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

bgrizzley wrote: »

Is'nt he already paying tax on them? maybe you would like him to open his veins to feed them altogether...

I don't know if he's paying any tax on them at all. He admitted on thread that he didn't pay the HHC, so I'd assume that its likely he hasn't paid other taxes too.

darkhorse wrote: »

So, what you are saying is, if every home owner sold their house to-morrow, that there would the facility, whether it be private rental or LA housing to accommodate every family that sold up in every town in this country. If, however, this is not what you mean, please accept my apology.

Apology accepted.

^^
Poll shows its steady as she goes - no remarkable changes.


Edit: Thread here

SamHall wrote: »

A three point jump for Sinn Fein it's remarkable enough if you ask me.

Not really - SF have been jerking about in the polls of late.

kippy wrote: »

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

Go do your own research and let Phoebas answer instead of you asking lazy questions.
You add nothing to any forum with your endless questions .. most of which have already been answered. Before you ask any more question please read previous posts.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Go do your own research and let Phoebas answer instead of you asking lazy questions.
You add nothing to any forum with your endless questions .. most of which have already been answered. Before you ask any more question please read previous posts.

So you were just spoofing. Fair enough.

alb wrote: »

..
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, ...
...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.

Here we go again .. The thousands of carers of SNs are now “edge cases” ... not quite as bad as “extreme examples” but close.
Why do you say “someone leaving wealth via property to disabled children” ... in that “edge case” it is only property (not wealth since it cannot be sold)....(see my post 676)

Your “edge cases” are over 20% of home owners [Add (approx.) 14% unemployed + 4% OAP + 2% others (e.g. on DA, SAH, etc)], so 20% can hardly can be dismissed as not “good arguments for scrapping the tax in general”. The laziness of govt and revenue not including a waiver system is mind boggling political suicide.

”reasonably” ... not for long see post 743
”It's optional, owning property is a choice.” ...Even Phoebas agrees selling (so not owning) is impractical POSTS 530 (last line) / 564 and again for SNs not even possible POST 676
”Someone with 10 houses ...” ... Unfair as the LPT amount will be passed on to the renters .... many posts.
“Someone with a more valuable property” ... Unfair and inequitable if “someone with a less valuable one” has a far higher income.
“Someone wealthy in terms of property but with little income may be able defer it until death etc “ ... In SN cases and many others deferral is not an option ... 564 and many more,
“It helps prevent another property bubble.” ... in 20 yrs maybe.

“we're still overspending ....public spending reductions” ... so that is the root of the problem ... The public salaried won’t accept a cut (but they think they can afford LPT .. but not for long) ... post 743

If you genuinely “have sympathy for anyone in genuine hard times” then you will agree that LPT not making provision for all those “edge cases” and including them in the “general population” is unreasonable and unfair and in the cases of carers of SNs cruel. Please read POST 563 as well.

If we agree on “edge cases” being catered for (waiver / Tax Credits / Soc W supplement etc. etc.), then we can then finally go ahead and have a proper discussion on whether a tax on the family home is (or is not) just/fair.

I have news ( maybe old hat for some) for pro and anti LPT advocates alike ... you are already paying the old rates by increased VAT (+2%) which was put in place by Haughey to replace the old rates (and initially passed on to LGs as 100% of old LG domestic rates), and we have been paying it ever since, but the govt have increasingly not been paying it over to LGs.

Again, before any posts re above, please do the research.

So that’s why LPT is a triple tax at best and if you include the VAT raise then it’s “fourbal” TAX and very unjust. The "L" in LPT looks more and more like a sick joke on us all.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Since when was anybody who knows all about revenue unable to understand the difference between €4,000 and £4,000 ?... answer : since your last post.
Look again at your post and my post you quoted.

The post I was referring to was this one by you - where you used STG:

cageyeuclid wrote: »

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.

You managed to sneakily change it in the meantime to EUR, so you now saying that I don't understand the difference between €4,000 and £4,000 is a little bit dishonest.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

BTW .. I never spoof or misquote .. I value my credibility.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Even the root quote by me says Euro:
http://www.soldiersofdestiny.org/davidbeggbetrayal.htm

"As I was reminded recently by a friend in East Anglia, the U.K.'s equivalent of the bin tax charges started at about 188 Euro and now run at around a staggering 4,334 Euro a year"
(Gerry Ryan, 2FM, The Star On Sunday, 19.10.2003).

What?
You're using the spoutings of Gerry Ryan as evidence - you might have told me that from the outset, so I could have ignored it.

The UK Government figures show average per dwelling council tax going from £908 in 2003/04 to £1,201 in 2012/13, so really any idea that it went from £200 to over £4,000 in a short time is just incredible (although I'm sure you can find someone who won the lottery and move from a 2 up 2 down into a mansion somewhere)

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Millions in the UK pay more than £3,200 yearly (I checked online because it is such a worry) .. how close is that to €4,000?

I'm almost afraid to ask for a link - was it Hector or Dustin?
In England, the average paid by those in the highest band is £2,536, so I doubt that 'millions' pay more than £3,200.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

While most owners of older houses (prior to boom) are not in negative (market) equity, most older houses would need costly updating like rewiring, fireproofing party walls, relaying floor boards, updating central heating, etc etc. and the poor have no way to pay for same.

That's what I've been trying to tell darkhorse. He was under the impression that everyone is in negative equity.

darkhorse wrote:

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

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Your "€200bn of net positive equity" may be wishful thinking. Since house prices have dropped 50%(very approx) then this govt is attempting to get LPT from a market that has lost €200bn (if your +equity figure stands). Now that would be unjust.

You clearly didn't follow the link I posted. It was figures from almost two years ago, but had taken into account the almost 50% property price falls from 2007 to mid 2011.