Force a Referendum on the Property Tax

sarkozy

I'm in favour of a property tax.

But I'm not in favour of the Government's motive to introduce one and I'm not convinced that a formula will be developed to make it fair.

Here's my reasoning: in addition to arguments that (in general) property taxes provide more stable revenues and are socially progressive, evidence from Europe demonstrates that it is an excellent mechanism to fund local government and more accountable (hence better) public services.

We do not have real local government. In 2001, Local Authorities acquired more 'functions' than they ever had in Ireland in the past. But this increased role in delivering waste management, water, etc. did not come with increased or adequate funding. It did not come with Local Authorities having the power to raise their own income- or wealth-based revenues. Evidence from around Europe points to this being a highly effective mechanism if designed correctly.

Instead, we have a situation where Local Authorities have to go begging to the Department of the Environment, cap in hand, when a crisis occurs, rather than dealing with it before a disaster occurs. The water contamination crisis in Galway is a particularly serious case.

What would happen if taxes were levied in each Local Authority by their Council? People would feel they have a say in the local services they benefit from. If they were shoddy (e.g. the Dublin waste collection scandal), people would be more inclined to hold their local Councillors and County/City Manager to account. 'It's our money and we want it spent properly.'

This stability of income would also enable Local Authorities (and Central Government) to plan for the future much more effectively because they'd know what money was coming in and, therefore, what they could expect to spend on amenities, urban planning, services, etc. in the future.

We would all benefit.

But the Government has made a decision not to mention the Local Government dimension and to use this major crisis as a real opportunity to fix our broken system. It comes down to political will.

Instead, it's portrayed for what it is at present: robbing money out of our pockets to pay off a debt we shouldn't have to pay in the first place. It'll simply cause more grievance and more confusion, and continued lousy public services.

But maybe it's true, maybe we are so stupid that we don't and can never move away from the centrally-controlled gombeenism of FF and FG, in-betweenness of Lab, and reactionary waffle of SF and WP. Maybe we don't deserve local democracy. We definitely don't understand national democracy.

FreudianSlippers

sarkozy wrote: »

I'm in favour of a property tax.

But I'm not in favour of the Government's motive to introduce one and I'm not convinced that a formula will be developed to make it fair.

Here's my reasoning: in addition to arguments that (in general) property taxes provide more stable revenues and are socially progressive, evidence from Europe demonstrates that it is an excellent mechanism to fund local government and more accountable (hence better) public services.

We do not have real local government. In 2001, Local Authorities acquired more 'functions' than they ever had in Ireland in the past. But this increased role in delivering waste management, water, etc. did not come with increased or adequate funding. It did not come with Local Authorities having the power to raise their own income- or wealth-based revenues. Evidence from around Europe points to this being a highly effective mechanism if designed correctly.

Instead, we have a situation where Local Authorities have to go begging to the Department of the Environment, cap in hand, when a crisis occurs, rather than dealing with it before a disaster occurs. The water contamination crisis in Galway is a particularly serious case.

What would happen if taxes were levied in each Local Authority by their Council? People would feel they have a say in the local services they benefit from. If they were shoddy (e.g. the Dublin waste collection scandal), people would be more inclined to hold their local Councillors and County/City Manager to account. 'It's our money and we want it spent properly.'

This stability of income would also enable Local Authorities (and Central Government) to plan for the future much more effectively because they'd know what money was coming in and, therefore, what they could expect to spend on amenities, urban planning, services, etc. in the future.

We would all benefit.

But the Government has made a decision not to mention the Local Government dimension and to use this major crisis as a real opportunity to fix our broken system. It comes down to political will.

Instead, it's portrayed for what it is at present: robbing money out of our pockets to pay off a debt we shouldn't have to pay in the first place. It'll simply cause more grievance and more confusion, and continued lousy public services.

But maybe it's true, maybe we are so stupid that we don't and can never move away from the centrally-controlled gombeenism of FF and FG, in-betweenness of Lab, and reactionary waffle of SF and WP. Maybe we don't deserve local democracy. We definitely don't understand national democracy.

Agreed, I think that we should be considering a re-write of our political systems as well as the proposed Constitution re-write for 2016. Start from the ground up and completely reform our governmental structure from the top down.

sarkozy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Agreed, I think that we should be considering a re-write of our political systems as well as the proposed Constitution re-write for 2016. Start from the ground up and completely reform our governmental structure from the top down.

From the bottom-up!

FreudianSlippers

sarkozy wrote: »

From the bottom-up!

I don't know. I think we need to decide how we want our government to operate at the highest level now. We were one of the first bicameral legislatures and now our upper house is basically worthless. We have a president who is devoid of any real power and an executive branch that is so entwined with our legislative branch that it's hard to see any real separation of powers.

When we decide how we want our government to operate at the highest level, then we can decide how we want to divide our councils and how they should operate. I do believe that taxation for property and roads should be done on a county basis and those funds should be distributed in the said county.

kippy

djpbarry wrote: »

This is borderline conspiracy theory stuff – are you suggesting that the government are perverting the course of justice?

I have no idea who is perverting the course of justice, all I can see is justice is not being done.
Even with todays release of the almost useless Mahon report we can see that when it comes to politicians and white collar crime there is past history in the Gardai of not investigating it to its fullest.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77720414&postcount=66

tayto lover

kippy wrote: »

I have no idea who is perverting the course of justice, all I can see is justice is not being done.
Even with todays release of the almost useless Mahon report we can see that when it comes to politicians and white collar crime there is past history in the Gardai of not investigating it to its fullest.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77720414&postcount=66

You will always have problems with the Gardai investigating political corruption BECAUSE the top people in the Gardai are political appointments.
Time to divide politics and the law. Appoint people to the top ranks of the Gardai on merit -- not because they are friends of politicians and useful to them. The time is NOW.

Going Forward

This household charge targets middle income earners and homeowners as if they were the only ones using the "services" that it is purported to fund.
It is politically flawed and unfair that those who are exempt, who in many cases not only avail of those services, but also avail of many of the states other welfare and housing services have again been given exempted from any payment considering the quality and cost of the combined welfare service.

It also presumes an income determined by the size of a property, which in a normally functioning non IMF funded country may make some sense, but not here at the moment.

Those living in rural areas, who may well have larger properties but who's use of said services may well be least, will now be funding the street lighting, pavements, swimming pools, libraries, litter collection and sanitation of those in urban areas, whilst at the same time be expected to fund their own septic tank upgrades!

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 and the concept was specifically termed as unfair twice in Fine Gael's 2011 manifesto.

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.

JustinDee

Its not a constitutional affair so referendum not applicable.
Can't have referenda for every flipping govt bill anyway.

steve9859

jmayo wrote: »

Ehh do you think we are so unique in the Western world that we should not pay some form of annual residential property taxes ?

That is the only truism that I have seen on boards today. And you can add water charges to that too.

The ONLY issue IMO is inequitability, but we are talking €8 a month. When it goes up, bands put in place etc, it will become more equitable. Probably not quite equitable enough in the view of most people, but something along the lines of in the UK.

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

It also presumes an income determined by the size of a property...

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.

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