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

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

It may be levied on your income, but it's not an income tax.

That doesn't matter - nor is the USC - which is also levied on those with foreign-sourced salaries. It's a tax on income.

Slick50 wrote: »

What is the technicality? That might help.

I posted the Ministers synopsis - feel free to review.

Slick50 wrote: »

Don't worry, I wasn't depending on you for that, it is simple enough.. It was you who seemed to have a problem understanding how to define an unmarked boundary between the two, for LPT purposes.

I've no problem in that regard. It's the use defines whether LPT is applicable or not - not a fence.

Slick50 wrote: »

Isn't that the beauty of the one acre limit, you figure out how much more valuable you property is, due to the extensive lands/gardens, and reduce the value of your property by that much for the purpose of LPT evaluation. Who could have dreamt that one up? Who benefits from such a clause?

It doesn't benefit anyone - as the Minister's reply makes clear. It's also, as I keep pointing out, rather moot, because generous gardens, irrespective of whether they're included in LPT, will add a premium to the market value of the house itself - which will be reflected in the applied LPT band.

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

That doesn't matter - nor is the USC - which is also levied on those with foreign-sourced salaries. It's a tax on income.

We'll see.

alastair wrote: »

I've no problem in that regard. It's the use defines whether LPT is applicable or not - not a fence.

It's not just the use, the acreage is also considered irrespective of use, which was the point in question.

alastair wrote: »

It doesn't benefit anyone - as the Minister's reply makes clear. It's also, as I keep pointing out, rather moot, because generous gardens, irrespective of whether they're included in LPT, will add a premium to the market value of the house itself - which will be reflected in the applied LPT band.

It certainly does benefit some, those with rolling lawns and large lanscaoed gardens. The point is not mute, because the whole point of the acre limit means the added value connot be considered for valuation purposes. re:LPT. So the 'technicality' is a ministers opinion... they wouldn't know how to value something so valuable.

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

We'll see.

We already know. He'll have the LPT garnished from his salary.

Slick50 wrote: »

It's not just the use, the acreage is also considered irrespective of use, which was the point in question.

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

Slick50 wrote: »

It certainly does benefit some, those with rolling lawns and large lanscaoed gardens. The point is not mute, because the whole point of the acre limit means the added value connot be considered for valuation purposes. re:LPT. So the 'technicality' is a ministers opinion... they wouldn't know how to value something so valuable.

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

Slick50 wrote: »

We'll see.

It's not just the use, the acreage is also considered irrespective of use, which was the point in question.

It certainly does benefit some, those with rolling lawns and large lanscaoed gardens. The point is not mute, because the whole point of the acre limit means the added value connot be considered for valuation purposes. re:LPT. So the 'technicality' is a ministers opinion... they wouldn't know how to value something so valuable.

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.

creedp

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Agree with this and the real problem is that our IT system is too progressive with too many people out of the tax net. It FG weren't so spineless the Govt would admit that their manifesto promise of no extra ITaxes did not mean that some people would have to pay more taxes and would reduce the threshold which knocks people out of the IT net. Instead the well paid spinners/PR gurus have decided that prefect Kenny and co can get around that silly promise by introducing a less progressive LPT which essentially means low paid people will pay more tax as there is no low pay exemption threshold.

While I am not idelogically againt a property tax I am sickened by this Govt selling this tax as some kind of major reform when it is nothing more that a backdoor attempt at forcing more low paid people into the tax net by a Govt that doen't have the courage to deal with the real tax reform required.

I am also tired of apologists going on about the fact that the LPT will be 100% spent funding local authorities as if paying more tax via thge LPT will actually provide more funding for local services .. another spinners gold medal .. every € of LPT funding is replacing a previous € of central funding which is now directed to funding the banks, etc. The LPT will not provide 1 cent of additional funding for local services despite what the Govt might claim.

creedp

alastair wrote: »

And your shill paranoia is pretty tired.

I'm confused here .. who actually is being a shill and who is being paranoid? Are you quoting me by mistake? For my own perspective I'm simply commenting on the progressiveness of a new tax and I am certainly not in any way paranoid about it.

Godge

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.

In my opinion, both LPT and CGT should be payable on large gardens, agricultural land etc.

The CGT exemption limit should not limit the applicability of LPT.

creedp

Godge wrote: »

In my opinion, both LPT and CGT should be payable on large gardens, agricultural land etc.

The CGT exemption limit should not limit the applicability of LPT.

Ah c'mon now .. you couldn't expect the farmers to pay tax on the 'land'. Businesses pay rates, households pay LPT, but farmers pay nothing. I wonder why those advocating the LPT in order to broaden the tax base don't suggest broadening it a little further such that the agri sector contributes a few more bob to the exchequer? Would that be a 'broadening' too far?

alastair

creedp wrote: »

I'm confused here .. who actually is being a shill and who is being paranoid? Are you quoting me by mistake? For my own perspective I'm simply commenting on the progressiveness of a new tax and I am certainly not in any way paranoid about it.

Not sure why you're confused - it was in response to this:

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.

creedp

alastair wrote: »

Not sure why you're confused - it was in response to this:

My question stands though? Where is the shill and where is the paranoia? In my opinion its a perfectly reasonable statement, obviously others can disagree. I don't this its necessary to call someone a shill or consider their opinions paranoid simply becasue you disagree with what they say.

alastair

creedp wrote: »

I am also tired of apologists going on about the fact that the LPT will be 100% spent funding local authorities as if paying more tax via thge LPT will actually provide more funding for local services .. another spinners gold medal .. every € of LPT funding is replacing a previous € of central funding which is now directed to funding the banks, etc. The LPT will not provide 1 cent of additional funding for local services despite what the Govt might claim.

Of course it will provide more funding for local authorities. They have had Local Government Fund funding cut for a number of years - without this LPT revenue, they would be in a worse situation - it's a reality that central fund cuts would be retained in local services before health or welfare spending. Nobody is claiming that additional services will accrue from this - but it certainly means fewer cancelled services. And again - the percentage of your taxes that go to funding banks is in the tuppenny place compared to servicing existing services and the deficit derived from loans for those services.

Zubeneschamali

creedp wrote: »

In my opinion its a perfectly reasonable statement, obviously others can disagree. I don't this its necessary to call someone a shill or consider their opinions paranoid simply becasue you disagree with what they say.

No-one called you a shill. You said that certain posters here are less critical of government policy than a paid spokesman would be.

You actually said people here are worse than shills.

alastair

creedp wrote: »

My question stands though? Where is the shill and where is the paranoia? In my opinion its a perfectly reasonable statement, obviously others can disagree. I don't this its necessary to call someone a shill or consider their opinions paranoid simply becasue you disagree with what they say.

You're accusing posters of shilling for the government (ironically, because you disagree with what they say). That's the paranoia referenced.

creedp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No-one called you a shill. You said that certain posters here are less critical of government policy than a paid spokesman would be.

You actually said people here are worse than shills.

OK so if I comment on the nature of other people posts I am automatically a shill? If that is the case then I am in good company.

kfk

creedp wrote: »

Ah c'mon now .. you couldn't expect the farmers to pay tax on the 'land'. Businesses pay rates, households pay LPT, but farmers pay nothing. I wonder why those advocating the LPT in order to broaden the tax base don't suggest broadening it a little further such that the agri sector contributes a few more bob to the exchequer? Would that be a 'broadening' too far?

Farmers are not exempt from paying LPT! Also, many farmers have been paying huge water bills for years!

Banjo String

kfk wrote: »

Farmers are not exempt from paying LPT! Also, many farmers have been paying huge water bills for years!

Would these water bills be known as 'rates'?

Farmers operate from a farm.
A farm is a business.
Something that actually does generate an income.

Farmers get the odd EU grant too don't forget. Hardly all one way traffic now is it.

Zubeneschamali

creedp wrote: »

OK so if I comment on the nature of other people posts I am automatically a shill?

Come on, you're not even reading things before you respond!

I just said "No-one called you a shill".

alastair

creedp wrote: »

OK so if I comment on the nature of other people posts I am automatically a shill? If that is the case then I am in good company.

Stunning comprehension fail. :eek:

kfk

Banjo String wrote: »

Would these water bills be known as 'rates'?

Farmers operate from a farm.
A farm is a business.
Something that actually does generate an income.

Farmers get the odd EU grant too don't forget. Hardly all one way traffic now is it.

No, the water charges are not known as rates. In my area, water charges would usually amount to a lot more than rates.

I presume you mean farm subsidies? Farmers would be a lot happier to get paid a fair price for their produce rather than receive a small subsidy. The aim of the subsidies is to keep food prices low for the consumer, so in fact these subsidies benefit the consumer and not the farmer.

slimjimmc

kfk wrote: »

No, the water charges are not known as rates. In my area, water charges would usually amount to a lot more than rates.

I presume you mean farm subsidies? Farmers would be a lot happier to get paid a fair price for their produce rather than receive a small subsidy. The aim of the subsidies is to keep food prices low for the consumer, so in fact these subsidies benefit the consumer and not the farmer.

Are those huge water charges due to using huge volumes of water which is drawn from a public or group water supply and not from their own private source?

Banjo String

kfk wrote: »

No, the water charges are not known as rates. In my area, water charges would usually amount to a lot more than rates.

I presume you mean farm subsidies? Farmers would be a lot happier to get paid a fair price for their produce rather than receive a small subsidy. The aim of the subsidies is to keep food prices low for the consumer, so in fact these subsidies benefit the consumer and not the farmer.

I'm not disagreeing with you incidentally.

Farmers have to pay lpt too, that is correct. They were extremely lucky that it wasn't a site valued tax that was introduced though.

Ref the water charges. There is no denying a farm is a business. The very nature of a farm means that it will need to consume a high volume of water. Be it to water live stock, cleaning purposes, and general maintenance of the farm. With this comes pollutants to a certain extent t (seepage from silage, slurry and the likes)

On that basis I think its reasonable to expect the farm to contribute to the resources it's using no doubt about it.

I was referring to the annual single farm payment grant.
We know what its intended for. But lots of other countries dont get the same handouts (I'm thjnkinh new Zealand as an eg)

creedp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Come on, you're not even reading things before you respond!

I just said "No-one called you a shill".

I agree I jumped the gun! Apologies. While I was undoubtedly being ham fisted what I am trying to get at is that every policy has certain flaws such that in an anonomous forum even Govt advisors might have criticisms which is why sometimes I find it unusual when people don't have any such criticisms. Hell that's no better!

Anyway I am still interested in whether people who are positively disposed to the LPT consider that it could be construed as a policy measure introduced to try and address the overly progressive nature of the IT system which exempts too many low income taxpayers by a Government which made a silly pre-election promise not to increase IT? Or is this complete trot??

oscarBravo

creedp wrote: »

Anyway I am still interested in whether people who are positively disposed to the LPT consider that it could be construed as a policy measure introduced to try and address the overly progressive nature of the IT system which exempts too many low income taxpayers by a Government which made a silly pre-election promise not to increase IT? Or is this complete trot??

You might not be far wrong. I do think, however, that the bemoaning of the LPT isn't in the ha'penny place compared to the repercussions that would follow from dialing back the progressivity of income tax to saner, more sustainable levels.

Think about it: FF won election after election by taking ever more workers out of the income tax system. You really think they wouldn't be shameless enough to go to the polls next time with "we took you out of the tax net, FG put you back in it, who you gonna vote for?" Worse, you really think that campaign wouldn't wash with the Irish electorate?

Going Forward

creedp wrote: »

I agree I jumped the gun! Apologies. While I was undoubtedly being ham fisted what I am trying to get at is that every policy has certain flaws such that in an anonomous forum even Govt advisors might have criticisms which is why sometimes I find it unusual when people don't have any such criticisms. Hell that's no better!

It is seen by supporters as the one single element of our taxation system which was missing, which now completes the perfect wheel, and by that logic I expect it to make an amazing difference to our fortunes, going forward.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Kenny and co. would have been far better to dupe the country, if this 500M was so sacrosanct, by flatly refusing to introduce an LPT but at the same time raising it by other means, the range of methods have been suggested on this thread many times.

And Kenny would not have his very own personal "Read my lips" speech following him around. Lets not forget the Labour's way waffle either.

The effect would have been to galvanise the electorate by giving some credence to the pre election cross party guff of standing up to the troika etc etc.

Instead, the country voted and for their troubles got a property tax, from a coalition hell bent on the implementation of the previous government's memorandum of understanding, and watered down versions of transparency and very little actual "change".

The unnerving thing is that a shill would hardly have the blind enthusiasm displayed here for the LPT, aside from the fact that a shill is not even necessary as the tax is copper fastened anyway

Zubeneschamali

creedp wrote: »

Anyway I am still interested in whether people who are positively disposed to the LPT consider that it could be construed as a policy measure introduced to try and address the overly progressive nature of the IT system which exempts too many low income taxpayers by a Government which made a silly pre-election promise not to increase IT?

Yes, I already pointed this out:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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

Zubeneschamali

Going Forward wrote: »

And Kenny would not have his very own personal "Read my lips" speech following him around.

I don't like Kenny, I think he's a shallow and rather stupid say-anything politician with no convictions at all. He took over the FG leadership when Noonan got pasted in 2002 for telling the truth, and Kenny has never made that mistake.

But really, nobody cares about that 20 year old sound-bite now.

Going Forward

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't like Kenny, I think he's a shallow and rather stupid say-anything politician with no convictions at all. He took over the FG leadership when Noonan got pasted in 2002 for telling the truth, and Kenny has never made that mistake.

But really, nobody cares about that 20 year old sound-bite now.

TBH, I dont think anyone cares what politicians say anymore, period, in part because of this sort of thing!

But isnt it most ironic that Kenny is the very one out of all the Irish politicians who then proceeded to introduce a home property tax?

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.

Zubeneschamali

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.

Not if he had to break an explicit election pledge on income taxes in order to stand by that old sound-bite.

Going Forward

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not if he had to break an explicit election pledge on income taxes in order to stand by that old sound-bite.

A stupid move, particularly when such promises were hardly required for Fine Gael to be successful , as the largest party had already gone into meltdown by then.

Zubeneschamali

Going Forward wrote: »

A stupid move, particularly when such promises were hardly required for Fine Gael to be successful , as the largest party had already gone into meltdown by then.

I agree. They should have promised nothing - "elect us because you need to throw FF out". Then they should have applied a very harsh correction to the finances immediately while people were still blaming FF for everything.

But Enda didn't consult me :P