Well it will be when you start to turn it into a tax baseSquare footage.....isn't hard to measure.
Dept of Transport don't send anyone round to your home to check you have your NCT!Well it will be when you start to turn it into a tax base
You will need very complicated criteria as to whether converted attics count, what constitutes a roofed area, rules for garages and outhouses, etc, etc.
Revenue will have zero interest in sending people out to tens of thousands of houses to measure distances between walls either.
It's a non starter.
They don't have to. Car owners are legally obliged to submit their cars for NCT . The whole NCT infrastructure has had to be paid for , ( and costs a lot of money) but stated benefits of improving the safety of cars on the roads are considered worth it ( by most of us)Dept of Transport don't send anyone round to your home to check you have your NCT!
BER takes any number of criteria into account when giving a rating for a home; I don't believe square footage will be any more difficult.
For the vast majority of houses and apartments certainly in the cities they are of standard sizes eg most housing estates have a couple of hundred houses which are almost identical. Why then have two properties within a 10 min drive of each other identical in size with access to the same amenities pay differing lpt simply based on property value.Value is often linked to local services and amenities. Would it be fair for the owner of a €1.5 million semi-d in D4 to pay the same as the owner of a €100k rural bungalow with no local services and private well and waste treatment just because they're the same size? Using value is possibly the best way to introduce ability to pay as well without just linking it directly to income.
Because it's not an amenity tax. It's a tax on the value of the property.Why then have two properties within a 10 min drive of each other identical in size with access to the same amenities pay differing lpt simply based on property value.
How is it fair so? It lpt is supposed to pay for local services which is what it's supposed to do then how are two identical houses using more of local services?Because it's not an amenity tax. It's a tax on the value of the property.
It's rare that two identical houses in the same estate would have significantly different values. If they do, it's likely one or both have under or over-valued, the former may be addressed via Revenue. When you look at houses sold at the same time in an estate, prices tend to find a level.For the vast majority of houses and apartments certainly in the cities they are of standard sizes eg most housing estates have a couple of hundred houses which are almost identical. Why then have two properties within a 10 min drive of each other identical in size with access to the same amenities pay differing lpt simply based on property value.
Comparing two identical sized properties one worth 1.5m and the other worth 100k is taking the extremes.
I was referring to identical houses in different estates within a 19 min drive of each other.It's rare that two identical houses in the same estate would have significantly different values. If they do, it's likely one or both have under or over-valued, the former may be addressed via Revenue. When you look at houses sold at the same time in an estate, prices tend to find a level.
19 minutes covers a lot of ground at times. In the same area, there generally isn't huge variation that would put a lot of bands between similarly sized properties, so they don't pay markedly different rates. Take Dublin 14 4 beds, 125-150sqm for example, going on asking prices you're looking at 600-700k further out of town, 750-900k closer to areas like Clonskeagh. Regardless, taking value out of the calculation doesn't make sense when the goal is to broaden the tax base.I was referring to identical houses in different estates within a 19 min drive of each other.
The principle remains the same why should two houses of identical size pay different lpt if it is supposed to pay for local amenities.19 minutes covers a lot of ground at times. In the same area, there generally isn't huge variation that would put a lot of bands between similarly sized properties, so they don't pay markedly different rates. Take Dublin 14 4 beds, 125-150sqm for example, going on asking prices you're looking at 600-700k further out of town, 750-900k closer to areas like Clonskeagh. Regardless, taking value out of the calculation doesn't make sense when the goal is to broaden the tax base.
The ability to pay forms the foundation of our tax system.The principle remains the same why should two houses of identical size pay different lpt if it is supposed to pay for local amenities.
The lpt is charged on the value of a property to pay for local amenities but it still does answer the question how are two identical properties are both using the same amount of local amenities pay different amounts.
the property tax was one of the reforms to broaden the tax base insisted on by the TROIKA it only became LPT when the governing parties ran into problems getting support within their own parties at the local level,LPT stands for Local Property Tax.
PRSI stands for Pay-Related Social Insurance.
But size is a fairer way rather than house price. All of the costs you reference above are fixed costs. Have you ever tried to get the council to install extra lights? Clean streets, cut grass etc. They don't do it trust me I am Chairperson of the local residents association.The ability to pay forms the foundation of our tax system.
Let's face it though, no two properties will ever be using the same amount of local amenities. Property tax can never be more than a crude measure. If you want to tax local amenities on a more accurate basis, then you'd need to start charging for public water and waste treatment for a start, start charging for street lighting, street cleaning, charge kids for every time they go down the slide in local playground, Charge per km walked on footpaths, use of public bins, parks, libraries, etc. etc..
I fully understand that we need to broaden the tax base but it is the squeezed middle being expected to carry the can.the property tax was one of the reforms to broaden the tax base insisted on by the TROIKA it only became LPT when the governing parties ran into problems getting support within their own parties at the local level,
on the other hand
Pay related social insurance when set up was what it said on the tin
I benefited from it myself for around mid-1986 when out of work,
pressure from the shortsighted right-wing element within both FG and FF got it changed it had the exact opposite effect to what they were hoping to achieve,
You may think it's shortsighted but I don't. I am one of the squeezed middle income who pays a lot of tax, prsi, usc. The chances of me receiving a State pension is remote as it will no doubt be means tested by the time I reach retirement. I have invested in a private pension because the State suggested it.so did the LPT tax
the argument you are making is shortsighted and I say that having worked very hard all of my life earning above the average income under PAYE,
For a good bit of my working life, I paid twice as much income tax as the squeezed middle pay today,
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?