# people not declaring rental homes



## pAnTs (7 Sep 2014)

I'm just wondering how people are getting away with this. I was just out with a friend who like myself is renting out an apartment. I was telling him that we had received a letter about the NPPR. we hadn't paid it and incurred a fine which we paid before the Friday deadline when the charge doubled! Anyway this friend said they hadn't received any letter and so had no intention of paying it. Now I know this friend never declared that they had married and moved and were now renting out their own property but they had said a couple of years ago that they were now registered and were paying what they owed. This person was a gym instructor and said that they only ever paid about €300 tax a year as they wrote everything off and never declared what they were really earning. I am so annoyed. I pay at least €20,000 per annum in income tax and USC PRSI etc and pay all the PRSI USC etc on the rental income too aswell as €2,000 management fees. My question is how can some people get away with paying pretty much zero tax??? I mean €300 a year???? so unfair on the rest of us. Also I know that obviously he never changed his address with revenue and the tenant is obviously not claiming any rent relief etc but isn't this system completely messed up???? how do they get away with it???


----------



## Purple (7 Sep 2014)

They lie and cheat and steal. Not all criminals get caught.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Sep 2014)

Bear in mind that a lot of people talk nonsense about their income and their taxes. 



> they had said a couple of years ago that they were now registered and were paying what they owed.



So, he was either lying then or he is lying now. 

There is every chance that he will get caught if he is not declaring rental income. A dispute with the tenant could result in his being reported.  He will end up paying far more than you are paying, as he will have to pay interest and fines. 



> This person was a gym instructor and said that they only ever paid about  €300 tax a year as they wrote everything off and never declared what  they were really earning.



Many people who get paid in cash, hide their earnings. He is a bit stupid to be telling you about it.  If you realised that you were paying high taxes, because he is not paying his share, you might be tempted to report him. 

Brendan


----------



## delgirl (8 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> .... and the tenant is obviously not claiming any rent relief etc but isn't this system completely messed up???? how do they get away with it???


Rent Relief is being phased out by 2017 and tenants are only eligible if already renting at 7 December 2010.

I don't think the Government should have abolished rent relief, they should have reduced the rates as it was a very good way of tracking down non-compliant landlords.


----------



## ashambles (8 Sep 2014)

The rent a room scheme has certainly been abused to some extent. It's supposed to be for people living in the home of the renter, I think originally the idea was one room could be rented, but it turned into rooms. From what I hear it's sometimes used by house owners who've moved out of their "home" but are renting it out. They just keep the bills in their name in case they're ever questioned on it.

I'm not sure the government can work out the cost of the scheme or how many people are using it, let alone abusing it, since it seems uncontrolled. They say on 
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/home_owners/rent_a_room_scheme.html


> "If you do not make an annual tax return and your income from rent and related services is under the exemption limit of €10,000, you do not have to claim rent-a-room relief as it will apply automatically."


It's a generous concession even when it's used correctly. No USC or anything added, no need to tell revenue how much you made. It could be seen by some as an invitation to not be tax compliant.


----------



## DB74 (8 Sep 2014)

Revenue and other govt departments aren't all that interested in catching people who evade the system, they are more interested in squeezing those already in there

Couple of years ago I had terrible noise problems with a neighbouring house which was rented. Couldn't get any details of who landlord was so went on to PRTB to try to find some info. Discovered there that house wasn't even reg'd with PRTB so I rang them to inform them. I was told to come back with the landlords name and PPSN and they would look into it. They didn't want to know.


----------



## serotoninsid (8 Sep 2014)

ashambles said:


> It's a generous concession even when it's used correctly. No USC or anything added, no need to tell revenue how much you made. It could be seen by some as an invitation to not be tax compliant.



That some people may abuse it is not a good reason to propose doing away with it.  The rent a room scheme serves other purposes - such as encouraging a more efficient use of existing housing stock.  Furthermore, it is a lifeline for many burdened with long term debt.  I used it myself for the first 6 years of my mortgage and it took the pain out of what are the most critical years of home loan repayment i.e. the first few years.

With regard to renting out more than one room, the number of rooms isn't specified - it's the 10K limit that's significant.


I'm not saying this is right, but is it such a loss to the state if that figure is exceeded slightly?  With regard to those who truly abuse it - i.e. continue to claim under the scheme having moved out themselves - then there will always be a proportion of people who will do that.  However, the potential penalties for this if uncovered are far from insignificant.  


In any case, this is otherwise a very positive scheme - so that should not be forgotten should anyone consider doing away with it.


----------



## pAnTs (8 Sep 2014)

well I know two people who are both renting out 3 rooms in their house for at least €550 per month for each room. They are defo not declaring that!!! That I don't mind as much becuase at least these people are paying Tax on their income. This other person is neither paying tax on their income nor on their rental income. I just don't understand how revenue can not tackle this problem in some way...I mean there has to be some way that they can check. Can they not get different systems to talk to each other? like when people marry or something send them out letters to specify their address? It's just so unfair, I can't take the injustice of it! lets suppose they did change their address with revenue and he did say he was no longer at that address then could they tell from their revenue records that the presvious address was a home that was owned and not a rented property...therefor realising that they must be renting out that home???


----------



## mandelbrot (8 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> well I know two people who are both renting out 3 rooms in their house for at least €550 per month for each room. They are defo not declaring that!!! That I don't mind as much becuase at least these people are paying Tax on their income. This other person is neither paying tax on their income nor on their rental income. I just don't understand how revenue can not tackle this problem in some way...I mean there has to be some way that they can check. Can they not get different systems to talk to each other? like when people marry or something send them out letters to specify their address? It's just so unfair, I can't take the injustice of it! lets suppose they did change their address with revenue and he did say he was no longer at that address then could they tell from their revenue records that the presvious address was a home that was owned and not a rented property...therefor realising that they must be renting out that home???



Revenue have plenty of info, but limited resources, and therefore it might take years to catch up.

Of course if you want to speed up the process you can write in to Revenue and draw their attention to it, rather than be grumpy and grumbling about it...


----------



## pAnTs (8 Sep 2014)

no I couldn't do that, I would feel terrible guilty and two faced. I would much rather be grumpy and grumble about it. I just despair at how this country is run. The honest and good often seem to get punished while the lazy and dishonest seem to get rewarded (dont remind me of the man in Cork that had a party to celebrate 35 on the social) aghhhhhh why are people let stay on welfare for 35 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or dont mention the three skangers that HAD between eight and 69 previous convictions that attacked those American tourists??? 69 pervious convictions and never did time????? like arent there people in jail for not paying fines???? What is going on here??? madness.


----------



## mandelbrot (8 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> no I couldn't do that, I would feel terrible guilty and two faced. I would much rather be grumpy and grumble about it. I just despair at how this country is run. The honest and good often seem to get punished while the lazy and dishonest seem to get rewarded.



Well that post sums up exactly why the country is run the way it is! Can you not see the irony in all your giving out and exclaiming, and yet you're not willing to actually draw the appropriate attention to what you know (or at least believe) to be fraud...

It's a cultural thing.... "Ah sure, it's ONLY... (Insert relatively minor fraud here)...", and "Oh now it's not my place to be a rat"...

If you saw a house down the road on fire, would you twitch the curtains wondering where the hell the fire brigade is, but not bother ringing them yourself?!


----------



## dub_nerd (9 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> no I couldn't do that, I would feel terrible guilty and two faced. I would much rather be grumpy and grumble about it. I just despair at how this country is run. The honest and good often seem to get punished while the lazy and dishonest seem to get rewarded...



You're already being guilty and two faced by coming on here moaning about a person you said in the OP was a "friend". This has nothing to do with "how the country is run". It is to do with societal attitudes. What are you hoping will happen? ... that attitudes will just magically change in a country where your "friend" feels completely safe bragging about tax evasion?

Information on how to report tax fraud:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=134398


----------



## ashambles (9 Sep 2014)

It's nice to think that all tax evasion can be fixed by people ringing up revenue with some info. That's not the way to run tax collection, you've got to make it difficult to evade, and also make it possible to prove the evasion after the tip off. 

Rent-a-room was an FF policy where the main goal was to assist people to get bigger mortgages, and politically they wanted it as easy as possible for people use. If Revenue had been drawing up the rules it wouldn't have been with this wink about being tax compliant.

There's no other income taxed the same way, it's easy to see how an initally correct use of rent-a-room could morph into tax evasion. Even the comment about "is it such a loss to the state if that figure [10,000] is exceeded slightly" shows how easy it is to be relaxed about it. Some people now need to pay 7k in various penalties on a 200 euro a year property tax. Is "exceeded slightly" more or less than 4 euro extra a week?

Without the need for declaration, Revenue have no idea what's going on in rent-a-room and they have next to zero chance of detecting problems even if they get tip offs.


----------



## T McGibney (9 Sep 2014)

ashambles said:


> Rent-a-room was an FF policy where the main goal was to assist people to get bigger mortgages.



No, its main goal was to defuse the crisis of rocketing rents that blighted our cities and towns in the late 1990s/early 2000s. (In fact the rent-a-room scheme was first suggested on AAM around that time!).



ashambles said:


> There's no other income taxed the same way.



There is, the childminders exemption.



ashambles said:


> Without the need for declaration, Revenue have no idea what's going on in rent-a-room



Sorry, there *is* a statutory obligation to declare rent-a-room earnings on one's tax return.


----------



## delgirl (9 Sep 2014)

If Revenue / Government incentivize tenants to declare that they are renting by claiming some sort of tax relief and if they are required to submit the LL's details,  surely this is the easiest way to cross check if the LL is declaring the rental income.


----------



## noproblem (9 Sep 2014)

If people have problems with others not paying tax and have "proof" of it, ring this revenue number, 01 6474000, they will take it up and it will be investigated. Remember to have facts, not suspicions, or, somebody told me, etc, etc. No need to moan about it here, report it, with the "facts" you have to back it up.


----------



## ashambles (9 Sep 2014)

T McGibney said:


> No, its main goal was to defuse the crisis of rocketing rents


Perhaps that's what they said they hoped would happen but we know what actually happened - the link below is from 2008
"As house prices and mortgage levels have increased, many first time buyers are seeking to add to income by renting out rooms in their newly acquired houses. Most lenders will take the potential for such income into account when assessing borrowing capacity."
http://www.mortgages.ie/go/first_time_buyers/information_for_first_time_buyers/renting-a-room


			
				T McGibney said:
			
		

> There is, the childminders exemption.


Fair enough.


			
				T McGibney said:
			
		

> Sorry, there *is* a statutory obligation to declare rent-a-room earnings on one's tax return.


Only if you have to make a return already. This is a valuable tax concession, it should in itself trigger the need to file a return. 
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/home_owners/rent_a_room_scheme.html


> If you do not make an annual tax return and your income from rent and related services is under the exemption limit of €10,000, you do not have to claim rent-a-room relief as it will apply automatically


----------



## T McGibney (9 Sep 2014)

ashambles said:


> Perhaps that's what they said they hoped would happen but we know what actually happened - the link below is from 2008



Its goal was, as I said, to relieve pressure on rents. The fact that some people abused it (fraudulently in many instances, citing non-existent "lodgers") to enhance mortgage applications is neither here nor there at this stage.




ashambles said:


> Only if you have to make a return already. This is a valuable tax concession, it should in itself trigger the need to file a return.



You are indeed 100% correct here.


----------



## dereko1969 (9 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> no I couldn't do that, I would feel terrible guilty and two faced. I would much rather be grumpy and grumble about it. I just despair at how this country is run. The honest and good often seem to get punished while the lazy and dishonest seem to get rewarded (dont remind me of the man in Cork that had a party to celebrate 35 on the social) aghhhhhh why are people let stay on welfare for 35 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or dont mention the three skangers that HAD between eight and 69 previous convictions that attacked those American tourists??? 69 pervious convictions and never did time????? like arent there people in jail for not paying fines???? What is going on here??? madness.



YOU are the problem, how can you not see that?


----------



## serotoninsid (9 Sep 2014)

delgirl said:


> If Revenue / Government incentivize tenants to declare that they are renting by claiming some sort of tax relief and if they are required to submit the LL's details,  surely this is the easiest way to cross check if the LL is declaring the rental income.



They already had that - but they phased it out (or are phasing it out). I always thought it strange that they removed it....


----------



## serotoninsid (9 Sep 2014)

ashambles said:


> Rent-a-room was an FF policy where the main goal was to assist people to get bigger mortgages, and politically they wanted it as easy as possible for people use.


I used it myself to contribute towards my application for a mortgage and to be taken into account when switching mortgage products.
The difference was that some people were putting it down having no intention of renting a room.  You can't blame that on the scheme itself - that's down to the foolishness of those people.



ashambles said:


> There's no other income taxed the same way, it's easy to see how an initally correct use of rent-a-room could morph into tax evasion. Even the comment about "is it such a loss to the state if that figure [10,000] is exceeded slightly" shows how easy it is to be relaxed about it


Well, that was my comment - and if we all agree instead that we have to be rigid about it, then fine.  I guess that comment was made on the basis that you would take into account the positives of that scheme as a whole.  In a country which I find inefficient in so many ways in comparison with our continental neighbours, it's great to see an example of a clever initiative that encourages more efficient use of housing stock.....particularly so  when you consider the lack of housing in the Dublin area at present.




ashambles said:


> Without the need for declaration, Revenue have no idea what's going on in rent-a-room


Didn't realise that - I had always submitted a return for rent-a-room income alone.



ashambles said:


> Revenue have no idea what's going on in rent-a-room and they have next to zero chance of detecting problems even if they get tip offs.


They had exactly such a measure in place - the tax credit system for tenants - which bizarrely they removed a couple of years ago.


----------



## misemoi (9 Sep 2014)

The revenue also has a huge source of information...the address to which tax credits and other correspondance is being sent. A cross check of addresses where there are people with different family names would show up a huge amount of properties being rented...verify if returns are being made on those and you have a good list of landlords to check up on. TRS, rental income tax, there is a lot to be made here if they wanted.  Crazy that they removed the one thing they had in the tax credit, it was not huge but certainly kept the landlords a bit honest!


----------



## pAnTs (9 Sep 2014)

Actually I'm not the problem it's the tax evader and a lack of adequate system to catch them that's the problem. To be honest there's a major difference between wondering how the system works and reporting someone. I wouldn't report him because I don't feel I should be put in a moral dilemma like that if the revenue can't even be bothered to chase these people. I mean they obviously don't give a flying fiddlers so why should I jeopardise a friendship and have to live with the consequences of that? It's easier said than done. There are huge ramifications after doing something like that. I can't imagine anyone on here would do it as easily as they are suggesting. If it was a stranger maybe but not a close friend. We all know people who go around breaking the law in some minor way whether it be unpaid car tax or an unpaid TV licence and we don't go ringing the fraud squad even though the principal is the same. I honestly feel if they're missing this their system isn't for for purpose. I mean there has to be a massive amount if self employed people who under declare. A simple bank statement submission would help to solve this if they were interested....


----------



## mandelbrot (9 Sep 2014)

misemoi said:


> The revenue also has a huge source of information...the address to which tax credits and other correspondance is being sent. A cross check of addresses where there are people with different family names would show up a huge amount of properties being rented...verify if returns are being made on those and you have a good list of landlords to check up on. TRS, rental income tax, there is a lot to be made here if they wanted.  Crazy that they removed the one thing they had in the tax credit, it was not huge but certainly kept the landlords a bit honest!



The "they" that removed the tax credit aren't the "they" who have the job of combating the tax evasion. I'd be amazed if Revenue officials didn't warn against removing the rent tax credit for just that reason.

As you say Revenue has plenty of information sources at their disposal and the technology to interrogate these or identify anomalies is ever improving, so it's really only a question of time for the people who think that they are conning the system.


----------



## mandelbrot (9 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> Actually I'm not the problem it's the tax evader and a lack of adequate system to catch them that's the problem. To be honest there's a major difference between wondering how the system works and reporting someone. I wouldn't report him because I don't feel I should be put in a moral dilemma like that if the revenue can't even be bothered to chase these people. I mean they obviously don't give a flying fiddlers


 Hold on, why do you assume they aren't chasing these people?!



pAnTs said:


> so why should I jeopardise a friendship and have to live with the consequences of that? It's easier said than done. There are huge ramifications after doing something like that. I can't imagine anyone on here would do it as easily as they are suggesting. If it was a stranger maybe but not a close friend. We all know people who go around breaking the law in some minor way whether it be unpaid car tax or an unpaid TV licence and we don't go ringing the fraud squad even though the principal is the same. I honestly feel if they're missing this their system isn't for for purpose. I mean there has to be a massive amount if self employed people who under declare. A simple bank statement submission would help to solve this if they were interested....



Yeah, it's that simple alright, bank statements are the answer... sure I'd say no Revenue official ever has looked at a bank statement... 
If their system was to be as fit for purpose as you propose, then next week you'd be on here screaming blue murder about Big Brother looking over your shoulder. There is a limit to their powers, and the information sources they have, for good reason.


----------



## pAnTs (9 Sep 2014)

I mean submit them as mandatory and not just as part of an audit. It's crazy. I have a long term illness and submit my medical receipts ever year. I always only submit the actual amount for a refund but in over 5 years they have never asked me for receipts. I do have to hold onto them for 5 years just in case which I do but seriously why not submit them when making the claim? it's mental. I actually wouldn't be screaming about Big Brother...you don't know me so it's strange of you to make that presumption. Im of the opinion that all my affairs are in order so Ive nothing to hide...I would welcome it if it meant there was a fairer system where the honest weren't getting hockeyed to pay for the evaders.


----------



## mandelbrot (9 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> I mean submit them as mandatory and not just as part of an audit. It's crazy. I have a long term illness and submit my medical receipts ever year. I always only submit the actual amount for a refund but in over 5 years they have never asked me for receipts. I do have to hold onto them for 5 years just in case which I do but seriously why not submit them when making the claim? it's mental. I actually wouldn't be screaming about Big Brother...you don't know me so it's strange of you to make that presumption. Im of the opinion that all my affairs are in order so Ive nothing to hide...I would welcome it if it meant there was a fairer system where the honest weren't getting hockeyed to pay for the evaders.



So you want Revenue staff to scrutinise every claim for medical expenses, and every bank statement. What else should they look at, since their 5,700 staff are obviously doing nothing at the moment...?

Hint: The reason they can't / don't examine everything is the same reason there isn't a Garda with a speed gun every half mile on the road.


----------



## dub_nerd (10 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> I can't imagine anyone on here would do it as easily as they are suggesting. If it was a stranger maybe but not a close friend.


On the contrary, I actively break off friendships with people I know who don't have their tax affairs in order. Why would I be friends with someone who thinks it's ok to rob me blind? With others, where I only have suspicions I have warned them not to discuss their tax situation with me, because I would be compelled to report them. I have zero time for cheats, and I certainly don't befriend them. I observe a personal zero tolerance approach to tax evasion.

I also try to use persuasion to get acquaintances to regularise things. With a previous employer who tried to rope me into mutually beneficial tax evasion, I demanded -- at considerable  risk to my own livelihood -- that he put his house in order if he wanted me as an employee. 



pAnTs said:


> We all know people who go around breaking the law in some  minor way whether it be unpaid car tax or an unpaid TV licence and we  don't go ringing the fraud squad even though the principal is the same.



Generally it's because of lack of conclusive evidence.


----------



## pAnTs (10 Sep 2014)

Mandelbrot Ye I expect them to supervise health expenses!! It's not that crazy an idea.


----------



## pAnTs (10 Sep 2014)

Dub_nerd fair play to you. And I've been friends with this person since I was a child so I don't go round making a habit of befriending tax cheats either.


----------



## mandelbrot (10 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> Mandelbrot Ye I expect them to supervise health expenses!! It's not that crazy an idea.


 
Yet again, HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY DON'T?!

Just because some people get away with things (for a while at least), and just because your medical expenses claims haven't been queried, you think they don't "supervise" things?!

They scrutinised over 626,000 returns/claims last year, ranging from medical expenses claims right up to fully comprehensive audits - have a look here [broken link removed] - checking a medical expense claim would fall into the category of assurance checking. There were 355,000 of these which yielded 19.6m to the exchequer - that's €56 on average; if you dug down into that you'd probably see that the majority of cases checked had no issues and the 19.6m came from a small percentage of the cases examined.

If you assume that they apply some sort of risk assessment criteria before examining claims, as well as a certain number at random, then they probably can't expect to even aferage €56 per additional assurance check (since they should have checked the riskiest ones first) - if anything, and if the risk assessment functions properly, this average amount will fall as the number of checks increases. But there is an opportunity cost as staff have to be diverted from something else to do the additional checks. So the amount of the sort of checking you're talking about that they can do, boils down to cost vs benefit at some point.


----------



## pAnTs (14 Sep 2014)

So basically what your saying is for one section of the population they're going to crucify you and for another we'll trust you are paying your fair share? Not fair. A better system needs to be employed. I don't really care how it's done but me paying €20,000 in income tax alone while someone else earning the same as me and on a similar salary pays €300 per year is just not acceptable in this day and age. It's not my responsibility to come up with the answers or a system but it's clear to see the current system is not working.


----------



## mandelbrot (14 Sep 2014)

Well your attitude is very childlike and simplistic. This is the real world. There's not much difference between that, and me saying in this day and age no-one should be able to exceed the speed limit, or drink drive, because it is technically possible to install devices in every vehicle that could ensure every offence is caught.

To employ the wonder system you talk about or the driving policing system I am, so as to catch 100% of offenders in real time, would cost so much money and require so much resources, that you'd be paying a lot more than you currently are.

I reiterate what I've been saying all along - yes you may be paying more tax right now, than this person, but that doesn't mean they won't get a letter in the post tomorrow, or next week, or next month, or next year, that will have very serious consequences for them.


----------



## serotoninsid (14 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> So basically what your saying is for one section of the population they're going to crucify you and for another we'll trust you are paying your fair share? Not fair. A better system needs to be employed.


They may be getting away with it today, but who's to say they don't get caught - and you forget that if they do get caught, they will end up paying a hell of a lot more in tax than you ever have!  In the event of that happening, whats the chances that your friend won't be as forthcoming in letting you know the bad news?

In your OP, you cite an example where you yourself admit you weren't tax compliant. On the back of that, how is it equitable to complain about others?  


You also make the comparison between a self employed scenario and PAYE. There's ups n downs to both scenarios.  If you're self employed, you don't have much in the way of a safety net if the worst happens.  Sure, there are certain advantages.  If those advantages are so extreme, then there's nothing stopping you pursuing the same.  However, not everybody does - presumably because it's not necessarily always so easy....


----------



## pAnTs (15 Sep 2014)

Because we weren't tax compliant out of error. We misunderstood second home tax as being a tax on a second owned home not one rented and one owned. It was an error not tax evasion. Judging by the amount of tax fraud, dole fraud etc I wouldn't holds breath that much will be happening to this person. I genuinely feel they are happy squeezing the honest dry as it's easier

Your suggestion at me pursuing a different career path at this point in my life is a good one  but taking into consideration all the years I've spent building up my skill base the idea of going back to college to retrain and start again all to avoid taxes isn't that tempting and besides I'm honest and pay what I owe.


----------



## Bronte (15 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> I mean submit them as mandatory and not just as part of an audit.


 
Revenue don't want any documentation, none, for rental income. They haven't the time to go trawl through bank statements etc. 

But this doesn't mean they are not checking. The system works on them doing both random and selected audits. Certain things trigger audits, and then there is another percentage that are random. 

When they do catch up with you, you have to show them your records, I personally know someone who made a more than 1 million settlement with revenue, and his advice to me was to keep every single scrap of paper for ever, not the 6 years revenue states. At this stage I have boxes of everything from over 20 years on rentals.

My bank statements are analysed by me and put into an excel, I also write notes on the bank statements so that if a revenue official asks me what is this lodgment of 200 Euro in 1999 for I can back it up. I'm not 100% perfect, but nobody is. If they find I've made an error in the negative, I live with the fact that it's a genuine error and no doubt they'll also find an error in my favour.

In relation to tax dodgers, I know of many cases, but I think in the landlord sector it's getting less and less easy to hide rental income, there are too many cross cheques now.  Between, PRTB, social welfare tenants, LPT, NPPR, etc.  Very very hard to hide rentals.


----------



## Protocol (15 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> Because we weren't tax compliant out of error. We misunderstood second home tax as being a tax on a second owned home not one rented and one owned.



Sloppy media and journalists used that phrase.

The Revenue or the DoF never used that language.

They always called it the NPPR tax.

It is nothing directly to do with whether the property is rented or not.

It was simply a tax on any house that you own and didn't live in.


----------



## serotoninsid (15 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> Judging by the amount of tax fraud, dole fraud etc I wouldn't holds breath that much will be happening to this person.


Are you basing this off anecdotal evidence or real tangible stats?



pAnTs said:


> Your suggestion at me pursuing a different career path at this point in my life is a good one ��


Go back and read what I wrote -as it's not this.


pAnTs said:


> ..the idea of going back to college to retrain and start again all to avoid taxes isn't that tempting and besides I'm honest and pay what I owe.


And  self employment provides some scope with regard to tax avoidance  - which is perfectly legitimate.  With regard to tax evasion, you're far less likely to have someone volunteer info in the scenario of them having to make a settlement.  Furthermore, it's likely that the person you are talking about will have to get lucky not just this tax year but every other tax year.  Lastly, if they aren't so fortunate, it's going to cost them considerably more in the long run.


----------



## pAnTs (15 Sep 2014)

In 2012 the following  was written.....It's shocks and disgusts me hugely. "In Ireland, revenue lost to the shadow economy is €7.6bn — equivalent to the total amount of cutbacks and tax increases that the Government is planning to inflict on the country over the next three years."

pretty much confirms what I was thinking all along. If there were some measures taken perhaps some of the classes sizes could have been reduced or perhaps some elderly old lady lying on a trolly up in Beaumount Hospital may have been admitted sooner? perhaps you and I may not now have to watch every penny we earn so we make it to the end of the month.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpo...aud-ignoring-issue-of-tax-evasion-198781.html


----------



## mandelbrot (15 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> In 2012 the following  was written.....It's shocks and disgusts me hugely. "In Ireland, revenue lost to the shadow economy is €7.6bn — equivalent to the total amount of cutbacks and tax increases that the Government is planning to inflict on the country over the next three years."
> 
> pretty much confirms what I was thinking all along. If there were some measures taken perhaps some of the classes sizes could have been reduced or perhaps some elderly old lady lying on a trolly up in Beaumount Hospital may have been admitted sooner? perhaps you and I may not now have to watch every penny we earn so we make it to the end of the month.
> 
> http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpo...aud-ignoring-issue-of-tax-evasion-198781.html



I'm not really sure why I'm even still bothering to try reasoning with you, but that figure for the size of our shadow economy has very little meaning without a context. The context it needs is a comparison to other developed countries. An OECD research paper from 2012 showed the size of Ireland's shadow economy was slightly below the average of the 39 countries studied. It was 16.1% of GDP with the average of all 39 countries being 18.3% - although as people always rush to point out, GNP is a more realistic indicator for Ireland, so the size of our shadow economy may actually be well below the average.

But really, yet again if the size of our shadow economy disgusts and shocks you, what you actually mean is that the behaviour of a substantial proportion of your fellow citizens shocks and disgusts you. Blaming the State for not eradicating it, is like blaming the State for not catching everyone who chooses to ignore a speed limit - it's insidious and very difficult to police effectively.

So in summary, stop being silly, cop on and realise this is the real world, and if you're that bothered stop pontificating here and anonymously use the contact details linked previously on this thread.


----------



## dub_nerd (16 Sep 2014)

mandelbrot said:


> ...as people always rush to point out, GNP is a more realistic indicator for Ireland, so the size of our shadow economy may actually be well below the average.



GNP is lower, so that would make the shadow economy _bigger_ as a fraction.

Agree with the rest though.


----------



## mandelbrot (16 Sep 2014)

dub_nerd said:


> GNP is lower, so that would make the shadow economy _bigger_ as a fraction.
> 
> Agree with the rest though.



D'oh!! Yes, of course, probably moves us from slightly better to pretty much bang on the OECD average. My point was about context, a sense of proportion, and acknowledging that just as death and taxes are certainties, so too is tax evasion.


----------



## mandelbrot (16 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> In 2012 the following  was written.....It's shocks and disgusts me hugely. "In Ireland, revenue lost to the shadow economy is €7.6bn — equivalent to the total amount of cutbacks and tax increases that the Government is planning to inflict on the country over the next three years."
> 
> pretty much confirms what I was thinking all along. If there were some measures taken perhaps some of the classes sizes could have been reduced or perhaps some elderly old lady lying on a trolly up in Beaumount Hospital may have been admitted sooner? perhaps you and I may not now have to watch every penny we earn so we make it to the end of the month.
> 
> http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpo...aud-ignoring-issue-of-tax-evasion-198781.html



Interestingly enough, that article you quoted finishes with a totally self-defeating paragraph:
"While we’re at it, perhaps we could insist on Mr Noonan making some effort to ascertain levels of tax avoidance and evasion. After all, if you don’t know the extent of a problem, then how can you credibly claim to be tackling it? It’s an area that’s worth some attention. In the ten-year period to 2009, there were 3,183 prosecutions for welfare fraud which resulted in fines of €43m — a sum which was rather dwarfed by the €2.25bn secured by Revenue investigations into tax evasion during the same period"

I'm taking from that, that you don't consider the actions taken by Revenue to identify and recover that 2.25bn as suitable "steps"?


----------



## pAnTs (17 Sep 2014)

mandelbrot said:


> I'm taking from that, that you don't consider the actions taken by Revenue to identify and recover that 2.25bn as suitable "steps"?



To be honest no I'm sick of it, I am however sick of a lot of things going on here at the moment....I genuinely am sick and tired of the completely laxed approach to breaking the law here in this country. The three convicted men, who each have between eight and 69 previous convictions, including convictions for violent disorder, who had never been sent to prison before......the guy who was on the TV3 documentary on dole fraud boasting about his second property and numerous holidays......the government computer systems that "don't talk to each other" I mean for flip sake.....what is going on here?? I'm so annoyed when I think of paying tax at the higher rate over thirty something grand....it's a complete joke. This country is not helping the middle income earner and at the moment I am lucky to make it to the end of the month. When I see this "oh well that's just the way the cookie crumbles" attitude I think what???? there HAS to be a way, I'm an ordinary citizen...I don't know about GNP GDP etc but I do know that if everyone paid their fair share I would feel a lot happier and far more content.


----------



## mandelbrot (17 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> there HAS to be a way, I'm an ordinary citizen...I don't know about GNP GDP etc but I do know that if everyone paid their fair share I would feel a lot happier and far more content.


 
So basically, you're upset because the world isn't perfect.

Seriously, are you a grown up, or a secondary school student?!


----------



## mandelbrot (17 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> To be honest no I'm sick of it, I am however sick of a lot of things going on here at the moment....


 
Sorry to harp on a point, but this is what I take issue with, and the point that you seem unable to come to terms with - I've pointed out to you that in respect of the things you're complaining about here, we're no worse than other developed countries.

I'm not saying we shouldn't aspire to keep improving, but to be endlesly whingeing the way you are on this thread, without being willing to do anything yourself (i.e. use the confidential reporting mechanism provided) or add anything constructive other than "the computers need to talk to each other (coz I'm sure no-one has thought of that either! ) serves no purpose.


----------



## dub_nerd (18 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> This country is not helping the middle income earner and at the moment I am lucky to make it to the end of the month. When I see this "oh well that's just the way the cookie crumbles" attitude I think what???? there HAS to be a way, I'm an ordinary citizen...I don't know about GNP GDP etc but I do know that if everyone paid their fair share I would feel a lot happier and far more content.



If everyone paid their fair share you'd be paying a lot more. The higher income earners pay a hugely disproportionate share of income tax. A couple of years ago I noticed I was earning about five or six times the average wage, but paying about fifteen times as much as an average wage earner in tax. Like you, I decided I'd be far happier if everyone paid their share. It was one reason (admittedly not the most important) that I quit my job. Now Ireland Inc gets to find fifteen middle income earners to replace my tax -- you're welcome.


----------



## mandelbrot (18 Sep 2014)

dub_nerd said:


> If everyone paid their fair share you'd be paying a lot more. The higher income earners pay a hugely disproportionate share of income tax. A couple of years ago I noticed I was earning about five or six times the average wage, but paying about fifteen times as much as an average wage earner in tax. Like you, I decided I'd be far happier if everyone paid their share. It was one reason (admittedly not the most important) that I quit my job. Now Ireland Inc gets to find fifteen middle income earners to replace my tax -- you're welcome.



Huh? So your idea of "fair share" is that everyone would pay the same rate of tax? I'd have thought most people would think a progressive system is more "fair" as those who can afford to pay a greater proportion of their income do so. 

A single PAYE worker earning 30k will pay about 4,150 between tax & USC.
A single PAYE worker earning 150k will pay about 61k between tax & USC.

Within the PAYE system you pay the same marginal rate on income from 32k upwards, so at 150k you aren't being gouged on your incremental income, any more than the pleb earning slightly more than avg industrial wage.

How far would you extend the logic you've applied above? If Ireland was the third world and the average wage was a subsistence wage and therefore not taxed to any extent, and you were in the fortunate position of earning substantially more than a subsistence wage and therefore taxed infinitely more, would you like to swap places with a subsistence worker so you could bask in an impoverished sense of tax free wellbeing?!


----------



## dub_nerd (18 Sep 2014)

mandelbrot said:


> Huh? So your idea of "fair share" is that everyone would pay the same rate of tax?



I didn't say that. 



mandelbrot said:


> I'd have thought most people  would think a progressive system is more "fair" as those who can afford  to pay a greater proportion of their income do so.



Sure, but there are degrees of progressiveness, and one must be chosen. How progressive is _too_ progressive? At the moment, someone on 200k+ will not only pay about fifteen times the _amount_ of tax of someone on the threshold of the higher rate tax band, but they will pay more than three times the _percentage_. For me, paying 52% on the large majority of my income was a disincentive to working a very demanding job.



mandelbrot said:


> How far would you extend the logic you've applied above? If Ireland was  the third world and the average wage was a subsistence wage and  therefore not taxed to any extent, and you were in the fortunate  position of earning substantially more than a subsistence wage and  therefore taxed infinitely more, would you like to swap places with a  subsistence worker so you could bask in an impoverished sense of tax  free wellbeing?!



Fortunately that wasn't the choice facing me. The choice was to do a far less demanding (or more rewarding) job for less money or, indeed, just not work and do whatever I liked. Since my job was funded by FDI and I wasn't replaced, my tax contribution was totally lost to the State. I'm less greedy than the State, so I'm happy to go and do something else. In fact, leaving the rat race altogether has been far more rewarding than working six months of the year "for the man".


----------



## pAnTs (20 Sep 2014)

Am I a grown up? So having a problem with systems that aren't working is being childish? Are you for real?? Like seriously what are you advocating here? Like you think everything's working fine and up to scratch? I hope to god you're not in a position of power within any of these organisations. Let's leave it so it's all working fine, no need for reform.


----------



## pAnTs (20 Sep 2014)

mandelbrot said:


> Sorry to harp on a point, but this is what I take issue with, and the point that you seem unable to come to terms with - I've pointed out to you that in respect of the things you're complaining about here, we're no worse than other developed countries.
> 
> I'm not saying we shouldn't aspire to keep improving, but to be endlesly whingeing the way you are on this thread, without being willing to do anything yourself (i.e. use the confidential reporting mechanism provided) or add anything constructive other than "the computers need to talk to each other (coz I'm sure no-one has thought of that either! ) serves no purpose.



So remind me is this forum called "letting off steam"????  As I said it's not my job to come up with the answers. My profession and expertise are not in this area so what possible answers am I going to have. I expect the people that are paid to do these jobs to come up with the solutions.


----------



## pAnTs (20 Sep 2014)

dub_nerd said:


> If everyone paid their fair share you'd be paying a lot more. The higher income earners pay a hugely disproportionate share of income tax. A couple of years ago I noticed I was earning about five or six times the average wage, but paying about fifteen times as much as an average wage earner in tax. Like you, I decided I'd be far happier if everyone paid their share. It was one reason (admittedly not the most important) that I quit my job. Now Ireland Inc gets to find fifteen middle income earners to replace my tax -- you're welcome.



Paying their fair share is paying the correct amount of tax you are obliged to pay. If you don't think it's fair that you pay more tax that's something different. I expect people to pay the correct amount of tax no more no less. Honesty is really all I'm suggesting and when people are dishonest, which inevitably they will be, an adequate system to catch the dishonest. Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. I'm amazed you're so happy with the status quo you see no room for improvement. Ah sure it's grand.


----------



## pAnTs (20 Sep 2014)

mandelbrot said:


> So basically, you're upset because the world isn't perfect.
> 
> Seriously, are you a grown up, or a secondary school student?!



I'm upset because the systems are inadequate. Your patronising and condescending replies don't offer anything constructive  in my humble opinion.


----------



## mandelbrot (21 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> Am I a grown up? So having a problem with systems that aren't working is being childish? Are you for real?? Like seriously what are you advocating here? Like you think everything's working fine and up to scratch? I hope to god you're not in a position of power within any of these organisations. Let's leave it so it's all working fine, no need for reform.



I am calling you childish because your comments here show no recognition of relativity - Ireland's systems aren't substantially better or worse than other developed countries. Hence I told you the world is not perfect, people aren't perfect, and you appear to have childishly unreasonable expectations.

At this stage you're just coming back every couple of days to vent your spleen again.

I'm not saying I think everything is perfect or that there's no room for improvement, but I'm a realist.

Can you at least acknowledge that you understand that it is not practical to have a "system" that can catch all tax evasion or welfare fraud? Any more than it's possible to catch every speeder or shoplifter, and since you have to employ people to try to tackle these issues, at a certain point the cost becomes greater than the additional benefit to society - do you understand this is the case, in the real world? 

Do you agree or disagree that, fundamentally, the problem isn't "systems" but dishonest people?


----------



## mandelbrot (21 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> I'm upset because the systems are inadequate. Your patronising and condescending replies don't offer anything constructive  in my humble opinion.



Your giving out and complaining - from a position of apparent ignorance in a way that indicates little appreciation of the real world, the cost of implementing "systems", and the requirement to balance people's civil rights with the state's need to gather and utilise information - offers nothing constructive, and that is a fact.


----------



## mandelbrot (21 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> So remind me is this forum called "letting off steam"????  As I said it's not my job to come up with the answers. My profession and expertise are not in this area so what possible answers am I going to have. I expect the people that are paid to do these jobs to come up with the solutions.



Well you seem to be the one who wants to let off steam here..!

You've been told repeatedly that such are the information sources available nowadays that it is a question of when, not if, your friend is caught. But that doesn't seem good enough for you, why is that?


----------



## serotoninsid (21 Sep 2014)

What mandelbrot said.


There's a place for this => 1850 715 815


----------



## dub_nerd (21 Sep 2014)

pAnTs said:


> Paying their fair share is paying the correct amount of tax you are obliged to pay. If you don't think it's fair that you pay more tax that's something different. I expect people to pay the correct amount of tax no more no less. Honesty is really all I'm suggesting and when people are dishonest, which inevitably they will be, an adequate system to catch the dishonest. Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. I'm amazed you're so happy with the status quo you see no room for improvement. Ah sure it's grand.



You are being incredibly inconsistent here. Be sure to let me know when you come up with the foolproof system that is going to catch every tax defaulter without you having to lift a finger to report the cases of fraud you know about. Revenue's confidential line *is* part of the current system -- the one you're not prepared to use. In the meantime, I'm _not_ standing for the status quo -- I stand ready to report anyone who tries to rip us all off, and I promote tax compliance in my own circle by telling people about the virtues of contributing their rightful share... and that I'll report them if they don't. 

Are you completely blind to the Irish societal context in all of this? Not too many years ago it was commonplace to drink and drive here. Today I know very few people who would do it -- not because of stricter enforcement, although that played a role in changing attitudes -- but because nobody thinks it's "cool" anymore or would tolerate their neighbours doing it. We are seeing a sea-change in attitudes to other things at the moment: the nod and wink attitude to penalty points and other misdemeanours that can be "disappeared" by knowing the right person in authority. Tax compliance is one of the things we need more of a focus on ... starting with people like you feeling _vindicated_ instead of _guilty_ when you report your cheating scumbag "friend" to Revenue. I presume you would agree that it is only misplaced guilt that stops you doing it, as opposed to any noble motive.


----------

