Is Household charge fair?

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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..
 
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.
Click to expand...

'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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I doubt very much if the distribution of contributors to this thread match the population.
 
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.
 
AlastairSC said:
When it's linked to property valuations, it'll be fair.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
TarfHead said:
Following on from that, a tax based on property valuations is not equitable.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?

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.
Click to expand...

That’s probably the best post I’ve read all year.
Excellent; clarity, pragmatism and an inescapable logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top