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

Ghandee

alastair wrote: »

Okay nice rural county Derry property (Limavady) of £150,000...

£1174.5

Striking difference.

The examples I picked are cerainly not all urban.

Comes in at 576 for me Ali.

Their not near limavady (which is north Derry)
I never said what value their property was either. You did that.


This is all irrelevant anyway.

Even if they did 1174, its still cheaper than all our septate service charges with edu, health, motor tax, tolls, on top of a one thousand euro roof above your head tax.

Dub XV

alastair wrote: »

There's not.

We are taxed on using the M50 amonst all the other roads.

If you are going to be pedantic expect it back.

You can't have it every way Alastair.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toll

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

Comes in at 576 for me Ali.

Their not near limavady (which is north Derry)
I never said what value their property was either. You did that.


This is all irrelevant anyway.

Even if they did 1174, its still cheaper than all our septate service charges with edu, health, motor tax, tolls, on top of a one thousand euro roof above your head tax.

Magherafelt is is then: £963.15 for a modest £150,000 property.

And yeah - if you add in a bunch of stuff on one side, and not on the other, it might tip the balance, but that would be pretty daft, eh?

out da lough

Can I present two alternative scenarios?

Scenario 1:

A couple, living in a house they purchased for €250,000 in an outlying suburb of Cork City. They have a mortgage of €220,000 and their house is now worth €160,000. They have to pay €1200 in mortgage repayments per month.

They each work and pay taxes. She is a Garda and he is a Mechanic. Their gross joint income is €85,000. They bought their house new back in late 2007, and paid stamp duty "on the transaction," but either way, it was money that they had to pay to the government when they bought their house. The government now suggests that they should pay anywhere between €300 and €800 per annum from next year "property tax," because they have an asset. An asset which is worth €50,000 less than what they paid for it.


Scenario 2.

The couple next door rent a house of identical size and design. Their rent is €1200 a month. They both work, she as a quality control analyst, and he as a software support person. Their cumulative income is €85,000. Because they are renting the house, they are not liable for the property tax. Because they do not own an "asset" they are not in negative equity.


****

This, to me, seems unfair.

alastair

out da lough wrote: »

I don't know what the Mayor of County Cork earns. But I do know that the Cork City Manager, the Cork County Manager, and the Lord Mayor of Cork are each on a package in excess of that of the Prime Minister of Spain.

For what it's worth, the lord mayor of Barcelona is also paid more than the Spanish Prime Minister.

Ghandee

alastair wrote: »

Magherafelt is is then: £963.15 for a modest £150,000 property.

And yeah - if you add in a bunch of stuff on one side, and not on the other, it might tip the balance, but that would be pretty daft, eh?

You have to get the last word every time.

Their rates are.570 Sterling a year Alastair.

You ate telling me what their property is worth now, yeah?

alastair

out da lough wrote: »

This, to me, seems unfair.

It was decent of the second couple's landlord to not pass on any of the property tax overhead.

Do you have the same fairness issue with car owners and non-drivers?

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

You have to get the last word every time.

Their rates are.570 Sterling a year Alastair.

You ate telling me what their property is worth now, yeah?

How would I know what their house is worth? - I'm pointing out the rates that are applicable - on a notional, and modest, property valuation - one that's below the average house valuation for NI.

Ray Palmer

kr7 wrote: »

Anyone on, say €80k or more be put on a third rate of tax of 50%.

As I would be one of these people I can tell you what would happen. I simply would stop working. I would be paying more in tax than get paid at a point. Between USC and prsi it would be over 50% taken from a days wage. Revenue will therefore decrease as I and others reduce how much we work.
We also pay a higher percentage of tax on our wages and more money. Double salary does not mean double income.
You can keep raising taxes but it won't increase revenue and may reduce it.
Luckily people who decide these things know this. It could in theory mean other people would do the work I don't take. Apparently that doesn't happen just decreases work done.

donalg1

Ray Palmer wrote: »

As I would be one of these people I can tell you what would happen. I simply would stop working. I would be paying more in tax than get paid at a point. Between USC and prsi it would be over 50% taken from a days wage. Revenue will therefore decrease as I and others reduce how much we work.
We also pay a higher percentage of tax on our wages and more money. Double salary does not mean double income.
You can keep raising taxes but it won't increase revenue and may reduce it.
Luckily people who decide these things know this. It could in theory mean other people would do the work I don't take. Apparently that doesn't happen just decreases work done.

Apparently the USC is not taken from your wages and is not a pay cut, or at least this is what I learned here today.

out da lough

alastair wrote: »

It was decent of the second couple's landlord to not pass on any of the property tax overhead.

Do you have the same fairness issue with car owners and non-drivers?

The second couple can move with a month's notice. The first couple because they are in negative equity will find it much more difficult to move. How do you know the second couple's landlord did not pass on any of the overhead?

Do you prefer strawberry or vanilla ice cream?

Dub XV

donalg1 wrote: »

Apparently the USC is not taken from your wages and is not a pay cut, or at least this is what I learned here today.

Ray Palmer didn't call it a pay cut?

donalg1

Dub XV wrote: »

Ray Palmer didn't call it a pay cut?

He mentioned it cuts his pay though.

alastair

out da lough wrote: »

How do you know the second couple's landlord did not pass on any of the overhead?

I don't - but then I don't know what the first couple's mortgage is either - so they might be paying far less than the second couple on a monthly basis.

Thing is - if there's property tax liable on either property - I'm betting the occupants of both houses will be covering it - directly or indirectly.

ah - I missed the mortgage price. That's a pretty bad deal on a 220,000 house.

Red_Wake

out da lough wrote: »

Can I present two alternative scenarios?

Scenario 1:

A couple, living in a house they purchased for €250,000 in an outlying suburb of Cork City. They have a mortgage of €220,000 and their house is now worth €160,000. They have to pay €1200 in mortgage repayments per month.

They each work and pay taxes. She is a Garda and he is a Mechanic. Their gross joint income is €85,000. They bought their house new back in late 2007, and paid stamp duty "on the transaction," but either way, it was money that they had to pay to the government when they bought their house. The government now suggests that they should pay anywhere between €300 and €800 per annum from next year "property tax," because they have an asset. An asset which is worth €50,000 less than what they paid for it.


Scenario 2.

The couple next door rent a house of identical size and design. Their rent is €1200 a month. They both work, she as a quality control analyst, and he as a software support person. Their cumulative income is €85,000. Because they are renting the house, they are not liable for the property tax. Because they do not own an "asset" they are not in negative equity.


****

This, to me, seems unfair.

Before the recession, the people of scenario 2 would be considered the fools, tbf.

ART6

In this and other threads on this subject a number of posts have stated that the country is effectively insolvent, and that taxes must rise accordingly since the government cannot meet it's bills. The causes for that insolvency (converting bank debt to sovereign debt etc) are irrelevant now since the debts exists and cannot be simply cancelled. However, there is only a certain amount of money that can be drained from family incomes before the economy begins to suffer. This is the point where taxation levels become unsustainable: People progressively spend less because they simply don't have the money after tax. The economy then begins to decline, and taxation from other sources (stamp duty, excise duty, VAT, corporation tax, etc.) also starts to decline. Taxation increases steadily buy revenue income reduces.

The economy needs growth to have any chance of escaping from the recession, and increasing taxes to pay for growth initiatives is madness of the nature beloved of politicians. Ministers telling people to get out and buy things when they have given a large part of their incomes to government is downright insulting.

I believe that we are now at the point where tax levels will become unsustainable if they aren't already, and piling on more and more stealth and other taxes will only accelerate the decline. There must be another solution, and ones I can immediately think of are:

Eliminate all but absolutely essential quangos, and return responsibilities to ministerial departments, carrying out detailed studies of what all of the remaining quangos actually do and be ruthless about whether any of it is necessary (quangos were reported as costing €13 billions in 2006 -- Irish Independent).

If tax levels are to be compared with those in other countries (a favourite government tactic) then look at civil service numbers and costs on a per-capita basis in Ireland and other countries. Carry out the same exercise for TD and ministerial salaries, expenses, and pensions, and reduce them as necessary to conform to the EU average for the size of population. Do the same thing for the number of TDs and ministers (including the ranks of junior ministers), and adjust those numbers to the EU average.

Instead of increasing spending from increased taxation to fund jobs and growth initiatives, consider that perhaps people, commerce, and industry have a better idea of how to manage their finances and spending than any politician will ever have. So no more pointless and unsuccessful initiatives and no more tax increases. Let the economy grow by its own efforts without the interference of incompetent ministers.

Where unions insist upon being intransigent in the face of reality, confront them and get the fight over and done with instead of agreeing to maintain the status quo in supposed return for some nebulous efficiency savings that never seem to actually arise.

Take a long, cold look at all of the services supplied by central and local government, and be rid of any that are not essential. So no more overseas aid payments to foreign states, at least until such time as the economy recovers. Let the charities worry about humanitarian aid -- they are much better at it than governments, and they spend money from voluntary donations, not from tax.

I am sure there are many other initiatives that should be entertained, but finally I would suggest that the politicians in government should consider abandoning the policies of lies and spin, start defending their own people as they are paid to do, and try leadership for a change:mad:

mickydoomsux

out da lough wrote: »

Can I present two alternative scenarios?

Scenario 1:

A couple, living in a house they purchased for €250,000 in an outlying suburb of Cork City. They have a mortgage of €220,000 and their house is now worth €160,000. They have to pay €1200 in mortgage repayments per month.

They each work and pay taxes. She is a Garda and he is a Mechanic. Their gross joint income is €85,000. They bought their house new back in late 2007, and paid stamp duty "on the transaction," but either way, it was money that they had to pay to the government when they bought their house. The government now suggests that they should pay anywhere between €300 and €800 per annum from next year "property tax," because they have an asset. An asset which is worth €50,000 less than what they paid for it.


Scenario 2.

The couple next door rent a house of identical size and design. Their rent is €1200 a month. They both work, she as a quality control analyst, and he as a software support person. Their cumulative income is €85,000. Because they are renting the house, they are not liable for the property tax. Because they do not own an "asset" they are not in negative equity.


****

This, to me, seems unfair.

The first lot decided to buy a house and therefore incur all related expenses, present and future, that come with property ownership. The second couple didn't so the owner of the property (the landlord) incurs the expenses related to the ownership.

We Irish have a fetish for property ownership and anything that gets in the way of it is seen as "unfair". You made the choice to put yourself in this "unfair" situation, man up and accept responsibility for you actions.

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

Ok I will break it down even simpler for you as you continue to miss the point.

Europe tells the Govt it wants €200 from them today.

The Govt doesnt have it so the Govt says to you I am going to tax you €200.

You pay the €200 to the Govt. they in turn give it to Europe.

End of Story.

However your way is:

Europe tells the Govt it wants €200 from them today.

The Govt doesnt have it so the Govt says to you I am going to tax you €200.

You pay the €200 to the Govt. they in turn give provide you with a service that costs them €200.

They give Europe €0. So the govt need to tax you again to get €200 for Europe.

Can you see the flaw in your idea?

That's what we do.

We borrow the €200 again and again from bondholders.

We roll the debt over, again and again.

It's the way most countries work.

alastair

ART6 wrote: »

In this and other threads on this subject a number of posts have stated that the country is effectively insolvent, and that taxes must rise accordingly since the government cannot meet it's bills. The causes for that insolvency (converting bank debt to sovereign debt etc) are irrelevant now since the debts exists and cannot be simply cancelled. :

That's not the reason. Once again: http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/6826/taxbill.jpg

donalg1

mickydoomsux wrote: »

The first lot decided to buy a house and therefore incur all related expenses, present and future, that come with property ownership. The second couple didn't so the owner of the property (the landlord) incurs the expenses related to the ownership.

We Irish have a fetish for property ownership and anything that gets in the way of it is seen as "unfair". You made the choice to put yourself in this "unfair" situation, man up and accept responsibility for you actions.

The second couple also decided to rent and will therefore incur all related expenses present and future that come with renting properties.

Its the same old story constantly people make decisions that may or may not work out for them, when they go wrong and they have to pay for this they ask why dont they have to pay too even though they made different decisions or the right ones with hindsight, however if the decision goes right for them and they save money they never ask why the others arent being given money too even though they made the wrong decision.

donalg1

kr7 wrote: »

That's what we do.

We borrow the €200 again and again from bondholders.

We roll the debt over, again and again.

It's the way most countries work.

Thereby never reducing the deficit then, which is your solution to reducing the deficit.

And how has the above worked out for Ireland?

out da lough

mickydoomsux wrote: »

The first lot decided to buy a house and therefore incur all related expenses, present and future, that come with property ownership. The second couple didn't so the owner of the property (the landlord) incurs the expenses related to the ownership.

We Irish have a fetish for property ownership and anything that gets in the way of it is seen as "unfair". You made the choice to put yourself in this "unfair" situation, man up and accept responsibility for you actions.

I bought my property a number of years ago and happily am not basing my own personal experience on either of the above scenarios.

I am merely putting the example out there to stimulate debate.

By the way in relation to your post, the couple in scenario 1 would also have paid a significant stamp duty charge and also VAT on the property that they purchased.

If the government wants to introduce a tax which is supposedly to fund local authorities, then in my humble opinion, everyone who uses those services (whatever they may be) should be liable for that tax, subject to their income.

Otherwise, they should stop calling it a "household charge" and just call it a tax on people who are supposedly "owner occupiers."


Even though many of these occupiers will never earn enough money to "own" the house they live in.

alastair

ART6 wrote: »

Take a long, cold look at all of the services supplied by central and local government, and be rid of any that are not essential. So no more overseas aid payments to foreign states, at least until such time as the economy recovers. Let the charities worry about humanitarian aid -- they are much better at it than governments, and they spend money from voluntary donations, not from tax.

The charities already administer our overseas aid - they're part of those quangos you want to cut. Personally I'd rather see some more lives saved through paying a bit more tax, which might take us up to European norms. But that's just me.

kr7

out da lough wrote: »

Can I present two alternative scenarios?

Scenario 1:

A couple, living in a house they purchased for €250,000 in an outlying suburb of Cork City. They have a mortgage of €220,000 and their house is now worth €160,000. They have to pay €1200 in mortgage repayments per month.

They each work and pay taxes. She is a Garda and he is a Mechanic. Their gross joint income is €85,000. They bought their house new back in late 2007, and paid stamp duty "on the transaction," but either way, it was money that they had to pay to the government when they bought their house. The government now suggests that they should pay anywhere between €300 and €800 per annum from next year "property tax," because they have an asset. An asset which is worth €50,000 less than what they paid for it.


Scenario 2.

The couple next door rent a house of identical size and design. Their rent is €1200 a month. They both work, she as a quality control analyst, and he as a software support person. Their cumulative income is €85,000. Because they are renting the house, they are not liable for the property tax. Because they do not own an "asset" they are not in negative equity.


****

This, to me, seems unfair.

It's hard for pro-taxers to grasp this scenario, they just can't or won't see the injustice.
They will dismiss you and come out with a bull****e motor tax argument.

It's unfortunate, but that is the mindset your dealing with.

They think we've been reckless for putting our own roof over out heads and not depend on the state to do it for us.

There's not much you can say to change that.:(

out da lough

donalg1 wrote: »

Its the same old story constantly people make decisions that may or may not work out for them, when they go wrong and they have to pay for this they ask why dont they have to pay too even though they made different decisions or the right ones with hindsight, however if the decision goes right for them and they save money they never ask why the others arent being given money too even though they made the wrong decision.

Agreed.

And you can apply the exact same logic to "benchmarking."

Ray Palmer

donalg1 wrote: »

Dub XV wrote: »

Ray Palmer didn't call it a pay cut?

He mentioned it cuts his pay though.

It reduces my net income. The point isn't lost. USC isn't a pay cut it is an extra tax.

To add a higher % on higher income ignores the fact the more you earn the more tax on that income already.

kr7

donalg1 wrote: »

Thereby never reducing the deficit then, which is your solution to reducing the deficit.

And how has the above worked out for Ireland?

How about not taxing the life out of people for owning/paying for their homes and leaving them money to spend in the local economy, thus creating jobs, reducing the amount of people getting welfare and therefore reducing the deficit.

Mad,I know.

donalg1

out da lough wrote: »

Agreed.

And you can apply the exact same logic to "benchmarking."

It comes back to one thing and thats Human Nature, people looking out for themselves first and foremost which is fair enough.

kr7

mickydoomsux wrote: »

The first lot decided to buy a house and therefore incur all related expenses, present and future, that come with property ownership. The second couple didn't so the owner of the property (the landlord) incurs the expenses related to the ownership.

We Irish have a fetish for property ownership and anything that gets in the way of it is seen as "unfair". You made the choice to put yourself in this "unfair" situation, man up and accept responsibility for you actions.

LOL:rolleyes:

alastair

out da lough wrote: »

If the government wants to introduce a tax which is supposedly to fund local authorities, then in my humble opinion, everyone who uses those services (whatever they may be) should be liable for that tax, subject to their income.

Why? They don't own the property. You might as well say everyone should pay motor tax, because it contributes to everyone's services, regardless of whether they pay or not.

out da lough wrote: »

Otherwise, they should stop calling it a "household charge" and just call it a tax on people who are supposedly "owner occupiers."

From next year it'll just be plain old 'property tax'. Everyone can be happy.

out da lough wrote: »

Even though many of these occupiers will never earn enough money to "own" the house they live in.

They won't? Why not?