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…296297299301302…334

Comments

  • Options
    #8942
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Philm_12 wrote: »
    Don't know about you but I am sick of hearing that we are one of the only EU states to have no property tax. I will consider that argument when our TOTAL tax burden (including indirect taxes) is quoted in comparison to other EU states.
    Because the argument being made by some of the "no" folk is that there is something fundamentally wrong with the notion of any tax on the home, not that our tax burden it too high.


  • Options
    #8943
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    xflyer wrote: »
    The only people getting final reminders are those who registered. More fool you. They haven't a clue who owes what or where they live. That's why they want you to register.

    Wrong. More no-campaign misinformation.


  • Options
    #8944
    Cantona's Collars
    Registered Users Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭Cantona's Collars


    xflyer wrote: »
    The only people getting final reminders are those who registered. More fool you. They haven't a clue who owes what or where they live. That's why they want you to register.

    I haven't or won't register but have gotten a flyer,they are being sent to everyone.Another grand waste of money.


  • Options
    #8945
    Cantona's Collars
    Registered Users Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭Cantona's Collars


    mickydoomsux wrote: »
    Wrong. More no-campaign misinformation.

    No-just misinformation,put the tar & brush away now please.This whole tax debacle is riddled with misinformation,you can't blame folk for getting things wrong.


  • Options
    #8946
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    Philm_12 wrote: »
    So if we can be different from the others on that major issue - why not be different on taxation?


    Because we don't have enough money to pay for our own stuff.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8947
    phil1nj
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭phil1nj


    lugha wrote: »
    The post I replied to advised people not to pay this charge “Unless you want the wastage to continue.......” The implication being that if we leave things as they are, the wastage won’t continue!!!!.

    Well if the local authorites are as broke as Phil Hogan claims, then it makes the justification of junkets and expenses all the more difficult and downright hypocritical as well. With no money coming to the LA then budgets/services have to be slashed. That means finding cuts somewhere (unpalatable but tehy are happening anyway). Giving them a lifeline (in the form of revenues from the household charge/property tax) does not promote this kind of action. That was my point.
    lugha wrote: »
    The question of wastage is irrelevant to how the revenue is raised. Are you suggesting that you cannot ascertain what does or does not constitute wasteful spending or bad value for money, unless you know how the wasted money was raised?

    Well seeing as it's mainly taxpayers money we are talking about, I myself think it's very relevant. Why should a local authority or the government think it's ok to waste money purely because they can always come back for more when the well runs dry (justifiying spends on iphones because the money was there etc)? That kind of attitude was prevalent for far too long in this country, just look at the money that was wasted over the years by successive governments (e voting machines, the childrens hospital, the LUAS cost overurns etc). You think that kind of waste would have been tolerated in the private sector with investors looking on and demanding value for money?
    lugha wrote: »
    Nonsense of course. You determine waste by looking at the destination of public monies, not the source. If there is an argument to reign in wasteful public spending then that argument is just as compelling even if we do not adopt the house hold charge. Red herring.

    Red herring? I don't think so, it's more of a chicken and egg situation (maybe). You seem to classify waste as being how money is spent, fair enough,but as a taxpayer I view waste as also encompassing the reckless collection of yet more taxes to keep a bloated system on the rails. Get the waste/duplication/inefficiencies under control THEN come back looking for more money if that isn't sufficient. It is wasteful to hit taxpayers for more money when that additional money will just be placed in to a huge black hole to keep the system running as it is. To use the bucket analogy that's been trotted out, fix the leaks first, then fill it. Just my opinion though.


  • Options
    #8948
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    xflyer wrote: »
    The only people getting final reminders are those who registered.
    @xflyer - Why did you post this blatant untruth?


  • Options
    #8949
    phil1nj
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭phil1nj


    lugha wrote: »
    Because the argument being made by some of the "no" folk is that there is something fundamentally wrong with the notion of any tax on the home, not that our tax burden it too high.

    Just out of interest (and apologies if you've answered this already) but do you agree with a tax on the family home (not all property) but specifically the family home? If you do, can you tell us why?


  • Options
    #8950
    xflyer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    dvpower wrote: »
    @xflyer - Why did you post this blatant untruth?

    Why haven't I got one then? Are they sent to individuals or just the householder.

    Seriously though you're not one to talk about posting blatant untruths! Every time one of the you're government lackeys open their mouth all that comes out is blatant lies.


  • Options
    #8951
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    xflyer wrote: »
    Why haven't I got one then? Are they sent to individuals or just the householder.
    So you made an assumption based on little information and you posted it as fact.
    xflyer wrote: »
    Seriously though you're not one to talk about posting blatant untruths! Every time one of the your government lackeys open their mouth all that comes out is blatant lies.
    Specifically what blatent lie are you accusing me of?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8952
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    phil1nj wrote: »
    Just out of interest (and apologies if you've answered this already) but do you agree with a tax on the family home (not all property) but specifically the family home? If you do, can you tell us why?
    Surely the onus is on those to make the case for an exemption?

    Why for example should I have to pay tax on my car (to the tune BTW that will far exceed the cost of maintaining the road network) and despite paying a tidy sum when I purchased the car, and expect my home to be exempt?


  • Options
    #8953
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    phil1nj wrote: »
    Just out of interest (and apologies if you've answered this already) but do you agree with a tax on the family home (not all property) but specifically the family home? If you do, can you tell us why?
    answered this already) but do you agree with a tax on the family home (not all property) but specifically the family home? If you do, can you tell us why?[/QUOTE]

    Not much point in having a property tax which excludes the 'family home' - kinda defeats the purpose of it.

    It's supposed to be a broad tax which will include almost everyone (including those who are currently exempt hopefully).
    It's difficult to avoid (you can't transfer property to another juristiction).
    It's non-cyclical unlike VAT, Stamp Duty and Income Tax.
    It's cheap to administer once up and running.


  • Options
    #8954
    phil1nj
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭phil1nj


    lugha wrote: »
    Surely the onus is on those to make the case for an exemption?

    Why for example should I have to pay tax on my car (to the tune BTW that will far exceed the cost of maintaining the road network) and despite paying a tidy sum when I purchased the car, and expect my home to be exempt?

    Well I've repeatedly asked questions and given examples on this thread about why a property tax isn't really a wealth tax. The comparison with motor tax was also made (by Black Francis I think) but it's an apples and oranges sitution. You get charged motor tax for being a motorist and using your car on the roads. The cost/vlaue of your car has no bearing on this tax and it can be avoided by not using your car.

    If we are to say that a property tax is the same as motor tax then it starts to break down. Are we now going to be charged a tax for living in our homes? The property tax will also most likely be based on the value of your home and there will be no way for homeowners to avoid (legally) paying this tax. If however you say that the property tax is a charge for the use of local services then the same old arguments get brought out about all how everybody in a locality uses these but not everybody will pay for them. Commercial property is in a different category though.


  • Options
    #8955
    xflyer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    dvpower wrote: »
    So you made an assumption based on little information and you posted it as fact.


    Specifically what blatent lie are you accusing me of?
    Welcome to After hours.

    I didn't accuse you of lying. I did mispell you're, now corrected. But I didn't say you. So get off your high horse.


  • Options
    #8956
    phil1nj
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭phil1nj


    black francis wrote: »
    Not much point in having a property tax which excludes the 'family home' - kinda defeats the purpose of it..
    Why?
    black francis wrote: »
    It's supposed to be a broad tax which will include almost everyone (including those who are currently exempt hopefully).

    We'll see. Can't see it being in place by next year though.
    black francis wrote: »
    It's difficult to avoid (you can't transfer property to another juristiction).
    Fair enough, but still you come back to the same argument about the suppossed wealth contained within a primary residence/family home
    black francis wrote: »
    It's non-cyclical unlike VAT, Stamp Duty and Income Tax..

    That is true and one of the reasons it is used for the basis of a stable tax base. Which leads me on to the next one of your points.
    black francis wrote: »
    It's cheap to administer once up and running.

    Based on what has transpired since this charge came in to, I do not really see us getting out house in order in the short term. I'm sure some form of the property tax will come in but it'll be along, long time before the bugs get ironed out. Couple that with the forthcoming 3 austerity budgets which have to be implemented and Ireladn is going to be a very interesting place to live in for the next decade.


  • Options
    #8957
    Noreen1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,654 ✭✭✭Noreen1


    black francis wrote: »
    RTE reporting around 30% have paid by yesterday evening and still 3days to go!

    It seems pragmatism had trumped attempts by the loony left to stir up anger and confusion.

    Source for "30% have paid", please?

    Note I said "Paid" - not "registered".


  • Options
    #8958
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    phil1nj wrote: »
    Why?


    Because a property tax which excluded the family home would be a second home tax - and we already have one of those.


  • Options
    #8959
    andrewdeerpark
    Registered Users Posts: 951 ✭✭✭andrewdeerpark


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Not if its the family home.

    That olde FAMILY home argument...

    So that includes the Shrewsbury road embassy residences, the Dalkey Mansions over looking Dublin Bay (U2, Van Morrison, Pat Kenny country), so basically where your "family" is resident is excluded from any property taxation regardless of its grandiose size or exclusive location!

    Hardly fair?


  • Options
    #8960
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    andrewdeerpark wrote: »
    That olde FAMILY home argument...

    So that includes the Shrewsbury road embassy residences,

    I think you'll find they are exempt.


  • Options
    #8961
    phil1nj
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭phil1nj


    black francis wrote: »
    Because a property tax which excluded the family home would be a second home tax - and we already have one of those.

    Do you mean the 200Euro a year tax on a builiding which by it's definition is not the principal residence and can be justifiably deemed to be an asset (most of these were holiday homes or investment properties )? You also have to look at the reasoning behind bringing that charge in. It was designed specifically not to penalize those who live in the homes they bought.

    Maybe they should have started with this tax/charge as the basis for their fully blown property tax? As oppossed to bringing this one in with such poor planning and oranization


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8962
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    Noreen1 wrote: »
    Source for "30% have paid", please?

    Note I said "Paid" - not "registered".

    Can't you read - rte is the source.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0328/26-have-now-paid-household-charge.html


  • Options
    #8963
    andrewdeerpark
    Registered Users Posts: 951 ✭✭✭andrewdeerpark


    mikom wrote: »
    I think you'll find they are exempt.

    Ok embassy residents on that street (Shrewsbury road) may be exempt, however private residents are not, people like THOMAS McFEELY the Prior Hall developer.


  • Options
    #8964
    phil1nj
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭phil1nj


    andrewdeerpark wrote: »
    That olde FAMILY home argument...

    So that includes the Shrewsbury road embassy residences, the Dalkey Mansions over looking Dublin Bay (U2, Van Morrison, Pat Kenny country), so basically where your "family" is resident is excluded from any property taxation regardless of its grandiose size or exclusive location!

    Hardly fair?

    Define fair? As it stands, the household charge isn't fair (for all the reasons you listed above). This is one of the main reasons the No campaign are using to voice their discontent.


  • Options
    #8965
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    black francis wrote: »
    Can't you read - rte is the source.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0328/26-have-now-paid-household-charge.html

    28% according to newstalk just now.
    Fresher.......... or who's lying or being lied to.


  • Options
    #8966
    andrewdeerpark
    Registered Users Posts: 951 ✭✭✭andrewdeerpark


    A property tax based on a percentage of the value of your property. And that’s it, no other exemptions based on income, age, health etc. A simple yearly TAX.


    If you cannot afford that tax then move residence or downsize. If you have negative equity on the property or are in difficulty then (after the new bankruptcy laws are enacted) file for bankruptcy walk away.

    I do not want to go off topic but essential to the above is making all loans non-recourse and banning personal guarantees. This stops loading debt onto your family home in the first place. Also makes the bank more careful with mortgage lending when they know the "family home" loan has to stand on its own.


  • Options
    #8967
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    xflyer wrote: »
    Welcome to After hours.
    That's your excuse when caught out telling blatant untruths - it's After Hours, so it doesn't matter. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #8968
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    andrewdeerpark wrote: »
    That olde FAMILY home argument...

    So that includes the Shrewsbury road embassy residences, the Dalkey Mansions over looking Dublin Bay (U2, Van Morrison, Pat Kenny country), so basically where your "family" is resident is excluded from any property taxation regardless of its grandiose size or exclusive location!

    Hardly fair?

    So its more fair to tax all family homes, of familys who`s home is the only property they have, which they bought not for financial reasons, but to live in, just to ensure millionaires pay tax on their home?


  • Options
    #8969
    danniemcq
    Registered Users Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    andrewdeerpark wrote: »
    A property tax based on a percentage of the value of your property. And that’s it, no other exemptions based on income, age, health etc. A simple yearly TAX.


    If you cannot afford that tax then move residence or downsize. If you have negative equity on the property or are in difficulty then (after the new bankruptcy laws are enacted) file for bankruptcy walk away.

    I do not want to go off topic but essential to the above is making all loans non-recourse and banning personal guarantees. This stops loading debt onto your family home in the first place. Also makes the bank more careful with mortgage lending when they know the "family home" loan has to stand on its own.


    sorry but no, so someone who has been living in a house for 60 odd years who has seen the town/city/street around them improve so therfore the property they are in is worth quite a lot more.

    at this age though they are retired with no major income. a few unexpected expenses over the last few years means that they aren't rolling in the dough but can afford to live there as mortgage has been paid off so they have no worry about that (or mortgage very small).

    They can't afford the property tax (especially if it raises in the next few years) so they should be FORCED to move?

    this could be the home that they were born in, thats been in the family since their parents bought it full of memories. that again is unfair.

    be like getting ill and paying a fortune in hospital bills but at least you have a roof over your head till you cannot pay the tax and are forced to up and move. possibly to another part of the country away from doctors and specialists that are familour with your case.

    no, sorry but that proposal just doesn't work.


  • Options
    #8970
    howamidifferent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,817 ✭✭✭howamidifferent


    andrewdeerpark wrote: »
    Do you agree or not with the PRINCIPLE of taxation on property assets?

    What about the taxation of property liabilities, cos thats what property is for many people now. :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8971
    the groutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭the groutch


    someone at newstalk missing a few brain cells?

    http://www.newstalk.ie/2012/featured-5-slideshow-homepage/lunchtime-bite-27-still-to-pay-household-charge/


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement