Clare Co Co pass motion demanding no more household charge letters

gerryo777

Remember folks that as it stands the money collected from the HHC and next year as a property tax (if it gets that far) does not / will not go directly to your local councils.
It still goes and will go next year to central government and will be divvied out as the thug hogan and his cronies decide.

Godge

So the Councillors passed a motion? Who is going to listen to them?

They have no power to intervene in executive matters. They can pass motions all they like calling on the council to do x or y but it means nothing.

They could pass a motion tomorrow calling on the council to stop collecting motor tax or to stop charing for driving licenses. They could even pass a motion calling on Revenue to stop collecting income tax. It would have as much of an effect.

It is like this, if you are happy not to pay, to live in your house until you die then you can escape paying it. When your executor moves to dispose of the house, the household charge plus interest will be paid from your estate.

yore

Floppybits wrote: »

Why should people who rent be exempt? I don't understand this. Tenants like everyone else are using the services (and I use that term loosely) provided by the local authorities so why shouldn't they be paying?

Why are you picking on Landlords as well saying you are paying their mortgage or kids fees or whatever. The way I see it is if you are renting a place you are availing of a product provided by a supplier be it a company or an individual and you are paying that individual for providing that product. if you don't think you are getting a good deal or service then you can simply switch providers. Unfortunately you cant do that with the local authority.

I lived in England where as a renter I had to pay the council charge of about £500 a year, this was separate to the rent I paid and I got a bill from the council as well. Now I didn't mind paying it because I did get a good service from the council. The problem in this country is that I don't feel I get a good service from the council anymore.

The houseowner/landlord is the beneficiary of the services. So they should pay. The renter is already paying.

If you can't understand that fact then you obviously aren't aware that to let a house in a well serviced Dublin estate might earn you a little bit more income than to rent one in a ghost estate in the back ar$e of ballygobackward. Not to mention the value-add to your house due to the supplied services.

The landlords will end up paying anyway. It's fairer to put the charge on them directly rather than to let it drip up the layers to them in the form of reduced rent. Yes you paid in your charge in London, but I'd bet you that your rent was relatively reduced because of it. It was implicit and you might not have been as aware of it, but it was.

dvpower

Godge wrote: »

So the Councillors passed a motion? Who is going to listen to them?

They have no power to intervene in executive matters. They can pass motions all they like calling on the council to do x or y but it means nothing.

They could pass a motion tomorrow calling on the council to stop collecting motor tax or to stop charing for driving licenses. They could even pass a motion calling on Revenue to stop collecting income tax. It would have as much of an effect.

At the same time they passed this motion they also passed a motion calling for the LGMA to disband.

The OP fails to differentiate between calling for a course of action and putting one in train.
Naturally enough, some of the anti property tax crowd have hailed this as the beginning of the end - more wishful thinking than reality.

Mr.Micro

dvpower wrote: »

At the same time they passed this motion they also passed a motion calling for the LGMA to disband.

The OP fails to differentiate between calling for a course of action and putting one in train.
Naturally enough, some of the anti property tax crowd have hailed this as the beginning of the end - more wishful thinking than reality.

No doubt the Councillors thinking about re-election down the line want to row back from this, as if they can. All is fine until it affects their prospects of getting elected again.

gerryo777

Mr.Micro wrote: »

No doubt the Councillors thinking about re-election down the line want to row back from this, as if they can. All is fine until it affects their prospects of getting elected again.

And that's the way Irish politics works, it'll never be any different.

On the run in to the local elections and especially on the run in to the next general election the parties will vow to abolish the property tax.

It's mostly FG and their cheerleaders on here who agree with the property tax (along with renters and LA tenants of course!)

I can see the HHC being extended into next year just to appease the troika, when were done with them and elections fast coming down the line it'll be scrapped.

I predicted this last year on here and I stick by that prediction.

yore

gerryo777 wrote: »

And that's the way Irish politics works, it'll never be any different.

On the run in to the local elections and especially on the run in to the next general election the parties will vow to abolish the property tax.

It's mostly FG and their cheerleaders on here who agree with the property tax (along with renters and LA tenants of course!)

I can see the HHC being extended into next year just to appease the troika, when were done with them and elections fast coming down the line it'll be scrapped.

I predicted this last year on here and I stick by that prediction.

Are you a landlord Gerryo777? Rent out any properties?

gerryo777

yore wrote: »

Are you a landlord Gerryo777? Rent out any properties?

Are you a FG supporter, yore? PS worker perhaps?

yore

gerryo777 wrote: »

Are you a FG supporter, yore? PS worker perhaps?

No. I'm neither. Neither am I from Co. Clare .

I don't have a house, either to live in or spare ones that I think other poorer people should be paying for for me.

But this isn't even a thread on FG or the PS


You ignored my question and tried to bypass it by answering your own. I'll take that as a yes. Obviously it's the internet and anyone can claim anything anyway.

gerryo777

yore wrote: »

No. I'm neither. Neither am I from Co. Clare .

I don't have a house, either to live in or spare ones that I think other poorer people should be paying for for me.

But this isn't even a thread on FG or the PS

Neither is it a thread about landlords and renters.

BTW, do you think only 'poorer' people rent?

BTW 2, If you have a chip on your shoulder about landlords, maybe you should have a word with someone in government. They are after all, the biggest landlords of all time through the scam that is NAMA.

yore

gerryo777 wrote: »

BTW, do you think only 'poorer' people rent?

No. That's silly. Why would I think that
Not "only 'poorer' people rent" but you'll find that practically "all 'poorer' people rent"

gerryo777 wrote: »

BTW 2, If you have a chip on your shoulder about landlords, maybe you should have a word with someone in government. They are after all, the biggest landlords of all time through the scam that is NAMA.

As long as they are appropriately taxed on their assets, I don't give a shi about what they own.



Do you understand that the household charge will come off your income as a landlord anyway? Regardless of whom it is collected from?


You missed the last edit of my last post!

gerryo777

yore wrote: »

Do you understand that the household charge will come off your income as a landlord anyway? Regardless of whom it is collected from?

That would be on top of an NPPR charge, income tax liability on rental income, maintenance of said property, management fees, registration charges etc etc..

Yep, landlords are coining it at a time when rents have fallen dramatically.

I think your anger is misplaced.

Chips Lovell

It's a property tax, so if prople don't own a property it stands to reason they shouldn't be liable.

As for the decision to use it to fund local services. First of all it isn't funding local services exclusively. Much of the local authorities budgets still comes from general taxation, which everyone pays. Secondly, it property owners are asked to pay proportionally more, it's because they stand to gain most out of local services, i.e. they affect the value of their property.

yore

gerryo777 wrote: »

That would be on top of an NPPR charge, income tax liability on rental income, maintenance of said property, management fees, registration charges etc etc..

Yep, landlords are coining it at a time when rents have fallen dramatically.

I think your anger is misplaced.

I have no anger. I just think that the wealthy should pay their fair share.

The country is currently going through a bad time. I don't think that we should be supporting a nouveau elite aristocracy who feel entitled to wealth "just because".
Do you think we should give a free pass to every eejit who bought three or four extra apartments to leech off other people who just didn't have access to the same finance at the time? Fair enough if you developed and designed a sustainable property that added to society, but most just outbid their "poorer" neighbour on a house and then rented it back to him so that he could pay for it for the landlord. Asking to give that landlord a free pass means society at large paying for that greedy person's assets. Then in 10 or 15 years when the economy is going again, that landlord will have their, now valuable again, asset and the poorer person will still have nothing. And that is supposed to be fair?

Outbidding your neighbour on a property and then renting the property back to him does not contribute to society. It just leeches off it! So if you are a landlord and you were caught swimming naked when the tide went out, then tough shite my friend!

gerryo777

yore wrote: »

I have no anger. I just think that the wealthy should pay their fair share.

The country is currently going through a bad time. I don't think that we should be supporting a nouveau elite aristocracy who feel entitled to wealth "just because".
Do you think we should give a free pass to every eejit who bought three or four extra apartments to leech off other people who just didn't have access to the same finance at the time? Fair enough if you developed and designed a sustainable property that added to society, but most just outbid their "poorer" neighbour on a house and then rented it back to him so that he could pay for it for the landlord. Asking to give that landlord a free pass means society at large paying for that greedy person's assets. Then in 10 or 15 years when the economy is going again, that landlord will have their, now valuable again, asset and the poorer person will still have nothing. And that is supposed to be fair?

Outbidding your neighbour on a property and then renting the property back to him does not contribute to society. It just leeches off it! So if you are a landlord and you were caught swimming naked when the tide went out, then tough shite my friend!

Who are 'the wealthy' you speak about?

On another note, you do understand that people who rent are getting the use of the property without having a mortgage over their heads, without having to pay for maintenance of the property, without having to pay a property tax, without having to pay for the local services they use that we hear so much about etc etc.

I think you'll also find that the 'poor' you keep going on about aren't as poor as you think.

BTW, you'll aso find that the country/economy we're all meant to look up to (Germany) has a far higher percentage of renters than we have here, and the renters there have to pay a local service charge too.

Chips Lovell

Actually Germany has a property tax, the grundsteuer, that's quite similar to what's being proposed here, i.e. percentage of value, paid to municipal authority.

The only difference is that landlords in Germany are legally entitled to write it into a tenancy agreement that the tenant pay it for them. In effect that's much the same as a landlord here just jacking up the rent to compensate for their own property tax. In both cases the liability is on the property not the individual.

yore

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Actually Germany has a property tax, the grundsteuer, that's quite similar to what's being proposed here, i.e. percentage of value, paid to municipal authority.

The only difference is that landlords in Germany are legally entitled to write it into a tenancy agreement that the tenant pay it for them. In effect that's much the same as a landlord here just jacking up the rent to compensate for their own property tax. In both cases the liability is on the property not the individual.

Or to look at it another way, as I mentioned previously, it all eventually comes out of the landlords pockets anyway.

To put it in basic economic terms; the elasticity of demand if far greater than the elasticity of supply. Therefore the supply side will absorb the charge. Regardless of who the bill is sent to

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Actually Germany has a property tax, the grundsteuer, that's quite similar to what's being proposed here, i.e. percentage of value, paid to municipal authority.

The only difference is that landlords in Germany are legally entitled to write it into a tenancy agreement that the tenant pay it for them. In effect that's much the same as a landlord here just jacking up the rent to compensate for their own property tax. In both cases the liability is on the property not the individual.

That's quite a major difference to what's proposed here.

But it's to be expected in Ireland. Cloak and dagger stuff, the landlord can 'jack up' the rent if they can get away with it etc etc.

In Germany it's straight up and it is an extra charge on top of your rent to pay for local services you would receive.

I wouldn't expect it to be any other way in this backward looking sh1tehole.

Godge

gerryo777 wrote: »

Who are 'the wealthy' you speak about?

On another note, you do understand that people who rent are getting the use of the property without having a mortgage over their heads, without having to pay for maintenance of the property, without having to pay a property tax, without having to pay for the local services they use that we hear so much about etc etc.

I think you'll also find that the 'poor' you keep going on about aren't as poor as you think.

BTW, you'll aso find that the country/economy we're all meant to look up to (Germany) has a far higher percentage of renters than we have here, and the renters there have to pay a local service charge too.

Who are the wealthy?

Anyone who owns a house, even if they are paying back a secured loan on it, is wealthier than a homeless person, than someone in a council house or than someone renting.

gerryo777

Godge wrote: »

Who are the wealthy?

Anyone who owns a house, even if they are paying back a secured loan on it, is wealthier than a homeless person, than someone in a council house or than someone renting.

LOL.
So, someone who owns a house worth €100k and owes €300k on it is wealthy?
The lugha school of bu11****e economics, I suppose we'll be told about the 'notional' income derived from it next.

I despair sometimes.....

Godge

gerryo777 wrote: »

LOL.
So, someone who owns a house worth €100k and owes €300k on it is wealthy?
The lugha school of bu11****e economics, I suppose we'll be told about the 'notional' income derived from it next.

I despair sometimes.....

Yes, because eventually they will pay the loan and will own the house, or else they will die and the insurance will pay the mortgage and his estate will own the house.

Either way, that is something a homeless person will never have.

gerryo777

Godge wrote: »

Yes, because eventually they will pay the loan and will own the house, or else they will die and the insurance will pay the mortgage and his estate will own the house.

Either way, that is something a homeless person will never have.

Ah, I see.

So, an asset worth €100k, that cost €300k plus interest, is classed as wealth.
That's the sort of twisted economics that have this country where it is.

Homeless people aren't liable to pay any tax, so what they have to do with this is beyond me, mind you, the way this kip is going we will have a hell of a lot more homeless people in the future.

yore

gerryo777 wrote: »

LOL.
So, someone who owns a house worth €100k and owes €300k on it is wealthy?
The lugha school of bu11****e economics, I suppose we'll be told about the 'notional' income derived from it next.

I despair sometimes.....

this reminds me of the eejits who were crying back in the early 2000s after their equity linked SSIAs took a nosedive in the wake of the dotcom bubble. They were crying that they wanted the government to top up what they'd lost.

When the scheme finished and the markets had rebounded, those equity linked plans came out better off than the fixed plans. Yet they weren't making any noises to share those gains were they

That's effectively what you're asking. you're asking us to top you up mid-scheme even though it is likely that you will end the scheme with more than those not in on it.

Chips Lovell

It's probably useful to distinguish between "wealth" and "wealthy" here. A property tax is a tax on wealth. Describing it as a tax on the wealthy is inaccurate, at least in terms of how most people define the word.

gerryo777

yore wrote: »

this reminds me of the eejits who were crying back in the early 2000s after their equity linked SSIAs took a nosedive in the wake of the dotcom bubble. They were crying that they wanted the government to top up what they'd lost.

When the scheme finished and the markets had rebounded, those equity linked plans came out better off than the fixed plans. Yet they weren't making any noises to share those gains were they

That's effectively what you're asking. you're asking us to top you up mid-scheme even though it is likely that you will end the scheme with more than those not in on it.

I'm not sure what way your thought processes are tbh, it's hard to keep up.
I'm not asking anyone to 'top me up mid-scheme' whatever that means.
Who's 'us'? Do you think I don't pay tax or contribute my fair share or something?
Your posts seem a bit bitter because you say you didn't get to buy a house and can't afford one. Is that a reason to tax the bollix out of people who provide their own homes?

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's probably useful to distinguish between "wealth" and "wealthy" here. A property tax is a tax on wealth. Describing it as a tax on the wealthy is inaccurate, at least in terms of how most people define the word.

Ok, explain then how someone who is paying €300k plus interest for an asset worth €100k has wealth?

Chips Lovell

They still own an asset of significant value, albeit maybe worth less than they may have anticipated.

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

They still own an asset of significant value, albeit maybe worth less than they may have anticipated.

So then, if someone had a €100k cash 'asset' in the bank, they should taxed on that too. Not DIRT, which is only on the interest earned, but on the asset itself.
Or if someone has jewels worth €100, surely by your logic that should be taxed too.

You see, it's really down to the simple fact that money can be exhorted from people who own homes. It's a racket that criminals would be proud of.

Chips Lovell

Essentially you're arguing that unless all forms of wealth are taxed, none should be taxed?

gerryo777

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Essentially you're arguing that unless all forms of wealth are taxed, none should be taxed?

Well, why one and not the other?