"Debt sharing will be good for the economy": nonsense?

silly houseowner

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Anyone who paid CGT entered into a transaction knowing that they would do so and still deemed the transaction beneficial for themselves. It's not like they were engaged in charitably-minded voluntary tax paying or something.

and whats your point iwas refering to the post that said nobody wanted to share their positive equity and i said they did through capital gains.What gives you the impression i implyed it was charitable

Monty Burnz

silly houseowner wrote: »

and whats your point iwas refering to the post that said nobody wanted to share their positive equity and i said they did through capital gains.What gives you the impression i implyed it was charitable

You only paid CGT if you sold up. And it wasn't voluntary. The post, as you point out, stated that nobody would have wanted to share their equity if prices hadn't crashed. Are you saying that they did want to pay CGT? Is there any chance they would have volunteered to pay all of their equity in tax (the same way as people want all their negative equity paid off for them)?

silly houseowner

fe1sagain wrote: »

Not true. Everyone new about the Capital Gains Tax exemption for Principle Private Residences.

And for Capital Acquisitions Tax - ie inheritance tax, this was easily avoided through greater distribution.

whats not true are you saying people who bought second and third houses to rent and then sell at a profit [the people which most of the anger in this thread is directed at] didnt pay capital gains.And as for principle private residence would the developer not have paid tax when house is first sold.And no not sticking up for developers just sayin the state did gain.

lmimmfn

earlyevening wrote: »

The quicker its done the quicker the property market hits the bottom, the quicker transactions start again and the banks can get rid of the the houses they've repossessed.

Rent relief is v low. Cut rent allowance perhaps which will bring down rents. Everything needs to be brought down to a new lower sustainable base. EVERYTHING.

agree 110% on cutting rent allowance

silly houseowner

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You only paid CGT if you sold up. And it wasn't voluntary. The post, as you point out, stated that nobody would have wanted to share their equity if prices hadn't crashed. Are you saying that they did want to pay CGT? Is there any chance they would have volunteered to pay all of their equity in tax (the same way as people want all their negative equity paid off for them)?

your right they didnt want to they were forced to pay part or their profits in tax and every body gained but now the shoes on the other foot should people not be aloud the same percentage of the negative equity wiped out by the state and mabye let the banks take of the pain also as they gained more than any1 during the boom and then let the homeowner also carry an appropriate amount of the negative equity intead of it all

Godge

silly houseowner wrote: »

your right they didnt want to they were forced to pay part or their profits in tax and every body gained but now the shoes on the other foot should people not be aloud the same percentage of the negative equity wiped out by the state and mabye let the banks take of the pain also as they gained more than any1 during the boom and then let the homeowner also carry an appropriate amount of the negative equity intead of it all

oh, great another nutty idea out of teletubby land.

Who exactly is going to pay for the negative equity wiped out by the state? Shall we put a 10% levy on social welfare recipients and public servants and use the money to keep people in houses? Maybe we should just increase income tax by another 10% and give the money away to people with mortgages?

Monty Burnz

silly houseowner wrote: »

your right they didnt want to they were forced to pay part or their profits in tax and every body gained but now the shoes on the other foot should people not be aloud the same percentage of the negative equity wiped out by the state and mabye let the banks take of the pain also as they gained more than any1 during the boom and then let the homeowner also carry an appropriate amount of the negative equity intead of it all

This has been covered again and again in the thread. The banks were wiped out already. They have taken all the pain possible - they are dead, and the owners of the banks lost all their money.

Although perhaps you feel that those who bought shares in the 'safe' banks to look after their families and pay for their pensions should get compensation from the government too? What about the people that lost all their pension money because they saved it in Irish bank shares?

silly houseowner

Godge wrote: »

oh, great another nutty idea out of teletubby land.

Who exactly is going to pay for the negative equity wiped out by the state? Shall we put a 10% levy on social welfare recipients and public servants and use the money to keep people in houses? Maybe we should just increase income tax by another 10% and give the money away to people with mortgages?

and how do you propose the house owner on social welfare with 2 kids gets the money, blood out of a stone comes to mind. maybe its better off just let the banks take the house and then the government can take the hit for all the negative equity is that more preferable to you than the teletuby land idea.

silly houseowner

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This has been covered again and again in the thread. The banks were wiped out already. They have taken all the pain possible - they are dead, and the owners of the banks lost all their money.

Although perhaps you feel that those who bought shares in the 'safe' banks to look after their families and pay for their pensions should get compensation from the government too? What about the people that lost all their pension money because they saved it in Irish bank shares?

and do you think its better for the houseowner to default and walk away scot free and claim off the state for rent suppliments or can you put another solution forward

Monty Burnz

silly houseowner wrote: »

and how do you propose the house owner on social welfare with 2 kids gets the money, blood out of a stone comes to mind. maybe its better off just let the banks take the house and then the government can take the hit for all the negative equity is that more preferable to you than the teletuby land idea.

That sounds much more sensible, yes. The government will have to take the hit either way, no?

fe1sagain

silly houseowner wrote: »

whats not true are you saying people who bought second and third houses to rent and then sell at a profit [the people which most of the anger in this thread is directed at] didnt pay capital gains.And as for principle private residence would the developer not have paid tax when house is first sold.And no not sticking up for developers just sayin the state did gain.

Im not 100% sure how companies involved in property development worked out their taxes. Im not sure if there is capital gains tax for the developer who built the house and sells off the plans? Even if there is the amount of CGT payable depends on when the house was sold off by the developer. A house built in 02 and sold to family who live til 05 would be liable for more CGT in 05 than 02 as property prices were rising but then PPR would absolve the liability for the family. Capital allowances may also have been used I'm not too sure?

You can only have one PPR at any one time but this wouldnt stop someone changing their address to the property for a few months and for it to be used as the owners PPR before sale in order to benefit from the relief. Didnt always work but it the correct circumstances it could be done.

In any event CGT and CAT were in no way as big a contributer to the economy as stamp duty.

silly houseowner

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That sounds much more sensible, yes. The government will have to take the hit either way, no?

no as i said in the previous post the homeowner should be left with an appropriate percentage of the negative equity instead of it all wheras if they default the state will absorb all negative equity

silly houseowner

fe1sagain wrote: »

Im not 100% sure how companies involved in property development worked out their taxes. Im not sure if there is capital gains tax for the developer who built the house and sells off the plans? Even if there is the amount of CGT payable depends on when the house was sold off by the developer. A house built in 02 and sold to family who live til 05 would be liable for more CGT in 05 than 02 as property prices were rising but then PPR would absolve the liability for the family. Capital allowances may also have been used I'm not too sure?

You can only have one PPR at any one time but this wouldnt stop someone changing their address to the property for a few months and for it to be used as the owners PPR before sale in order to benefit from the relief. Didnt always work but it the correct circumstances it could be done.

In any event CGT and CAT were in no way as big a contributer to the economy as stamp duty.

which was my point in my first post that everybody gained from the over priced houses not just the people who bought

Monty Burnz

silly houseowner wrote: »

which was my point in my first post that everybody gained from the over priced houses not just the people who bought

But people who buy shares buy stamp duty on them too - so how about compensating the owners of the banks who lost all their money? Same logic.

swordofislam

silly houseowner wrote: »

no as i said in the previous post the homeowner should be left with an appropriate percentage of the negative equity instead of it all wheras if they default the state will absorb all negative equity

Better to reform the bankruptcy laws and let people start over instead of this deluded attempt to hold on to a home that they cannot afford.

If you can afford your house and you are in negative equity SUCK IT UP!
If you cannot afford your house and you are in negative equity MOVE TO NEWRY AND GO BANKRUPT!

Tea drinker

silly houseowner wrote: »

which was my point in my first post that everybody gained from the over priced houses not just the people who bought

no, it cost me an awful lot of money as I was priced out of buying a house. No one gave me the positive equity on the way up, they only want to pass the negative equity to me.

thebman

silly houseowner wrote: »

which was my point in my first post that everybody gained from the over priced houses not just the people who bought

That isn't even remotely the case unless you ignore everything that happened to people from 2008 onwards.

The policies of the boom and bust have cost Ireland a lot more than we could ever have gotten out of the boom. This is why boom/bust cycles are so undesirable. The bust usually ends up costing more than you gain from the boom.

noxqs

In short: 'Booms' are like peeing your pants during an expedition to Antarctica. Wonderful and warm for a while but then a lingering regret bubbles to the surface. And then, full scale regret, panic and anguish as it dawns upon one that this was the worst decision ever.

Ireland is now facing the worst economical crisis as a free nation, ever.

Whatever "the boom" brought about, such as a higher standard of living and new cars etc. could have been built sustainably without "the boom". "the boom" was short term greed without long term planning.

Honestly - I do believe we should'a hired some Germans to come plan and build the infrastructure and public transport during "the boom". They'd do it on time, under budget, and above expectations. The polar opposite of what happened during "the boom".

Also, it wasn't a boom it was a credit bubble. There is a massive difference.

Monty Burnz

noxqs wrote: »

Also, it wasn't a boom it was a credit bubble. There is a massive difference.

Good point. We should call things what they are, so I always refer to 'the bubble', not the boom (as boom has positive connotations). Likewise I refer to 'debt sharing', rather than 'debt forgiveness', as debt forgiveness suggests that the debt has gone away, rather than being put on the backs of taxpayers.

foxyboxer

noxqs wrote: »

In short: 'Booms' are like peeing your pants during an expedition to Antarctica. Wonderful and warm for a while but then a lingering regret bubbles to the surface. And then, full scale regret, panic and anguish as it dawns upon one that this was the worst decision ever.

Ireland is now facing the worst economical crisis as a free nation, ever.

Whatever "the boom" brought about, such as a higher standard of living and new cars etc. could have been built sustainably without "the boom". "the boom" was short term greed without long term planning.

Honestly - I do believe we should'a hired some Germans to come plan and build the infrastructure and public transport during "the boom". They'd do it on time, under budget, and above expectations. The polar opposite of what happened during "the boom".

Also, it wasn't a boom it was a credit bubble. There is a massive difference.

Excellent post. Just started on Anglo Republic by Simon Carswell. Too big to fail, too rotten to save

RichardAnd

noxqs wrote: »

Also, it wasn't a boom it was a credit bubble. There is a massive difference.

We did have a boom in the mid to late 90s. It was a time in which I wish I could have been a young man; no incipid internet sites, good chance of getting a decent job, reasonable house prices and good music. That was the 90s allright

foxyboxer

RichardAnd wrote: »

We did have a boom in the mid to late 90s. It was a time in which I wish I could have been a young man; no incipid internet sites, good chance of getting a decent job, reasonable house prices and good music. That was the 90s allright

True, there was an economic boom until 1999, until oddly enough the euro was introduced allowing cheap credit for financial institutions to borrow and lend with no more foreign exchange risk.

silly houseowner

Tea drinker wrote: »

no, it cost me an awful lot of money as I was priced out of buying a house. No one gave me the positive equity on the way up, they only want to pass the negative equity to me.

I think youll find in your own individual case it saved you an awful lot of money if as you say it priced you out of buying a house then you havent got 100k+ negative equity

Tea drinker

silly houseowner wrote: »

I think youll find in your own individual case it saved you an awful lot of money if as you say it priced you out of buying a house then you havent got 100k+ negative equity

But you are looking back over a bubble and getting your price and neg equity from that, I am suggesting the bubble should never have taken place and if the market had normal prices then none of us (or very few) would have negative equity.

silly houseowner

Tea drinker wrote: »

But you are looking back over a bubble and getting your price and neg equity from that, I am suggesting the bubble should never have taken place and if the market had normal prices then none of us (or very few) would have negative equity.

I agree it shouldnt but it did and as this thread is debating if debt sharing would be good for the economy in my own opinion while it might not be good for it i think partial debt forgiveness is better than waiting for the government and tax payer to take the full hit from negative equity through defaults and bankrupcy or is my understanding of this wrong