Amazing that there's not more objection to LPT

T McGibney said:
Never a good idea for a public policy measure to directly incentivise people to maintain mortgage borrowings on their homes.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the statement made in principle. However public policy is frequently balancing at times what appears to be irreconcilable and unpleasant alternatives, competing objectives, etc.

Should not be a free for all re mortgages, with proper controls, etc would be a better measure of wealth. Would need controls wrapped around it to prevent abuse or excesses, the mansions, people increasing mortgages to reduce LPT.

Fair to say that the gross value of a house is not (in isolation) representative of someone's wealth, if that was the case then most of the wealthy people in Ireland would live in Dublin. I don't think they do. What I am saying is that for the average Joe soap their mortgage is one consideration to be taken account of when calculating LPT. Should also consider ability to pay, etc.

Of course not an easy one, but the current approach is crude and unfairly penalising people simply based on where they live. LPT is really supposed to be a wealth tax, how it is charged is not representative of a true measure of wealth.
 
The property tax isn't a wealth tax though. Nor was it ever supposed to be one.

It's a property tax, applied on residential premises, just as local authority rates apply to commercial premises.

Simples.
 
llgon said:
Would your point change if there was a higher rural electricity standing charge???
Click to expand...

No, why would I? I would disagree strongly if there was a higher rural standing charge, purely based on it being a country/locational charge.

There are swings and roundabouts in charges, that is the reality. However putting in place a system which is hitting urban people harder - that is unfair.

Possible to look at a whole variety of different charges and nickel and dime, that's not my objective. It's putting in place an overall system which is basically fair all around, and not overly biased towards where one lives. I think the LPT system does not meet this but is fundamentally an unfair charge.
 
There is a real danger IMO that in the future the tax system will penalise people who worked hard and were responsible with the decisions they made with their net earnings ...i.e. People who bought a house to provide for their future accommodation needs and made adequate pension provisions to cover the various expenses upon retirement, who took out and paid for Private Health Insurance.
LPT is the start of taxing the responsible people for doing the right thing. You cant tax the poor (they dont have it) ... so if you are currently working towards paying off your mortgage and building up a pension pot be careful not to over do it you'll only make yourself a target for future government taxes.
 
Gerard123 said:
No, why would I? I would disagree strongly if there was a higher rural standing charge, purely based on it being a country/locational charge.
Click to expand...
Except there is one (I suspect the question was rhetorical).

http://www.cer.ie/customer-care/about-us/faqs

Standing Charge
The standing charge covers the upkeep of the network necessary to bring supply to your home, together with the cost of reading the meter, issuing and processing the bills, etc. These costs have to be met irrespective of the amount of electricity used.

Rural standing charges are higher than urban standing charges due to the additional costs of maintaining supply to rural customers.

A small additional standing charge applies where a second meter is installed for electric storage heating.
Click to expand...
 
T McGibney said:
It's a property tax, applied on residential premises, just as local authority rates apply to commercial premises.
Click to expand...

Not labelled as a wealth tax, agree with that. In my view it is a more a general tax masquerading as a property tax, brought in at a time when there was a need to expand the tax base. In most jurisdictions a property tax is seen as a form of a wealth tax, would you not agree with that?

Here it is leaning in the direction of wealth, not criticising that as I think it is fair that people pay according to means/wealth, as usual the key question/uncertainty/areas of differing opinions is how best to levy charges.

Don't know enough about commercial rates, is that levied purely on current value? I thought there was some other way that was levied which led to it being more of a level playing field (though I guess it depends who asks, right).
 
Gerard123 said:
Not labelled as a wealth tax, agree with that. In my view it is a more a general tax masquerading as a property tax, brought in at a time when there was a need to expand the tax base. In most jurisdictions a property tax is seen as a form of a wealth tax, would you not agree with that?
Click to expand...

Nope, most countries have property taxes. Some have wealth taxes on top of property taxes. Ireland had domestic property rates until 1977. Nobody counted that as a wealth tax.
 
Absolutely agree with Tommy. Property taxes are a mechanism for funding local public services (albeit that the LPT is collected centrally). A small number of countries have an additional wealth or net asset tax (often with a primary residence allowance) but many countries have discontinued this form of taxation.
 
I disagreed with the property tax from the beginning. The reason there wasn't more of a fuss about it was that people were played. It was made out that those that had houses were rich and those that did not were poor. I think people were guilted into it. I was very disappointed when people paid the tax. They could just keep making the taxing us more and more. At least if it were based on the amount that was mortgage free it would be one thing. My house is definitely not a asset. It is an anchor around my neck pulling me down. I am in negative equity in a house I can't bare to live in but cannot move because I cannot sell.

What they should have done was have people who had more than one house pay a much bigger amount on the second, third, etc. house.
 
Any bets on "If elected, we will abolish LPT" being included in next election promises, sorry, manifestoes
 
muinteoir said:
What they should have done was have people who had more than one house pay a much bigger amount on the second, third, etc. house.
Click to expand...


They had that didn't they in the shape of the NPPR, even people who didn't own a second home were subjected to it i.e those who emigrated like me and countless others who moved into the cities in search of jobs. Then when people refused to pay it or those who weren't even aware of this tax, they were hit with exorbitant penalty charges up to 7K in some instances.
 
Gerard123 said:
Correction please -

A home without a loan is an asset.
A home in negative equity is a liability.

LPT makes no distinction for mortgages, negative equity, etc. At least if LPT was payable on the net house value, after mortgages, that would be a little more equitable than the current crude system for charging on gross values.
Click to expand...


how many retired people are still paying a mortgage on their house ?
 
jpd said:
Any bets on "If elected, we will abolish LPT" being included in next election promises, sorry, manifestoes
Click to expand...

SF propose to abolish the LPT and water charges, and instead increase income tax.

This is expected from a socialist party.
 
trojan said:
A lady from Revenue was on radio today and she said as far as i can recall 98% of people have paid.
Click to expand...

Not at all surprising considering Revenue collect it & have numerous ways to extract the payment from you.
 
LPT is a self assessed tax. It is based on the market value of your property. Market value is defined as the amount something can be sold on a given market. If Revenue send you out a valuation of what they think the market value is of a property in your area why would you pay more than this estimate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top