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

RandomName2 · 17-05-2013 09:11PM

bgrizzley wrote: »

i just pointed out the state does have a contract with the people.

It has been made clear for decades that Irish governments, as long as they do not, strictly speaking, break the law, can run amok once they gain a solid majority in the Dail. The property tax is merely a symptom; not the disease.

darkhorse · 17-05-2013 09:33PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Try to keep up: Labour were in favour of a Property tax, they did not U-turn on it.

Yeah, in the form of a site value charge, I believe.

alb · 17-05-2013 09:33PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

No, but owning property is not mandatory was my point. Sure, more notice of the incoming tax would have been better.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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).

True, but you get the gist of my point.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

Sorry, I did indeed mean valuable instead of expensive, I've edited my post.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

What happens people who do not own property who need to move into nursing homes and can't afford it? I don't see this issue in direct relation to the property tax but as a general issue of people being poor when elderly?

RandomName2 wrote: »

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).

Wealth doesn't have to generate income. If I owned a 10 million euro property I would be relatively wealthy right?

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

I agree, it's crazy being in debt and borrowing money at high interest rates to give it away. If this could be done and sorted out the finances enough to negate the need for new taxes, great!

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

I'm all for curbing that too, but it looks like we're at the stage where the low hanging fruit is gone and it's going to get messy causing strikes etc. Hard to say many extreme changes can be made without significant impact on all of our daily lives.

darkhorse · 17-05-2013 10:55PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Property tax is way, way down the list of stuff falling on people thanks to that disaster.

Yeah, I'll convey that to the people that I deal with on a daily basis, who are wondering where the next pair of shoes for their kids are coming from. They should find solace in your words.

kippy · 17-05-2013 11:15PM

bgrizzley wrote: »

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.

Lets get this straight, the state does not have a contract with terms and conditions with each and every homeowner. Plain and simple.
If you wish to treat the constitution as a "contract" with terms and conditions in it, that you inherently "sign" when you buy a house (as opposed to be resident in a state by default) then there is nothing in that "contract" that stops the state charging a tax on that house.
And that by the way, is going beyond the insane (treating the constitution as a "contract" that is only "signed" when one buys a house

Edit, I've not called anyone a freeman or otherwise on this thread, so you may be mistaking me with someone else.

kippy · 17-05-2013 11:20PM

darkhorse wrote: »

Yeah, I'll convey that to the people that I deal with on a daily basis, who are wondering where the next pair of shoes for their kids are coming from. They should find solace in your words.

Still waiting for the relevance of your scenario of buying a bed.

Whats with all the "bleeding heart" examples which have absolutely no context or indeed relevance in this thread.

kippy · 17-05-2013 11:21PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

Dead right on the foreign aid, reduce it further until we are in a better position.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't have a property tax however........

bgrizzley · 17-05-2013 11:44PM

kippy wrote: »

Lets get this straight, the state does not have a contract with terms and conditions with each and every homeowner. Plain and simple.
If you wish to treat the constitution as a "contract" with terms and conditions in it, that you inherently "sign" when you buy a house (as opposed to be resident in a state by default) then there is nothing in that "contract" that stops the state charging a tax on that house.
And that by the way, is going beyond the insane (treating the constitution as a "contract" that is only "signed" when one buys a house

Edit, I've not called anyone a freeman or otherwise on this thread, so you may be mistaking me with someone else.

holy feck, do you ever have a quick reread to see if you are incorrect before you post?
I was directing my first comment at DNC pointing out that lpt and income tax were different taxes when you interjected(which of course is your perogative on a forum) quoting me as giving a red herring(he brought it up not me)
Then you start attributing things to me that i didnt say about the Constitution, and i cant argue against things i didnt say!!
Now you are saying i said you brought up freemen,??? (DNC actually brought up freeman,before you hopped in)

ive no bother discussing anything with you, but it has to be something i said, not something you said i said

darkhorse · 18-05-2013 12:33AM

Phoebas wrote: »

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

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

OK, whatever you say.

darkhorse · 18-05-2013 12:48AM

kippy wrote: »

What is your definition of a "natural fall"?

You remind me so much of a guy on another thread, last year(incidently, it was a thread about the government taxing family homes)that had a habit of answering every question with a question, weird or what?

darkhorse · 18-05-2013 01:15AM

kippy wrote: »

Still waiting for the relevance of your scenario of buying a bed.

Are you still here? Its called comparison, but you already know that.

cageyeuclid · 18-05-2013 02:55AM

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.

Ok!!!!! so a car brings in no money so I won't pay a car tax ... (by not owning one).
Ok!!!!! so biscuits bring in no money so I won't pay VAT tax .. (by notbuying).
Ok!!!! so a house brings in no money so I won't pay house LPT (LPT was't there when I bought it). The tax that was there I already paid.

Would you expect anyone to pay TAX twice on a packet of biscuits and out of money that is aleady taxed.

cageyeuclid · 18-05-2013 03:00AM

darkhorse wrote: »

Are you still here? Its called comparison, but you already know that.

Darkhorse paid tax on his hypothetical mattress; is it fair (or just) to invent a new mattress tax years after he got home, that he will be forced to pay over and over yearly?

And worse still, to force a 3rd party (the shop / bank / employer / etc.) to do the UNJUST deed.

Darkhorse has shown the incredible inherent injustice of LPT without even mentioning the hardpressed and carer's plight.
Q.E.D. ***** (5 stars to Darkhorse)

cageyeuclid · 18-05-2013 03:28AM

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.

The reality of the here and now .... is that TAX has already been paid at house purchase time ... double taxation at that ... paying tax again would be triple taxation.

Now if the home had earned an income in the meantime ... tax that ... but LPT is an unjust triple taxation and should be resisted by all citizens as a duty.

cageyeuclid · 18-05-2013 04:16AM

seamus wrote: »

Why do carers need to own property? Why can't they rent?

Besides, nobody gets thrown out on the street in this country, least of all someone who requires special care. Even if the "heartless Revenue" were to seize the property, no judge would serve an eviction order unless alternative accommodation had been secured for the person.

Simple answer, ... Special Needs (SN) people mostly need house adaptions not possible in a rented place. Also, the local people and environment become familiar both ways, so even the possibility of an SN person being moved to alternative accommodation is cruel. (Just tell me if I need to elaborate).

Parent carers spend most of their lives arriving at an unencumbered family home situation for their SN offspring. LPT will unjustly and unfairly undo all their lifetime scrimping and saving.

you worry me ... lots of people get “thrown out on the street”. Consider that SNs are unable to defend themselves.
I can give a perfect example of administration cruelty. Should you require me to post that example, just say so, otherwise believe.

Maybe now you will understand where LPT is cruel and why dismissing a large group as extreme cases makes me fight back.

cageyeuclid · 18-05-2013 04:41AM

kippy wrote: »

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

But where is the money to pay LPT to come from? ...
It is unjust to levy LPT where there is no incoming revenue from a property, and especially where tax has already been paid ... basically running the family home costs.
Basically, LPT is taxing people. The family home cannot pay.

cageyeuclid · 18-05-2013 05:28AM

Phoebas wrote: »

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

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

It is obvious darkhorse means "Market equity" .... and he like thousands of others may be in "negative market equity" (usually referred to as "negative equity")
His "cash equity" will be stable and increase as he pays back his loan, or if he has paid back his loan then his "cash equity"=downpayment + paid loan.

Why not try looking up things you claim to not understand?

cageyeuclid · 18-05-2013 06:09AM

Phoebas wrote: »

...

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.

...

Would you like me to post another link (you might not believe G. Ryan RIP) or do you accept that many council / borough property tax (the equivelent of LPT) in the UK are over €4,000 ???
Either way the "fictional, foreign jurisdiction" is no longer fictional and your doubt will become your nightmare.

kippy · 18-05-2013 07:51AM

darkhorse wrote: »

Will someone please shoot this guy already.

Reported.

darkhorse wrote: »

You remind me so much of a guy on another thread, last year(incidently, it was a thread about the government taxing family homes)that had a habit of answering every question with a question, weird or what?

Rather ironic that you post that, isn't it?
Also, are you insinuating I am a shill, or posting under two usernames?
Hard not to put questions in posts when you need to get some more information and an understanding of what point is being made.

darkhorse wrote: »

Are you still here? Its called comparison, but you already know that.

Buying a bed from a private entity, then that private entity having the power and indeed will to charge you an annual fee on that bed after you have bought it from that private entity, is absolutely nothing close to any comparison you can make on a property tax.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Ok!!!!! so a car brings in no money so I won't pay a car tax ... (by not owning one).
Ok!!!!! so biscuits bring in no money so I won't pay VAT tax .. (by notbuying).
Ok!!!! so a house brings in no money so I won't pay house LPT (LPT was't there when I bought it). The tax that was there I already paid.

Would you expect anyone to pay TAX twice on a packet of biscuits and out of money that is aleady taxed.

You already pay for everything include any tax not related to income out of money that has been taxed already. That much should be obvious.
You pay tax multiple times on your car, salary etc

If you don't want to pay a property tax (directly) RENT. Sell your house if the property tax hurts you so much. If you can't sell, then live with the reality.

kippy · 18-05-2013 07:56AM

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Darkhorse paid tax on his hypothetical mattress; is it fair (or just) to invent a new mattress tax years after he got home, that he will be forced to pay over and over yearly?

And worse still, to force a 3rd party (the shop / bank / employer / etc.) to do the UNJUST deed.

Darkhorse has shown the incredible inherent injustice of LPT without even mentioning the hardpressed and carer's plight.
Q.E.D. ***** (5 stars to Darkhorse)

Darkhorse has done nothing of the sort.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

The reality of the here and now .... is that TAX has already been paid at house purchase time ... double taxation at that ... paying tax again would be triple taxation.

Now if the home had earned an income in the meantime ... tax that ... but LPT is an unjust triple taxation and should be resisted by all citizens as a duty.

Double, and more taxation goes into everything, from the end product of a packet of biscuits (how many times was tax paid to get that back of biscuits from a raw material to your cupboard) it mightn't always be so obvious until you think about it.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

But where is the money to pay LPT to come from? ...
It is unjust to levy LPT where there is no incoming revenue from a property, and especially where tax has already been paid ... basically running the family home costs.
Basically, LPT is taxing people. The family home cannot pay.

No way, the family home cannot pay, I never would have thought that.
Of course it's taxing people.

Where does the money to pay anything come from?

kippy · 18-05-2013 07:57AM

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Would you like me to post another link (you might not believe G. Ryan RIP) or do you accept that many council / borough property tax (the equivelent of LPT) in the UK are over €4,000 ???
Either way the "fictional, foreign jurisdiction" is no longer fictional and your doubt will become your nightmare.

It went from 200-4000 in a short time period, did it?

RandomName2 · 18-05-2013 08:29AM

alb wrote: »

Wealth doesn't have to generate income. If I owned a 10 million euro property I would be relatively wealthy right?

Not, of course, if you were in negative equity.

Presumably you are also in favour of taxing what you have in the bank. Note that the means of obtaining the money that is in your bank has already been taxed (income tax/CGT/etc)... but sure the same is true for property (stamp/CGT/etc.).

So a 2% tax on everything you have in the bank, every year, sound fair?

Phoebas · 18-05-2013 08:33AM

cageyeuclid wrote: »

It is obvious darkhorse means "Market equity" .... and he like thousands of others may be in "negative market equity" (usually referred to as "negative equity")
His "cash equity" will be stable and increase as he pays back his loan, or if he has paid back his loan then his "cash equity"=downpayment + paid loan.

Why not try looking up things you claim to not understand?

I honestly don't understand what you mean by this (and I've tried to Google 'Market Equity'). So far as I understand it, to be in Negative Equity there needs to be a loan outstanding on the property, but darkhorse was saying that there wasn't a house in the country not in negative equity (I posted a link with a calculation of over €200bn of net positive equity in the country's housing stock).
Perhaps you, or darkhorse, could clarify?

Phoebas · 18-05-2013 08:36AM

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Would you like me to post another link (you might not believe G. Ryan RIP) or do you accept that many council / borough property tax (the equivelent of LPT) in the UK are over €4,000 ???
Either way the "fictional, foreign jurisdiction" is no longer fictional and your doubt will become your nightmare.

Yes.
Could you post a link showing property tax going from £200 to over £4000 in a short period? I've looked at some of the UK council tax tables but I can't see anything approaching this.
Thanks.

Chips Lovell · 18-05-2013 09:12AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Not, of course, if you were in negative equity.

Presumably you are also in favour of taxing what you have in the bank. Note that the means of obtaining the money that is in your bank has already been taxed (income tax/CGT/etc)... but sure the same is true for property (stamp/CGT/etc.).

So a 2% tax on everything you have in the bank, every year, sound fair?

We already have a tax on savings, DIRT. Was increased this year.

Banjo String · 18-05-2013 10:02AM

Still more than 50% have yet to contact revenue (perhaps ignored is a more apt description) with less than fourteen days to go.

I likey;)

Phoebas · 18-05-2013 10:14AM

SamHall wrote: »

Still more than 50% have yet to contact revenue (perhaps ignored is a more apt description) with less than fourteen days to go.

I likey;)

Do you have a link for that?

Banjo String · 18-05-2013 10:23AM

Phoebas wrote: »

Do you have a link for that?

It will prob be dismissed/glossed over, but anyway.

Revenue said that with just two weeks to go until the online registration deadline - A total of 845,000 people have now filed for the tax.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/separated-couples-both-liable-for-property-tax-594648.html

With an estimated 1.8 to 2 million properties liable, they've a long way to go lads.....
A possible strike from revenue will undoubtedly help thing's along too.

I'll take my chances and pay when they force it from me.

Phoebas · 18-05-2013 10:36AM

SamHall wrote: »

It will prob be dismissed/glossed over, but anyway.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/separated-couples-both-liable-for-property-tax-594648.html

With an estimated 1.8 to 2 million properties liable, they've a long way to go lads.....
A possible strike from revenue will undoubtedly help thing's along too.

I'll take my chances and pay when they force it from me.

50pct is a good number so far - way ahead of the equivalent household charge numbers. I also saw a number a couple of weeks ago that 1/3rd had paid, so there seems to be good momentum.

Revenue are putting 400 staff on the collection team, so you probably won't have to wait too long for them to force it from you.

Banjo String · 18-05-2013 10:45AM

Phoebas wrote: »

50pct is a good number so far - way ahead of the equivalent household charge numbers. I also saw a number a couple of weeks ago that 1/3rd had paid, so there seems to be good momentum.

Revenue are putting 400 staff on the collection team, so you probably won't have to wait too long for them to force it from you.

As it stands, up to (maybe more) than a million homeowners have not registered/contacted revenue.

There's also good momentum in that for those opposed to the tax.

CPA2 is still unresolved may I add. The union representing revenue staff have threatened strikes btw.

I'll take my chances.

I still have "no refunds" ringing in my ear. Thanks Josephine.

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

Comments