Property tax...This will be popular

10000maniacs

Property tax on a property on which you pay your mortgage using capital that you have already paid PAYE, PRSI and Levies and you have already paid stamp duty and your bank owns most of.
Sounds like it will go down a treat coming up to Christmas.:D

Hagar

Waits for Leitrim Lad to tell us "It's for your own good."

turgon

Waits for Leitrim Lad to tell us "Its not like the opposition could possibly do any better."

techdiver

Popular - NO
Inevitable - YES

I think we have had it too easy for many years and now we are starting to realise how people in other countries take such taxes as a given. The low (direct) tax economy we lived in is gone. It was unsustainable and we need to realise that the likes of the last 10 years will never happen again...

gandalf

Again I have no problem paying taxes once the unnecessary wastage of taxpayers money has been addressed.

Dr Galen

agreed. The low taxes of the past 10 years are gone. Rightfully so too. We can't have it all ways. If we want to run a social democratic style government with all the investment in public infrastructure that it involves, then we need to pay for it somehow.

Our only hope is that the Commission on Taxation gets it's act together soon and produces a radical reform policy on all taxes.

Sleepy

Well, you could look at it as a tax on wealth for those who bought their houses when prices were realistic and a tax on stupidity for those who bought during the bubble...

silverharp

ok so let me get this straight , taxpayers want to save now that times are not so good , the gov increases taxes so that the state sector doesnt have to live within its means , so now the taxpayer will cut back even more and more private sector jobs will go. that makes perfect sense carry on:rolleyes:

mike65

Only properties or incomes above a certain level with get hit - or second homes/caravans/mobiles (hey thats an idea!).

fricatus

If it does come in, it should be based on the property's market value averaged out over time, and should be discounted according to how much time is left to run on the mortgage.

10000maniacs

I cannot believe what I am hearing here.
If you buy a property for €300,000 tomorrow, you will have to have earned €500,000+ in real terms by the time your mortgage is paid off to pay for it not counting the mortgage interest rate. Thats before property tax is introduced.
This is all very fine if the property value is increasing by 7-10% year in year out. Well its not anymore.
Property tax is Triple taxation.

NewDubliner

fricatus wrote: »

If it does come in, it should be based on the property's market value averaged out over time, and should be discounted according to how much time is left to run on the mortgage.

Or based on the square footage.

Some high-market value houses are near cities and the value reflects the short commutes. A tax based on MV would favour long-distance commuters.

DadaKopf

Yes, taxing property should incorporate spatial incentives to create more sustainable communities. Beyond that, I support wealth taxes because it's a fact that failure to redistribute on basis of wealth in addition to income concentrates wealth among the few. Inequality is possibly more corrosive to society as a whole than poverty, provided certain basic material and social conditions are assured.

Property taxes (not based on market value) or local rates would be a bonus for local democracy, as it would return resources to local authorities that were stripped in the 1970s. That's assuming central government will allow local and regional government to be just that - local democratic government. But it won't, and so in this dysfunctional context, such justifications for property taxes/rates are found wanting.

SEPT 23 1989

Bring in a property tax but lower council rates which are crippling SME's

gurramok

NewDubliner wrote: »

Or based on the square footage.

Some high-market value houses are near cities and the value reflects the short commutes. A tax based on MV would favour long-distance commuters.

Not fair. There are old communities in inner city Dublin mainly inhabited by old folks/working class poor who should not be penalised because of their location.

Using a means test property tax on square foot would be fairer.

Manach

I'd be against property tax on a person's home residence. Keep the tax rates as they are so as money goes from the taxpayer goes to the taxpayer when it is spent, and not on a government program which may or may not be of benfit to the public.

jimmycrackcorm

At least there is precedent - anybody who is in an apartment block pays a property tax in the form of a "management fee".

Hookey

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

At least there is precedent - anybody who is in an apartment block pays a property tax in the form of a "management fee".

Property tax would be on top of that.

To be honest I'm amazed there's no property tax already. I own a not particularly large flat in London and the Council tax on that is over £1000 a year. Since a housebuilding boom is what grew the Celtic Tiger in the first place, it seems logical to tax those selfsame houses. There are about 1.9m units of "housing stock" in Ireland; at 1000 euro a year (on average) that would plug about half of that pretty big hole in the public finances.

silverharp

Hookey wrote: »

Property tax would be on top of that.

To be honest I'm amazed there's no property tax already. I own a not particularly large flat in London and the Council tax on that is over £1000 a year. Since a housebuilding boom is what grew the Celtic Tiger in the first place, it seems logical to tax those selfsame houses. There are about 1.9m units of "housing stock" in Ireland; at 1000 euro a year (on average) that would plug about half of that pretty big hole in the public finances.

what you are saying is you are ok with tranferring more money from citizens to the state at the very time when people here may at least want to start behaving rationally ie paying down debt and building up savings. The state has proven that it doesnt know how to spend money wisely. Its very immoral

Hookey

silverharp wrote: »

what you are saying is you are ok with tranferring more money from citizens to the state at the very time when people here may at least want to start behaving rationally ie paying down debt and building up savings. The state has proven that it doesnt know how to spend money wisely. Its very immoral

Hey, I don't want to pay any taxes, and I don't trust the government to spend the money wisely in the slightest. But that doesn't alter the fact that we've built a public finance system on an extremely narrow tax base that was dreadfully exposed to economic fluctuation. Its far better to take smaller amounts from lots of sources (income, VAT, property, corporate) than over-rely on one (property transactions). There's also an argument that says introducing a property tax in this way does encourage fiscal responsibility amongst the population because its an ongoing tax that reflects the real cost of ownership of property; people may have been a bit more sensible about buying that second or third holiday home on a million-year mortgage if they'd had to pay council tax on it every year.

is_that_so

10000maniacs wrote: »

I cannot believe what I am hearing here.
If you buy a property for €300,000 tomorrow, you will have to have earned €500,000+ in real terms by the time your mortgage is paid off to pay for it not counting the mortgage interest rate. Thats before property tax is introduced.
This is all very fine if the property value is increasing by 7-10% year in year out. Well its not anymore.
Property tax is Triple taxation.

Well the more obvious choice is to return to the far higher income taxes we used to enjoy.
Incidentally we used to have a property tax of sorts, something FF jettisoned to buy an election and never replaced the income for. This is an extremely normal and acceptable tax in the vast majority of EU countries and a lot of other countries worldwide, used to help fund all those services we complain about. What makes us so special?

silverharp wrote: »

what you are saying is you are ok with tranferring more money from citizens to the state at the very time when people here may at least want to start behaving rationally ie paying down debt and building up savings. The state has proven that it doesnt know how to spend money wisely. Its very immoral

I love the way "The State" is bandied about as an abstract concept for the government when we want to ignore the fact that a majority of the people voted for "The State", three times running. In 2007 there were numerous warnings that they really weren't up to it and had already made a bags of things. Most people chose to ignore that.
Civil servants may run the country but they are also there to implement government policy. A property tax proposal in my view is one sensible attempt to widen the tax base that does not directly tax labour or overly depend on one sector of the economy.

kippy

Theres no doubt that something like this is needed in the long term. However I think it'll be a bridge too far for a lot of people who have bought in the past 5-6 years (bought a house to live in, not to sell on). This of course could be over come with a sliding "means tested" scale.
Already the majority of working people have taken tax increases and stealth tax increases, while their mortgage rates may have gone down, we have no control over them. The existence of "management companies" and associated fees means that a lot of people already have an annual cost associated with their house. Were a property tax on all homes to come in, these companies can wave their income goodbye.
No doubt water rates wouldnt be too far away after this came in.
Again, like many others, I dont mind paying taxes so long as the income is not wasted from them however like most of the cack handed things we've seen in the past year, I wouldnt be too confident that this would be the case.

Davidth88

I too was amazed when I moved here from England there was no council tax/rates or whatever you want to call it.

Although not perfect I think funding local councils partly from the local community makes sense. It would make them more accountable I think.

However now I am used to not paying it , of course I wouldn't want to .( hypercritical or what )

I do however think they should put taxes on 2nd/3rd etc houses. And also cease all those crazy ' section nn ' tax breaks . This to me helped to fuel the property boom .

I was always amazed when people used to move house , not sell their old one but rent it, how they funded the move I could never understand ( I do now 100% mortgage over 50000 years ! )

techdiver

kippy wrote: »

Already the majority of working people have taken tax increases and stealth tax increases, while their mortgage rates may have gone down, we have no control over them.

This is an important point. The World and EU economies will begin to recover long before the Irish economy and this will have a negative effect for many home owners in Ireland as the ECB will start to raise interest rates to combat the natural inflationary pressures of a recovering euro zone economy. This in turn will be another factor that will impede Ireland's recovery.

If people think they have it bad now, just wait until 1 - 2 years down the line when the ECB interest rate head back toward 5%+.

silverharp

Hookey wrote: »

There's also an argument that says introducing a property tax in this way does encourage fiscal responsibility amongst the population because its an ongoing tax that reflects the real cost of ownership of property; people may have been a bit more sensible about buying that second or third holiday home on a million-year mortgage if they'd had to pay council tax on it every year.

I agree there in that I'd prefer a switch from income to consumption taxes but they are now adding consumption taxes on top of increasing income taxes

is_that_so wrote:

I love the way "The State" is bandied about as an abstract concept for the government when we want to ignore the fact that a majority of the people voted for "The State", three times running. In 2007 there were numerous warnings that they really weren't up to it and had already made a bags of things. Most people chose to ignore that.
Civil servants may run the country but they are also there to implement government policy. A property tax proposal in my view is one sensible attempt to widen the tax base that does not directly tax labour or overly depend on one sector of the economy.

voting for particular parties and the machinery of the state dont have a huge bearing on each other , a 3 term FF/Lab gov would have brought us to the same point. I dont have problem with property taxes if they are efficient but income taxes should be lowered or else it is just a straight forward transfer from the private sector to special interests.
I'm only guessing here as I dont have any debt that many people feel they have taken on too much and now want/feel the need to cut back? if so "the State" should not stand in their way?

is_that_so

silverharp wrote: »

I agree there in that I'd prefer a switch from income to consumption taxes but they are now adding consumption taxes on top of increasing income taxes



voting for particular parties and the machinery of the state dont have a huge bearing on each other , a 3 term FF/Lab gov would have brought us to the same point. I dont have problem with property taxes if they are efficient but income taxes should be lowered or else it is just a straight forward transfer from the private sector to special interests.
I'm only guessing here as I dont have any debt that many people feel they have taken on too much and now want/feel the need to cut back? if so "the State" should not stand in their way?

The machinery of state runs independently of government as we would expect. It is also used to further the philosophies/policies of government parties. They can't be usefully separated when one looks at the government/state and how it currently carries out its activities.

What does change with different parties is the philosophy or lack of it they bring which they can then use to shape the organs of state. I disagree on Labour/FF. A three term Labour/FF would never have happened, certainly not after the last time and especially with all of the Bertie carry-on.

My point about FF, and they are long past being an effective Govt. power, is that they were a known quantity, yet somehow an awful lot of people didn't realise until after they'd made their choices. An alternative, at the very least, offers a freshness and a potentially different philosophy. Government is not all about taxes and spending.

silverharp

is_that_so wrote: »

My point about FF, and they are long past being an effective Govt. power, is that they were a known quantity, yet somehow an awful lot of people didn't realise until after they'd made their choices. An alternative, at the very least, offers a freshness and a potentially different philosophy. Government is not all about taxes and spending.

oops on my part I meant too say FG/Lab , but It doesnt alter the substantive point. I'm just not optimistic that any real reform will happen , unlike a restaurant that cant force people at gunpoint to spend money or pay higher prices, the "state" can and does. I dont know what it is maybe the country's movers and shakers are always about 5 years from retirement so they have no incentive to care about the future, its all about maintaining the fantasy a little bit longer. Short of a taxpayer revolt this charade will continue until we are bailed out.

jimmmy

There are too many empty houses / apartments in the country as it is, with the owners in negative equity. Two-thirds of the dwellings in Co. Leitrim are unoccupied, for example. The owners have already paid a property tax in the form of stamp duty. Tax has also been collected in vat + income tax during their construction. They are often impossible to let out , or sell. Having a property tax on them is taxing a liability, not an asset, and would only hasten owners throwing the keys back at the backs.

The govt should cut public expenditure, which has grown from 36 billion in 2003 to 63 billion today. That is the elephant in the room. The cost of trying to collect a property tax would not be worth it as it would be impossible to police. Even a simple, small tax like the tv licence is not properly collected as it is.

PeakOutput

i assume if a property tax is brought in it will not be brought in for everyone at the start and that stamp duty will be abolished when a property tax is introduced no?

for example people with onl one home who bought it in the last 10 years and paid stamp duty on it would not have to pay property tax for a certain length of time

then anyone who is buying from now on will not have to pay stamp duty but will have to pay the property tax and anyone with more than one home will have to pay property tax on them all accept the family home or something like that. and i dont see it being that hard to collect plenty of other countries do it with great success

gurramok

jimmmy wrote: »

There are too many empty houses / apartments in the country as it is, with the owners in negative equity. Two-thirds of the dwellings in Co. Leitrim are unoccupied, for example. The owners have already paid a property tax in the form of stamp duty.

No they probably have not. Stamp duty was not applied for new builds in the bubble hence a boom in building them houses as it was the 'cheaper' thing to do for buyers.

Hookey

PeakOutput wrote: »

i assume if a property tax is brought in it will not be brought in for everyone at the start and that stamp duty will be abolished when a property tax is introduced no?

for example people with onl one home who bought it in the last 10 years and paid stamp duty on it would not have to pay property tax for a certain length of time

then anyone who is buying from now on will not have to pay stamp duty but will have to pay the property tax and anyone with more than one home will have to pay property tax on them all accept the family home or something like that. and i dont see it being that hard to collect plenty of other countries do it with great success

Why would you assume any of those things? More likely is a property tax and a reduced (but not removed) stamp duty; and even that's not a given. As for people who've already paid; I'm guessing it'll be "sorry, we're skint, so tough".

The scary thing about all this is that in a league table of EU wasteful governments, Ireland would actually be near the bottom; ALL EU governments spend more than they earn, but only Denmark, Luxembourg and Slovenia keep the gap smaller than Ireland; the problem isn't so much about what we spend the money on, as how tax is collected in the first place. Like I said before, too narrow a base and over-reliance on the property bubble, which was mind-bogglingly stupid.

jimmmy

"There are too many empty houses / apartments in the country as it is, with the owners in negative equity. Two-thirds of the dwellings in Co. Leitrim are unoccupied, for example. The owners have already paid a property tax in the form of stamp duty. Tax has also been collected in vat + income tax during their construction. They are often impossible to let out , or sell. "

gurramok wrote: »

No they probably have not. Stamp duty was not applied for new builds in the bubble hence a boom in building them houses as it was the 'cheaper' thing to do for buyers.

Stamp duty was indeed paid on all investment properties....as far as I know only first time buyers did not pay stamp ( property) tax.
Having a new property tax now on properties is taxing a liability, not an asset. It is an additional tax on those who for whatever reason took the risk to support the economy / construction jobs. It would would only hasten owners throwing the keys back at the banks, and depress the property market further. A new property tax would only result in even lower propertry prices, less stamp duty, even fewer employed in solicitors + architects offices etc.

The way out of the economic mess is to grasp the nettle of public sector spending, which has spiralled out of control from 36 billion only 6 years ago to 63 billion - and rising - this year. Trying to collect a tenth of a billion in a new property tax is neither here nor there.

big b

The stinking hypocrisy of a government encouraging us to buy property, then bringing in a new tax when we do, will not deter this mob from doing so.

No matter how it's calculated, there will be a gnashing of teeth from some sections who'll feel they are being unfairly treated. I have little doubt that there will be some who'll carry a greater burden than others, even less doubt that the uproar will make any protests so far pale into insignificance.
But the brunt of the pain must surely be carried by those who own property outwith the family home. If you were willing to take the risk of profit through property investment, you must surely accept that you were subject to market forces. I feel that most home-owners would accept a property tax if they know that their liability is less than that of those who own more housing stock than just the one they live in.
A higher rateable value for investment property would mean a more manageable bill for those who simply bought a roof over their heads.

gurramok

Yes, thats right the investment properties, forgot about them!

Still no stamp was paid for by FTB's and owner occupiers on new builds.

Nothing wrong with lower property prices, it benefits alot of people. Too many invested in property which resulted in too many employed in construction, architects, solictors etc and thats why there is a mess now.

They cannot throw the keys back, they will be chased by the banks for the outstanding amount for years under the bankruptcy laws.

Agree with public sector slashing.

Why should Ireland be the only country without property tax in the developed world?

jimmmy

gurramok wrote: »

Why should Ireland be the only country without property tax in the developed world?

Its got one of the highest property taxes in the developed world, has it not ( stamp duty of 9% )? Maybe there should be a new property tax, so those who paid little or no property ( stamp duty ) tax can now share the pain and pay the equivalent of 9% stamp duty.

jimmmy

big b wrote: »

But the brunt of the pain must surely be carried by those who own property outwith the family home. If you were willing to take the risk of profit through property investment, you must surely accept that you were subject to market forces.

People were encouraged to buy investment property ( through govt section 23 / 27 etc ). It was to make a plentifull supply of decent quality rented accomodation for the economy. Often people borrow 90% of the cost, and looked on it as a pension. Now the properties are in negative equity + often empty. The govt cannot now change the level of the playing field and hit these people harderer....they already have a liability, not an asset. You cannot tax liabilities.

techdiver

jimmmy wrote: »

People were encouraged to buy investment property ( through govt section 23 / 27 etc ). It was to make a plentifull supply of decent quality rented accomodation for the economy. Often people borrow 90% of the cost, and looked on it as a pension. Now the properties are in negative equity + often empty. The govt cannot now change the level of the playing field and hit these people harderer....they already have a liability, not an asset. You cannot tax liabilities.

Investing in anything is a risk. If you are not willing to take the bad with the good don't invest.

big b

jimmmy wrote: »

People were encouraged to buy investment property ( through govt section 23 / 27 etc ). It was to make a plentifull supply of decent quality rented accomodation for the economy. Often people borrow 90% of the cost, and looked on it as a pension. Now the properties are in negative equity + often empty. The govt cannot now change the level of the playing field and hit these people harderer....they already have a liability, not an asset. You cannot tax liabilities.

fair point, jimmmy. It's also fair though, that those willing to take the risk, in pursuit of profit, should bear a greater cost than those who were simply buying somewhere to live.
The value of investments can go down as well as up.
People who thought there would be an endless supply of renters in Leitrim who would pay the 2nd mortgage for them clearly hadn't done much homework. Should their liability really only be the same as the young couple who scraped a few bob together to buy their first home? That home may now be worth less than they paid for it. Should they be exempt too?

eoinbn

I am not a fan of property tax, but I understand its advantages. I do find it quite fitting that FF used the abolishment of private property tax to buy the election in 1977, leading us to financial ruin in the 80's and now they will try and reintroduce it which will hopefully lead to the ruin of the FF party.

Darragh29

The property tax is where I'm drawing my line in the sand with this government. Whatever about bullsh*t levies and the likes, I'll run with that to a certain degree but I'll go to the Joy before I pay a property tax in this country. I've already paid 40% tax on my property in VAT, we are now more than a year into a recession and we still have 166 people in Dail and a further 60 people in the Seanad who must be the only people in the country who can claim unvouched expenses worth tens of thousands of Euro a year, on top of insane salaries, and these same people wonder why they need more money to run the country???

jimmmy

techdiver wrote: »

Investing in anything is a risk. If you are not willing to take the bad with the good don't invest.

Exactly. Nobody invest in Ireland. What a great message that is to the world. Pity the people who did invest in Ireland, pay all that stamp duty and vat and income tax 2 or 4 or 6 years ago, which meant the govt was able to increase public expenditure from 36 billiion euro in 03 to 63 billion today. Only now people are not investing in Ireland and taxes are only 30 billion or not much more this year. Hitting those who pay the taxes further will not solve the problem. They have been stung too much already....many have lost whatever savings they had 4 or 6 years ago. Now they will depend entirely on the old age pension for their retirement. Not a very fair or satisfactory outcome for those who paid so much tax.

10000maniacs

Darragh29 wrote: »

The property tax is where I'm drawing my line in the sand with this government. Whatever about bullsh*t levies and the likes, I'll run with that to a certain degree but I'll go to the Joy before I pay a property tax in this country. I've already paid 40% tax on my property in VAT, we are now more than a year into a recession and we still have 166 people in Dail and a further 60 people in the Seanad who must be the only people in the country who can claim unvouched expenses worth tens of thousands of Euro a year, on top of insane salaries, and these same people wonder why they need more money to run the country???

At last, somebody who gets it.;)
Every penny you put into your property, you have already paid 40%+ tax/levies on this money. Then you are hit for stamp duty which will in some cases bring this above the 50%. Then you will be hit with mortgage interest.
Then you will be hit with management charge if you have an apartment.
Then in December you will be hit with property tax in the budget. Getting worried?

silverharp

10000maniacs wrote: »

At last, somebody who gets it.;)
Every penny you put into your property, you have already paid 40%+ tax/levies on this money. Then you are hit for stamp duty which will in some cases bring this above the 50%. Then you will be hit with mortgage interest.
Then you will be hit with management charge if you have an apartment.
Then in December you will be hit with property tax in the budget. Getting worried?

Maybe we will get the tax revolt , if enough people bin them..... one can dream

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

Now they will depend entirely on the old age pension for their retirement.

How is that funded?

jimmmy

10000maniacs wrote: »

At last, somebody who gets it.;)
Every penny you put into your property, you have already paid 40%+ tax/levies on this money. Then you are hit for stamp duty which will in some cases bring this above the 50%. Then you will be hit with mortgage interest.
Then you will be hit with management charge if you have an apartment.
Then in December you will be hit with property tax in the budget.

Do not worry, it will not happen. Too many empty places + places in negative equity already. If the stamp duty had been reasonable, fair enough....but the govt cannot take up to 9% off someone + then hit them with a tax on a liability. When they cut public sector spending 33% then maybe.

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

How is that funded?

Ask anyone who pays tax to the government ...that is how the government pays money. Plus borrowed money of course.

Hookey

jimmmy wrote: »

Do not worry, it will not happen. Too many empty places + places in negative equity already. If the stamp duty had been reasonable, fair enough....but the govt cannot take up to 9% off someone + then hit them with a tax on a liability. When they cut public sector spending 33% then maybe.

You keep on talking about it like its a tax on the property; its not; its a tax on occupancy; negative equity has nothing to do with it. Everywhere else in Europe with this kind of tax (e.g. everywhere else in Europe!) would charge a fee based on location, size of house, number of occupants, usually with discounts for single occupiers, and discounts for empty houses. I'd take your bet and say this will happen. From a government POV its a no-brainer.

10000maniacs

Hookey wrote: »

You keep on talking about it like its a tax on the property; its not; its a tax on occupancy; .

So you reckon the Government are not giving due consideration to Property tax, but in fact they are contemplating an Occupancy POLL TAX.
Well that went down well with our nearest neighbours in 1990.
Lovely Jubbily. Can't wait.:rolleyes:

Hookey

10000maniacs wrote: »

So you reckon the Government are not giving due consideration to Property tax, but in fact they are contemplating an Occupancy POLL TAX.
Well that went down well with our nearest neighbours in 1990.
Lovely Jubbily. Can't wait.:rolleyes:

That's exactly what the UK Council Tax is (sorry, "Community Charge"). This is the basis of most European local taxation.

The Poll Tax was different as it wasn't connected to the property you lived in, so if you had multiple adults living in one house, they all got charged as individuals. The Council Tax (sorry, "Community Charge") is billed to the "homeowner" (or chief rent payer).

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

Ask anyone who pays tax to the government ...that is how the government pays money.

That's an evasive answer.

Would it be correct that everyone has had to pay more for goods and services to pay for private-sector second pensions? And that the money was then unwisely invested & as a result, you're now looking for a reduction in public-sector pensions to compensate for this? And that we'll all have to pay property tax to make up for the money taken out of thr NPRF to help build up the share-values on which your second pensions depend?

GUIGuy

Consider a typical new property purchase 3 years ago.

Price around 400k
20% of that was social housing levy (80k)
12.5% of it was VAT (50k)
40k was the county council levy

So before stamp duty was paid that on that 400k transaction the purchaser already endebted themselves to pay out 170k in tax. Then he/she had to pay stamp duty on top of that.

This person does not yet on a property they own a mortgage.
Now consider their neighbour down the road who bought 20 years earlier. They bought for about 20k and didn't pay anything except vat.
They saw their 'wealth' increase because their younger neighbours indebted themselves. Wage inflation over the years means they have no trouble with their 150 a month mortgage. They have 5 years left.

Now who is 'asset rich'? The person who has little or no equity, or the person who still has a fairly large asset?

I've no problem with property tax per se... but it should be on the equity that a person has in the property. The equity is a persons wealth. A mortgage is the opposite of wealth it is debt.

I also think any such should be progressively weighted such that those who benefited most from the property boom pay a little more. Who are they? Anyone those who bought properties before the boom, or before social housing levies/county council levies were introduced.

These people made equity gains is off the backs of those who bought property more recently... the added taxes they paid on purchase were one of the drivers of higher prices.