Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Value based property tax?

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    lugha wrote: »
    Now I thought you'd be off trying to figure out why it is grand for the sinners to change their political policies but not for anyone else? You've had a good few hours to come up with something. :pac:


    No need ta. If I might plagiarise your sig, I actually do live in the real world (and it’s not pretty at the moment, even if you do get rid of all those horrible bluehshirts :()

    Nothing more than further deflection.

    Another poster who likes to act the big wig with fancy words, and poncey slogans, but when challenged about silly statements they've made refuses to answer.

    As I've told you on numerous threads, if you wish to discuss policies and mandates of any other political Party, please do so on another thread.

    Another attempt to derail a thread.

    We're discussing a property tax here.


  • Options
    #153
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Don't do that. Join the Irish Democratic Party, they will all be good people.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76600414

    I'm still waiting on your response to your earlier 'misleading' info you posted (again)

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80440149&postcount=52


  • Options
    #154
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    There is no end of whataboutery that can be engaged in if one decides to follow that line of argument. What about politician's expense? The HSE budget? Civil service pay? The social welfare bill? You could keep going till the end of time with it if you wanted. Yet who's saying you can't tackle more than one thing at a time?

    One of the (many) things that got us into this mess was a taxation system that contributed to the boom and bust cycle. By taxing transactions (stamp duty) rather than property, we got into a situation where we had bloated coffers in the good times (and an incentive for the government to keep them going) and a sudden shrinkage in revenues when things went bad. Having a property tax allows for a more stable and predictable source of tax revenue.


  • Options
    #155
    Tin Foil Hat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭Tin Foil Hat


    dvpower wrote: »
    What's all this about ould wans being kicked out of their homes?
    More scaremongering?

    Not at all. No scaremongering. Just basic common sense. A property tax based on the value of an owner occupied home, irrespective of the income into that home, will inevitably create cases where people will not be able to afford that tax.
    They will have no choice but to sell up and move out - literally forced from their own homes that have been already been bought and paid for.


  • Options
    #156
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    lugha wrote: »

    I am not sure how anyone can decide that the property tax is unjust before we know the details of it? :confused:



    .

    Let me ask you this Lugha, no need for a side step, or further deflection.
    A simple yes or no to this question will do.

    You have been urging folk reading this thread to register for the HHC, and not be a 'tax evader' then, you follow that up by coming on here, and basiclly sneering at anyone who decides they cant afford to pay a tax on their home,
    I am not sure how anyone can decide that the property tax is unjust before we know the details of it? :confused:

    The question I would like a yes, or no answer to is this.

    Would you sign your name with a loan provider/financial institution for any financial service, while neither knowing.

    A: What it actually is your signing your name to.
    But also
    B: not being told what your repayment sums would be?

    Yes or no?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Tin Foil Hat wrote: »
    Not at all. No scaremongering. Just basic common sense. A property tax based on the value of an owner occupied home, irrespective of the income into that home, will inevitably create cases where people will not be able to afford that tax.
    They will have no choice but to sell up and move out - literally forced from their own homes that have been already been bought and paid for.

    In fairness, I think you may be incorrect about this. I don't recall anyone saying that people would be obliged to sell their homes. The only thing that's been suggested to date by the government is that they may get a court order for an attachment to someone's earnings if they refuse to pay.


  • Options
    #158
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    ...One of the (many) things that got us into this mess was a taxation system that contributed to the boom and bust cycle. By taxing transactions (stamp duty) rather than property, we got into a situation where we had bloated coffers in the good times (and an incentive for the government to keep them going) and a sudden shrinkage in revenues when things went bad. Having a property tax allows for a more stable and predictable source of tax revenue.

    There is very good sense in the above thinking - but there has to be safe-guards too, as well as recognition that a person/family which has bought a property, is still able to live in the standard they previously had when they bought the said property.

    Livelihoods (incomings) go up and down, for all the sake of a price of a property which has been bought at one stage.
    Meanwhile time has moved on and living monetary circumstances has changed possible - so this HAS to be allowed for too.
    To not do so is possible helping to shove people now already on the poverty line, under it is a wide brushing stroke of a tax on a property that was bought years ago when ones weekly earnings were much possibly different.

    I hope the above makes sense in what I'm trying to say.


  • Options
    #159
    Tin Foil Hat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭Tin Foil Hat


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    There is no end of whataboutery that can be engaged in if one decides to follow that line of argument. What about politician's expense? The HSE budget? Civil service pay? The social welfare bill? You could keep going till the end of time with it if you wanted. Yet who's saying you can't tackle more than one thing at a time?

    One of the (many) things that got us into this mess was a taxation system that contributed to the boom and bust cycle. By taxing transactions (stamp duty) rather than property, we got into a situation where we had bloated coffers in the good times (and an incentive for the government to keep them going) and a sudden shrinkage in revenues when things went bad. Having a property tax allows for a more stable and predictable source of tax revenue.


    That sentence in bold sounds all very cuddly on the face of it, doesn't it, but have you stopped to think what it means in practice?
    It means, and it can only mean, that people will still have to hand over large sums of money to the government whether they can afford to or not.

    'You lost your job? Tough sh1t. Pay me.'
    'Your husband died and you're raising three kids on a widows pension? Tough sh1t. Pay me.'
    'You've just retired and you could never afford a pension because you bought your house during the massive boom of the naughties? Tough sh1t. Pay me.'


  • Options
    #160
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Tin Foil Hat wrote: »
    dvpower wrote: »
    What's all this about ould wans being kicked out of their homes?
    More scaremongering?

    Not at all. No scaremongering. Just basic common sense. A property tax based on the value of an owner occupied home, irrespective of the income into that home, will inevitably create cases where people will not be able to afford that tax.
    They will have no choice but to sell up and move out - literally forced from their own homes that have been already been bought and paid for.
    In that case they obviously bought houses they couldn't afford.


  • Options
    #161
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    professore wrote: »
    In that case they obviously bought houses they couldn't afford.

    Seriously, you don't understand?
    This depresses me!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Tin Foil Hat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭Tin Foil Hat


    professore wrote: »
    In that case they obviously bought houses they couldn't afford.

    The only thing that's obvious is that you're a bit thick.


  • Options
    #163
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore



    'You lost your job? Tough sh1t. Pay me.'
    'Your husband died and you're raising three kids on a widows pension? Tough sh1t. Pay me.'
    'You've just retired and you could never afford a pension because you bought your house during the massive boom of the naughties? Tough sh1t. Pay me.'

    ]


    In what parallel universe do you live? This is how the world works.


  • Options
    #164
    Tin Foil Hat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭Tin Foil Hat


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    In fairness, I think you may be incorrect about this. I don't recall anyone saying that people would be obliged to sell their homes. The only thing that's been suggested to date by the government is that they may get a court order for an attachment to someone's earnings if they refuse to pay.

    I didn't say refuse. I said 'can't'
    Do you deny that a valuation based property tax will throw up cases where people simple will not afford, and have no hope of affording, the €600, €800, €1000 that the government will ask from them on an annual basis?


  • Options
    #165
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    professore wrote: »
    In what parallel universe do you live? This is how the world works.

    That don't make it right - and its something that can be addressed if we can bother our backsides to!


  • Options
    #166
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    professore wrote: »
    In that case they obviously bought houses they couldn't afford.

    Ah youth.......... it's not all about buying.......


  • Options
    #167
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Biggins wrote: »
    professore wrote: »
    In that case they obviously bought houses they couldn't afford.

    Seriously, you don't understand?
    This depresses me!

    I understand all too well. Sh1t happens. People fall on hard times ask the time. The country is broke.


  • Options
    #168
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    professore wrote: »
    In that case they obviously bought houses they couldn't afford.

    And to the person who was born in the house they now live in? (not bought it)

    The house the Govt have now decided is worth whatever figure they decide to place on it in the future, yet the home owner simply cannot afford to pay it?

    Then what?


  • Options
    #169
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Tin Foil Hat wrote: »
    professore wrote: »
    In that case they obviously bought houses they couldn't afford.

    The only thing that's obvious is that you're a bit thick.

    You have convinced me with your well constructed argument.


  • Options
    #170
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Ghandee wrote: »
    professore wrote: »
    In that case they obviously bought houses they couldn't afford.

    And to the person who was born in the house they now live in? (not bought it)

    The house the Govt have now decided is worth whatever figure they decide to place on it in the future, yet the home owner simply cannot afford to pay it?

    Then what?

    Sell it ?

    So your saying someone who inherits a house through an accident of birth deserves special treatment over someone who worked like a dog to buy one?


  • Options
    #171
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,187 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    Taxes are fines for doing well in life.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    professore wrote: »
    I understand all too well. Sh1t happens. People fall on hard times ask the time. The country is broke.

    Not too broke to pay the city council managers (of which your location is based) salary of €162,062 per year.

    Oh no, that cant be touched though:confused:


  • Options
    #173
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    professore wrote: »
    I understand all too well. Sh1t happens. People fall on hard times ask the time. The country is broke.

    ...And it might be you some day (I hope not) in a dire situation through no fault of your own.

    ...But as already alluded to by another good poster "Tough schite... cough up!"
    professore wrote: »
    Sell it ?

    Yea, its that easy - with negative equity and homes not selling anyway!


  • Options
    #174
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Biggins wrote: »
    Livelihoods (incomings) go up and down, for all the sake of a price of a property which has been bought at one stage.
    Meanwhile time has moved on and living monetary circumstances has changed possible - so this HAS to be allowed for too.
    To not do so is possible helping to shove people now already on the poverty line, under it is a wide brushing stroke of a tax on a property that was bought years ago when ones weekly earnings were much possibly different.

    I hope the above makes sense in what I'm trying to say.
    Tin Foil Hat wrote: »
    That sentence in bold sounds all very cuddly on the face of it, doesn't it, but have you stopped to think what it means in practice?
    It means, and it can only mean, that people will still have to hand over large sums of money to the government whether they can afford to or not.

    'You lost your job? Tough sh1t. Pay me.'
    'Your husband died and you're raising three kids on a widows pension? Tough sh1t. Pay me.'
    'You've just retired and you could never afford a pension because you bought your house during the massive boom of the naughties? Tough sh1t. Pay me.'

    Both good points there. You do have to have some consideration of if/when there are cases of hardship.

    One thing to bear in mind is that people will be hit by alternative revenue raising measures as well, whether is raising other taxes or cutting public spending.

    From my own point of view, if I had the choice between increased income tax (which impacts the labour market), increased VAT (which harms consumption) or a property tax for example, I'd opt for the latter. Either way I'm paying more tax, but at least its moving some way towards reform of the taxation system.

    I mentioned this on another thread, but it was the Commission on Taxation report that first raised the idea of the Property Tax. It contains a fair bit of interesting reading on the reasoning behind it and was what went a long way towards convincing me that it was a good idea.


  • Options
    #175
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    Some posters are posing the question about an alternative to the property tax, which as pointed out in my previous post is really a form of the old 'rates' system, now that we know it will be value based. It was a high and an extremely inequitable tax, as it bore no relation to the house owners ability to pay. Local Authority houses were exempt which was another inequity in the system.

    Nowadays the situation is worse as job instability has increased and are scarce due to the deep recession. Mortgage values vary greatly depending in what decade you bought your house and lots of mortgage holders are in arrears.

    Any tax, unpopular as all taxes are, (call them charges if you will) should at least be based on one's ability to pay. It's governments job to ensure there is equity, they're paid handsomely to come up with a alternative and fair solution, but to try, in possibly many instances, to get blood from a stone just ain't going to work.


  • Options
    #176
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,803 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Ghandee wrote: »
    And to the person who was born in the house they now live in? (not bought it)

    The house the Govt have now decided is worth whatever figure they decide to place on it in the future, yet the home owner simply cannot afford to pay it?

    Then what?

    There might a system like in the North.

    http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/what-happens-if-i-cant-pay-my-rate-bill


  • Options
    #177
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Ghandee wrote: »
    Let me ask you this Lugha, no need for a side step, or further deflection.

    I hope it will be a proper question and not like your last one when you asked what previous governments did after entering a bail out programme! :rolleyes:

    Ghandee wrote: »
    Would you sign your name with a loan provider/financial institution for any financial service, while neither knowing.

    A: What it actually is your signing your name to.
    But also
    B: not being told what your repayment sums would be?

    Yes or no?

    This is in effect exactly what happens when you sign up for a variable rate loan! Rates can and do go up over time. And an increase of even 0.25% in a variable rate would add €500 per annum to a €200K mortgage. And that’s in the ball park of what the property tax will be.

    More generally, if you live and work in any economy, you implicitly accept in advance any changes in taxes / allowances that any future government might introduce.

    And in terms of our local mess here, anybody who has even a rudimentary understanding of the scale of our problem would appreciate that there will be a lot of pain for us in the future, one way or another, without the government having to spell it out for us.
    Ghandee wrote: »
    And to the person who was born in the house they now live in? (not bought it)

    The house the Govt have now decided is worth whatever figure they decide to place on it in the future, yet the home owner simply cannot afford to pay it?

    Then what?

    Attach it as a liability to the house. If it is bequeathed to somebody then they will have got themselves a free, er asset, and I would have no qualms with tapping such people to shoulder a little more of the burden.


  • Options
    #178
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    There might a system like in the North.

    http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/what-happens-if-i-cant-pay-my-rate-bill

    Fingers crossed then in hope!


  • Options
    #179
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    professore wrote: »
    Sell it ?

    So your saying someone who inherits a house through an accident of birth deserves special treatment over someone who worked like a dog to buy one?

    No, what I'm saying is that it would be completely unfair to simply turf someone out of the home they were born and reared in because the Govt have decided to place a charge on living in it.

    Its not rocket science tbh, although I get the feeling your being deliberately obtuse.


  • Options
    #180
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    There might a system like in the North.

    http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/what-happens-if-i-cant-pay-my-rate-bill

    Well they have got everything right so far regarding the household charge........


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    professore wrote: »
    In that case they obviously bought houses they couldn't afford.

    A sweeping statement if ever there was one !!!


Advertisement