# Is Household charge fair?



## Liamos (15 Dec 2011)

Is the household charge fair and if not, will you refuse to pay it?

Although it is 'only' €100, it does seem unfair that someone like Micheal O'Leary will pay the exact same amount as someone on the average industrial wage. 

Another example of the 'fairness' of this years Budget.


----------



## truthseeker (15 Dec 2011)

I live in a managed estate. It has not been taken in hand by the council, it will never be taken in hand by the council, it is effectively private property. We receive a breakdown of management fees and they include charges for street lighting, maintenance of grounds/road/pavement, rubbish collection charges, grass cutting etc...

So I am curious to know how my 100 euro will be used as the local authority has no input in my estate.

I dont think its fair that someone in a home worth millions pays the same as someone in a tiny one room apartment. Or that someone earning millions pays the same as someone on social welfare.


----------



## shnaek (15 Dec 2011)

Is it fair that people who have gotten houses for free won't have to pay at all? Is it fair that the middle classes are getting screwed more and more each day, and most likely will be wiped out over the coming years? 
The one thing we can be sure of is that nothing is fair. The only thing we can work on is reclaiming our lives from incessant incompetent government interference, because whenever the government dip their dirty hands in you can be certain of an unfair result.


----------



## TarfHead (15 Dec 2011)

Liamos said:


> Is the household charge fair ..


 
No



Liamos said:


> .. and if not, will you refuse to pay it?


 
No


----------



## z107 (15 Dec 2011)

9 TDs now are calling on the public not to pay:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/nine-tds-call-on-public-to-resist-household-charge-532323.html

I wont be in any rush to register. I will wait and see what happens next year.
I hate the idea of being forced to hand over money to bondholders. I'm guessing that they'll fine or jail a handful of people and then everyone else will start paying. The following year it'll then be easy to increase to €1000.

So for me: no.


----------



## Purple (15 Dec 2011)

Yes and yes for me.

We should remember that most of the tax increases are to pay for current expenditure (state services etc) and not to pay bondholders etc.


----------



## DerKaiser (15 Dec 2011)

Are you happy with VAT, DIRT, Motor Tax, PRSI, USC, CGT, Corporation Tax, Social Welfare rates, Capital Spending, Health Spending, Education Spending, the Croke Park agreement? 

Whatever way you look at it, and people can come up with all the justifications they want for not paying it, each householder owes €2 a week on this particular tax. Everyone invidually wants more welfare or less tax and you can try defraud the system for personal benefit if that's what you want, but it is for selfish reasons and not for some higher cause.

It is utterly stupid to try assess the fairness of this charge in the context of the wider taxation/welfare regime let alone on its own. 

The €100 will probably be the minimum for everyone in the ultimate regime. I've no doubt people with larger or more expensive houses will be asked to pay significantly more in the future.

We are in a democracy with a government elected at least once every 5 years. This time last year people argued it had been a whole 3.5 years since the last election and things had changed and popular opinion (as measured by media polls rather than the democratically accepted methods) meant the government had no mandate to govern. That was a load of bull then and to try undermine the democratic process by refusing to acknowlege the right of the government we voted in less than 10 months ago to legislate and raise taxation is nothing short of subversive.

Dail deputies who willingly break the law, or more importantly encourage others to, shoul be removed from office.


----------



## Ceist Beag (15 Dec 2011)

Of course it is fair. Given that the tax is for local services why should Michael O'Leary pay more for the same services as anyone else? There are other taxes I would have an issue with but this one I have no problem with.


----------



## TarfHead (15 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> Yes and yes for me.


 
So,Yes, it's fair, and Yes, you'll refuse to pay it  ?


----------



## thedaras (15 Dec 2011)

I will be paying it..

I just heard a woman on Newstalk being interviewed,she said she was against paying it and will not pay it and has told/encouraging others not to pay it either.

Then I heard the interviewer say something like ,you are a member of Government,should you be encouraging people to break the law,and she answered with this beaut;

Theres moral laws and legal laws..!!!!
Dear God!! I will have to find out who that was.
Who could that possibly be?


----------



## DerKaiser (15 Dec 2011)

Ceist Beag said:


> Given that the tax is for local services why should Michael O'Leary pay more for the same services as anyone else?


 
Did you not get the memo? 

If you're smart, ambitious and work hard you owe everyone a living.  

If you've never achieved anything in your life, you are owed a living by everyone else.


----------



## TarfHead (15 Dec 2011)

thedaras said:


> I will be paying it..
> 
> I just heard a woman on Newstalk being interviewed,she said she was against paying it and will not pay it and has told/encouraging others not to pay it either.
> 
> ...


 
I heard Joan Collins, of the United '_Down with that sort of thing_' Alliance on Newstalk, 30 minutes ago, saying she would not pay it, but hmmmed and hawed about being willing to go to the 'joy over it.

Maybe the Newstalk guy meant a member of the Dail or the Oireachtas ?

She was followed by a member of the public claiming that having paid stamp duty, she's absolved from payment of any household charge. Bet she won;t be absolved from slopping out .


----------



## thedaras (15 Dec 2011)

Well said DerKaiser.
Tarfhead, I know Clare daly was on,but not sure if it was her who said it.


----------



## z107 (15 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> Yes and yes for me.
> 
> We should remember that most of the tax increases are to pay for current expenditure (state services etc) and not to pay bondholders etc.



Why should we 'remember' this when it is not true? We had a thread about this a few weeks ago - well it turned into this discussion anyway.

A couple of obvious reasons why this is not true:
1. If we, and future generations are not paying for bondholders, then who is?
2. This property tax was agreed as part of the IMF bailout. It is directly related to repaying bondholders/hedgefund holders.

You may like to convince yourself that we are not paying back bondholders, but the facts remain.


----------



## DerKaiser (15 Dec 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> This property tax was agreed as part of the IMF bailout. It is directly related to repaying bondholders/hedgefund holders.


 
The EU/IMF bailout was funding two things:

1) The additional borrowing required to ease our budget deficit back towards a balanced situation - This is day to day spending

2) The money needed to pay off those who loaned money to the banks

The measures agreed bring us back to a situation where our day to day budget is still in deficit.  So, if anything, all the additional revenue measures agreed in the bailout are to pay for our own spending.


When we have balanced the budget and paid back all the money borrowed to fund the budget deficits, any additional taxes at that point can be considered to be repaying the people who loaned money to the banks.


----------



## z107 (15 Dec 2011)

DerKaiser said:


> When we have balanced the budget and paid back all the money borrowed to fund the budget deficits, any additional taxes at that point can be considered to be repaying the people who loaned money to the banks.



That can't be correct.
The government has already paid billions to bondholders. Another couple of billion due the beginning of next month to unsecured bondholders.

So I ask again.
Who is ultimately paying the bondholders?


----------



## Purple (15 Dec 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> That can't be correct.
> The government has already paid billions to bondholders. Another couple of billion due the beginning of next month to unsecured bondholders.
> 
> So I ask again.
> Who is ultimately paying the bondholders?



At the moment the IMF/EU bailout fund is paying them, and a good chunk of everything else. At some stage in the future we may end up paying for it (but I'm of the opinion that we will default by at least 25% though it won't be called a default).
If we weren't getting a bail out we'd be borrowing money at around 10% for current expenditure. That would cost much more than the repaying the bond holders.
Sorry for letting the facts get in the way.


----------



## TarfHead (15 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> At the moment the IMF/EU bailout fund is paying them, and a good chunk of everything else.


 
But ..

The money from the IMF/EU is a loan, so is, I assume, being repaid. Or is the interest being allowed to stack up against the principal ?

If it is being repaid, then those repayments are coming from Government income, i.e. taxation, levies, etc.

Yes ?
No ?


----------



## Purple (15 Dec 2011)

TarfHead said:


> But ..
> 
> The money from the IMF/EU is a loan, so is, I assume, being repaid. Or is the interest being allowed to stack up against the principal ?
> 
> ...



Yes, but the interest bill if we borrowed on the open market would be at least 3 times as high. That would be bigger than all of the repayment s we are currently being asked to make.


----------



## z107 (15 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> At the moment the IMF/EU bailout fund is paying them, and a good chunk of everything else. At some stage in the future we may end up paying for it (but I'm of the opinion that we will default by at least 25% though it won't be called a default).
> If we weren't getting a bail out we'd be borrowing money at around 10% for current expenditure. That would cost much more than the repaying the bond holders.
> Sorry for letting the facts get in the way.



...and who is paying back the IMF/EU bailout fund? Many of these cuts and new taxes were introduced as a condition of that bailout.

Do you understand now?

There are two problems:
1. Ireland's huge overspend Vs Income
2. paying for bust banks, and giving money to bondholders, unsecured and otherwise.

We (and future generations) are paying for both.


----------



## TarfHead (15 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> Yes, but the interest bill if we borrowed on the open market would be at least 3 times as high. That would be bigger than all of the repayment s we are currently being asked to make.


 
Understood.

So, is it accurate to state that the Government income is being used to repay (the loans incurred as a consequence of the decision to stand over the debts arising from) the bondholders ?

Trying to claim causality between the Household Charge and the debts of bondholders is a matter of opinion. It would be equally accurate, or inaccurate, to link the Household Charge with the Croke Park Agreement and salary increments  (see what I did there) ?


----------



## Purple (15 Dec 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> ...and who is paying back the IMF/EU bailout fund? Many of these cuts and new taxes were introduced as a condition of that bailout.
> 
> Do you understand now?
> 
> ...



I’ll say it again.

If we hold the bond holders to go to hell then we wouldn’t have to repay them but the EU/IMF wouldn’t have given us any money to fund our current budget deficit. We’d therefore have to borrow that money on the open market and the interest rate charged would be 3 times what we are currently paying.
Cost of bank bailout: €60 billion
Current budget deficit: €18 billion per year. Therefore the cost of funding that deficit would be equal to the total cost of funding the bank bailout and that would be a yearly cost, not a once off cost. Roll that up over a 10 year period and we’re much better off getting screwed by the troika than getting screwed by the open market.


----------



## callybags (15 Dec 2011)

I see a group of 9 of our elected legislators are actively encouraging poeple to break the law that the parliment they are members of have enacted.

They should be thrown out with no compensation.

They are a disgrace.


----------



## DerKaiser (15 Dec 2011)

We can't just continue to run huge budget deficits. The measures being introduced at the moment would be no less severe if we hadn't take on bank debts.

I find it tremendously disingenuous of people to argue against cutting the budget deficits as if there was some realistic alternative. I've thought about it from many angles, but in the end decided that you just have to grow up and accept the practicalities of the situation we are in rather than engage in these childish antics of thinking we could live in the fools paradise of the boom years forever.

If we'd burned the banking bondholders and somehow europe still agreed to fund us, would we really get away with not cutting the €18bn deficit by 2015????

More realistically if we'd burned the banking bondholders how on earth would we immediately cut the €18bn deficit to zero?


----------



## TarfHead (15 Dec 2011)

I was watching a BBC documentary about Government expenditure. Gordon Brown, as Chancellor for the Exchequer, introduced a winter fuel allowance at a rate of £20. By the time they left Government, it had been increased to a rate of £200.

That's how budget deficits are allowed to grow. Commitments to increase expenditure for political reasons, and not for reasons of economics or social justice.


----------



## CMCR (15 Dec 2011)

Local household charges are in existence in many other European countries, so why not here? 

I think that people need to get real and realise that many local authority services (such as public parks, playgrounds, public libraries, street cleaning and the maintence and upkeep of public spaces, etc.) so on, cost money and are free to use for everyone, so why not contribute to the cost of them?

I think the household charge is a good thing and I don't think that contributing €2 per week for street cleaning, the use of public parks (and their upkeep) and the use and services for public libraries and so on, is not a lot to contribute to them. 

I have noticed in the last 2 or so years that the number of people using public amenities such as (parks, and so on) this has increased substantially so I think that it's reasonable for people to contribute. 

Thinking that because you pay X amount in motor tax and Y in income tax to pay for the maintenance and upkeep (and ongoing existence of these services) is just silly.


----------



## dockingtrade (15 Dec 2011)

i dont think the outrage the ULA are on about is out there. Plus it is reckless for elected politicians to encuorage non payment. What are they goin to do for people landed with 000s of euros fines. This ideological crusade could end very badly for people. Lefties looking for their place in leftie history


Just saw mick wallace on the news sitting with the rest of the non paying TDs. Doesnt he owe enough money already


----------



## thedaras (15 Dec 2011)

Joe Higgins,Thomas Pringle, Mick Wallace, John Halligan and Ming Flannigan;  TDs Richard Boyd Barrett ,Joan Collins;  Seamus Healy from Workers and Unemployed Action Group/United Left Alliance. 

Support the boycott of the household charge.

Hmm, doesnt that mean they are telling everyone of their intention to break the law? 

If I said I was going to do something to break the law and put it into the public domain,and then go on to break it,I hope that I get exactly the same treatment as those mentioned above do..

I will watch closely to see how they are treated,In fairness if they can break the law and if they get away with it,then its each man for himself!

Dont they enact the law?


----------



## z107 (15 Dec 2011)

CMCR said:


> Local household charges are in existence in many other European countries, so why not here?



So is rabies.


----------



## Pope John 11 (15 Dec 2011)

CMCR said:


> Local household charges are in existence in many other European countries, so why not here?
> 
> I think that people need to get real and realise that many local authority services (such as public parks, playgrounds, public libraries, street cleaning and the maintence and upkeep of public spaces, etc.) so on, cost money and are free to use for everyone, so why not contribute to the cost of them?
> 
> ...



Yes, alot of persons who bought properties over the last 10 years or so have paid up to 40 years of a property tax in the form of stamp duty. 

No problem, if the government is willing to give this back, then I would have no problems paying it.

Its a double taxation in my opinion.


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2011)

Pope John 11 said:


> Yes, alot of persons who bought properties over the last 10 years or so have paid up to 40 years of a property tax in the form of stamp duty.
> 
> No problem, if the government is willing to give this back, then I would have no problems paying it.
> 
> Its a double taxation in my opinion.



I've paid over €100'000 in stmp duty in the last 10 years. I see no link between that and a property tax.


----------



## Ceist Beag (16 Dec 2011)

DerKaiser said:


> We can't just continue to run huge budget deficits. The measures being introduced at the moment would be no less severe if we hadn't take on bank debts.
> 
> I find it tremendously disingenuous of people to argue against cutting the budget deficits as if there was some realistic alternative. I've thought about it from many angles, but in the end decided that you just have to grow up and accept the practicalities of the situation we are in rather than engage in these childish antics of thinking we could live in the fools paradise of the boom years forever.
> 
> ...



+1 DerKaiser. Really I'm fed up listening to the self appointed spokepeople for the "vulnerable in society"* banging on about the hardships faced as if somehow there is a built in entitlement to everything they receive. Just for a second if we were to take one representative of the many groups, put them all into a room and remove the government from the equation and have the same discussions I think it would paint a much different picture. For example if 38% of the people in the room were not contributing anything and were receiving cash from the other 62% would they be so demanding? If the 15% who are contributing most (through hard work and enterprise) were in front of those 38% would they be getting the negative comments they currently get as a group? Those 9 looney left tds  are indeed a disgrace. It's about time those paying the majority of the tax to run the country were given a stronger voice and those representing the "vulnerable in society"* had just a bit more humility and see the state of the country for what it is. Everybody is taking a hit here but those carrying the burden of paying the taxes are taking a damn sight more of a hit than they are being given credit for.

*"vulnerable in society" - without doubt there are those who are vulnerable and deserve some protection but to listen to the politicians claiming to represent them you would think over half the country were in this group!


----------



## DerKaiser (16 Dec 2011)

Ceist Beag said:


> I'm fed up listening to the self appointed spokepeople for the "vulnerable in society"* banging on about the hardships faced as if somehow there is a built in entitlement to everything they receive.


 
When you take it up one level it is really embarassing.

There are people in Africa starving to death and Ireland, where everyone has the safety net of a home, free medical care and €190pw, believes it is acceptable that we are subsidised to the tune of €18bn by the rest of the world?

We will never pay back all of our debts.  It's quite likely as well as defaulting on the €40bn banking losses (some of which we are responsible for also let's not forget) we'll also default on another €40bn we have spent in the last number of years to maintain our lifestyles.  

If the rest of the world has €40bn to just give away, do we really think the best use of it is to save the Croke Park agreement, maintain social welfare rates or even spare the poor citizens of Ireland €2 a week on property tax?  Absolute bull. Let's see now, do we think saving 2m householders a property tax in Ireland is up there with saving 2m starving kids?

I don't want to pontificate about it, but that's what Mick Wallace, Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Boyd Barrett, etc stand for.  Let the rest of the world pay for our standard of living. I for one question our entitlement to that.


----------



## shnaek (16 Dec 2011)

CMCR said:


> Local household charges are in existence in many other European countries, so why not here?


If that was the argument to bring in the charge, then we could equally bring in 24hour drinking laws, legalised prostitution, legalised drugs etc. Just because something is in existence somewhere else is no reason to bring it in here. We must think for ourselves, if we are capable of that. 
Also, we already pay for the services provided, through a variety of other taxes. We are soon to have the highest VAT rate in Europe. We already have amongst the highest energy costs. Our motor taxes are very high, and getting higher. Our higest rate of tax kicks in at one of the lowest levels of income in Europe. And almost 50% of people pay no income tax at all. 
Soon we'll have every tax under the sun in here, with none of the benefits of the greater European nations. What then? Then it will be untenable for the thinking person to remain here. 
And yes, I find it ironic that elected representatives are advocating breaking the law. So is it a citizens choice as to what laws to obey and what laws to break? But we already know there is a special law for our political masters and our civic bureaucracy - the law where none of them are ever held responsible.


----------



## dockingtrade (16 Dec 2011)

How many of those who cant pay 100 a year are able to pay multiples of that in tax on ciggarettes & alcohol. I know there are people out there who cant afford and dont drink or smoke but id like to know of those who are exempt or are protesting how many of them have no issue with paying multiples of 100 on tax on cig & drink. 100pa!!!
People need to break down what money goes on a week a and publish the average spend on certain items within households.


People need to break down the disposable income left at the end of the week for long term unemployed with families, recently unemployed with families, working with familes on avg indst wage. To see who are at the pin of their collar and who's not!!


----------



## TarfHead (16 Dec 2011)

This links back to 1977 and the decision to abolish local rates. A mate of mine lives in Belfast and pays close on GBP 1000 a year in local rates.


----------



## Pique318 (16 Dec 2011)

1. Household charge is a fair, equitable, sustainable and constant source of tax income for the exchequer. Finally, there is a tax that EVERYONE has to pay. Both those currently contributing nothing (welfare recipients who don't work and continue to claim every benefit under the sun); plus those working and already paying income tax, VAT, etc. This is the first time that this has happened to my recollection.
2. Using the phrase "The most vulnibble in society" is the Irish version of Godwins Law. Anyone using it has instantly lost the argument.
3. The TDs refusing to pay this charge...will they be non-tax-compliant ? Does this mean they can be removed as a TD ? (Please say it is).


----------



## horusd (16 Dec 2011)

I'll pay it. Heard Eamon Dunphy on PK this morning saying he was not going to pay it. Jim Power (economist?) was on the same programme, saying that we should pay altho he acknowledged the government lacked moral authority given all the shenanigans of the last few years. I suppose you have to separate out the two, but I do feel a bit hard done by when no-one has been locked up or had pensions slashed, or even the whole Cardiff thing, which the current government can't lay off on FF.


----------



## TarfHead (16 Dec 2011)

Pique318 said:


> 2. Using the phrase "The most vulnibble in society" is the Irish version of Godwins Law. Anyone using it has instantly lost the argument.


 
+1

And the argument "Is it fair that <_insert wealthy person's name here_>  receive Childrená Allowance ?".

No, it's not fair but as long as the politicians lack the spine to link up Revenue data with Social Welfare data, that's the mess we're stuck with so everything else is compromised.

Anyone who says that it is not technically possible to link 2 IT systems, each with the PPN stored, is not competent to do their job and should step down.


----------



## micmclo (16 Dec 2011)

The memory of the election is fading. I suppose a few TD's will get themselves convicted and led to jail with the TV cameras rolling to boost their profile

Much the same as Joe Higgins and bin charges while people outside the cities had been paying private waste operators for years and years


----------



## z107 (16 Dec 2011)

dockingtrade said:


> How many of those who cant pay 100 a year are able to pay multiples of that in tax on ciggarettes & alcohol. I know there are people out there who cant afford and dont drink or smoke but id like to know of those who are exempt or are protesting how many of them have no issue with paying multiples of 100 on tax on cig & drink. 100pa!!!
> People need to break down what money goes on a week a and publish the average spend on certain items within households.



It's not that I can't pay. It's I don't want to pay.
I don't smoke, or drink much either, if that's got anything to do with it.

I don't want to pay €100 because:
1. A precedent is being set. Next year it will be a multiple of that. Maybe one year I will not be able to afford it.
2. In my opinion, this money will be misappropriated.

Tally is now up to 18 TDs boycotting this tax:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/more-tds-pledge-to-boycott-household-charge-532530.html


----------



## z107 (16 Dec 2011)

Pique318 said:


> 1. Household charge is a fair, equitable, sustainable and constant source of tax income for the exchequer. Finally, there is a tax that EVERYONE has to pay. Both those currently contributing nothing (welfare recipients who don't work and continue to claim every benefit under the sun); plus those working and already paying income tax, VAT, etc. This is the first time that this has happened to my recollection.



I didn't think everyone was paying it? Aren't there (as usual) exceptions?
How can you call a flat rate 'fair'?
So 'everyone' gets to pay €100 regardless of their income, or how much of these services the tax is supposedly meant to pay for.

Finally, no tax right now is 'fair' in Ireland. How can you describe taxes as being fair when the government is bailing out banks and giving our money to developers and unsecured bond holders etc.


----------



## TarfHead (16 Dec 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> .. when the government is .. giving our money to developers


 
What developers are being given money, and why ? I believe NAMA are paying developers to manage NAMA property assets. That is money earned, not given.


----------



## thedaras (16 Dec 2011)

Either way,they will get the money,they may call it something else,but they will get it..
Perhaps they will call it a tax on not getting a household tax charge..


----------



## z107 (16 Dec 2011)

TarfHead said:


> What developers are being given money, and why ? I believe NAMA are paying developers to manage NAMA property assets. That is money earned, not given.



'Earned' - lol!
How would I go about applying for one of those jobs?

and why are the government doing this with MY money?


If my company goes bust, will the government step in and pay me €200k of tax payers' money?


----------



## DerKaiser (16 Dec 2011)

from a quick scan about 90% of people on this thread will be compliant, only one person seems to be bothered enough to argue.

The real story here is that there are 130 FF, labour & FG TDs who were members of governments in 2011, participating in unpopular decisions.  Of the 30-40 TDs "untried" in government, 20 are anti-democratic TDs promoting anarchy. God help us.


----------



## z107 (16 Dec 2011)

DerKaiser said:


> from a quick scan about 90% of people on this thread will be compliant, only one person seems to be bothered enough to argue.
> 
> The real story here is that there are 130 FF, labour & FG TDs who were members of governments in 2011, participating in unpopular decisions.  Of the 30-40 TDs "untried" in government, 20 are anti-democratic TDs promoting anarchy. God help us.



I doubt very much if the distribution of contributors to this thread match the population.


----------



## z107 (17 Dec 2011)

check out the comments on this article:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/...ay-have-fines-deducted-from-wages-532563.html

How many of these people are going to pay?


----------



## AlastairSC (19 Dec 2011)

No it's not fair - yet. When it's linked to property valuations, it'll be fair.

Up to now we've had two classes of tax: (1) tax on income (2) tax on expenditure. These hit most in society and the progressive rates and allowances attempt to ensure fairness. But the very well-off are not really affected as much as the rest of the population - they can ensure minimum tax paid, by various strategies, and are wealthy enough not to be compromised by expenditure taxes no matter how high.

The household charge represents a third class of tax; on property/assets. Difficult to avoid/evade ( the evidence is standing there) and proportionate - if someone snaps up a house knocked down to €4.5m, as happened recently, then a property/household tax levied on valuation will ensure they make a sizeable contribution to the state. Not on a once-off basis as stamp duty did, but a regular payment. As it's a discretionary purchase they can avoid it by living in a smaller house, say €1m.

All that's needed is to find a fair way to link this charge to valuations. This is what other countries do, but we have no national database of houses yet. I agree a flat charge is regressive but the principle of paying by property valuation, when it comes, is progressive and as fair a way of raising tax as any other, in my opinion.


----------



## TarfHead (19 Dec 2011)

AlastairSC said:


> When it's linked to property valuations, it'll be fair.


 
A charge based property valuation is not, of itself, fair. A pensioner in a house valued at 500K paying more than a dual income couple in a house valued at 300K is not fair.


----------



## Shawady (19 Dec 2011)

I think the majority of people will pay it but I would prefer if the governmenr were upfront and said how the tax is going to work in a couple of years time i.e. Will it be based on size or value of house?

Regards property taxes themselves, what is the theory behind them?
Is it (a) a tax to pay for services such as lighting, roads/path etc or (b) a tax on the fact that the property is an asset that is worth money?


----------



## DerKaiser (19 Dec 2011)

TarfHead said:


> A charge based property valuation is not, of itself, fair. A pensioner in a house valued at 500K paying more than a dual income couple in a house valued at 300K is not fair.


 
Why?

What if the pensioner has no mortgage, a large private pension and a load of money in the bank whilst the couple had a €500k mortgage and a few kids to look after?

Even then how can I tell which is fair?

I don't understand the obsession with fair.  Is it fair that some people can't heat their houses whilst others can? Is it fair that someone should have to work a 50 hour week and give up half of their overtime to pay for utility bills for someone who's done nothing all week? Neither situation seems fair, but you can't avoid both. 

Fair game is a more appropriate concept at the moment!  Anyone with disposable income and wealth is fair game at the moment, be that someone with an income of €200pw who could live off €150pw, someone who could pay an extra 5% income taxes that won't be disincentivised to work or someone being paid a salary/pension from the public purse that won't go on strike if they are cut 10%.

I think we are in the situation of imposing whatever taxes/cuts are possible in terms of being affordable and least destructive. The "fair" argument is too complex and will need to wait for another day.


----------



## TarfHead (19 Dec 2011)

DerKaiser said:


> What if the pensioner has no mortgage, a large private pension and a load of money in the bank whilst the couple had a €500k mortgage and a few kids to look after?


 
And what if they don't ? You can create any hypothesis to suit your argument. My opinion is that the valuation of home is not a measure of your ability to pay. Following on from that, a tax based on property valuations is not equitable.


----------



## DerKaiser (19 Dec 2011)

TarfHead said:


> Following on from that, a tax based on property valuations is not equitable.


 
And I agree with the conclusion that they are not inherently fair, but I'd go further and say that there is no inherently fair way of taxing property.


----------



## Purple (20 Dec 2011)

DerKaiser said:


> Why?
> 
> What if the pensioner has no mortgage, a large private pension and a load of money in the bank whilst the couple had a €500k mortgage and a few kids to look after?
> 
> ...



That’s probably the best post I’ve read all year.
Excellent; clarity, pragmatism and an inescapable logic.


----------



## DerKaiser (20 Dec 2011)

Thanks Purple, I might just leave for the year on a high note now, ala George Costanza!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O27RzZEOkeA


----------



## Darth Vader (24 Jan 2012)

I'm not going to pay it.


----------

