Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

I can still have my chair collection. No half tax when a property is not fully rented. Your idea doesn’t work in reality. I can visit my bottle collection in one property then go visit my phone collection in another property or I can just have a friend or paying guest…

You do not hit the marginal rate of 52% at 44k. It's at 70k. The high marginal rate is a combination of PAYE, USC and PRSI

Could you show your proof of this?

40% PAYE, 8% USC and top rate of PRSI = 52%

40% PAYE kicks in at 44k but 8% USC kicks in at 70k. So you don't pay 52% tax on income until it's over 70k per annum

Blut. The vacant property is totally supported and enabled by government. Then you have to ask, should you be taxed substantially on your second home, because those wasters have done nothing to improve the housing situation?

Rampant dereliction and vacant properties? Yes... token gesture property taxes ? Yes... planning system a farce ? Yes. Won't deliver infrastructure... yes... Won't allow high rise ? Yes... insist on apartments that are extremely expensive to deliver ? Yes...

https://www.revenue.ie/en/property/vacant-homes-tax/index.aspx

What is imaginary? There is no registry of PPRs so it isn't me making stuff up

The tax as proposed in this thread is imaginary. The VHT doesn't work the way you have been arguing against or others have been arguing for.

Okay I am going to give you the benefit of the fact that you do understand what I am posting and not agreeing rather than not understanding it.

Deemed disposal tax is the only tax payable on ETFS.

Property investment has two possibly three taxes 1 property tax, 2 capital gains tax and 3 (if rented) income tax.

So with Deemed disposal you have 1 tax with property you have 2 possibly 3 taxes.

See the difference?

I find it ironic that you feel your definition of an incentive should be the investment owners definition of an incentive. Obviously the "incentive" as you describe it not enough for the investment owner. You can't force your definition of an incentive on someone no matter how much you think you can.

I always find it funny how people say tax policy can be used to encourage certain activities but it is penalising the person rather than benefiting them.

Again I will ask who is responsible to solve the housing situation? Those people who purchased properties/inherited them etc are entitled to them. Most of those people are most likely paying the high rate of income tax and those who purchased properties made a financial decision.

Why do you think it is morally right for them to sell/rent properties if they don't want to? They did not cause the housing situation your quest for solutions should be directed at those who are responsible for the housing situation.

I find the demand to "the State seizing the property as an option" the first step to removing peoples freedoms. You may not agree with what someone does with their asset but that does not mean what they are doing is wrong. They are entitled to do with their asset as they see fit (with reason).

You also claimed no tax existed already and wanted one.

This is not the first time you've come in with these claims and strawman arguments against posters. I suggest you read the thread again to see exactly what is being talked about.

As for unworkable - how is it unworkable to tax any property that is not:

A) a persons declared PPR

B) subject to an ongoing tenancy with RTB

C) subject to fair deal scheme (ongoing)

Only one PPR per couple, any more spanners to throw?

I went the leasing route last year with SDCC and was told they're not currently looking for any.

You could be living separately, you could not share tax allowances. You would want your affairs completely in order inheritance etc but I cannot see why not. If your children are over 18 technically one of them coukdbuse it as a PPR while house minding it.

Some poster dream of these punitive taxes that are impossible to enforce. We have an 8% vacancy rate. That is about 160k properties. Sone will be in the process of sale or refurbishment, some will be between rentals, some tge owner will be in hospitals or nursing homes. A census enumerator I know said in his run a simple all rural town the LA had about 15% of the vacant houses and all but one of tjem was longterm.

I think these are all fairly fringe cases. To me it’s kinda like saying, you could marry one of your employees and give them salary as a gift instead…so therefore we should get rid of income tax.

I can’t even for a minute imagine telling my wife we are legally separating, with her losing all the financial protections this gives her (particularly if I die), just because I really want to keep a vacant home and not pay tax on it. The PPR CGT relief would be a much bigger incentive to do this (this is why I looked into any easy loopholes) already than avoiding a vacant home tax and nobody does it.

Sure you could put your child as the PPR owner…but then they will not be eligible for any first time buyer grants in future or extra lending from banks. I know I could not in good conscience prejudice my children to avoid tax myself. I think most would be the same.

Maybe some people would find a way around it or do something crazy to avoid it. But this is true of all taxes. In reality most people will either just pay it or sell up.

My view is it operationally would be a relatively simple tax to implement and enforce vs some of our incredibly complex existing taxes around personal income, CGT, tax, deemed disposal, exit tax. It’s easy because it just involves matching eircodes of a physical asset (can’t be hidden) and PPS numbers. It can also administratively be held against the property indefinitely and collected at point of sale (as currently happens if people try lowball LPT).

Whether it is morally fair and appropriate. That is subjective and up to the electorate of course.

No straw-man used by me. I mentioned real world situations

A) there is no register of PPR so you need to create one, which requires legislation and its' own rules

B) So only people renting can be considered to be living in a property if not PPR.

C) Other people in nursing home paying for their own care will be subject to the tax

Now there are also details you are ignoring or not stated

i) People who decide to work abroad for a while will be taxed

ii) holiday homes will be taxed

iii) no mention of how long before the vacant tax starts or stops (some suggested 2 years others 6 months)

iv) No tax on semi vacant property

v) No mention of short term lets

vi) how to deal with people moving home as the PPR takes 6 months at least

vii) No mention of the rate and how it will be calculated

So not so simple and ignores other laws and our constitution. There is a reason it is currently set as is but as said you are creating the new rules and you really need to look at the current tax and modify that. The 30 days in a property is very important and you need to address that.

Still don't understand why you are so bothered by individuals when it is the councils that own the most vacant and derelict property. Can you explain that?

If I was to introduce it, I’d explore doing it differently.

Increase the LPT to some much much higher level (in line with other countries like USA). Then offer a rebate back to the current LPT levels where the owner provides evidence of it being a PPR or fair deal or whatever other carve outs are deemed appropriate with verifiable PPS numbers. Push the administrative overhead to the people. Very easy then to cross reference PPS number with revenue income data etc.

This process of validating PPRs must already exist for CGT relief anyway.

Would also psychologically be better. We have an international average level of property tax but we offer our single home owners a massive tax rebate to support people living in Ireland. Might stop some of the ‘communism’ talk