Household charge offence defeated

daheff

Just saw this popup in my FB feed. Interesting implications if true.


http://directdemocracyireland.ie/household-charge-defeated-in-court/

don't get me wrong now...we need to pay taxes to fund local authorities, but I for one fundamentally don't agree with paying a tax based on my property (and its valuation -appreciate the household charge wasn't valuation based).

Why? -Well I can avail of services in any county regardless of where I live. My kids are as entitled to use a playground in Galway as in Dublin or Kerry or Donegal. Its in my & the country's interest to have properly funded authorities across the country paid for equally out of taxes and not have Dublin get a disproportionate majority of the services as most people and pay a tax to the local authorities.


In relation to property tax, the value of my property does not determine the amount of local services I consume....so why pay a tax based on the property value.

As I said we do need to pay for services, so why not have a separate tax that goes to a central pot & be allocated only for local authority services??

Geuze

For many, many years we have known that property taxes are superior than income taxes, for many reasons.

Property taxes are sensible for several reasons, which have been explained again and again.

Now, the best type of property tax is a land tax or a site value tax, rather than a tax on the building itself.

You refer that Dublin would collect more property taxes.

Yes, true, but also note that there is an equalisation system in place to ensure that all councils can provide public services.

ohnonotgmail

daheff wrote: »

Just saw this popup in my FB feed. Interesting implications if true.


directdemocracyireland.ie/household-charge-defeated-in-court/

don't get me wrong now...we need to pay taxes to fund local authorities, but I for one fundamentally don't agree with paying a tax based on my property (and its valuation -appreciate the household charge wasn't valuation based).

Why? -Well I can avail of services in any county regardless of where I live. My kids are as entitled to use a playground in Galway as in Dublin or Kerry or Donegal. Its in my & the country's interest to have properly funded authorities across the country paid for equally out of taxes and not have Dublin get a disproportionate majority of the services as most people and pay a tax to the local authorities.


In relation to property tax, the value of my property does not determine the amount of local services I consume....so why pay a tax based on the property value.

As I said we do need to pay for services, so why not have a separate tax that goes to a central pot & be allocated only for local authority services??

you need to read the full text of your link

This is a win for Peter but only a step for others. It is not a legal precedent as such because there was no order by the judge as the case was withdrawn. Neither does it prove the Charge is unconstitutional because only the Supreme Court can make that judgement.

What it is is an indication that the State may be worried they do not have a strong enough case should it be appealed as far as the Supreme Court, and do not want to take the risk. Their hope being this will not be reported and will just vanish without the general public getting to hear about it. Well they know now so we’ll see who makes the next move.

basically Mayo CC decided that it wasnt worth spending their time in court to go after one individual. But as collection is now the responsibility of the Revenue Commissioners that is no solace to anybody else. The revenue have a lot more teeth (and a willingness to use them) than a county council.

Mint Aero

Proud day for the real people of this country.

daheff

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you need to read the full text of your link

I did...what point are you making in relation to what I said?

fleet_admiral

I pay €420 a year in LPT in Dublin. My mother and father in law pay just under €150 in Arklow.

Should I not get more because I pay more op, or should I just keep subsidising culchies?

Chips Lovell

You said it was defeated. It wasn't. It simply means he hasn't lost. There was no judgement made, simply a decision by Mayo County Council that it's up to the Revenue to pursue him for non-payment now, not them.

Press release from DDI is misleading in other respects. It's up to him to prove the charge is unconstitutional, rather than the state to prove it constitutional.

ohnonotgmail

daheff wrote: »

I did...what point are you making in relation to what I said?

Perhaps you should read my full post then.

daheff

Geuze wrote: »

For many, many years we have known that property taxes are superior than income taxes, for many reasons.

Property taxes are sensible for several reasons, which have been explained again and again.

Maybe I'm slow...but explain it to me again....how is a tax based on the ownership of property superior to income tax? Ownership of property doesn't imply any ability to pay. Or imply that selling the property because I cant pay the tax is fair to me...what if there is no market to sell the property or the market is depressed and I wouldn't get a fair value for it?

Geuze wrote: »

Now, the best type of property tax is a land tax or a site value tax, rather than a tax on the building itself.

How is the value of land/property a fair value for determining tax? Having a highly valuable property again does not mean I can determine an income from it to pay a tax- nor does it mean I would be a user of local services in that area. In addition there is a tax on disposal of such property which is also value based....surely this is where the taxation on the value/increase in value applies?

Geuze wrote: »

You refer that Dublin would collect more property taxes.

Yes, true, but also note that there is an equalisation system in place to ensure that all councils can provide public services.

There is an equalisation system in place...but its not 100%. Only a portion of taxes go to the central pot for redistribution...not all the tax. So in the case of Dublin it would collect & keep more tax

crusier

If it was any other judge they would have contested it!

ohnonotgmail

fleet_admiral wrote: »

I pay €420 a year in LPT in Dublin. My mother and father in law pay just under €150 in Arklow.

Should I not get more because I pay more op, or should I just keep subsidising culchies?

You do get more. You get to live in Dublin

ohnonotgmail

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

You said it was defeated. It wasn't. It simply means he hasn't lost. There was no judgement made, simply a decision by Mayo County Council that it's up to the Revenue to pursue him for non-payment now, not them.

Press release from DDI is misleading in other respects. It's up to him to prove the charge is unconstitutional, rather than the state to prove it constitutional.

DDI in misleading press release shocker.

henryporter

fleet_admiral wrote: »

I pay €420 a year in LPT in Dublin. My mother and father in law pay just under €150 in Arklow.

Should I not get more because I pay more op, or should I just keep subsidising culchies?

Given that you would receive a hell of a lot more for selling a property in Dublin as opposed to anywhere outside of it, then yes.

The Backwards Man

DDI = freemen bollocks

Geuze

It is no vindication of Mr Keegan's assertion and his unwillingness to pay

The judge has not ruled on the matter. The council have decided not to pursue it because it is no longer their job to pursue it.

Revenue will probably now start to pursue Mr. Keegan for the money and they have other means at their disposal besides taking him to court; means the council did not have access to. The council have simply stepped aside to allow Revenue to deal with the matter. There is no finding of "unconstitutional". There is no support of Mr Keegan's position.

Geuze

daheff wrote: »

Maybe I'm slow...but explain it to me again....how is a tax based on the ownership of property superior to income tax?

Property taxes have advantages over other taxes.

(1) Difficult to evade - can't hide house.

Income taxes are easier to evade.

(2) Steady flow of revenue - number of houses won't fall.

Stamp duty / transactions taxes can be very volatile.


(3) No distortionary effects.

A problem with many taxes is that they interfere with markets and cause quantity produced to fall.

But not in the case of a PT.

You must live in a house, and a PT won't cause any distortion in this choice.

Whereas 52% income tax does cause people to refuse work / jobs / overtime, etc.

Geuze

daheff wrote: »

There is an equalisation system in place...but its not 100%. Only a portion of taxes go to the central pot for redistribution...not all the tax. So in the case of Dublin it would collect & keep more tax

I refer to the pre-existing system of grant to councils, which redistributes resources.

Geuze

daheff wrote: »

Maybe I'm slow...but explain it to me again....how is a tax based on the ownership of property superior to income tax?

Have a look at http://smarttaxes.org/

This is a group in Irl trying to improve taxes, make them more efficient.


The best type of PT is a Site-Value tax:

http://smarttaxes.org/site-value-tax/

Geuze

daheff wrote: »

Maybe I'm slow...but explain it to me again....how is a tax based on the ownership of property superior to income tax?

Ronan Lyons of www.daft.ie has been writing about the benefits of a Site-Value tax over other taxes:

http://www.ronanlyons.com/2012/02/10/would-you-rather-tax-gardens-or-jobs-the-site-value-tax-debate/


He presented a paper at the DEW conf on the Irish Economy on 27th Jan:

http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/podcasts/ieconf/presentations/RonanLyons.pdf

Geuze

daheff wrote: »

Maybe I'm slow...but explain it to me again....how is a tax based on the ownership of property superior to income tax?

http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/2012_propertytaxreport.pdf


A quote from section 2:

2. PROPERTY TAX: RATIONALE AND IMPLICATIONS

Recent reviews of the rationale for a property tax in the Irish context, and the
arguments for and against its introduction are given in Commission on Taxation
(2009) and Tax Strategy Group (2010). Here we provide a more selective view of
the arguments, so that we can focus on those which have implications for how a
property tax should be designed and implemented.

Heady (2009) listed a number of features of property taxes which make them a
useful part of the overall tax base, and a feature of tax systems in most
industrialised countries:

• property is immobile, and taxes on property are hard to avoid or evade,
• property tax revenue can be used to reduce the burden of income taxation
and has fewer behavioural consequences than income taxes,
• property taxes can offset distortions caused by favourable tax treatments of
owner occupation which tend to cause overinvestment in housing,
• property is a major component of wealth,
• property is suitable as a local tax base.

All of these are relevant to the Irish situation. In the current context, raising
revenue from property tax can help to help to limit increases in income taxes.
Conefrey et al. (2008) confirm that, for a given revenue target, property tax has
less impact on growth and employment than income tax or indirect tax.

Robbo

Mint Aero wrote: »

Proud day for the real people of this country.

Keegan is a multiple landlord and owner of a liquidated building company. It was the Household Charge on his investment portfolio he refused to pay, so I can't see how this (misrepresented as usual with the DDI hucksters) is a victory for the little man.

He tried to challenge this in the High Court previously and got precisely nowhere.

In fact it's not even a victory for the land barons because it's just a matter of the Revenue taking over the matter.

No need to go tugging the forelock at all then.

daheff

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

You said it was defeated.

I didn't say it was defeated...I posted a link that said that...I said it has

daheff wrote: »

Interesting implications if true.

Chips Lovell

Fine. To be clear. It isn't true.

daheff

fleet_admiral wrote: »

I pay €420 a year in LPT in Dublin. My mother and father in law pay just under €150 in Arklow.

Should I not get more because I pay more op, or should I just keep subsidising culchies?

Wasn't my point at all. But that's the problem basing the tax on value of property /land value. Higher land values are in Dublin, so higher taxes will be collected there.

Personally I think we should all pay the same amount regardless of where we live in the country, or the value of the property we own.

daheff

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Fine. To be clear. It isn't true.

ok then

daheff

Geuze wrote: »

Have a look at http://smarttaxes.org/

This is a group in Irl trying to improve taxes, make them more efficient.


The best type of PT is a Site-Value tax:

http://smarttaxes.org/site-value-tax/

Ok- so you are looking at the impact of the tax. And I take your point on the basis of the point you make below

Geuze wrote:

Conefrey et al. (2008) confirm that, for a given revenue target, property tax has
less impact on growth and employment than income tax or indirect tax.

I don't know who Conefrey & friends are...so I cant dispute their findings

Geuze wrote:

• property is immobile, and taxes on property are hard to avoid or evade,

taxing property doesn't mean it gets paid. Taxation at source of income does. Can you impose the property tax at source...yes.

Geuze wrote:

• property tax revenue can be used to reduce the burden of income taxation
and has fewer behavioural consequences than income taxes,

in and ideal world...but its generally seen as an additional tax to pay.

Geuze wrote:

• property taxes can offset distortions caused by favourable tax treatments of owner occupation which tend to cause overinvestment in housing,

so a tax to fix the shortcomings of another tax?

Geuze wrote:

• property is a major component of wealth,

Wealth that has been accumulated by and large pay tax as you go. Peoples primary residences generally don't incur taxation as they sell...but you do pay a stamp duty as you buy.....which is 1% of the value of the property...so you pay a valuation tax already.

Geuze wrote:

• property is suitable as a local tax base.,

That's a debatable question...



However the point I made was that a property tax is inefficient because it takes no account of the holders ability to pay, nor prevailing market conditions (ie if I have to sell the property to pay my tax/remove the liability in future). You can put whatever tax you want on the property...if I don't have the money to pay you I don't have it. you cant get blood from a stone. Is forcing me to sell my home fair because I cant afford a tax on it? no not at all. What if I buy in an 'average' neighbourhood? Lets say in a few years time the area has some gentrification or a new rail/luas line, credit bubble etc....now the value of my property will rise due to this. What if it causes my property to grow to a value that the tax is not affordable for me? Why should I have to sell my property and move somewhere else, uprooting kids from school/friends, adding time to my commute to work etc etc etc because I cant afford a tax on the value of my property (which I have no control over)?

daheff

OSI wrote: »

And then you'll have the Leitrim hillbillies complaining that they pay the same as the Dubs but don't have a train station 5 feet from their door and that's totally unfair.

why? do they complain they pay the same income taxes as the rest of us?

If you pay a Dublin tax rate does that mean people from outside Dublin cant use the services?

If you pay a tax for local services and the funds stay locally then you will have this issue. If everybody pays a tax centrally to pay for services for the country they have less cause to complain as they can avail of the services anywhere across the country.

Robbo

daheff wrote: »

why? do they complain they pay the same income taxes as the rest of us?

If you pay a Dublin tax rate does that mean people from outside Dublin cant use the services?

If you pay a tax for local services and the funds stay locally then you will have this issue. If everybody pays a tax centrally to pay for services for the country they have less cause to complain as they can avail of the services anywhere across the country.

Let the bears pay the bear tax. I pay the Homer tax.

osprey

Robbo wrote: »

Keegan is a multiple landlord and owner of a liquidated building company. It was the Household Charge on his investment portfolio he refused to pay, so I can't see how this (misrepresented as usual with the DDI hucksters) is a victory for the little man.

He tried to challenge this in the High Court previously and got precisely nowhere.

In fact it's not even a victory for the land barons because it's just a matter of the Revenue taking over the matter.

No need to go tugging the forelock at all then.

Sometimes, somebody not as versed as you, can have knowledge far greater, if only for a little moment. In this case, you would be wide eyed if you knew what took place behind the scenes at the High Court last year. As for the events in Castlebar last week, Ward McEllin (for the plaintiff) summed the situation up quite differently when he shook Peter Keegans hand in the third row. You can't see the signs of a result because you're going only by what you are told on a forum or a fast written article with no source. Peter is no 'little man'.