Property Tax, it's only a matter of time

J

JEON50

Registered User
Messages
237
At long last a proprerty tax, 5 years to late. We need to raise tax, thats all agreed, but negatative equity, social welfare would be included by present goverment and FG but excluded by Labour.

Yes we need to raise money, i notice the 12.5% companies tax system is not working any more, investment is more interestested to lower labour rates.

So why not tax these non investment companies Pfizer, Intel, IBM at the European average, they are investing in Eastern Europe and China. Let this pay the property tax. If intel Invest 500md$ in ireland they should be supported by goverment 100% (Intel only as example)
 
I'm struggling to fully understand your point but....if we increase corporation tax to the European average, we will more or less instantly see an exodus of those companies you mention and every other multinational in the country - we'll all be living in tents so won't need a property tax.
 
JEON50 said:
At long last a proprerty tax, 5 years to late. We need to raise tax, thats all agreed, ....
Click to expand...

No, not agreed. We need to reduce spending to meet income. The McCarthy report went some way towards identifying government departments that should be abandoned in order to reduce expenditure. None of these recommendations were even entertained.
Here are some departments of governemtn that I believe have no justification for existence:
1) Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs
2) Enterprise, Trade and Innovation
3) Heritage and Local Government
4) Social Protection
5) Tourism, Culture and Sport

I'm not sure what the total budgets are for these departments, but I'm sure it will go a long way towards plugging the hole in public finances.

I think a property tax will eventually resurface as this (or a future) government becomes ever more desparate.
 
Any tax, whereby the amount paid depends on something as subjective and variable as house prices, and where a lot of expensive and time consuming administrative work needs to be done to levy it i.e. valuing every house in Ireland, will be a failure. It will be inefficient and open to abuse.
 
A lot of taxes are open to abuse so thats not a reason for not implementing it.

You may not have to value every house individually, it could be self delcared based on the size of the house, it could be based on site values, it could be based on address etc.
 
Does any one know what is the story with this new property tax for those who have paid stamp duty? I have paid 23,000 on stamp duty and my house done by 50%. Thanks,
 
I think everyone should calm down a bit.

There is no new property tax.

As of now, it's only a rumour.
 
Firefly said:
I'm all for property tax...where do I claim back the stamp duty I paid?
Click to expand...

When they increased car tax rates (for pre 2008 regs) and increased taxes on petrol do you go and look for a refund of the tax you paid in buying your car?
 
dereko1969 said:
Whatever about the rest how can you include Social Protection in there?
Click to expand...

I don't want to veer off topic here too much, biut here some reasons:
1) benefit of the department assumes that taking €X (department budget) out of the productive economy through taxation, is more benefitial than leaving that amount of money in the productive economy for reinvestment.
2) the departments mission statement is so wishy-washy that they could pretty much do anything and use this statement as justification ("Our Mission is to promote a caring society through income and other support services, enabling active participation in society, promoting social inclusion and supporting families.")
3) It is failures of other departments that gives rise to this department. If people (regardless of wealth) were educated well enough from a young age on economics, the need for savings and how higher paying wages can be achieved, then the need for wellfare would be far, far lower.


Back to the topic. I believe property rates are a better form of taxation than stam duty as they provide a continuous stream of income to pay for local services. Given the state of public finances however, I do not believe that one will replace the other.
 
that's just rubbish, so everyone who's been laid off in the past year or two should've saved enough money not to need to claim the dole? or gotten higher paid jobs in the first place by getting a better education? how would they have paid for that education?
 
dereko1969 said:
that's just rubbish, so everyone who's been laid off in the past year or two should've saved enough money not to need to claim the dole?
Click to expand...
yes, people should have rainy day funds and/or insurance based products that cover unemployment. We should not have a pay as you go wellfare system that cannot be sustained in times of high claims.

dereko1969 said:
or gotten higher paid jobs in the first place by getting a better education?
Click to expand...
No, you don't have to get a better paying job if you are happy with what you earn in un/low-skilled work. But earning high wages generally comes through better education or entrpreneurial skills and hard work.

dereko1969 said:
how would they have paid for that education?
Click to expand...
There are plenty of people that finance their own way through college. From own experience I know how tough it is, but if you are not willing to put in the time and effort you should not expect to improve your financial state.
 
Are there any taxes you approve of? Or are you a 'no such thing as society' milton friedman/thatcherite/monetarist?

Anyway this is way off topic, but you do realise that the lack of financial regulation espoused by Friedman and his ilk is what led to the current sorry state of affairs?
 
aristotle said:
Its far from a rumour. Everyone knows its coming in over the next year or so.
Click to expand...

Agreed...as for ppl who've paid stamp duty they'll prob just get some kind of relief from it. Its the only way to deal with the property 'problem in this country a regular property tax really.
 
aristotle said:
When they increased car tax rates (for pre 2008 regs) and increased taxes on petrol do you go and look for a refund of the tax you paid in buying your car?
Click to expand...

My post was a bit tongue-in-cheek. However, the tax paid when buying a car is included in the price and it partially recovered when you sell the car on. Stamp Duty is the same as burning the money in a fire (without the heat).
 
queenlex said:
Agreed...as for ppl who've paid stamp duty they'll prob just get some kind of relief from it. Its the only way to deal with the property 'problem in this country a regular property tax really.
Click to expand...
I very much doubt that anyone will get relief, but that it will rather be introduced as an additional tax, and will affect future buyers the same way as past buyers. Given the state of public finances and the way the suggestion was made in the McCarthy report, I believe that the tax will not replace stamp duty.


dereko1969 said:
Are there any taxes you approve of? Or are you a 'no such thing as society' milton friedman/thatcherite/monetarist?
Click to expand...
I believe that the governments budget should be less than half of what it is now, which menas that taxation should be far less as well. Further I believe that society would be better off if people took more responsibility for their current and future well being, rather than looking for some great protector.

dereko1969 said:
Anyway this is way off topic, but you do realise that the lack of financial regulation espoused by Friedman and his ilk is what led to the current sorry state of affairs?
Click to expand...
No, this is not true. It is government interventions and regulations that are the cause of the current mess. If there were less stringent regulations it would be possible for new small financial companies to be formed and compete with large existing financial institutions, making us less dependent on a few companies. If governments and central banks were not lenders of last resort, corporations would be far more fearful of insolvency and bankruptcy. Instead you have a situation where large companies can flip a coin and say "heads I win, tails I break even". It is this moral hazard that is one cause of the mess, not some mysterious lack of regulation. The best regulation you can have is bankruptcy. Too much money was lent to people that should not have been given loans. But where do banks get the money from in the first place and why were interest rates so low? The answer: central banks controlled by governments. This is where the blame ultimately lies.
 
I'm with Chris on minimal government and regulation.
Lack of competence by politicians, regulators and, above all, senior civil servants meant that the legal structures around white collar crime are a joke and nobody can be held to account.
If banks were allowed to go bust (and knew that there would be no bail-out) and the senior management and board were staring at 15-30 years in prison for their gross incompetence and, in my opinion, reckless (and feckless) trading they may not have been so gung-ho over the last 10 years.

Property tax; yes, it’s a good idea but it should have been introduced the day we lost control over out interest rates.
 
Chris said:
yes, people should have rainy day funds and/or insurance based products that cover unemployment. We should not have a pay as you go wellfare system that cannot be sustained in times of high claims.


No, you don't have to get a better paying job if you are happy with what you earn in un/low-skilled work. But earning high wages generally comes through better education or entrpreneurial skills and hard work.


There are plenty of people that finance their own way through college. From own experience I know how tough it is, but if you are not willing to put in the time and effort you should not expect to improve your financial state.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this opinion is so detached from reality it is frightening. You are basically saying that everybody in this country can be whatever they want, do whatever they want and earn whatever they want, and that there are no real barriers. If you don't earn enough to save and have a slush fund to meet the cost of losing your job, that is your fault and you should starve. If you are an unskilled labourer and lose your job you should have upskilled and got a better one. If you are widowed and must stop work to take care of your children you should have thought of that before having them in the first place. Etc.

We have a social responsibility as a nation to take care of all of our citizens. There are people living here who start off at such a disadvantage that, sadly, the chance of attaining economic success is remote. You can cite examples where people have risen above terrible circumstances to great heights but these cases are by far the exception. To say that the other people are lazy or just don't understand the economics of saving is laughable. They need support to get further education, jobs or just plain financial support to get food and shelter. Try explaining the necessity of "rainy day funds and insurance products" to a lone parent having porridge for dinner after buying schoolbooks for his/her kids. It is opinions such as these that have kept the poorest people of Ireland square in the gutter for generations. I'm by no means a bleeding heart liberal but I think that the standard of living of the less well off in Ireland should make us all feel ashamed.

On a side note the vulnerable people in our society on low incomes are the people who take the lowest paid jobs. Maybe it suits us to keep them unskilled and lowly paid to get these jobs done. Maybe that will keep our costs down and keep our economy competitive. Maybe when they break we can just replace them and let them starve. Maybe that is a country where equality is fundamental. Maybe that's a country worth living in. Or maybe not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top