Upcoming Irish property tax to cost 'on average' €1000 per house.(can you afford it?)

Ghandee

yekahS wrote: »

If you can't afford to pay for something, then yes, you should give up ownership.

Phil Hogan should be advertising the old pent gaff in the Algarve soon so?

James Reilly should be in dialogue with bailiffs soon, yeah?

kr7

yekahS wrote: »

If you can't afford to pay for something, then yes, you should give up ownership.

So they should leave their homes with a massive debt over their head and expect the LA to house them?

What school of economics did you go to?

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

We borrow for our roads, yet we have along the highest motoring costs on Europe?

We've some of the cheapest fuel prices in Europe, and have you seen the amount of road tolls elsewhere? We've nowhere near the highest motoring costs in Europe.

Ghandee wrote: »

We borrow for refuse collection, yet we pay Thorntons/oxygen/aes/greyhound ourselves?

We pay for state/LA services.

Ghandee wrote: »

Education is free now too?

No - again - nothing is free - it's paid for through taxation. Try pricing up education that isn't subsidised by the state.

Yitzhak Rabin

tayto lover wrote: »

Absolute rubbish.
If people can't afford to eat properly because they are trying to pay their bills then they should give up living ?? Very arrogant of you.

Living is a human right.

Owning your own home isn't pal.

You can always rent something cheaper. The government will even put you up for free if you can't afford that.

kr7

lugha wrote: »

Certainly “bending over and accepting it” is the colloquial way some around here would put it . Some of us would use the rather less amusing, prosaic phrase of “having to deal with reality".

And you certainly are free to simply oppose things for the sake of opposing them. But if you don’t have an alternative solution then your credibility is rather undermined wouldn’t you say? Surely the logical extension of your position would be to oppose ALL state imposed taxes/charges/fees (presumably you would rather not pay them?) and simply say you “haven’t a clue” how the state provided services like education, health, policing etc are to be funded?

An alternative solution would be something like a council tax like the UK where everyone pays their way and not just one section of society.

There's too many freeloaders here so let's start making things a bit more equitable and fair.

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

Introduce rates (I've repeatedly said this) which I'll gladly pay for, I will not (and by the looks of this poll, yes camp outnumbered 3-1) neither will the majority of this country pay a tax towards 'services' they already pay for.

The majority of this country comprises the number in the poll above? 300 people!?

tayto lover

yekahS wrote: »

Living is a human right.

Owning your own home isn't pal.

You can always rent something cheaper. The government will even put you up for free if you can't afford that.

And whose going to buy yours pal.
There aren't exactly queues outside the Estate Agents at the moment.
Also did you see the Council waiting lists of late ?

kr7

yekahS wrote: »

Living is a human right.

Owning your own home isn't pal.

You can always rent something cheaper. The government will even put you up for free if you can't afford that.

Answer my points above.

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

Phil Hogan should be advertising the old pent gaff in the Algarve soon so?

James Reilly should be in dialogue with bailiffs soon, yeah?

You seem overly enamoured with those lads. You realise the issue is rather bigger than them?

kr7

tayto lover wrote: »

And whose going to buy yours pal.
There aren't exactly queues outside the Estate Agents at the moment.
Also did you see the Council waiting lists of late ?

That's the kind of forward thinking we have here tayto.

Flog your house and let the government take care of you. LOL.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

So they should leave their homes with a massive debt over their head and expect the LA to house them?

What school of economics did you go to?

What's wrong with the private rental market?

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

There's too many freeloaders here so let's start making things a bit more equitable and fair.

Damn right. Oh wait...

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

What's wrong with the private rental market?

You're buddy brought that up.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

The mega-rich are not paying anything at all. Let the Govt target them if they want extra.

There is little prospect of taxing cash assets of the rich, or even not so rich. If there was even a prospect of a serious increase in DIRT tax or the like you would have money flying out of the country quicker than you could say “Richard Boyd Barrett”, if there is any serious money that hadn’t already been moved of course.

I suppose you could tax them on their assets that they cannot move. Alas, there is an opinion amongst some that it is wrong to tax people’s property that “has been provided 100% by themselves”.

Ghandee

alastair wrote: »

You seem overly enamoured with those lads. You realise the issue is rather bigger than them?

Just trying to reiterate a point your fellow pro tax comrade made Alastair.

If you can't afford something, give up ownership.

Yitzhak Rabin

tayto lover wrote: »

And whose going to buy yours pal.
There aren't exactly queues outside the Estate Agents at the moment.
Also did you see the Council waiting lists of late ?

I didn't buy a house my pedigree chum. If I had though, and I could no longer afford it, then I would sell it for whatever price I could get, and rent something I can actually afford, instead of expecting John Q Taxpayer to pay my way.

If you find yourself in such dire straights then you can always default on it, let the banks have the keys and declare yourself bankrupt. Wait another few years and have a crack at the property game again then.

Simple.

kr7

Ghandee wrote: »

Just trying to reiterate a point your fellow pro tax comrade made Alastair.

If you can't afford something, give up ownership.

Give up ownership and let the government pick up the tab.
Madness!

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

There is little prospect of taxing cash assets of the rich, or even not so rich. If there was even a prospect of a serious increase in DIRT tax or the like you would have money flying out of the country quicker than you could say “Richard Boyd Barrett”, if there is any serious money that hadn’t already been moved of course.

I suppose you could tax them on their assets that they cannot move. Alas, there is an opinion amongst some that it is wrong to tax people’s property that “has been provided 100% by themselves”.

There are some of them still left with big mansions that could be taxed. But have the Govt the "appetite" to do that. I suppose they would be gone quicker than you could say J.P Mc Manus.

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

Just trying to reiterate a point your fellow pro tax comrade made Alastair.

If you can't afford something, give up ownership.

I understood Reilly was doing his damndest to offload his stake the old folks home - but not on the back of affordability, and Big Phil is disputing provision of service, not the amount charged by his apartment maintenance crowd. Aside from that - it all seeems pertinent.


Ah, no... it's not.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

There are some of them still left with big mansions that could be taxed.

The ones that are 100% THEIRS, and PRIVATE, you mean?

Ghandee

yekahS wrote: »

I didn't buy a house my pedigree chum. If I had though, and I could no longer afford it, then I would sell it for whatever price I could get, and rent something I can actually afford, instead of expecting John Q Taxpayer to pay my way.

If you find yourself in such dire straights then you can always default on it, let the banks have the keys and declare yourself bankrupt. Wait another few years and have a crack at the property game again then.

Simple.

I find your posts wholly obnoxious, self righteous, and out of touch with real homeowners.


(your a government minister, yeah?)

kr7

yekahS wrote: »

I didn't buy a house my pedigree chum. If I had though, and I could no longer afford it, then I would sell it for whatever price I could get, and rent something I can actually afford, instead of expecting John Q Taxpayer to pay my way.

If you find yourself in such dire straights then you can always default on it, let the banks have the keys and declare yourself bankrupt. Wait another few years and have a crack at the property game again then.

Simple.

What age are you?

If you had the banks chasing you for a couple of hundred grand do you think you could afford to rent too.

Or if, as you suggested, you get the LA to house is that not expecting 'John Q Taxpayer' to pay your way?

You might need to think on a bit before you post anything else here, pal.

tayto lover

yekahS wrote: »

I didn't buy a house my pedigree chum. If I had though, and I could no longer afford it, then I would sell it for whatever price I could get, and rent something I can actually afford, instead of expecting John Q Taxpayer to pay my way.

If you find yourself in such dire straights then you can always default on it, let the banks have the keys and declare yourself bankrupt. Wait another few years and have a crack at the property game again then.

Simple.

Well I did buy a house and I did pay for it. It is mine and i raised my family in it and I intend to spend my last years in it chum. And I won't be paying a Property Tax on it so that Fat Cats can be bailed out.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

Well I did buy a house and I did pay for it. It is mine and i raised my family in it and I intend to spend my last years in it chum.

Yes you will.

tayto lover wrote: »

And I won't be paying a Property Tax on it.

Yes you will.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

The ones that are 100% THEIRS, and PRIVATE, you mean?

You mean like mine then.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

You mean like mine then.

Irony wouldn't be a strong feature with you, would it?

Yep - just like yours. They can lean on the same 'principles' of 'I don't like it'.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

Irony wouldn't be a strong feature with you, would it?

Yep - just like yours. They can lean on the same 'principles' of 'I don't like it'.

Mine was the ironic post. Jesus you're getting slow Al.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

Mine was the ironic post. Jesus you're getting slow Al.

Ehh - bit late off the block there if irony was your intent.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

Ehh - bit late off the block there if irony was your intent.

I was in titters Al. Still am.

lugha

kr7 wrote: »

An alternative solution would be something like a council tax like the UK where everyone pays their way and not just one section of society.

This is simply a feeble excuse. Are you really trying to argue that there was no great objection to the whole concept of social housing (at least not one sufficient to lead to mass defiance of the law), something worth a lot more to the beneficiaries that a few hundred a year but one more benefit is thrown their way and anarchy is threatened? Why isn’t there a mass protest against medical cards? Why not make those recipients pay their way? (Indeed when an attempt was made to remove this benefit from those who could easily afford to pay their own doctors bills they were broadly supported by the people) Why no protest against any other social welfare measures, or child benefit or even free education?

We have these social structures and I can recall no political party who proposed a radical dismantling of them. Because we broadly approve of these arrangements, notwithstanding concerns many of us have about them being abused.

In any case, my post was directed at those who seem to thing that no new taxes need be imposed, fair or otherwise, to get us out of our difficulty.

kr7 wrote: »

There's too many freeloaders here so let's start making things a bit more equitable and fair.

Ah now be fair! Those that refuse to pay are doing so principle! Calling them freeloaders is a bit harsh. :pac: