Property tax...This will be popular

jimmmy

gurramok wrote: »

They do pay up to €1,000stg on the average gaff.

Now, the govt might do the same here, would you pay it?

Not after paying tens of thousands more in stamp duty than in the UK. No way will the general public pay on the double...esp with the govt mis-spending money by the tens of billions.

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

Let me get this right, 'ordinary joe' bought the property with money he didn't have.

No, Joe would have often coughed up the deposit, perhaps the stamp duty, furnishings etc...he would have got a bank or building society loan for the rest, to be paid back over perhaps 25 years.

NewDubliner wrote: »

and intended to pay for it by exploiting the tenant's earnings? .

No, he is paying for it out of his earnings, which are known to the revenue commissioners. No tenant is exploited...in fact if less landlords bought properties, rents would be higher, so you could say the effect of tens of thousands of people buying investment properties was increasing the supply of rental accomodation, thus lessening rents, theregfore doing the opposite of "exploitation of tenants "

NewDubliner wrote: »

The tenants pay for the property but 'ordinary joe' gets to own it?.

The tenants get to rent it if they so wish...nobody forces them to do so. The bank owns the property. After 20, 25 or 30 years of maintaining the property, cleaning after tenants, managing it etc the landlord gets to own the property if the loan is paid off....thereby providing him with a little income in his / her old age....if everything has gone according to plan.

NewDubliner wrote: »

That's a 'money for nothing scheme'.

Whats a money for nothing scheme ....no property owner who bought in the past 5 years has got money for nothing ?

gurramok

jimmmy wrote: »

Not after paying tens of thousands more in stamp duty than in the UK. No way will the general public pay on the double...esp with the govt mis-spending money by the tens of billions.

No-one forced them to pay tens of thousands more in stamp duty than in the UK.

The vast majority of the general public you speak of don't own more than one home so they will not shed a tear.

bobbbb

gurramok wrote: »

They do pay up to €1,000stg on the average gaff.

Now, the govt might do the same here, would you pay it?

No. Would you pay that here, plus all the stealth taxes and stamp duty and so on. Not to mention the levies.

gurramok

bobbbb wrote: »

No. Would you pay that here, plus all the stealth taxes and stamp duty and so on. Not to mention the levies.

Yes, i would pay that here. Every other country has a property tax, why not us?

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

No, he is paying for it out of his earnings,

The asset is being bought using the earnings of his tenants. Joe has 'bought' the house with somebody else's money.

jimmmy wrote: »

was increasing the supply of rental accomodation, thus lessening rents, theregfore doing the opposite of "exploitation of tenants "

You make him sound like a philantropist.

Problem is, 'joe' didn't factor in a surplus of supply or fall in demand when making his investment decision and if he defaults, you and I will see to it that the bank won't be out of pocket.

But never mind, if 'joe' has kept up his PRSI contributsions, he'll receive an index-linked, state-guaranteed pension, more valuable than any amount he paid in & if his tenants can afford to pay his mortgage for him (through their rents), he'll have a second pension and a valuable, tradeable asset, at no cost to himself.

Serenity Now!

jimmmy wrote: »

Some people did take out a 90% mortgage on an investment property because that was intended to be their pension. They may already have a 90 % or 100% mortgage on their own residence...or they may even be renting their own accomodation to live in. Such people are ordinary Joes...I know some people like that who make less than the public sector average of 966 p.w. Do not forget if ye do not have a fat public sector pension to look forward to, or ye want to provide for yer kids education, some people want to save....and investing in a buy to let apartment was encouraged by the govt, and it had the added social benefit of increasing the amount of rental property in the country.....plus it generated a lot of money for the govt

In other words, they backed the wrong 'sure thing' that has transpired not to be so 'sure'.
Guess what? So did everyone else who might have been lucky enough to buy a second or even a third property. And they all have minds of their own. Somebody who has been able to cough up deposits on two properties is no "Ordinary Joe". If they've gone up to their neck in debt in order to buy further properties (or other items requiring loan equity), they're just crap with money.

No government has bloody forced anybody to risk money on property.

I have three properties in my name. Two here in Ireland and one overseas. I pay my taxes and never borrowed beyond my means. And I know I'm not one of these alleged "Ordinary Joes" because I've been able to pursue these investments within my own limits.
And no, I'm not in the public service either.

Serenity Now!

NewDubliner wrote: »

But never mind, if 'joe' has kept up his PRSI contributsions, he'll receive an index-linked, state-guaranteed pension, more valuable than any amount he paid in & if his tenants can afford to pay his mortgage for him (through their rents), he'll have a second pension and a valuable, tradeable asset, at no cost to himself.

"Ordinary Joe" is obviously not good with copious amount of money used for deposits in house loans. Joe should have left his investment planning to the experts and hired a broker...but no, apparently the government made him do it! :eek:

blast05

Did you pay an inheritance tax on the land? If you did then you could probably argue a case. If you didn't then you'll be coughing up should a property tax be introduced.

No i didn't pay a tax on the land cos i didn't have to (and it wasn't inheritance). And again, why should i have to pay a government tax on my luxury item ? Explain to me why i should have to pay a tax on this luxury item while owners of private art collections or luxury boat owners on the Shannon or 101 other things do not have to pay a tax on their luxury items ?

You didn't invest anything into the local economy by the way. You made avail of local services, paid for them then got what you wanted. Thats not an investment in the community. Its an investment for you alone.

Of course it was an investment in the local economy, and no - this is not an investment - it is spending money on what is a luxury item for me. I got 3 lads to do most of the work - they were all working on it on or off for more or less a year. 2 of the 3 have young families and unlike a couple of their mates during the year of construction (2007) - they did not have to go to work in construction in London and fly home once every 2 or 3 weeks to their wives and young families. Not alone was my money an investment in the local economy but it also had a social benefit to it as well.

Seriously, are you just trying to take the p*ss with your comment .... take Dell - they invested hundreds of millions in Limerick over the years to "get what they wanted" as an investment for their shareholders. In doing so the utilised the "local services". The only difference between this and me is the scale of the investment. Explain the difference.....

IMHO this all seems to boil down to "you have more than me (despite the fact you worked your boll*ux of and saved as much as possible for years to have it) and this is not fair and thus you should be taxed for it"

old boy

instead of investing in the stock market, investment was in the housing market

NewDubliner

old boy wrote: »

instead of investing in the stock market, investment was in the housing market

That's where it went wrong.

Investment in industry that sells to the international market has a potential to be sustainable due to the huge number of possible customers outside of the country.

Investment in the housing market was not sustainable and did not bring in new money from outside of the country. In fact it's likely that much of the money left the country through the use of foreign labour and materials.

Worse again, while housing gives some comfort to workers and may help them be more productive, it's not like investing in industrial machinery which is immediately productive. And, it's likely that by building houses a long way from centres of employment, the 'investment in the housing market' probably negatively impacted the economy through increased congestion, long commutes and demands for new infrastructure to support this kind of lifestyle.

Serenity Now!

blast05 wrote: »

No i didn't pay a tax on the land cos i didn't have to (and it wasn't inheritance). And again, why should i have to pay a government tax on my luxury item ? Explain to me why i should have to pay a tax on this luxury item while owners of private art collections or luxury boat owners on the Shannon or 101 other things do not have to pay a tax on their luxury items ?

It was "given" to you then? What did you do? Put a pair of wellies at the back door and pretend to the council you need planning permission as you were to work the land?
You didn't pay an inheritance or transaction tax of any kind and you will refuse to pay any property tax if introduced?
For your sake, keep your fingers crossed that you never get audited.

blast05 wrote: »

Of course it was an investment in the local economy, and no - this is not an investment - it is spending money on what is a luxury item for me. I got 3 lads to do most of the work - they were all working on it on or off for more or less a year. 2 of the 3 have young families and unlike a couple of their mates during the year of construction (2007) - they did not have to go to work in construction in London and fly home once every 2 or 3 weeks to their wives and young families. Not alone was my money an investment in the local economy but it also had a social benefit to it as well

Seriously, are you just trying to take the p*ss with your comment .... take Dell - they invested hundreds of millions in Limerick over the years to "get what they wanted" as an investment for their shareholders. In doing so the utilised the "local services". The only difference between this and me is the scale of the investment. Explain the difference.....

On the subject of "investment", Dell are there to exploit tax benefits. You just won't pay any.
At the bottom of all this, there is a person or an organisation that owns the land Dell's premises are situated upon. They will be liable to a property tax should it be introduced and will have to pay it. Unless of course it was "given" to them, isn't that right? :rolleyes:
The way you talk about investment in the local area, you'd swear you were bragging about building a leper colony at this rate.

blast05 wrote: »

IMHO this all seems to boil down to "you have more than me (despite the fact you worked your boll*ux of and saved as much as possible for years to have it) and this is not fair and thus you should be taxed for it"

You have more than who? Me? I'm not saying that at all. You might or you mightn't. Thats hardly the basis of my replies.
I'll pay what I have to on what I "worked my b*****s off" for and "and saved as much as possible for".
What next? Refusal to pay the income levies?

blast05

It was "given" to you then?

Everything above board, no tax liability, nothing to be found if audited. The piece of land that was given was worth peanuts without something being built on it.

On the subject of "investment", Dell are there to exploit tax benefits. You just won't pay any.

Cost of construction and furnishing for me - approx 220K. Ball park 40% of this ended up back in the governments pocket (i'm using the figure that i have seen routinely quoted here for construction) ..... so remind what i am not paying ?
How much would have ended up in the governments pocket if i spent it on a combination of a months gambling spree in Las Vegas, a decent cruiser on the Shannon that i purchased outside Ireland and spend 50K on art.
Or alternatively if i built a large cattle shed the same 40% would end up in the governments coffers as per a house but there would be no question of a subsequent property tax. And if its some sort of eco-green angle you are worried about - the blight on the landscape of a one-off house versus a cattle shed is the same thing ..... and neither property are in any way a drain on public resources - so why tax the home of people rather than cows ?!! The only difference is there are a hell of a lot more ozone damaging gases coming from the cow-shed.

The way you talk about investment in the local area, you'd swear you were bragging about building a leper colony at this rate.

The reality is where i am from in rural Ireland has only gained from the Celtic Tiger in 3 ways - increased construction of 1 off-housing, increased grants to farmers and higher disposable income for all the sons and daughters that return from Dublun, Galway etc at weekends. This is similar to hundreds of rural areas.

there is a person or an organisation that owns the land Dell's premises are situated upon. They will be liable to a property tax should it be introduced and will have to pay it.

So it'll be - sorry Mr multinational that is providing hundreds of jobs, but your premises of hundred of thousands of square feet make you liable to a property tax of half a million per year ....... in the curent jobs climate can you really see this happening ?

What next? Refusal to pay the income levies?

I have no probelm with income levies. I almost have no problem with tax on principle primary residence. But i do have a problem with a tax on luxury items ..... or at least if they are going to tax luxury items then tax all luxury items rather than just the soft target. Then again, ironically, if they tax it based on a persons ability to pay then i'd say i should be fine ....... and if they do that then why not just increase the income levies instead ?

Serenity Now!

blast05 wrote: »

So it'll be - sorry Mr multinational that is providing hundreds of jobs, but your premises of hundred of thousands of square feet make you liable to a property tax of half a million per year ....... in the curent jobs climate can you really see this happening ?

HP in Leixlip, for example, do not own the land their plant is on. It is leaseheld. I'm sure they have some sort of incentive to balance off against should a tax be imposed. It is laughable that you have compared yourself to these firms, just to get a house built.

blast05 wrote: »

again, ironically, if they tax it based on a persons ability to pay then i'd say i should be fine ....... and if they do that then why not just increase the income levies instead ?

Not everyone owns a property. The income levy will have squeaked as high as it will go.

blast05

It is laughable that you have compared yourself to these firms, just to get a house built.

Why ? Again to go over old ground re investment in the economy - Dell made use of the services available in Limerick for 20 years for their own benefit and employed 2000 people in doing so. If they made any profit then they paid a tax on it.
I made use of the serives of people in my area for 1 year for my benefit and employed 3 people in doing so. If i decide to rent the house then i will have to pay 41% tax on all rental income (a lot more than Dell).

To get back to basics, in an earlier post you said:

Did you pay an inheritance tax on the land? If you did then you could probably argue a case.

If i for argument sake i did pay inheritance tax on the land (its value was about 30K so i gueess the inheritance tax would have been pretty small - don't know what the percentage) .... would you agree that it is harsh to be penalising me ?

It simple - a tax on luxury items is an unfair tax.

gurramok

blast05 wrote: »

It simple - a tax on luxury items is an unfair tax.

Thats life.

Why should Ireland be any different to all EU countries who have a property tax?

Its obvious their systems are doing something right(stability) by having such a tax and their populaces are happy to pay their way.

jimmmy

gurramok wrote: »

Why should Ireland be any different to all EU countries who have a property tax?

Ireland has the highest property tax of all...its called stamp duty. Ask anyone who paid 9% stamp duty ....tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of euro ) in Ireland .....or indeed the other taxes incurred in house construction in the past number of years ( vat, income tax, indirectly sometimes social housing requirement in the case of apartments / estates - a sort of tax etc )

gurramok

jimmmy wrote: »

Ireland has the highest property tax of all...its called stamp duty. Ask anyone who paid 9% stamp duty ....tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of euro ) in Ireland .....or indeed the other taxes incurred in house construction in the past number of years ( vat, income tax, indirectly sometimes social housing requirement in the case of apartments / estates - a sort of tax etc )

Thats not the issue here. The poster is stating he has a luxury item and wishes not to be taxed on it at all.

Yes, take away the stamp duty and replace it with a property tax but it sounds to me that won't satisfy the poster.

blast05

Thats not the issue here. The poster is stating he has a luxury item and wishes not to be taxed on it at all.

Yes, take away the stamp duty and replace it with a property tax but it sounds to me that won't satisfy the poster.

Yes, a luxury item i have burst my bo**oux to save for for 10 years
If i was dependent on the council for water or sewage then i would have no argument.
If i rented the house then i would have no argument.

When i 'bought' (built) my luxury item, i was giving 40% of my savings from the previous 10 years to the government in the form of VAT, etc etc and now i am going to have to give another probably 1% of its value annually.

And the thing that bugs the sh*t out me most (although i try not to let on) is that i have a work colleague who purcahsed 2 apartments in Shanghai about 5 years ago with some inheritance money. He pumped his money into the Chinese economy and does not have to pay an annual tax while i put my money into the Irish economy and get screwed because of it ... and of course the work colleague loves reminding me.

gurramok

You didn't have to build it or have paid that 40% VAT.

As its your holiday home, you could of rented one nearby and save yourself alot of financial grief.

jimmmy

gurramok wrote: »

Thats not the issue here. The poster is stating he has a luxury item and wishes not to be taxed on it at all.

Re. luxury item someone has saved up for / paid tax to acquire, he has a point. If they tax holiday homes on an annual basis, why not mobile homes, horses, paintings and works of art, expensive jewellrey, yachts, etc ? Why not encourage everyone to keep their assets outside the state ?

However, there are people for whom an investment property was not a luxury ....it was a pension plan, where people paid tax up front. A pension plan that is now in negative equity and possibly empty ( like over 200,000 dwellings are around the country ). It would be im-moral to charge tax on these peoples liabilities now. Like kicking someone when they are down.

10000maniacs

The bottom line is people have already paid 45-50% tax on the money they have ploughed into their properties during ther boom., monies which have subsequently been squandered by the government on keeping the public service lard-arses fat (and themselves fat for that matter)
They need to look for their money elsewhere. They have already screwed the private sector into the ground.
How far does a government have to go before they are lynched out of office?

bobbbb

jimmmy wrote: »

Re. luxury item someone has saved up for / paid tax to acquire, he has a point. If they tax holiday homes on an annual basis, why not mobile homes, horses, paintings and works of art, expensive jewellrey, yachts, etc ? Why not encourage everyone to keep their assets outside the state ?

Dont be giving them ideas.
They'll tax farting if they thought it would bring in money.

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

However, there are people for whom an investment property was not a luxury ....it was a pension plan, where people paid tax up front. A pension plan that is now in negative equity and possibly empty ( like over 200,000 dwellings are around the country ). It would be im-moral to charge tax on these peoples liabilities now. Like kicking someone when they are down.

An immoral pension plan, using the tenants money to buy a property for an 'investor' who put little or nothing in himself. It was a risky 'money-for-nothing; investment in the housing 'ponzi' scheme.

I'm surprised you're so sympathetic to such people. I thought it was your position that people should pay for their own pensions 100%?

Any property tax should be based on the cost of public services relating to the property.

Serenity Now!

jimmmy wrote: »

It would be im-moral to charge tax on these peoples liabilities now. Like kicking someone when they are down.

They're not liabilities. They're assets.

blast05

An immoral pension plan, using the tenants money to buy a property for an 'investor' who put little or nothing in himself. It was a risky 'money-for-nothing; investment in the housing 'ponzi' scheme.

Equally its immoral to invest in the majority of major multinational companies with stock market listings wheter it be a petroleum company in Nigeria that abuses civil rights and puts people lives at risk for the benefit of cheaper construction of gas pipelines or whether it be a footwear and sports leisure gear maker who uses cheap child labour in sweat houses to minimise production costs.

Even for any company that does note engage in these type of activities, they are ultimately focused on making a profit and if it can be argued that it is not moral for the owner of a property to make money from it then equally it can be argued that it is immoral for any company to sell at a price which leads to them making a profit - as this compares with the landlord who wants to make a profit from his property ............. and pretty much all companies and landlords start off by borrowing money to get started.

However, the reality is the world needs these companies just as the world has always needed people to invest in property for the benefit of those who do not want or can not afford to buy.

NewDubliner

blast05 wrote: »

However, the reality is the world needs these companies just as the world has always needed people to invest in property for the benefit of those who do not want or can not afford to buy.

Companies that export products or services based on hard work, local employment and ingenuity are what we need right now. Not, useless empty houses in Leitrim bought in the hope of easy 'free' money.

blast05

NewDubliner wrote: »

Companies that export products or services based on hard work, local employment and ingenuity are what we need right now. Not, useless empty houses in Leitrim bought in the hope of easy 'free' money.

I couldn't agree more .... even if those companies are 'immoral' enough to try and make profits at the expense of other people.
But if we can't get enough of those companies then we should NOT suddenly decide to tax luxury items and (and i would only argue this to a lesser degree) apply a tax on assets with negative equity that were only purchased by people following a government lead. A complete reversal in policy by the government on this latter issue is what is seemingly likely which is little more than a 2 fingered salute by the government to those who bought into the pyramid dream put in place by the government.

gurramok

blast05 wrote: »

However, the reality is the world needs these companies just as the world has always needed people to invest in property for the benefit of those who do not want or can not afford to buy.

Thought yours was a holiday home and not a rental?

blast05

gurramok wrote: »

Thought yours was a holiday home and not a rental?

It is.
I'm just extending the discussion.
For what its worth, i also have a rental - my wifes place before we got married - it is probably fast approaching negative equity, i.e.: 50% of its peak value ..... and as i said i don't really have too much or an argument re paying tax on properties like this but i certainly can see the point being made by those people who purchased in 2006/07 who were merely jumping on to a government orchestrated pyramid scheme.