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

Slick50

oscarBravo wrote: »

Where's the money going to come from to pay VAT? Where's the money going to come from to pay excise duties on cigarettes and alcohol? Where's the money going to come from to pay motor tax? TV licence?

???????

oscarBravo wrote: »

It may have escaped your notice, but this particular tax is the topic of this thread.

Slick50 wrote:

You are saying we need this tax because you can't depend on returns from employment, where is this money going to come from, if people are unemployed?

You don't seem to be able to address this question for some reason. You've stated this tax, is necessary to broaden the tax base. So we do that by basing it on the diminishing return of clawing back a percentage of the money you give to some of the unemployed.

oscarBravo

bgrizzley wrote: »

wood for the trees, minimum wage guy wouldnt notice the difference and neither would the state.

The state would notice the difference if he lost his job.

yes i will vote for that party. i only wish i had an opportunity in the past.

You'll be waiting. Irish people don't vote for parties that promise to raise taxes (unless it's taxes on other people).

Slick50 wrote: »

You don't seem to be able to address this question for some reason. You've stated this tax, is necessary to broaden the tax base. So we do that by basing it on the diminishing return of clawing back a percentage of the money you give to some of the unemployed.

What makes it a diminishing return?

darkhorse

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But the amounts would not be the same, because the poorer half the country pays no income tax, while the rich hire a bunch of tax accountants allowing them to declare income as a Capital Gain, or as a return on some tax-exempt investment or other.

Could government not change the laws to specifically deal with this?

Slick50

oscarBravo wrote: »

What makes it a diminishing return?

You pay out more than you get back.

paul71

darkhorse wrote: »

Could government not change the laws to specifically deal with this?

There have been some moves towards this, DIRT increases, restrictions on mortgage interest as an expense for landlords, and limits on pension contribution relief for directors. What is interesting is that income tax increases have a higher impact on middle income and low income earners then on super-rich because much of the income of super rich is not sourced from employment income.

One of the biggest causes of the property bubble was the section 23 relief on rental properties and also relief on car park investments, even 20 years later some of these releifs are only now coming to the end of their lifes. There is probably room for looking at an increase dividend with-holding taxes, but the unfortunate thing about increasing taxes on the super-rich is that they can always do a Denis O'Brien and leave the country thus resulting in a net loss of revenue to the state from an increase in income tax rates.

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

Can it be any more plain? Surely, this not just on my screen.

I'd have thought it was very clear - but obviously not enough for you? He's not saying what you claim for him - as has already be explained to you.

creedp

paul71 wrote: »

but the unfortunate thing about increasing taxes on the super-rich is that they can always do a Denis O'Brien and leave the country thus resulting in a net loss of revenue to the state from an increase in income tax rates.

I don't think DOB wil be challenging the couple of grand LPT he might have to pay on his mansion(s) in Ireland. This is the problem with regressive non-income based taxes .. the DOBs of this world love them.

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

You see my post above, well I just copied and paste that from this site below, according to which, it states, that which I posted, nothing added by me. If you, or anyone else can see anywhere where it says anything about the HHC being a tax in 2012, well then I put my hands up:

Household Charge - Online Payment System

It really needs to be spelled out for you, that it's a tax?

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

You pay out more than you get back.

Unless you're in a very small minority - you'll get more for your taxes than you pay into the system.

alastair

creedp wrote: »

I don't think DOB wil be challenging the couple of grand LPT he might have to pay on his mansion(s) in Ireland. This is the problem with regressive non-income based taxes .. the DOBs of this world love them.

How much in income tax does he pay here again?

creedp

alastair wrote: »

How much in income tax does he pay here again?

I don't know .. you tell me? My point was the wealthy like DOB just love regressive taxes .. do you disagree?

alastair

creedp wrote: »

I don't know .. you tell me? My point was the wealthy like DOB just love regressive taxes .. do you disagree?

I'll take whatever LPT he's liable for above the big fat nothing he pays in income tax. I won't care what his attitude might be to either.

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

So minimum wage earners should take a pay cut to support your principled objection to a property tax (the principle being, apparently, "I don't want to pay it")?

Sorry, but I did not mention a pay cut.

paul71

creedp wrote: »

I don't think DOB wil be challenging the couple of grand LPT he might have to pay on his mansion(s) in Ireland. This is the problem with regressive non-income based taxes .. the DOBs of this world love them.

Who said he would challenge them?

And given that it is the only tax in this country he does pay isn't that a good thing?

Also explain how it is regressive as opposed to income tax increases which cannot be proven to increase the overall tax take.

Darkhorse has started to ask the right questions on income tax, the trick to increasing the tax take from income tax is to restrict reliefs against income tax not to increase the rates.

paul71

creedp wrote: »

I don't know .. you tell me? My point was the wealthy like DOB just love regressive taxes .. do you disagree?

The answer is not 1 cent.

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

The point that was made was if taxing property was inherently unfair, then it would be almost unheard of. It's not at all unheard of.

But I've never said that it was unheard of. I will admit that I have said it was unfair.

creedp

paul71 wrote: »

Who said he would challenge them?

And given that it is the only tax in this country he does pay isn't that a good thing?

Also explain how it is regressive as opposed to income tax increases which cannot be proven to increase the overall tax take.

Darkhorse has started to ask the right questions on income tax, the trick to increasing the tax take from income tax is to restrict reliefs against income tax not to increase the rates.

Nobody said he would .. I said he wouldn't given the piddly amount he will be required to pay. Its great that people are delighted that DOB paying a couple of grand in LPT is something to be positive about .. I'm sure DOB is also delighted to be contributing so handsomely to reducing the Irish deficit.

Its regressive because it doesn't increase in line with ability to pay. Even the issue where large gardens are effectively exempted from the tax stinks of regressiveness .. couldn't be asking lads with finely manicured spreads to be coughing up a few exttra bob .. sure I suppose paying the gardener's wages is difficult in these trying times.

I don't care if you reduce reliefs or increase rates .. the end result in the same. The trick is to ensure everyone pays a fair share in accordance with thier ability to pay. I'm glad though that Darkhorse is finally getting it!

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

From taxes other than income tax, obviously.

At the risk of sounding like I am a parrot, but from what source is the money coming from in which to pay this tax on my home? It's okay, I'll answer it myself. From my Income at work.

K-9

darkhorse wrote: »

You see my post above, well I just copied and paste that from this site below, according to which, it states, that which I posted, nothing added by me. If you, or anyone else can see anywhere where it says anything about the HHC being a tax in 2012, well then I put my hands up:

Household Charge - Online Payment System

Mod:

Enough of this thank you, either come back in your next post showing how the HHC isn't a tax, explain the difference between a charge and a tax or stop asking everybody else the same damn question over and over and over.

In other words, prove it wasn't a tax and explain why the difference is important. It is not up to other posters to keep answering your question when, it seems you can't even answer it yourself..

paul71

creedp wrote: »

I don't care if you reduce reliefs or increase rates .. the end result in the same. The trick is to ensure everyone pays a fair share in accordance with thier ability to pay. I'm glad though that Darkhorse is finally getting it!

Thats where you are 100% wrong, the end result is not, never has been, and never will be the same.
Increasing income taxes has always unduly burdened singles and families in the 30k to 100k tax bracket, it has no effect on those below 20k and those above 100k can simply invest in legal tax avoidance schemes. People above 1 million a year can simply leave the country, run their business or manage their wealth from abroad and the state loses all their income tax.
There is a tripping point where income tax increases result in a net reduction of tax take and we are probably already past that point.

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why, exactly, are you labouring this point?

You really wouldn't believe me.

darkhorse

alastair wrote: »

It really needs to be spelled out for you, that it's a tax?

Well, show me where it states that is was a tax. I'll make it larger to help you look.

The Household Charge (Due for 2012 ONLY)

The Household Charge (HC) is an annual charge introduced by the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 which is payable by owners of residential property. It is a matter for owners of residential properties to register and pay the HC on or after 1 January 2012.

K-9

darkhorse wrote: »

Well, show me where it states that is was a tax. I'll make it larger to help you look.

The Household Charge (Due for 2012 ONLY)

The Household Charge (HC) is an annual charge introduced by the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 which is payable by owners of residential property. It is a matter for owners of residential properties to register and pay the HC on or after 1 January 2012.

Mod:
So what's the difference between a charge and a tax?

oscarBravo

Slick50 wrote: »

You pay out more than you get back.

Who does?

darkhorse wrote: »

Sorry, but I did not mention a pay cut.

Increasing income tax doesn't reduce take-home pay?

darkhorse wrote: »

But I've never said that it was unheard of. I will admit that I have said it was unfair.

You've made the claim that others are arguing that we should have a property tax because other countries do. I've pointed out that this is nothing other than a straw man; you could at least have the grace to accept that.

darkhorse wrote: »

At the risk of sounding like I am a parrot, but from what source is the money coming from in which to pay this tax on my home? It's okay, I'll answer it myself. From my Income at work.

Believe it or not, the property tax isn't designed exclusively around your personal circumstances.

darkhorse wrote: »

You really wouldn't believe me.

Try me - after you've answered K-9's question.

alastair

creedp wrote: »

Its regressive because it doesn't increase in line with ability to pay. Even the issue where large gardens are effectively exempted from the tax stinks of regressiveness ..

It's a relatively progressive tax. More expensive properties pay more tax. There's a broad parallel with property value and ability-to-pay and where that isn't the case, there's a mechanism for offsetting that payment. Gardens are not really exempted from the tax either - a house with a large garden will be valued higher than a similar property without a large garden.

Godge

darkhorse wrote: »

Well, show me where it states that is was a tax. I'll make it larger to help you look.

The Household Charge (Due for 2012 ONLY)

The Household Charge (HC) is an annual charge introduced by the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 which is payable by owners of residential property. It is a matter for owners of residential properties to register and pay the HC on or after 1 January 2012.

I am thoroughly fed up with this nonsense that you keep spouting.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tax

A tax is "a compulsory contribution to state revenue". By that definition the Household Charge is a tax.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tax

" a compulsory financial contribution imposed by a government to raise revenue, levied on the income or property of persons or organizations"

Again, that definition includes the Household Charge.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax

A "tax is a financial charge...." Could it be any clearer to you?

That is just from the first three answers from a googling of the definition of tax. You are the only person on this thread saying it is not a tax which and it demonstrates once again that all you are about it a rant with no evidence, argument or logic to back up anything you say.

darkhorse wrote: »

At the risk of sounding like I am a parrot, but from what source is the money coming from in which to pay this tax on my home? It's okay, I'll answer it myself. From my Income at work.

That is you, but you are not everybody. For a start, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly, this tax will bring money into the country from absentee landlords, from German and British holiday home owners. It will impose a tax on those who still have apartments from which they derive tax-free income because of various property reliefs. Therefore it is a way of broadening the income base and getting money from those who for various reasons (tax reliefs, non-residency) who don't pay much if any income tax. This means we need less tax on the working man than an increase in income tax.

Zubeneschamali

bgrizzley wrote: »

there would be no measures necessary if they hadnt promised tax cuts at every hands turn taking most of the working population out of the tax net, and then greedily fueled a property bubble / bust to compound matters.

And one of those irresponsible tax cuts which took people out of the tax net was the elimination of domestic rates in 1977. The LPT is simply reversing that bad decision.

hju6

Godge wrote: »

I am thoroughly fed up with this nonsense that you keep spouting.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tax

A tax is "a compulsory contribution to state revenue". By that definition the Household Charge is a tax.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tax

" a compulsory financial contribution imposed by a government to raise revenue, levied on the income or property of persons or organizations"

Again, that definition includes the Household Charge.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax

A "tax is a financial charge...." Could it be any clearer to you?

That is just from the first three answers from a googling of the definition of tax. You are the only person on this thread saying it is not a tax which and it demonstrates once again that all you are about it a rant with no evidence, argument or logic to back up anything you say.






That is you, but you are not everybody. For a start, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly, this tax will bring money into the country from absentee landlords, from German and British holiday home owners. It will impose a tax on those who still have apartments from which they derive tax-free income because of various property reliefs. Therefore it is a way of broadening the income base and getting money from those who for various reasons (tax reliefs, non-residency) who don't pay much if any income tax. This means we need less tax on the working man than an increase in income tax.

froms Blacks Law Dictionary. Charge definition.

To impose a burden, obligation, or lien; to create a claim against property; to claim, to demand; to accuse; to instruct a jury on matters of law. In the first sense above given, a jury in a criminal case is “charged” with the duty of trying the prisoner (or, as otherwise expressed, with his fate or his “deliverance”) as soon as they are impaneled and sworn, and at this moment the prisoner’s legal “jeopardy” begins. This is altogether a different matter from “charging” the jury in the sense of giving them instructions on matters of law, which is a function of the court. Tomasson v. State, 112 Tenn. 590, 79 S. W. 803.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/charge-v/#ixzz2eaCd39Xl

From Blacks Law Dictionary. Tax Definition.

In a general sense, a tax is any contribution imposed by government upon individuals, for the use and service of the state, whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other uame. Story, Const.Taylor v. Boyd, G3 Tex. 533; Morgan’s Co. v. State Board of Health, 118 U. S. 455, 6 Sup. Ct 1114, 30 L. Ed. 237; Dranga v. Rowe, 127 Cal. 500, 50 Pac. 944; McClelland v. State, 138 Ind 321, 37 N. E. 1089; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Iowa. 2S. 1 Am. Rep. 215; Bonaparte v. State, 03 Md. 405; Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. State, 49 Ohio St. 189. 30 N. E. 435, 10 I,. I!. A. 380; Illinois Cont. It. Co. v. Decatur. 147 U. S. 190, 13 Sup. Ct. 293, 37 L. Ed. 132.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/tax/#ixzz2eaDLHnHI

alastair

hju6 wrote: »

In a general sense, a tax is any contribution imposed by government upon individuals, for the use and service of the state, whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name.

Including 'charge'.

The HHC was a tax, just as the USC is a tax.

Godge

alastair wrote: »

Including 'charge'.

The HHC was a tax, just as the USC is a tax.

Glad we have finally put that one to bed.