Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 3] Poll Reset

lugha wrote: »

.
Second, income tax does not take really take account of an individual’s ability to pay. Two people might nominally be on the same income and liable for the same amount of increased income tax but one might have a family / kids in college / large mortgage etc. and the other not.

I disagree with you here. Because if one is in a low paying job, then it follows that that one may not be able afford a property tax, which would defeat the purpose of a revenue raising exercise.

What about another comparison. Two people in two different jobs. One takes home €250 a week after deductions, the other takes home €750 a week after deductions. Both have utility and food bills in the region of €245 a week and both own their homes, which are equal in size. So, should both pay the same amount for a tax/charge on their home? They should, because of the fact that their houses are the same size(same builder built both, and they were sold off the plans).
So, You can see where the unfairness could lie in a property tax. Now, some people, including your good self, may come back and say to me, that it also would'nt be fair that one of the people in the example above, pays the full amount while the other does/can not, but by the sheer fact that you are in favour of a property tax, would you not agree that those who can afford to pay, should pay?
This is why I, and I think some other posters will agree that it would be more feasable, both for the government and for the citizens, that income tax should be raised instead, where the majority will pay something, rather than a tax on property, where there are far too many exemptions, and, imo, it would just never be equitable.

tayto lover wrote: »

Wake up Maggie I think i've got something to say to you.

1. You are taken to court and fined.
2. You refuse to pay the fine.
3. You are not on SW/Pension and are self-employed.

What happens now?

An attachment is made against your bank account. Or maybe whatever happens to self employed people who are caught evading their other taxes.

What would you expect to happen to someone who refused to pay a fine?

Am Chile wrote: »

All surveys I have seen in the media whether tv shows, radio show text polls so on-have all shown the vast majority of people are opposed to property taxes-even a recent survey conforms this.

First, 66% hardly constitutes the vast majority. It is a clear majority, just as a clear (but not vast!

) majority have paid the HHC.

And of course people are opposed to it. Most people will be opposed to any austere measure, especially if it impacts on them. (Personally I am surprised the figure is as low as it is)

But are two thirds of the population prepared to defy the courts, if it comes to it? Clearly not as a majority have already paid the HHC and I would say most that have not will do so when the face the threat of fines.

darkhorse wrote: »

This is why I, and I think some other posters will agree that it would be more feasable, both for the government and for the citizens, that income tax should be raised instead, …

The arguments against income tax have been made time and again on the thread. (Basically, it discourages job creation and is not as robust and reliable as a property tax). But I do expect a rise in income tax eventually.

darkhorse wrote: »

…. rather than a tax on property, where there are far too many exemptions, and, imo, it would just never be equitable.

The argument that the property tax is unfair has also been dealt with many times (basically, all taxes have some degree of unfairness in them)

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

An attachment is made against your bank account. Or maybe whatever happens to self employed people who are caught evading their other taxes.

What would you expect to happen to someone who refused to pay a fine?

Just two hours in the front office of Mountjoy waiting for the "fine paid" papers.

I have paid all my taxes for all of my life.
This one is a "no no" because it is a charge for something I have paid all kinds of taxes on already and which is not an across the board tax making it unjust and unfair. Other people living in homes just the same as mine are exempt and that is not fair.
I stated here before of me ringing the council a number of years ago regarding blocked drains at the back of out homes which are town houses. The council stated clearly that it was nothing to do with them as our houses were "private houses". We clubbed together to get the problem fixed. If it was nothing to do with them then it's nothing to do with them now. I pay all my charges to private companies. I might consider paying for water if it's of good quality and not like the dishwater we are getting now.

lugha wrote: »

First, we don’t yet know what form the property tax will take. I don’t anticipate, nor would I support, one that would see people who genuinely cannot afford to pay being evicted from their homes.

If people can't afford to pay, you would have to give them some sort of exemption, but by doing this you undermine the assertion that this would be a more stable source of income.

lugha wrote: »

Second, income tax does not take really take account of an individual’s ability to pay. Two people might nominally be on the same income and liable for the same amount of increased income tax but one might have a family / kids in college / large mortgage etc. and the other not.

There are usually extra allowances for people with extra expenses... childrens allowance, TRS. FIS etc.

lugha wrote: »

Any austerity measure, no matter what form it takes, will hit some, and probably quite a lot of people, very hard. Pretending that income tax increases will be less painful than a property tax is just daft.

They may not be any less painful, but would generally be more equitable.

lugha wrote: »

But if you fancy an increase in income tax, I expect you will eventually get your wish, but it will be as well as, and not instead of a property tax.

I doubt any of us want increases in income tax, but IMO it is the lesser of the two evils. But I would say you're right... we will be getting that sooner or later.

tayto lover wrote: »

Other people living in homes just the same as mine are exempt and that is not fair.

And I would guess that many of those people are also welfare recipients and thus would also be immune form income tax.

So explain to me again why income tax is fair?

tayto lover wrote: »

Just two hours in the front office of Mountjoy waiting for the "fine paid" papers.

I was asking what you think would happen, not what you hope would happen.

The new Fines bill all but rules out anyone going to prison for non payment of a fine.

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

I was asking what you think would happen, not what you hope would happen.

The new Fines bill all but rules out anyone going to prison for non payment of a fine.

That is what i am fairly confidently predicting will happen.
What do you think will happen?

Slick50 wrote: »

If people can't afford to pay, you would have to give them some sort of exemption, but by doing this you undermine the assertion that this would be a more stable source of income.

It doesn't look like people who can't afford to pay will be given exemptions - they will more likely be given deferrals. They can pay the back tax when their circumstances allow it or on the transfer of the property.

tayto lover wrote: »

That is what i am fairly confidently predicting will happen.
What do you think will happen?

No guesswork is required. Just read the Fines bill - the various options open to the courts are laid out there.

Slick50 wrote: »

If people can't afford to pay, you would have to give them some sort of exemption, but by doing this you undermine the assertion that this would be a more stable source of income.

I don’t follow this at all?

Slick50 wrote: »

There are usually extra allowances for people with extra expenses... childrens allowance, TRS. FIS etc.

There are some. But there is only minimal support for the biggie for most people, the massive mortgage they have to pay, if they do. Income tax is oblivious to whether you do or don't.

Slick50 wrote: »

They may not be any less painful, but would generally be more equitable.

I don’t think the no side have really made the argument that it is all that inequitable. They have cited aspects of it that are unfair. But the fail to respond (and indeed do not even seem to get the point) when it is pointed out that (all?) other taxes are unfair to some extent. See my reply to Tayto above.

Slick50 wrote: »

I doubt any of us want increases in income tax, but IMO it is the lesser of the two evils.

I think it is more about the devil you know. We are more receptive to income tax increases because we are used to them. We haven’t had property tax in recent times in Ireland so some of us have these odd urges to be suspicious of change.

It may (and may not!) well be that property tax will bed down and be accepted very quickly, just as the smoking ban and NCT were.

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

No guesswork is required. Just read the Fines bill - the various options open to the courts are laid out there.

It's not very clear.
The courts could interpret it in a different way too.
Either way they will have a job squeezing it out of me.

dvpower wrote: »

It doesn't look like people who can't afford to pay will be given exemptions - they will more likely be given deferrals.

That's not going to make it any more popular... in fact that would probably stir even more people to oppose it.

dvpower wrote: »

They can pay the back tax when their circumstances allow it or on the transfer of the property.

So someone who is in negative equity, is forced to sell, having lost the battle to keep the roof over their heads, is then told to hand over more cash.

It also doesn't make it very stable if you don't know when you are going to be able to collect it.

lugha wrote: »

Really? I could have sworn Sean Quinn Jnr had to do his bit of porridge for his of 'aul contempt of court?

But I think the figure was more than €100 that was in dispute. Also, a non payer of the HHC is not trying to hide assets, just refusing to pay a charge for services

that as far as most of us are concerned, we are already paying for through INCOME TAX, VAT, USC, etc.

tayto lover wrote: »

Sean Quinn should be there like Seanie, Drumm, Fingers and probably a lot of politicians.
They can't jail 700k non Property Tax payers. Have you not seen this --
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0501/1224315408098.html[/QUOTE]

Thats just a cover, tayto, they are really making room for us.:eek:

Izzy Skint

I heard on the news tonight that the latest plan is to request / force employers to request info. from their employees re. the employees property status....also, a couple where there is joint home ownership but only one working, then the one working will be solely liable eventhough that person owns only half the family home !!!.....self employed will pay through their yearly returns....no mention of how (or if ) they would collect from those on SW, pensions etc.

they are bending, changing, introducing rules to cover all circumstances to extract money from all those in work....isn't it amazing how much ingenuity these [EMAIL="b@stards"]b@stards[/EMAIL] can show when they need to screw the people, but yet they can take years or just refuse to introduce reforms where they are badly needed or wanted by the public !!!

Just my opinion, they are obviously going down the road of hitting PAYE / self employed possibly by reducing tax reliefs etc. for everyone, and only re-instating those reliefs when you value your home , register and pay up :mad::mad::mad:

IF this is they way they want to go then it will be met with fierce resistance....that's a promise.

donalg1

Hijpo wrote: »

lol you think that if you get a promotion, which increases you pay, you wont be able to afford the tax on it?

Lol at your ability to miss a point. If my income increases the amount of property tax I have to pay doesn't. Can you understand this.

Slick50 wrote: »

So someone who is in negative equity, is forced to sell, having lost the battle to keep the roof over their heads, is then told to hand over more cash.

Nobody is being forced to sell. A deferral system keeps people in their homes.

darkhorse wrote: »

But I think the figure was more than €100 that was in dispute. Also, a non payer of the HHC is not trying to hide assets, just refusing to pay a charge for services that as far as most of us are concerned, we are already paying for through INCOME TAX, VAT, USC, etc.

The magnitude of Quinn's wrong doing are entirely beside the point. He was sent to prison for contempt of court. You don't necessarily need to have broken any law to be held in contempt. The Rossport 5 for example, did not (afaik), break any laws.

tayto lover wrote: »

It's not very clear.
The courts could interpret it in a different way too.
Either way they will have a job squeezing it out of me.

Which bit in particular is not clear to you and open to differing interpretations?

lugha wrote: »

I don’t follow this at all?

Basically I was saying if you give people exemptions because of inability to pay, you undermine the arguement that it is a more stable tax. Which is apparently the great advantage of this tax.

lugha wrote: »

There are some. But there is only minimal support for the biggie for most people, the massive mortgage they have to pay, if they do. Income tax is oblivious to whether you do or don't.

Well according to your previous argument, the guy paying the massive mortgage is saving himself a fortune.

The property tax will be charged irrelevant of a mortgage too.

Or were you saying extra income tax would be unfair to the guy with no mortgage?

lugha wrote: »

I don’t think the no side have really made the argument that it is all that inequitable. They have cited aspects of it that are unfair. But the fail to respond (and indeed do not even seem to get the point) when it is pointed out that (all?) other taxes are unfair to some extent. See my reply to Tayto above.

That is why I think it is the lesser of the two evils. Yes most taxes have a degree of inequity.

lugha wrote: »

I think it is more about the devil you know. We are more receptive to income tax increases because we are used to them. We haven’t had property tax in recent times in Ireland so some of us have these odd urges to be suspicious of change.

A three tier tax system has been tried and tested, and seen us through the previous recession.... to the tiger years. Why should we not revert to that?

lugha wrote: »

It may (and may not!) well be that property tax will bed down and be accepted very quickly, just as the smoking ban and NCT were.

The main reason these two examples worked so well, and so quickly accepted,(in stark contrast to this) is they were both great ideas.

(There was practically one hundred percent compliance with the smoking ban over night.)

dvpower wrote: »

Nobody is being forced to sell. A deferral system keeps people in their homes.

If their economic circumstances deteriorate to such an extent, rather than the state forcing the sale, the revenue will be there to collect... under your perceived rules.

And while you continue to insist there would be no forced sale, how desperate an economic situation would be allowed to develope before the state decides it can't wait for payment any longer.

Ghandee wrote: »

Well, how many do you think it would really take to be brought to court before 600,000+ people started to pay en masse?

52 weeks in a year?

12,000 people a week,

2400 a day (based on a five day week?)

If someone wants to play the 'make an example of' card, there are plenty pof members of DE who've openly admitted to not paying (and wont be paying)

Whats to stop the govt from hauling them in front of a judge, and make a shining example of them?

They dont need to identify them, they've declared in public they wont pay, and they are well known names and faces, surely there are no better people to make the example of to get the public 'scared' into paying?

You didnt address my other points either, the fact that TD's are currently in receipt of €1billion per year collectively for 'allowances' this is after they've been paid their very, very decent salaries.

Why will they not set an example by giving these up, at least then they may be able to take the high moral ground before accusing us of not paying our way.

All of the above 'laws' have generally been accepted by the public though, hence the compliance of the public.

The last we had heard, 600-700,000 have rejected this sham (though I reckon its a lot more)

Did 600-700,000 reject the introduction of penalty points/clamping etc?

And opinions polls put over 66% of the public to now be against this HHC or any property tax that may replace it. (coincidentally we're now on to our third thread on the HHC, 66% seems to reflect opinions here also?)

Most of us against these charges really couldnt care less what threats the govt make, bring it on!

Fwiw though, with support for FF on the rise (God forgive us) who've now jumped on the band wagon of being against a property tax, and with a budget due in a couple of months that will be forced to take over 3 billion in cuts (all while we pay a third of that sum in unvouched expenses), I see very little hope of the govt being in power 6 months post budget, and very little chance of any replacement govt daring to try and intorduce a property tax after witnessing the demise of the Govt before them.

Wait and see.

By the way, G, I was watching vincent browne and there was a lady on and she had a big list, that she read, of all the expenses and extra allowances that are paid to the boys in DE and, ya know what, no wonder P.H. is laughing his b*lls off at us:D:D:D every time I see him on TV. To coin a phrase, I'M GOIN MAD, TED.:eek::eek::eek:

Ghandee

Just to be clear.

Afaik, employers/govt cannot deduct any non-related to income (prsi, income tax, USC) etc from your salary/wage without your consent.

To deduct any monies from your income (not related to your gross income) requires either your consent, or a court order, ordering a deduction at source.

None of the pro-tax people on here will inform you of that, in fact many will deliberately mislead you into believing otherwise.

This is why your employers may be asking you soon to register your details and voluntarily pay your hhc/property tax directly from your income.

Same applies to any fines accrued related to this sham.

In order to be 'made' pay the fine, a variety of events must first take place.

Firstly, the govt must detect you, (remember though, you're one of 700,000 who will be supporting each other, on the streets if that's what it takes)

Secondly, in the very unlikely event its your home they zone in on (remember, 700,000-1 chance on that) they will then issue you with a fine, which most of us will equally ignore.

Thirdly, If it gets further then the first two scenarios, you will yet again have to go to court for non payment of said fine, where a judge may or may not order an attachment to your income.

Make no mistake about it, this will be an extremely time consuming, not to mention financially draining exercise to an already broke govt (who've cut everything except their own wages and allowances despite being bankrupt)

If they could simply take it from source they would have by now, but they know its illegal and so cannot.

By continual refusal to bow down, one of two things should happen (possibly both)

Govt collapses, with any new govt petrified to even contemplate introducing a property tax.

Or,

Current govt, unable to introduce the tax with so many refusing to comply, it will be abandoned.

I personally envisage a default happening in the near future if no banking debt deal is finalized, so paying any money over to the govt will be pointless anyway if that happens.

Personally, I'll go with the 'twelve year gamble'.

Hijpo

donalg1 wrote: »

Lol at your ability to miss a point. If my income increases the amount of property tax I have to pay doesn't. Can you understand this.

Perfectly, you want to take the moral high ground by paying but you only want to pay the smallest amount possible.

But surely the number of people working far out weighs the number of houses liable. So income tax may only need to be incremented a small bit as there are much larger numbers contributing, while property tax may need to be €2000 if a large number of houses are exempt.

donalg1 wrote: »

Ah yeah but you see say I was lucky enough to get paid more next year after a promotion or something then that increased income tax takes more than a tenner every week whereas my property tax doesn't increase with my income so I can better afford it.

Well, donal, I would say if that happens, best of luck, and I mean that.

Slick50 wrote: »

If their economic circumstances deteriorate to such an extent, rather than the state forcing the sale, the revenue will be there to collect... under your perceived rules.

And while you continue to insist there would be no forced sale, how desperate an economic situation would be allowed to develope before the state decides it can't wait for payment any longer.

Death of the homeowner.