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

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

There are some government contracts I get, yea.

But, in case you haven't noticed, I'm arguing against this tax!

It may even effect my business if there are LA cuts.

But I'll still argue against this tax because it's wrong.

You look after your own interests, I'll stand for what I believe in.

So - what you're saying is that the existence of public sector business is an irrelevance to the issue at hand. Some progress there I guess.

BarackPyjama

alastair wrote: »

You'd prefer a tax on people that forced them abroad?

That's not really what I was saying. Although for people who aren't property owners already, this tax might do just that. Certainly it's a disincentive to purchase property here.

My point was that it was a clever move by the government. Tax people who can't even leave the country should they decide it's a tax too far.

alastair

BarackPyjama wrote: »

That's not really what I was saying. Although for people who aren't property owners already, this tax might do just that. Certainly it's a disincentive to purchase property here.

They could always go abroad and buy property there - where there's no property tax.

Oh, wait.

BarackPyjama wrote: »

My point was that it was a clever move by the government. Tax people who can't even leave the country should they decide it's a tax too far.

Most houses aren't in negative equity though, and if people want to leave the country, they can always rent out their home if they can't fetch a good price in this market.

BarackPyjama

alastair wrote: »

They could always go abroad and buy property there - where there's no property tax.

Oh, wait.

Yes but maybe they'd reconcile that by avoiding other taxes levied by the Irish government that they won't find elsewhere - USC, massive levies on everything from drugs to food, etc, etc.

alastair wrote: »

Most houses aren't in negative equity though, and

Well about 66% of mortgages are in negative equity then. So people who still don't own their overvalued homes are hit equally with the tax.

alastair wrote: »

if people want to leave the country, they can always rent out their home if they can't fetch a good price in this market.

Fairly expensive solution for an already indebted homeowner I would have thought.

alastair

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Yes but maybe they'd reconcile that by avoiding other taxes levied by the Irish government that they won't find elsewhere - USC, massive levies on everything from drugs to food, etc, etc.

Personal taxation is still lower here than most european countries - USC etc included. I don't think there would be much consolation in that regard.

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Well about 66% of mortgages are in negative equity then. So people who still don't own their overvalued homes are hit equally with the tax.

A tax on the current value of their property let's not forget - not what they might have once paid. And many of those negative equity situations are an irrelevance to their owners - who have no intention of moving or selling - regardless of the introduction of a property tax.

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Fairly expensive solution for an already indebted homeowner I would have thought.

I'd expect that just paying the property tax would be much more straightforward alright.

BarackPyjama

alastair wrote: »

I'd expect that just paying the property tax would be much more straightforward alright.

There you have it summed up. Government wants more money so just pay up.

I'm glad I didn't buy property here, that's all I can say.

Monty Burnz

BarackPyjama wrote: »

There you have it summed up. Government wants more money so just pay up.

Perhaps there's a lesson here in not electing people (e.g. Fianna Fail, socialists) who promise the sun, moon and stars without actually planning for the rainy day or explaining who is going to pay for it all.

The smart thing to do is clearly to blame the suckers (FG, Lab) who are trying to clean up this disaster. I'm sure they love introducing new taxes.

Dub XV

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Perhaps there's a lesson here in not electing people (e.g. Fianna Fail, socialists) who promise the sun, moon and stars without actually planning for the rainy day or explaining who is going to pay for it all.

The smart thing to do is clearly to blame the suckers (FG, Lab) who are trying to clean up this disaster. I'm sure they love introducing new taxes.

Is that not what FG did?

BarackPyjama

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The smart thing to do is clearly to blame the suckers (FG, Lab) who are trying to clean up this disaster. I'm sure they love introducing new taxes.

Come off it. FG have flip-flopped on practically every promise they've made.

Monty Burnz

Dub XV wrote: »

Is that not what FG did?

Um, not that's not what they did. And that's not what Labour did either.

Of course, if people were too stupid to realise that taxpayers were going to be picking up a rather large tab, then they really should introduce an IQ test for the right to vote.

On a side note, I have to laugh at how Labour tend to get a free ride in these discussions, even though it is they who are insisting the Croke Park agreement not be renegotiated...

BarackPyjama

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Um, not that's not what they did. And that's not what Labour did either.

Of course, if people were too stupid to realise that taxpayers were going to be picking up a rather large tab, then they really should introduce an IQ test for the right to vote.

Vote to burn the bondholders. Oh no, wait...

Monty Burnz

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Vote to burn the bondholders. Oh no, wait...

You'll have no problem finding that in the FG mainfesto, I guess?

Oh no, wait...

BarackPyjama

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You'll have no problem finding that in the FG mainfesto, I guess?

Oh no, wait...

You're saying FG/Lab haven't broken any election promises? Who needs the IQ test I wonder.

Monty Burnz

BarackPyjama wrote: »

You're saying FG/Lab haven't broken any election promises? Who needs the IQ test I wonder.

So you are saying you like to suck donkey balls?

BarackPyjama

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So you are saying you like to suck donkey balls?

I do, but that's hardly the point.

Monty Burnz

BarackPyjama wrote: »

I do, but that's hardly the point.

Fair enough - it's just that if you are going to attribute things to me that I never said, then it's only fair that I can do the same.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

They could always go abroad and buy property there - where there's no property tax.

Oh, wait.



Most houses aren't in negative equity though, and if people want to leave the country, they can always rent out their home if they can't fetch a good price in this market.

So the Government build a bakery in my area and demand that I buy my bread there. Yet I have no money left to buy their bread so they take me to court.
Same with their so-called services. I'll bake my own bread. They sold the bin service and i have to pay a private company but they want me to pay them too.
Yes madness is the word.

tayto lover

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Perhaps there's a lesson here in not electing people (e.g. Fianna Fail, socialists) who promise the sun, moon and stars without actually planning for the rainy day or explaining who is going to pay for it all.

The smart thing to do is clearly to blame the suckers (FG, Lab) who are trying to clean up this disaster. I'm sure they love introducing new taxes.

So FG/Labour made no similar promises :rolleyes:
Yes the madness is spreading.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

So the Government build a bakery in my area and demand that I buy my bread there. Yet I have no money left to buy their bread so they take me to court.
Same with their so-called services. I'll bake my own bread. They sold the bin service and i have to pay a private company but they want me to pay them too.
Yes madness is the word.

You do have enough to pay your tax, so don't pretend otherwise. And who claimed that the property tax would pay for refuse collections? No-one that I've seen, but I guess I could have missed it. The property tax fund local authority services 100% - so why not focus on what that actually involves?

I take it from your bakery analogy that you'll be maintaining your own public roads, paving the local towns, lighting those streets., and paying out third level grants, while you're maintaining parks etc? You'll be a busy fellah.

alastair

BarackPyjama wrote: »

There you have it summed up. Government wants more money so just pay up.

I'm glad I didn't buy property here, that's all I can say.

The government needs more money, so yes - you'll need to pay more taxes. It's not a secret.

No property - no property tax. But you'll need to make your case to kr7 - she wants you to pay a property tax regardless.

noodler

kr7 wrote: »

I wouldn't be so stupid to put my business name and address on a public forum, especially if I was going to wind people up all the time like you do.
There's a lot of nutters out there.

....

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

You do have enough to pay your tax, so don't pretend otherwise. And who claimed that the property tax would pay for refuse collections? No-one that I've seen, but I guess I could have missed it. The property tax fund local authority services 100% - so why not focus on what that actually involves?

I take it from your bakery analogy that you'll be maintaining your own public roads, paving the local towns, lighting those streets., and paying out third level grants, while you're maintaining parks etc? You'll be a busy fellah.

The madness is really spreading now.
I wonder what all those other taxes pay for? Oh I forgot bailouts, bondholders, junkets, doing up tax break homes !!!!

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

The madness is really spreading now.
I wonder what all those other taxes pay for? Oh I forgot bailouts, bondholders, junkets, doing up tax break homes !!!!

Those other taxes pay for less than what it costs to keep the country running. Our lenders obligated us to pay bondholders, otherwise we wouldn't be able to keep the country running (you are on a pension, yeah?) - but the remaining 95% of our tax spend has nothing to do with bank bailouts.

I take it you now see the folly of your bakery fable?

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

Those other taxes pay for less than what it costs to keep the country running. Our lenders obligated us to pay bondholders, otherwise we wouldn't be able to keep the country running (you are on a pension, yeah?) - but the remaining 95% of our tax spend has nothing to do with bank bailouts.

I take it you now see the folly of your bakery fable?

I paid into my pension scheme for many years but very little left now and hardly worth collecting at times thanks to the lovely politicians and speculators you adore. I have actually started working part-time again when i should have been cozy.

darkhorse

alastair wrote: »

You are a tax cheat. There's the difference.

Will you quote to me, what tax did kr7 not pay.

lugha

Northclare wrote: »

WHERE'S YOUR GRAPH AND TEMPLATE
TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY FOR SOMETHING WHEN WE DON'T HAVE IT

I presume by “we” you mean the people, collectively in the state? Well, to say we don’t have it, or can’t afford it is unfortunately irrelevant. We have to find it somehow, the only question is how much each of us should contribute. Not addressing our deficit is not just ill advised, it is simply not an option.

It is analogous to a situation where someone with a family, large mortgage etc. is about to be made redundant resulting in his net income being reduced by maybe a half or three quarters. Some one (and there are many) in such a dreadful predicament might quite reasonably argue that he simply can not afford to be made redundant. But ultimately he has to face a rather bleak reality. As do we.

(And if you consider that the budget deficit equates to about €10k per worker per year, this redundancy analogy is not a million miles off the mark!)

And the ubiquitous claim that “I cannot afford it” is very vague. Pretty much everyone CAN afford to pay it but will have to sacrifice something in lieu. Having to cancel your Sky contract or home broadband is plainly a different type of “can’t afford” that one that requires you to cancel say your health insurance or turn off your central heating.

But they all get piled in together under the one “can’t afford it umbrella”

kr7

noodler wrote: »

....

Edited noodler?
Have you something to say?

darkhorse

alastair wrote: »

You appear to believe it should be about people's client lists rather than engaging with the issue to hand. 'People like you' would also be 'people like me' - property owners. You're opposed to property taxation out of spite against those who benefit from welfare, I'm supportive of property taxation because it's the best un-utilised revenue source left in this state.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe some people on welfare, (not taking away from people on welfare, some very close friends of mine have been afflicted by having to go on welfare, through losing their jobs), in particular, that may be living in LA housing, maybe in a better position financially, than someone that is struggling to pay a mortgage. After all, people in general were managing with their mortgages, until this recession started, which was the main cause of increased bills and cuts in wages. Incidently, there have been no drops in the cost of living that i've been aware of in the past four years, maybe thats just where I live. Anyway, to get back to your statement above where you say it is out of spite against those who benefit from welfare, I think its more a case of people wanting to see a fair and equitable way across the board

darkhorse

alastair wrote: »

You think income tax is illogical on that basis, or VAT?
Your position makes no sense. It supposes that every property owner is struggling - when that's clearly not the case. We pay less in taxation than most of our neighbours - who presumably also have citizens who are on the breadline too.

You have hit the nail on the head there. So, is the solution really to push them over the breadline.

Monty Burnz

darkhorse wrote: »

Anyway, to get back to your statement above where you say it is out of spite against those who benefit from welfare, I think its more a case of people wanting to see a fair and equitable way across the board

I'm sure most of us would agree with this, and it is ridiculous that there are people out there with no intention of working for their whole lives, and further that there are people out there not working who are better off than people who are. These are points it would nice to see the government addressing.