SoylentGreen
Registered User
- Messages
- 486
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.
So long as this doesn't extend to unused rooms in homes.
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.
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
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.
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.
I have made no point, good bad or indifferent, on the LPT.Your point on the LPT is valid. It is set way to low.
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.
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.
There is no way people who own their own homes will ever be penalised for under occupancy
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.There is no way people who own their own homes will ever be penalised for under occupancy
No way !
Imagine an annual property tax that equates to 2% of the assessed value of your home? Not at all uncommon in the US.
Well, I doubt very many "empty nesters" pay tax at a rate of 52% on any material portion of their income.52% on any incremental income, 33% on gains, and 2% on one's home would be perverse.
Well, I doubt very many "empty nesters" pay tax at a rate of 52% on any material portion of their income.
Really? Any retired Garda, teacher or mid ranking public servant will.
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.
Except that mine was clearly made in jest.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.
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.
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?