€1,000 home tax 'needed' along with PAYE hikes

southie

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/euro1000-home-tax-needed-along-with-paye-hikes-1620333.html

A €1,000 property tax on every home in the country is needed to turn the economy around, the country's top bankers said last night.
Senior Central Bank executives told the Irish Independent that the controversial property tax was badly needed to plug the Government's dwindling finances. It is understood the move would raise around €1.7bn for the Exchequer.
The Government is also being urged by its own highly influential economic advisers to bring in a property tax in order to close the yawning hole in the public finances.
Such a tax would heap further pressure on homeowners, who face a series of crippling tax hikes as the Government attempts to steer the country out of recession.
The return of domestic rates was signalled as government officials and union leaders continued their talks on taxation measures needed to salvage the economy last night.

How come bankers are still giving us advice? am i wrong or is much of the mess we find ourselves in caused by bloody bankers?
if they paid back the stupid loans they gave themselves we might not be in such a bad financial state.

unclebill98

There will be marches on the Dail if this House Levy is brought in.

Jamar

Politically, this will be difficult. However, it is probably a good and relatively fair way to raise tax, and it means money is somewhat local, and can be used to finish estates, build schools. (OK, that's not likely, but...).

However, there should be exemptions. For example, those who have paid significant stamp duty, as there it amounts to a double tax. Those with an asset and limited income, although we should be encouraging people to live in appropriate for need housing. (pensioners). Those with children should get something. I'm also thinking of a reason I shouldn't have to pay.

Those with second houses should be taxed more heavily on the second house.
Especially if they are not occupied.

Also, it should not be applied as 1000 across the board, because that is incredible unfair. A 1 bed apartment in a rural town and a mansion in a city are not equal.

BuffyBot

This is more to do with taxation and the economy, than banking really.

The mention of the word "bankers" does not automatically make it a thread for this forum.

Economics mods can decide if they want to leave it open.

thebman

Seems a bit excessive. I think we should have taxes on luxury items like products containing more than a certain percentage of sugar or salt. We have RDA's so anything over 5-10% of RDA should get an excess put on it. This would encourage healthier eating and if you can't afford it, you don't buy it.

Obesity is a big and costly health problem on the way so why not try to kill two birds with the one stone.

You could have a property tax but it shouldn't be that high IMO. And I think this is extremely rich coming from someone in the industry that got us into this mess. An industry directly related to the housing market. Is he suggesting banks give these people a break from their mortgages to pay this tax? I doubt it, doubt they can even afford to.

I think this is related to the economy, tax takes spending money out of the economy. So can the government juggle?

HashSlinging

I predict a riot. Should be on second and third houses only... Stupid B(w)ankers.

ixoy

thebman wrote: »

Seems a bit excessive. I think we should have taxes on luxury items like products containing more than a certain percentage of sugar or salt.

How is something containing a load of salt considered a luxury item? In fact highly-salted foods, etc. tend to be the cheaper ones that families with less disposable income can buy.

Sleipnir

So I pay €1000 per annum for my three bed semi and the person who owns THIS pays €1000 per year.

Yeah, that's fair and equitable.

thebman

ixoy wrote: »

How is something containing a load of salt considered a luxury item? In fact highly-salted foods, etc. tend to be the cheaper ones that families with less disposable income can buy.

Yeah there is cheap food available that is in the same price range that isn't salty like fruit and veg.

High salt foods are very bad for people. We need to encourage alternatives. This tax would do that and it would encourage companies to come up with alternative products that are the same food but not loaded with salt.

Its bad for your heart. I'd throw a saturated fat tax in there too if the product is above a certain percentage of your RDA.

I love my salty snacks but I know their bad for me. Poor families eat these foods not only because they are cheaper but I imagine mostly because they are the handiest to cook.

There has to be another way. I imagine the food producers just use salt because its the cheap. You could put the tax on them but they might just pass it on to the consumer instead of changing their ways. If however they could use an alternative to salt that wasn't as bad for you then they could undercut their competitors and still have the same product on the market.

daheff

well if this is brought in does this mean that the county councils will take over the ownership/upkeep of all those new estates that they have previously refused to ?



IMO this is the kind of tax that if it was being brought in should have been brought in during the boom times to keep a lid on things....not now when we have recession. Taking disposable income off people now is not the smartest thing in the world to do!

I'd be in favour of a tax on second/holiday homes (including those outside the state)

the government should also look to get taxes off people who bought/sold properties abroad but never declared them.

had we let the banks fail Sept we wouldnt be looking at a deep black hole of national debt. The govt wont even give us the figures for anglo its that bad.

Had we let them fail instead of that stupid guarantee we would already have created new banks and or brought in foreign ones. We could still have guarantee deposits.......................................


now we need the money to keep them going. Embrace yourselves people!

paulocon

Jamar wrote: »

Politically, this will be difficult. However, it is probably a good and relatively fair way to raise tax, and it means money is somewhat local, and can be used to finish estates, build schools. (OK, that's not likely, but...).

However, there should be exemptions. For example, those who have paid significant stamp duty, as there it amounts to a double tax. Those with an asset and limited income, although we should be encouraging people to live in appropriate for need housing. (pensioners). Those with children should get something. I'm also thinking of a reason I shouldn't have to pay.

Those with second houses should be taxed more heavily on the second house.
Especially if they are not occupied.

Also, it should not be applied as 1000 across the board, because that is incredible unfair. A 1 bed apartment in a rural town and a mansion in a city are not equal.

What do you mean by this Jamar?
Surely if someone works hard all their life and have a nice home for themself, we shouldn't be encouraging them to give this home up for something considered 'more appropriate'.

Think the standard 1000 mentioned in the headline is something of an attention grabber, I'd imagine if there is to be a property tax, it'd be based on the value of the home, can't imagine us rabble would have to pay the same as that poor auld fella Oisin Fanning.

As said previouslt, I predict a riot!

cavedave

As said previouslt, I predict a riot!

we are 20 billion in debt for next year. After the riot there will be a lot of broken stuff and the same debt. Where are we going to increase taxes and reduce costs from? What is the least unfair tax that can be raised, and the one that economically does least to surpress economic activity?

So say 2 billion is taken off public sector wages. 2 billion raised from property tax. Another billion from increased PAYE tax. 2 billion taken off capital infrastructure. We are now a still unallowable 12 billion in debt and people are rioting.

ardmacha

Surely if someone works hard all their life and have a nice home for themself, we shouldn't be encouraging them to give this home up for something considered 'more appropriate'.

Surely if someone works hard all their life and have a nice car for themselves, we shouldn't be encouraging them to give this nice car up for something considered 'more appropriate'.

Just as motor tax goes from €150 to €2000, house tax could have several bands, with McMansions paying more. This could, like the motor tax, be related to the new BER energy rating.

And if stamp duty is reduced and a house registration system introduced to reduce legal costs than people can more easily move if their house becomes too big for them etc.

Morlar

Is this proposed as a 'one off' hit to dig us out of the hole government mismanagement helped to put us in ?

Or is this going to be a new permanent annual revenue stream for the government ? If it is to dig us out of a hole then it should be time limited - or up for review every 2 years or something along those lines.

On the subject of cuts and where to make them surely we could look at where all the money goes ? The HSE would be high up on that list in my view. Also the annuall cost of repeated legal appeals related to failed asylum bids.

trishw78

unclebill98 wrote: »

There will be marches on the Dail if this House Levy is brought in.

HashSlinging wrote: »

I predict a riot. Should be on second and third houses only... Stupid B(w)ankers.

Sleipnir wrote: »

So I pay €1000 per annum for my three bed semi and the person who owns THIS pays €1000 per year.

Yeah, that's fair and equitable.

Yet again the the low-mid wage earner gets hit in the pocket. I can see more than riots happening, I think there will be alot of people squatting in there homes or knocking nee kicking in the door of their local house department looking for someplace to put there familes. If it comes in I'll have no other choice but to sell.

Finger's crossed I win the lotto

Morlar

ardmacha wrote: »

Just as motor tax goes from €150 to €2000, house tax could have several bands, with McMansions paying more. This could, like the motor tax, be related to the new BER energy rating.

That might make it more green but wont necessarily make it more equitable - it would penalise lower income families with a less up to date energy efficiency rating. That sounds like another green party measure which would penalise those on a lower income.

Baybay

daheff wrote: »

I'd be in favour of a tax on second/holiday homes (including those outside the state)

I'm not sure that would work across the board.

Countries like France already have two types of property tax and as Ireland is one of the countries with whom they have a double taxation agreement, those with French property could possibly be outside the loop. It could turn into an expensive administrative exercise.

paulocon

trishw78 wrote: »

Yet again the the low-mid wage earner gets hit in the pocket. I can see more than riots happening, I think there will be alot of people squatting in there homes or knocking nee kicking in the door of their local house department looking for someplace to put there familes. If it comes in I'll have no other choice but to sell.

Finger's crossed I win the lotto

My point exactly. The 1% levy and salary decreases/job-losses have already put some people under extreme pressure. You have people with young families who had no choice but to pay the over-inflated prices to provide a home. Ask them to pay another 1k a year for that privilige and you'll have some very angry people. Seems like it's those who benefitted least from the Celtic Tiger are the ones who now have to bail out those who did!

If that's what you call equitable, then so be it! (edit: sorry, a bit harsh but p***ed off with gvmt at the moment)

Time Magazine

BuffyBot wrote: »

Economics mods can decide if they want to leave it open.

We already have a "what to do with this deficit" thread, so firing this over to the Politics corner...

Our first cutback should be cutting the banks loose.

It amazes me that people hear about a 1,000 euro home tax when the bank bail out will cost them a hell of a lot more than that. We are looking at 20% PLUS unemployment for a decade according to one economist.

Wake up people FFS this is a diversion!

ejmaztec

Bad idea to give local authorities more money to play with. Most of them are as adept as the national government at handling finances. By the time they've upped their expenses claims and turned the council offices into Dubai-style ten star buildings, they will still be in deficit - and looking for more.

funky.monkey

The reason the Property tax is so un-fair is that it doesn't relate to people's ability to pay. For example - 1000 euros a year means 1% of the income for a household on 100,000 a year , but is 25% of the income for a household on 25,000 a year. (I'm in the second catagory ! so if there is going to be a riot I'll be there).

NinjaTruncs

funky.monkey wrote: »

The reason the Property tax is so un-fair is that it doesn't relate to people's ability to pay. For example - 1000 euros a year means 1% of the income for a household on 100,000 a year , but is 25% of the income for a household on 25,000 a year. (I'm in the second catagory ! so if there is going to be a riot I'll be there).

It's 4% for the second household.

vengeancepuppy

Taxing property would require regulation in order for the tax to be fair. Why not simply increase income tax? You're still paying the money but there's a system there already that doesn't screw the desperate out of their last piece of bread. (Well, not as badly as property tax will)

trishw78

vengeancepuppy wrote: »

Taxing property would require regulation in order for the tax to be fair. Why not simply increase income tax? You're still paying the money but there's a system there already that doesn't screw the desperate out of their last piece of bread. (Well, not as badly as property tax will)

But they already have upped the income tax by 1% oh no wait that's a tax on actually getting off your arse and going out to earn money instead sponging off the government

vengeancepuppy

trishw78 wrote: »

But they already have upped the income tax by 1% oh no wait that's a tax on actually getting off your arse and going out to earn money instead sponging off the government

How is that so? Is this 1% payable on the dole? That amount would be so minuscule in any case that it would persuade nobody to go anywhere!

The money will come out of your pocket anyway, why not use a system that already exists, won't cause riots and do exactly the same thing?

Caoimhín

I think they just want their section 23 money back.

trishw78

It's nothing to do with SECTION 23 MONEY I don't own a section 23 house I am one of those people in the low-mid income brackets and it constantly feels like I'm being punished for working, for owning a house what else would you have me do if there's anymore money taken from me I'll have no other choice but to either sell or have my home be reposessed.

For a hell of lot of people it has nothing to do with section 23, and that was a really dumb comment to make on your part

Jamar

Hi paulocon,

I would be in favour of a scheme that encourages people to a house that fits their needs. If someone has worked hard all their lives for their home, that's great, and they are entitled to stay there for as long as they want.

However, if property rates are re-introduced: a single person in a 4-bed house could pay (say) 4000. A family with 6-kids maybe should pay 500, or nothing. A house-share could also be taxed at lower rates. No one is forced to do anything.

Of course, this would need be implemented with very low transaction taxes (i.e. stamp duty). Another side-effect of this is that apartments can regain value as houses for the single or those without families.

Currently, there are a generation of kids that don't see their parents due to long commutes. There are a lot of family houses in Dublin, where the families have left home.

BlaasForRafa

thebman wrote: »

Seems a bit excessive. I think we should have taxes on luxury items like products containing more than a certain percentage of sugar or salt. We have RDA's so anything over 5-10% of RDA should get an excess put on it. This would encourage healthier eating and if you can't afford it, you don't buy it.

Tayto tax?

Not a bad idea actually

thebman

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Tayto tax?

Not a bad idea actually

See he gets it

Lots of groups have been calling for this already. Obesity will be a problem in the future so we are just getting revenue to pay for a future problem and trying to discourage people from eating to obesity.

It makes sense. Which foods are selected is completely up for grabs. I'd prefer to do it on the nutritional values so low nutrition, high fat/sugar foods become expensive and it encourages more companies to produce healthy food snacks.

dodgyme

My own opinion is that if a property tax is should take into account the size of the house.

1./ People living in average sized houses should be exempt. Come up with a sq footage criteria
2./ Those in larger houses, typically of a size where there maybe 5 + bedrooms should be hit. (Come up with a sq footage criteria)
3./ Those with second homes should be hit but those with 3,4,5+ houses should be crucified. Where I live one guy owns 10 houses. These f**kers have socially engineered housing estates they have bought into and are the cold face of ar*ehole greed in this country, when young people were being screwed to afford a house over their head.

Liam Byrne

Jamar wrote: »

a single person in a 4-bed house could pay (say) 4000.

:eek: I've recently taken over (bought) the old family home because my mum wanted to keep it in the family. Spent a LOT doing it up and dragging it into the 21st century, and was glad to do so.

According to the above, I should be paying €3,000 - €4,000 extra a year ? No way! Aside from the Government incompetence angle, that's FAR too simplistic, for a number of reasons:

1) The above scenario - downright unfair to wallop people with a tax equal to one-tenth of their GROSS income - probably ONE-THIRD of their NET income, after loans/mortgages are paid :mad: - and that's specifically targetted at people who don't have a partner living there to furnish a second income (and, ironically, lower the tax)

2) I know some people who have rooms as big as 3 of the rooms in my house put together......should I knock the 3 together and make it a perfectly-valid one-bedroom house to match them and avoid the tax ?

3) Similarly, if the Govt implemented this, I could - and would - suddenly sell a bed and gain a dining room, home gym and a storage boxroom.....actually, given the wastage of money by FF, I'd probably spend money to convert a room into a garage rather than give those assholes more money to bail out more of their fat-cat banker friends

4) Inequality - why should a single person have to pay more than a smug married couple with kids ?

5) Simply not affordable - people on low-to-medium incomes, and those now unemployed as a result of all the crap will simply not be able to pay

Remember, this is a Government that's ALREADY bailing out banks with OUR money - banks that are failing NOT because of a "global downturn", but because their dodgy directors loaned THEMSELVES circa €100 MILLION; and they put NO preconditions on the bailouts!

If they'd said "we'll bail ye out but ye have to pay US the dodgy loans that ye hid", then I'd respect them, but they're a shower of incompetent ****.

And I'm not paying crazy money so they can bail out the bankers that helped land us in this mess.

vengeancepuppy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

:eek: I've recently taken over (bought) the old family home because my mum wanted to keep it in the family. Spent a LOT doing it up and dragging it into the 21st century, and was glad to do so.

According to the above, I should be paying €3,000 - €4,000 extra a year ? No way! Aside from the Government incompetence angle, that's FAR too simplistic, for a number of reasons:

1) The above scenario - downright unfair to wallop people with a tax equal to one-tenth of their GROSS income - probably ONE-THIRD of their NET income, after loans/mortgages are paid :mad: - and that's specifically targetted at people who don't have a partner living there to furnish a second income (and, ironically, lower the tax)

2) I know some people who have rooms as big as 3 of the rooms in my house put together......should I knock the 3 together and make it a perfectly-valid one-bedroom house to match them and avoid the tax ?

3) Similarly, if the Govt implemented this, I could - and would - suddenly sell a bed and gain a dining room, home gym and a storage boxroom.....actually, given the wastage of money by FF, I'd probably spend money to convert a room into a garage rather than give those assholes more money to bail out more of their fat-cat banker friends

4) Inequality - why should a single person have to pay more than a smug married couple with kids ?

5) Simply not affordable - people on low-to-medium incomes, and those now unemployed as a result of all the crap will simply not be able to pay

Remember, this is a Government that's ALREADY bailing out banks with OUR money - banks that are failing NOT because of a "global downturn", but because their dodgy directors loaned THEMSELVES circa €100 MILLION; and they put NO preconditions on the bailouts!

If they'd said "we'll bail ye out but ye have to pay US the dodgy loans that ye hid", then I'd respect them, but they're a shower of incompetent ****.

And I'm not paying crazy money so they can bail out the bankers that helped land us in this mess.

There IS no logical, moral, foolproof way to implement housing tax. Especially not in a recession.

Mr.Micro

vengeancepuppy wrote: »

There IS no logical, moral, foolproof way to implement housing tax. Especially not in a recession.

All the Government has to do is legislate for it and make it then make it a criminal act if you do not pay. That would work wonders IMO.

321654

Seems to me these days its

the private sector vs the public sector

or the people who own properties vs those who dont.

All sorts of people at each others throats out of pure begrudgery.

And all this talk about forcing old people out of their homes.

Seems noone in this country is entitled to enjoy the fruits of the long hard slog to make a better life for themselves.


This puts me off buying a house. Scratch that. Its putting me off living in Ireland.

Makes me sick.

silverharp

Fine by me, thinking of getting rid of my eircom phone line and one less overpriced holiday in Ireland, that should cover it:D

vengeancepuppy

Mr.Micro wrote: »

All the Government has to do is legislate for it and make it then make it a criminal act if you do not pay. That would work wonders IMO.

Ok, so say I make 25000 a year. I am a public sector worker close to retirement with a large family. The house I own has been in my family for generations and is quite large. I have a large family. My house is worth close to 500,000. A 1% housing tax will destroy me. So.... how is this housing tax fair on me?

Lplated

vengeancepuppy wrote: »

Ok, so say I make 25000 a year. I am a public sector worker close to retirement with a large family. The house I own has been in my family for generations and is quite large. I have a large family. My house is worth close to 500,000. A 1% housing tax will destroy me. So.... how is this housing tax fair on me?

Well considering that the public servant will be guaranteed his pension on his looming retirement, he might look on the property tax as a very insignificant contribution towards his retirement years.... unlike the many private sector people who will have to take the defined contribution blow that the current market conditions will entail.

jmayo

It will be a tad ironic that the government that brings back in a residential property tax is primarily made up of the party that removed it in the first place in 1977.
Another example of great FF forethought and populist practices :rolleyes:

There will have to be some form of residential property tax, since at the moment business pays all the rates and one way of reducing business costs is to cut their rates charges.

Most other countries have some form of property charges as a lot of those with foreign properties can testify.
Yes I know we also have the crazy stamp duty, but if they bring in "rates" they might try and tweak stamp duty to try and get people buying some of the unsold stock of new properties.
Of course this will have nothing to do with helping out friends of the building party :rolleyes:

The one thing that needs to done is to somehow make it fair.
Someone with a 1000 sq ft semi D should not be paying the same as someone with a 5,000 sq ft detached pile in Shrewsbury Rd.
Otherwise it stinks of Thatchers poll tax debacle.

IMHO people in this country are deluding themselves if they think we can cut a couple of billion off the public sector bill and there will be no changes in taxes.
Income taxes are probably going to have to be tweaked, rates go up a point or two and bands expanded.
Added to that watch tax credits and then there will be the introduction of carbon taxes and the like.

We are in major cr** and we are going to suffer.

Also has anyone noticed how over the last year or so the number of people calling for water charges has increased and they are increasingly getting airtime.

NewDubliner

Lplated wrote: »

unlike the many private sector people who will have to take the defined contribution blow that the current market conditions will entail.

But they're entitled to the contributory social-welfare pension which is index-linked and guaranteed by the government: right?

Hellm0

Hurray, a return to the times of yor when us peasants could never truly own our own land. That's just what we need, more landlords (except of course now the landlord is our own government, exacting a tribute on behalf of the already wealthy).

SeanW

ardmacha wrote: »

Surely if someone works hard all their life and have a nice car for themselves, we shouldn't be encouraging them to give this nice car up for something considered 'more appropriate'.

Just as motor tax goes from €150 to €2000, house tax could have several bands, with McMansions paying more. This could, like the motor tax, be related to the new BER energy rating.

This smacks of elitism.

What you're effectively saying is that if someone lives in a house that's 'above their station,' income wise for any reason, they should be chased out of it by higher property taxes? What you're suggesting is elitist and unjust.

Your comparison to the car tax is logically insolvent for three reasons:
1) If you can't afford the tax on a polluting car, changing down is not a very painful process - go to a dealer, trade in, change over the insurance, voila. No muss, no fuss. I'm sure you'll agree that even with deregulation and no stamp duty, trading down in your home is a bigger undertaking.
2) With the most recent reorganisation of tax bands, you pay based on CO2 emissions rather than engine size. So now you can have a nice car with a nice powerful engine, provided it's C02-efficient.
3) Changes are known in advance - cars generally are not inherited, gifted etc, and when you buy your car you know the tax schema that applied at that time - pre July-2008 cars, tax by engine size, post July-2008, tax by CO2 figures.
Nobody had the rug pulled out from under them with new or raised taxes pulled out of thin air.

I've seen property tax systems in operation and they're not pretty. I have a relative in the U.S. who pays $6,000 per year in property tax on a house half the size of the average Irish bungalow, and that's after a senior citizens discount. Tax sales are common, where when someone falls behind on their property taxes, the municipality will simply take the property and sell it at auction for in some cases no more than the taxes owed.

For the above reasons I remain implacably opposed to the introduction of property tax and if riots were necessary to prevent them, I'd be up for it.

I would much prefer the government reverse the McCreevy era tax cuts that fueled inflation, destroyed our competitiveness in the first place and left the public finances in the mess they're in and also take an axe to our bloated, fat lazy and overpriced public sector.
Read this thread on the Learning to Drive forum, for just one example (the driver testing service) of how we pay waaaaaaaaaaaay over the odds for public services that don't work. (Yet the RSA wants to expand this with staged licenses and multi-test licensing polices, making a big mess even bigger). Introduce new legislation to ensure that public service users and taxpayers are not left defenceless against this kind of nonsense, as patients, driving test applicants, school students etc are now.
Sack 1/2 the admin staff and middle managers of the HSE, many of whom didn't exist in the old health boards.
Ruthlessly seek out further spending that doesn't provide value for money and eliminate it.

mirror mirror

IF this tax is brought in,what happens if people cant afford to pay it,what happens if people refuse to pay it ? im sure the wanker banker who brought it up will have no worries financially about paying it:eek:

vengeancepuppy

Lplated wrote: »

Well considering that the public servant will be guaranteed his pension on his looming retirement, he might look on the property tax as a very insignificant contribution towards his retirement years.... unlike the many private sector people who will have to take the defined contribution blow that the current market conditions will entail.

Okay, so what happens if this worker is NOT close to retirement? Or what if the retirement is a year away, where the property tax will put the person in a situation with no solution? Or what if the pension is about... 500 a month?

Would you intend the government to legislate for all these eventualities when there's a working PAYE system already?

old boy

i saw on the tv3 news @5.30 the minister for squander saying that a property tax was not coming in,
i saw on the rte news @ 6.00 clown cowen saying it was not ruled out.
does the gov not know what it is doing, or going to do, f.f.s.:eek:

mirror mirror

lets massacre every fuc.ng one of the overpaid useless swine

Boggle

For the above reasons I remain implacably opposed to the introduction of property tax and if riots were necessary to prevent them, I'd be up for it.

Like I said I'll bring some extra bats. We need a good riot in this country at this stage - just to put the pr1cks in their place... and to give us something to smile about afterwards in the overpriced pub!!

Anyway, this is the line they dare not cross because...

What you're effectively saying is that if someone lives in a house that's 'above their station,' income wise for any reason, they should be chased out of it by higher property taxes? What you're suggesting is elitist and unjust.

... is exactly what it means and I, for one aint having it.

Try living somewhere with property taxes for a while and see what its like.

Mr.Micro

In all seriousness I do believe that a property tax will be introduced and most people will have to pay it, and others at least a proportion of it. It will be political dynamite but hey if FF are not going to be elected again for 10 years or so what the hell?

The problem I have with it, is that say 1000 euro per house is the taxe or rate, it will go to the exchequer, to be given to the same incompetents that are currently running the country ( into the ground IMO). Now that would be like throwing good money after bad.

Jamar

If there is a property tax, I think that a big house should cost more than a small house. There will have to be some measure of big: bedrooms, size, cost, some combination of them. (There was a window tax in Ireland at one point; the poll tax is another way to measure this).

I think there should be tax relief.
If you have paid 20,000 stamp duty last year, it would be unfair to now start to tax the property. So, that would be the first relief.

I would argue relief for each person living in the house. Not just families, but also house shares, making it cheaper for those who probably find money hard to come by - young single people starting out and families.

Perhaps students and the aged could also receive more of a relief/exemption.

Those who are in the position of caring for the disabled (and elderly) should also receive higher relief.

However, I would see no reason to give anyone relief based on lower income. People's income is already subject to tax.

This scheme does have the side-effect of being more onerous on those living in big houses by themselves. It would also penalise unoccupied houses.

I think this is better than a flat 1000E per house! I also think it's better than the current stamp duty tax, which makes moving very difficult. And it's probably better than increasing income tax.