Large gardens exempt from property tax

n97 mini

Gardens bigger than 1 acre will be counted as just 1 acre for the purposes of property tax.

In my opinion this is a national scandal, and I would really question the motives behind it.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0306/1224330831114.html

seamus

I did mention this when the bill was initially published, but the very good point was made to me about farmland. What part of a farmer's land is valued for the purposes of the property tax, and what part is "farmland".

Since the spirit of the tax is to pay for the cost of providing services to homes, then it doesn't make sense to impose the tax on land which is not being actively used for residential purposes. Whether the house is on half an acre or 60 acres, there's little difference in the cost of providing services.

n97 mini

seamus wrote: »

What part of a farmer's land is valued for the purposes of the property tax, and what part is "farmland"

Since the property tax is being decided on a case by case basis, then what constitutes farmland could be decided on a case by case basis, instead of giving mega wealthy an exemption.

If it were about the cost of providing services alone, those in 3-bed semis in Dublin and the other major urban areas should be paying virtually nothing due to economies of scale. Whereas the lad with 2 acres up a boreen (that needs to be maintained) in rural Ireland has just been given a major let off.

seamus

n97 mini wrote: »

Since the property tax is being decided on a case by case basis, then what constitutes farmland could be decided on a case by case basis, instead of giving mega wealthy an exemption.

Cost, and loopholes. That means that you need to send out an inspector for everyone declaring their land as farmland to ensure that the self-declaration is accurate, and you introduce loopholes - why can't the mega rich guy just say that his extra land is farmland? How do you disprove it? "I put cows on there for 60 days of the year".

If you apply simple rules with less loopholes, then people are more likely to declare accurately and your collection rates go up and enforcement rates go down.

The number of people who have more than 1 acre of land used solely for residential purposes I'm willing to bet is tiny, and the potential increase in property tax payments, miniscule.

It generally doesn't sit happy with people who blame the wealthy for all of the ills in the world, because they would rather punish the wealthy no matter what the cost rather than do things the best way.

Is it self-serving? Perhaps. But I don't see any other feasible way of doing it.

If it were about the cost of providing services alone, those in 3-bed semis in Dublin and the other major urban areas should be paying virtually nothing due to economies of scale. Whereas the lad with 2 acres up a boreen (that needs to be maintained) in rural Ireland has just been given a major let off.

But of course this is the case either way, even if the guys with huge estates had to pay based on the value of the entire plot of land they would still get a major let-off because their land is typically out in the sticks.

You're right of course, and there are rumblings that as this thing matures, councils will be given more control over their specific rates, and rates will move more in line with actual local costs. For the purposes of getting this thing off the ground though, a property valuation based tax seems to be the simplest and most logical way to go.

rasper

The sheer neck of this blatant attempt to skew the immoral tax , not happy with favoring the rural dweller it goes one further and gives a tax exemption to the wealthier ones.
No one should forget this next election

If i keep chickens the the back garden of my house which is in an estate, can i claim that as farmland and reduce my property tax?

shedweller

They will forget, though. Just like a certain political party has seen its popularity come back from the dead recently.

Manach

That the type of house/land bears no relation to the income generation of the household and the councils which have again had their own powers/obligations reduced by the recent local authority staute meaning that are no more that placeholders for the central governments decision make inviting the the premise this is yet more tax raising to support an noneffective and bloated State that no political party can change. No itemsise list of services, seem to imply no measurable services to itemise.

antoobrien

rasper wrote: »

The sheer neck of this blatant attempt to skew the immoral tax , not happy with favoring the rural dweller it goes one further and gives a tax exemption to the wealthier ones.
No one should forget this next election

Wealthy? You can buy 4 acres for f**k all across most of the country. Hell I can buy and build next to Galway city for less than the price of buying & refurbishing 3 bed in Donnycarney.

Serious lack of understanding of the costs of rural ownership going on here.

mariaalice

Its a property tax not a land tax, or have I got that wrong?.

n97 mini

Is property not land+buildings?

jester77

mariaalice wrote: »

Its a property tax not a land tax, or have I got that wrong?.

prop·er·ty
/ˈpräpərtē/
Noun

1. A thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
2. A building or buildings and the land belonging to it or them

antoobrien

n97 mini wrote: »

If it were about the cost of providing services alone, those in 3-bed semis in Dublin and the other major urban areas should be paying virtually nothing due to economies of scale. Whereas the lad with 2 acres up a boreen (that needs to be maintained) in rural Ireland has just been given a major let off.

But since the 3 beds in Dublin doesn't have any current or capital costs regarding those services and the lad with two acres has to pay for his to be provided (and in some cases to preserve ongoing service) we're comparing apples with oranges.

murphaph

antoobrien wrote: »

But since the 3 beds in Dublin doesn't have any current or capital costs regarding those services and the lad with two acres has to pay for his to be provided (and in some cases to preserve ongoing service) we're comparing apples with oranges.

Of course there's a capital cost.

The cost of laying the pipeworks and connecting to the public mains/sewer (the connection charges are very expensive) are included in the purchase price of a property

Current costs are on the way...water metering will be introduced for residential properties in the near future (commercial mains water is already metered).

Clearly a mansion set on several acres of gardens is worth a great deal more than the same building on a 1/3 acre site. The property tax should not be capped at 1 acre. It's fishy and I don't buy the reasons given here so far.

thebman

What is clear from these threads is that those in towns have no idea about the lack of services in rural areas and just assume the same or similar services are provided as if the a person was living in a town.

There are no services in rural areas anyway except water (sometimes even this is a group water scheme), electricity and the odd pothole filled once every now and again after winter.

Scortho

murphaph wrote: »

Of course there's a capital cost.

The cost of laying the pipeworks and connecting to the public mains/sewer (the connection charges are very expensive) are included in the purchase price of a property

Current costs are on the way...water metering will be introduced for residential properties in the near future (commercial mains water is already metered).

Clearly a mansion set on several acres of gardens is worth a great deal more than the same building on a 1/3 acre site. The property tax should not be capped at 1 acre. It's fishy and I don't buy the reasons given here so far.

If say its to do with the fact that a lot of houses in the country are small 3 bed bungalows on that size of a plot. They're not living the life of Reilly and the land isn't going to be worth much. Agricultural land is around 10 k per acre for the good stuff so the value of a house on one acre to that of a house on 2 acres in rural midlands isn't going to be massive as you can't really farm it either. Just a few hours every second week cutting the grass= hassle

I'd say they overlooked the McMansion issue in the above belief that a big garden in the back arse of Offaly isn't going to make much difference to the value of a small house.



How many acres is kennys house on???

murphaph

Scortho wrote: »

If say its to do with the fact that a lot of houses in the country are small 3 bed bungalows on that size of a plot. They're not living the life of Reilly and the land isn't going to be worth much. Agricultural land is around 10 k per acre for the good stuff so the value of a house on one acre to that of a house on 2 acres in rural midlands isn't going to be massive as you can't really farm it either. Just a few hours every second week cutting the grass= hassle

I'd say they overlooked the McMansion issue in the above belief that a big garden in the back arse of Offaly isn't going to make much difference to the value of a small house.



How many acres is kennys house on???

If a 3 bed house is on 2 acres of basic land, the value won't be much greater as you say, so the tax won't be much greater either. This capping at 1 acre though means that very expensive country homes on tens of acres of gardens and or woodland will pay far less tax than they should.

woodoo

thebman wrote: »

What is clear from these threads is that those in towns have no idea about the lack of services in rural areas and just assume the same or similar services are provided as if the a person was living in a town.

There are no services in rural areas anyway except water (sometimes even this is a group water scheme), electricity and the odd pothole filled once every now and again after winter.

I wouldn't even count ESB as rural dwellers pay a higher rate and if you are more than a certain distance from an existing line you will be charged more to get connected.

murphaph

woodoo wrote: »

I wouldn't even count ESB as rural dwellers pay a higher rate and if you are more than a certain distance from an existing line you will be charged more to get connected.

I doubt the higher rate doesn't cover the costs associated with maintaining all those overhead supply lines. In urban areas you can underground the supply at a cost that makes it viable and the supply is then permanently safe from storms, which regularly down lines resulting in significant repair costs.

I very much doubt the real costs of supplying electricity to rural customers is covered entirely by those customers.

murphaph

thebman wrote: »

What is clear from these threads is that those in towns have no idea about the lack of services in rural areas and just assume the same or similar services are provided as if the a person was living in a town.

There are no services in rural areas anyway except water (sometimes even this is a group water scheme), electricity and the odd pothole filled once every now and again after winter.

No telephones? Gardai? Fire Services? Ambulances? No schools (often with a handful of pupils)?

And rural roads really do cost a lot of money to maintain and guess what, potholes can be found in urban areas too!

n97 mini

thebman wrote: »

What is clear from these threads is that those in towns have no idea about the lack of services in rural areas and just assume the same or similar services are provided as if the a person was living in a town.

It's not about the level of services.

Where services are publicly provided the will cost more to do so. The most obvious ones are the road outside the gate, and the rural schools. But also there is the additional costs of delivering post, costs of maintaining power and comms infrastructures etc.

I have no concerns about services that aren't provided, as they don't have any cost.

John_Rambo

thebman wrote: »

There are no services in rural areas anyway

No fire service, police service, costly road maintenance, hedge trimming, motorways, schools, postal service stretched out over large areas costing the state an absolute fortune?

Scortho

murphaph wrote: »

If a 3 bed house is on 2 acres of basic land, the value won't be much greater as you say, so the tax won't be much greater either. This capping at 1 acre though means that very expensive country homes on tens of acres of gardens and or woodland will pay far less tax than they should.

But then would that not be classed as a farm. There's very few of these 10 acre sites in kildare that doesn't have a couple of horses on it.

Also is it liable on commercial property, or is there a different property tax other than rates for them?
I take it if a btl landlord transferred his btls to a company he'd still be liable, but wouldn't have to pay income tax on the rent?

murphaph

Scortho wrote: »

But then would that not be classed as a farm. There's very few of these 10 acre sites in kildare that doesn't have a couple of horses on it.

Also is it liable on commercial property, or is there a different property tax other than rates for them?
I take it if a btl landlord transferred his btls to a company he'd still be liable, but wouldn't have to pay income tax on the rent?

I think Revenue and the rules can be written to differentiate between a working farm and a house with stables and some horses. I presume most/all farmers have to be registered with the Dept. of Agriculture in some shape or form. Could this not be tied in to any claim that the stables/paddock out the back are a "farm". If the stables/paddock are used in the running of a business like horse riding lessons, then they would not be taxed by the property tax. There will be many edge cases where people will be claiming exemption...and not just in rural areas. This 1 acre limit is fundamentally unfair on people who have properties smaller than 1 acre. It is totally arbitrary and whilst I am not a raving socialist...if we're gonna have a property tax on residential property, it should be levied equally on all.

Rates are due on commercial property, so any stables/paddocks used for horse riding lessons by a business would already be paying rates (or should be).

Edit: it's usually a bad idea for a company to own real estate if it can be avoided (most small business owners own their business properties in their own name and let the incorporated business lease the property from them), so I can't see too many BTL landlords moving property into a company for this as the company would still be liable for the tax (and the LL would eventually have to pay income tax when he withdrew the income from the company anyway, no getting around that)

ted1

So are they now saying its the rebuild value, that's without the land and covers only the cost of the house

nice_guy80

ted1 wrote: »

So are they now saying its the rebuild value, that's without the land and covers only the cost of the house

but not the landscaping costs?

hfallada

There are practically no house in Dublin that have an garden bigger than an acre. Maybe in South co Dublin or Malahide. But 99.9% of Dublin houses have smaller gardens. Don't forget the property tax is a tax on Dubliners as that's were a majority of the countries expensive houses are

n97 mini

hfallada wrote: »

There are practically no house in Dublin that have an garden bigger than an acre. Maybe in South co Dublin or Malahide. But 99.9% of Dublin houses have smaller gardens. Don't forget the property tax is a tax on Dubliners as that's were a majority of the countries expensive houses are

Ah yeah, but shur they can look back at their houses from the vegetable patches and compliment themselves on what a good job they've done on painting the place.

Oh no wait. Gardens are only that big in Enda Kenny land. And we wouldn't want Enda taxed on his vegetable patch.

KetchupKid

1. Let’s be honest this property tax has nothing to do with local services, that’s just a smoke screen that’s been created and the gullible public are buying it, it’s all about paying off the debt!

2. If this was about services such as fire service, police service, road maintenance, motorways, schools, postal services, county councils, our great politicians, etc it wouldn’t matter if you had a run-down kip of an apartment or a mansion assuming they are both housing the same amount of people the services required should still be about the same, although there are some poor who work the system well, the rich seem to work it even better, leaving the working-poor middle-class to pay for it all.

3. So it’s not about services, it’s a tax on your wealth, so the bigger the house is, the nicer the house\area is and the bigger the site all contribute to your perceived wealth and that’s what you are being taxed against. So my very modest 4 bedroom house on a ½ acre in the country where I get f-all services is taxed more than most 3-bed semi’s in the cities and towns where they get plenty of services. Plus I’ll be tax at the same rate as nearby stud farms on 100’s of acres, is that fair? But the government was lobbied by the rich, so they gave them a break.

4. Finally, if it’s a tax on your wealth, since I’m in negative equity I not only don’t have any wealth, but negative wealth, so instead of paying property tax I should receive payments, but unfortunately it doesn’t work this way. Our corrupt government doesn’t care about us, unless we have some power or influence. They don’t care if we don’t have the money, but they’ll continue to tax us for something we (the middle class) didn’t do and the bankers and developers get away with murder!!

Yes, it is time for a revolution!!

creedp

KetchupKid wrote: »

3. So it’s not about services, it’s a tax on your wealth, so the bigger the house is, the nicer the house\area is and the bigger the site all contribute to your perceived wealth and that’s what you are being taxed against. So my very modest 4 bedroom house on a ½ acre in the country where I get f-all services is taxed more than most 3-bed semi’s in the cities and towns where they get plenty of services. Plus I’ll be tax at the same rate as nearby stud farms on 100’s of acres, is that fair? But the government was lobbied by the rich, so they gave them a break.

4. Finally, if it’s a tax on your wealth, since I’m in negative equity I not only don’t have any wealth, but negative wealth, so instead of paying property tax I should receive payments, but unfortunately it doesn’t work this way. Our corrupt government doesn’t care about us, unless we have some power or influence. They don’t care if we don’t have the money, but they’ll continue to tax us for something we (the middle class) didn’t do and the bankers and developers get away with murder!!

Yes, it is time for a revolution!!

If the Govt was serious about introducing a tax on wealth, then it would be a tax on all wealth not just your home. This is just easy pickings at this point as people can't avoid it unless they sell up! and put money in the bank. Gas isn't you must pay a 'wealth tax' on you home but if you sell it and put your wealth elsewhere you pay no tax on it!

KetchupKid

creedp wrote: »

If the Govt was serious about introducing a tax on wealth, then it would be a tax on all wealth not just your home. This is just easy pickings at this point as people can't avoid it unless they sell up! and put money in the bank. Gas isn't you must pay a 'wealth tax' on you home but if you sell it and put your wealth elsewhere you pay no tax on it!

Yes, but it isn't even a real wealth tax on houses because they are only counting the 1st acre and their stupid orange coloured bands lumps all houses in the area at the same price - greatly reduced values for the rich and greatly increased value for many of the non rich. Yes, I can quote a more realistic price if I think my home is less than the norm in my area and someone in a mansion "should" also use a more realistic price, but which is going to raise more eyebrows and cause more trouble, me if I say my house is less than the area or the rich person with the mansion who quietly accepts the undervalued assessment?