Second homes tax

ART6

I read in my local paper today that John Gormley has decided that elderly people in nursing homes will have to pay the second homes tax if they still own their own house but don't continuously live in it. Also, any elderly person living in a "granny flat" will have to pay the tax on the principle that the main house is a second home. There was I thinking that there were some depths to which that man would not sink. Once again, hit the weak and the vulnerable:mad:

Gurgle

ART6 wrote: »

I read in my local paper today that John Gormley has decided that elderly people in nursing homes will have to pay the second homes tax if they still own their own house but don't continuously live in it. Also, any elderly person living in a "granny flat" will have to pay the tax on the principle that the main house is a second home. There was I thinking that there were some depths to which that man would not sink. Once again, hit the weak and the vulnerable:mad:

I think you'll find that the weak and vulnerable old people are the ones who don't own multiple properties.

LoLth

isnt a granny flat just an extension to an existing home and not actually a property in itself ? ie: granny lives in a granny flat attached/in the grounds of her daughters house then it falls under the demesne of the daughter's house and is included in that as the principle dwelling OR it is treated seperately and so both the house (Daughter) and the flat (granny) are principle dwellings. either way, its exempt from a tax on property owned beyond the primary dwelling.

not sure about the nursing home bit though. it sounds wrong but with this government you never know....

Riskymove

LoLth wrote: »

isnt a granny flat just an extension to an existing home and not actually a property in itself ? ie: granny lives in a granny flat attached/in the grounds of her daughters house then it falls under the demesne of the daughter's house and is included in that as the principle dwelling OR it is treated seperately and so both the house (Daughter) and the flat (granny) are principle dwellings. either way, its exempt from a tax on property owned beyond the primary dwelling.

not sure about the nursing home bit though. it sounds wrong but with this government you never know....

I understand that on amendment there is a rider that if the home is within a few km of eachother they are exemt

this is to cover the idea of a second structure primarily for a relative


the nursing home idea may well be correct as I have heard it may also apply to someone in prison!!:pac:

ART6

Riskymove wrote: »

the nursing home idea may well be correct as I have heard it may also apply to someone in prison!!:pac:

While I don't know what the yardstick of this new screwing fundraising idea is, I imagine it's that if someone is permanently or continuously resident in one place while owning another the tax applies. In that case, logically, people in prison would be liable, as would those in the armed services. JG could just be upsetting the wrong people here and could be risking anything from armed insurrection to having his bike nicked:D

ardmacha

This whole thing is joke. All houses should pay tax, people with two houses would then have to pay twice as much tax.

Gurgle

ardmacha wrote: »

All houses should pay tax

why?

Just because you don't happen to own a house?

IMHO, no goods/services should be taxed unless there is some state involvment in the provision.

ART6

Gurgle wrote: »

why?

Just because you don't happen to own a house?

IMHO, no goods/services should be taxed unless there is some state involvment in the provision.

+1. I have never understood why I should pay tax for something I already own from income that has already been taxed to the hilt. No doubt the public highwaymen would claim that there is a state involvement in that the state provides such services as local government, schools, etc. The flaw in that argument is that LAs are funded partly from the exchequer and partly from motor tax, so have already been paid for. That, of course, presents another opportunity for another double tax and is, therefore, irresistable.:mad:

sparklepants

Gurgle wrote: »

why?

Just because you don't happen to own a house?

IMHO, no goods/services should be taxed unless there is some state involvment in the provision.

But there's some state involvement in the provision of almost everything. There's certainly state involvement in the provision of the social and physical infrastructure that makes our houses habitable.

ART6 wrote: »

No doubt the public highwaymen would claim that there is a state involvement in that the state provides such services as local government, schools, etc. The flaw in that argument is that LAs are funded partly from the exchequer and partly from motor tax, so have already been paid for.

But if the funding doesn't cover the expense then these services haven't been paid for. Seeking to cover the costs of these services is not the same as double taxation.

Gurgle

sparklepants wrote: »

But if the funding doesn't cover the expense then these services haven't been paid for.

They've been paid for, over and over again. The fact that the money was wasted / stolen and not spent properly doesn't justify charging again.

sparklepants wrote: »

Seeking to cover the costs of these services is not the same as double taxation.

No, we already have double-taxation. This would be triple-taxation.

sparklepants

Gurgle wrote: »

They've been paid for, over and over again. The fact that the money was wasted / stolen and not spent properly doesn't justify charging again.

No, we already have double-taxation. This would be triple-taxation.

It's where we're at! I'm not happy about the state of our finances or the performance of our government either. But how else do you propose that we plug the gap? What credible alternative to taxing the Irish citizen is there?

There's no truly just form of taxation, as no scheme can take account of the different circumstances of all individuals that are affected by the tax. However, no tax at all, as you appear to advocate, is even more unjust. An economy that cannot provide essential services due to lack of funding discriminates against all of its citizens.

ART6

sparklepants wrote: »

But there's some state involvement in the provision of almost everything. There's certainly state involvement in the provision of the social and physical infrastructure that makes our houses habitable.


But if the funding doesn't cover the expense then these services haven't been paid for. Seeking to cover the costs of these services is not the same as double taxation.

True, but the question is how should the shortfall be recovered? Everyone uses public services (AGS, fire, ambulance, roads, etc etc) not just owners of houses, so why should those owners be the only ones to make up the balance? IMHO the government (if we actually have one) should bite the bullet and increase income tax or VAT and be honest about why they are doing it, then everyone bears a part of the burden.

sparklepants wrote: »

It's where we're at! I'm not happy about the state of our finances or the performance of our government either. But how else do you propose that we plug the gap? What credible alternative to taxing the Irish citizen is there?

There's no truly just form of taxation, as no scheme can take account of the different circumstances of all individuals that are affected by the tax. However, no tax at all, as you appear to advocate, is even more unjust. An economy that cannot provide essential services due to lack of funding discriminates against all of its citizens.

A good start might be to get rid of quangos and make ministers responsible in the jobs they are paid to do, stop hiring swarms of management consultants and expect the Civil Service to provide the necessary expertise, stop creating wild IT programmes that run many times over budget and don't work, apply proper and professional controls to infrastructure projects and were they go wrong or badly over budget, hold the relevant minister responsible and sack him before the situation is out of control.

zod

whats the implication for anyone who owns a house/apartment abroad ?

dan_d

In relation to the thing about elderly people in nursing homes having to pay tax - we have an elderly relative in a private nursing home. She owns (and has done for...40yrs?) a small 2 bed flat. She doesn't qualify for public nursing home beds for various different reasons, but one reason is that she has a property which is considered an asset and raises the amount of money she's worth. Instead, she is paying from a small enough nest egg of savings, for a nursing home at 750 eur per week. That doesn't include the extras she pays for newspaper being delivered, a tv in the room and any phonecalls she makes (which are routed through the central switchboard of the nursing home). We have been told that, since her savings are almost run out, she has to sell her home to continue paying for the nursing home. Once she has absolutely no money left, then she will be considered for a public bed in a nursing home.At this stage, various members of the family are taking it in turns to pay her fee without telling her, so she has some bit of money left, and she is very upset at the thought of having to sell her flat, even though she probably won't live in it again.
I know this isn't directly related to the thread topic, but I thought I'd throw it out there, just to show you how elderly people who have worked here and paid tax here their whole lives are now being treated anyway. We should hardly be surprised at this new plan.

Riskymove

tbh I would be surprised, regardless of the actual law, if lcoal authorites did not being in their own waiver shemes, a la waste charges

jimmmy

zod wrote: »

whats the implication for anyone who owns a house/apartment abroad ?

They are the relatively lucky ones, compared to people who wanted to support the Irish economy and holiday at home, and many of whom invested money ( often borrowed ) in the Irish economy.

ART6

dan_d wrote: »

In relation to the thing about elderly people in nursing homes having to pay tax - we have an elderly relative in a private nursing home. She owns (and has done for...40yrs?) a small 2 bed flat. She doesn't qualify for public nursing home beds for various different reasons, but one reason is that she has a property which is considered an asset and raises the amount of money she's worth. Instead, she is paying from a small enough nest egg of savings, for a nursing home at 750 eur per week. That doesn't include the extras she pays for newspaper being delivered, a tv in the room and any phonecalls she makes (which are routed through the central switchboard of the nursing home). We have been told that, since her savings are almost run out, she has to sell her home to continue paying for the nursing home. Once she has absolutely no money left, then she will be considered for a public bed in a nursing home.At this stage, various members of the family are taking it in turns to pay her fee without telling her, so she has some bit of money left, and she is very upset at the thought of having to sell her flat, even though she probably won't live in it again.
I know this isn't directly related to the thread topic, but I thought I'd throw it out there, just to show you how elderly people who have worked here and paid tax here their whole lives are now being treated anyway. We should hardly be surprised at this new plan.

I had that situation with my mother. She didn't have much in the way of savings, having lived in hard times, but she did have her own small house that she and my father had struggled to pay for all of their lives. That had to go eventually but by the sound of it, if she was alive now and still owned it Gormley would hit her for tax to help her celebrate her 100th birthday. I try to be calm about these things, but just the name of that man makes me want to spit nails:mad:

graduate

IMHO, no goods/services should be taxed unless there is some state involvment in the provision.

Firstly it is unrealistic to raise all taxation from direct taxation, as the rates would discourage earning. Some taxation on goods and services encourages people to work and earn more to afford these things.

Quite a few houses were purchased with an interest subsidy in the form of mortgage interest relief, so the State did help out with their provision, to say nothing of providing roads, water needed by the house.

Indirect taxation also has the advantage of being paid by people who haven't been taxed to hilt, quite a few trophy houses were built with money that was not subject to income taxation.

The present arrangements mean that a person with a €400,000 house in Dublin and a small cottage worth €100,000 in the country pays this tax, while someone with a house worth €1,000,000 pays nothing.

lugodee

Does anyone know what the situation is for someone who is a caretaker living onsite in a house provided for the purpose but who has also purchased a house to retire to?

ceret

Gurgle wrote: »

why?

Just because you don't happen to own a house?

IMHO, no goods/services should be taxed unless there is some state involvment in the provision.

Because taxes should be used to distribute money from the rich to the poor. The rich, on average, own more houses than the poor. The rich pay taxes on the many houses they own, and then the state uses it to pay for houses that it lets the poor live in. It's called living in a liberal modern society.