Revenue to share data for TV License?????

sgthighway

Got a letter off the Revenue asking me to join their club for €200. I already have loads of different subscriptions to them. They got my name of the Local Government Management Agency. I rang them up and they said I cannot appeal the arrears. First letter I ever get about it is this one. Even though I don't want to join they are going to take it from my wages. I'm not going to dwell on it because it looks like they can take it from source anyways. Would I be correct in saying there has never been a Court Case for this? Successful or Unsuccessful. I think anyone that went to court the judge just deferred it.

I just wonder will they pass the list onto An Post next for the TV License. Shower of ?#@*%$!

turnikett1

Do you own a property? Did you own it in 2012? If YES, there is a good chance you legitimately owe €200.

Tilly

That's the household charge you didn't pay. They won't be coming after you for a tv licence.

vicwatson

Pay your Taxes !!

Alias G

OMG, a tax on an asset, the injustice of it all.

wazky

Ahhh the fluoride!, it burns!

cerastes

Alias G wrote: »

OMG, a tax on an asset, the injustice of it all.

How is a home an asset? what does it produce in terms of value?
if its viewed as an asset that can be exchanged for money, then it was purchased with money left over after the individual has already paid tax, then it seems like double taxation. Im paying it but I dont agree with it, but only because there hasnt been mass opposition to it, I can go out there on my own and protest but it will achieve nothing if protesting so far is anything to go by.

Alias G

cerastes wrote: »

How is a home an asset? what does it produce in terms of value?
if its viewed as an asset that can be exchanged for money, then it was purchased with money left over after the individual has already paid tax, then it seems like double taxation. Im paying it but I dont agree with it, but only because there hasnt been mass opposition to it, I can go out there on my own and protest but it will achieve nothing if protesting so far is anything to go by.

A house is capable of increasing (or decreasing) in value. Ergo, it is an asset.

Dubwat

The TV licence fee was payable by those who had a TV (or a device capable of receiving a TV signal). Some people didn't pay it because they didn't have a TV.

Now, it's gonna be replaced by a broadcast tax (or something similar) that *every* house will have to pay. The Govt now knows about every property in the country via the Property Tax so it'll be very easy for them to collect this new tax.

Expect another letter!

(sorry to be a party-pooper)

Specialun

Pay your tax you dirty scoungrel

sgthighway

The City/County Council are required by law to prepare and publish a register of electors every year. While they cannot get everyone to be on it; I was on it. Every time there is an Election I get my voting card but they never sent one letter about a Household Charge. As I told you one on the phone I paid any tax I was asked for. Nobody asked me (in writing) to pay a Household Charge.

P.S. I have a TV License

cerastes

Alias G wrote: »

A house is capable of increasing (or decreasing) in value. Ergo, it is an asset.

It can go up or down in value, will the property tax go down??

I dont think its an asset because it can go up or down in value, but the value of everything else is going up or down too, to sell one property and buy another simply means you are getting off the merrygoround and getting on somewhere else, in all likelyhood what you gain on one you lose on the other.

Either way, its paid for from the earnings a person or people have made after they have already paid taxes on those earnings and interest and charges and whatever else.

We should just do it because so many others are too, or we are told to or whatever made up reason really.

Still interested to know if property values fall, will the property tax fall?

turnikett1

cerastes wrote: »

Still interested to know if property values fall, will the property tax fall?

Depends by how much, but the LPT is based on the value of your property. Properties €0-100,000 the tax is €90. €100,001-150,000 means the tax is €225 etc etc. So yes, the property tax can fall in cost if the value of the property falls. Same way it goes up if the value goes up.

cerastes

turnikett1 wrote: »

Depends by how much, but the LPT is based on the value of your property. Properties €0-100,000 the tax is €90. €100,001-150,000 means the tax is €225 etc etc. So yes, the property tax can fall in cost if the value of the property falls. Same way it goes up if the value goes up.

But with those ranges, its designed to not be reduced, but could easily be increased.
If you were teetering around the limits Im sure they will find a way to make people jump through some hoops.

Alias G

cerastes wrote: »

It can go up or down in value, will the property tax go down??

I dont think its an asset because it can go up or down in value, but the value of everything else is going up or down too, to sell one property and buy another simply means you are getting off the merrygoround and getting on somewhere else, in all likelyhood what you gain on one you lose on the other.

Either way, its paid for from the earnings a person or people have made after they have already paid taxes on those earnings and interest and charges and whatever else.

We should just do it because so many others are too, or we are told to or whatever made up reason really.

Still interested to know if property values fall, will the property tax fall?

The property tax is based on the particular value band that the property falls under, so yes the tax you pay could potentially rise or fall according to the value of your house. But that is besides the point. How your investments perform is entirely your business and whether or not you invest wisely has got nothing to do with the local authority.
Your notion of double tax is nonsense as well. Practically all of us are taxed at source on our income. By your logic, no other tax should exist because it constitutes a double tax. Have you any idea how open a system like that would be to tax avoidance most likely by those who can afford it while the rest of us pick up the burden.

turnikett1

cerastes wrote: »

But with those ranges, its designed to not be reduced, but could easily be increased.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. It decreases just as easily as it increases.

cerastes

Alias G wrote: »

The property tax is based on the particular value band that the property falls under, so yes the tax you pay could potentially rise or fall according to the value of your house. But that is besides the point. How your investments perform is entirely your business and whether or not you invest wisely has got nothing to do with the local authority.
Your notion of double tax is nonsense as well. Practically all of us are taxed at source on our income. By your logic, no other tax should exist because it constitutes a double tax. Have you any idea how open a system like that would be to tax avoidance most likely by those who can afford it while the rest of us pick up the burden.

Some people dont consider a home an investment and how it changes in value has for the most part nothing to do with the person that owns it.

As for double taxation, Im referring to someone suggesting its an asset and should be taxed but this is after you have paid tax on the earnings used to aquire the place you live in. Im not suggesting other taxes shouldnt exist and in principle Im not opposed to it if its managed and administered correctly, but I have no confidience in the people who are tasked with that to do it in a way that doesnt penalise some and benefit others.

Banjo String

Alias G wrote: »

OMG, a tax on an asset, the injustice of it all.

A home in negative equity is an asset.

A farmers fields worth hundreds of thousands of euro are not, and are not taxed.

OK......

Alias G

cerastes wrote: »

Some people dont consider a home an investment and how it changes in value has for the most part nothing to do with the person that owns it.

As for double taxation, Im referring to someone suggesting its an asset and should be taxed but this is after you have paid tax on the earnings used to aquire the place you live in. Im not suggesting other taxes shouldnt exist and in principle Im not opposed to it if its managed and administered correctly, but I have no confidience in the people who are tasked with that to do it in a way that doesnt penalise some and benefit others.

It is an asset whether you consider it to be or not. Its not something that is open to your own personnel definition. My home is primarily just that - my home. That doesn't mean that I haven't invested in an asset.
Of course you pay for your home out of your earnings. Just like you pay for everything else thats taxable out of your taxed earnings with the odd incentivised exception like the cycle to work scheme or tax savers travel card. I fail to see what point you are making.

cerastes

turnikett1 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by that. It decreases just as easily as it increases.

I mean the implementation of the tax has fallen in line with what seems like the bottom of the market, also, if you undervalued your property you can easily amend it up yourself, but if you overvalued it you cannot as easily amend it, you have to jump through some hoops, if you're bothered or not put off by that, haven't tried but I doubt its a straightforward process as I did enquire as I thought my property was overvalued.

Alias G

Banjo String wrote: »

A home in negative equity is an asset.

A farmers fields worth hundreds of thousands of euro are not, and are not taxed.

OK......

Of course its an asset, Just a poorly chosen one. And in the vast majority of cases, one that will come good on its investment if it is held onto for long enough.

Banjo String

Alias G wrote: »

Of course its an asset, Just a poorly chosen one. And in the vast majority of cases, one that will come good on its investment if it is held onto for long enough.

You're referring to the not subject to tax farmers fields, I presume?

Royal Legend

I got one for €200 too.
B^#7340$

Cuddlesworth

Dubwat wrote: »

The Govt now knows about every property in the country via the Property Tax so it'll be very easy for them to collect this new tax.

I forgot to update my address on PAYE anytime, meaning the address on it is rental from about 5 years ogo. I noticed my wage has had the LPT deducted from it for the last 6 months because my address listed was that property. After trying multiple times over multiple days, I've managed to get them to acknowledge that I don't own the bloody property. 25 days later, I'm still being charged for LPT. I also haven't seen sight nor sound of the money they stole from me. I'm sure from my experience so far this is probably going to have to go to a solicitor.

So in summary, they don't have a clue who own the houses. And for the number of non-payments and the staff levels they have, it might be years before they do.

Alias G

Banjo String wrote: »

You're referring to the not subject to tax farmers fields, I presume?

You brought farmers fields into this.

Cuddlesworth

Banjo String wrote: »

You're referring to the not subject to tax farmers fields, I presume?

We subsidise farming quite heavily. If you want to tax the fields, go ahead. Its just going to come out of our pockets.

Banjo String

Alias G wrote: »

You brought farmers fields into this.

Land can be the biggest "asset" a farmer has.

Why not tax it?

Alias G

Banjo String wrote: »

Land can be the biggest "asset" a farmer has.

Why not tax it?

I never said you shouldn't, but I imagine it would be far more complicated than it would actually be worth.

Banjo String

Alias G wrote: »

I never said you shouldn't, but I imagine it would be far more complicated than it would actually be worth.

Yep. Far easier to go after already squeezed, sitting duck homeowner. Mortgaged up to his balls, paying among the highest taxes in Europe with very few services to show for it.

Alias G

Banjo String wrote: »

Yep. Far easier to go after already squeezed, sitting duck homeowner. Mortgaged up to his balls, paying among the highest taxes in Europe with very few services to show for it.

There is nothing wrong in principle with a tax on property. Of course the timing of its implementation is worse than poor and it should have been done pre-2006, but it is still an equitable tax based on the the value of a personnel asset. Quite a common tax worldwide, not even remotely peculiar to little ol, corrupt, over taxed Ireland.
If you are mortgaged up to your balls, that is a choice you made for yourself. Nobody forced you into it. I've a plenty big mortgage myself and only one income in the family to furnish it. None of which can escape the fact that property tax is an equitable tax.
And don't worry, the farmers are just as liable for their property tax as you are.

dxhound2005

sgthighway wrote: »

Got a letter off the Revenue asking me to join their club for €200. I already have loads of different subscriptions to them. They got my name of the Local Government Management Agency. I rang them up and they said I cannot appeal the arrears. First letter I ever get about it is this one. Even though I don't want to join they are going to take it from my wages. I'm not going to dwell on it because it looks like they can take it from source anyways. Would I be correct in saying there has never been a Court Case for this? Successful or Unsuccessful. I think anyone that went to court the judge just deferred it.

I just wonder will they pass the list onto An Post next for the TV License. Shower of ?#@*%$!

The sub was only €100 when I joined.

gillmelly

Don't know why some people think they should not have to pay their TV licence while others have to.
Are they better than the rest of us ?

goose2005

cerastes wrote: »

How is a home an asset? what does it produce in terms of value?
if its viewed as an asset that can be exchanged for money, then it was purchased with money left over after the individual has already paid tax, then it seems like double taxation.

Only if you have no idea what double taxation means. Double taxation would be if you had to pay tax twice on your income. Separate income and asset taxes do not make double taxation.

goose2005

Alias G wrote: »

I never said you shouldn't, but I imagine it would be far more complicated than it would actually be worth.

Very simple. The value of farmland is easy to establish. But politically poisonous, it's much easier to hit salary earners who aren't as well-connected politically or as well organised as the gentry.

Idbatterim

Don't know why some people think they should not have to pay their TV licence while others have to.
Are they better than the rest of us ?

why do RTE think we should be paying all of their "stars" and no doubt a rake of employees, world class salaries?

cerastes

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

We subsidise farming quite heavily. If you want to tax the fields, go ahead. Its just going to come out of our pockets.

No its not, its like reducing the subsidy, it would cost less.
Its not done for other reasons.

Alias G wrote: »

There is nothing wrong in principle with a tax on property. Of course the timing of its implementation is worse than poor and it should have been done pre-2006, but it is still an equitable tax based on the the value of a personnel asset. Quite a common tax worldwide, not even remotely peculiar to little ol, corrupt, over taxed Ireland.

Its not equitable though, there is a significantly greater burden on those less well off even if the amount is less, its very likely to be of greater difficulty to afford for them. There are of course many that wont be paying it at all, some that can well afford it and plenty in between.

gillmelly

Idbatterim wrote: »

why do RTE think we should be paying all of their "stars" and no doubt a rake of employees, world class salaries?

Because we happily pay the polticians and every other connected gombeen that, so you may as well pay RTE as well. What makes them a special case compared to all the other abuses going on in this country without so much a whimper.

dxhound2005

cerastes wrote: »

No its not, its like reducing the subsidy, it would cost less.
Its not done for other reasons.



Its not equitable though, there is a significantly greater burden on those less well off even if the amount is less, its very likely to be of greater difficulty to afford for them. There are of course many that wont be paying it at all, some that can well afford it and plenty in between.

It will be taken from their estate when they die or from the proceeds of the sale if they sell the property. Nobody else can gain the title to the property when it is changing hands until all charges have been discharged in full. There is no time limit to this procedure.

Alias G

cerastes wrote: »

Its not equitable though, there is a significantly greater burden on those less well off even if the amount is less, its very likely to be of greater difficulty to afford for them. There are of course many that wont be paying it at all, some that can well afford it and plenty in between.

No tax is perfectly equitable unfortunately, but since this tax is based on the value of the asset than I would consider it a reasonably equitable tax. Personally I would have preferred to see it based on both value and property size so that tax payers living in the large urban centres weren't disproportionately targeted.
I don't see how the less well off are being targeted though. You are likely to have bought a house in line with your means and will be paying within the appropriate tax band accordingly.
Those who don't pay will be liable eventually either voluntarily or taxed at source.

biko

cerastes wrote: »

How is a home an asset? what does it produce in terms of value?

An asset is a useful or valuable thing, person, or quality.
A house is pretty valuable.. like a lump of gold in a safe deposit box. It's only worth something when you sell it.

cerastes

Alias G wrote: »

No tax is perfectly equitable unfortunately, but since this tax is based on the value of the asset than I would consider it a reasonably equitable tax. Personally I would have preferred to see it based on both value and property size so that tax payers living in the large urban centres weren't disproportionately targeted.
I don't see how the less well off are being targeted though. You are likely to have bought a house in line with your means and will be paying within the appropriate tax band accordingly.
Those who don't pay will be liable eventually either voluntarily or taxed at source.

I dont consider mine or anyone elses home an asset, even Enda thinks its unjust!
and what if someone has no means to pay or none left after they have paid all their other payments, at least ones that have some recognisable service attached? they can put that off and are charged so that the less well off will end up paying a disproportionate amount, so the less you can afford it, the worse off you are.

I wouldn't even be so opposed if it could be determined where it was going, certain services need to be paid for, like say a breakdown such as I was informed occurs somewhere like Finland, who apparently pay through the nose, but know what services and value they are getting, or even in the UK, at least they know what they are being ripped off for, instead we are lied to and kept in the dark, which doesnt foster support.

cerastes

biko wrote: »

An asset is a useful or valuable thing, person, or quality.
A house is pretty valuable.. like a lump of gold in a safe deposit box. It's only worth something when you sell it.

And at what point do the powers that be stop reaching into our pockets? many people already have nothing to give, Im sure its been said many times but you cant revive an economy by taxing it out of existence.

Im interested to know what services are being provided for by this anyway, we pay for our bins, we will be paying for water, for which taxation was increased around 1980 to offset the removal of rates, what specifically are we receiving?
I suggest they do as a household should do, cut the outgoing costs, but they will not do that.

Aidric

Is this another thread about people trying to dodge their dues by proxy of outraged common man?

Alias G

cerastes wrote: »

I dont consider mine or anyone elses home an asset, even Enda thinks its unjust!
and what if someone has no means to pay or none left after they have paid all their other payments, at least ones that have some recognisable service attached? they can put that off and are charged so that the less well off will end up paying a disproportionate amount, so the less you can afford it, the worse off you are.

I wouldn't even be so opposed if it could be determined where it was going, certain services need to be paid for, like say a breakdown such as I was informed occurs somewhere like Finland, who apparently pay through the nose, but know what services and value they are getting, or even in the UK, at least they know what they are being ripped off for, instead we are lied to and kept in the dark, which doesnt foster support.

I don't care what you consider to be an asset. You have invested in one (ie your home) whether you agree with the concept or not.

gillmelly

How is Brendan O'Connor going to eat ?

Eight Ball

Property tax my arse. It's a bank debt tax just like the water charge, USC and all the other made up taxes to pay off the gambling debts.

hju6

There is no such thing as home ownership any more,
There is now an everlasting mortgage upon it.

Alias G

gillmelly wrote: »

How is Brendan O'Connor going to eat ?

I don't know, but it looks like he has started to eat his own face from the inside already.

gillmelly

The poor banksters, bondholders, developers and politicians are starving out there . . . have a heart, pay up.

Sam Kade

Banjo String wrote: »

Yep. Far easier to go after already squeezed, sitting duck homeowner. Mortgaged up to his balls, paying among the highest taxes in Europe with very few services to show for it.

Farmers are also homeowners.

Banjo String

Sam Kade wrote: »

Farmers are also homeowners.

If you can find a post of mine where I disputed that or suggested otherwise get back to me.