Opposing Property Tax

horrible island

asdasd wrote: »

HirseSiht. Once we gave control of out interest rates to Europe there was nothing that a Central Bank can do but warn. High-level public executives dont protest outside the Dail.

They give warnings. They have to be circumspect ( if not they would be accused of causing the bust).

what wise people did was listen to Hurley's necessarily opaque wording and not buy houses. The rest of you sneered at us for not owning property.

We listened to Hurley. really you dont need to blame him.

EDIT: also I reported your post.

Why did you report my post?

asdasd

I dont really get a particular argument:

"We pay twice for our water"

See, the thing is if you dont pay for the water in one way ( a water tax) you will pay for it in the other, and income tax.


The anti-double taxation people dont really get that there is no difference between paying ( on average) an extra X in income tax, or an extra X in water charges. You will be as poor anyway.

With water charges it makes more sense to support income tax if you are poor, because income tax is "progressive" supposedly.

However, with property tax, paid more by people with a bigger asset ( i.e the rich) it just makes no sense whatsoever. I mean it makes sense for the rich, and their offspirng, but the angriest anti-property tax people are the people who will probably do better if the increases in taxes is property rather than income based.

But as we have seen, nobody really gets the point that a million in the house is the same as a million in the bank.

Scofflaw

horrible island wrote: »

Why did you report my post?

For the perfectly reasonable reason that it's pointlessly aggressive and insulting, for which I've given you an infraction. Nobody on these boards was personally responsible for the crash, and if you've got aggression to work out, get a punch-bag or a blog.

moderately,
Scofflaw

horrible island

asdasd wrote: »

HirseSiht. Once we gave control of out interest rates to Europe there was nothing that a Central Bank can do but warn. High-level public executives dont protest outside the Dail.

They give warnings. They have to be circumspect ( if not they would be accused of causing the bust).

what wise people did was listen to Hurley's necessarily opaque wording and not buy houses. The rest of you sneered at us for not owning property.

We listened to Hurley. really you dont need to blame him.

EDIT: also I reported your post.

I REPEAT, why did you report my post? WHY?

Before you try to get me censored. Please allow me to respond.

(1) HirseSiht, at least have the courage to scribe in English, so I can respond. Some of us believe in free speech!

(2) Just where are you coming from on the issue of property tax? Do you have a special interest? Why make such an aggressive move, reporting a legitimate viewpoint? Strange.

(3) Do you honestly believe that I meant I wanted senior Central Bank Execs to protest outside the Dail? To state again I would have appreciated a little more up front clarity from the powers that be when it was needed, to let the steam out of an inflated housing market. Which was obvious to all that wanted to see it at the time for what it was.

Especially subsequent to 2001 when then mortgage interest relief was reintroduced. Again do you think warning signals should not have sounded in 2001? Clear up front warnings??

Come on do you honestly believe they would be accused of creating the bust, thats a little trite and again a somewhat strange thing to say.

(4) Why do you think I am a property owner?? Why do you think I was one who sneered? Why do you think I care whether you own property or Not. Again strange.

(5) I dont blame Hurley for anything. I do blame the culure from 1994 to mid 2006, which was nothing less than Hysteria.

(6) IMHO the OP is correct. Just to elaborate I believe if the new property tax etal is imposed then it could be the start of something which destroys confidence among individuals for decades to come in this state. Thats just an observance not a statement of fact!

(7) Just to emphasise I am very disappointed that you reported my post. You dont own this site. My opinion is as legitimate as yours or the moderator!

horrible island

Scofflaw wrote: »

For the perfectly reasonable reason that it's pointlessly aggressive and insulting, for which I've given you an infraction. Nobody on these boards was personally responsible for the crash, and if you've got aggression to work out, get a punch-bag or a blog.

moderately,
Scofflaw

You took me up completly wrong. I did not insult anyone and I did/dont hold anyone responsible for anything. What exactly do you accuse me of, what word or sentence do you say was aggressive? I take this extremely seriously. Where is my right to appeal this. This feels like mobbing.

Why single me out when there is some extremely explicit and offensive threads on this site?

asdasd

I did not insult anyone

You seem incapable of reading your own posts. Try look for the word fool

I reported you for calling the posted a fool, and sarcastically Einstein. Both are ad hominens - attacking the poster not the post ( often this is a use of words, you can call a post stupid - within reason - but not the poster).

. I think you last post was good ( if wrong) so be careful. You are new :-)

And all of this discussion is off-topic ( me too). Discussing modding is illegal too. Read the charter.

asdasd

(5) I dont blame Hurley for anything. I do blame the culure from 1994 to mid 2006, which was nothing less than Hysteria.

yeah I agree with that, but there is only so much that Hurley can do.

Why do you think a property tax more damaging thatn an income tax?

horrible island

asdasd wrote: »

I dont really get a particular argument:

"We pay twice for our water"

See, the thing is if you dont pay for the water in one way ( a water tax) you will pay for it in the other, and income tax.


The anti-double taxation people dont really get that there is no difference between paying ( on average) an extra X in income tax, or an extra X in water charges. You will be as poor anyway.

With water charges it makes more sense to support income tax if you are poor, because income tax is "progressive" supposedly.

However, with property tax, paid more by people with a bigger asset ( i.e the rich) it just makes no sense whatsoever. I mean it makes sense for the rich, and their offspirng, but the angriest anti-property tax people are the people who will probably do better if the increases in taxes is property rather than income based.

But as we have seen, nobody really gets the point that a million in the house is the same as a million in the bank.

We are already paying for water in income tax. There should be no argument when it comes to a second tax on water. If it needs to be increased then be it so. (The main problem with water here is wasteage through leaks. If there is the need for a water tax then it should be emphasied why by Government and not the generic fobbing off, blaming the EU - the European directive speel. If they use the excuse that Irish people are naturally wasful at the tap then they should instal water meters.

With your agenda towards individuals not recognising the value of their homes, do you not think your missing the point, if you have a home worth X does this mean you can pay Y?

horrible island

asdasd wrote: »

You seem incapable of reading your own posts. Try look for the word fool

I reported you for calling the posted a fool, and sarcastically Einstein. Both are ad hominens - attacking the poster not the post ( often this is a use of words, you can call a post stupid - within reason - but not the poster).

. I think you last post was good ( if wrong) so be careful. You are new :-)

And all of this discussion is off-topic ( me too). Discussing modding is illegal too. Read the charter.

I aplogise for any misunderstanding but I completely resent been treated like a bold child. I still dont understand why your group took such a stance on a very difficult and painful subject for many people - IMHO not yourself.

Do I have to read the full charter before I can take part in debates. I find this episode baffling and strange. If sarcasim is such a no no why say I seem un capable of reading my own posts?

asdasd

HI, I am taking this Ot conversation to private messages.

With your agenda towards individuals not recognising the value of their homes, do you not think your missing the point, if you have a home worth X does this mean you can pay Y?

Yes, but I dont think that it is a big problem if they have to sell and monetize their assets.

oscarBravo

horrible island wrote: »

Do I have to read the full charter before I can take part in debates.

Yes, you do. Please do so now.

horrible island

dvpower wrote: »

Up to a year or so ago there was no expectation that a property tax would be introduced, so there was no way that people who have bought houses could have taken this into account.



Its a good thing that pensioners should be forced to move out of their homes?:eek: Well at least we know where you stand.

I usually have nothing to do with bullies but I feel I have to make the following point:

I thank dvpower for identifying asdasds post, previous page. I am appaled by some of the posts on this site, anyone who could even hint that a pensioner should be picked on for a few euro is a bully, full stop. I posted my reply yesterday to this individual as a repose to such an attitude. There was no hint form any Mod asking him/her to retract that comment. You should be ashamed of yourself. Also Asdasd just because some individuals live in Dalkey does not mean they are parasities, Page 4. IMHO there is no "winners" when comes to tax, especially when the most vulnerable will be paying at such a bad time. Again shame on you and again where was the Mod? It seems if there is no one there to defend the defenceless then they are fair game.

P. Breathnach

horrible island wrote: »

... I am appaled by some of the posts on this site, anyone who could even hint that a pensioner should be picked on for a few euro is a bully, full stop...

I am a pensioner. I would not feel bullied if a property tax were introduced.

dvpower

horrible island wrote: »

We are already paying for water in income tax. There should be no argument when it comes to a second tax on water. If it needs to be increased then be it so. (The main problem with water here is wasteage through leaks. If there is the need for a water tax then it should be emphasied why by Government and not the generic fobbing off, blaming the EU - the European directive speel. If they use the excuse that Irish people are naturally wasful at the tap then they should instal water meters.

At the risk of going off topic, introducing a water tax without introducing metering would be a bad move. At most it would serve to highlight the true cost of water, but we would pay dearly, through the administration costs of the revenue collection system, for this information.

asdasd

Again shame on you and again where was the Mod? It seems if there is no one there to defend the defenceless then they are fair game.

You really dont understand the modding system. It is here to stop personal abuse - like you calling someone a fool, not to stop legitimate debate.

But to answer the question. And I am doing this for the last time. It seems that I am tring to teach the obvious.

The last few years of property madness have been an intergenerational transfer of wealth with few historical precedents. In general increases in property prices are not productive, it is a zero-sum game ( except when the much maligned developers build something, because that is a capital addition).

A zero-sum game means that if someone gains, the other person loses.

So if someone gains 1 million euro in his house in Dalkey, that gain comes from someone else's loss. This is unlike the situation where someone gains by creating goods, or services, since that expands the pot ( a non-zero sum game). In general.

So where does the 1 million gain come from? Property prices are set at the margin, i.e. the prices of the lowest property affects the rest upwards. So if someone gains a million in his house it comes from ten other people below him paying on average 100K more on their house than they should or could have. Where does it go to? To the long term house holder ( i.e. the oldest generation) and from the youngest house buying generation.

Now, of course property has fallen. Some say it will fall by 50% since peak. that would reduce the property tax owed by everybody. However some people will be in million euro houses and some will be in ngative equity.

If house prices are moderate for the next generation the people who bought in the last few years may never see any gain in their houses.

So one generation is lucky, the other isnt. regardless of their age. When we get there we wil have less likelhood of a pension, and no equivlent gains in wealth. We all get old.

I welcome P. Breatnacs intervention here because the only people who can fight back against the "taxing rich pensioners are bullies" are often honest pensioners themselves. And he proves that pensioners are not "defenceless"

Now to get even more simple. The government has to tax to get X in taxes. Lets say that we can tax, property (1), or income (2). Income is generally paye income.

We can tax:

1) Person on 30K a yeat gross ( pension) and a 1M house paid for.
2) Person on 50K a year gross, 2 kids, negative equity of 100K.

In terms of wealth, number 2 is clearly poorer. He is also strugglng with his mortgage, he pays tax, he pays for travel, he pays for childcare etc.

If we tax him ( on income) to get the money he gets even poorer. But number 1 pays less because of "progressive" taxation.

If we tax property to get X, then 2) will pay more so 1) can pay less.

So if 2) loses his house, he can sell it and realise the entire amount, have 1 million in the bank, and live of capital, interest and income for the rest of his life. Also that house is released into the pool of houses pushing house prices down from where they would otherwise be. Property taxes exist everywhere.

I know which tax is fairer, but - like the American debate on healthcare where the poor ( and old) are opposed to it because of the mythical |Death-Panels" in socialist healthcare - the debate is framed by the rich and supported by the poor.

dvpower

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am a pensioner. I would not feel bullied if a property tax were introduced.

There are a lot of pensioners in this country that are asset rich and cash poor. I don't buy the arguement that pensioners should be especially treated with kid gloves, but a property tax is likely to particulary effect pensioners. The idea that pensioners (or indeed anyone) would be forced to move home in order to pay an unforseen property tax doesn't sit well with me.

If we think it is desirable for pensioners to downsize in order to make their big houses available to families, a better way would be through changes in Inheritance taxes; encourage pensioners to spend their money in the knowledge that if they don't, the Revenue will, not their kids.

P. Breathnach

dvpower wrote: »

There are a lot of pensioners in this country that are asset rich and cash poor.

And a lot of younger people who are also poor. I accept the general point that taxes should not exceed a person's reasonable capacity to pay, but the projection of the image of the impoverished pensioner is presenting a reasonable point in an emotive way, with an illustration that is not always apt.

I don't buy the arguement that pensioners should be especially treated with kid gloves, but a property tax is likely to particulary effect pensioners. The idea that pensioners (or indeed anyone) would be forced to move home in order to pay an unforseen property tax doesn't sit well with me.

I can go a long way along with that argument.

If we think it is desirable for pensioners to downsize in order to make their big houses available to families, a better way would be through changes in Inheritance taxes; encourage pensioners to spend their money in the knowledge that if they don't, the Revenue will, not their kids.

My home (it's not my house, because Herself also has a stake in it) is important to me, and I don't want to be forced out of it. It can become a home for a family when Herself and I are done with it. We will even maintain it properly and leave it in good shape for the next occupants.

I favour inheritance taxes for reasons of social justice, not as an incentive for me to shed assets in my lifetime. The main opposition to inheritance taxes seems to me to come from the next generation, who are waiting to inherit.

asdasd

The main opposition to inheritance taxes seems to me to come from the next generation, who are waiting to inherit.

Absolutely. I know plenty of crusaders for social justice from richer backgrounds who are in favour of progessive tax on earned incomes but not inheritance tax, or property tax.

In the latter case they are afraid ( I surmise) that their parents will spend the money if it is liquid. Which is what I would do. I tend to lack of nostagia though, and were I old and the kids moved on ( second is hypotetical :-) ) I would sell up the family house - with some regrets maybe, liquidize, and travel the world, particulalry in the first 5 years as one can never tell the health situation. In fact as a rule of thumb I aim to spend half my wealth between 65 and 70, and half again ( of the reduced amount) between 70+75. After that I can take it easy.

asdasd

By travel I mean, assisted cruises etc. I dont expect to be backpacking at 65.

horrible island

asdasd wrote: »

You really dont understand the modding system. It is here to stop personal abuse - like you calling someone a fool, not to stop legitimate debate.

But to answer the question. And I am doing this for the last time. It seems that I am tring to teach the obvious.

The last few years of property madness have been an intergenerational transfer of wealth with few historical precedents. In general increases in property prices are not productive, it is a zero-sum game ( except when the much maligned developers build something, because that is a capital addition).

A zero-sum game means that if someone gains, the other person loses.

So if someone gains 1 million euro in his house in Dalkey, that gain comes from someone else's loss. This is unlike the situation where someone gains by creating goods, or services, since that expands the pot ( a non-zero sum game). In general.

So where does the 1 million gain come from? Property prices are set at the margin, i.e. the prices of the lowest property affects the rest upwards. So if someone gains a million in his house it comes from ten other people below him paying on average 100K more on their house than they should or could have. Where does it go to? To the long term house holder ( i.e. the oldest generation) and from the youngest house buying generation.

Now, of course property has fallen. Some say it will fall by 50% since peak. that would reduce the property tax owed by everybody. However some people will be in million euro houses and some will be in ngative equity.

If house prices are moderate for the next generation the people who bought in the last few years may never see any gain in their houses.

So one generation is lucky, the other isnt. regardless of their age. When we get there we wil have less likelhood of a pension, and no equivlent gains in wealth. We all get old.

I welcome P. Breatnacs intervention here because the only people who can fight back against the "taxing rich pensioners are bullies" are often honest pensioners themselves. And he proves that pensioners are not "defenceless"

Now to get even more simple. The government has to tax to get X in taxes. Lets say that we can tax, property (1), or income (2). Income is generally paye income.

We can tax:

1) Person on 30K a yeat gross ( pension) and a 1M house paid for.
2) Person on 50K a year gross, 2 kids, negative equity of 100K.

In terms of wealth, number 2 is clearly poorer. He is also strugglng with his mortgage, he pays tax, he pays for travel, he pays for childcare etc.

If we tax him ( on income) to get the money he gets even poorer. But number 1 pays less because of "progressive" taxation.

If we tax property to get X, then 2) will pay more so 1) can pay less.

So if 2) loses his house, he can sell it and realise the entire amount, have 1 million in the bank, and live of capital, interest and income for the rest of his life. Also that house is released into the pool of houses pushing house prices down from where they would otherwise be. Property taxes exist everywhere.

I know which tax is fairer, but - like the American debate on healthcare where the poor ( and old) are opposed to it because of the mythical |Death-Panels" in socialist healthcare - the debate is framed by the rich and supported by the poor.

You leave me with no option but to reply:

Firstly, I "understand" the modding system quite well. Your sensitivities are very selective, when you become offended by the word "fool" while at the same time calling for pensioners to be put out of their houses. I think that says it all.

I genuinely believe you are a bully and nothing you said so far has changed that. When you mention pensioners - from your previous posts - you dont try to clearly distinguish between those who have and those who have not. You bring all of this group into the "debate" this includes those on a small pension and those that lost everything with the collapse of share prices, but maybe living in a large house. People have been traumatised by the insanity of the last few years in this state. Your condesending attittude does not help.

Why are you caught up with pensioners? For example if an 20 year old bought a house in 1994 with a twenty year mortgage are they not sitting pretty now? Also those that bought their houses in the 1980s, early 1990s, are they not content with their lott? What about all those that - being in the know - bought multiple units and sold all before the bust? The list is never ending. Why this preponderance with pensioners? Why even mention them, in the present climate?

Your basic premise - while I am sure you think its well thought out - is skewed and egocentric. Your basic premise is in correct the bottom line is, nobody is buying houses, those rich individuals you talk about wont be able to realise the value of their property and there would no living off interest and little down sizing of property, for the forseeable future.

You are correct when you allude to all those in negative equity especially if they bought at the hight of the boom. IMHO this is where any tax dispensation should be given to help these unfortunates. There should be more done for these individuals, though with the hap hazzard way the downturn has been handeled so far that seems unlikely. Thats from no particular political viewpoint.

Also just because other countries have a property tax does not mean it should be thrust upon the population here without it been thought out fully. This was traditionally a high tax country with very little in return to the individual, that seems to be the way pendululm is swinging again. Does not mean its right. Other countries give and always gave far more for the buck.

asdasd

Firstly, I "understand" the modding system quite well. Your sensitivities are very selective, when you become offended by the word "fool" while at the same time calling for pensioners to be put out of their houses. I think that says it all.

Clearly you dont. there are no laws against upsetting your sensibilities about pensioners, there are rules against using the word fool as a direct attack on a poster, for which you got infracted. Is is that difficult to read the charter?

I genuinely believe you are a bully

Thats an ad hominem attack, for instance.

you dont try to clearly distinguish between those who have and those who have not.

I clearly do. I make the clear case that net worth is net worth regardless of where it is. my post was as simple as possible in that regard. I have no idea why people persist in seeing someone in a million euro house as penniless.

Why are you caught up with pensioners? For example if an 20 year old bought a house in 1994 with a twenty year mortgage are they not sitting pretty now? Also those that bought their houses in the 1980s, early 1990s, are they not content with their lott? W

The property tax will apply across the board. Nobody on the boards is defending people who are 30, 40, or 50, or even 64 with net wealth. The minute someone gets to 65 there are sacrosant. i dont believe that. But obviously the property tax will apply across the board. However wealth is concentrated in older generations ( not just pensioners but I never really mention the word).

Your basic premise - while I am sure you think its well thought out - is skewed and egocentric. Your basic premise is in correct the bottom line is, nobody is buying houses, those rich individuals you talk about wont be able to realise the value of their property and there would no living off interest and little down sizing of property, for the forseeable future.

Egocentric is an ad hominen. No idea what the rest of the sentance means.

This was traditionally a high tax country with very little in return to the individual, that seems to be the way pendululm is swinging again.

It is indeed, and I think we would have better taxation if we taxed people with property ( at whatever age) rather than income earners. A tax on property is the least worst tax in terms of its affect on peoples industry. If you are not a property owner, as you say, then you are either going to pay more money in income tax if there is no property tax, or less if there is.

No idea why you would oppose it.

djpbarry

horrible island wrote: »

You are correct when you allude to all those in negative equity especially if they bought at the hight of the boom. IMHO this is where any tax dispensation should be given to help these unfortunates. There should be more done for these individuals...

Like what? You’ll have to excuse my less-than charitable attitude towards “these individuals” who willingly burdened themselves with absolutely ridiculous levels of debt that they obviously could not afford. I know of one couple (one is an accountant, the other an investment fund manager – go figure) who paid over €400,000 for a 3-bed house in Maynooth at the beginning of 2007, all the while scoffing at me (and others) as I continued to rent. I obviously questioned the wisdom of their decision and suggested that maybe they should consider renting a place together first (they were both living with their parents at the time), but they both insisted that rent was “dead money” and they would be better off buying a place as it represented an investment – the concept of a savings account or term deposit was obviously lost on them. They are undoubtedly up to their eyes in negative equity now and you’ll have to forgive me if I feel like pointing and laughing while chanting “I told you so”.

horrible island wrote: »

This was traditionally a high tax country with very little in return to the individual....

Ireland has not been “a high tax country” for quite some time – certainly not any time recently. There seems to be a rather large portion of the population who are under the illusion that we pay a lot of tax in this country – I’d love to know where that myth originated.

oscarBravo

horrible island, if you persist in personalising the debate I'll remove your access from this forum. Discuss the topic, not the posters.

NewDubliner

asdasd wrote: »

However wealth is concentrated in older generations ( not just pensioners but I never really mention the word).... A tax on property is the least worst tax in terms of its affect on peoples industry. .

Would it not be better to relate the tax to public services consumed and the cost of providing them rather than to the value of a property?

A person works hard all their life, pays income tax and buys a house out of the taxed income. They get stung for stamp duty and VAT. They do their house up themselves, getting stung for VAT on the materials. Thanks to the work they've done on their house and being law-abiding citizens just like their neighbours, their area becomes attractive. Property pricees increase. They get hit with extra property tax.

The only people who could favour a house-value-based tax are begrudgers and non-urban dwellers.

tritium

There are many reasons to hold a property tax as unfair, in particular in the current climate. To take ASDASD's arguement first. It is important to remember that a property tax isn't a tax on income or consumption a la most taxes. However neither is it a tax on wealth, as some would imply. The wealth used to purchase the house is already effectively taxed as income. Its the same as if I receive my taxed income and then go and buy a new bicycle. For it to be reflective as a tax on wealth it would have to a) only apply to the projected gain on the purchase price or b) only be applied to the realised profit from the asset. the first of these is captured in Capital gains tax . Its also safe to say that this approach is a non-runner due to the negative equity in parts of the market at present and the difficulty in applying it. the second part is addressed in the taxation of rental profits. I'd support applying a form of tax on second and subsequent homes, but really this is more as a tax on the availability of an asset for business rather than on the holding of an asset. The obvious point to doing that however is it will put an upward pressure on rental costs. How critical its effect would be against the downward pressures already in existance is another debate, though those posters who are sitting smugly telling us all how they were right to rent and to hell with those who bought in the boom might want to consider this.

A further objection would be that many homeowners in newer estates are already paying an additional charge in management fees for their homes. this charge is a legacy of the unwillingness of government to fund local government and services and means in effect that a section of homeowners receive a reduced or no benefit from the portion of their taxes that go to this. If the government would care to abolish my 1k+ managenment fee before bringing in a property tax of €800/yr then fair enough

A further point is more pertinent. My major objection to property tax is that it once again excessively targets the middle income group who are easiest to tax. the point of a progressive tax system is to apply a degree of equity (as opposed to equality). We have as a nation spectacularly failed to do this and instead taken the easy options of consistently penalising those groups who can least affect protest. A previous poster pointed out that the point of a viable tax is to capture as many people as possible in its net - we have as a nation failed in this aim. Fuelled on the one hand by a liberal agenda that argues that any cut in social spending or benefits is inherently wrong, and any reform of the system an attack on the poor, and on the other hand by a successive series of tax breaks and incentives that localise wealth, we have created a system where the middle ground are the group consistently squeezed.

Without meaningful reform of these two pillars, and the changes this implies, any recovery will be longer and more painful. Bringing in a property tax without such reform is akin to having a heart transplant to fix a migrane. Whether or not agenda groups like it we need to cut expenditure and close loopholes first in order begin recovery and restore confidence. Some of these will be painful and unpopular to the groups affected but the reality is that only in an economic wonderland to you have free medical cards for all over 70's, economically viable unemployment, and tax breaks on assets that increase in value year on year by double digit figures.

asdasd

If the government would care to abolish my 1k+ managenment fee before bringing in a property tax of €800/yr then fair enough

Thats a good point. If the property tax is collected locally then people whose estates are not taken in charge, should not have to pay it, or get to write off the management fees against it.

gerry28

How many homes are in the country?
How many are primary residence dwellings?
How many are second homes (there is a seperate tax on these of €200)?

How much do the government expect to make is it 1 billion, 2 billion per year from this tax??

Also, Can anyone give a good argument how a property tax is fair (saying other countries have it says nothing about its inherit fairness)

Oasis44

Even further taxes like water and property will push a lot of people over the edge and make them decide to emigrate which means they will be lost from the tax system altogether.

I can understand water charges and even taxing second homes but taxing your primary place of residence is bang out of order. I wouldn't pay it no matter what - once its in it will go up and up and up every single year.

What's next child tax?

ei.sdraob

Oasis44 wrote: »

What's next child tax?

thats a good idea

would hit the scroungers the hardest

Copper1

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ffs what do property taxes have to do with Lisbon

no wonder this country is so fuucked its full of muppets :mad:

I am very sympathetic to the YES to Lisbon ideal, however I will also be voting NO to Lisbon as it is the only way that I have to protest against a property tax. There appears to be massive acceptance of a property tax in the media, from politicians, etc ... why ... softening us up again??

I have already paid my property tax when I bought my house in the form of stampt duty and I am not willing to pay €1k+ per year on MY house ... what will it be in 3 years time - €3k? Additionally, in principle I am totally against paying tax on an asset that I worked hard to own and paid for from my already taxed income! If the government need more taxes then let them add a few more % to income tax .... rather that than tax my house.

The green lobby can bleat on about property tax, water tax and carbon tax for they are behind most of this. But what a time to introduce new taxes when the country is on its knees.

If anyone can suggest a better more effective way to make a protest (that will be heard) against the proposed property tax, please let me know.

Copper.