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

psychward

MadYaker wrote: »

It is true that they get better services but their system is clearer superior to ours when you consider the mess were in. Im in favour of higher taves if it means better services in the long run and hopefully once we are out of recession and have paid off our debts that is what we will get.

well you bend over and show some round brown but I certainly wont

Their system isnt so superior either. They are just larger bullies who are forcing us to bail their similarly fu(ked system out by laundering the cash through private banks which happen to be listed on the Irish stock exchange ( as well as inconveniently for them.. Frankfurt,Dax etc). Our lower taxes system worked fine and created jobs. It's the cancers such as Fianna Failure, gangster and RTE Pravda and media bailouts which need excision

Hijpo

MadYaker wrote: »

This country needs a bit of a reality check. I met my parents for dinner yesterday and we got talking about this. They bought a house in the south of france last year and they pay €1600 per year property tax on it. They also pay myriad of other taxes in relation to the house, a local council tax etc. We have been bailed out with French and German money and when they hear how little taxes we pay and how much our civil servants are paid in comparison to them they are p*ssed to say the least. I have absolutely no problem paying this charge and paying water charges when they come

The people who are against this charge and water charges are delusional and especially the TDs who are refusing to pay are a f*cking disgrace and an embarrassment to us all.

So cut the civil servants and TD's pay and then see where we stand when it comes to more tax. It was mentioned earlier that expenditure is the problem not how much of a contribution people make. Thats what has people so reluctant to pay these extra charges. Lets be fair, the TD's get big salarys and still get to claim expenses and tax breaks, i mean is there anything they have to pay full price for?? Then you get people on here bitching when the regular joe soap doesnt want to pay 100 euro.
The household tax is 100 a year and the TV licence is 160, now either the household charge isnt all that important or the TV licence is WAY over charged.

Slick50

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Latest news for those not keeping up. Ireland has introduced a property tax. We didn't have to but we did.

Yes, I know, and I'm shocked and disgusted. I can't believe Enda did this despite knowing "it is morally wrong unjust and unfair to tax a persons home"
Enda

The Quadratic Equation

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

1994? That's stretching it a bit.

lol, since when did lies have a time limit ?

dxhound2005

Slick50 wrote: »

Yes, I know, and I'm shocked and disgusted. I can't believe Enda did this despite knowing "it is morally wrong unjust and unfair to tax a persons home"
Enda

Doesn't surprise me that much. Any politician who said they would never change their mind on any subject would be a fool. Part of the imperfect democratic system we have to put up with until someone finds a better one. An example of a politician who refused to change policy when a lot of others considered her position unsustainable is Mrs Thatcher "The lady's not for turning". Didn't win her all that much admiration as I recall.

eth0

Shh everyone knows politicians become the polar opposite of their pre-election selves once in Government

Am Chile

The pro household tax posters won,t be too happy, when they see the size of the crowd who turned up at an anti household tax public meeting earlier tonight, public opinion is against you and you know it.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=311231925587453&set=a.246497505394229.55918.244762212234425&type=1&theater

donalg1

Am Chile wrote: »

The pro household tax posters won,t be too happy, when they see the size of the crowd who turned up at an anti household tax public meeting earlier tonight, public opinion is against you and you know it.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=311231925587453&set=a.246497505394229.55918.244762212234425&type=1&theater

And was Mick Wallace there telling people not to pay, sure he would know all about that anyway seeing as he owes an absolute fortune to the state, but sure maybe he can withold some more employees pension payments to save himself some more money.

Democratic Right

Wow, Took me ages to read through all the posts.
To answer the thhread posted Yes I am , actually I already have.
I've lived abroad and paying a household tax and indeed an occupancy tax is not unusual.
The problem is it should have been introduced years ago, now people resent it.
Anyway the way it has been framed it will have to be paid eventually because it and the penaltys that come with are a charge on the property, so paying now is cheaper in the long run.

Hijpo

Democratic Right wrote: »

Wow, Took me ages to read through all the posts.
To answer the thhread posted Yes I am , actually I already have.
I've lived abroad and paying a household tax and indeed an occupancy tax is not unusual.
The problem is it should have been introduced years ago, now people resent it.
Anyway the way it has been framed it will have to be paid eventually because it and the penaltys that come with are a charge on the property, so paying now is cheaper in the long run.

It wont be cheeper because they will increase it and all the big wigs will find a way out of paying it. How can they forcast an earning of 160 mill if they dont even know how many vacant houses there are that wont be paying?

Galtee

MadYaker wrote: »

This country needs a bit of a reality check. I met my parents for dinner yesterday and we got talking about this. They bought a house in the south of france last year and they pay €1600 per year property tax on it. They also pay myriad of other taxes in relation to the house, a local council tax etc. We have been bailed out with French and German money and when they hear how little taxes we pay and how much our civil servants are paid in comparison to them they are p*ssed to say the least. I have absolutely no problem paying this charge and paying water charges when they come in.

The people who are against this charge and water charges are delusional and especially the TDs who are refusing to pay are a f*cking disgrace and an embarrassment to us all.

What a silly post IMHO. The problem people have is that these taxes are being brought in so that the money from the exchequer that would have gone to funding local authorities before is now no longer available because of the bank bailout and so this is being used to plug the hole(s) along with the proposed water tax etc., let's not forget that. It's typical old Ireland mentality at play by everyone who is pro household charge, trying to control people and get them to comply with their "what will the neighbours think" tactics. Feck the neighbours, let them think what they like.

Galtee

Democratic Right wrote: »

Wow, Took me ages to read through all the posts.
To answer the thhread posted Yes I am , actually I already have.
I've lived abroad and paying a household tax and indeed an occupancy tax is not unusual.
The problem is it should have been introduced years ago, now people resent it.
Anyway the way it has been framed it will have to be paid eventually because it and the penaltys that come with are a charge on the property, so paying now is cheaper in the long run.

Seems to me you're trying to counter negative publicitiy and persuade people to pay by selecting certain taxes from abroad that bolster the point you're trying to make. Now why would someone do that? That seems like lackey mentality IMHO. Hmmmmmm.

Frank Black

Galtee wrote: »

Seems to me you're trying to counter negative publicitiy and persuade people to pay by selecting certain taxes from abroad that bolster the point you're trying to make. Now why would someone do that? That seems like lackey mentality IMHO. Hmmmmmm.

Everyone who agrees with the concept of broadening our tax base is a 'lackey' or a 'sheeple' apparently.

I wondered after reading Democratic Rights post how long it would take one of ye to brand him - well you didn't disapoint Galtee.

Seems like when you've run out of arguments (actually, I don't think you ever really had any did you?), you resort to the name calling and cheap sloganeering.

Democratic Right

Galtee wrote: »

Seems to me you're trying to counter negative publicitiy and persuade people to pay by selecting certain taxes from abroad that bolster the point you're trying to make. Now why would someone do that? That seems like lackey mentality IMHO. Hmmmmmm.

No Im not.
Im just saying tht im paying and explaining why im paying, thats what the thread is about.
The insult about lackey mentality is not neccessary.

Galtee

Democratic Right wrote: »

No Im not.
Im just saying tht im paying and explaining why im paying, thats what the thread is about.
The insult about lackey mentality is not neccessary.

What has paying a property tax abroad got to do with paying here? I just find that people who are pro tax seem to be quite selective with their explanations of why they agree with the tax.

K-9

Galtee wrote: »

What has paying a property tax abroad got to do with paying here? I just find that people who are pro tax seem to be quite selective with their explanations of why they agree with the tax.

The anti-tax people are just as selective.

The thread is just a chance for sly digs and name calling at this stage.

Galtee

black francis wrote: »

Everyone who agrees with the concept of broadening our tax base is a 'lackey' or a 'sheeple' apparently.

An everyone who disagress is what?

black francis wrote: »

I wondered after reading Democratic Rights post how long it would take one of ye to brand him - well you didn't disapoint Galtee.

I try not to disappoint. Thanks for noticing.

black francis wrote: »

Seems like when you've run out of arguments (actually, I don't think you ever really had any did you?),

What are you talking about? Maybe you're in the wrong thread? The argument is for or against the houshold charge. I've made it quite clear that I'm against? How can you not understand this?

black francis wrote: »

you resort to the name calling and cheap sloganeering.

This is the one that really made me laugh. Do you even know what the word sloganeering means, you've used it so many times. :rolleyes: Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. As for resorting to cheap name calling I really don't think you of all people are in any position to be taking the moral high ground on that.

Frank Black

Galtee wrote: »

This is the one that really made me laugh. Do you even know what the word sloganeering means, you've used it so many times. :rolleyes: Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. As for resorting to cheap name calling I really don't think you of all people are in any position to be taking the moral high ground on that.

Please explain this statement - a few examples where I've resorted to name calling in this thread would be nice - presuming you're able to find any examples.

And yep, I know what 'sloganering' means - here's a definition in case you don't http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sloganeering

Again, a few examples of where you think it's been mis-used would be most interesting.

Galtee

black francis wrote: »

Please explain this statement - a few examples where I've resorted to name calling in this thread would be nice - presuming you're able to find any examples.

And yep, I know what 'sloganering' means - here's a definition in case you don't http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sloganeering

Again, a few examples of where you think it's been mis-used would be most interesting.

Off the top of my head, Insinuating that people are sloganeers to try and discredit their argument is one such example that has been used on several occasions by yourself. That shows exactly why type of person you are, you believe your statements of opinion are beyond reproach and as such you can't even see the hypocrisy in repeatedly calling people sloganeers.

Frank Black

Galtee wrote: »

Off the top of my head, Insinuating that people are sloganeers to try and discredit their argument is one such example that has been used on several occasions by yourself. That shows exactly why type of person you are, you believe your statements of opinion are beyond reproach and as such you can't even see the hypocrisy in repeatedly calling people sloganeers.

I'll just take it that you couldn't find any examples so just made stuff up 'off the top of your head', shall I?

Sounds about par for the course for you.

Democratic Right

Galtee wrote: »

What has paying a property tax abroad got to do with paying here? I just find that people who are pro tax seem to be quite selective with their explanations of why they agree with the tax.

Im not in the least selective.
Comparing our tax system with others in Europe is quite valid.
Im paying it because thats the law, Im paying it because I happen to believe that property as an asset should be taxable in the same way that savings are taxable through the D.I.R.T. system.
Im paying more tax now than before not only because of the banking collapse but because we have a structural defict in our public finances, that is even without the banks we spend more than we take in, thus taxes must rise and services must be cut or paid for.
it is worth noting however that we are not the only country who had to bail out their banks, the british, french, belgian, dutch and german governments have all had to nationalise or bail out banks.
Im not here to insult those who oppose taxation, thats their view, I would appreciate it if they paid me the same respect.

Galtee

black francis wrote: »

I'll just take it that you couldn't find any examples so just made stuff up 'off the top of your head', shall I?

Sounds about par for the course for you.

Thanks, you've just proven the point made in the previous post. I don't expect you'll get it for a while if at all.

Galtee

Democratic Right wrote: »

Im not in the least selective.
Comparing our tax system with others in Europe is quite valid.
Im paying it because thats the law, Im paying it because I happen to believe that property as an asset should be taxable in the same way that savings are taxable through the D.I.R.T. system.
Im paying more tax now than before not only because of the banking collapse but because we have a structural defict in our public finances, that is even without the banks we spend more than we take in, thus taxes must rise and services must be cut or paid for.
it is worth noting however that we are not the only country who had to bail out their banks, the british, french, belgian, dutch and german governments have all had to nationalise or bail out banks.
Im not here to insult those who oppose taxation, thats their view, I would appreciate it if they paid me the same respect.

Eh, NO. It's entirely down to the bank bailout, the adjustments made in the last 5 budgets would have more than covered the deficit had it not been for the amount of debt we're servicing because of the bailout. I didn't think anyone was still disputing this.

Democratic Right

Hijpo wrote: »

It wont be cheeper because they will increase it and all the big wigs will find a way out of paying it. How can they forcast an earning of 160 mill if they dont even know how many vacant houses there are that wont be paying?

Im not sure what they based their forcasts on, but knowing which house are occupied shouldnt be difficult they can check electoral registers, revenue records(address where tax credit certs were sent to) Social Welfare databases, ESB and Bord Gas databases etc.
In any event reading the legislation there is no requiremet that the house be occupied. And since the tax forms a charge on the property it cant be disposed of until the charge is paid.

Frank Black

Galtee wrote: »

Thanks, you've just proven the point made in the previous post. I don't expect you'll get it for a while if at all.

Well, I 'get' that you good at throwing around accusations but not so good at actually backing them up.

Hijpo

Democratic Right wrote: »

Galtee wrote: »

What has paying a property tax abroad got to do with paying here? I just find that people who are pro tax seem to be quite selective with their explanations of why they agree with the tax.

Im not in the least selective.
Comparing our tax system with others in Europe is quite valid.
Im paying it because thats the law, Im paying it because I happen to believe that property as an asset should be taxable in the same way that savings are taxable through the D.I.R.T. system.
Im paying more tax now than before not only because of the banking collapse but because we have a structural defict in our public finances, that is even without the banks we spend more than we take in, thus taxes must rise and services must be cut or paid for.
it is worth noting however that we are not the only country who had to bail out their banks, the british, french, belgian, dutch and german governments have all had to nationalise or bail out banks.
Im not here to insult those who oppose taxation, thats their view, I would appreciate it if they paid me the same respect.

If your house drops 100k in value it can hardly be called an asset. Hit the people with 2 and 3 properties.

Chips Lovell

Hijpo wrote: »

Hit the people with 2 and 3 properties.

They already are. The second homes tax was introduced a few years ago.

Galtee

black francis wrote: »

Well, I 'get' that you good at throwing around accusations but not so good at actually backing them up.

If you really got it and had any sense of decorum, you would have stopped posting by now. :rolleyes:

K-9

Galtee wrote: »

Eh, NO. It's entirely down to the bank bailout, the adjustments made in the last 5 budgets would have more than covered the deficit had it not been for the amount of debt we're servicing because of the bailout. I didn't think anyone was still disputing this.

Yet we had an €18 Billion deficit last year, without Bank bail outs?

Hijpo wrote: »

If your house drops 100k in value it can hardly be called an asset. Hit the people with 2 and 3 properties.

Surely the people with 2 or 3 properties have taken twice or treble the hit?
That just sounds like just tax somebody else stuff.

Ogham

Democratic Right wrote: »

Im not sure what they based their forcasts on, but knowing which house are occupied shouldnt be difficult they can check electoral registers, revenue records(address where tax credit certs were sent to) Social Welfare databases, ESB and Bord Gas databases etc.
In any event reading the legislation there is no requiremet that the house be occupied. And since the tax forms a charge on the property it cant be disposed of until the charge is paid.

About 1.7 million houses will be liable according to this