€1,000 home tax 'needed' along with PAYE hikes

southie

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/euro1000-home-tax-needed-along-with-paye-hikes-1620333.html

A €1,000 property tax on every home in the country is needed to turn the economy around, the country's top bankers said last night.
Senior Central Bank executives told the Irish Independent that the controversial property tax was badly needed to plug the Government's dwindling finances. It is understood the move would raise around €1.7bn for the Exchequer.
The Government is also being urged by its own highly influential economic advisers to bring in a property tax in order to close the yawning hole in the public finances.
Such a tax would heap further pressure on homeowners, who face a series of crippling tax hikes as the Government attempts to steer the country out of recession.
The return of domestic rates was signalled as government officials and union leaders continued their talks on taxation measures needed to salvage the economy last night.

How come bankers are still giving us advice? am i wrong or is much of the mess we find ourselves in caused by bloody bankers?
if they paid back the stupid loans they gave themselves we might not be in such a bad financial state.

unclebill98

There will be marches on the Dail if this House Levy is brought in.

Jamar

Politically, this will be difficult. However, it is probably a good and relatively fair way to raise tax, and it means money is somewhat local, and can be used to finish estates, build schools. (OK, that's not likely, but...).

However, there should be exemptions. For example, those who have paid significant stamp duty, as there it amounts to a double tax. Those with an asset and limited income, although we should be encouraging people to live in appropriate for need housing. (pensioners). Those with children should get something. I'm also thinking of a reason I shouldn't have to pay.

Those with second houses should be taxed more heavily on the second house.
Especially if they are not occupied.

Also, it should not be applied as 1000 across the board, because that is incredible unfair. A 1 bed apartment in a rural town and a mansion in a city are not equal.

BuffyBot

This is more to do with taxation and the economy, than banking really.

The mention of the word "bankers" does not automatically make it a thread for this forum.

Economics mods can decide if they want to leave it open.

thebman

Seems a bit excessive. I think we should have taxes on luxury items like products containing more than a certain percentage of sugar or salt. We have RDA's so anything over 5-10% of RDA should get an excess put on it. This would encourage healthier eating and if you can't afford it, you don't buy it.

Obesity is a big and costly health problem on the way so why not try to kill two birds with the one stone.

You could have a property tax but it shouldn't be that high IMO. And I think this is extremely rich coming from someone in the industry that got us into this mess. An industry directly related to the housing market. Is he suggesting banks give these people a break from their mortgages to pay this tax? I doubt it, doubt they can even afford to.

I think this is related to the economy, tax takes spending money out of the economy. So can the government juggle?

HashSlinging

I predict a riot. Should be on second and third houses only... Stupid B(w)ankers.

ixoy

thebman wrote: »

Seems a bit excessive. I think we should have taxes on luxury items like products containing more than a certain percentage of sugar or salt.

How is something containing a load of salt considered a luxury item? In fact highly-salted foods, etc. tend to be the cheaper ones that families with less disposable income can buy.

Sleipnir

So I pay €1000 per annum for my three bed semi and the person who owns THIS pays €1000 per year.

Yeah, that's fair and equitable.

thebman

ixoy wrote: »

How is something containing a load of salt considered a luxury item? In fact highly-salted foods, etc. tend to be the cheaper ones that families with less disposable income can buy.

Yeah there is cheap food available that is in the same price range that isn't salty like fruit and veg.

High salt foods are very bad for people. We need to encourage alternatives. This tax would do that and it would encourage companies to come up with alternative products that are the same food but not loaded with salt.

Its bad for your heart. I'd throw a saturated fat tax in there too if the product is above a certain percentage of your RDA.

I love my salty snacks but I know their bad for me. Poor families eat these foods not only because they are cheaper but I imagine mostly because they are the handiest to cook.

There has to be another way. I imagine the food producers just use salt because its the cheap. You could put the tax on them but they might just pass it on to the consumer instead of changing their ways. If however they could use an alternative to salt that wasn't as bad for you then they could undercut their competitors and still have the same product on the market.

daheff

well if this is brought in does this mean that the county councils will take over the ownership/upkeep of all those new estates that they have previously refused to ?



IMO this is the kind of tax that if it was being brought in should have been brought in during the boom times to keep a lid on things....not now when we have recession. Taking disposable income off people now is not the smartest thing in the world to do!

I'd be in favour of a tax on second/holiday homes (including those outside the state)

the government should also look to get taxes off people who bought/sold properties abroad but never declared them.

had we let the banks fail Sept we wouldnt be looking at a deep black hole of national debt. The govt wont even give us the figures for anglo its that bad.

Had we let them fail instead of that stupid guarantee we would already have created new banks and or brought in foreign ones. We could still have guarantee deposits.......................................


now we need the money to keep them going. Embrace yourselves people!

paulocon

Jamar wrote: »

Politically, this will be difficult. However, it is probably a good and relatively fair way to raise tax, and it means money is somewhat local, and can be used to finish estates, build schools. (OK, that's not likely, but...).

However, there should be exemptions. For example, those who have paid significant stamp duty, as there it amounts to a double tax. Those with an asset and limited income, although we should be encouraging people to live in appropriate for need housing. (pensioners). Those with children should get something. I'm also thinking of a reason I shouldn't have to pay.

Those with second houses should be taxed more heavily on the second house.
Especially if they are not occupied.

Also, it should not be applied as 1000 across the board, because that is incredible unfair. A 1 bed apartment in a rural town and a mansion in a city are not equal.

What do you mean by this Jamar?
Surely if someone works hard all their life and have a nice home for themself, we shouldn't be encouraging them to give this home up for something considered 'more appropriate'.

Think the standard 1000 mentioned in the headline is something of an attention grabber, I'd imagine if there is to be a property tax, it'd be based on the value of the home, can't imagine us rabble would have to pay the same as that poor auld fella Oisin Fanning.

As said previouslt, I predict a riot!

cavedave

As said previouslt, I predict a riot!

we are 20 billion in debt for next year. After the riot there will be a lot of broken stuff and the same debt. Where are we going to increase taxes and reduce costs from? What is the least unfair tax that can be raised, and the one that economically does least to surpress economic activity?

So say 2 billion is taken off public sector wages. 2 billion raised from property tax. Another billion from increased PAYE tax. 2 billion taken off capital infrastructure. We are now a still unallowable 12 billion in debt and people are rioting.

ardmacha

Surely if someone works hard all their life and have a nice home for themself, we shouldn't be encouraging them to give this home up for something considered 'more appropriate'.

Surely if someone works hard all their life and have a nice car for themselves, we shouldn't be encouraging them to give this nice car up for something considered 'more appropriate'.

Just as motor tax goes from €150 to €2000, house tax could have several bands, with McMansions paying more. This could, like the motor tax, be related to the new BER energy rating.

And if stamp duty is reduced and a house registration system introduced to reduce legal costs than people can more easily move if their house becomes too big for them etc.

Morlar

Is this proposed as a 'one off' hit to dig us out of the hole government mismanagement helped to put us in ?

Or is this going to be a new permanent annual revenue stream for the government ? If it is to dig us out of a hole then it should be time limited - or up for review every 2 years or something along those lines.

On the subject of cuts and where to make them surely we could look at where all the money goes ? The HSE would be high up on that list in my view. Also the annuall cost of repeated legal appeals related to failed asylum bids.

trishw78

unclebill98 wrote: »

There will be marches on the Dail if this House Levy is brought in.

HashSlinging wrote: »

I predict a riot. Should be on second and third houses only... Stupid B(w)ankers.

Sleipnir wrote: »

So I pay €1000 per annum for my three bed semi and the person who owns THIS pays €1000 per year.

Yeah, that's fair and equitable.

Yet again the the low-mid wage earner gets hit in the pocket. I can see more than riots happening, I think there will be alot of people squatting in there homes or knocking nee kicking in the door of their local house department looking for someplace to put there familes. If it comes in I'll have no other choice but to sell.

Finger's crossed I win the lotto

Morlar

ardmacha wrote: »

Just as motor tax goes from €150 to €2000, house tax could have several bands, with McMansions paying more. This could, like the motor tax, be related to the new BER energy rating.

That might make it more green but wont necessarily make it more equitable - it would penalise lower income families with a less up to date energy efficiency rating. That sounds like another green party measure which would penalise those on a lower income.

Baybay

daheff wrote: »

I'd be in favour of a tax on second/holiday homes (including those outside the state)

I'm not sure that would work across the board.

Countries like France already have two types of property tax and as Ireland is one of the countries with whom they have a double taxation agreement, those with French property could possibly be outside the loop. It could turn into an expensive administrative exercise.

paulocon

trishw78 wrote: »

Yet again the the low-mid wage earner gets hit in the pocket. I can see more than riots happening, I think there will be alot of people squatting in there homes or knocking nee kicking in the door of their local house department looking for someplace to put there familes. If it comes in I'll have no other choice but to sell.

Finger's crossed I win the lotto

My point exactly. The 1% levy and salary decreases/job-losses have already put some people under extreme pressure. You have people with young families who had no choice but to pay the over-inflated prices to provide a home. Ask them to pay another 1k a year for that privilige and you'll have some very angry people. Seems like it's those who benefitted least from the Celtic Tiger are the ones who now have to bail out those who did!

If that's what you call equitable, then so be it! (edit: sorry, a bit harsh but p***ed off with gvmt at the moment)

Time Magazine

BuffyBot wrote: »

Economics mods can decide if they want to leave it open.

We already have a "what to do with this deficit" thread, so firing this over to the Politics corner...

Our first cutback should be cutting the banks loose.

It amazes me that people hear about a 1,000 euro home tax when the bank bail out will cost them a hell of a lot more than that. We are looking at 20% PLUS unemployment for a decade according to one economist.

Wake up people FFS this is a diversion!

ejmaztec

Bad idea to give local authorities more money to play with. Most of them are as adept as the national government at handling finances. By the time they've upped their expenses claims and turned the council offices into Dubai-style ten star buildings, they will still be in deficit - and looking for more.

funky.monkey

The reason the Property tax is so un-fair is that it doesn't relate to people's ability to pay. For example - 1000 euros a year means 1% of the income for a household on 100,000 a year , but is 25% of the income for a household on 25,000 a year. (I'm in the second catagory ! so if there is going to be a riot I'll be there).

NinjaTruncs

funky.monkey wrote: »

The reason the Property tax is so un-fair is that it doesn't relate to people's ability to pay. For example - 1000 euros a year means 1% of the income for a household on 100,000 a year , but is 25% of the income for a household on 25,000 a year. (I'm in the second catagory ! so if there is going to be a riot I'll be there).

It's 4% for the second household.

vengeancepuppy

Taxing property would require regulation in order for the tax to be fair. Why not simply increase income tax? You're still paying the money but there's a system there already that doesn't screw the desperate out of their last piece of bread. (Well, not as badly as property tax will)

trishw78

vengeancepuppy wrote: »

Taxing property would require regulation in order for the tax to be fair. Why not simply increase income tax? You're still paying the money but there's a system there already that doesn't screw the desperate out of their last piece of bread. (Well, not as badly as property tax will)

But they already have upped the income tax by 1% oh no wait that's a tax on actually getting off your arse and going out to earn money instead sponging off the government

vengeancepuppy

trishw78 wrote: »

But they already have upped the income tax by 1% oh no wait that's a tax on actually getting off your arse and going out to earn money instead sponging off the government

How is that so? Is this 1% payable on the dole? That amount would be so minuscule in any case that it would persuade nobody to go anywhere!

The money will come out of your pocket anyway, why not use a system that already exists, won't cause riots and do exactly the same thing?

Caoimhín

I think they just want their section 23 money back.

trishw78

It's nothing to do with SECTION 23 MONEY I don't own a section 23 house I am one of those people in the low-mid income brackets and it constantly feels like I'm being punished for working, for owning a house what else would you have me do if there's anymore money taken from me I'll have no other choice but to either sell or have my home be reposessed.

For a hell of lot of people it has nothing to do with section 23, and that was a really dumb comment to make on your part

Jamar

Hi paulocon,

I would be in favour of a scheme that encourages people to a house that fits their needs. If someone has worked hard all their lives for their home, that's great, and they are entitled to stay there for as long as they want.

However, if property rates are re-introduced: a single person in a 4-bed house could pay (say) 4000. A family with 6-kids maybe should pay 500, or nothing. A house-share could also be taxed at lower rates. No one is forced to do anything.

Of course, this would need be implemented with very low transaction taxes (i.e. stamp duty). Another side-effect of this is that apartments can regain value as houses for the single or those without families.

Currently, there are a generation of kids that don't see their parents due to long commutes. There are a lot of family houses in Dublin, where the families have left home.

BlaasForRafa

thebman wrote: »

Seems a bit excessive. I think we should have taxes on luxury items like products containing more than a certain percentage of sugar or salt. We have RDA's so anything over 5-10% of RDA should get an excess put on it. This would encourage healthier eating and if you can't afford it, you don't buy it.

Tayto tax?

Not a bad idea actually