Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Spare a thought for the leafy suburbs...

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    daveyeh
    Registered Users Posts: 774 ✭✭✭daveyeh


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Tell you what, I'll let you pop around and mention to her that purely because she is being treated so unfairly by the Government, she should give up her home of 48 years, where she lived her life with her now departed husband and raised her kids and that has the garden that keeps her so active and gives her so much pleasure.

    Less cretinous responses please.

    Are property taxes not supposed to encourage people to move on to properties more suitable for their needs? Or am I being cretinous?


  • Options
    #63
    daveyeh
    Registered Users Posts: 774 ✭✭✭daveyeh


    jon1981 wrote: »
    Question, can an elderly person sitting on a 600k home defer all property tax until their death when the house is inherited? If so, that's reasonable.

    Yes, by not paying.


  • Options
    #64
    daveyeh
    Registered Users Posts: 774 ✭✭✭daveyeh


    site designer wrote: »
    The tax is theft

    :rolleyes:

    Grow up


  • Options
    #65
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    To balance the books, we can either tax wealth (assets), income or cut spending.

    Since income tax is already a disincentive to work and there wouldn't appear to be an awful lot more room for spending cuts, it's time for assets to be taxed. Personally, I'd like to see this done in the form of substantially higher capital gains, gift and inheritance taxes rather than taxing primary principal residences but an element of the latter should be included imo.


  • Options
    #66
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,299 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Sleepy wrote: »
    To balance the books, we can either tax wealth (assets), income or cut spending.

    Since income tax is already a disincentive to work and there wouldn't appear to be an awful lot more room for spending cuts, it's time for assets to be taxed. Personally, I'd like to see this done in the form of substantially higher capital gains, gift and inheritance taxes rather than taxing primary principal residences but an element of the latter should be included imo.

    Cut spending.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    she is being treated so unfairly by the Government

    Nothing personal about this tax
    Larbre34 wrote: »
    she should give up her home of 48 years.

    By the same token, should the taxation system remain static for 48 years or should it adapt to the changing needs of the country?
    Larbre34 wrote: »
    where she lived her life with her now departed husband and raised her kids and that has the garden that keeps her so active and gives her so much pleasure.

    Less cretinous responses please.

    Sorry, but with all respect, this is just emotive padding.


  • Options
    #68
    triple nipple
    Registered Users Posts: 334 ✭✭triple nipple


    McGrath5 wrote:
    Is there a reason why your mother will not downsize?


    Why should she have to ? its her house !


  • Options
    #69
    daveyeh
    Registered Users Posts: 774 ✭✭✭daveyeh


    triple nipple wrote: »
    Why should she have to ? its her house !

    She doesn't have to. But if she doesn't want to be liable to large amounts of property tax, she should.


  • Options
    #70
    jon1981
    Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    daveyeh wrote: »
    She doesn't have to. But if she doesn't want to be liable to large amounts of property tax, she should.

    Tis grand sure, it will be paid when she passes on.


  • Options
    #71
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Tell you what, I'll let you pop around and mention to her that purely because she is being treated so unfairly by the Government, she should give up her home of 48 years, where she lived her life with her now departed husband and raised her kids and that has the garden that keeps her so active and gives her so much pleasure.

    Less cretinous responses please.

    Sorry, but it's not a cretinous response as you put it. There are lots of young working families who are taxed to the gills and living in small apartments. Your mum is wealthy and should be taxed appropriately.

    When we get to 65 (or 75 at the rate the age is increasing) we won't have a fraction of the benefits we are paying for and our parents are currently enjoying.

    And I've got a mum living in a house on her own in a similar situation, except it's not worth anywhere near 600K. She won't move either - but will be forced to sooner or later due to old age. It may sound heartless but you have to live in the real world.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    daveyeh
    Registered Users Posts: 774 ✭✭✭daveyeh


    jon1981 wrote: »
    Tis grand sure, it will be paid when she passes on.

    Some oldies don't like leaving behind debts for some reason. Weirdos.


  • Options
    #73
    enda1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,166 ✭✭✭enda1


    France (and I'm sure other countries too) have this great equity release form of house sale. You basically sell your house to someone in the form that the house becomes theirs but they pay a lump sum at the start of say 30% of house value then a salary to you for as long as you live. That way you get to live in your home till you die but also have the cash to live with and maintain the home and pay your taxes while still having a lump sum to invest and pass on through a will if wished to your children.

    For the buyer, they are basically morbidly gambling on your life expectancy which is kinda funny!


  • Options
    #74
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,838 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    daveyeh wrote: »
    Are property taxes not supposed to encourage people to move on to properties more suitable for their needs? Or am I being cretinous?

    No, you're not. And no, they aren't, unless you're into communism.

    My mothers house will be re-sold into the marketplace when she passes on, or else one of my family will live in it with their family, and free up their current home.

    Meanwhile I don't see any sort of tax as being justification for causing her distress by compelling her to leave a home she worked hard to keep and is happy in.


  • Options
    #75
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,838 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Barely Hedged wrote: »
    Nothing personal about this tax

    Tell that to the people paying 8 or 9 times what their relatives pay in rural towns.


    By the same token, should the taxation system remain static for 48 years or should it adapt to the changing needs of the country?

    It should adapt of course, a lot of progress has been made. This doesn't count as progress, it counts as duress.


    Sorry, but with all respect, this is just emotive padding

    I said it earlier, its a societal question as much as a economic one. I wouldn't called people in real distress emotive padding. I really hope our public representatives don't share your outlook either.


  • Options
    #76
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    No, you're not. And no, they aren't, unless you're into communism.

    My mothers house will be re-sold into the marketplace when she passes on, or else one of my family will live in it with their family, and free up their current home.

    Meanwhile I don't see any sort of tax as being justification for causing her distress by compelling her to leave a home she worked hard to keep and is happy in.

    Seriously? A 600K house? On her own? Who is going to take care of her when she gets more infirm - which she will?

    I've been through the mill with all this the past several years. It's not realistic to expect to live in a big expensive house when you get older. What happens if it needs repairs for example? Big bucks to fix a big house. How will she handle that? Heating bills etc are also big with a big house.

    All the above assumes she is not well off cash wise - since if she is she should just shut up and pay the tax !

    Presumably she and your dad must have been very comfortable to be able to afford a big house worth 600K - can she not pay out of whatever pension pot she presumably has?

    Assume she sells the house - and buys an apartment or smaller house for 200K. That leaves her with 400K. Assume she lives 20 years. That's 20K per year for 20 years, plus the state pension, for one person. Life of Reilly.

    If she needs to go in a nursing home for 10 of those years - under the Fair Deal scheme the State will take a big chunk of that house off her.

    Them's the facts. And as I said, I've got a widowed mum too - and you might as well talk to the wall as try to convince her of any of it. I see your point - it is sad - but so is life.


  • Options
    #77
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    No, you're not. And no, they aren't, unless you're into communism.

    Far from communism. There would be two families in there with her if it was. Why not rent a few rooms out to cover the tax?
    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Tell that to the people paying 8 or 9 times what their relatives pay in rural towns.

    Of course it is.
    Larbre34 wrote: »
    It should adapt of course, a lot of progress has been made. This doesn't count as progress, it counts as duress.

    I said it earlier, its a societal question as much as a economic one. I wouldn't called people in real distress emotive padding. I really hope our public representatives don't share your outlook either.

    Perhaps not, but what about the person trying to bring up a family in a two bed apartment? It's not a case of simply telling them to be more successful, wealth is being concentrated in the older generation, there has to be a mechanism of redistribution.

    Want to know the only worse form of economic policy than communism, unchecked capitalism.


  • Options
    #78
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    professore wrote: »
    And I've got a mum living in a house on her own in a similar situation, except it's not worth anywhere near 600K. She won't move either - but will be forced to sooner or later due to old age. It may sound heartless but you have to live in the real world.

    Is anyone taking a step back and thinking about whether this is a good thing to do for society or not?

    Why do we actually want old people to move away from their supports, friends and families to an unfamiliar environment before their natural lifespan is up? What's the societal benefit to uprooting pensioners?

    They will require more govt care when there isn't a friendly neighbour to pop in and check them. More transport if they are miles from the bus. More health costs, more stress on our systems.


    I can see the population of boardsies (people mainly in their 20's 30's) getting all clammy-eyed at the thought of property freeing up where these current annoyances are living, instead of having to wait for the old dears to hit the cemetery. But is that it? You want what they have, and you want it now?


  • Options
    #79
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,223 Mod ✭✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    Far from communism. There would be two families in there with her if it was. Why not rent a few rooms out to cover the tax?

    A single lodger would cover the tax due several times over.


  • Options
    #80
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,223 Mod ✭✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    pwurple wrote: »
    I can see the population of boardsies (people mainly in their 20's 30's) getting all clammy-eyed at the thought of property freeing up where these current annoyances are living, instead of having to wait for the old dears to hit the cemetery. But is that it? You want what they have, and you want it now?

    We've already covered this. It can be deferred til the sale of the property if it's such an imposition on the current occupant.


  • Options
    #81
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Sleepy wrote: »
    To balance the books, we can either tax wealth (assets), income or cut spending.

    Since income tax is already a disincentive to work and there wouldn't appear to be an awful lot more room for spending cuts, it's time for assets to be taxed. Personally, I'd like to see this done in the form of substantially higher capital gains, gift and inheritance taxes rather than taxing primary principal residences but an element of the latter should be included imo.
    We already have punitive rates of inheritance tax.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »
    We've already covered this. It can be deferred til the sale of the property if it's such an imposition on the current occupant.

    And the rest of my post you ignored?


  • Options
    #83
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,299 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    professore wrote: »
    Seriously? A 600K house? On her own? Who is going to take care of her when she gets more infirm - which she will?

    I've been through the mill with all this the past several years. It's not realistic to expect to live in a big expensive house when you get older. What happens if it needs repairs for example? Big bucks to fix a big house. How will she handle that? Heating bills etc are also big with a big house.

    All the above assumes she is not well off cash wise - since if she is she should just shut up and pay the tax !

    Presumably she and your dad must have been very comfortable to be able to afford a big house worth 600K - can she not pay out of whatever pension pot she presumably has?

    Assume she sells the house - and buys an apartment or smaller house for 200K. That leaves her with 400K. Assume she lives 20 years. That's 20K per year for 20 years, plus the state pension, for one person. Life of Reilly.

    If she needs to go in a nursing home for 10 of those years - under the Fair Deal scheme the State will take a big chunk of that house off her.

    Them's the facts. And as I said, I've got a widowed mum too - and you might as well talk to the wall as try to convince her of any of it. I see your point - it is sad - but so is life.

    Housrd for 600k are not really big, houses for 150 in the country could well be bigger


  • Options
    #84
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    pwurple wrote: »
    Is anyone taking a step back and thinking about whether this is a good thing to do for society or not?

    Why do we actually want old people to move away from their supports, friends and families to an unfamiliar environment before their natural lifespan is up? What's the societal benefit to uprooting pensioners?

    They will require more govt care when there isn't a friendly neighbour to pop in and check them. More transport if they are miles from the bus. More health costs, more stress on our systems.


    I can see the population of boardsies (people mainly in their 20's 30's) getting all clammy-eyed at the thought of property freeing up where these current annoyances are living, instead of having to wait for the old dears to hit the cemetery. But is that it? You want what they have, and you want it now?

    I just took a day off work yesterday. Drove from Cork to Laois, picked up my mum, drove another hour and a half to Tullamore for an eye exam - nowhere nearer provided by the HSE, drove another hour back to Laois, stayed an hour, then drove another 2 hours back to Cork. All in all a days work lost, six hours driving because my mum wants to stay in her current house. No buses or public transport anywhere in sight. Is this sustainable?


  • Options
    #85
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,838 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    professore wrote: »
    Seriously? A 600K house? On her own? Who is going to take care of her when she gets more infirm - which she will?

    I've been through the mill with all this the past several years. It's not realistic to expect to live in a big expensive house when you get older. What happens if it needs repairs for example? Big bucks to fix a big house. How will she handle that? Heating bills etc are also big with a big house.

    All the above assumes she is not well off cash wise - since if she is she should just shut up and pay the tax !

    Presumably she and your dad must have been very comfortable to be able to afford a big house worth 600K - can she not pay out of whatever pension pot she presumably has?

    Assume she sells the house - and buys an apartment or smaller house for 200K. That leaves her with 400K. Assume she lives 20 years. That's 20K per year for 20 years, plus the state pension, for one person. Life of Reilly.

    If she needs to go in a nursing home for 10 of those years - under the Fair Deal scheme the State will take a big chunk of that house off her.

    Them's the facts. And as I said, I've got a widowed mum too - and you might as well talk to the wall as try to convince her of any of it. I see your point - it is sad - but so is life.


    You presume wrong, it was a very average family home when bought in the late 60's, it was bought with a gifted deposit and paid off mostly on an average income. My fathers pension was repackaged and gutted over the years for various reasons, it pays her sod all now.

    As I said at the outset, she did pay the LPT out of savings for the first two years, no doubt she will again, but its hard for her to replace those savings and she has no idea where the LPT amount will actually end, or even peak! Thats the crux of the issue.

    When we need to cross the bridge of fair deal or taking care of her ourselves, she has no problem with selling the house then as she will be infirm. As of now she is in good health and is quite fond of her home and her neighbours and her community thanks very much!


  • Options
    #86
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,696 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    pwurple wrote: »
    Is anyone taking a step back and thinking about whether this is a good thing to do for society or not?

    Why do we actually want old people to move away from their supports, friends and families to an unfamiliar environment before their natural lifespan is up? What's the societal benefit to uprooting pensioners?

    They will require more govt care when there isn't a friendly neighbour to pop in and check them. More transport if they are miles from the bus. More health costs, more stress on our systems.


    I can see the population of boardsies (people mainly in their 20's 30's) getting all clammy-eyed at the thought of property freeing up where these current annoyances are living, instead of having to wait for the old dears to hit the cemetery. But is that it? You want what they have, and you want it now?

    Because having to leave a 5 bedroom house does not mean having to move out of an area. You can move into smaller accommodation in that area.

    If a person cannot afford to pay the tax on a house they cannot afford to maintain it sufficiently. They cannot afford to heat it sufficiently. The house gets damaged and loses value.

    Older people moving out of family homes into more suitable accommodation can be good for everyone involved.


  • Options
    #87
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,223 Mod ✭✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    pwurple wrote: »
    And the rest of my post you ignored?

    The rest of your post isn't an issue if they can stay in their home.


  • Options
    #88
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    professore wrote: »
    I just took a day off work yesterday. Drove from Cork to Laois, picked up my mum, drove another hour and a half to Tullamore for an eye exam - nowhere nearer provided by the HSE, drove another hour back to Laois, stayed an hour, then drove another 2 hours back to Cork. All in all a days work lost, six hours driving because my mum wants to stay in her current house. No buses or public transport anywhere in sight. Is this sustainable?


    I have no idea why your mother lives in frikken Laois.... >? That's where the rest of these people want to move the old people into.

    I heartily agree that commutes and living where there are no damn services is ridiculous. Your mother's situation is the opposite of what should be encouraged.


    I actually agree with a property tax in general. Rates should never have been removed. But the bigger picture is very important, as these taxes encourage certain behaviours. just like the good old plastic bag tax encouraged us to get rid of disposable bags, this tax should be directed towards enouraging something good.

    Encouraging elderly people to remain in city center property, to my mind is a good idea. They have what they need around them, and don't need to pester their families to drive for 6 hours to random places. Booting them out of high-value property in a central location is a bit silly. Encouraging people to live in cities, is a much better civic proposal.

    Here's what I'd like to encourage with these taxes:

    People living in cities
    -easier to provide transport
    -easier to provide infrastructure
    -easier to provide healthcare


    I'd also like to encourage greener living, so I'd like to see smaller, greener homes, in a central location (less fuel for transport) being given a lower tax rate.


    The battering-ram approach of value-based "wealth-distribution" is completely pointless. It encourages mansions in the sticks, and discourages city-center living.


  • Options
    #89
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    pwurple wrote: »
    I have no idea why your mother lives in frikken Laois.... >? That's where the rest of these people want to move the old people into.

    She grew up there and lived there all her life with neighbours she knows and who look in on her and a nice garden etc etc .... the same arguments Larbre34 was making for his mum.


  • Options
    #90
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    pwurple wrote: »
    Is anyone taking a step back and thinking about whether this is a good thing to do for society or not?

    Of course they are!

    -Poorer people can't access accommodation in the major urban areas because of cost and lack of social housing, we'll park the fact that many older people bought their social housing at bargain basement rates, that's not their fault I would have too.

    Due to the lack of being able to live in areas with work they remain on the dole, causing a greater drain on resources.

    -Middle of the road people can only afford to buy an apartment or small house meaning they can't chose to have a family or if they do are doing so in far from ideal conditions.

    -Higher earners are being forced (my heart bleeds :pac:) out of the traditionally more affluent areas putting more pressure on the above group.

    -Very high earners are thinking bugger this I'm paying 53% income tax to support this sodding mess.

    This is not down to one persons Granny but is illustrative of the broken system here in Ireland that has to change. Of course serial benefit riders need to be moved out of urban areas as well, but that's a different topic.
    pwurple wrote: »
    Why do we actually want old people to move away from their supports, friends and families to an unfamiliar environment before their natural lifespan is up? What's the societal benefit to uprooting pensioners?

    They will require more govt care when there isn't a friendly neighbour to pop in and check them. More transport if they are miles from the bus. More health costs, more stress on our systems.

    People don't want this. But this is an infrastructure issue. Apartments need to be available in areas where people have spent their life as an option.

    That said imagine if Ballymun had been a massive retirement community rather than somewhere to dump families as there was no where else for them to go. On a smaller scales this has worked in Scotland with amazing communities sprouting up.

    The social benefit is one person living on their own is inconvenienced for the benefit of a family of 4 or more. Alternatively avail of the rent a room scheme and pay the property tax with money to spare tax free.
    pwurple wrote: »
    I can see the population of boardsies (people mainly in their 20's 30's) getting all clammy-eyed at the thought of property freeing up where these current annoyances are living, instead of having to wait for the old dears to hit the cemetery. But is that it? You want what they have, and you want it now?

    It's not a case of taking anything off of anyone, they keep all of the wealth unless they chose to stay asset rich and cash poor. It helps no one, including them in many cases. With an aging population which is getting richer and richer something has to be done when the average family with two working people can't afford to bring up a family.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »
    A single lodger would cover the tax due several times over.

    I pay more tax on my car than these people do on their houses and the car bloody depreciates.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement