The property tax deadline has passed, did you pay?

tayto lover

Anynama141 wrote: »

So you are advocating MORE wealth taxes? And opposing a wealth tax?

No. I'm saying that the very rich don't pay enough percentage of wealth-wise.

Phoebas

tayto lover wrote: »

No. I'm saying that the very rich don't pay enough percentage of wealth-wise.

You so seem to be arguing for a wealth tax. I've already pointed you to the income tax stats that show that the richest income earners pay the most tax on income.

You are arguing that they pay too little in relation to their wealth, not their income. So you want higher wealth taxes.

Anynama141

tayto lover wrote: »

No. I'm saying that the very rich don't pay enough percentage of wealth-wise.

Ok, so you want them to pay a percentage of their wealth. What do you think will happen when SF or the ULA get in and charge them a wealth tax of 2% of their total wealth per annum, or whatever figure they have in mind?

Banjo String

Anynama141 wrote: »

So you are advocating MORE wealth taxes? And opposing a wealth tax?

C'mon now NAMA.

We discussed earlier how a tax on your home isn't a wealth tax. I thought we'd cleared that up?

Anynama141

SamHall wrote: »

C'mon now NAMA.

We discussed earlier how a tax on your home isn't a wealth tax. I thought we'd cleared that up?

I disagree. It's not necessary to own a house - you can rent. Or you can own a cheaper house rather than a more expensive one.

If you own it, it's wealth. As I said, it doesn't matter how you finance your ownership - otherwise you might refuse to pay your motor tax because you have a car loan, or whatever.

Banjo String

Anynama141 wrote: »

I disagree. It's not necessary to own a house - you can rent. Or you can own a cheaper house rather than a more expensive one.

If you own it, it's wealth. As I said, it doesn't matter how you finance your ownership - otherwise you might refuse to pay your motor tax because you have a car loan, or whatever.

Firstly, renting does not relieve you of the burden of the tax (only the liability) as a landlord will obviously pass the tax on to his tenant in some way or another. It would be foolish to assume otherwise.

The cheaper house option might sound good, sadly though anyone in negative equity will be bringing the negative equity with them when they move, what with having a mortgage and not being able to clear it.

And if it was a true wealth tax, builders would be taxed on the houses they have in their 'stock'.
A builder owning fifty unoccupied houses, awaiting the markets to improve/stabilize to cash in on his investment (asset) escapes this so called 'wealth tax'

A family in negative equity, mortgage in arrears, hovering above the poverty line don't.

The govt parties have a funny notion of what 'wealth' is.

Anynama141

SamHall wrote: »

Firstly, renting does not relieve you of the burden of the tax (only the liability) as a landlord will obviously pass the tax on to his tenant in some way or another. It would be foolish to assume otherwise.

Certainly - the property represents wealth for the landlord.

SamHall wrote: »

The cheaper house option might sound good, sadly though anyone in negative equity will be bringing the negative equity with them when they move, what with having a mortgage and not being able to clear it.

You will notice that I agree with you on the timing of introducing the tax: it should have been introduced before the bubble really took off.

SamHall wrote: »

And if it was a true wealth tax, builders would be taxed on the houses they have in their 'stock'.
A builder owning fifty unoccupied houses, awaiting the markets to improve/stabilize to cash in on his investment (asset) escapes this so called 'wealth tax'

Again, I agree that the tax should be extended to developers, unless there would be unforeseen consequences which are not immediately apparent.

SamHall wrote: »

A family in negative equity, mortgage in arrears, hovering above the poverty line don't.

The govt parties have a funny notion of what 'wealth' is.

I'm a bit wary of 'the poverty line' - as it's a relative value, it's theoretically possible for Bill Gates to be considered 'under the poverty line', as long as other folks have more than him. But that's an aside.

We (I think) can agree that the tax is being introduced at the wrong time. It should have been done years ago. We can agree that the government needs to raise taxes or cut social welfare and/or PS pay. The point where we disagree seems to be on what assets you should or should not be taxed on.

Bradanfeasa

mikeym, don't give up... check out attackthetax.com & learn how to legally NOT pay the household/Property Tax.

Anynama141

Bradanfeasa wrote: »

mikeym, don't give up... check out attackthetax.com & learn how to legally NOT pay the household/Property Tax.

Bradanfeasa, I've asked another poster but he has not replied. Have you verified that you will not be jointly and severally liable for the High Court costs when this case is thrown out?

I see that the company is described as an SPV, but this is certainly bullsh!t as there's nothing at all about the structure of the company on the website, which is very, very odd.

Also, the website seems to be a front for some Freeman/Sovereign nutters (there's a good thread about them on Boards.ie) so know who you are getting involved with.

Cody Pomeray

Irony: anti property tax folk advocating wealth tax

DOUBLE IRONY: pro property tax folk criticizing the above irony WHILST CONDEMNDING WEALTH TAX

lol??/brain fried

plenty of messed up AH political compasses.

The Gride

I met a guy yesterday that did'nt pay. He lives alone. He knew about the household charge but had not a clue that it had changed to LPT.

God bless him !

Anynama141

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

DOUBLE IRONY: pro property tax folk criticizing the above irony WHILST CONDEMNDING WEALTH TAX

I've no problems with wealth tax on a philosophical or ideological level: I'm simply aware that the moment you turn up at the door of an Irish billionaire and tell him it's going to cost him 2% of his entire wealth every year just for the privilege of living in Ireland, you won't see him or his wealth for dust as he'll be joining Denis O'Brien as a tax exile. And you can say goodbye to whatever money he was going to spend in the local economy, and you can possibly say goodbye to whatever businesses he was going to start up.

It's an entirely pragmatic stance reflecting the world we live in.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

plenty of messed up AH political compasses.

Some of us don't use a political compass, as they tend to lead you up practical blind alleys.

Clareboy

The Local Property Tax - I really don't know what all the fuss is about - €45 - most Irish people would spend that and more on a night's drinking and think nothing of it!

People of my generation remember rates on houses and the dreaded Rate Collector calling to collect it. People in those days had a lot less money out of which to pay the rates and no amenities or services to speak of.

tayto lover

Anynama141 wrote: »

I've no problems with wealth tax on a philosophical or ideological level: I'm simply aware that the moment you turn up at the door of an Irish billionaire and tell him it's going to cost him 2% of his entire wealth every year just for the privilege of living in Ireland, you won't see him or his wealth for dust as he'll be joining Denis O'Brien as a tax exile. And you can say goodbye to whatever money he was going to spend in the local economy, and you can possibly say goodbye to whatever businesses he was going to start up.

It's an entirely pragmatic stance reflecting the world we live in.

Some of us don't use a political compass, as they tend to lead you up practical blind alleys.

We pay an awful lot more than 2% for the privilege of living here.
I can't see any of these people leaving. 2% of more than they can count would not and should not trouble them. Denis O'Brien was "made" by Fine Gael anyway as Lowry looked after him.
People make the same argument for not rising the Corporate Tax rate too which is mad in my opinion. They are here because we have a good workforce and we are English speaking. We have a Corporate Tax much lower than other English speaking countries so there is plenty of room for manoeuvre.

Anynama141

tayto lover wrote: »

We pay an awful lot more than 2% for the privilege of living here.

True.

tayto lover wrote: »

I can't see any of these people leaving. 2% of more than they can count would not and should not trouble them. Denis O'Brien was "made" by Fine Gael anyway as Lowry looked after him.

O'Brien left as a tax exile. All the rest would follow him. Your belief that people are willing to pay tens of millions per annum to live here instead of - say - Scotland or Monaco or Switzerland or Portugal is nice, but not very realistic I fear.

tayto lover wrote: »

People make the same argument for not rising the Corporate Tax rate too which is mad in my opinion. They are here because we have a good workforce and we are English speaking. We have a Corporate Tax much lower than other English speaking countries so there is plenty of room for manoeuvre.

We can actually test this one: where were all these companies in the 70s and 80s when we also spoke English and had a good (and, back then, cheap) workforce?

Why did they suddenly arrive in the 90s and 2000s?

(hint: when was corporation tax lowered?)

tayto lover

Anynama141 wrote: »

True.

O'Brien left as a tax exile. All the rest would follow him. Your belief that people are willing to pay tens of millions per annum to live here instead of - say - Scotland or Monaco or Switzerland or Portugal is nice, but not very realistic I fear.

We can actually test this one: where were all these companies in the 70s and 80s when we also spoke English and had a good (and, back then, cheap) workforce?

Why did they suddenly arrive in the 90s and 2000s?

(hint: when was corporation tax lowered?)

I would bet any money that they will not leave if the rate is increased by 1-2%.

Anynama141

tayto lover wrote: »

I would bet any money that they will not leave if the rate is increased by 1-2%.

I think you are probably right. But there's a big difference between charging companies a little extra on their earnings and charging wealthy (read: mobile) individuals a chunk of their assets every year.

Bishop_Donal

tayto lover wrote: »

I would bet any money that they will not leave if the rate is increased by 1-2%.

First of all, I bet you're wrong (and we'll just have to agree to disagree).

Second, what's your bet on how many new companies would be deterred from coming to Ireland as a consequence of such a fundamental shift in stated policy by the Irish government (and the uncertainty that would stem therefrom)? What's your estimate of the consequential loss of income tax owing to the jobs forfeited?

Third, in real terms, what extra revenue would such a move generate? The current 12.5% rate generates approx Eur4bn as far as I know. I think it's fair to assume that the overall take is not directly proportionate to the rate!

Ultimately, none of this matters, as while you might be prepared to make this bet, the country can't and won't.

tayto lover

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

First of all, I bet you're wrong (and we'll just have to agree to disagree).

Second, what's your bet on how many new companies would be deterred from coming to Ireland as a consequence of such a fundamental shift in stated policy by the Irish government (and the uncertainty that would stem therefrom)? What's your estimate of the consequential loss of income tax owing to the jobs forfeited?

Third, in real terms, what extra revenue would such a move generate? The current 12.5% rate generates approx Eur4bn as far as I know. I think it's fair to assume that the overall take is not directly proportionate to the rate!

Ultimately, none of this matters, as while you might be prepared to make this bet, the country can't and won't.

Loads of room for manoeuvre Donal --

Corporate Tax Rate - A corporate tax rate of 12.5% applies to all corporate trading profits
% Corporation Tax Headline Rates
Ireland 12.50
*Singapore 17.00
Russia 20.00
Switzerland 21.17
China 25.00
Netherlands 25.00
UK 26.00
Luxembourg 28.80
**Germany **30.20
France 33.33
India 32.44
Belgium 33.99
Brazil 34.00
USA 35
***Japan 38.01
Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2012

Bishop_Donal

tayto lover wrote: »

Loads of room for manoeuvre Donal --

Corporate Tax Rate - A corporate tax rate of 12.5% applies to all corporate trading profits
% Corporation Tax Headline Rates
Ireland 12.50
*Singapore 17.00
Russia 20.00
Switzerland 21.17
China 25.00
Netherlands 25.00
UK 26.00
Luxembourg 28.80
**Germany **30.20
France 33.33
India 32.44
Belgium 33.99
Brazil 34.00
USA 35
***Japan 38.01
Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2012

There's a subtle difference between headline and effective rates. There's also a difference between the respective levels of inward investment in the countries that you quote (and they have different levels of dependence on that investment).

noodler

tayto lover wrote: »

I would bet any money that they will not leave if the rate is increased by 1-2%.

No one knows.

Its a massive, massive gamble though.

More than 10% of the private sector is employed by Multinationals directly, god knows how many other jobs depend on them. At least 1bn of our 4bn corportation tax take is from US multinationals.

Multinationals make their decisions in cycles, we could increase the rate now and not feel the effects for a couple of years.

tayto lover wrote: »

Loads of room for manoeuvre Donal --

Corporate Tax Rate - A corporate tax rate of 12.5% applies to all corporate trading profits
% Corporation Tax Headline Rates
Ireland 12.50
*Singapore 17.00
Russia 20.00
Switzerland 21.17
China 25.00
Netherlands 25.00
UK 26.00
Luxembourg 28.80
**Germany **30.20
France 33.33
India 32.44
Belgium 33.99
Brazil 34.00
USA 35
***Japan 38.01
Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2012

Same report states that our effective tax rate (what corportations actually pay after tax write-offs etc) is 11.9% whereas the effect rate for many other European nations fallas considerably.

Not a very scientific way to go about it but every country on that list has so many advantages that we cannot match in terms of workforces, labour costs etc.

I personally think the Government is right to never even allow the suggestion that we might change it. It really denotes much needed certainty. An article by the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland in the Times last week said that the MNCs have actually expanded during the crisis whilst so many others have contracted.

I don't say that no corporation tax change is correct with 100% certainty but I do think that on balance it has been the right call and, tellingly, all the major parties in the last General Election said they would keep the rate as is.

Bradanfeasa

Anynama141 wrote: »

Bradanfeasa, I've asked another poster but he has not replied. Have you verified that you will not be jointly and severally liable for the High Court costs when this case is thrown out?

I see that the company is described as an SPV, but this is certainly bullsh!t as there's nothing at all about the structure of the company on the website, which is very, very odd.

Also, the website seems to be a front for some Freeman/Sovereign nutters (there's a good thread about them on Boards.ie) so know who you are getting involved with.

OK Anynama141, if you are happy to be conned by this government then that's your choice. I am only asking people to look at the evidence, then make an informed decision on the legality of this tax. Acorn to Oak Communications (registered with the CRO) is a PLC, shareholders have limited liability - YES, I could actually lose my €2 if they lost but these guys are determined to go all the way to the European court (when was the last time the Irish government won a case in Europe?).
Your comments on the website being a front for Freeman etc is bull****... This is a group of Citizen's looking for answers, that's all.

tayto lover

noodler wrote: »

No one knows.

Its a massive, massive gamble though.

More than 10% of the private sector is employed by Multinationals directly, god knows how many other jobs depend on them. At least 1bn of our 4bn corportation tax take is from US multinationals.

Multinationals make their decisions in cycles, we could increase the rate now and not feel the effects for a couple of years.


Same report states that our effective tax rate (what corportations actually pay after tax write-offs etc) is 11.9% whereas the effect rate for many other European nations fallas considerably.

Not a very scientific way to go about it but every country on that list has so many advantages that we cannot match in terms of workforces, labour costs etc.

I personally think the Government is right to never even allow the suggestion that we might change it. It really denotes much needed certainty. An article by the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland in the Times last week said that the MNCs have actually expanded during the crisis whilst so many others have contracted.

I don't say that no corporation tax change is correct with 100% certainty but I do think that on balance it has been the right call and, tellingly, all the major parties in the last General Election said they would keep the rate as is.

Our big advantage and the main reason they will not leave is that we are an English speaking country. Our workforce speaks English and the big U.S. companies speak English. Our workforce are well educated too, so I believe we hold the aces rather than those other countries. Cheaper workforces do not guarantee more profits for these businesses.

Banjo String

I see revenue have given 'non compliant' homeowners another few days to sign up lol.

Makes me seriously wonder about the numbers they've published.:pac:

Clowns.

Phoebas

SamHall wrote: »

I see revenue have given 'non compliant' homeowners another few days to sign up lol.

Makes me seriously wonder about the numbers they've published.:pac:

Clowns.

revenue.ie wrote:

These numbers do not include about 160,000 residential properties where the local authorities or a social housing group is liable, and for whom special payment provisions were made in legislation… Including these we have voluntary compliance in respect of some 1.68 million properties."

The Revenue figures make it quite clear that this phase of the implementation has been an outstanding success. Fair play to the Revenue for bringing this in successfully.

Any extension is for the small number of people who found themselves on the wrong side of this issue and are now regretting it to regularise themselves.
The only clowns are the deluded few who still think they can get away with evading this tax.

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

The Revenue figures make it quite clear that this phase of the implementation has been an outstanding success. Fair play to the Revenue for bringing this in successfully.

Any extension is for the small number of people who found themselves on the wrong side of this issue and are now regretting it to regularise themselves.
The only clowns are the deluded few who still think they can get away with evading this tax.

Three deadlines now that "most definitely wouldn't be extended"?

Makes me doubt they're actually going to deduct it from wages. Labour will be finished if they go that route.

bgrizzley

SamHall wrote: »

I see revenue have given 'non compliant' homeowners another few days to sign up lol.

Makes me seriously wonder about the numbers they've published.:pac:

Clowns.

Did they thank the compliants for being patriots?

Monkeybonkers

I haven't paid and I have no intention of paying either. My main objection to paying this exorbitant tax is

the fact that I don't own any property

.

bgrizzley

Monkeybonkers wrote: »

I haven't paid and I have no intention of paying either. My main objection to paying this exorbitant tax is

the fact that I don't own any property

.

has your rent gone up lately?