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

lugha

kr7 wrote: »

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

No unfortunately, your liabilities will survive the fire! But an income stream will be gone, illuminating the fact, I hope, that it had to be there in the first place.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

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.

The 'grey army' thing was brought up in a different context as well you know.

A 'council tax' is completely different from what's proposed here.

Every section would be liable, private renters, LA tenants and home owners.

Obviously if some people really couldn't afford it they could be exempted be they any of the above mentioned.

Fair, I would have thought.

Regarding 'changing my tune', maybe I'm thinking through this tax and trying to come up with a way that's fair and equitable.
Unlike what FG/Lab did when they rushed into it, made a complete fcuk up of it and pitted one group of people against another.

Divide and conquer? LOL.

kr7

lugha wrote: »

No unfortunately, your liabilities will survive the fire! But an income stream will be gone, illuminating the fact, I hope, that it had to be there in the first place.

That's one twisted thought process right there. Rain man, eat your heart out!

You actually believe that there's an income stream in paying a mortgage. LMAO.:D

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Obviously if some people really couldn't afford it they could be exempted be they any of the above mentioned.

Sounds like nanny/welfare state talk to me.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

Sounds like nanny/welfare state talk to me.

That's it Ali, you just quote the bit that suits your agenda!

Not the sentence above that one or the one below.

Nothing changes.

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

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

Yeah. But this supposed wealth tax does not tax the landlords, it taxes the asset poor renters
Please don't tell me you are standing up for the wealthy as well, Alastair

lugha

kr7 wrote: »

That's one twisted thought process right there. Rain man, eat your heart out!

You actually believe that there's an income stream in paying a mortgage. LMAO.:D

Yes a residential property generates an income stream which is realised in cash if the property is leased to someone else or as an imputed one if you live in it yourself. This is true no matter whether there is a mortgage on the property or no, no matter whether the property is in negative equity or no. How can you still be confused about this?

Best you go stand with all the other lads who can't get their heads around it. :pac:

bgrizzley

noodler wrote: »

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.

As Al pointed out and I agree with him here, the landlords will pass this on .you know the way cartels run here, they will all put up and the renters will have to like it or lump it paying some rich guys tax for him

tayto lover

lugha wrote: »

Yes a residential property generates an income stream which is realised in cash if the property is leased to someone else or as an imputed one if you live in it yourself. This is true no matter whether there is a mortgage on the property or no, no matter whether the property is in negative equity or no. How can you still be confused about this?

Best you go stand with all the other lads who can't get their heads around it. :pac:

Well he can stand with me.
When i was paying my mortgage it was like an anchor around my neck. It generated nothing except stress. But now that i have paid it off eventually i won't be paying rent on it.

kr7

lugha wrote: »

Yes a residential property generates an income stream which is realised in cash if the property is leased to someone else or as an imputed one if you live in it yourself. This is true no matter whether there is a mortgage on the property or no, no matter whether the property is in negative equity or no. How can you still be confused about this?

Best you go stand with all the other lads who can't get their heads around it. :pac:

Did you think that one up all by yourself or did Colm Rapphle do it for you?

BTW, looking through his article he does state that a person's income would be taken into account.

The kind of thing we will get will be a bastardised version of all the property taxes in the world and one that will be completely unfair.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

BTW, looking through his article he does state that a person's income would be taken into account.

The kind of thing we will get will be a bastardised version of all the property taxes in the world and one that will be completely unfair.

I know - it sounds awful!

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

Yeah. But this supposed wealth tax does not tax the landlords, it taxes the asset poor renters
Please don't tell me you are standing up for the wealthy as well, Alastair

It would tax the wealth embedded in the property. Landlords will pass on the property tax overhead, as they do with all the other overheads involved in property ownership, but they'll still be subject to market forces, and that'll establish how much of the taxation they will be able to pass on. It's not like tenants have no influence in rental rates.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

Well he can stand with me.

Kr7 is a she. But not to worry, this is one of your lesser mistakes!

tayto lover wrote: »

When i was paying my mortgage it was like an anchor around my neck. It generated nothing except stress. But now that i have paid it off eventually i won't be paying rent on it.

But you have an income from your home as it covers the cost that you would otherwise have to pay in rent. If you had a second house that you were leasing you would pay tax on income received from rent and would accept I think that this would be reasonable.

So on what basis do you argue that you should not pay tax when the tenant is yourself? (Other than the fact that it does not seem right cos it is not a notion we entertained for several decades?)

kr7 wrote: »

Did you think that one up all by yourself or did Colm Rapphle do it for you?

No, it doesn’t require any heavy thinking. A residential property can be leased to tenants, tenants will pay money to utilise this residence, therefore a residential property can generate an income stream. Clear as muck to me.

kr7 wrote: »

BTW, looking through his article he does state that a person's income would be taken into account.

No problem with that in principle.

kr7 wrote: »

The kind of thing we will get will be a bastardised version of all the property taxes in the world and one that will be completely unfair.

I have no great expectation that we will get the best, or even a reasonably decent property tax. The argument for a site value based tax seems quite convincing to me I have to say.

tayto lover

Originally Posted by tayto lover
When i was paying my mortgage it was like an anchor around my neck. It generated nothing except stress. But now that i have paid it off eventually i won't be paying rent on it.
But you have an income from your home as it covers the cost that you would otherwise have to pay in rent. If you had a second house that you were leasing you would pay tax on income received from rent and would accept I think that this would be reasonable.

So on what basis do you argue that you should not pay tax when the tenant is yourself? (Other than the fact that it does not seem right cos it is not a notion we entertained for several decades?)

I am not a tenant in my own home. I own it so why should i pay rent to myself. That is pure rubbish. I have no second house so i am not worried about that bit.

I consider my house to be like the Simon Community so i don't charge myself and get rent free.

lugha

tayto lover wrote: »

I am not a tenant in my own home. I own it so why should i pay rent to myself. That is pure rubbish. I have no second house so i am not worried about that bit.

If you had borrowed money to invest in a business for the purpose of providing for your own income then you would be taxed on the income generated from that business, and you tax liabilities would be largely independent of how much money, if any, you borrowed to invest.

If you had borrowed money to speculate on shares / property / land for the purpose of enhancing your wealth then you would similarly be taxed on any income you generated.

What you did do was borrow money for the purpose of providing a residence. The revenue from this investment materialises, not in cash form, but by virtue of the fact that you do not have to pay rental income to house yourself and your family. And almost uniquely, you are NOT liable for tax on the ongoing revenue stream from this particular investment.

We haven’t had a tax on this last type of investment for some time so people’s instinctive reaction is that there is something abhorrent about it in principle. But can you clarify what this principle is? (I assume you accept that a conventional landlord should pay tax on monies received from tenants?)

Now I expect your answer will be along the lines of “it’s my home FFS!”. But I could equally object to tax due on a business investment or even straight forward income tax on the basis that “it’s my livelihood FFS!”

Why should one particular type of investment be so immune from tax liabilities? Perhaps if investing in residential properties was less attractive and investing in business / employment generating opportunities more attractive then we would not now have country littered with ghost housing estates and simultaneously, an unemployment rate of 15%?

darkhorse

lugha wrote: »

What you did do was borrow money for the purpose of providing a residence. The revenue from this investment materialises, not in cash form, but by virtue of the fact that you do not have to pay rental income to house yourself and your family.
We haven’t had a tax on this last type of investment for some time

Would a mortgage that one is paying over a period of 30 years not suffice in lieu of any rental payment.
You insist on calling a family home an investment. O.K., that being the case, have they done away with stamp duty.

Blured

Geuze wrote: »

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.

Just on this - should the householder not be allowed write off the interest paid on his/her mortgage against this notional "rental income". I know buy to let individuals are allowed to do this and only pay income on the Rental profit of a property

noodler

bgrizzley wrote: »

As Al pointed out and I agree with him here, the landlords will pass this on .you know the way cartels run here, they will all put up and the renters will have to like it or lump it paying some rich guys tax for him

That pretty much disregards the point I just made!

Landlords are not some homogenous body, some are big property owners in Urban areas, some are more typical workers with a second buy-to-let mortgage.

Rents are still falling in many places (and seem to be only tentatively up in urban areas IIRC) so I sincerely doubt it can be said landlords will pass it on in every case like they were all one and the same body.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

I know - it sounds awful!

Well Ali boy, you can pay my share of it because I won't be paying until I consider it a fair and just tax.
I have explained to you what I consider fair several times so when that's the situation I'll pay up.
Not before, bring on the court cases!

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Well Ali boy, you can pay my share of it because I won't be paying until I consider it a fair and just tax.
I have explained to you what I consider fair several times so when that's the situation I'll pay up.
Not before, bring on the court cases!

I've explained to you - you will be paying it. The tantrums won't impress the Revenue.

Geuze

Blured wrote: »

Just on this - should the householder not be allowed write off the interest paid on his/her mortgage against this notional "rental income". I know buy to let individuals are allowed to do this and only pay income on the Rental profit of a property

Good question.

I think the answer is yes.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

I've explained to you - you will be paying it. The tantrums won't impress the Revenue.

LOL:D

See ya.

kr7

Ali,
Just looked at your website there and lo and behold half of your 'clients' are government sponsored groups.
Is it any wonder your so 'pro-tax' in your postings, you of all people don't want cutbacks anywhere in government spending.

I think your agenda is being exposed mr. keady.

noodler

kr7 wrote: »

Ali,
Just looked at your website there and lo and behold half of your 'clients' are government sponsored groups.
Is it any wonder your so 'pro-tax' in your postings, you of all people don't want cutbacks anywhere in government spending.

I think your agenda is being exposed mr. keady.

That is downright libellous.

Please think before you post.

Only this week you were accusing anyone who disagrees with who of being a member of Fine Gael and now this.

kr7

noodler wrote: »

That is downright libellous.

Please think before you post.

Only this week you were accusing anyone who disagrees with who of being a member of Fine Gael and now this.

Libellous?
How do you work that out?
The guys website is there for us to see, he put it up there for everyone to see.
His client list is there for everyone to see.

Is saying someone is a member of FG libellous now too?

Cop on to yourself.

noodler

kr7 wrote: »

Libellous?
How do you work that out?
The guys website is there for us to see, he put it up there for everyone to see.
His client list is there for everyone to see.

Is saying someone is a member of FG libellous now too?

Cop on to yourself.

???

Of course it is libellous to make baseless accusations about a person's character and motivations simply because you are struggling to make genuine points!

Him having his website up for all to see is not the issue, the issue is the subsequent inferences about his motivation that you posted.

As I said, along with your:

kr7 wrote: »

Only a FG'er could take that inference out of what I posted. Paranoia?

post from earlier this week it highlights a recurring theme in your arguments.

dvpower

kr7 wrote: »

Libellous?
How do you work that out?
The guys website is there for us to see, he put it up there for everyone to see.
His client list is there for everyone to see.

Is saying someone is a member of FG libellous now too?

Cop on to yourself.

Is it possible that you might concentrate on the topic of the property tax rather than spending your time mining the posting history of individual posters in order to manufacture personal attacks that have no relevance?

You are out of order.

kr7

noodler wrote: »

???

Of course it is libellous to make baseless accusations about a person's character and motivations simply because you are struggling to make genuine points!

Him having his website up for all to see is not the issue, the issue is the subsequent inferences about his motivation that you posted.

As I said, along with your:



post from earlier this week it highlights a recurring theme in your arguments.

It's no more libellous than ali boy changing my posts to having them say that I am a tax cheat like he did before.

For something to be libellous it needs to be untrue, what I posted is not untrue, indeed his own website shows his list of government clients.

What's good for the goose and all that.....

Get off your high horse.

kr7

dvpower wrote: »

Is it possible that you might concentrate on the topic of the property tax rather than spending your time mining the posting history of individual posters in order to manufacture personal attacks that have no relevance?

You are out of order.

I find that it is relevant that a poster in favour of property taxes seems to derive some of his income from taxpayers money.

tayto lover

I think there are many with vested interests posting here. I also asked previously if they were being paid to post here.