Property Tax Anyone pay Stamp Duty in the last few years??

gearoidc

I bought a house 2006. Stupid move I admit.

However, I can't see how Govt could justify a tax on people like me who have paid €26k plus in tax (stamp duty) already only 3 yrs ago. Not to mention the negative equity.

Just cos a person has a property shdnt make them an automatic target.

As has been said a lot lately.....I'm happy to do my bit if the system is equitable.

Dannyboy83

gearoidc wrote: »

I bought a house 2006. Stupid move I admit.

However, I can't see how Govt could justify a tax on people like me who have paid €26k plus in tax (stamp duty) already only 3 yrs ago. Not to mention the negative equity.

Just cos a person has a property shdnt make them an automatic target.

As has been said a lot lately.....I'm happy to do my bit if the system is equitable.

Wishful thinking.
What you've done or haven't done in the past is completely irrelevant.
I agree it sucks, but just think of all the tax you pay on petrol (65% per Euro) or cigarettes (about 75%).

Property was part of the game, and will be again in the future.



If you introduce reforms, you have to introduce them across the board, you can't introduce them to just 1 section of society because inevitably, you end up in chaos.

There have only been a small few taxes introduced thus far since last year, such as the 1% levy.
The public sector deduction wasn't a tax, it was a pay reduction, there is a big difference. (the government were just too scared to call it a pay reduction)



We haven't even got a taste of what is to come yet.
I think there will be a lot of people will default because they simply won't be able to handle the repayments, given the level of personal debt in Ireland.

Dannyboy83

Here is one I saw on the paper recently:

Proposals for yearly NCT for cars over 10 years old


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0224/1224241710911.html

The above is just one example of the kind of indirect/stealth taxes that will face every person in this country over the next 5 to 7 years.

There will be hundreds of these littler earners/economy stimulators.
(The justification in this is that if people will keep their savings and not spend in order to stimulate the economy, then you have to COERCE them into spending and penalise them if they do not spend)

At least on the bright side, house prices are going to plummet because people will have far less cash.
It really looks like we are working our way toward a socialist system such as Germany (except our Government are too incompetent to operate one).
Probably less drunks on the streets too.

jimmmy

gearoidc wrote: »

I bought a house 2006. Stupid move I admit.

However, I can't see how Govt could justify a tax on people like me who have paid €26k plus in tax (stamp duty) already only 3 yrs ago. Not to mention the negative equity.

Just cos a person has a property shdnt make them an automatic target.

As has been said a lot lately.....I'm happy to do my bit if the system is equitable.

I agree. There were others suckered in by the govt too....many people paid our very high rates of stamp duty for property which they cannot let out, and which is now in negative equity. If the govt tried to impose another property tax it would be very unfair.

miju

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

We haven't even got a taste of what is to come yet.
I think there will be a lot of people will default because they simply won't be able to handle the repayments, given the level of personal debt in Ireland.

+1 . This mini budget coming in April is gonna be very harsh IMO, but in typical Fianna Failure fashion it will target the less well off and just have a "token gesture" tax on the rich. As well as being setup in such a way that it will more than likely cause even LESS economic stimulus and tax take sending us further into a tailspin.

This country is VERY, VERY quickly sinking down the toilet and the best the current crowd can come up with is to ask the opposition for their ideas????? :mad:

Remind me which party again said they were the steady hand through the rough waters ahead in the last GE, ****ing shysters the quicker they get the **** outta the Dáil the better :mad::mad::mad::mad:

/end rant

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

There will be hundreds of these littler earners/economy stimulators.
(The justification in this is that if people will keep their savings and not spend in order to stimulate the economy, then you have to COERCE them into spending and penalise them if they do not spend)

While this justification is very sound it's an incorrect ideal to use in Ireland for the simple reason is Irish people haven't been saving we've been borrowing to the extent we've become the most indebted in Europe.

People IMHO are paying off loans trying to weather the coming onslaught not saving in the main, so trying to coerce more money out of people will be like blood from a stone etc.

blast05

There should be an immediate cessation of allowing people to contribute tax free to their pension funds from gross pay. This cost the exchequer 3 billion a year (source Prime Time on Monday night). This 3 billion therefore is just 41% of the gross pay meaning it puts the 59% (or ~4.4 billion) back into peoples pockets which they can either invest again in their pensions (unlikely given no tax breaks) or pehaps end up spending a chunk of it.

Also, to sort of back up the first posters point re the inequity of it all ...... i have a holiday home in the west. It was built on family land, provided local employment for a 12 months period and provided business to a lot of local companies. The house was built using money from 2 SSIA's, shares i had gathered over a 10 year period and every cent of other saving i have made over the last 10 years. There are no services to the house that will cost the state a cent - private well, private effluent treatment system, €1700 connection charge to the ESB etc where not even 1 additional pole was required, etc.
Over the last 10 years, i have never driven anything younger than a 10 year old car, have had a holiday abroad every 2 to 3 years and have not pissed away my money to any degree. Now it seems i will eventually be hit for a property tax when i could equally have had 3 holidays a year abroad for the last 10 years or bought a villa in a sunny resort .... would have bought no benefit to the Irish exchequer unlike what i decided to do.
The house for me is a luxury item that i ahve worked and saved hard for. If we are to go down the path of taxing luxury items in this country then where do we stop ....

Ludo

blast05 wrote: »

If we are to go down the path of taxing luxury items in this country then where do we stop ....

I was with you all the way to your last sentence.

I don't care about taxing luxury items. Cigarettes, drink, holiday homes, etc, etc. (I'm a smoker by the way and even I think they should be taxed more in upcoming budget)

But taxing a primary residence that people ahve already paid shedloads of stamp duty on should never happen...VERY unfair. Don't think it will happen though as there is no equitable way to implement it quickly without there being huge protests.

P. Breathnach

gearoidc wrote: »

I bought a house 2006. Stupid move I admit.

However, I can't see how Govt could justify a tax on people like me who have paid €26k plus in tax (stamp duty) already only 3 yrs ago. Not to mention the negative equity.

Just cos a person has a property shdnt make them an automatic target.

As has been said a lot lately.....I'm happy to do my bit if the system is equitable.

I'll go along with you on not mentioning the negative equity: it's not relevant.

Like large numbers of others, I didn't pay stamp duty in recent years. So here's my suggestion: people who have paid stamp duty in the recent past (perhaps in the past six years) should get significant remission on a property tax (perhaps up to 8-10 years from the date of purchase). The rest of us, including me, should be subject to annual property tax.

ManFromAtlantis

agree with most here. op govt took 26k off you cos it was easy. now with no house sales no stamp revenue so feck that lets go after someone else (or the same person)................i think what annoys most people is that the govt shouldnt have been fueling the building boom when clearly it didnt need it. im thinking of tax relief schemes etc. poor governing. in fact even if a property tax is a goer they should have brought it in the boom time. it would cool bit the rising house prices and people would know what was coming. poor governing.
also not all people with second homes are rich. au contraire, like the op house prices negative equity, paid huge stamp/ difficult in renting etc alot of these guys are a bit s t r e t c h e d to say the least and labelling these guys as well off can be a blow below the belt.
anyways i reckon it wont be just 2nd homes, why would it , they can get more tax from taxing all homes. just wait till after local elections. oh ya , and be positive we might talk our way into recession ha haha ha .not.

blast05

I don't care about taxing luxury items. Cigarettes, drink, holiday homes, etc, etc. (I'm a smoker by the way and even I think they should be taxed more in upcoming budget)

OK, then lets see annual taxes on yachts, and cruisers that you would have on the Shannon. Also, vintage cars that are not driven, private art collections, privately owned islands, jewellery worth over say 10 grand, privately owned marinas and piers, horses for hunting, etc etc....
Taxing private homes and investment properties - fair enough (and i have both) ... but luxury items is unfair unless you do it on everything. The logic for putting extra taxes on drink and cigarettes is fairly obvious ... the knock-on extra cost that will be incurred on the health system.

jimmmy

ManFromAtlantis wrote: »

also not all people with second homes are rich. au contraire, like the op house prices negative equity, paid huge stamp/ difficult in renting etc alot of these guys are a bit s t r e t c h e d to say the least and labelling these guys as well off can be a blow below the belt.

I agree. I do not think it would happen though...it would be too difficult to police / collect. 2/3 of properties in Leitrim are unoccupied. If they want a property tax, they should impose it on the 1 million euro plus houses in Howth and Ballsbridge and Killiney....one way of getting the super-rich to pay. Leitrim + the west is not where the money of the country is.

gearoidc

If you introduce reforms, you have to introduce them across the board, you can't introduce them to just 1 section of society because inevitably, you end up in chaos.

Sorry. But that's just too lazy/inequitable as an approach. It is very simple to establish if a property was bought after e.g. Dec 2005. Anyone who did is not sitting on a profit, that's for certain, and they will have paid massive taxes already.



What was the original thinking behind taxing property?

- It was that anyone who owns a house is sitting on a lump of wealth.

This is quite clearly not true in a huge number of cases and discriminates against a sector of society who have been hit harder than most in all this.

You could make just as good a case-or better- for a "Residential Tax". If you live here, you pay-whether renting, owning or still at home with the parents.

gearoidc

And please don't tell me that those who bought holiday homes abroad will be excluded from all this- as was suggested by Govt sources earlier this year. That would be criminal.

r0nanf

gearoidc wrote: »

And please don't tell me that those who bought holiday homes abroad will be excluded from all this- as was suggested by Govt sources earlier this year. That would be criminal.

+1 at least people who bought properties here directly fed into our economy...

I bought my first (and only!) house in June 2006, right as the bubble was seeing stretchmarks, forked out over €25k in stamp duty never mind the other "legit" robbery of the solicitors fees etc. I felt shafted then handing it over, but if it was to come to me having to pay a new property tax all over again I would be sick.

The stamp duty was a necessary evil and I was aware that the house price was inflated (its NE now) but as there is an inherent value to owning one's own home I was willing to do it. Hopefully I remain in a situation where I can pay my mortgage and it'll be ok in the long run.

ManFromAtlantis

gearoidc wrote: »

What was the original thinking behind taxing property?

- It was that anyone who owns a house is sitting on a lump of wealth.

This is quite clearly not true in a huge number of cases and discriminates against a sector of society who have been hit harder than most in all this.

.

agree but really the govt wont care about discrimination and will collect with a broad brush.

gearoidc

I felt shafted then handing it over, but if it was to come to me having to pay a new property tax all over again I would be sick.

I think I'd be willing to do a stretch if they make no attempt to come up with something that's fair. I literally feel that strongly I feel about it.

agree but really the govt wont care about discrimination and will collect with a broad brush.

Think ur right. And all the while sucking €200k in pay/unvouched expenses.
Hence my utter contempt for these incompetent, clueless fckrs at this stage. In fact, they are beneath contempt.

Dannyboy83

gearoidc wrote: »

Sorry. But that's just too lazy/inequitable as an approach. It is very simple to establish if a property was bought after e.g. Dec 2005. Anyone who did is not sitting on a profit, that's for certain, and they will have paid massive taxes already.



What was the original thinking behind taxing property?

- It was that anyone who owns a house is sitting on a lump of wealth.

This is quite clearly not true in a huge number of cases and discriminates against a sector of society who have been hit harder than most in all this.

You could make just as good a case-or better- for a "Residential Tax". If you live here, you pay-whether renting, owning or still at home with the parents.

too lazy/inequitable
You do remember its Fianna Fail in power, do you not?

I'm not trying to be funny, I'm just trying to be realistic with you.
Look at the track record.
They didn't discriminate with the 1% income levy.

If you provide some means as an exception, people will find ways to exploit it, usually the rich.
I said months ago that there would be property taxes on second homes without question. It now looks like, given the size of the deficit, that this will be across the board.
Believe me, I see where you're coming from, but I just think, no matter how much you dislike it, its going to happen.
Besides, can you imagine how all the people who haven't bought houses feel?
They are paying for the debt of the banks & everything else, and have never even participated in the crazy game.So in effect, its like being every member of your family being sent to prison for 5 years because you're brother murdered someone but he won't be able to serve the sentence by himself.

Its a collective onus for for lack of an individual responsibility.
The only people who should be paying, are the people who participated in the game, but such is Irish democracy under Fianna Fail.
Residential tax is highly unlikely/highly stupid but it is a possibility with this government.
It depends on the exemptions.

Introducing residential tax would in effect collapse the entire rental market by 50%, cause widescale default and make the problem worse than ever.
To be honest, i think arguing over property tax is pointless as its a foregone conclusion.
I would be more concerned about the other things coming.

I paid my road tax on Monday and it was E164 for 3 months. Nearly feel off my chair.
I'm just barely breaking even at the moment, and this is before the new taxes.

Dannyboy83

gearoidc wrote: »

And please don't tell me that those who bought holiday homes abroad will be excluded from all this- as was suggested by Govt sources earlier this year. That would be criminal.

I disagree.
It would probably be criminal to enforce it.
Besides the likelihood of double taxation.
This is also assuming the people who bought property abroad did not contribute to crazy property market within this country.

What are the incentives to people to remain in this country if there heavy foot of government extends well beyond our boundaries?

I don't intend to cause offence, but it seems as though you are quite scared, understandably, and are looking to share the responsibility.
That however, is precisely why we are in this mess in the first place.
Because we are sharing the responsibility for the 6 largest financial institutions in this country.
As for the E25,000 paid to the government, that probably paid for 3 out of the 20 hours of Willie O'Deas flight to Texas and a few champagnes.

If you're unhappy about that, use your vote.
Don't cod yourself into believing you will get special treatment and start planning for the worst, immediately.

grahamo

Property tax on a main residence :eek: Thats a No! No!
Property tax on investment properties is fair enough. If you can afford more than one house you can afford property tax!

Dannyboy83

gearoidc wrote: »

Sorry. But that's just too lazy/inequitable as an approach. It is very simple to establish if a property was bought after e.g. Dec 2005. Anyone who did is not sitting on a profit, that's for certain, and they will have paid massive taxes already.



What was the original thinking behind taxing property?

- It was that anyone who owns a house is sitting on a lump of wealth.

This is quite clearly not true in a huge number of cases and discriminates against a sector of society who have been hit harder than most in all this.

You could make just as good a case-or better- for a "Residential Tax". If you live here, you pay-whether renting, owning or still at home with the parents.

Again, I can't see that happening to be honest.
Well, its a possibility with an inexperienced Minister for Finance, but highly unlikely.

That is a regressive tax and would hit the people on the lowest incomes the hardest and these things contribute to an exodus of skilled workers - precisely the people who must not leave our economy.
Presumably, if you had the money to purchase a house and the correspondingly colossal mortgage, then you should have the means to repay.

If thats not the case, then likely you have already defaulted, or will default anyway.

Dannyboy83

grahamo wrote: »

Property tax on a main residence :eek: Thats a No! No!
Property tax on investment properties is fair enough. If you can afford more than one house you can afford property tax!

There are incentives to property tax on both counts.
Supply & Demand.

In truth, there are hundreds of reasons to argue against buying a property in Ireland, and they seem to grow by the financial quarter.
I honestly believe we've only seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of property devaluations.
I think we are looking at another 25% at least.

There is no confidence in Ireland anymore and the only person willing to buy property at the moment, with the impending taxes and lack of security are the obscenely rich.

Also you must remember that:

A) Fianna Fail will always go for the easiest option with the least thinking
Taxing property owners presumably pacifies one section of the electorate

jimmmy

grahamo wrote: »

Property tax on a main residence :eek: Thats a No! No!
Property tax on investment properties is fair enough. If you can afford more than one house you can afford property tax!

Property tax was already paid on investment property. Our rates are among the highest in the world. As regards a new extra property tax, why do so if if the property is empty ( as many are) , are sucking money instead of producing it, are in huge negative equity and are more of a liability than an asset ? Is it not like kicking someone when they are down ? Someone that invested in Ireland and paid a hell of a lot of tax in the past ( stamp duty, vat, income tax etc )....and has paid for it dearly.

Invest in bloody Ireland again - never. Tell your kids to get out.

jimmmy

gearoidc wrote: »

I think I'd be willing to do a stretch if they make no attempt to come up with something that's fair. I literally feel that strongly I feel about it.

I am not a violent person but I tend to agree with you.

gearoidc

Presumably, if you had the money to purchase a house and the correspondingly colossal mortgage, then you should have the means to repay.

That is nothing to do with it. My point is that i have already paid €26k tax on this house.

To tax me no differently than the fella who bought in 2000 and paid €8k is simply not equitable.

They screwed me at the point of purchase. They shouldn't expect to keep on doing it.

P. Breathnach

grahamo wrote: »

Property tax on a main residence :eek: Thats a No! No!

Why? Just because you would prefer not to pay it? There is a simple fact that has to be faced: the gap between exchequer income and expenditure is vast. We need people to pay more tax, and we need some basis on which to levy it. You can't reasonably say no to everything.

Property tax on investment properties is fair enough. If you can afford more than one house you can afford property tax!

It is not at all obvious that people with more than one house can better afford a property tax. That house might be heavily mortgaged, in negative equity, and it might not be let, or it might be let at a rent that does not even cover the mortgage interest.

ManFromAtlantis

it might be unpopular to say this but i think a property tax on all houses is fairer than just those with 2nd homes. in fact i would suggest a property tax on all but 2nd, 3rd etc would be exempted . and no i dont have 2 houses. its just that the guy with 2 houses is likley to be feeling the pinch alot more than those with one.
and as some said , they have paid alot of taxes in the purchase of that ball and chain.

gearoidc

I don't intend to cause offence, but it seems as though you are quite scared, understandably, and are looking to share the responsibility.

Scared??? Try ****inn goin-off-my-head homicidal and you'd be gettin warmer. What I am is fukkin livid.

Share the responsibility!!? What does that mean?

What I am lookin for is for us all to share the tax burden. Is that too much to ask? That I pay no more than my fair share?

I am lookin for the cretins who are paid about €200k/annum to put a bit more thought into a property tax than a simplistic €1000 across-the-board that any ten-year-old could come up while he picks his nose.

I am lookin for even a hint of deliberation and careful consideration of people's vastly differing circumstances and the amounts of property taxes that have been squeezed from homes already.

Is that really too much to ask!!!?

dave-higgz

Would a property tax by area of house be a feasible option??
Social housing to be exempt.
3 bed semis pay little and large mansions with gardens pay the most?
I know of course there are huge gardens in the countryside but I feel there's a workaround

r0nanf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is a simple fact that has to be faced: the gap between exchequer income and expenditure is vast. We need people to pay more tax, and we need some basis on which to levy it.

We need more tax sure, but another way to bridge the gap is to lessen expenditure severely. For example we are still talking about the poxy metro north, which was a joke in good times and it's perverse at this stage. Get people back to work to increase the income tax take - pump money into capital building projects that are necessary (i.e. public hospitals and schools) to re-employ out of work builders while serving the public need.

Re-draw the whole tax system from scratch, lose PRSI and create three tax bands to maximise the claw from workers. Our current model has collapsed and this notion of meaningless small-scale taxes that are notionally implemented (1% levy, pension levy etc) are nothing short of ridiculous. Start fresh.

r0nanf

dave-higgz wrote: »

Would a property tax by area of house be a feasible option??
Social housing to be exempt.
3 bed semis pay little and large mansions with gardens pay the most?
I know of course there are huge gardens in the countryside but I feel there's a workaround

While that could work in other countries you wouldn't stand a chance here. I lived in Dublin 8 for a good few years and good luck charting the value of houses there based on size or street.

Do you live in a 3 bed semi?

Zynks

What should be donne is scrap stamp duty and apply property tax on new purchases. This would allow some movement in the market and people could even swap houses at next to no cost as it is done in some scandinavian countries.

This would help reduce the risk of negative equity by stimulating the market and would provide an increasing tax revenue (compared to pretty much nothing today). banks could also benefit from less bad-debt which we'll end up paying anyway...

To just put a tax on every property is so wrong I won't even start the argumentation.

grahamo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It is not at all obvious that people with more than one house can better afford a property tax. That house might be heavily mortgaged, in negative equity, and it might not be let, or it might be let at a rent that does not even cover the mortgage interest.

If being a property owner is so tough why have property developers been mopping up every dogbox on the market for the last 15 years?
They have made it almost impossible for couples with young families to buy a home as prices went up and up.

If the rent didn't cover the mortgage why would they bother investing? Is it because they have strong social consciences and feel its their duty to provide reasonably priced accomodation to those who can't afford their own home? Is it S***e!
They are in it to make money! Investment properties are luxuries. If you can afford one you can afford property tax.

dave-higgz

r0nanf wrote: »

While that could work in other countries you wouldn't stand a chance here. I lived in Dublin 8 for a good few years and good luck charting the value of houses there based on size or street.

Do you live in a 3 bed semi?

Nah 5 bed semi FYI, tiny garden though.

jimmmy

ManFromAtlantis wrote: »

it might be unpopular to say this but i think a property tax on all houses is fairer than just those with 2nd homes. in fact i would suggest a property tax on all but 2nd, 3rd etc would be exempted . and no i dont have 2 houses. its just that the guy with 2 houses is likley to be feeling the pinch alot more than those with one.
and as some said , they have paid alot of taxes in the purchase of that ball and chain.

I have to agree. Maybe 2nd houses in places like Dublin city centre are worth something, as they can be rented out....but there are many people with 2,3 or 4 apartments in the middle of nowhere ( relatively speaking ) ....no offence to the good people of Leitrim, Roscommon, Sligo, Longford etc....which are empty and a huge cash drain on the owners, many of whom have made huge sacrifices already and are nearly bankrupt......two-thirds of dwellings in Leitrim are vacant. I think many people cannot get their head around the negative equity / loss many people have made, after being encouraged to invest in the Irish economy by the govt who promised tax incentives etc

P. Breathnach

r0nanf wrote: »

We need more tax sure, but another way to bridge the gap is to lessen expenditure severely.

Sure. But that's not nearly enough.

For example we are still talking about the poxy metro north, which was a joke in good times and it's perverse at this stage.

It's not going anywhere in the present circumstances.

Get people back to work to increase the income tax take - pump money into capital building projects that are necessary (i.e. public hospitals and schools) to re-employ out of work builders while serving the public need.

What about "cutting expenditure severely"?

Re-draw the whole tax system from scratch, lose PRSI and create three tax bands to maximise the claw from workers. Our current model has collapsed and this notion of meaningless small-scale taxes that are notionally implemented (1% levy, pension levy etc) are nothing short of ridiculous. Start fresh.

Do it all with income tax, then? What might the rates be?

P. Breathnach

grahamo wrote: »

If being a property owner is so tough why have property developers been mopping up every dogbox on the market for the last 15 years?
They have made it almost impossible for couples with young families to buy a home as prices went up and up.

If the rent didn't cover the mortgage why would they bother investing? Is it because they have strong social consciences and feel its their duty to provide reasonably priced accomodation to those who can't afford their own home? Is it S***e!
They are in it to make money! Investment properties are luxuries. If you can afford one you can afford property tax.

That was then; this is now. Many people who bought to rent are in huge financial difficulties because the market has turned against them, both the capital value of the properties they bought and the rental income they can earn.

A tax based on spite or resentment, or on an unrealistic view of how things actually are, is both socially unjust and unlikely to produce the revenue required.

[I do not have any investment property, so I declare a lack of interest.]

gearoidc

They are in it to make money! Investment properties are luxuries. If you can afford one you can afford property tax.

What is it about this that you can't get your head around???

Those of us who could "afford" one already did pay tax.
Bucketloads of it.

SkepticOne

The advantage of a property tax is that it can't be avoided in the ways that income tax is. You can't simply move your property abroad to avoid paying taxes on it in Ireland. However for political reasons it would probably be necessary to grant a period of exemption to those who paid stamp duty recently.

I would rather see more efforts to cut costs rather than raise taxes though. All raising taxes does is help improve the public finance problem. But this public finance problem is merely a symptom of a much larger problem of competitiveness, and competitiveness is not improved by raising taxes!

yoshytoshy

In a small country like ours ,income tax/other taxes should have been high to balance things and keep the housing market stable.

We should be decreasing taxes now ,but we cant:rolleyes:

Dannyboy83

r0nanf wrote: »

We need more tax sure, but another way to bridge the gap is to lessen expenditure severely. For example we are still talking about the poxy metro north, which was a joke in good times and it's perverse at this stage. Get people back to work to increase the income tax take - pump money into capital building projects that are necessary (i.e. public hospitals and schools) to re-employ out of work builders while serving the public need.

Re-draw the whole tax system from scratch, lose PRSI and create three tax bands to maximise the claw from workers. Our current model has collapsed and this notion of meaningless small-scale taxes that are notionally implemented (1% levy, pension levy etc) are nothing short of ridiculous. Start fresh.

I whole-heartedly agree with your sentiments, but you're not being realistic.
How long would it take the government to accomplish just a mere 1 of those tasks?

This government could not accomplish all of this in 4 years.


Its hard to be realistic with going to the usual government bashing but that is the absolute reality. Even with a good government of dedicated statesmen, something like that would take time.
And worst of all, the Dail sit for so little time, that the inevitable arguments which need to be fleshed out, will never be fleshed out properly and the drama will continue, every party will want to do it there on way and .......................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZ....................

You get the picture.

The fact is that there has been talk of impending doom since 2005.........That is 4 years in which the government had to prepare contigency plans for an 'inevitable' situation.

As it stands, we are nearly 8 months into the 'visible' crisis, and they have still not formulated a plan.

The government had 10 years to fix many of these problems, spent billions and billions of Euro on HSE etc., and its still not fixed.
And now we face a situation, where we have no money.

A. We cannot rely on this government to implement reform.
B We are not even sure if we can rely on this government to implement correct taxation.
(It would appear they are more corcerned with their trip on the government jet to see Barrack Obama for St.Patrick's day)

Therefore the only probable course of action is that we are going to be taxed harshly and for a number of years in order to close the defecit.


If you are unhappy about any of this, then it is your responsibility to use your vote and ensure that a less incompetent group of people are running the country. That is really about the only legal thing you can do to fight back.

Dannyboy83

dave-higgz wrote: »

Would a property tax by area of house be a feasible option??
Social housing to be exempt.
3 bed semis pay little and large mansions with gardens pay the most?
I know of course there are huge gardens in the countryside but I feel there's a workaround

I have already suggested Land Value Tax.
Scotland are seeking to introduce this.
Hong Kong have used it for years.

This would ensure that the highly rich contribute proportionately more than the impoverished.
It would also likely get the ball off to a slow rolling start in the construction and property sectors.

One problem however, is that its wide open to the exact problems of corruption (see Hong Konh) which Ireland already experienced, just highly unlikely in the current economic climate.

It would also call for a bit more fairness in the realm of taxation of those who recently purchased their homes and paid stamp duty.

Dannyboy83

SkepticOne wrote: »

The advantage of a property tax is that it can't be avoided in the ways that income tax is. You can't simply move your property abroad to avoid paying taxes on it in Ireland.

Precisely.

However for political reasons it would probably be necessary to grant a period of exemption to those who paid stamp duty recently.

I would rather see more efforts to cut costs rather than raise taxes though. All raising taxes does is help improve the public finance problem. But this public finance problem is merely a symptom of a much larger problem of competitiveness, and competitiveness is not improved by raising taxes!

True, but in the game of politics, competitiveness and reducing expenditure means cutting public wages and cutting public jobs.

Cutting public wages and cutting public jobs has a threefold negative impact:
A) More people on social welfare
Increasing the tax burden, again

More defaults & Bankruptcy, Less money in the economy
Making the current problem worse than ever

C) Less votes for Fianna Fail
Its indisputable at this stage that FF are putting the party first and the country 2nd.
They have only the short term in mind, if they had taken pragmatic action, they could have had years of long term support, but thats a different argument.


Ultimately, we are far from competitive and a country mile from cheap, especially the public sector.
A large amount of the population are so over-leveraged that they simply cannot take wage reductions.
Many of these people will inevitably lose their assets over the next number of years and some will have to declare bankruptcy, its just a matter of 'when'.
We know that the property market is going to plummet, especially as we move into deflation. (currently at 0.9%)

r0nanf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's not going anywhere in the present circumstances.

They're still talking about it, there were public submissions this week

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What about "cutting expenditure severely"?

You'll note I said capital building projects that are necessary, ones that are distinct from the current pissing-against-a-wall-for-fun-style expenditure. Example heard on RTE radio this morning about the 600 Garda cars purchased (without discount), and then the paint job given to a company that couldn't do more than a few a week - the net result being many brand new cars sitting in storage for 18 months. Do you know our last budget included a 70m prize fund for the dog&horse industry? When we can't afford 8m or so for children with learning difficulties. I am talking about priorities.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Do it all with income tax, then? What might the rates be?

I'm no economist but it strikes me as ridiculous that we don't have three bands - how about 22%, 44% and 65% off the top of my head. That way some middle income earners wouldn't be completely up the sh*t with the new proposed 48%, and those above 125k would be on 65%.

Of course I'm not advocating doing it all with income tax, but we should maximise our take from it. Close off the section 23s and other loopholes, and have a progressive system, where road tax goes on roads, and income tax goes on health/education. The current cashpile system is part of our problem as the money is appointed on whims of departments.

Re draw the whole lot

r0nanf

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

C) Less votes for Fianna Fail
Its indisputable at this stage that FF are putting the party first and the country 2nd.
They have only the short term in mind, if they had taken pragmatic action, they could have had years of long term support, but thats a different argument.

+1 Save the party, they've always been that way.

It's the equivalent of putting the good china into the lifeboats on the Titanic

Raiser

Is it time to leave yet? At this rate Zimbabwe is going to look attractive in about 6 weeks time.......

dodgyme

who do you want to tax if you were having a property tax?

I think the lads that own anything more then 3 or 4 houses probably benefitted the most and gained the most. Most people with one or two houses may have traded up and couldnt sell the second one or kept it as a pension or something but I know loads of case of fella would had houses in rathmines which were bought well before the said tiger and converted to apartments and the rents escalated as soon as the tiger took off. These same people then bought houses from the new tiger stocks in places like swords/D15/dundrum etc and covered them with renters. Therefore my conclusion is any chap with more then 4 houses probably had alot of wealth at the start of the boom and was in the position to benefit the most from the boom by adding to this bank of houses- he should be hit the most and not the lads with one house which they live in. The tax should be increased on a scale for every additional house owned and assets need to be watched to ensure they dont do sneeky transfers to the kids to avoid paying etc.

jimmmy

dodgyme wrote: »

I think the lads that own anything more then 3 or 4 houses probably benefitted the most and gained the most.

Do not forget many people got 90% or 100% mortgages....or remortgaged and used the value of their first house to borrow for the 2nd, 3rd etc. As another poster rightly said, many people who bought to rent are in huge financial difficulties because the market has turned against them, both the capital value of the properties they bought and the rental income they can earn. Two thirds of dwellings / apartments in places like Leitrim are vacant. Whole complexes + housing estates...its errie. Remember a tax based on spite or resentment, or on an unrealistic view of how things really are, is both socially unjust and will never produce the revenue required.

dodgyme

jimmmy wrote: »

an unrealistic view of how things really are, is both socially unjust and will never produce the revenue required.

So are you telling me that people who owned 10 houses are the same as people would own one or even 2?

Where I live individuals came in and bought 10 or 20 houses and then rented them to mainly HSE rent supplement people. That smells of corruption to me? These people should be hit and I dont think its unrealistic?? It happened so its realistic

To me they are a different catagory and should be hit the most. I am talking about dublin mainly here not leitrim. The question with leitrim is who bought them and why? but that is not really my point!

yoshytoshy

dodgyme wrote: »

I think the lads that own anything more then 3 or 4 houses probably benefitted the most and gained the most.

Do you actually know any of these people ?

I've done loads of work for young couples ,who invested in extra properties and none of them were well off.
Most of them ,do it for their kids so that they can be sent to college in years to come.

The boom is more or less ten years old ,mortgages are on average 20-25 years long. Probably half the second home mortgages are in there fith or sixth year.

Even without taxes a lot of these houses will be up for sale and the banks will be looking for there money.

Any idea on the trouble we might be in then ? ,another bail out maybe ?

dodgyme

jimmmy wrote: »

Do not forget many people got 90% or 100% mortgages.

I dont know anyone who would had to get a 100% mortgage for their main house that has a "property portfollio"

dodgyme

yoshytoshy wrote: »

Do you actually know any of these people ?

I've done loads of work for young couples ,who invested in extra properties and none of them were well off.?

I am not talking about young couples. Where I live there are people who bought upwards of 10 houses in one go. The guy who owns the houses around me owns 4 or 5 and is mates with another guy would owns the same, since I was looking for phone numbers where renters may be causing issues. When the estate was being built there were lines of houses where the same alarms/furniture/gasfires etc were put along the houses like an assembly belt(not too hard to work it out). These are not young couples but greed f*cks and the estate had no social housing elements.