Cyprus-Forum.com

[Jerry]

People usually sell a house and buy another with a view to improving their lives or changing jobs. I don't know what expenses are involved in selling in the north but someone moving house will have less than 60% - 70% of the sale price with which to buy. Consequently the only time these properties would come on the market would be when the occupier passes away and that could involve further complications if the property is occupied by other generations of the family. If the property is willed to other family members living there would the tax be payable? Your situation may be straightforward, I doubt many others are.

It really is not that complicated. I bought a property on land that was disputed. It was cheaper than if it had been on land that was not disputed. I estimate in the region of 20% cheaper but lets say it was 30% to keep things simple. If I want to sell it for whatever reason, then if I sell it as is (disputed) I will get X. If I sell it as undisputed at X + 30% and have to pay a 30% sales tax , I am left with X. My ability therefore to be able to afford to sell my house is unchanged , with or without the sales tax. It makes no difference. Of course the tax would pass down generations until it is paid and this represents no problem at all. If the state has borrowed money in lieu of the tax being paid, in order to pay out compensation before it is paid, then any cost of this state borrowing will be offset by natural increase in property value over time. Sometimes it does feel like you are looking for excuses as to why such things could not work ?

Your last sentence is clutching at spanners, a component state implies that there has been agreement so of course you would be recognised as undisputed freeholder.

I assumed we were talking about this proposed 'tax' under either senario - with a settlement or without. If the TRNC was to introduce such a thing before a settlement. do you think the RoC would recognise the undisputed ownership of current users where the pre 74 owner had been compensated by the IPC (70%) and the current user (30%) or not ? Does it recognise such today where the compensation paid has all come from the IPC ?

Not excuses, I'm being realistic. So, you have sold your house and have 70% or less than to buy another. Usually people expect to sell and move "up" not down. And who will fund this deferred tax, is that the same Turkey that wants to save itself 30-40% of the compensation?
The "without a settlement" scenario is of little consequence, do you care NOW if your title is recognised by the ROC, why should contributing 30% and subsequently selling concern the ROC as things stand. With regard to title the fact that compensation has been paid would obviously be taken into account in the event of a settlement.

[erolz66]

Not excuses, I'm being realistic. So, you have sold your house and have 70% or less than to buy another. Usually people expect to sell and move "up" not down. And who will fund this deferred tax, is that the same Turkey that wants to save itself 30-40% of the compensation?

OK but I still do not 'get it' Jerry and I am not trying to be obtuse - honestly. Year -5 I am wealthy enough to afford a property worth 100,000 and I do. Year +15 I am now wealthy enough to buy a property worth 500,000. In the intervening 20 years my house purchased at 100,000 has increased in value to 200,000. I sell it and put in another 300,000 and buy my new house for 500,000. Year -5 I buy a disputed property with my 100,000. Year zero the 'plan' come into effect and I am liable for 30% sales tax on sale. Year +15 I sell my property, which is worth 260,00 (because now it is no longer disputed ownership and assume 30% increase in value because of that), pay my 30% tax - left with 200,000, add in my 300,000 and I have 500,000 to buy a new house - exactly the same amount as I would have had in an undisputed scenario. I just do not see how the 'tax' in the 'plan' makes any difference ? Yes I get 30% less on sale because of the tax, but I gained 30% because of the title becoming undisputed - net difference is zero.

As to who will fund the deferred tax - a lender will fund it. What the lender gets is the 30% share of the ever increasing value of the property. The longer the property is not sold, the more the lender gets when it is sold. In the example above the lender would have lent say 35,000 (30% of the value of the property at year zero) and would have got back 60,000 in year +15. This seems entirely feasible to me ?

[Jerry]

Not excuses, I'm being realistic. So, you have sold your house and have 70% or less than to buy another. Usually people expect to sell and move "up" not down. And who will fund this deferred tax, is that the same Turkey that wants to save itself 30-40% of the compensation?

OK but I still do not 'get it' Jerry and I am not trying to be obtuse - honestly. Year -5 I am wealthy enough to afford a property worth 100,000 and I do. Year +15 I am now wealthy enough to buy a property worth 500,000. In the intervening 20 years my house purchased at 100,000 has increased in value to 200,000. I sell it and put in another 300,000 and buy my new house for 500,000. Year -5 I buy a disputed property with my 100,000. Year zero the 'plan' come into effect and I am liable for 30% sales tax on sale. Year +15 I sell my property, which is worth 260,00 (because now it is no longer disputed ownership and assume 30% increase in value because of that), pay my 30% tax - left with 200,000, add in my 300,000 and I have 500,000 to buy a new house - exactly the same amount as I would have had in an undisputed scenario. I just do not see how the 'tax' in the 'plan' makes any difference ? Yes I get 30% less on sale because of the tax, but I gained 30% because of the title becoming undisputed - net difference is zero.

As to who will fund the deferred tax - a lender will fund it. What the lender gets is the 30% share of the ever increasing value of the property. The longer the property is not sold, the more the lender gets when it is sold. In the example above the lender would have lent say 35,000 (30% of the value of the property at year zero) and would have got back 60,000 in year +15. This seems entirely feasible to me ?

In theory maybe but in practice no. It relies on the idea that paying the tax will increase the demand and hence value by same amount, it's called the elasticity of supply and demand. It would also require lenders that are more honest than the crooks who pose as bankers in Cyprus. I'm not aware of any proper bankers who would loan cash to be repaid at some undetermined time in the future. They quote interest rates and fixed dates, try your 35k compounded 15 years at 6% pa and see how much you need to repay. Even if you start at a low rate, as in UK at present, you cannot be certain of future rates. I can still recall back in the 80s when interest rates shot up from 15 to 18% in one day.

[Pyrpolizer]

Too many false assumptions here
a)Prices of real estate will rise. Who guarantees that?
b)Compensations to the GC owner will have to be paid at current prices at the occupied, and to the TC owner in the free areas at the current prices in the free areas. (Einstein Lordo's theory). The normal should be a period after a solution allowing prices to normalize
c)The owner will be FORCED to accept compensation against his will.Who will force him to accept?
d)That there will be raining money for everyone to compensate everyone.
e)That the IPC currently compensates at good prices. Not at all. It compensates at about 1/5th of the price of equivalent properties in the free areas.That's why only desperate people apply

In a nutshell TCs, settlers, and carpetbaggers are going to have a huge headache regarding the GC properties they now hold and think are "disputed". Same thing happened in East Germany and guess what happened 70 years later. No even one crook got away.

[Lordo]

you can wait a tousand years if you like but the price difference between limasol larnaka and baf tc lands and mesarga and karpaz gc lands will not change. the only one that may change is girne but will only reach the tcs prices of pre-74 tc properties which is about double.

you can twist all you like. there can only be on fair exchange and that is current prices. any gc who wishes to move north will be welcome. we will need them now that we have alf a million terrgish cousins. see how long they can last. i give em 3 days.

[erolz66]

a)Prices of real estate will rise. Who guarantees that?

Over the medium and longer term I think that is true historically is it not ?

b)Compensations to the GC owner will have to be paid at current prices at the occupied, and to the TC owner in the free areas at the current prices in the free areas. (Einstein Lordo's theory). The normal should be a period after a solution allowing prices to normalize

So you are proposing that people wait for normalisation of property price differences north to south before setting compensation values ? I am not sure how that works to be honest even if people are prepared to wait. For prices in the north to normalise there would have to be a free market in undisputed property sales would there not ? Or am I missing something ?

c)The owner will be FORCED to accept compensation against his will.Who will force him to accept?

I do not think anyone is saying that. Certainly not me. In cases where the owners wants are mutually incompatible with those of the current user, then these will be assessed on a case by case basis by the property commission. In some cases it will be the owner who is obliged to take an option that is not their preferred choice and it others it will be the current user. That is my understanding.

d)That there will be raining money for everyone to compensate everyone.

No one is saying it will be raining money but it is the case than land does not disappear and it has value. There is value in land that TC owners have 'given up' in the South. If they take alternatives for that loss as property in the North, then that land's value is available for compensation of others. Changing a current users status to freeholder does create increased value, that could be used for compensation. A settlement creates opportunities to unlock all sorts of land whose value could be used for funding compensation, from land currently part of British sovereign territory to land uses for military bases north and south. It will not be raining money but neither is it a case of x thousand GC owners lost property of y millions of value - thus this is the figure of 'compensation money' that needs to be found.

In a nutshell TCs, settlers, and carpetbaggers are going to have a huge headache regarding the GC properties they now hold and think are "disputed". Same thing happened in East Germany and guess what happened 70 years later. No even one crook got away.

So would you be advising me as a TC to vote against a settlement ? That if there is a settlement I am liable to suffer large and significant personal financial loss ? Is this your message ? Or it is perhaps your desire ? Just asking.

[DrCyprus]

In a nutshell TCs, settlers, and carpetbaggers are going to have a huge headache regarding the GC properties they now hold and think are "disputed". Same thing happened in East Germany and guess what happened 70 years later. No even one crook got away.

So would you be advising me as a TC to vote against a settlement ? That if there is a settlement I am liable to suffer large and significant personal financial loss ? Is this your message ? Or it is perhaps your desire ? Just asking.

If we follow the German model the GC will be paying solidarity tax to the TC for 100 years whilst the TC will have to cede many of the assets they hold to the Republic.

If you ask me the German model was a 'nice idea' but failed. West Germans are still paying solidarity tax and East Germany is still playing catch-up and failing.

We need to think of a better model.

[Lordo]

we have a model you stupid idiot which was signed on feb 14. you crazy bastards could not see good deal beyond your furquine noses if it was a steam train comin at you 100 miles an hour.

[Lordo]

a)Prices of real estate will rise. Who guarantees that?

Over the medium and longer term I think that is true historically is it not ?

b)Compensations to the GC owner will have to be paid at current prices at the occupied, and to the TC owner in the free areas at the current prices in the free areas. (Einstein Lordo's theory). The normal should be a period after a solution allowing prices to normalize

So you are proposing that people wait for normalisation of property price differences north to south before setting compensation values ? I am not sure how that works to be honest even if people are prepared to wait. For prices in the north to normalise there would have to be a free market in undisputed property sales would there not ? Or am I missing something ?

c)The owner will be FORCED to accept compensation against his will.Who will force him to accept?

I do not think anyone is saying that. Certainly not me. In cases where the owners wants are mutually incompatible with those of the current user, then these will be assessed on a case by case basis by the property commission. In some cases it will be the owner who is obliged to take an option that is not their preferred choice and it others it will be the current user. That is my understanding.

d)That there will be raining money for everyone to compensate everyone.

No one is saying it will be raining money but it is the case than land does not disappear and it has value. There is value in land that TC owners have 'given up' in the South. If they take alternatives for that loss as property in the North, then that land's value is available for compensation of others. Changing a current users status to freeholder does create increased value, that could be used for compensation. A settlement creates opportunities to unlock all sorts of land whose value could be used for funding compensation, from land currently part of British sovereign territory to land uses for military bases north and south. It will not be raining money but neither is it a case of x thousand GC owners lost property of y millions of value - thus this is the figure of 'compensation money' that needs to be found.

In a nutshell TCs, settlers, and carpetbaggers are going to have a huge headache regarding the GC properties they now hold and think are "disputed". Same thing happened in East Germany and guess what happened 70 years later. No even one crook got away.

So would you be advising me as a TC to vote against a settlement ? That if there is a settlement I am liable to suffer large and significant personal financial loss ? Is this your message ? Or it is perhaps your desire ? Just asking.

tcs have only to gain from a deal. so do the gcs. the rights of both gcs and tcs will be respected equally. the losers will be the settlers. what more you gc bastards want, there you are getting revenge on the old terggs and you are playing hard to get like a cheap whore. omg all of a sudden gig has popped into my head. where the hell did that come from. i need a doctor.

[Pyrpolizer]

a)Prices of real estate will rise. Who guarantees that?

Over the medium and longer term I think that is true historically is it not ?

b)Compensations to the GC owner will have to be paid at current prices at the occupied, and to the TC owner in the free areas at the current prices in the free areas. (Einstein Lordo's theory). The normal should be a period after a solution allowing prices to normalize

So you are proposing that people wait for normalisation of property price differences north to south before setting compensation values ? I am not sure how that works to be honest even if people are prepared to wait. For prices in the north to normalise there would have to be a free market in undisputed property sales would there not ? Or am I missing something ?

c)The owner will be FORCED to accept compensation against his will.Who will force him to accept?

I do not think anyone is saying that. Certainly not me. In cases where the owners wants are mutually incompatible with those of the current user, then these will be assessed on a case by case basis by the property commission. In some cases it will be the owner who is obliged to take an option that is not their preferred choice and it others it will be the current user. That is my understanding.

d)That there will be raining money for everyone to compensate everyone.

No one is saying it will be raining money but it is the case than land does not disappear and it has value. There is value in land that TC owners have 'given up' in the South. If they take alternatives for that loss as property in the North, then that land's value is available for compensation of others. Changing a current users status to freeholder does create increased value, that could be used for compensation. A settlement creates opportunities to unlock all sorts of land whose value could be used for funding compensation, from land currently part of British sovereign territory to land uses for military bases north and south. It will not be raining money but neither is it a case of x thousand GC owners lost property of y millions of value - thus this is the figure of 'compensation money' that needs to be found.

In a nutshell TCs, settlers, and carpetbaggers are going to have a huge headache regarding the GC properties they now hold and think are "disputed". Same thing happened in East Germany and guess what happened 70 years later. No even one crook got away.

So would you be advising me as a TC to vote against a settlement ? That if there is a settlement I am liable to suffer large and significant personal financial loss ? Is this your message ? Or it is perhaps your desire ? Just asking.

a)Actually it's the collapse of real estate values in the USA that triggered the International crisis.
Prices in the free areas already dropped dramatically, they will drop more after a solution. I expect prices in the occupied to rise though.
It's a matter of supply and demand. Gone are the days land kept it's value relative to inflation.

b)What I was always proposing is anyone to do as he pleases anytime he pleases. However I will not accept any property committee forcing me to exchange today/or get compensated today at today's value when I know the current value of my property is going to double in one year

c)You said it yourself: "In some cases it will be the owner who is obliged to take an option that is not their preferred choice" One of those cases could be to FORCE him take compensation against his will.
Imo no such authority should be given to any property committee (pC)instead the pC should act as a proposer and in case her proposals are not accepted, then to issue 2 separate title deeds one for the land to the owner of the land, and another for the building to the owner of the building and just set annual rents according to going market value.

d)It should be raining money, otherwise there is no way for the TCs who left behind 1/5th of properties donum-to donum, each one worth 1/4 on the average the properties they got, to ever break even. As for the settlers...

e)It's upto you what you will vote in a settlement assuming you will suffer a financial loss. Did you say you bought "disputed" property for 100K? Surely the true owner of that property won't care how much you paid to anyone. That's your problem. Assuming he will accept compensation from YOU, the 100K that you already paid is not of his concern. You should have thought of this earlier...Quite honestly I don't believe your authorities have enough TC properties to exchange to make up for cases like yours, at best you could hope that a part of the 100K you already paid will not be gone with the wind. Sorry. btw how's your case different to that of any carpetbagger??