Varadkar proposes a tax on empty buildings

So long as this doesn't extend to unused rooms in homes. I would not like to be forced to downsize, because I am older, and to make way for someone younger.
 
SoylentGreen said:
So long as this doesn't extend to unused rooms in homes.
Click to expand...

If we accept that the State has a right to tax homes that are wholly unused, it clearly follows that they've a corresponding right to tax homes that are only partly used.

Meanwhile, the actual solution to the housing problem - the building of an adequate volume of new homes - remains as elusive as ever.
 
T McGibney said:
If we accept that the State has a right to tax homes that are wholly unused, it clearly follows that they've a corresponding right to tax homes that are only partly used.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I don't think there is any doubt that the State has a right to tax dwellings, whether they are fully or partly occupied or entirely vacant. We actually already have such a tax - LPT.

LPT is a very modest property tax by international standards (a point recently emphasised by the Commission) and is probably insufficient to incentivise anybody to "right-size" their accommodation needs.

http://www.independent.ie/business/...n-warning-over-volatile-revenue-35744373.html
 
Sarenco said:
To be fair, I don't think there is any doubt that the State has a right to tax dwellings, whether they are fully or partly occupied or entirely vacant. We actually already have such a tax - LPT.

LPT is a very modest property tax by international standards (a point recently emphasised by the Commission) and is probably insufficient to incentivise anybody to "right-size" their accommodation needs.

http://www.independent.ie/business/...n-warning-over-volatile-revenue-35744373.html
Click to expand...

Okay:

If we accept that the State has a right to tax homes on the specific basis that they are wholly unused, it clearly follows that they've a corresponding right to tax homes on the specific basis that they are only partly used.
 
T McGibney said:
Okay:

If we accept that the State has a right to tax homes on the specific basis that they are wholly unused, it clearly follows that they've a corresponding right to tax homes on the specific basis that they are only partly used.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. That is a bizarre claim. To extend the hypothesis further you could argue that the state has an obligation to provide tax credits for homes which are over occupied.

Your point on the LPT is valid. It is set way to low.
 
Is a dwelling a "home" if nobody lives there?;)

I certainly agree that it would be difficult to frame and police a vacant dwelling levy and there are far better ways to address this issue.
 
Andy836 said:
No it doesn't. That is a bizarre claim. To extend the hypothesis further you could argue that the state has an obligation to provide tax credits for homes which are over occupied.
Click to expand...

Except that the State doesn't provide tax credits for homes, so your extension makes no sense.


Andy836 said:
Your point on the LPT is valid. It is set way to low.
Click to expand...
I have made no point, good bad or indifferent, on the LPT.
 
SoylentGreen said:
So long as this doesn't extend to unused rooms in homes. I would not like to be forced to downsize, because I am older, and to make way for someone younger.
Click to expand...

In fact there is something like this in existence in the UK already. A council house deemed larger than the tenants needs, where for example, a child of the tenant has moved out, causes a reduction in housing benefit. Although it is a reduction in benefit, it is widely called the "Bedroom Tax"

Something similar exists in Australia.
 
cremeegg said:
In fact there is something like this in existence in the UK already. A council house deemed larger than the tenants needs, where for example, a child of the tenant has moved out, causes a reduction in housing benefit. Although it is a reduction in benefit, it is widely called the "Bedroom Tax"

Something similar exists in Australia.
Click to expand...

This relates to council/ housing association properties in the UK.
There is no way people who own their own homes will ever be penalised for under occupancy
 
delfio said:
There is no way people who own their own homes will ever be penalised for under occupancy
Click to expand...
Well, you could argue that LPT already penalises under-occupancy but it's set at such a low level that it probably doesn't incentivises anybody to "right-size" their accommodation needs.

Imagine an annual property tax that equates to 2% of the assessed value of your home? Not at all uncommon in the US.
 
Sarenco said:
Imagine an annual property tax that equates to 2% of the assessed value of your home? Not at all uncommon in the US.
Click to expand...

Yes, but to be fair only in places where other taxes are lower than they are here.

52% on any incremental income, 33% on gains, and 2% on one's home would be perverse.
 
T McGibney said:
Really? Any retired Garda, teacher or mid ranking public servant will.
Click to expand...

Yes, really!

The average retired garda, for example, receives an (exceptionally generous) annual pension in the region of €25k. None of that income would be taxed @52%.
 
T McGibney said:
Except that the State doesn't provide tax credits for homes, so your extension makes no sense.



I have made no point, good bad or indifferent, on the LPT.
Click to expand...

Ah I see, that was Sarenco on the LPT not being high enough.

Yes, my tax credit point makes no sense, in the same way your contention that half occupied properties being subject to a % of the vacant property tax makes no sense.
 
Andy836 said:
Yes, my tax credit point makes no sense, in the same way your contention that half occupied properties being subject to a % of the vacant property tax makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Except that mine was clearly made in jest. :) My views on the folly of government attempting to micromanage the residential property sector are well known.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top