The least unfair way

As we are going to have to pay a household/community charge of one sort or another. What would be the least unfair way to organize it. There is a subtle but important difference between trying to make it fair ( almost impossible IMO ) and trying to find the LEAST UNFAIR way to design it.

spank_inferno

I suppose if there was a statistical model that can combine, house value, house size and residents income.
(I'd imagine that would be pretty hard though).

Combine that with next to no waivers, and I think its as fair as it could be.

antoobrien

The current flat rate combined with charges for services.

If your on a mains - pay for it, if you've dug your own well, you've already done so

Same goes for sewers, phone, electricity, gas mains etc

bigjohn66

First off is Location, Size and value of house.

Than, the most fare way to me is not to difference between anyone. Because I work and two jobs to keep up with things why should I pay more than a neighbour that has never worked a day in his life, gets his house from the council at €6 per week and has 4 children so will use more facilities and water.

One charge for all with no exceptions except pensioners that have paid into the system all their working life.

Dannyboy83

My experience of these charges has been mainly in Lithuania and Poland.
They seem to be disastrous in those countries, and place a heavy burden on low income families, altho they don't seem to do 'waivers'.
I've heard of some ingenious ways of cheating the system also when it comes to water meters.

I thought the best way would have been to reform our tax system and then increase income tax rates.

Manach

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I thought the best way would have been to reform our tax system and then increase income tax rates.

Exactly, as the basic gist of the ESRI report was suggesting.

EricPraline

bigjohn66 wrote: »

First off is Location, Size and value of house.

But which of those is first? There is often a trade-off between these criteria.

Prioritise by location/value and you're likely to punish urban dwellers (as per the original rates), prioritise by floor area and you punish those living in McMansions in poorly serviced areas. Either way, you alienate some section of the electorate. Presumably the government will go with whatever is the easiest, populist option to give them a slim chance of re-election.

antoobrien

EricPraline wrote: »

But which of those is first? There is often a trade-off between these criteria.

Prioritise by location/value and you're likely to punish urban dwellers (as per the original rates), prioritise by floor area and you punish those living in McMansions in poorly serviced areas. Either way, you alienate some section of the electorate. Presumably the government will go with whatever is the easiest, populist option to give them a slim chance of re-election.

That actually sounds like a good idea, seeing as the rush to buy houses & apartments in towns was the biggest feeder of the bubble.

juan.kerr

For a start, no waivers for spongers.

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

That actually sounds like a good idea, seeing as the rush to buy houses & apartments in towns was the biggest feeder of the bubble.

Have to say Galway city and its surroundings had a pension for mansion sized houses (of course they were B&B's) long before the bubble .. I think taxing based on size, irrespctive of income would be fairer!! Also I don't know why wealthy pensioners shoud be exempt from this tax. There is plenty of wealth in them pensioners and this idea that they built the county or have been paying tax all their lives is hardly a reason not to tax them on the same basis as everybody else (i.e. subject to the same exemptions as everybody else) Younger people much more likely to have mortgages/childcare/school and college fees/etc and less disposable income. I can never understand why pensioners as a cohort of the population receive blanket exemptions but this is Ireland!

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

Have to say Galway city and its surroundings had a pension for mansion sized houses (of course they were B&B's) long before the bubble .. I think taxing based on size, irrespctive of income would be fairer!!

You can build a rather large house in Galway for the cost of a very modest 3 bed in D5, so why punish people for not wanting to live in shoeboxes in Dublin?

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

You can build a rather large house in Galway for the cost of a very modest 3 bed in D5, so why punish people for not wanting to live in shoeboxes in Dublin?

The problem is why should anyone be punished for owning a private residence? You paid for it/built it from after tax income. You may currently be paying a mortgage for the house out of after tax income. It does not of itself generate an income. Any other property asset/financia asset is capable of generating an income so why not tax commercial property/farms? Also just because you own a house and have a decent income doesn't mean you have disposable income to pay tax on a non income generating asset. Many people are in negative equity as have massive mortgages. May have to have two income family just to get by .. so relatively high gross/net income but very little disposable income. No recognition of this in the discussion .. simply all about how much more can be screwed out of people.

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

The problem is why should anyone be punished for owning a private residence?

Think about it - property taxes can be used to stimulate or inhibit prices the economy far more than income tax (which is always decried as unfair).

And lets face it, if you can afford a mortgage you can afford the tax. The An beal bocht routine out of this country has well and truly worn its course - nobody is listening.

So here's a suggestion - ditch that plasma screen that you have for the sky box in the front room and the LCD for the one in the kitchen, the nikes that will only last 6 weeks, because they aren't essential. Hell with all the free time one might be able to you might actually learn something productive (mobile app development, knitting) and earn a bit of money on the side.

aquaman

antoobrien wrote: »

That actually sounds like a good idea, seeing as the rush to buy houses & apartments in towns was the biggest feeder of the bubble.

Houses & apartments in towns are far less of a drain on an economy and better for the environment than dispersed settlement.

Of course there was more of them constructed in the boom than 1 off rural dwellings, this does not mean that euro for euro, houses in towns were somehow more to blame for inflated prices.

dulpit

I think what another poster has said about services is something that is very important, so if you live in an area where you need your own well, have no street lights/etc, you should pay less than someone who has all of the facilities (if the house is otherwise identical). You will have to pay for well/septic tank/etc instead anyway.

I think it is fundamentally unfair to base the cost of your household tax on your income though. If 2 people live next door to each other and the houses are identical, the fact that one house has a couple who both have good, high-paying jobs and the house next door has a couple who both are on social welfare should have nothing to do with the charge being applied. We don't do that for cars and such, do we?

aquaman

The least unfair way of general taxation or of a property tax?

General taxation:
All (non essential) assets, wealth and income are assessed and a tax bill is calculated based on same. Tax avoidance schemes/ industries are wound down as generally these end up benifiting the super-rich disproportionatally.
Also a sliding scale of taxation so those who have more pay proportionally more as they can afford to do so (the opposite to current set up)

Property Tax:
Tax all non essential property, ie. second homes, rental properties.
Charge everyone (no waivers) in a reasonable way for services used , make these service charges tax deductable under general taxation in order not to tax the less well off excessively in proportion to their income.

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

Think about it - property taxes can be used to stimulate or inhibit prices the economy far more than income tax (which is always decried as unfair).

And lets face it, if you can afford a mortgage you can afford the tax. The An beal bocht routine out of this country has well and truly worn its course - nobody is listening.

Of course high stamp duty (property tax) rates in place during the bubble really showed how effective they were at inhibiting prices .. the ability to afford a property is much more related to disposable income/available credit than the levels of property tax. Retrospectively introducing property taxes when property values/and property owners are on their knees is simply rubbing salt in the wounds .. bacause we can .. not something to be flippant about in my opinion ... the 'beal bocht routine out of this country' ..'nobody is listening'. I'm happy you are in a comfortable position to express this view but you may not be aware that not everyone else is.

EricPraline

antoobrien wrote: »

That actually sounds like a good idea, seeing as the rush to buy houses & apartments in towns was the biggest feeder of the bubble.

As opposed to the glut of one-off bungalows, McMansions, and housing estates located in the middle of nowhere, or "commuter hell" as The Irish Times describes it today.

Difference Engine

The proposed property tax is supposed to fund the local authorities. Let the relevant authorities budget be the base for calculating the tax as this is the amount that has to be raised.

Each household could be assigned a cost of an arbitrary unit based on the services they consume, say for example:
being connected to public sewerage system costs 2 units
public water costs 3 units
general contribution everyone has to make costs 10 units
roads 5 units
street lighting 1 unit

Your household might have a cost of 20 units. Add up the units of every household in the local authority area, say 2 million. Divide the authority's budget by 2 million and you have a real cost per unit.

Everyone pays a reasonable approximation of the cost of the services they consume. You would still have to decide about waivers but the tax base should be kept as wide as possible.

It may not be feasible to use the local authority's whole budget if it would make it too expensive for people but the same logic can be applied to a set portion of the budget that they wish to raise from a property tax.

There would be a bit of work setting it up and costing everything but it would have the added benefit of taking a close look at where money is being spent.

There was an article in one of the newspapers recently suggesting something similar but I can't find it at the moment.

aquaman

Difference Engine wrote: »

The proposed property tax is supposed to fund the local authorities. Let the relevant authorities budget be the base for calculating the tax as this is the amount that has to be raised.

Each household could be assigned a cost of an arbitrary unit based on the services they consume, say for example:
being connected to public sewerage system costs 2 units
public water costs 3 units
general contribution everyone has to make costs 10 units
roads 5 units
street lighting 1 unit

Your household might have a cost of 20 units. Add up the units of every household in the local authority area, say 2 million. Divide the authority's budget by 2 million and you have a real cost per unit.

Everyone pays a reasonable approximation of the cost of the services they consume. You would still have to decide about waivers but the tax base should be kept as wide as possible.

It may not be feasible to use the local authority's whole budget if it would make it too expensive for people but the same logic can be applied to a set portion of the budget that they wish to raise from a property tax.

There would be a bit of work setting it up and costing everything but it would have the added benefit of taking a close look at where money is being spent.

There was an article in one of the newspapers recently suggesting something similar but I can't find it at the moment.

This is an excellent suggestion. However, the household charge is only nominally funding the local authorities.
In actual fact it is funding the dept. of environment & local government (in other words it's going into the general pot), who in turn distribute it back to the councils through the local government fund. The amount each council receives is not linked to household charge collected.

Were it the case that the property tax partly directly funded local authorities (with smaller allocations from central government to fund services which are of more national than local importance such as motorway maintenance), your suggestion would be the fairest means of calculating this charge. And would probably have the effect of reducing the burden on business rates payers.

antoobrien

EricPraline wrote: »

, or "commuter hell" as The Irish Times describes it today.

Describes living in Dublin perfectly

creedp

aquaman wrote: »

Tax all non essential property, ie. second homes, rental properties.

Why is it that people round on rental properties as if the owners are some kind of pariahs of society. I don't understand this. A rental property is a business just like any other business. Its owner has to buy it and service the business loan to fund it and the cost of it maintenance and upkeep. The rental income is an income just like everyothe business and income generated from it is taxed like every other business. Then why should it be treated any differently to an other business property/farm? I can understand if someone has a 2nd home for a holiday home but a rental property is not a second home. The owner does not live in it and therefore why is it treated like one? Is this a fallback to our 800 years of oppression where we see landlords as evil leeches in society who suck on the lifeblood of the ordinary joe tenant?

Cookie_Monster

combine all the current charges: bins, tv, water, household charge etc into rates. Issue rates based on combined 3 catagories: Urban / rural combined with square metres of house combined with a multiplier to account for local pop density. Obviously where density is highest less rates should be paid as there are more people to cover the costs of local services. An urban and rural class would allow some offset of less density in rural and bigger house sizes in general and thus reduce it somewhat for rural payers.

If you own the property you pay it, no exceptions. If you rent from council or in social housing you pay it, no exceptions.

aquaman

creedp wrote: »

Why is it that people round on rental properties as if the owners are some kind of pariahs of society. I don't understand this. A rental property is a business just like any other business. Its owner has to buy it and service the business loan to fund it and the cost of it maintenance and upkeep. The rental income is an income just like everyothe business and income generated from it is taxed like every other business. Then why should it be treated any differently to an other business property/farm? I can understand if someone has a 2nd home for a holiday home but a rental property is not a second home. The owner does not live in it and therefore why is it treated like one? Is this a fallback to our 800 years of oppression where we see landlords as evil leeches in society who suck on the lifeblood of the ordinary joe tenant?

I did not "round" on anyone, I mentioned a number of areas of taxation one of which is non essential property, as it is essentially wealth.

The basis of what I consider to be fair taxation is to tax wealth & luxuries first (ability to pay philosophy).
1 home is a necessity; more than one house is a luxury, a potential income generating asset.
If this second property is operating at a loss eg. negative equity and mortgage payments exceeding rental income. It is then a not an asset and should be used to offset tax obligations. Otherwise this asset should be taxed.

K-9

aquaman wrote: »

I did not "round" on anyone, I mentioned a number of areas of taxation one of which is non essential property, as it is essentially wealth.

The basis of what I consider to be fair taxation is to tax wealth & luxuries first (ability to pay philosophy).
1 home is a necessity; more than one house is a luxury, a potential income generating asset.
If this second property is operating at a loss eg. negative equity and mortgage payments exceeding rental income. It is then a not an asset and should be used to offset tax obligations. Otherwise this asset should be taxed.

This tax effects landlords too, in addition to the €200 NPPR charge, so second home owners are paying more. I don't really see your objection.

creedp

aquaman wrote: »

I did not "round" on anyone, I mentioned a number of areas of taxation one of which is non essential property, as it is essentially wealth.

The basis of what I consider to be fair taxation is to tax wealth & luxuries first (ability to pay philosophy).
1 home is a necessity; more than one house is a luxury, a potential income generating asset.
If this second property is operating at a loss eg. negative equity and mortgage payments exceeding rental income. It is then a not an asset and should be used to offset tax obligations. Otherwise this asset should be taxed.

I wasn't 'rounding' on you specifically but simply referring to a general perception in the media, etc that rental properties are something to be screwed as a second home as of course anyone with a 2nd home is wealthy.

A rental property is like any other business property .. are you advocating that the corner shop should be levied a property tax in hte same way as a rental property .. its a second property for the owner (or at least not thier principle private residence.

Unlike other businesses a rental income loss cannot be offest against other tax liabilities nor can be it carried fwd to offset future losses, yet it is combined with all other income earned and taxed at the marginal rate. For petes sake you can't even write off the full mortgage interest against your rental income. Every other business can write off the interest charged on business related loans why not a rental business? By the away if you are advocating that rental [any] properties should be taxed at their net asset value I would agree with you.

Sleepy

The fairest way I can think of is to subtract the outstanding mortgage value from the property valuation (i.e. the capital someone has in their property) and tax that. Obviously it's open to manipulation by people re-mortgaging properties they currently own out-right but once the tax rate was lower than the mortgage interest rate I can't see many doing that.

It would remove the tax burden from those in negative equity though I'd imagine we'd get uproar from the pensioners who own their homes outright and don't believe they should pay for the mistakes of the governments they elected.

There's possibly a valuation problem here but with the new database of sale prices coming on board, establishing the market value of a property should become far easier and a punitive fixed rate could be put in place to encourage people to get their home's valued for the purposes of the tax (either by an existing government department or by private companies awarded the task based on competitive tendering processes.

Borderfox

Just put taxes up, I don't trust the government to calculate anything other than their outrageous salary.

Sleepy

Increasing Income Tax makes the dole an even more attractive prospect for many, makes us a less competitive country in which to locate a business and ignores the fact that income is not the same thing as wealth (or ability to pay in economic terms).

That's why developed economies use a mixture of wealth (property) taxes with income taxes: it's better for the economy and more equitable as you can't argue that a family paying a mortgage on a 3 bed terrace in Finglas on a single income of 40k a year have more ability to pay than someone with a similar income derived from investments or pension that own a mansion in Clontarf/Killiney out-right.

EricPraline

antoobrien wrote: »

Describes living in Dublin perfectly

Except the article is about commuting from Wicklow to Dublin. But if you commute from Dublin to somewhere else, carry on.

antoobrien

EricPraline wrote: »

Except the article is about commuting from Wicklow to Dublin. But if you commute from Dublin to somewhere else, carry on.

I commute within Dublin to Dublin city center. It's still hell.

hunglikeaflee

Sleepy wrote: »

The fairest way I can think of is to subtract the outstanding mortgage value from the property valuation (i.e. the capital someone has in their property) and tax that.

What a load of crap. My neighbor who took a 30 year mortgage and I took a 20 year mortgage at about the same time. He has 4 kids. So his household user more local facilities than me and pays less tax. How is that fare?

Sleepy wrote: »

It would remove the tax burden from those in negative equity though .

Why, they bought their houses like the rest of us. It was their choice to buy they were not forced to.

Sleepy

hunglikeaflee wrote: »

What a load of crap. My neighbor who took a 30 year mortgage and I took a 20 year mortgage at about the same time. He has 4 kids. So his household user more local facilities than me and pays less tax. How is that fare?

Assuming you've more of your mortgage paid off and the properties are equal in value, it's fair because you're wealthier than he is and that's what a property tax is designed to do: tax wealth.

Why, they bought their houses like the rest of us. It was their choice to buy they were not forced to.

And that's why they should pay their mortgages and not have the debt written off by the taxpayer. However, if they're in negative equity, they have negative wealth. And what's a property tax supposed to tax? Wealth.

hunglikeaflee

dulpit wrote: »

I think what another poster has said about services is something that is very important, so if you live in an area where you need your own well, have no street lights/etc, you should pay less than someone who has all of the facilities (if the house is otherwise identical). You will have to pay for well/septic tank/etc instead anyway.

This makes perfect sense so unfortunately it probably won’t happen.

dulpit wrote: »

I think it is fundamentally unfair to base the cost of your household tax on your income though. If 2 people live next door to each other and the houses are identical, the fact that one house has a couple who both have good, high-paying jobs and the house next door has a couple who both are on social welfare should have nothing to do with the charge being applied. We don't do that for cars and such, do we?

Another great point. The ones who are calling for payment based on earnings are mostly those living off the state and want everything for nothing and others to pay for them.

hunglikeaflee

Sleepy wrote: »

Assuming you've more of your mortgage paid off and the properties are equal in value, it's fair because you're wealthier than he is and that's what a property tax is designed to do: tax wealth.

This just proves my point that you are talking crap. How in hell would you know who is wealthier him or me? How do you know how much money comes into my house or his.

Sleepy wrote: »

And that's why they should pay their mortgages and not have the debt written off by the taxpayer. However, if they're in negative equity, they have negative wealth. And what's a property tax supposed to tax? Wealth.

A property tax has nothing to do with taxing wealth. Dose the name not give it away? It is a “Property Tax” not a Wealth Tax. If you need to make things up about something you clearly know nothing about, maybe you should consider not posting in the thread.

creedp

hunglikeaflee wrote: »

A property tax has nothing to do with taxing wealth. Dose the name not give it away? It is a “Property Tax” not a Wealth Tax. If you need to make things up about something you clearly know nothing about, maybe you should consider not posting in the thread.

Neither does a property tax have anything to do with the services the property consumes. Those will be charged for seperately, i.e. a water charge, refuse charge, etc, etc. So whether there are 10 people in a house or only 2 shouldn't influence the level of property tax applied to the property. Despite what you say a property tax it is an asset/wealth tax not a service consumption tax.

hunglikeaflee

antoobrien wrote: »

And lets face it, if you can afford a mortgage you can afford the tax.

What makes you say that. I have to work two jobs to get by. I am taxed to the eyes as it is while others sit at home getting handouts.
Don’t jump on me here people for saying that as I know there are loads of people who want to work but there are a lot more who don’t and are happy to take money for nothing.

antoobrien wrote: »

So here's a suggestion - ditch that plasma screen that you have for the sky box in the front room and the LCD for the one in the kitchen, the nikes that will only last 6 weeks, because they aren't essential. Hell with all the free time one might be able to you might actually learn something productive (mobile app development, knitting) and earn a bit of money on the side.

I don’t have a Plasma or LCD TV and my sky is long gone. As I said I work 2 jobs so I don’t have time to learn knitting. Why tar all people with one brush?

antoobrien

hunglikeaflee wrote: »

What makes you say that. I have to work two jobs to get by. I am taxed to the eyes as it is while others sit at home getting handouts.
Don’t jump on me here people for saying that as I know there are loads of people who want to work but there are a lot more who don’t and are happy to take money for nothing.





I don’t have a Plasma or LCD TV and my sky is long gone. As I said I work 2 jobs so I don’t have time to learn knitting. Why tar all people with one brush?

You can't afford to live in the house you're living in at all then can you?

This is blunt, but move somewhere you can afford (I have to do the same due to my landlord deciding he wants more rent for a house that's falling apart - well his loss).

hunglikeaflee

creedp wrote: »

Neither does a property tax have anything to do with the services the property consumes. Those will be charged for seperately, i.e. a water charge, refuse charge, etc, etc.

Sorry have I missed something? Have people not been reading about what the property tax is all about. It is to pay for services that the council provide. Yes we pay for Bins and soon for water. But what about everything else? I have been talking about me so in my area, Sewers, Roads, Footpaths, Playgrounds, green areas and parks, playing pitches, Fire services, street lighting, beaches, burial grounds need I go on.

creedp wrote: »

So whether there are 10 people in a house or only 2 shouldn't influence the level of property tax applied to the property.

I have never said the number of people in a house should influence the level of tax.

Having said that it might not be a bad idea. My neighbor and his kids use a lot more services than me but I will still have to pay for them.

creedp wrote: »

. Despite what you say a property tax it is an asset/wealth tax not a service consumption tax.

Before you make a comment like this read what the Property Tax is about and what the money is to be used for. It has nothing to do with a wealth.

hunglikeaflee

antoobrien wrote: »

You can't afford to live in the house you're living in at all then can you?
QUOTE]

What makes you say that? I pay my mortgage. Just because I don’t have Plasma doesn’t mean I can’t afford the house I live in. You don’t need all these things to have a life.

aquaman

K-9 wrote: »

This tax effects landlords too, in addition to the €200 NPPR charge, so second home owners are paying more. I don't really see your objection.

I wasn't objecting just expanding on my suggestions

aquaman

creedp wrote: »

I wasn't 'rounding' on you specifically but simply referring to a general perception in the media, etc that rental properties are something to be screwed as a second home as of course anyone with a 2nd home is wealthy.

A rental property is like any other business property .. are you advocating that the corner shop should be levied a property tax in hte same way as a rental property .. its a second property for the owner (or at least not thier principle private residence.

Unlike other businesses a rental income loss cannot be offest against other tax liabilities nor can be it carried fwd to offset future losses, yet it is combined with all other income earned and taxed at the marginal rate. For petes sake you can't even write off the full mortgage interest against your rental income. Every other business can write off the interest charged on business related loans why not a rental business? By the away if you are advocating that rental [any] properties should be taxed at their net asset value I would agree with you.

The corner shop does pay this tax already in the form of commercial rates.

you have outlined some of the inconsistencies tax-wise surrounding rental income. The point of this thread and my post is to suggest fairer ways. Which I feel I did.

creedp

aquaman wrote: »

The corner shop does pay this tax already in the form of commercial rates.

you have outlined some of the inconsistencies tax-wise surrounding rental income. The point of this thread and my post is to suggest fairer ways. Which I feel I did.

Fair point in relation to the commercial rates. These are a charge against the income of the business for tax purpoases. Lets hope the landlord will be able to set off the 'property tax/rates' against the rental income in the same way.

antoobrien

hunglikeaflee wrote: »

antoobrien wrote: »

You can't afford to live in the house you're living in at all then can you?
QUOTE]

What makes you say that? I pay my mortgage.

Two jobs to make ends meet?

creedp

hunglikeaflee wrote: »

Before you make a comment like this read what the Property Tax is about and what the money is to be used for. It has nothing to do with a wealth.

Blame the confusion on the mixed messages from the Govt. My take on this is that it is a wealth based tax on property. The higher the value of your residential asset combined with your income the higher tax you will pay. It doesn't matter if you use the local pool or walk in the local park or even if you have those local amenities.

cbrlover

How can anyone but sensationalists call this a wealth tax?


From their website.

What is the household charge?

The EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland commits the Government to the introduction of a property tax for 2012. The Programme reflects the need, in the context of the State's overall financial position, to put the funding of locally delivered services on a sound financial footing, improve accountability and better align the cost of providing services with the demand for such services.
In light of the complex issues involved, a property tax, requiring a comprehensive property valuation system, would take time to introduce and accordingly, to meet the requirements in the EU/IMF Programme, the Government decided to introduce a household charge in 2012. The household charge is an interim measure and proposals for a full property tax will be a matter for consideration by the Government in due course.
The Household Charge is an annual charge introduced by the Local Government Household Charge Legislation which is payable by owners of residential property. It is a matter for owners of residential property to register and pay the household charge after the 1st of January.

What will the household charge finance?

Revenues from the household charge will support the provision of local services. Internationally, local services are administered by local authorities and financed by local service charges. In Ireland, local authorities are responsible for, among other services, public parks; libraries; open spaces and leisure amenities; planning and development; fire and emergency services; maintenance and cleaning of streets and street lighting. These facilities benefit everyone.

People don’t even know how this tax will be calculated yet but still they call it a wealth tax. Even if this tax is based on the value of property combined with the income of that property, it is still not a Wealth Tax it is still a Property Tax done in an unfair method.

hunglikeaflee

antoobrien wrote: »

hunglikeaflee wrote: »

Two jobs to make ends meet?

Sorry I don’t understand your answer, so I will ask it again.
I pay my mortgage so what makes you say I can’t afford the house?

creedp

cbrlover wrote: »

How can anyone but sensationalists call this a wealth tax?


From their website.



People don’t even know how this tax will be calculated yet but still they call it a wealth tax. Even if this tax is based on the value of property combined with the income of that property, it is still not a Wealth Tax it is still a Property Tax done in an unfair method.

If its not fully based on income what is it based on? Maybe we should call it an asset tax? The household charge is just that a flat charge on households but the property tax will have some (albeit no doubt flawed) basis and will vary either on value/income. Maybe they wil change thier minds again and call it a charge per sqm

Sleepy

hunglikeaflee wrote: »

This just proves my point that you are talking crap. How in hell would you know who is wealthier him or me? How do you know how much money comes into my house or his.

A property tax has nothing to do with taxing wealth. Dose the name not give it away? It is a “Property Tax” not a Wealth Tax. If you need to make things up about something you clearly know nothing about, maybe you should consider not posting in the thread.

Income is not wealth.

Wealth is accumulated assets: examples of which include savings in the bank (which we levy DIRT upon), invested in shares (which we charge Capital Gains on and there's talk of a European level transaction tax) or property (which the property will be taxing).

If more money is coming into your neighbours house, he'll be paying more Income Tax as that's the purpose of income tax: to tax the flow of money to an individual. (Though tbh, if he has a 35 year mortgage and yours is only for 20, something tells me you're earning more than he is in the first place.)

I'm not a mod but this is the Irish Economy forum, generally a basic understanding of economics is expected of contributors. If my post hasn't clarified the difference between Income and Wealth for you can I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Business_and_economics as a good starter?

Triangle

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

combine all the current charges: bins, tv, water, household charge etc into rates. Issue rates based on combined 3 catagories: Urban / rural combined with square metres of house combined with a multiplier to account for local pop density. Obviously where density is highest less rates should be paid as there are more people to cover the costs of local services. An urban and rural class would allow some offset of less density in rural and bigger house sizes in general and thus reduce it somewhat for rural payers.

If you own the property you pay it, no exceptions. If you rent from council or in social housing you pay it, no exceptions.

Now here's a fantastic idea :rolleyes:- so the place that has street lighting, Parks, Sewage works, Cheaper bin collection, publlic transport (regular like) pays less than the folks that do not get it?

creedp

Triangle wrote: »

Now here's a fantastic idea :rolleyes:- so the place that has street lighting, Parks, Sewage works, Cheaper bin collection, publlic transport (regular like) pays less than the folks that do not get it?

That's solidarity Irish style!