revenue issues threat to every homeowner in the country.

darkhorse

clairefontaine wrote: »

Who has all this "wealth out there?"

If banks aren't lending, then you need cash to buy, and even at 140 k who has that kind of cash?

I was talking to my estate agent, through whom I'm renting, and he said that they aren't accepting mortgages, they want to see the cash in the bank account of the buyer.

I get the impression that dx is doing his averaging sums again. He should come back shortly and tell us how much each citizen in ireland is worth, to include homeless people. After all, you cannot get a proper average, unless you include everyone.

Bruthal

dxhound2005 wrote: »

There is certainly plenty of money out there looking for a home. According to the Central Statistics Office, the Irish savings ratio is of the order of 17 per cent, which means that for every €1 of disposable income, households are saving almost 20 cent – in 2007, the percentage saved was zero.

120 billion you say. Nice, so if there are 1 million families (actual figure I dont know), thats 120k each.

Ok, how many in this thread have 120k savings?

What about you dx? Are you swaying the average to the high end? Or, according to your idea, you have exactly 120k saved is it?

Id say safely enough, that a very small percentage of people have anything remotely like the average/families share of 120 billion saved.

bgrizzley

Bruthal wrote: »

120 billion you say. Nice, so if there are 1 million families (actual figure I dont know), thats 120k each.

Ok, how many in this thread have 120k savings?

What about you dx? Are you swaying the average to the high end? Or, according to your idea, you have exactly 120k saved is it?

Id say safely enough, that a very small percentage of people have anything remotely like the average/families share of 120 billion saved.

ive a mug up on the window with about E18 in change. not quite the average either.

Chinasea

MadsL wrote: »

Yes. I try and get things done or at least brought to public light. They may not be big things, although I am quite proud of this one.

You posted a massive list of things you are aggrieved about, but you can't really be bothered to find out who is responsible and write them a simple email.
Apathy, the Irish disease. Worse, the unending tearing down of anyone who stands up and trys to change things.

and then some. Except when it comes to matters that affect the Irish phóca, never mind the reasoning behind it, never mind the future or that illusive foresight thingy, never mind our rapidly expanding highest in Europe population BOOM, jayzus wait til the water charges come along. I see no apathy here. I only see proactive dysfunction.

Recent grungy thread on AH about how that charming bunch of morons called Eirgi were coaching people how to destroy the water meters mustering up tons of support. The real farce however, is that these guys are the die hard Irish anthem'ed ring tune patriots who supposedly love their country.
Lá Fhéile Pádraig

Bullseye1

And then there are lemmings who want to hand over more money without meaningful changes in how local authorities conduct their business. If you ever had any dealings with local authorities then you wouldn't be so willing to give them more money. You have never seen so much money walk out the door as you do with their legal department who put everything on the long finger and then settle on the steps of the court at huge loses to the public purses.

Anyone who thinks that the property tax and water charges are patriotic are fooling themselves. It is just more money to be wasted by wasteful civil servants and poorly qualified elected representatives.

A fool and their money etc.

Chinasea

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that the property tax and water charges are patriotic are fooling themselves. It is just more money to be wasted by wasteful civil servants and poorly qualified elected representatives.

A fool and their money etc.

Reminds me of the TV licence advertisement: We've heard all the excuses!

dxhound2005

Bruthal wrote: »

120 billion you say. Nice, so if there are 1 million families (actual figure I dont know), thats 120k each.

Ok, how many in this thread have 120k savings?

What about you dx? Are you swaying the average to the high end? Or, according to your idea, you have exactly 120k saved is it?

Id say safely enough, that a very small percentage of people have anything remotely like the average/families share of 120 billion saved.

70% of people on AH have enough savings to have avoided putting themselves outside the law if they own a house. Which would be very prudent seeing as breaking the law would involve extra expense.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78159751

There is a ready made €800 million a year to be picked up from a 1% wealth tax. So someone must have it.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/taxation-measures

Wealth taxes
•Introduce a wealth tax of 1% on all assets in excess of €1 million, excluding working farmland, business assets, and the first 20% of value of primary residences worth in excess of €1 million. The Department of Finance to examine an inability to pay clause for asset rich, cash poor individuals. Raises: €800 million

Bullseye1

LOL you have heard and seen all the warnings and you still want to give them more money. Fool and their money etc certainly stands.

Phoebas

The Revenue Commissioners have put my house in one band; the Daft online tool have it in a lower band.
Personally I value it a bit higher, based on the prices that similar houses in the area have sold for in the last year.

If I go with the Revenue estimate, will they accept it, even if it might not be accurate?

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

The Revenue Commissioners have put my house in one band; the Daft online tool have it in a lower band.
Personally I value it a bit higher, based on the prices that similar houses in the area have sold for in the last year.

If I go with the Revenue estimate, will they accept it, even if it might not be accurate?

I'd not worry about it at all tbh.

By the looks of some headlines today, what with labour 'imploding' and FF overtaking FG as the most popular party in the country again.

Labour are now at 9% on the opinion poll.

Over all, the 74% of the country are unhappy with the coalition. That's Pretty poor satisfaction rating, for any govt.

Seeing as how revenue have already stated that there will be no refunds for overpaid taxes, I'd guess that same rule will apply to anyone wanting a refund if a new govt scraps it.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

I'd not worry about it at all tbh.

I'm not worried at all. I was just wondering if the Revenue will accept their own estimate, even if its not very accurate?

Anyone?

barneystinson

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm not worried at all. I was just wondering if the Revenue will accept their own estimate, even if its not very accurate?

Anyone?

Jaysus wept - I can't see what is so hard to understand about this - Revenue haven't valued, or estimated the value of, your house.

Read what it says about the online tool:
"This service provides a guide to average market values of properties in a given locality and offers an indicative valuation band for properties depending on type, age and location. It does not provide market values for individual properties. The guidance is primarily based on the market value of properties sold since the year 2010 in the area, adjusted for average price movements in the interim.

This guidance will be helpful in the majority of cases but there are always properties in an area that differ from the average.

Self assessment requires property owners to honestly assess the market value of their own property. If a property is smaller or larger than the average for the area, is in a significantly poor state of repair or has exceptional or unique features, this will have to be factored into the assessment of the valuation band of the property."

I haven't seen the letter they send out but I expect it will say the same thing.

They're not trying to tell you how much your house is worth. They're telling you how much the average house in your area has sold for since 2010. If you don't self-assess and put a valuation on the house then this is the amount they'll come looking for.

Bruthal

Chinasea wrote: »

Reminds me of the TV licence advertisement: We've heard all the excuses!

Have you indeed?

tayto lover

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Hundreds of thousands of them were that frightened that they decided that they better get two or three houses. And one in Bulgaria as well just for good measure.

I honestly think that this is total exaggeration.
The vast majority of mortgages were obtained for a single home which people needed to raise a family. I know of two people in a very wide circle of friends who purchased holiday/investment properties abroad and in one of those cases the lad was steeped in money anyway and only took a small mortgage to get tax relief.
Hundreds of thousands me as**.

dxhound2005

tayto lover wrote: »

I honestly think that this is total exaggeration.
The vast majority of mortgages were obtained for a single home which people needed to raise a family. I know of two people in a very wide circle of friends who purchased holiday/investment properties abroad and in one of those cases the lad was steeped in money anyway and only took a small mortgage to get tax relief.
Hundreds of thousands me as**.

I'm only going by the number of NPPR payments around 340,000 and I have seen arguments from Dont Register Dont Pay elements that NPPR was largely ignored by the people with more than one house. Maybe all these people already owned two or ten houses before the Celtic Tiger but I doubt that.

handlemaster

SamHall wrote: »

I'd not worry about it at all tbh.

By the looks of some headlines today, what with labour 'imploding' and FF overtaking FG as the most popular party in the country again.

Labour are now at 9% on the opinion poll.

Over all, the 74% of the country are unhappy with the coalition. That's Pretty poor satisfaction rating, for any govt.

Seeing as how revenue have already stated that there will be no refunds for overpaid taxes, I'd guess that same rule will apply to anyone wanting a refund if a new govt scraps it.

Don't say you weren't warned.

I think ff will be back in the next election and I said that just after the last. We Irish are very forgiving lot.They will form a collition . I dont think they will.get rid of the property tax they wanted it in the first place. The country is still up to its neck in debt and the tax revenue still has to.come from somewhere. But they will promise to tweek it perhaps the city country divide on values will be looked at.

MadsL

Bullseye1 wrote: »

And then there are lemmings who want to hand over more money without meaningful changes in how local authorities conduct their business. If you ever had any dealings with local authorities then you wouldn't be so willing to give them more money. You have never seen so much money walk out the door as you do with their legal department who put everything on the long finger and then settle on the steps of the court at huge loses to the public purses.

Anyone who thinks that the property tax and water charges are patriotic are fooling themselves. It is just more money to be wasted by wasteful civil servants and poorly qualified elected representatives.

A fool and their money etc.

Isn't the best way to deal with that to raise the money locally and then you get a sense of local democracy and value for money. Personally I think the Mayor and City/County Managers should be elected from a shortlist, along with a value for money auditor who is also locally elected.

However on one the imperfections of this property tax is that it is based on the value of the house. A completely bankrupt notion that ruined the country, the tax should be based on a Site Valuation basis not a notional house value. The value of land should be a more stable and objective basis for tax.

solas111

SamHall wrote: »

I'd not worry about it at all tbh.

By the looks of some headlines today, what with labour 'imploding' and FF overtaking FG as the most popular party in the country again.

Labour are now at 9% on the opinion poll.

Over all, the 74% of the country are unhappy with the coalition. That's Pretty poor satisfaction rating, for any govt.

Seeing as how revenue have already stated that there will be no refunds for overpaid taxes, I'd guess that same rule will apply to anyone wanting a refund if a new govt scraps it.

Don't say you weren't warned.

You can have Fianna Fail, The Greens (R.I.P. Thank God), Fine Gael, Labour or any combination but it won’t make a blind bit of difference.

It’s a laugh to listen to some of the Fianna Fail crowd kicking up a stink about property tax and all the other s**te that they came up with in the first place and were ready to introduce if they had managed the Houdini act at the last election.

A vote for Dustin the Turkey would be about as useful as casting a ballot for any of that lot. Far better to send some flowers and a begging letter to the Taoiseach, Frau. Merkel.

Banjo String

solas111 wrote: »

You can have Fianna Fail, The Greens (R.I.P. Thank God), Fine Gael, Labour or any combination but it won’t make a blind bit of difference.

It’s a laugh to listen to some of the Fianna Fail crowd kicking up a stink about property tax and all the other s**te that they came up with in the first place and were ready to introduce if they had managed the Houdini act at the last election.

A vote for Dustin the Turkey would be about as useful as casting a ballot for any of that lot. Far better to send some flowers and a begging letter to the Taoiseach, Frau. Merkel.

Hey solas,

Yeah, just for clarity, i hold FF in as much (possibly even more) contempt as I hold the current lot.

They have been calling for an abandonment of this tax now for a long time, (I'm under no illusion as to who it was signed us up to the current one btw) and I reckon a promise to scrap this tax will be the foundations of their election manifest.

Some nay-sayer's in this thread will try and tell us that they'll not scrap the tax, I don't agree though.

They're out in the cold ATM, and they don't like it one bit.

They're witnessing the lack of support for the current coalition, and they can see they broken promises, and an election campaign founded on lies, is not a wise move.

Like I say though, I think they're even worse than what we've got.

solas111

SamHall wrote: »

Hey solas,

Yeah, just for clarity, i hold FF in as much (possibly even more) contempt as I hold the current lot.

They have been calling for an abandonment of this tax now for a long time, (I'm under no illusion as to who it was signed us up to the current one btw) and I reckon a promise to scrap this tax will be the foundations of their election manifest.

Some nay-sayer's in this thread will try and tell us that they'll not scrap the tax, I don't agree though.

They're out in the cold ATM, and they don't like it one bit.

They're witnessing the lack of support for the current coalition, and they can see they broken promises, and an election campaign founded on lies, is not a wise move.

Like I say though, I think they're even worse than what we've got.

I don’t know but I can’t see the FFs repeating the Jack Lynch trick of 1977 where they abolished car tax and the rates on houses. The car tax was brought back soon afterwards in the underhand and dishonest manner that these people operate. They all regretted the abolition of house rates and were desperate to bring them back as well but it was political suicide and no party had the guts to do it. The present economic crises has presented them with a perfect opportunity where they can blame the Troika and every other Tom, Dick and Harry for something they were too chicken to put their own names to.

I didn’t mention the nay-sayers simply because they didn’t get their bums on the soft seats yet. However, I would be very worried by where they seem to see a crock of gold. Their magical solution seems to be to raid the pension funds that people have contributed to all their lives and depend on for their retirement.

flutered

i have said back in the day that f.f.s biggest problem is how can they get their bumbrs on the reviewing stand for the 100th celebratings of the state, it looks like the present goverment have supplied them with the best seats on the stand.

solas111

flutered wrote: »

i have said back in the day that f.f.s biggest problem is how can they get their bumbrs on the reviewing stand for the 100th celebratings of the state, it looks like the present goverment have supplied them with the best seats on the stand.

Do they not have to go through that democracy farce first, where they tell a lot of lies and people go out and vote for them?

Phoebas

barneystinson wrote: »

Jaysus wept - I can't see what is so hard to understand about this - Revenue haven't valued, or estimated the value of, your house.

Revenue do refer to it as an estimate on their website. Indeed, it is this figure that they will pursue if you don't cooperate.

revenue.ie wrote:

Don’t ignore the return. If you do, Revenue will pursue collection of the Estimate.

bgrizzley

flutered wrote: »

i have said back in the day that f.f.s biggest problem is how can they get their bumbrs on the reviewing stand for the 100th celebratings of the state, it looks like the present goverment have supplied them with the best seats on the stand.

regardless which bunch of tramps will be presiding, the people they are remembering will be ashamed of their legacy...

darkhorse

barneystinson wrote: »

But even if they're not talkin sh1te then they should still be advising people to pay over the tax pending the outcome of their legal challenge.

So, just let me ask you this. If the government were to demand another, lets say, 4 or 5 further taxes in the next 6 months, do you also advocate that the people should pay those aswell, no matter what the concequences to the family budget.

dxhound2005

darkhorse wrote: »

So, just let me ask you this. If the government were to demand another, lets say, 4 or 5 further taxes in the next 6 months, do you also advocate that the people should pay those aswell, no matter what the concequences to the family budget.

If they brought in another 5 or 6 SW payments to which you were entitled would you refuse to take them?

barneystinson

darkhorse wrote: »

So, just let me ask you this. If the government were to demand another, lets say, 4 or 5 further taxes in the next 6 months, do you also advocate that the people should pay those aswell, no matter what the concequences to the family budget.

There's a difference between refusing to pay and simply not being able to.

Banjo String

barneystinson wrote: »

There's a difference between refusing to pay and simply not being able to.

Ah, the penny drops at last.

barneystinson

SamHall wrote: »

Ah, the penny drops at last.

Yaaaaaaaaawn, you're boring the hole off me - explain to me so why anyone planning on subscribing to some spiel about legal challenges wouldn't be better off to pay the tax if they can afford to.

If the legal challenge fails the tax will be collected whether they like it or not, but it'll cost them more.

If the tax is illegal (which it's not) then they'll be refunded.

darkhorse

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm not worried at all. I was just wondering if the Revenue will accept their own estimate, even if its not very accurate?

Anyone?

Yes, they will.

darkhorse

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If they brought in another 5 or 6 SW payments to which you were entitled would you refuse to take them?

I can't see how I could be entitled to, so a moot point.

MadsL

barneystinson wrote: »

There's a difference between refusing to pay and simply not being able to.

At the risk of getting my head bitten off, how is it someone who owns a house/apt is not be able to afford a €30-50 month tax?

Are we saying everyone is in NE and unable to sell? In which case is renting out the house and downsizing to a rented apt not the answer.

Do explain.

mfceiling

barneystinson wrote: »

Jaysus wept - I can't see what is so hard to understand about this - Revenue haven't valued, or estimated the value of, your house.

Read what it says about the online tool:
"This service provides a guide to average market values of properties in a given locality and offers an indicative valuation band for properties depending on type, age and location. It does not provide market values for individual properties. The guidance is primarily based on the market value of properties sold since the year 2010 in the area, adjusted for average price movements in the interim.

This guidance will be helpful in the majority of cases but there are always properties in an area that differ from the average.

Self assessment requires property owners to honestly assess the market value of their own property. If a property is smaller or larger than the average for the area, is in a significantly poor state of repair or has exceptional or unique features, this will have to be factored into the assessment of the valuation band of the property."

I haven't seen the letter they send out but I expect it will say the same thing.

They're not trying to tell you how much your house is worth. They're telling you how much the average house in your area has sold for since 2010. If you don't self-assess and put a valuation on the house then this is the amount they'll come looking for.

This bit is actually untrue.

Huge swathes of countryside bathed in a shítty beige, where 6 bed mansions sit beside 2 bed bungalows.

Same in dublin - roads with 10 different types of houses all bunched under the same umbrella.

But, but you've to pay based on a valuation. I have nothing to compare against for my valuation - well then, pay someone with your own money so you can pay another tax.

Banjo String

barneystinson wrote: »

Yaaaaaaaaawn, you're boring the hole off me

Sorry about that.

How though?

barneystinson wrote: »

- explain to me so why anyone planning on subscribing to some spiel about legal challenges wouldn't be better off to pay the tax if they can afford to.

There will be quite a number of families who won't be able to afford to pay it, this tax has been designed in such a way that it does not take am individual's circumstances, nor ability to pay into consideration.



I don't know if you're being purposely difficult, or if its a row you're after, but in fairness it was you that originally said:

Originally Posted by barneystinson There's a difference between refusing to pay and simply not being able to.

Then tell me I'm boring your hole because I agreed with you?
I'm confused tbh.

Over 1.5 million people have €50 or less left over at the end of the month after their essential bills have been paid, according to a survey.

The latest 'What's Left' Tracker by the Irish League of Credit Unions also found that 90% of people have been negatively impacted by high energy costs and that 40% fear the impact of the property tax.

This is the eighth tracker that has been carried out by the Irish League of Credit Unions since early 2011.

It shows the number of people with little or no disposable income is continuing to rise.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0117/363141-credit-union-what-left/



So, Barney.

What advice do you have to give to a family who do not have the means/funds to pay this tax?

And don't tell me their are none, because various reports show there are thousands/even millions that will be unable to pay.


http://www.irishtimes.com/business/mortgage-arrears-extraordinary-1.1255037

Lots of them will be keen to receive your financial advice.

SamHall

SamHall wrote: »

Hey solas,

They have been calling for an abandonment of this tax now for a long time, (I'm under no illusion as to who it was signed us up to the current one btw) and I reckon a promise to scrap this tax will be the foundations of their election manifest.

Some nay-sayer's in this thread will try and tell us that they'll not scrap the tax, I don't agree though.

They're out in the cold ATM, and they don't like it one bit.

They're witnessing the lack of support for the current coalition, and they can see they broken promises, and an election campaign founded on lies, is not a wise move.

Like I say though, I think they're even worse than what we've got.

FF won't scrap this tax as the only alternative is to tax the higher paid to the hilt and they are NOT going to do that.

squod

Deleted User wrote: »

FF won't scrap this tax as the only alternative is to tax the higher paid to the hilt and they are NOT going to do that.

Love this ''only alternative'', ''only show in town'' nonsense. If revenue put their backs into it the could have been inspecting the numerous fairgrounds operating cash only over the weekend, the innumerable cash only retail business and the numerically astonishing horse traders we seem to have.

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

At the risk of getting my head bitten off, how is it someone who owns a house/apt is not be able to afford a €30-50 month tax?

Are we saying everyone is in NE and unable to sell? In which case is renting out the house and downsizing to a rented apt not the answer.

Do explain.

For now it is E50 or E100 a year, but that is just to collect the data, like a doomsday book.

Eventually, once they can do proper evaluations, you will see more property taxes.

But you won't see any material local improvements from them. They are going straight to Merkel.

Cypher_sounds

I'm glad I am not Mick.

mikemac1

Where To closed their account?

Boooooooo

Phoebas

mfceiling wrote: »

This bit is actually untrue.

Huge swathes of countryside bathed in a shítty beige, where 6 bed mansions sit beside 2 bed bungalows.

Same in dublin - roads with 10 different types of houses all bunched under the same umbrella.

But, but you've to pay based on a valuation. I have nothing to compare against for my valuation - well then, pay someone with your own money so you can pay another tax.

My reading of the revenue documents is that if you make a reasonable, honest guess they will accept it. I can't imagine that they would be bothered challenging a self assessment that was out by one band (and the bands are pretty wide), but I suppose if you live in a six bed mansion in an area of mainly 2 bed bungalows, then you would hardly be expecting the revenue estimate to be very indicative anyway.

revenue wrote:

If you follow Revenue’s guidance honestly, we will accept your assessment and
your valuation will not be challenged. However, if you feel that the
guidance is not indicating a reasonable valuation for your property, you should
make your own assessment. Revenue will challenge cases where deliberate
under-valuation occurred.

barneystinson

SamHall wrote: »

Sorry about that.

How though?



There will be quite a number of families who won't be able to afford to pay it, this tax has been designed in such a way that it does not take am individual's circumstances, nor ability to pay into consideration.



I don't know if you're being purposely difficult, or if its a row you're after, but in fairness it was you that originally said:



Then tell me I'm boring your hole because I agreed with you?
I'm confused tbh.



http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0117/363141-credit-union-what-left/



So, Barney.

What advice do you have to give to a family who do not have the means/funds to pay this tax?

And don't tell me their are none, because various reports show there are thousands/even millions that will be unable to pay.


http://www.irishtimes.com/business/mortgage-arrears-extraordinary-1.1255037

Lots of them will be keen to receive your financial advice.

OK I'm going to try this one last time.

You're encouraging people to simply refuse to pay the tax - I'm saying that's a silly thing to do, because you're going to end up paying it one way or another with penalties and/or interest.

If they want to sign up to a group of freemen talking nonsense about legal challenges then that's fine, but it's no reason not to pay the tax pending the outcome of that challenge. My first contribution to this thread was to ask if those lads planning their legal challenge to the LPT are going to indemnify their subscribers against the additional costs of interest & penalties that'll accrue over the couple of years that a case would drag on for.

And obviously there's a difference between refusing to pay and not being able to pay. You're boring the hole off me with statements like "the penny finally drops" - that's just being a bit of a smart pr1ck - everyone knows there are people who're struggling already and can't afford this tax. Where in any of my posts did I suggest otherwise?

If people aren't able to pay then they should still file their LPT form and value their house, and try to get a deferral on financial hardship grounds.

Chinasea

barneystinson wrote: »

OK I'm going to try this one last time. More patience than I have

You're encouraging people to simply refuse to pay the tax - I'm saying that's a silly thing to do, because you're going to end up paying it one way or another with penalties and/or interest. Agreed, but it shouldn't be the sole motivational objective of the perpetrator to dodge and evade tax where and when possible. Time we started to pay into the bigger picture for non selfish reasons - and as you say Barney, Jaysus wept, and Gawd oh gawd, oh gaaawd, this isn't another prompt to hear about de bankers, de bankers, de banders, de politicians. 3 million non compliance's doesn't make a right.

If they want to sign up to a group of freemen talking nonsense about legal challenges then that's fine, but it's no reason not to pay the tax pending the outcome of that challenge. My first contribution to this thread was to ask if those lads planning their legal challenge to the LPT are going to indemnify their subscribers against the additional costs of interest & penalties that'll accrue over the couple of years that a case would drag on for.

And obviously there's a difference between refusing to pay and not being able to pay. You're boring the hole off me with statements like "the penny finally drops" - that's just being a bit of a smart pr1ck - everyone knows there are people who're struggling already and can't afford this tax.

If people aren't able to pay then they should still file their LPT form and value their house, and try to get a deferral on financial hardship grounds.

Amen, hallelujah.

bgrizzley

i suppose its better than listening to "de tax evaders dey tuk aur parks! pay de damn 2 euro so we can have aur trees"

barneystinson

mfceiling wrote: »

This bit is actually untrue.

Huge swathes of countryside bathed in a shítty beige, where 6 bed mansions sit beside 2 bed bungalows.

Same in dublin - roads with 10 different types of houses all bunched under the same umbrella.

But, but you've to pay based on a valuation. I have nothing to compare against for my valuation - well then, pay someone with your own money so you can pay another tax.

Nowhere in Revenue's literature will you find any suggestion of people paying for professional valuations.

They've asked you to put a reasonable valuation on your house, and unless its off the wall you'll be grand.

If its a 2-bed bungalow in almost any rural part of Ireland it's Band 1 and off you go. Not rocket science.

The funny thing is, 5/6/7 years ago every d1ckhead in the country was a property valuation expert who knew the value of their house and everyone else's house to the penny, but now we've all become incapable...

Banjo String

barneystinson wrote: »

OK I'm going to try this one last time.

You're encouraging people to simply refuse to pay the tax - I'm saying that's a silly thing to do, because you're going to end up paying it one way or another with penalties and/or interest.

If they want to sign up to a group of freemen talking nonsense about legal challenges then that's fine, but it's no reason not to pay the tax pending the outcome of that challenge. My first contribution to this thread was to ask if those lads planning their legal challenge to the LPT are going to indemnify their subscribers against the additional costs of interest & penalties that'll accrue over the couple of years that a case would drag on for.

And obviously there's a difference between refusing to pay and not being able to pay. You're boring the hole off me with statements like "the penny finally drops" - that's just being a bit of a smart pr1ck - everyone knows there are people who're struggling already and can't afford this tax. Where in any of my posts did I suggest otherwise?

If people aren't able to pay then they should still file their LPT form and value their house, and try to get a deferral on financial hardship grounds.

My advice, and I'll repeat it again.

It goes to anyone that cannot afford the tax, or simply does not agree to paying money over for nothing in return is to refuse to pay it.

Yourself and chinasea keep wailing in and making all sorts of assumptions and claims on the folk who, to be blunt, have a pair of balls on them, and won't flinch to the govt every time they ask for more money. Without any accountability or transparency, as to what actually happens that cash once paid over.

You've not given advice to anyone unable to pay, you mention defer it alright, that option isn't open to everyone, and besides, that is merely kicking the can down the road and giving family members deal with a debt that they too may not be able to afford.

So, regardless if someone won't pay,

Please, advise those who can't pay, as to how to magic up the cash to do so?

I'll keep asking until you come up with the solution.

MadYaker

SamHall wrote: »

Please, advise those who can't pay, as to how to magic up the cash to do so?

I'll keep asking until you come up with the solution.

What a stupid question, but obviously if people don't have the money then its impossible for them to pay it voluntarily. In that situation would it be forcefully be taken from them via the methods that have been mentioned in this thread, same as anyone else who refuses to pay? I don't know, I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

Edit: Although I think its worth repeating that everyone who is liable will pay, no 2 ways about it.

barneystinson

SamHall wrote: »

My advice, and I'll repeat it again.

It goes to anyone that cannot afford the tax, or simply does not agree to paying money over for nothing in return is to refuse to pay it.

Yourself and chinasea keep wailing in and making all sorts of assumptions and claims on the folk who, to be blunt, have a pair of balls on them, and won't flinch to the govt every time they ask for more money. Without any accountability or transparency, as to what actually happens that cash once paid over.

You've not given advice to anyone unable to pay, you mention defer it alright, that option isn't open to everyone, and besides, that is merely kicking the can down the road and giving family members deal with a debt that they too may not be able to afford.

So, regardless if someone won't pay,

Please, advise those who can't pay, as to how to magic up the cash to do so?

I'll keep asking until you come up with the solution.

Ehhhhh, sorry, you must be confusing me with someone who actually cares what you want!

I made a specific point about the futility of simply refusing to file/pay the LPT, and the irresponsibility of people encouraging others to refuse to pay. You don't agree, that's fine. Come back to us in a couple of years and let us know how that's worked out for you.

You don't get to force me to come up with solutions to other people's problems, I've got plenty of my own.

barneystinson

SamHall wrote: »

You've not given advice to anyone unable to pay, you mention defer it alright, that option isn't open to everyone, and besides, that is merely kicking the can down the road and giving family members deal with a debt that they too may not be able to afford.

Good one, but have you actually run the figures on it? See if you can guess the answer:

If you defer the property tax for 20 years, and even if the LPT rate was 0.30% (i.e. nearly double its current rate - seeing as how everyone is convinced they intend on increasing it at the earliest opportunity) the accrued amount would amount to around

15%

of the property value. That's assuming the property value doesn't actually increase in the next 20 years.

So don't be pulling out that sh1te about leaving family with a debt they can't afford. There'll be a house there that's worth a multiple of the tax owed, so it won't be as dramatic as you're making out.

squod

barneystinson wrote: »

I made a specific point about the futility of simply refusing to file/pay the LPT, and the irresponsibility of people encouraging others to refuse to pay.

Futile? Irresponsible? What the actual fuhk are you on about? Boycotts work. That s the actual reality. Advocating the continuation of this madness is exactly that. Madness.


-Property taxes have never worked in this country. Fact.
-This one will go the same road. Fact


The responsible course of action is a boycott of this tax. If that doesn't suit you, fine. There's clearly more people with better moral fibre opposing this tax than you imagine.

Banjo String

barneystinson wrote: »

Good one, but have you actually run the figures on it? See if you can guess the answer:

You're estimating what the interest will be purely based on the levels set by the govt, which will be in place up to 2016

Do you know how much it will go up to after that?

barneystinson wrote: »

If you defer the property tax for 20 years, and even if the LPT rate was 0.30% (i.e. nearly double its current rate - seeing as how everyone is convinced they intend on increasing it at the earliest opportunity) the accrued amount would amount to around

15%

of the property value. That's assuming the property value doesn't actually increase in the next 20 years.

Lol, what you're basically saying is that anyone that qualified for the deferral option, (a single person on €20,000, or a couple with a €30,000 salary)
Should basically give the govt a blank cheque, (in a relative/friends name btw)

barneystinson wrote: »

So don't be pulling out that sh1te about leaving family with a debt they can't afford. There'll be a house there that's worth a multiple of the tax owed, so it won't be as dramatic as you're making out.

As already stated. Leaving debt for others to look after isn't a good idea in my eyes.
Is also partly responsible for the mess the countries in at the min, but that's for another debate.