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…129130132134135…137

Comments

  • Options
    #3932
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Slick50 wrote: »
    This point of view was countered many times, ages ago.

    You sound suprised, as if this thought just dawned on you.


    How can you say it was countered when you then say I shouldn't be surprised that it happened? That is self-contradictory.


  • Options
    #3933
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Slick50 wrote: »
    That the tax base is broad enough? Yes.
    If your opposition to this tax is such that you have convinced yourself of such utter nonsense as this, then there's literally no point trying to have a rational discussion on the issue.


  • Options
    #3934
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    Godge wrote: »
    How can you say it was countered
    Because it was.
    Godge wrote: »
    when you then say I shouldn't be surprised that it happened?
    Where did I say that?
    Godge wrote: »
    That is self-contradictory.
    Where is the contradiction?


  • Options
    #3935
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Slick50 wrote: »
    Because it was.

    The mass acceptance of the tax is a reality. People have paid their money over and we've all (bar a few who don't mind penalties) moved on. That's kind of hard to 'counter' after the fact.


  • Options
    #3936
    hju6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,432 ✭✭✭hju6


    Godge wrote: »
    Yes, your maths. When asked how you would replace the LPT, you came up with this gem.




    When I demonstrate to you that this would be completely inadequate to cover up the shortfall and that the percentage rise required to replace the LPT would be such as to open up the risk of an overall decrease in tax revenue, you resort to the last refuge of the bewildered: shift the goalposts and blame someone else for something else.

    Your solution is completely unrealistic so back to the drawing board.

    Your figures are from the lads who 'found' 6 billion lying about a couple of years ago,
    I await a better solution from yourself that doesn't include taxing the working heart out of the country with charge after charge that will rise year after year,
    Just to service the interest on other people's debt that was foisted upon us.

    Not once have you proposed any ideas to raise finances on this thread, it's like Edna bleats and you run for your sheepskin wallet, god help you in a few years time when it all comes home to roost.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3937
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    hju6 wrote: »
    Your figures are from the lads who 'found' 6 billion lying about a couple of years ago,
    I await a better solution from yourself that doesn't include taxing the working heart out of the country with charge after charge that will rise year after year,
    Just to service the interest on other people's debt that was foisted upon us.

    As you're well aware - not a cent of your LPT goes anywhere but funding local authority services. And we're still a relatively low-taxed nation compared to the rest of the EU.

    http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:2_Ranking_of_total_tax_revenue_by_Member_States_and_EFTA_countries_as_a_%25_of_GDP.PNG&filetimestamp=20130102164221


  • Options
    #3938
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    alastair wrote: »
    The mass acceptance of the tax is a reality. People have paid their money over and we've all (bar a few who don't mind penalties) moved on. That's kind of hard to 'counter' after the fact.
    I suppose your going to add 'acceptance' to your dictionary of re-definitions now.
    alastair wrote: »
    As you're well aware - not a cent of your LPT goes anywhere but funding local authority services.
    Of course not. That's all legally ring fenced. But what about the portion of local services financed from central funds still? That's not guaranteed, and subject to a whim.
    alastair wrote: »
    And we're still a relatively low-taxed nation compared to the rest of the EU.

    http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:2_Ranking_of_total_tax_revenue_by_Member_States_and_EFTA_countries_as_a_%25_of_GDP.PNG&filetimestamp=20130102164221
    So adding a couple of percent to our income tax rates, or our corporation tax rates probably won't result in this mass exodus of higher earners, and or multi nationals after all then.


  • Options
    #3939
    hju6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,432 ✭✭✭hju6


    alastair wrote: »
    As you're well aware - not a cent of your LPT goes anywhere but funding local authority services. And we're still a relatively low-taxed nation compared to the rest of the EU.

    http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:2_Ranking_of_total_tax_revenue_by_Member_States_and_EFTA_countries_as_a_%25_of_GDP.PNG&filetimestamp=20130102164221

    Nonsense absolute nonsense

    It replaces the money took out, same thing

    Low low taxes if you are a corporation, if corporations pay any in some cases


  • Options
    #3940
    hju6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,432 ✭✭✭hju6


    alastair wrote: »
    The mass acceptance of the tax is a reality. People have paid their money over and we've all (bar a few who don't mind penalties) moved on. That's kind of hard to 'counter' after the fact.

    Circular arguments are frowned upon here mate, :)


  • Options
    #3941
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    hju6 wrote: »
    Nonsense absolute nonsense

    It replaces the money took out, same thing

    Money has been taken out of most areas of government expenditure - it's not like local authority funding is any different. Where's all that money going? Over 95% of your taxes go to paying for ongoing services, and servicing the deficit costs which have nothing to do with bank bailouts or any loans accrued to service them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3942
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    hju6 wrote: »
    Circular arguments are frowned upon here mate, :)

    I didn't notice that you had an argument.


  • Options
    #3943
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Slick50 wrote: »
    So adding a couple of percent to our income tax rates, or our corporation tax rates probably won't result in this mass exodus of higher earners, and or multi nationals after all then.

    You'd like to take that gamble? I'm not so sure.


  • Options
    #3944
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Slick50 wrote: »
    Of course not. That's all legally ring fenced. But what about the portion of local services financed from central funds still? That's not guaranteed, and subject to a whim.

    Same as it's always been. But have you any evidence that this will happen?


  • Options
    #3945
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


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


    Because i added a proviso, and i wasnt sure if he was just purposely mis-quoting me to bolster his incorrect assumtion on property taxes being necessary, or accurately quoting some one else. (judging by his thanks, the former (as you correctly pointed out for a change:D))


  • Options
    #3946
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    alastair wrote: »
    Same as it's always been. But have you any evidence that this will happen?
    Other than the fact we now have an LPT to finance local services. Last year we were asked "what is all the fuss about, it's less than €2 a week"
    Less than a year later, it's more than double that, on average. It's only going one way, and that's steadily upwards, this was just to establish the 'principal'.
    Personally, at the moment, I don't mind the how much, but it may well get to a point were I couldn't say that. What then? What about people who can't say that now?


  • Options
    #3947
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Slick50 wrote: »
    So adding a couple of percent to our income tax rates

    We've just discussed that, they'd have to take more than double per taxpayer, because only half the working population pays any income tax, ignoring those who don't work at all.

    Some anti-LPT posters have said they'd happily pay more than double to avoid the horrible injustice of domestic rates returning, but not me!


  • Options
    #3948
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »

    Some anti-LPT posters have said they'd happily pay more than double to avoid the horrible injustice of domestic rates returning, but not me!

    Did they?


  • Options
    #3949
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Banjo String wrote: »
    Did they?

    I think both darkhorse and bgrizzley said they prefer to pay more extra in income tax than pay LPT.


  • Options
    #3950
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Slick50 wrote: »
    Other than the fact we now have an LPT to finance local services. Last year we were asked "what is all the fuss about, it's less than €2 a week"
    Less than a year later, it's more than double that, on average. It's only going one way, and that's steadily upwards, this was just to establish the 'principal'.
    Personally, at the moment, I don't mind the how much, but it may well get to a point were I couldn't say that. What then? What about people who can't say that now?

    It's going to go upwards (or downwards :rolleyes:) at a maximum of 15% per annum, and we all knew that the HHC was only an easing-in process for a proper property tax - they told us as much from the outset.


  • Options
    #3951
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I think both darkhorse and bgrizzley said they prefer to pay more extra in income tax than pay LPT.

    I said it too.

    I don't think anyone said they'd pay double the income tax though.:confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3952
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    alastair wrote: »
    It's going to go upwards at a maximum of 15% per annum,
    Things change, and you can't take a politician at his/her word.
    alastair wrote: »
    (or downwards rolleyes.png)
    Have we found something we agree on?
    alastair wrote: »
    and we all knew that the HHC was only an easing-in process for a proper property tax - they told us as much from the outset.
    So, no one asked what all the fuss was about, over €2 a week.?
    Yes, that was the thin edge of the wedge. It hasn't been driven home fully yet.


  • Options
    #3953
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Slick50 wrote: »
    Things change, and you can't take a politician at his/her word.
    Bit of a cop-out. It's written into the legislation.
    Slick50 wrote: »
    So, no one asked what all the fuss was about, over €2 a week.?
    Yes, that was the thin edge of the wedge. It hasn't been driven home fully yet.
    You find me anyone who thought that the HHC was anything like a reflection of what a proper property taxation scenario would cost, and you'll be showing me an exceptional individual. Everyone knew we would pay more than that - that reality sunk in on day one that the HHC was mooted.


  • Options
    #3954
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    Banjo String wrote: »
    I said it too.

    I don't think anyone said they'd pay double the income tax though.:confused:

    i cant remember exactly what i said, but i would pay more than my lpt liability to have the state keep their grubby mitts off my home. (i couldnt afford double my income tax though, but i could easily afford multiples of my lpt)


  • Options
    #3955
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    alastair wrote: »
    Bit of a cop-out. It's written into the legislation.
    That's not a cop out, it's a statement of fact. Legislation changes too.
    alastair wrote: »
    You find me anyone who thought that the HHC was anything like a reflection of what a proper property taxation scenario would cost, and you'll be showing me an exceptional individual. Everyone knew we would pay more than that - that reality sunk in on day one that the HHC was mooted.
    I am not saying such an exceptional person exists. The origional HHC thread ran to around 30k posts, a substantial number of them were posted by people asking what all the fuss was about over €2, do you think they were aware it was going to go up?

    You didn't answer this...
    alastair wrote: »
    (or downwards rolleyes.png)
    Have we found something we agree on?
    I was going to crack open a bottle of bubbly.


  • Options
    #3956
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'd love to see a show of hands: how many of those of you who are arguing against a property tax agree with darkhorse that we should be increasing income tax on minimum wage earners instead?
    darkhorse wrote: »
    That would be interesting. I'd love to see a show of hands as to who would prefer to have a further income tax deduction, or to pay a tax on their home.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Goalpost shift alert: that's not what I asked.

    Just on this, oB, you say: "that's not what I asked", when I posted my post above, and I know that's not what you asked. I did say in answer to your post, "That would be interesting", and I was being genuine when I acknowledged your post, and I decided to follow through with the above, instead of making two separate posts, so no, I wasn't trying to shift the goalposts.


  • Options
    #3957
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    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?

    Yes, the USC is a tax on income, and, that the government choose to call it a charge, I do not know, why not call it what it is. Income tax is a tax on income, which is obvious. The LPT is a tax residential homes, which replaced the Household Charge. I know what you're saying, however, unless I am mistaken, right from the start, we were told by Minister Phil Hogan that the HHC was going to be a flat charge of one hundred euro in 2012, and then, from the 1st of July 2013, he was going to introduce a Property Tax. So, is this not the case, and if I am wrong, would someone point out to me where the HHC in 2012 was a tax?


  • Options
    #3958
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    hju6 wrote: »
    A 0.5% rise in corporation tax would more than cover it,


    You made up a figure off the top of your head that I have completely discredited, just remember that. Where did you get your figure from, how could you possibly think that a 0.5% rise in corporation tax would more than cover it? Have you never read an Exchequer statement?
    hju6 wrote: »
    Your figures are from the lads who 'found' 6 billion lying about a couple of years ago,
    I await a better solution from yourself that doesn't include taxing the working heart out of the country with charge after charge that will rise year after year,
    Just to service the interest on other people's debt that was foisted upon us..

    http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=7486&CatID=5&StartDate=01+January+2013

    Now you tell me that my figures are off because they are 2013 projections!!! You are really desperate, it is quite sad.

    Look there are the 2012 outcome. Corporation tax was €4.2 bn, not much different to the €4.1 bn projection I used. Think I will stick with my figures.

    Which of course means once again that your idea of increasing corporation tax to replace the LPT is clearly demonstrated as pointless. As I said in my previous post, it could lead to decreased overall tax revenue.
    hju6 wrote: »
    Not once have you proposed any ideas to raise finances on this thread, it's like Edna bleats and you run for your sheepskin wallet, god help you in a few years time when it all comes home to roost.


    When what all comes home to roost?

    If you went through my post history over the last few years you would see plenty of ideas on how to solve the country's finances. Here are a few:

    1. Double the rate of LPT
    2. Extend commercial rates to B&Bs
    3. Introduce a farm tax, similar to LPT
    4. Eliminate the special income tax credit for over-65s
    5. Tax the remaining social welfare payments exempt from tax
    6. Replace child benefit with a system that provides school books, school uniforms and lunches direct to students and also provide for after-school care and pre-school care for working parents only.
    7. Eliminate or restrict tax relief for pensions
    8. Introduce a new lower-rate of unemployment assistance for those on long-term unemployment who haven't engaged with job opportunities
    9. Penal tax on derelict sites inside town and city boundaries
    10. Reduce the number of VAT-exempt goods


    Those are only a few, I have had many more over the years.


  • Options
    #3959
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    darkhorse wrote: »
    Yes, the USC is a tax on income, and, that the government choose to call it a charge, I do not know, why not call it what it is. Income tax is a tax on income, which is obvious. The LPT is a tax residential homes, which replaced the Household Charge. I know what you're saying, however, unless I am mistaken, right from the start, we were told by Minister Phil Hogan that the HHC was going to be a flat charge of one hundred euro in 2012, and then, from the 1st of July 2013, he was going to introduce a Property Tax. So, is this not the case, and if I am wrong, would someone point out to me where the HHC in 2012 was a tax?


    Round and round in circles, this has been answered many times.

    A tax is a compulsory contribution to government revenue, no matter what it is called. That makes the HHC a tax.

    If we called it the "Houses contribution" it would be a tax. If we called it the "Household Gobbledy-gook", it would still be a tax. If we called it the "payment to annoy darkhorse and others", it would still be a tax.

    The label doesn't matter, the purpose does, I thought you would have got that by now.


  • Options
    #3960
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    darkhorse wrote: »
    Just on this, oB, you say: "that's not what I asked", when I posted my post above, and I know that's not what you asked. I did say in answer to your post, "That would be interesting", and I was being genuine when I acknowledged your post, and I decided to follow through with the above, instead of making two separate posts, so no, I wasn't trying to shift the goalposts.
    Fair enough; I misinterpreted your reply.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3961
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    K-9 wrote: »
    Mod:
    So what's the difference between a charge and a tax?

    The difference between a charge and a tax, in my opinion.

    A charge is a price/cost that you would pay in a retail outlet, or to a tradesperson/professional for goods or services, that may be negotiable.

    A tax is a monetary levy imposed by a government, for which there may not necessarily be any return forthcoming.


Advertisement