Household Charge and the Fiscal Compact

Happy Monday

It is now clear that the vast majority of households will not pay the charge.

Polls on the fiscal compact show that the good people of Ireland are likely to endorse this treaty.

What am I missing?

Why are people refusing to pay one charge and voting for many more years of austerity to be imposed on this country from foreign shores?

Bullseye1

It's imposing proper governance on this country. For far too long Irish governments have wasted Irish taxpayers money. This will now put constraints on them to prevent them form over spending like that have in the past.

Hellrazer

Happy Monday wrote: »

It is now clear that the vast majority of households will not pay the charge.

Polls on the fiscal compact show that the good people of Ireland are likely to endorse this treaty.

What am I missing?

Why are people refusing to pay one charge and voting for many more years of austerity to be imposed on this country from foreign shores?

Im not sure people are going to vote in favour of the Fiscal Compact...anyone that Ive talked to is either still undecided or is using it as a vote of no confidence in this lot.Havent met many people that have said that they are voting in favour of it despite what the polls are saying.

Personally Im voting no...I cant seem to believe a word out of any politicians mouth these days so feck it Im not supporting them in this or believing what they are saying about this treaty.

femur61

I'm sorry I have paid the household charge. I didn't realise it was for local councils with their 6 weeks holidays. All I see are people in high viz vests standing around wasting my good money. They completed inane road works before christmas to use up their budget and some of the completed wroks are being dug up (Kilkenny).

Manach

I expect people who are against the Home tax can differenitate it between that of the Treaty change, which the latter on the prima facie seems to an attempt to reflect that in the real world that budgets have to be balanced and that sometimes has to entail cuts.

Vita nova

The answer is simple; money.

I think people would see the services funded by the household charge as beneficial, however, to avail of those benefits they must pay an extra €100.

In contrast, the Fiscal Compact Treaty also brings benefits, however, it doesn't cost the voter €100, all it requires is ticking the yes box

.

Icepick

Happy Monday wrote: »

many more years of austerity to be imposed on this country from foreign shores?

We don't have austerity yet. If people from 'foreign shores' refuse to bail us out, we will have real austerity.

poiuytsam

I think we will have to pay it sooner or later , going to go online and pay now , dont want to pay fines etc..

southsiderosie

For some context:

As of 4pm this afternoon, some 660,000 had registered leaving about 1 million households yet to pay the €100 charge ahead of the deadline at midnight tonight. Some 12,459 properties have registered for waivers and a further 89,000 postal applications have yet to be processed.

Happy Monday

southsiderosie wrote: »

For some context:

As of 4pm this afternoon, some 660,000 had registered leaving about 1 million households yet to pay the €100 charge ahead of the deadline at midnight tonight. Some 12,459 properties have registered for waivers and a further 89,000 postal applications have yet to be processed.

Can I ask those 1 million households who have not paid this charge to vote no on the fiscal compact please.

later12

poiuytsam wrote: »

I think we will have to pay it sooner or later , going to go online and pay now , dont want to pay fines etc..

Lucinda? Is that you?

The fines are probably the most outlandish thing about this household charge. €1 per month?

Vita nova

Happy Monday wrote: »

Can I ask those 1 million households who have not paid this charge to vote no on the fiscal compact please.

You can but you'd be lucky if 0.1% of them see your post, and besides they're going to need more than a polite request to change their minds.

Happy Monday

Vita nova wrote: »

Happy Monday wrote: »

Can I ask those 1 million households who have not paid this charge to vote no on the fiscal compact please.

You can but you'd be lucky if 0.1% of them see your post, and besides they're going to need more than a polite request to change their minds.

But why resist this government's attempts to introduce fiscal rectitude and then vote for an institutionalised form of same for the next 20 years?

FreudianSlippers

Happy Monday wrote: »

Vita nova wrote: »

Happy Monday wrote: »

Can I ask those 1 million households who have not paid this charge to vote no on the fiscal compact please.

You can but you'd be lucky if 0.1% of them see your post, and besides they're going to need more than a polite request to change their minds.

But why resist this government's attempts to introduce fiscal rectitude and then vote for an institutionalised form of same for the next 20 years?

Facepalm. You don't understand the compact, do you? New rule guys. If you don't know or understand what you're voting on you can't vote. Questionnaire at the beginning or something?

Do you have any support for your wild claim?

Happy Monday

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Happy Monday wrote: »

Vita nova wrote: »

Happy Monday wrote: »

Can I ask those 1 million households who have not paid this charge to vote no on the fiscal compact please.

You can but you'd be lucky if 0.1% of them see your post, and besides they're going to need more than a polite request to change their minds.

But why resist this government's attempts to introduce fiscal rectitude and then vote for an institutionalised form of same for the next 20 years?

Facepalm. You don't understand the compact, do you? New rule guys. If you don't know or understand what you're voting on you can't vote. Questionnaire at the beginning or something?

Do you have any support for your wild claim?

I do have a degree in Economics.
So I don't need to be guided by you my friend. Rest assured I have forgotten more about this topic than you will ever know.
The fiscal compact is the price Germany is insisting on to bail out the likes of Ireland and other problem economies.
Perhaps David McWilliams and I are off the pace and in you in your esteemed position of boards moderator should be the only voice on the topic.

FreudianSlippers

Happy Monday wrote: »

I do have a degree in Economics.
So I don't need to be guided by you my friend. Rest assured I have forgotten more about this topic than you will ever know.
The fiscal compact is the price Germany is insisting on to bail out the likes of Ireland and other problem economies.
Perhaps David McWilliams and I are off the pace and in you in your esteemed position of boards moderator should be the only voice on the topic.

Oh they do constitutional law and legislative drafting in the economics degrees now?

Your economics degree (super impressed btw) clearly does not allow you to comprehend the fact that the household charge is not being imposed by the fiscal compact. Furthermore, there is nothing in the referendum or the compact that would have a prima facie effect of "forcing" Ireland to impose any fiscal matters unless it fails to comply with the rules therein set.

So, frankly, either you don't understand the point or are purposely misrepresenting the point here that there is a link between the referendum/compact and the "fiscal rectitude" imposed by a €100 charge per annum.

Also, before getting into pissing matches with people about degrees, never presume that your qualifications are particularly spectacular in comparison to someone you don't know.

Happy Monday

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Happy Monday wrote: »

I do have a degree in Economics.
So I don't need to be guided by you my friend. Rest assured I have forgotten more about this topic than you will ever know.
The fiscal compact is the price Germany is insisting on to bail out the likes of Ireland and other problem economies.
Perhaps David McWilliams and I are off the pace and in you in your esteemed position of boards moderator should be the only voice on the topic.

Oh they do constitutional law and legislative drafting in the economics degrees now?

Your economics degree (super impressed btw) clearly does not allow you to comprehend the fact that the household charge is not being imposed by the fiscal compact. Furthermore, there is nothing in the referendum or the compact that would have a prima facie effect of "forcing" Ireland to impose any fiscal matters unless it fails to comply with the rules therein set.

So, frankly, either you don't understand the point or are purposely misrepresenting the point here that there is a link between the referendum/compact and the "fiscal rectitude" imposed by a €100 charge per annum.

Also, before getting into pissing matches with people about degrees, never presume that your qualifications are particularly spectacular in comparison to someone you don't know.

You clearly didn't understand the point of my post.

I am willing to make allowances given the onerous responsibilities a boards mod takes on that we mere mortals can only dream of.

I never suggested that the charge and compact were linked in any binding sense.

My point is that if 1 million households are willing to defy the government's right to raise taxes as this time of economic difficulty why then vote in the coming weeks for a fiscal straight jacket that will make this charge look like a walk in the park compared to what is coming down the track.

The polls suggest the people will vote for the compact but the facts show they won't pay for extra charges.

FreudianSlippers

Happy Monday wrote: »

You clearly didn't understand the point of my post.

I am willing to make allowances given the onerous responsibilities a boards mod takes on that we mere mortals can only dream of.

I never suggested that the charge and compact were linked in any binding sense.

You implied some level of correlation in the sense that the treaty will "force" us to do things and implement more taxes. I disagree with this on its very basic level because there is nothing in the treaty that implicitly "forces" "us" to do anything (outside of a future and causative scenario - i.e. if a country does x then y shall happen) and I would be slightly wary of someone with a fancy economics degree who is unable to see this.

But I am willing to make allowances as you have admitted that you have forgotten a lot about this topic. :P

My point is that if 1 million households are willing to defy the government's right to raise taxes as this time of economic difficulty why then vote in the coming weeks for a fiscal straight jacket that will make this charge look like a walk in the park compared to what is coming down the track.

Maybe because they see that the fiscal compact actually does not impose anything that is not necessary. We have proven that we are incapable of managing our economy to a level that is safe and acceptable - we are now attempting to remedy this situation. Are you suggesting that we may want to go crazy into debt again in the future? Some kind of recession nostalgia effect in 50 years or so?

What is wrong with imposing fiscal restraints on the countries that have caused this mess in the first place?



PS: Don't have mod envy, other than the coke and hookers at boards HQ; the perks aren't that great. Oh the pay is fantastic though.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

This thread is not about credentials, it is ostensibly about why people would not pay the household charge, but would vote for the fiscal compact treaty. If posters cannot stay on topic or be civil when posting, then please reconsider posting on this thread. Further OT squabbling will be seen as an attempt to derail the thread and will be infracted accordingly.

I will also add that since this is a still unfolding story, if you are going to make claims about who has or has not paid, please provide a link, because the number of households that have decided to pay has increased with the deadline. Otherwise we will get bogged down in tit-for-tat over numbers that are readily available.

Happy Monday

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Happy Monday wrote: »

You clearly didn't understand the point of my post.

I am willing to make allowances given the onerous responsibilities a boards mod takes on that we mere mortals can only dream of.

I never suggested that the charge and compact were linked in any binding sense.

You implied some level of correlation in the sense that the treaty will "force" us to do things and implement more taxes. I disagree with this on its very basic level because there is nothing in the treaty that implicitly "forces" "us" to do anything (outside of a future and causative scenario - i.e. if a country does x then y shall happen) and I would be slightly wary of someone with a fancy economics degree who is unable to see this.

But I am willing to make allowances as you have admitted that you have forgotten a lot about this topic. :P

My point is that if 1 million households are willing to defy the government's right to raise taxes as this time of economic difficulty why then vote in the coming weeks for a fiscal straight jacket that will make this charge look like a walk in the park compared to what is coming down the track.

Maybe because they see that the fiscal compact actually does not impose anything that is not necessary. We have proven that we are incapable of managing our economy to a level that is safe and acceptable - we are now attempting to remedy this situation. Are you suggesting that we may want to go crazy into debt again in the future? Some kind of recession nostalgia effect in 50 years or so?

What is wrong with imposing fiscal restraints on the countries that have caused this mess in the first place?



PS: Don't have mod envy, other than the coke and hookers at boards HQ; the perks aren't that great. Oh the pay is fantastic though.

Why don't the people pay the charge then?

FreudianSlippers

Happy Monday wrote: »

Why don't the people pay the charge then?

I really wish I knew. They are protesting - I keep hearing "final straw" etc.

It's not about the charge in all likelihood... I mean it's flippin' €100/year, less than €2/week! These are the same people that don't want "austerity" but won't contribute less than €2/week? If someone could tell me how in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster these people cannot see the irony of this I would be a happier man.

flutered

happy monday, many people realise that the permissory note has been paid, to me it seems that noonan has been recieving grinds from seanie and fingers on the way it was paid, also kenny is so thick that he cannon figure it out, they also know that phil the flute(r) could not afford a 10% wage cut because his life style could not afford it, they now realise that he is refusing to pay the management fee on his penthouse suite based on a golf course in sunny pourtgal, as he disagrees with the service that he is getting, he does not want to realise that quite a few of us are getting bad service for our councils, also we know that it will never improve.

Statistician

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I really wish I knew. They are protesting - I keep hearing "final straw" etc.

It's not about the charge in all likelihood... I mean it's flippin' €100/year, less than €2/week! These are the same people that don't want "austerity" but won't contribute less than €2/week? If someone could tell me how in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster these people cannot see the irony of this I would be a happier man.

It's easy really.
Some people do not have €2/week. They may be living hand to mouth as it is. Unbelievable as it may sound, their income may be less than their outgoings.
Other people may see what is coming down the tracks. It is €100 this year, but the main purpose of this is to collect data and set a precedent. Why do the Government need to collect data? - so they can charge a lot more for next year onwards. It's also much harder to protest when people have already started paying.
People that can afford €2/week now, may not be able to afford €1000+ a year.

Another factor is that all these charges, taxes, duties etc all add up. This could very well be the straw that breaks the camel's back - or the 'final straw'. It is the easiest tax, for most people, not to pay.

BluntGuy

Statistician wrote: »

It's easy really.
Some people do not have €2/week. They may be living hand to mouth as it is.

Such are generally exempt for paying this charge.

People that can afford €2/week now, may not be able to afford €1000+ a year.

No evidence that this will be the case.

Another factor is that all these charges, taxes, duties etc all add up. This could very well be the straw that breaks the camel's back - or the 'final straw'. It is the easiest one not to pay.

What happens when services start being cut then?

Statistician

BluntGuy wrote: »

Such are generally exempt for paying this charge.

Some people are, some aren't. The charge is not means tested. If a person owns a house they are liable - even if they are in negative equity and can't pay the mortgage.

No evidence that this will be the case.

Seriously? Okay - there is no evidence. Do you really believe it will stay at €100 when we see the state of the economy?

What happens when services start being cut then?

Services are going to get cut anyway. It's just maths.

Remember that this charge isn't about funding services, it's about servicing bondholders/hedgefund holders. Was't local authority funding recent cut by a few million?

Around and around in circles we go - there are over 10,000 posts in AH about this.

BluntGuy

Statistician wrote: »

Some people are, some aren't. The charge is not means tested. If a person owns a house they are liable - even if they are in negative equity and can't pay the mortgage.

https://www.householdcharge.ie/Faq.aspx#fk47

Seriously? Okay - there is no evidence. Do you really believe it will stay at €100 when we see the state of the economy?

No, because the government have clearly indicated that a full property tax is on the way. But there is no evidence for the €1000 charges which you seem to be suggesting.

Services are going to get cut anyway. It's just maths.

It's also "just maths" that services will be further cut if tax revenue falls short of what's needed to keep the reduced services running.

Remember that this charge isn't about funding services, it's about servicing bondholders/hedgefund holders.

I'm trying to remember this, but it doesn't ring a bell.

Was't local authority funding recent cut by a few million?

And?

Statistician

BluntGuy wrote: »

https://www.householdcharge.ie/Faq.aspx#fk47

What's the relevance of that link? As I said, some people are exempt, others are not. It is not means tested. That link is about people on MIS and ghost estates. Many more people will not be able to afford this and will be liable to pay.

No, because the government have clearly indicated that a full property tax is on the way. But there is no evidence for the €1000 charges which you seem to be suggesting.

Ah, I see. So how much will this property tax be then? €100? Will they be setting up a new database to administer this tax since it's completely different to the household charge? - data protection and all that...

I'm trying to remember this, but it doesn't ring a bell.
And?

Can you not see the link here?
The government has to pay billions to bondholders and hedgefund holders. To help do this they cut local authority funding. Then they introduce a new thing called 'Household charge' which they claim is to pay for services.

I'm proud that I didn't pay by the way. Only by not paying can we get real change for the better. As an attempt to stay on topic, I will also be voting NO to the Fiscal Compact. This is because I want the Irish Government to stop borrowing so much and actually address the elephant in the room.

BluntGuy

Statistician wrote: »

What's the relevance of that link? As I said, some people are exempt, others are not. It is not means tested. That link is about people on MIS and ghost estates. Many more people will not be able to afford this and will be liable to pay.

Who are these people? Sorry I really do find it difficult to belief that there is a huge cohort of people out there who are not in social housing, not in receipt of mortgage interest supplement and not on social welfare or associated benefits who would really struggle to find two euro a week. I can accept some people might find it difficult, but I'd be happy to wager the majority of people liable for the charge can afford it.

Ah, I see. So how much will this property tax be then? €100? Will they be setting up a new database to administer this tax since it's completely different to the household charge? - data protection and all that...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1221/1224309341804.html

Under the commission’s proposed scheme a charge of €188 would be paid on houses valued at up to €150,000; €563 on houses between €150,000 and €300,000; €938 on houses up to €450,000; €1,313 on houses valued at up to €600,000; €1,699 on houses up to €750,000; €2,188 on houses valued at up to €1 million; €3,125 on houses up to €1.5 million and 0.25 per cent of the valuation on houses over that.

Not the prettiest figures to look at, but a far cry from the 1000+ claim. And as the article points out, the likelihood is that the charge will probably come in lower than this and undoubtedly with a whole raft of exemptions for those who can't pay.

The government has to pay billions to bondholders and hedgefund holders. To help do this they cut local authority funding. Then they introduce a new thing called 'Household charge' which they claim is to pay for services.

Disagreeing with NAMA and the blanket guarantee doesn't entitle one to ignore reality. Those deals are done and the money ain't coming back. The bondholders have been paid. As infuriating as it may be, we have to move on and control what we can control now - namely our own spending.

I'm proud that I didn't pay by the way. Only by not paying can we get real change for the better.

Like services being cut further?

As an attempt to stay on topic, I will also be voting NO to the Fiscal Compact. This is because I want the Irish Government to stop borrowing so much and actually address the elephant in the room.

The elephant being...?

FreudianSlippers

The Fiscal Compact ensures that countries do not get into massive amounts of debt again and that their constitutions reflect that idea. It contains provision that countries that break the rules therein set are made implement suggestions by the Commission.

Two questions for those in this thread still:
1) What is actually so bad about that?
2) What has that got to do with the Household Charge?

Statistician

BluntGuy wrote: »

Like services being cut further?

The route this country is taking will for certain involve services being cut further. The household charge really is negligible.

The only way I can see that we can have real change for the better, is not to comply with the current regime. Complying gives the message that we are happy with the way the country is being run.

ressem

BluntGuy wrote: »

No evidence that this will be the case.

In fairness, it is one of the recommendations of the Department of Finance's commission on taxation report 2009.
http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/Report.asp
Part 6 on property, page 166.

The following assumptions are made in the tables:

A waiver rate of 25% (for valuation bands A-E) broadly reflects the proportion of the workforce that is now on the Live Register
A waiver rate of 10% is assumed for those in valuation bands F and G.
136,000 local authority houses are excluded from valuation bands A and B but are included in the overall total of 1,934,000 houses, and
A projected yield for Band H is not ascertainable in the absence of values for houses in this category.

Table 6.2 – applying a tax rate of 0.25% to the midpoint of the valuation band
Valuation band| No. of houses| Charge per property| Projected gross yield| Waiver| Net yield
€| -| € | €m| €m| €m
A 0 - €150,000| 140,000| 188| 26| 7| 19
B €150,001 - €300,000| 1,165,000| 563| 656| 164| 492
C €300,001 - €450,000| 330,000| 938| 310| 78| 232
D €450,001 - €600,000| 120,000| 1,313| 158| 40| 118
E €600,001 - €750,000| 30,000| 1,688| 51 |13| 38
F €750,001 - €1,000,000| 11,000| 2,188 |24| 2 |22
G €1,000,001 -€1,500,000| 2,000| 3125| 6| 1| 5
H €1,500,001 and higher| 1,000| Value * 0.25 | -| -| -
– – –
Total| 1,934,000|- | 1,231| 305| 926

There's a second table suggesting a .3% tax on the properties valuation.

Happy Monday

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The Fiscal Compact ensures that countries do not get into massive amounts of debt again and that their constitutions reflect that idea. It contains provision that countries that break the rules therein set are made implement suggestions by the Commission.

Two questions for those in this thread still:
1) What is actually so bad about that?
2) What has that got to do with the Household Charge?

What is so bad about that?
The extent of fiscal tightening that this economy will have to endure over the next 3 years.
Yes Ireland needs to narrow its budget deficit but not in the timeframe set out by Germany and the ECB.
A bit like paying your credit card off over 6 months as opposed to 6 days.

By the way this compact would not have prevented Ireland from getting into massive amounts of debt for 2 reasons. The first is that as the economy was booming the Irish government was able to commit itself to high levels of spend and still run large surpluses. It was only when the party ended and revenues dropped like a stone were we ino a large budget deficit scenario. The second is that the huge level of banking debt had nothing to do with governmental finances.

What has this go to do with the Household Charge?
The first of many tax raising measures needed to bridge the gap to meet budget deficit criteria laid down in the fiscal compact. If we are to meet tight fiscal rules large cuts to spending and new charges will come in.

The point of this thread was to ask this question.

WHY ARE THE GOOD PEOPLE OF IRELAND NOT PAYING THIS CHARGE NEEDED TO GIVE MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT TO HELP WITH NARROWING BUDGET DEFICITS BUT IN A FEW WEEKS TIME GOING TO VOTE YES WHICH WILL INTRODUCE MORE OF THE SAME DOWN THE TRACK?

recedite

The fiscal compact will protect euro country citizens from the over-borrowing of populist governments who overspend in the present time for popularity, thereby destroying the people's future.

A property tax should be supported by any socialists. Basic politics.

But one possible reason for not paying this household charge is that it is collected by central govt. If we had a council tax which directly funded local services, like they have in the UK, then there would be a reason for electing councillors. Those councils that provided the best services for the least tax would be rated the best by the public.
"No taxation without representation" as the yankees used to say to King George's men.

Happy Monday

recedite wrote: »

The fiscal compact will protect euro country citizens from the over-borrowing of populist governments who overspend in the present time for popularity, thereby destroying the people's future.

A property tax should be supported by any socialists. Basic politics.

But one possible reason for not paying this household charge is that it is collected by central govt. If we had a council tax which directly funded local services, like they have in the UK, then there would be a reason for electing councillors. Those councils that provided the best services for the least tax would be rated the best by the public.
"No taxation without representation" as the yankees used to say to King George's men.

Not when things are going well.
The Irish government increased spending massively over the last 10 years on the back of huge revenue amounts and were still able to run surpluses.
It was only when the economy crashed that the overspeding became apparent.

We do elect all councillors and all members of central government.
We don't elect Angela Merkel, that twit Sarkozy or the ECB.

Scofflaw

Happy Monday wrote: »

WHY ARE THE GOOD PEOPLE OF IRELAND NOT PAYING THIS CHARGE NEEDED TO GIVE MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT TO HELP WITH NARROWING BUDGET DEFICITS BUT IN A FEW WEEKS TIME GOING TO VOTE YES WHICH WILL INTRODUCE MORE OF THE SAME DOWN THE TRACK?

Statistician wrote:

I'm proud that I didn't pay by the way. Only by not paying can we get real change for the better. As an attempt to stay on topic, I will also be voting NO to the Fiscal Compact. This is because I want the Irish Government to stop borrowing so much and actually address the elephant in the room.

I find it impressive that two such irreconcilable positions can be taken on the same thing. Of the two, I'd have to give slightly more credit to Happy Monday, whose position is at least slightly logical on the Treaty, whereas voting against spending constraints in order to prevent borrowing is bizarre. I presume the logic behind it is to prevent Ireland tapping the ESM - but the need to tap ESM has nothing to do with whether we could tap ESM. If we can't tap ESM, there's still nothing bar the Maastricht limits which prevents the government over-spending and needing to borrow - nor is there anything that does away with the need to borrow to roll over existing debt. We can either return to the markets, or else, if we can't, being unable to tap ESM most likely means that some kind of special bailout arrangement for Ireland will have to be cooked up - and the chances of that being less expensive than ESM is zero.

On the OP, a major objection to paying a direct tax like the Household Charge is probably that it's a direct charge. Most people do not pay their taxes directly, but through deductions at source - and most taxes are arranged that way because direct taxes do generate more resentment. Without evidence that people's objections is based on some kind of objection in principle to what little austerity Ireland has suffered, the OP's question doesn't require an answer, because it's only his opinion that it's a meaningful question - and given the answer by Statistician, it's clear that the OP's explanation definitely isn't universally applicable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the OP, a major objection to paying a direct tax like the Household Charge is probably that it's a direct charge. Most people do not pay their taxes directly, but through deductions at source - and most taxes are arranged that way because direct taxes do generate more resentment.

Bit OT but there was a really fun Stanford University paper on this about two years ago, where it was suggested that the direct, salient nature of the US property tax was relevant to its unpopularity (as well as revolt).

While I am opposed to the property tax, and I'd suggest there are good reasons to be, it's almost beyond doubt that the direct manner of its payment is largely behind its unpopularity.

http://www.nber.org/public_html/confer/2010/SI2010/PETSI/Cabral_Hoxby.pdf

beeftotheheels

later12 wrote: »

Bit OT but there was a really fun Stanford University paper on this about two years ago, where it was suggested that the direct, salient nature of the US property tax was relevant to its unpopularity (as well as revolt).

http://www.nber.org/public_html/confer/2010/SI2010/PETSI/Cabral_Hoxby.pdf

Having made it to page five without even a wry grin I'm going to have to question your definition of "fun"?

later12

I am now questioning that myself.

Another interesting finding was that property rates themselves might be lower where their payment is more salient. So decreasing the conspicuous nature of the tax might be of interest to Phil Hogan & local governments as a way not only to increase compliance, but also to increase the rate, which is something that looks doomed to run into difficulty.

southsiderosie

later12 wrote: »

Bit OT but there was a really fun Stanford University paper on this about two years ago, where it was suggested that the direct, salient nature of the US property tax was relevant to its unpopularity (as well as revolt).

While I am opposed to the property tax, and I'd suggest there are good reasons to be, it's almost beyond doubt that the direct manner of its payment is largely behind its unpopularity.

http://www.nber.org/public_html/confer/2010/SI2010/PETSI/Cabral_Hoxby.pdf

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Having made it to page five without even a wry grin I'm going to have to question your definition of "fun"?

Haha, that IS fun for an economics paper!

All joking aside, I do think there is something to the whole 'hidden vs. direct tax' theory.

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Having made it to page five without even a wry grin I'm going to have to question your definition of "fun"?

Seconded, I fear. Very readable, though. I wonder if the government considered the escrow method, given their control over the banks - adding €8.33 to monthly mortgage payments would seem less outrageous, I suspect, than actually forking over €100.

Illustrates the point that you can't just claim, as the OP has, that non-payment is based on some kind of principle. I'd be interested to see whether the self-employed/business owners are less resistant to the tax, given their greater familiarity with direct taxation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

beeftotheheels

southsiderosie wrote: »

Haha, that IS fun for an economics paper!

Ah, "Equity, Volunteers and Ducks" was the most fun article you could read as a law student in the UK back in the day. Alas the Privity of Contract Act means that its an article the youf of today will probably never get to read. But it did involve Donald and his nephew signing contracts for the benefit of third parties (the other nephews). Cracking read.

southsiderosie wrote: »

All joking aside, I do think there is something to the whole 'hidden vs. direct tax' theory.

I think there's another element which is expectations. I get so frustrated every time I'm at a till in the US when the amount I'm having to pay is not the amount advertised because I'm used to VAT. Splitting a sales tax out strikes me as nonsensical as I take for granted that there will be one included in the price, whereas to a US person they expect to see the amount of sales tax front and centre.

Part of that expectations issue comes back to silly things like naming I think. Imagine a revolt over the TV licence? Because at introduction it was, and remains, firmly linked in the eyes of the payers to a particular service.

Similarly people think of PRSI as being something other than a tax on income which then creates an "entitlement" culture when it comes to benefits which ignores the reality that for the foreseeable future benefits will be funded out of general government expenditure.

Whereas this, could be viewed, as being a charge for services which were previously available for free (albeit paid for out of exchequer coffers).

Perhaps the answer is to withdraw all local services and then start afresh with a local government service charge?

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Ah, "Equity, Volunteers and Ducks" was the most fun article you could read as a law student in the UK back in the day. Alas the Privity of Contract Act means that its an article the youf of today will probably never get to read. But it did involve Donald and his nephew signing contracts for the benefit of third parties (the other nephews). Cracking read.



I think there's another element which is expectations. I get so frustrated every time I'm at a till in the US when the amount I'm having to pay is not the amount advertised because I'm used to VAT. Splitting a sales tax out strikes me as nonsensical as I take for granted that there will be one included in the price, whereas to a US person they expect to see the amount of sales tax front and centre.

Part of that expectations issue comes back to silly things like naming I think. Imagine a revolt over the TV licence? Because at introduction it was, and remains, firmly linked in the eyes of the payers to a particular service.

Similarly people think of PRSI as being something other than a tax on income which then creates an "entitlement" culture when it comes to benefits which ignores the reality that for the foreseeable future benefits will be funded out of general government expenditure.

Whereas this, could be viewed, as being a charge for services which were previously available for free (albeit paid for out of exchequer coffers).

Perhaps the answer is to withdraw all local services and then start afresh with a local government service charge?

Heck, even framing it as the "Local Government Service Charge" would have helped a bit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

recedite

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wonder if the government considered the escrow method, given their control over the banks - adding €8.33 to monthly mortgage payments would seem less outrageous, I suspect, than actually forking over €100.

More palatable, if it was a tax on mortgages.
In the USA escrow is used by the lender to prevent their becoming liable for an accumulation of unpaid property taxes, if they have to repossess a property.

But here, it's not clear whether the householder or the lender would be liable for unpaid "household charges" in that situation.

Anyway, the authors of the unfunny report are in favour of having more transparent taxes, not hidden taxes;

In short, we propose an agenda setting model in which greater tax salience increases the probability that voters will successfully propose their own alternative budget and alternative status quo.
The competition between voters' proposal and government's proposal will force the proposals from both sides toward the median voter. That is, the higher is salience, the greater is the probability that voters will propose a budget and affect the status quo, and smaller is the ability of government to exploit its agenda setting capability. Through this mechanism alone (in which people are not assumed to be naïve about politicians and tax salience), greater tax salience will produce lower taxes.

Again, the classic American prosperity philosophy; "No taxation without representation"

beeftotheheels

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heck, even framing it as the "Local Government Service Charge" would have helped a bit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Or a "future wealth tax database registration fee"?

later12

recedite wrote: »

Anyway, the authors of the unfunny report are in favour of having more transparent taxes, not hidden taxes;

More salient taxes would probably have a remarkable effect on Ireland's route to fiscal consolidation, as the report suggests this might mean increased taxes being replaced with retrenchment.

Imagine the outcries over wasted or excessive expenditure if Irish people had to issue income tax to the Government by going to the ATM, withdrawing their cash, and lodging it with a civil servant. Or if VAT was collected like sales tax in the USA, as beeftotheheels alluded to.

That might be a far more effective way of reducing Ireland's fiscal deficit than the Treaty of Fiscal Governance. (I realise it would be an opportunity for chaotic tax revolt, which along with the admin burden is probably why we don't do it).

Scofflaw

recedite wrote: »

More palatable, if it was a tax on mortgages.
In the USA escrow is used by the lender to prevent their becoming liable for an accumulation of unpaid property taxes, if they have to repossess a property.

But here, it's not clear whether the householder or the lender would be liable for unpaid "household charges" in that situation.

Anyway, the authors of the unfunny report are in favour of having more transparent taxes, not hidden taxes;


Again, the classic American prosperity philosophy; "No taxation without representation"

Not really - the salience of the tax has no relationship to representation itself. What it does do is highlight the tax and increase the resistance to taxes. Without a corresponding highlighting of services, that seems to be something that stems from a particular economic rather than political philosophy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

recedite

Scofflaw wrote: »

the salience of the tax has no relationship to representation itself.

It does when the tax is imposed by local government, as it is in the US and UK.
You can see exactly what level of service you are getting for your money, and compare that to the neighbouring borough, and then vote accordingly. If people received a high level of service, they might then accept a higher taxation.

In this Irish system, how can I influence either the level of local services or the level of property taxation at local elections?
Why would I even bother to vote at local elections? If I want a pothole fixed, the TD is the better man for the job anyway.

Scofflaw

recedite wrote: »

It does when the tax is imposed by local government, as it is in the US and UK.
You can see exactly what level of service you are getting for your money, and compare that to the neighbouring borough, and then vote accordingly. If people received a high level of service, they might then accept a higher taxation.

In this Irish system, how can I influence either the level of local services or the level of property taxation at local elections?
Why would I even bother to vote at local elections? If I want a pothole fixed, the TD is the better man for the job anyway.

I take your point, and don't want to get into a long argument over a side-issue (and possibly pedantry on my part), but your level of representation compared to taxes and your level of value for money for those taxes are not the same thing. Whether you get value for money from your 'local taxes' or not, you have the same level of representation whatever the salience of the tax.

What a more salient tax does achieve - in the Irish context - is to focus some attention on the fact that local representation is largely meaningless, despite the reintroduction of a domestic local tax. And that, I think, is the point you're making, which I entirely agree with. To some extent, abolishing domestic rates here was part and parcel of emasculating local government for precisely that reason.

Also for that reason, the government should be discouraged from making the tax less salient.

cordially,
Scofflaw

usernamegoes

I'm interested to understand the point the Minister made re rewarding local authorises with the highest collection rates. I thought the system was just that the tax would be given to the local authority in which the household was located.

Is this reward on top and made from central government or will the government be apportioning the monies collected as it wants?

recedite

usernamegoes wrote: »

I thought the system was just that the tax would be given to the local authority in which the household was located.

I think if that was the case, then the local authority would be collecting it; not Phil Hogan.

usernamegoes

recedite wrote: »

I think if that was the case, then the local authority would be collecting it; not Phil Hogan.

Well I thought they were; are they collecting it and then giving it to the Minister to distribute as he wants?