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

darkhorse

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's democracy for you: the worst system of Government, except all the others that have been tried.

Have they? How did direct democracy work out?

bgrizzley

Phoebas wrote: »

I like the way you chose a clip of that interview with Pat Rabbitte cut off mid sentence.
Why didn't you post the full version?

lol, now that you mention it, before i posted i watched it to the last few seconds, then stopped it, because it makes me slightly nauseous listening to him say it so blatantly.

cageyeuclid

Deleted User wrote: »

For an OAP to lose 10% of their pension, they would have to be paying at least €1196 LPT per year. Now, THAT would be some mansion.

I figure the weekly disposable income is (at most) €50 for an OAP and paying €5 weekly for LPT represents a 10% cut. For social welfare or disability recipients it is far worse. It is CRUEL to place such huge anxiety on so vulnerable a group.

For a well heeled social welfare or revenue employee (those likely to be involved in collecting LPT) €5 weekly is a mere pitance, and these very civil servants won't agree to a 4% cut in money that has to be borrowed to pay them. No one should pay LPT until the collectors themselves are reasonable.

Intoducing a CRUEL and UNJUST Tax is lazy governance and hopefully political suicide.

Phoebas

cageyeuclid wrote: »

I figure the weekly disposable income is (at most) €50 for an OAP and paying €5 weekly for LPT represents a 10% cut. For social welfare or disability recipients it is far worse. It is CRUEL to place such huge anxiety on so vulnerable a group.

For a well heeled social welfare or revenue employee (those likely to be involved in collecting LPT) €5 weekly is a mere pitance, and these very civil servants won't agree to a 4% cut in money that has to be borrowed to pay them. No one should pay LPT until the collectors themselves are reasonable.

Intoducing a CRUEL and UNJUST Tax is lazy governance and hopefully political suicide.

Way to change the goalposts!
You didn't say anything about disposable income in your original post.

It is really loosing touch with reality to suggest that a €5 p/w cut for home owning pensioners is cruel in the current environment or to suggest that the Revenue officials involved in collecting this tax (mostly lower paid CPSU members) are 'well heeled'.

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

They didn't.

They did. It's in black and white for you to read should you wish.

Phoebas wrote: »

They proposed some alternatives including a “site sale profits tax”. Maybe they felt that they'd be able to negotiate changes with the troika. Personally I think any of the FG alternatives would be difficult to achieve.

Doubtful. Sure they openly admit they didn't even attempt to negotiate a write down, or reduction in the bank debt, nor did they negotiate a deal that the bondholders would share the cost in recapitalization of nationwide and Anglo (despite both parties promising to do so pre election)

Phoebas wrote: »

I guess you could ask the same querstion of any of the other parties who are against the HHC / LPT.

We can't, the public decided to vote the current coalition into power.

We went with the popular option. FG promised much to get into power, sadly though they've badly let down the electorate.

Hopefully the electorate won't get fooled again, nor much longer.

Phoebas

bgrizzley wrote: »

lol, now that you mention it, before i posted i watched it to the last few seconds, then stopped it, because it makes me slightly nauseous listening to him say it so blatantly.

You didn't even watch in full the video you posted!!!

You might have told us that upfront so we could have ignored the post.

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

We can't, the public decided to vote the current coalition into power.

You can't question opposition parties about their manifestos?

SamHall wrote: »

Hopefully the electorate won't get fooled again, nor much longer.

There'll be another GE in a few years. In the meantime the polls are showing FG at least holding steady.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if they got a second term, and I'm pretty certain that whoever forms the next government will retain the LPT.

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

They did. It's in black and white for you to read should you wish.

No they didn't. They weren't in favour of the kind of property tax we got, but I can't see anywhere in the manifesto where they make it a red line issue. Perhaps you can post the section of the manifesto where you think they say, in black and white, that "the property tax= not happening"

You seem to think of manifestos as binding contracts. I see them as aspirational documents and once you enter coalition negotiations, there are bound to be changes.

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

You can't question opposition parties about their manifestos?

Are you seriously suggesting we question opposition parties on their manifesto contents they didn't rip up when they didn't get voted into power?

Phoebas wrote: »

There'll be another GE in a few years. In the meantime the polls are showing FG at least holding steady.

Are you sure they're holding steady?
Last I read, FF overtook them in the polls again.

Phoebas wrote: »

I wouldn't at all be surprised if they got a second term, and I'm pretty certain that whoever forms the next government will retain the LPT.

Let's see them serve their full term before we jump the gun please.

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting we question opposition parties on their manifesto contents they didn't rip up when they didn't get voted into power?

Yes. You only question the governing parties?

SamHall wrote: »

Are you sure they're holding steady?
Last I read, FF overtook them in the polls again.

FG are not FF. The FG figures have been steady for a good while now. FF are gaining largely at the expense of other parties.

Big C

Bought my house during tiger years 2004, small cottage that nobody wanted €70,000. spent €30,000 adapting it for accessability, reckon its now valued at 90. Then I heard money spent adapting a house for person with disability could reduce overall value
Just received lpt booklet and surprise I was right I will be exempt, then I read further I will be exempt if following applies
adapted the house + "have received an award from personal assessment board or a court or who is a beneficary under a trust established for the purpose"

wtf is that about, so vague, would love to find an error to take a case. If anyone has ideas please comment or pm me.

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

Yes. You only question the governing parties?

When an opposition party gets into power, and u-turn on their promises/manifesto, I'd qestion that too.

Phoebas wrote: »

FG are not FF. The FG figures have been steady for a good while now. FF are gaining largely at the expense of other parties.

Gaining as a lot of disillusioned voters return to the party they've voted in for years.
Probably fed up with the broken promises of change and transparency promised by Labour and FG.

bgrizzley

Phoebas wrote: »

You didn't even watch in full the video you posted!!!

You might have told us that upfront so we could have ignored the post.

, yes i did, more than once.

Phoebas wrote: »

You seem to think of manifestos as binding contracts. I see them as aspirational documents and once you enter coalition negotiations, there are bound to be changes.

do you think its ok that FG caved on an issue, that they vehemently disagree with, and that two thirds of the people think is unfair.
And cave to a party that represented 20% of the electorate? and are currently supported by only 12%?

they say democracy is where 51% of people can make 49% slaves, but that takes the biscuit...

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

When an opposition party gets into power, and u-turn on their promises/manifesto, I'd qestion that too.

OK. I understand. You only question manifestos after the party gets into power - a recipe for continuous disappointment.

SamHall wrote: »

Gaining as a lot of disillusioned voters return to the party they've voted in for years.
Probably fed up with the broken promises of change and transparency promised by Labour and FG.

The recent polling figures don't support that - FF are gaining largely at the expense of other parties.

bgrizzley wrote: »

, yes i did, more than once.

What's the confusion? In post #253 you said you didn't watch in full.
So, why did you post a truncated version of that video with Pat Rabbitte cut off mid sentence and not the full version? Have you actually seen the full version?

bgrizzley wrote: »

do you think its ok that FG caved on an issue, that they vehemently disagree with, and that two thirds of the people think is unfair.

I don't think they 'caved' and I don't think they 'vehemently' disagree with property tax in principle (indeed they proposed a kind of residential property 'profits' tax in the same manifesto).
They negotiated and clearly were willing to yield on a policy that they weren't 'vehement' about.

bgrizzley wrote: »

And cave to a party that represented 20% of the electorate?

Do you think the Labour party should have got none of their policies through because they don't have a magic 51%? Why would any party ever join a coalition government on that basis?

bgrizzley wrote: »

they say democracy is where 51% of people can make 49% slaves, but that takes the biscuit...

... but is what you seem to advocate above. :rolleyes:

bgrizzley

Phoebas wrote: »

What's the confusion? In post #253 you said you didn't watch in full.
So, why did you post a truncated version of that video with Pat Rabbitte cut off mid sentence and not the full version? Have you actually seen the full version?

, yes i did, more than once. confusion is about why you are harping on about a video that we have all seen and all knows what it contains. i dont know if it was the truncated version or not and frankly dont care. Peace Bro!!

Phoebas wrote: »

... but is what you seem to advocate above. :rolleyes:

This makes no sense. where did i advocate that? My post disagrees with a small percentage of those elected deciding issues for the entire nation (at least you could call 51/49 democratic!).

bgrizzley

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't think they 'caved' and I don't think they 'vehemently' disagree with property tax in principle (indeed they proposed a kind of residential property 'profits' tax in the same manifesto).
They negotiated and clearly were willing to yield on a policy that they weren't 'vehement' about.

fair enough it might be too strong a word, (i was also thing of Endas past history calling it a vampire tax, sucking the life blood, morally wrong blah blah sounded pretty "vehement"then)

FYI, I dont think they caved either, i think they wanted it all along, but went the FF route of populism and let labour take the wrap.

stevedublin

bgrizzley wrote: »

yes, but the rest of Europe have it!!!

If the rest of Europe put their fingers in the fire, should we?

bgrizzley

stevedublin wrote: »

If the rest of Europe put their fingers in the fire, should we?

lol, i think you need to turn on your sarcasm detector, Steve;)

Phoebas

bgrizzley wrote: »

, yes i did, more than once. confusion is about why you are harping on about a video that we have all seen and all knows what it contains. i dont know if it was the truncated version or not and frankly dont care. Peace Bro!!

So you didn't even know you were posting a truncated version of the video where Pat Rabbitte was cut off mid sentence to make it sound like he was saying something he wasn't.
That's bizarre.

bgrizzley

Phoebas wrote: »

So you didn't even know you were posting a truncated version of the video where Pat Rabbitte was cut off mid sentence to make it sound like he was saying something he wasn't.
That's bizarre.

Sigh. bizarre it is.
i give up. you've won the argument :rolleyes: now, can we get back to the property tax please?

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

So you didn't even know you were posting a truncated version of the video where Pat Rabbitte was cut off mid sentence to make it sound like he was saying something he wasn't.
That's bizarre.

Why are you so hung up on where the clip ended?

It was well documented, and weill publicised at the time what pat said tbh.

What do you feel is missing from the line?

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

Why are you so hung up on where the clip ended?

It was well documented, and weill publicised at the time what pat said tbh.

What do you feel is missing from the line?

The 'isn't that what you tend to do during an election' line is often used as evidence of Pat Rabbitte admitting that he lied in the campaign (including by the person who uploaded the video to youtube).
The information is never included is his qualification that what he means is that during an election they tend only to have the opportunity to give out simple messages without getting into details. Pat Rabbitte, of course, never admitted that he lied, so its a pretty dirty trick for anyone to represent this video as him saying he did.

darkhorse

Phoebas wrote: »

You seem to think of manifestos as binding contracts. I see them as aspirational documents and once you enter coalition negotiations, there are bound to be changes.

There you go again, substituting the word lies with aspirational.

darkhorse

Phoebas wrote: »

Way to change the goalposts!

Wanna talk about changing the goalposts? When this family home tax was first mooted/legislated for, the government assured the electorate that there would be no changes to the valuations until 2016, am I correct in saying this? In spite of all the arguments/debates on similar threads, whereby I said they will change that, I had it shoved down my throat by the defenders of the Government's imposition of the home tax, that it is in the legislation, and will not be changed for three years. It seems now that the LAs may be empowered to up the rate from Jan 2015, according to the chairman of the revenue. Hard for a goal keeper to know which way the ball is coming.

Chips Lovell

You're confusing valuations and rates. Valuations are fixed until 2016. Rates are fixed until 2015, after which local authorities have the discretion to change their rate by +/- 15 per cent of the national rate.

Hijpo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You're confusing valuations and rates. Valuations are fixed until 2016. Rates are fixed until 2015, after which local authorities have the discretion to change their rate by +/- 15 per cent of the national rate.

Whats the national rate?
If the council decide to up it by the 15% they are allowed, how much would a house valued at 150,000 pay in LPT per year?

Chips Lovell

National rate is 0.18 per cent for properties valued up to €1 million and 0.25 per cent on excess value over €1 million

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You're confusing valuations and rates. Valuations are fixed until 2016. Rates are fixed until 2015, after which local authorities have the discretion to change their rate by +/- 15 per cent of the national rate.

Upwards only Vladimir.

Can't see any council wanting less from g homeowners.

Can you?

Zubeneschamali

SamHall wrote: »

Can't see any council wanting less from g homeowners.

Can you?

You can't see them offering to lower rates to win votes? It'd work on you, right?

Chips Lovell

I guess we'll find out at the next local elections. Some parties might run on a platform of cutting rates in certain local authority areas if they get a majority on a council.

Hijpo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

National rate is 0.18 per cent for properties valued up to €1 million and 0.25 per cent on excess value over €1 million

And what about my second question, im not the best with the maths you see, and the LPT pushers seem to be well up on it all. Who better to get an answer from eh?

emo72

darkhorse wrote: »

Wanna talk about changing the goalposts? When this family home tax was first mooted/legislated for, the government assured the electorate that there would be no changes to the valuations until 2016, am I correct in saying this? In spite of all the arguments/debates on similar threads, whereby I said they will change that, I had it shoved down my throat by the defenders of the Government's imposition of the home tax, that it is in the legislation, and will not be changed for three years. It seems now that the LAs may be empowered to up the rate from Jan 2015, according to the chairman of the revenue. Hard for a goal keeper to know which way the ball is coming.

thats very sneaky. very sneaky. i was under the impression that the price didn't change. i honestly never copped the difference between "valuation" and "rate". i must be thick.

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You're confusing valuations and rates. Valuations are fixed until 2016. Rates are fixed until 2015, after which local authorities have the discretion to change their rate by +/- 15 per cent of the national rate.

I'm not confusing anything. The chairperson of the revenue commissioners appeared in front of a dail committee and said that the county councils may be in a position to change the rate at which you will pay the property tax from 2015 instead of 2016. I can't be any clearer than that, unless I actually ask Josephine Feehily to tell you face to face

Chips Lovell

darkhorse wrote: »

I'm not confusing anything. The chairperson of the revenue commissioners appeared in front of a dail committee and said that the county councils may be in a position to change the rate at which you will pay the property tax from 2015 instead of 2016. I can't be any clearer than that, unless I actually ask Josephine Feehily to tell you face to face

Yes, she did. But that has always been the case. Right since budget day when it was announced. It was only the valuation that was fixed until 2016.

darkhorse

Hijpo wrote: »

And what about my second question, im not the best with the maths you see, and the LPT pushers seem to be well up on it all. Who better to get an answer from eh?

Well, H, if you are in the band where you have to pay €225, for example, and the council up it by 15%, then that's approx. an extra €34.

darkhorse

emo72 wrote: »

thats very sneaky. very sneaky. i was under the impression that the price didn't change. i honestly never copped the difference between "valuation" and "rate". i must be thick.

No, you're not thick. The government just lied to us again, as expected.

Chips Lovell

They didn't lie though. You're confusing two different things, the valuation of the property and the rate of the tax.

emo72

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

They didn't lie though. You're confusing two different things, the valuation of the property and the rate of the tax.

I know. You are definitely right. I was obviously very confused, because i thought the price was staying the same. it does seem sneaky though, the way it was phrased.

Hijpo

darkhorse wrote: »

Well, H, if you are in the band where you have to pay €225, for example, and the council up it by 15%, then that's approx. an extra €34.

I wonder do they anticipate the value of houses to miraculously to rise in 2016?

that would be an extra €34 for the rise in rates and more on top of that if the value creeps into the next band all while peoples financial circumstances stay the same.

:rolleyes:

darkhorse

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Yes, she did. But that has always been the case. Right since budget day when it was announced. It was only the valuation that was fixed until 2016.

Ok.

emo72

so in three years the rate could go up by 45%. these things are usually pushed to the max. just so we know in 6 years it would be gone up 90% ? jesus H christ:(

Banjo String

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You can't see them offering to lower rates to win votes? It'd work on you, right?

Nope.

My vote can't be 'bought'.

Chips Lovell

emo72 wrote: »

so in three years the rate could go up by 45%. these things are usually pushed to the max. just so we know in 6 years it would be gone up 90% ? jesus H christ:(

No, that isn't how it's going to work. They can only go a max of 15 per cent over the national rate. They can't add 15 per cent every year.

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I guess we'll find out at the next local elections. Some parties might run on a platform of cutting rates in certain local authority areas if they get a majority on a council.

Isn't there local elections next year?

They can't up them (or down them) until 2015 I thought.

bgrizzley

emo72 wrote: »

so in three years the rate could go up by 45%. these things are usually pushed to the max. just so we know in 6 years it would be gone up 90% ? jesus H christ:(

Hope that in 6 years property prices are not on the rise, or you could also be gone up a band for that 90%...

Chips Lovell

SamHall wrote: »

Isn't there local elections next year?

They can't up them (or down them) until 2015 I thought.

Yes, but I can't see what will stop candidates from running on a platform of what they'll do the following year though.

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Yes, but I can't see what will stop candidates from running on a platform of what they'll do the following year though.

Like our current coalition did:pac:

Ogham

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

No, that isn't how it's going to work. They can only go a max of 15 per cent over the national rate. They can't add 15 per cent every year.

Correct

Phoebas

darkhorse wrote: »

Wanna talk about changing the goalposts? (...) Hard for a goal keeper to know which way the ball is coming.

You need to keep your eye on the ball. Here's what they said on budget day.

. Rates
• For the first 18 months (up to 31 December 2014) the
national central tax rate will be 0.18% up to €1 million and 0.25% on excess
value over €1 million.
• From 1 January 2015 local authorities will
have discretion to vary the LPT rates by +/- 15% of the national central
rate.
• The national central rate will not be increased for the
lifetime of the Government.

Am Chile

Things are not running as smoothly in Revenue as we are often led to believe-I know someone might say ah sure its just facebook-bear in mind the union in revenue the cpsu is affiliated with the campaign against the property tax-someone is always bound to leak something out.

'Information from a reliable senior source in Revenue that things are not running as smoothly as they put out in the media. Up to last Friday, they claim that over 400,000 forms had arrived in Limerick , but Limerick cannot cope and van loads are being driven to Dublin. This figure is just the number of envelopes: it does not mean compliance. A large proportion are not filled in. Many have abusive comments or simply ‘return to sender’. Others have things like ‘I have no more to give’ and ‘Do your best’. Many in Revenue are unsure how to proceed with non-compliants, whether homeowners ignore the form (as the Campaign recommends) or attach an ‘Axe The Tax’ label or other comments. This is new territory for Revenue and exactly how to apply the law is still in question and will be tested. For example, employers, who face a € 3,000 fine for not complying, have asked Revenue will they pay their legal fees if employees sue them for deductions without permission or compensate them for any industrial unrest. Revenue have yet to reply. Similarly, many bank customers are instructing their bank not to allow deductions and when you think how difficult and exacting it is to set up a direct debit, one wonders how Revenue will negotiate bank security to raid your account.

However if Revenue are successful in getting over all hurdles, non-compliant people may face penalties. Penalties are not automatic and are at the discretion of Revenue. Most people boycotting have taken this into account and are prepared to run the risk of a penalty of a few hundred Euros in order to bring about the abolition of the unfair tax and save many thousands in the long term. The attitude that ‘they are going to get it anyway’ is being met with resistance. Making the government work and struggle every step of the way to get at your money, rather than handing it over and making it easy for them is preferable.

Whatever method you choose to resist this tax, The Campaign recommends that you do not sign the declaration as this is an admission of liability and consent.

Minister Phil Hogan once again put his foot in it by saying that they had got just over 20 million Euro. However if you do the maths, that is an average of just 50 EURO per home and the average is believed to be 200 for the first 6 months. This indicates that as much as 75% of forms contained no payment. It caused much cringe inducing embarrassment for both the government and Revenue.

In the case of children and adult children of homeowners receiving the forms, it is highly unlikely that the Revenue will pursue under 18 year olds. For adults the Campaign recommends ignoring the form. However some are returning it stating that they don’t know the owner. Many family members genuinely do not know who owns the house or are estranged from their parents. Revenue cannot prove that children know the owner. Some parents have taken the initiative and corrected the form, releasing the child of any obligation, and then boycotting the form on their own terms.

The numbers of people boycotting will not be known until after June and when all the envelopes are opened. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many who registered and paid the Household Charge are not paying the tax and there is a new level of anger about how it is being implemented. Threats and bullying is the main tactic of this government and together we can resist them.

We should take heart from the Waterford Crystal workers who won their pension rights in the European Court of Justice, contrary to legal advice from the state. Of the original 400 plaintiffs, only 18 took the case to Europe. The remainder had been bullied and convinced by state lawyers that they had no legal basis and no hope of success and yet this landmark case was a triumph for workers’ rights.

News from an IBEC conference is also heartening. The Irish Business and Employer’s Confederation, a body representing employers of 30 people or more and mostly representing the retail trade, had wanted property tax set at 0.25% instead of the current 0.18%. However a senior delegate from Penney’s said that more taxes on people were hurting the retail trade and causing high street traders grave concern'

https://www.facebook.com/CAPTADublinWest/posts/512799772088707