Ways to stop a Property Tax ?

funky.monkey

Lots of debate here about the rights and wrongs of a property tax. But for those who are opposed to it (myself included) - what can we do to try and stop it ? National demonstrations / marchs ? Field Anti-property tax candidates at the local elections ? Would a general boycott of the tax work if enough people simply refused to pay it ? Anyone got any ideas ?

Alun

Suggest (properly costed, and thought through) alternatives?

ninty9er

Since such a tax is unlikely, no action is needed.

Hagar

Riots in the streets should do the trick.
Followed by tarring and feathering of your Local TD if you can winkle him out of his Merc.

Het-Field

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdVquOmFJ0U

Perhaps !!

:P:P:P

However, it seems very unlikely that any poll tax will be followed through with. In spite of the fact that the public sector will remain untouched

Mr.Micro

One would have to question the bottle of the FF led Government to introduce such a tax, knowing that the party would be hammered in future elections, and maybe even in the upcoming local Government elections. The good of the party always comes first so if we do get a property tax it may well be watered down.

NewDubliner

Het-Field wrote: »

In spite of the fact that the public sector will remain untouched

How do you know this?

The_Conductor

ninty9er wrote: »

Since such a tax is unlikely, no action is needed.

I'd be inclined to agree with you.
The government has learnt lessons from the mess after the last budget and now appear to be playing psychological mind games with the public at large. By giving massive media coverage to the possibility of a property tax- when they do bring in a measure of lesser significance to the media down the road- there will be relief- that the property tax did not come to pass.......

What really needs to happen is a frank and open discourse with the public. Our finances are screwed. We need to cut over 20 billion from the budget- or raise a commensurate amount in tax, in order to restore some semblence of normality to the public finances. The 1.2 billion in cuts in the public sector paybill is a good start- but its only a start- we need to do a hell of a lot more.

If people do not want the likes of a property tax- far from suggesting we all go out and descend on the Houses of the Oireachtas in mass protests- what we need is constructive dialogue on how to balance the budget. Yes its going to hurt- like hell, for everyone. No-one is, or should be, immune to the cutbacks. There should be no sacred cows.

That Hibernian add on the telly with a clip from Charlie where he pronounces "We are all living beyond our means"- has a distinct resonance. We are. We need to accept that- and act on it.

jmayo

ninty9er wrote: »

Since such a tax is unlikely, no action is needed.

Is that the inside track from FF HQ or should that be CIF HQ ?

BTW what happened to the Ogra FF signature ?
Are going incognito these days

OhNoYouDidn't

funky.monkey wrote: »

Lots of debate here about the rights and wrongs of a property tax. But for those who are opposed to it (myself included) - what can we do to try and stop it ? National demonstrations / marchs ? Field Anti-property tax candidates at the local elections ? Would a general boycott of the tax work if enough people simply refused to pay it ? Anyone got any ideas ?

Out of interest, did you refuse to pay refuse charges and water rates?

Liam Byrne

smccarrick wrote: »

No-one is, or should be, immune to the cutbacks.

Anyone on the minimum wage who has borrowed wisely to put a roof over their heads and didn't buy into the hype and bull**** should be.

What's the point in taxing people who don't deserve it and can't afford it, thereby putting them out on the street or landing them into the hands of SvdP or whatever ?

The day that FF can prove they won't waste any more of our cash on ego projects or bailing out their buddies is the day they "might" get more cash from me......but I've no intention of watching them waste even more of my hard-earned cash quicker than I would do myself.....

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Anyone on the minimum wage who has borrowed wisely to put a roof over their heads and didn't buy into the hype and bull**** should be.

What's the point in taxing people who don't deserve it and can't afford it, thereby putting them out on the street or landing them into the hands of SvdP or whatever ?

So even taxing them 1 euro a year would put them out onto the streets?

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

So even taxing them 1 euro a year would put them out onto the streets?

That's flippant in the extreme. €1,000 was what was suggested, and that would be the basis of my argument.

Even if we accept that it's an FF tactic to soften us up to accept something lower, €1 x 4.5 million people is a drop in the ocean and isn't going to make a difference, so it's unlikely to be that low.

Like I said, if they were to go after the scum that landed us in this mess, and jail/fine/get the money back from them, THEN I might respect any extra "duty" that was bestowed on the rest of us; but without that common-sense approach, and without factoring in the "ability to pay", I would prefer to take a pay cut in order to hit the lowest - survivable - threshold possible so that the money wouldn't be going to FF in order for them to continue to waste it.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's flippant in the extreme. €1,000 was what was suggested, and that would be the basis of my argument.

There was no talk of applying a €1000 property tax on the minimum waged in the post you were quoting. All smccarrick said was that we shouldn't have sacred cows. He nowhere stated that he thought it a fair or good idea to tax minimum waged home owners €1000.

My point was that there are taxes that could be levied on them or service cut backs that wouldn't have them "out on the street." Flippant sure, but I think people saying that the minimum waged/pensioners/whoever should be immune from any cutbacks fail to grasp the reality of the severity of the problem.

ninty9er

jmayo wrote: »

Is that the inside track from FF HQ or should that be CIF HQ ?

BTW what happened to the Ogra FF signature ?
Are going incognito these days

I removed it because there are plenty of idiots on this site that read no further than the sig and go on the attack without reading posts, in a similar manner to what you've done just there.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

There was no talk of applying a €1000 property tax on the minimum waged in the post you were quoting. All smccarrick said was that we shouldn't have sacred cows. He nowhere stated that he thought it a fair or good idea to tax minimum waged home owners €1000.

Sorry if I appeared to be misquoting smccarrick or the post; I was basing the figure on the figure that was widely reported in the media, and €1,000 extra is extremely unfair to those who are already paying over the odds through their mortgages & loans for overpriced houses, because of the policies of FF and the banks and developers.

If there's €100 or so, then I guess we'd bite the bullet, but it was €1,000 that was mentioned in the media.

Then again, it's those at the top who get paid more, and those with second houses, that should be the primary targets, rather than those who are just getting by.

nesf

ninty9er wrote: »

I removed it because there are plenty of idiots on this site that read no further than the sig and go on the attack without reading posts, in a similar manner to what you've done just there.

Cop on as detailed in the PM.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Sorry if I appeared to be misquoting smccarrick or the post; I was basing the figure on the figure that was widely reported in the media, and €1,000 extra is extremely unfair to those who are already paying over the odds through their mortgages & loans for overprices houses, because of the policies of FF and the banks and developers.

If there's €100 or so, then I guess we'd bite the bullet, but it was €1,000 that was mentioned in the media.

Then again, it's those at the top who get paid more, and those with second houses, that should be the primary targets, rather than those who are just getting by.

Fair enough. Any taxes levied should be proportional and the top earners should feel more pain than the least well off but we need to close a €20 billion deficit, that's not going to be managed by just adding a few percent to the top rate. The media are just running with a figure, I sincerely doubt something like a flat €1000 tax on property would ever be implemented.

K-9

funky.monkey wrote: »

Lots of debate here about the rights and wrongs of a property tax. But for those who are opposed to it (myself included) - what can we do to try and stop it ? National demonstrations / marchs ? Field Anti-property tax candidates at the local elections ? Would a general boycott of the tax work if enough people simply refused to pay it ? Anyone got any ideas ?

Suggest alternative ways of raising €2 Billion a year.

Liam Byrne

I've posted this elsewhere, but my first suggestion is to reclaim the money or the properties that were purchased by those who did €100 million dodgy deals with their banks, thereby making the situation worse.

Also reclaim the millions in bonuses paid to themselves by those who fuelled the fire and congratulated themselves on selling toxic 100% mortgages.

Not sure how far all that would go, but it'd be a start, and the public would be more open to helping plug the remaining deficit.

But if those scum get off scot-free, the public will rightly feel hard done by.

One other suggestion is that the State "dig out" for the banks should come through the system via those who had to pay over-the-odds for average enough houses, assisting them to pay their mortgages to the same banks, thereby achieving the "paying the banks" angle but also leaving the average household with a level of cash that would enable them to comfortably spend money at a "normal" level and thereby prevent additional businesses going under because of the lack of spending power by people terrified by the recession or potential job losses etc.

funky.monkey

Firstly to the poster who asked - I definetly have no problem with taxes or charges like refuse charges and I pay them all on time. My arguement against the property tax idea is that its not related to your ability to pay. I earn less than 13 euros an hour. So 1,000 a year extra in a property tax is a serious worry. Another household can have a income of 60,000 a year and its much less of an effect.
The other worry about the property tax idea is that even if you lose your job, and have no income, you are still liable for it. You can get mortgage protection insurance but there is no insurance that covers a tax if you are out of work. The whole idea of "broadening the tax base" as they call it is that they will want this money from everyone - regardless of their circumstances.
If this comes in - if this comes to pass, then be aware what it means for your future...... don't become old, don't become poor, don't lose your job, because unless you are living in a box on the side of the street , you will still be liable for this tax, and you will have to find the money for it, even if it means you end up eating pot noodles and fish fingers to save money to pay it.

ninty9er

funky.monkey wrote: »

If this comes in - if this comes to pass....

It's a very BIG if.

segaBOY

nesf wrote: »

Fair enough. Any taxes levied should be proportional and the top earners should feel more pain than the least well off but we need to close a €20 billion deficit, that's not going to be managed by just adding a few percent to the top rate. The media are just running with a figure, I sincerely doubt something like a flat €1000 tax on property would ever be implemented.

Define "top earner".

It is important to note that those who earn higher wages tend to be those who create employment and run the economy (not all the time but a good chunk do). You never said what levels they should be taxed and I understand (and agree) that those who can barely scrape the mortgage together shouldn't be levied with massive taxes. Just I would be wary at what level you tax those who earn highest (who tend to be employers). If you tax them to excess there won't be the same level of profit maximisation and I can guarantee you less progression will occur in expansion businesses and thus less employment to the general population.

As seen in previous decades the likes of 70% tax levels on top earners doesn't do any favours for the economy as a whole, of course you didn't say at what level they should be taxed and the principle of those who earn more paying proportionally more is something I agree with-just be wary at how high you actually tax them.

nesf

segaBOY wrote: »

Define "top earner".

It is important to note that those who earn higher wages tend to be those who create employment and run the economy (not all the time but a good chunk do). You never said what levels they should be taxed and I understand (and agree) that those who can barely scrape the mortgage together shouldn't be levied with massive taxes. Just I would be wary at what level you tax those who earn highest (who tend to be employers). If you tax them to excess there won't be the same level of profit maximisation and I can guarantee you less progression will occur in expansion businesses and thus less employment to the general population.

As seen in previous decades the likes of 70% tax levels on top earners doesn't do any favours for the economy as a whole, of course you didn't say at what level they should be taxed and the principle of those who earn more paying proportionally more is something I agree with-just be wary at how high you actually tax them.

I don't disagree with you at all. Over taxing top earners is as bad a thing for the economy as over taxing the worst off. My point was that taxes should be proportional to earnings, no more, no less.

asdasd

I earn less than 13 euros an hour. So 1,000 a year extra in a property tax is a serious worry. Another household can have a income of 60,000 a year and its much less of an effect.

so how did you afford a house?

its time we differentiated between income and wealth. Before she ran a blog Arianna Huffington ran for Governor of California ( against Anuld). During the campaign, Huffington, who is a multi-millionaire, disclosed that she had paid no taxes the year before. Anger broke out. It turns out her income for the year was $700. This was, in fact, the case. She hadnt lied. Most of her wealth was in property ( i.e. what she owned and lived in) and whatever else she gained on interest rates she lost on sales of stock in that year. Her property was $5M, but generated no income.

She was below the poverty line on income for the previous year, but her consumption was that of a millionaire ( which ate into her capital).

Fasat Forward to Ireland 2009. We know that 2% of the population have most of the wealth, and most of that is ( still) in property. The figures were the top 2% have 240B(illion) in assets. That's from 2007. so it is, conservatively 160B now.

Start the riots.

Wait, stop the riots. Let's work this out.

I guess that the top one thousand - the real rich - have half of that 160B, and the remaining 80B is divided amongst the rest. 2% of the population is about 80,000 people. so if 80,000 people have, on average, a house worth a million, that solves the problem. Alternatively they could have 250K in wealth ( pension provision maybe?) , and 750K in the house and so on.

So who these people. Easy. They are the old, or older generation ( in general). And here's the thing, like Arianna Huffington they may not have the income to match the wealth. The house may generate nothing, the rest is just generating moderate incomes for a pension.

so do we tax these people, or not?

personally I would, or else we are not taxing the rich. It makes more sense to tax the guy with a million in assets who has an income of 40K, than the guy with negative equity and an income of 50K - particularly because the guy with 50K probably has less real take home pay ( after housing costs) than they guy on 40K anyway - he bought for 500K, the elder man bought for £35K and is paying back a loan on that basis, inflation reducing the mortgage costs to nothing.

So if you wanna tax the rich, you have to tax property. And if you want to tax property you have to tax the old who may have smaller incomes than the equity poor young. They may have to sell a million erup house, but what of it. You can rent for life with a million. And pretty well.

Anything else is bollocks.

But this isnt going to happen because, as we say when the medical cards were removed the the old-aged elite - the old are vulnerable. Even when rich.

RedPlanet

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I've posted this elsewhere, but my first suggestion is to reclaim the money or the properties that were purchased by those who did €100 million dodgy deals with their banks, thereby making the situation worse.

Also reclaim the millions in bonuses paid to themselves by those who fuelled the fire and congratulated themselves on selling toxic 100% mortgages.

Yes, i'd like to see that for sure.

One other suggestion is that the State "dig out" for the banks should come through the system via those who had to pay over-the-odds for average enough houses, assisting them to pay their mortgages to the same banks,

No way. If public money is to be used to help pepple own stuff (houses), then the public should be part owner at least.
I for one, never bought into Fianna Fail's Pyramid Scheme, if that's an apporpriate analogy, of the "Property Boom". I resisted pressure from the media and my peers and didn't buy a mortage, a mean a house from a bank.
I really don't like bailing anybody out for their foolishness.
People need to take responsibility for their actions, if they bought something they can't afford, then let the creditor take it back and re-sell it.

mountainyman

segaBOY wrote: »

Define "top earner".

It is important to note that those who earn higher wages tend to be those who create employment and run the economy (not all the time but a good chunk do).

False.
This is an FDI economy. Our top earners recycle the money attracted to the country by the public sector. Think your username is fairly accurate.

SeanW

So if you wanna tax the rich, you have to tax property. And if you want to tax property you have to tax the old who may have smaller incomes than the equity poor young. They may have to sell a million erup house, but what of it. You can rent for life with a million. And pretty well.

I disagree, if all of your "wealth" is tied up in your primary residence, it's not the same as having wealth in cash, gold, bonds etc, and I take the view that someone whos only thing of value is their home, is not rich, unless the value is something crazy like north of €1-2 million.

I have a few ideas as to where some of the realignment of the public finances could take place without a property tax - which I've given examples in another thread of how such a tax is regressive and unjust.

1) Return income taxes to pre-McCreevy levels. Charlie McCreevy might have got to enjoy playing Santa Claus every Dec 6th in the early 2000s, but his tax cuts (from 24% and 44% down to current levels over a few years) only ever inflated the economy at a time when it was already overheating, they killed our competitiveness by adding too much money to an over-inflating economy, while leaving the public finances subject to later collapse.
Those tax cuts were the wrong move to make at that time and should never have been passed because of their pro-cyclical nature.
2) No more bank bailouts: Bad banks should be let fail. We should forget about one proposal which was to create a "Bad Bank" to saddle taxpayers with worthless assets and bad debts. If the whole banking system is so malfunctional that creditworthy businesses etc can't get the day to day credit they need, then take steps to set up/license/fund/whatever a "Good" bank that will.
I would also consider giving Austrian school economists at least a fair hearing as I think some libertarian solutions might help in this mess.
3) Clean up the waste in the public service. Two examples off hand of where taxpayers are not getting value for money from an inefficient public service and defenceless service users are caught in the middle. The first is the HSE where an army of administrators and middle managers has been hired since the dissolution of the old heath boards. Meanwhile the people dying on hospital trollies are defenceless. The second, the driver testing service where SGS just got canned, despite doing driver tests at about 50% less cost, far more efficiently than the Road Safety Authority (government) crowd. Waiting times have already started to increase and I think will continue. The same RSA now wants to subject new drivers to graduated licensing, multi-test licensing and other lunacy. And yes, learning drivers are 100% defenceless.
No sacred cows. If a public service sector is providing a bad service or not giving value for money, axe it first and ask questions later.
You could probably save billions this way.
4) Legalise marijuana, subject to a 200-300% tax. Replace an expense (locking up non-violent "offenders") with a revenue (tax duty on the weed)
5) Raise petrol taxes slightly: there is such a large tax disharmony between Irish fuel excise and that in the U.K. (Northern Ireland) that it's a major incentive for our Northern brethern to fill up down here and avoid/evade tax - there was a major Prime Time special on this some years back - the taxes could be raised somewhat without causing a major problem.
Besides we need money for new roads *anyway* so why not ask those who will benefit (drivers) to chip in?

Boggle

So if you wanna tax the rich, you have to tax property. And if you want to tax property you have to tax the old who may have smaller incomes than the equity poor young. They may have to sell a million erup house, but what of it. You can rent for life with a million. And pretty well.

See SeanW's reply above but I would also menton that alot of rich people also purchase horses, shares, artwork, etc. Should we include these assets while calculating their "wealth tax"?

And, while you have a point about income not always relating to wealth, you never mentioned the fact that they must have had some good income years to get that wealth where they did pay tax...

You also appear oblivious to the fact that for people like herhave credit and cash to tide her over the bad years but a normal joe, in a bad year would have to sell his house to pay his tax.

RedPlanet

SeanW wrote: »

4) Legalise marijuana, subject to a 200-300% tax. Replace an expense (locking up non-violent "offenders") with a revenue (tax duty on the weed)

Not to mention saving the money spent on garda man power.
But, wouldn't you have to price it rather low? To under-cut the existing black market?

asdasd

Should we include these assets while calculating their "wealth tax"?

Of course. If we are serious about wealth taxes, or taxing the rich.

And, while you have a point about income not always relating to wealth, you never mentioned the fact that they must have had some good income years to get that wealth where they did pay tax...

Not necessarily in the case of property. of course the people in the millionaire suburbs would have had high incomes but - let's put it this way - someone on a high income these days may never get to live in the kind of houses that professional classes now live in, and none will make that kind of free asset increases - quite the reverse.

You also appear oblivious to the fact that for people like herhave credit and cash to tide her over the bad years but a normal joe, in a bad year would have to sell his house to pay his tax.

I didnt neglect this, I said she had to eat into capital to survive when she earned $700 in that year - she obviously consumed a lot more than that.
Which is what someone who had to sell a million euro house would have to eat into capital too, except he would have to sell the house first.

The fact is if you dont tax wealth, but do tax income, the wealthy get away. They can store their capital in non taxable assets, and offset taxes on income against loses, and so on.

This may, or may not be possible. However I really dont like the rhetoric of "taxing" the rich if it only applies to PAYE workers. Income tax is primarily a tax on labour ( since dividends etc. are taxed lower). All I am saying is that if we want to tax the rich we tax property ( and other assets). Otherwise we are taxing the working "comfortable" - a misnomer for someone on a middle income who is in negative equity, and whose job is on the line, as many are in the private sector.

If we have to tax these guys fine, but we are not taxing the rich.