truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
Perhaps that will change at the introduction of a property tax.
The facts are the we have the highest marginal rates of tax in the EU and amongst the highest VAT rate (maybe the highest?) and despite the fact that 60% of our wealth is in property we don’t tax it in any meaningful way.
Yes, but if there was a property tax the apartment would have cost less. In that sense it's unfair but so is any change like this. If property tax is removed in the future then prices increase and so it will be unfair on people who buy just after the change.I'm sorry for your current situation but frankly I don't believe that the lack of a property tax had anything to do with your decision to purchase an apartment.
Perhaps that will change at the introduction of a property tax.
Yes, but if there was a property tax the apartment would have cost less. In that sense it's unfair but so is any change like this. If property tax is removed in the future then prices increase and so it will be unfair on people who buy just after the change.
Yes, maybe it will but I don't see this as a bad thing. I'd sooner see wealth invested in areas that create employment and generate more wealth. Property does neither in fact in the long term high peoperty prices costs jobs and reduces productive employment.
I agree, in order to protect both tenants and landlords, but that's a different point.we need a properly regulated rental market.
I agree, in order to protect both tenants and landlords, but that's a different point.
Or do both at the same time.Its a related point. Sort out the rental market so that people have options before levying tax traps.
Or do both at the same time.
I haven't read his article but the part in bold was actually a recommendation from the Commission on Taxation - a €75 tax credit for anyone who gets a valuation from an auctioneer.
I totally see where you are coming from – you are forced to pay a tax that you feel you have no hope of escaping from. I feel the same way about the levy on pension funds – there had never been such a levy so it was not in any way foreseeable but there is no escaping it – it’s like shooting ducks in a barrel. I’m not putting another cent into a pension product but my existing pension fund will lose 2.4% over 4 years and there’s nothing I can do about it. I don’t like it. I am not in favour of it. I think it is unfair. But there is no escape.Its clear you cant see where Im coming from.
It’s a bit hard to believe that you were okay with management fees (couple of thousand per annum?) which could go up (perhaps largely out of your control) but a €100 property tax would have made you not buy the property? Property taxes are a feature of nearly all developed economies so it was not inconceivable that they would be introduced here. And equally hard to believe is the idea that people would be selling their houses purely to avoid the property tax – I haven’t heard anyone talk about actually doing this. So if things had panned out the way you hoped and you were now sitting on some equity in your property, you would sell to avoid the property tax?I wouldnt have bought a property if there was a property tax. But now (due to negative equity) I have no way out of being liable. Its fundamentally unfair.
It’s a bit hard to believe that you were okay with management fees (couple of thousand per annum?) which could go up (perhaps largely out of your control) but a €100 property tax would have made you not buy the property?
Property taxes are a feature of nearly all developed economies so it was not inconceivable that they would be introduced here.
And equally hard to believe is the idea that people would be selling their houses purely to avoid the property tax – I haven’t heard anyone talk about actually doing this. So if things had panned out the way you hoped and you were now sitting on some equity in your property, you would sell to avoid the property tax?
I paid far more than that. If I hadn't paid it in stamp duty then my house would have cost more and I would have paid it to the seller. The price is set by the funds available to prospective purchasers. If the state takes some and the seller takes the rest there's no net loss to the buyer.
Would you feel better if the seller paid the stamp duty and you could feel you didn’t pay any? Of course you wouldn’t because you’re not stupid; you now that you paid the market rate for your house, it just so happened that the state took a percentage of that market rate and the seller took the rest.
I also agree that the tax should be on the occupant, not the owner but not because it will hold back the property market as low property prices are a good thing in the economy.
It gets worse!
That said, I'm not surprised. When a Commission on Taxation is set up with all sorts of vested interests on board, but few if any of them tax experts or specialists, the results are likely to be odd.
Whilst there may have been some "vested interests" on board, do you really think it was them that was doing the work?
The people who actually did the work are/were Revenue employees with years of experience. And in fairness an awful lot of the board members have good relevant experience (even though there are the usual IBEC/SIPTU heads also), see here.
What exactly do you find "odd" about the Property Tax elements?
I think you answered your own question there. The Commission on Taxation was a pointless exercise if it merely involved Revenue staff re-cooking their own ideas for a table of academics, so-called social partners, economists and a few tax professionals.
I thought their idea of a tax credit-based subsidy to the auctioneers & valuers to be odd. Utterly bizarre actually, when I consider the origins of the current crisis.