revenue issues threat to every homeowner in the country.

squod · 14-03-2013 09:39PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It's an equal mystery to me why some people think breaking the law and adding to their debts is a good choice (the Won't Pay brigade).

Bigger picture DX. You know the people who dreamed up this tax fuhken hate us for sheltering tax-dodging criminals. You know they're having a poke at us by levying this stupid tax on people because they think they can get away with it.

Bottom line DX. You're playing for the wrong team. No-one believes a bluddy word you're saying.

Ireland’s role in facilitating tax avoidance by multinationals has also annoyed officials and politicians in Paris and Berlin. They take a dim view of how Ireland’s low tax rate attracts multinational profits here at the expense of revenue collection in larger EU states such as France and Germany.
The role played by Ireland in the tax affairs of multinationals was highlighted recently in a lengthy article in the New York Times. The report told of how schools in California were laying off teachers for lack of funding. These included schools that were educating the children of employees of the most successful technology companies in the world – companies that had gone to great lengths to avoid paying taxes in California and the US generally.

Bruthal · 14-03-2013 09:43PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If debt by definition was bad, none of us would have a mortgage.

I didnt give the definition of debt.

Would you rather pay now and tip your family into poverty or pay it, along with an extra €100 five years down the line to avoid that?

That really does read like a government justification of adding more burden onto desperate families, while completely detached from any possibility of the same affliction themselves.

Or would you rather not have that choice at all and have to contribute more now whether you like it or not?

See above. I mean, you are rock solidly referring to this deferral setup as if you came up with the idea yourself.

Wibbs · 14-03-2013 09:43PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Consider someone with a house worth €150,000. Their liability this year is €112 and on a full year basis its, €225. That means they've got to come up with an extra €2.15 a week this year and an extra €4.33 a week thereafter to cover the tax.

I've seen average figures likely higher than that, but OK.

Now, there's no doubt people are in difficulties and those extra few euro may be the straw that breaks the camel's back for some. So they opt to defer the tax till they get back on their feet again. Say five years. You do that and the interest bill comes to €112.

Now that's no an insignificant sum, but if you're struggling with a mortgage, it's a tiny proportion of extra debt and a small price to pay to avoid going under.

Eh V while my maths ability tends to go south when I run outa fingers, you forgot about the principle yearly sum this imaginary household has deferred. Over five years that comes to 1125.00, plus the 112.00 interest. Would that all they had to pay was 100 odd quid after 5 years.

Consider many on the higher bands. Many people in ordinary suburbs throughout the country in average semi dees with only three beds will be paying 495 a year. After deferring for 5 years they're looking down the barrel of a 2475.00 bill, excluding the interest, while looking for another 500 quid for the following year. Never mind the water charges etc. Never mind the tendency for tax to rise rather than fall now we're all in the line of sight.

By the by if someone defaults on payment that rises to 8% interest per annum.

Other alternative taxes like raising income tax don't have that kind of get out to them.

Again you're entirely missing the point. If I'm paying income tax that tends to mean I've an income such as it may be, so if I lose that income I also stop paying income tax. With this tax that is not taken into account, only deferred. The financial ball is merely kicked down the road growing like a snowball down a hill as it goes. Adding more debt to an already endebted population. Big bloody difference right there.

dxhound2005 · 14-03-2013 09:45PM

squod wrote: »

Bigger picture DX. You know the people who dreamed up this tax fuhken hate us for sheltering tax-dodging criminals. You know they're having a poke at us by levying this stupid tax on people because they think they can get away with it.

Bottom line DX. You're playing for the wrong team. No-one believes a bluddy word you're saying.

I enjoy reading about the other chancers with the Don't Register, Don't pay mindset.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/tax-defaulters-list-includes-three-tribunal-witnesses-224596.html

Banjo String · 14-03-2013 09:49PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I enjoy reading about the other chancers with the Don't Register, Don't pay mindset.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/tax-defaulters-list-includes-three-tribunal-witnesses-224596.html

Wasn't your party in that list some years ago?

(open to correction here)

Wibbs · 14-03-2013 09:51PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If debt by definition was bad, none of us would have a mortgage.

Actualy I would consider debt or rather the ease of credit at crazy rates to people who may not be able to pay down the line is bad. Credit is what got us into this mess. The lure of "easy money" fostered by the financial system and bought into by people who thought they could have it all now and pay, or not later.

Would you rather pay now and tip your family into poverty or pay it, along with an extra €100 five years down the line to avoid that? Or would you rather not have that choice at all and have to contribute more now whether you like it or not?

Eh V you're still missing the principle yearly tax accruing over the five years.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Again, you have to compare this against alternative measures where you may have no alternative but to pay up.

Again income tax, requires income to tax. Lose said income, no income tax. The house tax never lets up. Oh yes it "defers", which means an even bigger hit down the line.

OK lets imagine for a moment income tax was run the same way. In that scenario, even if you were out of work for a year you would be still charged the same rate you were while working, only they would "defer" that tax until you were working again and put it on top of your new rate. Would you work in a country like that? My arse you would V. See the difference now?

You aren't necessarily passing it on to your family. You can discharge it at any time, such as a few years down the road.

Few years? How many. Say ten? On an average semi dee that would be five grand you'd need to discharge at once. Plus interest. If and it's a big if the tax rate remained the same. It would be likely closer to 6 grand.

Chips Lovell · 14-03-2013 09:57PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh V while my maths ability tends to go south when I run outa fingers, you forgot about the principle yearly sum this imaginary household has deferred. Over five years that comes to 1125.00, plus the 112.00 interest. Would that all they had to pay was 100 odd quid after 5 years.

I'm not forgetting the principal. What I'm saying is that the cost of deferral to a person in those circumstances is going to be €112. That isn't a lot extra to pay to get out of a hole.

Bruthal · 14-03-2013 09:59PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'm not forgetting the principal. What I'm saying is that the cost of deferral to a person in those circumstances is going to be €112. That isn't a lot extra to pay to get out of a hole.

Its a fair whack to pay to get into a bigger one.

Earlier you said who in their right mind would not pay the HC in early 2012, and pay it this year for an extra €100

Wibbs · 14-03-2013 10:00PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'm not forgetting the principal. What I'm saying is that the cost of deferral to a person in those circumstances is going to be €112. That isn't a lot extra to pay to get out of a hole.

While avoiding my other points. The cost of deferral to a person in those circumstances is NOT going to be €112, that's the penalty, the debt keeps building and you're completely ignoring this point. For a start they don't pay the deferral penalty until they pay the principle back taxes. So there's no getting out of a hole involved, merely digging it deeper.

bgrizzley · 14-03-2013 10:01PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I enjoy reading about the other chancers with the Don't Register, Don't pay mindset.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/tax-defaulters-list-includes-three-tribunal-witnesses-224596.html

your enjoyment could be curtailed by a short list from now on, with all their manpower dedicated to chasing those ole' E2's per week...

Chips Lovell · 14-03-2013 10:01PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Actualy I would consider debt or rather the ease of credit at crazy rates to people who may not be able to pay down the line is bad. Credit is what got us into this mess. The lure of "easy money" fostered by the financial system and bought into by people who thought they could have it all now and pay, or not later. .

That's a bit of an over-simplification. Debt is not always bad. In some circumstances, it's good. Because without it only a rare few of us would be able to buy a house. Or start a business or whatever.

Bullseye1 · 14-03-2013 10:03PM

Advising someone to defer the property tax is as crazy as telling someone to pay back the minimum payment on your credit card.

Bruthal · 14-03-2013 10:04PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That's a bit of an over-simplification. Debt is not always bad. In some circumstances, it's good. Because without it only a rare few of us would be able to buy a house. Or start a business or whatever.

What debt is good when a deferral is needed due to the debt?

Chips Lovell · 14-03-2013 10:08PM

Wibbs wrote: »

While avoiding my other points. The cost of deferral to a person in those circumstances is NOT going to be €112, that's the penalty, the debt keeps building and you're completely ignoring this point. For a start they don't pay the deferral penalty until they pay the principle back taxes. So there's no getting out of a hole involved, merely digging it deeper.

It is the cost of deferal in that you had the same tax liability whether your opt to defer or not, excluding the interest.

You're operating on the assumption that people's circumstances are never going to change and that if they're struggling now, they'll still be struggling five, ten years down the line and thus kicking the can further down the road.

And you're also operating on the assumption that if we didn't introduce this, then there'd be no alternative revenue raising exercise that didn't have such options built in. As I said earlier, you can't defer a hike in Income Tax or defer a cut in your dole. Once that happens, the money's gone.

bgrizzley · 14-03-2013 10:09PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That's a bit of an over-simplification. Debt is not always bad. In some circumstances, it's good. Because without it only a rare few of us would be able to buy a house. Or start a business or whatever.

at least the debt you incur with a mortgage gives you something tangible, a roof, or a business loan, an income(hopefully:))

What do you get from this debt? please dont say services!

Debt is not always bad but its the worst in this scenario

darkhorse · 14-03-2013 10:34PM

seamus wrote: »

What do you suggest they tax instead of property? Can you give me an example of a stable tax which can bring in the same income as the LPT but which is guaranteed to not put any families at risk?

Me, Me, Pick Me, Pick Me.
INCOME TAX.

Wibbs · 14-03-2013 10:34PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That's a bit of an over-simplification. Debt is not always bad. In some circumstances, it's good. Because without it only a rare few of us would be able to buy a house. Or start a business or whatever.

"Not always", "some" thems the operative words. The plain fact is the current global and especially European mess was and is down to overstretching because of buying into the easy credit/debt cycle. Indeed I'd agree with you, debt isn't always bad, people unfortunately often are. In the hands of sensible people a credit card is a very handy tool, in the hands of buy now shít yourself later people it's the work of the very devil. Throw in interest rates that are close to usury and they're beyond dodgy. Course the cynics might suggest the CC companies want people to get into a certain level of debt, knowing that they'll likely never pay the principle, but so long as the oul interest keeps coming in they'll earn their principle back and have them for decades if not life. The pay off on mortgages is very sweet too. Even better if people get into difficulties, then you can "defer" on to the back end and/or penalise them. Win win for the lenders. With interest only they're really onto a winner.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It is the cost of deferal in that you had the same tax liability whether your opt to defer or not, excluding the interest.

You're operating on the assumption that people's circumstances are never going to change and that if they're struggling now, they'll still be struggling five, ten years down the line and thus kicking the can further down the road.

If they're moving a debt on they are kicking the can down the road.

And you're also operating on the assumption that if we didn't introduce this, then there'd be no alternative revenue raising exercise that didn't have such options built in. As I said earlier, you can't defer a hike in Income Tax or defer a cut in your dole. Once that happens, the money's gone.

I know this may come as a shock to the credit kiddies deferred pain principle, but that's actually easier to deal with as it's happening now and it's over now. It's not building and building. Like I pointed out with my example if income tax was run like this you wouldn't want to work in a tax system like that. Income tax assumes the ability to pay a portion of that income, but just because someone has a house does not mean they have the means to pay a tax on it.

Then look at how daft people became on easy credit. Acting like millionaires on a busmans salary. Buy now pay later! Yay. Deferment is another example of that and wait until they see the same crap happen again.

darkhorse · 14-03-2013 10:38PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

People on low incomes or in mortgage difficulties can apply for a deferral.

What's the limit of income that would allow a homeowner to apply for a deferral.

Wibbs · 14-03-2013 10:42PM

darkhorse wrote: »

Me, Me, Pick Me, Pick Me.
INCOME TAX.

Maybe, but partially. The thing is I do actually favour some sort of a property tax, but based on the ability to pay. So I would exclude those who can't. I wouldn't saddle them with the utter bullshít that is deferral. I'd include those who have already paid, often handsomely those who've lobbed out thousands on stamp duty for example. I'd exclude those folks who are in mortgage arrears for longer than six months. Or if they still want their pound of flesh give groups like that a significantly lower tax band that they may be able to pay. EG I have no mortgage. My neighbour has and is really struggling in arrears after losing his job. I don't have three kids to support, he does. I dont have the bank ringing me at all hours hounding me for payment I don't have and adding monthly penalties to the already growing arrears, he does. We'll both be asked to pay the same. How the glorified fcuk is that equitable? I'll give you a hint, its not.

spank_inferno · 14-03-2013 10:50PM

Your example has merit Wibbs.

The thing is, you would have the whole country coming up with some "inability to pay" excuse.

There are already a lot people who will get opt outs.

bgrizzley · 14-03-2013 10:51PM

darkhorse wrote: »

What's the limit of income that would allow a homeowner to apply for a deferral.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/lpt/deferring-payment.html

15k for a single person 25k for couple.

Wibbs · 14-03-2013 10:52PM

spank_inferno wrote: »

Your example has merit Wibbs.

The thing is, you would have the whole country coming up with some "inability to pay" excuse.

I'd be damned strict about it. Bank statements, financial records etc, full disclosure or **** right off. This current way is the lazy easy way of course. The blunderbuss approach.

There are already a lot people who will get opt outs.

Who SI? All I can see are "deferrals" in the vast majority of cases.

dxhound2005 · 14-03-2013 10:56PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe, but partially. The thing is I do actually favour some sort of a property tax, but based on the ability to pay. So I would exclude those who can't. I wouldn't saddle them with the utter bullshít that is deferral. I'd include those who have already paid, often handsomely those who've lobbed out thousands on stamp duty for example. I'd exclude those folks who are in mortgage arrears for longer than six months. Or if they still want their pound of flesh give groups like that a significantly lower tax band that they may be able to pay. EG I have no mortgage. My neighbour has and is really struggling in arrears after losing his job. I don't have three kids to support, he does. I dont have the bank ringing me at all hours hounding me for payment I don't have and adding monthly penalties to the already growing arrears, he does. We'll both be asked to pay the same. How the glorified fcuk is that equitable? I'll give you a hint, its not.

Inability to pay shouldn't rule out a significant number. 90% of people at work who want to work, 75% of mortgages not in any trouble, probably 30% of those that are is deliberate. And there are hundreds of thousands of houses owned outright with no mortgage. One million households with Pay TV, 300,000 people with more than one house, €120 billion in private savings etc etc.

An alternative could be something like Council Tax benefit in the UK for poor people but I prefer the deferral method. People who want to will eventually find work and mortgages will be paid off in time. The sum to be deferred for five years is typically just one months' mortgage.

tayto lover · 14-03-2013 11:02PM

Nobody should pay a tax on THEIR own private home no matter what.

They will just have to come up with an alternative way to raise revenue.
People will always rebel against an attack on their private residence.

darkhorse · 14-03-2013 11:03PM

tayto lover wrote: »

It would make a lot of people a bit happier trying to pay it.

There is no point going over old ground again. People have suggested many ways and alternatives to Property Tax but they fall on deaf ears.
The party line just has to be towed it seems.

Hey, tayto, when they gag even their own TDs for trying to speak up for the people(Peter Matthews).

Chips Lovell · 14-03-2013 11:05PM

Wibbs wrote: »

If they're moving a debt on they are kicking the can down the road.

Only if your circumstances never change, which is unlikely in most cases. If you find yourself better off in a few years time, the cost of paying it back, plus interest, may have less of an impact then than it would now if you're teetering on the poverty line at present.

dxhound2005 · 14-03-2013 11:08PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Nobody should pay a tax on THEIR own private home no matter what.

They will just have to come up with an alternative way to raise revenue.
People will always rebel against an attack on their private residence.

As someone once said the worst sort of tax is a new tax. Except it is a very old tax, uniquely abandoned here for 35 years. Normality is being restored and people will get used to it.

darkhorse · 14-03-2013 11:17PM

seamus wrote: »

And these are all stable forms of taxation which will not cause any family to have to suffer economic hardship?

But, seamus, families are suffering economic hardship for the past few years. From now on in, families will not only be suffering economic hardship, but many homeowners, who otherwise may never have been in trouble with the law, are going end up being criminilized, as they will not be in a position to pay the future taxes coming down the road. Sure a lot of people cant afford to pay their current bills. Incidently, who would suffer the most from higher income tax, the rich or the poor?

username123 · 14-03-2013 11:22PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Only if your circumstances never change, which is unlikely in most cases. If you find yourself better off in a few years time, the cost of paying it back, plus interest, may have less of an impact then than it would now if you're teetering on the poverty line at present.

Most cases of deferral will be with circumstances that dont change because it will overwhelmingly be older retired people on state pensions who have the kind of low incomes that will fall into the deferral bracket. In younger folk one or both may be working.

Theyll never be able to pay it plus interest and penalties and it will be taken from their estate after they die. So the government will be grave-robbing.

Incidentally, deferral at an interest rate of 4% may well be unconstitutional, as the government will be engaging in a form of money lending, so its quite likely it will lead to a constitutional challenge.

dxhound2005 · 14-03-2013 11:26PM

darkhorse wrote: »

But, seamus, families are suffering economic hardship for the past few years. From now on in, families will not only be suffering economic hardship, but many homeowners, who otherwise may never have been in trouble with the law, are going end up being criminilized, as they will not be in a position to pay the future taxes coming down the road. Sure a lot of people cant afford to pay their current bills. Incidently, who would suffer the most from higher income tax, the rich or the poor?

If people have more money for income tax then they must have money for property tax unless they are all renting. One good thing about property tax is that it hits the rich in their mansions who may be able to evade other taxes. I wouldn't have criminalised myself for a tax of €100 covering 18 months (€1.50 a week) and I think anyone who did is foolish both legally and financially.

revenue issues threat to every homeowner in the country.

Comments