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

cageyeuclid

Phoebas wrote: »

Seems like an extreme solution to take to evade tax ... but not as extreme as getting someone to demolish your house after your death as was suggested by someone else earlier.

Even if LPT becomes extortionate ??

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/senior-civil-servants-warn-they-wont-implement-policies-29258301.html

...Senior civil servants are generally earning over €65,000 and will be hit with pay cuts if the Government pushes ahead with legislation. They are the staff who the Government will depend on to implement such legislation....

e.g. LPT

I wonder if the chairman of the Association of Higher Civil Public Servants (AHCPS) Tom Allen (like Phoebas) thinks it is fair and just for the poor to be levied by a cruel LPT while his lot are refusing a small 4% cut?
Somehow, I think he is more down to earth, but is too busy trying to hold onto his own to give his view of Unjust, unfair and cruel LPT.

Phoebas

darkhorse wrote: »

And this sits alright with you?

bgrizzley wrote: »

C'mon bud, its been fly by the seat of their pants since April the 1st last year. But if i have what you are saying, our fine government are going to sell homes out from under dead people if they get away with it, they'll be takin' the brass off the coffins next.:rolleyes:

There's nothing unusual about creditors being paid out of the proceeds of estates. The LPT legislation doesn't alter anything substantially in this regard.

Do you think debts should die with people but assets get transferred?

barrackali

Phoebas wrote: »

There's nothing unusual about creditors being paid out of the proceeds of estates. The LPT legislation doesn't alter anything substantially in this regard.

Do you think debts should die with people but assets get transferred?

Some people in here actually think they can get rid of this tax if they just ignore it...good luck with that! No matter what they do they will have to pay....like everybody else.

Phoebas

cageyeuclid wrote: »

BTW you never answered my post ... so I ask you again

Please explain when will an OAP be better able to afford defered LPT ... are they going to get younger???

No. But the deferrals are open ended, so an OAP who is never able to afford it will never pay it.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

How will those on a permanent disability allowance (DA) be able to better afford defered LPT ... do you think they will all get better???

Ditto for OAPs.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

How is it just to defer LPT to special needs offspring on a permanent DA???

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.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Do you think it is just to collect defered LPT from those just getting back to work after the debt build up of long time Soc Wel?

Do you think its just to collect outstanding credit card bills or utility bills or outstanding mortgages repayments from long term social welfare recipients getting back to work?

Le_Dieux

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/property-tax-dilemma-for-coalition-councillors-29259895.html

Maeve Sheehan– 12 May 2013
GOVERNMENT [COLOR=#009900 !important]party[/COLOR] candidates in next year's local elections will come under huge pressure to oppose future property tax rises after it was confirmed last week that local authorities can increase the tax bill by 15 per cent from 2015.

A hike in the dreaded home tax is likely to require the approval of councillors, putting them right at the heart of the property tax row ahead of next year's local elections. It will highlight divisions within the government parties, on the dreaded tax.
Sean Fleming, Fianna Fail spokesman on public expenditure, said he would be "amazed" if candidates running for government parties were not petitioned to vote against a tax increase in advance of the ballot. "This will play out big in the local elections," he said.
Joan Collins, the People Before Profit TD, said the anti-property tax groups plan a campaign to get government party local election candidates to declare where they stand.
"You are looking at people wanting to get a clear picture from government party candidates on where they stand on the property tax, and whether they would vote to increase the tax if they are elected."
Meanwhile, a group of Labour councillors has claimed it will seek to reduce the property tax by 15 per cent in Dublin. Dermot Lacey said: "As councillors on the ground across Dublin City we will work towards ensuring the maximum 15 per cent reduction in the property tax will be passed on to hard-pressed families."
It's not clear yet whether changes to the property tax will go to a vote of councillors. All local authority budgets have to be approved by a majority of county councillors before they are signed off.
The provision allowing local authorities to raise or drop the property tax by up to 15 per cent from January 2015 was included in the Budget. But in its information pack to householders, the Revenue Commissioners suggested that their property tax rate would be fixed for three years.
The issue arose during a Public Accounts Committee meeting last week, at which the Revenue chair, Josephine Feehily, said that councils must give notice by September next year if they intend to change the tax.
Fianna Fail accused the Government of planning to hit families with another tax increase once the local elections are out of the way.
Sean Fleming said that householders were under the impression that the tax they pay on their property valuation would remain the same until 2016, and they were not specifically told that it could, in fact, increase from the end of next year.
The Labour Party group of councillors said they wanted "some account taken of the higher property values in Dublin, including an ability to pay element, and we believe that some account should be taken of the enormous sums paid on stamp duty in the Dublin area during the property boom."
They also argued for the discretionary rate to come into effect from January 1, 2014.
Irish Independent

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

There's nothing unusual about creditors being paid out of the proceeds of estates. The LPT legislation doesn't alter anything substantially in this regard.

Do you think debts should die with people but assets get transferred?

Revenue/government are not creditors

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

Revenue/government are not creditors

How do you figure that?

oscarBravo

Hijpo wrote: »

Revenue/government are not creditors

Not only are they creditors, they are preferred creditors.

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

How do you figure that?

In what context are you using creditor and give an example

bgrizzley

Phoebas wrote: »

There's nothing unusual about creditors being paid out of the proceeds of estates. The LPT legislation doesn't alter anything substantially in this regard.

Do you think debts should die with people but assets get transferred?

No but I don't think anyone should have the right to sell a family home because of a couple of hundred euros.

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

In what context are you using creditor and give an example

In the context of the Revenue getting outstanding tax paid from an estate of course.

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

In the context of the Revenue getting outstanding tax paid from an estate of course.

Who are the creditors in that situation, the government?

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

Who are the creditors in that situation, the government?

The Revenue. Where are you going with this? If its Freeman codology, I'm not interested.

oscarBravo

Hijpo wrote: »

Who are the creditors in that situation, the government?

Revenue themselves.

MadYaker

I love paying taxes.

Banjo String

MadYaker wrote: »

I love paying taxes.

You should pay for everyone that opposes the home tax so.

Hijpo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Revenue themselves.

Oh right, its just that a quick google states that A *creditor* is a party (e.g. person, organization, company, or government) that has a claim on the services of a second party. It is a person or institution to whom money is owed. the first party, in general, has provided some property or service to the second party under the assumption that the second party will return an equivalent property and service. The second party is frequently called a debtor or borrower.

I recieved my house from a developer and the funds from a bank, revenue havent given me any property or service that puts me in there debt yet they manage to credit themselves with an object that is in negative equity which does not generate an income for the owners.

No freeman ideologies here. Dont believe in the stuff, its complete nonsence.

Le_Dieux

MadYaker wrote: »

I love paying taxes.

OMG..., making a statement like this ( cannot believe ANYONE would make such a statement in earnest) it's no wonder we have 2 camps so bitterly divided.

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

I recieved my house from a developer and the funds from a bank, revenue havent given me any property or service that puts me in there debt yet they manage to credit themselves with an object that is in negative equity which does not generate an income for the owners.

You must be living completely off the grid.

Hijpo wrote: »

No freeman ideologies here. Dont believe in the stuff, its complete nonsence.

And rejecting the idea that Revenue can be creditors is just as much nonsense as you hear from the Freemen.

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

You must be living completely off the grid.


And rejecting the idea that Revenue can be creditors is just as much nonsense as you hear from the Freemen.

Are you in reciept of something from them?
They way your going on i wouldnt be suprised if your answer was a salary

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

Are you in reciept of something from them?
They way your going on i wouldnt be suprised if your answer was a salary

This is just getting silly. Without the Revenue service, no other service in the country would exist, so we all benefit from their services.

Not that it makes a bit of difference whether you think you get a service from them or not. They are creditors for unpaid tax and they do have a legal right to collect outstanding LPT from estates.

oscarBravo

Hijpo wrote: »

Oh right, its just that a quick google states...

Do some more googling, this time for "preferred creditor".

cageyeuclid

Phoebas wrote: »

No. But the deferrals are open ended, so an OAP who is never able to afford it will never pay it.
.......
Do you think its just to collect outstanding credit card bills or utility bills or outstanding mortgages repayments from long term social welfare recipients getting back to work?

Re deferal ... so LPT will never be collected from the estate ???

Outstanding credit card bills etc are voluntary ... not so with
the Enforced, Unjust, Unfair and Cruel LPT .... and your asking a question is not answering my question and you give no justification for cruel LPT levied on the poor. Face it ... you cannot justify LPT on the poor.

To say its the law is no justification .. rem Hitler legally attacked England and but for a few quirks of fate we would now all be by law (Hitler's) only speaking German unless we resisted just as we should resist an equally unjust and immoral LPT.
In fact according to Jefferson we all have a duty to resist an unjust law.

Chips Lovell

You're comparing the local property tax to Hitler's conquest of Europe?

Phoebas

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Re deferal ... so LPT will never be collected from the estate ???

Your OAP will never pay it, but his estate will.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Outstanding credit card bills etc are voluntary ... not so with
the Enforced, Unjust, Unfair and Cruel LPT .... and your asking a question is not answering my question and you give no justification for cruel LPT levied on the poor. Face it ... you cannot justify LPT on the poor.

The 'poor' property owner has a deferral option. I can't think of any other tax that affords a deferral to the 'poor'.

Of course property ownership is also voluntary, so should 'the poor' also be exempt from mortgages repayments too?

cageyeuclid wrote: »

To say its the law is no justification .. rem Hitler legally attacked England and but for a few quirks of fate we would now all be by law (Hitler's) only speaking German unless we resisted just as we should resist an equally unjust and immoral LPT.
In fact according to Jefferson we all have a duty to resist an unjust law.

We're starting to wander down crazy street now!!!

tayto lover

Phoebas wrote: »

Your OAP will never pay it, but his estate will.


The 'poor' property owner has a deferral option. I can't think of any other tax that affords a deferral to the 'poor'.

Of course property ownership is also voluntary, so should 'the poor' also be exempt from mortgages repayments too?


The poor were given the choice whether to own property or not.
They were not given the choice of paying LPT. It was forced on them.

cageyeuclid

Phoebas wrote: »

...
We're starting to wander down crazy street now!!!

So you think it is crazy to resist UNJUST, UNFAIR and CRUEL LPT because it is the law.

MadYaker

cageyeuclid wrote: »

So you think it is crazy to resist UNJUST, UNFAIR and CRUEL LPT because it is the law.

You really aren't doing your side of the argument any favors at all.

cageyeuclid

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You're comparing the local property tax to Hitler's conquest of Europe?

Dont be silly ... Cruel LPT is a serious issue.

Hitler did things legally .. an extreme example that Law does not make things JUST. ... and law certainly does not make LPT just.

I guess ther is no point quoting Jefferson again?

MadYaker

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Dont be silly ... Cruel LPT is a serious issue.

Hitler did things legally .. an extreme example that Law does not make things JUST. ... and law certainly does not make LPT just.

I guess ther is no point quoting Jefferson again?

Not really considering he is an American politician who died a few hundred years ago and has no relevance to the Irish LPT.

Chips Lovell

I suppose you could quote Jefferson again, but it doesn't really explain why taxing property is so unjust.

cageyeuclid

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.

...

“Extreme example” is infuriating and in line with your heartless LPT ..... how many carers have a family home to pass on to Special Needs offspring? ... have you any idea how hurtful your “extreme example” suggestion is to those tens of thousands of carers? I guess you will be as heartless about those “extreme example” words as you are about CRUEL LPT.

According to you, revenue will take deferred LPT from the estate of the poor .. that’s passing it on to offspring; and may I remind you that that is an offspring unable to defend itself (or even fill out a revenue form).

Do you have a URL re “excessive hardship amendments” that is news to me ... please post it.

Phoebas

tayto lover wrote: »

The poor were given the choice whether to own property or not.
They were not given the choice of paying LPT. It was forced on them.

True enough, but the logical extension (of the argument I think you are trying to make) is that no taxes or tax rates should ever change because people don't have a choice about them (at least the taxes that are non discretionary).
I'd have sympathy for that view if the LPT rate was very high, but its quite modest, especially for home owners in the lowest bands.

tayto lover

Phoebas wrote: »

True enough, but the logical extension (of the argument I think you are trying to make) is that no taxes or tax rates should ever change because people don't have a choice about them (at least the taxes that are non discretionary).
I'd have sympathy for that view if the LPT rate was very high, but its quite modest, especially for home owners in the lowest bands.

Do you think it will stay low?
There are rumours already of a 15% increase by Councils.

Phoebas

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Do you have a URL re “excessive hardship amendments” that is news to me ... please post it.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/lpt/deferring-payment.html

Phoebas

tayto lover wrote: »

Do you think it will stay low?
There are rumours already of a 15% increase by Councils.

I'd say it'll rise over time, but the rises will be gradual and modest. (they can't go over the 15pct over the national rate)

I'd imagine most councils will hold it at the current rate in 2015 and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them introduced a nominal cut.

cageyeuclid

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I suppose you could quote Jefferson again, but it doesn't really explain why taxing property is so unjust.

I will post again later the full unjust side of LPT ... but in the meantime you might read my earlier posts.

I dont think taxing property that is creating revenue is unjust .. taxing a family home and especially tax without an "ability to pay" clause and LPT waivers is unjust.

The ordinary family home creates no revenue for the owner ... no revenue = no tax due. In fact the owner already pays tax on repairs and maintenance, so the family home is more a liability than an earning asset.

Stamp duty already taken makes LPT triple (or more ) taxation.

cageyeuclid

Phoebas wrote: »

I'd say it'll rise over time, but the rises will be gradual and modest. (they can't go over the 15pct over the national rate)

I'd imagine most councils will hold it at the current rate in 2015 and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them introduced a nominal cut.

Councillors in Dublin have little or no say ... the City Manager will impose a 15% raise on LPT even against their wishes.

Banjo String

MadYaker wrote: »

You really aren't doing your side of the argument any favors at all.

If you think your last contribution to the thread brought anything useful, you're very much disillusioned.

What response did you hope to get from your "I love paying taxes" post?


I can only assume it was a baiting/goading attempt, yeah?

MadYaker

SamHall wrote: »

If you think your last contribution to the thread brought anything useful, you're very much disillusioned.

What response did you hope to get from your "I love paying taxes" post?


I can only assume it was a baiting/goading attempt, yeah?

I'm not sure what I was hoping for really I didn't put much thought into it. Can't be arsed engaging seriously with these threads anymore. Its got to be the longest running circular argument in the history of boards.

The guy quoting Thomas Jefferson and comparing the LPT to Hitler's conquest of Europe made me laugh though, so fair play to him.

Banjo String

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Dont be silly ... Cruel LPT is a serious issue.

Hitler did things legally .. an extreme example that Law does not make things JUST. ... and law certainly does not make LPT just.

I guess ther is no point quoting Jefferson again?

MadYaker wrote: »

Not really considering he is an American politician who died a few hundred years ago and has no relevance to the Irish LPT.

You've supposedly no problem with him quoting an Irish one so?
Not just a politician, but now the Taoiseach.

It is absurd that the Government, which has at its disposal the best experts and accountancy mechanisms in the land, can say that only an additional 12,000 will enter the property tax net. Surely it is obvious that this figure will be exceeded in the Dublin area. In general, the perception is that country people are against concessions being granted to Dublin but all Irish people believe that a man's house is his castle. It is morally unjust and unfair to tax a person's home, and by so doing grind him into the ground. Indeed in cases it could probably be unconstitutional.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1994/02/02/00007.asp


Talk about doing a u- turn on your morals Enda.

Chips Lovell

cageyeuclid wrote: »

I dont think taxing property that is creating revenue is unjust .. taxing a family home and especially tax without an "ability to pay" clause and LPT waivers is unjust.

The ordinary family home creates no revenue for the owner ... no revenue = no tax due. In fact the owner already pays tax on repairs and maintenance, so the family home is more a liability than an earning asset.

Well aside form the fact that owning your own house provides notional revenue, I'm not sure why you think something needs to be revenue generating in order to be taxed. Plenty of other non-revenue generating assets are taxed as well.

As for think it's "unjust", do you think every other country that operates a property tax system is also being unjust? Funnily enough, they all seem to manage it without bankrupting the poor, OAPs and the disabled.

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Well aside form the fact that owning your own house provides notional revenue, I'm not sure why you think something needs to be revenue generating in order to be taxed. Plenty of other non-revenue generating assets are taxed as well.

As for think it's "unjust", do you think every other country that operates a property tax system is also being unjust? Funnily enough, they all seem to manage it without bankrupting the poor, OAPs and the disabled.

We should raise our corporate rate to match every other country too so right?

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Well aside form the fact that owning your own house provides notional revenue, I'm not sure why you think something needs to be revenue generating in order to be taxed. Plenty of other non-revenue generating assets are taxed as well.

As for think it's "unjust", do you think every other country that operates a property tax system is also being unjust? Funnily enough, they all seem to manage it without bankrupting the poor, OAPs and the disabled.

FFS are we back to the comparing ourselves with other countries again?
What other countries have a USC, a very high VRT rate etc etc etc.
Same ole, same ole going on all the time by the same people.
We pay an average of 52% tax and levies of all kinds on our wages and now we are to be lumped again with LPT and water taxes. The people have nothing left to give.
BUT ignore the Credit Union reports, the rise of Soup Kitchens, re-possessions, emigration etc and continue to back up Fine Gael at all costs.

Chips Lovell

SamHall wrote: »

We should raise our corporate rate to match every other country too so right?

tayto lover wrote: »

FFS are we back to the comparing ourselves with other countries again?
What other countries have a USC, a very high VRT rate etc etc etc.
Same ole, same ole going on all the time by the same people.
We pay an average of 52% tax and levies of all kinds on our wages and now we are to be lumped again with LPT and water taxes. The people have nothing left to give.
BUT ignore the Credit Union reports, the rise of Soup Kitchens, re-possessions, emigration etc and continue to back up Fine Gael at all costs.

I think you're both missing the point here. The discussion was about whether the property tax was somehow uniquely unjust in itself. Which it clearly isn't given that plenty of other countries manage to do it. This is not the same as saying "I don't want to pay the property tax because I think I pay enough tax already".

BTW, we don't pay "an average of 52 per cent on our wages". The marginal rate is 52 per cent, not the average

oscarBravo

tayto lover wrote: »

What other countries have... a very high VRT rate...

The top rate of VRT in Denmark is 180%.

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

Revenue themselves.

And do revenue keep it for themselves?

tayto lover

oscarBravo wrote: »

The top rate of VRT in Denmark is 180%.

And for other countries?

http://www.independent.ie/business/waiting-for-the-end-of-vrt-dont-hold-your-breath-26032068.html

Irish pre-tax prices on cars are among the lowest in Europe.

But after VRT in slapped on, prices are among the highest, around 40pc dearer on average.

Going Forward

darkhorse wrote: »

And do revenue keep it for themselves?

Investigation into alleged theft of credit card details relating to Property Tax announced by Revenue:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0512/391864-probe-into-alleged-property-tax-helpline-fraud/

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I think you're both missing the point here.

I'm not.

My last two points were about what the leader of FG (Our Taoiseach) said in the Dail about taxing a family home. And what we try and copy from 'other countries'.

once again:

It is absurd that the Government, which has at its disposal the best experts and accountancy mechanisms in the land, can say that only an additional 12,000 will enter the property tax net. Surely it is obvious that this figure will be exceeded in the Dublin area. In general, the perception is that country people are against concessions being granted to Dublin but all Irish people believe that a man's house is his castle. It is morally unjust and unfair to tax a person's home, and by so doing grin Which it clearly isn'td him into the ground. Indeed in cases it could probably be unconstitutional.

Enda Kenny said it was immoral, unjust and unfair Vladamir, not I.
You should lobby him to give some reasoning as to his u-turn

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The discussion was about whether the property tax was somehow uniquely unjust in itself. given that plenty of other countries manage to do it. This is not the same as saying "I don't want to pay the property tax because I think I pay enough tax already".

So, I reiterate my point, why must we emulate a family home tax (though ours is indeed unique in that we get nothing for ours) from 'all other countries', yet the government steadfast refuse to raise our corporation tax rates to match 'those of other European countries'?

Btw, I love digging up that quote from Enda.
I hope the history books tear strips from him on that quote alone;)

Unconstitutional Enda? Really? Yet you're attempting to ram it down our throats now no matter what?