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

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Course it does.

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

The difference between a charge and a tax, in my opinion.

A charge is a price/cost that you would pay in a retail outlet, or to a tradesperson/professional for goods or services, that may be negotiable.

Your opinion of what a charge is would fall short of where it's applied on a daily basis then. Neither the HHC or the USC fall into your definition, and both are taxes.

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've made the claim that others are arguing that we should have a property tax because other countries do.

Well, yes, and I posted it and reposted the original posters post a couple of times, and I even bolded the appropriate section, and even then, none of the posters who are arguing in favour of the LPT have seen it, so it's no point in me revisiting that one.

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

OK, agreed.

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

Well, yes, and I posted it and reposted the original posters post a couple of times, and I even bolded the appropriate section, and even then, none of the posters who are arguing in favour of the LPT have seen it, so it's no point in me revisiting that one.

That's because emboldening the words doesn't change their meaning. You are making a claim for then contrary to their meaning. And this has been pointed out to you multiple times.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86459888&postcount=3798

darkhorse

Banjo String wrote: »

Was vat not raised to make up for this?

Godge wrote: »

What happened was that we removed a stable broad-based tax on property and replaced it with a transactions-based tax dependent on the level of economic activity.

Yes it was. It was raised by 2%.

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

Yes it was. It was raised by 2%.

VAT was not increased with the removal of domestic rates.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/rates/current-historic-rates-vat.html

creedp

alastair wrote: »

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.

Unlike IT there is little progressiveness in the taxable rate as the value of the house increases .. 0.18% for the 1st €1m and then 0.25% on balance. If the same approach was applied to IT then the vast majority of workers would be on the std rate and the high rate would be around 30% and not 42% .. .. maybe I should look again at the definition of progressive or maybe the use of 'relatively' is NB here, e.g. it certainly is relatively progressive when compared to the HHC.

As far as I understand it gardens in excess of an acre are not taken into account when calculating the value of the property for LPT .. now I would think that most ordinary Joes wont have to concern themselves with this exemption.

alastair

creedp wrote: »

Unlike IT there is little progressiveness in the taxable rate as the value of the house increases .. 0.18% for the 1st €1m and then 0.25% on balance. If the same approach was applied to IT then the vast majority of workers would be on the std rate and the high rate would be around 30% and not 42% .. .. maybe I should look again at the definition of progressive or maybe the use of 'relatively' is NB here, e.g. it certainly is relatively progressive when compared to the HHC.

As far as I understand it gardens in excess of an acre are not taken into account when calculating the value of the property for LPT .. now I would think that most ordinary Joes wont have to concern themselves with this exemption.

It's either progressive or regressive, and in this case it's progressive - relatively so. Comparing it to a more progressive tax doesn't undermine that reality.

The value the property is all that determines the tax band - and the valuation will obviously be influenced by the garden size - so regardless of whether a garden over an acre is considered liable to the tax or not, it'll impart greater value on the actual house, so the exemption is moot.

darkhorse

alastair wrote: »

That's because emboldening the words doesn't change their meaning. You are making a claim for then contrary to their meaning. And this has been pointed out to you multiple times.
[URL="http://"][/URL]

No, I will not accede on this one.

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

No, I will not accede on this one.

But everyone is free to read what he wrote and form the obvious conclusion.

brokenarms

Its started to come out of my wages this week. Booooooooo.

K-9

darkhorse wrote: »

The difference between a charge and a tax, in my opinion.

A charge is a price/cost that you would pay in a retail outlet, or to a tradesperson/professional for goods or services, that may be negotiable.

A tax is a monetary levy imposed by a government, for which there may not necessarily be any return forthcoming.

Mod

A poster was kind enough to put up the definitions of both terms, a charge is a lien against a property, obviously introduced by statute in this case with penalties and/or interest if not paid. It is not a price or a quote, you can't go into your local council office and haggle over it.

No, I will not accede on this one.

From the charter:

When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. Simply saying "a quick search on google...." is often, but not always, enough. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request

You've not posted anything whatsoever to back up your opinion, you've had plenty of chances to post something, and at this stage it has gone on long enough.

Do not post on this thread again thank you.

Zubeneschamali

brokenarms wrote: »

Its started to come out of my wages this week.

Thank you for posting this, I think you are the first poster to state this in person.

Banjo String

I see from a report this morning that consumers will be obliged to pay vat on their water bills.

Irish water will be a private company, and therefore obliged to charge it.

Nicely done govt. Farm it out to a 'private' company, then reap the rewards via vat receipts.
A tax, in a tax.


Ref the wages being docked, the company I work for (not based in this jurisdiction) have asked me to consent to revenue requesting to take lpt from my salary.

I'm waiting a reply from them, asking if I'm obliged to give that consent.

I'll keep the thread informed.

creedp

alastair wrote: »

It's either progressive or regressive, and in this case it's progressive - relatively so. Comparing it to a more progressive tax doesn't undermine that reality.

The value the property is all that determines the tax band - and the valuation will obviously be influenced by the garden size - so regardless of whether a garden over an acre is considered liable to the tax or not, it'll impart greater value on the actual house, so the exemption is moot.

So its either black or white .. no degress of grey .. sound like a lot of discussion on here. I think you'll find there are degress of progressiveness and you cant say two different taxes are the same when one is much more progressive than the other. Some time back I remember seeing some study of the progressiveness of tax system across Europe and the Irish system was rated highly progressive because of of our progressive IT tax which masked the regressive nature of VAT and other flat rate taxes. I wonder how introducing a relatively unprogressivness tax like the LPT would impact on our result?

There is either an exemption for the value imputed to gardens in excess of 1 acre or there isn't .. so what's the moot point all about? Did the legislation contain a frivolous provision?

It seems to me that the views expressed in certain posts are pro-Government policy for the sake of it irrespective of what the issue is .. e.g broadcasting charge and LPT. I would have though that even if someone was a Government spokesperson (not saying anyone on here is!) they could admit to flaws, even minor ones, in Govt policy on an anonomous internet forum. No policy is perfect!

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

Ref the wages being docked, the company I work for (not based in this jurisdiction) have asked me to consent to revenue requesting to take lpt from my salary.

I'm waiting a reply from them, asking if I'm obliged to give that consent.

I'll keep the thread informed.

That's a bit of a deviation from two weeks ago, where you were claiming that Revenue weren't actually garnishing salaries.

alastair

creedp wrote: »

So its either black or white

Precisely. It's either progressive, or it's not. This is.

oscarBravo

creedp wrote: »

So its either black or white .. no degress of grey .. sound like a lot of discussion on here. I think you'll find there are degress of progressiveness and you cant say two different taxes are the same when one is much more progressive than the other. Some time back I remember seeing some study of the progressiveness of tax system across Europe and the Irish system was rated highly progressive because of of our progressive IT tax which masked the regressive nature of VAT and other flat rate taxes. I wonder how introducing a relatively unprogressivness tax like the LPT would impact on our result?

Taking all that on board, something that's important to keep in mind is that progressiveness is not the only metric by which a tax (or a tax regime) should be judged. We could make corporation tax progressive by charging 1% corporation tax on cottage industries and 99% on Google and Intel - but that wouldn't be a good idea.

Progressiveness is just one metric by which to judge a tax. Sustainability is another, and the two are, to an extent, mutually exclusive. The challenge is to find the balance.

Zubeneschamali

creedp wrote: »

Some time back I remember seeing some study of the progressiveness of tax system across Europe and the Irish system was rated highly progressive because of of our progressive IT tax which masked the regressive nature of VAT and other flat rate taxes.

Our existing system is too progressive. Half of all workers pay no income tax. The top 5% of earners pay half of all income tax. This is why you hear all the talk about broadening the tax base.

If we just added the 500 mil planned from LPT to income taxes, it would mostly fall on the same very narrow base.

alastair

creedp wrote: »

There is either an exemption for the value imputed to gardens in excess of 1 acre or there isn't .. so what's the moot point all about? Did the legislation contain a frivolous provision?

It seems to me that the views expressed in certain posts are pro-Government policy for the sake of it irrespective of what the issue is .. e.g broadcasting charge and LPT. I would have though that even if someone was a Government spokesperson (not saying anyone on here is!) they could admit to flaws, even minor ones, in Govt policy on an anonomous internet forum. No policy is perfect!

The LPT bands are based on market value. Market value cannot ignore a larger garden - it will inevitably be factored into the price of the house itself. That's just the reality of the situation, whether there's a notional exemption on anything over an acre or not. You can't divorce one from the other.


Based on the Dail questions - it seems that the exemption of anything over an acre is based on a technicality:

282. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the reason for allowing property owners to be exempt from the proposed property tax for land over one acre; and if he will estimate the revenue he is willing to forego by limiting the property tax to the valuation of property on one acre. [5782/13]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that in line with other taxes such as Capital Gains Tax (CGT) and Capital Acquisitions Tax (CAT), where the market value of residential property is relevant to the assessment for a tax, the curtilage of the dwelling house includes an area of up to one acre. This is regarded as land which is enjoyed as an amenity with the dwelling-house and includes driveways, yards and gardens which belong with the dwelling-house. The tax is intended to be a tax on residential property as normally defined so I do not agree that taxing a residential property plus one acre means that revenue is being foregone. 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. If a property is situated on grounds in excess of one acre, while the LPT will only apply to the house plus one acre, the balance of the property will be liable to CGT on disposal as it will not benefit from the CGT relief for principal private residences.

And your shill paranoia is pretty tired.

Godge

creedp wrote: »

So its either black or white .. no degress of grey .. sound like a lot of discussion on here. I think you'll find there are degress of progressiveness and you cant say two different taxes are the same when one is much more progressive than the other. Some time back I remember seeing some study of the progressiveness of tax system across Europe and the Irish system was rated highly progressive because of of our progressive IT tax which masked the regressive nature of VAT and other flat rate taxes. I wonder how introducing a relatively unprogressivness tax like the LPT would impact on our result?

There is either an exemption for the value imputed to gardens in excess of 1 acre or there isn't .. so what's the moot point all about? Did the legislation contain a frivolous provision?

It seems to me that the views expressed in certain posts are pro-Government policy for the sake of it irrespective of what the issue is .. e.g broadcasting charge and LPT. I would have though that even if someone was a Government spokesperson (not saying anyone on here is!) they could admit to flaws, even minor ones, in Govt policy on an anonomous internet forum. No policy is perfect!

People seem to think that progressive = good but that is not necessarily the case.

If your income tax regime is too progressive, you discourage overtime, you discourage entrepreneurs and you discourage people trying to better themselves in going for higher-paid jobs. Why would someone want all the hassle of the extra work/extra duties and responsibility when say 70% of the extra money is lost in tax?

Those behavioural changes that result from overly progressive income taxation act as a drag on economic growth which then requires higher income taxation to pay for the same services which gets us into a vicious circle.

The MacSharry taxation cuts of the late 1980s worked because they jumped the economy on a bandwagon of world economic growth. That hasn't been the case this time but I would be suggesting that if world economic growth does take off, we should be targeting some income tax cuts at higher earners to encourage the job-creators.

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

The LPT bands are based on market value. Market value cannot ignore a larger garden - it will inevitably be factored into the price of the house itself. That's just the reality of the situation, whether there's a notional exemption on anything over an acre or not. You can't divorce one from the other.

Wasn't the one acre clause brought in to take account of rural/farm lands, so people weren't being assessed for LPT on agricultural land.

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

Wasn't the one acre clause brought in to take account of rural/farm lands, so people weren't being assessed for LPT on agricultural land.

No - agricultural land is exempted separately.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

That's a bit of a deviation from two weeks ag]o, where you were claiming that Revenue weren't actually garnishing salaries.

It is?

Anyway. I find it interesting that they need my permission to forcibly take it from me.

Lol.

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

No - agricultural land is exempted separately.

How do they seperate the residential part of the farm from the agricultural part?

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

It is?

Damn right it is.

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

How do they seperate the residential part of the farm from the agricultural part?

Any land used for commercial purposes is not considered residential.

3. My house is located in the middle of the farm. What should I take into account when valuing my house for LPT purposes?

A residential property is defined in the Local Property Tax (LPT) legislation to include not just the dwelling house itself but also any other buildings or structures and any land that, in a broad sense, belongs with the dwelling house and that are enjoyed as an amenity rather than used for a commercial purpose. These are regarded as an intrinsic part of the dwelling house. Such buildings or structures would include, for example, a garage for the family car but not a shed for the tractor or other farm machinery. Land would include a lawn or flower beds but not a haggard, farmyard or a commercial glasshouse. So in the case of a farmhouse, any land used for farming purposes will not be included in the chargeable value of the farmhouse.

Godge

Banjo String wrote: »

Ref the wages being docked, the company I work for (not based in this jurisdiction) have asked me to consent to revenue requesting to take lpt from my salary.

I'm waiting a reply from them, asking if I'm obliged to give that consent.

I'll keep the thread informed.

Banjo String wrote: »

It is?

Anyway. I find it interesting that they need my permission to forcibly take it from me.

Lol.

I would suggest that it is your employer who is mistaken as they are the ones who have asked for your consent, not revenue. The law is quite clear on it:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/act/pub/0052/sec0065.html#sec65

Section 72 is quite clear too:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/act/pub/0052/sec0072.html#sec72

Think the next one means your employer would be liable for interest if they don't deduct and give the money to revenue


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/act/pub/0052/sec0075.html

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

Any land used for commercial purposes is not considered residential.

Supposing you have a house situated just off the road, in a ten acre field with no out houses or other buildings.