Value based property tax?

Jame Gumb

enda1 wrote: »

Jame Gumb wrote: »

What relevance does that have?

They've bought and paid for their homes using income that's already been taxed. It costs a lot more for the State to deliver services to some shack in Connemara than to a mansion in Ballsbridge, so the very idea of a value based system is outrageous.

If these fictional elderly people have the income to pay a property tax, then they should pay it. But I they don't have the income to pay such a tax, they should not be forced from their home. Suggesting hat they should is ridiculous.

If I invest in any asset, I pay tax on the dividends. Why should property be different?

Yes, these real ok people should have to sell up and move if they can't afford payments. It makes no sense for prime real estate to stay mothballed while awaiting their death.

Because it's an established principle that someone's home is not an asset like any other.

If you invest in an asset and it appreciates in value, you'll generally pay capital gains tax on the uplift (when you dispose of it). But you do not pay capital gains tax on any uplift in the value of your home. It's the same in the UK.

Your suggestion that elderly people be forced out of their homes is both laughable and grossly offensive.

eth0

enda1 wrote: »

If I invest in any asset, I pay tax on the dividends. Why should property be different?

Yes, these real ok people should have to sell up and move if they can't afford payments. It makes no sense for prime real estate to stay mothballed while awaiting their death.

Kick ould wans out of their home so actual rich people with an income to match can move in. A real noble goal you have there.

Ghandee

enda1 wrote: »

I see you don't detect the irony in what you said.

Your point was not constructive to debate nor relevant to the topic so you received an equally irrelevant reply.

To humour you, I mentioned wealth and defined it.

My point, that a house with a mortgage attached to it, that is double, maybe treble the resale value of the property, can hardly be considered an 'asset'?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505146_162-37942508/is-your-house-an-asset-or-a-liability/

GCU Flexible Demeanour

enda1 wrote: »

If I invest in any asset, I pay tax on the dividends. Why should property be different?

Yes, these real ok people should have to sell up and move if they can't afford payments. It makes no sense for prime real estate to stay mothballed while awaiting their death.

The reason people tend to tie up their wealth in property is precisely to avoid tax - all that's happening is we are finally implementing a long overdue change. And, of course, the reason we're doing it has nothing to do with us deciding we want to make this change. We're doing it solely because the IMF are telling us we can't go on with this nonsense.

I'd quibble over basing it on valuation, rather than on something objective like size of dwelling. On the other hand, this should put some break on house prices in urban areas, by reducing the willingness of people to mortgage their socks. Some will say it might have an undesirable effect in making the continuation of urban sprawl financially attractive; I'd feel rising fuel prices will do enough to contain that impact.

dvpower

Bullseye1 wrote: »

@dvpower I see your only interested in personal attacks to cover your lack of knowledge. Consider yourself ignored and reported.

What personal attack???
It was you that was referring to people as scum.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Jame Gumb wrote: »

Your suggestion that elderly people be forced out of their homes is both laughable and grossly offensive.

Not really. We all have to contribute to common costs of society. It's actually laughable that someone would expect that a blind eye would be turned if they've a valuable asset - it's a bit like the farmers expecting the value of their land to be ignored when calculating entitlement to third level grants.

It's just strange to our eyes, because we've traditionally imbued property some some kind of strange mystique. It actually has nothing to do with making people secure in their homes - if it did, we'd have better protection for people who make their homes in rented accommodation.

enda1

eth0 wrote: »

Kick ould wans out of their home so actual rich people with an income to match can move in. A real noble goal you have there.

I see you've misunderstood the concept of wealth.
Income is only one, and at times minuscule, component of wealth.

enda1

Jame Gumb wrote: »

Because it's an established principle that someone's home is not an asset like any other.

If you invest in an asset and it appreciates in value, you'll generally pay capital gains tax on the uplift (when you dispose of it). But you do not pay capital gains tax on any uplift in the value of your home. It's the same in the UK.

Your suggestion that elderly people be forced out of their homes is both laughable and grossly offensive.

What establishment has defined this principle?

I do not believe that a 'family home' is any different to any other asset.

galwayrush

Why should anyone work hard to save hard to qualify for a mortgage and then spend decades working hard to pay it off in order to be taxed for their effort?:rolleyes:
Makes more sense to just apply for social housing.

generalmental

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

I don't know about anyone else but I've honestly had enough. You can't take what's not there. A lot of people simply don't have the money.
If we lie down & take all of the proposed increases they are talking about then we may just prepare ourselves to get roasted with further increases down the line.
I didn't see the cost of living go down at all. But yet we're expected to roll over & pay out extra taxes on top of the ones already implemented & on top of wage cuts.
I'm sorry but that's just horse****.
Before the elections every sleazy prick of a politician was lining up to shake our hands & look for our vote.
Where are they all now with their broken promises & false concern?

Why should they care they are now set up for LIFE, and they can afford. oh sorry wait I forgot they took a 10% discount.

generalmental

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

I don't know about anyone else but I've honestly had enough. You can't take what's not there. A lot of people simply don't have the money.
If we lie down & take all of the proposed increases they are talking about then we may just prepare ourselves to get roasted with further increases down the line.
I didn't see the cost of living go down at all. But yet we're expected to roll over & pay out extra taxes on top of the ones already implemented & on top of wage cuts.
I'm sorry but that's just horse****.
Before the elections every sleazy prick of a politician was lining up to shake our hands & look for our vote.
Where are they all now with their broken promises & false concern?

Why should they care they are now set up for LIFE, and they can afford. oh sorry wait I forgot they took a 10% discount.

Biggins

generalmental wrote: »

Why should they care they are now set up for LIFE, and they can afford. oh sorry wait I forgot they took a 10% discount.

Some people it seems have had enough. Here is Pat Rabbit last Friday dinner time, in Dublin being confronted by a few!
(Video footage taken with a mobile phone)

Rabbitte was having lunch in Buswells hotel, opposite Leinster House, with Peter Stewart, a former director of the National Asset Management Agency (Nama).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FZ5-0CXw8c

Jame Gumb

enda1 wrote: »

Jame Gumb wrote: »

Because it's an established principle that someone's home is not an asset like any other.

If you invest in an asset and it appreciates in value, you'll generally pay capital gains tax on the uplift (when you dispose of it). But you do not pay capital gains tax on any uplift in the value of your home. It's the same in the UK.

Your suggestion that elderly people be forced out of their homes is both laughable and grossly offensive.

What establishment has defined this principle?

I do not believe that a 'family home' is any different to any other asset.

It's been a feature of most countries' tax systems for a long time. You do not pay CGT on gains arising in your home. Ergo, your home is not and has never been treated like "any other asset" by the government/the tax authorities/etc.

Bullseye1

The four suicides a day comment seemed to give Pat an appetite for his salad.

notinmyname

Biggins wrote: »

Some people it seems have had enough. Here is Pat Rabbit last Friday dinner time, in Dublin being confronted by a few!
(Video footage taken with a mobile phone)

Rabbitte was having lunch in Buswells hotel, opposite Leinster House, with Peter Stewart, a former director of the National Asset Management Agency (Nama).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FZ5-0CXw8c

I do not condone the personal attacks of TD's or ministers, but in fairness they do have lots and lots of questions to answer to an increasingly irate public. In light of this, I think there will be many more such confrontations to come.

I've been following this whole story since it broke, and the original instigator is not the man Gardai arrested.


As such, I'd expect Mr Rabbite to make a court apperance in defence of John Rogers, who, as admitted by Pat Rabbite himself, was polite and courteous when talking to him. He'll show his true colours if he refuses to (in my opinion anyway)

Ghandee

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The four suicides a day comment seemed to give Pat an appetite for his salad.

Was like a Rabbitte caught in headlights.....

Jame Gumb

The cops were right to arrest those clowns.

Accosting people while they're having a bite to eat isn't fair.

Biggins

notinmyname wrote: »

I do not condone the personal attacks of TD's or ministers, but in fairness they do have lots and lots of questions to answer to an increasingly irate public. In light of this, I think there will be many more such confrontations to come.

I've been following this whole story since it broke, and the original instigator is not the man Gardai arrested.


As such, I'd expect Mr Rabbite to make a court apperance in defence of John Rogers, who, as admitted by Pat Rabbite himself, was polite and courteous when talking to him. He'll show his true colours if he refuses to (in my opinion anyway)

I think your right about more confrontations to come.
That straw situation on the camels back is coming I think.

The protest on the day was organised by a group called "People for Economic Justice".

From The Times (England):

By the time two uniformed gardai responded to a call from hotel management, the man responsible for the disturbance had left.

John Rogers, a 28-year-old who had attended the earlier protest, was arrested and taken to Pearse Street garda station. Despite a phone call from Stewart telling gardai they had arrested the wrong man, Rogers is due to appear in court on September 19...

Rogers, who is facing separate charges related to the Occupy Dame Street protest which gardai disbanded last March, was the first person to approach Rabbitte in Buswells. He handed the minister a leaflet about oil and gas rights.

"He came over and said: 'Hello, Pat. Can I give you this? You might get a chance to read it afterwards'."

"He was absolutely polite to the minister, no question," said Stewart, an accountant who resigned as a non-executive director of Nama last October.

"I phoned the gardai and told them he was not the man disturbing the peace or disturbing the minister."

After Rogers was taken away, a number of people approached Rabbitte's table. "They arrested the wrong man. You should be ashamed of yourself," one woman told him. "Pat Rabbitte stands idly by," a man said.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1112364.ece

lightspeed

Jame Gumb wrote: »

The cops were right to arrest those clowns.

Accosting people while they're having a bite to eat isn't fair.

If they were honest with the people and actually answered questions when put to them, this behaviour may not be necessary.

Look how this party has betrayed the promises and commitments they made before the last election and look how they have defended themselves.
There only defense is to ignore and dodge every questions put to them. If the austerity the plan on introduced is actually introduce, pat rabitte and the rest of the gang will welcome minor altercations like this.

Jame Gumb

Newsflash

The country's f..ked

I'm no fan of either FG or Labour but they hadn't a clue how bad things are until they took office. The country's in fire fighting mode. We're lurching from problem to problem. Jesus, the last Minister for Finance died and the present one looks f..ked now.

The last thing these guys need is some bozo hassling them while they're trying to eat.

RandomName2

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Would you have the same concerns for our fellow citizens across the border who are living under an administration which has a party trying to get into power in this country. This is what happens under their watch if you don't pay your property tax there.

http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/what-happens-if-i-don-t-pay-my-rates

If you don't pay your rates

If you do not pay your rates or contact LPS to make an arrangement to clear your account, you will be taken to court. This will mean:
•additional costs
•your credit rating could be affected, and as a result you may not be able to apply for credit or a loan
•you could be made bankrupt
•your home could be repossessed

In 2011 - 12 court action was taken against 45,902 ratepayers for non-payment of rates.

1. We don't live in NI.
2. Council tax and rates in the UK are ring-fenced specifically for use by local government

Like duh they don't have to pay for bins, or local services, cuz they are charged them as part of this form of local taxation.

Also there's a whole heap of exemptions (such as no taxation of empty property) and reductions for people living alone, that I'm sure would not come into play here. :pac:

dvpower

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The four suicides a day comment seemed to give Pat an appetite for his salad.

What a dispicable post.

lightspeed

Jame Gumb wrote: »

Newsflash

The country's f..ked

I'm no fan of either FG or Labour but they hadn't a clue how bad things are until they took office. The country's in fire fighting mode. We're lurching from problem to problem. Jesus, the last Minister for Finance died and the present one looks f..ked now.

The last thing these guys need is some bozo hassling them while they're trying to eat.

If they hadnt got a clue, then what business did they have in running in the election? Everybody else knew about the bailout and the state of the country before the date for the general election was even set so how could they not have a clue.
Do you remember when Enda put a cap on the salaries of advisers and then decided in a "specific case" to give a jobs advisor a salary increase, just as unemployment was rising.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/varadkar-defends-advisors-pay-hike-that-breaches-salary-cap-530869.html

I suppose such circumstances could have been forseen and he had to go back on such pre election promises.
You may call that politics, whereas i consider it treason.

Biggins

Jame Gumb wrote: »

Newsflash

The country's f..ked

I'm no fan of either FG or Labour but they hadn't a clue how bad things are until they took office. The country's in fire fighting mode. We're lurching from problem to problem. Jesus, the last Minister for Finance died and the present one looks f..ked now.

The last thing these guys need is some bozo hassling them while they're trying to eat.

His meal should not have been interrupted.
However he should have spoke up when the wrong man was being arrested.
Instead he just sat there and looked like... well watch the video and see for ones own opinion...

To me, it looked like he didn't give a rats arse who was arrested!

Am Chile

lugha wrote: »

Alas, our problems won’t go away. It is possible, though unlikely I think at this stage, that property tax will be abandoned but even if it is, there will be some other tax on something else in its place that will cause every bit as much hardship. I have yet to hear a credible way out of this crisis that would not impact severely on the majority of people.

Yes, we structured our tax system so that during the boom we generated and spent massive amounts from temporary property related taxes. That stream has collapsed, which has a lot to do with the bother we are in now. Surely, at least in hindsight, you can see that we really did not have “a great thing going”?



But this works both ways. If the law is not absolutely binding then can everyone not decide for themselves what laws the consider just? Many very wealthy people for example genuinely do believe that it is unjust that they are asked to pay more tax that everyone else. Would you pardon them if they decided to evade their tax obligations?

Or what about the small number of politicians who were fingered by tribunals for corruption? They insist they saw nothing wrong with what they were doing. Absolution for them too?

Most of the law-defying examples you mentioned involved situations where people’s basic human rights were been infringed. What we are looking at here, despite all the passion, is the rather ho hum matter of how a democratically elected government structures its taxation system! If the people don’t like what they do, they can vote them out of office next time around.

One of the dafter notions the no side put out was to liken their battle with that against apartheid in SA! Thankfully they seem to have abandoned this nonsense.

Most of the wealthy people have the means and ability to pay such taxes,so no they wouldn,t pardon them-the current household tax takes no account or consideration of someones circumstances regarding their means or ability to pay-and I suspect next years property tax won,t either one of the many reasons many people see it as an unjust tax which should be resisted-property tax does infringe on human rights-in the united states if someone can,t afford their annual property tax they can be made homeless just because they can,t afford to pay a tax, to take no account of the persons ability to pay such tax and make someone homeless because of that partucular tax is an Infringement of human rights to a lot of people.

Jame Gumb

There's a tabloid sensationalism about salaries and FOI requests that doesn't help things at all.

Guess what? If there's a guy in Japan who's the world's foremost expert in dealing with banking collapses and property crashes, I couldn't give a flying f..k if we pay him €10m a year to advise the government.

And if the IDA bring some Yanks to Shanahan's on the Green and spend €10,000 on steaks and wine with a view to getting them to open a factory in Ballygobackwards, I couldn't give a f..k either.

But stick non stories like these in rags like the Sunday World, Sunday Independent or Mail on Sunday and you'll have hundreds of thousands of gobsh1tes frothing at the mouth.

Am Chile

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Would you have the same concerns for our fellow citizens across the border who are living under an administration which has a party trying to get into power in this country. This is what happens under their watch if you don't pay your property tax there.

http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/what-happens-if-i-don-t-pay-my-rates

If you don't pay your rates

If you do not pay your rates or contact LPS to make an arrangement to clear your account, you will be taken to court. This will mean:
•additional costs
•your credit rating could be affected, and as a result you may not be able to apply for credit or a loan
•you could be made bankrupt
•your home could be repossessed

In 2011 - 12 court action was taken against 45,902 ratepayers for non-payment of rates.


You are living in a democracy, not a muslim caliphate or a communist dictatorship. Not only was the law introducing the HHC passed with a large majority but a bill intoduced by its opponents to have have repealed was also soundly defeated. This is democracy and the rule of law in action and if the campaign of illegality against it suceeds we are in big trouble.

http://www.thejournal.ie/bill-to-repeal-household-charge-to-be-debated-in-the-dail-tonight-492626-Jun2012/

You are living in a democracy

Really ? the same democracy where referendum results aren,t recognized lisbon and nice spring to mind, the same democracy where a government minister, richard bruton threatens not to recognize a referendum result if the people don,t vote the way he wants them to vote- You re saying its undemocratic for people to boycott the household/property tax because the government has a mandate-pre election I seem the recall the fine gael manifesto stating a tax on a family home was unfair that they were against such a tax giving people the Impression a household/property tax wouldn,t be introduced under a fine gael government-this supposed mandate they were elected Based on a heap of lies and false empty promises- as admitted by pat rabbitte on vincent brown and ruairi quinn on labours way on rte they knew they were making promises more then likely they mightn,t keep via student grants labour promised not to increase student grants since in power student grants have increased yet again, but hey as long as they get peoples votes that,s all that matters.same goes for fine gael and their broken promises of not one more red cent to the banks/bondholders, not to close to roscommon accident and emergency. some people were naive enough to beleive they were voting for change when they beleived their empty promises.

You failed to answer my questions posed to you in my previous post so Il ask you again-If the Irish government were to pass new laws making it Illegal to collect rainwater, denying women the right to drive,for a black person to give up a seat on a bus for a white person, If the Irish government were to bring in a new tax equivalent to a Jizyah Tax on people to try persuade people to convert to a certain religion, do you think people should blinding obey such laws and pay such taxes without question ?

__________________http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80437827&postcount=39

Biggins

Jame Gumb wrote: »

There's a tabloid sensationalism about salaries and FOI requests that doesn't help things at all.

Guess what? If there's a guy in Japan who's the world's foremost expert in dealing with banking collapses and property crashes, I couldn't give a flying f..k if we pay him €10m a year to advise the government.

And if the IDA bring some Yanks to Shanahan's on the Green and spend €10,000 on steaks and wine with a view to getting them to open a factory in Ballygobackwards, I couldn't give a f..k either.

But stick non stories like these in rags like the Sunday World, Sunday Independent or Mail on Sunday and you'll have hundreds of thousands of gobsh1tes frothing at the mouth.

I have no problem paying for people who are experts in their field and they successfully do their job.
However when some screw-up and leave us all fcuked in some way, they should not be massively pensioned off and left even more so in some cases, with further perks.

For the money they get, there should also be included accountability allowed for, in their initial employment contracts!

Jame Gumb

Biggins wrote: »

Jame Gumb wrote: »

There's a tabloid sensationalism about salaries and FOI requests that doesn't help things at all.

Guess what? If there's a guy in Japan who's the world's foremost expert in dealing with banking collapses and property crashes, I couldn't give a flying f..k if we pay him €10m a year to advise the government.

And if the IDA bring some Yanks to Shanahan's on the Green and spend €10,000 on steaks and wine with a view to getting them to open a factory in Ballygobackwards, I couldn't give a f..k either.

But stick non stories like these in rags like the Sunday World, Sunday Independent or Mail on Sunday and you'll have hundreds of thousands of gobsh1tes frothing at the mouth.

I have no problem paying for a people to are experts in their field and they successfully do their job.
However when some screw-up and leave us all fcuked in some way, they should not be massively pensioned off and left even more so in some cases, with further perks.

For the money they get, there should also be included accountability allowed for, in their initial employment contracts!

I agree.

I also support putting all public servants on defined contribution pensions with effect from today.

TheTurk1972

If its about services provided, then its not per house that this property tax should be paid. Its per person living in it. Whether they own the house or not. Otherwise it is discrimination against property owners.
Think Council tax.