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

seamus · 17-05-2013 12:39PM

Probably this one;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-eviction-abandoned-as-tension-with-protesters-threatens-to-turn-violent-1.1318599

The eviction was being forced by her own family.

The eviction proceedings follow a family dispute over the sale of the property. It is understood that the occupants had previously agreed to leave but had not done so and that they had been given a sum of money to assist them in 2006.

She agreed to leave, took a sum of money to leave, and then failed to leave.

The sheriff called for medical assistance and once he was aware of the woman's condition, left the property

Sheriff James Barry, aware of Ms Hattaoui’s illness, had called an ambulance to the scene and paramedics were permitted entry.
“[Her health] was taken into account. On reading the situation from the ambulance personnel I decided to leave the property,” he said

Further googling seems to indicate that the women sourced alternative accommodation earlier this year. A happy eviction story, all in all.

Zubeneschamali · 17-05-2013 12:48PM

SamHall wrote: »

FF who've once again become the biggest party in the state?

What is that supposed to mean?

darkhorse · 17-05-2013 12:49PM

kippy wrote: »

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

Why?

Cause its self explanatory.

Phoebas · 17-05-2013 12:53PM

SamHall wrote: »

Ok, fair enough.

Would you like some links though that prove they're losing support due to the property tax (among other reasons) to FF who've once again become the biggest party in the state?

I've no doubt they're loosing some support because of the LPT. Hard choices - responsible government and all that.

SamHall wrote: »

FF openly oppose the tax now, you can call that a coincidence if you like.

Well, they are in opposition, so they do have the luxury of being able to oppose anything at all for reasons of populism. In fairness to FF, they were populist even when in power.

Banjo String · 17-05-2013 12:54PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What is that supposed to mean?

You're not reading posts again properly.

No hidden meaning in it.

darkhorse · 17-05-2013 12:54PM

Phoebas wrote: »

You reckon there isn't a house in the country that isn't owned outright without a mortgage.

I never said that.

Phoebas · 17-05-2013 12:56PM

darkhorse wrote: »

I never said that.

I can't imagine what you meant by this then.

I reckon that the figure would have more than twice this before the property crash, as I doubt if there is a house or other property that is not in negative equity to at least half their value(more in wealthier places) anywhere in the country.

How can a house be owned outright and still be in negative equity?

Banjo String · 17-05-2013 12:58PM

Phoebas wrote: »

Well, they are in opposition, so they do have the luxury of being able to oppose anything at all for reasons of populism. In fairness to FF, they were populist even when in power.

Which brings us back to square one.......

What did FF-lite promise and 'oppose' pre election?

Pretty populist themselves when it suits.

Hijpo · 17-05-2013 01:00PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I doubt if Joe Soap will be in court, or in jail, unlike Sean Quinn.

Still they have no problem with threats of being plunged into further financial difficulty with fines and leaving there kids with a large debt, which in my eyes is worse than jail

seamus wrote: »

Probably this one;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-eviction-abandoned-as-tension-with-protesters-threatens-to-turn-violent-1.1318599

The eviction was being forced by her own family.
She agreed to leave, took a sum of money to leave, and then failed to leave.

The sheriff called for medical assistance and once he was aware of the woman's condition, left the property

Further googling seems to indicate that the women sourced alternative accommodation earlier this year. A happy eviction story, all in all.

My point is that they still turned up, looked intimidating for an hour and a half and only left when the paramedics told them her situation was pretty sh*t.
How will the next one go down if its a family with a down syndrome child or a disabled child with mods made to the house? where the paramedics dont need to be called, will they be forced to leave?
Which bank already announced they plan 1000 evictions?

Phoebas · 17-05-2013 01:18PM

SamHall wrote: »

Which brings us back to square one.......

What did FF-lite promise and 'oppose' pre election?

Pretty populist themselves when it suits.

There is a world of difference between opposing something but negotiating when in coalition talks and negotiating something (as FF did with the the troika) and then opposing it after you negotiate it.

But I do accept that all political parties are prone to populism (SF are going to refund LPY

), they get rewarded so handsomely by a lazy electorate.

Zubeneschamali · 17-05-2013 01:38PM

Phoebas wrote: »

But I do accept that all political parties are prone to populism (SF are going to refund LPY ), they get rewarded so handsomely by a lazy electorate.

In 2002, the FG manifesto was pretty honest about what was going wrong and what should be done about it, and they got crucified. In 2007, the manifesto was basically FF-lite, and they did better.

2011 is an exception in that they could have promised to sacrifice the first-born of every family to the Old Gods and they'd still have won.

darkhorse · 17-05-2013 02:42PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are wrong: my house isn't in negative equity.

I am very happy for you.

Zubeneschamali · 17-05-2013 02:58PM

darkhorse wrote: »

I am very happy for you.

Wrong, but happy.

Banjo String · 17-05-2013 03:21PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

2011 is an exception in that they could have promised to sacrifice the first-born of every family to the Old Gods and they'd still have won.

Yet they still needed labour as a coalition partner?

They are in govt by default. It's time they started to understand that fact.

kippy · 17-05-2013 03:32PM

darkhorse wrote: »

Cause its self explanatory.

Eh, it's not.
What exactly has buying a bed got to do with property tax?

darkhorse · 17-05-2013 03:34PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why should investors in property get a dig-out when their investment goes wrong, and not investors in Bank shares, for example? At least property is still worth 40% of what they paid, my BoI bank shares are worth 1%.

I don't know where to begin to tell you how sorry I feel on hearing about your bank shares, so I said it with flowers:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsHQkCWkTwehZXPYJqWYxFTTgarwa-27U8ioPZtM6uMOPuLp9I

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsHQkCWkTwehZXPYJqWYxFTTgarwa-27U8ioPZtM6uMOPuLp9I

However, it is not quite as bad as a person that may be pushed into more debt than they may already be in, because of the governments actions in demanding a rental payment for the family home, that is already paid/being paid for(what are ya talking about when ya say investors in property)by hard pressed home owners that cant afford it, who may have lost their job through no fault of their own.
I'm sure that you will agree that buying shares in anything is a risk/gamble, but the man that borrowed to buy a family home had no way of knowing that there was going to be a gigantic property crash(caused partly by some of the same institutions that gave out the home loans).

darkhorse · 17-05-2013 03:44PM

seamus wrote: »

Why should they get an amnesty? They went in, eyes open, a property transaction where the value of property may rise or fall. It fell, deal with it.

Just one question, seamus. We know it fell, was it a natural fall?

kippy · 17-05-2013 03:49PM

darkhorse wrote: »

Just one question, seamus. We know it fell, was it a natural fall?

What is your definition of a "natural fall"?

DoesNotCompute · 17-05-2013 03:50PM

SamHall wrote: »

FF openly oppose the tax now

No they don't. Their official stance is that it's "the wrong tax at the wrong time":

http://www.fiannafail.ie/news/entry/wrong-tax-at-wrong-time-as-struggling-homeowners-hit-with-deeply-unfair-pro/

Very careful phraseology and language - they are playing it safe. They know that if they were to commit to scrapping the tax altogether, in order to buy off the electorate, they will eventually have to backtrack and re-introduce it in order to help balance the books.

On the other hand, if they say it's the "wrong tax at the wrong time", at least they can claim that they never fully opposed the tax, and that they were going to bring it back in anyway (at the "right time", to use their terminology).

Banjo String · 17-05-2013 04:25PM

Phoebas wrote: »

How can a house be owned outright and still be in negative equity?

It could have another loan secured against it

DoesNotCompute · 17-05-2013 04:27PM

SamHall wrote: »

It could have another loan secured against it

But then it wouldn't be owned outright.

Zubeneschamali · 17-05-2013 04:31PM

darkhorse wrote: »

I'm sure that you will agree that buying shares in anything is a risk/gamble, but the man that borrowed to buy a family home had no way of knowing that there was going to be a gigantic property crash

Sorry, but no. Property has never crashed before. Bank shares never dropped 99% in value before. People investing in either lost, but share owners lost more, percentage-wise.

If reckless borrowers are entitled to €200,000 of taxpayers money to make good their losses in the property market, I'll take my €200K in cash, thanks.

I'll even promise to blow it immediately and stimulate the economy, which is more than the negative equity crowd can promise.

Phoebas · 17-05-2013 04:41PM

darkhorse wrote: »

I'm sure that you will agree that buying shares in anything is a risk/gamble, but the man that borrowed to buy a family home had no way of knowing that there was going to be a gigantic property crash(caused partly by some of the same institutions that gave out the home loans).

Why does it really matter if the value of a house drops by, say, 50%.
The home owner hasn't lost anything if they didn't think of it as an investment in the first place. They still have their 'family home' on the same terms they agreed to when they bought it.

In one practical way they benefit from the property price crash because their LPT liability is lower.

Banjo String · 17-05-2013 04:44PM

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

But then it wouldn't be owned outright.

It would be mortgage free.

100% owned outright by the home owner, but put up as collateral against a loan.

Banjo String · 17-05-2013 04:47PM

Phoebas wrote: »

Why does it really matter if the value of a house drops by, say, 50%.
The home owner hasn't lost anything if they didn't think of it as an investment in the first place. They still have their 'family home' on the same terms they agreed to when they bought it.

Eh, no they don't.

Who here, agreed to pay a property tax on their home in the terms they agreed to when buyoing it?

Certainly not anyone pre-2011.

Phoebas wrote: »

In one practical way they benefit from the property price crash because their LPT liability is lower.

Lol......

DoesNotCompute · 17-05-2013 04:53PM

SamHall wrote: »

Eh, no they don't.

Who here, agreed to pay a property tax on their home in the terms they agreed to when buyoing it?

Certainly not anyone pre-2011.

Really? A property tax of some kind has been flagged since as early as 2008 (Commission on Taxation). Anyone who was paying attention to the media would have known it was coming.

I myself bought in 2010, knowing full well that a property tax was coming, and I had no objection to it. In fact, I welcome it. It may very well have averted the economic collapse, if it had been in place from 2000 onwards.

seamus · 17-05-2013 04:55PM

SamHall wrote: »

Eh, no they don't.

Who here, agreed to pay a property tax on their home in the terms they agreed to when buyoing it?

Certainly not anyone pre-2011.

Since when did we have to agree to pay taxes in order to make them valid?

Banjo String · 17-05-2013 04:58PM

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Really? A property tax of some kind has been flagged since as early as 2008 (Commission on Taxation). Anyone who was paying attention to the media would have known it was coming.

They still have their 'family home' on the same terms they agreed to when they bought it.

It was not in the terms agreed to when buying a house.

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

I myself bought in 2010, knowing full well that a property tax was coming, and I had no objection to it. In fact, I welcome it. It may very well have averted the economic collapse, if it had been in place from 2000 onwards.

What?????

This shocks me:eek:

Getting back to the point you picked up on though, was their anything in the terms you agreed to when purchasing the home that it would be subject to a yearly rent on top of the mortgage?

A simple yes or no will do.

Banjo String · 17-05-2013 04:59PM

seamus wrote: »

Since when did we have to agree to pay taxes in order to make them valid?

Read back what that was in reply to Seamus.

DoesNotCompute · 17-05-2013 05:02PM

SamHall wrote: »

Getting back to the point you picked up on though, was their anything in the terms you agreed to when purchasing the home that it would be subject to a yearly rent on top of the mortgage?

A simple yes or no will do.

No.

Then again it's a freehold interest, not a leasehold interest, so what's your point?

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

Comments