Are you going to pay the household charge? [Part 1]

Mousewar

donalg1 wrote: »

I didnt say it doesnt matter I said it only matters if you are selling your house, its very simple really.

Wow.
You obviously don't own a house.

donalg1

Mousewar wrote: »

Wow.
You obviously don't own a house.

I do actually, but you see negative equity doesnt bother me as I am not trying to sell my house. So I wont come on here and harp on about how I shouldnt have to pay this charge because I am in negative equity blah blah blah.

I am happy to own a house regardless of its market value or whether or not its in negative equity, you see as I have tried explaining to you on a number of occasions which you seem to constantly misunderstand or choose to ignore, negative equity only matters when you are trying to sell your property, which I assume you are, and are now upset because you wont make a profit on the sale.

smash

donalg1 wrote: »

I do actually, but you see negative equity doesnt bother me as I am not trying to sell my house. So I wont come on here and harp on about how I shouldnt have to pay this charge because I am in negative equity blah blah blah.

I am happy to own a house regardless of its market value or whether or not its in negative equity, you see as I have tried explaining to you on a number of occasions which you seem to constantly misunderstand or choose to ignore, negative equity only matters when you are trying to sell your property, which I assume you are, and are now upset because you wont make a profit on the sale.

Property was pushed by financial advisors, pension advisors, banks, government ministers etc. Everyone was told to buy. Then there were first time buyers who bought apartments to get on the ladder. Now the want to have families and move on and can't. There's also thousands who want to sell and go back to renting and can't, thousands that want to sell and move abroad and can't. It's a major issue and just because you don't plan on moving it doesn't mean there's no issue there.

Paparazzo

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

thankfully i dont have to pay this charge cos i wasnt stupid enough to buy an overpriced poorly built shoebox in an estate that will be a ghetto in 15 years time.

Presumably with your huge intelligence, you bought 20 houses in 1998, sold them in 2006 a put all your money in gold. What shall we invest in now oh wise one?

Mousewar

donalg1 wrote: »

I do actually, but you see negative equity doesnt bother me as I am not trying to sell my house. So I wont come on here and harp on about how I shouldnt have to pay this charge because I am in negative equity blah blah blah.

I am happy to own a house regardless of its market value or whether or not its in negative equity, you see as I have tried explaining to you on a number of occasions which you seem to constantly misunderstand or choose to ignore, negative equity only matters when you are trying to sell your property, which I assume you are, and are now upset because you wont make a profit on the sale.

No negative equity doesn't only matter if you're trying to sell (which I'm not). I've already said why.
And that wasn't the point anyway but you don't seem interested in points, more in point-scoring.

Gingernuts31

smash wrote: »

Property was pushed by financial advisors, pension advisors, banks, government ministers etc. Everyone was told to buy. Then there were first time buyers who bought apartments to get on the ladder. Now the want to have families and move on and can't. There's also thousands who want to sell and go back to renting and can't, thousands that want to sell and move abroad and can't. It's a major issue and just because you don't plan on moving it doesn't mean there's no issue there.

I paid 220,000 in 2006 for my house in Laois. Its on 1.5 acres and there are houses in the town going for 190,000 now. I reckon that if I was to sell mine now id get more or less what i paid for it. The houses going for 30 grand less now are tiny with tiny gardens. I haven't gotten it valued as we are not looking to sell but id say the negative equity won't effect us as much as it prob was or wasn't worth the money we paid for it back in 2006.

I do agree not everyone can move on cause some people paid way over the odds for their houses and now they are only worth half of that. My sister paid 495,000 for her house in newbridge and id hate to see what its worth now but its a beautiful house but in an estate.

Fighting Irish

c montgomery wrote: »

Good for you:rolleyes:

Anything in your crystal ball about the economy over the next few years?

Don't buy anything that is over priced

Some things in this world should not be investments for ordinary people

donalg1

smash wrote: »

Property was pushed by financial advisors, pension advisors, banks, government ministers etc. Everyone was told to buy. Then there were first time buyers who bought apartments to get on the ladder. Now the want to have families and move on and can't. There's also thousands who want to sell and go back to renting and can't, thousands that want to sell and move abroad and can't. It's a major issue and just because you don't plan on moving it doesn't mean there's no issue there.

I never said there was no issue if you bothered reading my posts I said there is only an issue there if you want to sell the property.

If everyone was told to burn their house down would they, I love how people blame everyone else for them buying a house, would love to hear their reasoning for buying a house because the financial advisors, banks and government ministers told them to buy. If they told them to buy a new BMW tomorrow would they do it and then complain they cant afford it?

donalg1

Mousewar wrote: »

No negative equity doesn't only matter if you're trying to sell (which I'm not). I've already said why.
And that wasn't the point anyway but you don't seem interested in points, more in point-scoring.

Of course it only matters if you are trying to sell it, your reasoning is if you bought your house a few years earlier you wouldnt have as high a mortgage. Well if I had a time machine I could travel back in time and buy a house for £1000 and sure I wouldnt have any mortgage today then in fact I would have a few grand in the bank that I have spent on my mortgage in the last few years, be laughing I would

smash

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Some things in this world should not be investments for ordinary people

Puppies are not just for christmas!

smash

donalg1 wrote: »

I never said there was no issue if you bothered reading my posts I said there is only an issue there if you want to sell the property.

It's an issue in some form for a lot of home owners. What if you wanted to extend?

donalg1 wrote: »

If everyone was told to burn their house down would they, I love how people blame everyone else for them buying a house, would love to hear their reasoning for buying a house because the financial advisors, banks and government ministers told them to buy. If they told them to buy a new BMW tomorrow would they do it and then complain they cant afford it?

A BMW is not a necessity and doesn't fly up in value. A roof over your head is a necessity and the prices were flying up in value. you've a poor argument there.

donalg1

smash wrote: »

It's an issue in some form for a lot of home owners. What if you wanted to extend?

Then you extend provided you can afford to of course. Dont know what an extension has to do with being in negative equity or selling your house but sure whatever.

A BMW is not a necessity and doesn't fly up in value. A roof over your head is a necessity and the prices were flying up in value. you've a poor argument there.

Not really your argument was that people were told to buy so they did, I used the analogy of the BMW to compare to what you said. Nobody had to buy you said they were told to buy and they did, they could have rented if they wanted. Everyone wanted the nice big house with the fancy furniture so they could outdo one another and now moan that they were told to do it.:rolleyes:

Bruthal

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Don't buy anything that is over priced

Some things in this world should not be investments for ordinary people

Yes, although this thread is more about home owners than premiership FC owners.

smash

donalg1 wrote: »

Then you extend provided you can afford to of course. Dont know what an extension has to do with being in negative equity or selling your house but sure whatever.

Do you live on another planet? A lot of people could afford to top up their mortgage and extend but they can't because they can't borrow on something that's worth 60% of what the outstanding mortgage is.

donalg1 wrote: »

Not really your argument was that people were told to buy so they did, I used the analogy of the BMW to compare to what you said. Nobody had to buy you said they were told to buy and they did, they could have rented if they wanted.

But it was almost the same to rent as it was to take out a mortgage. So an investment for the future was the option that a lot of people were advised to take.

donalg1 wrote: »

Everyone wanted the nice big house with the fancy furniture so they could outdo one another and now moan that they were told to do it.:rolleyes:

Really? because most people bought small in the hopes of moving up in a few years.

phil1nj

donalg1 wrote: »

I never said there was no issue if you bothered reading my posts I said there is only an issue there if you want to sell the property.

If everyone was told to burn their house down would they, I love how people blame everyone else for them buying a house, would love to hear their reasoning for buying a house because the financial advisors, banks and government ministers told them to buy. If they told them to buy a new BMW tomorrow would they do it and then complain they cant afford it?

I bought my house because I needed somewhere to live and raise a family. I didn't buy one as an investment, I didn't buy it to "flip" for a profit in a few years. I bought it to use as a home and will be paying for it for the next 20 years. I still don't understand how the government can justify taxing property when the inherent wealth or value of it can not be accessed until the property is sold (this despite what a certain other poster on here maintained). Renting a property affords someone the same benefits but without the wealth/value tax. Strange,


It does also raise one very relevant question though, when the house is eventually sold, will other taxes be applied to the sale of the house in addition to the yearly property tax? One of the long standing arguments used against the excessive amounts of stamp duty people paid when they bought houses during the boom was that the wrong end of the transaction was being taxed (which kind of makes sense, usually the seller of an asset is the one who incurs the various taxes etc).

All of these start to make the purchase of a home (not property) a less and less attractive idea going forward. Just my opinion mind.

goz83

apache6 wrote: »

I spoke to my next door neighbour who works for the Revenue and he told me this charge is not a Tax per se so will not affect your Tax clearance cert.

I see you thanked that post dvpower. So you must agree it's not considered to be a tax, which would contradict what you had been saying earlier. It's just a fee the government are charging, while they try to put together their database. Its a cheeky way to recover moneys extracted from the budget for the same services.

donalg1

smash wrote: »

Do you live on another planet? A lot of people could afford to top up their mortgage and extend but they can't because they can't borrow on something that's worth 60% of what the outstanding mortgage is.


But it was almost the same to rent as it was to take out a mortgage. So an investment for the future was the option that a lot of people were advised to take.


Really? because most people bought small in the hopes of moving up in a few years.

Did you not read my post, I said they can extend if they can afford to extend, how did you miss that you even quoted it ffs.

Advised to take, doesnt mean they had to take it now though does it?

If i advised you to invest in my company because its an investment for the future would you hand over a couple of grand to me?

Alot of people didnt buy small, in fact quite the opposite, and they also finished their houses to a higher standard than they should have as they had to borrow to kit it out

donalg1

phil1nj wrote: »

I bought my house because I needed somewhere to live and raise a family. I didn't buy one as an investment, I didn't buy it to "flip" for a profit in a few years. I bought it to use as a home and will be paying for it for the next 20 years. I still don't understand how the government can justify taxing property when the inherent wealth or value of it can not be accessed until the property is sold (this despite what a certain other poster on here maintained). Renting a property affords someone the same benefits but without the wealth/value tax. Strange,


It does also raise one very relevant question though, when the house is eventually sold, will other taxes be applied to the sale of the house in addition to the yearly property tax? One of the long standing arguments used against the excessive amounts of stamp duty people paid when they bought houses during the boom was that the wrong end of the transaction was being taxed (which kind of makes sense, usually the seller of an asset is the one who incurs the various taxes etc).

All of these start to make the purchase of a home (not property) a less and less attractive idea going forward. Just my opinion mind.

Alot of people here seem to think that they should be able to sell their house and make a profit and that house prices should only ever go up, so they are now complaining about negative equity which if they intend to sell it is fair enough, they took a risk and it didnt pay off.

But complaining that negative equity is affecting them when they have no intention of selling is a load of complete and utter sh**e imo.

They should like you said have made those selling the properties pay the stamp duty as they were the ones benefitting from the sale and making the profits.

smash

donalg1 wrote: »

Did you not read my post, I said they can extend if they can afford to extend, how did you miss that you even quoted it ffs.

I didn't miss it. I said they can afford to top up, but wouldn't be allowed.

donalg1 wrote: »

Advised to take, doesnt mean they had to take it now though does it?

Generally people take the advice of a so called expert.

donalg1 wrote: »

If i advised you to invest in my company because its an investment for the future would you hand over a couple of grand to me?

no, because you're a nobody. The people advising other to buy were actually somebodys.

donalg1 wrote: »

Alot of people didnt buy small, in fact quite the opposite, and they also finished their houses to a higher standard than they should have as they had to borrow to kit it out

you must live down the country, because people in Dublin did not buy big.

goz83

donalg1 wrote: »

Tenants of LA housing should be made pay an equivalent charge as they also benefit from local services. Home owners that are liable for the household charge currently pay towards local services the same as tenants however homeowners are now being asked to pay more. And the point of my post was that the tenants should also be asked to pay more, it doesnt have to be called property tax or household charge, it could be called a LA Tenant charge for all I care. If the Government want to promote Social Inclusion or Fairness they need to include everyone under the umbrella of increased or newly introduced charges.

+1 on that.

Why should the home owner have to pay for something the tenant is using. Lets say the home owner lives and works abroad. They don't benefit from the amenities. And I can already predict the likes of alistair coming in to say that the property is more attractive with all the amenities. And I will say, "yes, it also benefits from having electricity and central heating, but the tenant pays those."

UI just want to say that I am not a landlord, or a tenant, but a home owner.

donalg1

smash wrote: »

I didn't miss it. I said they can afford to top up, but wouldn't be allowed.


Generally people take the advice of a so called expert.


no, because you're a nobody. The people advising other to buy were actually somebodys.


you must live down the country, because people in Dublin did not buy big.

Well if they can afford to top up cant they save the money and extend that way? Or are the days of saving up for something completely gone?

And dublin is the whole country I suppose, look beyond the pale for a truer picture.

I didnt take anyones advise when buying my property I went through the process with my eyes open and I made the final decision on whether or not I should buy it, I certainly didnt buy it because someone told me to buy. Sure they were never going to pay my mortgage for me were they?

Mousewar

phil1nj wrote: »

I bought my house because I needed somewhere to live and raise a family. I didn't buy one as an investment, I didn't buy it to "flip" for a profit in a few years. I bought it to use as a home and will be paying for it for the next 20 years. I still don't understand how the government can justify taxing property when the inherent wealth or value of it can not be accessed until the property is sold (this despite what a certain other poster on here maintained). Renting a property affords someone the same benefits but without the wealth/value tax. Strange,

A sound point which mirrors my own somewhat.
Only 2 classes of things are typically taxed.
1 - Something which is of financial benefit to you, i.e. your salary or a house during a boom
2 - Something discretionary that you choose to have and that needs servicing by the LA, i.e. your car

Most houses at the moment fall under neither category so this tax or charge or whatever it is is unfair.

phil1nj

donalg1 wrote: »

Alot of people here seem to think that they should be able to sell their house and make a profit and that house prices should only ever go up, so they are now complaining about negative equity which if they intend to sell it is fair enough, they took a risk and it didnt pay off.

I understand what you are saying and agree (sort of) with most of the above. But it does just further add to my question about the "wealth" contained within a house. Once it was worth a lot more than it is now (due to changes in the market etc). Money changed hands for it, contracts were signed which effectviely means that both parties involved thought that the property was worth that amount of money. Now a substantial amount of that "wealth" has been wiped out (it was never there to begin with, but that's a different argument) so how can a government justify taxing this intangible, fluctuating but ultimately unobtainable wealth contained within a home?

donalg1 wrote: »

But complaining that negative equity is affecting them when they have no intention of selling is a load of complete and utter sh**e imo.

No argument here with that. Not a nice situation to be in but unfortuantely this is the reality.

donalg1 wrote: »

They should like you said have made those selling the properties pay the stamp duty as they were the ones benefitting from the sale and making the profits.

Unfortunately, this is still a transactional type of tax (which is what we need to get away from). I still prefer the idea of a rates type system where the owners actually get something in return for their payments (refuse, water, street lighting, upkeep of green areas etc etc). No chance of that I'd say but we can live in hope.

smash

donalg1 wrote: »

Well if they can afford to top up cant they save the money and extend that way? Or are the days of saving up for something completely gone?

Yes they could do that over 10 years I guess :rolleyes:

donalg1 wrote: »

And dublin is the whole country I suppose, look beyond the pale for a truer picture.

Why would I do that when I'm talking about Dublin, you know, where most of the population is. Where property is most expensive!

donalg1 wrote: »

I didnt take anyones advise when buying my property I went through the process with my eyes open and I made the final decision on whether or not I should buy it, I certainly didnt buy it because someone told me to buy. Sure they were never going to pay my mortgage for me were they?

Most people didn't buy their properties because they were told to, they bought because they were told the prices would keep going up and they made up their minds that if they didn't buy then they'd never afford it.

mconigol

donalg1 wrote: »

So now its the fault of FG/LAB that some con man is going around trying to get money from people, I fail to see how they can be at fault for some scummy lad trying to con people.

True, but their farcical handling of the situation has opened the opportunity for vulnerable people to be exploited.

black francis wrote: »

Still not seeing any backtracking.
'Backtracking' would have suggested that at one point in the debate I suggested a 40% compliance rate was a failure

If you say so...

black francis wrote: »

Not sure where your getting this from, seeing as we're not discussing paying back debt.

I got it from your post stating that you consider 40% to be a success. You obviously consider this to be an acceptable level of achievement. Personally I feel that 40% is never a success at anything, generally 40% is just about considered a pass rate.

dvpower

goz83 wrote: »

I see you thanked that post dvpower.

I did. I like when people post clear information and dont try and obfuscate or mirepresent the positions of others.

goz83 wrote: »

So you must agree it's not considered to be a tax, which would contradict what you had been saying earlier.

You, on the other hand, get no thanks from me.

donalg1

goz83 wrote: »

+1 on that.

Why should the home owner have to pay for something the tenant is using. Lets say the home owner lives and works abroad. They don't benefit from the amenities. And I can already predict the likes of alistair coming in to say that the property is more attractive with all the amenities. And I will say, "yes, it also benefits from having electricity and central heating, but the tenant pays those."

UI just want to say that I am not a landlord, or a tenant, but a home owner.

Maybe if by some miracle a new playground is built in the next few years only those with a receipt showing they paid the household charge will be able to use it and we can tell the LA tenants to get lost

Frank Black

phil1nj wrote: »

I bought my house because I needed somewhere to live and raise a family. I didn't buy one as an investment, I didn't buy it to "flip" for a profit in a few years. I bought it to use as a home and will be paying for it for the next 20 years. I still don't understand how the government can justify taxing property when the inherent wealth or value of it can not be accessed until the property is sold (this despite what a certain other poster on here maintained). Renting a property affords someone the same benefits but without the wealth/value tax. Strange,.

Not really, a lot of things are taxed which do not meet the criteria you set out, and renters will pay this tax albeit indirectly when landlords add it to the rental price.

phil1nj wrote: »

It does also raise one very relevant question though, when the house is eventually sold, will other taxes be applied to the sale of the house in addition to the yearly property tax? One of the long standing arguments used against the excessive amounts of stamp duty people paid when they bought houses during the boom was that the wrong end of the transaction was being taxed (which kind of makes sense, usually the seller of an asset is the one who incurs the various taxes etc).

All of these start to make the purchase of a home (not property) a less and less attractive idea going forward. Just my opinion mind.

It's possible, but the market should eventually work to stabilise out such anomalies, if buying becomes less attractive, then demand for renting increases and rents increase with house prices decreasing. Eventually the pendulum will swing the other way, making buying more attractive again.

The problem with the boom, was that the normal rules of the market collapsed under the sheer madness of house buying that went on.

phil1nj

black francis wrote: »

Not really, a lot of things are taxed which do not meet the criteria you set out, and renters will pay this tax albeit indirectly when landlords add it to the rental price.
.

Honestly and I'm not being smart here but could you give some examples?

The reason I ask is because I heard property tax being referred to as a great example of a wealth tax. Now if I picture wealth as being a huge pile of money under my mattress (simplest form) how can the government tax that? Surely they can't until I

a) spend it (VAT etc)
b) save it (DIRT) or
c) invest it.

And only the last option allows them to tax me on the profit made but not the actual investment sum, same with savings where teh principle is unaffected by taxes.

donalg1

smash wrote: »

Yes they could do that over 10 years I guess :rolleyes:

Exactly now you are getting it.

Why would I do that when I'm talking about Dublin, you know, where most of the population is. Where property is most expensive!

Most of the population is in Dublin really, enough said from you now I have heard it all. That statement means I can never again take anything you have to say seriously, I would stick it up there with the most bizarre posts ever on boards. And I thought it couldnt get worse than your affordable housing / clawback misunderstandings.

Most people didn't buy their properties because they were told to, they bought because they were told the prices would keep going up and they made up their minds that if they didn't buy then they'd never afford it.

You said they were told to buy them a few posts back. So they took a risk and it backfired well boo hoo for them, I still dont see how negative equity affects anyone that is not intending to sell their house.

Can you explain it to me? I buy a house for 200k today and next year the price falls to 180k? How does this affect me if I have no intention of selling it?