Spare a thought for the leafy suburbs...

MarkAnthony · 02-04-2015 07:46PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

....

our pocket change rates of .18 - .25 are highlighted as in issue, where is the mention of the outrageous income tax rates over 200 times higher over the pathetic sum of E33,800?!

It's been covered off at the very beginning of this thread.

This is an issue local to housing, as such income tax is a blunt instrument to use and no longer applies once people have less involvement with the income tax system (e.g. retired). Income tax was essentially used for everything in this country including the bonkers rent allowance system and social housing. A sea change needs to happen where this is funded from property tax and income tax can be reduced giving people more choice.

Earn €100,000 a year and have no kids and quite happy living in a one bed apartment. Kudos to you - you pay your bit in income tax but not as much as someone living in a five bed house who is going to be paying more in property tax than you.

daheff · 02-04-2015 08:16PM

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I don't think you understand, so I'm done trying to explain it.

I do understand...but thank you anyway

NewDirection · 03-04-2015 08:11AM

pwurple wrote: »

Because it's easier to provide support systems for people when they all live close to eachother.

You don't have to drag roads, electricity pylons, water pipes, gas lines, sewage systems all over the countryside, if people live in a city.

It's easier to provide them with an efficient public transport system, so you don't have thousands of cars burning millions of litres of fuel, and spending a lot of their day commuting like zombies.

It's simpler, cheaper and better to provide big hospitals with highly specialised people in them, than pock mark the whole country with tiny pissy clinics with inexperienced people.

It provides easy access for people to universities, schools, jobs, airports, garda stations, post offices, shops.

Plus it preserves our countryside and wildlife. Coating the whole extended countryside in concrete driveways, ride-on mowers and the pylons to supply them is pretty damaging to the original environment.

There is no point in even arguing against this. These are valid points, but my viewpoint is so far in the opposite direction we would never agree.

If the company line is that the LPT should fund local government and services then why not give them more freedom to set their own rates of tax.
The +/- 15% was a good start to this in my opinion.
Each county council does its own accounts. If you have a surplus for your area, reduce the LPT locally, if you're making a loss raise it.
The councils with the more costly services charge a higher amount. And within the locality people pay their share based on their house value. House prices within a locality should on the whole rise and fall together.

evolving_doors · 03-04-2015 08:20AM

Tabnabs wrote: »

Like stamp duty when first introduced, it is a short term vision to increase the state coffers. But when properties increase in value (on paper) then the tax increases at a similar rate. But when is the last time the average PAYE home-owner got a pay rise?

If that comes to pass, you'll see a whole new Irish Water scale of protesting. Many of these properties are owned by retired people who have limited means to afford any increase and who are the most vocal and largest voting block in the country.

The tax bands don't make sense in the context of a boom and bust Irish property cycle, which we seem to love rapidly inflated property prices.

Downsize maybe! it might be better to let someone with a family move in rather than a retired couple have a typical 3-4 bed semi-d.

pwurple · 03-04-2015 09:31AM

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Okay, are there many families living on the street? I've not seen that many, thankfully.

Is there ridiculous heat in the property market in relation to family houses?

Would it be a fair statement to assume that there are probably quite a few people 'stuck' in apartments due to the last boom/bust cycle?

That should tell you that:

Supply is not x units = supply. It's x units of suitable accommodation across various needs and demographics. What a load of old people sitting on family homes does is create a restriction in one area.

As an aside this happened in Oxford in the 80s. Oxford is still the least affordable place to live in the UK (that includes London) because of it's small size, lack of building and lack of a weighting. Retirement apartments were built and older people moved into them, the problem diminished somewhat, it's still not ideal but families can get housed without this crazy fecking rent allowance system. At least they managed to get their social housing system into (somewhat) order.

The same can't be done to private tenants and rightly so, however disincentives can be applied, incentives should be applied and it demonstrates what can be done with the right mix of housing.

... so LPT does not increase supply afterall?

You have stated again you want the elderly moved out of their homes so you can move in.

Maybe instead of phunting them into retirement camps, we can skip a step and start up the rolling crematorium as well. Sorry, that's a bit facetious, but you can't assume one group of people should be moved out for another. It's just not right.

I think part of the problem is the assumption that a family home has to be a certain thing. I don't live in a standard family home... we have a two bed place in the city for a family of 4, and we absolutely love where we live. I've lived in amsterdam, where families of 4 easily live in 2 bed apartments. There is plenty of room for apartments and high rise with superb amenities in our cities. Places that have outside spaces, room for pets and bikes and a bit of gardening.

pwurple · 03-04-2015 09:32AM

NewDirection wrote: »

There is no point in even arguing against this. These are valid points, but my viewpoint is so far in the opposite direction we would never agree.

We don't have to agree, but there's no harm in stating your opinion, unless you are ashamed of it.

NewDirection · 03-04-2015 09:51AM

pwurple wrote: »

We don't have to agree, but there's no harm in stating your opinion, unless you are ashamed of it.

I wasn't trying to pick an argument, so no need for the goading.

All of your reasons seem to be from a cost / convenience to governemnt point of view ( apart from the countryside / wildlife point). I just see citizens of this country as more than just a cost to the state. There are more reasons why people may prefer to live outside of a city, which may not make financial sense from a administration point of view, but in my opinion are just as valid. People may like to stay in their native homeplace, or to live in these beautiful parts of the countryside which you mentioned, or to be close to family. Also there is work to be done in these parts of the country. It wouldn't make sense for a dairy farmer to relocate to Dublin city centre (I know thats a ridiculous comment, just indulge me one this one).
I think that farmer has as much right to be close to a 'pissy clinic' as your average city dweller. It would be a horrible place to live if we ran hospitals like a profit making company and closed all these 'pissy clinics' people all around the country rely on.

I think the state did a great job in trying to roll out infrastructure to all (nearly all) citezens of the state, without charging extra for those hard to reach cases such as the islands or very rural places. The infrastructure you spoke of ( roads, electricity pylons, water pipes, gas lines, sewage systems ) are more of less done, so there should be little extra capital spend on these compared to the city. Your assumption that only experienced medical professionals work in city hospitals is just way off the mark also.

I wasn't going to call you on it, but since you pushed me, your point on commuting is completely backwards. The only zombie like commuters I know are commuting to Dublin, as a result of a large concentration of jobs in a small area. The only way to reduce the amount of commuters is to spread the jobs/work around. Your model of moving as many people to the city just makes this worse.

cerastes · 03-04-2015 10:10AM

daheff wrote: »

conspiracy nonsense? Really?

look at the rates in countries across the world vs Ireland.

Australia varies by state (Victoria) -Up to approx. EUR 190K is 0%. 190-460k is 0.2%, 460-800K 0.5%

Germany depends on state- 2.6% to 3.5% (Western states), 5%-10% (Eastern states)

Spain real estate tax 0.4% (urban) 0.3% (rural)

Austria basic federal rate is 2% (but can be adjusted by local municipal authorities up to +500%)

Belgium depends on region but between 1.25% and 2.5%

New Zealand -no property tax

Canada -depends on state and between 0.61% and 2.56%

Ireland between 0.18% and 0.25%

so it seems to me that the Irish tax levels are particularly low comparatively. Which means theres plenty of scope for the rates to go up.

source http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/

on_my_oe wrote: »

This is incorrect; in NZ it is called 'Rates' (from 'rateable value') and is set by and paid to your council.

For example here is the calculation for Auckland City;

Rates are based on the following proposed components for the 2014/2015 rating year.

A Uniform Annual General Charge of $373.35 (a fixed rate applied to every rateable property) and a general rate (based on the capital value of the property) for nine differential groups:

urban residential 1.0

business 2.43 x the urban residential rate

rural business 2.19 x the urban residential rate

rural residential 0.9 x the urban residential rate

Franklin urban business 2.23 x the urban residential rate (to increase by 0.1 annually until it comes in-line with the rest of the region in 2015/2016)

Franklin rural business 2.01 x the urban residential rate

farm and lifestyle properties 0.8 x the urban residential rate

sea-only access properties 0.25 x the urban residential rate

uninhabited islands 0.0 x the urban residential rate

.

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/ratesbuildingproperty/ratesvaluations/yourrates/Pages/rateschangesfromjuly2014.aspx#how

For my parents, this means they pay around $1,350, and they pay extra for refuse collection and water (since 1990-ish). My grandparents receive no reduction for age, pension etc, and there is no deferment policy (that I'm aware of). My siblings and cousins club together and pay my grandparents charges (plus some other costs like their water bill, refuse charges and home insurance). This isn't in anticipation of any inheritance, but in recognition of how lucky we were to have grandparents who babysat, kissed our knees better, turned up to sports days, made mountains of cakes and sandwiches, defused squabbles, and slipped us the odd dollar.

However NZ doesn't have stamp duty (never had, so far as I'm aware) and capital gains tax is unlikely unless you are doing quick property flips.

pwurple wrote: »

How does the LPT increase supply?

gaius c wrote: »

Seeing as you like to compare us with other countries, most other western countries have a property tax. We were an analomy in not having one.

The thing is, they seem to have something in return for their property tax, accountability too.
What services are we provided with? on top of that other countries have different structures and levels for their taxation and costs to the enduser arent anywhere near comparable, yet still no drive to reduce those costs? e.g. motor tax doesnt go to roads, but just into a big pot for handing out, yet our motor tax is among the highest going, but what do we get for it? Id much rather see what is being paid for by taxes, if its a penalty of owning a car is that motor tax pays for other services, then why isnt a viable alternative available, but it isnt because of other problems to do with mismanagement of transport organisations. Why not shift costs related to other services to those services, it certainly doesnt seem to go towards roads and is just a way of hiding institutional incompetence and mismanagement in other bodies.

All forcing or suggesting people move does is shift the availability of certain property towards others that might make better or different use of it, but with no real viable alternative, why would people move, and it seems they arent, the solution? foist costs on people to push them to move.
Why isnt there a move to free up suitably located property in cities from people that are renting it still from local authorities rather than forcing those that managed to get into a privately owned home, its privately owned, what right do the Govt, policy makers or anyone even have to try and suggest what others do with their private property.

Its like saying, you have a nice car garaged that you rarely use, I dont think you're getting the proper usage out of it, I insist you sell the thing to someone who'll drive some miles up on it, or I'll tax you more to keep it, which may force you to sell it anyway.
Result, I get my way and some transaction charges and taxes into the bargain.

pwurple · 03-04-2015 10:15AM

NewDirection wrote: »

I wasn't trying to pick an argument, so no need for the goading.

All of your reasons seem to be from a cost / convenience to governemnt point of view ( apart from the countryside / wildlife point). I just see citizens of this country as more than just a cost to the state. There are more reasons why people may prefer to live outside of a city, which may not make financial sense from a administration point of view, but in my opinion are just as valid. People may like to stay in their native homeplace, or to live in these beautiful parts of the countryside which you mentioned, or to be close to family. Also there is work to be done in these parts of the country. It wouldn't make sense for a dairy farmer to relocate to Dublin city centre (I know thats a ridiculous comment, just indulge me one this one).

I don't want to move people out of the countryside at all. And my commuting point was around people living far from their jobs. A dairy farmer has the best commute of all if he lives on his farm.

I think that farmer has as much right to be close to a 'pissy clinic' as your average city dweller. It would be a horrible place to live if we ran hospitals like a profit making company and closed all these 'pissy clinics' people all around the country rely on.

Sure, he does. Can he spend 3 million on providing it?

I think the state did a great job in trying to roll out infrastructure to all (nearly all) citezens of the state, without charging extra for those hard to reach cases such as the islands or very rural places. The infrastructure you spoke of ( roads, electricity pylons, water pipes, gas lines, sewage systems ) are more of less done, so there should be little extra capital spend on these compared to the city.

You're wrong unfortunately, the infrastructure is not there. population continues to increase. Have a look at many of the community groups constantly campaigning against pylons. Easy enough to find plenty of them, but here's Ballaghaderreen Against Pylons, Knockraha Against Pylons. https://www.facebook.com/BallaghaderreenAgainstPylons http://www.eveningecho.ie/cork-news/knockraha-pylon-pressure/

Your assumption that only experienced medical professionals work in city hospitals is just way off the mark also.

There's no way there is anything like the standard of experienced radiologists, oncologists, cardiologists working in rural ireland as there are in the cities. If you can show me otherwise, I'll believe you.

I wasn't going to call you on it, but since you pushed me, your point on commuting is completely backwards. The only zombie like commuters I know are commuting to Dublin, as a result of a large concentration of jobs in a small area. The only way to reduce the amount of commuters is to spread the jobs/work around. Your model of moving as many people to the city just makes this worse.

I don't think the large employers are gong to uproot their multimillion investment plants and smatter them piecemeal all over the country, just as our Dairy Farmer is unlikely to dig up his farm, split it into dots and move it elsewhere.

Making good quality homes available close to work is a much better idea.

MarkAnthony · 03-04-2015 12:47PM

pwurple wrote: »

... so LPT does not increase supply afterall?

So you're refusing to engage with the central issue?

This type of 'look a caught you in my clever trap of words' non sense helps no one and just leads to bickering.

pwurple wrote: »

You have stated again you want the elderly moved out of their homes so you can move in.

Eh? When did I say that. I don;t want to move in with your Granny, this is a general conversation.

pwurple wrote: »

Maybe instead of phunting them into retirement camps, we can skip a step and start up the rolling crematorium as well. Sorry, that's a bit facetious, but you can't assume one group of people should be moved out for another. It's just not right.

It's about disincentive not forceably removing someone. The rest of that was just hyperbole.

pwurple wrote: »

... I think part of the problem is the assumption that a family home has to be a certain thing. I don't live in a standard family home... we have a two bed place in the city for a family of 4, and we absolutely love where we live. I've lived in amsterdam, where families of 4 easily live in 2 bed apartments. There is plenty of room for apartments and high rise with superb amenities in our cities. Places that have outside spaces, room for pets and bikes and a bit of gardening.

Dublin is not Amsterdam. Two kids into one room with no provision to have a guest stay also isn't my idea of an ideal living arrnagement either but that's a matter for you. If the 2 bed is nice and has a garden and room for pets why not swap with Granny?

pwurple · 03-04-2015 01:40PM

MarkAnthony wrote: »

So you're refusing to engage with the central issue?

This type of 'look a caught you in my clever trap of words' non sense helps no one and just leads to bickering.

Em, you're the one making completely outlandish claims with absolutely nothing to back them up. You're going to get called out on it if you do that on a public forum. Sorry 'bout that. LPT does nothing for supply increase. Shuffling people from one place to a crappier place just puts a different bunch of people in the place with no access to services. It changes nothing, it adds nothing, it just shuffles the cards.

It's about disincentive not forceably removing someone.

Yes, exactly my point. It is ALL about disincentive... and I think the disencentives are arseways. We should be incentivising city living, and disincentivising polluting the countryside with one-off housing. Why in the sweet name of feck are Irish people completely blind to ruining our own environment?

Dublin is not Amsterdam.

Yes, Dublin is not amsterdam, it's not new york, it's not london, it's not berlin, it's not barcelona. Isn't it about time it grew up and started behaving like a big boy though? A modern populated city? So that instead of a doughnut effect of people driving for hours to the outskirts, and a dead inner city, there was instead a community of life and families within it? And by families, I include everyone, from babies to greatgrandparents.

Two kids into one room with no provision to have a guest stay also isn't my idea of an ideal living arrnagement either but that's a matter for you. If the 2 bed is nice and has a garden and room for pets why not swap with Granny?

Well, granny lives pretty near... so there'd be no point to be honest. I grew up in cities, I've always lived in cities. I like my services to be close, with zero commute so we can spend a lot of time with the kids. I'm not a part-time B&B or hotel, but luckily there are plenty of those nearby too.

kreuzberg09 · 03-04-2015 02:02PM

And all the while, local authority tenants pay nothing

quadrifoglio verde · 03-04-2015 02:39PM

cerastes wrote: »

The thing is, they seem to have something in return for their property tax, accountability too.
What services are we provided with? on top of that other countries have different structures and levels for their taxation and costs to the enduser arent anywhere near comparable, yet still no drive to reduce those costs? e.g. motor tax doesnt go to roads, but just into a big pot for handing out, yet our motor tax is among the highest going, but what do we get for it? Id much rather see what is being paid for by taxes, if its a penalty of owning a car is that motor tax pays for other services, then why isnt a viable alternative available, but it isnt because of other problems to do with mismanagement of transport organisations. Why not shift costs related to other services to those services, it certainly doesnt seem to go towards roads and is just a way of hiding institutional incompetence and mismanagement in other bodies.

All forcing or suggesting people move does is shift the availability of certain property towards others that might make better or different use of it, but with no real viable alternative, why would people move, and it seems they arent, the solution? foist costs on people to push them to move.
Why isnt there a move to free up suitably located property in cities from people that are renting it still from local authorities rather than forcing those that managed to get into a privately owned home, its privately owned, what right do the Govt, policy makers or anyone even have to try and suggest what others do with their private property.

Its like saying, you have a nice car garaged that you rarely use, I dont think you're getting the proper usage out of it, I insist you sell the thing to someone who'll drive some miles up on it, or I'll tax you more to keep it, which may force you to sell it anyway.
Result, I get my way and some transaction charges and taxes into the bargain.

Property tax contributes to the running of local services. While you've to pay for the fire brigade if it calls out to you, call out fees doesn't cover the cost of the fire brigade service.

We could scrap water charges and household taxes tomorrow, but to do that wed have to Find the money somewhere else.
So it does go to services, just services that you might want, yet

MarkAnthony · 03-04-2015 02:41PM

pwurple wrote: »

Em, you're the one making completely outlandish claims with absolutely nothing to back them up. You're going to get called out on it if you do that on a public forum. Sorry 'bout that. LPT does nothing for supply increase. Shuffling people from one place to a crappier place just puts a different bunch of people in the place with no access to services. It changes nothing, it adds nothing, it just shuffles the cards.

But you've called no one on anything. It's been explained to you in simple terms but you've popped your fingers in your ears and gone 'can't hear you I'm right'.

LPT is a property tax, the reasns for property based taxes are self evident.

If you want to produce souces to refute there effectiveness that's fine I'd be delighted to read them. Fact of the matter is it's designed to assist with people living in approriate housing.

pwurple wrote: »

Yes, exactly my point. It is ALL about disincentive... and I think the disencentives are arseways. We should be incentivising city living, and disincentivising polluting the countryside with one-off housing. Why in the sweet name of feck are Irish people completely blind to ruining our own environment?

This just undermines your own point. If fmaily housing was avaiable there'd be no need to build one off housing all over the place.

pwurple wrote: »

Yes, Dublin is not amsterdam, it's not new york, it's not london, it's not berlin, it's not barcelona. Isn't it about time it grew up and started behaving like a big boy though? A modern populated city? So that instead of a doughnut effect of people driving for hours to the outskirts, and a dead inner city, there was instead a community of life and families within it? And by families, I include everyone, from babies to greatgrandparents.

Again, undermining your own position. That's exactly what I and others are suggesting. Families living in houses, single people living in apartments, maximising density and living conditions.

pwurple · 03-04-2015 03:02PM

MarkAnthony wrote: »

But you've called no one on anything. It's been explained to you in simple terms but you've popped your fingers in your ears and gone 'can't hear you I'm right'.

Are you seeing what you are writing? You're telling us that shuffling one person from one place to another is "increasing supply." And I'm the one popping fingers in my ears? Hehe. Funny guy.

LPT is a property tax, the reasns for property based taxes are self evident.

If you want to produce souces to refute there effectiveness that's fine I'd be delighted to read them. Fact of the matter is it's designed to assist with people living in approriate housing.

Yes, yes and yes. We agree for the most part. Except ideally, it's implemented correctly. Based on sq metres, and location. NOT giving a super-duper-incentive to live in the countryside by making the tax lower, and discouraging people from living in the cities by tacking an 32k lifetime additional tax on a property which will already be more expensive to begin with.

This just undermines your own point. If fmaily housing was avaiable there'd be no need to build one off housing all over the place.

And how is LPT going to encourage families to live in cities if it is HIGHER for cities? How do incentives work for you? An incentive is lower tax, surely to goodness we agree there?

Again, undermining your own position. That's exactly what I and others are suggesting. Families living in houses, single people living in apartments, maximising density and living conditions.

OK, I need to explain this again obviously...

Here are my assumptions:

A) We agree that city living is to be generally encouraged? (Yes, you're with me so far here? No, not forcing dairy farmers onto grafton street, just encouraging those who have a choice between a one-off mansion on a road to Athy, and an inner city smaller place near their office, to choose the city.)

LPT can neither create nor destroy housing units. Supply comes from elsewhere, and that is a massive problem I agree... But it comes from people building their own, property developers, planning authorities and zoning changes, social housing. Not LPT.

C) A lower tax is an incentive, a higher tax is a disincentive.

D) Property tax is required.

Assuming all those are true, then LPT should not be based on value. It should be based on SqM and location.

Spare a thought for the leafy suburbs...

Comments