Property Tax Anyone pay Stamp Duty in the last few years??

Ludo

ManFromAtlantis wrote: »

look i see your point and understand how u feel but
(a) its not illegal to invest
(b) these guys paid stamp etc already and by the sound alot more than you.
(c) would u accept the point that, not all single house owners are poor and not all 2,3 house owners are well off ?

by not investing you by default have become better off than those who did invest at the wrong time. should tax reflect this or ignore this?

Yes, I accept all your point and see where you are coming from.

I simply have a problem with a blanket across the board tax on peoples primary residence in general. Especially one which would need to be brought in quickly by this government and therefore be a blank fee of, for example, 1000 euro per household.

If they were able to take their time and make it fair (based on house value, house size or some other criteria) then I may change my opinion...but I can't see that happening.

Will all pensioners be exempt for example? My parents certainly couldn't afford to pay it but certain "pensioners" could...so why should they escape.

Think it all through and make it as "acceptable" as possible...fine. Unfortunately they dont have the luxury of doing that now..and would probably make a mess of it anyway like everything else.

jimmmy

dodgyme wrote: »

So are you telling me that people who owned 10 houses are the same as people would own one or even 2?

No. I am saying however that people who own 5 or 6 apartments are often much worse off than people who own one house, as the money was borrowed. I know of one bank who gave 100% loans secured on remortgaging the original dwelling. If you talk about 10 houses, its usually the bank that owns them, not the person who owes the bank all the money. Also I would say that 5 empty apartments in a village in Leitrim are worth less than one good family home in south Dublin. If you purposely hammer apartment and house prices down further, through additional property taxes, it will kill the bit of morale left in the country.

dodgyme

jimmmy wrote: »

will kill the bit of morale left in the country.

I dont think there is any anyway. If someone bought ten houses well he is agreedy sod and they should be sold by the bank if he owes money on them not protected as if he was doing the decent thing. He wasnt, and was the type to rub it in the noses of the man who is not a greedy sod. (no chip on shoulder - just how I see it)

professore

SkepticOne wrote: »

The advantage of a property tax is that it can't be avoided in the ways that income tax is. You can't simply move your property abroad to avoid paying taxes on it in Ireland. However for political reasons it would probably be necessary to grant a period of exemption to those who paid stamp duty recently.

I would rather see more efforts to cut costs rather than raise taxes though. All raising taxes does is help improve the public finance problem. But this public finance problem is merely a symptom of a much larger problem of competitiveness, and competitiveness is not improved by raising taxes!

If its an investment property you can sell it and buy one abroad.

jmayo

jimmmy wrote: »

No. I am saying however that people who own 5 or 6 apartments are often much worse off than people who own one house, as the money was borrowed. I know of one bank who gave 100% loans secured on remortgaging the original dwelling. If you talk about 10 houses, its usually the bank that owns them, not the person who owes the bank all the money. Also I would say that 5 empty apartments in a village in Leitrim are worth less than one good family home in south Dublin. If you purposely hammer apartment and house prices down further, through additional property taxes, it will kill the bit of morale left in the country.

So what if they are worse off owning 5/6 properties than someone who owns only one ?
They made a decision to invest in other properties.
Would these people be willing to share the gains if the property bubble was still on the up.
Any property tax should take into account location, size and value, but an investment property is still an INVESTMENT.

Your argument holds about as much water as stating that the sucessful gambler should shoulder some of the losses of the unsucessful gamblers down in Paddy Power's local shop.
People make decisions, it is time they accept responsibility for those.
It is what being an adult used to mean, before we had the blame someone else culture.

I take it you are one of our younger posters who is of the opinion everything in the world revolves around house prices ?
If anything property prices need to hit the lowest they can and the sooner the better, because only then will people reenter the market.

Keeping them high by protecting property owners is a false position and is only making things more uncertain.

jimmmy

jmayo wrote: »

So what if they are worse off owning 5/6 properties than someone who owns only one ?

Its bad news for them ( after they have paid hundreds of thousands of euro in stamp duty, vat, income tax etc ) , the taxman, the bank, the economy, future potential investors in the Irish economy

jmayo wrote: »

Would these people be willing to share the gains if the property bubble was still on the up.

Of course....the tax man gets a cut on the rent and the future capital gain sooner or later.

If you punish and kick investors when they are down, they nobody will invest in the Irish economy for a very very long time... Besides, most landlords do not own ten apartments...most own one or two, often with large bank loan, in an effort to pay for their childrens education / their own pension. Not everyone has a public service pension. Many properties ( 200,000 + ) are empty and are more of a liability than an asset.

Dannyboy83

ManFromAtlantis wrote: »

look i see your point and understand how u feel but
(a) its not illegal to invest
(b) these guys paid stamp etc already and by the sound alot more than you.
(c) would u accept the point that, not all single house owners are poor and not all 2,3 house owners are well off ?

by not investing you by default have become better off than those who did invest at the wrong time. should tax reflect this or ignore this?

LOL:D:D:D

You can't use that as a means to punish or reward people.
It is uber-irrational.
I think you need to transfer this onto another analogy and see how ludicrous that assertion is.

First, everyone would have bought if they had the means.
There is a whole generation of young people in Ireland now who do not have houses because the market was pushed to the brink, by a generation of older people who saw potential for profit and seemingly no risk.
Sporadic among the younger generation are people who are grossly over-leveraged with 35 year mortgages, 10x salaries on their family home and are effectively handcuffed to the property (this makes no mention of their parents assistance and equity releases etc).



Second,
Assume I earn plenty of money or I inherit money.
You, however, earn an average wage.

You are locked out of the property market.
I decide to invest my money in shares.

I didn't really have a clue what I was doing, but took the risk regardless, and now investment is in tatters.

Would you assert its reasonable for me to now expect you to compensate my losses? Even though you didn't participate? Even though your means are lower to begin with? And even though as a result of my own carelessness, I turned a substantial windfall into a disasterous liability.

Its tragic, no dispute there. But Caveat Emptor.
But if we remove the risk for risk takers, and transfer it onto the straight and narrows, we will have two results:
1) Mass emigration of the middle class, of the younger generation in particular (resulting in a pension timebomb also) and capitulation by those who may be capable of repayment in the long term but daunted by the prospects in the short term.
2) Those who remain beyond have every incentive to take risks and no disincentive not to take risks. This is essentially giving me a license to gamble with your money , and blurs the risk while substantially highlighting the reward (as we clearly saw demonstrated by Anglo Irish Bank)


Thirdly,
if such a system was imposed, we would essentially have b-r-o-k-e-n our economy and economic system.

There can exist no situation in a society where people retain all of the profits, but share all of the liabilities.
This is precisely what we saw occur in Anglo Irish Bank and the country is being torn apart at the seams.
If this were transferred to the common man, we would have civil war.

Remember, Communism was already proven not to work.



===========
(For the record, last year I invested in shares, made a profit upon sale, but had to pay 20% to the government, even though they had no participation at all [it was all done through the USA]- should I receive special treatment also or just the people who paid stampy duty?)

gearoidc

If they were able to take their time and make it fair (based on house value, house size or some other criteria) then I may change my opinion...but I can't see that happening.

I'll repeat a point I made earlier. Anyone who bought in e.g. 2005/2006 could be cahrged a more lenient amount. There is no literally no deliberation required in that decision.

We have already paid heavily for our "greed" (Some people on here are so bitter it's unreal ) with the property collapse.

But more to the point, we have already paid a small fortune to the public finances!

Why are there so many who demand we pay more??? Do you think that would be just? Or do you just enjoy putting the boot in when someone's down?

jmayo

jimmmy wrote: »

Its bad news for them ( after they have paid hundreds of thousands of euro in stamp duty, vat, income tax etc ) , the taxman, the bank, the economy, future potential investors in the Irish economy


Of course....the tax man gets a cut on the rent and the future capital gain sooner or later.

If you punish and kick investors when they are down, they nobody will invest in the Irish economy for a very very long time... Besides, most landlords do not own ten apartments...most own one or two, often with large bank loan, in an effort to pay for their childrens education / their own pension. Not everyone has a public service pension. Many properties ( 200,000 + ) are empty and are more of a liability than an asset.

Dear God, will you ever let go of this property fixation.
There are more ways to invest than fu**ing property :eek: :mad:
Did you ever think that investing in a company that actually makes things is an investment and if the company doesn't make things you stuff into houses then it matters fu** all what the prices of houses are ?

Germany would be an economy that would have large amounts invested but how many of them own property. Oh I forgot Paddy went over and looked at apartments and shopping complexes whereas others looked at the likes of Siemens, BMW etc as an investment.

Do you think foreign investors give too f**ks what prices houses are ?
Most foreign investors would invest their money in either companies, that tend to produce things or sell things for export, in infrastructure or in commodities.
They are not coming here ot invest in houses.

I don't think you get it at all.
If you are an investor you take a risk, you may make money or you may lose.
Up till now Irish people always assumed the latter did not even apply to bricks and mortar but if you ask Finns, Japs or even our near neighbours this does sometimes happen.

Property would long term always appear to be a low risk.

We need property to reach the bottom not be propped up to protect those that thought they were on the gravy train to easy loot.

Dannyboy83

jimmmy wrote: »

No. I am saying however that people who own 5 or 6 apartments are often much worse off than people who own one house, as the money was borrowed. I know of one bank who gave 100% loans secured on remortgaging the original dwelling. If you talk about 10 houses, its usually the bank that owns them, not the person who owes the bank all the money. Also I would say that 5 empty apartments in a village in Leitrim are worth less than one good family home in south Dublin. If you purposely hammer apartment and house prices down further, through additional property taxes, it will kill the bit of morale left in the country.

You can look at it in that way.

On the flipside,

1) Lower property prices = more young people buying and investing (AIB & BOI have 1billion each for this initiative)

2) more young people buying and investing = slumbering property market reawakens with increased demand/less supply

3i) increased demand/less supply = more tax revenue from more owners paying more property tax, the budget deficit no longer so bad, Ireland credit rating re-upgraded, cost of insuring bonds becomes less expensive, deflationary threat removed, wolves gone from the door

3ii)increased demand/less supply = resurgence in the construction industry, massively improved national confidence

4)resurgence in the construction industry = less social welfare, more PAYE

5)less social welfare, more PAYE = massively reduced deficit, less cause to fire public servants and more incentive to reform the public service, massively improved international reputation and subsequent to reforms, hugely improved confidence on behalf of national investors

6)massively reduced deficit, less cause to fire public servants and more incentive to reform the public service = Fianna Fail get re-elected, FF save the county from collapse and massively unprecedented public support


Ireland still has high wages.
If you could push the reset button on the property sector and implement some reform, the country could be dragged out of the current nightmare within the current fiscal year.

All of the people currently in negative equity will still be shafted for a few years, but caveat emptor unfortunately, the government don't care about you, they got your stamp duty already.

Dannyboy83

gearoidc wrote: »

I'll repeat a point I made earlier. Anyone who bought in e.g. 2005/2006 could be cahrged a more lenient amount. There is no literally no deliberation required in that decision.

We have already paid heavily for our "greed" (Some people on here are so bitter it's unreal ) with the property collapse.

But more to the point, we have already paid a small fortune to the public finances!

Why are there so many who demand we pay more??? Do you think that would be just? Or do you just enjoy putting the boot in when someone's down?

Honest question.

Now that the interest rates have been cut, you are probably saving E100 per month on your mortgage, is that correct?

100 per month x 12 = 1,200 per year = a realistic property tax

correct?

ManFromAtlantis

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

LOL:D:D:D



===========
quote]


yeah, i have to admit i lol myself. (but ye drove me to it.)

Dannyboy83

jmayo wrote: »

Property would long term always appear to be a low risk.

We need property to reach the bottom not be propped up to protect those that thought they were on the gravy train to easy loot.

Precisely.
This will be the laxative for our economic constipation.
It won't last forever, but it will get us off our knees temporarily.

On a side note, all of the people in negative equity now, will not be in negative equity forever (assuming we retain the Euro, otherwise we are all dead).
Its inevitable that they will win out in the end if they stay afloat and live long enough to repay their mortgage.
If you need proof, find out how much your father paid for his house, 40 years ago.

The only people won't eventually make some profit are the financially insane risk takers such as Sean Dunne. Unless he lives for 200 years anyway.

Dannyboy83

ManFromAtlantis wrote: »

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

LOL:D:D:D



===========
quote]


yeah, i have to admit i lol myself. (but ye drove me to it.)

:D
Nasty bunch on here mate!

gearoidc

It doesn't matter diddly squad if you bought the property two years ago with 90% mortgage and paid big stamp duty or 40 years ago with little stamp duty.

Who the hell are you to make such a pronouncement!!? What you mean is that it doesn't matter diddly to you.

People's differing financial circumstances should be taken into account when imposing taxes. By your logic I'd be within my rights to insist that people who lost their jobs should still have to stump up for running the country.

dodgyme

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

First, everyone would have bought if they had the means.
There is a whole generation of young people in Ireland now who do not have houses because the market was pushed to the brink, by a generation of older people who saw potential for profit and seemingly no risk.
Sporadic among the younger generation are people who are grossly over-leveraged with 35 year mortgages, 10x salaries on their family home and are effectively handcuffed to the property (this makes no mention of their parents assistance and equity releases etc).

good point. people around 40 + yrs of age were in before the boom and were able to exploit it in a way that the younger people werent. When the economy took off they were the best placed. The gov did nothing thru its policies to prevent this or create a fairer playing ground. One group was getting richer and the other were paying higher rents or property prices for the privelege. Then we had the corrupt land deals on top of that.

The_Conductor

blast05 wrote: »

There should be an immediate cessation of allowing people to contribute tax free to their pension funds from gross pay.

Its not tax free.
Relief is at the highest rate paid, subject to a sliding scale of percentages of the amount of gross income, which is age dependent. It cost the exchequer 3.2 billion last year. However it induced contributions to private pensions over in excess of 8 billion. It could be argued that it is not the people in most need of assistance who avail of the scheme- however to gut the scheme could possibly entail the loss of unknown thousands of jobs in the Irish financial sector.

Its not all black and white......

gearoidc

Now that the interest rates have been cut, you are probably saving E100 per month on your mortgage, is that correct?

100 per month x 12 = 1,200 per year = a realistic property tax

correct?

I see. So you want to factor in all the financial aspects of how this property purchase is working out for me?

Fair enough then, if the lower rate of interest is going to be factored in does that mean I can also factor in the fact that I'm losing about €3,000 per month in the value of it?
And naturally consideration should be given to the fact that I've already donated €26k to the public coffers?

Brilliant argument. I love it.

Dannyboy83

gearoidc wrote: »

I see. So you want to factor in all the financial aspects of how this property purchase is working out for me?

Well, lets be fair here Gearoid, you are the one who demanded in your post above that people's means should be taken into account.

I'm just doing what you said and showing you the reality.

Presumably if your repayments have sunk, then you have actually incurred a profit and your repayments are easier than what was originally anticipated.
Therefore if the government take the difference in the form of property tax, you are actually breaking even.

Fair enough then, if the lower rate of interest is going to be factored in does that mean I can also factor in the fact that I'm losing about €3,000 per month in the value of it?

How does that work?
Interest rates are set by the ECB, judged on a variety of factors throughout the Eurozone, which no single individual EMU member can unilaterally change.

Now, I'm sorry to hear that you are losing €3,000 per month.
But the loss that you are incurring (temporarily) is part of the investment game and part of the property market.
The contract between you and the bank was unilaterally negotiated between you and the bank.
You recoup all profits, but you also incur all losses.

I'm not sure what losses I have incurred on the value of my car, but its certainly been substantial (at least 40%)

And naturally consideration should be given to the fact that I've already donated €26k to the public coffers?

Brilliant argument. I love it.

You will definitely die of a heart attack if you don't accept that we are ALL going to pay through the nose for the next 5 years (including me and many others who never participated in any of this madness).
This was confirmed by Brian Cown at the Ard dheis.

I assume you entered into contract of your own free will and nobody coerced you into the purchase.
The E26k stamp duty and the current losses you are incurring, are unfortunately the way business works.
I'm sorry if you feel hard done by, but this is the nature of investment.

Nobody is going to compensate my sister-in-law for the E20,000 she had invested in the banks, and the government are unlikely to take it into account, as previously demonstrated with the 1% income levy.

What is I do agree is unfair, is the fact that you have contributed handsomely, like myself and many others, yet you are liable for Anglo's mess and Brian Lenihan's bending of the rules, through the forthcoming taxes.

But so is every other individual in the country......even Sean Quinn who has contriubted E26,000,000.

Capt'n Midnight

gearoidc wrote: »

I bought a house 2006. Stupid move I admit.

However, I can't see how Govt could justify a tax on people like me who have paid €26k plus in tax (stamp duty) already only 3 yrs ago. Not to mention the negative equity.

Just cos a person has a property shdnt make them an automatic target.

As has been said a lot lately.....I'm happy to do my bit if the system is equitable.

New houses had 21% VAT
Govt also got tax back on the builders wages and profits
You could only claim a certain amount of mortguage relief so most of what you pay back is on earnings taxed at the higher rate,

very roughy HALF the initial cost of a house is Tax, direct or indirect so there was no incentive on the them to do anything to reduce the price of houses

Rates is a bad word , FF bought an election in the past by abolishing them so it isn't that easy for them to bring them back, but they have used stealth taxes to make up a lot of the shortfall.

A property tax would reduce the value of house further so could be counter productive

dodgyme

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

, FF bought an election in the past by abolishing them so it isn't that easy for them to bring them back,

yep they were on the size of the house. When you drive around rural ireland and see idiotically large houses you curse Jack Lynch and his vote buying. Problem during the CT was that people built large houses coz it was the same (not too big a difference) price as to build a small house in rural areas. Another great result of FF policy. I have a bee in my bonnet about the massive stupid ugly houses in rural ireland. (I also dont like SUV's for same type of reason)

jimmmy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

New houses had 21% VAT
Govt also got tax back on the builders wages and profits
You could only claim a certain amount of mortguage relief so most of what you pay back is on earnings taxed at the higher rate,

very roughy HALF the initial cost of a house is Tax, direct or indirect so there was no incentive on the them to do anything to reduce the price of houses

Rates is a bad word , FF bought an election in the past by abolishing them so it isn't that easy for them to bring them back, but they have used stealth taxes to make up a lot of the shortfall.

A property tax would reduce the value of house further so could be counter productive

Exactly. In addition to what you wrote above "investors" ( many of whom feel very duped at this stage by the govt, especially those who were encouraged by the govt to invest in section 23 / section 27, section 50 schemes to provide accomodation for people ) , there was also stamp duty coughed up to the govt. Plus taxes paid on solicitors fees etc. Plus taxes to be paid as cgt on any gains. Now many places ( 200,000 plus )are empty...many in Leitrim, Sligo, Roscommon, Longford etc etc have never even been lived in since they were built years ago. Many "investors" made sacrifices and did not take holidays years ago, so they could get a 95% mortgage on such property. What a kick in the teeth these people have got for trying to provide for their ( or their childrens ) future. I think many people need to tour ghost estates in the country, or see previous middle class families now reduced to almost bankruptcy , to see the reality. Pushing these people over the edge will not solve anything. Tax the principle residences of bigshots in D4 if you want a property tax.

Berti Vogts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

New houses had 21% VAT
Govt also got tax back on the builders wages and profits
You could only claim a certain amount of mortguage relief so most of what you pay back is on earnings taxed at the higher rate,

very roughy HALF the initial cost of a house is Tax, direct or indirect so there was no incentive on the them to do anything to reduce the price of houses

Rates is a bad word , FF bought an election in the past by abolishing them so it isn't that easy for them to bring them back, but they have used stealth taxes to make up a lot of the shortfall.

A property tax would reduce the value of house further so could be counter productive

VAT is 13.5% on new houses as far as I know

Dannyboy83

jimmmy wrote: »

Exactly. In addition to what you wrote above "investors" ( many of whom feel very duped at this stage by the govt, especially those who were encouraged by the govt to invest in section 23 / section 27, section 50 schemes to provide accomodation for people ) , there was also stamp duty coughed up to the govt. Plus taxes paid on solicitors fees etc. Plus taxes to be paid as cgt on any gains. Now many places ( 200,000 plus )are empty...many in Leitrim, Sligo, Roscommon, Longford etc etc have never even been lived in since they were built years ago. Many "investors" made sacrifices and did not take holidays years ago, so they could get a 95% mortgage on such property. What a kick in the teeth these people have got for trying to provide for their ( or their childrens ) future.

I don't think Leitrim, Sligo, Roscommon, Longford are densely populated in terms of people or businesses, are they!? (I've never even met anyone from Roscommon! )

To be honest, if you built a house in any of those 4 counties for investment purposes, I'd recommend looking up a basic junior cert business studies book, concerning supply and demand.

If they're cautious about building houses in Bandon, West Cork or Youghal, East Cork, what in the name of Christ would give them the idea its reasonable or safe investment out there?
Stick it in Galway at least!

If I built a pizza shop on the back road to Mizen head, I've only myself and my own stupidity to blame when it goes under.

gearoidc

Well, lets be fair here Gearoid, you are the one who demanded in your post above that people's means should be taken into account.

Look. Here's the bottom line. What is the reasoning behind introducing a property tax? Why tax someone who owns a property as opposed to someone who doesn't?

The rationale is "If you have property, you are wealthier than those who don't . Therefore it is only fair that you pay tax on this wealth".

This basis for taxing someone is completely false in the case of someone who bought three years ago.

Assuming the same starting point people who didn't buy a house 3 years ago are materially a lot better off than those who did. Explain to me then why it should be the house-owners who are taxed. What's the justification behind it??

I'm being taxed on "wealth" that I do not have!!!
Do you not see that?

gearoidc

Nobody is going to compensate my sister-in-law for the E20,000 she had invested in the banks, and the government are unlikely to take it into account, as previously demonstrated with the 1% income levy.

You can't compare the two. They are not talking about introducing an arbitrary tax on people who own shares.

Maybe they should. It would be no more unfair than the property tax.

jmayo

gearoidc wrote: »

Who the hell are you to make such a pronouncement!!? What you mean is that it doesn't matter diddly to you.

People's differing financial circumstances should be taken into account when imposing taxes. By your logic I'd be within my rights to insist that people who lost their jobs should still have to stump up for running the country.

You just don't get what a property tax means in most countries.
Are you saying if you own 10 properties that are investments but you are just surving you should be allowed pay no tax, but someone else who owns their house outright and decided not to invest in 10 investment properties should be penalised ?

If you own a 3 litre car you pay x amount in tax, it doesn't matter diddly squat to me, you or the taxman whether you owe the bank 100,000 or 100 of a loan for the car.
You are the one with the car and thus you pay.

Why should other people subsidise anyones choice in house, particularly if investment, and it is time that people get this into their heads ?
And yes there is a point for those who are unemployed, sick or old person on social welfare, but that is it.

Should you pay extra for me being over extended by buying an overpriced house or apartment that I can't afford ?
That argument will make a lot of taxpayers very happy I am sure.

When will people cop on and realise other people should not have to carry the can for their decisions.

gearoidc

If you own a 3 litre car you pay x amount in tax, it doesn't matter diddly squat to me, you or the taxman whether you owe the bank 100,000 or 100 of a loan for the car.
You are the one with the car and thus you pay.

People should pay motor tax because they get to use the very expensive roads and motorways. What do I get in return for a tax on my house?

Are you saying if you own 10 properties that are investments but you are just surving you should be allowed pay no tax, but someone else who owns their house outright and decided not to invest in 10 investment properties should be penalised ?

No. I'm asking why there is a property tax in the first place. Can you tell me why there should be in my case?

Why should other people subsidise anyones choice in house, particularly if investment, and it is time that people get this into their heads ?

Subsidise my house? Where did you get the crazy idea that you are paying for my house??? Are you on drugs?

Should you pay extra for me being over extended by buying an overpriced house or apartment that I can't afford ?

Ermmm. No. What's your point? You're not paying for my house. I won't pay for yours.

When will people cop on and realise other people should not have to carry the can for their decisions.

What are you on about? I am carrying the can for my decisions. It's called a mortgage. And a very big one.

Your arguments are ludicrous. You seem to think that I want a hand-out. No I don't. The bottom line is that I have paid a huge whack of tax on my house already. I don't feel I should have to pay any more.

gearoidc

Why should other people subsidise anyones choice in house

Who are you to talk to me about subsidising!!?

The only person doing the "subsidising" in this instance was me.

I subsidised the public coffers to the tune of €26,000

Have you ever paid that amount of tax on anything???

Dannyboy83

Gearoid,
I see your point and I feel angry for you.
You've been taken for a ride by banks, builders, solicitors and property agents and made these people wealthy.
But above all, you've been ripped off by the government, who have squandered the money, like Bernard Madoff, running a colossal national Ponzi scheme based on property and the music stopped before you joined the game of musical chairs, just after you paid an exorbitant entrance fee, Now suddenly no one wants to play anymore.

The fact is that there is (at a conservative estimate) a E30 billion hole in our finances. In reality, neither I, nor Brian Lenihan, nor Brian Cowen, nor anyone in Fianna Fail knows the true extent of the debt.

There are people who potentially have good estimates.
Those being being the (former) decision makers at the six large financial institutions which were guaranteed by Fianna Fail.
And there are some predictions, which nobody in all honesty can say to be more correct or incorrect, as we are in unchartered territory, economically.

You need to understand, its nothing personal, you're not being taxed for your wealth or perceived wealth.

You are going to be taxed for the economic treason perpetrated by the decision makers of at least 2, and possibly all of those financial institutions.
Subsequent to this, you're going to be taxed in order to compensate all of the people who have lost their job and who will lose their jobs over the next 5 years of this crisis.
You're paying for Willie O'Dea ****arsing on the government jet.
You're paying for Bertie and the Financial regulators pensions & golden handshakes, and the rest of the anti-Robin Hoods.
And lastly, you're going to be taxed in order to compensate for the squandering of unprecedented amounts of money by Fianna Fail under Bertie Ahern and continued by Brian Cowen.

.
.
.
.
There is no way out of this.
There is no way to get money to pay for all these monstrous bills, other than to step on the taxpayer's neck and cut off his oxygen if it means more for the government.
Its sick and its wrong.
But its the truth.

Your stamp duty is long gone.
Have you ever seen a herion addict, how they go insane until they get their medicine.
Well, this government is a spendaholic, they don't really care who they hurt or where they get their money, as long as they get their money.
Look at the last budget for evidence of this.

Besides the fact that there are too many benefits to the government not to impement a property tax, there is also public demand to hit the property oligarchs where it hurts (as you have seen demonstrated on this thread), but above all, there is a necessity to do something about the dire state of the property market which is spilling into everything else in our economy - from the inability of SMEs to get credit, down to people not willing to even purchase a car.

The sad reality is that people are not going to buy until there is reform.
And the last thing Fianna Fail are going to do is real reform.
They're too incompetent, too corrupt after 20 years in power and will always take the easy way out.

We are all going to have some pain.
For you it will be property tax (hopefully not hefty on primary residencies).
For some, it will be Captial Acquisitions Tax, Inheritance Tax, petrol duty.
For others, annual NCTs on their cars, increased motor tax.
For others, airport fees, parking fees.
For others, loss of medical cards, loss of cervical cancer vacinations
For the public service, it will be the worst. I've heard some middle management in the public service throwing around figures of 30% pay reduction per annum of current salary by 2012

The fact is that nobody is going to escape it (bar probably Fianna Fail, unless you use your vote).

There are really only two guns you can do, one involves a voting booth, and the other involves a life sentence.
I would recommend the voting booth.