Dublin City Council disgrace again

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't think it's fair myself. You might have been lucky and bought a house only to have your neighbourhood go up in value. Your house might be worth more than you paid for it but you are not wealthier IMO.

Price of asset increases = you are wealthier.

Simple basic economic fact.

How can you deny reality?

markpb

blanch152 wrote: »

Price of asset increases = you are wealthier.

Simple basic economic fact.

How can you deny reality?

You might be wealthier but it doesn't necessarily mean you can afford to pay more tax, especially if it's your PPR.

n97 mini

blanch152 wrote: »

Price of asset increases = you are wealthier.

Simple basic economic fact.

How can you deny reality?

On paper. No extra cash in your pocket or in your bank account.

blanch152

n97 mini wrote: »

On paper. No extra cash in your pocket or in your bank account.

The same applies to the likes of Denis O’Brien, most of his gains in wealth are for increases in the price of assets, yet the same people who are against that principle in the case of LPT, are for it in the case of Denis O’Brien.

Go figure.

Geuze

odyssey06 wrote: »

It is supposed to pay for local services.

The LPT does pay for local services, as it is income to the council.

tjhook

is_that_so wrote: »

It's a fairly empty fairness claim. They don't actually need the money and can afford to do this, an option not realistically available to other councils beyond the Dublin region.

If a county needs to be subsidised by other counties, they should have to prove it.

Tipperary received a transfer of €15.5m in 2018 but only charged residents the standard rate. They're being subsidised by citizens in other counties.

A county should do what it can to raise funds before receiving transfers. People in Limerick or Galway (where property is likely to have a higher value, and thus higher absolute lpt charges) paid more than standard rates, why not counties that accept far higher transfers?

rivegauche

rivegauche wrote: »

Owning a home is a tax avoidance measure.

Where do people come up with this drivel.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Price of asset increases = you are wealthier.

Simple basic economic fact.

How can you deny reality?

So sell your house and buy things on Amazon from under a bridge.

blanch152 wrote: »

The same applies to the likes of Denis O’Brien, most of his gains in wealth are for increases in the price of assets, yet the same people who are against that principle in the case of LPT, are for it in the case of Denis O’Brien.

Go figure.

Is the new thing bringing up Denis O'Brien all the time to try make it seem like mentioning him at all is being silly?
Denis makes millions off the tax payer and FG government schemes. That's what makes Denis stand out, how the government throw him sweetners at a loss to the tax payer not what he does himself.

Geuze

Deleted User wrote: »

Where do people come up with this drivel.

PPR houses are exempt from CGT.

The imputed income from houses was taxed until 1969, then abolished.

There are two tax reliefs, there may be more.

Geuze

n97 mini wrote: »

On paper. No extra cash in your pocket or in your bank account.

Most wealth is not in the form of cash.

Most wealth in Ireland is in the form of housing.

n97 mini

blanch152 wrote: »

The same applies to the likes of Denis O’Brien, most of his gains in wealth are for increases in the price of assets

Which he can turn into cash at any time. Can't turn your house into cash and just carry on as if nothing happened aside from an increase in the bank balance.

odyssey06

Geuze wrote: »

PPR houses are exempt from CGT.
The imputed income from houses was taxed until 1969, then abolished.
There are two tax reliefs, there may be more.

There are tax reliefs on many things e.g. private health insurance, pensions, income protection policies.
It doesn't mean that taking out such a policy is done as a tax avoidance measure.

blanch152

n97 mini wrote: »

Which he can turn into cash at any time. Can't turn your house into cash and just carry on as if nothing happened aside from an increase in the bank balance.

Many other assets are even less liquid than property. Some of them have penalties for encashment.

Selling a house and trading down is always a possibility, even renting or moving abroad are options.

The excuses trotted out to exempt J.P. McManus from the only tax he pays in Ireland are mind-boggling.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Many other assets are even less liquid than property. Some of them have penalties for encashment.

Selling a house and trading down is always a possibility, even renting or moving abroad are options.

The excuses trotted out to exempt J.P. McManus from the only tax he pays in Ireland are mind-boggling.

So your house is an asset you can't sell unless you replace it with another home. It can go up or down in value.
This makes it easier for you to pay taxes how?

Topgear on Dave

Whats the story Matt?

In one thread you want the government to build houses.

And in this thread you don't want to help pay for them?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So your house is an asset you can't sell unless you replace it with another home. It can go up or down in value.
This makes it easier for you to pay taxes how?

Again, that isn't what I said. You can replace it by renting, by living in a hotel, by moving abroad, by moving to a smaller place, by moving in with family, there are plenty of options.

One of the biggest contributions to the housing problem in Dublin are couples who live in a huge house too big for their needs and refuse to trade down. If those properties could be freed up for families, it would help the housing problem. LPT encourages them to trade down.

It is hypocritical to be against LPT and also to complain about the housing issue. No problem for the likes of Paul Murphy to be hypocritical and two-faced like that, but I would have thought that we could expect a little more rigourous thinking on here, rather than reflex adoration of all that is populist.

James Brown

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Whats the story Matt?

In one thread you want the government to build houses.

And in this thread you don't want to help pay for them?

You're confused Dave. If we put any money into social housing we'd not have a housing crisis.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, that isn't what I said. You can replace it by renting, by living in a hotel, by moving abroad, by moving to a smaller place, by moving in with family, there are plenty of options.

One of the biggest contributions to the housing problem in Dublin are couples who live in a huge house too big for their needs and refuse to trade down. If those properties could be freed up for families, it would help the housing problem. LPT encourages them to trade down.

How long would you remain wealthy living in a hotel. Smacks of 'let them eat cake'. 'No house? Stay in a hotel' :rolleyes:
Mind you that's FG housing policy.

blanch152 wrote: »

It is hypocritical to be against LPT and also to complain about the housing issue. No problem for the likes of Paul Murphy to be hypocritical and two-faced like that, but I would have thought that we could expect a little more rigourous thinking on here, rather than reflex adoration of all that is populist.

No it's not.

You talk about the level of debate, but you don't engage in debate, you just attack Blanch.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How long would you remain wealthy living in a hotel. Smacks of 'let them eat cake'. 'No house? Stay in a hotel' :rolleyes:
Mind you that's FG housing policy.



No it's not.

You talk about the level of debate, but you don't engage in debate, you just attack Blanch.

Just pick one of the options - living in a hotel and engage the populist nonsensical response.

There are huge holes in every post you make. It is impossible to debate with someone who denies the reality of simple basic economics.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Just pick one of the options - living in a hotel and engage the populist nonsensical response.

There are huge holes in every post you make. It is impossible to debate with someone who denies the reality of simple basic economics.

You suggested people could live in a hotel. That's your nonsense right there.

Always found it odd you label no mark parties on single digit support 'populist'.

No holes. You create holes by misrepresenting my comments. Why always on the attack? No need Blanch.

n97 mini

blanch152 wrote: »

Many other assets are even less liquid than property. Some of them have penalties for encashment.

Selling a house and trading down is always a possibility

Can a family of 5 in a 3-bed semi can trade down?

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

PPR houses are exempt from CGT.

The imputed income from houses was taxed until 1969, then abolished.

There are two tax reliefs, there may be more.

"There may be more than 2 tax reliefs" is a monumental shift from your original post of "Owning a home is a tax avoidance measure". People don't buy property to get out of paying taxes, or at least the vast, vast majority of people do not.

blanch152

n97 mini wrote: »

Can a family of 5 in a 3-bed semi can trade down?

It would actually be more economical in some cases to sell and rent a bigger house in a different location for the family of 5, while then renting smaller properties as the family downsizes.

That is how it works in most countries with functioning rental markets. A single type or size of house doesn't suit a person or a family from start to finish. Needs change.

If you are 20 and single buying an apartment on the third floor with a stairs might work to keep fit, but if you are 80 with arthritis or 35 with two babies, it won't work. Ditto your three-bed semi, what do you do when the family grows up and leaves.

The Irish attitude to property is strange.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You suggested people could live in a hotel. That's your nonsense right there.

Always found it odd you label no mark parties on single digit support 'populist'.

No holes. You create holes by misrepresenting my comments. Why always on the attack? No need Blanch.

I have every intention of selling my house when I am 75 and living in a hotel or on cruises from the profit thereafter. If I die before the money runs out, it can be inherited. If the money runs out before I die, I will have had a great time, and there will be no house for the State to take under the Fair Deal Scheme so I will get free nursing home care.

Simple economics.

As for populist, FF is a populist party. Look at the bould Willie, has to find €5 on the pension every year, no matter whether our public transport is crying out for investment. He is a successful populist, unlike the no mark parties you favour.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

"There may be more than 2 tax reliefs" is a monumental shift from your original post of "Owning a home is a tax avoidance measure". People don't buy property to get out of paying taxes, or at least the vast, vast majority of people do not.

Buying a house was the most tax-efficient thing I ever did. Being in the public service at the time I couldn't get tax relief from pension contributions, so a house was the next-best option.

Now that the mortgage is paid, currently looking at whether a second house is worth it. Might wait a year or two until prices come down.

The fact that it is tax efficient is just a by-product of the purchase and use of the house though. I mean, ask yourself......is the reason you bought it to avoid paying tax or to have your own place?

Also, if you think buying a second property is a good way to avoid paying more tax I've got news for you, pal.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that it is tax efficient is just a by-product of the purchase and use of the house though. I mean, ask yourself......is the reason you bought it to avoid paying tax or to have your own place?

Even though I knew I would be living abroad for part of the time, I bought rather than rented because of the tax efficiencies.

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, if you think buying a second property is a good way to avoid paying more tax I've got news for you, pal.

You now get 100% tax relief on mortgage interest if you buy to rent.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

You now get 100% tax relief on mortgage interest if you buy to rent.

A €250,000 mortgage @ 4.5% works out about €1,600 per month which is €900 in interest at the start.

If you rented that property for €1,600 per month (same as the mortgage) you have to pay roughly €400 per month on tax, after the interest relief and before any other deductions.

If you are able to rent it for €2,000 per month, the tax bill jumps to almost €600.

All assuming you are paying at the higher rate.

AlmightyCushion

Deleted User wrote: »

A €250,000 mortgage @ 4.5% works out about €1,600 per month which is €900 in interest at the start.

If you rented that property for €1,600 per month (same as the mortgage) you have to pay roughly €400 per month on tax, after the interest relief and before any other deductions.

If you are able to rent it for €2,000 per month, the tax bill jumps to almost €600.

All assuming you are paying at the higher rate.

However, in that scenario, you are paying down the capital on the property by €700 a month. It is cash-flow negative but the capital repayments and appreciation can make it a good investment.

Agreed, I'm not downplaying purchasing property as an investment....in fact it's number one compared to deposit interest rates etc. at the moment. I'm just talking purely in terms of paying tax.

In the first example above, you are receiving €1,600 in rent, paying it all out on the mortgage, then you're hit with a bill for €7k at the end of the year (minus deductibles).

In case anyone is interested, that 250k loan @ 4.5% over 20 years amounts to a total repayment of 380k, or €130,000 in interest alone.