T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,962
If the poor, unemployed and low income earners are exempt from a property tax (which I understand will probably be the case), then the so-called property tax is merely another income tax, with all the same (albeit indirect) disincentive implications.Just one other point on this. I think we are reaching a saturation point on incomes taxes in terms of disincentivising effort (and all the points you mention above), which is why a property tax is a lesser evil than an increased level of income taxes.
If the poor, unemployed and low income earners are exempt from a property tax (which I understand will probably be the case), then the so-called property tax is merely another income tax, with all the same (albeit indirect) disincentive implications.
It's not a disincentive to whether someone decides to bust their ass doing overtime or hoping for a promotion though. Higher rates and lower bands disincentivise that, but a fixed property tax wouldn't.
It would be far more efficient and less costly to forget about the property tax and simply reduce personal tax credits accordingly. But instead of this clear logic we are fed balderdash about how a property tax will somehow magically 'widen the tax base' when the same limited range of people end up paying it AND income tax.
Assuming that it is inevitable, the property tax should be applied to all properties. If the owner has an inability to pay the tax, it should be accrued with interest until the owner can afford to pay the tax or until the property is sold. The tax should be paid from the proceeds in preference to other charges against the property.
In other words, the State will eventually own the properties of the poor? This would be an utter scandal.
If they charge the same rate of 'interest' on late paid property tax as they do on late paid NPPR tax (10% per month) it won't take 50 yearsAnd it won't be theoretical either
+1We seem to be obsessed with raising taxes in this country at the moment. Increasing taxes, as has been pointed out, will disincentivise productivity and make it more attractive to go on / stay on the dole. We should IMO be cutting taxes and slashing government spending at the same time. Make it necessary (by cutting the dole) and attractive (cutting income tax) for all those who are able to work to do so. Make it much more affordable for employers to hire by cutting employees PRSI and slashing commercial rates.
That is already happening. I thought about starting a thread here to find out if there is a level of tax above which people would not be willing to pay. A level of tax in other words, at which point people would emigrate.there will come a point where even those with jobs will start to emigrate simply because it won't be worth staying.
Regrettably, the govnt want the money now so I doubt if a sytem of postponments with a fair penalty would be allowed.
If the tax is based on property and not income, it should not act as a disincentive to work so arguably better than an income tax increase.
True, but I don't see that as a bad thing.It will if those who are not working don't have to pay it. It will also make home ownership less attractive which is another debate altogether.
No easy solutions here.Slashing government spending would obviously adversely affect public sector workers, but by also cutting taxes it would stimulate employment. More people working in the private sector (raising taxes) rather than more people working in the public sector (spending taxes).
cutting taxes it would stimulate employment
I am sure there is a tipping point at which employment is disincentivised by taxation but is there any evidence that we are hitting that? There are jobs available in Ireland but they do not match the skills of those who are unemployed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?