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

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

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

Yes, bought and paid for (including taxes) 100% by themselves. I thought you objected in principle to such a tax?

alastair

lugha wrote: »

Yes, bought and paid for (including taxes) 100% by themselves. I thought you objected in principle to such a tax?

He was being ironic (or not).

It's kind of hard to nail Tayto down to any actual principled objection to property taxation (other than he'd have to pay more than if it went on an equivalent income tax hike).

Micky Dolenz

Is it hot in here or is it just me?

Just a reminder.

#

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Mod

Baiting and flaming will see you banned. It just ruins a discussion.
Please report any posts you have issue with.

Fair warning.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Yes, bought and paid for (including taxes) 100% by themselves. I thought you objected in principle to such a tax?

Well if that is the only tax they pay in Ireland then so be it.
Were you down at the party?

kr7

lugha wrote: »

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.



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

Nobody is saying dismantle the social structures, mind you they could cut welfare across the board by 10-15% in my opinion and save around €3 billion but the brave Labour party would walk, the same way they'd walk if the CPA was touched.

But if your being housed at the taxpayers expense, paying €30 or €40 per week, then another €5 or €10 per week wouldn't hurt. FFS it's the price of 20 fags or 2 pints.

The middle classes in Ireland are paying enough, it's time to tackle the other ends of the spectrum.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

But if your being housed at the taxpayers expense, paying €30 or €40 per week, then another €5 or €10 per week wouldn't hurt.

Anyone in local authority housing paying those sorts of rents are on benefit or pensions - so the raise is going to come out of taxation. No gain in that equation.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

He was being ironic (or not).

It's kind of hard to nail Tayto down to any actual principled objection to property taxation (other than he'd have to pay more than if it went on an equivalent income tax hike).

This is the only Tax I have a problem with because it's aimed at homeowners, it is aimed at my home which has nothing to do with the Govt at all.
The reason it is being brought in is to pay for the friends of the politicians like Cowan, Noonan and Hogan. To bail them out for their reckless gambling and to maintain the "elitist" members of this corrupt regime in the style they have become accustomed to.
I will not allow my home to be used for that purpose. I bought and paid for it myself and I didn't gamble at all.

lugha

alastair wrote: »

He was being ironic (or not).

It's kind of hard to nail Tayto down to any actual principled objection to property taxation (other than he'd have to pay more than if it went on an equivalent income tax hike).

I suspect there are quite a few people who genuinely do feel aggrieved at the notion of having to pay this tax but they can’t make a solid argument for their position because they don’t really have one. It is something more from the heart than the head, which makes it all the more potent: you literally can’t reason with it.

But then, maybe what people emote is just as important as what they think?

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

This is the only Tax I have a problem with because it's aimed at homeowners, it is aimed at my home which has nothing to do with the Govt at all.
The reason it is being brought in is to pay for the friends of the politicians like Cowan, Noonan and Hogan. To bail them out for their reckless gambling and to maintain the "elitist" members of this corrupt regime in the style they have become accustomed to.
I will not allow my home to be used for that purpose. I bought and paid for it myself and I didn't gamble at all.

Yes it's aimed at house owners. It has as much to do with the government as your car, your telly, your savings. The deficit exists regardless of who has friends wherever. Building a sustainable taxation structure is required to dig us out of deficit and ensure we don't land ourselves back in the same place a second time.

darkhorse

alastair wrote: »

Like JPMcManus? The tax exile. That'll work just fine.

Sure - but they usually live in a house owned by a property owner - paying a property tax.

I'm going nowhere - but you must be mistaking consistency for 'tripping up'?

Hi alastair,

Ya see, this is where I get confused and would be grateful if you would just clarify. What about if that house that they live in is a council house. That would mean that said property owner would be the council. That being the case, I would take it to mean that, by virtue of the fact that the money used to build said house, (which by the way, the person renting from the council, is exempt from paying said charge/tax), is actually our tax dollars, thus paying double. If I am wrong about this, I am definitly missing something.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

Well if that is the only tax they pay in Ireland then so be it.
Were you down at the party?

I don't know what party you mean but I can say no as I am never invited to anything anymore.

Anyway, back to you! Can you clarify why you should be exempt in principle from paying tax on a private property but someone else should not?

alastair

lugha wrote: »

But then, maybe what people emote is just as important as what they think?

As long as they pay nice late penalties - I've no problem with the emoting.

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

Hi alastair,

Ya see, this is where I get confused and would be grateful if you would just clarify. What about if that house that they live in is a council house. That would mean that said property owner would be the council. That being the case, I would take it to mean that, by virtue of the fact that the money used to build said house, (which by the way, the person renting from the council, is exempt from paying said charge/tax), is actually our tax dollars, thus paying double. If I am wrong about this, I am definitly missing something.

The bulk of local authority funding continues to come from general taxation coffers - so everyone - LA tenant included (aside from their rent) continues to contribute to that funding. No-one is 'paying double' - by that reckoning the LA tenants are 'paying' multiple times over - through their rent, VAT, income tax, motor tax, etc. etc.

kr7

lugha wrote: »

I suspect there are quite a few people who genuinely do feel aggrieved at the notion of having to pay this tax but they can’t make a solid argument for their position because they don’t really have one. It is something more from the heart than the head, which makes it all the more potent: you literally can’t reason with it.

But then, maybe what people emote is just as important as what they think?

Lets get back to government position on this.

The proposed property tax is to be used to provide the LA's with the funding to provide local services needed throughout the country.

That's the government position, right?

Why then should a huge percentage of the people who use these local services be exempt from paying for them?

I would pay a 'LA service tax' or whatever you'd like to call it as long as everyone else who uses the same services pays it too.

I don't think that's being unreasonable, do you?

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

I don't know what party you mean but I can say no as I am never invited to anything anymore.

Anyway, back to you! Can you clarify why you should be exempt in principle from paying tax on a private property but someone else should not?

I pay all my other taxes here and live here. They don't pay any other taxes here (like J.P. Mc Manus) but they have property here and they should be taxed on that as it's the only way we will get anything from them. They spend a lot of time here but pay nothing.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Lets get back to government position on this.

The proposed property tax is to be used to provide the LA's with the funding to provide local services needed throughout the country.

That's the government position, right?

Why then should a huge percentage of the people who use these local services be exempt from paying for them?

I would pay a 'LA service tax' or whatever you'd like to call it as long as everyone else who uses the same services pays it too.

I don't think that's being unreasonable, do you?

No-one is exempt from paying for local services. End of.
You pay an additional taxation revenue stream for your car, your savings, your discretionary purchases, and if you own a property now - for that too.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

I pay all my other taxes here and live here. They don't pay any other taxes here (like J.P. Mc Manus) but they have property here and they should be taxed on that as it's the only way we will get anything from them. They spend a lot of time here but pay nothing.

JP will be taxed on his property here. Happy now?

lugha

kr7 wrote: »

they could cut welfare across the board by 10-15%

They could and will eventually. But we have a reasonable estimate of 4% for “don’t want to work” brigade from the boom years. The current unemployment rate exceeds 14% so I think it is reasonable to assume that most of the difference would work if they could get jobs and many of them did work and may have had mortgages and other loans and child rearing expenses etc etc and through no fault of their own have seen their net come slashed through redundancy. Can you explain why it is fair that they should be dealt yet another hammer blow?

kr7 wrote: »

But if your being housed at the taxpayers expense, paying €30 or €40 per week, then another €5 or €10 per week wouldn't hurt. FFS it's the price of 20 fags or 2 pints.

But this is just a trivial detail relating to the entitlements of the less well off. What great Rubicon has been crossed that prompted a mass defiance of the law?

kr7 wrote: »

Why then should a huge percentage of the people who use these local services be exempt from paying for them?

I would pay a 'LA service tax' or whatever you'd like to call it as long as everyone else who uses the same services pays it too.

I don't think that's being unreasonable, do you?

But why do you have a bee in your bonnet about local services?

Why, to pick one example, are you not aggrieved that you pay substantially for a doctors visit but in addition, a portion of your tax pays for other people's doctor visits as they themselves pay nothing?

kr7

lugha wrote: »

They could and will eventually. But we have a reasonable estimate of 4% for “don’t want to work” brigade from the boom years. The current unemployment rate exceeds 14% so I think it is reasonable to assume that most of the difference would work if they could get jobs and many of them did work and may have had mortgages and other loans and child rearing expenses etc etc and through no fault of their own have seen their net come slashed through redundancy. Can you explain why it is fair that they should be dealt yet another hammer blow?

I don't think that if we went back to 2005 levels of welfare that the sky would cave in.

The cost of living here has come down too although this government is doing it's best to bring it back up.

darkhorse

alastair wrote: »

We've some of the cheapest fuel prices in Europe, and have you seen the amount of road tolls elsewhere?

Yea, the tolls in France, for example, are more than twice what they are here. But then again, you don't pay road tax over there.

kr7

lugha wrote: »

But why do you have a bee in your bonnet about local services?

Why, to pick one example, are you not aggrieved that you pay substantially for a doctors visit but in addition, a portion of your tax pays for other people's doctor visits as they themselves pay nothing?

Maybe it's something ingrained in the Irish psyche, I don't know.

People who worked hard to provide for their own housing needs now look like being punished for doing so, while others can just get away with paying nothing and costing the state a fortune.

There has to be some fairness in society, all we have is a sense of entitlement from those at the 'bottom' of society and those at the 'top'.

It's not right and it's not fair, it will just lead to a greater social divide.

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

Yea, the tolls in France, for example, are more than twice what they are here. But then again, you don't pay road tax over there.

You don't pay road tax here either - you pay motor tax.

The French have an annual car tax - it's 180 euro*, and that's on top of a hefty initial car purchase motor/carbon tax.

*strike that - it's gone up - http://streetwise-france.com/car-tax-france.htm

tayto lover

darkhorse wrote: »

Yea, the tolls in France, for example, are more than twice what they are here. But then again, you don't pay road tax over there.

Alestair didn't know that I bet.

Ghandee

0

alastair wrote: »

You don't pay road tax here either - you pay motor tax.

The French have an annual car tax - it's 180 euro*, and that's on top of a hefty initial car purchase motor/carbon tax.

*strike that - it's gone up - http://streetwise-france.com/car-tax-france.htm

Swap them 190 for my 640 per year anytime Mr.

lugha

kr7 wrote: »

I don't think that if we went back to 2005 levels of welfare that the sky would cave in.

This alas, or something similar, will happen. But the sky won’t cave in either if a homeowner has to pay €500 or €1000 in property tax next year. But both of these measures will cause considerable difficulties to those on the receiving in. And I would certainly rather be working and have to find an extra €500 next year than to be unemployed and face a 15% cut in welfare payments. As would most people if they were to be honest about it.

kr7 wrote: »

People who worked hard to provide for their own housing needs now look like being punished for doing so, while others can just get away with paying nothing and costing the state a fortune.

There has to be some fairness in society, all we have is a sense of entitlement from those at the 'bottom' of society and those at the 'top'.

It's not right and it's not fair, it will just lead to a greater social divide.

If you are genuinely aggrieved that those that provide for their own housing are paying for others who do not then surely your quarrel would be with the whole concept of social housing rather than with property tax per se, and if you were to be consistent, you would have similar reservations about all of our social structures. But you readily admit that you are happy to retain these structures? It is very difficult to see any consistency here.

You continue to insist that there is something abhorrent about property tax because it is a tax that some pay for services that all, including some who do not contribute, enjoy. But neither you nor anyone else can satisfactorily explain why you are totally untroubled by other taxes which have this unsavory feature, which is pretty much all of them

tayto lover

kr7 wrote: »

Maybe it's something ingrained in the Irish psyche, I don't know.

People who worked hard to provide for their own housing needs now look like being punished for doing so, while others can just get away with paying nothing and costing the state a fortune.

There has to be some fairness in society, all we have is a sense of entitlement from those at the 'bottom' of society and those at the 'top'.

It's not right and it's not fair, it will just lead to a greater social divide.

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by sword. The other is by debt." -- John Adams

Chips Lovell

The reason only property owners are being asked to pay for it, is that it is a tax on the asset. As with other wealth taxes, if you don't have that asset you don't pay.

It's not as if the property tax is going to finance all or even most of local authority budgets. So everyone is paying to some degree, just that those who own property are being asked to pay more.

If you want to just make everyone pay, you may as well just whack another €300 to €400 on to income tax instead.

K-9

kr7 wrote: »

Maybe it's something ingrained in the Irish psyche, I don't know.

People who worked hard to provide for their own housing needs now look like being punished for doing so, while others can just get away with paying nothing and costing the state a fortune.

There has to be some fairness in society, all we have is a sense of entitlement from those at the 'bottom' of society and those at the 'top'.

It's not right and it's not fair, it will just lead to a greater social divide.

People work hard to provide their own housing needs and rent, it doesn't cost the state a fortune as the landlord pays the charge plus the NPPR charge. There are other ways to provide for your housing needs, I do recognise that isn't a popular notion as shown on this thread and despite costly lessons over the last few years.

kr7

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The reason only property owners are being asked to pay for it, is that it is a tax on the asset. As with other wealth taxes, if you don't have that asset you don't pay.

It's not as if the property tax is going to finance all or even most of local authority budgets. So everyone is paying to some degree, just that those who own property are being asked to pay more.

If you want to just make everyone pay, you may as well just whack another €300 to €400 on to income tax instead.

I'd have no problem with that, I'd even pay more than that.

But I won't pay this obscene tax just because I am paying for the roof over my head while others get a roof put over their head by the state.

Even the pro-taxers know, although most of them won't admit it, that this tax is not equitable.

darkhorse

alastair wrote: »

You don't pay road tax here either - you pay motor tax.

The French have an annual car tax - it's 180 euro*, and that's on top of a hefty initial car purchase motor/carbon tax.

*strike that - it's gone up - http://streetwise-france.com/car-tax-france.htm

I stand corrected--it's been a while since I've been there. My apologies.