How property tax should be charged?

desertcircus

How on earth is a property tax intrinsically wrong? I know there are taxation policies, such as religion ones, that exist elsewhere but not here. It doesn't mean they're wrong or bad, just that we don't use them at the moment.

Also: the idea that property tax should be kept local is horrible. I'm not exaggerating here: if you create value-sensitive property tax and keep it in the hands of local government it means that richer areas get heaps of money spent on them while problem areas - the ones that most need significant help and investment - get pennies. The whole point of the tax system is redistribution - but this isn't redistribution. Stick the lot in with all the other tax income.

On the double/triple taxation thing: we pay triple taxation on loads of things. We pay taxes on petrol to fuel our taxed car bought with our taxed salaries.

To whoever thought renters should be paying it: that removes the whole point of it - the holding of the right to land is what's being taxed. Why should a renter pay property tax on something they don't own while the holder of the property doesn't?

Last but not least - if a properly implemented property tax reduces the likelihood of a second idiotic bubble by raising the cost of holding land and buying up apartments for speculation, it'll have been worth it.

Bens

OMD wrote: »

All these reliefs are being/ have been removed. The property tax is in addition to this.

Well maybe they should get the finger out and remove them then. Much easier and cheaper to implement than a tax of €100. And they will get more money out of it.

rodento

Main issue with property tax is that if some inherits the family home, they could easily find themselves having to sell it in order the pay the tax(if its on the current market value of the house)

Thats just plain wrong

Welease

rodento wrote: »

Main issue with property tax is that if some inherits the family home, they could easily find themselves having to sell it in order the pay the tax(if its on the current market value of the house)

Thats just plain wrong

We already have inheritence tax... and its still a fraction of what the property is worth....

Good loser

The Taxpayer wrote: »

You pay road tax for using the roads and as others have said we'll get nothing we don't already have for paying property tax. If enough people choose not to pay it will end up costing more to collect than is gained and eventually be scrapped, or so I hope.

Does it matter to you if the tax is taken from your right pocket or your left pocket? (It doesn't to me)

Bruthal

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If you rent and; (a) keep your money in the bank you pay DIRT (b) you invest your money you pay tax on income from it (c) you live it up and spend your money wildly you pay VAT on purchases. People who didnt buy houses pay tax in other ways. Why should property not be taxed as well?

So, are people who did buy a home exempt from the above examples that you say the renter pays? The renter is more likely going to be able to spend wildly and live it up alright, but he can cut down on it anytime he likes. But its hard for a person with a family home to give up having a home.

Looking at this thread, if they decide to tax the airs oxygen by the litres we breath per day, there will still be advocates of it.

The Taxpayer

Good loser wrote: »

Does it matter to you if the tax is taken from your right pocket or your left pocket? (It doesn't to me)

Good point, I'd prefer if they just called it 'IMF imposed tax' though or at least 'budget defecit reduction tax'.

About OP's idea, I think you could change the cost from 100 per bedroom to 100 per adult occupant or else it becomes more like a tax on wealth than a tax to pay for the services we use. People in bigger or higher valued houses don't necessarily cost the state more or have any greater means to afford the tax.

jimmycrackcorm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1500 euro a year for every Dubliner who thinks everyone should live in the Big Smoke and looks down on those savages beyond the Pale

Is there a discount for culchies who have to live in Dublin?

jimmycrackcorm

bb12 wrote: »

i paid the council a very large development contribution fee last june for my new build (>15K) for 'provision of services' in my rural location. i have my own water supply and waste water treatment. i have not seen one council car/van on my road in the past year...there are potholes and untrimmed hedges which make driving around corners fear for your life! so why oh why would i want to contribute to yet another tax for 'services'??!

Your tax should be deductible against the cost of the rise on lawn mower you had to buy for your 1 acre site

Victor

Welease wrote: »

Not true... Road Tax is not ring fenced for highway expenditure, and you can use roads on bikes, foot etc without paying a cent in road tax..

How many potholes are caused by pedestrains and cyclists?

rodento wrote: »

Main issue with property tax is that if some inherits the family home, they could easily find themselves having to sell it in order the pay the tax(if its on the current market value of the house)

Thats just plain wrong

But inheriting a family home is already given favourable tax treatment. If you are inheriting a €150,000 property and can't afford a €500/year tax, then can you really afford to own a €150,000 property?

Bruthal

Good loser wrote: »

Does it matter to you if the tax is taken from your right pocket or your left pocket? (It doesn't to me)

It will to people who`s left and right pockets are already empty.

rodento

Victor I wish it was only 500 takes been taken out of people's pockets but with all the tax rises, new tax's and the 20% rise in fuel(21% of that increase is tax)

So I ask you, should the government put people in the position of having to sell the family home, thats been in the family for generations because they can't afford to maintain it after all the tax has been paid for

Welease

Victor wrote: »

How many potholes are caused by pedestrains and cyclists?

Why is that relevant?

As I stated.. contrary to what the previous poster was claiming.. you don't need to pay road tax to use the roads.. you need to it use a motor vehicle on the roads... and the road tax is not ring fenced for highway maintenance and development. (In the context of their belief that taxes should only be charged when you gain some direct benefit)

Bruthal

Welease wrote: »

Why is that relevant?

As I stated.. contrary to what the previous poster was claiming.. you don't need to pay road tax to use the roads.. you need to it use a motor vehicle on the roads... and the road tax is not ring fenced for highway maintenance and development. (In the context of their belief that taxes should only be charged when you gain some direct benefit)

They can tell us all they like about how motor tax is ringfenced. Roads need maintenance. We pay for using them. They might use a different €50 note for the road than the one we hand into the motor tax office to maintain the roads, but it is still handed in.

Welease

robbie7730 wrote: »

They can tell us all they like about how motor tax is ringfenced. Roads need maintenance. We pay for using them. They might use a different €50 note for the road than the one we hand into the motor tax office to maintain the roads, but it is still handed in.

You are completely missing the point of my response to The Taxpayer..

Their logic for it being an unfair tax (and therefore people shouldnt pay it) is because

The Taxpayer wrote: »

You pay road tax for using the roads and as others have said we'll get nothing we don't already have for paying property tax.

The logic fails on 2 counts.. Which is what I was pointing out to him..

1) You don't pay a tax for using roads.. My neighbour doesn't own a car, but makes daily use of the roads both on foot and via bike without having to pay a tax..

and more importantly..

2) The property tax is not based on providing services exclusively to the house.. It will be a tax to provide services to the area in which the house is located (to make up the shortfall in government funding).. So again, they are incorrect.. If everyone refused to pay, then where does the funding come from to pay for road upkeep, libraries, street lighting, sewerage and the myriad of services provided by the council? These are services that The_Taxpayer can and in some cases will gain benefit from.. and thats what they will be funding.

Pete_Cavan

rodento wrote: »

Victor I wish it was only 500 takes been taken out of people's pockets but with all the tax rises, new tax's and the 20% rise in fuel(21% of that increase is tax)

So I ask you, should the government put people in the position of having to sell the family home, thats been in the family for generations because they can't afford to maintain it after all the tax has been paid for

The occupants of the house still cost the state money, why should they be exempt from paying this tax?
What if you inherit a house and you already own one, or you inherit more than one house, why should you be exempt from paying the property tax on your multiple properties you didnt pay for while everybody else in the country has to pay out?
Would you feel the same if the government put people in the position of having to sell the family home, that has not been in the family for generations, because they can't afford to maintain it after all the tax has been paid for?

People who inherit houses are generally in a much better position to afford to pay the property tax (because they have avoided paying out a couple of hundred grand for the house) so should not be exempt. You must be set to inherit a big house which you dont want to pay any tax on.

Bruthal

Welease wrote: »

2) So again, they are incorrect.. If everyone refused to pay, then where does the funding come from to pay for road upkeep, libraries, street lighting, sewerage and the myriad of services provided by the council?

Well where did it come from before the property tax then? In reality its another easy target to hit for more money, simple as that. There will always be supporters of these taxes, no doubt from the ones least affected by them.

Someone barely able to keep their family home wont give a shit about how the country is going under if their home is taken off them, and i wouldnt blame them.

Welease

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well where did it come from before the property tax then? In reality its another easy target to hit for more money, simple as that. There will always be supporters of these taxes, no doubt from the ones least affected by them.

It came from the government via our tax take.. That tax take has dropped dramatically, and the funding to local councils is going to be cut accordingly.. The property tax will be used to plug that gap and provide a more consistant tax revenue...

Just because people understand the taxes doesn't mean they "support" them.. It's highly unlikely I will be one of the ones least affected by this..

How do you think we should fund all of the services provided by local councils then?

Bruthal

Welease wrote: »

It came from the government via our tax take.. That tax take has dropped dramatically, and the funding to local councils is going to be cut accordingly.. The property tax will be used to plug that gap and provide a more consistant tax revenue...

Just because people understand the taxes doesn't mean they "support" them.. It's highly unlikely I will be one of the ones least affected by this..

Right so, you believe you understand the taxes, and others dont? So the tax take dropping is the only reason for the continous increases in taxes, as well as new taxing methods then is it?

Its not rocket science to understand the state needs money, and taxing everyone more and more will reduce the deficit, but if thats the answer, why not tax everyone 50k a year, problem solved. i wonder would it be because people cant afford it?

How do you think we should fund all of the services provided by local councils then?

Or how can we fund the eu loan repayments/bank bailouts etc you mean? Well we can just keep paying the new taxes they introduce, as well as the increasing ones that already exist. After all, every household can afford more than they actually have, once the cause is high enough,,, cant we?

Good loser

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well where did it come from before the property tax then? In reality its another easy target to hit for more money, simple as that. There will always be supporters of these taxes, no doubt from the ones least affected by them.

Someone barely able to keep their family home wont give a shit about how the country is going under if their home is taken off them, and i wouldnt blame them.

The best and fairest taxes are those that cannot be avoided i.e. easy targets.

That is a major attraction of the house property tax. (It is a wealth tax)

Only a Mickey Mouse country (Irish Republic) with a joke of a ruling political party (FF) could have carried on for so long without one.

The enormous Govt deficit has made its reintroduction inevitable.

The current proposal is timid in the extreme.

If it had been brought in years ago a lot less people would now be loosing their homes.

Bruthal

Good loser wrote: »

The best and fairest taxes are those that cannot be avoided i.e. easy targets.

Yes, easy targets, those that can not be avoided by the wealthy you mean, because none can be avoided by the ones most affected by them, and that cant afford them as it is.

That is a major attraction of the house property tax. (It is a wealth tax)

So a person with a family home and mortgage to a level close to or above the perceived value of the home are wealthy now?

If it had been brought in years ago a lot less people would now be loosing their homes.

So a property tax would of prevented the massive house price inflation we had would it?

Welease

You seem to be spoiling for a fight just for the sake of it ..

robbie7730 wrote: »

Right so, you believe you understand the taxes, and others dont? So the tax take dropping is the only reason for the continous increases in taxes, as well as new taxing methods then is it?

No.. I was responding to another poster... you have decided to make large pointless assumptions.. and then asked the question..

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well where did it come from before the property tax then?

If you don't want the question to be answered.. then don't ask the question..

robbie7730 wrote: »

Its not rocket science to understand the state needs money, and taxing everyone more and more will reduce the deficit, but if thats the answer, why not tax everyone 50k a year, problem solved. i wonder would it be because people cant afford it?

Again.. point to (in the context of my responses to The Taxpayer) where I said anything of the sort???? Or do you just make up stupid assumptions, assign them people and hope they will defend them? Can I suggest you find a more rewarding and productive hobby..

robbie7730 wrote: »

Or how can we fund the eu loan repayments/bank bailouts etc you mean? Well we can just keep paying the new taxes they introduce, as well as the increasing ones that already exist. After all, every household can afford more than they actually have, once the cause is high enough,,, cant we?

/yawn.... still going I see... Again.. where did I say any of the above?

What I said was..

1) Road tax is not ringfenced for roads..
2) The property tax is being implemented to bridge the funding shortfall for local councils..

If either of the above is untrue.. then address them..

donalg1

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well where did it come from before the property tax then? In reality its another easy target to hit for more money, simple as that. There will always be supporters of these taxes, no doubt from the ones least affected by them.

Someone barely able to keep their family home wont give a shit about how the country is going under if their home is taken off them, and i wouldnt blame them.

Local Government Fund

The Taxpayer

Welease wrote: »

You don't pay a tax for using roads..

I agree with you here but you don't pay tax for owning a car if it's not on the road either. This is why I think they aren't comparable taxes since any number of holiday homes won't cost the state any more for services but more cars on the roads will.

As the tax stands now I think it's more like TV license fees where everybody pays the same regardless of what TVs or reception they have or channels they watch, which could end up being the fairest way to charge it in my opinion.

With VAT income down 200 million euro on what was expected for this year we could clearly have taken in more than property tax will give had there been confidence in consumer spending. Has it even been considered if this tax will lead to more activity in a growing black economy which is worth up to 25 billion a year already?

One other thing that bothers me about property tax is the claim that it will cost 2 euro a week when there are only 21 weeks till January when they plan to collect it. Maybe I'm just being picky but to me it's quite a misleading statement.

Bruthal

Welease wrote: »

You seem to be spoiling for a fight just for the sake of it ..

No.. I was responding to another poster... you have decided to make large pointless assumptions.. and then asked the question..

If you don't want the question to be answered.. then don't ask the question..

Again.. point to (in the context of my responses to The Taxpayer) where I said anything of the sort???? Or do you just make up stupid assumptions, assign them people and hope they will defend them? Can I suggest you find a more rewarding and productive hobby..

/yawn.... still going I see... Again.. where did I say any of the above?

What I said was..

1) Road tax is not ringfenced for roads..
2) The property tax is being implemented to bridge the funding shortfall for local councils..

If either of the above is untrue.. then address them..

I see you like full stops.., a hobby is it?:pac:

Welease

The Taxpayer wrote: »

I agree with you here but you don't pay tax for owning a car if it's not on the road either. This is why I think they aren't comparable taxes since any number of holiday homes won't cost the state any more for services but more cars on the roads will.

As the tax stands now I think it's more like TV license fees where everybody pays the same regardless of what TVs or reception they have or channels they watch, which could end up being the fairest way to charge it in my opinion.

Well it won't stay that way .. This property tax is an interim measure until the full property tax is implemented (in 2014 iirc).. The full property tax is currently being touted as being based on a value of the property.. One would assume it will be banded like Council tax in the UK.

The Taxpayer wrote: »

With VAT income down 200 million euro on what was expected for this year we could clearly have taken in more than property tax will give had there been confidence in consumer spending. Has it even been considered if this tax will lead to more activity in a growing black economy which is worth up to 25 billion a year already?

Not sure what you mean by a leading to growth in the black economy.. unless you mean that any tax will lead to a growth, which may be true but there is no way around this is you need to raise tax revenue..
One of the primary reasons for implementing a propety tax is that the revenue being raised is known, so it's somewhat easier to budget.. Vat, Income tax etc receipts will go up and down as the economy expands and contracts, but the the amount of local council funding needed divided by the number of houses is a relatively simple calculation which can be done yearly to decide on the level of property tax required to fund local services..

The Taxpayer wrote: »

One other thing that bothers me about property tax is the claim that it will cost 2 euro a week when there are only 21 weeks till January when they plan to collect it. Maybe I'm just being picky but to me it's quite a misleading statement.

Im not sure when we will actually get billed, but I assume they would respond that its to cover the full year irrespective of when you are actually billed

Welease

robbie7730 wrote: »

I see you like full stops.., a hobby is it?:pac:

More top quality input..... If you have a point to make, why not make it? As I see you have no intention (or capability) to address the points that were actually being made.

Bruthal

Welease wrote: »

More top quality input..... If you have a point to make, why not make it? As I see you have no intention (or capability) to address the points that were actually being made.

Good loser

robbie7730 wrote: »

Yes, easy targets, those that can not be avoided by the wealthy you mean, because none can be avoided by the ones most affected by them, and that cant afford them as it is.

No Robbie. I mean those that cannot be avoided by anybody - rich or poor. It's not easy to hide the size of a house.


So a person with a family home and mortgage to a level close to or above the perceived value of the home are wealthy now?

You argue strangely! The tax will take from ALL with houses - in time in proportion with value i.e. the wealthy will pay in proportion with their house wealth.



So a property tax would of prevented the massive house price inflation we had would it?

Significantly reduced - yes.

gigino

To put a floor under the property market the tax on investment properties should be abolished. Its enough to tax them when they are built / sold / rented.

On peoples own homes, people paid stamp duty when they bought them...often a punitive 9%. People also pay tax on utility bills eg electricity. Thats enough tax. The government already taxes income, gifts, inheritances, capital gains and also has vat, excise tax, dirt tax, etc. No need for new taxes. Look at expenditure instead. Cut public sector expenditure, social welfare + pensions south of the border to the level north of the border. Save over tens of billions of euro a year ...instead of futering with a property tax to try to get a fraction of that.