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

Banjo String · 08-05-2013 06:04PM

While making a manifesto legally binding might be nigh on impossible (unforeseen circumstances etc) their should however be some key points in them that the party should hold fast to. No matter what.

Labour want to raise usc for certain workers (higher paid), FG promised no tax raises during their term in govt, so that didn't happen.

FG seem to pick what points they 'compromise' on.

RandomName2 · 08-05-2013 06:09PM

SamHall wrote: »

While making a manifesto legally binding might be nigh on impossible (unforeseen circumstances etc) their should however be some key points in them that the party should hold fast to. No matter what.

Labour want to raise usc for certain workers (higher paid), FG promised no tax raises during their term in govt, so that didn't happen.

FG seem to pick what points they 'compromise' on.

They would have to be more careful in their wording, to be sure

WE WILL VOTE TO LOWER INCOME TAXES... (provided GDP growth doesn't fall below 3%)

A.O.T.W.K · 08-05-2013 06:13PM

Questioning the figures.

(1) They are once again using the wrong figure for homes/properties liable for the tax to play down the numbers, in most news articles they are saying based on 1.66 million liable, the 1.66 million figure is wrong, the real number liable is 1.9 million households including ghost estates/shared ownership schemes/council houses the current non compliance is higher then what they are letting on. (2) On the current level on home tax returns the information we don,t know which is not being given is, how many of the current home tax returns choose the deferral option in cases of an inability to pay, just because a home tax form has being returned doesn,t mean everyone has opted for payment, plus I would question how many of the current returns are landlords with multiple properties or local authorities making returns for council properties, from the article below its estimated there is 140,000 social houses are provided by local authorities in Ireland, all will be deemed liable for the home tax.

Ireland’s 140,000 social houses are provided by local authorities

http://www.eolasmagazine.ie/social-housing

Phoebas · 08-05-2013 06:15PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Personally I think that manifestos should be legally binding. A contract, between the people, and the representatives that they collectively choose to hire. Is that too much to ask?

Yes. You'd be making coalition government virtually impossible.

What would you want to happen when two parties are in negotiations to form a government?

Phoebas · 08-05-2013 06:17PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Seeing that the property tax, which this thread is about, will only cover foreign aid next year, I find it hard how anybody could answer yes to that question.

The LPT is covering foreign aid now!!!

Those German billionaires are going to be pissed.

Phoebas · 08-05-2013 06:20PM

A.O.T.W.K wrote: »

Questioning the figures.

(1) They are once again using the wrong figure for homes/properties liable for the tax to play down the numbers, in most news articles they are saying based on 1.66 million liable, the 1.66 million figure is wrong, the real number liable is 1.9 million households including ghost estates/shared ownership schemes/council houses the current non compliance is higher then what they are letting on. (2) On the current level on home tax returns the information we don,t know which is not being given is, how many of the current home tax returns choose the deferral option in cases of an inability to pay, just because a home tax form has being returned doesn,t mean everyone has opted for payment, plus I would question how many of the current returns are landlords with multiple properties or local authorities making returns for council properties, from the article below its estimated there is 140,000 social houses are provided by local authorities in Ireland, all will be deemed liable for the home tax.

Ireland’s 140,000 social houses are provided by local authorities

http://www.eolasmagazine.ie/social-housing

A bit dishonest to truncate the quote, no?

Ireland’s 140,000 social houses are provided by local authorities and non- profit housing associations

Hijpo · 08-05-2013 08:06PM

Phoebas wrote: »

A bit dishonest to truncate the quote, no?

Not necessarily if they provided a link to the full article where the line can be read in full.
The poster is dishonest for trimming a line, yet there is so much lies being spouted from the Dáil none of them know what story to stick to and everything is alright, infact give them more money without question immediately lol thats priceless.

Banjo String · 08-05-2013 08:16PM

Phoebas wrote: »

The LPT is covering foreign aid now!!!

Those German billionaires are going to be pissed.

I think . Random name was implying that the govt expects to collect the same revenue from an lpt on par with what it will spend on foreign aid next year.

The country being bankrupt and all, maybe charity should begin right here at home for a few years until the economy improves. Likewise with the lpt.

Have you given any further thought as to why FG decided to write the property tax= not happening into the manifesto, despite "the troika having already agreeing one with the previous administration"?

Is that what a party does in an election?

Phoebas · 08-05-2013 08:42PM

SamHall wrote: »

Have you given any further thought as to why FG decided to write the property tax= not happening into the manifesto, despite "the troika having already agreeing one with the previous administration"?

They didn't.
They proposed some alternatives including a “site sale profits tax”. Maybe they felt that they'd be able to negotiate changes with the troika. Personally I think any of the FG alternatives would be difficult to achieve.

I guess you could ask the same querstion of any of the other parties who are against the HHC / LPT.

darkhorse · 09-05-2013 12:10AM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I seem to recall the Labour Party calling for one in their manifesto.

Yeah, a site value tax, I believe.

darkhorse · 09-05-2013 12:15AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's democracy for you: the worst system of Government, except all the others that have been tried.

Have they? How did direct democracy work out?

bgrizzley · 09-05-2013 12:33AM

Phoebas wrote: »

I like the way you chose a clip of that interview with Pat Rabbitte cut off mid sentence.
Why didn't you post the full version?

lol, now that you mention it, before i posted i watched it to the last few seconds, then stopped it, because it makes me slightly nauseous listening to him say it so blatantly.

cageyeuclid · 09-05-2013 01:49AM

Deleted User wrote: »

For an OAP to lose 10% of their pension, they would have to be paying at least €1196 LPT per year. Now, THAT would be some mansion.

I figure the weekly disposable income is (at most) €50 for an OAP and paying €5 weekly for LPT represents a 10% cut. For social welfare or disability recipients it is far worse. It is CRUEL to place such huge anxiety on so vulnerable a group.

For a well heeled social welfare or revenue employee (those likely to be involved in collecting LPT) €5 weekly is a mere pitance, and these very civil servants won't agree to a 4% cut in money that has to be borrowed to pay them. No one should pay LPT until the collectors themselves are reasonable.

Intoducing a CRUEL and UNJUST Tax is lazy governance and hopefully political suicide.

Phoebas · 09-05-2013 07:33AM

cageyeuclid wrote: »

I figure the weekly disposable income is (at most) €50 for an OAP and paying €5 weekly for LPT represents a 10% cut. For social welfare or disability recipients it is far worse. It is CRUEL to place such huge anxiety on so vulnerable a group.

For a well heeled social welfare or revenue employee (those likely to be involved in collecting LPT) €5 weekly is a mere pitance, and these very civil servants won't agree to a 4% cut in money that has to be borrowed to pay them. No one should pay LPT until the collectors themselves are reasonable.

Intoducing a CRUEL and UNJUST Tax is lazy governance and hopefully political suicide.

Way to change the goalposts!
You didn't say anything about disposable income in your original post.

It is really loosing touch with reality to suggest that a €5 p/w cut for home owning pensioners is cruel in the current environment or to suggest that the Revenue officials involved in collecting this tax (mostly lower paid CPSU members) are 'well heeled'.

Banjo String · 09-05-2013 07:35AM

Phoebas wrote: »

They didn't.

They did. It's in black and white for you to read should you wish.

Phoebas wrote: »

They proposed some alternatives including a “site sale profits tax”. Maybe they felt that they'd be able to negotiate changes with the troika. Personally I think any of the FG alternatives would be difficult to achieve.

Doubtful. Sure they openly admit they didn't even attempt to negotiate a write down, or reduction in the bank debt, nor did they negotiate a deal that the bondholders would share the cost in recapitalization of nationwide and Anglo (despite both parties promising to do so pre election)

Phoebas wrote: »

I guess you could ask the same querstion of any of the other parties who are against the HHC / LPT.

We can't, the public decided to vote the current coalition into power.

We went with the popular option. FG promised much to get into power, sadly though they've badly let down the electorate.

Hopefully the electorate won't get fooled again, nor much longer.

Phoebas · 09-05-2013 07:37AM

bgrizzley wrote: »

lol, now that you mention it, before i posted i watched it to the last few seconds, then stopped it, because it makes me slightly nauseous listening to him say it so blatantly.

You didn't even watch in full the video you posted!!!

You might have told us that upfront so we could have ignored the post.

Phoebas · 09-05-2013 07:44AM

SamHall wrote: »

We can't, the public decided to vote the current coalition into power.

You can't question opposition parties about their manifestos?

SamHall wrote: »

Hopefully the electorate won't get fooled again, nor much longer.

There'll be another GE in a few years. In the meantime the polls are showing FG at least holding steady.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if they got a second term, and I'm pretty certain that whoever forms the next government will retain the LPT.

Phoebas · 09-05-2013 07:52AM

SamHall wrote: »

They did. It's in black and white for you to read should you wish.

No they didn't. They weren't in favour of the kind of property tax we got, but I can't see anywhere in the manifesto where they make it a red line issue. Perhaps you can post the section of the manifesto where you think they say, in black and white, that "the property tax= not happening"

You seem to think of manifestos as binding contracts. I see them as aspirational documents and once you enter coalition negotiations, there are bound to be changes.

Banjo String · 09-05-2013 08:33AM

Phoebas wrote: »

You can't question opposition parties about their manifestos?

Are you seriously suggesting we question opposition parties on their manifesto contents they didn't rip up when they didn't get voted into power?

Phoebas wrote: »

There'll be another GE in a few years. In the meantime the polls are showing FG at least holding steady.

Are you sure they're holding steady?
Last I read, FF overtook them in the polls again.

Phoebas wrote: »

I wouldn't at all be surprised if they got a second term, and I'm pretty certain that whoever forms the next government will retain the LPT.

Let's see them serve their full term before we jump the gun please.

Phoebas · 09-05-2013 09:43AM

SamHall wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting we question opposition parties on their manifesto contents they didn't rip up when they didn't get voted into power?

Yes. You only question the governing parties?

SamHall wrote: »

Are you sure they're holding steady?
Last I read, FF overtook them in the polls again.

FG are not FF

. The FG figures have been steady for a good while now. FF are gaining largely at the expense of other parties.

Big C · 09-05-2013 10:23AM

Bought my house during tiger years 2004, small cottage that nobody wanted €70,000. spent €30,000 adapting it for accessability, reckon its now valued at 90. Then I heard money spent adapting a house for person with disability could reduce overall value
Just received lpt booklet and surprise I was right I will be exempt, then I read further I will be exempt if following applies
adapted the house + "have received an award from personal assessment board or a court or who is a beneficary under a trust established for the purpose"

wtf is that about, so vague, would love to find an error to take a case. If anyone has ideas please comment or pm me.

Banjo String · 09-05-2013 10:23AM

Phoebas wrote: »

Yes. You only question the governing parties?

When an opposition party gets into power, and u-turn on their promises/manifesto, I'd qestion that too.

Phoebas wrote: »

FG are not FF. The FG figures have been steady for a good while now. FF are gaining largely at the expense of other parties.

Gaining as a lot of disillusioned voters return to the party they've voted in for years.
Probably fed up with the broken promises of change and transparency promised by Labour and FG.

bgrizzley · 09-05-2013 10:34AM

Phoebas wrote: »

You didn't even watch in full the video you posted!!!

You might have told us that upfront so we could have ignored the post.

, yes i did, more than once.

Phoebas wrote: »

You seem to think of manifestos as binding contracts. I see them as aspirational documents and once you enter coalition negotiations, there are bound to be changes.

do you think its ok that FG caved on an issue, that they vehemently disagree with, and that two thirds of the people think is unfair.
And cave to a party that represented 20% of the electorate? and are currently supported by only 12%?

they say democracy is where 51% of people can make 49% slaves, but that takes the biscuit...

Phoebas · 09-05-2013 11:12AM

SamHall wrote: »

When an opposition party gets into power, and u-turn on their promises/manifesto, I'd qestion that too.

OK. I understand. You only question manifestos after the party gets into power - a recipe for continuous disappointment.

SamHall wrote: »

Gaining as a lot of disillusioned voters return to the party they've voted in for years.
Probably fed up with the broken promises of change and transparency promised by Labour and FG.

The recent polling figures don't support that - FF are gaining largely at the expense of other parties.

bgrizzley wrote: »

, yes i did, more than once.

What's the confusion? In post #253 you said you didn't watch in full.
So, why did you post a truncated version of that video with Pat Rabbitte cut off mid sentence and not the full version? Have you actually seen the full version?

bgrizzley wrote: »

do you think its ok that FG caved on an issue, that they vehemently disagree with, and that two thirds of the people think is unfair.

I don't think they 'caved' and I don't think they 'vehemently' disagree with property tax in principle (indeed they proposed a kind of residential property 'profits' tax in the same manifesto).
They negotiated and clearly were willing to yield on a policy that they weren't 'vehement' about.

bgrizzley wrote: »

And cave to a party that represented 20% of the electorate?

Do you think the Labour party should have got none of their policies through because they don't have a magic 51%? Why would any party ever join a coalition government on that basis?

bgrizzley wrote: »

they say democracy is where 51% of people can make 49% slaves, but that takes the biscuit...

... but is what you seem to advocate above. :rolleyes:

bgrizzley · 09-05-2013 12:20PM

Phoebas wrote: »

What's the confusion? In post #253 you said you didn't watch in full.
So, why did you post a truncated version of that video with Pat Rabbitte cut off mid sentence and not the full version? Have you actually seen the full version?

, yes i did, more than once. confusion is about why you are harping on about a video that we have all seen and all knows what it contains. i dont know if it was the truncated version or not and frankly dont care. Peace Bro!!

Phoebas wrote: »

... but is what you seem to advocate above. :rolleyes:

This makes no sense. where did i advocate that?

My post disagrees with a small percentage of those elected deciding issues for the entire nation (at least you could call 51/49 democratic!).

bgrizzley · 09-05-2013 12:30PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't think they 'caved' and I don't think they 'vehemently' disagree with property tax in principle (indeed they proposed a kind of residential property 'profits' tax in the same manifesto).
They negotiated and clearly were willing to yield on a policy that they weren't 'vehement' about.

fair enough it might be too strong a word, (i was also thing of Endas past history calling it a vampire tax, sucking the life blood, morally wrong blah blah sounded pretty "vehement"then)

FYI, I dont think they caved either, i think they wanted it all along, but went the FF route of populism and let labour take the wrap.

stevedublin · 09-05-2013 12:33PM

bgrizzley wrote: »

yes, but the rest of Europe have it!!!

If the rest of Europe put their fingers in the fire, should we?

bgrizzley · 09-05-2013 12:35PM

stevedublin wrote: »

If the rest of Europe put their fingers in the fire, should we?

lol, i think you need to turn on your sarcasm detector, Steve;)

Phoebas · 09-05-2013 12:48PM

bgrizzley wrote: »

, yes i did, more than once. confusion is about why you are harping on about a video that we have all seen and all knows what it contains. i dont know if it was the truncated version or not and frankly dont care. Peace Bro!!

So you didn't even know you were posting a truncated version of the video where Pat Rabbitte was cut off mid sentence to make it sound like he was saying something he wasn't.
That's bizarre.

bgrizzley · 09-05-2013 12:54PM

Phoebas wrote: »

So you didn't even know you were posting a truncated version of the video where Pat Rabbitte was cut off mid sentence to make it sound like he was saying something he wasn't.
That's bizarre.

Sigh. bizarre it is.
i give up. you've won the argument :rolleyes: now, can we get back to the property tax please?

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

Comments