revenue issues threat to every homeowner in the country.

V_Moth

V_Moth wrote: »

What is interesting is that the Govt have vehemently rejected any Financial Transaction Tax (thanks IBEC!) along with the UK. All other European govts stand to gain 3 to 5 billion each. If this had been implemented in 2009, we could have paid back the majority of the debts by now (4 years x say 5 billion).

I suppose it is much easier to go after 2 million house owners rather than a few dozen companies...

I have to ask you which of these few dozen companies would be coughing up 5 billion, or why you think Ireland would collect as much as France or Germany (14 to 18 times as many people) If it were that easy don't you think it would have been done long ago?

For the record 5 billion wouldn't even cover the current budget deficit - never mind paying back any debt.

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Why is it only homeowners that are hit with this tax? The party line is that it will generate revenue to cover the cost of local services (roads, parks, libraries, etc). Are homeowners the only ones that use these services or what?

How do they justify only charging homeowners?

In other countries the tax is levied on the person in the house.
Here presumably the tax will be reflected in rents in the future.

bgrizzley

mfceiling wrote: »

2 simple questions.

1. What if you do not have the money to pay this tax (as a huge amount of people are literally to the pin of their collar and do not have 3 or 400 euros spare)?

2. What exactly will the local authorities do with this money?

unfortunately the government in their blindness to bully this tax through dont seem to care, judging by their charging interest on a deferral.

the authorities wont do anything with this money, 'cause they dont get it. The government gets the money and uses smoke and mirrors to shuffle it around leaving everything the same except for the publics pockets a little lighter.

ilovesleep

mfceiling wrote: »

2. What exactly will the local authorities do with this money?

- Grant some more housing estates building development, more than likely.

Or buy some land claiming to use it for a rubbish dump.

Send out a load of workers, to a dig a hole in the road, just to stand around and look down into it all day, what they call roadworks or fixing a burst pipe or somethings.

Lay down some more footpaths or redo them and fcuk them up so that they're not suitable for wheelchair users.

Fcuk up road markings.

Not bothering to clean glass scattered playgrounds.

For libraries in rural Ireland that might only open for a few hours every week.

Do some road works at xmas time or towards the end of the year to spend their budget, so that they get their budget in the new year.

Digging up good roundabouts and replacing them with junctions.

Decorate roundabouts with some traffic lights and flowers.

Pay themselves.

Banjo String

Heard a solicitor on the news earlier, questioning revenues accuracy at valuing homes (he gave one example of two identical homes in one town with completely different valuation's)

And also questioned the legality of revenue becoming valuers/assessors. Especially to cover 1.8 million abodes.

Tbh, as has already been stated on thread, they've probably covered loopholes etc,.

Just because its legal, doesn't make it right though.

I envisage lots of court cases/legal challenges and numerous appeal processes.

lost marbles

SamHall wrote: »

Heard a solicitor on the news earlier, questioning revenues accuracy at valuing homes (he gave one example of two identical homes in one town with completely different valuation's)

And also questioned the legality of revenue becoming valuers/assessors. Especially to cover 1.8 million abodes.

Tbh, as has already been stated on thread, they've probably covered loopholes etc,.

Just because its legal, doesn't make it right though.

I envisage lots of court cases/legal challenges and numerous appeal processes.

exactly !
had a look at the revenue site yeasterday and my sons house [his estate is divided by a road ] one side is a lower rate than the other for the exact same houses .my own house seems to be over valued according to this map aswell .
then another estate within spitting distance with what was considered a higher price tag .come under the lower rate .
but lets be cautious here ,this might be just a ploy to get people to fill out the forms and get them into the system .

Phill Ewinn

Trees add value to your house. Canabis plants don't. Go figure.

bgrizzley

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Trees add value to your house. Canabis plants don't. Go figure.

revenue obviously didnt read the hemp thread...

Pretzill

SamHall wrote: »

Heard a solicitor on the news earlier, questioning revenues accuracy at valuing homes (he gave one example of two identical homes in one town with completely different valuation's)

And also questioned the legality of revenue becoming valuers/assessors. Especially to cover 1.8 million abodes.

Tbh, as has already been stated on thread, they've probably covered loopholes etc,.

Just because its legal, doesn't make it right though.

I envisage lots of court cases/legal challenges and numerous appeal processes.

Yeah and there's always the rural/urban divide - services funded from household charge that I won't benefit from, or never have in the past.
No bin collection
No street lighting
No footpaths
No libraries
No parks
not a local service, no public transport, potholes you could swim in - *hey swimming pools! (No don't have them either)

The valuations on revenue are lazy and very general. If I thought I'd get what they valued my house for I'd sell it tomorrow! But they aren't valuers, just like when it comes to my self assessment for tax they don't tell me what I should've earned, merely ask me what I did earn. So my home is officially in band 1 and p.s I earned f-all last year!

Geuze

mfceiling wrote: »

2 simple questions.

2. What exactly will the local authorities do with this money?

LA income increases due to the LPT.

But the central Govt grant to LA drops.

So no extra income to LA.

So no extra services.

Same services now being funded more directly.

Central Govt spending falls, deficit falls.

Geuze

bgrizzley wrote: »

the authorities wont do anything with this money, 'cause they dont get it. The government gets the money and uses smoke and mirrors to shuffle it around leaving everything the same except for the publics pockets a little lighter.

This is incorrect.

All LPT revenues raised go to local authorities.

But the Central Govt grant to LA will be reduced.

LA won't have any extra income due to the LPT.

Geuze

SamHall wrote: »

Heard a solicitor on the news earlier, questioning revenues accuracy at valuing homes (he gave one example of two identical homes in one town with completely different valuation's)

And also questioned the legality of revenue becoming valuers/assessors. Especially to cover 1.8 million abodes.

Tbh, as has already been stated on thread, they've probably covered loopholes etc,.

Just because its legal, doesn't make it right though.

I envisage lots of court cases/legal challenges and numerous appeal processes.

Revenue aren't valuers, and aren't claiming to be valuers.

You value your own house, using their guidelines.

tayto lover

People should refuse to pay this unfair and unjust tax.
Many don't even have enough money to heat the homes they are being taxed on.

For people to say that we are one of only a few European countries without a Property Tax is stupid because we ARE the only country with a USC.

Should the USC be discontinued then ?

Sergeant

tayto lover wrote: »

People should refuse to pay this unfair and unjust tax.
Many don't even have enough money to heat the homes they are being taxed on.

For people to say that we are one of only a few European countries without a Property Tax is stupid because we ARE the only country with a USC.

Should the USC be discontinued then ?

How do you suggest that the Government generate revenue to supply the country with the services and structures that we've become accustomed to?

seamus

Geuze wrote: »

LA income increases due to the LPT.

But the central Govt grant to LA drops.

So no extra income to LA.

So no extra services.

Same services now being funded more directly.

Central Govt spending falls, deficit falls.

- LA given powers to set and collect their own LPT

- LPT increases or decreases in line with spending as voted in by LA councillors

The LPT could in fact be the lead in to more local governance that this country has been screaming out for. At present LA councillors are basically wastes of space. If somebody wants to give out about local services, they go to their TD, because the councillors just dance to the local TD's tune.

Give LAs power over their own spending and we may find that more people engage with the local election process and it means we can massively cut down the number of TDs because they only have to deal with national issues, the way it should be.

Well, we can always dream...

Banjo String

Geuze wrote: »

Revenue aren't valuers, and aren't claiming to be valuers.

You value your own house, using their guidelines.

I am not an estate agent, not a valuer/assessor.

Revenue using 'guidelines' is a complete joke IMO. Who are they to 'guide'anyone as to what their house is worth? A house is 'worth' what it will fetch on the market, and as my home is not for sale, I've no interest in it's 'worth' to be frank.

I do not trust revenue to value houses, simply because that's not the business revenue is in, likewise I wouldn't trust them to give accurate prices on cars/motorbikes/aeroplanes.

We're on an extremely slippery slope to a dictatorship with this whole process, and I for one will not buy into it.

Geuze

tayto lover wrote: »

For people to say that we are one of only a few European countries without a Property Tax is stupid because we ARE the only country with a USC.

Should the USC be discontinued then ?

Note that the USC tax merely replaced two previous levies, it is not a new tax.

It replaced the Health and Income levies.

It is an income tax, in fact I think it should be merged with income tax, too messy at the moment.

Banjo String

Sergeant wrote: »

How do you suggest that the Government generate revenue to supply the country with the services and structures that we've become accustomed to?

Raise income tax. Even by just one percent/ half a percent.


Simple as.

Geuze

SamHall wrote: »

I am not an estate agent, not a valuer/assessor.

Revenue using 'guidelines' is a complete joke IMO. Who are they to 'guide'anyone as to what their house is worth? A house is 'worth' what it will fetch on the market, and as my home is not for sale, I've no interest in it's 'worth' to be frank.

I do not trust revenue to value houses, simply because that's not the business revenue is in, likewise I wouldn't trust them to give accurate prices on cars/motorbikes/aeroplanes.

We're on an extremely slippery slope to a dictatorship with this whole process, and I for one will not buy into it.

If you don't trust them, fair enough.

Then arrive at your own reasonable value, you can use the Property Price Register as a guide.

Their valuations are only guidelines.

tayto lover

Sergeant wrote: »

How do you suggest that the Government generate revenue to supply the country with the services and structures that we've become accustomed to?

That's their problem.
My problem is keeping my affairs in order. Feeding my family and paying my mortgage and bills. I am at the end of my tether as it is. I pay for any service I get as it is because the Govt privatized them.
Continuing to hit the same people over and over is certainly not the way.
Perhaps they could hit their rich buddies for a change.

Geuze

SamHall wrote: »

Raise income tax. Even by just one percent/ half a percent.

Simple as.

Note that income tax plus USC brings in about 12-15bn.

The fiscal deficit is 12-15bn.

We'd have to double income tax revenue to close the deficit.

"one percent more" - wouldn't come anywhere near closing the gap.

oldyouth

My parents are in their 80's. They bought their house in 1961. They never sought to value or sell it in the past. They'll never seek to sell it in the future. They are of a generation where they will pay any Government bill that is sent to them. In addition, they would live in fear of consequences if they didn't pay it and I dread to think of the stress it would cause.

While I agree that a property tax is inevitable, this system sucks and has all the hallmarks of being designed by incompetent civil servants. Disgraceful to put the onus on people, who have lived in their homes for decades, to establish a market value and threaten them with dire consequences if they get it wrong.

Sergeant

SamHall wrote: »

Raise income tax. Even by just one percent/ half a percent.


Simple as.

I've put through a call on the blower to Michael Noonan. I cannot believe the Government haven't considered this. Yet more shambolic and utterly misguided thinking from a shower who obviously haven't the foggiest notion what they're on about.

kidneyfan

They can defer the tax until they die when you will be obliged to pay it in probate.

oldyouth wrote: »

My parents are in their 80's. They bought their house in 1961. They never sought to value or sell it in the past. They'll never seek to sell it in the future. They are of a generation where they will pay any Government bill that is sent to them. In addition, they would live in fear of consequences if they didn't pay it and I dread to think of the stress it would cause.

While I agree that a property tax is inevitable, this system sucks and has all the hallmarks of being designed by incompetent civil servants. Disgraceful to put the onus on people, who have lived in their homes for decades, to establish a market value and threaten them with dire consequences if they get it wrong.

tayto lover

Sergeant wrote: »

I've put through a call on the blower to Michael Noonan. I cannot believe the Government haven't considered this. Yet more shambolic and utterly misguided thinking from a shower who obviously haven't the foggiest notion what they're on about.

And you probably didn't even have to look up his number.

Banjo String

Sergeant wrote: »

I've put through a call on the blower to Michael Noonan. I cannot believe the Government haven't considered this. Yet more shambolic and utterly misguided thinking from a shower who obviously haven't the foggiest notion what they're on about.

While you're on that call, ask Michael if he thinks his salary is appropriate considering the state is essentially bankrupt.

Ask him to lead by example by taking a 50 % pay cut.

It wouldn't sound so hypocritical from his mouth if he'd show us all how to get by on far less cash.

username123

kidneyfan wrote: »

They can defer the tax until they die when you will be obliged to pay it in probate.

Could you kindly lay out the details for deferral please? Are you aware that deferral attracts a 4% per year interest rate? And that this makes the government money lenders?

Sergeant

SamHall wrote: »

While you're on that call, ask Michael if he thinks his salary is appropriate considering the state is essentially bankrupt.

Ask him to lead by example by taking a 50 % pay cut.

It wouldn't sound so hypocritical from his mouth if he'd show us all how to get by on far less cash.

I propose that all politicians work for nothing. Who wouldn't want to have to deal with an unprecedented economic crisis that forces them to make extremely difficult and unpopular decisions; work extraordinary hours under the constant gaze of the media, have to read/listen to abuse from unthinking mouth breathers; and deal with some constituents who like to blame politicans for everything that happens in their life, whilst still retaining enormous levels of that entitlement complex that is so prevalent around here.

In fact I think you should have to pay to be a politician. That would work.

Banjo String

Sergeant wrote: »

I propose that all politicians work for nothing. Who wouldn't want to have to deal with an unprecedented economic crisis that forces them to make extremely difficult and unpopular decisions; work extraordinary hours under the constant gaze of the media, have to read/listen to abuse from unthinking mouth breathers; and deal with some constituents who like to blame politicans for everything that happens in their life, whilst still retaining enormous levels of that entitlement complex that is so prevalent around here.

In fact I think you should have to pay to be a politician. That would work.

Don't be silly.

No one expects them to work for nothing.

:cool:

Maudi

Sergeant wrote: »

I propose that all politicians work for nothing. Who wouldn't want to have to deal with an unprecedented economic crisis that forces them to make extremely difficult and unpopular decisions; work extraordinary hours under the constant gaze of the media, have to read/listen to abuse from unthinking mouth breathers; and deal with some constituents who like to blame politicans for everything that happens in their life, whilst still retaining enormous levels of that entitlement complex that is so prevalent around here.

In fact I think you should have to pay to be a politician. That would work.

they "work"short hours with long holidays for huge money+expenses+junkets. t.b.h

oldyouth

Geuze wrote: »

Revenue aren't valuers, and aren't claiming to be valuers.

You value your own house, using their guidelines.

If they are not valuers, how are they in a position of competence to produce a guideline. They either know what they are doing in this regard, or they don't

oldyouth

kidneyfan wrote: »

They can defer the tax until they die when you will be obliged to pay it in probate.

I never mentioned inability to pay, or unwillingness to pay. Quite the opposite in fact. My point is that many elderly people, who have owned their homes for decades and will never sell them, are being frightened by this scheme. The language being used in the event of an incorrect assessment of value is disgraceful. I know that my folks are going to pay for a valuation to get it right, so they will sleep easier at night. Yet another expense

Up to now, politicians have never gone after the elderly citizens of this country, as they are fervent voters come election time. I think ALL the established parties have had their day next time around

Bullseye1

It's a ploy to scare those people afraid to question Revenues valuation to employ a valuer/auctioneer. Guess what Phil Hogan is???

mfceiling

Geuze wrote: »

Revenue aren't valuers, and aren't claiming to be valuers.

You value your own house, using their guidelines.

To be really honest they shouldn't have bothered with that poxy website of theirs giving "valuations of homes".....may as well have coloured in each house with the caption "who likes fish" and "doesn't like fish" for all the good it seems to be doing.

Guidelines my arse.....not even realistically close for the majority of people. I noticed down the country where a one size fits all band applies - one house is a 6 bed mansion from the boom times and one is farmer joe's one bed farm house.....sure it's only a guideline - why the f*ck bother at all then?

darkhorse

Sergeant wrote: »

Who wouldn't want to have hours under the constant gaze of the media, and deal with some constituents who like to blame politicans for everything that happens in their life.

Good spiel, but you left out, Lie through their teeth to the people that vote them into power, and make promises to some of the most vunerable people, then break them once aboard the gravy train, but, as a prominant politician would say, but sure that's what you do. Anyway, glad to be of help to ya, as ya probably just genuinely forgot the rest of the facts.

tayto lover

Geuze wrote: »

Note that the USC tax merely replaced two previous levies, it is not a new tax.

It replaced the Health and Income levies.

It is an income tax, in fact I think it should be merged with income tax, too messy at the moment.

So which other European countries have Health and Income levies then?

darkhorse

Geuze wrote: »

It is an income tax, in fact I think it should be merged with income tax, too messy at the moment.

I agree with you. In fact, I think they should take every penny that we earn, and call it all income tax, and just give us an allowance, but give the politicans and plebs the same amount.

bgrizzley

Sergeant wrote: »

How do you suggest that the Government generate revenue to supply the country with the services and structures that we've become accustomed to?

how do you suggest our houses generates revenue to pay this tax?

Yitzhak Rabin

People who are refusing to pay this are the same people who protest about the USC, the health levy, the household charge, septic tank charges and every and any other scheme the government has used to raise revenue.

Each and every time they've been on the end of their tether too?

You don't hear them complaining about the government giving them mortgage interest relief too often. They're also fairly quiet when it comes to offering up areas to cut (with the exception of course of the usual calls to TAX THE RICH!!!11 and CUT POLITICIANS WAGES!!)

Lots of 'not my problem' merchants when it comes to the awkward question of where to get the money to pay for services.

Banjo String

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

People who are refusing to pay this are the same people who protest about the USC, the health levy, the household charge, septic tank charges and every and any other scheme the government has used to raise revenue.

Each and every time they've been on the end of their tether too?

You don't hear them complaining about the government giving them mortgage interest relief too often. They're also fairly quiet when it comes to offering up areas to cut (with the exception of course of the usual calls to TAX THE RICH!!!11 and CUT POLITICIANS WAGES!!)

Lots of 'not my problem' merchants when it comes to the awkward question of where to get the money to pay for services.

Where will the money come from, from the families already bordering on poverty?

Not the politicians problems, is it?

Yitzhak Rabin

SamHall wrote: »

Where will the money come from, from the families already bordering on poverty?

Not the politicians problems, is it?

There are very very few families bordering on poverty in Ireland.

username123

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

There are very very few families bordering on poverty in Ireland.

Well the mortgage arrears crisis would seem to indicate that there are many thousands of people in financial trouble.

Banjo String

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

There are very very few families bordering on poverty in Ireland.

There's close to 150k in mortgage arrears.

Whats your advice to those people?

Serious question.

tayto lover

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

People who are refusing to pay this are the same people who protest about the USC, the health levy, the household charge, septic tank charges and every and any other scheme the government has used to raise revenue.

Each and every time they've been on the end of their tether too?

You don't hear them complaining about the government giving them mortgage interest relief too often. They're also fairly quiet when it comes to offering up areas to cut (with the exception of course of the usual calls to TAX THE RICH!!!11 and CUT POLITICIANS WAGES!!)

Lots of 'not my problem' merchants when it comes to the awkward question of where to get the money to pay for services.

And lots of little Government apologists too giving out the party spiel.

Yitzhak Rabin

SamHall wrote: »

There's close to 150k in mortgage arrears.

Whats your advice to those people?

Serious question.

In first instance try and cut out everything and anything that you can forgo, meals out, holidays, sky etc.

If that fails renegotiate payments, go on interest only, payment holidays etc.

If you still can't afford payments then you cannot afford the home you bought and you have to either sell your home, rent somewhere cheaper and pay off your mortgage, or if that is unfeasible then declare bankruptcy.

What's not ok is to expect other taxpayers to carry the can.

mfceiling

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

There are very very few families bordering on poverty in Ireland.

Really? Talk to someone who works for Barnardos or SVP.

Banjo String

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

In first instance try and cut out everything and anything that you can forgo, meals out, holidays, sky etc.

If that fails renegotiate payments, go on interest only, payment holidays etc.

If you still can't afford payments then you cannot afford the home you bought and you have to either sell your home, rent somewhere cheaper and pay off your mortgage, or if that is unfeasible then declare bankruptcy.

What's not ok is to expect other taxpayers to carry the can.

While we pay back the biggest bailout in history, we're 'carrying the can' for the banks and (sorry if its a cliche, ) bondholders?

People should essentially live a hermit/reclusive lifestyle in order to pay a Tax?


I'm sorry, you're actually serious aren't you?

mfceiling

Just out of interest....how many politicians will struggle to pay this new charge?

ilovesleep

mfceiling wrote: »

Just out of interest....how many politicians will struggle to pay this new charge?

Mick the developer tax dodger might have problems. You know, he who decided to give up half of his approx 90,000 salary to revenue just to add another approx. 41,000 euro PA for expenses bringing his entire income into the 80,000's and thus he didn't give up half of his income at all.

Brian Cowen is another guess. I believe he's studying in Harvert now so like he's probably not resident here anymore. And sure, why would he pay a tax on it considering Phil H (is it phil?) won't pay a property tax on his holiday home in spain because he doesn't live there or some excuse.

Poor pets

username123

lob_sided wrote: »

the only thing that shows is that a sizeable number of people are not paying their loans on time , thats a seperate issue from saying with certainty that people are in poverty

So you think that 150k households have just decided they dont feel like paying?

Do you have any idea what is really going on for people in this country or do you just like pontificating nonsense on the internet?

Yitzhak Rabin

mfceiling wrote: »

Really? Talk to someone who works for Barnardos or SVP.

What is your definition of poverty out of interest?