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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Force a Referendum on the Property Tax

24

Comments

  • #52
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Old Tom wrote: »
    Exactly the same way as we used to be paying for the past 50+ years...?
    Another property bubble?


  • #53
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,782 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    It really isn't. Ireland splurged on the back of stamp duty and other consumer-related receipts. Those receipts have now dried up. Something has to plug the gap (and spending has to be reigned in). Banks do not feature.

    So Ireland hasn't taken on the debts of private banks?
    Ultimately, whether you like it or not, banks in this country were allowed gamble, bondholders of these banks were gambling and the nation has picked up the can. I wish I had the same level of security in my investments that some of the initial bondholders appear to have had.

    I get the whole spending has to be reigned in, but you cannot discount the actions of banks, the debts of banks and the desicions made to continue repaying the majority of banking dept at almost full whack.

    The bank guarantee scheme (and everything tied to it, including NAMA)had a major part to play in our requirement to go to the IMF/EU cap in hand and it will have a major part to play in future when we want to borrow money elsewhere.


  • #54
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Old Tom wrote: »
    Exactly the same way as we used to be paying for the past 50+ years...?

    Development Levies or Domestic Rates??

    If levies then this:
    ONE county council has recorded a near 16-fold drop in development levies because of the falloff in construction work.

    Clare County Council has confirmed that €11.3m was gathered in development contributions in 2007, but this fell to just €720,000 in the first 11 months of last year.
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/council-hit-by-16fold-drop-in-development-levies-2487629.html

    Now what? Rates? Aren't they a property tax?

    :confused:


  • #55
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    kippy wrote: »
    I get the whole spending has to be reigned in, but you cannot discount the actions of banks, the debts of banks and the desicions made to continue repaying the majority of banking dept at almost full whack.

    The main point is the money we're overspending right now, up to €15 billion, is not being put into the banks. The majority of the money we borrowed was not put into the banks full stop.

    So Tax revenue + 15 billion Troika borrowing = Government services + PS Pay and Social Welfare. We then get addition money to pay bondholders etc. Even if we don't pay a red cent to the banks now we still need that 15 billion. Government efficiency would be great but it's going to have to be coupled with additional taxes no matter what. No one wants to pay taxes but the reality is we are going to be paying more tax. Frankly most people should be applauding the introduction of a real property tax as it's a sustainable tax on wealth and as taxes go it's a fair one.


  • #56
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    A house is for living - it is not a wealth generator.


  • #57
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Manach wrote: »
    A house is for living - it is not a wealth generator.
    So there goes apartment rental! How is everyone expected to buy their own home?

    As an aside, I hope that we see a property tax that is fairly measured; how about a 10 year fixed tax of 0.1% per annum of the value of your property (either appraised right now or based on future sales) on the owner of the property and a flat €50 per annum "household charge" for renters?


  • #58
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Manach wrote: »
    A house is for living - it is not a wealth generator.

    Not sure if that was directed at me as I didn't say a house was a wealth generator. I said a real property tax is a sustainable tax on wealth, which it is.


  • #59
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    So there goes apartment rental! How is everyone expected to buy their own home?
    Gosh - Ask the government, I'm sure that they have a solution for everything. Though it will involve obtaining more money and expanding the reach of their services.


  • #60
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Manach wrote: »
    Gosh - Ask the government, I'm sure that they have a solution for everything. Though it will involve obtaining more money and expanding the reach of their services.
    So your answer is that all renters must rent from the government? Crazy stuff.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    kippy wrote: »
    So Ireland hasn't taken on the debts of private banks?
    Sure did, but I'm at a loss as to why this is used as an argument against just about any fiscal policy put forward by the government?

    It's real simple:

    Tax Revenue <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Welfare + Public Sector pay

    Furthermore:

    (Welfare + Public Sector Pay - Tax Revenue) * x >>>>>> Cost of bank recapitalisations

    where x is the number of years it takes Ireland to balance the books.


  • #62
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    So your answer is that all renters must rent from the government? Crazy stuff.
    The subtle hint was by prefixing "Gosh" into the statement to indicate irony.


  • #63
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Manach wrote: »
    The subtle hint was by prefixing "Gosh" into the statement to indicate irony.
    Your original post still makes no sense... if a "house" cannot be a wealth generator, how do people rent?


  • #64
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Renting per se is a business involving the stakeholders that are landlord and tenants. It is regulated (via the Tenancy board) and overseen by the Government as empowered via the numerous tenancy acts. So as renting is a commercial sector activity it is differentiated from the vast majority of the use of houses, that of shelters/homes for people - which are by their nature via nature wastage and repair sinks for money earned.
    My understanding of the Rental sector (via Wylie's book on Tenancy) is that which has a political dimension, with numerous ground rental statues to ensure that certain sectors of the voter population benefit from restriction on the rights of other less vocal voter blocks. This Property tax continues this trend in another way.


  • #65
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Your original post still makes no sense... if a "house" cannot be a wealth generator, how do people rent?

    You know quite well what he means, that a house is a utility.

    Now regarding renting, a house/apartment can also be a business but renters should expect to pay a premium. This happens in most housing markets. The big clue of the bubble market was the ability to rent way above your mortgage affordability. It was extraordinary value as a renter in Ireland I'll tell you that...


  • #66
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Maybe we should demand that this property tax is used locally rather than paid into central funds.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Old Tom wrote: »
    Exactly the same way as we used to be paying for the past 50+ years...?:

    Well property rates were there until 1978 (or so) so in reality for the last 17 or so years of the last 50 we did have property taxes. However with our budget deficit the way it is and the property crash still every much in evident to you think it was a wise decision to abolish them?
    Old Tom wrote: »
    Great, that is brilliant justification. What else is common in the western world and as such we have to adopt it?? 40% corporate tax perhaps? :rolleyes:

    Well done on the strawman argument. I never justified it solely because other countries implemented property taxes. There is clearly a merit for property taxes mostly in the form of funding local government. Now I know that this property tax at the moment is going to the state, not local government but I shouldn't be long until these taxes are used to fund local authorities

    I think you should ask yourself WHY, not BECAUSE, clearly this was lost on you.


  • #68
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,782 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Sure did, but I'm at a loss as to why this is used as an argument against just about any fiscal policy put forward by the government?

    It's real simple:

    Tax Revenue <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Welfare + Public Sector pay

    Furthermore:

    (Welfare + Public Sector Pay - Tax Revenue) * x >>>>>> Cost of bank recapitalisations

    where x is the number of years it takes Ireland to balance the books.
    I get maths.

    I and many like me haven't argued against any of the cuts, taxes, hidden increases in living costs etc however this, for me is one that is coming on top of plenty more, at a time when people can least afford it, and where, down the line, we have no idea what the final charge will be. More importantly I dont beleive for one second the money will be going anywhere that is of benefit to me or indeed the citizens of this country.
    The bank bailout (and instruments tied to it)is in the billions, furthermore it was and still is an unknown amount, a black hole some would call it.

    Do you not think btw, that taking on a guarentee of multiple times our GDP had any effect on our ability to borrow money from the "normal channels"?


  • #69
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    kippy wrote: »
    The bank bailout (and instruments tied to it)is in the billions, furthermore it was and still is an unknown amount, a black hole some would call it.

    The problem with the whole banking mess is that we've promised to back up debts that may not materialize. We've stress tested the banks and come up with a figure of €35 billion required capital (total not new) to cover potential losses (which seem to be higher than current arrears figures). BOI, it appears, have managed to find all the capital that it's believe they require, so we're off the hook for about €4 billion of that €35 billion that we've guaranteed under the troika agreement.

    The ELG currently covers €101 billion, of which €63 are deposits (a far cry form the €400 billion of 2008).

    As best I can figure out we've actually paid about €15.375 billion to the banks (figures provided below, taken from the exchequer website) - with bonds being rolled into debt (we'll start paying interest on these now, if not already doing so).

    The banks are paying the government insurance for being covered by the ELG. Last year they paid €1.235 billion, 2010 it was almost €575m and there was another 50m recorded in fees related to the recapitalization (1.86b total). So the current (net) running cost of the banks has been about €13.515 billion.

    Last years net DSP contribution from the exchequer (approx €7b PRSI gets paid directly to DSP so doesn't appear on the books) was €13.307 billion.

    Since 2008, when things went to pot, we've racked up a total deficit of €81 billion. Take the banks spending out of it and the figure is €65.635 billion.

    That's about twice what we've stress tested the banks at, around what NAMA has taken out of the banks (70b odd), more than the biggest estimate of what it will take and about 1.5 times the estimated total lifetime cost of the promissory notes..

    2011
    Total overspend €24.9 billion
    Current deficit €11.25
    Bank payments - €10.65 billion
    IL&P - €2.3 billion
    Recapitalization €5.27 billion (aib, boi & il&p)
    Promissory Notes €3.1 billion

    2010
    Total overspend €18.75 billion
    Current deficit €12.6 billion
    Bank payments - €0.725 billion
    INBS - €0.1 billion
    EBS €0.625 billion

    2009
    Total overspend €24.65 billion
    Current deficit €11.4 billion
    Bank payments (Anglo) - €4 billion

    2008
    Total overspend €12.71 billion
    Current deficit €3.1 billion
    Bank payments - none


  • #70
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,782 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    antoobrien wrote: »
    The problem with the whole banking mess is that we've promised to back up debts that may not materialize. We've stress tested the banks and come up with a figure of €35 billion required capital (total not new) to cover potential losses (which seem to be higher than current arrears figures). BOI, it appears, have managed to find all the capital that it's believe they require, so we're off the hook for about €4 billion of that €35 billion that we've guaranteed under the troika agreement.

    The ELG currently covers €101 billion, of which €63 are deposits (a far cry form the €400 billion of 2008).

    As best I can figure out we've actually paid about €15.375 billion to the banks (figures provided below, taken from the exchequer website) - with bonds being rolled into debt (we'll start paying interest on these now, if not already doing so).

    The banks are paying the government insurance for being covered by the ELG. Last year they paid €1.235 billion, 2010 it was almost €575m and there was another 50m recorded in fees related to the recapitalization (1.86b total). So the current (net) running cost of the banks has been about €13.515 billion.

    Last years net DSP contribution from the exchequer (approx €7b PRSI gets paid directly to DSP so doesn't appear on the books) was €13.307 billion.

    Since 2008, when things went to pot, we've racked up a total deficit of €81 billion. Take the banks spending out of it and the figure is €65.635 billion.

    That's about twice what we've stress tested the banks at, around what NAMA has taken out of the banks (70b odd), more than the biggest estimate of what it will take and about 1.5 times the estimated total lifetime cost of the promissory notes..

    2011
    Total overspend €24.9 billion
    Current deficit €11.25
    Bank payments - €10.65 billion
    IL&P - €2.3 billion
    Recapitalization €5.27 billion (aib, boi & il&p)
    Promissory Notes €3.1 billion

    2010
    Total overspend €18.75 billion
    Current deficit €12.6 billion
    Bank payments - €0.725 billion
    INBS - €0.1 billion
    EBS €0.625 billion

    2009
    Total overspend €24.65 billion
    Current deficit €11.4 billion
    Bank payments (Anglo) - €4 billion

    2008
    Total overspend €12.71 billion
    Current deficit €3.1 billion
    Bank payments - none
    Does any of those figures take account of the money NAMA has used to buy "bad debt"?


  • #71
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    woodoo wrote: »
    Maybe we should demand that this property tax is used locally rather than paid into central funds.
    I think that’s the eventual idea. However, reforming local government in Ireland is going to take a lot of time – it’s not something that can happen overnight. Convincing people that they should be contacting the council about potholes, and not their local TD, is going to be a challenge.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    kippy wrote: »
    I get maths.

    I and many like me haven't argued against any of the cuts, taxes, hidden increases in living costs etc however this, for me is one that is coming on top of plenty more...
    You see, you say you get maths, but you’re basically arguing that people are paying enough already. But they’re clearly not.
    kippy wrote: »
    The bank bailout (and instruments tied to it)is in the billions, furthermore it was and still is an unknown amount, a black hole some would call it.
    The bank bailout is pretty much done, the total amount involved is far smaller than Ireland’s ongoing current deficit and it’s very unlikely that all the money used to recapitalise the banks will never be seen again - there will be some return on investment (although I use the word “investment” in the loosest possible sense).
    kippy wrote: »
    Do you not think btw, that taking on a guarentee of multiple times our GDP had any effect on our ability to borrow money from the "normal channels"?
    I’m not defending the guarantee? I’m pointing out this is where Ireland is and, while deep cuts in spending need to be made, tax revenue also needs to be increased (or at least, shifted toward a more sustainable basis).


  • #73
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    kippy wrote: »
    Does any of those figures take account of the money NAMA has used to buy "bad debt"?

    No because NAMA is a effectively a financial 3 card trick to keep it all off the government books (why else would it be a private company), which hasn't cost us anything. We gave NAMA a €300m loan to set it up and seed capital, which has been paid back.

    The money that NAMA paid the banks was through bonds issues against the ECB not the government. NAMA has reportedly paid about €30b for about 70b of loans. So they have to make €30 billion & interest to break even.


  • #74
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,782 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You see, you say you get maths, but you’re basically arguing that people are paying enough already. But they’re clearly not.
    The bank bailout is pretty much done, the total amount involved is far smaller than Ireland’s ongoing current deficit and it’s very unlikely that all the money used to recapitalise the banks will never be seen again - there will be some return on investment (although I use the word “investment” in the loosest possible sense).
    I’m not defending the guarantee? I’m pointing out this is where Ireland is and, while deep cuts in spending need to be made, tax revenue also needs to be increased (or at least, shifted toward a more sustainable basis).

    If you reread my posts you'll see that I amn't advocating that people are paying enough already.
    The whole thing, to me, comes down to fairness and accountability, of which I have seen very little in the past number of years.
    As I said, as a people we have taken a lot over the past number of years and will probably take a lot more (including this household charge) but to sit down and not at least makes ones feelings known about it is pointless. (I've spoken to my elected reps about my feelings on it)

    Almost EVERY figure that this states uses to project the future is based on a number of variables, the main one being growth/inflation. It will be impossible to grow while this tax hangs over a large chunk of the population. The government have not stated how they plan to adapt this tax in the coming years.

    The total amount involved in the banking bailout (actual money), NAMA (despite it being "off the state books") one has to assume that any failure in NAMA to repay its debt will be taken up by the state, and indeed the amount of money we have guarenteed, far exceed any deficit, indeed I suspect it would equal about 6-7 years of a 20 Billion budget deficit.

    All the time the guys on the ground get asked to put their hands in their pockets, to live by the law of the land. Yet for the past 4 years now not one single person, politician, banker, high ranking civil servant, business man, developer has seen the inside of a jail cell.
    Never mind the guys like callelly, ahern and now O Snodaigh (and others) who continue to take the piss out of the Irish people.

    For me, its all tied together.


  • #75
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    kippy wrote: »
    The total amount involved in the banking bailout (actual money), NAMA (despite it being "off the state books") one has to assume that any failure in NAMA to repay its debt will be taken up by the state, and indeed the amount of money we have guarenteed, far exceed any deficit, indeed I suspect it would equal about 6-7 years of a 20 Billion budget deficit.

    I'd love to know where you think we're going to lose €120 b - €140 b.

    Assuming NAMA loses everything and the government have to repay the ECB bonds we're talking about a loss of about €40 billion, which can't happen as they've already sold property worth a few billion and are renting more to partially cover loans.

    The only way we can lose anywhere near that is if the entire residential mortgage book is written off, we're more likely to see snow in the 9th circle of hades than that happening.


  • #76
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I'd love to know where you think we're going to lose €120 b - €140 b.

    Assuming NAMA loses everything and the government have to repay the ECB bonds we're talking about a loss of about €40 billion, which can't happen as they've already sold property worth a few billion and are renting more to partially cover loans.

    The only way we can lose anywhere near that is if the entire residential mortgage book is written off, we're more likely to see snow in the 9th circle of hades than that happening.
    NAMA has been reporting quarterly profits for the past 3 quarters IIRC.


  • #77
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    kippy wrote: »
    ...as a people we have taken a lot over the past number of years...
    This is just meaningless hyperbole - the bottom line is the books need to be balanced.
    kippy wrote: »
    The government have not stated how they plan to adapt this tax in the coming years.
    The Commission on Taxation has suggested the following:
    Under the commission’s proposed scheme a charge of €188 would be paid on houses valued at up to €150,000; €563 on houses between €150,000 and €300,000; €938 on houses up to €450,000; €1,313 on houses valued at up to €600,000; €1,699 on houses up to €750,000; €2,188 on houses valued at up to €1 million; €3,125 on houses up to €1.5 million and 0.25 per cent of the valuation on houses over that.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1221/breaking6.html
    kippy wrote: »
    The total amount involved in the banking bailout (actual money), NAMA (despite it being "off the state books") one has to assume that any failure in NAMA to repay its debt will be taken up by the state, and indeed the amount of money we have guarenteed, far exceed any deficit, indeed I suspect it would equal about 6-7 years of a 20 Billion budget deficit.
    You're grossly over-stating both the amount taken on by NAMA and the likelihood of this all being lost.
    kippy wrote: »
    All the time the guys on the ground get asked to put their hands in their pockets, to live by the law of the land. Yet for the past 4 years now not one single person, politician, banker, high ranking civil servant, business man, developer has seen the inside of a jail cell.
    This is the classic "We need someone to blame" mentality - why are you assuming that someone should have gone to jail?
    kippy wrote: »
    Never mind the guys like callelly, ahern and now O Snodaigh (and others) who continue to take the piss out of the Irish people.
    The same Irish people who continue to vote for them?
    kippy wrote: »
    For me, its all tied together.
    You're conflating a whole bunch of issues, in my opinion, and it's difficult to make out a specific argument against the property tax.


  • #78
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,782 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    This is just meaningless hyperbole - the bottom line is the books need to be balanced.
    The Commission on Taxation has suggested the following:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1221/breaking6.html
    You're grossly over-stating both the amount taken on by NAMA and the likelihood of this all being lost.
    This is the classic "We need someone to blame" mentality - why are you assuming that someone should have gone to jail?
    The same Irish people who continue to vote for them?
    You're conflating a whole bunch of issues, in my opinion, and it's difficult to make out a specific argument against the property tax.
    The bottom line is lessons need to be learned, while at the same time books obviously need to be balanced.
    What is the point in balancing the books if the money gets wasted, abused and we end up back here in 10--15 years time?
    We have learned very little as a nation by the looks of it.

    The key word used is "suggested". I want to know NOW, what my bills will be for next year and afterwards and what it will be used to pay for.

    You don't belive that there is a strong chance that there was at least corporate fraud committed? That certain people did not do their job and were complicit in what happened?

    There is always someone to blame and someone who deserves the blame in cases such as this. It is common knowledge that Anglo alone lied umpteen times to shareholders, the government, the markets etc etc
    Seany is wheeled into the garda station every few months when the government have to announce a payment of bonds or something similiar but the investigation still goes on.

    Argument against property tax:
    No idea where the money goes.
    No idea where the taxation will be at in two years time.
    No idea of those paying management fees or directly having property managed by council will get anything off.
    No idea whats next - water rates? Based on what, how much?
    A complete lack of clarity by the government on what they plan to do to reduce the cost of local government (steps are being taken, not fast enough)

    The concept itself, I have few issues with, I can see the reasons for it.


  • #79
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    kippy wrote: »
    I want to know NOW, what my bills will be for next year and afterwards and what it will be used to pay for.
    What will your income tax bill be next year and afterwards? Your motor tax bill? How much will you spend on excise duty in 2014? What will the VAT rates be? What will it all be used to pay for?


  • #80
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,782 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What will your income tax bill be next year and afterwards? Your motor tax bill? How much will you spend on excise duty in 2014? What will the VAT rates be? What will it all be used to pay for?

    I know what the income tax rates, VAT rates, Motor tax rates, excise duty will be and within reason I can limit my exposure to them to some extent. Indeed if there are changes to them, they will be a small change.

    This "Housing charge" or whatever it is called, is set to go from €100 up to god knows what (however figures of €1000-4000 have been mentioned)

    I am a middle income earner, like many, and also a home owner. I pay 5-6 hundred euro a year on management fees, 2-3 hundred euro on home insurance. Health insurance works out at about 1200 for my family (I've already reduced this this year). I require a car for work, tax, insurance, fuel, maintenance. I heat my house with oil, a grand at least per year in an increasing market. Food, clothes, mortgage all on top of that.
    And that's all of my net salary which has been hit in three different ways already and will no doubt be hit in a the next three budgets as well.
    And you know, I would deem myself to be relatively lucky.

    Now, to suggest that an unknown major increase in the cost of my bills for next year is an irrelevance is just insulting. I would like to be in a position to make changes to my life with as much lead in time as possible to allow for this reduction in income/increase in cost of living.

    I care more right now what my money goes towards because I have fare less money, and far more money is going into the coffers of the state. A state, which down through the years has blown money on pet projects and wastage all over the shop.


  • #81
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    kippy wrote: »
    The bottom line is lessons need to be learned, while at the same time books obviously need to be balanced.
    What is the point in balancing the books if the money gets wasted, abused and we end up back here in 10--15 years time?
    So should we wait 10-15 years, see if lessons have been learned, then try and balance the books?
    kippy wrote: »
    The key word used is "suggested". I want to know NOW, what my bills will be for next year and afterwards and what it will be used to pay for.
    As oscarBravo has pointed out, your being a bit silly now.
    kippy wrote: »
    You don't belive that there is a strong chance that there was at least corporate fraud committed?
    It’s certainly a possibility, but I’m happy to let the Gardaí do their job while Ireland gets on with balancing the budget.
    kippy wrote: »
    There is always someone to blame and someone who deserves the blame in cases such as this.
    Well you go ahead and blame whoever you like – it’ll make sod all difference to the current deficit.
    kippy wrote: »
    No idea where the money goes.
    No idea where the taxation will be at in two years time.
    No idea of those paying management fees or directly having property managed by council will get anything off.
    No idea whats next - water rates? Based on what, how much?
    The money will go to the central exchequer. It will be used to pay for the running of the country. We have a pretty good idea what level the tax will be at in 2 years time – it’s not going to increase all that much for most people. The issue of management fees is something that needs to be dealt with, but generally speaking, people need to start demanding better value for money from management companies (and I’m including myself in that). As for water charges, I imagine they will be based on how much it costs to supply water?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    kippy wrote: »
    I know what the income tax rates, VAT rates, Motor tax rates, excise duty will be...
    No, you don't. You especially don't know what they'll be if the campaign to scrap this tax is successful, and the government is forced to raise revenue from other quarters.
    I care more right now what my money goes towards because I have fare less money, and far more money is going into the coffers of the state.
    That's not an argument against paying a property tax, that's an argument against paying any tax.


  • #83
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,782 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    So should we wait 10-15 years, see if lessons have been learned, then try and balance the books?
    Not at all.
    It shouldn't take 10-15 years to learn lessons, very little has changed in the past 4 years, which is why I am asking why just sit down and let changes happen without questioning them? If more of us (am including myself here)questioned what was going on in the previous 10 years we may not be where we are right now.
    As oscarBravo has pointed out, your being a bit silly now.
    Silly or worried. Perhaps you are in a far better position financially than most.
    It’s certainly a possibility, but I’m happy to let the Gardaí do their job while Ireland gets on with balancing the budget.
    4 years down the line and we've nothing to show for anything. Just a possibility? You dont think that the tardiness of these investigations have anything to do with the potential political fallout? What does the tardiness and lack of accountability and no doubt lack of jail time, show to the people of this state? Would you be worried if you were involved in white collar crime? Would it put you off it? These are all items that HAVE to be sorted out ASAP.
    Well you go ahead and blame whoever you like – it’ll make sod all difference to the current deficit.
    Thats a really good point. I hadn't thought of it like that....

    The money will go to the central exchequer. It will be used to pay for the running of the country. We have a pretty good idea what level the tax will be at in 2 years time – it’s not going to increase all that much for most people. The issue of management fees is something that needs to be dealt with, but generally speaking, people need to start demanding better value for money from management companies (and I’m including myself in that).
    The "running of the country". Thanks for that.
    As for water charges, I imagine they will be based on how much it costs to supply water?
    Indeed. Another unknown quantity. Will it be introduced as slapshod as this charge has been?


  • #84
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,782 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, you don't. You especially don't know what they'll be if the campaign to scrap this tax is successful, and the government is forced to raise revenue from other quarters. That's not an argument against paying a property tax, that's an argument against paying any tax.

    This tax will not be scrapped. That's pretty obvious. It may be pushed back or amended, or perhaps more information will come out about the future plans for it. Concrete information.

    It's not an argument against paying any tax, it's an issue I have with the particular tax. If you want to apply it to other taxes, that is your move.


  • #85
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,782 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Isn't any one of you at all worried about the future? You don't have families? You dont think that one key item as a nation we should have learned, is to question what goes on in our country (something we never did in the past)
    Do you not think that we need to question more what happens in this country?
    Isn't this particular issue a method of making a point to the government?

    I'll be honest, financially, there's not a huge amount more I can take and as I said, I have a full time job and havent been out for work for ten years.
    I am extremely concerned that we are being asked to fork out more and more, over a longer period of time, with very "knowns". Indeed death by a thousand cuts come to mind.
    I have no issues paying my way but I am not at all confortable that the extra monies we are paying are going directly towards closing s deficit and that money is still being wasted on a major scale at all levels in this country. The money that is not being used for running the country is going towards interest and soverign loans, some of which we should simply not be repaying.

    Outside of that, I don't have an issue with paying my way but at some point the last straw will come for many.
    It's much easier "take the pain" when you see change happening. I don't.

    So apologies for going against the majority opinion in here.


  • #86
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    kippy wrote: »
    It's not an argument against paying any tax, it's an issue I have with the particular tax.
    Well, no. All tax goes to central revenue; that's stipulated in the constitution. If you have a problem with paying a property tax because you don't know how it will be spent, but don't have a problem paying income tax even though you don't know how it will be spent, you're being logically inconsistent.
    kippy wrote: »
    Isn't this particular issue a method of making a point to the government?
    Yes. The point seems to be "we don't want to pay enough tax to cover the cost of public services". Successive Fianna Fáil governments took advantage of that aspect of our nature to repeatedly buy re-election by eroding the tax base and allowing public spending to grow out of control.
    ...I am not at all confortable that the extra monies we are paying are going directly towards closing s deficit and that money is still being wasted on a major scale at all levels in this country.
    The deficit is the difference between taxes taken in and money spent. Extra taxes are, by definition, going towards closing the deficit.

    Unless you're going to claim that the government have a cunning plan to increase wastage in order to fritter the extra taxes?
    The money that is not being used for running the country is going towards interest and soverign loans, some of which we should simply not be repaying.
    Our borrowings are almost exclusively being used to make up the difference between our tax take and our public expenditure. The way to reduce the loans and interest is to reduce the deficit that we have to borrow, which means higher taxes and lower spending.


  • #87
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,782 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Fair enough, I can see when I am wasting time.


  • #88
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    kippy wrote: »
    Perhaps you are in a far better position financially than most.
    There’s no need to get personal, but rest assured, the average person working in Ireland earns more than I do.
    kippy wrote: »
    4 years down the line and we've nothing to show for anything. Just a possibility? You dont think that the tardiness of these investigations have anything to do with the potential political fallout?
    This is borderline conspiracy theory stuff – are you suggesting that the government are perverting the course of justice?
    kippy wrote: »
    What does the tardiness and lack of accountability and no doubt lack of jail time, show to the people of this state?
    So we should throw a few bankers, senior civil servants and politicians in jail, just to have something to “show to the people”?
    kippy wrote: »
    Isn't any one of you at all worried about the future? You don't have families? You dont think that one key item as a nation we should have learned, is to question what goes on in our country (something we never did in the past)
    But you’re not questioning anything, you’re just blindly opposed to the property tax based on some nebulous reasoning involving bank bailouts, white collar crime and NAMA.
    kippy wrote: »
    I have no issues paying my way but I am not at all confortable that the extra monies we are paying are going directly towards closing s deficit and that money is still being wasted on a major scale at all levels in this country.
    Ok let’s put a figure on this - how much “waste” needs to be eliminated before you’ll be prepared to pay additional taxes?


  • #89
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    djpbarry wrote: »
    So we should throw a few bankers, senior civil servants and politicians in jail, just to have something to “show to the people”?

    Well we are close to the one year anniversary of Justice Peter Kelly saying this:
    A High Court judge has extended the Director of Corporate Enforcement and Garda investigation into Anglo Irish Bank to the end of July only after expressing serious concern the progress of the two year probe "is not at all satisfactory".

    Mr Justice Peter Kelly also strongly criticised the failure to mount any prosecutions in other Commercial Court cases despite "prima facie evidence" and even admissions of criminal wrongdoing in such cases and where papers to that effect had been sent years ago by him to the authorities

    I'd be happy if at least a few of the these cases actually made it into the courts. What are we to make of confessions of wrongdoing that are not prosecuted? Political interference in the Gardai/courts?


  • #90
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    MadsL wrote: »
    I'd be happy if at least a few of the these cases actually made it into the courts. What are we to make of confessions of wrongdoing that are not prosecuted? Political interference in the Gardai/courts?
    Without specific details it's difficult to judge, but it's a separate issue from balancing the budget.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    jmayo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    xflyer wrote: »
    The problem with this charge is that's a crude attempt by the government to raise some more money to hand over to the banks and the rest.

    Ever hear of our current budget deficit which had/has to be brought down from 20 billion ?
    Without ever mentioning money to banks, our budget is fecked and that means cuts/extra taxes.
    xflyer wrote: »
    Let no one pretend that this is for local services. Rates were abolished years ago because they were a mess.

    Ehh wrong.
    They were not abolished because they were a mess, they were abolished by ff led by the gobdaw from Cork who abolished them at the same time as he abolished road tax all in an effort to buy the 1977 election.

    And guess what, yet again the gombeens in this country fell hook line and sinker for the ff method of short term gain instead of long term stability.

    Ehh do you think we are so unique in the Western world that we should not pay some form of annual residential property taxes ?
    Sudsy86 wrote: »
    Spending Cuts First
    Taxes second

    I would actually agree to a degree with this.
    There is still huge amount of wastage that needs to be tackled.
    Sudsy86 wrote: »
    Ppl now starting off in employment wll never be able to see the types of wages some ppl in this country are currently availing of(im talking public and private)...All we get these days is recession recession recession...

    Its grand for ppl who are on this type of money to be happy to pay €100 but for those starting off on much much lower saleries its alot of money...

    What ???
    For the vast amount of people starting off in employment they should not be paying this since they should not be owners of property.
    Only during the madness of the boom did people starting in employment start buying property.
    Sudsy86 wrote: »
    I have a god given right to own a house (before anyways says otherwise)...

    ??
    Sudsy86 wrote: »
    I pay enough tax as it is(even though some would argue we are below most EU states)...I may not pay more than 37-38% tax but the rest of my money goes to paying the elecy, gas, bins, food and so on so forth...This is not paid for me by my local council and will not be paid for me by yet another taxation on my house...

    The amount of taxes you pay is not dictated by how much you spend, it is actually the other way around. :rolleyes:

    The more I read of Irish opinion the more I think that there should be compulsory economics/commerce/accounting in school upto Junior cert.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • #92
    sarkozy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭sarkozy


    I'm in favour of a property tax.

    But I'm not in favour of the Government's motive to introduce one and I'm not convinced that a formula will be developed to make it fair.

    Here's my reasoning: in addition to arguments that (in general) property taxes provide more stable revenues and are socially progressive, evidence from Europe demonstrates that it is an excellent mechanism to fund local government and more accountable (hence better) public services.

    We do not have real local government. In 2001, Local Authorities acquired more 'functions' than they ever had in Ireland in the past. But this increased role in delivering waste management, water, etc. did not come with increased or adequate funding. It did not come with Local Authorities having the power to raise their own income- or wealth-based revenues. Evidence from around Europe points to this being a highly effective mechanism if designed correctly.

    Instead, we have a situation where Local Authorities have to go begging to the Department of the Environment, cap in hand, when a crisis occurs, rather than dealing with it before a disaster occurs. The water contamination crisis in Galway is a particularly serious case.

    What would happen if taxes were levied in each Local Authority by their Council? People would feel they have a say in the local services they benefit from. If they were shoddy (e.g. the Dublin waste collection scandal), people would be more inclined to hold their local Councillors and County/City Manager to account. 'It's our money and we want it spent properly.'

    This stability of income would also enable Local Authorities (and Central Government) to plan for the future much more effectively because they'd know what money was coming in and, therefore, what they could expect to spend on amenities, urban planning, services, etc. in the future.

    We would all benefit.

    But the Government has made a decision not to mention the Local Government dimension and to use this major crisis as a real opportunity to fix our broken system. It comes down to political will.

    Instead, it's portrayed for what it is at present: robbing money out of our pockets to pay off a debt we shouldn't have to pay in the first place. It'll simply cause more grievance and more confusion, and continued lousy public services.

    But maybe it's true, maybe we are so stupid that we don't and can never move away from the centrally-controlled gombeenism of FF and FG, in-betweenness of Lab, and reactionary waffle of SF and WP. Maybe we don't deserve local democracy. We definitely don't understand national democracy.


  • #93
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    sarkozy wrote: »
    I'm in favour of a property tax.

    But I'm not in favour of the Government's motive to introduce one and I'm not convinced that a formula will be developed to make it fair.

    Here's my reasoning: in addition to arguments that (in general) property taxes provide more stable revenues and are socially progressive, evidence from Europe demonstrates that it is an excellent mechanism to fund local government and more accountable (hence better) public services.

    We do not have real local government. In 2001, Local Authorities acquired more 'functions' than they ever had in Ireland in the past. But this increased role in delivering waste management, water, etc. did not come with increased or adequate funding. It did not come with Local Authorities having the power to raise their own income- or wealth-based revenues. Evidence from around Europe points to this being a highly effective mechanism if designed correctly.

    Instead, we have a situation where Local Authorities have to go begging to the Department of the Environment, cap in hand, when a crisis occurs, rather than dealing with it before a disaster occurs. The water contamination crisis in Galway is a particularly serious case.

    What would happen if taxes were levied in each Local Authority by their Council? People would feel they have a say in the local services they benefit from. If they were shoddy (e.g. the Dublin waste collection scandal), people would be more inclined to hold their local Councillors and County/City Manager to account. 'It's our money and we want it spent properly.'

    This stability of income would also enable Local Authorities (and Central Government) to plan for the future much more effectively because they'd know what money was coming in and, therefore, what they could expect to spend on amenities, urban planning, services, etc. in the future.

    We would all benefit.

    But the Government has made a decision not to mention the Local Government dimension and to use this major crisis as a real opportunity to fix our broken system. It comes down to political will.

    Instead, it's portrayed for what it is at present: robbing money out of our pockets to pay off a debt we shouldn't have to pay in the first place. It'll simply cause more grievance and more confusion, and continued lousy public services.

    But maybe it's true, maybe we are so stupid that we don't and can never move away from the centrally-controlled gombeenism of FF and FG, in-betweenness of Lab, and reactionary waffle of SF and WP. Maybe we don't deserve local democracy. We definitely don't understand national democracy.
    Agreed, I think that we should be considering a re-write of our political systems as well as the proposed Constitution re-write for 2016. Start from the ground up and completely reform our governmental structure from the top down.


  • #94
    sarkozy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭sarkozy


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Agreed, I think that we should be considering a re-write of our political systems as well as the proposed Constitution re-write for 2016. Start from the ground up and completely reform our governmental structure from the top down.
    From the bottom-up!


  • #95
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    sarkozy wrote: »
    From the bottom-up!
    I don't know. I think we need to decide how we want our government to operate at the highest level now. We were one of the first bicameral legislatures and now our upper house is basically worthless. We have a president who is devoid of any real power and an executive branch that is so entwined with our legislative branch that it's hard to see any real separation of powers.

    When we decide how we want our government to operate at the highest level, then we can decide how we want to divide our councils and how they should operate. I do believe that taxation for property and roads should be done on a county basis and those funds should be distributed in the said county.


  • #96
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,782 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    This is borderline conspiracy theory stuff – are you suggesting that the government are perverting the course of justice?

    I have no idea who is perverting the course of justice, all I can see is justice is not being done.
    Even with todays release of the almost useless Mahon report we can see that when it comes to politicians and white collar crime there is past history in the Gardai of not investigating it to its fullest.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77720414&postcount=66


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,285 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    kippy wrote: »
    I have no idea who is perverting the course of justice, all I can see is justice is not being done.
    Even with todays release of the almost useless Mahon report we can see that when it comes to politicians and white collar crime there is past history in the Gardai of not investigating it to its fullest.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77720414&postcount=66

    You will always have problems with the Gardai investigating political corruption BECAUSE the top people in the Gardai are political appointments.
    Time to divide politics and the law. Appoint people to the top ranks of the Gardai on merit -- not because they are friends of politicians and useful to them. The time is NOW.


  • #98
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    This household charge targets middle income earners and homeowners as if they were the only ones using the "services" that it is purported to fund.
    It is politically flawed and unfair that those who are exempt, who in many cases not only avail of those services, but also avail of many of the states other welfare and housing services have again been given exempted from any payment considering the quality and cost of the combined welfare service.

    It also presumes an income determined by the size of a property, which in a normally functioning non IMF funded country may make some sense, but not here at the moment.

    Those living in rural areas, who may well have larger properties but who's use of said services may well be least, will now be funding the street lighting, pavements, swimming pools, libraries, litter collection and sanitation of those in urban areas, whilst at the same time be expected to fund their own septic tank upgrades!

    It is another lesson vindicating those who sat on their behinds during the boom years and watched others do the 9 to 5 and penalising those attempting to stand on their own two feet, who fell for the property racket and the concept was specifically termed as unfair twice in Fine Gael's 2011 manifesto.

    Much has been made of other countries property charges, those who propose them do so unfairly without listing the benefits that are received in return for paying them, such as free bin collection, reduced road taxes etc.


  • #99
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Its not a constitutional affair so referendum not applicable.
    Can't have referenda for every flipping govt bill anyway.


  • #100
    steve9859
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭steve9859


    jmayo wrote: »

    Ehh do you think we are so unique in the Western world that we should not pay some form of annual residential property taxes ?


    That is the only truism that I have seen on boards today. And you can add water charges to that too.

    The ONLY issue IMO is inequitability, but we are talking €8 a month. When it goes up, bands put in place etc, it will become more equitable. Probably not quite equitable enough in the view of most people, but something along the lines of in the UK.


  • #101
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Going Forward wrote: »
    It also presumes an income determined by the size of a property...
    It presumes nothing about income. The only tax that is predicated on income is income tax. Motor tax doesn't presume an income determined by the size of a car.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement