nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Property tax means you don't own your home.

Jimmy Garlic

Property tax is money extorted from you by the state, you get absolutely nothing in return. Choose not to pay and you will be eventually be treated as a criminal, financially ruined, or even evicted, despite the fact you have done no harm to anyone. The system is contemptible and it is the essence of serfdom. If you have to pay a tax on your home then you simply don't own it anymore, you are paying rent to the state.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Frank Lee Midere

No Pants wrote: »

I don't think that's true. If I remember correctly, the health levy was 4% and the income levy was 2%. The USC for most people is 7% and the liability threshold is lower.

And those taxes were just a few years old. The USC was just a rename. A rebrand.

shruikan2553

I'm going to assume that Donegal_road is from and talking about Donegal. There is little services to avail of. Any that do exist are piss poor. Sometimes it feels like the government thinks we belong to the north and forgets about us.

Buzz Killington the third

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Exactly. Property tax goes towards the services in a locality, for the benefi of everyone in that locality.

Then it should be a flat rate, and not based on property value. If your property is worth more than others, it doesn't mean you'll be using the local main street any more and you certainly don't get better value for money for what you pay.

No Pants

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

And those taxes were just a few years old. The USC was just a rename. A rebrand.

They were nothing but a cash grab. Calling them a levy meant that they could be applied to almost all income, tax credits didn't apply. If you earn anything over the dole rate, the state wants its cut. That's less than €5 a hour, less than minimum wage.

Amirani

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

Then it should be a flat rate, and not based on property value. If your property is worth more than others, it doesn't mean you'll be using the local main street any more and you certainly don't get better value for money for what you pay.

But taxes should be progressive and seek to redistribute wealth. People need to stop looking on them as service charges.

Amirani

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I'm going to assume that Donegal_road is from and talking about Donegal. There is little services to avail of. Any that do exist are piss poor. Sometimes it feels like the government thinks we belong to the north and forgets about us.

Do you not have a health service/education service/police service?

I'm fairly sure more money is spent by Government in Donegal than it gets back in taxation.

No Pants

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I'm going to assume that Donegal_road is from and talking about Donegal. There is little services to avail of. Any that do exist are piss poor. Sometimes it feels like the government thinks we belong to the north and forgets about us.

That's what happens when you decide to live on the far side of Ballygobackwards. You have less services because everything is more expensive to provide.

It'd be worse if the good people of Dublin didn't subsidise you as much as they do or at all.

The government forces utility companies to provide people in remote areas with services at the same price as everyone else. If they stop doing that one day, you'll soon see how much things cost.

Buzz Killington the third

Diego Simeone wrote: »

But taxes should be progressive and seek to redistribute wealth. People need to stop looking on them as services charges.

The people of Ireland were assured that the tax would cover local services. It was clearly a lie that nobody believed anyway, but I fail to see why this tax should be progressive. Paying more, doesn't give you any more benefits.

Amirani

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

The people of Ireland were assured that the tax would cover local services. It was clearly a lie that nobody believed anyway, but I fail to see why this tax should be progressive. Paying more, doesn't give you any more benefits.

Either does paying more income tax? Ideally all taxation should be progressive.

Buzz Killington the third

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Either does paying more income tax? Ideally all taxation should be progressive.

My biggest issue with this tax is that it has been imposed upon us based on what we already own. When you buy a car you know what the tax will be. They've just turned around and said "oh that's a nice house, give me €x tax now please". Going forward, people will see what the tax will be but for people who have already purchased a house and probable paid a lot in the way of stamp duty it's just nonsense!

Amirani

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

My biggest issue with this tax is that it has been imposed upon us based on what we already own. When you buy a car you know what the tax will be. They've just turned around and said "oh that's a nice house, give me €x tax now please". Going forward, people will see what the tax will be but for people who have already purchased a house and probable paid a lot in the way of stamp duty it's just nonsense!

Why should those that are so wealthy that they don't have to work be exempt from tax? Most super wealthy individuals don't pay income tax. A wealth tax such as this is easing the tax burden on income tax payers and shifting it towards those who hold wealth.

Maximus Alexander

comongethappy wrote: »

The road budget for 2013 was just over €400 million

Motorists contribute over €4 bn in taxes.

No one gives proportionally more for receiving less than the motorist.

Oh, did they build all the roads in the country in 2013?

Buzz Killington the third

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Why should those that are so wealthy that they don't have to work be exempt from tax?

First, I never mentioned anything of the sort.

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Most super wealthy individuals don't pay income tax.

Utter nonsense.

Diego Simeone wrote: »

A wealth tax such as this is easing the tax burden on income tax payers and shifting it towards those who hold wealth.

The wealthy pay the majority of the tax. Tax them more and they'll just leave the country, it's that easy.

Amirani

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

First, I never mentioned anything of the sort.

Utter nonsense.

The wealthy pay the majority of the tax. Tax them more and they'll just leave the country, it's that easy.

I'm talking about super wealthy rather than wealthy. You clearly don't understand the distinction.

If they leave the country because of an increase in property tax, they'll still have to pay the tax or else they'll lose their asset. It doesn't work like income taxes.

IK09

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:rolleyes:

of course you own it, stop being ridiculous

You own it, but the bank has an interest in it. Thats why Buildings insurance is necessary, to protect the Banks interest in the property.

Buzz Killington the third

Diego Simeone wrote: »

I'm talking about super wealthy rather than wealthy. You clearly don't understand the distinction.

If they leave the country because of an increase in property tax, they'll still have to pay the tax or else they'll lose their asset. It doesn't work like income taxes.

If your argument is that the size or location of your house is an indication of wealth then it's a flawed argument. There are numerous people who bought houses up to as recent as 25 years ago that are now worth over 100x more than what they paid for them. This doesn't mean they have money to burn!

Maximus Alexander

Diego Simeone wrote: »

I'm talking about super wealthy rather than wealthy. You clearly don't understand the distinction.

If they leave the country because of an increase in property tax, they'll still have to pay the tax or else they'll lose their asset. It doesn't work like income taxes.

This is all very wishy washy. Define 'super wealthy'? What's their current tax take? What do you propose it should be? How significant would the difference be as a percentage of the current total tax take?

Sounds like a platitude to me.

folan

still waiting to see how property tax means i cant own a home.

[Deleted User]

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

If your argument is that the size or location of your house is an indication of wealth then it's a flawed argument. There are numerous people who bought houses up to as recent as 25 years ago that are now worth over 100x more than what they paid for them. This doesn't mean they have money to burn!

Particularly those who inherited family houses (and paid that stupid inheritance tax, I'm sure, which is again "give me your stuff for no reason") and can barely afford the upkeep
First the argument is that it's for services - which it was supposed to be but certainly isn't now, hello council tax "lol of course it's not ringfenced" and now the argument is "well they're wealthy and we want some".
Seriously
Paying stamp duty and all sorts of other taxes on buying a house is bad enough in the first place, property tax is nonsense and "other people do it too yknow" isn't an argument for it

noodler

Geuze wrote: »

The USC replaces two previous taxes.

It is, in fact, lower than those previous two taxes.

So most people pay less USC than what they paid in the two previous taxes.

No Pants wrote: »

I don't think that's true. If I remember correctly, the health levy was 4% and the income levy was 2%. The USC for most people is 7% and the liability threshold is lower.

Yeah, you had to be earning over 24,000 to pay the Health Levy IIRC.

Still though, less for anyone earning more than 24,000 than the Health and Income Levies combined.

The sooner they just amalgamate the USC and Income Tax the better. They both go into the same exchequer pot to fund general services, they are both taxes on income and neither is going anywhere.

sbsquarepants

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

The unfortunate consequence of people buying golden toilets for their Bulgarian apartments while on weekend NY shopping trips back in 2005.

It's actually largely the unfortunate consequence of a spineless government stupidly agreeing to nationalise the debts of a reckless and greedy private company. But sure don't let the facts get in the way of that misguided high horse of yours.

Amirani

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

This is all very wishy washy. Define 'super wealthy'? What's their current tax take? What do you propose it should be? How significant would the difference be as a percentage of the current total tax take?

Sounds like a platitude to me.

Neither Denis O'Brien or Michael Smurfit pay any income tax in Ireland. There's 54 individuals who have a net worth of over 50m that don't pay income tax in Ireland, despite living here. I don't think it's unreasonable to be taxing their substantial assets in Ireland via property taxes.

Amirani

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

If your argument is that the size or location of your house is an indication of wealth then it's a flawed argument. There are numerous people who bought houses up to as recent as 25 years ago that are now worth over 100x more than what they paid for them. This doesn't mean they have money to burn!

If you have a house worth over 5 million then yes, it is an indication of wealth.

RandomName2

Turtwig wrote: »

Motor tax, sorry, road tax, means you don't own your vehicle.

Of course you do: you can own several vehicles and never pay a red cent in motor tax and the state can't do anything to you provided you don't drive on public roads. Generally that isn't an option for people of course, with the exception perhaps of farmers.

sbsquarepants

bluewolf wrote: »

Particularly those who inherited family houses (and paid that stupid inheritance tax, I'm sure, which is again "give me your stuff for no reason")

Inheritance tax is particularly obscene imo. Anything left to you by, say your parents - they have already paid all the taxes on it, then they die and the state says - eh sorry for your loss, but we'd like some money for no particular reason, yes we know it's been paid already but we'd like it again thanks. Fúcking vultures:mad:

RandomName2

Diego Simeone wrote: »

If you have a house worth over 5 million then yes, it is an indication of wealth.

Nominally, yes, but no indication of capacity to pay.

Someone in Dublin should pay 5 times what someone in Limerick pays because wealth ...

folan

still waiting for anyone to explain how property tax means i can't own a home

[Deleted User]

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Inheritance tax is particularly obscene imo. Anything left to you by, say your parents - they have already paid all the taxes on it, then they die and the state says - eh sorry for your loss, but we'd like some money for no particular reason, yes we know it's been paid already but we'd like it again thanks. Fúcking vultures:mad:

That's my usual rant ^^
Pay tax on earned income, pay tax on house purchase, pay tax again on property tax, pay tax again on inheritance?
fcuk off...

Amirani

RandomName2 wrote: »

Nominally, yes, but no indication of capacity to pay.

Someone in Dublin should pay 5 times what someone in Limerick pays because wealth ...

I wouldn't particularly have a problem with the geographical element being removed from the property tax - hence any charges being based around the variance in values from the mean levels within an area of the country.

Maximus Alexander

bluewolf wrote: »

That's my usual rant ^^
Pay tax on earned income, pay tax on house purchase, pay tax again on property tax, pay tax again on inheritance?
fcuk off...

They do this kind of thing all the time - pay tax on earned income, pay tax on buying a car, pay motor tax, pay tax on your insurance, pay tax on fuel.