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
Comments
-
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.
I actually think we need retirement suburbs and villages around Ireland. People from "the country" won't want to be bundled in with Dubs or whatever.
Somewhere with shops and a medical centre in short walking distance. Perhaps custom built apartments fully accessible with lifts, and some sort of fee payable for home help as needed. They should be owned as this will give people a sense of pride and independence. Also gardening facilities and a social club, night classes etc should be provided.
Strict regulation in place to prevent price gouging etc. I'd say people would jump at the chance if it was done right. I know I would - sounds a lot more fun than my current life !!!!
Some imaginative scheme could fund this, create jobs, and free up family sized homes. All makes sense.0 -
I pay more tax on my car than these people do on their houses and the car bloody depreciates.
You pay a tax on the services you use (i.e roads) due to owning the car, the value of the car makes no odds. No different to paying for bins, water, electricity, gas...no?
[assuming you mean motor tax and not VRT!]0 -
If I told you that when you take your money home from work each week/month anything that's left in your bank account at the end of the month will be taxed...would you be happy with this? Would you accept it? The hell you would.
Well look at it this way...you use your leftover money each month to buy a home and then the government tax your leftover money again (money they've already taxed you on).
I've no problems with taxes being levied on income, capital gains etc - because this is new previously untaxed money for you. But to keep taxing you on your income wouldn't be accepted.
Also on the flip side to this, the basis for this tax is not fair. As a society we should be providing equal services to all and not just because of where you live (more taxes in an area where houses are worth more) and less to an area where the asset value is low (or tax these people higher).0 -
MarkAnthony wrote: »Because the LPT leads to more stable house prices in the long term rather than a boom bust cycle.
Really? How...its only been in place for a couple of years and its had 0 effect on the house prices.
A progressive income tax is better than a flat rate -not a specific hypothecated tax which this is.MarkAnthony wrote: »Of course getting rid of all taxes and simply applying a flat rate of income tax is fairer again. There are public policy reasons why we don't do this.
I stand corrected on the UK council tax...never lived there nor paid it.MarkAnthony wrote: »Sorry if this is misquoted to you. the NHS predates the council tax. It's not an unfair comparison really. It works in England and Wales where it's based of property value and, of course, rightly allowances are made for the unemployed, pensioners and people living on their own.MarkAnthony wrote: »
This is countered by any number of factors including, market demand and building regulations.
these same factors that have led to boom/bust cycles? building regs are great where implemented properly...I don't think we do it well here. Market demand is boom bust also0 -
Houses are unproductive assets and need to be taxed in order to have a functioning and liquid economy. Irish (and English people where there is a similar problem) seem to treat houses as an investment asset. It's a ridiculous concept and starves actual business and start-ups from much needed investment.
If property is taxed it will deflate the value and encourage proportionate use of property. The last 40 years have seen an incredible shift of wealth from the young to the old. Property in particular has been one of the major vehicles transporting this lost future of the young to the comfortable old. They never saved for their future either, constantly voting in budget overspending short-sighted politicians who sold the youth's future to them. So they've pensions paid for by today's workers who must also contribute to the public pension fund for their own future and are told to also contribute to private pension funds as there is not likely to be enough in the pension fund after today's grey vote further plunder it. All while sitting in a 5 bedroom draughty Rathgar redbrick and wondering how they maintain the subs in the golf club near their holiday home as well as in Elm Park.
<mod snip> that. Tax wealth and encourage consumption and the generation, not maintenance of wealth.0 -
Advertisement
-
Like stamp duty when first introduced, it is a short term vision to increase the state coffers. But when properties increase in value (on paper) then the tax increases at a similar rate. But when is the last time the average PAYE home-owner got a pay rise?
If that comes to pass, you'll see a whole new Irish Water scale of protesting. Many of these properties are owned by retired people who have limited means to afford any increase and who are the most vocal and largest voting block in the country.
The tax bands don't make sense in the context of a boom and bust Irish property cycle, which we seem to love rapidly inflated property prices.
She used to be a teacher; I hope she didn't teach maths or any STEM subject. Moving from 675 to 1,035 is little more than a 50% increase not a doubling. What could we expect from someone who tried to drive her car down steps.0 -
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.
She is not being treated unfair,y, she has the opportunity to defer until sale. In the circumstances, she should avail of it. It's a form of asset or wealth tax not a form of income tax. I don't personally think it's the best form of taxation but I'm not going to cry over it - and to be clear I'm paying it on a house occupied (at my expense) by my brother in receipt of disability allowance. The alternative would be not to have housed him but let the state do so. I get a double whammy but I'm still not crying about it.0 -
daheff wrote:Also on the flip side to this, the basis for this tax is not fair. As a society we should be providing equal services to all and not just because of where you live (more taxes in an area where houses are worth more) and less to an area where the asset value is low (or tax these people higher).daheff wrote:If I told you that when you take your money home from work each week/month anything that's left in your bank account at the end of the month will be taxed...would you be happy with this? Would you accept it? The hell you would.
Eh, they already do tax this. It is called DIRT and is probably higher here than anywhere else in the world0 -
Tell that to the people paying 8 or 9 times what their relatives pay in rural towns.
Tell that to property market participants that assume more value with city rather than rural dwellings.It should adapt of course, a lot of progress has been made. This doesn't count as progress, it counts as duress.
Taxing an asset that has increased in price by many 100%'s over 48 years. Would the same not apply to somebody whose salary increased by many 100%'s?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.
"People" in your case is your mother. Lets not repeal national legislation or entertain the notion of it based on your one case study. If its a societal question, the group in question will have to be much bigger than 10 -
Has your mother a medical card, any opticians would have provided a free eye test?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?0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
Lets be clear on this. You don't really care about your mother, you just care about the money pile that she is living in. You and plenty of other people don't have any response to my post about my grandmother, because when you take away the emotive bleating there is no real argument against property tax or utilising a asset properly. Looking at my future, if it involves 20 years of living in isolation, too old to be go out, to old to see my friends any-more, the rare visit from my family, I'd prefer to be sitting in a home with some company. And I'd hope the people around me would have the courage to try break my attachment to a pile of concrete and wood to get me to do something about it.
There are plenty of options open for your mother.- She can rent rooms in her house to boost her income and help maintain it.
- She can ignore the property tax leaving the late fees and interest piling up in the background, meaning if and when she dies the proceeds of the title will go entirely to the government.
- You could approach her, get her to sell up and use part of that money to co buy a larger house with you, where she can live out her days with family around.
- She can sell up and move into a home.
- She can rent the property and move into a home.
- She can sell up and downscale to a smaller better equipped house, preferably a bungalow with other elderly neighbours to help and look in on.
- She can scrape by, live in the sitting room because she can't climb the stairs, let the house rot because she can afford the heating and spend her days isolated and alone.
Or you could continue to whine on a forum about why nobody thinks of the children, or old people, yourself or whatever emotional garbage people are spewing about macro economic decisions.0 -
Really? How...its only been in place for a couple of years and its had 0 effect on the house prices.
In the ways discussed in this thread.A progressive income tax is better than a flat rate -not a specific hypothecated tax which this is
How so? Because my job is worth more or less in the market? You're suggesting that tax should assist social policy. That's all the LPT does but in a more direct way.these same factors that have led to boom/bust cycles? building regs are great where implemented properly...I don't think we do it well here. Market demand is boom bust also
It need not be though that's something the LPT is trying to assist with.0 -
Iif the people in support of property tax, do you actually pay it ir are you tenants? Do you support water charges?
I think that water charges are a far fairer charge than the LPT.0 -
Iif the people in support of property tax, do you actually pay it ir are you tenants? Do you support water charges?
I think that water charges are a far fairer charge than the LPT.
I support LPT, I pay it. I support water charges.
I don't like paying any more than the next person, of course I would prefer paying less tax, but I believe in broadening the tax base, so the poor stooge in the middle isn't ending up paying for everything and everyone from income tax.0 -
-
-
professore wrote: »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.
.
Plus widows pension, plus living alone allowance and then someone in such a valuable property would be likely to have made retirement provisions.0 -
Cuddlesworth wrote: »Lets be clear on this. You don't really care about your mother, you just care about the money pile that she is living in. You and plenty of other people don't have any response to my post about my grandmother, because when you take away the emotive bleating there is no real argument against property tax or utilising a asset properly. Looking at my future, if it involves 20 years of living in isolation, too old to be go out, to old to see my friends any-more, the rare visit from my family, I'd prefer to be sitting in a home with some company. And I'd hope the people around me would have the courage to try break my attachment to a pile of concrete and wood to get me to do something about it.
There are plenty of options open for your mother.- She can rent rooms in her house to boost her income and help maintain it.
- She can ignore the property tax leaving the late fees and interest piling up in the background, meaning if and when she dies the proceeds of the title will go entirely to the government.
- You could approach her, get her to sell up and use part of that money to co buy a larger house with you, where she can live out her days with family around.
- She can sell up and move into a home.
- She can rent the property and move into a home.
- She can sell up and downscale to a smaller better equipped house, preferably a bungalow with other elderly neighbours to help and look in on.
- She can scrape by, live in the sitting room because she can't climb the stairs, let the house rot because she can afford the heating and spend her days isolated and alone.
Or you could continue to whine on a forum about why nobody thinks of the children, or old people, yourself or whatever emotional garbage people are spewing about macro economic decisions.
Ah don't go changin, you're great craic.0 -
Cuddlesworth wrote: »because when you take away the emotive bleating there is no real argument against property tax or utilising a asset properly. Looking at my future, if it involves 20 years of living in isolation, too old to be go out, to old to see my friends any-more, the rare visit from my family, I'd prefer to be sitting in a home with some company. And I'd hope the people around me would have the courage to try break my attachment to a pile of concrete and wood to get me to do something about it.
Lol I'm sorry I'm trying to attack the post not the poster, but this is a terribly sad outlook on life.
This sounds like the post of a mechanical robot not a human being.0 -
Lol I'm sorry I'm trying to attack the post not the poster, but this is a terribly sad outlook on life.
This sounds like the post of a mechanical robot not a human being.
It's the reality of modern life. It's sad. If anybody thinks that our elected representatives give a **** then they're sadly mistaken.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cuddlesworth wrote: »Lets be clear on this. You don't really care about your mother, you just care about the money pile that she is living in. You and plenty of other people don't have any response to my post about my grandmother, because when you take away the emotive bleating there is no real argument against property tax or utilising a asset properly. Looking at my future, if it involves 20 years of living in isolation, too old to be go out, to old to see my friends any-more, the rare visit from my family, I'd prefer to be sitting in a home with some company. And I'd hope the people around me would have the courage to try break my attachment to a pile of concrete and wood to get me to do something about it.
There are plenty of options open for your mother.- She can rent rooms in her house to boost her income and help maintain it.
- She can ignore the property tax leaving the late fees and interest piling up in the background, meaning if and when she dies the proceeds of the title will go entirely to the government.
- You could approach her, get her to sell up and use part of that money to co buy a larger house with you, where she can live out her days with family around.
- She can sell up and move into a home.
- She can rent the property and move into a home.
- She can sell up and downscale to a smaller better equipped house, preferably a bungalow with other elderly neighbours to help and look in on.
- She can scrape by, live in the sitting room because she can't climb the stairs, let the house rot because she can afford the heating and spend her days isolated and alone.
Or you could continue to whine on a forum about why nobody thinks of the children, or old people, yourself or whatever emotional garbage people are spewing about macro economic decisions.
You cannot say you would prefer live in a home, meaning a carehome unless you have already experienced that, and I dont mean for some infrequent or even a frequent short visit, like many things in Ireland, the quality of life is not considered, and especially not for the elderly, you'll be surrounded by varying degrees of people dumped there by families with either no option or no want to care for someone or maybe no ability to manage what a person is like if they need such care.
Id rather die sooner in my own home then ever live out my remaining days in a care home, it is not necessarily a peaceful or private place and if you are in anyway coherent, you'll soon be driven mad, I would, you may have very disruptive residents (possibly dementia or other illnesses), uncaring or hostile staff, or the mere mechanicalness of routine of living in a place like that. A peaceful nice life for your remaining time will be less than likely, but shure so long as we can grab what assets they have, they're not productive anymore, toss em out on the street.
Ive seen even well intentioned staff pester people that just want a bit of peace, getting that day in day out would push you over the edge, never mind the ones that insist on doing things to the letter when it suits them for an easier life.
Id even agree that it would be a benefit to society and them if they could release some equity if possible (what if thats not possible?) for themselves and downsize if thats what they wanted or needed, assuming they dont have family near that help or have their home just how they like, moving home is very disruptive let alone for the elderly and costs they wouldnt incurr by staying put, the uncertainty of what a new place is like, and people can be settled in and be happy with an area, why should they move, there is a point at which you cant put a price on the quality of happiness, but shure tax them to fook, fookers holding up places, why dont they just die! greedy sods, living in houses we could be living in, selfish baxtards.
If retirement villages existed where communities were or became established, maybe that could work, cant see quality being a priority.
Go spend some time in a carehome and come back and say people should move out of their homes, you might reevaluate your opinion as it isnt all nice.0 -
if this tax starts generating much more, thats great, they can use it to continue cutting the disgraceful marginal rate of income tax...0
-
This is not down to one person's granny, but neither is moving people's grannies around from pilar to post going to solve what you have described. Those are all supply issues. Moving people to the countryside using LPT encouragement doesn't cause private developers to build affordable homes either. Quite the opposite.MarkAnthony wrote: »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.
i think it's obvious people value their assets in more than just monetary terms. Especially as they get older, they value memories created someplace, friends, access to services. And older people are certainly not fans of change. I see my own parents resist any change in habits more than when they were younger, and they are not remotely near elderly yet.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.
LPT is not going to solve supply issues. How could it? It has no bearing on developers at all. They don't pay it.
But applying the bands based on a combination of sq ft, and location would be a much better use of that tool, rather than applying it purely as a penalty. Gently incentivising living in big towns and cities by making the rate lower where you want people to live, rather than the opposite... This is part of the reason LPT is so wildly unpopular. It is being weilded as a penalty. A stick to beat people who bought in an area with good amenities.
I don't know about Dublin, but in Cork we have absolutely heaps of derelict, uninhabited units in the city center. Above shops is what I am talking about mainly. I'd love to see these occupied by young people, old people, people with families... Just like in London, New York etc. But they are in a bizaar limbo here. There is no way those people could afford to live in those, partly because of the LPT a city center place would generate. The notional value would be astromical.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6953
I don't know about Dublin, but in Cork we have absolutely heaps of derelict, uninhabited units in the city center. Above shops is what I am talking about mainly. I'd love to see these occupied by young people, old people, people with families... Just like in London, New York etc. But they are in a bizaar limbo here. There is no way those people could afford to live in those, partly because of the LPT a city center place would generate. The notional value would be astromical.
Unless all those properties were made derelict in the last 2/3 years, LPT is not to blame.
What notional value are you talking about? How much are they actually going for? If they're all uninhabited then it's likely they're overvalued.0 -
Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »Unless all those properties were made derelict in the last 2/3 years, LPT is not to blame.
What notional value are you talking about? How much are they actually going for? If they're all uninhabited then it's likely they're overvalued.
They're not going for anything. Not for sale at all. No-one wants to put in the investment to do them up. No incentive to do so. They pay rates for the building which is covered by the downstairs occupier, if they convert them to residential, they get stung for LPT on something potentially they can't shift.
I know LPT is not to blame, but I'd like to see used as part of a solution.
The notonal value is what LPT is based on. The made-up number you put on the form when you register. Have you registered?0 -
They're not going for anything. Not for sale at all. No-one wants to put in the investment to do them up. No incentive to do so. They pay rates for the building which is covered by the downstairs occupier, if they convert them to residential, they get stung for LPT on something potentially they can't shift.
I know LPT is not to blame, but I'd like to see used as part of a solution.
The notonal value is what LPT is based on. The made-up number you put on the form when you register. Have you registered?
We could do with another 'Living Over The Shop' scheme/incentive that we had about 10 years ago.
The Living City initiative needs to be extended to cover all towns.0 -
Just some facts for the discussion. The €1035 rate applies for property valued over €550k.
€1035 deferred for example for 20 years with interest will end up with a liability of €32k.
So deferral has limited impact on the end position for anyone.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6953
They're not going for anything. Not for sale at all. No-one wants to put in the investment to do them up. No incentive to do so. They pay rates for the building which is covered by the downstairs occupier, if they convert them to residential, they get stung for LPT on something potentially they can't shift.
I know LPT is not to blame, but I'd like to see used as part of a solution.
The notonal value is what LPT is based on. The made-up number you put on the form when you register. Have you registered?
But LPT is just a drop in the ocean for those properties. Why if they're derelict for a number of years are you putting any blame at all on the LPT? Yeah maybe it's another cost on top of everything else but hardly the one holding them back.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
That's at current rates. We all know that the current rates will not stay in force for long...just long enough for people to accept the tax. Just like water taxesJust some facts for the discussion. The €1035 rate applies for property valued over €550k.
€1035 deferred for example for 20 years with interest will end up with a liability of €32k.
So deferral has limited impact on the end position for anyone.
Just because other countries do it doesn't mean its right or the best thing to do. Back in the late 1800/early 1900s a lot of countries in Europe went 'a raping and a pillaging' through Africa...colonising countries. Does that make it right? Should Ireland have done it too (and they did consider it)??Seeing as you like to compare us with other countries, most other western countries have a property tax. We were an analomy in not having one.
I understand that Local services and Irish Water need to be funded and I'm all for properly funding them (and out of a central pot). I don't agree with funding local services by the value of a property. By funding this way, the local authorities are saying they 'value' the residents of this area more than the residents of a less well off area (because they will reinvest the taxes into the area in which it comes...more taxes more investment). Overtime this will lead to more inequalities in society. Whereas services should be provided on the basis of need first rather than because leafy Foxrock pays higher taxes so gets better services than poor disadvantaged Leitrim (no offence Leitrim).0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement