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

Banjo String · 17-05-2013 05:07PM

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

No.

Thank you.

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

so what's your point?

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

There is nothing in the terms and conditions from my home purchase that mentions a yearly rent.

DoesNotCompute · 17-05-2013 05:10PM

SamHall wrote: »

There is nothing in the terms and conditions from my home purchase that mentions a yearly rent.

Sounds like Freeman guff to me.

So let's say you were offered a job, but the terms and conditions in the contract for the job didn't mention anything about the government levying you with new taxes, charges, levies, or other monies in respect of that employment. Would you outright refuse the job on that basis?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

kippy · 17-05-2013 05:16PM

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Sounds like Freeman guff to me.

So let's say you were offered a job, but the terms and conditions in the contract for the job didn't mention anything about the government levying you with new taxes, charges, levies, or other monies in respect of that employment. Would you outright refuse the job on that basis?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

This 'terms and conditions' thing is also a red herring..... there was nothing in my employment contract about a USC but guess what, a USC is a reality we live in. Which is what you are rightly pointing out.
And as for the scenario presented hereby another poster about purchasing a bed. That has nothing at all to do with housing tax.

Phoebas · 17-05-2013 05:17PM

SamHall wrote: »

There is nothing in the terms and conditions from my home purchase that mentions a yearly rent.

Exactly. There is nothing in the terms and conditions about future property taxes being levied, so the terms haven't changed by the LPT being introduced.

Banjo String · 17-05-2013 05:18PM

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Sounds like Freeman guff to me.

So let's say you were offered a job, but the terms and conditions in the contract for the job didn't mention anything about the government levying you with new taxes, charges, levies, or other monies in respect of that employment. Would you outright refuse the job on that basis?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

Isnt this what the PS/CS are disputing at the minute? A change to their terms and conditions?

Besides,
We're not talking about a job, so I cannot answer a hypothetical question.

The simple fact we're disputing was Pheobas's statement that

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

is false.

Which is not true.

Its not difficult to understand either, dont know what you're attempting to prove from this

kippy · 17-05-2013 05:19PM

darkhorse wrote: »

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:

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).

Why would a crash of any description enter the thinking of someone wanting to buy a family home? Their main worry would be the stabilty of their income.

kippy · 17-05-2013 05:20PM

SamHall wrote: »

Isnt this what the PS/CS are disputing at the minute? A change to their terms and conditions?

Besides,
We're not talking about a job, so I cannot answer a hypothetical question.

The simple fact we're disputing was Pheobas's statement that is false.

Which is not true.

Its not difficult to understand either, dont know what you're attempting to prove from this

Pscs are not negotiating that the be exempted from taxation......

bgrizzley · 17-05-2013 05:22PM

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Sounds like Freeman guff to me.

So let's say you were offered a job, but the terms and conditions in the contract for the job didn't mention anything about the government levying you with new taxes, charges, levies, or other monies in respect of that employment. Would you outright refuse the job on that basis?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

'tis all "freeman guff" when ye dont like the answer (or the question),

.

A job is earning income for someone, that's why we dont mind paying taxes on it.
what income is my home bringing in?

Banjo String · 17-05-2013 05:23PM

kippy wrote: »

Pscs are not negotiating that the be exempted from taxation......

They're rejecting a change to their terms of employment, yes or no?

kippy · 17-05-2013 05:24PM

bgrizzley wrote: »

'tis all "freeman guff" when ye dont like the answer (or the question), .

A job is earning income for someone, that's why we dont mind paying taxes on it.
what income is my home bringing in?

None and no one suggests it does. What income does your car bring in? What income does a packet of biscuits bring in? What incom does your septic tank and water bring in.
Again another red herring.

seamus · 17-05-2013 05:26PM

SamHall wrote: »

They're rejecting a change to their terms of employment, yes or no?

Yes, none of which have any relation to taxation.

kippy · 17-05-2013 05:30PM

SamHall wrote: »

They're rejecting a change to their terms of employment, yes or no?

Yes they are but its got nothing to do with taxation. And at least they have an employment contract with the state as opposed to the homeowner who has no written contract with anyone......
Ie they have a set list of terms and conditions.

Banjo String · 17-05-2013 05:32PM

seamus wrote: »

Yes, none of which have any relation to taxation.

I never put you down as a 'seagull poster' before seamus.

Stay in the here and now please.

This all started from Phoebas's statement about owning a home in the same terms as when they purchased it.

The terms of 'home ownership' have changed with the introduction of a family home tax, and in some peoples cases, needing tax clearnce certs from revenue in relation to owning a home. yes or no?

kippy · 17-05-2013 05:37PM

SamHall wrote: »

I never put you down as a 'seagull poster' before seamus.

Stay in the here and now please.

This all started from Phoebas's statement about owning a home in the same terms as when they purchased it.

The terms of 'home ownership' have changed with the introduction of a family home tax, and in some peoples cases, needing tax clearnce certs from revenue in relation to owning a home. yes or no?

The home owner has never had a written contractual list of terms and conditions with the state in relationship to owning their home. So if the poster insinuated they had that poster is wrong. That is the reality of the here and now.

bgrizzley · 17-05-2013 05:37PM

kippy wrote: »

None and no one suggests it does. What income does your car bring in? What income does a packet of biscuits bring in? What incom does your septic tank and water bring in.
Again another red herring.

lol, says the guy throwing cars, water, biscuits and sh1t into the mix!

how is it a red herring to differentiate between two types of tax?

bgrizzley · 17-05-2013 05:40PM

kippy wrote: »

The home owner has never had a written contractual list of terms and conditions with the state in relationship to owning their home. So if the poster insinuated they had that poster is wrong. That is the reality of the here and now.

havent you heard of the constitution?

seamus · 17-05-2013 05:40PM

SamHall wrote: »

The terms of 'home ownership' have changed with the introduction of a family home tax, and in some peoples cases, needing tax clearnce certs from revenue in relation to owning a home. yes or no?

I don't have a "home ownership" contract, do you?

The introduction of property tax cannot be construed as any kind of contractual change because there is no contract.

The nature of home ownership has changed, yes. But then the nature of home ownership changes every time my electricity supplier ups their prices or whenever I discover that my windows are dirty and need to be cleaned.

kippy · 17-05-2013 05:40PM

bgrizzley wrote: »

lol, says the guy throwing cars, water, biscuits and sh1t into the mix!

how is it a red herring to differentiate between two types of tax?

The point is taxes do not have to be levied on income generating features only, as you attempted and failed to argue.

kippy · 17-05-2013 05:42PM

bgrizzley wrote: »

havent you heard of the constitution?

So the constitution specificilly outlaws a tax on the home? I find that amusing to be honest.
indeed its a red herring and a half.

Phoebas · 17-05-2013 05:45PM

kippy wrote: »

The home owner has never had a written contractual list of terms and conditions with the state in relationship to owning their home. So if the poster insinuated they had that poster is wrong. That is the reality of the here and now.

I thought I was being being quite straightforward:

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

Now, if Sam has an agreement that property tax wouldn't be introduced - if that forms any part of the terms he agreed to - he might show them.
Otherwise he might as well argue that his getting older or more pedantic or stubborn are also a breach of his terms.

barrackali · 17-05-2013 05:46PM

kippy wrote: »

So the constitution specificilly outlaws a tax on the home? I find that amusing to be honest.
indeed its a red herring and a half.

Some on the anti-property tax side are clearly getting desperate. It must be due to the fact that they will find it very difficult to avoid paying it.

bgrizzley · 17-05-2013 05:48PM

kippy wrote: »

So the constitution specificilly outlaws a tax on the home? I find that amusing to be honest.
indeed its a red herring and a half.

now thats freeman guff out of you

i just pointed out the state does have a contract with the people. you need to read what i actually say and not make up something for the sake of a retort.

bgrizzley · 17-05-2013 05:51PM

barrackali wrote: »

Some on the anti-property tax side are clearly getting desperate. It must be due to the fact that they will find it very difficult to avoid paying it.

agree with someone even though they just made something up for the sake of an argument. i like your style:rolleyes:

Banjo String · 17-05-2013 05:51PM

seamus wrote: »

I don't have a "home ownership" contract, do you?

The introduction of property tax cannot be construed as any kind of contractual change because there is no contract.

The nature of home ownership has changed, yes. But then the nature of home ownership changes every time my electricity supplier ups their prices or whenever I discover that my windows are dirty and need to be cleaned.

That isnt the yes or no answer I asked for when I said:

The terms of 'home ownership' have changed with the introduction of a family home tax, and in some peoples cases, needing tax clearnce certs from revenue in relation to owning a home. yes or no?

There now is a specific requirement from revenue/FG/Lab that they want a tax levied on a family home.

Refusal to cooperate could result on a lien being placed on the property, or a block on sale, for the self employed, they will not get a tax clearnce cert if its not paid.

The above conditions (or terms if you want) were not in place when many people bought there homes.

This constitutes to a change in the terms of owning your home.

Yes or no?

You're on the verge of trolling seamus. Being argumentive for the sake of it at the very least.

seamus · 17-05-2013 05:57PM

SamHall wrote: »

This constitutes to a change in the terms of owning your home.

Yes or no?

No. Because no such terms exist. Home ownership is not conditional on paying property tax. Refusal to pay property tax does not cause a forfeiture of the property, therefore property tax is not a condition or a "term" of ownership anymore than paying your gas bill is.

Phoebas · 17-05-2013 05:58PM

SamHall wrote: »

This constitutes to a change in the terms of owning your home.

Yes or no?

Sneaky attempt to change the goalposts there.

Phoebas wrote:

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

SamHall wrote: »

You're on the verge of trolling seamus. Being argumentive for the sake of it at the very least.

Did you type that with a straight face?

kippy · 17-05-2013 06:44PM

bgrizzley wrote: »

agree with someone even though they just made something up for the sake of an argument. i like your style:rolleyes:

What exactly did I make up? There are only one group of people here making anything up.

marienbad · 17-05-2013 07:31PM

A tax that is long overdue. I paid it today.

alb · 17-05-2013 08:32PM

I think it was Ronan Lyons that came up with the figure that 80% of Irish wealth is invested in property. When the austerity first started, after the bill for Fianna Fails partying had to be paid, we all heard the shouts to "tax the wealthy, they can afford it" but of course what people wanted was to "tax people wealthier than me".

As taxes go it's reasonably fair:
- It's optional, owning property is a choice.
- Someone with 10 houses pays 10 times as much as the someone with 1 (assuming all are of equal value).
- Someone with a more valuable property pays more than somone with a less valuable one.
- Someone wealthy in terms of property but with little income may be able defer it until death etc
- It helps prevent another property bubble.

People will argue against it using edge cases, such as someone leaving wealth via property to disabled children, or someone with a massive unsustainable boomtime mortgage but these aren't good arguments for scrapping the tax in general, they're arguments for having solutions for edge cases such as grants/allowances for disability or debt-equity swaps. I have sympathy for anyone in genuine hard times, but improving the countries finances as a whole by taxing wealth is the only way to sustainably provide good welfare services to those that need it.

I think it enrages Irish people so much because it creates a fundamental clash between two things they love to do - own property and play the poor mouth.

With the national finances so screwed (even if we refused to pay the bank debt, we're still overspending) that public spending reductions, or niche taxes won't be enough there's no option but for taxes for the general population to go up, and this is reasonably fair one imho.

RandomName2 · 17-05-2013 09:07PM

alb wrote: »

- It's optional, owning property is a choice.

Wait, so it's not retrospective and only applies to property bought from 1st May 2013? :rolleyes:

alb wrote: »

- Someone with 10 houses pays 10 times as much as the someone with 1 (assuming all are of equal value).

Actually considerably more than 10 times as you will also be hit with the 2ndry property/ holliday home tax for all 9 other houses (it was one of those taxes that was supposed to obviate the need to tax family homes).

alb wrote: »

- Someone with a more expensive property pays more than somone with a less expensive one.

By expensive do you mean value? Because the value is only nominal whilst the expense of purchasing the property, if done during the boom, will now be more than the current value.

alb wrote: »

- Someone wealthy in terms of property but with little income may be able defer it until death etc

In the same way that anybody can defer any tax they like, they will be heavily fined for doing so. Hopefully such people will never need to move into nursing homes, etc, at which point such debts will be settled.

alb wrote: »

- It helps prevent another property bubble.

True. It also helps prevent us getting out of the depression.

alb wrote: »

I have sympathy for anyone in genuine hard times, but improving the countries finances as a whole by taxing wealth is the only way to sustainably provide good welfare services to those that need it.

What wealth? My home doesn't generate any income - and if it did it would be taxable as *shock horror* income tax (unless it was a commercial property and then it would also be subject to rates).

alb wrote: »

With the national finances so screwed (even if we refused to pay the bank debt, we're still overspending) that public spending reductions, or niche taxes won't be enough there's no option but for taxes for the general population to go up, and this is reasonably fair one imho.

As I have previously said. Just scrap government foreign aid. No need for property tax. The two literally cancel each other out.

That's before even going into the ridiculous other spending policies of the government.

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

Comments