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

Hijpo wrote: »

nowhere in that text do i see what stops the landlord from including the cost of LPT in there rent.

That's because LPT has nothing to do with tenants at all.
Tenants aren't liable for LPT - end of story.

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.

Tell them to fcuk off. What would you do, and more importantly what relevance has this scenario in a thread about property tax?

Am Chile wrote: »

Only time will tell what way the legal challenge this group is bringing will go-while the property tax itself being constitutional is debatable-certain aspects of the legistration will likely be found to be unconstitutional-for example the so called powers to give revenue employees to inspect privately owned homes-also the fact revenue has outsourced its work to e private company to handle the property tax-for a private company to try access someones wages/savings account I can,t see that as being constitutional.



http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revenue-home-checks-at-odds-with-constitution-28946945.html

Based on sheer English comprehension (not legal comprehension), would this "shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law." piece not be fulfilled if the law around property tax allowed for forcibly entering a house?

Going Forward wrote: »

When I hear politicians speaking of broadening the tax base, the phrase "In a just and equitable manner" is usually tacked on for good measure.

I also naively get some notion that a "broadening of the tax base" will alleviate the tax burden on those constantly tapped for more taxes.

As a theory, broadening the tax base is fine, in practice the same people will be hit again, with the addition of, in the case of the LPT, pensioners and those unfortunate enough to have a mortgage but be on the dole.

Lets not forget that it will be further broadened to close to bursting point when Irish Water begin their PR stunts in advance of water charges being introduced.

The enthusiastic austerity mongers of a few years ago have recently been shown to have been incorrect in their predictions regarding the expected economic turning of corners and the results of austerity measures; I dont doubt that the introduction of the LPT in this country at this time will also come to be seen as incorrect.

What do you suggest we do?
Tax the rich more?

darkhorse wrote: »

What equity are you talking about? Wake up and and smell the recession.

€215bn just a couple of years ago.

Zero Vat on food is the crunch ... far as I know the UK do not have it ... so UK stats are wrong for here... as food is a very large (pro rata) % of disposable income for the lesser off.
There is the fact that the better off here spend a lot more (pro rata) abroad (VAT not counted here) while VAT paid by visitors here would also go unaccounted.
The poor don't spend abroad so much.
Apart from VAT (and with VAT there are many choices ... 2nd hands, farmer's markets etc.), almost all other taxes avoid cruelty to the lesser off from whom
any tax taken would be from their subsistence or from a negative disposable income, unlike LPT which attemts to target the poor with no choice. Deferral willcost the poor even more and is like a fourbal taxation

For the information af all in here it was the FG dominated govt in 1976 that started the ball rollin on the (taxbase reduction) abolishment of Domestic (the family home) rates, which I applaud and am proud of FG for ....since charges on the family home because it creates no income are inherently unjust, unfair and cruel to many.

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.
........
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.

Wow!!! Finally a solution to make LPT unnecessary.

Let all the civil servant home owners take a 20% cut .... it is to pay them that this govt is borrowing ... OH!!!! it wont cause them any hardship as they can sell their houses and “They can move into the private rented sector ... or trade down ... Impractical?” not at all, Phoebas says so!!

Good loser wrote: »

That's as it should be. The occupier shoud be the liable person rather than the owner.

The occupier enjoys the local services. For the Revenue he/she is easier to identify.

One big advantage of the LPT is that it gets tax revenue from those that avoid income taxes. Also, over time, it leads to more efficient use of housing resources; penalising those in over large houses and favouring those in small, efficient units.

The time and effort dispensed by those opposing this trifling tax is risible - compare the other 'wealth tax' - on cars and vehicles. The Govt for example could double the tax on cars in the next budget FFS; where would all these phoney arguments 'agin the tax' go then?

“... those that avoid income taxes ...” .... the poor are not avoiding income tax so why are they included? A lazy govt and even lazier revenue could not, or uncaringly would not, make provision for the poor.

“.. favouring those in small, efficient units.” ... lets all move into straw huts ... Surely the task of any democratic govt is to improve the lot of it’s citizens and not to enforce downgrading. Is this FG/Labrats govt with their LPT trying to downgrade its people???

“ ....this trifling tax ...” is not trifling for the poor, and I guarantee that like the old domestic rates (and car tax... £5 up to over €500) it would, if not resisted, be extortionate within a few years. Even next year I think it would be 215% of this year, if not, for sure it would be up and up. That DCC –15% LPT is laughable.

“... phoney arguments 'agin the tax' ...” ....do you think the worry LPT inflicts on carers and other poor is to be scoffed at ... i guess you think they are all “extreme examples” huh?

darkhorse wrote: »

The same.

You failed to answer the second part of my question....
..

Why?

This avoidance argument is a red herring.
If this tax does what it says on the tin it should be the least avoidable of all either directly or indirectly.....

cageyeuclid wrote: »

For tens of thousands of carers it is not .... and you uncaringly dismissed carers who must pass on their homes unencumbered to Special Needs offspring as "extreme examples" ... YOU DID!!! you heartless poser (Oooops!!! sorry typo ... left out the "t". ... meant poster.

Carer's need to own property?


cageyeuclid, you need to quit the personal jibes from here on in - its getting tiresome.