Spare a thought for the leafy suburbs...

daheff · 02-04-2015 9:31am

McGaggs wrote: »

Plus widows pension, plus living alone allowance and then someone in such a valuable property would be likely to have made retirement provisions.

But by having higher savings the widow would lose out on any means tested benefits....so by selling up shes no longer living in her home of 30/40/50 years AND is now out of pocket too.

NewDirection · 02-04-2015 9:40am

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Because the LPT leads to more stable house prices in the long term rather than a boom bust cycle.

I really hate this line.
It doesn't lead to more stable house prices. All it does is reduce your purchasing power by adding more cost to owning property. It basically diverts cash that you would have given to the seller, to the government.

For something to counteract a boom bust cycle there needs to be a quick feedback loop that creates supply if house prices get high and reduces supply if house prices get low. I don't see how the LPT does anything but take money out of everyones pockets?

Michael D Not Higgins · 02-04-2015 9:43am

daheff wrote: »

ust because other countries do it doesn't mean its right or the best thing to do. Back in the late 1800/early 1900s a lot of countries in Europe went 'a raping and a pillaging' through Africa...colonising countries. Does that make it right? Should Ireland have done it too (and they did consider it)??

That's a strawman argument.

Sala · 02-04-2015 10:01am

Slightly off topic, but there is very little suitable accommodation to encourage elderly people to downsize. An elderly relative of mine wanted to move, she is totally compos mentis and fairly fit i.e. doesn't need nursing care, but wanted some sort of retirement village or sheltered housing where she would have her own apartment, but on site facilities such as a canteen and sitting room, but with good transport links so she can come and go. She couldn't find one so moved into a nursing home, even though she doesn't need near the level of care provided in one.

mariaalice · 02-04-2015 10:49am

If she is in Dublin tell her to have a look at the Sue Ryder foundation in Dalkey, its exactly what your relative wants the only thing is its very popular and has a waiting list. There are other one in Ireland as well.

I had a look at their website and they have place in Laois, Tipperary and Carlow as well.

MarkAnthony · 02-04-2015 11:40am

NewDirection wrote: »

I really hate this line.
It doesn't lead to more stable house prices. All it does is reduce your purchasing power by adding more cost to owning property. It basically diverts cash that you would have given to the seller, to the government.

For something to counteract a boom bust cycle there needs to be a quick feedback loop that creates supply if house prices get high and reduces supply if house prices get low. I don't see how the LPT does anything but take money out of everyones pockets?

It provides a disincentive to hang on to high value property. Usually there is a reason for the high value... it's demand. Is this not patently obvious?

Money being diverted from a 750K 3 bed semi in Rialto to the government is a very, very good thing. It keeps the initial cost down, stops epople going nuts and provides a revenue stream to those less fortunate (or less bonkers) to be paying 750K for a 3 bed semi.

NewDirection · 02-04-2015 11:50am

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It provides a disincentive to hang on to high value property. Usually there is a reason for the high value... it's demand. Is this not patently obvious?

Money being diverted from a 750K 3 bed semi in Rialto to the government is a very, very good thing. It keeps the initial cost down, stops epople going nuts and provides a revenue stream to those less fortunate (or less bonkers) to be paying 750K for a 3 bed semi.

What your describing is not stability in the market. Its a general depression of prices, across the country independent of demand.

If there's a sharp rise in house prices the LPT doesn't respond quickly enough to counteract it either, so I don't see where you're coming from with it adding stability.

I do agree with you that it should have an effect on lowering house prices slightly as it reduces the amount of money available to the buyer. The cost of accommodation to the buyer stays the same in theory (LPT + mortgage costs), so the headline price the house sells for drops, but the buyer is no better off, and the seller has just lost out.

pwurple · 02-04-2015 11:52am

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

But LPT is just a drop in the ocean for those properties. Why if they're derelict for a number of years are you putting any blame at all on the LPT? Yeah maybe it's another cost on top of everything else but hardly the one holding them back.

Em, didn't I JUST say I'm not blaming LPT for causing it? I'll say it again. Still not laying the blame on LPT. It's brand spanking new, it's caused feck all so far.

My long-term issue with the LPT applied to sale price, is that is being used for beating people about the head with a seemingly random penalty, instead of using it to any civic end. It's wide open to fraud, and on the face of it, uncontrollable. Over the space of 50 years you won't know if your particular street will rocket in value.

This kind of meaningless penalty is also why it is deeply unpopular, much like the historically stupid poll tax in the UK.

How about instead of making the charge low for middle-of-nowhere living, and high for towns and cities... they instead use this as gentle encouragement to living in places where we can provide all the services cheaply and efficiently. And by services I mean water, electricity, gas, broadband, roads, education, jobs, healthcare, entertainment, community supports, etc

A two bed place in Dublin city will be paying multiples of the tax on a 5 bedroom place in south kerry. Why do we want to push people out of cities?

gaius c · 02-04-2015 11:52am

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

That's a strawman argument.

And one of the silliest I've seen in quite a while.

seamus · 02-04-2015 11:56am

daheff wrote: »

That's at current rates. We all know that the current rates will not stay in force for long...just long enough for people to accept the tax. Just like water taxes

Conspiracy nonsense.

They will rise with inflation, and at worst double if we hit another recession. Even then they would still be relatively low.

It's not in any government or local authority's interest to increase rates beyond the affordability of those who have to pay it.

Caliden · 02-04-2015 12:18pm

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.

Since we're comparing to other countries.

The U.K. offers a 25% reduction in council tax for retired people living alone.

People can get a further reduction of council tax if they have less than £16,000 in savings or are on a low income.
Couldn't find details on low income as you have to contact your local council so it's probably done on the council tax charge and average wage for the area.

People can get a 100% reduction depending on circumstances and it's sickening to read some of the comments here from people telling the woman she should just sell up and move out.

I think their opinion would change after working for 40 years.

Michael D Not Higgins · 02-04-2015 12:20pm

pwurple wrote: »

Em, didn't I JUST say I'm not blaming LPT for causing it? I'll say it again. Still not laying the blame on LPT. It's brand spanking new, it's caused feck all so far.

My long-term issue with the LPT applied to sale price, is that is being used for beating people about the head with a seemingly random penalty, instead of using it to any civic end. It's wide open to fraud, and on the face of it, uncontrollable. Over the space of 50 years you won't know if your particular street will rocket in value.

This kind of meaningless penalty is also why it is deeply unpopular, much like the historically stupid poll tax in the UK.

How about instead of making the charge low for middle-of-nowhere living, and high for towns and cities... they instead use this as gentle encouragement to living in places where we can provide all the services cheaply and efficiently. And by services I mean water, electricity, gas, broadband, roads, education, jobs, healthcare, entertainment, community supports, etc

A two bed place in Dublin city will be paying multiples of the tax on a 5 bedroom place in south kerry. Why do we want to push people out of cities?

But you're the one that brought it up. If it's irrelevant to LPT why did you bring it up?

Prices are high in the city because people want to live there. If there's an additional cost to living there, they'll factor that into their sums before buying. If that reduces demand in the city, that will reduce prices which will reduce the tax due to a level that's sustainable.

pwurple · 02-04-2015 12:35pm

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Prices are high in the city because people want to live there. If there's an additional cost to living there, they'll factor that into their sums before buying. If that reduces demand in the city, that will reduce prices which will reduce the tax due to a level that's sustainable.

Neither demand, nor prices will reduce in the city... because there is a fundamental problem. Lack of supply. It's a separate issue. If you think freeing up housing in the city by pushing pensioners out is the solution to supply, you are way off the mark. Building more units is the solution. You could wipe out the pensioners out, and it still wouldn't satisfy demand.

LPT also cannot reduce city prices. It's just not going to happen. I'm not sure how you can even consider the slightest possibility of it.

However, what LPT is doing, is incentivising living in the sticks. Can you explain to me why this is a good idea?

Why are we charging less in places where it is more expensive to provide services?

on_my_oe · 02-04-2015 12:45pm

I have no issue with the leafy suburbs of Dublin paying more; I may be wrong but I certainly feel that much of South Dublin receives more value than North Dublin, with public transport being an obvious point. It should also be set at a local area, where councils calculate what they need as an income and set it accordingly, as rural areas shouldn't be subsidised by larger towns. If you chose to live in a rural community, you chose it for all its benefits and faults.

I do think anyone living in a managed development should receive a discount, as they already pay for things like General upkeep.

What I do think should be abolished is stamp duty for primary residences - why should people be penalised for buying their home?

NewDirection · 02-04-2015 12:53pm

pwurple wrote: »

Gently incentivising living in big towns and cities by making the rate lower where you want people to live, rather than the opposite... This is part of the reason LPT is so wildly unpopular. It is being weilded as a penalty. A stick to beat people who bought in an area with good amenities.

Sorry we seem to have jumped past this assumption.
Why do we want people to live in cities again?
I don't see this as an obvious thing.

Michael D Not Higgins · 02-04-2015 1:02pm

pwurple wrote: »

Neither demand, nor prices will reduce in the city... because there is a fundamental problem. Lack of supply. It's a separate issue. If you think freeing up housing in the city by pushing pensioners out is the solution to supply, you are way off the mark. Building more units is the solution. You could wipe out the pensioners out, and it still wouldn't satisfy demand.

LPT also cannot reduce city prices. It's just not going to happen. I'm not sure how you can even consider the slightest possibility of it.

However, what LPT is doing, is incentivising living in the sticks. Can you explain to me why this is a good idea?

Why are we charging less in places where it is more expensive to provide services?

Again and again, no one is asking the pensioners to move out. They can defer the payment with a very modest interest rate.

Also I never said it would reduce prices, just that if demand is reduced, there's less buyers and less competition which could lead to lower prices. Either way the tax will be paid by the owner at a level that they're comfortable paying while owning it.

I have already said I have a problem with it being pegged to the rising and falling market and have extolled the benefits of the UK council tax model.

Michael D Not Higgins · 02-04-2015 1:04pm

NewDirection wrote: »

Sorry we seem to have jumped past this assumption.
Why do we want people to live in cities again?
I don't see this as an obvious thing.

Well seeing as the majority of the population live in urban areas, that's where the jobs are, transport links, lower commute times, services and amenities, etc., etc.

pwurple · 02-04-2015 1:51pm

NewDirection wrote: »

Sorry we seem to have jumped past this assumption.
Why do we want people to live in cities again?
I don't see this as an obvious thing.

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.

daheff · 02-04-2015 2:18pm

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

That's a strawman argument.

regardless as to whether you think this or not, the point remains...just coz other people do it doesn't make it right.

same with any other difference between Irelands tax collection methods and another jurisdictions.

Michael D Not Higgins · 02-04-2015 2:21pm

daheff wrote: »

regardless as to whether you think this or not, the point remains...just coz other people do it doesn't make it right.

same with any other difference between Irelands tax collection methods and another jurisdictions.

It's not whether I think it or not, it's a demonstable fact you used a logical fallacy known as the strawman argument. It diminishes your argument and undermines your point.

Comparison with other jurisdictions is a valid method of showing how to do it since they have been doing it longer and more successfully than Ireland.

daheff · 02-04-2015 2:38pm

seamus wrote: »

Conspiracy nonsense.

They will rise with inflation, and at worst double if we hit another recession. Even then they would still be relatively low.

It's not in any government or local authority's interest to increase rates beyond the affordability of those who have to pay it.

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/

daheff · 02-04-2015 2:45pm

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

It's not whether I think it or not, it's a demonstable fact you used a logical fallacy known as the strawman argument. It diminishes your argument and undermines your point.

Comparison with other jurisdictions is a valid method of showing how to do it since they have been doing it longer and more successfully than Ireland.

No fallacy in my comparison (google it..its all true). similar to saying the death penalty is right because other countries use it.

comparisons are only that ....comparisons. Your comparison to say other countries have a local property tax is incomplete. Not all countries do so...so are those that have a property tax right or wrong? Are those that don't have property tax then wrong or right?

on_my_oe · 02-04-2015 3:49pm

daheff wrote: »

conspiracy nonsense? Really?

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

New Zealand -no property tax

source http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/

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.

Michael D Not Higgins · 02-04-2015 4:05pm

daheff wrote: »

No fallacy in my comparison (google it..its all true). similar to saying the death penalty is right because other countries use it.

comparisons are only that ....comparisons. Your comparison to say other countries have a local property tax is incomplete. Not all countries do so...so are those that have a property tax right or wrong? Are those that don't have property tax then wrong or right?

I'm not disputing what you wrote. I'm disputing your argument which is a logical fallacy which I am dismissing out of hand.

MarkAnthony · 02-04-2015 4:13pm

NewDirection wrote: »

What your describing is not stability in the market. Its a general depression of prices, across the country independent of demand.

If there's a sharp rise in house prices the LPT doesn't respond quickly enough to counteract it either, so I don't see where you're coming from with it adding stability.

I do agree with you that it should have an effect on lowering house prices slightly as it reduces the amount of money available to the buyer. The cost of accommodation to the buyer stays the same in theory (LPT + mortgage costs), so the headline price the house sells for drops, but the buyer is no better off, and the seller has just lost out.

The issue is supply, the LPT encourages supply seemingly at the displeasure of Grannies everywhere.

It's not a silver bullet solution, neither is building a bazillion houses in a haphazard manner (addressing other points not yours). There has to be a long term phased solution. LPT is part of that.

pwurple · 02-04-2015 4:55pm

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The issue is supply, the LPT encourages supply.

How does the LPT increase supply?

daheff · 02-04-2015 5:40pm

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I'm not disputing what you wrote. I'm disputing your argument which is a logical fallacy which I am dismissing out of hand.

you can dismiss it all you want, it still holds true.

Just because you claim something as a strawman argument doesn't necessarily mean its untrue. In fact (ironically) using the strawman argument as an argument is also a strawman argument (get your head around that one

)!

Idbatterim · 02-04-2015 5:46pm

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)

....

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?!

Michael D Not Higgins · 02-04-2015 5:47pm

daheff wrote: »

you can dismiss it all you want, it still holds true.

Just because you claim something as a strawman argument doesn't necessarily mean its untrue. In fact (ironically) using the strawman argument as an argument is also a strawman argument (get your head around that one )!

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

MarkAnthony · 02-04-2015 8:41pm

pwurple wrote: »

How does the LPT increase supply?

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.

Spare a thought for the leafy suburbs...

Comments