Proposals to reform Property Tax Thread

Topgear on Dave

evosteo wrote: »

Was the lpt not an emergency tax introduced during the recession due to stamp duty shortcomings? Yet if your lucky enough to purchase a house you pay still pay stamp duty and also have the pleasure of paying an annual charge. It should be phased out and stamp duty increased

Crucify the young?

Averagevegan

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Crucify the young?

there are less workers every year so taxes can only go one way long term. Its not pretty but the alternative is worse.

MayoSalmon

Wherever government has advanced (higher taxation, new government departments) individual responsibility has retreated.

Whenever governmment undertakes a responsibility, it denies us the chance to assume it.

If people are less inclined to care for the homeless or the poor than before, it is because the state has convinced them that it is its job, not theirs.

If people do not save enough to meet their future needs, it is because the state has spent decades telling them that it will take care of them instead.

So here we ate again government telling us they need to increase the LPT to do what exactly? The immorality of taxation is absurd but it is so accepted by society that the existence of states like Denmark, Venzezula, Cuba, North Korea doesn't surprise me. Government has convinced the people in all those states that they are able to take care of them better than the individual themselves.

flutered

my two cents are, tax should be payable on all property, not just dwellings, someone sitting on 250 acres has a mssive property, compared to the person on a flat anywhere in urban ireland, yet the flat has taxable value but the 250 acres has not, only in ireland

flutered

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

There is an urban/rural divide here when it comes to LPT.

Those living in urban areas and servicing large mortgages and often high service charges pay more than their cousins down the country in the five bed hacienda with a double garage on an acre.

So let us take services for example. Urban areas have Public Transport (weak as it is), shops, hospitals, schools etc.

Rural areas have peace and quiet, lots of land, privacy, and all the rest of it, but they generally have septic tanks and water to pay for.

BUT in rural areas, every house on a boreen is serviced with ESB, Phone lines (broadband is coming!), and the roads are maintained.

It will always be them and us depending on what side you are on.

I dislike this tax as it is an urban tax for sure. And a proportion from urbanites subsidise our rural friends too. That is mad.

Anyway, it has to be reformed. How is a different matter.

Maybe sq m of the house, plus a charge for acreage, and to balance it, a premium in urban areas for access to services, public transport etc.

I am not sure, because cities should be accessible for a huge population, whereas rural dwellers have decided that's not for them.

one point i must disagree with is the broad band and roads are mantained bit, broadband is paid for by the end user, bohereens in my area are seas of both mud and water, local roads are becoming increasingly rough and pot holed, the gov should have the courage to tax the land owners both develepors and farmers, this would give a fairer amount to the rural la's

elperello

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I actually like this part of it.

The voters should not be complaining about the rise in the tax, they should be complaining about the lack of accomodation available that causes those price rises.

Rents rise for all my friends but I dont think it matters to most actual home owning voters, they never notice.

If the property tax rises then everybody feels the burn and political pressure comes on to fix it.

I'm not clear as to why a malfunction in one part of the market ie. rental should result in a penalty on another segment ie. owner occupier.

Averagevegan wrote: »

there are less workers every year so taxes can only go one way long term. Its not pretty but the alternative is worse.

Employment is actually rising https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/employed-persons

Topgear on Dave

elperello wrote: »

I'm not clear as to why a malfunction in one part of the market ie. rental should result in a penalty on another segment ie. owner occupier.

Many of the causes and solutions for our current market situation are either caused by political decisions or require political decisions to solve.

Renters alone do not have and will never have the political "pull" that homeowners have.

Also I would say that many homeowners are completely unaware of the rise of rental costs and the damage it does to the country.

elperello wrote: »

Employment is actually rising https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/employed-persons

Yes employment is rising now but looking at the picture over the longer term the population is ageing and living far longer. The ratio of retired people to current workers is going to rise.

There will be a much larger number of retirees to be supported by a smaller number of workers. This smaller number of PAYE workers may not like being taxed to the bone to pay the pensions.

elperello

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Many of the causes and solutions for our current market situation are either caused by political decisions or require political decisions to solve.

Renters alone do not have and will never have the political "pull" that homeowners have.

Also I would say that many homeowners are completely unaware of the rise of rental costs and the damage it does to the country.



Yes employment is rising now but looking at the picture over the longer term the population is ageing and living far longer. The ratio of retired people to current workers is going to rise.

There will be a much larger number of retirees to be supported by a smaller number of workers. This smaller number of PAYE workers may not like being taxed to the bone to pay the pensions.

I see what you are saying but I still don't think it is a political runner to increase LPT to goad homeowners into putting pressure on the Government to sort out the rental market.

The demographic trends do indeed look worrying into the medium/long term. The LPT is only one small part of any strategy to address this.

Ultimately we need a better supply of the type of housing that different sections of the population want to live in and can afford to pay for.

thereality

elperello wrote: »

Nothing stopping them at all and it is appealing in it's simplicity. Problem is you are depending on a Government in the future to do the right thing. Disregard vested interests, ignore election implications etc.

And with index linking it you are not depending on the Government from still going ahead and slashing it anyway? What is stopping SF getting elected tomorrow and ending increases to LPT?

elperello wrote: »

I would prefer to put in place a system that works on "autopilot" so to speak. Just fix it so that the money rolls in with the minimum of controversy.

Do you know that the inflation rate is at the moment? It is close to zero and has been for the last 5 years. So by index linking LPT, you are basically locking LPT into the current rates for the foreseeable future. Fixing LPT to inflation who is close to zero is repeating the mistake California made with index linking their property tax system

The state is better off not linking to inflation and making ad hoc adjustments in the future. A 5% hike in 3/4 years, will be better than index linking it to inflation of 0.5% pa. Index linking it is a massive mistake

elperello

thereality wrote: »

And with index linking it you are not depending on the Government from still going ahead and slashing it anyway? What is stopping SF getting elected tomorrow and ending increases to LPT?



Do you know that the inflation rate is at the moment? It is close to zero and has been for the last 5 years. So by index linking LPT, you are basically locking LPT into the current rates for the foreseeable future. Fixing LPT to inflation who is close to zero is repeating the mistake California made with index linking their property tax system

The state is better off not linking to inflation and making ad hoc adjustments in the future. A 5% hike in 3/4 years, will be better than index linking it to inflation of 0.5% pa. Index linking it is a massive mistake

Nothing to stop SF doing something populist with LPT but they have to get elected first.

You mentioned California a couple of times. Is it Proposition 13 you are referring to? I looked up some links re. California but I didn't have time to really research it today. There seems to be a pretty lively debate going on there too.

In a nutshell my position is that LPT being a relatively new tax needs time to bed in and become accepted. If I was advising Government I would say steady as she goes for at least 5 years. Any attempts to increase LPT by a substantial amount could result in push back and bring the whole thing down around their ears.

The high compliance levels should not be confused with public acceptance.They are due to the heavy hand of Revenue being used and the middle class fear of debt.

As I said before I am sure the Government realise how lucky they are to have this steady stream of money coming and I doubt they will do anything too radical.

Idbatterim

looks, these big increases in house prices, are not going to continue indefinitely. the LPT is already at a farcical level. Sure whats the problem, isnt the big obsession with getting rich on paper being achieved, and they only have to pay less than one fifth of one person, for this increase in home value, that they are doing nothing to bring about, if they are just leaving the property as it is. This is a political issue due to votes , not an affordability one for home owners!

The_Conductor

Idbatterim wrote: »

looks, these big increases in house prices, are not going to continue indefinitely. the LPT is already at a farcical level. Sure whats the problem, isnt the big obsession with getting rich on paper being achieved, and they only have to pay less than one fifth of one person, for this increase in home value, that they are doing nothing to bring about, if they are just leaving the property as it is. This is a political issue due to votes , not an affordability one for home owners!

The 'Local' Property Tax- is already collecting almost twice as much cash as is disbursed to the Local Authorities.
Some pundits are suggesting the extra 212m is for spending on our deteriorating road network- but surely that should be what road tax is for? Instead- it too, gets added to the central kitty.

If we are collecting a tax for a specified reason- the least we can do- is spend it for the purpose we state we're collecting it.

jimmycrackcorm

The_Conductor wrote:

The 'Local' Property Tax- is already collecting almost twice as much cash as is disbursed to the Local Authorities. Some pundits are suggesting the extra 212m is for spending on our deteriorating road network- but surely that should be what road tax is for? Instead- it too, gets added to the central kitty.

I hope you're not suggesting the government introduce a road tax. The water warriors will go crazy arguing that we already pay via motor tax.

Sleeper12

Changes can't come fast enough imo. It has never sat right with me that someone in a mid terraced ex corporation pays more than a 6 bed detached house on an acre of land in Cavan.

It needs to be made a fairer tax

The_Conductor

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I hope you're not suggesting the government introduce a road tax. The water warriors will go crazy arguing that we already pay via motor tax.

Haha......
Honestly I think it should be wholly abolished and tuppence a litre added onto fuel duty instead- which would enumerate the user pays principle. Or even better- add 4c a litre and have it include basic third party insurance- like in Australia- and presto everyone in the country is insured.......

LirW

You'd then have people crying over electric car users that they don't pay anything.
You could also tie the Third party insurance to the number plate - you'll only get the number plate with the proof that you have an active TP policy, like we have it back home, TP for a small engine car is somewhere between 30 and 50 quid on an unlimited time policy.

Anyway that's roads and while I agree that councils should get their butts up their seats and fill the unreal amount of potholes, nobody wants to pay for it, partly because you hear about the misuse of money every week.

What exactly happens at the moment if you're simply defaulting on your property tax? I know people do that and revenue might enforce the collection in different ways. But when we got the legal papers of our house we've seen that the previous owner defaulted 3 years in a row and our solicitor needed a clause in the contract that it needs to be paid up before the sale is closed and it seems that this is not an uncommon problem.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Changes can't come fast enough imo. It has never sat right with me that someone in a mid terraced ex corporation pays more than a 6 bed detached house on an acre of land in Cavan.

It needs to be made a fairer tax

Again I'll ask the same question, why should a person with a bigger house pay more? Why is that fair anymore than the current rules but I still think the current rules are fairer than punishing rural dwellers who are already treated badly enough in this country.

The bigger question is why is LPT allowed to exist in the first place, why should you be taxed for owning a home.

Topgear on Dave

Marina Fat Against wrote: »

The bigger question is why is LPT allowed to exist in the first place, why should you be taxed for owning a home.

Why should I be taxed for working?

Topgear on Dave

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Why should I be taxed for working?

Why are we taxed so much for working in Ireland is a very good question, or more to the point for earning an even half decent salary. There obviously has to be some level of tax but it shouldn't be so high and it certainly shouldn't be on things like owning a property since there is already a vast array of taxes paid in relation to owning a home without a property tax and certainly there is no justification for basing this on property size.

Sleeper12

Joanna Plain Hag wrote:

Again I'll ask the same question, why should a person with a bigger house pay more? Why is that fair anymore than the current rules but I still think the current rules are fairer than punishing rural dwellers who are already treated badly enough in this country.

I don't want to get into a big Dublin / rural debate but you do know that tax collected in Dublin goes to other counties as well as Dublin.

An OAP in a mid terraced house in Dublin supporting a big family in Cavan rubs me the wrong way.

Topgear on Dave

Marina Fat Against wrote: »

Why are we taxed so much for working in Ireland is a very good question, or more to the point for earning an even half decent salary. There obviously has to be some level of tax but it shouldn't be so high and it certainly shouldn't be on things like owning a property since there is already a vast array of taxes paid in relation to owning a home without a property tax and certainly there is no justification for basing this on property size.

The level of taxation (either PAYE or property) certainly could be up for debate but this would lead to a situation that the level of spending would need to be discussed. And I would believe that all parties are agreed that much more spending is needed. :pac:

PAYE has been pushed as far as it can go Id say, property tax is a means of spreading the load around from the PAYE worker and also acts as a form of wealth tax.

This will all come up for debate in the near future Id say. I read today that a lot of the extra cash that the government is taking in is coming from less than 20 foreign multinationals.

If some of these hit problems we will have deficit troubles again.

elperello

Income Tax by definition has a cash flow to supply the means of paying it. Private residence does not.

LPT is not a tax on owning a house. A young person may only actually own a small proportion of the equity in a house the rest being in fact owned by the mortgage provider.

listermint

Cyrus wrote: »

you cant have a tax where one small section of the country is paying an outsized proportion of it.

In most cases the people who are paying high LPT have very large mortgages to service as well.

site tax and something based on sq ft is probably fair.

dont get me started on the PAYE/PRSI/USC system, 54% marginal rate of tax :pac::eek:

Yes you can. Because those very same people have all the services.

Being a dub myself and recently moved out of Dublin it's gas to think they're are Dubliners who seem to think Dublin isn't being serviced at a cost to rural ireland.

Most of the money goes straight back to Dublin. Not somewhere else. And yes you should pay for such access. That's the nature of a city.

listermint

The_Conductor wrote: »

Haha......
Honestly I think it should be wholly abolished and tuppence a litre added onto fuel duty instead- which would enumerate the user pays principle. Or even better- add 4c a litre and have it include basic third party insurance- like in Australia- and presto everyone in the country is insured.......

I agree.

Cyrus

listermint wrote: »

Yes you can. Because those very same people have all the services.

Being a dub myself and recently moved out of Dublin it's gas to think they're are Dubliners who seem to think Dublin isn't being serviced at a cost to rural ireland.

Most of the money goes straight back to Dublin. Not somewhere else. And yes you should pay for such access. That's the nature of a city.

Except you are completely incorrect and Dublin subsidises the rural councils and produces a surplus that goes to a central fund .....

And I’m not a dub just happen to live here

Idbatterim

listermint wrote: »

Yes you can. Because those very same people have all the services.

Being a dub myself and recently moved out of Dublin it's gas to think they're are Dubliners who seem to think Dublin isn't being serviced at a cost to rural ireland.

Most of the money goes straight back to Dublin. Not somewhere else. And yes you should pay for such access. That's the nature of a city.

really? where have the tens of billions if not hundreds of billions that dublin contributes gone? on two pathetic light rail way lines?

Let property contribute far more than it does and use it to reward the only people that deserve relief, mid to high earners... the political golden goose! in terms of the property tax and how unfair politicians claim it is on dublin, right so, ring fence it for dublin only, DU , MN all of the major transport schemes, build it all, more policing, cleaner streets, spend it here...

MayoSalmon

Joanna Plain Hag wrote:

There obviously has to be some level of tax but it shouldn't be so high

Why is this obvious?

Why is the government allowed to take by force your earned income?

Please explain the morality of that exactly?

Sleeper12

If we got these indirect taxes sorted correctly, inc the metered water that has to come in eventually, there is some chance of reducing income tax. At least with the indirect tax everyone pays. Not just the working Joe

Topgear on Dave

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

The level of taxation (either PAYE or property) certainly could be up for debate but this would lead to a situation that the level of spending would need to be discussed. And I would believe that all parties are agreed that much more spending is needed. :pac:

PAYE has been pushed as far as it can go Id say, property tax is a means of spreading the load around from the PAYE worker and also acts as a form of wealth tax.

This will all come up for debate in the near future Id say. I read today that a lot of the extra cash that the government is taking in is coming from less than 20 foreign multinationals.

If some of these hit problems we will have deficit troubles again.

It's the PAYE worker that is also being hit with the property tax by and large and as for a wealth tax, don't even start in the rubbish.

It's the other direction we need to go with taxation, that's what the water charges were doing and it's a disgrace that they were cancelled they were spreading the tax burden to those who pay little or nothing, same with USC which needs to have the top rates cut but the lower rates kept as they pull lots of people into the tax net who otherwise escape.

Middle and higher income earners are already carrying for too much of the burden and need to see significant cuts to get more of their income into their pockets as what's the point in working hard to fund those who do nothing pay nothing.

Idbatterim

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If we got these indirect taxes sorted correctly, inc the metered water that has to come in eventually, there is some chance of reducing income tax. At least with the indirect tax everyone pays. Not just the working Joe

this exactly, water charges are gone, up the LPT and use it to fund income tax reductions at the marginal rate...

its an amazing country, where apparently nobody can afford anything, cant afford water but can afford E150 month on tv, broaband and a mobile etc...

a country where it is acceptable for low earners to lose over half their salary , half of it over E34,750! yet others cant be asked to pay towards anything, the place is a comedy show! And then those spineless shower in government now, who wont criticise or open their mouth on anything, for fear of offending anyone!