Land tax

RobertKK

I hear on Newstalk there is talk of a land tax which will include farmland.
Eddie Downey will be on with Pat Kenny to discuss it.

Oldtree

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/widen-property-tax-net-in-budget-says-european-commission-270792.html

"Property tax should be extended to cover more assets such as farmland, development land, and derelict sites, the European Commission has suggested to the Government in its recommendations for the budget."

Real sick of this sort of suggestion, it will not work as it is not based on an ability to pay. Go and increase the corporation tax.

_Brian

I'm afraid this is probably on the cards anyway.
Haven't the shinners talked about this in the past and it seems likely they will form part of the next government.

Muckit

It will be the final nail in the coffin for a lot of lads

Cran

_Brian wrote: »

I'm afraid this is probably on the cards anyway.
Haven't the shinners talked about this in the past and it seems likely they will form part of the next government.

Correct if the shinners get in this will be a reality, not sure all the lads that voted for them recently understand this and the reality of them being in power unfort:rolleyes:

Timmaay

It basically will be the governments way of getting hold of EU money (the SFP) for themselves?

A cow called Daisy

There going to be phone in on Joe Duffy on radio 1. Anyone guess the attitude that will be taken/expressed

Geomy

That will break a lot of people, I wonder if NAMA are paying property tax.

hfallada

There is no chance of it happening. IFA is easily one of the most powerful lobbying group in Europe. They have done an excellent job at protecting Irish Farmers interest in the EU, which is not the easiest things to do. If they can prevent the EU from giving them a bad deal, they can prevent the government from doing it.

Plus a land tax for farmers will be political suicide. There is hundreds of thousands that will clearly not vote for the party that introduces it in the next election

hfallada

A cow called Daisy wrote: »

There going to be phone in on Joe Duffy on radio 1. Anyone guess the attitude that will be taken/expressed

Who cares? Joe Duffys listeners dont write the Budget or introduce the laws of this country. Most the people who phone in are far from experts and are "different"

A cow called Daisy

hfallada wrote: »

Who cares? Joe Duffys listeners dont write the Budget or introduce the laws of this country. Most the people who phone in are far from experts and are "different"

Unlike the people on here:D

Local T.D. tells me that their advisers listen to phone in programmes to get a 'representative opinion of the general public'

Not necessarily true cos as you say people who phone in are different

_Brian

hfallada wrote: »

There is no chance of it happening. IFA is easily one of the most powerful lobbying group in Europe. They have done an excellent job at protecting Irish Farmers interest in the EU, which is not the easiest things to do. If they can prevent the EU from giving them a bad deal, they can prevent the government from doing it.

Plus a land tax for farmers will be political suicide. There is hundreds of thousands that will clearly not vote for the party that introduces it in the next election

That you ranch??

theaceofspies

hfallada wrote: »

There is no chance of it happening. IFA is easily one of the most powerful lobbying group in Europe. They have done an excellent job at protecting Irish Farmers interest in the EU, which is not the easiest things to do. If they can prevent the EU from giving them a bad deal, they can prevent the government from doing it.

Plus a land tax for farmers will be political suicide. There is hundreds of thousands that will clearly not vote for the party that introduces it in the next election

Yep and thanks to the IFA beef farmers are currently enjoying boom times.

patrickn

The Shinners have not proposed anything like this. Their idea of a Wealth Tax categorically excluded farmland.

Nekarsulm

patrickn wrote: »

The Shinners have not proposed anything like this. Their idea of a Wealth Tax categorically excluded farmland.

And they also propose to "tax the rich" so that lets most farmers off the hook............:D

moy83

Eddie Hobbs wrote a good piece in the indo (I think ) about what this kind of tax would likely do to the country . It wasn't good for recovery and wasnt successful in other countries in the past either . He hoped people would know this before voting SF but reckoned people might need a dose of this type of politics before they realise its too late .

99nsr125

Oldtree wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/widen-property-tax-net-in-budget-says-european-commission-270792.html

"Property tax should be extended to cover more assets such as farmland, development land, and derelict sites, the European Commission has suggested to the Government in its recommendations for the budget."

Real sick of this sort of suggestion, it will not work as it is not based on an ability to pay. Go and increase the corporation tax.

Of the above quote I agree with all apart from farmland (what a surprise eh).

Across most of the world farmland and forestry are exempt from property taxes because sensibly in my opinion they are seen as contributing to our direct survival.


Land that is not worked losses its exempt status and taxes become liable which I also agree with. Either work it or let someone else who will.

Manach

Land is an intergeneration inheritance and not either meant to bail a government out of penury or part of some progressive idealised big-society plan on the idealised realisation of assets.

sheebadog

Manach wrote: »

Land is an intergeneration inheritance and not either meant to bail a government out of penury or part of some progressive idealised big-society plan on the idealised realisation of assets.

Thanks

Deepsouthwest

Manach wrote: »

Land is an intergeneration inheritance and not either meant to bail a government out of penury or part of some progressive idealised big-society plan on the idealised realisation of assets.

I think I agree with this, I think!

GRASSorMUCK

I wasn't a Eurosceptic but everyday i feel thats changing, advantageous trade deals etc yes but living in the United States of Brussels. No thanks.

freedominacup

GRASSorMUCK wrote: »

I wasn't a Eurosceptic but everyday i feel thats changing, advantageous trade deals etc yes but living in the United States of Brussels. No thanks.

The problem is that it's not a USE. If it was the commission would be made up of politicians who faced an election in 5 years or less in order to hold on to their jobs. Instead we have a bunch of civil servants with delusions of grandeur formulating legislation with relative impunity. Regardless of their background they fall directly into the civil servant mindset of believing their own hype regarding their ability to know what's best for us all as soon as they get their feet under the commision table. We have sent a few very good people to act as commisioners but we have also sent lightweights and people that were too much trouble to have around Dublin anymore either, I'm sure most other countries are no different. This sort of selection criteria is a big part of the E.U.s problem.

Sam Kade

It doesn't make a difference who's in power when the EU asks them to jump they will say how high :mad:

Just look at the extortion with the house tax, anyone that never paid the second house tax now owe €4k and if they don't pay that by August 31st it goes up to €7k. It wouldn't take too many years before they could claim the house outright.

The same could happen with a land tax

whisky_galore

Sam Kade wrote: »

It doesn't make a difference who's in power when the EU asks them to jump they will say how high :mad:

Just look at the extortion with the house tax, anyone that never paid the second house tax now owe €4k and if they don't pay that by August 31st it goes up to €7k. It wouldn't take too many years before they could claim the house outright.

The same could happen with a land tax

Fighting Irish me h*le.

Think proposal is being flown as a kite, the farming community must make sure this Mthr-Fkr is well and truely shot down.

rangler1

whisky_galore wrote: »

Fighting Irish me h*le.

Think proposal is being flown as a kite, the farming community must make sure this Mthr-Fkr is well and truely shot down.

Only two or three farmers in our county will meet TDs, do you call that 'well and truely shot down'

Sam Kade

whisky_galore wrote: »

Fighting Irish me h*le.

Think proposal is being flown as a kite, the farming community must make sure this Mthr-Fkr is well and truely shot down.

How do you mean?
Surely not politicians fighting for peoples rights, you already know the answer to that.

Farmer Pudsey

I wonder would it be the end of the world. Alot would depend on the rate. At 0.5% it would generate 40/acre in tax (valuing land at 8K/acre). However it might discourage those that hold land that are not utilising it to move it on. This might mean that there is higher land turnover. because of this it might reduce land leasing costs as well.

This in turn might bring the price of land down so reduce the tax (however governments are greedy and would more than likly increase it to sustain income from it). It might knock 30-50% off the price of land. Yes it would add in a cost to farming but it might well be in the interest of active farmers.

Deepsouthwest

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I wonder would it be the end of the world. Alot would depend on the rate. At 0.5% it would generate 40/acre in tax (valuing land at 8K/acre). However it might discourage those that hold land that are not utilising it to move it on. This might mean that there is higher land turnover. because of this it might reduce land leasing costs as well.

This in turn might bring the price of land down so reduce the tax (however governments are greedy and would more than likly increase it to sustain income from it). It might knock 30-50% off the price of land. Yes it would add in a cost to farming but it might well be in the interest of active farmers.

Was thinking the same thing here, but was afraid to post with fear of the backlash!

Greengrass1

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I wonder would it be the end of the world. Alot would depend on the rate. At 0.5% it would generate 40/acre in tax (valuing land at 8K/acre). However it might discourage those that hold land that are not utilising it to move it on. This might mean that there is higher land turnover. because of this it might reduce land leasing costs as well.

This in turn might bring the price of land down so reduce the tax (however governments are greedy and would more than likly increase it to sustain income from it). It might knock 30-50% off the price of land. Yes it would add in a cost to farming but it might well be in the interest of active farmers.

That was the first thing my father said when I said about this tax

sheebadog

We pay ~ €20/ha land tax here.

Sam Kade

sheebadog wrote: »

We pay ~ €20/ha land tax here.

Not bad, where's here?

sheebadog

Sam Kade wrote: »

Not bad, where's here?

France, Pay de la Loire.

_Brian

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I wonder would it be the end of the world. Alot would depend on the rate. At 0.5% it would generate 40/acre in tax (valuing land at 8K/acre). However it might discourage those that hold land that are not utilising it to move it on. This might mean that there is higher land turnover. because of this it might reduce land leasing costs as well.

This in turn might bring the price of land down so reduce the tax (however governments are greedy and would more than likly increase it to sustain income from it). It might knock 30-50% off the price of land. Yes it would add in a cost to farming but it might well be in the interest of active farmers.

It's a great point. Would be interesting to see how it would play out. If it were to get stale under-utilised land into circulation then it mightn't be such a bad thing.

However, would you trust our politicians to get it right ?

Farmer Pudsey

Deepsouthwest wrote: »

Was thinking the same thing here, but was afraid to post with fear of the backlash!

Never be afraid of expressing an opinion those that get over excited take no notice of.

_Brian wrote: »

It's a great point. Would be interesting to see how it would play out. If it were to get stale under-utilised land into circulation then it mightn't be such a bad thing.

However, would you trust our politicians to get it right ?

No I would not. At present we have tried different ways of trying to get land into those that want to farm it hand through leasing tax breaks etc. However none of these have managed to reduce rental prices. the other issue is that loads of non active farmers drawing SFP and trying to include it in lease prices. Some farm organisations nearly support this.

However I am heartened by the replies so far I taught I be getting loafds of negativity about it. However early days yet.

_Brian

Like a lot of threads people read the headline and have their minds made up before reading posts by others.

I would still be skeptical of a land tax as I doubt our administration are capable.

But I like your point about it moving stale lands into the marketplace, and it's something I hadn't thought of.

Farmer Pudsey

The ideal of any property tax is twofold. However maost only see it as a method of raising revenue. However if implemented right it have have different effects.

Take the house tax, it may in the long term dampen house prices and discourage people from tying too much money up in houses. The change to the car tax system by the Greens had the opposit effect it discourages people from buying older fuel efficent diesel cars as the the tax is often prohibitive. A property tax that also targets direlict sites in urban area's could also move these into the tax system. Take a situtation at present where a site in Dublin may be increasing in value by 10%/year, capital gains is 33% so there is a impetus not to sell however a tax in this case would need to be steeper than a land tax to move same on. It would also discourage thoses that let buildings direlict and force them either to sell or develop same.

Markcheese

I'd be in favour of a land tax , except for farmland , so if it's down as farmland owned by a developer he gets hit with capital gains to make it development land...yearly land tax should be paid on development land,vacant sites,"trophy" estates/gardens,pony fields ect....ect.
And if development land gets CPO'd state pays development prices,farming land gets paid at true value

Sam Kade

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The ideal of any property tax is twofold. However maost only see it as a method of raising revenue. However if implemented right it have have different effects.

Take the house tax, it may in the long term dampen house prices and discourage people from tying too much money up in houses. The change to the car tax system by the Greens had the opposit effect it discourages people from buying older fuel efficent diesel cars as the the tax is often prohibitive. A property tax that also targets direlict sites in urban area's could also move these into the tax system. Take a situtation at present where a site in Dublin may be increasing in value by 10%/year, capital gains is 33% so there is a impetus not to sell however a tax in this case would need to be steeper than a land tax to move same on. It would also discourage thoses that let buildings direlict and force them either to sell or develop same.

The car tax system is crazy, having a two tier system was a stupid idea.

Why not do the same as the UK where every car is taxed on it's emissions, they have no tax on cars with low emissions even if you converted your car to lpg the tax will automatically drop.

Here no such thing cars with zero emissions have a yearly tax of €120.

The penalties and interest for second houses if not paid are at extortion rates. Would I trust them to bring in a fair land tax definitely not.

sheebadog

Does anyone question all these new taxes?
Are they for corrupt politicians,gardai?
Third world health service, way overpaid civil service. Roads?

Or is to pay immoral bank debts?

Methinks most have a spouse working one way or another in civil service!!

Markcheese

sheebadog wrote: »

Does anyone question all these new taxes?
Are they for corrupt politicians,gardai?
Third world health service, way overpaid civil service. Roads?

Or is to pay immoral bank debts?

Methinks most have a spouse working one way or another in civil service!!

This is Ireland , we want high levels of pensions and welfare, we'd freak if we had to pay uk levels of council tax, but we want their level of services, yeah health service is ****e and we'll freak if anyone tries to rationalize it.



Land tax is kite flying

Farmer Pudsey

sheebadog wrote: »

Does anyone question all these new taxes?
Are they for corrupt politicians,gardai?
Third world health service, way overpaid civil service. Roads?

Or is to pay immoral bank debts?

Methinks most have a spouse working one way or another in civil service!!

Biggest issue in Ireland is pandering to lobby groups. Which then causes huge anomoly's in systems. The biggest problem we have is the welfare/work trap. Those that are on the income verge between the two system virtually work for nothing. And those that are longterm unemployed have no incentive to look for work. We have also failed to look at ways to accomodate those that have low skills levels and most that employ low skill workers have to target non-nationals as opposed to low skilled Irish workers.

Are politicians corrupt, no I do not think so in the traditional sence. However there pandering to lobby groups causes huge issue. We are also a small country and everyone know everyone in a literal sence. This causes perceptions of people being in the know which to a large extent can be true. Our other issue is red tape, it is very hard to get issues sorted and entitlement is a issue wheather it is Teachers with the attitude taht theye have degrees abd should be paid like top bankers, welfare entitlements or even the SFP debacle we have.

99nsr125

. . . and we're back on topic.

The story appears to have originated from the commisions annual report/recommendations.

I had a little Google to see what the story was in countries with large farms and property taxes.

Alberta in Canada seems to have a common sense approach. Full rate on farmhouse and garden area etc around it, 75% reduction on farmland and then

" Farmland
Farmland is assessed on the basis of its productive value; that is, the ability of the
land to produce income from the growing of crops and/or the raising of livestock.
The productive value of farmland is determined using a process that sets a value
for the best soils, and then makes adjustments for less-than optimum conditions
such as stones, the presence of sloughs, or topography. Farmland is assessed by
the local assessor."

www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/1538.cfm

I still don't like it but it seems somewhat reasonable.

5live

99nsr125 wrote: »

. . . and we're back on topic.

The story appears to have originated from the commisions annual report/recommendations.

I had a little Google to see what the story was in countries with large farms and property taxes.

Alberta in Canada seems to have a common sense approach. Full rate on farmhouse and garden area etc around it, 75% reduction on farmland and then

" Farmland
Farmland is assessed on the basis of its productive value; that is, the ability of the
land to produce income from the growing of crops and/or the raising of livestock.
The productive value of farmland is determined using a process that sets a value
for the best soils, and then makes adjustments for less-than optimum conditions
such as stones, the presence of sloughs, or topography. Farmland is assessed by
the local assessor."

www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/1538.cfm

I still don't like it but it seems somewhat reasonable.

It was tried here in 1984. Most of the assessors were ran from farms they tried to assess and were paid for months, after it was stopped, to sit in the office twiddling their thumbs until they were released/moved to actual work.

What would determine the valuation of the land? Productivity? How do you determine the productivity of different fields in the same farm not to mind neighbours fields? Climate also would have to be factored in as western counties have twice the rainfall of eastern counties.

Just even that paragraph there will rise hackles across the country, if the exact same soil in the east is rated higher than the west.

Tbh, its a non issue as no politican with any expectation of getting re-elected in a rural or part rural constituency would be in any way associated with the proposal. It might wash in Fergal Quinns and Eamon Gilmores constituencies with no farming votes, but outside the pale, it would be a massacre for the party bringing it forward

Nekarsulm

Taxe Fonciere.
A bit of Googling seems to indicate that in France, the only Euro country with a land tax , it is based on the notional rental value per hectare.
(although there it is used in the local community area to finance services, fire brigade etc. something which you can guarantee will NOT happen here.)

paddysdream

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I wonder would it be the end of the world. Alot would depend on the rate. At 0.5% it would generate 40/acre in tax (valuing land at 8K/acre). However it might discourage those that hold land that are not utilising it to move it on. This might mean that there is higher land turnover. because of this it might reduce land leasing costs as well.

This in turn might bring the price of land down so reduce the tax (however governments are greedy and would more than likly increase it to sustain income from it). It might knock 30-50% off the price of land. Yes it would add in a cost to farming but it might well be in the interest of active farmers.

This above is the bit that worries me.

The idea of a land tax bringing down the price of land is akin to thinking that people will sell land to avoid a tax or that it will lead to a higher turnover.
Any one that believes that has a poor grasp of either Irish history or governmental attempts to force social change.
In my honest opinion a land tax would be just like property tax,USC,septic tank charges etc ie a tax on taxed income by another name.Have no objection to paying things like water charges(not appliciable here) etc where you are paying for a service or product provided but things like land tax are just an attempt to have an unending income stream which will have to be collected regardless of whether incomes rise fall or disappear entirely.

Anyone on here remember the land tax of the late 1980's(?).That died a quick death after a year or two.
Tax should in the main be on income and not on assets.
What about a return to rates on farmland.Pretty similar idea.Think here in Carlow the rate at present for commercial property is about 65 euro in the pound.Think the land here is rated at about 115 pounds so would give me a present day rates bill of 7.5k.Thats on top of income tax,usc etc etc.Sounds nice!!

Ask any older farmer who remembers paying rates and they will tell you the dread of having to pay this bill each and every year regardless of what they made.(Honestly not that old ,only remember what I was told about it.)

Any farmer advocating a land tax or similar must be quiet naive to think that the government(of any shade ,hue or colour)would have any real interest in anything only the bottom line ,ie how much it could raise and just how high they could set the rate.
Farmland is an asset and only the income it generates should be taxed not the asset itself.If people are happy to sit on land ,be it farmland or development land and do nothing with it then that should be their business and theirs alone.
Property rights are under enough attacks without those who have some advocating more dilution of it.Even this idea of heavily taxing development land seems to me to be unfair.If people bought land from already taxed income then why should they be told what to do with it or pay a punative tax on it?Thats like me buying good land and deciding to run sheep on it and being taxed because the land is suitable for dairying or tillage etc.

Farmer Pudsey

paddysdream wrote: »

This above is the bit that worries me.

The idea of a land tax bringing down the price of land is akin to thinking that people will sell land to avoid a tax or that it will lead to a higher turnover.
Any one that believes that has a poor grasp of either Irish history or governmental attempts to force social change.
In my honest opinion a land tax would be just like property tax,USC,septic tank charges etc ie a tax on taxed income by another name.Have no objection to paying things like water charges(not appliciable here) etc where you are paying for a service or product provided but things like land tax are just an attempt to have an unending income stream which will have to be collected regardless of whether incomes rise fall or disappear entirely.

Anyone on here remember the land tax of the late 1980's(?).That died a quick death after a year or two.
Tax should in the main be on income and not on assets.
What about a return to rates on farmland.Pretty similar idea.Think here in Carlow the rate at present for commercial property is about 65 euro in the pound.Think the land here is rated at about 115 pounds so would give me a present day rates bill of 7.5k.Thats on top of income tax,usc etc etc.Sounds nice!!

Ask any older farmer who remembers paying rates and they will tell you the dread of having to pay this bill each and every year regardless of what they made.(Honestly not that old ,only remember what I was told about it.)

Any farmer advocating a land tax or similar must be quiet naive to think that the government(of any shade ,hue or colour)would have any real interest in anything only the bottom line ,ie how much it could raise and just how high they could set the rate.
Farmland is an asset and only the income it generates should be taxed not the asset itself.If people are happy to sit on land ,be it farmland or development land and do nothing with it then that should be their business and theirs alone.
Property rights are under enough attacks without those who have some advocating more dilution of it.Even this idea of heavily taxing development land seems to me to be unfair.If people bought land from already taxed income then why should they be told what to do with it or pay a punative tax on it?Thats like me buying good land and deciding to run sheep on it and being taxed because the land is suitable for dairying or tillage etc.

The issue in Ireland Paddy is that any tax is usually under fire straight away. We have an unbelievable heavy burden of tax on middle income PAYE workers. It also make employing people prohibitive. TBH I was anti the property tax not as against the tax per say rather that if it was bought in it would again be only the coping classes that pay.

You bought up the 1980's land tax. At the time farmers paid no tax it was seen as a method of raising revenue when the burden of tax on PAYE workers was inordinately high. It was set at 2% of land value but no other tax was due after that. Putting it in perpective in today's money if land was valued at 8K/acre it left a tax charge of 160/acre. This was instead of income tax PRSI etc. You would have no accountancy charges and if you rented land it was the owner that paid.

If it was still in place would it keep a lid on land prices you bet it would. Would it encourage those that had inactive land to sell it yes it would. At the time there was many farmers that were not against it but as a huge segment were not registered for any tax these were against it. The end result was that it was prevented being implemented. If the farm bodies had negotiated a proper structure for it to include Income tax PRSI etc it might have been a great idea

It had huge advantages to farmers, you knew your tax bill, in good years you would not gave to be spending to avoid tax and no trying as is happening now going down the company route with higher accountancy fees to shelter money within the system. If you owned a 100 acre dairy farm and rented another 100 your total tax liability would be 16K sounds a lot but if this included water charges, income tax, PRSI and USC it might not be as bad as it sounds.It would encourage farmers to be efficent etc. However if it was in it is unliky land would be valued at 8K/acre more than likly 5K max so tax bill below 10K.

It would suit dairy and tillage farmers and those that rent land it would not suit armchair farmers.

The other thing paddy is that I see no issue with a tax on development sites that are not utilised or derlict. This idea that just because you have paid income tax on money that you should be allowed to own property not develop it or allow it to go derlict may not be in the interest of the community in gereral. Look at all the land growing ragworth around city's. Also it would discourage those that look to get land redesginated and then sit on it for years.

flutered

unfortunatly i remember the rateable valueation, also the rent on land commision land, but the intrigueing part for me is the amount of land some ex ministers have, it looks as they will have to have exclusions a la household tax, for instance the health ministers gaff is excluded, meanwhile bruton the elder is reputed to own 250 acres in co meath, i cannot see him dipping in to his pension money to pay that, add to him the already excluded horse racing fraternety, coolemore, hrh aga khan mcmanus, etc, etc, these guys never have their goolies squeezed by the tax authoritys, so i recon they wont now.

larrymiller

It won't happen larry goodman has to much land and wouldn't be ably to afford it

paddysdream

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The issue in Ireland Paddy is that any tax is usually under fire straight away. We have an unbelievable heavy burden of tax on middle income PAYE workers. It also make employing people prohibitive. TBH I was anti the property tax not as against the tax per say rather that if it was bought in it would again be only the coping classes that pay.

You bought up the 1980's land tax. At the time farmers paid no tax it was seen as a method of raising revenue when the burden of tax on PAYE workers was inordinately high. It was set at 2% of land value but no other tax was due after that. Putting it in perpective in today's money if land was valued at 8K/acre it left a tax charge of 160/acre. This was instead of income tax PRSI etc. You would have no accountancy charges and if you rented land it was the owner that paid.

If it was still in place would it keep a lid on land prices you bet it would. Would it encourage those that had inactive land to sell it yes it would. At the time there was many farmers that were not against it but as a huge segment were not registered for any tax these were against it. The end result was that it was prevented being implemented. If the farm bodies had negotiated a proper structure for it to include Income tax PRSI etc it might have been a great idea

It had huge advantages to farmers, you knew your tax bill, in good years you would not gave to be spending to avoid tax and no trying as is happening now going down the company route with higher accountancy fees to shelter money within the system. If you owned a 100 acre dairy farm and rented another 100 your total tax liability would be 16K sounds a lot but if this included water charges, income tax, PRSI and USC it might not be as bad as it sounds.It would encourage farmers to be efficent etc. However if it was in it is unliky land would be valued at 8K/acre more than likly 5K max so tax bill below 10K.

It would suit dairy and tillage farmers and those that rent land it would not suit armchair farmers.

The other thing paddy is that I see no issue with a tax on development sites that are not utilised or derlict. This idea that just because you have paid income tax on money that you should be allowed to own property not develop it or allow it to go derlict may not be in the interest of the community in gereral. Look at all the land growing ragworth around city's. Also it would discourage those that look to get land redesginated and then sit on it for years.

A few points.
Farmers were paying income tax in the 1980's,well at least we were anyways(am very very certain of that as my dad died at the begining of the 1980's and at that stage we were dealing with accountants for a few years).

Paying PRSI qualifies farmers for the old age pension etc so therefore no problem with that or with paying INCOME tax.Don't like it but them's the rules.

If you think that anyone setting land or leasing it under a land tax regime ain't gonna factor that into the price then God bless your innocence.It would be the setting value of the land plus say half of the tax due plus maybe the rest in real money.Same as the setting with maps etc works.

If you owned a 100 acre suckler farm and rented another 100 your total tax liability would be 16k,sounds a lot on those Teagasc figures from this week wouldn't you say?

Why is it likely land would be valued at 5k and not 8k?

If you think people who have land in their family for generations will be more likely to sell because of a property tax then;
You must come from a different rural Ireland than me;
Does it not strike you as unfair and rather small minded that some people would see it as a good thing that others were "forced" to sell up to feed the mantra of productivity,expansion ,food 2020,let the young lads at it etc etc(any farmers journal buzzwords that may spring to mind):

Why should you be forced to develop property?All this sh**e about shortage of suitable housing etc is making people lose the run of themselves again.I firmly believe that if some one buys development land and keeps it clean,safe, etc etc then why should they build houses etc until they (the property owner)wishes to?Why not just confiscate the land and save the pretence?
Thought we lived in a more or less open free market type economy and not a command one.
The community in general does not own the land .It may have an interest in it being kept safe and clean and in good order and not causing a problem to neighbours and the wider community but at the end of the day should you not have the right,in general,to do as you wish with your own property?

All the above is prob. getting away from the point of the op but its a bugbear of mine(have quiet a few;must be a getting past 40 thing!)
On a more personal note,always heard it said here that the removal of rates on farmland and the switch over to income tax was a very good thing and that was from people who lived and farmed for many years under both systems.
In fairness our land here was highly valued for rating purposes(done in the mid 1850's I think and not updated a lot since)so we always felt sore about it.

Farmer Pudsey

paddysdream wrote: »

A few points.
Farmers were paying income tax in the 1980's,well at least we were anyways(am very very certain of that as my dad died at the begining of the 1980's and at that stage we were dealing with accountants for a few years).

Paying PRSI qualifies farmers for the old age pension etc so therefore no problem with that or with paying INCOME tax.Don't like it but them's the rules.

If you think that anyone setting land or leasing it under a land tax regime ain't gonna factor that into the price then God bless your innocence.It would be the setting value of the land plus say half of the tax due plus maybe the rest in real money.Same as the setting with maps etc works.

If you owned a 100 acre suckler farm and rented another 100 your total tax liability would be 16k,sounds a lot on those Teagasc figures from this week wouldn't you say?

Why is it likely land would be valued at 5k and not 8k?

If you think people who have land in their family for generations will be more likely to sell because of a property tax then;
You must come from a different rural Ireland than me;
Does it not strike you as unfair and rather small minded that some people would see it as a good thing that others were "forced" to sell up to feed the mantra of productivity,expansion ,food 2020,let the young lads at it etc etc(any farmers journal buzzwords that may spring to mind):

Why should you be forced to develop property?All this sh**e about shortage of suitable housing etc is making people lose the run of themselves again.I firmly believe that if some one buys development land and keeps it clean,safe, etc etc then why should they build houses etc until they (the property owner)wishes to?Why not just confiscate the land and save the pretence?
Thought we lived in a more or less open free market type economy and not a command one.
The community in general does not own the land .It may have an interest in it being kept safe and clean and in good order and not causing a problem to neighbours and the wider community but at the end of the day should you not have the right,in general,to do as you wish with your own property?

All the above is prob. getting away from the point of the op but its a bugbear of mine(have quiet a few;must be a getting past 40 thing!)
On a more personal note,always heard it said here that the removal of rates on farmland and the switch over to income tax was a very good thing and that was from people who lived and farmed for many years under both systems.
In fairness our land here was highly valued for rating purposes(done in the mid 1850's I think and not updated a lot since)so we always felt sore about it.

Paddy because of rates during the 50's and 60's people too roofs off houses so as not to have to pay same. The rental price of land in theory is related to the productive vale not to the landlord costs. If it is unenomic to rent you will not rent. Cost of anything is related to income so if a land tax was in operation it would reduce land values. I made the point about tillage and dairy farm not suckler and I gave a 10K figure which would be more relistic in a land tax situtation.

The issue of delictation and urban sprawl is not helped by hoarding and I see no reason not to discourage same. There in no such right as to do what you like. This is a bug bear of mine this idea just ownership gives unlimited rights. This in not about confistication rather about taxation. For instance no rates are payable where a commercial property is not in use in most other country's this is not the case. So a urban land tax ( where property was redesginated) would balance this situtation.

I am just making a few point in relation to a land tax as some think if it was bough in the sky would fall in.

frazzledhome

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Never be afraid of expressing an opinion those that get over excited take no notice of.



No I would not. At present we have tried different ways of trying to get land into those that want to farm it hand through leasing tax breaks etc. However none of these have managed to reduce rental prices. the other issue is that loads of non active farmers drawing SFP and trying to include it in lease prices. Some farm organisations nearly support this.

However I am heartened by the replies so far I taught I be getting loafds of negativity about it. However early days yet.

Elephant in the room on land rentalis SFP. Remove completely and let's get real.

Beef farmers are collecting it to subsidise beef factories.