Local Property Tax Increases

ted1

lleti wrote: »

Which is the way it should be. People in towns have way more services.

The cost of providing services is many times greater than in rural areas. E.g the cost of providing rural broadband.

Rural remote houses should pay many times more

Sleeper12

lleti wrote: »

Which is the way it should be. People in towns have way more services.

That will be changing shortly. FG wouldn't implement the recommended changes before the election but they will be implemented

tjhook

lleti wrote: »

Which is the way it should be. People in towns have way more services.

People in towns are clustered together to make service provision cheaper per residence. People who choose to build/buy a house in an area where service provision will be expensive should pay for that.

Or, as you say yourself: "you're free to sell and move to another jurastiction".

NinjaTruncs

lleti wrote: »

Which is the way it should be. People in towns have way more services.

So people in town have way more services, as a result should pay higher lpt. How could people in the countryside get better services?

L1011

lleti wrote: »

Which is the way it should be. People in towns have way more services.

The services provided to a one-off house cost the state vastly, vastly more to provide than to those in towns and cities. There hasn't had to be any subsidy to commercial broadband rollout in towns/cities but we're looking at five figures a property for one-offs for instance.

If you paid based on cost of provision, the LPT for a McMansion would be painfully high compared to a terrace in a town.

lleti

ted1 wrote: »

No it hasn’t. Not until you sell it. It may be heavily mortgaged.


It’s speculative tax, any other form of accounting assets are valued at the lower or their purchase price or net realisable value.

If you say that then the billionaires of the world are not billionaires.

anewme

They also did not record how each member voted. Personally, I would also like to know how each Council Member voted and why those who "abstained" did so. Its also interesting that a roll call vote was not requested by the members, given that it is such an important issue. Transparency is essential.

"With 19 members voting in favour, 5 members voting against and 13 members abstaining, the motion to vary the base rate of local property tax for 2020 by +7.5% was passed at the September plenary council meeting.

A roll call vote was not requested by the members thus details of how each member voted was not recorded."

ted1

lleti wrote: »

If you say that then the billionaires of the world are not billionaires.

It’s only a label.

Joe Public

lleti wrote: »

Which is the way it should be. People in towns have way more services.

It's a property tax not a services tax.

Orion

lleti wrote: »

Lucky you then, you've had a massive increase in net worth.

Woohoo. I've got net worth that adds nothing to my disposable income. Exactly what I wanted.

lleti

Orion wrote: »

Woohoo. I've got net worth that adds nothing to my disposable income. Exactly what I wanted.

It's the exact same as being in negative equity, everyone was complaining about it a decade ago.

As I said, the likes of Bezos are called billionaires and it's not money in their account either!

NinjaTruncs

But they aren't taxed on that value until the realise it. Something you don't seem to understand, or unwilling to accept.

CSSE09

anewme wrote: »

They also did not record how each member voted. Personally, I would also like to know how each Council Member voted and why those who "abstained" did so. Its also interesting that a roll call vote was not requested by the members, given that it is such an important issue. Transparency is essential.

"With 19 members voting in favour, 5 members voting against and 13 members abstaining, the motion to vary the base rate of local property tax for 2020 by +7.5% was passed at the September plenary council meeting.

A roll call vote was not requested by the members thus details of how each member voted was not recorded."

Ide Cussen posted the names of the leixlip and celbridge councillors at least
Voted in favour: Vanessa Liston, Nuala Kileen, Joe Neville.
Voted against: Bernard Caldwell, Ide Cussen, Michael Coleman
Abstained: Ciara Galvin

There might be more info on Ides Facebook page that's where I pulled that from.

From a screenshot I took from another news site, Galvin wanted a 5% increase, McEvoy wanted 10%, Keatley proposed the 7.5% increase.

L1011

Cussen wanted a 15% decrease!

Still hasn't lost the SF magic money tree anyway

Lot of the minor fixes for annoying things that KCC had been ignoring for years are only being done due to the councillors having that 15% to spend in their own areas.

anewme

L1011 wrote: »

Cussen wanted a 15% decrease!

Still hasn't lost the SF magic money tree anyway

Lot of the minor fixes for annoying things that KCC had been ignoring for years are only being done due to the councillors having that 15% to spend in their own areas.

The 15% decrease would have left it the same as last year.

The Council are elected by the voters and gave a duty to those voters. I am tagainst those who abstain (cop out) and also the fact that the Council did not keep full and transparent voting records.

Kintarō Hattori

lleti wrote: »

You own an asset that's increased by X amount, your net worth has increased by X amount.

It's not an asset, it's a family home, a space over your head... that's how I view my home and many others too.

L1011

anewme wrote: »

The 15% decrease would have left it the same as last year.

The Council are elected by the voters and gave a duty to those voters. I am tagainst those who abstain (cop out) and also the fact that the Council did not keep full and transparent voting records.

It would have left the income the same (if even - where are you getting that from?), not the rate - and to serve a growing population

Populist nonsense from a useless populist (except when the populace don't vote the way she wants in a referendum!)

The only astute thing Cussen has ever done was in her self interest - not joining Aontu as she would never have retained her seat if she had

anewme

L1011 wrote: »

It would have left the income the same (if even - where are you getting that from?), not the rate - and to serve a growing population

Populist nonsense from a useless populist (except when the populace don't vote the way she wants in a referendum!)

The only astute thing Cussen has ever done was in her self interest - not joining Aontu as she would never have retained her seat if she had

Getting what from?

L1011

anewme wrote: »

Getting what from?

The idea that reducing the rate would have "left it the same"

lleti

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

But they aren't taxed on that value until the realise it. Something you don't seem to understand, or unwilling to accept.

I could have a million euro in shares, are you telling me I wouldn't be wealthy?

NinjaTruncs

Are you saying you want to pay tax on your million euro in shares before you sell them and actually get the million? What if you took a loan out to buy the shares, so you have one million in shares and one million in debt, are you still wealthy then?

anewme

L1011 wrote: »

The idea that reducing the rate would have "left it the same"

I've just checked the records back and we actually did not get the 15% decrease last year or ever.

In 2015 and 2016 Kildare County Council reduced the local property tax by 7.5% but since 2017, it voted not to vary the base rate of LPT.

Now in 2019, they want to increase it by 7.5%.

The Dublin Councils are applying a reduction

I do not agree with a 7.5% hike on top of a new valuation Nov. 2020.

I do not agree with the lack of transparency in Kildare County Council in not logging the actual votes.

For anyone interested, here's an overall breakdown of how the Country voted.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/property/local-property-tax/valuing-your-property/has-your-local-authority-rate-changed.aspx

L1011

The new valuation is likely to be coupled to a reduction in rate (the main rate not the variation) so only people who have significant increases in value, e.g. from renovation get hit much to at all. That's me screwed then

The main increase in income will be from new builds 2013+ becoming liable for the first time.

anewme

L1011 wrote: »

The new valuation is likely to be coupled to a reduction in rate (the main rate not the variation) so only people who have significant increases in value, e.g. from renovation get hit much to at all. That's me screwed then

The main increase in income will be from new builds 2013+ becoming liable for the first time.

Sorry my typo, the new valuations are coming Nov. 2020!

LPT was brought in when property was at low enough valuation (my value was halved) so I think many people will see a significant increase.

Just looked at mine there and it will jump at least 3 if not 4 bands and I've done no major renovations.

Orion

lleti wrote: »

It's the exact same as being in negative equity, everyone was complaining about it a decade ago.

As I said, the likes of Bezos are called billionaires and it's not money in their account either!

And in exactly the same way negative equity is only an issue if you want to sell.

Badly Drunk Boy

lleti wrote: »

I could have a million euro in shares, are you telling me I wouldn't be wealthy?

Do you have a house to live in at the same time? Sitting on the side of the road on a rainy November night, clutching onto your shares, isn't much good if you don't have basics like a home for shelter.

I don't even know why I'm responding to your trolling.

lleti

Orion wrote: »

And in exactly the same way negative equity is only an issue if you want to sell.

Didn't stop people being a poor mouth or looking for help from government though?

lleti

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

Do you have a house to live in at the same time? Sitting on the side of the road on a rainy November night, clutching onto your shares, isn't much good if you don't have basics like a home for shelter.

I don't even know why I'm responding to your trolling.

Housing is an asset, particularly in Ireland used to grow wealth.

I'm renting a house that's seen my landlord get an increase of 25% over the last number of years. Delighted they'll be getting hit for something!

Orion

lleti wrote: »

Housing is an asset, particularly in Ireland used to grow wealth.

I'm renting a house that's seen my landlord get an increase of 25% over the last number of years. Delighted they'll be getting hit for something!

What about someone living in their family home earning minimum wage (or less) - the measly increase of which has even been deferred because of brexit.

According to you they should just sell up right? :rolleyes:

lleti

Orion wrote: »

What about someone living in their family home earning minimum wage (or less) - the measly increase of which has even been deferred because of brexit.

According to you they should just sell up right? :rolleyes:

No. If they wanted to stay and pay the tax due they can.

Don't be complaining about wealth increasing.