nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

FF/FG/Green Government - Part 3

Necro

Following on from

this thread

Please remain civil or posting privileges will be removed

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ineedeuro

skimpydoo wrote: »

I am paying nearly €2,000 a year in management fees for my apartment and on top of that i have to pay LPT. Those of you only paying LPT are so lucky.

Doesn't that cover bins/gardening/cutting of grass/lift maintenance etc etc etc?
I know its not cheap and a lot of gangsters running those companies but it does cover a lot of things.

Bass Reeves

timmyntc wrote: »

Equity from house price doesnt exist unless you sell.
A pensioner who bought their house decades ago is hardly wealthy because the value of their house rose. How is it progressive that poor people pay more tax because of the speculative value of their home? A value that is of no use to them unless they sell and move elsewhere.

I don't get people hang up about property tax. No taxes are totally fair. However 50% of property tax can be deferred if your income is low. A pensioner with a property worth a million paying 50% would have to pay 525/year. If they lived 20years at present rates the unpaid tax and interest would be less than 15k when the house is inherited. This would not be a huge sum out of the sake of a million euro property.

In hardship cases the complete tax can be deferred. In the same senario as above its 30k the outstanding tax is

atticu

skimpydoo wrote: »

I am paying nearly €2,000 a year in management fees for my apartment and on top of that i have to pay LPT. Those of you only paying LPT are so lucky.

Very misleading language in the post quoted.

You pay management fees to the management body of the apartment complex, and you pay LPT to the council.

It is not LPT on top of management fees.

I think that those of you who can afford an apartment are lucky.

Calhoun

skimpydoo wrote: »

I am paying nearly €2,000 a year in management fees for my apartment and on top of that i have to pay LPT. Those of you only paying LPT are so lucky.

If something goes wrong in the complex doesnt the management fees ensure that it will be fixed?

skimpydoo

I am paying nearly €2,000 a year in management fees for my apartment and on top of that i have to pay LPT. Those of you only paying LPT are so lucky.

Bishop of hope

conorhal wrote: »

On the basis of what revenue it generates for the owner, which is frequently none unless they sell it. In the case of people simply living in a family home it's a constant drain on your cash.

Hardly fair and equitable either.
You'd have to differentiate on what constitutes a family home.
A wealthy person might have several houses and properties and keep investing in more, as some do, to hide their wealth.
There should be a fairer way to assess how much is paid perhaps, based on the size of the property and the services it is connected to as opposed to its value based on its location.
A 4000 square foot house in leitrim/Longford paying less than a 4 bed semi in Dublin for instance is hardly fair.
They seem to be going for the least costly to administer system of bands based on value rather than administering based on need to be varified actual size and real value.

conorhal

Amirani wrote: »

How do you measure wealth if not by the value of the assets that someone owns?

On the basis of what revenue it generates for the owner, which is frequently none unless they sell it. In the case of people simply living in a family home it's a constant drain on your cash.

Shebean

Property tax should be axed. It's uneven and unfair. A banded rate based on income is fair. A home is only an asset when you sell it.
As pointed out, government should be hammering property speculators not PUP recipients.

Finty Lemon

Fann Linn wrote: »

A site valuation tax would be a far better option and more progressive.

That will suit the country folk where sites are valued under 60k

Take the total cost of building a standard new house say €200,000.

Subtract this from the property value, as a measure to exclude primary residence value from taxation. Bill the remainder on a progressive scale.

Calhoun

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah, but when the covid bill starts arriving, who should pay for it all? not a chance government will introduce cuts etc if they can avoid it... it will be higher taxation...

lpt is a good start, after that, petrol, diesel, motor tax, alcohol, tobacco. They wont touch water charges again, I would be all for increasing the vat rate, if it werent already so high!

That is the big question, all this needs to be paid for and they might be snookered no matter what they do. The problem they have is nuanced.

It's a combination of their handling of covid, lack of investment in areas that were problems before covid and finally the whole housing problem. It's risky reviewing and increasing the housing tax at a point when they are not collecting capital gains from the funds.

Heading into another potential recession, could be a recipe to significantly impact them. Question will be if it will impact both FG.and FF or just FF.

Bubbaclaus

RandomViewer wrote: »

But you know they'll be an exemtion for the party donor with the big house, no doubt they'll get a grant for preserving theirs

What?

RandomViewer

blanch152 wrote: »

It is progressive in every sense.

Those without a house pay nothing. Those with a more valuable house pay more. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.

It is also a tax on wealth rather than income, which is more progressive as well.

But you know they'll be an exemtion for the party donor with the big house, no doubt they'll get a grant for preserving theirs

RandomViewer

Some actual services will need to be provided now, any ungritted roads in winter should leave Local Authority 100% liable , any potholes unfixed after 2 weeks coming out of councillors pay

timmyntc

Amirani wrote: »

How do you measure wealth if not by the value of the assets that someone owns?

Good point - but taxing principle primary residence based on a value that gives no actual reflection as to someones income or ability to repay is not really progressive, in that poorer people may end up paying more than richer people since its all based on an illiquid asset that is your home.

If I buy in an area that is cheap now, but in 40 years time its seen as very desirable and the prices skyrocket. Why should I as a pensioner have to pay a much higher rate of tax than wealthier people who live somewhere "less desirable"?

Amirani

timmyntc wrote: »

A pensioner who bought their house decades ago is hardly wealthy because the value of their house rose.

How do you measure wealth if not by the value of the assets that someone owns?

timmyntc

blanch152 wrote: »

It is progressive in every sense.

Those without a house pay nothing. Those with a more valuable house pay more. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.

It is also a tax on wealth rather than income, which is more progressive as well.

Equity from house price doesnt exist unless you sell.
A pensioner who bought their house decades ago is hardly wealthy because the value of their house rose. How is it progressive that poor people pay more tax because of the speculative value of their home? A value that is of no use to them unless they sell and move elsewhere.

blanch152

Fann Linn wrote: »

A site valuation tax would be a far better option and more progressive.

A site valuation tax would require an army of public servants to value sites. The efficiency loss wouldn't balance out the gains in equity.

blanch152

timmyntc wrote: »

Its not progressive really though - someone who bought a house for pennies years ago now has to pay a high rate of LPT simply by luck of where they bought?

A progressive tax is one of someones means - a valuable house does not mean you have the means to pay. Plenty of pensioners would struggle to pay LPT on a house thats seen to be quite valuable.

It is yet more treating of housing as a speculative asset rather than a human need.

It is progressive in every sense.

Those without a house pay nothing. Those with a more valuable house pay more. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.

It is also a tax on wealth rather than income, which is more progressive as well.

timmyntc

FullyComp wrote: »

So everyone pays the same amount to the council regardless? How is that progressive?

People with bigger/more valuable property benefit more from the area around them so pay more as a result

How do people with more valuable property gain more benefit from the local council?

Fann Linn

A site valuation tax would be a far better option and more progressive.

Idbatterim

Calhoun wrote: »

An incompetent government like this its a fairly easy target alright but this measure has never been popular hence them ignoring the past three review periods.

Like it or not regardless of your politics it's not a popular tax, other wise they wouldn't be kite flying this early in the year.

If the LPT was actually ring fenced for local services and provision for homeless ect I don't think it would be as bad or if they actually provided some services . However when they run a private policy on allot of their services and it's just a tax guage for central government it becomes harder to justify.

yeah, but when the covid bill starts arriving, who should pay for it all? not a chance government will introduce cuts etc if they can avoid it... it will be higher taxation...

lpt is a good start, after that, petrol, diesel, motor tax, alcohol, tobacco. They wont touch water charges again, I would be all for increasing the vat rate, if it werent already so high!

Calhoun

blanch152 wrote: »

LPT is paid by those who own houses and is used to fund the activities of local authorities who are looking after the homeless. Surely, an increase in LPT should be seen as helping with the housing issue?

Or is it a case of just opposing everything the government does?

I did see the prvilieged economic illiterate RBB claim that LPT wasn't progressive. What an idiot.

An incompetent government like this its a fairly easy target alright but this measure has never been popular hence them ignoring the past three review periods.

Like it or not regardless of your politics it's not a popular tax, other wise they wouldn't be kite flying this early in the year.

If the LPT was actually ring fenced for local services and provision for homeless ect I don't think it would be as bad or if they actually provided some services . However when they run a private policy on allot of their services and it's just a tax guage for central government it becomes harder to justify.

FullyComp

timmyntc wrote: »

And they have no right to be - but Blanch claimed LPT was progressive when its not.

A fairer tax would be a council tax paid by every adult resident, owner or renter.
Flat fee that covers cost of the services everyone living in area receives from the LA.

So everyone pays the same amount to the council regardless? How is that progressive?

People with bigger/more valuable property benefit more from the area around them so pay more as a result

timmyntc

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Lots of taxes aren't progressive. VAT, LPT, DIRT, Motor Tax, Stamp duty, Excise duty. CGT has a small exemption of 1270 in a calendar year but other than that it isn't progressive.

And they have no right to be - but Blanch claimed LPT was progressive when its not.

A fairer tax would be a council tax paid by every adult resident, owner or renter.
Flat fee that covers cost of the services everyone living in area receives from the LA.

AlmightyCushion

timmyntc wrote: »

Its not progressive really though - someone who bought a house for pennies years ago now has to pay a high rate of LPT simply by luck of where they bought?

A progressive tax is one of someones means - a valuable house does not mean you have the means to pay. Plenty of pensioners would struggle to pay LPT on a house thats seen to be quite valuable.

It is yet more treating of housing as a speculative asset rather than a human need.

Lots of taxes aren't progressive. VAT, LPT, DIRT, Motor Tax, Stamp duty, Excise duty. CGT has a small exemption of 1270 in a calendar year but other than that it isn't progressive.

timmyntc

blanch152 wrote: »

LPT is paid by those who own houses and is used to fund the activities of local authorities who are looking after the homeless. Surely, an increase in LPT should be seen as helping with the housing issue?

Or is it a case of just opposing everything the government does?

I did see the prvilieged economic illiterate RBB claim that LPT wasn't progressive. What an idiot.

Its not progressive really though - someone who bought a house for pennies years ago now has to pay a high rate of LPT simply by luck of where they bought?

A progressive tax is one of someones means - a valuable house does not mean you have the means to pay. Plenty of pensioners would struggle to pay LPT on a house thats seen to be quite valuable.

It is yet more treating of housing as a speculative asset rather than a human need.

blanch152

Calhoun wrote: »

Going to be some though auld year for them, PUP going away and they are making a drag at more taxes.

LPT is the big one at the moment and continues that painful theme of housing for them.

LPT is paid by those who own houses and is used to fund the activities of local authorities who are looking after the homeless. Surely, an increase in LPT should be seen as helping with the housing issue?

Or is it a case of just opposing everything the government does?

I did see the prvilieged economic illiterate RBB claim that LPT wasn't progressive. What an idiot.

Calhoun

Going to be some though auld year for them, PUP going away and they are making a drag at more taxes.

LPT is the big one at the moment and continues that painful theme of housing for them.

Shebean

Interesting to hear Eamon Ryan tap dancing earlier regarding the coming reductions in PUP. It's quite simple give it to people who need it until they don't. I see business is getting some leeway well into next year and they've put together a package for that purpose, meanwhile the workers are hit with calls for PUP to be ended so low paying employers can press gang staff. We're all in this together.

Calhoun

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

I am looking forward to this by-election.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/682aed06-c233-11eb-8601-6a2ece3e4634?shareToken=5559c0fc89e2ebf05624f071c2643300

Saw that on reddit yesterday all the Turkish accounts liking her stuff.