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

Freddie59

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

If you cannot afford that tax then move residence or downsize.

Wow. It's hard to believe that such an outlook actually exists. The fairer option would be to tax you with your circumstances taken into consideration, not to tell you to fcuk out of your home. I hope you're always this smug my friend.

Of course, fairness has disappeared from an Ireland where this tax is not being levied on 160,000 households who can probably better afford to pay it than those under pressure paying off homes, which didn't cost the government a cent to provide.

tin79

mikom wrote: »

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

RTE even said "around 30". I bet they rounded up from 26. Why cant they just report an actual number. They seem to feel they have to boost the amounts in everything they report on this.

Ghandee

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.

Sweet baby Jesus.

Your advising people, if they can't pay a tax, a made up sham tax at that, which wasn't in force when they bought/were born in the family home, to move out, or sell and down size, or clam feckin bankruptcy:eek: to keep bondholders in champers and caviar?


I'm gonna pour me a brandy here.


Silly, silly, SILLY poster.

No more please.

andrewdeerpark

danniemcq wrote: »

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.

Fine, get old in a plush area and do not pay so; however when you die the state with interest and penalties will get their money anyway, and as it should be.

We have accepted that nursing home care should be paid from your assets so what is this excuse of old age in a plush area all about as a reason for not paying for the privilege of living in that area.

Bruthal

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Fine, get old in a plush area and do not pay so; however when you die the state with interest and penalties will get their money anyway, and as it should be.

We have accepted that nursing home care should be paid from your assets so what is this excuse of old age in a plush area all about as a reason for not paying for the privilege of living in that area.

Because the person already paid to live in it.

seamus

tin79 wrote: »

RTE even said "around 30". I bet they rounded up from 26. Why cant they just report an actual number. They seem to feel they have to boost the amounts in everything they report on this.

Probably because the figures being given aren't exact due to the postal figures.

Though I do agree that "over 25%" would have been more accurate and honest than "around 30%"

Bannasidhe

phil1nj wrote: »

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.

It is blatantly unfair.

I finally got a leaflet - it states

Household Charge will go towards paying for your essential local services:public parks;libraries;open spaces and leisure amenities;planning and development; fire and emergency services; maintenance and cleaning of streets and street lighting. These facilities benefit everyone.

Yes - these facilities do benefit everyone and need to be paid for but not everyone is liable to pay. That is what sticks in my craw. I can ignore the fact that a few short years ago I paid close to 9k in Stamp Duty, that I pay nearly 1 k a year in car tax for a car that is hardly used but I need a large car so my son go collect his kids (200k round trip) for court appointed access - only a large car will fit in the legally required child seats! I would have no issue paying for local services either if the charge was levied on a user pays system not on a whose name is on the title deed system.

I live in a row of 7 houses - 3 are owner occupiers, we all bought at the same time when they were new builds. Of those 3, 2 have 1 adult working full-time and the 3rd (a recently separated mother of 2) works part-time as she cannot afford full-time childcare. We all pay our mortgages of on average 1000 a month.
The 4 rental houses are a mixture of 2,3 and 4 bedroomed. All have at least 2 adults working - rent is between 650 and 850 a month (I asked). We all use the same local services. The street lighting lights up their front paths the same way as it does mine. We all dodge the same potholes. We all flush our toilets, turn on our taps, use the parks etc - so why are 3 households liable to pay for these services - which we all use - but 4 are not?

Do Local Authority tenants not use local authority services?
Do housing association tenants not use local authority services?

I know, I KNOW - This is a 'property' tax aimed at paying for local services. I fail to see why we could not have introduced a 'Local Services' tax where the user pays for these services. It would have broadened the tax base - so theoretically reduced the amount each household would have to pay.

I was also wondering (with tongue only partially in cheek) if, given that unemployed people can claim an exceptional needs payment to buy a communion dress, can unemployed homeowners claim an exceptional needs payment to pay the Household Charge?

andrewdeerpark

robbie7730 wrote: »

Because the person already paid to live in it.

When the person dies his/her family will get the benefit of the original investment in the asset value appreciation. This poor old people argument is wearing a bit thin with me these days.

Freddie59

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Fine, get old in a plush area and do not pay so; however when you die the state with interest and penalties will get their money anyway, and as it should be.

We have accepted that nursing home care should be paid from your assets so what is this excuse of old age in a plush area all about as a reason for not paying for the privilege of living in that area.

As I said already, I hope you're always this smug my friend. Just hope and pray that you never find yourself in that position.

Freddie59

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is blatantly unfair.

I finally got a leaflet - it states

Yes - these facilities do benefit everyone and need to be paid for but not everyone is liable to pay. That is what sticks in my craw. I can ignore the fact that a few short years ago I paid close to 9k in Stamp Duty, that I pay nearly 1 k a year in car tax for a car that is hardly used but I need a large car so my son go collect his kids (200k round trip) for court appointed access - only a large car will fit in the legally required child seats! I would have no issue paying for local services either if the charge was levied on a user pays system not on a whose name is on the title deed system.

I live in a row of 7 houses - 3 are owner occupiers, we all bought at the same time when they were new builds. Of those 3, 2 have 1 adult working full-time and the 3rd (a recently separated mother of 2) works part-time as she cannot afford full-time childcare. We all pay our mortgages of on average 1000 a month.
The 4 rental houses are a mixture of 2,3 and 4 bedroomed. All have at least 2 adults working - rent is between 650 and 850 a month (I asked). We all use the same local services. The street lighting lights up their front paths the same way as it does mine. We all dodge the same potholes. We all flush our toilets, turn on our taps, use the parks etc - so why are 3 households liable to pay for these services - which we all use - but 4 are not?

Do Local Authority tenants not use local authority services?
Do housing association tenants not use local authority services?

I know, I KNOW - This is a 'property' tax aimed at paying for local services. I fail to see why we could not have introduced a 'Local Services' tax where the user pays for these services. It would have broadened the tax base - so theoretically reduced the amount each household would have to pay.

I was also wondering (with tongue only partially in cheek) if, given that unemployed people can claim an exceptional needs payment to buy a communion dress, can unemployed homeowners claim an exceptional needs payment to pay the Household Charge?

So they benefit EVERYONE. But EVERYONE isn't being asked to pay? Sweet mother of Jesus.:rolleyes:

And the unemployed? I think even a reduced tax of €50 should be levied. €1 a week.

Freddie59

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

When the person dies his/her family will get the benefit of the original investment in the asset value appreciation. This poor old people argument is wearing a bit thin with me these days.

You will be old one day.

Bruthal

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

When the person dies his/her family will get the benefit of the original investment in the asset value appreciation. This poor old people argument is wearing a bit thin with me these days.

Until your old yourself of course.

But a person that grows old in a house they paid for, and who you are telling to move if they cant pay this sham of a tax, is not dead yet.

So which is it, force old people to move, or inheritance for their children your on about?

andrewdeerpark

robbie7730 wrote: »

Until your old yourself of course.

But a person that grows old in a house they paid for, and who you are telling to move if they cant pay this sham of a tax, is not dead yet.

So which is it, force old people to move, or inheritance for their children your on about?

Which ever they can afford and suits their family and caring situation?

lugha

phil1nj wrote: »

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.

No, Some road users (albeit a majority) pay motor related taxes and charges, that collectively, greatly exceed the cost of maintaining the road network. So not all users pay and those that do, pay too much. Why not a campaign against the injustice of motor tax?

I assume you are being amusing (or perhaps a city dweller) with your suggestion that we can avoid using a car? Well yes, you can also avoid income tax by having no income or indeed, the house charge by having no house. Alas, such solutions are not very practical for everyone.

phil1nj wrote: »

Are we now going to be charged a tax for living in our homes?

If motor tax was being introduced for the first time no doubt the question would be put “are we now going to be charged a tax for driving in our cars?”. To which the answer in both cases would be: make the case as to why there should be an exemption.

phil1nj wrote: »

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.

Why exactly is it a bad thing that those with tax obligations should be unable to avoid them?

seamus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes - these facilities do benefit everyone and need to be paid for but not everyone is liable to pay. That is what sticks in my craw.

I agree in principle that it's an issue, but in this case rental properties aren't exempt. So while the direct user may not be paying, the property owner is paying it on their behalf. In this case it matters not a jot to me that not everyone individually has to pay it, so long as the charge is required to be paid directly by someone who is tied to the property. Whether the renter or the owner ultimately bears the cost is none of my concern.

If rental properties were exempt, I'd be with ye. But they're not.

andrewdeerpark

Freddie59 wrote: »

You will be old one day.

Hopefully.

Will not have a FAT civil service pension though (and good luck to them), plus will the state pension be a good as today with all the medical card, fuel, TV License, food allowances etc.

Also there is a lot of elderly people who collected money from the young who bought houses, land and other assets from them at boom time prices. As there is older people who lost in bank shares.

It’s called the market economy. So to say all old people are poor and cannot pay is naïve.

Bruthal

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

It’s called the market economy. So to say all old people are poor and cannot pay is naïve.

And to say an old person that bought a house in a nice area a long time ago but wont be able to afford this tax should move, is stupid.

Frank Black

Freddie59 wrote: »

You will be old one day.

and you may one day be unemployed

Freddie59 wrote: »

And the unemployed? I think even a reduced tax of €50 should be levied. €1 a week.

andrewdeerpark

howamidifferent wrote: »

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

No problem with some form of tax relief on property liabilities. Like loss making share dealings.

andrewdeerpark

robbie7730 wrote: »

And to say an old person that bought a house in a nice area a long time ago but wont be able to afford this tax should move, is stupid.

As I said don't pay then, however the state should then collect with interest and penalties against the asset when the die. Why should the childern get a massive inheritance, property tax free in such cases?

Freddie59

black francis wrote: »

and you may one day be unemployed

So the unemployed should pay nothing? There are unemployed people who smoke 20 cigs a day at a cost of around €9. I don't think it's unreasonable to include them TBH. What are those words being bandied around again? Fair and equitable?

Freddie59

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

As I said don't pay then, however the state should then collect with interest and penalties against the asset when the die. Why should the childern get a massive inheritance, property tax free in such cases?

Why not? Bought and paid for with money that has already been taxed.

Freddie59

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Hopefully.

Will not have a FAT civil service pension though (and good luck to them), plus will the state pension be a good as today with all the medical card, fuel, TV License, food allowances etc.

Also there is a lot of elderly people who collected money from the young who bought houses, land and other assets from them at boom time prices. As there is older people who lost in bank shares.

It’s called the market economy. So to say all old people are poor and cannot pay is naïve.

Nobody is. but to suggest that they move from their home (and the trauma that this would bring on an elderly person) is completely without compassion.

If we were in a true market economy, then:

* The failed banks would be shut down.

* Public sector wages and "entitlements" would be reduced as per the country's ability to pay.

* All households would be billed for the "household charge".

Amazing the way the rules can be bent for some.:rolleyes:

Frank Black

Freddie59 wrote: »

So the unemployed should pay nothing? There are unemployed people who smoke 20 cigs a day at a cost of around €9. I don't think it's unreasonable to include them TBH. What are those words being bandied around again? Fair and equitable?

So just unemployed smokers then?

andrewdeerpark

Freddie59 wrote: »

As I said already, I hope you're always this smug my friend. Just hope and pray that you never find yourself in that position.

Just making a constructive counter argument, not being smug or personal with anyone.

Freddie59

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Like loss making share dealings.

As in the banks?

Freddie59

black francis wrote: »

So just unemployed smokers then?

Nice try. You know exactly what I mean. Fair and equitable.:) That's what the Yes people are preaching at us.:rolleyes:

martingriff

Can someone tell me if this is true or not but i heard that whatever money wst to be made by the household charge they would give it to the local authority and that money would then be subtracted by the amounts they get by the goverment. Not sure where i heard it.

Now I paid the household charge for a couple of reasons 1. as this is my 1st house I have never paid stamp duty will i think its fair to. 2. It is a tax and it is legal for me to do so.

In saying that this hold thing was handled terribly by the goverment and when the property tax will come in (It was in every parties manifesto even SF and SP)it must be handled better with a reduced rate or waiver for those who paid stamp duty for x number of years

andrewdeerpark

Freddie59 wrote: »

Nobody is. but to suggest that they move from their home (and the trauma that this would bring on an elderly person) is completely without compassion.

If we were in a true market economy, then:

* The failed banks would be shut down.

* Public sector wages and "entitlements" would be reduced as per the country's ability to pay.

* All households would be billed for the "household charge".

Amazing the way the rules can be bent for some.:rolleyes:

I agree with all the above.

Freddie59

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Just making a constructive counter argument, not being smug or personal with anyone.

You certainly come across as it. And uncompassionate into the bargain. Exceptions made for failed banking entities; exceptions made for the public sector; exceptions made for SW; but you want a pensioner to get out of their home? WTF? Seriously?