# Property Tax, it's only a matter of time



## JEON50

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)


----------



## dereko1969

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.


----------



## Chris

JEON50 said:


> At long last a proprerty tax, 5 years to late. We need to raise tax, thats all agreed, ....



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.


----------



## dereko1969

Whatever about the rest how can you include Social Protection in there?


----------



## csirl

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.


----------



## aristotle

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.


----------



## RowanTree

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,


----------



## callybags

I think everyone should calm down a bit.

There is no new property tax.

As of now, it's only a rumour.


----------



## Firefly

I'm all for property tax...where do I claim back the stamp duty I paid?


----------



## aristotle

Its far from a rumour. Everyone knows its coming in over the next year or so.


----------



## aristotle

Firefly said:


> I'm all for property tax...where do I claim back the stamp duty I paid?


 
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?


----------



## Chris

dereko1969 said:


> Whatever about the rest how can you include Social Protection in there?



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.


----------



## dereko1969

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?


----------



## Chris

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?


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?


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?


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.


----------



## dereko1969

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?


----------



## queenlex

aristotle said:


> Its far from a rumour. Everyone knows its coming in over the next year or so.


 
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.


----------



## Firefly

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?


 
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).


----------



## Chris

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.


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?


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?


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.


----------



## Purple

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.


----------



## Gumbyman

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.


 
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.


----------



## Chris

Let me comment on your individual points, because you are misquoting what I said, putting words in my mouth and completely missing my point.


Gumbyman said:


> 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.


I never said there were no barriers, in fact I pointed to the failure of the state run education system. But instead of fixing the problem the government employs more bureaucrats with an even bigger budget, that is exacerbating the problem even more.



Gumbyman said:


> 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.


You should start saving the moment you enter the workforce, or take out an insurance to provide for the bad times.



Gumbyman said:


> If you are an unskilled labourer and lose your job you should have upskilled and got a better one.


I never said this. What I said is that if you are in unskilled work, but want to earn more money, you need to upskill, simple as that. In addition, if you are unemployed, regardless of skill, and cannot find a job in your profession, you should look into learning other skills.



Gumbyman said:


> 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.


This is utter rubbish, if you have a family you should take the responsibility and make sure they are provided for in the worst case scenario, that's what life insurance is for. The moment I found out that my wife was pregnant I went to an insurance broker.



Gumbyman said:


> 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.


This is a failure of education, especially in disadvantaged areas. Making people dependent on welfare is a solution that has failed in every developed country. There are countless examples of educational "experiments" where even the most delinquent children in disadvantaged areas have thrived in small classes. You are not going to improve people's chances of economic success through welfare dependence.



Gumbyman said:


> You can cite examples where people have risen above terrible circumstances to great heights but these cases are by far the exception.


Yes, unfortunately true, but again this is a failure of the state run education system.



Gumbyman said:


> 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.


I never said that anybody was lazy. I also didn't say that people don't understand savings. What I am saying is that people choose to not save, because there is no incentive. Young people should be made fully aware that when they enter the workforce they need to make sure they provide for a rainy day either through saving or insurance or both. Instead they know that there is social welfare and they need not worry about it.



Gumbyman said:


> 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.


As I have said this should be taught in schools, not at some later time when it is too late.



Gumbyman said:


> 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.


No, what has kept the poorest in society from getting out of poverty, is a failure of the education system, especially in disadvantaged areas, and the disincentives of the welfare system. Let's say you are on a lone parents allowance, and whatever other benefits you are entitled to. You only get the benefits if you do not work, so there is every incentive to not get a job and gradually, through experience, get better paying work. Even if you are single and on the dole, receiving €196 a week, there is no incentive to even take a minimum wage job paying €346 a week. 
Social welfare has failed just as much as education, and before I'm branded as criticizing teachers, let me say it is a failure of the system and politicians; I believe teachers are merely trying to work with what they have.


----------



## RMCF

Its not a question of 'IF' the propery tax is coming, but 'WHEN'.

As soon as the Gov can put the procedures in place to get it implemented, they will. This country is still in dire straits and they need to raise revenue asap.

Same also applies to the water rates.

Personally I am not against paying a property tax - if it helps the country out of the mess a bit then fine. However, it must be thought out properly and most of all be fair.


----------



## Purple

Gumbyman said:


> 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.




This is an argument for a different thread. To a great extent I agree with you but the people who have done most to continue educational disadvantage in this country over the last 10-15 years are the teachers. It is they who have greedily sucked up all available funding for their massive pay increases and the laughable situation where over half of them are getting paid as managers. In a finite world (and the real, non-union world is finite) stuffing all the cash into your pockets means there’s none left for lower pupil-teacher ratio’s, extra school social workers, extra special needs assistants, extra classroom assistants etc.
 The highest after tax minimum wage in the EU is also a huge barrier to entry to the labour market. By giving ourselves pay increases that were undeserved, unjustified and unsustainable (in both the private and public sector) we have created a poverty trap that will haunt us for generations. The crash in the property market is a good start in reducing that poverty trap but further decreases in wages and the cost of living and corresponding decreases in social welfare are also necessary.


----------



## Protocol

A property tax is one of the best ways to raise tax.

It is more economically efficient than other taxes.

It can't be evaded.

It is a tax on unproductive investment.

It tends to be more equitable than other taxes.

I think we should tax "bad" things like tobacco, alcohol, driving (as we alreay do), and excessive sugar, salt and fat (more new taxes).

But we should reduce tax on "good" things like jobs/labour.  So the marginal tax rates need to be cut (41% to 40%) and the income levy should be abolished.


----------



## Complainer

Chris said:


> Let me comment on your individual points, because you are misquoting what I said, putting words in my mouth and completely missing my point.
> 
> I never said there were no barriers, in fact I pointed to the failure of the state run education system. But instead of fixing the problem the government employs more bureaucrats with an even bigger budget, that is exacerbating the problem even more.
> 
> 
> You should start saving the moment you enter the workforce, or take out an insurance to provide for the bad times.
> 
> 
> I never said this. What I said is that if you are in unskilled work, but want to earn more money, you need to upskill, simple as that. In addition, if you are unemployed, regardless of skill, and cannot find a job in your profession, you should look into learning other skills.
> 
> 
> This is utter rubbish, if you have a family you should take the responsibility and make sure they are provided for in the worst case scenario, that's what life insurance is for. The moment I found out that my wife was pregnant I went to an insurance broker.
> 
> 
> This is a failure of education, especially in disadvantaged areas. Making people dependent on welfare is a solution that has failed in every developed country. There are countless examples of educational "experiments" where even the most delinquent children in disadvantaged areas have thrived in small classes. You are not going to improve people's chances of economic success through welfare dependence.
> 
> 
> Yes, unfortunately true, but again this is a failure of the state run education system.
> 
> 
> I never said that anybody was lazy. I also didn't say that people don't understand savings. What I am saying is that people choose to not save, because there is no incentive. Young people should be made fully aware that when they enter the workforce they need to make sure they provide for a rainy day either through saving or insurance or both. Instead they know that there is social welfare and they need not worry about it.
> 
> 
> As I have said this should be taught in schools, not at some later time when it is too late.
> 
> 
> No, what has kept the poorest in society from getting out of poverty, is a failure of the education system, especially in disadvantaged areas, and the disincentives of the welfare system. Let's say you are on a lone parents allowance, and whatever other benefits you are entitled to. You only get the benefits if you do not work, so there is every incentive to not get a job and gradually, through experience, get better paying work. Even if you are single and on the dole, receiving €196 a week, there is no incentive to even take a minimum wage job paying €346 a week.
> Social welfare has failed just as much as education, and before I'm branded as criticizing teachers, let me say it is a failure of the system and politicians; I believe teachers are merely trying to work with what they have.


Chris, would you like to point to anywhere else in the world where your interesting ideas have worked?


----------



## dereko1969

I'm sure Chris would then be in favour of a massive increase in inheritance tax so that those who are born to wealth don't have a massive advantage over those that have earned it themselves and have taken Chris' life lessons to heart?


----------



## csirl

Protocol said:


> A property tax is one of the best ways to raise tax.
> 
> It is more economically efficient than other taxes.
> 
> It can't be evaded.
> 
> It is a tax on unproductive investment.
> 
> It tends to be more equitable than other taxes.
> 
> I think we should tax "bad" things like tobacco, alcohol, driving (as we alreay do), and excessive sugar, salt and fat (more new taxes).
> 
> But we should reduce tax on "good" things like jobs/labour. So the marginal tax rates need to be cut (41% to 40%) and the income levy should be abolished.


 
Not sure about some of the above. House valuations are very subjective. You dont really know the real price unless you actually sell. My guess is that there will be a lot of people undervaluing their homes.


----------



## Protocol

One suggestion is a Site Value Tax (not a buildings tax, only on the site value)

http://www.feasta.org/documents/landhousing/ppleaflet.pdf

http://smarttaxes.org/documents/macroeconomic-impact-of-a-land-value-tax-c-gurdgiev/ 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

http://www.feasta.org/documents/landhousing/coritax.html


----------



## Protocol

A UK proposal for Land Value tax, or site value tax:

http://www.landvaluetax.org/


----------



## col

It would be unfair to have a full property tax on a person who has already paid stamp duty which is a property tax upfront. Most older households have not paid any stamp duty or very little.However a property tax is needed going forward so a system will need to be worked out that compensates the people who have paid their stamp duty. Perhaps a 50% reduction per year on the valuation until it balances.


----------



## Protocol

csirl said:


> Not sure about some of the above. House valuations are very subjective. You dont really know the real price unless you actually sell. My guess is that there will be a lot of people undervaluing their homes.


 
Difficulties with valuations is an issue / problem, but not an argument against an SVT.


----------



## Protocol

Another point: landowners currently capture a lot of the gain in site value caused by public investment.  They have not earned this gain, yet they receive most of it.

New zoning, new roads, new railway stations, new water pipes, etc. all enhance site values, and thus enrich landowners.  Public costs, private benefits.

One way to deal with this is levying new house builders, or asking them to contribute to new infrastructure.  Or else charge CGT on the land sales.

A site-value tax would help here.

Also, derelict property - at the moment no holding cost.  With a property tax, the owners have an incentive to develop.


----------



## Protocol

*Macroeconomic Case for a Land Value Tax Reform in Ireland

http://smarttaxes.org/wp-content/up...mic-impact-of-a-land-value-tax-c-gurdgiev.pdf


*


----------



## Complainer

Protocol said:


> Another point: landowners currently capture a lot of the gain in site value caused by public investment.  They have not earned this gain, yet they receive most of it.
> 
> New zoning, new roads, new railway stations, new water pipes, etc. all enhance site values, and thus enrich landowners.  Public costs, private benefits.
> 
> One way to deal with this is levying new house builders, or asking them to contribute to new infrastructure.  Or else charge CGT on the land sales.
> 
> A site-value tax would help here.


The real solution to this was provided by the Kenny report in 1974. It has been quietly ignored by every Government since then - don't want to upset those nice landowners now.

http://www.irishleftreview.org/2009/06/10/kenny-report-1974/


----------



## Howitzer

col said:


> It would be unfair to have a full property tax on a person who has already paid stamp duty which is a property tax upfront. Most older households have not paid any stamp duty or very little.However a property tax is needed going forward so a system will need to be worked out that compensates the people who have paid their stamp duty. Perhaps a 50% reduction per year on the valuation until it balances.


Re, stamp duty: "It's not fair - I already paid tax". Well let's just take a step back in time. 

During the boom Stamp Duty acted as a break on house prices. The price paid reflected the stamp duty required to complete the transaction. When bands were raised prices increased INSTANTLY to the new bracket.

As such, Stamp Duty was not a tax on the buyer, but the seller. Ok, the buyer paid it, but if the tax wasn't there that money would have went to the seller instead - they should be the one's complaining "I sold my showbox apartment in 2006 for 500K, but I should have got 550K. Where's my NAMA?". The only issue for the buyer was that stamp duty couldn't be put on the mortgage. As it turns out this was no bad thing.

Having paid stamp duty in the past should give you no tax credit in the future. The 2 taxes are unrelated. As is negative equity. As is global warming.


----------



## z107

It's interesting to note how many people on this thread seem to be in favour of extra taxes. If people are so keen to hand over their hard earned money, why not just pay voluntary contributions to the Revenue?

Personally, I'd rather not have to pay out extra hundreds, or thousands. Especially when I see how the money is wasted.


----------



## Protocol

I'm in favour of a property tax, sugar / salt / fat taxes and tolls on all motorways,  but I want the income and health levies abolished for all workers and the MTR reduced.


----------



## Chris

umop3p!sdn said:


> It's interesting to note how many people on this thread seem to be in favour of extra taxes. If people are so keen to hand over their hard earned money, why not just pay voluntary contributions to the Revenue?
> 
> Personally, I'd rather not have to pay out extra hundreds, or thousands. Especially when I see how the money is wasted.


I second this. Handing over more money to the government is only going to make things worse.



dereko1969 said:


> I'm sure Chris would then be in favour of a massive increase in inheritance tax so that those who are born to wealth don't have a massive advantage over those that have earned it themselves and have taken Chris' life lessons to heart?



No I am not, I want government spending halved through cutbacks on non-essential services, and taxes halved, as a start.



Complainer said:


> Chris, would you like to point to anywhere else in the world where your interesting ideas have worked?



So you think my ideas of actually providing adequate education to everyone and not having a welfare dependence system are just "interesting ideas"? As for an example of the effects of reducing social and unemployment benefits take a look at Germany. Up until a few years ago people were entitled to 70% of their pre-unemployment wages indefinitely. As soon as this was reduced to a maximum of 12 months, and an introduction of having to work in so-called €1 jobs in order to get full benefits, unemployment and social welfare dependence started going down drastically, and is continuing to go down.

Another example is Switzerland, which probably has one of the best education systems in the world, and at the same time one of the lowest poverty rates. A friend of mine spent 5 years teaching in Switzerland, returned to teach in Ireland two years ago, and is now packing his bags to go back to Switzerland with his family again. Not only does he want to work in a better system, but he wants his kids to not endure the Irish system.

Let me turn the question around at you. Can you give me one example where a welfare system has helped to reduce dependence and poverty?


----------



## JoeB

I'm with you Chris, I think you have some excellent ideas. Education is key, not welfare.


----------



## JEON50

Prorerty tax will never happen in present circumstances, as I said it should have been introduced 5/6 years ago to try take the heat out of the property market. I brought the subject in a number of media publications at the time and received no support. Lets wait until the budget, and see a slow introduction of a tax raising agent , homes should not be subject to attack ever


----------



## davebrien

Maybe I'm missing something but again is the property tax another example of the Government failing to connect the dots.  Right now the Government through NAMA is the States largest property owner.  Its a requirement to return the tax payers investment which is dependent on increasing property prices.  surely a property tax will further supress prices.

Gaining money on property tax, losing money on NAMA an earlier poster said 5 years too late - 5 years too late meaning a property tax would have helped to halt property price inflation.

It hasnt even been shaped and already there is a discussion about who should be exempt which is typical - surely exemptions should be recorded as a liability against the property in the event of a future sale of that property.


----------



## shnaek

Complainer said:


> Chris, would you like to point to anywhere else in the world where your interesting ideas have worked?


Hong Kong? Cayman Islands? Monacco? 



umop3p!sdn said:


> Personally, I'd rather not have to pay out extra hundreds, or thousands. Especially when I see how the money is wasted.


Got to say I agree with this. The most infuriating thing about paying taxes here is seeing how the money is wasted.


----------



## Pope John 11

Introduce a property tax on all new first time buyers.
Introduce a property tax on all existing homes that have not paid a lump sum property tax upfront (Stamp duty).
Do NOT introduce a property tax on those that have already paid a property tax (Stamp duty).
Its the fairest way to go!!!


----------



## venice

> Its the fairest way to go!!!


 
Am I the only one who thinks that NO property tax is the fairest way to go?

The way it looks to me is that the Government release information, get everyone worried and the row back a bit. Then people think they have picked the fairest way. Previous post is a typical example. Someone calling for a property tax on first time buyers and existing homes. Why o Why.

We need to get real in this country


----------



## Howitzer

Pope John 11 said:


> Introduce a property tax on all new first time buyers.
> Introduce a property tax on all existing homes that have not paid a lump sum property tax upfront (Stamp duty).
> Do NOT introduce a property tax on those that have already paid a property tax (Stamp duty).
> Its the fairest way to go!!!


To repeat.


Howitzer said:


> Re, stamp duty: "It's not fair - I already paid tax". Well let's just take a step back in time.
> 
> During the boom Stamp Duty acted as a break on house prices. The price paid reflected the stamp duty required to complete the transaction. When bands were raised prices increased INSTANTLY to the new bracket.
> 
> As such, Stamp Duty was not a tax on the buyer, but the seller. Ok, the buyer paid it, but if the tax wasn't there that money would have went to the seller instead - they should be the one's complaining "I sold my shoebox apartment in 2006 for 500K, but I should have got 550K. Where's my NAMA?". The only issue for the buyer was that stamp duty couldn't be put on the mortgage. As it turns out this was no bad thing.
> 
> Having paid stamp duty in the past should give you no tax credit in the future. The 2 taxes are unrelated. As is negative equity. As is global warming.


You either have a tax because it's fair/needed or you don't. Convoluted schemes, as decribed above, only enable and facilitate tax evasion.


----------



## canicemcavoy

Don't most countries in Europe have a property tax?


----------



## Knuttell

Heres an even more equitable solution,there seems to be a good few who own property and are  in favour of this tax (indeed seem positively excited by the prospect) why not make it an opt in tax?

Those that think it an excellent idea get to support it by paying the tax annually and those that have paid the front loaded property tax called stamp duty can decide they have paid waaayy more than enough on tax and can opt out.


Win win for all.

Problem solved.


----------



## Howitzer

Knuttell said:


> Heres an even more equitable solution,there seems to be a good few who own property and are  in favour of this tax (indeed seem positively excited by the prospect) why not make it an opt in tax?
> 
> Those that think it an excellent idea get to support it by paying the tax annually and those that have paid the front loaded property tax called stamp duty can decide they have paid waaayy more than enough on tax and can opt out.
> 
> 
> Win win for all.
> 
> Problem solved.


Quite honesty, suggestions like this are the reason why there almost certainly will be a universal property tax brought in within the lifetime of this Govt.


----------



## DB74

canicemcavoy said:


> Don't most countries in Europe have a property tax?


 
Do most countries have a 41% Inc Tax rate which kicks in a a shockingly low level relative to cost of living? 
Do most countries have 3 different income taxes (PAYE/PRSI/Levy)
Do most countries have VRT
Do most countries have different levels of VAT


----------



## Purple

DB74 said:


> Do most countries have a 41% Inc Tax rate which kicks in a a shockingly low level relative to cost of living?
> Do most countries have 3 different income taxes (PAYE/PRSI/Levy)
> Do most countries have VRT
> Do most countries have different levels of VAT



Marginal tax rates in Ireland are lower than most of the EU.


----------



## JEON50

Look what happened to Maggie Thachers Poll Tax, Bye Maggie, Hello Tony Blair. Only a goverment here with a 20 plus majority for 5 years would be stupid enough to try bring in a property tax, Hello Enda


----------



## DB74

Purple said:


> Marginal tax rates in Ireland are lower than most of the EU.


 
I was speaking relative to the level at which the marginal rate kicks in

If a country has, say a 50% rate which only kicks in in at €150K or something similar, it is far less punitive to the ordinary man on the street than the 41% (effective 50%+ with levies etc) rate which prevails in this country

Nonetheless, what other countries have or don't have shouldn't have a bearing on what taxes we decide to impose on our already well-taxed citizens


----------



## Howitzer

JEON50 said:


> Look what happened to Maggie Thachers Poll Tax, Bye Maggie, Hello Tony Blair. Only a goverment here with a 20 plus majority for 5 years would be stupid enough to try bring in a property tax, Hello Enda


And what happened to the Poll tax? Blair got rid of it right?


----------



## Knuttell

Howitzer said:


> As such, Stamp Duty was *not a tax on the buyer*, but the seller. *Ok, the buyer paid it*, but if the tax wasn't there that money would have went to the seller instead



This is the most bizarre reasoning I have heard in a long loooong time,its akin to arguing black is actually white.


----------



## Protocol

DB74 said:


> Do most countries have a 41% Inc Tax rate which kicks in a a shockingly low level relative to cost of living?
> 
> *Yes, most countries have similar or higher top rates of income tax.*
> 
> *But you have a point in that 36k is a low income for the top rate to kick in.*
> 
> Do most countries have 3 different income taxes (PAYE/PRSI/Levy)
> 
> *Most countries have several.*
> 
> Do most countries have VRT
> 
> *Not most, but some.*
> 
> Do most countries have different levels of VAT


 
*Yes, same as us.  Typically 0%, low rate, main rate. *


----------



## Protocol

_As such, Stamp Duty was *not a tax on the buyer*, but the seller. *Ok, the buyer paid it*, but if the tax wasn't there that money would have went to the seller instead_



Knuttell said:


> This is the most bizarre reasoning I have heard in a long loooong time,its akin to arguing black is actually white.


 

This is actually correct.

As consumers, we all pay VAT. But without VAT, some pre-VAT selling prices would be higher. So, in effect, the incidence or burden of the tax is shared between the buyer and the seller.

Even though it's the buyer who actually pays the tax.

It's in most 1st year economics textbooks.


----------



## RMCF

venice said:


> Am I the only one who thinks that NO property tax is the fairest way to go?
> 
> The way it looks to me is that the Government release information, get everyone worried and the row back a bit. Then people think they have picked the fairest way. Previous post is a typical example. Someone calling for a property tax on first time buyers and existing homes. Why o Why.
> 
> *We need to get real in this country*



I don't want to sound like an apologist for the Gov and its total mismanagement of the economy and our finances, but I think that all of those that are shouting that we shouldn't tax this, that, that and this need to realise, like it or not, that this country is tettering on the verge of bankruptcy and the Gov need to raise money, and damn fast.

Now we would all love them to tax someone else other than ourselves, but thats not going to work.

I continually hear people on radio and TV saying we shouldn't take money from this group, that group, these people etc, but if the Gov agree to all of these demands they will take in no money and then we all, as a nation, will suffer in the long run.

I will pay a property tax as long it applies to everyone who is able to pay it, and it is means tested in some way.


----------



## Knuttell

Protocol said:


> It's in most 1st year economics textbooks.



No its not.


----------



## Howitzer

Protocol said:


> _As such, Stamp Duty was *not a tax on the buyer*, but the seller. *Ok, the buyer paid it*, but if the tax wasn't there that money would have went to the seller instead_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually correct.
> 
> As consumers, we all pay VAT. But without VAT, some pre-VAT selling prices would be higher. So, in effect, the incidence or burden of the tax is shared between the buyer and the seller.
> 
> Even though it's the buyer who actually pays the tax.
> 
> It's in most 1st year economics textbooks.


Beat me to it. The most recent example of this was the increase in VAT from 21% to 21.5% (and subsequent decrease). Retailers didn't increase their prices by this amount, they took the half percent off their bottom line.


----------



## shnaek

DB74 said:


> Nonetheless, what other countries have or don't have shouldn't have a bearing on what taxes we decide to impose on our already well-taxed citizens



I agree, and why is this argument always touted for the bad stuff? We never hear the government use it for the good stuff - 
Most countries in Europe have an excellent health system
Most capital cities in Europe have integrated ticket systems on an excellent public transport network
Most countries in Europe have 24 hour drinking laws (a positive or negative depending on your viewpoint)
Most countries in Europe have cheaper food and drink
etc.

I think that is the most annoying thing about politicians touting about this argument - it's always about taking something from the citizen, never about something positive. It's an ignorant argument anyway as if most countries had the death penalty would we then follow suit? Or if they all decided to commit mass suicide would we do the same? Or are we a country with our own mind?


----------



## JoeB

spamspamspam is legal, or semi legal in a few countries.. big benefit there.

we should legalise it here and tax it... we'd likely  raise a few billion Euro that way. Did Calafornia recently vote to legalise it?, or did they vote not to?.. they were considering legalising it to raise money as they're broke, and were paying their public servants in IOUs or special Calafornia money....


----------



## DB74

RMCF said:


> I don't want to sound like an apologist for the Gov and its total mismanagement of the economy and our finances, but I think that all of those that are shouting that we shouldn't tax this, that, that and this need to realise, like it or not, that this country is tettering on the verge of bankruptcy and the Gov need to raise money, and damn fast.
> 
> Now we would all love them to tax someone else other than ourselves, but thats not going to work.
> 
> I continually hear people on radio and TV saying we shouldn't take money from this group, that group, these people etc, but if the Gov agree to all of these demands they will take in no money and then we all, as a nation, will suffer in the long run.
> 
> I will pay a property tax as long it applies to everyone who is able to pay it, and it is means tested in some way.


 
I have no problem paying an extra tax provided it will be used wisely and carefully and if the government can show that there really is no other option at all

I would like to see some evidence of cost-cutting and/or savings from the government first before continually raising existing taxes and/or creating new ones.

A property tax just goes into the big pot with the other taxes and is used to pay the likes of Rody Molloy et al their golden handshakes after they screw up etc etc

The list is endless


----------



## Protocol

Knuttell said:


> No its not.


 
Mankiw & Taylor, *Economics*, published by Thomson (a popular textbook).


Chapter 6: Supply, Demand and Govt Policies

See p120, conclusion: "Buyers and sellers share the burden of taxes".


----------



## Ceist Beag

DB74 said:


> I have no problem paying an extra tax provided it will be used wisely and carefully and if the government can show that there really is no other option at all
> 
> I would like to see some evidence of cost-cutting and/or savings from the government first before continually raising existing taxes and/or creating new ones.



In fairness the last budget was all about cost-cutting rather than raising taxes so I don't think you can argue there has been no evidence of cost-cutting recently.


----------



## shnaek

DB74 said:


> provided it will be used wisely and carefully



Indeed. But not a day goes by where we discover yet another huge wastage of our money through incompetence or corruption. Only today we hear about the 250,000 cost per civil servant of decentralisation. Think about that as you hand over your hard earned money, and thank the lords of Leinster house for the priviledge.


----------



## RMCF

As someone who said they would pay a propery tax, I do agree that it should not be wasted foolishly, like so much money today in this country, by this Gov.


----------



## Shawady

shnaek said:


> Indeed. But not a day goes by where we discover yet another huge wastage of our money through incompetence or corruption. Only today we hear about the 250,000 cost per civil servant of decentralisation. Think about that as you hand over your hard earned money, and thank the lords of Leinster house for the priviledge.


 
Or 200k for a bus-stop.

http://www.independent.ie/national-...shelter-cost-same-as-small-house-2271788.html


----------



## Chris

Protocol said:


> Mankiw & Taylor, *Economics*, published by Thomson (a popular textbook).



Why would you believe anything that Mankiw says or writes. His neo-Keynesian ideas are what caused this mess (economic adviser to Bush II) and his total and utter cluelessness to this fact are summed up in this one quote: "If you were going to turn to only one economist to understand the problems facing the economy, there is little doubt that the economist would be John Maynard Keynes. Although Keynes died more than a half-century ago, his diagnosis of recessions and depressions remains the foundation of modern macroeconomics. His insights go a long way toward explaining the challenges we now confront."
All popular Keynesian economists were telling the world up to 2007/8 that everything was OK. Why would anyone believe that looking to Keynes could explain the economic problems of today?!?!


----------



## Howitzer

Chris said:


> All popular Keynesian economists were telling the world up to 2007/8 that everything was OK.


How so?


----------



## Chris

Howitzer said:


> How so?



I suggest reading some of the quarterly reports by the ESRI from 2006 to 2008. You only need to look at the summary and summary tables of each to get a picture of how grossly clueless they held onto the notion of a soft landing and fast recovery.

Another favourite of Politicians (here and abroad) is the OECD. Their 2007 annual report is oblivious to any significant problems in the economy.

For some total Keynesian opinion before, during and after the crisis I suggest reading through some of Paul Krugman's "economic" articles.

I think too many people (I'm not saying you) blindly believe politicians that it was correct to listen to the likes of the OECD, ESRI, IMF, etc. and that it still is correct to do so, without looking into what they were actually saying.


----------



## Howitzer

I think you maybe doing a disservice to John Maynard Keynes. I don't think he would have advocated the pro-cyclical policies and light touch regulation seen over the last decade.


----------



## Complainer

See http://www.leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/keynes.png


----------



## Chris

Howitzer said:


> I think you maybe doing a disservice to John Maynard Keynes. I don't think he would have advocated the pro-cyclical policies and light touch regulation seen over the last decade.



Keynes' idea was exactly that, to counter the negative effects of the business cycle through fiscal and monetary stimulus. This is exactly what has been happening since the 90s, where every bust is being "fixed" through government intervention. As for regulation I agree that he advocated more, as he wanted governments to actively manage the economy. However, it is not lack of or inappropriate regulation that caused the crisis. Financial regulations have been increasing since the early 90s to a degree that is higher than the early 80s.
Keynes' theory is as wrong today as it was when it was first written. The only reason it is popular in political circles, is because it gives governments the backing to run deficits and intervene more in the economy.




Complainer said:


> See http://www.leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/keynes.png



This cartoon nicely summarises the recurring cycle of boom and bust. But what it gets wrong is that governments and their economists never turn around and say Keynesianism is outdated or dead, but rather grasp onto it in order to increase economic interventions. It is government intervention that causes the artificial boom, which always has to lead to a bust; Keynesian "rescues" of the economy only reinflate the bubble.


----------

