Agreed TTL … Any Labour TD who doesn’t support SFs Bill this week to repeal the household charge will also face the same prospect.
Would i be cynical in suggesting that Labour are making the PAYE stance, knowing full well, that the Government cannot take the tax directly from PAYE, so they are using this non-issue as a means of pretending to the people they are making a stand at last??
Really, Labour need to make their stand with SF and repeal the entire Bill, otherwise its pure hypocrisy and Labour will be obliterated come the next election.

I agree with you. Well said.

Absolutely to Cal and TTL and Toby

It is like watching the Hunger games with this shower or idiots in government trying to take each other out , while knowing full well none will succeed in a second election.

Nope. Income tax is calculated on income.

Where is the government getting the ideas for these policies from?

Watching Minority Report?

What next?

All working class taxes paid at birth?

Mr Keaveney
It does not matter how you dress this up or ”frontload it” It is NOT a fair or just tax.
Whether it is the HHC or a property tax , it is wrong to expect people to pay tax on a home that does not earn an income.
So we wont be falling for any ”frontloaded ” spin doctoring , no more than we will be falling for The Hoggs threats of having it deducted at source. AMEN .
Now go away and do the jobs yoiu are paid to do and solve this crisis without your good cop bad cop routine. Pull each others hair and scratch and cut at each other . We are watching you all fall apart because you know you will not be re elected and the blame games begin……

lol, with our unemployment rate, how will this work if people aren’t on a payroll

Fg – labour = the confused talking to the bewildered !

On the flat rate issue. It should not be based on the value of your property. It should be based on the value of services and amenities in your area.

Daithi
It should not be based on anything !
We all have paid our way .
STOP paying the unsecured bondholders , end of story.

Susie I agree let’s stop paying unsecured bondholders. I would also agree yes some of us have paid our way I.e. Those that bought a home. But all of us certainly haven’t that includes me. The point I was trying to make above is; if this tax/ charge is to stay around and I imagine it will, I can’t see them making a u-turn on this one. Then it has to be fair and just. The way I see this being achieved is quite simple. Everyone pays homeowner, renter, social housing occupant and the rate at which they pay directly correlates with the services they receive. All money paid out is paid directly to local councils and is ring-fenced by them for the provision of said services. At years end every council issues a transparent report detailing exact monies brought in, where they were spend and the variance between the two. Simples.

And the crowd that come up with those crazy ideas are supposedly running this country! Is it any wonder we’re banjaxed??

“when the central issue should currently be on an individual’s ability to pay.”

The central discussion at the moment should be who pays it, rather then how to get the money out of them. Because of the tax is fair, then it won’t be that hard to get the money. But if the tax is unfair, then it will be hard to get the money.

Thus by focusing on how to get the money, FG are in effect admitting that the tax is going to be unfair. That is how I would interpret Colm Keaveney.

Because, David, most people consider the tax to be unfair and unjust, and should be allowed exercise their right to refuse to pay it.

Do you agree with Enda Kenny, the leader of your political party, that a tax on a persons home is unjust and unfair?

In fairness Tootrueleft he said that 16 years ago. There is a word for a person who does not change their views when new information becomes available. That word is ‘idiot’.

While I agree with you that views should be changed based on new information, I do not agree that something that is patently unfair and unjust can all of a sudden become fair and just based on economic circumstances. If you accept the view that it can then you are accepting that this government can threaten, bully and treat us as bankers debt slaves with impuinity because of the state of our countrys finances.

16 years ago I believed in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause.

“When the facts change, I change my mind” – Keynes

You’re making the assumption that economic circumstances changed Enda’s mind, when it could be a wide variety of reasons, such as a more nuanced political ideology reflecting increasing maturity, or simply the realization that the tax base and the national obsession with property demand some sort of a tax like this. However I think we are broadly in agreement here so I don’t think its worth debating the small details.

Or it could of course be due to the fact that in 1994 enda kenny was not in government acting as a sockpuppet for the troika, but in opposition. Given his form as a cute hoor spineless politician I would find this scenario far more likely than enda deciding on mature reflection that something thats patently unfair and unjust suddenly was fair and just.

How is it patently unfair and unjust?

It is unfair because your home does not generate revenue to be taxed on, and it is unjust because the house has already being taxed by the exchequer via taxes on building materials, VAT paid by the builder if not self-build, stamp duty etc.

And thats not even going into the whole area of money being stolen by fine gael, €24 billion so far, for bankers, who are then demanding this tax because apparently theres no money.

Maybe you’d like to explain how its fair and just Brendan?

Brendan/David, what you are implying is that something that Kenny is on record as having said ‘is immoral’ can become ‘moral’ in your opinion? Please explain.

Cal,

The concept that a person or society can change their mind on what is or what is moral based on new evidence should not require further explanation. As an example I shall use the legalisation of homosexuality in 1993. The Irish state at the time said that homosexuality was both immoral and illegal. The Irish state no longer holds this view.

By your logic this is hypocrisy. Having been of the opinion that homosexuality is immoral, the Irish state must hold this view until the end of time lest it lose credibility.

The above is clearly nonsense.

I hope this helps to clear any remaining sense of confusion you have over the concept of changing ones mind after new experiences or information received.

Tootrueleft,

“And thats not even going into the whole area of money being stolen by fine gael, €24 billion so far, for bankers, who are then demanding this tax because apparently theres no money.” – Irrelevant whataboutery.

“It is unfair because your home does not generate revenue to be taxed on, and it is unjust because the house has already being taxed by the exchequer via taxes on building materials, VAT paid by the builder if not self-build, stamp duty etc.” – Actually your house (normally) should increase in value and therefore does actually generate revenue due to capital gains, but your point is substantially correct. One could say that such a tax is arguably unfair and unjust but not patently so. However a graduated property tax would be the least unfair and least unjust way of bringing in a tax that is common throughout the rest of Europe.

Brendan,
Homosexuality was never immoral, it was just the Church and Politicians who thought it was. People are people full stop.
Taxing homes are still immoral, especially when a home valued at 5 million, is taxed at the same rate as a home worth 80,000 euro. That in itself is totally immoral. It is obviously a ploy to put undue unfair tax burdens on people who can least afford to pay (otherwise, why would you live in a home of 80,000 to begin with?).
If you don’t see what is wrong with your own argument, then that is your problem.
Over half the people who own homes in this country refused to pay this charge, as they obviously felt the same way about the tax.
Going against the wishes of the people on this (even though they have been threatened with Jail etc) is totally immoral, so the hypocrisy of the FFg/Labour Government on this one is so evident, it may cause the Government to be brought down.
You don’t have to agree with my inputs, they are my opinion and obviously the opinion of many others in the country.

Irrelevant because you say so Brendan?

Fine gael cannot credibly contest that we need the household charge because the exchequer needs the money, and at the same tim hand out BILLIONS to unsecured unguaranted bondholders. In ONE payment earlier in the year, fine gael handed over 10+ years worth of the household charge to rich gamblers.

Oh, and your old chestnut about europe having property taxes won’t wash around here, the fine gael shills already tried that one with the water charges argument. The services funded in europe by property taxes are paid for here through current direct and indirect taxation. So, you can either contest that we’ve been getting these services for free up till now, or at least be honest and admit we’re being charged twice for the same thing while the government ransacks our coffers and hands it to the banks….

Hi Cal,

I don’t know where to start with that really. “Moral” is a concept. Are you trying to claim that Ireland was full of people who thought homosexuality was moral, but were ignored by the dastardly Church and politicians?

If you don’t see what is wrong with your own argument, then that is your problem.

Going against the wishes of the people is totally immoral. – I see morality is now on the basis of mob rule. Pontius Pilate was obviously behaving in a “moral” manner when he had Jesus crucified at the will of the crowd.

Incidentally I haven’t actually disagreed with your input at any point so far, I have merely answered the question you asked on my position. However, let me thank you for your kind permission not to have to agree. Forcing someone to agree with you would be deeply immoral/

Irrelevant tootrueleft, not because I say so, but rather because it is not relevant. Fine Geal gave away money to bondholders, therefore the household charge/property tax (it’s unclear to which you are referring) is “patently” unfair and unjust. One has no relevance to the other. No one has argued that the Household charge had to come in because “there is no money”. Household charges had to come in because property taxes were done away with and as a result there isn’t a proper tax basis.

We have being getting the services for free since domestic rates were done away with. We were getting them for free because the Government was taking in so much tax from construction.

Actually Brendan, I gave you a nice concise 2 sentence answer to why I consider the tax unfair and unjust, and fine gael was not mentioned in those sentences.

Now, can you give a similar concise answer as to why you consider it fair and just?

For the sake of clarity, a property tax (or domestic rate) has to come in, not because of the current short term financial crisis (there is no money) but because of the unsustainablity of the whole tax model.

Can you clarify what you believe is unfair and unjust? The household charge, or property taxes in general. Or both?

Brendan, you weren’t asked whether or not you reckon the charge is necessary and why, you were asked to explain concisely why you think its fair and just.

I don’t think the Household charge is fair and just. I never said that I did. Please feel free to identify where I did.

Graduated property taxes however I believe are perfectly fair and just.

And what do you expect to receive in return for paying this new tax that you don’t already pay for through direct and indirect taxation?

Nothing. As I made the point we don’t pay for this stuff, not since household rates were abolished.

Do you think all property taxes are unfair and unjust tootrueleft?

Ah, so you’re happy to pay a new tax that will be handed to bondholders instead of providing services.

And, no, I do not consider ALL property taxes unfair and unjust. I consider taxing a persons home unfair and unjust. There is a huge difference, but we both know that.

So in effect, you come from the same standpoint as myself and Colm Keaveney “the central issue should currently be on an individual’s ability to pay.”

Or alternatively, what you mean is that a person’s home should never be taxed, under any circumstances.

Define ‘home’. Should my namesake and his lovely wife Asta have to pay property taxes on their home in Killiney, the home the sheriff so cruelly threw them out of?

http://www.thejournal.ie/evicted-couple-set-up-tent-outside-former-home-425174-Apr2012/

Actually, I come to no such conclusion, but we both know that as well. Ability to pay does not form part of my opinion, I have explained why pretty clearly.

I think its pretty obvious at this stage that you are either attempting to purposely misrepresent individuals or else have issues with adsorbing basic information.

Brendan Kelly
Why were the rates abolished ? What replaced them ?
”Irrelevant whataboutery ” Hmmph ! Clueless and insensitive ,cruel even.

I think its pretty obvious at this stage that you are either attempting to purposely misrepresent individuals or else have issues with adsorbing basic information. – Please identify where I have purposely misrepresented any individual on this thread. Also, given that you were under the impression I thought the household charge to be fair and just, is your above statement to equally applicable to yourself?

I notice that in this merry little aside you have nicely dodged the issue of defining a home. So it’s every “home” should go untaxed then, seeing as an individuals ability to pay does not enter your calculations.

Hi Susie,

The rates were abolished by FF to buy the 1977 election. They were replaced with nothing.

You can read all about it hear in the paragraph entitled: Taoiseach 1977–1979

You may find this short excerpt of interest:

In the party’s election manifesto in 1977 Fianna Fáil promised a whole range of new economic measures. These measures included the abolition of car tax, rates on houses and a number of other vote-winning “sweeteners.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Lynch

Also Susie, if you have time, please explain why the use of the phrase “irrelevant whataboutery” is “Clueless and insensitive ,cruel even.”

Brendan Kelly
No , I will not explain anything to you . You explain your derissory attitude towards all the comments here , because from what I can see yoiu are only on here to twist and spin and are not interested in serious discussion. So I will not explain myself to you or any one else …And it was the PRSI that was increased to supplement the rates , so why now after all these years do they want to reintroduce this unfair and unjust tax. You explain what exactly You mean by ”Irrelevant whataboutery” Use links and pie charts to clarify too , please.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whataboutery
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrelevant?s=t
Anything else I can help you with?

Oh yes the PRSI, which was increased in the 1980’s. Did that work Susie? And if it did, then why is there “no money”? And if the only reason there is no money is because it’s all going to the bondholder, if all soverign bank debt was removed would the country be turning a profit? And if wouldn’t, doesn’t that mean that the current tax model, including the increased PRSI from 30 years ago, is in need of reform?

Oh I’d forgotten. You are not going to explain anything to me.