Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Property Tax (MOD REMINDER: Don't get too personal)

Options
1…125126128130131…137

Comments

  • Options
    #3812
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    The tax base is broad enough, incompetent management was/is the problem.

    How do you suggest we 'manage' our way out of our deficit situation?

    We've a taxation shortfall, and a need for an ongoing sustainable taxation base. Property taxation is part of solving both problems.


  • Options
    #3813
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    The tax base is broad enough...
    There have been some rather bizarre assertions in the course of this thread, but that's a doozy.


  • Options
    #3814
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There have been some rather bizarre assertions in the course of this thread, but that's a doozy.

    maybe you should have left the rest of the sentence...

    And its just as valid as your opinion, or whoevers opinion you were repeating...
    :D


  • Options
    #3815
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    alastair wrote: »
    How do you suggest we 'manage' our way out of our deficit situation?
    tbh Alastair, i'm not a qualified teacher or a publican. i couldnt answer that.
    We've a taxation shortfall, and a need for an ongoing sustainable taxation base. Property taxation is part of solving both problems.

    If property taxation wasnt an option what would you do?


  • Options
    #3816
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    maybe you should have left the rest of the sentence...
    It wouldn't have made any difference. Incompetent management is what led to the erosion of the tax base, but to claim that a tax regime where half of workers paid no income tax is "broad enough", without even getting into the over-reliance on property market transaction taxes... it beggars belief.
    And its just as valid as your opinion...
    What makes it equally valid? It's based on nothing whatsoever but wishful thinking.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3817
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    If property taxation wasnt an option what would you do?
    If your aunt had balls, would she be your uncle?


  • Options
    #3818
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    Godge wrote: »
    What is the difference between a "charge" and a "tax"?


    Thanks

    The spelling?


  • Options
    #3819
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It wouldn't have made any difference. Incompetent management is what led to the erosion of the tax base,
    i think you are agreeing with me and you dont realise it
    but to claim that a tax regime where half of workers paid no income tax is "broad enough", without even getting into the over-reliance on property market transaction taxes... it beggars belief.
    is income tax the only tax you pay? lucky you...





    Are your saying that if the country was well managed on the old regime of taxes we would still have problems?

    every politician of every creed and colour has been calling for/promising tax cuts since i can remember.
    if these hadnt been followed through do you think we would still need to "broaden our tax base".

    do you seriously think we would need a property tax now?


  • Options
    #3820
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    Phoebas wrote: »
    ... and some others are determined to portray thieves and tax evaders as moral crusaders. :rolleyes:
    Who is portraying thieves and/or tax evaders as moral crusaders.? What thieves or tax evaders are you talking about.?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yup. Hence, "broadening the tax base" - but still dangerously dependent on employment numbers to prop up government revenues.
    Where is the money supposed to come from, if people are unemployed.? That's a doozy in itself, base your revenue, on collecting taxes from people who have no money.


  • Options
    #3821
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    Godge wrote: »
    Can you provide a link to relevant Acts of the Oireachtas that define the difference?
    Can you give other examples of "charges" and "taxes" as an illustration of the difference?

    Thanks

    No and No.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3822
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    alastair wrote: »
    That's what they call democracy.

    I know.


  • Options
    #3823
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If your aunt had balls, would she be your uncle?

    your near single minded obsession with this particular tax is indeed admirable...


  • Options
    #3824
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    alastair wrote: »
    I saw his post - he doesn't say what you claim - as I pointed out earlier.

    I know I said in the past that I wouldn't keep mollycuddling you, but this is the last time.

    beeftotheheels
    Registered User


    Join Date: Feb 2011
    Posts: 1,645
    Adverts | Friends
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by darkhorse
    Of course, you are 100% correct in everything you say, and, notice in both of your posts, the two common denominators in the ruination of our country are FF and FG, which shows that throughout history, with both these parties, that it is party before country, at any cost. That not withstanding, and aside from Enda Kenny's views on LPT in the past, whether those views be moralistic, or just lies to the electorate in order to secure votes, I could never, in all conscientiousness, agree that there is any justification to a tax on my family home.
    That's just because it is a new tax for you. I lived in the UK where council tax many many times higher than the LPT was the norm. Over time you get used to it and then it seems normal.

    Any new tax is going to have the same effect. Imagine I told you that from tomorrow you'd have to pay €1 tax every time you wore a blue tee-shirt?

    Despite the fact that you could easily avoid that tax by never again wearing a blue tee-shirt it would strike you as nonsensical and unjust (and okay that one probably would be). One of the reasons it would strike you as such is because it is taxing something new that was never taxed before.

    The point is we need new stable taxes which people can't avoid, and that don't fall away when the economy tanks the way stamp duty and CGT did, so we have to tax reasonably stable things like income (USC) and groceries (VAT) and houses (LPT) but because the last one costs you less then the changes to the other two, but taxes something new, it strikes you as more unjust than the VAT rate hike, or replacement of the health levy with USC because they were familiar taxes.

    This is how people have always reacted to new taxes, from throwing tea off a ship in the US, through bricking up their chimneys to avoid hearth tax (and risking dying of smoke inhalation), or bricking up windows to avoid window tax.

    It is just the way of the world, but if you hadn't always lived in Ireland it wouldn't strike you as inherently unfair to tax your house - most countries do it and tax it a lot more heavily than we do.

    Can it be any more plain? Surely, this not just on my screen.


  • Options
    #3825
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    i think you are agreeing with me and you dont realise it
    I'm not agreeing with you. You've claimed that our tax base is sufficiently broad, but that our country is incompetently managed. That implies that, with more competent management, we could have weathered the collapse of our tax revenues.

    If you're seriously going to claim that our tax base is sufficiently broad, there is a real onus on you to explain what measures you feel should have been implemented when government revenue was slashed.

    Or you could come back with another quip about teachers and publicans.
    is income tax the only tax you pay? lucky you...
    You're trying to claim that our tax regime is broadly based because we have more than one type of tax?

    Do you even understand what I'm talking about?
    Are your saying that if the country was well managed on the old regime of taxes we would still have problems?
    I'm saying that if our country was well managed, we'd have a completely different regime of taxes.
    every politician of every creed and colour has been calling for/promising tax cuts since i can remember.
    if these hadnt been followed through do you think we would still need to "broaden our tax base".
    I'm not talking about tax rates, I'm talking about the range of sources of tax. We need a variety of different taxes, and - by definition - they can't all be progressive.
    do you seriously think we would need a property tax now?
    We had property taxes until 1977. Their elimination is precisely the form of erosion of the tax base I'm talking about.
    Slick50 wrote: »
    Where is the money supposed to come from, if people are unemployed.?
    I forgot, you can't get your head around the idea of taxing anything whatsoever other than income.
    bgrizzley wrote: »
    your near single minded obsession with this particular tax is indeed admirable...
    It may have escaped your notice, but this particular tax is the topic of this thread.


  • Options
    #3826
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    darkhorse wrote: »
    Can it be any more plain? Surely, this not just on my screen.
    I'll spell this out for you again. You'll ignore it again, because I'm not saying what you want to hear, but I'm patient like that.

    The point that was made was if taxing property was inherently unfair, then it would be almost unheard of. It's not at all unheard of; it's extremely commonplace across a wide range of countries with widely differing political philosophies. That gives the lie to the idea that taxing property is such a bizarre and shocking concept that the very idea of introducing it here somehow beggars belief.

    Now, you can deliberately misread that as "we should have a property tax because others do", but only if you've so completely given up on the idea of actually trying to make arguments based on logic and reason that you have to resort to little more than "I know you are, but what am I?" playground logic.


  • Options
    #3827
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    Your proposal is that everyone - everyone - should have their income tax increased. I'm curious how many of your fellow travelers agree, and - thus far - the silence is deafening.

    Instead of a tax on homes, certainly. After all, we, as citizens were told that we are all in this together.


  • Options
    #3828
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I forgot, you can't get your head around the idea of taxing anything whatsoever other than income.
    You didn't forget, because I never said, or ever implied any such thing.
    You've avoided the question. You are saying we need this tax because you can't depend on returns from employment, where is this money going to come from, if people are unemployed?


  • Options
    #3829
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    darkhorse wrote: »
    Instead of a tax on homes, certainly. After all, we, as citizens were told that we are all in this together.
    So minimum wage earners should take a pay cut to support your principled objection to a property tax (the principle being, apparently, "I don't want to pay it")?
    Slick50 wrote: »
    You are saying we need this tax because you can't depend on returns from employment, where is this money going to come from, if people are unemployed?
    From taxes other than income tax, obviously.


  • Options
    #3830
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    From taxes other than income tax, obviously.
    We are talking about the LPT, if someone is unemployed, where is the money going to come from to pay this?


  • Options
    #3831
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not agreeing with you. You've claimed that our tax base is sufficiently broad, but that our country is incompetently managed. That implies that, with more competent management, we could have weathered the collapse of our tax revenues.
    yes, prove me wrong!
    If you're seriously going to claim that our tax base is sufficiently broad, there is a real onus on you to explain what measures you feel should have been implemented when government revenue was slashed.
    there would be no measures necessary if they hadnt promised tax cuts at every hands turn taking most of the working population out of the tax net, and then greedily fueled a property bubble / bust to compound matters.

    You're trying to claim that our tax regime is broadly based because we have more than one type of tax?

    Do you even understand what I'm talking about? I'm saying that if our country was well managed, we'd have a completely different regime of taxes. I'm not talking about tax rates, I'm talking about the range of sources of tax. We need a variety of different taxes, and - by definition - they can't all be progressive.
    this is a mass of contradictions, and vaguely insulting. i cant engage it unless you clear it up a bit.
    We had property taxes until 1977. Their elimination is precisely the form of erosion of the tax base I'm talking about.
    im not sure if you remember, but their elimination was followed by an elimination in services, and a rise in other taxes. neither of which has been reversed.

    I forgot, you can't get your head around the idea of taxing anything whatsoever other than income.
    if you say that often enough it will become true...

    It may have escaped your notice, but this particular tax is the topic of this thread.
    so much so that you cant even bear the thought of positing an argument for any other :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3832
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,699 ✭✭✭creedp


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    We had property taxes until 1977. Their elimination is precisely the form of erosion of the tax base I'm talking about.

    For someone who paid almost €30k in stamp duty to purchase my home in 2004 .. I'd be of the view that property taxes remained in place after 1977. It would take over 60 years for me to give the same tax revenue to the Govt under the current LPT rate and I will be paying back that debt to a bank for 20 years. It seems to me that it is highly unfair to introduce a tax on property but give no credit for horrendous levels of property taxes already paid on the same property. Imagine how people who moved home and therefore bought and sold more than one home and paid multiple horrendous levels of property tax must feel.

    Its also a little difficult to take that people who recently bought a house at much reduced prices are exempted from paying the property tax for a number of years .. why? Do they not own a home? Do they not use local public services? Another nonsensical exemption introduced to the already burgedoning range of nonsensical exemptions in the Irish tax code making it even more difficult to accept.


  • Options
    #3833
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So minimum wage earners should take a pay cut to support your principled objection to a property tax (the principle being, apparently, "I don't want to pay it")?

    what is the difference in a minimum wage earner paying E2 tax per week and E100 property tax PA.
    BTW if income tax went up i'd be paying a damn sight more than what i owe on the LPT

    From taxes other than income tax, obviously.

    I thought your argument was that there were no other taxes except Income in our narrow tax base.


  • Options
    #3834
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Slick50 wrote: »
    We are talking about the LPT, if someone is unemployed, where is the money going to come from to pay this?
    Where's the money going to come from to pay VAT? Where's the money going to come from to pay excise duties on cigarettes and alcohol? Where's the money going to come from to pay motor tax? TV licence?
    bgrizzley wrote: »
    there would be no measures necessary if they hadnt promised tax cuts at every hands turn taking most of the working population out of the tax net, and then greedily fueled a property bubble / bust to compound matters.
    Great. All you have to do is arrange things so that none of those things happened, and then we won't need a property tax.
    This is a mass of contradictions, and vaguely insulting. i cant engage it unless you clear it up a bit.
    What's contradictory? What's insulting?
    so much so that you cant even bear the thought of positing an argument for any other :rolleyes:
    I'm on record as stating that we need this property tax, as well as a less progressive income tax regime and cuts in public expenditure.

    I'm not the one shaking the magic money tree in this thread. If you're going to argue that we shouldn't have a property tax, you need to explain where the money's going to come from instead. I'd also ask you to explain how we broaden our tax base, but - bizarrely - you don't think that's necessary, because, clearly, our tax system is perfectly robust and well able to handle economic shocks.


  • Options
    #3835
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    what is the difference in a minimum wage earner paying E2 tax per week and E100 property tax PA.
    A reduced dependency on income taxes.
    BTW if income tax went up i'd be paying a damn sight more than what i owe on the LPT
    And you'd vote for a party that promised to jack up your income tax, as long as they got rid of property taxes?
    I thought your argument was that there were no other taxes except Income in our narrow tax base.
    I'm not sure why you thought that, because I've certainly never said it.


  • Options
    #3836
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    darkhorse wrote: »
    Because it was a charge?

    The Household Charge (Due for 2012 ONLY)

    The Household Charge (HC) is an annual charge introduced by the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 which is payable by owners of residential property. It is a matter for owners of residential properties to register and pay the HC on or after 1 January 2012.



    You see my post above, well I just copied and paste that from this site below, according to which, it states, that which I posted, nothing added by me. If you, or anyone else can see anywhere where it says anything about the HHC being a tax in 2012, well then I put my hands up:

    Household Charge - Online Payment System


  • Options
    #3837
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    darkhorse wrote: »
    The spelling?
    darkhorse wrote: »
    No and No.

    Essentially, those posts are an admittance that you don't know what you are talking about and you have nothing to back up your repeated claim that there is a difference between a charge and a tax.


  • Options
    #3838
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    Great. All you have to do is arrange things so that none of those things happened, and then we won't need a property tax.


    time travelling aside, this seems to imply that you agree with me that if it wasnt for bad managment we wouldnt need a property tax. why all the arguments then?
    I'm on record as stating that we need this property tax, as well as a less progressive income tax regime and cuts in public expenditure.


    I'm not the one shaking the magic money tree in this thread. If you're going to argue that we shouldn't have a property tax, you need to explain where the money's going to come from instead.
    i have already, but you just shoutback "hail property tax, throw money at the government all will be well!"
    I'd also ask you to explain how we broaden our tax base, but - bizarrely - you don't think that's necessary, because, clearly, our tax system is perfectly robust and well able to handle economic shocks.
    it would be perfectly serviceable, if the boyos we pay handsomnely to manage the country did their job!!


  • Options
    #3839
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    darkhorse wrote: »
    Godge wrote: »
    What is the difference between a "charge" and a "tax"?

    The spelling?
    darkhorse wrote: »
    You see my post above, well I just copied and paste that from this site below, according to which, it states, that which I posted, nothing added by me. If you, or anyone else can see anywhere where it says anything about the HHC being a tax in 2012, well then I put my hands up:
    I'm confused. You dodge the question about the difference between a tax and a charge with a smart-arsed answer, then come back and continue to flog the dead horse?

    Tell me: if income tax was renamed in the morning to "income charge", would that make it not a tax? Is the USC not a tax?

    Why, exactly, are you labouring this point?


  • Options
    #3840
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    time travelling aside, this seems to imply that you agree with me that if it wasnt for bad managment we wouldnt need a property tax. why all the arguments then?
    Because we have had bad management, and we do need a property tax. Your argument now seems to be that if we hadn't had bad management, we wouldn't need a property tax, therefore we don't need a property tax.
    i have already, but you just shoutback "hail property tax, throw money at the government all will be well!"
    You've claimed our tax regime is sustainable. You haven't adduced any evidence for this, other than hand-waving such as:
    it would be perfectly serviceable, if the boyos we pay handsomnely to manage the country did their job!!
    Basically, to sum up your arguments, a succession of governments mismanaged the country by eliminating taxes and cutting tax rates. This has led to a situation where we're running a huge deficit - so what we need is for the present government to no longer manage the country badly, but not by broadening the tax base that you've acknowledged past governments eroded, rather by doing something else that you don't want to get into but definitely not introducing new taxes.

    And you describe my posts as contradictory and unclear?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3841
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    A reduced dependency on income taxes.
    wood for the trees, minimum wage guy wouldnt notice the difference and neither would the state.
    And you'd vote for a party that promised to jack up your income tax, as long as they got rid of property taxes?

    yes i will vote for that party. i only wish i had an opportunity in the past.



    anyway, night lads and lassies. its been a pleasure OB ;)


Advertisement