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

woodoo

alastair wrote: »

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

He will probably transfer it into a business and not have to pay

darkhorse

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.

alastair wrote: »

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.

When I was typing this post, alastair, I should have said that I was talking about people living in L.A. housing that have never worked.

Chips Lovell

kr7 wrote: »

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

By your logic then income tax isn't equitable, because those who earn more, pay at a higher rate.

alastair

woodoo wrote: »

He will probably transfer it into a business and not have to pay

Then it'd be liable for rates.

jmayo

Dub XV wrote: »

I am covering my outgoings. But I may struggle if the government apply an extra tax, at whatever level they see fit, whenever they see fit!

There is a limit to what people can pay. Somebody may have a large house because they have a large family.......It's a family tax then?

You tax bill and thus net income is not determined by your outgoings.
It is the other way around.
I wish to fook people could grasp that little reality.

The state and other taxpayers are not meant to be there to fund you if you have a large family.
Just like the state and other taxpayers are not meant to be there because

Although in this country we had some freeloader in Limerick demanding a larger local authority house because he decided not to bother with contraception.

The sense of entitlement in this country is fooking unbelievable.

Dub XV wrote: »

I can choose between a BMW X5 or a n other cheap 7 seat car. If I wanna buy the X5 I am prepared for the expense, no?

As opposed to maybe having to move to an area away from family, schools etc. Moving County even.

It's not the same........not even close.

Once again it is not the taxpayers role to guarantee you can afford to live wherever you want.

Dub XV wrote: »

By the way are you for real?

You think I should just sell up and rent. Jeez

Yes if you can't afford to live where you are then you have to cut your cloth.

kr7 wrote: »

Principles quickly go out the window when you have a massive majority and a subservient coalition partner who'll take any old ****e thrown at them to stay in power as long as the CPA is sacrosanct.

Principles go out the window when the people funding you lay down the law.
To use an old standard: "He who pays the piper calls the tune."
Most of the countries who are involved in funding us have property taxes, yet they arrive in Ireland to find the hand out and no such thing.
What do you think is their first response ?

I do agree about the CPA and getting rid of that as well.

tayto lover wrote: »

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

The Irish enslaved themselves in the mad rush to buy totally overpriced property and indeed the latest expensive consumer tat.
When they couldn't buy anymore in Ireland they hocked their existing property to the hilt so they could buy in some fooking country they could not find on a map nevermind had never visited.

donalg1

jmayo wrote: »

You tax bill and thus net income is not determined by your outgoings.
It is the other way around.
I wish to fook people could grasp that little reality.

The state and other taxpayers are not meant to be there to fund you if you have a large family.
Just like the state and other taxpayers are not meant to be there because

Although in this country we had some freeloader in Limerick demanding a larger local authority house because he decided not to bother with contraception.

The sense of entitlement in this country is fooking unbelievable.



Once again it is not the taxpayers role to guarantee you can afford to live wherever you want.



Yes if you can't afford to live where you are then you have to cut your cloth.



Principles go out the window when the people funding you lay down the law.
To use an old standard: "He who pays the piper calls the tune."
Most of the countries who are involved in funding us have property taxes, yet they arrive in Ireland to find the hand out and no such thing.
What do you think is their first response ?

I do agree about the CPA and getting rid of that as well.



The Irish enslaved themselves in the mad rush to buy totally overpriced property and indeed the latest expensive consumer tat.
When they couldn't buy anymore in Ireland they hocked their existing property to the hilt so they could buy in some fooking country they could not find on a map nevermind had never visited.

You are wasting your time talking sense about the property tax, people dont want to listen to sense as it may mean they have to use some of their disposable income to pay new taxes.

I mean god forbid people actually have to pay for thier mistakes when taking out massive mortgages they couldnt afford just because Joe down the road had a nice house and they needed to compete, and then all the other unneccessary accessories everyone has, sense went out the window during the boom and shows no signs of ever coming back in the window.

The bottom line is everyone knows Ireland is broke, however nobody wants to take responsibility for this or admit they made mistakes and the general public think everyone else but them should pay for it.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

You are wasting your time talking sense about the property tax, people dont want to listen to sense as it may mean they have to use some of their already extremely limited disposable income to pay new taxes.

FYP.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

FYP.

Thanks but I preferred my way it made more sense.;)

lugha

Ghandee wrote: »

FYP.

donalg1 wrote: »

You are wasting your time talking sense about the property tax, people dont want to listen to sense as it may mean they have to use some of their already extremely limited disposable income to pay new taxes.

Ghandee, do you honestly believe that there is a fair way out of the mess we are in that does not involve higher taxes for workers?

donalg1

lugha wrote: »

Ghandee, do you honestly believe that there is a fair way out of the mess we are in that does not involve higher taxes for workers?

They will only come up with ways out of it that dont affect themselves or are so unrealistic that they will never happen anyway.

tayto lover

The Irish enslaved themselves in the mad rush to buy totally overpriced property and indeed the latest expensive consumer tat.
When they couldn't buy anymore in Ireland they hocked their existing property to the hilt so they could buy in some fooking country they could not find on a map nevermind had never visited.

jmayo,
You have taken a very big jump there.
Many of us did not do that at all and it's generalizations like that that causes annoyance to a lot of people.

I for one didn't buy abroad as I found it hard to manage what I have here.
I only finished paying my mortgage last year and I don't intend starting to pay another to the Govt for the privilege of living in it. I did without holidays abroad and my kids did without expensive sports gear etc to enable us to afford the mortgage. Drove an old banger too. If I have anything left over now it will go to my grandkids and not to pay for the greed of others who gambled and lost especially because they have friends in high political places.
They can lock me up if they want but I will stand by my principles.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

They can lock me up if they want but I will stand by my principles.

No-one's going to lock you up - they'll just ensure you pay your taxes one way or another.

You still haven't actually articulated your supposed 'principles' btw - just saying.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

If I have anything left over now it will go to my grandkids and not to pay for the greed of others who gambled and lost especially because they have friends in high political places.
They can lock me up if they want but I will stand by my principles.

Are you now saying you are objecting in principle to any new tax that will help us get out of the mess we are in, on the grounds that you personally did not behave irresponsibly?

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

No-one's going to lock you up - they'll just ensure you pay your taxes one way or another.

You still haven't actually articulated your supposed 'principles' btw - just saying.

Read the thread.

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Are you now saying you are objecting in principle to any new tax that will help us get out of the mess we are in, on the grounds that you personally did not behave irresponsibly?

No. I would pay more income tax. My main gripe is that we should not have to pay tax on our homes to reward those who caused the mess. It's a cart and horse situation.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

No. I would pay more income tax. My main gripe is that we should not have to pay tax on our homes to reward those who caused the mess. It's a cart and horse situation.

You know that you'd pay less on an income tax hike than you would on an equivalent property tax. Which rather muddys the waters as to the 'principle' applied.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

Read the thread.

I've read the thread - you've consistently avoided stating what your 'principled' objection is.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

I've read the thread - you've consistently avoided stating what your 'principled' objection is.

I object to a tax on MY home for all the reasons already stated. It's mine bought and paid for without their help. Why should my home be taxed so that the failed gamblers can keep theirs ? I didn't take silly risks.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

I object to a tax on MY home for all the reasons already stated. It's mine bought and paid for without their help. Why should my home be taxed so that the failed gamblers can keep theirs ? I didn't take silly risks.

That's not a principle.

As I've already stated - you bought and paid for YOUR car, you earned YOUR salary, YOUR savings, all YOUR possessions, and all of those were liable to taxation too. If that's your 'principle' - you shouldn't be paying any taxes whatsoever. It's a nonsense.

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

I've read the thread - you've consistently avoided stating what your 'principled' objection is.

i like this principle...

"It is morally wrong, unjust and unfair to tax a persons home"

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

That's not a principle.

As I've already stated - you bought and paid for YOUR car, you earned YOUR salary, YOUR savings, all YOUR possessions, and all of those were liable to taxation too. If that's your 'principle' - you shouldn't be paying any taxes whatsoever. It's a nonsense.

No it's not a nonsense. What is a nonsense is to tax someones home as it has nothing to do with them.
Our other taxes pay for services.
I will always believe our homes should be kept out of reach of taxes. We paid tax on everything in our homes already and the supplies we needed to construct them.
You are going round in circles again Al.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

My main gripe is that we should not have to pay tax on our homes to reward those who caused the mess

That is two gripes! 1. Paying tax on your home and 2. Paying for a mess you are not responsible for. So is there two distinct principles here for you?

bgrizzley wrote: »

i like this principle...

"It is morally wrong, unjust and unfair to tax a persons home"

If only you could say why! And also explain why everybody else bar us has it wrong?

Chips Lovell

With all due respect, it doesn't make much sense to say: "I shouldn't have to pay tax on it because it's mine and I worked for it" and in the same breath saying you've no objection to other taxes like income tax.

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

If only you could say why! And also explain why everybody else bar us has it wrong?

i would if it was my quote. As it is i just object to paying a groundrent on my home(that i am already paying for).


i also like this principle though
“Would you pay a charge if you were unhappy with the service?”:D

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

No it's not a nonsense. What is a nonsense is to tax someones home as it has nothing to do with them.
Our other taxes pay for services.
I will always believe our homes should be kept out of reach of taxes. We paid tax on everything in our homes already and the supplies we needed to construct them.
You are going round in circles again Al.

More nonsense. A house has 'nothing to do with them'?

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

With all due respect, it doesn't make much sense to say: "I shouldn't have to pay tax on it because it's mine and I worked for it" and in the same breath saying you've no objection to other taxes like income tax.

I refuse to pay for something that targets my home. If they want help then i will pay extra Income Tax to help BUT leave my home out of it.

If a guy living at the bottom of my street runs into problems with his mortgage because he has spent too much money gambling in Paddy Powers and someone comes to me and says "you must pay a tax on your home to help him keep his" then it's the same as this Property Tax to me. Now i might offer him a few bob to help him out but not a tax on my home.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

More nonsense. A house has 'nothing to do with them'?

When you refer to someone else's opinions as nonsense repeatedly then you are losing the argument.

Chips Lovell

What's so special about your home though? This is what you're failing to articulate here. You've no objection to your income being taxed. Or your savings. Why can't a house be taxed?

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

When you refer to someone else's opinions as nonsense repeatedly then you are losing the argument.

When you roll out nonsensical arguments, you run the risk of it being pointed out for what it is - a nonsensical argument.

dvpower

bgrizzley wrote: »

i would if it was my quote

So you like the principle, but you don't know why?