# Why I'm in favour of a properly constituted property tax



## Purple

1)    A property tax, if properly constituted, provides a stable income stream for the state. My preference is a system based on the site value.

2)    For those with existing mortgages it is an extra cost but for those who take out mortgages after the property tax is introduced there is no net increase in outgoings. For example; if the average home buyer can afford €1000 a month mortgage repayments and €1000 a month buys a €300’000 mortgage then the average house will cost €300’000. If the state takes €100 a month in tax then the average house will cost whatever €900 a month will buy. There is no net cost to the individual (the same applies to stamp duty by the way).

3)    If a person has an income of €20’000 a month and a home worth €2’000’000 then they are rich. The fact that their assets are all tied up in their family home is irrelevant. 

4)    It is socially desirable that retired couples move out of large family homes and into smaller homes so that younger people with families can move into them. This stops the greying of desirable suburbs and young families being forced into the outer suburbs due to high prices caused by limited market activity.

5)    Where a country cannot control interest rates it loses one of the main tools it has to control inflation and prevent the economy overheating. A property tax is a poor substitute but it’s better than nothing. Imagine if we had a property tax which was used correctly over the last two decades; no housing bubble, no rampant wage inflation caused by the construction boom, a much reduced loss of competitiveness and flows of capital into wealth and export generating sectors of the economy rather than a speculative and damaging bubble.


----------



## nacho_libre

In response to your points Purple, why I'm NOT in favour of a property tax:

1> If properly constituted? I think this is enough said here.

2> For those with existing mortgages it's an extra cost and for those with new mortgages it's an extra cost. I don't follow your logic. Also, it's an extra cost for homeowners who don't have a mortgage. This will exceed the life of your mortgage, so this point doesn't make much sense.

3> "If a person has an income of €20’000 a month and a home worth €2’000’000 then they are rich." This is a pretty naive statement. What if they have a mortgage of €8,000,000? Or have multiple debts to the value of 10's of millions. Are they still rich?

4> If it is socially desirable, then what's stopping it from happening naturally? Why charge people for the privilege?

5> A property tax to control inflation? This can surely only work to curb inflation, how can applying this tax stimulate spending? I don't think this is a feasible reason for introducing property tax.


----------



## bluemac

My issue is a lot of people paid huge stamp duty, I think I paid about 19k for a site at the peak of the boom i did this on the understanding there was no property tax so felt it was valid, on top of this I paid 4k local development tax to the council to be allowed to build. (I put in water, sewage, electric and road) I loaned money to pay for this which i will be paying back over the next 34 years.


this seems like double taxation.

I would hope they would work it along the lines of you owe for example €xxx per year but i get a credit of say 21k  on the property, then I have to pick up paying the tax once this runs out, or get a 50% discount off the tax for 50 years.

I also believe it should be a tax on the person living there not on the owners or it will hold back the property market.


----------



## dereko1969

Sorry but I don't believe anyone who says that they were happy paying stamp duty at the time of their purchase *because* there was no property tax in place at the time. 

This whole thing that I paid stamp duty somehow exempting you from having to pay a property tax or household charge is just rubbish, we're not in kansas anymore Toto.


----------



## Purple

nacho_libre said:


> 1>If properly constituted? I think this is enough said here.


 Why?



nacho_libre said:


> For those with existing mortgages it's an extra cost and for those with new mortgages it's an extra cost. I don't follow your logic.


 The state takes a cut of what the market will stand. If the tax wasn’t there then the price will be higher.



nacho_libre said:


> Also, it's an extra cost for homeowners who don't have a mortgage. This will exceed the life of your mortgage, so this point doesn't make much sense.


 That’s a different issue and I take your point. 



nacho_libre said:


> 3> "If a person has an income of €20’000 a month and a home worth €2’000’000 then they are rich." This is a pretty naive statement. What if they have a mortgage of €8,000,000? Or have multiple debts to the value of 10's of millions. Are they still rich?


 If someone has 10’s of millions of debt they’ve no business owning a house worth €8 million.



nacho_libre said:


> 4> If it is socially desirable, then what's stopping it from happening naturally? Why charge people for the privilege?


 It happens anyway but it takes longer.



nacho_libre said:


> 5> A property tax to control inflation? This can surely only work to curb inflation, how can applying this tax stimulate spending? I don't think this is a feasible reason for introducing property tax.


 This tax has nothing to do with stimulating spending. The €20 billion we borrow each year to pay welfare and state employees does that.


----------



## Purple

bluemac said:


> My issue is a lot of people paid huge stamp duty, I think I paid about 19k for a site at the peak of the boom i did this on the understanding there was no property tax so felt it was valid, on top of this I paid 4k local development tax to the council to be allowed to build. (I put in water, sewage, electric and road) I loaned money to pay for this which i will be paying back over the next 34 years.
> 
> 
> this seems like double taxation.
> 
> I would hope they would work it along the lines of you owe for example €xxx per year but i get a credit of say 21k  on the property, then I have to pick up paying the tax once this runs out, or get a 50% discount off the tax for 50 years.
> 
> I also believe it should be a tax on the person living there not on the owners or it will hold back the property market.


I paid far more than that. If I hadn't paid it in stamp duty then my house would have cost more and I would have paid it to the seller. The price is set by the funds available to prospective purchasers. If the state takes some and the seller takes the rest there's no net loss to the buyer. 
Would you feel better if the seller paid the stamp duty and you could feel you didn’t pay any? Of course you wouldn’t because you’re not stupid; you know that you paid the market rate for your house, it just so happened that the state took a percentage of that market rate and the seller took the rest.

I also agree that the tax should be on the occupant, not the owner but not because it will hold back the property market as low property prices are a good thing in the economy.


----------



## reddanmm

Hi Purple 
Does it not occur to you that the reason most people are against the tax is because they do not have the money to pay for it .
With all the extra taxes most working people have very little left after paying bills 
dont even get me started on what it cost to send a child back to school and to drive to work.

This should have being brought in  10 years ago not when the country is broke and no one can afford to pay it . Do you know a lot of families are on the brink and  this charge will tip them over 
also who is going to be doing the valuations on all these houses considering 1 million have registered and the tax is coming on stream in Jan 13 they must have a little army of valuers on standby to get it done by that date . 
It has to be done by individual houses because each house on a estate would have a different value if the money is going to the local authority then everyone should pay including council house owners i am sure the majority of them have some form of employment . 
It should have being called a rates charge then everyone would have to pay not just the homeowner .


----------



## truthseeker

I pay management fees. My estate is privately maintained with no local council input.

My apartment is in negative equity. I cannot sell it as the bank would not allow it.

If I had known that there would be property tax on top of management fees it would have stopped me from buying because it wouldnt have been affordable. But now I cant sell. I am effectively trapped. So I do not want a property tax.


----------



## jhegarty

Purple said:


> If someone has 10’s of millions of debt they’ve no business owning a house worth €8 million.




It was an extreme example , but what about all the people who have houses worth €200k and mortgages of €300k.


----------



## DerKaiser

Why not just keep stamp duty? Everyone knows exactly what they're getting into when deciding to buy (so it's affordable by definition) and higher rates can be applied to luxury property,as in the past. 

The 'steady source of income' argument is lazy. It assumes that we are powerless to avoid, or at the very least plan for, massive booms and busts in the future.

Stamp duty worked in so far as it could in the boom. Hikes in average house prices pushed average stamp duty rates through the roof. Massive revenues were collected allowing the government run budget surpluses and salt away money in the national pensions reserve.  If the tsunami of credit hadn't been of such an outrageous magnitude, the old stamp duty system would have actually helped avoid a property bubble.


----------



## orka

reddanmm said:


> Hi Purple
> Does it not occur to you that the reason most people are against the tax is because they do not have the money to pay for it .
> With all the extra taxes most working people have very little left after paying bills
> dont even get me started on what it cost to send a child back to school and to drive to work.
> 
> This should have being brought in 10 years ago not when the country is broke and no one can afford to pay it . Do you know a lot of families are on the brink and this charge will tip them over


Taxes aren't optional and don't take individual affordability into consideration.  There will undoubtedly be tax rises and social welfare cuts in the December budget (well more than €100 per annum per person) but there is no scope to stick your hand up and say 'I'm afraid this is not affordable for me so I think I'll opt out'.  The government is spending more than it takes in so it either has to raise more income (taxes) or cut spending - if people can't afford to pay more taxes as you say, spending will have to be drastically cut. 

Too many people HAVE paid the property tax for the government to abandon efforts to (eventually) make everyone pay what they owe.  Individuals deciding unilaterally to not pay just increases the costs of collection which means that even more tax has to collected somewhere to pay for the extra collection costs...


----------



## truthseeker

orka said:


> *Taxes aren't optional* and don't take individual affordability into consideration.  There will undoubtedly be tax rises and social welfare cuts in the December budget (well more than €100 per annum per person) but there is no scope to stick your hand up and say 'I'm afraid this is not affordable for me so I think I'll opt out'.  The government is spending more than it takes in so it either has to raise more income (taxes) or cut spending - if people can't afford to pay more taxes as you say, spending will have to be drastically cut.



A property tax is optional. Unless you are in negative equity and are trapped in your property. No one *has* to own a property. People *cant* afford more taxes. 

I do not want a property tax. I cannot sell my property due to negative equity. What do you suggest I do?


----------



## Purple

reddanmm said:


> Hi Purple
> Does it not occur to you that the reason most people are against the tax is because they do not have the money to pay for it .


 Yes, but reductions in tax credits, increases in income tax, increases in other direct taxes etc have the same effect. The alternative is reductions in services or (the most sensible option) reductions in pay for state employees with the corresponding reductions in pensions for former state employees.



reddanmm said:


> With all the extra taxes most working people have very little left after paying bills
> dont even get me started on what it cost to send a child back to school and to drive to work.


That’s a different issue.



reddanmm said:


> This should have being brought in  10 years ago not when the country is broke and no one can afford to pay it .


I agree but better late than never.



reddanmm said:


> Do you know a lot of families are on the brink and  this charge will tip them over


 Yes but what’s the alternative? We already have the highest rate of marginal income tax in Europe and just about the highest VAT rate. 



reddanmm said:


> also who is going to be doing the valuations on all these houses considering 1 million have registered and the tax is coming on stream in Jan 13 they must have a little army of valuers on standby to get it done by that date .
> It has to be done by individual houses because each house on a estate would have a different value if the money is going to the local authority then everyone should pay including council house owners i am sure the majority of them have some form of employment .


 I agree on the valuations issue, that’s why a site value is better and fairer. 



reddanmm said:


> It should have being called a rates charge then everyone would have to pay not just the homeowner .


 I agree.


----------



## suemoo1

If they take a property tax out of my wages I will find it hard to cover my mortgage!


----------



## Purple

suemoo1 said:


> If they take a property tax out of my wages I will find it hard to cover my mortgage!



When they take income tax out of mine I'm in the same boat. 
I probably shouldn't have bought the house I have but that's my own fault.


----------



## theoneill

I wouldn't have a problem with spreading the cost of a property tax over 12 months and if it's taken at source all the better.

My main worry is how the value of my home will be calculated. When I had to job of selling my late mothers properties I got massive differences in valuation (70K) between estate agents. In the end all of them were incorrect and we had to accept an offer of 15K below the minimum valuation.

Will the tax be the actual market value or what revenue feel is the current value?

Will I be taxed more if I try to improve my lot - insulation / new windows / tidy garden?

If so, I will have to weigh up any improvements against an additional tax liability.

I don't have a problem with a fair (or as fair as you can get) property tax. But this has all the hallmarks of being implemented in a ham fisted manner. 

One other thing, my CC will not take over my estate leaving the residents with an average management fee of e500. I don't know if this will be taken into account or not.


----------



## reddanmm

Hi purple 

So because you worked hard and saved every penny you had to buy your house and did not go cap in hand to the council looking for them to house you its your fault.
Thats nonsense, the government are squeezing the life out of the taxpayer and the homeowner and just because its not coming out in income tax its still 300 or 500 euros less that will not be spent in the economy .

If the revenue are collecting it, it might as well be more tax coming out of your wages . Realistically 1.6 million home owners are funding the countries council costs  and the rest pay nothing and enjoy the benefits .


----------



## Purple

reddanmm said:


> Hi purple
> 
> So because you worked hard and saved every penny you had to buy your house and did not go cap in hand to the council looking for them to house you its your fault.


If I live too close to the limit of my means then it is my fault.


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> If I live too close to the limit of my means then it is my fault.



I used to think this. Then I lost my job, my husband lost his job, my property devalued by 100,000 euro - none of these things were through any fault of my own you understand. Id like to sell my property and as such, improve my means. But I cant. The bank wont let me.


----------



## reddanmm

At the end of the day the government made a complete hash of this now they are sending out different scenarios on how it will be put in place hoping that one scenario will sit well with people .
They are a shower of bumbling  buffons that are not capable of running a small country .  I really despair .


----------



## Purple

truthseeker said:


> I used to think this. Then I lost my job, my husband lost his job, my property devalued by 100,000 euro - none of these things were through any fault of my own you understand. Id like to sell my property and as such, improve my means. But I cant. The bank wont let me.



That’s a different issue Truthseeker; those were circumstances beyond your control. 
I don’t see a scenario where someone in your position should be forced to pay. You don’t have net assets and also have a low income.


----------



## DerKaiser

theoneill said:


> I wouldn't have a problem with spreading the cost of a property tax over 12 months and if it's taken at source all the better.
> 
> My main worry is how the value of my home will be calculated. When I had to job of selling my late mothers properties I got massive differences in valuation (70K) between estate agents. In the end all of them were incorrect and we had to accept an offer of 15K below the minimum valuation.
> 
> Will the tax be the actual market value or what revenue feel is the current value?
> 
> Will I be taxed more if I try to improve my lot - insulation / new windows / tidy garden?
> 
> If so, I will have to weigh up any improvements against an additional tax liability.
> 
> I don't have a problem with a fair (or as fair as you can get) property tax. But this has all the hallmarks of being implemented in a ham fisted manner.
> 
> One other thing, my CC will not take over my estate leaving the residents with an average management fee of e500. I don't know if this will be taken into account or not.


 
The whole debate around this is:
1) Whether it is affordable
2) How to collect it (from everyone!)
3) How to objectively calculate it
4) Whether it is fair

Payment of stamp duty at point of purchase addresses all of these problems.

If you think about it logically for one minute, the benefits of moving from a transaction based tax at point of purchase to some unfair, unknown, unobjective, uncollectable and unaffordable annual value based tax simply do not stack up.

The only possible benefit is short term revenue generation until the property market moves back to a long term equilibrium where a steady number of houses are bought each year. A knee jerk, ill thought through means of taxing property to fill short term taxation shortfall is not good long term planning.


----------



## reddanmm

There are an awful lot of people in truthseekers position who are unable to pay due to these circumstances and they should not be expected to pay .
This then means that besides the 600,000 that did not register and the homeowners that cannot pay the amount that can pay is going to be a very small number is this actually feasible . 
It is going to cost millions to take nonpayers to court and we still do not have a comprehensive data base of homeowners .


----------



## Seagull

Our estate is on the pyrite report. That means the house is effectively unsalable in the current market. Are they going to put a zero value on it and exempt me from a property tax?


----------



## GDUFFY

reddanmm said:


> At the end of the day the government made a complete hash of this now they are sending out different scenarios on how it will be put in place hoping that one scenario will sit well with people .
> They are a shower of bumbling  buffons that are not capable of running a small country .  I really despair .



Completely agree ! 

Why don't the Government just listen to the likes of Ronan Lyons ?
From seeing him on VB'S show the other night and having read through his website http://www.ronanlyons.com/2012/08/27/property-tax-its-not-rocket-science/
 I really think he is an expert on the issue and should be listened to.

The Government will make a pig's ear of the property Tax issue as they did with the Bankruptcy issue ignoring the experts and bumbling on ....and on...

No connection to Ronan Lyons


----------



## reddanmm

Hi seagull 
i cannot believe that a pyrite house will actually be charged a property tax have you not been given an excemption?
Its really adding insult to injury . No one  would ever buy your house with pyrite  sorry to say and i think even it was fixed it still has an attachment to pyrite and would make buyers very wary.


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> That’s a different issue Truthseeker; those were circumstances beyond your control.
> I don’t see a scenario where someone in your position should be forced to pay. You don’t have net assets and also have a low income.



Well they were, but there are thousands and thousands like me! Even if they kept their jobs their negative equity is huge.

I am already being forced to pay the HC! Im not exempt!


----------



## theoneill

Very interesting article. But site value tax seems fair but I think the government want to raise as much cash as possible as quickly as possible.

I doubt there is the will to sit down and thrash out a fair system, I refuse to believe none exists. I suspect it's more to do with political laziness.


----------



## orka

truthseeker said:


> A property tax is optional. Unless you are in negative equity and are trapped in your property. No one *has* to own a property.


Taxes are NOT optional. That’s like saying that excise duty on cigarettes is optional because you don’t smoke – but what you mean is that the origin/trigger for the tax is optional; but the actual tax itself is not optional once you do/buy/own something that gives rise to tax. Buying property is optional, paying a lawfully-due property tax is not optional. 



truthseeker said:


> People *cant* afford more taxes.


The December budget is undoubtedly going to have higher taxes in it – somehow the government is going to have to raise more revenue. If we don’t have a property tax, income tax will probably have to go up more than it otherwise would and benefits will have to be cut more than they otherwise would. One way or another, people will have to pay more/get less. No-one wants this to happen but we spend massively more than we take in so there is no choice for the country.





reddanmm said:


> Realistically 1.6 million home owners are funding the countries council costs and the rest pay nothing and enjoy the benefits .


The same can be said about many taxes that not everyone pays – fewer than 2M people pay all of the income tax yet everyone in the country benefits, fewer than 150,000 people pay half of all income tax yet everyone benefits. VAT is about the only tax that is paid by everyone. There will always be many sources of government income but there isn’t always (ever?) a direct payment-benefit connection.


----------



## truthseeker

orka said:


> Taxes are NOT optional. That’s like saying that excise duty on cigarettes is optional because you don’t smoke – but what you mean is that the origin/trigger for the tax is optional; but the actual tax itself is not optional once you do/buy/own something that gives rise to tax. Buying property is optional, paying a lawfully-due property tax is not optional.



Eh, youre not saying anything different to what I say, just formatting it differently, but thank you for telling me what I meant 

So what do you propose the thousands of people in negative equity who have already triggered the tax liability but are not in favour of property tax do about it? They cant sell their properties. When they bought them there was no trigger. 

Simply pontificating on what a tax is and the state of the country is not a solution to a real problem. Its quite clear the population is very divided over this with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people yet to pay the household charge.

Raising taxes is one thing, but shouldnt there be an element of fairness? There is already a generation of people in this country who may never escape the problems of negative equity - is it fair to burden them with yet another tax?


----------



## T McGibney

GDUFFY said:


> Completely agree !
> 
> Why don't the Government just listen to the likes of Ronan Lyons ?
> From seeing him on VB'S show the other night and having read through his website http://www.ronanlyons.com/2012/08/27/property-tax-its-not-rocket-science/
> I really think he is an expert on the issue and should be listened to.
> 
> The Government will make a pig's ear of the property Tax issue as they did with the Bankruptcy issue ignoring the experts and bumbling on ....and on...
> 
> No connection to Ronan Lyons



No offence whatsoever to Ronan Lyons who is both smart and a nice person. However, he doesn't even live in Ireland anymore and yet he's portrayed as some type of guru on the Irish economy. And his suggestion that the government give everyone a tax credit next year to help us pay auctioneers to value our homes & sites is frankly laughable.


----------



## orka

truthseeker said:


> Eh, youre not saying anything different to what I say, just formatting it differently, but thank you for telling me what I meant


You’re welcome – although I’m still struggling with your ‘property tax is optional’ being the same as my ‘taxes are NOT optional’ but anyhoo... 





truthseeker said:


> So what do you propose the thousands of people in negative equity who have already triggered the tax liability but are not in favour of property tax do about it?


What does being ‘not in favour’ of the tax have to do with anything? See discussion above – I thought we agreed that taxes, once triggered, are not optional. Being in negative equity is irrelevant too – two people could have paid the same price for the same house but one has a bigger mortgage because the other used more savings – why should their liability to property tax depend on their loan amount? And not everyone in negative equity is in a ‘can’t pay’ situation. Answering your main question, I propose that everyone who has triggered the tax and is lawfully liable for the tax pays the tax. Not paying is tax evasion. 



truthseeker said:


> Simply pontificating on what a tax is and the state of the country is not a solution to a real problem. Its quite clear the population is very divided over this with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people yet to pay the household charge.


The ‘pontification’ (I would call it explanation in the face of apparent lack of understanding of why the money is needed, why it being collected this way and what the alternatives would be) is required as there seems to be an undercurrent of ‘I can’t pay/won’t pay and this tax isn’t really needed by the government anyway’ – it IS needed and if it isn’t collected as a property tax it will be collected elsewhere – but obviously the ‘can’t pay/won’t pay’ people are hoping that the alternative won’t affect them –someone else should pay. In terms of solutions, as things stand now, the tax has been triggered and there is no solution other than – pay the tax or watch the arrears pile up. I think for those who would genuinely struggle to pay, there should be some mechanism to register, park the tax and have it build up with a modest interest charge until the homeowner is in a position to start paying it off or until the house is sold and the tax taken as a charge on the proceeds. 



truthseeker said:


> Raising taxes is one thing, but shouldnt there be an element of fairness? There is already a generation of people in this country who may never escape the problems of negative equity - is it fair to burden them with yet another tax?


Taxes are never ‘fair’ – there will always be an element of ‘I’m paying too much, someone else should pay more’. With apologies if this is perceived again as pontification (perhaps I should preface with IMHO), any solution at national level for those affected by negative equity should be a separate issue to national taxation policy. Lobby for negative equity assistance if you feel strongly that something should be done about it but the issue shouldn’t impact or be built into what is hopefully a stable long-term property taxation structure.


----------



## truthseeker

orka said:


> What does being ‘not in favour’ of the tax have to do with anything? See discussion above – I thought we agreed that taxes, once triggered, are not optional. Being in negative equity is irrelevant too – two people could have paid the same price for the same house but one has a bigger mortgage because the other used more savings – why should their liability to property tax depend on their loan amount? And not everyone in negative equity is in a ‘can’t pay’ situation. Answering your main question, I propose that everyone who has triggered the tax and is lawfully liable for the tax pays the tax. Not paying is tax evasion.



Its clear you cant see where Im coming from. 

I wouldnt have bought a property if there was a property tax. But now (due to negative equity) I have no way out of being liable. Its fundamentally unfair.


----------



## theoneill

truthseeker said:


> Its clear you cant see where Im coming from.
> 
> I wouldnt have bought a property if there was a property tax. But now (due to negative equity) I have no way out of being liable. Its fundamentally unfair.



I can see where you are coming from. The sad thing is that due to NE and if the bank refuses to let you sell you will be in a property tax trap. Just like a NE trap and the tracker mortgage trap. 

Also, should the property tax be levied on the owner or the beneficial occupier? If it is to fill central government coffers then the former, but if it is to fund local government then it should be the latter.


----------



## truthseeker

theoneill said:


> I can see where you are coming from.



Thanks. I was starting to think I wasnt making any sense.

I dont want to be criminalised for something that I have no choice in, but it looks like I (and thousands of others) will be.


----------



## dereko1969

T McGibney said:


> No offence whatsoever to Ronan Lyons who is both smart and a nice person. However, he doesn't even live in Ireland anymore and yet he's portrayed as some type of guru on the Irish economy.* And his suggestion that the government give everyone a tax credit next year to help us pay auctioneers to value our homes & sites is frankly laughable*.


 
I haven't read his article but the part in bold was actually a recommendation from the Commission on Taxation - a €75 tax credit for anyone who gets a valuation from an auctioneer.

If the Government actually followed the recommendations for the Property Tax included in the report of the Commission on Taxation then I think most people would be less het-up about it all.

Exemptions for those who paid Stamp Duty in the previous 7 years

Roll-over of PT for those unable to pay until such time as property is sold (though this does come with an interest payment)

Self-assessed within various bands (though the tables in the report would have to be looked at again, as there will be many more homes worth under 300k than when written)

See more in Part 6 here....



Perhaps the Govt is letting all the doom merchants have their say so that when they introduce the tax on the lines proposed people will go hey that's not so bad....been done before.


----------



## dereko1969

truthseeker said:


> Thanks. I was starting to think I wasnt making any sense.
> 
> I dont want to be criminalised for something that I have no choice in, but it looks like I (and thousands of others) will be.


 
I'm sorry for your current situation but frankly I don't believe that the lack of a property tax had anything to do with your decision to purchase an apartment.


----------



## Purple

truthseeker said:


> Eh, youre not saying anything different to what I say, just formatting it differently, but thank you for telling me what I meant
> 
> So what do you propose the thousands of people in negative equity who have already triggered the tax liability but are not in favour of property tax do about it? They cant sell their properties. When they bought them there was no trigger.
> 
> Simply pontificating on what a tax is and the state of the country is not a solution to a real problem. Its quite clear the population is very divided over this with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people yet to pay the household charge.
> 
> Raising taxes is one thing, but shouldnt there be an element of fairness? There is already a generation of people in this country who may never escape the problems of negative equity - is it fair to burden them with yet another tax?


You are in a horrible situation and typify so many people who have seen so much of what they worked for disappear almost overnight. 
It’s so hard not to be emotive when talking about these issues and yet the solutions have to be informed by hard economic fact. 
The facts are the we have the highest marginal rates of tax in the EU and amongst the highest VAT rate (maybe the highest?) and despite the fact  that 60% of our wealth is in property we don’t tax it in any meaningful way. We can’t ignore it if we want to have a balanced and broad taxation system.


----------



## GDUFFY

T McGibney said:


> No offence whatsoever to Ronan Lyons who is both smart and a nice person. However, he doesn't even live in Ireland anymore and yet he's portrayed as some type of guru on the Irish economy. And his suggestion that the government give everyone a tax credit next year to help us pay auctioneers to value our homes & sites is frankly laughable.



I don't think you can discount his ideas on the best way to introduce this property tax because of where he lives . 
I don't know if  he owns property / land here or not ,but his ideas seem very well thought out and fair to me , granted there will be tweaking here and there but the general thrust of his ideas should be pursued by the Government IMO.
Assuming that the introduction of a property tax is a given and significant money must be raised from the property tax ,What would your preference be ?
I'm always open to changing my mind if I hear a better solution. 

Just for clarity I'm not portraying him as a guru on the Irish economy .

If there needs to be a valuation done of a property, a credit against any future liability seems fair to me if its a once off event to help set a base valuation.


----------



## truthseeker

dereko1969 said:


> I'm sorry for your current situation but frankly I don't believe that the lack of a property tax had anything to do with your decision to purchase an apartment.



You can choose to believe what you like but I almost didnt buy due to management fees - if you had added property tax on top of that it definitely would have changed my decision. Im not sure why its hard to believe it. I drive a tiny car to avoid huge motor tax.


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> The facts are the we have the highest marginal rates of tax in the EU and amongst the highest VAT rate (maybe the highest?) and despite the fact  that *60% of our wealth is in property* we don’t tax it in any meaningful way.



Perhaps that will change at the introduction of a property tax.


----------



## Purple

dereko1969 said:


> I'm sorry for your current situation but frankly I don't believe that the lack of a property tax had anything to do with your decision to purchase an apartment.


Yes, but if there was a property tax the apartment would have cost less. In that sense it's unfair but so is any change like this. If property tax is removed in the future then prices increase and so it will be unfair on people who buy just after the change.


----------



## Purple

truthseeker said:


> Perhaps that will change at the introduction of a property tax.



Yes, maybe it will but I don't see this as a bad thing. I'd sooner see wealth invested in areas that create employment and generate more wealth. Property does neither in fact in the long term high peoperty prices costs jobs and reduces productive employment.


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> Yes, but if there was a property tax the apartment would have cost less. In that sense it's unfair but so is any change like this. If property tax is removed in the future then prices increase and so it will be unfair on people who buy just after the change.



Actually thats not why for me. Its because management fees + property tax would have pushed me beyond my comfort zone. I was already right at the edge of my comfort zone with management fees.


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> Yes, maybe it will but I don't see this as a bad thing. I'd sooner see wealth invested in areas that create employment and generate more wealth. Property does neither in fact in the long term high peoperty prices costs jobs and reduces productive employment.



Either do I but we need a properly regulated rental market.


----------



## Purple

truthseeker said:


> we need a properly regulated rental market.


 I agree, in order to protect both tenants and landlords, but that's a different point.


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> I agree, in order to protect both tenants and landlords, but that's a different point.



Its a related point. Sort out the rental market so that people have options before levying tax traps.


----------



## Purple

truthseeker said:


> Its a related point. Sort out the rental market so that people have options before levying tax traps.


 Or do both at the same time.


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> Or do both at the same time.



Well Id be inclined to disagree there until people have options with negative equity.


----------



## allie12

I live in an apartment and pay over €2k maintenance fee's, the council has not taken over any part of our estate and our own landscaping co have to do the verges outside the est as the council could not be bothered. We pay for all our services, and have no public transport- even during the snow our roads were not gritted etc (Dublin address). I have not been able to afford my fee's this yr, and a property tax put on next year will just cripple me! However I am employed, and am meeting my mortgage payments so there is no way as a tax payer I will be "exempt" as this charge will come straight from my pay packet! 

Negative Equity, no option to sell and more than likely the valuation will be much higher than the actual market value!


----------



## T McGibney

dereko1969 said:


> I haven't read his article but the part in bold was actually a recommendation from the Commission on Taxation - a €75 tax credit for anyone who gets a valuation from an auctioneer.



It gets worse!

That said, I'm not surprised. When a Commission on Taxation is set up with all sorts of vested interests on board, but few if any of them tax experts or specialists, the results are likely to be odd.


----------



## orka

truthseeker said:


> Its clear you cant see where Im coming from.


I totally see where you are coming from – you are forced to pay a tax that you feel you have no hope of escaping from.  I feel the same way about the levy on pension funds – there had never been such a levy so it was not in any way foreseeable but there is no escaping it – it’s like shooting ducks in a barrel.  I’m not putting another cent into a pension product but my existing pension fund will lose 2.4% over 4 years and there’s nothing I can do about it.  I don’t like it. I am not in favour of it. I think it is unfair.  But there is no escape.





truthseeker said:


> I wouldnt have bought a property if there was a property tax. But now (due to negative equity) I have no way out of being liable. Its fundamentally unfair.


It’s a bit hard to believe that you were okay with management fees (couple of thousand per annum?) which could go up (perhaps largely out of your control) but a €100 property tax would have made you not buy the property?  Property taxes are a feature of nearly all developed economies so it was not inconceivable that they would be introduced here.  And equally hard to believe is the idea that people would be selling their houses purely to avoid the property tax – I haven’t heard anyone talk about actually doing this.  So if things had panned out the way you hoped and you were now sitting on some equity in your property, you would sell to avoid the property tax?


----------



## truthseeker

orka said:


> It’s a bit hard to believe that you were okay with management fees (couple of thousand per annum?) which could go up (perhaps largely out of your control) but a €100 property tax would have made you not buy the property?



No. My fees are now just below a thousand and the first years fees in a new development are always higher (there are initial set up costs that dont recur) so they went down from just above 1000 (as I expected) in the first couple of years, and have continued to go down as the management company (in which I take an active interest) seeks competitive contracts and has gotten rid of or lessened stuff which residents felt were fairly useless over time.

And I didnt think we were talking about a 100 euro household charge which would not have changed my mind, but a full blown property tax for which figures like 1000-2500 are being bandied about in the media.



orka said:


> Property taxes are a feature of nearly all developed economies so it was not inconceivable that they would be introduced here.



Im not an economist. Im not an expert on taxation. It was not something I conceived of or was on my radar at all at the time. 



orka said:


> And equally hard to believe is the idea that people would be selling their houses purely to avoid the property tax – I haven’t heard anyone talk about actually doing this.  So if things had panned out the way you hoped and you were now sitting on some equity in your property, you would sell to avoid the property tax?



Well depending on how much it is, yes. I dont deem just under 1k in management fees plus, say 1k, in property tax to be worth the small apartment I live in. It adds around 70k over the term of the mortgage. Just not worth it to me - at all. My estate will never be taken in charge by the council, so I feel like its double paying. If I had some equity I would sell up and rent or buy somewhere without management fees (hypothetical situation where I have an income etc...)

My father in law (who does have equity) may well have to sell because he owns a reasonably large home but has a very very low income, so he may not be able to afford a property tax.


----------



## oldnick

I entirely understand truthseekers position. However, whether one owns or rents a place the cost of the property tax will be borne by both parties -immediately by the owner but also -eventually- by the tenant in the form of increased rents.

If tenants think that every increased charge -NPPR, PRTB,BER,property tax -will continually be absorbed by the LL they are sadly mistaken. 
So, owner or tenant, at the end of the day everyone pays.


----------



## bluemac

Purple said:


> I paid far more than that. If I hadn't paid it in stamp duty then my house would have cost more and I would have paid it to the seller. The price is set by the funds available to prospective purchasers. If the state takes some and the seller takes the rest there's no net loss to the buyer.
> Would you feel better if the seller paid the stamp duty and you could feel you didn’t pay any? Of course you wouldn’t because you’re not stupid; you now that you paid the market rate for your house, it just so happened that the state took a percentage of that market rate and the seller took the rest.
> 
> I also agree that the tax should be on the occupant, not the owner but not because it will hold back the property market as low property prices are a good thing in the economy.



My point was I felt I was paying a property tax and now we are being asked to pay a property tax again. I understand your point, the site may well have been more expensive if this tax wasn't in place, but that's not what happened, what happend was a paid a property tax. 

When I compare it to the uk which would have been a 3rd of the tax cost and I took into account there was no ongoing council tax after that to pay so felt it was a fair and affordable at the time.


----------



## dereko1969

T McGibney said:


> It gets worse!
> 
> That said, I'm not surprised. When a Commission on Taxation is set up with all sorts of vested interests on board, but few if any of them tax experts or specialists, the results are likely to be odd.


 
Whilst there may have been some "vested interests" on board, do you really think it was them that was doing the work?

The people who actually did the work are/were Revenue employees with years of experience. And in fairness an awful lot of the board members have good relevant experience (even though there are the usual IBEC/SIPTU heads also), see here.




What exactly do you find "odd" about the Property Tax elements?

Nobody seems to have even mentioned the fact that stamp duty for PPR purchasers will be abolished if this recommendation is followed. Is that not a good thing? Moving from a transaction tax which in a moribund market can be a disincentive to purchase to an ongoing annual payment.


----------



## T McGibney

dereko1969 said:


> Whilst there may have been some "vested interests" on board, do you really think it was them that was doing the work?
> 
> *The people who actually did the work are/were Revenue employees with years of experience*. And in fairness an awful lot of the board members have good relevant experience (even though there are the usual IBEC/SIPTU heads also), see here.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you find "odd" about the Property Tax elements?



I think you answered your own question there. The Commission on Taxation was a pointless exercise if it merely involved Revenue staff re-cooking their own ideas for a table of academics, so-called social partners, economists and a few tax professionals.

I thought their idea of a tax credit-based subsidy to the auctioneers & valuers to be odd. Utterly bizarre actually, when I consider the origins of the current crisis.


----------



## runner

"Nobody seems to have even mentioned the fact that stamp duty for PPR  purchasers will be abolished if this recommendation is followed. Is that  not a good thing? Moving from a transaction tax which in a moribund  market can be a disincentive to purchase to an ongoing annual payment."

I hadnt heard that the stamp duty removal from PPRs was part of the overall proposals. If thats the case Id be a little happier with the property tax.
It this likely?


----------



## theoneill

Are the government in a position to abolish any taxes?


----------



## dereko1969

T McGibney said:


> I think you answered your own question there. The Commission on Taxation was a pointless exercise if it merely involved Revenue staff re-cooking their own ideas for a table of academics, so-called social partners, economists and a few tax professionals.
> 
> I thought their idea of a tax credit-based subsidy to the auctioneers & valuers to be odd. Utterly bizarre actually, when I consider the origins of the current crisis.


 
The staff in the normal course of events implement Government policy, whilst working for the Commission they were free to examine all sorts of issues that they normally wouldn't have, they had a blank sheet of paper. Perhaps reading a bit more of it might enlighten you.

The use of the tax credit was to find a cheap way of gathering price information and I think was a fair enough idea, rather than spending millions on a valuation database. I really don't get your "origins of the current crisis" jibe, was it really the fault of valuers and auctioneers?


----------



## DerKaiser

runner said:


> "Nobody seems to have even mentioned the fact that stamp duty for PPR purchasers will be abolished if this recommendation is followed. Is that not a good thing? Moving from a transaction tax which in a moribund market can be a disincentive to purchase to an ongoing annual payment."
> 
> I hadnt heard that the stamp duty removal from PPRs was part of the overall proposals. If thats the case Id be a little happier with the property tax.
> 
> It this likely?


 
Isn't stamp duty currently just 1%? It has already been significantly reduced.


----------



## T McGibney

dereko1969 said:


> The staff in the normal course of events implement Government policy, whilst working for the Commission they were free to examine all sorts of issues that they normally wouldn't have, they had a blank sheet of paper. Perhaps reading a bit more of it might enlighten you.
> 
> The use of the tax credit was to find a cheap way of gathering price information and I think was a fair enough idea, rather than spending millions on a valuation database. I really don't get your "origins of the current crisis" jibe, was it really the fault of valuers and auctioneers?



Believe me, I have read the Commission report.

Revenue have a major input into the annual Budget, Finance Bill & Finance Act. The tax code changes almost on a daily basis with endless eBriefs and updates all from Revenue. They surely don't need a Commission to test or come up with new ideas?

The idea of the State basing its property tax on valuations provided by the auctioneers is laughable. These lads have a total vested interest in overvaluing property, as they typically charge % fees on transactions. 

And yes I do hold auctioneers and valuers at least partly to blame for the excesses of the bubble years. They didn't mind pillorying those who disagreed with their snakeoil pronouncements of the era - "property never falls in value", "there is a national shortage of houses", "if you don't get on the property ladder now, you'll be left behind" etc etc etc


----------



## demoivre

Purple said:


> 1)    A property tax, if properly constituted, provides a stable income stream for the state. My preference is a system based on the site value.



Who, if any, would you exempt from paying the property tax?


----------



## reddanmm

Just had a fleeting look at a newspaper while out shopping and it said that the database for for national house sales will be ready at the end of Sept and this will be used to set the value of the house for the property tax.

It will be using house sale prices  from 2010 onwards . This is not logical because one house on an estate could be wrecked or be a quick sale and go for 80,000 and the nice house down the road could have sold for 120,000, and how many houses have actually sold since 2010 . 
Can't remember  what paper it was but if anyone has a link. Oh it also said that it would not favour using valuers as they would be open to under valuing the house  . 
Jeez and i had my brown envelope ready


----------



## Shawady

From recent reports the property tax will be (1) based on ability to pay and (2) taken from people's wage packet.
Isn't this just another form of income tax?
Why not just increase income tax and cut out the mess that is inevitebly going to come with administering a property tax?


----------



## truthseeker

Shawady said:


> From recent reports the property tax will be (1) based on ability to pay and (2) taken from people's wage packet.
> Isn't this just another form of income tax?
> Why not just increase income tax and cut out the mess that is inevitebly going to come with administering a property tax?



I agree. Also raises a huge number of questions around how they are going to link an individual to a particular address and that address to a wage packet. And what about people who dont have jobs but are not on social welfare either?


----------



## truthseeker

reddanmm said:


> Just had a fleeting look at a newspaper while out shopping and it said that the database for for national house sales will be ready at the end of Sept and this will be used to set the value of the house for the property tax.



I found this

About time there was a register of house prices. However, the market has been so depressed that there will be huge sections and estates not covered in this (only goes back 2 years).

Also agree that due to upgrade, extension, etc, one house in an estate could be worth a lot less than another so lets hope the lower priced stuff got listed.


----------



## Purple

demoivre said:


> Who, if any, would you exempt from paying the property tax?



In the long run nobody, in the short term people who have no income or net assets.


----------



## T McGibney

Shawady said:


> Why not just increase income tax and cut out the mess that is inevitebly going to come with administering a property tax?



+1

Cut the annual Personal Tax Credit by €x. (If they want to widen the tax base beyond income tax payers, apply an appropriate deduction to state pensions & benefits.) Problem solved in 5 minutes.


----------



## ajapale

Shawady said:


> Isn't this just another form of income tax?
> Why not just increase income tax and cut out the mess that is inevitably going to come with administering a property tax?



I suppose the difference is that the property tax will only be levied on house owners and not on tenants.

I would remove the exemptions enjoyed by Local Authorities, Housing Charities etc.

I dont think much thought has been given to the practicalities of deducting the property tax through payroll. This will put enormous  added expence and hassle on the pay roll system  in companies.


----------



## Purple

Shawady said:


> From recent reports the property tax will be (1) based on ability to pay and (2) taken from people's wage packet.
> Isn't this just another form of income tax?
> Why not just increase income tax and cut out the mess that is inevitebly going to come with administering a property tax?


Many wealthy people have low incomes but large assets. A proper property tax will take this into account.


----------



## demoivre

demoivre said:


> Who, if any, would you exempt from paying the property tax?





Purple said:


> In the long run nobody, in the short term people who have no income or net assets.



That will be music to the ears of those in negative equity who could afford a property tax out of disposable income.


----------



## Purple

demoivre said:


> That will be music to the ears of those in negative equity who could afford a property tax out of disposable income.


Why should negative equity come into it?
It's a tax on the value of your property or site, not on how much debt you have secured against it.


----------



## demoivre

Purple said:


> Why should negative equity come into it?
> It's a tax on the value of your property or site, not on how much debt you have secured against it.



You said you would exempt people, in the short run, from paying the property tax  if they have no income or *net assets*. 	How is a  house in negative equity a net asset?


----------



## Purple

demoivre said:


> How is a  house in negative equity a net asset?



It's not. 

If people have no net assets and no income they have no ability to pay. If they have an income but no net assets then they can pay and if they have no income but do have assets then they can also pay.


----------



## werner

Shawady said:


> From recent reports the property tax will be (1) based on ability to pay and (2) taken from people's wage packet.
> Isn't this just another form of income tax?
> Why not just increase income tax and cut out the mess that is inevitebly going to come with administering a property tax?


 
Because what you are advocating is generally known as "progressive" taxation, whereby the wealthy pay more in tax due to their wealth and the less well off pay less due to them having less wealth.

Obviously it does not suit FG/Labour to use the fair equitable form of taxation that you are advocating and I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to why.

The sheer level of crazy administration and costs involved in raising this farce of an inequitable regressive tax is a disgrace to all taxpayers


----------



## orka

werner said:


> Because what you are advocating is generally known as "progressive" taxation, whereby the wealthy pay more in tax due to their wealth and the less well off pay less due to them having less wealth.
> 
> Obviously it does not suit FG/Labour to use the fair equitable form of taxation


Shawady didn't mention an increase in the top rate of income tax - just an increase in income tax. We already have the most progressive income tax structure in Europe - what is needed is a broadening of the taxation structure, not an even greater steepening at the top end.  An income tax alternative to property tax would/should be more likely to occur at the bottom end - bringing more people into the tax net, reducing tax credits, widening tax bands etc. - to try to make it more a per capita charge than a based-on-income charge. 

And why do you say that it is fairer that 'the wealthy' (measured by income) should pay more? A retired couple with an income of 30K and a paid-off house worth 300K are in a far better position to pay additional tax than a couple earning 100K between them but with 3 children and a 300K house with a 400K mortgage...


----------



## jman0war

I am opposed to a property tax that is based on "valuation".
It's a moving target.

I would rather it be based on square meter, a set price per m2 the country over.
We could use existing surveys and planning applications to calculate this.
It would also encourage density, which will reap rewards in future insofar as rolling out services.


----------



## Purple

jman0war said:


> I am opposed to a property tax that is based on "valuation".
> It's a moving target.
> 
> I would rather it be based on square meter, a set price per m2 the country over.
> We could use existing surveys and planning applications to calculate this.
> It would also encourage density, which will reap rewards in future insofar as rolling out services.



That would be a tax on Dublin and Galway.


----------



## xeresod

jman0war said:


> I am opposed to a property tax that is based on "valuation".
> It's a moving target.
> 
> I would rather it be based on square meter, a set price per m2 the country over.
> We could use existing surveys and planning applications to calculate this.
> It would also encourage density, which will reap rewards in future insofar as rolling out services.





Purple said:


> That would be a tax on Dublin and Galway.




How would it be a tax on Dublin and Galway? City properties are by and large far smaller than rural ones, so people living there would be paying far less than most other areas.


----------



## Purple

xeresod said:


> How would it be a tax on Dublin and Galway? City properties are by and large far smaller than rural ones, so people living there would be paying far less than most other areas.



Sorry, you're  right, my bad, it's the other way around.

The level of state sercices that an area gets increases or decreases the site value. It doesn't change the home value. That's why I like the idea of a site value based tax.


----------



## jman0war

But how do you account for apartments when the value is on the Site, not the home?


----------



## Purple

jman0war said:


> But how do you account for apartments when the value is on the Site, not the home?



Site vale/ number of units.


----------



## jman0war

Ok, incentivising apartment living.
That's good as it should encourage density.

However site values are already massively higher in city centres and along transport routes, so to also pay higher property taxes is like getting stung twice.
Stung with high priced mortages to live near infastructure, then stung each year with higher property taxes. This will result in sprawl as people are lured by cheaper taxes on cheaper sites away from infastructure. This will have a negative impact on future services and for futher planning.

I propose that while it's already a given that those sites will cost more, but with a view to encouraging density we reward apartments and small home dwellers with cheaper property taxes.
It costs less per head to roll out infastructure in high density areas, compared to the price per head in rural areas.


----------



## Purple

jman0war said:


> Ok, incentivising apartment living.
> That's good as it should encourage density.
> 
> However site values are already massively higher in city centres and along transport routes, so to also pay higher property taxes is like getting stung twice.
> Stung with high priced mortages to live near infastructure, then stung each year with higher property taxes. This will result in sprawl as people are lured by cheaper taxes on cheaper sites away from infastructure. This will have a negative impact on future services and for futher planning.
> 
> I propose that while it's already a given that those sites will cost more, but with a view to encouraging density we reward apartments and small home dwellers with cheaper property taxes.
> It costs less per head to roll out infastructure in high density areas, compared to the price per head in rural areas.


Higher property taxes would cause values to drop. That way the state takes a bigger share of the value it creates by providing the services rather than the owner gaining when they sell. Within a decade they could forecase what the return would be in increased property taxes from a light rail line so ROI on infrastructure projects could be forecasted.


----------



## T McGibney

jman0war said:


> I propose that while it's already a given that those sites will cost more, but with a view to encouraging density we reward apartments and small home dwellers with cheaper property taxes.
> .



And are you one of these dwellers whom you wish to reward?


----------



## jman0war

No i am not a property owner, but a renter, living away from infastructure.


----------



## jman0war

> Higher property taxes would cause values to drop


So far the property tax rates proposed are small and would have negligible impact on site value. I suppose theoretically property taxes should affect site value, I dont know of any real world examples.

I suspect what we'll see, (besides people campaigning against property taxes and political pressure keeping them low), is the sort of phenomenon i've seen here whereby infastructure like light rail gets rolled-out for pork-barrel reasons, and those living nearest to it don't use it anyway and climb into their D4 Tractors to chauffer themselves to the office in comfort.


----------



## Purple

jman0war said:


> I suspect what we'll see, (besides people campaigning against property taxes and political pressure keeping them low), is the sort of phenomenon i've seen here whereby infastructure like light rail gets rolled-out for pork-barrel reasons, and those living nearest to it don't use it anyway and climb into their D4 Tractors to chauffer themselves to the office in comfort.



You mean like the LUAS in tallaght?
If infrastructure increases property prices them people will pay higher property taxes. That’s why a site value tax is the best option.


----------



## reddanmm

I would have no problem with the property tax if i got something for it . I pay motor tax for the upkeep of the roads (so i thought) i pay for a private bin collection . I pay if i have to call  the fire brigade . I pay to attend hospital and doctors , school books . So what will i exactly get for it . Other than the grass being cut i don't see any benefit for me or my neighbours .


----------



## Protocol

You won't get anything extra, and nobody ever said you would.

You get the existing LA services.

Your current payments don't cover the total costs of these.


----------



## reddanmm

Well it would be another good few years before my estate will be taken over by the council . As for paying for the roads my motor tax should be taking care of them . The parks and public facilities are used by everyone so everyone  should pay , not just private households .


----------



## potnoodler

Definitely a disincentive not to even try and house yourself , safer to put yourself on a council list while renting , least if you lose your job there's rent allowance too


----------



## CharlieR

Protocol said:


> You won't get anything extra, and nobody ever said you would.
> 
> You get the existing LA services.
> 
> Your current payments don't cover the total costs of these.



They don't cover the costs because the slashed the budgets. 

The minister said it was to cover services, footpaths, streetlights and parks I get no services, we have no street lights, no footpaths and the nearest park is 5 miles away. What am I paying for then?

It penalises people who live in the rural areas who built their own homes that are now naturally worth double what the build cost was. Even now if I build a house for 300k it will be worth significantly more than that so why should that shrewdness penalise me?

I think you will find that they brought the tax in to bring us in line with the uk, France and Germany who have them and was part of the IMF/eu bailout that also required water rates.

If they want to bring us into line the surely the same benefits they get should apply. I paid for no school books in the uk, got free travel for children to school, no waste services, no fire brigade, they have leisure centres for all to use and are free for children.

The government needs to realise it cannot tax it's citizens out of recession, if people have no spare cash and cash is not changing hands then it will never improve.


----------



## reddanmm

Exactly my point well said Charlie R . The people that pay these charges get to see something for the money they pay we are getting nothing. Don't people in council houses in the UK also pay property taxes and water rates .


----------



## CharlieR

reddanmm said:


> Exactly my point well said Charlie R . The people that pay these charges get to see something for the money they pay we are getting nothing. Don't people in council houses in the UK also pay property taxes and water rates .


 

Correct, every household pays council tax & water rates, there are discounts for single occupancy, houses being refurbished or empty and no *2nd* property charge.

Also the tennant in the house pays them not the landlord. That will be the next move by the government probably for tennants to pay a tennant house hold charge on top of the owners household charge.


----------



## ajapale

As far as i know the present proposals call for the occupier (tenant or owner occupier) to pay the water charges, refuse charges etc and for the property owner to pay the property tax.


----------



## divadsnilloc

*Property tax Discrinination*

In my opinion, the introduction of a property tax blatantly discriminates against private property owners. There are numerous groups of society who were exempt from the household charge and this will more than likely apply also when the property tax is introduced.

As extracted from the established website (www.householdcharge.ie) the purpose of this payment is : 
"Revenues from the household charge will support the provision of local services. Internationally, local services are administered by local authorities and financed by local service charges. In Ireland, local authorities are responsible for, among other services, public parks; libraries; open spaces and leisure amenities; planning and development; fire and emergency services; maintenance and cleaning of streets and street lighting. These facilities benefit everyone" 

Individuals who are renting properties from local authorities are exempt from this charge and I maintain that this discriminates against private individuals who have purchased their own properties. People who are renting from local authorites all use the services as described above and the charge is a blatant discrimination against private home owners. 

I am aware of numerous people who are in good full time employment, earning a decent wage and they are exempt from paying the household charge because they are renting from the local authority. This discriminates against private property owners who chose to buy their own property and not put additional pressures on the local authorities

Middle Ireland being targeted again.


----------

