€3750 for per year for house tax...

Guy:Incognito

delthedriver wrote: »

In France the CEO's of the Banks would be jailed until proven innocent
.

Do you really want that legal system or just once its only for other people? Id say youd be fairly against it if a crime was commited close enough to you for you to be viable suspect.

After that we can deal with your list of laws "the bankers" your referring to broke..........

And for clarity, is it everyone that worked in a bank/people above a certain level/ the people that signed mortgages that people willingly asked for or who exactly?

bacon n eggs

Is it covering anything this tax in Ireland?

The goverments arses

ilovesleep

I dreamt last night I went into a pub and asked for an Irish breakfast which was priced at 11 euro on the board. The bill came and they charged me 55 euro. The 44 euro extra was all tax.

highvisjacket

we pay 210 per year

Slick50

Phoebas wrote: »

I think its Richie Boucher you're referring to. He is the BoI CEO. They are not state owned, but the state is a minor shareholder.

A 15% stake in one of the countries largest banks is minor? And €800k+ for the man who was part the management that ran that bank full speed onto the rocks, and gets promoted.?

Phoebas wrote: »

The onus for registering, assessing and paying the LPT is on the homeowner, not on the Revenue. I doubt any prank like that would get you anywhere

It's not a prank if I'm not liable for this tax, they're sending these things out willy-nilly, in a dragnet fishing exercise.

Phoebas wrote: »

(apart from a penalty charge).

For returning an incorrect assessment? (have you given up on the micro and light addendums?)

Phoebas wrote: »

He became unstuck.

In what way? has someone actually been brought to justice for something?

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

And for clarity, is it everyone that worked in a bank/people above a certain level/ the people that signed mortgages that people willingly asked for or who exactly?

How about starting with the ones who deliberately misled their internal auditors, the ones who illegally borrowed from their own banks. The ones who manifestly failed in their duty to run their banks in a sustainable manner. The ones who illegally transfered huge sums between their banks to cover up their actions.

Phoebas

Slick50 wrote: »

A 15% stake in one of the countries largest banks is minor?

Yes.

Slick50 wrote: »

It's not a prank if I'm not liable for this tax, they're sending these things out willy-nilly, in a dragnet fishing exercise.

If you're not liable for the LPT then sending them back the notice telling them you're not liable isn't a prank - its just telling the truth.
I'd be telling them the reason you're not liable (e.g. if you're just renting or something), because if you don't give them enough information to change their assessment, their likely to pursue it and take the money off you - liable or not.

Slick50

Phoebas wrote: »

Yes.

I disagree.

Phoebas wrote: »

If you're not liable for the LPT then sending them back the notice telling them you're not liable isn't a prank - its just telling the truth.

It's you who described it as a prank in the first place.

Phoebas wrote: »

I'd be telling them the reason you're not liable (e.g. if you're just renting or something), because if you don't give them enough information to change their assessment, their likely to pursue it and take the money off you - liable or not.

They can f*ck off and do their own research, if they take money from me that I do not owe, they will be going to court.

JD DABA

Written off against Job seekers allowance account.

Banjo String

gustafo wrote: »

How reliable is http://www.daft.ie/property-tax/

when i put in the details of my house there they say its worth 93k which would be 90 euro tax per year but revenue sent me a letter saying it's valued at the next tax bracket up which would cost 225 a year,

that's a fair bit of a difference, the less i can give them the better,

can i just send the form back with the value that's on daft.ie?

This seems to be a common complaint from homeowners, I think revenue are purposely putting people down for a higher tax band in the hope they'll contact them, thus confirming ownership etc.

They've already changed the 'you must inform us who owns the house, complete with their pps number etc' to 'we strongly ask' for those receiving the letters but not liable.

I'll be doing the exact opposite of what revenue tell us what not to do, and that is ignoring their letter.

If enough people simply ignore their demand the task of forcibly deducting will become unworkable.

Don't forget FG got voted into power with a mandate that was against a property tax, that's good enough for me to do the opposite of what they tell me to do.

Phoebas

Slick50 wrote: »

They can f*ck off and do their own research, if they take money from me that I do not owe, they will be going to court.

lol

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

lol

Why lol?

If they take money forcibly from someone not owing/liable for the lpt, why would some not be entitled to use a court of law?

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

Why lol?

If they take money forcibly from someone not owing/liable for the lpt, why would some not be entitled to use a court of law?

The idea that Slick50 isn't going to give any information to the Revenue to challenge their assessment but will wait 'till they take the assessed tax and then go whinging to the courts amuses me.

Interest, penalties and court costs. Some people just love paying over the odds.

tallus

I'm already three months behind on my mortgage payments. The revenue letter went into the fire with the rest of the rubbish.
I'm not helping these pricks to take money that I don't have out of my pocket.

Banjo String

With today being the deadline for postal returns, and (if you believe them) a reported -/+ 25% paid so far.

I'm guessing they're including landlords with multiple properties, and local authority houses paid for by the council in those figures.

3/4 liable have ignored the request so far, the coalition will be worried.

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

With today being the deadline for postal returns, and (if you believe them) a reported -/+ 25% paid so far.
...

3/4 liable have ignored the request so far, the coalition will be worried.

I doubt it. When are the majority of any taxes ever paid ahead of time? Revenue will mop up owed taxes over the mid term anyway - and any late penalties will just be a sweetener for them.

smash

tallus wrote: »

I'm already three months behind on my mortgage payments. The revenue letter went into the fire with the rest of the rubbish.

Should have used it as toilet paper... to save money like!

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

I doubt it. When are the majority of any taxes ever paid ahead of time? Revenue will mop up owed taxes over the mid term anyway - and any late penalties will just be a sweetener for them.

If 3/4 or even 1/2 of those liable to pay by the deadline don't. The govt don't have a mandate imo.
Michael D should then accept their cards and a general election called.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

SamHall wrote: »

If 3/4 or even 1/2 of those liable to pay by the deadline don't. The govt don't have a mandate imo.
Michael D should then accept their cards and a general election called.

So the cretins can vote FF back in? No thanks.

Banjo String

Meredith Future Marrow wrote: »

So the cretins can vote FF back in? No thanks.

Not necessarily.

FG could be returned to power. Maybe they'd consider breaking promises and downright lying to the electorate in that scenario.

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

If 3/4 or even 1/2 of those liable to pay by the deadline don't. The govt don't have a mandate imo.

You know what they say about opinions. So far what we do know is that a serious rump decided to pay ahead of time, and that the typical behaviour of the Irish public is to do everything at the 11th hour or a bit beyond. I know I've certainly never actually paid a TV licence on time, and I've yet to pay my LPT (online).

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

You know what they say about opinions. So far what we do know is that a serious rump decided to pay ahead of time, and that the typical behaviour of the Irish public is to do everything at the 11th hour or a bit beyond. I know I've certainly never actually paid a TV licence on time, and I've yet to pay my LPT (online).

I'd like to know how many of the 'rump' were local authority houses, paid for by the council's (the very same council's the money will allegedly be going to)

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

I'd like to know how many of the 'rump' were local authority houses, paid for by the council's (the very same council's the money will allegedly be going to)

You can assume most councils would push payment to the very last minute - any savvy accountant would. But they'll all have paid on time - postal or online. 100% local authority payments would account for less than 10% of the total owed.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

You can assume most councils would push payment to the very last minute - any savvy accountant would. But they'll all have paid on time - postal or online. 100% local authority payments would account for less than 10% of the total owed.

no, I'd assume it's in the council's best interest to artificially inflate the compliance figures, any county manager relying on the lpt to fund their €100k + salary will obviously want to massage the figures.

It's not like they're 'spending' the money anyway. Merely lending it to themselves.

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

no, I'd assume it's in the council's best interest to artificially inflate the compliance figures, any county manager relying on the lpt to fund their €100k + salary will obviously want to massage the figures.

It's not like they're 'spending' the money anyway. Merely lending it to themselves.

Well - the local authorities get the money regardless - so no need for inflating any figures. And while local authorities get funding back from the Revenue, it's not a given that they are 'lending it to themselves' in any case - overall, property taxes from high population authority regions subsidises low population regions. A bird in the hand and so on.

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

no, I'd assume it's in the council's best interest to artificially inflate the compliance figures, any county manager relying on the lpt to fund their €100k + salary will obviously want to massage the figures.

You're really grasping here Sam. There is no way for a country manager to 'artificially inflate' or 'massage' the LPT figures. They can either pay it early or pay it on time - there is nothing artificial or inflated about it.

In any case, it just doesn't make any sense for any LA (or anyone else with a substantial bill) to pay far ahead of time when they could be using that cash elsewhere.

Edit: The Revenue LPT project manager was just on the radio saying that they've had 500k returns so far, with the weekend post yet to be delivered.

Slick50

Phoebas wrote: »

The idea that Slick50 isn't going to give any information to the Revenue to challenge their assessment but will wait 'till they take the assessed tax and then go whinging to the courts amuses me.

Interest, penalties and court costs. Some people just love paying over the odds.

You either have a sick sense of humour, or you're as arrogant as the arseholes who lied their way into office, and then introduced this home tax. You find it amusing that, given all the information they need, ie. "I do not owe this", they will proceed to "take it" without any justification. It is not for me to do their work.

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

You either have a sick sense of humour, or you're as arrogant as the arseholes who lied their way into office, and then introduced this home tax. You find it amusing that, given all the information they need, ie. "I do not owe this", they will proceed to "take it" without any justification. It is not for me to do their work.

I guess you've never had to submit any self-assessed taxes then?

Just to clarify - you are a liable LPT payer, no? Nothing to do with what you feel about the tax, just your liability status. That should let you know if your issued form is 'justified' or not. For a bit of clarity - the form allows for 1. Liable, 2. Exempt, or 3. Incorrectly issued to recipient. Seems like you fall into one of those camps.

Phoebas

Slick50 wrote: »

You either have a sick sense of humour, or you're as arrogant as the arseholes who lied their way into office, and then introduced this home tax. You find it amusing that, given all the information they need, ie. "I do not owe this", they will proceed to "take it" without any justification. It is not for me to do their work.

I'm just relating what I heard from the Revenue (LPT project manager on the radio a couple of months ago).
If you don't provide enough information for them to change the assessment, they will pursue it.

You might try something like "I do not owe this ... because I'm just renting this property from [Landlord]" or "I do not owe this ... because the house is owned by my wife [details attached]".

Its odd that someone who isn't liable wouldn't just cooperate - it'll save you a whole lot of pain in the long run. Its amusing that you'd unnecessarily subject yourself to unnecessary hassle.

Here's what the revenue ask of people who are not liable.

Revenue.ie wrote:

Because Revenue has compiled a Register of residential properties from various sources, it may contain errors in relation to the ownership of some properties. If you receive a Return and you consider that you are not the liable person for the property, or that the property is not a residential property (see Question 2),you should inform Revenue by writing to: LPT Branch, P.O. Box 1, Limerick within 30 days of the date of the
enclosed letter and include:
● The name(s), address(es) and PPSN(s) of the liable person(s).
● The reason(s) why you consider you are not the liable person or why the property is not a residential property.
● Whatever supporting documentation (copies are sufficient) may be relevant, e.g. copy of a lease agreement if you are a tenant; proof of sale of the property before 1 May 2013 etc.

Based on this information Revenue will consider your claim and make a decision on the matter. It is important that you contact Revenue to correct our Register because in the absence of any correction, you are liable to pay the tax.

Slick50

Phoebas wrote: »

Its odd that someone who isn't liable wouldn't just cooperate - it'll save you a whole lot of pain in the long run. Its amusing that you'd unnecessarily subject yourself to unnecessary hassle.

I find it odd that people are "amused" that revenue can assess someone liable for whatever they feel like, and the onus is then on that person to disprove it. I find it abhorrent, that I should ever have to pay rent on my own home, and will not be assisting revenue with their fishing exercise.

Phoebas wrote: »

Here's what the revenue ask of people who are not liable.

They can f*ck off, and do their own job.

Phoebas

Slick50 wrote: »

I find it odd that people are "amused" that revenue can assess someone liable for whatever they feel like, and the onus is then on that person to disprove it. I find it abhorrent, that I should ever have to pay rent on my own home, and will not be assisting revenue with their fishing exercise.

I'm not amused by the fact that Revenue can raise tax assessments - that's a pretty standard taxman's MO all around the world.
I'm amused that you find it so abhorrent and amused that you would rather end up paying tax you aren't liable for rather than deal with the Revenue according to their rules.

Slick50 wrote: »

They can f*ck off, and do their own job.

You tell them that and see how far you get.

Slick50

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm not amused by the fact that Revenue can raise tax assessments - that's a pretty standard taxman's MO all around the world.
I'm amused that you find it so abhorrent and amused that you would rather end up paying tax you aren't liable for rather than deal with the Revenue according to their rules.


You tell them that and see how far you get.

You're easily amused.

alastair

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm amused that you find it so abhorrent and amused that you would rather end up paying tax you aren't liable for rather than deal with the Revenue according to their rules.

It's not that funny. S/he's liable alright - all the bluster about 'not owing anything' is just distraction from the fact that the form is entirely justified in their case.

bgrizzley

RTE releases latest figures for homeowners paying up...

RTE NEWS

Banjo String

Its odd that someone who isn't liable wouldn't just cooperate - it'll save you a whole lot of pain in the long run. Its amusing that you'd unnecessarily subject yourself to unnecessary hassle.

I remember reading a few posts from people on these threads issuing similar advice to people in ghost estates/unfinished estates, urging them to register and cooperate, as they'd have nothing to fear etc etc etc.

A year later, and without so much as a builder or a county council official in sight, these estates miraculously were deemed 'finished' and thus became eligible for the property tax.

Looking back, it's almost like those posters urging the folk to register knew something the rest didn't..........:cool:

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

Looking back, it's almost like those posters urging the folk to register knew something the rest didn't..........:cool:

On the other hand - maybe if people paid their HHC, and collection of the LPT had therefore been left in that hands of local authorities, rather than the Revenue, unfinished estates might well still be exempt?

These what-if's can go either way. It's not like you had to register for the HHC to become liable for the LPT.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

These what-if's can go either way. It's not like you had to register for the HHC to become liable for the LPT.

No that's right.

But coincidentally, a lot of people in exempt estates for the hhc who failed to register have yet to receive anything from revenue...

Some supporters off the tax wanted people to help revenue complete that much sought after database.

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

On the other hand - maybe if people paid their HHC, and collection of the LPT had therefore been left in that hands of local authorities, rather than the Revenue, unfinished estates might well still be exempt?

These what-if's can go either way. It's not like you had to register for the HHC to become liable for the LPT.

Hmm, punishing one group because another refused to comply. now, where have i heard that one before?

dxhound2005

SamHall wrote: »

No that's right.

But coincidentally, a lot of people in exempt estates for the hhc who failed to register have yet to receive anything from revenue...

Some supporters off the tax wanted people to help revenue complete that much sought after database.

How many is a lot and where are you getting this information? The number exempt in 2012 was 43,000 (now 5,100) not a major consideration in the overall estimate of 1.61 million properties anyway.

I see you are still banging on about the government falling. More likely the whole CAHWT brigade will quietly disappear. It looks like more and more people are realising they were being led up the garden path by these chancers.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/household-tax-dodgers-pay-up-as-revenue-closes-in-29244149.html

In the past week alone, almost 20,000 homeowners have paid the household charge – in a massive surge.

Even in Donegal.

http://www.highlandradio.com/2013/05/02/donegal-county-council-reports-surge-in-household-charge-payments/

Banjo String

Lets remind readers of this thread what FG said in their pre-election manifesto published in 2011. (To put an end to the 'Ah sure Enda said that 20 years ago' crap).

Funding Local Government: Fianna Fail’s proposal, now endorsed by the Labour Party, to introduce by 2014 an annual, recurring residential property tax on the family home is unfair. But as we tackle the fiscal
crisis, we will have to cut central exchequer funding for local authorities, and we recognise that local authorities will have to find more sustainable sources of revenue appropriate to local circumstances. What
will be viewed as fair in South Dublin might be viewed as unworkable in rural Clare.
In this context, we will empower local authorities to put in place, following the 2014 local elections, fairer
alternatives to Fianna Fail’s and Labour’s recurring annual tax on the family home. The options would include:
• No extra local taxes, forcing local authorities to close non-priority services and / or to deliver increased
efficiencies;
• Increased local user charges for waste etc.; or
• The option of a local “site sale profits tax”. Such a tax would be levied on the profit made from the site value on the sale of a residence (sales proceeds, less cost indexed by inflation, less stamp duty paid and
less home improvements)
The final measure might be considered as both fairer and more economically sensible than an annual
recurring property tax. Whichever option local electorates choose, for the first time since the 1970s local
government will have real independence from central government in deciding what services to provide at
local level and how to fund them.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0215/finegaelmanifesto.pdf

And the Govt supporters on these threds call FF and SF 'Populists'

Enda and Co Lied to get into power. Never forget that.

bgrizzley

dxhound2005 wrote: »

How many is a lot and where are you getting this information? The number exempt in 2012 was 43,000 (now 5,100) not a major consideration in the overall estimate of 1.61 million properties anyway.

its a pretty damn big consideration to the 37,900 families living on building sites...

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

And the Govt supporters on these threds call FF and SF 'Populists'

And if a property tax wasn't introduced, Labour would be accused of lying to get into Government.

Funding Local Government: Fianna Fail’s proposal, now endorsed by the Labour Party, to introduce by 2014 an annual, recurring residential property tax on the family home is unfair

In a coalition Government, manifestos are just aspirations.

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

And if a property tax wasn't introduced, Labour would be accused of lying to get into Government.


In a coalition Government, manifestos are just aspirations.

You read it here first folks......


Labour made us do it............:pac:

UCDVet

Yes - but think of all the great benefits you get for paying that tax. Makes it all seem worth it.

Slick50

Phoebas wrote: »

And if a property tax wasn't introduced, Labour would be accused of lying to get into Government.

I can imagine the uproar now, from a disgruntled electorate.... "where's the property/home tax you promised!" Just amusing yourself again? Besides, I thought it was the troika made them do it.

UCDVet wrote: »

Yes - but think of all the great benefits you get for paying that tax. Makes it all seem worth it.

?????????????????????????????????

UCDVet

Slick50 wrote: »

I can imagine the uproar now, from a disgruntled electorate.... "where's the property/home tax you promised!" Just amusing yourself again? Besides, I thought it was the troika made them do it.


?????????????????????????????????

We need taxes to pay for things like roads and schools.

Banjo String

UCDVet wrote: »

We need taxes to pay for things like roads and schools.

Didn't I read on a different thread that the LPT wasn't applicable to you as you still live with your parents?

Slick50

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm not amused by the fact that Revenue can raise tax assessments - that's a pretty standard taxman's MO all around the world.

Shouldn't these assessments be based on something a little more tangible than a wild guess?

UCDVet wrote: »

We need taxes to pay for things like roads and schools.

Yes we do. I've been paying for them for a long time now, and still am, as are everyone else. This home tax is to replace the taxes that are being paid for these services, because those monies have been diverted elsewhere. Don't be conned into thinking we have been getting anything for nothing, re: services.

SamHall wrote:

Didn't I read on a different thread that the LPT wasn't applicable to you as you still live with your parents?

It doesn't really matter whether he is liable or not. Some day, when he is liable, he may not be so enthusiastic.

Phoebas

Slick50 wrote: »

Shouldn't these assessments be based on something a little more tangible than a wild guess?

They are; the Property Price Register is one data source they used.
But I wouldn't expect Revenue to get too far into the property valuation business. It is a self assessment tax after all.

Slick50

Phoebas wrote: »

They are; the Property Price Register is one data source they used.
But I wouldn't expect Revenue to get too far into the property valuation business. It is a self assessment tax after all.

Is that why they are sending assessments to deceased people, people who have never owned property, people who have already paid?

Phoebas

Slick50 wrote: »

Is that why they are sending assessments to deceased people, people who have never owned property, people who have already paid?

I doubt that comes into it. I'd say its a self assessment tax because homeowners are better placed to assess the value of their houses than the Revenue are.
Its not the only self assessment tax.