revenue issues threat to every homeowner in the country.

MadsL

flutered wrote: »

i was speaking with one of these farmer blokes today, he is in long fills constituncy, i asked him will he pay the household charge, he said that he had it paid already, i asked his why so early, he claimed that unless he paid the household charge he would not recieve the single farm payment, he also claimed that it had already being put to farmers.

Maybe if those refusing to pay the LPT were subject to losing their mortgage interest relief we might see a different tune being sung.

Bruthal

MadsL wrote: »

Why would I complain about people voluntarily paying too much tax? I thought they were idiots, but why would I try and stop them?

Well because you are blaming them for you having to leave the country. So what did you do to stop it? Nothing by the look of it.

EDIT: You do not have double taxation. You obviously misunderstand what double taxation is, it is not one person paying two taxes, it is two people both paying the same tax liability.

That`s your version. Paying tax twice on the same asset or source of income would be double taxation in my version.

Bullseye1

Still haven't shown how we home owners are guilty of causing the collapse since we haven't been bailed out. I haven't put the blame all on the banks. But 60 billion has been borrowed to bail them out. Not one cent has been borrowed to bail out mortgage holders.

So those people who paid stamp duty are responsible for the mess? I've heard it all now.

God help yourself if your still blaming everyone else for your emigrating.

MadsL wrote: »

Do you really think that Ireland had a mature buy-to-let market? Even in this thread we have seen people facing up the fact that they ought to register as landlords.

As to a buy-to-let market, the boom created an artificial one - buying apartments to let to immigrants coming to build apartments to let to immigrants.

Normal renters were in no way part of that madness.

The banks are responsible for the collapse, the governments reliance on stamp duty is responsible for the countries collapse and running a huge deficit with the loss of 300,000 jobs has resulted in the Troikas entry.

Who fed the Govt their Stamp Duty? Certainly not renters.



Really not that hard to understand the events of the past few years, did you never hear of a Folie à deux? the relationship between the willingness of people to pay overinflated prices and a Government hell-bent on staying popular meant that the round and round she goes nature of the boom spiralied out of control.

If you put all of that on the banks, god love ya.[/QUOTE]

MadsL

Bruthal wrote: »

Well because you are blaming them for you having to leave the country. So what did you do to stop it? Nothing by the look of it.

I have already outlined what I did to try and stop over-development and the corrupt relationship between developers and local authorities, I was very active within a number local and national groups drawing attention and making submissions on the overdevelopment and overzoning going on. That's on a local and national scale.At a personal level, why would I try and stop people overpaying tax voluntarily?

That`s your version. Paying tax twice on the same asset or source of income would be double taxation in my version.

Tell me how you protested paying VRT and Motor Tax on a new car.

Bruthal

MadsL wrote: »

Tell me how you protested paying VRT and Motor Tax on a new car.

By not buying new cars.

MadsL

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Still haven't shown how we home owners are guilty of causing the collapse since we haven't been bailed out.

Yet. Haven't been bailed out, yet. Plenty of cries for debt-forgiveness though.

I haven't put the blame all on the banks. But 60 billion has been borrowed to bail them out. Not one cent has been borrowed to bail out mortgage holders.

I'd like to see you try to make the case that they should.

So those people who paid stamp duty are responsible for the mess? I've heard it all now.

Well if you blame the Government for using Stamp Duty to prop up the tax system, then who volunteered to let them do it? Not one person was coerced to pay that tax.

God help yourself if your still blaming everyone else for your emigrating.

Who is responsible for unemployment in your view?

Bullseye1

Why pay any more taxes than necessary by buying a new car. Never a good investment.

MadsL

Bruthal wrote: »

By not buying new cars.

Now you are getting the idea, similar to me avoiding Stamp Duty and LPT by not buying an overpriced house.

MadsL

Bruthal wrote: »

By not buying new cars.

So do you not tax it or not put fuel in it? Being as how you are so opposed to "double" taxes?

Bruthal

MadsL wrote: »

Now you are getting the idea, similar to me avoiding Stamp Duty and LPT by not buying an overpriced house.

Yea, but I got a 10 year old car. Could you not get a 10 year old house, since you see some comparison here?

I mean, I did buy a car.

Bullseye1

MadsL wrote: »

Who is responsible for unemployment in your view?

Certainly not homeowners. There have been many reasons for people losing their jobs. The majority of them have been in the construction industry which has collapsed completely. It's estimated that it will be 2020 before there is any return to even a normal level of construction.

Many small SMEs have closed down because of unsustainable upward only rents signed at the heigh of the commercial market boom. Although promised by the current government that upward only rents would be tackled nothing had been done. This is no doubt a result of NAMAs commercial port folio.

Extremely high rates for commercial properties has also been a factor alon with lack of credit available for SMEs.

But the main reason for so many jobs being lost is down to our current policy of throwing all our eggs in one basket, exports while forgetting completely about the domestic market.

As someone who has been self employed my entire working life I don't depend on anyone but myself. I'm not looking for someone to provide me with employment.

Banjo String

Bruthal wrote: »

Yea, but I got a 10 year old car. Could you not get a 10 year old house, since you see some comparison here?

He possibly rented a car (no motor tax applicable that way).

MadsL

SamHall wrote: »

He possibly rented a car (no motor tax applicable that way).

Now we see the advantages of renting...

penny dropping?

By the way Sam could you answer my earlier questions about Ben Gilroy, the meetings and how they see the LPT as being illegal and unconstitutional?

Bullseye1

But you bought just not in your own country.

Bruthal

MadsL wrote: »

So do you not tax it or not put fuel in it? Being as how you are so opposed to "double" taxes?

You seem to be complaining more about it than me......

MadsL wrote: »

If renters pay it, then we end up with double taxation.

MadsL

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Certainly not homeowners. There have been many reasons for people losing their jobs. The majority of them have been in the construction industry which has collapsed completely. It's estimated that it will be 2020 before there is any return to even a normal level of construction.

Many small SMEs have closed down because of unsustainable upward only rents signed at the heigh of the commercial market boom. Although promised by the current government that upward only rents would be tackled nothing had been done. This is no doubt a result of NAMAs commercial port folio.

Extremely high rates for commercial properties has also been a factor alon with lack of credit available for SMEs.

But the main reason for so many jobs being lost is down to our current policy of throwing all our eggs in one basket, exports while forgetting completely about the domestic market.

As someone who has been self employed my entire working life I don't depend on anyone but myself. I'm not looking for someone to provide me with employment.

I would agree with all of that, but I would also include a measure of blame for the sheer greed at jumping on a property market with the allure of making a profit on your primary residence. How much of that blame they carry is debatable, but you are naive if you think that a great many people didn't buy during the boom with the idea of profiting from their purchase.

MadsL

Bullseye1 wrote: »

But you bought just not in your own country.

Am I fuelling a boom by paying an overinflated purchase tax?

Bruthal

MadsL wrote: »

Now we see the advantages of renting...

penny dropping?

Are you renting now?

Bullseye1

MadsL wrote: »

I would agree with all of that, but I would also include a measure of blame for the sheer greed at jumping on a property market with the allure of making a profit on your primary residence. How much of that blame they carry is debatable, but you are naive if you think that a great many people didn't buy during the boom with the idea of profiting from their purchase.

I don't disagree there was a lot of flipping going on. I wasn't one of them yet many like myself are being tarred with the one brush and being blamed for everyone else's problems, like we don't have enough of those of our own.

Bruthal

MadsL wrote: »

Why would I complain about people voluntarily paying too much tax?

MadsL wrote: »

Am I fuelling a boom by paying an overinflated purchase tax?

Slight conflict there.

Bullseye1

MadsL wrote: »

Am I fuelling a boom by paying an overinflated purchase tax?

Only time will tell. In case you hadn't read the US also had a property bubble and actually have had more boom and bust cycles than most other countries. Some states like California are on the verge of collapse.

Bruthal

Bullseye1 wrote: »

MadsL wrote: »

Am I fuelling a boom by paying an overinflated purchase tax?

Only time will tell.

Exactly what I have been getting at. It is all in hindsight, and with its benefit, blame all house buyers, and only renters are blame free. A slight lack of insight fueled by misplaced anger.

MadsL

Bruthal wrote: »

Are you renting now?

No, the market conditions are not the same. Renting is overpriced here.

tayto lover

MadsL wrote: »

So do you not tax it or not put fuel in it? Being as how you are so opposed to "double" taxes?

"If renters pay it, then we end up with double taxation."

You seem opposed to double taxes yourself

MadsL

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Only time will tell. In case you hadn't read the US also had a property bubble and actually have had more boom and bust cycles than most other countries. Some states like California are on the verge of collapse.

Operative word. Had. I only bought 12 months ago. As a utility, not an investment. I also paid no irrecoverable purchase tax.

Bruthal

tayto lover wrote: »

"If renters pay it, then we end up with double taxation."

You seem opposed to double taxes yourself

Was thinking the same myself

Bullseye1

Had does not mean a future bubble cannot happen. The irrecoverable purchase tax should be covered with inflation over the lifetime of the mortgage.

ezra_pound

SamHall wrote: »

I paid 6% stamp duty when we bought this house.

What's hard to believe about that may I ask?

Do the sums...........

That would be 6.6 years of lpt assuming that your property has depreciated by 50%. 50 years of Lpt my h#le!

Find a better reason to break the law.

MadsL

tayto lover wrote: »

"If renters pay it, then we end up with double taxation."

You seem opposed to double taxes yourself

True double taxation as I explained above.

Paying two taxes on a item is NOT double taxation.


Paying the import duty and then the next buyer having to pay the import duty would be an example of a double tax.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/double-taxation.html

Bruthal

MadsL wrote: »

Operative word. Had. I only bought 12 months ago. As a utility, not an investment. I also paid no irrecoverable purchase tax.

So, home buyers are not to blame then? The blamee`s are getting smaller in number if so.

Bruthal

ezra_pound wrote: »

Find a better reason to break the law.

I found a great reason today, I over took a tractor on a continuous white. I bet you`d never commit such an outrage.

MadsL

Bruthal wrote: »

Slight conflict there.

Wut? That makes no sense. I refused to pay a purchase tax in an overinflated market, then paid no purchase tax in a (probably) bottomed out market. How is there a conflict?

tayto lover

MadsL wrote: »

I would agree with all of that, but I would also include a measure of blame for the sheer greed at jumping on a property market with the allure of making a profit on your primary residence. How much of that blame they carry is debatable, but you are naive if you think that a great many people didn't buy during the boom with the idea of profiting from their purchase.

Many of us bought in order to have our own homes and to raise our families in that security. Many of us bought within our means and not as an investment i.e. to live in it for our day and to have something to leave to our children.

I have no problem with people with multiple properties being taxed as their other properties are a business but for me a family home is sacred.

MadsL

Bruthal wrote: »

So, home buyers are not to blame then? The blamee`s are getting smaller in number if so.

Your posts are making less sense. Two different economys

Bruthal

MadsL wrote: »

Wut? That makes no sense. I refused to pay a purchase tax in an overinflated market, then paid no purchase tax in a (probably) bottomed out market. How is there a conflict?

Read both quotes again.

Bruthal

MadsL wrote: »

Your posts are making less sense. Two different economys

Ok, I will simplify as much as I can. Is a person here who bought a home for their family, to blame for your woes?

ezra_pound

tayto lover wrote: »

Many of us bought in order to have our own homes and to raise our families in that security. Many of us bought within our means and not as an investment i.e. to live in it for our day and to have something to leave to our children.

I have no problem with people with multiple properties being taxed as their other properties are a business but for me a family home is sacred.

Sacred maybe but taxed it should be also.

MadsL

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I don't disagree there was a lot of flipping going on. I wasn't one of them yet many like myself are being tarred with the one brush and being blamed for everyone else's problems, like we don't have enough of those of our own.

So we have isolated the tax down to homeowners, tell me how to isolate that tax further. You now seem to be saying that some homeowners were to blame, just not you.

What basis would you use to raise this tax?

tayto lover

ezra_pound wrote: »

Sacred maybe but taxed it should be also.

Why exactly?

Bruthal

ezra_pound wrote: »

Sacred maybe but taxed it should be also.

For what reason? Some of the ideas have been entertaining.

ezra_pound

Bruthal wrote: »

Ok, I will simplify as much as I can. Is a person here who bought a home for their family, to blame for your woes?

This tax has nothing to do with blame or penitence. Its about delivering a tax which is economically sensible.

MadsL

Bruthal wrote: »

Ok, I will simplify as much as I can. Is a person here who bought a home for their family, to blame for your woes?

If they overbought, borrowed again and then defaulted probably.
If they got greedy and borrowed for a overseas apt in Bulgaria, Budapest and the like, probably.
If they flipped houses, probably.
If they got a buy-to-let despite never having been the rental market before, probably.

You probably know at least one of them.

Bullseye1

ezra_pound wrote: »

This tax has nothing to do with blame or penitence. Its about delivering a tax which is economically sensible.

It would have been economically sensible 10 years ago not now when the country is broke. It might have also prevented a property bubble.

MadsL

Bruthal wrote: »

Read both quotes again.

Indulge me. Try spelling it out.

tayto lover

ezra_pound wrote: »

This tax has nothing to do with blame or penitence. Its about delivering a tax which is economically sensible.

Economically sensible my ar**. It is thievery.

Bruthal

MadsL wrote: »

If they overbought, borrowed again and then defaulted probably.
If they got greedy and borrowed for a overseas apt in Bulgaria, Budapest and the like, probably.
If they flipped houses, probably.
If they got a buy-to-let despite never having been the rental market before, probably.

You probably know at least one of them.

Yea, but I asked about home buyers, as in they bought a home for their family. Are they to blame?

ezra_pound

Bruthal wrote: »

For what reason? Some of the ideas have been entertaining.

For more efficient use of property. I grew up in an area with five Victorian 2000+sqft houses many of them inhabited by one little old lady. Lpt incentivises more efficient use so little old lady down downsizes and family move in.

It also curbs property price inflation and does not negatively impact on employment. Read any report on it. Theres lots.

MadsL

tayto lover wrote: »

Economically sensible my ar**. It is thievery.

Here we go again.

Property is theft, I think someone famous said. :pac:

ezra_pound

Bullseye1 wrote: »

It would have been economically sensible 10 years ago not now when the country is broke. It might have also prevented a property bubble.

Yes. The fact that the country is broke is tyres reason we need this tax more than ever.

MadsL

Bruthal wrote: »

Yea, but I asked about home buyers, as in they bought a home for their family. Are they to blame?

Tell me how I isolate them them from the above in terms of taxation? Any ideas? Collateral damage.