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

Ian64

Mr NoTV wrote: »

This country is stuffed, screwed, broken and virtually unrepairable. Taxing those that remain here will not achieve anything other than angering them. You cannot tax your way out of recession and the government knows that ... not one country has been able to do so. The monies they receive will go straight into the pockets of their friends and the overpaid workers in the system. Nobody will be prosecuted for the corruption that brought this country to this state and everybody knows it. Any investigations will turn into a farce like the Bertie saga. It's embarrassing. .... will I pay? No.

You will pay because there is no way round it

galwayrush

Ian64 wrote: »

You will pay because there is no way round it

Emigration ....

dxhound2005

galwayrush wrote: »

Emigration ....

Interesting proposition there. Two most likely options, rent out the house and operate as an absentee landlord or sell up. Not sure how they could collect the tax if you were an absentee landlord but as the owner you would still be liable. If you sell up the charge will have to be paid up to date before you can transfer ownership and of course the new owner will have to pay in the future. So no loss of revenue to the state.

Ian64

galwayrush wrote: »

Emigration ....

mmmmmm, NO, because if you sell your house to emigrate then your solicitor will deduct the tax from your cheque!

galwayrush

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Interesting proposition there. Two most likely options, rent out the house and operate as an absentee landlord or sell up. Not sure how they could collect the tax if you were an absentee landlord but as the owner you would still be liable. If you sell up the charge will have to be paid up to date before you can transfer ownership and of course the new owner will have to pay in the future. So no loss of revenue to the state.

How would that work on a house with negative equity which has been repossessed by a bank?

dxhound2005

galwayrush wrote: »

How would that work on a house with negative equity which has been repossessed by a bank?

Depends on who holds the legal title. If it was a corporate entity I don't think they would be liable.

Bishop_Donal

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Depends on who holds the legal title. If it was a corporate entity I don't think they would be liable.

The charge and associated penalties / interest would sit as a priority ahead of the mortgage.

Accordingly, the negative equity position would simply be widened by the amount of the bill. Assuming the borrower decides not to work with the Bank (hence not entitled to MARP protection), the Bank would be entitled to seek judgement against the borrower (with the normal remedies against a non-resident open to the bank thereafter).

You'd want to be emigrating for good if you are planning to walk away from your debt!!!! modern recording systems would certainly restrict you future borrowing capacity.

Bishop_Donal

Slick50 wrote: »

But it's OK for you to question people's values and decency?

Where is that link for where FG campaigned that they would introduce the household charge?. I didn't vote for it.

They got elected by default, abu FF vote. (No party got a majority by the way)

If people put FG / Lab in by default, they deserve exactly what they get (but one way or another you've got to respect the democratic right of the people).

You can go and do a trawl of the broken pre-election promises yourself! That said, I distinctly recall FG stating that the would levy a household charge of Eur100 before the election. But I'm not here to spoonfeed you for your inattentiveness during the election campaign.

Now pay your tax like a good man.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

The campaign against VRT has been running for years.:D Our law-abiding Government just chose to ignore European law while the tax intake was greater than the fines imposed.:p

I think that myth has been dispelled by chasm!

But you choose to ignore the fact that many people who have already paid their way in Group water schemes will still be charged because of a technicality.

Right.

I do not think anybody paying for a group water scheme should pay water rates.

True. However, that doesn't alter the fact that people are now going to be taxed on necessities. Water, in particular, is a reprehensible item to tax imo.

Does it really matter? I'd prefer they just damn well added 4c to the tax rates and stopped the pretense.

Nothing vague about abolishing unnecessary quangos, outlandish expenses, whether by TDs, the Seanad, or State bodies/Depts.
Nothing vague, either, about wanting to end ridiculous Directorships for friends of various TDs. Quantifying the savings, when records are not available to me, are problematic, however.

Yep, agreed. We'd still need more taxes though, unless we can save €18 Billion! Considering we don't even spend €18 Billion on services. The majority of our expenditure is wages. (welfare and PS pay)

I'm sceptical about the huge savings. You don't know how much it will save so really, it's a vague, undeterminable amount of savings.





[/quote]There is a big difference between not liking any tax, and being afraid that you will be unable to afford the essentials.
A home and water are essentials. Home ownership may not be essential, however, landlords will undoubtedly pass the charge onto their tenants, one way or another.

You'll be asked to pay extra tax anyway. Income tax, VAT. People look to the shotgun when they see water and property rates.

Landlords will come under pressure from cuts to the Rent Allowance scheme.

People have a basic need for security. That is not equivalent to a "fascination with the ould plot".

In Ireland it is Noreen. You can't argue it isn't.

We seem to disagree on how it should be addressed, however.
As I stated previously, taxing people on the essentials is reprehensible imo.

No, taxing water and property is reprehensible to you. You seem to object to higher Income Taxes as well.

Any higher tax is reprehensible to you.

You haven't disagreed the deficit needs to be tackled, you just don't seem to have a clue how to do it. You do know what you object to though.

Lets not dress it up!

PS. What's up with the code thing?

breanach

Hand the keys back and back to college for me I paid those pr**ks to much already!

Time I got something from them!

Mr NoTV

Ian64 wrote: »

You will pay because there is no way round it

wrong - I don't own a house, I don't rent.

dxhound2005

Mr NoTV wrote: »

wrong - I don't own a house, I don't rent.

Now I understand why you have no TV.

Mr NoTV

Nobody HAS to pay - this government is making up the rules as they go along. If you all go along with it thinking you're helping to dig the country out of the mire, you are mistaken ... once you have paid 1cent, they will demand all you have in some way or another until you are bled dry. They will still have their Mercs though. Read Animal Farm sometime.

tayto lover

Ian64 wrote: »

mmmmmm, NO, because if you sell your house to emigrate then your solicitor will deduct the tax from your cheque!

Why in the name of God would/could a solicitor do that?
You are making it up as you go along. Just scare-mongering.
There was no mention of selling at all.

K-9

dxhound2005 wrote: »

We might get used to a property tax soon enough just like all our neighbours in Europe. We had it for 50 years or so and although it was an imperfect system I don't actually recall any great clamour for it's abolition before Fianna Fail used that to buy the election in the mid 1970's. The system of using central taxation to to cover everything was always bound to run into trouble. Hence we have refuse charges and we can look forward to metered water charges.

Central taxation was boosted by an increase in stamp duty returns especially in the last 20 years or so but a property tax will be a better model for the long term. It is unlikely that the TD's who oppose it will ever have the responsibility of exercising power but if they do I predict that even they would not abolish it if it is up and running for a few years. It suits their purposes to agitate against new taxes but they do not really have the interests of private property owners at heart.

We had a property tax in the 90's too, FG abolished it!

Taxing water or property makes Irish people reach for the shotgun. Sure it made Joe Higgins a political career. Castleknock houses with 2 cars (when 2 cars meant something) voting for Joe Higgins in a bye election in the 90's. Bourgeois votes count to Joe.

Ian64

Mr NoTV wrote: »

wrong - I don't own a house, I don't rent.

So whats your problem? Your not liable to pay the tax so why are you bitching about it?

nyan warrior

Times like this im glad im a traveller

Phill Ewinn

Ian64 wrote: »

You will pay because there is no way round it

Crazy talk. In every democracy the will of the people gets respected.

€200m wouldn't make a dent in the PS pension bill, the bank debt, cost of SW etc. It's infinitely easier to cut expenses than introduce new taxes.

If the government really wanted to generate that kind of extra revenue, collecting fines for littering or dog fouling would do that easliy.

Exercise your rights and don't pay if you don't want to. Laws have to be just and equitable. This tax is neither.

breanach

Mr NoTV wrote: »

Nobody HAS to pay - this government is making up the rules as they go along. If you all go along with it thinking you're helping to dig the country out of the mire, you are mistaken ... once you have paid 1cent, they will demand all you have in some way or another until you are bled dry. They will still have their Mercs though. Read Animal Farm sometime.

Has anyone noticed that the pigs just seem to fatter and animals poorer!
Even the old pigs still feed at the trough that we can't afford to fill!

Noreen1

Ian64 wrote: »

You havn,t heard of them because they dont exist because the Government didn't break any E.U. rules, just more looney left lies!

Ahem.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/peti/cm/862/862698/862698en.pdf

Certain aspects of VRT are illegal.

Ian64, I know I read (in Newspapers) that the EU were imposing fines, but I can't find a reputable link - so I'll have to concede that one.
Apologies if I provided misinformation. It wasn't intentional.

dxhound2005

tayto lover wrote: »

Why in the name of God would/could a solicitor do that?
You are making it up as you go along. Just scare-mongering.
There was no mention of selling at all.

Page 13 here.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2011/7411/b7411s.pdf

Solicitors doing conveyancing are one of the parties who could be open to prosecution if they contravene the provisions.

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

I think that myth has been dispelled by chasm!




Right.

I do not think anybody paying for a group water scheme should pay water rates.

Agreed. Neither do I. But people have paid for group water schemes, then some of them turned the scheme over to the council, in return for promised upgrades that never happened. They paid water rates to the council - and received nothing in return. They will have to pay this charge, whether you or I believe they should is immaterial.

K-9 wrote: »

Does it really matter? I'd prefer they just damn well added 4c to the tax rates and stopped the pretense.

It matters in the sense that it is on essentials.
I'd prefer they stopped the pretence, and the bullying tactics.

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, agreed. We'd still need more taxes though, unless we can save €18 Billion! Considering we don't even spend €18 Billion on services. The majority of our expenditure is wages. (welfare and PS pay)

I'm sceptical about the huge savings. You don't know how much it will save so really, it's a vague, undeterminable amount of savings.

We need to raise more taxes, and/or reduce the outgoings to balance the budget.
However, if we manage to cut our way out of recession, we'd be unique.
Therefore, we need to reduce waste/extravagant payments.
We also need to reduce unemployment - instantly reducing welfare, and raising tax revenue. We need more favourable terms on the bailout, and we need more time to get back on track.
The IMF are already saying - clearly - that Ireland need more favourable terms. Merkosy are resisting. Since that pair have A: Gone through a phase of making the crises worse every time they opened their mouths, and B: Managed to spectacularly fail to impress the markets - just maybe it's time our Government politely make a few suggestions to that effect?

K-9 wrote: »

You'll be asked to pay extra tax anyway. Income tax, VAT. People look to the shotgun when they see water and property rates.

Landlords will come under pressure from cuts to the Rent Allowance scheme.





In Ireland it is Noreen. You can't argue it isn't.

We'll all be asked to pay higher tax. Dressing it up as a charge for services, that in many cases are non-existent, or are already being paid for, is hypocritical, and flies in the face of the transparency that we were promised.

K-9 wrote: »

No, taxing water and property is reprehensible to you. You seem to object to higher Income Taxes as well.

Any higher tax is reprehensible to you.

You haven't disagreed the deficit needs to be tackled, you just don't seem to have a clue how to do it. You do know what you object to though.

Lets not dress it up!

Sigh. Property and water charges are reprehensible to me.
Higher tax is unpleasant - not reprehensible. Tax on discretionary purchases are fine, theoretically, since people can choose whether or not they can afford the item in question. Nevertheless, we can't ignore the effects of further taxation on even discretionary items, since it will cause SMEs to go into receivership - leading to unemployment, and further welfare spending.

Less disposable income has a negative effect on the economy, that's an undeniable fact. My fear is that the austerity measures will result in a descent into depression, rather than recession.
Given the number of SMEs that closed their doors since 2007, are you able to predict, with any degree of accuracy, that that will not happen?
Economists seem to be divided on the issue, and the markets are unimpressed with our "solution" to the problem. History would suggest that this "austerity plan" is doomed to failure.

It seems to me, that if respected economists are predicting that austerity measures will fail, and the markets are unconvinced that the strategy will prove successful, then why are we still blindly following a recipe that the "experts" have no faith in?

K-9 wrote: »

PS. What's up with the code thing?

I was in a hurry. I've been meaning to respond to your post all weekend, and just didn't have the time.:o
I'm off to catch up on some much-needed sleep, now.:D

Bruthal

tayto lover wrote: »

Why in the name of God would/could a solicitor do that?
You are making it up as you go along. Just scare-mongering.
There was no mention of selling at all.

This is what would happen alright, the charges not paid, will be held against the property to be recouped if its ever sold.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

Agreed. Neither do I. But people have paid for group water schemes, then some of them turned the scheme over to the council, in return for promised upgrades that never happened. They paid water rates to the council - and received nothing in return. They will have to pay this charge, whether you or I believe they should is immaterial.

You're going to keep going on about this aren't you? I've agreed all the way through and you'll mention it in the next post!

It matters in the sense that it is on essentials.
I'd prefer they stopped the pretence, and the bullying tactics.

Increasing Income tax will effect essentials! There's isn't much way out of this without effecting essentials!

We need to raise more taxes, and/or reduce the outgoings to balance the budget.
However, if we manage to cut our way out of recession, we'd be unique.
Therefore, we need to reduce waste/extravagant payments.
We also need to reduce unemployment - instantly reducing welfare, and raising tax revenue. We need more favourable terms on the bailout, and we need more time to get back on track.
The IMF are already saying - clearly - that Ireland need more favourable terms. Merkosy are resisting. Since that pair have A: Gone through a phase of making the crises worse every time they opened their mouths, and B: Managed to spectacularly fail to impress the markets - just maybe it's time our Government politely make a few suggestions to that effect?

We got more favourable terms on the bail out already, 6.5 to 3.5% and we'll get more if we can show we are getting finances sorted. Countries are atad resistant to borrowing money on markets at 5/6% and giving it to us for nothing, without measures to see we are getting our house in order. We'd do the same, the other way round.

We'll all be asked to pay higher tax. Dressing it up as a charge for services, that in many cases are non-existent, or are already being paid for, is hypocritical, and flies in the face of the transparency that we were promised.

It's dressed up wrong for you.

Sigh. Property and water charges are reprehensible to me.
Higher tax is unpleasant - not reprehensible. Tax on discretionary purchases are fine, theoretically, since people can choose whether or not they can afford the item in question. Nevertheless, we can't ignore the effects of further taxation on even discretionary items, since it will cause SMEs to go into receivership - leading to unemployment, and further welfare spending.

Higher VAT will do the same. SME's are in for a very tough time regardless of property taxes, increases in VAT etc. We can't ignore it, we've no alternative and you haven't outlined how we can avoid it. Reason why? Nobody can, even economists!

Less disposable income has a negative effect on the economy, that's an undeniable fact. My fear is that the austerity measures will result in a descent into depression, rather than recession.

Agreed. Austerity is the exact same as increasing taxes!

Given the number of SMEs that closed their doors since 2007, are you able to predict, with any degree of accuracy, that that will not happen?

Nope. You can't come up with any ideas that wont either.

Economists seem to be divided on the issue, and the markets are unimpressed with our "solution" to the problem. History would suggest that this "austerity plan" is doomed to failure.

Yep, said as much earlier.

It seems to me, that if respected economists are predicting that austerity measures will fail, and the markets are unconvinced that the strategy will prove successful, then why are we still blindly following a recipe that the "experts" have no faith in?

Unless the debt is wiped and unless we can find the €18 Billion deficit through some magical formula that economists, either left or right leaning (and economists have political leanings) agree with, we've to muddle through.

There is no growth coming, only exports, and they don't create jobs like they used to.


Is there an alternative. Iceland and good luck with that!

Mr NoTV

Ian64 wrote: »

So whats your problem? Your not liable to pay the tax so why are you bitching about it?

Not 'bitching' as you put it, the OP asks if you will pay the charge ...

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

You're going to keep going on about this aren't you? I've agreed all the way through and you'll mention it in the next post!



Increasing Income tax will effect essentials! There's isn't much way out of this without effecting essentials!



We got more favourable terms on the bail out already, 6.5 to 3.5% and we'll get more if we can show we are getting finances sorted. Countries are atad resistant to borrowing money on markets at 5/6% and giving it to us for nothing, without measures to see we are getting our house in order. We'd do the same, the other way round.




It's dressed up wrong for you.



Higher VAT will do the same. SME's are in for a very tough time regardless of property taxes, increases in VAT etc. We can't ignore it, we've no alternative and you haven't outlined how we can avoid it. Reason why? Nobody can, even economists!



Agreed. Austerity is the exact same as increasing taxes!



Nope. You can't come up with any ideas that wont either.



Yep, said as much earlier.



Unless the debt is wiped and unless we can find the €18 Billion deficit through some magical formula that economists, either left or right leaning (and economists have political leanings) agree with, we've to muddle through.

There is no growth coming, only exports, and they don't create jobs like they used to.


Is there an alternative. Iceland and good luck with that !

Why are we still debating this?:D
We're pretty much agreed on the probable outcome of all this austerity.

The only difference in our position is that I seem to hate hypocrisy a tad more than you do, and I'm (apparently) somewhat more demanding that the "elite" - particularly those who have friends in political parties - should start feeling some pain, too.
There is no way out without pain. Where that pain should be inflicted is an entirely different question.

Slick50

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

If people put FG / Lab in by default, they deserve exactly what they get

That's the same sh*te we heard for electing FF/any other party.

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

(but one way or another you've got to respect the democratic right of the people).

Like the respect you've shown above?. I never questioned peoples democratic rights, I pointed out that your statement that FG got in by a "huge majority" was wrong.

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

You can go and do a trawl of the broken pre-election promises yourself! That said, I distinctly recall FG stating that the would levy a household charge of Eur100 before the election. But I'm not here to spoonfeed you for your inattentiveness during the election campaign.

I'll not waste my time looking for non existant proof of your ramblings.

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

Now pay your tax like a good of your man.

You can blow that condescending sh*te out your hole. Yourself and Enda will have to follow me to my grave to collect this tax, just like he has promised. Please god that will be far enough down the road for ye all to be a long forgotten blemish in Irish history.

Slick50

Ian64 wrote: »

MIR is a handout plain and simple, Stamp duty is NOT a housing tax it is a transaction tax.
By your logic car owners should get a handout because they are providing their own transport!
Wake up and get real.

You can call it what you like, it is money paid to government, which is tax. It is only levied on house purchases, it is a de facto housing tax.

It is not my logic, I did not creat it. It is a "relief" ceded by government, the clue is in the name. It is a reduction in the ammount of money taken from me, how is that a handout.

Isn't "transaction tax" what has Enda running over to London to show solidarity with the brits in their fight against the introduction of such a thing?

(If you buy the right type of car, you will get tax relief, already!)

Hijpo

Im waiting for the day that someone finds a loophole that makes T.Ds exempt from paying this tax and the water charges that miraculously the average family cant avail of.

I wont be paying it, i pay enough in USC/PRSI/PAYE and seem to get NOTHING back from any of it to ease the pressure when times get tough. We have to use a filter jug with the state of the water supplied where we live, why should i pay for sh** quality water that i cant survive on? I got off my arse and worked hard to afford my house, im still working hard to pay for my house, i didnt go to the government for a few bob to pay for my house, i didnt go on the dole and move into a council house, have 5 kids, claim for a medical card etc im not telling the social im living somewhere else when im really living with my partner so she can claim extra benfits.
Were honest, me and my partner work hard for what we have, we are not living above our means, anything we have we can afford (at the moment)

My life is financialy stable, i made it that way, yet i feel like the government arnt happy until im in arrears

These water charges and house hold tax's feel like extortion, and im not happy about being made to pay out money under pressure. You dont see the church banging on peoples doors making them put two quid in there little brown envelopes.

Ghandee

Ian64 wrote: »

The dolites in their council houses who pay for nothing will be exempt from the charge, which is madness.
Anyone who doesnt pay the charge should have the right to vote taken off them.

:eek::eek:

Is your Surname Paisley by any chance?