Property Tax to affect those paying Mgt fees?

girl24

It was said the property tax will be paid to the relevant local councils. Im interested to see how this pans out for people who are already paying management fees. I for one pay a management company as the local council would not take over any aspect for the estate I live in when it was built, all street lighting, landscaping, bins etc are all taken care of by the managment company so if Im not availaing of any of the services provided by the local council I'm certainly not going to pay them any property tax!!

Thoughts?..

Welease

girl24 wrote: »

It was said the property tax will be paid to the relevant local councils. Im interested to see how this pans out for people who are already paying management fees. I for one pay a management company as the local council would not take over any aspect for the estate I live in when it was built, all street lighting, landscaping, bins etc are all taken care of by the managment company so if Im not availaing of any of the services provided by the local council I'm certainly not going to pay them any property tax!!

Thoughts?..

You may have a point if you have never left that estate.. but I'm going to assume you use public roads to drive to the shops/work, you have and do use street lighting etc on roads off your estate.. and you utilise a myriad of other council provided services as part of your daily life etc.

ntlbell

girl24 wrote: »

It was said the property tax will be paid to the relevant local councils. Im interested to see how this pans out for people who are already paying management fees. I for one pay a management company as the local council would not take over any aspect for the estate I live in when it was built, all street lighting, landscaping, bins etc are all taken care of by the managment company so if Im not availaing of any of the services provided by the local council I'm certainly not going to pay them any property tax!!

Thoughts?..

I don't think it's paying for just your street it's for the council you live in.

The same way you don't just pay road tax for the road your car drives on etc.

mbiking123

It was said the property tax will be paid to the relevant local councils. Im interested to see how this pans out for people who are already paying management fees. I for one pay a management company as the local council would not take over any aspect for the estate I live in when it was built, all street lighting, landscaping, bins etc are all taken care of by the managment company so if Im not availaing of any of the services provided by the local council I'm certainly not going to pay them any property tax!!

Thoughts?..

The local authorities say they will at some stage take over estates that have a management company, when is another issue

Google your local authority on taking in charge of estates for information for your area.

It just another way of taxing people, but even if your local authority takes over your estate. residents will have to cut the grass, clean, tidy etc as local authorities dont really do that work to the standard your management company does it and probably not at all.

If you have a managing agent, they usually charge 10-15%. You could save that expense if residents do it themselves

Gumbo

Welease wrote: »

but I'm going to assume you use public roads to drive to the shops/work, you have and do use street lighting etc on roads off your estate.

isint that what Motor Tax is for?

senordingdong

Welease wrote: »

You may have a point if you have never left that estate.. but I'm going to assume you use public roads to drive to the shops/work, you have and do use street lighting etc on roads off your estate.. and you utilise a myriad of other council provided services as part of your daily life etc.

I'm with the OP on this.

In what manner did we pay for those roads until now?

Nody

senordingdong wrote: »

In what manner did we pay for those roads until now?

Borrowed money.

Welease

kceire wrote: »

isint that what Motor Tax is for?

True.. it does... So scratch that one, but the council does provide the myriad of other services that the management company doesn't cover.

In short, personally there is little point in trying to work out what portion of what you should/could/are paying for.. The country is broke and while we continue to under recover, they need to raise extra money from elsewhere.. Property is one of the few areas the don't have a ongoing yearly tax on, so they went for that..

senordingdong

Nody wrote: »

Borrowed money.

No....how has the consumer, or, tax payer, been paying for these services until now?

Welease

senordingdong wrote: »

No....how has the consumer, or, tax payer, been paying for these services until now?

Which services? just roads? or roads, water, public buildings, libraries, parks, play areas for kids, gritting, street lighting, town planning, services for the disabled etc etc etc..

A lot of previous funding came from our normal taxes (and a large amount of stamp duty tax during the boom).. That tax base has now collapsed, so the funding has to come from elsewhere.. One of those elsewhere's will be property taxes..

Nody

senordingdong wrote: »

No....how has the consumer, or, tax payer, been paying for these services until now?

No I was serious, borrowed money.

I can't find the graph or the data but as I recall in the last 30 odd years only a handful of budgets actually did not borrow cash (i.e. income > costs in the budget). The Wiki example from 2003 to 2009 here has 1 year of 7 showing a surplus (though you can extend that to 2015 as we know it is suppose to "only" be 3% borrowed then which would then be 1 in 12 years). All of that borrowed money went into state spending on services, road projects etc.

View

Welease wrote: »

the council does provide the myriad of other services that the management company doesn't cover.

It does indeed - part of those services includes cutting the grass, fixing the roads etc. in those older areas which do not have management companies and their associated charges.

Hence if you live in a newer estate (with a management company), you pay double:
i) You pay your management fee to take care of where you live, and,
ii) You pay into the county's "common pot" which it uses to take of other people's areas but, NOT yours.

Why not? Because, of course, it is not the job of the county to take care of private estates such as yours - that is the management companies job - and it remains, thus, even though you pay just as much to the county as those living in older areas.

In effect, people living in older areas are having their services subsidised by people living in newer estates.

And, in one guess, which type of area/estate (older or newer), do you think our county officials, politicians and senior civil servants typically live in?

Welease

View wrote: »

It does indeed - part of those services includes cutting the grass, fixing the roads etc. in those older areas which do not have management companies and their associated charges.

Hence if you live in a newer estate (with a management company), you pay double:
i) You pay your management fee to take care of where you live, and,
ii) You pay into the county's "common pot" which it uses to take of other people's areas but, NOT yours.

Why not? Because, of course, it is not the job of the county to take care of private estates such as yours - that is the management companies job - and it remains, thus, even though you pay just as much to the county as those living in older areas.

In effect, people living in older areas are having their services subsidised by people living in newer estates.

And, in one guess, which type of area/estate (older or newer), do you think our county officials, politicians and senior civil servants typically live in?

That is of course true, but we don't run a tax per consumption model in Ireland..

Everyone pays for services that they don't consume.. I have never been on the LUAS but I get to pay for it through my taxes... I also don't get sewerage systems or street lighting etc. but pay the same level of taxes as those in newer estates that are managed and have been connected to the sewer system.

Is it completely fair? of course not.. But it's arguably cheaper to manage than developing some form of pay as you consume system..and like it or not it's the system we have..

senordingdong

Welease wrote: »

Which services? just roads? or roads, water, public buildings, libraries, parks, play areas for kids, gritting, street lighting, town planning, services for the disabled etc etc etc..

A lot of previous funding came from our normal taxes (and a large amount of stamp duty tax during the boom).. That tax base has now collapsed, so the funding has to come from elsewhere.. One of those elsewhere's will be property taxes..

That's exactly my point.
We've already been paying for these things, now we'll be paying for them again.

Welease

senordingdong wrote: »

That's exactly my point.
We've already been paying for these things, now we'll be paying for them again.

Well yes and no

We have been paying for them up to now.. and we paid less because more people were paying in (via higher employment and stamp duty).. This has now changed.. the costs year on year remain roughly the same, but the funding pot has grown smaller (less employment, less stamp duty etc). So those who contribute have to contribute more to pick up the shortfall..

You will be paying more yes, same I will be paying more taxes for less services.. but thats what happens when a country goes broke

mbiking123

if we take taxation principles

Broad Basing: taxes should be spread over as wide as possible section of the population, or sectors of economy, to minimize the individual tax burden.

this is why we all pay for the Luas, we can all use it as its a public service

For property tax, if this tax is to maintain estates, roads, footpath etc then

Earmarking: tax revenue from a specific source should be dedicated to a specific purpose only when there is a direct cost-and-benefit link between the tax source and the expenditure

It could be claimed that because you already pay for these services then to be charged it again through taxes is unfair. It is not dedicated to a specific purpose ie your house. its to pay for someones estate

In the end might think of it as indirect tax or stealth tax their unfair but its the law

hmmm

It will be a tax, not a charge. A charge would be something like bin collection fees where you are paying for a service, taxation is just a means of raising money for central government. Welcome to "low tax" Ireland.

View

Welease wrote: »

That is of course true, but we don't run a tax per consumption model in Ireland..

Everyone pays for services that they don't consume.. I have never been on the LUAS but I get to pay for it through my taxes... I also don't get sewerage systems or street lighting etc. but pay the same level of taxes as those in newer estates that are managed and have been connected to the sewer system.

Is it completely fair? of course not.. But it's arguably cheaper to manage than developing some form of pay as you consume system..and like it or not it's the system we have..

A management fee is basically a "charge per consumption". That is in effect a de facto "tax per consumption" model (i.e whether you pay tax or charges adds up to a loss of income in both cases). The local councils are off-loading the services they traditionally provided onto the management agencies and owners of the new developments. This is a policy on their part as it reduces their workload and associated risks (i.e. a broken pipe in a private development isn't their problem).

It is not just a case of not being completely fair - it IS a case of double charging. Were it a case that it was possible to offset management fees against your gross income prior to taxation, then it would be fair. But that would remove the subsidisation element that people in older areas enjoy and the decision makers who live in those areas aren't rushing to change that.

girl24

girl24 wrote: »

..............if Im not availaing of any of the services provided by the local council I'm certainly not going to pay them any property tax!!

Thoughts?..

It doesn't matter what services you avail of, it's a property tax, if you own property you will be paying the tax. Or else I imagine they will pursue you for it much like any other unpaid tax.

mbiking123

It is not just a case of not being completely fair - it IS a case of double charging. Were it a case that it was possible to offset management fees against your gross income prior to taxation, then it would be fair. But that would remove the subsidisation element that people in older areas enjoy and the decision makers who live in those areas aren't rushing to change that.

agree

mbiking123

Earmarking: tax revenue from a specific source should be dedicated to a specific purpose only when there is a direct cost-and-benefit link between the tax source and the expenditure

This is a taxation principle, which a government may or may not decide to follow. If a person in a housing development that has been taken in charge benefits, a person in a private estate or one off housing does not(they pay for it already). People in one off housing provide own sewerage, water. Not fair on these people either

Welease

View wrote: »

A management fee is basically a "charge per consumption". That is in effect a de facto "tax per consumption" model (i.e whether you pay tax or charges adds up to a loss of income in both cases). The local councils are off-loading the services they traditionally provided onto the management agencies and owners of the new developments. This is a policy on their part as it reduces their workload and associated risks (i.e. a broken pipe in a private development isn't their problem).

It is not just a case of not being completely fair - it IS a case of double charging. Were it a case that it was possible to offset management fees against your gross income prior to taxation, then it would be fair. But that would remove the subsidisation element that people in older areas enjoy and the decision makers who live in those areas aren't rushing to change that.

But this is a tax not a charge.. It is a tax on owning a property.. some of which will be used to provide services that you already pay for (like i have to pay my tax, but I also have to pay to have my septic tank emptied (and pay for the tank) and you (i assume) get sewerage services for your money)), and some will be used to shore up our IMF loans etc.

Would there be the same complaints if they slapped 1% on income tax instead? It's essentially just a revenue raising exercise, but for whatever reason this government loves to create new levies and taxes rather than just do the simple thing.

If it were a charge for those services, I would think you would have a case, but with a tax you don't and your management company does not provide a fraction of the services that the council make available to you either.

(not that I dont disagree you are paying twice for some services though btw)..

mbiking123

If local authorities are to lose the opportunity of raising revenue through water or property taxes – rates by another name – how can they finance their activities? Undoubtedly Mr Gormley will have suggestions but the prospect of further local taxes on top of water and property taxes is not a runner.



http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/editorial/commission-on-tax--local-taxes-must-pay-for-local-services-97417.html

This is the problem I think has been raised, it is a property tax on property which all home owners must pay however in the end it will end up with local authorities to pay for servicing estates etc taken in charge

Godge

View wrote: »

It does indeed - part of those services includes cutting the grass, fixing the roads etc. in those older areas which do not have management companies and their associated charges.

Hence if you live in a newer estate (with a management company), you pay double:
i) You pay your management fee to take care of where you live, and,
ii) You pay into the county's "common pot" which it uses to take of other people's areas but, NOT yours.

Why not? Because, of course, it is not the job of the county to take care of private estates such as yours - that is the management companies job - and it remains, thus, even though you pay just as much to the county as those living in older areas.

In effect, people living in older areas are having their services subsidised by people living in newer estates.

And, in one guess, which type of area/estate (older or newer), do you think our county officials, politicians and senior civil servants typically live in?

And if you pay VHI or BUPA you pay double for health services, you pay for the public health service with its waiting lists through the health levy and you pay for the better service going private on top of that. If you are paying VHI, you don't bother using the public health service and get no advantage from it.

Not exactly the same as the management fee situation (mostly due to the poor quality of private estate management) but similar enough. Other situations would include home schooling or paying for a private tutor or Leeson St grind schools, none of which are paid for by the state.

Michael O'Leary has his own private taxi driver so he doesn't need to use public transport. Should he be given a rebate on the amount of his tax that goes towards the CIE subsidy?

If everyone was entitled to receive back the amount of tax they paid in an equivalent amount of public services, there would be no money for social welfare.

mbiking123

And if you pay VHI or BUPA you pay double for health services, you pay for the public health service with its waiting lists through the health levy and you pay for the better service going private on top of that. If you are paying VHI, you don't bother using the public health service and get no advantage from it.

Not exactly the same as the management fee situation (mostly due to the poor quality of private estate management) but similar enough. Other situations would include home schooling or paying for a private tutor or Leeson St grind schools, none of which are paid for by the state.

Michael O'Leary has his own private taxi driver so he doesn't need to use public transport. Should he be given a rebate on the amount of his tax that goes towards the CIE subsidy?

If everyone was entitled to receive back the amount of tax they paid in an equivalent amount of public services, there would be no money for social welfare.

as I previously said, one of principles of taxation

Earmarking: tax revenue from a specific source should be dedicated to a specific purpose only when there is a direct cost-and-benefit link between the tax source and the expenditure



I understand your argument, but I have VHI/BUPA because public health is so bad. Friend of mine is in France as lost job in Ireland. He has got excellent public health in France, however still pays VHI for when he eventually moves home. Nothing wrong with Public health if it works, take Canada everybody has the same health service, cant use something like VHI to skip queue

Private schools do get money from the state.
http://www.schooldays.ie/education-news-item/State-must-end-support-for-private-schools-19745802 if you want to read something on it, better articles out there is you want to search around

Michael O Leary should not be using a taxi for that purpose, he should be using public transport or so the greens tell us. We can all use public services

The difference is that some estates have been taken in charge and some have not

Local authorities need extra money, and upkeep of estates is just part of their ongoing expense. property tax will give them extra cash to run. In this way all home owners pay the tax but only some have their estates taken in charge. Local authorities have info on taking in charge estates but they wont do it.

as an example of information

http://www.galway.ie/en/Services/Planning/TakinginCharge/TakinginChargeofDevelopmentsSept2008/TIC%20Policy%20(Adopted%20%2022nd.%20Sept.'08)%201.pdf

senordingdong

I will try to dodge paying it, but I don't think it will be as straight forward as a tv license.

So, I doubt I will escape paying it, so I guess I'll just have to leave my management company in the lurch.

In the meantime, here's an interesting, albeit old, article to ad.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/minister-abolishes-illegal-household-charges-228640.html

article wrote:

A STEALTH tax which has forced thousands of homeowners to pay hundreds of euro every year is to be ended immediately.
Some local authorities are making it a condition of planning permission that management companies be formed to administer new private housing estates.

That means annual charges of up to €500 or more to every house, while local authorities skip responsibility for the maintenance of water, lighting, sewage, footpaths and roads.

It now appears that the practice may be unlawful, a position that could result in the forced repayment of millions of euro to the homeowners concerned.

And Environment Minister Dick Roche told the Irish Independent yesterday that the practice appeared to go beyond what was envisaged by the planning acts and could be illegal.

"It angers me that this is happening, and I intend to stamp out the practice," he said.

He said a number of cases had recently come to his attention involving private housing estates.

"It appears to be the local authorities sidestepping their responsibilities," he said. "I am not prepared to see it continue. I will not tolerate this happening."

Making it a condition of planning permission, as some had done, did not appear to be supported by the law.

"It is hard to see what the legal basis for it is," said the Minister, who is awaiting a report on the issue from the Law Reform Commission.

If the practice is found to be illegal, thousands of homeowners could be entitled to have millions of euro in contributions refunded. Mr Roche said this issue would have to be addressed once the legal position was clarified.

STUNNED

He has written to local authorities and asked to see grants of planning permission where the clause stipulating the requirement for a management company applied.

Many householders when buying new semi-detached homes thought the fee was a once-off, only to be stunned to receive a new demand each year. In Brayton Park, Kilcock, the cost to houses was €411 for last year. In Callenders Mill, Celbridge, the annual charge is €520, while Tyrrelstown in West Dublin is also seeing annual charges, albeit on a lower scale. The minister is to contact the County Managers' Association to stop what Independent TD Catherine Murphy insists is an illegal practice.

Godge

mbiking123 wrote: »

as I previously said, one of principles of taxation

Earmarking: tax revenue from a specific source should be dedicated to a specific purpose only when there is a direct cost-and-benefit link between the tax source and the expenditure



I understand your argument, but I have VHI/BUPA because public health is so bad. Friend of mine is in France as lost job in Ireland. He has got excellent public health in France, however still pays VHI for when he eventually moves home. Nothing wrong with Public health if it works, take Canada everybody has the same health service, cant use something like VHI to skip queue

Private schools do get money from the state.
http://www.schooldays.ie/education-news-item/State-must-end-support-for-private-schools-19745802 if you want to read something on it, better articles out there is you want to search around

Michael O Leary should not be using a taxi for that purpose, he should be using public transport or so the greens tell us. We can all use public services

The difference is that some estates have been taken in charge and some have not

Local authorities need extra money, and upkeep of estates is just part of their ongoing expense. property tax will give them extra cash to run. In this way all home owners pay the tax but only some have their estates taken in charge. Local authorities have info on taking in charge estates but they wont do it.

as an example of information

http://www.galway.ie/en/Services/Planning/TakinginCharge/TakinginChargeofDevelopmentsSept2008/TIC%20Policy%20(Adopted%20%2022nd.%20Sept.'08)%201.pdf

I didn't refer to private schools, I mentioned home schooling, private tutoring and the grind schools. I deliberately left the likes of Blackrock College and Clongowes out of the argument because of the large amount of State funding they receive.

You pay VHI/BUPA because the public health sector is so bad. Others pay management fees and in theory get an estate that is better looked after than those taken in charge by the Council. The fact that the management company is crap is tough on them. The same if you picked a health insurance company that was expensive and didn't cover what you need.

I have no sympathy for the argument that paying management fees should excuse someone from paying a property tax. Anyway, is it not the case that those renting in such a situation pay the management fee while the property tax will be levied on the owner?

senordingdong

Godge wrote: »

Anyway, is it not the case that those renting in such a situation pay the management fee while the property tax will be levied on the owner?

Can't speak for everyone but my rent covers my management fees.

mbiking123

Others pay management fees and in theory get an estate that is better looked after than those taken in charge by the Council. The fact that the management company is crap is tough on them. cover what you need.

I suppose the easy answer to that is for local authority to offer to take all private estates into charge. Those that say 'no' tough. Eveybody has an opportunity to be on a level playing pitch though.

Obviously that is not going to happen(shortage of money), but local authority should take developments into charge. Management companies are supposed to be a stop gap and not long term. Suppose to be a 7 year period before estates taken in charge. An estate in Claregalway that was flooded is in the process of being taken in charge. The whole flooding episode fast tracked the process. If management companies are so good then why do so many people want estates taken in charge

mbiking123

Can't speak for everyone but my rent covers my management fees.

thats the norm but not always

thebman

senordingdong wrote: »

No....how has the consumer, or, tax payer, been paying for these services until now?

EU in many cases :P

Then borrowed money. Ignoring problems and hoping they go away was a favorite of the government if funding wasn't available from the above or property bubbles.