New property tax

billyhead

Folks,

Just wondering if anyone knows if the new property tax being recommended by the McCarthy report will be lumped upon people who purchased affordable housing?

D3PO

billyhead wrote: »

Folks,

Just wondering if anyone knows if the new property tax being recommended by the McCarthy report will be lumped upon people who purchased affordable housing?

if its applied it will apply to everybody on a scale depending on their property value or so we are lead to believe.

The_Conductor

D3PO wrote: »

if its applied it will apply to everybody on a scale depending on their property value or so we are lead to believe.

The manner in which the property tax has not been fully decided. There are two seperate parts to it- an outright valuation part- and seperately a square footage part.

When we last had a property tax, it was commonly known as 'The Dublin Tax' because the vast majority of properties hit by it were in Dublin. People could have mansions outside the Pale, and pay nada.

This time round- its thought that the absolute value of the house will only form perhaps 50% of the determination of the tax due- the size of the property will form the other 50%. Shoeboxes in Dublin will get charged on their value- Mansions in Kerry- on their size........

D3PO

yeah I guess we will have to wait and see.

Personally Im going to make a song and dance out of this if it comes in and I expect a lot of others to do the same.

I stumped up well over 20k in stamp duty as an FTB back in '05 due to the government deciding to fleece people getting on the ladder by not changing the stamp duty levels to help ease the burden on FTB's, if they think im handing over more tax without a fight they have another thing coming.

faceman

They are also making the recommendation coupled with abolishing stamp duty too on PPR so there are other wider questions about those who paid it in recent years too.

The issue around the tax is the value. By the documents released today, you could have 2 people in 2 houses on the same street paying a different property tax rate.

Very confusing stuff.

The_Conductor

I bought in 2001 (or so- I don't remember rightly)- 6 months before the exemption for FTBs came in. I also didn't manage to qualify for the FTB grant. I was gutted. If I get hit for this too- I'll be pissed.

the drifter

yes yes the property tax....i shall be shafted rightly for this....punishment for working hard and building my own house....


sorry...im just a little bit bitter about this...it seems every day you wake up there is a new and creative way for someone else to take my money off me....

shamblertine

How much do you reckon houses will plunge by if they do go ahead with this and the water charges? And when you consider interest rates can only go one way, I think theres going to be a lot more repossessions so I think the government could be shooting themselves in the foot with this.

bluecar

Property Tax - what a joke - I don't know how they can take blood from a stone - just about afforded to buy my own house in the first place.

Some one suggested here to sell your hse and buy a cheaper one. Best of luck to you if ya can afford to do that. If I done that like alot of people out there you would end up being able to buy a mobile home if you are lucky considering that the house I bought 3 years ago is worth 30 - 40K less - which is not that bad!!!

NO TO PROPERTY TAX- WE PAY ENOUGH TAX AND PRSI.

gman2k

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61996907&postcount=280

Don't want to double post....

Carawaystick

Is the property tax just to be on residential property?
Or will it be on land zoned for residential or commercial or industrial etc?

Sar!

Agree with D3PO - will kick up a major fuss if they go ahead with this. Its disgusting they are even suggesting it especially after what they have already done to people over property in this country.

Am paying 2k already per year for pointless Management fees in an apartment - like there needs to be any more annual charges for the privelage of having overpaid for our properties in the first place??

If the Govt. want more money from property they should get it from the greedy developers who put the country in this mess in the first place - not the people who are already paying the price on the daily basis anyway.

The only hope will be that if the Govt. do choose to go ahead with this insanity then it may well be the one thing that actually gets the Irish people motivated to stand together and push for a massive change.

mrgaa1

In the north the property tax known as rates is solely based on house price. When it was introduced a few years ago it was based on the house price on Jan 1 2005. The house price was/is determined by the land registry and thats it. You can appeal it and they'll come and visit and listen etc... but by and large thats it: non-payment meant jail time. Currently water rates are paid through this tax but they are looking to separate it.
I think the main issue regarding tax is that there are so many. Would it not be better to tax as much at source to minimize more afterwards?

Could, for example, the model for the tax system in the north work in the south?

The_Conductor

They are trying to seperate as much as the central taxation (taxation at source) up North as possible at the moment- as with a falling subvention from the London- the crucial services which should be delivered to consumers often simply cannot be afforded. This means the economic cost of supplying water, refuse collection etc- will in future have to be borne by the end user, according to the manner in which they use those services.

This actually makes perfect sense- and encourages people to economise- why use 200ltrs of water a day- when you have to pay for it- when a little common sense can reduce this to 120litres (or whatever). However this will only work for services which can be measured- eg. if they decided that everyone would pay EUR200 per house per year for water- half the country would leave taps on permanently out of spite........

The further argument against simply bumping up direct taxation- is its a further disincentive against working. If there is a charge for everyone (albeit a reduced charge for social welfare recipients), people are forced to acknowledge the cost associated with water magically appearing from the spigot......

I don't see how we're going to get away without somehow securing the tax streams for the government. We need to trim expenditure over the next 3-4 years by between 10-12 billion, and concurrently increase taxation by 6-8 billion. Its a bloody difficult balancing act. Everyone is going to hurt, one way or the other- everyone. The thing that is annoying everyone at the moment though- is the politicians are refusing to lead by example. I wish John O'Donoghue would ever do the right thing, and resign........

D3PO

mrgaa1 wrote: »

In the north the property tax known as rates is solely based on house price. south?

If this is the template I would love to see somebody in negative equity challenge this in the courts. Arguing that their house worth is nothing to them.

Im sure they would lose but it would be interesting all the same

kmick

It could even be argued that for most people who bought recently the bank has the deeds and technically owns the house so it should be them paying it. I mean the asset is on their books.

Repolho

I don't get peoples objection to the Property tax (other than those who have already paid significant amounts of stamp duty).

Remeber the commission on taxation are trying to re-balance the tax take. They are trying to move taxes away from income to other sources. So in effect we will all be paying the same amount of tax (nation as a whole, perhaps not individuals).

Paying tax is you civic duty as a citizen of the state.

D3PO

Repolho wrote: »

I don't get peoples objection to the Property tax .

Hmm I paid 24k in stamp duty 4 years ago as an FTB. Thats why I have a problem with a property tax.

Fine if they come out and say Ive got a 24k exemption to said tax then I have no problem with it but we all know that isnt going to happen.

There are a couple of hundred thousand people in negative equity in this country, and it could be argued this is down to the government who failed to do their civic duty in protecting the irish people from such a bubble, due to failure to have proper regulation in the financial sector, by offering tax breaks on property etc.

Nobody objects to having to pay tax, but when they look to tax something like this given the situation in the countries property market the only thing their likely to get is a revolt outside government buildings.

Theboinkmaster

D3PO wrote: »

There are a couple of hundred thousand people in negative equity in this country, and it could be argued this is down to the government who failed to do their civic duty in protecting the irish people from such a bubble, due to failure to have proper regulation in the financial sector, by offering tax breaks on property etc.

It could also be argued that those same people should have researched their purchase properly, and if had done so, would not have ended up in negative equity. Some research on the internet would have shown we were in an obvious bubble which was certainly going to collapse. Whilst the government was incorrect obviously with their lack of regulation etc - people need to stop playing the blame game and accept responsibility for their own actions.

Anyone who bought 1998 - 2008 bought in a bubble and should have known the consequences. A property tax, once administered correctly and fairly, is a great idea to broaden our tax base.

faceman

Repolho wrote: »

I don't get peoples objection to the Property tax (other than those who have already paid significant amounts of stamp duty).

Remeber the commission on taxation are trying to re-balance the tax take. They are trying to move taxes away from income to other sources. So in effect we will all be paying the same amount of tax (nation as a whole, perhaps not individuals).

Paying tax is you civic duty as a citizen of the state.

Running an efficient public service is the duty of the government. Thats what needs to be looked at before targetting people with a tax they cant avoid.

D3PO

Repolho wrote: »

. So in effect we will all be paying the same amount of tax (nation as a whole, perhaps not individuals).

.

So you think this is fair ? Ah sure its the same amount of tax who cares if the low and middle income earners are the ones screwed over, sure were only paying the same amount of tax as a country.

If this government were serious about balancing the tax take out they would start by getting rid of artists exemptions, the rebate to sports persons, remove the cinderella rule (If your irish you should pay tax in ireland just as it is for americans) etc etc

D3PO

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

It could also be argued that those same people should have researched their purchase properly, and if had done so, would not have ended up in negative equity. Some research on the internet would have shown we were in an obvious bubble which was certainly going to collapse. Whilst the government was incorrect obviously with their lack of regulation etc - people need to stop playing the blame game and accept responsibility for their own actions.

Anyone who bought 1998 - 2008 bought in a bubble and should have known the consequences. A property tax, once administered correctly and fairly, is a great idea to broaden our tax base.

Dont get me wrong Im not saying people arent to blame for their current prediciment, Im just pointing out a government that thinks by rubbing their noses in it further will face very stiff opposition to such reform.

Do you really believe people will accept a property tax lying down ?

mrgaa1

D3PO wrote: »

If this is the template I would love to see somebody in negative equity challenge this in the courts. Arguing that their house worth is nothing to them.

Im sure they would lose but it would be interesting all the same

I hear what you are saying but no-one is challenging it because there was a form of rates previous to it so they just changed system. I live in a dormer house and pay the same as someone who has a full two storey house down the road. We pay the same rates because there is a public website showing the value of each and every house in the north. Farmers are capped at £80k or something like that if they have outhouses etc...

Personally a property tax is a way to go but it should be linked to a BER cert with some exemptions thrown in for older buildings.
On a slightly different view a major overhaul of all tax's is needed. A bite the bullet scenario for a year or two to get the hump removed. Whatever it takes because the longer it goes on the worse it will get.
Does anyone know - and I dont' want to get off topic too much - if Ireland left the EU could they, in theory, wipe all debt out - reset to zero?

20goto10

Property tax is a very good idea. It's the way they are planning to implement it that is wrong. The solution is very simple, the tax should apply to new purchases only. Anyone who currently owns a home should not have to pay it. Otherwise people who have already paid stamp duty are being double taxed and people who bought on the premise of being exempt from stamp duty are also getting shafted as they are now lumped with a tax they thought they'd never have to pay.

The problem with applying it to new purchases only is that it will be a very slow inflow of revenue. And they need instant cash. They're just not thinking long term. Here's a way to have an instant €90bn, scrap NAMA and let the corrupt banks fail and pay for what they have done to the economy. We, the tax payers, already own our own bank. We can all quite happily bank with them while all the others go down the toilet.

D3PO

mrgaa1 wrote: »

Does anyone know - and I dont' want to get off topic too much - if Ireland left the EU could they, in theory, wipe all debt out - reset to zero?

No it doesnt work like that. Irelands debt is to bondholders and not the EU.

D3PO

20goto10 wrote: »

Property tax is a very good idea. It's the way they are planning to implement it that is wrong. The solution is very simple, the tax should apply to new purchases only. Anyone who currently owns a home should not have to pay it. Otherwise people who have already paid stamp duty are being double taxed and people who bought on the premise of being exempt from stamp duty are also getting shafted as they are now lumped with a tax they thought they'd never have to pay.

.

I have no problem paying property tax and I think it should apply to all homeowners not just new buyers,

HOWEVER I believe those of us that as FTB's paid stamp duty should have an exemption from a property tax until the equivelent in property charges matches that of which Ive paid in stamp duty.

20goto10

D3PO wrote: »

I have no problem paying property tax and I think it should apply to all homeowners not just new buyers,

HOWEVER I believe those of us that as FTB's paid stamp duty should have an exemption from a property tax until the equivelent in property charges matches that of which Ive paid in stamp duty.

Thats a solution too They have recommended the tax is deferred for the first 7 years of your mortgage, but that will not cover the stamp duty in most cases.

harsea8

I just can't get my head around how they are going to value each house....basically, the market is dead, so what will they base the property value on?

mrgaa1

could be it based on what it will cost to rebuild it - is this how house insurance works? plus location ? Perhaps a square foot price per town/region ?

D3PO

harsea8 wrote: »

I just can't get my head around how they are going to value each house....basically, the market is dead, so what will they base the property value on?

clearly they will value on the "long term economic value". So we are all screwed just like NAMA will overpay

D3PO

20goto10 wrote: »

Thats a solution too They have recommended the tax is deferred for the first 7 years of your mortgage, but that will not cover the stamp duty in most cases.

I suggest there should also be an exemption to those who own a house but are unfortunatly out of work at the moment.

spockety

Irish Times front page this morning reports that Property Tax won't actually be implemented... too politically explosive to try and push ahead with.

Repolho

faceman wrote: »

Running an efficient public service is the duty of the government. Thats what needs to be looked at before targetting people with a tax they cant avoid.

This is why the McCarthy "An Bord Snip" report was commissioned!

Repolho

D3PO wrote: »

So you think this is fair ? Ah sure its the same amount of tax who cares if the low and middle income earners are the ones screwed over, sure were only paying the same amount of tax as a country.

If this government were serious about balancing the tax take out they would start by getting rid of artists exemptions, the rebate to sports persons, remove the cinderella rule (If your irish you should pay tax in ireland just as it is for americans) etc etc

Hitting the more wealthy in our society is one of the objects of property tax. Its not the low and middle earners who will suffer from it.

Also, the report does also suggest tightening up on the residency rules by adding in (i) a test for where you principal residence is and (ii) where is your centre of personal / economic interests and citizenship.

The report is 500+ pages and does suggest a great deal more than just a property tax!

D3PO

Repolho wrote: »

Hitting the more wealthy in our society is one of the objects of property tax. Its not the low and middle earners who will suffer from it.

Also, the report does also suggest tightening up on the residency rules by adding in (i) a test for where you principal residence is and (ii) where is your centre of personal / economic interests and citizenship.

The report is 500+ pages and does suggest a great deal more than just a property tax!

Im aware of that, however this is a property forum hense the disucssion on the property tax.

i wouldnt call the average joe with a 30 - 35 or 40 year mortgage in negative equity who owns a 1 bed or 2 bed apartment or even the standard 3 bed semi d as wealthy.....

SparkyLarks

D3PO wrote: »

Im aware of that, however this is a property forum hense the disucssion on the property tax.

i wouldnt call the average joe with a 30 - 35 or 40 year mortgage in negative equity who owns a 1 bed or 2 bed apartment or even the standard 3 bed semi d as wealthy.....

so should only the wealthy pay property tax, or should noone? I\'m not sure on your point

As a country we pay very little of our GDP in Tax and we need to pay more for the level of services that we as a country seem to want.
from the OECD
# 1 Sweden: 54.2 % of GDP
# 2 Denmark: 48.8 % of GDP
# 3 Finland: 46.9 % of GDP
# 4 Belgium: 45.6 % of GDP
# 5 France: 45.3 % of GDP
# 6 Austria: 43.7 % of GDP
# 7 Italy: 42 % of GDP
# 8 Netherlands: 41.4 % of GDP
# 9 Norway: 40.3 % of GDP
# 10 Germany: 37.9 % of GDP
# 11 United Kingdom: 37.4 % of GDP
# 12 Canada: 35.8 % of GDP
# 13 Switzerland: 35.7 % of GDP
# 14 New Zealand: 35.1 % of GDP
# 15 Australia: 31.5 % of GDP
# 16 Ireland: 31.1 % of GDP
# 17 United States: 29.6 % of GDP
# 18 Japan: 27.1 % of GDP


so either we put it on income, which will cost the country jobs and effect everyone or we put it on somethig else, like property.
It\'s quite easy to put the think in bands and let the amount go up as the prices go up e.g.

Value %
0- €100,000 0%
€100001-€300000 0.15% €150-€450 a year
€300001-€600000 0.25% €750-€1500
€600001-€1200000 0.4% €2400-4800
>€1,200,001 .6% €7200

and as for the bank own the property thing, that is fine as long as you have no problem with the bank coming over unannounced( they own the house and your not a tennant) and using your bedroom as office or storage space.

If they wanted to get really creative why not base the tax on emissions, or BER rating, and the money saved could be used to buy carbon credits.

that would allow people to do something about their tax bill.

Repolho

D3PO wrote: »

i wouldnt call the average joe with a 30 - 35 or 40 year mortgage in negative equity who owns a 1 bed or 2 bed apartment or even the standard 3 bed semi d as wealthy.....

The guy in your example is going to pay the tax on his income?

The recomendations of the commission was to try and move taxes away from directly taxing income in order to reduce the cost of employment in this country.

Kipperhell

D3PO wrote: »

Im aware of that, however this is a property forum hense the disucssion on the property tax.

i wouldnt call the average joe with a 30 - 35 or 40 year mortgage in negative equity who owns a 1 bed or 2 bed apartment or even the standard 3 bed semi d as wealthy.....

I wouldn't call that person Average Joe. As a percentage of the population they would probably be a very small amount. I wouldn't call them wealthy either.

I can't think of anybody who really deserves more tax that would be constructive. Targeting tax on unnecessary expenditure might be a good idea but harder to implement. Cars and fuel are really they only ones I see as viable. What ever gets the least coverage will have cuts and increased taxes. It makes sense to publicise unpopular choices that will never be implemented.

20goto10

How can they base it on property value (either partly or wholly)? Who decides what your property is worth? And seeing as it will most likely be self assesed, whats to stop me valuing my home as €1. Thats the price I have decided its worth and seeing as there is no third party to tell me I'm right or wrong then thats what its worth. Until such time I want to sell it then I'll value it a bit higher

D3PO

SparkyLarks wrote: »

so should only the wealthy pay property tax, or should noone? I\'m not sure on your point

.

no of course we shouldnt just tax the wealthy in terms of property tax. I just think this is such a politically explosive topic right now given the shambles the market is in right now that there are other areas of the mccarthy report that they should be looking at.

As for the GDP % table I dont buy into that at all. The reason its so low is the low level of corporation tax. Which in turn has got many multinationals in which has increased our GDP which has subsequently diluted our tax to GDP ratio.

I dont for one minute believe that that low table reflects what the average tax payer is paying.

SparkyLarks

D3PO wrote: »

no of course we shouldnt just tax the wealthy in terms of property tax. I just think this is such a politically explosive topic right now given the shambles the market is in right now that there are other areas of the mccarthy report that they should be looking at.

As for the GDP % table I dont buy into that at all. The reason its so low is the low level of corporation tax. Which in turn has got many multinationals in which has increased our GDP which has subsequently diluted our tax to GDP ratio.

I dont for one minute believe that that low table reflects what the average tax payer is paying.

Table 2 Comparison of total tax wedge (as percentage of labour costs)1
Country Total Tax wedge 2007 Annual change 2007/06 (in percentage points)
Tax wedge Income tax Employee SSC Employer SSC
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Belgium 55.5 0.0 0.042 0.006 -0.029
Hungary 54.4 2.5 0.550 1.988 -0.045
Germany 52.2 -1.1 0.159 -0.611 -0.613
France 49.2 -1.0 -0.966 0.092 -0.126
Austria 48.5 0.3 0.278 0.000 0.000
Italy 45.9 0.3 0.118 0.227 0.000
Sweden 45.4 -2.4 -2.471 -0.004 0.080
Netherlands 44.0 -0.4 0.601 -1.207 0.250
Finland 43.7 -0.5 -0.431 -0.027 0.000
Czech Republic 42.9 0.3 0.316 0.000 0.000
Poland 42.8 -0.9 0.109 -0.965 0.000
Turkey 42.7 0.0 -0.020 0.000 0.000
Greece 42.3 0.4 0.401 0.000 0.000
Denmark 41.3 0.1 0.134 -0.047 -0.022
Spain 38.9 -0.2 0.014 0.017 -0.265
Slovak Republic 38.5 0.0 0.018 0.000 0.000
Luxembourg 37.5 1.0 0.663 0.315 0.001
Norway 37.5 0.1 0.478 0.031 -0.391
Portugal 37.4 0.0 -0.004 0.000 0.000
United Kingdom 34.1 0.1 0.023 0.019 0.022
Canada 31.3 -0.5 -0.363 -0.090 -0.091
United States 30.0 0.1 0.108 0.000 -0.005
Switzerland 29.6 0.1 0.107 0.000 0.000
Japan 29.3 0.5 0.794 -0.156 -0.174
Iceland 28.3 -1.2 -0.829 -0.009 -0.404
Australia 27.7 -0.6 -0.578 0.000 0.000
Ireland 22.3 -0.7 -0.740 0.035 0.000
New Zealand 21.5 0.5 0.470 0.000 0.000
Korea 19.6 1.4 1.022 0.113 0.263
Mexico 15.3 0.3 0.293 -0.039 0.021
1. Figures of the average worker single without children.
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/35/40259873.xls

D3PO

firstly what exactly is the average worker ? and with no childeren that doesnt mean anything.


that table is about as useful as an inflateable dartboard, furthermore its from 2006/07

No reflection to the income levy, pension levy, vat increase, increase in DIRT etc etc. If you want to argue the point at least have up to date data

SparkyLarks

D3PO wrote: »

firstly what exactly is the average worker ? and with no childeren that doesnt mean anything.


that table is about as useful as an inflateable dartboard, furthermore its from 2006/07

No reflection to the income levy, pension levy, vat increase, increase in DIRT etc etc. If you want to argue the point at least have up to date data

Why does having no children invalidate anything.

An average worker is defined as somebody who earns the average income of full-time workers of the country concerned in sectors C-K of the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC). The average worker is single, meaning that he or she does not receive any tax relief in respect of a spouse, unmarried partner or child.


income levy adds only 2 5 to the average worker and still brings us to just below the UK you should be able to propose a diffferent figure quite easily

you haven;t provided any figures to back up your claim

but her are 2008 with different Family configuration
and we are still low,
Part I. Taxation of Wage Income (2008)

Table I.6. ´All-in´ average personal income tax rates at AW by family type 1 Country one earner two children

Denmark 29.1%
Netherlands 28.1%
Greece 26.6%
Turkey 26.0%
Hungary 24.6%
Germany 24.1%
Finland 23.1%
Belgium 22.6%
Norway 22.1%
Poland 21.5%
Austria 20.5%
Sweden 19.1%
United Kingdom * 19.1%
France 17.6%
Italy 15.5%
Japan 14.1%
United States 11.3%
Spain 11.2%
Canada 11.0%
Korea 10.0%
Portugal 9.9%
Australia * 9.8%
Switzerland 7.5%
Slovak Republic 5.8%
Iceland 5.6%
Mexico 5.1%
New Zealand* 3.5%
Luxembourg 1.0%
Ireland -4.7%
Czech Republic -7.1%
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/21/2576404.xls

from here
http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html#tbw

Are you still claiming

D3PO wrote: »

I dont for one minute believe that that low table reflects what the average tax payer is paying

D3PO

those figues mean nothing without putting some context on them.

Quite simply you cannot compare two countries from a couple of OECD reports and argue that tax increases here are justified.


You cannot just say oh were paying x amount less than this country so that justified increasing the taxes to be on a par with them, you need to understand how this impacts the economy, what changes have been made already and how thats likely to impact on both an economic and sociatal level.

Im not an idiot Im aware there is a hole in the department of finances coffers and they need to plug that.

That needs to be done both by reducing expenditure and targetting taxes in an economic and socially responsible manner.

I would content that a property tax and college fees should therfore be off the table.

Narrowing of tax bands, an 3rd teir income tax rate, water charges, and a crbon tax I think people will accept as we need to fix this problem, but certain things given the context of the mess we are in just wont be tolerated.

Im telling you now there will be massive outcry if a property tax comes in

SparkyLarks

D3PO wrote: »

those figues mean nothing without putting some context on them.

Quite simply you cannot compare two countries from a couple of OECD reports and argue that tax increases here are justified.


You cannot just say oh were paying x amount less than this country so that justified increasing the taxes to be on a par with them, you need to understand how this impacts the economy, what changes have been made already and how thats likely to impact on both an economic and sociatal level.

D3PO wrote: »

Yes but my point is
1) we are a low Tax economy
2) to maintain our public services we need to increas more tax
3) Euther we do it through income tax or other Taxes, i.e property etc

D3PO wrote: »

Im not an idiot Im aware there is a hole in the department of finances coffers and they need to plug that.

That needs to be done both by reducing expenditure and targetting taxes in an economic and socially responsible manner.

D3PO wrote: »

I agree but think that
1) we need to increase our overall tax
2) It is econmically and sociall irisponsible to increase the cost of employement with income taxes

D3PO wrote: »

I would content that a property tax and college fees should therfore be off the table.

Narrowing of tax bands, an 3rd teir income tax rate, water charges, and a crbon tax I think people will accept as we need to fix this problem, but certain things given the context of the mess we are in just wont be tolerated.

Im telling you now there will be massive outcry if a property tax comes in

you want to narrow the tax bands? when the average single earner with two children doesn\'t contribute to the state coffers?

If you don;t want a property tax where are you going to find the 4bn that it could provide? That is very expensive water charges.

D3PO

SparkyLarks wrote: »

D3PO wrote: »

those figues mean nothing without putting some context on them.

Quite simply you cannot compare two countries from a couple of OECD reports and argue that tax increases here are justified.


You cannot just say oh were paying x amount less than this country so that justified increasing the taxes to be on a par with them, you need to understand how this impacts the economy, what changes have been made already and how thats likely to impact on both an economic and sociatal level.
Yes but my point is
1) we are a low Tax economy (debateable)
2) to maintain our public services we need to increas more tax (why ? what wrong with getting rid of the waste int he system in which there is plenty)
3) Euther we do it through income tax or other Taxes, i.e property etc


Im not an idiot Im aware there is a hole in the department of finances coffers and they need to plug that.

That needs to be done both by reducing expenditure and targetting taxes in an economic and socially responsible manner.

I agree but think that
1) we need to increase our overall tax (Not arguing this I just think given how fragile the current economic environment is taxes that people have the ability to modiyfy their behavours with should be what we are looking at. i.e carbon tax, water rates, people can modify their behaviour to minimse their tax burden but yet the government still gets tax take)
2) It is econmically and sociall irisponsible to increase the cost of employement with income taxes (Yes its also economically irresponsible for us to have the 3rd highest unemployment benefit being paid given the high rate of unemployment yet we still do it)

I would content that a property tax and college fees should therfore be off the table.

Narrowing of tax bands, an 3rd teir income tax rate, water charges, and a crbon tax I think people will accept as we need to fix this problem, but certain things given the context of the mess we are in just wont be tolerated.

Im telling you now there will be massive outcry if a property tax comes in

you want to narrow the tax bands? when the average single earner with two children doesn\'t contribute to the state coffers?

If you don;t want a property tax where are you going to find the 4bn that it could provide? That is very expensive water charges.

Who says we need to find 4 billion in tax ? We need to close the budgetary gap by 4 billion. That should not be made solely or even using tax as the majority measure to close this gap)

Health care - use of generic drugs, force a renegotiation of consultants fees, increased A&E charges, consilidation of services where appropriate, stop wasting money on crazy things like a new health website that never actually launched etc etc

Social Welfare - means test welfare payments, prime example see that criminal that the indo pointed out last is driving around in BMW's yet is claiming the dole, enforce requirment for persons on welfare to do community service, activities that are financially beneficial to the state

Law enforcement / tribunals - stop wasting money on these tribunals at a cost of billions to the state, increse gardai charge when hired for things like sporting events etc,

Thats before even discussing political expenses, abolish government jet, ministirial cars, remove committe allowances, remove unvouched expenses

I could go onb breaking down other departments opportunities but you get the picture.

There is plenty of scope to save 4 billion in costs without even touching tax. If you believe otherwise your very nieve.

Repolho

D3PO wrote: »

I would content that a property tax and college fees should therfore be off the table.

You haven't given any good reasons as to why a property tax should be off the table other than tat you have already paid stamp duty.

D3PO wrote: »

Narrowing of tax bands, an 3rd teir income tax rate, water charges, and a crbon tax I think people will accept as we need to fix this problem, but certain things given the context of the mess we are in just wont be tolerated.

A 3rd tier would do little to increase the tax take as the highest earners are out of the PAYE system. This would only end up in further hitting middle income earners. Also, as Sparkylarks has said it is economically irresponsible to increase the cost of employment in this country. You only have to look at reasons cited for the recent redundancies at Teva in Waterford for proof of this.

D3PO

Repolho wrote: »

You haven't given any good reasons as to why a property tax should be off the table other than tat you have already paid stamp duty.



A 3rd tier would do little to increase the tax take as the highest earners are out of the PAYE system. This would only end up in further hitting middle income earners. Also, as Sparkylarks has said it is economically irresponsible to increase the cost of employment in this country. You only have to look at reasons cited for the recent redundancies at Teva in Waterford for proof of this.

There is no good reason not to have a property tax. Your not reading my earlier posts fully. What I said is that given the property market situation and the amount of people in negative equity, if the government tried to introduce said tax it would be a political timebomb.

Is that clear enough ?

A 3rd tier would only do little to increase the tax take if other measures werent put in place to ensure that doesnt happen, review taxable exemptions on pension contributions, introduce tax on share options remove completly any semblance of a cinderella rule etc etc

You dont have to make the cost of employment go up in general to increase the tax take from higher earners.

Repolho

D3PO wrote: »

What I said is that given the property market situation and the amount of people in negative equity, if the government tried to introduce said tax it would be a political timebomb.

quote]

The situation in the property market is exactly why we need to move to an annual property tax as opposed to a stamp duty type tax as it is a more stable tax base.

Your point about negative equity is moot. Just because people are in negative equity does not mean they should be exempt from paying tax. Most people who are in negative equity are so because the value of their property has fallen not becuse they have lost jobs or taken pay cuts. Therefore their ability to pay tax is the same.

ronbyrne2005

Who pays stamp duty? Answer is largely the vendor as stamp duty reduces the sales price in competitive market for a house. If stamp duty on say a 400k second house was removed it would jump up by close to the amount of stamp duty that would have been paid. Of course in current market it's hard to disentangle the effects.

If stamp duty is removed before the tax comes in the price of a house will rise CETERIS PARIBUS. Then when tax is brought in it will cause a fall in prices , the extent of which depends on many factors.

D3PO

Repolho wrote: »

Your point about negative equity is moot. Just because people are in negative equity does not mean they should be exempt from paying tax. .

F**k me does anybody read the posts here properly before replying ? Where the hell have I said that.

For the last freaking time. The sentiment of persons in negative equity would cause political uproar if a property tax was introduced.

Im not saying we shouldnt have a property tax im suggesting that if they do have one there should be a proviso exempting persons who paid stamp duty as FTB's for a period of time.

Im not saying persons in negative equity should be exempt, Im not saying persons in negative equity shoudlnt pay tax.

Please read slowly and understand what Im saying Im stick of repeating myself.