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

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

Options
1…5859616364…107

Comments

  • Options
    #1802
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,933 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    dvpower wrote: »
    I'm muddying the water :pac:?

    Here you are, as plain as day, lying that James Reilly doesn't pay 'road tax'.


    You're some chancer.

    In the same post you go on to say...

    ... and you say I'm muddying the waters?

    Yes you are.
    Maybe my writing is not up to your standard as i only have basic education, no third level, but it just shows you up when you try to use that to put people down. Typical FG type arrogance.


  • Options
    #1803
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Yes you are.
    Maybe my writing is not up to your standard as i only have basic education, no third level, but it just shows you up when you try to use that to put people down. Typical FG type arrogance.
    You can't even tell the truth from a lie - or have the decency to even admit the lie when challenged on it.

    Didn't pay his 'road tax'. Lie.
    Got self supplied tax breaks? Lie.
    Got people to do little favours for him, like the tax break. Lie.

    A poor education is the least of your problems.


  • Options
    #1804
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    That's a very broad, and fairly insulting, generalisation to make.

    But it's also fairly accurate.

    It may not be PC correct to say it, but it's not far off the mark.


  • Options
    #1805
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,933 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    dvpower wrote: »
    You can't even tell the truth from a lie - or have the decency to even admit the lie when challenged on it.

    Didn't pay his 'road tax'. Lie.
    Got self supplied tax breaks? Lie.
    Got people to do little favours for him, like the tax break. Lie.

    A poor education is the least of your problems.

    You can twist it whatever way you like but

    1. Reilly got tax breaks. I have no doubt it was favours.
    2. Hogan got interest only loans from Fingers that no ordinary citizen i imagine would get. More favours i'd say again.
    3. You don't like these things being pointed out because you can't deny them so you try to muddy the waters and turn these facts on the poster who brings them up
    4. You are as arrogant as they are.
    You knew exactly what i meant with that first sentence in my post and didn't quote it all. But you forget that the FG Senator in Galway appointed by our glorious leader didn't pay her car tax. You always only reply to the wee bits that suit you.


  • Options
    #1806
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    dvpower wrote: »
    In that case theres nothing to stop you. Lets see if you can get 84 TDs to support your proposals. :pac:

    I'm not that close to politicians, maybe you could try.

    Maybe you could even explain to me why people who rent or have their housing provided for them by the LA's don't derive a benefit from those houses and why they shouldn't pay BIK on them.

    You spend your time on here and other similar threads rattling on about people who will not be discriminated against refusing to pay this tax/charge.

    You suggest no ideas though about other ways to bridge the deficit and anyone who does suggest anything different is treated with disdain.

    This way of going on can only lead people to assume you have ulterior motives regarding the property tax.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1807
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    This way of going on can only lead people to assume you have ulterior motives regarding the property tax.
    Take your tinfoil hat off.


  • Options
    #1808
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    But it's also fairly accurate.

    It may not be PC correct to say it, but it's not far off the mark.

    If you're going to write off entire classes of people based on personal prejudice, you're veering into rant rather than reasoned debate territory. Which is fine, but is isn't exactly going to sway opinion your way.


  • Options
    #1809
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    It doesn't really matter whether Enda Kenny said it in 1994 or someone on Boards said it in 2012, the fact of the matter is that nobody has really managed to explain what is immoral about taxing a house.

    Actually, a few people did. As for my own explanation, I thing it unjust because I have worked hard to pay my mortgage for the past twenty years and I still have six more years to pay it. After so many years and a few hundred thousand pounds/euros, including stamp duty and a lot of interest, which, will you agree, that if I just decided to stay on the LA approved waiting list for a council house, I could have saved a hell of a lot of money. Anyway, after one third of a persons lifetime, it is not unreasonable for to expect that he/she has their house fully paid for. So yes, I think its immoral to expect someone to pay money for living in the house that they already paid for, for the rest of their life. And to add insult to injury, that is on top of all the other taxes that we pay already.


  • Options
    #1810
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    tayto lover wrote: »
    1. Reilly got tax breaks. I have no doubt it was favours.

    Which tax breaks?


  • Options
    #1811
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    tayto lover wrote: »
    You can twist it whatever way you like but

    1. Reilly got tax breaks. I have no doubt it was favours.
    2. Hogan got interest only loans from Fingers that no ordinary citizen i imagine would get. More favours i'd say again.
    3. You don't like these things being pointed out because you can't deny them so you try to muddy the waters and turn these facts on the poster who brings them up
    4. You are as arrogant as they are.
    You knew exactly what i meant with that first sentence in my post and didn't quote it all. But you forget that the FG Senator in Galway appointed by our glorious leader didn't pay her car tax. You always only reply to the wee bits that suit you.
    Slander heaped upon lie.
    You really can't help yourself, can you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1812
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,933 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    dvpower wrote: »
    Slander heaped upon lie.
    You really can't help yourself, can you?

    Arrogance heaped on arrogance.
    You really can't help that I know.
    The truth hurts.


  • Options
    #1813
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    At the end of the day dv, your opinions are only equally as important as mine.

    If you were anything in the FG party, which I don't believe you are, you wouldn't be spending your time on boards.ie cheerleading a property tax.

    No, closer to the truth is that your probably a union man, on here trying to protect your own interests.

    If you would like to discuss ways to bridge the deficit, I'm more than happy to but it's pointless trying to discuss different things with someone who can only put forward one idea.


  • Options
    #1814
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,933 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    Which tax breaks?

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0615/1224317984167.html


  • Options
    #1815
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    I mean that it makes it redundant because it's no longer a property tax and instead is a broad levy.

    We have always had a progressive taxation system, whereby those who earn more and own more, pay proportionally more. You may not consider that fair and equitable, but I certainly do, so possibly there our opinions differ.

    I believe the property tax ought to be no different. Those who stand to gain most from local services (i.e. their impact on their asset value) should pay proportionally more.

    Just because you have a mortgage on a property does not mean your rich. There are plenty of people who rent and are infinitely better off than those who own a property.


  • Options
    #1816
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    If you're going to write off entire classes of people based on personal prejudice, you're veering into rant rather than reasoned debate territory. Which is fine, but is isn't exactly going to sway opinion your way.

    Absolutely no personal prejudice here.
    My wife was born and raised on a council estate, but her family worked and paid their way.

    I gave the example before about her parents, bought their own council house and have to pay for everything that needs doing to it while the people right next door were moved out about a year ago, the whole house was gutted from top to bottom, heating, bathrooms, kitchen, windows, everything done to the house and they pay around €40 a week rent.
    They won't have to pay any property tax and your telling me that they get no benefit from that house and shouldn't pay BIK?

    That's half the problem in Ireland, the sense of entitlement......


  • Options
    #1817
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    At the end of the day dv, your opinions are only equally as important as mine.
    Really?
    gerryo777 wrote: »
    If you were anything in the FG party, which I don't believe you are, you wouldn't be spending your time on boards.ie cheerleading a property tax.

    No, closer to the truth is that your probably a union man, on here trying to protect your own interests.
    Your opinions are nonsence.


  • Options
    #1818
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    dvpower wrote: »
    Really?


    Your opinions are nonsence.

    In your opinion.

    Your sussed for what you are. LMAO.:D

    Back to ignore with you.


  • Options
    #1819
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Since you are the one obssessed with motor tax, I assume you work at the local motor tax office, how is giving new cars a much cheaper rate of motor tax fair and equitable? Only those with enough wealth can afford a new car and they are getting huge discounts. Explain to everyone how it's fair and equitable.

    With regards to people renting do you agree with some form of tax on them to cover their use of local services like libraries, open spaces, public lighting etc all the stuff we are told the property tax is paying? As someone else posted maybe landlords may pass this onto tenants but that may not be possible and as their asset depreciates will the property tax also go down?
    alastair wrote: »
    Not really - I'm not liable for any back taxes. Can you say the same? Motor tax is levied only on car owners, just as property tax is just levied on property owners - this concept seems lost on many who were happy enough to pay their motor tax, but suddenly find the notion inequitable.


    You think that a year's local authority rent amounts to less than a year's property tax?!


    The tax is a partial revenue source for local authority overheads. You don't know what the average property tax is going to be - so let's not pretend otherwise. I'm equally not clear on why those who don't own property should be considered freeloaders by those who do. Are those who choose not to buy a car 'freeloading' off those who did?


  • Options
    #1820
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,933 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    In your opinion.

    Your sussed for what you are. LMAO.:D

    You know they are riled when they resort to the insults and attempts at put-down. Animal Farm springs to mind, they think that "some are more equal than others".


  • Options
    #1821
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,022 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    darkhorse wrote: »
    Actually, a few people did. As for my own explanation, I thing it unjust because I have worked hard to pay my mortgage for the past twenty years and I still have six more years to pay it. After so many years and a few hundred thousand pounds/euros, including stamp duty and a lot of interest, which, will you agree, that if I just decided to stay on the LA approved waiting list for a council house, I could have saved a hell of a lot of money. Anyway, after one third of a persons lifetime, it is not unreasonable for to expect that he/she has their house fully paid for. So yes, I think its immoral to expect someone to pay money for living in the house that they already paid for, for the rest of their life. And to add insult to injury, that is on top of all the other taxes that we pay already.

    So you bought a house and you have a mortgage. Millions of others have done that before you and a lot of them had to pay property tax in the past. It was abolished for a while, now it's back. Political decision democratically arrived at and not rendered immoral or unjust because you say so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1822
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    tayto lover wrote: »
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0615/1224317984167.html

    That relief was introduced by a Fianna Fail government in 1982. Do you really think it was brought in to do James Reilly a favour?
    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Just because you have a mortgage on a property does not mean your rich. There are plenty of people who rent and are infinitely better off than those who own a property.

    Nobody said it means you're rich. I know I'm not. But property owners stand to gain more from local services given the impact they have on the value of their property. It stands to reason they should pay more.
    gerryo777 wrote: »
    I gave the example before about her parents, bought their own council house and have to pay for everything that needs doing to it while the people right next door were moved out about a year ago, the whole house was gutted from top to bottom, heating, bathrooms, kitchen, windows, everything done to the house and they pay around €40 a week rent.
    They won't have to pay any property tax and your telling me that they get no benefit from that house and shouldn't pay BIK?

    Yes, I believe they shouldn't. Your wife's parents can sell that property if they want to. Or leave it to someone when they die. The neighbours effectively own nothing.


  • Options
    #1823
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,933 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    dxhound2005,

    Are you happy with what they did to the streets in Dundalk with those cycle lanes?


  • Options
    #1824
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    So you bought a house and you have a mortgage. Millions of others have done that before you and a lot of them had to pay property tax in the past. It was abolished for a while, now it's back. Political decision democratically arrived at and not rendered immoral or unjust because you say so.

    I don't recall any referendum? Infact there is no democracy in the decision to introduce a property tax. It's part of an agreement made by the previous bunch of gangsters and the IMF/EU. We got no vote. Plus FG/Labour gave no indication that they would be introducing a property tax. They also said no more money would be given to Anglo. Those gangsters lied.


  • Options
    #1825
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Since you are the one obssessed with motor tax, I assume you work at the local motor tax office, how is giving new cars a much cheaper rate of motor tax fair and equitable? Only those with enough wealth can afford a new car and they are getting huge discounts. Explain to everyone how it's fair and equitable.

    With regards to people renting do you agree with some form of tax on them to cover their use of local services like libraries, open spaces, public lighting etc all the stuff we are told the property tax is paying? As someone else posted maybe landlords may pass this onto tenants but that may not be possible and as their asset depreciates will the property tax also go down?

    Ali has a car obsession, old bangers that pollute the atmosphere, ones that get cheaper motor tax that you and I subsidise. ('classic's', I think they call them LOL).
    That's why the motor tax argument is constantly being trotted out.

    I wonder would he agree that if you own an old house that needs work done etc, a 'classic' house if you like, should it be exempt from or qualify for a cheaper tax rate than newer houses?

    Anyway, I still want to see a benefit in kind tax applied to renters and LA tenants before I will even consider paying a property tax.


  • Options
    #1826
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,933 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Originally Posted by tayto lover
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...317984167.html
    That relief was introduced by a Fianna Fail government in 1982. Do you really think it was brought in to do James Reilly a favour?

    No but I believe he would have been steered towards applying for the tax break and as a politician would have had the assistance of Civil Servants in obtaining it. Not illegally now but who was ever going to object to him getting one. I am of the opinion that his position favoured him in that.


  • Options
    #1827
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    What exactly have they to gain? Most will have paid more money than the assit is worth. And if they get to sell it in the future they will most likely have made a loss. Why should your neighbour who is renting not contribute to the upkeep of libraries, footpaths etc? They also have use but are exempt from paying. How is that fair and equitable?
    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    That relief was introduced by a Fianna Fail government in 1982. Do you really think it was brought in to do James Reilly a favour?



    Nobody said it means you're rich. I know I'm not. But property owners stand to gain more from local services given the impact they have on the value of their property. It stands to reason they should pay more.



    Yes, I believe they shouldn't. Your wife's parents can sell that property if they want to. Or leave it to someone when they die. The neighbours effectively own nothing.


  • Options
    #1828
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    It's on the European Commission website. It's worth reading actually:





    All of that is anecdotal evidence though. For example, pretty much everyone I know has paid it, at least that's what they're telling me. What does that tell me about the overall payment rate? Not much really.

    If they're lying about compliance, what are they going to do when preparing the national accounts? Sooner or later they're going to have to explain where the missing money is.

    Maybe they will get seanie fitz to put something together.


  • Options
    #1829
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    That relief was introduced by a Fianna Fail government in 1982. Do you really think it was brought in to do James Reilly a favour?



    Nobody said it means you're rich. I know I'm not. But property owners stand to gain more from local services given the impact they have on the value of their property. It stands to reason they should pay more.



    Yes, I believe they shouldn't. Your wife's parents can sell that property if they want to. Or leave it to someone when they die. The neighbours effectively own nothing.

    They may own nothing but that's because they have paid very little to keep the roof over their head.

    They certainly benefit from the local services though.

    We have different views on how society should be and that's ok.
    Doesn't make either of us right, I suppose.

    I believe everyone should pay and therefore have a stake in their local area, your's is a different view.


  • Options
    #1830
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Since you are the one obssessed with motor tax, I assume you work at the local motor tax office, how is giving new cars a much cheaper rate of motor tax fair and equitable? Only those with enough wealth can afford a new car and they are getting huge discounts. Explain to everyone how it's fair and equitable.
    Cars with lower carbon emissions are cheaper, or older cars with lower cubic capacity are cheaper. Buy a nice new diesel Dacia Duster if you're not wealthy and want a new tax-efficient car.

    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    With regards to people renting do you agree with some form of tax on them to cover their use of local services like libraries, open spaces, public lighting etc all the stuff we are told the property tax is paying? As someone else posted maybe landlords may pass this onto tenants but that may not be possible and as their asset depreciates will the property tax also go down?
    Yes I do. They pay it already - it's a mixture of income tax, motor tax, VAT, etc etc. In fact the gamut of taxes - bar property tax - since they don't actually own a property - or get the benefit of owning property.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1831
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    That relief was introduced by a Fianna Fail government in 1982. Do you really think it was brought in to do James Reilly a favour?
    He didn't even enter the Dail until 25 years later. The idea that it was a favour is complete and utter nonsence.
    tayto lover wrote: »
    No but I believe he would have been steered towards applying for the tax break and as a politician would have had the assistance of Civil Servants in obtaining it. Not illegally now but who was ever going to object to him getting one. I am of the opinion that his position favoured him in that.
    Your opinion in this case is pure prejudice. Can you substantiate it in any way?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement