Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are you going to pay the household charge? [Part 1]

Options
1…270271273275276…334

Comments

  • Options
    #8162
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    constitutionus wrote: »
    only if you drive it.

    you can leave it outside your gaff untaxed for years without someone banging on your door looking for it.

    Well, you could go live in a cave if you want to avoid property tax.

    Probably makes more sense than having a car you can't drive.


  • Options
    #8163
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    lugha wrote: »
    Silly is right! Most of us cannot do this with our cars either.

    Go on........


  • Options
    #8164
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Ghandee wrote: »
    Go on........
    See BF /\


  • Options
    #8165
    constitutionus
    Registered Users Posts: 7,988 ✭✭✭constitutionus


    black francis wrote: »
    Well, you could go live in a cave if you want to avoid property tax.

    Probably makes more sense than having a car you can't drive.


    if your unemployed and cant afford it at the time you'd STILL tax and drive a car?

    weirdo !

    :D


  • Options
    #8166
    eth0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,635 ✭✭✭eth0


    black francis wrote: »
    Well, you could go live in a cave if you want to avoid property tax.

    Probably makes more sense than having a car you can't drive.

    There are loads of cars like that around though, ones that are used but never see the public road, unused cars, ones that are only taxed for a few months of the year


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8167
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    eth0 wrote: »
    That’s the way it should be, none of this carry on with paying 100's every year to the govt just because you own a place.

    Well much of Europe somehow have got this all wrong, as did we before FF engaged in a bit of populism in the 1970s.

    Why is that the way it should be? A certain amount of revenue must be raised to run the state on behalf of the people (not to “pay” the government!!). I fail to see the wisdom in selecting one arbitrary source and insisting that it should be immune.

    I suspect this comes from the same line of thinking that some make about paying for water. We are not used to doing it so it is hard for some of us to contemplate that it is a sensible enough course of action. Probably, we haven’t got over the famine. :)

    And of course, much of those that oppose this charge insist that it is because it is unfair and not as a matter of principle (not that I believe them of course! :pac:).


  • Options
    #8168
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    lugha wrote: »
    See BF /\

    No, please , explain?

    I'm genuinely curious now......


  • Options
    #8169
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    lugha wrote: »
    Well much of Europe somehow have got this all wrong, as did we before FF engaged in a bit of populism in the 1970s.

    Somehow they even manage it north of the border. The sky still hasn't fallen down.


  • Options
    #8170
    steve9859
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭steve9859


    lugha wrote: »
    eth0 wrote: »
    That’s the way it should be, none of this carry on with paying 100's every year to the govt just because you own a place.

    Well much of Europe somehow have got this all wrong, as did we before FF engaged in a bit of populism in the 1970s.

    Why is that the way it should be? A certain amount of revenue must be raised to run the state on behalf of the people (not to “pay” the government!!). I fail to see the wisdom in selecting one arbitrary source and insisting that it should be immune.

    I suspect this comes from the same line of thinking that some make about paying for water. We are not used to doing it so it is hard for some of us to contemplate that it is a sensible enough course of action. Probably, we haven’t got over the famine. :)

    And of course, much of those that oppose this charge insist that it is because it is unfair and not as a matter of principle (not that I believe them of course! :pac:).

    I agree with almost all of that. And we need to tax a home and impose water charges, to balance the books, just like everyone else. But in the rest of Europe taxes are based on residence, not ownership. Much fairer if you buy the premise that the tax is to fund local services. I would not dispute a UK style 'council tax' but I do have issued with a property tax

    What FG is actually doing is akin to a wealth tax, but they've missed the fundamental point that property ownership and wealth are no longer one and the same like they were a generation ago


  • Options
    #8171
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    prinz wrote: »
    Somehow they even manage it north of the border. The sky still hasn't fallen down.

    I'm from the north, living down here for the last five years.

    I paid rates in the North, no argument there.
    I didn't pay for waste collection, doctor fee's, car tax was £115 a year, but I had no tolls to pay on top of this, no emergency service call out fees.

    I'm genuinely in shock that this comparison had to be explained over and over again.

    Rates, = paying for services (all services) up front
    Household charge/property tax = nothing for your money.

    They're not a like for like comparison FFS:mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8172
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    prinz wrote: »
    Somehow they even manage it north of the border. The sky still hasn't fallen down.

    They get something for their money. You're trying to compare a scam like this to a council tax.

    Customers

    We will ensure our primary focus is on delivering quality services

    Leadership

    LPS Managers will demonstrate clarity of purpose and inspire others

    Ethics

    We will deliver fair and equitable treatment for all

    Accountability

    We will be accountable to the Minister and the NI Assembly for the delivery of services and our performance

    Results

    We will use our resources efficiently to deliver the results required by our stakeholders


    An accountable service that delivers a quality service in a customer lead programme VS pissing money away faster than we can spend it then sticking your hands out for more. See the difference???


  • Options
    #8173
    goz83
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭goz83


    seamus wrote: »

    So in order to ethically claim you shouldn't pay, you would have to consume no public services, which means not leaving your property (and not having anyone access it either, in reality).

    Not exactly. Those who pay could use the public facilities to access the home of someone who doesn't. So where does all the income tax go? Oh right, the banks.


  • Options
    #8174
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    seamus wrote: »
    - "Nobody is paying it" (rates are apparently at nearly 25% today)
    - "They must send you a bill to make it legal"
    - "You only have to pay if you register"
    - "It's all to pay off the banks/IMF"
    - "Ministers homes are exempt"
    - "If you don't pay, the Government will be forced to drop it" (If the Government are forced to drop it, they will get the money out of you some other way. So you will pay this €100 eventually)
    - "If you don't know about it, you don't have to pay"
    MightyBouche wrote: »
    The exact same tactics as used by the "no" side of the Lisbon Treaty. Indeed, by many of the same people. Desperate,baseless attempts to threaten or scare people into an anti-governmental stance, successful only because the majority of people are apparently too lazy to engage their brains and work out the actual facts or reality of a situation for themselves.

    The origional lisbon referendum failed because of the arrogance of both the government, and most of the opposition, who thought it was too complex an issue for the electorate to understand. So, they thought, all they had to do was explain to the people that all they had to do was, what they were told, and vote yes.

    Then expressed dismay at the electorate "embarrassing" them in brussels, because they didn't understand what Lisbon was about.

    I don't remember any of the above points being used to defeat it though.
    MightyBouche wrote: »
    I cannot wait to see the sheer state of the people who turn up to protest at the FG Ard Fheis on Saturday, no doubt that Richard Boyd-Barrett and his band of grumbling, bitter tramps will be in attendance.

    They'll be a broad section of irish society there, so they won't all be "crusties" or "loonies".
    MightyBouche wrote: »
    It will be hilarious. I hear there'll be a free bar at the party too, so hopefully there'll be a few toasts made in the name of the hobos with their placards outside.

    I'm sure there will, you couldn't expect elected representatives to pay for their own drink or food, while they look down on the great unwashed. Good heavens, what next.?


  • Options
    #8175
    eth0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,635 ✭✭✭eth0


    lugha wrote: »
    Well much of Europe somehow have got this all wrong, as did we before FF engaged in a bit of populism in the 1970s.

    Why is that the way it should be? A certain amount of revenue must be raised to run the state on behalf of the people (not to “pay” the government!!). I fail to see the wisdom in selecting one arbitrary source and insisting that it should be immune.

    I suspect this comes from the same line of thinking that some make about paying for water. We are not used to doing it so it is hard for some of us to contemplate that it is a sensible enough course of action. Probably, we haven’t got over the famine. :)

    And of course, much of those that oppose this charge insist that it is because it is unfair and not as a matter of principle (not that I believe them of course! :pac:).

    Much of europe was once stuck for money and the governments there decided to carry out a similar power-grab and people didn't protest. In Greece they didn't want a property tax but had it foist upon them by the IMF like is being done to us.

    There is nothing sensible about it, the government might get their steady income from property tax but some people will have to move house over this because they cant afford the tax so they might up renting and they'll eventually be left with nothing. A tax that takes no regard to whether or not you are earning a lot or spending a lot is a very crude way of extracting money from the population.


  • Options
    #8176
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Ghandee wrote: »
    Rates, = paying for services (all services) up front
    Household charge/property tax = nothing for your money.
    They're not a like for like comparison FFS:mad:

    The household charge is going towards local government and contributing towards local government services.


  • Options
    #8177
    mconigol
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    lugha wrote: »
    Ah the mystical home reference again! I am perplexed as to why the "home" should be exempt from tax.

    Why not insist that you do not pay tax on your car, or your food, or clothes, or pretty much everything else? What exactly sets the home apart (and how have all of Europe got this so wrong?)

    And also, why does it matter then that this is an unjust or unfair tax, if there is some fundamental reason why the home should not be taxed?

    Because it's a home and it wrong to impose a charge on anybodies home especially in what is supposed to be a free country. It's very simple.

    A home isn't the same as a car or a pair of jeans ffs.


  • Options
    #8178
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    prinz wrote: »
    The household charge is going towards local government and contributing towards local government services.

    Care to back that up?


  • Options
    #8179
    mconigol
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    prinz wrote: »
    The household charge is going towards local government and contributing towards local government services.

    No it's not :rolleyes:

    Unless you're in a position to be making those kind of decisions??


  • Options
    #8180
    eth0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,635 ✭✭✭eth0


    prinz wrote: »
    The household charge is going towards local government and contributing towards local government services.

    Will you give up with that shoite. There is no sane person in the world who can honestly say they'll get 100e more worth of service off the council if they pay this.

    If the government would just default on a load of the debt it was after taking on we'd have none of this haphazard attempt at raising so much tax to pay for it all


  • Options
    #8181
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    prinz wrote: »
    The household charge is going towards local government and contributing towards local government services.

    Only because they reduced funding from central government by €170 million in order to pay unsecured secondary bondholders in our bankrupt banks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8182
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    Ghandee wrote: »
    I'm from the north, living down here for the last five years.

    I paid rates in the North, no argument there.
    I didn't pay for waste collection, doctor fee's, car tax was £115 a year, but I had no tolls to pay on top of this, no emergency service call out fees.

    I'm genuinely in shock that this comparison had to be explained over and over again.

    Rates, = paying for services (all services) up front
    Household charge/property tax = nothing for your money.

    They're not a like for like comparison FFS:mad:

    Yeah, you're right, we haven't got the rest of the UK to subsidise us.


  • Options
    #8183
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    eth0 wrote: »
    Will you give up with that shoite. There is no sane person in the world who can honestly say they'll get 100e more worth of service off the council if they pay this.

    You won't get 100e more, but maybe next year the service will be there at all. Our country is running a major deficit completely apart from the bank situation. How is the country to magically continue providing the same level of services at a loss year on year?


  • Options
    #8184
    Anyone
    Registered Users Posts: 3,376 ✭✭✭Anyone


    eth0 wrote: »
    Will you give up with that shoite. There is no sane person in the world who can honestly say they'll get 100e more worth of service off the council if they pay this.

    If the government would just default on a load of the debt it was after taking on we'd have none of this haphazard attempt at raising so much tax to pay for it all

    Its to pay for existing services, not new ones. What else is it being used for? Its only 160m, dont you know how much we owe? Thats not going to cover anything.

    As for defaulting, what would happen when we need to borrow? Who is going to lend to us when we choose to default? And even if they do, what sort of interest are we to pay?


  • Options
    #8185
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    black francis wrote: »
    Well, you could go live in a cave if you want to avoid property tax.

    Probably makes more sense than having a car you can't drive.

    If you owned the cave you would still be charged this unjust tax.
    Suppose if you just rented it you'd be ok....


  • Options
    #8186
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    lugha wrote: »
    Well much of Europe somehow have got this all wrong, as did we before FF engaged in a bit of populism in the 1970s.

    So how have we gone thirty odd years without it, yet have had all these services (such as they are) in the interim?


  • Options
    #8187
    Anyone
    Registered Users Posts: 3,376 ✭✭✭Anyone


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Only because they reduced funding from central government by €170 million in order to pay unsecured secondary bondholders in our bankrupt banks.

    €170m doesnt cover anything, its a drop in the ocean. So I cant see how,if at all, thats being used to pay the bondholders, so in my opinion thats nonsense talk.


  • Options
    #8188
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    black francis wrote: »
    Yeah, you're right, we haven't got the rest of the UK to subsidise us.
    As far as I know the UK are subsidising us to the tune of €7 billion. You know, money we had to borrow to bail out our bankrupt banks.


  • Options
    #8189
    demanufactured
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,756 ✭✭✭demanufactured


    prinz wrote: »
    The household charge is going towards local government and contributing towards local government services.

    No my friend , Its to go to your not so local bond holder.


  • Options
    #8190
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    squod wrote: »
    Care to back that up?
    Its in the legislation I believe.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8191
    eth0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,635 ✭✭✭eth0


    Anyone wrote: »
    Its to pay for existing services, not new ones. What else is it being used for? Its only 160m, dont you know how much we owe? Thats not going to cover anything.

    As for defaulting, what would happen when we need to borrow? Who is going to lend to us when we choose to default? And even if they do, what sort of interest are we to pay?

    As in, almost no services at all. I'd be glad if they didn't bother with the small few things they bother with cause I'd do it for less than 100e myself.

    We simply wouldn't borrow. The inflated public service wages will have to go but theres a lot that can be done with the tax they're getting in now if they didn't waste it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement