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

Godge

SamHall wrote: »

So you guys don't have proof?

Other than a councillor who 'bit the hand that fed him'?

Righty-oh.

Did you actually read my post below or had you responded before reading it.

The Revenue confirm they are taking LPT from salaries.
The media confirm they are taking LPT from salaries.
The anti-LPT campaign concedes failure and confirms they are taking LPT from salaries.

And you say there is no proof??????? Come on, be serious.

Godge wrote: »

Ted Tynan did, but you keep forgetting him.

http://tedtynan.blogspot.ie/

He says that a load of people have been forced to pay it.

http://www.eveningecho.ie/2013/08/09/cllr-forced-to-pay-property-tax-from-pay/

He said: “After the Revenue got involved, the non-payment campaign collapsed. It was a done deal. It’s now a purely political movement.

“This money is being taken out of people’s wages to pay off debts that we didn’t create.”
Revenue issued 50,000 letters last week informing people property tax payments would be deducted from their wages.

http://nohouseholdtax.org/revenue-letters-to-property-tax-boycotters-contrast-with-softly-softly-approach-shown-to-multinationals-and-criminal-bankers/

Ruth Coppinger is another who has admitted that the tax has been taken from her wages and thousands of others.

http://www.wsm.ie/c/wsm-leaving-campaign-against-home-and-water-taxes

The Workers Solidarity Movement has admitted the campaign has failed.

"It is now clear that the boycott of the property tax has collapsed and with it, any chance of defeating it in the coming period."
"The principal reason that the campaign was not successful was that not enough people got involved. If protests were to have an impact, tens of thousands were needed on the streets."


So we don't just have to take Revenue's word for it. The anti-LPT people are saying that their campaign has failed in the face of public apathy and the ability of Revenue to deduct from source.

tayto lover

Godge wrote: »

The most recent list published covered Q1 2013 so it will be a while before we see property tax defaulters on it, especially as the list only covers large amounts.




http://www.revenue.ie/en/press/defaulters/

There is the list of defaulters.

I only opened the first spreadsheet but under the heading "Misuse of marked mineral oil", there were 40 people publicly named and shamed.

It seems to me that there is a big problem all right but that when the revenue catch them they are named and shamed at the rate of 40 a quarter.

They are people using farming diesel in their lorries/cars.
They are not garages who are making massive profits on the backs of the unsuspecting motorists.
These are not the garages the Revenue/Customs should be targeting.

tayto lover

kippy wrote: »

I don't get the relevance?

It was to disprove Alaistair's point of how great the Revenue is.

kippy

tayto lover wrote: »

It was to disprove Alaistair's point of how great the Revenue is.

Ah ok,

Well done.

The revenue is not as efficient as some would like.

Doesn't mean they won't get around to it at some point.

I'd suggest that if it were a troika requirement they'd be on it.........

tayto lover

kippy wrote: »

Ah ok,

Well done.

The revenue is not as efficient as some would like.

Doesn't mean they won't get around to it at some point.

I'd suggest that if it were a troika requirement they'd be on it.........

Yes but if they haven't got around to this problem after 15 years or so then I will not be quaking in my boots just yet.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

It was to disprove Alaistair's point of how great the Revenue is.

Based on hearsay. Compelling stuff.

Godge

tayto lover wrote: »

They are people using farming diesel in their lorries/cars.
They are not garages who are making massive profits on the backs of the unsuspecting motorists.
These are not the garages the Revenue/Customs should be targeting.

tayto lover wrote: »

It was to disprove Alaistair's point of how great the Revenue is.

They are people illegally using farming diesel making massive profts for their haulage business and undermining genuine haulage contractors. And you don't have a problem with that?

Is the offence in the sale of the diesel or the use of it?

Given that Revenue went after 40 people alone in the first quarter of 2013 on this issue, they can hardly be disproven as great?

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes but if they haven't got around to this problem after 15 years or so then I will not be quaking in my boots just yet.

Sounds like a scaremongering fail.

Best of luck with that plan btw - but didn't you say earlier that you expected they would make you pay? It's hard to keep up.

Scofflaw

This is getting pretty silly, what with SamHall apparently attempting to extract some kind of justification from the absence of evidence he'll accept, while tayto lover talks about an entirely unrelated matter which would require criminal investigation rather than simple notice.

Consider yourselves on notice, because this is not edifying or constructive - this is argument for the sake of not having to admit defeat.

moderately,
Scofflaw

tayto lover

Godge wrote: »

They are people illegally using farming diesel making massive profts for their haulage business and undermining genuine haulage contractors. And you don't have a problem with that?

Is the offence in the sale of the diesel or the use of it?

Given that Revenue went after 40 people alone in the first quarter of 2013 on this issue, they can hardly be disproven as great?

I have surely a problem with that but I also have a problem with garages selling laundered diesel without fear of being caught seemingly. Making massive profits. It cost a friend of mine 2.5 k to repair the damaged engine and he reported the garage months ago. They are still at it however and selling far cheaper than most legit garages. I often wonder why they weren't closed down.

tayto lover

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is getting pretty silly, what with SamHall apparently attempting to extract some kind of justification from the absence of evidence he'll accept, while tayto lover talks about an entirely unrelated matter which would require criminal investigation rather than simple notice.

Consider yourselves on notice, because this is not edifying or constructive - this is argument for the sake of not having to admit defeat.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Your opinion but then again we are used to that. My argument is entirely related to Alaistair's point but i will probably be banned yet again for daring to disagree.

Scofflaw

tayto lover wrote: »

Your opinion but then again we are used to that. My argument is entirely related to Alaistair's point but i will probably be banned yet again for daring to disagree.

You are being banned - for arguing moderation on thread, which is in the rules, was in the rules last time you did it, and no doubt will be in the rules next time you do it. Eventually, you might realise those rules apply to you.

This was a particularly silly way to get banned - you could have PM'd me, but you didn't.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Phoebas

Godge wrote: »

Ah Sam, you are moving the goalposts here.

Looking back on some of these property tax threads the goalposts are being continually shifted.

Early on there were confident predictions that the HHC would be defeated by mass protests. Then we were told that there would be so much resistance to the LPT that they wouldn't be able to implement it. We were told that the government would fall by the summer time on public resistance to the tax. We were told that if they tried to deduct it from wages there would be public sector strikes.

Isn't it time for people opposed to the LPT to admit defeat and move on to the next battle? - the LPT has been successfully implemented. Some of ye are beginning to sound like this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

bgrizzley

Phoebas wrote: »

Looking back on some of these property tax threads the goalposts are being continually shifted.

Sure wasnt it the government moving them. If the Revenue hadnt worked, i hear they were going to ask Syria for chemical weapons...





(great clip, one of my favourites:pac:)

darkhorse

alastair wrote: »

Keep dreaming that impossible dream. Sure Revenue probably won't bother with your debts. :rolleyes:

Great comeback, al.;)

darkhorse

tayto lover wrote: »

A carefully chosen plant. More scaremongering.

I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I know how to do sums, and the more I looked at this story, the stunkier it became. Just bear with me a minute.
This Mr Tynan will apparently pay €225 in a full year, as he said that he was levied €112 this year, which will be a half years LPT.

Deductions are now expected to betaken from his wage packet every month in relation to the €112 levy which hestaunchly refused to pay.

He then goes on to say that he has been deducted €9.33 monthly for LPT,

Mr Tynan, who works for Cork City Council, confirmed that his wage slip this month revealed a deduction for €9.33 credited to 'LPT'.

which, if true, comes to total of €55.98 in respect of 6 months LPT.

So, either you are right, tayto, or this guy is getting a reduction.

Phoebas

^^ Or its being deducted over a full year.

darkhorse

Phoebas wrote: »

^^ Or its being deducted over a full year.

Well, maybe you can explain to us here, how would this guy be levied for a full year from the start, whereas the rest of the home owners in the country will just have to pay a half year in 2013.
Also, as I'm sure that you are au fait with the tax bands in respect of LPT, you might also take a stab at explaining why is this particular guy only being charged €112 (€9.33 x 12) for a full year, assuming you are correct in your post.

Good loser

darkhorse wrote: »

[/B]

I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I know how to do sums, and the more I looked at this story, the stunkier it became. Just bear with me a minute.
This Mr Tynan will apparently pay €225 in a full year, as he said that he was levied €112 this year, which will be a half years LPT.

Deductions are now expected to betaken from his wage packet every month in relation to the €112 levy which hestaunchly refused to pay.

He then goes on to say that he has been deducted €9.33 monthly for LPT,

Mr Tynan, who works for Cork City Council, confirmed that his wage slip this month revealed a deduction for €9.33 credited to 'LPT'.

which, if true, comes to total of €55.98 in respect of 6 months LPT.

So, either you are right, tayto, or this guy is getting a reduction.

Why all the heavy type darkie?

Ted is probably paid fortnightly. That would put Tayto (and you) wrong again.

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

Well, maybe you can explain to us here, how would this guy be levied for a full year from the start, whereas the rest of the home owners in the country will just have to pay a half year in 2013.
Also, as I'm sure that you are au fait with the tax bands in respect of LPT, you might also take a stab at explaining why is this particular guy only being charged €112 (€9.33 x 12) for a full year, assuming you are correct in your post.

It sounds like the Cork City Council payroll office screwed up and split his 6 month payment over a year.

Or the Revenue are giving special 50% discounts to evaders.

What do you think?

kippy

What exactly are people arguing about here?
Third party information in relation to a revenue led deduction from a persons (who isn't providing information here) pay?

Pointless argument.

There is no doubt that revenue will, as a matter of last resort, recoup the money you legally owe to them through whatever means legally allowed to them.

The key phrase there is "last resort" - they'd rather you came to your senses.

Phoebas

darkhorse wrote: »

Well, maybe you can explain to us here, how would this guy be levied for a full year from the start, whereas the rest of the home owners in the country will just have to pay a half year in 2013.
Also, as I'm sure that you are au fait with the tax bands in respect of LPT, you might also take a stab at explaining why is this particular guy only being charged €112 (€9.33 x 12) for a full year, assuming you are correct in your post.

Paying it over a full year doesn't mean that he's paying a full year worth of property tax.

Look - we're going on limited information so were speculating a bit, but if this anti-LPT trades union guy had got some kind of special reduction by opposing the taxl, don't you think he'd be shouting it from the rooftops?

People need to start applying some common sense.

Godge

darkhorse wrote: »

[/B]

I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I know how to do sums, and the more I looked at this story, the stunkier it became. Just bear with me a minute.
This Mr Tynan will apparently pay €225 in a full year, as he said that he was levied €112 this year, which will be a half years LPT.

Deductions are now expected to betaken from his wage packet every month in relation to the €112 levy which hestaunchly refused to pay.[/B]]He then goes on to say that he has been deducted €9.33 monthly for LPT,
Mr Tynan, who works for Cork City[/COLOR] Council, confirmed that his wage slip this month revealed a deduction for €9.33 credited to 'LPT'.

which, if true, comes to total of €55.98 in respect of 6 months LPT.
So, either you are right, tayto, or this guy is getting a reduction.

Is there a phrase for someone who is so desperate that his situation is worse than clutching at a straw?

We have on record the Revenue saying that they are taking LPT from wages, we have on record the media saying that they are taking LPT from wages and we have on record the anti-LPT campaigners saying that the Revenue are taking LPT from wages (see my previous post for the links).

Are you Doubting Thomas?
Are you like Peter denying thrice the evidence in front of your eyes?

What point are you trying to make? Ted Tynan's story is on his own website and he is an anti-LPT campaigner so if it is made up it can only have been made up by him. Why would he do that?

darkhorse

Good loser wrote: »

Why all the heavy type darkie?

Ted is probably paid fortnightly. That would put Tayto (and you) wrong again.

Just for the record, my learned friend, and in case you may think that I am being ignorant, I did actually answer your post, it just wasn't allowed.

Banjo String

I note the Italian Govt voted to abolish their 'controversial' property tax.

The Irish media have been strangely quiet about it though.

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

I note the Italian Govt voted to abolish their 'controversial' property tax.

Replaced by a local service tax.
Auction politics at its worst done to appease Berlusconi.

SamHall wrote: »

The Irish media have been strangely quiet about it though.

Yeah - tax changes in other jurisdictions don't generally get a lot of reportage here.

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

Replaced by a local service tax.
Auction politics at its worst done to appease Berlusconi.

The details of which haven't been announced yet, so none of us can comment on it as of yet.

Phoebas wrote: »

Yeah - tax changes in other jurisdictions don't generally get a lot of reportage here.

They don't

Well that ain't true. :eek:

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

The details of which haven't been announced yet, so none of us can comment on it as of yet.

You failed to even mention it - I wonder why (I don't really)

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

You failed to even mention it - I wonder why (I don't really)

All I know of it is that "its not a substitute or replacement for the Property tax", as thats all the Italians have said.

Abolishing the property tax creates a 4 billion euro ($5.3 billion) annual shortfall. Officials declined immediately to give specific details of how that money would be recovered, though Letta stressed that the new “service tax” wasn’t a property tax in disguise and that Italy would maintain its international commitments to keep its public debt in check.

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

All I know of it is that "its not a substitute or replacement for the Property tax"

Of course it is. Unless you find it credible that it just happens to appear at the same time as the property tax goes, and that it accidentally will manage to recoup the losses incurred by removing the property tax?

(AGI) - Rome, Aug 28 - Italy's Prime Minister Enrico Letta on Wednesday announced the scrapping of the unpopular IMU property tax as of 2014. To replace property tax the Italian government is to bring a new service tax. "First homes produce no income, but need services," Letta explained, adding "housing, however, requires services, and those need to be paid for." Short- and longer term tax revenue losses will be compensated for via ad hoc measures, in line with EU Stability Pact parameters.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

Of course it is. Unless you find it credible that it just happens to appear at the same time as the property tax goes, and that it accidentally will manage to recoup the losses incurred by removing the property tax?

Your quote would be at odds with your own assertion Alastair.

(a house produces no income)

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

Your quote would be at odds with your own assertion Alastair.

(a house produces no income)

A house produces no income until you sell it. It's a store of wealth until that point.

But I'm not claiming Letta and myself sing from the same hymn sheet. I'm just pointing out that the service tax is clearly a substitute/replacement for the property tax - unlike your claim.

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

A house produces no income until you sell it. It's a store of wealth until that point.

But I'm not claiming Letta and myself sing from the same hymn sheet. I'm just pointing out that the service tax is clearly a substitute/replacement for the property tax - unlike your claim.

By that argument, if i lodge 50k in the bank tomorrow and take it out in 10 years time i should consider it "income".

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

By that argument, if i lodge 50k in the bank tomorrow and take it out in 10 years time i should consider it "income".

Who's making that claim? If you took out the interest it accrued, that would be considered income alright. Until then, no.

No-one here (that I've noticed) believes primary residences are a source of income. They're a form of wealth - just as your notional 50k is a form of wealth, irrespective of whether you derive income from it or not.

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

Who's making that claim? If you took out the interest it accrued, that would be considered income alright. Until then, no.

No-one here (that I've noticed) believes primary residences are a source of income. They're a form of wealth - just as your notional 50k is a form of wealth, irrespective of whether you derive income from it or not.

alastair wrote: »

A house produces no income until you sell it.

Maybe they are a form of wealth/income in your world. They just serve as necessary shelter/safety for most people in this country. the house i grew up in was bought 30 odd years ago for a substantial ammount of money(at the time). After years of use it is now (to my mind) too cold/old/damp/dilapidated for my parents but they want to stay there(memories).

Its not worth the ground its standing on.

This argument that a house is wealth, is the second most ridiculous argument for this tax right after "Everyone other civilized country has one so should we".

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

Maybe they are a form of wealth/income in your world. They just serve as necessary shelter/safety for most people in this country. the house i grew up in was bought 30 odd years ago for a substantial ammount of money(at the time). After years of use it is now (to my mind) too cold/old/damp/dilapidated for my parents but they want to stay there(memories).

Its not worth the ground its standing on.

This argument that a house is wealth, is the second most ridiculous argument for this tax right after "Everyone other civilized country has one so should we".

House obviously provide shelter - but quite how this should undermine their wealth escapes me. The ground that your parents stands on is worth more than the house itself? Still wealth in that scenario. Any house bought 30 years ago has accrued considerable wealth over those years.

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

House obviously provide shelter - but quite how this should undermine their wealth escapes me. The ground that your parents stands on is worth more than the house itself? Still wealth in that scenario. Any house bought 30 years ago has accrued considerable wealth over those years.

i'd respectfully disagree. From what i know of what was paid for it,along with the penal interest they were subject to back then, (and only paid off in the last few years) and what its worth now, (IMO a site in a bad location with water and electricity) it is worth substantially less than it was in the late 70s. Thats not even taking into account the money that was pumped into it down through the years. And i doubt they care about that any more than i do, it has served its purpose at this stage, but it is not a valuable wealth asset, nor was it at the height of the boom or before it.

It is an incorrect assumtion to think all properties have a worth beyond being a home.

kippy

bgrizzley wrote: »

i'd respectfully disagree. From what i know of what was paid for it,along with the penal interest they were subject to back then, (and only paid off in the last few years) and what its worth now, (IMO a site in a bad location with water and electricity) it is worth substantially less than it was in the late 70s. Thats not even taking into account the money that was pumped into it down through the years. And i doubt they care about that any more than i do, it has served its purpose at this stage, but it is not a valuable wealth asset, nor was it at the height of the boom or before it.

It is an incorrect assumtion to think all properties have a worth beyond being a home.

If it is worth as little as you say it is, they won't be paying a property tax on it......
Where's the problem?
(I am disregarding everything else you have said (particularly about it being worth less now that the late 70's))

bgrizzley

kippy wrote: »

If it is worth as little as you say it is, they won't be paying a property tax on it......
Where's the problem?

wont they?

kippy

bgrizzley wrote: »

wont they?

€90 a year is hardly gonna break the bank,is it?

bgrizzley

kippy wrote: »

(I am disregarding everything else you have said (particularly about it being worth less now that the late 70's))

i noticed. fine argumentative technique there.

bgrizzley

kippy wrote: »

€90 a year is hardly gonna break the bank,is it?

whats that got to do with anything?

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

it is worth substantially less than it was in the late 70s.

You'll have to forgive my scepticism. Average secondhand house prices in 1978 were 21,895 euro, average new house price the same year? 24,082 euro.

http://www.cso.ie/px/doehlg/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=HSA06&ti=Average+Price+of+Houses+by+Year,+Statistic+and+Area&path=../Database/DoEHLG/Housing%20Statistics/&lang=1

kippy

bgrizzley wrote: »

i noticed. fine argumentative technique there.

Well, its a incorrect fact that house prices are less now than they were in the late 70's, hence the pointlessness of debating it....


The relevance is, the house is either worth less than a 100K - or inhabitable.

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

You'll have to forgive my scepticism. Average secondhand house prices in 1978 were 21,895 euro, average new house price the same year? 24,082 euro.



http://www.cso.ie/px/doehlg/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=HSA06&ti=Average+Price+of+Houses+by+Year,+Statistic+and+Area&path=../Database/DoEHLG/Housing%20Statistics/&lang=1

fair enough, not a lot i can do to prove it to you. my calculations would suggest to me they paid around double that (converting from their pound to our Euro).


either way, even to take your average house CSO figure and then add mortgage interest rates from the 80s, (dont even add upkeep costs over 30 years) then subtract that from average current house prices in rural areas.
Are you telling me that someones house is worth more (wealth) than they paid for it 30 years ago in general? At the very best its a store that has lost less value than cash would have.

bgrizzley

kippy wrote: »

Well, its a incorrect fact that house prices are less now than they were in the late 70's, hence the pointlessness of debating it....


The relevance is, the house is either worth less than a 100K - or inhabitable.

No house in Ireland is now worth less than the price paid plus mortgage for 30 years!
Well i never....

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

fair enough, not a lot i can do to prove it to you. my calculations would suggest to me they paid around double that (converting from their pound to our Euro).


either way, even to take your average house CSO figure and then add mortgage interest rates from the 80s, (dont even add upkeep costs over 30 years) then subtract that from average current house prices in rural areas.
Are you telling me that someones house is worth more (wealth) than they paid for it 30 years ago in general? At the very best its a store that has lost less value than cash would have.

It must be a pretty fancy house then, or in a particularly desirable location?

A 30 year mortgage would have been unusual in the 70's. Yes - the general scenario is that houses have been very good investments over the last 30 years. Even allowing for the mortgage bumping up the final cost of the house by 100% (fairly typical), you'd be hard pressed to find a rural house for sale anywhere near €100 grand, let alone €50 grand now. Also keep in mind that inflation would have eaten away quite a bit of your folks mortgage, if they were one of the few who got a 30 year mortgage back then.

Put it this way - a house selling at twice the average price in '78 would have been worth 50 grand. The same house today (twice the average selling price) would be worth 334 grand - and it would have been nearly twice that in 2008. So even at the worst point, following a burst property bubble, there's significant wealth accrued in that property.

Godge

bgrizzley wrote: »

This argument that a house is wealth, is the second most ridiculous argument for this tax right after "Everyone other civilized country has one so should we".

So someone with a house in Dalkey worth several million is not wealthy?

So a person who owns 50 houses and apratments outright is not wealthy?

What about a person who own their house outright plus a holiday home in Wexford and an apartment in Murcia? Is that wealth?

The only argument you could make is to take a notional sum, say 50k, that would buy basic accommodation and suggest that that first 50k of the first property owned by someone would be exempt from the property tax.

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

It must be a pretty fancy house then, or in a particularly desirable location?

A 30 year mortgage would have been unusual in the 70's. Yes - the general scenario is that houses have been very good investments over the last 30 years. Even allowing for the mortgage bumping up the final cost of the house by 100% (fairly typical), you'd be hard pressed to find a rural house for sale anywhere near €100 grand, let alone €50 grand now. Also keep in mind that inflation would have eaten away quite a bit of your folks mortgage, if they were one of the few who got a 30 year mortgage back then.

Put it this way - a house selling at twice the average price in '78 would have been worth 50 grand. The same house today (twice the average selling price) would be worth 334 grand - and it would have been nearly twice that in 2008. So even at the worst point, following a burst property bubble, there's significant wealth accrued in that property.

Nothing fancy or desirable, but maybe i have my figures wrong. i'm using purchasing power of the then pound to todays euro as a yardstick to measure. not sure how the cso work it out.(sounds a little high to me unless E21k equates to about £5k 70's Punts)

Houses in reasonable/good nick have been recently sold for around the 50k mark in my locality. i wouldnt think my own home place would even make that.
How many late 70s Punts would you think 50k euros is worth?

bgrizzley

Godge wrote: »

So someone with a house in Dalkey worth several million is not wealthy?

So a person who owns 50 houses and apratments outright is not wealthy?

What about a person who own their house outright plus a holiday home in Wexford and an apartment in Murcia? Is that wealth?

The only argument you could make is to take a notional sum, say 50k, that would buy basic accommodation and suggest that that first 50k of the first property owned by someone would be exempt from the property tax.

Show me where i said any of that.


but there's definitely a tax avoidance joke somewhere in that Dalkey reference