revenue issues threat to every homeowner in the country.

barneystinson · 18-03-2013 01:14PM

SamHall wrote: »

Sorry about that.

How though?

There will be quite a number of families who won't be able to afford to pay it, this tax has been designed in such a way that it does not take am individual's circumstances, nor ability to pay into consideration.

I don't know if you're being purposely difficult, or if its a row you're after, but in fairness it was you that originally said:

Then tell me I'm boring your hole because I agreed with you?
I'm confused tbh.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0117/363141-credit-union-what-left/

So, Barney.

What advice do you have to give to a family who do not have the means/funds to pay this tax?

And don't tell me their are none, because various reports show there are thousands/even millions that will be unable to pay.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/mortgage-arrears-extraordinary-1.1255037

Lots of them will be keen to receive your financial advice.

OK I'm going to try this one last time.

You're encouraging people to simply refuse to pay the tax - I'm saying that's a silly thing to do, because you're going to end up paying it one way or another with penalties and/or interest.

If they want to sign up to a group of freemen talking nonsense about legal challenges then that's fine, but it's no reason not to pay the tax pending the outcome of that challenge. My first contribution to this thread was to ask if those lads planning their legal challenge to the LPT are going to indemnify their subscribers against the additional costs of interest & penalties that'll accrue over the couple of years that a case would drag on for.

And obviously there's a difference between refusing to pay and not being able to pay. You're boring the hole off me with statements like "the penny finally drops" - that's just being a bit of a smart pr1ck - everyone knows there are people who're struggling already and can't afford this tax. Where in any of my posts did I suggest otherwise?

If people aren't able to pay then they should still file their LPT form and value their house, and try to get a deferral on financial hardship grounds.

Chinasea · 18-03-2013 01:45PM

barneystinson wrote: »

OK I'm going to try this one last time. More patience than I have

You're encouraging people to simply refuse to pay the tax - I'm saying that's a silly thing to do, because you're going to end up paying it one way or another with penalties and/or interest. Agreed, but it shouldn't be the sole motivational objective of the perpetrator to dodge and evade tax where and when possible. Time we started to pay into the bigger picture for non selfish reasons - and as you say Barney, Jaysus wept, and Gawd oh gawd, oh gaaawd, this isn't another prompt to hear about de bankers, de bankers, de banders, de politicians. 3 million non compliance's doesn't make a right.

If they want to sign up to a group of freemen talking nonsense about legal challenges then that's fine, but it's no reason not to pay the tax pending the outcome of that challenge. My first contribution to this thread was to ask if those lads planning their legal challenge to the LPT are going to indemnify their subscribers against the additional costs of interest & penalties that'll accrue over the couple of years that a case would drag on for.

And obviously there's a difference between refusing to pay and not being able to pay. You're boring the hole off me with statements like "the penny finally drops" - that's just being a bit of a smart pr1ck - everyone knows there are people who're struggling already and can't afford this tax.

If people aren't able to pay then they should still file their LPT form and value their house, and try to get a deferral on financial hardship grounds.

Amen, hallelujah.

bgrizzley · 18-03-2013 01:52PM

i suppose its better than listening to "de tax evaders dey tuk aur parks! pay de damn 2 euro so we can have aur trees"

barneystinson · 18-03-2013 01:57PM

mfceiling wrote: »

This bit is actually untrue.

Huge swathes of countryside bathed in a shítty beige, where 6 bed mansions sit beside 2 bed bungalows.

Same in dublin - roads with 10 different types of houses all bunched under the same umbrella.

But, but you've to pay based on a valuation. I have nothing to compare against for my valuation - well then, pay someone with your own money so you can pay another tax.

Nowhere in Revenue's literature will you find any suggestion of people paying for professional valuations.

They've asked you to put a reasonable valuation on your house, and unless its off the wall you'll be grand.

If its a 2-bed bungalow in almost any rural part of Ireland it's Band 1 and off you go. Not rocket science.

The funny thing is, 5/6/7 years ago every d1ckhead in the country was a property valuation expert who knew the value of their house and everyone else's house to the penny, but now we've all become incapable...

Banjo String · 18-03-2013 02:11PM

barneystinson wrote: »

OK I'm going to try this one last time.

You're encouraging people to simply refuse to pay the tax - I'm saying that's a silly thing to do, because you're going to end up paying it one way or another with penalties and/or interest.

If they want to sign up to a group of freemen talking nonsense about legal challenges then that's fine, but it's no reason not to pay the tax pending the outcome of that challenge. My first contribution to this thread was to ask if those lads planning their legal challenge to the LPT are going to indemnify their subscribers against the additional costs of interest & penalties that'll accrue over the couple of years that a case would drag on for.

And obviously there's a difference between refusing to pay and not being able to pay. You're boring the hole off me with statements like "the penny finally drops" - that's just being a bit of a smart pr1ck - everyone knows there are people who're struggling already and can't afford this tax. Where in any of my posts did I suggest otherwise?

If people aren't able to pay then they should still file their LPT form and value their house, and try to get a deferral on financial hardship grounds.

My advice, and I'll repeat it again.

It goes to anyone that cannot afford the tax, or simply does not agree to paying money over for nothing in return is to refuse to pay it.

Yourself and chinasea keep wailing in and making all sorts of assumptions and claims on the folk who, to be blunt, have a pair of balls on them, and won't flinch to the govt every time they ask for more money. Without any accountability or transparency, as to what actually happens that cash once paid over.

You've not given advice to anyone unable to pay, you mention defer it alright, that option isn't open to everyone, and besides, that is merely kicking the can down the road and giving family members deal with a debt that they too may not be able to afford.

So, regardless if someone won't pay,

Please, advise those who can't pay, as to how to magic up the cash to do so?

I'll keep asking until you come up with the solution.

MadYaker · 18-03-2013 02:59PM

SamHall wrote: »

Please, advise those who can't pay, as to how to magic up the cash to do so?

I'll keep asking until you come up with the solution.

What a stupid question, but obviously if people don't have the money then its impossible for them to pay it voluntarily. In that situation would it be forcefully be taken from them via the methods that have been mentioned in this thread, same as anyone else who refuses to pay? I don't know, I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

Edit: Although I think its worth repeating that everyone who is liable will pay, no 2 ways about it.

barneystinson · 18-03-2013 03:03PM

SamHall wrote: »

My advice, and I'll repeat it again.

It goes to anyone that cannot afford the tax, or simply does not agree to paying money over for nothing in return is to refuse to pay it.

Yourself and chinasea keep wailing in and making all sorts of assumptions and claims on the folk who, to be blunt, have a pair of balls on them, and won't flinch to the govt every time they ask for more money. Without any accountability or transparency, as to what actually happens that cash once paid over.

You've not given advice to anyone unable to pay, you mention defer it alright, that option isn't open to everyone, and besides, that is merely kicking the can down the road and giving family members deal with a debt that they too may not be able to afford.

So, regardless if someone won't pay,

Please, advise those who can't pay, as to how to magic up the cash to do so?

I'll keep asking until you come up with the solution.

Ehhhhh, sorry, you must be confusing me with someone who actually cares what you want!

I made a specific point about the futility of simply refusing to file/pay the LPT, and the irresponsibility of people encouraging others to refuse to pay. You don't agree, that's fine. Come back to us in a couple of years and let us know how that's worked out for you.

You don't get to force me to come up with solutions to other people's problems, I've got plenty of my own.

barneystinson · 18-03-2013 03:25PM

SamHall wrote: »

You've not given advice to anyone unable to pay, you mention defer it alright, that option isn't open to everyone, and besides, that is merely kicking the can down the road and giving family members deal with a debt that they too may not be able to afford.

Good one, but have you actually run the figures on it? See if you can guess the answer:

If you defer the property tax for 20 years, and even if the LPT rate was 0.30% (i.e. nearly double its current rate - seeing as how everyone is convinced they intend on increasing it at the earliest opportunity) the accrued amount would amount to around

15%

of the property value. That's assuming the property value doesn't actually increase in the next 20 years.

So don't be pulling out that sh1te about leaving family with a debt they can't afford. There'll be a house there that's worth a multiple of the tax owed, so it won't be as dramatic as you're making out.

squod · 18-03-2013 04:07PM

barneystinson wrote: »

I made a specific point about the futility of simply refusing to file/pay the LPT, and the irresponsibility of people encouraging others to refuse to pay.

Futile? Irresponsible? What the actual fuhk are you on about? Boycotts work. That s the actual reality. Advocating the continuation of this madness is exactly that. Madness.

-Property taxes have never worked in this country. Fact.
-This one will go the same road. Fact

The responsible course of action is a boycott of this tax. If that doesn't suit you, fine. There's clearly more people with better moral fibre opposing this tax than you imagine.

Banjo String · 18-03-2013 05:22PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Good one, but have you actually run the figures on it? See if you can guess the answer:

You're estimating what the interest will be purely based on the levels set by the govt, which will be in place up to 2016

Do you know how much it will go up to after that?

barneystinson wrote: »

If you defer the property tax for 20 years, and even if the LPT rate was 0.30% (i.e. nearly double its current rate - seeing as how everyone is convinced they intend on increasing it at the earliest opportunity) the accrued amount would amount to around
15%
of the property value. That's assuming the property value doesn't actually increase in the next 20 years.

Lol, what you're basically saying is that anyone that qualified for the deferral option, (a single person on €20,000, or a couple with a €30,000 salary)
Should basically give the govt a blank cheque, (in a relative/friends name btw)

barneystinson wrote: »

So don't be pulling out that sh1te about leaving family with a debt they can't afford. There'll be a house there that's worth a multiple of the tax owed, so it won't be as dramatic as you're making out.

As already stated. Leaving debt for others to look after isn't a good idea in my eyes.
Is also partly responsible for the mess the countries in at the min, but that's for another debate.

MadsL · 18-03-2013 05:27PM

squod wrote: »

Love this ''only alternative'', ''only show in town'' nonsense. If revenue put their backs into it the could have been inspecting the numerous fairgrounds operating cash only over the weekend, the innumerable cash only retail business and the numerically astonishing horse traders we seem to have.

The nation's problems solved by a Traveller tax is it?

squod wrote: »

The responsible course of action is a boycott of this tax. If that doesn't suit you, fine. There's clearly more people with better moral fibre opposing this tax than you imagine.

The responsible course of action is ousting the Government you dislike, that's democracy - but your problem has always been collective protesting is so despised in Ireland.

Apathy in Ireland has just made it possible for FF to be reelected within living memory, if that happens, frankly I am so done with Ireland, as you will get what you deserve in that scenario.

As for moral fibre, no-one had any to oppose the bailout, bit rich to start talking about it now, and especially odious to talk about property owners having the moral highground in this.

Jumboman · 18-03-2013 05:41PM

barneystinson wrote: »

- I'm saying that's a silly thing to do, because you're going to end up paying it one way or another with penalties and/or interest.

They said the same thing about the poll tax and look what happened to that.

If enough people stick together the revenue wont be able to inforce this bull****.

barneystinson · 18-03-2013 05:42PM

SamHall wrote: »

You're estimating what the interest will be purely based on the levels set by the govt, which will be in place up to 2016

Do you know how much it will go up to after that?

Lol, what you're basically saying is that anyone that qualified for the deferral option, (a single person on €20,000, or a couple with a €30,000 salary)
Should basically give the govt a blank cheque, (in a relative/friends name btw)

As already stated. Leaving debt for others to look after isn't a good idea in my eyes.
Is also partly responsible for the mess the countries in at the min, but that's for another debate.

Huh?

This is starting to feel like I've strayed onto the conspiracy theory forum.

If the tax was double what is now, and the interest was 10% rather than 4%, the deferred amount would still only be 30% of the house value after 20 years. And that assumes no increase in real property values over that period.

When LPT is deferred it becomes a charge on the property, just like a mortgage, to be discharged when the property is sold/transferred. So there's no passing on of debt between generations - the inheritors just need to discharge the tax, or not accept the inheritance.

If anyone leaves me a house, with a LPT charge of 10% of the house value, I'll be delighted (probably be a bit sad they died though!).

MadsL · 18-03-2013 05:44PM

Jumboman wrote: »

They said the same thing about the poll tax and look what happened to that.

If enough people stick together the revenue wont be able to inforce this bull****.

As someone who fought the poll tax...

It was rebranded as the Council Tax and as of 2011, the average annual levy on a property in England was £1,196.

Good luck with that. Death and taxes.

mfceiling · 18-03-2013 06:50PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Nowhere in Revenue's literature will you find any suggestion of people paying for professional valuations.

They've asked you to put a reasonable valuation on your house, and unless its off the wall you'll be grand.

If its a 2-bed bungalow in almost any rural part of Ireland it's Band 1 and off you go. Not rocket science.

The funny thing is, 5/6/7 years ago every d1ckhead in the country was a property valuation expert who knew the value of their house and everyone else's house to the penny, but now we've all become incapable...

What's reasonable? How can you tell if you haven't an idea of guide prices? I know 2 houses liable in the midlands - nothing in the area built or sold in the last 5 years or more - how much are they worth? Revenue website says band 1 but these houses are closer to 10,000 sq ft - how do you rate them?

Guess a figure for your house - revenue tell you that you have underpaid - you are in trouble then.

I really don't know what to compare my house with - house the same as mine sold for €700,000 4 years ago. The most recent one i can find that even resembles mine sold for €280,000 - but that was on the next road from me which the revenue has down at a band below mine - mine is valued at €400,000 but that's too much - where the fcuk do you start??

MadsL · 18-03-2013 07:06PM

mfceiling wrote: »

What's reasonable? How can you tell if you haven't an idea of guide prices? I know 2 houses liable in the midlands - nothing in the area built or sold in the last 5 years or more - how much are they worth? Revenue website says band 1 but these houses are closer to 10,000 sq ft - how do you rate them?

Guess a figure for your house - revenue tell you that you have underpaid - you are in trouble then.

I really don't know what to compare my house with - house the same as mine sold for €700,000 4 years ago. The most recent one i can find that even resembles mine sold for €280,000 - but that was on the next road from me which the revenue has down at a band below mine - mine is valued at €400,000 but that's too much - where the fcuk do you start??

Which gives value to the idea of a Site Valuation Tax rather than a Property Valuation Tax, we really need to get away from this notion of the value of houses for tax purposes. We end up with several valuations.

1. A broad strokes 'banded' system from Revenue.
2. A rough this is what the last five sold for.
3. The value the EA wants to get for it
4. The (often delusional) value that a homeowner puts on their house.
5. The actual market value which is an unknown until the sale happens.

A site tax would have a evening out effect and would remove the absurdity that is people paying more tax in order to boost some notion of the house's value (we have already seen that in this thread)

An alternative would have been to have taxed on the last known sale price with an inflation/deflation modifier but since that was a big dirty secret until now we have no other data other than recent sales.

darkhorse · 18-03-2013 08:22PM

Deleted User wrote: »

FF won't scrap this tax as the only alternative is to tax the higher paid to the hilt and they are NOT going to do that.

Unless the people were to have a say through a referendum, maybe?

barneystinson · 18-03-2013 08:24PM

mfceiling wrote: »

What's reasonable? How can you tell if you haven't an idea of guide prices? I know 2 houses liable in the midlands - nothing in the area built or sold in the last 5 years or more - how much are they worth? Revenue website says band 1 but these houses are closer to 10,000 sq ft - how do you rate them?

Guess a figure for your house - revenue tell you that you have underpaid - you are in trouble then.

I really don't know what to compare my house with - house the same as mine sold for €700,000 4 years ago. The most recent one i can find that even resembles mine sold for €280,000 - but that was on the next road from me which the revenue has down at a band below mine - mine is valued at €400,000 but that's too much - where the fcuk do you start??

So a house that like yours, near yours, sold for 280k - that's your reasonable value right there. (PM me if you've any more dilemmas that require common sense.

)

barneystinson · 18-03-2013 08:27PM

darkhorse wrote: »

Unless the people were to have a say through a referendum, maybe?

The people get a say in the general election, and this Govt therefore has a mandate to introduce this tax. That's how democracy works, we'd only need a referendum if introducing the tax was deemed unconstitutional.

darkhorse · 18-03-2013 08:47PM

barneystinson wrote: »

If they want to sign up to a group of freemen talking nonsense about legal challenges then that's fine.

I keep reading quotes from you and other posters on here referring to the phrase "Freemen". Just for clarification, when you refer to "Freemen", what is it actually in comparison to, "Slaves", as that is the opposite to Free. Because, ya see, if I am not a Slave, then it stands to reason that I must be Free.

tayto lover · 18-03-2013 08:50PM

barneystinson wrote: »

The people get a say in the general election, and this Govt therefore has a mandate to introduce this tax. That's how democracy works, we'd only need a referendum if introducing the tax was deemed unconstitutional.

Yes but didn't the Government tell lie after lie in order to get elected? Didn't Rabbitte even admit that?
Seems to me that they broke the rules and therefore democracy took a back seat. Why should everyone else not behave likewise?

Bullseye1 · 18-03-2013 09:15PM

barneystinson wrote: »

The people get a say in the general election, and this Govt therefore has a mandate to introduce this tax. That's how democracy works, we'd only need a referendum if introducing the tax was deemed unconstitutional.

I don't recall either party running on the mandate to introduce a property tax. In fact they ran on alot of broken promises.

So if another party runs in the next election to drop a property tax and get elected you won't have any issue?

darkhorse · 18-03-2013 09:18PM

barneystinson wrote: »

If you defer the property tax for 20 years, and even if the LPT rate was 0.30% (i.e. nearly double its current rate - seeing as how everyone is convinced they intend on increasing it at the earliest opportunity) the accrued amount would amount to around
15%
of the property value. That's assuming the property value doesn't actually increase in the next 20 years.

So don't be pulling out that sh1te about leaving family with a debt they can't afford. There'll be a house there that's worth a multiple of the tax owed, so it won't be as dramatic as you're making out.

It'd fairly build up when you also add on the ineritance tax, and who knows how many more taxes the government may come up with in the space of 20 years. Oh, and I think you may have forgotten to add the 4% annual interest (assuming that they leave it at 4%). Yeah, be still worth a multiple, for the government.

darkhorse · 18-03-2013 09:30PM

MadsL wrote: »

The nation's problems solved by a Traveller tax is it?

No, but did'nt one or four ministers in the Dail tell us that we were all in this to-gether? So, I take that to mean that if we all shared the burden

.

barneystinson · 18-03-2013 09:31PM

darkhorse wrote: »

I keep reading quotes from you and other posters on here referring to the phrase "Freemen". Just for clarification, when you refer to "Freemen", what is it actually in comparison to, "Slaves", as that is the opposite to Free. Because, ya see, if I am not a Slave, then it stands to reason that I must be Free.

This is what I was talking about anyway - http://freemanireland.ning.com/video/attack-the-tax-class-action-by-the-people-against-the-irish?xg_source=activity

squod · 18-03-2013 09:42PM

barneystinson wrote: »

The people get a say in the general election, and this Govt therefore has a mandate to introduce this tax. That's how democracy works, we'd only need a referendum if introducing the tax was deemed unconstitutional.

The property tax may be unconstitutional. Legislation giving it power could be struck down by the courts, if an action was taken.
Article 43 protects private property, and previous constitutional cases against governmental imposition of tariffs on private property have been successful. In addition, the Constitution says in Article 40 that a “dwelling is inviolable”. It is a wonder that the likes of Sinn Féin and the Socialist party have not begun a challenge in the courts. In the past, the Constitution meant everything and rulings were sought if legislation was repugnant to it.

Things have changed. The lack of a constitutional challenge to a tax on private property shows the high price of litigation these days and why justice for the ordinary people, whether it is constitutional, legal, or social, is out of reach.

Maurice Fitzgerald
Shanbally
Co Cork

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/property-tax-may-be-unconstitutional-223048.html

No expert here. This is possibly wrong but it's possibly right too.

MadYaker · 18-03-2013 09:48PM

You do realise that the government have teams of people whose job it is to make sure that legislation isn't at odds with the constitution before it is introduced? It ain't gonna happen and anyone who thinks it might is wrong.

darkhorse · 18-03-2013 09:50PM

barneystinson wrote: »

This is starting to feel like I've strayed onto the conspiracy theory forum.

Just on that note, barney, I remember a conversation with some of the staff the day after the last budget. We were chatting about the rise in the rate of DIRT. Antway, I happen to say that it would'nt suprise me if they went even further than that with S/A's. One of the men said to me, no, they would never get away with something like that, don't be talking conspiracy theory.:eek: A bit off thread, but it'd be cool to live in Cyprus, as their calling another bank holiday to-morrow.

squod · 18-03-2013 09:52PM

MadYaker wrote: »

You do realise that the government have teams of people whose job it is to make sure that legislation isn't at odds with the constitution before it is introduced? It ain't gonna happen and anyone who thinks it might is wrong.

Oh yeah that's right. There's like so never been a challenge to legislation brought before the courts on the grounds of it's constitutionality.

Bullseye1 · 18-03-2013 10:12PM

MadYaker wrote: »

You do realise that the government have teams of people whose job it is to make sure that legislation isn't at odds with the constitution before it is introduced? It ain't gonna happen and anyone who thinks it might is wrong.

It's happened many times. Not saying any challenge on this would be successful but to suggest the Irish legislators are beyond making mistakes is laughable.

revenue issues threat to every homeowner in the country.

Comments