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

hju6

Godge wrote: »

Glad we have finally put that one to bed.

Good, now we can get back to discussing the Local Propety Charge, charge evaders, and charge dodgers,

bgrizzley

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And one of those irresponsible tax cuts which took people out of the tax net was the elimination of domestic rates in 1977. The LPT is simply reversing that bad decision.

Old news. for guys who hate people bring up endas 1994 quote you sure like dragging up ancient history;). you'll be going on about the hearth tax next!

You forget that elimination was promptly covered by new taxes and a reduction in services. they cant have it every way.
Also, i'd put a pound to a penny that the revenues there, pale in comparison to the giveaway budgets used to buy the electorate during the boom(and derided as not enough by the current shower)

Zubeneschamali

bgrizzley wrote: »

You forget that elimination was promptly covered by new taxes and a reduction in services.

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

You complain that successive governments shrank the tax base, but you want to exclude the daddy of all tax-base-shrinking cynical vote-buying budgets, FFs 1977 rates abolition, because the tax burden was moved to other taxes?

That's the point! The burden was moved away from local government to central funds, which meant income tax, and then the income tax base was eroded with bigger allowances and higher starting points for bands. Abolishing rates was part of the process you are complaining about when you say:

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.

bgrizzley

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

You complain that successive governments shrank the tax base, but you want to exclude the daddy of all tax-base-shrinking cynical vote-buying budgets, FFs 1977 rates abolition, because the tax burden was moved to other taxes?

That's the point! The burden was moved away from local government to central funds, which meant income tax, and then the income tax base was eroded with bigger allowances and higher starting points for bands. Abolishing rates was part of the process you are complaining about when you say:

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.

the reason i exclude it is because it was replaced. but fair enough, if it dont make sense to you, it dont make sense.
of course jack lynch should have had a purer motivation when doing his good deed!!

either way "we had rates 30 years ago, we should have lpt now" is not a good argument.
its a bit like, bring back hanging, it will solve crime!

Zubeneschamali

bgrizzley wrote: »

either way "we had rates 30 years ago, we should have lpt now" is not a good argument.

But it's the argument you were making yourself last night!

You were arguing that we are in this mess because politicians promised tax cuts, and if they hadn't, we wouldn't be.

You thought this was an argument for increasing income tax, so you liked it. I pointed out that it's an argument for LPT, and suddenly the argument is somehow not a good one!

bgrizzley

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But it's the argument you were making yourself last night!

You were arguing that we are in this mess because politicians promised tax cuts, and if they hadn't, we wouldn't be.

You thought this was an argument for increasing income tax, so you liked it. I pointed out that it's an argument for LPT, and suddenly the argument is somehow not a good one!

hmmm. you ignore that it was replaced
anyway that in itself does not mean that rates or the lpt were/are a fair or good tax. Jacks motivation was wrong not the deed. like i said....

"Bring back hanging it will solve crime"

Godge

bgrizzley wrote: »

the reason i exclude it is because it was replaced. but fair enough, if it dont make sense to you, it dont make sense.
of course jack lynch should have had a purer motivation when doing his good deed!!

either way "we had rates 30 years ago, we should have lpt now" is not a good argument.
its a bit like, bring back hanging, it will solve crime!

It wasn't replaced, which is why we had a budgetary crisis in 1980/81.

Banjo String

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And one of those irresponsible tax cuts which took people out of the tax net was the elimination of domestic rates in 1977]. The LPT is simply reversing that bad decision.

Was vat not raised to make up for this?

I don't think it was reduced any with the introduction of a property tax.

Godge

Banjo String wrote: »

Was vat not raised to make up for this?

I don't think it was reduced any with the introduction of a property tax.

What happened was that we removed a stable broad-based tax on property and replaced it with a transactions-based tax dependent on the level of economic activity.

So while at first glance, and in the first year or two, revenue was maintained, the increased instability in tax revenue was one of the factors leading to the budgetary crisis of the 1980s.

The LPT is one of the steps being taken to broaden the tax base once again and reverse the instability and reliance on transaction taxes and economic activity taxes.

Banjo String

Godge wrote: »

What happened was that we removed a stable broad-based tax on property and replaced it with a transactions-based tax dependent on the level of economic activity.

So while at first glance, and in the first year or two, revenue was maintained, the increased instability in tax revenue was one of the factors leading to the budgetary crisis of the 1980s.

The LPT is one of the steps being taken to broaden the tax base once again and reverse the instability and reliance on transaction taxes and economic activity taxes.

So they raised a tax, to replace a tax.
Then reintroduced a tax, but didn't reverse the previous tax increase, that was introduced to replace the tax they're now reintroducing..

Have I got it?

Like bg says, they want it every way.

bgrizzley

Godge wrote: »

It wasn't replaced, which is why we had a budgetary crisis in 1980/81.

cmon Godge:rolleyes:, are you sure that was the only cause? i very much doubt it. worldwide recession? emigration? unemployment? Bad timing, bad management(again) ill give you but you cant blame a global crisis on the scrapping of rates in ireland.

give one look at the total revenue takes from the seventies and 80s and tell me where the sh1t hits the fan because rates were abolished. if anything, takes seem to improve, i wonder why. :rolleyes:

bgrizzley

Godge wrote: »

What happened was that we removed a stable broad-based tax on property and replaced it with a transactions-based tax dependent on the level of economic activity.

whether you like it or not, for the vast majority of people, ability to pay this, depends on their level of economic activity. the country isnt in the main populated by absentee d o b's and german holiday homers... (that were already taxed anyway!)

The LPT is one of the steps being taken to broaden the tax base once again and reverse the instability and reliance on transaction taxes and economic activity taxes.

and i'd argue, again, that it would be better to manage the taxes we already had properly. this tax will be badly managed the same as those, until the day we need a new stable tax.

Zubeneschamali

bgrizzley wrote: »

and i'd argue, again, that it would be better to manage the taxes we already had properly. this tax will be badly managed the same as those, until the day we need a new stable tax.

So now you're arguing that taxes inevitably go up because of our bad politicians.

Yesterday you were arguing that our politicians are bad because they made taxes go down!

Godge

bgrizzley wrote: »

whether you like it or not, for the vast majority of people, ability to pay this, depends on their level of economic activity. the country isnt in the main populated by absentee d o b's and german holiday homers... (that were already taxed anyway!)



and i'd argue, again, that it would be better to manage the taxes we already had properly. this tax will be badly managed the same as those, until the day we need a new stable tax.

We need lots of taxes, all at low levels to ensure that no one form of economic activity or wealth is unfairly taxed and that there is the greatest incentive possible to take up employment.

bgrizzley

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So now you're arguing that taxes inevitably go up because of our bad politicians.

Yesterday you were arguing that our politicians are bad because they made taxes go down!

can you show me where i argue that please?

Zubeneschamali

bgrizzley wrote: »

can you show me where i argue that please?

Originally Posted by bgrizzley
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.

Godge

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Originally Posted by bgrizzley
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.

don't expect consistency of argument on this thread.

bgrizzley

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Originally Posted by bgrizzley
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.

that doesnt show i argued anything...

bgrizzley

Godge wrote: »

don't expect consistency of argument on this thread.

im out lads. if your best is making things up and back slapping each other there isnt a whole lot of point. have fun.

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

Unless you're in a very small minority - you'll get more for your taxes than you pay into the system.

If you are going to jump in with a response, you might make it relevant to the issue being discussed.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who does?

Perhaps if you read the origional question again, you might be able to figure it out...

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?

Slick50

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

How can you not understand that?. They disposed of one tax, but made up the shortfall with other taxes, and other measures, reducing services.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You complain that successive governments shrank the tax base, but you want to exclude the daddy of all tax-base-shrinking cynical vote-buying budgets, FFs 1977 rates abolition, because the tax burden was moved to other taxes?

Don't forget it was a FG initiative, that FF had to match to compete in the then election campaign. But true to form, FG renaged on their election promise when they got in. At least FF had the decency to follow up with actions.

We have survived without an LPT/rates for over thirty years now. That in itself is evidence enough that it is not a necessity, and not the only option now.

Godge

Slick50 wrote: »

We have survived without an LPT/rates for over thirty years now. That in itself is evidence enough that it is not a necessity, and not the only option now.

We have been through several self-induced government finance crises in the last 30 years so you could say we have survived all right.

oscarBravo

Slick50 wrote: »

Perhaps if you read the origional question again, you might be able to figure it out...

If you won't explain your confusing use of pronouns, I'll try to parse it. Assuming you mean that the state pays out more in social welfare than it gets back in property tax... so what? At least the state has some chance of getting the property tax from the unemployed person, whereas if we go with the oft-repeated demand to just hike up income tax, then the increased income tax is forfeit once a person loses their job.

Slick50 wrote: »

We have survived without an LPT/rates for over thirty years now. That in itself is evidence enough that it is not a necessity, and not the only option now.

Nobody has claimed it's the only option. As for it not being a necessity, sure: if you subscribe to the rather bizarre view expressed earlier in the thread that our taxation system is completely fit for purpose as it stands, then we don't need a property tax.

Meanwhile, back in reality...

Slick50

oscarBravo wrote: »

Assuming you mean that the state pays out more in social welfare than it gets back in property tax... so what?

Yes, that's what I meant. It wasn't that difficult really. So what? so that's how we ensure a stable tax base, we finance ourselves by taxing welfare recipients.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nobody has claimed it's the only option.

Anybody reading this thread, would have to be forgiven if they got the impression that it was the only option. Even your next sentence suggests it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for it not being a necessity, sure: if you subscribe to the rather bizarre view expressed earlier in the thread that our taxation system is completely fit for purpose as it stands, then we don't need a property tax.

Just because someone can see other options, does not mean they have to subscribe to another particular point of view.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Meanwhile, back in reality...

If someone doesn't subscribe to your point of view, they're not living in reality?

You can blow that condescending twaddle out your jacksie

bgrizzley

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nobody has claimed it's the only option. As for it not being a necessity, sure: if you subscribe to the rather bizarre view expressed earlier in the thread that our taxation system is completely fit for purpose as it stands, then we don't need a property tax.

do you mind me asking who suggested it was fit for purpose as it stands?

K-9

hju6 wrote: »

froms Blacks Law Dictionary. Charge definition.

To impose a burden, obligation, or lien; to create a claim against property; to claim, to demand; to accuse; to instruct a jury on matters of law. In the first sense above given, a jury in a criminal case is “charged” with the duty of trying the prisoner (or, as otherwise expressed, with his fate or his “deliverance”) as soon as they are impaneled and sworn, and at this moment the prisoner’s legal “jeopardy” begins. This is altogether a different matter from “charging” the jury in the sense of giving them instructions on matters of law, which is a function of the court. Tomasson v. State, 112 Tenn. 590, 79 S. W. 803.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/charge-v/#ixzz2eaCd39Xl

From Blacks Law Dictionary. Tax Definition.

In a general sense, a tax is any contribution imposed by government upon individuals, for the use and service of the state, whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other uame. Story, Const.Taylor v. Boyd, G3 Tex. 533; Morgan’s Co. v. State Board of Health, 118 U. S. 455, 6 Sup. Ct 1114, 30 L. Ed. 237; Dranga v. Rowe, 127 Cal. 500, 50 Pac. 944; McClelland v. State, 138 Ind 321, 37 N. E. 1089; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Iowa. 2S. 1 Am. Rep. 215; Bonaparte v. State, 03 Md. 405; Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. State, 49 Ohio St. 189. 30 N. E. 435, 10 I,. I!. A. 380; Illinois Cont. It. Co. v. Decatur. 147 U. S. 190, 13 Sup. Ct. 293, 37 L. Ed. 132.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/tax/#ixzz2eaDLHnHI

Mod:

Indeed, one is an obligation against a property in this case introduced by statute, the other is a tax. Unless there are some material and important differences, there is no need to repeatedly go over some semantic and pedantic debate over the nuances.

There's enough circular debate on this thread so we can leave this one out.

Zubeneschamali

Slick50 wrote: »

not the only option now.

OK, suppose you are the Shiny New Party's finance spokesman in the run up to the next election: how would you propose to replace the LPT?

Zubeneschamali

bgrizzley wrote: »

do you mind me asking who suggested it was fit for purpose as it stands?

Do you mind me asking why you keep saying stuff, and then asking others to quote it back to you?

bgrizzley wrote: »

The tax base is broad enough, incompetent management was/is the problem.

Banjo String

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

OK, suppose you are the Shiny New Party's finance spokesman in the run up to the next election: how would you propose to replace the LPT?

Replace it with domestic rates.

I don't think anyone would object to actually paying for services they can see.

It'd be easier to swallow a service charge, when you didn't have to fork out for services after you've paid a charge to a council.

I'd be all for an option like they have in the north. Free health care, schooling, refuse collections, etc etc.

Yes, it's gonna cost more than the lpt , but I believe it'd balance itself out over the year.

The council here want cash for very little in return, yet they pay the county council managers hundreds of thousands, while running councils many millions in debt.

Zubeneschamali

Banjo String wrote: »

I don't think anyone would object to actually paying for services they can see.

That must be why bin charges and water charges were introduced so smoothly!