The Fine Gael thread

[mikehunt]

So if tax payers didn't pay for water prior to Irish Water being set up who did? Did Mommy tell you it was the tooth fairy or santa?

How water was paid for in the past is literally water under the bridge. The issue is how it is paid for today.
It used be paid for by rates, do you keep on paying rates because that is how it was before?

Who paid for water prior to Irish Water and have they been relieved of this charge in place of new water charges?

[mikehunt]

You spend 500k on an asset thats now worth 300k you are down 200k + the interest on 500k.  Someone who has no house is technically better off. His point was about wealth. If you're net assets are -200+ k you wouldn't be considered wealthy.

Who's the "his" you're talking about?? Did you forget to log into your other account?

Anyway, now you want to change the discussion to be about wealth?? And your point is basically that homeless people are wealthier than those in negative equity??

I made a point about the abolition of the property tax being a stupid proposal. Now you apparently disagree with that because.......??

Jesus wept. His point was that anyone who owns a house is wealthy and should be able to afford property tax. Im saying that's not necessarily the case. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

[foxcommander]

If you were able to get a mortgage for 500k and are still paying it then you're not one of poorest in society. Negative equity has nothing to do with your ability to pay.

Maybe your motor tax covers your property tax as well though

Theres a lot of folk treading water just about able to pay the mortgage. The extras are killing them.

Maybe you forget that during the bubble the house prices were ridiculous. People were living beyond their means I agree but with no end in to the price rises tried to get on the ladder before prices went completely out of reach.

Same people lost their jobs after the bust. They may be debt if they sell their house and homeless to boot- a real catch 22.

Does that not register with you at all?

So you want to abolish the property tax rather than give an exemption say for someone who's on welfare??

Abolition of the property tax will only benefit the wealthiest in the society - do you disagree with that??

I never mentioned property tax. You went off on your own tangent there.

I referred to the issue of people struggling to pay a mortgage (or not being able to pay). You must only have wealthy friends in your circle if it's never been mentioned before.

The usual gobshites like Rossfan think all these new charges brought in by government don't put extra strain on families (and I'm talking about proud people who don't ever want to resort to the welfare state in case you keep bringing up arguments about those who don't want employment).

I mentioned property tax and that abolishing it is a ridiculous policy. You replied and I presumed from your response that you were in favour of abolishing it.

Perhaps I was incorrect and you AREN'T in favour of abolishing it??

Or you have no position on the policy and were just randomly replying to posts about the property tax

If you actually read my post again I said people had difficulty paying their mortages, nevermind the extras.

You mentioned in earlier ramblings USC, Property Tax, Water Tax, Motor Tax - I merely pointed out people may not have the capacity to pay.

Just give the government all your money. You know you want to. Simples.

Hmm, you replied to a post where I was discussing the property tax, apologies for assuming that your point was also related to that subject matter.

I never mentioned USC, water tax or anything else. It's a pretty simple point I'm making here fox - the policy of many parties to abolish the property tax is a ridiculous policy, imo of course. What's your view on abolition of the property tax? A fair policy?

As our great leader once said said

"It is morally unjust and unfair to tax a person's home, and by so doing grind him into the ground. Indeed in cases it could probably be unconstitutional"
"It reminds me of a vampire tax in that it drives a stake through the heart of home ownership, through enthusiasm and initiative, and sucks the life blood of people who want to own their own home and better their position"
"If the Government fail to appreciate the passion with which people will defend their rights to own their home and have it looking as well as it should, it is making a serious mistake"

[foxcommander]

I never mentioned USC, water tax or anything else. It's a pretty simple point I'm making here fox - the policy of many parties to abolish the property tax is a ridiculous policy, imo of course. What's your view on abolition of the property tax? A fair policy?

I see it as a despicable measure introduced to raise funds for the government due to their incompetence.

[macdanger2]

You spend 500k on an asset thats now worth 300k you are down 200k + the interest on 500k.  Someone who has no house is technically better off. His point was about wealth. If you're net assets are -200+ k you wouldn't be considered wealthy.

Who's the "his" you're talking about?? Did you forget to log into your other account?

Anyway, now you want to change the discussion to be about wealth?? And your point is basically that homeless people are wealthier than those in negative equity??

I made a point about the abolition of the property tax being a stupid proposal. Now you apparently disagree with that because.......??

Jesus wept. His point was that anyone who owns a house is wealthy and should be able to afford property tax. Im saying that's not necessarily the case. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Who is the "he" you're on about??

No, I (or "he" maybe?) said that anyone who owns a house is reasonably well off and aren't the poorest in society. Now you've replied talking about negative equity and the value of assets but NOTHING to do with why these people AREN'T the better off in society?? Or do you think that anyone whose liabilities outweigh their assets are poor? You seem to think that homeowners are worse off than those who don't own homes and that they shouldn't have to pay this big bad tax, is that correct?

[mikehunt]

You spend 500k on an asset thats now worth 300k you are down 200k + the interest on 500k.  Someone who has no house is technically better off. His point was about wealth. If you're net assets are -200+ k you wouldn't be considered wealthy.

Who's the "his" you're talking about?? Did you forget to log into your other account?

Anyway, now you want to change the discussion to be about wealth?? And your point is basically that homeless people are wealthier than those in negative equity??

I made a point about the abolition of the property tax being a stupid proposal. Now you apparently disagree with that because.......??

Jesus wept. His point was that anyone who owns a house is wealthy and should be able to afford property tax. Im saying that's not necessarily the case. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Who is the "he" you're on about??

No, I (or "he" maybe?) said that anyone who owns a house is reasonably well off and aren't the poorest in society. Now you've replied talking about negative equity and the value of assets but NOTHING to do with why these people AREN'T the better off in society?? Or do you think that anyone whose liabilities outweigh their assets are poor? You seem to think that homeowners are worse off than those who don't own homes and that they shouldn't have to pay this big bad tax, is that correct?

Where have I said they shouldn't pay property tax? You said anyone who owns a house is well off. That is wrong. I've clearly explained why you're wrong. I understand you don't want to admit that so will leave it at that.

[macdanger2]

You spend 500k on an asset thats now worth 300k you are down 200k + the interest on 500k.  Someone who has no house is technically better off. His point was about wealth. If you're net assets are -200+ k you wouldn't be considered wealthy.

Who's the "his" you're talking about?? Did you forget to log into your other account?

Anyway, now you want to change the discussion to be about wealth?? And your point is basically that homeless people are wealthier than those in negative equity??

I made a point about the abolition of the property tax being a stupid proposal. Now you apparently disagree with that because.......??

Jesus wept. His point was that anyone who owns a house is wealthy and should be able to afford property tax. Im saying that's not necessarily the case. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Who is the "he" you're on about??

No, I (or "he" maybe?) said that anyone who owns a house is reasonably well off and aren't the poorest in society. Now you've replied talking about negative equity and the value of assets but NOTHING to do with why these people AREN'T the better off in society?? Or do you think that anyone whose liabilities outweigh their assets are poor? You seem to think that homeowners are worse off than those who don't own homes and that they shouldn't have to pay this big bad tax, is that correct?

Where have I said they shouldn't pay property tax? You said anyone who owns a house is well off. That is wrong. I've clearly explained why you're wrong. I understand you don't want to admit that so will leave it at that.

I never said you said any such thing mike, I ("he") asked you a question about your opinion on paying/abolishing property tax is though - that's what the "?" signifies! I'm interested to know your opinion on whether abolishing the property tax is a good policy? You see, that was my original statement (that it's a rubbish policy) and when you replied, I assumed you had a position on it.

It turns out both mike & Foxy automatically disagree with anyone who is against abolishing property tax but for some reason, neither are willing to explain why or to actually give their own opinion on the matter....

[mikehunt]

You spend 500k on an asset thats now worth 300k you are down 200k + the interest on 500k.  Someone who has no house is technically better off. His point was about wealth. If you're net assets are -200+ k you wouldn't be considered wealthy.

Who's the "his" you're talking about?? Did you forget to log into your other account?

Anyway, now you want to change the discussion to be about wealth?? And your point is basically that homeless people are wealthier than those in negative equity??

I made a point about the abolition of the property tax being a stupid proposal. Now you apparently disagree with that because.......??

Jesus wept. His point was that anyone who owns a house is wealthy and should be able to afford property tax. Im saying that's not necessarily the case. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Who is the "he" you're on about??

No, I (or "he" maybe?) said that anyone who owns a house is reasonably well off and aren't the poorest in society. Now you've replied talking about negative equity and the value of assets but NOTHING to do with why these people AREN'T the better off in society?? Or do you think that anyone whose liabilities outweigh their assets are poor? You seem to think that homeowners are worse off than those who don't own homes and that they shouldn't have to pay this big bad tax, is that correct?

Where have I said they shouldn't pay property tax? You said anyone who owns a house is well off. That is wrong. I've clearly explained why you're wrong. I understand you don't want to admit that so will leave it at that.

I never said you said any such thing mike, I ("he") asked you a question about your opinion on paying/abolishing property tax is though - that's what the "?" signifies! I'm interested to know your opinion on whether abolishing the property tax is a good policy? You see, that was my original statement (that it's a rubbish policy) and when you replied, I assumed you had a position on it.

It turns out both mike & Foxy automatically disagree with anyone who is against abolishing property tax but for some reason, neither are willing to explain why or to actually give their own opinion on the matter....

The only thing I've disagreed with you on is that anyone who owns a home is well off and should have no problem paying property tax.

[macdanger2]

Sound, you don't disagree with my opinion that abolition of the property tax is a stupid policy so

[mikehunt]

Sound, you don't disagree with my opinion that abolition of the property tax is a stupid policy so

I have no problem paying property tax. Local authorities need funding. My major isssue is with how Fine Gael have favoured the wealthy over the poor since they got into power. The cronyism, secrecy over NAMA, IBRC and debt write downs for their buddies, Siteserve and Irish Water, treatment of Guarda whistle-blowers. Trying to discredit anyone asking legitimate questions in the Dail, Claire Daly being arrested and hand-cuffed. Irish Water protestors up in court on a regular basis while no one accountable for white collar crime. Blaming Fianna Fail for everything even though we know that if Fine Gael had been in power the crash would have been as bad. Christ even Labour were screaming for Fianna Fail to spend more during the boom.

[foxcommander]

It turns out both mike & Foxy automatically disagree with anyone who is against abolishing property tax but for some reason, neither are willing to explain why or to actually give their own opinion on the matter....

Why was this property tax introduced in 2013? Be honest.

[macdanger2]

To increase tax take and to broaden the tax base. AFAIK, it was a troika "recommendation"

I presume you have some other more elaborate reason to tell me about.....

[foxcommander]

To increase tax take and to broaden the tax base. AFAIK, it was a troika "recommendation"

I presume you have some other more elaborate reason to tell me about.....

And why the need to increase the tax take?

[foxcommander]

Daily queues at Capuchin Day Centre, Bow St, Dublin.

This is Ireland.

This appeared today

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/recession-is-getting-worse-not-better-says-homeless-charity-312936.html

Let's keep the recovery going

[Maguire01]

To increase tax take and to broaden the tax base. AFAIK, it was a troika "recommendation"

I presume you have some other more elaborate reason to tell me about.....

And why the need to increase the tax take?

Because the country was running a deficit.