Property taxes to include BER

[Leo]

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?

How does house size determine demand on local services? Who's going to consume more, a wealthy individual living alone in a large house, or a family of 5 with school-going kids in a house half the size?

There is no more a direct correlation between house size and consumption of services than there is with house value, but at least value has a higher correlation with ability to pay.

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 grass on the green outside my place is being cut regularly, streets are swept a couple of times a month, lighting is fixed quickly when it fails. All authorities do all this within the constraints of current budget in public spaces, they don't offer extra services on request though they will respond to incidents of fly-tipping and the like, and they of course do little or nothing in developments that haven't been fully taken in charge.

 

[Leo]

It appears that you have already retired from the wording in your posts so you have received something back from all your income tax and prsi during your working life.

The tax and PRSI you pay during your working life is not some kind of investment in your own retirement, it pays for current services and pensions. When it comes your turn to retire, it is those working at the time who will fund whatever state pension you qualify for.

 

[The Horseman]

The tax and PRSI you pay during your working life is not some kind of investment in your own retirement, it pays for current services and pensions. When it comes your turn to retire, it is those working at the time who will fund whatever state pension you qualify for.

If this is the case then the whole "Pensions time bomb" does not exist so.

 

[The Horseman]

How does house size determine demand on local services? Who's going to consume more, a wealthy individual living alone in a large house, or a family of 5 with school-going kids in a house half the size?

There is no more a direct correlation between house size and consumption of services than there is with house value, but at least value has a higher correlation with ability to pay.


The grass on the green outside my place is being cut regularly, streets are swept a couple of times a month, lighting is fixed quickly when it fails. All authorities do all this within the constraints of current budget in public spaces, they don't offer extra services on request though they will respond to incidents of fly-tipping and the like, and they of course do little or nothing in developments that haven't been fully taken in charge.

You have hit the nail on the head. The lpt has nothing to do with services rather ability to pay.

So it's another tax on those who have higher value properties because they either bought them (and as such needed higher income to do so) or have seen their value increase because they own them so long.

 

[Leo]

If this is the case then the whole "Pensions time bomb" does not exist so.

The pension time bomb refers to us having one of the fastest ageing populations in Europe and the ever increasing likelihood that general taxation will be unable to meet future demands.

 

[Leo]

You have hit the nail on the head. The lpt has nothing to do with services rather ability to pay.

It is absolutely and directly linked to local services in that 80% of the take goes to fund the local authority where it is collected, with the remainder distributed to other authorities that don't collect enough in LPT to fund services.

So it's another tax on those who have higher value properties because they either bought them (and as such needed higher income to do so) or have seen their value increase because they own them so long.

Close, it is another tax that aligns with the goal of broadening the tax base beyond relying so heavily on income taxation. Given the skew on more expensive properties, it's a means of extracting additional tax from those who are property rich but may not have much in the way of taxable income.

 

[NoRegretsCoyote]

It is absolutely and directly linked to local services in that 80% of the take goes to fund the local authority where it is collected, with the remainder distributed to other authorities that don't collect enough in LPT to fund services.

Yes but in 2013 central government grant assistance to local authorities was reduced proportionately.

LPT is just a housing wealth tax. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Leo]

LPT is just a housing wealth tax. Nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly, that's what it was designed to be, to tax property assets and reduce the reliance on income taxes. At least now the majority stays local, and LAs have the powers to increase or reduce the rates depending on their needs. LPT is bringing in half of what the Central Government grants allocated at their peak, so perhaps this model is leading to better value?

 

[The Horseman]

The pension time bomb refers to us having one of the fastest ageing populations in Europe and the ever increasing likelihood that general taxation will be unable to meet future demands.

Which goes back to my post that it will be likely the State pension by the time I retire will be means tested and all my contributions during my working life will result in me and others like me not getting a State pension.

 

[kinnjohn]

It is only a matter of time Horseman before the Government appoint a citizens assembly to look at taxation more wealth taxes will follow, Can you not see the way the wind is blowing,

 

[kinnjohn]

Which goes back to my post that it will be likely the State pension by the time I retire will be means tested and all my contributions during my working life will result in me and others like me not getting a State pension.

Are you paying PAYE prsi or self-employed prsi,

If paye do you realize up until the USC came in the amount of payroll prsi was anywhere from 16.5% to over 19%
at present, I think it is around 14.5% which is close to 1 in 6 total wage packets finishing up in the prsi fund,

if you are self-employed it is 4% which is 1 in 25 pay packets going into the prsi fund;

IF things get tight it will be kicked into the citizen's assembly to get sorted at arms length,

there is over 10 billion taken in every year in prsi contributions,

there has to be a contribution pension paid out there is no way any government would get away with taking from 14.5% now up to 19.5% out of payroll and get away with giving nothing back,there is talk of increasing prsi again,

 

[The Horseman]

It is only a matter of time Horseman before the Government appoint a citizens assembly to look at taxation more wealth taxes will follow, Can you not see the way the wind is blowing,

I don't have an issue with paying tax. The issue I have is that everyone should pay tax irrespective of amount. The other issue is the waste of tax collected with no accountability.

Our tax system is always a blunt instrument. Be it the lpt, car tax, vat, income tax, insurance costs. Over spending on capital projects, spending in the health system despite one of the highest spend per head of population.

 

[The Horseman]

Are you paying PAYE prsi or self-employed prsi,

If paye do you realize up until the USC came in the amount of payroll prsi was anywhere from 16.5% to over 19%
at present, I think it is around 14.5% which is close to 1 in 6 total wage packets finishing up in the prsi fund,

if you are self-employed it is 4% which is 1 in 25 pay packets going into the prsi fund;

IF things get tight it will be kicked into the citizen's assembly to get sorted at arms length,

there is over 8 billion taken in every year in prsi contributions,

there has to be a contribution pension paid out there is no way any government would get away with taking from 14.5% now up to 19.5% out of payroll and get away with giving nothing back,there is talk of increasing prsi again,

I am employed and also a landlord. I think you are missing my point. I am not saying a state pension will cease to be paid I am saying it will be means tested and because of the sacrifices I am making now for the future I am unlikely to receive a State pension because I would be over the income threshold.

I may get a state pension but end up paying it back in tax, the net effect being I don't actually benefit from it.

 

[kinnjohn]

We can't complain We voted for it,
Paye payroll prsi which I notice you refer to as a tax so we will call it a tax is 14.4% there are hundreds of thousands of people who pay little income tax but 14.5% prsi gets paid into the prsi fund because they work,
, Contributary PRSI pension will not be means-tested, but the day might come when it gets kicked into a citizens assembly the term of reference will be loaded in favor of the outcome required,
I could see the day where self-employed get a lower contributory pension, I don't wish to see it happen,

 

[Leo]

Which goes back to my post that it will be likely the State pension by the time I retire will be means tested and all my contributions during my working life will result in me and others like me not getting a State pension.

Again, your contributions during your working life are used to pay current expenses, they have no bearing on what pension if any you will get in the future.

 

[Leo]

I don't have an issue with paying tax. The issue I have is that everyone should pay tax irrespective of amount. The other issue is the waste of tax collected with no accountability.

Our tax system is always a blunt instrument. Be it the lpt, car tax, vat, income tax, insurance costs. Over spending on capital projects, spending in the health system despite one of the highest spend per head of population.

What do insurance costs have to do with LPT? That and the spending of taxes and the extremely poor value we get are for other threads.

 

[kinnjohn]

it is called a contributory pension for a reason, the higher the income the more you pay in prsi you will get the same as everyone else,
If you are on a high income of 100000 payroll prsi is around 14000 more than the state pension of over 12000
an income of 50000 payroll prsi of around 7000,
can you see the day they would get away with mean testing the person who has been paying more in payroll prsi every year than they will receive in contributory pension when they retire,

Mind you there are some shortsighted posters on here who be shouting about not increases in the old-age pension not realizing every euro they get in a pay increase 14.5% is taken in payroll prsi and goes into the prsi fund,

 

[The Horseman]

Again, your contributions during your working life are used to pay current expenses, they have no bearing on what pension if any you will get in the future.

So in your eyes if we don't have enough workers paying income tax when it comes to my retirement its tough.

So rather than changing how we do things now for the future we can just "wing it".

 

[The Horseman]

it is called a contributory pension for a reason

Yes and the contributory pension criteria changed from the need to have 520 contributions during your life time to now needing 2080 (save some slight differences depending on when you commenced working) contributions to qualify for a full contributory state pension.

So it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the criteria or the payment calculations won't change in the medium term.

The net effect being you may get it in one hand and it will be taken back in the other.

 

[kinnjohn]

as far as I am concerned it should always have to be 40 years for a full contributory pension
not fair for someone to come within 10 years of pension to make a voluntary contribution of 250 has been increases to 500 Euro I think, and get the same pension as someone who paid in for fifty years,

now back to the LPT no matter who finishes up in government so called wealth in there eyes is going to get hit big time in Ireland,
a good example is your good self back around 1988 when they put prsi on the self-employed for the first time the recommended rate was around 7 or 8 % but they set it at I think 4% they have balked at putting it up ever since
there have been many reports commissioned recommending it be increased but no action was ever taken,

The way they got around taking in more prsi was to put 4% prsi on unearned income which the horseman
pays on income as a landlord,

When they brought in the USC they slipped it on the self-employed and of course horsemen also,
and you can be sure they are not finished yet

To be fair the reduced paye prsi in other words before payroll total takings under prsi heading was around 19%
it is now 14.5% + the USC still around 19%
landlords wealth is a sitting duck the cannot leave the country and bring the house with them
they can sell the house and go but stay and you are a sitting duck,