The Frederick St protest and reaction

Tax tax tax.

For the wasters and arts folk.

Heard a self employed female of the arts today giving out she can’t afford this and that and a house....

Self employed artist????????

Margaret Cash doesn’t work.

She is a criminal.

Her fella is a convicted burglar who terrorizes old people but but...

They deserve a house for free.

Defend that mofos.

10000maniacs wrote: »

Unoccupied and uninhabitable properties

If a residential property is suitable for use as a dwelling but is unoccupied, it is liable for LPT.

Unoccupied and uninhabitable properties
If a residential property is suitable for use as a dwelling but is unoccupied, it is liable for LPT. However, if the property is not suitable for use as a dwelling, it is not liable for LPT and you do not need to make an LPT return. If you think that your property is not suitable for use as a dwelling and it is not being lived in, you must notify Revenue as soon as possible after receiving your LPT return. You must also include relevant supporting documentation, for example, an engineer’s report. Revenue will consider your claim and make a decision using the documentation you provide.

Thems the rules.

Do you think the premises this thread is centred on, (apparently unused for x amount of years) would be classed as a property fit to be lived in?

Did it have running water/electric and whatever else makes the distinction between a property that is habitable, and one that isn't?

My guess (it's only a guess admittedly) is that it's prob not in a state that would make it fall under the LPT rules.

Only a guess mind.

But I'd also guess that leaving it unlived in, for these years without rent/use is a terrible waste of a property. (Assuming it was fit to be lived in)

Specially in the midst of a housing and homeless crises.

10000maniacs wrote: »

You are missing the point. The property is already paid for by hard-working citizens. Hands off lefties. Vacant properties have got nothing to do with you. Earn your own money.
There is a fine line between the left wing crap we are hearing in Ireland now and authoritarianist communism.

Maybe it was inherited by idle citizens.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Margaret Cash doesn’t work.

She is a criminal.

Her fella is a convicted burglar who terrorizes old people but but...

They deserve a house for free.

Defend that mofos.

Margaret Cash's dingo ate my baby.

Arghus

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Margaret Cash doesn’t work.

She is a criminal.

Her fella is a convicted burglar who terrorizes old people but but...

They deserve a house for free.

Defend that mofos.

That may be all very true, but it doesn't make the housing situation any less farcical.

Don't get yourself tied into knots about Margaret Cash, loads of people are struggling to find decent accommodation, loads of hard working decent people, who are more than willing to pay their hard earned money. Margaret Cash this, Margaret Cash this - that's a cop out, focusing on one person because they conform to all your sterotypes. She's not the only one out there struggling.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Thems the rules.

Do you think the premises this thread is centred on, (apparently unused for x amount of years) would be classed as a property fit to be lived in?

Did it have running water/electric and whatever else makes the distinction between a property that is habitable, and one that isn't?

My guess (it's only a guess admittedly) is that it's prob not in a state that would make it fall under the LPT rules.

Only a guess mind.

But I'd also guess that leaving it unlived in, for these years without rent/use is a terrible waste of a property. (Assuming it was fit to be lived in)

Specially in the midst of a housing and homeless crises.

Who’s business is it????

Communism my comrades.

You have something I don’t, give me that.

Yep worked well in the USSR.

Christ.

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Yeah, I forgot to mention the fact that it would create a large number of jobs, both short and long-term. That's somehow a 'bad' thing now. Jesus wept.

It "creates jobs" which require more taxes to pay. Learn some basic economics will you.

Also, they would not be 'free houses'. Tenants would pay rent.

26% of existing social housing are in rent arrears, even though the amounts being charged are pitiful. It's a joke.

Just be open and honest with people - everyone who works should pay an extra 50% tax, and in return they can see free houses handed out to people who don't work. What's not to love?

Arghus wrote: »

That may be all very true, but it doesn't make the housing situation any less farcical.

Don't get yourself tied into knots about Margaret Cash, loads of people are struggling to find decent accommodation, loads of hard working decent people, who are more than willing to pay their hard earned money. Margaret Cash this, Margaret Cash this - that's a cop out, focusing on one person because they conform to all your sterotypes. She's not the only one out there struggling.

Well why was she allowed be the mouth piece for the “homeless” today then?????????

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Thems the rules.

Do you think the premises this thread is centred on, (apparently unused for x amount of years) would be classed as a property fit to be lived in?

Did it have running water/electric and whatever else makes the distinction between a property that is habitable, and one that isn't?

My guess (it's only a guess admittedly) is that it's prob not in a state that would make it fall under the LPT rules.

Only a guess mind.

But I'd also guess that leaving it unlived in, for these years without rent/use is a terrible waste of a property. (Assuming it was fit to be lived in)

Specially in the midst of a housing and homeless crises.

I know the rules. A property is classed as uninhabitable for a reason. Um...…. It can't be lived in. Thems the rules.:)
Why would the protesters snatch and occupy uninhabitable properties? Anyway they haven't so far.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

How many houses?

I think they used to build 5000 a year.

How much will it cost?

Depends on how many are built.

And finally who will pay for it?

Initially a loan at low interest rates paid back by rent payments or taxes. Should be less than the ever increasing cost of rent subsidies.

Oh and will Margaret Cash the criminal be “entitled” to one of these?

Probably.

Arghus

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Well why was she allowed be the mouth piece for the “homeless” today then?????????

I haven't a clue and I don't really care.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Who’s business is it????

Communism my comrades.

You have something I don’t, give me that.

Yep worked well in the USSR.

Christ.

Increasingly unhinged styled ramblings.

Settle petal.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Initially a loan at low interest rates paid back by rent payments or taxes. Should be less than the ever increasing cost of rent subsidies.

Will these be houses for life?

I'm assuming a rent subsidy stops when someone can afford to rent privately i.e. gets an education & gets a job.

What happens when interest rates on the national debt starts to increase?

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Maybe it was inherited by idle citizens.

So will the secret police carry out checks to find this out in your utopia?

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I think they used to build 5000 a year.

Depends on how many are built.

Initially a loan at low interest rates paid back by rent payments or taxes. Should be less than the ever increasing cost of rent subsidies.

Probably.

A loan??

From who?

It wasn’t viable in the past and it isn’t now.

Next question- who can avail of these knock down houses?

hmmm wrote: »

It "creates jobs" which require more taxes to pay. Learn some basic economics will you.

26% of existing social housing are in rent arrears, even though the amounts being charged are pitiful. It's a joke.

Just be open and honest with people - everyone who works should pay an extra 50% tax, and in return they can see free houses handed out to people who don't work. What's not to love?

You realise all this used to work and work fairly well, and taxes weren’t that high. 42% of the U.K. lived in social housing at one time.

10000maniacs wrote: »

I know the rules. A property is classed as uninhabitable for a reason. Um...…. It can't be lived in. Thems the rules.:)
Why would the protesters snatch and occupy uninhabitable properties? Anyway they haven't so far.

This takes us back to the asset being taxed argument.

Why should a family who are paying lpt on their home, including all the taxes on top of the upkeep of said home be taxed on it, because the property (or home) is an asset, yet those who own a property, bought for investment purposes (that's an asset, right?) Not be

It's a circle that needs squared.

Fancy taking a stab at it?

[Deleted User]

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Increasingly unhinged styled ramblings.

Settle petal.

Wheeliebin's dream is to abolish all taxation and deregulate everything and 'let the market decide'.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You realise all this used to work and work fairly well, and taxes weren’t that high. 42% of the U.K. lived in social housing at one time.

Just let us know where the money is coming from.

So far it's all magic money tree.

And I asked a simple question with that - are these houses for life?

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

A loan??

From who?

Banks, building societies, bond etc.

It wasn’t viable in the past and it isn’t now.

It absolutely was.

Next question- who can avail of these knock down houses?

The people who now get subsidised rent.

Also they don’t get to own the property. That’s a Thatcherite belief system. Nor are cheaper houses to buy a good idea as it makes earning more a liability. It’s just social rentals. Instead of the private sector being tasked to provide long term family residencies (which it is not equipped for) the state takes over.

All Seeing Eye

There always seems to be convicted criminals involved in these free house for losers movements. Suppose you have to have the mentality of a thief to think you have the right to a house for free.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

This takes us back to the asset being taxed argument.

Why should a family who are paying lpt on their home, including all the taxes on top of the upkeep of said home be taxed on it, because the property (or home) is an asset, yet those who own a property, bought for investment purposes (that's an asset, right?) Not be

It's a circle that needs squared.

Fancy taking a stab at it?

Ill take a stab at it.
Oh yes...
It's none of my business.

It's none of your business.

Or the business of leftie agitators who can't help but sniff around other peoples money when they should be earning their own and/or advising their supporters to earn their own.

hmmm wrote: »

Just let us know where the money is coming from.

So far it's all magic money tree.

And I asked a simple question with that - are these houses for life?

I already explained where the money will come from. A loan to begin with taken out by the council or state. Paid back via the rental earned and taxation. All less than the cost of paying private rent now. Which the government has to pay (increasing every year). This has already been done which is why I pointed out that 42% of the housing stock was council in Britain at one stage. Not sure if the maximum here.

The houseisn’t free. You pay rent. It shouldn’t be a house for life if your earning power increases. Rent should track earnings in fact, being low for low earners and higher for high earners, never exceeding market rent.

hmmm wrote: »

Just let us know where the money is coming from.

So far it's all magic money tree.

And I asked a simple question with that - are these houses for life?

120bn in FGs National Development Plan.

Shaking the magic money tree there too, right?

10000maniacs wrote: »

Ill take a stab at it.
Oh yes...
It's none of my business.
It's none of your business.
Or the business of leftie agitators who can't help but sniff around other peoples money when they should be earning their own and/or advising their supporters to earn their own.

This is where you let yourself down.

I engaged you with pretty civil and adult conversation, polite and uncondescending at all times.

Then I hit you with a fairly logical question, I get the scutter above?

We're done here.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

This is where you let yourself down.

I engaged you with pretty civil and adult conversation, hit you with a fairly logical question, I get the scutter above.

We're done here.

Your welcome.

10000maniacs wrote: »

Ill take a stab at it.
Oh yes...
It's none of my business.
It's none of your business.
Or the business of leftie agitators who can't help but sniff around other peoples money when they should be earning their own and/or advising their supporters to earn their own.

I pay 52% marginal. Some of which is paying off the last time capitalists, financial geniuses, developers and bankers shat the carpet.

It’s absolutely my business how the place is run.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

All less than the cost of paying private rent now. Which the government has to pay (increasing every year).

The private rental now is a short-term thing. Once someone gets a job, they pay their own rent.

You're talking about handing out an entirely free house for life which is what social housing is in this country.

Rent should track earnings in fact, being low for low earners and higher for high eaves never exceeding market rent.

Your plan appears to be to penalise people for trying to get a better job for themselves. Better job, more tax, higher rent.

It's a great message to send to our kids.