Property Tax (MOD REMINDER: Don't get too personal)

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's also possible that some people welcome the idea of broadening the tax base, having seen the devastating consequences of eroding it so drastically.

When I hear politicians speaking of broadening the tax base, the phrase "In a just and equitable manner" is usually tacked on for good measure.

I also naively get some notion that a "broadening of the tax base" will alleviate the tax burden on those constantly tapped for more taxes.

As a theory, broadening the tax base is fine, in practice the same people will be hit again, with the addition of, in the case of the LPT, pensioners and those unfortunate enough to have a mortgage but be on the dole.

Lets not forget that it will be further broadened to close to bursting point when Irish Water begin their PR stunts in advance of water charges being introduced.

The enthusiastic austerity mongers of a few years ago have recently been shown to have been incorrect in their predictions regarding the expected economic turning of corners and the results of austerity measures; I dont doubt that the introduction of the LPT in this country at this time will also come to be seen as unwise.

kippy

Going Forward wrote: »

When I hear politicians speaking of broadening the tax base, the phrase "In a just and equitable manner" is usually tacked on for good measure.

I also naively get some notion that a "broadening of the tax base" will alleviate the tax burden on those constantly tapped for more taxes.

As a theory, broadening the tax base is fine, in practice the same people will be hit again, with the addition of, in the case of the LPT, pensioners and those unfortunate enough to have a mortgage but be on the dole.

Lets not forget that it will be further broadened to close to bursting point when Irish Water begin their PR stunts in advance of water charges being introduced.

The enthusiastic austerity mongers of a few years ago have recently been shown to have been incorrect in their predictions regarding the expected economic turning of corners and the results of austerity measures; I dont doubt that the introduction of the LPT in this country at this time will also come to be seen as incorrect.

What do you suggest we do?
Tax the rich more?

darkhorse

Phoebas wrote: »

Even many of those on low incomes have equity tied up in their properties and can release that.

What equity are you talking about? Wake up and and smell the recession.

Going Forward

kippy wrote: »

What do you suggest we do?
Tax the rich more?

"A one per cent increase in the 20 per cent rate and in the 41 per cent rate would deliver almost €700m in a full year"-

-http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/colm-mccarthy-budget-overshoot-is-on-cards-as-is-a-dreaded-second-bailout-28945205.html

I accept the absolute accuracy of this has been debated somewhere else here before, but in any case the Government appears to not want to break one promise at least, the one of raising income tax. They have the USC instead.

darkhorse

kippy wrote: »

Tell them to fcuk off. What would you do.

The same.

Phoebas

darkhorse wrote: »

What equity are you talking about? Wake up and and smell the recession.

€215bn just a couple of years ago.

Good loser

SamHall wrote: »

Twice now I've posted that a landlord will pass it on to the tenants, how can that have confused you?

You're purposely ignoring my point.

The landlord will obviously recoup the price of the lpt from his tenant via rental adjustments.

That's as it should be. The occupier shoud be the liable person rather than the owner.

The occupier enjoys the local services. For the Revenue he/she is easier to identify.

One big advantage of the LPT is that it gets tax revenue from those that avoid income taxes. Also, over time, it leads to more efficient use of housing resources; penalising those in over large houses and favouring those in small, efficient units.

The time and effort dispensed by those opposing this trifling tax is risible - compare the other 'wealth tax' - on cars and vehicles. The Govt for example could double the tax on cars in the next budget FFS; where would all these phoney arguments 'agin the tax' go then?

cageyeuclid

Zero Vat on food is the crunch ... far as I know the UK do not have it ... so UK stats are wrong for here... as food is a very large (pro rata) % of disposable income for the lesser off.
There is the fact that the better off here spend a lot more (pro rata) abroad (VAT not counted here) while VAT paid by visitors here would also go unaccounted.
The poor don't spend abroad so much.
Apart from VAT (and with VAT there are many choices ... 2nd hands, farmer's markets etc.), almost all other taxes avoid cruelty to the lesser off from whom
any tax taken would be from their subsistence or from a negative disposable income, unlike LPT which attemts to target the poor with no choice. Deferral willcost the poor even more and is like a fourbal taxation

For the information af all in here it was the FG dominated govt in 1976 that started the ball rollin on the (taxbase reduction) abolishment of Domestic (the family home) rates, which I applaud and am proud of FG for ....since charges on the family home because it creates no income are inherently unjust, unfair and cruel to many.

darkhorse

Phoebas wrote: »

€215bn just a couple of years ago.

I reckon that the figure would have more than twice this before the property crash, as I doubt if there is a house or other property that is not in negative equity to at least half their value(more in wealthier places) anywhere in the country.

cageyeuclid

Phoebas wrote: »

You argued that other taxes are optional, but LPT isn't and that is plain false.
It may not be practical for someone to sell their house (or trade down to a cheaper house to attract a lower rate of LPT), but it is possible.
........
It is. They can move into the private rented sector to avoid the tax altogether or trade down to lower their liability.
Impractical? - in most cases, yes, but possible.

Wow!!! Finally a solution to make LPT unnecessary.

Let all the civil servant home owners take a 20% cut .... it is to pay them that this govt is borrowing ... OH!!!! it wont cause them any hardship as they can sell their houses and “They can move into the private rented sector ... or trade down ... Impractical?” not at all, Phoebas says so!!

cageyeuclid

Phoebas wrote: »

Not owning property is viable for hundreds of thousands of people.

For tens of thousands of carers it is not .... and you uncaringly dismissed carers who must pass on their homes unencumbered to Special Needs offspring as "extreme examples" ... YOU DID!!! you heartless poser (Oooops!!! sorry typo ... left out the "t". ... meant poster.

Phoebas wrote: »

....
The tax doesn't get transferred to offspring and there are personal insolvency and excessive hardship amendments written into the act to deal with some of your more extreme examples.
...

Deferral does just that ... passes the cruel LPT onto Special Needs offspring who are real people and not "extreme examples".
Contradicting your own post is even more infuriating than the origial slur ..... is that the best you can do???

You have no idea of the cruel worries your LPT is causing those tens of thousands of nice caring people, do you???

cageyeuclid

Good loser wrote: »

That's as it should be. The occupier shoud be the liable person rather than the owner.

The occupier enjoys the local services. For the Revenue he/she is easier to identify.

One big advantage of the LPT is that it gets tax revenue from those that avoid income taxes. Also, over time, it leads to more efficient use of housing resources; penalising those in over large houses and favouring those in small, efficient units.

The time and effort dispensed by those opposing this trifling tax is risible - compare the other 'wealth tax' - on cars and vehicles. The Govt for example could double the tax on cars in the next budget FFS; where would all these phoney arguments 'agin the tax' go then?

“... those that avoid income taxes ...” .... the poor are not avoiding income tax so why are they included? A lazy govt and even lazier revenue could not, or uncaringly would not, make provision for the poor.

“.. favouring those in small, efficient units.” ... lets all move into straw huts ... Surely the task of any democratic govt is to improve the lot of it’s citizens and not to enforce downgrading. Is this FG/Labrats govt with their LPT trying to downgrade its people???

“ ....this trifling tax ...” is not trifling for the poor, and I guarantee that like the old domestic rates (and car tax... £5 up to over €500) it would, if not resisted, be extortionate within a few years. Even next year I think it would be 215% of this year, if not, for sure it would be up and up. That DCC –15% LPT is laughable.

“... phoney arguments 'agin the tax' ...” ....do you think the worry LPT inflicts on carers and other poor is to be scoffed at ... i guess you think they are all “extreme examples” huh?

cageyeuclid

Phoebas wrote: »

....
It is. They can move into the private rented sector to avoid the tax altogether or trade down to lower their liability.
Impractical? - in most cases, yes, but possible.

Move into the private sector?? .... from whom do you think the private sector will get the cash to pay LPT?? ... be practical will ya?

I am glad you agree that it is "Impractical? - in most cases, yes" for those who already own a home to have an option re LPT. So please quit that ould fake argument; it hasn't flown since you first despairingly came out with it. And if it did, the govt could insist on all civil servants being able to afford a really massive cut by selling up and moving to private sector housing.
What is good for the goose...

And please do not mention deferral... the very idea of taking 4% (a tax on a tax) from the poor and then eventually (if they live long enough) seizing their home is really cruel.

Since I see no cap on LPT after 2016, you might have to defer LPT when it inevitably rises high enough (and you might not even be earning) and have your home seized. I wonder if that happens, will you still extoll the virtues of cruel LPT?

kippy

darkhorse wrote: »

The same.

You failed to answer the second part of my question....
..

Why?

kippy

Going Forward wrote: »

"A one per cent increase in the 20 per cent rate and in the 41 per cent rate would deliver almost €700m in a full year"-

-http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/colm-mccarthy-budget-overshoot-is-on-cards-as-is-a-dreaded-second-bailout-28945205.html

I accept the absolute accuracy of this has been debated somewhere else here before, but in any case the Government appears to not want to break one promise at least, the one of raising income tax. They have the USC instead.

Increasing income tax by another one or two percent, depending on earnings, for workers would effect a far greater number of people than
a property tax.....and I would strongly argue would be a severe disencentive to work in lower income joobs should that tax rise be done in isolation.

kippy

This avoidance argument is a red herring.
If this tax does what it says on the tin it should be the least avoidable of all either directly or indirectly.....

Phoebas

darkhorse wrote: »

I reckon that the figure would have more than twice this before the property crash, as I doubt if there is a house or other property that is not in negative equity to at least half their value(more in wealthier places) anywhere in the country.

You reckon there isn't a house in the country that isn't owned outright without a mortgage.

You don't have a clue.

Phoebas

cageyeuclid wrote: »

For tens of thousands of carers it is not .... and you uncaringly dismissed carers who must pass on their homes unencumbered to Special Needs offspring as "extreme examples" ... YOU DID!!! you heartless poser (Oooops!!! sorry typo ... left out the "t". ... meant poster.

Carer's need to own property?


cageyeuclid, you need to quit the personal jibes from here on in - its getting tiresome.

Zubeneschamali

darkhorse wrote: »

I doubt if there is a house or other property that is not in negative equity to at least half their value(more in wealthier places) anywhere in the country.

You are wrong: my house isn't in negative equity.

Banjo String

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are wrong: my house isn't in negative equity.

You are lucky so.

Others, saddled with mortgages in arrears, with houses worth in some cases a third of the mortgage aren't so lucky.

Where's their amnesty?

Where's the amnesty for those that paid stamp duty?

Leo said himself that a property tax was unfair and would depress the market further, even going so far as to say it would plunge the country deeper into recession.

If that's an idiotic statement, take it up with Leo and the FG party who opposed property tax, even in their manifesto.

Don't take it up with those who agreed with them at the time, and still do.

seamus

SamHall wrote: »

You are lucky so.

Others, saddled with mortgages in arrears, with houses worth in some cases a third of the mortgage aren't so lucky.

Where's their amnesty?

Where's the amnesty for those that paid stamp duty?

Why should they get an amnesty? They went in, eyes open, a property transaction where the value of property may rise or fall. It fell, deal with it.

**** happens. People need to cop on and take responsibility for their own situations rather than laying blame all around them and demanding that someone else digs them out.

Zubeneschamali

SamHall wrote: »

Others, saddled with mortgages in arrears, with houses worth in some cases a third of the mortgage aren't so lucky.

Where's their amnesty?

Why should investors in property get a dig-out when their investment goes wrong, and not investors in Bank shares, for example? At least property is still worth 40% of what they paid, my BoI bank shares are worth 1%.

One percent. (OK, 1% of what they were at the peak, not 1% of what my Auntie paid for them donkey's years ago - but the same applies to property).

Banjo String

seamus wrote: »

Why should they get an amnesty? They went in, eyes open, a property transaction where the value of property may rise or fall. It fell, deal with it.

**** happens. People need to cop on and take responsibility for their own situations rather than laying blame all around them and demanding that someone else digs them out.

If only our glorious leaders applied your logic to the banks, the bondholders, and even their own salaries.

After all Seamus, who 'dug out' the banks?

The same people who're being asked to cough up again.

I've taken responsibility for providing a home for my family, I paid stamp duty that was applicable when I bought it, and I pay the mortgage in full each month.

Let's hope cpa2 fails, the unions call for strikes, and this lying govt walk.

Chips Lovell

Leo Varadkar also apparently supported the invasion of Iraq. Should we also have gone in there too?

My car is worth less than I paid for it. Motor Tax amnesty ahoy!

seamus

SamHall wrote: »

If only our glorious leaders applied your logic to the banks, the bondholders, and even their own salaries.

After all Seamus, who 'dug out' the banks?

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. Which is the reason why the people who used our money to "dig out" the banks were hooshed out of government.

Unfortunately they left us with a big bill that still needs paying.

No amount of crying about taxes can change the fact that the last Government shackled us to debts that need paying.

Let's hope cpa2 fails, the unions call for strikes

I really hope the unions do strike and then they can see that the rest of the country don't support them and they'll be forced back to the negotiating table on much poorer terms.

Zubeneschamali

SamHall wrote: »

If only our glorious leaders applied your logic to the banks

It did: the owners of the Banks were wiped out, a 99% loss.

Banjo String

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why should investors in property get a dig-out when their investment goes wrong, and not investors in Bank shares, for example? At least property is still worth 40% of what they paid, my BoI bank shares are worth 1%.

One percent. (OK, 1% of what they were at the peak, not 1% of what my Aunti paid for them donkey's years ago - but the same applies to property).

A homeowner is hardly an 'investor of property' my homes not for sale, neither did I buy it to make a quick buck.

When it suited the FG party (in opposition) they reminded us constantly that it was they who abolished the home tax, and that they weren't in favour of reintroducing it.

They got voted in, possibly on the strength of that.

Where's their mandate after that spectacular u-turn?

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Leo Varadkar also apparently supported the invasion of Iraq. Should we also have gone in there too?

My car is worth less than I paid for it. Motor Tax amnesty ahoy!

Any minute now, you're going to tell me the relevance to a war in Iraq and a property tax in Ireland.


Go.

seamus

SamHall wrote: »

A homeowner is hardly an 'investor of property' my homes not for sale, neither did I buy it to make a quick buck.

As soon as they try to sell that home, they are, basically.

If you didn't buy the property to make a quick buck and you've no intention of selling, then negative equity is not an issue.

Chips Lovell

SamHall wrote: »

When it suited the FG party (in opposition) they reminded us constantly that it was they who abolished the home tax, and that they weren't in favour of reintroducing it.

Labour was in favour of one. And they're in government too. It was part of their agreed programme for government.

Zubeneschamali

SamHall wrote: »

They got voted in, possibly on the strength of that.

They got voted in because Fianna Fail single-handedly destroyed our economic independence and brought in the IMF to run the place.

Property tax is way, way down the list of stuff falling on people thanks to that disaster.

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

They got voted in, possibly on the strength of that.

I don't recall Property Tax / HHC / LPT being a big issue in the last election campaign. I can't remember it coming up in the big debates at all or in the polling data.
Do you have a link?

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Labour was in favour of one. And they're in government too. It was part of their agreed programme for government.

What else were Labour 'in favour of' but u-turned on?

But it's ok, because sure that's what you do in an election.

Zubeneschamali

SamHall wrote: »

What else were Labour 'in favour of' but u-turned on?

Try to keep up: Labour were in favour of a Property tax, they did not U-turn on it.

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't recall Property Tax / HHC / LPT being a big issue in the last election campaign. I can't remember it coming up in the big debates at all or in the polling data.
Do you have a link?

Such a non issue that they felt the need to reiterate on their manifesto that they thought it 'was unfair, and they were not in favour of reintroducing it'?

A link?

Would you like several or will one do you?

Banjo String

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Try to keep up: Labour were in favour of a Property tax, they did not U-turn on it.

You should try and read posts more carefully tbh.

You understand what the word else means I presume?

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

Such a non issue that they felt the need to reiterate on their manifesto that they thought it 'was unfair, and they were not in favour of reintroducing it'?

A link?

Would you like several or will one do you?

They got voted in, possibly on the strength of that.

If you have several links that it was opposition to property tax that brought FG to power, please post them all.

I doubt you have any.

cageyeuclid

Phoebas wrote: »

Carer's need to own property?


cageyeuclid, you need to quit the personal jibes from here on in - its getting tiresome.

i specifically mentioned carers with DA offspring... what is to become of them when the parent dies if the house is seized by heartless revenue?? And please believe there are thousands like that, where those carers need to own the house. You dismissed them as "extreme examples" that is no jibe .... just an infuriating insult. Had you put any thought into the question I asked you would not have to make a snide remark like:

Carer's need to own property?

And don't be so smug about LPT deferral not taking your house.

http://www.soldiersofdestiny.org/davidbeggbetrayal.htm

"As I was reminded recently by a friend in East Anglia, the U.K.'s equivalent of the bin tax charges started at about 188 Euro and now run at around a staggering 4,334 Euro a year"

(Gerry Ryan, 2FM, The Star On Sunday, 19.10.2003).

And unlike this govt's LPT the UK have "tax benefits" for jobseekers and the poor. UK council taxes vary around BP£3,200. That is where LPT is headed.
If water rates succeed, then a total of over €5,000 yearly is likely . How about that for "modest charges" (you said that) and (pro rata) still nothing compared to the extortionate old rates.

As for personal jibes ... it was you who denied the slur cast in your own posts on those unable to defend themselves. My remarks are fair and jusified and the bare truth.

Phoebas

cageyeuclid wrote: »

As for personal jibes ... it was you who denied the slur cast in your own posts on those unable to defend themselves. My remarks are fair and jusified and the bare truth.

But they are against the charter here - so you need to quit.

cageyeuclid

Phoebas wrote: »

But they are against the charter here - so you need to quit.

Oh!!!! you mean the "poster" typo... I already said sorry ... LOL

Hijpo

seamus wrote: »

As soon as they try to sell that home, they are, basically.

If you didn't buy the property to make a quick buck and you've no intention of selling, then negative equity is not an issue.

By that analogy if we are forced to sell the home due to not being able to repay the mortgage people are investors? Say we owe €200,000 on the balance. It only sells for €120,000 where do we get the €80,000?
Will it be writen off like so many other deals done for big institutions who can easily pay?

seamus

cageyeuclid wrote: »

i specifically mentioned carers with DA offspring... what is to become of them when the parent dies if the house is seized by heartless revenue?? And please believe there are thousands like that, where those carers need to own the house.

Why do carers need to own property? Why can't they rent?

Besides, nobody gets thrown out on the street in this country, least of all someone who requires special care. Even if the "heartless Revenue" were to seize the property, no judge would serve an eviction order unless alternative accommodation had been secured for the person.

Zubeneschamali

Hijpo wrote: »

Say we owe €200,000 on the balance. It only sells for €120,000 where do we get the €80,000?

The same place Sean Quinn will get the billions he borrowed to buy bank shares which lost value.

Will it get written off? Yes, if you declare bankruptcy.

Zubeneschamali

SamHall wrote: »

You should try and read posts more carefully tbh.

OK, so when you said: "What else were Labour 'in favour of' but u-turned on?", you meant "What else were they in favour of but u-turned on, unlike their consistent approach to LPT?". Fair enough.

Several things, for example, income tax: Labour were in favour of hiking the top rate of income tax, and they "U-turned" (aka compromised) on that because FG opposed it.

Both parties compromised: that's how it works everywhere there are coalitions.

Hijpo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The same place Sean Quinn will get the billions he borrowed to buy bank shares which lost value.

Will it get written off? Yes, if you declare bankruptcy.

I doubt joe soap will have the leverage and contacts Quinn has.
Do we get to keep the house if we declare ourselves bankrupt like Ger Killally?

Hijpo

seamus wrote: »

Why do carers need to own property? Why can't they rent?

Besides, nobody gets thrown out on the street in this country, least of all someone who requires special care. Even if the "heartless Revenue" were to seize the property, no judge would serve an eviction order unless alternative accommodation had been secured for the person.

Wasnt there efforts made to evict a 63-year-old cancer patient and her daughter from their home?

seamus

Hijpo wrote: »

Wasnt there efforts made to evict a 63-year-old cancer patient and her daughter from their home?

Do you have a link?

I've heard a number of similar stories, but they basically all are cases where the sheriff/court was unaware that there was an ill person in the house, or where the residents were simply refusing to move even though they were well able to, ill or not.

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

If you have several links that it was opposition to property tax that brought FG to power, please post them all.

I doubt you have any.

Ok, fair enough.

Would you like some links though that prove they're losing support due to the property tax (among other reasons) to FF who've once again become the biggest party in the state?

FF openly oppose the tax now, you can call that a coincidence if you like.

Hijpo

seamus wrote: »

Do you have a link?

I've heard a number of similar stories, but they basically all are cases where the sheriff/court was unaware that there was an ill person in the house, or where the residents were simply refusing to move even though they were well able to, ill or not.

Ill have to look when i get home, from what i (briefly) remember they know shes not well but the eviction notice still stands.

Zubeneschamali

Hijpo wrote: »

I doubt joe soap will have the leverage and contacts Quinn has.

I doubt if Joe Soap will be in court, or in jail, unlike Sean Quinn.