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

Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] *Poll Reset*

Options
1…7778808283…332

Comments

  • Options
    #2372
    Carter P Fly
    Registered Users Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Carter P Fly


    The person at home has nothing. All their assets are liquid and they own nothing of value to use as collateral. The person with a House has a house. I dont see how the fact soemone overpaid for it changes that.


  • Options
    #2373
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Carter P Fly wrote: »
    The person at home has nothing. All their assets are liquid and they own nothing of value to use as collateral. The person with a House has a house. I dont see how the fact soemone overpaid for it changes that.


    How much is a person worth, with €50 million worth of property as the entirety of their assets, with no mortgages on any of it?

    The person at home has nothing. The negative equity owner has wealth of -€100,000 if they sell the house. And selling the house was the method alastair used, to explain how a person obtains the wealth in their home.

    -€100k would seem to be less wealthy than €0


  • Options
    #2374
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,419 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    alastair wrote: »
    You have a asset with a market value? Would you rather be broke with a house, or broke without a house?

    Does it matter if you are broke? houses are not worth as much now and are not selling.


  • Options
    #2375
    jluv
    Registered Users Posts: 3,718 ✭✭✭jluv


    alastair wrote: »
    I'm my employer. Thanks for the creatnking all the same.[/QUOTECreative
    According to alistaire we can all get paid to be on boards.Waste company time. But look for financing to keep this country running..We understand we need it. Unfortunitly this €100 is not going to allow any of us to enjoy our day off!


  • Options
    #2376
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    You have a asset with a market value? Would you rather be broke with a house, or broke without a house?

    Thats silly. Its not about being broke with or without a house, its about the wealth of the home owner.

    If you are broke to the tune of -100k for gambling debts, or a 300k mortgage for a 200k house, neither is wealthy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2377
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    jluv wrote: »
    alastair wrote: »
    I'm my employer. Thanks for the creatnking all the same.[/QUOTECreative
    According to alistaire we can all get paid to be on boards.Waste company time. But look for financing to keep this country running..We understand we need it. Unfortunitly this €100 is not going to allow any of us to enjoy our day off!

    I find the meaninglessness of your posts most soothing.
    Please continue.


  • Options
    #2378
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Thats silly. Its not about being broke with or without a house, its about the wealth of the home owner.

    It's not - it's about the wealth in the asset. A millionaire with a modest house still only pays the tax on the market value of that modest house.


  • Options
    #2379
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    black francis wrote: »

    I find the meaninglessness of your posts most soothing.
    Please continue.

    In fairness. A mixture of chocolate eggs and booze can impact like that.


  • Options
    #2380
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    It's not - it's about the wealth in the asset. A millionaire with a modest house still only pays the tax on the market value of that modest house.

    Yes but an average person has a negative wealth because of their negative equity home. Seems simple. Unfortunately its not the only thing that does.


  • Options
    #2381
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    In fairness. A mixture of chocolate eggs and booze can impact like that.

    Maybe you should quit drinking then, if these posts are the result.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2382
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Yes but an average person has a negative wealth because of their negative equity home. Seems simple. Unfortunately its not the only thing that does.

    The average home-owner isn't in negative equity.


  • Options
    #2383
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Maybe you should quit drinking then, if these posts are the result.

    Wow - the internet has found it's new Oscar Wilde!


  • Options
    #2384
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    The average home-owner isn't in negative equity.

    The home owners in negative equity, are average home owners.


  • Options
    #2385
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    The home owners in negative equity, are average home owners.

    How do you imagine that? They're a minority - just as millionaire owners are.


  • Options
    #2386
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    How do you imagine that? They're a minority - just as millionaire owners are.

    So we are back to the minority one again. So now its tax the negative equity home owners for wealth they dont have, because they are small in number?

    What did you say as well previously, o yes, maybe allowances will be made for negative equity owners in the full property tax setup.

    Why would that be?


  • Options
    #2387
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    So we are back to the minority one again. So now its tax the negative equity home owners for wealth they dont have, because they are small in number?

    For wealth they do have in their house, you mean. The numbers aren't the issue - the typical house owner is in positive equity or mortgage-free.
    robbie7730 wrote: »
    What did you say as well previously, o yes, maybe allowances will be made for negative equity owners in the full property tax setup.

    Why would that be?

    Because most property taxation systems take account of ability to pay. Which suggests that some negative equity owners could get an exemption or discount - but only if their financial situation means they can't afford it.


  • Options
    #2388
    Izzy Skint
    Closed Accounts Posts: 304 ✭✭Izzy Skint


    alastair wrote: »
    Specifics please.
    person A and B, A takes out a mortgage and is now in negative equity paying lets say €1000 a month over 25 / 30 years, B lives in a LA house paying a pittance in rent but receiving a rent supplement of lets say €500 a month (it could be a lot more)...
    From the governments perspective there is a €1500 difference between what A contributes and what B is costing the state.

    Who has the most disposable income at the end of the month?...who could the government get more tax from with the least effort and with the least impact on that persons ability to pay their bills?
    You say the wealth is in the asset but remember, A has to maintain payments on that asset for 30 years,....the wealth is only in the asset if you sell, not until then... up to the point where you sell your house it is actually a drain on your finances, regardless of whether its value rises or falls...so in effect it is a liability. Home ownership does not generate any income for a homeowner!!....they want to tax us on a liability...what a f*cking joke this country has become!

    Person B can live in LA house for life at a great cost to the state. Do the maths over 30 years, see who is costing the state the most and who should be taxed more..

    While in negative equity A is actually poorer than B, even if A moves in to positive equity they still need to maintain monthly mortgage payments for the remainder of the mortgage term, which means they are still financially worse off...why are the government hitting the person who is not a drain on state funds and is also the least capable of shouldering any more taxes ?

    you keep saying, the wealth is in the asset but as i have said above it is only wealth if you sell (and at a profit)...until that time it is a crippling monthly bill for 30 years or more of peoples lives and the government seem oblivious to this fact!....
    Even a homeowner with no mortgage to pay does not receive income from the property, the wealth is tied up...so how can you tax a wealth that creates no income??

    we will not see a return to the boom time house prices for at least 10-15 years....possibly longer...negative equity is here to stay for the majority of those affected.

    signing out...nite all....


  • Options
    #2389
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    Because most property taxation systems take account of ability to pay. Which suggests that some negative equity owners could get an exemption or discount - but only if their financial situation means they can't afford it.

    How would negative equity affect ability to pay?


  • Options
    #2390
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    How would negative equity affect ability to pay?

    In most cases it wouldn't.


  • Options
    #2391
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Izzy Skint wrote: »

    you keep saying, the wealth is in the asset but as i have said above it is only wealth if you sell (and at a profit)...until that time it is a crippling monthly bill for 30 years or more of peoples lives and the government seem oblivious to this fact!....
    Even a homeowner with no mortgage to pay does not receive income from the property, the wealth is tied up...so how can you tax a wealth that creates no income??

    we will not see a return to the boom time house prices for at least 10-15 years....possibly longer...negative equity is here to stay for the majority of those affected.

    The simple fact is, and a few on the yes side themselves said this, its a tax based on poeperty, not for wealth reasons, but for identification reasons. And association of homes with services. This tax on wealth in property is a simple smokescreen/myth


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2392
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    In most cases it wouldn't.

    Well at least we agree on something. So exemptions for negative equity property wont be based on ability to pay. So there was little point mentioning that when i asked why you previously mentioned negative equity homes might be exempt. Which they wont be imo.

    But this is no wealth tax. Its simply a form of selective poll tax.


  • Options
    #2393
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    The simple fact is, and a few on the yes side themselves said this, its a tax based on poeperty, not for wealth reasons, but for identification reasons. And association of homes with services. This tax on wealth in property is a simple smokescreen/myth

    You think that they're going to continue an 'identification' programme under the guise of a property tax for years - to what end? They already know you exist.


  • Options
    #2394
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    But this is no wealth tax. Its simply a form of selective poll tax.

    ...Selecting only those with residential properties. Sounds like a property tax to me.


  • Options
    #2395
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    ...Selecting only those with residential properties. Sounds like a property tax to me.

    Motor tax sounds like road tax to me, or car owner tax to you.


  • Options
    #2396
    Izzy Skint
    Closed Accounts Posts: 304 ✭✭Izzy Skint


    alastair wrote: »
    You think that they're going to continue an 'identification' programme under the guise of a property tax for years - to what end? They already know you exist.
    "know you exist" !!!...they don't even know how many house are in the country ffs !...that is why they want us to register....

    any comment on the issues i raise in my previous post?


  • Options
    #2397
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Motor tax sounds like road tax to me, or car owner tax to you.

    It sounds nothing like road tax, but yeah - the motors in question are motor cars, and it's only levied on car owners.


  • Options
    #2398
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    It sounds nothing like road tax, but yeah - the motors in question are motor cars, and it's only levied on car owners.

    Yes for using them on the road, dont use them on the road, no tax needed. A genius indeed. What is it you work at, some one told me its design? Must be a simple job.


  • Options
    #2399
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Yes for using them on the road, dont use them on the road, no tax needed. A genius indeed. What is it you work at, some one told me its design? Must be a simple job.

    Cars typically move about on the road alright - but there's no road taxation beyond a few toll booths.


  • Options
    #2400
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    Cars typically move about on the road alright - but there's no road taxation beyond a few toll booths.

    O your too smart for me. I was right, you are a genius.
    Predicts the thanks answer, as if i meant it


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2401
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Motor tax sounds like road tax to me, or car owner tax to you.

    He doesn't pay any, he only drives classics..


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement