Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Property Tax (MOD REMINDER: Don't get too personal)

Options
1…131132133134136

Comments

  • Options
    #4052
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Going Forward wrote: »
    He could have used it to his advantage: "I said it 20 years ago, and I stand by it now"/"Its a long held conviction of mine", etc, etc.etc.
    He could have sacrificed a sound policy decision for personal political gain.
    Thankfully he isn't so cynical.


  • Options
    #4053
    hju6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,432 ✭✭✭hju6


    Phoebas wrote: »
    He could have sacrificed a sound policy decision for personal political gain.
    Thankfully he isn't so cynical.

    He can say whatever he wants, lies, promises, odd truth even, but the personal gain stays,


  • Options
    #4054
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Phoebas wrote: »
    He could have sacrificed a sound policy decision for personal political gain.
    Thankfully he isn't so cynical.

    I obviously have much to learn.


  • Options
    #4055
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    alastair wrote: »
    I'm not clear that you've any point here. You certainly haven't articulated any.

    The point I was making is, it doesn't have to be agricultural or commercial land, to be discounted for LPT valuation purposes, once it is over one acre.
    alastair wrote: »
    Where's the benefit? Large gardens raise the market value of a house, even if you pretend that the gardens don't extend beyond an acre. You don't 'deduct' anything from the value of your house if you've a large garden. Two identical houses next to each other - one with a small garden, one with a big one - which will have the higher market value? In the end of the day - it's market value determines which band of LPT you pay.
    Good loser wrote: »
    Slick 50 listen to this: principal private residences with grounds of up to one acre maximum are exempt from Capital Gains Tax.

    The LPT is chargeable on residences with up to one acre curtilege. If this was not so taxpayers could claim five, ten, 100 acres+ were 'attached' to their residences and exempt from CGT.

    Two identical houses next to each other, one on one acre, the other on four acres. Both will be valued the same for LPT purposes, because of the one acre rule. The house plus one acre is all that you need to value.
    From Michael Noonan's response in the dáil
    If a property is situated on grounds in excess of one acre, while the LPT will only apply to the house plus one acre,


  • Options
    #4056
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Slick50 wrote: »
    Two identical houses next to each other, one on one acre, the other on four acres. Both will be valued the same for LPT purposes, because of the one acre rule. The house plus one acre is all that you need to value.
    From Michael Noonan's response in the dáil

    That ignores the reality that a house with a larger garden will hold a higher market value then one without. Since market value is the determinant of LPT band, it doesn't really matter that the additional garden isn't officially liable for LPT.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4057
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,649 ✭✭✭creedp


    alastair wrote: »
    That ignores the reality that a house with a larger garden will hold a higher market value then one without. Since market value is the determinant of LPT band, it doesn't really matter that the additional garden isn't officially liable for LPT.


    By that reckoning I must have been correct in thinking the exemption is completely superfluous. I wonder why it was inserted into the legislation .. slow day at the office.


  • Options
    #4058
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    creedp wrote: »
    By that reckoning I must have been correct in thinking the exemption is completely superfluous. I wonder why it was inserted into the legislation .. slow day at the office.

    It was included for the already articulated reasons (CGT exemption).


  • Options
    #4059
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,649 ✭✭✭creedp


    alastair wrote: »
    It was included for the already articulated reasons (CGT exemption).

    From Mick Noonan's link earlier
    In any event, it is not possible to estimate what yield would arise from applying the Local Property Tax to a larger area as no valuation of such property is available

    Presumably from this he thinks there is a loss of revenue associated with land in excess of 1 acre not being liable to LPT - so I was wrong the exemption does have a purpose in limiting the LPT liability for residential properties with trophy gardens after all.


  • Options
    #4060
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    creedp wrote: »
    From Mick Noonan's link earlier
    In any event, it is not possible to estimate what yield would arise from applying the Local Property Tax to a larger area as no valuation of such property is available

    Presumably from this he thinks there is a loss of revenue associated with land in excess of 1 acre not being liable to LPT - so I was wrong the exemption does have a purpose in limiting the LPT liability for residential properties with trophy gardens after all.

    Nope - it's an inevitable consequence of their being liable for CGT. Noonan's 'in any case' musings are not the reason for the exemption - just a follow-up.


  • Options
    #4061
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,649 ✭✭✭creedp


    alastair wrote: »
    Nope - it's an inevitable consequence of their being liable for CGT. Noonan's 'in any case' musings are not the reason for the exemption - just a follow-up.


    I suppose it could be argued that its often kind of difficult to diferentiate between Mick's musings and actual solid, reasoned and factually based discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4062
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    creedp wrote: »
    By that reckoning I must have been correct in thinking the exemption is completely superfluous. I wonder why it was inserted into the legislation .. slow day at the office.

    Maybe it was with the poor old farmers in mind....:D


  • Options
    #4063
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    alastair wrote: »
    That ignores the reality that a house with a larger garden will hold a higher market value then one without. Since market value is the determinant of LPT band, it doesn't really matter that the additional garden isn't officially liable for LPT.
    No, it does not. To use a well worn phrase, 'it's in the legislation'. You only value the house plus one acre.

    The only wonder is, that they didn't just let this little clause slide, then tell anyone with a larger than one acre garden that they are liable for CGT too. They could tell anyone who raises a voice of dissent, that their LPT excess is "spent, tough!" like they have done with those who paid stamp duty.


  • Options
    #4064
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Slick50 wrote: »
    No, it does not. To use a well worn phrase, 'it's in the legislation'. You only value the house plus one acre.

    The only wonder is, that they didn't just let this little clause slide, then tell anyone with a larger than one acre garden that they are liable for CGT too. They could tell anyone who raises a voice of dissent, that their LPT excess is "spent, tough!" like they have done with those who paid stamp duty.

    You value the house, which, if it comes with a larger garden, will consequently add value to the house itself - ask any estate agent. You can't divorce the house value from the features.


  • Options
    #4065
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    alastair wrote: »
    You value the house, which, if it comes with a larger garden, will consequently add value to the house itself - ask any estate agent. You can't divorce the house value from the features.

    Going on previous form, you're not going to admit you're wrong. Even though it is in the legislation.


  • Options
    #4066
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/1007/478877-property-tax-revenue/


    "The Revenue Commissioners estimates that 90% of property owners have complied with the tax nationally."


    So much for the claims that nobody would pay it.


  • Options
    #4067
    Hijpo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,796 ✭✭✭Hijpo


    What percentage are having it stolen from there wages?

    What percentage are single residence owners compared to multiple property owners?

    How accurate are the revenues "estimates" when it comes to putting a spin on figures?

    What happens when people cant afford the tax because house values increase (which they have started already) which increases the tax?

    Plenty of scenarios that need to play out yet.


  • Options
    #4068
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Godge wrote: »
    http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/1007/478877-property-tax-revenue/


    "The Revenue Commissioners estimates that 90% of property owners have complied with the tax nationally."


    So much for the claims that nobody would pay it.

    Bait, anyone?

    Yawns...................


  • Options
    #4069
    brokenarms
    Registered Users Posts: 1,387 ✭✭✭brokenarms


    Godge wrote: »
    http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/1007/478877-property-tax-revenue/


    "The Revenue Commissioners estimates that 90% of property owners have complied with the tax nationally."


    So much for the claims that nobody would pay it.

    The latest update from the tax authority shows almost one third of homeowners believe their property is valued at between €100,000 and €150,000.

    Oh how times have changed... Was not long ago people were boosting of how much its worth. Now its how little it worth.

    When sending in my forms I used the resister to show what the house opposite mines sold for last year. 120k. They bought it in the boom for 300k. Fairly hard hit for a first time buyer.:(


  • Options
    #4070
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    Quarter of homes valued below €100,000 for Local Property Tax

    At E45 each, that will just about cover the cost of that referendum that the fg/sf just lost...


  • Options
    #4071
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    What percentage of these 'compliant' figures, are people who have had their wages incorrectly deducted? I personally know three people who have had their wages docked, for properties they rented years ago. Good job revenue:rolleyes:.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4072
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Slick50 wrote: »
    What percentage of these 'compliant' figures, are people who have had their wages incorrectly deducted? I personally know three people who have had their wages docked, for properties they rented years ago. Good job revenue:rolleyes:.
    Did Revenue contact them before the deductions began?


  • Options
    #4073
    Slick50
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Did Revenue contact them before the deductions began?
    Revenue, presumably, sent demands to the address they rented years before. First they new of it was when they checked their pay slips. A poor reflection on their employers too, mind.


  • Options
    #4074
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Slick50 wrote: »
    Revenue, presumably, sent demands to the address they rented years before. First they new of it was when they checked their pay slips. A poor reflection on their employers too, mind.
    Haven't they informed Revenue of their new addresses? It's generally a good idea.

    If the tax has been deducted incorrectly, it will be refunded.


  • Options
    #4075
    highgiant1985
    Registered Users Posts: 1,777 ✭✭✭highgiant1985


    Slick50 wrote: »
    Revenue, presumably, sent demands to the address they rented years before. First they new of it was when they checked their pay slips. A poor reflection on their employers too, mind.

    I think you're being unfair to employers here.

    The employer has to accept the details revenue send its not up to them to decide should they apply it or not... They can only take information as received by Revenue. Any employee complaints must be handled between the employee and revenue which is the approach revenue have gone with not the employers choice.


  • Options
    #4076
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    highgiant1985 wrote: »
    I think you're being unfair to employers here.

    The employer has to accept the details revenue send its not up to them to decide should they apply it or not... They can only take information as received by Revenue. Any employee complaints must be handled between the employee and revenue which is the approach revenue have gone with not the employers choice.
    Very true. Revenue regularly send me P2C files (the digital equivalent of tax deduction cards, I guess) which contain changes to individuals' tax details. I import those into my payroll software and it does the rest. I don't get to decide whether or not to deduct the taxes.

    It hasn't arisen yet, but if an employee came to me and said the basis of his or her tax calculation was wrong, I'd send them to the local tax office.


  • Options
    #4077
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,465 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Slick50 wrote: »
    Revenue, presumably, sent demands to the address they rented years before. First they new of it was when they checked their pay slips. A poor reflection on their employers too, mind.

    And in no way the fault of the person themselves, of course............


  • Options
    #4078
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Hijpo wrote: »
    What percentage are having it stolen from there wages?

    What percentage are single residence owners compared to multiple property owners?

    How accurate are the revenues "estimates" when it comes to putting a spin on figures?

    What happens when people cant afford the tax because house values increase (which they have started already) which increases the tax?

    Plenty of scenarios that need to play out yet.

    None of which remove the reality that the tax is now bedded in, and isn't going away.


  • Options
    #4079
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    Quarter of homes valued below €100,000 for Local Property Tax

    At E45 each, that will just about cover the cost of that referendum that the fg/sf just lost...

    That'll be €90 in short order, and you have to assume Revenue will start checking the legitimacy of some of those assessments once they get past chasing non-payers.


  • Options
    #4080
    Hijpo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,796 ✭✭✭Hijpo


    alastair wrote: »
    None of which remove the reality that the tax is now bedded in, and isn't going away.

    Alot like the reality that just because its bedded in doesnt mean people can magicaly pay whatever increases arrise over the next few years. It was only half the year this time round for example.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4081
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Hijpo wrote: »
    Alot like the reality that just because its bedded in doesnt mean people can magicaly pay whatever increases arrise over the next few years. It was only half the year this time round for example.

    No magic required. It's simply a taxation overhead that people will need to adjust to - same as all other taxes.


Advertisement