Upcoming Irish property tax to cost 'on average' €1000 per house.(can you afford it?)

kr7

alastair wrote: »

And there was me thinking you wanted the local authority to collect your rubbish. My mistake. You should be a happy camper with your efficient private collection service then?

I was wondering why private companies can make massive profits but the LA's can't.

Wouldn't you think that if the LA's need money and there's massive profits in waste collection that they'd be doing it?

Suppose the PS unions wouldn't like their members working as hard as private sector employees on a private sector wage.

alastair

Heroditas wrote: »

They had plenty of money back during the boom but still weren't investing in energy efficient equipment even back then.

I thought you said they had made 'decent enough inroads' to reducing their energy overhead?

Buford Tannen

donalg1 wrote: »

Yes you could do this easily enough with the business, but if you were given an option to pay the HHC or close your business what would you do.

Are you a rate payer donal?

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

I was wondering why private companies can make massive profits but the LA's can't.

Wouldn't you think that if the LA's need money and there's massive profits in waste collection that they'd be doing it?

Suppose the PS unions wouldn't like their members working as hard as private sector employees on a private sector wage.

Or suppose the private companies can undercut the LA's to get their customers and wait for the LA's to cease the waste collection service and then raise their prices knowing there is no competition any more. Makes good business sense really.

Heroditas

alastair wrote: »

I thought you said they had made 'decent enough inroads' to reducing their energy overhead?

33% is a very large number.
A lot of trimming around the edges can be done with the existing set-up.
However, all the easy work has been done, i.e. the "low hanging fruit"
In order to hit the targets, a significant rethink is required by local authorities regarding how they manage their energy.

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

The hard pressed taxpayers that have been getting free water for decades you mean? Do you not think that maybe they should be paying for this service?

You remember the last general election dont you, which would indicate that yes it is a democracy. Why do you ask anyway?

What are you on about, 'free water'?

Who do you think paid for the water services before?

I'll give you a clue, the TAXPAYER!

Jeez!!!

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

I was wondering why private companies can make massive profits but the LA's can't.

Possibly on economy of scale - they primarily operate on multiple-local authority scale at this stage, so have an advantage over local authorities in that regard. They also charge a pretty penny more than the local authorities could/would have - easy enough to make a profit when you continually increase your charges and scale back services/frequency - which is what the private operators are doing.

donalg1

Buford Tannen wrote: »

Are you a rate payer donal?

Nope surely not

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

Or suppose the private companies can undercut the LA's to get their customers and wait for the LA's to cease the waste collection service and then raise their prices knowing there is no competition any more. Makes good business sense really.

There isn't too much business sense in the PS/CS, that's true.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

A lot of their funding has been syphoned off by the green party and their wonderful carbon based emissions motor tax bands.

Which the current Govt have tried to lower obviously?

donalg1 wrote: »

Then there is the lower collection rates of rates due to the economic crisis and the difficulties businesses face as a result of said crisis.

So they raise taxes on home owners, which leaves them with less disposable income to spend in said businesses.

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

What are you on about, 'free water'?

Who do you think paid for the water services before?

I'll give you a clue, the TAXPAYER!

Jeez!!!

How much do you pay for your water every day. And do you pay a flat rate or are you charged for usage. If you are being charged for your domestic water usage you may want to query this with your LA as these charges were abolished in 1977 afaik. But lets not get back into discussing water charges as I am sure you remember the last conversation we had on the matter.

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

Which the current Govt have tried to lower obviously?



So they raise taxes on home owners, which leaves them with less disposable income to spend in said businesses.

We need to increase taxation.

Any model of taxation takes disposable income out of circulation.

Property taxation impacts less on employment, flight of revenue, and the black economy than income or consumption taxes.

What's your better proposal?

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

How much do you pay for your water every day. And do you pay a flat rate or are you charged for usage. If you are being charged for your domestic water usage you may want to query this with your LA as these charges were abolished in 1977 afaik. But lets not get back into discussing water charges as I am sure you remember the last conversation we had on the matter.

Let's not be silly now donal, every taxpayer in the country is paying for water as we speak and has done since the formation of the state.

Funnily enough, I do think that we should be paying a charge for water and I will pay it if they can manage to bring one in that everyone will be liable for.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

Which the current Govt have tried to lower obviously?

Didnt the current Government increase these recently?

So they raise taxes on home owners, which leaves them with less disposable income to spend in said businesses.

Well some around here would have you believe nobody has any disposable income as is. Plus then there is the fact that people argue against property taxes because not everyone is liable and they say they would happily pay it if everyone had to, thereby reducing the disposable income of an even wider customer base.

Given the fact also that the commercial rates are one of the main areas of funding for LA's wouldnt it benefit the business owners if the LA's can find alternative means of funding.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

We need to increase taxation.

Any model of taxation takes disposable income out of circulation.

Property taxation impacts less on employment, flight of revenue, and the black economy than income or consumption taxes.

What's your better proposal?

Who told you that property taxation impacts less on employment?

Maybe in an economy which is functioning properly.

Because of all these taxes on property now,people aren't spending in the local economy, shops and business are closing down daily thereby creating unemployment.

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

Let's not be silly now donal, every taxpayer in the country is paying for water as we speak and has done since the formation of the state.

Funnily enough, I do think that we should be paying a charge for water and I will pay it if they can manage to bring one in that everyone will be liable for.

No you will pay it when the bring one in.

lugha

kr7 wrote: »

Because of all these taxes on property people aren't spending in the local economy, shops and business are closing down daily thereby creating unemployment.

So instead you would cut social welfare and public sector pay? Can you explain why these measures do not also remove money from the economy?

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

No you will pay it when the bring one in.

You do know that I am paying for my water now, as is everyone else in the state, yes?

Or are you going to deny that simple FACT?

kr7

lugha wrote: »

So instead you would cut social welfare and public sector pay? Can you explain why these measures do not also remove money from the economy?

It's all about who you want to pay the most.

golden lane

lugha wrote: »

So instead you would cut social welfare and public sector pay? Can you explain why these measures do not also remove money from the economy?

cutting welfare and public sector pay.....means the government has to borrow less........i believe that is the core of the problem..

Ghandee

lugha wrote: »

So instead you would cut social welfare and public sector pay? Can you explain why these measures do not also remove money from the economy?

It may bring an element of fairness into things if nothing else though?

PS workers here, vs PS workers in other EU countries salaries?

Like wise with the dole here?


EDIT.

Goldenlane just made an excellent point above ref this ^^^

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

Let's not be silly now donal, every taxpayer in the country is paying for water as we speak and has done since the formation of the state.

Funnily enough, I do think that we should be paying a charge for water and I will pay it if they can manage to bring one in that everyone will be liable for.

kr7 wrote: »

You do know that I am paying for my water now, as is everyone else in the state, yes?

Or are you going to deny that simple FACT?

You said as above that you will pay the water charges when brought in providing everyone is liable. I said you will paying for them regardless of who is liable for them.

You will not have a choice in the matter unfortunately for you. If the LA tenant down the road isnt liable and you are, you will be paying for them.

kr7

lugha wrote: »

So instead you would cut social welfare and public sector pay? Can you explain why these measures do not also remove money from the economy?

PS pay, as I've stated many times, for anyone on over €50k or so should be slashed big time and capped at around the €100k mark.

Knight who says Meh

donalg1 wrote: »

And again if they stopped this chances are they still wouldnt have enough money to cover all the services they are supposed to provide. The whole point of the HHC or Property tax is to provide LA's with a steady stream of income that will give them a predictable yield year on year.

And it is patently obvious that no one should have to give their own hard earned cash to local authorities if they are going to piss it up against a wall and invent positions for their mates (3 feckin' mayors in longford!)

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

You said as above that you will pay the water charges when brought in providing everyone is liable. I said you will paying for them regardless of who is liable for them.

You will not have a choice in the matter unfortunately for you. If the LA tenant down the road isnt liable and you are, you will be paying for them.

So you can't even admit that simple FACT I gave you is correct!
That's ok.

lugha

golden lane wrote: »

cutting welfare and public sector pay.....means the government has to borrow less........i believe that is the core of the problem..

Ghanee wrote: »

It may bring an element of fairness into things if nothing else though?

PS workers here, vs PS workers in other EU countries salaries?

Like wise with the dole here?

But this will also remove money from the economy? Kr7, and others, are arguing that this is a reason not to introduce a property tax?

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

It may bring an element of fairness into things if nothing else though?

PS workers here, vs PS workers in other EU countries salaries?

Like wise with the dole here?


EDIT.

Goldenlane just made an excellent point above ref this ^^^

Likewise property taxes and water charges

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

So you can't even admit that simple FACT I gave you is correct!
That's ok.

How are you directly paying for water now? How is the SW recipient in the private rented house paying directly for water now?

Tell me too please how you suppose to not pay for water charges when they are introduced if everyone is not liable for them?

noodler

golden lane wrote: »

cutting welfare and public sector pay.....means the government has to borrow less........i believe that is the core of the problem..

Yup.

Point has to be made repeatedly.

Austerity is required to get spending/revenue under control - it is not an attempt at encouraging economic growth.

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

Likewise property taxes and water charges

Likewise services provided in these other countries.