Force a Referendum on the Property Tax

djpbarry

Going Forward wrote: »

It is another lesson vindicating those who sat on their behinds during the boom years and watched others do the 9 to 5 and penalising those attempting to stand on their own two feet, who fell for the property racket...

I think you've just summed up the Irish property psychosis beautifully - anyone who has bought a property is trying to make something of themselves, while everyone else is a bum.

Going Forward wrote: »

Much has been made of other countries property charges, those who propose them do so unfairly without listing the benefits that are received in return for paying them, such as free bin collection, reduced road taxes etc.

You're aware that the average council tax bill for a property in the UK (for example) is £1,400 per annum? I think that probably covers slightly more than bin charges and a bit of road tax.

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

It presumes nothing about income. The only tax that is predicated on income is income tax. Motor tax doesn't presume an income determined by the size of a car.

Perhaps you could explain why is it that an owner of a property deemed to be of high value will be expected to pay more? (As per the Commission for Taxation recommendations.)

It is because there will be a simple presumption that that individual will have the means to pay a higher rate.

The only other plausible reason is that that person will somehow use more of the local "services" footpaths, libraries, and the like, and must therefore foot the bill for doing so.

Going Forward

djpbarry wrote: »

I think you've just summed up the Irish property psychosis beautifully - anyone who has bought a property is trying to make something of themselves, while everyone else is a bum.

And the alternative? Rely on the state to house everyone?

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

Perhaps you could explain why is it that an owner of a property deemed to be of high value will be expected to pay more?

Because the tax is predicated on the property value, not the income of the owner. That's so obvious I'm having difficulty believing I have to type it out.

It is because there will be a simple presumption that that individual will have the means to pay a higher rate.

The VAT on a car is more than the VAT on a bicycle. Is that because (a) the car costs more than the bicycle, or (b) there is a simple presumption that the purchaser of a car has the means to pay more VAT?

The only other plausible reason is that that person will somehow use more of the local "services" footpaths, libraries, and the like, and must therefore foot the bill for doing so.

The only plausible reason at all is that a wealth tax is calculated based on the amount of the wealth in question.

I really don't get where you're coming from here. A property tax on a house worth a million is higher than the property tax on a house worth a hundred grand - and you're looking for an elaborate explanation for this? Why?

djpbarry

Going Forward wrote: »

And the alternative? Rely on the state to house everyone?

Renting from a private landlord has been removed from the equation because?

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because the tax is predicated on the property value, not the income of the owner. That's so obvious I'm having difficulty believing I have to type it out. The VAT on a car is more than the VAT on a bicycle. Is that because (a) the car costs more than the bicycle, or (b) there is a simple presumption that the purchaser of a car has the means to pay more VAT? The only plausible reason at all is that a wealth tax is calculated based on the amount of the wealth in question.

I really don't get where you're coming from here. A property tax on a house worth a million is higher than the property tax on a house worth a hundred grand - and you're looking for an elaborate explanation for this? Why?

I quite understand how the tax is to be calculated, but dont agree with the principal, just like Enda in 1994 and 2011.

The 100euro tax, 2 euro a week, at this time is being promoted by the likes of Fergus O Dowd on every interview as being some sort of patriotic duty for those in the community to stand up and contribute to the provision of their local services, whilst very carefully steering clear of the next phase.

But when the next phase is introduced, it wont be the government's decision, as they will naturally shirk the responsibility onto the Commission for taxation's shoulders.

My point is that it is going to be extremely difficult to arrive at an equitable rate based on property values in the current climate, as those who "own" their own houses can legitimately claim that they are yet again being tapped for more and are further penalised for their misguided decisions.

The rationale for any property tax in any country is questionable in my opinion, but particularly here without first exhausting other initiatives such as a wealth tax proper, a rise in income tax and and a reduction in social welfare payments.

Just because other countries have one is not a good enough reason at this late stage of our national existence.

The resistance to the property tax is not to be completely unexpected in a country under an austerity package and is seen as being particularly harsh on many who have already coughed up over 50% of their house costs in various taxes and stamp duty to the exchequer.

Going Forward

djpbarry wrote: »

Renting from a private landlord has been removed from the equation because?

Omitted, not removed.

If you want to live in someone elses house thats fine!

firemansam4

Did FG not have plans for the household charge in there election manifesto? and did the country not go to the polls and vote in Fg with record numbers? albeit they required a coalition with Labour.

So if the answer to those two questions is yes why would we need a referendum on this charge? :rolleyes:

Going Forward

firemansam4 wrote: »

Did FG not have plans for the household charge in there election manifesto? and did the country not go to the polls and vote in Fg with record numbers? albeit they required a coalition with Labour.

So if the answer to those two questions is yes why would we need a referendum on this charge? :rolleyes:

No. It was referred to in the 2011 manifesto as an Unfair charge:

""Funding Local Government: Fianna Fail’s proposal, now endorsed by the Labour Party, to introduce by 2014 an annual, recurring residential property tax on the family home is unfair. But as we tackle the fiscal crisis, we will have to cut central exchequer funding for local authorities, and we recognise that local authorities will have to find more sustainable sources of revenue appropriate to local circumstances. What will be viewed as fair in South Dublin might be viewed as unworkable in rural Clare.

In this context, we will empower local authorities to put in place, following the 2014 local elections, fairer alternatives to Fianna Fail’s and Labour’s recurring annual tax on the family home."

Bullseye1

Going Forward wrote: »

Omitted, not removed.

If you want to live in someone elses house thats fine!

Social housing is also someone else house. It belongs to the local authority and ultimately the tax payer until the tenant decides to buy.

View

firemansam4 wrote: »

Did FG not have plans for the household charge in there election manifesto? and did the country not go to the polls and vote in Fg with record numbers? albeit they required a coalition with Labour.

So if the answer to those two questions is yes why would we need a referendum on this charge? :rolleyes:

The way some people are going on if we don't have a referendum on each stage of a bill that goes before the Oireachtas then we are acting "undemocratically".

K-9

Going Forward wrote: »

No. It was referred to in the 2011 manifesto as an Unfair charge:

""Funding Local Government: Fianna Fail’s proposal, now endorsed by the Labour Party, to introduce by 2014 an annual, recurring residential property tax on the family home is unfair. But as we tackle the fiscal crisis, we will have to cut central exchequer funding for local authorities, and we recognise that local authorities will have to find more sustainable sources of revenue appropriate to local circumstances. What will be viewed as fair in South Dublin might be viewed as unworkable in rural Clare.

In this context, we will empower local authorities to put in place, following the 2014 local elections, fairer alternatives to Fianna Fail’s and Labour’s recurring annual tax on the family home."

It was an obvious fudge by FG and one Kenny couldn't answer in the debates. Realistically everybody knew a property tax was coming as FG didn't idealistically oppose it. Bringing in a flat tax was spectacularly dumb.

djpbarry

Going Forward wrote: »

The rationale for any property tax in any country is questionable in my opinion...

Why? What makes a property tax so radically different to any other tax? You're proposing increased income taxes and a wealth tax for example - why is it ok to tax wealth and income but not property?

Going Forward wrote: »

If you want to live in someone elses house thats fine!

Doesn't bother me (negative equity is not something I have to worry about), but apparently it makes me a bum?

Going Forward wrote: »

No. It was referred to in the 2011 manifesto as an Unfair charge...

But they've set a deadline of 2014 to introduce an alternative?

Good loser

Going Forward wrote: »

No. It was referred to in the 2011 manifesto as an Unfair charge:

""Funding Local Government: Fianna Fail’s proposal, now endorsed by the Labour Party, to introduce by 2014 an annual, recurring residential property tax on the family home is unfair. But as we tackle the fiscal crisis, we will have to cut central exchequer funding for local authorities, and we recognise that local authorities will have to find more sustainable sources of revenue appropriate to local circumstances. What will be viewed as fair in South Dublin might be viewed as unworkable in rural Clare.

In this context, we will empower local authorities to put in place, following the 2014 local elections, fairer alternatives to Fianna Fail’s and Labour’s recurring annual tax on the family home."

Fine Gael also said they would implement the troika deal which involved a property tax for 2012. There is no way the troika would allow the Govt to renege on this - I'm sure, on the basis of commonsense and international precedent, it is a red line issue for them.

The recent polls show support for FG has, if anything, increased since the election.

Going Forward

djpbarry wrote: »

Why? What makes a property tax so radically different to any other tax? You're proposing increased income taxes and a wealth tax for example - why is it ok to tax wealth and income but not property?
Doesn't bother me (negative equity is not something I have to worry about), but apparently it makes me a bum?
But they've set a deadline of 2014 to introduce an alternative?

I happen to believe that there are some things that the government should not have a taxable lien on, the family home being one of them.

The only reason given here for one is that other countries have one- thats not a good enough reason.

Should we re introduce a tax on windows now whilst we're at it?

There are better ways to raise money.

beeftotheheels

Going Forward wrote: »

I happen to believe that there are some things that the government should not have a taxable lien on, the family home being one of them.

I watch TV, I pay a television licence. I live somewhere and avail of local services then I should pay for them. The services are provided by the council, they should be paid for by the residents of that county.

If the government changed the charge so that it wasn't on the property owner, if they made it a local income surcharge payable by all residents of the county at a flat rate of €50 (assuming that the average household is 2 person) would you object to it?

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

I happen to believe that there are some things that the government should not have a taxable lien on, the family home being one of them.

You're entitled to that belief, as anyone is entitled to theirs. The government isn't required to take your beliefs into account when framing tax policy, but you're welcome to take them into account when electing the government.

The only reason given here for one is that other countries have one- thats not a good enough reason.

It's not the only reason. It's an argument against the idea that the concept of a property tax is somehow shocking and unprecedented.

The primary argument for a property tax is the requirement to broaden the tax base after it was unsustainably eroded in a series of vote-buying exercises.

Should we re introduce a tax on windows now whilst we're at it?

I can't think of a practical reason to do so.

There are better ways to raise money.

Perhaps, but unfortunately "better" is an entirely subjective measure.

JustinDee

Going Forward wrote: »

I happen to believe that there are some things that the government should not have a taxable lien on, the family home being one of them

The "home" isn't being taxed. The land it sits upon is. Thats why it is called a 'Property Tax'.

antoobrien

The only reason I can see for objecting to this is the premise that "the only fair tax is one I don't have to pay"

Sudsy86

Current Statistic as of close of business yesterday

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/household-charge-registrations-still-far-short-of-expectations-544677.html

meglome

Sudsy86 wrote: »

Current Statistic as of close of business yesterday

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/household-charge-registrations-still-far-short-of-expectations-544677.html

It's not surprising given the ridiculous campaigns being run about it. You'd think the country had even slightly balanced books and they were looking for 10 grand off people.

kippy

meglome wrote: »

It's not surprising given the ridiculous campaigns being run about it. You'd think the country had even slightly balanced books and they were looking for 10 grand off people.

To balance the books, the state needs "get" another 3+k per person (men, women and children) via cuts or taxation.
Thats just to balance the books. To repay or debt -well thats where it gets ridiculous.

I should add, they can knock another 4 kpa off my wages in taxation and I'd probably accept that.
At least it was all done and dusted, and I'd know where I stood.
Obviously thats not feasible across the board.

Pete_Cavan

JustinDee wrote: »

The "home" isn't being taxed. The land it sits upon is. Thats why it is called a 'Property Tax'.

A Land Value Tax is one possible form of Property Tax, there is no guarantee we will get this, although it is the best option.

Scofflaw

kippy wrote: »

To balance the books, the state needs "get" another 3+k per person (men, women and children) via cuts or taxation.
Thats just to balance the books. To repay or debt -well thats where it gets ridiculous.

Which is why it doesn't generally happen. Public debt is rolled over (replaced with fresh debt) rather than paid off.

cordially,
Scofflaw

kippy

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which is why it doesn't generally happen. Public debt is rolled over (replaced with fresh debt) rather than paid off.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The 3K+ per person was in relation to just closing the deficit, but I realise you understand that.
Rolling over debt - yeah, that is indeed what happens, but the more debt you have and the more you roll over, the more the interest charges are, is that no the case? Indeed, the more you roll over, and the more interest you pay, the less likely you are to be able to take on more debt. At some point the capital is going to have to be repaid (to some extent)

srsly78

Countries inflate or grow their way out of debt, rather than repay it. Even during the boom we had our debt wasn't paid down. It shrank as a % of GDP but not in real terms.

kippy

srsly78 wrote: »

Countries inflate or grow their way out of debt, rather than repay it. Even during the boom we had our debt wasn't paid down. It shrank as a % of GDP but not in real terms.

Is't that okay so long as an economy is growing? And don't some countries end up in so much debt, it is inpossible to grow their way out of it?

Sorry, this is going way OT. I've said what I wanted to say on this thread.
Thanks for all the replies.
Kippy

srsly78

Yes countries can get away with stuff like this usually. Sometimes it goes tits up tho :pac:

Going Forward

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Social housing is also someone else house. It belongs to the local authority and ultimately the tax payer until the tenant decides to buy.

Why are local authority tenants exempt from paying the household tax¿

Going Forward

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I watch TV, I pay a television licence. I live somewhere and avail of local services then I should pay for them. The services are provided by the council, they should be paid for by the residents of that county.

If the government changed the charge so that it wasn't on the property owner, if they made it a local income surcharge payable by all residents of the county at a flat rate of €50 (assuming that the average household is 2 person) would you object to it?

No, as it appears to be a fairer system.

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

No, as it appears to be a fairer system.

So my friend who lives with his wife and three young children in a small terraced house would pay five times as much as a millionaire living alone in a mansion on several acres?

"Fair" is a pretty subjective concept.

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

So my friend who lives with his wife and three young children in a small terraced house would pay five times as much as a millionaire living alone in a mansion on several acres?

"Fair" is a pretty subjective concept.

A family of five can be expected to utilise more services than one person.

And FYI Fergus O'Dowd has just said that the household tax is unfair.

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

A family of five can be expected to utilise more services than one person.

So you'd consider the situation I described to be fair?

Wow.

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you'd consider the situation I described to be fair?

Wow.

Thats life.

If we accept the party line that this is to pay for the provision of "community services", yes.

Any unfairness can be addressed by a wealth tax for millionaires in our midst.

Its not rocket science.

Going Forward

Imagine the dressing down that nice Fergus is going to get from Dr. Phil and his advisors for admitting that the household charge is unfair!

djpbarry

Going Forward wrote: »

If we accept the party line that this is to pay for the provision of "community services", yes.

All tax revenue goes into a central exchequer, from which all local authority funding is drawn. Ergo, any tax funds community services.

Going Forward wrote: »

Any unfairness can be addressed by a wealth tax for millionaires in our midst.

That's not fair.

Going Forward

djpbarry wrote: »

All tax revenue goes into a central exchequer, from which all local authority funding is drawn. Ergo, any tax funds community services.
That's not fair.

Whats your point?

Should or should not an 8 person family have to make a greater contribution towards the provision of local services than a 1 person family?

Or, put differently, in the future, should a single occupancy home be charged for the same flat water rate usage as an 8 person family?

Duiske

Going Forward wrote: »

Why are local authority tenants exempt from paying the household tax¿

All tenants are exempt, not just local authority tenants. Its the property owners who are liable for the charge. The local authorities, as property owners, are exempt because the charge is being handed back to the local authorities to make up for shortfalls dues to cutbacks in funding from central Government. What would be the point of giving with one hand and taking away with the other ?

Wibbs

Then people in receipt of social welfare shouldn't have to pay car tax, VAT, duty etc on goods and services. After all what would be the point of giving with one hand and taking away with the other?

FreudianSlippers

Duiske wrote: »

Going Forward wrote: »

Why are local authority tenants exempt from paying the household tax¿

All tenants are exempt, not just local authority tenants. Its the property owners who are liable for the charge. The local authorities, as property owners, are exempt because the charge is being handed back to the local authorities to make up for shortfalls dues to cutbacks in funding from central Government. What would be the point of giving with one hand and taking away with the other ?

That's the "ministerial houses" thing everyone was moaning about. Since the minister technically owns the social housing he would be liable for the household charge on them. So they exempted him from paying for those (but he still must pay for his personal property)

Fuinseog

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

Seeing as the governement are going to force deduction-at-source, why can we not as people force a referendum on the issue?

I propose the following to be campaigned for inclusion in the constitution -

"The family home, that is the primary residence of the family, shall be free from property taxes or rates"

Anyone with me?

brilliant idea. the country has no money and we should spend millions on a referendum.
people are bitching here that the country is banjaxed and their kids have to go abroad yet are not willing to make a contribution to make things better.

FreudianSlippers

I'm still in no way clear why or what a referendum on this issue would say, let alone how it would arise. Cloud cuckoo land as to how this remains open?!

kippy

I dont particularily believe there should be a referendum on it (that is a tad pointless).
However there have been decisions taken on the past five years that have had far more outreaching consequences for every man woman and child in this country than a lot of the referendum votes we have had in the past.

Godge

Wibbs wrote: »

Then people in receipt of social welfare shouldn't have to pay car tax, VAT, duty etc on goods and services. After all what would be the point of giving with one hand and taking away with the other?

Are you suggesting that social welfare rates should be cut so that nobody on social welfare can afford a car, nobody on social welfare can afford luxury goods (large TVs, ipods etc.) that attract the higher rate of VAT (and have to buy second-hand clothes) nobody on social welfare should be able to buy their own house and finally that they shouldn't be allowed buy cigarettes and alcohol?

If you are not suggesting that the welfare rates should be cut, why shouldn't they pay taxes on those things like everyone else? I know people on my road who work for a living who have a lower standard of living than others on my road who are on social welfare.

kippy

Godge wrote: »

Are you suggesting that social welfare rates should be cut so that nobody on social welfare can afford a car, nobody on social welfare can afford luxury goods (large TVs, ipods etc.) that attract the higher rate of VAT (and have to buy second-hand clothes) nobody on social welfare should be able to buy their own house and finally that they shouldn't be allowed buy cigarettes and alcohol?

If you are not suggesting that the welfare rates should be cut, why shouldn't they pay taxes on those things like everyone else? I know people on my road who work for a living who have a lower standard of living than others on my road who are on social welfare.

Nope, he was just expanding on some logic used by another poster to explain where tenants of local authorities (or people getting their rent paid by local authorities)

To be fair, theres a lot of this "giving with one had and taking with another", or making payments that would more easily be made in a different manner.

djpbarry

Going Forward wrote: »

Should or should not an 8 person family have to make a greater contribution towards the provision of local services than a 1 person family?

Maybe, but eight times more? I don't think so.

It's not really the best comparison though, as an eight-person family will generally reside in a larger property than an individual living on their own.

Going Forward wrote: »

Or, put differently, in the future, should a single occupancy home be charged for the same flat water rate usage as an 8 person family?

Water should be charged for as used.

Going Forward

Godge wrote: »

Are you suggesting that social welfare rates should be cut so that nobody on social welfare can afford a car, nobody on social welfare can afford luxury goods (large TVs, ipods etc.) that attract the higher rate of VAT (and have to buy second-hand clothes) nobody on social welfare should be able to buy their own house and finally that they shouldn't be allowed buy cigarettes and alcohol?

If you are not suggesting that the welfare rates should be cut, why shouldn't they pay taxes on those things like everyone else? I know people on my road who work for a living who have a lower standard of living than others on my road who are on social welfare.

So do I.
I made the point that those who didnt purchase their own houses have landed on their feet.

We still dont know why a sizeable swathe of local service and amenity users are exempt!

ednwireland

was thinking about why so many people are protesting, and a thought struck me, protesting outside the dail makes no difference, writing letters / emails makes no difference facebook page come on. so how do you embarass a gov. this may be small but hell it has them worried (even if 90% of people will have paid in 6 months time

just a thought

johnory1

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

Seeing as the governement are going to force deduction-at-source, why can we not as people force a referendum on the issue?

I propose the following to be campaigned for inclusion in the constitution -

"The family home, that is the primary residence of the family, shall be free from property taxes or rates"

Anyone with me?

i agree with you totally, i would also like to that we maybe the only country in the western world not to have property tax , but then again we were probably the only country in the western world to also have a decent economy for the last 20years, property taxes take to much money directly out of the economy, its basic econmics, i lived in the states for a while and i'll you this much property tax cripple peoples spending power, and if it is brought in, i can see things getting alot worse.

johnory1

our vat rate is 23% in florida its 6% in new jersey theres no vat on clothes. when you pay your pp it includes your bin collection,
our system of stamp duty is fair, because when you buy your house you can afford to pay the tax , unlike now, when you never know where you will stand, in america i have seen old people who's house has been fully paid for taken away from them becuase they couldn't afford property tax, and for this, i hate property tax