Property tax extortion

RandomName2

I have little complaint about shelling out €100 a year in an extra tax - we all have to bear the burden of Ireland's debt after all but...

The concept that people in south county Dublin having to pay perhaps €5,000 a year! On top of mortgages on properties that are already in negative equity!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0127/household-business.html

Like seriously: what the ****?

This naturally doesn't take income into account (except those who already are granted exemptions), the family circumstances or even the size of the property; but rather the address. So; people who paid most during the economic boom, who are most in debt, are landed with the largest tax bill in some sort of socio-economic purge.

And the worst thing about this sword of Damocles hangs over tax-payers without any definite limit in duration or ceiling of expense.

What do other people feel about this? I' prepared to take a lot of pain owing to the state's finances - but quite frankly I'll vote for (nearly) anyone willing to rescind the reintroduction of rates.

MadsL

My property taxes will be approx $5000 next year.

Explain to me how if you own a property you shouldn't pay taxes? Remember those rates, they were replaced by development levys paid by developers getting planning permission. These aren't new taxes, it is just that the people who were paying them for you have now mostly gone bust...

If you would prefer, there could be local income and/or sales tax as we pay here in the US (as well as property taxes!)

RandomName2

MadsL wrote: »

My property taxes will be approx $5000 next year.

Explain to me how if you own a property you shouldn't pay taxes? Remember those rates, they were replaced by development levys paid by developers getting planning permission. These aren't new taxes, it is just that the people who were paying them for you have now mostly gone bust...

If you would prefer, there could be local income and/or sales tax as we pay here in the US (as well as property taxes!)

Why should we pay any property tax per se? Those who have bought have already paid stamp duty (which is a property tax). Some have also paid CAT if they have inherited or sold property.

You could say that a recurring local tax could be used to pay for local services... such as what though? Bins? We already pay for those. Same with roads. Soon we will have to pay for water as a separate charge.

So paying for the luxury of owning a home (which isn't making any money). I suppose the alternative is to sell - which if you are in negative equity will leave you outstanding debts whilst you rent. :pac:

You might be able to afford 5K a year. Many won't.

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

MadsL wrote: »

My property taxes will be approx $5000 next year.

Explain to me how if you own a property you shouldn't pay taxes? Remember those rates, they were replaced by development levys paid by developers getting planning permission. These aren't new taxes, it is just that the people who were paying them for you have now mostly gone bust...

If you would prefer, there could be local income and/or sales tax as we pay here in the US (as well as property taxes!)

Why should we pay any property tax per se? Those who have bought have already paid stamp duty (which is a property tax). Some have also paid CAT if they have inherited or sold property.

You could say that a recurring local tax could be used to pay for local services... such as what though? Bins? We already pay for those. Same with roads. Soon we will have to pay for water as a separate charge.

So paying for the luxury of owning a home (which isn't making any money). I suppose the alternative is to sell - which if you are in negative equity will leave you outstanding debts whilst you rent. :pac:

You might be able to afford 5K a year. Many won't.

Stamp duty is not a property tax, it's a transaction tax

RandomName2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Stamp duty is not a property tax, it's a transaction tax

But its a mandatory tax to pay on transactions involving property?

goose2005

RandomName2 wrote: »

Why should we pay any property tax per se? Those who have bought have already paid stamp duty (which is a property tax). Some have also paid CAT if they have inherited or sold property.

You could say that a recurring local tax could be used to pay for local services... such as what though? Bins? We already pay for those. Same with roads. Soon we will have to pay for water as a separate charge.

So paying for the luxury of owning a home (which isn't making any money). I suppose the alternative is to sell - which if you are in negative equity will leave you outstanding debts whilst you rent. :pac:

You might be able to afford 5K a year. Many won't.

A tax on assets is far better than a tax on income or expenditure. Too many people get and stay rich by getting property and holding onto it.

Manach

Having to take care of a leaky old rambling property that eats up income on repair costs is hardly a definition of rich. Taxes should be leveled on all earned income, across the board from the lowest to the highest, which is why I suspect it does not sit well with the Labour elements of the current regime.

RandomName2

goose2005 wrote: »

A tax on assets is far better than a tax on income or expenditure. Too many people get and stay rich by getting property and holding onto it.

By "holding onto" it I presume you mean "live in."

Tax on income or tax on something which is not producing income?

Hmm.

Okay, okay there is already a tax on income (i.e. income tax) that is proportional to how much income is earned (so roughly speaking those who can afford to pay more will pay more).

Homes don't earn money. Homes cost money (to buy, to maintain, to live in). Properties that are not homes (that MIGHT earn income) are already taxed through secondary property tax and... income tax (duh).

This tax is just undermining security of tenure for the sake of a general slush fund. I don't even have anything against a general fund to pay off Ireland's debts - but ffs we should shoulder the burden in a reasonable manner rather than discriminate against families based upon their addresses. :eek:

MadsL

You are missing the point, rates become development levys - not much development going on so now someone has to keep local services going.


These are your choices.

1. Higher income tax
2. local income tax
3. A poll tax
4. Local sales taxes
5. Property tax
6. Atari Jaguar tax

Choose....

(where I live now $5000 in property taxes but only 3% sales tax...how much did you spend on goods and services last year at 21%??)

Kintarō Hattori

"Three quarters of Irish peoples wealth is tied up in property, and yet it it untaxed. Those who argue for a wealth tax should support a site tax as it is effectively a tax on wealth", argued Mr Lyons.

There will be absolutely no incentive for people to own their own home. It galls me, absolutely f*cking galls me that I will be taxed simply for wanting to own my own home. I bought last year when prices came down to reasonable levels. I bought the cheapest house I could afford.

It sickens me beyond description that I shall be taxed for owning the roof over my head. What's the alternative? Rent all my life and then worry where the rent money is going to come from when I retire? F*ck that.

MadsL

There will be absolutely no incentive for people to own their own home.

Why should there be an incentive??

It galls me, absolutely f*cking galls me that I will be taxed simply for wanting to own my own home. I bought last year when prices came down to reasonable levels.

Are there no street lights, sewers, public parks, or pavements where you live?

I bought the cheapest house I could afford.

You mean the most expensive don't you?

It sickens me beyond description that I shall be taxed for owning the roof over my head.

As opposed to being taxed for the car you drive or the money you spend?

What's the alternative?

Rent

Rent all my life and then worry where the rent money is going to come from when I retire? F*ck that.

From your alternative investments or pensions as they call them I believe.

Or buy at retirement outright..

meglome

RandomName2 wrote: »

By "holding onto" it I presume you mean "live in."

Tax on income or tax on something which is not producing income?

Hmm.

Okay, okay there is already a tax on income (i.e. income tax) that is proportional to how much income is earned (so roughly speaking those who can afford to pay more will pay more).

Homes don't earn money. Homes cost money (to buy, to maintain, to live in). Properties that are not homes (that MIGHT earn income) are already taxed through secondary property tax and... income tax (duh).

This tax is just undermining security of tenure for the sake of a general slush fund. I don't even have anything against a general fund to pay off Ireland's debts - but ffs we should shoulder the burden in a reasonable manner rather than discriminate against families based upon their addresses. :eek:

I've said this elsewhere. The retired mother of my American friend pays $26,000 a year for her property tax. And it's only that low as her house is one of the poorer ones in that area. She can pay or move. For some reason in this country we think we can own whatever property we like and not have to worry about paying fully for local services.

SafeSurfer

meglome wrote: »

I've said this elsewhere. The retired mother of my American friend pays $26,000 a year for her property tax. And it's only that low as her house is one of the poorer ones in that area. She can pay or move. For some reason in this country we think we can own whatever property we like and not have to worry about paying fully for local services.

So your friends mother pays 71 bucks a day to live in one of the poorer houses in the area. What area is it? The Hamptons?

RandomName2

MadsL wrote: »

Are there no street lights, sewers, public parks, or pavements where you live?

Those are paid for through road tax. Apart from public parks - there's no specific tax for that.

MadsL wrote: »

As opposed to being taxed for the car you drive or the money you spend?

Noone's taxed for owning a car! You're taxed for having it on a public road! You can have a car and park it on your own property and never pay any road tax. :pac:

MadsL wrote: »

Rent

Another equally glib answer would be "emigrate".

RandomName2

meglome wrote: »

For some reason in this country we think we can own whatever property we like and not have to worry about paying fully for local services.

Property tax is not for services! It's to help pay off $2.2 trillion external debt! As I have said 3 times already in this thread I'm not against that - I'm against the crazy discrimination being exercised here whereby a millionaire living in a mansion in a rural area will pay a fraction of what an individual living in a one-bedroom (purchased) flat in fox-rock will have to pay!

Besides which the "Oh well my friend's mother in America does X so it must be a good idea" is a pretty weak argument.

baalthor

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

RandomName2 wrote: »

MadsL wrote: »

My property taxes will be approx $5000 next year.

Explain to me how if you own a property you shouldn't pay taxes? Remember those rates, they were replaced by development levys paid by developers getting planning permission. These aren't new taxes, it is just that the people who were paying them for you have now mostly gone bust...

If you would prefer, there could be local income and/or sales tax as we pay here in the US (as well as property taxes!)

Why should we pay any property tax per se? Those who have bought have already paid stamp duty (which is a property tax). Some have also paid CAT if they have inherited or sold property.

You could say that a recurring local tax could be used to pay for local services... such as what though? Bins? We already pay for those. Same with roads. Soon we will have to pay for water as a separate charge.

So paying for the luxury of owning a home (which isn't making any money). I suppose the alternative is to sell - which if you are in negative equity will leave you outstanding debts whilst you rent. :pac:

You might be able to afford 5K a year. Many won't.

Stamp duty is not a property tax, it's a transaction tax

And despite what people think, it is a tax paid by the seller, not the buyer !

RandomName2

MadsL wrote: »

These are your choices.

3. A poll tax

Sounds fine to me. Provided that it's something reasonable like €250 for every adult in Ireland (barring some exclusions, naturally).

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

Property tax is not for services! It's to help pay off $2.2 trillion external debt!

Source for this?

meglome

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So your friends mother pays 71 bucks a day to live in one of the poorer houses in the area. What area is it? The Hamptons?

New York state. And their house isn't that great.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Property tax is not for services! It's to help pay off $2.2 trillion external debt! As I have said 3 times already in this thread I'm not against that - I'm against the crazy discrimination being exercised here whereby a millionaire living in a mansion in a rural area will pay a fraction of what an individual living in a one-bedroom (purchased) flat in fox-rock will have to pay!

Where the hell are you getting $2.2 trillion from? Property tax is for services and if we always had one we might not be in this position today.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Besides which the "Oh well my friend's mother in America does X so it must be a good idea" is a pretty weak argument.

I'm just point out how much people have to pay for their services. We have it easy still.

RandomName2

meglome wrote: »

Where the hell are you getting $2.2 trillion from?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Source for this?

http://www.indexmundi.com/ireland/debt_external.html

meglome wrote: »

Property tax is for services and if we always had one we might not be in this position today.

Again, I have to ask: what services? Not roads, bins, water, electricity, gas, or transport obviously. I am struggling. Moreover; you believe that a "services charge" would have staved off a collapse of the housing bubble? Em..

Which actually brings me to another point about how this property tax will provide a disincentive to buying property and an incentive to sell, when what we need at the moment is the opposite of both!!!

meglome wrote: »

I'm just point out how much people have to pay for their services. We have it easy still.

So service charges in the United States are above what most people earn in a year. First off, that makes no sense. Second, there's a civil war in Somalia so by comparison we have it easy! Yes, there was a logical gap there somewhere. :pac:

FreudianSlippers

No, no; a source that the property tax is going to service "external debt"

RandomName2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, no; a source that the property tax is going to service "external debt"

Well if you haven't noticed all the exchequer cuts and tax hikes over the last two years have been in a bid to increase general revenue. This is required due to the lack of fiscal stability in the Irish state, incurred by the collapse of the property market, which has required a substantial loan to make ends meet (€200 billion public debt, or 95% of GDP as of 2010).

Looking at it in this context, or even at face value, would make it manifestly obvious of what the purpose of the tax is. There hasn't even been any attempt, even, to muddy the waters.

I wrote this, reread it, and decided that it still wouldn't do so:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0531/breaking52.html

Bing. Part of the terms of the EU/IMF bailout terms. Any other needless questions?

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well if you haven't noticed all the exchequer cuts and tax hikes over the last two years have been in a bid to increase general revenue. This is required due to the lack of fiscal stability in the Irish state, incurred by the collapse of the property market, which has required a substantial loan to make ends meet (€200 billion public debt, or 95% of GDP as of 2010).

Looking at it in this context, or even at face value, would make it manifestly obvious of what the purpose of the tax is. There hasn't even been any attempt, even, to muddy the waters.

I wrote this, reread it, and decided that it still wouldn't do so:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0531/breaking52.html

Bing. Part of the terms of the EU/IMF bailout terms. Any other needless questions?

Being a part of the EU/IMF bailout does not mean it is servicing external debt at all... what you're saying is that you cannot prove that the property tax is going to service external debt; not being able to put it any further than saying we have a debt, we have tax, so somehow those two are intrinsically linked.

I'd agree with you there, but it is not proof that the property tax is some covert method of actually paying external debt.

Terrontress

RandomName2 wrote: »

Again, I have to ask: what services? Not roads, bins, water, electricity, gas, or transport obviously.

Don't forget the ambulance, A&E, fire service or GP charges which we have to pay should we be unfortunate enough to require them.

The only services which I can see which are not charged separately are water, schools and calling the Gardai. Although if you get caught speeding you will have to pay for that.

RandomName2

Terrontress wrote: »

Don't forget the ambulance, A&E, fire service or GP charges which we have to pay should we be unfortunate enough to require them.

The only services which I can see which are not charged separately are water, schools and calling the Gardai. Although if you get caught speeding you will have to pay for that.

Well I excluded water as there is a tax coming in for that shortly.

So it is well established that property tax is not for local services (even if FreudianSlippers will be waiting for a non-existent tax explicitly tied to the bailout to emerge). As I said, I don't have any objection to this: the loan must be repaid somehow, but doing it in this manner is pretty barbaric.

Drake66

All tax revenue goes into the same pot.

Triangle

MadsL wrote: »

You are missing the point, rates become development levys - not much development going on so now someone has to keep local services going.


These are your choices.

1. Higher income tax
2. local income tax
3. A poll tax
4. Local sales taxes
5. Property tax
6. Atari Jaguar tax

Choose....

(where I live now $5000 in property taxes but only 3% sales tax...how much did you spend on goods and services last year at 21%??)

Very narrow minded. There are also possibilities that do not include extra taxes - How about cutting costs....i.e. Golden handshakes and existing pensions that are not affordable. This would blunt the pain people feel.

PARKHEAD67

RandomName2 wrote: »

Property tax is not for services! It's to help pay off $2.2 trillion external debt! As I have said 3 times already in this thread I'm not against that - I'm against the crazy discrimination being exercised here whereby a millionaire living in a mansion in a rural area will pay a fraction of what an individual living in a one-bedroom (purchased) flat in fox-rock will have to pay!

Besides which the "Oh well my friend's mother in America does X so it must be a good idea" is a pretty weak argument.

Exactly.Its the Joe soap who bares the burden of the Greedy dimwit "Developers". The greed and dishonesty in this country is astounding.

MadsL

Triangle wrote: »

Very narrow minded. There are also possibilities that do not include extra taxes - How about cutting costs....i.e. Golden handshakes and existing pensions that are not affordable. This would blunt the pain people feel.

I agree on cutting unnecessary costs, but the point is that local services were paid for after the abolition of Domestic Rates by Development Levies payable after getting Planning Permission. Most local services are fairly unavoidable costs, and now the only people making a contribution are commercial ratespayers. So either you increase that (and shed jobs and businesses) or return some form of property-based charges

Terrontress wrote:

The only services which I can see which are not charged separately are water, schools and calling the Gardai.

Let's see. Social Services, Child Protection Services, Old Age Care, Planning services, Mental Health care in the community, Heritage Protection, Planning enforcement, Animal control and Dog Wardens, Litter control, Noise control, Environmental enforcement, Water pollution prevention, Flood controls, Leisure Services, Parks and recreation, Trading standards and controls, Markets and Trader licencing...

Will I go on?

PARKHEAD67 wrote:

Exactly.Its the Joe soap who bares the burden of the Greedy dimwit "Developers". The greed and dishonesty in this country is astounding.

Yet they paid your Rates all through the 'boom' so you didn't have to pay any property taxes...interesting.

RandomName2

MadsL wrote: »

Let's see. Social Services, Child Protection Services, Old Age Care, Planning services, Mental Health care in the community, Heritage Protection, Planning enforcement, Animal control and Dog Wardens, Litter control, Noise control, Environmental enforcement, Water pollution prevention, Flood controls, Leisure Services, Parks and recreation, Trading standards and controls, Markets and Trader licencing...

Will I go on?

Don't. Never mind that most of the above are piss-ant (noise-control ), it's unnecessarily tedious to go through each item. Or to point out that social services and child protection services are one and the same (and quite likely the same would go for water pollution prevention and flood controls).

Nevermind the fact that you ignore local fines and charges that separately fund these endeavors (planning, parking, litter, etc.) Not entirely sure what "leisure services" are - but I'd sure like some in my area (particularly if my area is going to be the most expensive to live in!).

MadsL wrote: »

Yet they paid your Rates all through the 'boom' so you didn't have to pay any property taxes...interesting.

Isn't it just. I mean the 'boom' was itself predicated on the property developers, many of whom got enormously wealthy (either through genuine assets and capital acquisition, or apparently through borrowing and hypothetical returns). It's not so much that development merely happened to pay for local services - it fueled the entire economy: that's where the problem lay! The collapse of this bubble now requires to make good the debts incurred through the activity of these developers. So to paraphrase you:

we paid their debts all through the 'recession' so they didn't have to pay back what they owe...interesting

I mean, that would be a bit of a juvenile way to come at it, wouldn't it?

Nijmegen

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Being a part of the EU/IMF bailout does not mean it is servicing external debt at all... what you're saying is that you cannot prove that the property tax is going to service external debt; not being able to put it any further than saying we have a debt, we have tax, so somehow those two are intrinsically linked.

I'd agree with you there, but it is not proof that the property tax is some covert method of actually paying external debt.

If it were a tax to pay for local services, it would go directly to local authorities. Instead it is being paid into central fund. A councillor related the story of a 2012 budget meeting in December. When they asked the finance director of the council why there was no mention of the household charge in the budget, the finance director told them it was because it had no bearing on their budget.

Secondly, if you wanted to shift the burden of paying for services that have been paid for in the past by income and other taxes, you would lower those taxes to offset the new property tax (a viable economic thing to do.) Instead, government will offset its cuts to local government with a new tax on top of other taxes.

This is not a new charge to pay for new things, nor is it a new charge to replace old taxes. It is a new tax, to add to all the other tax we pay, and to cover the deficit because government itself isn't willing to slim itself down.

RandomName2

Nijmegen wrote: »

If it were a tax to pay for local services, it would go directly to local authorities. Instead it is being paid into central fund. A councillor related the story of a 2012 budget meeting in December. When they asked the finance director of the council why there was no mention of the household charge in the budget, the finance director told them it was because it had no bearing on their budget.

Secondly, if you wanted to shift the burden of paying for services that have been paid for in the past by income and other taxes, you would lower those taxes to offset the new property tax (a viable economic thing to do.) Instead, government will offset its cuts to local government with a new tax on top of other taxes.

This is not a new charge to pay for new things, nor is it a new charge to replace old taxes. It is a new tax, to add to all the other tax we pay, and to cover the deficit because government itself isn't willing to slim itself down.

How would you suggest that the government could slim itself down? The Oireachtas as a whole covers a relatively small section of expenditure.

It is the extreme size of this new tax that shocks me - potentially a third of an annual minimum income.

Edit: forgot that the TV licence is now a property tax as well. You are now liable to pay for it regardless of owning a television - the criteria is possessing accommodation. If you own additional houses (to your home) you will also be liable for additional property taxes (namely secondary property tax). So, in reality, from next year there will be three recurring property taxes (even though the tv property tax will in reality make little difference to most people), and a transaction property tax (stamp duty). This is of course excluding CAT, income tax or rates, that may be incurred through a property that actually produces income or capital.

gerryo777

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Stamp duty is not a property tax, it's a transaction tax

On property.

gerryo777

goose2005 wrote: »

A tax on assets is far better than a tax on income or expenditure. Too many people get and stay rich by getting property and holding onto it.

So people who own a property are now automatically 'rich'?

meglome

gerryo777 wrote: »

On property.

On the transaction that happens to be on a property.

RandomName2

meglome wrote: »

On the transaction that happens to be on a property.

It's a tax on the transaction exclusively associated with property. ffs

gerryo777

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's a tax on the transaction exclusively associated with property. ffs

We're wasting our time with those two..

meglome

gerryo777 wrote: »

We're wasting our time with those two..

Look I know what you're saying and I agree the public perception is that Stamp Duty is a property tax. The unfortunate thing is it just isn't, it's a transaction tax. The time to protest about this was years ago when our government were fuelling a property bubble so they could get fat on the fast transaction money. Though as I recall people actively opposed a real property tax all along, even though pretty much every other country had one. We made this bed and now we're laying in it.

RandomName2

meglome wrote: »

Look I know what you're saying and I agree the public perception is that Stamp Duty is a property tax. The unfortunate thing is it just isn't, it's a transaction tax. The time to protest about this was years ago when our government were fuelling a property bubble so they could get fat on the fast transaction money. Though as I recall people actively opposed a real property tax all along, even though pretty much every other country had one. We made this bed and now we're laying in it.

So by this logic inheritance tax is not an inheritance tax because you only pay it once. IT'S A TRANSACTION TAX!

Ngggggggghhhhh

Jaysus - anyway you ARE saying that a property tax would have helped prevent the property bubble from bursting - or starting in the first place. That is exceptionally unlikely as the profit from flipping houses was only dented by... wait for it... TRANSACTION TAXES!!!

I mean of course pile on more taxes and an economy will naturally slow down. If Fianna Fail had increased income tax by 200% across the board that would have had a negative effect on the growth of a housing bubble.

RandomName2

gerryo777 wrote: »

We're wasting our time with those two..

Apparently :pac:

meglome

RandomName2 wrote: »

So by this logic inheritance tax is not an inheritance tax because you only pay it once. IT'S A TRANSACTION TAX!

We could have tax called the meglome tax (actually I like the sound of that), it can still be a transaction tax.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Jaysus - anyway you ARE saying that a property tax would have helped prevent the property bubble from bursting - or starting in the first place. That is exceptionally unlikely as the profit from flipping houses was only dented by... wait for it... TRANSACTION TAXES!!!

Yes I am. It's quite obvious to me that had we not the large sums of stamp duty money we would have been far less likely to go mad spending. Less stamp duty and a property tax would have been far more sustainable.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I mean of course pile on more taxes and an economy will naturally slow down. If Fianna Fail had increased income tax by 200% across the board that would have had a negative effect on the growth of a housing bubble.

It's about sustainable taxes, something that was loudly objected to during the boom. I wonder how many of those same people are still objecting, quite a few i'd say.

fun tree is cooked

This is a typical "Suck ya in " tactic by this inept Government ...100 euro and most of the bleats are " well it's only 100 euro" ...next year it's 700-800 euro ?? year after it's 1,300 -1,500 euros ..I would plead with any sane Citizen to challenge this outrage -fair enough if this is an equitable tax ...but how come Bono and Joe Bloggs have to pay the same ? Not Right , Not Fair , Not on ..ironically it was the gamblers and chancers that screwed up our economy with property punts ....I'm disconcerted, disillusioned and left wondering how xxxking stupid are the population

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's a tax on the transaction exclusively associated with property. ffs

erm... no it isn't, you pay stamp duty on court documents, credit cards, debit and laser cards and cheques.

Even if you were right (and you're not) and it was only on property, you're missing the point that the stamp duty is for the registration and paperwork that goes into transferring the title. It is not a tax on property.

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

So by this logic inheritance tax is not an inheritance tax because you only pay it once. IT'S A TRANSACTION TAX!

Ah, you're confusing inheritance tax with estate tax!

RandomName2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ah, you're confusing inheritance tax with estate tax!

CAT

RandomName2

fun tree is cooked wrote: »

This is a typical "Suck ya in " tactic by this inept Government ...100 euro and most of the bleats are " well it's only 100 euro" ...next year it's 700-800 euro ??

Potentially a hell of a lot more than that! :eek:

RandomName2

meglome wrote: »

Yes I am. It's quite obvious to me that had we not the large sums of stamp duty money we would have been far less likely to go mad spending. Less stamp duty and a property tax would have been far more sustainable.
.

I'd rather have had:

1. banking regulation and penalties for the introduction of unstable debts predicated solely on the retail value of properties on which loans were secured (such that the value of the property would not meet the shortfall if there was a fluctuation in the property market).
2. Bringing the tax rates of construction (such as VAT) in line with the rest of the economy.
3. Efforts to reduce wages, inflation, and the CPI.
4. Rapid investment in infrastructure with EU financial aid.

Taxing homes and properties would do nothing other than generate income to spend (madly) - which would be lost once auction politics ushered in a party that would promise to remove this burden from families.

Reducing stamp duty meanwhile would have increased the speed and the scale of the property bubble as the market became more open to buyers and more lucrative to developers.

antoobrien

RandomName2 wrote: »

Reducing stamp duty meanwhile would have increased the speed and the scale of the property bubble as the market became more open to buyers and more lucrative to developers.

I wonder did you notice the start of the property boom coincided with the removal of the RPT in 1997?

antoobrien

RandomName2 wrote: »

http://www.indexmundi.com/ireland/debt_external.html

This figure isn't great as an indicator as it would contain any debts registered against operations of multi nationals based here. This could include any debt that the Citibank operations have here, despite the fact that we would not be bound to pay such debts.

To get a true value of the debt, we'd need to know how much of this is for Irish companies & residents.

RandomName2

antoobrien wrote: »

This figure isn't great as an indicator as it would contain any debts registered against operations of multi nationals based here. This could include any debt that the Citibank operations have here, despite the fact that we would not be bound to pay such debts.

To get a true value of the debt, we'd need to know how much of this is for Irish companies & residents.

Either way though, the property tax is tied to the bailout. €2.2 trillion external debt obviously cannot have any immediate relevance, nor can it tell the whole situation. What is clear though is debt, external borrowing to service that debt, and huge taxes to make repayments a reality.

Cool Mo D

RandomName2 wrote: »

Either way though, the property tax is tied to the bailout. €2.2 trillion external debt obviously cannot have any immediate relevance, nor can it tell the whole situation. What is clear though is debt, external borrowing to service that debt, and huge taxes to make repayments a reality.

The €2.2 trillion figure is irrelevant. What matters is the national debt, borrowed by the government, which is €120 billion as of today, and rising. 3 years ago, the taxes raised from building property in a bubble environment fully funded all the spending we currently have. When the bubble burst, it only took a year to go from a balanced budget, to one of the biggest deficits ever seen in Europe. To balance the books, there have to be spending cuts, and a sensible tax base, and it makes sense to move to a tax that doesn't encourage governments to promote a property bubble for short term revenue.

Encouraging people to think twice about buying a house is a good thing. For one thing, it will help keep prices more stable. There seems to be a reflex reaction that buying whatever house you can get as soon as you can is ipso-facto a great decision, when it's actually a massive financial commitment, and needs to be though through carefully.