Property Tax (MOD REMINDER: Don't get too personal)

darkhorse · 15-05-2013 11:04PM

kippy wrote: »

How many poor "own" a house?

That's the same thing as asking, "How many people in the country have lost their job, and who are now on the dole, and whose bills are more than twice the amount of their welfare payment". I would say, quite a lot in this category alone.

tayto lover · 15-05-2013 11:07PM

kippy wrote: »

Sorry Tayto, is that meant to be sarcastic or serious?

Just how i view those who blindly follow whatever schemes their party dream up.
FG seemingly can do no wrong in their eyes.

K-9 · 15-05-2013 11:36PM

Going Forward wrote: »

I'm still intrigued by whether there is any political motivation by anyone posting in favour of this tax.

Mod

Enough of this type of stuff please. It adds nothing to the thread, we've had enough accusations of shills and all that stuff, toning it down a little, but still doing the same thing will be treated harshly as well.

It's a politics board, some posters pro property tax will will have a political view on it, others anti-tax will have a party political view, it's a given on a politics board, but it seems to be used by only one side on property threads as a slur.

General note
Debate the merits and disadvantages of the property tax, there are many, there is no need to make it so personal and bring every single grievance against the Government into it.

darkhorse · 16-05-2013 01:37AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's also possible that some people welcome the idea of broadening the tax base, having seen the devastating consequences of eroding it so drastically.

First off, I think I may have already mentioned that I am in total disagreement to taxing the family home, even if everyone in the country could afford to pay it(which the government aint worried about one way or the other). But, I would like to ask you two questions as regards broadening the tax base.

1) Why would the government not instead, bring in a SV tax, which would yield much more in revenue. Who would stand to lose, that's the thing.

2) Why could they not raise income tax instead. Before you come back with, it would impact on jobs, as it would affect income on labour, that's already been done to death, because, my answer you would be, if this tax is not going to come from the income that you are payed for your labour, then where is it to come from. Also, who would it not be beneficial to if you raise income tax.

darkhorse · 16-05-2013 02:02AM

kippy wrote: »

I'd add at this point that there are certain categories of people that will genuinely find a property tax "tough" and may view it as grossly unfair, however it is required.

Let me just paint a scenario for ya. You buy a new bed for a thousand euro. After about a year, you receive a letter from the shop where you bought it demanding that you pay them a percentage of what you paid for it, and this payment will have to be paid every year, even though you already own it, what dia do.

cageyeuclid · 16-05-2013 03:37AM

Phoebas wrote: »

I've heard a lot of crazy stuff spouted about property tax, but this takes the biscuit.

This is a perfect example of a most inconsiderate statement. Please post what you consider to be crazy.

Do I need to list those even worse off than OAPs and give umpteen examples of where yearly property tax and/or household charges have risen from under £200 to over £4,000 in a short time.

Or is it the attactive alternate 20% salary cut from civil servants instead of LPT?

The current British govt scraped into office by promising to keep PT steady for their term in office (such was the rising impact of PT the electorate fell for it). Little did the electorate realise the ruse ... LGs now have raised house charges to extortionate levels instead.

If FG/Lab think we will fall for the same they are gladly mistaken.

BTW, they have a waiver system to prevent cruelty to poor families unlike this lazy govt here.

Of course if Phoebas does not own a house, then almost any other tax but LPT he will HAVE TO PAY. Is that his me fein reason for supporting LPT and it's inherent cruelty to the less well off??? ....you betcha!!!!

cageyeuclid · 16-05-2013 05:05AM

kippy wrote: »

Sorry Tayto, is that meant to be sarcastic or serious?

I challenge you to answer the question yourself. Who do you think are the poor? Phoebas dismisses the poor as extreme cases. For another poster it is "tough" on some. At least he is honest.
I say LPT is cruel, and will get worse very quickly.
Have you noted the DC Councillor's quote re LPT???

Let's have your idea of how many carers would be so affected by a 4% compound interest deferral of LPT that they cannot pass on their home unencumbered to their Special Needs offspring?
Have you seen the reports of children going to school hungry?
How about the 14% unemployed? a lot of whom own homes prior to losing jobs and are now in dire circumstances being helped out by aging OAP parents whom this lazy govt want to tax.

Let's see your estimates of the poor in Ireland. If you do the research I guarantee you will be shocked.

You might start with SVDeP figures.

This is the discussion that should surround LPT.

cageyeuclid · 16-05-2013 05:45AM

darkhorse wrote: »

Let me just paint a scenario for ya. You buy a new bed for a thousand euro. After about a year, you receive a letter from the shop where you bought it demanding that you pay them a percentage of what you paid for it, and this payment will have to be paid every year, even though you already own it, what dia do.

Worse still darkhorse, the payments will go up and up, and not just the shop but LG will add on their pecentage in case the payments are not unjust enough.

Oh!! and when ya die they will grab the d..n thing from your kids.

Phoebas · 16-05-2013 07:46AM

cageyeuclid wrote: »

This is a perfect example of a most inconsiderate statement. Please post what you consider to be crazy.

If you honestly think that the property tax impacts the poor more than any other tax then I don't think anything I could say could change your mind.
Unlike any other tax, there are optional LPT deferrals available to people on low incomes.

Do I need to list those even worse off than OAPs and give umpteen examples of where yearly property tax and/or household charges have risen from under £200 to over £4,000 in a short time.

Not in this jurisdiction - maybe in some fictional, foreign jurisdiction. But I doubt you'd find even one extreme example of a case where property tax went from 200 to 4k.

In any case, property owning OAPs tend to own their properties outright with no mortgage. As a group, they are amongst the better off in this country. Even many of those on low incomes have equity tied up in their properties and can release that.

Or is it the attactive alternate 20% salary cut from civil servants instead of LPT?

Who is a 20% salary cut attractive to? I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say its attractive to you because it wouldn't affect you at all.

Of course if Phoebas does not own a house, then almost any other tax but LPT he will HAVE TO PAY. Is that his me fein reason for supporting LPT and it's inherent cruelty to the less well off??? ....you betcha!!!!

I've paid my LPT - its not me who is the me feiner.

Phoebas · 16-05-2013 07:53AM

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Phoebas dismisses the poor as extreme cases.

You need to stop attributing to me things that I didn't say.

You might start with SVDeP figures.

This is the discussion that should surround LPT.

Maybe you could post what the SVP say about property owning poor people and we can have a discussion about some specifics.

Hijpo · 16-05-2013 10:46AM

Phoebas wrote: »

Unlike any other tax, there are optional LPT deferrals available to people on low incomes.

Rubbish, other taxes are optional in themselves. VAT only paid for when you buy, car tax only paid when the car is on the road, carbon tax paid on how much you use your gas/elec.

Where is the ability for the people that are being targeted to control the cost of this tax?

Chips Lovell · 16-05-2013 10:59AM

cageyeuclid wrote: »

This is patently false ... pro rata that is .... if you recalculate ... the big difference is the large proportion of income the poor pay for (zero VAT) food.

I am not sure of the %s but 40% is my guess for the poors' food bill.

Actually, you are wrong about this. Most studies in Ireland and the UK indicate that VAT is actually regressive. For example:

Results show that households at the lower end of the income distribution pay a higher proportion of income in VAT relative to higher income households. In fact, in 2004 households in the lowest equivalised income decile spent 14.5 per cent of income in VAT whereas for the top income decile, the figure was only 6.8 per cent.

Or this:

The data, however, tells a different story. The number crunchers at the Office for National Statistics have published a new report showing that the poorest fifth of UK households pay significantly more in VAT as a percentage of their disposable income than the richest fifth.

Hijpo · 16-05-2013 11:02AM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Actually, you are wrong about this. Most studies in Ireland and the UK indicate that VAT is actually regressive. For example:

Or this:

Does that mean we will be reducing VAT because the LPT is in?

No, it just means that while the poorest apparently pay a **** load in VAT they will now also have LPT to contend with aswell.

Chips Lovell · 16-05-2013 11:07AM

darkhorse wrote: »

Why would the government not instead, bring in a SV tax, which would yield much more in revenue. Who would stand to lose, that's the thing.

It was considered and was one of the things examined by the Thornhill report. It ended up recommending a market value tax, because it was easier to understand and worked well in other countries.

Chips Lovell · 16-05-2013 11:21AM

darkhorse wrote: »

Why could they not raise income tax instead. Before you come back with, it would impact on jobs, as it would affect income on labour, that's already been done to death, because, my answer you would be, if this tax is not going to come from the income that you are payed for your labour, then where is it to come from.

Actually raising income tax does have an impact on economic activity. The higher Income Tax is, the more disincentive there is to work or to work more.

For example, if the top rate of tax is too high, people are less inclined to take a promotion or do overtime because a significant wedge of that disappears in Income Tax. They either turn down the work or demand more from their employer to compensate for the tax wedge, thus driving up costs.

A Property Tax doesn't have the same impact, in that your working decisions aren't affected by your liability.

And, as OscarBravo said, it broadens the tax base, reducing our reliance on a small number of core taxes, which is something we really got caught out by when the economy went south.

Phoebas · 16-05-2013 11:33AM

Hijpo wrote: »

Rubbish, other taxes are optional in themselves. VAT only paid for when you buy, car tax only paid when the car is on the road, carbon tax paid on how much you use your gas/elec.

Where is the ability for the people that are being targeted to control the cost of this tax?

This tax is even more optional than all of those, because nobody is obliged to be a property owner.

Hijpo · 16-05-2013 11:47AM

Phoebas wrote: »

This tax is even more optional than all of those, because nobody is obliged to be a property owner.

lmao more rubbish

What do you suggest people do with the negative equity that they struggle to repay IN FULL to the banks? with some banks even raising interest rates even though the ECB has reduced theres? Sell it? stillowing €100k+ to the bank?
bear in mind that if you sell your house the LA will not provide you with a house.

Say you have 3 kids, how much will it cost to rent a 3 bed house?

You dont even have to own a property, landlords are passing on the costs of the LPT to there tennants.

Banjo String · 16-05-2013 11:47AM

Phoebas wrote: »

This tax is even more optional than all of those, because nobody is obliged to be a property owner.

Good lad Phoebas.

That sounds like a great plan, make the lpt applicable to new purchases only.

Because for the folk already owning property, it's not optional at all.

Is it?

Phoebas · 16-05-2013 12:00PM

Hijpo wrote: »

lmao more rubbish

You argued that other taxes are optional, but LPT isn't and that is plain false.
It may not be practical for someone to sell their house (or trade down to a cheaper house to attract a lower rate of LPT), but it is possible.

LPT is closer to Motor Tax in this regard. In reality, many people need a car, but they can use public transport instead or trade down to a smaller car if they want. It mightn't be practical, but it is possible.

SamHall wrote: »

That sounds like a great plan, make the lpt applicable to new purchases only.

I didn't suggest that at all. Please stop attributing things to me that I didn't say.

SamHall wrote: »

Because for the folk already owning property, it's not optional at all.
Is it?

It is. They can move into the private rented sector to avoid the tax altogether or trade down to lower their liability.
Impractical? - in most cases, yes, but possible.

Banjo String · 16-05-2013 12:33PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I didn't suggest that at all. Please stop attributing things to me that I didn't say.

It is. They can move into the private rented sector to avoid the tax altogether or trade down to lower their liability.
Impractical? - in most cases, yes, but possible.

Lol. Someone just ran out of argument.

This tax is as optional to a homeowner as breathing air.

Keep up the good work though Phoebas. There's a gold star sitting in a box for you somewhere I'm sure.

Phoebas · 16-05-2013 01:17PM

SamHall wrote: »

This tax is as optional to a homeowner as breathing air.

I've been saying that for a couple of months now to some homeowners around here who think that they can somehow get away without paying it by just ignoring the Revenue letters.

Being a homeowner, however, remains optional.

oscarBravo · 16-05-2013 05:40PM

darkhorse wrote: »

Why could they not raise income tax instead.

I think the income tax needs to be broadened also; there is far too high a percentage of the income tax take being paid by far too small a percentage of earners, and that's part of the erosion I mentioned.

But you're kidding yourself if you think that income tax increases would be welcomed, unless it was yet another band for the highest earners. About the only taxes that will be welcomed by most people are taxes that someone else has to pay.

Hijpo · 16-05-2013 07:03PM

Phoebas wrote: »

You argued that other taxes are optional, but LPT isn't and that is plain false.
It may not be practical for someone to sell their house (or trade down to a cheaper house to attract a lower rate of LPT), but it is possible.

LPT is closer to Motor Tax in this regard. In reality, many people need a car, but they can use public transport instead or trade down to a smaller car if they want. It mightn't be practical, but it is possible.

I didn't suggest that at all. Please stop attributing things to me that I didn't say.

It is. They can move into the private rented sector to avoid the tax altogether or trade down to lower their liability.
Impractical? - in most cases, yes, but possible.

You cannot base your argument around possible, it must be viable. If you were to go on what possible then none of us would have to work to live, stroll around naked, eating out of bins and sleep in make shift tents because its all possible.

All the alternatives to LPT are possible aswell by the way.

Phoebas · 16-05-2013 07:11PM

Hijpo wrote: »

You cannot base your argument around possible, it must be viable. If you were to go on what possible then none of us would have to work to live, stroll around naked, eating out of bins and sleep in make shift tents because its all possible.

All the alternatives to LPT are possible aswell by the way.

Not owning property is viable for hundreds of thousands of people.

tayto lover · 16-05-2013 07:20PM

Phoebas wrote: »

This tax is even more optional than all of those, because nobody is obliged to be a property owner.

Are there enough council houses for all families then?

Banjo String · 16-05-2013 07:26PM

Phoebas wrote: »

Not owning property is viable for hundreds of thousands of people.

These hundreds of thousands of people not owning properties will either be;

A, not liable
B, paying it on behalf of their landlords who'll ultimately pads the cost on to them.

I don't get your point tbh.

Phoebas · 16-05-2013 07:26PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Are there enough council houses for all families then?

You think council housing is the only alternative to property ownership?
Have you considered the rental market?

Banjo String · 16-05-2013 07:29PM

Phoebas wrote: »

You think council housing is the only alternative to property ownership?
Have you considered the rental market?

Lol.

Undoubtedly the friendly neighborhood landlord will pay it on your behalf;):pac:

Phoebas · 16-05-2013 07:34PM

SamHall wrote: »

Undoubtedly the friendly neighborhood landlord will pay it on your behalf;):pac:

You clearly haven't the first clue about who is and isn't liable for the LPT.

Here's some basics for you to get to grips with -
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/lpt/liable-persons.html

Come back to me when you're through that.

Banjo String · 16-05-2013 07:41PM

Phoebas wrote: »

You clearly haven't the first clue about who is and isn't liable for the LPT.

Here's some basics for you to get to grips with -
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/lpt/liable-persons.html

Come back to me when you're through that.

Twice now I've posted that a landlord will pass it on to the tenants, how can that have confused you?

You're purposely ignoring my point.

The landlord will obviously recoup the price of the lpt from his tenant via rental adjustments.

Property Tax (MOD REMINDER: Don't get too personal)

Comments