Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Property and inheritance taxes should be raised, says State’s commission on tax and welfare

11213141618

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,180 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    "Progressive" is a technical term in tax policy; it means the rate of tax paid increases as the taxable amount increases. The opposite term is "regressive" So:

    Income tax is progressive, because it's charged at higher rates on higher tiers of income, with the result that, the higher your income, the higher your average tax rate. You can in theory have a flat rate income tax — all income, from the first euro upwards, is taxed at the same rate — but I don't know if any country actually does. That wouldn't be progressive.

    Expenditure taxes - like VAT - tend to be regressive. If I earn only a modest income, I tend to spend it all because I need to to feed, house and clothe myself and my dependants; I save very little. Thus all or nearly all of my income is subject to expenditure tax. Whereas you, by contrast, have a very high income; you don't spend it all; you save/invest a good deal of it, and so avoid expenditure tax on that part of your income. As a result, the amount of expenditure tax that you pay, as a percentage of your income, is lower than it is for me.

    (You can try to counteract this by varying the rate of expenditure tax — 0% on things that low earners spend a high proportion of their income on, like groceries and rent, and especially high rates on things that they rarely or never buy, like Porsches. But there's a limit to what you can acheive with measures like this, and expenditure taxes generally end up being somewhat regressive.)

    Property taxes are progressive because, duh, poor people don't own any property, while wealthy people tend to own a lot. It could be argued that they rather crudely offset the regressive nature of expenditure taxes. All that expenditure tax that you avoided by saving/investing? You build up savings/investments/wealth by doing that, and so attract a liablity to property tax.

    Whether a particular tax produces socially desirable outcomes or not is an entirely different question. (E.g, excise on tobacco is highly regressive but we might nevertheless think that it's socially beneficial.) People tend not to use the term "progressive" when discussing this question, because in the context of taxes it means something else entirely.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,473 ✭✭✭Busman Paddy Lasty


    I'm in favour of an annual property tax if inheritance tax threshold is hugely increased so that the majority don't get hit by it.

    LPT is stable and levels out the boom-bust cycle of windfall taxes. Due to low LPT people are going all-in on 35 year mortgages, driving up house prices and as a result paying multiples to the banks in mortgage interest vs the total LPT during that time.

    During my mortgage term (without advance pay offs) I will pay approx €180,000 in interest and approx €11,000 in LPT. I



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,621 ✭✭✭crossman47


    The vast majority don't get hit by it as things stand.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,473 ✭✭✭Busman Paddy Lasty


    That will change soon I expect. Plenty of families have two adult children and more than 2x the threshold in "assets".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    no offense but that is a bit generic , and you have managed to paint Irish society as Rich or Poor people. Being Ireland there are fairly unique features, for example what about the fact that the Irish State can be held responsible for the state of the housing scene here?, the average person here would prefer (ill assume) if normal houses were only ever a low multiple of a single income yet the state you think seems to have a right to essentially force people to sell family homes because of a tax, no mention of the humanity behind these "assets".

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,894 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    In this scenario you're saying that 2 adult children inherit a combined estate of more than €670,000. And that taxing that windfall for the children (sad as the circumstances are) is wrong?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,220 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Typically the boundary wall between private property and public space is owned and maintained by the owner of the private property.

    I suggest that you check the details of the construction of the wall you mention.

    You will almost certainly find that both the building and partial demolition of the wall were funded by the owners of the shopping centre.

    Also local authorities usually don't have stone wall builders on their staff. It's a specialist trade normally contracted out



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,473 ✭✭✭Busman Paddy Lasty


    I didn't say whether it is right or wrong. Increasing annual LPT I expect will be unpalatable to the public without a bit of give and take.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,894 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    But LPT is paid by the property owner. Inheritance tax (capital acquisitions tax) is paid by the person who inherits a house (or other property/etc), so they are distinct things.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,473 ✭✭✭Busman Paddy Lasty


    Which I am aware of, and it seems illogical. Maybe the threshold could be kept as is to avoid confusion, but I imagine a quid pro quo would be needed somewhere? There are many factors.

    The wider point is due to high house prices and an abnormally low LPT for a developed country, is handing hundreds of thousands of Euro to the banks as mortgage interest.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Property Tax on the family home should be abolished and the amount of money inherited under inheritance tax before tax should be brought up to a much higher level. A lot of people spend their life work there buts off in order to leave something for their children and I find it extremely harsh to tax an asset that your unlikely to sell as your living there and have already paid for it out of after tax income, paid stamp duty, solicitor fees, repaying a mortgage and interest on the mortgage. How about if there is an LPT that the amount of money paid on the above is credited to the person as its double / triple taxation for someone just looking to buy a place to live. Also the LPT would kick in straight away if a kid gets gifted the house so they can get the LPT taxe that way as well as they would not of had to pay the above bar solicitor fees.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,894 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    Cool. If that was the case, then do something to force the price of houses down, significantly. Currently the government are terrified of doing anything which could affect existing house prices as it would affect the housed who are more likely to vote for them.

    Either houses are assets and can be treated as such, or they are a special category that needs to be protected, and then the underlying price shouldn't matter. But people seem to be advocating for a bit of both - which helps the already housed to the detriment of those who don't yet own houses.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Lets be clear even upping both LPT and inheritance tax is not going to sort out the housing crisis. Also houses are and should be in 2 categories as people own a house they live in which they have no other choice but to buy a house or they have a property to rent by all means go nuts on these properties but houses where the individual is not making on it and simply living there should be left alone as that person will have paid enough to buy the place.

    The government should remove all supports for housing. They should ramp up modular builds and put people who are on housing list both existing and future as well as refugees in here and free up rentals and property to buy for the private market . This would force prices down.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 31,496 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Accumulated wealth should not be taxed when there are so many other taxes - including the existing CGT of 33%, it's the very definition of double taxation

    It is not the very definition of double taxation as completely different people pay the property tax and the CGT.

    People always talk about CGT as if it is the dead person being taxed, when they are in fact dead.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    The asset is not just double taxed there are multiples. In fact the asset is paid for out of after income tax money tax no 1:, stamp duty tax no : 2 property tax : tax no :3 and then CGT tax no : 4 this does not even bring in the other very significant costs for the purchase of the asset. There should be some relief for a person buying such an asset, if it is inherited then work away.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,341 ✭✭✭Ubbquittious


    Housing crisis is purely because of supply and the supply is being held back big time by the government. There is plenty of building materials, land, even people willing to build but the planning crowd forces you to build expensive houses, won't give planning permission in a lot of cases and you need a lot more qualifications to build a house than you used to. In the 70's/80's/90's people would have just built their way out of this crisis now regulation has kiboshed everything

    The whole thing is just to ensure the next generation are snared into paying 300k+ mortgages, creating a steady income stream for the banks, insurance industry, etc. This is also why the government is so against alternative housing like log cabins, prefabs, boats. Everyone needs to be funneled into the high rent/mortgage system



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Well there is also the demand rocketing mainly due to our explosion of immigrants that all need to be housed as well



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,600 ✭✭✭Viscount Aggro


    One way of cooling off the property market...

    Raise LPT.... by a significant amount.

    As I found out, it's attached to the property, not the owner. Very smart move by Revenue. You can't sell a property unless it's cleared, including accrued interest and penalties.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    The required public goodwill is long gone. LPT (like water charges) may have been ok in isolation but it a complete non-starter given the track record of very little give.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,473 ✭✭✭Busman Paddy Lasty


    Something has gotta give though, very little affordable housing. Perception that social/ affordable housing is going to foreigners.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,180 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I take your point. But the more tax breaks/tax subsidies you give to property ownership, the more valuable property becomes, and the more the price is driven up. If you want house prices to come down, then stop using tax policy and taxpayer funds to increase property values.

    For example, the value of my house is undoubtedly higher because it is served by roads, benefits from nearby parks, schools, public transport services, etc. In a rational tax system the cost of providing infrastructure and services like these would be covered to a signficant extent by local property taxes, on the undeniable grounds that local property owners derive particular additional value from these services. The result is that house ownership would carry a significant annual tax liablity, and that would tend to lower house prices.

    To the extent that that policy was effective, it would also lead to reduction in the burden of inheritance tax — more houses below the threshhold, the rest less far above the threshold than they otherwise would be. Plus, there'd be scope to reduce inheritance tax rates anyway, because of the extra revenue from an annual property tax.

    The bottom line is, if you think the state has driven house prices up, a large part of that is through the tax system — CGT exemption for the principal private residence; low property taxes; etc — and anyone serious about redressing that would seek to avoid direct or indirect tax subsidies that enhance property values.

    Post edited by Peregrinus on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,883 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox


    Inheritance tax is a rich man's tax and long may it last. I did not earn the money my father earned. My kids will not earn the money I earned.

    I bought a house a few years ago and when I die a long time from now (hopefully) that house may double or triple in price. Neither me nor my kids have done/will do anything to impact that. Income tax is far more unfair than Inheritance tax

    Inheritance tax will gradually erode "old money" which is a good thing for society in general



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭raze_them_all_


    Except it won't, the old money have the best tax people in the world to lower it, use every loophole possible, there is a reason why old money is called old money... Because they have had it so **** long. Most taxes don't bother them, and inheritance tax doesn't either



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭Mr. teddywinkles


    Pretty pointless working if your going to hand what you've worked for over to the state when you die. old money? We all dont have cayman accounts.

    People have worked hard and paid a shedload of tax over their lifetime to have their home. The only people responsible for inflation of house prices is government. (Due to reckless immigration policies and vulture enterprises buying to rent back to the government which btw is what should be taxed extremely heavily)

    Considering most young people cant afford a home now. We cant even pass on the family home without getting rode too?

    And another thing if the government insist on artificially inflating the property market the Inheritance threshold must also increase dramatically.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭Vestiapx


    This is soo true, I work for a rich family company and structure and growth of it over the last while is clearly to allow generational transfer of wealth without loss due to taxation

    The wealthy will avoid tax at all costs. It's hard working small families that will pay tax over and over again.

    Farmers get exemptions, business owners get exemptions it's the hard working paye savers that get hit.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,482 ✭✭✭halkar


    If you win 5 million or 50 million from lotto you are not taxed if you inherited 1 million you are taxed. Inheritance tax is the dirtiest tax of all. You pay at least 70% of your earnings to government with income tax, vat, vrt, duties that comes in different forms, fart tax and what not. You are not even left alone when you die.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,180 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    One of the advantages of a property tax is that it's hard to avoid; you can't transfer your bricks and mortar, or your acres, to a Cayman Islands trust.

    As for inheritance tax, while some avoidance is usually possible, the efficacy of inheritance taxes in constraining the intergenerational transfer of wealth, reducing inequality and promoting socioeconomic mobility is pretty well documented.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭Mr. teddywinkles


    I think a lot of this boils down to what people consider wealth. 500000e family home equals extreme wealth. When to some its the family home. Considering its an overinflated asset



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,757 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    …and the valuation of those assets is how we transfer that wealth, maintaining growing wealth inequality, resulting in rising social tensions and dysfunctions…..

    …we either want a stable functioning society and economy for your kids, grand kids, nieces and nephews, or we dont!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,180 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Possibly. But the notion that we should avoid taxing overinflated assets isn't an appealing one. You want to overinflate them still further?

    You might think the Irish housing market is seriously dysfunctional. You wouldn't be alone. But you should be asking yourself what role tax policy played in creating or reinforcing that dysfunction and how tax policy would need to change to try and address the problem.

    Tl;dr: Putting money into your home shouldn't be a tax-sheltered investment, or a tax-efficient way of passing wealth to the next generation.



Advertisement