You haven't thought this stuff through.This is a tax on non-residences. If you have the resources to have/own/keep a 2nd property, then you have the resources to pay the tax on it.
You haven't thought this stuff through.
You are liable for the NPPR if you bought into a boom time estate in Carrick on Shannon and now find yourself in massive negative equity, forced to move elsewhere for lower paid work to service the mortgage and renting a room in a house somewhere.
This person (and there are many of them by the way) is fully liable for the NPPR on their "2nd property" which they CANNOT sell and possibly CANNOT find a tenant for!
Sorry to hear about your family situation. I'm sure it is very difficult.
If the penalties are low, Revenue will be left to the bottom of the list of things to sort out. If the penalties are high, Revenue will jump to the top of the list of things to sort out.
Revenue didnt collect the NPPR, councils did.
Revenue do collect the property tax, those penalties are lower (or none luckily in my brother's case), so in my view amethyst's and others' point stands that the NPPR penalties are not proportionate to the fee or to other penalties for late payment of fees.
I think at this point rainyday you must accept that there is a valid question here that there is no satisfactory answer for.
You tell me. You are the one suggesting that merely being liable for the NPPR suggests that a person has the means to pay it. I was just pointing out the error in your logic. Being liable to the NPPR indicates nothing about a person's ability to pay the tax.What's that got to do with size of penalties for non-payment?
My point stands, regardless of who is responsible for collecting it. If the penalty is light, the State will be left swinging in the wind by many. If the penalty is heavy, the State won't be left swinging in the wind by many.Revenue didnt collect the NPPR, councils did.
Revenue do collect the property tax, those penalties are lower (or none luckily in my brother's case), so in my view amethyst's and others' point stands that the NPPR penalties are not proportionate to the fee or to other penalties for late payment of fees.
I think at this point rainyday you must accept that there is a valid question here that there is no satisfactory answer for.
If somebody has an asset, they have some income from that asset. There is a rental market for every property, if it is pitched at the right level. If they have income, they can pay the tax. If their mortgage exceeds the rental, then if the choose to pay the bank first (improving their own net worth in the process) then the State is left swinging in the wind. If the penalty is high, they will put the State first.You tell me. You are the one suggesting that merely being liable for the NPPR suggests that a person has the means to pay it. I was just pointing out the error in your logic. Being liable to the NPPR indicates nothing about a person's ability to pay the tax.
You took the position that because a liable person "[has] the resources to have/own/keep a 2nd property, then you have the resources to pay the tax on it." and I believe that statement to be false in many cases. Do you still contend that being liable for the NPPR indicates that you by extension have the means to pay it?
Is there any chance that we could stick to discussing realistic situations and not plucking ridiculous hypothetical scenarios out of the air?RainyDay has not conceded that if someone paid a year late due to Alzheimer's being involved, and penalties were 120,000% leading to complete loss of the property, that there would be injustice.
A property in negative equity it is a liability, not an asset ;-)If somebody has an asset, they have some income from that asset.
So you believe not that the NPPR penalties are too high, but rather that the penalties for non-compliance wrt other taxes are too low? This is the only logical conclusion from your argument as presented.There is a rental market for every property, if it is pitched at the right level. If they have income, they can pay the tax. If their mortgage exceeds the rental, then if the choose to pay the bank first (improving their own net worth in the process) then the State is left swinging in the wind. If the penalty is high, they will put the State first.
The guy who lives next door in his own home and doesn't own any other residential property and thus has never even heard of the NPPR ;-)So again, tell me about the property owned by the person with Alzheimer's - who is paying the ESB bill? who is insuring the property? who is fixing the water leak?
So if there really is an untenantable negative equity property out there, then the owner needs to get that situation sorted, whether through bankruptcy or whatever. The NPPR isn't material in that overall situation.A property in negative equity it is a liability, not an asset ;-)
By the way, some property in Ireland in 2013 really is not tenant-able as there are no jobs in the area and people, including the previous occupant and owner have simply left to find work somewhere with better prospects.
That isn't a logical conclusion. That is an illogical, exaggerated, provocative, trolling conclusion.So you believe not that the NPPR penalties are too high, but rather that the penalties for non-compliance wrt other taxes are too low? This is the only logical conclusion from your argument as presented.
I'm not quite sure how a neighbour ends up paying somebody's house insurance, so it doesn't seem like a very realistic scenario, but here goes. OK, so the guy next door doesn't have any skin in the game. The neighbour doesn't really care whether the value of the property is eaten up by charges and penalties.The guy who lives next door in his own home and doesn't own any other residential property and thus has never even heard of the NPPR ;-)
The tax is fair, the penalty is not.
That is the point of this thread-everything else (reason for late payment etc) is moot.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?