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

dxhound2005

bgrizzley wrote: »

you can be a landlord and have 100 properties (put them down at 150k each), you have real assets of 15 million and what does this wealth tax cost you? the princely sum of E100 for your own house.
hhc for the other 99 properties get passed on to the renters, who have no wealth whatsoever.

you own you own home worth 150k whats it cost you? E100 same as that landlord worth E15,000,000, same as those renters whose wealth is 0

seems legit...

You're forgetting about the NPPR. And a side effect of the Household Charge is that some landlords who never paid NPPR now have to pony up about €2500per property. It goes up by €20 per month going back to 2009 if it hasn't been paid.

dxhound2005

bgrizzley wrote: »

no, i havent missed it, just think its a shame they will be running around chasing 700,000 people for E100, it may just impede some of the good work they are doing catching real criminals.

People were asked to self register and pay €100 between January and March, its their own fault if they refused. Like the offshore accounters they took poor advice if they think there are no consequences.

bgrizzley

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You're forgetting about the NPPR. And a side effect of the Household Charge is that some landlords who never paid NPPR now have to pony up about €2500per property. It goes up by €20 per month going back to 2009 if it hasn't been paid.

i thought that the NPPR was scrapped with the introduction of the HHC?

even if not, im sure that charge is passed to the renters leaving the landlord with just his E100 to pay out of his own pocket.
it wont make one difference if its E100 or E1000, the asset-less renter will pay this tax.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

People were asked to self register and pay €100 between January and March, its their own fault if they refused. Like the offshore accounters they took poor advice if they think there are no consequences.

id prefer the revenue to be chasing those offshore millions than running around after E100s here and there

lugha

bgrizzley wrote: »

lot of ifs there lugha.
if i drilled an oil well in my back garden i could possibly make millions , why dont they tax me on that instead?

darkhorse wrote: »

Such a load of sh*te I've never read in my life.

tayto lover wrote: »

Undiluted bullsh1t

If (yes grizz, that word again) you lads genuinely cannot see that residential properties ARE income generators then I can’t help you I’m afraid.

But I do like the idea of you finding a stash of oil somewhere. Of course if you do, Pat Rabbitte will be along to confiscate it on behalf of us all! :pac:

bgrizzley

lugha wrote: »

If (yes grizz, that word again) you lads genuinely cannot see that residential properties ARE income generators then I can’t help you I’m afraid.

But I do like the idea of you finding a stash of oil somewhere. Of course if you do, Pat Rabbitte will be along to confiscate it on behalf of us all! :pac:

lol. when i find it, i promise ill pay my tax on it.

night all

Am Chile

bgrizzley wrote: »

this is the whole point Mach Lei. they just dont know who to send those letters to.
they have the list of people who have registered for the HHC and the nppr list(those that registered) and thats it. all they have after that is vague threats about esb bills and a mire of trouble trying to figure out who owns what. they gave it their best shot and now they are stumped.

better luck next time lads!!;)

Im not sure if anyone else has posted and posed this question about getting peoples names off esb bills-we all know someones name off an esb bill won,t be enough to prove ownership of a property-lets say for arguments sake someone here who hasn't paid is identified off an esb bill gets the warning letters refuses to pay gets to brought to court-as the esb bill alone in itself won't be enough to prove actual ownership- how would the local council be able to prove in court a particular person/couple prosecuted actually own a property ? or for arguments sake a landlord has decided not to pay the household tax for his/her properties their name wouldn't be on a esb bill it would be the tenants name of the esb bill, so therefore if the tenant got the warning letters and payment was still not made by the landlord the tenant would be the person actually prosecuted over non payment-below video coverage of the last anti water charges campaign,35 seconds in several cases were thrown out of court because the councils failed to prove people were occupiers of the properties listed for non payment of water charges.

Am Chile

tayto lover wrote: »

Irish Examiner " 44% refuse to pay the HHC".

Now that's a very high percentage despite all the threats.

I,ve just read the article, it doesn,t state the numbers of properties required to pay and required to register-so I take that 44% claim with a pinch of salt when they omit the number of properties that,s required.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/0816/ireland/society-pays-for-property-charge-defaults-204316.html

alastair

Am Chile wrote: »

Im not sure if anyone else has posted and posed this question about getting peoples names off esb bills-we all know someones name off an esb bill won,t be enough to prove ownership of a property-lets say for arguments sake someone here who hasn't paid is identified off an esb bill gets the warning letters refuses to pay gets to brought to court-as the esb bill alone in itself won't be enough to prove actual ownership- how would the local council be able to prove in court a particular person/couple prosecuted actually own a property ? or for arguments sake a landlord has decided not to pay the household tax for his/her properties their name wouldn't be on a esb bill it would be the tenants name of the esb bill, so therefore if the tenant got the warning letters and payment was still not made by the landlord the tenant would be the person actually prosecuted over non payment-below video coverage of the last anti water charges campaign,35 seconds in several cases were thrown out of court because the councils failed to prove people were occupiers of the properties listed for non payment of water charges.

There are a number of databases involved in establishing who's liable for the property tax - and all they need to do is cross-reference them. They don't need to establish every owner of a property - just the one will do. A tenant won't be on the NPPR database, the HHC database, or the registry of deeds - only the/a owner will be.

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

id prefer the revenue to be chasing those offshore millions than running around after E100s here and there

Well, then the onus is on you to pay the tax.

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

this is the whole point Mach Lei. they just dont know who to send those letters to.
they have the list of people who have registered for the HHC and the nppr list(those that registered) and thats it. all they have after that is vague threats about esb bills and a mire of trouble trying to figure out who owns what. they gave it their best shot and now they are stumped.

better luck next time lads!!;)

The utilites have made clear that they have passed on their database info, and the registry of deeds is available to the state already, so it's just a matter of time. The contract for the database merge job was advertised a few months back.

Ghandee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

This is just a little discussion group on the internet nothing to do with the real world.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0815/1224322197721.html

On one of the biggest website's in Ireland though?:cool:

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

If (yes grizz, that word again) you lads genuinely cannot see that residential properties ARE income generators then I can’t help you I’m afraid.

But I do like the idea of you finding a stash of oil somewhere. Of course if you do, Pat Rabbitte will be along to confiscate it on behalf of us all! :pac:

Is a farm an asset lugha?
There are a lot of farmers who are denying it is in order to access education grants.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

Is a farm an asset lugha?
There are a lot of farmers who are denying it is in order to access education grants.

Still fixated on the farmers? Education grants are based on income - not capital assets (which farmland would be - just as your house is).

Geuze

A house is an asset that generates an imputed income.

This imputed income was taxed with all other income until 1969.

Some analysts have called for a reintroduction of a tax on imputed rental income.

See here:

http://colmrapple.com/?p=171

Geuze

Take two people, A and B, each with 100,000.

Person A spends the 100k on a house, lives there rent-free, pays no tax on this benefit.

Person B spends the 100k on shares/bonds/deposits, but pays income tax on the investment income.

Person B rents a similar house, paying, say, 6k pa.

So person A does not pay any tax on the return his investment gives him (free living space, worth 6k)

But person B must pay income tax on the 6k interest/return on his assets.

So the tax system favours investing in houses, as the return (imputed rental income) is not taxed.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

Is a farm an asset lugha?
There are a lot of farmers who are denying it is in order to access education grants.

Of course it is an asset, and an income generating one at that. It may not generate enough income, according to the farmer!, to exclude their children from education grants but it is an income generating asset.

The farmer may have a massive outstanding debt from the purchase of the farm but nevertheless, the farm does generate income.

lugha

Geuze wrote: »

A house is an asset that generates an imputed income.

This imputed income was taxed with all other income until 1969.

Some analysts have called for a reintroduction of a tax on imputed rental income.

See here:

http://colmrapple.com/?p=171

I suspect the no side won’t take too kindly to this idea!

But it is an important point, and was alluded to in by Ronan Lyons in that audio link yesterday. One of the arguments the no side wheel out is that they have done the state some service by investing in, and thus providing their own homes. The state might better be served if there were more incentives to invest in business or job creation projects.

alastair

So - official word - court dates for those who haven't paid after the second reminder letters go unheeded.

noodler

bgrizzley wrote: »

i thought that the NPPR was scrapped with the introduction of the HHC?

HHC and NPPR are still running in unison.

A person with two properties has to pay three charges (2 X HHC and 1X NPPR).

alastair

noodler wrote: »

HHC and NPPR are still running in unison.

A person with two properties has to pay three charges (2 X HHC and 1X NPPR).

Though I believe the NPPR will be scrapped when the banded property tax comes into play.

dvpower

Am Chile wrote: »

Im not sure if anyone else has posted and posed this question about getting peoples names off esb bills-we all know someones name off an esb bill won,t be enough to prove ownership of a property [...] several cases were thrown out of court because the councils failed to prove people were occupiers of the properties listed for non payment of water charges.

I don't envisage any such problem now that its going to the Revenue Commissioners. They won't need to prove anything - they just need to raise an assessment based on the available information they have. You will have a right to appeal this assessment via a Revenue Appeals Commissioner. If you fail there then it is you that must take the Revenue to court, not the other way around.

That's how the Revenue operate.

bgrizzley

noodler wrote: »

HHC and NPPR are still running in unison.

A person with two properties has to pay three charges (2 X HHC and 1X NPPR).

of course, a landlord would pay his own HHC and just pass the HHC and NPPR to the asset-less renter.

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

of course, a landlord would pay his own HHC and just pass the HHC and NPPR to the asset-less renter.

Yep - just as the shopkeeper passes their commercial rates overhead on to the customer. It still generates revenue for the state.

noodler

alastair wrote: »

Though I believe the NPPR will be scrapped when the banded property tax comes into play.

I guess if you are paying 1k each on your two houses then it more than makes up for it.

bgrizzley wrote: »

of course, a landlord would pay his own HHC and just pass the HHC and NPPR to the asset-less renter.

Possibly.

Case by case basis but only rents in urban area are on the up (going from the last Daft report) so it'd probably be a dicey situation for the landlord in some cases and it might be in his interest to absorb.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

Still fixated on the farmers? Education grants are based on income - not capital assets (which farmland would be - just as your house is).

Well Labour and FG seem to be at odds about the education grants according to the radio this morning. Farmers getting more grants because they can manipulate their income while the PAYE worker cannot. There could be serious trouble for the Govt as FG get most of their support from farmers and Labour from PAYE sector.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

Well Labour and FG seem to be at odds about the education grants according to the radio this morning. Farmers getting more grants because they can manipulate their income while the PAYE worker cannot. There could be serious trouble for the Govt as FG get most of their support from farmers and Labour from PAYE sector.

There you go - the grants are income based - not asset based. So what's your point?

kr7

lugha wrote: »

The value of your asset has changed over time, quite dramatically as it happens, just as happened with pretty much all of us. But this doesn’t negate the fact that your house effectively generates income. If you rented out your house you would accrue the income in cash form. If you continue to live in your house you accrue the income by virtue of not having to pay rent to live somewhere else.

Why do you suppose some would have multiple residential properties if they did not generate income?

So someone with a €300k mortgage in house worth €150k paying a mortgage of €1000 per month is 'effectively generating an income' from that house.

Seriously pro taxers, it's gone to your heads, the arguments are getting more and more ridiculous by the day.

This has to be one of the most 'lugha ble' posts I have ever seen on boards.ie.

You really should withdraw/delete it lugha, it might restore some of your credibility, and although we disagree about this tax, I did respect your opinion on it.

lugha

@kr7
Alas, like several of your fellow no folk, you are hopelessly confused. A residential property is an asset that does in general generate an income stream. There may be liabilities on that asset, the cost of which exceeds that income but that doesn’t negate the fact that there is an income stream, labelled an imputed one by Gueze above (isn’t everyday a school day? Hadn’t heard that term before)

Colm Rapple has more to say on the matter here if you care to read.

You, and the rest of your merry gang, strike me as the kind of people (of whom there are a lot) who think for example, that buying a house in a city where your children go to college is a good idea because of all the money they will save by not having to rent!!!!!

Presumably you would not try to argue that a pub or restaurant or football club or any business you like, does not have income generating streams even if there enterprises had massive debts? And please do not cite the entirely irrelevant fact (to the point of our discussion) that a home is not a business!

If you still not convinced, I suggest you burn down your house and rent! You will quickly notice that your income has diminished by an amount, oh just about equal to your rental payment you pay for your new accommodation. :P

But I’m pleased to see you have waded back in to the mix! You bailed out just before you got around to explaining to us how you reconciled objecting to the HHC on the basis that some, who might struggle more than most to pay, would be exempt but simultaneously supported the pensioners in their quest to retain a benefit, one that they could well afford to pay themselves?

kr7

lugha wrote: »

@kr7




If you still not convinced, I suggest you burn down your house and rent! You will quickly notice that your income has diminished by an amount, oh just about equal to your rental payment you pay for your new accommodation. :P



But I’m pleased to see you have waded back in to the mix! You bailed out just before you got around to explaining to us how you reconciled objecting to the HHC on the basis that some, who might struggle more than most to pay, would be exempt but simultaneously supported the pensioners in their quest to retain a benefit, one that they could well afford to pay themselves?

When I burn down my house and move into this rented accommodation am I then free of my mortgage too?

Who do you would reckon would 'struggle to pay', LA tenants?

The point I was making regarding pensioners was that the last time the government tried to take something off them there was uproar and the government backed down. That's all.

Damn right there is a percentage of pensioners who shouldn't be entitled to a state pension or any other 'benefits' and they should be means tested.

Maybe a 'council tax' if one was brought in could be means tested too and then people who can't afford it, be they private renters, LA tenants or home owners, could be exempted.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Maybe a 'council tax' if one was brought in could be means tested too and then people who can't afford it, be they private renters, LA tenants or home owners, could be exempted.

Even though they 'benefit from the same services'?

You're changing your tune. Not so hot on the 'grey army's' opposition to means tested medical cards, and abandoning that 'all pay or none' mantra.