nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

New Household Tax - Boycott

bkeano

Hi all Boardies

Can we all please make a stance here and get our non boardies to do the same. Enough is Enough We should not pay this new household Tax. Its the same as the Poll tax in the UK. I am an normal Joe Soap with 2 kids. I cant pay any more Taxes. I can afford it as it is. I am lucky to have my Job.

We need to mount a serious objection here and nationwide.

thanks
Brian

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Liam Byrne

murphaph wrote: »

Last time I looked it cost the same amount to send a letter from the arse end of nowhere to the arse end of nowhere as it did to send one inside a large urban area with its own sorting office. Be careful with the urban/rural cost of service provision comparisons

Define this "arse end of nowhere" lark.....it's trotted out so often on here by pompous Dubs, and I can think of nowhere that fits that description better than a the back of a soul-less housing estate.

I'd walk to the nearest shopping centre from here quicker than someone at the back of a housing estate in Tallaght or Swords would.

martingriff

While I sympathise with people who have paid stamp duty allready on there houses/apartments and should be subsitised for a while. But with the water charges I think everyone should pay IT DOES COST (contary to what you may believe) and some people do pay water charges be it company rates and water schemes. My parents pay water charges they are meterd on a water scheme

murphaph

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Define this "arse end of nowhere" lark.....it's trotted out so often on here by pompous Dubs, and I can think of nowhere that fits that description better than a the back of a soul-less housing estate.

I'd walk to the nearest shopping centre from here quicker than someone at the back of a housing estate in Tallaght or Swords would.

You know what I mean Liam. It's cheaper to provide a postal service to that soul-less estate in Swords or Tallaght OR any estate in a NON-DUBLIN urban area than to provide same to isolated rural dwellings!!

This is a simple matter of fact.

I was not making any particular points for or against rural housing, just reminding the poster that he would be well advised to be careful before claiming that rural dwellers would have particular cause for complaint wrt this tax.

I think you confused "rural" with "outside Dublin" Liam

Fulton Crown

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Look pal...your on a looser and you know it.

Do you not realise that as a country we have been bailed out by our European partners.

Part of the condition of this bail out is the introduction of a property tax.

The one question the lefties never answer is what would have happened if we had not got the bail out.
No money to pay Guards/Civil Servants/Teachers/Fire services etc...a run on the banks...empty ATM'S.

The country decends into chaos........enter The Stickies and their fellow travellers......

Exit the Multinationals and anyone with a bit o sense.........

Interesting to see they are still not answering !

RobitTV

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Look pal...your on a looser and you know it.

Do you not realise that as a country we have been bailed out by our European partners.

Part of the condition of this bail out is the introduction of a property tax.

The one question the lefties never answer is what would have happened if we had not got the bail out.

No money to pay Guards/Civil Servants/Teachers/Fire services etc...a run on the banks...empty ATM'S.

The country decends into chaos........enter The Stickies and their fellow travellers......

Exit the Multinationals and anyone with a bit o sense.........

Well im not against the Bailout at all, we needed the money badly to save the country and i fully understand that.

But increasing tax's and adding pressure on people who cannot afford to give more money, Is just not a Good idea.

The only positive is people on Social may get a reduction on how much they have to pay, but they will still have to contribute something.

If the goverment want's to increase tax's, They need to raise employment first, So people can actually pay it and not struggle.

At the moment its just not possible, i couldn't see people paying it on time, and some at all.

nesf

RobitTV wrote: »

Well im not against the Bailout at all, we needed the money badly to save the country and i fully understand that.

But increasing tax's and adding pressure on people who cannot afford to give more money, Is just not a Good idea.

The only positive is people on Social may get a reduction on how much they have to pay, but they will still have to contribute something.

If the goverment want's to increase tax's, They need to raise employment first, So people can actually pay it and not struggle.

At the moment its just not possible, i couldn't see people paying it on time, and some at all.

Unemployment will take many, many years to come down fully, we can't wait that long to sort out the deficit unfortunately. The Government doesn't have any choice but to cut spending and raise taxes.

bmaxi

Why is the Government paying €750 million to unsecured bond holders this year if we are that urgently in need of cash? As far as I remember something in the same amount was paid last year. That would cover this household charge until a more equitable system is arrived at.

oscarBravo

bmaxi wrote: »

Why is the Government paying €750 million to unsecured bond holders this year if we are that urgently in need of cash?

Are you working on the assumption that there would be no negative consequences to not paying the bondholders?

bmaxi

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you working on the assumption that there would be no negative consequences to not paying the bondholders?

If you have a definitive answer let's have it, instead of engaging in condescension.

oscarBravo

bmaxi wrote: »

If you have a definitive answer let's have it, instead of engaging in condescension.

I wasn't engaging in condescension (or offering a definitive answer), I was asking a question.

bmaxi

keithob wrote: »

will people get this bondholders malarky out of there heads........

the eu / imf and bondholders are in this for money and noting else.

I want to know the answer. I can understand why people covered by the State's, IMO insane, bank guarantee, having to be paid but not those who are not.

oscarBravo

bmaxi wrote: »

I want to know the answer. I can understand why people covered by the State's, IMO insane, bank guarantee, having to be paid but not those who are not.

OK, so you are working on the assumption that there would be no negative consequences to the state refusing to pay its debts, albeit unsecured debts, at a time when our credit rating is already in the crapper.

bastados

2010 is when the slave class replaced the working class...no money and a very dried up sense of humour...we are donkeys now.

OhNoYouDidn't

nesf wrote: »

Unemployment will take many, many years to come down fully, we can't wait that long to sort out the deficit unfortunately. The Government doesn't have any choice but to cut spending and raise taxes.

So let them raise taxes.

What is this obsesstion they have with keeping progressive personal taxes lower and introducing regressive indirect taxes?

I am a middle earning private sector worker who has gotten progressively better off as a result of these budgets. 2% more on my higher PAYE band is fair and affordable, and will make a serious dent on the defecit.

Instead I have to pay thousands in property tax on an apartment I paid stamp duty on and water charges that I already pay in my management fees.

bmaxi

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, so you are working on the assumption that there would be no negative consequences to the state refusing to pay its debts, albeit unsecured debts, at a time when our credit rating is already in the crapper.

I don't know, that's why I asked.

What you are saying is, unsecured investments are actually secured investments, we're just pretending they are not. It would appear "caveat emptor" applies to everybody except these bondholders and I'd like a definitive answer as to why that should be the case.
If nothing else, it seems to be a dangerous precedent to set.

oscarBravo

bmaxi wrote: »

What you are saying is, unsecured investments are actually secured investments, we're just pretending they are not.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we could default on our unsecured debts, but that doesn't mean we should.

If I have a mortgage secured on my house, but a personal loan without security, do you think I can just decide not to pay off the personal loan with zero consequences? What do you suppose it would do to my credit rating?

dave1982

RedXIV wrote: »

As another someone with 2 kids, I sympathise. but I'm not gonna get thrown out of my house for an extra €9 a month

will you keep saying its just 9 euro,when they raise it every year?

I agree with the OP

I'm not paying:)

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we could default on our unsecured debts, but that doesn't mean we should.

If I have a mortgage secured on my house, but a personal loan without security, do you think I can just decide not to pay off the personal loan with zero consequences? What do you suppose it would do to my credit rating?

Thats a bad analogy. What happens if they are your neighbours unsecured loans and you got cajoled into taking them on under false pretences?

alphabeat

FOR SALE:

Large island farm , containing 4.5 million highly productive, blinkered sheep .
all good tempered and easly pliable.

contact E.Kenny
Dublin

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats a bad analogy. What happens if they are your neighbours unsecured loans and you got cajoled into taking them on under false pretences?

OK - so you believe that we can default on the unsecured bondholders without negative consequences?

zebrafumbler

This is one thing the right and left can agree on. Boycott this tax.

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK - so you believe that we can default on the unsecured bondholders without negative consequences?

No, not after the treasonous decision to socialise private losses.

But I do believe that the consequences of 'burning' bondholders will be considerably less traumatic than continuing on the current course.

bmaxi

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we could default on our unsecured debts, but that doesn't mean we should.

If I have a mortgage secured on my house, but a personal loan without security, do you think I can just decide not to pay off the personal loan with zero consequences? What do you suppose it would do to my credit rating?

Surely the institution or person advancing an unsecured would be aware, by the very terminology, there is a risk that all or some of the loan might not be repaid. I'd imagine unsecured loans would attract a higher premium too.
It just appears to me that goalposts can be shifted by one side and not the other. It's easy for our politicians to commit money which is not theirs. I heard one Minister whining that they had already taken a 20% pay cut, not such a big deal when you are paying yourself 200% of the going rate for the job, plus expenses every time you wipe your arse.

!3theraven

Just read through most of the posts on this thread, for the very small few that seem happy to pay a property tax, what you don,t realize if you consent to pay anything in the form on property you already own whether it be an apartment or house, you are really consenting to recognize you re no longer the true landlord of your own property and that the goverment and local council are the landlord over your property now, which sets a dangerous precedent, if we all were to accept a property tax when it goes up every year, for those whose income who couldn,t afford the increases, the local council would have power to evict someone from their own property, that,s if you actually want to recognize the local council as your landlord, do you?

View

!3theraven wrote: »

Just read through most of the posts on this thread, for the very small few that seem happy to pay a property tax, what you don,t realize if you consent to pay anything in the form on property you already own whether it be an apartment or house, you are really consenting to recognize you re no longer the true landlord of your own property and that the goverment and local council and the landlord over your property now, which sets a dangerous precedent, if we all were to accept a property tax when it goes up every year, for those whose income who couldn,t afford the increases, the local council would have power to evict someone from their own property, that,s if you actually want to recognize the local council as your landlord, do you?

So, if you own a car and pay your car tax, the government really own your car? And presumably they own your TV if you pay your TV license? Do they also own your income if you pay income tax?

!3theraven

View wrote: »

So, if you own a car and pay your car tax, the government really own your car? And presumably they own your TV if you pay your TV license? Do they also own your income if you pay income tax?

Motor tax goes towards the upkeep of roads,if I don,t pay it, the goverment don,t have the power to take away my car, tv licence I don,t pay it, don,t use tv, watch everything on my pc,You pay motor tax to be legally allowed to use the car on the public roads. You can have a hundred cars and not pay a cent in motor tax if you do not use them on the public road.
Your motor tax/property tax comparison fails.

but back to this property tax and Il be specfic.

I wonder if anyone can tell me the difference between property taxes and rent?If I rent an apartment, I have to pay a tax – which is called rent – to stay in that apartment.Likewise, if I live on my own land, in my own house, I also have to pay rent – which is called a tax – a property tax – to stay on that land and in that house.

So is there any difference between rent and property tax?
Well, as far as I can tell, no there is not.
Let’s qualify this…
If I cease to pay my rent to my landlord for his apartment, the consequences of that action are for the landlord to evict me, with the city and state government’s support, of course. This I understand, for it is not my property for which I am living.

But what about my own land and home? The home that I might own outright, having paid all debt owed for that land and home? What if I cease to pay my rent (in the form of property taxes) to my landlord (who is the government) What will happen?
Well, as far as I know, the government will have the power to evict me from my own home who I am the landlord of.So is this a tax, or is it rent.

Lets go even further and call it for what it really is… extortion. Plain and simple.For through eminent domain, if a property tax is not resisted the goverment can take my property anytime you want. Just like a landlord can sell his property and kick you out of your apartment, anytime he likes.that,s if people choose to give the goverment a foot in the door with this property tax.

OhNoYouDidn't

View wrote: »

So, if you own a car and pay your car tax, the government really own your car? And presumably they own your TV if you pay your TV license? Do they also own your income if you pay income tax?

I think what he is getting at is that if you don't pay your property tax they can take away your home, like they can your car.

murphaph

!3theraven wrote: »

Motor tax goes towards the upkeep of roads,if I don,t pay it, the goverment don,t have the power to take away my car

I think you'll find they actually do.

A property tax does not mean you are now some sort of tenant. You cannot be evicted for failure to pay it. You can be prosecuted for failure to pay and a court could theoretically order that the debt be repaid through the forced sale of your home, but this theoretically applies to ANY debt.

!3theraven

murphaph wrote: »

I think you'll find they actually do.

A property tax does not mean you are now some sort of tenant. You cannot be evicted for failure to pay it. You can be prosecuted for failure to pay and a court could theoretically order that the debt be repaid through the forced sale of your home, but this theoretically applies to ANY debt.

exactly my point, if they are given the power to sell someones home,that person is no longer the rightful owner of that home, if the goverment are given that power,by the way how can someone have debt when they never signed any contract? with regards to this property tax, Im refering to contract law.

ei.sdraob

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK - so you believe that we can default on the unsecured bondholders without negative consequences?

No, not after the treasonous decision to socialise private losses.

But I do believe that the consequences of 'burning' bondholders will be considerably less traumatic than continuing on the current course.

Greece defaulted,the world did not end,if anything they got more money loaned to them out of fear,we could learn a thing or two