Property Tax, it's only a matter of time

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.
 


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

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

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.

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