The Great Speed Camera Conspiracy

Dalfiatach

Now, this piece in the Ingerlish Daily Mail is mostly about speeding fines and cameras and so on in Britain, and is really very dull. But it contains a fascinating little nugget:

Tele-Traffic's business is not limited to the UK. Ireland has bought more than 400 laser cameras from their company - and over there, the government is quite open about using cameras to raise revenue.

Mr Ricketts said the Irish government had made an election promise to reduce stamp duty and had made it clear they would make up the lost revenue from speeding fines.

'We have produced for them a new system to make up that revenue,' Mr Ricketts said. 'So they are going the opposite way to the UK Government. They are actually openly promoting speed enforcement as their revenue raiser.'

Now, are any of the Irish media going to take up this story and ask Mr Ricketts some very serious questions:

1) Who exactly told Mr Ricketts that it was Government policy to raise extra revenue from speeing fines?

2) Who told him there was an "election promise" to reduce stamp duty?

3) Who commissioned this new "system"? Which department, which officials, and how much did each individual Minister and the entire Cabinet know about this?

4) Which department(s) are in charge, and how much money has already been spent?

5) The cameras apparently cost £3000 in the UK. How much did we spend per camera (remember the eVoting machines and their magically inflated prices)?

And that's just for starters. We need answers on this, and we need them now.

Victor

Dalfiatach wrote:

1) Who exactly told Mr Ricketts that it was Government policy to raise extra revenue from speeing fines?

Not policy, but there is an expectation that in the short term, a large amount of money will come in, but that this will drop as people get the message.

2) Who told him there was an "election promise" to reduce stamp duty?

Which minister for justice made pronouncements on stamp duty recently?

3) Who commissioned this new "system"? Which department, which officials, and how much did each individual Minister and the entire Cabinet know about this?

The system doesn't exist yet.

4) Which department(s) are in charge, and how much money has already been spent?

Justice and transport.

Glenbhoy

Dalfiatach wrote:

Now, are any of the Irish media going to take up this story and ask Mr Ricketts some very serious questions:

Maybe Ricketts has been taking lessons from Noel Treacy on how to talk complete crap.
The revenue from residential stamp duty is circa 1bn, by replacing it with revenue from speed camera, they'd need (very rough guess), say each fine is €80, 12.5 million speeding penalties p.a, from 400 cameras, that would be some going, from a population of 4 million, it'd be tough too, jees, the cameras would probably overheat and explode!!

bonkey

Glenbhoy wrote:

The revenue from residential stamp duty is circa 1bn, by replacing it with revenue from speed camera,

The article said they wanted to reduce stamp duty, not remove it.

Glenbhoy

bonkey wrote:

The article said they wanted to reduce stamp duty, not remove it.

But McDowell said he wants residential stamp duty removed - it won't happen obviously, but there will be substantial reductions, especially for ftb's.

Akrasia

Glenbhoy wrote:

But McDowell said he wants residential stamp duty removed - it won't happen obviously, but there will be substantial reductions, especially for ftb's.

There is no stamp duty on new houses under 125 square metres for owner occupiers

Owner-occupiers of new houses/apartments are exempt from stamp duty, provided that the area of the house or apartment does not exceed 125 sq. metres (1,346 sq. feet) and a Floor Area Compliance Certificate has been issued. The house or apartment must not have been occupied prior to its purchase. It must be occupied as the owner's main place of residence for a period of five years from the date of the purchase deed. However if you sell the house during this period you do not have to repay stamp duty.

And there is no stamp duty for first time buyers of second hand houses with a value of less than €317,000

Stamp duty rates for first-time buyers who are owner-occupiers of second-hand residential property were changed significantly in Budget 2005. The change affects any legal instruments (e.g. the deed of conveyance or transfer or lease giving effect to the contract) relating to a first-time buyer buying a residential property on or after 2nd December, 2004. The exemption rate was increased to 317,500 euro, meaning first-time buyers who are owner-occupiers of second-hand residential property do not pay stamp duty on homes up to that value. The same buyers can avail of reduced rates on properties up to a value of 635,000 euro. These rate structures also apply to new properties with a floor area of more than 125 sq. metres.

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/housing/buying_a_house_or_flat/stamp_duty.html
It can be argued that the €317,500 ceiling is too low at current market rates, especially in dublin, but it is hard to see how changing the stamp duty structure would make the housing market more equitable.

Glenbhoy

Akrasia wrote:

There is no stamp duty on new houses under 125 square metres for owner occupiers

And there is no stamp duty for first time buyers of second hand houses with a value of less than €317,000
http://www.oasis.gov.ie/housing/buying_a_house_or_flat/stamp_duty.html
It can be argued that the €317,500 ceiling is too low at current market rates, especially in dublin, but it is hard to see how changing the stamp duty structure would make the housing market more equitable.

I'm well aware of the existing rates and thresholds Akrasia, you should have added that the biggest inequity is that there is not marginal relief around the thresholds.
I also never wrote my own opinion on McDowell's proposals, only that it would be difficult to replace 1bn in lost revenue with speeding fines!!

bonkey

Glenbhoy wrote:

But McDowell said he wants residential stamp duty removed.

But McDowell didn't say that all of it would be funded through speeding tickets.

The point I'm making is that we've a number of slightly-mismatchnig sources here, and people seem to be picking the combination that lets them dish out the most condemnation.

Ricketts says the Irish government's position is to reduce stamp dutym funding said reduction with tickets. The government's position is apparently to remove stamp duty, but funding the loss of revenue in an unspecified manner.

Somehow, these have been combined to read that the removal of stamp duty would be funded by speeding tickets....despite no-one saying that at all. So we've various people being attacked for loony, unrealistic ideas that they apparently never put forward.

A reduction in stamp duty can be paid for by speeding revenue. A removal in stamp duty can be partially paid for by speeding revenue. Both of these scenarios would not involve any greater an interpretation of the various claims than the third option which is being ridiculed as being unworkable.

Mad Finn

bonkey wrote:

A reduction in stamp duty can be paid for by speeding revenue. A removal in stamp duty can be partially paid for by speeding revenue.

The first of these statements is only true if 'reduction' is an infinitesimally small percentage.

The second statement is only true if 'partially' is an infinitesimally small percentage.

I think this whole argument is crazy. Would a reduction in stamp duty do anything to bring down house prices or would it just see all that extra cash go sluicing into the accounts of property developers and speculators? I reckon the latter.

I don't think stamp duty should be reduced at all, except maybe for first-time buyers. Stamp duty is the ONLY bloody tax that property developers and speculators pay. They get virtually 100 per cent tax relief from rental income, they have so many other loopholes they can put their corporation tax into and they tend to be rich enough to dodge tax legitimately by living the required number of days outside of the country in their villas in spain or italy.

I say "Double stamp duty!". The average person will pay it once or twice in their life. Bloody property developers should pay it every time they buy a house. In the interests of fairness.

Otherwise you're getting to the ridiculous situation where safe drivers are de facto tax dodgers. Who dreams up these schemes?

Where is the opposition on this?

Where's the bloody Labour party?

Reduction in stamp duty is a speculator's charter. It will do nothing for the ordinary aspirant home owner.

Akrasia

Mad Finn wrote:

The first of these statements is only true if 'reduction' is an infinitesimally small percentage.

The second statement is only true if 'partially' is an infinitesimally small percentage.

I think this whole argument is crazy. Would a reduction in stamp duty do anything to bring down house prices or would it just see all that extra cash go sluicing into the accounts of property developers and speculators? I reckon the latter.

I don't think stamp duty should be reduced at all, except maybe for first-time buyers. Stamp duty is the ONLY bloody tax that property developers and speculators pay. They get virtually 100 per cent tax relief from rental income, they have so many other loopholes they can put their corporation tax into and they tend to be rich enough to dodge tax legitimately by living the required number of days outside of the country in their villas in spain or italy.

I say "Double stamp duty!". The average person will pay it once or twice in their life. Bloody property developers should pay it every time they buy a house. In the interests of fairness.

Otherwise you're getting to the ridiculous situation where safe drivers are de facto tax dodgers. Who dreams up these schemes?

Where is the opposition on this?

Where's the bloody Labour party?

Reduction in stamp duty is a speculator's charter. It will do nothing for the ordinary aspirant home owner.

won't somebody please think of the 'Coping Classes'

Mad Finn

i'm a fully paid up (if heavily overdrawn) member of the coping classes and believe you me, altering stamp duty won't make a blind bit of difference to your mortgage. Even if you have yet to get one.

All it will do is accelerate the price of the house you are hoping to buy. Your outlay will be the same, only instead of a section of it going to the government where there is a small chance that it will be invested in the dimininshing services we used to take for granted, it will be going into the back pocket of the house vendor, most typically a property developer or speculator.

Furthermore, any more reductions, or even total abolition, of stamp duty will just make it easier for the already wealthy and the developers to concentrate even more power in their own investments. The coping classes will be forced into ever greater debt, or, more likely will be priced out of owning houses altogether. We will be back to the 19th century with a huge tenant class dependant for their living space on a large rented market owned by a relatively small number of people.

This need not be so bad if we have firm regulation of the sector in terms of tenant rights and fixity of tenure, but the likelihood is that we won't.

We are turkeys voting for Christmas on this one, it would appear.

Akrasia

Mad Finn wrote:

i'm a fully paid up (if heavily overdrawn) member of the coping classes and believe you me, altering stamp duty won't make a blind bit of difference to your mortgage. Even if you have yet to get one.

All it will do is accelerate the price of the house you are hoping to buy. Your outlay will be the same, only instead of a section of it going to the government where there is a small chance that it will be invested in the dimininshing services we used to take for granted, it will be going into the back pocket of the house vendor, most typically a property developer or speculator.

Furthermore, any more reductions, or even total abolition, of stamp duty will just make it easier for the already wealthy and the developers to concentrate even more power in their own investments. The coping classes will be forced into ever greater debt, or, more likely will be priced out of owning houses altogether. We will be back to the 19th century with a huge tenant class dependant for their living space on a large rented market owned by a relatively small number of people.

This need not be so bad if we have firm regulation of the sector in terms of tenant rights and fixity of tenure, but the likelihood is that we won't.

We are turkeys voting for Christmas on this one, it would appear.

yeah. It's impossible to believe that the PDs don't understand how the housing market actually works (that prices are set by demand, not by the costs of sales, and a reduction in tax will just lead to a bigger profit for developers and speculators and not a reduced price)

bonkey

Akrasia wrote:

yeah. It's impossible to believe that the PDs don't understand how the housing market actually works

I think the PDs know very well how the housing market works.

They also know how the average voter works, and the average voter generally equates "less tax" and "good thing".

Whilst I agree that abolishing stamp duty is a bit of a "turkeys for Christmas" situation, the problem is that the average member of the public doesn't seem to agree and wants to blame the govt.

Me...I think its priceless. Whenever the government regulates to deal with a problem, its nanny-statism. When they don't, they're to blame for allowing an unregulated problem to continue.

If they don't intervene in the house market, they're wrong. If they intervene in a manner that won't fix things, they're wrong. If they actually tackle the problem, it'll be wrong cause its nanny-statism.

Glenbhoy

bonkey wrote:

Me...I think its priceless. Whenever the government regulates to deal with a problem, its nanny-statism. When they don't, they're to blame for allowing an unregulated problem to continue.

If they don't intervene in the house market, they're wrong. If they intervene in a manner that won't fix things, they're wrong. If they actually tackle the problem, it'll be wrong cause its nanny-statism.

Since this has now become a fully fledged stamp duty discussion, i may as well add my tuppennce worth.
I don't think the government can do anything to fix our housing market, only the market itself can sort that out, unfortunately it'll take a big (ahem) correction to sort it. Stamp duty is indeed a red herring, it's reduction will if anything push prices up further. My reasoning being that currently, FTB wants to buy, price is say 400K, stamp duty 24K, the buyer has to have savings of 24k as the bank will not lend the stamp. However with the elimination of stamp duty, the new price is a min 424K, the buyer has 20K odd of savings, so they also use that to chase the house - new price 440K!!
As for the nanny statism etc, the problem is that the government have intervened so much in this market, mainly by not eliminating unneeded tax breaks for investors etc, also we should bear in mind that what really pushes up prices is planning regulations (not advocating they be done away with, just applied better) - how much more intervention can you get??

Macy

Glenbhoy wrote:

the problem is that the government have intervened so much in this market, mainly by not eliminating unneeded tax breaks for investors etc,

Yes, they've intervened by fuelling demand, and have never addressed the supply side which would've made the difference. They allowed developers to sit on zoned land with no penalty, which spiralled house prices in Dublin and can be linked directly to the 2 hour, 50 mile commutes. Late 90's, early 00's was when the supply needed the immediate boost, too late now for them to be boasting about house supply.