Property tax changes will see 36% face higher tax

osarusan

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

For instance, my mate Reggie "filthy rich" Richardson rents his six bedroom mansion in Foxrock so doesn't have to pay LPT on it and he owns an 8 berth ocean-going yacht that he keeps in Dun Laoghaire but he doesn't have to pay LPT on it either.

Reggie Richardson renting a six bedroom mansion in Foxrock to avoid LPT is a real shrewd move alright. Let the owner pay the LPT instead. All Reggie has to do is pay (conservatively) €60000 a year in rent to avoid a yearly payment of (say) €12000.


Crafty bastard.

Earn money - Pay income tax on that money
Use that money to buy house - Pay stamp duty on the property
Raise your kids and retire - Property tax introduced
Can't afford the tax? - Sell up and buy a cheaper property?

I have serious issues with paying tax three times on what is effectively the same income. I have grave concerns for elderly people buying a home in a disadvantaged area, living there while the area was rundown and neglected, then being forced to sell up when taxed out of it because the neighbourhood has been gentrified and the prices went mad. Imagine the stress of having to move in your 70s because you can't afford the tax on the property you bought years ago, paid tax on twice already and are now being taxed again.

Imagine telling a pensioner they've to fork over 5% out of their pension every year because FF and FG made a balls of the housing situation.

Fuascailteoir

Geuze wrote: »

LA can vote on + / - 15%.

Is that 15% on the states figure or could they adjust 15% upwards each year

lotsobear

Sligo county council elected representatives voted to increase the LPT by 15% within 4 weeks of being reelected 2 years ago. Now facing another increase, unsustainable expecting the same people to keep paying for the ever growing group who decide to live off the system.

Jerry Attrick

osarusan wrote: »

Reggie Richardson renting a six bedroom mansion in Foxrock to avoid LPT is a real shrewd move alright. Let the owner pay the LPT instead. All Reggie has to do is pay (conservatively) €60000 a year in rent to avoid a yearly payment of (say) €12000.


Crafty bastard.

Reggie's no fool - his employer pays the rent.

Geuze wrote: »

Why isn't LPT payable on the Foxrock house?

It is; by the owner.

For Forks Sake

Immortal Starlight wrote: »

I agree with Mary Lou 100% on this. It most definitely should be abolished.

I'd say Mary Lou has a vested interest, seeing as her gaff would fall into one of the highest LPT bands

Geuze

Fuascailteoir wrote: »

Is that 15% on the states figure or could they adjust 15% upwards each year

The central rate is 0.18% of the house value.

Each year, the Cllr vote, with three options:

(1) leave the LPT alone, at 0.18%
(2) increase, and by how much, the max is 15%
(3) reduce, and by how much, the max is 15%

meeeeh

There is nothing wrong with property tax and it's relatively cheap in Ireland. Its broad safe tax base and it taxes the asset we have.

Nobody seems to object to paying road (car) tax yet your biggest asset should not be taxed because SF and other left wing geniuses (the irony) have some magic money three to pay for public and local services.

McMurphy

meeeeh wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with property tax and it's relatively cheap in Ireland. Its broad safe tax base and it taxes the asset we have.

Nobody seems to object to paying road (car) tax yet your biggest asset should not be taxed because SF and other left wing geniuses (the irony) have some magic money three to pay for public and local services.

Since when

Head on over to the motors forum and see how that statement holds up.

Immortal Starlight

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

That's one of the most convincing arguments that I've ever read on Boards.ie.

If Mary Lou says it, then it must be right!

In fact, maybe I'll just stop thinking for myself from now on and let Mary Lou do my thinking for me.

Or maybe you could read what I actually posted instead of twisting it.

Dempo1

So the latest is revenue will be tasked with checking valuations submitted, those found to have deliberately under valued their properties will be forced to pay back taxes owed and penalties. They'll use mapping technology, prices achieved locally etc. On the surface seems logical but impractical in rural locations. Bad enough Rural homeowners get Zero in teturn for property tax and I mean Zero, my humble cottage is surrounded by properties 3 / 4 times the size of mine and with far greater value, will they assume if my neighbours sell their €400k + properties that I've been naughty with my valuation of less than a 3rd of my neighbours?

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/revenue-in-property-tax-crackdown-on-low-home-valuations-by-homeowners-40497260.html

This is going to stir up a hornets nest.

Bad enough also over 100k properties built after 2013 tax free until now, I'm just astonished there's not been a legal challenge to this unfair and disgraceful unfairness.

Buddy Bubs

It's a pity the perpetually unemployed don't own their properties, we could send them out rioting on our behalf to stop this madness.

Wanderer78

Nothing like good ould book balancing and tax hikes to do so, shur tis always good for the economy, isn't it!

Dempo1

Buddy Bubs wrote: »

It's a pity the perpetually unemployed don't own their properties, we could send them out rioting on our behalf to stop this madness.

Quite a statement, what makes you believe unemployed people don't own their properties? Encouraging Rioting???

10000maniacs

Mimon wrote: »

Agree with it in principal but can anyone explain why it is paid using already taxed income?

So I am paying a tax with money that I've already payed tax on. Bonkers.

Don't forget the stamp duty of 7% if you bought 10-15 years ago. Triple screwed.

BluePlanet

It's insane that Revenue are asking ordinary people to perform their own house valuations.
When i was in USA and owned a place, the city sent out a person to inspect and value the property after the sale went through.
This was to determine your LPT.
It was just part of the process of buying.

Dempo1

10000maniacs wrote: »

Don't forget the stamp duty of 7% if you bought 10-15 years ago. Triple screwed.

Fair point but isn't stamp duty not applicable for 1st time buyer's? I'm Open to correction

Dempo1

BluePlanet wrote: »

It's insane that Revenue are asking ordinary people to perform their own house valuations.
When i was in USA and owned a place, the city sent out a person to inspect and value the property after the sale went through.
This was to determine your LPT.
It was just part of the process of buying.

I agree but what is the answer, using current property price register would not work in rural locations, there are just too many variables, proorty size, additional land, services indeed property type.

My sense is the Self assessment is more of a catch yeah approach, you make the assessment, your responsibility, your wrong when and if it suits, a very worrying approach.

Aph2016

Many in this thread saying they're fine paying property taxes, good for you, I'd rather not have to pay more taxes considering how our government have zero accountability when it comes to spending taxes; and let's not forget 90% of our public services are a joke.

PommieBast

timmyntc wrote: »

If LPT is supposed to fund services provided by the local authority, then it should be paid based on all adults in the property.

That was basically the idea behind the Community Charge Poll Tax. Worked better in theory than practice.

FileNotFound

Don't see the issue people have with this change really.

Many are basing the current tax on massively undervalued homes (people undervalued them at the time when they were already recession low), those people have been paying low for years, be happy they got away with it this long.

New builds since 2013 were at first way cheaper to buy than now so mass savings v today's buyer already and then in 2017 as prices rose we had the help to buy scheme (was it 30k or 50k people got??) so it's pittance v the savings had already.


Now I say this as someone who will save thanks to these changes, I had an accurately valued property..

Geuze

BluePlanet wrote: »

It's insane that Revenue are asking ordinary people to perform their own house valuations.
When i was in USA and owned a place, the city sent out a person to inspect and value the property after the sale went through.
This was to determine your LPT.
It was just part of the process of buying.

When the LPT was introduced in 2013, it was self-valuation, and self-declaration, with the help of a Revenue estimate.

Geuze

Aph2016 wrote: »

Many in this thread saying they're fine paying property taxes, good for you, I'd rather not have to pay more taxes considering how our government have zero accountability when it comes to spending taxes; and let's not forget 90% of our public services are a joke.

I am 100% fine with property taxes, and carbon taxes.

I am 100% unhappy with a 48.5% marginal income tax rate on average workers on 36k.

I will join any protest against 48.5% marginal income tax rates on average workers.

There never seems to any protest against it, though.


I am also unhappy with the huge waste and overspending in healthcare.

Geuze

Dempo1 wrote: »

So the latest is revenue will be tasked with checking valuations submitted, those found to have deliberately under valued their properties will be forced to pay back taxes owed and penalties. They'll use mapping technology, prices achieved locally etc.

AFAIK, this is happening already.

Geuze

10000maniacs wrote: »

Don't forget the stamp duty of 7% if you bought 10-15 years ago. Triple screwed.

I bought in 2005. Paid zero stamp duty as a FTB.

magicbastarder

you also bought a new build, yeah?
i bought my first house in 2003, FTB, but paid 10k in stamp duty; the house was not new.

meeeeh

It's a typical everyone else but me should pay taxes attitude. Usually from people who wouldn't even blink signing up to another subscription.

Anyway SF will be soon in government and they will provide all services and more by 'taxing the rich'.

osarusan

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

Reggie's no fool - his employer pays the rent.

Well then that renders the whole hypothetical meaningless.


The idea that people are renting to avoid LPT is nonsensical, especially seeing as it gets paid anyway.

Furze99

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely. It’s something that most people are comfortable with. It’s a progressive tax on wealth. It’s the type of thing that is a no-brainer for a country ran on social democratic principles. The same would apply on charging for water based on usage.

Couldn't agree more. It's so laughable to see the contortions that the Socialist Party and Sinn Féin have to make, in order to oppose perfectly sound social democratic propositions. They'd cut off their noses and cannibalise each other in the fight to cut themselves a few extra floating votes.

Dempo1

Geuze wrote: »

AFAIK, this is happening already.

I know, I'm pointing out it's going to be used as a tool to question valuations, previous valuations etc in a trawl of under valuations. Self assessment is all fine and dandy but who judges who right or wrong.

Just as an example, my cottage valued at @ €140k, I had an insurance claim last year, successfully approved (1st one ever) in 20 years.

Insurance company determined valuation of property €160 k for the purposes of processing claim and settlement. Based on their assumption as house undervalued, settlement less and direct payment rather than me contracting out works and they settle directly with contractor etc. Actually worked out better for me.

So my point, who's right or wrong in a valuation difference of €20k. I know it's a small example but what happens in a €100k difference?

FileNotFound

Dempo1 wrote: »

I know, I'm pointing out it's going to be used as a tool to question valuations, previous valuations etc in a trawl of under valuations. Self assessment is all fine and dandy but who judges who right or wrong.

Just as an example, my cottage valued at @ €140k, I had an insurance claim last year, successfully approved (1st one ever) in 20 years.

Insurance company determined valuation of property €160 k for the purposes of processing claim and settlement. Based on their assumption as house undervalued, settlement less and direct payment rather than me contracting out works and they settle directly with contractor etc. Actually worked out better for me.

So my point, who's right or wrong in a valuation difference of €20k. I know it's a small example but what happens in a €100k difference?

In Urban areas generalisation is easier for house prices.

I understand the countryside is different, mind you a price could be set per area and if you feel you are overvalues you could apply for correction.

Would probably ensure a fairer system of valuation.

At first I didn't at all like the idea of property tax on top of my high marginal income tax, but I'm ok with it now, and glad to be in a position to pay it. I let a property and of course have to pay property tax on that which is not deductible against the very highly taxed rental income, but accept this as I have my wealth asset, which is what is being taxed. But I do feel sorry for people hard pressed to repay a mortgage as it is just one extra expense if they finding it hard to make ends meet.

Geuze

magicbastarder wrote: »

you also bought a new build, yeah?
i bought my first house in 2003, FTB, but paid 10k in stamp duty; the house was not new.

FTB in 2005, house built in 1970s.

Zero stamp duty.

Geuze

Dempo1 wrote: »

I know, I'm pointing out it's going to be used as a tool to question valuations, previous valuations etc in a trawl of under valuations. Self assessment is all fine and dandy but who judges who right or wrong.

Just as an example, my cottage valued at @ €140k, I had an insurance claim last year, successfully approved (1st one ever) in 20 years.

Insurance company determined valuation of property €160 k for the purposes of processing claim and settlement. Based on their assumption as house undervalued, settlement less and direct payment rather than me contracting out works and they settle directly with contractor etc. Actually worked out better for me.

So my point, who's right or wrong in a valuation difference of €20k. I know it's a small example but what happens in a €100k difference?

For building insurance purpose, the rebuild cost of the house is used, which is very different from the market value.

I found it hard to look at the bank valuers report on my house, with a rebuild value 200k below what I paid for it........:eek::mad::(:(

Dempo1

FileNotFound wrote: »

In Urban areas generalisation is easier for house prices.

I understand the countryside is different, mind you a price could be set per area and if you feel you are overvalues you could apply for correction.

Would probably ensure a fairer system of valuation.

Not a bad idea re rural, I still feel an enormous challenge, its no exaggeration to say that there are so so many variables, house size, land addition, services, etc, tough nut to crack

Dempo1

Geuze wrote: »

For building insurance purpose, the rebuild cost of the house is used, which is very different from the market value.

I found it hard to look at the bank valuers report on my house, with a rebuild value 200k below what I paid for it........:eek::mad::(:(

I hear you and your pain, and yes I get the insurance re build values differ from actual valuation, just giving a sense of one potential complicating factor re self assessment etc

djan

Geuze wrote: »

I am 100% fine with property taxes, and carbon taxes.

I am 100% unhappy with a 48.5% marginal income tax rate on average workers on 36k.

I will join any protest against 48.5% marginal income tax rates on average workers.

There never seems to any protest against it, though.


I am also unhappy with the huge waste and overspending in healthcare.

Fully agreed, it is truly theft (all form of taxation but that amount is madness). Given that the average wage is apparently above the 36k threshold, why has no political party substantially strived to reduce it?

I would propose a flat 15 to 20% tax on all income with some credits available for eg children, healthcare etc. Would be much easier to implement thus less work for revenue and I would argue much less evasion.

What happens if you don't pay?

FileNotFound

tommybrees wrote: »

What happens if you don't pay?

Property Tax?

I think its one of those ones the revenue can pull from wages etc. - Thats just from loose memory mind you so i could be wrong.

You can pay monthly at no extra cost rather than in 1 lump sum.

blanch152

Geuze wrote: »

I am 100% fine with property taxes, and carbon taxes.

I am 100% unhappy with a 48.5% marginal income tax rate on average workers on 36k.

I will join any protest against 48.5% marginal income tax rates on average workers.

There never seems to any protest against it, though.


I am also unhappy with the huge waste and overspending in healthcare.

Pretty much hitting the nail on the head here. Ireland overtaxes income, and undertaxes in relation to charges for services and taxes on other things.

We need water charges, we need more property taxes, not less, we need demand management charges (€5-10) for visiting a doctor that everyone pays (like in most European countries), we need higher social insurance, we need to abolish the floor to social insurance, etc. etc.

Hopefully the Taxation and Social Welfare Commission will address some of these issues.

blanch152

FileNotFound wrote: »

Property Tax?

I think its one of those ones the revenue can pull from wages etc. - Thats just from loose memory mind you so i could be wrong.

You can pay monthly at no extra cost rather than in 1 lump sum.

Yeah, I pay mine by direct debit. If it goes up or down, I will get notified by Revenue, just like if Netflix goes up.

Murph85

Uproar about a pittance of an increase for some, the yearly increase, is what some want to be buyers , looking at modest houses , are increasing in value, every day ! Let's say e100 a day, 36,500 on a 500k house, it's easily plausible. Absolutely pathetic and laughable...

Murph85

meeeeh wrote: »

It's a typical everyone else but me should pay taxes attitude. Usually from people who wouldn't even blink signing up to another subscription.

Anyway SF will be soon in government and they will provide all services and more by 'taxing the rich'.

Fg have the same magic money tree! Their own voters hammered most hy tax and getting the least back for it... magic money trees appear out of nowhere any time there is a crisis...

Hike vat if needs be, I note several EU countries have a 25% rate. Hike the nearly free motor tax... the marginal rate of income tax is a scandal and economically damaging...

Ireland is absolutely unique in its weak and populist politics. Welfare and systems wont be reformed. So it will be tax increases, hit everyone in that case... there would be far less uproar from an extra fiver through increased tax and excise per week than a fiver cut from welfare for example...

Furze99

blanch152 wrote: »

Pretty much hitting the nail on the head here. Ireland overtaxes income, and undertaxes in relation to charges for services and taxes on other things.

We need water charges, we need more property taxes, not less, we need demand management charges (€5-10) for visiting a doctor that everyone pays (like in most European countries), we need higher social insurance, we need to abolish the floor to social insurance, etc. etc.

Hopefully the Taxation and Social Welfare Commission will address some of these issues.

In general we have too much centrally gathered taxes, we need more of a balance between taxes paid to the state and those we pay for local services. So yes, a reduction in centrally gathered tax balanced by more increase in local taxes and payments on local services.

meeeeh

harrymcardle61 wrote: »

What has this to do with SF?

You know when someone has lost a political argument or has nothing else good to input to a debate in Ireland that they refer to what about SF

Because property tax makes perfect sense. Opposition to it comes mostly from td's who are bad at maths (looney left and SF). I'm just saying I'm looking forward when all those promises of 'taxing the rich' will be broken when we finally get left government. I presume it will be led by SF.

magicbastarder

Geuze wrote: »

FTB in 2005, house built in 1970s.

Zero stamp duty.

cheers, must have changed between 2003 and 2005 so.

Tony EH

timmyntc wrote: »

If LPT is supposed to fund services provided by the local authority, then it should be paid based on all adults in the property.
If you are renting, you still pay. Because you benefit from the services since you are the one living there.
It should be a flat rate, because everyone benefits from the same services from the LA unless I am mistaken?

Taxing based on house valuation is mad - plenty of houses bought 60 years ago are worth a mint now, but its not like the owners see any of that increase in value. Its all tied up in the house.

This is why I am against LPT. It's just a cash grab and nothing more. I don't think any of the money raised is ring-fenced specifically to "fund services provided by the local authority", so it just ends up going into general taxation.

If it came in the form of rates, like there is in Britain it would be more palatable. The British can track where their rates money is going by reading reports produced by the councils. But as it is in Ireland, it's just a general tax on people for buying a home to live in.

And most people just bought a home to live in. They didn't by an "asset".

Feisar

CageWager wrote: »

Im perfectly comfortable with people paying tax on assets they own (myself included) that have seen massive inflation through their lifetime. Tax wealth, not income.

Can ones primary dwelling be considered wealth?

meeeeh

Feisar wrote: »

Can ones primary dwelling be considered wealth?

It is a security. Especially when you pay off your mortgage and don't need to pay rent in retirement. All those going on about poor pensioners having to pay property tax have it easy in comparison to future generations who will be having to pay rent.

Tony EH

meeeeh wrote: »

It is a security.

Security perhaps. But it's still really not a "wealth" is it?

A home isn't an asset. Nor is it wealth. It's somewhere where you live. And in this country if one can manage to do it, it makes absolute sense because our renting situation has been let go to a bonkers level of out of control.

FF/FG really have made an absolute dogs dinner of housing here over the last 20 years.