Property Tax (MOD REMINDER: Don't get too personal)

RandomName2

So here it is at last. The return of domestic rates.

Why so much fuss over one tax?

This tax is arguably an example of the worst type of governance: with Wookie Arguments (it's to pay for services), Underpants Gnome Economics (property >> ??? >>> capital), Faustian Pacts (if you give us a loan we'll cede the electorate's capacity to decide domestic taxation), and a process of site valuation, peremptory threats and legal empowerment of revenue officers that has quite unsettling historical parallels.

I've seen threads on water taxation, house taxation, hell even motor taxation that have fallen incurably foul of the Wookie argument (water taxation will help conserve water!). The meaninglessness of this argument has been made all too clear with Varadkar's acknowledgement that motor tax, which is nominally meant for road maintenance, has in reality little to do with road maintenance.

I appreciate the position that we need to make ends meet. But I have yet to see a convincing argument which legitimises the introduction of a stringing tax unconnected to one's ability to pay, which is likely to damage economic recovery, with certain spending policies currently in place. The property tax, when running at 100% efficiency (2014 budget), will only just cover our foreign aid budget.

Are people really arguing that increasing taxes is really preferable to addressing the €154m (Office of Taoiseach) and quarter of a billion euro (Arts, Heritage, Gaelteacht) spending?

I understand that people feel that such dissent is merely the case of saying "someone else's pocket, not mine". But as far as I can see it, it is just crazy, wrong headed policy. The fact that it's a different sort of wrong-headed craziness to that seen before does not make it any less so.

Can anyone prove me wrong?

MOD REMINDER: Some of the posts on this thread are getting a bit too personal. This must stop. Please focus on making meaningful contributions to the thread topic, and NOT each other.

murphaph

RandomName2 wrote: »

So here it is at last. The return of domestic rates.

Why so much fuss over one tax?

This tax is arguably an example of the worst type of governance: with Wookie Arguments (it's to pay for services), Underpants Gnome Economics (property >> ??? >>> capital), Faustian Pacts (if you give us a loan we'll cede the electorate's capacity to decide domestic taxation), and a process of site valuation, peremptory threats and legal empowerment of revenue officers that has quite unsettling historical parallels.

I've seen threads on water taxation, house taxation, hell even motor taxation that have fallen incurably foul of the Wookie argument (water taxation will help conserve water!). The meaninglessness of this argument has been made all too clear with Varadkar's acknowledgement that motor tax, which is nominally meant for road maintenance, has in reality little to do with road maintenance.

I appreciate the position that we need to make ends meet. But I have yet to see a convincing argument which legitimises the introduction of a stringing tax unconnected to one's ability to pay, which is likely to damage economic recovery, with certain spending policies currently in place. The property tax, when running at 100% efficiency (2014 budget), will only just cover our foreign aid budget.

Are people really arguing that increasing taxes is really preferable to addressing the €154m (Office of Taoiseach) and quarter of a billion euro (Arts, Heritage, Gaelteacht) spending?

I understand that people feel that such dissent is merely the case of saying "someone else's pocket, not mine". But as far as I can see it, it is just crazy, wrong headed policy. The fact that it's a different sort of wrong-headed craziness to that seen before does not make it any less so.

Can anyone prove me wrong?

I agree 100% that government spending is still out of control and needs cutting. I also think Ireland should never have abolished the rates in '79 (populist Lynch move designed to buy an election, which worked as usual because the Irish electorate is more or less ignorant and or stupid).

A property tax unconnected with your ability to pay is pretty much standard fare across the rest of Europe.

The failure here was bullsh!tting people with the "it's to pay for local services" tripe. They should have just been honest and said it's a new tax (well, an old one reinstated).

bmaxi

murphaph wrote: »

I agree 100% that government spending is still out of control and needs cutting. I also think Ireland should never have abolished the rates in '79 (populist Lynch move designed to buy an election, which worked as usual because the Irish electorate is more or less ignorant and or stupid).

A property tax unconnected with your ability to pay is pretty much standard fare across the rest of Europe.

The failure here was bullsh!tting people with the "it's to pay for local services" tripe. They should have just been honest and said it's a new tax (well, an old one reinstated).

Living in a managed estate, a condition of planning insisted in by the local council, I pay, in my management fees, for upkeep of roads, water mains, sewerage pipes, street lighting, grass cutting, public liability insurance etc.
I have asked my local council what exactly are these extra services they provide, for which I am now equally liable under the Property tax, as those in a neighbouring, council controlled estate . This was in 2012, I'm hopeful of a reply soon indicating a substantial reduction in the tax for me and all of those in a similar position. Taxation is supposed to be equitable, after all.

Death and Taxes

RandomName2 wrote: »

So here it is at last. The return of domestic rates.

Why so much fuss over one tax?

This tax is arguably an example of the worst type of governance: with Wookie Arguments (it's to pay for services), Underpants Gnome Economics (property >> ??? >>> capital), Faustian Pacts (if you give us a loan we'll cede the electorate's capacity to decide domestic taxation), and a process of site valuation, peremptory threats and legal empowerment of revenue officers that has quite unsettling historical parallels.

I've seen threads on water taxation, house taxation, hell even motor taxation that have fallen incurably foul of the Wookie argument (water taxation will help conserve water!). The meaninglessness of this argument has been made all too clear with Varadkar's acknowledgement that motor tax, which is nominally meant for road maintenance, has in reality little to do with road maintenance.

I appreciate the position that we need to make ends meet. But I have yet to see a convincing argument which legitimises the introduction of a stringing tax unconnected to one's ability to pay, which is likely to damage economic recovery, with certain spending policies currently in place. The property tax, when running at 100% efficiency (2014 budget), will only just cover our foreign aid budget.

Are people really arguing that increasing taxes is really preferable to addressing the €154m (Office of Taoiseach) and quarter of a billion euro (Arts, Heritage, Gaelteacht) spending?

I understand that people feel that such dissent is merely the case of saying "someone else's pocket, not mine". But as far as I can see it, it is just crazy, wrong headed policy. The fact that it's a different sort of wrong-headed craziness to that seen before does not make it any less so.

Can anyone prove me wrong?

You are wrong. Can you offer any evidence that you are right?

murphaph

bmaxi wrote: »

Living in a managed estate, a condition of planning insisted in by the local council, I pay, in my management fees, for upkeep of roads, water mains, sewerage pipes, street lighting, grass cutting, public liability insurance etc.
I have asked my local council what exactly are these extra services they provide, for which I am now equally liable under the Property tax, as those in a neighbouring, council controlled estate . This was in 2012, I'm hopeful of a reply soon indicating a substantial reduction in the tax for me and all of those in a similar position. Taxation is supposed to be equitable, after all.

But you didn't have to buy in a managed estate. I presume a comparable property in a taken-in-charge estate would have been more expensive, to reflect the non-existent management fees. When I bought my property in Germany I knew I'd be looking at similar fees and the levels of those fees swayed my decision as to which managed property I took.

Here in Germany property tax is also levied and they don't give a rats about your management fees here either.

The only difference is, they don't pretend the tax is for local services, the biggest mistake the government made when introducing PT in Ireland. A bit of honesty would have gone a long way.

The Bishop Basher

murphaph wrote: »

A property tax unconnected with your ability to pay is pretty much standard fare across the rest of Europe.

They don't have USC, extortionate motor tax, ridiculously overpaid politicians etc etc.

and they actually GET services for their tax. We won't.

bgrizzley

Swanner wrote: »

They don't have USC, extortionate motor tax, ridiculously overpaid politicians etc etc.

and they actually GET services for their tax. We won't.

yes, but the rest of Europe have it!!!

murphaph

Swanner wrote: »

They don't have USC, extortionate motor tax, ridiculously overpaid politicians etc etc.

I don't claim to know the ins and outs of all the tax codes in the EU, but you clearly do so maybe you can tell us what they do have instead of the USC and motor tax to fund their services?

(Germans pay tax from a much lower income level than the Irish, so a USC of sorts could be said to exist here for sure).

Swanner wrote: »

and they actually GET services for their tax. We won't.

This is the real issue. We have to stabilise the tax base and property taxation is a good way of doing that (listen: the only income I derive from Irish sources comes from property, my normal job is in Germany, so I'm gonna be hit disproportionately to most folks on here who actually live and work in Ireland). However, you are fully correct that we waste a lot of the income we pump into the exchequer and we do not get value for money as taxpayers.

I still believe we need to move away from transaction based taxes like stamp duty and towards property taxation to prevent future sudden collapses in state income.

Up until now, Irish people were largely taxed by stealth. I prefer direct taxation because people then begin to see the tax the govt is taking from them and begin to question the value for money we're getting for it. Up until the property tax, nobody gave a damn about their local council and how wasteful it is!

bmaxi

murphaph wrote: »

But you didn't have to buy in a managed estate. I presume a comparable property in a taken-in-charge estate would have been more expensive, to reflect the non-existent management fees. When I bought my property in Germany I knew I'd be looking at similar fees and the levels of those fees swayed my decision as to which managed property I took.

Here in Germany property tax is also levied and they don't give a rats about your management fees here either.

The only difference is, they don't pretend the tax is for local services, the biggest mistake the government made when introducing PT in Ireland. A bit of honesty would have gone a long way.

Every estate built in this county since 2000 has had the management company condition attached to the planning permission, a condition, incidentally, deemed illegal by the Minister for Environment whose order that it be discontinued was largely ignored by local authorities without any sanction. It's ridiculous to suggest that everybody who wanted to buy a house could buy in an existent estate, availability being a problem rather than cost.
I have a daughter living in Germany and I've discussed local taxation with her, I'm sure she would have mentioned having to pay a private management company for the same services as her local council, perhaps you could list which services you pay on the double for and I could compare with her.

Mr.Micro

bmaxi wrote: »

Living in a managed estate, a condition of planning insisted in by the local council, I pay, in my management fees, for upkeep of roads, water mains, sewerage pipes, street lighting, grass cutting, public liability insurance etc.
I have asked my local council what exactly are these extra services they provide, for which I am now equally liable under the Property tax, as those in a neighbouring, council controlled estate . This was in 2012, I'm hopeful of a reply soon indicating a substantial reduction in the tax for me and all of those in a similar position. Taxation is supposed to be equitable, after all.

I Live out in the sticks and I do not have street lighting, public amenities, a leisure centre or sewage treatment or water provided by the Council. The only service is a very small library that was started only last year. Very soon public water and treatment is going to be operated by another authority, not the CC. So all this money for little or nothing and it does not matter one jot that an individual does not benefit but still has to pay.

murphaph

bmaxi wrote: »

Every estate built in this county since 2000 has had the management company condition attached to the planning permission, a condition, incidentally, deemed illegal by the Minister for Environment whose order that it be discontinued was largely ignored by local authorities without any sanction. It's ridiculous to suggest that everybody who wanted to buy a house could buy in an existent estate, availability being a problem rather than cost.
I have a daughter living in Germany and I've discussed local taxation with her, I'm sure she would have mentioned having to pay a private management company for the same services as her local council, perhaps you could list which services you pay on the double for and I could compare with her.

But you are already currently funding the local authority through your taxes, even though they don't provide certain services to you because your management company does.

I don't pay double taxes. I pay a set amount to the management company who pay for the cleaning, maintenance etc. and also forward our fees for use of the public sewer, bin collection on to the city. The property tax I pay has nothing to do with the local authority-it goes to the tax office like my income tax. I don't even claim for one second that the govt is going about the introduction of the LPT in anything other than a ham fisted way. They simply shouldn't have tried to link it to the provision of services by local authorities in the way they did.

I understand why you're p!ssed off btw. Perhaps they should have had a rebate for managed estates or whatever but the whole way the LPT is being handled is a joke (I've posted as much many times on here). It doesn't mean we can nor should prevent the introduction of property taxation in general, if we want a more stable tax base.

bmaxi

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I Live out in the sticks and I do not have street lighting, public amenities, a leisure centre or sewage treatment or water provided by the Council. The only service is a very small library that was started only last year. Very soon public water and treatment is going to be operated by another authority, not the CC. So all this money for little or nothing and it does not matter one jot that an individual does not benefit but still has to pay.

Yes and this is the inequity of the situation. It just shows for sure that the Government's assertion that property tax is to pay for local services is a lie. People like you and I are to pay twice while others only pay once. If this is to pay for local services then local authorities all over the country should immediately take in charge every privately managed housing estate in the country and provide local services for all householders, urban and rural.
It won't happen because it would be prohibitively expensive and all these buddy owned private utility companies that the state has farmed out services to over the last twenty years, would have a field day in the courts. Lies and deceit, pure and simple. Remember that come polling day.

bmaxi

murphaph wrote: »

But you are already currently funding the local authority through your taxes, even though they don't provide certain services to you because your management company does.

I don't pay double taxes. I pay a set amount to the management company who pay for the cleaning, maintenance etc. and also forward our fees for use of the public sewer, bin collection on to the city. The property tax I pay has nothing to do with the local authority-it goes to the tax office like my income tax. I don't even claim for one second that the govt is going about the introduction of the LPT in anything other than a ham fisted way. They simply shouldn't have tried to link it to the provision of services by local authorities in the way they did.

I understand why you're p!ssed off btw. Perhaps they should have had a rebate for managed estates or whatever but the whole way the LPT is being handled is a joke (I've posted as much many times on here). It doesn't mean we can nor should prevent the introduction of property taxation in general, if we want a more stable tax base.

This was exactly my point. I pay management fees to the management company for those exact services the State claims to be introducing Property Tax for. If after July 1st, a mains water pipe bursts in my estate then the management company will be liable liable for it's repair but now the state says I'll be covered by the local authority for this, so why am I paying on the double?
I know that the whole exercise is a lie and a PR disaster, I'm just giving an example as to why that is so.

Mr.Micro

bmaxi wrote: »

Yes and this is the inequity of the situation. It just shows for sure that the Government's assertion that property tax is to pay for local services is a lie. People like you and I are to pay twice while others only pay once. If this is to pay for local services then local authorities all over the country should immediately take in charge every privately managed housing estate in the country and provide local services for all householders, urban and rural.
It won't happen because it would be prohibitively expensive and all these buddy owned private utility companies that the state has farmed out services to over the last twenty years, would have a field day in the courts. Lies and deceit, pure and simple. Remember that come polling day.

So true. As I posted, the water supply and treatment will be shortly farmed out to yet another authority and no doubt when it comes into play, it will have its own charges in addition to this household tax.

Death and Taxes

Swanner wrote: »

They don't have USC, extortionate motor tax, ridiculously overpaid politicians etc etc.

and they actually GET services for their tax. We won't.

They have higher rates of tax than us, they pay more for fuel, we do get services unless of course you own your own hospital,educate your kids at home, build your own roads etc etc

Mr.Micro

WileyCoyote wrote: »

They have higher rates of tax than us, they pay more for fuel, we do get services unless of course you own your own hospital,educate your kids at home, build your own roads etc etc

Are we still talking about property tax here? As education, hospitals come from income tax, vat revenue etc, whilst roads are funded by road tax etc. So property tax will be for the few, getting less by the years LA services, that not all benefit from and many others who benefit will be exempt from paying, tenants, council tenants etc.

bmaxi

WileyCoyote wrote: »

They have higher rates of tax than us, they pay more for fuel, we do get services unless of course you own your own hospital,educate your kids at home, build your own roads etc etc

Last time my daughter was home, actual price of fuel in Germany was less than in Ireland. Hospitals and schools are paid for by national, not local taxes.

Good loser

bmaxi wrote: »

This was exactly my point. I pay management fees to the management company for those exact services the State claims to be introducing Property Tax for. If after July 1st, a mains water pipe bursts in my estate then the management company will be liable liable for it's repair but now the state says I'll be covered by the local authority for this, so why am I paying on the double?
I know that the whole exercise is a lie and a PR disaster, I'm just giving an example as to why that is so.

You look at the situation too narrowly. Would you consider the tax 'fair' if situations like yours hadn't to pay it?

What if the mains pipe burst outside your estate? The water could be travelling 30 miles to your house and a tiny fraction of that is in 'your estate'

Similarly with the sewerage system. Your estate does not pay for the treatment works.

Anyway the tax does not purport to be for local services, as Murphph states. In the legislation it is not ringfenced for them; it doesn't matter what 'x or y says'.

Your house has a value which is higher or lower depending on your local management charges - it is net of these charges. If the charges are greater than the benefit gained the market value of the property will be lower and you will pay less tax.

Residential property tax is a rough and ready form of wealth tax - the more valuable the property you occupy the more tax you can pay.

Catching up with every other country in the OECD it shows our country is drifting towards adulthood.

RandomName2

murphaph wrote: »

I agree 100% that government spending is still out of control and needs cutting. I also think Ireland should never have abolished the rates in '79 (populist Lynch move designed to buy an election, which worked as usual because the Irish electorate is more or less ignorant and or stupid).

Fair enough - but I think the fact that the electorate cannot in future elect a government to scrap the taxes in such electioneering (due to binding agreements concerning the bailout) is really, very bad.

murphaph wrote: »

A property tax unconnected with your ability to pay is pretty much standard fare across the rest of Europe.

That may be (or it may not, I don't know how many countries in Europe have council/local area/property/domestic accommodation tax) but is it comparing like with like? Do these countries have similar income taxes, do they have stamp duty? Do they have to pay for refuse, water, etc, separately? Ireland has pretty high VAT and CGT in relation to property (although there is admittedly low VAT on construction) - is this also standard across Europe.

A property tax unconnected with your ability to pay is pretty much non-existent across Africa.

murphaph wrote: »

The failure here was bullsh!tting people with the "it's to pay for local services" tripe. They should have just been honest and said it's a new tax (well, an old one reinstated).

I don't really know why they are going for the route of "have to pay for local libraries" when it is bs. I would have thought that people would have been far more accepting of a tax billed as one designed to make our economy sustainable.

I would be slightly reluctant to call it just the reinstating of the old domestic rates due to the significantly increased powers of revenue in the collecting and assessing of the property tax (and the aforementioned bailout connection).

RandomName2

WileyCoyote wrote: »

You are wrong. Can you offer any evidence that you are right?

That was a well fleshed rebuttal. :pac:

hfallada

Why can't people understand when you take out a loan you must pay it back with interest. That if don't introduce water charges, property taxes that it will increase national debt that must be paid for eventually mean while costing billions in interest.

The basics of taxation are Adam smith four canon. Equaility, convience, certainty and economic. The property tax fits all this bar Equaility. But so does every indirect tax eg vat, customs on petrol. Every in the us if your house is worth about $80,000 you still have to pay about $450 in property tax. Mean while you pay for everything out your pocket cause you get nothing but a education from the state

RandomName2

bmaxi wrote: »

Living in a managed estate, a condition of planning insisted in by the local council, I pay, in my management fees, for upkeep of roads, water mains, sewerage pipes, street lighting, grass cutting, public liability insurance etc.
I have asked my local council what exactly are these extra services they provide, for which I am now equally liable under the Property tax, as those in a neighbouring, council controlled estate . This was in 2012, I'm hopeful of a reply soon indicating a substantial reduction in the tax for me and all of those in a similar position. Taxation is supposed to be equitable, after all.

Well there isn't any answer that they can give, what with the rationale that they have given for the tax. I saw the usual arguing on behalf of the government in AH - something along the lines that "people outside of managed estates use other services outside their estate", but it's an argument that really doesn't bear much weight.

But that's what I was saying about the semantic arguments that this tax produces. It's nothing to do with services, and anything which is used to promote it as such is a smokescreen. Does this mean we can chose between local libraries and the property tax (cuz I known which I'd choose)? - well, no, of course not.

The reason that they feel that they can squeeze more money out of people living in more 'valuable' property is that can turn this property into liquid assets by selling it (although selling a property to pay tax on it would obviously be awkward... notwithstanding the fact that you have to pay higher CGT and stamp on these properties...).

Also the government hopes that the public will attack itself - where people envious of those living in 'mansions' will back the tax for the prospect of schadenfreude.

Of course, whether or not these properties have been mortgaged to the hilt isn't taken into account. I suppose that's just deserts for people who borrowed more than they could afford. Although these people had been encouraged to do so by successive governments, who proceeded to bailout the institutions who pinned their investments upon the collateral provided by such properties!

Trying to make property less of a commodity, giving good reason to drive the value of property down, and providing a spur for additional properties to come onto a market that still has too many vendors for the number of buyers, and giving people a very good reason not to buy property would also seem to suggest poor economic reasoning on the part of the government. After all, we are only discussing this due to the collapse of the property bubble.

RandomName2

WileyCoyote wrote: »

They have higher rates of tax than us, they pay more for fuel, we do get services unless of course you own your own hospital,educate your kids at home, build your own roads etc etc

Glad I won't have to pay income tax, motor tax, or refuse after the property tax then. Won't have to pay for water rates either. :pac:

RandomName2

hfallada wrote: »

Why can't people understand when you take out a loan you must pay it back with interest. That if don't introduce water charges, property taxes that it will increase national debt that must be paid for eventually mean while costing billions in interest.

I'm really tempted to call the property tax the charity tax, as the revenue it produces will just cover the foreign aid budget. If they were genuinely interested in reducing debt you would think other actions would be taken first.

hfallada wrote: »

The basics of taxation are Adam smith four canon. Equaility, convience, certainty and economic. The property tax fits all this bar Equaility. But so does every indirect tax eg vat, customs on petrol.

True, but generally taxes that don't have Equality are avoidable.

That's why there isn't any VAT on essential items (e.g. food).

murphaph

I can't comment on everywhere. I only have personal experience of Germany so here goes:

RandomName2 wrote: »

Do these countries have similar income taxes

German workers pay more in income tax and start paying income tax on their incomes at much lower thresholds.

RandomName2 wrote: »

do they have stamp duty?

You pay 3.5% of purchase price to the state in Germany generally and in Berlin it's 4.5%.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Do they have to pay for refuse, water, etc, separately?

Yes. Here are my 2011 figures for a 70m² flat in Berlin:
€125.33 for refuse collection.
€719.20 in 2011 for drinking water & sewage treatment.
€29.69 to dispose of rain water run off.

My property tax amounted to €260~ for the same property and my total management fees covering such things as structural insurance, cleaning, maintenance etc. (and including the above things that went to the city) came to €2011.39

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ireland has pretty high VAT and CGT in relation to property (although there is admittedly low VAT on construction) - is this also standard across Europe.

CGT on residential property in Germany is zero rated if you lived in the property and zero rated if you didn't live in it but held it for > 10 years (to try to prevent property speculation, or "flipping") other wise it's an effective 28% (it's 33% in Ireland, for comparison). CGT shouldn't affect normal owner occupiers in either state though, so it's irrelevant here.

VAT is indeed higher in Ireland, but that's about it tbh.

Do you still think you are being hard done by wrt. property taxation in Ireland?

Bullseye1

WileyCoyote wrote: »

They have higher rates of tax than us, they pay more for fuel, we do get services unless of course you own your own hospital,educate your kids at home, build your own roads etc etc

Our services are not up to scratch, particularly the health system which has been a black hole on expenditure. You cannot compare what other Europeans get for their taxes compared to us. We don't even get yellow pack services.

Bullseye1

Do you have better health services, better local authority services, better infrastructure and better value for money on your taxes in Germany? From my few visits to Germany I would say you are.

People would gladly pay the taxes you mention if we got equal level of services, something we will never get.

murphaph wrote: »

I can't comment on everywhere. I only have personal experience of Germany so here goes:

German workers pay more in income tax and start paying income tax on their incomes at much lower thresholds.


You pay 3.5% of purchase price to the state in Germany generally and in Berlin it's 4.5%.


Yes. Here are my 2011 figures for a 70m² flat in Berlin:
€125.33 for refuse collection.
€719.20 in 2011 for drinking water & sewage treatment.
€29.69 to dispose of rain water run off.

My property tax amounted to €260~ for the same property and my total management fees covering such things as structural insurance, cleaning, maintenance etc. (and including the above things that went to the city) came to €2011.39


CGT on residential property in Germany is zero rated if you lived in the property and zero rated if you didn't live in it but held it for > 10 years (to try to prevent property speculation, or "flipping") other wise it's an effective 28% (it's 33% in Ireland, for comparison). CGT shouldn't affect normal owner occupiers in either state though, so it's irrelevant here.

VAT is indeed higher in Ireland, but that's about it tbh.

Do you still think you are being hard done by wrt. property taxation in Ireland?

murphaph

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Do you have better health services, better local authority services, better infrastructure and better value for money on your taxes in Germany? From my few visits to Germany I would say you are.

We have better health care here, but I pay €300 a month for that and my employer pays the same again. Better local authority services? No, not really. Not round here anyway. I'm sure some places get better services though. Infrastructure? Yes, in Berlin we have decent infrastructure but population density is higher here. Germany doesn't open railway lines that carry a handful of OAP's on free passes and not much else (Western Rail Corridor in Ireland style) and builds infrastructure where it is most needed. Ireland builds infrastructure where it's most needed to win the marginal seat of the government of the day.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

People would gladly pay the taxes you mention if we got equal level of services.

No they wouldn't. Irish people IMO would rather tend towards paying less tax and having more money in their pocket in my experience. Elections are won and lost on income tax promises alone-ridiculous way to run a country.

In Germany, things like underground railways and trams and whatnot are generally hot issues come election time. In Ireland we don't see that.

Bullseye1

Is that €300 a month private health insurance? The reason people would rather have the money in their own pocket is they have no faith that their taxes are being properly spent and with good reason. Just look at the billions spent on health and people still need to spend thousands on private health insurance.

RandomName2

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Is that €300 a month private health insurance? The reason people would rather have the money in their own pocket is they have no faith that their taxes are being properly spent and with good reason. Just look at the billions spent on health and people still need to spend thousands on private health insurance.

Exactly. Moreover, the introduction of taxes such as this removes much of the need on the part of the government to reduce wasted spending. How on earth are they spending 125 million on the "office of the taoiseach" ffs? :mad:

When the option is available it should be towards lower spending and lower taxation. We won't get any better facilities or infrastructure due to increased taxes. There hasn't even been the suggestion that there would be.

RandomName2

murphaph wrote: »

Do you still think you are being hard done by wrt. property taxation in Ireland?

Yes. I suppose I could find a country where taxes are twice that of Germany's. Does that mean that Germans should be paying more taxes? "We shouldn't be in the EU. Switzerland. My case rests."

Sorry, you provide some good details on the taxation setup in Germany, and Germany is a country that has been able to balance its books. But I still think that the relative merits of the property tax can be debated in isolation of saying "other people are doing it so it must be right".

Will the government personally carry out evictions if the tax is not paid and there isn't sufficient capital in the offenders' bank accounts for the government to take?

RandomName2

Good loser wrote: »

What if the mains pipe burst outside your estate? The water could be travelling 30 miles to your house and a tiny fraction of that is in 'your estate'

Then it would come under the remit of the area where the mains burst, would it not?

Sorry, it's so easy to get engaged in this debate [...]

Good loser wrote: »

Anyway the tax does not purport to be for local services, as Murphph states. In the legislation it is not ringfenced for them; it doesn't matter what 'x or y says'.

[...] As you say it's got feck all to do with local services.

Although it does purport to be for local services:

The official line is:

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.

You know, I could have sworn that some of those were meant to be covered by motor tax.

Motor Tax is collected by Dublin City Council on behalf of the Department of the Environment & Local Government. This revenue is used for building and repairing roads in Dublin City.

So maintenance and cleaning of streets and street lighting need two taxes? :pac:

Funny how we have to separately pay for planning, development and fire services if we are having a tax to pay for them.

Apologies, I won't mention the "local services" fake justification again, unless otherwise brought up.

Good loser wrote: »

Your house has a value which is higher or lower depending on your local management charges - it is net of these charges. If the charges are greater than the benefit gained the market value of the property will be lower and you will pay less tax.

Wut? Local management charges are to pay for local services (it's privatisation). They have little to do with the hypothetical market value of the property. But the hypothetical market value of the property is being used as an indicator of how much someone is able has to pay. So people in Dublin have to pay more than people in the country. Because ...

Because we can sell them? You can't sell where you live. Or you can, but you'll have to live somewhere else. And if you are in negative equity, for instance, you won't be able to afford to sell (and live somewhere else). Notwithstanding that the government takes a whole separate set of taxes in relation to selling and buying.

murphaph

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Is that €300 a month private health insurance? The reason people would rather have the money in their own pocket is they have no faith that their taxes are being properly spent and with good reason. Just look at the billions spent on health and people still need to spend thousands on private health insurance.

It's compulsory state insurance, not private. It is illegal not to have health insurance if you are a resident of Germany. Those on welfare have their premiums paid by the state. If you earn above a certain threshold (I think it's 52k now), you may insure yourself privately, which is cheaper when you're younger but gets more expensive as time passes. The compulsory state insurance remains the same throughout your life. There is no "going private" here really. Most hospitals are private businesses that compete for patients.

Ireland should dump the HSE and follow a different model IMO, maybe not the German model but something similar. But that's a different issue. An important issue, but a different issue. You can't really say "no new taxes until the HSE is fixed" because the HSE is such a mess that fixing it would take time (if the will was even there to fix it).

murphaph

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes. I suppose I could find a country where taxes are twice that of Germany's. Does that mean that Germans should be paying more taxes? "We shouldn't be in the EU. Switzerland. My case rests."

Germany can balance its books though. Ireland cannot. Spending is one side of the coin, but we need to replace the windfall based taxation (stamp duty) with something more stable and predictable, or we'll have these problems over and over.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Will the government personally carry out evictions if the tax is not paid and there isn't sufficient capital in the offenders' bank accounts for the government to take?

I don't think that's the plan. As far as I understand it, the debt will attach to the property (like the rates) and will have to be discharged when the property next changes hands at the latest.

ozmo

The valuations map is published today:

https://lpt.revenue.ie/lpt-web/valuation-guide/index.htm

Good loser

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes. I suppose I could find a country where taxes are twice that of Germany's. Does that mean that Germans should be paying more taxes? "We shouldn't be in the EU. Switzerland. My case rests."

Sorry, you provide some good details on the taxation setup in Germany, and Germany is a country that has been able to balance its books. But I still think that the relative merits of the property tax can be debated in isolation of saying "other people are doing it so it must be right".

Will the government personally carry out evictions if the tax is not paid and there isn't sufficient capital in the offenders' bank accounts for the government to take?

Do you not understand that the country is running a deficit on current account that must be sorted?

The only choice we have (re taxation) is under which heading tax should be collected. Personally it doesn't matter much to me whether it comes from my left pocket or right pocket.

My preference would be to lower spending more.

Would you not think it odd if this country had no income tax say or no car tax? If you were a Martian for instance?

jabarrett35

Just seen the Revenue site and the valuation for my area are for the birds! €150,000-200,000 for a bungalow.

bmaxi

Good loser wrote: »

Do you not understand that the country is running a deficit on current account that must be sorted?

The only choice we have (re taxation) is under which heading tax should be collected. Personally it doesn't matter much to me whether it comes from my left pocket or right pocket.

My preference would be to lower spending more.

Would you not think it odd if this country had no income tax say or no car tax? If you were a Martian for instance?

No rational person will disagree with your assessment, the problem in Ireland is the burden of taxation. Since the emergence of evidence that crooked bankers gambled hundreds of billions of euro and the subsequent unseemly haste in which our politicians rushed to put the rest of us in hock for their debt, taxes and levies have increased exponentially, and for the most part, these have been directed at that section of the community which has to work for a living, whether they are currently employed or not. Lifestyles in the affluent sections of the community, including those very same gamblers, remain untouched. Who can forget the sight of the suntanned Sean Fitzpatrick returning from Florida to be arrested by Gardai, it would bring tears to your eyes. tears of frustration, not compassion. While in Kilbarrack, people worry about where the next meal is coming from, in Killiney, it's whether the Range Rover dealer will have the latest model in time for the New Year ball, but this is the real face of recession in Ireland. While the high earners and well connected continue to avail of tax breaks and loopholes and receive State payments worth hundreds of millions, which Governments of all persuasions have shown a strange reluctance to address, certainly not with the vigour they have shown in dismantling the Social Welfare system, taxpayer funded services are being withdrawn or curtailed to the most vulnerable
Taxation is supposed to be equitable, much fuss was made at the time, of the TDs' and senior Civil Servants' 5% cut in salary, in response to the 5% cut in Social Welfare payments, that is not equitable, it may be equal but it is not equitable and Social Welfare recipients have taken a much larger cut in income than 5% in real terms. Many of these are home owners.
Unfair and unsustainable taxation is driving the people of this country to despair, the Coroner's Court in Wexford, recently reported that 10 out of 14 sudden deaths in a recent month were by suicide, that is an appalling statistic which would haunt any person of conscience but our Government's response was to curtail counselling services.
Property tax is just another inequitable tax, no provision has been made for ability to pay.
Many elderly people are asset rich but cash poor, i.e. they live in a valuable property but exist on a meagre pension, what is the solution to this? The property they live in is probably that in which they raised their family and which may have been a modest property at time of purchase, they have since worked and paid their taxes over many years. Are they to be forced now, to sell their home because they can't afford to pay this tax? I know there have been hamfisted attempts at deferment but these just attract another tax and are another source of worry for people in this situation
There will be the usual "hard cases, bad law" response to this but this Government came to power trumpeting fairness and equity and justice for all and have singularly failed to deliver any aspect of this, they are, after all, supposed to be our representatives, not our masters. The only "effort" that they have made on our behalf is to gain us more time, to pay more money than we owe, to people we don't owe it to, well done to them for that! Otherwise we are left with the same old, same old of empty words, lies and deceit. Contempt for the great unwashed and Marie Antoinette syndrome is endemic among our Ministers, they would do well to remember what happened to her. The worm will turn at some time, the longer it takes, the uglier it will be. The biggest shame of all is the involvement of the party of James Connolly.
I have no problem with the concept that everybody should make a contribution to the upkeep of the State, my problem is with the flawed system of extracting that contribution and the patent unwillingness of our elected representatives to deal with it.

Tim Robbins

I would say I am in the minority and would think this tax is brilliant. It is impossible to be 100% fair but they based it on things that are:

* difficult to change
* difficult to be subjective about

If they based it on say square metres or number of bedrooms you'd have all sorts of chancers.

A pretty excellent job FG.

The only qualm I'd have is people who mgt fees should have some respite. But, I guess this will come eventually. Most people who are paying mgt fees are living in apartments or terraced houses whose property tax is much lower.

Maybe now people will give local government as hard a time as they give RTE when they have to pay a license fee.

Tim Robbins

jabarrett35 wrote: »

Just seen the Revenue site and the valuation for my area are for the birds! €150,000-200,000 for a bungalow.

Too high or too low?

walshb

I briefly accessed the site to check. Can you select your actual home?

EricPraline

walshb wrote: »

I briefly accessed the site to check. Can you select your actual home?

You can select the region around your home, which will tell you what level your home falls into. Interestingly these regions are arranged based on local electoral constituency (in Dublin at least) which can still cover diverse values of houses. So in some places you see a lot of averaging between cheaper and more expensive houses. The Indo has already jumped on this:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/property-tax-why-bono-may-end-up-paying-just-517-tax-on-his-lavish-25m-mansion-29122448.html

Tim Robbins

EricPraline wrote: »

You can select the region around your home, which will tell you what level your home falls into. Interestingly these regions are arranged based on local electoral constituency (in Dublin at least) which can still cover diverse values of houses. So in some places you see a lot of averaging between cheaper and more expensive houses. The Indo has already jumped on this:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/property-tax-why-bono-may-end-up-paying-just-517-tax-on-his-lavish-25m-mansion-29122448.html

But there are always going to be anomalies. I am sure Bono pays the same tv license as someone on minimum wage too and they don't take into account bono's tv is probably a cinema.

EricPraline

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But there are always going to be anomalies. I am sure Bono pays the same tv license as someone on minimum wage too and they don't take into account bono's tv is probably a cinema.

That's not an apt analogy, unless we were talking about a flat rate tax, such as the household charge.

Of course the Indo is highlighting edge cases here. But using electoral boundaries will inevitably raise issues in areas with any kind diversity of housing stock.

bmaxi

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But there are always going to be anomalies. I am sure Bono pays the same tv license as someone on minimum wage too and they don't take into account bono's tv is probably a cinema.

The only anomaly is, someone on minimum wage probably pays more tax.

Mr.Micro

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Maybe now people will give local government as hard a time as they give RTE when they have to pay a license fee.

The same incompetents will still be employed by the LA and with the same attitude. How are people supposed to get any joy from the so called executives at the LA. Changing councillors is one thing, but the staff... that's another thing.

Banjo String

With the deferral option having a 4% interest attached to it, would this in essence make the govt money lenders of sort,m

And if so, are they legally allowed to operate in this fashion?

Genuine question.

Chips Lovell

You could take them to court because they don't have a valid banking licence.

Zubeneschamali

SamHall wrote: »

With the deferral option having a 4% interest attached to it, would this in essence make the govt money lenders of sort

They've done this for years: tax your car once for the year, pay 200. Spread it over two payments, pay €22 extra (11%). Spread it over 4 payments, that'll be €24 extra, 12%. That's a pretty steep interest rate!

oscarBravo

SamHall wrote: »

With the deferral option having a 4% interest attached to it, would this in essence make the govt money lenders of sort,m

And if so, are they legally allowed to operate in this fashion?

Genuine question.

Late payment of tax has always attracted interest and penalties, so there's ample precedent.

Tim Robbins

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The same incompetents will still be employed by the LA and with the same attitude. How are people supposed to get any joy from the so called executives at the LA. Changing councillors is one thing, but the staff... that's another thing.

You're right major problems. But people let a lot go. We should at least have transparency into their budgets.