I choose not to, they can take my house. You still seem to be hung up on the €100 thing, Phil Hogan is on record as saying he can't guarantee it will still be €100 next year and experts expect it to double on an annual basis for the next 4 years at least, that will make it €1600 in the life of this Government.
I don't know where you got the impression the unemployed are to be spared payment of the tax, I hadn't heard that, AFAIK if you have bought your house you are liable for the tax, unemployed or not.
It has also been said that it is a temporary tax, so was income tax.

Tim Robbins

bmaxi wrote: »

You don't pay car tax for owning a car, you pay it for using it on the road. If you don't want to watch TV then don't buy one and you won't have to pay a licence but who can do without a home?
I can't believe you still don't get this, I have bought and paid for my house so therefore it is mine. The Government are saying that if I don't pay this tax, for whatever reason, not just if I choose not to, they can take my house. You still seem to be hung up on the €100 thing, Phil Hogan is on record as saying he can't guarantee it will still be €100 next year and experts expect it to double on an annual basis for the next 4 years at least, that will make it €1600 in the life of this Government.
I don't know where you got the impression the unemployed are to be spared payment of the tax, I hadn't heard that, AFAIK if you have bought your house you are liable for the tax, unemployed or not.
It has also been said that it is a temporary tax, so was income tax.

The state comes first, you + me second. Why? Because without a state you and me have no rights. Without a state you cannot own your house or anything. The owning of a house is contigent on a hole host of things that others have to do first. You don't seem to recognise this.

So even if you somehow never cost your local authority a penny, you still owe the state something for privilege of been able to buy a house and have it legally in your name.

The sooner this tax comes in the better. Irish people think too much me fein and need to get back to thinking of the idea of a state.

DublinWriter

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The state comes first, you + me second. Why? Because without a state you and me have no rights. Without a state you cannot own your house or anything. The owning of a house is contigent on a hole host of things that others have to do first. You don't seem to recognise this.

I'm sorry, but that argument is just another way of reduxing the 'my country, right or wrong' stance, and how wonderfully well that has worked for the good ol' USA, both left and right.

The state is not a separate entity, without you and me there is no 'state'.

I don't remember giving the state licence to bail out banks and multi-millionaire property developers. Sorry, did I miss a meeting or something?

Your argument is so much apologist nonsense. "Oh the Government f*cked up, now it's only right and proper that we foot the bill...if I don't do as they say then they'll rescind my rights!".

'fess up and tell us are you actually a homeowner paying a mortgage because I'd be really shocked if someone who was could defend this.

bmaxi

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The state comes first, you + me second. Why? Because without a state you and me have no rights. Without a state you cannot own your house or anything. The owning of a house is contigent on a hole host of things that others have to do first. You don't seem to recognise this.

So even if you somehow never cost your local authority a penny, you still owe the state something for privilege of been able to buy a house and have it legally in your name.

The sooner this tax comes in the better. Irish people think too much me fein and need to get back to thinking of the idea of a state.

Wow, that's some philosophy, I think you've managed to marry parts of Thatcher, Marx and Hitler. Without me and others like me the State could not exist, not the other way around.
The only person I owe anything to for providing my house is me, any debts to any other parties have been discharged. Are you saying I owe my right to exist to the state?

mikom

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The state comes first, you + me second. Why? Because without a state you and me have no rights. Without a state you cannot own your house or anything. The owning of a house is contigent on a hole host of things that others have to do first. You don't seem to recognise this.

So even if you somehow never cost your local authority a penny, you still owe the state something for privilege of been able to buy a house and have it legally in your name.

The sooner this tax comes in the better. Irish people think too much me fein and need to get back to thinking of the idea of a state.

Overheal

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The state comes first, you + me second. Why? Because without a state you and me have no rights. Without a state you cannot own your house or anything. The owning of a house is contigent on a hole host of things that others have to do first. You don't seem to recognise this.

So even if you somehow never cost your local authority a penny, you still owe the state something for privilege of been able to buy a house and have it legally in your name.

The sooner this tax comes in the better. Irish people think too much me fein and need to get back to thinking of the idea of a state.

I'm really tempted to just put the youtube of the Billy Madison debate response on here.

The State cannot exist without the People. The People can exist without the State. Your Rights exist because People allow them to. It's true! I have a Constitution that says the Patriot Act shouldn't exist, but the Constitution isn't breaking out of it's glass case to facepunch the director of the CIA.

You don't need a State to own a house. If there was no State tomorrow you would not suddenly lose the ability to go into the woods, cut some lumber, and construct a domicile.

Oh what the hell..

"Oh the Government f*cked up, now it's only right and proper that we foot the bill"

Unfortunately I am still in agreement with that. So long as we choose to operate Democratic societies and Democratically Elect people to take seat at the higher functions of those societies, and authorize them to take our money collectively and use it for out sovereign interests, we do have an unfortunate responsibility to pay up if those that are elected rack up sovereign debt. Which is why it's so strange that in more cases Politicians aren't sacked decisively for fiscal failure.

Pete_Cavan

bmaxi wrote: »

You don't pay car tax for owning a car, you pay it for using it on the road. If you don't want to watch TV then don't buy one and you won't have to pay a licence but who can do without a home?
I can't believe you still don't get this, I have bought and paid for my house so therefore it is mine. The Government are saying that if I don't pay this tax, for whatever reason, not just if I choose not to, they can take my house.

The property tax is a charge to cover the cost of providing services which are provided to you by the state (ie. water, sewerage, Gardai, hospitals, education, postal service, fire service, etc.). If anything it will be fairer than motor tax, which you have no problem with. We can no longer borrow to pay for these services so we are going to have to pay for them through increased taxation. Paying for these services directly for usage would totally defeat the point of taxation so the tax will be levied against the value of your house/site. The fact that you have bought and paid for your house is irrelevant, you still cost the state money and that money has to come from somewhere.

And nowhere does it say the government can take your house for failure to pay, they will be able to pursue you through the courts for payment and AFAIK any outstanding bill will have to be paid before you can sell the house, but in any case, you still own the house.

bmaxi

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The property tax is a charge to cover the cost of providing services which are provided to you by the state (ie. water, sewerage, Gardai, hospitals, education, postal service, fire service, etc.). If anything it will be fairer than motor tax, which you have no problem with. We can no longer borrow to pay for these services so we are going to have to pay for them through increased taxation. Paying for these services directly for usage would totally defeat the point of taxation so the tax will be levied against the value of your house/site. The fact that you have bought and paid for your house is irrelevant, you still cost the state money and that money has to come from somewhere.

And nowhere does it say the government can take your house for failure to pay, they will be able to pursue you through the courts for payment and AFAIK any outstanding bill will have to be paid before you can sell the house, but in any case, you still own the house.

As I've already stated on several occasions, I have no objection to service charges.

thebman

The problem with this household tax is really just transparency TBH. Show us where the money is going in the local authorities. Where will it be spent so we can oversee it properly.

Without that then there is again no accountability and we will end up with the same massively inefficient services we have today.

tayto lover

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The property tax is a charge to cover the cost of providing services which are provided to you by the state (ie. water, sewerage, Gardai, hospitals, education, postal service, fire service, etc.). If anything it will be fairer than motor tax, which you have no problem with. We can no longer borrow to pay for these services so we are going to have to pay for them through increased taxation. Paying for these services directly for usage would totally defeat the point of taxation so the tax will be levied against the value of your house/site. The fact that you have bought and paid for your house is irrelevant, you still cost the state money and that money has to come from somewhere.

And nowhere does it say the government can take your house for failure to pay, they will be able to pursue you through the courts for payment and AFAIK any outstanding bill will have to be paid before you can sell the house, but in any case, you still own the house.

So what is income tax for or the U.S.C. or V.A.T., P.R.S.I. levies etc etc. ?

Bens

tayto lover wrote: »

So what is income tax for or the U.S.C. or V.A.T., P.R.S.I. levies etc etc. ?

Its only to pay for the services used by those who dont actually own the house

If you own a house apparently your income tax doesnt go towards services. Only if you are renting.

Tim Robbins

DublinWriter wrote: »

Your argument is so much apologist nonsense. "Oh the Government f*cked up, now it's only right and proper that we foot the bill...if I don't do as they say then they'll rescind my rights!".

We all f*cked up because we are the state - like you say. The more taxes and the more pain we can spread the better - otherwise we will never learn.

We have well over 400K unemployed and there are 200 people in the department of education on 150K a year + perks, the average salary in RTE is apparently 65K a year, and the average salary in some of the other semi states is in 6 figures.

People need to wake up and I see hitting everyone with taxes and employed a system of 'you want a state - you pay for a state the way' to go.

If people are angry about property good. Maybe they'll start putting pressure on their local authorities to actual do some work. Maybe they'll support more right wing parties who wish to set goals on people instead of the current spectrum who come out with populist cr*p.

'fess up and tell us are you actually a homeowner paying a mortgage because I'd be really shocked if someone who was could defend this.

Yeah. Homeowner and down about 200K.

bmaxi wrote:

Are you saying I owe my right to exist to the state?

No you owe that to nature.

Tim Robbins

DublinWriter wrote: »

Your argument is so much apologist nonsense. "Oh the Government f*cked up, now it's only right and proper that we foot the bill...if I don't do as they say then they'll rescind my rights!".

We all f*cked up because we are the state - like you say. The more taxes and the more pain we can spread the better - otherwise we will never learn.

We have well over 400K unemployed and there are 200 people in the department of education on 150K a year + perks, the average salary in RTE is apparently 65K a year, and the average salary in some of the other semi states is in 6 figures.

People need to wake up and I see hitting everyone with taxes and employed a system of 'you want a state - you pay for a state the way' to go.

If people are angry about property good. Maybe they'll start putting pressure on their local authorities to actual do some work. Maybe they'll support more right wing parties who wish to set goals on people instead of the current spectrum who come out with populist cr*p.

'fess up and tell us are you actually a homeowner paying a mortgage because I'd be really shocked if someone who was could defend this.

Yeah. Homeowner and down about 200K.

bmaxi wrote:

Are you saying I owe my right to exist to the state?

No you owe that to nature.

Monty Burnz

I've heard loads of people whining about this new tax, but I've heard no suggestions as to how the government is supposed to close the gap between what we are spending and what we are taking in.

Those who oppose this tax rise and those to come: should we close the hospitals? Or the schools? Or stop paying the dole?

Or should we default and go down the road of chaos for a few years?

hatrickpatrick

Einhard wrote: »

The government are slashing expenditure and are being condemned for it. The they seek to raise monies, and are condemned for it. You can;t have it every which way.

How about they slash expenditure by cutting 100% of any money they put aside for rescuing corrupt, broke private companies (banks) and use it for what the people of this country actually want it to be used for?

I don't mind paying tax if it's helping my fellow citizens. I do mind it when it's bailing out private investors who are butthurt that sometimes when you gamble, you LOSE.

Monty Burnz

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How about they slash expenditure by cutting 100% of any money they put aside for rescuing corrupt, broke private companies (banks) and use it for what the people of this country actually want it to be used for?

That money is gone. Thanks Fianna Failure.

Bens

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I've heard loads of people whining about this new tax, but I've heard no suggestions as to how the government is supposed to close the gap between what we are spending and what we are taking in.

Those who oppose this tax rise and those to come: should we close the hospitals? Or the schools? Or stop paying the dole?

Or should we default and go down the road of chaos for a few years?

Here are some suggestions ... again.

1 - Get rid of all property related tax reliefs. Including Rent relief for tenants, mortgage interest relief.

2 - Make a proper council tax where everyone who uses the services (lives in the area) pays the same. You can collect much more than just a property tax on the owner.

3 - Remove this stupid pension grab tax and spread it among all tax payers, instead of just those who thought ahead and tried to look after their old age.

4 - Have a voluntary 5% solidarity tax. So people who dont pay it can shut the fcuk up asking everyone else to pay more so they dont have to.

Monty Burnz

Bens wrote: »

Here are some suggestions ... again.

1 - Get rid of all property related tax reliefs. Including Rent relief for tenants, mortgage interest relief.

Agreed. But it's not going to make a huge difference. Also rent relief for tenants costs very little, but serves to let Revenue know which houses are let out without paying people to investigate.

Bens wrote: »

2 - Make a proper council tax where everyone who uses the services (lives in the area) pays the same. You can collect much more than just a property tax on the owner.

Again, I'd agree - but this is a cheap way of raising money quickly. Council tax will be more complicated to introduce.

Bens wrote: »

3 - Remove this stupid pension grab tax and spread it among all tax payers, instead of just those who thought ahead and tried to look after their old age.

Agreed again. But this will necessitate larger tax rises/cuts elsewhere.

Bens wrote: »

4 - Have a voluntary 5% solidarity tax. So people who dont pay it can shut the fcuk up asking everyone else to pay more so they dont have to.

Nobody will pay this of course. Your other suggestions have merit, but altogether they'd still make only a small contribution to bridging the budget deficit.

Bens

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Agreed. But it's not going to make a huge difference. Also rent relief for tenants costs very little, but serves to let Revenue know which houses are let out without paying people to investigate.

Again, I'd agree - but this is a cheap way of raising money quickly. Council tax will be more complicated to introduce.

Agreed again. But this will necessitate larger tax rises/cuts elsewhere.

Nobody will pay this of course. Your other suggestions have merit, but altogether they'd still make only a small contribution to bridging the budget deficit.

How many tax payers in the country? Multiply that by €500 a year for the council tax.

How many tax payers either rent and get €400 each per year, or get mortgage interest relief and get about €400 each year on average too? Multiply those numbers by €400 per year each.

That is not a small amount of money.

Which do you think would be more? The number arrived at above or the number of dwellings multiplied by €100 a year? Does anyone seriously thing that the property tax, payable only by homeowners is going to make any dent at all.

And as for that old chestnut of the rent relief serving to let Revenue know which houses are let out without paying people to investigate, consistently wheeled out by those who rent. A once off reward of €500 if you report your landlord and he is convicted. Payable when what he owes revenue is paid.
Saving €400 for each tax paying renter in the country is really a hell of a lot more cost effective than catching the landlords dodging their tax. And it costs NOTHING to do.

Tim Robbins

Bens wrote: »

How many tax payers in the country? Multiply that by €500 a year for the council tax.

How many tax payers either rent and get €400 each per year, or get mortgage interest relief and get about €400 each year on average too? Multiply those numbers by €400 per year each.

That is not a small amount of money.

Which do you think would be more? The number arrived at above or the number of dwellings multiplied by €100 a year? Does anyone seriously thing that the property tax, payable only by homeowners is going to make any dent at all.

And as for that old chestnut of the rent relief serving to let Revenue know which houses are let out without paying people to investigate, consistently wheeled out by those who rent. A once off reward of €500 if you report your landlord and he is convicted. Payable when what he owes revenue is paid.
Saving €400 for each tax paying renter in the country is really a hell of a lot more cost effective than catching the landlords dodging their tax. And it costs NOTHING to do.

I disagree with this idea. It means those who bought houses pre-boom and are living mortgage free have nothing to pay.

By getting rid of mortgage relief you are making it harder for those who up to their eyes in debt to paid their debts off. Long term I'd agree to ditch this relief.

Bukit Timah

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The property tax is a charge to cover the cost of providing services which are provided to you by the state (ie. water, sewerage, Gardai, hospitals, education, postal service, fire service, etc.). If anything it will be fairer than motor tax, which you have no problem with. We can no longer borrow to pay for these services so we are going to have to pay for them through increased taxation. Paying for these services directly for usage would totally defeat the point of taxation so the tax will be levied against the value of your house/site. The fact that you have bought and paid for your house is irrelevant, you still cost the state money and that money has to come from somewhere.

And nowhere does it say the government can take your house for failure to pay, they will be able to pursue you through the courts for payment and AFAIK any outstanding bill will have to be paid before you can sell the house, but in any case, you still own the house.

Water and sewage will already have to be paid for separately even if you provide your own septic tank you still have to pay for it, so why do these need to be paid for a second time using property tax?

Local authorities can just cut non essential services, cut wastage and they will save a lot more than some poxy property tax will bring in. In holland it only brings in a miserable 8 or 9% at similar levels they are planning to bring in here. So the local authority spends a massive amount of money but their work is hardly visible, so real big time cuts should be looked at first before burdening people with this tax.

The property tax also does absolutely nothing to discourage people to rely on the local authority's services, in fact it encourages it since they'll want value for money. So in return for your slight increase in funds after bringing in your hugely unpopular tax you will have to deal with a more dependent and mollified population.

You say yourself we can no longer borrow to pay for this stuff but bringing in a tax that will only cover about 1% of the amount being borrowed isn't going to do much to solve the problem. Really they should be looking at what services can be provided with the current amount of money coming in and in the short term cut everything else.

Tbh the whole local authority thing is just something they say to make the tax more acceptable. There is a perceived lack of local services in Ireland. People are supposed to think "yay we're getting more services now that we'll be paying for them!" but really there was no problem ever paying for them until the government bailed out the banks.

Pete_Cavan

Bukit Timah wrote: »

Water and sewage will already have to be paid for separately even if you provide your own septic tank you still have to pay for it, so why do these need to be paid for a second time using property tax?

There are many other services which the state provides besides water and sewerage. Most of the services the state provides cannot be charged for by users only because they would be prohibitively expensive and we would be left without vital services.

For example;
If the council calculated the total cost of the fire service (including manpower, training, equipment, infrastructure, etc.) over a year and divided that cost by the number of call outs they had that year, then sent a bill out to everyone who used the service for their proportion of the bill, we would end up with a situation where it is too expensive to use the fire service and people would be wishing the cost of it was spread out over the population in some kind of "household charge".

Bukit Timah wrote: »

Local authorities can just cut non essential services, cut wastage and they will save a lot more than some poxy property tax will bring in. In holland it only brings in a miserable 8 or 9% at similar levels they are planning to bring in here. So the local authority spends a massive amount of money but their work is hardly visible, so real big time cuts should be looked at first before burdening people with this tax.

Agreed, but try explaining this to public sector unions who oppose even the most rational of changes (time off to cash non-existent cheques, 70 days holidays to get used to retirement in FAS, etc.)

Bukit Timah wrote: »

The property tax also does absolutely nothing to discourage people to rely on the local authority's services, in fact it encourages it since they'll want value for money. So in return for your slight increase in funds after bringing in your hugely unpopular tax you will have to deal with a more dependent and mollified population.

What is wrong with depending on the state for certain services? Would you prefer only private companies to provide postal service, fire service, etc. and cherry pick the profitable areas and forget about everyone else? What about those who cant afford to pay for the services then, should these services only be available to those who have the disposable income to pay for them directly? Taxation is basically a redistribution of wealth to provide a basic level of service to the entire population. Everyone is dependent on the state run fire service in the event of a fire - how does this create a "dependent and mollified population"?

Bukit Timah wrote: »

You say yourself we can no longer borrow to pay for this stuff but bringing in a tax that will only cover about 1% of the amount being borrowed isn't going to do much to solve the problem. Really they should be looking at what services can be provided with the current amount of money coming in and in the short term cut everything else.

Cutting services to match our current level of income would mean sever cuts across the board. That would (rightly or wrongly) be seen as leaving the poor to rot while those who can afford it get to keep their comfortable lifestyle. This would be political suiside and will never happen. You also have to consider the deflationary effects such cuts would have on the economy.

Bukit Timah wrote: »

Tbh the whole local authority thing is just something they say to make the tax more acceptable. There is a perceived lack of local services in Ireland. People are supposed to think "yay we're getting more services now that we'll be paying for them!" but really there was no problem ever paying for them until the government bailed out the banks.

No. We had a €20bn budget deficit before we put a penny into the banks. Borrowing €20bn every year is not sustainable for such a small economy regardless of any bank bailout.

AlekSmart

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How about they slash expenditure by cutting 100% of any money they put aside for rescuing corrupt, broke private companies (banks) and use it for what the people of this country actually want it to be used for?

I don't mind paying tax if it's helping my fellow citizens. I do mind it when it's bailing out private investors who are butthurt that sometimes when you gamble, you LOSE.

Well judging from this report,there's no shortage of entreprenurial types all keen to get their little bit of Irish Water action....

http://www.herald.ie/news/battle-to-control-our-water-supply-2848533.html


Interesting to note that it's about a wee bit more than simply puttin in a meter.....there's long term gain to be found in them thar watery hills....

The company will be charged with rolling out water meters to more than one million homes from early 2012.

It will also have to put in place a system for water charges once they are introduced.

The bould Fergus O'Dowd appears to be quite a dab hand at keeping a straight face whilst buulshytting to the gallery too...

He added the National Pension Reserve Fund (Is there anything left in it ?) agreed to fund the meters.

"We can pay back the money over 10, 15 or 20 years, with the total figure as high as €1bn on an initial cost of €500m," Mr O'Dowd said.

Do I detect a "Back of an Envelope" tone here ?...Nah It could'nt be,sure haven't we paid for some of the best Water Liquidity Experts in the Universe to advise us Ted.... :eek: ?

The Government hired Price Waterhouse Coopers and lawyers McCann FitzGerald to carry out the consultation process.

PHeeeew...thank God for that built-in safeguard... :rolleyes:

origirover

Einhard wrote: »

!3theraven wrote: »

If you accept paying €9 a month now, do you think it will still be €9 a month the year after or two years from now? what will you do if and when it comes to €20 a month or more then that? its obvious the €100 a year charge is only a foot in the door tactic to get people to say that,s not much I can afford that, once you say that and accept it, just watch as the goverment rack up the property tax each and every year afterwards.

Its time to now to take a stand and refuse to pay any property tax, if we don,t do it now, we will look back in a good few years time when property tax could be say €1000 a year and wonder why didn,t we resist when they tried to get a foot in the door?

So you're going to protest now against a rather reasonable charge on the entire hypothetical scenario that it could be punitive in years to come? If that were the standard for outrage, we'd be marching against everything.

Einhard, you must be on 100000€ + year or your a party member or politician in disguise because NO ONE says what you do around here (Limerick) and boycotts will surge nationwide.

Ireland is a F.?)Ed up country because of individuals like Einhard, law abiding, subordinate and subserving. God help the 1strepublics and democracies if Einhard and the like were around, then again they were around and got their heads chopped off!!