Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] *Poll Reset*

Options
1…113114116118119…332

Comments

  • Options
    #3452
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    dvpower wrote: »

    Wait what?:eek: Its a site valuation tax according to the article, so they do have some idea how the charge will be calculated.

    If it's site valuation then the size of the house or the number of bedrooms don't matter, which is it? seems to me they have not decided yet so they have no idea how they will calculate it.


  • Options
    #3453
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    hondasam wrote: »
    If it's site valuation then the size of the house or the number of bedrooms don't matter, which is it? seems to me they have not decided yet so they have no idea how they will calculate it.
    Did you read the article?


  • Options
    #3454
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    dvpower wrote: »
    Did you read the article?

    I did.
    The new system is expected to be self-assessed and will result in the owner of a regular three-bed semi-detached home paying €200 to €300 a year.

    Government sources say the property tax is expected to be in the form of a 'site valuation tax', which assesses the value of the site itself and ignores the value of the house built on it.

    These two statements contradict each other. imo.


  • Options
    #3455
    Smidge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    In fairness it seems to be a case of making it up as they go along.

    Bedrooms or size of property don't matter but value or size of site does.

    If so what would an oap in a one room tumble down shack(one near me!)but is on 20 acres which he can no longer afford to farm, pay?

    Surely a house with a decent size garden in Killiney would pay more than this example?
    So therefore this example would not be a guide for payment either.

    Far to many variables to ever make this fair


  • Options
    #3456
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    hondasam wrote: »
    These two statements contradict each other. imo.
    The €200 to €300 for a 3 bed semi looks like a simple rule of thumb - the site of an average 3 bed semi will attract that much tax.

    Its quite possible that on either side of this average 3 bed semi, there is a 4 bedroom and a two bedroom house, and these will all attract the same amount of tax, but most housing in a given area has similarly sized houses on similarly sized sites.
    I can see some possible anomalies in rural areas.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3457
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    D_murph wrote: »
    Well, this is just like clockwork. The yes vote is in and now this comes up straight away...

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/letter-plan-to-target-household-tax-dodgers-3126782.html

    This shower of cunts dont waste much time or even try to be subtle do they? :rolleyes:

    Don't really get this attitude to be honest. Fair enough, if you're against the tax, but how can you be outraged by the mere mechanics of its collection? Also- subtle? Are you serious? You expect a subtle approach towards people who have declared they will never pay the charge?


  • Options
    #3458
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    mishkalucy wrote: »
    In fairness it seems to be a case of making it up as they go along.
    Of course they're making it up as they go along - these things don't just magic themselves into life.
    mishkalucy wrote: »
    Bedrooms or size of property don't matter but value or size of site does.

    If so what would an oap in a one room tumble down shack(one near me!)but is on 20 acres which he can no longer afford to farm, pay?
    It is a tax on residential sites, so unless this OAP is sitting on 20 acres of residential land then she won't be paying tax on it.
    mishkalucy wrote: »
    Surely a house with a decent size garden in Killiney would pay more than this example?
    A decent site in Killiney would almost definitely be worth more than an equivalent rural site.


  • Options
    #3459
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    dvpower wrote: »
    I can see some possible anomalies in rural areas.

    So can I, what happens then I wonder? All these things should have been clarified before any charge was introduced.
    They should have waited instead of rushing into the €100 charge.


  • Options
    #3460
    D_murph
    Registered Users Posts: 773 ✭✭✭D_murph


    Einhard wrote: »
    Don't really get this attitude to be honest. Fair enough, if you're against the tax, but how can you be outraged by the mere mechanics of its collection? Also- subtle? Are you serious? You expect a subtle approach towards people who have declared they will never pay the charge?

    Ypu dont have to "get it". Its my opinion and thats all :rolleyes:.

    I just think it was very well done how they waited only 3 days to get this back on track after waiting to get the referendum passed over the past few months. Not exactly letting the grass grow under their feet eh?

    Either way, they can F off cos Im not paying :rolleyes:.


  • Options
    #3461
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    dvpower wrote: »
    Pretty self explanatory.



    Not you. You are a tax dodger.

    Now dv, how many times have you told us that this isn't a tax but just a charge...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3462
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    D_murph wrote: »
    Ypu dont have to "get it". Its my opinion and thats all :rolleyes:.


    Jesus, what a grumpy fecker.

    Me not getting it is my opinion.
    I just think it was very well done how they waited only 3 days to get this back on track after waiting to get the referendum passed over the past few months. Not exactly letting the grass grow under their feet eh?

    Well it was s'posed to be paid by the end of March if memory serves me correctly.
    Either way, they can F offcos Im not paying :rolleyes:.

    Fair enough. Although I imagine that you will end up paying, voluntarily or otherwise, in the end.


  • Options
    #3463
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    hondasam wrote: »
    So can I, what happens then I wonder? All these things should have been clarified before any charge was introduced.
    I don;t think anything will happen. There will be cases where there are two properties in the same area on the similar sites where one is a great big modern home and the other an old cottage. They'll both pay the same.
    hondasam wrote: »
    They should have waited instead of rushing into the €100 charge.
    We've been over this a hundred times - they had to introduce the €100 HHC. It was mandated by the trioka to get a tax introduced by Q4 2011


  • Options
    #3464
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Now dv, how many times have you told us that this isn't a tax but just a charge...
    Zero


  • Options
    #3465
    Smidge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    dvpower wrote: »
    Of course they're making it up as they go along - these things don't just magic themselves into life.


    It is a tax on residential sites, so unless this OAP is sitting on 20 acres of residential land then she won't be paying tax on it.


    A decent site in Killiney would almost definitely be worth more than an equivalent rural site.

    It is indeed a residential site, as I said he lives in what basically is a shack on it.


  • Options
    #3466
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    mishkalucy wrote: »
    It is indeed a residential site, as I said he lives in what basically is a shack on it.

    If some OAP has a 20 acre site, zoned for residential use, and has only a tumble down shack on it then they deserve to get hammered on this tax.

    People should be actively discouraged from holding on to land banks. They should develop it, sell it to someone who will, or have it rezoned so it can be used productively.


  • Options
    #3467
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    dvpower wrote: »
    If some OAP has a 20 acre site, zoned for residential use, and has only a tumble down shack on it then they deserve to get hammered on this tax.

    People should be actively discouraged from holding on to land banks. They should develop it, sell it to someone who will, or have it rezoned so it can be used productively.

    This OAP obviously considers this his home, not some 'land bank'.

    This is what got this country into the mess its in at the min, people only seeing what something is potentially worth.

    This old guy and his family could have been living there for centuries, generation after generation. You're suggesting now that if he can't afford to pay up towards some absolutely scandalous, and spurious made up charge he should basically rev up, and clear off?

    Disgraceful attitude altogether, shame on the govt for putting ordinary men and women under such pressure.


  • Options
    #3468
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    dvpower wrote: »
    If some OAP has a 20 acre site, zoned for residential use, and has only a tumble down shack on it then they deserve to get hammered on this tax.

    People should be actively discouraged from holding on to land banks. They should develop it, sell it to someone who will, or have it rezoned so it can be used productively.

    WOW!
    The real colours are showing now.

    You must sell ze land, develop ze land or use ze land... or pay ze price for owning ze land.

    Snell, snell, snell!


  • Options
    #3469
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Ghandee wrote: »
    This OAP obviously considers this his home, not some 'land bank'.

    This is what got this country into the mess its in at the min, people only seeing what something is potentially worth.

    This old guy and his family could have been living there for centuries, generation after generation. You're suggesting now that if he can't afford to pay up towards some absolutely scandalous, and spurious made up charge he should basically rev up, and clear off?

    Disgraceful attitude altogether, shame on the govt for putting ordinary men and women under such pressure.

    I think that post says more about the bould dv than any of his other posts, I smell an agenda, but more probably a chip on the auld shoulder.


  • Options
    #3470
    Smidge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    dvpower wrote: »
    If some OAP has a 20 acre site, zoned for residential use, and has only a tumble down shack on it then they deserve to get hammered on this tax.

    People should be actively discouraged from holding on to land banks. They should develop it, sell it to someone who will, or have it rezoned so it can be used productively.

    It is residential as he LIVES on it, as has his family since the time of the famine.

    I am going to assume you could not possibly be serious about your land bank remark as you surely could not be this callous or right wing.


  • Options
    #3471
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    dvpower wrote: »
    If some OAP has a 20 acre site, zoned for residential use, and has only a tumble down shack on it then they deserve to get hammered on this tax.

    People should be actively discouraged from holding on to land banks. They should develop it, sell it to someone who will, or have it rezoned so it can be used productively.

    Why does he deserve to get hammered for tax? was he not greedy enough, did he not build enough crap houses and screw people with the price of them?

    I think there is more than enough unfinished and unoccupied houses at the moment, same with commercial property.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3472
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    This will come back to bite you on the buttocks DV.

    I'm in shock that you could show such callousness in your post tbh. As previously pointed out earlier, true colours have shone through with that remark.


  • Options
    #3473
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Ghandee wrote: »
    This OAP obviously considers this his home, not some 'land bank'.
    20 acres of residentially zoned land is a land bank, no matter what you think the OAP considers it.
    Ghandee wrote: »
    This is what got this country into the mess its in at the min, people only seeing what something is potentially worth.
    If the OAP isn't only seeing what the land is potentially worth they can ask the council to rezone it for agricultural or some other use. Simple.
    Ghandee wrote: »
    This old guy and his family could have been living there for centuries, generation after generation. You're suggesting now that if he can't afford to pay up towards some absolutely scandalous, and spurious made up charge he should basically rev up, and clear off?
    No. I'm suggesting that they have land zoned for the purpose that they intend to use it. It most certainly wasn't residential land for centuries.
    Ghandee wrote: »
    Disgraceful attitude altogether, shame on the govt for putting ordinary men and women under such pressure.
    Ordinary men and women don't own 20 acres of residential land that they can just sit on. Property speculators on the other hand...


  • Options
    #3474
    Smidge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    hondasam wrote: »
    Why does he deserve to get hammered for tax? was he not greedy enough, did he not build enough crap houses and screw people with the price of them?

    I think there is more than enough unfinished and unoccupied houses at the moment, same with commercial property.

    I actually asked him that one day.
    "How come you never got on the property game and sold the aul bit of land off?"
    His reply?
    "Couldn't do it love, too many of the family lived and died here"

    Sounds like a right greedy ole b'sterd to me(or someone who had morals during the "boom")
    You pick............


  • Options
    #3475
    the groutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭the groutch


    did I read something before that because of site valuations being more complex, that it's either going to be delayed, or kept at a flat rate for apartments?


  • Options
    #3476
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    mishkalucy wrote: »
    It is residential as he LIVES on it, as has his family since the time of the famine.

    I am going to assume you could not possibly be serious about your land bank remark as you surely could not be this callous or right wing.
    If the 20 acres is zoned as residential land, then it is a land bank. Land doesn't get zoned for residential use just by accident. That only happens when it is applied for and the council want it to be developed.
    If this person asked for it to be rezoned and now doesn't want to develop it, they should have it zoned back to its original use.


  • Options
    #3477
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    hondasam wrote: »
    Why does he deserve to get hammered for tax? was he not greedy enough, did he not build enough crap houses and screw people with the price of them?

    I think there is more than enough unfinished and unoccupied houses at the moment, same with commercial property.
    So it should be rezoned to reflect the intended purpose. Then there is no residential property/site tax. Its pretty simple.

    If they are holding on to it for future possible development then they are speculators and there should be a tax on it.


  • Options
    #3478
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Ghandee wrote: »
    I'm in shock that you could show such callousness in your post tbh. As previously pointed out earlier, true colours have shone through with that remark.

    Your faux outrage is humorous.


  • Options
    #3479
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    dvpower wrote: »
    So it should be rezoned to reflect the intended purpose. Then there is no residential property/site tax. Its pretty simple.

    If they are holding on to it for future possible development then they are speculators and there should be a tax on it.

    Yes I agree with you it should be rezoned.
    I don't think he should be hammered with tax just because he did not sell or build.


  • Options
    #3480
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    dvpower wrote: »
    So it should be rezoned to reflect the intended purpose. Then there is no residential property/site tax. Its pretty simple.

    If they are holding on to it for future possible development then they are speculators and there should be a tax on it.

    If it moves, tax it.
    If it doesn't move, tax it.
    If it breathes, tax it.
    If it doesn't breathe, tax it.

    The mask has slipped, well and truly!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3481
    Smidge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    dvpower wrote: »
    If the 20 acres is zoned as residential land, then it is a land bank. Land doesn't get zoned for residential use just by accident. That only happens when it is applied for and the council want it to be developed.
    If this person asked for it to be rezoned and now doesn't want to develop it, they should have it zoned back to its original use.


    If you had read my first comment with regard to this (post 3455)you would see that I clearly stated it was indeed a farm and that he lived on it.
    I never said that he applied for zoning, you said that.
    I simply said he lived on it so therefore it was his home.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement