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

later12

dvpower wrote: »

I'm not sure what system they could come up with that would allow the rate of property tax to be tied to lower usage;

How about if your household cannot avail of public water, has their own onsite waste treatment because they cannot up to the public sewage network, cannot avail of bin collections, and cannot receive assistance in building, resurfacing or maintaining the road leading to their property, then the council charge them a lower rate?

To add insult to injury, rural dwellers in such a situation will probably pay extra, since they will typically live in homes that were built without constraints on their dimensions. Despite extra square footage not impacting on the service requirements of the self sufficient home, these houses may be hit by an unfair application of rates that caused so much difficulty for rural dwellers in the 60s and 70s.

I don't see how that would be rocket science to take account of situations where households cannot avail of the key public services. That's hardly very controversial, is it?

Ghandee

gerryo777 wrote: »

All day and night long Ghandee.

Never seen one constructive post from comical ali, unless it was about finding ways to circumvent the VRT system so he wouldn't have to have his car tested as often as it should be.

Have a look at the trolling taking place over here Gerry.

Where Ali claimed the official name of our country its actually 'the republic of Ireland' not Ireland.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80133899&postcount=587

Probably dusting off his white gloves and sash as he typed it.

alastair

later12 wrote: »

How about if your household cannot avail of public water, has their own onsite waste treatment because they cannot up to the public sewage network, cannot avail of bin collections, and cannot receive assistance in building, resurfacing or maintaining the road leading to their property, then the council charge them a lower rate?

To add insult to injury, rural dwellers in such a situation will probably pay extra, since they will typically live in homes that were built without constraints on their dimensions. Despite extra square footage not impacting on the service requirements of the self sufficient home, these houses may be hit by an unfair application of rates that caused so much difficulty for rural dwellers in the 60s and 70s.

I don't see how that would be rocket science to take account of situations where households cannot avail of the key public services. That's hardly very controversial, is it?

You're assuming that the mechanism for valuation will weigh floorspace equally across urban and rural locations - which is rather unlikely. And no-one (bar Galway city for the time being iirc) has refuse collection covered in their local authority services anymore.

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

Hmm, It wasn't me either. As I say - the ignorance is high on the silliness meter.


Now - how would you imagine that 'subsidy' actually operates?



No they do not. Sorry to burst your bubble.

On your classic old bangers, you get a cheap rate of tax. The rest of us pay a normal rate. We subsidise you.

Just to remind you what you said about landlords and about people who rent cars....

"Landlords will pass on the overhead of property taxation, just as Hertz pass on motor tax overheads".

So hertz pass on motor tax overheads to their customers but their customers don't pay motor tax.

Double talk as usual.

Give it a rest will ya and admit your mistake.
I doubt that your big enough to do that though.

gerryo777

Ghandee wrote: »

Have a look at the trolling taking place over here Gerry.

Where Ali claimed the official name of our country its actually 'the republic of Ireland' not Ireland.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80133899&postcount=587

Probably dusting off his white gloves and sash as he typed it.

Funny that because on all the official literature regarding the recent referendum our country was referred to as Ireland.
He mightn't like that though........

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

On your classic old bangers, you get a cheap rate of tax. The rest of us pay a normal rate. We subsidise you.

There are various rates of motor tax. I'm still at a loss as to how this 'subsidy' operates in your mind.

gerryo777 wrote: »

Just to remind you what you said about landlords and about people who rent cars....

"Landlords will pass on the overhead of property taxation, just as Hertz pass on motor tax overheads".

So hertz pass on motor tax overheads to their customers but their customers don't pay motor tax.

Correct. You do understand what an overhead is, yeah?

gerryo777 wrote: »

Double talk as usual.

Give it a rest will ya and admit your mistake.

I guess not.

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

There are various rates of motor tax. I'm still at a loss as to how this 'subsidy' operates in your mind.


Correct. You do understand what an overhead is, yeah?


I guess not.

What's a motor tax overhead that as you've stated, car renters pay?

Enlighten me?

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

What's a motor tax overhead that as you've stated, car renters pay?

Enlighten me?

It's pretty simple tbh.

Hertz have various taxes liable against their operation. They include amongst others, commercial rates and motor tax. They also have the gamut of operational costs, salaries, garage fees etc etc.

Joe Blow comes along to hire a car - he pays a fee and an insurance arrangement. He's not liable for commercial rates or motor tax, he's not required to pay someones salary, or pay a garage bill. The overheads for all of the above, along with whatever profit is built in, and passed on in the form of a fee.

The fee is not motor tax
The fee is not commercial rates
The fee is not a salary payment.

gerryo777

alastair wrote: »

It's pretty simple tbh.

Hertz have various taxes liable against their operation. They include amongst others, commercial rates and motor tax. They also have the gamut of operational costs, salaries, garage fees etc etc.

Joe Blow comes along to hire a car - he pays a fee and an insurance arrangement. He's not liable for commercial rates or motor tax, he's not required to pay someones salary, or pay a garage bill. The overheads for all of the above, along with whatever profit is built in, and passed on in the form of a fee.

The fee is not motor tax
The fee is not commercial rates
The fee is not a salary payment.

You really have a most twisted, even warped view on things.
Must be something to do with your upbringing.
Head back over to the other thread your on tonight, see if you can bash a few fenians.
My dealings with you are over, off to join dv on ignore with ya.

My apologies in advance to any moderator who finds this post offensive as I'm sure al or his buddy will report it.

alastair

gerryo777 wrote: »

You really have a most twisted, even warped view on things.
Must be something to do with your upbringing.
Head back over to the other thread your on tonight, see if you can bash a few fenians.
My dealings with you are over, off to join dv on ignore with ya.

My apologies in advance to any moderator who finds this offensive.

And my apologies that you can't comprehend the distinction between a fee and a tax.

dvpower

later12 wrote: »

How about if your household cannot avail of public water, has their own onsite waste treatment because they cannot up to the public sewage network, cannot avail of bin collections, and cannot receive assistance in building, resurfacing or maintaining the road leading to their property, then the council charge them a lower rate?

To add insult to injury, rural dwellers in such a situation will probably pay extra, since they will typically live in homes that were built without constraints on their dimensions. Despite extra square footage not impacting on the service requirements of the self sufficient home, these houses may be hit by an unfair application of rates that caused so much difficulty for rural dwellers in the 60s and 70s.

I don't see how that would be rocket science to take account of situations where households cannot avail of the key public services. That's hardly very controversial, is it?

I can see a case for where bin collection and water/sewage is provided by a local authority and where someone was providing their own,- that they could get a discount, but I think mostly these are now separate charges already anyway.

I'm not sure what the reference to the LA not providing resurfacing or maintenance of local roads is.

As for the sq. footage of rural homes - as I understand it, the tax will be based on value, not size, so that doesn't apply. Not only will rural dwellers *benefit* from lower property values generally, they'll also be more able to assess themselves with low valuations, because there won't be good data to measure them against.

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

I can see a case for where bin collection and water/sewage is provided by a local authority and where someone was providing their own,- that they could get a discount, but I think mostly these are now separate charges already anyway.

I'm not sure what the reference to the LA not providing resurfacing or maintenance of local roads is.

As for the sq. footage of rural homes - as I understand it, the tax will be based on value, not size, so that doesn't apply. Not only will rural dwellers *benefit* from lower property values generally, they'll also be more able to assess themselves with low valuations, because there won't be good data to measure them against.

This shower will give no discounts and that's as plain as day. Their object seems to be to screw as much as possible from the middle class home owners. Anyone paying their own services will be charged in the same way as the rest. Now getting it from them is another thing.

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

This shower will give no discounts and that's as plain as day. Their object seems to be to screw as much as possible from the middle class home owners. Anyone paying their own services will be charged in the same way as the rest. Now getting it from them is another thing.

I doubt they will introduce discounts - but remember that for every discount there needs to a corresponding surcharge.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

This shower will give no discounts and that's as plain as day. Their object seems to be to screw as much as possible from the middle class home owners.

I think you'll find working class home owners will be just as liable for the tax.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

I think you'll find working class home owners will be just as liable for the tax.

Thought you were over trying to wind up lads about road signs !!

Dub XV

tayto lover wrote: »

Thought you were over trying to wind up lads about road signs !!

He is a multi-wum

later12

dvpower wrote: »

I'm not sure what the reference to the LA not providing resurfacing or maintenance of local roads is.

The resurfacing & road building issue is not directly relevant; I was just trying to demonstrate that the present system is arguably particularly costly for rural dwellers.
However, what is more relevant (although this is a relatively minor point) is that maintenance of footpaths and thoroughfares (e.g. street lighting, on street waste collection) is something that I have heard politicians reference in terms of services that are expected to be paid for under this charge.

I'm making the point that rural dwellers in our situation are responsible for our own hedgerows and associated maintenance, not the council.

I should stress, I'm fine with that; we chose to live in a remote location. The bill is our responsibility. But I think rural dwellers can quite fairly take exception to suggestions that we would be at some sort of serious loss if there were no money to pay for street lights, sidewalk bins and road sweepers.

As for the sq. footage of rural homes - as I understand it, the tax will be based on value, not size, so that doesn't apply. Not only will rural dwellers *benefit* from lower property values generally, they'll also be more able to assess themselves with low valuations, because there won't be good data to measure them against.

Why would someone be so sure that self assessment would work to the householder's *benefit*?

Surely it would be in a council's best interests to revise upwards householders' own assessments of what these dubiously valued properties are worth, since doing so would boost local authority funding.

Far be it from me to be cynical of local authorities' self interest; I'm not saying they would do so, I'm just saying I wouldn't be quite so sure they will be accepting of modest self assessments which may or may not be accurate.

alastair

later12 wrote: »

The resurfacing & road building issue is not directly relevant; I was just trying to demonstrate that the present system is arguably particularly costly for rural dwellers.
However, what is more relevant (although this is a relatively minor point) is that maintenance of footpaths and thoroughfares (e.g. street lighting, on street waste collection) is something that I have heard politicians reference in terms of services that are expected to be paid for under this charge.

I'm making the point that rural dwellers in our situation are responsible for our own hedgerows and associated maintenance, not the council.

I should stress, I'm fine with that; we chose to live in a remote location. The bill is our responsibility. But I think rural dwellers can quite fairly take exception to suggestions that we would be at some sort of serious loss if there were no money to pay for street lights, sidewalk bins and road sweepers.

I take it that you leave your property the odd time - drive on public roads that carry relatively light volumes of traffic, shop in a town that benefits from pavements, street lighting, etc? Have library services, town parks, education grants, and the whole gamut of local authority services that you'd expect? Needing to cut your hedge and tarmac your drive, along with look after your own septic tank, doesn't really make for a huge deficit in LA services provided.

Ghandee

tayto lover wrote: »

Thought you were over trying to wind up lads about road signs !!

He's anywhere he can force his controversial, against the grain opinion.

(troll)

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

He's anywhere he can force his controversial, against the grain opinion.

(troll)

'Against the grain' of tax evaders and those who won't accept that NI is a distinct territory from the Republic of Ireland? I think you'll find those are fairly conventional and unremarkable positions to hold.

Ghandee

alastair wrote: »

'Against the grain' of tax evaders and those who won't accept that NI is a distinct territory from the Republic of Ireland? I think you'll find those are fairly conventional and unremarkable positions to hold.

1. You evaded tax yourself, worse than that you proclaimed it here, whilst adopting a holier than though persona.

2. We've been through the.'Republic of Ireland' thing, i hope you now realise, and accept that the official name of this country is Ireland (admittedly i had to show you the constitution before you'd listen.)

3. I made reference to the right to self determination in the very first post i made in the thread we're referring to here. (including recognizing that i had no problem if sometime wanted to say they were British)


If you're going to be a troll, try to be a good one Al.

Thank you, good night, much love.

dvpower

later12 wrote: »

However, what is more relevant (although this is a relatively minor point) is that maintenance of footpaths and thoroughfares (e.g. street lighting, on street waste collection) is something that I have heard politicians reference in terms of services that are expected to be paid for under this charge.

I'm making the point that rural dwellers in our situation are responsible for our own hedgerows and associated maintenance, not the council.

I live in an urban/suburban area and although I do have street lighting, I don't have on street waste collection, very occasional street cleaning, and in the 10 years I've been here, I've never seen any road or footpath maintenance work (certainly not by the LA - only ever by utility companies after they have dug up the road).

I do however have a lot of extra traffic, as my local roads are used as thoroughfares, so services like street lighting and cleansing are not for my benefit alone.

later12 wrote: »

Why would someone be so sure that self assessment would work to the householder's *benefit*?

Surely it would be in a council's best interests to revise upwards householders' own assessments of what these dubiously valued properties are worth, since doing so would boost local authority funding.

Far be it from me to be cynical of local authorities' self interest; I'm not saying they would do so, I'm just saying I wouldn't be quite so sure they will be accepting of modest self assessments which may or may not be accurate.

It is the householder that will be providing the assessment and they are likely to err on the low side. As I understand it, they intend to use the new house price database (it's supposed to be published next month) as a control.

That will work better in urban areas than rural areas (because there will be many more similar properties to compare against in urban areas).

I'm not sure that LAs will have any involvement with control of the assessments, since the Revenue have been tasked with collection, but I agree that if you have a house that's not easy to assess, then there is a risk that the assessment is more likely to be challanged.

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

1. You evaded tax yourself, worse than that you proclaimed it here, whilst adopting a holier than though persona.

Yep - but a tax that wasn't just - and I didn't pretend I wouldn't have to pay up in the end of the day. Nothing unjust about this tax, and we're in a bit of fix if you hadn't noticed.

Ghandee wrote: »

2. We've been through the.'Republic of Ireland' thing, i hope you now realise, and accept that the official name of this country is Ireland (admittedly i had to show you the constitution before you'd listen.)

And the official 'term' for this state is the Republic of Ireland. The reason for that? To distinguish this state from 'the other' Ireland. That the state continues to use the term 'Republic of Ireland' to distinguish itself from NI in it's own publcations says something about the woolyness between a 'name' and a 'description/term'.

Ghandee wrote: »

3. I made reference to the right to self declaration in the very first post i made in the thread we're referring to here.

Eh? You've lost me.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

1. You evaded tax yourself, worse than that you proclaimed it here, whilst adopting a holier than though persona.

2. We've been through the.'Republic of Ireland' thing, i hope you now realise, and accept that the official name of this country is Ireland (admittedly i had to show you the constitution before you'd listen.)

3. I made reference to the right to self determination in the very first post i made in the thread we're referring to here. (including recognizing that i had no problem if sometime wanted to say they were British)


If you're going to be a troll, try to be a good one Al.

Thank you, good night, much love.

What in the name of God does the official name of the country have to do with the property tax? (Please don't answer that)

Can ye keep at least in the neighborhood of the topic?

darkhorse

alastair wrote: »

Yep - but a tax that wasn't just - and I didn't pretend I wouldn't have to pay up in the end of the day. Nothing unjust about this tax, and we're in a bit of fix if you hadn't noticed.

Except that it is morally wrong. Ask Enda Kenny.:P

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

alastair wrote: »

Yep - but a tax that wasn't just - and I didn't pretend I wouldn't have to pay up in the end of the day. Nothing unjust about this tax, and we're in a bit of fix if you hadn't noticed.

Except that it is morally wrong. Ask Enda Kenny.:P

“It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money.”
WC Fields.

Dub XV

alastair wrote: »

“It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money.”
WC Fields.

Ha must of been thinking of you.....

Now pay up sucker!

donalg1

later12 wrote: »

I live on the edge of a wood & my house looks pretty derelict.

If we turn off all the lights & padlock the gate, they'll never know we're here.

:cool:

But really, we pay for our own road, our own water, we paid for the ESB to send out their electricity poles, we paid for each and every telephone pole that was erected to provide us with services, we pay for our own sewage and maintenance, our gates and our fences. We don't even call the fire brigade for chimney fires, because they're too damn expensive.

I wouldn't go to jail to avoid paying it, but I do have a problem with this tax for homeowners who do not avail of (indeed, cannot avail of) council services.

Why dont you call a chimney sweep that way you wont have any chimney fires.

donalg1

gerryo777 wrote: »

Any ideas yet donal?
We're still waiting.

Any ideas about what Gerry, and who is still waiting, I would think it is just you waiting for something only you know about.

tunedout

Ghandee wrote: »

1. You evaded tax yourself, worse than that you proclaimed it here, whilst adopting a holier than though persona.

alastair wrote: »

Yep - but a tax that wasn't just

alastair wrote: »

'Against the grain' of tax evaders and those who won't accept that NI is a distinct territory from the Republic of Ireland? I think you'll find those are fairly conventional and unremarkable positions to hold.

HA HA. So alastair conveniently decides which taxes are just and which taxes are not. And the people who don't pay the taxes he deems to be just hold unremarkable positions.

People, when you're deciding to pay you're taxes or not make sure to come here and check whether alastair deems it to be just. You might just be able to avoid the tax without falling into the unremarkable person category :pac: