Property Tax

Grolschevik

Zamboni wrote: »

Capitalism is the best of a terribly inadequate group of theories upon which to base our societies. Capitalism is not the root of the problem. That specific honour would lie with corruption and abuse of capitalism.
That is not nonsense, that is subjective.

This is now off topic so I won't be replying either.
I don't feel the need to reciprocate your insult.

Fair enough.

Realistic_joe

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Seldom truer words are written.

It's a revenue excercise, and has little to do with actual services per se, and more to do with paying off our European overlords.

To close the budget deficit will require some really tough calls I reckon - public service payneeds massive reduction, waste in the public services has to be eliminated, and social welfare costs have to fall.

None of these will be easy, nor pleasant.

Its true that no matter where the cuts are, people will complain. But they also have to fight their corner because if don't, they make it too easy and the cuts will come in faster and heavier.

It is of course a revenue exercise and its a slow and arduous process introducing enough cuts to keep the Germans at bay but in a manner that the electorate don't turn on them completely. There's quite a way to go yet and there will be more and more cuts that may eventually lead us back to a stabler economy - but don't expect that for a while!

jmayo

Sam Kade wrote: »

So you are saying as well as paying tax for owning your own home you also will have to pay tax to live in it :rolleyes:

Yes.
AFAIK it is that way in a fair few countries.
In the Netherlands the property tax has two components, one for owner and one for resident.
Thus if someone is renting they pay less than if it is owner occupier.

There are major shocks ahead for most Irish who have incestantly trotted out the mantra that their income taxes is already paying for everything.

What makes this even more ironic is the ones often trotting out this mullarkey are usually paying shag all income tax or even worse net beneficaries of the system.

Ireland is going to have to join the ranks of the countries where you pay for refuse collection, you pay for the water you use, you pay a property tax for the property you own and/or you pay a local council tax where you reside.

And it would be inconceivable to lots of people in other countries that we don't already have these charges and taxes.

Monife

smccarrick wrote: »

As a sock to apartment dwellers- the current idea is to base it as a 'site related tax' with the prospect of a further tax coming down the road in 2017 (a habitation tax) related to living in a dwelling, as opposed to owning it- which is a tax that most countries have- a tax on ownership and a separate tax on dwelling.

Oh, I have heard it all now. So we pay the numerous taxes, pay rent to live somewhere and then pay rent to the government to live in said place for which the owner has ALREADY paid tax on.

Sounds like a complete joke to me!

The_Conductor

Monife wrote: »

Oh, I have heard it all now. So we pay the numerous taxes, pay rent to live somewhere and then pay rent to the government to live in said place for which the owner has ALREADY paid tax on.

Sounds like a complete joke to me!

It may sound like a joke- but its actually entirely normal in most countries. We in Ireland have gotten off lightly- we used tax the hell out of inheritances (Death duties are how so many of the wonderful estates ended up in State hands)- but this was unpopular with people who hoped to inherit from their parents- and it also was viewed as an unfair income distribution from the better off to the poorer, without any reciprochal benefit to society from the lower classes.

We have to change our mindset- owning property is not the be-all and end-all. Older people need to free up family homes for young families. Just because you rent instead of owning- does not get you off the hook. When you die- your estate gets chomped by Revenue at that stage (perhaps it might encourage people to spend rather than hoard assets?)

We Irish have the most unusual attitudes towards property ownership- attitudes that *have* to change.

karlitob

smccarrick wrote: »

It may sound like a joke- but its actually entirely normal in most countries. We in Ireland have gotten off lightly- we used tax the hell out of inheritances (Death duties are how so many of the wonderful estates ended up in State hands)- but this was unpopular with people who hoped to inherit from their parents- and it also was viewed as an unfair income distribution from the better off to the poorer, without any reciprochal benefit to society from the lower classes.

We have to change our mindset- owning property is not the be-all and end-all. Older people need to free up family homes for young families. Just because you rent instead of owning- does not get you off the hook. When you die- your estate gets chomped by Revenue at that stage (perhaps it might encourage people to spend rather than hoard assets?)

We Irish have the most unusual attitudes towards property ownership- attitudes that *have* to change.

It's not a valid argument to say 'they do it in other countries'. If that was the case, then everything 'they do' in other countries should be introduced here.

Owing a home is the be all and end all - and not because of any reason to do with the famine - its because it is a human (and animal kingdom) innate characteristic to live in a dwelling for protection, security, safety etc. Obviously that has developed over the millennia so paying a tax to do something as innate as owning a home is, in my view, immoral and unethical.

I agree to pay for what you get ie council tax/local government tax, water charges, bin charges. But obviously, there should be some contract with the citizen to ensure they get what they paid for. If you introduce water charges you should not have a situation where 20% is wasted on leaks. If you introduce a local government tax, then every citizen should have the same basic level of services regardless where they live in the country - I dont see evidence of that.

not even wrong

karlitob wrote: »

Owing a home is the be all and end all - and not because of any reason to do with the famine - its because it is a human (and animal kingdom) innate characteristic to live in a dwelling for protection, security, safety etc. Obviously that has developed over the millennia so paying a tax to do something as innate as owning a home is, in my view, immoral and unethical.

What's your view on the income tax, surely taxing an innate human activity like working is immoral and unethical as well?

My point is that all taxes are unfair to one degree or another, so it's not enough just to stamp your feet and yell "it's not fair!" like a six-year-old. If you're not going to have a property tax, how are you going to raise the money instead?

karlitob

not even wrong wrote: »

What's your view on the income tax, surely taxing an innate human activity like working is immoral and unethical as well?

My point is that all taxes are unfair to one degree or another, so it's not enough just to stamp your feet and yell "it's not fair!" like a six-year-old. If you're not going to have a property tax, how are you going to raise the money instead?

Fair enough point, I suppose. Discussing the morality and ethics of a tax is more than stamping "your feet and yell "it's not fair!" like a six-year-old".

Working isn't innate as such. Living - hunting, gathering etc - is. Not working in an office.

Why can we not cut our cloth to suit our means. Reduce services to whatever level of tax revenue we take. You cannot just introduce a tax and say - we need to raise the money - there must be a review of costs also.

The_Conductor

karlitob wrote: »

Working isn't innate as such. Living - hunting, gathering etc - is. Not working in an office.

Why can we not cut our cloth to suit our means. Reduce services to whatever level of tax revenue we take. You cannot just introduce a tax and say - we need to raise the money - there must be a review of costs also.

Sounds very like the Republican versus Democrat debate in the US at the moment.

Its all well and good saying- we cut our cloth to suit our means- however the problem in Ireland is we like the idea of a US tax system, but with the social safety nets of the Nordic countries. Something has to give. However- unlike in the US- we simply aren't mature enough (as both a society but also, and more pertinently, politically) to hold an open and frank debate on where we are going- how we plan to tax the average person, what level of services we plan to set as a minimalist level for society at large- and what level of social supports are realistic given our changed circumstances.

We are spending more on social welfare than we can afford. We are spending more on health than we can afford. We are spending more on education than we can afford. We are spending more on public services than we can afford. What can we cut. What would we rather not cut.

The current debate is more how do we create a sustainable tax flow for the government- quite unlike the one off (even if they lasted 15 years) boons of yesteryear. Do we hike tax on hard pressed workers? Do we tell social welfare recipients that they're taking the piss- when UK social welfare recipients get less than a quarter the combined benefits of ours. No matter what we do- no matter what decisions are taken (and we seem to be terminally incapable of taking decisions)- people are going to be worse off. Its always a difficult sell to tell someone they're going to be worse off- the Irish 'parish-pump' politics, mean no one wants to be the bogeyman- its all, what bacon can I bring home to Bally-somewhere or the other.........

Personally- I think we're a lost cause- and having policy dictated to us by the Troika, is actually doing us the world of good. It is handy to have someone else (a nameless entity) to blame- esp. as the Irish seem terminally incapable of accepting responsibility themselves.

not even wrong

karlitob wrote: »

Working isn't innate as such. Living - hunting, gathering etc - is. Not working in an office

Please explain how working in an office is not innately human, but living in a suburban three-bed semi is.

You cannot just introduce a tax and say - we need to raise the money - there must be a review of costs also.

Guess what:

The details are contained in the Medium-Term Fiscal Statement which provides an update to the Government’s medium-term budgetary strategy and sets out the budgetary framework for the four years from 2012 to 2015.

Over this period, it calls for further measures totalling €12.4 billion...
...
According to the statement, the €12.4 billion adjustment will be weighted towards spending cuts, which will total €7.75 billion, while €4.65 billion will be raised in taxation measures.

Mary2013

I am currious as to the initial statement regarding property tax or some form of fund for local services....

This is a quote from the "household charge" website..
The EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland commits the Government to the introduction of a property tax for 2012. We are one of the last countries in Europe that does not fund local services through local property-based charges.

If one builds, be it an individual or developer, they must pay a large contribution to the local authority in compiance with the Planning and Development Act 2000, section 48, Development Contributions.

This contribution is then "used" (I use that term loosely) to fund local services i.e.provision of open spaces, recreational and community facilities and amenities, provision of roads, car parks, sewers, waste water and water treatment facilities, drains and watermains, etc.

So in a nutshell, we already have property based charges to fund local services! All this property tax is is a double charge because our government do not have the balls nor the brains to tackle the real issue with our expenditure!!!

Also does anyone know if these other countries that pay property tax, do they also pay development contributions and levys??

billbond4

The Motor Tax you pay goes to fund local services, so if you pay motor tax you have paid to fund your local services.

I laugh every time I hear that most countries have a property tax, yeah but their tax rate isnt as high as ours to compensate that the government is already getting revenue from a property tax, do they think were ejits?

Mary2013

sarkozy wrote: »

.......acts as an incentive for people to use and councils to provide services and infrastructure more efficiently. .......

Ha! a property tax will not make the services or infrastruture more efficient!!! I laughed out loud at your niavety.

At the end of the day, the property tax is a farce. The reasoning behind it (local services, amenties, etc) are bull. The tax will be used to pay the debt and our services be it rural or urban will be the same, if not worse due to budget cuts.

I wish they'd just be honest and call a spade a spade. The "debt" tax. The "Bank Cricis" tax, the "we f**ked up and you pay" tax.

The sickening thing for me is that i've already paid €16,000 in the form of "development contribution" for the exact same thing the property tax will be for. Now that is a joke!!!

billbond4

I overpayed my motor tax to the government by nearly 1000€ this year as I dont have a nice shiny new car with motor tax based on CO2 emissions(another brillant government idea), so thats my local services fee paid for and then some.

Mary2013

billbond4 wrote: »

The Motor Tax you pay goes to fund local services, so if you pay motor tax you have paid to fund your local services.

I laugh every time I hear that most countries have a property tax, yeah but their tax rate isnt as high as ours to compensate that the government is already getting revenue from a property tax, do they think were ejits?

Agree there! The motor tax, the household charge, the development contributions and now the property tax all pay for our roads. And living in the rural area, i can tell you, nothing has been spent on the roads!

I too laugh, but not coz their tax rate isnt high but because i dont think they get taxed as often on the exact same thing. And frankly lets face it, when they are, the result of the tax is evident!! Our tax just gets pocketed.

Every joe soap that runs their home efficiently knows that you cut expenditure as income cannot be increased!! Why are the government stil trying to tax their way out of this!??!!!

Mary2013

karlitob wrote: »

Fair enough point, I suppose. Discussing the morality and ethics of a tax is more than stamping "your feet and yell "it's not fair!" like a six-year-old".

Working isn't innate as such. Living - hunting, gathering etc - is. Not working in an office.

Why can we not cut our cloth to suit our means. Reduce services to whatever level of tax revenue we take. You cannot just introduce a tax and say - we need to raise the money - there must be a review of costs also.

Rather than reduce the services, how about reduce the head count that "supposedly" provide these services? A local recycling/dumped owned by the county council was sold or taken over by AES (private owned). The guys how worked here (public workers) should have been let go...then AES could hire them or they go elsewhere but no instead they now work on the local roads....redeployment of headcount was clearly evident and not needed! We need to make cuts on the headcount in the right places!

And by the way, now these two people i know who use to work in the recycling center, now tell me they dont really have a "role" on the roads but just put there..... i..e two guys holding the lollipop stick instead of one!!!
Then services will not be affected, we all know there is waste in this section, so its about time the gvmt found out where it was and dealt with it!

billbond4

exactly, also there must be so much duplication of roles in Town Councils/County Councils.
Never really saw the point of Town Councils, when you have county councils doing the same thing

Mary2013

billbond4 wrote: »

I overpayed my motor tax to the government by nearly 1000€ this year as I dont have a nice shiny new car with motor tax based on CO2 emissions(another brillant government idea), so thats my local services fee paid for and then some.

Bummer!! I too want to upgrade for the co2 emissions (environment and tax friendly ) but can't afford it ... Dont know how i am going to manage all these new taxes, i really would be better off on the dole!

billbond4

Its a retarded tax system, co2 emissions my bum, it takes more CO2 to make a new car than keep an existing car on the road.
But as i always say, "if it makes sense, then they wont do it"

p.mc

sorry, does anyone know if I have to pay the tax, I started building a house a few years back, the finance collapsed and I couldn't finish it. There's no septic tank in yet so the place isn't fully registered with the council. I'm now working in england trying to get money to finish the place. The last thing I need is a new bleedin tax

murphaph

p.mc wrote: »

sorry, does anyone know if I have to pay the tax, I started building a house a few years back, the finance collapsed and I couldn't finish it. There's no septic tank in yet so the place isn't fully registered with the council. I'm now working in england trying to get money to finish the place. The last thing I need is a new bleedin tax

You should contact the council. Shouldn't be liable but you'll want it confirmed in writing.

StillWaters

If the house is not habitable you do not have to pay. And i would imagine the absence of sanitation facilities deems it inhabitable. You have to full in a form, supply evidence eg photos and get it witnessed by a Garda. You should fill out this form for the NPPR too or you could find yourself with nasty penalties.

The_Conductor

StillWaters wrote: »

If the house is not habitable you do not have to pay. And i would imagine the absence of sanitation facilities deems it inhabitable. You have to full in a form, supply evidence eg photos and get it witnessed by a Garda. You should fill out this form for the NPPR too or you could find yourself with nasty penalties.

Absence of sanitation is not one of the criteria- absence of water and electricity is. OP- you need to contact the council and get clarification asap.

hoff1

I am renting at the moment and the landlord wants to charge me for the property tax.

murphaph

hoff1 wrote: »

I am renting at the moment and the landlord wants to charge me for the property tax.

Anything in your leases about being liable for any government imposed levies/taxes? If not, then you only have to pay what's in your lease. If you are on a part IV tenancy (ie, lease expired but still there) or there was never a lease then the LL is entitled to appraise the rent once every 12 months and set it at the market rate. If he is insistent on passing on this charge to his tenant he can eventually...the only question will be then..do you stay or seek something else?

who_ru

murphaph wrote: »

Anything in your leases about being liable for any government imposed levies/taxes? If not, then you only have to pay what's in your lease. If you are on a part IV tenancy (ie, lease expired but still there) or there was never a lease then the LL is entitled to appraise the rent once every 12 months and set it at the market rate. If he is insistent on passing on this charge to his tenant he can eventually...the only question will be then..do you stay or seek something else?

I reckon all LLs will try and pass it on - user of the service (apt,house) pays the tax.

The_Conductor

who_ru wrote: »

I reckon all LLs will try and pass it on - user of the service (apt,house) pays the tax.

The landlord may try to pass it on via increased rent. The landlord themselves, are liable for the property tax though- as it is levied on the owner of the property- not the occupier. So- it will probably be viewed by landlords as another cost (which irrespective of how you look at it- it is) and legitimate game to recover from tenants via rent rises.

Some landlords may absorb the cost themselves- however it will be eating into their bottom line- only time will tell.

EricPraline

Some pleasant post can be expected in March...

Revenue is to send homeowners an estimated value of their home and property tax due, in letters to be issued in the coming weeks

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0107/breaking30.html

The Irish Independent has learned that letters to be sent out in March will give homeowners an individual price the Revenue believes their home to be worth, which will take into account where they live. If the Revenue's valuation is used by a homeowner, they will not be challenged in future.
However, estimates straying from the Revenue's own "property specific" values are more likely to be inspected and challenged, leading to possible fines and penalties.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/revenue-to-decide-value-of-homes-for-property-tax-3343775.html

I would be curious to know how they will arrive at the values. A cynical person might assume that the valuations will be a little "optimistic", bringing in more revenue and also in an attempt to artificially prop up prices. Time will tell.

L1011

I'm fairly certain that Revenue are going to somehow find reason to suggest my house is in the next price/taxation bracket up, despite that requiring it to have gone up 12% in 5 months...

I'm perfectly willing for it to never increase in value, so I don't see any need for a stage agency to pretend it has.

The_Conductor

I wonder what mechanisms they'll put in place to dispute the prices? I mean- if they say my house is worth 200k- I'd bite the arm of anyone who offered me this for it....... I know if I went to sell the house, the most I'd get is maybe 120-130k- obviously this isn't going to be a good enough yardstick to dispute their valuation. Interesting times......