Noonan: Property Tax wont be used for Local Services

25-07-2013 10:48pm

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Was there a shortfall before the tax was introduced?

I haven't the foggiest Phill.

Trhiggy83 · 25-07-2013 10:51pm

How is this news to people..... guess what the broadcasting license wont fund rte either. (Money is gonna go straight into a big black whole to fund our thieves & robbers)

EyeSight · 25-07-2013 10:56pm

Don't those of us in Dublin have to pay more because we have more local services? Seems to go against this.... (for the record i am against the fact that Dublin gets way more investment than our other cities)

gowley · 25-07-2013 10:58pm

well phil hogan said all monies collected would go back to the local councils. how can you doubt what that gentleman says.

Captain Chaos · 25-07-2013 11:00pm

EyeSight wrote: »

Don't those of us in Dublin have to pay more because we have more local services? Seems to go against this.... (for the record i am against the fact that Dublin gets way more investment than our other cities)

What other cities in fairness. Cork just about qualifies by EU standards.

Boombastic · 25-07-2013 11:00pm

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Why is the word LOCAL in the official title of this tax?

LPT - Local Property Tax

Its a local tax for local people, we'll have no strangers here

EyeSight · 25-07-2013 11:02pm

Captain Chaos wrote: »

What other cities in fairness. Cork just about qualifies by EU standards.

are you really asking me what the cities of Ireland are?
Your comment just proves the lack of investment in them:rolleyes:

25-07-2013 11:07pm

Boombastic wrote: »

Its a local tax for local people, we'll have no strangers here

Sound, I'm just a blowin so exemption status for me! IN YOUR FACE, Locals! :P

Jumboman · 25-07-2013 11:11pm

The Property Tax was a scam from day one.

gowley · 25-07-2013 11:13pm

Jumboman wrote: »

The Property Tax was a scam from day one.

dont let big phil here yoy saying that

Maudi · 25-07-2013 11:13pm

Trhiggy83 wrote: »

How is this news to people..... guess what the broadcasting license wont fund rte either. (Money is gonna go straight into a big black whole to fund our thieves & robbers)

Everything.!!!E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G collected through taxpaying goes to bondholders.you put 30 euro petrol into your car..70%of it is TAX...wheres that tax going.yup kennicchios friends the bondholder..and dont forget our gov ARE the bondholders

Phill Ewinn · 25-07-2013 11:24pm

Jumboman wrote: »

The Property Tax was a scam from day one.

Ah now. Its only a scam if you fell for it.

I see Lowrey got raided by revenue on Tuesday. Only twenty years late. They should be around my house by 2030 so.

Phoebas · 25-07-2013 11:30pm

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Ah now. Its only a scam if you fell for it.

I see Lowrey got raided by revenue on Tuesday. Only twenty years late. They should be around my house by 2030 so.

Usually being put in the same category as the corrupt Lowrey is seen as an insult.

Strange to see someone volunteering themselves into the positon.

Ray Palmer · 26-07-2013 10:00am

EyeSight wrote: »

Don't those of us in Dublin have to pay more because we have more local services? Seems to go against this.... (for the record i am against the fact that Dublin gets way more investment than our other cities)

Economic reality, invest where the most people are able to avail of the services. The services covered by the household charge are being overpaid by those in Dublin as it is meant to be for local services Dublin subsidises the other areas. Effectively Dublin is being over charged and we should pay less due to economies of scale.

For the record most of the investment in Dublin is to generate more income for the exchequer. It is completely correct to do this, Dublin generates the income and pays the taxes. It still subsidises rural life.

donegal_road · 26-07-2013 10:30am

Ray, in your opinion will the household charge increase, and if so by how much?

Ray Palmer · 26-07-2013 11:02am

donegal_road wrote: »

Ray, in your opinion will the household charge increase, and if so by how much?

I'd reckon it will increase. I am under no illusions that it is the thin edge of the wedge. How much is anybody's guess. They in theory will have to state what the services are being covered and the accounts will be public information.

I think it is more likely an actual resident charge will come in on top. There is no logical reason why it should be the property owner and not the resident. User pays is the mentality of most other taxes relating to services.

Not sure why you are asking me. I don't have any special information on what is going on in the minds of the government. I just happen to know the method of collection which has been well publicised and available to all.

Boombastic · 26-07-2013 11:08am

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Ah now. Its only a scam if you fell for it.

I see Lowrey got raided by revenue on Tuesday. Only twenty years late. They should be around my house by 2030 so.

Don't pay the charge and use the money to build a big fence around your house. Isn't that what tax payers money is for?

EyeSight · 26-07-2013 12:24pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Economic reality, invest where the most people are able to avail of the services. The services covered by the household charge are being overpaid by those in Dublin as it is meant to be for local services Dublin subsidises the other areas. Effectively Dublin is being over charged and we should pay less due to economies of scale.

For the record most of the investment in Dublin is to generate more income for the exchequer. It is completely correct to do this, Dublin generates the income and pays the taxes. It still subsidises rural life.

Whatever about Dublin being charged more (i think it should be equal everywhere seeing as it's not being spend locally), it's stupid to say we should only invest in Dublin.

Sure it's economy is doing well, that's because the investment in the other cities is so poor and Dublins is great. Cork has been trying to develop their docklands for years which would greatly benefit their economy. Better transport infrastructure in other cities would be another key for foreign investment. It seems like you're saying to forget about the other cities and just focus on Dublin :rolleyes:
Don't get me started on the state of medical services outside of Dublin

The other cities already exist, people live there. Will we just abandon them and move everyone to Dublin? I have visited a few throughout the year and it's depressing how their main streets are like ghost towns! It shocked me as i live in Dublin city and the streets are always busy

Ray Palmer · 26-07-2013 1:01pm

EyeSight wrote: »

Whatever about Dublin being charged more (i think it should be equal everywhere seeing as it's not being spend locally), it's stupid to say we should only invest in Dublin.

Sure it's economy is doing well, that's because the investment in the other cities is so poor and Dublins is great. Cork has been trying to develop their docklands for years which would greatly benefit their economy. Better transport infrastructure in other cities would be another key for foreign investment. It seems like you're saying to forget about the other cities and just focus on Dublin :rolleyes:
Don't get me started on the state of medical services outside of Dublin

The other cities already exist, people live there. Will we just abandon them and move everyone to Dublin? I have visited a few throughout the year and it's depressing how their main streets are like ghost towns! It shocked me as i live in Dublin city and the streets are always busy

Well the reality is Dublin property owners pay more and that is the subject of this thread. If you want to talk about investment in Dublin then it is really another thread.

I never said only invest in Dublin. Economic facts and reality should always determine where money is spent. The country benefits from investment in Dublin.

The belief that all services should be available throughout the country in convenient location is ridiculous. It just is not economically viable. In most other countries if you live in a rural area you just accept the good with the bad.

If you had 100k to spend would you invest where it helps 20 people or another location where it helps 200. Not much point investing in something that will be closed down due to it not being viable.

We currently have Dublin Airport Authority paying the loan Shannon took out and DDA has no connection to Shannon now. An airport that was inflating it's use by forcing people to stop there. After decades of this it is still is not viable. If you want something make a valid economic argument for it. If Cork can't get investment for it's docklands then maybe it isn't viable or highly risky. Why should the government fund something if private investors don't see it as viable?

opinionated3 · 26-07-2013 1:09pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Well the reality is Dublin property owners pay more and that is the subject of this thread. If you want to talk about investment in Dublin then it is really another thread.

I never said only invest in Dublin. Economic facts and reality should always determine where money is spent. The country benefits from investment in Dublin.

The belief that all services should be available throughout the country in convenient location is ridiculous. It just is not economically viable. In most other countries if you live in a rural area you just accept the good with the bad.

If you had 100k to spend would you invest where it helps 20 people or another location where it helps 200. Not much point investing in something that will be closed down due to it not being viable.

We currently have Dublin Airport Authority paying the loan Shannon took out and DDA has no connection to Shannon now. An airport that was inflating it's use by forcing people to stop there. After decades of this it is still is not viable. If you want something make a valid economic argument for it. If Cork can't get investment for it's docklands then maybe it isn't viable or highly risky. Why should the government fund something if private investors don't see it as viable?

The DAA is welcome to pay that debt.......seeing as they completely held Shannon back from developing itself for years.

EyeSight · 26-07-2013 1:25pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Well the reality is Dublin property owners pay more and that is the subject of this thread. If you want to talk about investment in Dublin then it is really another thread.

I never said only invest in Dublin. Economic facts and reality should always determine where money is spent. The country benefits from investment in Dublin.

The belief that all services should be available throughout the country in convenient location is ridiculous. It just is not economically viable. In most other countries if you live in a rural area you just accept the good with the bad.

If you had 100k to spend would you invest where it helps 20 people or another location where it helps 200. Not much point investing in something that will be closed down due to it not being viable.

We currently have Dublin Airport Authority paying the loan Shannon took out and DDA has no connection to Shannon now. An airport that was inflating it's use by forcing people to stop there. After decades of this it is still is not viable. If you want something make a valid economic argument for it. If Cork can't get investment for it's docklands then maybe it isn't viable or highly risky. Why should the government fund something if private investors don't see it as viable?

you're right it is for another thread so we'll leave it there.

My first point was that if Dublin is paying more because we have more services, it should be spent in Dublin. Since it's going into one big pool i think we should pay equally.

dublinman1990 · 26-07-2013 1:37pm

I don't know whether this story is now having a sense of being overhyped or not!

After reading the story in the IDM yesterday; it was perceived to shock people (including myself) to a great extent.

I was under the impression that people who had sent in their LPT return late to pay the tax would lose out enormously in their wallets to pay something that was of little value to anyone.

However; I did read in that article that the DOF official is noted saying the transfer of our LPT money into the Local Government Fund is a "Transitional Measure" beginning in January 2014 which could be normal in the Irish political world & probably many others.

I am not a political expert or anything but I would say that it is up to ourselves how this story is perceived to be relevant.

Ray Palmer · 26-07-2013 1:44pm

EyeSight wrote: »

you're right it is for another thread so we'll leave it there.

My first point was that if Dublin is paying more because we have more services, it should be spent in Dublin. Since it's going into one big pool i think we should pay equally.

If somebody has a house 5 times bigger than me on a much larger plot of land I would expect them to pay more. Dublin doesn't have more services that are to be covered by this charge. You have to work it out proportionally e.g. park space per person.

Your plan would still have Dublin subsidising the rest of the country. It should be based on county expenses. They won't do it as people would go mental about paying their actual way down the country. Look at the behaviour of the turf cutters.

EyeSight · 26-07-2013 1:52pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

If somebody has a house 5 times bigger than me on a much larger plot of land I would expect them to pay more. Dublin doesn't have more services that are to be covered by this charge. You have to work it out proportionally e.g. park space per person.

Your plan would still have Dublin subsidising the rest of the country. It should be based on county expenses. They won't do it as people would go mental about paying their actual way down the country. Look at the behaviour of the turf cutters.

that's just because we are a whole country. Dublin has gotten plenty of investment payed for by the whole country. Its got to be give and take.
Seeing as this tax is going into one big pot i think it's more fair everyone pays the same rather than Dublin pays more and every other county pays equally.

It should be based on county, yes. But i don't think the government are willing to put up the cost & effort to do all that calculation. Hopefully they will soon

donegal_road · 26-07-2013 2:07pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not sure why you are asking me. I don't have any special information on what is going on in the minds of the government. I just happen to know the method of collection which has been well publicised and available to all.

I read in one of your posts that you are a consultant doing work in this area for the government.. I thought you would have some inside info. Thanks for the reply

Ray Palmer · 26-07-2013 2:32pm

EyeSight wrote: »

that's just because we are a whole country. Dublin has gotten plenty of investment payed for by the whole country. Its got to be give and take.
Seeing as this tax is going into one big pot i think it's more fair everyone pays the same rather than Dublin pays more and every other county pays equally.

It should be based on county, yes. But i don't think the government are willing to put up the cost & effort to do all that calculation. Hopefully they will soon

Not really. Dublin contributes most into the economy and has the largest population. Dublin provides services for the rest of the country and is available for others to use and they do. It isn't give and take, it is take and take. That is why it should be based on the resident not the property owner.

There is little or no cost to working out the figures. The household charge is already worked out by area it easily collated on that basis and then just worked out against the council expenses. It would cost about 2 days of development. The motivation of the government and the outrage of the people is the biggest factor.

It isn't official that they are not going to keep it council by council. They have put it out there, if there isn't a big enough reaction they will do it.

Ray Palmer · 26-07-2013 2:34pm

donegal_road wrote: »

I read in one of your posts that you are a consultant doing work in this area for the government.. I thought you would have some inside info. Thanks for the reply

Technical consultant. A bit like asking a guy working on fixing a road about the plans by the government regarding motorway expenditure.

Banjo String · 27-07-2013 6:49am

donegal_road · 27-07-2013 8:09am

so long guys

Cantona's Collars · 31-07-2013 1:41pm

A letter arrived today informing me that due to my not paying the Property Tax that they'll be informing my employers to deduct the sum owed from my wages:mad:

These guys don't hang around..........If I owed millions,I could give them the finger and live life in the lap of luxury while declaring I'm broke.

JustAddWater · 31-07-2013 3:00pm

zerks wrote: »

A letter arrived today informing me that due to my not paying the Property Tax that they'll be informing my employers to deduct the sum owed from my wages:mad:

These guys don't hang around..........If I owed millions,I could give them the finger and live life in the lap of luxury while declaring I'm broke.

Reply back and tell them you're self employed... See what they make of that!

De Bellem · 31-07-2013 4:38pm

zerks wrote: »

A letter arrived today informing me that due to my not paying the Property Tax that they'll be informing my employers to deduct the sum owed from my wages:mad:

These guys don't hang around..........If I owed millions,I could give them the finger and live life in the lap of luxury while declaring I'm broke.

They want your money to pay for those who are living in the lap of luxury.

Cantona's Collars · 01-08-2013 10:00am

Filed my return and marked it exempt.Even though they twisted the rules regarding unfinished estates to make sure the maximum amount of people pay.

Ray Palmer · 01-08-2013 10:50am

JustAddWater wrote: »

Reply back and tell them you're self employed... See what they make of that!

And it will take them seconds to check you are lying. Then they will prosecute you. Along with claiming you are exempt and not.

Jumboman · 01-08-2013 11:14pm

zerks wrote: »

A letter arrived today informing me that due to my not paying the Property Tax that they'll be informing my employers to deduct the sum owed from my wages:mad:

These guys don't hang around..........If I owed millions,I could give them the finger and live life in the lap of luxury while declaring I'm broke.

How do they know you own a house ? you should get them to prove it.

bgrizzley · 01-08-2013 11:34pm

zerks wrote: »

A letter arrived today informing me that due to my not paying the Property Tax that they'll be informing my employers to deduct the sum owed from my wages:mad:

These guys don't hang around..........If I owed millions,I could give them the finger and live life in the lap of luxury while declaring I'm broke.

Congrats zerks. Be proud you didn't roll over and make it easy for them.

Cantona's Collars · 02-08-2013 10:06pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

And it will take them seconds to check you are lying. Then they will prosecute you. Along with claiming you are exempt and not.

My estate is unfinished,the builder seems to have disappeared so in my eyes and many of my neighbours we are exempt.I'll gladly give somebody from Revenue a tour and ask them how they'd expect me to pay.

Cantona's Collars · 02-08-2013 10:09pm

Jumboman wrote: »

How do they know you own a house ? you should get them to prove it.

They know,they even have the missus name as co-owner.

Anyone that didn't originally get a letter and forms seems to have missed out on getting a follow up letter,Revenue claimed to have sent out over 50k of these follow up letters.IMO it's a scatter gun approach to see what they hit.

solas111 · 02-08-2013 10:19pm

greenpilot wrote: »

Just heard this on Today fm but I cannot find a link anywhere to it.

If this is true then we are all a bunch of fools.

:mad:

Can anyone shed any light on it?

Was there anyone out there who was naïve enough to actually believe that these multiple property taxes were going to be used for local services?

Q. How do you know that a politician is telling lies?
A. Watch him (or her) closely and if the lips move, they are lying.

Jumboman · 03-08-2013 12:39am

zerks wrote: »

They know,they even have the missus name as co-owner.

Anyone that didn't originally get a letter and forms seems to have missed out on getting a follow up letter,Revenue claimed to have sent out over 50k of these follow up letters.IMO it's a scatter gun approach to see what they hit.

Maybe they just guessed that you and your missus own a house seeing as most Irish people own a house. Unless you registered for the property tax I dont see how they know for sure that you own a house.

Phoebas · 03-08-2013 7:30am

Jumboman wrote: »

Maybe they just guessed that you and your missus own a house seeing as most Irish people own a house. Unless you registered for the property tax I dont see how they know for sure that you own a house.

TH Revenue don't need to know anything for sure. They just need to raise an LPT assessment and it is then up to you to either pay up or demonstrate that you're not liable.

bgrizzley · 03-08-2013 10:19am

Phoebas wrote: »

TH Revenue don't need to know anything for sure. They just need to raise an LPT assessment and it is then up to you to either pay up or demonstrate that you're not liable.

You have to admit that doesnt sound great, Phoebas.
Not for a supposed democratic state. whats next?
"the Courts dont need to know anything for sure"
"the health service doesnt need to know anything for sure"
"the Guards dont need to know anything for sure"

Phoebas · 03-08-2013 11:41am

bgrizzley wrote: »

You have to admit that doesnt sound great, Phoebas.

You're being a bit ridiculous. Its normal practise for revenue authorities around the world to raise tax assessments based on their best available information and for tax payers to have to either pay up or provide evidence to the contrary. Otherwise the revenue would need to have teams of officials embedded in every company in the state.

Its a bit rich for you to be complaining about the 'supposed democratic state' when you have this kind of attitude to it, where compiling with the law is 'rolling over' and you want to make it difficult for it to go about its business:

bgrizzley wrote: »

Congrats zerks. Be proud you didn't roll over and make it easy for them.

Jumboman · 03-08-2013 11:49am

Phoebas wrote: »

Its a bit rich for you to be complaining about the 'supposed democratic state'

And when did we vote for the property tax ?

solas111 · 03-08-2013 11:52am

Jumboman wrote: »

And when did we vote for the property tax ?

At the last General Election.

Jumboman · 03-08-2013 11:55am

solas111 wrote: »

At the last General Election.

Funny I dont remember FG or Labour campaigning on that issue.

Phoebas · 03-08-2013 11:58am

Jumboman wrote: »

And when did we vote for the property tax ?

When we voted for parties who had signed up to the Troika MOU where a property tax was clearly specified. Or anyone who voted for LAB who had a property tax in their actual manifesto.

That might not have included you, but in that case, you lost.

Phoebas · 03-08-2013 11:59am

Jumboman wrote: »

Funny I dont remember FG or Labour campaigning on that issue.

Did you read the labour manifesto? Or the MOU?

Jumboman · 03-08-2013 12:00pm

Phoebas wrote: »

Did you read the labour manifesto? Or the MOU?

No I didnt vote for either party because I knew they coundnt be trusted.

Phoebas · 03-08-2013 12:02pm

Jumboman wrote: »

No I didnt vote for either party because I knew they coundnt be trusted.

Well there you go then. Democracy in action. The other guys won.

Noonan: Property Tax wont be used for Local Services

Comments